Agenda 01/15/2013 FEB 2 0 2013
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2013
THE CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
BOARD WILL MEET TUESDAY, JANUARY 15 AT 3:00 PM AT THE
COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE,
NAPLES, FL 34108.
Fiala
Hiller
AGENDA Henning 1 .
Coyle
The agenda includes, but is not limited: O`■'cc
1. Roll call
2. Approval of December 27 Clam Bay Subcommittee minutes
3. Clam Bay transition update
4. Clam Bay dredging permit update
5. Meetings needed by Clam Bay Subcommittee and/or PBSD Board to
continue to expedite Clam Pass dredging permit
6. Audience comments
7. Adjourn
Misc. Comes:
Date:
Item#:
ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE ( ))41.IptUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS
THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON S AGENDA AND ANY PERSON
WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR
COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS
BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE
BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS
MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION AT(239)597-1749. VISIT US AT HTTP://PELICANBAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET.
1/10/2013 11:59:41 AM
CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MINUTES
THURSDAY,DECEMBER 27,2012
t
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on
Thursday,December 27,2012 at 1:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay,8960 Hammock Oak Drive,
Naples,Florida.The following members were present:
Clam Bay Subcommittee
Susan O'Brien,Chairman Mike Levy absent
Tom Cravens Mary Anne Womble
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Also Present
John Chandler Keith J.Dallas
Pelican Bay Services Division Staff
W.Neil Dorrill,Administrator Mary McCaughtry,Operations Analyst
Kyle Lukasz,Operations Manager absent Lisa Resnick,Recording Secretary
Also Present:
Susan Boland,President,Pelican Bay Property Owners Association
Tim Hall,Senior Ecologist&Principal,Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc.
Jim Hoppensteadt,President and CEO,Pelican Bay Foundation
Kathy Worley,Director of Environmental Science,Conservancy of Southwest Florida
AGENDA
1. Roll call
2. Approval of December 10 Clam Bay Subcommittee minutes
3. Clam Bay transition
4. Clam Bay dredging permit
5. Updated Clam Bay management plan
6. Audience comments
7. Adjourn
ROLL CALL
With the exception of Mr.Levy,Subcommittee members were present.
APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 10 CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Ms. Womble to approve the December 10 Cl= ' :ay
Subcommittee meeting minutes as amended, adding Mr.Dallas and Dr. Trecker as Boars ', C°
also present. The Subcommittee voted unanimously in favor and the motion passed.
CLAM BAY TRANSITION
Chairman O'Brien reported that on December 18,she and Mr. Dorrill discussed Clam e ton issues
with Mr.Gary McAlpin,Mr.Bill Lorenz,Mr.Tim Hall,Mr.Ken Humiston,and Mr.Steve .
CLAM BAY DREDGING PERMIT
The Subcommittee discussed at length Clam Pass'immediate needs a I.,+ .gree e. "•s Beds dredging
as soon as possible.
Mr. Hall is preparing the Clam Pass dredging permit applicati e ® , asis,but the U.S.Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) would make that determination. •xp� , + SA does not have a special
14
. 1 6 1 '2 A At
Clam Bay Subcommittee Meeting Minutes
December 27, 2012
procedure to issue an"emergency"permit,but the agency does look at conditions surrounding an application and
if it is determined"critical",USACE can expedite the permit application's review.
Mr.Dorrill reported that due to misunderstanding over who is the managing entity of Clam Bay,the
USACE withdrew the Clam Pass dredging permit application. County Manager Ochs responded to USACE to
reaffirm the Board of County Commissioners'intent and to request that the agency reinstate the application.
Additionally,Mr.Dorrill initiated three items,so that when permit issues are resolved,staff will be
prepared: 1) $18,400 work order to have Agnoli,Barber,&Brundage,conduct a Clam Pass survey; 2)Have
Humiston&Moore to prepare preliminary dredging design specifications and construction plans;and 3) staff is
performing a cost analysis of upcoming Clam Bay expenses and budget amendments.
Mr.Dorrill advised there are two dredging contractors that recently completed work nearby that have not
yet relocated the extensive dredging equipment. If the Board of County Commissioners were to declare a dredging
emergency and authorization to bypass the sealed bidding process and use one of these dredging contractors then
the work could start as soon as the permit issues are resolved.
The Subcommittee discussed how to determine the size of the dredge cut and the best way to move
forward to obtain the permit. There was agreement to move forward in a non-controversial manner,and Ms.Mary
Johnson suggested possibly separate the dredging application from the long-term management plan.Audience
consensus(Ms.Marcia Cravens,Mr.Keith Dallas,Mr.James Pettegrove,Ms.Linda Roth,and Ms.Kathy Worley)was
that the Pass needs dredging as soon as possible,but disagreed on what the size of the cut should be and who
should determine it. Ms.Diane Lustig was concerned about water quality and health hazards.
Mr.Dorrill recommended that the experts determine the size of the cut and plans to discuss with USACE
authorities,recommendations for securing a permit to dredge Clam Pass as soon as possible.
Mr.Hall agreed and reported that he did not yet have the engineers'recommendation for the size of the
cut. Further,the dredge cut is limited to the parameters authorized by the permit and authorizing a larger than
actual cut,allows the contractor to deal with unanticipated on-site construction issues. The size of the cut cannot
be arbitrary;if the agency questions it,it will slow down the application process.
Mr. Cravens made a motion,second by Chairman O'Brien to recommend to the full Board
the construction plans, the engineers'are instructed to limit the dredge cut at the en • fo
emergency dredge to 40 feet. The Subcommittee voted 2-1 in favor, Ms. Womble o p e! •d, and t•°
motion passed.
UPDATED CLAM BAY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Mr.Hall introduced suggestions to develop an updated and more comprehe :ay ment‘t.t'it,-4,,Plan that addresses all habitats,stakeholders and user groups,and navigation. The in a
framework or basis outline of a plan,hold a workshop to discuss,write the d .n,th takeholders to
submit comments.
Ms.Worley suggested first step is to determine what the goals + ; w".,.. t plan are. Stakeholders
should include scientists and recreational users.
The Subcommittee discussed defining stakeholders i t +Id 1Wrib e .termination.
15 tv
i
. Clam Bay Subcommittee Meeting Minutes
December 27,2012
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Ms. Womble, to recommend to the full Board that the PBSD
facilitate roundtable discussions with the opportunity for stakeholders and user groups to be
•
defined later, to participate with their recommendations for the updates to the Clam Bay
Management Plan and that the PBSD considers the material provided by Ms. Kathy Worley as a
basic how-to-develop a management plan. The Subcommittee voted 2-0 in favor, Ms. Womble
abstained,and the motion passed.
Mr.Dorrill reiterated that this proposed work is not a funded project yet and fiscal impact be considered.
Ms.Cravens said the BCC approved$35,000 to update the management plan and recommended training
Ms.Resnick to apply for grants.
ADJOURN
IMr. Cravens made a motion, second by Chairman O'Brien to adjourn. The Subcommittee voted!
unanimously in favor,the motion passed,and the meeting adjourned at 3 p.m.
Susan O'Brien,Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick 12/31/2012 4:49:44 PM
16
Clam Bay-related Work
Project Description Vendor Cost Funding Source PBSD Board
Approval Date
Environmental Permitting services Turrell-Hall $28,000 TDC Fund 195 Jan.2,2013 PBSD
for Clam Pass Joint Coastal Permit pending recommendation to
and Inlet Management Plan update determination BCC;Jan.8,2013
to Federal&State agencies USACE, project serves to BCC approval
USFWC,FDEP promote tourism
Perform annual survey of Clam Pass Agnoli,Barber,& $18,400 TDC Fund 195 Work authorized
Brundage pending by Mr.Dorrill,
determination Administrator;and
project serves to Jan.8,2013 BCC
promote tourism approval
Prepare preliminary dredging Humiston& $76,360 TDC Fund 195 Work authorized
design specifications&construction Moore pending by Mr.Dorrill,
plans determination Administrator;and
project serves to Jan.8,2013 BCC
promote tourism approval
Dredging Clam Pass TBD TBD TDC Fund 195 Jan.8,2013 BCC
to have agreement in place when pending approval
permitting issues are resolved determination
project serves to
promote tourism
•
Jal lUaly I V,GV IV l,IanI oay JUVI.VIIIIIIIUCC VI LIIC rCIR•all pay ) IVIVCJ VIVIJIVII 17Va1V
Raia/Humiston Jan.8,2013 correspondence
Page 1 of 2
From:Neil Dorrill<NeilPdmgfl.com>
Date:January 8,2013 2:09:48 PM EST
• To:"Naplessusan Ucomcast.net"<Naplessusan@comcast.net>
Subject:FW:Received from Ted Raia to my email
FYI
From: Ken Humiston[mailto:khfthumistonandmoore.com]
Sent:Tuesday,January 08,2013 1:35 PM
To:tedraiaftgmail.com
Cc:Celia Fellows; Brett Moore;Neil Dorrill
Subject:RE: Received from Ted Raia to my email
Ted,
We too appreciate that you took the time to come to our office to discuss this very important issue,and I believe
that the meeting was productive.I do,however,feel it necessary to clarify a couple of points,in part because of the
misconception that has been circulating that H&M had endorsed a 30 width as the"equilibrium"width to which
the inlet should always be dredged.The first part of this misconception is that there is not an"equilibrium width".
Each inlet has what we refer to as an equilibrium cross section of flow,which is related to width but is n fact
dictated by the size of the bay and the tide range.In concept it is quite simple,for a fixed volume,an oversized inlet
will generate slow velocities that will not scour sand out of the inlet and it will get smaller.Squeezing the same
amount of water through a small entrance will generate high velocities and cause scour which will make the inlet
larger.
The real situation is much more complicated than this simple explanation for a variety of reasons,which is why we
have said that the"equilibrium condition"should be considered dynamic,because it will change at different times
during the month as the tide range varies,and it will also regularly respond to storm tides.It is our responsibility
to analyze all the available data,and provide our professional opinion to those who will ultimately make the
decisions.
What we discussed yesterday is that our recommendation to optimize management of the inlet,in terms of
dredging it so it will work efficiently for the purpose of flushing the bay system to preserve that natural
environmental balance,is to dredge the entrance channel to a width of 60 feet at a nominal depth of-5.0 feet
NGVD.This will create a cross section that will be at the upper end of what the data shows to be a range of
equilibrium conditions that have been documented with ten years of data.Part of the reason for this
recommendation is that the inlet is now closed,and the readjustment may be significant.Furthermore,as the
dredge cut readjusts to a natural configuration,which it always will,it will do so most likely through minor
shoaling if the tides and currents dictate that the inlet wants to close down to a slightly smaller section than that to
which it was dredged.This will occur simply through trapping relatively small quantities of sand from the littoral
system.
If,on the other hand,the inlet is dredged to a cross section that is at the low end of the demonstrated"equilibrium
range",current velocities will be high enough to scour sand out of the channel.That scour action is going to deposit
some sand on shoals in the interior parts of Cut#4,specifically sections B and C,from which it will eventually have
to be dredged.Our recommendation of the 60'width at-5.0 feet depth is therefore intended to optimize the long
term maintenance of the inlet,to reduce the need for future maintenance dredging for cost savings as well as
possibly resulting in less frequent dredging.
If for political reasons the wider cut is unacceptable to the Mangrove Action Committee or any other stake holders,
what we talked about yesterday is that H&M can support a smaller cut as long as it is within the range that the data
shows to be in the range of stability that has been documented over the ten years of monitoring.As you indicated
in your email,those dimensions are a 45'wide cut at a depth of-4.5 feet NGVD,with one half foot of overdepth to
account for inaccuracies in the dredging operation.While this is at the low end of the demonstrated range of
stability,and a condition that occurs when the inlet is in need of dredging,we believe that after dredging B and C,
the 45'width at a depth of 4.5 feet will enlarge through scour,at the expense of accumulating sand in B and C.
Additionally,under this plan,we would excavate the channel slopes above MHW to reduce the amount of
readjustment that will occur after dredging. I just want to make it clear,that H&M is not endorsing a 45'width as
Jan Udly 10,GV 10 lflal II Day OVVLUIIIII O11cc VI VIC rcIN.rall Day OCI VIL.OJ LIIVIDIVn DVOIU
• Raia/Humiston Jan.8,2013 correspondence
Page 2 of 2
the"equilibrium section"for future maintenance,yet we do believe that we have data that can be used to justify
this dredging plan to the regulatory agencies.Even though we have reason to believe that it may not necessarily be
the optimum way to manage the inlet.However,if this enables us to move forward with unified support,it may be
the best way to get the inlet reopened which is certainly in everyone's best interest.The issue of the optimum
dredge template can then be evaluated more closely while updating the Restoration and Management Plan.
On a number of occasions you indicated that your incentive to minimize the amount of dredging is for
environmental preservation,and not just mangroves but also benthic communities within the bay.However,you
also indicated that you had not seen any data or reports that document any impacts from dredging operations to
date.We would appreciate it if you run across any environmental reports or data which document that there have
been environmental impacts from the maintenance dredging operations,that you please forward them to us.The
whole purpose of this inlet maintenance is enhancement of the environment within the 550 acre mangrove
preserve,and we are interested in all information which documents the effects on the envoronment of maintaining
the inlet.
We appreciate your input and the time you have put forth on this project.
Kenneth K.Humiston,P.E.and Brett Moore,P.E.
Humiston&Moore Engineers
5679 Strand Court
Naples FL 34110
239-594-2021
Email kh@humistonandmoore.com
Web Site http://www.humistonandmoore.com
From:Celia Fellows
Sent:Tuesday,January 08,2013 7:17 AM
To:Brett Moore; Ken Humiston
Subject:Received from Ted Raia to my email
From:Ted Raia[mailto:tedraia@gmail.com]
Sent:Monday,January 07,2013 9:00 PM
To:Celia Fellows
Subject:agreement
Dear Ken and Brett,
I want to thank you for the time you took out of your busy schedule to resolve our difference. I hope the following
encapsulates our discussion and agreement.
Today's meeting and discussion went on for almost 2 hours covering the details for an agreement. You expressed
concern that because of the height of the sand berm that developed over time a dredge through there should be 60
feet because the sand would cave into the cut negating a 30 foot cut. I suggested that a bulldozer should restore
the height of the sand to normal before dredging and you agreed noting that you were also planning to address the
slope.However there was still concern and you said you would be more comfortable with a 45 foot dredge. I said I
could not agree to 45 feet. Georgia interjected and suggested a forty-five foot dredge but limited to a 4.5 foot
depth. You accepted it and I followed with the caveat that the triggers would be changed as well the QA/QC and
the permit remains under the control of the PBSD. You also agreed that after using the 45 foot dredge if the data
suggests that the 30 foot is better that you would use the 30 foot in the future. You assured me that your interest
was solely in preserving the conservation area. In closing I said the last step is for the MAG Board to agree and I
would recommend we support it.
Thanks again for your time and interest.
Ted
JaI iucii y IJ,GV I l,IaI II oay..uVI.VI I II I IIUCC VI LI IC rCIR.alI oay Jul VI.CJ LJIVIJIVI I OUCHV
Tom Cravens/Humiston Jan.4,2013 correspondence
Page 1 of 2
From: ResnickLisa
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 3:00 PM
To: Tom Cravens (nfn16799 @naples.net)
Cc: Jim Powers (jim @dmgfl.com); McCaughtryMary; LukaszKyle; Karen McIntyre (karen @dmgfl.com); ResnickLisa
Subject: FW: Request for information
I
Mr. Cravens,
The information that you requested re: Humiston and Moore's Clam Pass dredge cut recommendation is below.
Thanks, Lisa
From: LukaszKyle
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 1:44 PM
To: ResnickLisa
Subject: FW: Request for information
Lisa—Here is the information Mr.Cravens requested regarding data for Clam Pass that H & M is using to base their
recommendation for a 60'wide cut in Cut 4,Section A.
Kyle
From: Ken Humiston [mailto:kh@ihumistonandmoore.com]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 1:34 PM
To: LukaszKyle
Cc: Georgia Hiller; Brett Moore; Joe Foster; Tim Hall; Neil@dmgfl.com
Subject: RE: Request for information
Kyle,
In response to your request, on behalf of Tom Cravens,for the data in support of the recommendation for a 60'wide cut
in Section A, below is the Section A portion of exhibit from Figure 4 from the 2008 monitoring report.This summarizes
the data and is the exhibit that was used in the presentation on January 3.The data is also provided for each station in
appendix D of the report, in the form of channel cross sections.
CuT 4, SIicTIoN A
spa 4
Ar}
t goo
oat x•1 104@ !WS ma am lCDI Mot Ma 20Gt I:Olf ton
'L . ht., :D'A(1,4tIe ENP&Pt 5 .... _... _.. ..
.Jaiivaiy iv,cv I wain Day ouuwnni!MCC vI WC rcm.ail Day ocivn.ca viviaiviI Dvaiv
Tom Cravens/Humiston Jan.4,2013 correspondence
Page 2 of 2
The 10 years of data show that keeping B and C clear of shoaling generates strong enough tidal currents to maintain self-
scouring action in section A.The data show that A tends toward a flow cross section in the range of 200 to 300 square
feet,and with a nominal depth of-5.0 feet these areas translate into widths of approximately 40'to 60'.The reason we
are recommending a width of 60 feet at the upper end of this range is because if the cut is dredged to a smaller size,
scour will occur in section A during adjustment after dredging and that scour will have a greater potential for
transporting sand into B and C.With the inlet currently being closed,we anticipate that the readjustment may be more
significant than it has been following the previous maintenance dredging events. Once that sand scoured from A reaches
B and C it will be deposited there. It will then eventually have to be removed during the next maintenance dredging. We
believe dredging to a width of 60 feet now will reduce the rate of shoaling in B and C during the readjustment period
after dredging, and will help to optimize maintenance of the inlet from the standpoint of reducing maintenance
dredging requirements.This may ultimately reduce long term maintenance dredging costs.
I would also like to point out that section A was not dredged in 2002.The entrance was not dredged in 2002 because the
dredging of B, C, D, and Cuts#1,#2, and#3 in 1999 had resulted in currents strong enough to keep A scoured to a flow
cross section of 200 to 300 square feet.At the time of the 2002 dredging, Section A had an average cross sectional area
of approximately 300 square feet. It did not need to be dredged at all.
Once the inlet is reopened and functioning as intended under the Restoration and Management Plan,we may
reevaluate the dredging width of cut A with the additional data that is collected, including the ongoing tidal data
collection program as well as reestablishment of the regular schedule of conducting hydrographic surveys which have
apparently not been conducted for the last several years. If the inlet is once again maintained through maintenance
dredging on a regular basis, dredging of Section A may not be necessary,as was the case in 2002.
If you or Mr. Cravens have any additional questions, please give me a call.
Thanks,
Ken
Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E.
Humiston & Moore Engineers
5679 Strand Court
Naples FL 34110
239-594-2021
Email kh@humistonandmoore.com
Web Site http://www.humistonandmoore.com
• Turrell-Hall&Associates work order for environmental permitting services
Page 1 of 4
WORK ORDER/PURCHASE ORDER#
CONTRACT#10-5571
CLAM PASS JOINT COASTAL PERMIT AND INLET&BAY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
January 3,2013
Turrell,Hall &Associates,Inc. (THA)is pleased to provide this scope of work to Collier
County via the Pelican Bays Services Division(PBSD). The purpose of this scope is to
outline professional environmental permitting services to the PBSD for the dredging of
Clam Pass. The work proposed will be conducted under Contract Number 10-5571 by
THA and our subcontractor,Hinniston and Moore Engineers. Based on recent telephone
conversations with the federal permitting agencies (USACE and FWS), our
understanding is that a new permit application will need to be submitted to the USACE
with updated project conditions and further permit coordination may be required with
FWS to complete the Biological Opinion for the project.
Scope of Work
TASK I: PERMITTING
a) Permit Drawings: THA will coordinate updated permit drawings at the direction of
the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) for the dredging of Clam Pass. The
permit exhibits will be based on updated hydrographic and beach profile data to be
collected in January 2013 and on the most recent benthic resources surveys
conducted in August 2012.
b) DEP Permitting: H&M will coordinate with the staff of the DEP to update the
existing DEP JCP permit(no. 0296087-001-JC)as needed with the updated exhibits.
This will include filing of permit modification on behalf of Collier County and
meeting with the DEP staff.
c) DEP Mixing Zone Variance: H&M will prepare and submit a mixing zone variance
request to DEP for the proposed dredging activity.
d) USACE Permitting: THA and H&M will coordinate with the staff of the USACE to
complete their review of the project (No, 0296087-001-JC) as needed based on the
updated exhibits. This will include filing a new permit application on behalf of
Collier County, meetings with the USACE staff, and responses to commenting
parties as a result of the new application.
e) USFWS and NMFS Coordination: THA will provide information to and coordinate
with these agencies relative to their species and habitat guidelines.We will provide a
technical review of the draft Biological Opinion from the FWS including an
engineering evaluation by H&M (under a separate scope) of the project design.
Attendance at two meetings with these agencies is included in the scope.
Turrell, Hall &Associates,Inc.
• Turrell-Hall&Associates work order for environmental permitting services
Page 2 of 4
1 The scope does not include provisions for production of detailed environmental documents
such as mitigation plans,Environmental Impact Statements,or Biological Assessments that
could be requested by the reviewing agencies based on the updated application.. We do not
anticipate these documents being requested now since they were not requested as part of the
previous applications but will still need to verify this once the revised application has been
submitted.
TASK II: MET AND BAY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
Inlet and Bay Management Plan Update: THA and H&M will prepare the framework for an
updated management plan for the Clam Pass and Bay system.
• H&M will prepare exhibits and supporting documentation relative to the design
configuration of Clam Pass dredging for inclusion into the Plan.
• THA will coordinate stakeholder input into the plan through three efforts. An initial
call for written input from stakeholders and interested parties will be used to
determine goals and objectives for the Plan. A workshop will be held once the
framework for the plan has been completed to collect written and oral comments. A
final workshop will be held once the Plan has been drafted and prior to being
finalized.
• THA will prepare documentation necessary for stakeholder input including initial
invitation letter to participate,Plan outline,and Plan Draft
• THA will coordinate with the State and Federal permitting and review agencies as
needed during the formulation of the Plan.
Baseline information already available will be incorporated into Plan elements however;
additional field data collection(such as fish and bird surveys)is not included in this scope.
This scope does not include services for responding to legal objections,preparing for expert
testimony,or preparing for litigation associated with the project. If necessary,these services
will be provided under a separate agreement with the County.
Schedule
The above scope is based on a 75 day schedule. Creation of the permit exhibits and
submittal of the updated application to the DEP and USACE will take place within 10
days of approval to proceed. Subsequent coordination with the permitting agencies will
be done as quickly as possible based on the agency's review times and comment periods.
Coordination of the Management Plan will be done concurrently with the permitting.
The initial invitation to participate will be sent out within 7 days of the notice to proceed.
Management Plan outline and preliminary exhibits will be available for the first
stakeholder workshop within 35 days of the invitation. Draft Plan will be available for
the second stakeholder meeting within 35 days of the first stakeholder meeting.
Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc.
JCIIILICIly I J,LL I )Lele1111 id y•JULKAJI I II I 111.1.CC VI 1.1i C rcilt.cui ucly JC I VIL.Gb IVIVIJIVI I DUCH V
•
Turrell-Hall&Associates work order for environmental permitting services
Page 3 of 4
...
ll Budget
Compensation for the above scope of work will be based on charges as described in
Exhibit"A"and will not exceed the amount listed without approval from PBSD.
$28,000.00
Accepted By:
...—
' 4,., ;.— /ifi'/I-- Join. o3 ,:)..eq3
Timothy C.Hall,Vice President Date
Turrell,Hall&Associates, Inc.
Approve
Kyle Lukasz, Operations O.:t er Date
Pelican Bay Services Division
'rumen,Hall&Associates,Inc.
J011U01 y IU,LU IJ Vldlll Ody JUVUVI111111CC UI LI IC rciludll Ody adI VII.CJ LJIVIJIUI I OUOI U
• Turrell-Hall&Associates work order for environmental permitting services
Page 4 of 4
WORK ORDER/PURCHASE ORDER#
CONTRACT# 10-5571
CLAM PASS JOINT COASTAL PERMIT AND INLET&BAY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
January 3, 2013
Exhibit "A"
Scope of Services:
PERMITTING
Task I a. —Permit Drawings .$2,350.00
Task I b. —DEP Permitting $2,500.00
Task I c. —DEP Mixing Zone Variance $1,300.00
Task I d. —USACE Permitting $6,000.00
Task I e. —USFWS and NMFS Coordination .$3,850.00
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Task II—Inlet and Bay Management Plan Update $12,000.00
Total Services ..$28,000.00
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
January 15,2013 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board
Humiston&Moore proposal for professional services
Page 1 of 4
HUMISTON
4 MOORE 5679 Strand Court
Naples,FL 34
ENGINEERS 39-594-202111Voice
COASTAL 239-594-2025-Fax
�m ENGINEERING DESIGN
AND PERMITTING
WORK ORDER/PURCHASE ORDER#
January 3,2013
Humiston&Moore Engineers (H&M) is pleased to provide this scope of work to Collier
County via the Pelican Bays Services Division (PBSD). The purpose of this scope is to
outline professional services to be provided to the PBSD for dredging of Clam Pass
(Project). The work proposed will be conducted consistent with the terms and rates of
Contract Number 08-5124 by H&M. Services include the design, preparation of permit
drawings,construction plans, technical specifications and construction phase services.
Scope of Work
TASK 1: DESIGN, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
a) Permit Drawings: H&M will prepare updated design and permit drawings at the
direction of the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) for the dredging of Clam
Pass. The plans will be based on updated hydrographic and beach profile data to be
collected in January 2013 and on the most recent benthic resources surveys
conducted in August 2012.
b) Construction Plans: Based on direction from the PBSD and the ongoing permitting,
H&M will prepare details construction plans for the purpose of obtaining bids and
construction the Project.
c) Technical Specifications: Based on the final design, regulatory permits and
construction plans, H&M will prepare technical specifications for the Project
which will be used in conjunction with the Construction Plans in obtaining bids
for the Project. These documents will be used by PBSD along with Collier County
Contract Documents as part of the contract with the selected Contractor for the
Project.
Task 2: CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES
H&M will provide the necessary support to PBSD based on a time and materials basis as
needed throughout the selection of a contractor, negotiating a price for the Project,
conducting a pre-construction meeting, conducting construction observation services, on-
site permitting compliance monitoring for turbidity and sand QA/QC placement, review of
Humiston & Moore Engineers
January 15,2013 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board
Humiston&Moore proposal for professional services
Page 2 of 4
regulatory agencies; conducting construction observation services, on-site permitting
compliance monitoring for turbidity and sand QA/QC placement, review of pay requests
from the Contractor, post construction certifications and prepare the required post
construction report to the regulatory agencies.
The costs assume a declaration of emergency order to limit bid qualification and price
negotiating with one contractor
Schedule
The above scope is based on a 50-day construction schedule. Creation of the permit
drawings is based on completion of the survey by PBSD,which is underway at this time.
Permit drawings for use in coordination with Collier County, the State of Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, along
with the associated state and federal resource agencies such as Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), will be prepared within 10 days of receipt of the
survey. Construction Plans and Technical Specifications will be completed within 30
days of confirmation of the acceptability of the design from the PB SD, DEP, and
USACE. Any subsequent plan changes as deemed necessary will be completed as quickly
as possible to avoid any delays in selecting a contractor and negotiating a construction
price.
Budget
Compensation for the above scope of work will be based on charges as described in
Exhibit"A"and will not exceed the amount listed without approval from PBSD.
$76,360.00
Accepted By:
1/3/13
Brett D.Moore,P.E.President Date
Humiston &Moore Engineers
Approved By:
le Lukasz, Operations Neer Date
Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division
Humiston& Moore Engineers
January 15,2013 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board
Humiston&Moore proposal for professional services
Page 3 of 4
WORK ORDER/PURCHASE ORDER#
t
January 3,2013
Exhibit "A"
Scope of Services:
Task I: Design,Plans, Specifications (Lump Sum Costs)
Task Ia.—Permit Drawings $5,940.00
Task Ib.—Construction Plans.. $10,090.00
Task Ic.—Technical Specifications ..$7,620.00
Subtotal for Task I(Lump Sum) $23,650.00
Task II: Construction Phase Services (Time and Materials)
Based on 50 Construction Work Days
Task IIa.—Bid Review,Pre-constr.Meeting, etc $3,880.00
Task fib.—Construction Observation,Pay Review .$39,850.00
Task IIIe.—Post Construction Report and Certification $8,980.00
Subtotal for Task II (Time and Materials) $52,710.00
Total Budget Tasks I and II: $76,360.00
Humiston&Moore Engineers
January 15,2013 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board
Humiston&Moore proposal for professional services
Page 4 of 4
WORK ORDER FEE BREAKDOWN
Humiston&Moore Engineers
TASK 2:Construction Observation
Rate Hours Amount Budget
Principle Engineer $175.00 78.00 $13,650.00
Engineer ill $105.00 36.00 $3,780.00
Engineer I $90.00 36.00 $3,240.00 $52,710.00
Junior Tech(Field) $75.00 400.00 $30,000.00
Senior Tech(AC2) $85.00 24.00 $2,040.00
•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners declares the recent closure of Clam
Pass to constitute an emergency situation, requiring dredging the pass as soon as practicable;
that in furtherance of this, the Board directs the County Manager to obtain pricing
information for this project from at least two prospective vendors, including any potential
vendors with dredges already operating off the west coast of Florida, and that the County
Manager negotiate and enter into an Agreement with the apparent low bidder, subject to
ratification by the Board, preferably at the next Board meeting.
OBJECTIVE: To have an Agreement in place to immediately dredge Clam Pass once all final
permits have been issued.
CONSIDERATIONS: The following is taken from a January 2, 2013 e-mail sent to me by Brett D.
Moore, P.E., President, Humiston& Moore Engineers:
"Understanding that Clam Pass remains as the primary source of flushing for Clam Bay, the present
condition of the inlet does not allow for a sufficient exchange of tidal water to the system which
should be considered an environmental emergency. Once the inlet closed, the nearshore ebb shoal
has begun to collapse onshore widening the beach at the location of the inlet, making the opportunity
for the inlet to re-open unlikely. The only practical manner to restore the tidal flow at this point is
through dredging the inlet as soon as possible. Sufficient removal of sand from not only the beach
area but also the flood shoal area within the inlet system is necessary in order for the results of the
dredging to remain sustainable. Part of the reason for considering this an emergency is that in the
past when the inlet closed, cutting off tidal circulation resulted in degradation of water quality
resulting in fish kills, and many believe that was a factor in the die-off of 50 acres of mangroves near
the north end of the preserve."
Mr. Moore's further went on to state that "Having an agreement in place is needed now so there
won't be a delay on Purchasing's part when the Corps permit is issued. I believe the state permit has
already been issued."
FISCAL IMPACT: Presently unknown.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item was reviewed by the County Attorney, is consistent with
Article XXI (Emergency Purchases) of the County's Purchasing policy, and is legally sufficient for
Board action. Any proposed Agreement would be conditioned upon the County obtaining all
necessary permits. A simple majority vote is required for approval. - JAK
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners declares the recent closure of
Clam Pass to constitute an emergency situation, requiring dredging the pass as soon as practicable;
that in furtherance of this the Board directs the County Manager to obtain pricing information for
this project from at least two prospective vendors, including any potential vendors with dredges
already operating off the west coast of Florida, and that the County Manager negotiate and enter into
an Agreement with the apparent low bidder, subject to ratification by the Board, preferably at the
next Board meeting.
SUBMITTED BY: Commissioner Georgia Hiller, District 2
January 10, 2013
CLAM PASS PERMIT MEETING SUMMARY
OBJECTIVE: As a result of the recent,withdrawal of the ACOE permit application for
Clam Pass a meeting was requested with Army Corp of Engineers and key staff
to review the status and options available to the county
MEETING ATTENDEES:
ACOE: Tunis McElwayne, Bill Defrance, Linda Elligott (by phone)
FDEP: Lani Edwards (by phone)
Collier County: Neil Dorrill and Susan O'Brien
Consultants: Tim Hall, Ken Humiston and Brett Moore (by phone)
KEY OPTIONS:
• 10 year permit application-The Federal 10 year permit application
remains withdrawn at this time. While Ms. Elligott participated by phone,
she did not offer any new information. Discussions with the ACOE to resolve
this issue will continue in earnest after the immediate actions to open the
pass outlined below are completed.
• Emergency Letter Approval - While there have been numerous references
to "Emergency Permits" we are not eligible for this option according to Mr.
McElwayne. In his time as Fort Myers Section Chief, this option was used on
a single "life safety" basis to provide emergency dredging for the U.S. Coast
Guard Cutter to alleviate groundings at their Fort Myers Beach facility.
• Nationwide Permits
The Corp has developed a series of nationwide short form and project
specific permits to address dredge and fill activities. This process was
utilized recently by the Pelican Bay Services Division to reconstruct the
water management berm along the western mangrove conservation area.
Two nationwide options were identified.
• Nationwide 3
This would allow mechanical track hoe equipment to remove sand within
areas A, B and possibly C consistent with the 1998 permit. The nationwide 3
is maintenance oriented and would require the removal and stockpiling of
•
sand and not spread on the beach. This option would be in conflict with the
FDEP permit which requires beach compatible material to remain on the
beach.
• Nationwide 27
This permit appears to be the most acceptable option, as it again would allow
areas A, B and possibly C to be mechanically opened for habitat protection
and environmental enhancement. Beach compatible sand could be placed on
the beach and inlet to restore those areas impacted by the recent migration
of the pass, subject to a determination that they enhance foraging habitat for
Plovers.
SUMMARY:
In order to improve and complete the permit file, surveys will be delivered this
weekend. Direction has been given to develop construction plans and specifications
to present to the PBSD Advisory Board and County Commission as early as the week
of January 20, 2013. Finally, staff will identify local site contractors capable of
performing the work utilizing long reach track hoes and earth moving equipment
under the Board of County Commissioners emergency declaration.
Prepared by:
W. Neil Dorrill, PBSD Administrator
Approved By:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Original Message
From: Lustigl [mailto:Lustigl @embargmail.com]
Sent: Sunday,January 13, 2013 8:46 PM
To: office @pelicanbayservicesdivision.net
Cc: Streckenbein, Jane& Scott
Subject: Status of Clam Pass closure
Lisa: Would you please forward my email to all the members of the PBSD, and--most especially--Neil
Dorrill. Thanks. Diane Lustig
In preparation for PBSD's Clam Bay sub-committee's meeting on Tuesday, I wanted to share with you the
avalanche of comments that we are receiving on a daily basis at the Clam Pass "Dig." I personally have
been down at the dig, daily, since it was initiated by a family on Saturday 29 December. As a result of
press coverage,there has been a steady flow of Collier residents and tourists. All express horror when
they look at the magnitude of the devastation along the Pass and beach. All express absolute disgust and
dismay over the bureaucratic delays and the "in-fighting" between neighborhoods that they are reading
about in the paper. One comment we hear from every person coming past the dig: Why can't we
immediately bring some form of earth mover(front loader, back-hoe, etc) to push the sands aside,
making it infinitely easier for the diggers to make headway. So far, we have not heard any definitive
reason/law that would rule out such a provisional measure. We have assured the hundreds of visitors that
we would relay their suggestions and requests--ours as well--to the PBSD. I know that if there is anyone
in Collier County that could find some way to bring in now some "small" machinery, it would be Mr.
Dorrill, and that the many avid advocates of Clam Pass that sit on the PBSD would whole-heartedly
support his proposed solutions.
I've included as a "cc,"Jane and Scott Streckenbein, residents of Valencia, who have put more hours
into the "dig" effort than anyone. I'm sure that they could provide you with pages of similar comments.
We are looking forward to the Tuesday subcommittee meeting with great anticipation. Sincerely, Diane
Lustig(239-593-6448)
TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
MARINE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
3584 Exchange Avenue, Suite B •Naples, Florida 34104-3732 • ( 9) 643-0166 • Fax (239) 643-6632
January 15, 2013
James Hoppensteadt
Pelican Bay Foundation,Inc. °CP*
6251 Pelican Bay Blvd.
Naples, FL 34108
Re: Invitation to Participate in Clam Pass Management Plan Update
Dear Mr. Hoppensteadt:
As you may or may not be aware,Tune11,Hall&Associates,Inc.was recently asked to start working
on updating the Clam Pass Management Plan. As one of the identified stakeholders whose members
commonly use the Pass and Bay system,we would like to invite your participation in the formulation
of the updates.
The immediate goal is to establish the uses(i.e.bird watching,swimming,fishing,boating,etc.)of the
system by the many user groups and to establish the purpose, scope, and goals of the Management
Plan. We would request a written submittal by your organization outlining the uses of,and aspirations
for,the system by your constituents.
Once we have collected this preliminary information from the interested user groups,Turrell,Hall&
Associates will be creating an outline and framework for the updated Management Plan which you will
be able to comment on again prior to the formulation of the draft updated Plan. Once the Management
Plan has been drafted,a public workshop will be held and additional comments will be collected prior
to the finalization of the Plan.
We hope you will take this opportunity to participate in this process. Your written comments should
be submitted before February 4th by USPS or electronically to:
The Pelican Bay Services Division
c/o Mrs. Lisa Resnick
801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605
Naples,FL 34108
lresnick @colliergov.net
Thanks you for your interest in the Clam Bay Natural resource Protection Area. We look forward to
working with you in this endeavor.
Sincerely,
Timothy Hall
CLAM PASS NRPA MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
USER GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE
(This sheet is being provided to help solicit comments on the upcoming Clam Pass Management
Plan Update. Feel free to use this sheet or provide your own written comments)
Group/Individual Name:
Uses of the system (i.e. bird watching,fishing, boating, kayaking, sunbathing, etc.):
Concerns for the system:
Goals for the Management Plan:
Other comments:
Thank you for your interest in the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area(NRPA).
We hope you will take this opportunity to participate in this process. Your written
comments should be submitted before February 4th by USPS or electronically to:
The Pelican Bay Services Division
do Mrs.Lisa Resnick
801 Laurel Oak Drive,Ste 605
Naples,FL 34108
lresnick @colliergov.net
CLAM PASS MANAGEMENT PLAN
STAKEHOLDERS GROUPS and REVIEW AGENCIES
Pelican Bay Foundation
Pelican Bay Homeowner's Association
Seagate Homeowner's Association
Naples Cay Homeowner's Association
Mangrove Action Group
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Sierra Club
Collier County Audubon
Paradise Coast Paddlers
Southwest Florida Paddling Club
Tall Tales Bait and Tackle
Collier County Environmental Services(Bill Lorenz)
Collier County Parks and Recreation(Maura Kraus, Barry Williams)
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife Service
1/15/13
Dear Member of PBSD Clam Bay Subcommittee,
I have prepared some materials that I believe you will find useful for
reviewing the updated dredge designs, specifications, and permit drawings.
These materials contain brief but pertinent information on the conditions of
Clam Pass in the past 12 years as documented by Mr. Humiston in the
Humiston & Moore Bathymetric Monitoring Reports, and Tidal Analysis
Reports.
They are not as technical as they appear. I would appreciate it very much if
you could take half an hour of your time to read them, as I have spent days
re-reading and analyzing Mr. Humiston's reports, and field data.
I have excerpted Mr. Humiston's conclusions and findings of Clam Pass'
responses to the dredging events, and presented the data sheets in an
understandable manner for those who have not been following Clam Pass
dredging closely. After reading the materials, I am certain that you will have
a good sense of how Clam Pass responds to dredging. Consequently, you
will be able to make informed decisions on the dredge designs,
specifications, and permit drawings that will be presented to the Board by
PBSD's consultants, Humiston & Moore, and Turrell, Hall & Associates.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Respectfully,
Linda Roth
Montenero
239-254-8889
P.S. Could Lisa make copies of my materials and distribute them to all
members of PBSD, and Neil Dorrill? Thank you.
Clam Pass Dredging & Equilibrium Condition
In 1999, the Mouth of Clam Pass (Segment A) was dredged 30 ft. wide X 5.5 ft.
deep. In 2002, the Mouth was not dredged. In the 2007, the Mouth was over-
dredged 80 ft. wide X 5.5 ft. deep at the request of Coastal Zone Management,
violating the permit.
An equilibrium condition: "...the inlet cross sectional area is near an equilibrium
condition where tidal currents are able to scour sand from the channel at
approximately the same rate that wave action deposited sand in the channel." (H&M
Bathymetric Monitoring Report # 9, p.11)
This self-scouring condition is the optimal condition for an inlet because sand is not
accumulating in the channel rapidly. The equilibrium condition of Clam Pass can last
up to 5 or 6 years under normal environmental condition.
Excerpts from Humiston & Moore Monitoring Reports Regarding
Equilibrium Condition of Clam Pass
Excerpt #1: "Figure 2 also shows the inlet width was approximately 40' wide in the
pre- dredging condition of 1998 and 2007, which along with the cross sections in
Appendix D indicate that a larger dredge cut is not sustainable as an equilibrium
condition due to the limited volume of tidal prism flowing through this inlet." (H&M
Bathymetric Monitoring Report # 9, p.6)
Excerpt #2: "This wider cut was not dredged in 1999 or in 2002 because it has
been determined that 80 ft. is significantly wider than the equilibrium channel width
supported by tidal flow, and is therefore not necessary to achieve the improved
flushing of Clam Bay. Furthermore, the wider cut quickly shoaled in with sand from
the beaches immediately adjacent to the inlet." (H&M Bathymetric Monitoring Report
# 7, p.22)
Excerpt #3: "This maintenance dredging included a modification by request of the
county, to increase the width of the dredge cut from stations 0+00 to 2+37.5. It is
anticipated that the increase of the dredge cut at the entrance will have little if any
improvement to the tidal flushing of the Clam Pass tidal system, because the wider
cut results in a cross section that is larger than the equilibrium section area, and it is
therefore expected to fill in quickly." (H&M Bathymetric Monitoring Report # 9, p.14)
Excerpt #4: "The rapid reduction of the cross sectional area within segments A & B
can be attributed to the inlet readjusting to its natural equilibrium cross sectional
area." (H&M Bathymetric Monitoring Report # 9, p.14)
Excerpt #5: "Monitoring of Clam Pass indicates that adjacent beaches, both north
and south of the inlet, have been impacted by previous dredging. This has in the
past been addressed by reducing the scope of the dredging to minimize disruption of
littoral transport and natural inlet sand bypass, and by placing dredged material in
the eroded areas. Due to the potential of adverse impacts, more extensive dredging
at Clam Pass is not recommended without more thorough evaluation of the severity
of potential impacts." (H&M Bathymetric Monitoring Report # 8, p.19)
Excerpt #6: "Table 1 also shows that the shoaling rates were higher after the 1999
and 2007 dredging events than they were after the 2002 dredging. This may be
attributed to the dredging of a wider entrance channel cut template in 1999 and
2007, whereas a narrower cut closer to equilibrium dimensions was dredged in
2002. The purpose of the narrower cut in 2002 was to avoid post dredging
readjustment that has a tendency to erode adjacent beaches. (H&M Bathymetric
Monitoring Report # 9, p.6) Note: the Mouth of Pass was not dredged in 2002.
Excerpt #7: "Note that the cross sectional area for A & B fluctuates about the 200
sq. ft. level, indicating that this is close to the equilibrium cross sectional area." (H&M
Bathymetric Monitoring Report # 9, p.8) 200 sq. ft. divided by 5 ft. deep = 40 ft.
wide.
Excerpt #8: "As occurred after previous dredging events, the significant increase of
cross section area of flow from dredging sections A and B is followed by a rapid
reduction of cross sectional area as the channel dimensions adjust back toward an
equilibrium condition." (H&M Bathymetric Monitoring Report # 9, p. 11)
Excerpt #9: "The fact that erosion occurred adjacent to the inlet, and accretion
occurred further from the inlet, is an indication that readjustment of the dredge
channel back to the equilibrium cross sectional area was the result of trapping sand
from adjacent beaches. This is the reason the inlet entrance channel was dredged to
a narrower template in 2002 than it was in 1999, so that the dredge channel would
be closer to an equilibrium section and less readjustment would occur." (H&M
Bathymetric Monitoring Report # 9, p. 20)
Excerpt #10: "The success of previous dredging without impact to adjacent
shorelines, as well as the apparent equilibrium cross section from previous
monitoring between dredging events, are the best way to evaluate an appropriate,
width of cut." ... "It is probably appropriate to continue dredging the cut to the same
width that has been dredged in the past, as long as monitoring shows it does not
impact adjacent beaches. Dredging the cut too wide will result in slow tidal currents
because they are limited by the size of the bay. Slow tidal currents promote shoaling,
and the shoaling will occur by trapping of sand from the beach, potentially causing
beach erosion. Slower currents can also result in collapse of the ebb shoal onshore
creating more restriction to flow, yet also potentially increasing sand supply to
adjacent beaches." (H&M Tidal Analysis Element Report # 13, November 2012,
p.16)
Summary Conclusions
The excerpts above are found throughout 12 years of Humiston and Moore (H&M)'s
bathymetric and tidal monitoring reports. Mr. Humiston has been conducting
maintenance dredging of Clam Pass since 1999, and is the author of these reports.
His statements regarding the conditions of Clam Pass and its adjacent beaches are
based on 12 years of field data, as well as widely accepted inlet dredging principles
and concepts.
The importance of dredging an inlet according to its equilibrium cross sectional area
cannot be over-emphasized, because all inlets will eventually establish an
equilibrium condition -- a natural flow condition, no matter how wide or deep the inlet
is dredged. That is the reason inlets over-dredged for navigation have to be dredged
frequently to maintain their unnatural width and depth, not to mention the fact that
the in-filling of inlets to establish an equilibrium area causes erosion on the adjacent
beaches, and significant disturbance to the natural sand by-passing process off-
shore. "... it is well established that there are impacts associated with dredging, and
increasing the scope of dredging has the potential for increasing the scope of
impacts." (H&M Bathymetric Monitoring Report # 9, p. 26)
12 years of empirical data show that the equilibrium cross sectional area of Clam
Pass is approximately 40 ft. wide X 5 ft. deep (approximately 200 sq. ft.). Areas
larger are unsustainable. Statements to the contrary are unscientific.
- The purpose of the proposed 10-year Clam Pass dredging permit is to allow for tidal
flushing to conserve and enhance the health of the overall Clam Bay system when
- found to be warranted. The proposed dredging permit is not for navigation or sand-
mining to renourish Clam Pass Park Beach. Clam Pass/Clam Bay is a preserve; it is
the first and only coastal Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) in Collier
County.
The dredging of Clam Pass must be designed to allow tidal flushing in conjunction
with the Pass' natural equilibrium condition (self scouring condition). It should not be
over-dredged as it is done for navigation in all other Collier County inlets.
There is no scientific evidence that dredging the Mouth of Clam Pass 80 ft. wide, or
a width wider than its equilibrium cross section enhances the health of the Clam Bay
mangrove ecosystem. On the contrary, it increases erosion on the adjacent
beaches; causes damage to the red mangrove roots; needlessly destroys habitats of
benthic organisms which are vital food items in the estuarine food chain.
By Linda Roth, Mangrove Action Group Board
Analysis of Table 1, Table 2, and Figure 4 in H&M Bathymetric Monitoring
Report # 9
November 2008
The purpose of the data analysis below is to show that the width of Segment A
(Mouth) becomes much wider than the dredge cut within a month after each dredge
event. But a year after dredging, the Mouth returns to its natural flow (equilibrium)
condition, and the width decreases to approximately 30 ft. to 40 ft. Therefore, a cut
wider than 40 ft. is unsustainable and unnecessary.
Table 1
Stations 0+00 to 3+00 is Segment A (Mouth). Let's look at the Post dredging data
for 1999, 2002, and 2007, and then the data one year later. The average cross-
sectional area (sq. ft) of Segment A was calculated by adding all the cross sectional
areas of Stations 0+00 to 3+00, then divided by 11 (# of stations).
NOTE: the "Post Dredge" time frame is usually a month after the dredge event. The
data one year after dredging more accurately represent the condition of the Pass.
The following are the results:
In 1999, Segment A was dredged 30 ft. wide X 5.5 ft deep.
The average Post Dredging Cross Sectional Area was 417 sq. ft. To derive the
width, divide the cross sectional area by the depth of 5.5 ft., the width is 76 ft. (Post
dredge width was much wider than the dredge cut width)
One year later, the average Cross Sectional Area was 180 sq. ft. When divided by
a depth of 5.5 ft., the width is 33 ft. (Segment A filled in quickly, returning to its
natural flow condition, to a width of approximately 33 ft.
In 2002, Segment A was not dredged.
The average Post Dredging Cross Sectional Area is 277 sq. ft. (In Table 2, 296 sq.
ft. was listed instead; perhaps the result of an earlier survey). When divided by a
depth of 5.5 ft., the width was 50 ft. (Post dredge width was wider than the dredge
cut width. In this case, the Mouth was not dredged)
One year later, the average Cross Sectional Area was 177 sq. ft. When divided by
a depth of 5.5 ft., the width is 32 ft. (Segment A returned to a width of approximately
32 ft., to its equilibrium condition)
In 2007, Segment A was over-dredged to 80 ft. wide X 5.5 ft deep
The average Post Dredging Cross Sectional Area was 580 sq. ft. When divided by
a depth of 5.5 ft., the width is 105 ft. (Post dredge width was much wider than the
dredge cut width)
One year later, the average Cross Sectional Area was 213 sq. ft. When divided by
a depth of 5.5 ft., the width is 39 ft. (Segment A filled in quickly returning to a near
equilibrium condition)
Table 2
In Oct. 1998, the average Pre-dredge Cross Sectional Area was 93 sq. ft., and in
April 1999, the Post Dredge Cross sectional Area was 417 sq. ft. (Segment A was
dredged 30' wide X 5.5 ft. deep, in 1999).
In Dec. 2001, the average Pre-dredge Cross Sectional Area was 301 sq. ft. and in
Feb. 2002, the Post dredge Cross Sectional area was 296 sq. ft. (Segment A was
not dredged)
In July 2006, the average Pre-dredge Cross Sectional Area was 345 sq. ft., and in
April 2007, the Post dredge Cross Sectional area was 580 sq. ft. (Segment A was
dredged 80' wide X 5.5 ft. deep, in 2007).
Discounting the tropical storm and post dredge data (outliers), Table 2 shows that
the Average Cross Sectional Area in Segment A remained at approximately 187 sq.
ft an indication of the Pass' natural flow (equilibrium) condition, not withstanding
the fact that Segment A is the most unstable area (The first three or four stations
nearly completely filled in).
Figure 4
Segment A (Mouth) is the first graph.
Draw a horizontal line across from the 200 sq. ft. Cross Section Area (sq. ft) to
2009. You will see that from 2000 to 2009, the approximately 200 sq. ft. cross
section remained stable, indicating the Pass was at an equilibrium condition. The
abnormal surges were right after the 1999 dredge, and the 2007 dredge. The slight
up-ticks to 300 sq. ft., in the mid section, were due to two storm events, and the
small 2002 dredge. Outliers cannot be used to calculate the equilibrium cross
section.
- Interestingly, the second graph for Segment B (Throat) is similar to the one for
- Segment A, indicating the Cross Sectional Area of approximately 200 sq. ft. is the
equilibrium cross section for both Segments A & B.
Again, Figure 4 indicates that when the Pass is at an equilibrium condition, the
cross sectional area in Segment A is approximately 200 sq. ft. that is between 30 ft.
to 40 ft. wide depending on the depth. The upper end is 40 ft., not 60 ft. as Mr.
Humiston recently proposed.
Summary Conclusions
10 years of bathymetric data collected by H&M indicate that the width of Segment A
is approximately 30 ft. to 40 ft. in its natural flow condition. Therefore, the data
collected in the recent survey after storm events and Pass closure are outliers
which cannot be considered appropriate or sufficient data to justify the recently
proposed 60 ft. width for Segment A, for the long term purpose of maintenance
dredging for the health of the Clam Bay ecosystem.
By Linda Roth, Mangrove Action Group Board
i
CO
r
C m O
C m ) 7
D
< 0,
0QU COO O CO co W O U)A bb1DON W CO rO O CO W . -i'"
0 m a O M CO CO CO N MD 10.-CO W CO m7b CO 0..4 W b M� �.N NW N Am bm @i G
CO C4 VI M 10(Q 1O, N,-?.-a-a?1(? R i 7 N . 77 i N N•COC N <7 y
La.
O U A /d
U C
TO 0)
r•4
c
O c
O n
• <
W J
o
m CO 03 A CO m "O CD A MA CO O O b CO N b M COO EO CD CO C)00_ C N
N VJ O W N C D O - -C A O O®O O N b N O C)C O C WOW U)C O 0 N m 0(0 10 N N W M < -h
N{7 O NM".-NNNN MMOb CDb Mb 7OMw-<-"N m NN MM NN -
OD S yy N
0 EO < N �J`
N .) .... n a)
U
s: °4-
01
C
W
w
m W C ti
•1
2 O• 0 `• Z-' b b O W b CO A W m M W A W - O CO W m C D A A b O M A M O W O
W co co W b W M MCOO O COO MON A AAMM W CD N OA bA1) 1A '7b CO O) 0 w m
AA A AA 1017 MM MM MA U)1OM NMNMO010 A CD 1010 O O CO 10000 MN
c 0. c <
O p U
C N
CO
L C T
co C Si-0 2 t;
03 03 O c 0 3 v
Y 0 MC CI N NmCO010�NNNN� n CD C4 "rNi 7m n�N �NmmMCn� A <•
CO CD to C CO 0 t J N
•w U m d Uo t N
0
3 co r---
-O O T C O C'-' _L ✓1
3 O Q r
y o m M A O W O 10 O b N M W N O A O A CD W W O O N 0 m O CD W b b W N O < O 0 O) � N to 00 CO O O O6-P)O'-m W b • IDA • P)CO W NM A ON Nb W A M MAO cO 66 C M M N N N N NNNON) ®AC01D 1D 1 10 /D 1D 1O 0171ON �2 ° °0 1O <o N V A^' f-\. s ICC
G t 4
N 1A C N W CO O ^
C C) S_
•F COO CO M CO m N W N N W CO W CO A O b 10 ss0� N N 1O b W M O A_O 1D in O O W 7 CO m
0 d - W O N CD O O W O M A 0 0 W O CO O M O m A O CO 0 0 CO W of O a O O A O CO A A O W
O CO N M MNNNN NN"b0 MNN NNM00A ACOAA co A W OD<-W A CO/0 1 00 NN"N
ao` a m
O G N
ca- OQ U
O W N
w O) C ✓
CL m O)m ., o
• o m m 3 `
✓ 1E 03 17 Of CO b A CO A CO.. O0 A Mb U) c00 N W W O . . . . . C4 CID(O�` 0 !' le
• N WmO MM re M c?cWV.-.C. Am t,CO NC. c07 CDCO N c? .7 10 • Cft t.1O<7 . CO`1n c7 --1-
O m •m a N
U.. O`(J WW c
U co co
O
N
`W hi ,-.-_, .,
< a rX �.
l6 m c m
c 0 44- > p 1 444
• 7 ® v A" A C O C O M N O 10 0 CD A M 0 b W O N O C D M N M b 0 0 Y)O b N N < �
�' (n N DI N W W A1nAmmaD WOA N CO N C O CO W N • CO CIAO CO R • V' OM 7 N O`M N • • • CO CO VI C4 N N 'Y' tr
CO N Q < r 3` .-1—_ C. S
1A c)
W
o
U
W
c m
10 c
8 ° * .
< O)b b V:n " M 0 m 0 01 M CO O Y A
0 W CO 8CONO W O Opcpp m CO m b N m C7 CO Nm A0--.D3 MM NO1t1 NA OCO C7 _,
ON M O CO A CO 00 c0 M O A 0O b O LI- d
VJ CO b 0 0 0 O O M M N N M N O m O N"0 0 M CO co O O CO 0 CON m 0 CO O
0 1b m ".-"NO0 000 i7b0 OOOM CO
O to �-. �"
a o < cn
W U
W 53
W Cr"
3
i 1
C 0 0 O 0 0 b O b 0 1-0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0•
O ON b A O N 0AOA00 0 b b 00100 0 C 0 O00b 007 Ob 0100170
+ t + + + + + + + M + m + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ` + + + + + t + + + + + + +
.�- 00 O O•--"""NNM OObb co m A A CO COW W O 00 N N MM 000010 COAAal
CO cry
p
S '�3 u
t . t c � 4
1
In this analysis, the channel width is measured at 0.0 ft. NGVD, and the cross sectional
area is calculated from the area bound by the bottom profile and 0.0 NGVD elevation. The
0.0 NGVD contour is used as a common datum for shoreline positioning. For reference
purposes, mean high water(MHW)for this area is +1.5 feet above NGVD, mean tide level
is+0.5 feet above NGVD, and mean low water(MLW)is—0.5 feet below NGVD1.
Table 21)
Average Cross Sectional Areas within Active Portion of Cut#4
Clam Pass Monitoring 1998 to 2008
Date of Description of Survey Avg.Area(ft`) Avg.Area(ft2) Avg.Area(ft`)
Survey Segment A Segment B Segment C
10/1998 Pre-dredge !93 74 92
04/1999 Post dredge (41 359 402
05/2000 13-month monitoring 180 198 360
02/2001 22-month monitoring 185 205 no data
09/2001 Post Tropical Storm Gabrielle 2Q8 243 312
12/2001 Pre-maintenance dredge t 30f 240 342
02/2002 Post maintenance dredge 399 no data
04/2002 36-month monitoring 276 317 558
06/2003 50-month monitoring 177 186 537
11/2003 Post storm 270 212 510
05/2004 61-month monitoring 210 260 443
06/2005 74-month monitoring 1 215 331
07/2006 87-month monitoring '34 165 345
04/2007 96-month post dredge 580) 485 483
08/2008 112-month monitoring 213 226 396
Note: Description of survey interval is in reference to completion of the April 1999 dredging. Post
dredging surveys are underlined.
All three segments were dredged in 1999. Only segments B and C were dredged during
the January 2002 maintenance dredging. Following the maintenance dredging in 2002,
Segment A experienced shoaling in response to high wave energy.The shoaling took the
form of a sand spit that grew across the inlet entrance from the south causing the inlet
entrance to migrate north approximately 400 feet. In October 2002 scour from tidal currents
during an elevated storm tide reopened Segment A along the dredged channel alignment.
This is an example of how the increased tidal prism and stronger tidal flow resulting from
the 1999 dredging has been effective in maintaining the average channel cross section
above the pre-dredge condition which existed in 1998.
The most recent monitoring data collected in April 2008 shows the average cross sectional
area in each of the three segments has decreased since the last monitoring data set was
collected in April 2007.As stated previously, the decrease in cross sectional area of flow is
the result of in-filling from the inlet returning to an equilibrium cross section area.
'The elevations of Mean High Water(MHW)and Mean Low Water(MLW)are based on DEP
Special Report No.87-2,Predicted Open Tidal Datums for the Florida Lower Gulf Coast, Balsillie,
1987,and discussions with the DEP Bureau of Survey and Mapping.
In
a
NMI il 1 9 / mac 2 0 0 2 NM 3 00 90111121111 121,C...) yOill
600 - IN
■E 50o
W 400 -
✓ I _�
y 200 -- r
` r I J w
- .. I N
N I
O 100 - 0
K I Il 1
0 1 ♦ 1 t 1 I. 1 • I 1 I . 1
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
600 . i I I I I
oz 300 _ I _ I Lai
W
yU I CD
200 ---- _ �. � __- J N
N I f :,
0 100 -
c 0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
600 I I I I. I I
E 500 - I U
400 f; f
3 -
I � I W
oz 300 - •• U'
W N 200 I I I I i 1n
c 100 - CO
c
U t 1 I 1 ,1 , 1 , I I I
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
CFIGURO AVERAGE CROSS SECTION AREA OF FLOW
IN CUT #4 SEGMENTS A, B, and C
12
Analysis of Appendix D, H&M Bathymetric Monitoring Report # 9
November 2008
Below is an analysis of the cross section drawings of Segment A (Stations 0+00 to
3+00), and Segment B (Stations 3+ 64.5 to 6+10). Segment A is the "Mouth" area
and Segment B is the "Throat" area.
In 1999, Segment A (Mouth) was dredged 30 ft. wide X 5.5 ft. deep.
In 2007, Segment A (Mouth) was dredged 80 ft. wide X 5.5 ft. deep.
In 1999 and 2007, Segment B (Throat) was dredged the same variable dimensions
that is between 30 ft. to 140 ft. wide X 4.5 ft. deep, with the exception of Station
3+64.5 which was dredged 5.5 ft. deep.
The Thin Black line is the 1999 Post Dredge cross section
The Red line is the 2007 Post Dredge cross section
The Dark Black line is the 2008 cross section, approximately a year later.
NOTE: Since the "Post Dredge" time frame is only a month after the dredge event, it
is expected that the 1999 and 2007 Post-dredge cross section drawings show that
the dimensions as well as the locations of the stations remained approximately
the same as the dredge cuts. Therefore, the data a year after dredging are more
representational of the Pass condition and should be the focus of attention.
1) Stations 0+00 to 0+50 (Segment A)
These 3 stations were dredged 80 ft. wide X 5.5 ft. deep
In 2008, approximately a year after the 80 ft. dredge, these stations nearly,
completely filled in.
2) Station 0+75 (Segment A)
This station was dredged 80 ft. wide X 5.5 ft. deep
In 2008, approximately a year after the 80 ft. dredge, a cross section of
approximately 30 ft. wide X 2.5 ft. deep appeared 160 ft. north of the dredge
location.
3) Station 1+00 (Segment A)
This station was dredged 80 ft. wide X 5.5 ft. deep
In 2008, approximately a year after the 80 ft. dredge, a cross section of
approximately 20 ft. wide X 3 ft. deep appeared 130 ft. north of the dredge
location.
4) Station 1+25 (Segment A)
This station was dredged 80 ft. wide X 5.5 ft. deep
In 2008, approximately a year after the 80 ft. dredge, a cross section of
approximately 20 ft. wide X 3.8 ft. deep appeared 125 ft. north of the dredge
location.
5) Station 1+50 (Segment A)
This station was dredged 80 ft. wide X 5.5 ft. deep
In 2008, approximately a year after the 80 ft. dredge, a cross section of
approximately 20 ft. wide X 4 ft. deep appeared 110 ft. north of the dredge
location.
6) Station 1+75 (Segment A)
This station was dredged 80 ft. wide X 5.5 ft. deep
In 2008, approximately a year after the 80 ft. dredge, a cross section of
approximately 20 ft. wide X 3.8 ft. deep appeared 85 ft. north of the dredge
location.
7) Station 2+00 (Segment A)
This station was dredged 80 ft. wide X 5.5 ft. deep
In 2008, approximately a year after the 80 ft. dredge, a cross section of
approximately 25 ft. wide X 3 ft. deep appeared 65 ft. north of the dredge
location.
8) Station 2+37.5 (Segment A)
This station was dredged 80 ft. wide X 5.5 ft. deep
In 2008, approximately a year after the 80 ft. dredge, a cross section of
approximately 40 ft. wide X 1. 25 ft. deep appeared 25 ft. north of the dredge
location.
9) Station 3+00 (Segment A)
This station was dredged 60 ft. wide X 5.5 ft. deep
In 2008, approximately a year after dredging, a cross section of approximately
60 ft. wide X 3 ft. deep appeared 20 ft. north of the dredge location.
10) Station 3+64.5 (Segment B)
This station was dredged 30 ft. wide X 5.5 ft. deep
In 2008, approximately a year after dredging, a cross section of approximately
50 ft. wide X 4 ft. deep appeared at the dredge location.
11) Station 4+10 (Segment B)
This station was dredged 140 ft. wide X 4.5 ft. deep
In 2008, approximately a year after dredging, the width and location remained
approximately the same, but the depth fluctuated between 0.5 ft and 4.5 ft.
12) Station 4+60 (Segment B)
This station was dredged 135 ft. wide X 4.5 ft. deep
In 2008, approximately a year after dredging, the width and location remained
approximately the same, but the depth fluctuated between 0.5 ft and 2.25 ft.
13) Station 5+10 (Segment B)
This station was dredged 80 ft. wide X 4.5 ft. deep
In 2008, approximately a year after dredging, a cross section of approximately
20 ft. wide X 4 ft. deep appeared 30 ft. south of the dredge location.
14) Station 5+60 (Segment B)
This station was dredged 40 ft. wide X 4.5 ft. deep
In 2008, approximately a year after dredging, a cross section of approximately
25 ft. wide X 4.5 ft. deep appeared 30 ft. south of the dredge location.
15) Station 6+10 (Segment B)
This station was dredged 30 ft. wide X 4.5 ft. deep
In 2008, approximately a year after dredging, a cross section of approximately
35 ft. wide X 4.5 ft. deep appeared 25 ft. south of the dredge location.
16) Station 6+60 (Segment C)
This station was dredged 25 ft. wide X 4.5 ft. deep
In 2008, approximately a year after dredging, a cross section of approximately
35 ft. wide X 5 ft. deep appeared at the dredge location.
Summary Conclusions
_ The conditions of Clam Pass in 2008, a year after the 80 ft. wide dredge at the
Mouth, were as follows:
Segment A (Stations 0+00 to 3+00)
1. Stations 0+00 to 0+50 nearly completely filled in. The data of these
three stations should not be used to calculate the equilibrium cross
section.
2. The width of the remaining stations in Segment A decreased from 80 ft.
to between 20 ft. to 40 ft. indicating that a dredge width wider
than 40 ft. is unsustainable as Mr. Humiston stated on p. 6 in
H&M Bathymetric Monitoring Report # 9.
3. The depth of the remaining stations in Segment A decreased from 5.5 ft
to between 1.25 ft. to 4 ft.
4. Segment A migrated 160 ft. north of the dredge location.
Segment B (Stations 3+64.5 to 6+10)
The dredge widths of Segment B vary from 30 ft. to 140 ft. The cross section
drawings show that where the dredge cuts were small (between 30 to 40 ft. wide),
the widths became slightly wider, and the depths of 4.5 ft. were maintained; where
the dredge cuts were large (between 80 ft. to 140 ft), the depths and widths
decreased significantly.
By Linda Roth, Mangrove Action Group Board
2 0 ) " D r a,14
. -
a.
- - STA 0+011 F 0
s-
a 0
,
; --- 0, year^ .....,-..' c
...4 - OM.air(.4.6.NAV 1 f
-11-
-10-
- NORTH SOUTH
- -12— -.
-roe -dao •- -am • -Ise • -leo • -ilso • -iao • --ito • a
DISTANCE FROM BAIEUNE GEET)
STA 0+25
•,...0
- . _____ __■-_
_ ______ vir
yee,r ialer
„...
--- F
,..e
-1
-1
-400 , , _ ,, _ , - • -• ,
OSTANCE FROM BASEUNE(FEET)
0
STA 0+50
0-
1 2-•\ am our)
g. 0_ ww frown I
•-2- a yer ,lr
Z - r--
4 . MINN CIA c-as 1111/09)
5-417 ,
-4F-
-10-
- NORM !OH
-12
-400 • 450 • -i00 • 4110 • 400 • -1150 • -iao • -ila • a
LEG M
O& ANCE FROM IMMUNE (FEET)
—---04/1990 POST-DREDGE
amomumip04/2007 POST-DREDGE 95-111011114 MONT.
-------08/2000 105-MONTH MOW.
HUMISTON
1 1., ENGINEERS -
1 I coAsTAt
tilopluiww muss
41 Iiir41 45'1'11°°RE FOR7FLA.B.ms.PDA.ss
ANCI mum& ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT #9
CUT-4 CROSS SECTIONS
DATE:09/05/05 FILE:CUT4 X-SECISCALE:AS SHOWN
JOB: IDATUM:NGVD 'FIGURE: D-5 5679 STRAND COURT
NAPLES. FL 34110
FAX (239) 594-2025
PHONE: (239) 594-2021
www.humfstornmdrnoorexem
•
2b07 ))re elle
. -
. a
filA 0+75 Q '
0-
..... 4,
- i -
RN _,
-2- I
4 - EMI cur C-65 WHO ..
5-67
-0-
-
- NORTH 201fili
-12
-400 ' -in • -iao • -deo • -ha • -ilso • -i'oo • -60 • 0
ODRA= FM IASEUNE (FEET)
a
STA 1400 1.- '
( -''
....
1 .
-..........
-2.... Kw--,---
k 0 -....
t -
a - I
F-4-
4 • di cur(-OS WPM ,,
5--e-. --
- NORTH scum
-12 .
-400 -AO . -400 . -AO . -deo • -1930 . -ho ' -fio • 0
OISTANCE MOD 'MUNE (FEET)
8.
Cs /
STA 1+25
-2-
' Alwer 1
—-
4 - . .0 ro
am aff ft
g-4- _
... -
--I-
-10- 4,
• NORM =Um
-12
-.MM ' -420 ' 400 ' -ii0 ' -ho • -in • -Am • -40 • 0
DISTANCE FU MEM (FEU)
LEGEND
-- —-04/1990 POST-OREDGE
rosat■04/2007 POST-OREOGE 9E-MONTH MONT.
--0e/2oos 105-MONTH WOW.
HUM1STON CLAM PASS ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT p
° 1 M(X)RE
i CUT-4 CROSS SECTIONS
LEDATE:0 8 08 rl :CUT4 X-SEC .ALE:AS SHOWN 5679 STRAND COURT
4,,,., , c:QoArisraufusE"ERS FOR P.89.5/.01)./ IFIAPpifoAX:LESNE(239(F12)-3957 4-51 2 92 52 0 21
, t•
408:9-068 )ATUM:NOVO [FIGURE: 1)-7 www.hurnislonandmoore.com
2o7 re
. a-
5-
g 6.V I
1o!}417 i
1
woo w c-ar ow* U
-to- NORM <------ scum
-1- 00 450 • -i00 • -1150 • 400 • -60 • 400 • -40 • o
DISTANCE FILM VASELINE (FEET)
II
. STA1+75 S' 0 ,
I-
_i o. wr(-.a7
` +
o i:
IC MIER a 1 c-ar.wg J
-o-
-10-- NORTH <------- SOUTH
-1-400 • 450 • 400 • 450 • 400 • -60 • -1100 • -lo ' o
DISTANCE FROM mom(FEET)
R
I- STA 2+00 F 0 )
z g, wIr c«�n 411/011°.---....
\.111%,.,
k ° )6, ,4. k
I-4:
inn c-d.Y MOP — --_I
-TO-• NORTH SOUTH
-' ' 400 • 450 • 00 • -150 • -1400 • 410 • a
DISTANCE FROM SWUM (FEET)
LEGEMR
-. . - •04/1990 POST-DREDGE
wwwww—o4/2007 POST-DREDGE 96-MONffH MONT.
00/2005 105-MONTH MONIT.
HUMISTON CLAM PASS ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT f9 5679 STRAND COURT g MOORlE3 CUT-4 CROSS SECTIONS NAPLES. Ft 34110
4 ENGINEERS FOR:P.B.S.I) FAX: (239) 594-2025
1'j consul DATE:09/08/08 ILE:CUT4 X—SEC SCALE:AS SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021
Dazuwv powr www.humbionondmaore.eom
-,_ . �_ „1.6moarro JOB:9-068 TUM:NGVD 'FIGURE: D-8
2 b O 7
4
. —
. a
• STA 2467.5
6-
.2 4,
ig 2-■ risms.iri
. -... . I .
kG- vatc-eall ' i 1 '
x- -
o .
F-2-
4c . =el MR FIN
-4.-
-5-
• NORTH <---- SDIM1
11 .
-400 -.45o ' -ioo ' -ha • -ioo • -?ao ' -iloo • -io • a
DISTANCE FROM DASELDE (FEET)
a
STA 3+09 6o '
s-
= 2- um man
.... _
k °_ ler fain it II,
-a- i-'
4 . OEM CA(-SS ICAO ■ j
' -8-
—10- ‹...--
• NORTH SOWN
-12 .
-40D 450 ' 400 . 450 - -100 . 450 . -1100 . -ho • 0
DISTANCE FROM INSURE (FEET)
..-.
o
a
-1.
-1 , 1,, 1 . I I
DISTANCE FROM IMMUNE (FEE1)
LEGUID.
------•04/1492 POST-DREDGE
umesammos 04/2007 POST-DREDGE RR-MONTH MONT.
--miaow 105-MONIN MONIT.
HUMISTON
9 _ i &MOORE
:"
1 tr.
11,1
, i ENGINEER&FoRP7S.PASS S S
coAsTat
Epioainim orsIGN
apso riakeniew 409:9-068 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT #9
CUT-4 CROSS SECTIONS 5679 STRAND COURT
NAPLES. FL. 34110
FAX (239) 594-2025
DATE:09/08/08 rILE:CUT4 X-SECISCALE:AS SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021
VATUM:NGVEI /FIGURE: 1)-8 slww.humbtonandmoore•com
1 6 o 7 ])1.- do, e
....1
r
STA 444 0 1 4 0
.... 4,-
- i 2- saw*Hain
.." /
_, k *
-2-
MN(-SW) /I r
, = . 1 litphi‘,.4bw'rla-
CM(-4g IIIIIM ,Or
-s-
-
-io-
- nom semi
-12
-2oo • -ito • -?oo • -to • 6 • do . tao • too • me
INSTANCE FM IL4SO.ITE (FEET)
0.
5 STA 4410 .3 6 '
-
... 4..
gid 431-/ Nor(-man
1-41
-10-
- NORTH SOUTH
-12 .
-200 -1°00 . -Ao • --io ' 6 • ad) • Ito • 13o • aoo
osTAIICE F11011 RASEUNE (FEET)
a
iv, s+io
a-
.
...a 4-
4f 1- ont(Kan
INKA-4;
.te
2-6--
-a-
-10- -->
- NORTH SOUTH
-12 .
-ono -ho • -so • -4o • 6 • oh • i6o • lb • SOS
INSTANCE FROM @MUNE (FEET)
MEM
----04/1990 POST-INIELICE
ogimmon04/2007 POST-DREDGE RS-MONTH MONT.
---
05if2000 10S-MONTH MOIST.
11
I. &M(X)RE
HUMIENGINsToBERNs
,.,I ■4:GrUOIPS OCSICO
MO IP FlOMMIGG FoR:Cpl.A.BMs.PDA.SS ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT j9
CUT-4 CROSS SECTIONS
DATE:09/08/08 rILE:CUT4 X-SECISCALE:AS SHOWN
JOB:9-068 VATUM:NOVD /FIGURE: D--9 5679 STRAND COURT
NAPLES. FL 34110
FAX: (239) 594-2M5
PHONE: (239) 594-2021
www.hunditonandrnoorwoom
i
o o 7
0
STA 5+60
is-
.
.... 4,
1 11-, um town
I g •4 Nor(-van
-2-
, w
OEM Off(-4X.IMO
g•••• S: ."1111441
..e.
•
.10- ---
- NORTH SOUTH
-12 .
—2ao —ho • —?oo • -4o • 6 • ol, • 16o ' do ' DA
DREAM FROM SASE= MO
`-- a
. A0+10
....9 +-
1 2- WiN H421/1
-• 2-
fl\j'
1-4-- OUNN OU(-1.1.NOM 1
4 _
_ -0-
-10-
- NORTH SOUTH
-12
-200 -1150 • -AA •* -40 . 6 ' do • Ida • •
do 200
DISTANCE FROM 941EUNE (FEET)
10.
0- STA 54410
..... e-
1 4;
6 2: no
E. o
B - imp c-un Alsii6j
5_4: ......OA(-4$on
-5-
-8-
- Nonni soma
-10
-200 ' -1110 . —ioo • —iio ' 6 • do • i6o • sio • 200
DISTANCE FROM IMMUNE(FEET)
U311261
-- - - -04/1999 POST-DREOGE
wwwwwww 04/2007 POST-DREDGE 96-MONTH MONT.
••••• --011/2005 105-MONTH MOW.
■
. HUMISTON CLAM PASS ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT #9
&
CUT-4 CROSS SECTIONS 5E79 STRAND COURT
NAPLES. Fl. 34110
' 1- 1 ENGINEERS FOR:P.B.S.D. FAX (239) 594-2025
I 4.,
41to4 I
COASTAL
ENOINUOO4 COIGN DATE:09/08/08 rILE:CUT4 X-SECISCALE:AS SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021
1
JOB:9-068 bATUM:NGVD 'FIGURE: D-10 www.humbrIonandmoote.com