Loading...
Agenda 01/07/2015 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing & Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING JANUARY 7, 2015 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll call 3. Agenda approval 4. Approval of meeting minutes 5. Audience comments 6. Clam Bay Items a. Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan Status b. *Tidal Gauges c. *Biological Assessment d. *RFP for Scope of Services 7. Staff manager for Water Management/Clam Bay Activities 8. 2015 priorities 9. Administrator's report a. County Attorney's reading on Oakmont pathway responsibilites b. Status of yield signs at crosswalks c. Extra Security Patrols d. Oak Lake Sanctuary shoreline update e. Monthly financial report 10. Chairman's report 11. Committee Reports a. Water Management i. *Expanded use of aerators and plantings b. Landscape and Safety i. Status of trimming vegetation overgrowth c. Clam Bay 12. Old business 13. New business 14. Adjourn *asterisk indicates possible Board action item ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO ONE (1) MINUTE PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS 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 OR VISIT PELICANBAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET. 1/5/2015 2:12:12 PM PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD NOVEMBER 5,2014 The Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Wednesday,November 5, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive,Naples, Florida. Pelican Bay Services Division Board Dave Trecker, Chairman Ken Dawson Susan O'Brien,Vice Chairman John laizzo Henry Bachman Michael Levy Joe Chicurel Scott Streckenbein Tom Cravens Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W.Neil Dorrill,Administrator Mary McCaughtry Operations Analyst Marion Bolick, Operations Manager Lisa Jacob, Recording Secretary Also Present Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall&Associates, Inc. Kathy Worley, Conservancy of SW Florida ROLL CALL/APPROVAL OF AGENDA All members of the Board were in attendance. A MOTION was made by Tom Cravens and seconded by Henry Bachman to approve the agenda. Item added as Oak Lake Sanctuary lake bank erosion. The agenda was then unanimously approved as amended. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES No meeting minutes were submitted for approval. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dr. Joseph Doyle spoke to Pelican Bay as being a fiscally conservative district, and the amount of money spent on consultants, and the appropriate amount of operating and capital reserves. Bob Naegle thanked those present for their voting support in the latest election. STATUS OF CLAM BAY NRPA MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION The Chairman gave a brief review of where the Management Plan stood at that point, noting that the County Commission at their October 14 meeting had sent the Plan back to the Board with some very specific instructions. Dr. Trecker read these instructions into the record, noting that Pelican Bay Services Division—Minutes November 5, 2014 Page 2 the changes the Commission had requested were minor, and included more information on freshwater discharges. The changes were made and forwarded to the Board, which will meet in a special session on the 14th of November for a final revision. The Clam Bay Committee and stakeholders were commended for their work on this Management Plan. Dr. Trecker indicated that once the Plan is approved by the BCC,no further approval is needed, and the dredging permit process can go forward. STATUS OF TIMELINE FOR DREDGING PERMIT APPLICATION Mr. Hall brought the Board up to date on what has been accomplished towards the 10 year permit application, and the plans are now being reviewed by the Foundation. Mr. Hall's office has been working on the biological data to go along with the application as well. Once all of this information is brought together it will then be submitted to the Board for their approval, ideally at the December meeting. Mr. Hall felt that once the BCC approval has taken place, and other agency approvals have been obtained, the entire process will take close to a year to accomplish. If the Pass was to close in an emergency situation, with the permit in hand, dredging could begin immediately. Mr. Hall added that he had met with Congressman Clawson's aides to discuss a three tiered system for approvals, with less complicated and more straightforward issues taking less time for approval. This approach would help Collier County move these approvals through much more quickly. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT A. North berm restoration This project is at substantial completion, in advance of schedule, with no change orders. A presentation was made to the Board of the two segments of work,with images of the restored area. Wood storks are back in the area, as well as other birds, alligators and smaller animals. Some of the work will be checked to make sure that it was built to the specifications. B. Pelican Bay Boulevard repaving Mr. Dorrill expressed his appreciation of the excellent work that was done by the contractor, as well as the engineering and supervision by the County staff. The temporary latex strip was put down, and will remain in place until the road has cured, or hardened, up to 90 days. Mr. Dorrill suggested a gesture of appreciation should be made to the County staff to thank them for the excellent job they did. Pelican Bay Services Division—Minutes November 5, 2014 Page 3 C. Beach bench Some residents have expressed an interest in having a bench on the beach for reading and enjoying the area as well as a resting point on a beach walk. The location will have to be coordinated with the Foundation if it is on their property. After a brief discussion regarding the issues of precedence, nesting turtles and maintenance, on a MOTION by Tom Cravens and a second by Scott Streckenbein,the Board respectfully and unanimously declined the offer of a beach bench, citing the many issues of the dynamics of the beach, including nesting turtles. D. Summary of Sunshine Laws for new Board members Mr. Dorrill gave the new members a brief but concise explanation of the Conservative Florida Sunshine Laws as they relate to their position on the Board of the PBSD. This information can be found on the Attorney General's website. Mr. Dorrill also pointed out the most recent update to the Sunshine Laws, related to the public's right to speak. E. Consideration of Oak Lake Sanctuary lake bank erosion This item related to the need to redo the annual restoration of the riprap in and around the headwall and culvert pipe in this area. This lake receives water from numerous areas and can fluctuate four to five feet. The erosion is now at a critical point. This problem was brought to the Foundation originally in 2011 and twice to the PBSD, and has not yet been addressed. This is the header lake in that section of the community, and it has been evaluated by the civil engineer. Mr. Dorrill indicated that Lake Bank erosion is systemic in the community, and the PBSD has an annual budget of$75,000 for it. The use of a product called Geotube,which is less expensive and very effective, was discussed, and staff will determine the best product for this problem with extreme erosion and estimates will be obtained. The Board agreed that the problem will be addressed by the Water Management Committee. F. Consideration of Expanded Field Management Services Mr. Dorrill prepared some general information regarding expanding some of these services as opposed to using the services of a civil engineer, which may result in some savings. Mr. Dorrill also suggested that Lisa Resnick, who is in graduate school for another year, should be considered. The budget implications would be looked at for a 40 hour a week County employee, and three days a week for expanded field management work. This proposal will be sent to the Budget Committee for consideration along with other information related to staffing needs. Pelican Bay Services Division—Minutes November 5, 2014 Page 4 G. Monthly Financial Report As the Board members had not yet received the Financial Report, this item was tabled until the financials are provided to them. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman Trecker assigned Mr. Henry Bachman to the Budget Committee and the Landscape and Water Management Committee. Ken Dawson was assigned to the Clam Bay Committee and the Safety Committee. The landscape responsibility was transferred to the Safety Committee as many safety items pertain to landscaping. The fertilization and irrigation of landscaping will remain with water management. The terms of Dr. Trecker,Mr. Levy and Mr. Iaizzo will end in March, and advertising for these positions will begin in Dec. The Chairman appointed a one month ad hoc committee to bring recommendations to the Board to remedy the unfilled commercial Board seats. Mr. Levy, Mr. Craven and Mr. Chicurel will serve on this committee. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Landscape and Water Management Mr. Cravens reported on the tilapia experiment in the adjacent lake. In a month's time since the tilapia were put in the lake,the heavy algae is completely gone, and the lake remains free of it. The Clam Bay Committee has recommended the insertion of tilapia into two additional lakes in the District at a cost of approximately $600. A MOTION was then made by Tom Cravens and seconded by Henry Bachman to recommend staff to proceed with stocking the two lakes, 1-8 and 5-2 with 100 ten to twelve inch Blue Tilapia at a cost not to exceed $1,200. The Board discussed the possibility of other adverse effects on the water system using these fish, and the option of waiting for a period of time to see what those effects may be. After discussing the pros and cons, the Motion passed 8 to 1,with Mrs. O'Brien voting against it. The Board also discussed the merits and drawbacks of Peroxide-2 as an algaecide, and Tom Cravens made a MOTION to do a pilot program with peroxide in Lakes 3-3 and 4-4, in amounts not to exceed a total cost of$1,500. The Motion was seconded by Dr. Trecker. Pelican Bay Services Division—Minutes November 5, 2014 Page 5 After further discussion,Mr. Cravens withdrew his Motion,and Dr. Trecker withdrew his second. Some specific information will be obtained on the co-chemical that must be used with peroxide for it to be effective and the costs involved. Dr. Trecker summarized the methods tried over the past several years to control algae,many of which have worked quite well. The issue is a complicated one, given the irrigation and fertilization best use practices and the expectations of the residents. The ongoing problems with algae and copper in the lakes and ponds in the District will continue to be addressed, and further discussion will be held at the next PBSD meeting. B. Clam Bay A MOTION was made by Susan O'Brien that the Clam Bay Committee recommends to the full Board that two water sampling sites be added along the berm,and as noted in the packet,at a cost of$4,000. The Motion was seconded by Mike Levy. There being no discussion on the Motion,the Board approved it unanimously. C. Safety Committee Dr. Chicurel gave a brief report on the Committee's 10/30 meeting,which included a presentation on Neighborhood Watch, a new, condensed version of a handout for residents, and new methods to address the speeding bicyclists who come into the community. Addressing the overgrowth of vegetation was addressed. A MOTION was made by Joe Chicurel that the PBSD Board direct staff to do a manpower analysis to determine whether additional manpower is needed for field operations to maintain Pelican Bay landscaping on pathway and roadway areas in such a manner as to keep Pelican Bay's paths and roads clear of vegetation intrusion. The Motion was seconded by Tom Cravens. A brief discussion was then held regarding manpower and budget shortages in this area. The Motion then passed unanimously. It was noted as well that an outside service was hired to do a preliminary cutback of vegetation. A resident of Oakmont emailed regarding her fall and injuries due to the unsafe conditions on the path around the Oakmont Lake. It was determined that this was Foundation property, and the issue of responsibility and liability must be addressed. A biking forum is scheduled for 2/24 on road rules for bicyclists including an outdoor clinic. Pelican Bay Services Division—Minutes November 5, 2014 Page 6 OLD BUSINESS There was no old business brought before the Board. NEW BUSINESS Ms. O'Brien's request for background material receipt prior to meetings will be discussed at a later date due to time restraints. The Chairman indicated that Mr. Streckenbein was inadvertently left off the Budget Committee, and should be noted as a member. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:08 p.m. on a MOTION and a second. Dave Trecker, Chairman Printed 1/5/2015 at 11:23:38 AM PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14,2014 The Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in a Special Session on Friday,November 14 at 9:00 a.m. at The Club Pelican Bay, 707 Gulf Park Drive,Naples, Florida. Pelican Bay Services Division Board Dave Trecker, Chairman John laizzo absent Henry Bachman Michael Levy Joe Chicurel Susan O'Brien absent Tom Cravens Scott Streckenbein Ken Dawson Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W.Neil Dorrill,Administrator Mary McCaughtry Operations Analyst Marion Bolick, Operations Manager Lisa Jacob, Recording Secretary Also Present Arielle Poulos, Turrell Hall &Associates Stakeholders Mary Johnson,Pelican Bay Foundation Board Diane Lustig,resident Ted Raia,resident Linda Roth, resident Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Linda Penniman,Naples City Council ROLL CALL/AGENDA APPROVAL It was noted that a quorum was present, and the agenda was unanimously approved on a MOTION by Tom Cravens and a second by Mike Levy. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Linda Roth thanked the Board,the Committee and the Foundation for their work with the Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan. APPROVAL OF CLAM BAY NRPA MANAGEMENT PLAN The Chairman noted that this latest version of the Plan was unanimously voted for approval by the Clam Bay Committee, adding the various people and organizations who had given their input. He also commented on Mrs. O'Brien's work as Chairman of the Committee. A brief history of the Plan and its various iterations was discussed as well as the criteria that were requested by the County Commission and the various entities that provided input. Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session November 14, 2014 Meeting Minutes Page 2 If approved at this meeting, Mrs. McCaughtry will have time to provide this Plan to the County Commission for their approval which is necessary for the dredging permit. A MOTION was then made by Tom Cravens and seconded by Henry Bachman to approve the revised plan. Kathy Worley, Linda Roth and Mary Johnson then made some suggested changes regarding sentence structure, wording and redundancy. Changes of this type were made by a few of the Board members in an effort to make the document read as clearly and consistently as possible. The Board discussed the budget implications of the additional monitoring activities included in the Management Plan, and where those funds would come from. Mr. Bachman noted that this issue may affect the assessments from the residents if the County does not provide the additional funds. Mr. Trecker pointed out that the Executive Summary of the Plan indicated twice that all activities within the Plan will be contingent upon available funding. Tom Cravens revised his MOTION to approve the Management Plan with the changes made at this meeting. The revised motion was seconded by Henry Bachman and unanimously approved. Mr. Bachman then indicated that he would like the minutes to reflect that the fiscal 2015 Pelican Bay Services Division budget provides for$97,800 to be funded by Collier County, and an additional $37,600 for proposed monitoring activities which are not budgeted in fiscal year 2015, and that these activities cannot be implemented unless and until additional funds are made available from sources other than an assessment levy on the residents of Pelican Bay. The Board members briefly touched on the other sources of funding, and that the activities in the Plan would be prioritized and spread out over time. Mr. Bachman indicated that if that was the intent then he would have no problem with it. A brief discussion was held on freshwater discharges into the Clam Bay system, and it was noted that the Board was in the fact finding phase on this issue. ADJOURNMENT On a MOTION by Tom Cravens and a second by Scott Streckenbein the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m. Dave Trecker, Chairman Printed 12/15/2014 at 10:31:45 AM January 7,2015 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Packet Items 6&11c Clam Bay Items(submitted by Susan O'Brien, 1/2/2015) Page 1 of 1 Clam Bay Committee Recommendations • that the PBSD Board approve the Biological Assessment with modifications. This BA will be submitted as part of the 10-year dredging permit application to the USACE (Army Corps of Engineers). • that the PBSD Board ask Collier County staff to prepare an RFP (request for proposals) for Clam Bay monitoring per the Scope of Services. The current contract with Turrell Hall &Associates, Inc. expires on April 25, 2015. The Clam Bay Committee will also gather information about the possibility of using some of the approximately$150,000 of funds allocated annually for biological and water quality monitoring of Clam Bay and water quality monitoring in Pelican Bay's upland ponds to hire a full-time scientist to perform most of these monitoring tasks as well as other tasks that could include coordinating resources at FGCU/local agencies or community volunteers to perform some of the monitoring activities; seek grants to fund monitoring activities; monitor meeting agendas and speak at meetings of the Moorings Citizens Advisory Council,Naples City Council, Tourist Development Council, and Coastal Advisory Committee when Clam Bay-related issues are addressed;prepare educational materials re: Clam Bay or PB water management; meet with condo/homeowner association representatives about reducing copper, algae, and the use of fertilizer and best management practices, etc.; and make certain that all permit requirements and other deadlines are met. It was not suggested that an in-house scientist would be expected to perform any of the engineering-related work that is done in Clam Bay. An in-house scientist could coordinate the work conducted by the consulting engineers. Exploring information re: an in-house scientist is not being considered because of the quality of the work of our current consultants and administrator whose work has been exceptional. It is being discussed because the expectations in the areas of Clam Bay and water management have significantly increased in the past two years and no additional funds would be necessary. When the Naples City Council discussed its concerns about the Clam Bay Management Plan on Dec. 17, PBSD's biologist, engineer, and administrator had previous commitments and could not speak at the meeting, leaving Dave Trecker and I, both volunteers,to defend the Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan. Dave and I wrote the Dec. 1 letter to the Naples City Council and are working on the letter to the BCC. It would be preferable to have drafts of these letters done by PBSD's staff We recently learned that the aerial photo of Clam Bay that the FDEP permit requires to be taken each July had not been taken and that six of eight tidal gauges that record critical monitoring data in Clam Bay were no longer functioning. A full-time staff member would be expected to address/prevent these situations. During the next several months securing monitoring services via an RFP and a staff scientist will be explored. The current contract with Turrell Hall &Associates, Inc may be extended for up to six months beyond April 25, 2015. Susan O'Brien January 2, 2015 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 INTRODUCTION The Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) is a 560.05-acre estuarine system consisting of sandy beaches, Clam Pass, shallow bays, tidal creeks or tributaries, seagrass beds, and mangrove forests on the west coast of Collier County in Southwest Florida (Exhibit 1). The NRPA includes three primary bays, Outer Clam Bay (southernmost), Inner Clam Bay (central), and Upper Clam Bay (northernmost), connected by a series of tidal creeks and connected to the Gulf of Mexico by Clam Pass. The Pelican Bay Services Division has conducted monitoring and management activities within the NRPA for the past 15+years. Some of these activities, such as dredging, require federal authorizations which can include review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. This document addresses federally listed species associated with the proposed and potential ecosystem enhancement activities and the effect, or lack thereof, of this project on these species. The species at issue include: the endangered American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), the threatened eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), the endangered green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the endangered hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), the endangered Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), the endangered leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), the threatened loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), the candidate gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), the endangered piping plover(Charadrius melodus),the threatened wood stork (Mycteria americana), the endangered Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus), the endangered Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), the endangered West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), and the endangered smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata). The result of the analysis in this document is a determination that the management activities proposed or likely to occur within Clam Pass and its associated estuary are not likely to adversely affect any of the above listed species. This document is based on information compiled from the South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan ("SFMSRP"), Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinions, the NOAA office of protected species,wildlife surveys, field inspections, and other sources of information. I. CONSULTATION HISTORY [The information supplied applies to discussions held between the project consultant(s) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). No record of communication between USFWS or NMFS, and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),or other commenting parties is included.] Consultation to date with USFWS was via a pre-application meeting held at the Corps of Engineer's Ft. Myers Service Center in January 2013. Representatives of USFWS and NMFS participated in the meeting via phone. During this informal meeting sea turtles, piping plovers, manatees, and smalltooth sawfish were mentioned as species of concern. On February 22, 2013 the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion in association with the Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit SAJ-1996-02789 for a single event dredging of Clam Pass 1 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 following the Pass's closure in December 2012. The Biological Opinion addressed potential effects of the proposed project on the threatened piping plover, threatened loggerhead sea turtle, endangered leatherback sea turtle, endangered green sea turtle, endangered hawksbill sea turtle, endangered Kemp's ridley sea turtle,and endangered West Indian manatee. Subsequent updates on the status of the Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan have been provided to USFWS and NMFS in May and September 2014. II. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Site Description Clam Pass is a small, marginally stable inlet that has migrated north and south along the shore over the years. Prior to dredging, average water depths of Clam Pass were -2.5' to -1.0', and its width ranged from 30-50' (Collier County, 1994). The Pass remains the primary source of tidal exchange for the Clam Bay system, but it is restricted by sediment deposits just inside the Pass and in the long meandering tidal creeks surrounded by mangrove forests. The Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area(NRPA) is an approximately 560-acre estuarine system connected to the Gulf of Mexico through Clam Pass. The system consists of sandy beaches, shallow bays, tidal creeks, seagrass beds, and mangrove forests on the west coast of Collier County in Southwest Florida (Exhibit 2). It is one of the few remaining estuarine systems in the Cocohatchee-Gordon River Drainage System and the only coastal NRPA in Collier County. Historically the Clam Bay System was connected to Wiggins Pass to the north via a system of mangrove swamps and shallow creeks with intermediate open water areas that were excavated and are now known as Vanderbilt Lagoon (Collier County, 1994, Tropical Biolndustries, 1978). It is recognized that the connection was marginal at best and while passable at times, it was not uniformly and consistently navigable (Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan, 1998). Connection to Vanderbilt Lagoon ended in 1952 with the construction of Vanderbilt Beach Road. Similarly, historical aerials of the Seagate Drive area taken prior to its construction show that Outer Clam Bay was connected to the mangrove swamps to the south via shallow meandering creeks and intermediate open waters leading to Doctors Pass. These creeks were periodically navigable by canoes and small skiffs. These swamps to the south were eventually excavated to become Venetian and Moorings Bays. The connection to Outer Clam Bay ended in 1958 when Seagate Drive was constructed. Today,the Clam Bay NRPA includes three primary bays, Outer Clam Bay (southernmost), Inner Clam Bay (central), and Upper Clam Bay (northernmost), connected by a series of tidal creeks and connected to the Gulf of Mexico by Clam Pass. The community of Pelican Bay abuts the northern and eastern edges of the system, while Seagate and Naples Cay communities abut the southern portion of the system. This system is an important natural and recreational resource for 2 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 local residents and visitors. The Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan provides an overview of the Clam Bay Estuary and past management activities which have been undertaken. Fish and Wildlife Resources The Florida Department of Transportation's Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS 1999) has been used to identify the plant communities found within the Clam Bay NRPA. See the attached Exhibit 3 for an overall FLUCFCS map of the Clam Bay system. List of FLUCFCS Communities within the Clam Bay NRPA Based on 2014 mapping by Turrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. FLUCFCS Community Description Upland or Acreage within %of Clam Bay Code Wetland the NRPA NRPA 181 Swimming Beach Upland 33.35 5.95 186 Community Recreation Upland 2.06 0.37 Facilities 322 Coastal Scrub Upland 22.31 3.98 428 Cabbage Palm Hammock Upland 2.50 0.45 510 and Interior Creeks and Bays (with Wetland 129.73 23.16 540 and without direct connection to Gulf or Ocean) 612 Mangrove Swamp Wetland 359.56 64.20 642 Saltwater Marsh Wetland 2.35 0.42 651 Tidal Flat Wetland 8.05 1.44 814 Roads and Highways Upland 0.14 .03 911 Seagrasses** Wetland 2.85** 0.84** **included in the Bays (510 and 540) category Description of Proposed Action The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) proposes to dredge the Clam Pass inlet and channel in Collier County, Florida when monitoring data, as outlined in the 2014 Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan, indicate that dredging is needed. The intent of the proposed dredging is to ensure that the estuary has adequate tidal and freshwater flows to maintain ecological health within the Clam Bay NRPA. It is anticipated that the dredging of Clam Pass (or portions of the Pass) could occur on a three to five year basis. Using hydraulic, mechanical or a combination of dredges, approximately 1,700 linear feet of Clam Pass inlet and channel will be dredged as needed between Stations 0+00 and 17+00 (Exhibit 4). The proposed dredge template elevation will be -5.0 feet North American Vertical 3 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Datum(NAVD) from between Stations 0+00 and 3+64.5. A 0.5-foot over-dredge allowance will be requested. The profile of the dredge cuts within this section of work will consist of a 1 vertical foot to 1 horizontal foot slope up to the MLW elevation and then gentler sloping to mimic the wide intertidal swash area that naturally forms in association with this Pass. The proposed dredge template elevation from Stations 3+64.5 to 17+00 will be -4.0 feet North American Vertical Datum (NAVD). A 0.5-foot over-dredge allowance will be requested. The profile of all dredge cuts within this section of the work will consist of a 1 vertical foot to 1 horizontal foot slope from the bottom to the top of the dredge cut. Appropriate buffers, as outlined in the Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan, will be maintained between the dredge cuts and adjacent mangroves and/or seagrasses to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to adjacent resources. A maximum 50-foot wide (bottom width) cut will be dredged through the mouth of the Pass, which is sufficient to allow access for a shallow-draft, barge with appropriate dredging equipment (mechanical or hydraulic) inside Clam Pass. Bottom widths of the remaining dredge template will be as depicted on the permit exhibits at the time of the proposed dredging activity. All excavated and dredged beach compatible material will be deposited within the fill template (Florida Department of Environmental Protection [FDEP] reference monument R-39+733 feet to R-41, and R-42 to R-44+500 feet [total fill template is approximately 0.85 mile]), and graded using bulldozers or other appropriate grading equipment, to the permitted design fill profile (1 vertical foot : 10 horizontal feet slope with an elevation of+5.0 and +6.6 feet NAVD in the north and south fill template, respectively). Construction vehicles will either access the shoreline at one of two beach corridors located approximately 2.4 and 2 miles north and south of Clam Pass, respectively (Exhibit 5) or may be delivered directly to the site by barge. All sand placed within the fill template must be approved by the FDEP and meet all requirements as outlined in the Florida Administrative Code subsection 62B-41.007. Although not anticipated, any non-beach compatible material will be stockpiled on the upland and ultimately disposed of landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line at the Collier County Landfill. Construction vehicles and equipment may traverse or be stored at the staging areas, stockpile area, and/or within the pipeline corridor. Existing vegetated habitat at these sites and corridors shall be protected to the maximum extent practicable. Any impacted vegetation at each of these sites and corridors shall be restored to preconstruction conditions. In addition, if heavy equipment and vehicles are required to traverse the dry beach above the mean high water line, the path will be tilled to 3 feet to avoid compaction impacts prior to the following sea turtle nesting season. The interconnecting waterways between Upper, Inner, and Outer Clam Bays will be inspected periodically (Exhibit 6). If blockages or shoaling are adversely affecting adequate tidal flow within these waterways, additional permitting may be pursued to re-open these channels. Depth of cut, width of cut, and amount and type of material to be removed will all be determined as needed at the time of the work. The project will also continue to conduct periodic ecological maintenance activities within the tidal Clam Bay estuary involving: a) manual clearing of existing hand-dug channel cuts (using round-point shovels/machetes); b) creation of additional hand-dug channel cuts; c) mangrove 4 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 trimming and vegetation/debris removal along the main interconnecting waterways and the approximately 56,660 linear feet of flushing cuts within the estuary system (Exhibit 7). Removed natural materials will be dispersed along the channel cuts, mulched for reuse, or disposed of at the Pelican Bay Services landscape disposal site or a licensed local disposal facility. No mechanical equipment will be used for these maintenance activities. The clearing within these small channels is contingent upon conditions of >50% flow reduction due to blockage or obstructions. The work area consists of a network of hand-dug channel cuts of 3 various widths (Type 1: 36-inch wide along 28,480 linear feet; Type 2: 12-inch wide along 19,720 linear feet; Type 3: 6-12-inch wide along 8,460 linear feet) that improve flushing and eliminate water ponding within the mangrove forest areas. The proposed work will continue ecological restoration work that has been conducted since the implementation of the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan and which has resulted in successful restoration of mangrove habitat. The volume of material to be removed is approximately 20 cubic yards per year on an as needed basis. This annual work is conducted in May and June, generally for a 1-2 week duration. Site access is by foot from upland areas, or via small vessels. This work area is generally at or above the Mean High Water (MHW) line in waters that are characterized as having a maximum water depth of 18 inches. Action Area The action area is usually defined as all areas that will be affected directly or indirectly by the action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. For the activities potentially occurring under the requested authorizations, the action area would be identified as the entire Clam Bay NRPA area including dredge template(s), sand fill template(s), beach corridors, pipeline corridors, staging areas, upland disposal sites, and extending up to 300 feet offshore within 0.5 mile around the Pass. The project is located along the Gulf of Mexico, in Collier County, Florida, centered at latitude N 26.2197 and longitude W 81.8169. Status of the Species/Critical Habitat This section summarizes the biology and ecology of the potentially affected species that may be present within the Action Area, as well as information regarding the status and trends of the species throughout their entire range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service use this information to assess whether a federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The "Environmental Baseline" section summarizes information on status and trends of the species, specifically within the action area. This summary provides the foundation for the assessment of the effects of the proposed action, as presented in the "Effects of the Action" section. American Crocodile The Florida population of the American crocodile was federally listed as a threatened species in Florida on September 25, 1975 (40 Federal Register [FR] 44149). It is listed as endangered worldwide except for the Florida population. The American crocodile inhabits coastal habitats of extreme South Florida, the Caribbean, Mexico, Central America and northern South America. At the northern limit of its range in Florida, American crocodiles coexist with American alligators. 5 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 The American crocodile typically inhabits brackish and saltwater habitats. Frequently confused with the American alligator, crocodiles have several distinguishing characteristics. Adults are a grayish-green with a white or yellowish undersides. Crocodiles have narrow triangular shaped snouts and the fourth tooth on both sides of the lower jaw is exposed when the jaw is closed. Alligators are darker in color, with a more rounded snout and no teeth exposed. The northern end of the American crocodiles range is extreme south Florida. They can be found in shallow lakes, marshes, ponds, swamps, rivers and creeks. Although crocodiles occur primarily in estuarine areas,they prefer areas with lower salinities, except for nesting activities. Critical habitat has been designated for the American crocodile in south Florida in the vicinity of Florida Bay and the Florida Keys. Critical habitat includes all land and water within the area from Turkey Point, Miami-Dade County, on the coast of Biscayne Bay; down to the westernmost tip of Long Key;back up along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico to the north side of Little Sable Creek; east to Nine-Mile Pond; and then back to Turkey Point(50 CFR 17.95). Life History/Population Dynamics Crocodiles go through a complicated courtship which may last for several hours or several days. Eggs are typically laid during wet season, beginning around the end of April and beginning of May. Females lay between 20 and 60 eggs per clutch, which will incubate for about 85 days. Sex of the hatchling is determined by the temperature at which the eggs are incubated. Nests are constructed so that the eggs will be above the high water mark. Eggs cannot survive flooding for more than 12 hours. Most nesting sites are near higher salinity water (greater than 80% seawater, 29 parts per thousand (ppt)). The mother does not typically stay near the nest during incubation, but will dig open the nest around hatching and assist hatchlings from the nest. After this the adult leaves the nesting area and leaves the hatchlings on their own. Status and Distribution Historically the American crocodile reaches the northern end of its range around Lake Worth in Palm Beach County on the east coast of Florida, and as far north as Tampa Bay on the west coast of Florida. It is also found throughout the Caribbean and Central America all the way to Venezuela in South America. The Florida population is now restricted to extreme South Florida, north to Miami-Dade County on the east coast and Lee County on the west coast. The population has always been believed to be relatively small, approximately 400-500 individuals. Threats to the crocodile population include predation of hatchlings, habitat loss, and changes to the hydrological regime. Alteration of salinity and water levels as a result of drainage programs throughout the state affects where the crocodile can lay viable nests. The population appears to be making a rebound, but with very little habitat and such a limited range, the species remains threatened. Analysis of the Species/Critical Habitat Likely to Be Affected The following broad categories of factors may ultimately affect the status and distribution of the American crocodile in the Action Area. 6 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Habitat Conservation - Habitats used by the American crocodile are being impacted by encroachment into estuarine habitats to support a growing human population in the State of Florida. Demographic Concerns - The relatively small distribution of the American crocodile population limit the status and trends, although the trend appears to be an increasing population in south Florida. Habitat Loss/Habitat Degradation - The most threatening issue facing the survival and recovery of the American crocodile is habitat loss and degradation as a result of changes in hydrology. Human-induced Effects - Indirect adverse effects on the American crocodile are likely to occur in populations adjacent to or near human habitations. For example, individual encounters between humans and crocodiles are likely to result in increased mortality rates. Further, as remaining habitats are either lost or impacted by changes in hydrology, increased pressure will be placed on resident individuals. Eastern Indigo Snake Species/Critical Habitat Description The eastern indigo snake is a large, black, non-venomous snake found in the southeastern U.S. It is widely distributed throughout central and south Florida, but primarily occurs in sandhill habitats in northern Florida and southern Georgia. The eastern indigo snake was listed as a threatened species as a result of dramatic population declines caused by over-collecting for the domestic and international pet trade, as well as mortalities caused by rattlesnake collectors who gassed gopher tortoise burrows to collect snakes. Since its listing by the USFWS as a threatened species, habitat loss and fragmentation have become much more significant threats to the eastern indigo snake. No critical habitat has been designated for the eastern indigo snake. Over most of its range, the eastern indigo snake frequents several habitat types, including pine flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, high pine, dry prairie, tropical hardwood hammocks, edges of freshwater marshes, agricultural fields, coastal dunes, and human-altered habitats. Eastern indigo snakes need a mosaic of habitats to complete their annual cycle. Interspersion of tortoise- inhabited sandhills and wetlands improves habitat quality for this species. Eastern indigo snakes require sheltered retreats from winter cold and desiccating conditions. Wherever the eastern indigo snake occurs in xeric habitats, it is closely associated with the gopher tortoise, the burrows of which provide shelter from winter cold and desiccation. In wetter habitats that lack gopher tortoises, eastern indigo snakes may take shelter in hollowed root channels, hollow logs, or the burrows of rodents, armadillo, or land crabs. In the milder climates of central and southern Florida, eastern indigo snakes exist in a more stable thermal environment, where availability of thermal refugia may not be as critical to the snake's survival. Throughout peninsular Florida, this species may be found in all terrestrial habitats, which have not suffered high-density urban development. They are especially common in the hydric hammocks throughout this region. In extreme south Florida, these snakes are typically found in pine flatwoods, pine rocklands, tropical hardwood hammocks, and in most other undeveloped areas. Eastern indigo snakes also use some agricultural lands (e.g., citrus) and various types of 7 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 wetlands. Even though thermal stress may not be a limiting factor throughout the year in south Florida, eastern indigo snakes still seek and use underground refugia in the region. Life history/Population Dynamics Most information on the reproductive cycle of eastern indigo snakes is from data collected in north Florida. Here, breeding occurs between November and April, eggs (between 4 and 12) are laid from late May through August, and young hatch in approximately three months. Peak hatching activity occurs between August and September, and yearling activity peaks in April and May. Limited information on the reproductive cycle in south-central Florida suggests that the breeding and egg laying season may be extended. In this region, breeding extends from June to January, laying occurs from April to July, and hatching occurs during mid-summer to early fall. Female indigo snakes can store sperm and delay fertilization of eggs. There is no information on how long eastern indigo snakes live in the wild; in captivity, the longest an eastern indigo snake lived was 25 years, 11 months (Shaw 1959). Status and Distribution Historically, the eastern indigo snake occurred throughout Florida and in the coastal plain of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. Georgia and Florida currently support the remaining endemic populations of the eastern indigo snake. In south Florida, the eastern indigo snake is thought to be widely distributed. Given their preference for upland habitats, eastern indigos are not commonly found in great numbers in the wetland complexes of the Everglades region. As stated above, the eastern indigo snake was listed because of a population decline caused by habitat loss, over-collecting for the pet trade, and mortality from gassing gopher tortoise burrows to collect rattlesnakes. At the time of listing, the main factor in the decline of this species was attributed to exploitation for the pet trade. As a result of effective law enforcement, the pressure from collectors has declined but still remains a concern. The eastern indigo snake will use most of the habitat types available in its home range, but prefers open, undeveloped areas. Because of its relatively large home range, this snake is especially vulnerable to habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. Extensive tracts of wild land are the most important refuge for large numbers of eastern indigo snakes. The wide distribution and large territory size of the eastern indigo snake complicate evaluation of its population status and trends. Although the USFWS has no quantitative data with which to evaluate the trend of eastern indigo snakes in south Florida, it surmises the population as a whole is declining because of current rates of habitat destruction and degradation. Analysis of the Species/Critical Habitat Likely to Be Affected The following broad categories of factors may ultimately affect the status and distribution of the eastern indigo snake in the Action Area. Habitat Conversion - Upland habitats used by the indigo snake are rapidly being converted to commercial, residential, and other uses to support a growing human population in the State of Florida. Demographic Concerns - The wide distribution and large territory size of the eastern indigo snake complicate evaluation of its population status and trends. Although the USFWS has no 8 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 quantitative data with which to evaluate the trend of eastern indigo snakes in south Florida, it surmises the population as a whole is declining because of current rates of habitat destruction and degradation. Habitat Loss/Habitat Degradation - The most threatening issue facing the survival and recovery of the eastern indigo snake is habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from the conversion of suitable habitats to other uses. Human-induced Effects - Indirect adverse effects on the indigo snake are likely to occur in populations adjacent to or near human habitations. For example, individual encounters between humans and their pets with indigos are likely to result in increased mortality rates. Further, as remaining habitats are either lost or fragmented, increased pressure will be placed on resident individuals. Sea Turtles Loggerhead Sea Turtle Species/Critical Habitat Description The loggerhead sea turtle was federally listed as a threatened species on July 28, 1978 (43 Federal Register [FR] 32800). The loggerhead occurs throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. The loggerhead sea turtle grows to an average weight of about 200 pounds and is characterized by a large head with blunt jaws. Adults and subadults have a reddish-brown carapace. Scales on the top of the head and top of the flippers are also reddish-brown with yellow on the borders. Hatchlings are a dull brown color (NMFS 2009a). The loggerhead feeds on mollusks, crustaceans, fish, and other marine animals. The loggerhead may be found hundreds of miles out to sea, as well as in inshore areas such as bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of large rivers. Coral reefs, rocky places, and ship wrecks are often used as feeding areas. Within the Northwest Atlantic, the majority of nesting activity occurs from April through September, with a peak in June and July (Williams-Walls et al. 1983, Dodd 1988, Weishampel et al. 2006). Nesting occurs within the Northwest Atlantic along the coasts of North America, Central America, northern South America, the Antilles, Bahamas, and Bermuda, but is concentrated in the southeastern U.S. and on the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico on open beaches or along narrow bays having suitable sand (Sternberg 1981, Ehrhart 1989, Ehrhart et al. 2003,NMFS and USFWS 2008). No critical habitat has been designated for the loggerhead sea turtle. Life history/Population Dynamics Loggerheads are long-lived, slow-growing animals that use multiple habitats across entire ocean basins throughout their life history. This complex life history encompasses terrestrial, nearshore, and open ocean habitats. The three basic ecosystems in which loggerheads live are the: 1. Terrestrial zone (supralittoral) - the nesting beach where both oviposition (egg laying) and 9 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 embryonic development and hatching occur. 2. Nearshore (Neritic) zone - the inshore marine environment (from the surface to the sea floor) where water depths do not exceed 656 feet. 3. Oceanic zone - the open ocean environment (from the surface to the sea floor) where water depths are greater than 656 feet. Loggerheads nest on ocean beaches and occasionally on estuarine shorelines with suitable sand. Nests are typically laid between the high tide line and the dune front (Routa 1968, Witherington 1986, Hailman and Elowson 1992). Wood and Bjorndal (2000) evaluated four environmental factors (slope, temperature, moisture, and salinity) and found that slope had the greatest influence on loggerhead nest-site selection on a beach in Florida. Loggerheads appear to prefer relatively narrow, steeply sloped, coarse-grained beaches, although nearshore contours may also play a role in nesting beach site selection. The warmer the sand surrounding the egg chamber, the faster the embryos develop. Sand temperatures prevailing during the middle third of the incubation period also determine the sex of hatchling sea turtles (Mrosovsky and Yntema 1980). Incubation temperatures near the upper end of the tolerable range produce only female hatchlings while incubation temperatures near the lower end of the tolerable range produce only male hatchlings. The loggerhead occurs throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. However, the majority of loggerhead nesting is at the western rims of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Two loggerhead nesting beaches have greater than 10,000 females nesting per year: South Florida (U.S.) and Masirah (Oman). Those beaches with 1,000 to 9,999 females nesting each year are Georgia through North Carolina (U.S.), Quintana Roo and Yucatan (Mexico), Cape Verde Islands (Cape Verde, eastern Atlantic off Africa), and Western Australia (Australia). Smaller nesting aggregations with 100 to 999 nesting females annually occur in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (U.S.), Dry Tortugas (U.S.), Cay Sal Bank (Bahamas), Sergipe and Northern Bahia (Brazil), Southern Bahia to Rio de Janerio (Brazil), Tongaland (South Africa), Mozambique, Arabian Sea Coast (Oman), Halaniyat Islands (Oman), Cyprus, Peloponnesus (Greece), Island of Zakynthos (Greece), Turkey, Queensland(Australia), and Japan. The loggerhead is commonly found throughout the North Atlantic including the Gulf of Mexico, the northern Caribbean, the Bahamas archipelago, and eastward to West Africa, the western Mediterranean, and the west coast of Europe. The major nesting concentrations in the U.S. are found in South Florida. However, loggerheads nest from Texas to Virginia. Total estimated nesting in the U.S. has fluctuated between 49,000 and 90,000 nests per year from 1999-2008 (FWC 2009a, NMFS and USFWS 2008). About 80 percent of loggerhead nesting in the southeast U.S. occurs in six Florida counties (Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties). Adult loggerheads are known to make considerable migrations between foraging areas and nesting beaches (Schroeder et al. 2003, Foley et al. 2008). During non-nesting years, adult females from U.S. beaches are distributed in waters off the eastern U.S. and throughout the Gulf of Mexico, Bahamas, Greater Antilles, and Yucatan. Status and Distribution The USFWS has identified five recovery units in the Northwest Atlantic based on genetic 10 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 differences and a combination of geographic distribution of nesting densities, geographic separation, and geopolitical boundaries (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Recovery units are subunits of a listed species that are geographically or otherwise identifiable and essential to the recovery of the species. Recovery units are individually necessary to conserve genetic robustness, demographic robustness, important life history stages, or some other feature necessary for long-term sustainability of the species. The five recovery units identified in the Northwest Atlantic are: 1. Northern Recovery Unit (NRU) - defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches from the Florida-Georgia border through southern Virginia (the northern extent of the nesting range); 2. Peninsula Florida Recovery Unit (PFRU) - defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches from the Florida-Georgia border through Pinellas County on the west coast of Florida, excluding the islands west of Key West, Florida; 3. Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit (DTRU) - defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches throughout the islands located west of Key West, Florida; 4. Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (NGMRU) - defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches from Franklin County on the northwest Gulf coast of Florida through Texas; and 5. Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit (GCRU) - composed of loggerheads originating from all other nesting assemblages within the Greater Caribbean (Mexico through French Guiana, The Bahamas, Lesser Antilles, and Greater Antilles). The NRU is the second largest loggerhead nesting aggregation in the Northwest Atlantic. Annual nest totals from northern beaches averaged 5,215 nests from 1989-2008, a period of near- complete surveys of NRU nesting beaches (NMFS and USFWS 2008), representing approximately 1,272 nesting females per year(4.1 nests per female, Murphy and Hopkins 1984). The loggerhead nesting trend from daily beach surveys showed a significant decline of 1.3 percent annually.Nest totals from aerial surveys conducted by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources showed a 1.9 percent annual decline in nesting in South Carolina since 1980. Overall, there is strong statistical data to suggest the NRU has experienced a long-term decline (NMFS and USFWS 2008). The PFRU is the largest loggerhead nesting assemblage in the Northwest Atlantic. A near complete nest census of the PFRU undertaken from 1989 to 2007 reveals a mean of 64,513 loggerhead nests per year representing approximately 15,735 females nesting per year (4.1 nests per female, Murphy and Hopkins 1984) (FWC 2008d). This near-complete census provides the best statewide estimate of total abundance, but because of variable survey effort, these numbers cannot be used to assess trends. In 1979, the Statewide Nesting Beach Survey (SNBS) program was initiated to document the total distribution, seasonality, and abundance of sea turtle nesting in Florida. In 1989, the Index Nesting Beach Survey (INBS) program was initiated in Florida to measure seasonal productivity, allowing comparisons between beaches and between years (FWC 2009b). Of the 190 SNBS surveyed areas, 33 participate in the INBS program (representing 30 percent of the SNBS beach length). The NGMRU is the third largest nesting assemblage among the four U.S. recovery units.Nesting 11 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 surveys conducted on approximately 186 miles of beach within the NGMRU (Alabama and Florida only) were undertaken between 1995 and 2007 (statewide surveys in Alabama began in 2002). The mean nest count during this 13-year period was 906 nests per year, which equates to about 221 females nesting per year (4.1 nests per female, Murphy and Hopkins 1984, (FWC 2008d). Evaluation of long-term nesting trends for the NGMRU is difficult because of changed and expanded beach coverage. Loggerhead nesting trends are best assessed using standardized nest counts made at INBS sites surveyed with constant effort over time. There are 12 years (1997-2008) of Florida INBS data for the NGMRU (FWC 2008d). A log-linear regression showed a significant declining trend of 4.7 percent annually (NMFS and USFWS 2008). The DTRU, located west of the Florida Keys, is the smallest of the identified recovery units. A near-complete nest census of the DTRU undertaken from 1995 to 2004, excluding 2002, (nine years surveyed) reveals a mean of 246 nests per year, which equates to about 60 females nesting per year(4.1 nests per female, Murphy and Hopkins 1984) (FWC 2008d). Surveys after 2004 did not include principal nesting beaches within the recovery unit(i.e., Dry Tortugas National Park). The nesting trend data for the DTRU are from beaches that are not part of the INBS program, but are part of the SNBS program. There are nine years of data for this recovery unit. A simple linear regression accounting for temporal autocorrelation revealed no trend in nesting numbers. Because of the annual variability in nest totals, a longer time series is needed to detect a trend (NMFS and USFWS 2008). The GCRU is composed of all other nesting assemblages of loggerheads within the Greater Caribbean. Statistically valid analyses of long-term nesting trends for the entire GCRU are not available because there are few long-term standardized nesting surveys representative of the region. Additionally, changing survey effort at monitored beaches and scattered and low-level nesting by loggerheads at many locations currently precludes comprehensive analyses. The most complete data are from Quintana Roo andYucatan, Mexico, where an increasing trend was reported over a 15-year period from 1987-2001 (Zurita et al. 2003). However, since 2001, nesting has declined and the previously reported increasing trend appears not to have been sustained (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Other smaller nesting populations have experienced declines over the past few decades (e.g., Amorocho 2003). The Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle was signed in 2008 (NMFS and USFWS 2008), and the Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Loggerhead Turtle was signed in 1998 (NMFS and USFWS 1998e). Green Sea Turtle Species/Critical Habitat Description The green sea turtle was federally listed on July 28, 1978 (43 FR 32800). Breeding populations of the green turtle in Florida and along the Pacific Coast of Mexico are listed as endangered; all other populations are listed as threatened. The green sea turtle has a worldwide distribution in tropical and subtropical waters. The green sea turtle grows to a maximum size of about four feet and a weight of 440 pounds. It has a heart-shaped shell, small head, and single-clawed flippers. The carapace is smooth and colored gray, green, brown and black. Hatchlings are black on top and white on the bottom 12 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 (NMFS 2009b). Hatchling green turtles eat a variety of plants and animals, but adults feed almost exclusively on seagrasses and marine algae. Major green turtle nesting colonies in the Atlantic occur on Ascension Island, Ayes Island, Costa Rica, and Surinam. Within the U.S., green turtles nest in small numbers in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and in larger numbers along the east coast of Florida, particularly in Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties (NMFS and USFWS 1991). Nesting also has been documented along the Gulf coast of Florida from Escambia County through Franklin County in northwest Florida and from Pinellas County through Collier County in southwest Florida(FWC 2009a). Green sea turtles are generally found in fairly shallow waters (except when migrating) inside reefs, bays, and inlets. The green turtle is attracted to lagoons and shoals with an abundance of marine grass and algae. Open beaches with a sloping platform and minimal disturbance are required for nesting. Critical habitat for the green sea turtle has been designated for the waters surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto Rico, and its outlying keys. Life history/Population Dynamics Green sea turtles deposit from one to nine clutches within a nesting season, but the overall average is about 3.3 nests. The interval between nesting events within a season varies around a mean of about 13 days (Hirth 1997). Mean clutch size varies widely among populations. Average clutch size reported for Florida was 136 eggs in 130 clutches (Witherington and Ehrhart 1989). Only occasionally do females produce clutches in successive years. Usually two or more years intervene between breeding seasons (NMFS and USFWS 1991). Age at sexual maturity is believed to be 20 to 50 years (Hirth 1997). About 100 to 1,000 females are estimated to nest on beaches in Florida annually (FWC 2009c). In the U.S. Pacific, over 90 percent of nesting throughout the Hawaiian archipelago occurs at the French Frigate Shoals, where about 200 to 700 females nest each year (NMFS and USFWS 1998b). Elsewhere in the U.S. Pacific, nesting takes place at scattered locations in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Guam, and American Samoa. In the western Pacific, the largest green turtle nesting aggregation in the world occurs on Raine Island, Australia, where thousands of females nest nightly in an average nesting season (Limpus et al. 1993). In the Indian Ocean, major nesting beaches occur in Oman where 30,000 females are reported to nest annually (Ross and Barwani 1995). Status and Distribution Annual nest totals documented as part of the Florida SNBS program from 1989-2008 have ranged from 435 nests laid in 1993 to 12,752 in 2007. Nesting occurs in 26 counties with a peak along the east coast, from Volusia through Broward Counties. Although the SNBS program provides information on distribution and total abundance statewide, it cannot be used to assess trends because of variable survey effort. Therefore, green turtle nesting trends are best assessed using standardized nest counts made at INBS sites surveyed with constant effort over time (1989-2009). 13 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Green sea turtle nesting in Florida is increasing based on 19 years (1989-2009) of INBS data from throughout the state (FWC 2009a). The increase in nesting in Florida is likely a result of several factors, including: (1) a Florida statute enacted in the early 1970s that prohibited the killing of green turtles in Florida; (2) the species listing under the Act afforded complete protection to eggs, juveniles, and adults in all U.S. waters; (3) the passage of Florida's constitutional net ban amendment in 1994 and its subsequent enactment, making it illegal to use any gillnets or other entangling nets in State waters; (4) the likelihood that the majority of Florida green turtles reside within Florida waters where they are fully protected; (5) the protections afforded Florida green turtles while they inhabit the waters of other nations that have enacted strong sea turtle conservation measures (e.g., Bermuda); and (6)the listing of the species on Appendix I of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which stopped international trade and reduced incentives for illegal trade from the U.S. The Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle was signed in 1991 (NMFS and USFWS 1991),the Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle was signed in 1998 (NMFS and USFWS 1998b), and the Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the East Pacific Green Turtle was signed in 1998 (NMFS and USFWS 1998a). Leatherback Sea Turtle Species/Critical Habitat Description The leatherback sea turtle was federally listed as an endangered species on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491). Leatherbacks have the widest distribution of the sea turtles with nonbreeding animals having been recorded as far north as the British Isles and the Maritime Provinces of Canada and as far south as Argentina and the Cape of Good Hope (Pritchard 1992). Foraging leatherback excursions have been documented into higher-latitude subpolar waters. They have evolved physiological and anatomical adaptations (Frair et al. 1972, Greer et al. 1973) that allow them to exploit waters far colder than any other sea turtle species would be capable of surviving. The adult leatherback can reach four to eight feet in length and weigh 500 to 2,000 pounds. The carapace is distinguished by a rubber-like texture, about 1.6 inches thick, made primarily of tough, oil-saturated connective tissue. Hatchlings are dorsally mostly black and are covered with tiny scales; the flippers are edged in white, and rows of white scales appear as stripes along the length of the back (NMFS 2009c). Jellyfish are the main staple of its diet, but it is also known to feed on sea urchins, squid, crustaceans, tunicates, fish, blue-green algae, and floating seaweed. This is the largest,deepest diving of all sea turtle species. Leatherback turtle nesting grounds are distributed worldwide in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans on beaches in the tropics and sub-tropics. The Pacific Coast of Mexico historically supported the world's largest known concentration of nesting leatherbacks. The leatherback turtle regularly nests in the U.S. Caribbean in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Along the U.S.Atlantic coast, most nesting occurs in Florida(NMFS and USFWS 1992). Adult females require sandy nesting beaches backed with vegetation and sloped sufficiently so the distance to dry sand is limited. Their preferred beaches have proximity to deep water and 14 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 generally rough seas. Marine and terrestrial critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle has been designated at Sandy Point on the western end of the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 17.95). Life history/Population Dynamics Leatherbacks nest an average of five to seven times within a nesting season, with an observed maximum of 11 nests (NMFS and USFWS 1992). The interval between nesting events within a season is about nine to 10 days. Clutch size averages 80 to 85 yolked eggs, with the addition of usually a few dozen smaller, yolkless eggs, mostly laid toward the end of the clutch (Pritchard 1992).Nesting migration intervals of two to three years were observed in leatherbacks nesting on the Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (McDonald and Dutton 1996). Leatherbacks are believed to reach sexual maturity in six to 10 years (Zug and Parham 1996). A dramatic drop in nesting numbers has been recorded on major nesting beaches in the Pacific. Spotila et al. (2000) have highlighted the dramatic decline and possible extirpation of leatherbacks in the Pacific. The East Pacific and Malaysia leatherback populations have collapsed. Spotila et al. (1996) estimated that only 34,500 females nested annually worldwide in 1995, which is a dramatic decline from the 115,000 estimated in 1980 (Pritchard 1982). In the eastern Pacific, the major nesting beaches occur in Costa Rica and Mexico. At Playa Grande, Costa Rica, considered the most important nesting beach in the eastern Pacific, numbers have dropped from 1,367 leatherbacks in 1988-1989 to an average of 188 females nesting between 2000-2001 and 2003-2004. In Pacific Mexico, 1982 aerial surveys of adult female leatherbacks indicated this area had become the most important leatherback nesting beach in the world. Tens of thousands of nests were laid on the beaches in 1980s, but during the 2003-2004 seasons a total of 120 nests was recorded. In the western Pacific, the major nesting beaches lie in Papua New Guinea, Papua, Indonesia, and the Solomon Islands. These are some of the last remaining significant nesting assemblages in the Pacific. Compiled nesting data estimated approximately 5,000 to 9,200 nests annually with 75 percent of the nests being laid in Papua, Indonesia. However, the most recent population size estimate for the North Atlantic alone is a range of 34,000 to 94,000 adult leatherbacks (TEWG 2007). In Florida, an annual increase in number of leatherback nests at the core set of index beaches ranged from 27 to 615 between 1989 and 2010. Nesting in the Southern Caribbean occurs in the Guianas (Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana), Trinidad, Dominica, and Venezuela. The largest nesting populations at present occur in the western Atlantic in French Guiana with nesting varying between a low of 5,029 nests in 1967 to a high of 63,294 nests in 2005, which represents a 92 percent increase since 1967 (TEWG 2007). Trinidad supports an estimated 6,000 leatherbacks nesting annually, which represents more than 80 percent of the nesting in the insular Caribbean Sea. Leatherback nesting along the Caribbean Central American coast takes place between Honduras and Colombia. In Atlantic Costa Rica, at Tortuguero, the number of nests laid annually between 1995 and 2006 was estimated to range from 199 to 1,623. Modeling of the Atlantic Costa Rica data indicated that the nesting population has decreased by 67.8 percent over this time period. In Puerto Rico, the main 15 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 nesting areas are at Fajardo on the main island of Puerto Rico and on the island of Culebra. Between 1978 and 2005, annual population growth rate was estimated to be 1.10 (TEWG 2007). Recorded leatherback nesting on the Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge on the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands between 1990 and 2005, ranged from a low of 143 in 1990 to a high of 1,008 in 2001 (Garner et al. 2005). In the British Virgin Islands, annual nest numbers have increased in Tortola from zero to six nests per year in the late 1980s to 35 to 65 nests per year in the 2000s (TEWG 2007). The most important nesting beach for leatherbacks in the eastern Atlantic lies in Gabon, Africa. It was estimated there were 30,000 nests along 60 miles of Mayumba Beach in southern Gabon during the 1999-2000 nesting season (Billes et al. 2000). Some nesting has been reported in Mauritania, Senegal, the Bijagos Archipelago of Guinea-Bissau, Turtle Islands and Sherbro Island of Sierra Leone, Liberia, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon, Sao Tome and Principe, continental Equatorial Guinea, Islands of Corisco in the Gulf of Guinea and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Angola. In addition, a large nesting population is found on the island of Bioko (Equatorial Guinea) (Fretey et al. 2007). Status and Distribution Declines in leatherback nesting have occurred over the last two decades along the Pacific coasts of Mexico and Costa Rica. The Mexican leatherback nesting population, once considered to be the world's largest leatherback nesting population (historically estimated to be 65 percent of the worldwide population), is now less than one percent of its estimated size in 1980. Spotila et al. (1996) estimated the number of leatherback sea turtles nesting on 28 beaches throughout the world from the literature and from communications with investigators studying those beaches. The estimated worldwide population of leatherbacks in 1995 was about 34,500 females on these beaches with a lower limit of about 26,200, and an upper limit of about 42,900. This is less than one-third the 1980 estimate of 115,000. Leatherbacks are rare in the Indian Ocean and in very low numbers in the western Pacific Ocean. The largest population is in the western Atlantic. Using an age-based demographic model, Spotila et al. (1996) determined that leatherback populations in the Indian Ocean and western Pacific Ocean cannot withstand even moderate levels of adult mortality and that the Atlantic populations are being exploited at a rate that cannot be sustained. They concluded that leatherbacks are on the road to extinction and further population declines can be expected unless action is taken to reduce adult mortality and increase survival of eggs and hatchlings. In the U.S., nesting populations occur in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In Florida, the SNBS program documented an increase in leatherback nesting numbers from 98 nests in 1988 to between 800 and 900 nests per season in the early 2000s (FWC 2009a, Stewart and Johnson 2006). Although the SNBS program provides information on distribution and total abundance statewide, it cannot be used to assess trends because of variable survey effort. Therefore, leatherback nesting trends are best assessed using standardized nest counts made at INBS sites surveyed with constant effort over time (1989-2009). An analysis of the INBS data has shown a substantial increase in leatherback nesting in Florida since 1989 (FWC 2009b, TEWG Group 2007). 16 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 The Recovery Plan for Leatherback Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico was signed in 1992 (NMFS and USFWS 1992), and the Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Leatherback Turtle was signed in 1998 (NMFS and USFWS 1998d). Hawksbill Sea Turtle Species/Critical Habitat Description The hawksbill sea turtle was federally listed as an endangered species on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491). The hawksbill is found in tropical and subtropical seas of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. The species is widely distributed in the Caribbean Sea and western Atlantic Ocean. Data collected in the Wider Caribbean reported that hawksbills typically weigh around 176 pounds or less; hatchlings average about 1.6 inches straight length and range in weight from 0.5 to 0.7 ounces. The carapace is heart shaped in young turtles, and becomes more elongated or egg-shaped with maturity. The top scutes are often richly patterned with irregularly radiating streaks of brown or black on an amber background. The head is elongated and tapers sharply to a point. The lower jaw is V-shaped(NMFS 2009d). Within the continental U.S., hawksbill sea turtle nesting is rare and is restricted to the southeastern coast of Florida (Volusia through Miami-Dade Counties) and the Florida Keys (Monroe County) (Meylan 1992, Meylan et al. 1995). However, hawksbill tracks are difficult to differentiate from those of loggerheads and may not be recognized by surveyors. Therefore, surveys in Florida likely underestimate actual hawksbill nesting numbers (Meylan et al. 1995). In the U.S. Caribbean, hawksbill nesting occurs on beaches throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (NMFS and USFWS 1993). Critical habitat for the hawksbill sea turtle has been designated for selected beaches and/or waters of Mona, Monito, Culebrita, and Culebra Islands,Puerto Rico. Life history/Population Dynamics Hawksbills nest on average about 4.5 times per season at intervals of approximately 14 days (Corliss et al. 1989). In Florida and the U.S. Caribbean, clutch size is approximately 140 eggs, although several records exist of over 200 eggs per nest(NMFS and USFWS 1993). On the basis of limited information, nesting migration intervals of two to three years appear to predominate. Hawksbills are recruited into the reef environment at about 14 inches in length and are believed to begin breeding about 30 years later. However, the time required to reach 14 inches in length is unknown and growth rates vary geographically. As a result, actual age at sexual maturity is unknown. About 15,000 females are estimated to nest each year throughout the world with the Caribbean accounting for 20 to 30 percent of the world's hawksbill population. Only five regional populations remain with more than 1,000 females nesting annually (Seychelles, Mexico, Indonesia, and two in Australia) (Meylan and Donnelly 1999). Mexico is now the most important region for hawksbills in the Caribbean with about 3,000 nests per year (Meylan 1999). In the U.S. Pacific, hawksbills nest only on main island beaches in Hawaii, primarily along the east coast of the island of Hawaii. Hawksbill nesting has also been documented in American Samoa and Guam (NMFS and USFWS 1998c). 17 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Status and Distribution The hawksbill sea turtle has experienced global population declines of 80 percent or more during the past century and continued declines are projected (Meylan and Donnelly 1999). Most populations are declining, depleted, or remnants of larger aggregations. Hawksbills were previously abundant, as evidenced by high-density nesting at a few remaining sites and by trade statistics. The Recovery Plan for the Hawksbill Turtle in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico was signed in 1993 (NMFS and USFWS 1993), and the Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Hawksbill Turtle was signed in 1998 (NMFS and USFWS 1998c). Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Species/Critical Habitat Description The Kemp's ridley sea turtle was federally listed as endangered on December 2, 1970 (35 FR 18320). The Kemp's ridley, along with the flatback sea turtle (Natator depressus), has the most geographically restricted distribution of any sea turtle species. The range of the Kemp's ridley includes the Gulf coasts of Mexico and the U.S., and the Atlantic coast of North America as far north as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Adult Kemp's ridleys, considered the smallest sea turtle in the world, weigh an average of 100 pounds with a carapace measuring between 24-28 inches in length. The almost circular carapace has a grayish green color while the plastron is pale yellowish to cream in color. The carapace is often as wide as it is long. Their diet consists mainly of swimming crabs, but may also include fish,jellyfish, and an array of mollusks. The majority of nesting for the entire species occurs on the primary nesting beach at Rancho Nuevo, Mexico (Marquez-Millan 1994). Outside of nesting, adult Kemp's ridleys are believed to spend most of their time in the Gulf of Mexico, while juveniles and subadults also regularly occur along the eastern seaboard of the U.S. (USFWS and NMFS 1992). There have been rare instances when immature ridleys have been documented making transatlantic movements (USFWS and NMFS 1992). It was originally speculated that ridleys that make it out of the Gulf of Mexico might be lost to the breeding population (Hendrickson 1980), but data indicate that many of these turtles are capable of moving back into the Gulf of Mexico (Henwood and Ogren 1987). In fact, there are documented cases of ridleys captured in the Atlantic that migrated back to the nesting beach at Rancho Nuevo (Schmid and Witzell 1997, Schmid 1998, Witzell 1998). Hatchlings, after leaving the nesting beach, are believed to become entrained in eddies within the Gulf of Mexico, where they are dispersed within the Gulf and Atlantic by oceanic surface currents until they reach about 7.9 inches in length, at which size they enter coastal shallow water habitats (Ogren 1989). No critical habitat has been designated for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle. Life history/Population Dynamics Nesting occurs from April into July during which time the turtles appear off the Tamaulipas and Veracruz coasts of Mexico. Precipitated by strong winds, the females swarm to mass nesting 18 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 emergences, known as "arribadas or arribazones," to nest during daylight hours. The period between Kemp's ridley arribadas averages approximately 25 days (Rostal et al. 1997), but the precise timing of the arribadas is highly variable and unpredictable (Bernardo and Plotkin 2007). Clutch size averages 100 eggs and eggs typically take 45 to 58 days to hatch depending on temperatures (Marquez-Millan 1994, Rostal 2007). Some females breed annually and nest an average of one to four times in a season at intervals of 10 to 28 days. Analysis by Rostal (2007) suggested that ridley females lay approximately 3.1 nests per nesting season. Interannual remigration rate for female ridleys is estimated to be approximately 1.8 (Rostal 2007) to 2.0 years (Marquez-Millan et al. 1989). Age at sexual maturity is believed to be between 10 to 17 years (Snover et al. 2007). Most Kemp's ridleys nest on the coastal beaches of the Mexican states of Tamaulipas and Veracruz, although a small number of Kemp's ridleys nest consistently along the Texas coast (TEWG 1998). In addition, rare nesting events have been reported in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Historical information indicates that tens of thousands of ridleys nested near Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, during the late 1940s (Hildebrand 1963). The Kemp's ridley population experienced a devastating decline between the late 1940s and the mid 1980s. The total number of nests per nesting season at Rancho Nuevo remained below 1,000 throughout the 1980s, but gradually began to increase in the 1990s. In 2009, 16,273 nests were documented along the 18.6 miles of coastline patrolled at Rancho Nuevo, and the total number of nests documented for all the monitored beaches in Mexico was 21,144 (USFWS 2009). In 2010, a total of 13,302 nests were documented in Mexico (USFWS 2010). In addition,207 and 153 nests were recorded during 2009 and 2010, respectively, in the U.S.,primarily in Texas. Status and Distribution Today, under strict protection, the population appears to be in the early stages of recovery. The recent nesting increase can be attributed to full protection of nesting females and their nests in Mexico resulting from a binational effort between Mexico and the U.S. to prevent the extinction of the Kemp's ridley, and the requirement to use Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in shrimp trawls both in the U.S. and Mexico. The Mexico government also prohibits harvesting and is working to increase the population through more intensive law enforcement, by fencing nest areas to diminish natural predation, and by relocating most nests into corrals to prevent poaching and predation. While relocation of nests into corrals is currently a necessary management measure, this relocation and concentration of eggs into a "safe" area is of concern since it makes the eggs more susceptible to reduced viability. The Second Revision of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle Bi-National Recovery Plan was signed in Mexico City on September 22, 2011. 19 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Analysis of the Species/Critical Habitat Likely to Be Affected Common threats to sea turtles in Florida - Anthropogenic factors that impact hatchlings and adult female turtles on land, or the success of nesting and hatching include: beach erosion; armoring and nourishment; artificial lighting; beach cleaning; increased human presence; recreational beach equipment; beach driving; coastal construction and fishing piers; exotic dune and beach vegetation; and poaching. An increased human presence at some nesting beaches or close to nesting beaches has led to secondary threats such as the introduction of exotic fire ants (Solenopsis spp.), feral hogs (Sus scrofa), dogs (Canis familiaris), and an increased presence of native species (e.g., raccoons (Procyon lotor), armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), and opossums (Didelphis virginiana)), which raid and feed on turtle eggs. Although sea turtle nesting beaches are protected along large expanses of the western North Atlantic coast, other areas along these coasts have limited or no protection. Anthropogenic threats in the marine environment include oil and gas exploration, and transportation; marine pollution; underwater explosions; hopper dredging; offshore artificial lighting; power plant entrainment or impingement; entanglement in debris; ingestion of marine debris; marina and dock construction and operation; boat collisions; and poaching and fishery interactions. Fibropapillomatosis, a disease of sea turtles characterized by the development of multiple tumors on the skin and internal organs, is also a mortality factor, particularly for green turtles. This disease has seriously impacted green turtle populations in Florida, Hawaii, and other parts of the world. The tumors interfere with swimming, eating, breathing, vision, and reproduction, and turtles with heavy tumor burdens may die. Analysis of the habitat likely to be affected The threatened loggerhead sea turtle,the endangered green sea turtle, the endangered leatherback sea turtle, the endangered hawksbill sea turtle, and the endangered Kemp's ridley sea turtle are currently listed because of their reduced population sizes caused by overharvest and habitat loss with continuing anthropogenic threats from commercial fishing, disease, and degradation of remaining habitat. The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect nesting females of these species, their nests, and hatchlings on all beach areas where equipment transport and sediment deposition will occur. Conducting all activities outside of the sea turtle nesting season will minimize the likelihood of this occurring. The following broad categories of factors may ultimately affect the status and distribution of sea turtles within the Action Area. Coastal Development — Loss of nesting habitat related to coastal development has had the greatest impact on nesting sea turtles in Florida. Beachfront development not only causes the loss of suitable nesting habitat, but can result in the disruption of powerful coastal processes accelerating erosion and interrupting the natural shoreline migration. This may in turn cause the need to protect upland structures and infrastructure by armoring, groin placement, beach emergency berm construction and repair, and beach nourishment which cause changes in, additional loss of, or impact to the remaining sea turtle habitat. 20 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Hurricanes — Hurricanes generally produce damaging winds, storm tides and surges, and rain, which can result in severe erosion of the beach and dune systems. Overwash and blowouts are common on barrier islands. Hurricanes and other storms can result in the direct or indirect loss of sea turtle nests, either by erosion or washing away of the nests by wave action, inundation or "drowning" of the eggs or hatchlings developing within the nest or indirectly by loss of nesting habitat. Depending on their frequency, storms can affect sea turtles on either a short-term basis (nests lost for one season and/or temporary loss of nesting habitat) or long term, if frequent (habitat unable to recover). How hurricanes affect sea turtle nesting also depends on its characteristics (winds, storm surge, rainfall), the time of year (within or outside of the nesting season), and where the northeast edge of the hurricane crosses land. Because of the limited remaining nesting habitat in a natural state with no immediate development landward of the sandy beach, frequent or successive severe weather events could threaten the ability of certain sea turtle populations to survive and recover. Sea turtles evolved under natural coastal environmental events such as hurricanes. The extensive amount of predevelopment coastal beach and dune habitat allowed sea turtles to survive even the most severe hurricane events. It is only within the last 20 to 30 years that the combination of habitat loss to beachfront development and destruction of remaining habitat by hurricanes has increased the threat to sea turtle survival and recovery. On developed beaches, typically little space remains for sandy beaches to become reestablished after periodic storms. While the beach itself moves landward during such storms, reconstruction or persistence of structures at their prestorm locations can result in a loss of nesting habitat. Erosion — The designation of a Critically Eroded Beach is a planning requirement of the State's Beach Erosion Control Funding Assistance Program. A segment of beach shall first be designated as critically eroded in order to be eligible for State funding. A critically eroded area is a segment of shoreline where natural processes or human activity have caused or contributed to erosion and recession of the beach or dune system to such a degree that upland development, recreational interests,wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources are threatened or lost. Critically eroded areas may also include peripheral segments or gaps between identified critically eroded areas which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects (FDEP 2009). It is important to note, that for an erosion problem area to be critical, there shall exist a threat to or loss of one of four specific interests — upland development, recreation, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources. Beachfront Lighting— Artificial beachfront lighting may cause disorientation (loss of bearings) of sea turtle hatchlings. Artificial beachfront lighting is a documented cause of hatchling disorientation and misorientation on nesting beaches. The emergence from the nest and crawl to the sea is one of the most critical periods of a sea turtle's life. Hatchlings that do not make it to the sea quickly become food for ghost crabs, birds, and other predators, or become dehydrated and may never reach the sea. Some types of beachfront lighting attract hatchlings away from the sea while some lights cause adult turtles to avoid stretches of brightly illuminated beach. Research has documented significant reduction in sea turtle nesting activity on beaches 21 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 illuminated with artificial lights (Witherington 1992). During the 2007 sea turtle nesting season in Florida, over 64,000 turtle hatchlings were documented as being disoriented (FWC 2007). Exterior and interior lighting associated with condominiums had the greatest impact causing approximately 42 percent of documented hatchling disorientation. Other causes included urban sky glow and street lights (FWC 2007). Predation — Predation of sea turtle eggs and hatchlings by native and introduced species occurs on almost all nesting beaches. Predation by a variety of predators can considerably decrease sea turtle nest hatching success. The most common predators in the southeastern U.S. are ghost crabs, raccoons, feral hogs, foxes, coyotes, armadillos, and fire ants (Stancyk 1995). In the absence of nest protection programs in a number of locations throughout the southeast U.S., raccoons may depredate up to 96 percent of all nests deposited on a beach(Labisky et al. 1986). In response to increasing predation of sea turtle nests by coyotes, foxes, hogs, and raccoons, multiagency cooperative efforts have been initiated and are ongoing throughout Florida, particularly on public lands. Driving on the Beach—The operation of motor vehicles or equipment on the beach can affect sea turtle nesting by interrupting or striking a female turtle on the beach, headlights disorienting emergent hatchlings, vehicles running over hatchlings attempting to reach the ocean, and vehicle tracks traversing the beach which interfere with hatchlings crawling to the ocean. Hatchlings appear to become diverted not because they cannot physically climb out of the rut, but because the sides of the track cast a shadow and the hatchlings lose their line of sight to the ocean horizon (Mann 1977). The extended period of travel required to negotiate tire tracks and ruts may increase the susceptibility of hatchlings to dehydration and depredation during migration to the ocean (Hosier et al. 1981). Driving on the beach can cause sand compaction which may result in adverse impacts on nest site selection, digging behavior, clutch viability, and emergence by hatchlings, decreasing nest success and directly killing preemergent hatchlings (Mann 1977, Nelson and Dickerson 1987,Nelson 1988). The physical changes and loss of plant cover caused by vehicles on dunes can lead to various degrees of instability, and therefore encourage dune migration. As vehicles move either up or down a slope, sand is displaced downward, lowering the trail. Since the vehicles also inhibit plant growth, and open the area to wind erosion, dunes may become unstable, and begin to migrate. Unvegetated sand dunes may continue to migrate across stable areas as long as vehicle traffic continues. Vehicular traffic through dune breaches or low dunes on an eroding beach may cause an accelerated rate of overwash and beach erosion (Godfrey et al. 1978). If driving is required,the area where the least amount of impact occurs is the beach between the low and high tide water lines. Vegetation on the dunes can quickly reestablish provided the mechanical impact is removed. Climate Change — The varying and dynamic elements of climate science are inherently long term, complex, and interrelated. Regardless of the underlying causes of climate change, glacial melting and expansion of warming oceans are causing sea level rise, although its extent or rate cannot as yet be predicted with certainty. At present, the science is not exact enough to precisely predict when and where climate impacts will occur. Although we may know the direction of 22 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 change, it may not be possible to predict its precise timing or magnitude. These impacts may take place gradually or episodically in major leaps. Climate change is evident from observations of increases in average global air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising sea level, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report (IPCC 2007a). The IPCC Report (2007a) describes changes in natural ecosystems with potential widespread effects on many organisms, including marine mammals and migratory birds. The potential for rapid climate change poses a significant challenge for fish and wildlife conservation. Species' abundance and distribution are dynamic, relative to a variety of factors, including climate. As climate changes, the abundance and distribution of fish and wildlife will also change. Highly specialized or endemic species are likely to be most susceptible to the stresses of changing climate. Based on these findings and other similar studies, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) requires agencies under its direction to consider potential climate change effects as part of their long-range planning activities (USFWS 2007c). Gopher Tortoise Species/Critical Habitat Description The gopher tortoise is a dry-land turtle that lives in relatively well-drained sandy soils. They can be found in scrub, dry hammock, pine flatwoods, dry prairie, coastal grassland and dunes, mixed hardwood-pine communities and a variety of other habitats that have been disturbed or man- altered. Gopher tortoises can be found throughout the southeastern United States, including Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida and southern South Carolina. The majority being found in north-central Florida and southern Georgia. Gopher tortoises are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in Alabama west of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers, and in Mississippi and Louisiana. In all other areas of the gopher tortoises' range it is a candidate species for possible listing under the ESA. In Florida, the tortoise is state-listed as threatened and both the tortoise and the burrow are protected by state law. Threats to the gopher tortoise include habitat destruction and fragmentation, predation, inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, and incompatible use of herbicides. Life history/Population Dynamics Gopher tortoises are adept diggers. Burrows that gopher tortoises dig provide protection from predators and the elements. The tortoises are most active during the warmer months but spend the majority of their lives in their burrows. Each tortoise may dig and use many burrows. Each burrow can be three to fifty feet long and nine to twenty feet deep. The burrows also provide refuge for other species including but not limited to snakes, frogs, mice, skunks, opossums, rabbits, armadillo, and many invertebrates. Several of the species that utilize the burrows are also listed species. Gopher tortoises can live to approximately 80 years in the wild. They do not reach sexual maturity until 10-20 years old and have a low reproductive rate. They often lay their eggs at the entrance of their burrows to capture the heat. Only about three to five percent of young tortoises survive. 23 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Status and Distribution As stated above, Gopher tortoises can be found throughout the southeastern United States, including Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida and southern South Carolina. The majority are found in north-central Florida and southern Georgia. They live in well-drained sandy areas with sparse tree canopy and abundant low growing vegetation. They need large parcels of undeveloped land not fragmented by roads, buildings, and other structures. Road kill is one of the major causes of death in adult tortoises. Additionally, they can be killed and eaten or taken from their habitat as pets. Analysis of the Species/Critical Habitat likely to be affected The following broad categories of factors may ultimately affect the status and distribution of the gopher tortoise in the Action Area. Habitat Conservation — As noted above, the habitats used by the gopher tortoise are being fragmented by roads, buildings and other barriers to support a growing human population in the State of Florida. Demographic Concerns — It appears that the gopher tortoise population has declined range-wide as a result of current rates of habitat destruction and degradation. Habitat Loss/Habitat Degradation— The most threatening issue facing the survival and recovery of the gopher tortoise is habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from the conversion of suitable habitats to other uses. Human-induced Effects — Indirect adverse effects on the gopher tortoise are likely to occur in populations adjacent to or near human habitations. For example, individual encounters between humans and gopher tortoises are likely to result in increased mortality rates. Further, as remaining habitats are either lost or fragmented, increased pressure will be placed on resident individuals. Piping Plover Species/Critical Habitat Description The piping plover is a small,pale sand-colored shorebird, about 7 inches long with a wingspan of about 15 inches. The piping plover was listed as endangered in the Great Lakes watershed and threatened elsewhere within its range, including migratory routes outside of the Great Lakes watershed and wintering grounds on January 10, 1986. Piping plovers were listed principally because of habitat destruction and degradation,predation,and human disturbance. Protection of the species under the Act reflects the species' precarious status range-wide. Three separate breeding populations have been identified, each with its own recovery criteria: the northern Great Plains (threatened),the Great Lakes (endangered), and the Atlantic Coast(threatened). The piping plover winters in coastal areas of the U.S. from North Carolina to Texas, and along the coast of eastern Mexico and on Caribbean islands from Barbados to Cuba and the Bahamas. 24 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 The USFWS has designated critical habitat for the piping plover on three occasions. Critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding population was designated May 7, 2001 (66 Federal Register [FR] 22938), and critical habitat for the northern Great Plains breeding population was designated September 11, 2002 (67 FR 57637). The USFWS designated critical habitat for wintering piping plovers on July 10,2001 (66 FR 36038). Wintering piping plovers may include individuals from the Great Lakes and northern Great Plains breeding populations as well as birds that nest along the Atlantic Coast. The three separate designations of piping plover critical habitat demonstrate diversity of constituent elements between the two breeding populations as well as diversity of constituent elements between breeding and wintering populations. Designated wintering piping plover critical habitat originally included 142 areas though the rule erroneously states 137 units encompassing approximately 1,793 miles of mapped shoreline and 165,211 acres of mapped areas along the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Revised critical habitat units were published for units in North Carolina and Texas on October 21,2008 (73 FR 62816) and May 19, 2009 (74 FR 23476)respectively. The primary constituent elements(PCEs)for piping plover wintering habitat are those biological and physical features that are essential to the conservation of the species. The PCEs are those habitat components that support foraging,roosting,and sheltering,and the physical features necessary for maintaining the natural processes that support these habitat components. PCEs typically include those coastal areas that support intertidal beaches and flats,and associated dune systems and flats above annual high tide(USFWS 2001). PCEs of wintering piping plover critical habitat include sand or mud flats or both with no or sparse emergent vegetation. Adjacent unvegetated or sparsely vegetated sand,mud,or algal flats above high tide are also important,especially for roosting piping plovers (USFWS 2001). Important components of the beach/dune ecosystem include surf-cast algae, sparsely vegetated back beach and salterns, spits,and washover areas. Washover areas are broad, unvegetated zones,with little or no topographic relief,that are formed and maintained by the action of hurricanes, storm surge,or other extreme wave action. The units designated as critical habitat are those areas that have consistent use by piping plovers and that best meet the biological needs of the species. Life history/Population Dynamics Piping plovers live an average of 5 years, although studies have documented birds as old as 11 and 15 years. Piping plover breeding activity begins in mid-March when birds begin returning to their nesting areas (Coutu et al. 1990; Cross 1990; Goldin et al. 1990; Maclvor 1990; Hake 1993). Plovers are known to begin breeding as early as 1 year of age (Maclvor 1990; Haig 1992); however, the percentage of birds that breed in their first adult year is unknown. Piping plovers generally fledge only a single brood per season, but may re-nest several times if previous nests are lost. Plovers forage on moist substrate features such as intertidal portions of ocean beaches, washover areas, mudflats, sand flats, algal flats, shoals, wrack lines, sparse vegetation, and shorelines of coastal ponds, lagoons, and ephemeral pools, and adjacent to salt marshes. 25 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Behavioral observations of piping plovers on the wintering grounds suggest that they spend the majority of their time foraging (Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990a; Drake 1999a, 1999b). Feeding activities may occur during all hours of the day and night (Staine and Burger 1994; Zonick 1997), and at all stages in the tidal cycle (Goldin 1993a; Hoopes 1993). Wintering plovers primarily feed on invertebrates such as polychaete marine worms,various crustaceans, fly larvae, beetles, and occasionally bivalve mollusks (Bent 1929; Cairns 1977; Nicholls 1989; Zonick and Ryan 1996) found on top of the soil or just beneath the surface. Wintering piping plovers prefer coastal habitats that include sand spits, islets (small islands), tidal flats, shoals (usually flood tidal deltas), and sandbars that are often associated with inlets (Harrington 2008). Sandy mud flats, ephemeral pools, and overwash areas are also considered primary foraging habitats. These substrate types have a richer infauna than the foreshore of high energy beaches and often attract large numbers of shorebirds (Cohen et al. 2008). Wintering plovers are dependent on a mosaic of habitat patches and move among these patches depending on local weather and tidal conditions (Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990a). Plovers depart their breeding grounds for their wintering grounds between July and late August, but southward migration extends through November. Piping plovers use habitats in Florida primarily from July 15 through May 15. Both spring and fall migration routes of Atlantic Coast breeders are believed to occur primarily within a narrow zone along the Atlantic Coast (USFWS 1996). The pattern of both fall and spring counts at many Atlantic Coast sites demonstrates that many piping plovers make intermediate stopovers lasting from a few days up to 1 month during their migrations (Noel and Chandler 2005; Stucker and Cuthbert 2006). Information from observation of color-banded piping plovers indicates that the winter ranges of the breeding populations overlap to a significant degree. Cryptic coloration is a primary defense mechanism for piping plovers where nests, adults, and chicks all blend in with their typical beach surroundings. Piping plovers on wintering and migration grounds respond to intruders (e.g., pedestrian, avian, and mammalian) usually by squatting, running, and flushing(flying). Several studies identified wrack (organic material including seaweed, seashells, driftwood, and other materials deposited on beaches by tidal action) as an important component of roosting habitat for nonbreeding piping plovers. Lott et al. (2009) found greater than 90 percent of roosting piping plovers in southwest Florida in old wrack with the remainder roosting on dry sand. In South Carolina, 18 and 45 percent of roosting piping plovers were in fresh and old wrack, respectively. Thirty percent of roosting piping plovers in northwest Florida were observed in wrack substrates, with 49 percent roosting on dry sand and 20 percent using intertidal habitat(Smith 2007). The 2006 International Piping Plover Breeding Census, the last comprehensive survey throughout the breeding grounds, documented 3,497 breeding pairs with a total of 8,065 birds throughout Canada and the U.S, and a total of 454 in Florida (Elliott-Smith et al. 2009). The surveys covered approximately 760.5 miles and included 186 sites (Elliott-Smith et al 2009). The breakdown for the Gulf Coast of Florida was: 321 piping plovers at 117 sites covering approximately 522 miles of suitable habitat(Elliott-Smith et al 2009). 26 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Numbers for Florida can be further broken down into 3 regions along the Gulf Coast. The northwest Florida census area in the panhandle extends from the Alabama line to Jefferson County, the north Florida census area from Taylor County south to Manatee County, and southwest Florida from Sarasota County south to Key West National Wildlife Refuge. Northwest Florida numbers for the 2006 International Piping Plover Census were 111, with an increased survey effort from previous years. This represents an increase from the 53 piping plovers sighted in the 2001 effort. North Florida reported 96 birds and estimated an additional 40 from missing data sheets. There were 74 piping plovers located in southwest Florida as compared to 50 in the 2001 effort(Elliott-Smith et al 2009). Atlantic Coast population The Atlantic Coast piping plover breeds on coastal beaches from Newfoundland and southeastern Quebec to North Carolina. Historical population trends for the Atlantic Coast piping plover have been reconstructed from scattered, largely qualitative records. Nineteenth- century naturalists, such as Audubon and Wilson, described the piping plover as a common summer resident on Atlantic Coast beaches (Haig and Oring 1987). However, by the beginning of the twentieth century, egg collecting and uncontrolled hunting, primarily for the millinery trade, had greatly reduced the population, and in some areas along the Atlantic Coast, the piping plover was close to extirpation. Following passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA) in 1918, and changes in the fashion industry that no longer exploited wild birds for feathers, piping plover numbers recovered to some extent (Haig and Oring 1985). Available data suggest the most recent population decline began in the late 1940s or early 1950s (Haig and Oring 1985). Reports of local or statewide declines between 1950 and 1985 are numerous, and many are summarized by Cairns and McLaren (1980) and Haig and Oring(1985). While Wilcox (1939) estimated more than 500 pairs of piping plovers on Long Island, New York, the 1989 population estimate was 191 pairs (USFWS 1996). There was little focus on gathering quantitative data on piping plovers in Massachusetts through the late 1960s because the species was commonly observed and presumed to be secure. However, numbers of piping plover breeding pairs declined 50 to 100 percent at seven Massachusetts sites between the early 1970s and 1984 (Griffin and Melvin 1984). Piping plover surveys in the early years of the recovery effort found counts of these cryptically colored birds sometimes increased with increased census effort, suggesting some historic counts of piping plovers by one or more observers may have underestimated the piping plover population. Thus, the magnitude of the species decline may have been more severe than available numbers imply. Great Lakes population The Great Lakes plovers once nested on Great Lakes beaches in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario. Great Lakes piping plovers nest on wide, flat, open, sandy or cobble shoreline with very little grass or other vegetation. Reproduction is adversely affected by human disturbance of nesting areas and predation by foxes, gulls, crows and other avian species. Shoreline development, such as the construction of marinas, breakwaters, and other navigation structures, has adversely affected nesting and brood rearing. 27 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Northern Great Plains population The Northern Great Plains plover breeds from Alberta to Manitoba, Canada, and south to Nebraska; although some nesting has recently occurred in Oklahoma. Currently, the most westerly breeding piping plovers in the U.S. occur in Montana and Colorado. The decline of piping plovers on rivers in the Northern Great Plains has been largely attributed to the loss of sandbar island habitat and forage base due to dam construction and operation. Nesting occurs on sand flats or bare shorelines of rivers and lakes, including sandbar islands in the upper Missouri River system, and patches of sand, gravel, or pebbly-mud on the alkali lakes of the northern Great Plains. Plovers do nest on shorelines of reservoirs created by the dams, but reproductive success is often low and reservoir habitat is not available in many years due to high water levels or vegetation. Dams operated with steady constant flows allow vegetation to grow on potential nesting islands, making these sites unsuitable for nesting. Population declines in alkali wetlands are attributed to wetland drainage, contaminants, and predation. Status and Distribution Piping plovers spend up to 10 months of their life cycle on their migration and at wintering grounds, generally July 15 through as late as May 15. Piping plover migration routes and habitats overlap breeding and wintering habitats, and, unless banded, migrants passing through a site usually are indistinguishable from breeding or wintering piping plovers. Migration stopovers by banded piping plovers from the Great Lakes have been documented in New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina (Stucker and Cuthbert 2006). Migrating breeders from eastern Canada have been observed in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina (Amirault et al. 2005). As many as 85 staging piping plovers have been tallied at various sites in the Atlantic breeding range (Perkins 2008), but the composition (e.g., adults that nested nearby and their fledged young of the year versus migrants moving to or from sites farther north), stopover duration, and local movements are unknown. In general, distance between stopover locations and duration of stopovers throughout the coastal migration range remains poorly understood. Review of published records of piping plover sightings throughout North America by Pompei and Cuthbert (2004) found more than 3,400 fall and spring stopover records at 1,196 sites. Published reports indicated piping plovers do not concentrate in large numbers at inland sites and they seem to stop opportunistically. In most cases,reports of birds at inland sites were single individuals. Piping plovers migrate through and winter in coastal areas of the U.S. from North Carolina to Texas and in portions of Mexico and the Caribbean. Data based on four rangewide mid-winter (late January to early February) population surveys, conducted at 5-year intervals starting in 1991, show that total numbers have fluctuated over time, with some areas experiencing increases and others decreases. Regional and local fluctuations may reflect the quantity and quality of suitable foraging and roosting habitat, which vary over time in response to natural coastal formation processes as well as anthropogenic habitat changes (e.g., inlet relocation, dredging of shoals and spits). Fluctuations may also represent localized weather conditions (especially wind) during surveys, or unequal survey coverage. For example, airboats facilitated first-time surveys of several central Texas sites in 2006 (Elliott-Smith et al. 2009). Similarly, the increase in the 2006 numbers in the Bahamas is attributed to greatly increased census efforts; the extent of additional habitat not surveyed remains undetermined (Elliott-Smith et al. 2009). Changes in 28 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 wintering numbers may also be influenced by growth or decline in the particular breeding populations that concentrate their wintering distribution in a given area. Abundance estimates for non-breeding piping plovers may also be affected by the number of surveyor visits to the site. Preliminary analysis of detection rates by Maddock et al. (2009) found 87 percent detection during the midwinter period on core sites surveyed three times a month during fall and spring and one time per month during winter, compared with 42 percent detection on sites surveyed three times per year(Cohen 2009). The findings of Gratto-Trevor et al. (2009) provide evidence of differences in the wintering distribution of piping plovers from four separate breeding areas. However, the distribution of birds by breeding origin during migration remains largely unknown. Other major information gaps include the wintering locations of the U.S. Atlantic Coast breeding population (banding of U.S. Atlantic Coast piping plovers has been extremely limited) and the breeding origin of piping plovers wintering on Caribbean islands and in much of Mexico. The status of piping plovers on winter and migration grounds is difficult to assess, but threats to piping plover habitat used during winter and migration identified by the USFWS during its designation of critical habitat continue to affect the species. Unregulated motorized and pedestrian recreational use, inlet and shoreline stabilization projects, beach maintenance and nourishment, and pollution affect most winter and migration areas. Conservation efforts at some locations have likely resulted in the enhancement of wintering habitat. Analysis of the Species/Critical Habitat Likely to Be Affected The following general categories discuss threats to piping plovers, associated with their migration and wintering range. Exotic/invasive vegetation - A relatively recent identified threat to piping plover habitat is the spread of coastal invasive plants into suitable piping plover habitat. Like most invasive species, coastal exotic plants reproduce and spread quickly and exhibit dense growth habits, often outcompeting native plant species. If left uncontrolled, invasive plants cause a habitat shift from open or sparsely vegetated sand to dense vegetation, resulting in the loss or degradation of piping plover roosting habitat,which is especially important during high tides and migration periods. Inlet stabilization/relocation - Many navigable mainland or barrier island tidal inlets along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts are stabilized with jetties, groins, seawalls, and/or adjacent industrial or residential development. Inlet stabilization with rock jetties and associated channel dredging for navigation alter the dynamics of longshore sediment transport and affect the location and movement rate of barrier islands. Unstabilized inlets naturally migrate, reforming important habitat components, whereas jetties often trap sand and cause significant erosion of the downdrift shoreline. These combined actions can affect the availability of piping plover habitat. Tidal inlet relocation can also cause loss and/or degradation of piping plover habitat, although less permanent than construction of hard structures where effects can persist for years. 29 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Habitat Loss/Habitat Degradation - The most threatening issue facing the survival and recovery of the piping plovers is loss or degradation of shoreline habitats that are used as nesting,roosting, and foraging habitat. Throughout the range of migrating and wintering piping plovers, inlet and shoreline stabilization, inlet dredging, beach maintenance and nourishment activities, and seawall installations continue to constrain natural coastal processes. Dredging of inlets can affect spit formation adjacent to inlets and directly remove or affect ebb and flood tidal shoal formation. Jetties, which stabilize an island, cause island widening and subsequent growth of vegetation on inlet shores. Seawalls restrict natural island movement and exacerbate erosion. Construction of these projects during months when piping plovers are present also causes disturbance that disrupts the birds' foraging efficiency and hinders their ability to build fat reserves over the winter and in preparation for migration, as well as their recuperation from migratory flights. Sand mining/dredging - The practice of dredging sand from sand bars, shoals, and inlets in the nearshore zone, is a less expensive source of sand than obtaining sand from offshore shoals for beach nourishment. Sand bars and shoals are sand sources that move onshore over time and act as natural breakwaters. Inlet dredging reduces the formation of exposed ebb and flood tidal shoals considered to be primary or optimal piping plover roosting and foraging habitat. Removing these sand sources can alter depth contours and change wave refraction as well as cause localized erosion. Exposed shoals and sandbars are also valuable to piping plovers, as they tend to receive less human recreational use (because they are only accessible by boat) and therefore provide relatively less disturbed habitats for birds. Sand placement projects - Managers of lands under public, private, and county ownership often protect coastal structures using emergency storm berms which are frequently followed by beach nourishment or renourishment activities (nourishment projects are considered "soft" stabilization versus "hard" stabilization such as seawalls). Berm placement and beach nourishment projects deposit substantial amounts of sand along Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic beaches to protect local property in anticipation of preventing erosion and what otherwise will be considered natural processes of overwash and sand migration. Wrack removal and beach cleaning - There is increasing popularity for beach communities to carry out "beach cleaning" and "beach raking" actions. Beach cleaning occurs on private beaches, where piping plover use is not well documented, and on some municipal or county beaches that are used by piping plovers. Most wrack removal on State and Federal lands is limited to poststorm cleanup and does not occur regularly. These efforts remove accumulated wrack, topographic depressions, and sparse vegetation nodes used by roosting and foraging piping plovers. Removal of wrack also eliminates a beach's natural sand trapping abilities, further destabilizing the beach. In addition, sand adhering to seaweed and trapped in the cracks and crevices of wrack is removed from the beach. Tilling beaches to reduce soil compaction, as sometimes required by USFWS for sea turtle protection after beach nourishment activities, has similar effects. Sea turtle protection provisions in Florida now require tilling,when needed,to be conducted above the primary wrack line, not within it. Recreational disturbance - Intense human disturbance in shorebird winter habitat can be functionally equivalent to habitat loss if the disturbance prevents birds from using an area (Goss- 30 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Custard et al. 1996), which can lead to roost abandonment and local population declines (Burton et al. 1996). Disturbance (i.e., human and pet presence) that alters bird behavior can disrupt piping plovers as well as other shorebird species. Disturbance can be addressed by implementing recreational management techniques such as vehicle and pet restrictions and symbolic fencing (usually sign posts and string) of roosting and feeding habitats. In implementing conservation measures, managers need to consider a range of site specific factors, including the extent and quality of roosting and feeding habitats, and the types and intensity of recreational use patterns. In addition, educational materials such as informational signs or brochures can provide valuable information so that the public understands the need for conservation measures. Factors affecting the species environment within the action area Prior to the development of the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan, Clam Pass was dredged in 1996 and 1997. In accordance with the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan adopted in 1998, DEP permit 0128463-001-JC and Corps permit 199602789 (1P-CC) authorized periodic channel maintenance dredging events, which were undertaken in 1999, 2002, and 2007. Clam Pass closed in December 2012 following a cold front with sustained northerly winds and was subsequently re-opened in March 2013 under FDEP permit #0296087-001-JC and Corps Nationwide permit SAJ-1996-02789 (NWP-WDD). Based on dredging and sand placement activities, piping plovers have the potential to be affected due to habitat loss, sand placement, wrack removal, predation, contaminants, recreational disturbance,and storm events within the Action Area. Wood Stork Species/Critical Habitat Description Wood storks are one of two species of storks that breed in North America. This large, long- legged inhabitant of marshes, cypress swamps, and mangrove swamps reaches the northern limit of its breeding range in the southeastern U.S., where it breeds in colonies with great egrets, snowy egrets, white ibises, and many other species. The habitats on which wood storks depend have been disrupted by changes in the distribution, timing, and quantity of water flows in south Florida. The population declines that accompanied this disruption led to its listing as an endangered species and continue to hinder the recovery of this species in the U.S. No critical habitat has been designated for the wood stork. The wood stork is a large, long-legged wading bird,with a body length (head to tail) of 85 to 115 cm and a wingspan of 150 to 165 cm. Its plumage is white, except for iridescent black primary and secondary feathers and a short black tail. On adult wood storks, the rough scaly skin of the head and neck is unfeathered and blackish in color. Its legs are dark with dull pink toes. The bill color is blackish. Male and female wood storks are similar in appearance, although male wood storks tend to be larger, have longer wingspans and weigh more. Immature storks, up to the age of about 3 years, differ from adults in that their bills are yellowish or straw colored and they exhibit varying amounts of dusky feathering on the head and neck. During courtship and the early nesting season, adults have pale salmon coloring under the wings, fluffy undertail coverts 31 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 that are longer than the tail, and toes that brighten to a vivid pink. The wood stork is primarily associated with freshwater and estuarine habitats for nesting, roosting, and foraging. Wood storks typically construct their nests in medium to tall trees that occur in stands located either in swamps or on islands surrounded by relatively broad expanses of open water. Historically, wood storks in south Florida established breeding colonies primarily in large stands of bald cypress and red mangrove. During the nonbreeding season or while foraging, wood storks occur in a wide variety of wetland habitats. Typical foraging sites for the wood stork include freshwater marshes and stock ponds, shallow, seasonally flooded roadside or agricultural ditches, narrow tidal creeks or shallow tidal pools, managed impoundments, and depressions in cypress heads and swamp sloughs. Because of their specialized feeding behavior, wood storks forage most effectively in shallow-water areas with highly concentrated prey. With a diet comprised of small fish and macro-invertebrates (1-10 inches in length), feeding areas are shallow water bodies (2-18 inches deep) where prey becomes concentrated. Densities at feeding sites of 15-141 fish per square meter have been recorded. Sufficient hydroperiod is necessary to allow development of a fish population and, as a pond or depression dries, the storks feed by feeling in the shallow water with open bills. Storks may stir up the benthic vegetation with their feet and, as the prey move away, snap the bill shut. Using touch allows feeding in water of low visibility but requires a greater prey concentration. Storks will fly some distances between feeding and roosting sites. In south Florida, low, dry-season water levels are often necessary to concentrate fish to densities suitable for effective foraging by wood storks. As a result, wood storks will forage in many different shallow wetland depressions where fish become concentrated, either due to local reproduction by fishes or as a consequence of seasonal drying. The loss or degradation of wetlands in central and south Florida is one of the principal threats to the wood stork. Wood storks tend to use the same colony sites over many years, as long as the sites remain undisturbed and sufficient feeding habitat remains in the surrounding wetlands. Traditional wetland nesting sites may be abandoned by storks once local or regional drainage schemes remove surface water from beneath the colony trees. Maintaining adequate water levels to protect nests from predation is a critical factor affecting production of a colony. The lowered water levels allow nest access by raccoons and other land-based predators. As a result of such drainages and predation, many storks have shifted colony sites from natural to managed or impounded wetlands. Life history/Population Dynamics Wood storks are seasonally monogamous, probably forming a new pair bond every season. Three and 4-year-old birds have been documented to breed, but the average age of first breeding is unknown. Once wood storks reach sexual maturity, they are assumed to nest every year; there are no data on whether they breed for the remainder of their life or whether the interval between breeding attempts changes as they age. Wood storks construct their nests in trees that are usually standing in water or in trees that are on dry land if the land is a small island surrounded by water. The nests are large rigid structures usually found in the forks of large branches or limbs. The date on which wood storks begin nesting varies geographically. In Florida, wood storks lay eggs as early as October and as late as June. In general, earlier nesting occurs in the southern portion 32 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 of the state (below 27°N). Female wood storks lay a single clutch of eggs per breeding season. However, they will lay a second clutch if their nests fail early in the breeding season. Wood storks lay two to five (usually three) eggs depending on environmental conditions; presumably larger clutch size in some years are responses to favorable water levels and food resources. Once an egg has been laid in a nest, one member of the breeding pair never leaves the nest unguarded. Both parents are responsible for incubation and foraging. Incubation takes approximately 28 days, and begins after the first one or two eggs are laid; therefore egg-hatching is asynchronous. It takes about 9 weeks for the young to fledge; once they fledge, the young stay at the nest for an additional 3 to 4 weeks to be fed by their parents. The U.S. population of the wood stork was listed as endangered in 1984 because it had declined by more than 75 percent since the 1930s. The original listing recognized the relationship between the declining wood stork population, the loss of suitable foraging habitat, and colony nesting failures, particularly in the breeding colonies in south Florida where human actions have reduced wetland areas by about 35 percent. More recent survey data provided by USFWS (1997) in the wood stork recovery plan give a U.S. breeding population of 4,073 nests in 1991, 4,084 nests in 1992, 6,729 nests in 1993, 5,768 nests in 1994, and 7,853 nests in 1995. These data suggest that the breeding population of wood storks is increasing, although the number of nests per year varies considerably. Since the 1960s, the wood stork population has shown a substantial decline in southern Florida and a substantial increase in northern Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. On the average, the south Florida subpopulation represents 53 percent of the Florida population and 34 percent of the southeastern U.S. population. These data show a nesting population of 1,339 nests in 1991, 2,546 nests in 1993, 2,015 nests in 1994, and 2,639 nests in 1995. Most researchers agree that the decline of the U.S. wood stork population far exceeds the range of historic variability in total population size, and is correlated with water management activities in south Florida (Palmer 1962, Frederick 1993, Ogden 1996). During wet years, current water management practices prevent the formation of shallow pools that concentrate the fish on which wood storks forage. During dry years, current water management practices overdrain the freshwater sloughs, reduce freshwater flows into the mainland estuaries and reduce their ability to produce the fish on which wood storks forage. Prognosis of the U.S. wood stork population between 1996 and 2020 is partially dependent on the success of the overall South Florida Ecosystem restoration effort. The freshwater flows need to be restored to more closely mimic the pre-drainage system; it is believed that by restoring the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of flows in the remaining Everglades wetlands that the prey base so critical to wood storks during the breeding season will be recovered in both the estuarine and freshwater systems. Status and Distribution Breeding populations of the wood stork occur from northern Argentina, eastern Peru, and western Ecuador north to Central America, Mexico, Cuba, Hispaniola, and the U.S. In the U.S., wood storks historically nested in all coastal states between Texas and South Carolina. Currently, wood storks breed in Florida, Georgia, and coastal South Carolina. Post breeding storks from Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina disperse occasionally as far north as North Carolina and as far west as Mississippi and Alabama. 33 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 In south Florida, breeding colonies of the wood stork occur in Broward, Charlotte, Collier, Miami-Dade, Hardee, Indian River, Lee, Monroe, Osceola, Palm Beach, Polk, St. Lucie, and Sarasota counties. Wood storks have also nested in Martin County, and at one time or another, in every county in south Florida. It is believed that storks nesting in north Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina move south during the winter months (December through February). In some years, the inland marshes of the Everglades have supported the majority (55 percent) of the U.S. population of wood storks. Analysis of the Species/Critical Habitat Likely to Be Affected The following broad categories of factors may ultimately affect the status and distribution of the wood stork in the Action Area. Habitat Conversion - As noted above, nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats used by the wood stork are rapidly being altered to support a growing human population in the State of Florida. Demographic Concerns - South Florida populations can be expected to continue to decline as wetlands, marshes and estuarine systems are lost or as water management systems alter the volume and timing of water flows in these areas. Habitat Loss/Habitat Degradation - The most threatening issue facing the survival and recovery of the wood stork is loss or degradation of wetlands that are used as nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. Human-induced Effects— Indirect adverse effects are likely to occur in areas where water levels are artificially manipulated. For example, current water management practices prevent formation of shallow pools that concentrate fish on which wood storks forage. During dry years, current water management practices over-drain the freshwater sloughs, reduce freshwater flows into the mainland estuaries and reduce their ability to produce the fish on which wood storks forage. Florida Bonneted Bat Species/Critical Habitat Description The Florida bonneted bat was federally listed as an endangered species on October 2, 2013 (78 Federal Register [FR] 61003). The Florida bonneted bat is thought to be rare, with only a few nursery roosts documented. The Florida bonneted bat is the largest bat species in Florida. This species can be 6.5 inches in length and have a wingspan of 20 inches. It varies in color from black, to brown, to gray, to a cinnamon color. They typically feed on flying insects. No critical habitat has been established for this species,therefore none will be impacted. Life History/Population Dynamics There is very little information regarding the life history of the Florida bonneted bat. It is thought to have a very low reproduction rate, only giving birth to one off-spring each breeding 34 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 season however, there may be two breeding seasons per year. The bat is thought to have a lifespan of 10-20 years. The majority of roosts are found in non-native habitat or artificial roosts, such as bat houses. Typically the colonies are small consisting of one male and several females. Roosting can occur in tree cavities or in artificial structures such as bat houses or buildings. Foraging typically occurs in native habitats including hardwoods, pinelands and mangrove habitats, but golf courses and neighborhoods may also be utilized. The bats have only been found in south Florida in Lee, Collier, Charlotte and Miami-Dade counties. Status and Distribution Very little is known about the distribution of the Florida bonneted bat. To date they are found in extreme south Florida, having been documented in Charlotte, Lee, Collier, and Miami-Dade counties. There are many threats to the population of the bat. It has such a small range that the population is susceptible to decline as a result of natural disasters and diseases. Additionally, habitat loss and the use of pesticides pose threats to the population. Analysis of the Species/Critical Habitat Likely to Be Affected The following broad categories of factors may ultimately affect the status and distribution of the Florida bonneted bat in the Action Area. Habitat Conservation - As noted above, the USFWS believes that upland habitats used by the Florida bonneted bat are rapidly being converted to commercial, residential, and other uses to support a growing human population in the State of Florida. These man-made habitats seem to be utilized by the bat for roosting and foraging. Demographic Concerns - The limited distribution and small territory size of the Florida bonneted bat complicate evaluation of its population status and trends. Although the USFWS has no quantitative data with which to evaluate the trend of the bat in south Florida, it surmises the population as a whole is declining because of current rates of habitat destruction and degradation, and stress to the already limited population. Habitat Loss/Habitat Degradation — A significant threatening issue facing the survival and recovery of the Florida bonneted bat is habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from the conversion of suitable habitats to other uses. Human-induced Effects - Indirect adverse effects on the Florida bonneted bat are likely to occur in populations adjacent to or near human habitations. If remaining habitats are either lost or fragmented, increased pressure will be placed on resident individuals. The bat however, utilizes man-made structures for roosting and non-natural areas for foraging. Florida Panther Species/Critical Habitat Description The Florida panther, a subspecies of mountain lion, is one of the most endangered large mammals in the world. A small population in south Florida represents the only known remaining wild population of an animal that once ranged throughout most of the southeastern United States from Arkansas and Louisiana eastward across Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, 35 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Florida and parts of South Carolina and Tennessee. The panther presently occupies one of the least developed areas in the eastern United States - a contiguous system of large private ranches and public conservation lands in Broward, Collier, Glades, Hendry, Lee, Miami-Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach counties totaling more than 2 million acres. Geographic isolation, habitat loss, population decline, and associated inbreeding have resulted in a significant loss of genetic variability and overall health of the Florida panther population. The survival and recovery of the Florida panther is dependent upon: (1) protection and enhancement of the extant population, associated habitats, and prey resources; (2) improving genetic health and population viability; and (3) re-establishing at least two additional populations within the historic range. No critical habitat has been designated for the Florida panther. The Florida panther is a medium-sized puma or mountain lion that is described as being relatively dark tawny in color, with short, stiff hair (Bangs 1899), and having longer legs and smaller feet (Cory 1896) than other subspecies. Adult male panthers reach a length of 7 ft from their nose to the tip of their tail and may reach or exceed 150 lb in weight, but typically average around 120 lb. They stand approximately 24 to 28 inches at the shoulder. Female panthers are considerably smaller with an average weight of 75 lb and length of 6 ft. Florida panther kittens are gray with dark brown or blackish spots and five bands around the tail. Early radiotelemetry investigations indicated that panther(n=6) use of mixed swamp forests and hammock forests was greater than expected in relation to the availability of these vegetative communities within the panthers' home range area (Belden et al. 1988). As investigations expanded onto private lands between 1985 and 1990, it was determined that panthers (n=26) preferred native, upland forests, especially hardwood hammocks and pine flatwoods, over wetlands and disturbed habitats (Maehr et al. 1991a). Hardwood hammocks provide important habitat for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), an important panther prey species (Harlow 1959, Belden et al. 1988, Maehr 1990a, 1992a, Maehr et al. 1991a). Understory thickets of tall, almost impenetrable saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) have been identified as the most important resting and denning cover for panthers (Maehr 1990a). Agricultural and other disturbed habitats, freshwater marsh, thicket swamp, and mixed swamp are not preferred, and are either used in proportion to their availability or are avoided (Maehr 1990a). Panthers have not been found in pastures during daytime radiotelemetry flights but may travel through them at night(Maehr et al. 1991a, Maehr 1992a). Male and female panther home range size is inversely related to habitat quality; the greater the extent of agricultural land and wetland habitats the larger the home range, and the greater the extent of mixed hardwood forests and dry pine forests the smaller the home range. High-quality habitat produces abundant prey and influences female panther reproductive success (Maehr 1992b, Maehr et al. 1989b). The largest contiguous tract of panther habitat is in the Big Cypress Swamp/Everglades physiographic regions. Life history/Population Dynamics The pattern of Florida panther distribution involves several males maintaining large, mutually exclusive home ranges containing several adult females and their dependent offspring. This spatial arrangement seems to be a prerequisite for successful reproduction (Maehr 1993). Male Florida panthers are polygynous. Breeding activity peaks in fall and winter. Parturition is distributed throughout the year with 81 percent of births occurring between March and July(July having the greatest number of births). Litter sizes range from one to four kittens, with a mean of 36 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 2.2 kittens surviving to at least 6 months. Intervals between litters range from 16 to 37 months (Land 1994). Den sites are usually located in dense, understory vegetation, typically saw palmetto at distances greater than 0.6 mile away from roads (Maehr 1996). Den sites are used for up to 2 months by female panthers and their litters from parturition to weaning. Female panthers losing their litters generally produce replacement litters. Female Florida panthers have bred as young as 18 months of age and as late as 11 years of age. The first sexual encounters for males occur at about 3 years of age. Dispersal of young typically occurs around 1.5 to 2 years of age, but may occur as early as one year of age. Infant mortality is thought to be relatively high with fewer than half of all pregnancies resulting in offspring that survive beyond 6 months of age. Young panthers are considered recruited into the population when they have successfully reproduced. Females are readily recruited into the population as soon as they are capable of breeding (Maehr et al. 1991a). Males appear to have more difficulty being recruited. Without large areas of suitable habitat to accommodate dispersal, young males have few opportunities for recruitment as residents. As a result, the panthers' ability to increase and outbreed has been severely restricted. Successful male recruitment appears to depend on the death, or home range shift, of a resident adult male. Turnover in the breeding population is low, with documented mortality in radio-collared Florida panthers being greatest in subadult and non-resident males. Florida panther mortality (n=67) averaged 3.5 deaths per year from 1978 through June 30, 1998. Male panthers accounted for 57.6 percent of mortality. Sub-adult panthers (0 to 3 years) of both sexes accounted for 45.5 percent of mortality. Specific causes of panther mortality include road kill (37.9 percent), intraspecific aggression (21.2 percent), disease and old age (18.2 percent), causes unknown (12.1 percent), shootings (9.1 percent), and research related (1.5 percent) (Land and Taylor 1998). These mortality figures only include panthers endemic to south Florida, and not the introduced Texas cougars. Status and Distribution The only known, reproducing panther population is located in the Big Cypress Swamp/Everglades physiographic region of south Florida. The core of the breeding population is centered in Collier,Hendry and Miami-Dade counties. Radio-collared panthers have also been documented in Broward, DeSoto, Glades, Highlands, Lee, Monroe, Osceola, Palm Beach, and Polk counties. There are still large areas of privately owned land in Charlotte, Collier, Hendry, Lee, and Glades counties where uncollared individuals may reside (Maehr 1992b). Private lands account for approximately half the occupied panther range in south Florida. Of the 27 Puma concolor subspecies described in Hall (1981), the Florida panther is the only one remaining in the eastern U.S. The panther population in Florida numbered about 500 at the turn of the century(Seal et al. 1989). The Big Cypress population was estimated at 125 in 1969 (DOI 1969) and a south Florida population at 92 in 1972 (Schemnitz 1972). Radiotelemetry research began in 1981 and through 1983 was limited to Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve and Big Cypress National Preserve (Belden et al. 1988). The research program gradually expanded to include Everglades NP, Florida Panther NWR, Picayune Strand State Forest, Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest, the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed, and private lands in Collier, Hendry, and Lee counties. A total of 72 panthers (41 male, 31 female) have been radio-collared since telemetry research began in 1981. As of June 30, 1998 there were 30 panthers (14 male, 16 female) being monitored. 37 • Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Analysis of the Species/Critical Habitat Likely to Be Affected The following broad categories of factors may ultimately affect the status and distribution of the Florida panther in the Action Area. Habitat Conversion - As noted above, upland habitats used by the Florida panther are rapidly being converted to commercial, residential, and other uses to support a growing human population in the State of Florida. Demographic Concerns - Geographic isolation, habitat loss, population decline, and associated inbreeding have resulted in a significant loss of genetic variability and overall health of the Florida panther population. Habitat Loss/Habitat Degradation - The most threatening issue facing the survival and recovery of the Florida panther is habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from the conversion of suitable habitats to other uses. Human-induced Effects - Indirect adverse effects on the Florida panther are likely to occur as habitat loss and fragmentation geographically isolates panthers, resulting in inbreeding and, thus, a loss of genetic variability. West Indian Manatee Species/Critical Habitat Description Manatees, like the Florida panther, were listed in 1967 under the original endangered species list (32 FR 4001). Manatees have large, seal-shaped bodies with paired flippers and a round,paddle- shaped tail. They are typically grey in color (color can range from black to light brown) and occasionally spotted with barnacles or colored by patches of green or red algae. The muzzle is heavily whiskered and coarse, single hairs are sparsely distributed throughout the body. Adult manatees, on average, are about nine feet long and weigh about 1,000 pounds. At birth, calves are between three and four feet long and weigh between 40 and 60 pounds. Florida manatees are found in freshwater, brackish, and marine environments. Typical coastal and inland habitats include coastal tidal rivers and streams, mangrove swamps, salt marshes, freshwater springs, and vegetated bottoms (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2007). As herbivores, manatees feed on the wide range of aquatic vegetation that these habitats provide. Shallow seagrass beds, with ready access to deep channels, are generally preferred feeding areas in coastal and riverine habitats (Smith 1993). In coastal northeastern Florida, manatees feed in salt marshes on smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) by timing feeding periods with high tide (Zoodsma 1991). Manatees use springs and freshwater runoff sites for drinking water; secluded canals, creeks, embayments, and lagoons for resting, cavorting, mating, calving and nurturing their young; and open waterways and channels as travel corridors (Gannon et al. 2007). Manatees occupy different habitats during various times of the year, with a focus on warm-water sites during winter. Most of the manatee-accessible waters in peninsular Florida from the St. Mary's River on the Atlantic Coast to Crystal River on the Gulf Coast, as well as the St. Johns River watershed, are 38 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 designated as critical habitat (50 CFR Part 17.95(a)). However, the most important element of that habitat is the availability of warm water during winter months. This warm water habitat influences the geographic extent of the species' range and is necessary for the species' survival during cold periods. Potential loss of this habitat is one of the most significant threats to the species. Other habitat components such as seagrasses and other aquatic food plants are not known to be limiting to manatee populations. Life history/Population Dynamics Manatees have also adapted to changing ecosystems in Florida. Industrial warm-water discharges and deep-dredged areas are used as wintering sites, stormwater/freshwater discharges provide manatees with drinking water, and the imported exotic plant, Hydrilla sp. (which has replaced native aquatic species in some areas), has become an important food source at wintering sites (Smith 1993). Manatees are herbivores that feed opportunistically on a wide variety of marine, estuarine, and freshwater plants, including submerged, floating, and emergent vegetation. Common forage plants include and are not limited to: cord grass, alga, turtle grass, shoal grass, manatee grass, eel grass, and other plant types. (Calves initially suckle and may start feeding on plants when a few months of age. Weaning generally takes place within a year of birth.) Manatees also require sources freshwater, obtained from both natural and anthropogenic sources. Manatees mature at three to five years of age. Mature females go into heat for anywhere from two to four weeks. Mating activity can occur throughout the year. When in heat, females will attract numerous males and mate repeatedly; aggregations that include an estrus or focal female and numerous males are described as mating herds. Gestation lasts for about 13 months and cows usually give birth to a single calf; twinning is known to occur. While calving primarily peaks in the spring, calves may be born at any time of the year. Reproductive senescence is poorly described; a known female has given birth to seven individual calves over a period of about 30 years. A calf may remain with its mother for about two years. Calving intervals range from two and three years. The oldest known manatee is 65 years of age. The most current published information of Florida manatee population dynamics indicate that, with the exception of southwest Florida, manatee populations are increasing or stable throughout the state. However, Langtimm et al. (2004) reported that adult survival rates for Southwest Florida used in those analyses could be biased low due to effects from temporary emigration. The most recent synoptic survey, conducted in January 2014, recorded approximately 4,824 manatees (FWC FWRI Manatee Synoptic Aerial Surveys 2014). The highest count ever recorded was 5,077 manatees in 2010. Status and Distribution The Florida manatees' range is generally restricted to the southeastern United States; individuals occasionally range as far north as Massachusetts and as far west as Texas. Antillean manatees are found in coastal and riverine systems in South and Central America (from Brazil to Mexico) and in the Greater and Lesser Antilles throughout the Caribbean Basin. Due to a variety of human activities (hunting, loss of habitat, etc.), manatees have been extirpated from many areas and their distribution is patchy throughout the region. USFWS recovery activities primarily focus on manatees in Florida and Puerto Rico, although the species is managed throughout its range. 39 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Analysis of the Species/Critical Habitat Likely to Be Affected The following broad categories of factors may ultimately affect the status and distribution of the manatees in the Action Area. Threats to the Florida manatee encompass anthropogenic factors and catastrophic, natural events that could cause declines in reproductive and survival rates or loss and degradation of habitat. The future of the Florida manatee is also jeopardized by the predicted loss and deterioration of warm-water habitat, caused by retirement of or changes in the operations of aging power plants and reductions in natural spring flows. Threats that can be determined through necropsy of manatee carcasses over the past 10 years are depicted in Figure 2. A recent assessment of threats to the Florida manatee indicated that watercraft-related mortality had the greatest impact on manatee population growth and resilience and that, particularly in the long term, loss of warm water was also a substantial threat(Runge et al. 2007b). Watercraft collisions—The largest known cause of human-related manatee mortality in Florida is watercraft collision. Watercraft strikes result in numerous injuries and deaths each year. Watercraft collisions account for approximately 25% of all documented manatee deaths since 1976 (and 35% of documented deaths of known cause), and are the single greatest known cause of mortality(Deutsch et al. 2002). Loss of warm-water habitat— Expected changes in the network of warm-water refuges over the next several decades present one of the most serious long-term threats to manatees in Florida. As noted in the federal Florida Manatee Recovery Plan, "one of the greatest threats to the continued existence of the Florida manatee is the stability and longevity of warm-water refuges" (USFWS 2001, p. 28). Other anthropogenic threats — Other human-related causes of manatee death and injury include entrapment in water-culvert pipes, crushing (in flood-control structures, in canal locks, or between large ships and wharfs), entanglement in fishing gear or debris, and incidental ingestion of debris (Ackerman et al. 1995). Together, these other human-related causes accounted for approximately 6%of all documented manatee deaths over the past two decades. Loss of forage plants — Human population growth in coastal Florida over the past half century has resulted in drastic losses of coastal wetland habitats. Seagrass distribution and abundance in many estuaries have declined as the result of direct human impacts (e.g., dredge-and-fill activities, propeller scarring) and indirect effects of development (declining water quality and nutrient loading). It will be particularly important to protect, restore, and maintain aquatic vegetation communities in the vicinity of warm-water aggregation sites. Harmful algal blooms —Naturally occurring catastrophic threats to manatees include prolonged periods of very cold temperatures, hurricanes, harmful algal blooms (i.e., "red tide"), and the potential for a disease epizootic. The threat from extended periods of cold weather relates to the availability and quality of warm-water habitat, which has already been discussed above. 40 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Manatees on Florida's Gulf coast are frequently exposed to brevetoxin, a potent neurotoxin produced by the dinoflagellate Karenia brevis during red tide events. Red tide represents a major natural source of mortality for manatees in the southwest region. Exposure to pathogens — In addition to red tide, manatees could potentially be exposed to pathogens. Spread of such pathogens could be particularly rapid during winter when manatees are concentrated in warm-water refuges. Large-scale mortality events caused by disease or toxins have decimated other populations of marine mammals, including seals and dolphins, removing 50%or more of the individuals in some events (Harwood and Hall 1990). Hurricanes — Another type of phenomenon that can potentially impact manatee populations are hurricanes. In the Northwest region, Langtimm and Beck (2003) found that adult survival rates were depressed in years with severe storms or hurricanes. The mechanisms underlying the lower survival probabilities were unknown as there was not a corresponding elevation in the number of reported carcasses. Such events could also result in large-scale emigration out of the affected region. Smalltooth Sawfish Species/Critical Habitat Description The smalltooth sawfish is a tropical marine and estuarine elasmobranch fish (sharks and rays) that has been reported to have a circumtropical distribution. Although they are rays, sawfish physically more closely resemble sharks, with only the trunk and especially the head ventrally flattened. Smalltooth sawfish are characterized by their "saw," a long, narrow, flattened rostral blade with a series of transverse teeth along either edge. In the western Atlantic, the smalltooth sawfish has been reported from Brazil through the Caribbean and Central America, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic coast of the United States. Smalltooth sawfish are euryhaline, occurring in waters with a broad range of salinities from freshwater to full seawater. Their occurrence in freshwater is suspected to be only in estuarine areas where salinity is temporarily reduced as a result of receiving high levels of freshwater input. Many encounters are reported at the mouths of rivers or other sources of freshwater inflows, suggesting estuarine areas may be an important factor in the species distribution (Simpfendorfer and Wiley 2004). Smalltooth sawfish feed primarily on fish, with mullet, jacks, and ladyfish believed to be their primary food resources (Simpfendorfer 2001). By moving its saw rapidly from side to side through the water, the relatively slow-moving sawfish is able to strike at individual fish. The teeth on the saw stun, impale, injure, or kill the fish. Smalltooth sawfish then rub their saw against bottom substrate to remove the fish, which are then eaten. In addition to fish, smalltooth sawfish also prey on crustaceans (mostly shrimp and crabs), which are located by disturbing bottom sediment with their saw. Critical habitat was established in 2009 (74 FR 45353) in the Charlotte Harbor Estuary and Ten Thousand Islands/ Everglades Estuary. The designation is meant to specifically protect red mangrove habitat and shallow euryhaline habitat that is essential to juvenile smalltooth sawfish 41 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 as nursery habitat. No physical or biological features could be identified as essential to adult sawfish. Life history/Population Dynamics Few long-term abundance data exist for the smalltooth sawfish, making it very difficult to estimate the current population size. However, Simpfendorfer (2001) estimated that the U.S. population may number less than five percent of historic levels, based on anecdotal data and the fact that the species' range has contracted by nearly 90 percent,with south and southwest Florida the only areas known to support a reproducing population. The decline in the population of smalltooth sawfish is attributed to fishing (both commercial and recreational), habitat modification, and sawfish life history. Large numbers of smalltooth sawfish were caught as bycatch in the early part of this century. Smalltooth sawfish were historically caught as bycatch in various fishing gears throughout their historic range. Frequent accounts in earlier literature document smalltooth sawfish being entangled in fishing nets from areas where smalltooth sawfish were once common but are now rare or extirpated. Loss and/or degradation of habitat contributed to the decline of many marine species and continues to impact the distribution and abundance of smalltooth sawfish. Since actual abundance data are limited, researchers have begun to compile capture and sightings data (collectively referred to as encounter data) in the National Sawfish Encounter Database (NSED) that was developed in 2000. Since the conception of the NSED, over 3,000 smalltooth sawfish encounters have been reported and compiled in the encounter database (NSED 2012). Although this data cannot be used to assess the population because of the opportunistic nature in which they are collected (i.e., encounter data are a series of random occurrences rather than an evenly distributed search over a defined period of time), researchers can use this database to assess the spatial and temporal distribution of smalltooth sawfish. Status and Distribution The majority of smalltooth sawfish encounters today are from the southwest coast of Florida between the Caloosahatchee River and Florida Bay. Outside of this core area, the smalltooth sawfish appears more common on the west coast of Florida and in the Florida Keys than on the east coast, and occurrences decrease the greater the distance from the core area (Simpfendorfer and Wiley 2004). The capture of a smalltooth sawfish off Georgia in 2002 is the first record north of Florida since 1963. New reports during 2004 extend the current range of the species to Panama City, offshore Louisiana (south of Timbalier Island in 100 ft of water), southern Texas, and the northern coast of Cuba. Despite the lack of scientific data on abundance, recent encounters with young-of-the-year, older juveniles, and sexually mature smalltooth sawfish indicate that the U.S. population is currently reproducing (Seitz and Poulakis 2002; Simpfendorfer 2003). The abundance of juveniles encountered, including very small individuals, suggests that the population remains viable. Also, the declining numbers of individuals with increasing size is consistent with the historic size composition data(Simpfendorfer and Wiley 2004). The effective population size, the number of animals in the population that produce offspring was recently estimated to be between 250 and 350 individuals (Chapman et al. 2011). Given the 42 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 small effective population size and the increasing number of neonates produced, inbreeding depression was suspected to be a concern for smalltooth sawfish. Given the degree of decline and range contraction that smalltooth sawfish have experienced over the last few generations, it was originally hypothesized that the remnant smalltooth sawfish population had experienced a genetic bottleneck. However, an analysis of tissue samples collected under a recent study indicates that inbreeding is rare (Chapman et al. 2011). The status and trends and recent encounters in new areas beyond the core abundance area suggest that the population may be increasing. However, smalltooth sawfish encounters are still rare along much of their historical range and they are thought to be extirpated from areas of historical abundance such as the Indian River Lagoon and John's Pass (Simpfendorfer and Wiley 2004). Analysis of the Species/Critical Habitat Likely to Be Affected The following broad categories of factors may ultimately affect the status and distribution of the smalltooth sawfish in the Action Area. Agriculture/Landscaping—Agricultural activities convert wetlands and shed nutrient,pesticide, and sediment-laden runoff. These in turn lead to excessive eutrophication, hypoxia, increased sedimentation and turbidity, stimulation of hazardous algal blooms, and delivery of chemical pollutants (SAFMC 1998). Coastal and Urban Development—Threats from development include loss of wetlands,point and non-point sources of toxins, eutrophication, and hydrologic modification. Since the mid 1980s, rates of habitat loss have been decreasing, but habitat loss continues. A major concern is the destruction of wetlands by filling for urban and suburban development. In addition, seawalls and canals for waterfront homes have replaced marsh and mangrove intertidal shorelines and shallow estuarine waters. Where beachfront development occurs, the site is often fortified to protect the property from erosion. Beach armoring is a common type of construction that includes sea walls, rock revetments, riprap, sandbag installations, groins and jetties. In Florida, coastal development often involves the removal of mangroves and the armoring of shorelines through seawall construction. Direct destruction of mangrove habitat is no longer allowed without permits, but indirect damage to mangrove habitat from increased urbanization and the resulting overall habitat degradation still occurs. Dredging — Modifications of natural freshwater flows into estuarine and marine waters through construction of canals and other controlled devices have changed temperature, salinity, and nutrient regimes; reduced both wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation; and degraded vast areas of coastal habitat. Profound impacts to hydrological regimes have been produced in South Florida through the construction of a 1,400 mile network of canals, levees, locks, and other water control structures which modulate freshwater flow from Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades, and other coastal areas. Dredges are used to maintain these canals and shipping channels. While these modifications of habitat are not the primary reason for the decline of smalltooth sawfish abundance, it is likely a contributing factor and almost certainly hampers the recovery of the species. 43 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Fisheries Bycatch—Bycatch mortality is cited as the primary cause for the decline in smalltooth sawfish in the United States (NMFS 2010). Large-scale directed fisheries for smalltooth sawfish have not existed but historically, smalltooth sawfish were often bycatch in various fishing applications. Reports of smalltooth sawfish becoming entangled in fishing nets are common in early literature from areas where smalltooth sawfish were once common, but are now rare, if not extirpated. Climate Change — Changes to the global climate are likely to be a threat to smalltooth sawfish and the habitats they use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that global climate change is unequivocal (IPCC 2007) and its impacts to coastal resources may be significant. Some of the likely effects commonly mentioned are sea level rise, increased frequency of severe weather events, changes in the amount and timing of precipitation, and changes in air and water temperatures (NOAA 2012). Sea level rise could impact mangrove resources, as sediment surface elevations for mangroves will likely not keep pace with projected rates of elevation in sea level (Gilman et al. 2008). Sea level increases could also affect the amount of shallow water available for juvenile smalltooth sawfish nursery habitat, especially in areas where there is shoreline armoring (e.g., seawalls). Further, the changes in precipitation coupled with sea level rise may also alter salinities of coastal habitats, reducing the amount of available smalltooth sawfish nursery habitat. III. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE Action Area As stated earlier, the action area is identified as the entire Clam Bay NRPA area including dredge template(s), sand fill template(s), beach corridors, pipeline corridors, staging areas, upland disposal sites, and extending up to 300 feet offshore within 0.5 mile around the Pass. The majority of the currently proposed impacts are associated with the maintenance dredging of Clam Pass and maintenance of the network of hand dug flushing channels distributed throughout the system. Ecological enhancements associated with this work are widespread throughout the system. Presence of the Species in the Action Area American Crocodile No crocodiles have been observed within the Clam Bay NRPA during the past 15 years of biological monitoring that has been conducted, though the presence of appropriate habitat types makes it suitable for crocodiles. Anecdotal sightings have been passed on by residents within the community though none of these sightings has been verified. Documented sightings both north (Sanibel Island) and south (Marco Island) of the Clam Bay NRPA lend credence to the possibility that crocodiles could travel through the area and pass through the NRPA. The Clam Bay NRPA contains 359.56 acres of mangrove swamp, 2.35 acres of saltwater marsh, 8.05 acres of tidal flats, and 129.73 acres of creeks and bays which are suitable crocodile habitat. 44 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Eastern Indigo Snake Eastern indigo snakes are frequently associated with high, dry, well-drained soils and have been documented using inactive gopher tortoise burrows. Gopher tortoise burrows have been found on site within the coastal strand (FLUCCS code 322 Coastal Scrub and 428 Cabbage Palm Hammock, see Exhibit 3 attached) portions of the Clam Bay NRPA. No eastern indigo snakes have been observed on-site, but the presence of gopher tortoise burrows on-site indicates that this area may be suitable for eastern indigo snakes. The Clam Bay NRPA contains 24.81 acres of coastal strand habitat which, will not be affected by the placement of spoil on the beach. Sea Turtles Sea turtle nesting has historically occurred along the beaches both north and south of Clam Pass. The most current 2014 data from the Collier County Sea Turtle Protection program are that 172 loggerhead sea turtle nests were laid on Vanderbilt Beach (4.7 miles of beach north of Clam Pass) of which 167 are documented as hatching. In addition, 160 loggerhead nests were documented on the Park Shore beach (approximately 3.2 miles south of Clam Pass) of which 152 were noted as hatching. Gopher Tortoise Gopher tortoise burrows have been found on site within the coastal strand (FLUCCS code 322 Coastal Scrub and 428 Cabbage Palm Hammock, see Exhibit 3 attached) portions of the Clam Bay NRPA. Gopher tortoises and their burrows have been observed on-site. The Clam Bay NRPA contains 24.81 acres of coastal strand habitat, none of which will be affected by the placement of spoil on the beach. Prior to commencement of dredging activities, all active and in- active gopher tortoise burrows within 50 feet of any work areas or travel corridors will be located and a 25 foot buffer established. Piping Plover Shorebird monitoring efforts have been undertaken in the proposed action area since January 2013 by Turrell, Hall and Associates in association with the previous maintenance dredging event. In addition, some data exist based on a beach nourishment project conducted along portions of Vanderbilt Beach, Park Shore Beach, and Naples City Beach in 2006. These surveys were conducted by the Conservancy of Southwest Florida between February 10 and May 30, 2006, (construction phase) and from June 1, 2006, to September 30, 2008 (post-construction). The bi-monthly surveys documented a total of 25 species and a total of 5,410 birds (Addison 2008). Although no piping plovers were observed during these surveys, piping plover PCEs are present throughout the proposed action area. Wood Stork According to the USFWS, Corkscrew Swamp, located about 16 miles northeast of the Clam Bay NRPA, is home to the largest wood stork rookery in the United States. Wood storks have been 45 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 observed foraging in the swale along the far eastern boundary of the NRPA boundary. Wood storks have also been observed foraging along the tidal flat areas just south of the central boardwalk and within the Pass channel in 2013 when the Pass had closed. Wood storks are not common visitors to the tidally influenced portions of the system but are occasional visitors. They are much more common along the berm and swale that defines the eastern boundary of the NRPA. Florida Bonneted Bat No Florida bonneted bats have been observed on-site, but the presence of the mangroves on-site indicates that this area may be suitable for the bat. Florida bonneted bats can utilize mangrove areas for foraging of flying insects. Approximately 359.56 acres of mangrove swamp occur within the Clam Bay NRPA, which acts as suitable foraging habitat for the bat. The size of the bat requires that natural roosts be very large trees, of which there are few within the Clam Bay NRPA. The mangrove area within the Clam Bay NRPA will not be affected by the placement of spoil on the beach. Florida Panther No panthers have been observed within the Clam Bay NRPA in the recent history of biological monitoring though there was a historical sighting on one of the boardwalks about 20 years ago. A young male panther was documented on KeeWadin Island (south of the project site) in 2007 after having swum out to it. Given the location of the project site and the surrounding development it is highly unlikely that a panther would stray into the NRPA but not impossible. The Clam Bay NRPA contains approximately 37 acres of coastal and tidal habitats which could be utilized by panthers should one roam into the Action Area. Florida Manatee Manatees have been observed within the Clam Bay NRPA on multiple occasions. Both adults and adults with young have been observed. Several occurrences of manatees becoming temporarily stranded on the ebb shoal of the Pass have been documented in the past few years (2009, 2012, and 2014). While seagrass type and scarcity within the system do not make this a viable regular foraging area, the isolation of the bays do make it a good resting stopover for animals that may be moving up or down the coast. Smalltooth Sawfish Juvenile sawfish (<3 feet long) have been observed within the Clam Bay NRPA on multiple occasions. The most recent observances have been in Outer Clam Bay in 2014 and under the central boardwalk in 2013. Factors Affecting Species Environment within the Action Area Clam Pass is a small, marginally stable inlet that has migrated north and south along the shore over the years. Prior to dredging, average water depths of Clam Pass were -2.5' to -1.0', and its 46 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 width ranged from 30-50' (Collier County, 1994). The Pass remains the primary source of tidal exchange for the Clam Bay system, but it is restricted by sediment deposits just inside the Pass and in the long meandering tidal creeks surrounded by mangrove forests. The Pass is susceptible to outside events and can periodically close, which has happened six times in the last 25 years, most recently in late 2012. The health of the mangrove forest is directly related to the connection at Clam Pass. The exchange of seawater between Clam Pass and the Gulf is critical to the ability of the estuary to export organic matter, as well as to help regulate excess salt and freshwater. It also supplies oxygen-rich water from the Gulf and keeps metabolic wastes from accumulating. American Crocodile Approximately 359.56 acres of mangrove swamp, 2.35 acres of saltwater marsh, 8.05 acres of tidal flats and 129.73 acres of creeks and bays of the Clam Bay NRPA provide appropriate crocodile habitat. These habitats will be impacted by the dredging of Pass itself and the interconnecting creeks that connect the Pass with the bays. Dredging activities and spoil disposal is proposed within a portion of these habitats, however it is expected to have little, if any, effect on the American crocodile or its suitable habitat. Prior to commencement of dredging activities, a survey for crocodiles in the area will be completed. Eastern Indigo Snake Approximately 24.81 acres of coastal strand habitat that is utilized by gopher tortoises, and therefore potentially utilized by the eastern indigo snake, is managed as part of the Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan. All dredging activities and spoil disposal is proposed outside of these habitats, thereby having little, if any, effect on the eastern indigo snake or its suitable habitat. Prior to commencement of dredging activities, all active and in-active gopher tortoise burrows within 50 feet of the work area will be located and a 25' buffer established. Sea Turtles Sea turtles are known to nest on the beaches adjacent to Clam Pass. Approximately 33.35 acres of beach and dune system are encompassed within the NRPA Boundary (Action Area). Spoil placement resulting from the proposed dredging of the Pass will potentially occur on stretches of the beach approximately 1500 feet north and 2800 feet south of the Pass. It is anticipated that sand placement will be done outside of the sea turtle nesting season unless an emergency situation necessitates re-opening of a Pass closure during the nesting season. In such a case, coordination will be undertaken with the appropriate wildlife agency personnel to identify, protect, and if necessary, relocate, any sea turtle nests that may be present within the emergency work area. Gopher Tortoise Gopher tortoises and their burrows have been observed on-site. The Clam Bay NRPA contains 24.81 acres of coastal strand habitat, none of which will be affected by the placement of spoil on 47 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 the beach. Prior to commencement of dredging activities, all active and inactive gopher tortoise burrows within 50 feet of any work areas or travel corridors will be located and a 25' buffer established. Population data on tortoises within the NRPA boundaries will be collected periodically to look for trends and to help determine potential impacts associated with future management or catastrophic actions that may occur. Piping Plover Although no piping plovers were observed during these surveys, piping plover PCEs are present throughout the proposed action area. These PCEs are dependent on the tidal exchange and fluctuations to make the foraging habitat available. Beach habitat may be temporarily impacted during the dredging and spoil placement activities but will recover. Wood Stork Approximately 10.4 acres of brackish marsh and tidal flat habitat are present where foraging is most likely to occur. The proposed Pass dredging and sand placement will have no direct impact on any of the areas where foraging and roosting activities have been observed. The hand dug channels provide concentration areas that enhance wood stork foraging opportunities. Maintenance of these is important in preserving this benefit. Florida Bonneted Bat Florida bonneted bats can utilize mangrove areas for foraging of flying insects. Approximately 359.56 acres of mangrove swamp occur within the Clam Bay NRPA, which can serve as foraging habitat for the bat. The size of the bat requires that natural roosts be very large trees, of which there are few within the Clam Bay NRPA. No Florida bonneted bats have been observed on-site, but the presence of the mangroves on-site indicates that this area may be suitable for the bat. The mangrove area within the Clam Bay NRPA will not be affected by the placement of spoil on the beach. Florida Panther Panthers are not a likely inhabitant of the Clam bay NRPA. None of the actions proposed will affect any of the habitat that is currently suitable for panther utilization. Florida Manatee There are approximately 130 acres of open waters in the Clam Bay NRPA through which manatees can travel. Seagrass coverage varies from year to year with estimates ranging generally between 2 and 5 acres. The closure of Clam Pass has the potential of trapping manatees within the bays or of denying manatee access to the bays if they are traveling along the coast. Manatee protections will be put in place during any in water work and all work will be stopped if manatees enter the work area(s). 48 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Smalltooth Sawfish Sawfish have access to the 130 acres of open waters as well as the 370 acres of mangrove and other tidal habitats. The closure of Clam Pass has the potential of trapping sawfish within the bays as well as blocking access to the estuary for juveniles and adults looking for nursery habitat. IV. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION This section includes an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on the species and critical habitat and their interrelated and interdependent activities. To determine whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species in the Action Area, focus is on consequences of the proposed action that affect rates of birth, death, immigration, and emigration because the probability of extinction in plant and animal populations is most sensitive to changes in these rates. American Crocodile Effects of the Project on the American crocodile are expected to be minimal or non-existent. No evidence of any crocodile presence or utilization has been documented within the Action Area. Direct Effects Project construction is not likely to result in the direct "take" of an American crocodile. The probability of direct incidental take is dependent upon the number of crocodiles in the Project area and available, suitable habitat. Considering fact that no crocodiles have been observed on site, and the fact that crocodile habitat on site is minimal at best, the Project is not likely to have a direct effect on the American crocodile. Indirect Effects The indirect effects of the Project on the American crocodile are anticipated to be minimal. Construction of the Project will allow for continued access and utilization to potential crocodile habitat within the NRPA. Cumulative Effects Considering the permitting required for any future work efforts within the Action Area, there will be no negative cumulative effects on the crocodile as a result of the proposed project. Any other like activities within the Action Area will have to undergo similar federal review and any potential impacts will be addressed at that time. Eastern Indigo Snake Effects of the Project on the eastern indigo snake may occur both as direct and indirect effects. Direct Effects Project construction is not likely to result in the direct "take" of an eastern indigo snake. The probability of direct incidental take is dependent upon the number of indigos in the Project area 49 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 and available, suitable habitat. Although gopher tortoise burrows have been found on site, no indigo snakes have been observed. An indigo snake management plan for use during construction activities will be prepared. Considering this plan, the fact that no indigos have been observed on site, and the fact that indigo habitat on site will not be degraded by the proposed activities,the Project is not likely to have a direct effect on the eastern indigo snake. Indirect Effects Given the current conditions of the Project site and surrounding area as described above, the indirect effects of the Project on the eastern indigo snake are anticipated to be minimal. Construction of the Project may encourage additional recreational utilization which could increase the possibility of human and snake interactions. Preservation of existing habitat education of visitors on the importance of indigo snakes will minimize the potential for these adverse interactions. Cumulative Effects As stated above, the Project is occurring in an already highly used coastal beach area which is all preserved within the NRPA boundary,thereby adding minimal additional cumulative impact. Sea Turtles The proposed project will occur within habitat that is used by sea turtles for nesting and, while not currently proposed, under emergency circumstances, it may be constructed during a portion of the sea turtle nesting season. Long-term and permanent impacts could include a change in the nest incubation environment from the sand placement activities. Short-term and temporary impacts to sea turtle nesting activities could result from project work occurring on the nesting beach during the nesting or hatching period, changes in the physical characteristics of the beach from the placement of the sand, and changes in the nest incubation environment from the material. Proximity of action: Sand placement activities would occur within and adjacent to nesting habitat for sea turtles and dune habitats that ensure the stability and integrity of the nesting beach. Hydraulic dredging would be pumping sand and water directly from the dredge site and could suck up small turtles into the dredge pipe. Distribution: Sand placement activities that may impact nesting and hatchling sea turtles and sea turtle nests would occur approximately 1500 feet north and 2800 feet south of Clam Pass along the Gulf of Mexico coast. Timing: The timing of the sand placement activities could directly and indirectly impact nesting females,their nests, and hatchling sea turtles if conducted between March 1 and November 30. Nature of the effect: The effects of the sand placement activities may change the nesting behavior of adult female sea turtles, diminish nesting success, and cause reduced hatching or emerging success. Sand placement can also change the incubation conditions within the nest. Any decrease in productivity and/or survival rates would contribute to the vulnerability of the sea turtles nesting in the area. 50 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Duration: The sand placement activity is anticipated to be conducted on a three to five year schedule and each sand placement project could take between three and four months to complete. Thus, the direct effects would be expected to be short-term in duration. Indirect effects from the activity may continue to impact nesting and hatchling sea turtles and sea turtle nests in subsequent nesting seasons. Disturbance frequency: Sea turtle populations in the area may experience decreased nesting success, hatching success, and hatchling emerging success that could result from the sand placement activities. Disturbance intensity and severity: Depending on the need and the timing of the sand placement activities during sea turtle nesting season, effects to the sea turtle populations locally could be important. Beneficial Effects The placement of sand on a beach with reduced dry foredune habitat may increase sea turtle nesting habitat if the placed sand is highly compatible (i.e., grain size, shape, color, etc.) with naturally occurring beach sediments in the area, and compaction and escarpment remediation measures are incorporated into the project. In addition, a beach that is designed and constructed to mimic a natural beach system may benefit sea turtles more than an eroding beach it enhances. Adverse Effects It has been documented that placement of sand on beaches can have adverse effects on nesting female sea turtles and hatchlings and sea turtle nests. Results of monitoring sea turtle nesting and beach nourishment activities provide additional information minimization measures, and other factors that influence nesting, hatching, and emerging success. Measures will be incorporated pre-, during, and post-construction to reduce impacts to sea turtles. Direct Effects Direct effects are those direct or immediate effects of a project on the species or its habitat. Placement of sand on a beach in and of itself may not provide suitable nesting habitat for sea turtles. Although sand placement activities may increase the potential nesting area, significant negative impacts to sea turtles may result if protective measures are not incorporated during project construction. Sand placement activities during the nesting season, particularly on or near high density nesting beaches, can cause increased loss of eggs and hatchlings and, along with other mortality sources, may significantly impact the long-term survival of the species. For instance, projects conducted during the nesting and hatching season could result in the loss of sea turtles through disruption of adult nesting activity and by burial or crushing of nests or hatchlings. While a nest monitoring and egg relocation program would reduce these impacts, nests may be inadvertently missed (when crawls are obscured by rainfall, wind, or tides) or misidentified as false crawls during daily patrols. In addition, nests may be destroyed by operations at night prior to beach patrols being performed. Even under the best of conditions, about seven percent of the nests can be misidentified as false crawls by experienced sea turtle nest surveyors (Schroeder 1994). Equipment: The use of heavy machinery on beaches during a construction project may also have 51 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 adverse effects on sea turtles. Equipment left on the nesting beach overnight can create barriers to nesting females emerging from the surf and crawling up the beach, causing a higher incidence of false crawls and unnecessary energy expenditure. The operation of motor vehicles or equipment on the beach to complete the project work at night affects sea turtle nesting by: interrupting or colliding with a female turtle on the beach; headlights disorienting or misorienting emergent hatchlings; vehicles running over hatchlings attempting to reach the ocean, and vehicle tracks traversing the beach interfering with hatchlings crawling to the ocean. Driving directly above or over incubating egg clutches or on the beach can cause sand compaction which may result in adverse impacts on nest site selection, digging behavior, clutch viability, and emergence by hatchlings, decreasing nest success and directly killing preemergent hatchlings (Mann 1977,Nelson and Dickerson 1987,Nelson 1988). Depending on when the dredging project is completed dune vegetation may have become established in the vicinity of dredge spoil placement sites. The physical changes and loss of plant cover caused by vehicles on vegetated areas or dunes can lead to various degrees of instability and cause dune migration. As vehicles move over the sand, sand is displaced downward, lowering the substrate. Since the vehicles also inhibit plant growth, and open the area to wind erosion, the beach and dunes may become unstable. Vehicular traffic on the beach or through dune breaches or low dunes may cause acceleration of overwash and erosion. Driving along the beachfront should be between the low and high tide water lines. The areas for the truck transport and other equipment to work in should be designated and marked. Artificial lighting: When artificial lighting is present on or near the beach, it can misdirect hatchlings once they emerge from their nests and prevent them from reaching the ocean (FWC 2007). In addition, a significant reduction in sea turtle nesting activity has been documented on beaches illuminated with artificial lights (Witherington 1992). Therefore, construction lights along a project beach and on the dredging vessel may deter females from coming ashore to nest, misdirect females trying to return to the surf after a nesting event, and misdirect emergent hatchlings from adjacent non-project beaches. Installing appropriate beachfront lighting (when required) is the most effective method to decrease the number of disorientations on any developed beach. Collier County has adopted lighting ordinances to address artificial lighting along the beachfront. Indirect Effects Indirect effects are those effects that are caused by or result from the proposed action, are later in time, and are reasonably certain to occur. Effects from the proposed project may continue to affect sea turtle nesting on the project beach and adjacent beaches in future years. Increased susceptibility to catastrophic events: Nest locations within a given nesting season may concentrate eggs in an area making them more susceptible to catastrophic events. Hatchlings may also be subject to greater predation rates from both land and marine predators, because the predators learn where to concentrate their efforts. 52 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Increased beachfront development: It has been stated that beach enhancement frequently leads to more development in greater density within shorefront communities that are then left with a future of further replenishment or more drastic stabilization measures. The presence of the NRPA designation and built-out communities surrounding the NRPA would indicate that additional shoreline development will not occur as a result of this proposed project. Changes in the physical environment: Placement of sand on a beach may result in changes in sand density (compaction), beach shear resistance (hardness), beach moisture content, beach slope, sand color, sand grain size, sand grain shape, and sand grain mineral content if the placed sand is dissimilar from the original beach sand. These changes could result in adverse impacts on nest site selection, digging behavior, clutch viability, and hatchling emergence (Nelson and Dickerson 1987,Nelson 1988). Beach compaction and unnatural beach profiles resulting from beach nourishment activities could negatively impact sea turtles regardless of the timing of projects. Very fine sand or the use of heavy machinery can cause sand compaction on nourished beaches. Sand compaction may increase the length of time required for female sea turtles to excavate nests and cause increased physiological stress to the animals These impacts can be minimized by using suitable sand and by tilling (minimum depth of 36 inches) compacted sand after project completion. The level of compaction of a beach can be assessed by measuring sand compaction using a cone penetrometer(Nelson 1987). A change in sediment color on a beach could change the natural incubation temperatures of nests in an area, which, in turn, could alter natural sex ratios. To provide the most suitable sediment for nesting sea turtles, the color of the nourished sediments should resemble the natural beach sand in the area. Natural reworking of sediments and bleaching from exposure to the sun would help to lighten dark nourishment sediments; however, the timeframe for sediment mixing and bleaching to occur could be critical to a successful sea turtle nesting season. Escarpment formation: On nourished beaches, steep escarpments may develop along their water line interface as they adjust from an unnatural construction profile to a more natural beach profile (Coastal Engineering Research Center 1984, Nelson et al. 1987). These escarpments can hamper or prevent access to nesting sites. Researchers have shown that female sea turtles coming ashore to nest can be discouraged by the formation of an escarpment, leading to situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable nesting areas to deposit eggs (e.g., in front of the escarpments, which often results in failure of nests due to prolonged tidal inundation). This impact can be minimized by leveling any escarpments prior to the nesting season. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area. Future federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Act. 53 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 The Project is occurring in a protected area surrounded by highly developed areas, so minimal additional cumulative impacts are anticipated. On the other hand, the Project will have a net positive effect on the hydrology and habitat values of the Project site and surrounding area. Gopher Tortoise Effects of the Project on the gopher tortoise may occur both as direct and indirect effects. Direct Effects Project construction may result in the direct "take" of a gopher tortoise if proper protections are not observed. The probability of direct incidental take is dependent upon the number of tortoises in the Project area and available, suitable habitat. Gopher tortoise burrows have been found on site and actual tortoises have been observed. None of the proposed dredging or spoil placement activities will impact the gopher tortoise habitat but there is some risk that equipment could run over a tortoise or tortoise burrow. Prior to any work being done, any burrows within 50 feet of the proposed work area and travel corridors will be field located, appropriately marked, and a minimum 25 foot buffer established and protected. Indirect Effects Given the current conditions of the Project site and surrounding area as described above, the indirect effects of the Project on the gopher tortoise are anticipated to be minimal. Construction of the Project may encourage additional recreational utilization which could increase the possibility of human and snake interactions. Marking of the burrows and buffer establishment will highlight where burrows are located. Preservation of existing habitat and education of visitors on the importance of tortoises will minimize the potential for these adverse interactions. Cumulative Effects As stated above, the Project is occurring in an already highly used coastal beach area which is all preserved within the NRPA boundary. The State of Florida requires permitting for any activities that have the potential to impact tortoises or their burrows thereby minimizing the potential for any additional cumulative impacts. Piping Plover Beach topography and morphology: The geomorphic characteristics of barrier islands, peninsulas, beaches, dunes, overwash fans, and inlets are critical to a variety of natural resources, and the geomorphic characteristics influence a beach's ability to respond to wave action, including storm overwash and sediment transport. However, the protection or persistence of these important natural land forms, processes, and wildlife resources is often in conflict with shoreline projects. The manufactured berms and sand fill may impede overwash, thereby causing successional advances in the habitat that will reduce sand flat formation, and its subsequent use by piping plovers in the project area. Distribution: The Project proposes dredging and sand placement activities within Clam Pass and along 0.80 mile of shoreline, respectively, with the former to provide ecological improvement to the 54 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 estuary. The proposed construction activities could directly and indirectly affect the distribution of migrating and wintering piping plovers to roosting and foraging habitat within the action area. Disturbance frequency and intensity: The proposed project has the potential to temporarily adversely affect piping plovers within the proposed action area during dredging and sand placement activities. Piping plovers located within the action area would be expected to move outside of the construction zone due to disturbance. Duration: The timeframe associated with completion of the proposed dredging and excavation event is expected to be approximately 3 to 4 months, although this timeframe may vary depending on the amount of work necessary, weather conditions, and equipment mobilization and maintenance. Nature of the effect: The project has the potential to result in direct, indirect, and long term effects to piping plovers. Activities that affect or alter the use of optimal habitat or increase disturbance to the species, may decrease the survival and recovery potential of the piping plover. Timing: The timing of the proposed dredging and sand placement project may occur partially during the migration and wintering period for piping plovers (July 15 to May 15). Analyses for effects of the action: The proposed project includes dredging approximately 1,700 linear feet of Clam Pass for ecological improvement of the estuary, and placing the beach compatible material along 0.80 mile of shoreline north and south of the Pass. If the dredged material is placed on the beach, it has the potential to elevate the beach berm and widen the beach, providing storm protection and increasing recreational space. Sand placement may occur in and adjacent to habitat that are suitable for roosting and foraging piping plovers. Project construction may overlap with portions of piping plover winter and migration seasons. Short- term and temporary construction effects to piping plovers will occur if the birds are roosting and feeding in the area during a migration stopover. The deposition of sand may temporarily deplete the intertidal food base along the shoreline and temporarily disturb roosting birds during project construction. Tilling to loosen compaction of the sand (required to minimize sea turtle effects) may affect wrack that has accumulated on the beach. This affects feeding and roosting habitat for piping plovers since they often use wrack for cover and foraging. Direct Effects The construction window (i.e., sand placement, dredging) may extend through a portion of one piping plover migration and winter season. If the dredged material is placed on the beach, heavy machinery and equipment (e.g., trucks and bulldozers), location of the dredge pipeline, and sand placement, may adversely affect migrating and wintering piping plovers in the action area by disturbing and disrupting normal activities such as roosting and feeding, and possibly forcing birds to expend valuable energy reserves to seek available habitat in adjacent areas along the shoreline. Impacts could affect the entire fill template(0.80 mile) in the project area. Indirect Effects The proposed project includes placing beach-compatible material dredged from Clam Pass and associated channel along 0.80 mile of shoreline. Indirect effects of reducing the potential for the 55 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 formation of optimal habitats, especially along the shoreline, may pose a concern to piping plover survival and recovery within the action area. Eventually the shoreline within the fill template will reestablish and provide some feeding habitat for piping plovers. The project may also increase the recreational pressures within the project area. Recreational activities that have the potential to adversely affect piping plovers include disturbance by increased pedestrian use, though dogs are not permitted within the action area for this project. Long-term effects could include a decrease in piping plover use of habitat due to increased disturbance levels. Dredging Clam Pass and the associated channel may also allow for an increase in boat traffic. Boating related activities, and the associated pedestrian presence, may adversely affect the foraging and roosting behavior of piping plovers. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, Tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this Biological Assessment. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. No other additional activities in the project action area that could affect federally listed species other than those outlined in this Biological Assessment are contemplated. Any other activities in the Action Area would require a Corps permit. Therefore, no cumulative effects are expected. Beneficial effects Closure of the Pass has the potential to adversely affect flood shoal and tidal flat areas within the Clam Pass channel. The lack of tidal prism results in tidal flat areas remaining inundated, and unavailable to foraging piping plovers. Maintenance of the tidal exchange will insure that these flat and shoal areas undergo exposure at lowering tides and remain available to foraging and loafing piping plovers. Wood Stork There is likely to be no negative effects from the Project on the wood stork. Direct Effects The construction of the Project is not likely to result in the direct"take" of a wood stork. During species surveys, storks were observed on multiple occasions foraging in the spreader swale along the extreme eastern boundary of the NRPA. Only two storks have been observed on the beach side of the project and those observations coincided with the closure of the Pass. No nesting or other use of the site has been observed though, due to the types of habitat within the project area, it is possible that it could provide suitable habitat for stork nesting. Still, without any evidence of nesting or foraging within the proposed work areas, it is not likely that the Project will have any significant negative direct effect on wood storks. 56 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Indirect Effects No wood stork habitat will be directly lost by construction of the Project. Maintenance of the Pass and protection of the tidal exchange will continue to provide the quantity, distribution, and timing of water in the area and thereby maintaining any wood stork foraging opportunities that are currently present. Cumulative Effects The absence of direct or indirect effects, in conjunction with the permitting that would be required for any other activities that could impact wood stork foraging or nesting habitat lead to a conclusion that no cumulative effects will occur to wood storks or stork habitat. Florida Bonneted Bat The dredging and spoil disposal are not likely to have any direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the Florida bonneted bat since no tree or cavity removal are proposed as part of any of the proposed activities. Florida Panther The dredging and spoil disposal are not likely to have any direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the Florida panther. Given the unlikelihood of any panther entering the Project area or utilizing the project area for any portion of its life cycle, the proposed project will have no effect on panthers. Florida Manatee Effects of the Project on the manatee may occur both as direct and indirect effects. Direct Effects The dredging of the Pass will occur within an area known to be utilized by manatees. The possibility exists that manatees could be struck or trapped by the dredging equipment during construction activities. To reduce the possibility of direct construction related effects to the manatee, the applicant will incorporate the Standard Manatee Conditions for In-water Work (FWC 2010) as a condition for carrying out the proposed work. The proposed dredging could also directly impact seagrasses that may establish within proposed dredging templates. All opportunities will be explored to avoid or provide buffers to any seagrasses to reduce the possibility of seagrass loss associated with the dredging activities. Indirect Effects The proposed project may increase the recreational pressures within the project area. Recreational activities that have the potential to adversely affect manatees include disturbance by increased pedestrian use. 57 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Dredging Clam Pass and the associated channel may also allow for an increase in boat traffic. Boating related activities may adversely affect the manatee through increased disturbance or increased potential of vessel strikes. Long-term effects could include a decrease in manatee use of habitat due to increased disturbance levels. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, Tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this Biological Assessment. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. No other additional activities in the project action area that could affect federally listed species other than those outlined in this Biological Assessment are contemplated. Any other activities in the Action Area would require a Corps permit. Therefore, no cumulative effects are expected. Beneficial effects Closure of the Pass has the potential to trap manatees within the Clam Pass channel and associated bays. The lack of tidal prism results in decreased water quality and likely eventual loss of seagrass habitat. Maintenance of the Pass to keep it open and maintain tidal exchange will insure that manatees have continued use of the Clam Bay NRPA system. Smalltooth Sawfish Effects of the Project on the sawfish may occur both as direct and indirect effects. The project is expected to have an overall beneficial effect. Direct Effects The dredging of the Pass will occur within an area known to be utilized by sawfish. The possibility exists that sawfish could be struck, injured, or trapped by the dredging equipment during construction activities. All construction activities will adhere to the Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions (NOAA 2006) in an effort to reduce the possibility of any adverse effects to sawfish. The proposed dredging will also directly impact shallow tidal flat area within proposed dredging templates. All opportunities will be explored to avoid or provide buffers to any seagrasses to reduce the possibility of seagrass loss associated with the dredging activities. Sawfish utilization of the dredged areas will resume once the dredge activities are completed. Indirect Effects The proposed project may increase the recreational pressures within the project area. Recreational activities that have the potential to adversely affect sawfish include disturbance by increased pedestrian use, swimming, and fishing. Long-term effects could include a decrease in sawfish use of habitat due to increased disturbance levels. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, Tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this Biological Assessment. Future 58 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. No other additional activities in the project action area that could affect federally listed species other than those outlined in this Biological Assessment are contemplated. Any other activities in the Action Area would require a Corps permit. Therefore, no cumulative effects are expected. Beneficial effects Closure of the Pass has the potential to trap sawfish within the Clam Pass channel and associated bays. The lack of tidal prism results in decreased water quality and likely eventual loss of seagrass habitat. Maintenance of the Pass to keep it open and maintain tidal exchange will insure that sawfish have continued use of the Clam Bay NRPA system. V. LEGAL ANALYSIS Legal Showing Required to Establish a Taking Endangered Species Act ("ESA") Section 9 prohibits the "taking" of any federally listed species of fish or wildlife. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(1). "Take" under ESA Section 9 and Section 7 should be interpreted in the same way. See Arizona Cattle Growers' Association v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 99-16102 (9th Cir. December 17, 2001). To demonstrate a taking under the ESA, there must be a showing of "harm" supported by actual evidence. House v. United States Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 974 F.Supp. 1022 (E.D.Ky. 1997)(citing American Bald Eagle v. Bhatti, 9 F.3d 163, 165 (1st Cir. 1993)("the proper standard for establishing a taking under the ESA ... has been unequivocally defined as a showing of'actual harm.')). The term "take" means to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19). As used in the definition of take, the term "harm" means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. 50 C.F.R. § 17.3 (emphasis supplied). Actual death or injury of a protected animal is necessary for a violation of Section 9. Id.; Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Greater Oregon, 515 U.S. 687, 691 n.2 (1995)(Also, Justice O'Connor's concurrence was based on the understanding that the definition of harm was "limited to significant habitat modification that causes actual, as opposed to hypothetical or speculative, death or injury to identifiable protected animals."). American Bald Eagle v. Bhatti, 9 F.3d 163 (1st Cir. 1993), provides that "the proper standard for establishing a taking under the ESA, far from being a numerical probability of harm, has been unequivocally defined as a showing of'actual harm.' Id. Unfounded speculation is insufficient to prove a take under the ESA. See Hawksbill Sea Turtle v. Federal Emergency Management 59 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 Agency, 11 F.Supp.2d 529 (D.V.I. 1998). The decision in United States v. West Coast Forest Resources, Civ. No. 96-1575-HO (D. Or. Mar. 13, 2000) also is instructive. West Coast concerned whether the clear-cut harvest of 94 acres of private forest land should be enjoined under ESA § 9 to prevent the take of a pair of spotted owls. The expert for the United States in West Coast testified that harvesting the forest would harm the owls by reducing the prey supply and causing an inability to roost in the area. Id. at 2. The expert acknowledged that if there was still enough habitat and prey after harvesting, there would be no significant effect on the owls. Id. The court found that the plaintiff did not satisfy its burden of establishing to a reasonable certainty that the proposed harvest would result in significant habitat modification that would actually kill or injure the owls. Id. at 12. The court stated: "'Mere speculation' is not sufficient; there must be a definite threat of future harm to [a] protected species." Id. at 12-13. The court found that, although the owls used and possibly even selected the forest for foraging, there was 60-70% suitable habitat located within the owls' home range and the interference of the harvest (removing 5% of the total suitable habitat) was not enough to violate ESA § 9. Id. at 13. Application of the Law to the Project and Species Of the species addressed in this document, several have been observed on the Project site though there are no data to support that any of these species have spent significant time on the portions of the site that are to be impacted, or that they depend on these portions of the site for any essential life function. In fact, the available data indicate otherwise. Moreover, there are no data that indicate any likelihood that any of the species will be actually killed or injured by Project construction activities. Considering that the available data indicate that no direct take will result from construction of the Project, the following discussion primarily addresses the possibility of incidental take through significant habitat modification or degradation for those species most likely to occur within the proposed impact areas. Eastern Indigo Snake None of the potential indigo snake habitat on the Project site will be impacted. Although gopher tortoise burrows exist within the NRPA along the beach, no sightings of indigos have occurred within or adjacent to the project area; thus, there is no indication that indigos are present on or use the site at all. Absent designation of critical habitat for a species, "there is no evidence that Congress intended to allow the [Service] to regulate any parcel of land that is merely capable of supporting a protected species." Arizona Cattle Growers' Association v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 99-16102 (9th Cir. December 17, 2001). Sea Turtles A recurring theme in the "harm" analysis for species on the Project site is the ecological maintenance and enhancement associated with the project and the intent to maintain tidal flow to the estuary system. Specifically concerning sea turtles, no work is currently contemplated along the beach or Pass during sea turtle nesting season. The placement of compatible material on the adjacent beaches during maintenance dredging events is a by-product, not the purpose of, the 60 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 activity. Sea turtle nesting should not be adversely affected by the Project and it cannot be shown that any sea turtles will be actually killed or injured by any habitat maintenance or modification that may be associated with the Project. Gopher Tortoise None of the gopher tortoise habitat on the Project site will be impacted. Although gopher tortoise burrows exist within the NRPA along the beach, they will be specifically located and protected during all shoreline activities. Wood Stork In light of the analysis in the Effects of the Action section above, it is clear that wood stork foraging habitat could be enhanced and increased through the implementation of the project components. The hand dug channels form concentration areas or forage fish at low tide. The post-project hydrology within the NRPA will restore a more significant tidal range. The increased range will inundate larger areas and allow for daily concentrations of forage material as the tide recedes which in turn will provide additional foraging opportunities for area storks. The Project will not harm the wood stork. Piping Plover It appears clear from the above discussions that the Project will not result in actual death or injury to piping plovers. Based on past and ongoing survey efforts, the site has not been a common or regular destination for wintering plovers. The 0.80 mile of shoreline represents approximately 0.03 percent of the 2,340 miles of sandy beach shoreline miles available (although not necessarily suitable) throughout the piping plover wintering range within the conterminous U.S. The USFWS in its previous BO for this project estimated 29 percent (668 miles) had permits for sand placement events. It was the USFWS's opinion that implementation of the project was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the piping plover, and no critical habitat would be affected. The application of the Terms and conditions associated with their BO as well as the criteria outlined in the Clam Bay NRPA Management plan should insure that implementation of the project was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the piping plover. Florida Manatee The implementation of the Standard Manatee Conditions for In-water Work (FWC 2010) as a condition for carrying out the proposed work in conjunction with educational outreach will insure no take of manatees occurs. Similar operations within the Action Area have been undertaken with no evidence of any deleterious effect on manatees. Smalltooth Sawfish The implementation of the Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions (NOAA 61 Biological Assessment Clam Pass Dredging and Ecosystem Enhancements December 2014 2006) as a condition for carrying out the proposed work in conjunction with educational outreach will insure no take of sawfish occurs. In summary, the best scientific and commercial data available provides no evidence that the Project will actually kill or injure a protected species. Any conclusion that the Project would result in a taking of a protected species would be arbitrary and capricious. See Arizona Cattle Growers'Association, supra. VI. CONCLUSION Based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, the construction of the Project will not result in the incidental take of listed species, either through direct effects or habitat modification. After reviewing the most current information available, the current status of the species, the environmental baseline for the Action Area, the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the Project, it is our assessment that the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the species outlined within this document. Likewise, no impacts to any designated critical habitat(s)will be affected. 62 Suggested edits to Biological Assessment Page 1 Add title (perhaps Introduction or Executive Summary) for first three paragraphs Added an Introduction Header Page 1 Par 2 Delete scientific names of species. (perhaps use them in Section II where they are already used for the Eastern Indigo Snake, Piping Plover, and Florida Panther Left Scientific names in as that is how Agency documents are presented Page 1 Par 2 Put wood stork before piping plover so the order of species is the same as in the other sections of the document Put Plover ahead of Wood stork to match rest of document Page 1 Par 2 line 7 Delete candidate before gopher tortoise because it is not used in the rest of the document. Left Candidate designation in as that is how the FWS looks at it. Reference to it being a candidate species is on page 23. Page 1 Par 5 line 2 Use FWS, not USFWS so it is the same acronym used in Par 4 on page 1 Made document consistent using USFWS in all instances Page 3 Par 3 line 2 Change Exhibit 4 to Exhibit 2 Removed this reference as it is repeated in the following paragraph Page 3 Par 3 Change to "The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) proposes to dredge the Clam Pass inlet and channel in Collier County, Florida (Exhibit 2) when monitoring data indicate that dredging is needed as outlined in the 2014 Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan. The intent of the proposed dredging is to ensure that the estuary has adequate tidal and freshwater flows to maintain ecological health within the Clam Bay NRPA. It is anticipated that the dredging of Clam Pass may be necessary about every three to five years." Made this change with a slight modification to help with readability. Page 3 Par 4 line 3 Change exhibit 5 to exhibit 11 This should be Exhibit 4 as currently ordered Page 4 Par 1 line 5 Add after Appropriate buffers, as outlined in the Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan, This was done Page 4 Par 1 line 8 Add after dredged either" at the mouth of the Pass" or"in Section A" This sentence was modified as discussed at the Clam Bay Committee mtg. Page 4 Par 2 Line Use FDEP which was the acronym used in Man. Plan. Done Page 4 Par 2 line 3 Change R-45+500 feet to R-44+500 so it matches Mohamed's drawings. Done Page 4 Par 2 An Exhibit of sheet 3 of Mohamed's drawings could be added and referenced to show placement of sand. I didn't want to include this exhibit as there are two (above and below MHW),and it could confuse reviewer. Explaining that it will be placed between the monuments north and south will be OK for this document. Page 4 Par 4 line 2 Change Exhibit 7 to Exhibit 8 and change "is discovered" to "are adversely affecting adequate tidal low" so tidal flow remains the focus. Exhibit is actually#6. Text changes included. Page 4 Par 5 line 5 Change Exhibit 8 to Exhibit 10 This is exhibit 7 Page 5 Par 4 line 1 change threatened to endangered so it's consistent with page 1 It is listed as endangered worldwide except for the Florida population which is listed as threatened. Paragraph has been amended to reflect this. Page 6 Par 3 line 7 explain meaning of ppt. Done Page 6 Par 5 line 1 change effects to affects Done Page 9 Insert Species/Critical Habitat Description under Sea Turtles Done Page 11 Par 3 line 10 I'm not sure INBS acronym has been previously used; if not, please use name Done Page 12 Par 3 line 11 Put space between two paragraphs. Done Page 14, Par 3 line 4 use having instead of have Done Page 14 Par 5 line 4 close space between Virgin and Islands Done Page 23 Par 5 line 3 Change being to are Done Page 29 Par 4 line 1 Add a space between habitat and is Done Page 30 Par 4 line 6 Add a period after effects. Done Page 31 Par 1 line 1 Capitalize Action Area is it is in rest of document Done Page 31 Par 4 line 1 & 2 Use inches rather than centimeters so measurement usage throughout document is consistent. Done Page 33 Par 2 line 1 I think researchers works better than authors Change made Page 34 Par 6 Use English rather than metric units so unit of measurement is consistent throughout document. Done Page 34-38 Transpose the sections on Florida Panther and Florida Bonneted Bat so the order of the species is in the same in each section of the document. Done Page 35 Par 2 line 9 use miles instead of kilometers for above reason Done Page 37 Insert Species/Critical Habitat Description under Florida Bonneted Bat Done Page 38 Par 2 line 2 Add If before remaining to make it a complete sentence. Done Page 38 Par 4 line 12 Make it warm-water so it's consistent with usage on pages 39 and 40 Done Page 38 Par 6 line 1 Make it warm-water for consistency Done Page 40 par 8 line 1 Use lower case on populations so it's consistent with rest of document Done Page 40 par 8 line 3 Change were to was Changed rate to rates and left it as were Page 44 par 5 line 4 Change Figure to Exhibit Done Page 45 Par 1 line 2 Change is to are Done Page 45 Par 1 line 5 Add s to Pass Done Page 45 Par 1 line 5 saying 3.2 miles south of Clam Pass may be better than saying 3.2 miles from Clam Pass south Made this change Page 45 Par 2 line 2 Change Figure 3 to Exhibit 3 Done Page 45 line 6 &7 Use either feet or'with both numbers for consistency Done Page 45 Par 3 line 3 change exits to exist Changed exists to exist Though I spent some time looking for exits Page 45 Par 4 line 1 delete nearby and add after Swamp, located about 36 miles northeast of the Clam Bay NRPA, Made change but Corkscrew is only about 16 miles (as the woodstork flies), not 36. Page 45 Par 4 line 4 Change 2113 to 2013 Done Page 47 Par 1 line 2 Delete which, area and add of the Clam Bay NRPA provide Done Page 49 Par 1 line 2 Change we to the and add is after focus Done Page 53 Par 9 line 1 Delete is Done Page 54 Par 5 line 1 Use upper case on Project because Project is capitalized throughout. Done Page 55 Par 2 line 6 Add plovers after piping Done _ Page 59 Starts with Section VI, but there is no Section V Changed to V Page 60 Par 2 line 2 change is to are Done Page 60 Par 2 line 4 change indicates to indicate and is to are Done Page 60 par 2 line 5 change indicates to indicate Done Page 60 par 2 line 6 change indicates to indicate Done Page 60 par 4 line 6 change effected to affected Done Page 61 par 3 line 6 change USFWS to FWS as used previously in document Used USFWS consistently Page 61 par 4 line 1 change USFWS to FWS as used previously in document Used USFWS consistently Page 61 par 6 line 1 In summary may be better than In sum Done Suggested enhancements to Biological Assessment Add Table of Contents TOC will be included Add bibliography of references cited in the document Bibliography will be included Clam Bay Monitoring A.Biological Monitoring) Current cost Monitor 22 established mangrove plots,including data and photos $22,250 of each plot and quarterly roof-top photos of mangroves Monitor eight seagrass transects in Outer Clam Bay and nearby 4,650 channels Monitor three continuous water level loggers deployed in Clam Bay 9770 Inspect and schedule maintenance as needed of the hand-dug channels 10,400 Provide additional consulting services,such as meetings,field 15,0002 observation,reports,as needed Prepare,present,and submit annual report 14,815 Additional biological monitoring beginning in May 2015 Est.Cost Establish and monitor plots in scrub and hammock habitats $60003 Monitor gopher tortoise burrows 37504 Monitor other bird/fish/benthic invertebrates5 5000 Monitor archeological sites 750 Monitor upland activities that could affect flow 600 Inspect canoe trail and Clam Bay signage 300 Promote education information re:exotic&nuisance species 700 Coordinate with Collier County&Naples Grande re: vegetation 500 and litter control Monitor for piping plover presence before&after dredging events 75006 B.Hydrographic Monitoring Annual tidal data analysis and reporting' $28,750 Additional hydrographic monitoring beginning in May 2015 Annual bathymetric survey of Clam Pass and report 29,300 Bathymetric survey of interconnecting waterways as needed8 30,000 C. Water Quality Monitoring9 Annual water quality analysis and reporting10 5520 Additional Water Quality Analysis and Reporting beginning in May 2015 Quarterly water quality analysis and reportingli TBD 1 Currently done under Contract 10-5571 with Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. 2 Time and materials,not to exceed 3 First year cost;in subsequent years cost would be about$2000 4 Cost would not be incurred every year but every 2nd/3rd year 5 Surveys for each species would be done every 3-4 years,resulting in one survey per year 62x/month for 3 months before a dredging event and for ten months a year for 3 years after a dredging event 7 Currently done by Humiston and Moore Engineers under Contract 10-5771 8 Will be conducted every 3-5 years 9 Currently done by Turell,Hall&Associates,Inc.under Contract 10-5771 1° 16 parameters and 9 locations 11 15 parameters and 15 locations PBSD Directors - Discussions at recent Water Management and Clam Bay Committee meetings indicated possible support for a manager to oversee all aspects of the Clam Bay and upland water- management activities. The manager would have to have some kind of scientific or technical background, could be an outside contractor or a county staffer and could serve on a part-time or full-time basis. The rationale is that these programs are top priority, entering a crucial period and would benefit from dedicated oversight. It's unlikely we could find a single individual with broad enough expertise to manage biological, engineering and water-quality activities. Rather he/she might be expected to coordinate programs run by outside experts, e.g. Tim Hall,biology Mohamed Dabees, coastal engineering Jim Bays, Rafael Vasquez-Burney or David Tomasko, water quality A less ambitious approach would be to continue as is with Tim Hall (biology) and Mohamed Dabees (coastal engineering) for Clam Bay, but consolidate water-quality management of Clam Bay and the upland lakes under a single consultant, e.g. Jim Bays (CH2M Hill) Rafael Vasquez-Burney(CH2M Hill) Steve Gong (now retired from CH2M Hill) David Tomasko (formerly with Atkins) The rationale is that water quality issues in the lakes and Clam Bay are complex, inter- related, and would benefit from coordinated management. I am putting this item on the agenda for the 1/7/15 board meeting. We can discuss it at that time. Dave Trecker 12/31/14 PBSD Directors— Several directors have indicated the need to set priorities for 2015 because of resource limitations—staffing and budgetary. Three directors have submitted a list of proposed priorities. I have attempted to consolidate those on the accompanying sheets. I propose we develop the 2015 priorities in four steps. (1) At the 1/7/15 board meeting, all directors will check off 10 priorities from the attached list that they feel are most important. Although many other things can/should be done, what are the 10 most important to each director? (2) Staff will indicate by 1/14/15 available budget and manning to carry out programs for current PBSD areas of responsibility—beautification, water management, lighting, Clam Bay, signage,beach renourishment. (3) An ad hoc committee comprising the chairs of the four standing committees— Mike Levy(Budget), Susan O'Brien(Clam Bay), Tom Cravens (Water Management) and Joe Chicurel (Landscape& Safety)—and me will meet later in January to review director input, overlay budget and staff limitations and come up with a recommended priority list. (4) The PBSD board will review the list and finalize 2015 priorities at the 2/4/15 meeting. This exercise should also aid in budgetary planning for FY 2015-16. Dave Trecker 1/1/15 POSSIBLE 2015 PBSD PRIORITIES • Obtain Pelican Bay NRPA Management Plan (CBMP) approval. • Submit and support Clam Pass dredging permit applications. • Undertake emergency dredging of Clam Pass, if necessary. • Carry out part or all of CBMP Objective 1 — Maintain and protect the native floral and faunal communities within the Clam Bay NRPA. Specify • Carry out part or all of CBMP Objective 2 — Ensure the estuary has adequate tidal and freshwater flows to maintain ecological health within the Clam Bay NRPA. Specify • Carry out part or all of CBMP Objective 3 — Monitor and maintain water quality within the Clam Bay NRPA. Specify • Carry out part or all of CBMP Objective 4— Monitor archaeological sites within the Clam Bay NRPA Specify • Carry out part or all of CBMP Objective 5 —Ensure recreational activities are environmentally compatible within the Clam Bay NRPA. Specify • Secure services of staff or contract manager to oversee all Clam Bay/Water Management activities. • Secure services of consultant to oversee water-quality activities in upland lakes and Clam Bay. • Install additional aerators in lakes. • Place additional littoral plantings in lakes. • Develop contingencies for copper removal in Clam Bay and/or lakes. • Conduct educational program for controlling algae in 19 association- maintained lakes. • Renew/expand educational program for all residents and The Club Pelican Bay on fertilizer and irrigation water use. • Renourish Pelican Bay beach in conjunction with 4Q/15 county program, if necessary. • Address Oakmont pathway deterioration problem. • Correct safety problems related to landscape overgrowth. • Develop landscape renewal program. • Upgrade entrance signage for which PBSD has responsibility. • Develop plans for streetlight improvements. • Install yield signs at crosswalks. • Other? Submitted by Susan O'Brien December 18, 2014 Priorities for 2015 • Get Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan approved. • Apply for 10-year dredging permit and respond to RAI's. • Purchase and deploy tidal gauges in Clam Bay • Secure new agreements for biological,hydrographic and water quality monitoring of Clam Bay (Current agreement expires on April 25, 2015) • Get$100,000 from Collier County to fund Clam Bay monitoring activities • Begin development of FDEP-mandated plan to reduce copper in Clam Bay • Get yield signs at crosswalks installed • Determine if there is a legal requirement for PBSD to resurface Oakmont pathway • Get current on preparation, approval, and posting of board and committee meeting minutes. • Do budget amendment to accommodate adjusted hourly rate for temporary workers • Review staffing needs for regular landscaping,water management, and streetlight work • Review staffing needs for administrative services • Finalize plans for annual landscaping "renewal"work (prepared by Ellin Goetz) • Develop and approve FY2016 budget • Select engineer to review and update plans for streetlight improvements outlined in the CIP. ($25,000 is allocated in FY 2015 for this purpose.) • Develop list of landscape work done by PBSD on PBF property • Continue safety-related education in PB • Review PBSD use of fertilizer near ponds • Develop a strategy for determining in which ponds installing aeration would provide the most benefit for the community. • Develop a strategy for determining around which ponds planting littoral plants would provide the most benefit for the community. • Educate residents about what they can do to reduce algae in ponds • Develop a strategy for responding to residents who report their concerns re: algae in ponds • Ask associations/homeowners to stop using fertilizer near ponds • Develop and implement a plan to regularly cut-back vegetation encroaching on pathways and reducing visibility on pathways and streets • Attract/recruit new residential and commercial directors to the PBSD Board • Continue efforts to work collaboratively with the PBF Board Submitted by Henry Bachman December 15, 2014 Proposed Prioritized Items for PBSD 2015-16 In 2015 1. Submit and support application for dredging permit 2. Support the approval by the BCC of the Clam Bay Management Plan 3. Those monitoring and surveying activities in support of Objective 2 of the Clam Bay Management Plan, only as required a. to determine if/when dredging is required b. to restore Mangrove forest and prevent any further die-off 4. Those monitoring, data reporting and analysis activities in support of Objective 3 of the Clam Bay Management Plan 5. Develop a plan for lake bank restoration only to the extent that this is required to a. maintain the efficacy of the water management system to achieve its intended purpose b. to correct safety hazards c. to support plan for littoral plantings 6. Conduct educational programs and seek enforcement regulations for controlling pollution in the 19 Association-owned lakes by i. the use of fertilizer BMP ii. preventing the use of copper algaecide 7. Initiate the installation of aeration and littoral planting as will be recommend by a water quality expert in the lakes maintained by the PBSD and provide design guidelines to the Associations for the lakes they maintain 8. Engage consultant to a. develop a model to determine, if possible,the likely trend in the equilibrium level of dissolved copper in the lakes b. develop a (hydrological?) model to determine the relation between the level of dissolved copper in the lakes and that in Clam Bay 9. Conduct those landscape activities as required to correct safety problems and to restore unsightly areas, in addition to the usual maintenance activities and previously planned renewal 10. Take those steps necessary to quickly resolve the dispute with the Foundation regarding the Oakmont Lake pathway 11. Conduct the usual other water management, beautification and street lighting activities as supported by the budget 12. Conduct those other (than outlined above) activities in support of the Objectives of the Clam Bay Management Plan as recommended by the Clam Bay Committee, but only to the extent that these, and the administrative support required, are funded from other than non-ad valorem community improvement fees Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-December 31, 2014 Operating Fund 109-FY 2014 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments 2,466,078.85 Interest Receivable - Improvements,Vehicles & Equipment 867,328.33 Due from Property Appraiser 577.43 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets $ 3,333,984.61 Total Assets $ 3,333,984.61 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 34,333.61 Accrued Wages Payable - Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd 90,128.95 Total Liabilities $ 124,462.56 Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved 772,452.57 Excess Revenues (Expenditures) 2,437,069.48 Total Fund Balance 3,209,522.05 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 3,333,984.61 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-December 31,2014 Operating Fund 109-FY 2014 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward $ 767,200.00 $ 767,200.00 $ 767,200.00 $ - Special Assessment-Water Management Admin 805,500.00 644,400.00 667,435.13 23,035.13 Special Assessment-Right of Way Beautification 1,988,900.00 1,591,120.00 1,648,677.40 57,557.40 Plan Review Fees - - - - Miscellaneous(Surplus Sales) - - 69.92 69.92 Revenue Reserve(est.5%) (139,900.00) - - - Interest 4,000.00 1,000.00 664.44 (335.56) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,425,700.00 $ 3,003,720.00 $ 3,084,046.89 $ 80,326.89 Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense $ 47,200.00 $ 10,200.00 $ 7,636.90 $ 2,563.10 Emergency Maintenace and Repairs 8,800.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 300.00 75.00 75.00 - IT Office Automation/Billing Hr. 4,700.00 1,175.00 1,125.00 50.00 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 76,800.00 38,400.00 38,400.00 - Inter Payment/Mnt.Site Ins. Assessment 15,900.00 4,000.00 3,975.00 25.00 Other Contractural Services 47,000.00 11,800.00 7,853.00 3,947.00 Telephone 3,300.00 800.00 697.11 102.89 Postage and Freight 1,300.00 100.00 - 100.00 Rent Buildings and Equipment 12,200.00 4,100.00 3,595.78 504.22 Insurance-General 1,400.00 - - - Printing,Binding and Copying 1,800.00 - - - Clerk's Recording Fees 1,000.00 - - - Legal Advertising 1,000.00 - - - Other Office and Operating Supplies 2,000.00 500.00 198.70 301.30 Training and Education(Tuition Reimb.) 1,100.00 300.00 155.30 144.70 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 225,800.00 $ 71,450.00 $ 63,711.79 $ 7,738.21 I Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 143,100.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 22,537.30 $ 8,962.70 Engineering Fees 85,000.00 7,100.00 6,516.75 583.25 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 18,000.00 4,500.00 4,375.00 125.00 Landscape Materials/Replanting Program 8,500.00 200.00 - 200.00 Flood Control Water Quality Testing Supplies 1,500.00 100.00 7.38 92.62 Interdepartmental Payment(Water Quality Lab) 20,200.00 3,400.00 1,764.00 1,636.00 Plan Review Charges 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 300.00 360.00 (60.00) Temporary Labor 59,800.00 21,600.00 43,167.00 (21,567.00) Cell Phones 500.00 100.00 (19.37) 119.37 Trash and Garbage 5,300.00 1,400.00 1,358.00 42.00 Motor Pool Rental Charge 200.00 - - - Insurance-General 2,300.00 - - - Insurance-Auto 900.00 - - - Building Repairs&Mntc. 1,700.00 - - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 10,400.00 1,700.00 1,144.07 555.93 Fuel and Lubricants 2,800.00 500.00 483.41 16.59 Tree Triming 52,000.00 13,000.00 9,984.00 3,016.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 800.00 817.22 (17.22) Page 1 of 3 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 500.00 750.00 (250.00) Fertilizer and Herbicides 89,400.00 19,400.00 15,472.48 3,927.52 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 300.00 48.00 252.00 Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 600.00 1,195.51 (595.51) Total Water Management Field Operating $ 509,700.00 $ 107,000.00 $ 109,960.75 $ (2,960.75) Right of Way Beautification-Administration Payroll Expense $ 48,700.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 7,868.29 $ 2,631.71 Emergency Repairs and Maintenance 7,400.00 - - - IT Direct and Capital 4,100.00 1,000.00 950.00 50.00 Office Automation 9,000.00 2,300.00 2,250.00 50.00 Other Contractural Services 54,500.00 9,100.00 7,810.50 1,289.50 Telephone 3,300.00 800.00 692.33 107.67 Postage 2,200.00 600.00 - 600.00 Rent Buildings/Equipment/Storage 14,100.00 4,700.00 3,846.09 853.91 Insurance-General 400.00 - - - Printing,Binding and Copying 2,600.00 400.00 - 400.00 Clerk's Recording 1,200.00 - - - Legal Advertising 1,200.00 - - - Office Supplies General 2,500.00 600.00 268.17 331.83 Training and Education(Tuition Reimb.) 1,500.00 400.00 1,363.57 (963.57) Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 152,700.00 $ 30,400.00 $ 25,048.95 $ 5,351.05 Right of Way Beautification-Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 834,600.00 $ 172,800.00 $ 131,617.70 $ 41,182.30 Emergency Maintenance and Repairs 3,300.00 - - - Flood Control(Water Use&Swale/Berm Mntc.) 89,900.00 25,100.00 26,619.83 (1,519.83) Pest Control 2,500.00 - - - Landscape Incidentals 2,500.00 200.00 - 200.00 Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 13,200.00 12,000.00 1,200.00 Temporary Labor 206,000.00 67,000.00 103,962.80 (36,962.80) Telephone 3,200.00 800.00 730.07 69.93 Electricity 3,400.00 900.00 591.32 308.68 Trash and Garbage 15,900.00 3,400.00 3,101.40 298.60 Rent Equipment 2,500.00 1,500.00 6,650.15 (5,150.15) Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 100.00 - 100.00 Insurance-General 8,000.00 - - - Insurance-Auto 10,000.00 - - - Building Repairs and Maintenance 1,700.00 - - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 24,400.00 6,100.00 5,017.89 1,082.11 Fuel and Lubricants 54,200.00 12,100.00 7,127.12 4,972.88 Licenses,Permits,Training 800.00 100.00 51.38 48.62 Tree Triming 92,000.00 92,000.00 158,500.00 (66,500.00) Clothing and Uniforms 9,400.00 1,800.00 1,758.15 41.85 Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 2,300.00 2,439.66 (139.66) Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 18,400.00 18,374.59 25.41 Landscape Maintenance 51,500.00 31,600.00 31,537.20 62.80 Mulch/Landscape Materials 52,000.00 19,800.00 21,066.40 (1,266.40) Pathway Repairs 6,000.00 - - - Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 6,000.00 3,659.56 2,340.44 Painting Supplies 800.00 100.00 - 100.00 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 2,300.00 2,349.00 (49.00) Minor Operating Equipment 3,700.00 2,200.00 2,328.70 (128.70) Other Operating Supplies 9,000.00 2,300.00 1,862.97 437.03 Total Right of Way Beautification-Field Operating $ 1,614,900.00 $ 482,100.00 $ 541,345.89 $ (59,245.89) Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,503,100.00 $ 690,950.00 $ 740,067.38 $ (49,117.38) Page 2 of 3 Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment $ 23,600.00 $ 4,720.00 $ 4,602.03 $ 117.97 General - $ - - - Total Water Management Field Operations Capital $ 23,600.00 $ 4,720.00 $ 4,602.03 $ 117.97 Right of Way Beautification-Field Autos and Trucks $ - $ - $ - $ - Other Machinery and Equipment 45,800.00 45,800.00 44,954.87 845.13 Total Right of Way Beautification-Field Capital $ 45,800.00 $ 45,800.00 $ 44,954.87 $ 845.13 Total Capital Expenditures $ 69,400.00 $ 50,520.00 $ 49,556.90 $ 963.10 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,572,500.00 $ 741,470.00 $ 789,624.28 $ (48,154.28) Non-Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 77,300.00 $ 19,325.00 $ 19,325.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees 83,900.00 50,340.00 46,322.25 4,017.75 Property Appraiser Fees 53,800.00 43,040.00 42,362.89 677.11 Reserves(2 1/2 months for Operations) 522,900.00 - - - Reserves for Equipment 136,800.00 - - - Reserved for Attrition (21,500.00) - - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures $ 853,200.00 $ 112,705.00 $ 108,010.14 $ 4,694.86 Total Expenditures $ 3,425,700.00 $ 854,175.00 $ 897,634.42 $ (43,459.42) Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ 2,149,545.00 $ 2,186,412.47 $ 36,867.47 Page 3 of 3 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-December 31,2014 Clam Bay Fund 320-FY 2014 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 141,626.39 Interest Receivable - Improvements,Vehicles & Equipment 260,973.56 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets 402,599.95 Total Assets $ 402,599.95 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ - Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd - Accrued Wages Payable - Total Liabilities - Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 46,541.99 Excess Revenues (Expenditures) 356,057.96 Total Fund Balance 402,599.95 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 402,599.95 I Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget- December 31, 2014 Clam Bay Fund 320-FY 2014 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward $ 46,134.00 $ 46,134.00 $ 46,134.00 $ - Special Assessment 118,600.00 94,900.00 98,414.45 3,514.45 Transfer from Tax Collector - - - - Fund 111 50,000.00 - - - Revenue Reserve (est. 5%) (6,000.00 - - - Interest 500.00 100.00 68.04 (31.96) Total Operating Revenues $ 209,234.00 $ 141,134.00 $ 144,616.49 $ 3,482.49 Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees $ 67,393.35 $ - $ - $ - Other Contractural Services 25,822.27 $ 3,098.67 2,625.00 473.67 T ,e Trimming 59,864.00 10,000.00 9,984.00 16.00 _ler Equipment Repairs 1,077.77 - - - Aerial Photography 17,288.60 - - - Minor Operating 6,788.01 - - - Other Operating Supplies 2,000.00 - - - Total Clam Bay Restoration $ 180,234.00 13,098.67 $ 12,609.00 $ 489.67 Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees $ - - $ - $ - Licenses and Permits - - - - Other Contractual Services - - - - Total Clam Bay Ecosystem $ - $ - $ - $ - Capital Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Other Machinery and Equipment $ 11,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Total Capital Expenditures $ 11,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 191,234.00 $ 13,098.67 $ 12,609.00 $ 489.67 Page 1 of 2 .1-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 3,600.00 $ 2,160.00 $ 1,968.29 $ 191.71 Property Appraiser Fees 2,700.00 1,782.00 1,779.28 2.72 Reserves for Operations 11,700.00 - - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures $ 18,000.00 $ 3,942.00 $ 3,747.57 $ 194.43 Total Expenditures $ 209,234.00 $ 17,040.67 $ 16,356.57 $ 684.10 Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ 124,093.33 $ 128,259.92 $ 4,166.59 Page 2 of 2 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-December 31,2014 Capital Projects Fund 322-FY 2014 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 1,690,898.16 Interest Receivable - Improvements,Vehicles& Equipment 2,105,319.67 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets 3,796,217.83 Total Assets $ 3,796,217.83 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 211,223.12 Goods Received Inv. Received 10,358.25 Total Liabilities 221,581.37 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 1,273,307.83 Excess Revenues(Expenditures) 2,301,328.63 Total Fund Balance 3,574,636.46 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 3,796,217.83 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget- December 31,2014 Capital Projects Fund 322- FY 2014 (Unaudited) Annual Amended YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward $ 1,765,397.62 $ 1,765,397.62 $ 1,765,397.62 $ - Transfer from Fund 109 General 77,300.00 19,325.00 19,325.00 - Miscellaneous - - - - Special Assessment 336,400.00 269,120.00 278,050.71 8,930.71 Transfer from Tax Collector - - - - Interest 10,800.00 2,700.00 1,096.73 (1,603.27) Total Operating Revenues $ 2,189,897.62 $ 2,056,542.62 $2,063,870.06 $ 7,327.44 Operating Expenditures: Irrigation& Landscaping Hardscape Project (50066) Engineering Fees $ 72,630.82 $ - $ - $ - ,er Contractural Services 945,698.62 * 33,099.45 32,464.12 635.33 Rent Equipment 635.50 - - Sprinkler System Repairs 3,650.52 - - - Landscape Materials 15,165.00 15,165.00 17,858.25 (2,693.25) Permits - - - - Signs & Posts (Share the Road) - - - - Electrical - - - - Other Operating Supplies 3,489.25 - - - Traffic Sign Restoration Project(50103) Traffic Signs 58,260.00 - - - Lake Aeration (50108) Improvements 79,575.77 - - - North Berm Restoration (50107) Other Contractural Services 565,850.91 * 543,216.87 540,450.78 2,766.09 Beach Renourishment(50126) Other Contractural Services 200,000.00 - - - Lake Bank Project(51026) Swale &Slope Maintenance 69,048.24 6,904.82 4,623.15 2,281.67 Engineering Fees 500.00 - - - Landscape Materials 3,308.20 - - - Other Contractural Services 142,684.79 - - - al Irrigation &Landscaping Expenditures $ 2,160,497.62 $ 598,386.15 $ 595,396.30 $ 2,989.85 Page 1 of 2 00,000 to N Berm Project FY 2104 Non-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 8,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 5,561.01 $ 438.99 Property Appraiser Fees 4,000.00 4,000.00 5,045.36 (1,045.36) Reserve for Contingencies - - - - Revenue Reserve 17,400.00 - - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures: $ 29,400.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,606.37 $ (606.37) Total Expenditures $ 2,189,897.62 $ 608,386.15 $ 606,002.67 $ 2,383.48 Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ 1,448,156.47 $1,457,867.39 $ 9,710.92 Page 2 of 2 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet- December 31, 2014 Street Lighting Fund 778-FY 2014 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 1,138,948.71 Interest Receivable - Improvements,Vehicles & Equipment 37,121.99 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets $ 1,176,070.70 Total Assets $ 1,176,070.70 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 106.92 Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd 19,254.41 Accrued Wages Payable - Total Liabilities $ 19,361.33 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 787,224.51 Excess Revenue(Expenditures) 369,484.86 Total Fund Balance 1,156,709.37 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 1,176,070.70 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-December 31, 2014 Street Lighting Fund 778-FY 2014 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward $ 804,700.00 $ 804,700.00 $ 804,700.00 $ - Curent Ad Valorem Tax 462,800.00 370,240.00 374,553.58 $ 4,313.58 Transfer from Tax Collector - - - $ - Revenue Reserve (est. 5%) $ (23,300.00) - - $ - Interest 2,500.00 625.00 440.12 $ (184.88) Total Operating Revenues 1,246,700.00 1,175,565.00 1,179,693.70 4,128.70 Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense $ 47,800.00 $ 10,200.00 $ 7,636.77 $ 2,563.23 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 6,400.00 $ 3,200.00 2,975.00 $ 225.00 n+her Contractural Services 34,700.00 $ 8,700.00 7,709.00 $ 991.00 ephone 3,600.00 $ 900.00 513.28 $ 386.72 Postage and Freight 2,000.00 $ 200.00 - $ 200.00 Rent Buildings/Equipment/Storage 11,800.00 $ 3,900.00 3,736.56 $ 163.44 Insurance-General 400.00 $ - - $ - Office Supplies General 800.00 $ 200.00 98.64 $ 101.36 Tuition Reimbursement - $ - - $ - Other Office and Operating Supplies 1,000.00 $ 300.00 - $ 300.00 Total Street Lighting Admin Operating 108,500.00 27,600.00 22,669.25 4,930.75 Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense 68,100.00 15,000.00 10,666.34 4,333.66 Emergency Maintenance& Repairs 9,600.00 - - - Other Contractual Services 800.00 100.00 - 100.00 Telephone 500.00 - - - Electricity 35,000.00 8,800.00 7,551.40 1,248.60 Insurance-General 800.00 - - - Insurance-Auto 900.00 - - - Building Maintenace & Repairs 1,700.00 - - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 2,400.00 400.00 252.48 147.52 Fuel and Lubricants 1,000.00 200.00 90.96 109.04 ether Equipment Repairs/Supplies 200.00 - - - sonal Safety Equipment 500.00 500.00 750.00 (250.00) Electrical Contractors 7,300.00 600.00 - 600.00 Page 1of2 it Bulb Ballast 13,100.00 3,100.00 1,342.10 1,757.90 Total Street Lighting Field Operating 141,900.00 28,700.00 20,653.28 8,046.72 Total Street Lighting Expenditures 250,400.00 56,300.00 43,322.53 12,977.47 Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery/Equipment - - - - General Improvements 15,000.00 - - - Total Capital Expenditures 15,000.00 - - - Total Operating Expenditures 265,400.00 56,300.00 43,322.53 12,977.47 Non-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees 14,000.00 8,400.00 7,533.92 866.08 Property Appraiser Fees 8,900.00 - - - Reserve for Future Construction* 715,600.00 - - - Reserves (2 1/2 mos. for Operations) 56,900.00 - - - Reserves for Equipment 185,900.00 - - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures 981,300.00 8,400.00 7,533.92 866.08 .al Expenditures 1,246,700.00 64,700.00 50,856.45 13,843.55 Net Profit/(Loss) - 1,110,865.00 1,128,837.25 17,972.25 *$25,000 from Future Const. Reserves to Operating in FY 2014 Page 2 of 2 January 7,2015 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Packet 11a. Water Management Committee report(submitted by Dave Trecker, 1/5/2015) Page 1 of 2 From: david trecker[mailto:djtrecker @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday,January 05, 2015 10:02 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Littoral Plantings II Lisa- Please forward to Tom Cravens,Neil and Marion. Also include in board meeting packet. Thanks,Dave Begin forwarded message: From: WE Morris <williamemorris@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Littoral Plantings II Date: January 4, 2015 at 12:45:13 PM EST To: david trecker <djtrecker @yahoo.com> Reply-To: WE Morris <williamemorris(a�yahoo.com> Hi Dave, And Happy New Year to you as well. Hear is a partial listing and our experience with several plants on Sarasota County's list. I have asked my resource for the complete listing, as I couldn't find it on the Sarasota County web site. Listed in order of preference/success: #1. Arrowhead. Sagittaria lancifolia. Has nice white flowers, hardy, and self seeds. 2-3 feet tall. #2. Pickerelweed.Pontederia cordata. Has nice purple flowers, hardy, and slowly expands. 2-3 feet tall. #3. Spike Rush and jointed rush. Rush fuirena. Brown spikelets, hardy, 2 feet tall. There are 5 different fuirena in Florida. These three are our currently preferred species, as they are hardy, not too tall, and provide some color. We are planting these on our littoral shelves and along our shoreline to reduce erosion. We have found success in planting like species in tight groupings of 20-25 plants. This minimizes tilapia damage, and allows plants to get established. Best luck planting in spring at start of growing season. One footnote: The supplier stock can vary quite a bit in quality depending on when and how they harvested the plants. Some "floaters" will appear after planting, so need to have follow-up visits included in pricing to replant the floaters. 1 year guarantee is good as well. In round numbers about$1.00-1.25/plant planted. #4. Validus rush. Scirpus validus. A medium height bull rush, about 5 feet tall. Used sparingly due to height, but adds variety. #5. Golden Canna. Canna flaccida. Has nice yellow flowers, hardy, and self seeds. 2-3 feet tall. This plant grows best at the transition from wet to dry. We have some test plots, and this shows promise for future plantings. January 7,2015 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Packet 11 a. Water Management Committee report(submitted by Dave Trecker, 1/5/2015) Page 2 of 2 #6. Californicus rush. Schoenoplectus Californicus. A tall rush, can grow 8 to 10 feet high, but very hardy in dry soil areas. We plant this where a screening is desired, or other areas where home owner views will not be impaired. #7. Smartweed. Polygonum hirsutum. We have removed this plant as it dies back in winter and is an ugly black/brown color while the snow birds are here. But it grows quickly providing almost instant coverage. Unfortunately it will also spread across open water, so it does not stay on the littoral shelf areas, and we have had to have people bring in boats to cut this back to the shelf area. More info as I get it. We have a meeting with our pond maintenance people tomorrow to review the "limited spray"program that we started in 2014 on 21 of our 67 ponds. We want native species to be nurtured, while spraying for invasive plants and grasses. A balancing act that we are trying to manage. We are expanding to 27 ponds for 2015. Still trying to educate home owners that perimeter aquatic plants are "good" as they prevent erosion, and attract shore birds. Change is a tough sell. WEM On Sunday, January 4, 2015 10:56 AM, david trecker<ditrecker(a)vahoo.com>wrote: Bill - Happy New Year! In a previous conservation, you said (I believe) that Sarasota County had 12 varieties of plants it specified for littoral plantings in retention ponds. If so, could you tell me how I might learn what they are? We have had some success in Pelican Bay (Naples) with aeration and plantings, and we will probably expand their use to more of our ponds. Your comments on problems with blue tilapia were helpful. We will think twice before expanding their use. Thanks for your help. Dave 1/5/2015 Pelican Bay Services.. Division ` u ram <' ifs 3 .. ._, $e. „x la i0it 1 _, ,Woe '" `�' YEEICAN!AY SEAVECFS OIViSION . WATERWAY SYSTEM Part of the South Florida Water Management District 63 freshwater lakes—retention ponds control runoff 44 lakes are the responsibility of the PBSD 19 lakes are the responsibility of individual associations 1 - 4 o Troughs to canal along berm, with culverts leading to Clam Bay o Clam Bay—Outer,Inner and Upper Clam Bay, connecting creeks and Clam Pass k 1 1/5/2015 itffli . �- ~ "• rt.: tr�.. Y'`tf P• •to 4,, .'7•Z:-: •.:: , i )..i.t.e-; *4"-44,-:‘:.,..ri.•:-.> fE i ( t'' '\ ter,.-4 .• C _ .. .d. .4't _ _. .�__ Ell 111:13111=111 y NJ�J�NYNJ� NNNNNNN Lakes sow,.."w,,,,w NNNNNNNN Swales/Canals N_„\IY.„ along berm "'NN..NNNN Clam Bay �.r�:: �� -. ,\ 6 .. . PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ...:::'•.:',..E..!_:!:!.... STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS o Man-made Lakes . SFWMD approval after construction __ No regulation thereafter `' o Clam Bay : f U.S.EPA standards =f Florida DEP standards �2 4 1/5/2015 SEQUENCE OF PROBLEMS High fertilizer usage Excessive irrigation Nutrient accumulation in lakes in Clam Bay 4 Algae bloom from excess nutrients -Reduced dissolved oxygen -Odor and sediment build up -Fish and bird kill 4, Copper build-up from algae treatment PausRa►rtr%ae�fti�c%s$Itifsyoar CLAM BAY WATER QUALITY Standard Actual Dissolved oxygen 3 5.0 mg/L 5.1** Nitrogen 0.81 mg/L* 0.07** Phosphorus 0.06 mg/L* 0.065** --_ Copper <_3.7 pg/L 3.3 Outer Clam Bay"** 6.4 Inner Clam Bay*** -_= 6.0 Upper Clam Bay"*" ' Midpoint of allowed range -_ ** Average in 30/2013 -_- **Average in 2014 - est+!! CLAM BAY WATER QUALITY Florida Department of Environmental Protection classified Clam Bay "impaired. for copper" in October 2012 and gave Pelican Bay 5 years to develop a plan to 0 deal with the problem 3 1/5/2015 ' \�:'\ peones SAT.m*vIEn simsl oil.. APPROACH TO PROBLEM 1.Inform community and urge fertilizer BMP(2013-14) 0 Talks to local groups =_ o Flyers to residents o Pelican Bay Post articles 2.Stop using copper algaecide o PBSD in 8/13(44 lakes) o Individual associations in 2013-14(19 lakes) 3.Find alternatives for algae control(10 test lakes) ,% e; 0 Aeration 0 Floating islands _-� o Littoral plants 0 Fish --__ -4 o Bacteria 4.If necessary,remove remaining copper(last resort) 10 L�- == ...: ... PEnnAN SAY SERVICES AiVl$rGS - _ BEST OUTCOME o Copper in Clam Bay washes out to Gulf and/or goes into sediment = o Copper in lakes goes into sediment o Effective alternative is found for controlling algae in lakes t sERvicEs styi tce COPPER DISPOSITION -- liquid5. - = Cu(I Flushing Cu(IN( liquid sediment Cu(I Lakes I Cu(R -=- sediment ==- ' Clam Bay Cu Ill) =-- Gulf of Mexico 4 1/5/2015 WHERE DO WE STAND? o Pilot tests show suppression of algae o Non-copper algaecide only moderately effective o Copper levels down in 34 of 43 lakes tested o Copper levels still high in Clam Bay with slight downward trend 13 PELICAN SAV SERVICES DIVISION AVERAGE NUTRIENT LEVELS IN LAKES mg/L j = 2013 2014 • Total phosphorus 0.17 0.09 • (Recycled water 1.97) Nitrate/nitrite 0.20 ma►0.22 • (Recycled water 2.06) BEST SUPPRESSION OF ALGAE* o Aeration +littoral plants (4 test lakes) o Aeration alone or plants alone (2 test lakes) o Blue tilapia(1 test lake) ==_- *Visual examination over 7-15 months Role of bacteria uncertain Duckweed also a problem 5 1/5/2015 -.-= -.. PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION - _ AVERAGE COPPER LEVELS IN CLAM BAYµg/L* 2011 2012 2013 2014 Outer Clam Bay 1.5 1.6 4.0 3.3 =- Inner Clam Bay 5.8 5.7 9.3 6.4 Upper Clam Bay 9.2 8.9 7.3 6.0 =_• "State limit=3.7 pg/L` Outliers(>40)excluded 16 ..- .. ... PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION GOING FORWARD o Test tilapia in two more lakes to evaluate effectiveness and downsides o Consider expanded aeration/plantings =- (e.g.Lee County and Sarasota County) o Evaluate irrigation water problem o Consider seeking PBSD easements for remaining - - 19 lakes o Consider hiring consulting guru to manage entire water quality program • • I s by x 7rE1lr + %* t- %J Service Bayx Division 6 TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH RAFAEL VASQUEZ- BURNEY (11/19/14) Rafael is a member of CH2M Hill, the consulting outfit the PBSD uses to sample, analyze and report on water quality in our upland lakes. In an earlier Water Management Committee meeting, Rafael advised against using blue tilapia to control algae. My telephone call was intended as a follow-up on those comments. Rafael said the tilapia gills catch the macro algae but let the small algae pass through. The small algae thrive and multiply and eventually create a turbidity in the lakes, which take on a green hue. Further, he said, the fish droppings are rich in ammonia, the most bioavailable of the nitrogen nutrients. So the fish transform nitrates and nitrites taken up by the algae into ammonia, ironically creating the best possible situation for algae growth. He concluded that, over the long haul, the fish defeat the purpose of controlling algae. Rafael will elaborate on this at subsequent PBSD meetings. Dave Trecker (12/3/14) TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH BILL MORRIS (12/2/14) Bill Morris heads a group responsible for water management in Pelican Pointe, a 20-year-old community of 1388 units in Sarasota County just north of Venice, FL. I contacted Morris at the recommendation of Bill Risen, a friend of Paul Johansen, a resident of the Breakwater in Pelican Bay. Pelican Pointe has 67 retention ponds (lakes) in three basins, the runoff from which goes into Hatchet Creek. 55 of the lakes catch runoff from well water, which is used for irrigation. Algae in those lakes is controlled by littoral plantings, which are required by Sarasota County. (Twelve specific plants are recommended.) Some chemical treatment is used when necessary. Units in the basin containing the remaining 12 lakes use recycled water, which, like ours, is loaded with nutrients (dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer). Those 12 lakes are called "the dirty dozen" because of continuing algae problems. Aeration, plantings and chemical treatment are used in an effort to control algae bloom. Duckweed is less of a problem. Blue tilapia were put in all 67 lakes but were said to have had no long-term effect on the algae. The fish were considered a nuisance because they ate shoots from the littoral plants. An environmental engineer recommended to Sarasota County that the fish be removed from all of the lakes. An outside firm is to net the fish and sell them for food. Morris invites the PBSD to visit, view their lakes and review their activities. Dave Trecker (12/3/14) ResnickLisa Subject: Wed, Dec 10 Water Management Committee From: david trecker[mailto:ditrecker(avahoo.coml Sent:Saturday,December 06,2014 11:40 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Lisa-Please forward to the other directors and Neil and Marion.Also,please include in the packet for the WMC meeting. Thanks, Dave Begin forwarded message: From:Mike Bauer<mbauera(�naplesgov.com> Date: December 5,2014 at 2:37:33 PM EST To:"ditrecker(a.vahoo.com"<ditreckerna.vahoo.com> U.S. Habitat: Fresh or brackish waters, ranging from creeks and streams to lakes.The blue tilapia is adaptable to salinity levels allowing it to inhabit and reproduce in both freshwater and brackish areas. http://www.tsusinvasives.org/databaseiblue-blapia.html Oreochromis aureus Blue Tilapia Class: Actinopterygii Order: Perciformes Family: Cichildae %;"-k j J- S ,.1 ¢ k - %1 M l Source:http://www.fishfarmingbusiness.com/ Description Adults range from about 5-8 inches in length and can weigh 5-6 pounds; however, the largest recorded specimen was up to 21 inches and weighed more than 10 pounds. Oreochromis aureus has a blue-grey body with a white belly and 20 to 26 gill rakers. The caudal fin of the blue tilapia has broad bright red or pink distal margin. The head of the male fish will change into a bright metallic blue shade, during the breeding season, and he will also display a vermilion pigmentation on the edge of his dorsal fin and an intense pink coloring on the margin of his caudal fin. A breeding female fish will develop a pale orange color on the edges of her dorsal and caudal fins. Ecological Threat: When Oreochromis aureus is present it can diminish plant, fish and shrimp diversity in freshwater areas. Blue tilapia has also been implicated as the cause for unionid mussel declines in two Texas water bodies, Tradinghouse Creek and Fairfield reservoirs. With a wide range of temperature toleration, the blue tilapia has been able to establish itself within the Southern Gulf States but could travel northwards. Oreochromis aureus is considered a competitor with native species for spawning areas, food, and space. Some streams where Oreochromis aureus is plentiful have lost most vegetation and nearly all native fishes. It has been shown in several states that the blue tilapia's local abundance and high densities in certain areas have resulted in marked changes in fish community structure. All species from the genus Oreochromis readily hybridize, potentially posing a threat to genetic diversity through introgression. If two species from the genus hybridize, that can increase their survivability and expand their invasive range. 1 ResnickLisa Subject: Wed, Dec 10 Water Management Committee FW: Blue Tilapia From: david trecker[mailto:djtreckerTvahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 11:37 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Blue Tilapia Lisa-Please forward to the other PBSD directors and Neil and Marion.Also, please include in packet for the WMC meeting. Thanks,Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Mike Bauer<mbauer(cr�naplesgov.com> Subject: FW: Blue Tilapia Date: December 5, 2014 at 2:37:50 PM EST To: "ditrecker(cr�yahoo.com" <ditrecker(c yahoo.com> From: Katie Laakkonen Sent:Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:48 PM To: Mike Bauer Subject: Blue Tilapia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oreochromis aureus Invasive species Since its introduction into Florida in 19610 the fish has increased its range and frequency of occurrence. It is now the most widespread foreign species in Florida, with established populations as far north as Lake Alice, in Gainesville, Florida.m It is a major management problem for the National Park Service due to its predominance in Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park, where it has changed the fish community structure The species is also expanding its range in Texas, is responsible for inhibition of the population of Largemouth Bass in Lake Trinidad, and is implicated in the unionid mussel declines in two bodies of water in Texas.0 It is also blamed for a severe decline in native fish populations in Warm Springs Natural AreaY-1 Katie Laakkonen Environmental Specialist City of Naples, Natural Resources 295 Riverside Circle Naples, FL 34102 Office:239-213-7122 Fax:239-213-7127 klaakkonen@naplesgov.com www.naplesgov.com • 1 Tilapia Fact Sheet Genus,species: Oreochromis spp. (Gunther 1889), Sarotherodon spp.(Rupper 1852), Tilapia spp. (Smith 1840)(ISSG 2006)) Common Names: Tilapia(with a lower case"t"refers to all three species),boulti, freshwater snapper,mojara,ngege, St.Peter's fish (ISSG 2006). Taxonomic Synonyms: Oreochromis spp., Sarotherodon spp., and Tilapia spp. inlcude roughly 70 species (ISSG 2006) ft sr RR Photo credit:MIT Sea Grant College Program. Tilapia are an economically important food fish that have the potential to out- compete native species in tropical environments across much of the southeastern United States. The species, blue tilapia, is the most abundant invasive fish species in the southeastern United States. They are successful aquaculture fish because they are hardy and easy to grow, white fleshed, mild flavored, and appeal to the palate of consumers. Life History: Similar to the grass carp,most tilapia species are herbivores that have the potential to alter aquatic plant populations and ecosystems. Tilapia are mouth brooders, which means eggs hatch in the mouth of the female, and the female protects the hatched young from predators in her mouth (GSMFC 2003). Means and Time of Introduction: From the 1980s,tilapia were introduced as aquaculture species that are often farmed in cages in open bodies of water. The fish can escape if the cage becomes damaged due to environmental forcing, such as hurricanes, storms, or human actions. Throughout the world, documented cases of tilapia introductions are frequently due to both release and escape(ISSG 2006). Blue tilapia (Oreochrmomis aureus)were introduced to Gulf states for weed control, in other.cases it was for weed and insect control. They also have been released from aquariums and fish farms (GSMFC 2003). Origin: Tilapia is originally from the Middle East and Africa(ISSG 2006). North American Distribution: Blue Tilapia(Oreochromis aureus) can be found in Florida,Alabama, and Texas, although Alabama winters often do not allow survival of most populations (GSMFC 2003). Other tilapia species,many of which formed hybrids, are established in southern California irrigation ditches where they were introduced to control aquatic macrophytes. Habitat: Tilapia can be found in lakes,wetlands,marine habitats,water courses, estuaries, and marine environments. They prefer tropical environments with water temperatures in the 25-30°C range. Some species can tolerate cold temperatures down to the point of 8 or 9°C. Sensitivity to salinity also varies greatly between species; some species can fully tolerate seawater(ISSG 2006). Some species have been shown to tolerate salinities above 45 psu,but they may not reproduce at those salinities(GSMFC 2003). Ecological Impacts: Blue tilapia have become the most abundant invasive fish species in the Gulf states. Tilapia often compete with native species for the same type of food, and can therefore cause declines in native populations (GSMFC 2003). Tilapia that have escaped from aquaculture facilities may interbreed and form hybrids(Costa-Pierce 2003). Some species such as the Mozambique tilapia(Oreochromis mossambicus)have outcompeted native fish species and preyed on native larval fish in areas where it was introduced. Economic Impacts: Tilapia may compete with native fish for nesting space or food and thus-have the potential to negatively impact native populations in warm environments (GSMFC 2003). Literature Cited: Costa-Pierce, Barry 2003. Rapid evolution of an established feral tilapia (Oreochromis spp.): the need to incorporate invasion science into regulatory structures. Biological Invasions 5: 71-84. GSMFC(Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission)2003. Fact Sheet for Oreochromis aureus. 21 November 2003. http://nis.gsmfc.org/nis factsheet.php?toc id=194. Last accessed: 15 May 2006. ISSG(Invasive Species Specialist Group)2006. Ecology of Oreochromis spp. Global Invasive Species Database. 12 January 2006. http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=813&fr=1&sts=sss. Last accessed: 15 May 2006. Benefits Of Stocking Blue Tilapia • Blue Tilapia eat many of the common types of filamentous algae,blue green algae, chara, duckweed,watermeal, nuisance rooted aquatic vegetation.A perfect par with the amur who will not eat these types of algae • Prolific breeders • Fish spawn when they reach 4"\water temperature is above 68 F • Lay up to 1500 eggs per female • Spawn every 18 to 21 days • The babies are the ones that put the biggest strain on the algae\by converting vegetation into a bait fish for your predator fish. • Reduce demand on minnows and Amurs • Increase the size and population of other fish in your pond. • Fall temp cause fish to slow down allowing predator fish of all sizes to gorge itself just in time for winter • Control Muck • Reduce unpleasant gases • Most Eco Friendly solution to controlling algae, no more chemicals • Finally a solution from vegetation for pond owners who use their pond as a water supply. • A perfect substitution for the bluegills since they can not take over your pond. The list goes on but the time is now we only sell these the first part of June and we have secured a big supply however demand for the fish is great. Please call and place your order for these fish today. Fish supplied first come first serve bases Blue Tilapia Stocking Density Chart *Existing Size of Predator Fish.If no Large Mouth Amount of Bass was stocked than subtract 2"from the Pond predator size Covered by Stocked Lbs of Aquatic Tilapia per Acre *Less than *8"-10" °10"-12" *12"+ Vegetation of Water 8" Little 10-151bs Stock Stock Stock Stock Spotty 15-251bs All 75% 25% All 1 ft Around 25-501bs 4"-6" 4"-6" 4"-6" 7"-10" Pond 25% 75% Covered 50-100 lbs 7"-10" 7"-10" Additional References: FishBase 2006. Species Summaries for Tilapia. www.fishbase.org. Last accessed: 15 May 2006. GSMFCb. Fact Sheet for Tilapia zilli. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 3 August 2005. http://nis.gsmfc.org/nis factsheet.php?toc id=200. Last accessed: 15 May 2006. GSMFCc. Fact Sheet for Oreochromis mossambicus. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 3 August 2005. http://nis.gsmfc.org/nis factsheet.php?toc id=195. Last accessed: 15 May 2006. GSMFCd. Fact Sheet for Tilapia mariae. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 3 August 2005. http://nis.gsmfc.org/nis factsheet.php?toc id=199. Last accessed: 15 May 2006. Last Updated: 28 June 2006. PBSD BOARD MEETING JAN. 7, 2015 LANDSCAPE AND SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT 1. COMMUNITY BICYCLE - MOTOR VEHICLE - PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PROGRAM a. Bicycle Safety Forum and Clinic - sponsored by the PBSD 1 . Where: PB Community Center 2. When: Wed. Feb. 25, 2015 3. Who: NPC; Naples City Police 4. Format: Presentations and explanations of the Rules and Florida Laws pertaining to: (1) riding a bicycle on the sidewalk (paths) and roads with sharrow markings (2) operating a motor vehicle on roads with sharrow markings Area bike shops will help residents after the presentations adjust their bicycles and make sure they are safe. b. Handouts c. PB Post Articles d. e-newsletter articles 2. OAKMONT LAKE PATH a. Another PB resident has reported falling and suffering serious injuries while on the pathway around Oakmont Lake. This report and others highlight the immediate danger, material disrepair, and major liability that exists for the PB community. (see a-mails and photos in meeting materials packet) 3. LANDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE a. Overgrowing vegetation and tree trimming update (Marion Bolick) e-mail from Pelican Bay resident Jane DeFalco - JAN.1, 2015 - Re: My Bad fall Hi Dr. Chicurel, I truly have been remiss in not following through with my description of a bad fall on my walk around the lake. I was very lucky not to have broken any bones or lost any teeth from the fall . It occurred the day before Thanksgiving and my daughter Lisa was with me on our daily run. A group of about 7 or 8 walkers gathered round to try and assist me up from the ground but I resisted their help as I wanted to feel certain that I was able to move body parts before I was put back on my feet. I was bloodied and heavily bruised but was able to slowly walk home. My big worry is that my front teeth and the L side of my front gum were not knocked loose. I hope not to have trouble from that area in the future I am regularly aware that I have a sensitive front tooth and gum area from the fall. Time will tell in this case as I know I suffered a blow to my teeth. The path needs help and as I am a daily walker I regularly meet folks who inquire about my recovery from the fall... I tripped on a raised blacktop joint which was the culprit in my case. I am in excellent physical condition and suffer from a weakened left wrist as a result of the automatic response of having my hands raised to protect my face when I slammed onto the walkway. Every time I take a Pilates class or work out with my fitness trainer I am reminded that indeed I had a bad fall which could have been lethal. I am not worried about my wrist as I presume that it will finish healing itself soon. The path needs more than a simple resurfacing with blacktop. It needs a structural , professional plan to shore up the edge of the path as it slopes toward the lake and a secure surface on which people can walk safely. Thanks Dr Joe for recognizing this need and prompting me to respond. Jane DeFalco From: Joseph Chicurel [mailto:jchicurel @gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 5:58 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: The Oakmont Lake Hole Begin forwarded message: From: Joseph Chicurel <jchicurel(a�gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: The Oakmont Lake Hole Date: January 1, 2015 at 9:35:38 PM EST To: Joe Chicurel <jchicurel(a�gmail.com> Begin forwarded message: From: ResnickLisa <LResnick @colliergov.net> Subject: FW: The Oakmont Lake Hole Date: October 24, 2014 at 11:24:19 AM EDT To: "Joe Chicurel (jchicurel @gmail.com)" <jchicurel(a�gmail.com>, Neil Dorrill <neil(a�dmgfl.com> Cc: McCaughtryMary <MaryMcCaughtryc(a�colliergov.net>, BolickMarion <MarionBolick(cr�colliergov.net> This is from Ms. Giordano re: Oakmont lake pathways. Original Message From: Alice Giordano [mailto:nanagio57 @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 10:31 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: The Oakmont Lake Hole There is anther one that is much worse around a drain right before this one.Picture below after my April 29th letter. My letter should say Oakmont walking path not Oakmont Road. Alice Giordano 239 598 4397. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 10:19 AM -/ * 97%Mb p n Ilf Alice Kelleher Giordano • To: PelicanBayFoundation @pelicanbay.org more... .................... ........_..... ..... . The walkway around Oakmont Lake April 29,2014 at 8:40 PM Please share this with the board &the " Services division" On March 16th I had a fall &had to have 4 stitches over my rt eye. I landed on my recently replaced rt hip . Thank god I didn't,t hurt that.I ended with cuts&bruises over my entire body.this is (the picture above)THE area where I fell it is rt after the end of Willowwood Rd.There are many areas in disrepair. I have left a message with the services division, Talked with the gentleman who rides around in the golf cart.(he assured me he has reported things twice).My suggestion is to post signs warning of poor conditions along this walkway&the sidewalk along Oakmont Rd.Maybe spray paint these bad areas with red paint until repairs can be made. I have more pictures but they really don,t show how bad things really are. Any questions please call . # 239 598 4397. Alice Giordano owner here since 1988. Tap to Download photo 1.JPG 2.7 MB i .- - If—. , r,&'Srli'liVii4;\-,- 4 ,• ..ti,'"Attii:-•4:7.,----• , . :' -• „ "; -.0-'044, 114 "*--4111,N, *V)04.4-, ' *•7•:1* T *-,;‘,7,0 - '1"-•(::,-0,-. ..k,4 :k.,,, ,-, k, , '''''',‘--,-:,e - ' - ."--, '",-, -.',-.5 ‘.1 ; \ 'w ,- ),. i,,,,,,,' , -,.::,--.1-, ..y, 7,;‘,-; : -,,.;-•...'? ....----,-,,,. ''''.9 ' -: _,. • • ' - - „-:, , r:.,,,,,,?..P.-; ,kitiV,‘ ',..e.";-4'...11.'''' ..5,-)-----,:p -:-- -1 'f'-- ;-' ., .. . -.,:r.$ ,,,, ,,..„..,,, 5. -_ ,,, - ..:. ...e . ..• .. ,..„........-•--: ..,,, ,- , .0.,,,;,,,....4.....„ , . ,,Ag-'. ,,. . ., , ett , '„ • .5.fr--44.0,..44.,,,-, ,,,,..,,,.., ,....4„, ..,,„:4,,,x.-,,,- ',":474:!;'.--;/ -' , ,,,:,,,-„,.'.7-,--ii * *:k: • -.' '",- * ' "'"`",e..-,:' ;';z4,1,114,froei,"."1,- --1- -1-= 1,1;.41:14a ,.-7,-'•••''r ,i., - 7 ,••• 4 ,,...„.;..-.. -.* •' .*'''',,t;5,;4'..-tr,,ii.'.47 %- - • - .••': ,4•-•-• 1.`";*777,-.•: 7;7-7--*-:..7 :',..- , ' i: ,' . . ... 'i,t'-„ s,,, r; _ `.:. - • ''' • '. ' ,• g.,:--..t•-:‘‘fi,"::':Ikr:5*;-S'-,' ' ' s ,, •(.... .'• • * .'" , ,. -;•-' Z.--%:;,-- , C—• • .• ''''-' ".',.......c• ***, ;-..7.' - " *,'" '-',*:...' i ' T.'....a..;•!!'fi:.:);;.!act:".'S"-, ^ 1 ‘,.*c.' *.,''..,..4. '."*.ktl, * ' . ---'; ‘,- '.,..-1!•-,_'-•-:,;,.''','" ''' '' . ' -,- 1.''''•q-;-:..`-.2 '.../ •-; ;'' ''' ,-' -,—- •::'''''':::;;;;.4:-.:44;,"‘k x s . -'. ' "'::,•;;,_,..f.',,'''.-"r,J...,<P,.,:,Ii,":74,, •-,--, y.' ,f --`• f. i ',. T.:-.....'4,-,!..---:... , -' • ' -''''''.1':.,?"-- *'* e-*,-; , -,-,. * -'t - , ''.' ' • - • c":.. *.- ;,it.„T...C y 3C'r?;%; - 2; ' '4'e.*.'-'1, '' ' .''.;:1V;?. ,7*-, 4_...c.-;, * ,.,c%,... :'''' csY'''''*Ir?'*...; ..e.42*- , ., .7," ',' -ze ..- ,..—:-., ,, ,t",-,-,,,,, ,-45,..„.1*--„, ... ' , _ .,-,.-:• . -', - •-. , • . - : - .,,,' - ,,,,,,_,...,-;4„,„1,:,. .„0".,,, ,i,,,"-,F,,.'"„,:zi-,. ,•;„r!,- ,„? '• -: ,* ;i,',,,,,t,„4:„.1„,(.7..!.-0',%4--;_.-,...4W/e-.. :...4'''''41,-:----.4%.5,,-'N,!..4,':•.„,,f.-",. — .,4 tiv' Vt•l.-,&,-'..4-` .-.`4.' 16-;.--' , rA ;-t K JA4 - v..- ,I Sent from my iPad From: Joseph Chicurel [mailto:jchicurel@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 12:24 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Photos from Oakmont Lake Path Lisa, Please use these photos instead of the ones e-mailed to you on Sat. Thanks, Joe Begin forwarded message: From: Joseph Chicurel <jchicurel(asgmail.com> Subject: Photos from Oakmont Lake Path Date: October 7, 2014 at 4:59:21 P.M EDT To: Lisa Resnick <LResnickna colliergov.net> Oakmont Lake Path (in major disrepair ) 7 • � �<} { S► ' 4T �� � ver+ n �} 'yp . _ wrn sL4 a 1 .o' ems. • • °{gr: rrS *srt x r 7"-{ , } s 4 s . r y F { .o Eye �t k ._ , 4 ,t try, ' ' M Z • ... h� � r� X.... a.. .., .tet a�'�.y'�' t d ♦ � . w. .. �`nFi.' 6 .; Y Generalized cracking; and an area where the asphalt is being pushed up with severe cracking. 4} e4 ' • y" t A r _ - ti ., 'VA' f n, e. & A"':"'":'—' `' ...„.: .....„•. T , ,,....,„ mow.' . , � .?r' '.n � ate' m. 111f l �y 4 .+r wit , r. .,. � k Via' T # r ill ,. . f `,, "�w p'+g ``"i§%_�r,� kms. +r F�. � z — `- > , gam'" ,13x. r ,w44 - 44( it ,• s t ifx' ti �--!„v .; , t ` � S Cr r � iF n 's t�, ` .L yyy , y ;,pans. - ;."'sMli G ¢ Lake edge of asphalt breaking loose; no barrier between path and lake embankment(safety hazard) .nom 9 • , mow'' , , Y"` ,�yT,f 4 # y, . x .i r k ? r Yl�,a� d 3 -'� Y T' Major asphalt collapse and walkers. Major liabilitysafety for thehazards Foundation i', 1 -r;+ '� ti r , Y r � F m a 7. *,:. :-.. ..,..„,.... , ...,,.. ., ._.. ., . , .,,, . .. _s . a ' s; ` '-'°- 4y�'"-au.�.Yv.rmr`w�:a.....� -— ---,-,',:.----6-* P ^^C...u. ¢ • , 4 Y Terrible plantings and areas of nonexistent plantings. . 7,x,. -N' ,,.vto. _. , .',. •* . :. ' .' .. t,,,0,... _,. ,,,.,....... ,:,_, ----,,,,,,:',, f .:i.,...;.; ,;:!C l h' i } Y• Y fi ',y tines' • - 4 4 Close-up of unkempt and poor vegetation (Pitch Apple). . ,�• - t ,ri�,. •] ..p� 4 +� oa ..1F 4th ' lt44 lye 4 fit • Y V rm�'�4a t _"st— ,..!-:75t."'2 i t� ' i .i1 ' iEa .,`fit .44 ly4� �. b' . .,;•*,\. -.; ..,"Wk$erfIt' ' 441?-1-A.,es' ��� �''''...:411.f..',,,,:: 1144 tj 1S �V * S �� $Aill{ii`4 1.1� �s "+s 4 ; ' J ,.`r -1:4, -,+' 4 y ' f Y'1 ' lull l 111,1��} .'�� ®, , -, r 1`' , • t J r' S Sr.a T. .i-��. a`, +� 31 tll� 1:... t =". ifi,y'` 5''';' -'',::-*:.1",',.."--'1,...':"...-- _ .- ..} di: -„ r..=r� 5,. A ,'-A,-,"-:i4,,,,... y i l ' t . x j*t- r 'hk 4# -.4 'rte Y i S ."- `v .?< '- - +_ . , # . -y 9 3 a� `'s h� ,uti� ,,ra?�.�s`ayi�.�<,�'°�^ L.i t � �X � `I����� ��"' �1� �n r��f. ti�' +lid y;-, 'e+'2'"''k C'.-,-,.,...14-..--,,,..,.., }ai ..t# fir'" � • yr ,•n* rt , i 7i'''''-':' il bra! & _.;;;.4i,,-, j' J 5t.r-,A-::t:;: � y4 f y ,. 4' N. �x.. a}4 4+. y56 r"T.,,,,,,'I,' „Se.:„ '.gip },� i j 1.k ("..may. .Ir ,� w f b Rjrt �'t -1.�'' S Azo. es+a.,t;Xt r ..# ` � ,.*:„», -y'_�. f�'f r' � ,E 4# �� ,..1,-; - a '°�.•++t*:;gt e'.i".N, =fr°`-. '4 1,'� 9 Cm$"•',. Another area of major pathway collapse and safety hazards to walkers.Another liability! r , � . 1' .r r . .y .y ! . r.7:40 j ..!y' . 1. x 4 R ...;r ' ft' `.fir , trv4` f r �4"J 1 j Ne #'v y ''' 4 y- k4 {. ,a R��a�. ,•�� tvl -- '11.0717:4 MP ° , ' k,:ial.V21. ' ''':''',4_ 7 . _., .c...,,,,,,,. .,,„.... . ..„a .. ....a.,,,,..;,,,.,„... ... . it:Mir, .13 ' '47. -. .4 iir ...,,;0 Ta P + _ .. .. _ �^ J r w i n r* x tik 7 .. ,y ''`.ft xs �q."y,r 'YF T ,,,,:i E r . 07 11 ,Y $i .t."4. 4 .� w '. ed'•�a�, i .,�r , ..±141: !.. +? ` R�l�g + ? /r1.-. 44 tI * 'gym' { Broken lighting (can be dislodged if pushed upon). ''-';•,•.'145.r.• *'''-',..." :•.• -••••le. ' ':••••,-•'•',, 'tiC14-. '1;4-‘'•- -- . •t ;'H:‘;'''..'SA" ' .. - •-'•••' )';''•••';',t, : ,,4•;(;;°." • (A A. -•--' .••••-•••.,°4•••-:'' :.:*; • 4%:•,'„. - •••" , ' *.•• •, 4' 4 '?"' '',- , ••"$ , ''. '• *• ''-=';'••••.''''',.' -.- .•, •,. - •:. -r •,.ke'•:-•-••• •". ' •, •i••c• 5• - s ••, )'.',. : ),..°7 • " -J.,: ,- • ' '"•• -".,"4.'"'••.-SA, . ,V...,V.....° °••:44•• ' *- - ' '' 's,'''''-4'4-'-`.47,,•• --' ' "-. 't*.:•°' '' e..."--*' i. ' '°'' ' ' °' ''''°'*041 -•"-K• '• 'k" • , • A ' ° ' ' • ''•'°'$•-'4.4r t''''''," ' ' ''!'... r k.:,.''''•'•-• '..'!' ' .,... A -' • I - - ','''" , . , . , • .,.,* ,. ••• , • 4. ''''''''`''..-••• • 4.' s - •.?'.-**4••., . • • ,, > ,..,..4, '''*"..",--• , 4.• ,•-. • , '')•••• : •-• -, * *,,i;..".- .• ') •V*4.10,1; ,tr.,' '''''-• . • 'V. ••••••••• .-.• , ---.. • • . . • • - . •' ' -- ••:* 1.1 't '- ".. -5•••/'•;,!. * • 1 ' '-'••'• :. ‘ ,t4, .. . •2. • ‘,14 .„.t 4114 • ,... .... •'''''(•••'„,•", /. t 1**7..;:;;•'...ii e..:'7 *.• - 4,i;'', :ti**,,:s4i/..':':*••:,:',.-, I,,•••,..::".•*,,,:kr _ • _ ,, .'-:;',)014 *•,,,,•°, ';.•''.4,71,:--• C ,kjfi.:" . -...- - -. • -'- ,... 1411•,..4,.... - '' , - isi•••••••,,I," -,•.. •," ,,,,„) ••!",' r ... .......i.' - ' V- ._ • ' " - - .-, • - - '''411144, ',.-) ° ',.‘"rfr''no.'"`.'r f.. ••'''' .••• . • • ••••1' •I''..• ...„....1.-t• 5, At.. a , i -I,:'-•,:tfe„,„. ' - ; a.. ,r... - ...;‘,.4,•`,"" / ' ' A -10.-i., ''...--- .. , . ...... : .15- - - *4 qii,„ ..„ , • ,, '' '' '• ,„ ‘. . Vege t .ai,l°n just ba -rely bein 9 trimmed ProPerly. Ar a us I /�(r ` .*::5..' ' • }ter ate ; r a .F-. 1 t fI 4- 4r T M`1* -,',--..-.-1-',0-}' . S 'a t . _ • r ; , • ,` .. ..y,.,....,.�,,w,4 ,.� r' .. 4r .'.4r rv. • 5 11rY i. ;�I"r*'-+:a �."�3°`.:. M _ ..�,-_a.�_-:.....;-1 _ .. ,_a .� a a+'"...a h'. . e+�•+ff .,. Vegetation overgrowth. fl. 'Al, I " r ! itkiiii n' • • t71,. ',.:1 ; ." :-41' "'be 3^^ 4 .a,..I,•` .14 '-'` .+'1R;4 m f ;,",:,-,- 44' . , ,dgwS • ; n ".-i•ri, JY} � w � ' `� T; � � ��{}j 3 � r, � I a • • • ti e rma , !, + rI ,� rl � I �' 4 ` r� Y� } CI r r 1 f`'ti M3r F 7 ... ..C�iri'; v, 'YkN?,, k n , L �,1 Y l - .e 1k, <, N'''" t ": , ,..1,;!,,,,. kti 4� � VA tywf al� .4 .y ' .„,„ , . {� ,. 'r. 4 ".% ;sf [.µk .t, 4, . . f r --.t4 ..,,,..1441,,:... . ;;;; t1 r,t.ms f :Y yx .� , j#y di • .710 Y ,. ...., ... .. ...z,::,. _,.._. , Yt. `AS '''''';...4 . : .r- -y ., . M. cry •ti f !`'' .ter } ✓�• rt t. tr, , Y .-te•r.. ,...:r I'.`..f a_i.. .a4.-'"�_._rGx?".r. xr..Jv �N- '•'s '�'� � E'er I , -':.4''.':'=".:'-'1',-4%„,,#...k.''''''t!' '!(1-..:',.. .Z Y is �. + —. 'i P b .w {. + X,,,,*1- :4', .fl via -"' t ? s "".; .17 ' e4 M k# tF� _ O a r M4 - s ',-lt, . ,may); .,r� `�: _ �- r n.,..- y,..-�i'a s ,. y �. _ �i f ]._,,,m;..,..1.„. ..1-"t=', ,` � �_�(P�!�S'J'.�.. {�"'�r„r�•'li1� e:�, �� '�i''a`r-f'�i*.t y; 4+. ;y.� ��" �' 1.3 `{ t ! ` T� . l- 6 r"{ rt3�,n ^"' r w'r: `�g'y.Y'��� q"� ���,y++1�Ld�.B��F�,� � ��ssi� a, Yid' '''y -;74 die i �-.. 5 :.'...4.11-71 '' +ate s.� A -.4:;•':-.'...-.',-,77"--.1,-.: fitF °; ''.-,:,;;;":.7.--,'„:..L'.,..','''..'.-:..:, '- „ k.--,, - ,_� .a L9 Asphalt cracking and displacement. .t ,.. .+t r r a- A itp. ray /•• Iy ft .. Eke- ' .,..e:i.r' • .,ter yM - h ' °, I fi K • u .r. T ,moi "i. �" rix � v._ � +,�� •4 .f.,::::, ,,.-'44,447''' y =� r t le,'" ,� -F �� J • 3 ub-. ti} �- ..i.-1,... _ fir• '� rte$ w1 w t u. 'rfY r "' - r S '}t t L,a - ` �`:..t 'c { . may:�#. r s'>r t 4" "5r '''',1/.:' a+x_ "'A y ''. 11 �rr -4`.:4,--,... *A i .;xl. r. M. r t r �.. , • 3 z}1 d .ter e. f -+,. • ' `-''! i t. Another cracked and broken security light. t •sN ^ 8 w ,� � S*- �:"73� � a •' s r • • • tss r a� i, Ate• } waw' `tL * �. _'�. r �£a..�c:;• • v y fie,: m„g fit,} •...�fr � � � � e• • '�.. .fir 44- "cirle R b R -� srti ; r try �. ve ,,� • 7,",•�sy�tp, +y c +ems ° 31 zL�k # _• d(' !!d tf l(�lr s $ h. {•' �a" i .. 1kS1i1!!/lJjll71 ' q�,A 477,4 . rt " _-^ °e +. tAti'411$ �a4 :14R' .'#T #� �� its • E r , Major hazard for walkers and liability. m � I a r -ter.' .. ,r,-.�...F,�.. -,.,. c , - , r x e. z Xy :':,%:,,,,,s l s .R : q# 4 7 t#. !...;:f.' r iq t #c , 1,'14,� `r,Ar,A A a '1 -- i - 1,;; ;;;,*0:.-ttl-'",,'''' ' f4 s'� #s jtt� :r �'it r a. i t' 4xrt# e x` fS ,ns �4j !n Xt...t-SF �,+ ',+ - 0.- ,+ z • c ftt1-tt t:ilt''gtt"‘.4-.3 :1I1-"W450,iii,*;?4,''ir:V::;1!''',.;;A.i' ','./- .p ( ' ".-- ' ' - - a,44-tt' 1'..**-,. .70i1;.:1',-1''t -•*:;-:-,'"'iiti-1 ,11.*'"gi.-'11;1"7 ,;.: -.. ‘, ' ..' - -' - : - ' {{�, a . . .-, . , : .. i4a,c 1yyr4,F,�1+1 r _ . ,,,,,,,,,,,„ir ,4,,, ,,__.....:,,, ,i, .,. . , : . . . , v. 4,7,711::,...„., ,r‘i, „,.....27, ,,.. ::,1 . _. . . _ . .. . ...... .: ;..1,A ,,,,,,,vz., ,,,,:iit,;:,,,o,.....,, 414.,&,..., :: ,-.- . . .. . .: . ,,. . ,,.;,,..,, ..,,:,,,,,!. , , ,i,„,,„ ?,:,,,,..4„,,,,,,,,*,,,,,.,..,.7,..,,,,,,,./.51c4!.,,._-... . - , • .. %..._ .,,.... , . - •,,,,,,-7,-4t, - • ax' xi, 'Al ,x's-t f ... I 14, .4_1:*-'*„,...: �r r ii;-:.-..x...-;',i' , r Additional areas of pathway cracking and loss of pathway edge. ' Y . F .1444,,,,,,,,,___:-.., tea. * a�. � .. .w Ta ¢ ,i,,,.4.,....-'y''' 4 r' i ,¢ ,''',4;,,,t''' "5 .<4�k ; i f Sid'� ' I" '-, I. s � P• � -. . z;'4 4 0 'tiro t"6"r' _ z '''- "4,-„,:,'''''4•4', x7#...+'`;F3" ✓s ., X ,1fi bx� a' 4l tl. sa '� : , 1 i '' c�,..e' X r s'r ,f �' :714'.."'" fir` , �k �, J' 'rxf ! 1. 7:.*-' b" 4 a y 'tta ke `'11_y C '11*.''° s � �,r � .� <` "', � � '''t^7,1" O` *. '1-',":� T'h ,p-, 5 � �'�,Y r�'�i r 1 ♦ '�"" ',....:4::!:',.':4'...4-','-..t- r��� 1, ip�g. a�Y d:,rs{.: r . $ d�:`Arm ` r*• ';''..-.,17.,,-'.,,,,, • , ,. , r �'�f �,�� �'�``Tl �� { ���-�r ;.• �a.,� -� � mk":"';`''''": r„,,*--'',4*,,,,,,,,,a °�. 4 'Na 4 r,41, �{• ,a, a � }} r ;S . F.7 1flt r`' . . ,r ..w 1 ,S CJ•,Ck.� � k p�� f . '.moi, a r v ct}..` .Ft• ' ` ' .�h � 4A as...„..--_,...;,,,,44,,,-,,,,,4-;,,',:.,,44::-, ♦� ' ;tt - fi4; Y _ fJ { i97.',..,11:0,1';',;:‘,', ai ,..,.. it� t 1V More evidence of lakeside asphalt crumbling. ... ,.---- i k 4 i , s �r 9 • ::�;�� � za it ` ; i -,--i *€�w 4 � :> ,. --tC.;:'e:7:41.".-'i:'7:::, -;::''',15;41..."4'1 i.A.:Ir,.7 ilfr:1 a fes, :nom '✓ r a 4 lit +'''''.-'T.4'.',....,,,___.4-• 6Ld' Via. - '..„,,21-t-'...,,X • * ,I 1.K 1++1..,:;_,./".. - ¢ { \ S +3 tit � r.' -- f/ ON LL r • � t r jJ/ e. ��. , 5-,- • `s em j . .( �f i i. , F r s 4 .R y .a j , f d4 , - .:"I',,� .Y� mss. ria ,.. s� 'i a s:'S'-t a w- }'' ` ^sr k £,gyral M,,u 0 , ' ' . "- :::::',‘..:---:.:;:f.'::::i:47;,\';:i".:=....7.i..:;:',:I:.:`,L''`:,.-..:.;.,,'`,4„v-,:-.:..,-,s,-*:; -.!. '--.. . .• . , Lr h ° ; '�� :',:f...-,::::' �y t 5 ¢.3 sr _ 1. r may rr r Long unsafe downhill expanse with pathway cracking and crumbling. • Itt - -- . ', WI), 1)1Pij te - a . .- yk�Q` , r '''....:.:,:-..-.4.'„./4--4-- ,:...,--.-t"me s:r> Jtrit k 2 x , ; .,` �' " si -� tt.*1, . �dy,K iy kc k q 5 r r lt i; r41.1,',"''ta5r '£ aw.,'N' c 'r.„-,,4,,.-.-.1/4,...,11:73.,.t...- f,4, ;, r8� _'+ ' ' i.~. "r. e y a S � .. . e ' 4, a , , . a qt� 4 ,$' �*' !' ` w �c *1k4c7 !iz ~....04N r - .0a7,-,.-.7-0.0;4%1,, 7 ,...i.A71,..'• Ncz.,:-,;-,.. • , o. l� +_+ __ 9k`+µ Sn , `F ! ',r ,, '.` .f'^+ , _ _ •. iS`.Y*�I r+ t.yrs T� 1 1 ,F.T'/,may la�,.. ,I j w'' .+y'rf"}. ky.... a`5'}, ,i1.1 kr 1t F` (- ' r �.,t •+ -"'�'"y k .' • , may':q; r °`4 .' ,, • a ,i•". +y-....}T� '74 `+-V.1`,w `fpr ' F iR wd`.,:','',-1.1,-,:--7-.7,--- t•�fr ..� 1 ,•• iY �� x`�' Si} ;"a Another view of the same. August 1,2014 Jim, Glad to hear that it was a productive meeting. Mary picked up the major themes quite succinctly: there is an ongoing problem with copper impairment in the bay,with sources likely coming from the stormwater system,there is no problem with dissolved oxygen(with the new criteria),there is no problem with phosphorous(despite the changes to the monitoring program),there is a"problem"with nitrogen(but it's likely due to changes in the monitoring program. There are some regulatory issues that need to be resolved—water quality data has to be collected, analyzed and interpreted in a manner consistent with the NNC criteria. The monitoring approach and criteria we developed are a"hold the line"approach. That means that there is no need identified for nutrient reduction, but there is a need to make sure that conditions don't change in the future so that a need comes about. The burden is on the County to provide the data in a manner that is consistent with the developed criteria,to upload the data to STORET,and to report to FDEP on their findings on an annual basis. If the County doesn't do that,then the whole effort seems to be a bit of a wasted opportunity to control your own destiny. Related to the issue with copper,there are places locally that have tried alternative approaches to algal control,techniques that don't require as much of the application of copper. I'm not sure why - specifically-they use so much copper in the stormwater ponds. If it's to reduce vascular plants(things like Hydrilla)then physical harvesting is a potential option. If it's to reduce the amount of floating algae and/or because the ponds are greenish colored,then there are alternative techniques used in the City of Naples that might be worth investigating. Without knowing what's the exact reason for the copper,it's hard to figure out what a potential solution might be. But copper does seem to be a real problem,and if the County and local stakeholders don't get on top of it,you may have a TMDL calling for dramatic reductions(60 to 90%reductions)without a whole lot of guidance on how to do that. It might be worth consideration—the County and Pelican Bay conducting a"pre-emptive"TMDL in the form of a Reasonable Assurance Plan. This in an alternative to a TMDL,where the party with the impairment works with FDEP to come up with an action plan to get the waterbody into compliance. I was PM on one of the 4 Reasonable Assurance Plans done in the State of Florida (Lake Seminole)and I'm very familiar with the process,in case the Foundation and the County are interested in this approach. Like having a locally-derived nutrient criteria, it puts the stakeholders in the driving seat in terms of how to meet criteria,and keeps you from having a TMDL with no"real"guidance on how to get to where you and FDEP really want to be—an unimpaired estuary. David Tomasko, Ph.D. Principal Associate ESA I Water 4350 W.Cypress Street Tampa, FL 33607 813.207.7205 I 813.207.7201 fax 813.597.3897 I cell dtomasko @esassoc.com http://www.esassoc.com ( Lake Seminole Watershed Reasonable Assurance Plan -,... .-„, •-r-,---,r,......:. 'r 74..' .- - ::,-;w---. _ , .t(.41.!*-iyii' 4r$- -- 51.--IF:i",'17S-r''.4-1- 1 ktriiii . I •Or;IA.-.RKet,.. ...i._ ...: I...x-k.-si-fp r/A-32,1,--.„:1:43-_, - A•,.-,47:-•• 11 ij-MIZ5:41i ..., 1.4' :1-14 . •E' .-j.:; ,- 1 1. N - rii-r4,_.:3;• - -- ''" - - #,..-4...,.rt' ) Ii s`i--...?, N •!e,4!!!•:•;=,.i,..T-IfIF 1, 41 i7' 1-, IA- •- -,:•1.:,. -—P„...'=.'4"•• '''-11.:-,4-••• ....*.IC1' - ir:!..:Cr..---- if "7-Lhi,T .tesrsiii 4... ..v,:‘,.14,--:;-',:,-7..eitt,-..0i•A ,r• - - - -1• 1,..e. 4-6---c!rir.:.V.. ,.. •-• Z .," 4....fis.,!-- 4 ,‘N. ,$.iN.- ...:, .._th.-.. : ,. .1fi :. .,..;__. t$ ' 'nfIrvt,ii ATI? :..7:,:!,!..-..4tar;o!'",;:i.1 .-,---,,,..,•,: r- 1 ,t:Ce.....'1 .1 ..•*7.:..`t-A t,";1;::. .',):z.z..4:•,;;.ts,..1:N ,to kw.7.. . Ii.crAgo - :.:Ii;N:.,...,t. • •rf;:q , ,,:-,...,-4._74, .,,,,,cy .1,Q,--, ,",-....: •ci.:t :,' . .-t,ki. .1-WOR :‘,2,:.7'2.1 ..c., ,.A'.1-:4 i:i4-e _'-:::,,g,i; 11 114...,_ .,-;7::-...;rt.: ,s.,....- •,,-.2.-n%•::-,f Je...., . If :- ---11;' •• • al ,:.F:::-.-. -s,. irkr..•.3:-....,,..t.., ..x5.,-.',,./ i2:1171-1,1* '-'. ,.. 1-..... ..•,, :34.; ,,1.-1-$11•c•),!: ,--).,.....s.s• , ---„ . ' ,..11:.' --'.: %Li`, !..:70----7-'= -7' I.: ,,. c-i 1 - .1-..--%:-... --‘--.;-.r.: ie44.2:04,,,.... t .'" 1114-11ftvli-b-Th _ :,... ,.,-..,,,-,;...i......7„,,-,,,,,,, .4,„7*.:4 -,-' ilfr • (,-, ,,,,--2,v,1Z4Pleti-ta_fg'.• ' i 4 1 • = .,,,, .'4 - A 1 ;,:i.4,4, v.-,.- !t•t.,g ,'at.; ,,,,. : . ..,..:1-. .5 7.-:. 4..,•1._eA.,....."2 ,•,.- ••-•-•••:4 -.-. - -x-''------.2-ic.-1 '- % ........ '3 ''.;''. f'.'Nr41iite"C',ellOrt•C"?."3-i.:.1 "- •s 2- ---A,,,_,...-"st-.-,... --,:z•-.f...'4,-.:), tr.:-ze.w.c.,.A..::-Itt,X, .'.-7,"; ."1.,...Vielr-). --;•1. 1.4-,tt•l:i- ...J.F..,..., -,ify:s: 141...14 •r1/4..„4..t. Irekt:•4 'T..f;.4 ."' . i,j's 4....P.Ii" &t:;,-It's7'!;".-1..• , -f1j .t.I?tit4,4:-_ 7,,- .:4--/ ..•%..•4-L•-'•,2. i.i...t te...,,, , ,,,q•);A...4r, _,,.,. - r. •!',.9.-... ":0. -'41:-. i-,--1.,--,la 1 .,-.„..,,,,A. ,,i...,,,c-k., •-, • .4.,-0.4.,...,...„- ,, :,..... . tee-.,1,. _, , —r7 ..., 11 DRAFT Prepared For: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management 300 South Garden Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Prepared By: PBS; 5300 West Cypress Street Suite 200 - Tampa, Florida 33607 May 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Purpose of Document 1 History of Lake Seminole 2 Physical Modifications 2 Land Use 6 Causes of Current Problems 6 1. Description of the Impaired Water Body 7 1.a Name of the Water Listed on the Verified List 7 1.b Location of the Water Body and Watershed 7 1.c Watershed/8-digit Cataloging Unit Code(HUC) 7 1.d NHD Identifier 7 1.e Water Body Type 8 1.f Water Use Classification 8 1.g Designated Use Not Being Attained 8 1.h Length of Impaired Area 8 1.i Pollutants of Concern 8 Trophic State 9 Water and Nutrient Budgets 15 Pollutant Loads 17 2. Description of Water-Quality Goals 20 2.a Description of the Water Quality-Based Targets(both Interim and Final) Established for the Pollutant(s)of Concern 20 2.b Averaging Period for Numeric Water Quality Goals 24 2.c Discussion of How These Goals Will Result in the Restoration of the Water Body's Impaired Designated Uses 24 2.d Schedule Indicating When Interim And Final Targets Are Expected To Be Met 25 2.e Description Of Procedures To Determine Whether Additional Corrective Actions Are Needed 26 3. Description of the Proposed Management to be Undertaken 27 3.a Names of the Responsible Participating Entities 27 3.b Summary and List of Existing and Proposed Management Activities Designed to Restore Water Quality 27 Structural Components 28 Management Components 38 Legal Components 46 Policy Component 48 Compliance and Enforcement Component 49 Public Education Components 50 3.c Geographic Scope of any Proposed Management Activity 54 3.d Documentation of the Estimated Pollutant Load Reduction and Other Benefits Anticipated from Implementation of Individual Management Actions 54 Structural Components 54 Management Components 57 Legal Components 60 Policy Component 60 Compliance and Enforcement Component 60 Public Education Components 60 Modeling Results 61 3.e Copies of Written Agreements Committing Participants to the Management Actions 66 3.f Discussion On How Future Growth And New Sources Will Be Addressed 66 PBSBS)! i Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan )! DRAFT May 2007 3.g Confirmed Sources of Funding 67 3.h Implementation Schedule(Including interim milestones,and the date by which designated uses will be restored) 67 Phasing of Plan Components 67 3.i Enforcement Programs or Local Ordinances(If management strategy is not voluntary) 68 4.Procedures for Monitoring and Reporting Results 68 4.a Description of Procedures for Monitoring and Reporting 68 4.b Quality Assurance/Quality Control Elements that Demonstrate the Monitoring will Comply with Chapter 62-160, F.A.0 69 4.c Procedures for Entering all appropriate Data into STORET 70 4.d Responsible Monitoring and Reporting Entity 70 4.e Frequency and Format for Reporting Results 70 4.f Frequency and Format for Reporting on the Implementation of all Proposed Management Activities 71 4.g Methods for Evaluating Progress Towards Goals 71 5. A Description of Proposed Corrective Actions 71 5.a Description of Proposed Corrective Actions that will be undertaken if water quality does not improve after implementation of the management actions or if management actions are not completed on schedule 71 5.b Process for Notifying the Department that these corrective actions are being implement 72 Case Study#1 -Sediment Removal 73 ii Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan PBS) DRAFT May 2007 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Sub Basin One Effectiveness Evaluation Appendix B WASP Model Appendix C External WASP Review Appendix D Interlocal Agreement Appendix E Pinellas County Monitoring Plan Appendix F Ambient Monitoring Report 2003-2005 Appendix G Standard Field Protocol and Checklist iii Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Timeline of Events within Lake Seminole Table 1-2 Trophic State Index(TSI for Lakes and Estuaries(from FDEP 1996) Table 1-3 Water Budget for Lake Seminole Calculated Using 1997 Data Table 1-4 Total Nitrogen(TN)Budget for Lake Seminole Calculated using 1997 Data Table 1-5 Total Phosphorus(TP) Budget for lake Seminole Calculated using 1997 Data Table 1-6 Major Sub-basins with the Highest Integrated Nonpoint Source Pollutant Loads Listed in Order of Decreasing Priority Table 2-1 Goals,Targets and Monitoring Objectives for the Water Quality Issue Table 3-1 Summary of Recommended Habitat Restorations Sites and Projects in Lake Seminole and its Watershed Table 3-2 Potential Stormwater BMP Locations in the Priority Sub-basins Table 3-3 Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives Table 3-4 Tabular Summary of Target Monthly Lake Levels under the Recommended Enhanced Lake Level Fluctuation Schedule Mean Pollutant Efficiencies Achieved during Laboratory Jar Tests Table 3-5 Conducted on Stormwater Samples Collected in Lake Seminole Watershed during November 2003-March 2004(ERD 2005) Table 3-6 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for Alum Treatment Systems(from Harper and Livingston, 1999) Table 3-7 LWWM Simulation Results for Management Action#1 -Regional Stormwater Treatment Facilities(BMPs) Table 3-8 LWWM Simulation Components and Results for Management Action #3-Canal Diversion Table 3-9 LWWM Simulation Components and Results for Management Action #4-Sediment Removal Table 3-10 LWWM Simulation Components and Results for Management Action Combinations Table 3-11 Confirmed Sources of Funding for Lake Seminole Restoration Projects Table 3-12 Implementation Schedule Table 4-1 Pinellas County Water Quality Monitoring Schedule 2007 Table 4-2 Lake Seminole Sampling Stations Table 4 3 Indicators Collected at each Sampling Site(From Monitoring Plan 2003) PRY(t iv Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Location of Lake Seminole Watershed Figure 1-2 Current(2004)Land Use in the Lake Seminole Watershed Figure 1-3 Natural vs Cultural(Human Induced)Eutrophication Figure 1-4 Trend in Lake Seminole Annual Average Chlorophyll-a Concentrations Figure 1-5 Annual Average Total Nitrogen in Lake Seminole and Flow-weighted Direct Runoff Calculated in 2001 Figure 1-6 Annual Average Total Phosphorus in Lake Seminole and the Flow- weighted Direct Runoff Calculated in 2001 Figure 1-7 Trend in Lake Seminole Annual Average Secchi Disk Depths Figure 1-8 Trend in Annual Rainfall Totals in the Lake Seminole Watershed (SWFWMD) Figure 1-9 Comparison of TSI Calculation Methods for lake Seminole Figure 1-10 Graphical Depiction of the Lake Water Budget Figure 1-11 Graphical Depiction of the Lake Phosphorus Budget Figure 1-12 Major Sub-basins Delineation in the Lake Seminole Watershed Figure 1-13 Pollutant Load Rankings of the Major Sub-basins Figure 3-1 Potential Publicly Owned Staging and Sediment Treatment Sites in the Lake Seminole Vicinity Figure 3-2 Location of Recommended Habitat Restoration Sites in lake Seminole and its Watershed Figure 3-3 Location of Recommended Enhanced Regional Stormwater Treatment Facilities Figure 3-4 Conceptual Diagram of the Preferred Alternative 6A Figure 3-5 Recommended Enhanced Lake Level Fluctuation Schedule Figure 3-6 Storm Drain labels within the Lake Seminole Watershed Figure 3-7 BMP Alternative#1237 Simulation Results vs 1998 Future Land Use Baseline Conditions(Model Plot) Figure 3-8 Weir Alternative Simulation Results vs 1998 Future Land Use Baseline Conditions(Model Plot) Figure 3-9 Canal Diversion Alternative#3A1 Simulation Results vs 1998 Future Land Use Baseline Conditions(Model Plot) Figure 3-10 Dredging Alternative#4C Simulation Results vs 1998 Future Land Use Baseline Conditions(Model Plot) Figure 3-11 Combination of all Management Actions Simulation Results vs 1998 Future Land Use Baseline Conditions(Model Plot) PBg v Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan Purpose of Document Lake Seminole is currently listed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as an impaired waterbody pursuant to Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. The primary pollutants associated with this impairment are nutrients, which have resulted in hyper-eutrophic conditions and associated water quality violations (e.g., dissolved oxygen) in the lake. In 2004, the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Lake Seminole Watershed Management Plan (Plan). The Plan assimilated substantial diagnostic and feasibility analyses, and specifies four major projects aimed at reducing nutrient concentrations in the lake and improving water quality conditions. These projects include: 1) retrofitting stormwater outflows from the five highest nutrient loading sub basins with alum treatment systems; 2) alum treatment and redirection of a portion of flows in the Lake Seminole Bypass Canal into Lake Seminole; 3) removal of organic muck sediments and 4) lake level fluctuation. Using a WASP model developed specifically for Lake Seminole, it was predicted that the trophic state index (TSI) of the lake using the method derived by Huber et al. (1982) could feasibly be reduced from greater than 80 currently to approximately 60 through the implementation of the four major water quality improvement projects. This document provides "reasonable assurance" that implementation of the Plan will be sufficient to attain compliance with water quality standards and eliminate the necessity of a TMDL. A comprehensive discussion of all restoration plans implemented or proposed for Lake Seminole are detailed in the reasonable assurance document. Several of the large scale restoration plans were proposed by the Plan, therefore, a majority of the content contained within this document was taken from the Plan. The Clean Water Act regulations recognize that alternative pollution control requirements may obviate the need for a TMDL. Specifically, waterbody segments that would otherwise be listed as "impaired" are not required to be included on the Section 303(d) list if other pollution control measures required by local, State or Federal authorities are demonstrated to be stringent enough to result in compliance with water quality standards within a reasonable period of time (see 40 CFR 130.7(b)(1)). These alternatives to TMDLs are referred to as Category 4b waters. This reasonable assurance documentation is prepared for formal Category 4b Demonstration for Lake Seminole, to be coordinated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA guidance on Category 4b demonstrations requires that the following elements be addressed: 1. Identification of segment and statement of problems causing the impairment. 2. Description of pollution controls and how they will achieve water quality standards. 3. An estimate or projection of the time when water quality standards will be met. 1 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 4. Schedule for implementing pollution controls. 5. Monitoring plan to track effectiveness of pollution controls. 6. Commitment to revise pollution controls as necessary. In addition to addressing the elements listed above, adequate reasonable assurance documentation will establish that: 1) implementation of the major water quality projects set forth in the Plan are sufficient to meet the established TSI goal of 60; and 2)that the TSI goal of 60 is appropriate for Lake Seminole in light of unnatural origins of the lake, as well as the significant hydrologic and biological alterations that have taken place since the lake was first impounded. The recommended structure for category 4B demonstrations was followed for the construction of the Reasonable Assurance Plan for Lake Seminole in Florida. History of Lake Seminole Physical Modifications Lake Seminole, located in west central Pinellas County, Florida, was created in the mid- 1940s by the impoundment of an arm of Long Bayou, a brackish water segment of Boca Ciega Bay (Figure 1-1; Figure 1-2). On July 3, 1945, the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution to create a freshwater lake in conjunction with the planned construction of Park Boulevard and a causeway across Long Bayou by the State Public Roads Administration (Table 1-1). A secondary purpose for the creation of a freshwater lake was to provide a source of irrigation water for nearby citrus groves as well as to augment potable water supplies provided by the Pinellas County Water System (SWFWMD, 1992). Fresh water was contained in the lake through the construction of a fixed crest weir with an elevation of 6-feet NGVD at the south end of the lake. Since the single fixed crest weir located at the south end of the lake had the potential to cause significant tailwater flooding upstream of the lake, a second weir was constructed at the north end of the lake in the late 1940s (SWFWMD, 1992). Water was then pumped from a dredged basin at the southern end of Long Creek (the original tributary which flowed to Long Bayou) over the north weir and into the lake via three lift pumps. This modification allowed the water level in Lake Seminole to be permanently maintained at elevation 6-feet NGVD. Between 1957 and 1965, Long Creek was channelized upstream of Lake Seminole to improve drainage conveyance in a rapidly urbanizing portion of Pinellas County. In 1963, Lake Seminole was designated a State Fish Management Area for the cooperative management of freshwater fishes with the local community. Subsequently, the Lake Seminole Park was constructed in 1967. Additionally, a small 18-inch diameter outfall pipe with an invert elevation of 3.5-feet NGVD was constructed from the lake through a series of three interconnected ponds in the park. Water flows from the lake through this series of interconnected ponds and eventually discharges into the Seminole Bypass Canal over a weir slightly below elevation 5-feet NGVD. The purpose of this outfall was to provide relatively constant flow through the ponds to prevent stagnation and water quality problems. In the late 1960s, the northern weir was replaced with a 2 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 fixed curvilinear weir that exists today. The fixed elevation of the existing weir is 5-feet NGVD. In the late 1960's, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) recommended preventative measures to reduce the decline in water quality in Lake Seminole. The water quality and fishery were declining and the abundance of nuisance vegetation was increasing. Point sources for nutrient pollution were targeted for evaluation and termination. In 1971, the City of Largo closed a secondary, high rate, filtration plant. The plant had been discharging into a drainage ditch which flowed into the north end of the lake. Not long after the termination of the wastewater treatment plant, Lake Seminole was classified as eutrophic by the USEPA based on samples collected and analyzed during a "National Eutrophication Survey" (Camp, Dresser, and McKee, 1990). In 1976, the Seminole Bypass Canal was constructed in response to flooding in the upper Long Creek basin, as well as a perceived decrease in lake water quality thought to be caused by the pumping of Long Creek flows into the lake (SWFWMD, 1992). The construction of the Seminole Bypass Canal diverted runoff from approximately eleven square miles of the historic Long Creek basin, around Lake Seminole to the east and directly into Long Bayou. Subsequently, a fixed crest weir with an elevation of 3-feet NGVD was constructed at the southern terminus of the Seminole Bypass Canal. Although this modification successfully reduced flooding potential in the upper Long Creek watershed, it essentially resulted in the hydrologic isolation of Lake Seminole, and substantially increased the residence time of the lake. Prior to this modification, the lake was discharging at or slightly above the 5-foot NGVD weir crest elevation a majority of the time. However, after the construction of the Seminole Bypass Canal and the dismantling of the pumps, discharge over the weir has been infrequent and of short duration (SWFWMD, 1992). The ecological conditions worsened in the 1980's due to the isolation of Lake Seminole which resulted in an increase in residence time, accumulation of organic sediments, a decline in water quality (algal blooms) and fisheries and an increase in nuisance aquatic vegetation (hyrdilla). The FWCC stocked the lake with triploid grass carp in 1987 as an attempt to control the hydrilla infestation. Additionally grass carp were stocked in 1988, 1989, and 1991. The grass carp successfully eliminated the majority of nuisance SAV from the lake and even today a few grass carp are present in the lake. In turn, the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution in January 1989 (Resolution 89-13) urging the joint development of an effective long term lake management program through the cooperative efforts of the public, lake users, and state and local agencies with responsibilities on the lake. These agencies included Pinellas County, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC), and the Cities of Largo and Seminole. Representatives from these agencies as well as affected homeowner and business interests, were subsequently assembled as the Lake Seminole Advisory Committee(LSAC). In 1992, the Pinellas-Anclote Basin Board authorized a $10 million cooperative funding agreement with Pinellas County to restore the water quality in Lake Seminole. As a result of this agreement, SWFWMD funded a diagnostic feasibility study of Lake Seminole in 1992. The Lake Seminole Diagnostic Feasibility Study (SWFWMD, 1992) PBS; 3 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 estimated potential pollutant loadings from the watershed, as well as the lake's ability to assimilate these pollutant loads. In support of this work a preliminary lake/watershed model was developed (Dames and Moore, 1992). This model was termed the Lake Seminole Management Model (LSMM). Other components of the diagnostic feasibility study included an assessment of plant and animal communities in the lake and watershed, as well as a characterization of lake water quality and sediments. This work was used as the basis for various lake and watershed management actions initiated by the County and other resource management agencies; however, a comprehensive lake and watershed management plan was never developed. Since the completion of the diagnostic feasibility study, Pinellas County, with financial support from SWFWMD through the cooperative agreement, initiated several projects aimed at reducing external nutrient loads to Lake Seminole, and improving in-lake habitats. These included the Dog Leg Pond and the Pond-6 Stormwater Rehabilitation Projects, and the construction of an improved outfall control structure to allow for greater lake level fluctuation. In addition, the County continued to sponsor periodic meetings of the LSAC to obtain input from represented local governments, regulatory and resource management agencies, and affected citizens and businesses regarding better management of the lake. The primary functions of the LSAC included: the identification of priority lake management issues and problems; the development of management goals and strategies; and, the provision of a general forum for the sharing of information and the discussion of ongoing and emerging lake management issues. As part of the County's on-going work to develop comprehensive watershed management plans for all significant basins within their jurisdiction, and to provide a focus for the activities of the LSAC, the County selected PBS&J in 1997 to assist in the preparation of the Lake Seminole Watershed Management Plan (Plan). The Plan represents the culmination of a decade of diagnostic feasibility and resource planning activities undertaken by numerous governmental agencies and consulting scientists and engineers (PBS&J, 2001). In support of the Plan development, PBS&J completed a task deliverable document entitled Lake Seminole Sediment Removal Feasibility Study in 1999 (PBS&J, 1999). This task report addressed the feasibility of removing accumulated sediments from Lake Seminole with these objectives in mind. However, since the completion of that document, and the adoption of the Plan by the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners in 2004, some of the assumptions and conditions leading to the recommendations contained in Plan have changed (e.g., availability of publicly owned parcels for spoil dewatering). Additionally, in 2004 the City of St. Petersburg initiated a sediment removal project as part of the overall restoration plan for Lake Maggiore, and much relevant information is now available from that project. In 2006, an updated and revised deliverable document, Lake Seminole Sediment Removal Feasibility Study, was submitted to Pinellas County by PBS&J (PBS&J, 2006). In addition to Pinellas County's effort to rehabilitate Lake Seminole, the FWCC released juvenile largemouth bass to the lake on two occasions (mid-1990's and November 2006) to supplement the fishery population and restore the fishery. The initial stocking was unsuccessful but 3 months after the 2006 stocking event a healthy largemouth bass population was reported in the lake. In an attempt to improve the fisheries habitat and water quality in the lake, the FWCC initiated the first phase of a habitat enhancement project in 2002 which involved sediment removal and vegetation planting. Sections of the lake were isolated using bladder dams, dewatered, and scraped down using traditional mechanical equipment. This resulted in the removal of over 31,000 cubic PBS!; 4 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 yards of organic material from critical sport fish spawning areas and resulted in the establishment of native submerged and emergent vegetation. In 2006, phase II of the habitat restoration project began in collaboration with the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management (PCDEM). However, the water level of the entire lake was drawn down. An extensive lake clean-up was completed involving nuisance vegetation removal, replanting, and drainage improvements. Over 460 volunteers throughout the community participated in three lake clean up events resulting in the removal of over 27 tons of trash and debris (Photo 1-1). Approximately 100,000 cubic yards of organic material were removed from the lake. While the water levels were low, a USGS water level and discharge recorder was installed at the southern weir of the lake. •Sti 0, -477-.--%1: •=.111,4?_.4ik,t;.:.-.-. ...,4 4,,A-., •J.. . .44.-,. r' : .,.r 4 -z.fi i `'fix t,. `e.,,,i 7'% 1 l.1 • Mfr, 1� ''= � w)t r tr. f %_ +' q , , r c 4 ' s k ., t, .- • . �` * .,+ 71, ?;� ••%* 1r. l �rf, • i # S F r A y- • R ys- 1. ,t.r '1.`'C ! 11Ji i 'ti l: a 91 1 c % '�_*�7i' '�!{ .� ' a `I74.11a ,i--_,;/;., - [ /�i i• .;,. .-4 ti� "'„ss- y - may- _-• — +i.-.-'.-'t' ..- -}- ate-'.- ---,.. ' y.�. , ..._ -Cn .- -```144...."--'7-4-• f • �2`ma . Photo 1-1. Local Volunteer Lake Clean-Up in 2006 during lake level draw down. Since the adoption of the Plan, Pinellas County has implemented several other restoration components in order to address water quality concerns and improve the ecological health of the lake. The alum treatment system and pump required to divert water from the Seminole Bypass Canal to the lake and three of five lake alum treatment facilities are at 100% design and will begin construction in 2007. In early 2007, Pinellas County selected Hayes-Bosworth, Inc in coordination with PBS&J, to dredge Lake Seminole. Finally, the lake level modification structure has been completed and was used to draw down the lake water level for the habitat enhancement projects. Pinellas County anticipates the completion of all proposed projects by 2012. To date Pinellas County has spent over $10 million on restoration projects in Lake Seminole. The Cities of Largo and Seminole have contributed over $156,107 toward the restoration of the PBS5 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan ), DRAFT May 2007 Lake. Additionally, the FWCC, SWFWMD and SWIM have spent$336,623, $6,371,284 and $231,871, respectively. A total of over $19.2 million local and state funding has been allocated and/or spent toward the improvement of water quality in Lake Seminole since 1994. Land Use Since the construction of the Park Boulevard causeway and the impoundment of Long Bayou, land uses in the Lake Seminole watershed have changed from predominantly low density rural residential and agriculture (e.g., improved pasture and citrus) to high density urban residential and commercial. A review of historic aerial photography indicates that urbanization in the basin began in the 1950s, and was first evident along the western side of the lake where numerous waterfront residential developments were initiated. Many of these developments involved major dredge and fill activities to create canals and bulkheads. From the early 1950s through the mid-1960s, urbanization continued to occur predominantly in the western portion of the watershed, along the Seminole Boulevard corridor. In the mid-1960s, land use changes in the eastern portion of the watershed began to occur. In 1967, Lake Seminole Park was constructed, and the park was subsequently expanded in 1976. Rapid infilling of urban land uses occurred throughout the watershed during the 1970s and 1980s; however, no new major dredge and fill activities in the lake were permitted during this time period. In the mid-1990s the 102nd Avenue Bridge was constructed over the central 'narrows' portion of Lake Seminole. Figure 1-3 shows the boundaries of the Lake Seminole watershed and existing (2004) land use in the basin. Causes of Current Problems It should be emphasized that many of the problems facing Lake Seminole today were essentially predetermined by the physical origins of the lake, as well as the subsequent hydrologic modifications and land use changes that later occurred in the watershed. Long Bayou was historically a shallow tidal embayment which likely had been accumulating fine organic muck sediments in the poorly flushed backwaters for several centuries. When the lake was created by impounding Long Bayou, these sediments along with the riparian mangrove swamps were flooded by detained freshwater discharges from Long Creek. Today, these deposits of organic sediments constitute a lake management problem that now, more than ever, needs to be addressed. Increased nutrient input to Lake Seminole contributed to the decline in water quality. Additionally, wastewater from a treatment facility in Largo was discharging nutrient laden water into Lake Seminole until direct discharges ended in 1971. Subsequently, Long Creek flows were isolated from the lake via the construction of the Lake Seminole Bypass Canal substantially reduced lake circulation and flushing and increased the residence time of nutrients entering the lake. Combined with rapid urbanization with little or no stormwater treatment in the surrounding watershed, this hydrologic modification has likely significantly contributed to the persistent algae blooms and cultural eutrophication observed in Lake Seminole. When the original decision was made by the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners to create Lake Seminole, these problems could scarcely have been anticipated. However, with the commitment to create the lake comes the obligation to 6 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 manage the lake and its watershed in a manner consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan. The Lake Seminole Watershed Management Plan provides the framework for remediating the historic problems described above, as well as for creating a new future for Lake Seminole. 1. Description of the Impaired Water Body Lake Seminole is a 684-acre freshwater lake located in west central Pinellas County, Florida (Figure 1-1). It was created by the impoundment of an arm of Long Bayou, an estuarine waterbody, in the 1940s. The Lake Seminole watershed encompasses approximately 3,500 acres, of which almost 90 percent is developed as urban land uses. Drainage from much of the historical watershed of the lake has been diverted to the Seminole Bypass Canal, which intercepts surface runoff and conveys it east of the lake to Long Bayou. The lake currently supports intense recreational use including boating, skiing, and fishing. In recent years; however, the sport fishery (primarily largemouth bass and bluegill) and water quality have declined. Organic silt sediments have been accumulating in Lake Seminole since its impoundment and creation in the 1940s. The accumulation of organic silts in lakes is often associated with declining water quality and undesirable changes in aquatic invertebrate and fish communities. The available data indicate a trend of increasing eutrophication and harmful algal blooms in Lake Seminole. The primary concern with regard to water quality in Lake Seminole is excessive cultural (human-induced) eutrophication. Other types of water quality problems can occur in lakes, such as high concentrations of toxics (e.g., heavy metals, pesticides, etc.) and pathogens (e.g., coliform bacteria), but these types of public health problems have not been observed in Lake Seminole to any significant degree. Rather, the major water quality concerns are: 1) the control of excessive nutrients entering the lake; and 2) the fate of the nutrients that do reach the lake(e.g., internal nutrient recycling). 1.a Name of the Water Listed on the Verified List This document addresses Lake Seminole WBID 1618 located in Pinellas County, Florida. 1.b Location of the Water Body and Watershed Lake Seminole is located in west central Pinellas County (Figure 1-1). The lake is located in the Long Bayou Watershed. 1.c Watershed/8-digit Cataloging Unit Code(HUC) The USGS Watershed/ 8-digit Cataloging Unit Code for Lake Seminole is 03100207. Lake Seminole is located within the Crystal River to St. Petersburg Watershed. 1.d NHD Identifier Both Medium and High resolution data are available from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) for Lake Seminole. The Com_ID for the High resolution data is 120024097 and Medium Resolution is 16933868 (http://nhd.usos.gov/). The Reach Number for the High and Medium Resolution polygon is 031002070160475 and 03100207003126, respectively. 7 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 1.e Water Body Type Lake. 1.f Water Use Classification The impaired waterbody, Lake Seminole, is classified as Class III-Freshwater. This classification designates Lake Seminole for recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife (FDEP, 1996). 1.g Designated Use Not Being Attained Class III-Freshwater- recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well- balanced population of fish and wildlife. As of July 27, 2006, Lake Seminole was listed on the Group 5 Draft Verified List of Impaired Waters due to high nutrient concentrations (or TSI). Between 1999 and 2004, the annual average TSI value for Lake Seminole was greater than 60 all six years. The median Total Nitrogen value for 445 samples was 3.28 mg/I. The median Total Phosphorus value for 448 samples was 0.12 mg/I. The median Biological Oxygen Demand for 342 samples was 7.0 mg/I. (http://www.dep.state.fi.us/water/tmdl/verified gp5.htm). This document addresses the eutrophication of Lake Seminole and the management strategies that can be implemented to address impairments listed for the lake from the 303(d) Impaired Waters List. Due to the decline in water quality, use of the lake by residents, fisherman and tourists has diminished. The increase in nutrients and sediments has decreased the quality of the fishery habitat resulting in a reduction in quantity and quality of target fishes (i.e. largemouth bass, crappie, etc.). 1.h Length of Impaired Area Lake Seminole is approximately 684 acres in size, and it is the second largest lake in Pinellas County. The lake is approximately 3.3 miles long by 0.43 miles wide. 1.1 Pollutants of Concern An elevated Trophic State Index (TSI) value has been identified as the water quality parameter of concern for Lake Seminole. Specifically, TSI values exceeded the IWR threshold of 60 in the years 1999 to 2004, which is the threshold value for lakes with levels of color in excess of 40 platinum-cobalt units (IWR 2004). Between 1991 and 1998, Lake Seminole's annual average chlorophyll-a values exceeded 24 pg / liter, which is the median value for mesotrophic lakes in Florida (FDEP 1996). However, it was not until 1999 that levels of chlorophyll-a exceeded 78 pg/liter, which is the median value for eutrophic lakes in Florida (FDEP 1996). Between 1991 and 2006, levels of TP in Lake Seminole have been higher than the median value (0.07 mg / liter) for mesotrophic lakes, but mostly lower than the median value (0.13 mg / liter) for eutrophic lakes in Florida (FDEP 1996). Since at least 1993, levels of TN in Lake Seminole have exceeded the median value (1.36 mg / liter) for mesotrophic lakes in Florida (FDEP 1996), while TN values have exceeded the median value for eutrophic lakes (2.4 mg I liter) since1999. 8 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 1.j Suspected or Documented Sources of the Pollutants of Concern The documented sources of excessive nutrients in Lake Seminole is based on data collected by the extensive water quality monitoring plan implemented by PCDEM. The suspected or documented sources of nutrient enrichment in Lake Seminole water quality are discussed in terms of: 1) trophic state; 2) water and nutrient budgets; and 3) pollutant loads. The data analysis includes all data collected by PCDEM between collected between 1991-2006. Trophic State The term trophic state can be loosely defined as the nutritional status of a lake (Huber et al, 1982). Like other plants, microscopic, single-celled algae (also referred to as phytoplankton) require nitrogen and phosphorus and other primary nutrients to grow and reproduce. However, if nutrients are available in the water column of lakes in concentrations that are too high, nuisance algae blooms can occur. If these conditions persist for a prolonged period of time, many ecological changes begin to take place in the lake. First, the excessive algae concentrations increase turbidity in the water column and shade out the light that supports rooted plants, eventually resulting in the die-off of submerged aquatic vegetation. Second, the bacterial breakdown of the excessive amount of dead algal cells raining down on the lake bottom results in a depletion of oxygen in the water column which can result in fish kills. Third, when algae becomes the dominant source of primary production (photosynthesis) in the lake, this can result in a shift in the fish population structure from a predominance of carnivorous sport fish (e.g., largemouth bass) to a predominance of herbivorous rough fish (e.g., gizzard shad). This process is called eutrophication. Lake eutrophication is a natural process resulting from the gradual accumulation of nutrients, increased productivity, and a slow filling in of the basin with accumulated sediments, silt and organic matter from the watershed. The classical lake succession sequence is usually depicted as a unidirectional progression through the following series of phases or trophic states including: Oligotrophy- nutrient-poor, biologically unproductive, low turbidity; Mesotrophy-intermediate nutrients and biological productivity, moderate turbidity; Eutrophy-nutrient-rich, high biological productivity, high turbidity; Hypereutrophy-pea soup conditions, the extreme end of the trophic continuum. Although natural eutrophication could take tens of thousands of years to occur, a lake's lifespan can be drastically shortened by human-induced cultural eutrophication. Activities in the watershed such as forest clearing, road building, agricultural cultivation, residential and commercial development, stormwater runoff and wastewater discharges can all result in substantial increases in the discharge of nutrients, organic matter and sediments to the lake. Figure 1-4 illustrates the differences between natural and cultural, or human-induced, eutrophication. PiEf 9 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 The primary measure of the degree of eutrophication in a lake is the concentration of chlorophyll-a in the water column. Chlorophyll-a is an estimate of algal cell biomass, and may be directly related to the trophic state of the lake. In addition, the primary nutrients of concern with respect to controlling eutrophication are total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP). Finally, the most commonly used measure of water transparency is the Secchi disk depth, or the maximum depth at which a disk suspended on a weighted line can be visually detected below the water surface. The following summaries of the status and trends in water quality and pollutant loading sources focus on the parameters related to the trophic state of the lake, including chlorophyll-a, TN, TP, and Secchi disk depth. With respect to indicators of eutrophication, water quality in Lake Seminole has generally declined over the past decade. Figures 1-5 through 1-10 show plots of annual averages of seasonal water quality data collected in Lake Seminole from the period of record, 1991 through 2006. Due to limitations in detection limits and other analytical problems, all data prior to 1995 should be investigated with caution. Chlorophyll-a is the most commonly used measure of lake trophic state. Figure 1-2 provides a timeline of major events in relation to Lake Seminole and chlorophyll a. A water sample was collected in Lake Seminole by the FWCC for each year from 1969- 1972. The chlorophyll-a values ranged from 21.4-69.5 pg/I. In 1973, six water quality samples were collected by the EPA. This data provides a historical "snap-shot" of the water quality in Lake Seminole based on the quantity of samples, the average chlorophyll a was 102 pg/I. Figure 1-5 shows trends in annual average chlorophyll-a concentrations from 1991-2006. Chlorophyll-a concentrations in Lake Seminole were the lowest on record and generally stable from 1991 through 1998, but increased substantially in 1999. The mean annual chlorophyll-a concentration from 1991 through 1998 was 65 pg/I. However, in 1999 the mean monthly chlorophyll-a concentration increased to 120 pg/I, almost double the mean annual concentration over the previous eight years. Based on annual rainfall to Tampa Bay, 1999 was the beginning of a multi- year drought that extended till 2001 (Morrison et al., 2006).Additionally, 1997-1998 were "El Nino"years with the associated above average rainfall. The increased rainfall in 1998 would have increased stormwater runoff and nutrient input into Lake Seminole. The following drought would have resulted in minimal freshwater input to the Lake. The water level in Lake Seminole dropped below 4.0 feet (NGVD) in 2000 (Figure 1-6). Since 1999, chlorophyll a values have fluctuated around 120 pg/I. However, in 2006, values increased to 161 NgII. In 2006, chlorophyll a values were perhaps high due to lowering the lake from 5.0 ft NGVD to 2.5 ft NGVD for a habitat restoration project The lake level decreased further to below 2.0 ft NGVD due to an extended drought throughout the summer of 2006. The chlorophyll a values during this period are not indicative of the lake's normal condition. Further, no substantial changes in the lake or watershed that could significantly affect external pollutant loads or internal nutrient recycling are known to have occurred. Figure 1-7 shows trends in annual average total nitrogen concentrations. Like chlorophyll-a, total nitrogen concentrations in Lake Seminole were relatively stable from 1992 through 1998, but increased substantially in 1999. The 1999 increase is potentially due to increased nutrient input in 1998 followed by decreased precipitation and increased evaporation in Lake Seminole. Similar to chlorophyll a, TN values increased in 2006, averaging 3.8 mg/I. In comparison, the average TN concentration in 1973 was 2.4 mg/I. PlEi 10 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 TP concentrations have decreased considerably from 1973 to 1992. The annual TP concentration in 1973 was 0.2 mg/I compared to 0.11 mg/I in 1992. As shown in Figure 1-8, total phosphorus concentrations decreased somewhat between 1993 and 1996. From 1997 to 2002, TP values increased from 0.11 mg/I to 0.14 mg/. In 2003, TP concentrations decreased substantially to 0.11 mg/I. Currently, concentrations have increased slightly but remain lower than 2002 values. The decrease in TP could be attributed to the organic sediment removal in Lake Seminole during 2002. Figure 1-9 shows trends in the annual average Secchi depth. Secchi depth in Lake Seminole has generally decreased since 1991. In 2000, the mean monthly Secchi depth was 0.28 meters, the lowest during the previous six year reporting period. Secchi values remained low until 2002. An increase in secchi depth occurred from 2002 to 2004. In 2005, Secchi depth decreased substantially from 0.33m to 0.25m. The decrease in secchi depth could be due to the resuspension of sediment during and after the lake level was drawn down. As an indicator of water transparency, Secchi depth values are generally inversely related to chlorophyll-a concentrations. Secchi depth values less than about 0.5 meters generally represent conditions that are severely light limiting for aquatic macrophytes. Based on data collected by the EPA, the average secchi depth in 1973 was 0.7 m. Figure 1-10 shows trends in annual rainfall totals in the Lake Seminole area (SWFWMD) for the period 1992-2005. As shown, 1995 and 1997 were wet years, with 1997 and 1998 being documented 'El-Nino' years during which most of the rainfall occurred during the winter months between 1997 and 1998. 2004 was also a wet year due to increased tropical storm and hurricane activity. Conversely, 1990 and 1999 were the driest years during this period. Additionally, water levels in Lake Seminole greatly declined in 1999 and 2000 presumably due to the lack of rainfall and increased evaporation. Given the lesser 1999 rainfall total, the observed increase in chlorophyll-a concentrations in 1999 cannot be readily explained in terms of increased external nutrient loads from stormwater runoff for that year. However, the increased nutrient load from 1998 could have contributed to a substantial storage of nutrients in the sediments and water column for 1999. Although trophic state concepts have been in existence for some time, debate has existed over the terminology, the precise definition of various trophic state classes, and the development of an ecologically meaningful and widely accepted quantitative procedure for determining trophic state. There are several common indicators that are included in calculation of a lake's trophic state, chlorophyll a, total nitrogen and total phosphorus. Secchi depth was previously included in the calculation derived by Huber et al., (1982). The Florida lakes index is calculated differently for nitrogen limited, phosphorus limited, and nutrient balanced lakes, and involves the calculation of separate sub-indices for total nitrogen,total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, and Secchi depth. As discussed by Huber et al. (1982), three classes of lakes can be described pursuant to the total nitrogen to total phosphorus ratio. They are as follows: 11 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan • y DRAFT May 2007 Nitrogen-limited lakes =TN/TP< 10 Nutrient-balanced lakes = 10<TN/TP < 30 Phosphorus-limited lakes = TN/TP > 30 The sub-indices for the Huber et al., (1982) and FDEP approved TSI calculation are identical: CHLATs,=16.8 + [14.4* LN (CHLA)] TNTsi=56+ [19.8* LN (TN)] TN2Ts,= 10*[5.96 + 2.15* LN(TN + .0001)] TPTsi= [18.6 * LN (TP * 1000)]— 18.4 TP2Tsi= 10* [2.36* LN (TP * 1000)—2.38] SDTs, = 10 [6.0-(3.0 In SD)] *CHLATs,, TNTs,, TN2,5,, TPTsi.TP2Ts,, and SDTs,,] are sub-indices for chlorophyll-a, Total Nitrogen (nutrient-balanced lake), Total Nitrogen (nitrogen-limited lake), Total Phosphorus (nutrient-balanced lake), Total Phosphorus (phosphorus-limited lake) and Secchi depth, respectively. The overall trophic state index (TSI) for a lake is determined by combining the appropriate sub-indices to obtain an average for the physical, chemical, and biological features of the trophic state. All TSI values included within the Lake Seminole Watershed Management Plan (Plan) were calculated using the Huber et al. (1982) formulas. Limiting nutrient considerations for calculating TSIAVE.: If TN/TP > 30 then TSIAvE=1/3[CHLATs, + SDTs, + TPTs,] If TN/TP < 10 then TSIAVE= 1/3[CHLATs, + SDTsi + TNrs,] If 10<TN/TP<30 then TSIAVE=1/3[CHLATS, + SDTs, + 0.5[TPTs, +TNTs,]] *It is important to note that this formula includes secchi depth. The inclusion of secchi depth as an indicator for water quality in Florida lakes is controversial due to problems during the calculation of the TSI in dark-water lakes. Secchi depth readings can give an inaccurate representation of algal reduced light transparency due to the tannin-rich water. This complication is not a concern in Lake Seminole given the low levels of tannin colored waters in the lake. However, FDEP removed the secchi depth indicator from all calculations of TSI for Florida lakes. Currently, the Impaired Water Rule cites the "1996 Water-Quality Assessment for the State of Florida. Section 305(b) Main Report" as the accepted methodology for calculating the TSI (FDEP, 1996). Previously, in the Plan, it was recommended that the TSI calculation as derived by Huber et al. (1982), be used for all comparative TSI calculations for Lake Seminole. However, the use of modified versions of the above described trophic state index, or other indices altogether, will yield different calculated TSI values which may lead to confusion with regard to the establishment of defensible resource management and pollutant load reduction goals. Therefore, we amend our previous recommendation and suggest that the FDEP accepted TSI calculation be used for all future calculations of TSI in order to facilitate lake comparisons. The FDEP accepted TSI calculation for a nutrient balanced lake is: 12 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 Limiting nutrient considerations for calculating NUTRTsi: If TN/TP> 30 then NUTRTs, =TP2Tsi If TN/TP< 10 then NUTRTsi=TN2Tsi If 10<TN/TP<30 then NUTRTs,= (TPTsi +TNTsi)/2 TSI= (CHLATsi+ NUTRT02 For comparison, the TSI values for Lake Seminole were calculated using both formulas to demonstrate the complications that would arise without a standard formula. To determine the current trophic state of Lake Seminole, the most recent monitoring data available from Pinellas County, covering the period January through December 2005, were used. The mean seasonal concentrations of chlorophyll-a, TN, TP, and the mean seasonal Secchi depth, for this time period are as follows: Chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) = 129 pg/I Total Nitrogen (TN) = 3.42 mg/I Total Phosphorus(TP) = 0.111 mg/I Secchi Depth (SD) =0.25 m The Plan Calculation Using the mean values shown above, the TN:TP ratio in Lake Seminole is 30.77, making it a phosphorus limited lake, at least under current conditions. TSIAVE=1/3 [CHLATsi +Sam+ TPTsi] These sub-indices are given and solved as follows: CHLATsi= 16.8 + [14.4*LN (CHLA)] = 86.8 TPTsi = 10* [5.96 + 2.15* LN(TN + .0001)] = 87.4 SDTsi = 10[6.0-(3.0 In SD)] = 101.6 With the values of all sub-indices known, TSIAVE for Lake Seminole can be solved as follows: TSIAVE = 1/3 [86.8+ 101.6 + 87.4] = 92 Therefore, the calculated current trophic state index using the Huber et al. (1982) formula, which includes secchi depth, for Lake Seminole for the period January through December 2005 is 92. FDEP Calculation Using the same mean values, the below formulas were used to calculate the TSI for a phosphorus limited lake. NUTRTsi=TP2Tsi TSI=(CHLATsi+ NUTRTsi)12 lig5�4 13 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan y DRAFT May 2007 These sub-indices are given and solved as follows: CHLATsi = 16.8 + [14.4*LN (CHLA)] = 86.8 TP2Ts,= 10* [2.36 * LN (TP* 1000)—2.38] = 87.4 NUTRTsI= TP2Tsi = 87.4 With the values of all sub-indices known, TSI for Lake Seminole can be solved as follows: TSI= (86.8+ 87.4)/2 = 87 Therefore, the calculated current trophic state index using the FDEP accepted TSI calculation for Lake Seminole for the period January through December 2005 is 87. TSI Comparison The Plan TSI calculation computed a TSI of 92 compared to the FDEP formula which calculated 87 for the TSI of Lake Seminole for an approximately 5 point difference between the two formulas. The TSI calculations for both formulas from 1992 to 2006 are presented in Figure 1-11. From 1992-2004, the TSI calculation for a nutrient-balanced lake was used based on the TN:TP value. The Plan calculation is consistently 5-7 points greater than the FDEP method. A 5 point difference in TSI is equivalent to a 20 pg/I change in Chlorophyll a, a 0.04 mg/I change in TP and a 0.7 mg/I change in TN. The implications on water quality status and potential management decisions based on TSI values are substantial. One standard method for TSI calculation is necessary to successfully document and implement restoration plans to improve water quality in Lake Seminole. Management Endpoint A primary issue regarding the application of the TSI to the classification of Florida lakes for management purposes is the selection of a critical TSI value, or a value above which the lake is considered to have trophic related problems. Based upon a review of data from 573 Florida lakes, and the subsequent classification of each, Huber et al. (1982) determined the TSI value of 60 to be a generally applicable critical value defining eutrophic conditions. In response to the results reported by Huber et al. (1982), the FDEP established a classification criteria for lakes, estuaries and streams in Florida (Table 1-2). A lake is classified as "good"with a TSI value < 59, "fair"with a TSI of 60- 69, and "poor"with a TSI value>69 (FDEP, 1996). The Plan presented a TSI goal of 65 (using secchi depth) based on the predicted modeled results and realistic understanding of the lake's urban setting. The aforementioned TSI comparison clearly shows that the Plans recommended target TSI of 65 is equivalent to the FDEP's criteria of a TSI of 60. Therefore, both the FDEP and the Plan agree upon a target management endpoint of a TSI value of 60 (based on FDEP's methodology). We present this TSI target based on the continued eutrophication of the lake and the unique formation and history of Lake Seminole, as described below. Lake Seminole, was created in the 1940s by the construction of a causeway along Park Boulevard, thus isolating the upper reaches of Long Bayou from its historical tidal influences. Therefore, Lake Seminole can more properly be described as an artificial reservoir, than a true, natural lake. In addition to its artificial nature, the now freshwater 14 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan PBS; DRAFT May 2007 Lake Seminole was initially created out of a brackish to estuarine portion of a tributary to Tampa Bay's Boca Ciega Bay. Previous monitoring data from Lake Seminole indicated that the lake has been consistently eutrophic, and has exhibited numerous trophic related problems. In 1973, the annual TSI value calculated using the above described criteria was 81. In comparison,the current TSI is 87. Lake Seminole is now classified as severely hypereutrophic. In the absence of pre-1970 water quality data, lakes such as Lake Seminole are often assessed for indications of their historic water quality conditions through the use of paleolimnological indicators. Using this technique, the past water quality conditions are ascertained via the detection of changes in the diatom and/or dinaflagellate species composition of the lake in past years, as illuminated via examining different depths of sediments, and tying these depths back to specific dates via various sediment aging techniques (i.e., lead-210 decay). In 1990, the University of Florida in coordination with SWFWMD collected core samples from three locations in Lake Seminole for paleolimnological analysis (SWFWMD, 1992). Due to high concentrations of 210Pb throughout the core, they were unable to successfully date the sections. Therefore, the results of the diatom analysis were unable to be correlated with the sediment age. Due to the well-mixed sediments and since Lake Seminole was not previously a freshwater lake, this technique is not likely to be useful. Instead, this Reasonable Assurance Plan outlines a complex and holistic lake restoration strategy, with which successful implementation might be expected to produce a greatly enhanced water quality with a target TSI value of 60. This target would not only be an improvement over current conditions, but apparently an improvement over conditions that existed in the early 1970's. Water and Nutrient Budgets The first step in determining the pollutant loads to any lake is the establishment of a water budget. Flows carry pollutants into and out of lakes, and a meaningful analysis of lake eutrophication and most other water quality problems cannot be conducted without a quantitative understanding of lake hydrology. The basic water balance equation considers the following terms, typically expressed in units of acre-feet per year: INFLOW+ PRECIPITATION=OUTFLOW+EVAPORATION+0 STORAGE For Lake Seminole, a storage volume of 3,420 acre-feet was calculated using an average depth of 5.0 feet and a surface area of 684 acres. Because the lake water level is currently managed within a relatively narrow range, this volume was assumed to be static for the purposes of this water budget analysis. Because the annual change in storage volume is considered to be zero, the water budget equation must be solved as follows: INFLOWS+PRECIPITATION=OUTFLOWS+EVAPORATION Figure 1-12 graphically illustrates the water budget concept. The water budget calculated for Lake Seminole using 1997 data is summarized in Table 1-3. Using the information developed in the water budget, lake nutrient budgets provide the cornerstone for evaluating lake eutrophication problems. The following terms are evaluated and are typically expressed in terms of tons or kilograms per year: INFLOW LOADINGS=OUTFLOW LOADING + NET SEDIMENTATION+ASTORAGE 15 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan } DRAFT May 2007 Nutrient budgets can be prepared for both nitrogen and phosphorus, although there are differences in some of the minor terms of the equation. The major components of inflow and outflow nutrient loads are essentially determined by multiplying appropriate nutrient concentration data with the respective inflow and outflow water volumes determined in the lake water budget. The net sedimentation term defines the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus accumulated or retained in lake bottom sediments and/or the macrophyte standing crop. It reflects the net result of all physical, chemical, and biological processes causing vertical transfer of nutrients between the water column and the lake bottom. For a given loading, lake water quality will generally improve as the magnitude of sedimentation increases because higher sedimentation leaves less available nutrients behind in the water column to stimulate algal growth. Because several complex processes are involved that vary spatially and seasonally within a given lake, it is generally infeasible to measure net sedimentation directly. Accordingly, this term is usually calculated by obtaining the difference from the other terms, or estimated using empirical models; however, site specific data have been collected in Lake Seminole to enable a more direct estimate of net sedimentation of TN and TP (SWFWMD, 1992; PBS&J, 1999). The change in storage term accounts for changes in the total mass of nitrogen and phosphorus stored in the lake water column between the beginning and end of the study period. Such changes would reflect changes in lake volume, average nutrient concentrations, or both. As discussed above, there is no significant change in the volume of Lake Seminole on an annual average basis, and water quality monitoring has indicated relatively stable nutrient concentrations prior to 1999. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the change in nutrient storage is considered to be close to zero allowing that the equation be solved as follows: INFLOW LOADINGS=OUTFLOW LOADINGS+NET SEDIMENTATION Figure 1-13 graphically illustrates the nutrient budget concept with respect to phosphorus. The nutrient budgets calculated for Lake Seminole using 1997 data are summarized in Tables 1-4 and 1-5 for total nitrogen and total phosphorus, respectively. Based on the water and nutrient budgets summarized in Tables 1-3 through 1-5, the following conclusions can be made regarding the inflow and outflow of both water and the nutrients TN and TP in Lake Seminole. • Direct runoff from the watershed land surface accounts for about 65.4% of the total annual hydrologic inflows. Direct precipitation on the lake water surface accounts for about 33.9% of the total annual hydrologic inflows. Groundwater seepage from the surficial aquifer accounts for the remaining 0.7%. • Hydrologic discharges from the Lake Seminole weir structure and diversion pipe in the south lobe of the lake account for about 81.4% of the total annual hydrologic outflows. Evapotranspiration accounts for about 17.8% of the total annual 16 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan PBS DRAFT May 2007 hydrologic outflows. Storage loss due to sedimentation accounts for the remaining 0.8%. • Direct runoff from the watershed land surface and direct precipitation on the lake water surface account for about 36.8% and 5.3% of the total annual TN inputs, respectively. Groundwater seepage from the surficial aquifer only accounts for about 0.2%of the total annual TN inputs. • Approximately 57.7% of the total annual TN inputs are derived from undetermined sources. Internal nutrient recycling processes (e.g., sediment fluxes) could account for a substantial fraction of this TN mass. In addition, analyses of Lake Seminole phytoplankton populations conducted during the summer and fall of 2000 have revealed high concentrations of the nitrogen fixing blue-green alga Cylindrospermopsis cuspis (PCDEM, 2000). The observed dominance of nitrogen- fixing cyanobacteria indicates that the biological fixation of atmospheric nitrogen may be a major source of TN inputs to Lake Seminole. • Other potential undetermined sources of nitrogen inflows could include illicit discharges to lake surface waters, the municipal stormwater system and sanitary sewer overflows or leaks. However, to date, no direct evidence of such nitrogen sources has been discovered in Lake Seminole. • Hydrologic discharges from the Lake Seminole weir structure and diversion pipe in the south lobe of the lake account for about 66.0% of the total annual TN losses. Sedimentation accounts for the remaining 34.0% of the total annual TN loss. • Direct runoff from the watershed land surface accounts for about 96.2% of the total annual TP input. Direct precipitation on the lake water surface accounts for about 3.7% of the total annual TP input. Groundwater seepage from the surficial aquifer accounts for the remaining 0.1%. • Hydrologic discharges from the Lake Seminole weir structure and diversion pipe in the south lobe of the lake account for about 39.6% of the total annual TP outflows. Sedimentation accounts for the remaining 60.4% of the total annual TP outflows. Pollutant Loads It should be noted that there are no permitted point source discharges in the basin, and the entire Lake Seminole watershed is served by central sanitary sewer facilities. Therefore, the water and nutrient budgets presented above underscore two very important points with respect to potential pollutant load reduction strategies for Lake Seminole: • stormwater runoff represents the single most important source of external phosphorus loads to Lake Seminole; and • internal nutrient recycling - including nitrogen fixation by blue-green algae and sediment fluxes - constitutes a substantial cumulative nitrogen and phosphorus source to Lake Seminole surface waters. 17 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 Stormwater Runoff As part of the planning process, modeling of stormwater runoff using EPA's Surface Water Management Model (SWMM) was conducted to determine those major sub- basins contributing the highest nonpoint source pollutant loads. The location of the major sub-basins in the Lake Seminole watershed are shown in Figure 1-14, whereas the modeled annual nonpoint source loads of TN, TP and total suspended solids (TSS) for each of the major sub-basins are summarized in Figure 1-15. Using a ranking procedure which integrates modeled TN, TP, and TSS loads, the five priority major sub-basins, or those with the highest integrated nonpoint source pollutant loads, are listed in Table 1-6 in order of decreasing priority. Because high density urban land uses in the Lake Seminole basin are relatively ubiquitous, there are not significant differences in the unit area loads generated from each of the major sub-basins. Although there are minor differences in the age of the urban land uses in the various sub-basins, and whether or not on-site stormwater treatment is provided, these differences are generally not significant. Consequently, the major sub-basins with greatest contributing drainage area were generally the ones that ranked highest in terms of nonpoint source pollutant loads, as they deliver the greatest hydrologic and pollutant loads per unit rainfall. Internal Nutrient Recycling As shown in Table 1-4, it is estimated that undetermined sources accounted for approximately 24.40 tons, or about 57.7%, of the annual TN inputs to Lake Seminole in 1997. However, it should be noted that the undetermined sources term was not measured but rather derived as the balancing term after accounting for modeled and measured inflows and outflows, and after accounting for an estimated sedimentation rate based on a measured sediment N:P ratio of 7.09. The estimated 24.40 tons of nitrogen from undetermined sources in Lake Seminole during 1997 equates to a rate of approximately 7.9 g N/m2/yr. Under nitrogen limiting conditions, certain blue-green algae species (cyanobacteria) are capable of fixing atmospheric nitrogen to support their growth and reproduction. Measured nitrogen fixation rates in other hypereutrophic Florida lakes have ranged as high as 5.7 g N/m2/yr, accounting for about 44% of the annual TN inputs, in Lake Tohopekaliga (Dierberg and Scheinkman, 1987). Therefore, based on the fact cyanobacteria with the potential ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen are the dominant alga in Lake Seminole (SWFWMD, 1992; PCDEM, 2000), it is reasonable to assume that nitrogen fixation accounts for the majority of the undetermined sources of nitrogen inflows to Lake Seminole. It is possible that some portion of the internally derived mass of nitrogen revealed in the lake nitrogen budget may actually represent an undocumented point source discharge to Lake Seminole. Such a discharge could include sanitary sewer leaks or overflows, or an illicit discharge(s) to lake surface waters or municipal storm sewer systems. However, it should be noted that no direct evidence of an undocumented or illicit point source discharge has been discovered to date, and the presence of such an external pollutant source is not needed to explain the observed conditions and nutrient budgets. Nonetheless, Pinellas County will continue to investigate the possible existence of an undocumented point source discharge to Lake Seminole. P1118 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan � DRAFT May 2007 Upon a closer inspection of Tables 1-4 and 1-5 it can be seen that the TN:TP ratio of the measured and modeled inflows to Lake Seminole (excluding the calculated undetermined sources term in the nitrogen budget) is 5.32, whereas the TN:TP ratio for the measured outflows is 20.98. These findings indicate that the nutrient inflows should establish nitrogen limiting conditions; however, the outflows reflect nutrient balanced conditions. Since very little dissolved inorganic nitrogen (ammonia and nitrate/nitrite) or phosphorus (orthophosphate) is present in Lake Seminole surface waters, the measured TN:TP ratio in lake outflows represents that which has been assimilated in phytoplankton biomass. Therefore, the additional nitrogen assimilated by lake phytoplankton must be derived from internal sources which likely include both nitrogen fixation and sediment nitrogen fluxes. A stable isotope analysis (615N and 613C) was completed by PCDEM in 2000 to identify the various sources of nutrients within sediment, water or algal samples (Levy, 2000). The PCDEM collected Lake Seminole sediment, algae and wastewater from a nearby pump station. The results of this analysis supported the production of nitrogen within Lake Seminole due to cyanobacteria. The 615N signature of the algal samples was most comparable with cyanobacteria (N2-fixers), the dominant algal species in the lake is Cylindrospermospsis sp. which is capable of nitrogen fixation. The 615N of the sediment samples was heavier and indicated that the nitrogen source in the sediment was comprised of a variety of types of organic matter (aquatic vegetation, phytoplankton, zooplankton, invertebrates and detritus). The analysis of the wastewater revealed that it could be a contributing factor to the nitrogen and carbon found in the sediments. The nitrogen budget in combination with the stable isotope analysis suggests that a majority of the biologically available nitrogen in Lake Seminole is produced by nitrogen fixing cyanobacteria. As previously discussed,a significant increase in TN was observed in 1999 following the severe "EI Nino"event of 1997 to 1998. We believe that 1999 signifies the"downturn" in water quality at Lake Seminole. The average annual nutrient concentration was compared to the flow-weighted average of nutrients input by direct runoff. The TN and TP load from direct runoff calculated in 2001 were divided by the hydrologic load to the lake, also due to direct runoff, to derive a flow-weighted average for both TN and TP. Over the entire period of record, TP concentrations are consistently lower than the flow- weighted average (Figure 1-8). This signifies that TP is being stored in the lake sediments. This conclusion is supported by the TP budget calculated in 1997 which determined that 60% of the phosphorus 'outflows' from the lake were due to sedimentation (Table 1-5; PBSJ, 2001). In contrast, TN concentrations consistently exceed the flow-weighted average input by direct runoff(Figure 1-7). This suggests the production of additional nitrogen due to internal processes. There is substantial documentation of cyanobacteria in the lake which are capable of converting atmospheric nitrogen to biologically available forms. The TN budget calculated in 1997 supports the conclusion of a substantial input of internally produced nitrogen citing "undetermined sources" producing 58% of the TN input to the lake (Table 1-4; PBSJ, 2001). Preliminary results from a mesocosm experiment in Lake Hancock, in Polk County, indicate a potential phenomenon that could also be occurring in Lake Seminole. Lake Hancock is a highly eutrophic lake with a dominant cyanobacteria algal population. The phosphorus laden sediments in combination with an "unlimited" nitrogen supply due to the nitrogen-fixers provide an environment for the overproduction of phytoplankton. The most effective approach to improving water quality and reducing the dominance of cyanobacteria involves management actions that drive the lake towards phosphorus 19 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 limitation and away from nitrogen limitation. Examples of such management actions include reduction of external phosphorus loads (e.g., enhanced stormwater treatment), and the removal or inactivation of sediment phosphorus stores (e.g., lake dredging and whole lake alum treatment). Other effective means of reducing the dominance of cyanobacteria include improving circulation and reducing the residence time of lake surface waters. 2. Description of Water-Quality Goals 2.a Description of the Water Quality-Based Targets (both Interim and Final) Established for the Pollutant(s) of Concern The keystone of any planning process is the establishment of goals. For each established goal, there must also be defined target criteria by which degree of attainment of that goal can be measured. Targets are therefore defined as specific units of measure that define progress towards a particular management goal. Below describes a summary of the final lake and watershed management goal adopted by the Lake Seminole Advisory Committee for water quality. The lake and its watershed shall be managed such that good water quality, according to Class-Ill State standards, is achieved and maintained in the lake. The following six water-quality based targets have been developed in order achieve the adopted Water Quality management goal. The rationale for each proposed monitoring objective is discussed below. Target 1: Attain a mean annual chlorophyll-a concentration of 30 pg/l or less. Objective 1: Continue to measure in-lake chlorophyll-a concentrations. Rationale: The amount of phytoplankton biomass, measured as chlorophyll-a, serves as an integrator and indicator of lake trophic conditions. High mean annual chlorophyll-a concentrations usually indicate excessive algal growth. With regard to available and comparable water quality data, the best continuous record exists for the parameter of chlorophyll-a. Furthermore, the collection and measurement of chlorophyll-a samples are already programmed into the existing PCDEM monitoring program. Target 2: Attain a mean annual multi-parametric TSI value of 60 or less. Objective 2A: Continue to measure in-lake TN and TP concentrations. Rationale: Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are the primary nutrients required by plants for growth and reproduction. In excessive concentrations, N and P can cause nuisance algae blooms. The measure of all chemical forms of these nutrients (total N and P, or TN and TP) in the water column is a measure of the algal growth potential, and thus is an important indicator of trophic state. TN and TP concentrations are two of three parameters used to calculate a multi-parametric TS! value, with chlorophyll-a being the other. The collection and measurement of TN and TP samples are programmed into the existing monitoring program. 20 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan • DRAFT May 2007 Objective 2B: Continue to measure in-lake Secchi disk depths. Rationale: Secchi disk depth serves as a simple measure of lake water clarity. The degree of water transparency is one of the most important attributes of water. Water transparency allows the penetration of light, which supports life through the photosynthetic process. The degree of water transparency has a direct impact on the growth and distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation. Water transparency also allows organisms with visual organs to see in order to search for food and shelter. Water transparency can be affected by suspended organic (e.g., algae) and inorganic (e.g., silt) matter in the water column, as well as tannins and dissolved substances. The measurement of secchi depth is incorporated into the existing monitoring program. Target 3: Reduce current annual TP loads from external sources by 50%. Objective 3A: Estimate mean annual nonpoint source TP loads to Lake Seminole from priority sub-basins. Rationale: It is possible to estimate external TP loads from nonpoint source runoff through direct measurement at points of discharge to the lake. Since nonpoint source runoff represents approximately 96% of the total annual external TP load, and since this load is both measurable and manageable to a large extent, long term trends in these loading sources have been monitored to evaluate the effectiveness of load reduction strategies. TN loads were estimated to allow for the development of annual nutrient budgets. As part of the Alum system design for Lake Seminole, PCDEM completed this objective. Objective 3B: Estimate mean annual loads of TP to Lake Seminole from groundwater seepage. Rationale: Few site-specific data exist regarding the magnitude and timing of groundwater inputs to Lake Seminole. Using limited groundwater quality data collected by SWFWMD along the western perimeter of the lake, modeling techniques were applied to estimate groundwater loadings to the lake during wet and dry seasons. The results indicate that groundwater seepage contributes less than 1% of the total annual TP load to the lake. This estimate will be confirmed by direct field measurements using seepage meters or similar methods. TN loads will also be estimated to allow for the development of annual nutrient budgets. The SWFWMD wells will also be monitored every two years, and similar modeling techniques will be applied using these data, to determine potential long-term trends in this loading source. Monitoring of groundwater seepage is warranted due to the fact that the recommended enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule has the potential to alter seepage rates by increasing the head difference between the lake level and the water table. , 21 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan • DRAFT May 2007 Objective 3C: Estimate mean monthly loads of TP to Lake Seminole from atmospheric deposition. Rationale: It is possible to estimate external TP loads from atmospheric deposition through direct measurement. Based on measurements taken from sites in the Tampa Bay region, it is estimated that atmospheric deposition accounts for only about 3.7% of the total annual external TP loads to the lake. Wet and dryfall measurements from samples collected in the Lake Seminole basin are needed to better estimate local conditions and loading rates. TN loads will also be estimated to allow for the development of annual nutrient budgets. Although this loading source is not considered to be significant or directly manageable at this time, long term trends will be monitored to determine the relative importance of this source, as well as the effectiveness of regional air quality programs. Target 4: Annually calculate current water and nutrient budgets for Lake Seminole. Objective 4: Estimate the mean mass of TN, TP and water volume discharged from Lake Seminole. Rationale: The estimation of mean annual TN, TP, and hydrologic loads discharged from the lake combined with estimates of mean annual loads entering the lake are needed to calculate lake water and nutrient budgets. Estimates of external loadings from nonpoint sources, atmospheric deposition and groundwater are measurable and are addressed in separate monitoring objectives above. To balance a water/nutrient budget, direct measurements of outflows from the lake are needed. Annual estimates of loads leaving the lake will enable the calculation of net loadings into the lake, loads which should be related to mean annual in-lake chlorophyll-a concentrations and TSI values. The Lake Seminole outfall structure provides a convenient location for measuring flow and collecting water samples. Instrumentation for accurately measuring stage and flow volumes has been installed to meet this monitoring objective. Target 5: Maintain Class-Ill water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance and chlorides. Objective 5A: Estimate the monthly frequency, duration, and magnitude of bottom dissolved oxygen concentrations in Lake Seminole that fall below regulatory minima of 5.0 mg/I. Rationale: In addition to phytoplankton biomass, the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the deepest portions of the lake is often a good indicator of overall lake water quality. Any dissolved oxygen concentrations below 5 mg/I are in exceedance of Class-III State water quality standards, and may result in fish kills and other adverse impacts on biota. The measurement and monitoring of dissolved oxygen concentrations are programmed into the existing monitoring program. 22 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan p DRAFT May 2007 Objective 5B: Estimate for Lake Seminole: 1) the monthly trend in pH; and 2) the frequency, duration, and magnitude that monthly pH varies by more than one unit above or below natural background levels. Rationale: A rapid or large change in lake pH may have severe adverse effects on lake biota. Although Lake Seminole monitoring data indicate that the lake is fairly stable with respect to pH, it will be critical to maintain normal pH ranges in the lake to ensure the success of the proposed alum injection and whole lake alum applications. The measurement and monitoring of pH is programmed into the existing monitoring program. Objective 5C: Estimate for Lake Seminole: 1) the monthly trend in chloride concentration; and 2) the frequency, duration, and magnitude that monthly chloride concentrations exceed background levels by 10% or more. Rationale: A rise in mean chloride concentrations above existing and historical levels (between about 200-250 mg/I) may have adverse effects on lake biota. Although mean annual lake chloride levels have remained fairly constant, future increases of in-lake chloride concentrations are possible due to the proximity of the lake to saltwater and the proposed enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule. Increasing chlorides could potentially lead to substantial degradation of existing lake flora and fauna. The measurement and monitoring of chloride is programmed into the existing monitoring program. Objective 5D: Estimate for Lake Seminole: 1) the monthly trend in specific conductance; and 2) the frequency, duration, and magnitude that monthly specific conductance exceeds 1,275 pmhos/cm. Rationale: Increases in specific conductance, like chlorides and pH, may adversely affect in-lake biota. Measurements of specific conductance may be used as a correlate to chloride measurements, and may be potentially used to explain trends in both chlorides and pH. The measurement and monitoring of specific conductance is programmed into the existing monitoring program. Target 6: Attain an 80% TSS load reduction for all permitted MSSW facilities within the Lake Seminole watershed. Objective 6: Determine the number of permitted Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) facilities in the Lake Seminole watershed attaining an 80% TSS load reduction. Rationale: Site plans and design specifications should exist for all permitted MSSW facilities in the Lake Seminole watershed. Therefore, a detailed inventory of these facilities and an assessment of their compliance with the required performance standards could feasibly be completed over a period of time. Retroactive enforcement will be based on this information. pBsi 23 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 The goals, targets and monitoring objectives related to the Water Quality management issue are summarized in Table 2-1. 2.b Averaging Period for Numeric Water Quality Goals The averaging period for numeric water quality goals are calculated based on the methodology implemented within the Florida Impaired Waters Rule (62-303.350). Based on this rule, "Trophic state indices (TSIs) and annual mean chlorophyll a values shall be the primary means for assessing whether water should be assessed for further nutrient impairment." Pinellas County uses a stratified random sampling design which includes nine sampling periods per calendar year. Four samples are collected during each of the nine time periods. Therefore, thirty-six water quality samples are currently collected annually throughout Lake Seminole. This sampling frequency will continue and the seasonal annual average TN, TP, chlorophyll a and TSI values will be analyzed to determine if the implemented water quality goals are being met. Annually, TP loading rates will be calculated in order to determine if the 50% reduction goal is being met. Annual water and nutrient budgets will be quantified based upon water quality samples collected throughout the year. Dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductivity, and chlorides will continue to be monitored. Concentrations of each parameter will be collected during each sampling trip and evaluated. The PCDEM will continue to investigate the TSS load reduction efficiency of all permitted MSSW facilities within the Lake Seminole watershed. Samples for the analysis of the phytoplankton community will be collected. Additionally, extensive monitoring will be completed in concert with the operation of the alum stormwater treatment facility in sub basin one (Appendix A). Water, benthic and sediment quality will be monitored in order to evaluate the success of the treatment facility and the effectiveness of the settling area. The goal of this monitoring effort is to measure the efficiency of the facility based on its Event Mean Concentration (EMC) efficiency and Load Efficiency prior to the construction of the remaining alum stormwater treatment facilities. 2.c Discussion of How These Goals Will Result in the Restoration of the Water Body's Impaired Designated Uses Six target goals were presented to provide reasonable assurance that water quality will improve in Lake Seminole dependent upon the implementation of the four restoration management plans. The underlying goal of the restoration projects is the reduction/removal of nutrients in Lake Seminole. The rationale for each goal is detailed below: 1. Annual chlorophyll-a concentration of 30 pg/I is based on the desired beneficial uses of the lake with respect to aquatic vegetation and fisheries, and is consistent with the attainment of a chlorophyll-a TSI target of 60. In addition, waterbody modeling conducted as part of the planning process predicts that this target is attainable if all major restoration projects are implemented. 2. The target mean annual multi-parametric TSI value of 60 (using FDEP methodology) is based on the desired beneficial uses of the lake with respect to aquatic vegetation and fisheries, and is consistent with the attainment of a mean annual chlorophyll-a target of 30 pg/I, TP concentration of 0.095 mg/I and TN concentration of 1.6mg/I (Table 1-2). 24 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 3. An analysis of pollutant loading sources to the lake has indicated that it is feasible to reduce current annual TP loads from stormwater runoff by 55.7% through the construction of enhanced regional stormwater treatment facilities in the basin. This load reduction equates to about 53.7% of the current annual TP load from all external sources (the remaining external source being direct atmospheric deposition). 4. One of the lake manager's most important tools is an accurate water/nutrient budget. This inflow/outflow analysis of both the sources and sinks of water and nutrients provides information critical to making management decisions. And since a lake's hydrologic and chemical character can change over time in response to changes in the watershed, water and nutrient budgets will be updated annually so that management strategies can be properly adjusted, and management actions re- prioritized. 5. Maintenance of Class-III State water quality standards, as defined in 62-302 of the Florida Administrative Code, is technically required by law. Although toxics such as metals and organic compounds are not considered to be problems in Lake Seminole, compliance monitoring with respect to dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, specific conductance and chlorides is relevant due to various management concerns. Both DO and pH are closely related to the management of living resources, whereas specific conductance and chloride concentrations may be used as indicators of saltwater intrusion. 6. There is a rebuttable presumption that State design criteria for MSSW facilities achieve an 80% pollutant load reduction. Furthermore, because Lake Seminole is an Outstanding Florida Water, a 95% pollutant load reduction is technically required for those MSSW facilities discharging directly into the lake. Although the statutes do not specify which pollutants are targeted by the State design criteria, they are generally interpreted to address total suspended solids (TSS) and biological oxygen demand. Attainment of these performance standards is rarely verified or enforced due to the complexities in monitoring individual MSSW facilities; however, available data indicate that most MSSW facilities are substantially deficient if not properly maintained. State law allows for stringent enforcement of these performance standards where it can be demonstrated that State water quality standards are being violated. It can be reasonably argued that nonpoint source pollutant loads to Lake Seminole are violating the State water quality standard for nutrients (e.g., must not cause an ecological imbalance). Assuming that MSSW facilities meeting the 80% TSS load reduction standard also provide adequate nutrient removal, strict enforcement of this minimal performance standard throughout the watershed is justified. 2.d Schedule Indicating When Interim And Final Targets Are Expected To Be Met All watershed basins within the state of Florida have been assigned to one of five"Basin Groups" established by the Watershed Management Basin Rotation Project. The FDEP evaluates each basin group byway of a rotating schedule. Therefore, each group is evaluated every five years. The evaluation process identifies each waterbody to be placed on the 303(d) Impaired Water Body List for submission to the USEPA. Lake Seminole is located in Basin Group 5 which is currently under evaluation (2007). All proposed restoration projects at Lake Seminole are scheduled to be completed by 2012. i1 tl 25 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 This self-imposed deadline signifies the next scheduled impaired waters evaluation for Group 5 basins. An improvement of water quality is expected in approximately 5 years. However, a significant improvement of water quality is expected after the sediment removal is completed. 2.e Description Of Procedures To Determine Whether Additional Corrective Actions Are Needed The three Phase implementation of all proposed restoration projects provides a unique opportunity to monitor the transition of Lake Seminole. PCDEM, City of Seminole, City of Largo, the District, the FWCC, FDEP and local stakeholders have established a comprehensive sampling regime to monitor the benthic and water quality of Lake Seminole. PCDEM is responsible for coordination and implementation of data collection. The water quality data is analyzed annually to determine if any significant improvements or declinations of water quality are observed in the lake. PCDEM will submit an annual report to the FDEP detailing the current water quality and status of Lake Seminole. Adaptive Management As is true with all watersheds, the Lake Seminole watershed and water quality is not static. Currently, all scheduled restoration projects are projected to be completed by 2012. The dredging of Lake Seminole is one of final restoration projects to be implemented prior to 2012. Sediment removal could potentially have a significant impact (positive or negative) on the water quality for approximately five years. Therefore, the basis for improvement of water quality in the lake due to the implemented restoration projects would not begin till 2017. At that time, an adaptive management approach similar to the method used by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) to track chlorophyll-a and light attenuation in Tampa Bay (Janicki Environmental, 2006) will be implemented. The current TSI classification for Florida lakes is 0-59 is good, 60-69 is fair, 70-100 is poor (Table 1-2; FDEP, 1996). Each year, the annual TSI of Lake Seminole will be compared to the targeted management endpoint of 60. If the TSI value is <= 60, the year will be qualified as "green" signifying that the lake has met the target outcome. However, if the annual TSI exceeds 60 the magnitude of the exceedance will be determined. A TSI value of 61-69, will be classified as "orange", signifying an improvement in water quality but the lake has not met the target. An annual TSI of 70- 100 will be classified as "red", signifying poor water quality. PCDEM will monitor the green, orange and red classification for Lake Seminole. A reassessment of the restoration techniques implemented will be performed if the lake is classified "red" consecutively for three of five years. Additionally, if after ten years, PCDEM does not see a progression from red to green classification for the lake, a more detailed assessment of the water quality and potential modifications to the restoration plan will be completed. PCDEM has proposed a whole lake alum treatment if water quality continues to decline after successful completion of projects focused on sediment removal, enhanced stormwater treatment, input of water from the Seminole Bypass Canal and lake level modification. PBSI26 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 3. Description of the Proposed Management to be Undertaken 3.a Names of the Responsible Participating Entities Pinellas County City of Seminole City of Largo Southwest Florida Water Management District Surface Water Improvement and Management(SWIM) Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 3.b Summary and List of Existing and Proposed Management Activities Designed to Restore Water Quality The Lake Seminole Watershed Management Plan outlined three proposed management activities to restore water quality in Lake Seminole: • reduce external phosphorus loadings; • reduce internal nutrient recycling; and • reduce lake hydrologic residence time. Several of the below restoration techniques have been completed on Lakes throughout Florida to improve water quality. However, Lake Seminole is the only lake to combine and implement the magnitude and quantity of restoration projects listed below. PCDEM has scheduled and identified a funding source to design, permit and construct complete several projects designed to implement all of the above management activities. The structural, management, legal, policy, enforcement and public education components identified exhaust all reasonable restoration actions to restore water quality: Six structural: 1. Excavate organic peat sediments from shoreline areas 2. Restore priority wetland and upland habitats 3. Install stage and flow measurement instrumentation on the Lake Seminole Outfall Control Structure 4. Construct enhanced regional stormwater treatment facilities in priority sub-basins 5. Divert Seminole Bypass Canal flows to improve lake flushing and dilution 6. Dredge organic silt sediments from submerged areas Five Management: 1. Mechanically harvest nuisance aquatic vegetations 2. Improve treatment efficiency of existing stormwater facilities PBSP 27 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 3. Biomanipulate sport fish populations 4. Implement an enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule 5. Inactivate phosphorus through whole lake alum applications ( if warranted by monitoring results) Two Legal: 1. Adopt a resolution designating the Lake Seminole Watershed as a "Nutrient Sensitive Watershed" 2. Strengthen and standardize local ordinances for regulating stormwater treatment for redevelopment in the Lake Seminole Watershed One Policy: 1. Establish a Lake Seminole Watershed Management Area (WMA) through amendments to the Pinellas County, and cities of Largo and Seminole Comprehensive Plans One Compliance and Enforcement: 1. Expand and enforce restricted speed zones on Lake Seminole Two Public Education: 1. Develop and implement a comprehensive public involvement program for the Lake Seminole Watershed 2. Develop and implement a local citizens Lakewatch program for Lake Seminole A detailed description of each component and status is discussed below. Structural Components 1. Excavate Organic Peat Sediments From Shoreline Areas In May 2002, the FWCC completed a habitat enhancement project removing 31,000 cubic yards of tussock and organic sediments from the lake bottom. In addition, the area was re-vegetated with native species to improve the fishery habitat. A continuation of this project, which was designed to excavate organic peat sediments from shoreline areas, was completed in 2006. Together, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, SWFWMD, Pinellas County, and local volunteers, coordinated to remove approximately 100,000 cubic yards of organic peat sediments located along the periphery of the lake, removed 26 tons of garbage and debris, replanted native vegetation and improved drainage around the lake. There are four major shoreline segments in Lake Seminole where large accumulations of organic peat sediments had become a problem, and the majority of the 130,000 cubic yards of fibrous decayed plant matter identified as problem sediments were contained in 28 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan ! DRAFT May 2007 these four segments. The four major shoreline segments with problem sediments are shown on Figure 3-1, and described below. Segment 1 -a 44-acre area along the east shoreline of the lake, from the Lake Seminole County Park boat ramp northward to the 102nd Avenue bridge; Segment 2 -a 13-acre area along the west shoreline of the lake,from 94th Place northward to the 102nd Avenue bridge; Segment 3 -a 12-acre area east shoreline of the lake, from the 102nd Avenue bridge northward along Lake Seminole Drive; and Segment 4-a 16-acre area along the northeast shoreline of the lake, from Harborside Circle northward to the north end of the lake. The organic shoreline sediments were excavated down to the underlying sand base to create open littoral areas more conducive to sport fish spawning activities. Some of the restored shoreline areas were allowed to recruit naturally with littoral vegetation. Additionally, pilot planting projects were implemented to establish a seed source for desirable aquatic vegetation. Desirable species composition and appropriate plant densities in the restored littoral vegetation communities are maintained with followup chemical treatments and mechanical harvesting. The objective of this management action is the improvement of water quality, aquatic vegetation communities and fishery habitat, and improved shoreline recreational and aesthetic attributes. According to fishery biologists from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, sport fish spawning habitat is limited in Lake Seminole. This management action would directly increase the shallow littoral bottom area available to sport fish for spawning. Implementation Status (May 2007) The removal of organic sediment in segment 1 and 4 were completed in 2006(Photo 3- 1).The remaining segments are scheduled to be completed in the future. 29 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 tr .rte e7 :-...".,e}'"Fi. ..5;.40-N'S- ,.. .fi r` k ..__. - - a"cam' � + .•..'.., ..-`�`4 ",�..�. "�.�^41S•.l. „:r is;ted — _ ''''...SP I. r.,(C • . 4..; ...- _-1.`1:,-;,, _ _ - .' . ..T.. _ r_. • j, `-fin' ` - • .-4-...";.. -P ,ti. N 'As. ` Y.c_ .. .1't �� st i. ' •T"1_ -I„ - -, "st1 F r h ' tib{ (•., n�a°Tn^'7 � i 's7..'-alt 4..r. t7r . .:+� O .�{; �.�•+y, ti.�5 T .'-;- 1, 4.. ,rr . e--i't / .-..• 4--,-,...- -,4,..-1;1'.z ' 'A S."T rtf... , ,,,�—,� Photo 3-1. Organic sediment removal for shoreline restoration in Lake Seminole. 2. Restore Priority Wetland and Upland Habitats This management action involves the restoration and/or creation of diverse, native aquatic vegetation communities in, and around the perimeter of, Lake Seminole. In addition, this action includes the restoration of priority remnant upland vegetative communities in the watershed. As part of the watershed planning process, habitat distribution and disturbance patterns were evaluated to determine the potential for special habitat management sites or habitats suitable for enhancement or restoration. The general findings from this evaluation were that the urbanized nature of the watershed does not provide justifiable opportunities for the creation or re-establishment of wildlife corridors or dispersal areas. The remnant habitats in the lake and watershed are small and fragmented to the point where an opportunity for a unifying ecological corridor is no longer viable. However, opportunities do exist for recreational corridor connections between Lake Seminole County Park and the Pinellas Trail that extends north-south along the western watershed boundary. Of the approximately 120 habitat units evaluated within the lake and watershed, a high percentage exhibit nuisance and/or exotic species invasion in varying degrees. Therefore, nuisance species removal coupled with the enhancement and restoration of diverse, native vegetation communities and habitats in both the lake and the watershed is a critical component. It should be noted that the habitat coverage by the exotic upland species Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera) is very high throughout the watershed. Because these species displace both native upland '7 .1;1 30 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan jjii DRAFT May 2007 and wetland species, they will be controlled or removed so that habitats can ultimately be restored to their natural condition. In addition, the native aquatics cattails (Typha spp.) and carolina willow (Salix caroliniana) have become nuisance species in Lake Seminole largely because of the static water levels that have been maintained for decades. Like Brazilian pepper, these species tend to grow as thick monocultures that exclude the establishment of other native species that may provide better fish and wildlife habitat. Cattails, in particular, occur so densely in Lake Seminole that the excessive growth and decomposition has resulted in the buildup of a layer of highly organic fibrous sediments around the perimeter littoral zone of the lake. These fibrous organic shoreline sediments further preclude spawning by desirable sport fish species. Seven specific restoration sites were selected in conjunction with Pinellas County staff based on the restoration needs stated above as well as the size, ownership and proximity of the sites to one another and to Lake Seminole. In addition, watershed-wide and lake-wide habitat restoration and nuisance species controls are specified. Table 3-1 lists the sites and their respective existing habitat and restoration/enhancement projects, while Figure 3-2 identifies the location of each site. The specific restoration sites that border Lake Seminole have incorporated a littoral shelf planting program that is designed to provide improved diversity, cover and forage for fish and wildlife. In their Annual Performance Report for Lake Seminole, 1990-91, the FWCC referenced the significant loss of littoral and submerged fish habitat due to the density of cattails along the eastern side of the lake and a reduction in the acreage of hydrilla. This loss in aquatic habitat has contributed significantly to the decline of the sport fisheries in Lake Seminole. Implementation Status (May 2007) Habitat restoration was completed at the Park Blvd site in 2006. The management of Brazillian Pepper has been ongoing for the past 4 years in the Lake Seminole Park property (Photo 3-2). The removal of nuisance species and habitat restoration in the Northeast parcel will be completed in 2008. PEI31 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 m '-a04:1,.!'",:o.?-44k."-IA `- -4:".• . i' , 3./ 1;ii tit e-e. x.- S ;-••.".,-•;-.- s 4 .4 • s.": .••neje F�� • ' t �' r «x:!. ^. a "`` `,. -'' d„ a°.ti • :...-d:::4 tai. ;: t•, ,,,e• . • 'tea, S "• 1!f•• ` iy,_. --1-1.1, -7-t--_,... -- , v• ,•=•--m, ik#79'`-4._. v L At-1.v. :- ----;-,1• E i-,,,--,..,.,., •. •• '''' i'i 4,:-........ --.::.-;,-. '' 5 _ . .• ..A"' is - ,� .i • ..i,ti �.f * 1A S \ . ` P .0' .til 35r -- kt - e1r, ,Z o r,j • sJ 1, L, IL___„....-- 1i„ � • .04:,----,'7.'''''''.1"-T,"t'T-7 / '",' :=•;" * --A - " .. ..ileite.-Vik -•• i ;r:.-% Rt E _ ` , �' ..ai- •••x-vt. e • . -` s ;,;-*-.,.—,.,4.-, ..:,-.--2,. , isti,;:”-. 'c, ,, .4lr , y • Cr G =i • _t - e I • 1Ja y �: w•i Jar � .`' •`- i;--z-7-7--- ,Fs=;,:---1--- _ti t ��t" .0 ",V s `sr'" �. 4: _g !ter , ^t` ` i .,V` Photo 3-2. Removal of Brazilian Pepper along the boundary of Lake Seminole. 3. Install stage and flow measurement instrumentation on the Lake Seminole Outfall Control Structure This management action involved the installation of instrumentation for accurately measuring lake stage and flow volumes at the Lake Seminole outfall control structure. In addition, this action involved the proper acquisition, storage, reduction and reporting of lake stage and flow volume data using accepted data management protocols. The Lake Seminole outfall control structure provides a convenient location for measuring flow and collecting water samples; however, instrumentation for accurately measuring and recording stage and flow volumes was not in place. Installation of state-of-the-art instrumentation was needed to address the defined monitoring objective of calculating annual water and nutrient budgets for Lake Seminole. Estimates of external loadings from nonpoint sources, atmospheric deposition and groundwater can be measured or modeled, and are addressed in separate monitoring objectives. To balance a water/nutrient budget, the direct measurements of outflows from the lake are needed and can be related to mean annual chlorophyll-a concentrations and TSI values. Annual estimates of loads leaving the lake will enable the calculation of loadings to Long Bayou, and allow for a demonstration of downstream load reduction following full implementation of the Plan. 32 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan Si DRAFT May 2007 • Implementation Status(May 2007) The stage and flow measurement instrumentation was installed in 2006. All data is available from the USGS website (www.usgs.gov). The station ID is USGS 02308889. 4. Construct enhanced regional stormwater treatment facilities in priority sub- basins The SWMM model pollutant loading estimates identified five priority sub-basins that would benefit from enhanced stormwater treatment facilities. The subbasins, listed in order of decreasing pollutant load are: 3, 1, 7, 6, and 2. The location of the sub-basins in the Lake Seminole watershed is shown in Figure 3-3. Given the virtual lack of available vacant lands for wet detention pond construction and/or expansion, and the potentially very high cost of purchasing and converting existing land uses for this purpose, the use of enhanced treatment systems such as alum injection represents a far more cost-effective approach per unit land area. Alum treatment systems are capable of achieving substantially greater treatment efficiencies than wet detention ponds, on the order of 40% removal for TN and 90% removal for TP and TSS (ERD, 1994). Alum injection with off-line floc settling basins is the approach most commonly applied. This approach is typically preferred by regulatory agencies in that the floc buildup is confined to isolated ponds or basins which can be periodically maintenance dredged to restore the settling volume capacity. In addition, the potentially toxic effects of alum floc buildup can be isolated to these smaller man-made ponds. Although the alum injection infrastructure requires very little land area (e.g.,typically less than 0.25 acres), additional land area on the order of a few acres is typically required for floc settling ponds. A less land-intensive, and thus more cost effective, alternative to this approach is alum injection with in-lake floc settling. While this alternative eliminates the need for additional land area for floc settling ponds, floc buildup in the lake and subsequent resuspension may constitute future water quality problems. In addition, the potential toxicity of alum floc to benthic invertebrates has also been raised as a concern (WAR, 1999). However, these problems could at least be partially mitigated by the dredging of deeper floc settling basins in the lake bottom at the outfall point for each alum injection facility. The creation of in-lake settling basins would at least partially isolate the floc buildup into a smaller bottom area, and would allow removal of floc material via periodic maintenance dredging. BMP locations within each of the priority sub-basins were evaluated with respect to location in the basin (e.g., upstream or downstream), proximity to vacant lands and existing hydrologic features (e.g., existing ponds, canals and wetlands), and engineering design issues (e.g., re-routing of the drainage network, utility impacts, etc.). The projects are described for each of the five priority sub-basins below. Sub-Basin 3 • Alternative 3A - Alum injection with floc settling in an existing wet detention pond and/or an existing ditch/canal. This BMP alternative will involve the construction of an alum injection facility between 102nd Avenue N. and 104th Avenue N. immediately east of Seminole Boulevard. Alum will be injected into flows at this 33 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 point, and the floc will settle in two existing wet detention ponds that will be modified for this purpose. Alternatively, the alum floc could be allowed to settle in an existing drainage ditch/canal that outfalls to Lake Seminole. This ditch/canal will likely need to be deepened to provide the necessary floc settling storage capacity. Sub-Basin 1 • Alternative 1A-Alum injection with floc settling in an existing ditch/canal. This BMP alternative will involve the construction of an alum injection facility at 101st Street N., along the existing ditch/canal that outfalls to the north end of Lake Seminole. Alum will be injected into the flows at this point, and the floc will settle in the existing drainage ditch/canal. This ditch/canal will likely need to be deepened to provide the necessary floc settling storage capacity. This alternative would treat runoff from 376 acres, or about 80% of the sub-basin land area. Sub-Basin 7 • Alternative 7A-Alum injection with floc settling in an existing ditch/canal. This BMP alternative will involve the construction of an alum injection facility east of Seminole Boulevard and north of Skipper Drive, at the outfall of the box culvert draining Sub- Basin 7. Alum will be injected into the flows at this point, and the floc will settle in an existing drainage ditch/canal that outfalls to Lake Seminole. This ditch/canal will likely need to be deepened to provide the necessary floc settling storage capacity. This alternative would treat runoff from 495 acres, or about 90% of the sub-basin land area. Sub-Basin 6 It should be noted that three stormwater rehabilitation projects have been completed in Sub-Basin 6. These include: • St. Petersburg Junior College MSSW facility. This facility treats runoff from both the St. Petersburg Junior College Campus site as well as offsite runoff from some upstream areas. This facility meets SWFWMD design standards for wet detention, and treats runoff from approximately 85 acres, or about 22% of the sub-basin land area • Pinellas County Dog Leg Pond project. This project is primarily a habitat restoration project for an existing regional treatment pond; however, the treatment capacity of the pond has been enhanced by the modifications. The Dog Leg Pond facility treats runoff from approximately 33 acres, or about 8%of the sub-basin land area. • Pinellas County Pond 6 project. This project was designed to provide both stormwater treatment and habitat restoration benefits. This facility exceeds SWFWMD design standards for wet detention, and provides 14-day residence time treatment for drainage inflows. In addition, environmental education facilities are planned for this location. The Pond 6 facility treats approximately 67 acres, or about 17% of the sub-basin land area. Both the St. Petersburg Junior College MSSW facility and the Pinellas County Dog Leg Pond project are BMPs that are located fairly high in the basin. Therefore, the 34 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 percentage of the annual flows from Sub-Basin 6 treated by these projects is relatively small. In addition, although the Pond 6 project is located low in the basin, it will treat runoff from only about 17% of the sub-basin land area due to the segregated routing of the drainage network in this basin. In addition to these three existing projects, another BMP alternative is schedule for construction as discussed below. • Alternative 6B - Re-routing of drainage to Pond 6 site with combined alum and wetland treatment. This BMP alternative will involve re-routing the drainage network such that all flows discharging from Sub-Basin 6 will be treated on the Pond 6 site. This will require the re-construction of the drainage network along Seminole Boulevard whereby the flows discharging from the north box culvert discussed above will be re-routed to the south. This has required permitting coordination with FDOT. On the Pond 6 site, the combined basin flows will be treated either with the planned wet detention approach, or with some combination of alum injection and wetland treatment. Given the land area available on the Pond 6 site, it may be feasible to accommodate an alum injection facility with a small floc settling pond that would discharge treated stormwater into a wetland habitat restoration area for water quality polishing prior to discharge to Lake Seminole. This alternative will treat runoff from approximately 365 acres, or about 93% of the sub-basin land area. Sub-Basin 2 • Alternative 2A -Alum injection with floc settling in an existing ditch/canal. This BMP alternative will involve the construction of an alum injection facility on the Orange Lake Civic Center property, located at the eastern terminus of 118th Avenue N. The facility will be located near the headwall of a box culvert that discharges flows from Sub-Basin 2 into an existing ditch/canal that outfalls to Lake Seminole. Alum will be injected into the flows at this point, and the floc will settle in the existing drainage ditch/canal. This ditch/canal will likely need to be deepened to provide the necessary floc settling storage capacity. This alternative would treat runoff 420 acres, or about 88% of the basin land area. The above described potential and planned BMP projects are summarized in Table 3-2. Implementation Status(May 2007) Currently, three of the five stormwater projects are at 100% design and will begin construction in 2007. The enhanced stormwater treatment facilities will be implemented in two Phases. In Phase I, the stormwater treatment projects in Sub-basins 1, 3, 6 will be addressed. Extensive benthic and water quality monitoring will be performed to evaluate the treatment facility at sub-basin 1 prior to the initiation of Phase 2. Pinellas County has received the appropriate permits required to initiate and complete Phase I. In Phase 2, sub-basin 2 and 7 will be implemented. The projected completion date for Phase 1 is 2009 and Phase 2 is 2012. 5. Divert and Treat Seminole Bypass Canal flows to improve lake flushing and dilution This management action will involve the diversion of some portion of the baseflows and/or high flows from the Seminole Bypass Canal into the northern end of Lake Seminole. Because there is a 2-foot elevational difference between Lake Seminole PBS35 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan �, DRAFT May 2007 (e.g., weir elevation of 5.0 feet NGVD) and the Seminole Bypass Canal (e.g., weir elevation of 3.0 feet NGVD) the transfer of water from the canal to the lake would need to be facilitated using pumps. The effect of this diversion will be to reduce lake residence time, improve flushing and circulation, and potentially provide for some dilution of the nutrient mass in the lake water column. Water quality monitoring conducted by Pinellas County in the Seminole Bypass Canal indicates that canal water quality typically has much lower levels of TN, but higher levels of TP than that of Lake Seminole, especially during high flow periods. The effectiveness of this management action will be substantially enhanced by treating the diverted flows prior to discharge into the lake. The diversion of flows from the Seminole Bypass Canal includes the construction of an alum injection facility in association with the pump station such that diverted water will be treated prior to being discharged into Lake Seminole. Due to the alum injection, an in- lake settling basin will be dredged at the point of discharge to contain the accumulated alum floc. Depending on the diverted volumes, this enhancement should provide for significant dilution of in-lake nutrient concentrations. Implementation Status (May 2007) Pinellas County has completed the design and received the appropriate permitting required to begin construction of the Bypass Canal diversion structure with an enhanced treatment plant. Construction will begin in 2007. 6. Dredge organic silt sediments from submerged areas In 2006, The Lake Seminole Sediment Removal Feasibility Plan was completed and provides a comprehensive updated investigation on sediment removal in Lake Seminole (PBSJ, 2006). The new report addresses two objectives: 1) update the 1999 sediment removal feasibility study based on current conditions and new information; and 2) conduct additional technical analyses and due diligence. The findings of that report identify the most cost-effective, permittable, and publicly acceptable approach to completing the sediment removal project. The information from the 2006 study on sediment removal from Lake Seminole is included in the reasonable assurance plan. In conducting this evaluation of alternatives the following critical project planning design criteria for the Lake Seminole sediment removal project were identified: • Project duration of two years or less; • Selective removal of organics; • Lake water availability for hydraulic dredging; • Clean water return back to the lake; • Dewatering process relatively unaffected by climatic variability; • Minimal on-shore land area requirements for dewatering; • Minimal volume of dewatered solids for disposal; • Minimal truck traffic for solids disposal • Minimal disturbance to water quality,wetlands, and listed species; • Minimal disturbance to recreation and aesthetics; and • Proven, cost-effective technology. For sediment removal projects such as the Lake Seminole project, where on-shore processing space is severely limited, and for which sediment disposal trucking must be 36 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 minimized, the only logical and reasonable alternatives involve an on-shore dewatering system that can produce the minimum feasible dewatered sediment volumes on the smallest space possible, and return clean water back to lake Seminole at a rate equal to the dredge flow rate. Nine sediment removal alternatives were evaluated and compared based on the following criteria: • Project duration; • Permittability; • Public acceptance; • Biddability and constructability; and • Estimated project costs. Table 3-3 gives a side by side comparison of all nine project alternatives. Based on an objective and balanced consideration of the above factors, Alternative 6A, high gravity centrifuge dewatering with a dredge pumping rate of 800 gpm, is the only alternative investigated that satisfies all of the identified project criteria and standards completely. Therefore, Pinellas County concluded that Alternative 6A would be the recommended alternative for Lake Seminole sediment removal project. Figure 3-4 shows a conceptual diagram of the process dewatering facility addressed in the preferred alternative. The actual on-shore dewatering process equipment area - excluding boundary set-backs from adjacent properties, piping to and from the lake, roads, administration support buildings and the like—would be 140' by 100'. Compared to all of the other alternatives investigated, this alternative best satisfies the extremely limited space-available criterion while meeting the other criteria. All of the process operating equipment elements and the process configuration itself are well-known and have been proven nationally and internationally. Furthermore, the principal dewatering equipment elements would be "closed" and would not be susceptible to the sort of inclement weather conditions that might shut down "open" dewatering equipment elements such as lagoons. The preferred alternative would return 93 percent of the water pumped out of the lake back to the lake. Therefore, there would be no undesirable lake drawdown effects. The water returned to the lake would contain about 0.36% solids. These solids would be the organic/inorganic residual remaining from the on-shore dewatering process, which does not pass through any other material (i.e. polymer) used in the process. Finally, the preferred alternative would result in minimal impacts to wetlands and listed species, lake recreation and aesthetics, and neighborhood integrity. For these reasons, as well as the overall lake restoration objective of the project, it is anticipated that the preferred alternative would garner strong public acceptance and support. Implementation Status (May 2007) Hayes-Bosworth, Inc was selected as the highest ranked firm for the whole lake dredging project in February 2007. Hayes-Bosworth, Inc will proceed with design and construction plans to begin lake dredging (Photo 3-3). The projected completion date is December 2011. 37 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 • '' Z '• �. .•t, ..1:._•Lr:.Jt.)v y► "...—.. S �= i - _S, V. 'a lb,.,44, 'PI.'" _ „.. [.t;. I M .•,' ... ; , :i C '';.. _ ` y . , a V - ; i lerft=i4k41,,'• .-.,'No '• Photo 3-3. Sediment resuspension in Lake Seminole. Management Components 1. Mechanically Harvest Nuisance Aquatic Vegetations This management action involves the permanent dedication of one mechanical harvester and transport barge, and a full-time operating crew, to Lake Seminole for the harvesting of cattails on a continual basis. When Hydrilla again becomes a component of the Lake Seminole flora, as it will when grass carp are removed and water transparency is improved, the program will be refocused to control this species as a means of controlling both the proliferation of this aggressive exotic as well as nutrient enrichment. The Pinellas County Highway Department (PCHD - Mosquito Control) will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the harvester units. Drying and processing of the harvested plant matter would take place on publicly-owned property such as the Lake Seminole County Park. Elements of this management action include the following: • Pinellas County will develop and implement a Lake Seminole Aquatic Weed Management Plan every two years. The plan will be cooperatively developed by the LSAC and technical representatives from Pinellas County Department of Public Works (PCDPW), PCDEM, SWFWMD, FDEP, FWCC, and PCHD. The purpose of this plan will be to clearly articulate the two year aquatic weed management goals and priority areas, each agency's responsibilities in meeting the goals, and a two year schedule for aquatic plant management activities on the lake. This plan will be PIM38 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan X DRAFT May 2007 based on the technical information generated from biannual submergent and emergent vegetative surveys. • A target annual harvest goal for cattails of 10 acres/year was adopted. Cattails will be harvested from priority areas identified in the biannual Lake Seminole Aquatic Weed Management Plan. • A target annual harvest goal for Hydrilla of 35 acres/year (inclusive of chemically treated senescent tissue) will be adopted. Hydrilla will be harvested opportunistically from areas of heavy concentration on a continual basis. The highest priority use of the harvester will be to remove senescent and decomposing Hydrilla mats following effective chemical treatment of infested areas. In this manner, mechanical harvesting of an annual biomass target would complement existing chemical treatment programs in controlling the coverage of nuisance aquatics while also resulting in the removal of a mass of stored nutrients thus reducing the potential for nutrient recycling. • FDEP and SWFWMD have the primary responsibility for the management of submergent and floating nuisance aquatics in Lake Seminole under the existing Cooperative Aquatic Plant Control Program. A stable and adequate long-term funding source will be pursued so that interruption in maintenance activities is avoided in the future. Consideration will be given to the use of Pinellas-Anclote Basin Board funds for this purpose. Pinellas County will assume primary control of emergent nuisance aquatics. • A maximum chemical treatment area limitation of 100 acres per year will be established for Hydrilla control. Chemical treatment of Hydrilla will be performed on a more frequent and regular basis to maintain the coverage within the proposed target range and to avoid the need for major treatment events on large coverage areas. • Assisted revegetation of the cattail harvest areas with desirable endemic species will be performed at a target rate of approximately 5 acres/year. It is anticipated that the proposed increased range in the lake level fluctuation schedule will stimulate the natural recruitment and proliferation of a more diverse assemblage of desirable emergent species. Assisted revegetation, either implemented through publicly funded habitat restoration projects or required as conditions of permits, will be limited to commonly available, desirable endemic species. This management action should not be considered contradictory with existing FDEP and SWFWMD policy which essentially states that Hydrilla and other exotic nuisance aquatic plants should be managed at their lowest feasible levels. Rather, mechanical harvesting of an annual biomass target would complement existing chemical treatment programs in controlling the coverage of nuisance aquatics while also resulting in the removal of a mass of stored nutrients thus reducing the potential for nutrient recycling. This is especially true with regard to the harvesting of senescing plant tissue following chemical treatment, which will be the primary objective of the harvesting program. PriS39 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan y� DRAFT May 2007 Implementation Status (May 2007) Pinellas County contracted an aquatic weed-harvestor to remove nuisance aquatic vegetation (primrose willow and cattails) from 45 acres of the lake during the water level draw down in 2006 (Photo 3-4). The County will continue nuisance vegetation maintenance. IP(EttlWAIsem.'-�:a?s'-•-iw ... �'► ▪ .- 1"'''nf• ifite,• , "S ."'S P �lt ,.ySr"• tort_ . kt 1 !" .1 ," 4 f+ ;i4t44 �:iY $ -1 '+1' -:.'te '' ' •r..r I I s.:'F3"iN "� • f 'IV IL-,r+t;' ¢t, '�er f `�Y "�C,,./ t , `tip t tR ♦ ',e*.I-' t %."' -1 lit I 'k4.3/4-r'$.. �1. •.1.`7'! f_�C' ...,s•t.t,, �.e: ={,.:.,0.0,,,,,,,,,, �• viz-`f.',,:lip'. tl 4.4,-, ,r l r 'f• l 'r YtF3,�.,.`� �[�, 1::: -S�+ . n� x ,_ µms,"'.- -• i t .,„„. ,c •''1_ali i.. .11• 3" r` rv1'.� - ",�t_R% Y --I, f(�� t „....,....-.75.,.--,:,-„:,-,,.„ .r 4'' }� - ti.t\iii'•i 7t`�rrjj i� �,.� �.i ,r '._.,.n., �' r"'.1 r. •'l• `.4,.. ..q, 4,,,:,:,f l..l./.:Q!5. .„1. .;, 3� `SCJ! �+ ^ r< ^r CC-�N � ':. a .i M y; ri%•. ,7t - 't•.-r., r:��:fN�.•,7,,-<,:.‘,.,;',".'-‘.f:_r; Es', +. -1+'r ` , Y : >{ 1.A'•1'7t;R ',i�j.;lr.t'T1 J14 ''.1-X F.n'-'''-'''•-•‘'..4 %...4-�'j .l?:1;�!°:1rl; '.. . .• ..-It',.' •.i b 1� :' t� ,Y” T ''y�,// r, G'a(te4a. . Jy' ! 'eV/ `4 A'�."4'Y �` 1. .. i`te. a 1 .. 4'•!t aI o' ' • $ .�, �'i,/i ,1 i �•`•. ,. , .. --' -. .— . I '`!.....-e....rK t u3:.'.P. p AN-i'+�s AN-WW.-1,1 i• I �i .4'4E'' . - Photo 3-4. Nuisance vegetation along the shoreline of Lake Seminole. 2. Improve treatment efficiency of existing stormwater facilities This management action involves the development and implementation of a comprehensive local program to improve compliance monitoring and enforcement of permitted surface water management (MSSW) facilities in the basin. This program will essentially be an enhanced version of the Adopt-a-Pond program implemented in several local governments in Florida, including Hillsborough County. This action would involve the following steps: • Perform an inventory of all existing permitted MSSW facilities in the basin, as permitted by SWFWMD since 1985. Identify target MSSW facilities for inspection and potential monitoring. Monitoring candidates will be targeted based on the size of the service area and whether significant changes in contributing land uses have occurred since the facility was permitted. Develop a priority list of MSSW facilities to be inspected. 40 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan 0 DRAFT May 2007 • Inspect and monitor the priority MSSW facilities identified in Step 1 above. The facility will be inspected for compliance with the permitted design. In addition, stormwater entering and discharging from the facility following a storm event will be sampled for TSS, TN and TP. • If the facility is determined to be out of compliance with permitted design or water quality standards, the owner will be informed of the problems and the need to correct them. Florida Statutes require an 80% pollutant (TSS) removal efficiency and the attainment of Class-III water quality standards at the end of the discharge pipe. • Working cooperatively with the owners, develop a site-specific improvement plan for each target MSSW facility. The improvement plans could include such modifications as changing the water level control elevations or planting a littoral shelf. In addition, facility improvement plans will incorporate habitat improvement elements wherever feasible. • Provide financial assistance and technical guidance to owners, as appropriate, to implement the facility improvement plans. Although facilities constructed prior to 1985 are legally vested from meeting water quality standards, the second level of priority under this program would be these older stormwater ponds. An attempt will be made to get owners of pre-1985 facilities to voluntarily participate in the program through financial incentives and/or assistance. There is a rebuttable presumption that State design criteria for Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) facilities achieve an 80% pollutant load reduction. Furthermore, because Lake Seminole is an Outstanding Florida Water, a 95% pollutant load reduction is technically required for those MSSW facilities discharging directly into the lake. Although the statutes do not specify which pollutants are targeted by the State design criteria, they are generally interpreted to address total suspended solids (TSS) and biological oxygen demand (BOD). Attainment of these performance standards is rarely verified or enforced due to the complexities in monitoring individual MSSW facilities; however, available data indicate that most MSSW facilities are substantially deficient if not properly maintained. State law allows for stringent enforcement of these performance standards where it can be demonstrated that State water quality standards are being violated. It can be reasonably argued that nonpoint source pollutant loads to Lake Seminole are violating the State water quality standard for nutrients (e.g., must not cause an ecological imbalance). Assuming that MSSW facilities meeting the 80% TSS load reduction standard also provide adequate nutrient removal, strict enforcement of this minimal performance standard throughout the watershed is justified. The intense level of existing urban development in the Lake Seminole basin limits the potential effectiveness of implementing more stringent regulations for new development. Many stormwater facilities exist within the watershed but may not be functioning at their intended level-of-service. Therefore, measures to bring these facilities into compliance with current or basin-specific performance standards are likely to be cost-effective management actions, especially in those major basins where regional treatment facilities are not being proposed. 41 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 There is currently a rebuttable presumption in the law that existing surface water management facilities that meet State design criteria also comply with State water quality standards. This rebuttable presumption can be, and has been, legally challenged where the need for strict compliance can be clearly demonstrated. Since Lake Seminole is an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) the applicable water quality standard for nutrients is concentrations which cause degradation of water quality downstream of the discharge. Therefore, under existing regulations, it is possible to develop and enforce a higher basin-specific performance standard for existing stormwater management systems. Implementation Status (May 2007) Several systems within the priority sub basins were evaluated during the alum system design. PCDEM completed a system evaluation of the sub basin 6 creation in 2005. 3. Biomanipulate Sport Fish Populations While there are a wide variety of ecological control mechanisms that generally fall under the category of 'biomanipulation', this management action will primarily involve manipulation of the lake fisheries to improve water quality conditions and modify the fish population structure such that sport fish species become dominant. This primarily involves the selected harvesting of herbivorous rough fish from Lake Seminole, including grass carp and gizzard shad. In addition, this action would include stocking of sport fish species, and the adoption and aggressive enforcement of a catch and release rule for select sport fish species in Lake Seminole. It is anticipated that these activities will be phased to coincide with habitat and water quality improvements associated with other components of the Plan. Initial activities will involve removal of the grass carp via electrofishing and haul seines. The removal of grass carp is considered critical to habitat restoration efforts aimed at increasing the coverage of submerged aquatic vegetation in the lake. Phase I activities would also include haul seine removal of gizzard and threadfin shad as a means of removing phosphorus from the lake and reducing zooplankton predation, which in turn is expected to reduce chlorophyll-a concentrations. Other activities will involve continued shad harvesting as well as stocking the lake with young carnivorous sport fish, including largemouth bass and bluegill. Phase III activities will involve continued stocking of sport fish as deemed necessary, as well as the adoption and strict enforcement of a 100% catch and release rule for largemouth bass. The catch and release rule could be relaxed after several years if monitoring data indicate the establishment of a healthy sustained sport fish population. Implementation Status(May 2007) The remaining grass carp in the lake should have no impact on the current vegetation in the lake due to their age and low density (personal communication, Tom Champeau). An unsuccessful attempt to stock the lake with largemouth bass was completed in the mid-1990's. In November 2006, over 12,000 largemouth bass were released into the lake and ongoing monitoring indicates that the stocking was a success. The FWCC will continue to monitor the largemouth bass population every 6 months to document fish population. PBSQ 42 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan } DRAFT May 2007 4. Implement an Enhanced Lake Level Fluctuation Schedule This management action involves establishing an operational schedule for the proposed new Lake Seminole outfall control structure so as to provide for greater intra-annual lake level fluctuation and inter-annual variability. Since Long Bayou was severed to create Lake Seminole, static lake levels have been maintained at the approximate elevation of 5.0 feet NGVD. A lake level fluctuation schedule has never been formally adopted or implemented on Lake Seminole, and the maintenance of static levels has adversely affected both the aquatic vegetation communities and water quality by reducing plant diversity and increasing lake residence time. The recommended enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule is shown in Figure 3-5. The enhanced schedule reestablishes a more natural pattern of seasonal and inter- annual variation in lake levels which are to be repeated every four years. The recommended four-year cycle is composed of three different annual lake level fluctuation schedules - A, B, and C. All three schedules have a high elevation of 5.0 feet NGVD. Schedule A has the greatest range with a low of 3.2 feet NGVD. Schedule B has a more moderate range with a low of 3.4 feet NGVD. Schedule C is the most conservative with a low of 3.8 feet NGVD. The four-year cycle involves a repeating pattern of the three schedules as follows: A, C, B, C, A, C . . . etc. Table 3-4 provides a tabular summary of the target monthly lake level elevations for proposed Schedules A, B and C. Schedules A, B, and C all call for both spring and fall low lake levels. The spring low lake level under Schedule A is more exaggerated than that for Schedule B, whereas the fall low lake level in Schedule B is more pronounced than that for schedule A. Schedules A and B are repeated every four years, whereas Schedule C is repeated every two years. Theoretically, the spring discharge should result in the flushing and dilution of accumulated in-lake nutrient concentrations prior to the summer growing season, whereas the fall discharge is intended to flush nutrient-rich runoff accumulated from the summer rainy season. All three schedules call for high lake levels of 5.0 feet NGVD during both the winter and summer months. These lake level highs are intended to flood littoral vegetation and control the expansion and proliferation of nuisance species, predominantly cattails and willows. The recommended four-year enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule is intended to better simulate the natural hydrologic regime while still maintaining consistency with the operational range established by Pinellas County for flood control. However, it should be noted that the recommended four-year enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule is not meant to be implemented rigidly, but rather it is to serve as a guideline for improved lake management. For example, the recommended low water elevation of 3.2 feet NGVD called for in Schedule A should clearly not be attained if extended drought and exceptionally low water table conditions exist. Water level manipulation is one of the most common lake management techniques, used not only for the control of nuisance aquatic vegetation but also for water quality management via flushing and dilution (EPA, 1990). The design and capabilities of the proposed new Lake Seminole outfall control structure will allow for maximum flexibility in the management of lake levels. Unfortunately, the existing outfall structure was conservatively constructed solely for the purpose of flood control, and did not allow for any controlled water level fluctuation. The built-in flexibility of the proposed new PBS43 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan �� DRAFT May 2007 structure will be properly utilized and applied in the achievement of other lake management goals including aquatic plant management and water quality improvement. A cursory inventory of nearshore areas and residential canals performed as part of the planning effort indicated that, with the exception of the "narrows" between the north and south lobes of the lake, no significant adverse impacts on recreational navigation or riparian access would be caused by the recommended low lake levels of 3.2, 3.4 and 3.8 feet NGVD that periodically occur naturally during drought conditions. Water depths in the "narrows" segment are limited by the accumulation of organic silt sediments, and navigable access between the north and south lobes of the lake are constrained during low lake levels. For this reason, implementation of the recommended enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule will not be initiated until the organic silt sediments are removed from the "narrows"segment, as discussed above. Implementation Status (May 2007) The lake level fluctuation schedule will be implemented after sediment removal (Photo 3-5). -i .• .r ' tx 's. 8 `<"' - }t L.. a•�;^`}a`1� t �1:5 LSA t4 :c F `�,'. „ xr '> .may._-it . 11 � t 4 �� ,•+•Rr ± x♦�?z i"'r s `_`Gsw�-.- ,—'2R. t'. . ...>,-,,,�. ,x x a. F ! -� 'p.�y p5 r -_�. Y,•L-.,,x. � v ;i,SEe�+�..s � �. .0-�'+�G'� �,�,,,,,-°�-, � 1 r' _���� .,i,K^��' �' . - r �_iy �i R � � qhs J :I, ♦=i� ."4404111? mob f ice' '%o- • is • t 'ce .. - _R -._ _ t� � �-:..gip.,:.►` • • Sr Photo 3-5. Photograph of outfall structure under construction. PBS; 44 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 5. Inactivate phosphorus through whole lake alum applications ( if warranted by monitoring results) This management action involves whole lake applications of aluminum sulfate (alum) to the surface waters of Lake Seminole. Good candidate lakes for this procedure are typically those that have had nutrient diversion and have been shown through diagnostic-feasibility studies to have a high internal phosphorus release. The release of phosphorus stored in lake sediments can be so extensive in some lakes and reservoirs that algal blooms persist even after incoming phosphorus has been significantly lowered (EPA, 1990). Treatments of lakes with low doses of alum may effectively remove phosphorus (called phosphorus precipitation) but may be inadequate to provide long- term control of phosphorus release from lake sediments (phosphorus inactivation). Phosphorus precipitation removes phosphorus from the water column. Phosphorus inactivation, on the other hand, is a technique to achieve long-term control of phosphorus release from lake sediments by adding as much aluminum sulfate to the lake as possible within the limits dictated by environmental safety. Iron, calcium, and aluminum have salts that can combine with (or sorb) inorganic phosphorus or remove phosphorus-containing particulate matter from the water column as part of a floc. Of these elements, aluminum is most often chosen because phosphorus binds tightly to its salts over a wide range of ecological conditions, including low or zero dissolved oxygen. In practice, aluminum sulfate (alum) or sodium aluminate is added to the water, and pin-point, colloidal aggregates of aluminum hydroxide are formed. These aggregates rapidly grow into a visible, brownish floc, a precipitate that settles to the sediments in a few hours or days, carrying phosphorus sorbed to its surface and bits of organic and inorganic particulate matter in the floc(EPA, 1990). After the floc settles to the sediment surface,the water will be very clear. If enough alum is added, a layer of 1 to 2 inches of aluminum hydroxide will cover the sediments and significantly retard the release of phosphorus into the water column as an internal load. In many lakes, assuming sufficient diversion of external nutrient loading, this will mean that algal cells will become starved for this essential nutrient. In contrast, some untreated lakes, even with adequate diversion of nutrients, will continue to have algal blooms that are sustained by sediment nutrient release(EPA, 1990). Due to the shallowness of Lake Seminole, and the presence of flocculent sediments that are subject to frequent resuspension, phosphorus inactivation via whole lake alum applications is not recommended until a significant portion of the flocculent sediments have been removed from the lake. The long-term effectiveness of whole lake alum applications for phosphorus inactivation is significantly reduced in lakes where the reactive sediment surface is frequently reworked by turbulent resuspension or other forces (EPA, 1990). Therefore, it is recommended that this management action only be pursued as warranted following the removal of the flocculent deep sediments. Both empirically derived nutrient budgets and waterbody modeling using WASP5 indicate that internal nutrient recycling in Lake Seminole may be a very significant source of water column phosphorus. In addition, Lake Seminole is dominated by blue- green algal species which have the capability of fixing nitrogen in nitrogen limiting conditions. This management action would strongly drive the lake towards phosphorus limitation, thus reducing the dominance and impact of the persistent blue-green algae blooms that periodically plague Lake Seminole. PBS; 45 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan �7/�j+ DRAFT May 2007 Implementation Status (May 2007) The whole lake alum application will only be utilized if significant water quality improvements are not measured in result of the combination of all other restoration projects. Legal Components 1. Adopt a Resolution designating the Lake Seminole Watershed as a "Nutrient Sensitive Watershed" This management action will involve the adoption of a resolution by the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners and the Cities of Largo and Seminole designating the Lake Seminole basin as a 'Nutrient Sensitive Watershed'. The resolution would reference the Lake Seminole Watershed Management Plan as the controlling planning document, and would identify the need for, and public commitment to, developing specific voluntary guidelines for the following: • regular street sweeping within the basin; • proper disposal of lawn cuttings and brush clippings to prevent the dumping of organic debris into the lake; • proper removal of pet droppings along public and private shoreline areas of the lake to prevent pet waste runoff into the lake; • fertilizer application rates for both residential and commercial land uses (e.g., number of pounds per acre per month) to prevent over application and excessive runoff and seepage to the lake; • reclaimed wastewater effluent application rates for both residential and commercial land uses (e.g., limited number of inches per acre per day) to prevent over application and excessive runoff and seepage to the lake; and • optional control measures for reclaimed wastewater effluent application within the basin (e.g., automatic rain shut-off valves)to prevent runoff during storm events. Long-term monitoring data indicate that Lake Seminole has been eutrophic virtually since its creation in the mid-1940s. More recent data from the 1990s indicate that the rate of eutrophication is increasing rapidly. Since there are no point source discharges to the lake, and external sources of nutrients to the lake are generally diffuse in nature (e.g., stormwater runoff), the problem of reducing external nutrient loads to the lake must be attacked on many fronts. The predominantly residential and commercial land uses within the basin probably contribute a cumulatively substantial portion of the total nutrient load to the lake through sheetflow runoff, the dumping of lawn cuttings into the lake, pet waste runoff, and seepage of excessive applications of lawn fertilizers and reclaimed irrigation water. This may be especially true for golf courses and heavily landscaped residential areas within the basin. Formal legal recognition of the nutrient sensitivity of the Lake Seminole watershed, as well as measures to reduce these diffuse loads, are needed as part of the overall management strategy. PBS46 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 Implementation Status (May 2007) Lake Seminole has been identified as a "Nutrient Sensitive" Waterbody. Pinellas County has installed signs throughout the watershed informing the public of the water quality concerns. The County has organized several meetings and presentations designed to inform the local stakeholders of approved methods to improve water quality. A proposed rule introduced by the Florida Division of Agricultural Environmental Science to reduce phosphorus additions through fertilizer additions on urban lawns or turf (5E- 1.003) is scheduled to be discussed March 29, 2007. The proposed rule states "Fertilizers labels as starter fertilizers shall have directions for use for a maximum application rate no greater than 1.0 lb of P205/1000 ft2 and that subsequent applications shall be either Low or No Phosphate fertilizer". This rule would reduce the amount of phosphorus allowed for starter lawns and eliminate phosphorus application for established lawns. 2. Strengthen and Standardize Local Ordinances For Regulating Stormwater Treatment for redevelopment in the Lake Seminole Watershed This management action involves the cooperative development and adoption of a consistent ordinance, between Pinellas County and the Cities of Largo and Seminole, defining special thresholds, rules, and conditions for stormwater rehabilitation through redevelopment within the Lake Seminole watershed. The ordinance will address the retrofitting of pre-1985 stormwater treatment and/or flood attenuation systems with systems that meet current standards for Outstanding Florida Waters. It is recommended that the ordinance establish the following criteria for redevelopment activities specifically within the Lake Seminole watershed. • All residential, commercial, and industrial parcels undergoing redevelopment shall meet current State stormwater treatment standards for Outstanding Florida Waters (e.g., treat the first 1.5 inches of runoff)for the entire parcel area. • Redevelopment shall be defined as any demolition and reconstruction or repaving activity that affects 1,500 square feet or more of area, or 10% or more of the total parcel area, whichever is less. Single family residential lots shall be exempted from this provision. • Payment in lieu of constructing stormwater treatment facilities shall be an allowable relief mechanism for all parcels falling under the above provisions. The fee shall be based on the estimated costs associated with the construction of said stormwater treatment facilities. • Fees collected from payments made in lieu of constructing stormwater treatment facilities shall be placed in the Lake Seminole Watershed Management Trust Fund, and shall be used exclusively for the construction, operation and maintenance of regional stormwater treatment facilities constructed pursuant to the Lake Seminole Watershed Management Plan. All fees collected under this ordinance shall be expended within the governmental jurisdiction from which they were collected. As described above, the recommended ordinance will establish a Lake Seminole Watershed Management Trust Fund for fees collected from payments made in lieu of 47 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan i ""� DRAFT May 2007 constructing stormwater treatment facilities on constrained parcels. The trust fund would be managed by Pinellas County, and would be used exclusively to finance ongoing operation and maintenance of the regional enhanced stormwater treatment facilities. The recommended ordinance will clearly acknowledge the fact that no net gain in water quality within the watershed can be achieved if redevelopment projects do not make some provisions for improved stormwater management and treatment. This is especially true in the Lake Seminole watershed where the majority of the basin was developed with numerous high density residential and commercial projects prior to the State's adoption of Chapter 17-25 F.A.C. These older developments typically have no stormwater treatment systems incorporated into the original design. Because of the age of the developments in the Lake Seminole watershed, redevelopment is expected to occur at an increasing pace over the next decade. It is imperative for the restoration of the lake that some gains are made with respect to improving the level of stormwater treatment on older developed parcels in the watershed, especially those located directly on the lake. Implementation Status(May 2007) The Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan is being amended with more stringent environmental requirements. Policy Component 1. Establish a Lake Seminole Watershed Management Area (WMA) Through Amendments to the Pinellas County, and Cities of Largo and Seminole Comprehensive Plans This management action involves the establishment of a Lake Seminole Watershed Management Area (WMA), via amendments to the Pinellas County, and Cities of Largo and Seminole Comprehensive Plans. The WMA will formally establish a special planning and management district for the Lake Seminole watershed within the growth management framework. The purpose of the WMA designation will be to focus the adopted goals of the Lake Seminole Advisory Committee within a defined tri jurisdictional geographic area, and to better coordinate and consolidate the decision making processes for regulatory and management activities conducted by Pinellas County and the Cities of Largo and Seminole within the Lake Seminole watershed. The WMA in concept would be a `planning' district, rather than a taxing district, that would cover the entire Lake Seminole watershed and place specific policy provisions in place for certain activities and land uses in both the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the basin. As part of this action, Pinellas County and the Cities of Largo and Seminole would also adopt specific goals, objectives and policies for the Lake Seminole Watershed Management Area. At a minimum, the goals adopted by the Lake Seminole Advisory Committee will be embodied in the Comprehensive Plans of the County and the Cities. In addition, existing goals, objectives and policies as well as basin-specific level-of- service targets (e.g., stormwater treatment and O&M commitments) found elsewhere in the Pinellas County and City Comprehensive Plans will be consolidated under the Lake Seminole Watershed Management Area sections. Examples of such policies include: PBS)Q 48 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 • The requirement of OFW-Ievel of stormwater treatment for all new development in the Lake Seminole WMA. • The consistent application of local stormwater treatment requirements for redevelopment within the Lake Seminole WMA that exceeds the requirements of SWFWMD. • Payment in lieu of stormwater treatment for exempted parcels. • The consistent application of land development codes and regulations, as well as voluntary guidelines for management activities such as fertilizer and wastewater reuse application rates,within Lake Seminole WMA. Numerous policy inconsistencies exist between the Pinellas County and Cities of Largo and Seminole Comprehensive Plans regarding issues that affect the Lake Seminole Watershed Management Plan. The designation of the Lake Seminole Watershed Management Area, and the adoption of a consistent set of policy guidelines and level-of- service targets between both local government Comprehensive Plans will facilitate a common approach to resource management of the Lake Seminole watershed. Implementation Status(May 2007) The Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan is being amended with more stringent environmental requirements. Compliance and Enforcement Component 1. Expand and Enforce Restricted Speed Zones on Lake Seminole This management action involved the adoption of an ordinance formally establishing new restricted speed zones in Lake Seminole, as well as the installation and maintenance of buoy markers that clearly define the established "no wake" areas. Recently, the perimeter restricted speed zone was extended out to 200 feet from the shoreline around the entire perimeter of the lake, and restricted speed zones were established for'Enhanced Fishing Zones'. This action also improved the means of communicating to the public the limits, purpose, and intended benefits (e.g., erosion control, noise abatement, segregation of incompatible recreational uses) of the restricted speed zones, as well as allowable activities and speeds within these zones. Improved signage and instructional information is located at all public boat ramp kiosks clarifying the appropriate speeds allowed within restricted speed zone (e.g., clear definitions of no wake, idle speed, slow speed, etc.). Excessive watercraft speed and turbulence in the shallow 'narrows' and perimeter portions of the lake contributes to sediment resuspension and associated turbidity and water quality problems. Implementation Status(May 2007) Pinellas County has completed the expansion of the restricted speed zones and is drafting a speed zone ordinance. 49 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 Public Education Components 1. Develop and Implement a Comprehensive Public Involvement Program for the Lake Seminole Watershed This management action involves the development and implementation of a comprehensive public involvement program for the Lake Seminole watershed. The program includes a number of elements including the following: • Preparation of a semi-annual newsletter (e.g., twice per year) to be mailed to residents and businesses in the basin informing the public of the various components of the Plan as well as findings, trends, and upcoming activities. • Production and airing of a government access television presentation on Lake Seminole, with updates to the program to be made on an annual basis. A video tape of this presentation will be made available to citizens upon request. • Update and improve the 'Help Save Lake Seminole' brochure. The improved brochure will be distributed to all residents and businesses in the watershed. • Establish a speakers bureau for homeowners association meetings and other public functions. Members of the Lake Seminole Management Committee will be recruited for this purpose. • Establish an information clearinghouse for technical reports, monitoring data, and other information related to Lake Seminole. • Implement Lake Seminole Day as an annual function. Sponsorship for this event will be actively solicited from local businesses. • Installation of "Dump No Waste - Drains to Lake" plaques on storm drains throughout the watershed. • Installation of additional roadway signs indicating the boundaries of the Lake Seminole Watershed Management Area. Public apathy regarding lake and watershed management is a common pattern until obvious problems such as nuisance algae blooms and aquatic weed infestations become apparent. The public response to such problems is typically quite negative and unproductive. Improved public understanding of the causes of lake management problems, and the role that individuals can play in managing and improving the quality of the lake and watershed will contribute significantly to furthering the goals of the Plan. In addition, increased public involvement as stakeholders in the ownership and implementation of the Plan should reduce unproductive and excessive public criticism of • the responsible governmental agencies, and improve the overall lake and watershed management effort. MEI 50 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 Implementation Status (May 2007) Pinellas County has established an extensive network for public outreach to all stakeholders of Lake Seminole. The County holds regular public meetings to discuss the status of the Lake, update past projects and inform of future projects. A website has been established discussing the history, management plan and ongoing projects (http://www.pinellascountv.orq/Environment/pagesHTMUwaterResources/wr3200.html). A User group of individuals surrounding the lake are updated by email providing relevant information on the Lake status. Additionally, bilingual signs have been installed on 197 storm drains throughout the watershed stating "Dump No Waste-Drains to Lake" (Figure 3-6). A fine of$10,000 can be implemented if violated. Listed below are the public events held since 2005 to inform local stakeholders in the Lake Seminole watershed: Community Meetings Four Seasons Mobile Home Park Point West Mobile Home Park Willow Point Condominiums Homeowners Association Town Homes of Lake Seminole Homeowners Association Lake Shore Homeowners Association Lake Park Homeowners Association Lake Seminole Square Orange Lake Village Homeowners Association Public Meeting May 25, 2005 over 400 in attendance Lake Clean up Event February 2006 over 460 volunteers(Photo 3-6) PBS51 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan • DRAFT May 2007 yU • ..sts t R7 • . _______________________________ a�►�=?- om 1.... _i..,....___ ------______,_________ _ irl :---i',..-i- 1I i:, ... _. t��.-..1 n ��'1'iljaVI:,_-_ .,a!,.4 ( ry , + • ,,.. . - - 4 $ter stir 1 , - _ , i. • ..... ,..,.1,,. , :.) Dt— • , vi, 1..-,,...,, 6-- ....f. ,4., ,,..„.... `,4 Ck (i l' ,11 • Atike 'tk• '..ki,:f.r.•W .r +ai. - ..64::,,-41;,,17,44.,,i, , i i..r 4 +111 , * ,c�.-,'tea' 4 � ) r i, �[j�; ny cL ` s,c� . 3%?-: fl'::.;IN 4- t 04 'OM kV t,A � L zx y n • Photo 3-6.Volunteer participation in "Lake Clean-Up" Event in 2006. Park Blvd replanting: February 2007 Eagle Scout project: install 30 live oaks along the southern shoreline(Photo 3-7) ■ 52 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan l� L.Is�T DRAFT May 2007 0 f anti tr r. . _ _ ' r--} , ,)L, ,• r t �T �- „..,.61,„„^+^ " :s : 4r teary . L ` j _ �q .� raj • .r `• t f f. Photo 3-7. Installation of 30 live oaks along Park Blvd by Eagle Scouts. April 2007 Eagle Scout project to install aquatic plants over 2500 linear feet of shoreline(scheduled) May 2007 Lake Clean up event(scheduled) 2. Develop and Implement a Local Citizens Lakewatch Program for Lake Seminole This management action involves the recruitment of interested local citizens to participate in the collection of supplemental monitoring data from Lake Seminole and its watershed. Local citizen involvement in monitoring activities is implemented through a coordinated network of lakefront homeowners and other interested citizens. The recruitment and training of interested citizens follows the protocols established by the Florida LakeWatch program, which has implemented similar programs on numerous central Florida lakes. The implementation of a citizen based sampling program allows for the collection of data needs that have been identified and which are currently not being address by Pinellas County or other agencies. Interested citizens will be recruited to assist in the collection of such data wherever feasible. Local citizen LakeWatch programs have been very successful in central Florida, where numerous lake associations are actively involved in monitoring and data collection on their lakes. This type of public 'ownership' in the 53 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 resource could greatly improve public interest and involvement in the restoration and management of Lake Seminole. Implementation Status (May 2007) The citizen based Florida LakeWatch program currently collects samples from Lake Seminole. As of 2003, a total of 12 samples have been collected to measure water quality. 3.c Geographic Scope of any Proposed Management Activity The geographic scope of the Lake Seminole Management Plan extends throughout the watershed. The management of the lake depends on both external (point source, runoff, etc.) and internal (sediment removal, lake level fluctuation, etc) modifications. 3.d Documentation of the Estimated Pollutant Load Reduction and Other Benefits Anticipated from Implementation of Individual Management Actions The anticipated benefit of each component of the proposed restoration management plan for Lake Seminole is discussed below. Additionally, the estimated pollutant load reduction is discussed based on a comprehensive modeling effort which includes the four major restoration projects. Structural Components Excavate Organic Peat Sediments From Shoreline Areas The expected benefits of this management action are improved sport fish reproductive success, increased biodiversity in the littoral plant communities and improvement in water quality of Lake Seminole. Combined with the proposed enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule, this action is expected to result in substantially improved shoreline habitat quality. The enhancement of the vegetative community along the littoral zone should increase nutrient uptake thereby reducing the nutrient concentrations. Additionally, the removal of organic materials will directly remove a source of decaying material which ultimately will release nutrients to the lake. Restore Priority Wetland and Upland Habitats A healthy and diverse community of native aquatic vegetation is an important component of all lake ecosystems. Emergent and submerged aquatic vegetation provides numerous ecological functions in lake systems including: • food and shelter for fish and wildlife; • stabilization of unconsolidated sediments; and • nutrient uptake and stabilization of water quality. It has been noted in Florida lakes that an inverse relationship generally exists between aquatic macrophyte coverage and algal biomass, as measured by chlorophyll-a concentrations (Huber et al., 1982). That is, lakes tend to either be macrophyte or algal dominated with respect to primary productivity. One of the net benefits derived from the above listed functions is improved water clarity. The improved water clarity and PBS54 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 enhanced habitat complexity provided by aquatic macrophytes generally lead to improved sport fisheries and more satisfying recreational experiences and aesthetics. Install Stage And Flow Measurement Instrumentation On The Lake Seminole Outfall Control Structure The expected benefits of this management action include the acquisition of previously unavailable data essential to the support of various recommended management actions and monitoring programs. This data will be vital for the accurate calculation of the annual water and nutrient budgets. Construct Enhanced Regional Stormwater Treatment Facilities In Priority Sub- Basins The five priority sub-basins cumulatively generate approximately 72.30% of the total annual TN, 72.68% of the total annual TP, and 76.03% of the total annual TSS loads to the lake from stormwater runoff. Furthermore, stormwater runoff accounts for about 96.2% of the total external phosphorus inflows to the lake. Assuming a maximum effectiveness of 40% TN removal and 90% TP and TSS removal for enhanced stormwater treatment technology such as alum injection with floc settling basins, the construction of alum injection facilities at the outfall point of the five priority sub-basins could potentially result in the removal of approximately 1.82 tons of phosphorus annually, or about 55.66% of the total annual phosphorus inflows from stormwater runoff. This accounts for about 53.69% of the total external phosphorus load. Although this estimate likely represents a maximum effectiveness, enhanced stormwater treatment facilities strategically implemented in a small watershed like that of Lake Seminole could be very effective at reducing external pollutant loads, particularly for TP and TSS. The calculated mean pollutant removal efficiencies determined during laboratory testing based on a 10mg Al/liter application to raw stormwater can be found in Table 3.5 (ERD, 2005). Based on this data, an expected 32% removal of TN, 82% removal of TP and 79% removal of TSS can be expected on average from the stormwater treatment facilities. In a lake that is at least periodically nitrogen limited with respect to inorganic N and P, this management action could be very effective at driving Lake Seminole more towards the desired state of phosphorus limitation. Divert Seminole Bypass Canal Flows To Improve Lake Flushing And Dilution Flushing and dilution is a well-documented lake management technique that involves increasing the rate at which the nutrient mass is flushed from the lake combined with the use of higher quality dilution water to reduce in-lake concentrations of nutrients and algae (NYSDEC, 1990). Flushing and dilution serve to reduce the concentration of nutrients, and the period of time that aquatic vegetation is exposed to these nutrients. The reduced nutrient concentrations and residence time should lead to reduced algal biomass and increased water column transparency due to lower algal cell concentrations and, to a lesser extent, the addition of more transparent water to the lake volume. Increased transparency, in turn, should lead to the proliferation of desirable rooted aquatic plants. Algal cell concentrations may be reduced by flushing alone (e.g., the discharge of lake water). Increasing the water inflow will decrease the retention time and increase the flushing rate. If the flushing rate is greater than the algae growth rate, algal cells may be 55 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 washed out of the lake system. Effective control of algae blooms can be achieved by a flushing rate of approximately 10-15% of the lake volume per day (NYSDEC, 1990). If flushing alone can be used to decrease algae concentration through washout, then lower quality water can be used, provided that the increases in the algal growth rate resulting from the higher nutrient concentrations are not sufficient to exceed the increased flushing rate. However, dilution water with nutrient concentrations significantly higher than those in the lake may exacerbate existing water quality problems. If higher inflow nutrient concentrations result in algal growth rates that exceed the increased flushing rate, then algal concentrations in the lake could actually increase. For these reasons, it is imperative that a comparable or better quality source of dilution water be used in Lake Seminole. Fortunately, given the available external supply of dilution water provided by the Seminole Bypass Canal, flushing rates approaching 10- 15% (342 to 513 acre feet) per day may be achievable during the wet season. In addition, water quality improvements expected to result from the regional stormwater treatment facility should ensure that suitable conditions exist to make this action viable. Based on removal efficiencies calculated on collected stormwater samples, it is estimated that alum treatment (10 mg Al/liter) will result in 19% removal of TN, 88% removal of TP and 65% removal of TSS (Table 3.5; ERD, 2005). Theoretically, the combined effects of dilution of water column nutrient concentrations, and reduced lake residence times, should produce substantial improvements in lake water quality on a seasonal and annual average basis. Simulations of this management action conducted using the WASP5 model indicate that it could reduce in-lake chlorophyll-a concentration by as much as 14%. Water quality improvements will, in turn, lead to improved conditions for aquatic vegetation and fisheries. In addition to the water quality benefits, the availability of a dependable source of replacement water for lake water discharged during the implementation of an enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule provides a mechanism for restoring and maintaining target lake levels in the case of drought. Without a dependable source of replacement water, there is some risk that drought following a lake level drawdown will result in an extended period of low lake levels which may adversely impact recreational uses of the lake. This management action provides some insurance against that risk and allows for greater control over lake levels during drought conditions. Dredge Organic Silt Sediments From Submerged Areas The removal of up to 1 million cubic yards of unconsolidated flocculent sediments from Lake Seminole would result in direct improvements to waterborne recreation, submerged aquatic vegetation, sport fisheries, and water quality through the physical deepening of the lake. Waterbody modeling using WASP5 has indicated that the removal of the deep organic flocculent sediments could result in significant water quality improvements, with a predicted chlorophyll-a reduction of as much as 24.4%. This is the single most effective management action considered in the waterbody modeling work. The modes of water quality improvement would include: 1) increased lake depth to reduce sediment resuspension; 2) increased lake volume to dilute nutrient concentrations and limit algae growth; and 3) decreased sediment nutrient fluxes to the overlying water column. In addition, similar sediment removal projects have been completed throughout the State of Florida. At Banana Lake, located in Polk County, FI, it was estimated that 56 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan } DRAFT May 2007 approximately 90% of the nutrient loads to Banana Lake were eliminated by the diversion of the wastewater treatment plant discharge and the dredging of organic lake sediments. An in-lake sediment removal mesocosm experiment in Lake Hancock measured nutrient reductions rates between 20-30% due to sediment removal. These results are based on one season of sampling during the winter. Removal rates during the summer will be measured in May 2007. A comprehensive discussion of each completed and in-progress sediment removal projects is available as Case Study#1. Management Components Mechanically Harvest Nuisance Aquatic Vegetations This management action not only addresses the control of nuisance aquatic vegetation, but it also addresses water quality problems related to eutrophication as well. Macrophytes are widely employed for nutrient removal in wastewater treatment facilities. Reddy and DeBusk (1987) present a summary of the application of aquatic plants to the treatment of wastewater. The assimilation of nutrients into macrophyte biomass is used to fix water column nutrients and provide a means for their eventual removal from the aquatic system. Physical removal (i.e., harvesting) of the plant biomass is required to prevent the return of the assimilated nutrients to the water column or sediments as the plants senesce and decompose. However, until relatively recently, experience with the use of macrophytes to remove nutrients from eutrophic surface waters has been limited in both the extent and scope. The principles of nutrient assimilation are the same in treating natural surface waters as in treating wastewater streams, but the relative concentrations of nutrients in the water column are much lower. The same species that have been employed in wastewater treatment, especially water hyacinth (Eichhomia crassipes), have been used in removing nutrients from surface waters (Reddy and DeBusk, 1987). There have been several reports published on the successful application of mechanical harvesting of rooted aquatic plants to the mitigation of eutrophication (Souza, et. al., 1988). Using cattail tissue analysis data from Lake Tarpon (Dames & Moore, 1992), the harvesting of 10 acres per year of cattails would result in the removal of approximately 170 tons of dry weight organic matter, and 0.3 tons of TP, from the system. Based on available harvesting data from Lake Okeechobee (Gremillion et al., 1988), it is estimated that the controlled harvest of approximately 35 acres of Hydrilla in Lake Seminole could result in the annual removal of approximately 4.0 tons of TN and 0.5 tons of TP per year. If this mass of plant tissue were to senesce and decompose simultaneously, as would be the case after a large scale chemical treatment, the harvesting of this material would result in a very substantial internal load reduction. Improve Treatment Efficiency Of Existing Stormwater Facilities The pollutant load reduction associated with improving the performance of existing stormwater treatment systems is potentially significant given the level of development in the study area, especially in the western portions of the watershed. It is not possible to accurately quantify this potential load reduction; however, until an inventory of existing facilities is completed. 57 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 Biomanipulate Sport Fish Populations The expected benefits of this management action would be a shift in the fish population structure and an improved sport fishery. In addition, the removal of rough fish would also result in an ancillary improvement in water quality conditions. Implement an Enhanced Lake Level Fluctuation Schedule The greater range of water level fluctuation will effectively create a more conducive environment for the expansion of a variety of desirable native emergent and submergent species such as bulrush and Eel grass, and will reduce the competitive advantage of cattails. The lowering of lake levels for short periods of time (e.g., weeks to months) almost always elicits a positive vegetation response whereby desirable submerged species such as Eel grass extend their coverage into deeper areas that are more exposed to light. This has the beneficial effect of oxidizing sediment organic matter and binding lake sediments. In addition, raising the water level elevation to, or slightly above, 5.0 NGVD for short periods of time will reduce the competitive advantage of nuisance littoral species such as cattails. Combined with site-specific revegetation projects, the primary benefit of this management action will be substantial improvements in the diversity of the littoral plant community in Lake Seminole, and an overall increase in macrophyte biomass. A more varied water level fluctuation schedule will also improve sport fishing through the provision of better spawning habitat. Given the low cost of implementation, this component will likely be very cost-effective when compared to large scale habitat restoration projects. Finally, this component will create the opportunity for shoreline residents to remove exposed trash, debris and undesirable vegetation during low lake level periods. Combined with public education, this component should contribute to improved visual aesthetics along the lake shoreline. It is difficult to quantify the water quality benefits of periodic lake flushing because of the complex biological, hydrogeological and chemical interactions. Using mean annual TN and TP concentrations from 1999 in-lake water quality data, it is estimated that the discharge of 1.0 foot of water from Lake Seminole (e.g., from elevation 5.0 to 4.0 NGVD) would result in a nutrient mass discharge of 5,598 lbs. of TN and 233 lbs. of TP. Although most of this nutrient mass will be replaced by inflowing precipitation, runoff and groundwater, effective dilution would occur if the cumulative nutrient concentrations in the inflow waters were even slightly lower than in-lake concentrations. Following the implementation of the proposed watershed management actions to reduce external nutrient loads to the lake, greater nutrient dilution can be expected. In addition, the diversion of water from the Seminole Bypass Canal through Lake Seminole, will provide for both increased flushing and dilution and reduced residence time, and will potentially constitute a reserve source of water to maintain target lake levels during periods of drought. Waterbody modeling using the WASP5 model has indicated that the implementation of the recommended enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule alone will result in a slight increase in mean annual chlorophyll-a concentration of 1.9 pg/I or 3%. The interpretation of these model predictions is that the lesser lake volume during the early summer creates conditions more favorable for algal growth. When combined with other management actions (e.g., diversion of Seminole Bypass Canal flows), this effect is 58 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 essentially negated. Despite the predicted slight degradation in water quality, this management action is strongly recommended for the other benefits to living resource that it will produce. Inactivate Phosphorus Through Whole Lake Alum Applications (If Warranted By Monitoring Results) Phosphorus inactivation has been highly effective and long-lasting in deeper, thermally stratified lakes, especially where an adequate dose has been given to the sediments and where sufficient attenuation of external nutrient loads has occurred. The effectiveness of this phosphorus inactivation has been less impressive in shallow lakes where sediment resuspension is a problem, or where high flows may wash the floc out or quickly cover it with another layer of nutrient-rich silt. Treatment longevity has extended beyond 10 years in some cases and to 5 years in many (EPA, 1990). Shallow, non-stratified lakes appear to have shorter periods of treatment effectiveness than stratified lakes. In those cases where the treatment effectiveness has been short-lived, the phosphorus-sorbing floc layer has usually become covered with new, phosphorus-rich sediments (EPA, 1990). Typical lake responses to alum treatment include: • sharply lowered phosphorus concentrations; • greatly increased transparency resulting in improved conditions for desirable aquatic vegetation; and • algal blooms of much reduced intensity and duration. It should also be noted that the addition of aluminum salts to lakes has the potential for serious negative impacts, and care must therefore be exercised with regard to dosage. The potential for toxicity problems is directly related to the alkalinity and pH of the lake water. The seasonal ranges of pH and alkalinity must be determined by monitoring before conducting alum treatments. When alum is added, aluminum hydroxide is readily formed in water at pH 6 to 8. This compound is the visible precipitate or floc described earlier. However, pH and alkalinity of the water will fall during alum addition at a rate dictated by the initial alkalinity or buffering capacity of the water. In soft water, only very small doses of alum can be added before alkalinity is exhausted and the pH level falls below 6. At pH 6 and below, AI(OH)2 and dissolved elemental aluminum (AI+3) become the dominant forms. Both can be toxic to aquatic animal species. Well- buffered, hard water lakes are therefore good candidates for this type of lake treatment because a large dose can be given to the lake without fear of creating toxic forms of aluminum. Soft water lakes must be buffered, either with sodium aluminate or carbonate-type salts, to prevent the undesirable pH shift and to generate enough AI(OH)3 to control phosphorus release. Therefore, dosage is very lake-specific (EPA, 1990). Lake Seminole is classified as a "hard" water lake, based on an average Hardness value of 155mg/I in 2002. 59 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 Legal Components Adopt a Resolution designating the Lake Seminole Watershed as a Nutrient Sensitive Watershed The expected benefits from this management action include the reduction of diffuse nutrient loads from residential and commercial land uses within the basin. This management action, combined with improved public education, is aimed at addressing the more diffuse yet cumulatively substantial nutrient loads associated with typical urban landscape management practices. Strengthen and Standardize Local Ordinances For Regulating Stormwater Treatment for redevelopment in the Lake Seminole Watershed The expected benefits from this management action would include reduced nonpoint source pollutant loadings to Lake Seminole as the watershed undergoes redevelopment. The percent load reduction cannot be quantitatively predicted, as it will be totally dependent on the level of redevelopment that ultimately occurs. Policy Component Establish a Lake Seminole Watershed Management Area (WMA) Through Amendments to the Pinellas County, and Cities of Largo and Seminole Comprehensive Plans The primary expected benefit of this management action is improved intergovernmental coordination between Pinellas County and Cities of Largo and Seminole with regard to watershed management issues in the basin. Compliance and Enforcement Component Expand and Enforce Restricted Speed Zones on Lake Seminole The primary benefits of this action would be improved public safety and enjoyment of the lake, as well as reduced user conflicts. In addition, water quality may be improved through reduced wake and wave turbulence in shallow portions of the lake susceptible to sediment resuspension. Public Education Components Develop and Implement a Comprehensive Public Involvement Program for the Lake Seminole Watershed The expected benefits of the management action include improved public understanding of lake management problems and solutions, and increased pubic involvement and participation in the Plan implementation process. 60 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 Develop and Implement a Local Citizens Lakewatch Program for Lake Seminole The expected benefits include improved public interest and involvement in the lake and watershed management process, and assistance in the collection of supplemental monitoring data. Modeling Results WASP5 Model Results The Plan included a comprehensive section that provides a summary of predictive watershed and waterbody modeling conducted to evaluate the efficacy of key potential management actions proposed to address priority management issues for Lake Seminole and its watershed. Priority lake and watershed management issues include: • water quality degradation and eutrophication (Issue 1 -Water Quality); • loss of desirable aquatic vegetation (Issue 2-Aquatic Vegetation); and • sport fishery decline (Issue 3- Fisheries). Because these three lake management issues are very much interrelated, the proposed management actions addressed herein were developed and evaluated in a holistic manner which considers their individual and cumulative impact on the trophic state of the lake. While other identified lake management issues (e.g., watershed habitat restoration, recreational user conflicts, etc.) are addressed in the Plan, predictive modeling was only conducted on those management actions aimed at addressing the priority issues listed above. A detailed description of the model components and calibration simulation is available in Appendix B. Management Action Simulations Management Action#1 -Regional Stormwater Treatment Facilities(BMPs) Basins within the Lake Seminole watershed were ranked according to SWMM pollutant loading estimates. These rankings were used to develop locations for potential stormwater treatment facilities within sub-basins 1, 2, 3 and 7. Because several stormwater rehabilitation projects are currently under design or construction in sub-basin 6, and these projects were included in the future land use baseline simulation, no additional facilities were modeled for this sub-basin. The proposed management actions and alternatives for Lake Seminole were evaluated using the Linked Watershed- Waterbody Model (LWWM) developed for the Southwest Florida Water Management District by Ascl, Inc. This water quality model provides a post-processing linkage between the watershed model SWMM, a public domain software program also developed by EPA, and the waterbody model WASP5. An external hydrodynamic file was also required for LWWM simulations which contained model segment flows, and was developed using an Excel spreadsheet and a Fortran routine. Limited potential exists within the Lake Seminole watershed for stormwater retrofit using conventional wet detention treatment systems due to the lack of vacant land. All regional stormwater treatment facilities modeled for Management Action #1 were therefore assumed to be alum injection systems, with the corresponding alum treatment efficiencies shown in Table 3-6 applied to pollutant loads passing through the facilities. PBS; 61 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan i X713' DRAFT May 2007 It should also be noted that due to the high pollutant removal efficiency and minimal land area requirements, the cost per pound of nutrients removed is substantially lower than a wet detention system. Based on current information provided by SWFWMD (Mike Holtkamp-SWFWMD, personal communication), typical costs per pound of TN removed by wet detention systems ranges between $3,846 and $1,108; whereas typical costs per pound of TN removed by alum treatment systems ranges between $338 and $120. Because they provide pollutant removal efficiencies per dollar that are an order of magnitude better than wet detention systems and due to limited land availability were selected as the design alternative of choice for Lake Seminole. Separate non-point source input files were prepared for all possible combinations of potential alum injection treatment facilities within the watershed. Fifteen (15) separate simulations were performed using the various non-point source input files to evaluate the effect of reduced non-point source loads on average annual chlorophyll-a levels. All stormwater best management practice (BMP) management simulations used the same WASP input file (BMP.inp) and hydrodynamic file (98F.hyd). Only the non-point source file was changed for different combinations of potential watershed BMPs. A summary of these results for all possible stormwater treatment project combinations is provided in Table 3-7 along with the effective reduction in total non-point source load. The numeric designations for BMP combinations in Table 3-7 refer to the sub-basins in which enhanced regional stormwater treatment facilities were simulated in the model runs. LWWM predictions for nutrient and chlorophyll-a concentrations within Lake Seminole resulting from implementation of all proposed watershed BMP facilities are provided in Figure 3-7. These results indicate that the most effective alternative of regional stormwater treatment facilities is the combination of facilities located in sub-basins 1, 2, 3, and 7. The implementation of four regional alum treatment facilities at the outfall of these sub- basins is predicted to reduced in-lake chlorophyll-a concentrations by 4.4 pg/I, or about a 7% from baseline future land use conditions using 1998 rainfall. These results are not expected since external pollutant load reduction from regional stormwater treatment facilities should yield cumulative benefits determined by the percentage of the inflows being treated. Management Action#2-Lake Level Fluctuation A variable lake level fluctuation schedule was proposed primarily for littoral habitat improvement within Lake Seminole. Both inter-annual and intra-annual variations are achieved with the proposed monthly lake level fluctuation schedule. In order to assess the potential impact of this management action on in-lake nutrient and chlorophyll-a levels, the hydrodynamic file for 1998 rainfall and future land use conditions was modified to account for monthly variable weir crest elevations. Schedule A was used for management simulations, which provides the greatest range of fluctuation in the 4-year repeating schedule. Only the hydrodynamic file reference in the WASP input file was changed from the 1998 future land use conditions simulation, and the same baseline non-point source file (98F.nps)was used for the weir management action simulation. LWWM predictions for nutrient and chlorophyll-a concentrations within Lake Seminole resulting from implementation of the weir fluctuation schedule is provided in Figure 3-8. The simulation results for this management action actually show a slight increase in pBsi 62 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 chlorophyll-a-a concentrations of 1.9 mg/m3 (3.03% increase over baseline conditions). This predicted increase is most likely due to a decreased in-lake volume during the early and mid-summer, the period when algal productivity is greatest. It is interesting to note that Greening and Doyon (1990) cite several case histories where lake drawdowns have led to a slight temporary degradation of water quality, which they attribute to a phosphorus release from decaying macrophytes exposed to oxidation. Although this management action apparently has the potential to cause a slight degradation in water quality, the beneficial effects of enhanced lake level fluctuation on aquatic vegetation and fisheries habitat probably justify its implementation. Management Action#3- Canal Diversion An important factor affecting receiving water quality is the amount of time is takes to completely exchange in-lake volume, often referred to as residence time. Potential Management Action #3 is designed to reduce residence time within Lake Seminole by pumping water from the adjacent Seminole Bypass Canal into the northern lobe of the lake. Four separate simulations were performed to evaluate the lake response to various pumping rates and treatment alternatives for canal diversion water. Canal baseflow and stormwater volume and nutrient concentration estimates were based on hydrological evaluations of the Starkey Basin performed by ERD, and summarized in a December 15, 1998 SWFWMD letter to PBS&J. Alternative 3A was simulated by creating a hydrodynamic file containing a constant pumping rate of 10.42 cfs from the bypass canal into the northern lobe of Lake Seminole (3A.hyd). This flow represents a diversion of 80% of the annual baseflow within the canal. Nutrient loads were adjusted in the WASP5 input data file to account for TN, TP and BOD loads contained within the diverted canal water. Alternative 3A1 used the same hydrodynamic file as above which accounted for an 80% diversion of canal baseflow into the northern lobe of Lake Seminole (3A.hyd). Alum treatment of this constant 10.42 cfs canal diversion flow was simulated prior to discharge into Lake Seminole for this alternative. Nutrient loads calculated in Alternative 3A were reduced by the alum treatment efficiencies contained in Table 3-6 prior to entry into the WASP5 input data file. Alternative 3B was simulated by creating a hydrodynamic file (3B.hyd) containing higher pumping rates for canal diversion flow during July (11.40 cfs), August (11.60 cfs) and September (11.39 cfs). These increased pumping rates represent an 80% diversion of stormwater runoff flows expected during these months, in addition to the constant 10.42 cfs baseflow pumping rate. Stormwater flows routed during July, August and September would contain greater nutrient concentrations than a baseflow diversion only. Nutrient loads were therefore adjusted in the WASP5 input data file to account for these increased pollutant loads contained within the diverted stormwater flow in addition to baseflow. Alternative 3B1 used the same hydrodynamic file as above (3B.hyd), but considered alum treatment of diverted canal baseflow and stormwater flow. Nutrient loads calculated in Alternative 3B were reduced by the alum treatment efficiencies contained in Table 3-6 prior to entry into the WASP5 input data file for this alternative. The same baseline non-point source file (98F.nps) was used for all canal diversion management action simulations described above. 63 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 LWWM predictions for nutrient and chlorophyll-a concentrations within Lake Seminole resulting from implementation of canal diversion Alternative 3A1 are provided in Figure 3-9. Table 3-8 contains a summary of input files used for the evaluation of Management Action#3 and resulting predicted chlorophyll-a concentration reductions. The results of these LWWM simulations indicate that the greatest reduction in chlorophyll-a concentrations in Lake Seminole can be expected from a constant diversion of treated canal baseflow only (Alternative 3A1). This alternative yields a substantial predicted decrease in chlorophyll-a concentrations of 9.6 Ng/I or about a 15% reduction over baseline conditions. Diversion of treated stormwater flows (Alternative 3B1) does not appear to be as effective, as the increased pollutant loads contained in this runoff effectively negate any reductions in chlorophyll-a concentrations achieved through a decrease in residence time. Management Action #4-Sediment Removal Sediment removal as a lake management action is expected to result in improved water quality through two primary modes of action: 1) increased lake water volume; and 2) reduced sediment nutrient flux rates. The increase in lake water volume resulting from sediment removal can easily be quantified, being approximately equal to the wet volume of sediments removed. However, reductions in sediment nutrient fluxes resulting from sediment removal cannot be accurately quantified with the existing information from Lake Seminole. Many variables affect sediment nutrient exchange rates, and empirical data from Lake Seminole are currently not available. During the calibration simulations, sediment nutrient fluxes were included in the variables which were manipulated to obtain the best fit of predicted parameter concentrations to recorded values. Initial sediment fluxes for N and P were set at rates with the same order of magnitude as those determined empirically for Lake Seminole sediments by Schelske et al. (1991; in SWFWMD, 1992). These calibrated flux rates were reduced incrementally in the dredging simulations described below to gain an understanding of the sensitivity of LWWM simulations to manipulation of this parameter. Initial lake water volumes contained in the WASP5 input data file were increased to reflect the removal of 1 million cubic yards of sediment from the lake bottom, or about 100% of the estimated volume of unconsolidated organic sediments in the lake. In the simulations 36% of the increased lake water volume was applied to the northern lobe, while the remaining 64% was applied to the southern lobe. An updated hydrodynamic file was also created to reflect these increased volumes. Table 3-9 contains a summary of input files used for the evaluation of Management Action #4, and the resulting predicted reductions in chlorophyll-a concentrations associated with a 20% (Alternative 4A), 35% (Alternative 4B), and 50% (Alternative 4C) reduction in sediment nutrient fluxes. It should be noted that all three simulations included 100% removal of the unconsolidated organic sediment mass, but applied different sediment nutrient flux rates resulting from the sediment mass removal. LWWM predictions for nutrient and chlorophyll-a concentrations in Lake Seminole resulting from implementation of dredging Alternative 4C are provided in Figure 3-10. The simulation results for the sediment removal alternatives indicate that the model is extremely sensitive to the reduction of sediment nutrient fluxes. With a 50% reduction in 64 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 sediment nutrient flux rates (Alternative 4C), the model predicts a very substantial reduction in chlorophyll-a concentrations of 15.3 pg/I, or about 24% below baseline conditions. The proposed removal of approximately 1 million cubic yards of unconsolidated organic sediments from Lake Seminole, including both the fibrous shoreline sediments and the flocculent deep sediments, is expected to reduce sediment nutrient flux rates significantly based on the sediment characterization study. Unfortunately, an accurate estimate of the percent reduction in nutrient flux rates resulting from sediment removal cannot be made with the information currently available. However, it seems reasonable to assume that complete removal of the unconsolidated organic sediments in Lake Seminole could lead to a 50% reduction in sediment nutrient flux rates. With this conservative 50% reduction, significant water quality improvements in Lake Seminole are predicted. Management Action Combinations Model simulations were performed for all possible combinations of each of the four selected management action alternatives described above. In many cases, new WASPS input data files were developed in order to combine all modifications made in the individual management scenario alternatives described above. In addition, updated hydrodynamic files were created for these simulations where required. Figure 3-11 shows in-lake chlorophyll-a, DO, BOD, and nutrient concentrations resulting from a combination of all modeled management scenarios combined. Table 3-10 contains a summary of input files used for the 15 LWWM simulations required for this optimization analysis, and predicted reductions in chlorophyll-a concentrations. Simulation results for the various combinations of management action alternatives presented in Table 3-10 above indicate that the most effective combination of alternatives includes the following: • regional stormwater treatment facilities located in priority sub-basins 1, 2, 3, and 7; • diversion of treated baseflows from the Seminole Bypass Canal into the lake; and • removal of 1 million cubic yards of unconsolidated organic sediments. The predicted reduction in chlorophyll-a concentration resulting from the implementation of this suite of management alternatives is 28.5 pg/I, or about a 45% reduction from baseline conditions. The second most effective combination of alternatives includes the three listed above plus the implementation of an enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule (Management Action #2). The proposed enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule is predicted to result in a slight increase in chlorophyll-a concentrations. However, the habitat benefits to be derived from this management action probably justify its inclusion in the recommended Plan. Based on the above described model predictions, implementation of the most comprehensive suite of management action alternatives (Management Action Combination 1+2+3+4 from Table 3-10 above) will yield the greatest overall improvement in both water quality and habitat conditions. Using the predicted reductions in chlorophyll-a associated with this suite of management action alternatives, it appears feasible to make very substantial improvements in the water quality and 65 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 trophic state of Lake Seminole. The predicted 27.4 pg/I reduction in chlorophyll-a concentrations (44% reduction of modeled baseline conditions) associated with this suite of management action alternatives indicates that a mean annual chlorophyll-a concentration target of 30 pg/I is both technically feasible and justifiable with respect to the adopted lake and watershed management goals. This target equates to a chlorophyll-a TSI value of 65. The model predictions summarized in Table 3-10 also indicate that simultaneous implementation of the selected management action alternatives in many cases results in synergistic improvements in water quality and trophic state. An independent review of the LWWM model construct and calibration simulations was conducted by Dr. James Martin, one of the original authors of the WASP5 model code. This review is provided in Appendix C of this document. 3.e Copies of Written Agreements Committing Participants to the Management Actions Pinellas County has received commitments from the City of Largo, City of Seminole, and the Florida Department of Transportation byway of a legal document entitled" INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT PROVIDING JOINT CONTROL OF POLLUTANTS WITHIN PINELLAS COUNTY" (Appendix D). The interlocal agreement defines the responsibilities and authority for each entity in order to regulate the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System developed by the USEPA. 3.f Discussion On How Future Growth And New Sources Will Be Addressed Future land use conditions were modeled to predict non-point source pollutant loads (*.nps) in the Lake Seminole watershed under a projected ultimate build-out land use scenario. Although some differences in land use are anticipated under future land use conditions, the watershed is currently nearly 100% built out, resulting in little predicted difference in pollutant loads for future land use SWMM simulations. These simulations accounted for three stormwater projects which were recently constructed within the watershed: • the St. Petersburg Junior College site stormwater master plan; • the Pinellas County Dog Leg Pond; and • the Pinellas County Pond 6. A continuous simulation was performed using 1998 rainfall to create a non-point source input file (98F.nps) which was used for the baseline future land use condition simulations. An external hydrodynamic file for future land use conditions using 1998 rainfall (98F.hyd) was also prepared using these SWMM calculated inflows to Lake Seminole by applying the spreadsheet and Fortran routines described above. A WASP5 simulation for future land use conditions using 1998 rainfall was then performed, which used the hydrodynamic and non-point source input files described above. These simulation results were used as a baseline condition for the evaluation of potential management alternatives. Results were similar to the existing conditions 1998 calibration simulation results, and are provided as a baseline for comparison purposes in Figures 3-7 through 3-10. PBS)! 66 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 3.g Confirmed Sources of Funding Multiple sources of funded are confirmed for the restoration of Lake Seminole (Table 3- 11). The SWFWMD, SWIM, City of Largo, City of Seminole, Pinellas County, FWCC and DEP have allocated over $12.5 million toward Lake Seminole restoration projects. To date Pinellas County has spent over $10 million on restoration projects in Lake Seminole. The Cities of Largo and Seminole have contributed over$156,107 toward the restoration of the Lake. Additionally, the FWCC, SWFWMD and SWIM have spent $336,623, $6,371,284 and $231,871, respectively. A total of over $19.2 million local and state funding has been allocated and/or spent toward the improvement of water quality through restoration projects and monitoring in Lake Seminole since 1994. Additionally, a traditional sediment removal project was projected to cost the county over $20 million. However, Hayes-Bosworth, Inc. presented a proposal which would only cost the county $1 million. Hayes-Bosworth proposed to turn the sediment removal project into a business venture which would allow the company to absorb the remaining cost of sediment removal. The ingenuity and agreement between the public and private sector has allowed for multi-million dollar cost savings for the county. 3.h Implementation Schedule (Including interim milestones, and the date by which designated uses will be restored) The following schedule outlines the timeline for implementation of the restoration projects proposed for Lake Seminole. Phasing of Plan Components It should be emphasized that the various components of the restoration projects are not all independent management actions that can be implemented without regard for the others. The implementation of other management actions are based on the measured effectiveness of preceding management actions. For example, it is recommended that the removal of the flocculent deep sediments in the lake not be initiated until the effectiveness of external phosphorus removal has been evaluated through water quality monitoring. If monitoring indicates that expected progress towards meeting the defined water quality targets is not being met through the reduction of external phosphorus loads, then the implementation of the full dredging project would be justified. Similarly, sediment phosphorus inactivation through whole lake alum applications should not be initiated until the flocculent sediments have been removed and monitoring results still indicate insufficient progress towards meeting water quality targets. In recognition of these dependencies, as well as potential financial constraints, it is recommended that the Plan be implemented in three phases, as described below. • Phase I - The first phase would focus initially on the design and permitting of the major structural components for which land acquisition, engineering design and regulatory permit approvals will be required. These activities in support of the major structural components of the Plan may require up to two years to complete and therefore will be initiated immediately. The establishment of several legal and policy related components will also be implemented. Phase I activities are projected to require a minimum of two years to complete, including construction. • Phase II -The primary focus of Phase I will be on watershed management activities that result in the reduction of external phosphorus loads to the lake (e.g., 67 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 construction of enhanced regional stormwater treatment facilities) and in-lake restoration activities that build upon the watershed management projects completed under Phase I. These would include implementation of in-lake habitat restoration projects, as well as the removal of the flocculent deep sediments. Implementation of the enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule would occur during Phase II following the removal of accumulated sediments in the narrows to ensure navigability throughout the lake. Assuming that all land acquisition, design and permitting activities have been completed for the major structural components in Phase I, it is anticipated that the Phase II construction projects, and other non- structural components of the Plan, could be completed in two years. • Phase III - The third phase of the Plan would focus primarily on following-up on in- lake restoration activities that build upon, or are dependent upon, the implementation of Phase I and Phase II projects. For example, assuming that adequate water quality improvement to support the proliferation of aquatic macrophytes in the lake has resulted from the implementation of the Phase I and II components, the aquatic weed harvesting program would be initiated during Phase III. Conversely, if the defined water quality targets have not been attained following implementation of the Phase I and II components, then sediment phosphorus inactivation would be implemented in Phase III. It should be noted that the majority of the Phase III projects are management or maintenance activities that will likely be conducted indefinitely on an ongoing basis. Table 3-12 summarizes implementation schedule for the restoration of Lake Seminole. This table embodies the logical sequencing and dependencies of the various components discussed above. In addition to the these components, the recommended monitoring and success evaluation program already presented was implemented in Phase I to document existing baseline conditions, and to track progress throughout project implementation. 3.i Enforcement Programs or Local Ordinances (If management strategy is not voluntary) Pinellas County has implemented a storm drain education program throughout the Lake Seminole Watershed. Over 2067 stormdrain labels stating, "Dump No Waste-Drains to Lake" have been distributed in an effort to inform the public of the consequences associated with improper disposal of materials down a stormdrain (Figure 3-6). 197 of these labels are within the Lake Seminole watershed. The County has the ability to fine anyone identified for improper disposal a maximum fine of $10,000 (Pinellas County, Florida, Chpt. 58-236-58-246). 4. Procedures for Monitoring and Reporting Results 4.a Description of Procedures for Monitoring and Reporting The implementation of a water quality monitoring program is important to demonstrate reasonable progress based on the management activities proposed to improve Lake Seminoles water quality. Pinellas County contracted Janicki Environmental in 2003 to complete a document which details a comprehensive monitoring plan for Pinellas County. The document is entitled "A design of a surface water quality monitoring PBSi 68 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 program for Pinellas County, FL" and has been included in Appendix E. From this point further, this document will be referred to as the"Monitoring Plan". Pinellas County utilizes stratified randomized design for the selection of all sampling stations, dates and time of day. Nine equal time periods have been determined for the calendar year. Four samples are collected once within each time period established by the county, for a total of 36 samples each calendar year. Each year the statistical program is rerun to determine that years sampling sites, dates and time of day. The sampling dates and times for 2007 are detailed in Table 4-1. The 2007 sampling stations are listed in Table 4-2. A suite of water quality and explanatory parameters are analyzed for each sampling site (Table 4-3). Appendix F includes the "Ambient Monitoring Program Annual Report: 2003-2005" for Pinellas County. This provides more detailed information on the sampling and statistical methodology as well as the format used for reporting. The PCDEM will continue to investigate the TSS load reduction efficiency of all permitted MSSW facilities within the Lake Seminole watershed. Samples for the analysis of the phytoplankton community will be collected. Additionally, extensive monitoring will be completed in concert with the operation of the alum stormwater treatment facility in sub basin one (Appendix A). Water, benthic and sediment quality will be monitored in order to evaluate the success of the treatment facility and the effectiveness of the settling area. The goal of this monitoring effort is to measure the efficiency of the facility based on its Event Mean Concentration (EMC) efficiency and Load Efficiency prior to the construction of the remaining alum stormwater treatment facilities. All data are statistically analyzed and reported annually by the PCDEM. These data are used to determine the water quality status of Lake Seminole. 4.b Quality Assurance/Quality Control Elements that Demonstrate the Monitoring will Comply with Chapter 62-160, F.A.C. All field data will be collected in accordance of the Chapter 62-160, F.A.C. regulations. All water samples are delivered to the Pinellas County Utilities Department the same day and usually within six hours of sample collection at any given site. The Pinellas County Utilities Department Laboratory, a National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference(NELAC) certified lab, performed most sample analyses. E-lab, a NELAC certified laboratory, also provided analysis services for this program. The Pinellas County Utilities Department laboratory uses Standard Methods and EPA Methods for in order to analyze ambient water samples collected by PCDEM (Table 4-4): Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA 600/4-79-020. Revised March 1983. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition.APHA, WEF,AWWA, 1998. Appendix F includes additional information on the sampling protocol used by Pinellas County. Appendix G includes the standard checklist required prior to each sampling event and the protocol used for the special samples and additional data collected at Lake Seminole. ' 69 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 4.c Procedures for Entering all appropriate Data into STORET The Data Manager, designated by the PCDEM, uploads all water quality data collected for monitoring of Lake Seminole to the Florida STORET database. The Florida STORET database automatically uploads all data to the Federal EPA STORET database. All data uploads will be documented and reported to the FDEP in Tallahassee. 4.d Responsible Monitoring and Reporting Entity The PCDEM is the responsible monitoring entity for all waterbodies within Pinellas County. The PCDEM has a designated Data Manager who serves as the point of contact for coordinating the collection, management and reporting of all monitoring data associated with Lake Seminole. Furthermore, PCDEM serves as a depository of all monitoring data associated with the restoration of Lake Seminole. 4.e Frequency and Format for Reporting Results Section 6.0, "Data Reporting Methods" of the Monitoring Plan, details the frequency and format for reporting results (Appendix E). Currently, PCDEM provides periodic data reporting, annual reporting and an annual review of the monitoring program (Appendix F). The tasks required within the periodic data reporting are completed based on quarters of a calendar year. During the first quarter of each calendar year, PCDEM compiles the annual report for the previous sampling period. The report contains all of the water quality status information. After five years of data collection,the annual reports will also include status and trends information. During the second quarter of each calendar year, the annual monitoring program will be reviewed based on the previous years' of monitoring data. The results of the annual review will be published during the third quarter. Based on the recommendations of the annual review, the random selection of the next year's sampling stations, dates and time of day will the selected. The annual reporting of water quality results is concentrated on the analysis, presentation and submission of the results collected from the previous sampling year. The below criteria will be included within each annual report (Monitoring Report, Section 6.0): • A summary section with descriptive answers to the important questions identified for the ambient monitoring program. • Spatial reporting units consist of the individual geographic populations of interest • Temporal reporting units consist of each calendar year. Using every two years of sampling results,wet and dry season statistics will be reported. • The results for all measured parameters will be reported in each annual report. • The EMAP-based statistical analyses will be conducted to produce frequency distributions of the area of each spatial reporting unit for each water quality parameter. Results will be presented in tabular and graphical format. • The stratified-random analyses will be conducted to compute the annual mean and standard error for each spatial reporting unit and parameter measured. 70 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan ' DRAFT May 2007 • The FDEP Impaired Water Rule criteria will be applied to classify each coastal Water Body (WBID) using data from this monitoring program and any other applicable monitoring activities. • Potential water quality problem areas will be identified, prioritized and discussed in each annual report. • The targeted spatial and temporal populations of interest will be compiled through review of the exclusionary criteria applied during the previous year. In addition the following information will be posted to a project website: • A summary of the monitoring program, and the important questions it addresses. • A high level summary of the most recently reported results for the ambient monitoring program. • Program contact information • A description of the annual reporting cycle and an updated status of the items in the reporting cycle, • A library of PDF documents of past annual reports. • A library of PDF document of past annual monitoring program review reports. 4.f Frequency and Format for Reporting on the Implementation of all Proposed Management Activities The PCDEM will publish an annual State-of-the-Lake report which summarizes all of the monitoring data collected during the previous calendar year. In addition to monitoring data summaries, the annual report will include the status for all proposed management activities. Additionally, all stakeholders, which includes the FDEP, will be updated at the stakeholder meetings which are held regularly. 4.g Methods for Evaluating Progress Towards Goals The PCDEM will evaluate all data collected and compare them to the goals established in section 2.a. A trend analysis of the annual TSI and mean chlorophyll values will be completed. The collection of 36 samples per year should result in a ±15% confidence interval (Monitoring Plan, 2003). 5. A Description of Proposed Corrective Actions 5.a Description of Proposed Corrective Actions that will be undertaken if water quality does not improve after implementation of the management actions or if management actions are not completed on schedule The comprehensive monitoring program in Lake Seminole under the coordination of the PCDEM is instrumental for quantifying water quality improvements. The current PBS71 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan �, DRAFT May 2007 implementation schedule for water quality improvements occur over three phase components. Upon completion of each phase the water quality of the Lake will be investigated to determine if improvements have been accomplished. The third phase component, Inactivate phosphorus through whole lake alum applications, will be implemented only if previous restoration projects were not successful in improving water quality. It is anticipated that the sediment removal will temporarily cause a declination in water quality due to the manipulation and resuspension of sediments. However, it is expected that an improvement in water quality will be recorded within 10 years of sediment removal. After all proposed restoration projects have been exhausted, Lake Seminole will be re-evaluated and new management techniques will be considered to improve water quality conditions if necessary. 5.b Process for Notifying the Department that these corrective actions are being implement The PCDEM will complete an annual report (section 4.0 detailing the current water quality and provide an update on all current and future restoration projects on Lake Seminole. All state, federal, local and private agencies involved in the Lake Seminole restoration will be provided a copy of this final report. The FDEP in Tallahassee will be sent an annual report. In addition, The FDEP is a stakeholder within Lake Seminole, therefore, they will be notified of all corrective actions at the stakeholder meetings held regularly. 72 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan _ y DRAFT May 2007 Case Study #1 - Sediment Removal From PBSJ 2006, Lake Seminole Sediment Removal Feasibility Study. This case study presents a brief summary of four lake sediment removal projects and a mesocosm experiment conducted in the west central Florida area during the past 15 years. The purpose of this summary is to develop an understanding of the real-world problems that have been encountered, and the lessons that have been learned, on projects similar to sediment removal project proposed for Lake Seminole. The projects summarized below include: Banana Lake—Polk County Lake Hollingsworth—Polk County Lake Panasoffkee—Sumter County Lake Maggiore—Pinellas County. Lake Hancock-Polk County For each project summary the following subjects are addressed: 1) project history 2) sediment removal methods considered and selected; 3) environmental monitoring data— including sediment quality data, discharge water quality, and pre- and post-dredge water quality data — where available; and 4) problems encountered — including engineering, environmental, and/or construction related issues - and corrective measures implemented. Various sources of information were used in developing these summaries including personal communication with project managers and both published and unpublished data. Banana Lake Banana Lake is a 342 acre lake located in Polk County. The lake exhibited very poor water quality for many years as reflected in high chlorophyll-a and low dissolved oxygen values. The hyper-eutrophic conditions were attributed to stormwater runoff from agricultural areas and the direct discharge of wastewater from the City of Lakeland municipal wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater treatment plant stopped discharging in 1986; however, water quality problems persisted. In the mid to late 1980s, Banana Lake was clearly a phytoplankton dominated lake characterized by year- round blooms of green algae and cyanobacteria. As a result, aquatic macrophyte communities were essentially eliminated and the lake sport fishery (e.g., largemouth bass) was replaced by a fish community dominated by planktivorous species (e.g., gizzard shad). Because lake water quality did not improve significantly following the elimination of the wastewater treatment plant discharge, it was hypothesized by lake managers that the organic sediments that had accumulated on the lake bottom constituted a substantial nutrient reservoir sufficient to maintain high phytoplankton concentrations. Dredging was initiated 1989 and completed in 1990. A hydraulic dredge was used, and dredged spoil material was discharged in upland pits constructed on adjacent agricultural land. The upland drying pits were designed to contain the entire volume of dredged spoil material, and no return water was permitted back to the lake. The total in-lake volume of sediments removed, and the total area of drying pits, was approximately 1 million cubic yards and 400 acres, respectively. 11351/1 73 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 Case Study #1 - Sediment Removal It was subsequently estimated that approximately 90% of the nutrient loads to Banana Lake were eliminated by the diversion of the wastewater treatment plant discharge and the dredging of organic lake sediments. Although trophic state and water quality in Banana Lake improved following the dredging project (see Figures CS1-1 and CS1-2), the observed improvements have generally been less than anticipated. In addition to water quality improvements, the fish community balance also shifted to a more sport fish (e.g., carnivorous vs. planktivorous) dominated population. Beginning in 1998, Banana Lake began inadvertently receiving a portion of the nutrient laden decant water from the Lake Hollingsworth project, a problem that was later corrected. It is likely that the high ambient phosphorus concentrations in the soils of the Banana Lake watershed are sufficient to maintain high algal productivity. BANANA TSI 1.s1. 100 CO sa 43 23 MM MM MM MM19 MMMMM YEARS Figure CS1-1. Trophic Stat Index at Banana Lake BANANA W01 Water Quality Index 120 120 110 110 100 100 90 90 6°70 � 70 70 70 60 60 50 //�� 50 40 40 20 10 10 WQI m 7D m 1ce13mE1©010®13®m®mC3l3 Years -+-W01 OBaaelne 6.0 Figure CS1-2. Water Quality Index at Banana Lake 74 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 Case Study #1 - Sediment Removal Lake Hollingsworth Lake Hollingsworth is a 356 acre lake located within the City of Lakeland, Polk County. Lake water quality had been generally poor for many decades, with persistent algae blooms and low dissolved oxygen levels being the primary concern. Following implementation of several stormwater treatment projects water quality did not improve significantly, so the City of Lakeland contracted with BCI Engineers & Scientists to conduct a sediment removal feasibility study under the assumption that accumulated organic sediments in the lake were serving as a reservoir of nutrients and contributing to water quality problems. The BCI study was completed in 1995 and recommended hydraulic dredging of low density organic sediments combined with process treatment of the dredged slurry to separate the suspended solids. In 1996 project permitting was initiated, and a lake-side pilot test of the process treatment system was conducted. In February of 1997 dredging was initiated with the dredge spoil being pumped to an adjacent site on which a temporary process treatment plant was constructed. The original design of the process treatment plant was modified several times as it failed to dewater the dredged material to an adequate percent solids to meet contractual requirements for trucking and disposal. Engineering problems with the process treatment plant included inefficient polymer dosing and mixing, and inadequate physical treatment of flocculated organics. In 2000, the plant was retrofitted with an earthen pit to be used as a clarifier for polymer dosing and mixing, combined with a system of evaporation/percolation lagoons comprising approximately 70-acres. This approach also failed primarily because the lagoons flooded prematurely due to inadequate percolation. In 2002, the treatment plant approach was scrapped, and the dredged spoil material was then pumped to the Holloway mine pits located on vacant lands approximately four miles from the plant site. In March of 2001 the project was terminated due to low water levels in Lake Hollingsworth. Low water levels were attributed to both previous drought conditions and the limited amount of return water diverted back into the lake. The City of Lakeland estimated that at the time of termination the project was approximately 80 percent complete, with 2.96 million cubic yards of muck removed and 842,000 cubic yards remaining, and that a total of$12 million had been spent. This expenditure equates to a unit cost of$4.14/c.y. However, it should be noted that the engineering approach to this sediment removal project evolved from a sophisticated mechanical spoil dewatering system to a lagoon disposal alternative. Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate the overall cost-effectiveness of the project. In 2003 the City of Lakeland conducted a whole lake alum treatment of Lake Hollingsworth with the objective of chemically sequestering remaining phosphorus reserves in lake sediments. In addition, the City implemented several stormwater treatment projects to reduce nutrient inflows. Upon refilling of the lake by average or greater annual rainfall depths, water quality improvements (e.g., Secchi disk depth and chlorophyll-a) have been observed; however, the lake trophic state index remains in the eutrophic to hyper-eutrophic range. Additional data collected by the City indicate that water quality and ecological conditions have improved significantly in response to lake dredging and alum treatment. Summary pre- and post-dredging data collected by the City of Lakeland in Lake Hollingsworth is detailed below. In addition to water quality, the City has reported a 10 percent increase in desirable aquatic vegetation as well as 75 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 Case Study #1 - Sediment Removal increases in both the abundance and diversity of benthic invertebrates (e.g., Shannon- Weaver Diversity Index increased from 1.04 to 1.60). In summary, it is difficult to directly quantify the benefits associated with sediment removal in Lake Hollingsworth due to the multiple confounding effects of the dredging, stormwater treatment, and alum application projects, as well as recent climate change (e.g., increasing rainfall). Nonetheless, the net effect of these factors has clearly resulted in improved conditions in Lake Hollingsworth (Figures CS1-3-14). 10 8 0 C 7 - n 5 cn 1 5 - 1\\ ` - 4 �, 1\1\1\A„. 2 - a 1 0 . 1(/ 1(( ( ( (11 ( 1131 (I (114 04188 04191 02/94 04196 02/99 04/01 02/04 Figure CS1-3. Total Nitrogen at Lake Hollingsworth Pre-DredgeAir —H Post Dredge ° Post Drought Post Alum . . . . . . . . . . . . �--I 0 2 4 6 8 10 Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Figure CS1-4.Total Nitrogen concentration compared by restoration project at Lake Hollingsworth 76 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 Case Study #1 - Sediment Removal 0.700- o cwo- 'i s w0.500- I ' O a El;• 0400 S o• a a--0300 Fres- 0200- e \1\1\ 0.140- 2J 0000 .,., .,,. ....... ........ ..... . ... 04100 04191 02/94 04/90 02199 04101 02104 Figure CS1-5. Total Phosphorus at Lake Hollingsworth Pre-Dredge ° Post Dredge 1-1111 —1 Post Drought Post Alum I —I 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Figure CS1-6.Total Phosphorus Concentration Compared By Restoration Project At Lake Hollingsworth 1 2C; 77 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan } DRAFT May 2007 Case Study #1 - Sediment Removal 1 80, 1.60- 1 1O- 1'0 1/\ 1 OD- v 0.80- a+ CO 0.60-u Lu / C'lYJ W 0 D II ( ( a t a 1 a ( a (a a i t (a l 1 1 1 1 I T 1 1 1 a l 1 rT 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 l a( 1 a ( 1 a a 1 ( 1 04/88 04191 02/94 04/96 02/99 04/01 02/D4 Figure CS1-7.Water Clarity at Lake Hollingsworth Pre-Dredge 111-1 1 Post Dredge 1111-1 Post Drought Post Alum 1-1111111111-1 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 Secchi Depth (M) Figure CS1-8.Water Clarity Compared By Restoration Project At Lake Hollingsworth 78 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan .10 DRAFT May 2007 Case Study #1 - Sediment Removal 450.0- . -. - 4000- 350.0- t gv 300.0-1 , 250.0 \\T\ii AI .c —+0 200.0- OV150.D- 100.0- \ Lot \11 /\.1 r. j! 50.0- VII 0.0 „ , I „, 0L/99 04191 02/94 04/96 0299 04/01 02/34 Figure CS1-9. Chlorophyll a at Lake Hollingsworth Pre-Dredge Post Dredge ° Post Drought Post Alum I 0 100 200 300 400 Chlorophyll a (ug/L) Figure CS1-10. Chlorophyll a concentration compared by restoration project at Lake Hollingsworth 79 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan �, DRAFT May 2007 Case Study #1 - Sediment Removal 110.00- i 100.00- i 0 s :::::' AV' 7V . E .-V\ i\N 61 a h 70.00- z 60.00- 50.00 , 04/88 04/91 02/94 09/86 02199 04/C1 02/04 Figure CS1-11. Trophic State Index at Lake Hollingsworth Pre-Dredge Post Dredgel Post Drought 1-111 Post Alum 1.11111-1 53 63 73 83 93 103 TSI Figure CS1-12. Trophic State Index Compared By Restoration Project At Lake Hollingsworth PBSjt 80 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 Case Study #1 - Sediment Removal 250 200 3150 > E ° ° 100 -I 50 0 -• - --- -- ---- Apr-95 Aug-96 Jan-98 May-99 Oct-00 Feb-02 Jun-03 Figure CS1-13. Phytoplankton Biovolume at Lake Hollingsworth 2 3 c 2 2.5 — � z 1.5 div\rkt \\, to v 1 i I I 0.5 .I Apr-95 Aug-96 Jan-98 May-99 Oct-00 Feb-02 Jun-03 Figure CS1-14. Phytoplankton Concentration Compared By Restoration Project At Lake Hollingsworth Lake Panasoffkee Lake Panasoffkee is a very large (4,820-acres) lake located in rural Sumter County. Unlike many threatened Florida lakes, water quality in Lake Panasoffkee is generally very good, which is attributable to the substantial groundwater inflows into the lake from the Floridan aquifer. The threat to Lake Panasoffkee is the loss of desirable aquatic habitats for lake sport fish species. Since the 1940s, almost 800 acres, or 22 percent of the lake's area, has been lost due to sedimentation. Ironically, the groundwater inflow which keeps the lake's water quality high is also the major contributor to the sediment which is filling the lake. The groundwater carries large amounts of dissolved calcium P13. 81 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan t DRAFT May 2007 Case Study #1 - Sediment Removal carbonate. When the groundwater mixes with the lake water, the calcium carbonate solidifies, producing sediments which settle on the lake bottom covering fish-spawning areas. The apparent rate of sediment accumulation in Lake Panasoffkee has increased during the past two decades, possibly due to the impoundment of the hydrologic connection with the Withlacoochee River. These factors have combined to negatively impact the lake's fishery, promoting expanding shoreline vegetation and tussock formations, which in turn adversely impacts recreation and navigation. Unlike the other lakes discussed in this section, the calcium carbonate sediments in Lake Panasoffkee are very low in organic matter, with about 85 percent of the mass of unconsolidated sediments being inorganic material. Due to concerns regarding sport fishery habitat loss, and recreational and navigational impacts, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) initiated the design and permitting of a sediment removal project in 2000. The volume of sediment material to be removed from the lake was substantial (over 8 million cubic yards); however, upland disposal without any chemical treatment was always contemplated given the availability of large areas of vacant land adjacent to the lake and the low percent of organics and clay in the lake sediments. Because SWFWMD was the applicant, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) was responsible for State permitting of the project. In pre-application meetings, SWFWMD argued to the FDEP that the project was a habitat restoration project in the best interest of the public and the environment, and therefore should be permitted as a Notice General Permit (NGP). Even though the project was anticipated to involve the dredging of approximately 27 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation, the FDEP subsequently agreed with this assertion but required the SWFWMD to provide reasonable assurances that the project would not violate water quality standards, as Lake Panasoffkee is an Outstanding Florida Water. Such reasonable assurance would be required under a full Environmental Resource Permit; however, the time to process a NGP was significantly reduced over that likely required for an ERP. Since no flocculating chemicals were needed, return water back to the lake was permitted with a mixing zone. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also agreed with the classification of the project as habitat restoration, and issued their permit approval via a Nationwide 27 Permit. Had a full 404 Permit been required, consultation with other federal agencies and the public notice process would likely have extended the permitting timeframe significantly. All project permits were obtained within approximately one year. The project design included hydraulic dredging of unconsolidated sediments, with spoil discharge directly to 450 acres of diked upland disposal areas composed of two primary drying cells and several smaller polishing cells. The project permits allow for treated return water back to the lake. The construction contract was awarded at an approximate cost of$2.76 per cubic yard of in-situ sediment removed, including the cost of all upland disposal area creation and maintenance. Approximately 8.2 million cubic yards of sediment are targeted for removal, and the total project budget is approximately $22.6 million. Construction of the upland disposal sites was initiated in 2002, and dredging was initiated in late 2003. Lake Maggiore Lake Maggiore is a 380 acre lake located in the City of St. Petersburg, Pinellas County. The lake has exhibited poor water quality and hyper-eutrophic conditions for at least the past two decades. Diagnostic feasibility studies conducted in the early 1990s identified 82 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 Case Study #1 - Sediment Removal accumulated organic sediments as a significant source of nutrients impacting water quality. In addition, the lake had accumulated so much silt that historic recreational uses had been effectively curtailed due to shallow water depths. As part of a multi-faceted restoration program, the City of St. Petersburg, in cooperation with SWFWMD, initiated the design and permitting of a sediment removal project in 1995. BCI Engineers & Scientists were hired to conduct a sediment removal feasibility study and to develop a conceptual design. BCI determined that approximately 2.3 million cubic yards of low density organic sediments should be removed from the lake. Many project alternatives were considered; however, the recommended approach involved the filling of 34 acres of lake bottom and riparian wetlands with sand tailings generated from dredging, followed by the construction of upland drying pits on the 34 acres of created uplands. Hydraulic dredge spoil would then be pumped through a cyclone unit to remove sands, mixed with flocculating polymers, and then pumped into the pits where dewatering would occur via settling, evaporation and percolation. Upon settling, decant water would be pumped off and the settled solids would be physically removed from the pits, loaded into trucks and then disposed in the Toytown landfill and on the Sod Farm site. Upon completion of the project, the 34-acre drying pit area would then be restored to create an upland public park and recreational area for the City. Regulatory permitting of the recommended alternative proved to be a challenge. The primary issue raised by both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the FDEP was the proposed filling of 34 acres of lake bottom, which were determined by FDEP to be sovereign lands, and the eventual conversion of this area to an upland City park. In response to agency review comments the City and their consultants developed several modifications to the project as proposed in the original permit applications. The primary issue of concern was the restoration of the 34 acre drying pit area as functional riparian wetlands rather than an upland City park. In 1999 and 2000, respectively, the federal 404 Permit and the State Environmental Resource Permit were approved, requiring the drying pits to be restored back to wetlands. The engineer's cost estimate for the project was $7-$8 million; however, when the project was let out to bid in 1999, the low bid for both dredging/treatment and disposal was $12.5 million. The City did not award the bid due to the cost discrepancy, and pursued additional funding from SWFWMD. In addition, based on discussions with bidders it was determined that project costs could be reduced if a process treatment system was incorporated into the bid package, and if disposal was pulled out as a separate bid item. Furthermore, it was recommended that the total volume of sediment to be removed be reduced to lower costs. The project was re-bid in August of 2001 with dredging and disposal as separate bid items. The low bid for dredging and treatment was $7.7 million, while the low bid for disposal via trucking was $4.8 million. The City awarded the bid for dredging to the low bidder with the requirement that they be responsible for obtaining any necessary permit modifications. In addition, the City determined that it would be more cost effective if disposal was performed using City trucks and personnel. The contractual requirement for the volume of sediments to be removed was reduced from 2.3 to 1.54 million cubic yards, and the permits were modified by the contractor to address minor wetland impacts and decant water discharges associated with the proposed process treatment plant. The on-site process treatment plant was completed in June of 2004 and dredging began in September of 2004. The plant is essentially composed of three primary components: 83 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan P11.9 DRAFT May 2007 Case Study #1 - Sediment Removal 1) a screening and cyclone unit to separate large debris, sand and other high density material; 2) a clarifier unit where polymer is mixed with the dredge spoil to flocculate low density organics; and 3) a series belt filter presses to compress and dewater the flocculated organics. Decant water from the belt filter presses is discharged into a polishing pond, which overflows into an existing 3-acre hardwood swamp along the lake shoreline. To date the plant has been operating fairly successfully at an average rate of about 2,000 cubic yards of dewatered muck per day. The dewatered muck, referred to as sludge or "cake", has been averaging approximately 25 percent solids. However, current data indicate that the cake contains a much higher fraction of sand than was anticipated, estimated at about 40 percent by weight. As of December 2005 the project was estimated to be approximately 50 percent complete, and the expected completion date was December of 2006. It should be noted that this project is the first lake sediment removal project in West Central Florida to demonstrate that a mechanical dewatering system can be successfully permitted and deployed. In summary, the project summaries provided above indicate that organic sediment removal as a lake management tool represents many challenges, and project logistics and results are not always predictable. Nonetheless, the removal of nutrient laden organic sediments has been demonstrated to be a potentially powerful strategy in reducing lake eutrophication and related water quality problems, as well as improving lake aesthetics and recreational opportunities. Lake Hancock From PBSJ 2007, Preliminary Results from Sediment Removal Study at Lake Hancock. Lake Hancock, with a surface area of approximately 4,550 acres, is the third largest lake in Polk County (ERD, 1999). The contributing watershed is approximately 131 square miles in size, for a watershed to open water ratio of 18:1. The major tributaries to Lake Hancock are the Banana Creek sub-basin (13,578 acres), the Lake Lena Run sub-basin (11,754 acres) and the North Saddle Creek sub-basin (49,034 acres). Lake Hancock has been characterized as having "poor" water quality, using the State of Florida's Trophic State Index (TSI), since at least 1970 (Polk County, 2005), and concerns over poor water quality in the lake have existed as far back as the 1950s (ERD, 1999). More recently, Lake Hancock's water quality was verified as impaired for nutrients using data collected between January 1997 and June 2004 (EPA, 2005). Levels of total nitrogen, total phosphorus and biological oxygen demand all exceeded the State of Florida's threshold screening values, all by considerable amounts (EPA, 2005). The poor water quality in Lake Hancock has resulted in a number of reports focusing on strategies to improve its condition. Polk County and FDEP contracted PBS&J to complete an in-lake mesocosm experiment simulating sediment removal to assess the impact on water quality. An experimental design similar to that which was used to assess the value of sediment removal strategies for Lake Maggiore (in St. Petersburg) was conducted. In this approach, three pairs of 2 meter diameter aluminum rings were driven down through the water column, though the lake's organic sediments, and into the lake's underlying sand layer. A frame was extended from the bottom ring to above the lake's water level, and reinforced plastic was sewn into a hollow cylinder, and attached to the aluminum ring on the lake bottom, and also to a frame at the water surface. Of these pairs, one had its underlying layer of muck removed via a small suction dredge,with the other of the pair left as is. As in Lake i 84 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 Case Study #1 - Sediment Removal Maggiore, water from outside the tube was allowed to equilibrate with the water column within the tube, after excavation. After removal of the muck layer, and equilibration of the overlying water columns, the water within these tubes was compared to each other, and to adjacent water undisturbed by these activities, to determine potential changes in water chemistry due to the lack of an underlying muck layer. To replicate the potential impacts of suspension of bottom sediments by wind action, both tubes were "mixed" with similar mixing actions (using a stirring paddle such as those used previously by the District for mixing water for sample splitting) until the tube with its muck layer still intact shows evidence of substantial resuspension of bottom sediments. Water samples were collected to determine differences in TN, TP, chlorophyll, etc. that were expected to occur for water masses with underlying muck sediments, as opposed to those where such sediments had been removed. This study will be conducted twice (wet season and dry season) at three locations throughout the lake. The dry season experiment was completed in December 2006, the wet season sampling is scheduled for May 2007. Results from the first sampling period indicate a significant reduction in multiple water quality parameters under both mixed and not-mixed conditions (Table CS1-1). Chlorophyll a,TN, and TP decreased by 20-30% under not-mixed conditions. Table CS1-1. Percent Change between Dredged and Undredged cylinders for both not-mixed and mixed conditions. Not-Mixed Mixed Chlorophyll a -21 -31 N:P* 27 102 TKN -20 -53 TN -20 -53 SRP -3 -20 TP -37 -77 TSS -34 -72 TSI -3 -12 Turbidity -40 -75 BOD -12 -13 85 Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance Plan DRAFT May 2007 , ,., ••,.. ,,'. ,,,C 41.; 774, ,, , • t...,.-0 , .., , •.- ,• . , iv '\ ,,,,i- lh,,,i .0 - : t 4 .:9 ,,•. ,,,t • -' 'V •i‘ (4`'",*.;',.N., i I` ' ..1 if' r V 1 4, :t`t, '• ' 11,,N4t4e,4„,..s,,,A ')• ,1 1 i,'' - I I .1 e s.,:q.4. i - ! j , ,,f t,e` i lti I fli I't 1 ''- 1 'i'f,: -}'., ,4, — t-k . I 4 itp, • 1) 4 4:rt. -10,,...4 fp , f- ' :i , 1,,, ,: it ,i ,,..e. - ..,.. -., ,, 1,4'; ' t, -I ,...•., , -, i ,. .y%, . . c i ,-, I- , 1 i ,i... y: "- . , - ty A /if --. ,.ts Tit,t,,t,:i, I „ •;!er:','1: , 4 .... 1,1 . ..' ' f,.. • 1 ' It 't-L,4 L .. .I. ,im , ' - , 1 :. r,. ,,„ T, i 1, l' .i it,4,, ,,-• ,,,,, - itk,t,if it 4, ' - .,.,1.',` s,"c,. '"I'' ' ' , '.,'44:.44,, r•••?7,`t*'•'"' ; .: '' ''•••' ^ ;4 . i .. „, ;-...- :,,,,,, 1 r,':2;"','.,',.. ,',.', 1 p " 1 f , ,.'el/'- '-':-•• •• ',.,t7,7",x,-,..;,-, :,f, --- ,I, 1 *'' 4 - 1 - ' 11 '} ' 1' t ' 1 ' '''''—'6.,,lt '' 1 I 4,*4 '' k,., 7 l ., . " 4 JI ' ,*4.0N4 .41.4! '',..! ', j - — 1 ` , j .t:1 1 j',t; /,0) 1!;*tt 4.,.': :, ,,,4 • s ,' , . - , ..c, , 14,, ,. , , i •,, '‘.., -*,,-' irillti,,;- , .. _____, _ I, ' ' '',', 4,, ' • ', ,4111•11111411 . 'II'0,,VIM 11,.'A '," •"7, - ,..,..:4 n ',$t' ',1 '',,, .4..f .'''''T:' i';''' ' ' ' ',I il'i' , i , ,4 a•„" '''Ji' 411.1,t! • , .C, I.,',. i 'I`'.. i 't irt ''.I 1 i 1** 4 fr'itt' 1 . )4 i i;4.:, f t ' . I.ii, 'v ‘ . ti, ,%' ' i.' t,i ZI', ,:, It.'''4,•••,;,,,.! *44i,;'',,, , ,“,,,,,,,,._. • . 1 t • 'i • ' t'''' ''''i /4 ' '', i E • ', .;' ` it, I ' .,t*,-".:4;,}; '.,1 7,i' ;,‘, : 4 , •.'. 1,i :'4. e it . , f, , 'Y•di l'-, , ..,,.. . _ ... .,, . i 1, 171.,,itivi i i iii, 611% Ali 1 fli it,ii'•;i,,,,/ .,. frfH. , , :,:i.,,4,,,,,:,,t, utl \- .,,E .,,, ,,, . 4..iiii ,to., •', ) , ,, ,, . y, i - ., ' l ..i '' i 1;11.'1 - itiqr t , . „,, ,4, , ,,,,, , , ;,1 • \V ii! 11 ,, > L' 4 ' t.4 „ ”„ -1 - 'to ;1 • `1. , ' ,',j-; s 1 '),i' ,... --13 ,--.2.,---#-- ;• ' '-' ="4,'','ff."4,52'"*.""*"": - e 73 _. ., . # : , _ ., * •#. . 4 v........„,_............ ' -', , %,t,# .- . -.• #`'. '..'.' ;',FX-''• , - '',' *, ... t , ! •T,j 1:. i, 1, ,,, ,, ,4,,,:,,,,.4,i44,:,..,,fi•-;,,„ , :?.4.,:.44'.,41,. -, it At i ,,, ,: t.,, k f'4. - ,- .. -, i f- i % I•47401,4 l,i f ' ' r, 1 *P ' 4 ".-'Lf'4•'''44 '' ' , ••• 4 '' `,•• ' If•ti ,1'4 i `,• f•:.'' 4,I,,* ,if 4,,,,',,4.4' .."f:-:',,, '''' #ff•VI,i ' .ff'' "."'"'• 1'4',4'4't!* 'i, #ft• ''' 11. ''.i..:3;lit '' ' .''` • ',e'4.1!,..'' i ..,;,, f if"' •'' • ' :. ; ','.., 'if.,4",,.%4,:,14„•"; ' '' ; I ',1" 1, '''l 7 • f' .'vr iii '. '''-'1i,.-144;:`A .r* 4 t %,, ' .i e• :‘ ' ` : i" I,'1-' ,,$ 1 2.:'''Y '''' -,•.f, .:. p ,. ; - •11: --, f ' ,i -:,- r � 1 ,. .:-.. , �n 4 / dr tiX4. f �' 'S .,0.11' .t r.r , "... / y�'� Ili ' - " - 1 1:',:i.,1,...:-..:::-,.t.:' /A4 wt Vi 4Q 1.' . s[ r t f;. •:://,,,.1/: ,,` �.` { .:_,,,?c. ,,: 4"'mi ror`, f�i t'"" fes"'^ ' ti -,.y. ` m- - Y'f,'" e'S"� -�,�.a.:c>.._ i ��nr�y,' `,n .•'t. ,.`z"'° -, ,,. ;� .,„:t,,,.;11,:,:,; .....:,. •i _ .„ f .�e.,e G y '.1...'"- 461,. . Y yq♦`" 'v 6 .'sv �y"'. - J � 'Z {^Ra''. '1 " p�«b -111(7 (# z�; ;L sh .•u 'ham 1-:', it 1t t" 9�U�'MFM�MIf11f,�w i t } �.,t ta' "¢ f 4 5¢ 4 `y>f 5 #x. to J �''` {^ � k`� � s.+-SN' , - ir..„ ,.. • • f"- . . 5 .' z{ • • 1" F'` waft 3s' ,,,: , ._ .x.. ' ' Ili il . .,. f , - -47-,, fuw,-wer,w-was. w►� >a -- ,�^ --...,.:St-111, `,:;,,.14 4t,1'}2.,,, ,,,,. .4-1 0- t . "�" — ; t ¢, ;' At 'i ' t '� , ....-. ..f. - H"�ffYtb i y -=mow= • 1 1 • .may , j-. — ..7'" -,1,,47.; "..,• 2 ,• • . PELICAN 41 pr. BAY Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. January 6, 2015 Via Email Distribution Pelican Bay Services Division Board of Directors David Trecker, Chair Municipal Service Taxing & Benefit Unit of Collier County, Florida 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 RE: Corps Application No.: SAJ-1996-02789 10-year permit application for Clam Pass Maintenance Dredging Dear Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Thank you for providing the application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer for the 10-year permit for Clam Pass maintenance dredging. As you know, pursuant to the Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions for this property (OR Book 966, Pages 1843 — 1863), Collier County"shall not apply for dredge or fill permits in Park Site or Conservation Area from any governmental bodies, regardless of any future amendments to the statutes or regulations of the United States or the State of Florida or as a result of decisions of the courts of the United States or the State of Florida, without the prior written consent of Declarant, which consent may be withheld in the sole and absolute discretion of Declarant." Herein, the Declarant is the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. (Foundation) as the successor to WCI, pursuant to the Assignment of Rights, Privileges and Obligations (Park Site and Conservation Area) dated April 21, 2009 and recorded in OR Book 4446, beginning on Page 1101 of the public records of Collier County, Florida, and the Assignment of Certain Rights, Privileges and Obligations dated March 7, 2003 and recorded in OR Book 3257, beginning on Page 2056 of the public records of Collier County, Florida. The Foundation greatly appreciates having worked constructively and collegially with the Pelican Bay Services Division(PBSD) in working through the specifics of the permit application, and specifically, the ability for the two respective coastal engineers, Olsen Associates and Humiston&Moore, to collaborate. To that end, the Foundation has completed its review of the Permit Plans marked DRAFT and dated November 4, 2014 (attached), as well as the accompanying documentation prepared by Turrell, Hall & Associates (also attached), and at the December 19, 2014 Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors meeting,the Board voted unanimously to approve the permit application. Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. • 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard • Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 597-8081 • (239) 597-6802 FAX • E-Mail: memberservices@pelicanbay.org Should there be any subsequent modifications to the permit application, the Foundation looks forward to continuing to be part of the application process. Sincerely, PE r AY FOUNDATION 4 Aft Jim Hop•• i'steadt President cc: Pelican Bay Services Division Board of Directors (via email) Neil Dorrill, Pelican Bay Services Division Administrator(via email) Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors (via email) E 0 uoo ' Ell en _ O0N<� o '.' 38 O V'Y�C O' m 2• 0 0 0 G"�'�Q'O apJOWJO i4MNE to ni'E'D' 3 o a 3 mZ� V w�.. W =Q O J J T''1'.3'2,‘"? w 0 I N Z; ti 0 Z Z `< p N J N ^Q 2 3 as I Z Fa�Z W uOiz4a3 LI mZ Z aW�= S ZO4LL2WWWWWW4 W 3fvZm W �U W0V00V V Om p <K ODOOOp Ua 3[=720H0 Z Z O�oU41u>0CCzzzw w—�'-az U 0 �ZWWNOpppppm m pap N - W _ w OUww¢1 1 1I I I I �M ;3--1 aQQ Jw OU N S Z CCU zzzzzzz O —. S ap- 6.a N <=00 ZZZZZZZVI S 0.-W a J w 000000 [WOE Z CFm� Z�FaW '-3 1 I��f-� C.0" U= W ZV WW VVV V "NaKZ (�Z O y(/� '45 -3'2gV1NNVI IA IAN N W.3<5 WO14 a N m u �aaaavl vimvlmin to J '1 W VNNNNVINN N ; pU p p C)w w.....-0000_, 000 oft.->zzzCz wza V'/"/'IAHUV VUUUU 003 U-Z ._NMa."' I�v0Q._.- ZI- a I wW W ..J ZS N a aa °� a�a tr5y'" r1 t ZP "'£ R ,ffi,,,.ds1�F$ NW m V W 8 � � 6 �� 4kL �44 0Oav W 1 -, 7� . s,+sz �k ,° . a�o o W .� a g c a.'pp \0 cn M `� 'Olt .41.4 4TC ' Y.g Z W'-M ^ "lain of(fu u .5 S 4: t" Y. t J a H 1-Ix,- na ���'i U O a ku w & 1.0� C �"� "� "< fi . 2 .< 's , ,,,x 44 . ' F S •, CSW T/ �9 � :" ra?> ,A3 4Y d y ��q a` Z �wse as r tl r ZMx1:�� x t Rte. � ., e-,,-,,,, 2,,,,--45 L,, E. i__, N u K W a w a N � o ,„ a ` a r. O a� 2 W 0Z OVI 0 Z Z W a,N �Z W �m7 Ii r- a E...-(q.--,T.0600 O 0sacTi O m U m 0I-1=',T p p W N Z CO)1 O Z O V 0z 0 0,1 U C Pk ac"wO pa20w J Q F<J Z 7 r9 0 N Z Z O Z. Z E CSW W w 2 0 LJ��`�1�' O W z O - + w O O U �` r0, D A + 1 z<p wm Q ,TD R.1'�ri` Z m m O 1 r„ ww,Z Z 4 ti w 4 t 6 Q ., W W J� V `1 _ _ Z - 3 Q W1-.0 Z O .;-,. a3Q H� aC0 N D O W O N N F o O Wva f CZ CC a az_a l F -= i.,� 0 Z .-N,..i.,,: NNp '�� � 4yR.&. �: to c x.� l;t NY f ,,,,,,,- t„,..., K, '. nMNmn • � y S, •: QW'N� ',.„4''''4,'"" � a �, ��Ry,y qq��2j��r-`A•�y._..�� ytJL y � 5A Y..-, ' naj 0; , ',r� , .?N'',.,St r�- t y �„� zz -L5(5. }„ Ln' O P z M�:v � U ddsilt1£ . • ter 3 «� w K ZH at, i �z 5 t tits Z C rifir � d a{ yLiy "ti. !y"tV Ys ,IA # r{ b 2l t ..�� tom, a � � .. 8 "ys�-.-,-',4!:, �5. K # 'mak. ��`!p; $em 1$ t ? s• 7 1 U 1 ' :- ;� g'';'-'14:'‘ .'• k•'�A- � tea' d N Z , - "' 3„� � �g d _,Vb;�C yy.y 3”. lu Z.. Z 2. '� a 6 O H N Z � ZY-- ..*te a --,,-4 }>n o z 011.>-0 zn.aU.y a.rZmfc+ pt.? 2 _"` a'; . su aNvVi� 'S. UoUw.r ? "'t"k'1 'ri r • q. • 13 _ x�. xR:Xk:/..w0'k.rx. v:xlnekw5..w45'l.•W:�'•.:... .. ..L.�.. .n. .n_c . -�o.:,„...2" ,, ,ys., ,ate' e ,""' ' ... • '�3 y�y� N O ii - - 0 ' .,!,••.i.,?,..,1-:,.. ,1,,,,,,,4r. - ,,,ir.,.:44,, ' ..' • x> ,a d A`y < U a o in z�aa 3 ilk L„, W 11 c m w , o v w J _ ..y .... Z c:.,.. Q ,.• _.d J .,. 0.. p2 2 • � 0 �k O W ,, ., 4. <w a_ M 2 U y y��/ k"' L d,kd'- y/ ,,,, % ,4 J • 2 to ' ms' 5� • L, .• .v Q , __ W . ,• � k 7G z t z1;;;; rt H-'7',','.,;„,'7,;„`.4,,,,.4.0,4,4',,,,,.94'r - Z i a f +Fad r .,,j w Q m K t� ,- ,fir < 1 �„,,,;,,,,,,-,',-,!,'•;” ;�� �d�z � e q LcIOV�� z 'tom. C1i h A ,nS... , .J Vf[.izJF Wo x f,> �`-e' 2 i d d o a N t- ',�-}'.',fi e '. ny and as _� 1. �� '13'.' 0� d �O ��w��� f: til Q. �® W NIaJ - Q�N ZZ lt:1/44.°:. 1.1 Qe< vid .. w e r., ,c ➢ Jam. <0 X-0 F <°- '7''' lAQ } �...} '. f-.a. t� fY 0 I- Z N•M V �'. "�:/#,. K3WF 0..'¢.O 2h Sn QST N 11 add rr � ilk pig f. , 0, ' : -' . ,,-, ' i'L j. f J W 1-t- JN (> ZZ 0. YM �.. lw Z:Jd Fg � t J ..S r J.-n.2 d O_ Q 5' " O M- W' A hO ;.d,.. �`..,<3 �7 Z - 0 0 I 0 L,_LI : d p as f- �:d`�f IK LI d M -' ,.3,. Ce �_ Jr ,QZ J 2)- Z II q F-� J E ,. ..., w ,,,,ic&`nA>rr",nrCaa, +�».,w+,a. arz'Y`" 1 .... ._ r : k , -,'''''' „......... ....' ' 'A .,,Et.: q (f .' -<.''''..' NO j O <_,:,-,..0.0 v'95,.. .,.... . Jk _ z' n ". ":',E 17,rs'il,iLi;2 aQS3 , ''''....,q6,''''','. ' ✓ : -:1:. 15 Ca,"'O W¢ *� O U� I,imi a5 c Q _., ♦� yx q ,�,. c� clk4 fl t.) 4 L1' U a4� aw,a a u� / 35. ;="1-0.d.,1 : i‘ IMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIW H *�' '' via ..' Y \\jj U `_ U 1,-®i� �, Witt . a 1 '''' :.,,,,::,,,,,,', 0. �.Q .. ;.t M U n _, s L'-'' -ZZ f �+QD ,we -M / s0 - c3i 2 Q / Qy <-7 ...,:: ..* y L`I ,...� i ��I+25 W "' 1 t¢ :. N W a.L� / e.. +n 0+50 ...a a chis �� ` w -,_t>r .\ i< 0+25 att - , 0 .. � O w J 0 U / >•M. 0+00 8o z!z O / w I . A?:a Q w N �^ O T7J I p W } Q. O M '~U -1+00.. o , 2 cc t, m ooh QXz .0 ,<, a uaw �aM a 3 ❑ -2+00 : 1.< t Z ,mg m N V altpb N mann tO V N tD N�tD O N n m N o a 1... —Z V .S'9 P.S tht•iro OidN - D �NmM�rm tULaNMmro�O�N h z w : Zz N. 1•W v O O V O N N 1G n eo W W t, A n m N V V M M n N. Ky,tri tri tri tc td tri tri to trim umie triutc n tc.ri mmvyi tri�td to y.. W w:.z.w. 5 ZZ`m$°8�$°0omromm mmnOowoom ES2�romo < ' - 3 � Nz❑ -3+00 w Z a,...p m Zoi3w,a_0zc�Q F0navry S. vtrW amappN2 N HNV �O mmOmZaNbiSAn82SM0bAN NtWWN,VN.OF tGNlV O MAN ..0nmAh ... Aa, InO_ w0: a0LL �Mn a xwr �Q + ncnnnnmt7nnc�nMncn cn QZ6jg ln� t-Wiwd -4+00az > 0o ❑ 3:o_OwZfwya40,0w4-‹01,000UUO0a0Q1000WLL7S—,YJ220a0KNH» XNam rO - E 0 0 O - Ngo �o.vvE z z 87-,427, !n a0-,2,7,.g 1 a1JrqN=W - a yWvZcv a> > nag;a a Z ZJ li M m K o a + _ = 3 U m m W ow O a W Z OW 5') m a rec. 0d0Ll I- Z o 0 1 aid F- a Z 0 U= N 1..50-N N X = WO W W Le- 0 G -aN w Z a UW ZNUaZ ¢N j a II. -II- 0 U CJ f lii cD+ z o wo + W U Lo E., L------„N..., . l_ A. III ii zc./ <a 0 = 0—cell0u) O s z a 1- 0 Om E5G 4 > N U N a() -- W Q K W ce W W CD p am HNm o JO Qa r ~ J Z d LL O W Q L a a O WW a (n H ti `/ W J J 0 a J -6 D p 0 U g } 'a W p a 0 � N., Q W F=-N z I- ir Li Z0 Z= W .a y -W -t- > aZ r0 z W ceo 30 o Q - .4'.k.:.a O K z 41 W W O 4 K W J a m a g,— I d Z H N 0 ce ¢ 2 W CO Z O coW () m W m w 0 OF r m M F a Z z D a Z 0 0 0 H N0 O 0N - 1..., Q X J M m > W m J m O a w L. a, �,- W 0 0 0 Z Li Z U WW Z O O U CZU Li Z r 3z m p3 =O0 116 cn in i c)WU¢ ! aQOF >�z w iwas 1— o O z .-N M .$ 5 I 0 -m I eW o o _o Is!E ONaO MrrE L III mg ; := tl Imni,a -42 oIIII S' i i g W Si C R a ,- 3 23 w I w 1 W o W I O V 19i oe g g r aw t , I Z + , g p 1 00 Q W ' K ' erre g ow U V1. ti b �K c- m W m W0 f m r O U m in O I p Q C D WO UZ W z 2 z0 U g 1 I - WW W n 7 ZV VI J Q QV > 0 0 s ' ' Mm a a O I € Nd yUZ 4 Z 2 S U N p a ' 3 r Mm w^ N iNi - ON NY i NI oS4w ' '4' eSbNs a l i i 34I 'i'i(er) 1334 NOLLVA313 (ON34 NOLLA313 (6000) NourA3V 0 o a a o, DIk arm b 6U Yll ==311 2 W N- - m On- WgEMEN NOO Li .> w 1Z ME MO ▪f ,o o- lvloiensvino iv101enselmi ivioiensDlnDl mh m N- WM.WWW m ,,I NOINO 4 M A A4i§Nn8"e8 mmNR2QE4 " 8"§C OOV pI N g m K r HW m Y N of 4 0 m m > m pz NmNN OMN WA mm XWmmN O O vQUO Z>> 03 CI O O 1- Y 'r W W Q p J W O m I�N m m M M N M m 0 4�-m N O 4�j m N N 0 M i M N W d LL�j m iiNN Nm�N�mg�MIXpiA� Mrm t^+1�'a�nN 141 Or�X. NR�Q� O O U E ill �.. Q z t m 0 _ 0 mu 3a,,, ;O 00mNNU,V rwriiVi0g; mM m8Q Waa d LL Q > H > m J W m m C $ z• m z 4 4 4 4 4 M m C N N NO U C' A�ht`hl�l_nh!_AAA��mMumil�il(nlll �mmm0m404ss.. �ss�N w W Em 6' m F m N ' " m m N O O m 4 m m N m o . w oln• LLSNNNmNNRmmmNm�2RASSmmmmm8m°°SAPPRNRmmmAm°AR N2NRM m Q Z > o m .,. m00m S Ow4 M0 `m0mm i$m i4mimM `mm O 000 0 Q o ' a 0( 00000 0008000 moW rD. NNW 2.,..2,`M,0m U m m 22PS 2 m 22 W iimm .S 82222 m m 0m 2 y1 O W 0 W > 2 21-0 a wm r- $2"$ 88N4L8m4memRme�2'8g 8:m' 8R $8 8fi8 o88 g w f Eddaz m } 4,44 *OaSS,tZ.tt,-NNNNAAA44.ZSSititg-SOasr;".r.V z o 1"40 m o O W ^4 VI Z W m OWZ� N O w ... O z FNM SYp:.CN:w.... x:.ue ++,3.,.sxi., A. . ..A:1e.:Ct-,.:P+'?' ,o...... .a.?;M13h'4 C,..,,,, . n � n EEoN�teNW -' -m -Q onu.^c - z .N' NT, N1/4„. i IT'LfiziV \ _IS - vmi 21an3 n t.t- . I; N t' i1 m u Z * _ 62 1 W 7T 1 Lb -i v Wr O z W 4" z =h. ce S S3 ZO g 0w��� o n o owo IZ u r -i r n I 0 Ar;, - 5 - c c N O > z M g "5- 2 o ""2 a zo w g Z `s o E i i a 2 1 - ;1 I - w~c�y b b w w t t - t t t - t t t - ZVI N J Q 6 t 6 o CCL LCC a ^> `` 0 I u n a T = f nT tn. O m Y . ^ ®® = _ Z = 3 ®® gi = _ ®®:: _ a ) g = m 0 YN Ybm NI m r114YubbNI pW4.1 bCbNI ^M aI 1 I I ' 1 I I 1 _ ' I 1 1 1(aAVN)'1333 NOLLVA313 (IAVN)'1333 NOLLVA313 OA )'1333 NOLLVA313 K r CO 4.QO o ..9, 1 - n 'ill = y ( wy � g,„ � q. .. .4z,_. 11 _ . ,......,.„,,g„,„ ,E , II , "---4', _8 8 8 w 4 -,! :Ili-8 g " , LL L II' ' =.., {� iW oi i NE 0— N 5 R U n n' Vm E b o • 66 e m S rI 22 Jr -q '7 0 3 ®eo ®eo= ®eo g //111 -°N _ __ N m Y N _ N I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 i 1 i - - 4 U lot '1333 NOLLVA313 ' ' (OAVN)'1333 NOI1VA313 ' ' (a AVN)'1333 NOLLVA313 ' ' O � a I = Pu R 6= -n FH -n s 8. -2 zO> O Zm¢ a O - b .o w• ¢K WO . Q K Q Q I j w -m 1 � 2• ZQ N f4 II I II o m0 3? n 14 _ tib iw O m l u 4t ' W S� ' v QIn ou_ O W W 5 J m pm ` 0 3 I s a m 11 s w o� I, U I d I G I O 0 o r E zW>z ,5 m H m. t s F nm nz r5 �i' '-'2"--,.,.='-'2"--,.,.'-'2"--,.,.=zo-f�`. l e o ' ,§s - m5S Qo 1 azo o1 o 252 uNma c t V'ym O G t G n G C L S G G C _2 z 4. 8▪ 222 . - 'qo OZJU 3 3 ®EU I 3 3 EGOS I ®E g= I w JNIr C C w m a O3rmmYNb Y b'Ni mm Y N'31iS•mm'b'N+ m mMv•I•I•b'Ni z _csi.i4 i i ' ' l ' '(a AVN)'1341 NOLLVA33 (0AVN)'1333 NOLLVA313 NNOLLVA313 i i E N ry 5 2,-i v a'<'^m a g4 rE � `n W ry „o - - u 'mnZa3 - -S 6 -ug _m '.. J w h _ z + m O m O m W O -O 3 Y b g N -O s =m � O U �' ` O 4 m ,` o y .. .. pW J W II '' 1 g I N 1 ZW V U S �Q € �� � g o II o W,,w-- s 8 II = 8 of o 0 a it o ?q o _ tt _ rr tt f N N z ¢ gi Y ii G Y - 2p U Q Z ...1 !. i g i -i %g i -� ww w a '-� t Ztn VI 4 ®e= 3 ®e= 3 ®e= '4'Q•- 0'1'4'4'b= �4'Y'1'1'b'0I m 1'.'4' s' ' '1' 1 ' o ' '„3. „. ' ' 1 ' o oz z- b' 1 'r m b'ryi m'1'. i i i b'ryi NV z (aAYN)'133!NOLLYA313 1 ' (aAYN)'1334 NOUYA313 ' ' (arn)'133!NOLLYA313 ' ' a u'o °�° J�O 3 U ;K F fii 2 Zau $b m O O bN (nFrz %'<? ll .A.411M i3 31,5if n if _ 9a W In i W p3 i W , ,. z W - W m 11 11 N ¢ _s 5t N u I I P. 41 0 _ -e z O O - a 'Q u O m W , CO 0 0 Q 8 o ] p O e 0 -' $5 B -' u 5 u ' — O1 '5 ¢ 5 t t t - _t - t t t - a p z GCC g GLC e GGG s om - m u I A d u. m ee a e a ^ J 0 7 7t e os ®®Oz 1 3 ®®0z t } ®®OI o = . V O V m14'4'b'4'4'1.1 .N3o34 . 1 .1.a . 10 -O m.1.'.°.O',1, .1'1'1'N1m'1.Y.ry.o3NI .i.i.i.-x .=' = 1 , 1 , 11 I a(aAN)'1334 NOLLYA313 ' ' AYN)i.334 NOLLYA33 1 ' (GAIN)'1334 NOLYA313 ' 1 0 - m U H g1nj 11 K Z 0 F N -m N -N 'm > R¢Z z m U ..5.'pi- - O W w K m 0oh o , 2 ¢ �Qo m. O _V N - Z �� Z • 8 S ,_ 8 ,E ¢1nr- ^I -I -1 -1 O m`O ;if G If G Pr e= o a ce CC gus , 7- 1i01” g g s ri 0' i s - : w>g'a 1 m s - i m V n m V -ns ti aZz¢¢ 17, € 5€ -' ' - o zzzp�m o ' c'o .O ' a g u 1 U1NQm0 o t t t CCC CCC z W m ¢ ( GGG 8GGG 8 GGG = 2 o 'o i ¢ a p i o 1. 7,0w< 3 ; ®8 = - , 3 ®80= 3 ; NOP - w woao0 ry5 =1 0 4'4'-'4'4'+'+'b'01 3 C f N3 3N 1 m Z FNM V� ..,b.4.4'- '11'07 m m m'1' - b0. i i 1 i l i (aMYN)'1334 N011YA313 ' T (aAYN)'1331 NOILVA313 I 1 (0AYN)'1331 NOI1YA313 1 7 F 14 | u § § ' . �(\) \ \A 2 - 2 - p ,_��, _ 2 _ W 15. -Sa \ , \ \ 3 ! , - - § - : P0 < t0 - Y2 II !| - a I §| a § ! - r � [ -5-9 t |�j . . If 1 -7 : \ \2 ) c \ 68 . 9 {[ \ -- ! ¥| _ I 1 §\2 \ §/ / { h §\§ \ 7\ 0 at- ='1'4' 'b'4'4'I'I' '.7 .'�'».4.a'l'4'1.1•&.4¥ 4'&'&'&'»'1'1'!'4¥ >«� A]1 &«� a' mT >« A' _ ' <§}r Z COS , \ k , f \ -S A ' 2\ §%(/z II \ \ . - - E - 43 g - H .1. ! - f ! f ■ . | . ■ § a ,| ! a2 § a ( k §| _ \} § 0.1 12§ ) ' | | j h / - : (T. \ \( ) } § \\ j } \ {\ j \ \ 0'1'4'4'1'4'4'1'1'1'4T'� - Wiz£//£££\ - ®z2//££R\ \ } c , »¥ ___ *« m__ , B § \ § \ §0 \ \\ - E - g - g , - - - - ` - | §- e �a & / f ! /§ oz ..■ .., 2 � ƒ ) /II ' k !| - |{ § § 0 �/ § / \P. : ■ � � � < � ■ loom 51 \# | t 11 :| � §;\$\ � i \ / ( h i \\ / t , j / \§ ( 1j §\§ \ , - §§|\ !li: � . 1w/;j4 }aa! . . wtww\{-- zzww£y£{ I-- } *«, _ ii _ ' __ +m. _ ii LUa=e & Z z; ,w; E N � N N '''''I oi v1 u�i . r N� 21,r 5 �'ol - o1�.lY o''m on1°im z^ai2svOz�a ta 8 g ;E:1,.,ou ::; u «z - w2o m c gi m W300 + s + c ..- 1gW -0 3 O N LL u W CO W " of < I r<r I < Z V o S O @ o or,��N• 0 1— K to m P. g _ O I p � I I I WN N Z Z zo ug I I _ I Di N j f + i 3 i 51 3 3 <N Q 0 j t z z Q CO V $ _ _gNg N0Z� N Y - I ro m Y N 'I N I 0 Y N 1 I I (DAVM)'133!NOIIYA313 ' ' (OAYN)'1331 NOIlYA313 ' 7 (OAYN)'133!NOIiYA313 ' ' d Z\o M W to g a U W O 0 0 N N 2m ge -� N N o D4�yZ�: v4 /:ti wW4 IF, 8''8 E0Ia -am8a liii et " o Pc s citt N 1 jtl g 7 §§a$1 m CO W t _ C t " .. 7 " o m q � SE v v n m ®e 2 - 3 ®e Z 1 3 � Z I co O s g a W „'e':'ti'b`A'4.1. 6'b_'N_7 m'�5'4'r'3`«'4'J�'4.1'N'� N - Y _ N1 a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 i (OAYN)'1331 NOI1YA313 ' ' (0/AIN)'133!NOLLYA3l3 ' ' (OAYN)'133!NOIDA313 I 1 O MO M U D U Cm IN- 2 R N > s 0O N Z Z m d' O W W 4 - m m2 1 I p9 Q I p -53 -.. = Qm 3 II J5 ce o -o it - _ Z o 4 W Z - hial y9 i .ri Q N 6 all poi " ? t "7 W 2 m 0 H 4 I ' p - b a U 4 G - +e S G& N W �I F - _ gg wee 6 ii u p ;4 V W ''D Q if '' _ _O D.i g g $ pzoZ fi1. i S n CO 3 g ®Ie113 1 3 ®e= - ; 3 ®a �z� 0 �p'V )11.4 1l S ' O O NI =',1.4'4'1',14'1'1'd..7' im �O'! NibiN 1 N jZ0 Ll 4p I 1 1 1 1 1 I .- I '+ m b N l W W N 0-K (avN)'137!NOI1YA313 (OAYN)'133!NOI1YA313 (OAYN)'133!NOI1YA313 o 0 i Z .-NM< ,,,,,•,,•..1,,,,,SY:::Ne:t t..i.a4...1 a;:fa>33.....:a.s1-x1!r:-^e��::::e%x::;.abN.v7i0V.3'3 3i::IrsCYa=.i*.,:33'%iiAv:KS».::;a E N C N N 0 �' Y1 3 8 F>oclE o - _ U�OaiN[ o MN..o 4--�n E • ^ vZ3 W E v1,:a.' a 3 E> n$ 'mv € r $v a W :$g' W W $_»b < 8 g�3 m 'A es 0 w o !II 8 _ Apel p ^ e � 8 o ��^� m Ag. y :`SIS a f" ti W W 1 O O W O O U I F I CO i ZD U= c EW EE I/,N Ofl K� ~ m $_ 1 S g co mi p 0 I I 1 > OZ w Z ¢ ZOU Q Z ¢ 8 8 8 ZWW U— W 1 M I 7 ..= ''7.4 o 6 Q W e 2O Q,-7,1 O Ip V NS 7 - N I m . ♦ NS- N O_ NOI m u V CO3O VI NU Z\ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I (OAVN)'1334 NOLLVA313 I I (am)'133!NOLLVA313 1 ' (am)'133!NOLLVA313 ' I a U o < M d'H m O o O Z C �xU S 3 =tb M. -8 o -8 '4'71 _,,,, _,, ,..„ ,..,..w - 2 W N bS * -03 8 bi o W W v g 1 g 5 I C I < N 3n I - '��+� o f i 8 $ II 8 m m t - Z - 99 tc - Q o Jr) - gpQ N O c u s I u a b o'9 I c 7' n 1 m w m 33 ®EF ; 3 ®e'2 ; ; ®e3 m G- ..1.4.4.1..'4.1.1'b'Ni o'1'4'45b51 'b'1' 1 'b'Ni O'1.4.45b51 ' 1'1'bNi o M s 1 I i ^ ^ i l l i ^ i 1 1 I o (OAVN)'1333 NOLLVA313 I I (avN)'1.333 NOLLVA3l3 I I (oATN)'1333 NOLLVA313 ' ' M 0 I- U O z U• ¢ 1- p N C Z H > C O 5 g z m ✓ N y .= N 8N3' 4 P - j En 22 o • mO - i 3 ¢ / = ¢m J m 0 ® 0 -0 -moo a@- -$ z O 4 N9 z 4"A i r 4 in z m O O 2E4,, „v N .... - -N... O O < g - - I., .4 p2pn m• p m - f Spa 8 N b j -O S Z 2Fr _ K '^ 3_ y, O m ZWwZ 1 F 11 v 1 1 F m _ S woo¢ W <z z \ 7 gi n i i 4•• 1 2 2 ' azo a 9 O3oz �.., EEE L0Nam o �^ o '? 1;1; .fr, I K I c u q � I ZNmO 5^i m e _ .'1'4'4'1'..4'1.1'.b..??s s ®e3 ^ m 3 ®B3 �a�o . N _ No • � '1':'4'15«'4'1' 1 'b'N7 w W oa o I 1 I i 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1.01■1 (UAW'133!NOLLVA313 ' ' (OAVN)'133!NOLLVA373 ' ' (OAVN)'133!NOLLVA3l3 ' I z N M o n _ — x x ,.. v o Z� Q Z 'nNp 0 ---., K N Q M ti > 0 <! 0 11 m C z O 5 Or a z MI H —0v ♦q O o I� 4t NW _I� z O I Q NF ZMyAO M 1 1� I J W <J1ve it z 10 �, I-U Z 10 a0 I / HV 7 yyNNc' n ° I ' -i1^ o - 4, JJ o na.vZ + 1G 4Y12 . Jn mQ`S3 O ; �Hj FILE: R K I 4 O O O re a '� w _ 3Q u ; ` 321n10rIu1S ONIISIX3 0 111 w p N 0 x iv o �. > o i _i 3NI1 N011V13O3A_ w rc y J ^M^ 2'j F 111 O' • Z Oti J W . �m O y 1D^N —0 N 2=V U S I Wy� 0m 5 m o y o n o I I .100.i O if) O N O IA W Z GAM '11 "AA313 1 I ]AVN '11 "A313 1 I z0>x s o z3 o zw�,i- .., a 02 o 4 2N a z 1n.. 6 n z y Z NO zID 4.\ m OE > < 1 z o i p•-• 2 LJ.-.o 0 NZ �O I a_ la C N U 0O0 OD Z ' 1-U O Z a 3NI1 NOIIV13O3A 0 v _ ,.# ./ - 0 °.?O4 F 43 ce 14 00 mN a 3 a 1'bW EW0 °0412z LO M at Q , w M o 2 N ` 3NI1 NOIIV13O3A `^ _ > w O Z3 ,-U W J _i w) Z Z 4Y OF NVMN _p0 E • y -4. ' O E I o 0 o 1n o �n 1y 0 OAVN 'LI "A313 I 1 f aAYN '14 "A313 1 I a N • Z p a M O J J m grnFHrO o^UNWh • mW Nvo ymv22 H ' ll J_.1.- 5: "z z0 :a3w �LLa, U : : QMN N N _;,, Q3 SLL3a> > in a Su 5M a.‘- 25 ill O vOpyU CO ao M UODzw O• ax zwo y §VJ FOZ =2 W � Y `v., w2720) a LLW H E. VOUZN gaFo O Lo O of 0a Wp 2 2 ya ZZ>Z O 0 - o' N 2NZn Sf m 6V U pow 'vN MOdvp07 m¢U 22a> 2iimO H • O O LL '= O OO W`W> > vOAVN 'Li -A313I zSd `II ax4Z 01 5 55 amt=o 5 x IoN No 'N o»J � . ZoW TwQWH o J 7.g F xm ~ Q =O t . O )-oz= w Ili; to MM MM M W wJ O] V11' Ir U y m O U W 4 J M FW O = Emw �m lg 6 LF-z' f W mmap '[O�v[�[OO -LL' >,,_i, �' Q Q C LLb �010i E0 t0 O >,,W7 1 _JO Q z id y a a p 1..Zox N O Dg30 �. S Z 32 La N Wyy=� WI r 1- 0 . 22222 WW2 W2qq4 d mQ,m o O u Qoz 1. Wo�5 a o 0WW w m 014< .- l U W 6 L ! o m - 0 • OAVN '13 "A313 1 I z Ni vi v 44 4 w.:3:.l..,.,r44.4.010:N:x4-,0 ..,0;::0.;.,-- ,,n,.asla.0-,,,0.,;;awa9.0w 0- -:¢x APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO.0710-0003 (33 CFR 325) EXPIRES: 31 August 2012 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response,including the time for reviewing instructions,searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the data needed,and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden,to Department of Defense,Washington Headquarters,Executive Services and Communications.Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project(0710-0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law,no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number_Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses.Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act,Section 10,33 USC 403; Clean Water Act,Section 404,33 USC 1344;Marine Protection,Research,and Sanctuaries Act,Section 103,33 USC 1413;Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers;Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332. Principal Purpose:Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application fora permit.Routine Uses: This Information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state,and local government agencies,and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law Submission of requested information is voluntary,however,if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued.One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application(see sample drawings and instructions)and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned. (ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS) t_APPLICATION NO. 2.FIELD OFFICE CODE 3.DATE RECEIVED 4.DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE (ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT) 5.APPLICANTS NAME: 8.AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required) First- Nell Middle- Last- Dorrill First-rlmou,y Middle- I act- r6.ii Company- Collier County do Pelican Bay Services Division Company— Turret,Hall and Associates • E-mail Address- nei@DMGFLcom E-mail Address- nturrell-assoclates.com 6.APPLICANTS ADDRESS_ 9.AGENT'S ADDRESS Address - 801 Laurel Oak Drive,Suite 302 Address - 3584 Exchange Ave City- Naples State- FL Zip- 34148 Country- USA City- Naples State- FL Zip-34104 Country-usn 7.APPLICANTS PHONE NOs_WIAREA CODE. 10.AGENTS PHONE NOs.W/AREA CODE a.Residence b.Business c.Fax a.Residence b.Business c.Fax 239-597-1749 239-597-4502 239-643-0166 239.643-6632 STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION 11.I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish,upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application. APPLICANTS SIGNATURE DATE I NAME,LOCATION,AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY 12.PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) Clam Bay NRPA 10-year maintenance dredging permit 13.NAME OF WATERBODY,IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14.PROJECT STREET ADDRESS(if applicable) Clam Pass Address 15.LOCATION OF PROJECT Latitude:"N 28.2197 Longitude: °W ai.atca City Naples State FL Zip- 16.OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS,IF KNOWN (see instructions) State Tax Parcel ID Municipality cnmrca,my Section- saw s Township-4a s Ranee- 25 e 17_DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE From Interstate 75 take exit 107(Pine Ridge Road)west to US 41. Cross over US 41 to Seagate Drive(Pine Ridge Road turns into Seagate Dr) Follow Seagate Drive due west to Collier County Clam Pass Park. Tram service is available from parking lot to Clam Pass. ENG FORM 4345,SEPT 2009 EDITION OF OCT 2004 IS OBSOLETE Proponent CECW-OR 18. Nature of Activity (Description cri project,include all features) Applicant is proposing to conduct dredging and other habitat maintenance activities within Clam Pass and its associated estuary system to maintain tidal flow and flushing within the System. 19. Project Purpose (Descrthe the mason or purpose of the cled,see instructions) Project purpose is to maintain tidal exchange through Clam Pass in order to support habitat improvements which have been realized or are underway since 1998 mangrove die-off restoration efforts were undertaken. USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED 20. Reason(s)for Discharge Discharge of beach compatible material associated with Clam Pass maintenance dredging will be placed on adjacent beaches to help maintain stability of the Pass and protect adjacent beaches from erosion. Non beach compatible material will be hauled off-site to an upland disposal location, Material associated with maintenance of had dug flushing cuts will continue to be broadcast to the sides within the mangrove forest area. Maintenance of these cuts is necessary to insure flushing enhancements put in place since 1998 mangrove die-off are maintained. 21. Type(s)of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards: Type Type Type Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards up to 11,800 cubic yards of sand per Pass dredging event ZIT:92ttl mcinot.mook P.P.". 22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instnrctions) Acres Or Liner Feet up to 1500 feet north of Clam Pass and 2800 feet south of Clam Pass 23. Description of Avoidance,Minimization,and Compensation (see inseuctions) A thorough review of the Pass dynamics has led to the proposed dredging template.See attached engineer's report for a summary of the analysis and the methotiologyfreasoning behind the proposed dredging template. Enclosed Biotogicel Analysts describes projects impacts(or leck thereof)to any federally listed or candidate spades.As the project is for ecobgical enhancement,no mittation or other compensation Is proposed. 24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes.0 No ID IF YES,DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK Maintenance of interior(hand dug)flushing cuts is conducted annually under permit authorization SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE) 25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners,Lessees,Etc.,Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody(Ilmore than can be entered here,please attach a supplemental list). Address- See attached sheet City- State- Zip- 26. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal,State,or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application. AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED ACOE NWP SAJ-1996-02789 02/08/2011 FDEP JCP 0296087-002-JN 03/01/2013 FDEP ERP 11-0128463-005 12/17/2010 *Would include but is not restricted to zoning,building,and flood plain permits 27. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is complete and accurate_ I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity(applicant)or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed_ 18 U.S.C.Section 1001 provides that Whoever,in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals,or covers up any trick,scheme,or disguises a material fact or makes any false,fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than A $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both_ il ENG FORM 4345,SEPT 2009 TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC. MARINE&ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3584 Exchange Avenue, Suite B •Naples, Florida 34104-3732 • (239) 643-0166 • Fax(239) 643-6632 December , 2014 Tunis W. McElwain Chief, Fort Myers Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Myers Regulatory Office 1520 Royal Palm Square Boulevard, Suite 310 Fort Myers, Florida 33919 RE: Corps Application No.: SAJ-1996-02789 Project: 10 year permit application for Clam Pass Maintenance Dredging County: Collier Tunis, The enclosed application is a request for an Individual permit authorization to conduct maintenance dredging and other habitat enhancement activities within the Clam Pass Natural Resource Protection Area. As you are aware, when the Pass closed in late December 2012 it was subsequently re-opened under a NWP authorization. As the Pass has recovered, the limited dredging of the flood shoal conducted under the previous event allowed sand from the adjacent beach areas to fill back into the Pass to the point where it is limiting the tidal exchange and making the Pass more vulnerable to closure. The intent of this permit request is threefold: - To address the immediate problem as expeditiously as possible To allow the County to continue to maintain the Pass for a 10 year time period as outlined in the Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan To continue the maintenance of the hand-dug channels and interconnecting waterways throughout the estuary. The Project Purpose is to maintain tidal exchange to the Clam Bay Estuary system and protect restoration and enhancement achievements previously realized within the system. The Project Description is as follows. The proposed project will remove sand from the Pass and associated flood shoal areas to restore tidal flow to the estuary. Dredging and excavation will be done by backhoe, hydraulic dredge, or a combination of both. Beach compatible sand will be deposited on the adjacent beaches as required by Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. Excavation and dredging work associated with the Pass is divided into three zones as depicted on the enclosed project plans. Channel width will be a maximum of 50 feet bottom width through Section A and a design depth of-5.0 feet NAVD (-3.7 feet NGVD). A 0.5 foot over-dredge allowance is requested which could result in a maximum excavation/dredge depth of-5.5 feet NAVD. Widths through Sections B and C will vary according to the enclosed project plans which are Page 1 of 3 based on a recent survey. A minimum of a 5 to 15 foot buffer will be maintained between the dredging and any mangrove prop roots adjacent to the dredge template. Additional buffers will be provided to seagrasses growing adjacent to the proposed template. It is anticipated that approximately 11,800 cubic yards of sand will be removed from the Pass and flood shoal areas according to the most recent survey. This dredge amount could vary in subsequent dredging events. Beach compatible spoil will be placed north and south of the Pass according to the enclosed engineer's permit drawings. Material excavated with a backhoe will be loaded into haul trucks and dumped in the proper locations on the beach. Material that is dredged hydraulically will be pumped to the appropriate location on the beach with a lateral berm extending ahead of the discharge parallel to the shoreline to reduce turbidity and mixing in the nearshore. Once placed,material will be spread and contoured with loaders,bulldozers, or other suitable beach grading equipment. Allefforts will be made to avoid or minimize non-beach compatible material though some transfer is anticipated, any non-beach compatible material will be stockpiled within the staging area and hauled away to an appropriate upland disposal site landward of the CCCL. Equipment access to the beach will occur from beach access locations previously used in this area approximately 2.4 miles north and 2 miles south of the Pass or may be delivered directly to the site by barge at the discretion of the contractor. Work areas and travel corridors will be roped off to warn visitors to the beach of the construction operations and to keep them out of the work areas. The Pass dredging work is expected to take between 45 and 75 days to complete. We currently anticipate undertaking the work once it has been verified that the beach and access route are clear of any sea turtle nesting activities (from mid-October to November 1). Should additional blockage leading to closure of the Pass occur prior to that time,then additional coordination will be undertaken before the sea turtle nesting season completion to determine if the work can be undertaken without adversely impacting any remaining sea turtle nests. The maintenance of the hand-dug channels will continue on an annual basis under the currently active permit. Listed Species: The applicant is willing and able to abide by the protection measures outlined in the SPBO for nesting sea turtles, nests and eggs as well as for manatees. It is currently the intent of the County to complete all activities associated with the Pass dredging outside of the sea turtle nesting season. Additional coordination will be required if Pass closure necessitates moving the construction schedule forward. No impacts to any listed species are anticipated. The fact that the Pass is still currently open, allows smalltooth sawfish entry and exit from the bay system. While this area is outside of the critical habitat designation for this species,the estuary does contain primary constituent elements (PCEs) of critical habitat and standard protection measures for this species will be implemented. Excavation and dredging of the pass is not expected to adversely affect the smalltooth sawfish and should in fact increase habitat availability and utilization within the Clam Bay system for this species. The project is outside of the identified Critical Habitat Units for the Piping Plover. It is approximately 20 miles north of Map Unit 27 on Marco Island and approximately 14 miles south of Map Unit 26 on Estero Island. However, PCEs for piping plover wintering habitat are present in the project area. PCEs of wintering piping plover critical habitat include sand or mud flats with no or sparse emergent vegetation. Adjacent unvegetated or sparsely vegetated sand,mud, or algal flats above high tide are also important. Important components of the beach/dune ecosystem include surf-cast algae, sparsely vegetated back beach and salterns, spits, and washover areas. Washover areas are broad,unvegetated zones,with little or no topographic relief,that are formed and maintained by the action of hurricanes, storm surge,or other extreme wave action. The project area contains beach and dune areas as well as tidal flats within the Bay system. No washover areas are present. The Page 2 of 3 blockage of the pass has resulted in a lessening of tidal exchr--'e within the Bays though the tidal flats are still available to foraging piping plovers just not to the extent that they would be with the maintenance of the Pass. The USFWS reviewed the potential impacts to piping plovers under the previous NWP authorization and we do not believe that the currently proposed project will differ from the previous. Additional coordination will be undertaken with the FWS as needed. As discussed during previous meetings and the previous NWP permit review, maintaining tidal flow into the estuary has been shown to be a vital component to the health and stability of the system. The proposed project will result in benefits to listed species, water quality, mangroves, and seagrasses, as well as to the myriad of other vertebrate and invertebrate species that call this estuary home. Future events, as may be needed, will be based on conditions at the time of the dredging proposal,though they are anticipated to occur within the same template currently proposed to achieve/maintain the enhancement goals of the project. The proposed work will be conducted under the existing state DEP permit no. 0296087-001 JC. A request for a modification and a Notice to Proceed will be filed concurrently with the FDEP for this proposed work. We will keep the Corps informed as to the status of the DEP review of that request. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any additional questions or comments regarding this submittal. Sincerely, Timothy Hall Enc. Permit application Adjacent Owner Info Biological Assessment Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan Engineer Report Permit Drawings Page 3 of 3