Clam Bay Committee Agenda 10/17/2013PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2013
THE CLAM BAY COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17 AT 1:00 PM
AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, 8960 HAMMOCK
OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 34108.
AGENDA
The agenda includes, but is not limited:
1. Roll Call
2. Audience comments
3. Agenda Approval
4. Question & answer session with engineer
a. Brief review of construction drawings for last dredging event, including
the part of the design not implemented
b. Discussion of how dredging design may change based on what we
have learned in past six months
c. Suggested triggers to know when dredging should be done
1. Proposal to replace culverts with bridge
2. Water quality
3. Adjourn
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. VISIT US AT
HTTP:// PELI CAN BAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET.
10/11/2013 4:37 PM
0
a
z
F
W
W
z
0
a
W
W
0
a
w
W
z
0
a
W
W
A
LI
>
y >
5 i
y, w
n Li
z
O
I.-
J
h w
STA 0 +00
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-4
-6 DESIGN CUT ( -5.8' NAVD)
® 0.4 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW OVER DEPTH -
-8 ® 10.6 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
10 ® 1.0 Cy/FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12- 1 1
-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
STA 0 +25
MLW (- 1.68')
-2 - - -
-4
-6 DESIGN CUT ( -5.8' NAVD)
® 3.4 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW OVER DEPTH ( -6.3' NAVD) -
-$ ® 11.6 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
10 F_Fj 1.1 Cy/FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
a
$ STA 0+50
4
2
MHW ( +0.33')
0
-2 MLW (- 1.68')
-4
DESIGN CUT ( -5.8' NAVD) _
-6 ® 3.1 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW OVER DEPTH ( -6.3' NAVD) -
-8 ® 11.6 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
10 ® 1.1 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50
0
a
z
W
La
z
0
a
W
W
c
z
w
z
0
r
W>
J
W
0
z
z
W
z
O
W
a
STA 0+75
6
4
2
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-4
-$ DESIGN CUT ( -5.8' RAVD)
® 2.7 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW OVER DEPTH ( -6.3' NAVD) -
-8 ® 11.6 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
10 ® 1.1 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12- 1 1
-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
a
6 STA 1 +00
4
2
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW - 1.68')
-2
-4
-$ DESIGN CUT ( -5.8' NAVD)
® 1.6 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW OVER DEPTH ( -s.3' NAVD) -
-8 ® 11.6 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
10 ® 1.1 Cy/FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
STA 1 +25
MHW ( +0.33')
0
M .68')
-2
-4
-$ DESIGN CUT ( -5.8' NAVD) _
® 2.8 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW OVER DEPTH ( -6.3' NAVD) -
-8 ® 11.6 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
10 ® 1.1 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
NOTES:
1. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88).
2. DISTANCES SHOWN IN FEET.
3. PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY CONDUCTED BY AGNOLI, BARBER, & BRUNDAGE, INC. FROM JANUARY 3 TO 1 1 , 2013.
0
a
z
W
z
0
'a
J
a
w
z
0
a
W
a
z
w
z
O
W
STA 1+50
MHW ( +0.33')
MLW (- 1.681
-6 DESIGN CUE ( -5.8' NAVD) _
® 11.2 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW OVER DEPTH ( -6.3' NAVD)
-$ ® 11.6 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
10 ® 1.1 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 50
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
a
8 STA 1+75
4
2
MHW ( +0.33')
D
MLW (- 1.68')
-2- --
-4
-$ DESIGN CUT ( -5.8' NAVD)
® 8.7 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW ovcR DEPTH ( -6.3' NAVD) -
-8 ® 11.6 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
10 ® 1.1 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
STA 2 +00
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-4
-6 DESIGN CUT ( -5.8' RAVD) _
® 7.1 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW OVER DEPTH (-6.3' NAVD) -
-8 ® 11.6 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
10 ® 1.1 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-inn -3sn -inn -2so -200 -1so -100 -so so
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) G
�P
Q
STA 2 +25
0 4 /
Z 2
MHW ( +0.33')
Ci 0
MLW (- 1.68')
-1
z
0
� -2
a
DESIGN CUT ( -5.8' NAVD)
-1 -3 ® 5.5 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW OVER DEPTH ( -6.3' NAVD) -
W
_A- 11.6 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
-5 ® 1.1 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH
-6
-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
c
a
z
uj
uj
z
0
W
c
a
z
v
La
U-
z
O
- H-
i a
3 w
� W
v,
0
STA 2+50
SOUTH
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-4
-6 DESIGN CUT ( -5.8' NAVD)
® 3.0 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW OVER DEPTH ( -6.3' NAVD) =LA
-8 ® 11.6 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
10 ® 1.1 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -so 0 so
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
0
6 STA 2+75
A-
2-
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-A-
DESIGN DESIGN CUT ( -5.8' NAVD)
® 1.0 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW OVER DEPTH ( -6.3' NAVD) -
-$ ® 11.6 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
10 ® 1.1 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50
w
R
w
z
0
a
W
W
c"
a
z
w
Lj
z
O
w
W
c
a
z
v
w
ui
Z
O
a
W
STA 3+1000
V
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-4
-6 DESIGN CUT ( -5.8' NAVD)
® 0.5 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW OVER DEPTH ( -6.3' NAVD) -
-$ ® 11.5 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
10 ® 1.1 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12 1 1 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
a
6 STA 3 +30
A-
2-
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-4
-6 ® 0.3 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW
-8 ® 11.1 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
10 1.0 Cy/FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
a
6 STA 3+64.5
4
2
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-A-
-6- ® 0.1 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW
-8 10.5 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
10 1.0 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12 1 1 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50
I DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
a
r
U.
C
NOTES:
1. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88).
3 2. DISTANCES SHOWN IN FEET.
3. PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY CONDUCTED BY AGNOLI, BARBER, & BRUNDAGE, INC. FROM JANUARY 3 TO 11, 2013.
a
Z
W
z
0
a
>W
J
W
0
a
z
v
w
z
0
W
0
a
w
z
O
a
W
STA 4 +10
MHW
0
MLW (- 1.680
-2
-4
DESIGN CUT ( -5.3' NAVD)
-(D OVER DEPTH ( -5.8' NAVD)
-8- 27.4 CY /FT DESIGN CUT
10 ® 2.7 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
STA 4+60
MHW ( +0.33.)
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-4
k\\\\\\\\�DF%IrN CUT ( -5.3' NAVD)
-6 OVER DEPTH ( -5.8' NAVD)
-8 ® 27.5 CY /FT DESIGN CUT
10 ® 2.6 Cy/FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 10o 150 200
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
STA 5+10
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-4
DESIGN CUT ( -5.3' NAVD)
-6 - OVER DEPTH ( -5.8' NAVD)
-B ® 24.8 CY /FT DESIGN CUT
10 ® 2.7 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) G
�P
O
c
z
z
Ld
W
W
W
z
O
Q
>
J
W
"c
z
z
W
W
W
z
O
a
>
J
W
0
_ a
z
W
1 z
O
3 Q
r W
� W
f
y
i
STA 5 +60
MHW ( +0.33 ")
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-4
_ DESIGN CUT ( -5.3' NAVD)
-6 -OVER DEPTH ( -5.8' NAVD)
-$ ® 18.5 CY /FT DESIGN CUT
10 2.1 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
STA 6 +10
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-4
DESIGN CUT ( -5.3 NAVD)
-6 - OVER DEPTH ( -5.5' NAVD)
-8 ® 10.9 CY /FT DESIGN CUT
10 ® 1.7 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
"o
a
z
W
W
W
z
O
WQ
J
W
0
z
z
W
W
W
Z
O
a
W
J
W
0
a
z
W
W
Z
O
1.>
J
W
STA 7 +10
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
4
DESIGN CUT ( -4.8' NAVD)
OVER DEPTH ( -5.3' NAVD)
-6
-$ ® 1.6 Cy/FT DESIGN CUT
0- 1.0 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
WEST EAST
12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 20C
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
STA 7 +50
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-4
DESIGN CUT ( -4.8' NAVD)
OVER DEPTH ( -5.3' NAVD)
-6
-$ ® 1.7 CY /FT DESIGN CUT
10 ® 0.7 Cy/F7 OVER DEPTH CUT
WEST EAST
12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 20C
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
STA 8 +00
DESIGN CUT ( -4.8' NAVD)
-OVER DEPTH ( -5.3' HAVO)
EAST
100 150 200
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
t
NOTES:
1. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88).
2. DISTANCES SHOWN IN FEET.
3. PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY CONDUCTED BY AGNOLI, BARBER, & BRUNDAGE, INC. FROM JANUARY 3 TO 11, 2013.
0
a
z
La
W
W
W
Z
O
Q
W>
J
W
0
a
z
W
W
W
z
O
a
>
J
W
0
a
z
W
W
z
O
W>
J
W
STA 8 +50
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-4 DESIGN CUT ( -4.8' NAVD)
-6 - OVER DEPTH ( -5.3' NAVD)
-$ ® 10.5 CY /FT DESIGN CUT
10 m 2.2 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
WEST EAST
12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 so ton 15n 700
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
STA 9 +00
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.66')
-2
-4
DESIGN CUT ( -4.8' NAVD)
DEPTH ( -5.3' NAVD)
-13 ® 12.7 CY /FT DESIGN CUT
10 m 2.5 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
WEST EAST
12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 5o 100 150 700
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
STA 9 +50
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-4
_DESN CUT ( -4.8' NAVD)
-6 -AVIG
ER DEPTH ( -5.3' NAVD)
-$ ® 10.8 CY /FT DESIGN CUT
10 ® 2.6 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
WEST EAST
12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 2D0
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
Q
O�
0
a
z
w
H
z
0
W>
J
W
0
zz
w
W
W
z
O
Q
W
W
0
a
z
H-
W
W
W
1 z
O
Q
W
c W
P
N
2
STA 10 +00
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
STA 10 +19
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
2
- A 1
-4 DESIGN CUT ( -4.8' NAVD) _
-6 OVER DEPTH ( -5.3' NAVD) I
I VOLUME INCLUDED
fff STA. 9 +00 B 9 +50 0 IN
�1
-B ® 6.7 Cy/FT DESIGN CUT
10 ® 1.8 Cy/FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 10D 150 2D0
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
0
a
z
Li
Li
z
0
J
W
c
zz
W
W
z
O
Q
W
W
STA 11 +00
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-a DESIGN CUT ( -4.8' NAVD)
-6 - OVER DEPTH ( -5.3' NAVD)
-$ ® 5.5 CY /FT DESIGN CUT
10 ® 2.4 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
STA 11 +50
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-a DESIGN CUT ( -4.8' NAVD)
OVER DEPTH ( -5.3' NAVD)
-6
-8 ® 9.3 CY /FT DESIGN CUT
10 2.6 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
STA 12 +00
c a
a
z 2
v MHW ( +0.33')
0
4Wj MLW (- 1.68')
`` -2
Z
0-4-
� DESIGN CUT ( -4.8' NAVD)
OVER DEPTH ( -5.3' HAVD)
J 6-
VOLUME INCLUDED IN
W STA. 15 +DD - 16 +00
-8
-10
NORTH SOUTH
-12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
nl DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
0
- NOTES:
1. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88).
3 2. DISTANCES SHOWN IN FEET.
N 3. PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY CONDUCTED BY AGNOLI, BARBER, & BRUNDAGE, INC. FROM JANUARY 3 TO 11, 2013.
IN Aftja m
1
... xe _. 4.. HUMI;
AIL & MOC
_ ENGIP
SHADED AREA SHOWS VOLUME ACCOUNTED FOR ON OTHER STATION AZIMUTHS COASTAL
1 ENGINEERING
AND PERMITTI
0
a
z
w
z
0
J
W
"c
a
z
w
W
W
Z
O
Ld'a
J
0
a
z
La
La
z
0
w
8
6 STA 13 +00
4
2
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-4
-8 NO DREDGING AT THIS
STATION. SHOWN FOR
-$ REFERENCE ONLY.
•10
NORTH SOUTH
•12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
MHW ( +0.33
0
MLW ( -1.68
-6
-8
10
NORTH
12
-200 -150 -
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
STA 13 +50
NO DREDGING AT THIS
STATION. SHOWN FOR
REFERENCE ONLY.
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
SOUTH
100 150 200
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) ,(
PAC`
O�
0
Q
v
H=
W
w
z
O
a
W
W
O
Q
W
Z
O
W
O
Q
Z
_ F
W
_ W
z
O
3 Q
W
J
- w
r
m
B
6 STA 14 +50
4
2
MHW ( +0.33')
D
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
NO DREDGING AT THIS STATION.
-4 SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY.
-6
,10
NORTH SOUTH
•12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
STA 15 +00
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW
-2
-4 DE N CUT ( -4.8' NAVD) is ��..'
( t -,' 7V,lii
-6 OVER DEPTH ( -5.3' NAVD)
VOLUME INCLUDED IN
-8 ® 5.3 Cy/FT DESIGN CUT STA. 11 +DO - 11 +50
10 ® 1.6 Cy/FT OVER DEPTH CUT
EAST WEST
12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 so Ion 150 20C
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
0
v
r
ui
W
U.
Z
O
a
>
W
STA 17 +50
MHW ( +0.33')
0
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-4
DESIGN CUT ( -4.8' NAVD)
-6 - OVER DEPTH ( -5.3' NAVD)
-8 ® 5.9 CY /FT DESIGN CUT
10 ® 1.5 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
EAST WEST
12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 So 100 ISO 2nn
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
STA 18+00
4
Q
2
MHW ( +0.33')
0
w MLW
Z -2
2-4-
Q DESIGN CUT ( -4.8' NAVD)
W -6 - DESIGN ( -5.3' NAVD)
W
-8 ® 2.8 CY /FT DESIGN CUT
-10 ® 0.8 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
EAST WEST
-12
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
O
Q
v
W
L6
Z
O
a
W
W
nl DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
0
NOTES:
1. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88).
2. DISTANCES SHOWN IN FEET.
3. PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY CONDUCTED BY AGNOLI, BARBER, & BRUNDAGE, INC. FROM JANUARY 3 TO 11, 2013.
i
- SHADED AREA SHOWS VOLUME ACCOUNTED FOR ON OTHER STATION AZIMUTHS
i
WEST
100 150 200
INLET FILL TEMPATE SECTIONS
STA 0+50
a
255'
Z 2-
10 NAVD .
0
w
L` -2
O�
Z
O
-4
-:
a
>
®
9.1 CY /FT FILL VOLUME DESIGN CUi ( -5.8' NAVD) _
W -6
®
3.1 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW OVER DEPTH ( -6.3' NAVD) -
-$
®
11.6 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
-10
®
1.1 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
m
NORTH
FOR: COLLIER
-12
NAPLES,
NAPLES, FL 34110
FAX: (239) 594 -2025
-600
COASTAL
-500 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -
13FILE:
PLAN
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
PHONE: (239) 594 -2021
8
ENGINEERING DESIGN
AND PERMITTING
JOB: 13078
181
STA 1+50
www.humistonandmoore.com
m
54'
4.7 NAVD
4
1:40 SLOPE
Q3.0
NAVD
1:10 SLOPE
z 2
0
W
-2
Z
O -4
Q
>
® 20.6 CY /FT FILL VOLUME
-6
DESIGN CUT ( -5.8' NAVD)
J
W
® 11.2 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW OVER DEPTH 3' NAVD)
-8
® 11.6 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
-10
® 1.1 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH
-12
-400
-350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -1
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
D
>
Q
Z
v
E
w
Z
O
'a
J
W
MLW (- 1.68')1 1
SOUTH I 1
MHW ( +C
MLW ( -1
SOUTH I 1
a
6 STA 2 +50
97
4 3.7 NAVD
2- 1:10 SLOPE
MHW ( +0.33')
MLW (- 1.68')
-2
-4
® 13.9 CY /FT FILL VOLUME DESIGN CUT ( -5.8' NAVD)
-6 ® 3.0 CY /FT DESIGN CUT ABOVE MHW OVER DEPTH ( -6.3' NAVD) -
-8 ® 11.6 CY /FT DESIGN CUT BELOW MHW
10 ® 1.1 CY /FT OVER DEPTH CUT
NORTH SOUTH
12
-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50
DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET)
,(
O�
-:
HUMISTON
CLAM PASS
MAINTENANCE DREDGING PROJECT
&MOORE
CROSS
SECTIONS - DREDGE & FILL
STRAND COURT
m
ENGINEER
FOR: COLLIER
COUNTY
NAPLES,
NAPLES, FL 34110
FAX: (239) 594 -2025
COASTAL
DATE: 01 17
13FILE:
PLAN
SCALE: SHOWN
PHONE: (239) 594 -2021
ENGINEERING DESIGN
AND PERMITTING
JOB: 13078
DATUM: NAVD88
SHEET: 11
www.humistonandmoore.com
m
From: James Hoppensteadt <jimh @pelicanbay.org>
Subject: Pelican Bay Beach Renourishment
Date: October 7, 2013 2:18:47 PM EDT
To: David Cook <merlincdc @gmail.com>
Cc: "robpender @g mail. com" <robpender @gmail.com >, McAlpinGary <GaryMcAlpin @colliergov.net>
1 Attachment, 1.7 KB
s � c)
(61(71
G (u A
Co M it, 94
I just spoke with Gary who wanted to confirm Pelican Bay's EXAC position on beach renourishment. I told
Gary:
• The Pelican Bay Services Division had committed to 15,000 CY of sand from R -30 +500 to R -37
dependent on the BCC so authorizing).
CP &E has advised that for the Pelican Bay reach (R -30 +500 to R -37) to be consistent with the
renourishment template for Vanderbilt Beach, 25,000 CY of sand was necessary.
(DI
Consistent with the agreement the Pelican Bay Foundation Board reached with the Pelican Bay
Services Division Board in May, the Pelican Bay Foundation is committed to 10,000 CY of sand at R -35
& R -36 to make the joint effort 25,000 CY. -- ----
Thaat tFt e p l cement of PBS_ sand from R -30 +500 to R -37 to 15,000 CY, and the commitment of
the Pelican Bay Foundation for 10,000 CY of sand at R -35 & R -36, Pelican Bay has achieved the design
template precisely consistent with the design template for Vanderbilt Beach.
Gary confirmed the 25,000 CY is the right volume to put the Pelican Bay reach on par with the Vanderbilt
Beach renourishment.
This item is time certain for 10:30 tomorrow at the BCC meeting and it is essential that Tom Cravens Dave
Trecker, and Neil Dorrill's understanding and expectations are exactly the same as our as this is the
absolute deadline for commitment. If for any reason any of the above referenced points are inaccurate
Gary needs to know ASAPI
Sincerely,
Jim
Jim Hoppensteadt
President
Chief Operating Officer
PEL[AN
BAY
Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc.
6251 Pelican Bay Blvd.
Naples, Florida 34108
Tel: 239.260.8460
Cell: 239.398.7074
Fax: 239.597.6927
pelicanbay.org
* * * ** The information transmitted is intended on!
y for person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and /or
privileged material. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this
message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message including any attachments is strictly
T UPDA Tai ON RENOURISHM ENT OF PELICAN BAY BEACH*
• County funding will apply only to restore eroded areas to the 100 -foot
width standard. No beach that has not lost sand past the 100 -foot mark
will be treated. Likewise, no sand for six -year "forward renourishment"
will be provided.
• For Pelican Bay — based on the Coastal Planning & Engineering report ^
that means only R -35, R -36 and R -37 (the area south of The Strand
extending to south of the Sandpiper). This area is a combination of
county and Foundation beach. **
The CPE report indicates the amount of sand needed for this
renourishment is about 13 is yards. ** �'" - �''i'v►�
• Based on unverified extrapol4tion, the attendant cost would be about
**
$so�,eee: 0 56gwdo
• TDC funds cannot be used here because the area does not eet the duail
county requirements of public access and "critical erosion."
• The PBSD does not have funds budgeted for beach renourishment. Such
funding would have to come from MSTBU reserves. That would mean
some projects might have to deferred and/or reserves replenished by tax
increase or special assessment.
• Such PBSD funding of beach renourishment would be contingent on
BCC revision of the ordinance defining PBSD duties to include "beach
maintenance."
Dave Trecker (9/30/13)
*Based on discussions with our commissioner, county manager, PBSD
administrator and a Foundation director.
* *To be verified by Brett Moore of Humiston & Moore.
st- ••.�{. ►�i •vim•
C2_
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to accept the status report on the truck haul beach renourishment project and
provide any additional staff direction required to move the project forward.
OBJECTIVE: Accept the status report on the truck haul beach renourishment project and provide
additional staff direction.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Status of Administrative Hearing Request and Schedule Impacts• On September 30, 2013, the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Office of General Counsel denied with
prejudice the latest challenge to Collier County's truck haul renourishment permit modification issued
on 7/26/2013. In addition, FDEP has informed County staff of their intention to issue a Notice to
Proceed (NTP) for this project on 10/3/2013. Contracts have been signed by the Chairwoman and a
limited NTP will be issued by 10/4/2013 to the truck haul renourishment contractors (Eastman
Aggregates and Phillips and Jordan) to begin mobilization, survey, field engineering and all related
activities short of hauling and beach sand placement associated with this project.
Outstanding is the final ratification of the truck haul routes by Collier County Board of County
Commissioners. The original bid documents were based on a NTP of 9/17/2013; a Substantial
Completion of 1/21/2014 and a Final Completion of 1/31/2014. As of 10/8/2013, the project will
have experienced a 21 calendar day "full start" schedule slippage. If a NTP is issued to our
contractors on 10/8/2013, Collier County can expect a Substantial Completion of no later than
2/11/2014 and a Final Completion of no later than 2/21/2014.
2. Truck Haul Routes through Lee County: The current contract is based on truck haul routes
utilizing Corkscrew Road through Lee County to I -75 South. This is the route that was used in four
previous truck haul projects. If this route continues to be utilized no changes in the contract price will
result. Staff has worked with Lee County staff and developed a four point plan to address community
concerns, public safety items, resident/visitor questions and road damage. On October 1, 2013, the
Lee County Commission adopted the attached resolution requesting changes in the haul route. If the
BCC elects to change the truck haul route, a contract Change Order will need to be executed to
increase the truck haul costs up to approximately $700,000 in addition to a potentially longer project
duration created by lack of trucking availability. This is a critical decision significantly
impacting/increasing project costs and schedule that requires immediate attention. The current truck
route map is attached.
3. Pelican Bay Beach Renourishment: At its October 2, 2013 meeting, the members of the Pelican
Bay Services Division (PBSD) Board voted to fund the renourishment of the Pelican Bay beaches to
the 100 foot standard beach width from R -30.5 to R -37 with approximately 15,000 CY's ( +/- 20 %) of
material. The PBSD will ask the County Commission to approve an amendment to its enabling
Ordinance 2013 -19 that adds beach renourishment funding to the list of its enumerated duties and
responsibilities. This item is scheduled to be presented to the Board of County Commissioner on
10/22/13 for consideration.
Saran O `1g ✓te_
From: James Hoppensteadt <jimh@pelicanbay.org>
Subject: FW: 10/2/13 PBSD Motions on Beach Renourishment
Date: October 7, 2013 5:27:59 PM EDT
To: McAlpinGary <GaryMcAlpin @colliergov.net>
FYI
Sincerely,
Jim
Jim Hoppensteadt
President
Chief Operating Officer
Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc.
6251 Pelican Bay Blvd.
Naples, Florida 34108
Tel: 239.260.8460
Cell: 239.398.7074
Fax: 239.597.6927
pelicanbay.org
* * * ** The information transmitted is intended only for person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and /or
privileged material. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this
message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message including any attachments is strictly
prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. * * * **
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: ResnickLisa [ mailto:LResnick @colliergov.net]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 4:51 PM
To: James Hoppensteadt
Subject: 10/2/13 PBSD Motions on Beach Renourishment
Importance: High
Hello Jim,
Here are the two motions PBSD passed 10/2/13 re: beach renourishment:
Motion #1
Dr. Trecker motioned, Mr. Dickson seconded that the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) request that the Board of County
Commissioners revise the County ordinance defining the duties and powers of the PBSD (Ordinance 2013 -19, Section 4) to include
"beach renourishment ". The Board voted 5 - 3 in favor and the motion was passed. Trecker, Cravens, Dickson, Domenie, and Levy
voted in favor; O'Brien, Chicurel, and laizzo opposed.
Motion #2
Dr. Trecker motioned, Mr. Dickson seconded, that contingent upon the Board of County Commissioners revision of Ordinance 2013-
19 to assign "beach renourishment" as a power and purpose of the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD), the PBSD authorize
funding for 15,000 + /- 20% cubic yards of sand to renourish the Pelican Bay beach to a 100 -foot standard. The Board voted 5 - 3 in
favor and the motion was passed. Trecker, Cravens, Dickson, Chicurel, and laizzo voted in favor; O'Brien, Domenie, and Levy
opposed.
Let me know if you have questions and have a nice evening.
Lisa
Lisa Resnick
Pelican Bay Services Division
801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 405
/01 1,113 CtaA,
ji5 h AK1,
I G. CD 4yj
0
Neely, Merrie
From. Neely, Merrie
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:34 PM
To: 'Marcia Cravens'
Cc: Edwards, Lainie; Malakar, Subarna
Subject: Dredge limits Clam Pass
Hello Marcia,
After reviewing the drawings for the previous permit it appears that a modification in early 1999 clarified the
dredge depths of cuI4, which were just idealized cross-sections (vague) in the original approved permit
drawings – this occurred after the original permit issuance but prior to the project dredge work for cut4. The
approved channel width between station 0+00 and 3+64 was 30ft wide, farther inland the channel widen�s —and is
e
station
2 +37.5 which was only permitted to be dredged to a depth of -2.S NGVD. Farther inland the channel dredge
depth shallows to - 4.SNGVD and above station 7 shallows ta - 4NGVD. I do not see references to rch-edge
depths in the original permit, The same depths appear on the current application drawings with the exception of
station 2+37.5 which appears to also reflect the -5.5 dredge depth. I have sent you a package in the mail with
these drawings that should arrive later this week.
Merric Beth Neely, Ph.D.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Water Resources Management
Joint Coastal Permitting
3900 Commonwealth Blvd. MS 300
Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Phone 850 413-7785
Fax 850 414-7725
Attachment C Construction Plans, 1999 Dredge Event
.g a�ssssi
seaem..a
a�aaaaara
sa:,ssagsat {aax;�ana
aaas saasas������ °s
��t
-I • f
y,
,wi,FtN wsrc
��. "�I
N�44
�+
0
M,
u
�J�a
s ��jj•
.g a�ssssi
seaem..a
a�aaaaara
sa:,ssagsat {aax;�ana
aaas saasas������ °s
w rg
Attachment D Construction Plans, First Maintenance Dredge, 2002
,.�
{_
IV
\�
�| \
■| §2
�$�|
|7� |0- qO Ott|
f/ a
■;
2
/
� m�l9�
t
1A. "|' y
-� \� }�§ }� /�
A
�
«
. ƒ. `
a
�§a
�
k
k
�
|
c
)
7 §
�
2 §
^
.
,
20-
.
�
|7� |0- qO Ott|
f/ a
M UIR
q■ ®4
\ /2d
_._.
2SaRnspipr, N !§\� § -f
|
�r-
d�
— � - - - -- .
/
� m�l9�
t
1A. "|' y
-� \� }�§ }� /�
A
�
. ƒ. `
a
/
®
-
y
M UIR
q■ ®4
\ /2d
_._.
2SaRnspipr, N !§\� § -f
|
�r-
d�
-07 -2007 TUE 04:13 PH Beaches & Coastal
FAX NO. 8504885257 P. 01120
FORM w 62.341000 11I
FORM TITLE; JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATION
EFFECTIVE DATE:
R E'(3"! E I I If
APR 211997
JOINT APPLICATION FOR 61JUAU aF KriiCHEs
& COASTAL SYSTEMS
L s : • A
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION/
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS/
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
//- 30y 1
AUG-07 -2007 TUE 04;13 PM Beaches & Coastal FAX % 8504885257
P, 02120
FOR AGENCY USE ONO
ACOE APpiiriaition W _ �»_ _. DEPWMp A001ca on N __JL—
pats Aapl orlon. Recsivad _ Date APPllgetion Rocaived
flcotasod Prcierui Let, ;, ° Fen Racekved 8 . ,`
FrapcEod Project Long _ -- Faa Rac "eipt
SECTION A
Are any of the activities described in this application proposed to occur in, on, or over wetlands or
other surface waters? 0 yes ❑ no
Is this application being filed by or on behalf of a government entity or drainage district?
Eyes ❑ no
A. Type of Environmental Resource Permit Requested (check at least one)
[] Noticed General - include information requested in Section B.
❑ Standard General (Single Family Dwelling)- include information requested in Sections C and D.
❑ Standard General (all other projects) - include information requested in Sections C and E.
❑ Individual (Single Family Dwelling) - include information requested in Sections C and D.
0 Individual (all other projects) - include information requested in Sections C and E.
❑ Conceptual - include information requested in Sections C and E.
❑ Mitigation Bank Permit (construction) - include information requested in Section C and F.
( If the proposed mitigation bank involves the construction of a surface water management
system requiring another permit defined above, check the appropriate box and submit the
information requested by the applicable section. )
Mitigation Bank (conceptual) - include information requested in Section C and F.
B. Type of activity for which you are applying (check at least one)
® Construction or operation of a new system including dredging or filling in, on or over wetlands
and other surface waters.
Alteration or operation of an existing system which was not previously permitted by a WMD
or DEP,
Modification of a system previously permitted by a WMD or DEP. Provide previous permit
numbers. _
❑ Alteration of a system ❑ Extension of permit duration ❑ Abandonment of a system
❑ Construction of additional phases of a system ❑ Removal of a system
C. Are you requesting authorization to use State Owned Lands. ® yes ❑ no
Ilf yes include the information requested in Section G.)
D. For activities in, on or over wetlands or other surface waters, check type of federal
dredge and fill permit requested-
® Individual ❑ Programmatic General
❑ General ❑ Nationwide ❑ Not Applicable
E. Are you claiming to qualify for an exemption? Elves ® no
If yes provide rule number it known.
RECEIVED
APR 21 1997
BUREAU OF REACHES
o+nest•waeetana Page 1 of 4 & COASTAL SYSTEMS
AUG—P-2007 TUE 04:13 PM Beaches & Coastal FAX NO, 8504885257
P. 03/20
OWNER {S) OF LAND"
26nTY TO RECEIVE PERMIT IlF OTHER T"AN OWNER)
NAME
NAME
COLLIER COUNTY
COLLIER COUNTY PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL E. - GOVERNMENT COMPLEX
801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE OOS
CITY, STATE, ZIP
CITY, STATE, ZIP
NAPLES, FL 34112
NAPLES, FL 34108
COMPANY AND TITLE
COMPANY AND TITLE
TELEPHONE
TELEPHONE (941) 507-6081
FAX I
FAX (941) 597.4502
AGENT AUTHORIZED TO SECURE PERMIT (IF AN AGENT
CONSULTANT (IF DIFFERENT FROM AGENTI
Is USED)
NAME
NAME
TED R. BROWN
COMPANY AND TITLE
COMPANY AND TITLE
AKERMAN SENTERFITT, PA
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
256 SOUTH ORANGE AVE.
CITY, STATE, ZIP
CITY, STATE, ZIP
ORLANDO, FL 32901
TELEPHONE 1407) 843-7860
TELEPHONE 11
FAX (407) 843-6610
FAX (
Name of project, Including phase If applicable Clam -fty Restoration and Njanagemani-131sn
Is this application for part of a multi-phase project? M yes Q no
Total applicant-owned area contiguous to the project __Q_ac
Total project area for which a permit is sought TSD so
Impervious area for which a permit is sought __N/A ac
What is the total area Imetric equivalent for federally funded projects) of work in, on, or over
wetlands or other surface waters?
11.36 acres 494.842 Square feet -hectares square meters
Number of new boat slips proposed. , N/A
Project location (use additional shoots, if needed)
County(Jes) - _Qollier
Section(s) -4,5.8.9.32.33 Township 49S Range 25E
Sectionts) Township Range
Land Grant name, if applicable
Tax Parcel Identification Number
Street address, road, or other location
City, Zip Code if applicable
WOO
Page 2 of 4
NAW - W-=rAW.A
RECEIVED*.
APR 21 1997
BUREAU OF BEACHES
& COASTAL SYSTEMS
AUU -Ut -2007 TUE 04:14 PH Beaches & Coastal FAX N0, 8504885257
Describe in general terms the proposed project, system, or activity.
SEE ATTACHMENT A.
P. 04/20
If there have been any pre - application meetings, including at the project site, with regulatory
staff, please list the date(s), locationls), and names of key staff and project representatives.
Several meetings have beery held on and off. site with Ilene Berne Rich Bray tDEPj and Chip
Clough s
Please identify by number any MSSW/Wetland resource /ERP /ACOE Permits pending, issued or
denied for projects at the location, and any related enforcement actions.
Agency Date NoAType of Application Action Taken
SEE ATTACHMENT B,
Note :Tile following information is reeuired only for proiects proao ed to occur-in on or over
wetlands that need a federal dredge an fill permit and/or authorization to use state owned
submeroad s and is not necessary when sopivinc solely for an Environmental Wource
Permil, Please provide the names, addresses and zip codes of property owners whose property
directly adjoins the project (excluding applicant). Please attach a plan view showing the owner's
names and adjoining property lines, Attach additional sheets If necessary.
t . s.
TO BE PROVIDED
3. 4
RECEIVED
APR 211997
BUREAU OF BEACHES
& GOASTAL SYSTEMS
00w7 . «.stcTJ6".,
Page 3 of 4
AUG -07 -2007 TUE 04:14 PM Beaches & Coastal FAX N0, 8504885257 P. 05/20
FORM r; 62.34lm 111
FORM Mist JOINTW"RONMIZNTAI..
1114g0URG6 FIRMIT APPtIGATION
CATii 4emn.t 1, leis
PART' i3;
A. By signing this application form, I am applying, or I am applying on behalf of the applicant, for the
permit and any proprietary authorizations identified above, according to the supporting data and other
incidental information filed with this application. 1 am familiar with the information contained in this
application and represent that such information is true, complete and accurate. I understand this is an
application and not a permit, and that work prior to approval is a violation. i understand that this
application and any permit issued or proprietary authorization Issued pursuant thereto, does not relieve
me of any obligation for obtaining any other required federal, agate, water management district or local
permit prior to commencement of construction. I agree, or ) agree on behalf of the applicant, to operate
and maintain the permitted system unless the permitting agency authorizes transfer of the permit to a
responsible operation entity. I understand that knowingly making any false statement or representation
in this application is a violation of Section 373:430, F.S. and 18 U.S.C. Section 1001.
Ted Brown, Esq.
TypedfPrinted Name of AP licant llf no Agent is used) or Agent (If one is so authorized below)
Signature Oi 4plicant /Agent
Akerman, Senteriitt & Edison, P.A
(Corporate Title if applicable)
Date
AN AGENT MAY SIGN ABOVE S?.= IF THE APPLICANT COMPLETES THE FOLLOWING:
B. I hereby designate and authorize the agent listed above to act on my behalf, or on behalf of my
corporation, as the agent in the processing of this application for the permit and/or proprietary
authorization indicated above; and to furnish, on request, supplemental information in support of the
application. In addition, I authorize the above listed agent to bind me, or my corporation, to perform
any requirement which may be necessary to procure the permit or authorization indicated above. I
understand that knowingly making any false statement or representation in this application is a violation
of Section 373.430,.F,5, and 18 U.S.C. Section 1001.
Names P. ward AQW, 14P 14, z , 'l
Name of Applicant Signature of Applicant Date
Pelican Bay Services Division, Division Administrator
(Corporate Title if applicable)
OSHA ngtt' III XAnilMUn mlalnal danwtsre t..,... ggXI is ....s.og lthM_
PERSON AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
C. 1 either own the property described in this application or I have legal authority to allow access to
the property, and I consent, of-ter receiving prior notification, to any site visit on the property by agents
or personnel from the Department of Environmental Protection, the Water Management District and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers necessary for the review and inspection of the proposed project specified
in this application. I authorize these agents or personnel to enter the property as many times as may be
necessary to make such review and inspection. Further, I agree to provide entry to the project site for
such agents or personnel to monitot permitted wrofk if a permit is granted.,
James P. Ward l
Typed /Printed Name 'Signature
W
Pelican Hay Services Division, Division Administrator
(Corporate Title if applicable)
RECEIVEI)
Page 4 o 4 APP 21 1997
BUREAU OF BEACHES
a COASTAL SYSTEMS
liU{i— U(-ZUUt 'WE 04.14 PM Beaches & Coastal FAX N0, 8504885257 P. 06120
Aftachment A
The principal elements and benefits of the Clam Bay Restoration and
Management Plan Include:
• Installing a tidal flap gate system linking Venetian Bay with Outer Clam Bay,
thereby Increasing the turnover of water in Outer Clam Bay. This will Improve
water quality for the benefit of the extensive seagrass habitat and its associated
marine life, as well as provide enhanced scouring of Clam Pass as the surcharge
of water that formerly oscillated between Venetian Bay and Outer Clam Bay i
forced to exit on the ebb tide through Clam Pass.
• Deepening and widening Clam Pass will provide for a significantly enhanced
tidal exchange for the Clam Bay system, as well as provide high quality sand
for beach renourishment and ttie creation of upta6d Islands of native tree flora,
which will contribute to the ecological diversity of the Clam Bay system.
Opening of the deteriorating network of Interior tidal creeks and channels will
both Improve the tidal exchange capacity of the Clam Say system, and
Contribute to enhanced water quality withln the system. The restoration of the
tidal exchange dynamics will permit the ingress and egress of marine life
utilizing the mangrove embayments, will accelerate the recovery of the
mangrove habitat and will restore the desirable estuarine quality of the Clam
Bay system.
The selective removal of the dead mangrove trees will not only improve the
aesthetic quality of the Clam Bay System, but will permit the establishment of
mangrove starter Islands to help stimulate the recovery of the mangrove habitat.
The development and implementation of a revised freshwater /stormwater
management system for the developed uplands lying east of Clam Bay will
facilitate a reexamination of the rote of fresh water In the Clam Bay system,
with an anticipated result being a significantly reduced level of fresh water
irrigation for Pelican Bay and a modified landscape palette to be Introduced over
time.
AUG -07 -2007 TUE'04 :14 PM 'Beaches & Coastal
Attachment B
List of Wetland Resource/ERP /ACOE Permits:
Action Taken
Excavate 9,200 cubic yards of
shoaled sand
Emergency Maintenance
Dredging of Flushing Outlet
Wetland Enhancement
Manual excavation for the re-
opening of 1312 linear feet of
main tidal channels
Hydraulic power unit (durable
Pump)
2 portable hydraulic dewatering
pumps
Agency
Date
No./Type of Apacation
1.
ACOL
413/96
199501027 (LP -CC)
2.
FDEP
4/10196
11- 2859039, Collier County
3.
FDEP
S/ 1/96
112870025
4.
ACME
6/26196
199601979 (LP -CC)
5.
ACOC
1/28/97
199602789 (LP.CC)
6.
FDEP
1/2/97
CO -578
Action Taken
Excavate 9,200 cubic yards of
shoaled sand
Emergency Maintenance
Dredging of Flushing Outlet
Wetland Enhancement
Manual excavation for the re-
opening of 1312 linear feet of
main tidal channels
Hydraulic power unit (durable
Pump)
2 portable hydraulic dewatering
pumps
HUG- iIf -2UUI 7'UE 04:14 Pik Beaches & Coastal FAX N0. 8504885257 P. 08/20
t-
.. �.
SECTION C
Environmental Resource Permit Notice of Receipt of Application
This information Is required In addition to that required in other sections of the application. Please
submit five copies of this notice of receipt of application and all attachments with the other required
information. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL INFORMATION ON PAPFR Nn r ARt 1 =R "runni 76 w a'
Project Name: Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan
County: _ Collier County "—
Owner. Collier County
Applicant Collier County Pelican Baa,y enriees Division
Applicant's Address: 801 Laurel_Oak Drive. Suite 0605
1. Indicate the project boundaries on a USGS quadrangle map. Attach a location map
showing the boundary of the proposed activity. The map should also contain a north arrow
and a graphic scale; show Section(s), Township(s), and Range(s); and must be of sufficient
detail to allow a person unfamiliar with the site to find it. Copies attached,
2. Provide the names of all wetlands, or other surface waters that would be dredged, filled,
impounded, diverted, drained, or would receive discharge (either directly or indirectly), or
would otherwise be impacted by the proposed activity, and specify if they are in an
Outstanding Florida Water or Aquatic Preserve: Clam Bav which is not an
Outstanding Florida Water or Aquatic Preserve
3. Attach a depiction (plan and section views), which clearly shows the works or other
facilities proposed to be constructed. Use multiple sheets, if necessary. Use a scale
sufficient to show the location and type of works. Copies attached.
4. Briefly describe the proposed project (such as "construct a deck with boat shelter", "replace
two existing culverts ", "construct surface water management system to serve 150 acre
residential development"):
Mangrove estuary restoration through implementation of several management
activities,
5. Specify the acreage of wetlands or other surface waters, if any, that are proposed to be
disturbed, filled, excavated, or otherwise impacted by the proposed activity:
Approximately 4,26 acres of excavation and 7.1 acres of spoil disposal.
e. Provide a brief statement describing any proposed mitigation for impacts to wetlands and
other surface waters (attach additional sheets if necessary):
Not applicable,
'r'
»3" ? $1 y. aS yff!°1 tr ✓tt s.`ojg ��r1SANEe�r J ,) iwy 9 t r a> #+ t
���.ittAGdi #3 ;.�i t� r'�t Sit4tr� iit`.k.£st ys* t. As ��43d��}tVf} J+tg£yi+E �p�,k,.3� +3�`d�'��
A;!.
A v- -n xsk't`,s ry• t ) p_ t s r #: r Ysv z 3'' t 4 rts.a,«r. -ES'
f < t v 6 s 7 k t s ��ff .L"4.•4
r� # S,kxd s♦
#>a�i��i'.sdlh 'Y, 44 }t`.�r ..,��..�. srt .n.�.r,rtt;. a•.i r. st... +k 2,.�'.lis'....g,.S'.
OYtMf• W •3ECttOn.0
AUG -07 -2007 TUE 04:15 PM Beaches & Coastal FAX N0, 8504885257 P. 09/20
SECTION E
INFORMATION FOR STANDARD GENERAL, INDIVIDUAL AND CONCEPTUAL
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS FOR PROJECTS NOT RELATED TO A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT
Please provide the information requested below if the proposed project requires
either a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval environmental
resource permit and is not related to an individual, single family dwelling unit,
duplex or quadraplex. The information listed below represents the level of
information that is usually required to evaluate an application. The level of
information required for a specific project will vary depending on the nature and
location of the site and the activity proposed. Conceptual approvals generally do
not require the same level of detail as a construction permit. However, providing a
greater level of detail will reduce the need to submit additional information at a
later date. If an item does not apply to your project, proceed to the next item.
SASE SUBMIT ALL INFORMATION ON PAPER NO LARGER THAN 24" X 36"
Site Information
A. Provide a map(s) of the project area and vicinity delineating
USDA /SCS soil types. See attached soil map.
B. Provide recent aerials, legible for photointerpretation with a scale of
1" = 400 ft, or more detailed, with project boundaries delineated on
the aerial. To be provided. See Figures 4.5.3 (b)-(d2) for larger scale
aerials
C. Identify the seasonal high water or mean high tide elevation and
normal pool or mean low tide elevation for each on site wetland or
surface water, including receiving waters into which runoff will be
discharged. Include dates, datum, and methods used to determine
these elevations. See Restoration and anagement Plan.
D. Identify the wet season high water tables at the locations
representative of the entire project site. Include dates, datum, and
methods used to determine these elevations. Not applicable.
II. Environmental Considerations
A. Provide results of any wildlife surveys that have been conducted on
the site, and provide any comments pertaining to the project from the
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. To be provided.
wnem? -w. aEC ".e Page 1 of 9
RUG -07 -2007 TUE 04:15 PM Beaches & Coastal FAX NQ, 8504885257 P. 10120
8. Provide a description of how water quantity, quality, hydroperiod, and
habitat will be maintained in on -site wetlands and other surface
waters that will be preserved or will remain undisturbed. See
Restoration and Management Plan.
C. Provide a narrative description of any proposed mitigation plans,
Including purpose, maintenance, monitoring, and construction
sequence and techniques, and estimated costs. Not applicable.
D. Describe how boundaries of wetlands or other surface waters were
determined. If there has ever been a jurisdictional declaratory
statement, a formal wetland determination, a formal determination, a
validated informal determination, or a revalidated jurisdictional
determination, provide the identifying number. Waiver requested.
E. Impact Summary Tables:
1. For all projects, complete Table 1, 2 and 3 as applicable.
See Restoration and Management Plan.
2. For docking facilities or other structures constructed over
wetlands or other surface waters, provide the information
requested in Table 4. Not applicable.
For shoreline stabilization projects, provide the Information
requested in Table 5. Not applicable.
111. Plans
Provide clear, detailed plans for the system including specifications, plan
(overhead) views, cross sections (with the locations of the cross sections
shown on the corresponding plan view), and profile (longitudinal) views of
the proposed project. The plans must be signed and sealed by a an
appropriate registered professional as required by law. Plans must include
a scale and a north arrow. These plans should show the following:
A. Project area boundary and total land area, including distances and
orientation from roads or other land marks; See Restoration and
Management Plan.
Existing land use and land cover (acreage and percentages), and on-
site natural communities, including wetlands and other surface
waters, aquatic communities, and uplands. Use the Florida Land Use
Cover & Classification System (FLUCCS)(I_evel 3) for projects
proposed in the South Florida Water Management District, the St.
Johns River Water Management District, and the Suwannee River
W1 $Is? -w • secTION.e Page 2 of 9
AUG -07 -2007 TUE 04 :15 PH Beaches & Coastal FAX NO, 8504885257 P. 11120
Water Management District and use the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) for projects proposed in the Southwest Florida Water
Management District. Also identify each community with a unique
identification number which must be consistent in all exhibits. To be
provided.
S. The existing topography extending at least 100 feet off the project
area, and including adjacent wetlands and other surface waters. All
topography shall include the location and a description of known
benchmarks, referenced to NGVD. For systems waterward of the
mean high water (MHW) or seasonal high water lines, show water
depths, referenced to mean low water (MLW) in tidal areas or
seasonal low water In non -tidal areas, and list the range between
MHW and MLW. For docking facilities, indicate the distance to,
location of, and depths of the nearest navigational channel and
access routes to the channel. See Restoration and Management Plan.
C. If the project is in the known flood plain of a stream or other water
course, identify the flood plain boundary and approximate flooding
elevations; Identify the IOD -year flood elevation and floodplain
boundary of any lake, stream or other watercourse located on or
adjacent to the site; Not Applicable.
D. The boundaries of wetlands and other surface waters within the
project area. Distinguish those wetlands and other surface waters
that have been delineated by any binding jurisdictional determination;
No jurisdictional determinations have been performed. A waiver is
requested.
F. Proposed land use, land cover and natural communities (acreage and
percentages), Including wetlands and other surface waters,
undisturbed uplands, aquatic communities, impervious surfaces, and
water management areas. Use the same classification system and
community identification number used in III (B) above. Not applicable.
F. Proposed Impacts to wetlands and other surface waters, and any
proposed connections /outfalls to other surface waters or wetlands;
See Restoration and Management plan.
G. Proposed buffer zones; Not applicable.
H. Pro and post - development drainage patterns and basin boundaries
showing the direction of flows, including any off -site runoff being
routed through or around the system; and connections between
wetlands and other surface waters; Not applicable.
areua.w•rcara+.e Page 3 of 9
tiUU- U1-eUUt WE U4:16 I'M Beaches & Coastal FAX NQ, 8504885257 P, 12120
t. Location of all water management areas with details of size, side
slopes, and designed water depths; Not applicable.
J. Location and details of all water control structures, control elevations,
any seasonal water level regulation schedules; and the location and
description of benchmarks (minimum of one benchmark per
structure); See Restoration and Management Plan.
K. Location, dimensions and elevations of all proposed structures,
including docks, seawalls, utility lines, roads, and buildings; Not
applicable.
L. Location, size, and design capacity of the internal water management
facilities; Not applicable.
M. Rights -of -way and easements for the system, including all on -site and
off -site areas to be reserved for water management purposes, and
rights -of -way and easements for the existing drainage system, if any;
Not applicable.
N. Receiving waters or surface water management systems into which
runoff from the developed site will be discharged; Not applicable.
0. location and details of the erosion, sediment and turbidity control
measures to be implemented during each phase of construction and
all permanent control measures to be implemented in
post - development conditions; See Restoration and Management Plan.
P. Location, grading, design water levels, and planting details of all
mitigation areas; Not applicable.
Q. Site grading details, including perimeter site grading; Not applwcable.
R. Disposal site for any excavated material, including temporary and
permanent disposal sites; See Restoration and Management Plan.
S. Rewatering plan details; Not applicable.
T. For marina facilities, locations of any sewage pumpout facilities,
fueling facilities, boat repair and maintenance facilities, and fish
cleaning stations; Not applicable.
U. Location and description of any nearby existing offsite features which
might be affected by the proposed construction or development such
04110167 - W - UCT10NA Page 4 of 9
AUG-07 -2007 TIIE 04 :16 PM Beaches & CoasLal FAX N0, 8504885257 P. 13/20
as stormwater management ponds, buildings or other structures,
wetlands or other surface waters. Not applicable.
V. For phased projects, provide a master development plan. See
Restoration and Management Plan for the phasing of restoration
activities.
IV. Construction Schedule and Techniques
Provide a construction schedule, and a description of construction
techniques, sequencing and equipment. This information should specifically
include the following:
A. Method for installing any pilings or seawall slabs; N/A
B. Schedule of implementation of a temporary or permanent erosion and
turbidity control measures; See the Restoration and Management
Plan.
G. For projects that Involve dredging or excavation In wetlands or other
surface waters, describe the method of excavation, and the type of
material to be excavated; See the Restoration and Management Plan.
D. For projects that involve fill in wetlands or other surface waters,
describe the source and type of fill material to be used. For shoreline
stabilization projects that Involve the Installation of riprap, state how
these materials are to be placed, (i.e., individually or with heavy
equipment) and whether the rocks will be underlain with biter cloth;
See the Restoration and Management Plan.
E. If dewatering is required, detail the dewatering proposal including the
methods that are proposed to contain the discharge, methods of
isolating dewatering areas, and Indicate the period dewatering
structures will be in place (Note a consumptive use or water use
permit may by requiredj, N/A
F. Methods for transporting equipment and materials to and from the
work site. If barges are required for access, provide the low water
depths and draft of the fully loaded barge; See the Restoration and
Management Plan.
G. Demolition plan for any existing structures to be removed; N/A
04nu67- w- UCTION.t Page 5 of 9
AUG -07 -2007 TUE 04:16 PM Beaches & Coastal FAX N0, 8504885257 P, 14/20
H. Identify the schedule and party responsible for completing monitoring,
record drawings, and as -built certifications for the project when
completed. Not applicable.
V. Drainage Information
A. Provide pre - development and post- development drainage calculations,
signed and sealed by an appropriate registered professional, as
follows: Not applicable.
1. Runoff characteristics, including area, runoff curve number or
runoff coefficient, and time of concentration for each drainage
basin;
2. Water table elevations Inormal and seasonal high) including
aerial extent and magnitude of any proposed water table
drawdown;
3. Receiving water elevations (normal, wet season, design storm);
4. Design storms used including rainfall depth, duration,
frequency, and distribution;
5. Runoff hydrograph(s) for each drainage basin, for all required
design storm event(s);
6. Stage - storage computations for any area such as a reservoir,
close basin, detention area, or channel, used in storage routing;
7. Stage - discharge computations for any storage areas at a
selected control point, such as control structure or natural
restriction;
8. Flood routings through on -site conveyance and storage areas;
9. Water surface profiles in the primary drainage system for each
required design storm event(s);
10. Runoff peak rates and volumes discharged from the system for
each required design storm event(s); and
11. Tail water history and justification (time and elevation);
12. Pump specifications and operating curves for range of possible
operating conditions (if used in system).
0411147.w- SECTIONA Page 6 of 9
1+UU— Ut -2UUt TUE; 04:16 PM Beaches & Coastal FAX NO. 8504885257 P, 15120
B. Provide the results of any percolation tests, where appropriate, and
soil borings that are representative of the actual site conditions,
C. Provide the acreage, and percentages of the total project, of the
following, Not applicable.
1. impervious surfaces, excluding wetlands,
2. pervious surfaces (green areas, not including wetlands),
3. lakes, canals, retention areas, other open water areas,
4. wetlands,
D. Provide an engineering analysis of fioodpiain storage and conveyance
(if applicable), Including; Not applicable.
1. Hydraulic calculations for all proposed traversing works;
2. Backwater water surface profiles showing upstream impact of
traversing works;
3. Location and volume of encroachment within regulated
floodplain(s); and
4. Plan for compensating floodplain storage, if necessary, and
calculations required for determining minimum building and road
flood elevations.
E. Provide an analysis of the water quality treatment system including;
Not applicable.
1. A description of the proposed stormwater treatment
methodology that addresses the type of treatment, pollution
abatement volumes, and recovery analysis; and
2 Construction plans and calculations that address stage - storage
and design elevations, which demonstrate compliance with the
appropriate water quality treatment criteria.
F. Provide a description of the engineering methodology, assumptions
and references for the parameters listed above, and a copy of all such
computations, engineering plans, and specifications used to analyze
the system. if a computer program is used for the analysis, provide
W**'Y =w- aect,op.t Page 7 of 9
AUG -07 -2007 TUE 04 :16 PM Beaches & Coastal FAX ND, 8504885257 P. 16/20
the name of the program, a description of the program, input and
output data, two diskette copies, if available, and justification for
model selection.
Vl. Operation and Maintenance and Legal Documentation
A. Describe the overall maintenance and operation schedule for the
proposed system. See the Restoration and Management Plan.
B. Identify the entity that will be responsible for operating and
maintaining the system in perpetuity if different than the permittee, a
draft document enumerating the enforceable affirmative obligations on
the entity to properly operate and maintain the system for its
expected life, and documentation of the entity's financial
responsibility for long term maintenance. If the proposed operation
and maintenance entity is not a property owner's association, provide
proof of the existence of an entity, or the future acceptance of the
system by an entity which will operate and maintain the system. If a
property owner's association is the proposed operation and
maintenance entity, provide copies of the articles of incorporation for
the association and copies of the declaration, restrictive covenants,
deed restrictions, or other operational documents that assign
responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the system.
Provide information ensuring the continued adequate access to the
system for maintenance purposes. Before transfer of the system to
the operating entity wilt be approved, the permlttee must document
that the transferee will be bound by all terms and conditions of the
permit. The applicant, Pelican Bay Services Division will be the
responsible operation and maintenance entity.
C. Provide copies of all proposed conservation easements, storm water
management system easements, property owner's association
documents, and plats for the property containing the proposed
system, To be provided If determined to be necessary.
D. Provide indication of how water and waste water service will be
supplied. Letters of commitment from off -site suppliers must be
Included. Not applicable.
E. Provide a copy of the boundary survey and /or legal description and
acreage of the total land area of contiguous property
owned /controlled the applicant. To be provided if determined to be
necessary.
WSM7 • W - SECTION.E Page 8 of 9
`UU-U1-?UU`! 'CUE 04,17 PM Beaches & Coastal FAX NO, 8504885257 P. 17/20
Vil. Water Use
Not applicable.
A. Will the surface water system be used for water supply, including
landscape irrigation,or recreation.
B. If a Consumptive Use or Water Use permit has been issued for the
project, state the permit number.
C. if no Consumptive Use or Water Use permit has been issued for the
project, indicate if such a permit will be required and when the
application for a permit will be submitted.
D. Indicate how any existing wells located within the project site will be
utilized or abandoned.
anur?.w•iccrIon.a Page 9 of 9
'G -07 -22007 TUE 04;17 PM Beaches & Coastal FAX N0. 8504885257 P. 18/20
FORM C 63-343.100 (f)
FORM TIRE' JOINT IMARCNMFNTAL,
RESOURCE VERMIT APPLICATION
PATE; Coob4r3,1921
SECTION G '
Application for Authorization to use Sovereign Submerged Lands
Part 11 Sovereign Submerged Lands title information (see Attachment 5 for an
explanation). Please read and answer the applicable questions listed below:
A. 1 have a sovereign submerged lands title determination from the Division of
State Lands which indicates that the proposed project is NOT ON sovereign
submerged lands (Please attach a copy of the title determination to the
application). Yes ❑ No 0/
• If you answered Yes to Question A and you have attached a copy of the
Division of State Lands Title Determination to this application, you do not
have to answer any other questions under Part I or 11 of Section G.
B. I have a sovereign submerged lands title determination from the Division of
State Lands which indicates that the proposed project is ON sovereign
submerged lands (Please attach copy of the title determination to the
application). Yes [3 No
• If you answered yes to question B please provide the information
requested in Part 11. Your application will be deemed incomplete until the
requested information is submitted.
C. I am not sure if the proposed project is on sovereign submerged lands (please
check here). ❑
• If you have checked this box department staff will request that the
Division of State Lands conduct a title determination. If the title
determination indicates that the proposed project or portions of the
project are located on sovereign submerged lands you will be required to
submit the information requested in Part 11 of this application. The
application will be deemed incomplete until the requested information is
submitted.
D. I am not .ure if the proposed project is on sovereign submerged lands and I DO
NOT WISH to contest the Department's findings (please check here). 13
• If you have checked this box refer to Part II of this application and provide
the requested information. The application will be deemed Incomplete
until the requested information is submitted.
Page I of 5 ECo E Ell-
APR 21 1997
UiOEAL OF BEACHES)
& COASTAL SYSTEMS
nuv -u + -e VV( Wt uu:lt I'M beaches & Coastal FAX N0, 8504885257 P, 19/20
is Iron"
'FQ11M TtTt,E IOINT EMARQNME?ITAt, ` .
:,,5; RESOtl'E pEtttAR APAUCATiWd
WTE OooO�r� /3iS
For multi- family residential developments, such as condominiums,
townhomes, or subdivisions, provide the number of living units/ lots and
Indicate whether or not the common property (including the riparian upland
property) is or will be under the control of a homeowners association.
For projects sponsored by a local government, indicate whether or not the
facilities will be open to the general public. Provide a breakdown of any fees
that will be assessed, and Indicate whether or not such fees will generate
revenue or will simply cover costs associated with maintaining the facilities.
C. Provide a detailed statement describing the existing and proposed activities
located on or over the sovereign submerged lands at the project site. This
statement must include a description of docks and piers, types of vessels
(e.g., commercial fishing, liveaboards, cruise ships, tour boats), length and
draft of vessels, sewage pumpout facilities, fueling facilities, boat hoists, boat
ramps, travel lifts, railways, and any other structures or activities existing or
proposed to be located wsterward of the mean /ordinary high water line.
If slips are existing and /or proposed, please Indicate the number of powerboat
slips and sailboat slips and the percentage of those slips available to the
general public on a "first come, first served" basis. This statement must
Include a description of channels, borrow sites, bridges, groins, jetties,
pipelines or other utility crossings, and any other structures or activities
existing or proposed to be located waterward of the mean /ordinary high water
fine. For shoreline stabilization activities, this statement must include a
description of seawalls, bulkheads, riprap, filling activities, and any other
structures or activities existing or proposed to be located along the shoreline.
D. Provide the linear footage of shoreline at the mean /ordinary high water line
owned by the applicant which borders sovereign submerged lands.
E. Provide a recent aerial photo of the area. A scale of 1" r 200' is preferred.
Photos are generally available at minimal cast from your local government
property appraiser's office or form district Department of Transportation
offices. Indicate on the photo the specific location of your property/ project
site.
Page 3 of 5
nuv- vi-cuui tut uq;ll I'M beaches & Coastal
FAX K 8504885257 P, 20120
row riTO .V W,Jtrnrt oHt t ju
RE30URGR Fk7iM1�' 1►PCICA,YIpp
BILE a1!!S y a
Consents of use
Aerial Utility Crossing w /no support structures on sovereign submerged lands
Private Dock
Public Dock
Multi- family Dock
Fishing Pier (Private or Multi - family)
Private Boat Romp
Sea Wall
Dredge
Maintenance Dredge
Navigation Aids /Markers
Artificial Reef
Riprap
Public Boat Ramp
Public Fishing Pier
Repair /Replace Existing Public Fishing Pier
Repair /Replace Existing Private Dock
Repair /Replace Existing Public Dock
Repair /Replace Existing Multi - family dock
Repair /Replace Existing Fishing Pier (Private or Multi- family)
Repair /Replace Existing Private Boat Ramp
Repair /Replace Existing Sea Wall, Revetments or Bulkheads
Repair /Replace /Modify structureslactivities within an existing lease, easement,
management agreement or use agreement area or repair /replace existing
grandfathered structures
Repair /Replace Existing Public Boat (tamp
Miscellaneous
Biscayne Bay Letters of Consistency /Inconsistency w/258.397, F.S.
Management Agreements - Submerged Lands
Reclamation
Purchase of Filled, Formerly Submerged Lands
Purchase of Reclaimed Lake Bottoms
Treasure Salvage
Insect Control Structures /Swales
Miscellaneous projects which do not fall within the activity codes listed
above
Page 5 of 5 j/— 3 � -,
October 17, 2013 Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division
Submitted by Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Page 1 of 4
What conditions should trigger a dredging event?
Dredging should occur when it is determined that the hydrologic exchange between the
Gulf of Mexico and the Clam Bay system has been reduced to the point where it has been
determined that the biological integrity of both the Clam Bay estuary and the mangrove
forest are at risk of impairment. Several conditions would have to become evident in
order for a dredging operation to be considered. Further, such conditions would have to
be deemed irreversible by the dynamics of the natural hydrological processes that
influence Clam Pass. The decision of when to dredge is not a straightforward process, but
rather carefully determined by assessing several hydrologic indicators of inlet dynamics
in concert with natural hydrologic forces and biological conditions within the entire
estuary.
Among the many factors that influence inlet dynamics are: inlet current patterns driven
by tides, waves and wind; severe weather; constantly variable inlet hydrodynamics that
are influenced by tidal prism, channel and estuary morphology, slope, elevation, sediment
type(s) and geological features; freshwater inflow; gross geometric variation, flow
velocity; tidal amplitude and phase; shoaling and scouring; and many other factors.
Realistically it is not practical or financially feasible to assess all of these factors. Several
critical factors should be investigated by instituting a monitoring program at locations
throughout the Clam Bay system that have been previously used for this purpose for over
10 years. This will enable comparisons of current and future hydrologic and ecological
indicators to past conditions and provide data for trending analysis overtime. Indicators
including minimum cross - sectional area of the inlet at the "gorge" (the narrowest part of
the inlet); tidal range and high and low tidal phase lag overtime; along with bathymetry
and mangrove forest overall vitality should be used to determine whether or not dredging
is necessary.
There are two different circumstances that could necessitate dredging
1) Clam Pass completely closes due to a storm or natural event or is in eminent danger of
immediate closure following a weather driven event. This situation should be handled as
an emergency in order to prevent impoundment of water within the system. In this case
the inlet should be dredged as soon as possible.
2) The inlet has lost hydraulic efficiency that is not recoverable through natural processes
and the health of the estuary is in jeopardy. This determination is estimated primarily by
comparing current tidal hydraulic monitoring data and analysis, along with historical data
comparisons, current trends, and the present health of the mangrove forest.
Monitoring
The purpose of the monitoring program is to evaluate inlet characteristics on a
comprehensive long -term basis, with less emphasis on day to day, week to week changes,
or even month to month seasonal changes. It is not recommended that evaluations of
hydraulic indicators be based on the usage of short-term datasets as "snapshots" can yield
erroneous conclusions. A protocol of regular monitoring on a long -term basis needs to be
established. This methodology will prevent over - reacting to short term changes that could
revert or adjust themselves back to a state of dynamic equilibrium without resorting to
October 17, 2013 Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division
Submitted by Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Page 2 of 4
dredging. Many of the hydrologic parameters vary over short-term intervals and thus
long -term monitoring of these indicators is required.
The monitoring program will collect data to determine the minimum inlet cross - sectional
area, high and low tidal phase lag, tidal range and bathymetry.
a) Minimum inlet cross - sectional area: Determined on a yearly basis through
measurements collected at the critical cross - sectional areas previously identified in
Humiston and Moore Hydrologic Reports as Sections A (STA 0 +00 to STA 3 +00),
B (STA 3 +65 to STA 6 +10), and C (STA 6 +60 to STA 18 +00). If the cross -
sectional area is consistently measured at <200ft2 for at least a period of 3 -6 months
then this will trigger an evaluation of tidal phase lag and tidal range. The length of
the monitoring period is governed by weather dependent factors specific to the
current conditions (i.e. extreme spring tides, drought, floods, etc.). A cross sectional
area of less than 200ft2 was chosen to indicate that further investigation is
warranted, since it has been determined that this measurement is close to the
equilibrium cross sectional area (particularly at Sections A & B) as these areas tend
to fluctuate around the 200ft2 level.
b) Tidal Phase Lag & Tidal Ranges: Once it has been established that the minimum
cross - sectional area is <200 ft2 for a sufficient period of time and is assumed
unlikely to self correct, then the high and low tidal phase lag and tidal range will be
investigated. The magnitude of the high and low phase lag is an important indicator
of inlet dynamics. Tidal range can be used as an indicator of whether or not tidal
circulation throughout the system is being effected by inlet shoaling and whether or
not tidal flushing is adequate to prevent impoundment of water particularly in the
upper reaches of the system, which could adversely affect the mangrove forest. Tide
gauges at previously established locations (the Gulf of Mexico, registry, south and
north beach boardwalk facilities, and upper Clam Bay) will be maintained to
operate year -round enabling comparison to historical data. Data collected from
gauges will be used to determine high and low tidal phase lag and tidal ranges
within the Clam Bay system.
c) Bathymetry: Once the high and low tidal phase lag have been determined to have
increased and the tidal range has decreased to the extent that tidal flushing is in
jeopardy, and the mangrove system is likely to be adversely affected due to inlet
dynamics, then bathymetry will be performed. As in previous inlet evaluations, the
bathymetric monitoring of the inlet shoals will be evaluated in conjunction with
tidal data and phase lag in determining whether or not another dredging event
should be considered.
Data Assessment
For the purposes of evaluating hydrologic performance all historical data collected
beginning at the 1998 pre- dredge timeframe will be used for comparison to assess current
hydrologic performance. Particular emphasis will be placed on the pre 1998 dredge
conditions in evaluating the current status and trends in tidal range and high and low tidal
phase lag. What is important is whether or not the high and low phase lag and tidal range
data continues to show greater system hydraulic efficiency in comparison to 1998
conditions. If there is a very high probability that the inlet can not self - correct itself and
October 17, 2013 Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division
Submitted by Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Page 3 of 4
anthropogenic intervention is absolutely necessary to preserve the viability of the
mangrove system and estuary then dredging will be scheduled.
The attached Flowchart delineates the process that will be used to determine whether or
not a dredging event is necessary.
October 17, 2013 Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division
Submitted by Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Page 4 of 4
Sequence of Events that determine whether or not a dredging event is necessary to
alleviate Environmental Concerns in the Clam Bay NRPA.
Monitor Cross - sections, High and Low Tidal Phase Lag, & Tidal Range
Is the minimum cross -
sectional area < 200 ftz at NO
Segments A, B & C ? 1 Continue to Monitor
YES
NO
NO
Increased Tidal Phase AND Decreased Tidal
Lag ?2 Range ? 2
YES
NO Is Dredging Necessary to Prevent Ecological Damage to the Mangrove System?
Does recent Bathymetric Surveys Indicate Significant Shoaling?
Is there a High Probability that the situation can not naturally rectify itself?
YES
Dredge Template
Design Phase
YES
Authorization by
Agencies to Proceed
YES
YES
Seagrass Survey
Seagrass located within Dredging Template?
NO
Begin Dredging
' In the event that the Pass completely closes due to a storm or other natural event and is in eminent
danger of immediate closure this should be treated as an Emergency - proceed directly to Dredge
Template Design Phase to expedite the process.
'The length of the monitoring period is intuitively governed by weather dependent factors specific to
the current conditions (i.e. extreme spring tides, draught, floods, etc.). Conclusions are derived in the
context of overall long -term trends.
October 17, 2013 Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division
Submitted by Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Page 1 of 9
PRESENTATION ON DREDGING TRIGGERS
When to Dredge?
Dredging should occur only when the hydrologic
exchange between the Gulf and the Clam Bay estuary
has been reduced to the point where the biological
integrity of the entire system (water and forest
resources) are at risk.
Several conditions SHOULD become evident in order for a dredging
operation to be considered. Further, such conditions would have to be
deemed uncorrectable by the dynamics of the natural hydrological
processes that influence Clam Pass. The decision of when to dredge is
not a straightforward process, but rather carefully determined by
assessing several hydrologic indicators of inlet dynamics in concert with
natural hydrologic forces in conjunction with overall estuarine health.
October 17, 2013 Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division
Submitted by Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Page 2 of 9
Inlet Dynamics are influenced by a variety of factors such as:
Inlet Current patterns driven by tides, waves, wind, severe
weather, etc.
Constantly variable inlet hydrodynamics are influenced by tidal
prism, channel and estuary morphology, slope, elevation,
sediment type(s) and geological features, fresh water inflow, gross
geometric variation, flow velocity, tidal phase and amplitude and
phase, shoaling and scouring, etc.....
THERE ARE TONS OF FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE INLET
DYNAMICS AND THEY CONTINUALLY CHANGE OVER TIME.
The hydrologic efficiency could be fine at the pass but not up north — do
we dredge? Maybe there is a blockage in one of the tributaries from a
storm and dredging wouldn't help — you have to look at the whole
system in order to make the most informed decision of when to dredge
Realistically it is not practical or financially feasible to assess all of these
factors. SO WHAT DO WE DO.....
October 17, 2013 Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division
Submitted by Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Page 3 of 9
Circumstances that could necessitate dredging:
1)Pass completely closes due to a storm or other natural event
2)lnlet has lost hydraulic efficiencythat is not recoverable
through natural processes
lam P
200
Clam Pass
2009 F
There are two different circumstances that could necessitate dredging.
1) Clam Pass completely closes due to a storm or natural event or is in
eminent danger of immediate closure following a weather driven event.
2) The inlet has lost hydraulic efficiency that is not recoverable through
natural processes. This determination is estimated primarily by
comparing current tidal hydraulic monitoring data and analysis, along
with historical data comparisons, current trends, and the present health
of the mangrove forest and other estuarine flora and fauna.
October 17, 2013 Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division
Submitted by Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Page 4 of 9
Tide Gauges, Mangrove,
Seagrass and other Monitoring Plan
TO DO THIS YOU NEED A MONITORING PROGRAM
The purpose of the monitoring program is to evaluate inlet and
biological indicators on a comprehensive long term basis, with less
emphasis on day to day, week to week changes, or even month to month
seasonal changes. It is not recommended that evaluations of hydraulic
indicators be based on the usage of short -term datasets as "snapshots"
can yield erroneous conclusions. This methodology will prevent over-
reacting to short term changes that could revert or adjust themselves
back to a state of dynamic equilibrium without resorting to dredging.
The same could be said of biological indicators a storm could naturally
decimate a forest — but it could recover on its own.
October 17, 2013 Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division
Submitted by Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Page 5 of 9
S equence of Events that determine whether or rat a dredgirg event is necessary to alleviate Environmental
Concerns in the Clam Bay NRPA
Is the minimum
Dross - sectional area NO
< 200 fta at Istw Mangrove Pos of Continue to
Cominueto showinglndiaronsof
SegmentsAB &C? Monitor St mss and /or
Deterioration?
AND N
Increased Tidal Decreased 0
Phase Lag ?Z �. Tidal Range 7 2
YES
Does ream Bathymetric S urveys Indicate Sigrificant
S hoaling?
AND
Is there a High Probability that the situation can rat
YES
Dredge IsDredgingthefts AND
Template the Best Cho ice Do the Benefits of Dredging the Pass
Design Phase rrs Outweigh the Detriments from an
FnvironmetI ally and 9
*YES Hydmbgically? Ecological Standpoint when considering
arrow ane Combu< - — — -
aomy a,d Pur-
YES
5 eagrass S urvey
Seagrass located within NO Begin
Dredgirg Template ?' 111�J
THIS IS A DECISION TREE DIAGRAM THAT ILLUSTRATES
CONDITIONS THAT COULD NECESSITATE DREDGING (See
handout to read).
ONE THING THAT STANDS OUT IS THERE IS NO CUT AND DRY
DECISION FORTHCOMING
Pursue
YES
Alternate
Strategies if
Deterrri ne if the S igns of
Stress and /or Deterioration
within the Forest is due to
NO
Water Impoundment and /or
Da ermine ift he
Lack of Tidal Flushirg3
Waerlmpoundmert
and /o r lack of Tidal
Flu shingwou Id be
YES
Impaved by
Dredging Clam Paso.
Is Dredging Necessary to Prerent NO
Ecological Damage to the M
anrgrove
System
Dredge IsDredgingthefts AND
Template the Best Cho ice Do the Benefits of Dredging the Pass
Design Phase rrs Outweigh the Detriments from an
FnvironmetI ally and 9
*YES Hydmbgically? Ecological Standpoint when considering
arrow ane Combu< - — — -
aomy a,d Pur-
YES
5 eagrass S urvey
Seagrass located within NO Begin
Dredgirg Template ?' 111�J
THIS IS A DECISION TREE DIAGRAM THAT ILLUSTRATES
CONDITIONS THAT COULD NECESSITATE DREDGING (See
handout to read).
ONE THING THAT STANDS OUT IS THERE IS NO CUT AND DRY
DECISION FORTHCOMING
October 17, 2013 Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division
Submitted by Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Page 6 of 9
Proposed Dredging Template
From a hydrologic standpoint - A monitoring program will collect data
to determine the minimum inlet cross - sectional area, high and low tidal
phase lag, tidal range and bathymetry.
a) Minimum inlet cross - sectional area: Determined on a yearly basis
through measurements collected at the critical cross - sectional areas
previously identified in Humiston and Moore Hydrologic Reports
in Sections A (STA 0 +00 to STA 3 +00), B (STA 3 +65 to STA 6 +10),
and C (STA 6 +60 to STA 18 +00).
b) If the cross - sectional area is consistently measured at <200ft2 for at
least a period of 3 -6 months then this SHOULD trigger FURTHER
EVALUATION
The length of the monitoring period is governed by weather dependent
factors specific to the current conditions (i.e. extreme spring tides,
drought, floods, etc.). A cross sectional area of less than 200ft2 was
chosen to indicate that further investigation is warranted, since it has
been determined that this measurement is close to the equilibrium
cross sectional area (particularly at Sections A & B). Minimum cross -
sectional area of the inlet at the "gorge" (the narrowest part of the
inlet). SECTION B APPEARS TO BE THE LYNCHPIN HERE
ur
1.N
1-0
tea
� tai
w
0
Q nr
as
AA
October 17, 2013 Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division
Submitted by Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Page 7 of 9
1999 O04"* CLAM BAY TIDAL RANGES
YEAR
HIGH TIDE PHASE LAG
Tidal Phase Lag & Tidal Ranges: Once it has been established that the
minimum cross - sectional area is <200 ft2 for a sufficient period of time
and is assumed unlikely to self correct, then the high and low tidal phase
lag and tidal range SHOULD be investigated. The magnitude of the
high and low phase lag is an important indicator of inlet dynamics.
Tidal range can be used as an indicator of whether or not tidal
circulation throughout the system is being effected by inlet shoaling and
whether or not tidal flushing is adequate to prevent impoundment of
water particularly in the upper reaches of the system, which could
October 17, 2013 Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division
Submitted by Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Page 8 of 9
adversely affect the mangrove forest. Again any decrease in tidal range
or increase in phase lag could be due to blockages within the tributaries
and not the pass — but this triggers an investigation. Tide gauges at
previously established locations (the Gulf of Mexico, registry, south and
north beach boardwalk facilities, and upper Clam Bay) SHOULD be
maintained to enable comparison to historical data.
Data Assessment
Particular emphasis should be placed on the pre 1998 dredge conditions
in evaluating the current status and trends in tidal range and high and
low tidal phase lag. What is important is whether or not the high and
low phase lag and tidal range data continues to show greater system
hydraulic efficiency in comparison to 1998 conditions. If there is a very
high probability that the inlet can not self - correct itself and
anthropogenic intervention is absolutely necessary to preserve the
viability of the mangrove system and estuary then dredging SHOULD
be scheduled.
Then these questions need to be answered:
Is Dredging Necessary to Prevent Ecological Damage to the Mangrove
System?
Does recent Bathymetric Surveys Indicate Significant Shoaling?
Is there a High Probability that the situation can not naturally rectify
itself?
What are the detriments of dredging versus the benefits.
October 17, 2013 Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division
Submitted by Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Page 9 of 9
THERE IS NO CUT AND DRIED DECISION OF WHEN TO
DREDGE
THE DECISION SHOULD BE BASED UPON THE BEST
SCIENTIFIC HYDROLOGIC AND ECOLOGIC DATA AVAILABLE
AND BY WEIGHING THE BENEFITS OF DREDGING VS THE
DETRIMENTS OF DREDGING IN RELATION TO THE
ENVIRONMENT
The system needs to be looked at holistically in order to make the best
informed decision of whether or not to dredge.
October 17, 2013 Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division
Submitted by Kathy Worley, Director Environmental Science, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Page 1 of 1
Sequence of Events that determine whether or not a dredging event is necessary to alleviate Environmental
Concerns in the Clam
Bay NRPA.
um
l area NO
t
Is the Mangrove Forest Continue to
g
Continue to
showing Indications of Monit
& C Monitor
Stress and /or
YES
Deterioration?
Pursue
OAB
Alternate
YE
D N
Strategies if
d Tidal Decreased O
Determine if the Signs of
Lag ?2 Tidal Range? 2
Stress and /or Deterioration
NO
within the Forest is due to
Water Impoundment and /or Determine if the
Lack of Tidal Flushings Water Impoundment
and /or lack of Tidal
YES
Flushing would be
YES Improved by
Does recent Bathymetric Surveys Indicate Significant
Dredging Clam Pass4.
Shoaling?
AND
Is there a High Probability that the situation can not
YES
Is Dredging Necessary to Prevent NO
Ecological Damage to the Mangrove
Dredge Is Dredging the
System?
AND
Template Pass the Best
Do the Benefits of Dredging the Pass
Design Phase Es Choice Both
Environmentally
Outweigh the Detriments from an
g
YES and Hydrologically?
Ecological Standpoint when considering
(If No to Either Continue
Monitoring and Pursue
Alternate Strategies)
Authorization
by Agencies to
Proceed YES
YES Seagrass
Survey
NO Begin
Seagrass located within
Dredging Template?
DIAGNOSTIC /FEASIBILITY
7 STUDY
-D ER
F,)
for
Collier County Florida
DIAGNOSTIC /FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR
MOORINGS BAY
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
January 1981
t io
s~�
Prepared by the
Water Resources Restoration and Preservation Section
Department of Environmental Regulation
Tallahassee, Florida
PIiCF C
Southwest
Regional Plaza: -:j C'CIZ4cil-
..N%
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ... ............................... 39
V. RECOMMENDATIONS .............. 0..............0.....0...0..... 47
A. Recommended Alternatives . ..........................:.0.0 47
B. Alternatives Considered But Not Recommended ............. 53
REFERENCES ................... ............................... 58
APPENDIX..................... ............................... 60
i
Page
LISTOF FIGURES .............. ..........................0000.
I. IN'T'RODUCTION .................... 00..........................
1
A. Description of Study Area ...............................
1
B. Rainfall ........ ...............•............... 0.........
4
C. Runoff ................... ...............................
D. Groundwater .............. ...............................
5
6
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS ........ ...............................
7
A. Hydrography .............. ...............................
B. Water Quality ................... 6.......................
7
7
III. RESULTS ......................... 0...........................
9
A. Hydrography .............. ...............................
9
1. Tidal Stage .......... ...............................
2. Tidal Circulation Patterns and Discharge ............
9
10
3. Dispersion and Flushing ..................0..........
11
B. Water Quality ............ ...............................
16
1. Salinity and Temperature ............................
2. Dissolved Oxygen ..... ...............................
3. Nutrients ............ ...............................
4. Total Organic Carbon . .....................0.........
5. Bacteriology ......... ...............................
6. Metals ............... ...............................
17
20
25
32
35
37
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ... ............................... 39
V. RECOMMENDATIONS .............. 0..............0.....0...0..... 47
A. Recommended Alternatives . ..........................:.0.0 47
B. Alternatives Considered But Not Recommended ............. 53
REFERENCES ................... ............................... 58
APPENDIX..................... ............................... 60
i
List of Figures
Page
1. The study area, located within Collier County, Florida,
showing positions of sampling stations. Overlay depicts
predevelopment condition of study area. (Taken from
USGS Naples North quadrangles for 1958 and 1972.) ............
2. Average daily rainfall, by month, for Naples, Florida.
(Data for the months of December 1976 through November
1977 were taken from Simpson et al. 1979. Data for the
remaining months were provided by the Caribbean Gardens
in Naples, Florida) ........... ..............0...........00.0.
3. Monthly levels of salinity and temperature for Moorings
Bay. Each point represents the average of samples col-
lected at stations 1 through 4 ............................... 19
4. Typical salinity profiles for Moorings Bay during wet and
dry seasons. Also illustrated is a salinity profile for
station 1 showing the stratification which is evident
after a prolonged period of rainfall ............ 0............. 19
5. Monthly levels of dissolved oxygen of surface and bottom
samples from Moorings Bay, Outer Clam Bay and the Gulf.
Dissolved oxygen levels below the solid horizontal line
do not meet minimum state standards ........................... 21
6. Seasonal levels of nitrate (A) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(B) for Moorings Bay. Each point representa' the average
of surface and bottom samples for that month at stations
1 through 3 from December 1976 to September 1980.... 0 ......... 26
7. Monthly levels of nitrate (A) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(B) for Moorings Bay. Samples were collected at the sur-
face and bottom of the water column at stations 1, 2 and 3.... 28
8. Seasonal levels of orthophosphate (A) and total phosphate
(B) for Moorings Bay. Each point represents the average
of surface and bottom samples for that month at stations
1 through 3 from December 1976 to September 1980 .............. 29
9. Monthly levels of orthophosphate (A) and total phosphate
(B) for Moorings Bay. Samples were collected at the
surface and bottom of the water column at stations 1, 2
and 3 ......................... .........0..................... 30
10. Seasonal levels of total organic carbon for Moorings Bay.
Each point represents the average of surface and bottom
samples for that month at stations 1 through 3 from
December 1976 to September 1980 ............................... 33
ii
i
r�
List of Figures (Coat.)
11. Monthly levels of total organic carbon for Moorings Bay. Page
Samples were collected at the surface and bottom of the
water column at Stations 1, 2 and 3 .......................... 34
12. Monthly levels of total coliform and fecal coliform at
stations 1 through 6. Total coliform levels above the
solid horizontal line (70 counts /100 ml) and fecal coli-
form levels above the broken horizontal line (14 counts/
100 ml) do not most state standards .......................... 36
13. Levels of copper, lead and zinc at stations 1, 3 and 5
Samples were collected at the bottom of the water
column during the months of December and June from
1976 through 1980 ............ ............................... 38
Iii
f'
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
A. Description of Study Area
The study area is located on the west coast of Florida in northern
Collier County and includes the body of water bounded by Clam Pass to
the north and Doctors Pass to the south (Fig. 1). During the 1960's
Collier County was the fastest growing county in the United States (EPA
1974). The population growth continued through the 1970's and is expected
to continue, undiminished in the near future.
Prior to 1959, Moorings Bay, also known as Venetian Bay and Inner
Doctor's Bay, and Outer Clam Bay were shallow, open water areas fringed
by dense mangrove swamps and connected by narrow tidal creeks (Fig. 1
overlay). The system exchanged water with the Gulf of Mexico directly
through Doctors Pass and indirectly through Clam Pass. In 1959 a request
was made to the Trustees for the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF)
for the state to relinquish title to its sovereign lands in this area.
The request was granted. Following this action considerable alteration
of Moorings Bay took place, including destruction of the mangrove fringe,
dredging of the shallow bay to an elevation of approximately 12 feet
%- below mean sea level (EPA 1975b), construction of vertical concrete
seawalls, or "bulkheads ", along the perimeter of the bay, and filling of
the lowlands behind the bulkheads to create land of higher elevation for
development purposes. Sometime between the years of 1952 and 1958
Collier County constructed Seagate Road, at which time fill was placed
between Outer Clam Bay and Moorings Bay to support the causeway. This
` action resulted in two dead -end bay systems. in 1969, alteration of
-1-
CLAM F
` 3
j
/OUTER \ '
M�, SEAGATE ROAD
0
.1
/ C
DOCTORS ►��� . ' ...
O WATER ovALITY MONITORING STATIONS
16 RECORDER STATIONS
❑ STAFF GAGE STATIONS
I E Fla. 1. The study area, located within
Collier County, Florida, showing po-
sitions of sampling stations. Overlay
depicts predevelopment condition of
study area - shaded portions represent
former mangrove swamps. Open water in
Fig. 1 which overlaps or is to the
right of the mangroves was artificially
created. (Taken from USGS Naples North
quadrangles for 1958 and 1972.)
V1. I
C
m
X
A
-
0
DOCTORS ►��� . ' ...
O WATER ovALITY MONITORING STATIONS
16 RECORDER STATIONS
❑ STAFF GAGE STATIONS
I E Fla. 1. The study area, located within
Collier County, Florida, showing po-
sitions of sampling stations. Overlay
depicts predevelopment condition of
study area - shaded portions represent
former mangrove swamps. Open water in
Fig. 1 which overlaps or is to the
right of the mangroves was artificially
created. (Taken from USGS Naples North
quadrangles for 1958 and 1972.)
V1. I
CLAN
w.
OUTE
e•
i
SIAGATIL 804D
,r t,
+
STUDY•4R&•A i'
OV
Kt: .• ...
l
., .•
Qsfti!Eq.0 I TOM INO STATIONS
_
'
IIi17011DEr
X
_
.,
Q TAP► OAA��ONS
O
.. �• •
• is
fig. 1. The study area, located within
Collier County, Florida, showing po-
sitions of sampling tations. Overlay
;depicts pre 10 condition of
.. _ .
study area - shaded ortigna represent:'
former man &*%%* s a d} Open water in
Fig. 1 which overlaps or is to the
'
right of the mangroves was artificially
DOCTOIIS ►..
.,
created. (Taken from USGS Naples North
quadrangles for 1958 and 1972.)
Moorings Bay continued when the TIITP issued a permit for construction
of the initial over -the -water structures for the Parkshore development
project. By 1976, the decline in the water quality of Moorings Bay had
become evident and Outer Clam Bay and Moorings Bay were reconnected at
the request of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The connec-
tion was made by placing three 24 -inch diameter culvert pipes under
Seagate Road.
Presently Moorings Bay consists of a narrow main channel, extending
north from Doctors Pass to Seagate Road, with numerous short, broad
canals of varying shapes along its eastern bank. Bridge crossings at
Harbour Drive and Parkshore Drive were constructed with narrow under-
passes which have effectively reduced Moorings Bay to an artificial
complex of three interconnected segments. The filled shoreline supports
mainly residential development; single - family homes to the east and
condominiums to the west. Development of the shoreline is nearly cosy
plate, with only the northwestern shore still undergoing significant
development.
Under present conditions, direct exchange of bay and Gulf waters
takes place at Doctors Pass. Limited tidal exchange between Outer Clam
Bay and Moorings Bay occurs through the culverts under Seagate Road.
Outer Clam Bay, unlike the adjoining waters to the south, is undeveloped
and has a mean depth of one foot below mean sea level (EPA 1975b).
Freshwater input to the bays comes from precipitation, surface runoff,
and groundwater infiltration. The residential developments surrounding
Moorings Bay are served by separate sanitary and stormwater sewer systems.
Although sanitary sewage is diverted to the Naples sanitary treatment
-3-
i
3
s
plant, the stormwater sewer system empties directly into Moorings Bay
through numerous outfalls which line the seawalls.
B. Rainfall
Collier County receives substantial quantities of rainfall annually.
Although the quantity of rainfall is highly variable throughout the year,
historical records clearly delineate a summer wet season from May through
October and a winter dry season for the remaining six months (Fig, 2).
� 1 I I • I
I I I I
I I 1 I
I I I
I
1 ' I
rI
1 I
1
I I r V r I
J M s M s 1 M a
1977 _ 1975 1979 1980
TIME W*ntbs)
P19.2. Average daily rainfall, by month, for Naples, Florida. (Data for the
months of December 1976 through November 1977 were taken•from Simpson et al.
1979. Data for the remaining months were provided by the Caribbean Gardens
in Naples, Florida).
-4-
The average annual rainfall, based on 30 years of records for Naples,
Florida, is approximately 52.5 inches. More than 41 inches, or 80
percent of the rainfall, occurs during the rainy season (Simpson at al.
1979). Much of the summer rainfall occurs in the form of thunderstorms,
and is typically of high intensity and short duration. However, pro-
longed periods of rainfall sometimes result from continued inland air
flow from the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricanes and less severe tropical
storms are at times major sources of precipitation, especially in late
summer. During the winter and early spring the weather is generally
clear. The sporadic passage of frontal systems during the winter result
In widespread, light to moderate rains lasting up to two or three days
(EPA 1973).
C. Runoff
Under predevelopment conditions, much of the area's rainfall was
held on the surface of the land in sloughs and other low areas. This
water would then slowly filter through the soil to recharge the shallow
aquifer or through the mangrove swamps to the bay. Less than ten inches
of the approximately 53 -inch average annual rainfall is estimated to
have been lost from the uplands east of the bay as surface runoff (Black,
Crow, and Eidaness 1975). The storage capabilities of the land thus
moderated surface outflows, preventing the occurrence of extremely high
flow rates during the rainy season and serving to maintain surface flow
and groundwater flow into the bay during the dry season. Present conditions
of land development have severly modified the watershed's natural hydro-
logic response to rainfall through alteration of two of the basin's
hydrologic characteristics.
-5-
D. Groundwater
The region of Collier County directly east of the Moorings /Clam Bay
system is underlain by the shallow aquifer of southwest Florida (Black,
Crow, and Eidsness 1975). This aquifer is recharged.by rainfall infiltra-
tion. and is thus affected by modifications to surface drainage patterns.
Historically, groundwater influx into the coastal zone represented a
significant input of freshwater to the bay system.
-6-
SECTION II
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. Hydroaraphy
Tidal stages within the bay were measured with continuous water -
level recorders placed at four locations (Fig. 1). Periodic comparisons
of tidal stages in Outer Clam Bay and Moorings Bay were made using staff
gages placed on either side of the Seagate Road causeway. Circulation
patterns in the bay were investigated using aerial photography to trace
the movement of flourescent dye. Movement of the dye cloud provided
Information on current velocities in different parts of the bay. Tidal
current velocity was also measured using a current meter and a submerged
"float stick ". The current velocities were combined with bathymetric
measurements to compute tidal discharge values. Dispersion and flushing
were estimated by using appropriate equations. All of the hydrographic
data were collected during March 1980.
B. Water Quality
Water quality data were obtained from an on -going monitoring program.
The monitoring was required by the Department of Environmental Regulation
as a condition of the issuance of a permit on November 1, 1976 for the
construction of residential and commercial structures. Water quality
monitoring is typically associated with the issuance of these types of
permits to determine if any changes in water quality occur during and
following the permitted activity. Water quality sampling began in
December 1976, and is being conducted on a monthly basis for most para-
meters. Forty -six months of data, through September 1980, have been
-7-
reviewed and are presented in this report. Time of collection usually
varied from late morning to early afternoon. No attempt was made to
correlate sampling time with a specific tidal stage.
Sampling was conducted at four stations within Moorings Bay, one
station in the Gulf of Mexico and one in Outer Clam Bay (Fig. 1). The
latter two stations serve as a basis for comparing water quality in
areas where little man- induced disturbance has occurred to water quality
in an area that has been extensively developed and where construction is
still underway. Salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen (D.O.) were
measured in situ at all six stations, at 0.5 meter increments, from 0.15
meters below the surface to the bottom. Grab samples were collected
from 0.25 meters below the surface and from just above the bottom at
Stations 1, 2, and 3 for the determination of nitrite, nitrate, total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphate, ortho - phosphate, and total
organic carbon (TOC). Water samples for coliform bacteria counts were
collected at 0.25 meters below the surface at all stations. Samples for
the determination of metals (i.e.. lead, copper and zinc) in the surface
sediments and in the water (0.25 meters above the bottom) were collected
at all stations except 4 and 6. The analyses for nutrients, TOC, coli-
form bacteria, and metals were performed by a private laboratory. The
methods for collection, handling, storage, and analysis of samples are
those outlined in "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater ", 14th Edition.
-8-
SECTION III
RESULTS
A. Hydrography
The prime factor effecting the exchange of water in a bay is the
tide. Water currents in Moorings Bay are almost entirely generated by
tides, since inflow of freshwater is negligible in comparison to tidal
flow. Tides in this region are semi - diurnal, mixed tides with tidal
ranges which vary considerably from one tidal cycle to the next. The
average tidal range at the mouth of Doctors Pass is approximately 2.5
feet (Missimer and Associates 1980).
I. Tidal Stage
Stages at slack tides are esentially equivalent throughout, the bay.
However, stage inequities exist during both ebb and flood flows. Flood
tide stages are highest at Doctors Pass and immediately north of Parkshore
Drive. The northern extremity of the bay maintains the lowest stages.
The region immediately north of Harbour Drive displays intermediate
stages. The stage differences in the bay are best explained by postula-
ting the existence of a reflected wave from the Seagate Road causeway which
interacts with the incoming tidal pulse from Doctors Pass. Both ebb and
flood tides are out of phase approximately 10-20 minutes (Missimer and
Associates 1980). The phase difference is partially accountable to
frictional drag imposed on the moving water by the bottom of the bay and
restrictions to water movement at the two bridge underpasses. Consider-
able stage and phase differences exist between Moorings Bay and Outer
Clam Bay (EPA 1975, EPA 1977, Missimer and Associates 1980). These
-9-
stage and phase inequities provide the basis for exchange of water
through the culverts connecting the two bays.
2. Tidal Circulation Patterns and Discharge
Tidal circulation in Moorings Bay during flood tide takes place
primarily along the central channel with only limited movement of water
perpendicular to the main axis of the bay (Missimer and Associates 1980).
The same pattern of circulation is expected to occur during ebb tide.
Movement of water into the canals north of Harbour Drive is minimal.
Flow defractions and eddies are created by protruding seawalls and, in
conjunction with the dead -end canals, are responsible for the slow
movement of water into the canals.
The width of the main channel in Moorings Bay is the.principal
influence of tide - induced current velocity (Missimer and Associates 1980).
Water flows through the constricted underpass at Harbour Drive bridge at
two to four times the velocity of currents in the broader southern
segments of the bay, and at six times the rate of water movement into
the mouth of the most southerly canal. Current velocity decreases in
the northern reaches of the bay.
Tidal discharge in the bay varies greatly throughout the tidal
cycle (Missimet and Associates 1980). Discharge values at Doctors Pass
and at the underpass of the Harbour Drive bridge are generally similar.
Maximum discharge during flood tide is 1330 cubic feet per second (cfs)
at Doctors Pass and 1150 cfs at Harbour Drive. Maximum discharge during
ebb tide is 1170 cfs at Doctors Pass and 1160 cfs at Harbour Drive. The
discharge averages about 850 cfs throughout a tide event at both of
these locations. Discharge values at the underpass of the Parkshore
-10-
Drive bridge are substantially lower than those at the former two loca-
tions. Maximum values are 750 cfs during flood tide and 230 cfs during
ebb tide, with an average discharge of approximately 500 cfs. The low
rate of discharge at this location correlates with the stage inequities
within the bay, and indicates storage of water between the Harbour Drive
and Parkshore Drive ridges (Missimer and Associates 1980). Discharge
through the culverts beneath Seagate Road is relatively slight, reaching
only 32 cfs on the flood tide and 40 cfs on the ebb tide. Northerly
flow averages 15 to 20 cfs and southerly flow averages 25 to 30 cfs.
The rate of discharge will fluctuate greatly throughout the year since
the magnitude of discharge is related to the tidal range, and the tidal
range of semi - diurnal, mixed tides varies considerably both seasonally
and daily.
3. Dispersion and Flushing
Dispersion is the mechanism by which dissolved and suspended particles
(e.g., nutrients, salts, and pollutants) are distributed throughout a
water body. Dispersion can be quantified by the longitudinal dispersion
coefficient; larger coefficients represent greater distributional chara-
cteristics. Ideally, the longitudinal dispersion coefficient is deter-
mined from time /history concentration curves obtained from field measure-
ments of dye clouds. However, the available data for this system are
insufficient to accurately determine changes in the dye cloud concentra-
tion, so the dispersion coefficient must be estimated. An acceptable
equation for estimating the value of the longitudinal dispersion coefficient
is:
D - 7 7 • . (R- 6) • 2 • Umax • R
Tr
-11-
where,
D - longitudinal dispersion coefficient
n - Manning's friction coefficient
R - hydraulic radius
Umax - maximum current velocity
All three parameters (n,R, Umax) used to estimate the dispersion
coefficient vary with location in Moorings Bay. In the area of the bay
immediately north of the pass, the maximum velocity of the tidal current
is approximately 0.7 feet /second (Missimer and Associates 1980). An
appropriate value for n is 0.02 (Chow 1974, Simpson et al. 1979, EPA
1975b). If the average hydraulic radius is assumed to be 12 feet (average
bay depth at mean sea level), the value of the corresponding dispersion
coefficient is 5.4 square feet /second. Umax decreases at locations in
the bay further to the north. North of the Parkshore Drive bridge,
maximum velocity probably decreases to 0.3 feet /second or less. The
corresponding dispersion coefficient would be 2.3 square feet /second if
all other factors are assumed to remain the same. These longitudinal
dispersion coefficients are far smaller than those reported for natural
estuaries, and more closely resemble values for deep, narrow finger
canals (EPA 1975a). Since dispersion coefficients usually decrease
toward the head of a bay due to decreased areal extent (EPA 1975x), the
coefficient near Seagate Road is likely to be very low. Using the same
rationale, the first canal north of Harbour Drive, with an entrance
velocity of 0.2 feet /second (Missimer and Associates 1980), would have a
dispersion coefficient of 1.6 square feet /second. The dispersion coef-
ficient would be even smaller nearer the canal's "dead -end" due to
-12-
decreased current flow. Dispersion coefficients of canals nearer the
head of the bay would be extremely small, since flow rates would presum-
ably be even less than in more southerly canals.
The flushing time of a bay is the time required to renew its waters
with water from outside the bay. The flushing time represents the rate
at which dissolved or suspended constituents are removed from the bay.
In Moorings Bay, which has negligible freshwater inflow, flushing is
effected primarily by tidal exchange with the Gulf of Mexico. The tidal
prism calculation is a technique commonly used to estimate flushing
time based on the ratio of a bay's low water volume to high water
volume (Ippen 1966). High water volume is equal to low water volume
plus the volume of water exchanged during a tidal cycle (tidal prism).
A simplified form of the tidal prism equation is given by:
C VL n
where, Co (VL+ap)
C - final concentration of a constituent
CO • initial concentration of a constituent
VL - volume of tidal body of water at mean low water
P - tidal prism
a - mixing coefficient
n .. number of tidal cycles
If the desired determination is the time required to reduce the
concentration of a constituent to 10 percent of its initial value, then
the C /Co ratio is 0.1. The mean low water (MLW) volume of Moorings Bay
is approximately 9.14 x 107 cubic feet if an average depth (MM) of
10.75 feet is assumed. With an average tidal range of 2.5 feet, the
-13-
tidal prism averages 2.11 x 107 cubic feet. However, the average tidal
range of 2.5 feet was derived from recordings over a period of only a
few days during March 1980 (Missimer and Associates 1980). Since tidal
range varies both daily and seasonally, the estimate of 2.5 feet may be
inaccurate. Tidal range at the mouth of Naples Bay, averaged over a
period of years, is 2.1 feet (Simpson et al. 1979). This may represent
a more accurate value for the average tidal range of Moorings Bay. If
the average tidal range is 2.1 feet, the tidal prism would be 1.77 x 107
cubic feet. The mixing coefficient of restricted tidal bays ranges from
0.2 to 0.8 (Ippen 1966). The waters of Moorings Bay usually exist in a
state of advanced diffusion due to the limited input of freshwater which
suggests a mixing coefficient in the range of 0.6 to 0.8 (Missimer and
Associates 1980).
Flushing times for finger canals have been found to be functionally
related to both the depth and length of these highly restricted bodies
of water (EPA 1975a, Simpson et al. 1980). Depth is the dominant
factor affecting tidal flushing in the lower reaches of Moorings Bay,
since this parameter influences the volume of the bay (see Section V).
In the upper reach of the bay and in the canals, length also becomes
important because of its relation to tidal excursion.
The slow rate of flushing of the bay, as determined using the tidal
prism equation, is substantiated by the movements of a dye cloud reported
in the circulation study of Missimer and Associates (1980). The dye
cloud was initially released at Doctors Pass during flood tide, but
failed to return to the pass during ebb tides. The observation period
encompassed four tidal cycles. This is indicative of slow flushing of
-14-
the bay as a whole. The movement of the cloud in and out of the bay
north of Parkshore Drive supports the foregoing predictions of extremely
slow flushing in this portion of the bay and indicates that tidal excur-
sion length does not extend to this point. The dye cloud did not reach
the northern extremity of the bay during the period of observation. In
a dye study conducted in 1977, most of the dye injected near the culverts
remained in the vicinity of Seagate Road over a period of 52 hours,
illustrating the limited flushing potential of this area (EPA 1977).
In the dye cloud study conducted by Missimer and Associates (1980), dye
was detected in all of the canals sampled between Doctors Pass and
Parkshore Drive. In some cases, the dye was present in greater concentra-
tions in the canals than in the adjacent main channel, indicating limited
mixing and flushing of the canals.
If the tidal range is assumed to be 2.5 feet and the mixing co-
efficient is 0.6, 18 tidal cycles would achieve a 90 percent dilution.
If the coefficient is 0.8, 13 cycles would achieve the same result. If
the tidal range is 2.1 feet, 21 cycles and 16 cycles would be needed to
achieve 90 percent dilution, using mixing coefficients of 0.6 and 0.8,
respectively. These values would apply only to the main axis of the bay
south of Parkshore Drive.
The tidal prism calculation is applicable only to the degree that
water in the area under consideration is free to mix with itself and
with water which enters from the parent body of water. This is governed
largely by the maximum extent of penetration of coastal water into the
bay at high tide (tidal excursion length). Judging from the movements
of a dye cloud photographed by Hissimer and Associates during their
-15-
study (1980), the tidal excursion length of Gulf water does not reach as
far as the Parkshore Drive Bridge. Therefore, water which enters the
region above the bridge on a rising tide is water which was present in
the lower reaches of the bay during the preceeding slack low tide. As a
consequence, there is a tendency for some of the water which leaves the
northernmost segment of the bay during ebb tide to return to this segment
of the bay during flood tide. In addition, water north and south of the
bridge is not free to intermix because of the constricted underpass at
the Parkehore Drive bridge. These two factors would result in a much
longer effective flushing time in the northern reach of the bay. The
same interpretation may be extended to flushing of the canals. However,
computed flushing times for Moorings Bay may be taken as a rough estimate
of actual flushing tines, and provide a means of comparison to similarly
computed flushing tines of other tidal bodies of water. Such comparison
reveals the similarity of the bay's flushing time to flushing times deter-
mined by EPA for finger canals in Florida (1975a).
B. Water Quality
Moorings Bay has been designated as Class II Waters, suitable for
shellfish propagation and harvesting. The state classification system
and corresponding water quality standards are described in Chapter 17 -3,
Florida Administrative Code. The Class II designation recognizes the
importance of water quality for the well -being of aquatic life, and the
standards set forth are designed to maintain the minimum conditions
deemed necessary to assure the suitability of the waters for their
designated use.
Water quality data were gathered for various physical, chemical,
and biological factors. These data provide a basis for comparision to
-16-
water quality standards and to the water quality of similar systems.
Factors of interest were salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen,
nutrients, total organic carbon, coliform bacteria and metals. The
physical and chemical characteristics of a bay largely determine the
composition of its biotic community. Aquatic life, in turn, partially
regulates certain chemical aspects of the water it inhabits.
1. Salinity and Temperature
Salinity and temperature are important factors from the standpoint
of their direct effects on aquatic organisms and the influence they
exert on chemical aspects of water quality. Aquatic organisms are
capable of tolerating only certain ranges of salinity and temperature.
However, some organisms spend a portion of their life cycle under one
salinity and temperature regime and another portion of their life cycle
under a different salinity and temperature regime. Organisms which
inhabit coastal waters are generally capable of adapting to a broader
range of salinity and temperature than freshwater or true marine species
and are often referred to as "estuarine" species. Under natural conditions
salinity and temperature fluctuations occur very gradually and organisms
have an opportunity to adjust to the new conditions or to emigrate.
In an altered system like Moorings Bay, the natural elements which
minimize fluctuations of salinity and temperature have been removed.
The result is that organisms which survived the period of extreme disturb-
ance within Moorings Bay (i.e., dredging and filling activities) or
entered the bay after the completion of these activities are subjected
to severe and rapid salinity and temperature fluctuations. In some
cases these rapid fluctuations kill certain organisms; in other cases
-17-
the fluctuations merely reduce vitality so that the organisms are in-
capable of reproducing and become more susceptible to disease.
In terms of water quality, salinity and temperature are paramount
in determining the amounts of certain chemical constituents held in
solution. For example salinity and temperature are the primary physical
factors regulating the amount of oxygen that can be dissolved in water.
The higher the salinity and temperature, the less oxygen can remain
dissolved in the water.
Salinity patterns in South Florida bays and estuaries are generally
very dynamic because of the seasonality of rainfall. During the dry
season, salinity in an enclosed tidal body of water often closely
resembles the salinity of its parent body of water and is relatively
homogeneous throughout the vertical extent of the water column. With
the onset of the rainy season, freshwater inflow increases. If fresh-
water inflow is great enough, the difference in density between fresh-
water and saltwater results in a stratified system, with water of lower
salinity riding on top of the more saline bottom layer. This two -
layered system reduces exchange between the surface and bottom waters,
causing anoxic (oxygen deficient) conditions and nutrient enrichment of
the isolated bottom stratum.
Monthly surface and bottom salinities, averaged for all bay stations
are presented in Figure 3. It is evident that Moorings Bay is not sub-
jected to strong vertical salinity stratification. Although some
stratification is obvious during the rainy season, the layering is
usually only weakly developed. Rarely do surface and bottom salinities
differ by more than two parts per thousand (ppt). The difference
exceeded five ppt on only one occasion, the September 1979 sampling
-18-
i
e
A
16 1
` Y
M
•
•
7
wl
I
as • I
1
I �•
I
I
� I
fw`
/ 1 /
A, V�I I -./
f
!r
if r� f
i 1 � � V
I I� ,I �
1
I \
I
410
I
1
1
1
Y
W .
i
t
W
W
H
M . a M s a Is s a M s
1077 1978 1979 1980
TI M1 (meths)
019.3. Monthly levels of salinity and temperature for Moorings Bay. Each
point represents the average of samples collected at Stations 1 through 4.
STATION 1 SIASON SIASON
0.15. I 1 1
1 I
� I
1
OA 6 i
IL
i � I
W
� I
� I
s.1 j
i
2.6 ! 24 2e Z• 30 32 34
SALINITY(ppe)
T1o.4. Typical salinity profiles for Moorings Bay during wet and dry
seasons. Also illustrated is a salinity profile for Station 1 showing
the stratification which is evident after a prolonged period of rainfall.
date, when all bay stations displayed marked stratification. The vertical
salinity profile for Station 1 on this date and "typical" salinity
profiles for the wet season and the dry season are shown in Figure 4
for comparison purposes. The lack of more frequent or prolonged stratifi-
cation can be attributed to the relatively small amount of freshwater
input to Moorings Bay compared to bay systems which are fed by a river
or stream. Salinity stratification is likely to occur only following
the heaviest rains of the wet season.
Monthly temperatures from the surface to bottom were averaged for
all bay stations (Fig. 3). There is a distinct annual trend in water
temperature, with the lowest water temperature occurring during December,
January, and February and the highest water temperatures occurring from
June through September. Only a slight degree of temperature stratifica-
tion is observed during the year. In most cases, surface and bottom
temperatures vary by no more than one degree centigrade.
2. Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen (D.O.) is the parameter most frequently used to
evaluate water quality. The reason for this is the ease with which D.O.
is measured and*its importance to aquatic life. Water quality standards
established by the State of Florida for Class II Waters prescribe that
the D.O. concentration shall never be less than four milligrams per
liter (mg /1). The rationale for this criterion is that D.O. concentra-
tions less than four mg /1 are generally considered deleterious to aquatic
organisms.
Figure 5 depicts D:O. concentrations at both the top of the water
column (0.15 meter depth) and just above the bottom for all six stations.
-20-
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (well)
surface —• —• bottom
O a • o & 0 o •
V
%4 01
V
MM
O;
V
�O el
a
—pa
M
B
O �
i
.. V
VN
V
r ;
r
aM
�o
V
� N
a
ON
fiB.a. Monthly levels of dissolved oxygen of surface and bottom samples from
Moorings Bay, Outer Clam Bay and the Gulf. Dissolved oxygen levels below
the solid horizontal line (4mg /1) do not meet minimum state standards.
O
O
'`',
O
Z
Z
Z
�.
r'
r
i
-.'
:=
vZ
z
v a
N
S
1
J
fiB.a. Monthly levels of dissolved oxygen of surface and bottom samples from
Moorings Bay, Outer Clam Bay and the Gulf. Dissolved oxygen levels below
the solid horizontal line (4mg /1) do not meet minimum state standards.
Surface and bottom D.O. concentrations for the Gulf (Station 5) and
Outer Clam Bay (Station 6) are presented for comparison.
The D.O. concentrations in the Gulf and Outer Clam Bay are highest
during the winter months and lowest during the summer months, reflecting
the influence of temperature on oxygen solubility. The close similarity
between surface and bottom values at these two stations indicates a high
degree of vertical mixing. In the Gulf, mixing is achieved through tur-
bulence created by tide and wind- induced currents and wave action. Be-
cause Clam Bay is partially shielded from the wind, the degree of turbu-
lence is less and the vertical mixing would not be expected to be as
strong. However, because of the shallowness of the bay the turbulence
is sufficient to maintain a relatively homogeneous water column. All
samples collected in the Gulf exceed minimum state D.O. standards. Sam-
ples collected in Clam Bay also met or exceeded minimum state D.O.
standards with the exception of samples taken in August 1977 and September
1979.
The D.O. concentration of the surface water of Moorings Bay follows
a pattern very similar to that found in the Gulf. The major departure
from this pattern occurs in September, when the D.O. concentration of
the surface water of Moorings Bay is frequently higher than in the Gulf
or Clam Bay. This increase in D.O. concentration, when water tempera-
ture is still near its maximum, can be attributed to oxygen produced by
phytoplankton which proliferates in the bay during the late summer.
The D.O. concentrations at the bottom of the water column of
Moorings Bay are, with a few exceptions, lower than concentrations near
the surface. The stratification is most pronounced during the rainy
-22-
season. The basis for the lower D.O. concentration near the bottom lies
both in high oxygen demand and low oxygen supply in this stratum. Light
in amounts sufficient to support the growth of aquatic plants can no
longer reach the bottom of the bay because of the deep dredging which
has taken place. Thus, the principal source of D.O. for the bottom of
the bay is the surface zone, where oxygen is produced by phytoplankton
or taken into solution from the atmosphere. The deeper water, there-
fore, depends on vertical mixing for its supply of oxygen. The downward
range of mixing, however, is limited, and transport of oxygen is often
insufficient to meet the demands in deeper waters. The exchange of oxygen
between the surface and bottom is further restricted during periods of
salinity stratification. At night, photosynthesis ceases, diffusion from
the atmosphere becomes the only source of D.O., and the supply of oxygen
is even more limited.
The demand for oxygen at the bottom of the water column is governed
by the metabolic requirements of banthic (bottom dwelling) animals and
bacteria in the water and sediments. Bacterial utilization of oxygen is
a function of the amount of organic matter available for degradation.
The accumulation of organic detritus in the sediments, therefore, results
in a high demand for oxygen. This demand may frequently exceed the
supply, especially during the summer months when the rate of accumulation
of organic detritus increases due to stormwater inflow and phytoplankton
blooms (large numbers of small algae floating in the water column). In
Moorings Bay, the consequence of the influx of oxygen - demanding material
and the development of salinity stratification is evident during the
months of June through September, when the oxygen concentration at the
bottom of the water column frequently falls below the minimum state
-23-
standard. The greatest difference between the oxygen content of the
surface and the bottom usually occurs in September and is probably the
result of phytoplankton blooms. These blooms cause super - saturation of
the surface waters by photosynthetic oxygen production and decrease the
degree of oxygen saturation near the bottom through the contribution of
dead algal calls. Salinity stratification is usually strongest during
this time of the year, thus increasing the difference in the oxygen
concentration between the surface and the bottom.
The D.O. concentration near the bottom is regularly less at Stations
1 and 3 than at Stations 2 and 4. Station 1 is located at the northern
end of Moorings Bay where circulation is minimal, Station 3 is within
one of the canals (Fig. 1). Limited water exchange with the rest of the
bay would result in increased accumulation of organic material in these
two areas, thereby increasing the oxygen demand near the bottom.
Station 2 generally displays the least difference between surface and
bottom D.O. concentrations. In terms of mixing, Station 2 would benefit
from the rapid flow of water through the underpass, especially during
ebb flow, since this station is located near the Parkshore Drive under-
pass. This rapid flow could account for the smaller amount of variation
between surface and bottom D.O. concentrations at this station.
Forty -seven substandard D.O. concentrations (less than 4 mg /1) were
recorded at the four Moorings Bay stations during the forty -six month
study period. This constitutes 262 of the total number of samples. All
but one of these samples were from the bottom of the water column.
Thirty -two percent of the substandard concentrations occurred at Station
1, 152 at Station 2, 322 at Station 3, and 212 at Station 4. February
and April are the only months in which no substandard concentrations
were recorded.
-24-
Sampling was usually conducted between late morning and early
afternoon, when the D.O. concentration is nearing its maximum. For this
reason the oxygen data are biased toward the high side. Considerably
lower D.O. levels would be expected at night and early in the morning.
In view of the frequency with which low D.O. concentrations are encoun-
tered, a great potential exists for catastrophic effects on the assails
benthic fauna, especially during the summer months. Animals inhabiting
the northern extremity of the bay and the canals would suffer the
greatest stress, but anoxia- produced mortality of benthic organisms is
probably a common occurrence throughout the bay.
3. Nutrients
Nitrogen and phosphorus are generally the primary nutrients limit-
ing the growth of algae and other aquatic plants. The inorganic forms
of these nutrients, nitrate and othophosphate, are available for direct
assimilation by plants. Nitrite is readily converted to nitrate by
bacteria, and, therefore, serves as a supplementary inorganic nitrogen
source for plants. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (Ammonia plus organic
nitrogen) and total phosphate (organic plus inorganic phosphate) repre-
sent reservoirs for inorganic nitrogen and orthophosphate. The organic
forms of the primary nutrients enter the inorganic nutrient pool via
bacterial mineralization, which takes place in the sediments and, to a
lesser degree, in the water column.
Interest in the water quality aspects of nutrient concentrations
stems from the control exerted by nutrient levels over the growth and
proliferation of aquatic plants, especially phytoplankton. Although no
specific standards are recognized for nutrient concentrations in Class
-25-
II waters, a general criterion based on nutrient control of plant growth
has been established by the State of Florida. The rule states: "In no
case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as
to cause an imbalance in natural populations of flora or fauna" (Chapter
17 -3, Florida Administrative Code).
Samples for the analysis of nitrate and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
were collected at a depth of 0.25 meters and near the bottom at Stations
1, 2 and 3. Seasonal levels of nitrate and TKN for Moorings Bay are
plotted in Figure 6. The values were derived by averaging data from all
three stations and all sampling dates for each month. In reviewing
these averages, there appears to be a seasonal trend in nitrate concen-
tration, although the trend is not well developed.
O
Z A
I
I
1
t
J f M A
M J J A
TIME (months)
! O N o
PIS. e. Seasonal levels of nitrate (A) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (B) for
Moorings Bay. Each point represents the average of surface and bottom
samples for that month at stations 1 through 3 from December 1976 to Sep -
tembar 1980.
-26-
I
Averaged nitrate concentrations at the bottom of the bay are higher
during the rainy season (with the exception of June and July) than
during the dry season. The increase in concentration during the rainy
season is probably due to increased input of nitrate via stormwater
runoff. The reason for the increase in nitrate concentration during
December is not known, but may be related to an increase in the human
population of the area at this time of the year, and an accompanying
increase in the use of fertilizers. Averaged nitrate concentrations for
the surface waters follow a pattern similar to that found at the bottom
of the water column except in September when the average concentration
is similar to values for the dry season. The seasonal pattern of the
averaged TKN concentration is better developed than that for nitrate,
but shows the same general trends.
Concentrations of nitrate and TKN for individual stations within
the bay are shown in Figure 7. Nitrite concentrations in Moorings Bay
only rarely rise above the minimum level of detection (0.01 mg /1) and
are, therefore, not presented. No seasonal pattern is apparent in
either the nitrate or the TKN data. Neither are there any obvious
differences between stations. Values for both parameters tend to be
higher at the bottom of the water column than at the surface. This is
as expected, since particulate organic nitrogen generally sinks to the
sediment surface where it is remineralized by bacteria. A decrease in
the concentrations of both parameters is evident in the latter months of
the study period. This downward trend appears to have begun for TKN in
the winter of 1979 -1980, and for nitrate in the.autumn of 1972. The
reason for this decrease is unknown, but may be related to a decrease in
construction activity in the vicinity of the bay in the past year.
-27-
V
V w
r 3
V
am
r
M
V N;
Ow
3
IN
y
e s
• r i
• V
V w
V
N w
V
�O w
a
N ITKATI (mein
surface _.. _ , bottom
._ - _ M
TKNlmWD
ser lace ._. —. bottom
Pi&7. Monthly levels of nitrate (A) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (B) for
Moorings Bay. Samples were collected at the surface and bottom of the
water column at Stations 1, 2 and 3. ( 0,* and *indicate samples which
were below the detectable limits for bottom, surface and both samples,
respectively.)
Samples for the analysis of orthophosphate and total phosphate were
also collected at 0.25 meters depth and near the bottom at Stations 1, 2
and 3. Annual surface and bottom trends for orthophosphate and total
phosphate concentrations are given in Figure S. Values were determined
by the same method used to compute the average nitrogen concentrations.
Averaged phosphate concentrations follow the same general seasonal
pattern as averaged nitrogen concentrations, again reflecting the in-
fluence of stormwater runoff.
A
i Q20
e
Oa �\
s i 0.10. `\
AA
O
-.0 J ! M A M J J A S O N O
T IME (men#ba)
fig.s. Seasonal levels of orthophosphate (A) and total phosphate (B) for
Moorings Bay. Each point represents the average of surface and bottom
samples for that month at stations 1 through 3 from December 1976 to Sep-
tember 1980.
Concentrations of orthophosphate and total phosphate for individual
stations within the bay are shown in Figure 9. There are no distinguish-
able trends in phosphate concentrations either according to season or
-29-
ORTHO -P (in@il)
srrleso bottom
sue. P o 0
0 30
_ —. 0
t _
�-- r -_-
go
o
!�
NN D
�o
p«
o •
g 401 o
TOTAL- Pcmm /ll
sur /eco . —. — . bottom
Pie-9. Monthly levels of orthophosphate (A) and total phosphate (B) for
Moorings Bay. Samples were collected at the surface and bottom of the
water column at Stations 1, 2 and 3. (O, • and • indicate samples which
were below the detectable limits for bottom, surface and both samples,
respectively.)
NO
p«
o •
g 401 o
TOTAL- Pcmm /ll
sur /eco . —. — . bottom
Pie-9. Monthly levels of orthophosphate (A) and total phosphate (B) for
Moorings Bay. Samples were collected at the surface and bottom of the
water column at Stations 1, 2 and 3. (O, • and • indicate samples which
were below the detectable limits for bottom, surface and both samples,
respectively.)
between stations, except with regard to orthophosphate levels of bottom
samples. Orthophosphate near the bottom of the water column generally
reaches its maximum concentration during August and September. This co-
incides with periods of minimum oxygen concentrations at the bottom,
when orthophosphate would presumably be released from the sediment (Taft
and Taylor 1976). As is the case for nitrogen, phosphate concentrations
are generally higher near the bottom than at the surface. The same
rationale used to explain the difference between surface and bottom
nitrogen concentrations may be applied here. A downward trend in ortho-
phosphate concentrations is clearly evident in the latter half of the
study period, beginning in January of 1979. Total phosphate also shows
a tendency toward lower concentrations during this time period, especially
in the surface water.
A comparison of nutrient concentrations in Moorings Bay to concen-
trations in other similar areas reveals a general similarity in values
(EPA 1979, EPA 1975a, Simpson at al. 1979, Black, Crow and Eidsness
1975). The annual nitrate concentration is approximately five to six
times the concentration found in undeveloped bays, and falls within the
range of values for residential canals. The annual TKN concentration is
similar to concentrations in undeveloped bays and is approximately 50 to
75 percent of the values recorded for residential canals. The annual
total phosphate concentration is three to five times the values for
undeveloped bays, and is broadly similar to concentrations in residen-
tial canals. The annual orthophosphate concentration also falls
within the range of values found for other developed bays and residen-
tial canals.
-31-
I
4. Total Organic Carbon
Total organic carbon (TOC) concentration serves as a measure of
finely divided and dissolved organic detritus. Interest in the concen-
tration of TOC in natural coastal waters stems from its importance in
the food chain (Odum 1970x, Odum and Heald 1975). In deeply dredged
bays, such as Moorings Bay, the importance of organic carbon rests
Primarily in its function as a substrate for the metabolism of bacteria.
Bacterial decomposition of organic carbon to carbon dioxide requires
oxygen• The extent of bacterial oxygen utilization is directly related
to the amount of organic carbon available for decomposition. Therefore,
the accumulation of organic carbon in the waters and sediments of a bay
places heavy demands on the oxygen resources of the water. The majority
of the organic carbon introduced to Moorings Bay by stormwater, and that
produced within the bay itself, settles to the bottom. Very small
particles remain suspended in the water column., Therefore, the greatest
oxygen demand by bacteria occurs in the sediments of the bay and the
lower reaches of the water column.
Samples for the analysis of TOC were collected at 0.25 meters depth
and near the bottom at Stations 1, 2 and 3. The TOC values from these
stations where averaged for each month and are presented in Figure 10.
The effects of seasonal increases in runoff and phytoplankton populations
are particularly evident at the bottom of the water column. Both surface
and bottom TOC concentrations reach their maximum values during June.
These peaks may be related to a "first - flush" phenomenon, whereby organic
matter which has collected on the land surrounding the bay during the
dry season is washed into the bay at the onset of the rainy season. The
-32-
Consequence of slow tidal flishing in the regions of Stations 1 and 3 is
manifested in the greater concentrations of MC at these two stations.
E
e
«
V'
�O A
t ,A `
M " 4
0 u
w
16 3.0
t �
OA J M A M J
T IM/ (months)
rig. 1O. Seasonal levels of total organic carbon for Moorings Bay. Each
point represents the average of surface and bottom samples for that month
at Stations 1 through 3 from December 1976 to September 1980.
The area where Station 1 is located also receives organic carbon from
Clam Bay, where it is produced in the dense stands of mangroves that
surround the bay (EPA 1977). Seasonal variations in organic carbon in
the bay vary inversely with concentrations of dissolved oxygen, demon-
strating the influence of organic carbon concentration on the oxygen
budget of the waters of the bay.
Concentrations of TOC for individual stations within the bay (Fig.
11) are generally greater at the bottom of the water column than near
the surface. A seasonal trend is evident in the concentrations at
Station 1. Higher concentrations during the rainy season are almost
certainly a result of increased input via runoff and phytoplankton
blooms. No clear seasonal trends are apparent at Stations 2 and 3.
-33-
northern extremity of the bay and in the one canal sampled than in the
two more open areas which were sampled. These findings correlate with
the higher organic carbon concentrations at the former two stations.
The greater accumulation of organic carbon in these areas is related, in
turn, to a slower rate of flushing.
The limited flushing of the bay contributes to the accumulation of
organic carbon also by slowing the rate of removal of inorganic nutrients
(e.g., nitrate and phosphate) from Moorings Bay. Any nutrients introduced
by stormwater runoff from the adjacent residential developments remain
within the bay. These additional nutrients cause nutrient levels to in-
crease considerably during the rainy season, and thereby, allow the
proliferation of phytoplankton in the surface waters. Although phytop-
lankton concentrations were not measured in this study, the super-
saturated D.O. concentrations found in the surface waters toward the end
of the summer rainy season serve as indirect evidence of phytoplankton
blooms. While photosynthesis by the algae increases the D.O. concentra-
tions near the surface during daylight hours, respiration by the algae
would severely depress the oxygen concentration at night. As the phytop-
lankters die and sink to the bottom, their decomposition increases the
oxygen demand in_the deep water. This partially accounts for the low
D.O. concentration frequently observed at the bottom of the water column
in September when the surface waters are supersaturated with oxygen.
Organic forms of nitrogen and phosphorus (e.g., animal and plant wastes)
which originate both from land runoff and from dead algal cells, settle
on the surface of the sediments where they are remineralized by bacterial
activity and released to the overlying water. This natural recycling
*A3
103 v9`1 -44-
mechanism, coupled with nutrient input via runoff and the slow rate of
flushing is responsible for the high nutrient levels and low D.O. levels
in the bay, especially at the bottom of the water column.
Alterations in water quality due to decreased circulation and
flushing, and increased input of nutrients and pollutants are expected
to have severe detrimental consequences for organisms which inhabit the
bay. A serious decrease in the number of aquatic organisms, especially
on and near the bottom, is likely to occur during the summer months due
to anoxic conditions (Simpson et al. 1979, Lindell, Fable, and Collins
1975). In addition, low D.O. concentrations cause ammonia and hydrogen
sulfide to be released from the sediments to the overlying water. Both
of these compounds are toxic to many aquatic organisms. Man -made pollu-
tants, such as heavy metals, which enter the bay may also cause damage
to resident organisms. In its present state the bay cannot function as
a habitat or as a feeding or nursery area for commercially and recrea-
tionally important fish and shellfish because of the removal of the
mangrove wetlands and the deepening of the shallow bay.
Degradation of the water quality of Moorings Bay also has negative
aesthetic and public health aspects for the human community residing
along the shore. Unsightly masses of floating and submerged litter are
evidence of certain users' disregard for this water resource. As organic
matter continues to accumulate in the bay, hydrogen sulfide gas (with an
odor similar to rotten eggs) may be released from the anaerobic sediments.
The release of the hydrogen sulfide gas is increased if the sediments
are disturbed by heavy boat traffic or additionial dredging. Although
-45-
shellfish are rarely, if ever, taken from the bay, a potential human
health hazard exists due to bacterial contamination.
While Moorings Bay appears to have undergone a relatively drastic
alteration in water quality due to development, there are indications
that the situation has improved recently. Nutrient concentrations have
generally been lower in the past year than in previous years, suggesting
that input of these materials to the bay has decreased. This decrease
may be a function of declining construction activity on the shores of
the bay or could reflect a decrease in the input of contaminated stormwater.
Future monitoring of the bay will reveal whether this is only a short
term improvement or a continuing trend. If levels of nutrients continue
to decrease, the potential for summer phytoplankton blooms will be
lessened, and there should be some improvement in the oxygen regime of
the water.
-46-
SECTION V
A. Recom®ended Alternatives
Recommended alternatives for improving water quality in Moorings
Bay can be divided into two major categories: (1) measures to decrease
the pollutant load entering the bay through voluntary citizen action or
regulation, and (2) measures to improve the circulation and flushing of
the bay. Three alternatives are recommended under each category as
follows:
1. Measures to Decrease the Pollutant Load
a. Conduct public awareness campaigns about the sources
of pollution.
A campaign should be initiated to inform the public about sources
of excess nutrients and other pollutant substances which enter the bay.
It seems evident that lawn and garden debris represent one type of
pollutant. A voluntary committment by the citizens should be encouraged
to eliminate as many pollutants as possible which may enter the bay.
Residents should be urged to use this biodegradable debris as mulch or
compost in place of fertilizers or to place the debris in sealed (prefer-
ably reusable) containers to be collected. This action will prevent the
debris from washing into the bay.
Pesticides and fertilizers are other common pollutants. Residents
should be encouraged to use native plants when landscaping. Native
plants are generally resistant to insect pests and disease and are
adapted to the amount of nutrients and water which is characteristic of
the area. Therefore, the addition of pesticides and fertilizers and
excessive watering should not be necessary.
-47-
Residents should also be warned about the hazards of dumping paints,
oil, gasoline and similar substances directly into the bay, or on the
street and in storm drains where the substances enter the bay indirectly.
Raw sewage entering the bay via recreational boats is another substance
which will degrade the bay. Boating enthusiasts should be urged to
prevent raw sewage from entering the bay from their boats.
There are numerous ways to increase the public's awareness of these
Problem. Informative pamphlets could be printed at a nominal cost and
distributed with utility bills, or by other means, by the city or the
county. Public service announcements in local newspapers and on local
radio and T.V. stations should also be of little cost. Technical
assistance from the state would be available, if needed, for the develop-
ment of pamphlets and public service announcements. Messages could be
displayed on billboards, buses and similar outlets for advertising. A
"hot line" could be established to encourage public involvement. The
"hot line" could be used by citizens who wished to report incidents
which might adversely affect the water quality. The line could also be
used for residents seeking guidance as to how they might help prevent
further pollution. The public awareness approach is the least costly
and potentially the most effective of all proposed alternatives.
b. Decrease excess nutrients and other pollutants.
Informing the residents about the need to prevent pesticides,
fertilizers, yard debris, sewage and similar substances from entering
the bay and relying on voluntary committments to this end may be suf-
ficient. However, local governments have the regulatory authority to
control these types of pollution. Enforcement of actions to prevent
these types of pollution is generally most efficiently handled at the
-48-
local level. A moritorium could be placed on the application of all
fertilizers and pesticides prior to heavy rains. An ordinance requiring
that all yard debris not used for compost or mulch be placed in sealed
containers and left by the road for collection could be developed and
adopted. Those residents needing collection service could be required
to purchase sturdy bins, or the bins could be furnished by the city or
county.
c. Decrease the amount of stormwater entering the bay.
The first two recommendations do not address the complex problem of
dealing with stormwater. Residents can be informed about the excess
nutrients and pollutants carried into the bay via stormwater and they
can be encouraged or required to prevent certain of these substances
from being transported via stormwater. But the residents have little
control over the large quantity of stormwater which is channeled into
the bay. This problem must be addressed at a higher level.
The city and county are encouraged to work with the Southwest
Florida Regional Planning Council on the stormater issue. The council
is in the process of compiling a plan for dealing with stormwater problems
on a regional basis. Interest and input from the local level could be
very effective in mitigating the amount of pollutants which enter the
bay with the stormwater.
The reason that stormwater has become such a problem in this area
is that prior to 1959 the majority of the surrounding shore stored the
rainwater. The rainwater was then slowly released and was filtered
through the ground and the mangroves before entering the bay. Now this
area features vast expanses of impervious streets, parking lots and
-49-
structures. Rainwater which was previously cleansed and slowly released
to the bay now picks up additional pollutants from lawns, streets and
parking lots and enters the bay in pulses.
Because the area surrounding Moorings Bay is extremely developed
there will probably be little chance of constructing detention or reten-
tion ponds for partial treatment of the stormwater if treatment is deemed
necessary. An alternative that may be of benefit is the use of suitable
pervious materials to construct new streets and parking lots and to
repair existing facilities. Costs for purchasing and placing pervious
materials is not expected to be significantly greater than costs for
constructing streets and parking lots with standard impervious materials,
but a significant improvement in water quality could occur. More informa-
tion is needed to determine the precise benefits and costs of this
alternative.
Erosion should not.be a significant problem in this area because of
the established residences. Construction sites generally present a
problem, though, and foremen should be required to take the necessary
precautions (e.g., placing staked bales of hay).
Mandating the removal of as many excess nutrients and other pollu-
tents as possible is a stronger measure than merely educating the resi-
dents about the causes of pollution. However, the cost of this action
is minimal and recommendations la and lb could readily be combined at
the local level for a more comprehensive attack on the problem.
At an additional cost to the local governments, streets and parking
lots could be swept frequently with mechanical sweepers to remove accumu-
lated polluting materials which would otherwise be transported into the
-50-
I
storm sewers via runoff. Vacuum- assisted brush sweepers are best suited
for removing the very small particles of inorganic nutrients, which are
not removed by conventional sweepers (Sartor and Boyd 1972). Sweepers
could effectively reduce the amount of inorganic nutrients, organic
material, and man -made pollutants entering the bay, but are costly to
acquire and maintain and are energy intensive.
The limited water quality data available indicate that the level of
pollution in Moorings Bay may be decreasing. If a drive to reduce the
f
pollutant load is effective and the exchange of waters with the Gulf can
be improved, the quality of the water in the body of Moorings Bay should
reach an acceptable level.
2. Measures to Improve the Circulation and Flushinn
a. Return the depth of Mooringo Bay and the canals to a
more natural level.
Mitigating ng the pollutant load of Moorings Bay is a necessary first
step in improving water quality but existing pollutants must then be.
removed from the system. Improving the circulation and flushing of the
{ bay would deal with this problem. The most effective means of improving
the flushing of the bay is by decreasing the depth. A depth of five or
six feet at mean low water (MLW) should be sufficient to meet naviga-
tional requirements but would cause a reduction in the volume of the bay
to approximately one half of its present volume. This reduction should
significantly increase the rate of flushing. The decreased depth would
k also result in a more effective vertical mixing, partially alleviating
the problem of low oxygen content of deep waters.
Reducing the volume of the bay and canals by decreasing the depth
k can be accomplished in one of two ways. The first way would be to place
i
-51-
clean, uncontaminated fill in the bay and canals to bring the depth
within five to six feet MLW. The amount of fill required to produce
this effect would be enormous (approximately 12 x 106 or 12 million
cubic yards). Since large quantities of fill material are not available
in the vicinity of the bay, the fill would have to be imported. The
cost of purchasing, transporting, and placing large quantities of fill
would be extremely high. Clean fill costs approximately $3 /cubic yard
in Collier County, yielding a total cost of approximately $36,000,000
for fill. Even if the funds could be obtained, or sufficient fill was
donated, fill of an appropriate composition and grain size would have to
be located and the necessary permits would have to be procured.
An easier and less costly solution would be to simply wait for the
sedimentation process to fill in the deep areas of the bay and canals.
It is difficult to estimate how long this process might take. If no
maintenance dredging is conducted in the body of the bay, a gradual but
noticable improvement in flushing is expected because of the decreased
volume.
b. Widen the underpasses beneath the Harbour Drive and
Parkshore Drive bridges.
Increasing the cross sectional areas of the bridge underpasses
could enhance flashing of the central and northern segments of the bay
by increasing the flow of water to and from these areas. Widening of
these underpasses would also allow the waters of the three segments of
the bay to intermix more freely. This action would primarily benefit
the northern reaches of the bay through an increased rate of removal of
introduced nutrients and organic detritus. Widening of these under-
passes would be a relatively costly undertaking, since the bridges would
-52-
have to be destroyed and rebuilt. The cost of constructing a bridge
over a body of water is approximatley $36 /square foot according to
estimates from the Florida Department of Transportation. A bridge 30
feet wide and 250 feet long would cost approximatly $270,000 to construct.
The cost for reconstructing the bridges at Harbour Drive and Parkshore
Drive would be expected to exceed $5,000,000; however, the improved
circulation and water quality which would accrue could be substantial
enough to warrant serious consideration of the corrective action.
c. Maintain existing bathymetric contours at Doctors Pass
and at bridge underpasses.
Bathymetric measurements suggest that Doctors Pass and the bridge
underpasses are subjected to considerable shoaling and infilling (Missimer
and Associates 1980). Periodic dredging of these areas could improve
flow and, thereby, increase flushing. This limited maintenance dredg-
ing should be relatively inexpensive, and should be considered. State
dredging permits are required and would need to be obtained before
maintenance dredging could take place.
B. Alternatives Considered But'Not Reco=ended
Six additional alternatives were considered but are not recommended.
Some of these alternatives were proposed by Missimer and Associates
(1980) while others had been regarded at the local level as options which
might remedy the water quality problem. Rejection of the alternatives
listed below is based primarily on the limited improvement in water
quality which would be expected, the extreme costs, and the possible
detrimental effects to other systems.
-53-
1. Enlarge the Connection Between Moorings Bay and Outer Clam Bay
Consideration was given to replacing the causeway at Seagate Road
with a bridge. The width of the connection between the two bays would
be increased to approximately 275 feet (jtissimer and Associates 1980).
The cost of replacing the causeway with a bridge would be approximately
$300,000. Increased exchange of water between the two bays could enhance
flushing of the northern extremity of the bay. However, in order to
prevent excessive dewatering of Clam Bay, a structure which would permit
only northerly flow would have to be constructed. Such a structure
would limit the potential increase in flushing and add to the overall
costs. In addition, the flow of water from Moorings Bay to Clam Bay
could have a significant negative impact on the water quality of Clam
Bay. Activities which could significantly degrade the water quality of
a Class Il waterbody are stringently regulated. In view of the limited
benefits expected in terms of flushing of Mooring Bay, the possible ad-
verse consequences for Clam Bay and the sizable costs, this alternative
is not recommended.
2. Place Riprap Along the Vertical Seawalls
Riprap placed against the concrete seawalls could enhance circula-
tion and flow of water. Flow defraction and the formation of eddies at
protruding seawalls would be decreased, with an ensuing increase in
circulation in the canal. Riprap would also provide a narrow zone of
shallow water habitat for organisms which inhabit the bay. The cost of
placing riprap is estimated to be between $70 /linear foot and $90 /linear
foot. The entire shoreline within Moorings Bay is approximately 64,800
linear feet (Tom McDaniels, Collier County Planning Office, personal
-54-
communication). Placing riprap along the entire shoreline of Moorings
Bay would cost approximately $4,536,000 to $4,832,000. It is doubtful
that the degree of improvement in water quality would justify such a
large expenditure.
If riprap could be acquired at low cost and placed using city or
county equipment the cost might be reduced considerably. It is also
possible that certain areas of shoreline could be identified where the
detraction is greatest. Riprap could be placed only at these locations
to affect the greatest benefit for the least cost.
3. Construct an Additional Pass to the Gulf
A pass could be excavated through the narrow strip of land which
separates the northern reach of the bay from the Gulf. By providing an
additional route of exchange of bay water and Gulf water, flushing might
be increased, particularly in the northern segment of the bay. However,
construction of a new pass would be very difficult to accomplish since a
the strip of land which separates the bay from the Gulf is almost
totally developed. In- addition, there is an excellent possibility that
the new pass would experience continuous shoaling. The lack of adequate
undeveloped land through which a pass could be excavated and the expense
of creating and maintaining a new pass makes this alternative an un-
desirable one.
4. Install Culverts to Connect the Canals
Culverts could be installed at the eastern ends of the canals in an
attempt to increase flushing and circulation in the canals. While some
movement of water would take place through the culverts, the magnitude
of exchange would be slight because there would be little driving force
-55-
to induce movement of water between the ends of the canals. In addition,
placement of culverts would necessitate extensive excavation through
private developed property, and could greatly inconvenience the landowners.
5. Reroute the Storm Sewer System
The storm sewer system which empties into Moorings Bay could be
rerouted to retention or detention areas on land, or to the sanitary
sewer system where it would enter the Naples sewage treatment plant.
This action would almost completely eliminate the influx of pollutant
laden freshwater into the bay. The improvement in the water quality of
the bay which would result from this course of action could be substan-
tial. However, rerouting of the storm sewer system would'be extremely
costly and time consuming.
A detailed stormwater study was not possible with the limited funds
available for this Phase I Study. Information concerning the type and
amount of pollutants which enter the bay via stormwater would be necessary
before large sums of money are spent to reroute the stormwater. In addi-
tion it is doubtful that a sufficient amount of undeveloped land exists
In the vicinity of the bay for the construction of retention or'detention
ponds. Diversion of collected runoff to the Naples sewage treatment
plant is inadvisable because the increased burden would overload the
plant and the effluent from the plant is discharged into Naples Bay.
Increasing the load of freshwater and contaminants which enters the
c
plant could have a significant negative impact on Naples Bay which is
already polluted (Simpson et al. 1979). Therefore, neither of these
methods of rerouting the storm sewer system is recommended.
-56-
6. Remove Accumulated Sediments
Accumulated organic material in the sediments of the bay could
periodically be removed by shallow dredging. This would be relatively
expensive and is unlikely to have any long -term beneficial results in
terms of the water quality of the bay. During the dredging operation,
oxidizable sediment would be resuspended in the water column, thereby
reducing the oxygen content of the water. This would adversely affect
organisms inhabiting the bay. Following dredging, accumulation of
organic matter in the sediments would resume, quickly negating the
effect of their removal. The benefits to be derived from such mainten-
ance dredging would be slight and, considering the costs and short -term
problems associated with dredging, this action is not recommended.
7. Maintain Culverts Beneath Seagate Road
Maintenance cleaning of the culverts beneath Seagate Road could
increase flow through the culverts, but is unlikely to produce any
significant beneficial results in terms of flushing because the exchange
of water through the culverts would still be very slight. Such action
is, therefore, not recommended.
-57-
REFERENCES
Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc. 1975. Master plan, water management
district No. 7, including the Cocohatchee and Gordon River
basins, Collier County, Florida, Gainesville, F1.
Chow, V.T. (ad.). 1964. Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw -Hill
Publishers, N.Y.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Ecosystems analysis of the
Big Cypress Swamp and estuaries. US EPA, Region IV, Surv.
Anal. Div., Athens, Ga. EPA 904/9 -74 -002.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1975x. Finger -fill canal studies:
Florida and North Carolina. (principal authors: D.B. Hicks and
T.R. Cavinder). US EPA, Surv. Anal. Div., Athens, Ga. EPA
904/9 -76 -017.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1975b. Field studies, Parkshore
and Clan Bay systems, Naples, Florida. November 10 -18, 1975.
US EPA, Surv. Anal. Div., Athens, Ga. (Unpublished report).
Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality criteria for water.
US EPA, Off. Water Plan. Standards. EPA 440/9 -76 -023.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Field studies, Parkshore and
Clam Bay systems, Naples,.Florida. October 17 -22, 1977. US EPA,
Surv. Anal. Div., Athens, Ga. (Unpublished report).
Ippen, A.I. (ad.). 1966. Estuary and coastline hydrodynamics. McGraw -
Hill Publishers, N.Y.
Lindell, W.N.Jr., W.A. Fable, Jr. and L.A. Collins. 1975. Additional
studies of the fishes, macroinvertebrates, and hydrological .
conditions of up -land canals in Tampa Bay, Florida. Fish. Bull.
U.S. 73(1):81 -85.
Lindall, W.N. Jr. and L. Trent. 1975. Housing development canals in
the coastal zone of the Gulf of Mexico: ecological consequences,
regulations, and recommendations. Mar. Fish. Rev. 37(10):19 -24.
McHugh, J.L. 1976. Estuarine fisheries: are they doomed? pp. 15 -27.
In M. Wiley (ed.), Estuarine processes, Vol. I. Academic Press,
N.Y.
Missimer and Associates, Inc. 1980. Tide induced flow and circulation
patterns in the Venetian/Moorings Bay system, Naples, Florida.
Report prepared for the Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation.
Odum, W.E. 1970x. Pathways of energy flow in a south Florida estuary.
Dissertation, Univ. Miami, Coral Gables, F1.
-58-
REFERENCES (Continued)
Odum, W.E. 1970b. Insidious alteration�of the estuarine environment.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Sac. 99(4):836 -847.
Odum, W.E. and E.J. Heald. 1975. The detritus -based food web of an
estuarine mangrove community. pp. 265 -286. In L.E. Cronin (ed.),
Estuarine research, Vol. I. Academic Press, N.Y.
Piccolo, J., P.W. Morris and J. Lee. 1976. A field and laboratory
evaluation of water quality in finger canals, Vol. I. Hydro -
graphic survey of eight canals in Punta Gorda, Port Charlotte,
Loxahatchee River and Pompano Beach. Contribution from the
Hydraulic Laboratory, Dept. of -Civil Engineering, Univ. of F1.
Sartor, J.D. and G.B. Boyd. 1972. Water pollution aspects of street
surface contaminants. US EPA, Off. Res. Monit. EPA- R2- 72 -081.
Simpson, B.L. (ed.), R.J. Aaron, J.V. Bets, D.B. Hicks, J. van de Rreeke
and B.J. Yokel. 1979. The Naples Bay study. The Collier County
Conservancy, Naples, F1.
Taft, J.L. and W.R. Taylor. 1976. Phosphorus dynamics in some coastal
plain estuaries. pp. 78-89. In M. Wiley (ed.), Estuarine processes,
Vol. I. Academic Press, N.Y.
United States Geological Survey. 1979. Stormwater- runoff data for a
multifamily residential area, Dade County, Florida. Open -file
report 79 -1295.
-59-
APPENDIX A
SOURCE AND EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
FOR THIS STUDY
During the 1979 Florida Legislative Session $20,000 was appropriated
from the General Revenue Fund for a study of the Moorings /Clan Bay
system in Collier County, Florida. These funds were to be administered
by the Water Resources Restoration and Preservation (WRR &P) Section of
the Department of Environmental Regulation.
Existing data were inadequate to determine the condition of the bay
system and what action, if any, should be taken to improve the existing
conditions. Therefore, the WRR&P Section determined that a Phase I, Diag-
nostic /Feasibility Study should be conducted. The objectives of this
Phase I Study were to assess the extent and to identify the causes of
the degradation of water quality in the area between Clan Pass and
Doctors Pass (Fig. 1). The Seagate Road causeway divides this system
into two portions. The northern portion is known as Outer Clam Bay.
The southern portion is commonly known by various names, including
Moorings Bay, Venetian Bay and Inner Doctor's Bay, but is referenced in
this report as Moorings Bay.
In August 1979, the WRR &P Section requested qualification state-
ments and proposals from firms interested in performing the Phase I
Study. It became apparent after reviewing the proposals that were
submitted that the available funding was not adequate to secure any of
the top ranked firms to fulfill the scope of work as described in the
original request for proposals. Therefore, a decision was made to
revise the scope of work so that only the circulation study would be
performed under contract and the focal point of the Phase I study would
-60-
be on Moorings Bay since this was the portion in which water quality had
reportedly declined. An OPS employee, supported with the limited funds
not committed to the circulation study, performed the remaining tasks so
that the maximum benefit could be expected from the available funds.
These tasks included conducting a literature survey, interpreting exist-
ing water quality data and synthesizing the Phase I report from existing
available information.
In December 1979, the department and the consulting firm of Missimer
and Associates, Inc., executed an "Agreement for a Study of the Circulation
of the Moorings Bay Area, Naples, Florida ". The scope of services under
this agreement included tidal stage monitoring, current measurements and
dye dispersion tests to investigate circulation patterns in the bay. In
the final report prepared by Missimer and Associates, Inc. and received
by DER in October, 1980, an array of alternatives were proposed for
correcting the water quality problems in Moorings Bay. These alterna-
tives and others were then considered by the department after information
concerning this bay system had been reviewed. Recommended in this Phase
I report are several alternatives to improve water quality by controlling
the sources of pollution and by improving the circulation and flushing
in Moorings Bay. Limited funds prevented a detailed benefit /cost analysis.
-61-