Agenda 09/24/2014 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
THE CLAM BAY COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION WILL MEET WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24 AT 2:00 PM AT
THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, 8960 HAMMOCK OAK
DR., NAPLES, Fl.
AGENDA
The agenda includes, but is not limited:
1 . Roll call
2. Agenda Approval
3. Audience comments
4. Approval of March 18, April 8, April 24, and May 14 minutes
5. Update on Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan
6. Updates on Nationwide permit application
7. Timeline for preparation of 10-year permit application
8. Additional copper sampling, stations, and estimated costs
9. Suggested edits for RFP for Clam Bay-related services
10. Clam Bay tidal range data from May 2013 to August 2014
11 . Other
12. Next meeting
13. 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://PELICANBAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET.
9/22/2014 3:45:01 PM
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
CLAM BAY COMMITTEE
MARCH 18,2014
The Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division met on Tuesday, March 18,
2014, at 1:00 p.m. the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples,
Florida.
APPEARANCES Susan O'Brien, Chairman
Tom Cravens
John Domenie
Michael Levy
ALSO PRESENT Neil Dorrill,Administrator
Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall &Associates, Inc.
CLAM BAY STAKEHOLDERS Marcia Cravens
Kathy Worley
Mary Johnson
Peter Duggan
Linda Roth
Annice Gregerson
ROLL CALL/AGENDA APPROVAL
All members with the exception of Mr. Chicurel were in attendance. It was determined that there
was a quorum.
A MOTION was made and seconded to approve the Agenda.
It was suggested that the Committee receive their agenda packets in a timelier manner due to the
large volume of items to be reviewed before the meeting.
After a brief discussion, it was agreed that certain items will be tabled until the next meeting.
The Agenda was then unanimously approved as amended.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
It was noted that the agenda was overly ambitious considering the number of important issues
being discussed and the volume of attached material.
Ms. Johnson indicated that it appeared that the bulk of the attached material was previously gone
over, and that she had no problem with the agenda.
Clam Bay Committee—Minutes
March 18, 2014
Page 2
APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 4th MEETING MINUTES
The February 4th meeting minutes were unanimously approved on a MOTION and a
second.
DISCUSSION OF MANAGEMENT PLAN'S GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The Committee had been provided with the original Management Plan's goal and objectives as
well as that done by Ms. Worley for comparison and ultimately to make decisions on.
The goal and objectives were gone through for consistency of language with attention to several
items, such as the protection of the NRPA and its relation to the use of the word estuary, the
support and distinctions as it relates to passive recreation, and the timing of bird surveys. This
discussion will be continued to the next meeting to give the Committee members additional time
to study the information provided to them.
DISCUSSION OF REVISIONS TO CHAPTERS 1 THROUGH 4,APPENDICES AND
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Committee went through these chapters with attention to substantive changes as it relates to
consistency and correctness of language and intent. Smaller changes and corrections will be
submitted to Mr. Hall.
TIMING OF MEETING MATERIAL DISTRIBUTION
Ms. O'Brien asked Mr. Dorrill if the material for the meetings could be provided to the
Committee members on the Thursday before the following week's meeting by 5:00 p.m. to give
them ample time to study the information. Mr. Dorrill agreed that the request was more than
reasonable.
SUGGESTED TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT PLAN AND PERMIT APPLICATION
It was suggested that the latest draft for the Plan be available for stakeholders and put on the
website by May 1, with a workshop to follow on May 13. Final comments will be requested
from the stakeholders by May 16.
POSSIBLE NEW REPORTS/ACTIVITES FOR FY 2015
The Committee discussed the use of volunteer organizations and grants to help reduce the costs
of surveys,which vary in methods and costs. This discussion will be readdressed at a
subsequent meeting.
DRAFT OF ARTICLE FOR PELICAN BAY POST
The Committee members made a few changes to the article prepared by Ms. O'Brien, and noted
that the letter to the Pelican Bay residents regarding the Management Plan should be mailed
around mid-April, approximately two weeks before the article will appear.
Clam Bay Committee—Minutes
March 18, 2014
Page 3
FURTHER DISCUSSION RE: SUGGESTED TIMELINE AND PERMIT
APPLICATION
As it relates to the suggested timeline, in response to Ms. O'Brien's question as to whether the
Commission can start the application process for the 10 year dredging permit, Mr. Hall indicated
that it can certainly be started, although more data is definitely needed. It was pointed out that it
may be premature to start the process, but Mr. Hall indicated that it will not be completed until
the County Commission approves the Management Plan, which will give them time to adjust and
make changes to it.
ESTIMATED COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCE FOR PERMIT APPLICATION AND
RELATED WORK
Mr. Dorrill reported that the costs from Humiston &Moore for engineering and the associated
exhibits and meetings would be $32,500, and this estimate from them will be provided to the
Committee. Mr. Dorrill will be meeting with the County Manager the following Friday to
discuss tourist taxes or county wide property taxes being utilized to cover these costs.
Mr. Hall agreed that the costs would be in that neighborhood,possibly as much as $40,000.
The bathymetric surveys cost from $13,000 to $26,000, and the cost for an initial bathymetric
survey on the interconnecting waterways will be obtained as well. It is hoped that the
engineering costs going forward will be covered by Fund 195 or Fund 111 money.
OTHER INFORMATION
Mr. Hall advised that the manufacturer has agreed to replace all the trail marker poles they had
originally sent as they were bad, and they are covering the contractor's costs as well. The county
is paying for the additional wrapping.
Mr. Williams from County Parks and Recreation will be appearing before the Committee in the
near future to present his master plan concepts for Clam Bay Park. Several modification
suggestions were made previously to Mr. Williams to incorporate into his plans.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. on a MOTION and a second.
Susan O'Brien, Chairman
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
CLAM BAY COMMITTEE
APRIL 8,2014
The Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division met on Tuesday, April 8,2014 at
1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida.
APPEARANCES: Susan O'Brien, Chairman
Joe Chicurel
Tom Cravens
John Domenie
Michael Levy
ALSO PRESENT: Neil Dorrill,Dorrill Management, Administrator
Tim Hall, Turrell &Hall Associates, Inc.
Arielle Poulos, Turrell & Hall Associates, Inc.
Mohamed Dabees, Humiston&Moore Engineers, Inc.
CLAM BAY STAKEHOLDERS: Henry Bachman
Marcia Cravens
Peter Duggan
Annice Gregerson
Mary Johnson
Kathy Worley
ROLL CALL/AGENDA APPROVAL
All members of the Committee were in attendance.
A MOTION and second was made to approve the Agenda.
A discussion of where extra work will be taken on and what the related costs would be will be
included under Item 8.
The Committee then unanimously approved the Agenda as amended.
Information about a drowning at Pelican Bay Beach was noted by Mr. Cravens, who had been
advised by security that a guest had been found in the water the previous day at South Beach.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Peter Duggan, representing Linda Roth, asked the Committee if they would consider four
statements,previously provided to Ms. O'Brien. The Chairman indicated that they would be
discussing these statements, and both she and Mr. Hall had recommendations on the issues.
Clam Bay Committee—Minutes
April 8, 2014
Page 2
APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 18 AND MARCH 4 MEETING MINUTES
A MOTION was made to accept the February 18 meeting minutes.
The Chairman suggested that an update on canoe trail signs on Page 56 of the February minutes
be included, and a period and upper case letter be included after the word "posts". With a
second, the February 18 minutes were unanimously approved by the Committee as
amended.
A MOTION was then made to accept the March 4 meeting minutes, seconded, and
unanimously approved by the Committee.
SUGGESTED LANGUAGE ON WHEN/WHY TO DREDGE
Information on this topic was previously provided to the Chair, and it was suggested that another
reason for dredging would be water quality. Mr. Hall indicated that everything being talked
about at this point was about maintaining title flow, and after discussion, it was agreed that water
quality would not be an issue addressed under this topic.
The essence of what Dr. Dabees had set up on when and why to dredge was included, and while
the data is reported annually, he would prefer to see it on a monthly basis, as that will give them
a better chance of catching a problem before it is crucial. Mr. Cravens agreed. For clarification,
the information is being collected monthly, but the report is generated annually.
DISCUSSION OF DRAFT TEXT ON PARAMETERS TO BE USED TO DETERMINE IF
DREDGING IS NEEDED
Dr. Dabees had previously provided information on when the necessity is reached for dredging,
and added that as he went through the parameters that a single one should not be a trigger to
dredge, as in that case it could be an indicator or an error.
Dr. Dabees noted through photographs for the Committee that the pass itself in Section A is
wider than previously, while Section B is very clogged. The pass that was dredged a year ago is
still open, and the water is flowing between the gulf and the Bay. Mr. Dabees indicated that they
are proposing that the monthly photographs and reports be checked for range, and if it is not
stable,the Committee and the Board can be notified of necessary action.
Dr. Dabees briefly went over what had happened in the past year, noting that the channel had
meandered in various directions to stay open. The scope of the monitoring is the channel,
segments 13 and C and the flood shoal. Section A should be above 300 square feet, and above
450 in sections B and C as the benchmarks.
The cost of the extra bathymetric testing at the six month point as recommended by Dr. Dabees
would be an additional $15,000. At this point it is unknown whether they will receive any
funding from the County for the Clam Bay program.
Dr. Dabees noted that before 2008 the pass was stable and did not require any dredging, but
since the collapse it is a much more critical situation, and he advocated emergency situation
collections. The Committee members agreed that the monitoring approach needed to be
changed, but at the moment costs were an important issue as well. It was agreed that the
Clam Bay Committee—Minutes
April 8, 2014
Page 3
wording would say that the Committee was committed to testing yearly, and every six months if
needed, and Number 3 would be used as the first trigger for testing as recommended by Dr.
Dabees.
The necessity of collecting for both symmetry and flow was discussed, with the tides being the
main driver of the water in and out of the Bay. Fresh water flow changes the components, and
that mix will vary.
The benchmark graphs were explained by Dr. Dabees, the parameters were gone over, and the
averages were noted in sections A,B and C. Section A can self correct, while Section B is
much more challenged, with multiple factors contributing to that. There is a possibility that only
Section B could be dredged, as Section C is very difficult to reach. Dr. Dabees indicated that he
felt at this point that all the plans and specs were in place to do the proposal for the ten year
permit plan.
Ms. O'Brien stressed the need to stay on focus to complete the Management Plan, and Mr.
Cravens suggested that Dr. Dabees continue to monitor the pass, and if action to pursue a
Nationwide dredging permit becomes necessary, he should then contact Mr. Dorrill. Dr. Dabees
indicated that this has already been done, as the system is very vulnerable, and contingencies are
needed.
The Committee agreed after discussion that both issues could be addressed simultaneously, and a
MOTION was made to recommend to the PBSD Board that Dr. Dabees and Mr. Hall be
authorized to apply or renew the Nationwide permit. This will give the PBSD the ability to
use that permit to dredge Section B if it becomes necessary.
The Motion was then seconded and passed four to one by the Committee with Ms. O'Brien
voting against it.
Dr.Dabees will prepare the text for the Management Plan that summarizes what is in the charts
and the graphs, and provide it to the Commission members.
DISCUSSION OF DRAFT TEXT ON TYPICAL DREDGE CUTS AND MAXIMUM
DREDGE CUTS
The typical dredge cuts were previously provided, and text will be prepared for the Management
Plan to explain and clarify what those recommended cuts mean by Dr. Dabees by the 21st of
April for consideration before the meeting on the 24th
DISCUSSION OF OBJECTIVES FOR MANAGEMENT PLAN
A draft and an alternative draft were previously prepared for the Committee and included in the
materials, and the order of the objectives as listed in the materials will be 1, 4, 5, 2 and 3, and the
numbers will be made consecutive to reflect that. The use of the words "water quality"was
objected to in number 3, and the words "where possible"were taken out to meet the approval of
the Committee. The word "protect"was taken out of number 5 and replaced with the word
"monitor". The Committee agreed that they were comfortable with the Plan as prepared by Ms.
O'Brien.
Clam Bay Committee—Minutes
April 8, 2014
Page 4
The meaning of a nuisance species was discussed, and Water Management District defines them
as a native species that grow counteractive to the objectives to be met. A native plant can
become a nuisance, and the ability to act on that after review would then be permitted.
The inclusion of information on fish and bird surveys was discussed at length, and the words
"conduct periodic bird surveys to keep the species list current and in support of ongoing
management activities"will be included in the Management Plan, and a base line list of fish will
be prepared as well for periodic surveys.
The County tracks sea turtle nests on the beaches and prepares detailed reports, and this
information will be incorporated into the Management Plan, and a baseline number of gopher
turtle burrows will be established as well and monitored every few years. Specific terms to be
used were agreed upon, and Mr. Hill will prepare the copy for the Plan on these items, and
excerpts from the comprehensive information gathered by the Conservancy on benthic organisms
will also be included.
Monitoring of the access and use of the facilities was discussed, and Mr. Hill will again
wordsmith the various components of the objectives for the Committee.
DISCUSSION OF EDITS RE: SEAGATE,PAGE 6 OF MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
OTHER NEEDED EDITS
The Committee discussed the boat docks and motorized vessels at Seagate and how to best word
the Plan in this regard. Mr. Hill will prepare the appropriate language as suggested by the
Committee on this issue and provide it to them at the next meeting.
Language regarding the archeological sites within the NRPA will also be included by Mr.Hill.
POSSIBLE NEW REPORTS/ACTIVITIES FOR FY 2015 FOR CLAM BAY
The biological section was allotted approximately $8,000, and the bird and tortoise monitoring
were being included as part of the Objectives section of the Management Plan. Based on the
Committee's discussions,Mr. Hill will revamp the numbers and participating parties as it relates
to new activities and reports and bring them to the next meeting.
UPDATE ON BOATS IN CLAM BAY AND REVISED ORDINANCE
Previous documentation was provided on the boating activities in Clam Bay, and Ms. O'Brien
indicated that the sign and ordinance issues were on hold at the moment; however, Mr. Hall will
be meeting with one of the County attorneys the following day on these issues. The speeding
boat endangering other people within the Bay will be tagged and solutions will be discussed with
Mr. Dorrill.
ADJOURNMENT
On a MOTION and a second,the meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Susan O'Brien, Chairman
CLAM BAY COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
APRIL 24,2014
The Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division met on Thursday,April 24,
2014, at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive,Naples
Florida.
APPEARANCES: Susan O'Brien, Chairman
Joe Chicurel
Tom Cravens
Mike Levy
ALSO PRESENT: Mohamed Dabees,Humiston&Moore Engineers
Tim Hall, Turrell,Hall &Associates
Arielle Poulos, Turrell,Hall &Associates
CLAM BAY STAKEHOLDERS Marcia Cravens
Kathy Worley
Mary Johnson
Peter Duggan
Linda Roth
Annice Gregerson
ROLL CALL/APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was determined that a quorum was present,with the members listed above in attendance.
A MOTION was then made and seconded to accept the Agenda.
Mr. Cravens suggested that an update be given by the experts under Item 8, and Ms. O'Brien
added a discussion on the letter to stakeholders as well as the recommendations that the
Committee should be making to the full Board.
The Agenda was then unanimously accepted.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no audience comment received.
Clam Bay Committee—Minutes
April 24, 2014
Page 2
DISCUSSION OF DRAFT TEXT ON PARAMETERS TO DETERMINE THE NECESSITY
OF DREDGING
The Committee discussed the dredging that had occurred in the past and the management plan
that was in place to address the clogging issues. After a brief discussion, Dr. Dabees was asked
to insert a note in the data indicating why dredging was done at certain times in the past.
The Committee members went through the draft text, clarifying and changing certain language to
better express the intent of and reasoning for the parameters to be used. Mr. Hall will be
consulted as to the correct wording in certain areas as well.
The variables provided by Dr. Dabees to determine if dredging was needed were included in
summary fashion in the draft text, along with the pertinent, excerpted pages from his report.
It was agreed that various tables provided by Dr. Dabees would be combined in the text when
possible to provide more information, and Dr. Dabees added language that clarified certain areas
of his report.
DISCUSSION OF DRAFT TEXT ON TYPICAL AND MAXIMUM DREDGE CUTS
The Committee discussed the sufficiency of the five foot buffer for the cuts at the mangroves
used in the past, and refined the language to better express the parameters for typical and
maximum dredge cuts going forward. They also discussed crafting language that would protect
the intent and expectations included in the management plan, and both Ms. O'Brien and Dr.
Dabees indicated that they would go through their notes taken during this discussion and have
them available for the next meeting.
DISCUSSION OF GOAL AND OBJECTIVES OF MANAGEMENT PLAN
Ms. O'Brien indicated that she and Mr. Hall had edited the Goal and Objectives of the plan, a
copy of which was provided to the Committee members. The Committee agreed that they would
bullet point the objectives to make them as clear as possible, and an information board will also
be put up to further enhance the recognition of water and shore birds and other wildlife seen in
the Clam Bay area. Additionally, protected species, such as the gopher tortoise, can then be
monitored as to sightings.
Clam Bay Committee—Minutes
April 24, 2014
Page 3
The appropriate State and Federal permits to be obtained will also be listed, and information on
the copper levels and what steps the PBSD is taking to determine its possible impact was
included to address questions the relevant agencies may have.
SUGGESTED EDITS/OTHER ISSUES RE: MANAGEMENT PLAN
The sentence indicating that the Seagate community homeowners were recognized as having
many boats will remain in place, and the arrangement between the County and the Waldorf
Astoria as it relates to the adjacent park will be described as being managed by the hotel. A few
grammatical and form changes were made throughout the Plan, and the acronyms being used
will be checked for correctness as well. Where necessary for clarity and completeness,
additional verbiage was inserted.
POSSIBLE NEW REPORTS/ACTIVITIES FOR FY 2015
A list of possible activities for the coming year was provided to the Committee members. A fair
and realistic number to request for these activities was discussed, and the Committee agreed that
the number would be left at$25,000.
TIMELINE AND FUNDING FOR TEN-YEAR PERMIT APPLICATION
It was expected that the timeline and funding information would be available the following
Monday.
UPDATE ON BOATS IN CLAM BAY AND REVISED ORDINANCE
Mr. Hall provided a copy of the revised ordinance relative to vessel speed control in the Clam
Bay system to the Committee, and once they approve it, it will go to the full Board for their
approval, and then to the County for consideration for adoption. After a few minor changes and
corrections, on a MOTION and a second, the Committee unanimously approved presenting the
revised ordinance to the full Board for their approval.
Clam Bay Committee—Minutes
April 24, 2014
Page 4
UPDATE ON MOORINGS BAY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
It was believed that the Moorings Bay Committee was no longer a problem; however, it there is
anything further to be addressed on it, it will be brought before the full PBSD Board.
NEXT MEETING
It was agreed that the next Clam Bay Committee meeting would be held on the 22nd of May.
ADJOURNMENT
With nothing further to be discussed by the Committee, the meeting was adjourned on a
MOTION and a second at 4:05 p.m.
Susan O'Brien, Chairman
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
CLAM BAY COMMITTEE WORKSHOP
MAY 14,2014
The Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division met on Wednesday, May 14,
2014 at 1:00 p.m. for a workshop at the community center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak
Drive,Naples, Florida.
APPEARANCES: Susan O'Brien, Chairman
Tom Cravens
John Domenie
Michael Levy
Joe Chicurel
ALSO PRESENT: Neil Dorrill, Administrator
Mohamed Dabees, Humiston &Moore Engineers
Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall &Associates
Dave Trecker, Chairman, PBSD Board
Scott Streckenbein, PBSD Board
CLAM BAY STAKEHOLDERS Linda Roth
Kathy Worley
Marcia Cravens
Annice Gregerson
Mary Johnson
Peter Duggan
Henry Bachman
WELCOME
Ms. O'Brien opened the workshop and thanked those present for being in attendance.
DISCUSSION OF FINAL DRAFT OF CLAM BAY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Ms. Linda Roth addressed some changes and edits, and it was agreed that only the substantial
changes would be discussed at the workshop. She noted some wording to be added and changed
in certain areas for clarification, and suggested some areas that were redundant and should be
removed. These changes, deletions and recommendations were previously provided to the
Committee members.
The necessity of including all the data presently in the appendix was discussed, and Ms. Worley
suggested that if the information is included in the appendix, it should be spelled out as to why it
is there and what it is tied to.
Clam Bay Workshop—Minutes
May 14,2014
Page 2
Ms. Roth also noted that her suggestion to include a paragraph related to the water movement
into Clam Bay was not yet in the Plan, and Mr. Hall explained the meaning of the documents
Ms. Roth provided, and indicated that he had inserted wording in the Plan to address that issue.
The objectives were gone over briefly, and some small changes were made in the bullet points.
It was further suggested that the responsible entities for the various facets of Clam Bay be listed
in the Plan as it was in an earlier version, and Ms. O'Brien agreed that they can revisit that issue
at the next Committee meeting.
In response to Ms. Worley's question, Dr. Dabees indicated that the drawings on page 90 were a
modification and reduction of the information from the previous dredging, and the red line is
what is being recommended.
Mr. Bachman suggested that it may not be clear enough that the PBSD was responsible for what
is in the Management Plan, and Ms. O'Brien noted that she felt it was clear in the text that the
PBSD was responsible for the implementation of the plan.
Additionally Mr. Bachman asked about funding for the many projects and activities noted in the
Plan, and Mr. Cravens agreed that the Plan does not specifically tag how they are to be paid for.
Ms. O'Brien indicated that there is an overall tag at the Goal and Objectives lead-in regarding
the availability of funding and staff, but that they would work on a stronger statement in this
regard.
Ms. Cravens spoke to the introduction and what she felt needed to be stricken from it and
otherwise corrected. She added that the Committee and the consultants are not following the
direction of the County Commission,which authorized and delegated the PB SD to update the
existing Clam Bay Restoration Management Plan, and that the numerous organizations and
people involved in the original plan were not mentioned in the PBSD version. Ms. Cravens also
felt that the tables in the Plan were disjointed, and referred the Committee to the 1995 Clam Bay
Management Plan as it relates to habitats and land uses which she noted was outstanding.
Ms. Cravens was asked to submit the remainder of her corrections to the Committee, as there
were several that could not be mentioned in the time frame available.
Ms. Worley noted the need for consistency within the categories as to general statements as
opposed to those of Clam Bay specifically. Ms. Worley will send her structural suggestions and
other notations on spellings and additions to the Committee members. Ms. Worley added as well
that the Goal and Objectives needed to include a performance measure in order to evaluate it.
The relationship between the stormwater management areas outside of the NRPA and NRPA
itself was raised by a resident as it relates to the issue of the nutrients in Clam Bay from
fertilization and irrigation water as it is not addressed fully in the Management Plan. He also
felt that the Plan should address sea level life adaptations and how stable it is, and how the tides
coming in and out can affect that dynamic.
Dr. Dabees briefly spoke to the water level issues, and it was suggested that he craft some
language to insert into the Plan that addresses that issue.
Clam Bay Workshop—Minutes
May 14, 2014
Page 3
It was also noted by Ms. Johnson that this is a ten year plan that clearly states that ongoing
information will be taken into consideration. She felt it was an excellent plan and that the
Committee needed to move forward from here.
A resident expressed concern about the surface water that has increased with development and is
running into Clam Bay. Mr. Hall indicated that rainfall is about 52 inches, and irrigation is half
that amount again, and the range then is anywhere from 78 to 83 inches of water falling on the
surface of the ground. The Management Plan recognizes the water coming from the upland
areas, but there is also a subsurface flow that also goes into the Bay, which they have no current
detailed information on. The rain and the subsurface flow are handled on a reactive basis;
whereas the landscape water and lakes and those issues are addressed on a much more proactive
basis.
Ms. Worley suggested that the section on water reduction and the berm could be lifted from the
old 1998 Plan and inserted into the new one, which would answer many of these questions.
A representative of the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department noted that a wild turkey
was sighted on the beach, as well as a flamingo. She noted as well that the Collier County
Resource Department had teams of biologists in the 1980s doing research on a large area that
included Clam Bay, and that there has been monitoring going on since 1990 that continues to this
day. Mr. Hall indicated that they have coordinated this with the County.
Susan O'Brien, Chairman
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve The Clam Bay
NRPA Management Plan and authorize Pelican Bay Services Division to submit the
Plan to the required Federal and State Agencies.
OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners to approve the Clam Bay
NRPA Management Plan and authorize Pelican Bay Services Division to submit the plan
to the required Federal and State Agencies.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. On December 11, 2012, the Board of County Commissioners clarified and reaffirmed
that the Pelican Bay Services Division has the responsibility for advising the County
on dredging and maintaining Clam Pass and will manage such activities for the
County. The Board also directed Turrell, Hall & Associates to prepare a work order
under Contract 10-5571 to update the existing Clam Bay Management Plan. Since
that time, the Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Advisory Board
developed a comprehensive list of all community members and stakeholders and
invited same to 23 public meetings and workshops from March 2013 to June 2014.
2. On June 19, 2014, the Pelican Bay Services Division called a Special Meeting to
review the final draft Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan. At the Pelican Bay
Services Division regular meeting on July 2, 2014 the board voted unanimously to
approve the Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan and submit it to the BCC.
3. The Management Plan will provide guidance for future management activities within
the NRPA, building on the successes of the 1998 Restoration and Management Plan.
4. The Management Plan will also be used to support permit applications that may be
required for management activities. It also includes typical dredging templates for
the three sections of Clam Pass and flood shoal that show the cross sectional areas
that could be dredged in any event.
5. The document also allows for changes to the plan should new information or
management techniques come to light that would be of benefit to the Clam Bay
NRPA.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact for application and processing of the Clam Bay
NRPA Management Plan until issuance of the new 10 year permit is 581,500. Funds are
available in the Clam Bay Fund 320(or other county fund if approved).
LEGAL CONSIDERSTIONS: This item has been approved as to form and legality and
requires majority vote for approval. —CMG
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Clam
Bay NRPA Management Plan and authorize Pelican Bay Services Division to submit the
Plan to the required Federal and State Agencies.
Prepared by: Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst
Reviewed by: Neil Dorrill,PBSD Administrator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to approve The Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan and authorize
Pelican Bay Services Division to administer the Plan.
OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance for the management activities necessary to ensure
the health of the entire Clam Bay NRPA estuary with regular monitoring that will assist
Pelican Bay Services Division to track the stability of the NRPA and make necessary
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. On December 11, 2012, the Board of County Commissioners clarified and reaffirmed
that the Pelican Bay Services Division has the responsibility for advising the County
on dredging and maintaining Clam Pass and will manage such activities for the
County. The Board also directed Turrell, Hall & Associates to prepare a work order
under Contract 10-5571 to update the existing Clam Bay Management Plan. Since
that time, the Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Advisory Board
developed a comprehensive list of all community members and stakeholders and
invited same to 23 public meetings and workshops from March 2013 to June 2014.
2. On June 19, 2014, the Pelican Bay Services Division called a Special Meeting to
review the final draft Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan. At the Pelican Bay
Services Division regular meeting on July 2, 2014 the board voted unanimously to
approve the Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan and submit it to the BCC for review
and approval.
3. The Management Plan will provide guidance for future management activities within
the NRPA, building on the successes of the 1998 Restoration and Management Plan.
4. The Management Plan will also be used to support permit applications that may be
required for management activities. It also includes typical dredging templates for
the three sections of Clam Pass and flood shoal that show the cross sectional areas
that could be dredged in any event.
5. The document also allows for changes to the plan should new information or
management techniques come to light that would be of benefit to the Clam Bay
NRPA.
SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: Clam Pass is both an
environmental and hydraulically sensitive inlet and at times a source of competing
political and community priorities. The adoption of the Clam Bay Management Plan has
significant impacts for the management of this unique resource. For this reason several
modifications to the plan and its implementation are recommended by staff for the
Board's consideration. First, incorporating the management plan as part of the next 10
year maintenance permit is not recommended and may expose the county to unnecessary
risk and unintended consequences. The Army Corp of Engineers does not require that
plans be made a part of the permit applications and should be avoided. Second, recent
efforts to develop site specific nutrient parameters for the water quality in Collier County
require modifications to the historic water monitoring program.
Specifically sampling protocol should:
• Be consistent with sites used by Atkins Consulting to establish nutrient
criteria
• Continue to be conducted monthly
• Follow the required parameter list
• Continue to meet FAC for inclusion in the statewide water quality
database (STORET)
• Continue to provide for an annual report utilizing the methodologies
recommended by the county's consultant
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact for application and processing of the Clam Bay
NRPA Management Plan until issuance of the new 10 year permit is $82,160. Additional
expenses to carry out activities required by the 10 year plan for annual hydrographic
($28,800) and biological ($22,300) monitoring, and water quality work ($5,500) is
$56,600. This work is eligible for Tourist Development Tax funding (195) Clam Pass
Dredging Project 88032.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Pursuant to Section 125.0104, Fla. Stat., the Tourist
Development Council ("TDC") is required to make a recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners (``BCC") regarding the expenditure of tourist development tax.
As a result, the Pelican Bay Services Division is required to ask the TDC to make a
recommendation on the above listed expenditures and to make a recommendation and
finding as to whether the expenditure promotes tourism. Following a TDC
recommendation, this item will then be taken to the BCC prior to any expenditure of
tourist development tax funds. This item has been approved as to form and legality and
requires majority vote for approval.—CMG
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Clam
Bay NRPA Management Plan and authorize Pelican Bay Services Division to administer
the Plan.
Prepared by: Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst
Reviewed by: Neil Dorrill, PBSD Administrator
�1<3-rekie
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PM) C(*.4 ,3�
the e
Recommendation to accept for review the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection eft
Area (NRPA) Management Plan (Plan), consider staff's recommended
modifications to the Plan, provide direction based on these recommendations, and
authorize Pelican Bay Services Division to administer the Plan as approved by the
Board of County Commissioners.
OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance for the management activities necessary to ensure
the health of the entire Clam Bay NRPA estuary with regular monitoring that will assist
Pelican Bay Services Division to track the stability of the NRPA and make necessary
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. On December 11, 2012, the Board of County Commissioners clarified and reaffirmed
that the Pelican Bay Services Division has the responsibility for advising the County
on dredging and maintaining Clam Pass and will manage such activities for the
County. The Board also directed Turrell, Hall & Associates to prepare a work order
under Contract 10-5571 to update the existing Clam Bay Management Plan. Since
that time, the Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Advisory Board
developed a comprehensive list of all community members and stakeholders and
invited same to 23 public meetings and workshops from March 2013 to June 2014.
2. On June 19, 2014, the Pelican Bay Services Division called a Special Meeting to
review the final draft Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan. At the Pelican Bay
Services Division regular meeting on July 2, 2014 the board voted unanimously to
approve the Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan and submit it to the BCC for review
and approval.
3. The Management Plan will provide guidance for future management activities within
the NRPA,building on the successes of the 1998 Restoration and Management Plan.
4. The Management Plan will also be used to support permit applications that may be
required for management activities. It also includes typical dredging templates for
the three sections of Clam Pass and flood shoal that show the cross sectional areas
that could be dredged in any event.
5. The document also allows for changes to the plan should new information or
management techniques come to light that would be of benefit to the Clam Bay
NRPA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Clam Pass is both an environmental and
hydraulically sensitive inlet and at times a source of competing political and community
priorities. The adoption of the Clam Bay Management Plan has significant impacts for
the management of this unique resource. For this reason several modifications to the
plan and its implementation are recommended by staff for the Board's consideration.
First, incorporating the management plan as part of the next 10 year maintenance permit
is not recommended and may expose the county to unnecessary risk and unintended
consequences. The Army Corp of Engineers does not require that plans be made a part of
the permit applications and should be avoided. Second, recently developed site specific
nutrient parameters for the water quality in Collier County, as adopted in the Florida
Administrative Code and by the EPA, require modifications to the historic water
monitoring program.
Specifically sampling protocol should:
•rb i
4421! Be consistent with sites used by Atkins Consulting to establish nutrient
r* criteria.
® Continue to be conducted monthly.
• Follow the recommended parameter list, making certain that all sampling
protocols comply with FDEP guidelines and standards.
• Continue to meet the Fla. Admin. Code for inclusion in the statewide
water quality database (STORET) and enter data into STORET annually.
• Continue to provide for an annual report utilizing the methodologies
recommended by the county's consultant.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact for application and processing of the Clam Bay
NRPA Management Plan until issuance of the new 10 year permit is $82,160. Additional
expenses to carry out activities required by the 10 year plan for annual hydrographic
($28,800) and biological ($22,300) monitoring, and water quality work ($5,500) is
$56,600. Not all Clam Bay/Clam Pass related expenditures may be eligible for TDC
funding and those that may be eligible will be reviewed by the TDC and the BCC to
make a finding as to whether the expenditures promote tourism. The Tentative FY15
TDC Fund (195) project 88032 budget includes funding of $71,500 for the 10-year
dredging permit.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Pursuant to Section 125.0104, Fla. Stat., the Tourist
Development Council ("TDC") is required to make a recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners ("BCC")prior to the expenditure of tourist development tax. Not
all of the Clam Bay/Clam Pass related expenditures may be eligible for TDC funding.For
those expenditures that may be eligible the Pelican Bay Services Division is required to
ask the TDC to make a recommendation on the expenditures and to make a
recommendation and finding as to whether the eligible expenditures promotes tourism.
Following a TDC recommendation, this item will then be taken to the BCC for approval.
This item has been approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote for
approval.—CMG
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners provide direction
concerning staffs recommendations to the Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan and
authorize Pelican Bay Services Division to administer the Plan as approved by the Board
of County Commissioners.
Prepared by: Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst
Reviewed by: Neil Dorrill,PBSD Administrator
ResnickLisa
From: naplessusan@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 8:40 AM
To: McCaughtryMary; ResnickLisa
Cc: "Neil Dorrill"
Subject: Fwd: Re: Clam Bay Man. Plan
Attachments: RevisedPhasellTMJuly232014.pdf; 62514b_Memo_EJO.doc
Hi Mary and Lisa,
Hopefully there are two documents attached. Please add these to the agenda
materials for Wed. ' s Clam Bay meeting.
Thanks,
Susan
Forwarded Message
From: MLMAssocAICP()aol.com
To: naplessusan(acomcast.net
Cc: jimhftelicanbay.org
Sent: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:43:05 -0000 (UTC)
Subject : Re: Clam Bay Man. Plan
di Susan,
Thanks for getting in touch. In June, when I was making editorial comments about
the organization of the plan, I had also noted some areas where I felt the
report could be strengthened, particularly the water quality section. I knew
there was more detail that should be included, although it would have taken some
research on my part to try to pull it together and there was a desire to get the
report to the County authorities as soon as possible.
Since then, the Foundation has circulated the management plan for review to the
consultants who had worked with the Foundation previously to advise
on Clam Bay water quality (David Tomasko) and dredging (Eric Olsen) . David
Tomasko has prepared an excellent memo that details the statutory requirements
as they relate to Clam Bay and what they mean for collecting data and monitoring
water quality. This makes the job of commenting on the water quality section
much easier, as I would draw on his report. I should be able
to get some summary comments to you by tomorrow, end of the day.
However, I also think it would be helpful for you to have his entire report to
review and share with the Committee. Not only does it provide useful background
for the management plan, but it includes a data analysis and report on the
current status of water quality. Jim H agrees and I have included it as an
attachment.
1
Also included is a copy of the comments made by Eric Olsen on the dredging
component. It is unclear what avenue the Foundation may have to comment formally
on the dredging plan as part of signing off on the permit. However, this memo
indicates the areas for discussion, if/when that opportunity arises (hopefully
sooner rather than later, as everyone is anxious to see an application for the
long-term permit go in) .
I will be traveling to Naples on Wednesday and so not able to attend the meeting.
I have asked Jim if he would be sure to attend and am cc ' ing him
on our communication, to keep everyone in the loop. I would have some time
to meet with you on Thursday, if it would help to move things along or if there
is follow-up from the meeting.
I hope this is an agreeable approach.
Regards,
Mary
Mary McLean Johnson
(518) 735-4385 (Chateaugay Lake, NY)
(239) 248-8546 (cell)
In a message dated 9/19/2014 9:33:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
naplessusan(comcast.net writes:
Hi Mary,
The above has been pulled from the Sept. 23 agenda and put on the Oct. 14
agenda. Some of the County staff concerns are about water quality. Would you
be willing to review the water quality section and objective 3 on water quality
and make suggestions for improving these sections of the plan? I talked with
Gary McAlpin yesterday, and he said that it wasn't sufficient to say that all
FDEP guidelines, etc. would be followed because all pertinent FL statutes should
also be followed. That would be fairly easy to incorporate. If you have
similar suggestions, I would welcome them, and they could be considered by the
Clam Bay at its Sept. 24 meeting.
The Man. Plan is available on the PBSD website.
You 've made many contributions to the plan, and if you prefer not to weigh in on
this, that ' s certainly fine with me.
Susan
2
ResnickLisa
Subject: Sept. 24 Clam Bay Committee Summary: Items 6, 7, & 8
Attachments: Clam_Bay_Sampling_Locations09.jpg; lop21may96.pdf
From: Tim Hall [mailto:Tim@turrell-associates.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 8:43 AM
To: ResnickLisa
Subject: RE: Sept. 24 Clam Bay Committee Meeting
Lisa,
I will be at the meeting to address these items but a summary is presented below.
Agenda Item 6 —There is not much of an update on the Nationwide application as the Corps position has not
changed since the last meeting. They are not willing to issue a nationwide and have indicated that we need to
file a standard individual permit application. Whether we file for a single activity permit or for the overall 10-
year permit is up to us. Given the review times and information required, it is my opinion that the 10-year
permit is the way we should go. In speaking with the Corps, we may still have options to open the Pass should
it close while the permit review is underway but we would need to use the Corps"Letter of Permission"process
rather than the Nationwide process. I have attached the LOP criteria and we would possibly qualify under a.2
depending on what we do with the dredged material.
Agenda Item 7 —As we discussed at the last meeting, I would estimate that it should take us 2 to 3 weeks to put
together the application once the bathymetric survey information is collected and processed. However, to the
best of my knowledge, there has not been a budget approval yet to fund this endeavor. The most time
consuming aspect from my end would be the drafting of the biological assessment for review by the FWS and
NMFS. Since a lot of the required information is already contained within the Management Plan, the time to
draft this will be reduced. Once drafted I am assuming that both the PBSD board and BCC will need to review
and approve prior to submittal so we would then be prisoner to their respective schedules before the application
is actually submitted.
Agenda Item 8 —The changes to the water quality monitoring program over what has been done in the past are
specific to the testing within the Clam Bay waters and not to the testing we currently do along the Berm.
Changes would include expanding the sampling from 5 stations as currently collected to at least 9 stations as
established by CZM and PBSJ when they were coordinating with the State on the site specific criteria. Both the
number and location of the collection points would change under the new monitoring program. Attached is an
exhibit regarding those locations. Regarding costs, PBSD currently collects the samples and sends them to the
County lab for analysis. Manpower costs would increase as two people and a boat will be needed for the new
collection program. In addition, lab costs will almost double for this aspect of the monitoring program as the
number of samples will increase from 5 to 9. I don't know what the PBSD costs are for the manpower or lab
use but in general the new protocol should be approximately twice the cost of the existing sampling tor this
aspect(within the Clam Bay waters). The costs for the Berm samples will remain the same. For THA
biologists to collect the samples,the cost will be approximately$1,425 per month assuming 2 people for
approximately 5 hours plus the boat use to access the sample locations. Samples could then be delivered to the
County lab or other approved outside lab for processing.
Regards,
Tim Hall
i
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
':\tee JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
_ 50"
P.0.BOX 4970 � ,.�,,,.. c _
JACKSONVILLE,FLORIDA 32232-0019
•
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
• 21 MAY $ 6
Construction-Operations Division
Regulatory Branch
PUBLIC NOTICE
LOP CATEGORIES OF WORK
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: In accordance with 33 CFR Part
325. 2 (e) (1) , on March 22, 1994, the Jacksonville District, U.S .
Army Corps of Engineers, issued a public notice proposing changes
and additions to the categories of work evaluated as Letters of
Permission (LOPS) under Section 10 of the Rivers -and Harbors Act
of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Based on
comments received and an analysis of all relevant issues, the
Jacksonville District is instituting the following changes to the
categories of work evaluated as LOPs under these Acts . The
geographic area in which the categories of permit applications
will be evaluated as LOPs encompasses the entire Jacksonville
District, excluding Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands .
a. Pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act,
the following categories will be evaluated as LOPS:
(1) Minor structures that do not qualify for a Nationwide
Permit or General Permit, however, they are considered so minor
(e.g. , small platforms, mooring dolphins, multiple mooring
pilings) that Individual Permitting is not required.
(2) Maintenance dredging up to- 50, 000 cubic yards with
upland disposal.
(3) New dredging up to 50, 000 cubic yards (restricted to a
maximum of 5000 cubic yards in Monroe County) provided no
emergent wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, or live bottom
is impacted. All spoil is to be deposited on uplands.
(4) Marinas or multifamily piers with 20 or fewer boat
slips. We will continue to use the Manatee Key, dated May 1995,
developed by the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service to determine "no
effect" or "may affect" and condition applicable permits with the
Standard Manatee Conditions .
•
b. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the following
categories will be evaluated as LOPs:
(1) Mosquito control activity including rotary ditching.
(2) Erosion control activities not to exceed 0.2 acre of
fill .
(3) Minor modifications to previously issued Department of
the Army Individual Permits not to exceed 10 percent of the
original authorization, and, not to exceed 10 acres.
(4) Backfill to eliminate existing, unvegetated boat basins
and boat ramps, limiting the size to 0.2 acre. All backfill is
to consist of suitable material. Vegetative or construction
debris is not acceptable.
(5) Restoration efforts required by the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection DEP where a discharge into Section
404 areas is required or additional mitigation is required after
a Department of the Army permit is issued.
c. All projects evaluated as LOPs under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act will require Section 401 WQC from the appropriate
State agency prior to issuance of the DA permit. In addition,
for many Section 10 marina and/or dredging projects, where water
quality issues are a concern, receipt of Section 401 WQC will
also be required prior to issuance of the DA permit.
d. Coastal Zone Management (CZM) consistency/permit:
Where applicable, all LOPs will require a Coastal Zone Management
consistency determination from the appropriate State agency.
Issuance of a state permit indicates that the project is
consistent with the CZM plan.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Ms . Marie Burns at the
letterhead address or by telephone at (904) 232-3943.
77.7C44",;#664#"4--
19t.John R. Hall
Chief, Regulatory Branch
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Hoppensteadt; Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. Olsen
FROM: Erik J. Olsen, P.E. G -' associates, inc.
Coastal Engineering
DATE: 9 June 2014
RE: Clam Pass—Maintenance Dredging
Jim—
After we talked this morning I called Mohamed Dabees at Humiston & Moore to ask a
variety of questions regarding their"evolving"plan for channel maintenance which as you stated
accurately is presently based upon acquiring another"Nationwide Permit" until they can acquire
a long-term federal permit—or at least that's the story. Essentially, I learned the following:
1. They are going to "attempt" to get the COE to allow the use of a hydraulic dredge (in
combination with a backhoe) under the next Nationwide Permit. Personally I'm not sure
that's doable under the constraint associated with not placing material below the MHWL.
The only way I know that it could be accomplished is pumping the material into a diked
area on the beach. I'll be impressed if they get permission to hydraulically place material
under a Nationwide Permit. The Feds are typically very stringent on the MHWL
requirement the fact being that you do not need a Permit if you are working above the
MHWL.
2. When asked about scarp removal,he claims the County turtle person state's that the scarp
length is not sufficient to trigger a response under the terms of the FDEP Permit. In our
experience, that requirement is typically a scarp greater than I 8" for 100 ft.,or more shall
be reported to the agency and remedial action coordinated—in season. As you are aware,
within 30 days of the 2014 nesting season all scarps (greater than 18") should have been
removed by the County (or whomever now holds the Permits). As I noted, the type of
beach created under the nationwide — at a 1:10 slope is highly un-natural and likewise
highly prone to scarping. Mohamed indicates that they spent considerable time grading
olsen associates, inc. 12618 Herschel Street I Jacksonville, FL 32204 1904.387.6114 1 FAX 904.384.7368
www.olsen-associates.com.
the berm after the last fill. if that's accurate,to achieve a natural beach slope, they would
have needed to grade below the MHWL. Hence, I'm not sure if he is referring to the top
of the berm—or the beach foreshore—which is what you really need graded. I suspect he
is referring to the former.
3. With respect to infilling the pre-existing meander abutting your property during the next
channel maintenance project, he alleges that if he did, it would constitute a condition
whereby material more rapidly avalanches into the channel throat. That may be correct,
but doesn't necessarily obviate the requirement to do so if it is necessitated by the FDEP
permit. I believe that there is some likelihood that partial infilling of the meander could
occur naturally —depending upon shoal conditions within the inlet at the time of the next
maintenance operation. Mohamed's"theory" is that leaving the meander allows for more
water to enter the estuary on a flood tide — not that the meander will "recover" or infill.
As you are aware, the FDEP permit clearly calls for the old channel to be filled. It was
added to protect your interests. Hence, you are probably within your rights to see it
implemented — particularly since the argument could be made that leaving the meander
(unfilled) only allows the dredged channel to migrate northward more easily/more
rapidly. Frankly, unless the inlet closes completely prior to the next maintenance event
(like last time), I'm not sure how the meander could be legally filled under the
Nationwide Permit — if the associated work is essentially below the MHWL. It is
therefore likely that the terms of the Nationwide Permit may actually be what's driving
the proposal to not fill the meander. This may be something you could consider allowing
to occur on a stipulated one-time (only) basis to a.) determine if project performance
justifies the action, and b.) to determine if it is or isn't impactive to your property. If you
allowed the work to proceed as presently designed, you would want certain safeguards
and/or stipulations that someone would be responsible for mitigation (although such
mitigation is not permitted and pragmatically may not be permittable under the existing
circumstances).
Please let me know if I can address any continuing issues or concerns.
Erik
-2 - olsen associates, inc.
1
,f
c 4.'-
M 't z y;'''
ill•
l-zi ' - ■
1. ..
z.
� r
I.
-, •. ,
I` `
.?rte
w '.�
el
y .,,
11 -a :0* :I- '1::' '
t �`
t 4e,,,, ..........:**
e° .,, r .... ;.
1 t1 y e.•
It
'1�
i`
•4
..MEMORANDUM
TO:
TO: Jim Hoppensteadt; Pelican Bay Foundation
el
FROM: Erik J. Olsen, P.E. EIS-1) olsen
associates, inc.
DATE: 25 June 2014 Coastal Engineering
RE: Clam Pass Management Plan
I have reviewed the last monitoring report by Humiston and Moore as well as Appendix 5
entitled Clam Pass Maintenance Design Criteria and what appears to be the Draft "Plan" itself.
As in the past the inlet channel is divided into three (3) sections, A, B & C. Within each
segment, certain threshold shoaling criteria are proposed which would lead to potential remedial
actions necessary to reconstruct a Pass channel to an improved open and flowing condition.
Such actions would be initiated either when the Pass is closed, or was determined to be in
imminent danger of closure due to continued predictable shoaling.
Clam Pass is routinely described as a "marginally stable" tidal inlet. Pragmatically, it
might be better described as a relatively"unstable"inlet since its documented history indicates it
has closed approximately six times in 25 years (i.e. every 4 years, mol). Typically, the classical
determination of inlet stability is based upon an empirical relationship associated on inlet's
minimum cross-sectional area measured on a spring high tide. Conversely, conditions affecting
the status of Clam Pass are somewhat more complex since it is quite small, experiences "mixed"
tides and is affected by widely fluctuating littoral transport and beach width conditions.
Accordingly, the project engineers, Humiston and Moore (H&M) have proffered a variety of
parameters which directly or indirectly relate to Pass"stability" and which could, (if adopted), be
used to trigger a dredging event necessary to bring the Pass back to what they term as "target"
conditions.
olsen associates,inc. 12618 Herschel Street I Jacksonville, FL 32204 I 904.387.6114 I FAX 904.384 7368
www.olsen-associates.com
The Draft Clam Pass Management Plan (dated 30 May 2014) proffers a dredging policy
based upon two (2) approaches:
a.) The Pass closes or is in imminent danger of closing, or
b.) The inlet has lost hydraulic efficiency such that the Clam Bay ecosystem is being
adversely affected.
Either situation could warrant a dredging project intended to bring the Pass back to an
open and flowing condition.
With respect to dredging criteria or "triggers" which would warrant action, H&M submit
four parameters which in their opinion could warranty physical intervention:
1.) Reduction in Bay Tide Range,
2.) Cross-Section of Flow Area,or Volume of Shoaled Material,
3.) Inlet channel length, and
4.) Ebb Shoal configuration.
Simplistically, I believe that trigger no. 1 (Bay Tide Reduction) and trigger no. 2 Cross-
Sectional flow area (only) are the only relevant engineering characteristics worthy of
consideration. That is to say, volume of shoal material, inlet channel length and ebb shoal
configuration are at best "contrived" parameters. They are obviously worthy of monitoring, but
highly dubious as reliable physically-based parameters for decision making. With that said, if
the desire is to have the strongest "story" possible to warrant action, I would not personally
object to their delineation in a Management Plan.
Design/Operational Comments
I continue to be skeptical of H&M's approach to minimizing the design cross-sectional
area of the initial Channel A cut—unless again truly necessary to get past local politics. The fact
of life here is that when the channel cross-sectional area of the entrance channel — as built—is so
close to the minimum cross-sectional area required for stability, the probability of the shoaling
(sedimentation) forces dominating the flow regime is very high. The net result is a shorter
duration of the inlet project opening, rapid migration of an ever-narrowing channel, the
- 2 - olsen associates, inc.
requirement for more frequent dredging operations (and costs), as well as any associated
environmental impacts occurring due to the work itself, or more importantly due to insufficient
flushing of Clam Bay.
Another, design issue which needs to be addressed to improve the probability of success
for each future dredging operation is to ensure that the channel cut extends well into, or ideally
past the outer limit of the ebb tidal shoal. This can only be reasonably accomplished if a small
hydraulic dredge is utilized. In my view this is one factor which has resulted in the rapid
infilling of the 2013 project as well as the inability to reach sand in Channel Segment C. The
most recent project was constructed with land based equipment which could not cut through the
seaward ebb tidal shoal (see Figure 1). Hence, between minimum entrance channel cut cross-
sectional dimensions and a cut which is not long enough in a southerly direction — the Pass is
fighting an uphill battle to achieve a reliable and robust open and flowing condition.
There were two (2) reasons the 2013 construction operation was constructed with land
based equipment. 1.) The Pass was totally closed and such equipment could transit sufficiently
to move sand and to make a pilot cut and 2.) the terms of the Federal Nationwide Permit
necessitate that fill must be placed above the MHWL. Hence, a hydraulic dredge could not be
utilized. It is therefore imperative that an appropriate federal Dredge & Fill permit be acquired
ASAP. Otherwise, the project will again be adversely affected by this operational constraint.
The net result will be a channel restoration project again somewhat hampered by the seaward
limit of the channel cut past the MHWL (in existence at the time of construction). In reviewing
the H&M design documents, I recently noted this permit condition to Ken Humiston who hadn't
thought about the implicit restrictions associated with a hydraulic dredge — since the dredge
effluent must flow back to the Gulf below the MHWL.
As an aside, another design modification which could serve as a betterment to the
historical dredging plan for Clam Pass would be the reorientation of Channel Section A in a
slightly southwesterly direction in contrast to a shore-perpendicular direction. We essentially
know that the greatest littoral pressure is from south to north at this location and that any residual
tidal channel through the beach therefore migrates quickly in a northerly direction. Hence, why
- 3 - olsen associates, inc.
not orient it more southerly and increase the longevity of the cut? Moreover, such a reorientation
would he in better alignment with Channel Section B. As such, the typical orientation of
Channel Cut A perpendicular to the shoreline (as proposed) immediately introduces a bend into
the newly constructed flow regimen. The attached Figure 2 depicts what I am suggesting.
Again, trying to introduce such engineering betterments into the project may be too late in the
game—given the local politics and significant time spent to-date in the permit process.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this review. Thank you.
Enc/
- 4 - olsen associates, inc.
:•••05"'4....:'---["".'I`
'- a
ff
tr
•
f1 44
Eti- ,i mss ! J�q , mp" y» $. fM' 4:I.:.
J *; .,rf Y " `'`t �x' . O# e,• /^P :.# ,.s* 6 J°s '► � + tid' a* t+ Ps , .. u j.r. r <c,-.1c-n^�,. C1 uv�+# r* .`' ; ` ' Js,°ra ' 1•41,„
,JC " "i i r. ,Et'rt ' +c
o
cv
LMS.. 8"r x - c Ay 8, iE f
iii) ,,
it,
-n _ V
z U
•
N N° d,„ } +° k .1�KfF�t�- Ral a• . •:'',,,P.'
x . i tiV yd g ` O—
('t } , is �r-qt:> W, *cn '47 �
CO
4C Z
CO
d U t —
t` ti
rl
iipO)� a aOO 0.. r— " .0 zlL• ,-,.,-
x
S_ s ...L......-..-
'4,-'
W
!-` mow— 4 ' I.
�.,"tO W 83I
4 S `
I.� r raw L
6•2. ..,Dt:JL
0
o.-
a.
t
'. s jjyy
' a
. 4, 'te74 .;314,
' t x
R 1 f O1 ( -� CO
Vff,b 2"',,,,i,h `# b atga . x 1,,-, .ob t ti t t srtC
I V`A
„lci Q) f iIS"41-'1 �QC'1\) Er-so
,
o
CV
1* t .�t r -�•''..' } ' ty.+",
E t w N`` c "dk N O� Cf , : fN
. p M i."{ ° �`ew, , 91M°`tl i • '-. 2QM u
ct
Gt�r ss•#ep
}pr..
f b a
'44
ty .'*41-1*,
' ya
,a
. ,.,
am
r 'is
... yviv
.
In X
11
.: '."iiiil
,i,..11,.,
3r r a i-------
,
* +� om- ''` #r^ i z O' 33"5 . ,i - 4 �. tex °_.1� .8 ` p U 7w� F"1'1.'4'
1 zfro h, r � ��!'r ta�a ��` •
•• e�ns+ t'4,- W a14 w�JN/ ? za�t : ar,}r 4q �.tk � � t , U.14 \ tyO.v, l, L rJ J kt ^;4 tzl Mr ...,r-- {SdtS � ni r , xp ' ,�, - a./ •/:+ g#iws .js. III eer �"r
„oat 4
Alb ij
iii• otto
. a---
_ Er_
. - —..._._... -
•
s _ 'ky
•
� Y •,,,,...J,:.,-...,,,,,,
" ° tg4 f ..".'•;1'2,.,;::',,Y"y:Si X+$szo3g„ Fg, - 't` '' °t' t....
g X { 113. x » jjjp1: .Y
a'�` Nom. # #a« •n {{.��
* S . ,j
4350 West Cypress Street �• =`' ''
Suite 950
Tampa,FL 33607
813.207.7200 i;h
813.207.7201 fa>
memorandum
date July 9,2014
to James Hoppensteadt,President/COO
Pelican Bay Foundation
6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard
Naples,FL 34108
from David Tomasko,Ph.D.
subject Phase I-Identification of potential deficiencies in Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan
Background
The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to summarize findings related to the identification of any potential
deficiencies in the report"Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan;Ver.6.0"dated May 30,2014. The information
in that report was supplemented with an Excel data file titled"Water Quality Report Master"sent to Pelican Bay
from Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc.,as an attachment to an email from June 24,2014. The Excel file"Water
Quality Report Master"summarizes water quality data from both freshwater sites(e.g.,the stormwater treatment
system of Pelican Bay)as well as marine sites(e.g.,stations located in waters classified as Class II). Data are
from the period of January to December of 2013.
The following presentations,documents and/or reports were also reviewed:
• Clam Bay—Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria(draft report dated July
2011)
• State of Florida Surface Water Quality Standards for copper(FAC Chapter 62-302.530; Surface Water
Quality Criteria)
• State of Florida Surface Water Quality Standards for nutrients(FAC Chapter 62-302.532; Estuary-
Specific Numeric Interpretations of the Narrative Nutrient Criterion)
• State of Florida Surface Water Standards for dissolved oxygen(FAC Chapter 62-302.533;Dissolved
Oxygen Criteria for Class I,Class II,Class III,and Class III-Limited Waters)
• Collier County-Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria:Example Report Cards for 2010 and 2011
(PowerPoint presentation by David Tomasko and Emily Keenan [Atkins North America]dated 9-07-
2012)
• Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment Listing,Proposed Guidance(Technical Memorandum
produced by Dan Hammond et al.(Cardno-Entrix)dated July 18,2012
• Pelican Bay Stormwater Lakes Water Quality Monitoring Program:November 2013 Data Review
(Technical Memorandum produced by CH2MHi11)dated January 6,2014
• Appendix A-Analytical Results of the November 2013 Monitoring of the Pelican Bay Stormwater Lakes
(attachment to Technical Memorandum produced by CH2MHi11 dated January 6,2014)
1
Importance of Regulatory Criteria for Water Quality
The biological health and productivity of any estuary is closely tied to its water quality; the Clam Bay ecosystem
is no exception. In turn,the water quality of the Clam Bay ecosystem is related to the levels of toxins(i.e.
copper),nutrients(i.e..,Total Nitrogen {TN} and Total Phosphorus {TP}),indicators of nutrient status(i.e.,
chlorophyll-a [an indicator of phytoplankton abundance])and dissolved oxygen. While estuarine health is
influenced by factors other than water quality alone,water quality is the primary indicator through which the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)and the US Environmental Protection Agency
characterize the ecological health of lakes,rivers and estuaries. Additionally,the development of water quality
targets was one of the first tasks undertaken by all four of Florida's National Estuary Programs(Tampa Bay,
Sarasota Bay,Charlotte Harbor and the Indian River Lagoon).
The determination of the status and trends(if any)of water quality in Clam Bay should thus be an important part
of any management plan. For example,the recently completed site specific water quality criteria developed for
Clam Bay(FAC Chapter 62-302.532)are the state-approved techniques used to determine if the open waters of
the Clam Bay estuary are in compliance with the"hold the line"strategy for water quality that is implicitly
adopted with those criteria Clam Bay's formal NNC criteria do not require"restoration"of water quality; they
are based on protecting and preserving the water quality that supports the functions of a healthy Clam Bay
estuary. As written,the NNC criteria are intended to be used to detect if water quality is degrading over time. If
degradation is detected,a management plan should include actions to remedy such a situation. But if there is no
evidence of deterioration in water quality,then management actions should focus on preservation and/or
protection of water quality conditions,rather than seeking to find and then act on the cause(s) of the observed
deterioration.
For the Clam Bay ecosystem,water quality criteria exist for determining whether levels of copper in both the
sediments and the water column meet or exceed established criteria. Additionally,water quality criteria exist for
both TN and TP;the nutrient criteria relevant for Clam Bay were developed as site-specific criteria and are now
codified in FAC Chapter 62-302.532.
Levels of dissolved oxygen(DO)are critical to the health of any waterbody. Recently,the regulatory criteria for
dissolved oxygen have been modified,with the revised DO standard approved by FDEP in September of 2012,
and included in FAC Chapter 62-302.533.
Methods
The Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan(hereafter referred to as the"Plan")was reviewed here with particular
attention paid to the topic of water quality. On page 17 of the Plan,reference is made to the objective to"Monitor
and maintain water quality within the Clam Bay NRPA". The boundaries of the Natural Resource Protection
Area(NRPA)include the saline waters of Outer,Inner and Upper Clam Bays,as well as the mangrove fringes.
The Plan describes (page 31) the location of sampling points within the mangrove fringe and the waters of the
Clam Bay system,and displays them in Figure 20. Of the currently sampled locations shown in the Plan,five of
them appear to be located in the storniwater treatment system associated with Pelican Bay, and five of them are in
the marine waters of the Clam Bay system.
Stations W-1,W-6,W-7,North Seagate and Upper Clam Bay are in the saline/marine waters of the Clam Bay
system,while stations PB-11,PB-13,Glenview and St. Lucia are located within different portions of the Pelican
Bay stormwater treatment system. Stations PB-1 land Glenview are located on the east side of the berm adjacent
to the mangrove fringe,while station St. Lucia is located on the west side of the berm. Station PB-13 has been
sampled on both east and west sides of the berm(p. 31).
2
Stations in the marine waters of the Clam Bay system are located within Class II waters, while stations associated
with the stonmwater treatment system of Pelican Bay are located within Class III—freshwater waterbodies.
Water quality standards vary between Class II and Class III—freshwater water bodies,and the water quality
standard applicable to each station was used to determine whether water quality met or exceeded regulatory
criteria.
Water quality data from the Excel data file sent to the Pelican Bay Foundation(June 24,2014)were compared to
the appropriate water quality standard,as allowable with the data set examined. Also,numeric nutrient
concentration(NNC)criteria developed for Clam Bay,and approved by both the FDEP and the US EPA were
examined in relationship to water quality data listed in the Excel data file sent to the Pelican Bay Foundation June
24,2014.
Results
Copper
The Plan appropriately notes that Clam Bay's marine waters are impaired for copper,and that a TMDL for copper
impairments is likely to be produced by FDEP in the future. The water quality standard for copper differs
between predominately marine waters and freshwater. As classified by FDEP, the marine water stations of W-1,
W-6,W-7,North Seagate and Upper Clam Bay would all have a water quality standard for copper of< 3.7 µg/
liter. In contrast,the copper standard for freshwater is more complicated,as it requires the concurrent recording
of a value for"hardness" in units of mg CaCO3/liter. The toxicity of copper is mostly restricted to the
abundance of the copper ion,and the greater the abundance of other dissolved compounds,the lower the
probability that free copper ions will be available to bind with cell membranes,etc.and cause direct and indirect
biological impacts. Briefly stated,the higher the hardness level of a water sample,the lower the probability that a
given level of copper will be toxic.
Once the level of hardness is determined,the copper criteria for a sample of freshwater is derived as:
Copper standard(mg/liter)= etoss4sp.n1a.7o2)
Where: e=the base of the natural logarithm(ca.2.718281),and
InH—natural log of hardness(in units of mg CaCO3/liter)
Thus,the determination of whether a water sample meets or exceeds the copper standard only requires
determination of the concentration of copper for marine samples;a concurrent value for hardness is required to
determine compliance with freshwater criteria.
In the data set examined(Excel file titled"Water Quality Report Master") it appears that while copper levels were
reported for most locations every month from January 2013 to December 2013,values for hardness were not
reported during the months of January 2013 to April 2013. Therefore,while copper levels could be compared to
relevant for criteria for marine stations for the entire year,copper levels could only be compared to relevant
criteria for freshwater stations during the months of May to December of 2013. Nonetheless,multiple
exceedances were found for both freshwater and marine stations during all months where sample values could be
compared to relevant criteria. Results suggest that copper levels exceed existing standards in the marine waters of
the Clam Bay system, and that a likely source of copper is the stonnwater treatment system within the Pelican
Bay development.
The report and data set associated with the report"Pelican Bay Stormwater Lakes Water Quality Monitoring
Program: November 2013 Data Review"does include data for hardness as well as copper,and therefore
3
impairment determinations can be calculated for each station location and date combination. In that report,
impairment determinations are not made for each location,however it appears that determinations can be made
with the existing data set,and that most data are in exceedance of what would be the site-appropriate copper
criteria.
]Nutrient status
The Plan states(p. 33)that"No evidence of nutrient loading has been observed within the Class 11 waters though
several spikes and elevated nutrient(N and P)have been observed from the testing locations along the berm."
While this would be good news,it is difficult to determine the accuracy of this statement without the comparison
of water quality results with relevant regulatory criteria.
As noted above,the marine waters of Clam Bay have site-specific numeric nutrient concentration(NNC)criteria
that are now included in the state of Florida's adopted water quality standards(FAC Chapter 62-302.532). The
determination of whether the Clam Bay ecosystem meets or exceeds established criteria for TN and TP requires
the following steps:
• Preferably,water quality samples taken at same locations,in the open waters of Upper,Inner and Outer
Clam Bays as were used to develop the site-specific criteria
• The determination of all relevant forms of nitrogen and phosphorus so that both TN and TP can be
calculated
• The simultaneous recording of specific conductance when samples are collected for TN and TP
• On an annual basis,a statistical evaluation that determines if the relationship between specific
conductance and TN and specific conductance and TP remain within the range of expected values
Because nutrient concentrations and salinity are typically inversely correlated(i.e.,nutrient concentrations are
usually lowest in high salinities and highest in low salinities)the adopted NNC criteria for Clam Bay used site-
specific relationships between TN and conductivity and TP and conductivity(FAC 62-302.532).
The established NNC criteria for the Clam Bay ecosystem is that—
No more than 10 percent of the individual TN or TP measurements shall exceed
their respective upper limits;where—
TN Upper Limit(mg/L)=23601 —0.0000268325*Conductivity(itS); and
(-1 06256-0.0000328465`Coductivity(µS))
TP Upper Limit(mg/L)=e
The data set examined in the Excel file titled"Water Quality Report Master"does not appear to include values for
specific conductance. This may be an oversight,as water quality meters typically report both salinity and specific
conductance. Even if specific conductance values were not written down,there is an expectation that specific
conductance values can be back-calculated using data on both salinity and water temperature.
Similarly,the same data set does not appear to include values for the parameter of total nitrogen. However,total
nitrogen can be calculated by summing the concentrations of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)to the sum of Nitrate
plus Nitrite(as N).
Nonetheless,levels of TKN in the stornwater sampling locations have exceeded the guidance levels for Total
Nitrogen (TN) for Downstream Protective Values(DPV)developed as part of the NNC criteria. The previously
derived DPV for both TN and TP are meant to serve as guidance for nutrient levels in stonnwater runoff that
4
could be problematic,as they represent the 90th percentile value for nutrient concentrations,based on the
empirically-derived relationship between nutrients and conductivity. Generally speaking,nutrient concentrations
in stormwater runoff to Clam Bay should not exceed DPV values more than 10 percent of the time,in order to
keep the nutrient status of Clam Bay in balance.The DPV values for the Clam Bay watershed are 1.8 mg TN/
liter and 0.25 mg TP/liter.
It appears that there are locations within the stormwater treatment system for Pelican Bay that exceed DPV
criteria more than 10 percent of the time for TP,while other locations do not appear to be problematic. Using the
conservative parameter of TKN (which is a sub-set of TN)there appear to be locations within the stonnwater
treatment system for Pelican Bay that exceed DPV values more than 10 percent of the time as well.
For the marine waters of Upper, Inner and Outer Clam Bays,determination of whether or not data from the
stations visited exceed NNC criteria is dependent upon the comparison of nutrient concentrations to specific
conductance values. The data set examined did not contain values for conductance,although conductivity values
can likely be derived based on recorded values of both salinity and water temperature.
Dissolved Oxygen
Over the past few decades, FDEP's water quality standard was that DO levels -
"Shall not average less than 5.0 mg/L in a 24-hour period and shall never be less than 4.0 mg/L.
Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above these levels shall be maintained."
While there was scientific consensus that this standard was overly stringent for the sub-tropical and wetland-
influenced waterbodies of much of Florida,little action was taken to revise these standards. Recently,however,
FDEP has approved a more locally-relevant DO standard applicable to the Clam Bay ecosystem that states-
"The daily average DO concentration shall not be below 42 percent saturation in more than 10 percent of
the values,AND the weekly and monthly average DO percent saturations shall not be below 51 and 56
percent,respectively"
The water quality data within the Excel file"Water Quality Report Master" apparently reports data in units of mg
/liter,not percent saturation. Consequently, it is possible to compare DO values to prior criteria used by FDEP,
but it is not yet known(based on the data set included in the Excel file) whether or not DO values meet newly
established criteria.
However,even if DO values were not recorded in units of percent saturation,such values could be derived based
on simultaneously recorded values for water temperature and salinity.
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
The draft Management Plan for the Clam Bay NRPA was examined with a focus on the topic of water quality,
with a particular focus n whether or not recent data meet or exceed relevant water quality criteria for the
stonnwater treatment system within Pelican Bay and also the marine waters of Upper,Inner and Outer Clam Bay.
At this time,not all of the data can be compared to relevant criteria,although some of the required values can be
reconstructed from the examined data set.
In general,there are two main"systems''that require data collection and analysis—the Class II marine waters of
the Clam Bay estuary,and the Class Ill stormwater ponds located within the watershed,and which can influence
the water quality of the Clam Bay estuary.
5
The data set contained within the Excel file"Water Quality Master Report" was somewhat incomplete,as there
was insufficient data collected to properly interpret the levels of copper impairment in the stonnwater treatment
ponds. Specifically,values of hardness(mg CaCO3/liter)were not reported for the months of January to April of
2013. However,the report and data set contained within the report "Pelican Bay Stormwater Lakes Water Quality
Monitoring Program:November 2013 Data Review"did include all required data to determine impairment status
for the stormwater treatment pond system.
For the stormwater treatment pond system,neither report listed above interpreted nutrient concentrations(both
nitrogen and phosphorus)in comparison with the locally-derived downstream protection values(DPV)of 1.8 mg
TN/liter and 0.25 mg TP/liter. If more than l0%>of TN and TP values in the stonnwater treatment ponds
exceed the DPV criteria derived for Clam Bay,such results would suggest that the potential for nutrient
enrichment exists,although further attenuation of nutrients in the mangrove fringe of the stonnwater treatment
system would likely provide additional attenuation.
For the Class lI and marine waters of the Clam Bay estuary,it appears that the combination of sample site
locations and the parameter list are problematic. If characterization of water quality of the Clam Bay estuary
continues to be conducted at sampling sites different than those that were used to develop Clam Bay's site-
specific NNC criteria,the possibility exists that a finding of"impairment"could occur in future years due to the
location of the sites being sampled,rather than a true deterioration in water quality. A similar result was
documented for Rookery Bay,where a finding of impainnent for nutrients was mostly explained by a change in
sampling locations to sites not located in the open waters of the Rookery Bay estuary.
The following steps would be useful,both in terms of analyzing the recent water quality data,and also to ease the
ability of future resource managers to examine data for compliance purposes.
• For freshwater stations throughout Pelican Bay,ensure that levels of hardness continue to be concurrently
collected when collecting samples for copper
• For both freshwater and marine stations,(and based on available data)compare copper values in terms of
both raw concentrations,and also in terms of percent exceedance with relevant criteria,as outlined in
FAC Chapter 62-302.530
• For freshwater stations,calculate TN values and compare concentrations to the locally-derived
downstream protective values that were developed for Clam Bay
• For the marine waters of Outer,Inner and Upper Clam Bays,derive conductivity values for all stations
where TN and TP were collected,and develop the bivariate plot of TN vs. conductance and TP vs.
conductance
o Using the bi-variate plots described above,determine if recent data are consistent with the
established NNC guidance,as outlined in FAC Chapter 62-302.532
• For dissolved oxygen,either calculate DO levels in terns of percent saturation,or review raw data in
those units(if available)
• Compare DO values, in terms of percent saturation,to relevant criteria,as outlined in FAC Chapter 62-
302.533.
The water quality sampling stations for the marine waters of Outer,Inner and Upper Clam Bay are not the same
as those stations that were used to develop NNC criteria. Instead of collecting samples from the open waters of
Outer, Inner and Upper Clam Bay,it appears that water quality samples are collected from boardwalks and shore-
based locations. Prior experience in Rookery Bay has shown that changing the sample collection sites to more
shore-based locations(rather than open water)can result in different and usually"poorer"water quality values
than more appropriately located ambient stations. Ongoing water quality monitoring programs for Clearwater
Harbor,Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay,Charlotte Harbor,Biscayne Bay and the Indian River Lagoon (among many
6
others)all use stations located out in the open waters of these estuaries,rather than stations restricted to land-
based access.
The water quality parameter list,sampling frequency and water quality stations developed for Collier County,and
used to develop the site specific and FDEP-approved water quality criteria for Clam Bay,should be followed for
ongoing and future monitoring efforts,or reasons for the apparent changes should be documented and explained.
Otherwise, it is possible for water quality data to suggest"deterioration"in water quality over time that is actually
due to changing the sample collection sites to locations that are more likely to be impacted by watershed
influences.
Although much of the recent water quality data can be compared to existing regulatory criteria,some of the
comparisons appear to require back-calculations of parameter values(e.g.,percent DO saturation from mg/liter
and water temperature,conductivity from salinity and temperature,etc.)which make report preparation more
time-consuming that it needs to be. Minor adjustments in data reporting can make assessments of the status and
trends in water quality a much easier task,especially in tenns of comparing data to established water quality
criteria.
7
4350 West Cypress Street www.esassoc.com
Suite 950
Tampa,FL 33607
813.207.7200 phone
813.207.7201 fax
memorandum
date July 18,2014
to James Hoppensteadt,President/COO
Pelican Bay Foundation
6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard
Naples,FL 34108
from David Tomasko,Ph.D.
subject Phase II—Stormwater management issues related to the Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan
Introduction
The biological health and productivity of any estuary is closely tied to its water quality;the Clam Bay ecosystem
is no exception. In turn,the water quality of the Clam Bay ecosystem is related to the levels of toxins(i.e.
copper),nutrients(i.e..,Total Nitrogen {TN} and Total Phosphorus {TP})and dissolved oxygen(DO), among
other factors. While estuarine health cannot be fully characterized based on water quality alone,water quality is
the primary indicator through which the Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)and the US
Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)characterize the ecological health of lakes,rivers and estuaries. For
example,Florida has four coastal waterbodies that are part of the EPA-sponsored National Estuary Program
(NEP)and each of the NEPs(Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay,Indian River Lagoon and Charlotte Harbor)have
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans(CCMP5)that include lengthy descriptions of the status and
trends of water quality of these estuaries, as well as resource-based water quality targets.
The assessment of water quality status and trends is an essential element of the management plans for Florida's
most-studied estuaries,its four NEPs. While the amount of time and resources spent developing water quality
monitoring and reporting programs for Clam Bay are much less than what has been spent for these four NEPs,
there has still been a significant amount of resources spent to develop water quality targets for Clam Bay, and to
develop guidance intended to track whether or not Clam Bay's water quality is improving, degrading, or not
trending over time.
The Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan was thus reviewed with a particular focus on water quality,to determine
if there are issues with the monitoring program that could complicate management functions. In this second
report,the implications of some of the identified issues(contained in the Phase I Technical Memorandum) are
quantified,and a series of actions are described to rectify the problems that were found.
Phase I Findings
The recently completed site specific numeric nutrient concentration(NNC)criteria developed for Clam Bay(FAC
Chapter 62-302.532)address both TN and TP using state-approved techniques. These techniques are consistent
with a"hold the line"strategy for water quality. Clam Bay's NNC criteria do not require"restoration"of water
quality;they are based on protecting and preserving the water quality that supports the functions of a healthy
1
Clam Bay estuary. As written,NNC criteria are intended to be used to detect if water quality is degrading over
time. If degradation is detected,a management plan should include actions to remedy such a situation. But if
there is no evidence of deterioration in water quality,then management actions should focus on preservation
and/or protection of water quality conditions.
For the Clam Bay ecosystem,water quality criteria also exist for determining whether levels of copper meet or
exceed established criteria. The nutrient criteria relevant for Clam Bay were developed as site-specific criteria
and are now codified in FAC Chapter 62-302.532. Levels of dissolved oxygen(DO)are critical to the health of
any waterbody. Recently,the regulatory criteria for dissolved oxygen have been modified,with the revised DO
standard approved by FDEP in September of 2012, and included in FAC Chapter 62-302.533.
In Phase I of this review of the Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan,the following concerns were raised, some of
which have already been resolved:
• From January to April of 2013, it appears that sampling of the Pelican Bay stormwater treatment ponds
did not include determining levels of hardness, so that copper levels could not be directly compared to
water quality criteria for those sites and dates
o By May of 2013,values for hardness were reported in the data set examined, and this no longer
appears to be an issue
o A separate report on the water quality of the stormwater ponds,conducted by CH2MHi11,
included all relevant data for comparing copper values to their respective criteria
• Levels of total nitrogen(TN) and total phosphorus(TP) in the stormwater ponds were not compared to
the downstream protective values(DPVs)that were developed for the Clam Bay estuary
• Within the marine waters of Clam Bay,nutrient levels could not be compared to the site-specific water
quality criteria included within the State of Florida's Water Quality Standards(FAC 62-302.532)because
specific conductance levels were not recorded in the data set examined
• Within the marine waters of Clam Bay, levels of dissolved oxygen(DO)could not be compared to the
revised standard produced by FDEP(FAC 62-302.533)as the values contained in the data set examined
were in units of mg/liter,not percent saturation
As noted above, some of the issues identified in the Phase I Technical Memorandum had been resolved already,
such as the inclusion of data on levels of hardness for freshwater sampling sites. Some of these issues are not
critical,but represent adjustments that should be made that would allow for easier interpretation of water quality
data. For example,the data set for both the stormwater treatment system and the marine waters of the Clam Bay
estuary should have the term"Total Nitrogen"as a listed parameter. Although it is not difficult to calculate Total
Nitrogen(it is the sum of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen plus Nitrate as N plus Nitrite as N) errors can be made when
adding figures across different locations in an Excel spreadsheet. It would be best to preclude the opportunity for
any such errors to be made.
The purpose of this Phase II Technical Memorandum is to summarize findings related to the management of the
stormwater treatment system for Pelican Bay, as relates to the Clam Bay estuary complex.
2
Methods
The Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan,Ver. 6.0, dated May 30,2014 (hereafter referred to as the "Plan")was
reviewed here with particular attention paid to the topic of water quality.
The following presentations, documents and/or reports were also reviewed:
• Clam Bay—Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria(draft report dated July
2011)
• State of Florida Surface Water Quality Standards for copper(FAC Chapter 62-302.530; Surface Water
Quality Criteria)
• State of Florida Surface Water Quality Standards for nutrients(FAC Chapter 62-302.532;Estuary-
Specific Numeric Interpretations of the Narrative Nutrient Criterion)
• State of Florida Surface Water Standards for dissolved oxygen(FAC Chapter 62-302.533; Dissolved
Oxygen Criteria for Class I, Class II, Class III, and Class III-Limited Waters)
• Collier County-Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria:Example Report Cards for 2010 and 2011
(PowerPoint presentation by David Tomasko and Emily Keenan [Atkins North America] dated 9-07-
2012)
• Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment Listing,Proposed Guidance(Technical Memorandum
produced by Dan Hammond et al. (Cardno-Entrix)dated July 18, 2012
• Pelican Bay Stormwater Lakes Water Quality Monitoring Program:November 2013 Data Review
(Technical Memorandum produced by CH2MHi11)dated January 6,2014
• Appendix A-Analytical Results of the November 2013 Monitoring of the Pelican Bay Stormwater Lakes
(attachment to Technical Memorandum produced by CH2MHi11 dated January 6,2014)
The Plan describes (page 31)the location of sampling points within the mangrove fringe and the waters of the
Clam Bay system,and displays them in Figure 20. Of the currently sampled locations shown in the Plan,four of
them appear to be located in the stormwater treatment system associated with Pelican Bay, and five of them are in
the marine waters of the Clam Bay system.
Stations W-1,W-6,W-7,North Seagate and Upper Clam Bay are in the saline/marine waters of the Clam Bay
estuary,while stations PB-11, PB-13, Glenview and St. Lucia are located within different portions of the Pelican
Bay stormwater treatment system. Stations PB-11and Glenview are located on the east side of the berm adjacent
to the mangrove fringe, while station St. Lucia is located on the west side of the berm. Station PB-13 has been
sampled on both east and west sides of the berm(p. 31).
Stations in the marine waters of the Clam Bay system are located within Class II waters,while stations associated
with the stormwater treatment system of Pelican Bay are located within Class III—freshwater waterbodies. Water
quality standards vary between Class II and Class III—freshwater water bodies, and the water quality standard
applicable to each station was used to determine whether water quality met or exceeded regulatory criteria.
Water quality data from the Excel data file sent to the Pelican Bay Foundation(June 24,2014)were compared to
the appropriate water quality standard,as allowable with the data set examined. Also,numeric nutrient
concentration(NNC) criteria developed for Clam Bay, and approved by both the FDEP and the US EPA were
examined in relationship to water quality data listed in the Excel data file sent to the Pelican Bay Foundation June
24, 2014.
3
Results
Copper
The Plan appropriately notes that Clam Bay's marine waters are impaired for copper, and that a TMDL for copper
impairments is likely to be produced by FDEP in the future. The water quality standard for copper differs
between predominately marine waters and freshwater. As classified by FDEP,the marine water stations of W-1,
W-6,W-7,North Seagate and Upper Clam Bay would all have a water quality standard for copper of<3.7 µg/
liter. In contrast,the copper standard for freshwater is more complicated, as it requires the concurrent recording
of a value for"hardness"in units of mg CaCO3/liter. The toxicity of copper is mostly restricted to the
abundance of the copper ion, and the greater the abundance of other dissolved compounds,the lower the
probability that free copper ions will be available to bind with cell membranes, etc. and cause direct and indirect
biological impacts. Briefly stated,the higher the hardness level of a water sample,the lower the probability that a
given level of copper will be toxic.
Once the level of hardness is determined,the copper criteria for a sample of freshwater is derived as:
Copper standard(mg/liter)= e(0s545pn1-11-1.702)
Where: e=the base of the natural logarithm(ca. 2.718281), and
lnH=natural log of hardness (in units of mg CaCO3 /liter)
Thus,the determination of whether a sample meets or exceeds the water quality standards for copper only requires
determination of the concentration of copper for marine samples; a concurrent value for hardness is required to
determine compliance with freshwater criteria.
In the data set examined(Excel file titled"Water Quality Report Master") it appears that while copper levels were
reported for most locations every month from January 2013 to December 2013,values for hardness were not
reported during the months of January 2013 to April 2013. Therefore, while copper levels could be compared to
relevant for criteria for marine stations for the entire year, copper levels could only be compared to relevant
criteria for freshwater stations during the months of May to December of 2013. The report and data set associated
with the report"Pelican Bay Stormwater Lakes Water Quality Monitoring Program:November 2013 Data
Review"does include data for hardness as well as copper, and therefore impairment determinations can be
calculated for each station location and date combination. In that report,impairment determinations are not made
for each location, however it appears that determinations can be made with the existing data set,and that most
data are in exceedance of what would be the site-appropriate copper criteria.
4
Nimmommemmiam
Based on results from the data set"Water Quality Report Master"the Class II waters of Clam Bay have the
following characteristics,in terms of copper:
Station UCB W-7 W-6 W-1 N. Seagate
Mean
Mg/liter) 21.49 9.30 31.09 3.86 3.78
Median 6.47 8.46 4.12 3.57 3.45
(µg/liter)
No. of 9 11 6 6 3
exceedances
Exceedance
rate(no.of
exceedances 81.8 91.7 50.0 54.5 27.3
compared to
no. of samples)
Based on the Class II standard for copper of 3.7 µg/liter,it would appear that copper impairment is a widespread
and common occurrence in the marine waters of Upper,Inner,and Outer Clam Bay. The copper levels at stations
W-6 and UCB had the highest mean values,while the highest median values were at stations W-7 and UCB. All
stations had frequencies of exceedance that would be sufficient to merit placement.on FDEP's Verified Impaired
list for copper impairment,which is consistent with prior reports.
From January 2013 to April 2013,levels of hardness were not recorded in the data set"Water Quality Report
Master". However,the remaining months have levels of copper that appear similar to those from earlier months,
and the results shown below are likely similar to that which would be found for the period of record.
Based on results from the data set"Water Quality Report Master"the Class III fresh waters of the Pelican Bay
stormwater system have the following characteristics,in terms of copper:
Station PB-11 PB-13 Glenview St. Lucia
Mean 133.12 112.48 62.41 121.58
(µg/liter)
Median 93.90 68.70 51.00 46.50
(µg/liter)
No.of 8 4 3 4
exceedances
Exceedance
rate(no. of
exceedances 100.0 50.0 42.9 66.7
compared to
no.of samples)
Based on the Class III freshwater standard for copper,impairment is a widespread and common occurrence in the
stormwater treatment ponds of Pelican Bay. Copper values at station PB-11 exceeded criteria for every
collection,while copper levels at the Glenview site exceeded criteria at the lowest frequency. However,all four
stations exceeded criteria frequently enough to be meet FDEP guidance as being Verified Impaired.
The data set contained in the report"Appendix A-Analytical Results of the November 2013 Monitoring of the
Pelican Bay Stormwater Lakes(attachment to Technical Memorandum produced by CH2MHi11 dated January 6,
2014)"was also used to compare copperlevefs'-`44igt`felevant criteria This report summarized findings of a
5
single month, so results might not be able to be extrapolated to other times of the year.However,they represent a
much more spatially intensive assessment of copper levels in the stormwater treatment system in Pelican Bay.
Based on results from the data set"Appendix A-Analytical Results of the November 2013 Monitoring of the
Pelican Bay Stormwater Lakes(attachment to Technical Memorandum produced by CH2MHi11 dated January 6,
2014)"the Class III fresh waters of the Pelican Bay stormwater system have the following characteristics,in
terms of copper:
Station Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 Basin 5 Basin 6
Mean
48.7 46.0 86.3 58.1 30.7 3.4
(rig/liter)
Median 36.6 42.1 77.1 28.6 25.8 3.4
(µg/liter)
Percent
exceedance of
criteria(mean 170 180 610 350 140 NA
compared to
standard)
As was found in the previously discussed data sets, copper impairment appears to be widespread in the freshwater
locations studied by CH2MHi11,with the exception of Basin 6. Basin 3 had the greatest percent exceedance of
relevant criteria,due to two factors;not only was the level of copper in Basin 3 much higher than in other
locations(610 percent exceedance is equivalent to mean value more than 7 times higher than criteria)Basin 3 also
had the lowest level of hardness of all six basins. The combination of very high copper and low levels of
hardness resulted in the greatest exceedance of criteria.
Nutrient status
The Plan states(p. 33)that"No evidence of nutrient loading has been observed within the Class II waters though
several spikes and elevated nutrient(Nitrogen and Phosphorous)levels have been observed from the testing
locations along the berm." While this would be good news, it is difficult to determine the accuracy of this
statement without the comparison of water quality results with relevant regulatory criteria.
As noted above,the marine waters of Clam Bay have site-specific numeric nutrient concentration(NNC)criteria
that are now included in the state of Florida's adopted water quality standards(FAC Chapter 62-302.532). The
determination of whether the Clam Bay ecosystem meets or exceeds established criteria for TN and TP requires
the following steps:
• Preferably,water quality samples taken at same locations in the open waters of Upper,Inner and Outer
Clam Bays as were used to develop the site-specific criteria
• The determination of all relevant forms of nitrogen and phosphorus so that both TN and TP can be
calculated
• The simultaneous recording of specific conductance when samples are collected for TN and TP
• On an annual basis,a statistical evaluation that determines if relationships between specific conductance
and TN and specific conductance and TP remain within the range of expected values
Because nutrient concentrations and salinity are typically inversely correlated(i.e.,nutrient concentrations are
usually lowest in high salinities and highest in low salinities)the adopted NNC criteria for Clam Bay used site-
specific relationships between TN and conductivity and TP.and conductivity(FAC 62-302.532).
6
•
The established NNC criteria for the Clam Bay ecosystem is that—
No more than 10 percent of the individual TN or TP measurements shall exceed
their respective upper limits;where—
TN Upper Limit(mg/L)=2.3601—0.0000268325*Conductivity(RS); and
(-1.06256-o.00003zsa6s*conaucsviry(0))TP Upper Limit(mg/L)=e
The data set examined in the Excel file titled"Water Quality Report Master"does not appear to include values for
specific conductance for the marine stations of UCB,W-7,W-6,W-1 and N. Seagate. This may be an oversight,
as water quality meters typically report both salinity and specific conductance. Even if specific conductance
values were not written down,specific conductance values can be back-calculated using data based on salinity.
While this calculation can be done,it is not a straight forward calculation(e.g.UNESCO 1983)and it required the
use of an online calculator:http://www.hamzasreefcom/Contents/Calculators/SalinityConversion.php
The same data set does not appear to include values for the parameter of total nitrogen. However,total nitrogen
was calculated by summing the concentrations of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen(TKN)to the sum of Nitrate plus
Nitrite(as N). For total phosphorus (TP)data were already in the correct units for comparison to NNC criteria;
analysis only required the comparison of TP values to their concurrent estimated values for specific conductance.
The following graph displays the relationship between calculated values of TN, compared to estimated values for
specific conductance,for the data set contained within the Excel file"Water Quality Report Master":
All stations (Sept 2010 to Dec 2013)
3.00
2.50 ♦°
•
• • • • 14% FAIL
d 2.00 • ' • Q
♦ N
♦ • ••
ern 1.50 •
1.00 . • !l .._
0.50 • o . ''., '
-- -- ::-::-Eal e
0.00
• PASS o a iii ee
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Specific Conductance(uS/cm)
Using the approach developed for the Clam Bay estuary,as described in FAC Chapter 62-302.532,the data set
from stations UCB,W-7,W-6,W-1 and N. Seagate would result in a determination that the Clam Bay estuary is
"impaired"for nitrogen. The finding that the Clam Bay system would be impaired for TN is based on the percent
of TN values that exceed the upper threshold for the relationship between TN and specific conductance (shown by
the red line)being higher than the allowed frequency.
However,the finding of"impairment"for TN appears to be due to recent changes to the water quality monitoring
program for the Clam Bay estuary. A comparison of water quality data clearly shows that Upper Clam Bay has
7
•
lower salinities and higher levels of both TN and TP than Inner and Outer Clam Bay. For the station UCB,47
percent of TN values exceed the guidance criteria. Of the total of 29 exceedances of criteria for the entire Clam
Bay data set, 17 of them(59 percent)are from the UCB site.
The NNC guidance for the Clam Bayestuary was based on a sampling program that used data from nine(9)
different locations,with one station located in Upper Clam Bay. The data set from the current monitoring
program appears to include five(5)stations,with one of those five stations located in Upper Clam Bay. Water
quality results from Upper Clam Bay represented 11 percent of the data used to develop NNC criteria for the
Clam Bay estuary,but in the revised monitoring program,samples from Upper Clam Bay represent 20 percent of
the entire data set. If the percent of samples from Upper Clam Bay had not nearly doubled(from 11 to 20
percent)there would not be a determination of impairment for TN for the Clam Bay estuary,using the criteria
developed for Clam Bay and adopted in FAC Chapter 62-302.532.
For phosphorus,there is no evidence of a nutrient enrichment problem, as the number of exceedances of TP,
compared to established criteria, is well below the frequency of exceedance that would result in a finding of
impairment,as shown below:
All stations (Sept 2010 to Dec 2013)
0.700
0.600 o t,
2 %FAIL
0.500 -
al •
`0.400 •
to
E 0.300 ��..
0.200 •
• o° 8 d 8 •
0.100 .- ,Q
•PASS !• •./�*•W� •
0.000 - r4
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Specific Conductance (uS/cm)
Combined,the data from the Class II waters of Clam Bay suggest that nutrient enrichment is not likely a problem
at present,as the"impairment"for TN appears to be a function of changes in sampling sites,and there is no
evidence for impairment for TP. However,the statement made in the draft Plan that"No evidence of nutrient
loading has been observed..."is problematic. Nutrient loading would occur from even a completely natural
watershed;the issue is whether or not nutrient loading is beyond the assimilative capacity of the Clam Bay
estuary. Since it does not appear that the Plan includes a comparison of water quality data to established criteria,
the implied conclusion,that Clam Bay is not experiencing excessive nutrient loading,was premature.
The development of NNC guidance for the marine waters of the Clam Bay estuary also resulted in the derivation
of downstream protective values (DPVs)for both TN and TP. These DPVs represent the concentration of both
TN and TP in stormwater runoff that represents the upper 10 percent threshold for nutrient concentrations in
stormwater runoff. Generally speaking,nutrient concentrations in stormwater runoff to Clam Bay should not
exceed DPV values more than 10 percent of the time, in order to keep the nutrient status of Clam Bay in balance.
The DPV values for the Clam Bay watershed are 1.8 mg TN/liter and 0.25 mg TP/liter.
8
Mean and median values for TN and TP are shown for all freshwater sites included within the two separate
sampling programs;sites PB-11,PB-13, St.Lucia and Glenview,and also basin-wide averages from the
November 2013 data collection effort conducted by CH2MHi11. Results are shown below,with values(mean or
median)that exceeded DPV guidance for TN and TP highlighted in red:
PB-11 PB-13 Glenview Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 Basin 5 Basin 6
Basin Lucia
Mean 1.35 1.52 1.59 0.92 1.76 2.32 2.28 2.48 1.71 1.55
TN
Median 1.43 1.64 1.64 0.99 1.68 2.36 2.05 2.61 1.89 1.55
TN
Mean 0.135 0.148 0.269 0.080 0.058 0.097 0.286 0.122 0.650 0.257
TP
Median 0.124 0.146 0.226 0.073 0.018 0.062 0.235 0.139 0.323 0.257
TP
In general,TN and TP values for sites PB-11,PB-13, St.Lucia and Glenview are lower than the average values
for sites within Basins 1 to 5. Values for Basin 6(which only included two sample locations from November
2013)had mean and median values that appear to be lower than the other five basins studied in November 2013.
Basin 6 was also the only basin studied that did not have excessive levels of copper.
The lower values of TN and TP at sites PB-11,PB-13, St.Lucia and Glenview could reflect sites that have
benefited from additional nutrient removal processes,compared to the average station in Basins 1 to 5;these are
all locations where stormwater is discharged at the berm. If such results are maintained over time,they would
indicate that nutrient removal processes in Pelican Bay are sufficient to reduce TN and TP concentrations to
values below the DPV guidance criteria. This would in turn suggest that the Clam Bay estuary is able to handle
the nutrient loads generated from its watershed, as long as the stormwater treatment system continues to function
as it does.
-Dissolved Oxygen
Over the past few decades,FDEP's water quality standard was that DO levels -
"Shall not average less than 5.0 mg/L in a 24-hour period and shall never be less than 4.0 mg/L.
Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above these levels shall be maintained."
While there was scientific consensus that this standard was overly stringent for the sub-tropical and wetland-
influenced waterbodies of much of Florida,little action was taken to revise these standards. Recently,however,
FDEP has approved a more locally-relevant DO standard applicable to the Clam Bay ecosystem that states-
"The daily average DO concentration shall not be below 42 percent saturation in more than 10 percent of
the values,AND the weekly and monthly average DO percent saturations shall not be below 51 and 56
percent,respectively"
The water quality data within the Excel file"Water Quality Report Master" appears to report data in units of mg/
liter,not percent saturation. Consequently,it is possible to compare DO values to prior criteria used by FDEP,
but the comparison of DO values to newly established criteria required conversion of values from units of mg DO
/liter to values of percent saturation. Values of DO in units of mg/liter were converted to units of percent
saturation based on the use of an on-line conversion calculator maintained by the USGS:
http://water.usgs.gov/software/DOTABLES/
9
Conversion required the input of values in units of mg DO/liter,water temperature in units of degrees Celsius,
and values of specific conductance. As described above,values of specific conductance were themselves
estimated based on conversion from units of salinity(psu)to specific conductance. With all the conversions
required,results shown below should be considered as approximations of levels of DO, in comparison to existing
criteria.
Site UCB W-7 W-6 W-1 N.Seagate
Mean DO 5.31 6.71 6.33 6.17 6.81
(mg/liter)
Median DO 5.00 6.00 5.85 6.00 6.50
(mg/liter)
Percent of
samples 41.2 21.4 35.7 35.7 7.1
<5 mg/liter
Percent of
samples
5.8 3.6 3.6 7.1 0.0
<42 percent
saturation
Of the marine sites sampled, it would appear that all stations except that of North Seagate would have failed
FDEP's prior DO standard. However,none of the stations appear to be impaired for DO using the State of
Florida's revised DO standard,which allows for lower levels of DO for wetland-influenced waterbodies such as
the mangrove-lined waters of Upper,Inner and Outer Clam Bay.
Summary of Findings
The draft Management Plan for the Clam Bay NRPA was examined with a focus on the topic of water quality,
with a particular focus on whether or not recent data meet or exceed relevant water quality criteria for the
stormwater treatment system within Pelican Bay and also the marine waters of Upper,Inner and Outer Clam Bay.
The data sets examined suggest that the Class II waters of the Clam Bay estuary meet newly revised criteria for
DO,and that levels of TP also meet site specific NNC criteria. While levels of TN in the marine waters of Clam
Bay do exceed NNC guidance criteria,this appears to be an artifact of changes in sampling locations,compared to
the stations used in FAC Chapter 62-302.352. It would appear that levels of both TN and TP in stormwater runoff
are not problematic, if data collected at sites PB-11,PB-13, St.Lucia and Glenview represent runoff after
processing through Pelican Bay's stormwater treatment system. Average values at Basins 1 to 5 suggest elevated
nutrient concentrations at those locations,which might represent stormwater runoff that has not undergone the
same level of treatment.
In contrast to the"good news"regarding levels of dissolved oxygen and nutrients,the data sets examined indicate
that the Class II waters of Clam Bay are clearly impaired for copper. Additionally,samples taken throughout the
Pelican Bay stormwater pond system indicate that the source of copper is likely associated with runoff generated
from within the watershed. Copper levels in Basin 6,however,did not exceed guidance criteria. If management
practices in this basin,with low levels of copper,could be replicated in the other five basins,then copper levels
might eventually decrease over time. However,copper levels in sediments could act as a source of copper in the
water column, even after the cessation of external loads to the water column. It could be that sediment removal or
inactivation would be required to reduce the continued influence of sediment-bound copper,in addition to the
need to reduce practices that have resulted in copper impairments in the first place.
10
Recommendations
• The water quality monitoring program for the Class II waters of the Clam Bay estuary should revert back
to the station locations that were used to develop NNC guidance in FAC Chapter 62-302.532
• The water quality monitoring program for the Class II waters of the Clam Bay estuary should revert back
to the water quality parameters used to develop NNC guidance in FAC Chapter 62-302.532, and which
are now used to characterize DO levels(FAC Chapter 62-302.533). The list of additional water quality
parameters include the following:
o Calculation of values of Total Nitrogen, in addition to its component parts
o Recording levels of specific conductance, in addition to salinity
o Recording concentrations of dissolved oxygen in units of percent saturation, in addition to mg/
liter
• To offset the cost of these additional analyses,the monitoring program should consider dropping the
following parameters,which may be of some interest,but do not have associated regulatory implications:
o Silica
o Total organic carbon
o Total dissolved solids(TDS)
• For freshwater stations throughout Pelican Bay, ensure that levels of hardness continue to be concurrently
determined when collecting samples for copper
• For both freshwater and marine stations, compare copper values in terms of both raw concentrations, and
also in terms of percent exceedance with relevant criteria, as outlined in FAC Chapter 62-302.530
• For freshwater stations, calculate TN values and compare both TN and TP concentrations to the locally-
derived downstream protective values that were developed for Clam Bay
• For the marine waters of Outer, Inner and Upper Clam Bays,record conductivity values for all stations
where TN and TP were collected, and develop bivariate plots of TN vs. conductance and TP vs.
conductance
o Using the bi-variate plots described above,determine if future data are consistent with the
established NNC guidance,as in FAC Chapter 62-302.532
While it appears that the Clam Bay estuary is not impaired for nutrients,the current water quality monitoring
program uses stations that over-represent the most nutrient-rich locations, which could give rise to a
determination of impairment.
In general,the draft Plan includes statements related to the status of water quality in the Class II waters of Clam
Bay and the Class III freshwater stormwater treatment ponds that are overly-simplistic. Overly generalized
characterizations(e.g., "No evidence of nutrient loading has been observed..." in the draft Plan are inconsistent
with the detailed guidance that was previously funded by Collier County, developed for Clam Bay,and then
adopted by both FDEP and the US EPA.
For copper, additional assessments of management practices in Basin 6 might provide useful information on how
to reduce copper levels in both the stormwater ponds in Pelican Bay and the marine waters of Clam Bay.
11
62-302.532 Estuary-Specific Numeric Interpretations of the Narrative Nutrient Criterion.
(1)Estuary-specific numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient criterion in paragraph 62-302.530(47)(b),F.A.C., are in the
table below. The concentration-based estuary interpretations are open water, area-wide averages. Nutrient and nutrient response
values do not apply to wetlands or to tidal tributaries that fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly fresh waters
during typical climatic and hydrologic conditions. The interpretations expressed as load per million cubic meters of freshwater
inflow are the total load of that nutrient to the estuary divided by the total volume of freshwater inflow to that estuary.
Pelican Bay Foundation
Clam_Bay
WATER QUALITY REPORT
Estuary Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Chlorophyll a
(a) Clearwater Harbor/St. Annual geometric mean values not to be exceeded more than once in a three year period. Nutrient and
Joseph Sound nutrient response values do not apply to tidally influenced areas that fluctuate between predominantly
marine and predominantly fresh waters during typical climatic and hydrologic conditions.
1.St.Joseph Sound 0.05 mg/L 0.66 mg/L 3.1 µg/L
2.Clearwater North 0.05 mg/L 0.61 mg/L 5.4µg/I,
3.Clearwater South 0.06 mg/L 0.58 mg/L 7.6µg/L
(b)Tampa Bay Annual totals for nutrients and annual arithmetic means for chlorophyll a, not to be exceeded more than
once in a three year period.Nutrient and nutrient response values do not apply to tidally influenced areas
that fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly fresh waters during typical climatic and
hydrologic conditions.
1.Old Tampa Bay 0.23 tons/million 1.08 tons/million cubic 9.3 pg/L
cubic meters of meters of water
water
2.Hillsborough Bay 1.28 tons/million 1.62 tons/million cubic 15.0µg/L
cubic meters of meters of water
water
3.Middle Tampa Bay 0.24 tons/million 1.24 tons/million cubic 8.5 pg/L
cubic meters of meters of water
water
4.Lower Tampa Bay 0.14 tons/million 0.97 tons/million cubic 5.1 µg/L
cubic meters of meters of water
water
5.Boca Ciega North 0.18 tons/million 1.54 tons/million cubic 8.3 µg/L
cubic meters of meters of water
water
6.Boca Ciega South 0.06 tons/million 0.97 tons/million cubic 6.3 pg/L
cubic meters of meters of water
water
7.Terra Ceia Bay 0.14 tons/million 1.10 tons/million cubic 8.7 pg/L
cubic meters of meters of water
water
8.Manatee River Estuary 0.37 tons/million 1.80 tons/million cubic 8.8µg/L
cubic meters of meters of water
water
(c)Sarasota Bay Annual geometric mean values for nutrients and annual arithmetic means
for chlorophyll a,not to be exceeded more than once in a three year period.
Nutrient and nutrient response values do not apply to tidally influenced
areas that fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly
fresh waters during typical climatic and hydrologic conditions.
1.Palma Sola Bay 0.26 mg/L 0.93 mg/L 11.8 pg/L
2.Sarasota Bay 0.19 mg/L See paragraph 62- 6.1 µg/L
302.532(3)(i),F.A.C.
3.Roberts Bay 0.23 mg/L 0.54 mg/L 11.0µg/L
4.Little Sarasota Bay 0.21 mg/L 0.60 mg/L 10.4µg/L
5.Blackburn Bay 0.21 mg/L 0.43 mg/L 8.2µg/L
(d)Charlotte Harbor/Estero Bay Annual arithmetic mean values for nutrients and annual arithmetic means
for chlorophyll a,not to be exceeded more than once in a three year period.
Nutrient and nutrient response values do not apply to tidally influenced
areas that fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly
fresh waters during typical climatic and hydrologic conditions.
1.Dona and Roberts Bay 0.18 mg/L 0.42 mg/L 4.9µg/L
2.Upper Lemon Bay 0.26 mg/L 0.56 mg/L 8.9µg/L
3.Lower Lemon Bay 0.17 mg/L 0.62 mg/L 6.1 µg/L
4.Charlotte Harbor Proper 0.19 mg/L 0.67 mg/L 6.1 µg/L
5.Pine Island Sound 0.06 mg/L 0.57 mg/L 6.5µg/L
6.San Carlos Bay 0.07 mg/L 0.56 mg/L 3.5 µg/L
7.Tidal Myakka River 0.31 mg/L 1.02 mg/L 11.7µg/L
8.Tidal Peace River 0.50 mg/L 1.08 mg/L 12.6 ug/L
9.Matlacha Pass 0.08 mg/L 0.58 mg/L 6.1 µg/L
10.Estero Bay(including Tidal Imperial River) 0.07 mg/L 0.63 mg/L 5.9µg/
(e)Tidal Cocohatchee River/Ten Thousand Islands Annual geometric means that shall not be exceeded more than once in a
three year period
1.Tidal Cocohatchee River 0.057 mg/L 0.47 mg/L 5.8 µg/L
2.Collier Inshore 0.032 mg/L 0.25 mg/L 3.1 gg/L
3.Rookery Bay/Marco Island 0.046 mg/L, 0.30 mg/L 4.9µg/L
4.Naples Bay 0.045 mg/L 0.57mg/L 4.3 µg/L
5.Inner Gulf Shelf 0.018 mg/L 0.29 mg/L 1.6 pg/L
6.Middle Gulf Shelf 0.016 mg/L 0.26 mg/L 1.4µg/L
7.Outer Gulf Shelf 0.013 mg/L 0.22 mg/L 1.0µg/L
8.Blackwater River 0.053 mg/L 0.41 mg/L 4.1 µg/L
9.Coastal Transition Zone 0.034 mg/L 0.61 mg/L 3.9 µg/L
10.Gulf Islands 0.038 mg/L 0.44 mg/L 3.4µg/L
11.Inner Waterway 0.033 mg/L 0.69 mg/L 5.2 gg/L
12.Mangrove Rivers 0.021 mg/L 0.71 mg/L 3.7µg/L
13.Ponce de Leon 0.024 mg/L 0.52 mg/L 3.0µg/L
14.Shark River Mouth 0.022 mg/L 0.75 mg/L, 2.2µg/L
15.Whitewater Bay 0.026 mg/L 0.82 mg/L 4.1 µg/L
(f)Florida Bay Annual geometric means that shall not be exceeded more than once in a
three year period
1.Central Florida Bay 0.019 mg/L 0.99 mg/L 2.2µg/L
2.Coastal Lakes 0.045 mg/L 1.29 mg/L 9.3 µg/L
3.East Central Florida Bay 0.007 mg/L 0.65 mg/L 0.4µg/L
4.Northern Florida Bay 0.010 mg/L 0.68 mg/L 0.8µg/L
5.Southern Florida Bay 0.009 mg/L 0.64 mgL, 0.8µg/L
6.Western Florida Bay 0.015 mg/L 0.37 mg/L 1.4µg/L
(g)Florida Keys Annual geometric means that shall not be exceeded more than once in a
three year period
1.Back Bay 0.009 mg/L 0.25 mg/L 0.3 µg/L
2.Backshelf 0.011 mg/L 0.23 mg/L 0.7µg/L
3.Lower Keys 0.008 mg/L 0.21 mg/L 0.3 µg/L
4.Marquesas 0.008 mg/L 0.21 mg/L 0.6µg/L
5.Middle Keys 0.007 mg/L 0.22 mg/L 0.3 pg/L
6.Oceanside 0.007 mg/L 0.17 mg/L 0.3 µg/L
6.Oceanside 0.007 mg/L 0.17 mg/L 0.3 µg/L
7.Upper Keys 0.007 mg/L 0.18 mg/L 0.2 pg/L
(h)Biscayne Bay Annual geometric means that shall not be exceeded more than once in a three year
period.
1.Card Sound 0.008 mg/L 0.33 mg/L 0.5µg/L
2.Manatee Bay-Baines Sound 0.007 mg/L 0.58 mg/L 0.4µg/L
3.North Central Inshore 0.007 mg/L 0.31 mg/L 0.5 pg/L
4.North Central Outer-Bay 0.008 mg/L 0.28 mg/L 0.7µg/L
5.Northern North Bay 0.012 mg/L 0.30 mg/L 1.7 pg/L
6.South Central Inshore 0.007 mg/L 0.48 mg/L 0.4 pg/L
7.South Central Mid-Bay 0.007 mg/L 0.35 mg/L 0.2 pg/L
8. South Central Outer-Bay 0.006 mg/L 0.24 mg/L 0.2µg/L
9.Southern North Bay 0.010 mg/L 0.29 mg/L 1.1 pg/L
(i)Sarasota Bay For TN, the annual geometric mean target is calculated from monthly arithmetic
mean color by region and season. Annual geometric means that shall not be
exceeded more than once in a three year period. The Sarasota Bay regions are
defined as north (Manatee County) and south(Sarasota County). The wet season
for Sarasota Bay is defined as July through October and the dry season is defined
as all other months of the year. The seasonal region targets are calculated using
monthly color data and shall be calculated as follows:
NW Ln[(13.35-(0.32*CN;))/3.58]
ND Ln[(10.39-(0.32*CN))/3.58]
SW Ln[(8.51-(0.32*CS;,)/3.58]
SD-Ln[(5.55-(0.32*CS))/3.58]
Where,
NW; is the TN target for i'h month calculated for the north region during the wet
season
ND, is the TN target for i" month calculated for the north region during the dry
season
SW, is the TN target for ith month calculated for the south region during the wet
season
SD, is the TN target for ith month calculated for the south region during the dry
season
CN,is the arithmetic mean color during the ith month within the north region
CS,is the arithmetic mean color during the ith month within the south region
The annual TN target is calculated as the geometric mean of all monthly regional
and season targets as follows:
B iz/V44'i+NDi+StVi+SDi})
t 1 24
Nutrient and nutrient response values do not apply to tidally influenced areas that
fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly fresh waters during
typical climatic and hydrologic conditions.
(j)Clam Bay(Collier County) No more than 10 percent of the individual Total Phosphorus (TP) or Total Nitrogen
(TN)measurements shall exceed the respective TP Upper Limit or TN Upper Limit.
1.°6256-
TP Upper Limit (mg/L) = e TN Upper Limit (mg/L) = 2.3601 -
0.0000328465*conductivity(E s)) 0.0000268325*Conductivity(µS)
Estuary Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Chlorophyll a
(k)Perdido Bay For bay segments with criteria expressed as annual geometric means (AGM), the values shall not be
exceeded more than once in a three year period. For all other bay segments, the criteria shall not be
exceeded in more than 10 percent of the measurements.Nutrient and nutrient response values do not apply
to tidally influenced areas that fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly fresh waters
during typical climatic and hydrologic conditions.
1.Big Lagoon 0.036 mg/L as AGM 0.61 mg/L as AGM 6.4µg/L
2.Upper Perdido Bay 0.102 mg/L 1.27 mg/L 11.5µg/L
3.Central Perdido Bay 0.103 mg/L 0.97 mg/L 7.5 µg/L
4.Lower Perdido Bay 0.110 mg/L 0.78 mg/L 6.9µg/L
(1)Pensacola Bay For bay segments with criteria expressed as annual geometric means (AGM), the values shall not be
exceeded more than once in a three year period. For all other bay segments, the criteria shall not be
exceeded in more than 10 percent of the measurements.Nutrient and nutrient response values do not apply
to tidally influenced areas that fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly fresh waters
during typical climatic and hydrologic conditions.
1.Lower Escambia Bay 0.076 mg/L 0.56 mg/L as AGM 6.8 µg/L as AGM
2.East Bay 0.084 mg/L 0.83 mg/L 4.0µg/L as AGM _
3.Upper Pensacola Bay 0.084 mg/L 0.77 mg/L 6.0 pg/L as AGM
4.Lower Pensacola Bay 0.024 mg/L as AGM 0.48 mg/L as AGM 3.9µg/L as AGM
5.Santa Rosa Sound 0.022 mg/L as AGM 0.41 mg/L as AGM 3.4µg/L as AGM
6.Blackwater Bay 0.082 mg/L 0.61 mg/L 11.3 µg/L
(m)Choctawhatchee Bay For bay segments with criteria expressed as annual geometric means (AGM), the values shall not be
exceeded more than once in a three year period. For all other bay segments, the criteria shall not be
exceeded in more than 10 percent of the measurements.Nutrient and nutrient response values do not apply
to tidally influenced areas that fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly fresh waters
during typical climatic and hydrologic conditions.
1.Alaqua Bayou 0.027 mg/L as AGM 0.41 mg/L as AGM 4.0µg/L as AGM
2.Basin Bayou 0.019 mg/L as AGM 0.31 mg/L as AGM 4.7µg/L
3.Boggy Bayou 0.015 mg/L as AGM 0.33 mg/L as AGM 3.0µg/L as AGM
4.East Bay 0.027 mg/L as AGM 0.46 mg/1.,as AGM 4.4µg/L as AGM
5.Gamier Bayou 0.017 mg/L as AGM 0.91 mg/L as AGM 4.0µg/L as AGM
6.LaGrange Bayou 0.029 mg/L as AGM 0.58 mg/L as AGM 5.1 µg/L as AGM
7.Middle Bay 0.020 mg/L as AGM 0.36 mg/L as AGM 3.1 µg/L as AGM
8.Rocky Bayou 0.016 mg/L as AGM 0.33 mg/L as AGM 3.1 µg/L as AGM
9.West Bay 0.049 mg/L as AGM 0.54 mg/L as AGM 4.1 µg/L as AGM
(n)St.Andrew Bay Criteria for all bay segments are expressed as annual geometric mean values not to be exceeded more than
once in a three year period.Nutrient and nutrient response values do not apply to tidally influenced areas
that fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly fresh waters during typical climatic and
hydrologic conditions.
1.East Bay 0.016 mg/L 0.33 mg/L 3.9µg/L
2.North Bay 0.014 mg/L 0.28 mg/L 3.1 µg/L
3.St.Andrew Bay 0.019 mg/L 0.34 mg/L 3.7µg/L
4.West Bay 0.017 mg/L 0.35 mg/L 3.8µg/L
(o)St.Joseph Bay Criteria for all bay segments are expressed as annual geometric mean values not to be exceeded more than
once in a three year period.Nutrient and nutrient response values do not apply to tidally influenced areas
that fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly fresh waters during typical climatic and
hydrologic conditions.
St.Joseph Bay 0.021 mg/L 0.34 mg/L 3.8 µg/L
(p)Apalachicola Bay For bay segments with criteria expressed as annual geometric means (AGM), the values shall not be
exceeded more than once in a three year period. For all other bay segments, the criteria shall not be
exceeded in more than 10 percent of the measurements.Nutrient and nutrient response values do not apply
to tidally influenced areas that fluctuate between predominantly marine and predominantly fresh waters
during typical climatic and hydrologic conditions.
1.Apalachicola Bay 0.063 mg/L as AGM 0.84 mg/L as AGM 8.4µg/L as AGM
2.St.George Sound 0.083 mg/L 0.92 mg/L 6.1 µg/L as AGM
3.East Bay 0.101 mg/L 1.12 mg/L 9.7µg/L as AGM
4.St.Vincent Sound 0.116 mg/L 1.10 mg/L 17.4 pg/L
Estuary Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Chlorophyll a
(q)Loxahatchee River For estuary segments with criteria expressed as annual geometric means (AGM),the values shall not be
Estuary exceeded more than once in a three year period. For all other estuary segments, the criteria shall not be
exceeded in more than 10 percent of the measurements.
1.Lower Loxahatchee 0.032 mg/L as AGM 0.63 mg/L as AGM 1.8µg/L as AGM
2.Middle Loxahatchee 0.030 mg/L as AGM 0.80 mg/L as AGM 4.0µg/L as AGM
3.Upper Loxahatchee 0.075 mg/L as AGM 1.26 mg/L as AGM 5.5µg/L as AGM
(r)Lake Worth Lagoon For estuary segments with criteria expressed as annual geometric means (AGM), the values shall not be
exceeded more than once in a three year period. For all other estuary segments, the criteria shall not be
exceeded in more than 10 percent of the measurements.
1.Northern Lake Worth 0.044 mg/L as AGM 0.54 mg/L,as AGM 2.9µg/L as AGM
Lagoon
2.Central Lake Worth 0.049 mg/L as AGM 0.66 mg/L as AGM 10.2 Ig/L
Lagoon
3.Southern Lake Worth 0.050 mg/L as AGM 0.59 mg/L as AGM 5.7µg/L as AGM
Lagoon
(s)Halifax River Estuary For estuary segments with criteria expressed as annual geometric means (AGM), the values shall not be
exceeded more than once in a three year period.
Lower Halifax River 0.142 mg/L as AGM 0.72 mg/L as AGM 6.2µg/L,as AGM
Estuary
(t)Guana River/Tolomato Criteria for all estuary segments are expressed as annual geometric mean values not to be exceeded more
River/Matanzas River than once in a three year period.
(GTM)Estuary
1.Tolomato 0.105 mg/L as AGM 0.65 mg/L as AGM 6.6µg/L as AGM
2.North Matanzas 0.110 mg/L as AGM 0.55 mg/L as AGM 4.0µg/L as AGM
3.South Matanzas 0.111 mg/L,as AGM 0.53 mg/L as AGM 5.5 µg/L as AGM
(u)Nassau River Estuary For estuary segments with criteria expressed as annual geometric means (AGM), the values shall not be
exceeded more than once in a three year period. For all other estuary segments, the criteria shall not be
exceeded in more than 10 percent of the measurements.
1.Ft.George River Estuary 0.107 mg/L as AGM 0.60 mg/L as AGM 5.9µg/L as AGM
2.Lower Nassau 0.107 mg/L as AGM 0.80mg/L as AGM 17.5µg/L
3.Middle Nassau 0.137 mg/L as AGM 0.83 mg/L as AGM 17.1 µg/L
4.Upper Nassau 0.191 mg/L as AGM 1.29 mg/L as AGM 4.7µg/L as AGM
(v)Suwannee,Waccasassa, For estuary segments with criteria expressed as single value annual geometric means (AGM),the values
and Withlacoochee River shall not be exceeded more than once in a three year period. For estuary segments with criteria expressed
Estuaries as a salinity dependent equation, the annual nutrient criteria are expressed as annual geometric means
applied to individual monitoring stations by solving the applicable equation below using the annual
arithmetic average salinity(AASa1) in practical salinity units (PSU) for the station. The AASa1 shall be
calculated as the annual mean of the salinity measurements for each station made in conjunction with the
collection of the nutrient samples.For criteria expressed as a salinity dependant equation,no more than 10
percent of the monitoring stations within the segment shall exceed the limit(expressed as AGM) on an
annual basis,more than once in a three year period.
1.Suwannee Offshore TP as AGM= TN as AGM= 5.7µg/L as AGM
-0.0035*AASal+0.1402 -0.0328*AASal+
1.4177
2.Waccasassa Offshore 0.063 mg/L as AGM 0.69 mg/L as AGM 5.6µg/L as AGM
3.Withlacoochee Offshore TP as AGM= TN as AGM= 4.9µg/L as AGM
-0.0021*AASal+0.0942 -0.0183*AASal+
0.9720
(w)Springs Coast(Crystal For estuary segments with criteria expressed as annual geometric means(AGM),the values shall not be
River to Anclote River) exceeded more than once in a three year period.
1.Anclote Offshore 0.014 mg/L as AGM 0.42 mg/L as AGM 1.7µg/L as AGM
2.Anclote River Estuary 0.063 mg/L as AGM 0.65 mg/L as AGM 3.8µg/L as AGM
3.Aripeka and Hudson 0.008 mg/L as AGM 0.45 mg/L as AGM 0.8 pg/L as AGM
Offshore
4.ChassahowitzkaNWR 0.015 mg/L as AGM 0.55 mg/L as AGM 2.0µg/L as AGM
5.Chassahowitzka 0.011 mg/L as AGM 0.46 mg/L as AGM 1.5µg/L as AGM
Offshore
6.Chassahowitzka River 0.021 mg/L as AGM 0.44 mg/L as AGM 3.9µg/L as AGM
Estuary
7.Crystal Offshore 0.034 mg/L as AGM 0.40 mg/L as AGM 2.4µg/L as AGM
8.Crystal River Estuary 0.047 mg/L as AGM 0.37 mg/L as AGM 4.4µg/L as AGM
9.Homosassa Offshore 0.012 mg/L as AGM 0.46 mg/L as AGM 1.314/L as AGM
10.Homosassa River 0.028 mg/L as AGM 0.51 mg/L as AGM 7.7µg/L as AGM
Estuary
11.Pithlachascotee 0.010 mg/L as AGM 0.47 mg/L as AGM 1.0µg/L as AGM
Offshore
12.Pithlachascotee River 0.034 mg/L as AGM 0.65 mg/L as AGM 4.0µg/L as AGM
Estuary
13.St.Martins Marsh 0.031 mg/L as AGM 0.51 mg/L as AGM 3.2µg/L as AGM
14.Weeki Wachee 0.017 mg/L as AGM 0.54 mg/L as AGM 1.2µg/L as AGM
Offshore
15.Weeki Wachee River 0.019 mg/L as AGM 0.60 mg/L as AGM 1.9µg/L as AGM
Estuary
(2)Criteria for chlorophyll a in open ocean coastal waters, derived from satellite remote sensing techniques, are provided in the
table below. In each coastal segment specified in the Map of Florida Coastal Segments, dated May 13, 2013
(http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-03017), which is incorporated by reference herein, the Annual Geometric
Mean remotely sensed chlorophyll a value, calculated excluding Karenia brevis blooms (>50,000 cells/L), shall not be exceeded
more than once in a three year period.The annual geometric means provided in the table below are based on measurements using the
SeaWiFS satellite. Achievement of these criteria shall be assessed only by using satellite remote sensing data that are processed in a
manner consistent with the derivation of the criteria.Data selection and preparation shall be consistent with the process described in
Section 1.4.3 and Section 1.4.4, pages 14 through 17, in the report titled "Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA's Proposed
Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Estuaries, Coastal Waters, and South Florida Inland Flowing Waters, Volume 2:
Coastal Waters," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 30, 2012
(http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-03018), the specified pages of which are incorporated by reference herein.
If MODIS or MERIS satellite data are used, the data shall be normalized using the standardization factors provided in the table
below, consistent with the process described in Section 1.6.3, pages 26 through 33
(http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-03019), in the above referenced EPA document, the specified pages of
which are incorporated herein. A copy of the Map of Florida Coastal Segments and the referenced pages from EPA's document
above are available by writing to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Standards and Assessment Section, 2600
Blair Stone Road,MS 6511,Tallahassee,FL 32399-2400.
Coastal Segment Annual Geometric Mean Remotely MODIS Standardization Factor MERIS Standardization Factor
Sensed Chlorophyll a
1 2.45 0.54 -0.71
2 2.65 0.99 -0.07
3 1.48 0.41 -0.22
4 1.20 0.26 -0.30
5 1.09 0.15 -0.28
6 1.07 0.29 -0.01
7 1.17 0.33 -0.02
8 1.27 0.38 -0.05
9 1.09 0.20 -0.07
10 1.13 0.41 -0.07
11 1.14 0.31 -0.05
12 1.21 0.41 -0.05
13 1.53 0.50 -0.13
14 1.80 0.69 0.01
15 2.80 0.68 0.58
16 2.49 -0.14 0.27
• 17 3.57 0.08 1.41
18 5.62 0.50 0.03
19 4.90 0.50 0.31
20 4.33 -0.02 -0.69
21 4.06 -0.63 -1.09
22 4.54 -0.46 -0.17
23 3.40 -1.21 -0.67
24 3.41 -2.37 0.01
25 3.11 -2.84 0.05
26 3.00 -4.16 -0.36
27 3.05 -1.77 -0.81
28 3.41 -2.13 -0.61
29 4.55 -0.83 -0.74
30 4.32 -0.74 -0.04
31 3.77 -0.29 -0.90
32 4.30 0.17 -0.47
33 5.98 0.10 0.80
34 4.63 -0.77 -0.32
35 4.14 0.42 -0.83
37 1.01 0.39 0.59
38 0.26 -0.04 -0.03
39 0.27 -0.02 0.00
40 0.25 -0.03 -0.01
41 0.21 -0.06 -0.01
42 0.21 -0.03 0.03
43 0.21 -0.02 0.04
44 0.20 -0.02 0.01
45 0.21 -0.04 0.02
46 0.26 -0.05 -0.01
47 0.58 -0.10 0.03
48 1.09 0.03 0.09
49 1.48 0.39 0.36
50 1.85 0.21 0.32
51 1.72 0.23 0.31
52 1.73 0.05 0.58
53 1.87 0.00 0.47
54 1.66 -0.13 0.31
55 1.60 0.18 0.71
56 2.12 0.11 0.39
57 2.83 0.44 0.84
58 2.63 0.09 0.40
59 2.34 0.06 0.33
60 2.17 0.07 0.29
61 2.01 -0.20 -0.06
62 1.93 0.18 -0.11
63 1.90 -0.69 -0.20
64 2.13 -0.79 -0.20
65 1.96 -0.72 -0.13
66 1.95 -0.85 -0.40
67 2.06 -0.33 -0.53
68 2.51 -0.47 -0.08
69 2.86 -0.60 -0.22
70 2.88 -1.39 -0.32
71 3.62 -2.00 -0.38
72 3.80 -1.38 -0.40
73 3.94 -0.28 -0.49
74 4.36 -0.16 -1.17
(3) Estuarine and marine areas for the Southwest and South Florida estuaries listed in paragraphs 62-302.532(1)(a)-(j), F.A.C., are
delineated in the eight maps of the Florida Marine Nutrient Regions, dated May 13, 2013
(httpJ/www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-03020), which are incorporated by reference. Estuarine and marine areas for the
Panhandle estuaries listed in paragraphs 62-302.532(1)(k)-(p),F.A.C.,are delineated in the six maps of the Florida Marine Nutrient Regions,
dated October 1,2012(http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-03021), which are incorporated by reference. Estuarine and
marine areas for the estuaries listed in paragraphs 62-302.532(1)(q)-(w), F.A.C., are delineated in the seven maps of the Florida Marine
Nutrient Regions, dated May 13,2013 (http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-03022),which are incorporated by reference
herein.Copies of these maps may be obtained by writing to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,Standards and Assessment
Section,2600 Blair Stone Road,MS#6511,Tallahassee,FL 32399-2400.
(4)The Dept tnient shall establish by rule or final order estuary specific numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient criteria
for TN and TP for Perdido Bay, Pensacola Bay (including Escambia Bay), St. Andrews Bay, Choctawhatchee Bay, and
Apalachicola Bay by June 30, 2013, subject to the provisions of Chapter 120, F.S. The Department shall establish by rule or final
order the estuary specific numeric interpretation of the narrative nutrient criteria for TN and TP for the remaining estuaries by June
30,2015,subject to the provisions of Chapter 120,F.S.
Rulemaking Authority 403.061, 403.062, 403.087, 403.504, 403.704, 403.804 FS. Law Implemented 403.021(11), 403.061, 403.087, 403.088,
403.141, 403.161,403.182, 403.502, 403.702,403.708 FS.History-New 7-3-12,Amended 12-20-12,8-1-13,8-20-13.
62-302.533 Dissolved Oxygen Criteria for Class I,Class II,Class III,and Class III-Limited Waters.
(1)Class I,Class III predominantly freshwaters,and Class III-Limited predominantly freshwaters.
(a)No more than 10 percent of the daily average percent dissolved oxygen(DO)saturation values shall be below the following
values:
1.67 percent in the Panhandle West bioregion,
2.38 percent in the Peninsula and Everglades bioregions,or
3. 34 percent in the Northeast and Big Bend bioregions. A map of the bioregions is contained in SCI 1000: Stream Condition
Index Methods (DEP-SOP-003/11 SCI 1000) (http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-02959),which is incorporated
by reference in Rule 62-160.800,F.A.C.
(b)For lakes,the daily average DO level shall be calculated as the average of measurements collected in the upper two meters
of the water column at the same location on the same day. For all other freshwaters,the daily average freshwater DO level shall be
calculated as the average of all measurements collected in the water column at the same location and on the same day.
(c) In the portions of the Suwannee, Withlacoochee (North), and Santa Fe Rivers utilized by the Gulf Sturgeon, and in the
portions of the Santa Fe and New Rivers utilized by the Oval Pigtoe Mussel, DO levels shall not be lowered below the baseline
distribution such that there is 90 percent confidence that more than 50 percent of measurements are below the median of the baseline
distribution or more than 10 percent of the daily average values are below the 10th percentile of the baseline distribution for the
applicable waterbody.
(d)In the portions of the St. Johns River utilized by the Shortnose or Atlantic Sturgeon, the DO shall not be below 53 percent
saturation during February and March. During other times of the year,the criteria specified in paragraph 62-302.533(1)(a),F.A.C.,
shall apply.
(e)The baseline distributions and maps showing the specific areas utilized by the Gulf Sturgeon and the Oval Pigtoe Mussel are
provided in Appendix I of the"Technical Support Document for the Derivation of Dissolved Oxygen Criteria to Protect Aquatic Life
in Florida's Fresh and Marine Waters" (DEP-SAS-001/13), dated March 2013
(http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-02955), which is incorporated by reference herein. Copies of Appendix I
may be obtained from the Department's internet site at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wgssp/swq-docs.htm or by writing to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Standards and Assessment Section,2600 Blair Stone Road,MS 6511,Tallahassee,
FL 32399-2400.
(2)Class II,Class III predominantly marine waters,and Class III-Limited predominantly marine waters.
(a)Minimum DO saturation levels shall be as follows:
1.The daily average percent DO saturation shall not be below 42 percent saturation in more than 10 percent of the values;
2.The seven-day average DO percent saturation shall not be below 51 percent more than once in any twelve week period;and
3.The 30-day average DO percent saturation shall not be below 56 percent more than once per year.
(b) To calculate a seven-day average DO percent saturation,there shall be a minimum of three full days of diel data collected
within the seven-day period, or a minimum of ten grab samples collected over at least three days within that seven-day period,with
each sample measured at least four hours apart.
(c) To calculate a 30-day average DO percent saturation,there shall be a minimum of three full days of diel data with at least
one day of data collected in three different weeks of the 30-day period, or grab samples collected from a minimum of ten different
days of the 30-day period.
(d)A full day of diel data shall consist of 24 hours of measurements collected at a regular time interval of no longer than one
hour.
(3) If it is determined that the natural background DO saturation in the waterbody(including values that are naturally low due
to vertical stratification) is less than the applicable criteria stated above, the applicable criteria shall be 0.1 mg/1 below the DO
concentration associated with the natural background DO saturation level.
(4) For predominately marine waters, a decrease in magnitude of up to 10 percent from the natural background condition is
allowed if it is demonstrated that sensitive resident aquatic species will not be adversely affected using the procedure described in
the DEP document titled Appendix H of the "Technical Support Document for the Derivation of Dissolved Oxygen Criteria to
Protect Aquatic Life in Florida's Fresh and Marine Waters: Determination of Acceptable Deviation from Natural Background
Dissolved Oxygen Levels in Fresh and Marine Waters" (DEP-SAS-001/13), dated March 2013
(http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-02956), which is incorporated by reference herein. Copies of Appendix H
may be obtained from the Department's internet site at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wgssp/swq-docs.htm or by writing to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Standards and Assessment Section,2600 Blair Stone Road,MS 6511,Tallahassee,
FL 32399-2400.
(5)Ambient DO levels above the minimum criteria specified in subsections 62-302.533(1)and(2),F.A.C., shall be maintained
in accordance with and subject to Rules 62-302.300 and 62-4.242, F.A.C. Ambient DO levels will be considered to have declined,
for purposes of this subsection if, after controlling for or removing the effects of confounding variables, such as climatic and
hydrologic cycles, quality assurance issues,and changes in analytical methods,a waterbody segment is shown to have a statistically
significant decreasing trend in DO percent saturation or an increasing trend in the range of daily DO fluctuations at the 95 percent
confidence level using the one-sided Seasonal Kendall test for trend,as described in Helsel,D.R. and R.M. Hirsch, 2002, Statistical
Methods in Water Resources,USGS,pages 338 through 340(http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-02957),which
is incorporated by reference herein,or an alternative statistically valid trend at a one-sided confidence level of 95 percent. It must be
demonstrated that the data satisfy all statistical assumptions of any alternative method used,including residual distribution,variance,
and shape of relationship.
Rulemaking Authority 403.061, 403.062, 403.087, 403.504, 403.704, 403.804 FS. Law Implemented 403.021(11), 403.061, 403.087, 403.088,
403.141,403.161,403.182,403.502, 403.702, 403.708 FS.History—New 8-1-13.
su6M,-.{eI by
0. Tr-e-c.k.,e,r
6,4. a q K goy Cd moi r4e.e
, Jeff ayl
AVERAGE COPPER LEVELS IN CLAM BAY, qg/L (1), (2)
2011 (6) 2012 (7) 2013 (8) 2014 (9)
Outer Clam Bay (3) 1 .5 1 .6 4.0 3.6
Inner Clam Bay (4) 5.8 5.7 9.3 6.4
Upper Clam Bay (5) 9.2 8.9 7.3 6.5
(1) State limit = < 3.7 'AWL
(2) Outliers (>40) excluded
(3) Station CB6 for 2011/2012, stations W1 + W6 for 2013/2014
(4) Station CB3 for 2011/2012, station W7 for 2013/2014
(5) Station CB1 for 2011/2012, station UCB for 2013/2014
(6) Five monthly readings
(7) Two monthly readings
(8) Twelve monthly readings
(9) Seven monthly readings to date
Bad News: There has been no significant reduction in copper levels in
Clam Bay since the FDEP measurements in 2011-12.
Good News: There is a slight downward trend in Upper Clam Bay over
2011-2014, a slight downward trend in Inner Clam Bay in 2014, and
consistently good readings (excluding an outlier) in Outer Clam Bay. This
suggests tidal flushing may be starting to have an effect.
Observations
• Sampling stations were different in 2011/2012 and 2013/2014.
• Inclusion or exclusion of outliers and the outlier limit chosen (>20, >40?)
greatly affects average readings. How will FDEP handle outliers?
0
ta
Q__
h
.r
)
`• CO 0
-" z • p CW' p p 7
Ca M CO
GI
} L
U N1 a .- i
rj)
CC y h
G
.:. CS Co M
f
3 7.7 t•-• _ F,
0
co el
o to t
m
m O O O O '14
ye ..
.a CO p O O Or.,
2 s-- 5 C') CT) CM C•) h- i _`,.'A t
. Pr
w
N o O
CO CO VCD (n Ln O O N 'CC m O
zd Cp Ci CN V V dO •Cni 0C) V MD MO O OM MO
`
N pp
Co
> o
11
ti, c2 03
E
c6m 1 � . omo0Nva
cU ti 0 . co
Om i CV CCI's: D d. (D N C) co Cco 4 N- co C
c._
N
CU
y
N � CO
Da nL Y
E . COCD V COCV W t() c- 0 O n O O O C. co vi
m r V C) C) M C) M C) M 0 M C) N M C)
v
Ii
m 0 (t1 d' F Co co N co co (D C)
10_ r C) c6 O l'-. V' N C] CD <t (D (D N O) v)
Z .N- N co ( n CO s_ N 0] d' CD C) a- .---
C
- t[) LC
0
m
' O O 0
_ -D cotom (n 0 D 0 0 D) o o O 0 O r0 o
0
pN CO Lq NO O(7 O M MD) CD nC)) CC)- CCCO CAC
0 `
CO
O M co M M 0 co 0 M co 0 M <t - <t 'C
> o i
, N C6 D. N 3 7 m N () Z 0 -c) cuw 0-
Q
6-1 (/-, -- - .) -
Act Act ,ct Depth Act Act
Analysis Analysis Procedure
Category Org ID Station ID Date Time Depth Units Type g ry Characteristic Value Units Date Time Name
Mjj/i' 21FLFTM CB6 6/21/11 10:20:00 0.5 ft Sample Routine Sample Copper 1.7 ugh 06/23/11 19:13:00 200.8(W)
21FLFTM CB3 6/21/11 9:46:00 0.5 ft Sample Routine Sample Copper 8.7 ug/I 06/23/11 19:07:00 200.8(W)
21FLFTM CB1 6/21/11 9:22:00 0.5 ft Sample Routine Sample Copper 23.3 ugh 06/23/11 18:55:00 200.8(W)
et 21FLFTM CB3 7/20/11 10:24:00 0.5 ft Sample Routine Sample Copper 2.8 ugh08/04/11 19:01:00 200.8(W)
c'^r'
21FLFTM CB1 7/20/11 10:00:00 0.5 ft Sample Routine Sample Copper 7.9 ugh 08/04/11 18:55:00 200.8(W)
i 21FLFTM CB6 7/20/11 11:11:00 0.5 ft Sample Routine Sample Copper *ND 08/04/11 19:08:00 200.8(W)
I7 21FLFTM CB3 8/23/11 10:32:00 0.3 m Sample Routine Sample Copper 8.3 ugh 08/30/11 1:16:00 200.8(W)
21FLFTM CB1 8/23/11 10:32:00 0.3 m Sample Routine Sample Copper 10.5 ugh 08/30/11 0:57:00 200.8(W)
21FLFTM CB6 8/23/11 12:00:00 0.3 m Sample Routine Sample Copper 2 ugh 08/30/11 1:22:00 200.8(W)
r. 21FLFTM CB6 10/6/11 11:42:00 0.3 m Sample Routine Sample Copper 1.7 ugh 10/13/11 3:21:00 200.8(W)
A/f
21FLFTM CB1 10/6/11 9:45:00 0.3 m Sample Routine Sample Copper 9.9 ugh 10/13/11 3:08:00 200.8(W)
21FLFTM CB3 10/6/11 10:45:00 0.2 m Sample Routine Sample Copper 5 ug/I 10/13/11 3:14:00 200.8(W)
.%1.�� 21FLFTM CB6 12/5/11 12:36:00 0.5 ft Sample Routine Sample Copper 2.1 ugh 12/16/11 1:41:00 200.8(W)
..,...11;:s:, 21FLFTM CB3 12/5/11 11:41:00 0.5 ft Sample Routine Sample Copper 3.9 ug/I 12/16/11 1:10:00 200.8(W)
� 21FLFTM CB1 12/5/11 11:07:00 0.5 ft Sample Routine Sample Copper 8.4 ugh 12/16/11 1:03:00 200.8(W
)
21FLFTM CB1 1/17/12 9:34:00 0.2 m Sample Routine Sample Copper 8.7 ugh 01/27/12 0:14:00 200.8(W)
21FLFTM CB6 1/17/12 11:14:00 0.2 m Sample Routine Sample Copper 01/27/12 0:26:00 200.8(W)
pft 21FLFTM CB3 1/17/12 10:12:00 0.2 m Sample Routine Sample Copper 3.6_ug- 01/27/12 0:20:00 200.8(W)
) 1...52"`"21FLFTM CB6 2/15/12 10:51:00 0.3 m Sample Routine Sample Copper 1.6 ugh 02/25/12 1:15:00 200.8(W)
7' ,yJr 21FLFTM CB3 2/15/12 9:22:00 0.2 m Sample Routine Sample Copper CO /25/12 1:09:00 200.8(W)
21FLFTM CB1 2/15/12 8:46:00 0.2 m Sample Routine Sample Copper (9 ugh 04/25/12 1:02:00 200.8(W)
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Copper test results for Clam Bay 4
Impaired=greater than 3.7
Date 6/21/2011 7/20/2011 8/23/2011 10/6/2011 12/5/2011 1/17/2012 2/15/2012
Upper Clam Bay 23.3 7.9 10.5 9.9 8.4 8.7
Inner Clam Bay 8.7 2.8 8.3 5 3.9 3.6 7.7
Outer Clam Bay 1.7 ND* 2 1.7 2.1 ND* 1.6
*Non-detect
Pal_ 3
i
Clam Bay water Qualityt ar t - Y SamplingLocations
�,� '} r� . � ,-••
•
x.;,::.•,3';'••,.4-"•,-- Clam Bay 1 Legend l, .
}* y =:_- o Clam Bay Water Quality Stations r
r
7" {C�� f Yy
*''�t �yt ��° �'--.•41...,„,,--_,..--.•,.t.-,_-,,,,,
,� '� »���§ � � "1�-,•110k.
-�1 yyirfe'�', �5; �-" �+ �+,I 9. ,,.� rF. a f�. d�+'t` �4 arr�r• :!!
f,:•.•,y•
s'3 ' pa f y-+ !
< 'S %tA+'4 •`,, . :-." fyY '�� f la 4.;_'.
�a�� , E!+ r r - .r (t,• ry 'ice • :: 4y ti �, cnysr! t a+r �qrF
t ' to U! � � I.
tr If-,!.,, yr'rte° P y � '�I 's n qty { 4f,
Clam Bay 2 • r.;w �*�"�
i
.1:,' _ y ° atz . :., • `7' .," • - Y , err
'5 rte t., „ _ • �_ _ " .,-.7.,..,....!'.*.'1
1 r'.2r ' „ .` S � $ 1
.t t 7 .. .v r F „44,„....,.....,c„.
) mss. • ,.._
a t'z •i3 X. int:t x d t r44 4 - t ?� + 1i t
•
4F _' i 4, ` i
.76 a . ., h. ,•st‘tr.7. • s1/. .
•
t • J P7 .. s” f•" ./L .,i--.-.-.,�� t
[ amBay3 ..";Tr.
r r-, r(, '
t 4
aat5 Sp , • . 'F'4.•., _ Y A�•ri��,�•.. �3� 'ya •,r 1y -
y, tat .„4.. .r f ^i �, :
•
h- , ii ,:,_• •t $r. a .1 r t ms's L !
t i a.- w7 J.r.� j
Clam •
Bay 4 ,i r
,,f:::"... .--', +x v 1 -F' y + t."--'4.4e
rY SSV , i,
y�q ..i.,:
r q �, tigc
.-•• !$ "felt j '�` •
„,,•!, i!• b ,` - Y
y:r, f � r w + Y rf7 711 �
Ii;'‘,'"J' ,
+� ” . ...piing Locations 2009 . Mr *'
- oy 4 S,- rtid, k a _" j � I•
# '
r Long , g irk 7p• 1 ,� R„ ' . _..,..
X2614.618 d "• ` ` �, _ .1 ��{ aK`�'4 � .• '
imi, -.277 �� . ' �T►•`, t \.fir y y
° � � Clam Bay 5 ''
....13.869 r, ' 1r fi "'� �'. o .11..
t ,
t il,:, 1, .,a „,. „,. r
34'2613.636 } , wt'�, s + „ �� �,*� - 4• c
_.
X613.010 � r �. 9u:' •
4��:
Clam Bay 6 �- !Tr.:: �� � r: `' t :�.�s�,�•
w
1 -111111b .,..800 Y "` t
Y� S '! f!Vt_. 'I N tel'
8-153,26 12.682 ' '{ y`-,°* d �
Clam Bay 8 . , . 1tt�,
8.766 2612.6• 69- ,���� �� k"t.a{'.,� `�' ��
- �
8.586 2612.654
Cam Bay
.''',..''''',;•'';;?;:- Clam Bay ? ± ,�ry :• , " 4,,<<y tr '. t
•
amort k
.c�> ,3+�tt _.:� tib aril,-�z
Pa ` 6k5
mss,=
)
d +� f r=_-
,,,,, . 4
T y y
tit t \ „ J�', i.i'
x
1.
t
x
IL
. ,fayr a J
•
,•� t L t• f +S -.
to ,,,•,.. t -,q
rAr * r. ,
y
..1 Y
C^
fi
n�y
ha
i . r �) :rik,
a `4. ` ra;� � i. --Vk y
\ { li'� : Vis,
T':
x ah f {i
tti 4 rr4•.. .
* t F 4 r w€.ms`s' `
'Y r10
tr -' S S 4.�r r rs
1 x v
L T _ sa V ) b cr2
'c« moi. �t ?:•
yy ,t!. ',,,,'-,"4,"'''T.''' af. ri �.
`� -fix tm } v
4i,t
. . --.. .11...;„:., ..,,..„:,:,.,, -.1..,,,,:;;;: .4„..„ ,,..-.,..::.•.:f.:744.,.4_,,,..: .1,
4 (.
1 5:4414,,-, li!'",::.',--\-...'::::-'''s -
•
a
') s
i
(*NbqRab D CI4M364./
N, J‘;‘,. }kPpe^tk.
Pelican Bay Foundation
Clam Bay
DREDGING REPORT
PELICAN
or BAY
Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc.
August 28,2014
Mr.Leo Ochs,Jr.
County Manager
Collier County Manager's Office
3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 202
Naples, FL 34112-5746
RE: Proposed Maintenance Dredging of Clam Pass
Dear Leo,
As you know,the Pelican Bay Foundation (Foundation),exercising its rights pursuant to the Declaration
of Protective Covenants and Restrictions for the above referenced property,sent the attached letter to
the Pelican Bay Services Division Board of Directors(PBSD)on June 26,2014. We addressed our letter
to the PBSD as they are the entity designated by the Board of Collier County Commissioners(BCC)to
advise the BCC on Clam Bay and Clam Pass related matters.
On August 5,2014,the Foundation received a letter from Turrell,Hall&Associates,a consultant under
contract to the PBSD on Clam Bay/Clam Pass matters,also attached,which was reportedly in response
to our June 26,2014 letter.
The Foundation holds the rights articulated in the June 26,2014 letter, and the Foundation and its
members also own substantial amounts of valuable real property that abuts,adjoins and surrounds
Clam Pass and Clam Bay. The Pelican Bay Foundation is also a riparian owner of land abutting the north
side of Clam Pass. The protection and preservation of this property is of utmost concern to the
Foundation.
We believe that both the County's and the Foundation's interests are best memorialized in the 10-Year
FDEP Permit which was issued to Collier County in 2012. This permit application was authored with
significant collegial input from the Foundation. That permit states that"the meandered channel
location will be filled with beach compatible sand during the initial channel realignment". Additionally,
the FDEP permit specifies the slope ratio that must be maintained from the dune into the water. These
two issues are an absolute requirement of the Foundation's approval.
The Turrell,Hall&Associates letter of August 5,2014 is non-responsive to our letter of June 26,2014 as
it does not specifically commit to the infill of the meander,nor does it precisely specify the grade of the
slope that will be maintained should additional sand be placed on Foundation property.
In 2013,the ACOE Nationwide Permit was necessitated because the Pass was completely closed. That
represented an emergency condition for which no Federal permit existed. Over a year later,the County
has still not applied for a 10-year maintenance permit from the ACOE consistent with the FDEP permit
which would provide for the proper maintenance dredging of Clam Pass,as well as an opportunity for
the Foundation to provide the requisite input. Pursuing stop-gap Nationwide permits from the ACOE
Pelican Bay Foundation. Inc. • 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard • Naples, Florida 34108
(239) 597-8081 • (239) 597-6802 FAX • E-Mail: memberservices4pelicanbay.org
does not relieve the County of their obligation to comply with the already approved elements of the 10-
year FDEP permit.
We look forward to confirmation that these two documented requirements are incorporated into the
permit application currently under consideration by the ACOE. That would allow us to issue our
permission for the application to be filed.
Sinc rely, 11a�
P I AN B OUNDATION
, 'T
477
j Jif,Hoppenst&a
`-President
cc: Neil Dorrill, Pelican Bay Services Division Administrator
Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors
PELICAN
BAY
Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc.
June 26, 2014
Via Email Distribution
Pelican Bay Services Division Board of Directors
David Trecker, Chair
Municipal Service Taxing& Benefit Unit of Collier County, Florida
801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605
Naples, FL 34108
Re: Proposed Maintenance Dredging of Clam Pass
Dear PBSD Board:
Thank you for providing the engineer's conceptual plans for the dredging template contemplated
for your permit application with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer(ACOE) for a Nationwide
Permit. Pursuant to the Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions for this property
(OR Book 966, Pages 1843 — 1863),Collier County "shall not apply for dredge or fill permits in
Park Site or Conservation Area from any governmental bodies, regardless of any future
amendments to the statutes or regulations of the United States or the State of Florida or as a
result of decisions of the courts of the United States or the State of Florida, without the prior
written consent of Declarant, which consent may be withheld in the sole and absolute discretion
of Declarant."
These covenants were part of a coordinated series of actions arising from the approval of the
initial Pelican Bay PUD and implementing the original ACOE permit for Pelican Bay. They
involve the imposition of restrictions on the Conservation Area,conveyance of that area and the
Park Site to the County, and adoption of a further set of restrictions governing cooperative
management and use of the Conservation Area and Park Site.
The intent clearly contemplates collaboration and discussion between the County and the
Declarant(or successor, in this case the Pelican Bay Foundation)on any matters concerning
the Conservation Area. This is all reflected in the original Declaration of Restrictions(OR
Book 966, Page 1830),Quit Claim Deed (OR Book 966, Page 1841)and Declaration of
Protective Covenants and Restrictions (OR Book 966, Page 1843).
The Assignment of Rights, Privileges and Obligations(Park Site and Conservation Area)dated
April 21,2009 and recorded in OR Book 4446,beginning on Page 1101 of the public records
of Collier County, Florida,and the Assignment of Certain Rights, Privileges and Obligations
dated March 7, 2003 and recorded in OR Book 3257, beginning on Page 2056 of the public
records of Collier County, Florida, places the Pelican Bay Foundation (Foundation)as the
successor to WCI as the Declarant.
Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. • 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard • Naples, Florida 34108
"'"'` (239) 597-8081 • (239) 597-6802 FAX • E-Mail: memberservices@pelicanbay.org
The Foundation, being fully vested in the right,power,and authority to enforce the above
referenced Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions, offers the following input
with respect to its approval of a nationwide dredging application to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the longer term plans for dredging contained in the most recent draft of the 10-
Year Management Plan.
1) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit Application. The Foundation is
supportive of Collier County/Pelican Bay Services Division pursuing the permit necessary
to maintain the Pass. However,this is a repeat of the same process followed in 2013 and
there were some elements of the last nationwide dredge which were detrimental to the
Foundation's property north of the Pass. Therefore, approval of a permit application will be
contingent upon three (3) requirements:
i) Consistent with the requirements of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) companion permit required for dredging of the Pass, the
Foundation will expect the erosion damage to Foundation property to be restored.
This is specified in the FDEP permit "the meandered channel location will be filled
with beach compatible sand during the initial channel realignment." This activity
and requirement was executed under the last nationwide permit and will be expected
to be performed again. Exhibit A shows the amount of property loss the Foundation
has sustained from April 2013 to April 2014, and the Foundation has a right to have
this area restored.
ii) The Foundation has experienced significant and recurring scarping since the 2013
nationwide permit dredge. This is because the sand was placed only above the Mean
Iligh Water Line (MIIWL) creating an unnatural slope. Exhibit B shows the scarps
that have persisted, creating a hazardous condition for the recreational use of the
beach. Additionally, these scarps were not addressed by Collier County before the
start of turtle season. Exhibit C is an aerial taken on May 22, 2014 and clearly shows
how the beach furniture must be set away from the escarpment line because of the
unsafe change of elevation. Since an element of the nationwide permit is that sand
must be placed above the MHWL and this will only exacerbate an already
unacceptable condition, other than the remediation expectation described in (i), the
Foundation will not accept any sand on Foundation property above the MHWL.
iii)For the 2013 nationwide permit dredge, the equipment used was mobilized and
accessed the dredging site from and through Foundation property on the north side of
the Pass. While the Foundation was able to accommodate the County's request for
this logistical consideration, this year, because of other projects the Foundation is
currently undertaking, the Foundation will not be able to accommodate access from
the north side of the pass. It will be necessary for the County to access the site and
mobilize the equipment for the work from the south side of the Pass, to minimize any
disruptive impact to the Foundation's property.
After the permit application is completed. including the above, please submit the final
application to the Foundation for final review and approval.
03534%
2) 10-Year Clam Bay Management Plan. The Foundation is aware that the 10-Year
Management Plan(Plan) has reached its final draft form. The Board of County
Commissioners' (BCC)decided that the Pelican Bay Services Division is the exclusive entity
to advise the BCC on matters related to Clam Bay. However,because the Plan includes
dredging templates and guidelines upon which future dredging will be based, as well as other
activities which could fall within the scope of the Covenants,the Plan must be submitted to
the Foundation for review and approval.
Additionally, upon the BCC's decision in December of 2012 to transition exclusive advisory
responsibility for the Clam Bay system from Coastal Zone Management to the Pelican Bay
Services Division, the Foundation transmitted and advised the Pelican Bay Services Division
of all the water quality work jointly accomplished by the Foundation and Coastal Zone
Management over the preceding several years. It would appear that the proposed management
plan does not adequately address the water quality concerns that were the subject of these
studies or how they will be managed to meet regulatory requirements.
From our experience, water quality is the primary metric the State of Florida uses to
determine the health of water bodies.Therefore, the Plan should recognize that Clam Bay now
has site-specific water quality standards that were reviewed and approved by both FDEP and
the USEPA. Those standards are now contained within the State of Florida's Water Quality
Standards(Chapter 62-302.532). The Plan should monitor,track and report on the water
quality of Clam Bay against these and any recently revised FDEP standards.
The Foundation has historically taken very proactive positions regarding the safeguarding and
stewardship of the Clam Bay estuary. We can all agree that the health of the estuary is of utmost
importance to the community. The original developers of Pelican Bay also recognized the
importance of the estuary and sought to best protect it by deeding the property to the County
while creating a contractual set of checks and balances with the Protective Covenants and
Restrictions both prior to and attached to the deed.
To that end,the Foundation looks forward to working collegially, and constructively,with
Collier County and the Pelican Bay Services Division to accomplish a timely resolution to these
matters. As the Foundation has in the past,it will bring to bear the resources necessary to ensure
that the estuary,and other Pelican Bay natural resources areas,receive the highest and best care
and attention. We welcome the opportunity to have the Foundation's consultants work with the
County's/PBSD's consultants to address the items identified above.
Sincerely,
PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION
't/4
David Cook
Chairman
003'34051
cc: Pelican Bay Services Division Board of Directors (via email)
Collier County Board of Commissioners(via email)
Leo Ochs,Collier County Manager(via email)
Neil Dorrill, Pelican Bay Services Division Administrator(via email)
County Attorney (via email)
4
- .
•`'..,-, -. ..r.:.--I.7., .
. .t, ,
4.,
T
..-
.... . ..
--,
t 1• Ai:' '''' t.*' . 1
-% ry-y•rrirt
p
...
v
,,.
/
'....,4i-.--
., ,
,
,
t
..--.
..... .
:'' : ' :4 ..,.../!: 4
..i, '
; 0.1-- ,•"- '' tr--::
ii , '-- --, 1 „., .‘,S•p„... ,,.
j!•i• ''• ;••:*.IL ' '''',,,, 17' ' ,,.,'.. '.
i- • •xir ;6' , •'' , 1
..,
"...71;• '.
April 2013 ,
0 ,
Erosion of Pelican Bay Property
. - , ,•...-
,, ,,. ...
a..
.., .
-- lair
• .
.
,- la w •..%
-
.:i
, - Z..„
,...
.
. - -a„, ..„
• l'' L
—.1 : ,_ •
. .
' ' ..• - '.' '
..' Oti#1414, '•%, r:',P.4..p::1`-'-**".. ' -- ...-,' . -,
-. aip4 •:.• .•.-- *, , ; tip! ,",•'-Age-4*
,‘
.
.,...
- ,
.,„... .
toot—,
, ... . ,. . ..
. . _
t
April 2014 .
. ,. .14#-.,...-,...... - -
4)(huh/7- A3
•
..411111111111111P
,
A
•
•
•
`• ,�„�Ir • .• . 'mow •
s ..' - M1,S'} ,,..
s• 'WC4144illiFilr'
•
•
+fir. .4a- .L r •
All
EscarpmeProperty
nt of Pelican Bay
C�,
14
4.
9 a *
t
l"xk 06,'7` de
1 a " ,jam •
.:;
til: a w �f ^� `' ' • + "r v
,r .
—��wail. � #... � �°+I .,�.+4� �,��„'.�� •s " rr.'.�' —'
„ey
�' a:.tN' . 1`;"".. •-ft
rt �1 ye 7 s►
.w
Escarpment of Pelican Bay Property
.� r
Il A
/c"
•
f.a.
•
•
•
r r.
V, +
4 �
IP
4
la rr 11
ey jE'r i 4£`�7 �t ,70! �"r Et'_y� -1,--:,1 `3� '„moi - 4:= �r"+i I r.
` r" Y Clam Bay Water Quality
Sam Iing Locations
Clam Bay 1 Legend
' A.-sem ® Clam Bay Water Quality Stations
.4 a r
u. � :, f Y et•
I"' .-11:le'
.41;
art' ti ' ' �' ,r*, f �.••, r -C5 '}
r`
1}x r 1' r f[} Y .'4'4' 'a.' '•G J ^i,' '1 a li:I8,j' 5 ,�1.
• _i JfJ '/OJ --LLT
Clam Bay 2 :. 4 co,. 5ii ,
b rig
r •
t', �1' } 't' 1 r-=.a, ,.1` bra
iF ��
,' w.. 1 x t4 4, , ' I "�'• rt':
Nr R fY
‘ .r"' ' gl-1....`,:-.71'; ' ,A1A1:4,-e."'-'r ; `40.11,11461”5-4, i .
%
r ,ta .Gr�xIlt, ?. J • CI ? i f. 'F
Clam Bay 3 �_ 1. ' .
d �!� �. e 4 it k y ,1;..3:•,-"t',-:, % Y 4li_ 1 Ni
_ M f :'
4
lam bos t- Lz-
iv9
d4
r
,. _ . . ,,,,, .,...,.,,..=‘ ,,p, ,,..„.....,
,,,,,,,f,,,,,,,,, .44.,#i..,,
,:-.';'',..,..,«:«fi,i$4:1-.'4,t-4.54...-7,4:,,
. '''' . ":.'.-'''''' ':.,..,-;11,Y,...,,,,*#k;,''.!.e.'-.':-''''''''''*i"'''''''''''''
ter,
u
4 .. - ..
-,
`' fir e
• +
a
I-
_DSC3322.jpg _N.
DSC3323.jpg
� r
r 4
- uu
z tom ri �' � " ,
_DSC3324.jpg _DSC3325.jpg
S
-,,,,,,•--,
,, . , . . .... .
. ,. .. , .... ... ,,-.,.
„ ,•,.._ ,, ..,,,_ , ,,,........... .,,,,, ------- 't
1 ,
_ •,,,,.1
-,._.
1_, .'. , , ,-',.:,:•.
,•':,•,„.-:,...•.- ';,..,. '•'••- -
• ---,P, - '':';'. . . , .
i• - - - "-- Allit . - . - --':-",",-7".'"
''. ''',,,,,,,•''.- • t.
•^,- ,,,
'''''-t.:.•:-:::. ' ..:f;:14.:',f". *:T''''''•';' ,',.;'.1.",'' ,,,,,' - A.,,,;:,-,-;;;,,-
tI''''''••':,','F',5 •T'r«-t,',^,i'',';:',"••''',;,, ', ;
'' ' : •:••'..•.;:•*'•,•.7'.:•'',:i',,'-•-•,;•,:',,9*-;:h,lii.'•;,'-' rriflo ,,.-,'.:7;'.'7i..--'.5•••:'!1-•.:::-•;•:„.','•---
',•''•-• ' :: -',,,,:.••,t,„•,,,-...,4,--..y-,,,:,.'„,.-,,,•--„,,,,,,..., ...=.„
.... ..... ... .
,. , •••''''.'".'. ''' • ''
..•,'''',C,'••• ''.., .2-
..',.. ''-•.
.....;.;
,, ...:, •
D
_ SC3327.jpg
_DSC3326.jpg
.....
.... , ,
,,,i1 --„,51;',I,•,-„,:•.,:-. _-,,,
.,•:;...,,',.., .
'' ...-,....,
.•-.,,...,,,,,t,,,,k,-,.•
- -:.'•----,'-:,--,--i,,,,';,..-'.7,-.-',,• 5„-,-;-,
-, ,, •-.',,.-;:-;.-i","-,-,7---:,,,';',-ktii,if-,-'----- --'-'',
j.„-.'i..4,,r-4,1,•",,•'''''
-
_DSC3328.jpg
•,-.:-'1, ...4f,':',:,4;,,-,-',',',,,,..• ,
-,,,,, :-;_„4„..-' • -.- 'Iliv.,„, ---.'-'.% ••,...,..,..„:,,,i„,„..., .
''-‘•.., , ,--„,1•„.1.!=,,,,:-.''
• .,..„4-.', - .--gke,:.
t,,,,--,,,,,,•:,;-•-
..,,•,•„.- •
-.:,•„_. .
•,,•;,......,
DSC3329.jpg
-
E)
m
3.
•
_DSC3330.jpg _DSC3331.jpg