Agenda 03/02/2017 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING MARCH 2, 2017
THE CLAM BAY COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION WILL MEET AT 1 :00 PM ON THURSDAY, MARCH 2 AT THE
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION, 3RD FLOOR OF THE SUNTRUST
BUILDING, SUITE 302, LOCATED AT 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE,
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108.
AGENDA
1. Roll call
2. Agenda approval
3. Approval of 02/02/17 meeting minutes
4. Audience comments
a. "Water Quality Analysis"
5. Mangrove die-off
a. THA February report
b. H & M February tidal ratio data
c. Water level logger data
d. Elevation and bathymetric survey results
e. Mid March monitoring of mangrove plots
f. Monthly mangrove die-off monitoring
g. Maintenance of hand-dug channels
h. Additional consultant support
Intervention strategies
6. Clam Bay monitoring in 2017
7. Water quality monitoring
a. Copper results
b. 2016 WQ report
c. 2017 WQ report
d. Sediment testing for TP
8. Next meeting: April 6
9. Adjournment
ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES 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://PELICANBAYSERVICESDIVIS ION.N ET.
02/27/2017 9:43 AM
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
CLAM BAY COMMITTEE MEETING
FEBRUARY 2,2017
The Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division met on Thursday, February 2 at
1:00 p.m. at the SunTrust Bank Building, 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 302, Naples, Florida
34108. In attendance were:
Clam Bay Committee Bohdan Hirniak (absent)
Susan O'Brien, Chairman Gary Ventress
Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst
Neil Dorrill, Administrator Lisa Jacob, Associate Project Manager
Marion Bolick, Operations Manager (absent) Barbara Shea, Recording Secretary
Also Present Mike Shepherd, PBSD Board
Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall & Associates Jeremy Sterk, Earth Tech
APPROVED AGENDA (AS AMENDED)
1. Roll call
2. Agenda approval
3. Approval of 12/19/16 meeting minutes
4. Audience comments
5. Mangrove die-off
a. THA December report
b. H & M December tidal ratio data
c. Elevation and bathymetric surveys
d. Maintenance of drains along Bay Colony Drive
e. Permit to construct new hand-dug channels, if needed
f. Maintenance of hand-dug channels
g. Additional consultant support
h. Previous permits for work in Clam Bay
i. Intervention strategies
j. Establishing a target date for biannual mangrove testing (add-on)
6. Clam Bay monitoring in 2017
7. Water quality monitoring
a. Copper results
b. 2016 copper report
c. Tomasko 2016 annual report on TP and TN
d. Sediment testing for TP
e. 2017 monitoring and reporting
i. Include copper and other selected parameters
ii. Include only nine Clam Bay and six berm sampling sites
1
Pelican Bay Services Division Clam Bay Committee Meeting
February 2, 2017
iii. Add analysis to report
8. Next meeting: March 2
9. Adjournment
ROLL CALL
Mr. Hirniak was absent and a quorum was established
AGENDA APPROVAL
Mr. Ventress motioned, Ms. O'Brien seconded to approve the agenda as amended
with the addition of discussion item #5j. The motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF 12/19/16 MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Ventress motioned, Ms. O'Brien seconded to approve the 12/19/16 meeting
minutes as amended. The motion carried unanimously.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
None
MANGROVE DIE-OFF
THA DECEMBER& JANUARY REPORTS
Mr. Tim Hall reported (1) January observations indicate no expansion of the original
mangrove die-off area, (2) recent observations show that the Clam Bay estuary system recovered
fairly quickly after a late January storm, with water receding back to previous levels, and (3)
some seedling regeneration can be observed in some of the stressed areas.
H&M DECEMBER& JANUARY TIDAL RATIO DATA
Humiston & Moore December and January tidal ratio data was provided in the agenda
packet.
ELEVATION AND BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS
Mr. Sterk commented that the elevation survey, to be completed by a coastal surveyor,
subcontracted under Humiston & Moore, will begin on Monday, Feb. 6 and will include three
field days. Results will be available at the next Clam Bay committee meeting.
MAINTENANCE OF DRAINS ALONG BAY COLONY DRIVE
Ms. O'Brien reported on a recent meeting with Ms. LuAnn Giovannelli, General
Manager of Bay Colony Community Association. Ms. Giovannelli agreed that her association
would complete the necessary maintenance to clean out clogged catch basins/drains adjacent to
the retaining wall along Bay Colony Drive.
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT NEW HAND-DUG CHANNELS, IF NEEDED
Mr. Sterk suggested that no decision be made to pursue a permit to construct new hand-
dug channels until the elevation survey can be reviewed and evaluated.
MAINTENANCE OF HAND-DUG CHANNELS
2
Pelican Bay Services Division Clam Bay Committee Meeting
February 2,2017
Mr. Sterk commented on his continued mapping of the existing hand-dug channels.
ADDITIONAL CONSULTANT SUPPORT
Mr. Sterk reported on his recent contact with Mr. Robin Lewis, the consultant who
worked on originally establishing the Clam Bay hand-dug channels. Mr. Sterk commented that
Mr. Lewis is available and interested in Clam Bay consulting work, for which a detailed scope of
work would need to be developed. Mr. Ventress commented that any discussion with Mr. Lewis
is premature at this time.
PREVIOUS PERMITS FOR WORK IN CLAM BAY
Ms. O'Brien provided copies of previous permits for work in Clam Bay, including (1) the
original permit which allowed for work to increase the depth and width of existing channels, and
(2) a permit which was issued to pump water out of Clam Bay; however, the permit was never
actually used.
INTERVENTION STRATEGIES
Ms. O'Brien suggested that further discussion on intervention strategies be postponed
until after the elevation survey is evaluated.
ESTABLISHING A TARGET DATE FOR BIANNUAL MANGROVE
MONITORING (ADD-ON)
Mr. Sterk suggested establishing March and September as target dates for biannual
mangrove monitoring.
CLAM BAY MONITORING IN 2017
Ms. Jacob commented that an RFQ has been sent out to 5 environmental consultants (per
the County list of approved firms on contract for Clam Bay environmental services) for 2017 and
2018 Clam Bay monitoring. Quotes are due back by Feb. 22.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
COPPER RESULTS
Ms. O'Brien commented that samples collected at nine CB sites on 11/9/16 show that
copper levels met FDEP criteria.
2016 COPPER REPORT
Mr. Tim Hall reported that Dr. Tomasko is updating his Clam Bay annual water quality
monitoring report to include copper and dissolved oxygen.
TOMASKO 2016 ANNUAL REPORT ON TP AND TN
Dr. Tomasko's 2016 Clam Bay annual water quality monitoring report was provided in
the agenda. Ms. O'Brien briefly discussed highlights of the report.
SEDIMENT TESTING
In light of high total phosphorus levels in Clam Bay, Mr. Sterk and Mr. Hall
recommended biannual sediment testing at ten sites in widespread areas within Clam Bay. Ms.
Jacob will proceed with developing an RFQ for this testing.
3
Pelican Bay Services Division Clam Bay Committee Meeting
February 2,2017
2017 WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND REPORTING
Mr. Tim Hall recommended having a water quality expert prepare the 2017 water quality
analysis, in light of nearly impaired phosphorus levels in Clam Bay. After discussion, the
committee and staff agreed that the 2017 water quality monitoring and reporting RFQ should
include, (1) analysis of data, (2) an opinion on possible causes of water quality impairment, (3)
recommendations for improvement of water quality, (4) testing to include copper, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and dissolved oxygen, (5) continuation of quarterly reporting of water quality data
and annual analysis, and (6) inclusion of nine Clam Bay and six berm sampling sites.
NEXT MEETING: MARCH 2, 2017
By consensus, the committee agreed that the next meeting of the committee would be
held on March 2 at 1:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
[The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.
Susan O'Brien, Chairman
Minutes approved [ ] as presented OR [ ] as amended ON [ ] date
4
Humiston&Moore Engineers I ClamPass-TIDE
Agenda Item#5b
Page 1 of 3
CLam Pass Tide Monitoring- Click here for Maintenance Dredging Project details
M`-C?a.r 0 4 MARKER 14 MARKER 2d MARKER
t Tar,.,,o,
4
'r R.aY. -f Y e 'r..�—ti , f J._i'AMA ss:,,,.,-1,..,.. r 5i.ci
Monthly Time Series 2017(Click on Thumbnails to Expand)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Mean Low TideTime Lag -2017
300.0 {
250.0
d
i 200.0 -• ;4 M4rker4
Marker 14
m 150.0
G n Marker 26
e- 100.0 = - o Marker 32
50,0 -
Jan Feb Mir Apr May lin Id Atli Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gage/Gulf Mean Tide Ratios-2017
0.9
0.8 ;
0.7
ff 8 Marker 4
y 0.5 11 Marker 14
;0 A • a Marker 26
i0.3 tt Marker 32
trtrsar
01 ,
(.( . _. 41a!tro
`
sR 18
On Feb Mnr Ao, May Jul kJ Aug Sep (00 Nov Dec
Gage/Gulf Mean Tide Ratios-2016
09
PASS P.S.
0.8 DgEDGING 'LS.COLIN HERMINE
0.7
4, i ,
SaA
0.6 ....... .......... .... R Marker 4
cc
v 0.5 Markm-14
0.4 - „ 71 t y i GMarker26
I0.3 f F i " F i ` ' , Marker 32
s
0.2 - ''' `'. i 4
" ,; urrsaa
I, .1 "1 1. \is Relator
0 f.401441.5
[R 11.
Jan PA) Mar Apr May Jun Jul Avg Sep Oct Nov Dec
http://www.humistonandmoore.com/clampass-tide 2/28/2017
Humiston&Moore Engineers I ClamPass-TIDE
Agenda Item#5b
Page 2 of 3
Definitions:
Mean Tide Ratio:ratio of tide amplitude of gages over the tide amplitude from the Gulf of Mexico,averaged over a month.This
ratio is representative of the pass's effectiveness in flushing water from the bay.The lower the ratio,the less efficient is
flushing,indicating material accumualting in the pass.
Mean Low Tide Laq:time difference between low tide in the Gulf of Mexico and at the gage's locations,averaged over a
month in minutes.The time lag is also represenattive of the pass's effectiveness in flushing water from the bay.The higher the
lag the less efficient is flushing,indicating material accumulating in the pass.
Background
Clam Pass is a small wave dominated inlet on the southwest coast of Florida that provides a tidal connection to 500 acres of the
wetland preserve of Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area(NRPA).This preserve includes several interconnected bays
surrounded by extensive areas of mangrove wetlands.The preserve is a pristine environmental resource that is collectively
known as Clam Bay.Clam Pass has gone through periods of inlet migration as well as closure,because the relatively small tidal
prism for Clam Bay provides critical balance between tidal energy and littoral process at the inlet channel.
Humiston&Moore Engineers provides professional engineering services to Pelican Bay Services Division of Collier County,
Florida for Clam Pass and Clam Bay. Humiston & Moore Engineers provided engineering services to assist Turrell Hall &
Associate in the development of the Clam Bay NRPA management plan of 1998 and the updated plan of 2014. The engineering
services included the development of design criteria for the inlet stability and conditions for maintenance dredging to maintain
hydraulic efficiency and avoid potential inlet closure including.The implementation of the NRPA management plan includes
various monitoring to maintain the health of the eco system. In addition to the ecological and biological monitoring of the bay
system and its function as a protected environmental resource, the monitoring program includes hydraulic and physical
monitoring of the inlet and bay system to monitor the stability of the pass and assess maintenance requirements.Monitoring of
the hydraulic and physical conditions of the Clam Bay system continues according to the updated NRPA management plan.
The hydraulic monitoring includes continuous water level and tidal data collection at 4 locations within the bay system.
http://www.humistonandmoore.com/clampass-tide 2/28/2017
� 3 1 I I ! 1 14 I 1 ! 8 1 i 18 t i g
�. fis — —
c,
CU
.., .. , ti ..4.... _• —z.Q
1 ...-. --4 .-, ..,..•-,-A _...
N -„ ..
IR
i - ..
—
—
.. m .7. p.«. ..>.
w
......,.,..,: ,.�„,. aro .. .-,w ...“,.,., <, to
r r
4- b
a
oa
r
„rte.....',.....' .....' — .. -.-..r } -.._4- '”" 4-
g .q-.... .... 6 t”'"- g _g g
•
j_.. 3 .a. _3 i —8 — ,a
•c.
8 ... ,..$ .- ...a
1 i i .. I__ I -I L.- I ! I I 1 —
S 9 N d CV O it k r4 O N a N O N S N 0 ill O
Ano b 0511ePI 7 t iaVeV4 m tsvev4 L£)0Ve141
� LO
c
.-K-
It 0 O
r r ' 0 r
m > j O
Z3 �. O O
- � `N Q 0 O ,, +-.
C Z 4- ILQ
QN� N •- Q O c- {r?
0
CO
•
o
• N
•
G
y CC
Iv r( B
• i
coiik
# •
• <
• •
• 4—• CU
• • ._ Q
• •• S p
• �a
1 • > 0
i •
0 .
On i
• 4 c 0
• • co >
• 2 >
' •, • •
0
'*;:''''''''' 4k4 *'''' .- '• S
I
fo
CO CD
VI
CU ft3
. „---i.k.C..:'-',..'-, - ',..?" ',...,,m1-;117.-‘.f.-,' - ' ..;:s ..'.'!-,.. ., ' ' ` - 1 7 ''''' 0_ a_
CI
i :- `"" � - c am >
,a - ^ w to A A
cu• cu
:,a
p 9
U 2e L
LO* o I t, I 81 1,._ I a I I 1 a I 1 15 1 1 1 s
c
m m
_..". ----R R • —gi
a)
_ry
L. —�3 —" —.... —R .4 —
.,, .— r ... ....,....r� _. ...........r?NI _...••'-.....7 g+ _. ... Fl
�" ...: ..".. . —�Y _ .. ,...... . 4-11 N
•
—r CO
L
L
Izt 2
,—......:. ...—rn — _m C
P O
C
r -..,_.co •-.,..co —.....:.. ...-CO i-"CO C
nrq
—. .. _r L..... _ r a,.,. _ u..., ,..,_r 4..., .,. .#...n 0
A -. .. • ... .. ...._( ..f.... _ ..._4D ..4 .._408 >
co
n
(N6
_. U
a
Yel a
I
S-
_ U
j f Q)
n J
cu
a--+
47 O as
•
ro
1 .-1 - — I I w& 1 i . i 1 1 i
C (V O CY IO N O CV O N O (V O (V 0 M o N O n O
Ane v.1alliutnd v JaveW 9L1.10I1BW Z,f'WWI
I'i
Agenda Item#5d
��K COAS T, Page 3 of 5
c.
VEYING,
Surveyor's Report
For
Upper Clam Bay Mangrove Area Topographic Project
PCS Project#17-0073
Collier County,Florida
Prepared for:
Humiston & Moore Engineers
Naples, FL
Prepared By:
Park Coastal Surveying,LLC
5010 US HWY 19 N
Palmetto,Florida 34221
Licensed Business No. 7915
� Iri458F;
5010 US HWY 19 N
PALMETTO, FLORIDA 34221
Office #941-416-1611
A CERTIFIED SERVICE DISABLED VETERAN OWNED SMALL BUSINESS (SDVOSB)
Page 1 of 3
Agenda Item#5d
Nit
K COAS Tom. Page 4 of 5
sin VEYING, l'-'
PURPOSE
The purpose of the survey is to provide a limited topographic survey of the mangrove die off areas in
upper clam bay with RTK GPS and provide an ASCII point file to Humiston and Moore Engineers.
Horizontal and Vertical Datum, Control Monumentation
Horizontal data is in US Survey Feet(USFT) and referenced to the,North American Datum (NAD)of
1983, 2011 adjustment,Florida East Zone (0901) as per the FPRN. The vertical data is also in USFT
and is referenced to North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), as per the following NGS
benchmarks: WP10 (PID AD6310), 2604 (PID AD6308), and 2764 (PID AD6307). All data was
collected over the following date range: February 6, 2017—February 8, 2017.
Methods and Procedures
Control Verification: Control verification was performed with RTK GPS. The RTK base was set up
on a survey point established with FPRN corrections. Then the three NGS benchmarks listed above
were checked to confirm vertical accuracy.
Topographic Survey: Upland topographic data was collected on three (3)profile lines(Numbers 1,2,
&3 of the exhibit provided by Earth Tech Environmental). Topographic data was collected using Real
Time Kinematic (RTK)GPS. Data was collected at random intervals in a scatter pattern where the tree
canopy allowed acceptable GPS signal reception.
tsps
5010 US HWY 19 N
PALMETTO, FLORIDA 34221
Office # 941-416-1611
A CERTIFIED SERVICE DISABLED VETERAN OWNED SMALL BUSINESS (SDVOSB)
Page 2 of 3
Agenda Item#5d
vi -'' COASTJ Page 5 of 5
V rii
J
S&R VEYING► A- Agenda
Control Verification Results: Survey control verification values are shown in the table below. All
values are in decimal feet.
CONTROL COMPARISION
NGS CONTROL POINTS OBSERVED VALUES RESULTS
NORTING EASTING ELEVATION DESCRIPTION NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION DESCRIPTION DN DE HD DELEV
707190 386128 2.60 cp.WP 10 707189 386129 2.60 5c-3 WA WA NA 0.00
705553 386318 26.25 cp2764 705547 386325 26.34 qc-4 WA NIA WA -0.09
705504 386092 25.45 cp.2604 705507 386092 25.44 qc-5 WA NIA WA 0.01
FPRN ESTABLISHED BASE POINT
NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION DESCRIPTION
695498.66 38758531 372 cpsht
Topographic Survey Results: Topographic data was submitted to Humistion and Moore Engineers
in an ASCII file format via email.
Project Issues
Two additional survey lines were requested at the north end of the Upper Clam Bayou. However,
these lines were unsuitable for GPS observations due to the height of the tree canopy. If topographic
survey data is required in this area it will need to be obtained with conventional survey equipment.
This equipment requires line of sight and therefore the vegetation will have to be cleared to collect the
survey data.
Certification
This is to certify that this report and survey have been performed in accordance with the Standards of
Practice as set forth by the Florida Board of Surveyors and Mappers per Florida Administrative Code
5J-17 and project requirements. No map is associated with this report.
�P' : 'a .
� Ft,FPii,..,if,,,,,
. j /
✓
Signed Date: 2/22/2017
Travis Park,P.S.M No. 6731
*Not valid unless signed and sealed by a Florida Licensed Surveyor and Mapper*
B
5010 US HWY 19N
PALMETTO, FLORIDA 34221
Office# 941-416-1611
A CERTIFIED SERVICE DISABLED VETERAN OWNED SMALL BUSINESS (SDVOSB)
Page 3 of 3
Agenda Item#6
Page 1 of 1
From: JacobLisa
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 4:03 PM
To: 'Marielle Kitchener'; d.brown@etenviron.com; 'Chris Stephens'; 'Jeremy Sterk'; 'Kevin Erwin';
'shunt@environment.com'; 'kenp@passarella.net'; 'Pierro,Thomas'; 'Tim Hall'; 'Melissa Kruse'
Cc: NorthrupAdam; McCaughtryMary
Subject: RFQ 15-6397-2 Bid Tab Summary Results&Award
Good Afternoon,
Here are the bid tab summary results for RFQ #15-6397-2 Clam Bay Environmental Services
Earth Tech
Vendor CB&I Environmental Kevin Erwin Passarella Turrell Hall
Total Bid No Response $ 108,000 No quote No quote $ 129,695
As the lowest responsive bidder, we are preliminarily awarding this job to Earth Tech
Environmental pending Board of County Commissioners approval on March 14, 2017.
Thanks,
Lisa
Lisa Jacob,MSM
• Project Manager,Associate
Pelican Bay Services Division
Municipal Service Taxing& Benefit Unit
Collier County Government
SunTrust Building, Third Floor, Suite 302
801 Laurel Oak Drive
Naples, FL 34108
(239) 597-1749 office
(239)438-5239 cell
1isajacob@colliergov.net
Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records
request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Agenda Item#7a
Page 1 of 1
Clam Bay Copper ug/L
Collection Date CB1 CB2 CB3 CB4 CBS CB6 CB7 CB8 CB9 Report Date
6/22/2016 0.862 0.700 0.700 0.700 1.640 2.100 0.700 3.520 1.510 9/8/2016
7/20/2016 0.924 5.330 5.110 5.660 2.470 3.960 4.950 5.710 10.500 9/12/2016
7/20/2016 0.924 6.160 4.700 1.690 2.470 1.830 1.980 1.870 8.360 9/21/2016
8/25/2016 2.000 1.850 1.680 1.470 1.240 1.520 2.250 1.280 8.060 10/4/2016
9/20/2016 1.690 2.280 1.280 1.760 0.751 0.700 0.700 1.030 0.700 11/22/2016
10/12/2016 2.760 2.200 2.130 1.190 2.900 1.860 1.060 0.954 1.310 12/7/2016
11/9/2016 2.340 3.390 2.300 2.250 1.630 1.500 1.180 2.030 1.300 1/16/2017
Agenda Item#7b
Page 1 of 1
Clam Bay Total Phosphorus
November 2015—October 2016
Results that exceeded upper limit
Station 1 Jan. March April May June Aug. Sept.
Station 2 Nov. Feb. April May Aug. Sept.
Station 3 May
Station 4 Sept.
Station 5
Station 6 May
Station 7 May Aug.
Station 8
Station 9 July Aug.
4350 West Cypress Street www.esassoc.com
ESA Suite 950 Agenda Item#7b-1
Tampa,FL 33607 Page 1 of 13
813.207.7200 3-e
813.207.7201 far
memorandum
date February 21, 2017
to Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc.
from David Tomasko, Ph.D.
Emily Keenan, M.S.
subject Annual Report on Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Concentration (NNC) Criteria
Executive Summary
Water quality data collected from Clam Bay between November 2015 and October 2016 were
analyzed to determine the degree to which the waters of Upper, Inner and Outer Clam Bay are
in compliance with relevant criteria. For nutrients, it was found that levels of phosphorous
were out of compliance with existing site-specific criteria for Clam Bay. Levels of nitrogen
were not out of compliance. There is a positive correlation between phosphorous
concentrations and algal abundance, and an inverse correlation between phosphorous and
levels of dissolved oxygen. These results suggest that phosphorous concentrations should be
carefully monitored, to ensure that conditions do not deteriorate. Should phosphorous
continue to exceed established criteria; it would be useful to develop a detailed loading model,
to develop appropriate management responses.
Levels of dissolved oxygen are not problematic, when compared to newly adopted criteria
developed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). For copper, 15 of
108 samples collected in Upper, Inner and Outer Clam Bay exceeded FDEP criteria.
However, the waters of Clam Bay would only be determined to be "impaired" for copper if 16
samples were above established criteria, based on the number of samples collected. Nearly
half (7 of 15) of the copper impairments came during the month of July, which could indicate
either problematic laboratory results, or elevated concentrations due to rainfall and runoff, or
some combination of the two. Of the total of 15 impairments, 4 of them came from the station
"Clam Bay 2" which is located in a small open water feature connected to the channel that
connects Upper and Inner Clam Bay. That location may be a local "hot spot" for copper, and it
may be beneficial to better determine why copper values are in exceedance so frequently at
that location. The determination of copper exceedances in freshwater sampling sites in the
watershed requires the simultaneous collection of data on "hardness". Unfortunately, not all of
the copper values from freshwater locations were accompanied by hardness values, so the
degree of impairment cannot be fully investigated. Future sampling should include
measurements of water clarity for Clam Bay sites 1 through 9, and hardness for all freshwater
sampling sites.
Agenda Item#7b-1
Page 2 of 13
Background
Over the past several decades, it has become well-established that an over-abundance of the
plant nutrients nitrogen and/or phosphorous can have adverse impacts on the water quality
and ecology of lakes, rivers and estuaries. Excessive nutrient supply can stimulate the growth
of nuisance plants, creating, on occasion, algal blooms. Algal blooms can reduce water clarity,
which is essential for the continued persistence of seagrass meadows, which provide food and
shelter for the majority of recreationally and commercially important species of fish and
invertebrates (such as crabs and shrimp). Once algal blooms die-off, their decomposition can
reduce levels of dissolved oxygen, which is essential to most forms of aquatic life. Successful
management of coastal waterbodies thus requires the collection, analysis and interpretation of
results from water quality monitoring programs, including data related to nutrient supply.
Determination of Impairment Status
In 2012, the United States Environmental Protection Agency formally adopted nutrient
concentration criteria for Clam Bay, as produced for Collier County, and subsequently
approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The nutrient criteria
for Clam Bay are termed Site Specific Alternative Criteria (SSAC) and they are listed in Florida
Administrative Code (FAC) 62-302.531. The SSAC for Clam Bay was derived based upon a
relationship between salinity and nutrients that was initially established at one of FDEP's
"reference sites" in Estero Bay. The need to take into account salinity was based upon the
finding that nutrient concentrations in estuaries and tidal rivers vary not only as a function of
the amount of nutrients entering coastal waters, but also as a function of the amount of tidal
influence. For example, even in "pristine" estuaries with little to no human impacts, nutrient
concentrations are lowest on high tides, and in areas close to passes, and during dry periods
with little rainfall-generated stormwater runoff. Even in pristine locations, nutrient
concentrations increase away from passes, and on lower tides, and during wet seasons, wet
years, or even during shorter time periods of rainfall-generated runoff. Therefore, a single
nutrient concentration criterion does not make much sense, if water quality data from even
pristine locations could potentially pass or fail proposed criteria simply as a function of location,
tidal stage or antecedent rainfall.
The SSAC for Clam Bay therefore considers the concentration of nutrients, while also taking
into account the salinity, such that a finding of elevated nutrients in combination with higher
salinities is considered more problematic than elevated nutrients in combination with lower
salinities. As such, the relationship between nutrients and salinity is determined as part of the
process to determine if the waters of Clam Bay are "impaired" or not. Also, the frequency with
which values exceed NNC criteria is taken into account when determining the appropriate
management response, as is the amount of time over which an exceedance has occurred. For
example, if nutrient concentrations were to exceed NNC criteria by a relatively small
percentage, and if such an exceedance was to only last a short period of time, the appropriate
management response would be different than if water quality was to exceed criteria to a
larger extent, and if the condition of exceedance was to have lasted for a greater period of
2
Agenda Item#7b-1
Page 3 of 13
time. Therefore, the management response associated with any impairment determination is
proportional, and based upon both the magnitude and duration of any exceedances.
Based on prior work conducted in Clam Bay, it was found that the amount of floating
microscopic algae (i.e., phytoplankton) in the bay was likely stimulated by both Total Nitrogen
(TN) and Total Phosphorous (TP). Consequently, the amount of both TN and TP in Clam Bay
is used to determine the degree of nutrient enrichment of Clam Bay's waters.
As outlined in FAC 62-302.531, the water quality status of waterbodies is to be determined on
an annual basis, preferably within a calendar year. For this report, the data collection effort
comprised 12 months of effort, but the 12 months did not fall within a single calendar year.
Nonetheless, the compilation of results and the interpretation of results presented in this report
should be fully consistent with that which would have occurred if the full 12 months of data had
been collected in a single calendar year.
As outlined in FAC 62-302.531, for each year, each individual TN and TP value collected
within Clam Bay is compared to an "upper boundary" of the expected relationship between
those two variables and salinity, which was originally informed by the water quality data from
an FDEP-designated reference water body. The formal name of the upper boundary condition
is the "90th percentile prediction limit" which was originally derived for the relationship between
nutrient concentrations and salinity in Clam Bay, and which is based on the determination by
FDEP that Clam Bay's water (in 2012) were sufficient to protect its biological integrity. In other
words, a TN or TP concentration higher than the 90'th percentile prediction limit is a nutrient
concentration higher than at least 90 percent of the values that would be expected, after taking
into account the salinity value at the time that the water quality sample was collected.
The number of occasions where a nutrient concentration is higher than the 90th percentile
prediction limit is quantified for each year, and an annual percent exceedance is then
calculated. To be consistent with methods currently used by FDEP, if more than 13 percent of
TN or TP concentrations exceed the 90th percentile prediction limit (for a given year) then the
year as a whole is classified as one where water quality is out of compliance with the existing
criteria. If fewer than 13 percent of the values exceed the 90th percentile prediction limit, then
water quality is not considered to be out of compliance. If more than 15 percent of TN or TP
values exceed the 90th percentile prediction limit, then the degree of impairment is determined
(as per FDEP guidance) to be more problematic than if only 13 percent of values exceeded the
established criteria. The screening of water quality data against the adopted NNC criteria is
performed as outlined in Figure 1, where different outcomes are given different scores,
depending on the frequency of impairment, as well as the duration that the impairment has
lasted. As this report summarizes only one year of results, the duration of impairment is not
known, but it is assumed (for purposes of this report) to be a single year.
3
Agenda Item#7b-1
Page 4 of 13
Figure 1. Flow chart for determining water quality compliance in Clam.
Do el3%of all IN&ler H'
values from a calendar year
N exceed the 90%prediction kelt
from the reference MID?
Outcome Yes
tslnitudeof rl5io
exceedance
Duration of Duration of
exceedance exceedance
1 year >1 yew 3 year 1 year
Outcome Outcome Outcome Outcome 3:
The possible outcomes displayed in Figure 1 are then compared for both TN and TP, and the
combined outcomes are converted into designations of"green", "yellow" and "red" which
correspond to an increasing need for concern (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Management response matrix using outcomes for TN and TP.
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen Outcome 0 Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3
Outcome 0
Outcome 1
Outcome 2
Outcome 3
As a final step, the appropriate management response to water quality within a given year is
then identified based on the results from Figure 2. For example, if water quality data suggest
that TN and TP concentrations are sufficiently elevated, then it is important to determine if the
ecological health of Clam Bay appears to be adversely impacted by those nutrient
concentrations. As a test of the impact of potential nutrient enrichment, water quality data
would be tested to determine if phytoplankton levels are perhaps higher, or dissolved oxygen
levels lower, based on elevated nutrient concentrations (Figure 3).
4
Agenda Item#7b-1
Page 5 of 13
Figure 3. Management response actions in response to various outcomes
Gree Response vellovW or Red
evaluaon
sstr
Evaluatephytoplankton f Significant
drssolvedoxygen (re,osi
Hotstgnificant response to nutrient
i r'O.OS}
concentrations
Evaluate water clarity
Mit significant response to chlorophyll-a
(pra.r)5)
Significant(Irc0.05)
Small difference or
start duration
dentify potential causes
and implement identify potential
Large difference or causes a n d
recommenemdresp r's€ longdui ation
responses
In this manner, management responses are proportional to the frequency and duration of
exceedance conditions, as well as the determination of whether or not nutrient supply appears
to be causing adverse water quality conditions. With this information as background, the rest
of this report will focus on the analysis of water quality data collected during the period of
November 2015 to October 2016.
Data Analysis— Nutrient Status
The analysis conducted below was used to assess the water quality status of Clam Bay during
the months of November 2015 to October 2016. While the period of analysis was not from a
single calendar year, it does encompass twelve consecutive months of data collection.
Water quality data from Clam Bay and its watershed were provided by Turrell, Hall and
Associates, Inc.
For comparison with the FDEP adopted SSAC for Clam Bay, as listed within FAC. 62-302-532
-1-j. The water quality data set provided by Turrell, Hall and Associates was analyzed based
on the following:
"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."
The Upper Limits for TP and TN concentrations noted above are derived based on Equations 1
and 2, respectively:
5
Agenda Item#7b-1
Page 6 of 13
Equation 1: TP Upper Limit (mg/L)= e(-1.06256-0.0000328465*conductivlty(Ns))
Equation 2: TN Upper Limit (mg/L)= 2.3601 — 0.0000268325*Conductivity(pS)
The nutrient dataset examined was supplemented with in situ water quality data (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, and salinity) retrieved from the chain of
custody forms for each sampling event. TN and TP concentrations were compared to the
derived upper limit thresholds to quantify the presence or absence of elevated concentrations
of TP and/or TN, with results listed in (Appendix A).
Over the period analyzed (November 2015 to October 2016), a total of four (4) ambient water
quality values for TN exceeded the respective TN Upper Limit, for an exceedance frequency of
approximately 4 percent. In comparison, 20 of the 107 TP measurements (approximately 19
percent) exceeded their respective TP Upper Limit. Based on these results, the frequency of
exceedance would not be high enough for the waters of Clam Bay to be determined to be
impaired for TN, but those same waters would be determined to be impaired for TP.
Should the TP exceedance lasts only this single year, the outcome from the flowchart shown in
Figure 1 would that of a score of"2" for TP and a score of"0-" for TN. With one year's worth of
data, the combination of outcome "2" for TP and outcome "0" for TN would result in a "yellow"
management response, as illustrated in Figure 2. Since the TP exceedances were greater
than 15 percent, then the "yellow" management response would be the outcome for this first
year's data collection effort. Consequently, the following additional data investigations were
conducted:
• Determining the relationship, if any, between TP and chlorophyll-a
• Determining the relationship, if any, between TP and dissolved oxygen
• Determining the relationship, if any, between chlorophyll-a and water clarity
Depending upon the findings of the analyses listed above, management implications would be
developed, which could range from recommendations up to and including the need to
determine the basis for a potential adverse impact on water quality.
A review of the annual dataset indicated a direct relationship between TP and chlorophyll-
concentrations (Figure 5) as well as an inverse relationship between TP and dissolved oxygen
(Figure 6). Water clarity data were not included in the reviewed data sheets, and so were not
reviewed to determine if there was a correlation between chlorophyll-a concentrations and
water clarity. As such, we were unable to evaluate the influence of chlorophyll-a on water
clarity in Clam Bay.
6
Agenda Item#7b-1
Page 7 of 13
Figure 4. Relationship between total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a over the period of
November 2015 to October 2016 in Clam Bay (p<0.0001).
80-
O
60 a
✓ 40
a
Q
� o
U o
o°
::.
° 0 °
0 .0..... � aO p0
O 0 ....•..... 0
a%,•.. 080- ,
O O 00 0 0 '00 O
0— °
0.05 0.10 0-15 0.20 0.25
Total Phosphorus(mg/1J
Figure 5. Relationship between total phosphorus and dissolved oxygen over the period
of November 2015 to October 2016 in Clam Bay (p=0.0078).
8-
0
0
O
0 0 0
0
0 0
O 0 0
6- ° °0 0
0
go 800
O o: $
()to"'8°� o
v°; 4- 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0°O 0
0 0
O p 00 0
O
O
O 0
2-
0 a
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Total Phosphorus(mg/L)
In addition to the data assessments described above, data from Clam Bay outfall monitoring
stations were compared to the proposed Downstream Protective Values (DPV) derived for
Clam Bay (PBS&J 2011). Outfall TN and TP concentrations were compared to the median
and 90th percentile DPV values to determine if elevated concentrations were found at those
locations (Appendix B). The median DPV quantity represents a value that would be expected
7
Agenda Item#7b-1
Page 8 of 13
to be exceeded approximately 50 percent of the time, while the 90th percentile value
represents a concentration sufficiently high that only 10 percent of values would be expected
to be higher. Using this approach, the amount of TN or TP in the water column at stations
sampled in the Clam Bay watershed can be compared to criteria that are meant to be
protective of the open waters of Clam Bay. The TN and TP concentrations in DPV estimates
will be higher than concentrations in the open waters of Clam Bay, as the influence of the more
saline and lower nutrient content waters of the Gulf of Mexico would not yet have diluted the
higher nutrient concentrations found in freshwater inflows from the watershed. The median
and 90th percentile DPVs for TN are 1.31 and 1.8 mg/L, respectively. The median and 90th
percentile DPVs for TP are 0.1 and .25 mg/L, respectively.
For data collected at the outfall monitoring sites, 58 and 20 percent of the TN concentrations
exceeded the median and 90th percentile DPV values for TN, respectively (Table 1). For those
same outfall monitoring sties, 68 and 22percent of the TP concentrations exceeded the median
and 90th percentile DPV values, respectively (Table 1).
Table 1. Percentage of TN or TP concentrations from outfall stations which exceeded
the median or 90th percentile DPV values.
DPV Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus
Median 90th Percentile Median 90th Percentile
Below 42 80 32 78
Exceed 58 20 68 22
Results— Nutrient Status
Based on the data collected from this year's monitoring efforts, the waters of Clam Bay do not
appear to be problematic in terms of the nutrient nitrogen, but they do exceed regulatory
criteria for phosphorous. The abundance of phosphorous positively correlate with chlorophyll-
a concentrations in Clam Bay, which suggests that the availability of phosphorous influences
the amount of phytoplankton in Clam Bay. Also, increased phosphorous concentrations are
inversely correlated with levels of dissolved oxygen in Clam Bay.
Data collected from the outfall monitoring stations suggest that nitrogen concentrations are
somewhat elevated, but that most of the elevated concentrations of nitrogen are from the
highest values recorded, rather than there being a "typical" condition of elevated nitrogen
enrichment. For phosphorous, elevated concentrations are found both in typical conditions
and also amongst the highest concentrations, compared to earlier time periods.
These results suggest that the watershed and open waters of Clam Bay should continue to be
monitored on a regular basis, as there is the possibility that phosphorous loads, in particular,
could become problematic to the water quality and ecosystem health of Clam Bay, particularly
if phosphorous concentrations increase over time.
Additionally, as nutrient concentrations vary as a function of the balance between stormwater
runoff and mixing with the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the tidal prism for the Clam Bay
8
Agenda Item#7b-1
Page 9 of 13
system should be maintained such that it continues to allow for sufficient tidal exchange of the
waters of Upper, Inner and Outer Clam Bay.
Results— Dissolved Oxygen
For levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) the applicable regulatory criterion, as outlined in FAC 62-
302.533, is that minimum DO levels (for Class II waters like Clam Bay) shall not be lower than
42 percent saturation more than 10 percent of the time (for average daily values) or that 7-day
average values shall not be below 51 percent saturation more than once in any 12-week
period, or that the 30-day average DO percent saturation shall not be below 56 percent more
than once per year.
The less-restrictive 7-day and 30-day criteria require DO measurements to be made over a 24
hour period, which is not applicable for comparison with water quality data collected at a single
time of day, once a month. As such, the more restrictive criterion was used for Clam Bay, and
DO values (in units of percent saturation) were compared against the 42 percent saturation
value.
Results are shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Dissolved oxygen values (percent of 100 percent saturation) for nine stations
in Clam Bay, over the period of November 2015 to October 2016.
120 .....-----....-----.--- —
♦
100 ....---_...._.._......_-._1_...............___...-__-._........-_......_._...-.__...........-_.
♦
+ ♦ + + i
♦ ♦ •
• •
I • + •
ao.�.._.............._........_.. ...s --...... s
•
•
.--- ---------r---i 60 ------ - — — + +—
+ ♦ • •
•
Class II Standard
40
♦ +
•
20—
0 -....... -,_
Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb 16 Mar16 Apr16 May 16 Jun16Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16
— Sampling Date
9
Agenda Item#7b-1
Page 10 of 13
Since DO values were collected at nine stations over a twelve month period (n = 108) it would
take 11 values below 42 percent saturation for Clam Bay to be considered out of compliance
with the DO criteria listed in FAC 62-302.533. As only six values show DO values lower than
42 percent saturation, the waters of Clam Bay would not be considered to be out of
compliance with existing DO criteria.
Results - Copper
For levels of copper, there are different criteria used for marine waters vs. freshwater systems
such as stormwater ponds. For marine waters, the standard, as listed in FAC 62-302.530, is
that concentrations are not to exceed 3.7 pg / liter. However, the State of Florida's Impaired
Waters Rule (FAC 62-303) allows for a certain amount of"exceedances" to occur, before water
quality is considered to be out of compliance. Table 2 summarizes the data collected from all
stations, from November of 2015 to October of 2016, for Stations Clam Bay 1 to Clam Bay 9,
all of which are located in the open waters of Upper, Inner or Outer Clam Bay.
Table 2. Copper values at sites Clam Bay 1 to 9, in units of pg / liter. Values highlighted
in yellow exceed copper criteria for Class II waters (3.7 pg Cu / liter).
Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11/17/2015 2.39 2.21 2.16 1.75 1.09 0.86 1.37 0.91 0.68
12/9/2015 2.04 4.31 2.63 0.27 0.27 0.54 0.90 1.42 0.27
1/13/2016 3.89 8.91 4.29 2.15 1.44 1.17 0.85 0.56 0.51
2/25/2016 3.46 9.48 1.70 2.14 0.27 0.27 0.41 0.28 0.27
3/23/2016 0.27 1.05 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27
4/27/2016 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27
5/25/2016 2.82 2.68 2.32 6.42 2.07 2.78 4.00 1.87 3.14
6/22/2016 0.86 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.64 2.10 0.70 3.52 1.51
7/20/2016 0.92 5.33 5.11 5.66 2.47 3.96 4.95 5.71 10.50
8/25/2016 2.00 1.85 1.68 1.47 1.24 1.52 2.25 1.28 8.06
9/20/2016 1.69 2.28 1.28 1.76 0.75 0.70 0.70 1.03 0.70
10/12/2016 2.76 2.20 2.13 1.19 2.90 1.86 1.06 0.95 1.31
mean 1.95 3.44 2.05 2.00 1.22 1.36 1.48 1.51 2.29
median 2.02 2.25 1.92 1.61 1.17 1.02 0.88 0.99 0.69
n= 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
#>3.7 1 4 2 2 0 1 2 1 2
%>3.7 8.3 33.3 16.7 16.7 0.0 8.3 16.7 8.3 16.7
Of the 108 samples collected for copper, 15 of them exceeded the established criteria of 3.7
pg / liter. However, FDEP's Impaired Waters Rule (FAC 62-303) allows for a certain amount of
exceedances to occur prior to the waterbody being determined to be out of compliance. Based
10
Agenda Item#7b-1
Page 11 of 13
on guidance in Table 3 of FAC 62-303, if a water body has between 105 and 113 samples
collected, it would be determined to be out of compliance if 16 values exceeded established
criteria. For Clam Bay, 15 of 108 samples collected in Upper, Inner and Outer Clam Bay
exceeded FDEP criteria, one less than would be required for Clam Bay to be determined to out
of compliance for copper. However, 15 exceedances out of 108 is sufficiently high that the
waterbody would be placed on the "planning" list, which means a heightened awareness that a
problem may exist.
The month of July produced nearly half (7 of 15) of the copper impairments, which can be
interpreted two ways: 1) problematic laboratory results could have occurred for some reason,
or 2) elevated loads of copper occurred during this time period. A retest of water samples (the
same water samples) was completed, and results suggest that the high levels of copper are
indeed "real" and not due to an equipment problem or similar issues.
Elevated copper concentrations in July of 2016 are likely due to some combination of elevated
rainfall and/or other factors, such as stormwater runoff from sites that accumulate copper. As
well as there being a temporal spike in copper values, there is evidence of a spatial "hot spot"
as well, as 4 of the 15 exceedances came from the station "Clam Bay 2". That station is
located in an small embayment adjacent to the channel that connects Upper and Inner Clam
Bay. Elevated levels of copper at Clam Bay 2 might be due to loads from the watershed, or
perhaps some other feature. It would be useful to determine the reason(s) for elevated copper
at station Clam Bay 2, as that location alone is responsible for more than 25 percent of the
exceedances of copper criteria in the entire Clam Bay system.
The determination of copper exceedances in freshwater sampling sites in the watershed
requires the simultaneous collection of data on "hardness". Unfortunately, most of the copper
values from freshwater locations do not appear to have been accompanied by hardness
values, so the degree of impairment cannot be fully investigated. However, 27 of the 129
samples from freshwater locations included results on hardness, and those data are analyzed
below.
The water quality standard for copper differs between predominately marine waters and
freshwater. As classified by FDEP, open waters of Clam Bay have a water quality standard for
copper of < 3.7 pg / 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 criterion for a sample collected from
freshwater is derived as:
Copper standard (mg / liter) = e(°8545[InH]-1.702)
11
Agenda Item#7b-1
Page 12 of 13
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 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 it appears that there were only 16 date and location combinations for
freshwater stations where both hardness and copper levels were analyzed. Those stations
and date combinations include the following:
• The site "Glenview" on the dates of 3/2/2015, 3/26/2015 and 4/29/2015
• The site "PB-11" on the dates of 3/2/2015, 3/26/2015 and 4/29/2015
• The site "PB-13" on 3/2/2015
• The site "N-Boardwalk" on the dates of 3/2/2015, 3/26/2015 and 4/29/2015
• The site "N-Berm" on the dates of 3/2/2015, 3/26/2015 and 4/29/2015
• The site "S-41 PIPE" on the dates of 3/2/2015, 3/26/2015 and 4/29/2015
Copper concentrations at the sites Glenview, PB-11, PB-13, N-Boardwalk and N-Berm
exceeded the relevant hardness-normalized copper criteria for Class III freshwater systems for
each date where data was available for both copper and hardness. Typically, levels of copper
were many times higher than impairment values. These stations are located within the series
of open water features on the west side of the Pelican Bay development, just east of the
mangrove fringe that separates Clam Bay from its developed watershed. In contrast, none of
the copper values from the site S-41 PIPE exceeded criteria for Class III waters. These results
might indicate that land use or various management practices "downstream" from the S-41
PIPE location could be associated with the copper exceedances found in the freshwater pond
sites along the mangrove fringe bordering Clam Bay.
Recommendations
For the waters of Upper, Inner and Outer Clam Bay, water quality monitoring should continue
at the same nine stations locations sampled in the reviewed data set. For determining
compliance with nutrient criteria, chlorophyll-a should continue to be collected (and be
corrected for phaeophytin) along with both Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous. To ensure
results can be compared to NNC criteria established specifically for Clam Bay, values of
specific conductance also need to be collected, as they were here.
Future sampling should include measurements of water clarity for Clam Bay sites 1 through 9,
through the use of a Secchi disk or through the direct measurement of light attenuation
coefficients.
If phosphorous concentrations continue to be elevated, a more detailed pollutant loading
model should be developed, so that loading sources could be identified and appropriate
management responses developed.
12
Agenda Item#7b-1
Page 13 of 13
For copper, sampling site Clam Bay 2 should be investigated in greater detail, as that one
station (of 9 total stations) is responsible for more than 25 percent of copper impairments in the
Clam Bay system. As well, measurements of copper in freshwater ponds need to have
concurrent measurements of hardness, as impairment determination in freshwater samples
requires the "normalization" of copper values to the level of hardness in the water. Based on
the locations where copper and hardness values were both recorded, it appears that levels of
copper are elevated (often to a considerable degree) in the open water features to the east of
the mangrove fringe that separates the developed watershed of Clam Bay from the marine
waters of Clam Bay. The source(s) of the copper in these ponds should be determined, as
those sources could also be impacting the waters of Clam Bay itself, particularly in the wet
season.
13
Agenda Item#7c
Co er County Page 1 of 3
Pelican Bay Services Division
REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS FOR MULTIPLE PROJECTS UNDER
CONTRACT#15-6397 "Environmental & Biological Studies"
Date: 02/28/2017
From: Lisa Jacob, Project Manager
239-597-1749, Telephone Number
239-597-4502, Fax Number
Iisaiacobt colliergov.net
To: All Awarded Vendors on Contract 15-6397— Environmental & Biological Studies
Subject: RFQ#15-6397-4—Clam Bay Water Quality Monitoring &Analysis
As provided in the referenced contract, the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) is soliciting
quotes for the referenced project.
RFQ Due Date: March 10, 2017 at 3:00 PM
Q&A Deadline: March 3, 2017 at 3:00 PM
Number of Days to Completion: 365
Tasks and Specs: Attached "15-6397-4 — Specifications"
Your quotation response for this project is due no later than the date and time specified above. We
will not accept any quotation responses later than the noted time and date. If your firm is unable to
respond electronically, your quotation must be received in the office of the PBSD at the below
referenced address no later than the time and date specified. We look forward to your participation in
this request for information/quotation process.
Firm's Complete Legal Name
Telephone Number/Fax Number
Signature
Title
Print Name Date
C: Adam Northrup, Procurement Strategist
Pelican Bay Services Division 1801 Laurel Oak Drive,Suite 302 l Naples,Florida 341081 Tel.239-597-1749 Fax 239-597-4502
RFQ 15-6397—4
Page 1 of 3
Agenda Item#7c
Page 2 of 3
QUOTE 15-6397-4—SPECIFICATIONS
CLAM BAY WATER QUALITY MONITORING&REPORTING
Purpose and Objectives:
The overarching goal of the Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan is to establish the basis for
management activities that will be undertaken to protect the health of the Clam Bay Natural Resource
Protection Area(NRPA)estuary. The purpose of this request for service is to maintain water quality
within the Clam Bay NRPA by analyzing laboratory data and evaluating compliance with referenced
site specific alternative nutrient criteria(S SAC)adopted by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as indicated in the Florida
Administrative Code 62-302.631.
Background:
In October 2012,the Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)classified Clam Bay
"impaired for copper"and gave Pelican Bay 5 years to develop a plan to deal with the problem. In
August 2013, Pelican Bay Services Division stopped using algaecides containing copper to treat algae
and duckweed in its 45 storm water lakes and since that time,water quality data shows that copper
levels are dropping in both the storm water lakes and in Clam Bay; however, high copper levels remain
a concern.
PBSD staff responsibilities: Collection,coordination with lab(s),and providing lab data to
contractor:
• PBSD staff trained in FDEP standard operating procedures for the collection of surface water
will collect water quality samples on a monthly basis at fifteen(15) sampling sites located
within the Clam Bay NRPA as well as two (2)field blanks for quality control quality assurance
purposes.
• PBSD staff will deliver these samples to the Collier County Pollution Control Laboratory
• Project manager will provide contractor with monthly laboratory data, field notes, and chain of
custody forms as they become available.
Scope of Services:
BASE BID—Provide pricing for task 1 in the compensation schedule below. The quote will be
awarded to the responsive quoter with the lowest line 1 total.
Task I—Clam Bay Water Quality Monitoring & Analysis (Lump Sum)
• Preparation of four quarterly (4) and one (1)annual technical memorandum(TM)to summarize
Clam Bay water quality(WQ) laboratory data and evaluate compliance with referenced water
quality site specific alternative nutrient criteria(SSAC) adopted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency(EPA)and Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)as
indicated in the Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 62-302.631.
• Additionally, each Technical Memorandum should address the following:
o Identify areas where water quality is impaired with an emphasis on analysis of levels of
copper,nitrogen,phosphorus, and dissolved oxygen.
o Provide opinion on possible causes of water quality impairment
o Provide recommendations for improvement of water quality
• Attendance at five (5)PBSD Board or Committee meetings to present quarterly and annual
technical memorandums(TM).
RFQ 15-6397—4
Page 2 of 3
Agenda Item#7c
Page 3of3
Compensation:
Task Description Unit of Measure Price
1 Preparation &presentation of four(4) quarterly and one (1) Lump Sum $
annual technical memorandum
ALTERNATE BID—Provide a time and materials amount in line 2 for the various services described
below. The price entered in line 2 is not included in the award formula.
General and Miscellaneous Services (Time and Materials)
• General consulting services on as-needed/as requested basis.
• Preparation of exhibits or other presentation materials in excess of the four(4) quarterly and
one (1) annual TM.
• Attendance at monthly PBSD Board and Committees meetings, in excess of the five (5)
included meetings intended to present the four(4) quarterly and one (1) annual TM.
Alternate Bid:
Task Description Unit of Measure Price
2 General and miscellaneous services Time &Materials $
RFQ 15-6397—4
Page3of3
Agenda Item#7d
Co er County Page 1 of 2
Pelican Bay Services Division
REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS FOR MULTIPLE PROJECTS UNDER
CONTRACT#15-6397 "Environmental & Biological Studies"
Date: 02/28/2017
From: Lisa Jacob, Project Manager
239-597-1749, Telephone Number
239-597-4502, Fax Number
lisaiacob(a�colliergov.net
To: All Awarded Vendors on Contract 15-6397— Environmental & Biological Studies
Subject: RFQ#15-6397-3—Clam Bay Bi-Annual Sediment Sampling& Reporting
As provided in the referenced contract, the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) is soliciting
quotes for the referenced project.
RFQ Due Date: March 10, 2017 at 3:00 PM
Q&A Deadline: March 3, 2017 at 3:00 PM
Number of Days to Completion: 365
Tasks and Specs: Attached "15-6397-3 — Specifications"
Your quotation response for this project is due no later than the date and time specified above. We
will not accept any quotation responses later than the noted time and date. If your firm is unable to
respond electronically, your quotation must be received in the office of the PBSD at the below
referenced address no later than the time and date specified. We look forward to your participation in
this request for information/quotation process.
Firm's Complete Legal Name
Telephone Number/ Fax Number
Signature
Title
Print Name Date
C: Adam Northrup, Procurement Strategist
Pelican Bay Services Division 1801 Laurel Oak Drive,Suite 302 I Naples,Florida 34108 1Tel.239-597-1749 Fax 239-597-4502
RFQ 15-6397-3
Page 1 of 2
Agenda Item#7d
Page 2 of 2
QUOTE 15-6397-3—SPECIFICATIONS
CLAM BAY BI-ANNUAL SEDIMENT SAMPLING & REPORTING
Purpose and objectives:
The main purpose of this testing is to analyze sediment copper levels in Clam Bay to serve as a
comparison to sampling already completed in Pelican Bay stormwater lakes.
Background:
In October 2012,the Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP) classified Clam Bay
"impaired for copper" and gave Pelican Bay 5 years to develop a plan to deal with the problem. In
August 2013, Pelican Bay Services Division stopped using algaecides containing copper to treat algae
and duckweed in its 45 storm water lakes and since that time, water quality data shows that copper
levels are dropping in both the storm water lakes and in Clam Bay; however, high copper levels remain
a concern.
Scope of Services:
BASE BID —Provide pricing for tasks 1 & 2 in the compensation schedule below and sum the total
in line 3. The quote will be awarded to the responsive quoter,with the lowest line 3 total.
Task 1 —Clam Bay Bi-Annual Sediment Sampling (Lump Sum)
Each bi-annual sampling event requires collection and analysis of both sediment and water samples
from each of the eleven (11) already-identified sampling locations on the provided Clam Bay map and
should include:
• Collection of one (1) sediment"grab" sample tested for copper, aluminum, &total
phosphorus.
• Collection of one (1)water quality sample tested for copper and hardness.
• Measurements of water depth and silt depth at the sample location.
• Analysis of soluble copper and sediment-based copper from a certified laboratory capable of
copper detection levels less than 3.0.
For quality assurance/quality control purposes, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) standard operating procedures for sampling collection, handling, and laboratory analysis
should be followed.
Task 2 -Preparation of reports and presentations of findings (Lump Sum)
• Prepare and present a report of findings following first sampling event and following the
second sampling event and compare to provided prior sediment copper testing reports of
Pelican Bay stormwater lakes done in 2013 and 2016.
Compensation:
Task Description Unit of Price
1 Bi-Annual Sediment & Water Quality Sampling (2 events) Lump Sum $
2 Preparation of two reports and presentations of findings Lump Sum $
3 TOTAL $
RFQ 15-6397—3
Page 2 of 2
Joint Coastal Permit
Clam Pass Maintenance Dredging Project
Permit No.0296087-001-JC
Page 13 of 20
15. Project Lighting.Direct lighting of the beach and nearshore waters shall be limited to the
immediate construction area during the sea turtle nesting season and shall comply with
safety requirements. Lighting on offshore or onshore equipment shall be minimized
through reduction, shielding,lowering, and appropriate placement to avoid excessive
illumination of the water's surface and nesting beach while meeting all Coast Guard,EM
385-1-1, and OSHA requirements. Light intensity of lighting equipment shall be reduced
to the minimum standard required by OSHA for General Construction areas, in order not
to misdirect sea turtles. Shields shall be affixed to the light housing and be large enough
to block light from all lamps from being transmitted outside the construction area(Figure
below).
OCEAN
Shoreline
Beach WORK AREA Beach
No Illumination No Illumination
Zone -`.; t* Zone
Shielding `wO Shielding
Light Source
CROSS SECTION
BEACH LIGHTING
^-- SCHEMATIC
ema �irz\R:M Ma ` batt
16. Fill Restrictions.During the sea turtle nesting season,the contractor shall not extend the
beach fill more than 500 feet along the shoreline between dusk and the following day
until the daily nesting survey has been completed and the beach cleared for fill
advancement. An exception to this may occur if there is permitted sea turtle surveyor
present on-site to ensure no nesting and hatching sea turtles are present within the
extended work area. If the 500 feet is not feasible for the project,an agreed upon
distance shall be established during the preconstruction meeting. Once the beach has
been cleared and the necessary nest relocations have been completed, the contractor will
be allowed to proceed with the placement of fill during daylight hours until dusk at which
time the 500-foot length limitation shall apply.
17. Compaction Sampling.For Collier County, sand compaction shall be monitored in the
area of sand placement immediately after completion of the project and prior to April
15th for three (3) subsequent years,and shall be monitored in accordance with a protocol
agreed to by the U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service (FWS),FWC and the applicant or local
sponsor. The requirement for compaction monitoring can be eliminated if the decision is
Joint Coastal Permit
Clam Pass Maintenance Dredging Project
Permit No.0296087-001-JC
Page 14 of 20
made to till regardless of post-construction compaction levels. Out-year compaction
monitoring and remediation are not required if placed material no longer remains on the
beach.
At a minimum,the protocol provided under a. and b. below shall be followed. If the
average value for any depth exceeds 500 pounds per square inch(psi)for any two or
more adjacent stations,then that area shall be tilled immediately prior to the following
date listed above. If values exceeding 500 psi are distributed throughout the project area
but in no case do those values exist at two adjacent stations at the same depth,then
consultation with the FWC or FWS will be required to determine if tilling is required. If
a few values exceeding 500 psi are present randomly within the project area,tilling will
not be required.
a. Compaction sampling stations shall be located at 500-foot intervals along the
project area. One station shall be at the seaward edge of the dune/bulkhead line
(when material is placed in this area), and one station shall be midway between
the dune line and the high water line(normal wrack line).
b. At each station,the cone penetrometer shall be pushed to a depth of 6, 12, and 18
inches three times(three replicates). Material may be removed from the hole if
necessary to ensure accurate readings of successive levels of sediment. The
penetrometer may need to be reset between pushes,especially if sediment
layering exists. Layers of highly compact material may lie over less compact
layers. Replicates shall be located as close to each other as possible, without
interacting with the previous hole and/or disturbed sediments. The three replicate
compaction values for each depth shall be averaged to produce final values for
each depth at each station. Reports will include all 18 values for each transect
line, and the final 6 averaged compaction values.
18. Tilling Requirements.If tilling is required as specified above,the area shall be tilled to a
depth of 36 inches. All tilling activity shall be completed prior to the marine turtle
nesting season. If tilling occurs during shorebird nesting season (February 15-August
31), shorebirds surveys prior to tilling may be required per the Shorebird Conditions
included within this document. Each pass of the tilling equipment shall be overlapped to
allow thorough and even tilling. If the project is completed during the marine turtle
nesting season,tilling will not be performed in areas where nests have been left in place
or relocated. If compaction measurements are taken, a report on the results of the
compaction monitoring shall be submitted electronically to FWC at
_ ; prior to any tilling actions being taken.
a. No tilling shall occur within 300 feet of any shorebird nest.
Joint Coastal Permit
Clam Pass Maintenance Dredging Project
Permit No.0296087-001-JC
Page 15 of 20
b. If flightless shorebird young are observed within the work zone or equipment
travel corridor,a Shorebird Monitor shall be present during the operation to
ensure that equipment does not operate within 300 feet of the flightless young.
c. A relatively even surface,with no deep ruts or furrows,shall be created during
tilling. To do this,chain-linked fencing or other material shall be dragged over
those areas as necessary after tilling.
d. Tilling shall occur landward of the wrack line and avoid all vegetated areas 3
square feet or greater with a 3-square-foot buffer around the vegetated areas. The
slope between the mean high water line and the mean low water line must be
maintained in such a manner as to approximate natural slopes.
19. Escarpment Surveys.Visual surveys for escarpments along the project area shall be
made immediately after completion of the sand placement project and during March 15 to
April 15 for three(3)subsequent years if sand from the project area still remains on the
beach.
Escarpments that interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 inches in height for a
distance of at least 100 feet shall be leveled and the beach profile shall be reconfigured to
minimize scarp formation by April 15. Any escarpment removal shall be reported by
location. If the project is completed during the sea turtle nesting and hatching season,
escarpments may be required to be leveled immediately,while protecting nests that have
been relocated or left in place. FWC shall be contacted immediately if subsequent
reformation of escarpments that interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 inches
in height for a distance of 100 feet occurs during the nesting and hatching season to
determine the appropriate action to be taken. If it is determined that escarpment leveling
is required during the nesting or hatching season,the FWS or FWC will provide a brief
written authorization that describes methods to be used to reduce the likelihood of
impacting existing nests. An annual summary of escarpment surveys and actions taken
shall be submitted electronically to along with the annual
summary as described below. If escarpment removal occurs during shorebird nesting
season(February 15-August 31),shorebirds surveys may be required per the Shorebird
Conditions included within this document prior to removal. (NOTE: Out-year
escarpment monitoring and remediation are not required if placed material no longer
remains on the dry beach).
Post-construction Monitoring and Reporting Marine Turtle Protection Conditions:
20. Reports on all marine turtle nesting activity shall be provided for the initial marine turtle
nesting season(May 1 through September 15)and for up to three additional nesting
seasons as follows:
Joint Coastal Permit
Clam Pass Maintenance Dredging Project
Permit No.0296087-001-JC
Page 16 of 20
a. For the initial nesting season and the following year,the number and type of
emergences(nests or false crawls) shall be reported per species in accordance
with the Table below. An additional year of nesting surveys may be required if
nesting success for any species on the nourished beach is less than 40%.
b. For the initial nesting season,reproductive success shall be reported per species in
accordance with the Table below. Reproductive success shall be reported for all
loggerhead, green and leatherback nests if possible. Otherwise a statistically
significant number of nests for each species shall be reported.
c. In the event that the reproductive success documented by species meets or
exceeds required criteria(e.g.,60%or greater for hatching success and emergence
success with no statistical difference when compared to hatching success) for
each species,monitoring for reproductive success shall be recommended,but not
required for the second year post-construction.
d_ Monitoring of nesting activity in the seasons following construction shall include
daily surveys and any additional measures authorized by the FWC. Summaries
shall include all crawl activity,nesting success rates,hatching success of all
relocated nests,hatching success of a representative sampling of nests left in place
(if any)by species,project name and applicable project permit numbers and dates
of construction.
Data should be reported for the nourished areas in accordance with the Table below and
should include number of nests lost to erosion or washed out. Summaries of nesting
activity shall be submitted in electronic format(Excel spreadsheets)to the FWC
Imperiled Species Management section at All summaries shall be
submitted by January 15 of the following year. The FWC Excel spreadsheet is available
upon request from
21. Two lighting surveys shall be conducted of all artificial lighting visible from the
nourished berm. The first survey shall be conducted between May 1 and May 15 the first
nesting season following construction or immediately after placement if construction is
not completed until after May 15, and a second survey between July 15 and August 1.
The survey shall be conducted by the Permittee or local sponsor and should be conducted
to include a landward view from the seaward most extent of the new beach profile. The
survey shall follow standard techniques for such a survey and include number and type of
visible lights,location of lights and photo documentation. For each light source visible,it
must be documented that the property owner(s)have been notified of the problem light
with recommendations for correcting the light. Recommendations must be in accordance
with the Florida Model Lighting Ordinance for Marine Turtle Protection(Chapter 62B-
55,F.A.C.)and local lighting restrictions. In addition to local code enforcement,actions
must be taken by the Permittee to ensure that no lights or light sources are visible from
the newly elevated beach within their respective areas. A report summarizing all lights
Joint Coastal Permit
Clam Pass Maintenance Dredging Project
Permit No.0296087-001-JC
Page 17 of 20
visible shall be submitted to FWC Imperiled Species Management Section at
by the 1st of the month following survey. A summary report
documenting what corrective actions have been taken provided and all compliance and
enforcement actions shall also be submitted by December 15 of that year. After the
annual report is completed,a meeting shall be set up with the Permittee or local sponsor,
county or municipality,FWC and the FWS to discuss the survey report as well as any
documented sea turtle disorientations in or adjacent to the project area.
Marine Turtle Monitoring Table for Beach Placement of Material
Metric Duration Variable Criterion
Nesting Success Year of construction,one year to Number of nests and non- 40%or greater
two or three years nesting emergences by
postconstruction if placed sand day by species
remains on the beach and
variable does not meet criterion
based on the previous year
monitoring
Hatching Success Year of construction and one to Number of hatchlings by Average of 60%or
three years postconstruction if species to completely greater(data must
placed sand remains on the escape egg include washed out
beach and variable does not nests)
meet criterion based on the
previous year monitoring
Emergence Success Year of construction and one to Number of hatchlings by Average must not be
three years postconstruction if species to emerge from statistically different than
placed sand remains on the nest onto beach naturally the average hatching
beach and variable does not success
meet success criterion based on
the previous year monitoring
Disorientation Year of construction and one to Number of nests and
three years postconstruction if individuals that misorient
placed sand remains on the or disorient
beach
Lighting Surveys Two surveys year following Number,location and 100%reduction in light
construction,one survey photographs of lights sources directly visible
between May 1 and May 15 and visible from elevated from nourished berm
second survey between July 15 berm,corrective actions within one to two month
And August l and notifications made period
Compaction Not required if the beach is tilled Shear resistance Less than 500 psi
prior to nesting season each year
placed sand remains on the
beach
Escarpment Surveys Weekly during nesting season Number of scarps 18 Successful remediation
for up to three years each year inches or greater of all persistent scarps
placed sand remains on the extending for more than within three weeks of
beach 100 feet that persist for documentation
more than two weeks
N/1d0HS SV V/N L I/Z0/£0 O7 �'"'�"JAU3
3ltlOS 'ON 1331'011d 31tlO 'ON133H5 4900-4z£ (6£Z) Xvj 0£00-b0£ (6£z) 3NOHd c
0 l I.ti£ v a t 2i 01 d S 3 1 d d N LpTaoid l�uno3 �aTiiop
NOILVY�i2IOdNIOdOLY a alms 'ants 0\13H 1IV 9946
011 '1V1N3WNONIAN3 H031 H12iV3 y'„a lei �FTg NV�II�d
AVE' INV'13 2I3ddf1 N 1 u�
,,w ;ooh
(sdo) sieuueg0 InO pueH paddeW D13 �
slogs oda' 6uicanans >tied o -*: * .- • - ' '•::4
�! 05� s� o
,0:,,,,,isk.',:t..'' ,,.:..,,,,
t
�i F .!s tt
. ' LLL,v-- -
1 M ,
,,
'' '''''''171.':;,;t27'-.1” ..:‘'-.-. 1'14.. '- .:,
F
a.
t
4''''';'-'''‘'44‘.::::":„' ; ::,..:*,,,,,,,:,
xi- 90' w- V.7 vv- + ,
SL iv
7/11, L9 LO' tiZ' LO' . �..,
etv J
40. 60' r .
,-*71...,,,,
b� Com' .r.
,,::,
, XS
'y�jr 41 - � b ':6:.„,..e.,
,6 xv�
,,,,,,,,.:
d'r ',..'.... . . . :__ . _; ._ __ ''_.' ' . .
) -.7N-f" c ' ,/........ .........br--,‘, ..,,,,7k,ki ' ,,„::,,
3 '
)74 ,
W
' a Q9 '
LO' 9Z s« •"
fT d� Le �ar os oz. cc, col
-.... .4 It'
F;
Y
Reg a* F :,,
iaddO .. ,,., _ .r ,.
ccs' _lira,' ear ov , .. , .
i.t, . op a?e36 Or- : c....,/17 .... . . ,„
r •
/'
F fit g; V /
f,
fi X ii.. ....f-:: . ---
gig ' �,
%
. . r _ vt . w, ' ._ 'il. k i ''4 c• r
lirp ± v.
' 1,-.114.'
z
.3
,
•
,Ni
ct rw114
dY
i r `
x '
,- µ r .
�} E9d y+
4., t �a'y t < 4
M
din
40
44c) Bay
1,.-•110. Clam
� 03 upper
J
y<
♦
g.,
.
11�� S • •� • .
our
erli
p
a
d
C g
y
'''',1,-.,„:!:,.--....".
l‘it
n
xv
:
J+ e
k,,74'%...'t.,`" io
:•:i • ?
� •"� � � st4,." r _ at � �• Hyl,. � • �'
CD 4423
fr , .
14949 .. :.
•
< ,
9
t
d
r
g
m p
<
+ iP
P d . {
J
LL
a ♦
h.
M'
a, F
fir
c r„
Iv
o North Elevations (Feet `
o Middle LineLineTopo Topo Elevations (FeetNAVD)NAVD)
d
xu
5
• SouthNorth Line Line Topo Elevations (Feet NAVD)
J
-
t < ,
Middle Line
0 �s ;150 1 , J :� South Line
.et
Feet
„"'"� N UPPER CLAM BAY
• C4 EARTH TECH ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC TOPOINFORMATION
tth
PELICAN BAY 1455 RAIL MEAD BLVD, SUITE 8 SCni-E
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34110 SHEET No. once PROJEcTro.
( nllier County. Florida PHONE (239) 304-0030 FAX (239) 324-0054 11/17/171
NAA SHOWN
N
In
N
In
O
N
co
'-I
Ln
L4
d
In
to
c1
In
V
N
m
fp In
s.-
-C- N
L In
0
z 0
0 n z
0
Q1
0 LL.
E c-,
0
ro
In N
L 0
o
�•�
0
In 1.171
41
0
1..L
o eo
t-
crs
O
Q
EIn
V Q
� I
a^)
e Q
In
O
In
m
Q
In
N
LnO
In
O
Q
O
Lc)
O Q
N Lf) c-1 In O °- (C)p r (C) N (C)
O
1 I 1
a
to
N
co
s
tP
d
s
s
-63
72
Z
- m
s
U
0
7
Co
O
0-
0
O r
*-1 tr
0
0
1 S
0
tP
O '-o
U� 0
�
0
tf1
Y O
co
(0 S
C O
U.'
0
fl. N
0-
O
tIt
O
O
tP
t
•o
0
to
0
0
Ln
3
/
\ /
. �
Q)
C { f:3\11
V
� . .
. f .
, � 1
}
} f
_ \
0
•
(11 \ %
00
m
0
. - f . CD
L
%
. / \ \
E \
U \ . /
41.1
/
� ..
0
/ /
/ . \
«*�~` � \
yy
u-,
. \
/
/
\o
%
._ a
Lr)
a
- /
o /
.. . 2
?
7
al
a)
InulLna)
OI
cr
a)
Ln
m
m
Ln
(NJ
z
a)
'
LI)
.4...,
U
(1J
In
C 01
Ln
(1.3
1....
F-
CU a,
, co
_ Ln
-C3
7:5 .
._ •
2 , .---
0
co >
I Ln
c Z
0
...... OJ
-I—Pa)
CC5 al
N u_
E ,..r,
C
0
._
o .,..,
LI— 03
C - Co
N 0.J>
—
_ In w
0 0
0-
0
0 N
I-- N Ii-
In
>•
CC5
CO Ln
ELn
CC5
(....) 1
..zt
Cll
I N
0
0
D m
N
in
c'.1
N
In
L--i
N
Ln
o
N
Ln
aL
La
-0' in
..L00'.
4-..
L.° 0 Ln
L9
0 cLos
o
m
LI)
lfl
in
O
In
Ol
In
Ln
00
in
In
LnLnID
in
In
in
In
V �n
NLn
N I
ro
N
117
in
in
{ ' In
O O
Irl
a
>
O
4-,
f
E v
� LL
s.4- O
QLnw
Q a
F- in o
a I
CD
C0
O
co
U m
u1
L
a1 00
Q in
Q
In
m
In
u1
m
Ln
m
m
N
m
u1
m
In
O
m
rn
N
O
N _ V1 r-1 in d
r
M
LO
L)
N
LO
N
L0
Ln
O
LO
Q)
f
0
n
LAD
^^V,,
W
FJ
^
II 0 M
v/
C
O
4J f
(U In
L O
L
0
0
C j
c0
t\ �
co Lr)
CO
v
U Q
Q1 Lij ~
Q )
U,
M
co
M
n
M
LL)
M
In
Ln
M
4t)
MC)
M
M
L!)
N
r)
ti
M
O
M
N 0)
Ln N
H �
O -
ti o Q
Ln
O
ii . . , -LN&------------
r=
, , ,
. .,
. . ,
/ 3
.� rig: "`` sit
t
r e \ '
..-‘, k i;� /
./ - ,v ,.
r � �
y
4$ , f„
..` i
'
41
��� . • .03
ADO ammommomma
gili .40
Gig) 900
i• ` jig UPPer
n •• Clam
cir33Bay
II
}
roF
.;:t,
v, ...,/ ., .20 .80 37. 00
;,, y 7.03" "" _*.�,.. •... 26
07 lbiipp3
1
c
a
y > , .42 .� 10
4 4,--if.#-4a '-,..
p
•4
f (
r \...._,_ APP/
.k Aa' � � �ik aV/.\:c__.*
� t
i A #`
83 07 .43 .04
�•
�� �7 �. 07 .67 V� a .18
�.' 24 .07 r .32 b1✓ -42 cer
-.14 c 06 04
1
y,y ,
4,4
/ , y
at
J
f, .---,___. o North Line Topo Elevations (Feet NAVD)
' o Middle Line Topo Elevations (Feet NAVD)
--.. ` • South Line Topo Elevations (Feet NAVD)
A101111110 North Line
Middle Line
�` South Line
`„tet. ��
0 75 Ay 50
ETE Mapped Hand Cut Channels (GPS)
Feet
N UPPER CLAM BAY
PELICAN BAY (0a3th re°4 EA451-RHRAAT,EL CHF-1EAENDVBLVIRODN,MSEUNITTAE 8 ,V
L, LLC n TOPO INFORMATION
15
NAPLES, FLORIDA 3 4 1 1 0 SHEET NO. DATE — I PROJECT NO. I SCALE
Collier County, Florida PHONF (2391 304-0030 FAX (239) 324-0054
POSSIBLE CAUSES OF HIGH PHOSPHORUS IN CLAM BAY
• Inadequate tidal flushing in Upper Clam Bay (good correlation)
• Lake discharges (with exception of Vizcaya, weak correlation)
• Sediment recycle from plant/fecal buildup (Dr. Tomasko)
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LEVELS IN CLAM BAY (mg/L)
10/15 2/16 3/16 4/16 5/16 6/16 7/16 11/16
CB1 0.13* 0.11* 0.09 0.11* 0.12* 0.09* 0.08 0.06
CB2 0.11* 0.09 0.11* 0.06 0.12
CB3 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.11 0.03
CB4 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.06
CB5 0.25* 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03
CB6 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.05
CB7 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06
CB8 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07
CB9 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.15*
* Out of compliance
i
LAKE DISCHARGES OF PHOSPHORUS INTO CLAM BAY
(TP, mg/L)
Into Upper Clam Bay
2/16 5/16 8/16
Lake 4-8 (golf course to swale) 0.11 0.10 0.07
Lake 4-14 (Coco Bay to swale) 0.17 0.25 0.15
Lake 4-11 (Golf course to swale) 0.21 0.19 0.23
Lake 5-12 (Bay Colony Shores) 0.07 0.05 0.06
Lake 5-15 (Vizcaya) 0.40 0.48 0.31
Lake 6-2 (Remington) 0.14 0.15 0.29
Into Inner Clam Bay
2/16 5/16 8/16
Lake 2-6 to 2-8 (St. Maarten) 0.12 0.10 0.11
Lake 3-6 (Golf course to swale) 0.28 0.25 0.19
Into Outer Clam Bay
2/16 5/16 8/16
Lakes 1-7 & 1-8 (Naples Grande) 0.08 0.11 0.09
Sample 1-6 (Swale by Heron) 0.06 0.05 0.07
Worst Inland Lakes for TP 2/1. 6 5/16 8/16
Lake 1-6 (Crayton Rd.) 0.24
Lake 2-12 (Golf course) 0.25
Lake 3-2 (Laurel Oaks) 0.40 0.39 0.42
Lake 3-5 (Golf course) 0.52 0.45
Lake 3-8 (Interlachen) 0.23
Lake 3-9 (Valencia) 0.24 0.25
y *p 5 2PPRR
p . Yj)91�d.' srj, rf eros , -
+a �� #=.a 1 M rri.*c�J.4.t''-- , s *+r,` --1 b. $` F•4 d 7 ;.i ,. �r'1 ID
s � 7911 '. A,$ . .• ^.a z %� X's y _''., i
:tic r L
ct
illitilim
J 0
��A . k lit ''. "* ;,:;- " t,•# ` .:
g y 1110111111
p
ffri: -6/. - ''..-';•7'11-:;4",4, t-:'`' t:'4--.Z4.:24.,.. i't ',"' •
iif
,. . etf=1 M - Xy h •
N. #, 0p :� SIx Z f .' T 'P" =r '%`�.-.0.-; et i � a .1W..jA ,: , N s 'asays 'w taR . „- sSa -
- � .'!"-,...1-
,\...4) CO
H 4e ...,.,.,/,.,„„..1.-.-,.. ,,,,...•‘_,y7.. r '•'� tt.°` a by � l'tY° !�''';-....1.,:e'' f;. ' j
•
� a'. 4►� -
;., .
t{.d .�F +F) q.i X j
;y $ i,AAN.ta* * �&RP r J
CL 4
``♦ • s` Cr)
wi: -
D
:i `eh t m X.:I Q /R/
k 1fr y f,''- . V Q� LL 1
L.
[ d ?� 10sy” F f Ct
P� .a � a_r L ntAin / 4� `eke, '! �, ! C
9 r` ` ., p��
t.. �- .:-'..t.,.. a
hP
. < 4 ria r P r. !'i '� I o ai
•
: s,!
4_,"3 � ®._r '.. ire ,A er •. _• j am' Icy .• c. 1j1 )•q g N
a F •L L.,n '..a :yrs -~ �; �`f - ''''':;f:1.t:'4;f+f.f, �:�• R`T' n - H cd W a
s i c r �Fs m. v#'y ' Y, �X J Q �� 00
o
,:.
F �_ t�yl�fjd • �, t
�yz • Y i�'L s�11 .._rtr s d .%
:ea
"sem S te'•'Ala i I. '� ,-.4,,,,,.. q a„„ - .� >,',ti"' Yi
T.
' ..'.31:70.0..;',A t "A. .,V.s "'tfaee.g e17.'0,4 4, 't .,, r.3, ,-,1,,;,.,'~?� �• "'Fd€- ��1
r1 an- j k -,..,.."-,it ;"'t.:' f4�-11 �,a st �g,•,3 .; -,'.':,:_4...
I-, its. , 4� sir r aftr a� ;� �F� ',1.-_„••.. is\
P:\9545 Clam Bay\DRAWINGS\SHEET\MONITORING REPORT\2015\SAMPLIG_LOCS.dwg CURRENT SAMPLE LOCS 1/29/2016 RAND!JONES
'
oce?„s
CD
V•
r I •
pain 0
gha '�
c°ta 0 C -
f0
0 /' z
z S..,‘ ,
l,
�1 r _ 0
0 rte '
j '(0 e /°' � _
7r—
fta d
6:.64 ik
CO
o ~fit .• p, - 0 'A
1
IO
.s Ia
L/ {D G
cP
' .
c.
CP 'a 01
0 N n tU .04% b
a 3 f
CO I o
0 Id o
Q
a
610
'OS •
y
FROM DISCUSSIONS WITH TOMASKO ON COPPER IN CLAM BAY
(2/27/17)
• FDEP does not require specific Clam Bay copper measurements
(unlike phosphorus and nitrogen measurements)
• Hence, data from CB 1, CB3 and CB6 —the only sites sampled for
data that led to "impaired for copper" ruling— are the most relevant
• Data already recorded from measurements at 9 sites + berm areas can
be accessed by FDEP
• Sampling from berm areas, which are dry parts of year, is irrelevant
• Efforts should be made to understand why copper is high at CB2, e.g.,
correlation with low tidal flushing, high sediment levels (this requires
a good bit of thought)
• Hardness measurements should be made at some upland lakes, e.g., a
few with continuing high copper levels and a few with consistently
low copper levels