Loading...
Agenda 06/08/2017 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING JUNE 8, 2017 THE CLAM BAY COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION WILL MEET AT 1:00 PM ON THURSDAY, JUNE 8 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 04/06/17 meeting minutes 4. Audience comments 5. Clam Bay monitoring a. H&M reports b. Timeline for bathymetric survey report c. Escarpment near Clam Pass d. Mangrove die-off update in June e. Timeline for sediment testing f. ETE observations and recommendations g. Copper results for Feb. & March h. Quarterly report on TP and TN Entering WQ data into WIN 6. High-speed boat activity in Clam Bay 7. Next meeting: July 6 8. 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://PELICANBAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET. 0/30/2017 9:43 AM PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION CLAM BAY COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 6, 2017 The Clam Bay Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division met on Thursday, April 6 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 Susan O'Brien, Chairman Gary Ventress (absent) Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Neil Dorrill, Administrator (absent) Lisa Jacob, Associate Project Manager Marion Bolick, Operations Manager (absent) Barbara Shea, Recording Secretary Also Present Jennifer Bobka, Earth Tech Jeremy Sterk, Earth Tech Mike Shepherd, PBSD Board Dave Trecker, PBSD Board APPROVED AGENDA (AS AMENDED) 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda approval 3. Approval of 03/02/17 meeting minutes 4. Audience comments 5. Mangrove die-off monitoring going forward 6. Clam Bay monitoring a. H&M March tidal ratio data b. Water level logger data c. Mangrove plot monitoring d. Maintenance of hand-dug channels 7. RFQ for water quality reports 8. RFQ for sediment testing 9. Clam Bay expenses for FY18 10. Copper results 11. County Lab vs. Benchmark costs for water quality analysis a. County Lab January results (add-on) 12. Next meeting: May 4 13. Adjournment ROLL CALL Mr. Ventress was absent and a quorum was established 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Clam Bay Committee Meeting April 6,2017 AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Hirniak motioned, Ms. O'Brien seconded to approve the agenda as amended with the addition of discussion item #11a. The motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF 03/02/17 MEETING MINUTES Mr. Hirniak motioned, Ms. O'Brien seconded to approve the 03/02/17 meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried unanimously. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dr. Trecker commented on the good news in the December & January water quality reports which show only one instance of TP exceeding FDEP standards. MANGROVE DIE-OFF MONITORING GOING FORWARD By consensus, the committee agreed that staff will obtain the next Clam Bay aerial photo and updated mangrove die-off report from Turrell Hall in July. After a review of that report, the committee will reassess quarterly mangrove die-off reporting. CLAM BAY MONITORING H&M MARCH TIDAL RATIO DATA March tidal ratio data was provided by Humiston & Moore in the agenda packet. Ms. O'Brien commented that although the ratios are not at levels we had hoped for, Mr. Dabees has expressed that he is not concerned, and that additional time is needed for these ratios to improve. WATER LEVEL LOGGER DATA Mr. Sterk commented that he has a year's worth of water level logger data. He commented that the drought experienced over the last six months has improved the drainage in Clam Bay. MANGROVE PLOT MONITORING Mr. Sterk reported completing the last set of the mangrove plot monitoring. He reported that (1) plots are generally stable from the previous monitoring event, (2) a decline in mortality was observed, (3) some recruitment was observed, and (4) his observations reinforce Mr. Hall's conclusions of a reduction in the number of acres of the mangrove die-off and an increase in new recruitment. MAINTENANCE OF HAND-DUG CHANNELS Mr. Sterk reported that J. A. Aquatics has completed about half of the hand-dug channels maintenance project (approximately $35,000), consisting of clearing debris and roots from the channels. The committee and Mr. Sterk agreed that he would direct J. A. Aquatics to focus on Upper Clam Bay for the second half of the project. RFQ FOR WATER QUALITY REPORTS A copy of the RFQ for annual Clam Bay water quality monitoring & reporting was provided in the agenda packet for informational purposes. 2 Pelican Bay Services Division Clam Bay Committee Meeting April 6,2017 RFQ FOR SEDIMENT TESTING A copy of the RFQ for bi-annual sediment sampling & reporting was provided in the agenda packet for informational purposes. Ms. Jacob commented that sediment testing would be completed in April and October. CLAM BAY EXPENSES FOR FY18 Ms. O'Brien provided a draft FY18 Clam Bay budget for committee review. COPPER RESULTS Ms. O'Brien reported that the January report from the County Lab showed no samples out of compliance with FDEP copper standards; the December samples contained one sample exceeding FDEP copper standards. COUNTY LAB VS. BENCHMARK COSTS FOR WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS Staff obtained quotes for water quality sampling from Benchmark, which were compared to recent pricing by the County Lab. The committee noted that Benchmark pricing is significantly higher, and therefore, by consensus, the committee agreed that staff would continue to use the County Lab for water quality analysis. COUNTY LAB JANUARY RESULTS (ADD-ON) Ms. O'Brien reported that the County Lab lost refrigeration where the January samples were stored. This appears to have had no adverse affect on the nutrient levels reported to us. NEXT MEETING: By consensus, the committee agreed that the next meeting of the committee would be held on June 8 at 1:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT IThe meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m. Susan O'Brien, Chairman Minutes approved [ ] as presented OR [ ] as amended ON [ ] date 3 Agenda Item#5a Page 1 of 1 SheaBarbara Subject: FW: Conditions at Clam Pass From: Mohamed Dabees [mailto:md@humistonandmoore.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 12:59 PM To: JacobLisa Cc: NeilDorrill; dee@dmgfi.com; SheaBarbara Subject: RE: Conditions at Clam Pass Lisa, Clam Pass may appear more shallow than usual at low tide over the past few week. As a small tidal inlet with event driven dynamics,Clam Pass and its shoals exhibit rapid changes in response to wave/wind events.Over the past year, the inlet was influenced by two tropical storms and an active winter wave season. Recently the inlet was influenced by a cold front and associated wave event at the beginning of May and is experiencing a wind/wave event at this time.While the storm events cause shoaling and migration of the inlet channel,the sand bar and shoals at the mouth of the pass shelter the inlet from direct waves and sand infilling of the inlet. During calm weather conditions,tidal flow redistribute the shoaled sand within the inlet to restore the inlet hydraulic stability. We continue to monitor the tidal hydrodynamics and physical conditions of Clam Pass. Monitoring survey of Clam Pass is in process at this time.We will provide an update on the inlet conditions once the survey is completed and tidal data for the month of May is analyzed. Let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Mohamed Mohamed Dabees, PhD.PE. Humiston&Moore Engineers 239-594-2021 http://www.humistonandmoore.com/ Lisa Jacob, MSM Project Manager, Associate Humiston & Moore Engineers ( ClamPass-TIDE Agenda item#5a-1 Page 1 of 4 • CLam Pass Tide Monitoring-Click hete for Maintenance Dredging Project details GU f of M• MARKER 4 ClomPoas MARKER 14 M442# MAkECR 2 1 T s is99r ed ide Gages Locationtz; lE�r' ! i ... _ .. �. n.. .cw:...,'J �., r'�;wh.}.i 1,,.4,.= Monthly Time Series 2017(nick on Thur)bnads to Expand) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean Low TideTime Lag -2017 300.0 250.0 i g 200.0 t NWfarket4 § f 150,0 t: l ['Marker 14 eJ Marker 26 k 100.0 tr Marker 32 j 50,0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun )Ut Aug Sep Oct Nov pee Gage/Gulf Mean Tide Ratios-2017 0.e 0.8 0.7 Marker4 0.5 I I t Marker 24 i'0.4 I. D Marker 26 0.3 Marker 32 0.2 Dacar 0.1 I sgbe,:r rasa ror 0.0 hrarkers Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 48 14. Gage/Gulf Mean Tide Ratios-2016 0.9 PASS T,5, 0.8 DREDGING T.S.COUIN NERMINE 0.7 .� J., 0.6 NMarker4 w 0.5 < ;'Maker 14 0.4 a, t er Marker 26 0,3 j c:Marker 32 0.2 tatittly 0.1a 0 iFIiJ r . Markers r Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JUI Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 4814. http://mnvw.humistonandmoore.com/clampass-tide Agenda Item#5a-1 Humiston&Moore Engineers I ClamPass-TIDE Page 2of4 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 Agenda Item#5a-1 Page 3 of 4 I I NI I I N I! I r T �.S N ...... ...._.N _,N ....... ;......r �j 4......... ry N N co ea CV ra n4 ..N CO —...... ....._CO —. O ) .... O N. fl .." 8. a a a • ......._. O •�•.. O ,.,,, O ff....... O o • {:, O / • . yam--r •. cl 1 1 � I 4_.- I � I I t I I N O CV .7..-.. N O N O N 0 C1.1O N 0 N O N 0 N O 1P1J p ialmp4 6t iaMPetN 9Z iagieW Z£eaveW Agenda Item#5g Page 1 of 1 Clam Bay Copper ug/L Collection Date CB1 CB2 CB3 CB4 CB5 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 12/6/2016 2.330 2.930 5.100 2.450 2.390 1.780 1.270 1.880 1.720 3/14/2017 1/19/2017 2.570 3.560 2.110 1.990 0.818 0.800 0.961 1.110 2.020 4/4/2017 2/23/2017 2.510 3.350 1.600 1.120 0.851 0.848 1.500 2.570 2.600 4/24/2017 3/21/2017 7.970 4.080 1.710 1.120 0.894 0.846 1.080 1.090 0.957 6/1/2017 Agenda Item#5h 4350 West Cypress Street Page 1vvavaesassoc.com Suite 950 Tampa,FL 33607 813.207.7200 phone 813.207.7201 fax memorandum date April 27, 2017 to Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc. from David Tomasko, Ph.D. Emily Keenan, M.S. subject Quarter 1: Clam Bay NNC SSAC evaluation Background The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection Agency (FDEP) adopted site specific alternative nutrient criteria (SSAC) for Clam Bay, as listed in Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 62-302.531. The SSAC were derived based upon a nutrient: salinity relationship from the Estero Bay Wetlands, a reference waterbody for water quality, as established by FDEP in prior TMDLs. The SSAC for Clam Bay is considered in the context of salinity due to the variability in nutrient concentrations that can be due to changes in freshwater inflow, rather than changes in nutrient concentrations alone. Therefore, the appropriate management response associated with any impairment determination is based upon the magnitude and duration of any exceedances. Based on prior work that showed that phytoplankton growth in Clam Bay was likely stimulated by both Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorous (TP), both TN and TP are used to determine the degree of nutrient enrichment of Clam Bay's waters. As outlined in FAC 62- 302.531, water quality status is determined on an annual basis, preferably within a calendar year. Within a calendar year, each individual TN and TP value collected within the waterbody is compared to the nutrient: conductivity 90th percentile prediction limit (Figure 1), and an annual percent exceedance is calculated to determine the magnitude of exceedances per year. To be consistent with the method currently implemented by FDEP to identify impaired water bodies, if 13 percent or more of the TN or TP values in a calendar year exceed the 90th percentile prediction limit (after being normalized for conductivity) the duration of exceedance would then be determined. Based on the duration of exceedance (one year or greater than one year), the outcome designation is assigned. If fewer than 13 percent of the values exceed the 90th percent prediction limit, then the outcome is "0". If the magnitude (i.e., 13 percent) and duration (i.e., less than 1 year) of the exceedances are deemed small, the outcome is "1". If the magnitude or duration of the exceedances is large, then the outcome is "2". If both the magnitude and duration of the exceedances are large, then the outcome is "3". The Agenda Item#5h Page 2 of 6 management response for Clam Bay would be determined based on the outcomes assigned to both the TN and TP evaluations for the magnitude and duration of exceedance (Figure 2). The water quality status of Clam Bay would be assigned a green, yellow, or red designation annually based on the magnitude and duration of exceedances of the 90th percent prediction limit. The color designation is then used to determine what level(s) of management actions are appropriate. Annual management response actions are based on the response to nutrient concentrations of phytoplankton and dissolved oxygen (DO) as well as impacts on water clarity (Figure 3). If the outcome of the TN and TP evaluation is green, then no management actions are required. However, if the outcomes are yellow or red then further evaluation of the effect of elevated nutrient concentrations on both phytoplankton biomass and DO concentrations need to be reviewed. If there is no relationship between nutrients and chlorophyll-a or DO, then no management actions are required. If there is a signification relationship, then the impact of chlorophyll-a on the water clarity (Secchi disk depth) would be evaluated. If there is no relationship between chlorophyll-a and water clarity, then no management actions are required. If there is a significant relationship between chlorophyll-a concentrations and water clarity, an outcome designation of"yellow" (indicative of small magnitude or duration of exceedances) identifies that management actions should be taken to identify the potential causes and responses for the elevated nutrient levels. It the outcome designation is "red" (indicative of a large magnitude or duration of exceedances), management actions should be taken to implement recommended response tactics to reduce nutrient concentrations. In this manner, the "health" of Clam Bay is to be assessed annually. Figure 1. Clam Bay water quality flow chart. Do 213%of all TN&/ar TP values from a calendar year No exceed the 90%prediction limit from the reference WaID? Outcome 0 Yes >_13% Magnitude of ?15% exceedance Duration of Duration of exceedance exceedance 1 year >1 year 1 year >1 year Outcomel Outcome 2 ' t utc.ome2 Outcome3 2 Agenda Item#5h Page 3 of 6 Figure 2. Management response matrix using outcomes from both TN and TP evaluation. Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Outcome 0 Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Outcome 0 Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Figure 3. Management response actions in response to various outcomes. Green Response Yellow or Red evaluation Hold the lire Evaluate phytoplankton f Significant dissolved oxygen (p<0.05) Not significant response to nutrient (p>0.05) concentrations Evaluate water clarity Not significant response to chlorophyll-a (r O.05) Significant(p<0.05) Small difference or short duration Identify potential causes and implement _ Identify lcrtcnt€ I recCrrnnlenredreSpc�tS' Large difference or causes and long duration responses 3 Agenda Item#5h Page 4 of 6 Data Analysis The analysis conducted below was used to assess the water quality status of Clam Bay during the months of November 2016 to February 2017. Since the SSAC developed for Clam Bay is to be evaluated on an annual time step, this analysis provides insight into current water quality conditions within the Bay, but it does not substitute for the more comprehensive annual assessment required. Clam Bay surface water quality data were provided by Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc. for comparison with the FDEP adopted SSAC established for Clam Bay and found within FAC. 62-302-532 -1-j. The NNC SSAC states 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 TP and TN upper limits are calculated using equations 1 and 2: Equation 1: TP Upper Limit (mg/L)= e(-1.06256-0.0000328465*conductivity(Ns)) Equation 2: TN Upper Limit (mg/L)= 2.3601 — 0.0000268325*Conductivity(pS) The dataset 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. The corresponding TN or TP Upper Limit was calculated for each Clam Bay estuarine water quality station and sampling date in which conductivity was available using Equations 1 and 2. TN and TP concentrations were compared to the derived upper limit thresholds to ascertain if elevated concentrations were identified (Appendix A). Results Over the period analyzed in this memo (November 2016 to January 2017) no TN measurements from the open waters of Clam Bay (from the 9 ambient water quality stations) exceeded their respective Upper Limits. In contrast, 2 of the 27 TP measurements (7 percent) exceeded their respective Upper Limits. Based on the results from this time period, and if the frequency of exceedance seen here was to be maintained over the course of a calendar year, Clam Bay would not be determined to be impaired for either TN or TP. The two TP exceedances occurred at the Clam Bay 2 water quality station on November 9, 2016 and at the Clam Bay 6 station on December 6, 2016. The Clam Bay 2 water quality station is located in a small embayment on the east side of the channel that connects Upper and Inner Clam Bay. The Clam Bay 6 water quality station is located in the middle of the open waters of Outer Clam Bay. In addition, water quality data from the six Clam Bay Outfall monitoring stations were compared to the proposed downstream protective values (DPV) 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 identified (Appendix B). 4 Agenda Item#5h Page 5 of 6 The median and 90th percentile DPVs for TN are 1.31 and 1.80 mg/L, respectively (PBS&J 2011). The median and 90th percentile DPVs for TP are 0.10 and 0.25 mg/L, respectively. For TN, 55 and 14 percent of the values exceeded the median and 90th percentile DPV values, respectively (Table 1). It should be noted that a "median" value represents a value where 50 percent of samples would be expected to be in exceedance; therefore 'a 55 percent exceedance rate is just 10 percent higher (55/50) than that which would have been expected by chance alone. Similarly, it would be expected by chance alone that 10 percent of values would exceed the 90th percentile DPV. For TP, 68 and 9 percent of the reported values 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 Percent of values below 45% 86 32% 91 Percent of values above 55% 14 68% 9 Discussion It should be noted that this data analysis is not based on a full year of water quality data, and thus while it is indicative of potential findings for a calendar year, it is not necessarily predictive of what would be found with a calendar years' worth of data. The FDEP-adopted SSAC for Clam Bay requires data analysis on a calendar year basis (FAC 62-302.531). However, quarterly status reports can be useful as an early warning system if water quality appears to be significantly different from expected ranges. The findings displayed here suggest that nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in the open waters of Clam Bay are not currently problematic. However, elevated nutrient concentrations in some of the outfall sampling locations suggests that some of the elevated TP concentrations in Upper and Outer Clam Bay could be due to activities on the watershed, and outfall sampling should continue. For stormwater runoff, sampled at the outfall locations, concentrations of nitrogen do not appear to be problematic, as exceedance rates for both median and 90th percentile DPV concentrations are mostly in-line with expectations. For phosphorus, the median value of stormwater runoff suggests higher values than expected (68 percent exceedance of DPV median value vs. expected 50 percent exceedance rate). However, the highest values are in line with expectations, as 9 percent of values exceed the DPV criterion of TP, vs. the expectation that that value would be exceeded 10 percent of the time. Taken as a whole, the water quality data collected between the months of November 2016 to January 2017 do not suggest that there is a current problem with nutrient loads to Clam Bay. While the open waters of the bay itself appear to be unimpaired, this finding is based on typical dry season weather patterns, and the mixture of freshwater runoff and tidal influences from the 5 Agenda Item#5h Page 6 of 6 Gulf of Mexico. The balance of fresh to saltwater will change as Southwest Florida enters the wet season. Maintenance of the flushing influence of Clam Pass is important to the water quality of Clam Bay. If Clam Pass was to close, the elevated nutrient concentrations from watershed runoff would likely result not only in the expression of eutrophication through mechanisms such as phytoplankton and/or macroalgae blooms, but the reduced tidal mixing and lowered salinities would likely result in Clam Bay exceeding its FDEP-adopted water quality standards. 6 ro Lo * - > mcz 0 =a a) m a • c c > N N a Q u 0 N c CL co t iTa oU o, c N N • C i r 0 N >1 C i as RS - - co C 1 I c o - -o O N u 1- 0 o u N - 0 i in CU in N i W U +(1) o '> CD > o CU aaa) - c0 Z o L7 C u n III_0. o- o E •- o a cn 4 ~ u •C • - C) Co > RI o - Z M N 0 >1 u O Z CO p O .c N E 0_ (50 > U 0- - z M 0 I- • > O - • Z g O I I I I I (.0 N O In O O O M N N - 0 0 O O O O O O O (1/6w) snaoydsogd poi '4- _C LE, 4t N sNa tog o co a, m — a .4----, > a) N IL Q � 0 N C a to a.) rn 2 c I N N • C to r Lc) 0 N>1 C i c = co C O - -' o a.+ 0 N tO 0 u N I - 0 1- 0 vi N E0cu v no 0) sm - 0 0 Cn Z s• 0 c 0 .0Q � CL o - oE - - 1- (1) .o F' U ' U 'C • - 0 O r a- 2 o — I > 14- - z N O >1 t!1 O (a n - z CO O o .0 N E N Rt > U a - z To M O F- • >• o O O I 1 1 1 1 o N O In O Ln O o M N N r ,- O O O O O O O O O (Ow) snaoydsogd Ip}ol = o % co > Ea a m m 0 ca -o CC > Q a) 0 al 0 d asC t a o a) rn 2 c ( m N N • C (6 r - 0 Ln N r A i c as r - 7 co = O c as r +Q+ _ r0 I O N r u N i a) Q f0 N E o u N W a '° - 003 Q o c r a Z ° 'm c ' d II Z aa) Q C to p - 0 E �. (p .i O a+ r u) oH '~ :C • aa) CQ - 0 G O s yfC > O = 1 0 N (ai N m ( O 8 _ 0 E k t N Q 0 > U L O d - Z (B M ti r 0 I— • • _ 0 r i rI O O Lf) O Ln O u)' O O� N M N N O O O O O p Ci O O (1/6w) snaoydsogd leTol _c •c; to 4# "I- > E &a' a � a) 0 ca (I)m c C > m a Q i 0 w C a c3 v rn 2 c (13 - - N N • C N n3 ✓ in 0 N c S. (13 fC - -o O ooo C R O - -) o ++ r0 N CD r N - 0 i Li') 41) N N i 1 vN > flm . a an O � 1 1 r 231 Z t O u Q 01a 'RI - 0 E a as C st .i Ow. Ol • U 'C • - 0 O d- 2 O - > 0 44- - z 4-0N O fU E o Z CO L 0 N E V fC10 o > U 0- - z TIS M o I- • > O I 1 I I 1 I O O N O in O UlO in m N N v- - O O O O O O O O O (1/6w) snaogdsogd IE}ol Agenda Item#5h-2 Page 1 of 1 CLAM BA Y NRPA MANA GEMENT PLAN Pelican Bay Services Division October 2014 Ver. 6.5 . ''.t-.‘'''''''''::1,4:,,,::''';}.1 ';.,....ti,f.,4„,„,,,:....,-,_ t -., j 8 + ,' ' r 1 ". '''",'''.'i"yi.,.„.. '1 ' ..4.:' 1 - .:"'ti, .t.t.)11e: - ' ., .. '. l' .1. ' '- At. -'.. -' 3 1 i` i r+" L' 436333" -�''" t . d ' tip '4 , „3. � " sof 8165" ' 0,$��, UPDAlEO CtlCATlON!N NRPA a ,:'1. ' � 4/1: ® UF'DATEO LOCATFOW ADJACENT TO NRPA a » > fl',:.'F EXISTING LOCA MN ADJACENT TO NRPA rs. '01. .4",:,,A.1 y^5J �r m ,,it .,:;17.4, S ',pg. 1 * fl .fry »'# �1►' f* p`3,r Go t95" r 120.2,54 6c .� Nti\ a�!16:f:? ,, ,sir i\-;.;„4d Y s {j. ,r ,.,� ,"`z* .Lt523.1.,6,-,:‘; J 6,•%t 1 `. V +k 1. + ,- i t,:� ` -t ' -, J '-'..:4':' xS�4 .., qa1 7 33. t • trb' {� 1 `1 8163- r , ?r r I a ' i . 4 1,1 V P r. � ` FAQ 1:r # !k1 1 ,.° , y'i � «6 225 i Z ,', '-',. ;74-40-1tiforAvit k Ilt, 1,' ''- . 'Et' 0, , .r.`,k;t,.',?''k,;,,'''* : 4- -.4 - ''':-: - ''' °: 26.216122 a U 813 33 :. � € � c rti ; .. -'''1,44l'.'. 4 l ; '14 .' ''2,:"7: -:4:.2"i.:`7-'`:'Tif4A`y..,..-,itti lit;:- i...k.-I ..;.17-*I.P.`4;, .„,:!.,:. s s t,0 :f �9 Figure 1 S: Proposed FYater Qzzality monitoring locations lviihin and adjacent to the NRPA bozmdazy 35 Agenda Item#51 Page 1 of 1 TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES INC. MARINE& ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3584 Exchange Avenue•Naples,Florida 34104-3732•239-643-0166•Fax(239)634-6632•thall@turrell-associates.com April 25, 2017 Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Re: Proposal for Environmental Services-Contract 15-6397 Set-Up and Data Entry of Existing Water Quality into WIN Turrell, Hall & Associates is pleased to provide you with this proposal for environmental services to set up the new Watershed Information Network (WIN) Database for Clam Bay water quality data. As you know we completed the Storet module in 2015 and uploaded the water quality data through February 2015. Data from March 2015 through present will have to be input into the new WIN system after the formatter has been set-up though. The scope of services below will get us through the formatter set-up and the data entry phases. • Work with FDEP staff to set up the formatting for Clam Bay's new WIN data entry and storage system. • Once the formatter is ready, data from March 2015 through the most currently released lab results in 2017 will be input and uploaded into the state system. Total $7,000.00 T&M Please feel free to call me with any questions. Sincerely, Tim Hall Vice President Agenda Item#6 Page 1 of 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that the Board authorizes staff to work with the FWC to review and update local unincorporated Collier County boater safety zones,to bring back to the Board proposed changes to these rules and regulations,and to conduct 4 public workshops to make the public aware of this initiative. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and update the Collier County Boater Safety Zone Designations throughout unincorporated Collier County, working with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC),the public,boaters,marine industry groups and other local jurisdictions. CONSIDERATIONS: Collier County's waterways have speed zones that are set based on both State manatee protection zones and local County boater safety zones(BSZ). The FWC directed Collier County to establish a local Manatee Protection Plan(MPP)which would identify specific waterway speed zones in an effort to minimize the loss of manatee populations due to boater/manatee collision. The County's MPP was approved by the State in 1995. In 2016, FWC initiated coordination with Collier County,the public and various stakeholders through a series of meetings and workshops to update the MPP and its associated speed zones based on newly collected data since the 1995 approval. The result of that initiative has led to proposed changes to some of Collier County's waterway/manatee speed zones. The proposed changes were approved pending appeal by the FWC Commission on April 20,2017. In water construction of the new manatee speed zone signage by FWC's waterways division is anticipated to be completed in 2018. Given the future updates to Collier County's MPP and associated speed zones, the Coastal Zone Management section is recommending to use this as an opportunity to re-evaluate the current Collier County BSZ's as well. These zones are required to be evaluated for consistency with Florida State Statutes, specifically 327.46 (1) (b) which provides the criteria by which boater safety zones may be established. Any proposed BSZ must be permitted through FWC's boater safety section in order to be valid and legally enforceable by local and state law enforcement. A valid County ordinance describing the boater safety zone must also be consistent with Florida State Statute 327.46 (1) (b). In addition, the proper signage must then be posted on the waterways displaying the required speed, the County ordinance,and the associated valid FWC permit number and statute. CZM staff has had preliminary discussions with FWC regarding historical boater safety zones in Collier County dating back to the 1970's,and FWC has agreed to work with CZM to update these zones. Since this initiative will involve significant time and effort to properly complete, staff is requesting that the Board first grant approval to begin the local boater safety evaluation and update initiative. This first proposal will also provide background and details of the evaluation. Once the evaluation is conducted, staff will go back to the Board a second time and propose draft amended ordinances and resolutions for Board review. The final draft ordinances and resolutions will include any Board recommended changes and will be subject to approval by FWC prior to implementation. Staff is recommending that a total of four(4) public workshops will be held to make the public aware of this initiative, the proposed BSZ's changes and the final proposed ordinances. These workshops will educate the public on proposed changes, receive comments and feedback and summarize the proposed changes prior to presenting to the Board. Agenda Item#6 Page 2 of 5 FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact will be limited to staff time related to the evaluation and updating of the Collier County Boater Safety Zone Designations and advertising the proposed ordinance (approximately$400). GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated with this action. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney. Many of the County's rules and regulations regarding speed zones date back to the 1970's. Given that the County, working with the State, is updating its Manatee Protection Plan,this is an opportune time to review all of the boater safety rules and regulations within unincorporated Collier County. This item requires majority vote for Board approval. This item is approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote for approval.-CMG RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board authorizes staff to work with the FWC to review and update local unincorporated Collier County boater safety zones,to bring back to the Board proposed changes to these rules and regulations,and to conduct 4 public workshops to make the public aware of this initiative. Prepared By: Chris D'arco and J. Gary McAlpin. P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees and Program Management Division • Submitted by Sto$gltin Clam Bay Commift�age 3 of 5 Pelican Bay Services Division April 8, 2014 327.46 Boating-restricted areas.-- (1) Boating-restricted areas,including,but not limited to,restrictions of vessel speeds and vessel traffic,may be established on the waters of this state for any purpose necessary to protect the safety of the public if such restrictions are necessary based on boating accidents,visibility,hazardous currents or water levels,vessel traffic congestion,or other navigational hazards. (a) The commission may establish boating-restricted areas by rule pursuant to chapter 1.20. fb) Municipalities and counties have the authority to establish the following boating-restricted areas by ,finance: 1. An ordinance establishing an idle speed,no wake boating-restricted area,if the area is: a.Within 500 feet of any boat ramp,hoist,marine railway,or other launching or landing facility available for use by the general boating public on waterways more than 300 feet in width or within 300 feet of any boat ramp,hoist,marine railway,or other launching or landing facility available for use by the general boating public on waterways not exceeding 300 feet in width. h.Within 500 feet of fuel pumps or dispensers at any marine fueling facility that sells motor fuel to the general boating public on waterways more than'300 feet in width or within 300 feet of the fuetplimps or dispensers at any licensed terminal facility that sells motor fuel to the general boating public on waterways not.exceeding 300 feet in width. c. inside or within 300 feet of any lock structure. 2. An ordinance establishing a slow speed,minimum wake boating-restricted area if the area is: a.Within 300 feet of any bridge fender system. b.Within 300 feet of any bridge span presenting a vertical clearance of less than 2.5 feet or a horizontal clearance of less than 100 feet. c.On a creek,stream,canal,or similar linear waterway if the waterway is less than 75 feet in width from shoreline to shoreline. d.On a lake or pond of less than 10 acres in total surface area. 3. An ordinance establishing a vessel-exclusion zone if the area is: a.Designated as a public bathing beach or swim area. b.Within 300 feet of a dam,spillway,or flood control structure. Municipalities and counties have the authority to establish by ordinance the following other boating- restricted areas: 1. An ordinance establishing an idle speed,no wake boating-restricted area, if the area is within 300 feet of a confluence of water bodies presenting a blind corner,a bend in a narrow channel or fairway,or such other area if an intervening obstruction to visibility may obscure other vessels or other users of the waterway. Page 1 of 2 €pelican Bay § u152:m.#6 �cg@�d��5f{3f', April 8, 2014 2. An ordinance establishing a slow speed,minimum wake,or numerical speed limit boating-restricted area it the area is: a.Within 300 feet of a confluence of water bodies presenting a blind corner.a bend in a narrow channel or fairway,or such other area if an intervening obstruction to visibility may obscure other vessels or other users of the waterway. b.Subject to unsafe levels of vessel traffic congestion. c.Subject to hazardous water levels or currents,or containing other navigational hazards. d.An area that accident reports,uniform boating citations,vessel traffic studies,or other creditable data demonstrate to present.a significant risk of collision or a significant threat to boating safety. 3. An ordinance establishing a vessel-exclusion zone if the area is reserved exclusively: a. As a canoe trail or otherwise limited to vessels under oars or under sail. b. Vor a particular activity and user group separation must be imposed to protect the safety of those participating in such activity. Any of the ordinances adopted pursuant to this paragraph shall not take effect until the commission has reviewed the ordinance and determined by substantial competent evidence that the ordinance is necessary to protect public safety pursuant to this paragraph.Any application for approval of an ordinance shall be reviewed and acted upon within 90 days after receipt of a completed application.Within 30 days after a municipality or county submits an application for approval to the commission,the commission shall advise the municipality or county as to what information,if any,is needed to deem the application complete.An application shall be considered complete upon receipt of all requested information and correction of any error or omission for which the applicant was timely notified or when the time for such notification has expired.The commission's action on the application shall be subject to review under chapter 120.The commission shall initiate rulemaking no later than January 1,2010,to provide criteria and procedures for reviewing applications and procedures for providing for public notice and participation pursuant to this paragraph. (2) Each such boating-restricted area shall be developed in consultation and coordination with the governing body of the county or municipality in which the boating-restricted area is located arid,when the boating- restricted area is to be on the navigable waters of the United States,with the United States Coast Guard and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. (3} it is unlawful for any person to operate a vessel in a prohibited manner or to carry on any prohibited activity,as defined in this chapter,within a boating-restricted area which has been dearly marked by regulatory markers as authorized under this chapter. (4) Restrictions in a boating-restricted area established pursuant to this section shall not apply in the case of an emergency or to a law enforcement,firefighting,or rescue vessel owned or operated by a governmental entity. History.--s.7,ch.63-105;s.1,ch_65-361;ss.25,35,ch.69-106;s.23,ch.78 95;s.7,ch.81-1.00;s.27,ch.99- 245;s. 16,ch.2000-362;s.13,ch.2009-86. Page 2of2 Agenda Item#6 r *`A:i:° �4"'WA'',id, .... -;tea �_ h'4 ' ? % -, ' it . '•b .. `1.�,.., t .`a '..K•.. i F ' : Z �. 5 ry+� 'tx rr.� a 9 w n w ca it �•�xF�r�� h+ � �4 ,� �ti 11milL 1111 a .V i Z R �1 r "aj�ti. t $ * 4 -fi QNEE .±P N fic,'". t }I u fi i e 2 .` a X00100 t II i40 cl F rno •_ I 11 a. u) 11111 O j� w tr - t CD 'a;7 7 •.'.1,, Y. � t I � til - a „„e-.4„., a`�$ . .', .#v r;t I ' .+� 1.,-,. llr U Lu d , D a. R Pj i , -3 ', 'Q�.y, ,, ,,--- it( n< %C 1 l` h t �� A� Ce i I z L - V f Z yy ec (4 :,,, : 2' --'..., ..b � j e-� \-.. � Y w 2 w 2 : : ifi o := Z. 4..•. L.� E ,. ,t (.''''....--'.-«:4.','2, — # �Fn SPA; � B Af Com`, �. ... Q a. ,. ,,,,,,:,:f, Fa ,2 ( • ` t µ+tit q s (n w —) C% L eta } '�x � LL1 d Q f W ccs .0.i ' ';'6...401'. , t.4` > !r; # t 77E0 a C 4 3 � � ; ^ 0 -70 C s ..a e j �►� y 7 f y 1 �F te. r, T su cu O y -, �• • ,3 ism Z T ���yJ m _ -� ».C�C� ,�(,' z�� �`''''-',,v,'' d 1Rt ., f c .—, Lam., Q o , �'�`i ,,,,-7 ,-,,,,,,-',.,!,-i.,.-•,- , t,t r E r § t . p a Ccs LLr II I. ft:Tey > ' t, r; , as Lr ti it 11,0. `- '. r � ��`•'' '. ,'.'4151 1.""#`, CO ; ' o �' # thew . Ffxrt° "'R N*? �tt'...C.:.*:'''.'';''..',._ FX f. } ,� � YlG # �1 « , � p i is «es11.a w. `,' �'t-`t# * G44 3 b .. `' 'It n U i. rc''Jx =i 'c bIrtd' ,£:,--r jot' .i.! 8� J • ( £a,Fs R P:V9845 Clam BayVOraw gs'SHEEi1MANATEE-SlGNS‘2013 MANATEE_SIGNS.dvq MANATEE ZONES 2/18/2014 RANDI.JONES Pathways in Pelican Bay maintained by the County Between May 29 and June 6 I walked all the pathways in Pelican Bay maintained by the County. Among my observations: • The most unsafe area consists of two sunken sections of concrete sidewalk adjacent to the commercial area on the east side of Oakmont Parkway entering the parking lot at MarketPlace. The current condition presents a significant tripping hazard. The County has placed a sign there indicating that it will be repaired. • The pathways on Pelican Bay Blvd., resurfaced several years ago, are in good condition. The County has placed signs in selected areas indicating repairs will be made. • The pathways on Gulf Park, North Pointe, Ridgewood, Lauarel Oak. and Myra Janko Daniels are in relatively good condition. The County has placed signs in selected areas indicating repairs will be made. • The pathways on Hammock Oak were recently repaired in selected areas, and some of the repairs were not well done. • It appears the County has not recently evaluated the pathways on Glenview Place and Crayton Road because each pathway has at least one area needing repair and there are no signs indicating repairs will be made. • The two pathways in the worst overall condition are on Greentree, north of Oakmont, and Ridgewood adjacent to Artis-Naples, both areas with relatively high pedestrian volume. Additional repairs are scheduled on both pathways, but it may be more effective to resurface the pathways rather than repair them. Recent repairs on the pathway adjacent to Artis-Naples were not well done. • The pathway on North Point adjacent to Bay Colony appears to lack regular maintenance, as evidenced by tire marks from trucks adjacent to the pathway and mulch and litter on parts of the pathway. This section of the pathway may need attention from both PBSD and Bay Colony to improve its overall appearance. • During my hours of walking I met fewer than five pedestrians and no bicyclists on the pathways. Suggestions: • If PBSD does not have an employee who regularly inspects the pathways,communicates his or her observations to the County's representative who schedules repairs and/or resurfacing of the pathways, and assists the County to make certain that repairs are completed in an acceptable manner, ask PBSD's administrator to assign this responsibility to an employee. (It could be done like collecting water samples from Clam Bay is done, i.e. field workers who were trained and spend part of a day or two each month collecting water samples in lieu of their regular duties.) • If the County is planning to do repair work on pathways and PBSD prefers resurfacing all or part of a pathway, consider cost-sharing with the County so the pathways meet PBSD expectations. Prepared by Susan O'Brien,June 7, 2017 PBSD FY17 nonsupervisory landscaping worker costsl County nonsupervisory landscaping workers(12.40 FTE) $421,435 Salary 110,000 Overtime 33,440 Social security 33,780 Retirement 162,440 Health insurance 6076 Dental insurance 1116 Short-term disability 2356 Long-term disability 2000 Deferred compensation 1053 Vacation sell-back 12,653 Salary adjustment 23,667 Workmen's compensation 1218 Life insurance $811,234 Total Summary: $421,435 Salary($33,987 average per worker) 279,799 Benefits/charges($22,564 average per worker) 110,000 Overtime2 ($8871 average per worker) $65,422 Average cost of nonsupervisory landscaping worker in FY17 $67,159 Estimated average cost of nonsupervisory landscaping worker in FY18 (with County 3%increase for salary and overtime and estimated 2%increase in benefits) Temporary landscaping workers in FY17 (15.5FTE) $421,725 Estimated cost for 40 hours per week 140,575 Estimated cost for 8 overtime hours per week $ 562,300 Total $36,277 Average cost per temporary landscaping worker Budgeted cost of overtime in FY17: $250,575 Other The Cost Savings Strategies Committee reported that Bonita Bay and Pelican Marsh use overtime only in special circumstances and that their benefit packages are not as robust as the County's. Updated by Susan O'Brien,June 7, 2017 1 Data from FY17 Approved Budget distributed to PBSD Board members 2 Nonsupervisory landscaping workers typically work 10-hour days Monday through Thursday and 8 hours of overtime on Fridays.