The URL can be used to link to this page

CAC Agenda 09/08/2011 R CAC MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8,2011 -1:00 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS THIRD FLOOR, COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES · Sunshine Law on Agenda Questions · PUBLIC NOTICE I. Call to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Roll Call IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda V. Public Comments VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. May 12,2011 2. June 9, 2011 VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report 2. Project Cost Report 3. Clam Bay Marker Permit Update - USACE Letter 4. Beach Easement Executive Summary 5. Report on Clam Bay Water Quality a. Backup Material 6. Long Range Fund Requests with FDEP 7. Captiva/Collier Combination Project a. Additional Backup 8. Critical Erosion Designation for Clam Pass 9. Lee County Renourishment - Update 10. Wiggins Pass Straightening - Update 11. Fund 195 Spending Analysis 12. FEMA Fay Update and Revision Timing 13. Sensitivity Analysis VIII. New Business 1. Collier Bay Dredging Approval 2. Conceptual Plan Approval - Marco South Renourishment a. Backup Material 3. Catagory "A" Ordinance Changes 4. RFP Engineering Consultants 5. CEC Proposal for Marco South Beach Renourishment Design/Permitting 6. CEC Proposal for Construction, Addministration Collier Creek - $18,650 7. CEC Proposal for Processing JCP Application for Marco South IX. Old Business X. Announcements 1. Mr. Pires - 10-year Service Award XI. Committee Member Discussion XII. Next Meeting Date/Location October 13,2011 Government Center, 3rd Floor XIII. Adjournment All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board prior to the meeting if applicable. For more information, please contact Gail D. Hambright at (239) 252-2966. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department at 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252-8380. Public comments will be limited to 3 minutes unless the Chairman grants permission for additional time. GAG September 8, 2011 VI-1 Approval of GAG minutes 1 of 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to review and re-approve the May 12, 2011 CAC Minutes with revisions. OBJECTIVE: revisions. To review and re-approve the May 12, 2011 CAC Minutes with CONSIDERATIONS: At the June 9, 2011 CAC meeting the minutes of the CAC May 12, 2011 meeting was approved 7 to 0 with the following changes: Page 4, paragraph 7, line 3 - from "Carried unanimously 7 "yes - 1 "no." to "Motion carried 7 "yes" - 1 "no." The following error in the minutes have been noted and need to be reviewed and re- approved by the CAC vote: On Page 4 of the May 12, 2011 minutes under 1. Reaulatorv and Permit Compliance: Grant approval for "Beach Tilling" was added twice. The first one is correct where approval was Second by Mr. Rios. The following vote and approval was omitted from the minutes: Under.L Reaulatorv and Permit Compliance: Mr. Pires moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $30,000 for the "Biological Monitoring Collier County 90033." Second by Mr. Moity. Carried unanimously 8-0. FISCAL IMPACT: The Source of funds is from Category "A" Tourist Development Tax. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office and is legally sufficient for Board action. - CMG RECOMMENDATION: To approve the May 12, 2011 minutes with the following changes: 1) Striking the 2nd Grant approval for Beach Tilling; 2) Add - Mr. Pires moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $30,000 for the "Biological Monitoring Collier County 90033." Second by Mr. Moity. Carried unanimously 8-0. PREPARED BY: Gail Hambright, CAC Accountant GAG September 8, 2011 VI-1 Approval of GAG minutes 2 of? MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, May 12,2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business Herein, met on this date at 1 :00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Randy Moity Jim Burke Murray Hendel Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios Wayne Waldack (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples GAG September 8, 2011 VI-1 Approval of GAG minutes 3 of 7 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view online. I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1 :02 PM II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 8 - O. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. April 14, 2011 Mr. Raymond moved to approve the minutes of the April 14, 2011 Meeting. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8- O. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report - Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report - FY 201 0 - 2011 " updated through April 2011. 2. Project Cost Report - Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 201 0/2011 TDC Category "A n Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through May 6, 2011. 3. Backup Tallahassee Report Gary McAlpin provided the following documents for information purposes: . Letter to Hershel T. Vinyard, Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection dated April 5, 2011 - Re: "Collier County FDEP Permitting Discussion. n . Email string between himself and Jeff Littlejohn, Florida Department of Environmental Protection dated April 29, 2011 - Subject: "WJPJ Channel Dimension Comparison. " . Letter to Mike Barnett, Bureau Chief, Florida Department of Environmental Protection dated March 18,2011 - Re: "Wiggin's Pass long- term inlet plan and permit application. n GAG September 8,2011 VI-1 Approval of GAG minutes 4 of? . Letter to Mike Barnett, Bureau Chief, Florida Department of Environmental Protection dated April 13, 2011 - Re: "Wiggin's Pass Telephone Conference April 5,2011 and Wiggin's Pass long-term inlet plan and permit application memo dated 3/18/2011. n He reported on a meeting he and Chairman Sorey had with Mr. Vinyard and Governor Rick Scott. Speakers Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida VIII. New Business 1. Conceptual Design Update CP&E Gary McAlpin provided the document "Draft - Collier County Conceptual Renourishment Project Analysis n prepared by Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. Boca Raton, FL - May 2011 for information purposes. The Committee recommended the title of the study be renamed to identify the project area as "Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples Beaches" (or similar wording) as opposed to "Collier County. " It was noted the document will be reviewed in a future meeting. 2. 19510 Year Plan Gary McAlpin provided the document "TDC Category "A" 195 Fund Projections" for consideration. The Committee requested staffreview the "Interest Income" row under the Revenue Category to ensure it is accurately depicted in the document. Mr. Moreland moved to approve the "TDC Category "A" 195 Fund Projection" document subject to the Committee's above request. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 8 - O. 3. Fiscal Year 11/12 Proposed Budget Gary McAlpin provided the document "FY1l/12 -195 Fund Budget and Analysis - Rev. 1 " dated May 12, 2011 for consideration. Mr. Rios moved to approve the "FY11/12 -195 Fund Budget and Analysis- Rev. 1 " dated May 12,2011 subject to the approvals in item VIIL4 (Grant Funding). Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 8 - O. 4. Fiscal Year 11/12 Grant Applications a. Backup Material GAG September 8,2011 VI-1 Approval of GAG minutes 5 of? Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Share TDC Category "A: Grant Applications from the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island and Collier County for FY-1l/12" dated May 12, 2011 and related backup material for consideration. Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation provided a copy of an email from himself to John Sorey dated May 02,2011 - Subject: "Sea Turtle Monitoring" for information purposes. He provided an overview of the Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. Speaker David Addison The Committee approved the following grant requests from the Executive Summary as listed below: 1. Re2ulatorv and Permit Compliance Mr. Moreland moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $163,000 for the "Sea Turtle Protection Program - Collier County." Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 7 'yes" -1 "no." Mr. Pires voted "no." Mr. Pires moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $17,500 for the "Beach Tilling - Collier County 081071." Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8 - O. Mr. Pires moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $260,000 for the "Physical Beach & Pass Monitoring Collier County Beaches - 90536." Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 7 'yes" -1 "no." Mr. Hendel voted "no. " The Committee requested staff, for budgetary planning purposes, prepare a report for Committee review on prioritization of Coastal Zone Management projects. Mr. Pires moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $17,500 for the "Beach Tilling - Collier County 081071." Second by Mr. Moity. Carried unanimously 8 - O. 2. Planned Projects Mr. Moreland moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $50,000 for the "Wiggin's Pass Maintenance Program - Engineering - 90522. " Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8 - O. Mr. Pires moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $350,000 for the "Emergency Truck Haul- Vistas at Park Shore - 88030" subject to its' GAG September 8, 2011 VI-1 Approval of GAG minutes 6 of? being renamed "Truck Haul- Vistas at Park Shore - 88030." Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 - O. Mr. Pires moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $600,000 for the "FY12/13 Beach Design and Permit with HS Solutions - 80096" subject to its' be renamed "FY11/12 Beach Design and Permit with HS Solutions- 80096." Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 - O. Mr. Moity moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $300,000 for the "MI Renourish Deign & Permit with BW Solutions - 80166." Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8 - O. Mr. Moity moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $20,000 for the "Laser Grading North Marco Beach (R133-141)." Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8 - O. Mr. Rios moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $25,000 for the "Tigertail Beach Refurbishment." Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8 - O. 3. Beach Maintenance Mr. Moreland moved to approve the following grant requests ($341,950 total): . Beach Maintenance - Collier County/Marco Island - 90533 - $135,100 . Beach Maintenance - City of Naples - 90527 - $76,850 · Vegetation Repairs/Exotic Removal- County Wide - 90044 - $75,000 · Naples Pier Annualized Repair & Maintenance - City of Naples - 90096 - $55,000 Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 - O. 4. Administration Fees Mr. Pires moved to approve thefollowing grant requests ($727,500 total): . Fund 195 and 183 Administration - Collier County - 90020 - $510,500 · Indirect Administration Costs - $107,700 . Tax Collector Fees (2.5%) - $109,300 Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 8 - O. 5. Other Expenses Mr. Rios moved to approve the following grant requests ($20,843,600): · Renourishment and Emergency Reserves - $17,000,000 . Revenue Reserve (5%) - $218,600 . Category D Pier Reserve - $79,000 · Reservefor Contingency Totals - $146,000 . Reservefor FDEP Reimbursement- $3,400,000 Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously 8 - O. CAC September 8, 2011 VI-1 Approval of CAC minutes 7 of 7 5. Summer Schedule Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Determine summer schedule for CAC Meetings" dated May 12,2011 for consideration. Mr. Rios moved to cancel the regularly scheduled July meeting of the Coastal Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8 - O. 6. Chair and Vice-Chair Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman" dated May 12,2011 for consideration. Mr. Hendel moved to appoint John Sorey, III as Chairman and Tony Pires as Vice-Chairman of the Coastal Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8 - O. IX. Old Business None X. Announcements The Clam Bay Stakeholders will meet on May 17, 2011. XI. Committee Member Discussion Mr. Moreland reported Commissioner Coletta will be touring Wiggin's Pass on June 6, 2011. Mr. Hendel reported he toured Wiggin's Pass. XII. Next Meeting Date/Location June 9, 2011- Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 2:44 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee John Sorey, III, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended CAC September 8, 2011 VI-2 Approval of CAC minutes 1 of6 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, June 9, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business Herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III Anthony Pires Randy Moity Jim Burke Murray Hendel (Excused) Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios Wayne Waldack ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant CAC September 8, 2011 VI-2 Approval of CAC minutes 2of6 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view online. I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1 :02 P.M. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Moreland moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 7 - O. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. May 12, 2011 Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes of the May 12,2011 meeting subject to the following change: . Page 4, paragraph 7, line 3 - from "Carried unanimously 7 "yes - 1 "no." to "Motion carried 7 "yes" -1 "no." Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 7 - 0." The Committee directed staff to prepare a sensitivity analysis for the purposes of analyzing revenue reductions (-10%, -20% and - 30%) for the department and place it on the agenda for their review. VII. Staff Reports Mr. Burke arrived at 1:10 p.m. 1. Expanded Revenue Report - Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report - FY 201 0 - 2011" updated through May, 2011. 2. Project Cost Report - Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 201 0/2011 TDC Category A: Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through June 1,2011. VIII. New Business The Committee determined to hear Items in the order as 4, 5, 2, 3 and 1. CAC September 8, 2011 VI-2 Approval of CAC minutes 3of6 4. Clam Bay Markers a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to endorse the recommendation of the Clam Bay work group and the coastal installation and maintenance of the Clam Pass/Bay markers; and authorize staff to proceed with Florida Wildlife Commission (FWC); United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP); and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) permitting" dated June 9, 2011. The Executive Summary contained 4 options for the installation and maintenance of the proposed markers in Clam Pass/Bay. He noted Ernest Wu, Seagate Homeowners Association has submitted an email dated June 9, 2011 with related attachments on the Item- "Subject.' Clam Bay Markers at today's CAC meeting" which has been distributed to the Committee. Speakers Noreen Murray, Pelican Bay Resident. Ernie Wu, Seagate Homeowners Association. Jeff Fridkin, Attorney for Seagate, Homeowners Association. Steve Feldhaus, Pelican Bay Foundation. Keith Dallas, Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Mr. Burke moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners implement Option #1 for the installation and marking of the system: (as follows). 1. Develop a written agreement between the four key stakeholders of Clam Pass/Bay. The Pelican Bay Services Division, the Pelican Bay Foundation, the City of Naples and Collier County would be parties to this agreement with the following key points: . Any changes to the permitted marking plan within Clam Pass/Bay would need to be reviewed and concurrence obtained by three of the four parties. . Each party would share one-fourth of the installation costs and maintenance cost for the next 10 years. Installation costs are expected to be less than $20,000 and yearly maintenance is expected to be less than $500. . This agreement would last for 10 years and could be extended with concurrence from each agency. . Ifa dispute arose, an affirmative action of three ofthefour parties would be required to resolve it. Dispute resolution would be by the Chairman or designee of each respective agency. . Coastal Zone Management would take the lead in processing the permit modification for all 33 markers. The permit would be modified and issued in Collier County's name only. CAC September 8, 2011 VI-2 Approval of CAC minutes 4of6 . Installation and maintenance of the 12 new markers in Outer/Lower Clam Pass/Bay would be by Coastal Zone Management. Maintenance of the 21 markers in Middle and Upper Clam Bay would be performed and paid for by the Pelican Bay Services Division. Informational signage on the beach at the mouth of Clam Pass, at Clam Pass County Park, at the park walkway to the beach, on the bridge, in the parking lot and at the kayak launch site will be the responsibility of Coastal Zone Management. All other poles and markers that are not permitted would be removed from the system. Second by Mr. Moreland. Motion carried 6 'yes" - 2 "no." Mr. Pires and Mr. Rios voted "no. " Mr. Pires stated he supports the Pelican Bay Services MSTU as the permittee. Mr. Rios opposed on "principle." 5. Wiggins Pass a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to award Contract #10-5572 for Wiggins Pass Channel Straightening - Design and Permitting to Coastal Planning and Engineering (CP&E) and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract after County Attorney approval in the amount of $177,489" dated June 9, 2011. Mr. Moreland, Chairman ofthe Wiggins Pass Subcommittee provided an overview on the economic impact the pass has on County properties values and related tax revenue. Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners award Contract #10-5572 for Wiggins Pass Channel Straightening - Design and Permitting to Coastal Planning and Engineering (CP&E) and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract in the amount of$177,489" dated June 9, 2011. Second by Mr. Burke. Motion carried 7 'yes" -1 "no." Mr. Pires voted "no. " Break: 2:30p.m. Reconvened: 2:42 p.m. 2. H&M - Inlets Annual Monitoring Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve Humiston & Moore Engineers proposal for Collier County Beaches and Inlets Annual Monitoringfor 2011 and 2012 under Contract #08-5124 for a not to exceed amount of $183,367.50" dated June 9, 2011. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney requested the Coastal Advisory Committee recommend the contract be approved subject to approval by the County CAC September 8, 2011 VI-2 Approval of CAC minutes 5of6 Attorney's Office and Board of County Commissioners on its conformance with any County Purchasing Policies or other legal requirements. Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve Humiston & Moore Engineers proposal for Collier County Beaches and Inlets Annual Monitoringfor 2011 and 2012 under Contract #08-5124 for a not to exceed amount of$183,367.50 subject to Ms. Greene's above request. Second by Mr. Waldack. Carried unanimously 8 - O. 3. Conceptual Design Update-Coastal Engineering-Marco South Beaches Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Provide the CAC with a conceptual design update for Marco South beach along with the Emergency Dredging at Collier Creek" dated June 9, 2011 copy of the slideshows "Collier Bay Entrance Channel Emergency Dredging Update - Coastal Advisory Committee" and "Marco Island South Beach Update - Coastal Advisory Committee" dated June 9, 2011 and provided an update on the projects. 1. Conceptual Design Update CP&E - Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples Beaches a. Conceptual Engineering Report Gary McAlpin presented the document "Draft Collier County Conceptual Renourishment Project Analysis" for information purposes. Steve Keehn, P. E., Coastal Planning and Engineering presented a slideshow "Collier County Conceptual Engineering Report" for information purposes. He noted page 9 of 19 of the "Collier County Conceptual Engineering Report" outlines 4 alternatives (Alt. 1,2, 2A and 3) formajorrenourishment of the beaches. The Committee determined Alternative 2A or 3 would be the most optimal for consideration. IX. Old Business 1. Beach Funding Update Chairman Sorey stressed the importance of maintaining beaches to a high quality as visitor responses to questionnaires indicate a major reason people visit the area is due to the high quality of the beaches. X. Announcements None XI. Committee Member Discussion None XII. Next Meeting Date/Location August 11, 2011 - Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor CAC September 8, 2011 VI-2 Approval of CAe minutes 6of6 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 3:50 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee John Sorey, III, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended ~ o N 00'" ~t aJ 0 .00. E aJ aJ~ -:t:: 0.", aJ_ (J)CJ)~ u~..... <(_0 u>~ ..- ..- o N I o ..- o N >- u.. 1:: o c.. Cll a::: Cll ::l c: Cll > Cll a::: >< III I- ..... III .;: ::l o I- c ,2 1:> .. "e 0.. t;J:::~~~g~~mi cn'f""~'I'""""'NO""'''''' . . . . . . . . .. ~ cnN~ONN"l:tcn"'" OMO"'ltNMN.....C"') ..........or-ocncoooo.. M-";M~M~NNf"'fC"f";: ~~~~~~~~:;. ~ t;r:::~~~~~:g-N :i cn't"""l:tco ~ _~~N~~ "i:: cn-N-..,;............." 0 N:~ I'G II)CIOII)~~N~:'~ > ...........,.-'!:!.~--- ftj " 1:> <C ftj " c c <C .. .~ ;; :; E E " () [t;~~~~2;;_!_~_E_ :-S~-~-~;:::-~ ~ ~ ~ t; ......GO.. 00.. ~ ''It;, 0.. ~..~..~..~ ...z:;~~~~~~:;;Z;; :;! ..; .... '" ::! ... f- 1U Ol " " '" ftj " c c <C .. .~ ;; :; E E " () ggggggg~~~~g cnClOCDCDMO"", .......... :f~gfri~~:;3~~:~ "It 0 I'-- co 11)"'" 0 .. .. .. .. .. .,.~;~~~:~;;~~ o o o o ... o ~ ... .. " c .. 'I: .. > In ~ ~~~ i~ en: en:J ~N..~~~~..~..~..o..:g co.. ~~~~::~~~~~~ ........._--e-.....-..... ..... ftj " 1:> <C ,., fi c o :; t;2:~~~i~~m; 00'1'""0 ........ ..CD........... .... ..cn.... CD CD CD ....-0 ClC)II)OOONCDW)ocno..... .....NII)OCDOr.nMU).....M ~~~~~~~~~~t; :;! ",' .... '" ::! ... 1U Ol " " '" ,., fi c o :IE gggggggggggg en cn co o..t-:.I"':,""'.."""_U)...... en CD ~"s~~ ~;: ~ ~ :;f;!~"~" "ltCD,... ........ ..CCU)CD<il:t ...............:;:;~~:;t,4.............. o o o o "' o ~ ... 1U Ol " " 0 '" N~=~~~~:;:~~N~ 0 ftj .,; " M~.oo:i~~~~cD.nlli,..; := I: c <C .... <II 00 - ftj ., 0"'""...._:: '1'""'11""" ~ 9 ~!~~~~=::::::~~ .... 0 :S~~~2=a~~~&i >- LL g~~~~::i<:E-'-'~i Z C Ul ~ ;; N cO!/) ~t aJ 0 .00. E aJ aJa: -lI= 0.", aJ_ Cf)(f)r;:. O~..... <(=0 O>N \.[) If) N rl CO N r-- (") rl CO 0 rl ,...; \.[) \.[) \.[) 0 ,...; ~ r-- UJ If) UJ r-- UJ m Cf2 \.[) UJ UJ \.[) .....; r-- ,..:; \.[) ,..:; ...:1 CO .....; ("') ~ ~ r-- I':( N <<: m <<: <<: I':( (") \.[) ri E-< (") E-< ('J E-i E-< ::-. \.[) E-< E-< N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri E-< E-< ~ E-< E-< E-< E-< ru c.9 "" "" "" "" "" "" 0.. I':( ru fil fil fil fil fil fil "" UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ N m ["- r-- m <1' c.9 rl c.9 m c.9 ,...; c.9 (") ~ r-- c.9 c.9 <1' :::J N :::J If) :::J If) :::J N :< ri :::J :::J r-- I':( ,...; <<: 0 <l; <l; ~1 (") I':( <<: 0 '" rl r, ("') ri N (") ["- >< t-; M N 0 ~ 0 m H ...::i ~ ,..:; rl ,..:; m ,..:; L'1 , ~ ["- ,..:; ,..:; \.[) U :::J ri :::J <1' :::J m :::J 0 """' ,...; :::J :::J ["- >-:> 0 >-:> N >-:> ., ~ I >-:> N ':> >-:> m >< If) m (") ["- >Xl ri rl ,..-, \.[) E-< ~ \.[) 0 0 0 r- (") 0 Z ~ , Z N Z ~ Z r-- S 0 z z OJ "" :::J M :::J M :::J <:l' :::J OJ r- I :::J :::J \.[) fil ':> 0 ':> 0 >-:> ':> \.[) ':> N ':> ':> 0 p:: ri ,...; N If) N N '" ~ CO n '" '" r::; '" >< \.[) '" <Xl r-- >< ["- (") ri >< rl '" >< <:l' >< M E-< >< <:l' >< ~ 0 >< ~ If) <:: 0 :< \.[) I I':( m H I':( <Xl E-< M I':( ["- ;;;:; '" 0 ;;;:; M '" ;;;:; U :E 0 S m :E :E \.[) :>< <:l' ~ \.[) '" ,-; I (") en <:: M M UJ 0 \.[) M E-< oj< ,..:; fil fil U '" ,-; '" UJ fil ~ '" '" E-< N H 0"\ ~ <Xl 0 ~ \0 '" ~'1 UJ [J) ~ 0 0:: rl 0:: N ,..:; ~ .-i fil 0:: 0 0:: UJ ~ \.[) H fil "" ~ 0 "" 0 I><: "" J\ c.9 0.. N f-:' "" ~ ~ "" ...:1 "" m ~ ,..:; <:: 0 u I':( ri 0 I':( 0:: ,:l; r-- >--' ,:l; r-- fil ,:l; <:: I':( \.[) :::J "" N ~ r-- :E fil rl ...:1 If) ::c ::-. \.[) 0 I':( \.[) If) :E :> 0 M ::-. 0 If) E-< Z :E H fil U ,...; 0 E-< N >< '" ["- oj< m '" <Xl oj< 0 oj< 0 '" oj< <:l' H oj< ~ N oj< ~ N oj< ~ \.[) oj< ~ ,...; ojXl \.[) >Xl M >Xl <:l' >Xl N III \0 >Xl III N , fil N fil \.[) fil \.[) fil 0 fil ["- fil fil M .....; ,..:; Ii, m Ii, ~ Ii, Ii, 0 Ii, M Ii, Ii, rl Co \.0 0 ,...; rl 0 U <:l' M CO I \.[) rl M r" m \.[) ["- CO Z en Z CO Z .;< Z N ~ <Xl ~ Z ;=; If) <( CO <:: \.[) <( \.[) CO <:: ["- ~ >-:> CD ':> '":J ["- ':> '" , >-:> >-:> m m m 0 I 0 N ri If) 0 ["- m \.[) r-- m CJ ~ I U <:l' U (") U N I U rl U U \0 .-< fil m fil l!1 ! fil \0 fil r" fil \.0 fil ~ 0 rl 0 ["- n l1) 0 0 \.[) I P m 0 p CO 0 CO I r-- L'1 If) N N rl (") r-- " rl CO (") \.0 CO rl CO 0 " :> N :> (X) :> r-- ! :> rl :> (") :> :> N cr, 0 m I 0 r-- 0 <:l' 0 0 0 m 0 0 ,...; CO :z ", :z m :z :z If) :z '<l' :z :z L() ~ \0 0 N rl rl M \.0 P 0:: r-- '<l' If) 0 rl ["- CO <1' t If) ~ N E--< ["- E-< \0 E--< H en N U N OJ U \.[) U N U 00 U " OJ <", ::J ["- 0 m 0 0 ("') 0 r-- 0 (5 CO C 0 ~ r-- D:J rl N <:l' OJ ~ o N ~~ 2~ E <l) <l)O:: ~~ (j)(j)~ u~_ <l::= 0 U><'? rl rIl cry ~ 0. rIl 0. >< ~ Z ::J o U U ~ >< {II ~ i:4 o 0. rIl ~ >< ~ r:H' :s E-H< >< [,-; 'Z rIl :><::scr: ~[,-;p, E-<~~ ho. in~ H ~oj( ::Joj(~ o ~ E-- :E ;>; [,-; g '--' o {II U rIl ~ cr: CD H ~ >-< o Z U .c:; J-J U rl CD ,..., ~ CO N "- ,-; o "- > m C o Z ,..., ~ o h r'1 U r'1 C ~ CiI {II (j) ., ~ [,-; ~ 0. CD (j) S2 ~ ...:i ::J '-:> ~ '-:> r- 0) l~ I '.t) G o "", ,-; G\ e- OJ \.0 o r- N o o r'1 r'1 lJ") lJ") lJ") "" m ,-; M L1i ['1 o OJ "" lJ") G\ <;j' (\j I co rll o rl o \.D N r'1 rl ' ,..., rl (j) ~ [,-; C [,-; p, CD (j) CJ ::J ~ ...:i ::J '-:> ~ '"J oj( >< " ~ B H Z H :scr: 00. Q< Z o U " oj( ~ :2 {II CD ~ ~ l":i U rIl ~ G > ri o rl Z OJ rl rl [,-; LO U !J) C "" CO ,.., G \.D e- G ,.., rl CO e- N aJ ,.., rl aJ G\ e- rr, \.D ~ ~ 2 C\J. .;: '..J r'1 ::.::: ~ "" 0. Cl) i..........;:>1 ~:~~ lJ") ,''- IQ :~ mlO e-Icr:cr: OICJp, Nlo.~ CDI:S "l'1.c:; IU I aJ 1 " ~:" ~ ("l') I NI 1 1 m' \.01 \01 rll 0'. 1 I 1 I lJ")1 OJ 1 e-I (') \0 OJ o N o (') CfJ .c:; E-< o [,-; 0. CiI (j) B ~ ...:1 ::J '"J {II CD ~ ~ l":i \D U m riI N ~ lJ") N > 0 o rl Z (') (') E-< 0 U G\ o rl co 11") m \0 N rl ,..., "l' "l' (') LO (') e- rl CD Z G\ ::J (') '-::J (') rl ,,>< o ,,< e- ::;: ...:1 CD IH '0 COtZ N ,--"cr: 01...:10. 01 CiI< <1' E-< o :I: r- lJ") "l' lJ") N m rl '" CO rl lJ") en o '<I' ,-; CQ :2 [,-; o E-< 0. CD (j) CJ b ~ S I-J " " ~ :2 j]) riI ~ ~ I-J en U lJ") CD \D ~ G\ (') > N o \D Z lJ") ~') lJ") \D E-< lJ") v "" o (') (') (') rl r- iJ'. \0 0'\ o 0', If) e- N ..., ,.., CD m rl (') e- \D lJ") lJ") co N e- r'1 r- r- (') CD N f') rl rl o ,.., o r- CO ~') rl en N co If) ,.., (') rl '<1" o L!) r'1 If) m .q< e- rl ~; OJ \,0 rl \,0 c.g ~ E-< o [,-; p, CiI (j) CJ b ~ >-< ::J I-J Z b I-J ;;: :s " " ...:i <1; >cr: cr:p, r.LI< h Z H " oj( cr: < :s j]) CD ~ ~ I-J U r.LI ~ > o Z h U o o CO N r- e- rl N "l' lJ") .q< ,..., \D co "l' \,0 o "l' l!1 CD rl ::.::: ~ ~~ CO :<: ~l~ :<: 9 ..... N l!1 ..., r- N l!1 e- N N N r- 0;< j]) M CiI r- ~ rl en N Z o I ~ CO l":i r-l CD N <;j' M ,.., CD r-l CO l!1 <;j' "l' <1' e- (j) ...:i < E-< o f-f 0. CD (j) CJ ~, :;: ...:i ::J I-J ~ '"J " " r.LIcr: ...:io. H~ j]) o :s " " ~ :E U W ~ > o Z E-, ['-> Z OJ ::J I-J " N " m >< \0 ><< rl ...:i:E 'H ~ ~ M <;j' Wcr: e- ...:io. l!1 CJ~ Z H (j) 0", iC OJ -Ie ~ ~ I ~ l!1 m OJ M o '" m r, r- ..... <;j' ri l.I)1 o r-' N L!) r'1 (j) ...:i ~ E-< o 1:-', p, W (j) "0 ~ >-< ~ j]) W ~ ~ I-J U CD ,..., ..... o Z h U o M N <;j' o e- M r- N If) o N N N \0 en NJ en "" '" N ..., N ()', en e- N r- CD M \.l) N rl N <;j' M o '" CD N CD o N ,.., r-l o VI M en ri \D 1 N rll m CO 0', m rl CO 0\ ,-; M (/] 0 ...:i rl ~ m I:-' e- O ['1 E-< e- rl P, IiJ (/] o b ~ ...:1 ::J I-J g '--' '-:: >< < :2 " " ~ O~ E-<o. -~ ~ CiI cr: " ..~ ~ :E j]) r:a ~ Z .c:; t""J U r.LI ~ > o Z [,-; U o 1 1 1 I 1 L!) I' e-I NI NI CD I l!1 ,.., I1i \.l) M en ;; ~ rr'J ~ '" o ~ ~ m .. ,-j " (Y) ~ o ~o. ;:::':;:< M ~ o lJ") '" ..., N CO (Y) .. .. ~ :E o \JJ lJ") o '" '" m ro rl UI CO ,-I e- \.l) M \.D \.D M rl lJ") ,-; r'1 r- L{) o ro rl (/] ~ H o E-< 0. ~ (/] TO :J < ~ ~ j]) r:a ~ Z .c:; '"J U CiI Q > o Z h U o (/] ~ h o [,-; 01 ,-I ,-I CD r- CD N ,-I 0. W (/] CJ ~ <;j' 0;< r- o M r- ...:i ::J '-::J m CD e- O", e- In ~ I-J M 00 \.D o lJ") ro ,-I ~ L!) e- CD l!1 (Y) ,-j l!1 \.l) m \.D \,0 I1i N '" ,-j ..., CD N o N " I" CIl~ ...:io. <1;< E-< o [,-; .. .. ~ :2 a:J r:a ~ N N M rl o \.D ..., z .c:; I-J ro rl r' O", o o rl U til ~ m \JJ o o lJ") r- > o Z o N rl LI1 0l \.D h U o e- l!1 ro OJ e- <1' '" ... DO \D \D DO 0 0 <I DO 0 .... \D \D ... .... ~ I- ... .... .... .... 0 ...."l. c; 0 .... ,..: .; 0 ui' 'DO I- ....\D N :=. ." ." .... en ." ........ .... ." .... .... ... ... , cO'" a: rrl rrl rrl rrl rrl rrl .... ~t :5 .... <1> 0 > .00. E <1> <1>0:: II '" "' m "' '" ." DO -:::: ~ '" '" '" "' DO c.", '" " " '" <1>_ ~~ ",' ~~ g a' ....' C/)C/)~ ;:; \D ~~o '" '" '" '" '" \D U>-q- "' ~ M ~ '" '" \D II ." '" :g '" M .... '" 0 en '" a a a ~ ~ ~ ri rtl DO <Il- '" :e '" m en m ... .... ~I '" m M 0 ;:; ." "' '" '" en 0 ~ ~ ",' g ~ ~ ....' ~ .... .... \D M " ~ ~ ~ "' en ~I M '" ;;; 0 "' en en en' ~' ",' ~' ~' ~' ~' ... :::l 0 '" '" '" '" '" '" ....' .... M ~ ~ ~ '" ~ .... ~ en \D ~I '" 0 ,..: a 0' R ~' d .... & ;;; \D '" '" .... X <Il- ~ .... .... Vl en '" " ~ ~ '" ." ii: ~I :;: en ~ 0 .... m "' '" v> ::l g 6 ",' ~' g :::l' ... '" "' 0 ~ ~ J. ~ en .... ~I ri ~ Z rtl ::l " '" ;; M ~ " \D 0 il ;::j ~ '" '" .... 0 m M ....' U 6 en' C;' ~ a a ." c:: ~ Et ~ DO LU '" ...' :::i -' 0 U rtl II ~ "' " "' "' 0 DO 0 ". 00 0 "' .... en " " en '" '" .; a a ",' 6 m' ~' DO * Et " ." J. J. ...' ." II 0 " M G; '" m .... ~ :::. m 00 '" en " "' '" '" ri ~ ~ ",' ~' ",' ~' .... ~ ~ ... '" '" '" '" .... <Il- II m '" 0 m M M DO en '" ~ " R :::. en rtl en '" '" a 5 a en' ",' ,,' ui' ~ ~ ~ en DO II ~ '" ~ '" '" m rtl ... ;'! ;'\ 0 '" en en " en en' ~ a ~' ,,' ".' ....' ~ ;:; '" .... '" '" ~~ II ". '" " '" " rtl m ." '" '" en m '" ~, .... 00 0 ~, ;:;, 00 a a 0\ ~ ~ ~ o .... ~~ a: '" " 00 en ;; M .. :5 0 0 0 0 M -' > s ~ 0 ~ ~ :::l <( -' ~ --I- et '" " 00 en ;; 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 u: g g g g g gl- '" ... ... 0 00 q- .." q- <1>10 ~t ... 0) 0 > .00. .... " '" N :\ E 0) .. 0 .. 0 0)0:: II 0 0 " " '" .... -:t= ~ '" ~ ~~ ~~ 0 0.", :'l "" 0)- '" '" '" '" '" .... U)CI)~ ... u~_ '" <(=0 u>'" '" .... .... ~ :J. '" '" f,] N '" 10 '" " <Xl '" '" II <Xl' ..' ",' '" a ~ .... ~ ~ ~ E. .... '" LI'I 0 .... '" ~ ::::; :J. '" N ~ <Xl .... 00 <Xl 0 '" " .. a a ~~ ",' ~ N ... :'l ~ LI'I ~I ~ '" '" '" '" 0 ... ...' .... '" ::l <Xl '" ~ '" .... .. 0 00 " <Xl 0 " 0 ....' a 0' ..' ,,' ~~ q- ~I ~ :\ ~ ~ q- ",' '" '" '" '" N 0 .... 0 '" N ~ ~ <Xl 0 " 0 .. "" 0 '" '" "', LI'I ..' ",' ,,' ..' ....' '" "" il ., ., ~ :;:: :l: ~ '" '" '" '" '" '" "'q- '" x ...' ;:: ~ '" .. N ~ ~ t- .. :R '" q- .. N 0 Vl ~~ ~ ",' ~' ~~ a 0 ii: ~I '" 00 '" .. N :J 0 '" '" '" '" '" 10 0 Z 00 <( N t- .... ~ !!! 0 ffi '" '" '" ~ '" z u :\ " .... NLI'I :J a: .. '" ~~ 0, 10 g ~ ",' '" 0 <( il ~ '" ~~ u :E ~ .. '" "'10 c:: "" UJ N :::i ....I 0 ~ <Xl '" 0 " '" u '" " '" .. ~~ 0 <Xl 0 E '" II ..' ~~ OJ' ..' ~~ ;;; 0 * .. '" '" '" "'N 00 ...' ~ '" 0 '" '" '" N 0 '" .... 0 LI'I 0 0 .. '" '" <Xl II ~ ",' ~' 0' '" a "" E. ~ N "" N '" '" '" ... N .... N .... '" '" '" 0 .... '" .... <Xl .... .. II '" '" a ~ <Xl "', q- ,,' ....' ~ '" 00 :\ :\ E. ~ 0, '" '" "'00 "" .... :\ '" " ~ N '" " ~ N <Xl II .. '" '" ", 00 3' <Xl' ",' ~ ~ '" "" <Xl ~ E: 0 '" '" '" ",,' '" 10 '" " '" ~ ., :J. '" '" ;:! " '" OJ <Xl, ClO II ....' ",' ~ ",' & "'LI'I 1;; 1;; '" ::;"'t '" '" "'LI'I "" LI'I a: '" " OJ '" :;l 0 0 0 0 .:..; > 0 0 ~ f!. ;; .... <( .... ~ "'- .... I- " '" <Xl 0 U 0 0 0 0 ~ f!. 0 '" ~ ~ ~ ~ I- u: 0 ;; ~ ~ ~ o N ~~ OJ 0 .oC>. ~& -::= ar~ (f)(f)';:. O~_ <(=0 O><D x ~ I- ~ cr:: ~ o I- ~ Z ~ o u cr:: LJ..l ::::; ..... o u w W ...J <( '" o ::E ::E ~ <( i3 .... ~ '" :5 .. II II ~I ~I ~I ~I ~I II II II II II '" :5 .. .... <( ~ u: '" 1Il .... 00' .... N " '" ..i '" N o '" vi '" " ~ '" o o <n vi '" <Xl a 5: o ;;i " '" <Xl .... '" '" <Xl '" vi 5: '" ;i '" :;;: .... '" ~ ..., ~ ~- '" N '" ~ '" o S o ~ 1Il .... ID ..... .... <n ..., ~ vi '" ~ '" '" 5: '" '" '" '" vi ~ 3l vi N <Xl <n vi N '" <n vi " :;;: ;;i " '" '" ;i " '" <Xl ~- '" ~ ~- '" '" :;;: ~- '" " o S o ~ 00 1Il ID ...i' .... ~ '" <Xl <Xl ;5t 5: '" '" " <Xl ~ ~ o ..., vi '" o <Xl ;;i ~ ~ <n ;! '" '" * '" ~ '" '" ~ ~ '" ~ <Xl o f!. " o ~ .... 1Il ID 00 <Xl '" ;5t ~ " '" '" '" N ~ ~ '" ;J, '" N ..., <n '" " '" ~ ~- '" <Xl o <Xl '" " N '" <Xl ~ '" ..., ..., '" ~ ;5t <n o ~ 00- o ~ N .... .... 00 NlIl ........ ID"l. ."" ....ID <1><1> '" '" '" '" N 0'1 .... ",,' o " '" '" .... ~ ~ '" ",,' ~ ~ ID ~~ "''''' ~ :;; '" N o .... "''''' ~U; '" ~ '" 00 ".... '" 1Il ~r.D o ~ '" o ~ ~ ~aJ ~ <n '" ID fg ~ t;:;. l..O'" '" '" '" '" o ",00 "'.... ~r.D ~ '" ~ ~ttt '" 1Il * '" m ~ ~u1 ;; ~ N o '" " '" ~ qo'" '" t;; '" 1Il ...,ID NO'l ~M ~ f!. '" o ~ ~ ..:.i ~ <( ~b ~I- ~ 00 II> en ~ .. en II> N ... b <D II> 0 ;; qo en ,... qo en 00 0 .... ... qo' qo' ... en <D ai N ~ ai '" ..0 ai 00 0 0 en en 00 00 00'" 0: ... ... qo ~t:: :5 <1l 0 >- .00. E <1l <1la:: II ... -::::: .-< ~ .-< "- '" en 0.", '" "" '" '" en <1l_ '" '" '" '" 0 ..0 Cf)Cf)~ m ",' ",' ",' ",' '" '" '" '" '" ... ~~o U>,... II ,... N .-< ~ ~ ~ "- qo ~ ~ '" ... "- 0 N 0' ",' .. ",' ",' ",' ",' '" '" '" '" '" '" N <D ~I ~ '" ~ N '" ;;!; N N 0 ~~ 00 '" ~ 0 00 ",' ",' .-< II> ~I 0 '" "" N '" 0 00 r;; '" "" '" ;!; [;; N '" '" 1i ~ ;:1' :i ~ ~ 0' '" qo :'l N "- ~ "- "- qo il '" ~ '" '" 00 '" .-< '" <Xl, <D a ~ a ~ ~' 0 ai .-< II> '" '" "' X <l: l- I- N VI '" 0 0 '" N ~ a: > ~I ::: '" 0 ::; '" II> <Xl <Xl <Xl "'- 0 ~ I- ~ ~' ~ E: a "- .... 0 u '" '" ~~ l- ll> W 1= 0 < z ... ~ \:J 00 0 a: il ~ ~ N ~ '" ~ 0 w '" :2 00 u > 0 w ~ ~ ~ E: & '" ..0 c:r: .-< ,... UJ "' ::; ..... 0 u II '" "- '" '" ::; <D '" <Xl .-< <Xl N en ~ <Xl '" ~ '" 0, 0 ",' ~' ~ a 0 00 '" .-< II> '" "' II ,... .-< .-< ;; "- '" '" en N '" <Xl 0 N N '" '" "- '" "- '" qo' ~ zi zi ~ ~ 1i qo II en '" '" :?2 '" '" '" II> <Xl R ~ 0 N N "- <Xl "- '" 0 ",' ",' ",' 1i :i <D '" '" '" '" l'I'I II <D ~ N ;; '" '" .-< en 0 "- "- .-< l'I'I '" '" '" '" 0 .; m :i ",' ;f, .. '" '" '" '" '" N II 00 '" <Xl ~ '" '" ~ <D ;; "- '" ~ ... '" 0 '" 00 N' ",' ;f, zi zi zi '" '" ... 0: '" "- <Xl '" ~ .-< :5 0 0 0 0 .-< ..:.; >- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::; < ~ ~ I- '" "- <Xl '" 0 l;l 0 0 0 0 0 ;;:: ::; ::; ::; ::; ::; ::; I- ~ o N ~~ Q) 0 .cO- ~~ ~~ U)CI)~ U~_ <(=0 u>oo x ~ I- !!! a: :::l o I- r: Z :::l o U a: LJ..l ::; ..... o u > I- Z :::l o u a: UJ ::; ...J o U ~ <( o I- ~ a: :;'i > II II ~I ~I il ~I ~I II II II II II a: ::! > ... <( u VI ;;: q- '" ..... ..n 00 ..... .rJ <J> N '" '" ~ '" N ~ a o r- '" ~~ '" N r- N '" '" '" '" '" '" '" r-' S '" ~, ~ .-i '" '" ... N ~ '" '" '" r-' '" '" '" ~ ~' '" '" N N ",' '" ~ r- o '" ~' '" i!2 '" w ~ '" o ~ o ~ o q- N .....- o ... ,..: <J> ~ 0> Et r- ~ a ~ ",' ~ ~ '" ~' '" '" r- '" o ~ N N o ",- ::: ...' '" ~ ~' ;;f '" ~ N' '" '" '" ... en '" ~' '" ~ N '" ~ '" '" '" ~. '" ~ ",' '" N '" r- o ~ '" o ~ N ..... ..... ....- ..... N .....' <J> ~ 0' Et '" '" o <f '" ~ ~ N a 00 o '" ",' r- '" '" '" '" o ~ o &i ",' ~ ...; '" ~ r- N' 2 '" ... r- r-' '" '" '" :g o '" ~ & o ~ ",- 00 ;;; gJ '" & '" '" o * ~ r- * ~ 0' '" o ...' '" ... 00 r- g:!' '" '" N ... o ",- '" r- '" '" '" r- ~' '" r- en o ",- a o ;;!; ...; gJ '" '" ~ 0' ~ '" '" o ~ 00 o ~ LIl LIl ..... .rJ '" N .rJ <J> '" '" ... ~ N '" '" '" r- '" ?,l '" r- '" '" N- 00 N ~ m a N '" o * '" '" '" ~' ...; '" '" '" N ~' o ...' '" '" ~ r-- N 00 '" N N '" ~' '" '" ~ * '" '" '" ~' '" ~ :ti' ;;; ~ ~ '" o o N 00 .... 000 o"!. -..... "'.., ..,,,, .., - -.., "'.., <J><J> '" '" .... ,...j' o .., ,...j' <J> 00 ~g ... ' , LIl ~~ '" ' .... <J> ..... o LIl r- .., ... ' ,0 ~~ '" - .... <J> '" r- .... o 00 r- ' , .... N", N.... ~N <J> '" '" LIl o q- '" ' , .... '" ..... m q- "'M <J> N '" LIl ~, ~, ~ :;; vi~ <J> ..... o .... ~f't!.. 00' q- '" '" ~~ ",LIl <J> '" 00 .... '" N "". rr:t' '" .., *~ <J> o r- '" '" '" o - ,q- '" LIl &i ..... "'N <J> .., r- .... ... 0 '" ' 0'1' m ::: .... "'N <J> o ~ ~ u, M ",' 00 ~ q- '" ....' <J> ..... ....., :Il LIl .....' cO ...", ~~ ~ .:; 3.~ ~ 0 ~I- ~ en '" .... '" .... '" en .. '" co co '" '" .... co ~ I- .... '" '" .... '" .... co c; 0 V' ,., vi' vi' ",' iii 0 I- '" '" en V '" .... '" N ~ '" '" .... '" CO '" .... a;j1Jl .. m ~ V' N ",' ,..,.... ,....... ~t:: :5 .... .... .... .... .... .... '" Ol 0 >- <n- <n- <n- <n- <n- <n- <n- .00. E Ol .... OlO::: II ~ '" " " m V -:J:: ., .... g m '" c.", N '" '" ..... Ol- ...- ~ ~ ~~ a 0 (j)(j)~ ~ :R en U~..... '" ",' <(=0 <n- U>Q) V II " m N ... ., ... 0 ;; ., ... '" '" ... '" .... ~~ ... m "'... .-i" ~~ g ~- :ll Co " :R :R ~'" '" '" "'m <n- en m .... N .... N CO ~I ;; e R: N m m CO e e m ~~ ;;;- ",- "' e- ...- & e ., Et [;;V " N ~ '" "'m <n- o ... N N ii1 .,., '" ~I ;; g ;:: N :;)0 > '" \0.. u5' I- 'J.,- ,,- ~- .,- ",- e '" Z ~ & r;; :G '" ::J Z\ '" N '" V' 0 <n- u a:: UJ ... m .,., " .... co :::i ~ '" ..... '" ~ ... :0: .,., '" ~I ., ., " 0 a' ....- ,,- ~.. ~ '" N u Si Si [;; :Q '" .... > d ...< d ....- ....- d ..... I- '" '" '" x U <n- <( I- '" '" UJ l- e ~ ., " N ~ '" VI ct g [;; '" ",V a: ~I '" e '" . ..... ....- 00 EO, ;:1- ",- \D" ~ :J Cl ... e e :g .... a:: ... '" e ... 0 UJ ~ N- ~ N N- N" N I- "'I> '" '" '" "'.... ~ ..... UJ <n- ;:: ~ en Z 0..... .... .... en :J I- ct ~ N .... il e ~ ~ " .... .... 0 "" ., ., .... . 0 ....- ~ ~.. .,.,- ~- -en U ;; ~ ~ ~ c:: ::E e ~ ~ ~ ....- ~ N'" 0" LU ~ '" "'.... :::; <n- ..... e 0 z '" u ct II '" '" .,., N ., N 0 ..... " '" e N ~ ~ en !!! .,., '" N .,., :Q- :Q- ::::- ;;;' ~- .... ,.: 0 co ;: ., '" '" '" ~.. co... u d d d d a:: "'co ct <n- ::E '" .... N .,., " e Ltl UJ II ::<: <l1 ..... .... e '" m ., .... Q.. N " ., " '" " .,- :g- o' ,..: [;;- 0'1'" 11""I' ct .,., ;; :::: e V Z e e e ~Lf!. d d ...< d d '" "'''' <n- Il co m .... N ffi ... '" co '" .,., '" '" '" .... " e .,., e qo :~f ~- 6 ~ .,.,- ~g e & ., N ., '" '" "'~ <n- Il en ... ::l '" m ::l e '" ~ ~ ;; :::: V '" '" ~ ~ .,.,- ",- ~ ",- ~' co e ., ~ :R '" :R '" en '" '" '" ",' <n- .... II m N ~ en '" [;; co ~ .,., '" ... 0 ... ., '" ., vi' a ~- '" <t- ~ V * <t 0 ... ... ~ '" '" N <n- .. '" " ., '" :; .... :5 e e e e .... .:..; >- S .1!. e .1!. .1!. e ct N N ..J --- ~ I- .. '" " ., en ~ e 0 0 0 0 0 u: ~ ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: I- ~ o N ~~ 15~ ~& ~~co (f)(f)~ u~o <(=0 ()>~ x ~ l- V! a: :l o I- ~ Z :l o U c:: LJJ :::i ..... o u I- Z UJ ~ l- I>: c:( Q,. c:( ~ .. b ... ~ 0: :s >- II ~ II ~I ~I il ~I il II II II II !I '" .. ... >- ..J .. ~ .. '" o o:t N' '" a '" ~ '" o ;:! ;;f '" .. .. j; .. ~ ....- '" m '" .. ~ ~ o ",- '" " .. .. .':i " '" '" ;;f ;:! '" '" 00 '" .... '" '" '" .. ;;f '" o ~ '" o ::;: 00 o N ,...' N .. ~ '" " .. .. ;;f '" '" '" '" a .... o '" ;;f '" " '" t: '" " .. j; '" " .. .':i ~ u " i(( ;;f ~ m o .. U " o ~ '" o ::;: '" o:t o:t 00 N ~ '" '" ~ '" '" .. o ;;f " ~ '" " .... 00 ",- '" '" m '" ::i '" g: j; .... ~ ~ R " U .. * " '" " ;;i '" a 00 o ~ " o ::;: '" ,... N .... N .... .. '" m '" '" '" ;;; '" ~ '" ~ ;;f '" 00 .. t: '" ~ j; .... :;; .':i o o " ;;f N ~ ;;f .... .... .... '" '" " ~ '" o ~ '" o ::;: o:t ,... '" ,., N ~ m m .... '" '" ~ o ~ ;;f " ~ ;;i .... .. o ~ :'!l " j; ~ .':i '" " " u " ~ '" '" .... '" " * ~ ~ ~ ,...0 00'" "'''!, '''' "'", N... <1><1> N '" '" 00 o '" ;\ '" "'.... LIl ~ ~ ~ rq" '" ,.., o ... ",... N ,...... "' o '" o '" m ,.., men "' 00 "'0 ~~ s..M '" E ~ ~ ~.. 00 o o '" 00 , ..- ... '" N N ~ ~ .. .... d" 00 o:t .... '" o '" .-iui' "' ... ~~ ~ ..,., ~ r; .... N ......~ ui' "' ~ .=J 3.<t ~ b :;:: I- ~ o N roW ~t Q) 0 .oc. ~& 2-~co (f)(f)~ U~O <!=-r- o>~ x ~ l- V) ii: ::> o l- i: z ::> o u a:: UJ ::; ..... o u ::i: ::l ~ ::i: o c z o u ~ .. i5 t- ~ 0: :s > II !I ~I ~I il ~I il II II II II II 0: :s > ;i :;: u: q- co o ..... q- .... o [;; S' v> '" '" o ~ '" o '" a '" ;:; a '" "' '" ~' v> '" '" '" a ~ " ",' ~ v> "' :;; ~ v> " ~ * '" gJ ~ '" ~ 3i '" ... ... & '" o ~ o g .... ..... N 0' q- co '" '" "' ;1 '" ~ ~ "" '" '" ~ v> ~ ~' v> '" ~ o ;'\ ~' v> '" '" '" ",,' ~ o '" '" ~' v> '" "" ~ v> ... ~ .... ~ '" " '" ~' v> ... "" o ~ v> " o ~ '" o g '" co ..... ..0 LIl '" '" " o ~' v> '" ;;; ~ ~ ~' v> '" '" '" ~ '" o '" 0' '" v> ~ ",' * :J, o ",' g v> '" if, a ... " "" * m '" '" ~ "" '" '" :f v> '" " '" ",' ~ "" o o ~ " o g '" '" N ..0 '" co '" "" '" * :J, '" E: ~ " & '" :i\ a '" if, ",,' "' v> ~ "' ,,' if, v> ~ '" ",' ~ '" o ~' v> '" o "' a '" ~ m' ~ '" ~ ~' v> ~ & '" o ~ "' o g ..... q- LIl <5 .... o ...i' .....CO NLIl "'N ,.......0 NCO .....q- ~... rt:i' m '" '" ::f v> LIl q- N N ..... ..... '" g 0' ~ co "' q- ~ r"oo.. ~~ v> ..... '" '" o ~ v> '" ...'" ~.... "":0 m 0 v> ..... ~ ~ co "'..... :i1 q-.. ~;;; v> ..... '" '" '" ::f v> '" '" LIl ~~ ~~f en v> N ~ o ~' ,:;'; o '" '" "q- 0..0 ~M "'.... v> ...... " "" '" 0' ;'\ v> '" ~ ~ .....; ....... m '" ~~ '" '" '" ,,' '" v> '" '" '" '" '" . ci~ V>q- '" "' '" * LIl N "' .... " . m' ~ v>N '" ~ a .... "" '" ~"'t ~f ~ v> ..... m '" '" ~ ..... ~.... ...LIl "" q-' ~~ .... .... '" a ~ ~ '" N "'4:' a\ "' '" v> s ~ '" o g :::~ 3.ct S b g I- ~ o N cOrJ> ~t (1) 0 ..cO- E (1) (1)0:: ~~oo (f)(f)~ OT"""Q <C:N o>~ x ~ l- V! a: =:l o I- ~ Z =:l o U 0:: UJ ::; -' o u ><: 0:: <C 0. :> 0:: o Z ::l o 0:: Cl 0. :2: <C u ~ 0( 15 .... ~ 0: ~ >- II II ~I ~I il ~I il II II II II II 0: ~ >- on m ~ m- '" m ~ m ~ ;::. .,. m- '" ~ m m ~ " o '" a ;; o a ~ ~- '" m :;; s: '" ~ ~ 5i N N '" ;R N '" .,. :;i '" o o :;i '" o o ~ o i:l II> CO <t N <t .... ~ '" N- '" '" [;; N- '" N :;; :;i ;;'; '" ~ m .,. OJ ",- '" N m " a ~ on on a '" .,. '" [i o .,. '" ~ '" " '" a '" .,. " ;f. '" :;; m- '" " o ~ '" o i:l en o en ",' '" .... ~ N '" '" ~ " :;i ~ ~, '" o .,. " ~ on N '" a '" ~ on ~ ~ ,,' N '" ~ o a on ~ o ~ OJ ~ ~ ~ ::\ ~ :'1 OJ :;i OJ o ~ " o i:l CO o II> CO' <t .... ~ OJ vi '" on '" vi ~ N' '" ~ '" .,. ~ ~ '" N ~ ~ o S. '" '" .,. ~ ~ m o ~ on '" .,. a '" :;'; ;f. N ~ N m' '" OJ .,. '" N' '" '" o ~ OJ o i:l en CO '" iii '" .... 0.... 11>0 eno t.D c'" '" 0 ........ :;; '" ~' '" III en '" N .... '" ~ '" m' '" '" ~ CO ~, :;; '" .... ~ S\ vi \D co m <t " , ~' '" '" .... ~ on on ~ .... ~ <t ~, ~ "'''' ~ ,,' '" \D m en 8"1. ":0 '" III m " '" .... .,. '" en ~~ ~l ~ '" .... " N N o ~ .... ~~ ~' ; '" .... 9 ~' N '" .... ~ ~ '" , ~~ '" .... N " " a ~ ~ 00 ~:f 0 ~~ on N OJ ~ o '" <t gJ III ~~ '" g: :;i o N\D ~:2- ~.-i .,. '" .,. :;i '" m <t g III .....i rt'J' '" .... ~ o ~ '" o i:l ~ ~ 3.~ ~ 0 i:ll- ~ ~ o N rom ~t OJ 0 .co. ~& g.~cc (f)(f)~ U~o <(=C'"l ()>~ x i:!: l- V! ii: ~ o I- ~ Z ~ o u c:: w :::i ..... o u ....I W l- e ::!: ...:, w l- e J: ~ '" b .... ~ a: :5 >- II II ~I ~I il ~I il II II II il II a: :5 >- ... '" :,: u: '" '" .... ..... o:t o:t <:5 .... '" '" o 00 "' ;1; " '" '" ~' ~ ... .. .. ,,' .. ~ " o " ~' ~ N N "' ~~ ;;[ o "' .. ~~ ...' '" '" ." '" ~~ ;;[ ... "' " :3 ;;[ "' ;; ...< :;; ;!: " :::f 1::> o "' ." ,,' '" ." '" [;; o .,,' ~ '" '" o S o :.; '" '" o ... o co <:5 .... " ... '" a '" '" '" ~ ... N '" ...' ." '" '" ." o " gi "' '" :;; "' N ~ ;;[ "' ~ ;;[ ~ ." N ~ ;;[ '" " ." ~ '" '" "' o .,,' ;!: '" ~ g o '" o ~ '" ." ;!; ...' :;; '" " o o s:- o :.; o co o:t co' .., .... .... .... ~ ",' ~ " ;; ,,' ." ~ N ... ." :!i 1::> " ~ g N ~ ~~ ;;[ '" o ." ::1' "' ...' '" '" :ii ~~ ;;[ ~ ;f N ;;[ "' o '" i ~ ",' * '" N '" 0' o '" '" ~ '" :ii' ." '" "' o ~ o :.; '" co .... .JJ o:t '" 00 '" '" ." N "' ." '" N "' '" a ~ "' .,,' "' ." '" '" '" " ffi~ '" "' ~ ::::' o ;;[ o "' "' 0' ." N ...< '" ;!; '" .,,' ;; ...' '" ~ ~ ~ ;!; '" .,,' a1 '" "' N "' ",' "' ~ ~ :;; '" '" ;!; ~ '" '" o o ~ "' o :.; '" '" o ... '" o en ....\D ....'" ",II!. .'" \D\D "'rtl o . ..... "'o:t <1><1> ... '" " :;;' ;1; o o .... ..... o o N N N N ~ '" '" "' rtl " '" N, as ... '" :ri o:t "'N ~ "' ,,' " ;1; o '" rtl ... rtl m.. ai' " co ~ o:t '" ",' ... N ... 00 '" ~ .... "' o:t ~ rtl ," " .... ~~ ... "' N ... "' o ...' '" \D :;;.... '" .... 3' ~ d~ '" '" '" 'il; ." ...' '" .... ::;.... ~ :.. "' o:t "' '" vtui' ... ." o ",' ;; ;;[ '" '" rtl tj '" ~~ d~ ~ ::;' o ;;[ o:t 2a '" o:t "'.t N ::; ~.. '" rtl .,,'" ~:- ~.. ~ "'... '" "' ." ;:1' ~ rtl '" o:t "' '" '" N ;!f 0 ~~ "' '" ." '" '" ." '" .... '" 0 N o:t lJ).. ui' "' o:t ~.... "'N "' " '" ,,' ~ '" o ~ ~ "'N ~.. ; "'.... ::; ~ '" o :.; g~ !::'.~ ::;e :';1- ~ c; N cOif) ~t Ql 0 ..00- E Ql Qla::: lilt:: Q)2cc (f)(f)~ ()~o <(=-,:- u>~ x <( l- I- V! ii: :J o I- ~ Z :J o u a: U.l :::; ..... o u ...J <( > 0:: w I- ~ ~ .. 5 .... ~ '" ~ > I II ~I ~I il ~I il II II II II ~I '" ~ > ~ ~ ;;: <I' o 0> ..0 .... <II- o ;:: ",- '" ~ ,.: '" ;:: " .;f '" N :s ~ '" '" " ~ o '" " ~ '" '" '" '" '" '" '" o ,,- '" " '" o ::j, " .... '" ",- '" ~ .jf '" '" ~ '" o S o ~ DO '" <I' ..0 <I' .... <II- '" '" o '" '" .... i:j E: ~ ~ '" " o ~ ~ c;- '" o ;;; ~- '" .... N N ~ ~ ~i '" N '" o 3: '" '" '" ~ .... '" '" ",- '" ~ o .jf " o 3. '" o ~ '" .... 0> ..... '" .... <II- '" '" '" ~ " ~ :;; '" .... N ,,- '" ~ :;; '" .... '" & 5l '" ~ " " o ~- '" ~ " ~ '" ~ ~ '" '" '" ~ '" '" N :;; ~ ",- '" '" o o ~ " o ~ .... .... o DO- <I' .... <II- " ~ :i '" ~ :i '" ~ ti '" o '" o ;::- '" " ~ '" '" '" '" ~ '" ~ '" & '" o '" :\- '" ~ " & " o ~ '" N '" ",- '" " '" '" ,,- '" '" o 3. '" o ~ '" .... 0> N '" N <II- 0.... DOO "'''' "N' .... '" ........ <11-<11- '" '" '" m '" DO .... '" o <I' <II- " ~ ~ N.... ,,'" "'''' ~..,; .... '" "'<II- '" '" '" ~- '" '" '" 0", " - ",0> "'<I' <II- '" .... .... a ~ ~ '" 0 \D~ "'... zt~ '" ~ ;;f '" ~ ~ '" DO roM ~~ o '" '" ~ DO ~~ ~~ '" .... <II- .... o '" a '" '" .... ::<<1' N"; ~~ N '" " ~ '" ~~ '" 0 r-:a\' .... .... "'<II- '" :'1 Et ~~ oN C1:)~ u\ ~~ ~ E: '" .... N '" " 0> ~f :i "'<II- '" ~ ~ N ~~ ~~ <II- ~ ::f '" '" " <I' :g U'!. ~~ <II- ;:: 3. '" o ~ ~ .:J 3.;: ;:: 0 ~I- ~ o N cxilll ~t: Ol 0 .co. E Ol OlD:: g.~ro (f)(f)~ OT"""o <C= I.() ()>~ x ~ l- V) ii: :J o I- ~ Z :J o U c:r:: UJ :::; ..... o u ~ a: <C Q. w :E o J: w .... iii o :E ~ g ... ::; II: :5 >- II II ~I ~I il 51 il II !I II II II II: :5 >- ~ ~ cr: .... ... en ~ <I). N '" ~ '" OJ '" ~ "' '" "' ~ '" m N '" '" ~ '" N ~ '" "- ~ "' '" ." * N ~ m '" ~ '" o o ~ o ~ .... qo m ... ... <I). a ! m m ~ '" OJ N OJ '" o o 1;> ~ o d ~ m OJ d 3 ~- '" ~ '" ." m ~ N OJ ~ m '" o "' '" "- o ~ '" o ~ ... ... qo ~ ... <I). ~ ." ." OJ ;;!; '" ~ '" ." '" a "- "' ~ '" ;;!; .,,- '" ~ ." '" ;;f N '" ." .i ;J ." ;;f OJ '" 1;> OJ a N a OJ o o !::!. "- o o N .... .... ... ~ ... <I). ." E, '" ;1; ." ~ '" N R ." "' "- ~ ~ '" N ~ o ;f. ~ .i N OJ :":- '" ~ ;;f "- "' o ~- '" N '" ~ '" m ." '" '" o ~ OJ o ~ en .... '" ..... ... <I). om ....0 Lt\'" N"'M' .... '" <1).<1). ~ ." '" o ... .... ..; <I). N );t rtI "'''' ~o ."..; <I). ~ '" .... N.... ~ qo ~ ........ <I). ~ ~ ~ o '" ... "- .... .e:t N'" <I). o ~ d ~ ~ '" '" .-ttti "'<I). ~ '" o :;[ ... m m ;! ... 1J'l~ ,...... '" ... <I). o ." '" ;;f o '" m ~"'!. .,,- 0 '" ... <I). '" "- ." N ." "' .... '" en OJ ... mo; "'<I). OJ OJ '" ;;f o ... ." en '" qo N..n "'<I). ." Zi ~~ ." Lt\ rlri "'<I). '" ;! ." o ",en o en t\.~ <I). ~ ." ." .... ~ I::: "'''' <I). ~ ~ '" o ~ g.:J ~~ ~ 0 ~I- ~ o N roll) ~t 11l 0 .oC- ~&! ~~CO (f)(f)~ OT"""O c::(=cn u>~ x CC l- I- l.fl a: ::l o l- i:: z ::l o U ex: UJ .:l ..... o u > ....I ~ <( u.. W ....I \:1 Z Vi '" .... 0( .... .... ~ cz: :li > II ~ '" II ~I ~I il gl il II II II II II cz: :li > .... 0( ~ ;;: co co co o .... .... <fl. ~ ~ '" N ,... ~ co co '" zi co ;j!; ::[ o o '" ~ '" '" o :;f '" ,... "' o ~ ,." ,... ,... ~- '" o ~ Et '" o '" ;f. ~ '" ~ ~ ,... ",- '" "' o ~ CO o :<l o Od' '" M o N <fl. ,." CO '" .j '" rl ~ ~ '" ,." '" ~ ~ ~ ,." ,... CO ::1- '" ,... :<l ~ CO CO '" Ei '" '" '" ~ ~ '" 3: '" '" o ",- '" '" ::\ ",' '" '" CO CO a ,... o ~ "' o :<l .... '" '" '" 11\ N <fl. ~ ~ ,... '" ,... ",' '" '" ~ ~' '" rl '" rl ~ ,... :;; Et :!l '" N '" '" ,." '" ,... a @ :!l' '" CO '" '" Ei '" '" '" ~' '" ~ ,...' '" ,." :;; a '" o ~ ,... o :<l Od' N .... '" '" N <fl. ,... ~ zi ,." ~ ~ CO ,... ,." ::f '" g '" a ,." o '" ~' '" ~ ,... ~ rl ,... ,." ffi ~ '" ~ '" CO :<l a ~ o ~' '" ,... :; :::' '" ,." ~ ~ '" o ~ '" o :<l o '" 11\ M '" '" <fl. ~~ Od''''!. -co 011\ ....N '" - <fl..... <fl. '" ~ N '" '" a\ Od' <fl. ~ a ,... '" ~~ o ,.: ~~ ~ '" ~ ",Od' '" '" '" '" "'M ~~ ,... ,." CO '" '" '" .... '" N "', '" '" .; ~~ '" ~ :<l' '" ~ :;; '" 0 ,....,~ rxi "'co "'<fl. rl rl rl a .... ~ ~ uf N "'.... zt~ '" '" ,... rl' ;;; 11\ '" '" ~~ ~~ <fl. '" '" ,... ~ '" ~ t:j '" N 0" ....i' ~~ '" o N a Od' rlOd' rlN ~M ,." '" '" .... <fl. '" ;;!; ~' '" ~ ~ ~.. ~ zt~ ,." ,." '" ,...- '" .... '" .... ~"!. ~~ <fl. ~ ;'\' '" .... ~.. ~ rl N- ~~ ~ ~ '" o :<l ~,:j ~:! ~ 0 :<l I- ~ o N cO(/) ~t Ql 0 .cO- E Ql Qla: ~:ffico CJJCJJ~ U-r-o <(=r-- u>~ x ~ l- V! C2 ~ o I- ~ Z ~ o u c:: UJ :::; ..... o u ~I ~ .. b .... ~ a: ~ > II ~ '" II ~I ~I ~I !\ il II II !I II II ; 00 q- '^ '" .... o N " " '" a " ;; ,,- :R '" N '" oj " '" o " " ~ '" :e ~ '" '" " ~ '" :::. <Xl ",- <Xl ;;; '" '" N ~~ '" N " '" <Xl- ~ n '" o ",- t> m '" <Xl :;;- '" :G '" E '" o S o ~ '^ '^ '^ '" '^ o N m '" n a " " <Xl * ~ <Xl ~ '" " " o a '" <Xl " a n ~ 12- ::: '" '" N ,,- <Xl ;;; '" " '" a <Xl " <Xl on ~ '" ~ ~- '" '" ;;\ <Xl- " '" '" ~ ~ '" " o 3. '" o ~ '" ID 00 .... o .... N m N ;::- " '" " " o N- t> <Xl ~ a '" '" " 0' " '" ~ ~ m '" o m- ~ '" m N f ;;; '" " " ~ '" ;;\ & o 12 0' ~ N '" o ::f '" N <Xl <Xl 0' N '" <Xl o 3. " o ~ o .... '" q-' o en .... ~ :;i '" <Xl '" o ~ '" N " :;;- '" '" '" <Xl ,,- " '" '" '" o ,.: ~ '" n '" N- ~ '" '" o o s:;- '" '" N ~ 0' ;;\ '" " " :;} ~ n :;; * n '" m :::- '" ~ <Xl ",- N '" '" o 3. <Xl o ~ .... '" '" aO '^ en ..... 0.... ....ID en"!. .'" ....'" ~q '0 .... .... <1><1> <Xl '" " a o en en .; 00 .... '" ~, '" '^ '" co ~"t :i~ "'''' m ~ ~ '" '^ "'''' ~ttt ~~f ~ "'''' '" o <Xl a '^ <Xlq- "ID '" . ~' ~ "'''' <Xl '" g ~: O"o~ ...: ~~ o s:; ~ '" '^ n ID m co 0.. ot:i' NO a::.. n " " n- " '" '" .... ",q- ~ .... fi ~ m '" '" ",' N ;; ~ '" .... o ID '" ID Lfl... ,..,.'" o '^ '" ID .:};.,...; '" ;; a '" '" ID ~~ ",- '^ ~~ 0 --.... " <Xl o :Jf '" '^ en ~ r--:. grJ '" '" ::: " ~ " '" '" m '" ~rtt ;;f~ "'''' ~ <Xl zr .... ~q ~- ~ "'.... ;; o ~ '" o :'l ~ ..:.i 3.< s6 ~1- '" CTl N ..... ID ..... N co -' ~ < LIl co co m m ..... LIl fo- .... ID ID ..... ID ..... N ;; 0 oj:- CO- LIl- ui ID- <Ii .; N fo- m N CTl oj: LIl .... 0 ro'" ~ m N .... m CO ID ":. 0: rri oj:- oj:- N N- N- oj: ~t ::'i ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... LIl 0) 0 > V> V> V> V> V> V> V> ..co. E 0) CO 0)0:: ffi 00 '" ~ r- ::1 0 ~~'t) al m ~ 0 ID 11l m '" r- m m- "i ~ ",' m' r::' (fJ(fJ~ fo- '" 00 '" N U~O ~ '" '" '" '" '" m V> V> V> V> V> N <(=CO '" V> u>~ ID e:: II r- '" N '" .. '" m ~ ~ '" '" '" '" CTl 0 0 '" '" r- ... ~ ~. ~. r-' ~. a; 0' '" '" '" m <( r- r- r- '" '" r- CO UJ V> V> V> V> V> V> N e:: V> > ...J .... ~ '" .... N .... N m LIl u. ~I ~ 0 g] N '" '" LIl 0 0 '" r- LIl- UJ :l: ",' ",' 0' ",' m' ...J '" 0 00 00 r- ID \:l r- r- oo '" '" '" CO Z V> V> V> V> V> V> N Vi V> :.:: LIl e:: '" N N r- '" '" m <( ~I '" 0 ~ 00 N 00 oj: 0. N '" '" '" '" <Ii UJ ",' r-' ",' 00' m' 0' '" 0 '" '" 00 '" .... :::!: m m 00 r- r- OO oj: 0 V> V> V> V> V> V> m- :I: V> UJ ...J ..... iii '" g] '" '" r- .... ID m ~ '" ~ '" oj: 0 il 00 ::l- 00 r- :::!: 0' r-' m' ",' ",' cri' 0 0 r- ~~ ~~ :;: 0 ::l- ::l- ::l- CO X ...J .... ui <( V> V> V> V> V> V> <C > V> l- e:: I- UJ ID VI ?- m 00 r- N ~ '" 0 ii2 1!: 5 0 r- m '" oj: ~I r- '" m 0 m => 00' :-::' ;:f ",' ",' ui '" 0 0 '" CO 0 '" '" r- ~. '" ~. .... I- N' N' N' N' cri' V> V> V> V> V> V> > V> I- Z .... .... .... CO => '" N ~ N il '" 0 ~ m r- m 0 m 00 '" 00 .... ~~ ~. ",' ~. ~. <Ii u 3 r- ID a:: N' ::J. ~ ~. ~ CO UJ V> V> V> V> V> r:ti ::::; V> ..... 0 LIl u II :n m '" ~ 00 ~ 0 r- m 0 m m '" m ~. '" '" ::. 0 ",' ",' ",' 00' cri' :::> '" '" N '" r- 0 N 0 r- oo m '" '" '" ..... ..... .... .... ..... ..... ..... ,..: e:: V> V> V> V> V> V> \:l V> 0. :::!: LIl <( II .... N '" r- 0 ~ ..... u .... 0 '" '" 00 LIl N r- oo r- '" r- ~ ~. ~. o' a :;;' m' rri ~ 0 co 0 0 0 0 oj: 2 ..... ..... ..... ~ ~ ~ oj:- V> V> V> 1!: V> :::!: 0 II oj: 0 '" .... N 00 '" m CTl Z m '" m '" m '" 0 r- 0 '" '" 0 0 ui 0 :i m' 0' 00' "" 0' u '" 0 m '" '" CTl 00 00 00 r- r- r- N VI V> V> V> V> V> V> rri l- V> Z UJ :::!: ffi ..... '" 00 '" '" 00 ~ co I- al ~ '" ~ '" 00 oj: e:: 11l '" N m ,..: <( ~. ",' m' ~ ",' .n- o. > 0 00 '" N m <( 0 '" ~ '" '" '" '" oj: z V> V> V> V> V> N V> N II '" N ~ m m r- m '" '" '" '" ..... ~ '" '" 00 m 00 0- g ",' ",' m' ",' 00' '" N m '" r- 0 V> '" '" '" '" '" oj: V> V> V> V> V> ... V> 0: '" r- oo m ~ .... < w 0 0 0 0 .... .:..; > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <( -' --- I- < '" '" r- oo m ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 I- ;;: N ~ ;; '" ro'" ~t 0) 0 ..co. E 0) 0)0:: ~lI:: 0.", O)~ CfJCfJ(') <.)"'- <(=0 <.)>~ tn ...... (.) CU '- o ... a.. CU (.) s::::: ~ s::::: CU ...... ~ s::::: ,- ~ ~ ~:E - O.s::::: ~ (.) o ~ N CU >-al u. - ~ - 0.. <( U) E E '" ~ 0.. j; G> '" <: '" <: u: E ~ ~ ~ en N iiO "C .2l '" "C 0.. :::> ~ o 0') CU ...... ~ o o C I- .l!l <: G> E E o U III G> '0 z j; '" III u: .... '" G> ~ 0...... "C III G> 0 1;ju E ~ w .S ~ G> G> '" '" <:"C '" " j;lXI lXI III E 'tU.a .a:c '" <: <(8. >< w .S 8 .~~ ; c_ ~.~ ~ G> 0:: ca~ .~ -6 LLCG; ....,GJ.g' <: E " ~~1Il <3 m >- .... '" G> e.... o..~ -"C '" " .S III .2' o .... '" G> 'e- o.. U G> . .~ 0 Oz Ir. "C <: " u. ~ 0) ..., ! i , ~ Qi ~ ; c; .,. N N r-: o I(). N M .,. ~ ~ o o a o o a I() .... .,. '" '" 8: Q; .~ ~ ~:2: ~ I() 0) ~ .... ..... r-: o '" N' UJI() oil'" o..~ u~ ..... 00 N ,;, ~ N 0) <0 0) ...... ;;; ~ .,. 00 oj 00 .... 0)' ..... .,. .,. .... ..... r-: o '" N I() .,. N 0) <0 0) ...... ;;; ~ .,. M 0) o o 00 I() 0) .9 o o o 0- ~ ~ c: ~ 0) ",,,, .;: ~ E ::J Q) 0:: "C c: m ~Mg 8 ~ 0_ ~ ~ 0 mNa :2: , N _LO~ 0.....,. .c~ G o o a o o a .... ~ .,. I() '" a o o a .... ~ .,. .,. I() M a o o a .... ~ .,. <: 13.~ m 0) ~~ ~.~ >ro u. <: <( <D 0) o o 00 I() 0) ~ o o a o o a o N. ~ .,. .,. M .... a 0) <D o:i ..... a. ~ .,. ..... I() oj o "'. N ~ .,. o o a o o ci o N. ~ .,. c: o 'Ci) e UJ >- ~ m OJ "C I ~ ..... 0) o o 00 I() 0) ~ miE :.eN ()~ CQie>> Q). ,...... 1Il~ uj.n .... O~ eo ma :2: a. o Ua UJN U'" - ;0 N cogUJ ~ (1) UJ';' E'S 06 ::!:. "- ~ ~~~~ "'::bo ~O>- '" ;;; ..... 00 <0 0) .0 0) ~ .,. .,. I .,. .. '.~ ..... 00 <0 0) ~ .0 0) ~ 0.. oil o 0) '" '" <: "m a> ~ c: 0", 'Ci) 0) "'0 OJ a. m Z I() N o 00 I() 0) ~ R 0 @)~ t: ~g ~g ~'7 ~m ~....~....a). ~ ~ ;!g~~~ L7..~..........6 .n ""0 o.~ U) . 0),0.. ~~ Eltw ~ Cl .,. u. '" ~ N '" N' .... .,. ; ..,f I() 0) ,..: ~ .,. N N r-: <D M '" N .,. .,. .,. '" ~ N "'. ; .,. .~....~ LUi! ",CIJ ~...jij a.,g CIJ OJ "C i= o <D o o 0) I() 0) ~ OJ :5 .9 C '" '" OJ ~a. ",'" .S;~ c: 0 ~.c uG .<= '" m 0) III M N N N ao '" '" .... ~ N ";- ,n I() ~J1~ <IJ <IJ '" ill .Q Q) QUa. '" m Z Z 6 '0 i::; ~ C5 G <D o cO co co N 0) o o a .... 0). o I() ~ .,. 0> f"-;; N t:_ N .,. o o a '" <D. ~ .,. .,. '" c oj 0) .... ci '" o o a <D .... '" ..... .,. I() N <0 ..... <D ci I() o o a I() 00 .0 ..... .,. .,. <D o cO 00 co N 0) o o a .... 0) ci I() ~ .,. .,. o o a o 0) .0 ..... .,. "50> m c: Q) 'c III m .c~ GO N o o 0) I() 0) ~ ~ o '" ~~ Q) 0 ..co. ~& ~~ CfJCfJ(') U"'_ <(=0 U>", .l!l <: G> E E o U III G> 15 z ro '" III u: .... '" G> '0' Ir..... "0 III G> 0 -:uu E :;: III W .S QlQ; '" '" <:"0 m " rolXl CO III E fti.a .3:c '" <: <( G> 0.. >< W .S 8 g>o s::::: .- 0.. m<:- -'- 0 ~E~ G> 0:: C ro QI :;: E u:-g~ cE-g E<(1Il :i ft; u~ .... '" OJ '2' - a. QI '" ~-g 'c, III 5 .... '" QI '0' Ir. .... '" G> . .~ 0 Oz Ir. "C <: " u. .... ..... ID ex; Ol ~ Ol, I() UJ~UJ~ oIl~oIl'" 0.. f'-..Q;;>;.-.. U r::o.~ f'-.. .f'-.. ~ 00 N J, J, ~ ~ (!) ~ ~ 00 ~ I()' N ~ (!) ~ a; .0 N ~ (!) ~ a; ~ .0 N ~ III '" m '" 0.. .~ "'ID <:"C '0,0 ~:2: N M o o Ol I() Ol ~ '" c: 'C 0 .9- 'c S 00 :2: 0, '" ~~~ '--(1) ~ g:G ,2 '2 \- III ~ :>.2 't:: Q) mO:: Q) >- (!) ~ ~ LOci (1) M (")5 C to <O~f'-..~O" Q)(I):3: C;>oC;>aW Q) E.~"E co,,"""co~Q)c:>"15..ro ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 .~ % g- ~ g~~~~~~~~ MC'\I(")LO-otl)i-CVQ> uJ<riuJcD<(~~g.c: ~~_~~_~ ~U5~ N ~i3 <.) 5 69-.,....C/,) (f) ..... Ol <0 00 ..... ei (!) .,. (!) ..... '" N .n '" .,. ~ t: I() .n N .,. ..... Ol cD 00 ..... 6 (!) ~f5:m 215'~ c:: ~..c.9~ m ~.~ ~ Z:I::2:~ M '" o o Ol '" Ol .=~ <<1<"" ~..ar...~ <11~ a.M .0> :1..:.1'- 01() ~.."Z'~ ~ - (1)- UL(I)~ LO <<k~ (5 ~ ~a.Cii ...; :>. 0= OJ ~ o o a o o ei I() N <!> ~ a ~ 0, ~ ~ .,. .... ex> oj 00 Ol o:i '" ~ .,. o o a o o 6 I() N ~ OJ ..., .f.IJ.."C IIl_ ~E ~& o o o o ; o o Ol I() Ol ~ ~CDLO <:.....1() mOla (ij<Ot-- III N .<= ' , 1::1()1() m........ UJ~~ ~ (ij Q) >- o o o .0 ..... o o a .... (!) 6 00 o o a (!) ..... '" .,. o o a 00 00 (!)' ..... o o a .... (!) ei 00 .,. o o a o o .0 ..... .,. ~ 'm ro 0.> OJ 0 0:: E c: OJ 00:: ~ .~ me OJ" Q)W > ~ 'm mar c::D:: (/)..."'C Q)Q) _ N 0..= co..ctl z" c <: <( .... .... o o ol I() ol ~ .c i:3 a o o .0 I() .,. @)'" ~'" Co ~'V ,,~ '" ' Q)I() -.... o.~ m Z '0 .c (3 @);=- ~:ll "11;:I"("')(/)1'---<<1 q~~~9no co a Z N .S ~ q~>..,....gL.O ~~1ij~~~ ~te~;;-g~ t ~ ~;ci .~ ~ WNCOLO-S a... <<:>- Z .,.... ::J 0<1> <l>t5l o o a o o ei :: o o a o o ei I() ..... .,. .... 00 ..,f (!) o ,..: o o a o o I()' I() I() I() <0 o N .0 I() ..... .,. ~ ~ o o a o o 6 ~ ol ~ t: N N (!) r-. o o a o o .0 I() o o a o o ei I() ..... .,. '" '" <11 OJ a. <: en '0, .~~ "'0 ~ N N I() o ol I() ol ~ I() ol ~ ~ ;; '" 00- ~ 0;8- "E& 2l1:: 0.", Q)~ CfJCfJ(') UN_ <(=0 U>(') III ., '0 z ro '" III u: .... '" .~ e 0...... 'g :g ....U '" .5 u; w ,5 ~ ., ., '" ", <:'0 '" " rolll lXI III E - " "'.... " .- ...."0 '" <: <( ., 0.. >< W .S 8 g>o <: .- a.. "'.S 0 ~E~ ., 0:: .... <: ~ ~ .!!! -g ~ u..,,,, 'l:E-g E<(1Il ~ ~ " '" u ., >- .l!l <: ., E E o u u .~ 2a; 0..", -"0 '" " .S lXI ", 5 .... '" ., '2' 0.. .... ,~ 0 oz .. a.. .<=.c (J c: '" ::J OJ 0 .Qu .E~ Co ml) c'5", ~"~ ~~ >- (J ~~ Om, o ~ ~ ~~ o 0 W >- ro .~ ~~::C@'@)~g-:r:~ "'ItLO(O')NQ)O>OQ)U) WNWOOO>Cf)OQ) @)~@)~~:;;1i~u; Q;';'Q;~&l~~~~ ~:!.~~€ ~:g rn rn co ::Jo :::; :::; UJ (/):s: o ~ ..... '" M, 00 (") ~ o ~ .... M "', .... ;: .,. ..... M .-: <D ...., (") .... .,. .... 0> ..,f o ....., (") I() <D cO o I(), ~ N .,. o o a o 0, I() M ",cr Coil "c: a.. m~ OJ '" - <: U 0 ..c :.;::::; '" r:' m Q) Q) 0. III 0 '" M I() o 0> I() 0> .,. M o ..,f '" 0> .,. ..... .... ('"') '" .... N 0> ~ o o a o o ei <D N o o a o 0, o <D N .,. '" file: 4}."Io- 0..9 <0 ~c: Z 0 ~:2: C:>..c ::J (J o m l) OJ III <D M I() o 0> I() 0> ~ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JACKSONVillE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 4970 JACKSONVillE, FLORIDA 32237-0019 CAC September 8,2011 VII-3 Staff Reports 1 of 1 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF July 25, 2011 Regulatory Division Special Projects and Enforcement Branch SAJ-1996-02789 Mr. J. Gary McAlpin, Director Collier County Public Services Division Coastal Zone Management W. Harmon Turner Building, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Mr. McAlpin: I am referring to previous correspondence dated March 2, 2009, and September 10, 2009, regarding the completion of the Clam Bay Restoration Management Plan required in Special Condition 2 of your previously issued permit for the installation of culverts and dredging in Clam Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. This letter further clarifies your requirement to comply with Special Condition 2 and the installation of channel markers required in the Management Plan. Recently we discussed the Division's efforts to install the required markers and comply with Special Condition 2. Please provide photographs of the markers once installed and a drawing showing the location of each of the installed markers. Once the photographs and drawings have been provided as verification of your compliance, we will consider this matter resol ved. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. If you have any further questions, please contact Cynthia Ovdenk by calling 239-334- 1975 x24. Sincerely, ~~{;.~ Chief, Enforcement Section Copy furnished: Mr. Ernest Wu, via e-mail CAC September 8, 2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 1 of 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners on how to proceed with an Easement Agreement for use between Collier County and Beachfront Property Owners requiring the Property Owners to provide public beach access in exchange for publically funded major beach renourishment, vegetation planting and dune restoration to the subject property. OBJECTIVE: To obtain direction on how to proceed with an Easement Agreement requiring Property Owners to provide public beach access in exchange for publically funded major beach renourishment, vegetation planting and dune restoration. CONSIDERATIONS: Collier County is planning major beach renourishment, vegetation planting, and dune restoration within the next two to four years. This project will be financed using Tourist Development Taxes and/or a combination of grant money. This project will directly affect and benefit the upland property owners as well as the residents and visitors of Collier County. The Board of County Commissioners discussed requiring a public use easement from the private property owners at the May 11,2010 BCC meeting (Agenda Item 10(C)). This easement would require upland property owners to agree and consent to allow full access to the beach seaward of the vegetation line to Collier County residents and visitors as a condition of using public funds to renourish private beach property, provide plantings on private property and restore the dunes on private property. On April 12, 2011, the Board directed staff to obtain input from the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island on this approach (item lOG). A detailed proposed easement agreement as well as the responses from the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island is attached. Both cities recommend against the use of this proposed Easement Agreement. The City of Naples felt that this approach was not necessary because previous easement agreements have allowed renourishment to occur without incident; no access issues have occurred within Naples; risk exists that the proposed easement agreement will not be executed by property owners; failure to obtain easements will result in a less successful renourishment; little risk exists that the public will be denied access within the City of Naples and funds/energy required can be better used to challenge any restrictions to the public's access to the dry sand beach. The City of Marco Island believes that the benefit of this program is not significant enough to justify the expenditure considering that the previous restoration efforts have not required this effort and no problems on Marco Island have occurred. It is expected that this easement agreement will require at least two years to execute county wide. If a property owner refuses to execute this agreement, it is expected that no renourishment, plantings or dune restoration will occur on that property. Additionally, FDEP is concerned about GAG September 8, 2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 2 of 7 the structural stability of the beaches if excessive locations occur where no renourishment takes place. FDEP declined to comment on how this might affect permitting. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: On December 9,2010 the Coastal Advisory Committee recommended conceptual approval of this Easement Agreement (4 to 2 vote) and that the easement should terminate if the funding and the routine execution of beach renourishment, vegetation plantings and dune restoration was to terminate. At the Tourist Development Council February 28, 2011 meeting a recommendation not to approve this Easement Agreement passed unanimously 9 to O. FISCAL IMPACT: The Source of funds is from Category "A" Tourist Development Taxes, State and/or Federal Grants. It is anticipated that the cost to execute this easement for the Vanderbilt, Park Shore, Naples and Marco Island beaches can be as high as $150,000. This cost would include researching property data information, preparation of the easement documents, development of property owner letters, telephone calls, meeting with owners and recording the documents. The cost to execute 10 and 20 year temporary construction easements in 2005 for the Naples, Park Shore and Vanderbilt beaches was approximately $68,000. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, requires majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action. - CMG RECOMMENDATION: To obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners on how to proceed with an Easement Agreement for use between Collier County and Beachfront Property Owners requiring the Property Owners to provide public beach access in exchange for publically funded major beach renourishment, vegetation planting and dune restoration to the subject property. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, CZM Director CAC September 8, 2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 3 of 7 City o:f M<1J1JI'CO 1[s]l<1J1uJ ": . , ,~\.,';:" ( May 18, 2011 (':F n!F; ,01;, ~.iAY ~~:j 2011 Mr. Leo E. Ochs, Jr. County Manager, Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail East Naples. FL 34112-5746 Re: Draft Beach Renourishment Easement Agreement for City Council review and consideration Dear Leo: At the regular City Council meeting on May 16,2011, Mr. Gary McAlpin provided a presentation and explanation of the proposal concerning mandatory easement agreements in connection with the renourishment projects undertaken by the County and funded, in large part, through TDC dollars. Gary stated that the Board of County Commissioners would welcome input from the City of Marco Island as part of the process. City Council took no formal action on the item, but directed me to summarize the points and concerns raised by Council in their deliberations: 1. The reference to "allow full access to Collier County residents and visitors alike to the beach" in the 4th "whereas" clause is confusing; though the stated intent is lateral access, it could be construed to mean access to the beach through upland private property; 2. For a one-time beach renourishment project, the granting of a perpetual easement to the public is not proportional as a quid pro quo. Stated in another way, there is no sunset of the easement in the event that beach renourishment program ends. 3. The notice of damage to be provided by grantor in paragraph 5 is limited to 7 days after actual knowledge of any damage; this is not a sufficient period of time to act; further, notice should go to the office of Director, Coastal Zone Management, but not to a named individual; 4. Overall, given the projected cost of the program for it implementation, the City of Marco Island believes that the benefit is not significant enough to support the expenditure; previous restoration efforts have not required such efforts and no problems on Marco Island have been documented. 50 ]BaRJ Eagle Drive, Marco IslanJ, Florida. 34145 (239) 389-5000 FAX (239) 389-4369 www.entyofm.a.rcoisland.com , CAC September 8, 2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 4 of? """lIIIIIII On behalf of the citi,?:ens of Marco Island and City Council, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal in advance of a hearing before the BCC. With kind regards, ~'''' "\-~. l , /1 ~_ \ 1/,/1 --.......J .. James C. Riviere, Ph.D. City Manager GAG September 8, 2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 50f7 -;-~--._... Ii:' ~ c: .,.,I'I.fl' ~ ~.N'~~ ~ tJ TII.l~~" j~, ~ ~'-'\....,........-/.;:, . ~ ~ J '<......... - e' ~ c:: ~>>!;;\-L{.c ~~ c;/~<J lULL BARNETT MAYOR May 5, 2011 Honorable Chairman and Board of County Commissioners Collier County Government Complex 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Chairman Coyle and Board of County Commissioners: By letter dated April 19, 2011, County Manager Ochs conveyed a request on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners for input from the Naples City Council regarding a proposed easement agreement to be utilized for beach renourishment projects. The Naples City Council reviewed the proposed easement agreement, previOUS easement agreements, and considered state law regarding access to the beach. While City Council applauds the desire of the Board of County Commissioners to preserve and protect the public's right of access to use and enjoy the beach, we recommend that .the. Board continue to rely upon the 20-year easements previously granted by upland property owners and, where necessary, utilize the same or similar easement language contained in those agreements. Most of the 115 existing easements granted by property owners within the City of Naples expire in the year 2024. Our recommendation is based on the following: 1) The 2004 easement agreements have allowed beach renourishment projects. 2) Private property owners and the public have enjoyed the Naples beach without major conflicts as to the public's right to use and enjoy the beach. 3) There is a fair risk that Collier County will not obtain many easement agreements from upland property owners because of the proposed easement language. 4) Failure to obtain easements may result in a substantially less successful renourishment due to the by-passing of properties that have not provided an easement. 735 EIGHTH STREET SOUTH' NAPLES. FLORIDA 341 O::!(i7% <;_.......'..;,;----,,,..._,~--,;'....'"""----.''''*.__.. TELEPHONE (::!3l)j 2: J IOI)() FAX '2.19, 2111010 CELL (239) 777 7952 EMAIL: MayorNaplcs:;. ""I.,om HOME FAX (239j 417 SRR3 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 6 of? Honorable Chairman and Board of County Commissioners May 5, 2011 Page Two 5) There is relatively little risk that the public will be denied access to the dry sand beach by a private property owner. 6) Funds used to acquire and record the new easement, and the considerable energy that will be required of City and County staff and elected officials, may be better used to challenge any restrictions to the public's access to the dry sand beach. We extend our gratitude to the Board of County Commissioners for their desire to obtain Input from the Naples City Council, and we trust the views of the Naples City Council will be considered. ?Jtt Bill Barnett Mayor cc: City Council Leo Ochs Gary McAlpin CAC September 8, 2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 7of7 ~ McAlpinGary Subject: Djfinlay@aol.com Friday, May 06,2011 10:23 AM OchsLeo; CoyleFred; FialaDonna; HillerGeorgia; HenningTom; ColettaJim; KlatzkowJeff; collengreen@colliergov.net; McAlpinGary; RamseyMarla; WilliamsBarry; bmoss@naplesgov.com; dlykins@naplesgov.com; dfnaplescouncil@aol.com Beach Use/Concessions From: Sent: To: Dear Leo and Commissioners. As you know the Naples City Council unanimously rejected the revised beach renourishment easement. The Mayor has sent you a letter offering the reasons. However, because I have been very involved in beach issues, including this particular one, I wanted to add a few personal comments. 1. Florida statute 161.141 should adequately protect public use of a renourished beach. This issue has been litigated to the benefit of the public up to the US Supreme Court, making the revised easement irrelevant. 2. I would be very surprised if all, or any, of the beachfront hotels would sign the revised easement. If a hotel(s) did not sign, I can't imagine the county refusing to place sand on the hotel beach, if for any reason, the beachfront hotels contribute substantial funding (TDC) to the beach. And, if the hotels won't sign and they still get sand, you will be unable to keep sand from others who refuse to sign. A real administrative, if not legal nightmare. 3. If am convinced Florida Statute 718 does not allow a condominium president or board to grant public use of a common element property-the privately owned, high, beach. For example, my board of condominium could not authorize general public use of our building's swimming pool or party room. The use of common elements is specified in the Declaration of Condominium and that document can only be changed by a super majority vote of all condo owners. The only reason the current easement has not created a controversy among condominiums is because it granted temporary use of the private beach to construction workers, equipment, and the placement of sand. The revised easement is much different. It is a far reaching document that formally grants general public use of common element property and I am convinced many condominiums, along with the hotels, will not sign. Some single family homes may not sign as well. In conclusion, there is simply no need to go down this road--especially for the city of Naples which has long been a cordial if not a welcoming host of public beach use. Personally, I strongly support public use of the beach, from the vegetation line to the water--but not with the revised easement. On to one more beach matter. If we exclude the city of Naples and Marco Island populations from the county we find that Collier County must supply beach access and facilities to about 300,000 unincorporated residents, with more to come in the future. Yet despite that sizeable population, the county (not city) has woefully inadequate beach facilities. Just as inadequate, the county has only one beach concession area, at Clam Pass. Unfortunately the prices at Clam Pass are high and geared towards upper income, resort visitors--not the median income resident of the county. To get reasonable, if not cheap, concession prices, a county resident must rely on the city of Naples, at either the pier or Lowdermilk Park. This heavy reliance on city of Naples facilities needs to be tempered by a county concession facility at Vanderbilt Beach. The county owes such a facility to its 300,000 residents, as well as adequate and properly located bathroom facilities. Thanks, Doug Finlay cc: Jeffery Klatzkow, Colleen Green, Gary McAlpin, Marla Ramsey, Barry Williams, Bill Moss, David Lykins This communication is my own and not a request or an action from Naples City Councilor the Naples City Manager 1 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports OfE:ardno ENTRIX Shaping the Future Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Site Specific Alternative Criteria Development DRAFT INTERIM REPORT Prepared for the Pelican Bay Foundation Cardno ENTRIX has prepared this brief draft summary of concerning the development of Site Specific Alternative this interim report is to keep the Pelican Bay Foundation collection and analysis activities concerning this effor discussions with the Florida Department of EnvirQI} regulatory efforts to manage the Clam Bay resourt viewed as draft since dissolved oxygen data collectio en (DO) analyses to date for Clam Bay. The purpose of abreast of the recent data provide ion that may be useful in al Protection (FDEPtegarding water quality e results presented inthi$summary should be . ities a going. FDEP has embarked on a revision of th 'da freshwater a rine dissolved oxygen criteria, but does not expect to have draft rule langu for review until th d of 2011 at the earliest. Currently, FDEP has a draft Technical Support Document (TSD) posted on its website regarding criteria revision methodologies and is going through a Peer Review Comm' e process to determine the most scientifically defensible criteria development process. arine waters, the proposed methodology is the Virginian Province method and Clam Bay disso ygen data will be evaluated against this methodology here to determine the current status m Bay DO relative to potential revised DO criteria. Vir Dissolved Ox e ment survival, defined as larval based~pproach that defines three DO concentration levels based on of serl$itive estuarine species. The three DO concentrations are 1. Criterion hour period woul draft TSD sets this lev 2.9 mg/L. 2. Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) - the mean daily DO concentration above which continuous exposure is not expected to result in unacceptable chronic effects. Using 12 native Florida species, FDEP's draft TSD sets this level at 4.8 mg/L. 3. Final Recruitment Curve (FRC) - establishes the duration of exposures at DO concentrations between the CCC and CMC which can be tolerated without causing unacceptable effects on total larval survival. DO concentration below which any exposure for a 24 acute effects. Using 23 native Florida species, FDEP's The following graph illustrates these draft criteria: CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports Ofl!:ardno ENTRIX Shaping the Future 5.0 .............GrowtITCCC::n:tS.mgft.........,-- ...J ......... . M IE ! 4.5 . ... s::: o ~ 4.0 I~ ! V 3.5 s::: o u o 3.0 C -Criteria Continious Concentration -Criteria Minimum Concentration ~--Final Recruitment Curve -Ju.veniJeSur-v.i.via.l-CM.c=.2...9-mg/L~.~--._. 2.5 o 10 20 30 40 so 60 Duration, days Figure 1. Potential revised marine D Derivation of Dissolved Waters Technical Support Document: in Florida's Fresh and Marine Clam Bay continuous the current status of strategies at potential criteria to determine potential criteria implementation DRAFT Collier Cou has conductedthi'ee conti~.t.I9uS recorder deployments at 3 locations (Upper, Middle, and Outer Clam Baylpuring 2011. Each deployment lasted between 4 and 6 days. The first deployment occurred in March,l~~ril, the secOI'l~in May, and the third in August. A fourth location in Clam Pass is included in the monitoril1g prograr)ll~owever logistical and data issues have hampered data collection at this location and therefore thisSl(ltion is not included in this summary. A brief summary and discussion of the data is presellt~din the graphs below. Figure 2. Figure 3. 14 12 0 10 :::J 8 C, E- o 0 6 4 ---~._-- 2 0 April May Box plots showing compared to 14 12 o o Q 6 4 2 o Upper Clam Bay Outer Clam Bay Middle Clam Bay Location CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports oft!:ardno ENTRIX Shaping the Future E3 Upper Clam Bay o Outliers Extremes iddle Clam Bay iers s III Bay and each deployment during 2011 E3 Upper Clam Bay o Outliers * Extremes E3 Middle Clam Bay o Outliers * Extremes E3 Outer Clam Bay o Outliers * Extremes Box plots showing a summary of all dissolved oxygen data collected at each station during 2011 compared to the potential CMC and CCC criteria. <J CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports Oft!:ardno ENTRIX Shaping the Future As figure 2 indicates, expected seasonal differences in dissolved oxygen concentrations are occurring at all stations with Clam Bay. Figure 3 shows Outer Clam Bay tends to have somewhat higher DO than Upper or Middle Clam Bay. All stations and deployments show measurements that fall below the current minimum DO criteria of 4.0 mg/L and the potential CMC of 2.9 mg/L. Median DO falls below the current minimum criterion during the August deployment at Upper and Middle Clam Bay, but does not exceed the potential CMC at any station. Figure 4 shows the mean daily dissolved oxygen concentration at each station over each deployment period. This figure provides a more accurate comparison of Clam Bay to the potential revised criteria. The CMC is defined as the concentration below which exposure fora:;a4 hour period is expected to result in acute effects. Therefore, individual measurements m elow this level, however, acute effects are not expected unless this criterion is exceeded f ntir~..24 hour period. Similarly, the CCC is defined as a mean daily DO concentration, so the calculi:ltElpJor each 24 hour period during each deployment at each station. As the figure indic; ,uter Clam Bay ceeded the potential CCC during at least one 24 hour period during the Apri ay deployments, Middle and Upper Clam Bay had daily mean DO concentrations that fall be CCC criterion during ay and August deployments. Outer Clam Bay and Upper Clam Bay daily DO CMC during at least one 24 hour period during the s well. Although t average DO concentration for a 24 hour period fell tions, not all measurements for that day did, so the CMC was never actually period at any station. 9 ::i" 8 bo 7 .E. c 6 QJ all >- 5 )( 0 "'C 4 QJ > '0 3 VI VI Ci 2 1 0 1/1/2011 3/2/2011 A A of/; 5/1/2011 6/30/2011 8/29/2011 10/28/2011 12/27/2011 Date . Upper Clam Bay . Middle Clam Bay A Outer Clam Bay -CMC -CCC Figure 4. Mean daily dissolved oxygen concentrations at each Clam Bay sampling location during each deployment compared to the potential CMC and CCC criteria. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports Oft!:ardno ENTRIX Shaping the Future An important consideration in evaluating dissolved oxygen data is the time of day samples are collected. Temperature, photosynthetic activity, and seasonality can affect the DO at any given time of day. Figures 5, 6, and 7 show a summary of DO data collected over all deployments at each station by hour of the day. ::;- ........ till E l: QI till > )( o 'C QI > (5 III III C Figure 5. 10 9 ::;- bo 8 .5. 7 ~ 6 till ~ 5 o 'C 4 QI > (5 3 III t5 2 1 o 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 o o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hour of Day - Outer Clam Bay -25th Percentile -75th Percentile the all deployments. Also shown is ...._.._-_..~_.~.._...._.._--.~_.._ m.._.....~...~._____..m.~~.~m...______m____M..._........___~_.......___._._..___.....____ o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hour of Day - Middle Clam Bay -25th Percentile -75th Percentile Figure 6. Middle Clam Bay dissolved oxygen data by hour of the day for all deployments. Also shown is the 25th and 75th percentile distribution of measurements. CAC September 8,2011 VII-5 Staff Reports of Card no ENTRIX Shaping the Future o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hour of Day - Upper Clam Bay -25th Percentile -75th Percentile lam Bay eX'p~r.iences diel swings in DO likely as a result of Hg~er CJ~~.. Bay experience larger swings in DO than of estuari~li>throughout Florida (and actually all waterbodies), were ac criteria Implementation during the recent FDEP DO The Peer Review Committee discussed potential problems in ev~tl.lClting DO meas!.lrements any criterion because of the large daily swings in DO and the time of daY!be sampler c ted the measurement. At the heart of the problem is the acknowledgment thatJIQt all estuanes are monitored with continuous recorders and FDEP cannot require all potential stakehgJder urchase or rent and deploy continuous recorders to monitor compliance with the criteri refore, the Peer Review Committee suggested conducting an analysis to determine if a certain time of day could be identified that most represented the daily average DO concentration. When completed, only data collected during this time frame would be used to measure compliance against the criteria. This would allow a determination of compliance based on an instantaneous measurement. Figure 7. deployments. Also shown is To this end, figures 5, 6, and 7 also depict the 25th and 75th percentile distributions ofthe data set for each station. Using this distribution, the assumption is made that measurements within this range are the most representative of the mean DO value over a 24 hour period. This analysis shows that, for all CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports Ofl!:ardno ENTRIX Shaping the Future stations, measurements collected between approximately 10 am and 3 pm on any given day provide the best representation of the mean daily DO concentration. On~oin~ Analvses Not Included In This Summary The following bullet list presents some of the analyses and data compilation efforts that are ongoing. This list is not comprehensive as new analyses are continually being explored. · Clam Bay is being compared to continuous recorder from E Bay which has been identified as a reference system by FDEP. Preliminary analysis ay continuous recorder dissolved oxygen data over the same time period as Clam tes a very similar dissolved oxygen regime between the two systems. · Biological data from Clam Bay is being com FDEP in developing the Virginian Provinc · Clam Bay DO data is being analyzed with te perature, pH,salinity, con and nutrient data identify the factors most affecting DO in CI~1'll · An evaluation of the necessity eloping a SSA in Clam Bay given ongoing effort by FDEP and, if so, what thresho include at supporting documentation is necessary. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports Collier County: Numeric Nutrient 8of40 Criteria Clam Bay - Development of Site- Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria V1 Z - ~ ~ PI!an Design Enable Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay~ Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 9 of 40 Table of contents Chapter Pages 2 1 1 3 4 4 6 6 7 9 10 11 12 16 16 16 17 20 22 23 24 Introduction 1. Introduction 1.1. Background Information 1.2. Report Objectives 2. Data Sources 3. Naples (WBID 3278Q) 4. Is Clam Bay "impaired" using existing FDEP criteria? 4.1. Fecal coliform bacteria 4.2. Dissolved Oxygen 4.3. Chlorophyll-a (Nutrient Criteria) 4.4. Sediment Characterization 5. Review of previous TMDL development 5.1. Salinity based Nutrient Targets 6. Techniques to derive numeric water quality criteria for Clam Bay 7. Proposed water quality criteria for Clam Bay 7.1. Is Clam Bay Healthy? 7.2. Proposed NNC normalized for salinity 7.3. Conceptual Management Responses 7.4. 2010 Clam Bay Management Assessments 8. Downstream Protective Values 9. Literature Cited Tables Table 1. Water quality comparison between Clam and Moorings Bay (2009-2011) 5 Table 2. Fecal coliform bacteria summary statistics (2009-2011) 7 Table 3. Dissolved oxygen correlation with potential causative parameters 8 Table 4. Dissolved oxygen statistics for four WBIDs in Southwest Florida (from Atkins 2011) 8 Table 5. Quarter and annual average chlorophyll-a values for Clam Bay (2009-2011). 9 Table 6. Chlorophyll-a correlation with nutrients and secchi depth. 10 Table 7. Summary of DO Monitoring Data in the Verified Period for Hendry Creek, WBIDs 3258B and 3258B1 (Table 2.2 from Hendry Creek TMDL, FDEP 2008). 11 Table 8. Conductivity (f..IM) summary statistics for Estero Bay wetlands, Hendry Creek (Freshwater) and Hendry Creek (Marine). 12 Table 9. Comparison of expected total nitrogen based on Estero Bay wetland relationship with average conductivity with Hendry Creek TMDL target TN and Average TN. 16 Table 10. List of benthic organisms identified in Clam Bay (Conservancy of Southwest Florida 2010). 16 Table 11. Conductivity (f..IM) summary statistics for Clam Bay and Estero Bay wetlands 18 Table 12. Comparison of expected TN and TP based on Estero Bay wetland relationship with average conductivity and average TN and TP. 19 Table 13. Comparison of TN and TP screening criteria, Hendry TMDL targets, Clam Bay proposed NNC and Clam Bay average. 20 Table 14. Minimum, median and maximum proposed DPV TN and TP concentrations for Charlotte Harbor estuary compared to proposed Clam Bay DPV values. 23 Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 10 of 40 Figures Figure 1. Upper, Inner, and Outer Clam Bay are all part of the Clam Bay system. 1 Figure 2. Proposed revision dividing Clam and Moorings Bays into separate WBIDs. 5 Figure 3.Relationship between color and dissolved oxygen in the Fakahatchee Strand (WBID 3278G; p<0.05)(from Atkins 2011) 9 Figure 4. Location of sediment cores collected in Clam Bay. 10 Figure 5. Location map of Estero Bay Wetlands (WBID 3258A), Hendry Creek (Freshwater) (WIBD 3258B), and Hendry Creek (Marine) (WBID 3258B1). 12 Figure 6. Kruskal-Wallis comparison of medians for conductivity values in Estero Bay wetlands (EBW), Hendry Creek (Freshwater) (HCF) and Hendry Creek (Marine) (HCM). 13 Figure 7. Diagram of salinity distribution patterns along an estuary from the riverine (freshwater) input to the Gulf (Ocean). 13 Figure 8.Significant correlations between salinity and total nitrogen (mg/L) were found for the Hillsborough River, Sarasota Bay, Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay Wetlands. Graphs shown with best-fit line and 95% prediction limits. 14 Figure 9. Expected, upper, and lower (95 percent prediction limits) total nitrogen concentration for Estero Bay Wetlands based on the average conductivity. 15 Figure 10. Expected total nitrogen concentration for Hendry Creek (Marine) based on the average conductivity using the Estero Bay Wetland best-fit equation with 95 percent prediction limits. 15 Figure 11. Mann-Whitney comparison of medians for conductivity values in Clam Bay and Estero Bay wetlands (EBW). 18 Figure 12. Clam Bay potential TN target based on Estero Bay Wetlands regression and Clam Bay salinity with 90 percent prediction limits. 19 Figure 13. Clam Bay potential TP target based on Estero Bay Wetlands regression and Clam Bay salinity with 90 percent prediction limits. 20 Figure 14. Clam Bay conceptual water quality flowchart 21 Figure 15. Management response matrix using outcomes from both TN and TP evaluation. 22 Figure 16. Management response actions in response to various outcomes. 22 Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber ii Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 11 of 40 Criteria 1. Introduction 1,1. Background Information 1.1.1. Clam Bay Clam Bay is an important natural feature in Collier County. The Clam Bay system consists of three tidally influenced lagoons: Upper, Inner and Outer Clam Bays (Figure 1). Associated with the increased development of Collier County, there has been concern among the public that Clam Bay might have been adversely impacted by environmental pressures that typically accompany population growth. In its historical configuration, Clam Bay would have received fresh water discharges mostly via small tidal creeks and groundwater inflow. Watershed development most likely increased both the amount of freshwater discharged into Clam Bay due to an increase in stormwater runoff, as well as loads of total suspended solids, nitrogen, and phosphorus (PBS&J, 2008). Figure 1. Upper, Inner, and Outer Clam Bay are all part of the Clam Bay system. Inner Clam Bay Upper Clam Bay Outer Clam Bay The Clam Bay system was impacted in the 1950s by the construction of two roads; Vanderbilt Beach Road to the north and Seagate Drive to the south. Historically, Clam Bay was connected to the Gulf of Mexico indirectly via Wiggins Pass to the north and Doctor's Pass to the south, as well as its direct connection via Clam Pass. Outer Clam Bay temporarily lost its historic connection to Moorings Bay (located to the south) in the 1950's when Seagate Drive was constructed. As it was originally configured, Seagate Drive cut off tidal connections to the south, and Clam Pass was left as the only connection to the Gulf of Mexico. In response to water quality concerns, culverts were placed under Seagate Drive in 1976 to allow for tidal exchange between Clam and Moorings Bays. Originally, the culverts were intended to allow flows only from Moorings Bay into Clam Bay, but their construction was such that flows occurred in both directions (Collier County, 1997). In the 1980s, the tidal connection between Upper Clam Bay and Vanderbilt Lagoon (to the north) was severed due to development activities (Collier County, 1997). Although Clam Bay's watershed had been extensively developed, the shoreline of Clam Bay has remained in an almost entirely natural condition, with mangroves, rather than seawalls, as the dominant feature. Though watershed development has not directly impacted the shoreline features of most of Clam Bay, secondary impacts associated with the alteration of freshwater and nutrient delivery could have produced a negative impact to the overall ecology. Excessive nutrient (Le., nitrogen and phosphorus) concentrations in Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay~ Development of::;ite-Specific fl.lternative Water Quality Criteria CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 12 of 40 surface waters can lead to eutrophication, which can be indicated by algal blooms, decreased water clarity, depressed dissolved oxygen levels, declines in seagrass coverage, fish kills, and reduced benthic productivity. However, in estuaries such as Clam Bay, nutrient concentrations are only one factor determining the degree of eutrophication. For Clam Bay, other critical factors could include residence time and the interaction of other chemical constituents (i.e., tannin concentrations). While it would not be unreasonable to expect that water quality within Clam Bay cou:d have experienced negative impacts associated with the rapid population growth that has occurred in Southwest Florida, it has also been concluded (Conservancy of Southwest Florida, 2010) that, "... the spatial distribution of seagrasses in Clam Bay has remained relatively consistent over the last 30 years." In addition, the organic content of sediments in the Clam Bay system does not appear to be indicative of substantial over-enrichment by nutrients (PBS&J 2010). Instead, it has been suggested that the fine-grained sediments that characterize much of Clam Bay are likely due to reduced flushing rates and low tidal velocities within Clam Bay (PBS&J 2010) a conclusion similar to those reached by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the 1970s (EPA, 1977) and by Collier County in the 1980s (Collier County, 1987). The lack of evidence for excessive nutrient enrichment in Clam Bay may be due to the substantial stormwater treatment system that occurs on the western boundary of the Pelican Bay development, as noted in PBS&J (2008). Levels of metals in Clam Bay sediments did not exceed threshold levels except for a site within one of the canals within the Seagate neighborhood; this elevated level of arsenic was postulated as perhaps being due to the use of pressure-treated wood for docks in that canal (PBS&J 2010). 1.1.2. State and Federal Water Quality Guidance The State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has historically used a narrative standard for nutrient concentrations in surface waters, which states that nutrient concentrations must not cause ".. .an imbalance of flora and fauna." This approach has generally served Florida well, as it allows for the recognition that there can be locations where water quality impairment from a regulatory viewpoint can actually reflect natural conditions. In the 1990s, the State of Florida passed the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA; Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida) wherein FDEP committed to a specific course of action to meet the requirements of the Federal Government's Clean Water Act (CWA). Within the CWA, Section 303(d) requires states to submit lists of surface waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards and to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these waters. Under Florida Law (Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida), a TMDL is defined as "... the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body or water segment can assimilate from all sources without exceeding water quality standards..." The FWRA directed FDEP to develop a method that would clearly define those waters that should be included in the state's 303(d) list of water bodies that did not meet their appropriate water quality standards (i.e., "impaired waters"). Waterbodies on this list would then require a TMDL to be developed. To prepare the 303(d) list, FDEP relied upon advice received from various Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) made up of individuals with expertise in matters of water quality and ecological assessments. TAC's were formed for developing impairment criteria for lakes, streams, and estuaries, as it was determined early on that separate criteria would have to be developed for these very different types of waterbodies. Based on input from these TACs, the State of Florida's Environmental Regulation Commission adopted (in 2001) a FDEP- approved method for identifying impaired surface waters in Florida (Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code; Identification of Impaired Surface Waters) also known as the "Impaired Waters Rule" or IWR. After the development of the IWR, FDEP implemented a plan for the development of numeric nutrient concentration criteria (NNC) which was reviewed and approved by EPA. FDEP's plan to establish NNC was designed to establish NNC for lakes and streams as a first effort. The plan called for adoption of criteria by the end of 2010, but the schedule was accelerated in response to EPA's January 2009 determination that NNC are necessary under the CWA. In January of 2009, the Assistant Administrator of EPA concluded that the State of Florida's narrative standard for nutrients was inadequate, and that EPA would then "... propose numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for lakes and flowing waters within 12 months, and for estuaries and coastal waters, within 24 months." The push by EPA to develop NNC (rather than allow FDEP's EPA-approved process to continue) originated from legal action brought against EPA in 2008 by Earthjustice, a public interest law firm. Earthjustice filed a lawsuit to require EPA to create NNC for Florida waters, in a lawsuit filed on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, and the St. Johns Riverkeeper. In August 2009, EPA entered into a Consent Decree with Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 2 Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 13 of 40 Criteria Earthjustice to settle the 2008 lawsuit by committing to the development of NNC for lakes and flowing waters by January 2010, and for estuaries and coastal waters by January 2011. Final standards were to be established for lakes and flowing waters by October 2010 and for estuaries and coastal waters by October 2011 More recently the parties involved in the original Consent Decree agreed to extend the timeline for proposed estuarine and coastal waters nutrient criteria to November 14, 2011, with a deadline for finalized criteria for NNC for estuarine and coastal waters of August 15, 2012 As relates to coastal systems such as Clam Bay, an earlier (2010) EPA report on numeric nutrient standards for estuaries and their watersheds seems to have been withdrawn from further consideration. The withdrawal of this earlier report appears to be based at least in part on strong and negative feedback from the various resource management entities and the FDEP. In their latest timeline, EPA has stated that it will release revised numeric nutrient criteria for estuaries, their watersheds, and coastal waters by November 2011, with final nutrient criteria developed by August 2012. The schedule for estuarine and coastal water criteria requires EPA to propose estuarine and coastal waters nutrient criteria and downstream protective values for Florida by November 14, 2011 to allow for peer review by the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and to allow for public comment, followed by potential revisions to the proposed NNC by EPA. For Clam Bay, prior assessments have indicated that existing water quality standards described in FDEP's IWR are often times not met, particularly in Upper Clam Bay (i.e., PBS&J 2009). In that report, PBS&J (2009) noted that "Data from these five locations, while not properly located for ambient monitoring purposes, clearly indicate that Clam Bay would be classified as a "Verified Impaired" for water quality. Levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) are frequently below standards set in the IWR (FAC 62-302.530). Additionally, the data indicate that portions of Clam Bay exceed threshold values of chlorophyll-a established in the IWR (FAC 62-302.530)." In response to concerns raised by Collier County, PBS&J (2009) designed a water quality monitoring program for Clam Bay, which is currently being implemented by Collier County staff. Water quality data are now collected using FDEP-trained staff, sampling procedures are consistent with a Quality Assurance / Quality Control Plan, station locations are appropriate for an ambient monitoring program, and the data are uploaded into the currently used database for the storage of biological, chemical, and physical data for ground and surface waters, the STORage and RETrieval database, or STORET (which was not done for earlier data collected in Clam Bay). However, it was also concluded (PBS&J 2009) that both the DO and the chlorophyll-a standards outlined in FDEP's IWR can be inappropriate in Southwest Florida water bodies, and that Collier County should work with staff from FDEP to develop site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) for parameters such as chlorophyll-a, total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and DO. This report is meant to propose SSAC for Clam Bay, based on guidance provided by EPA (2010) in "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2010 (75 Federal Register 75762). This report uses a combination of relevant background information, a summary of existing studies on Clam Bay, and well-developed and scientifically appropriate empirical methods to develop NNC for Clam Bay. The methods employed are consistent with prior studies conducted for the Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Programs (Le., Janicki Environmental, Inc., 2010) as well as guidance outlined in EPA (2010). 1.2, Report Objectives The report addresses six topics which are outlined below: Section 2: Data sources Section 3: Should Naples (WBID 3278Q) which combines both Clam Bay and Moorings Bay, be split into two separate WBIDs Section 4: Is Clam Bay "impaired" using existing FDEP criteria and is impairment likely due to nutrient- related impacts to water quality? Section 5: Review of previous TMDL development Section 6: Techniques to derive numeric water quality criteria for Clam Bay Section 7: Proposed water quality criteria for Clam Bay Section 8: Downstream protective values Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 3 Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 14 of 40 2. Data Sources The data used for the analyses included data provided by Collier County, the City of Naples and IWR Run 42 data (supplied by FDEP) to create a comprehensive dataset. All available water quality data were subject to a quality assurance I quality control plan. All stations identified with an organization code of 21 FLKWA T (Lakewatch) were removed from the dataset prior to analysis. At this time, Lakewatch data are not included as part of the data sets used for the determination of impairment status by FDEP. Data from the following eight waterbodies were retrieved and reviewed: Clam Bay, Moorings Bay, Estero Bay Wetlands, Hendry Creek, Charlotte Harbour, Sarasota Bay, and the Hillsborough River. 3. Naples (WBID 3278Q) The Naples WBID (3278Q) was comprised of both Clam and Moorings Bay (Figure 2). In response to water quality concerns, culverts were placed under Seagate Drive in 1976 to allow for the restoration of historical tidal exchange between Clam and Moorings Bays. Originally, the culverts were intended to allow flows only from Moorings Bay into Clam Bay, but their construction was such that flows could occur in both directions (Collier County, 1997). While a re-established hydrologic connection exists between Clam and Moorings Bay, comparisons of nine water quality parameters between the two Bays indicate statistically significantly differences in water quality (Table 1). A Mann-Whitney comparison of medians test was performed using data provided by Collier County and the City of Naples, which included data from 2009 to 2011. Eight of the nine parameters were statistically significantly different (p<0.05) when comparing median values in Clam to Moorings Bays (Table 1). Overall, Clam Bay has higher TN, TP, chlorophyll-a, and color values compared to Moorings Bay. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) was the only parameter with similar values between Bays. Salinity, temperature, Secchi disk depth and DO for Clam Bay were below the values calculated for Moorings Bay. The substantially different water chemistry between Clam and Moorings Bay, in addition to the land use and hydrologic modifications which have occurred in both systems, suggests that separation of the two waterbodies is required for water quality purposes. Although Clam Bay's watershed had been developed rather extensively, the shoreline features of Clam Bay have not been altered nearly as much as the shoreline features of Moorings Bay, which had undergone significant modifications due to dredge and fill activities as early as the 1970s. Through coordination between FDEP, Collier County, and the City of Naples, FDEP agreed to divide WBID 3278Q (Naples) into two separate waterbodies (pers. Communication Jennifer Nelson, FDEP). The proposed name for the northern WBID is Clam Bay which will be defined using the Clam Bay drainage basin. The southern WBID will encompass Moorings Bay. The new WBID designation best reflects the water quality and hydrologic variability shown between the Clam and Mooring Bay systems (Figure 2). Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 4 Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 15 of 40 Criteria Figure 2. Proposed revision dividing Clam and Moorings Bays into separate WBIDs. Clam Bay Moorings Bay Table 1. Water quality comparison between Clam and Moorings Bay (2009-2011) Salinity (ppt) 32.2 34.8 Y Temperature (oC) 23.9 27.0 Y Secchi Depth (m) 0.7 1.3 Y Color (PCU) 30 15 Y Chlorophyll-a (fJg/L) 6.2 3.2 Y Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 0.62 0.43 Y Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.046 0.032 Y Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 4.9 6.2 Y BOD (mg/L) 2.1 2.1 N Data from Collier County and City of Naples (2009-2011) Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- DeveloPment of:site-SPElc:ific Alternative \!Vater Quality Criteria CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 16 of 40 4. Is Clam Bay "impaired" using existing FDEP criteria? The FDEP IWR contains approved methods for evaluating water quality of lake, stream, and marine waterbodies. Clam Bay is designated as a Class II, marine waterbody. Class II status indicates that the designated use of the waterbody is for shellfish propagation and harvesting. Clam Bay data provided by Collier County for the period of 2009 to 2011 were compared against the appropriate standard for fecal coliform bacteria, DO, and chlorophyll-a. If Clam Bay water quality fell above or below "impairment" for DO or chlorophyll-a, data were then compared against FDEP (2010) and EPA (2007) threshold concentrations for nutrients: 1.0 mg TN I liter screening level used by FDEP (2010) and EPA (2007) o 19 mg TP I liter screening level used by FDEP (2010) and EPA (2007) Additionally, assessments were performed to evaluate potential nutrient impacts on DO directly or indirectly on water clarity (Secchi disk depth). Finally, toxins levels in sediments were quantified and 210 Pb and 137CS testing were utilized to evaluate the sediment accumulation rate in Clam Bay. 4.1. Fecal coliform bacteria Fecal coliform bacteria standards are more stringent for Class II waterbodies compared to Class III (recreational use). The appropriate standard to evaluate fecal coliform bacteria impairment status in Clam Bay, based on the FAC. 62-303.470 is stated as follows: Glass 1/ waters shall be included on the verified list for coliform impairment if, following review of the available data as described in subsection 62-303.460(2), F.A.G. (a) The number of samples above 43 counts per 100 mL meet the requirement in subsection 62-303.420(6), FAG., with the exception that paragraph 62-303.320(4)(a), F.A.G., does not apply and samples collected on different days within any four day period will be assessed as daily samples, or (b) The water segment includes a sampling location that has a median fecal coliform MPN value that exceeds 14 counts per 100 ml for the verified period. To calculate a median value for a sampling location, there shall be at least 20 samples collected during the verified period. Fecal coliform bacteria data from Clam Bay were compared to two criteria. The first criteria evaluated was to test if sufficient samples exceeded 43 CFU/100 mL based on the sample size (N=132). A minimum of 19 samples are required to not meet the fecal coliform bacteria criteria in order for Clam Bay to be placed on the verified list. Sixty-eight of the 132 data points (52%) exceeded Class II standard of 43 CFU/100mL. Based on this comparison alone, Clam Bay is impaired for fecal coliform bacteria. The second criteria compared the median fecal coliform value for each station to 14 CFU/100 mL (Table 2). Sufficient data points are not currently available to complete a station by station comparison with the 14 CFU/1 OOmL criteria required for the verified list. However, only ten samples are required by station for inclusion on the planning period list. All nine water quality stations had median fecal coliform bacteria values above 14 CFU/100mL. Though values exceed the regulatory standard, it should be considered that fecal coliform bacteria may not be an appropriate indicator of pathogenic diseases in sub-tropical environments such as Florida. The specificity of the fecal coliform test is compromised by the more constant and warmer ambient water temperatures in Southwest Florida. The inability to specifically identify humans as a source of bacteria using traditional indicator testing protocols has been noted by Fujioka (2001) and Fujioka et al. (1999) for various tropical locations. Source identification studies are recommended to determine whether anthropogenic factors cause of the elevated bacteria concentrations prior to developing recommendations for remediation (Bernhard and Field 2000). Elevated fecal coliform bacteria concentrations have been attributed to wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals and birds (Levesque et al. 1993, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2002). In prior TMDLs, birds were estimated to produce 200 to 400 million fecal coliform bacteria per bird per day (humans about 2 billion per day; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2002). Using a low end estimate of 200 milion fecal coliform Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version Doc Date I JobNumber 6 Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay~ Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 17 of 40 Criteria bacteria per bird per day, one bird could cause 124,000 gallons of water to exceed 43 CFU / 100 mL. The total volume of Clam Bay is approximately 105 million gallons. Therefore, it is feasible to expect that 850 birds could produce enough bacteria - every day - to cause 105 million gallons of water to exceed 43 CFU/100 mL. Fecal coliform bacteria are susceptible to both die-off due to the saline environment and in- situ production. Regardless, it is within the realm of possibilities that birds are an important source of the bacteria in Clam Bay. In an effort to quantifiably identify the potential fecal coliform bacteria sources to Clam Bay, Collier County is pursuing a microbial source tracking effort for Clam Bay. Samples will be collected in Clam Bay and analyzed for bacterial genes or viruses specific to humans. Positive results would indicate an anthropogenic source but negative results do not prove that human sources are not present. Table 2. Fecal coliform bacteria summary statistics (2009-2011) Average M Clam 132 55 44 35 310 43 Bay Station statistics CB1 11 109 94 89 28 310 14 CB2 14 95 70 80 32 230 14 CB3 14 58 60 49 17 111 14 CB4 14 56 47 43 6 114 14 CB5 16 52 48 37 1 115 14 CB6 16 28 16.5 18 3 88 14 CB7 16 24 22 16 3 54 14 CB8 16 54 27 32 4 290 14 CB9 15 42 28 23 1 153 14 Data from Collier County (2009-2011) 4,2, Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen standards are differentiated based on the salinity designation of the waterbody. Clam Bay is designated a marine waterbody, therefore the appropriate standard to evaluate DO impairment status in Clam Bay based on FAC. 62-303.470 is as follows: Dissolved oxygen concentrations shall not average less than 5.0 in a 24-hour period and shall never be less than 4. O. Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above these levels shall be maintained. Dissolved oxygen concentrations in ambient waters can be influenced by many factors, including temperature and salinity; 4.2.1. Is Clam Bay impaired for Dissolved oxygen? Dissolved oxygen data from Clam Bay were compared to the minimum 4.0 mg/L criteria. Based on the sample size (N=144), a minimum of 18 and 20 samples are required to not meet the DO criteria in order for Clam Bay to be placed on the planning or verified list, respectively. DO values were below the minimum criteria of 4.0 mg/L in 30 of the 144 samples. In accordance with the IWR standard for DO, Clam Bay is impaired for DO. Sufficient daily DO data are not available to calculate a daily average for comparison with the 5.0 mg/L daily average criteria. To calculate the daily DO average, a minimum of four temporally independent samples (at least 4 hours apart) is required. Additionally, a minimum of 20 samples are required in to be eligible for placement on the verified list. As of June 2011, only 17 sampling events have been completed in Clam Bay. 4.2.2. Is dissolved oxygen impairment linked to nutrients? A correlation analysis between DO and multiple parameters (Le. nutrients, color, salinity, temperature and chlorophyll-a) was performed to identify the potential cause for suppressed DO concentrations in Clam Bay (Table 3). A significant regression was not observed between DO and TN. Dissolved oxygen was indirectly Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 7 Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 18 of 40 related to TP (p=0.0157) but TP only explained 4% of the variability in DO values. The best explanation in variability of DO concentrations in Clam Bay is predicted by a multiple regression model including color and temperature (~=0.38). Table 3. Dissolved oxygen correlation with potential causative parameters Potential causative para,rneter Total phosphorus Dissolved oxygen exponential 0.0157 0.04 inverse Color Dissolved oxygen exponential 0.0000 0.14 inverse Salinity Dissolved oxygen exponential 0.0188 0.04 direct Temperature Dissolved oxygen exponential 0.0000 0.33 inverse Chlorophyll-a Dissolved oxygen exponential 0.0003 0.10 inverse Total nitrogen Dissolved oxygen NA NS NA NA Data from Collier County (2009-2011) While the FDEP IWR requires a minimum DO of 4.0 mg/L in all Florida estuaries, DO values below 4.0 mg/L are expected in Southwest Florida (Atkins 2011). The Fakahatchee watershed (WBID 3278G) has been identified as a reference watershed that has undergone minimal disturbance. Despite this, the median DO in the Fakahatchee Strand (3278G) was significantly lower than the Faka-Union North and South Segments and the Rookery Bay (Inland East Segment) watersheds (Kruskal-Wallis; p<0.05, Table 4). Additionally, the median DO concentration in the Fakahatchee Strand was lower than the Florida freshwater and marine DO standard (5.0 mg/L). Table 4. Dissolved oxygen statistics for four WBIDs in Southwest Florida (from Atkins 2011) WBID (mg/L 3278G Fakahatchee Strand 4.1 3.7 0.2 3278H Faka-Union (North Segment) 5.3 5.2 1.6 12.8 32781 Faka-Union (South Segment) 6.2 6.4 1.2 12.9 3278V Rookery Bay (Inland East 6.2 6.4 2.1 11.4 Segment) Similar to Clam Bay, no significant relationships between TN and DO or TP and DO were observed at the water quality sites reviewed in the mostly pristine watershed of the Fakahatchee Strand. Therefore, there is little evidence to suggest that TN or TP load reductions would have an impact on DO in the Fakahatchee Strand. However, a significant correlation between color and DO was evident in the Fakahatchee Strand (p<0.05; Figure 3). Tannins (color) are predominantly produced from leaves, wood, bark and other detritus from trees. An increase in tannins (color) usually coincides with an increase in organic material resulting in a decrease in DO. Due to the heavily forested landscape within the Fakahatchee Strand (85% natural land cover), increased levels of tannins or color would be expected, especially during wetter time periods. Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 8 Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of ~ite~Specific f\lternative \/Vater Quality Criteria Figure 3. Relationship between color and dissolved oxygen in the Fakahatchee Strand (WBID 3278G; p<0.05)(from Atkins 2011) CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 19 of 40 Fakahatchee Strand 2000-2008 14 .. :J 12 R2 = 0 1377 Ch S 10 .. c .. <l> 8 .m. 01 :>. x .. 0 6 . "0 5.0 mq/L standard <l> . . ~ 0 4 .. !/J !/J is 2 . m.. I. .. : .. . 0 .. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Color (PCU) 4.3. Chlorophyll-a (Nutrient Criteria) Chlorophyll-a is evaluated as a proxy for nutrient impairment. The IWR provides a narrative interpretation of nutrient criteria (FAC. 62-303.450) which allows for the development of a site specific alternative threshold with the presence of sufficient data that reflect "imbalance in flora or fauna". In the absence of sufficient data, estuaries and open coastal waters are subject to a standard of annual chlorophyll-a average of 11 J..I9/L (FAC.62-303-353). Based upon the data available for Clam Bay, the default standard of 11 J..I9/L was used to assess nutrient impairment. 4.3.1. Is Clam Bay impaired for chlorophyll-a (nutrients)? The technique for calculating the annual average chlorophyll-a values is provided in FAC. 62-303-350. In summary, the chlorophyll-a average for each three month season (Quarter 1, Quarter 2, Quarter 3, and Quarter 4) is calculated. The chlorophyll-a average of four consecutive seasons is calculated to assess impairment. For Clam Bay, sufficient data were only available in 2010 to calculate an annual average (9.0 J..I9/L) which was below the 11 J..Ig/L standard required for estuaries (Table 5). However, a separate evaluation of the annual chlorophyll-a average for Upper Clam Bay (14.6 J..Ig/L) alone indicates elevated phytoplankton production. While Clam Bay is not impaired for chlorophyll-a or nutrients based on chlorophyll-a values below the 11 J..Ig/L threshold, further investigation of the elevated values in Upper Clam Bay might be warranted. Table 5. Quarter and annual average chlorophyll-a values for Clam Bay (2009-2011). Year Quarter 1 Quarter ..... .....6.n".."" .................. 2009 8.3 2010 6.8 8.2 15.1 5.9 9.0 2011 7.7 Data from Collier County (2009-2011) 4.3.2. Is chlorophyll-a linked to nutrients? A correlation analysis between chlorophyll-a and TN and TP was performed to identify the potential cause for elevated chlorophyll-a concentrations in Clam Bay (Table 6). A significant regression was observed between chlorophyll-a and both TP and TN, which explained 22 and 25% of the variability in data, respectively. However, despite the link between nutrients and chlorophyll-a, a resulting impact on water Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 9 Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 20 of 40 Criteria clarity (Secchi disk depth) was not observed. Connections between nutrients and chlorophyll-a, chlorophyll- a and water clarity, and water clarity and seagrass is thus not evident in Clam Bay. Table 6. Chlorophyll-a correlation with nutrients and secchi depth. Potential causative par<lrn~ter Total phosphorus Chlorophyll-a Total nitrogen Chlorophyll-a Chlorophyll-a Secchi Depth Data from Collier County (2009-2011) lationship exponential exponential 0.0000 0.0000 21.54 24.83 NA direct direct NA NS NA 4.4. Sediment Characterization As part of a study performed by Atkins (formerly PBS&J) for Collier County in Clam Bay (PBS&J 2010), a sediment characterization was completed to address the the predominance of fine-grained sediments in Clam Bay and the potential for such sediments to be influenced by flushing rates within Clam Bay. The sediment characterization study included an assessment of the physical and chemical characteristics of sediments throughout the Clam Bay system (including organic content, carbonate content), an assessment of levels of toxins throughout the bay, and an assessment of the relative rate of accumulation of sediments throughout the bay. 4.4.1. Toxins In 2010, cores were collected from 13 sites in Clam Bay for sediment physical (organic and carbonate contents) and chemical characterization (toxin levels) (Figure 4). Low levels of organic enrichment suggest a lack of impact from excessive algal blooms. Only one site (station 2) had toxin values above established thresholds. Elevated arsenic was observed at this site within the Seagate canals, which could have been due to the pressure-treated wood used for docks in this canal. A review of the sediments indicated that Outer Clam Bay's sediments are mostly a mixture of fine-grained sediments, rather than sand. The sediment composition are likely due to reduced current velocities within Clam Bay (US EPA 1977, Collier County 1987). Past studies of Clam Bay have shown that areas with fine- grained sediments have lowered diversity of benthic invertebrates (Collier County 1987) Figure 4. Location of sediment cores collected in Clam Bay. 4.4.2. Sediment Accumulation Sediment cores were collected from five locations in Clam Bay (two from canals and three from open bay systems) (Fi~ure 4). The cores were frozen and transported to Louisiana State University (LSU) to be analyzed for 10Pb and 137CS. 210Pb provides relative sediment accretion rate estimates while 137CS provides a reference point for dating using residual of nuclear bomb fallout (which peaked in 1963/64). At the open bay sites, 0.32 to 0.35 cm/yr sediment accretion rates were measured. These values are within range from Sarasota Bay (0.32 cm/yr; Tomasko and Keenan 2010) as well as within the range of expected rates with and without accelerated sea level rise (0.24 to 0.52 cm/yr; Clark 1992). Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc 10 Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 21 of 40 5. Review of previous TMDL development While Clam Bay appears to be impaired for DO, nutrients cannot be linked to these low values. Additionally, elevated chlorophyll-a concentrations are found in Upper Clam Bay, but a resulting impact on water clarity is not evident. While a local interpretation of the TMDL development process is logical in nature it is not accurate as to the application of Florida statutes: The Conservancy of Southwest Florida expressed the following sentiments in 2009, ".. .in order to trigger a TMDL, dissolved oxygen levels have to be below standards in concert with causative pollutants. Biological Oxygen Demand, Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus also have to exceed State standards. Dissolved oxygen levels recorded in Clam Bay have been below the State standard, typical of a lot of estuarine waterways in the County including Rookery Bay... these levels are not surprising and can be defended (K. Worley 2009)." Presently, screening levels exist for TN and TP but there are no nutrient standards for the state of Florida. However, TMDLs have been developed in waterbodies with DO impairments even when TN and TP concentrations were below screening criteria (i.e. Hendry Creek TMDL, FDEP 2008). Hendry Creek, freshwater (3258B) and marine (3258B1), located in Lee County, have both been declared impaired for DO (Figure 5), and in 2008, FDEP developed a TMDL requiring a 32% load reduction for TN, even though nutrient concentrations were below (TN) or well below (TP) screening criteria (Table 7). Table 7. Summary of DO Monitoring Data in the Verified Period for Hendry Creek, WBJDs 3258B and 3258B1 (Table 2.2 from Hendry Creek TMDL, FDEP 2008). Total number of sarnp!les IWR required number of violations for the Verified list Number of observed violations Number of observed! nonviolations Number of seasons during which. sampJeswere collected Highest observation (mg!l) Lowest observatIon (mgfL) Medi.an observation (mg/L) Mean observation (mglL) Screening value for BOD (mg/L) Screening value for TN (mg!L) Screening value for TP (mglL) Median value for BOD observatlons(mglL) Median value for TN observations (mgfL) Median value for TP observations (mg/q Possible causative pollutant by rWR 59 10 31 28 4 13.0 1.1 4,9 5.0 2.0 1.6 0.22 1.5 '0.775 0.'03 TN 39 7 34 5 4 6.9 0.5 2.6 2.7 2.1 1.0 0.19 1.3 0.8815 0.054 TN Impaired FI!NAL ASSESSMENT Impaired MgJl. - MiWgrams per !:iter; BOD - Biological o~en demand; TP - Tolal phosphorus. For the development of the Hendry Creek TMDL, a reference wetland (the Estero Bay Wetlands -WBID 3258A) was selected to establish target nutrient concentrations (Figure 5). FDEP stated that, "Estero Bay Wetland has similar hydrologic features to Hendry Creek and the anthropogenic influence is minimal, making it a good reference waterbody for developing a target concentration representing "natural conditions (FDEP 2008)". The target TN and TP concentrations for Hendry Creek(Marine) were calculated using the median values from the Estero Bay Wetlands, 0.6 and 0.05 mg/L, respectively.. Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version Doc Date I JobNumber Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay~ Development of Site-Specific f\lternative WatElr Quality Criteria CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 22 of 40 Figure 5. Location map of Estero Bay Wetlands (WBIO 3258A), Hendry Creek (Freshwater) (WIBO 3258B), and Hendry Creek (Marine) (WBIO 3258B1). 5.1. Salinity based Nutrient Targets Using the period of record data from IWR Run 42, the conductivity (a proxy for salinity) values for each waterbody from the Hendry Creek TMDL were compared to evaluate the hydrologic similarities between water bodies (Figure 6, Table 8). A Kruskal-Wallis comparison of medians indicated that the Estero Bay Wetlands (EBW) is statistically more saline than Hendry Creek (Freshwater; HCF) or Hendry Creek (Marine; HCM; Figure 6). The importance of evaluating the conductivity characteristics of the reference location compared with the selected waterbody is because Hendry Creek is part of an estuary (Figure 7), and by definition, an estuary is "a body of water formed where freshwater from rivers and streams flows into the ocean, mixing with the seawater" (www.epa.gov). Due to the changes in hydrologic inputs and weather impacts, the salinity (conductivity) at any given point in an estuary vary in a given day. A variation in hydrologic inputs (freshwater flows) results in a change in salinity in the estuary. Nutrient concentrations have been shown to be inversely related to salinity in various locations in Southwest Florida (i.e. Hillsborough River, Sarasota Bay, Charlotte Harbor, Estero Bay Wetlands; Figure 8). Table 8. Conductivity (I.lM) summary statistics for Estero Bay wetlands, Hendry Creek (Freshwater) and Hendry Creek (Marine). Estero Bay Wetlands 46,488 Hendry Creek (Freshwater) 3,638 Hendry Creek (Marine) 11,679 Period of record data from IWR Run 42 48,475 755 4,975 2,500 250 96 61 ,400 40,400 52,500 Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific f\lternative Water Quality Criteria CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 23 of 40 Figure 6. Kruskal-Wallis comparison of medians for conductivity values in Estero Bay wetlands (EBW), Hendry Creek (Freshwater) (HCF) and Hendry Creek (Marine) (HCM). 80000 i' 60000 2- B ~ 40000 0. ::l "0 c: 0 () 20000 0 EBW HCF HCM Figure 7. Diagram of salinity distribution patterns along an estuary from the riverine (freshwater) input to the Gulf (Ocean). River 0.5 :psu }- " : Ongoha,llne 5 PSU}, MesohaHne (Frnh Willer) Estuary (Bral;:kish WIIl.r) Polyhaline - 30 psu Ocean Euhaline Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay~ Development of Site~Specific Alternative Water quality Criteria CAC September 8,2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 24 of 40 Figure 8. Significant correlations between salinity and total nitrogen (mg/L) were found for the Hillsborough River, Sarasota Bay, Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay Wetlands. Graphs shown with best-fit line and 95% prediction limits. 2 Ol g C W g Z ro '0 f- HiIIsborough River A.Total Nitrogen = exp(0.08356 - 0.0306509'A.Salinity) 3 ,.- "'Q . ~, 4 Charlotte Harbor ATN = 1.37947 - 0.0237786*A.SALlN a a :J' 0, 3 g C tV g 2 Z ro '0 f- 10 20 30 40 2 a o o 10 20 30 Salinity (ppt) Sarasota Bay A.TN = exp(-O.0436092 - O.0253919'A.SALlN) 40 00 Salinity (ppt) 4 Estero Bay Wetlands tlvitynutrientanalysis.TN = 1.24451 - 0.0191291'conductlvitynu1 3 "'- aa ::J' "~" 2 0, 3 0> g E. 2 c c W tV g 2 0> a 0 .j:; z Z ro ro '0 '0 f- f- 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 Salinity (ppt) o 0 0 10 20 30 Salinity (ppt) 40 50 Revised nutrient targets for the Estero Bay Wetlands can thus be calculated after normalizing for conductivity. The best-fit equation for Estero Bay Wetlands between conductivity and TN is linear (Equation 1) Equation 1: Total nitrogen (mg/L) = 1.30908 - 0.0000166414' (Conductivity (J..IM)) Using the average conductivity for Estero Bay Wetlands (46,488 J..IM), the corresponding TN value is 0.54 mg/L (Figure 9). The upper and lower limit at the average conductivity value are 1.08 and 0.0 mg/L, respectively, when using the 95% prediction limits (Figure 9). In comparison, the conductivity-normalized TN concentration for Hendry Creek (Marine) based on the average conductivity is 1.11 mg/L using the Estero Bay Wetlands best-fit equation (Figure 10). As a result, the average TN for Hendry Creek (Marine) (1.09 mg/L) is less than the conductivity-normalized TN target (1.11 mg/L; Table 9) derived from the reference WBID of Estero Bay Wetlands. Based upon the conductivity-normalized TN target, Hendry Creek (Marine) does not have elevated TN. This approach to developing conductivity-normalized TN and TP targets serves as the foundation for developing NNC for Clam Bay. Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 14 Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 25 of 40 Criteria Figure 9. Expected, upper, and lower (95 percent prediction limits) total nitrogen concentration for Estero Bay Wetlands based on the average conductivity. 2 - ...J 1 .5 - C) E -- c: (]) C) 1 0 "- ~ Z CO 0.5 15 ..... 0 0 o o o o o 1.08 mg/L- Upper Limit :~ ~ 0.54 mg/L- expected TN j 0.0 mg/L- Lower Limit 20000 40000 60000 Conductivity (uS) 80000 Figure 10. Expected total nitrogen concentration for Hendry Creek (Marine) based on the average conductivity using the Estero Bay Wetland best-fit equation with 95 percent prediction limits. 2 .- ...J 0. 1.5 E - o o o o o m g>> 1 "- .;t:: z ro (5 0.5 ..... o o 20000 40000 60000 Conductivity (uS) 80000 Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 15 Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 26 of 40 Criteria Table 9. Comparison of expected total nitrogen based on Estero Bay wetland relationship with average conductivity with Hendry Creek TMDL target TN and Average TN. TMDL (EBW) Target TN based nship* Average TN Estero Bay Wetlands Hendry Creek (Marine) 46,488 NA 0.54 0.60 11,679 0.60 1.11 1.09 6. Techniques to derive numeric water quality criteria for Clam Bay Three approaches have been developed to derive numeric nutrient criteria by FDEP (Taken from FDEP 2nd draft overview of marine NNC approaches (11/2010) Maintain healthy existing conditions provides for maintaining the current nutrient regime in a system determined to be biologically healthy (from the standpoint of nutrient enrichment). 2. Historical conditions 3. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) modeling or response-based approach 7. Proposed water quality criteria for Clam Bay 7.1. Is Clam Bay Healthy? Multiple studies including water quality collection and analysis, pollutant loading model development, benthic invertebrate evaluation, toxin quantification and sediment accumulation rate assessments have been completed to evaluate the "health" of Clam Bay. After reviewing these studies, the weight of evidence suggests that Clam Bay is a healthy system. The Conservancy of Southwest Florida recently completed a benthic habitat assessment in Clam Bay (2010), with forty-five different types of organisms identified, including polychaetes. crabs, shrimp, seagrass and clams (Table 10). However, water quality in a "healthy" system can still fail existing criteria. In order to supplement the conclusion that Clam Bay is a "healthy" system which experiences natural fluctuations in water quality, a comparison of Clam Bay to an FDEP-established reference waterbody was completed. The Estero Bay Wetlands has been previously identified as a reference waterbody by FDEP and is located in close proximity to Clam Bay. Evaluating Clam Bay water quality based on a comparison with Estero Bay Wetlands could be a valuable supplement for the conclusion of Clam Bay's overall ecological health. Table 10. List of benthic organisms identified in Clam Bay (Conservancy of Southwest Florida 2010). Species or lowest taxon listed Common Name Kingdom Phylum Class Polychaeta polychaete Animal Annelida Pectin aria gouldi trumpet worm Animal Annelida Panopeus herbstii common mud crab Animal Arthropoda Eurypanopeus depress us depressed mud crab Animal Arthropoda Rhithropanopeus harrisii white fingered mud crab Animal Arthropoda Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 16 Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 27 of 40 Criteria Species or lowest taxon listed Common Name Kingdom Phylum Family Ocypodidae mangrove mud crab Animal Arthropoda Family Grapsidae mangrove mud crab Animal Arthropoda Family Coenobitidae mangrove mud crab Animal Arthropoda Uca spp. fiddler crab Animal Arthropoda Callinectes sapidus blue crab Animal Arthropoda barnacle Animal Arthropoda Family Penaeidae penaeid shrimp Animal Arthropoda Order Amphipoda amphipod Animal Arthropoda Order Decapoda decapod Animal Arthropoda Family Portunidae portunid crab Animal Arthropoda Anguilla rostrata American eel Animal Chordata (order Anguilliformes) Class Ascidiacia sea squirt Animal Chordata (subphylum Tunicata) Moira atropos heart urchin Animal Ech inodermata Ophiophragmus fi/ograneus brittle star Animal Echinodermata Crassostrea virginica American oyster Animal MolluscCi Family Mytilidae mussels Animal Mollusca Tage/us plebeius razor clam Animal Mollusca Anomalocardia amberiana pointed Venus clam Animal Mollusca Argopecten irradians Atlantic bay scallop Animal Mollusca Mercenaria mercenaria quahog Animal Mollusca Bittiolum varium grass cerith Animal Mollusca Melongena corona Florida crown conch Animal Mollusca Strombus alatus Florida fighting conch Animal Mollusca Pleurop/oca gigantea horse conch Animal Mollusca Chicoreua florifer dilectus lace murex Animal Mollusca Family Melongenidae whelk Animal Mollusca Vermicu/aria fargoi West Indian worm snail Animal Mollusca Urosalpinx cinera Atlantic oyster drill Animal Mollusca Littoraria angulifera mangrove periwinkle Animal Mollusca Family Cerithiidae cerith Animal Mollusca sponge Animal Porifera blue-green algae Bacteria Cyanobacteria Caulerpa sertu/aroides green algae Plant Chlorophyta Acetabularia crenulata green algae Plant Chlorophyta Ha/odu/e wrightii shoal grass Plant Tracheophyta Ha/ophila decipiens paddle grass Plant Tracheophyta Thalassia testudinum turtle grass Plant Tracheophyta Subfamily Lemnaoideae duckweed Plant red drift algae Plant Rhodophyta Acanthophora spicifera spiny seaweed Plant Rhodophyta 7.2. Proposed NNC normalized for salinity The data used for the comparison between Clam Bay and Estero Bay Wetlands were from the IWR Run 42 and Collier County for the period of record. The median conductivity values were compared using a Mann- Whitney comparison of medians (Figure 11). While the medians were found to be significantly different with Estero Bay Wetlands slightly more saline, the overall range was fairly similar (Table 11). Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 7 Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay~ DeveloPment of Site-Specific Alternative \/Vater QualityCriteria CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 28 of 40 Figure 11. Mann-Whitney comparison of medians for conductivity values in Clam Bay and Estero Bay wetlands (EBW). 80000 (i) 60000 ~ z. ~ 40000 :::I "0 C o <.) 20000 o Clam Bay Estero Bay Wetlands Table 11. Conductivity (IJM) summary statistics for Clam Bay and Estero Bay wetlands WBID Average Median Minimum Maximum Clam Bay 42,453 45,093 150 64,465 Estero Bay Wetlands 46,488 48,475 2,500 61 ,400 Period of record data from IWR Run 42 and Collier County Both Clam Bay and the Estero Bay Wetlands are classified as estuaries; therefore, salinity values can vary over a single day, week or season. As previously discussed, nutrients vary as a function of salinity. As such, target nutrient concentrations should be normalized to a salinity regime. The variability in TN as a function of conductivity is similar in both Clam Bay and the Estero Bay Wetlands (Figure 12). Similar to the calculations previously completed for Hendry Creek (Marine), the linear regression line between conductivity and TN for the Estero Bay Wetlands was used to calculate a potential TN target for Clam Bay (Equation 1). Using the average conductivity value 42,453 J..IS (25.4 ppt) for Clam Bay, the corresponding TN is 0.60 mg/L providing a potential TN target (Figure 12, Table 12). A potential target TP was also calculated using the exponential relationship found between TP and conductivity in the Estero Bay Wetlands (Equation 2). Based on the average salinity for Clam Bay (42,453 J..IS), a potential target for TP is 0.057 mg/L (Figure 13, Table 12). Equation 2: Total Phosphorus (mg/L)= exp(-2.3091 - 0.0000129727*conductivity(J..IS)) Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 18 Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay~ DeveloPment of Site-Sp~cific Alternative Water CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 29 of 40 Criteria Figure 12. Clam Bay potential TN target based on Estero Bay Wetlands regression and Clam Bay salinity with 90 percent prediction limits. 2 - ....J ""- 0> E - .. 41- o .. 41- Clam Bay D 0 Estero Bay Wetlands 1.5 o 41- '" '" ,. 0 $$ c: Q) 8> 1 '- :t: z (ij <5 0.5 t- o o 20000 40000 60000 Conductivity (uS) 80000 Table 12. Comparison of expected TN and TP based on Estero Bay wetland relationship with average conductivity and average TN and TP. WBID Average TMDL (EBW) Expected TN based Average Conductivity (",S) Target TN on EBW relationship TN Estero Bay Wetlands 46,488 0.6 NA 0.60 Clam Bay 42,453 ------ 0.60 0.71 TMDL (EBW) Expected TP based Average Target TP on EBW relationship TP Estero Bay Wetlands 46,488 0.050 NA 0.068 Clam Bay 42,453 ------ 0.057 0.055 Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 19 Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay~ Developmentof Site~Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 30 of 40 Figure 13. Clam Bay potential TP target based on Estero Bay Wetlands regression and Clam Bay salinity with 90 percent prediction limits. 0.4 .- ...J - 0> E 0.3 -- ~ Clam Bay Cl Estero Bay Wetlands o 0.2 o f/) ::J .... a ..c: 0- f/) a ..c: 0.. ro '0 J- o o .. 0 nU1 0.1 00 o o o 20000 40000 60000 Conductivity (uS) 80000 The proposed ClaITI Bay numeric nutrient criteria for TN and TP at the current average salinity are similar to the targets established for the Hendry Creek TMDL but lower than the screening criteria accepted by both FDEP and EPA (Table 13). Presently, the average Clam Bay TP (0.055 mg/L) is below both the FDEP and EPA screening criteria (0.19 mg/L) and the proposed target TP of 0.057 mg/L (Table 13). In contrast, the average Clam Bay TN (0.71 mg/L) is below the screening criteria (1.00 mg/L) but above the proposed target TN NNC (0.60 mg/L; Table 13). Based upon this comparison, should Clam Bay be considered impaired since the average TN concentration is above the proposed target? That issue is considered in the next section (Section 7.3) of this report. Table 13. Comparison of TN and TP screening criteria, Hendry TMDL targets, Clam Bay proposed NNC and Clam Bay average. Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) FDEP and EPA 1.00 0.190 screening criteria Hendry Creek TMDL 0.60 0.050 ClaITI Bay proposed NNC* 0.60 0.057 Clam Bay average 0.71 0.055 * calculated using nutrient vs. salinity relationship from EBW 7.3. Conceptual Management Responses The proposed Clam Bay NNC provides a protective approach to water quality evaluation and management for the waterbody. The proposed NNC are lower (more stringent) than the FDEP and EPA screening criteria, and they were derived based upon a nutrientsalinity relationship from the Estero Bay Wetlands, an established reference WBID. However, the NNC have to be considered in the context of salinity due to the variability in nutrient concentrations found within a given salinity range. Therefore, management responses due to deviations from the proposed NNC should be a function of rnagnitude and duration of any exceedances, similar to the management approach used by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay~ DeveloPment of Site~Spe~ific Alternative Water Quality Criteria CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 31 of 40 As part of the development of the Numeric Nutrient Criteria, FDEP is considering revisions to the existing DO standards for freshwater streams, lakes and estuaries in Florida (Frydenborg et aI., presentation from 6/14/2011). A revised technique for streams and lakes evaluated the DO values for all sites with a Land Development Index (LDI) less than 2, a stream condition index (SCI) greater than 40, nitrate concentration less than 0.35 mg/L and conductivity values less than 250 umhos/cm. Sites were selected based on these four parameters in order to minimize the effect of confounding variables. The sites which satisfied these four criteria were identified as reference locations for DO evaluation. Using available data, the 10th percentile DO value was calculated to produce both state-wide and regional minimum DO standards. DO values below the 10th percentile value more would result in violation. A modification of the reference site approach FDEP is considering to modify the DO criteria was used to identify salinity-normalized TN and TP criteria for Clam Bay. Because Clam Bay appears to be co-limited by both TN and TP were selected to evaluate water quality. The 90th percent prediction limit for the Estero Bay Wetlands regression between TN or TP and conductivity was produced. The 90th percent prediction limit was selected because 10 percent of the TN and TP values at the corresponding conductivity would be expected to exceed the prediction limit. This approach is consistent with the calculation of the 10lh percentile of reference waterbody DO values. Similar to the color grading system implemented in Tampa Bay, 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 would then be used to identify if management actions are required. Within a calendar year, each individual TN and TP value collected within the waterbody would be compared to the nutrientconductivity 90th percent prediction limit (Figure 14). An annual percent exceedance would be calculated to determine the magnitude of exceedance. The minimum number of samples required to not meet an applicable water quality criterion by FDEP to be included on the Planning or Verified list equates to approximately 13 and 15 percent exceedance rates, respectively. To be consistent with the method currently implemented by FDEP to identify impaired water bodies, if greater than or equal to 13 percent of the TN or TP values in a calendar year exceed the 90th percent prediction limit, 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 less 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., >1 year) of the exceedances are 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 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 15). Figure 14. Clam Bay conceptual water quality flowchart Do :!e13% of all TN aJorTP ~ values from a calendar year . exceed the 90% prediction limit from thereferem:eW8ID? . , No Yes ;:::13% Magnitudeof exceedance ;:::15% 1 year 1 year Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 32 of 40 Figure 15. 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 Annual management response actions would be identified based on the response to nutrient concentrations of phytoplankton and DO, as well as impacts on water clarity (Figure 16). If the outcome of the TN and TP evaluation was 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) needs to 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. The "health" of Clam Bay would be assessed annually. Figure 16. Management response actions in response to various outcomes. 6r",en ; Response evaluation Yellow or Red Not significant (p>0,05) Not significant (p>0.05) Evaluate water clarity response to chlorophyil*a IdentifY potential ca uses and implement recommended respol1se Small difference or short duration large difference or long duration 7.4. 2010 Clam Bay Management Assessments Using the technique outlined in the previous section (7.3), Clam Bay was evaluated using water quality data from 2010. A total of 97 TN or TP samples were collected in Clam Bay in the 2010 calendar year. For TN, Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 22 Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 33 of 40 Criteria 23 of the 97 (24%) samples exceeded the 90 percent prediction limit. Greater than 13 percent of the TN values were in exceedance in 2010 and only one year of data is available for analysis. The outcome for TN is "1". For TP, 3 of the 97 (3%) samples exceeded the 90 percent prediction limit, resulting in an outcome of "0". In 2010, Clam Bay would be designated as "yellow". While there is a relationship between nutrients and phytoplankton biomass, no relationship exists between nutrients and DO, or between chlorophyll-a and water clarity. Therefore, no management actions are required and a "hold the line" approach is recommended. Su Downstream Protective Values In addition to the development of NNC for Clam Bay, proposed downstream protective values (DPVs) can be estimated using the salinity:nutrient relationship. DPVs are generally assigned to the portion of a watershed classified as freshwater in order to protect the downstream waterbodies. As such, it should be reasonable to solve the salinity:nutrient relationships established for TN and TP in the Estero Bay Wetlands assuming a salinity of 0, indicating inflows of stormwater runoff. Since the Estero Bay Wetlands has been identified as a reference waterbody, establishing DPVs for Clam Bay based on a more "pristine" waterbody should result in more adequate protection. For TN, the median DPV equates to 1.31 mg/L but could range to as high as 1.8 mg/L using the 90th percent prediction limit (Figure 12). For TP, the median DPV equates to 0.1 mg/L but could range to as high as 0.25 mg/L using the 90th percent prediction limit (Figure 13). The proposed DPVs calculated for various segments of the Charlotte Harbor estuary range from 1.43 to 2.61 mg/L for TN and 0.14 to 0.81 mg/L for TP (Janicki Environmental Inc., 2011). Thus, the proposed DPVs for Clam Bay are within the range identified for Charlotte Harbor (Table 14). Table 14. Minimum, median and maximum proposed DPV TN and TP concentrations for Charlotte Harbor estuary compared to proposed Clam Bay DPV values. Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Charlotte Harbor Clam Bay Charlotte Harbor Clam Bay Minimum 1.43 NA 0.14 NA Median 1.64 1.31 0.29 0.10 Maximum 2.61 1.80 0.81 0.25 NA=not applicable Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 34 of 40 9. Literature Cited Atkins 2011. Collier County Watershed Management Plan. Submitted to Collier County. Draft May 2011. Appendix C EPA. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for DO. EPA 440/5-86-003. Clark, P. 1992. Implications of a sea-level rise on the Sarasota Bay region. Pp. 7.1-7.24 in: Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program. Sarasota Bay Framework for Action. Collier County. 1987. Preliminary Analyses of Seagrass and Benthic Infauna in Johnson and Clam Bays, Collier County, Florida. Department of Natural Resources Management, Collier County, Florida. 29 pp. Collier County, 1997. Clam Bay Natural Resources Protection Area. Report. 85 pp. Conservancy of Southwest Florida. 2010. Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Benthic Habitat Assessment. Submitted to Pelican Bay Owners Association, Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., and the Mangrove Action Group. 116 pp. EPA 1977. Field Studies - Parkshore and Clam Bay Systems Naples, Florida. Report from US EPA Region IV, Surveillance and Analysis Division. Atlanta, GA. 57 pp. EPA. 2010. Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 131 [EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596; FRL-XXXX-X] [RIN 2040-AF11] Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. EPA. 2007. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Northern and Central Indian River Lagoon and Banana River Lagoon, Florida: Nutrients and Dissolved Oxygen. USEPA Region 4. FDEP. 2008. TMDL Report: Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs for Hendry Creek (WBIDs 3258B and 3258B1). 39 pp. FDEP. 2010. TMDL Report: Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs for Brushy Creek (WBID 1498) and Sweetwater Creek (WBID 1516), and for DO and Nutrients in Lower Rocky Creek (WBID 1563). FDEP Southwest District. Fujioka, R.S. 2001. Monitoring coastal marine waters for spore-forming bacteria of faecal and soil origin to determine point from non-point source pollution. Water Science and Technology. 44: 181-188. Fujioka, R.S., Stan-Denton, C., Borja, M., Castro, J., and K. Morphew. 1999. Soil, the environmental source of Escherichia coli and enterococci in Guam's streams. Journal of Applied Microbiology. (Symposium supplement) 85: 83S-89S. Janicki Environmental, Inc. 2010. Empirical Approaches to Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Southwest Florida Estuaries. Prepared for Tampa Bay Estuary Program, Sarasota Bay Estuary Program and Charlotte Harbor Estuary Program. 56 pp. Janicki Environmental, Inc. 2011. Charlotte Harbor: Numeric Nutrient Criteria: Task 9- Downstream Protection Values. Draft Letter Memorandum submitted to Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. Levesque, B., P. Brousseau, P. Simard, E. Dewailly, M. Monica, D. Ramsay, and J. Joly. 1993. Impact of Ring-Billed (Larus delawarensis) on the Microbiological Quality of Recreational Water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 59 (4): 1228-1230. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2002. Regional Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation of Fecal Coliform Bacteria Impairments in the Lower Mississippi River Basin in Minnesota. Submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 2002. PBS&J. 2008. Clam Bay Seagrass Assessment. Submitted to Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department. Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 24 Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 35 of 40 PBS&J, 2009. Clam Bay System: Data Collection and Analysis. . Submitted to Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department. PBS&J.2010. Technical Memorandum: Summary of Preliminary Findings on Sediment Studies. Submitted to Collier County. Tomasko, DA, and E. H. Keenan. 2010. Potential Impacts of Sea Level Rise on Sarasota Bay Seagrasses. In "Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium, BASIS 5: 20-23 October 2009. St. Petersburg, Fl." S.T. Cooper (ed.) p. 463-477. Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 25 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 36 of 40 David A. Tomasko Integrated Water Resources, Atkins North America 4030 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33607 Email: David.tomasko@atkinsglobal.com Telephone: 1.813.282.7275 Direct Telephone: 1.813.281.8346 Fax: 1.813.636.8583 @ Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo, 'Carbon Critical Design' and the strapline 'Plan Design Enable' are trademarks of Atkins Ltd. CAC September 8, 2011 Vll-5 Staff Reports 37 of 40 Standards and Assessment Section Comments on Collier County: Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay-Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria (Atkins July 2011 Draft) The Atkins proposal represents an innovative approach that potentially would account for a greater level of natural variability than a simple distributional reference approach. However, I cannot recommend that DEP support the current proposal or adopt it as a water quality standard because the proposed nutrients limits are overly stringent and perhaps unrealistic for Clam Bay. The document makes a convincing argument that Clam Bay is a healthy system. Thus, it could be concluded that the existing TP and TN concentrations are protective. The problem with the proposal is that it could lead to the conclusion that Clam Bay requires nutrient reductions both in terms of within-bay concentrations as well as within upstream waters (i.e., exceeding DPVs). The problem originates from the fact that the conductivity to TP or TN relationships differ between Clam Bay and Estero Bay Wetlands (Figures 1 and 2). The proposal sets nutrient targets based on the regression line between conductivity and TN or TP for the Estero Bay Wetlands (EBW). Limits are then set at the average conductivity (42A53 115) of Clam Bay. The corresponding limits are 0.60 mg/L and 0.057 mg/L for TN and TP, respectively. I would interpret these levels to represent long-term limits. Inspection ofthe conductivity and TP regression relationship from Clam Bay (Figure 1) suggests that 0.057 mg/L might be a reasonable long-term TP limit for the Bay. However, inspection of the TN regression lines suggests that 0.60 mg/L TN would be overly stringent (by 0.21 mg/L) for Clam Bay, where a TN of 0.81 mg/L corresponds with 42A53 IlS. 0.4 - - ~ (lam Ba'f 9ft%Upper PrtQ:, limit -E6WRfjression J_55 v_3 0.25 0.2 Cil",&'V< 0_15 111 c.os .u,45:lJ.6 1[lOOD 20CUD ~'::xlC(l ""''''' 5_ 60000 8i',MiiJtl~ Fit d TP By (ON08"v",!.:"tf.'rt} Say Wdkplh Trardorrnetirit L(;'K ~lif,np) -~ -1.3G91C4 - 1,2913~-S'CON) BiVclti.HI.' fit d P B'i CONDBi.'y:'Cl<\tt1 8,,1' Ttdll~Iornllfd Fit lag !.ugnPJ '" -1.4;'634/- 3.3G31e.j'COND T frllli--'-E-stim,lteSt(ru---t Rmij} .....Pi:ob>Tii CAC September 8. 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 38 of 40 Figure 1. Summary of regression analyses between conductivity and total phosphorus concentrations for Clam Bay and Estero Bay Wetlands. ~ ~ 1.5 ~ 05 """" 3t:oC;QC' 8i'.'<lrl.ate Fit ofm 8'{COND Bdv=[stero B.a'! \Vetl,mds lilleMfIt: TN =1.;(J~811.1.6641e-5~(f)tV Si\'.~fL,tt' tit tlf fN ~'i (C'ND .by,(hlrl O;~1{ LineClIf'it IN" 1.).:j'.)631 .1.u83l!'-.',.;C:OND Figure 2. Summary of regression analyses between conductivity and total nitrogen concentrations for Clam Bay and Estero Bay Wetlands. The document proposes an interesting approach for assessing annual achievement of the long-term limits. There are elements of the approach that DEP may want to consider, with some modification, for reference or existing condition based nutrient thresholds. Monitoring data are initially assessed against upper 90% prediction limits calculated from conductivity regression relationships to TN and TP for EBW. The assessment is conducted by evaluating the percentage of measurements above the 90% prediction limits as well as duration of exceedances on an annual basis (Figure 3A). The waterbody would be assigned to a management outcome (status) if the nutrient data exceeded the frequency and duration requirements. A green status indicates that Clam Bay meets both the TP and TN limits. Yellow or red status indicates that the bay is not meeting either or both of the limits. An evaluation of chlorophyll and DO responses to nutrient concentrations would be conducted if the bay were to be placed into either yellow or red status (Figure 3B). If there is not a significant relationship, then no management action is required; that is, the water is not impaired. However, if there is a significant relationship between nutrient levels and chi-a, then the impact of chl-a on water clarity would be evaluated. Management action would only be taken if there is a demonstrated significant response between chl-a and clarity or between nutrient levels and DO. GAG September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 39 of 40 A. No IWtl3%"h1l1tl!\l...n V.il'llJ~ft(l@i1l uf~tftM Wlt~ttmglJ%'~timif fr-omlher~-oort:WUHll B. Ev.lu3Ie1l!1V!<1pIookI0<1 d,ssolvMl_ ""P""$<'to n~trI.nl com:enttatkm:s Siiflifj(>lnl ,.jr.'"to - '1'('" lji\.';ll l#alu.t....terclallty f!llI>On",tothlolll1l!1j!1N - - ;,rn.;dl(IiiHi>("j"fI.""l <,k'rldllliiij,Ul i..;,rgt-lIlftHwlf',,(''- lWi'"hlt.ll!;m Figure 3. Flowchart describing the proposed a) conceptual assessment of 90th percent prediction limit exceedances based on duration and frequency; and b) management responses to the variolJs outcomes of the assessment. Outcome 0 equates to "Green" status in the second flowchart (8), while Outcomes I, 2, or 3 equate to "Yellow" or "Red" status depending on duration of exceedance and whether just one of the nutrient parameters exceeds the limit or both exceed. This assessment approach is highly prone to trigger unnecessary assessments given the differences in the conductivity to nutrient relationships between EBW and Clam Bay. DEP staff calculated 90% prediction limits for both the EBW and Clam Bay (Figures 1 and 2). The Clam Bay prediction limit for TN is well above the prediction limit for EBW indicating that Clam Bay would exceed the EBW derived limits with a frequency significantly greater than the assumed 10 percent. For TP, the Clam Bay and EBW prediction limits intersect at 27,500 IlS, meaning that below 27,500 IlS the EBW based limit would be overly stringent (I.e., >10% exceedance), while above this conductivity level the EBW limit would not be sufficiently protective (<10% exceedance). In other words, the TN limits are prone to high type I errors, while the TP limits would be prone to both high type I and" errors depending on the conductivity. Ultimately, application of the EBW derived limits to Clam Bay would require response evaluations more frequently than is truly necessary. The proposal suggests that DPVs can be derived by assuming a conductivity of zero based on either the regression lines or 90% prediction limits. However, inspection of the data and regression analyses suggest that the EBW DPVs would be overly stringent for Clam Bay. Both the TP and TN concentrations associated with 0 115 are significantly greater than the values predicted for EBW (Figures 1 and 2). The proposed DPVs would most likely necessitate substantial upstream nutrient reductions. An alternative approach would be to develop existing condition nutrient thresholds using the conductivity to TP and TN relationship from Clam Bay. The document already argues that Clam Bay is not impaired at existing nutrient levels. Specific Comments 1. Pages 9-10: What is the p value for the regression analysis between chlorophyll a and secchi depth? Are there any transparency measurements for Clam Bay or is Secchi the best available measure of water clarity? 2. Page 18: The 90% prediction limits referenced in Figures 12 and 13 appear to be two-sided prediction intervals. Ifthat is the case, then the upper limit represents a level that would be CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 40 of 40 expected to be exceeded only 5% of the time, not the assumed 10%. Note: 90% of the data are expected to fall between a 90% prediction interval, with 5% above and 5% below. The prediction limits shown in Figures 1 and 2 were calculated as 80% prediction intervals. 3. Page 19: The r-squared value for the TN-conductivity regression from EBW was 0.21. Although conductivity only explains a small portion for the TN variability, it does explain substantially more of the variance than a simple percentile of the reference distribution meaning that a salinity normalized TN criteria would be less prone to statistical errors. Normalizing the nutrient data to salinity (or conductivity) is a defensible approach. 4. Page 20: The r-squared for the EBW TP-conductivity regression is only 0.04. I do not believe that this is a sufficiently robust relationship to derive criteria. The prediction interval is extremely wide as a result of the uncertainty in the relationship. As stated in our general comments, the relationship between TP and conductivity is much stronger for Clam Bay. A "maintain the existing condition" SSAC could be developed using this relationship. 5. Page 21: The minimum number of samples exceeding applicable criteria required to place a water on the verified or planning lists under the IWR were established to provide a statistical test with a known and consistent confidence level. Reducing these numbers to set percentages (I.e., 13 and 15%) will eliminate that consistency. The conceptual flowchart (Figure 14) should reference the IWR planning and verified list binomial thresholds in order to maintain full consistency with the statistical assumptions of the statistical test. 6. Figure 21, Figure 14: There will be a higher than a 10% probability of Clam Bay being placed in Outcomes 2 or 3 for TN if the thresholds are developed based on EBW. Likewise, there will be a greater than 10% chance of Clam Bay TP being list in Outcomes 2 or 3 during low salinity years. 7. Page 22, Figure 16: Overall, I believe that the assessment approach has a lot of merit and is analogous to the biological verification process proposed by DEP for freshwaters. I would recommend that a hard chlorophyll a threshold (e.g., 11Ilg/L) be added to the response assessment; that is, Clam Bay would be considered impaired for nutrients ifthe chlorophyll a concentration exceeded the threshold and there is a statistically significant relationship between either nutrient and chlorophyll. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5-a Staff Reports 1 of 11 From: To: Subject: Date: Importance: McAIDinGarv HambriahtGail FW: Technical memorandum on NNC for Clam Bay Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:20:46 PM High Please add this to the CAC agenda - Staff reports item 5 and post it. From: Frydenborg, Russel [mailto:RusseI.Frydenborg@dep.state.f1.us] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:52 PM To: 'Tomasko, David A'; Weaver, Kenneth Cc: Joyner, Daryll; Mandrup-Poulsen, Jan; McAlpinGary; KeyesPamela; Keenan, Emily C.G.H.; Bartlett, Drew Subject: RE: Technical memorandum on NNC for Clam Bay Dave, Ken Weaver and I have reviewed your August 31, 2011 Technical Memorandum that outlines proposed numeric nutrient criteria for the protection of Clam Bay. We are pleased that you thoroughly incorporated Ken's previous technical recommendations, and as such, we both find that your proposed numeric nutrient approach is a scientifically defensible method to protect the designated use of Clam Bay, while minimizing Type I errors. This is good work. Thanks, Russ Please take a few minutes to share your comments on the service you received from the department by clicking on this link D.E.E!. Customer Survev. From: Tomasko, David A [mailto:David.Tomasko@atkinsglobal.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:30 PM To: Bartlett, Drew Cc: Joyner, Daryll; Mandrup-Poulsen, Jan; Weaver, Kenneth; Frydenborg, Russel; McAlpinGary; KeyesPamela; Keenan, Emily C.G.H. Subject: Technical memorandum on NNC for Clam Bay Drew: Attached is a technical memorandum produced for Collier County's Clam Bay estuary. This memo is a shortened version of the earlier report FDEP reviewed, with a focus on the derivation of the salinity-normalized TN and TP targets. As per guidance from FDEP, the targets are based on data from Clam Bay alone. However, the longer back-up report will include a comparison of Clam Bay's nutrient vs. salinity relationship with that from FDEP's reference WBID of Estero Bay Wetlands. We've also used the upper 10th percentile limit for determining what is an appropriate TN or TP concentrations (based on the salinity) and the percent of results that can "exceed" this guidance is based on the percent of exceedances required to place a water body into either the Planning or Verified Impaired lists compiled by FDEP. CAe September 8, 2011 VII-5-a Staff Reports 2 of 11 The larger report will also include results from our just-completed first round of source ID efforts for bacteria, using DNA sequence tests with Bacteroidetes (which are obligate anaerobes) and the human polyoma virus. Both results were negative. We also ran a test where we collected droppings from birds (Ibis) in the mangrove canopy of Clam Bay and found that a single bird defecation amount produced approximately 290,000 fecal coliform bacteria. This latter test not only shows that birds can be a source of a laboratory's finding of "fecal coliform bacteria" but it showed that a single bird's individual defecation event can produce enough bacteria to cause 180 gallons of water to exceed the 43 cfu / 100 ml standard for Class II waters. We are excited by these findings, and will consider them in combination with a sanitary features survey to discuss the likely sources of bacteria in Clam Bay. Gary and others wanted me to express our gratitude to you and your staff for giving us the guidance needed to develop these NNC for this important natural resource. Thanks, Dave David A. Tomasko, Ph.D. Senior Group Manager Integrated Water Resources ATKINS North America Cell: +1 (813) 597 3897 Direct: +1 (813) 281-8346 4030 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33607 Email: David.Tomasko@atkinsglobal.com I Web: www.atkinsalobal com/northamerica www.atkinsalobal.com This electronic mail communication may contain privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary information which is the property of The Atkins North America Corporation, WS Atkins pic or one of its affiliates. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized agent of the intended recipient please delete this communication and notify the sender that you have received it in error. A list of wholly owned Atkins Group companies can be found at http://www.atkinsglobal.com/site-services/disclaimer Consider the environment. Please don't print this email unless you really need to, Under Flonda 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 nof send electronic mail to this entity, Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing, CAC September 8. 2011 VII.5-a Staff Reports 3 of 11 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: McAloinGarv HambriahtGail FW: Technical memorandum on NNC for Clam Bay Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:27:06 AM revised NNC Quidance to FDEP 8-31-2011.docx From: Tomasko, David A [mailto:David.Tomasko@atkinsglobal.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:30 PM To: Bartlett, Drew Cc: Joyner, Daryll; Mandrup-Poulsen, Jan; Weaver, Kenneth; Frydenborg, Russel; McAlpinGary; KeyesPamela; Keenan, Emily C.G.H. Subject: Technical memorandum on NNC for Clam Bay Drew: Attached is a technical memorandum produced for Collier County's Clam Bay estuary. This memo is a shortened version of the earlier report FDEP reviewed, with a focus on the derivation of the salinity-normalized TN and TP targets. As per guidance from FDEP, the targets are based on data from Clam Bay alone. However, the longer back-up report will include a comparison of Clam Bay's nutrient vs. salinity relationship with that from FDEP's reference WBID of Estero Bay Wetlands. We've also used the upper 10th percentile limit for determining what is an appropriate TN or TP concentrations (based on the salinity) and the percent of results that can "exceed" this guidance is based on the percent of exceedances required to place a water body into either the Planning or Verified Impaired lists compiled by FDEP. The larger report will also include results from our just-completed first round of source ID efforts for bacteria, using DNA sequence tests with Bacteroidetes (which are obligate anaerobes) and the human polyoma virus. Both results were negative. We also ran a test where we collected droppings from birds (Ibis) in the mangrove canopy of Clam Bay and found that a single bird defecation amount produced approximately 290,000 fecal coliform bacteria. This latter test not only shows that birds can be a source of a laboratory's finding of "fecal coliform bacteria" but it showed that a single bird's individual defecation event can produce enough bacteria to cause 180 gallons of water to exceed the 43 cfu /100 ml standard for Class II waters. We are excited by these findings, and will consider them in combination with a sanitary features survey to discuss the likely sources of bacteria in Clam Bay. Gary and others wanted me to express our gratitude to you and your staff for giving us the guidance needed to develop these NNC for this important natural resource. Thanks, Dave David A. Tomasko, Ph.D. CAe September 8, 2011 VII-5-a Staff Reports 4 of 11 Senior Group Manager Integrated Water Resources ATKINS North America Cell: +1 (813) 597 3897 Direct: +1 (813) 281-8346 4030 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33607 Email: David.Tomasko@atkinsglobal.com I Web: www.atkinsglobal.com/northamerica www.atkinsalobal.com This electronic mail communication may contain privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary information which is the property of The Atkins North America Corporation, WS Atkins pic or one of its affiliates. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized agent of the intended recipient please delete this communication and notify the sender that you have received it in error. A list of wholly owned Atkins Group companies can be found at htlp:l/www.atkinsglobal.com/site-services/disclaimer Consider the environment. Please don't print this email unless you really need to. Under Fiorida 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. CAC September 8, 2011 VIl-5-a Staff Reports 5 of 11 Project: Clam Bay Numeric To: Gary McAlpin, Collier County Nutrient Criteria Subject: Proposed Guidance From: David A. Tomasko, PhD Emily Keenan, MS Date: Aug 31 2011 cc: The proposed Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) provides a protective approach to water quality evaluation and management for the waterbody of Clam Bay, in Collier County. The proposed NNC are lower (more stringent) than the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estuarine screening criteria. The NNC for Clam Bay are based upon a nutrient: salinity relationship that was developed for Clam Bay, after first comparing that relationship to a similarly derived nutrient: salinity regression from a site previously used by FDEP to develop nutrient targets for estuaries in Southwest Florida (Estero Bay Wetlands). These NNC have to be considered in the context of salinity due to the relationship between nutrient concentrations and salinity that is found in most estuaries. Since there is substantial variability in the relationship between nutrient concentrations and salinity, management responses due to deviations from the proposed NNC should be a function of magnitude and duration of any exceedances from salinity-normalized NNC values, similar to the resource management approach used by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. Clam Bay appears to be co-limited by both TN and TP (PBS&J 2008). Consequently, salinity-normalized targets were developed for both TN and TP tar~ets were. To be consistent with existing methodology used by FDEP, the upper 10t percentile prediction limit for the regression between TN or TP and conductivity (from Clam Bay) was used for target setting (Figures 1 and 2). The upper 10th percentil prediction limit was selected in order to identify the number of TN and TP values at the corresponding conductivity that exceed the upper boundaries of the relationship. This approach is consistent with the calculation of the 10th percentile of DO values from reference waterbodies, as is used by FDEP in ongoing target setting efforts. Clam Bay would be assigned differential designation categories based on the magnitude and duration of exceedances of the upper 10th percentile prediction limit for salinity-normalized nutrient concentrations. The bay's designation would then be used to identify the level of resource management actions appropriate for any period of time examined (i.e., a single year or numerous years combined). Individual TN and TP values from the waterbody would be compared to the upper nutrient: conductivity 10th percentile prediction limit (Figure 3). The minimum number of samples required to not meet an applicable water quality criterion would be based on the approach used by FDEP for determining if the percent of "impaired" water quality values are supportive of a site being included on the Planning or Verified list. The number of "violations" (i.e., number of TN or TP values higher than the upper 10th percentile of the nutrient vs. salinity regression) would be compared to guidance shown in Tables 1 and 2. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5-a Staff Reports 6 of 11 If the number of exceedances is greater than or equal to the minimum number of exceedance required for a waterbody to be classified as impaired, the duration of exceedance would then be determined. Based on the duration of exceedance (one year or greater than one year), an outcome designation is assigned. If the number of exceedances is less than the minimum number of samples required based on sample size, then the outcome would be a category of "0". If the number of exceedances and the duration (i.e., >1 year) of the exceedances are small, the outcome would be a category of "1 ". If the magnitude or duration of the exceedances is large, then the outcome would be a category "2". If both the magnitude and duration of the exceedances are large, then the outcome would be a category of "3". The 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 4). Management response actions would be identified based on presence or absence of co- occuring phenomena that could be attributed to nutrient availability, in particular the responses of phytoplankton and DO, as well as potential impacts to water clarity (Figure 5). If the outcome of the TN and TP evaluation was classified as "green", then no management actions are required. However, if the outcomes are classified as "yellow" or "red" then further evaluation of the effect of elevated nutrient concentrations needs to be conducted. If there is no relationship between nutrients and chlorophyll-a or DO, then no management actions are required. If there is a signification relationship between nutrients and chlorophyll-a or nutrients and DO, then the impact of chlorophyll-a on the water clarity (Secchi disk depth) would be evaluated as well as an evaluation of the annual chlorophyll- a value to the 11 jJg/L standard found in F.A.C. 62-303-353. If there is no relationship between chlorophyll-a and water clarity or annual chlorophyll-a concentrations are below 11 /Jg/L, then no management actions are required. If there is a significant relationship between chlorophyll-a concentrations and water clarity, or annual chlorophyll-a concentrations are above 11 jJg/L, an outcome designation of "yellow" (indicative of small magnitude or duration of exceedances) signified that management actions should be taken to identify the potential causes of 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 actions to reduce nutrient concentrations. Using this approach, the health of Clam Bay would be assessed on a regular basis, and appropriate resource management options, from no action needed to implementation of corrective actions, would be determined. CAe September 8, 2011 VII-5-a Staff Reports 7 of 11 Figure 1. Clam Bay proposed TN NNC based on Clam Bay linear regression with 80 percent prediction limits. 2 ..-. -I 0, 1.5 E --- c: ()) 0) 1 E ."!: Z ,<<1 ~ 0..5 '" ""'-, '" '''>''- o 0"", 0 '~ 0 Upper 1 Qth "''QJ . percentile D'~ ~ prediction o "', OJ o~ D limit ."-.,., om " o DO o 42,4531JS o 20000 40000 60000 Conductivity (uS) 80000 Figure 2. Clam Bay proposed TP NNC based on Clam Bay linear regression with 80 percent prediction limits. 0.2 o 3 - C) E 0.15 --- fI) ::J "- o -a 0.1 en o .s::. n. <<1 0.05 - o I- o o o o 42,4531JS 2.0000 40000 60000 Conductivity (uS) 80000 o CAC September 8, 2011 VII-5-a Staff Reports 8 of 11 Figure 3. Clam Bay conceptual water quality flowchart No Outcome 0 Yes 30'% confidence (Planning list) Magnitude of exceedance based on IWll binomial , distributions 90% confidence (Verified list) ;> 1 year >1 year 1 year 1 year , OuttOmel Outcomel Outcome 2 Outcome3 Table 1. Minimum number of samples not meeting an applicable water quality criterion needed to put a water on the planning list with at least 80% confidence (Table 1 from F.A.C. 62-303) Sample sizes Are lis ted if they Sample Are listed if they have have at least this # of SIze s at least this # of samples that do not samples that do not From To me eta criterion From To meet a criterion 10 15 3 256 264 31 16 23 4 265 273 32 24 31 5 274 282 33 32 39 6 283 292 34 40 47 7 293 301 35 48 56 8 302 310 36 57 65 9 311 320 37 66 73 10 321 329 38 74 82 11 330 338 39 83 91 12 339 348 40 92 100 13 349 357 41 101 109 14 358 367 42 110 118 15 368 376 43 119 126 16 377 385 44 127 136 17 386 395 45 137 145 18 396 404 46 CAe September 8, 2011 VII-5-a St3ff Reports 9 of 11 Sample sizes Are lis ted if the y Sample Are listed if they have have at least this # of SIze s at least this # of samples that do not samples that do not From To meet a criterion From To me eta criterion 146 154 19 405 414 47 155 163 20 415 423 48 164 172 21 424 432 49 173 181 22 433 442 50 182 190 23 443 451 51 191 199 24 452 461 52 200 208 25 462 470 53 209 218 26 471 480 54 219 227 27 481 489 55 228 236 28 490 499 56 237 245 29 500 500 57 246 255 30 Table 2. Minimum number of samples not meeting an applicable water quality criterion needed to put a waterbody on the Verified list with at least 90% confidence (Table 3 from F.A.C. 62- 303). Sample sizes Are listed if they Samp Ie Are listed if they have have at least this # of SIze s at least this # of samples that do not samples that do not From To meet a criterion From To meet a criterion 20 25 5 254 262 33 26 32 6 263 270 34 33 40 7 271 279 35 41 47 8 280 288 36 48 55 9 289 297 37 56 63 10 298 306 38 64 71 11 307 315 39 72 79 12 316 324 40 80 88 13 325 333 41 89 96 14 334 343 42 97 104 15 344 352 43 105 113 16 353 361 44 114 121 17 362 370 45 122 130 18 371 379 46 131 138 19 380 388 47 139 147 20 389 397 48 148 156 21 398 406 49 Figure 4. CAe September 8, 2011 VII-5-a Staff Reports 10 of 11 Sample sizes Are listed if they Sample Are listed if they have have at least this # of SIze s at least this # of samples that do not samples that do not From To me eta criterion From To meet a criterion 157 164 22 407 415 50 165 173 23 416 424 51 174 182 24 425 434 52 183 19'1 25 435 443 53 192 199 26 444 452 54 200 208 27 453 461 55 209 217 28 462 470 56 218 226 29 471 479 57 227 235 30 480 489 58 236 244 31 490 498 59 245 253 32 499 500 60 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 5. Management response actions in response to various outcomes. Green . Response evaluation Not significant (p>O.OS) ___._,___ Not significant (p>O.OS) , ICfentif'{potential CaUses and implement recommended response Yellow or Red Large difference or long duration CAe September 8, 2011 VII-5-a Staff Reports 11 of 11 Small difference Ot short duration n::sponsf.1S CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 1 of 39 FY 2012-13 Local Government Funding Request Project Name: Collier County Beach Nourishment Proiect Project Description: This project includes the yearly physical beach monitoring, biological monitoring for the nearshore hardbottom, permitting, and design leading to renourishment in 2013/14. The project's goal is to optimize both cost and design. The proposed nourishment project for 2013/14 is described in a recent engineering report (CPE 2011). The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of existing structures and beach fill design templates, and changes needed to resolve hot spots and improve project performance and durability. The proposed design addresses the renourishment needs of the three segments constructed as part of the 2006 renourishment project with an increased beach width and heightalong with the consideration of including two additional small reaches adjacent to Clam and Wiggins Passes. Structural changes (removal, modification or addition) or other methods needed to meet the project objectives are also being considered for the upcoming project in a modeling study. The same borrow area (BA-Tl) is proposed as the primary sand source for use in the upcoming renourishment project. The main objective of this study is to develop a design that will enhance project performance and increase the project life to maintain a healthy beach for 10 years without significant impacts to the natural resources within the project area. The design volume for the expanded design is based on the quantity of sand needed to widen the construction profile to provide 10 years of advanced nourishment. The design beach width remains the same as 2006 proj ect. This design volume will be 874,000 cy and includes raising the berm 1 foot to accommodate the natural rise in the beach elevation caused by recent storms. The berm will be raised from 4 ft- NA VD to 5 ft-NA VD, with proper transition between the natural beach and berm system. Additional areas for extra fill have been identified from an analysis of hot spots within the County. These areas are either outside of the current project limits, or warrant special attention. The two new areas that are proposed for the expanded project are located directly north of Wiggins Pass and directly south of Clam Pass. The Barefoot Beach project area, which is located between R14 and RI6.3, will be restored using sand from an offshore borrow area, Tl. The level of restoration will be determined during final design and compliment sand bypassed from the Wiggins Pass dredging project. The restoration project will used approximately 100,000 cubic yards to restore the shoreline and the adjacent ebb shoal. Based on modeling, beach placement closer to the inlet will have the greatest impact toward restoring Barefoot Beach. Past disposal practices placed dredged material where it creates a sediment deficit within a ~ mile north of the inlet's vicinity. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 2 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Collier County Beach Renourishment aj ~ BAREfOOT BEACH (j)- WiGGINS PASS DEl~R'WIOOI~ STATE PARK t TALlAHASSEE JACKSONVIU.E VANDERBILT ~ """-- --"-~ EXISTIN:; r PIPElIN:: /; CORRIDOR /i I I / l / / / UJ a C5 SR800 \ I , \ \ t>4 660W) /' / / I / / , I / PARK SHORE N eaoo::o SR 856 N S5O())) NAPLES N 600{Xl0 SRM LEGEND: EXISTING PIPELINE CORRIDOR Pf~OPOSED PIPELINE CORRfDOH EXPANDED TEMPLATE c::::=::::J ~ EZZ~:;z'J t-;-:-;-;-;-;-;J GULF OF MEXICO ",,1 Z\ ~ \\", I \...~ o 4000 8000" 1.;.....;1 I' GHAPHIC SCALE IN FT "-" FEMA TEMPLATE EXISTING TEMPlATE NEW SEGMENTS L R70 FDEP MONUMENTS NOTES: L COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, EAST lONE. NORTH .AAr'tERICA.\l DATUM OF 1963 (N!\D63), 2, FILL WIDTHS ARE NOT TO SCALE \ \" > ~I ~, ,'~:.f ~ \... \" FIGURE 1. Project Location Map "'I ~.'. '" oJ The area south of Clam Pass from R-42 to R-44 is the second proposed expansion area to the Collier County Renourishment Project. Pill to the north of Park Shore will stabilize the area, acting as a feeder beach. Approximately 36,400 cubic yards is proposed within this area. The fill will supplement sand bypassing at Clam Pass, which alone is insufficient. The design template will be the same proposed for the Clam Pass dredging project. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 3 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Collier County Beach Renourishment The 2005/06 re-nourishment project consisted of the restoration, using approximately 665,000 cubic yards of hydraulic fill, and maintenance of up to eight miles of Gulf of Mexico shoreline along unincorporated Collier County and the City of Naples. This project was completed in May 2006 with the main goal to avoid environmental impacts such as hard-bottom coverage and a design project life of six to eight years. The borrow area (Tl) was located just over 33 miles north-northwest of Vanderbilt Beach and was chosen due to the coarser sand availability which will avoid near-shore hard-bottom coverage. A one acre artificial reef was constructed to satisfy mitigation permit requirements. The performance of the beach in avoiding hardbottom coverage has exceeded permit expectations, and the results of 4 years of physical monitoring indicate that the beach can be widened without a significant increased risk of hardbottom impacts. The design alternatives will incorporate the recently approved FEMA authorization. In 1995/1996 much of the same project area was hydraulically nourished with approximately 1.2 million cubic yards. Project Location: The City of Naples/Collier County Beach Renourishment Project is located on the southwest Florida coastline in Collier County between Florida Department of Environmental Protection monuments R-14 to R-16 (newly proposed) and R-22 to R-79. The project consists of approximately 8 miles of critically eroded Gulf shoreline shown on Figure 1. Use of Requested Program Funds: Funds requested for FYI2/13 will be used for annual physical monitoring, biological monitoring, and turtle monitoring activities associated with the 2006 construction and design and permitting tasks in preparation of the upcoming renourishment in FY 13/14. Local Government Support Does this sponsor have dedicated support staff whose sole priority is to manage beach erosion control activities? Yes Name Title Email Percent Commitment Gary McAlpin Director, Coastal Zone Gary McAlpin@colliergov. 100% Mana2:ement net Address 1: 3301 East Tamiami Trail Phone: 239-252-2966 W. Harmon Turner Bldg., Suite 103 Address 2: Naoles, Florida 34112 Fax: 239-252-2950 Quarterly Report Compliance: Com liant N N N N CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 4 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Collier County Beach Renourishment How will revenue for the local funding cost share be established? Local funding for the project will be obtained by Collier County through a Tourist Development Tax. This provides a dedicated long term funding source through a 'bed tax'. Collier County levies a four (4%) percent Tourist Development Tax on all rental income received from accommodations rented for six months or less. The four-percent (4%) Tourist Development Tax revenue is allocated by the Tourist Development Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners as follows: 50% for beach park facilities or beach improvement, maintenance, renourishment, restoration and erosion control, including pass and inlet maintenance shoreline protection, enhancement, cleanup or restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public access as these uses relate to the physical preservation of the beach, shoreline or inland lake or river. 13.4% for County owned or operated museums, to acquire, construct, extend, enlarge, remodel, repair, improve, maintain, operate or promote one or more county owned museums and for non- County owned museums that are owned and operated by not-for- profit organizations and open to the public. 36.6% for Advertising/Promoting and Special Events to bring tourism to Collier County. Is the funding from a dedicated long term source for this project? Yes Collier County has dedicated the majority of the Tourist Taxes to beach maintenance, including funding projects within the City of Naples. In order to acquire funding, a resolution from the local governmental entity must be provided by the application deadline which declares: · Support from the Sponsor for the Proposed Project · Willingness to serve as the Local Sponsor · Ability to provide the full Local Cost Share · Funding Source Has the local sponsor resolution been attached to the application fulfilling all of these requirements? Yes, it will be provided after approval at a July 2011 board meeting. This project is detailed in Collier County's 10-year Capital Plan for Beach Projects which has been approved by Collier County Board of County Commissioners. Has the State cost-shared in a feasibility or design phase of this project? Yes Previous State Cost Share percentage 36.2% 10-Year Proiect Schedule and 5-Year Estimated Bud2et Does this project have Congressional Authorization? Yes CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 5 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Collier County Beach Renourishment Does this project have a Federal Project Cooperative Agreement? No What is the end date of the Federal Authorization? n/a Federal cost share available for this erosion control project: 75% Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples have FEMA Category G funds due to damage as a result of Tropical Storm Fay. This has been included within the 5-year estimated budget under the Federal Cost Share column at 75% of FEMA eligible cost. It is essential that construction be funded by the State in a timely manner, since Federal (FEMA) funds are time limited with restricted extension rules. Schedule and Budget (Include estimated phases for 10 years and estimated project costs for 5 years.): Year Proposed Method Description Total Federal Cost Estimated Cost Share State Cost Share Local Cost Share 2012/2013 Renourishment Phys, Biological Phys, Biological Renourishment Renourishment $91,975 243,872 $246,384 $67,463 18,422,088 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/ 2022 Length of Project Boundary in Feet: 39,912 ft Length of commercial or recreational property fronting the project shoreline: 10,760 ft Percentage of project shoreline designated as commercial or recreational property 23.96% Eligibility: Access Points and Public Lodging Establishments: See Attachments 1 to 4 for detailed listing and maps. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Stafi' Reports 6 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Collier County Beach Renourishment Comercial & Reach Length (ft) Eligible Length (ft) Recreation -------------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------------------- -------------------------- Barefoot Beach* 2,360 2,360 2,360 Vanc4:rbilt Beach 6,777 6,318 2,469 Park Shore/Clam Pass Park 11,400 2,206 2,844 ~~P..!~~_~~~~~_____________________ _.__!2~~2~____ ---------_!~-'-~?_~---------- __________~19_~2_________ Total 39,912 29,277 10,760 Eligible Shoreline % 73.35% 26.96% State Cost Share % * 41.94% Cost Sharing Summary Includes 2,260 feet of State Lands The Collier County occupational licenses and the Florida Department of Businesses and Professional Regulation licenses for the hotels listed on Attachment 1 are on file and can be provided if required. Additional Rankin!! Criteria Will this project enhance or increase the longevity of a previously- constructed project? Yes The engineering report will fine tune the beach, structures, and sand bypassing to reduce project cost and increase durability. The project life will be 10 years. Will this project nourish a previously restored shoreline? Yes Rate of Erosion as determined by the Bureau based on long term data (ft/yr) 4.5 ft/yr Severity of Erosion: A majority of the project area has been designated by FDEP as critically eroded. The Naples Beach area is currently experiencing severe erosion in the project area, losing an average of 6.4 ft/yr since June 2006. The Vanderbilt Beach and Pelican Bay project areas have been eroding at a rate of 5.0 feet per year since construction of the 2006 project. The Park Shore project area has eroded 5.4 feet since June 2006. Erosion within the total project area has averaged 4.5 ft/yr since 1996. The newly proposed Barefoot Beach Segment is currently experiencing the greatest amount of erosion within the project area. Barefoot Beach has eroded approximately -8.6 feet per year since March 2001 with the largest amount of erosion occurring at R-16. The erosion at each R- monument adjusted for fill placed is shown below: CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 7 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Collier County Beach Renourishment Collier County Average Erosion Rates from 1996-2010 -1996-2004 -2006-2010 -Composile (199610 2010) -2003-2009 -18.00 Barefoot Beach Hot Spot -16.00 -14.00 Doctors Pass Hot Spot -12.00 -;:: ~ ~ - 10.00 ~ ... ;I .c U -8.00 y " e = -6.00 <; ;;. -4.00 -2.00 0.00 C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~t~~~~~~j~~~~~~~$~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~k~t66~t~~~~~~~88~~~~~~~~~8~~~~~'~~~~~= >0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ..:! Note: iil ef [;;; t~)2:~~:::::donlY available from June 2000 to May 2004 for 1!6 FDEP R-Monumen; ~ 2.) Accretional values are not shown. Represented by zero on the plot FIGU FIGURE 2. Erosion Trends throughout Collier County Threat to Upland Structures: The recession associated with a 25 year storm is approximately 167 feet using the curve shown below developed for Captiva Island in 2010, which is in the county immediately to the north. Based upon the Captiva modeling study within the region, 41 structures are threatened due to recession from the 25-year storm. Storm R..anion, S.p, 2009 CondlUons AVlirage o1RB4,ft10~, CapUva,FL 350 300 i,250 ~ ! 200 S :., 150 E a ;.; 100 Jf _,I',.' , , '1--1 . -,l---J i rJ: {~ so 10 toO 1000 Return Period lyesfS) FIGURE 3. Storm Recession, Captiva, FL (error bars:l:: 1 standard deviation). CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staf1 Reports 8 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Collier County Beach Renourishment Project Benefits: Shoreline development within the project area consists of over 29,000 linear feet of publicly accessible beach. 6,318 linear feet (93%) of the Vanderbilt Beach property is commercial or recreational. This includes four hotels, Delnor- Wiggins State Park and Collier County's Vanderbilt Beach Road Park. 2,206 linear feet (19.4%) of the Park Shore property is zoned commercial or recreational and eligible. Another 2,300 feet is Clam Pass Park, but although this area is erosional, it is not designated as critically eroded. This includes three public access streets (City of Naples). 18,393 linear feet (95%) of the Naples Beach property is zoned commercial or recreational. This includes the City of Naples' Lowdermilk Park, two hotels and numerous public access streets and walkways. The attached maps identify public beach access points, hotels, and other commercial facilities within the project area. Threatened and endangered marine turtles utilize the entire project area for nesting purposes although none of the areas within the project area have been designated as a sea turtle refuge. Periodic dredging and bypassing has taken place at Wiggins Pass, Clam Pass, Doctors Pass and Gordon Pass in recent decades. The total volume of sand bypassed to adjacent beaches from the four inlets since completion of the 1996 project is estimated at approximately 600,000 cubic yards. Miti2:ation of inlet effects: Since December 2005, Doctors Pass has been dredge twice, for a total volume of 86,000 cy. All of the material was by-passed south of the inlet to Lowdermilk Park. The State Strategic Management Plan calls for bypassing 10,000 cy per year, which recent effort have exceeded. Sediment bypassing has exceeded 100% of the goal. Bypassing has occurred at both Wiggins Pass and Clam Pass to meet state and local non-numerical objectives. Use ofInnovative Applications of Existing Technologies: Current technologies in practice will be used for the upcoming renourishment project and subsequent monitoring. In addition, an investigation to improve hot spot performance and tune structures using modeling is planned. Sand performance has met expectations, and beach widening is feasible without significant threat to nearshore hardbottom. Major outfall and groin combinations will be redesigned to reduce their impact on the adjacent beaches and reduce hot spot sizes. Nourishment Interval (vears): 10 (2013/2014 proiect design) Project Performance: The next full nourishment is scheduled for FY 2013/2014 at the planned 7.5-year renourishment interval. The 1996 project lasted 10 years between nourishment, which is the goal for the next nourishment (CPE 2011). The project was built between January 23, 2006 to May 23, 2006, with dredging starting on February 21, 2006. Collier County's 8.5 miles of renourished shorelines include Vanderbilt Beach, Pelican Bay, North Park Shore, Park Shore, and Naples Beach. These beaches were renourished with an as-built sand volume of approximately 667,562 cubic yards of sand during Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Collier County Beach Renourishment CAC September 8,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 9 of 39 construction. The project was constructed by Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company (GLDD) with two hopper dredges, the Sugar Island and the Manhattan Island. Dredge and fill operations lasted a total of 92 days. All of the project areas were renourished with sand from the Borrow Area T-l, which is located approximately 33 miles northwest of Delnor-Wiggins State Park. Volumetric changes measured from the pre-construction November 2005 survey to the four year post-construction in October 2010 measured 483,233 cubic yards remaining in the project area or 72% of the design volume. It appears that the shorelines are still recovering from the active 2004-5 and 2008 storm season where Tropical Storm Fay affected the project area. Is this project being planned or constructed in cooperation with another local government? Explain? Yes Collier County and the City of Naples are jointly sponsoring this project, and monitoring for all of Collier County projects is combined for economy. Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Collier County Beach Renourishment CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 10 of 39 ATTACHMENT 1 FUNDING ELIGIBILITY COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT Vanderbilt Beach Se2:ment Project Boundary: 350' south ofR22 to 500' south ofR30 Approximate Shoreline Length: 8,480' Public Access Delnor Wiggins State Recreation Area* Vanderbilt Beach Road* On-site Spaces 355 155 Adjacent Spaces o 21 Total Spaces 355 176 Oualifyin2: Hotels La Playa Ritz Carltont Oualifyin2: Shoreline 360' 750' Area determined to be publicly accessible 300' south ofR22 to 110' north ofT25 30' south ofR26 to R30.5t Total Len2:th 2,640' 4,137' Area determined to be critically eroded R22.3 to R30.5 Total eligible shoreline length: 6,318' Total project shoreline length: 6,777' Percent eligible for State funding: 93.23% State eligibility incorporates the total project length (critical and non-critical) and eligibility only recognizes publicly accessible critically eroded shoreline. *Primary beach access contains a minimum of 100 parking spaces and public restrooms. tOverlap 706000 704000 702000 700000 . 1 inch = 700 feel 350 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 11of39 t Project Boundaries D Public Beach Access & Parking Zoning: J:Jcommercial (2,077 Linear Feet f 25%) Recreational (238 Linear Feet I 3%) I'V Critical Erosion Area ... FDEP Monuments Notes: "f"'COO'rdinates are in feet based on the Florida State Plane Coordinate System, East Zone, North American Datum of 1983. (NAD83). 2. Date of Aerial Photography: 2009. Gulf Mexi MflIlWIOC...II.ATIlII'llUU!yAltD .IlCAII....TOII, "-llIIlD... 13oll11 ~O..:1II1-3fl..I.Z 'AX:Stl-3II...1. ....ucJaI.....'I.............. 700 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Collier County Beach Renourishment CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 12 of 39 FUNDING ELIGIBILITY COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT Park Shore & Clam Bay Park Seement Public Access Horizon Way Vedado Way Seagate Drive Clam Pass Park Project Boundary: R42 to 390' south ofR54 with a gap in the vicinity ofR-49 and R-50 Approximate Shoreline Length: 11,400' On-site Parking Spaces Metered Permit* 21 17 25 14 o 0 o 172 Adjacent Spaces o o 38 o Total Spaces 38 39 38 172 Area determined to be publicly accessible R42 to 494' south ofR44 1087' south ofR50 to 60' north ofR54 Total Leneth 2,206' Area determined to be critically eroded R50.5 to 390' south ofR54 Total eligible shoreline length: 2,206' Total project shoreline length: 11,400' Percent eligible for State funding: 19.35% State eligibility incorporates the total project length (critical and non-critical) and eligibility only recognizes publicly accessible critically eroded shoreline. *Permit spaces are available to residents and the general public for the same price. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 130f39 Project Boundaries DPublic Beach Access & Parking Zoning: LJCommercial (100 Linear Feet / 0.8%) WRecreational (2,329 Linear Feet /18%) /V'Critical Erosion Area ... FDEP Monuments 674000 t )IInIlWMCAII.ATOII.Olll..aVAIlO ~CAII.ATOJtA.0II1OJ,JU31 ~O":Hl-3""IOZ 'J,)(,Sthlfl...lI ...llCt<o..I1II,I"'~In..n.' 625 1,250 Feet o o o ~ ~ M 1 inch = 1,250 feef CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 14 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Collier County Beach Renourishment FUNDING ELIGIBILITY COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT Naples Se2ment Project Boundary: 1,050' north ofR58 to R79 Approximate Shoreline Length: 19,375' On-site Spaces Adjacent Spaces Total Public Access Public Permit** Public Permit** Spaces Lowdermilk Park* 46 164 0 0 210 8th Avenue North 20 1 0 0 21 ih Avenue North 10 4 0 0 14 North Lake Avenue 19 20 0 0 39 6th Avenue North 5 5 0 0 10 5th Avenue North 0 0 0 0 0 4th Avenue North 11 4 0 0 15 3rd Avenue North 10 4 0 0 14 2nd Avenue North 12 4 0 0 16 15t Avenue North 11 6 0 0 17 Central Drive 8 4 0 0 12 15t A venue South 5 12 0 0 17 2nd A venue South 7 4 0 0 11 3rd Avenue South 8 6 0 0 14 4th Avenue South 8 7 0 0 15 5th A venue South 34 0 20 0 54 6th A venue South 4 8 0 0 12 ih A venue South 7 9 0 0 16 8th Avenue South 6 5 0 0 11 9th A venue South 11 4 0 0 15 10th A venue South 9 35 0 0 44 11 th A venue South 8 5 0 0 13 Broad Avenue 49 22 0 0 71 12th Avenue South 25 8 0 0 33 Pier Parking Lot 81 0 0 0 81 13 th A venue South 31 13 0 0 44 14th Avenue South 16 14 0 0 30 15th A venue South 10 7 0 0 17 16th A venue South 16 14 0 0 30 1 ih A venue South 7 3 0 0 10 18th Avenue South 12 13 0 0 25 19th A venue South 0 0 0 0 0 215t A venue South 0 0 0 21 21 *Primary beach access contains a minimum of 100 parking spaces and public restrooms Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Collier County Beach Renourishment CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 15 of 39 **Permit spaces are available to residents and the general public for the same price Oualifyine Hotels Edgewater Hotel Oualifyine Shoreline 265' Area determined to be publicly accessible 85' north ofR58 to R79 Total Leneth 18,410' Area determined to be critically eroded R57.8 to R79 Total eligible shoreline length: 18,393' Total project shoreline length: 19,375' Percent eligible for State funding: 94.93% State eligibility incorporates the total project length (critical and non-critical) and eligibility only recognizes publicly accessible critically eroded shoreline. *Primary beach access contains a minimum of 100 parking spaces and public restrooms. 670000 668000 666000 664000 662000 660000 658000 656000 654000 . Feet 1 inch = 1,500 feet .. .. .. .. .. .. o 0 g g Doctors Pass Gulf of Mexico t 750 1,500 CAC September 8,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 160f39 Project Boundaries CJPublic Beach Access & Parking Zoning: t::'J,Commercial (1,241 Linear Feet/6%) mRecreational (939 Linear Feet /5%) /'V Critical Erosion Area .A. FDEP Monuments Notes: 1, Coordinates are in feet based on the Florida State Plane Coordinate System, East Zone, North American Datum of 1983. (NAD83). 2. Date of Aerial Photography: 2009. ... N..... MC...Il...TON.OUU:V......O ItOCAIlATllN,lILO/I.IllA:DQl ""0.''''-'311'''01 ....1...OU...~...."'......1 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 17 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Collier County Beach Renourishment FUNDING ELIGIBILITY COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT Barefoot Beach Seement Project Boundary: R14 to 300' south ofR16 Approximate Shoreline Length: 2,360' Public Access Barefoot Beach Preserve* On-site Spaces 100+ Adjacent Spaces 100+ Total Spaces 200+ Area determined to be publicly accessible R14 to 300' south ofR16 Total Leneth 2,360' Area determined to be critically eroded R14 to R16.3 Total eligible shoreline length: 2,360' Total project shoreline length: 2,360' State owned shoreline length: County owned shoreline length: 2,260' 100' Percent eligible for State funding: 100.0% Cost Sharing with State Lands: 97.88 % State eligibility incorporates the total project length (critical and non-critical) and eligibility only recognizes publicly accessible critically eroded shoreline. *Primary beach access contains a minimum of 100 parking spaces and public restrooms. CAC September 8,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 180f39 !&lwllt Project Boundaries ~C:":,::::]1PublicIY-Owned Property (Beach Access) c::JState Land ~ Critical Erosion Area ... FDEP Monuments Notes: 1. Coordinates are in feet based on the Florida State Plane Coordinate System, East Zone, North American Datum of 1983. (NAD83). 2. Date of Aerial Photography: 2009. 3. Publicly-Owned Property and Beach Hotels and Resort Condos provided by the Collier County GIS Department. t KI1IIWMCAIIATOlllOULaYAltD IOCAIIAlOlI.1'l.0ItDA.!W1 ",ONl!:1I14~""Z 'All:5I14~""" -1Ocoa....I.........II.' 250 500 1 inch ::= 500 feel CAC September 8,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 19 of 39 FY 2012-13 Local Government Funding Request Proiect Name: Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Implementation Proiect Description: The project's goal is to improve inlet conditions without the use of structures and reduce erosion on adjacent beaches at Wiggins Pass, Collier County, FL. One primary component of the new Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Implementation is to reduce the erosion of Barefoot Beach, which was been designated as critically eroded by the state. The erosion caused by the current inlet position will be mitigated by distributing beach quality dredged material with a modified balance to adjacent eroded shorelines and realignment of the channel to reduce erosion. The proposed inlet management plan meets state criteria for inlet management projects, which are described within the inlet ranking criteria below. The updated inlet management plan will be implemented by straightening the inlet channel layout and modifying bypassing, which in return will minimize erosion at the downdrift shoreline. The designated dredge disposal locations and quantities will be modified and relocated to increase management flexibility, reduce sediment loss to the system and impacts to Barefoot Beach shoreline. A dynamic design will be incorporated into the maintenance plan for the inlet so that long-term dredging can be reduced, thus increasing project life compared to current methods and making the update inlet plan more cost effective than the previous inlet management plan. Impacts to natural resources will be avoided or minimized. The project not only addresses navigation, but also addresses improved sand bypassing, modifications to channel dredging, improved locations for sand disposal and an update of the 1995 inlet management plan. The goals for the Wiggins Pass improvement study as developed by Collier County and the Wiggins Pass Modeling Evaluation Work Group are: 1. To provide a safe channel for boating 2. To address erosion at Barefoot Beach 3. To lengthen the dredge cycle and accomplish it with the least effect on the environment 4. To provide a solution that is economically effective. The Wiggins Pass Modeling Evaluation Work Group represented a broad group of local stake holders appointed by the County government, including representatives of the Florida Park Service. There have been five new findings since the current plan for Wiggins Pass was formulated in the 1990's that will be addressed by the new plan: I. The flood channel is migrating north significantly - Causes are both natural and man induced 2. Net alongshore transport is to the north, but with periodic strong reversals detriment 3. Unbalanced bypassing has occurred to the north 4. The inlet and flood shoal are infilling from the north and south by a reoccurring sand wave Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Implementation CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 20 of 39 5. The rock ledge/ hard substrate extends to both sides of the channel These facts are the basis for the new design proposed in Wiggins Pass Engineering Reports (CPE February 2010); http://bcs.deo.state.fl.us/env-prmt/collier/oending/O 142538 Wiggins Pass/008- JC/ Aoolication/JCP-PDF%20Wiggins%20Pass%2002- 2010/ Attachment%20No. %2033%20- %20Analvsis%200flIo20the%20 Effect%200n%20Coastal %20Svstem/ A ttachment%20N o. %203 3 a%20-%20Engineering%20Report:.pdf), submitted as Attachment No. 33a of the JCP permit. An inlet management plan with modeling and permit application is currently in progress. The modeling report (CPE 2009) for Wiggins Pass can be found at the following path: http://bcs.deo.state.fl. us/env-onnt/collier/oending/O 142538 Wiggins Pass/008- J C/ Aool i cation/J CP - PDF%20 Wiggins%20Pass%2002- 201 0/Wiggins%20Pass%20Modeling%20Report%200 12009%20Full%20Report.pdf The project will be implemented in four phases. The phases include initial construction (Figure I), major maintenance dredging, intermediate ebb channel dredging, monitoring, mitigation and contingency plans. A Barefoot Beach nourishment will supplement the bypassing proposed in this project to address past short falls and background erosion. The details for each phase are summarized below. Almost every task listed below contributes to both navigation and inlet management as defined by section 161.143 of Florida Statute. 1) Initial construction of straighten channel i) Dredge compatible Sand from Ebb Channel - 45 kcy ii) Dredge Flood Channel-28 kcy iii) Dredge Incompatible sand and disposal of upland - 7 kcy iv) Build Gulf beach and scour repair with compatible sand 35 kcy v) Fill Meander with compatible sand -repairing shoreline vicinity of and at the mangroves (45 kcy) vi) Upland Disposal for 7.5 kcy of unsuitable sand 2) Major Maintenance Dredge - 50 kcy each 4 yr with disposal balanced to favor adjacent Gulf shoreline with greatest need. i) Place beach compatible sand in nearshore or ebb disposal areas to rebuild adjacent shorelines and ebb shoal. 3) Intermediate Ebb Channel Dredging as needed i) Excavate and clear ebb channel and laterally place about 8-10 kcy in the north ebb shoal to promotes rebuilding it. 4) Create contingency, monitoring and inlet management plans i) No direct mitigation expected 5) Nourish critical erosion area on Barefoot Beach & re-build Ebb Shoal every 10 years with 100,000 cy to supplement by-passing until the shoreline and shoal recovers. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 21 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Implementation Figure 1. Project Illustration The modeling studies (CPE 2009) indicate that improved inlet conditions and mitigation of erosion on adjacent beaches can be achieved by redesigning the main channel and modifying the placement location and quantity of the dredged material. The total initial cut volume estimate is 80,000 CY (Figure 1) and it will provide a prolonged maintenance interval. The maintenance will include major maintenance dredging of approximately 50,000 CY each 4 years along with intermediate ebb (surgical) channel dredging of approximately 8,000 CY as needed. This restoration will provide additional sand for bypassing to Barefoot Beach, mitigating the historic erosion problem in this area. Periodic bypassing to Delnor Wiggins State Park will be part of the plan. Bypassing will be rebalanced to place approximately 70% of dredged sand north and 30% south based on an analysis of coastal processes since the 1990's (CPE 2010). A straightened inlet improves human engineering of the inlet, making it easier for boats to find the channel. A nourishment of Barefoot Beach is being considered as a separate project to restore the shoreline and adjacent ebb shoal with periodic nourishment of 100,000 CY, supplementing this plan. This project will help restore the sediment deficit to the north. In order to implement the inlet management study, four phases of the plan have been identified: 1. Prepare IMP Study and resubmit permit application and response to RAI #1, based on the FDEP May 13, 2011 letter. 2. Prepare Plans & Specifications. 3. Implement Project 4. Implement next beach nourishment CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 22 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Implementation Project Location: The Wiggins Pass Project is located on the southwest Florida coastline in Collier County between Florida Department of Environmental Protection monuments R-16 and R-17 and the project is adjacent to approximately 2,300 feet of critically eroded Gulf shoreline. Use of Requested Pro2:ram Funds: Funds requested for FYI2/13 will be used for final design and initial construction of the project. Local Government Support Does this sponsor have dedicated support staff whose sole priority is to manage beach erosion control activities? Yes Name Title Email Percent Commitment Gary McAlpin Director, Coastal Zone GaryMcAlpin@colliergov. 100% Management net Address 1: 3301 East Tamiami Trail Phone: 239-252-2966 W. Harmon Turner Bldg., Suite 103 Address 2: Naples, Florida 34112 Fax: 239-252-2950 Quarterly Report Compliance: None, this is an initial request. Revenue for the local cost share will be provided by: Local funding for the project will be obtained by Collier County through a Tourist Development Tax. This provides a dedicated long term funding source through a 'bed tax'. Collier County levies a four (4%) percent Tourist Development Tax on all rental income received from accommodations rented for six months or less. The four-percent (4%) Tourist Development Tax revenue is allocated by the Tourist Development Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners as follows: 50% for beach park facilities or beach improvement, maintenance, renourishment, restoration and erosion control, including pass and inlet maintenance shoreline protection, enhancement, cleanup or restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public access as these uses relate to the physical preservation of the beach, shoreline or inland lake or river. 13.4% for County owned or operated museums, to acquire, construct, extend, enlarge, remodel, repair, improve, maintain, operate or promote one or more county owned museums and for non- County owned museums that are owned and operated by not-for- profit organizations and open to the public. 36.6% for Advertising/Promoting and Special Events to bring tourism to Collier County. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 23 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Implementation Is the funding from a dedicated long term source for this project? Yes Collier County has dedicated the majority of the Tourist Taxes to beach maintenance, including funding projects for inlet dredging that benefits adjacent shorelines. Collier County has a dedicated staff. In order to acquire funding, a resolution from the local governmental entity must be provided by the application deadline which declares: . Support from the Sponsor for the Proposed Project . Willingness to serve as the Local Sponsor · Ability to provide the full Local Cost Share . Funding Source Has the local sponsor resolution been attached to the application fulfilling all of these requirements? Yes, it will be provided Previous State cost-share for a feasibility or desien/permittine phase of this proiect: The 1995 Inlet Management Plan was cost shared 50%. 50% 10-Year Proiect Schedule and 5-Year Estimated Budeet Does this project have Congressional Authorization? No Does this project have a Federal Project Cooperative Agreement? No What is the end date of the Federal Authorization? NA Federal cost share available for this maintenance dredging project: NA Schedule and Budget (Include estimated phases for 10 years and estimated project costs for 5 years.): CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 24 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Implementation Proposed Total Federal Cost State Cost Local Cost Year Method Description Estimated Cost Share Share Share 2012/2013 Design $250,000 $62,500 Construction 1,726,450 431,613 2013/2014 Design $100,000 $25,000 Monitoring 40,000 10,000 2014/2015 Construction $300,000 $100,000 Monitoring $41,616 $10,404 2015/2016 Design $100,000 $25,000 Monitoring 42,448 10,612 2016/2017 Construction $850,000 $212,500 MonitOrIng $43,297 10,824 2017/2018 omtormg 2018/2019 omtormg 2019/2020 eSlgn 2020/2021 onstructlOn 2021/ 2022 omtormg Mappin!!- Maps are provided as attachments alon!! with ownership. Length of Project Boundary in Feet: This is an Inlet Management Project, but public parks stretch over a mile in either direction. Length of commercial or recreational property fronting the project shoreline: All adjacent shoreline is Public Park, which is recreational property. Percentage of project shoreline designated as commercial or recreational property 100% Eligibility: Access Points and Public Lodging Establishments: Adjacent beaches are Parks with ample parking Inlet Additional Rankin!! Criteria Mitigation of Inlet Impacts The Strategic Beach Management Plan for Wiggins Pass states the strategy for the inlet as follows: "Place beach quality maintenance dredged material on adjacent beaches north and south of Wiggins Pass within areas of greatest need; monitoring and analysis of inlet effects." The dredging that has occurred at the Pass has placed approximately 70% of the material in areas with the greatest need. Recent findings have indicated that the beaches to the north of the pass need 2.65 times the bypass material as the south in order to place the fill within areas of greatest need. The updated inlet management plan currently proposes to rebalance the sediment CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 25 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Implementation distribution based on the recent analysis (CPE 2010) which will increase targeted bypassing to 100%. The Pass will have an annual bypassing goal of 14,500 cubic yards per year. During the past two maintenance dredging in 2009 and 2011 for the pass have removed approximately 50,000 cubic yards for each event, placing the majority of the material north of the pass to mitigate for past imbalances. An estimate of the annual quantity of beach quality material reaching the up drift boundary of the inlet channel An estimated 20,000 cubic yards per year are reaching the boundary of Wiggins Pass where sand from both sides contributes to bypassing (CPE 2010). Severity of Erosion The north shoreline (R-14 to R-16) of Wiggins Pass was evaluated in order to analyze shoreline changes to present. During the time span from 1988 to present, the northern shoreline area has lost approximately -5.0 feet per year. The largest erosion has occurred at R-16. This monument alone has lost approximately -12 feet per year since 1988. The high losses that have occurred to the north of the inlet can be attributed to the northern migration of the channel meander and inlet management practices, which allowed for an approximate even disposal of dredged material on the north and south shorelines. From analysis, it appears that in order to alleviate the erosion to the north, approximately 2.65 times more dredged material needs to be placed on the shorelines to the north than the south. This material needs to be targeted south of the nodal area at R-14. The erosion has impacted the vegetation at Barefoot Beach, which is being pushed by the northward migration of the flood channel, which has moved approximately 100 feet since the 1970's. This migration has both a natural and man induced component. The mangroves have retreated a total of 52 feet since 1973 and 13 feet since 2002, which is a loss of about 0.3 acres. The loss of the mangrove habitat is critical because of it being snook habitat. The proposed inlet management strategy's goal is to prevent the erosion to the mangroves, which will restore the snook habitat that is currently being lost. On the Gulf, the vegetation has retreated 194 feet in some areas since 1973, and 123 feet in the last 8 years. Overall, the increased erosion north of the inlet on the Gulfbeaches has caused 3.2 acres of vegetation to be lost since 2002. This loss of habitat may affect important native species such as the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), a state-listed Species of Special Concern. Barefoot Beach is one of the remaining few natural barrier islands along the southwest coast of Florida and is important habitat for the gopher tortoise: a total of 712 burrows were recorded from June 13 through September 7 of 2009; 186 were recorded as Very Active; 277 were recorded as Active; 76 were recorded as Inactive; 173 were abandoned. Considering the substantial loss of vegetation at the southern end of the island, it is likely that gopher tortoise burrows have been lost to erosion in the past, and their habitat at the south end of Barefoot Beach will continue to disappear without measures to CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 26 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Implementation mitigate for the erosion. The burrows along the edge of vegetation between approximately R15+500 and R16 are threatened with imminent loss to erosion. The proposed inlet management strategy will mitigate for the current erosive effects of the inlet. By realigning the channel, stress upon the northern interior shoreline will be reduced, thus reducing the mangrove loss that has historically occurred within this area. The inlet management study also plans on rebuilding the north Gulf shoreline and ebb shoal that has been lost, which will reduce wave energy, which in return will reduce erosion upon the neighboring shorelines. The overall significance and anticipated success of the proposed project in balancing the sediment budget of the inlet and adjacent beaches and addressing the sand deficit along the inlet affected shoreline Overtime, bypassing at Wiggins pass has moved towards an even split compared to an emphasis to the south when dredging first began. Based on what has been learned during recent studies, a ratio of 2.65: 1 favoring the north will rebalance dredge spoil distribution. This action in combination with rebuilding the ebb shoal and a spoil area closer to inlet bodes well for success. It is anticipated that the project will be successful in balancing the sediment deficit currently at Barefoot Beach through findings brought to light from the updated inlet management study. Approximately 2.65 times more dredged material will be placed on the shorelines to the north than the south along with being placed within the areas of greatest need, which are closer to the inlet than current practices. This will aid in alleviating erosional stresses on the northern shoreline in conjunction to the channel realignment. Details of the sediment budget and transport patterns can be found in the engineering report (CPE 2010) (link provided within project description section) and modeling report (CPE 2009). The extent to which existing bypassing activities at an inlet would benefit from modest, cost-effective improvements when considering the volumetric increases from the proposed project, the availability of beach quality sand currently not being bypassed to adjacent eroding beaches, and the ease with which such beach quality sand may be obtained. The inlet management study is cost effective due to the fact it proposes better management practices, which will cause less erosion within the project area. A rebalance of the dredge material in conjunction with new disposal locations will make best use of available sands. The project will also improve navigation by the channel realignment while reducing erosion. The interest and commitment of local governments as demonstrated by their willingness to coordinate the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of an inlet management project and their financial plan for funding the local cost-share for initial construction, ongoing sand bypassing, channel dredging, and maintenance. Collier County has been committed to maintaining Wiggins Pass since the mid 1990s, when the first inlet management study was implemented. Since then, the inlet has been dredged on a biannual basis. The County has been studying the inlet actively since 2006 through engineering CAC September 8. 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 27 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Implementation and modeling studies in order to develop the most effective strategy to maintain the inlet and the adjacent shorelines. The previous completion or approval of a state-sponsored inlet management plan or local- government-sponsored inlet management study concerning the inlet addressed by the proposed project, the ease of updating and revising such plan or study, and the adequacy and specificity of the plan's or study's recommendations concerning the mitigation of an inlet's erosive effects on adjacent beaches. An inlet management plan was previously done for Wiggins Pass in 1995, and is currently in the process of being updated now. The engineering report (CPE 2010) has most of the elements of an inlet management study. It will update the 1995 plans with better management methods by quantifying amounts of material to dispose to the northern and southern shorelines and identifying the best location for the disposal sites. The degree to which the proposed project will enhance the performance and longevity of proximate beach nourishment projects, thereby reducing frequency of such periodic nourishment projects. The project will aid in extending the design width at the newly proposed nourishment segment at Barefoot Beach with the placement of beach quality dredged material, and the channel realignment will reduce stresses upon the northern shoreline, which will reduce the erosion within the area. The project will also enhance the nourishment project by recreating the ebb shoal directly offshore of Barefoot Beach, which will help to alleviate erosion within the area. Additional Rankin!! Criteria Will this project enhance or increase the longevity of a previously- constructed project? Yes, the proposed inlet management strategy will reduce erosion partially caused by the current inlet management practices and help lengthen dredging intervals from 2 to 4 years within the project area once complete, which will reduce impacts to the natural community. The human engineering aspects of a straighter channel will go a long ways toward reducing the frequency of major dredging. Project Benefits: The project will attempt to reestablish the historic shoreline and the ebb shoal size. Also, Gopher tortoises utilize Barefoot Beach for nesting purposes. Periodic dredging and bypassing has taken place at Wiggins Pass in recent decades. The total volume of sand bypassed to adjacent beaches from maintenance dredging has been 498,650 cubic yards since 1984. Approximately 260,937 cubic yards of that fill has been placed to the north, with the remaining 237,713 cubic yards being placed to the south of the inlet. The ratio needs to be shifted to approximately 2.6: 1 in favor of the north, but monitored during each dredging. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 28 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Implementation Use of Innovative Applications of existing technologies: Allow for natural inlet migration after implementation and use of intermediate (surgical) dredge events to delay major dredge events and reduce cumulative quantities dredged. Utilization of advanced computer modeling to refine the disposal location, channel dimensions, and trends in equilibration. Dredging Interval (years): 1 Project Performance: Wiggins Pass was designed to be dredged at regular intervals of approximately 2 to 4 years but is currently dredged at regular intervals of approximately 2 years or less to maintain navigable depths for recreational boaters. The dredge channel extends from the inlet throat to about 1,200 feet offshore. Periodic dredging has occurred at the intersection of the interior channels. The inlet has been dredged since 1984 under two previous permits, secured by the County. Since maintenance dredging began in 1984, the overall erosion has increased along with the magnitude of erosion experienced at beaches to the north. Initially, the beaches to the south were erosional prior to the 1990s. Since 1992, the shoreline north of the inlet at Barefoot Beach has retreated on average approximately 87 feet. The worst area of erosion is occurring at R16, where, since 1992, it has lost approximately 437 feet of shoreline. Overall, it appears that the current maintenance dredging practices are not adequately addressing the northern losses at Barefoot Beach nor the stability of the dredged channel. Historic reports indicated that sediment transport was from north to south, and erosion was higher south of the inlet between 1957 and 1979. However, the recent volumetric data contrasts with that belief. From 1979 to 2009, the area north of Wiggins Pass (R11 to R 16) eroded 252,926 cubic yards, while the area south of the inlet has accreted 49,603 cubic yards. Prior to 1979, before maintenance dredging, the erosion accretion pattern was reversed, with the north accretional. Using these values along with the historic shoreline changes, it appears that more sand needs to be disposed of at the north during maintenance dredging to reduce erosion on Barefoot Beach. The amount of dredge disposal north and south of the inlet has been nearly equal since dredging began in 1984. Lately, the trend is towards north disposal since 2001. An analysis was made to calculate the disposal balance needed to make each area have an equal erosion rate. As an example, the areas south of the inlet (R17 to R21) showed a gain of almost 50,000 CY since 1979, while the area north of the inlet (Rll to R16) lost 253,000 CY. To equalize the rate of volumetric change in these areas since 1979, disposal volumes should have been 2.7 times greater to the north (Barefoot Beach Park) than the south (Delnor Wiggins Park). This is a major shift over past practices. Ultimately, this bypassing ratio should equalize stability of the shoreline north and south of the inlet. Navigation will be improved by straightening the channel through the flood and ebb shoal, reducing both the need for dredging. Boaters have difficulty finding the channel in the S-shape natural alignment. The S-shape is caused by a long term natural process where growth in the flood shoals pushes the flood channel north with a corresponding rotation of the ebb shoal to the south. Human engineering factors are needed for improved channel design. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 29 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Implementation Is this project being planned or constructed in cooperation with another local government? Explain? No ATTACHMENT A FUNDING ELIGIBILITY Wil!1!ins Pass Inlet Mana2ement Plan Implementation 2009 Project Boundaries: Project Boundary: R16 south to north R17 Public Access DelnOf Wiggins State Recreation Area* Barefoot Beach On-site Spaces 355 362 Adjacent Spaces o Total Spaces 355 362 Area determined to be publicly accessible Both adjacent shorelines Area determined to be critically eroded R14 to R16.3 Fundin2 Rate: 75% for IMP CAC September 8, 2011 Vll~6 Staff Reports 30 of 39 ~ Project Boundaries :""']Publicly~Owned Property (Beach Access) c::JState Land IT:}] Beach Disposal Area c::J Dredge Area ~ Critical Erosion Area .... FDEP Monuments Notes: 1. Coordinates are in feet based on the Florida State Plane Coordinate System, East Zone, North American Datum of 1983. (NAD83). 2. Date of Aerial Photography: 2009. 3. Publicly-Owned Property and Beach Hotels and Resort Condos provided by the Collier County GIS Department. t M.tIlW.,CAJtArOIl.OUUIIYMD "CAJtATON."'-ClJtlDADoI:I1 1It40..'5114....'.1 '....'5114"4111 _~...tol,t.....Io..lI.' 350 700 Collier County Beach Long Range Beach Plan Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan Implentation Feel 1 inch = 1,000 feet o o o ... .. .., CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 31 of 39 FEMA Correspondence Collier County Beach Projects From: Mcleod, Chad (Martinez) rmailto:Chad McLeod@)martinez.senate.qovl Sent: Tuesday, February 24,20092:30 PM To: mudd-.i Cc: Sheffield Michael; wight_d Subject: DHs/FEMA Funding for Collier County, Florida Mr. Mudd, I just wanted to let you know (in case you haven't already heard) that FEMA has announced two federal grants for Collier County associated with Tropical Storm Fay. The information is below. I hope all is well in Naples. Chad McLeod Southwest Florida Regional Director U.S. Senator Mel Martinez 2120 Main Street, Suite 200 Fort Myers, FL 33901 239.332.3898 239.332.3447 fax COllIER County Total Project Cost - This Version $7,982,133.96 - FEMA Share $5,986,600.47 (JCCC02 = PW01146) This project involves the re-nourishing of Vanderbilt Beach/ Park Shore Beach and Naples Beach as a direct result of Tropical Storm Fay. These three beaches are to be restored to pre-storm conditions, as defined by the previous beach re-nourishment project in 2006/07 completed under Collier County Beach Renourishment Bid No. 05-3584. Work will consist of mobilizing offshore dredge equipment and pumping, placing and shaping fV174/576 CY of beach-quality sand that meets approved geotechnical specifications. The offshore borrow area for the approved sand is located approximately 33.1 miles northwest of Delnor-Wiggins State Park. Sand is to be placed and shaped per engineering specifications to restore these beaches to pre-storm design elevations. Total Project Cost -This Version $2,822,578.00 - FEMA Share - $2,116,933.50 (JCCCOl = PW00561) CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 32 of 39 An estimated 76,728 CY of sand along 4,383 linear feet of beach was eroded form the southwestern tip of Marco Island by wave action during Tropical Storm Fay. The purpose of this project is to restore sand to this improved section of beach. Most recently, in 2007, the applicant completed the South Marco Island Beach Nourishment Program over this same project area in the wake of Hurricane Wilma. FEMA obligates funding for these projects directly to the State. It is the State's responsibility to ensure that eligible sub-grantees receive these awards. Following the State's review process and upon receipt of appropriate documentation, they will provide funds to the sub-grantees on a reimbursable basis. From: Seibert, Robert rmailto:Robert.5eibert(6lem.mvflorida.com) Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 4: 17 PM To: McAlpinGary Subject: PW Numbers for TS Faye Beaches Gary, Here is the PW numbers for the two Beach Projects. JCCCOl = PW00561 =$2,822.578.00 in eligible funding. JCCC02 = PW01146 = $7,982,133.96 in eligible funding. These are available in FLPA where you can download or print the PWs and note the Federal amount, Admin Costs, State Share, which will give you the $ total available to Collier County. If you have any questions on what you see, please give me a call. Have a good weekend, Bob Robert M. (Bob) Seibert Lead Deputy Public Assistance Officer Florida Division of Emergency Management Phone: 407-268-8609 Blackberry: 850-528-5096 email: robert.seibert(a)em.mvflorida.com CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 33 of 39 FY 2012-13 Local Government Funding Request Project Name: South Marco Island Beach Renourishment Project Description: This project includes the yearly physical beach monitoring, beach tilling, and turtle/shorebird monitoring leading to beach nourishment and improved structures in 2012/2013. All the monitoring activities are required by the FDEP permit. Marco Beach was restored in early winter 2007 using approximately 180,000 cubic yards of hydraulic fill along 4,500 feet of Gulf of Mexico shoreline at City of Marco Island. The project area was previously renourished in 1997. The same borrow area from the 1997 project was used for the 2007 project which was the maintenance dredging of Caxambas Pass. It was completed in March 2007. The design project life for the recent nourishment is between six to eight years. Collier County plans to place approximately 104,000 cubic yards of beach compatible material to restore approximately 4,400 feet along South Marco Island. The beach fill will be within the 2005 permitted project limits. The main goals of the upcoming renourishment project are for restoring storm protection, natural resource habitats, and recreational beach areas to offset the storm damage caused by Tropical Storm Fay in 2008. The project being designed for the next nourishment is currently undergoing a modeling study considering structural alternatives to hold sand within the project area. Project Location: The South Marco Island Beach Renourishment Project is located on the southwest Florida coastline of Collier County between Florida Department of Environmental Protection monuments R-143 and beyond R-148 to the terminal groin. The project's borrow area is the 1997/2007 Caxambas Pass Borrow Area. A supplemental borrow area is the Cape Romano Shoal, but is not anticipated on being needed. Use of Requested Program Funds: Funds requested for FYI2/13 will be used for annual physical monitoring and turtle monitoring activities associated with the 2007 construction required by permits. Funds wills also be used to complete the modeling study, preliminary design, final design, permitting, and construction of the next renourishment project. Local Government Support Does this sponsor have dedicated support staff whose sole priority is to manage beach erosion control activities? Yes - Name Title Email Percent Commitment Gary McAlpin Director, Coastal Zone GaryMcAlpin@colliergov. 100% Management net Address 1: 3301 East Tamiami Trail Phone: 239-252-2966 W. Harmon Turner Bldg., Suite 103 Address 2: Naples, Florida 34112 Fax: 239-252-2950 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 34 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - South Marco Island Beach Renourishment Quarterly Report Compliance: Com liant N N N N How will revenue for the local funding cost share be established? Local funding for the project will be obtained by Collier County through a Tourist Development Tax. This provides a dedicated long term funding source through a 'bed tax'. Collier County levies a four (4%) percent Tourist Development Tax on all rental income received from accommodations rented for six months or less. The four-percent (4%) Tourist Development Tax revenue is allocated by the Tourist Development Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners as follows: 50% for beach park facilities or beach improvement, maintenance, renourishment, restoration and erosion control, including pass and inlet maintenance shoreline protection, enhancement, cleanup or restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public access as these uses relate to the physical preservation of the beach, shoreline or inland lake or river. 13.4% for County owned or operated museums, to acquire, construct, extend, enlarge, remodel, repair, improve, maintain, operate or promote one or more county owned museums and for non- County owned museums that are owned and operated by not-for- profit organizations and open to the public. 36.6% for Advertising/Promoting and Special Events to bring tourism to Collier County. Is the funding from a dedicated long term source for this project? Yes Collier County has dedicated the majority of the Tourist Taxes to beach maintenance, including funding projects within Marco Island. Collier County has a dedicated staff. In order to acquire funding, a resolution from the local governmental entity must be provided by the application deadline which declares: · Support from the Sponsor for the Proposed Project · Willingness to serve as the Local Sponsor · Ability to provide the full Local Cost Share · Funding Source Has the local sponsor resolution been attached to the application fulfilling all of these requirements? Yes, it will be provided. This project is detailed in Collier County's lO-year Capital Plan for Beach Projects which has been approved by Collier County Board of County Commissioners. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 35 of 39 CoIlier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - South Marco Island Beach Renourishment A County Commission resolution specifically in support of this individual project is on file at DEP offices. Has the State cost-shared in a feasibility or design phase of this project? Yes Previous State Cost Share percentage 20.88% 10-Year Proiect Schedule and 5-Year Estimated Budf!et Does this project have Congressional Authorization? No Does this project have a Federal Project Cooperative Agreement? No What is the end date of the Federal Authorization? n/a Federal cost share available for this erosion control project: 75% Marco Island Beach has FEMA Category G funds due to damage as a result of Tropical Storm Fay. This has been included within the 5-year estimated budget under the Federal Cost Share column at 75% of eligible cost. Schedule and Budget (Include estimated phases for 10 years and estimated project costs for 5 years.): Year 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/ 2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/ 2021 2021/ 2022 Proposed Method Total Federal Cost Estimated Cost Share State Cost Share Local Cost Share Description Monitoring Construction $58,040 $2,025,000 $0 Momtonng Monitoring Monitoring Momtonng Momtonng Momtonng Momtonng Momtonng omtonng Length of Project Boundary in Feet: 4,700 ft Length of commercial or recreational property fronting the project shoreline: 2,011ft Percentage of project shoreline designated as commercial or recreational property 42.78% CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 36 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - South Marco Island Beach Renourishment Eligibility: Access Points and Public Lodging Establishments: Project Boundary: 690' south ofR143 to 600' south ofR148 Approximate Shoreline Length: 4,700' Public Access Swallow A venue Parkin!:! Spaces 70 (on site) Oualifyin!:! Hotels Hilton Hotel Radisson Hotel Oualifyin!:! Shoreline 510' 350' The Collier County occupational licenses and the Florida Department of Businesses and Professional Regulation licenses for the following hotels are on file and can be provided if required. Area determined to be publicly accessible 330' north ofR144 to 500' north ofR145 20' north ofR146 to R148+600 Total Len!:!th 860' 1,880' Area determined to be critically eroded R143 to R148 Total eligible shoreline length: 2,740' Total project shoreline length: 4,700' Percent eligible for State funding: 58.30% State eligibility incorporates the total project length (critical and non-critical) and eligibility only recognizes publicly accessible critically eroded shoreline. See attached map of eligible shorelines. Additional Rankin!:! Criteria Will this project enhance or increase the longevity of a previously- constructed project? Engineering is find tuning structures to increase durability and sand retention on the island, which will increase project life Yes Will this project nourish a previously restored shoreline? Yes Rate of Erosion as determined by the Bureau based on long term data (ft/yr) 7.2 ft/yr CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 37 of 39 Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - South Marco Island Beach Renourishment Severity of Erosion: The project area's shoreline has been designated by PDEP as critically eroded. Using the January 2007 and February 2011 monitoring surveys, the MHW shoreline change was found to be eroding at an average rate of -7.2 feet per year. Project Benefits: 2,011 linear feet (42.78%) of the Marco Island Beach property is zoned commercial or recreational. This includes two hotels/resort condos and a public access point with parking across the street. Periodic dredging has taken place at Caxambas Pass. The total volume of sand dredged and hydraulically pumped to the adjacent beach from Caxambas Pass since 1990 is estimated at 800,000 cubic yards. Though Collier County has no federally designated sea turtle refuges, loggerhead sea turtles nest throughout the county, and this project will enhance those opportunities. Beach tilling will directly support turtle nesting by decreasing beach sand compaction. Use of Innovative Applications of Existing Technologies: Improvements to the combined breakwater and groin system at the south end of the project area are being investigated for improvements to control sand being lost off the south end of the island. This investigation is being completed through a computer modeling study. It will increase the project life. Nourishment Interval (years): 6-8 years Project Performance: Beach fill material was dredged from Caxambas Pass and placed between FDEP R-monuments R-145 to R-148. Overall, approximately 176,000 cubic yards of sand were placed onto the beaches of South Marco Island. North of R-146, approximately 87% of the fill volume remains in the template, while only 51 % of the volume remains within the template south ofR-146 to the groin. With respect to beach fill width, north of R-146, 100% of the beach fill width remains in place, while on average, only 33% of the beach fill width remains in place south ofR-146 to the groin. Overall, approximately 64% of the 2007 project volume remains within the permitted fill template, and on average, approximately 67% of the beach fill width remains within the project area as measured in February 2011. Is this project being planned or constructed in cooperation with another local government? Explain ? Yes Collier County and the City of Marco Island are jointly sponsoring this project. The project combines beach nourishment with inlet dredging. All county monitoring, including the two cities, is combined for economy. Collier County Long Range Budget Plan FY 12/13 - South Marco Island Beach Renourishment CAC September 8, 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 38 of 39 The Marco Island project is nourished in synergy with maintaining Caxambas Pass for navigation. The type of project is widely practiced in North Carolina and New Jersey, and it is economical and reduces cumulative environmental impacts. 576000 574000 CAG September 8. 2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 39 of 39 Notes: 1. Coordinates are in feet based on the Florida State Plane Coordinate System. East Zone, North American Datum of 1983. (NAD83). 2. Date of Aerial Photography: 2009. I .~NWeoCAll."'TON.OUl.EVAIIID aoc.o.IIATOIl,l'I.CIlIIIOA3).Q1 .....!O<OKlOIlII_........1 275 550 , 1 inch = 550 feel CAC September 8, 2011 VII-7 Staff Reports 1 of 2 From: To: Subject: Date: McAloinGarv HambriahtGail CAe meeting 9-8-2011 5taff reports - Item 7 Monday, August 29, 2011 11:05:27 AM CAC meeting 9-8-2011 Staff reports - Item 7 8/4/2011 Collier County Beach Renourishment Attendees: J. Gary McAlpin, PE Director - Coastal Zone Management 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34112 GaryM cAI p in CWcolliergov. net (239) 252-5342 John Sorey Vice Mayor - The City of Naples Chairman - Coastal Advisory Committee for Collier County Discussion Points 1. Eight miles of beach renourishment for Collier County's Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples beaches. 2. Approximatly 800K Cy's of sand; +/- $25M in cost; renourished from 11/1/13 to 5/1/14 (if outside of turtle nesting season). 3. Sand source 14 miles SW of Sanibel (T -1) with renourishment using hoper dredges. 4. Critical grain size requirements. 5. Major permit modification of existing permit required. Currently modeling beaches to optimize locations and amount of sand required. 6. Last renourishment in 2005 with GLDD for a 6 year design life. FDEP permitting prevented anything else due to concerns over impacts to hardbottom. Cost of $18M. 7. Seeking to achieve a true 10-year renourishment with higher and wider beaches CAC September 8,2011 VII- 7 Staff Reports 2of2 including erosion control structures to reduce the impact of hot spots. 8. Request permit to allow year round renourishment as allowed by recent biological opinion from FWS. 9. We will require sand screening at the borrow site. Previous renourishment incoraporated three-quarter inch stationary vessel screens with rejects over the side. 10. CP&E is developing our conceptual design. RFP required for detailed design and permiting. 11. Program funded with TDC funds that have been allocated. Funding supplemented with FEMA and FDEP monies. 12. Advantages: . Share fixed cost savings . $40-$50M project will create leverage and excitement. . FDEP Cost Share points . Equal partners with a structured bid and contract . Possibility of saving between $2M - $4M overall on a combined project. Saving could be expected from sharing fixed costs; splitting mob/demobsavings; Leverage in unit pricing; and year round timing (avilibity / demand/weather). J. Gary McAlpin, Director Coastal Zone Management 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34112 Ga ryMcAlpi n{ii)colliergov. net (239) 252-5342 Fax: (239) 353-4061 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are putllic 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. CEPD, Naples join forces for beach renourishment - CaptivaSanibe1.com I Island Reporte... Page 1 of 2 Mobile: mobile.captivasanlbel.com Your Community Sign In I Create ar News Business Opinion Lifestyles Ads &. Extras Sports Community News .. Community News II News from around the region .. Business . Arts & Entertainment .. Obituaries .. SUBMIT News / News / Community News / << Mobile Mamma Coach at Sanibe... County staff to conduct work...>> CI nArn N I [ In (" I A Fl https:/ /www.captivasanibe1.com/page/content.detail/id/517340/CEPD-- Naples-ioin- forces- f... 9/3/20 II CEPD, Naples join forces for beach renourishment August 12, 2011 By SHANNEN HAYES, shayes@breezenewspapers.com , Island Reporter, Captiva Current, Sanibel-Captiva Islander Save I Post a comment I SHARE The City of Naples is looking to team up with Captiva Erosion Prevention District on the next beach renourishment project. The partnership would have several advantages, including hefty cost savings on multi-million-dollar projects. "It makes sense," said J. Gary McAlpin, director of Coastal Zone Management in Naples. McAlpin, along with Naples Vice Mayor John Sorey, discussed the idea of joining forces with Captiva during the CEPD's Wednesday meeting. In 2013-14, Collier County will be renourishing eight miles of its beaches Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples at a cost of approximately $25 million. Its sand source will be 14 miles southwest of Sanibel using hoper dredges. While Collier's beach renourishment project in 2005 was designed for a six-year life span, the next project will seek to achieve a true 10-year renourishment with higher and wider beaches including erosion control structures to reduce the impact for hot spots. The CEPD will be looking at a minimum of six miles of beaches, including the first mile of Sanibel, for its next project. If the two were to team up there would be a shared fixed cost savings and potential leverage on a $40 to $50 million project. In addition, there would be cost share points with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the possibility of saving between $2 and $4 million overall on the combined project. CEPD, Naples join forces for beach renourishment - CaptivaSanibe1.com I Island Reporte... Page 2 of 2 "It behooves us to do this," stated CEPD Chairman Mike Mullins. "We are happy to be talking with Naples (about this joint effort)." Savings can also be expected by splitting mobilization and demobilization costs, and becoming equal partners with a structured bid and contract. McAlpin told CEPD the details could be worked out if a partnership evolves. "We are very flexible," said McAlpin. "There could be millions in savings to both parties involved." In other business: CEPD unanimously voted to transfer $50,000 out of its legal and professional fees budget and into its general operating reserves fund. At the end of the fiscal year in September, the money will then be moved to the capitol projects fund. The next regular meeting will be at 3 p.m. Sept. 8 in the Wakefield Room at 'Tween Waters Inn. It will be immediately followed by an initial budget hearing at 5:01 p.m. The final budget hearing will be held Sept. 22. @ Copyright 2011 Island Reporter, Captiva Current, Sanlbel-Captiva Islander. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Save I Post a comment I o Subscribe to Island Reporter, Captiva Current, Sanibel-Captiva Islander Sanibel-Captiva Islander I Island Reporter 2340 Periwinkle Way P.O. Box 809 Sanibel Island, FL 33957 Phone: 239-472-1587 Captiva Current 695 Tarpon Bay Rd, # 13 Sanibel, FL 33957 Phone: 239-472-5185 @ 2011. All rights reserved. I Terms of Service and Privacy Policy https:/ /www.captivasanibe1.com/page/content.detail/id/517340/CEPD-- Naples-join- forces- f... 9/3/2011 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 1 of 39 Critical Erosion Area Evaluation for Clam Pass Park and North Park Shore, Collier County August 18, 2011 INTRODUCTION There is beach erosion and threats to habitat, structures, and recreational areas at Clam Pass Park and North Park Shore, which will justify a critical erosion area designation. This report provides the information for making this designation. Clam Pass Park (vicinity R-42 to R-45) is a Collier County park located south of Clam Pass (Figure 1). Park Shore is a neighborhood in the City of Naples and extends from Seagate Drive (between R-45 and R-46) south to Doctors Pass. There is a small segment of unincorporated county located between the two areas. FIGURE 1. Project location map. In 1986, pursuant to Sections 161.10 1 and 161.161, Florida Statutes, the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, is charged with the responsibility to identify those beaches of the state which are "critically eroding" and to develop and maintain a comprehensive long-term management plan for their restoration. In order for a 1 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 2 of 39 segment of eroded coastline to be eligible for State of Florida funding for beach management, it must be designated as "critically eroded" by the State. The following definition has been adopted by the Bureau to identify critically eroded areas: Critically eroded area is a segment of the shoreline where natural processes or human activity have caused or contributed to erosion and recession of the beach or dune system to such a degree that upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources are threatened or lost. Critically eroded areas may also include peripheral segments or gaps between identified critically eroded areas which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects. In order for an erosion problem to be critical, there must exist a threat to or loss of one of four specific interests: upland development, recreation, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources. This evaluation will provide information on three of the four for a request for Critical Erosion Area (CEA) designation for the area south of Clam Pass in Collier County, Florida. SHORELINES PA + U:C~TJDN IT .ONR' JO<<JHOO 19]s-8C) kOS.. MKV -~ f972".M.*"" __,___,________.. t565-1 U,$.C .. &,$" )t.i'-' i'o I .... m ._____________ I'l5HI U~.. _ + @ FIGURE 2. FDEP Historic Shoreline Map. Inlet History Clam Pass is a very small pass located in northern Collier County. The pass is approximately 100 feet wide and its mouth is very shallow due to the presence of bars. The location of the channel varies seasonally, turning southward during the winter and northward during the summer. The pass has a very small tidal prism and has migrated in the past. Between 1954 and 1970, Clam Pass migrated approximately 600 feet north (USF, 1980). From the FDEP's historic 2 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 3 of 39 shoreline map, it is illustrated that in 1885, the pass was located between R-42 and R-43 compared to its location between R-41 and R-42 currently. This illustrates the natural variability of the inlet's position, which greatly impacts the downdrift shoreline. The topography and bathymetry south of Clam Pass is illustrated in the 2004 Lidar map in Appendix C. This map show the location of the nearshore hardbottom mapped in 2003 and 2005. Dredge & Fill History In 1999, the Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan was undertaken to improve tidal flow throughout the Clam Bay System and surrounding 500-acre mangrove preserve. During the initial restoration, the flood shoal and select interior waterways were dredged in order to achieve the goal of improved tidal flow and also to increase tidal prism within the system (Figure B-5). With an increased tidal prism, greater amounts of water can enter and exit Clam Pass during each tidal cycle. This, in return, allows for stronger currents which aids in keeping inlets open and improving flushing in support of habitat within Clam Bay system. Clam Pass has been dredged three times since 1999 in order to improve water quality and flushing and smaller undocumented dredgings occurred prior to 1999. The most recent dredging event at Clam Pass occurred in April 2007. Approximately 22,000 cubic yards was removed from the mouth of the channel and within the flood shoal from Stations 0+00 to 18+00. No interior dredging of the pass occurred in 2007. The material that was dredged from the inlet was placed to the south of the pass near R-43. Periodic inlet monitoring has occurred since the start of the project in 1999. The southern Clam Pass area has also received fill from the 2006 Collier County Beach Renourishment Project south of R-46. Nourishment also occurred north of R-46 with the 2006 project. The profiles that were nourished during this project were R-46 to R-49. Table 1 illustrates fill volumes for the project area from inlet bypassing and the 2006 nourishment project. TABLE 1 FILL VOLUMES FOR CLAM PASS AREA Profile Dist. (ft) Fill Placed (C.Y.) 1999 2002 2005/6 2007 R-42 1,057 6,400 2,345 4,400 R-43 1,015 22,400 8,208 15,400 R-44 1,016 3,200 1,173 2,200 R-45 1,073 R-46 1,040 13,104 R-47 954 8,002 R-48 1,000 10,150 R-49 1,076 10,193 Total 8,231 32,000 11,725 41,449 22,000 3 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 4 of 39 PHYSICAL RECESSION AND EROSION The conditions causing the critical erosion condition and its magnitude are described below. Shoreline Change The Mean High Water (MHW) elevation measured at each profile is used to represent the typical shoreline location. In Collier County, the MHW elevation is +0.33 ft NA VD 88. The MHW shoreline is approximated by the high-tide mark on the beach. The MHW shoreline changes were calculated using historic beach profiles and historic shoreline data from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Collier County's monitoring of the inlet and adjacent beaches. The northern shoreline (R-34 to R-41) and the south shoreline (R-42 to R-49) of Clam Pass were evaluated in order to analyze shoreline changes to present. Table 2 presents shoreline changes from 1988 through 2010, as well as selected periods which coincide with major dredging events at Clam Pass. Table 3 illustrates shoreline changes south of the pass with the fill factored out. Beneficial fill from inlet dredging has occurred in 1999, 2002, and 2007 and was accounted for within this table. From Table 2, it can be seen that south of Clam Pass, the erosional arc extends to R-48 for the 1988-2010 period. Since maintenance dredging began in 1999 in order to improve flushing of the pass, the erosional trend has increased south of the pass and decreased to the north of the pass. Since 1998, the northern shoreline has been accretional, while the southern shoreline has eroded approximately 16 feet. The arc of erosion south of the pass increased by 2,000 feet between 2005 and 2010. Even with the existing bypassing program in place at Clam Pass, the downdrift shoreline is showing an increased impact compared to the pre-1998 period. When fill placed south of the pass is considered, erosion rates are substantially greater (Table 3). The fill accounted for within this table is from sand bypassing at the inlet and beach renourishment (Table 1). When fill is discounted, the area with the greatest erosion is located at R-43, which has experienced over 100 feet of shoreline loss since dredging began in 1999. The increased erosion south of the pass is associated with the dredging implemented within the area in order to restore flushing to the Clam Bay system. The increased flushing has improved mangroves and other aquatic habitat within Clam Bay based on annual monitoring conducted by Terrel Hall and Associates through 2010 for the Pelican Bay Services Division. The gap in the hardbottom (Appendix C) south of the pass and the groins at the Seagate Drive public access are contributing to the erosion in this area. Two groins are located between R-45 and R-46, and the hardbottom gap is north of this region. In addition, an examination of the comparative profiles show the 2005 hurricane season was a catalyst to increase erosion. Notice the offshore shift in profile volume measured with the November 2005 profiles, and the disappearance of the volume in the 2010 profiles. 4 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 5 of 39 Pro file Shoreline Changes (ft) Number 1988 to 1998 to 2005 to 1988 to 1998 to 1998 2005 2010 2010 2010 R-34 -18.7 -21.3 30.0 -10.0 8.7 0- R-35 -19.6 -14.5 18.4 -15.7 3.9 R-36 -18.0 -7.5 10.9 -14.6 3.4 .. R-37 -38.1 -0.1 -4.0 -42.2 -4.1 '" R-38 -0.1 -0.9 -3.9 -4.9 -4.8 ... R-39 -9.3 2.8 13.5 7.0 16.3 R-40 -1.6 -25.4 39.7 12.7 14.3 R-41 -70.7 39.3 -5.6 -37.0 33.7 Clam Pas s R-42 -7.8 -2.1 -17.7 -27.6 -19.8 R-43 -22.2 -17.4 -7.6 -47.2 -25.0 R-44 -38.0 -11.1 -10.6 -59.7 -21.7 R-45 1.3 -27.2 -12.6 -38.5 -39.8 R-46 -6.3 7.4 -21.3 -20.2 -13.9 R-47 -22.4 5.8 -14.7 -31.3 -8.9 0- R-48 -8.3 -6.6 6.6 -8.3 0.0 R-49 45.9 -1.5 4.9 49.3 3.4 N.Avg. -22.0 -3.5 12.4 -13.1 8.9 S.Avg. -7.2 -6.6 -9.1 -22.9 -15.7 TABLE 2 MHW SHORELINE CHANGES TABLE 3 MHW SHORELINE CHANGES WITH FILL FACTORED OUT Prof11e Shoreline Changes (ft) with Fill Factored Out Number 1988 to 1998 to 2005 to 1988 to 1998 to 1998 2005 2010 2010 2010 R-42 -7.8 -16.7 -25.1 -49.6 -41.8 R-43 -22.2 -70.6 -34.4 -127.2 -105.0 R-44 -38.0 -18.7 -14.4 -71.1 -33.1 R-45 1.3 -27.2 -12.6 -38.5 -39.8 R-46 -6.3 7.4 -43.5 -42.4 -36.1 R-47 -22.4 5.8 -29.5 -46.1 -23.7 R-48 -8.3 -6.6 -11.3 -26.2 -17.9 R-49 45.9 -1.5 -11.8 32.6 -13.3 Avg. -7.2 -16.0 -22.8 -46.1 -38.8 5 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 6 of 39 Figure 3 illustrates the shoreline changes centered around the inlet. The figure illustrates the erosional and accretional patterns within the study area. It can be seen that during the time period from 1998 to 2005, the erosional arc from the inlet extended to R-46. In the past five years, the erosional arc has expanded and now goes to R-48. The figure illustrates that the erosional area south of the pass is growing, which is threatening the shoreline farther south and could cause further loss of vegetation and habitat. SHORELINE POSITION COMPARED TO 1998 SHORLlNE VICINITY OF CLAM PASS 1988 TO 2010 80.0 60.0 40.0 f=' w w !:. 20.0 w z ::; w 0.0 cr: 0 III J: !II en .. -20.0 '''!II '" ~ 1998 III 1998 to 2005 _1998 t02010 _1998 to 201 0 (VVithout Fill) I ~ -40.0 cr: LL ~ -60.0 z ~ !!l -80.0 o -100.0 -120.0 R34 R35 R36 R37 R38 R39 R40 R41 Clam R42 R43 R44 R45 R46 R47 R48 R49 Pass R.MONUMENT LOCATION FIGURE 3. Shoreline Changes near Clam Pass (1998 to Present) The erosion and loss of shoreline has impacted vegetation (Table 8). Along the Gulf shoreline, the vegetation has retreated on average 35 feet from its 1994 position. Overall, this increased erosion south of the inlet on the Gulf beaches has caused approximately 2.25 acres of vegetation to be lost. Volumetric Changes The volumetric changes in this report represent the difference in the quantity of sand measured along the beach between surveys. All volumetric changes are given in cubic yards. Volumetric changes were calculated between the dunes (upland) and the approximate depth of closure of -11.3 feet NA VD. The volumetric changes for two different periods are shown in Tables 4 and 5, along with the impact from bypassing and nourishment. Table 4 illustrates volumetric changes from 1998 to 2010 and Table 5 depicts the recent volumetric changes at the pass from 2005 to 2010. 6 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 7 of 39 Volumetric Change (C.Y.) Fill Placed (C.Y.) Net Vol. Net Ann. Pro file Dist. (ft) June 1998 to Oct. 2010 1999 2002 2005/6 2007 Change Change R-42 1,057 -13,691 6,400 2,345 4,400 -26,836 -2,176 R-43 1,015 -10,213 22,400 8,208 15,400 -56,221 -4,558 R-44 1,016 -4,088 3,200 1,173 2,200 -10,661 -864 R-45 1,073 -6,636 -6,636 -538 R-46 1,040 332 13,104 -12,772 -1,036 R-47 954 -1,749 8,002 -9,751 -791 R-48 1,000 4,824 10,150 -5,326 -432 R-49 1,076 2,194 10, 193 -7,999 -649 Total 8,231 -29,027 32,000 11,725 41,449 22,000 -136,201 -11,043 TABLE 4 VOLUMETRIC CHANGES JUNE 1998 to OCT. 2010 Volumetric Change (C.Y.) Fill Placed (C.Y.) Net Vol. Net Ann. Profile Dist. (ft) Nov. 2005 to Oct. 2010 2005/6 2007 Change Change R-42 1,057 -26,462 4,400 -30,862 -7,716 R-43 1,015 1,617 15,400 -13,783 -3,446 R-44 1,016 -6,543 2,200 -8,743 -2,186 R-45 1,073 -5,102 -5,102 -1,276 R-46 1,040 -7,992 13,104 -21,096 -5,274 R-47 954 -7,612 8,002 -15,614 -3,904 R-48 1,000 996 10,150 -9,154 -2,289 R-49 1,076 4,339 10,193 -5,854 -1,464 TOTAL 8,231 -46,759 41,449 22,000 -11 0,208 -27,552 TABLE 5 VOLUMETRIC CHANGES NOV. 2005 to OCT. 2010 During the time period from 1998 to 2010, the Clam Pass area from R-42 to R-49 eroded approximately 29,000 cubic yards. Also during that time period, 107,174 cubic yards were placed within the same area. Accounting for fill placed, the Clam Pass area eroded approximately 136,000 cubic yards or -11,000 cubic yards per year. Recently, from 2005 to 2010, erosion within the study area has increased. The annual erosion rate has more than doubled and was measured to be approximately -27,500 cubic yards per year when fill within the study limits was accounted for. This increase in erosion may have been triggered by the 2005 hurricane season. For the period since dredging began, there is a 29,000 cubic yard deficit south of Clam Pass through R-49. 7 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING. INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 8 of 39 The Clam Pass Park Pavilion is located between R-42 and R-43 south of the inlet. These two profiles have some of the highest erosion rates within the study area. Since 2005, these two profiles have lost almost 45,000 cubic yards of material. If these profiles continue to erode at the current rate, portions of the pavilion could become undermined. Summary of Changes The Clam Pass Park Area is not designated critical, but Collier County believes it qualifies as critically eroded as described below. The shorelines near Clam Pass have been eroding at an accelerated rate since 1998, which directly affects the amount of recreational area available to the public. During the period from 1988 to 2010, the largest shoreline retreat was observed at R- 43 when fill placed at the profile was factored out. The shoreline recession at Clam Pass Park has caused beach vegetation to be lost, which is habitat for gopher tortoises. The beach narrowing will impact nesting sea turtles soon. In Figures 5a and 5b, it was found that over 2 acres of vegetation has been lost since 1994 along the Gulf shoreline. This affect's the public's accessibility to the Park and enjoyment of nature along this recreational area. STORM RECESSION, OVERWASH, AND BREACHING THREAT In order to evaluate the potential of storm recession, overwash, and breaching, previous storm erosion studies were reviewed. In March 1994, the USACE published the Collier County, Florida Shore Protection Study, which contained various storm recession curves and storm surge levels for Collier County's beaches. Considering both recession and storm surge calculated from the studies, multiple profile locations in the Clam Pass area are threatened by recession and breaching from storms with a return interval of 10 to 25 years. Figure 4 illustrates the results from the storm recession study for the Clam Pass Park profiles. The study found that the 5-year return period storm would cause approximately 70 feet of shoreline recession within the Clam Pass area. Shoreline recession is the distance from the normal shoreline landward to the point where land elevation is reduced by 0.5 foot. The lO-year storm is expected to cause 105 feet of recession. The 20-year storm was found to produce 155 feet of shoreline recession, and the 25-year storm reaches 170 feet. These values of recession were compared with available beach width along with expected storm surge within the project area to determine breaching potential. Table 7 shows that a lO-year storm can erode through the dune crest, and approaches the distance to Outer Clam Bay shoreline from the Gulf. This poses a breach threat. 8 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 9 of 39 COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA RETURN PERIOD VS. RECESSION DISTANCE STORM INDUCED RECESSION PARK SHORER-42 TO R-57 275 75 250 225 ~ 200 ~ ----1 ;.; Q elS0 w V z 125 :;S (/J i5 100 50 25 0-; 10 'RETURN PERIOD (yeors) . . 100 FIGURE 4. Frequency curve of storm-induced recession (USACE, 1994). A breach on a barrier island will occur if a strong flow develops a channel over and through the island. Breaches can either form along the Gulf side or along the Clam Bay side in the Clam Pass Park area. Once the breach forms, the dimensions of the breach (width and depth) have been found to increase exponentially until equilibrium is reached (Kraus, 2003). The breach is driven by three components: difference in bay and Gulf water levels, wave run-up, and overwash. A barrier island breach can increase erosion, expose the back bay or estuarine environment to Gulf waves and stronger currents, increase salinity and water levels in the back bay or estuarine environment, and reduce or impede navigability in adjacent inlets sharing the same water bodies as the breach. A breach may close naturally, but if the tidal exchange is strong and longshore sediment transport is weak, the breach can increase in size and become a new inlet. If a breach were to occur within the study area, the mangroves located along Clam Bay System could be adversely affected by a change of flushing due to the formation of a new channel (i.e. the volume of flushing at Clam Pass would be lessened by the diversion to the new breach). Also, once a breach occurs, an overwash fan would be anticipated to occur which could cover seagrasses, mangroves, and other potential habitat within the affected area (Refer to Appendix B for map of seagrasses and mangroves within study area). Table 6 illustrates the surge levels determined from the study. Dune crest characteristics were also examined within the study area to determine which areas were susceptible to overwash and breaching (Table 7). The peak dune elevation from R-42 to R-45 is between 6.1 and 7.3 feet NA VD and the dune crest is located between 76 and 102 feet back from the shoreline. When comparing dune height to the storm surge found in the USACE study, it was found that the 20- year storm exceeds the dune crest at R-42 and R-43. At profiles R-44 and R-45, the storm surge from a 25-year storm will overtop the dune, given that the storm recession would erode the 9 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 10 of 39 heights. The breaching potential is likely at the 20-year return surge and recession rate at the profiles described above. Breaching and overwash of the narrow beach at R-44 can impact the habitat in Outer Clam Bay by creating overwash fans that could impact mangrove and seagrass habitats (refer to Appendix B for seagrass and approximate mangrove locations). In addition, the infusion of Gulf waters could change the salinity of the bay, further affecting seagrass and other species growing there. Breaches can also eliminate gopher tortoise habitat by filling in or washing away burrows and sea turtle nests (see Threats to Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat below). On the other hand, overwash fans are good habitat for wading birds such as the threatened piping plover, while they remain unvegetated. However, no piping plover observations have been recorded in the study area, and no known shorebird nesting has been observed. TABLE 6 STORM SURGE ELEVATIONS (FEMA, 1986 and CHIU, 1989) SURCE LEVEL (feet, NOVD) 2 2.52 5 4.02 10 5,8 20 8,4 50 11.2 100 13.1 200 14.7 1 Hiih lid. ,.pproxl....l.ly I fOOl) wu d.duct.d from IOIllI JIOnn lid. lovel ,iven in Chlu. : E'xtnlpolaled value TABLE 7 DUNE CREST CHARACTERISTICS Location Height ( ft-NA VD) Distance from Shoreline (0' NA VD) R-42 6.1 102 R-43 6.5 76 R-44 7.2 92 R-45 7.3 87 R-46 11.9 151 Note: Based upon the 2010 survey for R-42 to R-45 and 2009 survey for R-46 NA VD is 1.3 feet higher than NGVD 10 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 11 of 39 THREATS TO VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE HABITAT The erosion that has been measured along the Clam Pass study area has caused a significant loss of vegetation over the past 17 years. Table 8 shows the measured losses at Clam Pass Park and Figures 5a and 5b illustrate those changes. Since 1994, approximately 2.25 acres of vegetation has been lost to erosion. The southern portion of the study area, from approximately R-44.5 south, supports a narrow dune system fronting beach-front development. Vegetation in this portion includes planted native dune species such as sea oats (Uniola paniculata) and rail-road vine (Ipomoea pes-caprae) as well as non-native landscaping such as inkberry (Scaevola taccada). The northern portion of the study, from approximately R-44.5 north to Clam Pass, transitions into more natural habitat, with similar dune species backed by coastal shrub/scrub and mangroves (dune heights provided in Table 7 above). During a site visit conducted August 9, 2011, beach and dune vegetation was observed encroaching upon the active wave zone due to erosion in many places (Photograph 1). PHOTOGRAPH 1. Planted sea oats at risk from scarping observed around R-44. 11 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 12 of 39 Notes: 1. Coordinates are in feet based on the Florida State Plane Coordinate System, East Zone, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 2.2010 NAIP Natural Color Imagery for Florida acquired between April 24, 2010 and October 21,2010. Leaend: """"-- 2010 Vegetation Line -- 1994 Vegetation Line A FDEP Monuments FIGURE Sa. Change in vegetation line from 1994 to 2010 from just north ofR-42 to just south of R-43. 12 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 13 of 39 Notes: 1. Coordinates are in feet based on the Florida State Plane Coordinate System, East Zone, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 2.2010 NAIP Natural Color Imagery for Florida acquired between April 24.2010 and October 21, 2010. FIGURE 5b. Change in vegetation line from 1994 to 2010 from just south ofR-43 to just south of R-45. "'^"""" 2010 Vegetation Line "'^-' 1994 Vegetation Line ... FDEP Monuments 13 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 14 of 39 TABLE 8 VEGETATION LOSS FROM 1994 TO 2010 Profile Vegetation Loss (ft) R-42 -35 R-43 -31 R-44 -39 Avg. -35 The beach, dune, scrub and mangroves within the study area provide important habitat for wildlife including threatened and endangered species. Impacts to these species and their habitats are described below. Gopher Tortoises The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is State-listed threatened species. These reptiles live in well-drained sandy areas with abundant low-growing vegetation. They are commonly found in beach and dune environments along the southwest Florida coast. They are active earth- movers and their burrows average 15 feet long and 6 to 7 feet deep. Gopher tortoises have been observed in in the study from Clam Pass south to Doctors Pass (Maura Kraus, Collier County, pers. comm. 2011). Much of this area has high vegetative dunes isolated from pedestrian traffic. The dunes between Seagate Drive and R-49 are especially well developed and protected as illustrated in topography in Appendix C. Informal surveys have also been conducted within the Clam Pass Park area (Figure 7). During the August 9 site survey, several gopher tortoise burrows were observed in the study area (Figure 6). 14 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 15 of 39 Notes: 1. Coordinates are in feet based on the Florida State Plane Coordinate System, East Zone, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 2.2010 NAIP Natural Color Imagery for Florida acquired between April 24, 2010 and October 21,2010. Leaend: 2011 Gopher Tortoise Burrow Survey Active Inactive . Abandoned ... FDEP Monuments FIGURE 6. Gopher tortoise burrows observed during August 9, 2011 site visit. 15 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. l I ~,oo N ~ CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 16 of 39 2011 AERIAL SOURCE, COLUER COUIITT PROPERTY APPRAISER I, I o SO 100 200 SCALE: 1" = 1 00' LEGEND Lmmm; 1989 CCCL E~ 1979 CCCL @'> COPHER TORTOISE BURROW mt'...... Figure 7. Gopher Tortoise Survey (CEC, 2009) ...., - 16 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 17 of 39 Sea Turtles Erosion and loss of habitat within the study area has a negative impact upon nesting sea turtles. A high number of nests were inundated or washed away in 2008, attributable to the passing of Tropical Storm Fay that year near Cape Romano, Florida (Table 9). Aside from this occurrence, no trend in number of nests inundated or washed away is apparent over the past five-year period; however, there is a decreasing trend in the distance of nests laid from MHW (Table 10). If this trend continues, sea turtle nests are at an increased risk of inundation and erosion. For 2010, the closest nest to the MHW line was approximately 36 feet away, while the maximum distance for a nest was 68 feet. From the findings from the USACE storm recession study, all sea turtle nests within the study area in 2010 will be threatened by a 5-year storm which causes 70' of recession. Nests closer to the water, such as the nest at R-48, will be threatened by storms with a smaller return interval of 5 years, which puts this nesting habitat at risk. During the site visit, sea turtle nests were observed perilously close to breaking waves and some looked as though they had already been inundated (Photograph 2); others appeared at risk ofloss from scarp formation (Photograph 3). The growth of the arc of erosion through R-48 is increasing the threat to nesting sea turtles, and will lead to continued erosion of nesting habitat. TABLE 9 NUMBER OF SEA TURTLE NESTS INUNDATED OR WASHED A WAY - Year Nests Inundated Nests Washed Away 2010 3 4 2009 I 4 I 4 2008 I 9 I 11 2007 I 10 I 0 2006 4 0 TABLE 10 AVERAGE DISTANCE OF SEA TURTLE NESTS FROM MHW R-42 R-43 R-44 R-45 R-46 R-47 R-48 A veral!:e 2010 68.0 45.8 41.1 56.3 40.3 35.6 47.2 , 2009 66.0 47.5 31.7 53.2 64.0 40.0 51.6 50.6 mm 2008 64.0 51.0 47.6 46.8 58.7 48.3 51.1 52.5 2007 80.0 64.7 68.0 70.0 56.4 47.4 51.3 62.5 2006 52.0 56.0 64.5 78.7 64.5 91.0 68.0 67.8 17 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 18 of 39 PHOTOGRAPH 2. Sea turtle nest at risk of inundation near southern end of study area (vicinity ofR-44). PHOTOGRAPH 3. Sea turtle nest and dune vegtetation at risk from scarp formation within the study area (vicinity of R-49). 18 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 19 of 39 Birds Each winter the Audubon Society organizes a Christmas Bird Count, using volunteers to identify and count bird species all over the country. Data from this count were tabulated for the Naples area for the years 2000 through 2010. No piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) were observed in the Naples area during this time period, although another study conducted between Doctor's Pass and Gordon Pass to the south reported piping plovers as common (Below, 2004). Red knots (Calidris canutus rufa), a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act, have occasionally been sighted in the Naples area during the Audubon Christmas Bird Count, with the largest number observed during the tabulated time period in the winter of 2005-2006 (Table 11). Least terns are known to nest in Collier County and Below (2004) noted them as common in the Naples Beach study area. Although suitable nesting habitat for shorebirds is present in the study area, primarily at the north end adjacent to Clam Pass, no local bird surveys are conducted there because there is currently no known nesting in the area (Ricardo Zambrano, FWC, pel's. comm.), likely due to the high pedestrian traffic at Clam Pass Park. TABLE 11 NUMBER OF RED KNOTS OBSERVED IN THE NAPLES SURVEY AREA DURING AUDUBON CHRISTMAS BIRD COUNTS BETWEEN 2000 AND 2010 Year Number 2000-01 0 2001-02 I 0 2002-03 I 6 2003-04 I 0 2004-05 I 22 2005-06 I 33 2006-07 I 0 2007 -08 I 5 2008-09 I 2 2009-10 i 5 THREATS TO UPLAND STRUCTURES In order to evaluate the threat to upland structures, the recession and storm surge from the 1994 USACE study were used. Considering both recession and storm surge calculated from the studies, threat to structures within the Class Pass area can be expected from moderate storms. The study shows that the 25-year storm will cause approximately 170' of erosion. This magnitude of erosion puts the structure at Clam Pass Park between R-42 and R-43 at risk. The boardwalks connecting the building to the beach, the pavilion, the deck, and the front of the two main building are at risk and within the 170' erosional area if the 25-year storm were to impact the area. Also, photographs 4a and 4b illustrated the close proximity of the structure at Clam 19 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 20 of 39 Pass Park to the MHW waterline. The structure was fronted by a substantial dune width and vegetation in 1994 which provided a protective buffer from storms, but current conditions indicate a much smaller width between the structure and the water's edge, which puts the structure at risk. Photograph 4 below illustrates the location of the structures in comparison to the water. PHOTOGRAPH 4. Proximity of boardwalk at Clam Pass Park to tide line. THREATS TO RECREATION Clam Pass Park, located within the study area, is a beach access point in the North Naples area of Collier County, Florida, which is one of the most populated sections of the County. This area is one of the most popular beach access points. Clam Pass boasts 35 acres of coastal habitat and preserves that habitat by providing beach access from a three-quarter-mile boardwalk to the sandy beach. The board walk is a destination itself for those adventurists who love a quiet nature walk. The boardwalk runs through a mangrove forest of salt-tolerant red (Rhizophora mangle), white (Laguncularia racemosa) and black (Avicennia germinans) mangroves. It also has a tidal bay area that acts as a breeding ground and nursery for marine life, wildlife, specifically many species of birds. Erosion threatens all of the uses and activities that beach goers do within Clam Pass Park. If erosion continues, the sandy beach in front of the park will be reduced, which in return will deter beach goers due to lack of beach. The Clam Pass Park area is in threat by overwash and breaching from storms, which can dramatically reduce the recreational area. 20 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 21 of 39 Along with the Clam Pass Park access, the County has also created a public access point at Seagate Drive between R-45 and R-46, which is popular with County residents as well. This beach access is adjacent to a large beach parking lot, which the County is considering to provide bathrooms for due to its high use. If this portion of the beach were to be cut off from the northern section due to a breach, the public would not be able to enjoy Clam Pass Park from the access. There would also be less recreational width for users of this beach to enjoy with increased erosion. The Seagate Drive access point underwent an emergency nourishment project during the last year in order to create a wider beach for beach users due to the high erosion rates that have occurred. CONCLUSIONS The area south of Clam Pass (R-42 to R.48) is presently not identified as critically eroded, but from the analysis performed, it can be seen that erosion is a threat and has created a loss of recreational and habitat area. The Clam Pass Park north of Seagate Drive area warrants designation as critically eroded beach and should be designated as such based on existing losses and threats. The area south of Seagate Drive is being threatened by increased erosion, and contains dune habitats frequented by gopher tortoises. This area qualifies under the State's Definition of Critical Erosion due to threats to recreation, upland structure, and wildlife habitat. The County's upcoming nourishment project is considering including this reach within the project area to stabilize and mitigate the long term erosional trend, to protect beach habitat for gopher tortoises and sea turtles, and to increase recreational shoreline. P:\Collier\8500.82 CEA Clam Pass Park\Engineering Files\Critical Erosion Area Evaluation Report 08-17-11 21 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Starr Reports 22 of 39 REFERENCES Brown, Ted R, and Hilburn O. Hillestad, Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan, 1998. Below, T.H., (2004 & 2009). Coastal waterbird beach utilization, Naples, Florida). Report prepared for City of Naples, Florida. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., (June 2004). Critical Erosion Area Evaluation Collier County Nourishment Project. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. ( September 2006). Analysis of Clam Pass Inlet Impacts 7 Years After Implementation of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan. Dean, RG., Chiu, T.Y and Wang, S.Y., Combined Total Storm Tide Frequency Analysis for Collier County. Florida, Florida Department of Natural Resources, 1989. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study. Collier County. Florida, June 1986. Kraus, N.C. and Wamsley, T.V. (2003). Coastal Barrier Breaching. Part 1: Overview of Breaching Processes. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Technical Note ERDC/CHL CHETN IV-56. PBS&J, (October 2007). Clam Bay Seagrass Assessment, Draft Final Report. Collier County, FL. PBS&J, (October 2009). Clam Bay System: Data Collection & Analysis, Final Report. Collier County, FL. Terrell, Hall, and Associates, Inc., (September 2010). Mangrove Monitoring Report. University of South Florida. (1980). Impact of Florida's Gulf Coast Inlet on the Coastal Sand Budget. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (March 1994). Collier County, Florida Storm Protection Study: Reconnaissance Report. Worley, Kathy and Jeffrey R Schmid, (December 2010). Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area (NRP A) Benthic Habitat Assessment. Environmental Science Division, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage, Inc. Beach Profile Monitoring Data at the Department of Environmental Protection Reference Monuments R-38 through R-44, 1999 to 2004. Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., Collier County Beach Restoration Project, Post- Construction Monitoring Report, 2000. 22 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 23 of 39 Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc, Collier County Beach Restoration Project. September 2005 Pre-Construction Survey. Humiston & Moore Engineers, Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan Bathymetric Monitoring Report No.5, 2004. 23 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. APPENDIX A COMPARATIVE PROFILES (1988 to 2010) R-42 to R-49 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 24 of 39 -15 -10 ELEV. ( FEET NAVD) 0 -5 0 0 5 , , , 0 , , , , , , , 0 z ~ 0 0 ~ c+- :Po :Po N < --< :;0 0 N CD 0 0 0 CD CD 0 0 CXJ CXJ (Jl CXJ N o o ~ITlZ II... JI" LN N CXJ m CXJ (Jl N m CXJ (Jl: ---.j" LN: 0 0 LN ITl 0 GJ '1 0 ITl 0 ITl U) -i -i " '1 ITl ITl ~ -i 0 '-' 0 (Jl o o m o o CXJ o o :;0 ITl '1" '1 1Tl" ITl .fTJ:.:;:O. -i" ITl Z n ITl o -i o o U) . c-J :Po Z n ITl U) 10 15 u :;0 o '1 ,- ITl ,- Z ITl :;0 I ~ N ,- o n :Po -i o Z n o (I) -, n o c: :J rl- '< ~::;o 8,6;f; w(/)(/) c.o ID ~ =l:_ ~~ "cr o CD ;:l.~ rn .<Xl '" o ~ ~ 0 .. .. .. u - :;0 0 :::::J ,- 0 z ~ ~ ITl 0 0 :Po :Po rl- < --< :;0 r:::: N Z 0 N CD CD ITl 0 CD .. .. 0 0 0 CXJ CXJ 0 (Jl CXJ :;0 I ~ LN :Po ITl Z 0 N N U) 0 .. .IL JI: c-J . 0 :Po LN m: z N CXJ CXJ: n ---.j CXJ ~. ITl 0 N m: U) ~ CD- 0 CD N :;0 ITl LN ITl '1 '1- '1 0 GJ ITl 1Tl: ITl 0 - 1Tl. fTJ -:;:0- 0 --i --i: ITl Z U) n --i ITl 0 " ,- '1 --i 0 ITl 0 n ITl ~ :Po --i 0 --i '-' 0 0 z n 0 (I) (Jl -, 0 n 0 0 c: :J rl- '< m 0 0 -15 o o '-J o o CXJ o o -10 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) o 5 15 -5 10 "'<0 "'=:t> 2.0,0 w(/)(/) "'-CD "'" =l:_ ;0 CD CD 3 "cr o CD ;:l.~ rn .<Xl '" o ~ ~ -15 -10 -5 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) o 5 10 15 o o 0 u :;0 0 :::::J ,- 0 z ~ ~ ITl 0 0 }> }> c+- < --< :;0 r:::: N z 0 N CD CD ITl 0 CD 0 0 0 CXJ CXJ 0 (Jl CXJ :;0 I ~ ~ }> 1'1 z: 0 N N U) 0 _ IL JI- _ c-J _ 0 }> LN m: z N CXJ CXJ: n ---.J CXJ LN ITl 0 LN ---.J: U) m 0 0 0 ~ LN ITl '1 '1- 0 GJ ITl _1Tl 0 1Tl- ITl 0 --i --i: U) --i " ,- '1 --i 0 ITl 0 n ITl ~ }> --i 0 --i '-' 0 0 z . - n 0 (I) (Jl -, 0 n 0 0 c: :J rl- '< m 0 0 "'<0 ---.J -..J=:t> 0 2,eoO 0 w(/)(/) "'-CD "'" =l:_ ;0 CD CD 3 "cr o CD ;:l.~ rn .00 '" CXJ ~ 0 ~ 0 u 0 :;0 0 :::::J ,- ITl 0 Z ~ ~ 0 0 }> }> r:::: rl- < --< :;0 Z N ITl 0 N CD CD 0 CD 0 0 0 CXJ CXJ :;0 0 (Jl CXJ I ~ (Jl }> ITl z: 0 N N U) 0 _ _ _ IL - - JI > c-J_ 0 }> LN m: Z N CXJ CXJ. n '-J CXJ N. ITl 0 ~ m: U) CXJ m 0 0 0: :;0 ITl LN ITl '1 '1 '1 0 GJ ITl _ fTi: ITl 0 1Tl- 1Tl. :;:0- 0 --i --i: ITl Z U) n --i ITl 0 ,- 0 '1 --i n ITl 0 }> ITl ~ --i --i 0 0 '-' 0 Z . . n 0 (I) -, (Jl n 0 0 0 c: :J rl- '< ---.j o o CXJ o o -15 o o m o o -10 ELE\/, (FEET NAVD) 5 15 -5 10 "'<0 <Xl=:t> 2,000 w(/)(/) "'-CD "'" =l:_ ;0 CD CD 3 "cr o CD ;:l.~ rn .<Xl '" o ~ ~ 0 u :;0 0 -- :::::J ,- 0 z ~ ~ ITl 0 0 }> }> c+- < --< :;0 r:::: N Z 0 N CD CD ITl 0 CD 0 0 0 CXJ CXJ 0 (Jl CXJ :;0 I ~ m }> ITl Z 0 N N U) 0 .IL - - JI. _C-J 0 }> LN m Z N CXJ CXJ n CXJ ITl ---.j (Jl (Jr U) 0 LN (Jl- 0 CD m: :;0 ITl LN ITl '1 '1- '1 0 GJ ITl 1Tl: ITl 0 - - - 1Tl- -M :;0- 0 --i --i: ITl Z U) n --i ITl 0 " ,- '1 --i 0 ITl 0 n ITl ~ }> --i 0 --i '-' 0 0 z n 0 (I) (Jl -, 0 n 0 0 c: :J rl- '< m 0 0 -15 -10 o o -5 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) o 5 15 10 "'<0 ---.j "'=:t> 0 2,eoO 0 w(/)(/) "'-CD "'" =l:_ ;0 CD CD 3 "cr o CD ;:l.~ rn .<Xl '" CXJ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 -- - - . -- u :;0 0 -- -- :::::J ,- 0 z ~ ~ ITl 0 0 }> }> rl- < --< :;0 r:::: N Z 0 N CD CD ITl 0 CD 0 0 0 OJ CXJ 0 (Jl CXJ :;0 I ~ '-J -- - }> ITl Z 0 N N U) 0 _ 11_ ll. _ c-J 0 }> LN m: Z N OJ CXJ: n '-J OJ 0 ITl 0 (Jl (Jl U) (Jl OJ. 0 ~ ~ :;0 ITl LN ITl '1 '1. '1 0 GJ ITl 1Tl: ITl 0 1Tl- M- -:;:0 0 --i --i: ITl Z U) n --i ITl 0 " ,- '1 --i 0 ITl 0 n ITl ~ }> --i 0 --i '-' 0 0 Z . . n 0 (I) (Jl -, 0 n 0 0 c: :J rl- '< m 0 0 -15 o o -10 ELEV. (FEET NAVrb) o '5 15 -5 10 w<o O=:t> 2,000 w(/)(/) "'-CD "'" =l:_ ;0 CD CD 3 "cr o CD ;:l.~ rn .00 '" ~ ~ -15 -10 -5 ELEV. (FEET NAVP) , o :5 10 15 o o 0 -- -- - u :;0 0 :::::J ,- 0 z ~ ~ ITl 0 0 }> }> c+- < --< :;0 r:::: N z 0 N CD CD ITl 0 CD 0 0 0 OJ OJ 0 (Jl CXJ :;0 I ~ OJ }> ITl z: 0 N N U) 0 II_ - - JI. _ c-J 0 }> LN m: Z N CXJ ---.j: n '-J CXJ CD ITl 0 (Jl Oy U) m ~. 0 CD OJ LN ITl '1 '1. 0 GJ ITl 1Tl: 0 - - - ITl M- 0 --i --i: U) --i " ,- '1 --i 0 ITl 0 n ITl ~ }> --i 0 --i '-' 0 0 z n 0 (I) (Jl -, 0 n 0 0 c: :J rl- '< m 0 0 w<o ---.j ~=:t> 0 2,000 0 w(/)(/) "'-CD "'" =l:_ ;0 CD CD 3 "cr o CD ;:l.~ rn?J '" OJ ~ 0 ~ 0 u 0 :;0 0 :::::J ,- ITl 0 Z ~ ~ 0 0 }> }> --- -- r:::: rl- < --< :;0 /--/ N z 0 N CD (' ITl 0 CD CD 0 0 0 OJ CXJ -- :;0 0 (Jl OJ ) I ~ CD }> ITl Z 0 N N U) 0 _ IL j I > _-:-J 0 }> LN m Z N OJ '-J: n ---.j OJ OJ. ITl 0 (Jl (Jl: U) OJ CXJ 0 ~ ~ :;0 ITl LN ITl '1 '1. '1 0 GJ ITl 1Tl. ITl 0 - 1Tl- M- -:;:0 0 -~ --i: ITl Z U) n --i ITl 0 ,- 0 '1 --i n III 0 }> ITl ~ --i --i 0 '-' 0 0 z n 0 (I) -, (Jl 0 n 0 0 c: :J rl- '< m 0 0 -15 o o -10 ELEV. (FEET NAVr)) o '5 15 -5 10 w<o "'=:t> ---.j S.ooo 0 w(/)(/) 0 "'-CD "'" =l:_ ;0 CD CD 3 "cr o CD ;:l.~ rn?J '" ~ OJ ~ 0 0 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 33 of 39 APPENDIX B NATURAL RESOURCES COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 34 of 39 _ Shoal grass THA 1999 _ $eagrass Collier County Seagrass Inventory 1994 _ Seagrass Colliet County Seagrass Protection Plan1992 Figure B-1. Clam Pass Seagrass Mapping - 1992 to 1999 (Worley, 2010). COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 35 of 39 CSWF 2010 Shoal grass Bl Shoal grass Observed .. Shoal grass Isolated .. Shoal grass Sparse .. Shoal grass Present .. Shoal Grass Dense CSWF 2010 Paddle grass Figure B-2. Clam Pass Seagrass Mapping - 2007 to 2010 (Worley, 2010). PBSJ 2009 Paddle grass PBSJ 2007 . Paddle grass Turtle grass COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 36 of 39 Mangrove Prop Roots Crustaceans _ Unidentified bamaele$l sh~l) _ Unidentified bamaeles(IVingl _ Mangrove crab Figure B-3. Mangrove Location is indicated based upon Mangrove Crab Habitat Locations (Worley, 2010). COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 37 of 39 i i ~ ffi ~ !l: ~ ~ ~ ETII o u >< ~ ~ o ~ g I ; Figure B-4. Mangrove Map prepared by Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek, Inc. 1997. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. APPENDIX C 2004 LIDAR SURVEY TOPOGRAPHIC AND BATHYMETRIC MAP CLAM PASS PARK AND NORTHERN PARK SHORE COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 38 of 39 ~I ,.. '" ,. p. "CDC:;::!~Z""O ~~~g:~!il~~ . 8~ ~!':ili'6Q sn"'~~~~~~ Z~~"'~~;!M p~~~OO~; ~1"'1R>~~"UO (.;~i:;a~~~ ..(::O>~c!"':r ;g~~CI::(")~ ~;~rni~2 8c~~~~> d~:tl;~r;lRl gJ'l~)l.C(/l2 f'1'1z. ~e:~;:;! ~~ ~y~~ ....-< ,..,m g"-l )I. ~~ :tl8 -to o~ ~~ ~~ ~c <DZ C~ ,. <DN -<g g~ ~I g3 00 :::~ ~~ ;;:~ ~~ ~m 5~ ~~ 'tiC! ~~ ~~ ;aji ~~ Bill ~ N o o ~ N 685500 N '!iOOo N 682.500 N 6B1000 N 679500 " COWER COUNTY flORIDA Dtlo9-ll>)< o.""""'b,. "lJ SK AM. BEACH RENOURtSHMENT PROJECT Drawnb,. R.~by. f AN. TP/SK [lat.: !ubmltt... by. ~ 200+ UDAR SURVEY 04/05/05 SK P101Scol,,, Comm. No.: AS NOlrD B5oo.22 N 684000 N 6/32500 N 6/31000 i~o ) ~ ij J . ~ ~ _L_ ~~~ (J)(/l <o-m ~"S. :um m 3 "c- o m ,,~ ~ -'" N o 2481 N.W. BOCA RATON BOULEVARD BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33431 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. PH. (5611 391-8102 FAX (.561) 391-9116 C.O.A. FL.t\4028 C.O.A. LA.#2531 _.Co/J/JtaJPJ/Jllnln.n<< CAC September 8, 2011 VII-9 Staff Reports 1 of 1 From: To: Subject: Date: McAlDinGarv HambriahtGilll CAC meeting 9-8-2011 Staff reports - Item 9 Florida Dock and Dredge - Ft. Myers Beach Monday, August 29, 20111:37:35 PM CAC meeting 9-8-2011 Staff reports - Item 9 Florida Dock and Dredge - Ft. Myers Beach In January 2011 the Wiggins Pass Maintenance Dredging Project was awarded to Southwind Dredging to dredge 50,000 CY of material out of Wiggins Pass in Tidal Gulf waters. Southwind proposed a 14 inch cutter head dredge as was specified. The project needed to be complete by the beginning of Turtle nesting season which began on 5/1. Southwind began mobilizing on 2/15 and Completed the work by 4/1/2011. At the time of award, considerable pressure was exerted to use Florida Dock and Dredge to dredge Wiggins Pass. They had just been awarded a project to renourish Ft. Myers beach and proposed to dredge Wiggins Pass before beginning the Ft. Myers project. Florida Dock and Dredge indicated that they could do the project but staff was concerned that their equipment was too small. There was considerable discussion as to whether they met our specification for a 14 inch dredge. Lee County staff awarded the Ft. Myers beach project to Florida Dock and Dredge with the clear understanding that their equipment was marginal to perform dredging/renourishment in tidal waters off Lee County. Recent television and newspaper reports have criticized project delays. This is an example of undersized equipment trying to perform in an environment that it was not designed for. The project began on May 1st and is currently 6 weeks behind schedule. It is scheduled to be completed January 1, 2012 pending no more issues. This projects validated our decision to stand fast on the larger equipment as specified to perform the dredging of Wiggins Pass. J. Gary McAlpin, Director Coastal Zone Management 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34112 Ga ryMcAI pi n(@colliereov.net (239) 252-5342 Fax: (239) 353-4061 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are records_ If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing_ SCOPE OF WORK for PREPARATION OF INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN, COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGA TION FOR DESIGN AND PERMITTING OF WIGGINS PASS IMPROVEMENTS FOR CONTRCT 10-5572 May 2011 (Revise August 31, 20 11) The enclosed scope of work describes additional tasks necessary to complete the permitting process for a new 10 year permit for Wiggins Pass. These tasks were not included in the initial Engineering and Permitting scope of work for Wiggins Pass, since they were identified following its approval. This work will be based on the 1995 Inlet Management Plan prepared for Collier County (County), the recently completed Joint Coastal Permit Application (February 2010), and the Wiggins Pass Modeling Report (January 2009) for Navigation Improvements and Erosion Reduction Project for Wiggins Pass, Florida. These tasks will be incorporated into the new report and EIS, and will be the basis for responding to March 2010 RAI from the Corps and FDEP. This is a revised scope of work and fee proposal to support additional work on Wiggins Pass based on the letter dated May 13, 20 II and the May 20, 2011 telephone conference from FDEP. The tasks include: Task 1. Preparation for and Attendance at Meetings Task 2. Prepare Inlet Management Study Task 3. Prepare County Environmental Impact Statement Task 4. Modeling of Additional Alternatives Task 5. Additional Geotechnical Field Investigation Contingency $ 9,227 $55,374 $25,065 $0 $77 ,823 $10,000 TOTAL T &M NTE $177,489 .IYlodification to this SOW ret1ects the result of a meeting with FDEP OIl August 26. 2011, ~vhich changed.rIJ_", intent of some orthe earlier E-mail comment. I. PREPARATION FORAND ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS There is a need to attend meetings with FDEP and meet with agency representatives including NMFS to kick off the next phase of the project and for periodic in progress review. The number of meeting will be 1 in Tallahassee, 2 in Collier County with the agencies, and/or one at an agency office. Meeting includes some preparation time. CAC September 8, 2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 1 of 17 II. PREPARE INLET MANAGEMENT STUDY The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is requiring the preparation of a new inlet management study as part of the permitting process as described below from Chapter 62B-41 Rules and Procedures for Application of Coastal Permits: (m) Demonstration of consistency with adopted statewide strategic management plan, an inlet management plan or a proposed draft inlet management plan in accordance with Rule 62B-41.005(J6). If not included in the inlet management plan the applicant will provide the following: 1. A description of the physical characteristics of the inlet; 2. A sediment budget for the inlet; 3. An analysis of the stability and hydraulic characteristics of the inlet including current velocities, tidal prism and current patterns of the flood and ebb tides; 4. A description of the wind and wave climate in the area of inlet influence; 5. A description of the sediment characteristics of the inlet and its related shoals; 6. The influence of existing manmade structures; 7. The current and historic shoreline erosion and accretion trends; 8. A statement of performance objectives and an analysis of the expected effect of proposed coastal construction on the coastal system and marine turtles within the inlet area of influence; 9. An analysis of available alternatives to the proposed coastal construction, including the no action alternative, on meeting the stated performance objective and any related effects on the coastal system or marine turtles; and 10. A demonstration of the anticipated public benefits of the coastal construction. The inlet management plan will consider the intent in the new legislation that modifies how sediments are managed at navigation inlets, which may be directive in nature as it pertains to Wiggins Pass. Specific guidance from FDEP will be provided during the review of the draft inlet manaQement studv and attendance at periodic meetin\!s as it pertains to treport prepllralJ(JD-~::'. "I'he new legislation changes made to Section 161.142 and 161.143 F.S. The completed inlet modeling report, Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) application and field data collection for Wiggins Pass improvements will provide the basis for addressing the 10 requirements listed above, and will be incorporated in the final plan. The plan will also address comments received from FDEP during their site visit on March 10, 2010, their initial request for additional information (RA!) and the May 13, 2011 letter. A committee appointed by the County will review progress of the plan preparation and their decisions will be incorporated into the plan. renresentatives. The initial draft plan will be submitted to the County and FDEP for their comments. The FDEP's adopted plan may differ from the County's based on the State's procedures and ioeal desires in areas of their separate responsible. The goals for the Wiggins Pass navigation improvement study as developed by Collier County and the Wiggins Pass Modeling Evaluation Work Group are: 2 CAC September 8,2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 2 of 17 1. To provide a safe channel for boating; 2. To address erosion at Barefoot Beach; 3. To lengthen the dredge cycle and accomplish it with the least effect on the environment; and 4. To provide a solution that is economically effective. The tasks incorporating the above are A-E below: TASK II-A. COASTAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS I. Data Collection & Review. This task was largely completed with the initial permit and modeling work, but a comprehensive search will be conducted to locate recent literature and data to supplement the previously developed history of recent natural and manmade modifications to the inlet and adjacent areas. Recent topographic and bathymetric data of the navigation channel and ebb and flood shoals will also be compiled. Potential data sources include FDEP and County beach and inlet profile surveys, high density LiDAR data, or other local entities including previous data collection and compilation by other local consultants. Available aerial photography may be utilized to provide supplemental shoreline position information. 2. Shoreline Position MaDDing & Change Analvsis. The analysis of shoreline positions will provide the basis for assessing short-term and long-term shoreline change. The consultant will consider episodic sediment transport trends resulting from hurricanes, inlet modifications and beach nourishment. We will analyze and document inlet activities that have occurred since dredging began in 1984. since dredging was changed in 2000 and evaluate if those activities may have had impacts to the inlet shoreline or adjacent areas. The consultant will use a geographic information system (GIS) approach to compile and analyze the temporal shoreline position change analyses. The GIS analysis will enable temporal and spatial comparison of FDEP historical shorelines and historical aerial For time periods where survey data are not available, shoreline changes will be estimated from the interpretation of aerial photographs. An effort will be made to collect photos in digital format. If only hard copies are available, they will be scanned and geo-rectified using GIS so that shorelines can be mapped. Special considerations will be given to short-term changes so natural and man-made responses are not minimized by averaging data. 3 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 3 of 17 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 4 of 17 Inlet ebb and flood shoal configurations, channel orientation and dimensions will be illustrated with available aerial photography sets. The inlet change data will be compared to beach shoreline changes to identify correlations and shoal configurations. 3. Volumetric Changes and Sediment Budget Update. A post-dredge sediment budget analysis will be used to describe the sediment transport pathways in the vicinity of Wiggins Pass and adjacent beaches. It will be compared to the sediment budget from the 1995 study. The sediment budget will be expanded beyond the I-mi monitoring area north and south of the inlet. Available wind, wave, and tidal data will be reviewed. The wave climate will be assessed in the vicinity of the project to determine the representative range of incident wave angles, wave heights, and wave periods. The intent is simply to help confirm the influences of storms and of changes in inlet and nearshore morphology on the sediment transport patterns. The inlet area of influence will be defined and inlet impacts and solutions will be determined based on these zones. ~-----------~-----------~---------------------"'--':-. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" .._-_.._~_.__.~.._~ An odd-even analysis will be based on this defined region. 4. Development of Inlet Management Alternatives. The consultant will identify and describe various non-structural alternatives to improve sediment management within Wiggins Pass. No structural alternative will be considered. The alternatives will address methods to control inlet channel migration, channel modifications, dredge management options for the navigation channel entrance, and sand distribution and bypassing to re- establish near-historic levels of sediment transport. Quantity and costs will be developed for hlJLthe selected alternatives that mQts shown to be viable. The performance of viable management options will be evaluated in Task B. Alternatives will consist of various channel dimensions, orientations, and on-and- offshore disposal plans compared to the existing conditions. TASK II-B. INCORPORATE WAVE & CURRENT MEASUREMENTS, MODELING AND STABILTY CURVE The consultant has previously deployed two acoustic Doppler current profiIers (ADCPs) in the study area for a period of one month. The tide height, current and wave information collected from this deployment was used to calibrate the Delft-3D model determining effects such as wave damping and wave transformation as waves approach the nearshore. 4 CAC September 8,2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 5 of 17 The results of field data collection and modeling will be described and illustrated in the plan per items I and 4 above. The measured wave, current and water level data will also be delivered in raw and processed (time series) formats on a CD-ROM. Survey data was collected during the wave measurement programs, and will be used to develop an updated stability curve for the inlet which will be compared to the historic curve developed in the 1995 plan. The results of the modeling will be summarized and illustrated in the modeling section. .----rFor',-;;tted: No bullets-~r numbe~;;;;;-----! , .. . ...._....m..m_ . ...... .....m~mmJ +-----j For;;'a~;:': Indent: ~~ft-~_.c>::.____m_:::=] measurements (New contract ta.'ikL ----{ Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" TASK II-C. IMP COORDINATION AND MEETING 1. Proiect Administration. The consultant will attend meetings with FDEP, the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) and its Sub-committee on Wiggins Pass, and assist with formulating a plan acceptable to a broad range of local and state interests. Coordination with FDEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (BBCS) will be maintained throughout the process in order to solicit their comments if they do not attend the meetings. It is assumed that the consultant will attend up to three (3) Committee and Sub-committee meetings of the CAC, to be held in Naples. The consultant will prepare meeting exhibits and other project documentation. The consultant will attend the meetings and assist the County with communications with key stakeholders and development of the County's plan. TASK I-D. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION I. Environmental Section. Previously obtained information will be incorporated into an environmental section describing the effects of the proposed construction on the coastal system and sea turtles. 2. Natural Resources Map. A map of natural resources in the project area compared to the project layout will be updated for inclusion in the report. TASK II-E. PREPARATION OF UPDATED INLET MANAGEMENT DOCUMENT 5 1. Preparation of Draft Report. The consultant will prepare a draft IMP based on the coastal engineering analysis, updated sediment budget and numerical modeling results of management alternatives. The report will summarize the construction quantities and estimated costs as well as the impact on adjacent beaches, channel shoaling and maintenance requirements. The consultant will also summarize potential environmental issues that may affect the permitting of inlet modifications. Based on the results of the investigations, the consultant will recommend a modified inlet and beach sediment management approach. Drawings will be prepared for the selected alternative. The draft of the IMP will be submitted to the County and the FDEP for review and comment. 2. Preparation of Final Report. Based on County, State, Federal and public comments, a final updated Inlet Management Plan will be prepared. Five (5) printed copies and digital CD-ROM copies of the final report will be provided to the County and FDEP. Pertinent comments provided during the permit process will be integrated into the plan. III. PREPARE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT According to Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) lO.02.02A, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared in support of a Special Treatment Permit approval. Special Treatment (ST) Overlays (LDC 02.03.07) are areas within the County which, "because of their unique assemblages of flora and/or fauna, their aesthetic appeal, historic or archeological significance, rarity in the County, or their contribution to their own and adjacent ecosystems, make them worthy of special regulations." Such areas include mangrove and freshwater swamps, barrier islands, hardwood hammocks, and coastal beaches, all of which fall within the Wiggins Pass project vicinity. The purpose of the ST is to assure the preservation and maintenance of these resources. An EIS provides a method to objectively evaluate the impact of a proposed project UpOI! these resources and environmental quality of the project area. An EIS will be prepared for this project according to the requirements listed in LDC 10.02.02A. The EIS will require the preparation of special maps, ecological analysis and engineering calculations to supplement information already prepared for the JCP permit application. The EIS will incorporate the new and existing information into the County EIS format the consultant will attend up to two (2) meetings to discuss and present the result of the EIS. As part of the EIS process, CPE's marine biologist and project manager will research and incorporate facts and concerns discovered since submittal of the State and Federal permit application in Feb 2010 into the EIS and permit process, specifically FDEP decisions described in the May 13, 2011 letter. These will be incorporated into the RAI process the County's EIS, and will be fully coordinatcd with the Fcderal agcncies. Including the meetings in I above. IV. MODELING OF ADDITIONAL ALTERANTIVES 6 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 6 of 17 Based on FDEP's letter data May 13, 2011 and a telephone conference on May 20, 2011, no additional modeling will be required \.In\i~r thi~_J;>h;~Qf thes::onJI'lfL'i.upject tQ_i.\ ;?lIcccsfull geotechnical field investagion and channel pain. If the County'; ;tmightcncd channel de.;lgn if the County's proposed mam,gement of dredged :;edimentc and a';okb.nec of .;tablllzlng geological felttllre:- is acceptable. No modeling will be conducted under thi:; phase of the contract. leaves in place most of the marine peat, rock and clay substrate that stabilizes the inlet location. The inlet management study will present a plan to restore the ebb shoal and beach, the major purpose of the new modeling. There is a statement in this task that "no additional modeling will be required if the County's straightened channel design leaves in place most of the marine peat, rock and clay substrate that stabilizes the inlet location." The statement implies that the geotechnical investigation and the horizontal and vertical interpretation of this material (in Task V) must be successful in order to avoid the marine peat, rock, and clay substrate. V. ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL FIELD INVESTIGATION The purpose of this investigation is to collect data within the Wiggins Pass flood and ebb shoals as a basis for addressing substrate concerns raised by the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Department of Environmental Protection (BBCS) in the March 2010 Request for Additional Information (RAI) and their May 13 2011 letter. The investigation plan discussed in this scope of work and shown on Figure I was developed in coordination with Coastal Planning and Engineering, FDEP BBCS and Collier County during May 2011. The investigations will include geophysical and geotechnical surveys, data processing and interpretation, and production of a Field Geotechnical Report needed to respond to the March 20 I 0 RAI and provide a basis for updating the channel alignment and design. Investigation results incorporated into the RAI will include a series of fence post diagrams and a plan view map depicting elevation contours of key seismic reflectors. Within flood shoal and the inlet throat the contours of the known rock and clay layers previously identified within the investigation area will be mapped from the sub-bottom survey. Probes and cores across this area will be used to ground truth these features, Although the seismic will be limited by depth within the interior channel, any sub-bottom data collected along with the historic cores and those collect during this investigation will be utilized to develop the contour elevations of the interior organic surface A one (I) day seismic reflection profiling survey will be conducted over the investigation area. Following the geophysical survey, sixteen (16) vibracores will be collected. It will take 3 days to obtain the 16 vibracores due to the shallow nature of the work area and the dangerous conditions working in the strong currents within the inlet and hazardous wave conditions on the shoals and inlet throat. Both investigation need to be conducted during period of higher tide levels. 7 CAC September 8,2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 7 of 17 TASK V-A: Proiect Manae:ement This task includes the management of the project. TASK V-B: GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY The geophysical investigation will be comprised of a one (1) day joint seismic and bathymetric survey. The geophysical survey includes subbottom profiling using the EdgeTech X-Star SB-5l2i/2l6s "chirp sonar system". The minimum area to be surveyed is provide in Figure 1, and will be limited by depth. Time permitting; the survey will extend outside this region to define the extent of the substrate. Tides will be considered in selecting the time of the survey to maximize coverage. The shallowest region will be scheduled for high tide. The survey control and accuracy standards will be consistent with FDEP specifications, a report from the surveyor will be submitted certifying that the survey meets Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (BBCS) Technical Standards established in Part II.A of section 01200 in the BBCS Monitoring Standards for Beach Erosion Control Projects, March 2004 and minimum technical standards of Chapter 61 G 17-6, Florida Administrative Code. Geophysical Survey Equipment Navigation System A Trimble Real Time Kinematic Global Positioning (RTK GPS) system with dual frequency receivers will be used on board the survey vessel to provide high- precision navigation and instantaneous tide corrections. In order to maintain the vessel navigation along the profile lines the Hypack Inc.'s hydrographic system Hypack 201O@ will be used. This software merges RTK GPS vertical and horizontal positioning with the sounding data, allowing real time review of the profile data in plan view or cross section format. It also provides navigation to the helm to control the deviation from the online azimuth. Seismic Reflection Profile Surveys An EdgeTech X-STAR 512i or 216s seismic sub-bottom system will be used to conduct the seismic reflection profile surveys. The X -STAR SB-512i/216s Full Spectrum Sonar is a versatile wideband FM sub-bottom profiler that collects digital normal incidence reflection data over many frequency ranges. This instrumentation generates cross-sectional images of the seabed (to a depth of up to 50 ft). The X-STAR SB-512i/2l6s transmits an FM pulse that is linearly swept over a full spectrum frequency range (also called a "chirp pulse"). The tapered waveform spectrum results in images that have virtually constant resolution with depth. 8 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 8 of 17 Throughout the offshore seismic reflection survey, selection of the chirp pulse will be modified in real time to obtain the best possible resolution of geological features and the sequence stratigraphy (i.e. vertical sequence and lateral distribution of sediment bodies comprised by different grain sizes and sediment composition) that in turn optimizes data quality and enhances subsequent interpretation. High frequency and/or short duration pulses are, for example, used to obtain highest resolution (clearest reflector image) in near surface situations; low frequency or longer duration pulses are used where deeper penetration is required. Bathymetric Survey Bathymetric data will be obtained along the seismic track lines and at each vibracore site. This investigation will not be sufficient to develop a complete bathymetric map of the interior channels. The 2009 bathymetric survey will be utilized for permit and preliminary design in the flood shoal, and the latest annual survey will be used for the ebb shoal where appropriate. The Odom Hydrographic Systems, Inc.'s Hydrotrac, a single frequency portable hydrographic echo sounder, will be used to perform the bathymetric survey. The Hydrotrac operates a frequency of 210 kHz and is a digital, survey-grade sounder. The sounder will be calibrated using an Odom Hydrographic Systems, Inc.'s Digital Pro@ speed- of-sound velocity meter. Speed of sound through water and other selected parameters will be adjusted to accurately reflect physical water conditions in the survey area. Geophysical Data Analysis The EdgeTech Discover data acquisition system collects and stores geophysical survey data in a digital format. EdgeTech's Discover is a modular acquisition and processing software package that is compatible with all of EdgeTech's systems. It serves as the digital image processing, display, storage, and surface control station for the EdgeTech 512i/216s sub-bottom profiler (chirp sonar system). This data acquisition system digitizes, stores, and processes seismic signals and combines the seismic imagery with navigational inputs to georeference data in real-time. Hardcopy records will be produced during data acquisition. All seismic reflection data will be processed using the SonarWiz.MAP software package developed by Chesapeake Technologies Inc. This software package allows for advanced processing, interpretation, and digital mosaic output and can produce georeferenced HTML's viewable in generic web-browser software programs. SonarWiz.MAP also produces digital geographic information for the sub-bottom data that are exportable for incorporation into a GIS database. All sub-bottom profile data will be processed and interpreted by CPE personnel. 9 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 9 of 17 TASK V-C: GEOTECHNICAL SURVEY A geotechnical survey plan (Figure I) was developed in coordination with the Florida Department of Environmental Protections Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (BBCS). Sixteen (16) vibracores will be collected during this investigation. The coring depths will extend at least 2 feet below the proposed channel depth plus overdredge or refusal at the hard substrate. Geotechnical Survey Equipment A Rossfelder P3 Vibracore, or equivalent, configured to collect undisturbed sediment cores up to 20 feet in length, will be used for this project. This self-contained, freestanding electronic vibracore unit contains a vibratory hammer assembly, an aluminum beam which acts as the vertical beam upright on the seafloor, an aluminum coring pipe, and a cutting edge. Geotechnical Data Analysis Sediment Sample Analysis Upon completion of field operations, all vibracores will be transported to CPE's office in Boca Raton, FL. There, the vibracores will be logged by describing sedimentary properties by layer in terms of layer thickness, color, texture (grain size), composition and presence of clay, silt, gravel, or any other identifying features. The vibracores will be photographed in 2.0 ft intervals. Sediment samples will be extracted from the vibracores at irregular intervals based on distinct stratigraphic layers in the sediment sequence. The vibracores will then be wrapped and archived. Cores will be stored for a period of up to one (I) year. After this time, cores will either be relinquished to the client or stored for an additional annual cost of $25 per core. Mechanical Sieve Analysis The sediment samples will be analyzed to determine color and grain size distribution. During sieve analysis, any obvious uncharacteristically large fragments will be removed and the description (weight and size) of the material will be noted. The wet, dry and washed Munsell colors will be noted. Sieve analysis of the sediment samples will be performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Methods Designation D 422-63 for particle size analysis of soils. This method covers the quantitative determination of the distribution of sand size particles. For sediment finer than the No. 230 sieve (4.0 phi) the ASTM Standard Test Method, Designation D 1140-00 will be followed. The sieve stack used for mechanical analysis will conform to the BBCS guidelines provided in Table I. Weights retained on each sieve will be recorded cumulatively. Grain size results will be entered into the gfNT@ software program, which computes the mean and 10 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 10 of 17 median grain size, sorting, silt/clay percentages for each sample using the moment method. Table I. Mesh sizes to be used for granularmetric analysis. Sieve No. 3/4 5/8 7/16 5/16 312 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230 Size (phi) -4.25 -4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.25 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.75 4.0 Size (mm) 19.00 16.00 11.20 8.00 5.60 4.75 4.00 2.80 2.00 1.40 1.00 0.71 0.50 0.36 0.25 0.18 0.13 0.09 0.08 006 TASK V-D: FIELD REPORT DEVELOPMENT AND RAI RESPONSE A final Field Report summarizing the results of the geotechnical investigation will be prepared and submitted to Collier County and the FDEP as a response to the March 2010 RAI and as an appendix to the inlet management study. This report will include project results, sub-bottom (seismic) survey profiles, vibracores logs, vibracores photographs, granularmetric reports and grain size distribution curves. From the vibracores, as discussed above we will be described for sedimentary properties by layer in terms of layer thickness, color, texture (grain size), composition and presence of clay, silt, gravel, or any other identifying features. We will use this information to develop a dredge cut protocol similar to the 2007 Lee county "Sediment Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Plan" for Blind Pass. The protocol will be in accordance with FAC 62B-41.007Ch.k and olher guidance for FDEP) which calb for "l\laterial with up to I 0"';, fine.: by <,,-,cight, u:: defined by pas.;ing the "230 ::ieve, .:hull be pla:;cd directly on the beut.-4t-rvlaterHtl--witl-1--fH\)rethun-I+l%-hui-lesS-HtfltJ-2!l!!;,-fifles.lvy-.wetght-w-i+l-~)e-ptUBmj.-i-n the nearshore -region of tbe~tffii-itf-ea. iVlutcrial v.-itb clay or c::ccs::ive fine content sftttl-l--b\H.~e4.+n-an up1uncl~ Table .2 ::]]0\\.; the specil1catiolls for the pbccment II CAC September 8, 2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 11 of 17 Tuble2. PI,!cemen: Spec(:!"<\!:iOlI D -' 10% by \Veight Pa,;smg &t11-Ge+JtBtH ~ :&~ve D 5l~ ~, by W ci sJ-H-I~elBffied ---Fifl~ on 1 Eic.,c 24%-<-I)-.<~1~-WBigltl &tll-GelHetl1: NCllr:;hore Pa.;sm2; 230 Sieve D 51)6 by Weight Retamed Fine CiLlyel on--4-&i-eve -,::;:- ~'.." ;-;-, Silt Content '.J 'CO' 'CO 2Jq-S.i~ O-->--S%-lTy--\l.ieiglti-R-etaitted FiHe--Gruvel on I Siele I ~ Wood. Roclc, D;:;bri~ or -l-:i*uHO G{.Jte~~t-MtlteTffit I Materi II 1 resultin; r,_ "., ,-, m <OJ Cernentutioll on the bcach Wood, Rock, Debri:; or Other Forei;n IVI uteri ul ePE will provide all geotechnical information to the FDEP ffi rcoort suitablc f()r permittinQ and inclusion in the inlct mana(':emcnt study. r:. electronic format5-l;titahlef(lftllfJUtl{)tRv---ffiEPRe€BHfrab&LH1i."e-()fit51J{we-SalliJ~H:::h--fRGSS-) Jataha~Jilre-fl.attt,-will~tl:m-litted in ,\G~T files. l'He--&t!l:lmiscion will fnf,lttdc :hapefile: (with the (l,;soeiaied FGDG-ee.mj3-ltnni metadata) of \'ibrueere-H.'1€ffi'iefffi UH4-si.c'bt-"Hit--I+a,,*1-if~Seismic data will be provided in HTML format. Seismic timestamps and shot points are not recorded as HTML formatting embeds all navigation data, making timestamps and shot points obsolete. ePE will use the data collected from these investigations to respond to the Request for Additional information issued by BBeS on March 24th 2010 and develop the new channel alignment in Task I above. 12 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 12 of 17 CAVEATS CPE proposes to perform the Wiggins Pass Improvements Investigation to the industry standard of care and will coordinate the investigations with governmental agencies as required. CPE will attempt to avoid potential problems and restrictions, but there may be adverse circumstances that cannot be avoided or mitigated. Investigation outcomes are beyond the control of CPE and may result in the need for additional services. The client herein recognizes the above referenced risks and agrees to work with CPE to complete the work. CPE is working exclusively on your behalf and will attempt to limit the risks as described above to the greatest extent practicable. No new field investigations other than those described above are anticipated or included in this scope of work. A small amount has been set aside for contingencies or future RAIs, to be used by approval of the County. VI. CONSTRUCTION SERVICES: To be determined: Plans, specification, construction observations, surveys, post- construction report and certification. 13 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 13 of 17 From: George, Vincent [mailto:Vincent.George@dep.stateJl.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 24,2011 3:33 PM To: McAlpinGary Cc: Steve Keehn Subject: Wiggins Pass IMP Update, etc. Gentlemen, Please see the comments below for the May 25,2011 SOW. Please address these inquiries ASAP to begin a shorter 14 day review of a revised SOW. These are the comments referred to in yesterday's teleconference from the initial 21 day review. Regards, Vince SW FL Project Manager Beach Erosion Control Program DEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems 850-413-7783 The CES engineering staff review of the scope of work for Wiggins Pass, which includes the preparation of the inlet management plan report, has been completed. The following comments are provided: 1) II. PREPARE INLET MANAGEMENT STUDY a) Please clarify what specific guidance is expected in "Specific guidance from FDEP will be provided during the report preparation process. The new legislation changes Section 161.142 and 161.143 F.S." b) A committee appointed by the County will review progress of the plan preparation and their decisions will be incorporated into the plan. The initial draft plan will be submitted to the County and FDEP for their comments. The FDEP's adopted plan may differ from the County's based on the State's procedures. Are Florida Parks Services (FPS) and Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (BBCS) represented in the committee? 2) TASK II-A. COASTAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS 2. Shoreline Position Mapping & Change Analysis. a) The consultant will use a geographic information system (GIS) approach to compile and analyze the temporal shoreline position change analyses. The GIS analysis will enable 14 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 14 of 17 temporal and spatial comparison of FDEP historical shorelines and historical aerial photography. Is the GIS data a deliverable item? b) Special considerations will be given to short-term changes so natural and man-made responses are not minimized by averaging data. Special consideration should be given to the period since 1999 since the inlet channel was modified and maintenance dredged. 3. Volumetric Changes and Sediment Budget Update. A post-dredge sediment budget analysis will be used to describe the sediment transport pathways in the vicinity of Wiggins Pass and adjacent beaches. It will be compared to the sediment budget from the 1995 study. The sediment budget will be expanded beyond the sediment budget will he expanded beyond the 1-mi monitoring area north and south of the inlet. The monitoring area north and south of the inlet should include the zone of influence of the inlet. Is the odd-even analysis method valid for this location? Other methods, such as, the examination of historical MHW shoreline and volume changes, alongshore variations in beach morphology (steepness), wave refraction analysis and/or net sink effects should be considered. How will the coastal cells be defined? 4. Development of Inlet Management Alternatives. a) The consultant will identify and describe various non-structural alternatives to improve sediment management within Wiggins Pass. No structural alternative will be considered. The alternatives will address methods to control inlet channel migration, channel modifications, dredge management options for the navigation channel entrance, and sand distribution and bypassing to reestablish near-historic levels of sediment transport. Quantity and costs will be developed for the selected alternative that is shown to be viable. The performance of viable management options will be evaluated in Task B. Quantity and costs should be developed for all the alternatives shown to be viable. b) The scope of work should include the following task. The study of the effect of the north and south tributaries at the confluence of the interior Wiggins Pass channel should be included in the preparation of Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Study. The objectives of the study should be to analyze the flow velocities at the confluence of the channel and the tributaries to determine the minimum ebb flow velocity necessary to prevent/reduce shoaling. Also, the study should include determining the orientations of the north and south tributaries at the confluence that will maintain the Wiggins Pass channel design and optimize the flow conditions in the channel that will minimize shoaling. (The measurement of flow velocities of the north, south and Wiggins Pass channels at the confluence should be included in the monitoring program. Also, bathymetric surveys of the area to determine changes in flood shoal should be included in the monitoring program.) 15 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 15 of 17 3) IV MODELING OF ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES Based on FDEP's letter data May 13, 2011 and a telephone conference on May 20,2011, no additional modeling will be required if the County's straightened channel design leaves in place most of the marine peat, rock and clay substrate that stabilizes the inlet location. The inlet management study will present a plan to restore the ebb shoal and beach, the major purpose of the new modeling. Please note that the May 13,2011 FDEP letter does not state or imply".. . leaves in place most of the marine peat, rock and clay substrate... " rather it states in part "The County shall revise the width and depth of a straightened navigation channel to avoid dredging and excavation of the consolidated materials (marine peat, clay and rock) that are beneath the sandy bottom of the Pass. This material acts to stabilize the mouth of Wiggins Pass at its historic location, and as has been clearly articulated, Bureau staff is concerned that removal of this material could lead to lateral migration of the inlet channel and beach- dune erosion of the adjacent Parks." ec: CE Review GEOTECH COMMENTS: These comments are organized according to the scope of work submitted for review. Task IV: There is a statement in this task that "no additional modeling will be required if the County's straightened channel design leaves in place most of the marine peat, rock and clay substrate that stabilizes the inlet location." The statement implies that the geotechnical investigation and the horizontal and vertical interpretation of this material (in Task V) must be successful in order to avoid the marine peat, rock, and clay substrate. Task V: This study should include the quantification of the material to be dredged/removed by type. (In order to know if a sufficient quantity of beach compatible sand exists to fill the meander, one must know how much there is available, and what the capacity of the meander is/will be.) Task V-D: This is not a maintenance dredge project. This project includes channel improvements and new work. Therefore, Chp 62B-41.007(2)(k) does not apply. Because this is construction, Chp 62B-41.007(2)(j) applies. Task V-D: Please adjust Table 2 based on the comment above AND include information in this table regarding the meander fill. 16 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 16 of 17 Task V-D: Please note that this information is not needed for inclusion in the ROSS- OSS! database because this project is channel and shoal related, not an offshore project. The Department of Environmental Protection values its customers' opinions and feedback. Please take a few minutes to share comments on the service you received from the on this 17 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 17 of 17 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-11 Staff Reports 1 of2 Attachment 2 Fund 195 Spending/Budget Analysis for Fiscal Year 2008/2009 through 2011/2012 County Sea Turtle Protecion Program $ 63,733.33 $ 54,319.67 $ 54,866.67 $ 54,333.33 County Beach Tilling $ 13,333.33 $ 13,333.33 $ 5,833.33 $ 5,833.33 County Physical Beach & Pass Monitoring $ 50,000.00 $ 76,000.00 $ 65,666.67 $ 86,666.67 County Wiggins Pass Intermediate Program- Engineering & Dredge $ 750,000.00 Cou nty Wiggins Pass Master Plan Engineering and Permitting $ 160,717.00 $ 177,489.00 County Wiggins Pass Engineering/Dredging $ 783,210.00 County Wiggins Pass Inlet Monitoring $ 30,000.00 $ 22,500.00 County Wiggins Pass Maintenance Program $ 50,000.00 Cou nty Clam Pass Ebb Shoal Modeling $ 125,000.00 County Clam Pass Inlet Monitoring $ 20,000.00 Cou nty FY 12/13 Beach Analysis/Model With Hot Spot Solutions $ 150,000.00 County Beach Maintenance - County $ 55,000.00 $ 67,500.00 $ 67,500.00 $ 67,550.00 County Vegetation Repair/Exotic Removal- County $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 County Fund 19S Administration $ 177,400.00 $ 166,666.67 $ 170,366.67 $ 170,166.67 County Indirect Administration Costs $ 39,233.33 $ 35,900.00 County Biological Hardbottom and Artificial Reef Monitoring $ 116,666.67 $ 91,666.67 $ 15,000.00 County Collier Beaches Design/Permitting-Fay $ 150,000.00 TOTAL $ 1,334,343.33 $ 952,703.33 $ 1,328,466.67 $ 687,939.00 COLLIER COUNTY 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 $ 4,303,452.33 City of Naples Sea Turtle Protection Program $ 63,733.33 $ 54,319.67 $ 54,866.67 $ 54,333.33 City of Naples Beach Tilling $ 13,333.33 $ 13,333.33 $ 5,833.33 $ 5,833.33 City of Naples Physical Beach & Pass Monitoring $ 50,000.00 $ 76,000.00 $ 65,666.67 $ 86,666.67 City of Naples Beach Maintenance - City of Naples $ 134,760.00 $ 73,460.00 $ 75,850.00 $ 76,850.00 City of Naples Vegetation Repair/Exotic Removal - Naples $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 City of Naples Naples Pier Annualized Repair & Maintenance $ 55,000.00 $ 55,000.00 $ 55,000.00 City of Naples Naples Conceptual Drainage Design $ 50,000.00 FY 12/13 Beach Analysis/Model With Hot City of Naples Spot Solutions $ 150,000.00 City of Naples Fund 195 Administration $ 177,400.00 $ 166,666.67 $ 170,366.67 $ 170,166.67 City of Naples Indirect Administration Costs $ 39,233.33 $ 35,900.00 City of Naples Doctors Pass Inlet Monitoring $ 20,000.00 $ 22,700.00 City of Naples Doctors Pass Dredging $ 783,210.00 Biological Hardbottom and Artificial Reef City of Naples Monitoring $ 116,666.67 $ 91,666.67 $ 15,000.00 City of Naples Emergency Truckhaul Project $ 1,500,000.00 City of Naples Truck Haul- Vista's at Park Shore $ 350,000.00 City of Naples Doctor's Pass Jetty Rebuilds $ 653,200.00 TOTAL $ 1,384,103.34 $ 2,105,446.34 $ 1,317,716.67 $ 874,750.00 CITY OF NAPLES 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 $ 5,682,016.35 City of Marco Island Sea Turtle Protection Program $ 63,733.33 $ 54,319.67 $ 54,866.67 $ 54,333.33 City of Marco Island Beach Tilling $ 13,333.33 $ 13,333.33 $ 5,833.33 $ 5,833.33 City Of Marco Island Physical Beach & Pass Monitoring $ 50,000.00 $ 76,000.00 $ 65,666.67 $ 86,666.67 CITY OF MARCO ISLAND 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-11 Staff Reports 20f2 City Of Marco Island FY 12/13 Marco Island Analysis/Model with BW Engineering $ 150,000.00 City Of Marco Island Beach Maintenance - Marco $ 55,000.00 $ 67,500.00 $ 67,500.00 $ 67,550.00 City Of Marco Island Vegetation Repair/Exotic Removal - County Wide $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 City Of Marco Island Caxambas Pass Inlet & Marco South Beach Monitoring $ 45,000.00 $ 25,000.00 City of Marco Island Breakwaters & Jetties of South Beach - Marco $ 100,000.00 City of Marco Island MI Renourish Design & Permit with BW Solutions $ 300,000.00 City Of Marco Island Hideaway Beach trosion Control Structu res $ 1,600,000.00 City Of Marco Island Fund 195 Administration $ 177,400.00 $ 166,666.67 $ 170,366.67 $ 170,166.67 City Of Marco Island Indirect Administration Costs $ 39,233.33 $ 35,900.00 City Of Marco Island Hideaway Beach GrOin/Physical Monitoring $ 25,000.00 $ 30,000.00 City Of Marco Island Tigertail Beach Refurbishment $ 25,000.00 City of Marco Island Laser Grading North Marco Beach $ 20,000.00 City Of Marco Island Collier Creek Emergency Dredging $ 280,000.00 TOTAL $ 454,466.67 $ 2,057,819.67 $ 678,466.67 $ 1,070,450.00 $ 4,261,203.01 G:TDC Information FiJes!TDC Info by Year/TOe 2011 Agenda Items{B-ll TDC Meeting Budet for 3 years CAC September 8, 2011 VII-12 Staff Reports 1 of 1 From: To: Subject: Date: McAloinGarv HambriahtGail CAe meeting 9-8-2011 Staff reports - Item 12 Fema Fay Update/timing Monday, August 29, 201111:13:33 AM CAC meeting 9-8-2011 Staff reports - Item 12 FEMA Fay Update The Council requested Staff provide quarterly reports on the status (including) collections/receivables) of the FEMA reimbursements. · The FEMA second appeal for Tropical Storm Gabrielle is still under review with FEMA Washington. Over the last month, Connie Mack office, The Ferguson Group (Collier County's federallWashington, DC lobbyists) and our consultant James Lee Witt have all contacted FEMA Washington at our request to determine status of our appeal/claim. Each reply is that the Appeal is under review with the FEMA staff in Washington. · TS Faye existing work authorizations to Collier County will expire in August 2012. Staff will revise the justification and seek an extension to these authorizations once the conceptual design for the main beach renourishment and the Marco South renourishment is completed. J. Gary McAlpin, Director Coastal Zone Management 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34112 Ga ryMcAI pi n(a)coll iergov. net (239) 252-5342 Fax: (239) 353-4061 Under Forida Law. e-n1ail addresses are records If yOU do not want e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic to this entity. Instead, contact office by telephone or in wriling, TOC Funds Sensititivy Analysis CAC September 8, 2011 VII-13 Staff Reports 1 of 8 Revenue Sensitivitv Analvsis Category "A" 195 Fund 183 Fund TDC Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Projected TOC Revenue $13,000,000 $6,500,000 $4,355,000 $2,145,000 Reduction in TOC Revenue by 10% $11,700,000 $5,850,000 $3,919,500 $1,930,500 Reduction in TOC Revenue by 20% $10,400,000 $5,200,000 $3,484,000 $1,716,000 Reduction in TOC Revenue by 30% $9,100,000 $4,550,000 $3,048,500 $1,501,500 Priorities Priority #1- Regulatory Compliance $470,500 Priority #2 - Beach Maintenance $341,950 Priority #3 - Fee's (Admin; Indirect; Tax Collector) $727,075 Priority #4 - Reserves (Revenue; Pier maintence Contingency) $442,750 Priority #5 - Renourishment and Emergency Reserve $2,500,000 Subtotal $4,482,275 Fundin~ Priorities at 10% Revenue Reduction $3,919,500 10% reduction in TDC Beach Funds $435,500 Eliminate truck Haul at Vista at Park Shore $350,000 Eliminate Marco laser Grading $20,000 Eliminate Tigertail Beach Refurbishment $25,000 Reduce Beach renourishment costs by $40,000 $40,000 Subtotal $435,000 $0 Fundin~ Priorities at 20% Revenue Reduction $3,484,000 20% reduction in TDC Beach Funds $871,000 Eliminate truck Haul at Vista at Park Shore $350,000 Eliminate Marco laser Grading $20,000 Eliminate Tigertail Beach Refurbishment $25,000 Reduce Beach Design renourishment costs by $100,000 $100,000 Reduce WPass maintenance dredge engr. by $25,000 $25,000 Reduce Administrative Fee's by $50,000 $50,000 Use $301,000 from Reserve Surplus $301,000 Subtotal $871,000 $0 Gary McAlpin 8/30/2011 TOC Funds Sensititivy Analysis CAC September 8, 2011 VII-13 St2ff Reports 2 of 8 Fundin~ Priorities at 30% Revenue Reduction 30% reduction in TDC Beach Funds Eliminate truck Haul at Vista at Park Shore Eliminate Marco laser Grading Eliminate Tigertail Beach Refurbishment Reduce Beach Design renourishment costs by $100,000 Reduce WPass maintenance dredge engr. by $25,000 Reduce Administrative Fee's by $50,000 Use $736,500 from Reserve Surplus $3,048,000 $1,306,500 $350,000 $20,000 $25,000 $100,000 $25,000 $50,000 $736,500 Subtotal $1,306,500 $0 Gary McAlpin 8/30/2011 ~ 0'" I N en :n ro~ ~ i-~ ~ ~8 ~~ ~~ l J ~ ~ ~ ~ i= o w -, '" ~ ~ Q. ... o I:: ~ ~ ~ o ~ w ~ o o o I- II ~ ! I i II! <:>0===00= oc:.==o=cc .. ~ :'l I:: c:> c:> ~C:>ggC:>~ ~ gg sf ~- eo fO"I :! OOg ~ :~i:~~; .~ r~ ~~~il~ ';8 Q 41 ~ 0 0 QI{j ~e~~5~5 , f ~ .; p.,--- c. e~e;CE~ ~~!.!~~~ C:8~~Q~= ~~f"5 ;u : 5 cij..: d ~.5~~ ~ .5::E;-o = ~~~5di= ~ c:: c: ~ 0.. ~ "5 O~,f.5:Q.. ~ e,,~~=~~ ::l ~ .S .~ .- .~ 0 ~ f-o....~.. "E: ..C:;, :;;;: Co Ut:~ ~ U IU. c ~ ~ ~ JIl i! .. :0 i I:: 0000== .. ~ ~ I:: g g c:> c:> ~~ OOOoeOQo ===0''==00 :!l ~ I:: c:> c:> 8 c:> 8 c:> 8 ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ ~. ... " ~ ~ I:: ... ~ I:: OgC:>gC:>C:>C:>~ Q 0 g :!: ~ ~ N .. ... I:: 8=0=00=8' ~. :7. Q Z ;;l t<. ~ "" ,..., ~ gUU ~ ~ ~U~~~:!l ...: -n ... ..C:>~..~ ~ ~ oocco g~ ~~ OO=QQ 0000= ....~..~ ~ ~ :'l " ==0=0 ~~"~"~~g :7i g ii ~ ~ ~ ~ 'D ~ :::!: ~~;!~~::;-= ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ;' ] ~i~l;Za~ '::~8~~~i ,,:~~-s~'5a: :!~='i=:!~ ~'~.c:'-::d= ~ ,t:'jE~8~ =:....~~;.<< :]~t?J'5~ ~ .x1lll.cCOt:.= c2g'c.!!!50~ EI-<'~S~:::;' ~ e~ ~'-;~:; .- ~ u IX 'C <<I g;~~g cJ C&f"'l~: t Q:~~,:: ~ .s::: - ::< u ,. .. "" <U ~ r:S ~~~~~ C'llll'l"'''' OO'l1OC_trl ~ \0 r-;. f"'l l"-.. M _ on g g ~"l ~~. ::r ! 2 ~ ~..~~~ 0\ -0= ::t ~,... ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ f'Ol _ _ 1,0 ~~&~~ ~~:2~~ tr) _ _ \C ~ggg~ ...~.,;~,o ~ _ ~ i! g~~~~. ~ ."" .. " ~ ~ ~ "'f Q ~~~~~ ~ tn foP) Q f'oI N f"'- "I!J' f"ol - - '" ~ ~ " ... ~"'&~~ ~ ~:; ~ .. ~..~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ N _ " i.~.~:9'B =~2"at{!. tJ'a'a~JJ .a:iig~ . :! ~ '-' :'N ~ 1M c:l .S! E- ;g 'gii~f= "a ~ i = ~~ 't i .. -... .~ ~ ~c ~ .~ !f i c.: I..: ~1~i. ~1!~~ a ' " .~ .g ; .r.~ e (/1 ~ a a ~ .;. 0 r .g . ... "; oll 's x "" ~ 4J~ ~ ~ .~ ~-e .~; ~ ~ :! i" t-Z C > .;; ~ .. <I ii: 'C C .. .s::: u .. ... ~ Q ~~~~.~ Cl'o _ l/) _..... ..,-oc_,......... "l oe 00 \C) 00.. - ... ~~~l~ ~8~~~ - - " ~~~~! ,... 0\ is \4 N - " ~~~~~ ~l~l~ 5~:J~~ ~~~~~ :;: :: i ~ ~ ~ ... ~~~~& ~ = fi r: ~ ~~~~.l ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~;i~~ ~~~~~ :s~:i::l!:a ~..88~ 1If3-t6I1f.... :3 r-- ..... lt1 ~ ~ t7 ~1 ~8.~~~ ~:;::~~ "":- .. _.. "":. 00.. III _ _ I'-- ~..g~~ ~..~~~ .... =::: ~ ~..~~~ ;$ !!i::: ~ 1(1 - - f"'- ~..~~& ::: ~ = ~ I() ~..... to- ~..~~~ ~ ~::!; In .... _ ...... ~..~~~ ~ Ea~ ~..2~~ I(} _ _ r-- ~~~.~~ ~ ~ :: ~ a ~~~~~ ::l ~ I!: g: - If1 .... _ .... gg ~~~~~ ::~s~(::: .., - .... - 00 ~ei.!Q'3 P;'-'~ ~ .a~i;- 'j! - li j '" ~ g... 0 ~ i .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "8 ... i! :; 8 "" 00 .... r-- rol 8 :3- M r--. ... 8 r-- ~ 00 "" M 8 "" :i ... .... 8 M rol 00 <t M o ~ i '1. '" '" ggc:> ... " ~ g-:!f ~ ~;:; ~ .... I c:>g~g~~ 3~~~~ . '" ~ ~ ~"~8 si" - ~ 00 <t .... ~"~8 '!j ~ ~ r-- <t .... ~C:>~8 ~ -~ r-- <t .... gC:>~8 IIr .... r--;. ... .. "" <t .... ~~~....c:>g.. ~ t a ~ ~ . - ~8 ~ r-- i M .; 8 '" 00 '" ":. ... 8 ... ..; ~ 8 '1. '" '" '1. o '" 8 r-- ,..: .. 00 .... o '" '" ..; a rol VJ W VJ Z w c.. >< ~ ...l < !- o !- ~ ~.. .. i ~ ~ ~ ..,- i:: ~ ~ i" ~ ~::: ~ .... t;!. I:: '" ~ i" ii ill ::l ~ ~ ~ G: g go" GO ~ ~ ~ ~ E. i:: i:: ~ ~.. ~ .; ~ ;;; ~ a ~ ....- G: '" ~ l .. ~ s g G: ~~.. .. - & ~ ; ~ ~ .. e ,. ... g~" ::l :!~. ~ oo ~ ~ a I:: N ~ i"" ;:~ ~ :; a I:: 8"~8 vf -r";. ... .. ~ .... ~C:>~8 Q _ t-:. ... '" '" M .; ..~~~~8 ;;;~2-::J -~ 1Il ~ '1. o M ..~~..~8 ;;;~ ~::J ~ on '1. .... ~~..~g ~~ -~ - '" '1. .... l2~&~~&I=... eU).c~o g.,!o.s ':'';'-:~~.!j ll~""=n<~ ==~'-e5tS ':~':'=i!!lli! '~~a!J ~.8 ~ i /! ;.ij 1.ij ~':e~ =~ c: e ~ " w ;;l z: w ;> w cc l'J w cc ...l ~ o !- ~u o ~ g ~~ 'l:I' f1':lI .... Q\ $~iQ vr ~ ~ '" e~~ oti; 'IS :;l ,: S;. M r-- M 8~~ ~ "'...'0 "'::J ..: ~~~ MMr-- M ~~. ~. ~~ ~ ~~gg ... .; M 8 ~ ~ -"l'D oti:; ~ on - '" ;J~~ M ~~~ o~.; .. - .... ~cr1""'l '1"""1 M M M 8~~ g~~ 1Il~~ No - C M ~~~ ~: M ~:!f~ n ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:!f~ 8 ~ ~ 'I"l"t1""'l ~f;l.... ~~ ~ .... M '" M ~~~ or\~M ~~~ '1"""1 M rtf M VJ ~ VJ < :- r.l <I VJCC VJ 'tl .. r.l ... ... ...J Ol c r.l L~ ~.s~ ~~] r.l .. = c.:Ut<. gggggg {/J ctcto..o~ct C) ...;jooo",ocO <~8~:~1~ ~ fIi..,f M,.... ~ ~ .... _8ggggg t! ct 0.. 0.. 0..0 0 ~~&~~~~ i::: .. ;!: .., l:i ogggggg ~ gOo 2" 8- ~ 0 CD ~oOIN'r"i~ i: ~~ M ~ 000000 ~gggggg ! ogg~g ; ~5i:ON~"N j:ctfg f?~ 000000 000000 ~ ~..~..~..:..~ ~.. r:::ooo~o"" ~~:-N_:~ I:: 000000 ....gggggg ~ ogg!jo ~ ::::i!o N ~~ N r: ,..:~ M ~ 000000 000000 ~ qC!,o..~o c ~gg~!~~ ~ ,..:..,f .,- .... I:: 000000 Itlgggggg ~c.. o"g" go. ~ 0" ~ ... :i! 0 N ~ ~.... G: ~.. rr ri ~ 000000 o 0000 o 0000 ~ ~~f gOO ~.. g ~ ~ 0 N.......,.... I:: ..... .., 01 gggggg ,., ooCO) 0 0 l") ;'i:'l- og:g"~g ~ ~O_""""N to"; r') M j;:" N 000000 Ngggggg gg~~g ~.. 000 ......... co ~IO-~ I';~~ ~ n.!!c ~ " " .. J! ~ ~ ===~iQJ Q:~':~~~ ~CQ);,QOC Q.~;;:"'"5"O ,g.cl~e~ "'r!OcQ.'- J!'" l:' 0 WI;: .. 0 0 () 01 Q; Ui$~~a: O:::C'dAD.Em o()~..., "i' = ~ ~ :E ~:: a: Ul ~ CI> III a:: ~ ~ c:> c:> ~ M .... .., CD ~ ~ c:> .., .... C> "' c:> "' 01 CD .... o "' CD .... .., CD ....,; o "' '" .., "' "' ~ c:> '" '" '" 01 '" .; o '" c:> '" :;; '/l o on "' ~ ~ '" o '" o oo 01 M "' o "' oo ~ 01. ~ C> ::l ,.: .... o M "" ~ o ..c:: ~ 6 III :l ~ :l Ul CI> ~ CI> III CI> a:: FY11/12 -195 Fund Budget and Analysis - Rev.1 FY 10/11 Carry Forward Carry Forward Total Projected FY11/12 Revenue Tourist Tax Revenue for Beachesllnlets Revenue Reimbursement FDEP Revenue - FDEP Cost Share Contract Tilling and Cleaning Revenue Revenue Reserve (5%) Projected Expenses 1. Regulatory and Pennit Compliance - FY 10/11 Sea Turtle Protection Program Beach Tilling Physical Beach Monitoring - Entire County Biological Monitoring 2. Planned Projects/Future Projects - FY 10/11 Wiggins Pass Intermediate Dredging - Engineer Emergency Truck Haul - Vista @ Park Shore FY12/13 County Beach Design and Permitting FY12/13 Marco Beach/B'water Design/Permitting Laser Grade North Marco Beach (R133-R141) Tigertail Beach Refurbishment 3. Beach Maintenance - FY 10/11 Collier County/Marco Island City of Naples Vegetation Repairs/Exotic Removal Naples Pier and Dock Maintenance 4. Administration Fee's - FY 10/11 Fund 195 Administration Indirect Administrative Costs Tax Collector Fee's (2.5%) 6. Other Expenses - FYi 0/11 Renourishment and Emergency Reserves Contingency Reserve Category D Pier Reserve Revenue Total Sub-Total Sub-Total Sub-Total Sub-Total Total Expenses Sub-Total Fund Balance Total $4,371,800 -$3,400,000 $50,000 $1,500 -$218,600 $22,332,900 CAC September 8, 2011 VIl-aetrla~12~2'811 . 4 ofJIli-3 New Business 1 of 1 FY11/12 Totals $22,332,900 $804,700 CAC September 8, 2011 VII~ St"ff Renort~ 1 5 0 C; May 'rZ, 20 1-4 New Business 60f6 Evaluation/Approval Guidelines for TDC Category A Yearly Grant Requests by the Coastal Advisory Committee Yearly grant requests to the Coastal Advisory Committee will be evaluated, prioritized and funded based on the following criteria. 1. Grants associated with the completion of a previously approved project that are required to complete that project. 2. Grants required to meet Permit Regulatory Compliance. Examples of these grants would be Physical and Biological monitoring, turtle monitoring, shorebird monitoring and tilling. 3. Safety related activities and projects, which are the responsibility of the CAC. 4. Commitments covered by inter-local agreement and lor projects previously approved/identified in the 10 year plan. Examples would be the dredging of Clam, Wiggins, Doctors, Caxambas and Capri Passes and the IO-year cycle of beach re-nourishment. 5. Projects or studies that improve or have a high probability of improving our beach efficiency, the preservation of CAC capital or save us money. These projects would have to have a undisputed payout. Items that would fall into this category would be engineering or studies that could lengthen times between dredge events or re-nourishments. 6. Grants associated with the maintenance and upkeep of our beaches. Examples of these activities that preserve the quality of the beach experience are beach cleaning, raking and grading. 7. Projects that outside funding or third party funding can be obtained on that offset the capital cost. Examples would be FDEP funding, FEMA funding or third party grants. 8. Necessary or required projects would be next. Examples of this type of projects would be Doctors Pass Rip-Rap replacement. 9. New projects not required by law or consent decree would follow. CAC September 8, 2011 VII~~C'~!f~%)~ 1 6 OV"I-4 New Business 10f6 Share TDC Category "A" Grant Applications from the City of Naples, The City of Marco Island and Collier County for FY-l1/12. OBJECTIVE: To share Category "A" grant applications and requests. CONSIDERATIONS: Received TDC Category "A" Grant Applications as follows: 2010/11 PROJECT/DESCRIPTION: AMOUNT REOUESTED GRANTED 1. Re!!ulatorv and Permit ComDliance .Jj. /' Sea Turtle Protection Program - Collier County $.168-,ruu'. fA)~ r $164,600 Beach Tilling - Collier County - 80171 $ 17,500 r~._ $ 17,500 Physical Beach & Pass Monitoring Collier County Beaches - $~1,6ol'- $260,000 90536 Biological Monitoring - 90033 $ 30,000 " ,.,<- ~ SUB-TOTAL $483,400 $442,100 2. Planned Proiects Wiggins Pass Maintenance Program - Engineering - 90522 $ 50,000 ~k: $750,000 .. -"Truck Haul Vista's at Park Shore 88030 $350,000 OK.. 0 Q 'h1;.w ~Beach Design and Permit with HS Solutions - 80096 $600,000 tYk $300,000 ~v11 Renourish Design & Permit with BW Solutions - 80166 . $300,000 tJk., $150,000 Laser Grading North Marco Beach (R133-RI41) $ 20,000 d1< 0 Tigertail Beach Refurbishment $ 25,000 tJt,- 0 SUB-TOTAL $1,345,000 $1,200,000 3. Beach Maintenance Beach Maintenance - Collier County/Marco Island - 90533 $135,100 ) $ ] 35,000 Beach Maintenance - City of Naples- 90527 $ 76,850 (9t\. $ 75,850 Vegetation Repairs/Exotic Removal - County Wide - 90044 $ 75,000 . $ 75,000 Naples Pier Annualized Repair & Maintenance - City of $ 55,000 ) $ 55,000 Naples - 90096 SUB-TOTAL $341,950 $340,850 4. Administration Fee's Fund 195 and 183 Administration - Collier County- 90020 $510,500 $511,100 Indirect Administration Costs $107,700 $117,700 Tax Collector Fee's (2.5%) $109,300 $104,863 SUB-TOT AL $727,500 $733,633 5. Other EXDenses Renourishment and Emergency Reserves $17 ,000,000 $14,500,000 Revenue Reserve (5%) $ $218,608 $ 217,800 Category D Pier Reserve $ 79,000 $ 79,000 CAC September 8, 2011 VII-~~~2P~a~1 7 ~Ni=4New Business 20f6 Reserve for Contingency Totals $ 146,000 Reserve for FDEP Reimbursement $ 3,400,000 SUB-TOTAL $20,843,600 $14,796,800 TOTAL $23,741,450 $17,563,413 COUNTY ATTORNEY FINDING: A finding by the County Attorney is not required for this item. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Reeulatorv and Permit Compliance: All these items are required by FDEP permit and required by law. Approval is recommended. Planned Proiects: ~ Wiggins Maintenance Program - En?:ineering for - Intennediate Dredging of Wiggins Pass for FY 2012/13. Approval is recommended. ~ Emergency Truck Haul- Vista's at Park Shore - The Vista's condominium is located directly south of the Seagate emergency renourishment recently completed. This location was previously approved for re-nourishment by the CAe but analysis and design could not be accomplished by Sea Turtle nesting season. Approval is recommended. ~ FY 12/13 Beach Design and Permit with HS Solutions - This item will fund beach design and pennitting to detennine a renourish plan (including Hot Spot permanent solution) for the main Collier County beaches. The conceptual design basis should be completed and these funds are a preliminary estimate to begin the design. Approval is recommended. ~ Marco Island Renourish Design & Penn it with BW Solutions - This item will fund beach design and permitting to determine a renourish plan (including Hot Spot pennanent solution) for the Marco "Island South beach. The conceptual design basis should be completed and these funds are a preliminary estimate to begin the design. Approval is recommended. ~ Laser Grading North Marco Beach (R 133-R 141) - Laser grade the northern portion of Marco Island Beach just south of Sand Dollar Island. This has had limited effectiveness in the past but is requested by the Marco Island Beach committee. ~ Tigertail Beach Refurbishment - Tigertail will be tilled prior to turtle nesting season. Investigate what options exist to enhance the beach at Tigertail to be more attractive to tourists. Approval is recommended. Beach Maintenance: Exceptional beach experience for our residents and visitors has been at the heart of our success in the past. These items are required to maintain that experience. Approval is recommended. Administration Fee's: This item funds County staff to manage the projects, maintain the beaches, administer the program. It includes the Director; an Office Manager/Accountant; a Field Supervisor/Project Manager; and two equipment operators to clean and maintain the County and Marco Beaches. It also includes Administrative Indirect Fees required for administrative functions like purchasing, infonnation CAC September 8, 2011 VIIC~C'~~~1 8 OV~I-4 New Business 30f6 technology, motor pool and human resources. Tax collector fees are also included in this item. Approval is recommended. Other Expenses: This item provides for board mandated renourishment reserves, emergency reserves and revenue reserves. Approval is recommended. FISCAL IMPACT: The total amount of grant applications for FY 11/12 in the amount of $24,198,190 is in the proposed budget for Category "A" Tourist Development Taxes. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. RECOMMENDATION: That the CAC recommend approval of the attached Tourist Development Category "A" grant applications and request in the amount of $23,741 ,450 and approve all necessary grant agreements per County Attorney's approval. PREPARED BY: Gail Hambright, CZM Accountant CAC September 8,2011 VIII-1 New Business 1 of 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to award Bid No.11-5763 to Energy Resources, Inc in the amount of $262,000 for the emergency dredging of Collier Bay entrance channel and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract after County Attorney approval. OBJECTIVE: To award Bid No. 11-5763 to Energy Resources, Inc. for the emergency dredging of Collier Bay entrance channel in the amount of $262,000. CONSIDERATION: Collier Bay on Marco Island is experiencing hazardous boating conditions with the accretion of approximately 10,000 CY's of beach compatible sand in the mouth of its entrance channel. Approximately one third of the Marco Island boating community routinely access Collier Bay using this channel. This project will restore safe navigation by removing the shoal that is creating a hazardous boating condition. Beach compatible sand dredged from this location will be discharged in the near shore tidal zone on the down drift Hideaway Beach beaches. This entrance channel was dredged in 2001 using TDC funds and the dredged sand was placed on Hideaway Beach. The Rock Jetty was built in 2005 using TDC funds. County Ordinance 2001-03 authorizes this activity as per section 2, item D. Additionally the County Attorney's Office has issued an opinion in 2003 and 2005 that TDC funds can be used for the dredging of Collier Creek if a finding is made that it promotes tourism. These opinions are attached. An Emergency Resolution form the City of Marco Island is attached supporting this dredging activity. On 8/12/2011, bids were posted in the lobby of the Purchasing Department with 200 vendors being notified and 78 bidders electronically downloaded plans. On September 2, 2011, 9 bids were received. Staff evaluated the bid received and determined that Alternative #1 allowing a 75 day construction be accepted. Additionally, staff determined that Energy Resources, Inc. was the lowest, qualified and responsive bidder for both the 60 day and 75 day construction schedules. Energy Resources, Inc is also a local vendor. The bid tabulation is attached. Therefore, in consideration of the lowest, qualified and responsive bidder staff recommends that Alternative #1 allowing for a 75 day construction schedule for Bid No. 11-5763 be awarded to Energy Resources, Inc. in the amount of $262,000. FISCAL IMPACT: In partnership with Collier County, the Hideaway Beach Improvement District through the City of Marco Island is funding the engineering and permitting of this project. Funds requested for this project are for permitting fees and on site dredging. All permits will be jointly issued to both the City of Marco Island and Collier County. The Source of funds is from Category A Tourist Development Tax fund 195 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-1 New Business 2 of 5 ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Conceptual approval of this project was granted by the CAC on 4/14/2011 by unanimous vote. Unanimous conceptual approval was also granted by the TDC on 5/27/2011. Staffis recommending approval of this request. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The TDC and the BCC should make a finding that this project and expenditure will promote tourism in Collier County. This item requires majority vote and is legally sufficient for Board action. - CMG RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation to award Bid No.1 1-5763 to Energy Resources, lnc in the amount of $262,000 for the emergency dredging of Collier Bay entrance channel and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract after County Attorney approval. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, PE - Coastal Zone Management CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-1New Business 30f5 RESOLUTION NO. 11-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA DECLARING AN EMERGENCY FOR THE DREDGING OF THE ENTRANCE TO COLLIER BAY, ALSO KNOWN AS COLLIER CREEK, TO RESTORE SAFE NA VIGA TION WITHIN THE CHANNEL, IN THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the entrance to Collier Bay, also known as .Collier Creek, within the City of Marco Island, is located in Sections 5, 6 and 7, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; and WHEREAS, the City of Marco Island Waterways Advisory Committee, at its meeting of March 24, 2011, reviewed the current status of the channel entrance and determined that an emergency situation exists due to the excessive deposition of sand into the previously dredged area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the recommendation of the Waterways Advisory Committee the Marco Island City Council fmds that the area has experienced severe limitations to safe navigation and increased scouring velocities along the adjacent waterfront infrastructure, and agrees that emergency dredging of the channel is necessary; and WHEREAS, the area of the City's entrance to Collier Bay, also known as Collier Creek, has experienced severe limitation to safe boating navigation and increased scouring velocities along the adjacent waterfront infrastructure as a result of significant deposits of sand within the channel; and WHEREAS, the City is working jointly with the Collier County Coastal Zone Management (CZM) department to seek Florida Department of Environmental Protection/Corp of Engineers (FDEP/COE) permits for emergency dredging of the entrance to Collier Bay. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Marco Island, Florida, that: SECTION 1. The emergency dredging of the entrance to Collier Bay is a viable temporary solution to the erosion; and the City, with support from the CZM, is making an application to FDEP/COE for an emergency permit approval to dredge the channel as described above. SECTION 2. FDEP/COE is requested to expedite pemlitting and approval for the emergency dredging, as FDEP/COE did for a rock revetment abutting the roadway Royal Marco Way, and for the CZM to support a request for Tourist Development funds from the Collier County Board of Commissioners to finance the emergency dredging project. SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Marco Island declares an emergency and directs and authorizes the City Manager or his designee to support and assist the CZM in 1 CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-1 New &JsiAess. 40f5 . obtaining governmental approvals for the emergency dredging of the entrance to Collier Bay, also known as Collier Creek. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED in open and regular session by the City of Marco Island, Florida, this 4th day of April 2011. ATTEST gfj2 ~rn .. La"raM. Lit.... oiyCler - I CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA B~~ Gerard M. Gibson, Chamnan 2 o owen ~.~ ~~~ ...~' 1::,,' ~ .~ ~~ en ~ ~ ~~~~~C: ()..!.._:; o:'E <(=ooClc:J U>ll'l Z (/) " .>1 (5 z 0> " '0, '" i!! o Qj " " ro .<:: () " u " !" "E w ,., ro ro .~ "0 () '" CD I'- "I ci z '" jjj " '5. <( u :::; ~;:: roo <.9~...... ;.:NO ~~ ~ ""'0> CG.$ .. :::; u> " o :J 130..0 .~ 15 ~ 0.00 c ;0. CIl e 1: 41 '; ~.~ 1U 2..'<1) ;:0.(1) <Ii ,.,,, ClU ...<... U Q)::::J C co- wen " 0:: ~ " " " ';: .2 '" - :::;: g '" ~ "U; "i: C o 0 u:o l!!' " .c 'O.CJ ....c 11I- ~ ~ '0. c- c.,2 'i U (J ~S..5 ~.....~ o CI ~......~. c.. i:; ee :EcC> o o 011 ... g>~ 0" rQ:....4l "C.....:...... ." 0 o u: ~ .. ;Q E ::I Z ,., a '" ::l c .2 Q. 'c U CIl .. o 8 g o 0' "" '" o o o o o 0' 00 '" o o o o o 0' '" '" 00 '" "" <t "" <t- o rl '" ~ '" '" o ,-; rl '" o o o o o 0' CD '" o o "" "" I'- ",,- 00 rl '" o o o o o 0' "" '" 8 o o '" <to "" rl '" (j) ...J "tJ e e III 0 g~ ~~ ~.g BE o Q) :20 >- III "tJ o to u:: "tJ e III Q) Q):; 0l"tJ "tJ Q) Q).c C5 ~ 88 dd 00 eno 1"--" NO, 00 rl '" '" '" 00 00 g g 00 0" c5 00 '" rl '" '" 00 00 ci ci 00 00 0'" 0 o rl o '" 0' o o ",- '" 00 00 gg '" u-i' '" '" '" 00 00 do '" 0 CD 00- '" 00 00 cid 0'" 0'" Lri' N'" en '" N '" '" 00 00 ON 000 0"" 0" Lri' en rl '" '" 00 00 ad 00 "'0 N")" 1.1";' I'- rl N '" '" 8 8 ci ci 00 00 0'" a '" '" rl '" '" o o o ~ o >- (j) U ...J e o U Q) o c: c;; C Ole ~ In ~ .~ e ~ ~ .:;: III :J e Q) U)w:2 N'" .... o 00 00 o 0 00 0" 0).. rla> "'''' .., ... 00 ci ~ 00 ~.. ~t "'l:: N ... o 0 00 0 c:i 0 c:i o 0 a '" 0 0 M'" a... 1.1). M"' 0 .., 0 o 0' o' 0 o en o rl- NO, ~/). ... 8 GO ON "'~ GO .,; N .., ... o o ni <t 0 I'- 0 1.1)" 00 "'CD .., '" N ... o o 00 00 00 <Ii'" <t '" "'.; N .... ... 00 00 ni c:n '" .., I'- GO r--.... cD '" a> N ... 00 00 00 00 0'" a" 00- rl N '" .., ... 88 gg ON a ~.. "'en '" '" '" (j) ...J u: '" c ro " 0> '" " ~"S 0'" " :! 2 .~ o ro ,., -" ro ..cQi-c ::l_", U)<(I'- o o o o en 1'-- 00 '" '" ~~~~~~~~ o o o o o 0' CD ;.; en en rtJ f/l (/l t/l II) (I) Q,) QJ Q) Q) Q.) Q) Q) Q) >->->->->->->->- 000000000 zzzzzzzz z o o o ... ~~~~~~~~ o o o o o o en N ... (/J (/J (/) rn (I) rn Vl (I) \'I.l Q.) Q,) Q,) CD Q) <IJ Q) >->->->->->->->- o o o o '" 00- '" N '" (/) (/l (/) VI In rn en VI Q.) Q.l Q) <Ll Q) Q.l Q.J Q.l >->->->->->->->- o o ci '" ~~~~~~~~ o o o o '" 00- '" '" '" ~~~~~~~~ 8 g o 0' ::: '" ~~~~~~~~ o o 8 o ~ " 00>- 0 ~ ~ lo... 0 ~ ~~~~~..~ (I)(/)ffi~~~~~ ~ 0 '0 _ >- en 'S ~ :J 13 Q.l 0 Q) ~ ;. ucau<Co>-lE..... ~-E.~~'g~~-g ~~~~~~.~~ ~:JX..c<<ila;"C <<iC/)wuuw~iii '~ooai.3 'E a;c;;c~ E :::;::;~ - " 1ii ii5 >- u "' u> " >- u> " >- u> " >- u> " >- u> " >- u> " >- u> " >- u> ~ 'i:i ;;; u> " t "C ~ ~ c ffi ~~~ 0.<::", " 0 " .....,,, ~:gm E.jj~ :J ro '" .. " '" " ro " :g~~ <( c ~ 18 ~ CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-2 New Business 1 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommend Approval of the conceptual design and program approach to the Marco South Beach Renourishment project. OBJECTIVE: Recommend approval of the conceptual design and program approach to the Marco South Beach Renourishment Project. CONSIDERATIONS: The Southernmost 4,400 LF of Marco Island beach is designated as Critically Eroded by FDEP. The South Marco Island Beach between RI44 and G-2 has been renourished in 1990, 1997 and 2006. The worst erosion in this segment is the last 2,000 feet between RI47 and G2. Unfortunately, this is also the area that has the only public beach access with adequate parking in south Marco Island. Tropical Storm Fay severely eroded this beach when it made landfall in August, 2008. Collier County was successful in obtaining federal disaster assistance to renourish this beach. 77,000 CY's of beach fill was authorized for an estimated total project cost of $2,822,578. FEMA's portion with a 75% reimbursement will max out at $2,116.933 if additional scope amendments are not authorized. At Collier County's request, FEMA has extended the expiration date for this authorization twice. The current expiration date is August 2012. Coastal Engineering has been awarded a Work Order to develop the conceptual design for this renourishment program. The program consisted of three components. I. Beach Renourishment including system modeling to determine the optimum sand placement quantities to maximize the renourishment cycle. Modeling determined that 104,000 CY's will optimize the fill template to resist future erosion. 77,000 CY's is authorized under FEMA's disaster order. A new FDEP permit will be required and is expected to take 5 months to obtain. The existing USACE permit is good till 2021. However, the existing Biological Opinion does not authorize renourishment during turtle nesting season. This component of the project is expected to cost $1,800,000. 2. Refurbishment of existing erosion control structures is required. There are three breakwaters and two groins at the end of Marco Island to control erosion. Little to no maintenance has occurred over the years and these structures need to be rebuilt to the original design to perform as intended. This will require authorizations from the FDEP and USACE to restore the structures to their original design and function. Permitting is expected to take 6 to 8 months and this work is expected to cost $1,200,000. 3. The addition of an additional Erosion Control Structure is anticipated. When modeled, an additional Rock Groin located between RI47 and RI48 out performed both a feeder beach alternative and an additional segmented breakwater alternative in reducing beach erosion. The model predicts beach width and volume are sustained by 20%-25% over other options at this critical location. It is anticipated that beach width and volume will continue to be sustained as the Rock Groin area fills with sand, These findings and assumptions will be confirmed through additional simulations run over a longer term "multiple year" cycle, Permitting for this option is expected to approach a year and this option is expected to cost up to $700,000. CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-2 New Business 20f2 Recent FEMA funding discussions have made us reconsider our approach to this program. Staff believes that in the current national political environment, there will be no will to extend the project authorization any farther or fund mitigation strategies that will reduce emergency renourishments in the future. With that said, Staff is recommending the following course of action: 1. Proceed immediately to issue a Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants to proceed with the design and permitting of the beach renourishment portion of this program. To be successful, the permits must be issued, the construction completed and the invoicing completed to FEMA by 8/2012. This effort represents a $750,000- $1,000,000 reimbursement to the County. 2. Continue the conceptual design for the additional erosion control structure between Rl47 and Rl48 to confirm erosion abatement performance over longer term cycle. Confirm the costs to benefits of this solution. Expected completion is within 6 to 8 weeks. This will complete the conceptual design phase of this program. 3. Issue an RFP for engineering consultants to perform the design and permitting for rebuilding the existing structures and possibly the new erosion control structure. Select a consultant and proceed with the work. A consultant should be selected within the next 60 days. 4. Work with the USACE to determine if the Regional Biological Opinion that was just issued within the past 90 days supersedes the permit Biological Opinion. This will be required to perform beach renourishment during next year's turtle nesting season. 5. Obtain approval from the CAC/BCC to perform renourishment during turtle nesting season. 6. Separately bid and execute the erosion control structure project(s) as permits are obtained. 7. Obtain concurrence for this plan from the City of Marco Island. COUNTY ATTORNEY FINDING: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. This item is not quasi-judicial, and as such ex parte disclosure is not required. This item requires majority vote only. This item is legally sufficient for Board action. -CMG ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Staffis recommending approval of this approach. FISCAL IMPACT: The Source of funds is from Category "A" Tourist Development Tax fund 195. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMP ACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the conceptual design and program approach to the Marco South Beach Renourishment Program. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, PE ~ ~ o rn N '" - OJ OJ C L... "Vi OJ ::> .0 ell E :;; 2 OJ g-z cnCPco U~N <(-.... = 0 U>~ -- ... Z ---~ T ___J &'G . I~ ___ 8 ~ o o -Ij gt~ 1 ~~.-"- f Me':C:\'CO GuLf Q . , ....... ~ ~ o rn N '" - OJ 00 C '- 'w OJ :J .oaJ E :;: 2 OJ ~z (/)'POO U";JN <(-..... u>~ It ~ ~ o rn N rn . Q) a) C ~ .(j) Q) ::> .nCO E :;: .& '" g-Z wcpcc t)~N <l:-.... uS;~ . ~ ;; rn N <fj Q) cO .E ~ rn Q) ::J .DCll E 3: 2 Q) a.Z ~cpco UNN <(~o U>'<t ~ ~ o rn N rn Q) 05 .s: ~ (J) Q) :::J .oal E ~ .$ Q) c.z ~cpoo UNN <(~o U>Ll) 175000 Northing (m) 175500 176000 176500 I I I I I I I I -----------r--- I I I I i~ -Z..... i I I l~ I I I <"'""'l I I - - - - - :-~ - - - - - - - - - - -:-- - - - - - - - - - - - ~ I~ I I I.... I I )> i 3 Q,J = < CD ..... I "tJ co .., 3 ~ Q. i n ::r :!! - ~ "'<0 o=:t> ~;S() oo'(/) '" CD z" CD - ~ ~ rocr c CD rn ~ 5" ?J CD '" ~ ~ 175000 Northing (m) 175500 176000 176500 --. N (1) f.n g , , -Z~ : ,)> , : if ---,-------------, 3 I I Q) I 1 ~ I , ~. N "'D CD , 3 i:i CD Q. f Q) n ::S" '"TI -. - ...... N ..... 8 E ~ ;:' CD C. CD .., ED CD Q) n ::S" 8 '" a -..J<O o=:t> ~;(;() (Xl'(/) '" CD z" CD - :;; ~ Cl)cr <: CD rn ~ -. (Xl :J _ CD '" ~~ ~ 175000 175500 176000 I I t I I 1 t I -------.r--- t I I I I : -z--..... I~ I I . t I :~ : : - - - - - :-~ - - - - - - - - - - -: - - - -- - - - - - - - - ~ t~ t I t ..... I t I :~ 176500 )I- :;: CD 3 l>> .... <. CD w "'D CD 3 [ OJ CD l>> n :::r :n - E -. - ;:r )l- S: -. - S' = !. G) Q. ::I 00<0 o::::t> ~r0() oo'(/) '" CD z" CD - :;: ~ OJcr c: CD rn ~ ::i" ~co CD '" ~ ~ ~ 175000 Northing (m) 175500 176000 I 1 1 1 1 I I I ----r-- I I I 1 :~ :~ -z--..... 1 1...9 1 I 1 """') I 1 - - - - -:-~ - - - - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - - - ; I~ I 1 I .... I 1 176500 )- f ... ~ m - <" co -. -g co 3 i!i co a. CO co II (') :F II -- - ... ~ 9 )> a. a. -. r+ o' :;:, e. [XI CI1 m ;;rt; ~ - CD ... "'<0 o=:t> --.0 ~d;'C/) CD z" CD - :E ~ IJJcr c CD rn ~ -. <Xl ::J 0 CD '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" o rn N al - c: 0:> ._ Q5 ~ .oaJ E :: al al o..Zco alctlN CI),_ ()~O <{=O ()>~ 175000 115500 176000 ~ ~ -z...... NI 0) C11 8 I: x :E ~ N I: :r:: :E J> !::t ... .... NI '"" C) C) C) t ~ o ;tl ~~ Nf~~ I : ;tJ ;t 0. Ni~c:l i ~ o CI !ii. i:.; ~l~c:l 3 ~ o ~ N "tl GI GI 3 3 a: a: llll mm m m 9-9- :n:n - - f. !:f (II GI a. 91 f 9- o i i 3 176500 J> i 3 at - ~. .... < UJ . )> i 3 a i. N ~ ]> =' CD "" .... Ch i: o :::s - if ....... ~<o ~=:t> S-NO ",'(/) OO"'CD z" CD - :;; ~ OJcr c CD rn ~ 5" _00 CD '" ~ ~ ~ 175000 175500 176000 176500 -z-..... ~ ~ B i ~ -i .... .... ~ U'l (;) (;) ):- ;:; CD 3 Q) - j. ..J. < (Ij ):- ;:;: CD i - j. C/o.) - f ... ""'" 0) !: o a. :r (Ij - >- ;IlIII ~ ""0 I'D I'D 3 3 == & & OJC:O II II 9- 9- :!1:n == ::::: i. :T >- c. c. :=;: cS' ::l Ql. G) a S' t ~ g Q 1;1' 1; ~ C>)i-~ {I,I "" I Q Q 1;i 1; '" (,.)!!.-o i ~ o 0 1;t~o .....i(,.)Q i ~ , a ~ j 3 .... N ! 8 ~<o "'=:t> 9.;(;0 ",'(/) OO"'CD z" CD - ~ ~ mcr <::: CD rn ~ :i" ~ CD '" ~ ~ ~ 175000 115500 17,6000 ~ ~ -z_____ N 0') 8 i: !: :r: :r: :E :E - ~.~- -t -t ~ ..... ..... N ...... Q :5 - N <Xl Q :5 Q 0 ~~,~t;; ,JI.~.....O i i5 I <:> o ~~~th ,JI.!!......o en 0 I ~ I s ~!~ -"'~,JI.p 3 f:;l en ~ ~ "'0 () () 3 3 a; a; 8. & IXI IXI lB lB 9- 9- :n:n == == i. 9= )> a. a. a: 8 I>> co @ I>> i ...... ~ S?- f ! a .. 3 176500 )l. ;;: CD a a :c:' CD ..... < U) . )> ;;: CD 3 ~ =: ~ .ra. - )> i ... ..... C) i: o ::l - :::r fA ....... ~<o W::::t> a~() ",'(/) OO"'CD z" CD - ::; ~ IJJcr c CD rn ' -.00 ::J _ CD '" ~ ~ ~ ~ c; rn N III Ql cO .5 ~ rn Ql ::l .DCO E :;: Ql Ql a.Z Qlroco (/),N oC}l'O <l:=~ ()>~ ~ ;; rn N rn OJ cO .~ ~ rn OJ :;J .0 ell E :;: 2 OJ c.Z OJroOC> (/),N UN..... , 0 <C=:li"l u>~ ...N('I')"lt ...... ...... .... ..., <c<e<i g,;Go N'(/) OO"'CD Z" CD - :E ~ cocr c CD rn ~ S" ~CIJ CD '" ~ ~ ~ ~<o -..J=:t> a~() N'(/) OO"'CD Z" CD - :;: ~ CIlcr c CD rn ~ S" .?' CD '" ~ ~ I t t t . I , t 1,,)...000000000000.....10 OOOi>l::r'I4:>-N:""OO:""N ' , , . OOOOOOOV'lV'lOO ~ 0'" N :fl cO .f: ~ rn Ql :J .Dell E ~ '" Ql C.Z ~'P~ U~o <l::=ro u>~ ~<o "'::::t> aN() ",'(/) OO"'CD z" CD - ~ ~ OJcr <: CD rn ~ :i" ~C1J CD '" ~ ~ ~ "'<0 O=:t> a~() ",'(/) OO"'CD Z" CD - :E ~ rocr c CD rn ~ -.00 :;;J _ CD '" ~ ~ ~ . "'<0 ~=:t> a;Go N ' (/) OO"'CD Z" CD - ::< ~ OJcr c: CD rn ~ 5. _00 CD '" ~ ~ ~ ~ o rn N :(l cO .S: ~ rn Q) :::J .oCll E == .!!? Q) c.Z ~cp~ uC'}lo <(=N U>N ~ om N rn - Q) co c So... "(i) Q) :J .om E ~ 2 Q) aJ-z (J)OlCO ,N ON.... <(::!::o O-M >N ~ ~ rn o rn N Ql . C ~.Ci5 Ql :::J .oa:l E ~ Ql Ql c..Zco QlCUN U)N"+- (J..!..o <(=.qo O>N ~ c; ~ N Q) - C 00 ._ ~ rn Q) ::l .oeD E 3: Q) Q) Ci.zoo ~CPN U~o <(=l{) U>N ~ ~ rn o rn N Q) - c CO._ .... rn Q) ::> .nCO E :;: Q) Q) -c.Zco Q)eaN Cl)N'+- U...!.O <{='" U>N . ~ c; '" N '" Ql - c co ._ ~ '" Ql ::J .nCC E ~ -[~ Ql",CO (/),N oC'}l'Q <l:=..... O>N .' . ~ ~ om N rn - Ql CO c '- Ow Ql :J .olll E ;;: 2 Ql 2"2 (j) Cll O~ <{= U> ." CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-3 New Business 1 of9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve and authorize Staff to advertise proposed amendments to the Tourist Development Tax Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended. Amendments include (1) delineating the allocation of administrative costs in support of Fund 194 Tourism Promotion, Fund 195 Beaches, and Fund 183 Beach Park Facilities, (2) incorporating into the ordinance the Category "A" Funding Policy approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and directing that the Funding Policy be included in the Collier County Administrative Code, (3) incorporating provisions of Section 125.0104(5)(A)1, Fla. Stat., relating to the use of Category "C" funds for museul)ls, and (4) removing expired provisions pertaining to the use of certain revenues for tourism destination marketing. OBJECTIVE: To amend the Tourist Development'faxOrdinanceiiNo. 92-60, as amended. CONSIDERATIONS: The Coastal Adv'ry Committee (CAC) directed Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Staff to propose an ame ent to the Tourist Development Tax Ordinance regarding CZM personnel and administrative costs. Follow' a review of the ordinance, the County Attorney believes there are additional items Ordinance which the Board may wish to amend. The following four amendments are proposed: (1) The Coastal Advisory Committee dire9ted roPoselliamendments to the Tourist Development Tax Ordinance to specifically iI1~lude adml strative costs for Fund 195 and Fund 183 and to allocate tH dministrative costs b~tween the two funds based on a pro rata share. Administrative costs udemaI1.ag~ment. indirect overhead, and program administration. There is presently a provision as follows: promotion administrative cost. That provision states "Tourism promotion administrative costs shall not exceed 32% of the total amount collected each fiscal year for Category B uses and shall be financed solely from the 23.236% of the two percent tax." The ordinance is silent as to where the remaining 8.764% comes from, which staff has historically taken from the fourth percent tax, To both clean this up and to simplify the issue, the County Attorney recommends that the existing language on tourism promotion administrative costs be deleted, and that the following new subsection to Section Three-Uses of Tax Revenue, be added to the Ordinance dealing solely with administrative costs: 4. Administrative costs. a. Tourism promotion administrative costs shall not exceed 32% of the total amount collected each fiscal year for Category "B" revenue. CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-3 New Business 2of9 b. Proiect Management, Indirect Overhead, and Program Administration in support of Fund 195 (Beaches) and Fund 183 (Beach Park Facilities) shall not exceed 15% of Category "A" revenues. These charges to be split 75% to Fund 195 (Beaches) and 25% to Fund 183 (Beach Park Facilities). (2) The second proposed amendment to the ordinance is as follows. Tourist development tax revenues are utilized in four separate categories. One of these categories, Category "A" (beach and beach park facilities), has a Board approved Funding Policy. Tourist Development Tax Ordinance No. 92-60 makes no reference to any such Policy. order to put both the public and future staff on notice of the existence of such a policy, t nty Attorney recommends the Board adopt the following reference to the Policy in the or ce: 8. (3) The third proposed amendment is af~clean-up" item.il(i0ollier County's Tourist Development Tax Ordinance No. 92-60, as amende~l, autlJ.g~zes the<use of tourist development taxes for "County owned or operated museums"a.nd "Mllpicipal owne(:lmuseums and museums owned and operated by not for profit organizatigns operi to the publ The language differs slightly from the Tourist D~~elOPrnem Tax statute,..~~ctionilt5.0 4(5)(a)l, which authorizes expenditures for "museums that are publicly own~~.iand oper~t<1d or owned and operated by not- for-profit organizations a d open tolthe public." The County Attorney and the Clerk of Courts' Office have had several ssio to whether tHe statute preempts the County Ordinance and if so whetherthisimpacts arty> e 'ents ofTnC funding. The County Attorney sees no benefit to the County arising from this r change to the statute, and recommends simply adoptin e language of the statute into to ordinance, which fully alleviates the concerns that have be raised. Accordingly, thec;ounty Attorney recommends amending the definition of Category "(C" to adopt the statutory language and proposes to amend Section Three - Uses of Tax Revenue - Category C, as follows: CATEGORY C - To acquil'~,Construct, extend, enlarge, remodel, repair, improve, maintain, op\eJ,'ategJ,'promote one or more County owned eF and operated museums er-anciimunicipal owned museums or museums that are publicly owned and operated or owned and operated by not-for-profit organizations and open to the public, within the boundaries of the county or subcounty special taxing district in which the tax is levied. Tax revenues received pursuant to this Section may also be used for promotion of zoological parks that are publicly owned and operated or owned and operated by not- for-profit organizations and open to the public. However, these purposes may be implemented through service contracts and leases with lessees with sufficient expertise or financial capability to operate such facilities. CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-3 New Business 3of9 The definition for C-l would be amended as follows: County owned eF and operated museums, or museums owned by not-for-profit organizations and open to the public operated by the County through Board approved service contracts and leases: 22% The definition for C-2 would be amended as follows: MURieipal owned lffilseums and Mblseums owned ood operated by not f-or profit organizations open to the Pblblio All other qualified museums: 4;764% This change to the ordinance will not affect any currenlTunding. (4) Lastly, Sections 7 and 8, regarding additionali'lfurtds for destinatiop advertising have expired and as such, the County Attorney's Office recommends removin ese sections from the Ordinance. Each section was valid for one year following date of a ion on November 10, 2009. FISCAL IMP ACT: The cost to advertise th approximately $500 which funds are ayaila1:>l~:from Fun posed Ordinance Amendment IS 95 and 194, GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impactOI1ithe Growth Management Plan from this action. ADVISORY BOARDliIRECOMNIENDATIONS: Staff is recommending approval of these changes to both the CoasfalAdvis Committee and the Tourist Development Council (TDC), LEGAL e(!i)NSIDERATIONS:. .... iterrrhas been.ireviewed by the County Attorney, requires super majority vote, andisJegallysufficient for Board action. - JAK RECOMMENDATION: T(rapproveane authorize Staff to advertise proposed amendments to the Tourist Development Tax. Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended, amendments include (1) delineating the allocation of adrninistrative costs in support of Fund 194 Tourism Promotion, Fund 195 Beaches, and Fund l$ipiBeach Park Facilities, (2) incorporating into the ordinance the Category "A" Funding Policy approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and directing that the Funding Policy beiinclUded in the Collier County Administrative Code, (3) incorporating provisions of Section 125.0104(5)(A)I, Fla. Stat., relating to the use of Category "C" funds for museums, and (4) removing expired provisions pertaining to the use of certain revenues for tourism destination marketing. SUBMITTED BY: Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Jack Wert, Tourism Director Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-3 New Business 4of9 ORDINANCE NO. 2011 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 92-60, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE LEVY OF A 2% TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX, AN ADDITIONAL 1 % TAX (3RD PERCENT), AND AN ADDITIONAL 1% TAX (4TH PERCENT) THROUGHOUT COLLIER COUNTY PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL OPTION TOURIST DEVELOPMENT ACT, SECTION 125.0104, FLORIDA STATUTES, AS AMENDED; SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SECTION THREE, USES OF TAXES, CODIFIED IN SECTION 126-83 OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, BY 1) INCORPORATING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 125.0104 (5)(A)1, FLORIDA STATUTES, RELATING TO THE USE OF CATEGORY "C" FUNDS FOR MUSEUMS; 2) DELINEATING THE ALLOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR TOURISM PROMOTION AND BEACH PARK FACILITIES AND BEACH IMPROVEMENTS; 3) REMOVING EXPIRED PROVISIONS PERTAINING THE USE OF CERTAIN REVENUES FOR TOURISM DESTINATION MARKETING; AND 4) INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE THE CATEGORY "A" FUNDING POLICY APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Section 125.0104, Florida Statutes, provides for the levy of a local option tourist development tax by any county; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted Ordinance No. 92-60, which levied and imposed a 2% tourist development tax throughout Collier County for the purposes permitted in Section 125.0104, Florida Statutes, as amended; and WHEREAS, through adoption of Ordinance No. 95-56 and Ordinance No. 2005-43, the Board leyied an additional 3rd and 4th percent tourist deyelopment tax; and WHEREAS, on November 10, 2009, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2009-58 which for a period of one year, or until November 10, 2010, reallocated certain tourist development tax revenues for use in tourism destination marketing; and WHEREAS, the Board, by an extraordinary vote, desires to amend Section Three of Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended, in order to: 1) incorporate provisions of Section 125,0104 (5)(a)l, Florida Statutes, relating to the use of Category "C" funds for museums; 2) delineate the allocation of administrative costs for tourism promotion and beach park facilities and beach improvements; 3) remove expired provisions pertaining to the use of revenues for tourism Words Underlined are added; Words Struek ThrElugh are deleted. Page I of6 CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-3 New Business 5of9 destination marketing; and 4) incorporate by reference the Category "A" Funding Policy as approved by the Board of County Commissioners ; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments were presented to and approved by the Collier County Tourist Development Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION THREE OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-60, AS AMENDED. Section Three - Uses of Tax Revenues. a) The tax revenues received pursuant to this division shall be used to fund the County Tourist Development Plan, which is hereby amended as follows: ************** (1) The categories of use of the two percent and one percent (3rd percent) and additional one percent (4th percent) tax revenues by specific project or special use are hereby listed in the order of priority: CATEGORY A To finance beach park facilities or beach improvement, maintenance, renourishment, restoration and erosion control, including pass and inlet maintenance, shoreline protection, enhancement, cleanup or restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public access as these uses relate to the physical preservation of the beach, shoreline or inland lake or river. Percentage of Net revenue 50% of the 2% tax and 100% of the 1% tax (3rd percent), reduced by the amount required for Category D. CATEGORY B To promote and advertise county tourism within the State of Florida, nationally and internationally, which encourages tourism with an emphasis on off-season visitors to Collier County and to fund convention bureaus, tourist bureaus, tourist information centers and news bureaus as county agencies. If tax revenues are expended for an activity, service, venue or event, the activity, service, venue or event shall have as one of its main purposes the attraction of tourists as evidenced by the promotion of the activity, service, venue or event to tourists. Words Underlined are added; Words Struelc Through are deleted. Page 2 of6 CATEGORYC- CATEGORY D - CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-3 New Business 6of9 Percentage of Net revenue 23.236% of the 2% tax and 100% of the additional 1 % tax (4th percent). To acquire, construct, extend, enlarge, remodel, repair, improve, maintain, operate or promote one or more County owned eF and operated museums eF and munioipal owned museums or museums that are publicly owned and operated or owned and operated by not-for-profit organizations and open to the public, within the boundaries of the county or subcounty special taxing district in which the tax is levied. Tax revenues received pursuant to this Section may also be used for promotion of zoological parks that are publicly owned and operated or owned and operated by not-for-profit organizations and open to the public. However, these purposes may be implemented through service contracts and leases with lessees with sufficient expertise or financial capability to operate such facilities. Percentage of Net revenue 26.764% of the 2% tax. This amount may be amended upwardly or downwardly prospectively from the date of the budget amendment approval, provided that the amount of the aggregate allocation per fiscal year budget amendment does not exceed 26.764% of the 2% tax, Sub-categories: C(I): County owned eF and operated Museums, or museums owned by not-for-profit organizations and open to the public operated by the County through Board approved service contracts and leases: 22% C(2): Muni0ipal owned museums and Mblseums oVflled and operated by not for profit organizations open to the f*lblie All other qualified museums: 4.764% To acquire, construct, extend, enlarge, remodel, repair, improve, maintain, operate or promote one or more fishing piers which are publicly owned and operated. Words Underlined are added; Words Struck Through are deleted. Page 3 of6 CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-3 New Business 7of9 Percentage of Net revenue Amount budgeted for this Category by the Board of County Commissioners each fiscal year, but not to exceed $200,000. This amount may be amended upwardly or downwardly prospectively from the date of the budget amendment approval, provided that the amount of the aggregate allocation per fiscal year does not exceed $200,000. It is the intent of this division that the above uses shall be funded separately, but simultaneously in the above percentages regardless of the actual amount of net revenues collected. ************** (3) The additional one percent tax (4th percent) collected pursuant to section TWO (G) shall be used entirely to finance tourism promotion including advertising, public relations, promotion, research and fulfillment. Tourism promotion administrative costs shall not eJweed 32 % of the total amount oolleoted eaoh fisoal yea:r for Category B uses and shall be finanoed solely from the 23.236%, portion of the 2~( tax. The Disaster Recover Advertising Fund will continue to be financed from the 23.236% of the 2% tax to maintain a maximum level of $1 million, At the end of each fiscal year, any remaining funds in the 23.236% of the 2% tax after fulfillment of the above uses in the 23,236% of the 2% tax will be distributed to Category "B" (Marketing and Promotion). It is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners to maintain this new level of tourism promotion dollars in the future. 4. Administrative costs. a, Tourism promotion administrative costs shall not exceed 32% of the total amount collected each fiscal year for Category "B" revenue, b. Proiect Management Indirect Overhead, and Program Administration in support of Fund 195 (Beaches) and Fund 183 (Beach Park Facilities) shall not exceed 15% of Category "A" revenues. These charges to be split 75% to Fund 195 (Beaches) and 25% to Fund 183 (Beach Park Facilities). 4,. .i. The revenues to be derived from the tourist development tax may be pledged to secure and liquidate revenue bonds in accordance with the provisions of Section 125,0104, Florida Statutes. Such revenue bonds and revenue refunding bonds may be authorized and issued in such principal amounts, with such interest rates and maturity dates, and subject to such other terms, conditions and covenants as the governing board of Collier County shall provide. This paragraph shall be full and complete authority for accomplishing such purposes, but such authority shall be supplemental and additional to, and not in derogation of, any powers now existing or later conferred under law. Words Underlined are added; Words Struolc Through are deleted. Page 4 of6 CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-3 New Business 8of9 ~ 6. The event bonds are issued by Collier County for any of the purposes enumerated by the Tourist Development Plan, the amount of tourist development tax receipts used to pay debt service on such bonds may exceed the percentages provided for the purpose for which such bonds were issued; provided, however, the maximum annual debt service on such bonds, together with any other obligations of Collier County which were issued to finance improvements for the same purpose and which are secured by the tourist development tax, must not exceed the stated percentage of tourist development tax receipts provided in the Tourist Development Plan for such purposes, as calculated as of the date of sale of such bonds. For purposes of performing the calculations described in this paragraph, the amount of tourist development tax receipts shall be assumed to be the amount provided as such in Collier County's immediately preceding annual audit, plus, if the levy of such tax was imposed or increased subsequent to the beginning of the period which was audited, an amount equal to the estimate by the County Manager of the moneys the County would have received if the tax imposition or increase had been in effect during the entire audit period. At or prior to the issuance of bonds the County Manager shall provide a certificate as to the findings required in this paragraph, which certificate shall be conclusive as to all matters provided herein. &.- L The sum of $1 ,000,000 annually allocated for Category "A" - Beach Park Facilities Fund 183 shall be reallocated to Fund 184 to be used for destination marketing for a period of one year from enactment of this amendment, at which time this provision will expire and be of no further force or effect unless further extended by the Board of County Commissioners, 7. The sum of $500,000 annually allooated for Catastrophe Reserves from County Fund 195 shall be reallocated to Fund 181 to be used for destination marketing for a period of one year from enactment of this amendment, at vihioh time this provision 'Nill expire and be of no further force or effeot unless further extended by the Board. 8. Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) of the Two million dollars ($2,000,000) that is annually allooated for Major Beaeh Renourishment Reserves from County Fbll'l.d 195 shall be reallooated to Fund 1 g 1 to be blsed for destination marketing for a period of one year from enactment of this amendment, at whioh time this provision '.",ill expire and be of no further foroe or effect unless further extended by the Board. 8. The currently existing Category "A" Funding Policv, as approved by the Board of County Commissioners, is incorporated and referenced herein. This Category "A" Funding Policy shall be included within the Collier County Administrative Code, and may only be amended by the Board of County Commissioners. 9. The above and foregoing Tourist Development Plan may not be substantially amended except by ordinance enacted by an affirmative vote of a majority plus one additional member of the Board of County Commissioners. Words Underlined are added; Words Struek Through are deleted. Page 5 of6 CAC September 3, 2011 VIII-3 New Business 9of9 SECTION TWO: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of the Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, The sections of the Ordinances may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by a vote of a majority plus one of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _day of , 2011. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: , Deputy Clerk By: FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Colleen M. Greene Assistant County Attorney Words Underlined are added; Words Struck ThrougH are deleted. Page 6 of6 CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-4 New Business 1 of6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Obtain a recommendation of approval from the Coastal Advisory Committee to solicit an RFP for Engineering Consultants as required to provide: 1. Design Engineering and Permitting for the renourishment of the Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches, and 2. Design Engineering and Permitting for the Marco Island South beach. OBJECTIVE: Obtain a recommendation of approval from the Coastal Advisory Committee to Solicit an RFP for two coastal projects for Collier County. The two projects are: 1. Design Engineering and Permitting for the renourishment of the Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches. 2. Design Engineering and Permitting for the Marco Island South beach. CONSIDERATIONS: An RFP solicitation for engineering services is now required for any capital project that will result in a construction contract of $2M or greater. Both the Marco South Renourishment and the Renourishment project for the Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches will result in large construction contracts and an RFP solicitation is required. The basis for this solicitation is attached but generally covers detailed Design Engineering and permitting. Conceptual scope definition is currently being performed by Coastal Engineering for the Marco South project and Coastal Planning and Engineering for the main Collier County beach renourishment project. It is anticipated that two separate engineering firms will be awarded contracts from this one RFP solicitation. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff is recommending approval of this item. FISCAL IMPACT: The Source of funds is from Category "A" Tourist Development Tax fund 195. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. This item is not quasi-judicial, and as such ex parte disclosure is not required. This item requires majority vote only. This item is legally sufficient for Board action. - CMG CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-4 New Business 2of6 RECOMMENDATION: Obtain a recommendation of approval from the Coastal Advisory Committee to solicit an RFP for Engineering Consultants as required to provide Design Engineering and Permitting for the renourishment of the Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches, and Design Engineering and Permitting for the Marco Island South beach. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, PE CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-4 New Business 3of6 8/15/2011 Solicitation is an RFP for two coastal projects for Collier County. The two projects are: 1. Design Engineering and Permitting for the renourishment of the Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches. 2. Design Engineering and Permitting for the Marco Island South beach. Specifics of these projects are as follows: Renourishment of the Barefoot. Vanderbilt. Clam Pass. Park Shore and Naples beaches Coastal Planning and Engineering has completed the conceptual design for the Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches. A draft ofthe conceptual design report is attached. Construction of this project is expected to begin 11/1/2013 and be completed by 5/1/2014. This project is expected to be coordinated and bid with the Captiva Erosion Control District project that is being developed in conjunction with this project. A construction budget of $25M has been established for this project. However scope adjustments will be most likely be required as state and federal funding sources are resolved. This RFP will select a consultant that will complete the execution of this project consistent with the conceptual design to include but not limited to: 1. Pre-application meeting with FDEP 2. Pre-construction survey to include beach, side scan and environmental aerials 3, Pre-construction biological reef and hardbottom monitoring and report 4, Hardbottom mapping and ground truthing 5, Pipeline corridor mapping . Three new routes (environmental clearing) · Operational Areas for Booster Pumps - possibility ofthree new locations . New Hardbottom Clearing for Barefoot Beach 6. Special design Survey for structures, Eel and 3D design . Design survey R8 to R85 . Survey and process ECl (Barefoot and Clam Pass Park) . Survey new structural foundation areas for erosion control structures . Survey intermediate lines for 3D design around hardbottom . Borrow area survey 7. 3D Design/Plans Update (area around hardbottom) and new reaches . Clam Pass Park and Barefoot Beach . Address Hot Spots and hardbottom avoidance with intermediate lines . Permit sketches 8. Engineer and design structural modifications or additions 9. Specifications CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-4 New Business 4of6 10. Prepare MMS Environmental assessment 11. Prepare and submit permit modifications to 2005 permit and permit sketches . Environmental Sections changes as a result of learning's since 2005 . Geological sections (with OA/QC Plan) learning's since 2005 . Engineering sections justifications for varying width and height requirements . Year-round renourishment condition inclusion into the permit . Agency visits . Others 12, RAI cycle and meetings 13. Update Biological and physical monitoring plans 14. UMAM assessment of hardbottom coverage 15, Essential Fish Habitat report 16, Biological assessment 17. Bid documents and bidding support 18. Permit modification to the Doctors Pass dredging permit to change the disposal site for beach sand placement to R57 to R59. 19. Coordination with Captiva Erosion Control District. 20, Construction contract inspection and monitoring (1 day per week) 21. Construction contract volume adjustment by segment and reach. 22, Attendance at weekly coordination meetings 23. Pipeline corridor monitoring during construction 24, Post-construction surveys 25, Record drawings and certification report 26. Agency coordination to include but not limited to National Marine Fisheries, FWS and FWC. 27. County and contractor coordination 28. USACE permit modification and coordination in conjunction with the FDEP permit modification, A detailed design schedule based on activities outlined above is expected as part of the submittal package. Collier County has expended considerable resources in the development of a conceptual design that balances needs for more robust and longer lasting renourishments with available resources. Consultant will need to document success in the completion of engineering and permitting activities from a third party conceptual design. Examples of successful project implementation along with key project personnel proposed will be critical to the selection of this consultant. CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-4 New Business 5of6 Renourishment of the Marco Island South beach. Coastal Engineering Consultants has completed the conceptual design for the Marco Island South Beach project. A preliminary copy of the conceptual design report is attached. Renourishment of the beach is expected to begin 11/1/2012 and be completed by 5/1/2013. Rebuilding ofthe three existing breakwaters along with the two existing T-Groins can follow the renourishment if permits for this activity are not obtained in time for concurrent construction. If additional structures are recommended, a schedule for permitting and construction will need to be established independently. Renourishment of approximately 104,000 Cy's of beach compatible sand to restore approximately 4,400 feet of beach is anticipated. Rebuilding the five erosion control structures is also included in the scope of this project. Scope adjustments will be most likely be required as state and federal funding sources are resolved. This RFP will select a consultant that will complete the execution of this project consistent with the conceptual design to include but not limited to: 1. Pre-application meeting with FDEP 2, Pre-construction beach and structure survey including site aerials 3. Special design Survey for structures, ECl and 3D design . Design survey R144 to G2 . Survey and process ECl if required · Survey new structural foundation areas for erosion control structures if recommended in the project scope. . Borrow area survey 4. Engineer and design structural modifications or additions 5, Specifications 6. Prepare and submit permit application and permit sketches . Year-round renourishment condition inclusion into the permit . Agency visits, if required . RAI cycle and meetings 7. Update to biological monitoring; sediment OA/QC plan and the physical monitoring plan 8. Essential Fish Habitat report 9. Biological assessment 10. Bid documents and bidding support 11. Construction contract inspection and monitoring (1 day per week) 12, Attendance at weekly coordination meetings 13. Post-construction surveys 14. Record drawings and certification report 15. Agency coordination to include but not limited to National Marine Fisheries, FWS and FWC. 16. Coordination with City of Marco Island and Marco Island Beach Committee 17. County and contractor coordination CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-4 New Business 6of6 18. USACE permit modification and coordination in conjunction with new FDEP permit. A detailed design schedule based on activities outlined above is expected as part of the submittal package. Collier County has expended considerable resources in the development of a conceptual design that balances needs for more robust and longer lasting renourishments with available resources. Consultant will need to document success in the completion of engineering and permitting activities from a third party conceptual design, Examples of successful project implementation along with key project personnel proposed will be critical to the selection of this consultant. CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-5 New Business 1 of6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to award a $126,000 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants for the design and permitting required to obtaining a FDEP permit for the 2012 Marco South Beach renourishment project along with modifications to the existing USACE permit. OBJECTIVE: To award a $126,000 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants for the design and permitting required to obtaining a FDEP permit for the 2012 Marco South Beach renourishment project along with modifications to the existing USACE permit. CONSIDERATION: Collier County will renourish the Marco South Beach by placing 104,000 CY's of beach compatible sand dredged out ofCaxambas Pass on the southernmost 4,400 LF of beach, The Southernmost 4,400 LF of Marco Island beach is designated as Critically Eroded by FDEP. The South Marco beach between R144 and G-2 has been renourished in 1990, 1997 and 2006. The worst erosion in this segment is the last 2,000 feet between R147 and G2. Tropical Storm Fay severely eroded this beach when it made landfall in August 2008. Collier County was successful in obtaining federal disaster assistance to renourish this beach. 77,000 CY's of beach fill was authorized for an estimated total project cost of $2,822,578. FEMA's portion with a 75% reimbursement will max out at $2,116.933 if additional scope amendments are not authorized. At Collier County's request, FEMA has extended the expiration date for this authorization twice. The current expiration date is August 2012. Staff believes that in the current national political environment, there will be no will to extend the project authorization any farther or fund mitigation strategies that will reduce emergency renourishments in the future, With that said Staff is recommending that we proceed immediately to issue a Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants for the project design and permitting to FDEP and provide modifications to the existing USACE permit as necessary to support an August 2012 completion date. Time is of the essence and the permit application is the critical path to completing this project by August 2012. To be successful, the permits must be issued, the construction completed and the invoicing completed to FEMA by August 2012. This effort represents a $750,000-$1,000,000 reimbursement to the County. A copy of their proposal is attached, FISCAL IMPACT: $126,000 is estimated to perform these activities, The Source of funds is from Category A Tourist Development Tax fund 195, GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of this request. CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-5 New Business 2of6 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The TDC and the BCC should make a finding that this project and expenditure will promote tourism in Collier County. This item requires majority vote and is legally sufficient for Board action. - CMG RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation to award a $126,000 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants for the design and permitting required to obtaining a FDEP permit for the 2012 Marco South Beach renourishment project along with modifications to the existing USACE permit. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, PE - Coastal Zone Management CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-5 New Business 3of6 Collier County South Marco Beach Renourishment CEC Contract No. 09-5262 Design and Permit Processing Scope of Work SCHEDULE "A" WORK ORDER NO.2 Collier County proposes to place approximately 104,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sediment excavated from the Caxambas Pass borrow area to restore approximately 4,400 feet along South Marco Island. The proposed beach fill falls within the 2006 project limits, as previously permitted by JCP0235209-001-JC (FDEP) and SAJ-2005-2726 (IP-MN) (USACE), The FDEP Permit expired in 2010, thus new state approvals are necessary for the Project. The USACE Permit expires in 2021; however a modification is necessary to authorize construction during sea turtle nesting season, The County proposes the Project for the primary purposes of restoring storm protection, natural resource habitats, and recreational beach areas to offset the storm damage caused by Tropical Storm Fay in 2008. Post-storm surveys and analyses documented approximately 77,000 cubic yards eroded within the permitted fill template. The County is seeking federal reimbursement as defined in FEMA Project Worksheet, Declaration No. 1785DRFL. This scope of services defines Final Design and Permit Processing related services associated with the beach fill placement only. No design or permitting of structural repairs or new structures is included in the services at this time. TASK 2: USACE PERMIT MODIFICATION LETTER Based upon the Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion for Beach Placement in Florida (SPBO), CEC will prepare for County review and approval, a letter report rendering a professional opinion specific to how the Project qualifies for the SPBO. CEC shall incorporate County review comments and submit the letter report to the USACE along with a complete copy of the JCP Application (prepared under a prior work order). Within the submittal, CEC shall request the USACE expedite both coordination with the USFWS to deem the Project eligible for construction during sea turtle nesting season and issuance of a permit modification to adopt the SPBO into the federal authorization. TASK 3: PERMIT PROCESSING Subsequent to submittal of the permit application, CEC will serve as the County's agent for the permit process. CEC will pro actively engage FDEP and USACE staff to informally monitor the process, address staff questions, and facilitate agency consideration of the application. CEC will compile, clarify, and provide existing information as may be requested by FDEP and USACE staff. CEC will seek to negotiate permit conditions for the project that are acceptable to the County. For the purposes of this scope, it is expected that FDEP and USACE will make one (1) request for additional information (RAI) each, and that one (1) meeting will be required with FDEP staff in Tallahassee to favorably conclude the permit application. It is assumed that existing information (including design details/analysis) will be sufficient to meet permit application requirements with minor adjustments, clarifications, or analysis. If FDEP mandates additional surveys, geotechnical data, modeling analyses, or studies beyond those identified herein, CEC Page I of 4 September 7, 2011 CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-5 New Business 4of6 Collier County South Marco Beach Renourishment CEC Contract No. 09-5262 Design and Permit Processing Scope of Work will undertake these additional tasks under separate authorization as may subsequently be approved by the County. TASK 4: FINAL DESIGN Based on the permit processing results including comments received from the agencies, accepted preliminary design documents, and the 2011-12 annual monitoring surveys (beach profiles, inlet, shoals, etc. to be performed by the County's other consultants), CEC will prepare for review and approval by the County, construction plans and technical specifications to show the general scope, character and extent of the work to be furnished and performed by the contractor. CEC shall design the final beach fill and borrow area including horizontal and vertical control, survey baseline, construction access and staging area, beach fill limits, design fill templates, pipeline corridors, borrow area limits, dredge templates, mixing zones, and construction quantities. TASK 5: BID AND CONTRACT PROCUREMENT PROCESS CEC shall prepare a Final Opinion of Probable Construction Cost. CEC shall prepare supplemental conditions and bid schedule forms for inclusion in the Bid Documents. CEC shall assist the County in coordinating a one-time bid process. These services will include attending one meeting as requested by the County, e.g., pre-bid meeting; assisting the County issue addenda as appropriate to interpret, clarify or expand the Bid Documents; assisting the County in obtaining bids from dredging contractors; assisting the County in evaluating the bids; and making a recommendation for award to the lowest responsive bidder. CEC provide technical support to the County during the construction contract procurement process, request and obtain permit required items from the contractor, and coordinate the Notice to Proceed from the FDEP. TASK 6: PROJECT ADMINISTRATION & CLIENT COORDINATION This task includes coordination with the County including routine meetings (5 budgeted); stakeholder meetings (2 budgeted); routine email updates to the County; and written or phone correspondence in reference to the Project beyond the scope of tasks described above. TASK 7: CONTINGENCIES Due to the complex nature of the work involving marine environments, it is anticipated that additional work may be necessary such as field work, stakeholders meetings, or agency coordination. A contingency budget is recommended for these circumstances. ASSUMPTIONS The scope and budget estimates for the Project are based on the following assumptions. I. Annual Monitoring Surveys The County shall provide the following survey/monitoring deliverables for use by CEC in the Project design by March 1, 2012 in order to provide sufficient time for preparation of the construction plans required by FDEP as a condition of Notice to Proceed: · controlled (scale rectified) digital photography, · current beach profile, borrow area, inlet, and shoal survey data as xyz files in Excel or similar file format, and · survey certification and monitoring report. Page 2 of 4 September 7,2011 CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-5 New Business 5of6 Collier County South Marco Beach Renourishment CEC Contract No. 09-5262 Design and Permit Processing Scope of Work No beach, inlet and shoal, or borrow area bathymetric survey data collection is included in the scope. II. Borrow Area The borrow area shall be the previously permitted Caxambas Pass Borrow Area. In recognition of the three prior successful projects (1990-91, 1997 and 2006), and due to the time constraints, it is assumed that no geotechnical testing, i.e. vibracoring, will be required, thus none is proposed in this scope. The borrow area design shall include the magnetic anomaly buffer area previously identified and incorporated into the 2006 project, thus no magnetometer survey is proposed in the design phase. If deemed necessary during the design phase, in recognition of the time constraint, this survey could be conducted as a pre-construction requirement. Because the County has previously permitted this borrow area and utilized it successfully for a sand source, it is assumed that wave refraction analyses to verify that no adverse impacts to adjacent shorelines will occur from borrow area excavation will not be required thus none are proposed in this scope. III. Beach Fill Because this is the next maintenance cycle of the existing permitted Project, CEC bases this scope on the following assumptions: · The Project has an established Erosion Control Line for the entire shoreline to be renourished, and · The County has its own property or has obtained construction easements from private upland property owners for construction access and staging and to allow for placement and maintenance of beach fill and coastal structures upland of the ECL. IV. Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion The federal authorization permit modification process scope and budget are based on the assumption that the Project qualifies under the SPBO and that Project will be eligible for construction during sea turtle nesting season. v. Miscellaneous A. The County shall provide the following: · Funding related tasks (FEMA coordination, public access requirements, etc.), · Agency related permit processing fees, · Construction Access / Staging area agreements if required, · Local approval by the Board of County Commissioners and Marco Island City Council for construction during sea turtle nesting season, and · Public Noticing requirements for permit issuance. B. Construction Services shall be provided under subsequent work order(s). Page 3 of 4 September 7,2011 CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-5 New Business 6of6 Collier County South Marco Beach Renourishment CEC Contract No. 09-5262 Design and Permit Processing Scope of Work BUDGET TASK DESCRIPTION TIME AND MATERIALS 2 USACE Permit Modification Letter $ 7,000 3 Permit Processing $ 62,000 4 Final Design $ 19,000 5 Bid and Contract Procurement Process $ 8,000 6 Proiect Administration $ 10,000 7 Contingencies $ 20,000 Total $126,000 Page 4 of 4 September 7, 2011 CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-6 New Business 1 of 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to award an $18,650 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants for construction support and project certification for the Collier Bay dredging project. OBJECTIVE: To award an $18,650 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants for construction support and project certification for the Collier Bay dredging project. CONSIDERATION: Construction administration, observation and monitoring on this project will be performed by Collier County's Coastal Zone Management staff. However, certain activities are required by FDEP permit to be performed by the Engineer of Record. Substantial completion verification, final inspection verification, final certification to FDEP and the monitoring report will need to be performed by Coastal Engineering Consultants A copy of their proposal is attached. FISCAL IMPACT: $18,650 is estimated to perform these activities. The Source of funds is from Category A Tourist Development Tax fund 195. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Conceptual approval of this project was granted by the CAC on 4/14/2011 by unanimous vote. Unanimous conceptual approval was also granted by the TDC on 5/27/2011. Staff is recommending approval of this request. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The TDC and the BCC should make a finding that this project and expenditure will promote tourism in Collier County. This item requires majority vote and is legally sufficient for Board action. - CMG RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation to award an $18,650 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants for construction support and project certification for the Collier Bay dredging project. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, PE - Coastal Zone Management CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-6 New Business 2of5 Collier County Collier Bay Dredging Construction Administration CEC Contract No. 09-5262 Scope of Work SCHEDULE "A" WORK ORDER NO.1 Collier County is proceeding with an emergency dredge project of the entrance channel to Collier Bay. The project includes excavating approximately 10,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand from tHe previously permitted borrow area and placing the sand along the previously permitted beach fill on Hideaway Beach. The primary purpose of the project is to restore safe navigation by removing the shoal that has created hazardous conditions for the boating community. CEC proposes the following scope of work to assist the Coastal Zone Management Department (CZM) administer the Contractor's construction contract. TASK 1 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION A. Contractor Pre-Construction Conference Attend one pre-construction conference with the County and Contractor covering contract obligations, construction plans, general and special conditions, and technical specifications. Record and distribute the minutes of the meeting. B. Agency Pre-Construction Meeting Arrange, prepare for, and attend one agency required pre-construction meeting with the County, Contractor, DEP, FWC and permitted sea turtle monitor to review construction schedule and methods and explain or clarify the sea turtle protection measures. C. Work Plan and Submittal Forms Review the Contractor's work plan and submittal forms (e.g. turbidity, daily qa-qc) to determine compliance with the plans and specifications. Upon completion of the review, submit to the County in writing recommended changes or a written approval of the Contractor's work plan, and submittal forms. Review one round of work plan revisions from the Contractor. D. Construction Progress Meetings Attend construction progress meetings with the County and Contractor on average once every two weeks covering work progress and schedule, conformance to plans and specifications, and other relevant issues that need to be addressed. Record and distribute the minutes of each meeting. The budget includes senior engineer representation at up to five (5) on-site construction progress meetings and site observations. E. Pay Applications Review invoices for payment submitted by the Contractor along with daily records of the County, Contractor and Engineer and surveys provided by the Contractor, and determine the amounts of progress payments due based on completion of work as requested by the County. Upon completion of review, submit recommendations to County for payment of invoices to the Contractor. The budget includes up to three (3) reviews. Alternately, the County may request the Engineer perform other records reviews such as daily reports or turbidity monitoring reports. Page 1 of 3 September 1, 2011 CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-6 New Business 3 of 5 Collier County Collier Bay Dredging Construction Administration CEC Contract No. 09-5262 Scope of Work F. Change Orders and Contract Modifications Assist the County prepare required field changes, change orders, or contract modifications requested by the Contractor and submit to the County for approval. G. Interpretation of Contract Documents Provide to the Contractor instructions issued by the County in addition to providing any necessary interpretations or clarifications of the contract documents requested by the Contractor. Make determinations on non-conforming and unauthorized work as authorized in the contract documents. H. Substantial Completion Upon receiving written notice from the County that the Project is substantially complete, conduct a one-time comprehensive review of the Project, prepare a punch list of items needing completion or correction, forward said list to the County and Contractor, and provide written recommendations to the County concerning the acceptability of work done and the use of the Project. I. Final Inspection Upon receiving written notice from the County that the Project is finally complete, perform final site observations in conjunction with the County to verify the punch list has been completed and the Project is ready for its intended use, and assist the County in closing out the construction contract. J. Final Certification Prepare and submit the agency required Final Certifications. The Construction Administration budget is based on a 75 day construction window. TASK 2 PHYSICAL MONITORING REPORT Utilizing the survey data and certifications provided by the Contractor's surveyor, prepare and submit to CZM a draft Physical Monitoring Report in accordance with the DEP Permit. Upon receipt of written comments from CZM, finalize and submit the Report to DEP. COUNTY / CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES The scope of services and budget are based on the County providing the following: . Sediment QA-QC Monitoring as required by the DEP Permit (County) Turbidity Monitoring as required by the DEP Permit (Contractor) Sea Turtle Monitoring as required by the DEP and USFWS Biological Opinion (County) Shorebird Monitoring as required by the DEP and USFWS Biological Opinion (County) DEP Reporting (e.g. Turbidity, Tilling, Sediment QA-QC) (County and Contractor) . . . . Page 2 of 3 September 1, 2011 CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-6 New Business 4of5 Collier County Collier Bay Dredging Construction Administration CEC Contract No. 09-5262 Scope of Work · Physical Monitoring Surveys and Surveyor's Report/Certification as required by the DEP Permit (Contractor) · Survey Data for the channel and beach fill shall be provided in e-format such as x,y,z file format (Contractor) BUDGET TASK DESCRIPTION FEE 1 Construction Administration $ 13,660 3 Physical Monitoring Report $ 4,990 Total $ 18,650 Page 3 of3 September 1, 2011 ~ ;; N Ul - Ul co Q) ~ C Q) "- .n Ul E&l 2 ~ c.Q) ~z u<ol.O <C~o U>I.O s::: o .- - CU :10,. - tn .- s::: .- E "'C tn <( Q) s::: Q) OU- .- -"'C o Q) :]- :10,. CU U) E s:::; o tn OW 0).... s::: 0 .- > 0):10,. "'C CU ~ E c E ~ ..- > :] ..- cucn..- m"'C 05 :10,. Q) Z C\J Cl) = 0)"': := m u:: ~ '0 Ci)()~ o C~! U) Cii - (5 l:: I- eu - - :::::J U) l:: o U o 0)0 l:: ('j lo... Q) Q) l:: 0) l:: W eu - U) eu o U OJ 1;; '" o () -"" Ul ro I- -"" Ul ro :a ::> rJJ <; "" " (fJ OJ a. "<3 t: d: OJ a. -<3 t: (t OJ a. "<3 t: ~ MO 1.0 (') as ~ o <0 C\jC\l.. ~ o ~~ ~ o <0 ;'(j_ '" <fl o -.r~ 1.0 as <fl o oal "'", <fl rJl2 .... Ul :::l 0 ~() -lii ro..... ..... 0 ~I- o III 10 as .... ~ o 1.0 <0 as ~ o o (') <fl o co I'- <fl o co I'- <fl N <0 N to '" o t> l:! 'E o u >- 'E ::J o U ~ "0 u CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-7 New Business 1 of4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to award an $20,000 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants develop and submit the JCP permit application to FDEP for the 2012 Marco South Beach renourishment project. OBJECTIVE: To award a $20,000 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants to develop and submit a JCP permit application to FDEP for the 2012 Marco South beach renourishment project. CONSIDERATION: Collier County will renourish the Marco South Beach by placing 104,000 CY's of beach compatible sand dredged out of Caxambas Pass on the southernmost 4,400 LF of beach. The Southernmost 4,400 LF of Marco Island beach is designated as Critically Eroded by FDEP. The South Marco Island Beach between R144 and G-2 has been renourished in 1990, 1997 and 2006. The worst erosion in this segment is the last 2,000 feet between R147 and G2. Tropical Storm Fay severely eroded this beach when it made landfall in August, 2008. Collier County was successful in obtaining federal disaster assistance to renourish this beach, 77,000 CY's of beach fill was authorized for an estimated total project cost of $2,822,578. FEMA's portion with a 75% reimbursement will max out at $2,116.933 if additional scope amendments are not authorized. At Collier County's request, FEMA has extended the expiration date for this authorization twice. The current expiration date is August 2012. Staff believes that in the current national political environment, there will be no will to extend the project authorization any farther or fund mitigation strategies that will reduce emergency renourishments in the future. With that said, Staff is recommending that we proceed immediately to issue a Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants to develop and submit the JCP permit application for this project. Time is of the essence and the permit application is the critical path to completing this project by August 2012. To be successful, the permits must be issued, the construction completed and the invoicing completed to FEMA by August 2012. This effort represents a $750,000-$1,000,000 reimbursement to the County. This approach will allow Collier County to issue a work order and Notice-to-Proceed immediately to Coastal Engineering Consultants for this work. A copy of their proposal is attached. FISCAL IMPACT: $20,000 is estimated to perform these activities. The Source of funds is from Category A Tourist Development Tax fund 195. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-7 New Business 2of4 ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of this request. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The TDC and the BCC should make a finding that this project and expenditure will promote tourism in Collier County. This item requires majority vote and is legally sufficient for Board action. - CMG RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation to award a $20,000 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants to develop and submit a JCP permit application to FDEP for the 2012 Marco South beach renourishment project. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, PE - Coastal Zone Management CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-7 New Business 3of4 Collier County South Marco Beach Renourishment CEC Contract No. 09-5262 JCP Application Scope of Work SCHEDULE" A" WORK ORDER NO.1 Collier County proposes to place approximately 104,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sediment excavated from the Caxambas Pass borrow area to restore approximately 4,400 feet along South Marco Island. The proposed beach fill falls within the 2006 project limits, as previously permitted by JCP0235209-001-JC (FDEP) and SAJ-2005-2726 (IP-MN) (USACE). The FDEP Permit expired in 2010, thus new state approvals are necessary for the Project. The USACE Permit expires in 2021; however a modification is necessary to authorize construction during sea turtle nesting season. The County proposes the Project for the primary purposes of restoring storm protection, natural resource habitats, and recreational beach areas to offset the storm damage caused by Tropical Storm Fay in 2008. Post-storm surveys and analyses documented approximately 77,000 cubic yards eroded within the permitted fill template. The County is seeking federal reimbursement as defined in FEMA Project Worksheet, Declaration No. 1785DRFL. This scope of services defines the Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) Application preparation related services associated with the beach fill placement only. TASK 1: JCP PERMIT APPLICATION (FDEP) CEC shall arrange, prepare for, and attend via teleconference or webinar a pre-application meeting with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Based upon the 2006 project permits from the FDEP and USACE and USFWS Biological Opinion and results of the pre-application meeting, CEC shall prepare for County review and approval updates of the following Supporting Documents: · physical monitoring plan, · sediment QAlQC plan, · shorebird management plan, and · turbidity monitoring plan, CEC shall prepare for County review and approval, a draft JCP application for the FDEP authorizations required for the Project including an "Application for Joint Coastal Permitting, Authorization to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands, and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit" and a Public Easement or Consent of Use for the previously utilized pipeline corridor if necessary. The application shall include the following: · County provided documents (e.g, agent authorization letter, permit fees), · City of Marco Island consistency letter with comprehensive plan, · permit drawings, · sketch and legal description for previously utilized pipeline corridor, · analysis of potential Project related impacts to spawning marine fisheries for construction between May I st and October 31 s\ · coastal systems assessment (prepared under a prior work order), · alternatives analysis and modeling results (prepared under a prior work order), and Page I of2 September 7,2011 CAC September 8, 2011 VIII-7 New Business 4of4 Collier County South Marco Beach Renourishment CEC Contract No. 09-5262 JCP Application Scope of Work · existing historical geotechnical data for the native beach and borrow area from the prior projects, CEC will verify the JCP Application processing fee amount and notify the County when payment by the County is due to FDEP. In the application, CEC will request: · construction plans with updated survey data (within 6 months) be a condition for issuance of a "Notice to Proceed" following agency review and acceptance of the final design, · mixing zone within the fill area, and · waiver of dredge fees for use of borrow material obtained from sovereign lands. CEC shall incorporate County review comments and submit the JCP Application and Supporting Documents to the FDEP. ASSUMPTIONS The scope and budget estimates for the Project are based on the following assumptions. A. The County shall provide the following: · Permit Fees, . Public Noticing, and . Agent Authorization Letter. B. Final Design, Permit Processing, and Construction Services shall be provided under subsequent work order(s). BUDGET DESCRIPTION JCP Permit A lication (FDEP TIME & MATERIALS $ 20,000 Page 2 of2 September 7,2011 Board of Collier County Commissioners Donna Fiala District 1 Georgia A. Hiller, Esq. District 2 Tom Henning District 3 Fred W. Coyle District 4 Jim Coletta District 5 June 30, 2011 Mr. Anthony P. Pires, Jr, 209 Madison Drive Naples, Florida 34110 Reference: Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee Dear Mr. Pires: On September 21, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 2004-280 to recognize volunteers serving on Advisory Committees. The Board would like to recognize your dedicated service and commitment as a volunteer member on the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee. We have scheduled your IO-year service award ceremony for the Board of County Commissioners meeting on Tuesday, July 26, 2011 at 9:00 a,m. in the Board Chambers, 3rd Floor, W, lIarmon Turner Building, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, Florida. Congratulations and please e-mail me at ianmitchell0)colliergov.net or give me a call at (239) 252-8097 to confirm your attendance on July 26, 2011. Very truly yours, Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to BCC Board of County Commissioners 1M Cc: Gary McAlpin 3299 Tamiami Trail East. Suite 303 . Naples, Florida 34112-5746 . 239-252-8097 . FAX 239-252-3602