CAC Agenda 01/12/2012CAC
REGULAR
MEETING
AGENDA
JANUARY 12,2012
MEETING AGENDA AND NOTICE
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC)
THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS
THIRD FLOOR, COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
32•• TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES
•Sunshine Law on Agenda Questions
•2012 CAC MEETING DATES
IL Pledge of Allegiance
IA(tNIM# I K*1- I I
IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda
V. Public Comments
VI. Approval of CAC Minutes
1. November 10, 2011
VII. Staff Reports
1. Expanded Revenue Report
2. Project Cost Report
3. FDEP Naples Beach joint Permit/Storm Water Outfall Pipes Condition
4. FDEP Clam Bay Markers Status - Update
5. Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria Executive Summary
6. Collier Creek Dredging - Update
7. Conceptual Design Plan and Approach to BCC in March 2012
VIII. New Business
1. Clam Pass Joint Coastal Permit Work Order with Atkins North America
IX. Old Business
X. Announcements
XI. Committee Member Discussion
1. Wiggins Pass Channel Straightening - Update
XII. Next Meeting Date/Location
February, 9, 2012 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 Chair grants permission
for additional time.
Collier County Ordinance No. 99-22 requires that all lobbyists shall, before
engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the
Board of County Commissioners) before the Board of County Commissioners and
its advisory boards, register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and
Records Department.
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Anthony P. Pires,Jr., Esq.,Chairman
Coastal Advisory Committee Clam Bay Subcommittee
FROM: Colleen M. Greene, Assistant County Attome
DATE: March 18, 2010
RE: Sunshine Law and Agenda question
The issue presented is whether the Sunshine Law requires that an agenda be made available prior
to board meetings. In summary,the answer is no.
The Sunshine Law Manual(2009 Ed. Vol. 31)provides the following:
The Attorney General's Office recommends publication of an agenda, if available, in the notice
of the meeting;. if an agenda is not available, subject matter summations might be used.
However, the courts have held that the Sunshine Law does not mandate that an agency provide
notice of each item to be discussed via a published agenda. Such a specific requirement has been
rejected because it could effectively preclude access to meetings by members of the general
public who wish to bring specific issues before a governmental body. See Hough v. Stembridge,
278 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). And see Yarbrough v. Young, 462 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1985) (posted agenda unnecessary; public body not required to postpone meeting due to
inaccurate press report which was not part of the public body's official notice efforts). Thus, the
Sunshine Law has been interpreted to require notice of meetings, not of the individual items
which may be considered at that meeting. However, other statutes, codes or ordinances may
impose such a requirement and agencies subject to those provisions must follow them.
Accordingly, the Sunshine Law does not require boards to consider only those matters on a
published agenda. "[W]hether to impose a requirement that restricts every relevant commission
or board from considering matters not on an agenda is a policy decision to be made by the
legislature." Law and Information Services, Inc. v. City of Riviera Beach, 670 So. 2d 1014, 1016
(Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Today's Coastal Advisory Committee Clam Bay Subcommittee was properly noticed in
compliance with the Sunshine Law on or about February 1, 2010. Further, the agenda for
today's meeting was also publically noticed on the County's website on Monday, March 15,
2010. The related back-up materials for the agenda were supplemented and available on the
County's website on Wednesday, March 17, 2010. In addition, a number of these materials also
appeared on the agenda for the Coastal Advisory Committee meeting on Thursday, March 11,
2010.
In my opinion, there is no violation of the Sunshine Law and no legal issue regarding the date the
agenda was published.
cc: Gary McAlpin,Director, Coastal Zone Management
TO: CAC Board Members
FROM: Gail Hambright, Accountant
DATE: December 1, 2011
SUBJECT: 2012 CAC Scheduled Meetings
Please mark your calendar for the following 2011 CAC scheduled meeting dates:
January 12, 2012
February 9, 2012
March 8, 2012
April 12, 2012
May 10, 2012
June 14, 2012
July 12, 2012
August 9, 2012
September 13, 2012
October 11, 2012
November 8, 2012
December 13, 2012
All meetings will be held in the Board of County Commissioner's chambers, third floor, Collier
County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, unless otherwise noted. A
public notice will be sent out before each meeting.
Cofer County Coastal Zone Management • 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 103 • Naples, Florida 34112 - 5746.239- 252 -2966 -FAX 239- 252 -2950
awm,colliergov.neVcoastalxo nemanagement
CAC January 12, 2012
VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes
1 of 6
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, November 10, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, 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," 3r1 Floor, Collier County
Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN
VICE CHAIRMAN
John Sorey, III
Anthony Pires (Excused)
Randolph Moity
Jim Burke
Murray Hendel
Robert Raymond
Joseph A. Moreland
Victor Rios
Wayne Waldack
ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director
Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney
Gail Hambright, Accountant
CAC January 12, 2012
VIA Approval of CAC Minutes
2 of 6
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 1:00 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
Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 7 — 0.
V. Public Comments
None
VI. Approval of CAC Minutes
1. October 13, 2011
Mr. Waldack moved to approve the minutes of the October 13, 2011 meeting.
Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 7 — 0.
VII. Staff Reports
1. Expanded Revenue Report — Gary McAlpin
The Committee reviewed the document titled "Collier County Tourist Tax Revenue as of
November 2, 2011
2. Project Cost Report — Gary McAlpin
The Committee reviewed the "FY201112012 TDC Category "A: Beach Maintenance Projects"
updated through 11/1/11.
3. CAC Meeting Minute Discussion
Gary McAlpin submitted the following documents for information purposes:
• Letter from Dwight E. Brock, Collier County Clerk of Courts to Board of County
Commissioners Chairman Fred Coyle and others dated April 25, 2011 — regarding the
Clerk of Courts policy on provision of minutes to County Boards.
• Email from Patricia Morgan, BMR Manager to Gail Hambright dated November 2, 2011 —
Subject "Meeting Minutes"
• Copies of Coastal Zone Management Department 2010 and 2011 Minutes billing
He provided an overview of the requirements for provision of minutes under the Clerk of
Courts contract for summary minutes. If the Committee wishes they may have verbatim
minutes at an additional expense.
CAC January 12, 2012
VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes
3 of 6
The Committee reached consensus on continuing to utilize the summary minute's services
provided by the Clerk of Courts.
4. FEMA PW 00561 Time Extension Request
Gary McAlpin provided the FEMA application "Request for Project Time Extension " and
related backup emails for the proposed re- nourishment of Marco Island Beaches for
informational purposes.
5. Laser Grading North Marco Beach
Gary McAlpin provided a document outlining 3 options for the Laser Grading project at North
Marco Beach. He has been notified by the Division of Water Resource Management that past
field permits issued for the laser grading work were issued in error and the County will be
required to obtain a CCCL (Coastal Construction Control Line) Administrative Permit to
complete future grading in the area.
The Committee determined to continue the item pending comment from representatives of the
City of Marco Island.
Mr. Raymond arrived at 1:31pm
6. Marco South Permitting - Verbal Update
Gary McAlpin reported the contract has been issued for the Scope of Work in the amount of
$89,000.
7. Collier Creek Dredging - Verbal Update
Gary McAlpin reported the project is in the "pre- construction conference" phase of the
operation.
8. Bureau of Ocean Management Lease
a. 11/9/11 Letter to Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Gary McAlpin provided the following documents for information purposes
1. "Collier County Conceptual Renourishment Project Analysis Selected Sections and
Descriptions "
2. Letter from Gary McAlpin to Renee Orr, Chief, Strategic Resource Offices — Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management — Re: Request for Non Competitive Negotiated Agreement
for Use of OCS Sand from Collier Borrow Area T -I " dated November 11, 2011.
9. Beach Cost Share Presentation to TDC
Gary McAlpin provided the documents "FDEP Cost Share Program — 71712011 " and
"Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida "- Updated June 2011 "- prepared by the State of Florida,
Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems for informational purposes. He noted the informational
was requested by the Tourist Development Council.
10. GLDD Schedule Flexibility Memo
CAC January 12, 2012
VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes
4 of 6
Gary McAlpin provide a copy of a letter from William H. Hanson, Vice President of Great
Lakes Dredge and Dock Company to him dated November 1, 2011 — "Re: Upcoming Beach
Projects " for information purposes.
The Committee recommended Staff investigate the concept of stockpiling approximately 0.5M
to 1. OM CY's of sand at strategic beach locations during the major beach renourishment
project. The concept would be to utilize the stockpiles for emergency /minor beach
renourishment when necessary.
11. Beach Economics
a. Backup Material
Gary McAlpin provided the documents "Healthy Beaches are Vital to Florida's Economic
Recovery, " "Florida Beaches are Critical Infrastructure " and "The economic value of
beaches — a 2008 update" prepared by James R. Houston, of the US Army Engineer
Research and Development Center for informational purposes.
VIII. New Business
1. Revised 10 Year - Fund 195 Master Plan
a. Backup Material
Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Recommend that the CAC recommend
approval of the revised 10 year — Fund 195 Master Plan" dated November 10, 2011 for
consideration.
The Committee recommended Staff, for planning purposes, prepare an alternate Master
Plan absent of utilization of Federal funds.
Speaker
Doug Fee
Mr. Waldack moved to endorse the Plan as presented subject to the following:
1. The Plan be revised to include the Laser Grading Project required for North Marco
Beach (if necessary).
2. The Plan be revised to include an additional Wiggins Pass dredging cycle, (if necessary).
3. Staff prepares a Master Plan outlining expenditures through the following
renourishment period (FY2025 + / -).
4. Staff prepares a Plan outlining an expenditure of $30M for major beach renourishment
(which may be the expenditure required to adequately complete the project).
Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 8 — 0.
Staff to coordinate with Mr. Hendel on items 2 and 3 as necessary.
2. Wiggins Pass Sub - Committee Discussion
Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Recommend that the CAC appoint a
three - member subcommittee made up of members of the CAC to review, analyze and
recommend to the CAC on matters concerning the straightening of the Wiggins Pass
Channel" dated November 10, 2011 for consideration.
CAC January 12, 2012
VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes
5 of 6
Mr. Hendel moved to appoint Mr. Rios, Mr. Raymond and Mr. Moreland to the Wiggins
Pass Subcommittee. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8 — 0.
Speaker
Doug Fee
3. Conceptual Design and Modeling Report - Marco South Renourishment
a. Backup Material
b. Backup Material /Analysis
Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Recommend that the CAC review and
approval the Conceptual Design and Modeling report for Marco Island Beach
renourishment program" dated November 10, 2011.
Michael Poff, Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. submitted the document
"Conceptual Design and Numerical Model, Analysis of South Marco Island Erosion
Control Alternatives Final Report" dated October 28, 2011 — CED File No. 10.094
prepared by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc.
The Committee viewed the Slideshow "Marco Island South Beach Conceptual Design and
Numerical Model Analysis — Coastal Advisory Committee, November 10, 2011
Mr. Rios moved to approve the conceptual design as presented subject to the installations
of G -2 — G -4 groins, with the groins to be installed as near in timing to the actual
renourishment of the beach. Second by Mr. Moity. Carried unanimously 8 — 0.
Break: 2: 50pm
Reconvened: 2: 58pm
VIII. Old Business
1. Water Quality Clam Pass/Bay
* Draft Summary as directed by CAC on 10/13/11
Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Receive feedback from the CAC on the draft
Water Quality report requested at the last meeting. Update the CAC on recent Water Quality Data
Concerns " dated November 10, 2011 and document "Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria Executive
Summary " prepared by Atkins dated October 27, 2011 for information purposes. He provided an
update on the issue noting the reports are still in process and upon completion, will be returned to the
Committee for their review.
Speakers
Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Noreen Murray, Pelican Bay Resident
IX. Announcements
None
X. Committee Member Discussion
CAC January 12, 2012
VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes
6 of 6
Chairman Sorey directed Mr. Moity to work with Mr. McAlpin on the concept of stockpiling sand
during beach renourishment projects.
Mr. Moreland reported the Estuary Conservation Association, Inc. is developing a process for the
users of the Pass to provide "incident reports" when appropriate. He requested members contact
him if they have any concerns on the concept.
Mr. Waldack reported he is attending a Legislative Conference on November 17 and 18 in Orlando.
The City of Marco Island is dedicating Veterans Community Park on November 11, 2011 at loam
and there is a softball game scheduled between the City of Marco Island Fire /Police Departments
and the Wounded Warriors for November 12, 2011 at loam.
XII. Next Meeting Date/Location
December 8, 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 3:18 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 January 12, 2012
VII -1 Staff Reports
1 of 18
COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX REVENUE
FY 12 Revenue Report
31- Dec -2011
Budget
History-Cum
History- Monthly
Collections
Oct
3.4%
3.4%
441,513
Nov
8.0%
4.6%
597,184
FY 12 Net
13.8%
5.9%
Fund
FY 12 Current
FY 12 Forecast
FY 12 (5..
Budget
Feb
34.8%
183
2,153,300
2,153,300
(107,700)
2,045,600
2,063,999
Apr
184
3,262,500
3,262,500
(164,100)
3,098,400
10.3%
1,348,215
193
310,900
310,900
(15,500)
295,400
90.4%
5.0%
194
1,516,100
1,516,100
(75,800)
1,440,300
195
4,371,800
4,371,800
(218,600)
4,153,200
196
0
0
0
198
1,435,500
1,435,500
(71,800)
1,363,700
Gross Budget
$13,050,100
$13,050,100
- $653,500
$12,396,600
Less 5% Rev Res
(653,500)
Net Budget
12,396,600
Collections
Budget
Collected to
% over FY 11
% over FY 10
% over FY 09
M
FY 12
Cum YTD
Date
collections
collections
collections
Oct
525,334
525,334
4.026%
9.71%
18.07%
31.38%
Nov
691,705
1,217,039
9.326%
10.65%
26.46%
11.70%
Dec
924,729
2,141,768
16.412%
23.29%
24.11%
15.79%
Jan
2,141,768
16.412%
Feb
2,141, 768
16.412%
Mar
2,141,768
16.412%
Apr
2,141,768
16.412%
May
2,141,768
16.412%
June
2,141,768
16.412%
July
2,141,768
16.412%
Aug
2,141,768
16.412%
Sept
2,141,768
16.412%
Total
2,141,768
2,141,768
16%
23%
18%
BaltoCollect
11,127,368
Month_
History-Cum
History- Monthly
Collections
Oct
3.4%
3.4%
441,513
Nov
8.0%
4.6%
597,184
Dec
13.8%
5.9%
765,938
Jan
22.0%
8.2%
1,063,785
Feb
34.8%
12.8%
1,676,256
Mar
50.6%
15.8%
2,063,999
Apr
68.8%
18.2%
2,376,287
May
79.2%
10.3%
1,348,215
June
85.3%
6.2%
804,559
July
90.4%
5.0%
653,390
Aug
95.5%
5.2%
678,131
Tourist Tax Revenue
Collections
Variance
525,334
83,821
691,705
94,521
924,729
158,791
0
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
1/520126:43 PM HARevenue Report\Monthly Gas, Sales, and TDC Receipts
N
O
N rn
N
O
r IZ
N
N �
7
C �p
U) W
Q = O
i� i N
�a
� H
O
H
W
F4
a �
z
U z
FD
a
H
a
0
C14
W h
In C4
q
H
I
H
H
a a �
E-1
z
0
U
a
H W
a W
O
U
U
N W
H q
0
N
r+)
�+ o
0 z
q
N U
(n O
q
W
LA
co
(D
W
H
O
H
a
w
m
a
h
H Q,'
U �
m
w
a �
W
W
W
U w
W �
q �
O
z In
r
Ln
o
O w
O
H
a
w
w
0
a
h
H
O
U
[L
a �
a
O
U
w
W
' U
W
q
i
O
z
II
U
O
H
O
1�
a
w
a
a
h
z
�k
x
x �
H
0
w
U
W
q
°z
H
U
O
co
w
r-
0
N
H
a
w
Ul
c�
a
to
m a
0
H
CQ
W
W
a
m
U N
W t�
q w
N
m
> O
°z
0)
Ur�i
O in
N
Lfl
-4� I
O 1
H i
0 i
N 1
co I
C/3
L 1
H I
a
�
n I
E-1
I
H
I
O
I
H
I
I
E
I
a
I
I
a
I
I
w
I
w
I
m
I
I
m
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
�
I
I
I
1
�
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
a
I
I
a
I
I
I
✓
I
h
I
i
h
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
*
I
I
I
I
I
I
q
I
I
�
I
a
�
w
W
I
W
H
I
I
x
1
a
O
a
1
a
I
I
H
*
1
�
1
1
�
1
t
1
�
w
I
w
(i1
I
1
[t1
I
I
I
1
I
I
h
I
1
W
to 1
W
eo
01
N 1
i
C
O
>
cr) 1
>
CO
°z
z
� I
H I
I
I
m i
co
U
U(n
I
Ln
O
N I
O
d' I
� 1
co
(D
W
H
O
H
a
w
m
a
h
H Q,'
U �
m
w
a �
W
W
W
U w
W �
q �
O
z In
r
Ln
o
O w
O
H
a
w
w
0
a
h
H
O
U
[L
a �
a
O
U
w
W
' U
W
q
i
O
z
II
U
O
H
O
1�
a
w
a
a
h
z
�k
x
x �
H
0
w
U
W
q
°z
H
U
O
co
w
r-
0
N
H
a
w
Ul
c�
a
to
m a
0
H
CQ
W
W
a
m
U N
W t�
q w
N
m
> O
°z
0)
Ur�i
O in
N
Lfl
N
O
N y
N
O
r d
N
fC ry
C �p
W
Q - O
U > cn
m m
N
ON
F
r-�
w
a w
w
0
w
a
F
O
u
U
qq
h
F
a
O
a
a �
Q*
�+
�z
El �9
H
O
>+
zF
O W
w
a
w
H
a
a
O Z
U �C
h
U m
N W V+
O
N
M
o in
H O
o z
I
I
Q I
� I
o F m I
M U m i
M O
q �
W t
q �
v] m
H CD
a
w
c�
l<
a
h
z
�x
O
U I
W
W I
w I
I
I
I
I
h �
I
I
i
N I
U ml
W o
i
i
ui
> A
O In I
z H
N 1
i
i
i
N I
H in
U mi
O mi
M I
i
m m
Q o
O
a
W
m
0
� h
x
a
x
\ I
O
xx I
a� I
I
U
-Y I
* � I
II
W I
w I
I
I
I
I
I
h �
i
i
U r�
W N�
q in
i
i
i Lo
0 u)
z
i
i
I
i
N �
U m
O
I
i
Cf) w
ui
El
M
N r
P4
W
w
c�
a
h
a
W
F
O
E.
0
x
i�
4�
W
w
U �
W H
q �
Ln
L
r I
U Ln
O o
� r
w
NN
a
w
w
c�
x '
h
h
* I
E-
z I
H I
� I
I
I
I
W
w I
I
I
I
I
I
I
h
I
i
'cM �
U
W rn
H i
i
i
M I
>
O OD
z
I
I
i
i
O 1
F m
U rn
O <4
m m
CD
O �
F
a
w
m
h
x
a
w
0
x
aP�
H
W
O
W
W
P4
I
F
M
U wl
W U)
q
I
I
I
� I
> rl
O Ln
z
I
I
I
I
OD I
F Ni
U Ni
O �
i
U) Ln
r,
H o
F m
a
w
w
c�
h
a
H I
wx
z0
H
� I
� � I
q 'I
W I
f�'
n I
I
i
c
U NI
W MI
q NI
N
I
I
I
w�
> In
z H
ri
i
i
i
M I
F ml
U Ni
O U1 I
Vv I
N
FIV
a
w
0 Ix
w
c�
h
w
rx
�K
[Q
W
w
0
U m
W m
q �
0
0 0
Z in
ULn
O
N
I a
I !�
I
OF
I
I
I
I
I
I a
I W
I m
'I c�
I �
a
h
a
r�
F
0
W
W
w
U
W
q I
I
0 'I
z
I
I
I
F I
U I
O I
V) m
F �
N
a
w
z
�x
0
H
q
W
w
m
U N
W r
q d�
N
Ol
> o
oz r--
F M
U M
O in
N
in
N �O M 01
ZI t0 T 01 m N M
mI O
N N h N Z� N
>I
ti
m
m
v o
C)
N y
N
n
N
N N
o
M
M
M
M
M
O_
W
>
{A
N
V?
V?
m
VT L}
> N
(O �
� �
C
C f4
cu
m
W
N
n
n
N m
U r
m V
Q
vni
n
uni io
U > v
W
J
Q
h
H
N
N
UT Vf
N �O M 01
ZI t0 T 01 m N M
mI O
N N h N Z� N
YI N n .i N O m
Q n ao
N � n l0 N tl1
N M �
N N V! VT VF
WI
m m
rz
0 V Tn N Of
M N M O O O
O
w
m m In ry ry m
O N N N V N N
Z
w
-It m m ry a
m � o m v N
O r n
n N O O O
N ~
N VF N N N
O O O O °
Y O O O O O O
N N
(Q N n 00 T O
LL N °ry N0 0 0 N
>I
ti
m
m
v o
Vf
VT
m
h
m
N
m m
N VT
X
Q
V1
zlviOi
m
m
n
°m
N
m
N
�o
Q
vni
n
uni io
LAI
W
J
1T a
Z a
D Z
n
o
o
O
u
N
O
ill
O
m
ry
U
Q
o
of
ri
1
n
is
m m
.n
J
J
Q
V
�
m
�0
n
N
MooD O
°
n
N
O N
N
W
LLI
N
umi
N
uiOi
yA
�
Yf
a e
N N
YI N n .i N O m
Q n ao
N � n l0 N tl1
N M �
N N V! VT VF
WI
m m
rz
0 V Tn N Of
M N M O O O
O
w
m m In ry ry m
O N N N V N N
Z
w
-It m m ry a
m � o m v N
O r n
n N O O O
N ~
N VF N N N
O O O O °
Y O O O O O O
N N
(Q N n 00 T O
LL N °ry N0 0 0 N
d \ \ \ \ \ \
)
k
�
\
\
\
-IF
\ \
\{
o
7
�
]
/
\
\
\
\
\ }
L
■
_
_
_
_
_
An
\
k\2
k
\
E
5
\
}
\
\ \
\ \ \
d
0
§
z §
]
\
\
\
\
\ \
d \ \ \ \ \ \
§ \ _ _ � d o6
_ �
] \
k \
§/ 7& 2 2 3 5
S S
} \ \ \ \ \ \ \
LM
rl
�
�
e
�
\
\
\
-IF
\ \
o
7
�
]
/
\
\
\
\
\ }
k
\
0 °
d
0
§
z §
\ k
)
2
\
\
}
\
\ \
m
§
]
\
\
\
\
\ \
§ \ _ _ � d o6
_ �
] \
k \
§/ 7& 2 2 3 5
S S
} \ \ \ \ \ \ \
LM
rl
�
�
e
O n
WI
W m m
O
w
Z
m N O O b M
V} N N UT N N
0 0 W s O .y N
Y S O N ON N Q
LL
0 0 S O n N O F
y
tD
N
F
M
n
V1
00
n
N O1
r.
0
to
a
N y
00
P
rl
00
DO 00
O
r
CL
>
K o
N
07
m
aO0
N
0 W
W
QI N
C
W
Vl Vml
r a
yco
-3 fn 00
m
f
N
m
N
U
v
n
w
v
n w
Q = o
Z
2
U > cO
o
N
M
ti
N
m
O
Q
N
N
N
Vl
JI
^
O
�
N
1p OOi
N
N
N
N
N N
J
0
u
Y
N
VI
O n
WI
W m m
O
w
Z
m N O O b M
V} N N UT N N
0 0 W s O .y N
Y S O N ON N Q
LL
0 0 S O n N O F
tp
tD
N
N
N
N
N N
X
a
r
r
K o
N
m
aO0
N
0 W
W
QI N
VF
N
Vl Vml
r a
Y
Z
2
:3
o
N
M
ti
z ro
m
lLI
J
J
0
u
Y
0:
Q pp
p
N
W
M tT
LL Vl
N
O n
WI
W m m
O
w
Z
m N O O b M
V} N N UT N N
0 0 W s O .y N
Y S O N ON N Q
LL
0 0 S O n N O F
`~
~
v
tO
`^
a
T
o
le
ma
n
A
Oat
m N
N y
m
O
C
m
' a
C\f r
o
CL
c
Q
Y
m
+6
v*
.�
v>
m
+n
m m
of vs
T d
c0 Of
�
W
C
-J Cn OD
[0
m
n
O
n
N O
KI
N
N
N
N
N N
Q_ 0
o
I
U > n
Q
ti
N
N
ti
N
ti
N
N N
~ w
V'
v
v
ti
v
n
O N
v
�
Q
N
N
N
N
N N
�I vai N 1 O O N
A M 1 O
v v
o
ZI H m .�+ m le w
N
ti N N N
Y
Q N N N OD O
Z N N W 00
Q N N N iA
CI
W
N N V1 N
D
W
a0 N NO V of M ei
Ol �O V Ol V O
M v O
O N N N N N N
Z
C.
W 1p 00 � M M O
m N n V W N
v e
N N N N N N
O O O O O
W ~
Y O O N O O O
N N
J¢ 0 n 0 � o
W O O O 0 O
YQI
v
m
a oc
N
N
N
N
N N
X
Q
H
m
O
O
O
N O
KI
M
00
W
ON
W N
o
I
O U
Q
ti
N
N
ti
N
ti
N
N N
~ w
Z
O W
u
w
U >
y
ry
n
o
c m
w
WN
N
N
N
N V
J
J
O
U
Y
o
v
o
M O
M
m
WI
N
N
N
N
N
N N
N N
Y
Q N N N OD O
Z N N W 00
Q N N N iA
CI
W
N N V1 N
D
W
a0 N NO V of M ei
Ol �O V Ol V O
M v O
O N N N N N N
Z
C.
W 1p 00 � M M O
m N n V W N
v e
N N N N N N
O O O O O
W ~
Y O O N O O O
N N
J¢ 0 n 0 � o
W O O O 0 O
N
M
a°
n
N
m
n o
Q
YI
It
N
n
at
1%
V1 r1
CD
vi
n
14
ui
ko
vi v
N m
°°
P
a
N
O
Oi
N
lr O
N o
p
W
to
n
n
1A
tD
W N
� n
Y
h
to
V?
N
N
{? N
N
fC cy
co
Ha
W
o
°o
a0
m
o LM
c m
m
ll
S
m
N
-)U) oD
ry
U r
N
N
m
N
N
m
Q _ p
N
N
VT
V1
Vf
Vl P
U >cc)
1/?
n
oni
�I
m
m
v
�
ai
of
p
Q
L1
Vf
ry
N
ry
An
N
n
o e n m n o N
�I m ry m a mn+
Cl
�
N O o0 c� O n
ZIN V O O ry
a v a e
N N N �A Uf VF
Q�/1 Off O n O
Z vMi ��if b m - N
Q H V} N H N
WI N m O m O .ni
m N N �O O n tp
� 01 tnp T b Vml
W
W
NO Q M 10 01 n
0 m N m M M
p N V N N H W H
Z
m o m ro
m v N o m N m
N N H uT N N
O O p O O N
N O O O ry N N Q
U O O O O O O O O
n
Q
YI
V
O
O
n
O
�O'1
N
of
N
�
tp
01
V1
N
N
VF
V}
V1 v
X
4A
Q
co
Ha
o
°o
a0
m
o LM
ll
to
m
'
ry
0 Z
m
N
N
VT
V1
Vf
Vl P
0
v
1/?
OQ
C
pi
vi
ri
r
M
ro M
U
m
o
o N
11J
H
vi
'�
N
N tC
J
N
J
0
U
�
m
N
m 01
Q
v
N
n
o
ar
ri
I
m
m
K
N
N
N
LLI
N N
Q�/1 Off O n O
Z vMi ��if b m - N
Q H V} N H N
WI N m O m O .ni
m N N �O O n tp
� 01 tnp T b Vml
W
W
NO Q M 10 01 n
0 m N m M M
p N V N N H W H
Z
m o m ro
m v N o m N m
N N H uT N N
O O p O O N
N O O O ry N N Q
U O O O O O O O O
WI m ti �' vmi m � ry
m o m O O n
o; o ro Vi �00 e
O
K
m am V 1D b N a m N O
N 01 N n
M N 0 0
ON 1O t0 1O Val l0 b
Z Vf N Vl N UT �A to
N M 01 01 N M
m m m m
m 10 Lr o ry
GO ry a � m i a m
VF H �A N N V1 �A
W O O O O O ry
O O N O N O ry Q
V O O O O O O O O
aLn
N
co
m
M
a
A
VT
n
N
1
IO
IO
N
IO
N
N W
N 00
M
co
M
O
R
to
1l
to
4
'n
N
^
001
M
W
M ti
C'i O
V
V N
N N
Q
N
N
N
N
M
N
CL
V
of
of
tM o
v*
o
T N
N �
J
O
C
T O
b
f
v°1
v°1
O
W
m m
m
m
m
ry
N
n
n
t
m
m
ry
.y
Q V
Val
1m11
�
N
t0
Q 0
V
U >rn
N
(A
g
O
�
N m
10
O
:3
N
N
O
a
a
01
m
T
m
b
a
O
M
N
�
'
~
N
N
Vf
WI m ti �' vmi m � ry
m o m O O n
o; o ro Vi �00 e
O
K
m am V 1D b N a m N O
N 01 N n
M N 0 0
ON 1O t0 1O Val l0 b
Z Vf N Vl N UT �A to
N M 01 01 N M
m m m m
m 10 Lr o ry
GO ry a � m i a m
VF H �A N N V1 �A
W O O O O O ry
O O N O N O ry Q
V O O O O O O O O
tI
N
O
N Op
M� h
�
A
VT
n
N
W v�1
tR N
umi ln0
N N
M
N W
N 00
}
Z
W
Z
ry
a
0
t0
m
b t0
T O
Z
^
001
D
N
V
V N
N N
Q
V
C
W_
J
Oat
N
T O
b
f
v°1
v°1
v^i ry
m m
N
Vf
Vf Vf
�A N
Q V
W
N
(A
g
O
�
N m
10
O
al
�
0
C W
N
'
~
V
N
N N
H N
Q
Ire
W
W
Z OW
J
F
Q
=
ta0
O
n ml
n N
C Y
o
a
m
N
m
m
m
o
m
W
J
J
0
M
m
N N
N m
n
Lr
m e
Ic IR
V
m
.
Q
C
0.0
J
a
Q
Z
i'I
`QQ�si
7
2
ti
ry
umi
O
O
n
m
O
o 0 M
n
°e N
N N
n
^ g
O
N
WI m ti �' vmi m � ry
m o m O O n
o; o ro Vi �00 e
O
K
m am V 1D b N a m N O
N 01 N n
M N 0 0
ON 1O t0 1O Val l0 b
Z Vf N Vl N UT �A to
N M 01 01 N M
m m m m
m 10 Lr o ry
GO ry a � m i a m
VF H �A N N V1 �A
W O O O O O ry
O O N O N O ry Q
V O O O O O O O O
] \ \ \ \ \ \
� ® -
E G §a
) \ o \ \ \ \ \ )
/
§
Ili
It
elt
ai Li
7
\
/
/
$ $
\
§
m
)\
d
gme
§
o m0
)49
d
}
}
\
\
\ \
IR
k
§
Z
§
§
�
\
\
\
\
\ \
LU
0
u
ƒ
] \ \ \ \ \ \
� ® -
E G §a
) \ o \ \ \ \ \ )
N
by
O
M
H
.� N
F
HN
O
p
N
N
N
N O
N
Q r,
0 r
in
t0
a
O N
Cn
Q
N
00
N
Q1
N
00
N
O.
Y
N
x
V
Q
ry
n
ti
Vf
N
OOi
N
e
O
N
N
n
�D
ti
V1
n ao
V
ry m
VY H
N
c
C
n
va
ro
b b
W
co
(n
m
N
W
O
m
V
_
s
O
i/�
m
O
N
iA
Q =
of
�n
V'
to
U >�
(D
Q
vi
vs
Vf
N
N �A
0p O M
m
W Vl N Vf M N
ZIii ti ry � a0
N W
ry m � ry
N N m N
N N V1 VI 4f
� N �
Yl 1� O N N
Y1 YI � iU
N N H H ti
x
by
O
M
H
1 10
F
HN
CI
a
N
N
N
m
m
W
e0
m
H
O
a a
H N
L
O
i- Z
} C
Z O
O Z
U �
u
x
V
Q
ry
n
ti
Vf
N
OOi
N
e
O
N
N
n
�D
ti
V1
n ao
V
ry m
VY H
w
J
>
n
va
ro
b b
V
m
N
N
N
N
N H
C
Q N O 00 00 �D n^l
Z a e
W
eo n �n n
U N N N VNT Uf to
O
K
H e cr m o
N ti ti m .ai .°pi
Q Vf N N N VT
N ap
N N N VF VV Uf V1
Wc g n ro $ o
~
> O O N TO N
U O O O O O O
cri
O1
n
m
N
N
Q
f
> z \ _ _ _
) \
�
} \ \ \ \ 0 \
�
w
/
/
k
k
k
k
§ §
04
M
r4
N
§
® 3
_
_
_
_
_ _
/W
cc
co
7U)
B
/ 3 \
E
os�
D
d
\
\
®
\
_
\
_
\ \
117 ®
�
d
\
/
B
�
°
k
�
\
k
§
§
g
2
S )
S
> z \ _ _ _
) \
�
} \ \ \ \ 0 \
�
w
d \ Cq
M
CA
00
Go
LM
k
/
d
C4
*
_
&
2
®
® ®
\D
ry
00
cc
\
/ z \
,
k
ea�
0
m
d
�
\
\
\
\
\ \
§
\
/
Im
d \ Cq
.'1 \ \ \ \ \ \
§ m
B }
) f 3 \ \ \ {
E ..
/
k
/
d
§ �
7
k
/
0
m
°
u
}
§
)
§ E
.'1 \ \ \ \ \ \
§ m
B }
) f 3 \ \ \ {
E ..
/
® ® 0 _ /
2
k
k
\
\
k \
\ L
\
cacc
�
d
\
5«2
§
&
}
}
\
} }
\ \ \
,
/
§
}
®
®
/
® ® 0 _ /
B !
§ a a J a« a
§ j ® }
m _ _ _
; o 11 ..
} \
0 0 0 a \ \ )
k
%
�
d
\
E
/
§
)
\
\
\
\ \
�
Jl
§
\
\ \
B !
§ a a J a« a
§ j ® }
m _ _ _
; o 11 ..
} \
0 0 0 a \ \ )
§
E ..
, 0
, , , , , d
2
rm
OIL
\ 2
®
\
\
\ƒ
\)f
k
,
!
_
—
&
=
5
§
\ \ \
§
3
}
\
\
\ \
d
Z
\
\
\
} \
k
§LU
§
�
ui
§
k
§
E ..
, 0
, , , , , d
N
O
N N
cli
O
d
T 0)
07 �
W
U)
`
U r o
< > = CO
a o ao
N N 00
D
Do 00 M M cm C4 w to P lr rl ^ M
O Y1 CA M n O ~ co
n
W AT NN M Iii. AT N LT � 441. {�/*
Y
G ^
00 0i n 0i
Ln
h N N Vi h N {/�
rli '^
j N ri ro
N N N N N N
ZI m n - o w
.y
r
N VT N VT h Vf
YI O 1 n O W Of
Q v n m m o0
m m ti ON N
N Yf h N N Uf
Q yl O ON o0 n
Q � a0 Oni N
W
U LL N N N h N N
� DD o0 O
Z N m m
P N W T CO W
C
0
W
O Vf N N N VnT N
Z
M
m
J_
0 0
N
Z LLP
Q
N
W W
m
ti
N
O ?
�'
N
U CA
N
to
N Val
cc
W
U LL N N N h N N
� DD o0 O
Z N m m
P N W T CO W
C
0
W
O Vf N N N VnT N
Z
M
m
Li
Q
O
0 0
N
n
N
N
W W
m
ti
N
N
�'
N
VF
N
to
N Val
C
W
O
n
w
m
o
~
y
N
O
N
O
N O
O
O
O \
{Qj
O
O
O
Li
Q
O
N
Q
00
N
IA
Lq
M
0M
O
N
N
N ko
N
00
N
N
O
N
O
O
-
O
Ot
N
01
t~LQ
n1 O
n
N O
CL
N
Vf
N
{A
N
N
N
{/}
N
4^
N y�
(1)
co
N
V)
�
m
CI
n
v1Oi
o
m
C
00
m
O
N
m
o
m
I
ti
Cn
R
n
m
ry
e
r`Oi
0 o
N
L
O
U
V
J
Z Q
N
N
>�
W
D OC
{0
ri
N
l
N
to
a
N
ry
r
�A
N M 111 � n N
JI m m ti a m
oo N ai Iri m
.ten .Mn n m
N N N to
O n M Ol �O m
ZI � o a oo ro m
� o ri o e is
N �A N VI N N
Q m m vai m n ti
o6 I
V1 Vf N
W
m m o
ovmi, o^ m o m
V I� n W t�0 tip l�0
WQ t/} N W N N Vf
WI
m h V u1 of M .Mi O
m m m M n o
O
Z N N H N H H N
ry ry m m �
O m In ao ao 00 0
VF H W H h y}
Q O O �
N N
O OI J
ON N ON N N N N Q
0 10 n a0 p O
V O O O O O H .-1 O
W ON N ON N N N O F
m
00 O
x
N
V)
CI
n
v1Oi
o
m
u^i o
6
N
O
N
I
ti
O
R
n
m
N
m
O
J
Z Q
W
D OC
0
VI
ry
ry
O
n
W
.ml
�yJ
Vf
N
�A
N
VF Vl
J
J
u
O
o
m
o.
o
ai o
N
N
vi a
Wo:
m
Q m m vai m n ti
o6 I
V1 Vf N
W
m m o
ovmi, o^ m o m
V I� n W t�0 tip l�0
WQ t/} N W N N Vf
WI
m h V u1 of M .Mi O
m m m M n o
O
Z N N H N H H N
ry ry m m �
O m In ao ao 00 0
VF H W H h y}
Q O O �
N N
O OI J
ON N ON N N N N Q
0 10 n a0 p O
V O O O O O H .-1 O
W ON N ON N N N O F
N H
D1
V1
N
00
N
OO
lD
M
N
M
N
C
Do
n
lD
lD
N
lD
N
O
NM
N
n
M
ONO
M
O W
CL
M
N
N
!f
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
�j
�. O Y
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
fC �
'M w co
m
ro
n
M
/ m
� (/)
01
N
lD
n
Ol
U o
N
H
h
N
N
H
U\�
C) o a m n
J =I ui O n 0 01 O
N tll M {D M
a Q +n/f ti N N N N
W
J
LL J ry O N O m n
LU
Vr n n m In In to
Z N N N N N N
N
Y
N N n n m
d ZI N� m 0 W
0
W Uat O tOD V W 111
m m m n n m
p N V1 VI N Vl lA
W
J_
m W trvll
O YI
Q O m m
c O O n N N vl
C Vl Ill Vl N M T
X a N h N H H N
W
(n Z Qf m n N lD Vl
O n Ol N l0
a. n In m o m
J C a0
O Q t00 n O V I�il
F- p vrvi +Ni>• in VNi .Nip .Ni>•
a �
Z 0 W
~ l 1
� F = b O 1
O m w m m
Y N m M m o 0
W K ti vrvi N N H
J aJ
O> > Ol O1 Ill N m N
K
< N m ory IrOfi m
0 W n ao 0 u
a
O: n m n to n
Z o o ry ti o 0
CZ N v N N h N
C
Q W M N 00 O O
Z Cm n O �V�1 0 O O
p C M Ilml O Oml V IlOI
V v
m m m n n n
N Q N H N N H N
Z
cW
G �
Q
a > > M 0 Ol Qf t0 Vl
Q Z vNi vmi vmi v>• +Ni>• .mil
WI T N m m m n a
m ,ny a lr oq f m° m m
O � to ui o ao vi
O N v In M v In
10 n m 01 O N
W ~
> O S O O O O O
Q Ill 0 n W 0 p \
V O O O O O
LL
D1
00
00
N
m
00
K
O
a
Ill
M
M
�O
N
1f1
K
Ln
N
N
O
a
O
N
K
N
n
N
00
00
N
K
Q
O
O
N M
Q
N
caf0
Q'
7 �
C p
7 U)
U N
Q
U>
N
r
0
N
r
r
N
LL
N
^V
W
.O
L
a
V
A�
W
5�
L^
i
W
m
Q
A�
W
V
U
H
a
N
E
0
CL`
d
LLV
N
E
O
N
N
d
C
E
E
U
m
r
cu
N M LO
p
n
co
r
Z
V 'r O
CD C4
w 4 s O
w o,
C a
a
N
LO N
f.i 04
O M
W)
U
vi
rH
V
M"
M
oOEt
N
O
O
d
cq
m
7
0
O
m
M
cn
C
0i
OOi
.9
O
a
OO
d'd
of
o
LO
r=
Lo
is
o
m U
E
w
44
6%
eA
Er»
»
<»
e>
cn
5
ro
m
8
n
o
°O
°O
d
C 'C
OD
rn
N
Cl)
°O
v
O
d0'
—
i
rn
v
'�
M
�n
o
N
A m
m
N
d
N..
M
N
LO
N
7
0 C
N...
Q G
W69
60�
c•�a
0)
M
m Em 3
d
69
C
V E
M
co
0
c
C
O
h
O
Iq
ry
O
O
O O
0
IL C 9
d
01
Q
M
V
0)
O
OV
N
V)
C E
d Q m
�
7
U as
d
O
0
C
o
O
0
0
�
o
0
C o
Im
� a
c m
�
c
O
6%
e»
0,6
C
�
N
.O
@ (D
in
w
N C
01
N N
m
C
c O
d
O) c
m .T
N
in
p
a
N
m.
U- C
N
U
a
cu
V
m
a
2
Z
O
2
O
O
m
O
O
0)
O
N.
O
N
I�
N
N
O
O
oD
O
10
O
co
O
CD'
O
07
O
a0
O
aD
O
aD
a`
c
U.
O
N y
N
O
n
m
7
c w
U)
U N
U>
y
CO O
o
z
C
� y
O) C
p
>
4)
}o
E
z
v 2
t?
E
o
o
d
0
U U
m
f»
"Z
m
r
0
N
d
m
O- Lo
to
d
Q o
co
OCo
Lo
r N
Vi N
'1:
M
O
U 3
w
N C U fo
W (o
N
m
KJ
o
z
N V
PiS
! O C N
2Q
m LO
mp
V
N
FN
LL c0
cow
Z 1n
i.a
I*
N l4 4)
Q C
C O
y'-
m
��
o
CO
U
m� r
l0 p
wm
V'
m
m
Z,
'IT
Z
a v>
U
Vn'
o
V
d
'p
a
v
O
O
o>
p
o
c'D.
o
O
a
P
A
M
prj
aOo
r
o
o
OOD
OO
O
co
(O
O
9 o
�
n
001
o
A U
E
w
C
N
N
M
N
c0
�D
O
M
N
N
o
O
o
•V
N
c�0
O
O)
N
V
04
N
O
O
co
o
7
�
N
N m
m
M
d9
M
d9r
to
cA
M
69
ccq
O
O
cOj
1pf}
p
A
o
oo
N
O
O
7
N-
n
t-
N
V C
a c
x
w
69..
C
o.
�
N
�
�.
o
O
V C$
cli
Iq
co
co
o
O ci
O
o
a
m •m Q
n
o
N
O
10
mE3
d
u E
°
N
o
°o
co
ti
n
rn
oo
`r
O
°p
o
g
'.O
•w•c{�
<O
9 y
LL
N
V
M
r
O
O
ao
- O
O
o
h
E�
tam
0
U y
y
e»
en
6%
W
E»
W
»
�
0
0
p
o
o
°o
O
M
o
o
p
o
o
O
l
o
°o
O
'O
C
co
^
•� m
O
cA
fA
fp
tO
fH
ca y
z E
T
W L7
...
L
U O
y
m O)
E 0.S' y
O O O N
•�
N O
d>
N O
?�
N
m m
a0i
�c L
N—m
m O
m
m m
0.
' 'ap7
L K
fn m o co
H—
d �
E
0 Rm'
a
d o
IL
F O
a L
>. N
O
to E C �F
zM:
H O
p�
U
��O
a N
Z
'c N
rn�
Z y
OD N
U •F�-•
UU
SSC7
O
y W
C
J
.2
O
Z
o
p
V
d
OW
o
o
O
o
o
o
'p
W
Q)'
O
O)
m
O
C5
O)
CL
V
LL
rn
rn..
rn
to
rn
rn
�.
rn
rn
rn
f
O
N N
N
n
N �
7
c �
�U
UN
Q -
U>
CD
N
C
a U
—00 y
O
d
c
E
@ U
O
U
C7 m
TC
m m
L
a
0 U
z
d
f0 —
M1
0 T U C y
M cej
O
C 0 2 2 n V O
co
Z
d E O O
m ) 0 co
Q
N L
W
m
N
C3-
i
z
0
to
d
O
O
0
N
m
to
tD
C11
d
co
a
in
d
�
o
U
N
N
to
CO
M
E
.N
w
w
Vi
w
c_
10
r-
'.N
o
o
rn
o
c a
'^
R
N
co
o
N
10 3
0 ~
O
n
ap
M
fD
W
O1
a a
co
x
w
C
ca
c— a
rn
M
co
n
n
q
to
. N
ao
CD
co
r
cc
m
O1
!0 @
:�
mE�
d
EA
'.. tR
C
d
O
f-
pw
tp
l07
N 9
(D
0
IL C d
OI
rl
C)
` wCdj 7
N
b
P
7
U y
Y
w
w
w
U
d
O`
CL
CD
O
O
O
0
O
:
G
O
N
9
C
(C
CD
CO
0
c
to C
�
d
�
mg
d
d N
.
c
0
d
@
c L
U
m0
Um
0
ii
LO
d
'o
rn
r�
a`
N
c
LO
LO
J
UM
r
W. ulary 12, 2012
V!I -3 Staff Reports
1 of 4
,4
Rick Sett
,u Florida Department of Governor
Environmental Protection Jennifer Carroll
Madam Stoneman Douglas Building Lt. Governor
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Herschel T. Vinyard' Jr.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000 Secretary
December 21, 2012 x
Mr. A. William Moss, City Manager DEC 10 201t
City of Naples
735 Eighth Street South
Napless, FL 34102
Mr. Gary McAlpin, Director
Coastal Zone Management, Collier County
3050 North Horseshoe Drive, Suite 218
Naples, FL 34104
Re: Naples Beach Joint coastal Permit No. 0222355- 001 -JC
Storm water Outfail pipes condition
Gentlemen,
The Department, Collier County and the City of Naples all share a desire to provide the best
possible beachfront along the City of Naples' Gulf of Mexico coastline. A condition was
included in the referenced County's beach nourishment permit that spoke to the City's storm
water outfall pipes: The County shalt submit a long -range management plan (including an
Identification of viable funding sources) for the removal of storm water outfalls from the
beach. Submittal of an acceptable plan will be a requirement of the Notice to Proceed for
the second nourishment ". City, County and Department staff have worked together to develop
a long term plan based on engineering studies released late last year. The result of these efforts
was to develop a mechanism (City Ordinance) to de- couple the City's Storm water plan from the
County's nourishment permit.
The Department has been provided a draft of proposed City Ordinance entitled: A
RESOL11 ' ON AMENDING TIRE.`. CITY OF NAPLES S'l ORMWATER MASTER PLAN
TO SATISFY THE PERMIT CONDITION OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION JOINT COASTAL PERMIT NO. 0222355-0014C
REQUIRING THE REMOVAL OF THE CITY'S STORMWATER'BEACH OUTFALLS
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE,, attached.
We have reviewed the language of the Ordinance and have determined that it in conjunction with
ongoing storm water treatment efforts by the City will satisfy the storm water outfall condition of
the referenced permit. While the Ordinance does not specifically identify a funding source nor
include a specific plan for the removal the outfalls per the `condition verbiage, it does commit the
City to continue its development of solutions or series of solutions for storm -water management.
This approach is appropriate for the built out narrow peninsular watershed in which stoma water
has historically been directed to either Maples Bay or the Gulfof`Mexico.
wvua�r dep.state./`? to
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -3 Staff Reports
2of4
`Mr. William A. Moss
Mr. Gary McAlpin
j December 21, 2011 I
Page 2
i
The City has had a strong history of developing storm water infrastructure projects. These
projects include an Aquifer Storage and Recovery program and recent infrastructure to capture
and treat storm water entering Naples Bay from inland watersheds, creating significant water
quality enhancements to the environment. The City has also worked cooperatively with the
Department to combine and contract public interest revenues from development projects to
create new storm water treatment areas. This history of continued improvements and creative
funding approaches, together with the adoption of the draft Ordinance will provide reasonable
assurance that the storm water outfall condition of the referenced permit is satisfied.
I
Any questions concerning these matters may be directed to Jon Iglehart at
n.i euart or-to meat Rom Rr�ntty, state f.s f
I
Sincerely,
Robert Brandy, F.E.
Program Administrator
Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems
RBt
Attachment
cc: Jon iglehart, FDEP
Gene Chalecki, FDEP
Martin Seeling, FDEP
Vince George, FDEP
I
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -3 Staff Reports
3of4
Agend* tt01U
Meeting of xx /"= /44=
I
2t63VLti'i'14iN' 11"
i
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF NAPLES STOIGMATLR MASTER PLAN
TO SATISY THE PERMIT CONDITION " OF THE FLORXDA DEPARTMENT' OF
ENVXROMMUTAL PROTECTION JOINT COASTAL PERMIT , NO. 0222355 - 001 -JC
RLQUIRING THE REMOVAL OF THE CITY'S STOWMATER SNACK OUTFALLS;
I AND PROVIDING AN ZFVZCCT VE DATE,
WHEREAS, On January 12, 2005 the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection" issued permit No. 0222355-
001-JC for the Collier County Beach Renouri.shment
Project; and
WHEREAS, the Permit included a Specific Condition (Condition h.)
for an Outfall Management Plan which stated '4The County
shall submit a long -range management plan (including an ,
identification of viable funding sources) for the
removal of stormwater outfalls from the beach. Submittal
of an acceptable plan will be a requirement of the
Notice to Proceed for the second nourishment "; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2010 the consulting firm of iumiston &
Moore Engineers, on the City's behalf, submitted a
report to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection summarizing the physical, technical, and
economic impracticality of the current requirement along
with addressing the documented non- impacts of each
i
adverse effect noted in the Permit; and
WHEREAS, following discussions with staff of the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, the Permit
condition, will be considered satisfied by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection if the
following policies are adopted by City Council as
amendments to the City`s Stormwater Master Plan; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL Off' THE CITY OF
NAPLES, FLORIDA:
i
Section 1. It shall be the stormwater management policy of the City
of Naples that:
a. Design and implementation, of all stormwater
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -3 Staff Reports
4 of 4,'
management activities within the contributory'
basins of the City will not increase the total
discharge rate of stormwater through the beach
outfall pipes to the Gulf of Mexico.
b. Design and implementation of all stormwater
management activities within Basin I•the
basins of the pity ----
t ea nom.
etktfal shall reduce and treat, to the extent
technically and economically practicable, the
stormwater discharged through the beach
outfalls
c. The long -term goal is to fully mitigate the
iMsIcts of e___..__ ate beach outfalls to the Gulf
of Mexico, throe h e hair ll y g!p-u_n& jand
economically f i s that 511 q
and eeeftefnieally feasiblredghileve__Ihg__j2Mblip
safety and flood protgction Ugals of the git
Section 2.This Resolution shall be submitted to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection as evidence of
adoption of these policies to satisfy the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection's conditions
for an outfall management plan to enable the issuance
of the Department's Notice to Proceed for future beach
nourishment projects in Collier County.
Section 3.This resolution shall take effect immediately upon
adoption.
PASSED IN OPEN AND REGULAR SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TgE
CITY OF MAPLES, FLORIDA, THIS
Bill Barnett, Mayor
Attest Approved as to form and
legality:
Tara A. Norman, City Clerk Robert D. Pritt, City Attorney
Tate filed with City Clerk:
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -4 Staff Reports
1 of 10
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ( "DEP ")
Consolidated Joint Coastal Permit, Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization and
Variance No. 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) (the "1998 DEP Permit ")
authorized the Pelican Bay Municipal Services and Benefit Taxing Unit known as the
Pelican Bay Services Division (the "PBSD ") as permittee to implement the Clam Bay
Restoration and Management Plan (the "Plan ");
WHEREAS, the 1998 DEP Permit and the Plan were designed to deal with the
environmental degradation of Clam Bay that was occurring in 1998, and were not
designed to change the navigational characteristics of Clam Bay;
WHEREAS, there is nothing in the 1998 DEP Permit specifically dealing with
the installation of markers within Clam Bay, and, in fact, a careful review of the 1998
DEP Permit and all of the supporting findings of facts clearly indicates that the 1998 DEP
Permit required only the following markers in all of Clam Bay:
Section 3(h) (page 9/21 of the 1998 DEP Permit): "Permanent manatee
informational signs, such as those shown in the enclosed example sheets, shall be
installed and maintained at the canoe boat ramp at the southern end of Outer Clam
Bay following completion of the initial dredging event."
Section 5 (page 9/21 of the 1998 DEP Permit): "The Clam Bay ecosystem
contains waterways that are difficult to navigate due to shallow water depths and
meandering channels lined with protruding mangroves branches and roots. To
protect the significant natural resources and water quality of the Clam Bay
ecosystem, and to provide protection to the public safety (boaters utilizing these
waters), there shall be an idle speed/no wake restriction on motorized vessels used
in the system (as stipulated in County Ordinance No. 96 -16). The existing
restrictions placed upon boating activities within the Clam Bay system by County
Ordinance No. 96 -16 shall remain active and enforceable for the life of this
permit. Additionally, two Florida Marine Patrol approved signs that state: "Idle
Speed -No Wake" and "Caution- Shallow Water and Natural Resources Present -
Tilt Motor Up to Prevent Prop Dredge- Damage to Natural Resources Subject to
Fines, Pursuant to Chapter 370, F.S." shall be placed at the following locations
following completion of the initial dredging event:
1) One within the entrance to Clam Pass facing boaters entering the bays;
2) One at the entrance to Outer Clam Bay facing north and easily legible
to boaters entering Outer Clam Bay;
3) One at the entrance to Inner Clam Bay facing south and easily legible
to boaters entering Inner Clam Bay;
4) One at the entrance to upper Clam Bay facing south and easily legible
to boaters entering Upper Clam Bay; and,
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -4 Staff Reports
2of10
5) One within the upper reaches of Outer Clam Bay facing southeast and
easily legible to boaters leaving Seagate."
WHEREAS, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps ") also
issued a permit at the same time as the 1998 DEP Permit (the "1998 Corps Permit "). The
Corps' Findings of Fact with respect to the 1998 Corps Permit also made it clear that the
1998 Corps Permit also did not contemplate any changes in navigation in Clam Bay. In
its evaluation of recreation considerations under the Public Interest Section of its findings
of Fact (Section 9.a (13), page 22/28), the Corps stated:
"(13) Recreation: The proposed Plan will not change the current recreational use
of the Bay, however, the Plan does contain a Recreational Component that will
address appropriate notification, signage, and policing of the Bay."
In its evaluation of navigation considerations under the same Public Interest
Section of its Findings of Fact (Section 9.a (11), page 22/28), the Corps stated:
(11) Navigation (33CFR320.4(o)): .... The original Plan sought to restrict the use
of motorized boats within the bay, but public outcry for historic riparian rights for
access to the bay caused a revision to the Plan to remove this restriction.
However, existing regulation by Collier County limits motorized vessel
throughout the bay to idle speed and no wake. In addition, the proposed Plan
would implement a provision for evaluation of boat traffic and any adverse
impacts to the Bay. The proposed Plan should not produce any significant
changes in navigation in the Bay."
WHEREAS, the foregoing two sections of the 1998 DEP Permit, Sections 3(h)
and 5, and Section (13) of the Corps Findings of Fact with respect to the 1998 Corps
Permit, contain the only mention of even signage in either the 1998 DEP Permit, the 1998
Corps Permit, or in any findings of fact issued by either agency in connection therewith
(collectively, the "Permit Documents "). There is no mention of markers anywhere in the
Permit Documents.
WHEREAS, the Plan did directly deal with motorized boating in Clam Bay, in
Section 3.3.2 dealing with the Proposed Recreational Component of the Plan:
Plan, pages 36 -38: "For the most part, Clam Bay remains inaccessible to
the general public....
Canoeing of the waterways within Clam Bay remains a popular activity for those
seeking a more intimate look at the estuary, and its wildlife or those seeking
solitude in the upper reaches of the bay. Fishing is also a frequent undertaking
from either the boardwalks or canoes. Swimming is confined to the beach area,
although there is a reasonable amount of wading in Clam Pass and back into the
estuary as much as 1,000 or so feet from the mouth of the Pass.
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -4 Staff Reports
3of10
The use of motorized watercraft is not prohibited, and evidence of periodic use of
such is evident from observation. For the most part, the accumulation of
sediments and the shoaling that has taken place has resulted in physically
limiting the accessibility of Clam Bay to deeper draft boats and particularly
those equipped with engines. Most, if not all of the motorized boat traffic is
believed to originate in the Seagate residential area and be confined to the area
from Outer Clam Bay to Clam Pass. [emphasis supplied]
The Management Plan would not anticipate any change to the recreational use
characteristics of Clam Bay. The contemplated widening and deepening of Clam
Pass and the interior channels leading into Outer Clam Bay will not measurably
improve navigability. Earlier assumptions to the contrary have proved to be
inappropriate as the channel itself remains very confined. Further, since no
dredging of Outer Clam Bay is proposed, accessibility across the same will
not be noticeable improved. [emphasis supplied]
Presently, Collier County has enacted Ordinance 96 -16 which Ordinance provides
for the utilization of the Clam Bay area by motorized watercraft provided that
they operate at no wake and idle speed. The Management Plan recommends no
change in that protocol. The PBSD will however, in cooperation with the County,
vigorously enforce the existing Ordinance. Further, if significant adverse impacts
to the natural resources and water quality of the Clam Bay system are confirmed
by the Collier County Department of Natural Resources, the FDEP and the Corps
environmental staffs to be directly attributable to the use of motorized boats
within the Clam Bay system, then additional restrictions or adjustments in the use
of motorized boats within the Clam Bay system shall be considered for imposition
to ensure that the ecological integrity of the Clam Bay system is preserved....
Appropriate notification, signage and policing will be provided by the County and
the PBSD to ensure compliance. The signage will be strategically placed both at
the entrance to Clam Pass and in the areas around the boat ramp located at the
southern end of Clam Bay. These are intended to ensure that persons
accessing the Clam Bay system are informed of its unique ecological
characteristics, the limitations of access resulting from variations in water depth,
the existence of no wake /idle speed requirements for motorized boat operation
and importantly, the importance of staying out of areas as having maturing
seaerass beds and potential manatee habitat. Precise language to be included
in the signage will be determined in cooperation with the agencies post permit
issuance. [emphasis supplied]
WHEREAS, the only mention of markers that occurs in any document connected
with the Permit Documents is in the Plan, where, on page 38 and 39, the following
sentence occurs: "Finally, the main channel will be marked in accordance with the
requirements imposed by the United States Coast Guard to ensure that those who use
the system clearly know where the channel is and the prohibitions of operating their
water craft outside the same." [emphasis supplied]
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -4 Staff Reports
4of10
WHEREAS, the foregoing clearly indicates that the purpose of the referenced
markers was to protect maturing seagrass beds and potential manatee habitat in the main
channel by ensuring that those who use the system know about the importance of staying
out of such areas. [emphasis supplied]
WHEREAS, the residents of the community known as Seagate ( "Seagate ") have
contended for several years that this single sentence in the Plan mandates the installation
of red and green navigational markers in Clam Bay, not only in the "main channel,"
which is the only area that this sentence mentions to be marked, but also through Outer
Clam Bay.
WHEREAS, the PBSD, as the original permittee of the 1998 DEP Permit and the
1998 Corp Permit, and as the author of the Plan, is fully aware that neither the 1998 DEP
Permit, the 1998 Corps Permit, nor the Plan contemplated the installation of red and
green navigational markers anywhere in Clam Bay.
WHEREAS, the PBSD, as the original permittee of the 1998 DEP Permit and the
1998 Corp Permit, and as the author of the Plan, believes that the purpose of the
referenced markers was to protect maturing seagrass beds and potential manatee habitat
by ensuring that those who use the system know about the importance of staying out of
such areas.
WHEREAS, by the explicit terms of the 1998 DEP Permit and by the explicit
terms of the Plan the Plan was designed as a dynamic document that can be modified
over time:
General Condition 1 of the 1998 DEP Permit: All activities authorized by this
permit shall be implemented as set forth in the plans, specifications, and attached
drawings approved as a part of this permit, and all conditions and requirements of
this permit. The permittee shall notify the Department in writing of any
anticipated deviation from the permit so that the Department can determine
whether a modification of the permit is required.
Plan, page 4: "It is recognized that as management protocols are implemented,
monitoring conducted, and the demands on the natural ecosystem change, new
challenges and opportunities will develop beyond those presented in this plan.
The PBSD is aware that changes will occur and has development a Management
Plan that is dynamic and can be modified through time while still meeting the
PBSD's goals."
Plan, page 5: "The Report has been used to select those management protocols
that meet the goals established by the PBSD and related and interested stake
holders. The long -term goal of the Management Plan is that it be used as a tool
for evaluating new management options, as well as existing protocols as
circumstances require. It should be used minimally, on an annual basis, for
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -4 Staff Reports
5of10
reviewing any new issues or options, as well as for evaluating existing operational
protocols. These analysis [sic] will assist in the prioritization for implementation
in the next ensuing year. SAs new management issues develop and others are
resolved or implemented, the Management Plan can be updated to reflect the
current and future needs of Clam Bay."
Plan, pages 5 -6: "The goals established by the PBSD for the Clam Bay
Management Plan are:.... develop operational protocols that allow the permit
holder to respond to changing circumstances under defined parameters ...."
Plan, page 8: "In the Section entitled the Role of the PBSD, the report discusses
a framework for the PBSD to become not only a clearinghouse and coordinator
for activities relating to Clam Bay, but also the primary manager of the
implementation protocols."
Plan, page 10: "As the official manager of the Management Plan, the PBSD will
direct and have responsibility for its implementation and operation over time. As
such, the PBSD will plan and implement identified management protocols. The
objectives of these management protocols will be to protect, enhance, and
maintain the natural resources and the ecological value of Clam Bay.
WHEREAS, the PBSD has treated the Plan as a dynamic document and has made
changes in implementation protocols over the life of the Plan, including, among other
things, determining what markers are most appropriate for Clam Bay to protect maturing
seagrass beds and potential manatee habitat by ensuring that those who use the system
know about the importance of staying out of such areas.
WHEREAS, the Chairman of the PBSD Board participated with representatives
of the County, the City of Naples, the Pelican Bay Foundation, the Mangrove
Action Group, the Sierra Club, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and Seagate on a
Clam Bay Marker Working Group to attempt to determine what marking system is most
appropriate for Clam Bay.
WHEREAS, the Chairman of the PBSD Board and the Clam Bay Working
Group, with the exception of the representative of Seagate, recommended the installation
of canoe trail markers and informational signs in Clam Bay in order (i) to protect
maturing seagrass beds and potential manatee habitat by ensuring that those who use the
system know about the importance of staying out of such areas, and (ii) to provide notice
to users of the system of the presence of shoals, and (iii) to provide notice to users of the
system that the system is being used by a variety of watercraft.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners for Collier County (the
"BCC ") considered on June 14, 2011 the recommendation of the Clam Bay Marker
Working Group and approved and adopted this recommendation and instructed Collier
County staff to seek to obtain a permit from the relevant authorities authorizing the
installation of these canoe trail markers and informational signs.
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -4 Staff Reports
6of10
WHEREAS, the Collier County Director of Coastal Zone Management applied
for and obtained on September 9, 2011, a permit from the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission ( "FWC ") for the installation of these canoe trail markers and
informational signs.
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2011, the Corps notified Collier County as follows:
As long as the markers are consistent with Special condition 2 of the Corps permit
no. SAJ- 1996 -02789 an additional permit is not needed because the markers are
already authorized under this permit. The Corps will allow informational channel
markers instead of coast guard approved markers. The intent of this condition
within the Corps permit is to protect the resources while allowing safe passage.
The markers shown in the attached application appear to satisfy this requirement
and will bring the permit back in compliance. Please see the attached letter and
make sure to submit the requested documentation once the work is completed.
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2011, the USCG notified Collier County as follows:
This email is in response to the attached State of Florida, FWC permit 11 -020
dated September 9, 2011 for the establishment of information marks in Clam
Pass /Bay.
The USCG has no objection for the placement of the marks per the attached
permit.
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2011, the DEP gave notice of its intent to grant an
exemption and a consent to use sovereign submerged lands for the installation of these
canoe trail markers and informational signs.
WHEREAS, the PBSD considers the Plan to have been de facto amended to
provide for the installation of these canoe trail markers and informational signs by virtue
of the foregoing actions.
WHEREAS, in order to avoid any doubt regarding this fact, the PBSD Board
wishes to make it clear that the Plan has been amended to provide for the installation of
these canoe trail markers and informational signs.
WHEREAS, the PBSD has in the past assessed the residents of Pelican Bay to
fulfill its functions as the permittee under the Plan, and continues to assess the residents
of Pelican Bay to fulfill the other purposes of the PBSD with respect to Clam Bay as
outlined in Collier County Ordinance 2006 -05, which include the "the maintenance of
conservation or preserve areas, including the restoration of the mangrove forest
preserve...."
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -4 Staff Reports
7of10
WHEREAS, the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. (the "Foundation ") is the
homeowners association representing each of the residents of Pelican Bay who are
assessed by the PBSD.
WHEREAS, the PBSD is a dependent district of Collier County.
WHEREAS, the PBSD wishes to ensure that the residents who have been and are
being assessed by the PBSD to pay for the design and implementation of the Plan and for
ongoing matters involving Clam Bay being handled by the PBSD are represented in the
lawsuit brought by Seagate.
WHEREAS, the PBSD wishes to request that the Foundation intervene in the
lawsuit brought by Seagate in order to represent the interests of such residents.
NOW THEREFORE, the PBSD Board hereby resolves as follows:
RESOLVED, that the Plan and the 1998 DEP Permit to the extent it incorporates
the Plan have been amended in fact by the actions of (i) the Clam Bay Marker Working
Group in recommending the installation of canoe trail markers and informational signs in
Clam Bay, (ii) the BCC in approving and adopting this recommendation and in
instructing Collier County staff to obtain a permit from the relevant authorities
authorizing their installation, (iii) the FWC is permitting their installation, (iv) the Corps
in approving their installation, (v) the USCG in approving their installation, and (vi) the
DEP in providing a notice of intent to grant and exemption and consent to use sovereign
submerged lands for their installation; and be it further
RESOLVED, that in order to remove any doubt as to whether the Plan and the
1998 DEP Permit to the extent it incorporates the Plan have been amended in fact by the
actions of (i) the Clam Bay Marker Working Group in recommending the installation of
canoe trail markers and informational signs in Clam Bay, (ii) the BCC in approving and
adopting this recommendation and in instructing Collier County staff to obtain a permit
from the relevant authorities authorizing their installation, (iii) the FWC is permitting
their installation, (iv) the Corps in approving their installation, (v) the USCG in
approving their installation, and (vi) the DEP in providing a notice of intent to grant and
exemption and consent to use sovereign submerged lands for their installation, the Plan
and the 1998 DEP Permit to the extent it incorporates the Plan are hereby amended by
deleting the sentence on pages 37 and 38 of the Plan that provides "Finally, the main
channel will be marked in accordance with the requirements imposed by the United
States Coast Guard to ensure that those who use the system clearly know where the
channel is and the prohibitions of operating their water craft outside the same" and
inserting in lieu thereof the following: "Finally, Clam Bay will be marked with the canoe
trail marker and informational signs permitted by the FWC on September 9, 2011, and as
are covered by DEP's notice dated November 2, 2011, of intent to grant an exemption
and consent to use sovereign submerged lands for their installation; and be it further
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -4 Staff Reports
8of10
RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the PBSD Board be and hereby is instructed
to provide a copy of these resolutions duly adopted by the PBSD Board to the Collier
County Attorney for such further action by the BCC as is deemed necessary and
appropriate; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Foundation be and hereby is requested to intervene in the
lawsuit brought by Seagate in order to ensure that the residents of Pelican Bay who have
been and are being assessed by the PBSD to pay for the design and implementation of the
Plan and for ongoing matters involving Clam Bay that are being handled by the PBSD
are represented in the lawsuit brought by Seagate.
KeifFt J. Dallas, ChAAman
Pelican Bay Services Division Board
j 7 /hV //
Seagate's push for Clam Bay markers spurned by state, going to judge next?: Naple�ff R` }2of 2
9of10
nam- ' WSO WM °rt na friendly .toffy
Read more at naplesnews.cam
Seagate's push for Clam Bay markers spurned
by state, going to judge next?
By ERIC STAATS
Sunday, January 1, 2012
NAPLES — A North Naples neighborhood's push for more formal navigational markers
in Clam Bay could be up to a judge now that the neighborhood has lost a round with a
state agency.
The state Department of Environmental Protection has dismissed 44 mostly identical
petitions that Seagate residents filed to try to stop what they say is an inadequate
canoe trail marker plan pushed by their neighbors in Pelican Bay, DEP spokesman
Terry Cerullo said.
The orders give residents 15 days to submit new petitions, but Seagate Property
Owners Association President Ernie Wu said the group's attempt to trigger an
administrative challenge might have run its course.
"We're still analyzing what we can do," Wu said.
In a series of orders dismissing each petition, starting last week, DEP attorneys said
the petitions don't have enough information for the agency to determine if a hearing
should be held on whether the canoe trail plan should go forward.
For example, the petitions don't cite any disputed facts or specifics about how the
marker plan would harm each petitioner's "environmental interests," the orders say.
The petitions were part of a two- pronged legal attack launched in November on the
marker plan that Collier commissioners approved this summer.
The Seagate Property Owners Association also filed a lawsuit in Collier Circuit Court
asking a judge to force the county to put up more formal navigational markers.
Seagate interprets a 1998 mangrove restoration permit to require the familiar red -and-
green markers, but Pelican Bay says that isn't what is meant by the permit nor by a
related management plan for Clam Bay.
The Pelican Bay Services Division board, an arm of county government, voted in a
special meeting earlier this month to adopt a resolution that amends the 1998 plan in
mhtml:file://G: \CAC Information Folders \1 CAC Agenda Items by Year\2012 CAC Agenda... 1/4/2012
Seagate's push for Clam Bay markers spurned by state, going to judge next?: Naple�J,5 i ,u,g#J0Yof 2
10 of 10
an attempt to blunt the Seagate lawsuit.
"I would characterize it as the community's desire to clarify the county's intent (for
markers in the 1998 plan)," Pelican Bay Services Division Administrator Neil Dorrill
said.
The resolution also asks the Pelican Bay Foundation, the neighborhood's master
homeowners association, to intervene in the lawsuit on the side of the county.
Collier County commissioners could vote on the resolution as early as their Jan. 10
meeting.
County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow said this week that he's given the resolution only a
cursory review and wants to "hear what they (Pelican Bay leaders) have to say about
it."
"It's just a resolution," Klatzkow said. "Whether it does anything or not, I don't know."
The seven -page resolution rewrites the sentence in the 1998 plan that Seagate's
lawsuit contends requires the red - and -green markers. Instead, the new sentence calls
for the county to install the canoe trail markers.
Pelican Bay contends that the 1998 plan has been "amended in fact" because a county
working group, county commissioners and state and federal agencies have signed off
on the canoe trail markers.
"We're well beyond red and green navigational markers," Pelican Bay Foundation
Secretary Steve Feldhaus said.
The rewrite, coming after Seagate's lawsuit, seems disingenuous, Seagate leader Wu
said.
"From a sincerity standpoint, it seems to be kind of a desperation attempt," Wu said.
® 2012 Scripps Newspaper Group — Online
mhtml:file://G: \CAC Information Folders \1 CAC Agenda Items by Year\2012 CAC Agenda... 1/4/2012
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -5 Staff Reports
1 of 13
December 5, 2011 — Rev. 0
January 5, 2012 — Rev. 1
Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria Executive Summary
In April 2011, Atkins was contracted by Collier County's Coastal Zone Management Department to
develop numeric nutrient criteria for Clam Bay. This Executive Summary provides a project
overview, summary of the current water quality condition in Clam Bay, review of the approach used to
develop site - specific numeric nutrient criteria for Clam Bay, and a summary of the review process to
be used to manage the Clam Bay water quality program in the future.
This Executive Summary presents the first of three distinct but interrelated reports that will provide
guidance for managing this water quality program. In addition to numeric nutrient criteria, the
standards for Dissolved Oxygen and Fecal Coliform are also being addressed, with reports anticipated
in the near future on these separate work products.
Whv attention focused on 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 Bay and their connecting waterways. The
Clam Bay estuary and its surrounding mangrove forest comprise a 570 -acre protected conservation
area deeded to Collier County as a condition for the development of the Pelican Bay community.
With the increased development of Collier County, there has been concern that Clam Bay might be
adversely impacted by environmental pressures that typically accompany population growth.
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 all ecology. These concerns led to a series of studies in
recent years to evaluate environmental conditions in Clam Bay, culminating in the effort to develop
site - specific numeric nutrient criteria for evaluating and managing Clam Bay's water quality.
Water Quality Approach in Clam Bay
The project to develop site - specific numeric nutrient criteria for Clam Bay is part of a statewide
transition away from reliance on "narrative standards" to reliance on "more quantitative measures" of
water quality. The state of Florida through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) has historically used a narrative standard for nutrient concentrations in surfaces waters, which
state 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 1990's the State of Florida passed the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) wherein the
FDEP committed to a specific course of action to meet the requirements of the federal governments
Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA 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, a TMDL is defined as "...the maximum amount of pollution that a water
body or water segment can assimilate from all sources without exceeding the water quality
standard..." In 2001, an FDEP- approved method for identifying impaired surface waters, known as
the "Impaired Water Rules" or IWR, was adopted. After the development of the IWR, FDEP initiated
a plan for the development of numeric nutrient concentration criteria (NNC) which was reviewed and
adopted by EPA. The plan called for adoption of criteria for lakes and streams by the end of 2010 as
Page 1 of 13
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -5 Staff Reports
2of13
a first step, but a lawsuit by environmental groups caused the EPA to intervene to accelerate the
process.
As it relates to coastal systems such as Clam Bay, the EPA's latest timeline call for the release of
revised numeric nutrient criteria for estuaries, their watersheds and the coastal waters by November
2011 and for final nutrient criteria for to be developed by August 2012. This timeframe has coincided
with the analysis and development of NNC for Clam Bay and has afforded an opportunity for project
participants to work collaboratively with FDEP reviewers in developing proposed criteria.
Is Clam Bay "impaired" using existing FDEP criteria?
Prior to November 2009, there was no single ambient water quality monitoring program throughout the
entire Clam Bay system. The Pelican Bay monitoring program, which was originally designed to
answer specific permit - related water quality storm water management concerns, includes stations that
are appropriate for permitting needs but are not appropriately located for an ambient monitoring
program. Station locations used by PBS &J (2008) were adequate for some locations in Clam Bay,
and were thought to be useful for further analysis efforts.
Using the aforementioned datasets for Clam Bay, an analysis (PBS &J 2009) indicated that existing
water quality standards described in FDEP's Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) are often not met,
particularly in Upper Clam Bay. In that report, PBS &J (2009) noted that "Levels of dissolved oxygen
(DO) are frequently below standards set in the IWR (FAC 62- 302.530). Additionally, the data indicates
that portions of Clam Bay exceed threshold values of chlorophyll -a established in the IWR (FAC
62- 302.530)." At the request of the Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department, PBS &J
(2009) designed a water quality monitoring program for Clam Bay, which is being implemented by
Collier County staff.
The FDEP IWR contains approved methods for evaluating water quality of lake, stream, and marine
waterbodies. Clam Bay is designated as a Class Il, marine waterbody, which means that FDEP
considers that Clam Bay's designated use is for shellfish propagation and harvesting. Clam Bay
data provided by Collier County for the period of 2009 to 2011 was compared against the appropriate
standard for fecal coliform bacteria, DO, and chlorophyll -a. Presently, Clam Bay would be
designated "impaired" for fecal _coliform`bacteria and DO. In regards to chlorophyll -a, sufficient data
was only available in 2010 to calculate an annual average (9.0 pg /L) which was below the 11 pg /L
standard required for estuaries. However, a separate evaluation of the annual chlorophyll -a average
for Upper Clam Bay alone (14.6 pg /L) indicates elevated phytoplankton levels.
Is impairment likely due to nutrient- reiatea impacts to wafer quaniy:
In addition to evaluating water quality conditions to assess the impairment status of Clam Bay, the
potential relationships between nutrients and DO or Chlorophyll -a were reviewed.
Dissolved Oxygen
A correlation analysis between DO and multiple parameters (i.e. nutrients, color, salinity,
temperature and chlorophyll -a) was performed to identify the potential cause for DO
concentrations in Clam Bay. There was no evidence of an empirical relationship between DO
and total nitrogen (TN) and although there was evidence of a link between DO and total
phosphorus (TP) it was statistically weak. Water temperature and salinity explained more
than 10 times as much of the variability in DO as TP alone.
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; McCormick et al. 1997, FEDP
Page 2 of 13
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -5 Staff Reports
3of13
2004). Moreover, there is little evidence to suggest that TN or TP concentrations impact DO
in Clam Bay.
Chlorophyll -a
A correlation analysis between chlorophyll -a and TN and TP was performed to identify the
potential cause for chlorophyll -a concentrations in Clam Bay. A statistically significant
regression was observed between chlorophyll -a and both TP and TN, which explained 22%
and 25% of the variability, respectively. However, despite the link between nutrients and
chlorophyll -a, a resulting impact on water clarity (Secchi disk depth) was not detected.
Connections between nutrients and chlorophyll -a, chlorophyll -a and water clarity, and water
clarity and seagrass are thus not found in Clam Bay.
Additionally, recent studies indicate that the organic content of the sediment in the Clam Bay system
is not indicative of substantial over - enrichment by nutrients (PBS &J 2010). Instead, it has been
suggested that the fine - grained sediment that characterizes much of Clam Bay is likely due to
reduced flushing and low tidal velocities within Clam Bay (PBS &J 2010).
Review of Previous TMDL Development
While Clam Bay does not meet IWR guidance for DO nutrients cannot be linked to these values.
Additionally, elevated chlorophyll -a concentrations can be found in Upper Clam Bay (although not
Clam Bay as a whole), but a resulting impact on water clarity was not evident. Related to this issue,
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)."
However, TMDLs have been developed in waterbodies with DO impairments even when TN and TP
concentrations were below screening criteria (i.e. Gordon River TMDL (FDEP 2008a), Hendry Creek
TMDL (FDEP 2008b)). For Hendry Creek, freshwater (32586) and marine (3258131) segments,
located in Lee County, have both been declared impaired for DO, and in 2008, FDEP developed a
TMDL requiring a 32% load reduction for TN, even though nutrient concentrations were below
screening criteria.
As an example of problems with the impairment process, the Rookery Bay Coastal waterbody (WBID
3278U), an estuarine system in Collier County, was declared impaired for nutrients (chlorophyll a) in
2009 as part of the FDEP Group 1 Cycle 2 verified impaired list. The impairment was based upon
elevated annual chlorophyll -a concentrations in 2006(14.0 ug /1) alone. These sampling stations were
located adjacent to boat ramps and roadway crossings. New sampling stations were visited in 2006
which were previously not evaluated. Prior to the addition of these inappropriate (for any ambient
condition monitoring effort) sampling stations, the annual average chlorophyll a concentration did not
exceed 11 ug /l.
Implications of Problematic TMDLs
For the past 12 years, the TMDL program in Florida has been focused on identifying water quality
impairments and developing and adopting TMDLs to restore water quality. Today, the program is
rapidly transitioning to project implementation and water quality restoration (i.e., TMDL
implementation), with the cost of restoration being passed to local governments and other MS4
(stormwater) permittees. TMDL implementation is being enforced by FDEP through revisions to
the MS4 permit renewal process. Whereas prior permits focused on documenting stormwater
Page 3 of 13
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -5 Staff Reports
4of13
infrastructure and reporting monitoring and other management activities, new permits include
requirements to implement TMDLs and demonstrate water quality improvements. This marks a
clear transition in MS4 permitting in Florida, its use as a planning tool to guide stormwater
management to a regulatory tool for enforcing the implementation of TMDLs and load reductions.
These changes have made it ever more important for local governments to verify that water quality
impairments identified by FDEP are real, that the TMDLs developed and adopted by FDEP are
scientifically defensible, and that water quality restoration projects can be reasonably expected to
restore water quality. Failure to do so may mean that a community will be legally obligated to
implement projects that are not necessary and may not restore water quality.
In addition, the implementation of "problematic" TMDLs would divert the limited staff and financial
resources of local governments from addressing "real" water quality problems and delay the
restoration of truly impaired water quality. In developing site specific numeric nutrient criteria (NNC)
for Clam Bay, Collier County is ensuring that the water quality status of the bay will be properly
assessed and that, if necessary, any management actions implemented by the County to protect to
protect the bay, will be effective. This will save the County significant time and money and avoid
potential litigation with the state and other parties.
Site Specific Water Quality Criteria Development for Clam Bay
The effective management of this system will be compromised if the serious concerns discussed
above and summarized below are not addressed. These findings lend further support to the
conclusion (PBSU 2009) that both the DO and Chlorophyll- a'standards outlined in FDEP's IWR can
be inappropriate in SW Florida water bodies. It was recommended in the same report that Collier
County should work with staff from FDEP to develop Site- specific alternative criteria (SSAC) for
parameters such as chlorophyll -a, TN and TP;and DO. The probable concerns from FDEP's current
policies and our site specific circumstances are summarized as:,
• Problematic impairment using existing FDEP criteria.
• The lack of evidence that total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) concentrations impact
DO in Clam Bay.
• Sediment aging and sediment organic content results do not support nutrient impairment.
• The previous TMDL Development Orders by FDEP if required would divert the limited staff
and financial resources from addressing the "real" water quality problems and delay
the restoration of truly;, impaired water quality.
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).
• Historical conditions
• Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) modeling or response -based approach
Proposed numeric nutrient concentration criteria and management
The Numeric Nutrient Criteria (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 an estuary (Estero Bay Wetlands) previously used by FDEP as a
"reference location" for water quality in estuaries in Southwest Florida. NNC have to be considered in
the context of salinity due to the relationship between nutrient concentrations and salinity that is found
Page 4 of 13
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -5 Staff Reports
5of13
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.
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 (Figures 1 and 2). To be consistent
with existing methods used by FDEP, the upper 10th percentile prediction limit for the regression
between TN or TP and conductivity (from Clam Bay) was used for target setting. The upper 10th
percentile prediction limit was selected because it represents the line beyond which only 10% percent
of values would be expected to occur.
Based on the average conductivity (42,453 NS) in Clam Bay over the periods from 1994 -1998 and
2009 -2011, the corresponding upper 10th percentile prediction limit for TN and TP are 1.22 and 0.086
mg /L, respectively. In comparison, the draft FDEP Estuary- Specific Numeric Nutrient Criteria
(September 29, 2011) TN and TP criteria for Estero Bay are 0.63 and 0.07mg /L, respectively. The TN
and TP criteria for Marco Island are 0.36 mg TN /L and 0.048 mg TP /L. For Naples Bay the values
listed are 0.32 mg TN /L and 0.050 mg TP /L. While protective of existing conditions, the proposed
criteria for Clam Bay do not result in a finding of "impairment ", nor are they more restrictive than
guidance developed by FDEP.
The equations which represent the upper 10th percentile prediction limit for TN and TP are provided
below (Equations 1 and 2).
Equation 1: TN Upper Limit (mg /L), = 2.3601 — 0.0000268325 *Conductivity (NS)
Equation 2: TP Upper Limit (mg /L) = exp (- 1.06256- 0.0000328465 *Conductivity (NS))
Proposed System Management
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 in any given year 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. In other words, nutrient concentrations are allowed to exceed the upper limit occasionally,
but exceedances cannot be frequent enough that it would be reasonable to conclude that a "different"
data set has resulted. 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 in F.A.C.
62 -303. These tables provide the minimum number of samples not meeting an applicable water
quality criterion needed to put an estuary on the planning list with at least 80% confidence or the
verified list with a least 90% confidence.
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
Page 5 of 13
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -5 Staff Reports
6of13
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 "T'. The management response for Clam Bay would be determined based on the outcomes
assigned to both the TN and TIP evaluations for the magnitude and duration of exceedance (Figure 4).
Management response actions would be identified based on presence or absence of co- occurring
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 pg /L standard found in F.A.C. 62- 303 -353. If there is a significant
relationship between chlorophyll -a concentrations and water clarity, or annual chlorophyll -a
concentrations are above 11 pg /L, an outcome designation of "yellow" (indicative of small magnitude
or duration of exceedances) signified that 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.
N' of
enough
�11FJi��IE1 ... CixwliZw •
80% confidence 17 fbagnitudeor 90: -4. confidence
( Planning list) ` ° * ( Verified list)
1 year I (> 1 year 1 year I >1 year
out(onle1. ( 1 Outcome2 1 I Outcoine2
Page 6 of 13
CAC January 12, 2012
VII-5 Staff Reports
7 of 13
Figure 4: Management response matrix using outcomes from both TN and TE evaluation
Page 7 of 13
❑all difference or
sort duration
entify Potential
causes and
responses
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -5 Staff Reports
8of13
Conclusions
The development of numeric nutrient criteria for Clam Bay was developed in consultation with
the staff from FDEP's Standards and Assessments Section, whose comments on a draft
report of July 2011 were incorporated into a subsequent Technical Note of August 2011
prepared by PBS &J. The technical Note was accepted by FDEP as a scientifically
defensible approach for developing criteria for Clam Bay and the resulting numeric criteria
have been proposed for adoption into state law. A project timeline is attached, identifying
milestones in the approval process, along with the responses of state technical reviewers
endorsing the approach and criteria presented in the Technical Note of August 31,2011.
Page 8 of 13
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -5 Staff Reports
9of13
Outline of Approval Timeline
March 10, 2011
Collier County staff was presented with the scope of work for NNC development for
Clam Bay.
April 14, 2011
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee voted 8 to 1 to approve the Atkins Scope
of Work and budget for numeric nutrient criteria development for Clam Bay
April 26, 2011
Atkins presented the Scope of Work and budget for numeric nutrient criteria
development for Clam Bay to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners.
The Commissioners voted to approve the scope of work, thereby authorizing the work
order.
June 10, 2011
Meeting in Naples, Florida to present preliminary findings. Representatives from
Atkins, Collier County, FDEP- Fort Myers, City of Naples, Pelican Bay Services
Division, and Cardno -Entrix were in attendance.
June 28, 2011
Meeting in Tallahassee to present preliminary findings to FDEP. FDEP staff in
attendance include Drew Bartlett, DaryU Joyner, Russ Frydenborg, and Ken Weaver.
Representatives from Atkins, Collier County, FDEP, City of Naples, Pelican Bay
Services Division, Cardno- Entrix participated via conference call.
July 7, 2011
Atkins provided draft report of Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria to Collier County
and FDEP for review.
August 23, 2011
FDEP provided written comments on draft report of Clam Bay NNC?
August 31, 2011
Atkins provided revised Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria Technical Note to
FDEP and Collier County addressing comments identified by FDEP.
September 7, 2011
Russ Frydenborg (FDEP) sends email to Collier County, FDEP and Atkins staff
approving the proposed modifications to the Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria and
supporting the approach as scientifically defensible (email. attached).
October 13, 2011
Dave Tomasko (Atkins) presents proposed Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria to the
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee (Naples, Florida). The Committee voted
8 -0 to move forward with presenting a revised but condensed Executive Summary of
the report to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration.
FDEP provides memo indicating that FDEP is considering adoption of Clam Bay
criteria into Chapter 62 -302, F.A.C., based on the approaches described in the August
31, 2011 Technical Note (memo attached)
October 14, 2011
FDEP requests equations representing TN and TP upper 10th percentile prediction
limit for inclusion in Chapter 62 -302, F.A.C., relating to Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient
Criteria.
October 18, 2011
Atkins provides equations representing TN and TP upper 10th percentile prediction
limit to FDEP.
October 27, 2011
Page 8 of 9
Outline of Approval Timeline
Page 9 of 13
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -5 Staff Reports
10 of 13
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.
Collier County Seagrass Protection Plan .1992. Collier County, Naples, Florida
Collier County Seagrass Inventory. 1994. Collier County, Naples, Florida
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.
FDEP. 2004. Everglades Marsh Dissolved Oxygen Site Specific Alternative Criterion Technical Support Document.
Final Report to Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, FL. 61 pp.
FDEP. 2008a. Dissolved Oxygen TMDL for the Gordon River Extension, WBID 3278K (formerly 3259C). Final
Report to Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, FL. 40 pp.
FDEP. 2008b. TMDL Report: Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs for Hendry Creek (WBIDs 3258B and 3258B1). 39 pp.
McCormick, P.V., Chimney, M.J. and D.R. Swift. 1997. Diel oxygen profiles and water column community
metabolism in the Florida Everglades, U.S.A. Archives die Hyrobiologie. 140: 117 -129
PBS &J. 2008. Clam Bay Seagrass Assessment. Submitted to Collier County Coastal Zone Management
Department.
PBS &J, 2009. Clam Bay System: Data Collection and Analysis.,. Submitted to Collier County Coastal Zone
Management Department.
Tomasko, D.A. 2002. Status and Trends of Seagrass Coverage in Tampa Bay, with Reference to Other Southwest
Florida Estuaries. In: Seagrass Management: It's Not Just Nutrients! Ed. H.S. Greening. Proceedings of a
Symposium: August 22 -24, 2000, St. Petersburg, FL
Worley, K. 2005. Mangroves as an Indicator of Estuarine Conditions in Restoration Areas. In: Estuarine
Indicators. Ed. S. Bortone. CRC Press: Boca Raton. Pp. 247 -260.
Page 10 of 13
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -5 Staff Reports
11 of 13
FW Technical memorandum on NNC for Clam Bay.txt
From: Frydenborg, Russel [mailto: Russel .Frydenborg @dep.state.fl.us] Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 20111: 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 DEP Customer survey. From: Tomasko, David A
[mail to: David. Tomas ko @atkinsglobal.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:30 PM To:
Bartlett, Drew CC: Joyner, Daryll; Mandrup - Poulsen, Jan; Weaver, Kenneth; Frydenborg,
Russel; MCA1pinGary; 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
repo rt wi 11 i ncl ude a compari son of Cl am Bay's nut ri ent vs sal i Ili ty rel ati onshi p wi th
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
Page 1 FW Technical memorandum on NNC for Clam Bay.txt
Page 11 of 13
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -5 Staff Reports
12 of 13
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 fi ndi ng of "fecal col i form 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.atkinsglobal.com /northamerica www.atkinsglobal.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 plc 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.
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Messaget_abs.
Page 2
Page 12 of 13
CAC January 12, 2012
VII -5 Staff Reports
13 of 13
Standards and Assessment Section Comments on Collier County: Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam
Bay - Development of Site- Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria (August 31, 2011 Technical Note)
Prepared By Ken Weaver Florida Department of Environmental Protection Standards and Assessment
Section
The August 31, 2011 Atkins proposal represents a significant improvement over the July 21, 2011 proposal. I
believe that it represents a scientifically defensible approach for developing protective, yet not overly
stringent criteria, for Clam Bay. The revised proposal adopted all our previous recommendations including
use of Clam Bay data to set nutrient limits for itself. I find that with these changes nutrients limits are not
overly stringent or unrealistic for Clam Bay and would achieve reasonable Type I and 11 error rates.
Furthermore, Atkins has provided convincing documentation that Clam Bay is healthy with regards to
nutrients; that is, the existing nutrient regime in Clam Bay is protective of the designated use. Therefore, DEP
is currently considering adoption into Chapter 62 -302, F.A.C., criteria for Clam Bay based on the approaches
described in the August 31, 2011 Technical Note. DEP is still receiving public comment on the Clam Bay
criteria and will make a final decision regarding whether to move forward at this time after a thorough
review of all comments received.
Page 13 of 13
CAC January 12, 2012
VIII -1 New Business
1 of 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to approve Work Order with Atkins North America, Inc. for Clam
Pass Joint Coastal Permit under contract CE- FT -09- 5262 -CZ for a not to exceed
amount of $7,672.00.
OBJECTIVE: To approve Work Order with Atkins North America, Inc. under contract CE -FT-
09- 5262 -CZ for a not to exceed amount of $7,672.00.
CONSIDERATIONS: The intention of this Work Order assigned to Atkins North America, Inc.
under Contract CE- FT -09- 5262 -CZ is to provide professional engineering guidance, preparation
of project documentation, respond to peer review comments and expert review of project
information for the Clam Pass Project. On August 23, 2011, the USACE provided a package to
Atkins North America, Inc. in association with the previous Clam Pass Permit Application
process that included approximately 30 plus public comments /questions regarding the permit
application.
In compliance with the permit requirements in connection with the Clam Pass Joint Coastal
Permitting conditions the applicant Coastal Zone Management Department under the
representation of the design professional Atkins North America, Inc. is required to provide
responses in a timely manner to the "Request for Additional Information" (RAI) from the
USACE /FDEP regulatory agencies during the permitting review process. Therefore, in order to
meet the above required permitting conditions, staff is requesting approval to execute this Work
Order to Atkins North America, Inc. for the intended scope of required professional engineering
services.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Source of funds is from Category "A" Tourist Development Tax.
Budget is available for the project in 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 by the County Attorney's Office,
requires majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action. — CMG
RECOMMENDATION: To approval Work Order with Atkins North America, Inc. for Clam Pass
Joint Coastal Permit under Contract CE- FT -09- 5262 -CZ for a not to exceed amount of
$7,672.00.
PREPARED BY: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Director, Coastal Zone Management Department
CAC January 12, 2012
VIII -1 New Business
2 of 6
WORK ORDERIPURCHASE ORDER #
Agreement for Atkins North America
Contract Dated: 3.8.11 (CE- FT- 09- 5262 -CZ)
This Work Order is for Professional Engineering Services for work known as:
Project Name: Clam Pass Joint Coastal Permit (JCP)
Project No: 195 - 90060.1
The work is specified in the proposal dated December 13, 2011 which is attached hereto and made a
part of this Work Order. In accordance with Terms and Conditions of the Agreement referenced
above, Work Order/Purchase Order # is assigned to: Atkins North America, Inc.
Scow of Work: As detailed in the attached proposal and the following:
Task I: JCP Permitting Services (Clam Pass Application)
(FDPE & USACE)
Schedule of Work: Complete work within 180 days from receipt of the Notice to Proceed
authorizing commencement of work.
Compensation: In accordance with Article Five of the Agreement, the County will compensate the
Firm in accordance with following method(s): Time & Material not to exceed amount of work order.
Task I: JCP Permitting Services
(FDPE & USACE)
$7,672.00 (TIM)
TOTAL FEE $ $7,672.00 (TIM)
Any change made subsequent to final department approval will be considered an additional service
and charged according to Schedule "A" of the original Contract Agreement.
PREPARED BY:-`"` '`� r 'Z .
Clint L. Perryman, CG , Project Manager Date
Collier Cou I Zone Management Dept.
ACCEPTED BY: Z- e2
Je c Director Datif
Atkfry m e,
Inc.
APPROVED BY: aA&w 14 3 -z-
J. ry McAI n, P.E., Direct6r Date
Collier County Coastal Zone Management Dept.
CAC January 12, 2012
VIII -1 New Business
3 of 6
Contract #09 -52 62 -C27
Work Order #1
December 13, 2011
CLAM PASS JOINT COASTAL PERMIT (ICP)
Atkins North America is pleased to provide a scope of work for Clam Pass /Bay Estuary.
The intention of this Work Assignment is to provide professional guidance, preparation of
project documentation, respond to peer review comments and expert review of project
information for Clam Pass. In accordance with Collier County Contract Number 09-5262 -
CN the following scope of work is presented herein.
Permit Pry ess and Understanding
Based on correspondence received December 13, 2011 from Linda Elligott ( USACE): "The
Applicant must provide a written response to comments received as a result of the re- issued
Public Notice. Upon receipt and review of these items, the permit review process will
proceed." On August 23, 2011 the USACE provided a package to Atkins that included
approximately 30 plus public comments /questions regarding the permit application. As
part of the permit process these questions will have to be addressed.
SCOPE OF WORK
1CP Permit Services - Clam Pass A1111lication
Acquisition of Project Permits
Material and documentation required for to respond to the RAI will be prepared and
submitted to the regulatory agency; Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) and United State Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE). A total of two (2) meetings
will be held with the regulatory agencies to review the public comments, and prepare
necessary response(s), etc. Appropriate changes to the design documents, if necessary,
will be made following review and approval by County staff.
This scope of services does not include for any type of detailed environmental
documentation such as a mitigation plan, Environmental Assessment (EA) or
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Any items out -of -scope will be discussed with the
County and a scope of services will be provided.
FDEP Response: Based on correspondence from Lainie Edwards (FDEP) dated December
14, 2011 the items will be completed:
• Review the draft permit for completeness and provide the County with any
comments and suggested revisions.
USACE Response: Based on the comments received from USACE (dated August 23, 20 11)
the following areas will be addressed:
• Due to the magnitude of comments /questions received (30 plus), the substantive
issues raised in the comment letters will be addressed; and responses will be
grouped by topic. The comments are generally much the same, such that there is
no need to respond to each individual comment letter, but Atkins will capture the
essence of the concerns in the responses and will look at the individual comments
Atkins North America
CAC January 12, 2012
VIII -1 New Business
4of6
in order to prepare an adequate response. Also, please note that the responses will
be prepared to and for the USACE, and are not to the commenting parties;
however, a future request could prompt release of the documents subject to
coordination with the USACE Office of Counsel.
Review the draft permit for completeness and provide the County with any
comments and suggested revisions.
Note: this task does = include services for responding to legal objections, preparing for
expert testimony or preparing for litigation to the project. If necessary, these services will
be provided under separate scope and fee to the County.
SCHEDULE
The above scope is based on an estimated six (6) month schedule of participation. The
work assignment may be amended if the schedule is extended beyond the six months.
Atkins will complete weekly updates to County staff on the schedule, task and present
budget of the project. In addition, quarterly progress reports will be prepared, if
necessary, that outline project expenses to date and review the budget and schedule.
BUDGET
In accordance with Collier County Contract Number 09- 5262 -CT compensation for the
above scope of work will be based on a Time & Materials charge not to exceed the amount
listed below without authorization from the County.
JCP Permit Services:
Tabar
Atkins North America
$7,672 (T &M)
December 14, 2011
Date
Atkins North America 2
CAC January 12, 2012
VIII -1 New Business
5of6
ATTACHMENTB- Statement of Work Budget Estimate)
Client: Collier County Charge Type: T & M
Project: Clam Pass JCP
Project No: TBD Prepared By. JRT
Labor rates will be billed at or below rates established per the agreement number contract #09- 5262 -CZ
Note: time may vary depending upon the task assignment and labor rate assigned
Labor Sts
Permit
Total
Labor
Application
Hours
Cost
Sr. Project Manager
$165.00
8
8
$1,320
Engineer
$119.00
8
8
$952
Designer
$100.00
16
16
$1,600
CADD Tech
$95.00
40
40
$3,800
Total Hours
72
72
Labor Cost
$7,672
$7,672
Total Project Budget $7,672
$7,672
Atkins North America 3
CAC January 12, 2012
VIII -1 New Business
6of6
This list is not intended to be all- inclusive. Hourly rate fees for other categories of professional, support
and other services shall be mutually negotiated by the County and firm on a project by project basis as
needed.
Schedule B
Contract No: 09 -5262 "County Wide Engineering Services"
Standard Hourly Rate Schedule for all disciplines
Personnel Cate-gory
Standard Hourly Rate
Principal
$195
Senior Project Manager
$165
Project Manager
$148
Senior Engineer
$155
Engineer
$119
Senior Inspector
$85
Inspector
$65
Senior Planner
$140
Planner
$110
Senior Designer
$115
Designer
$100
Environmental Specialist
$115
Senior GIS Specialist
$145
GIS Specialist
$100
Clerical
$60
Surveyor and Mapper
$130
CADD Technician
$85
Survey Crew - 2 man
$130
Survey Crew - 3 man
$160
Survey Crew - 4 man
$180
This list is not intended to be all- inclusive. Hourly rate fees for other categories of professional, support
and other services shall be mutually negotiated by the County and firm on a project by project basis as
needed.