Page 1 of 104
CHNEP Technical Advisory Committee
Thursday July 21, 2016
9:30 am – 3:30 pm
Morgan Family Community Center
6207 W. Price Blvd, North Port. FL
Please RSVP for TAC Meeting & Lunch at: http://doodle.com/poll/tawqrqbgw2c2z8c5
AGENDA
Note: You may attend this meeting remotely via WebEx using the information on page 3 of this agenda.
1. Call to Order and Introductions — Shelley Thornton, Co-Chair
2. Agenda Additions or Deletions — Shelley Thornton, Co-Chair
3. Public Comments on Agenda Items — Shelley Thornton, Co-Chair
4. Consent Agenda — Shelley Thornton, Co-Chair (page 5)
a. TAC April 14, 2016 Meeting Minutes (page 5)
Action Item: Approve the minutes of the April 14, 2016 TAC meeting.
b. FY17 Water Atlas Maintenance Scope of Work (page 15)
Action Item: Recommend the Management Conference approve the FY17 Water Atlas Scope of Work.
5. CCHMN FY16 Field Audits and FY17 Scopes of Work — Judy Ott, CHNEP (page23)
Action Item: Recommend Management Conference accept the CCHMN FY16 Field Audit results and FY17
Upper Charlotte Harbor and Lower Charlotte Harbor Scopes of Work.
6. Morgan Park Peace River Shoreline and Habitat Restoration Comprehensive Project Plan — John Kiefer, AMEC
Foster Wheeler (page 41)
Action Item: Recommend that the Management Conference approve the Morgan Park Comprehensive Project
Plan Final Report.
7. Morgan Park Peace River Shoreline and Habitat Restoration North Bend Draft Phase I Design — John Kiefer,
AMEC Foster Wheeler (page 43)
Action Item: Recommend that the Management Conference approve the Morgan Park Peace River Shoreline
and Habitat Restoration North Bend Draft Phase I Design.
8. Mangrove Heart Attack Project Site Investigation Analyses — Lisa Beever, CHNEP (page 45)
Action Item: Recommend that the Management Conference accept the Mangrove Heart Attack Project Site
Investigation Analyses.
9. Restoration Needs and Targets Process Update – Judy Ott, CHNEP (page 47)
Lunch 12:00 noon – 12:45 pm provide inhouse ($7/p). Please RSVP at: http://doodle.com/poll/tawqrqbgw2c2z8c5 .
10. Caloosahatchee River SAV Targets Working Group Update — Judy Ott, CHNEP (page 81)
11. Compendium of Research by Dr. Ralph Montgomery – Sid Flannery (page 89)
Action Item: Recommend that the Management Conference accept the Compendium of Research by Dr. Ralph
Montgomery report.
12. FDEP Environmental Assessment and Restoration Water Quality Activities — Erin Rasnake, FDEP (page 91)
13. FWRI Modeling to Assess the Influence of Water Withdrawls on Charlotte Harbor Estuarine Fish Species — Peter
Rubec, FWC (page 93)
14. CHNEP Program Report – Staff, CHNEP (page 95)
a. Director Hiring Update
b. Charlotte Harbor Watershed Summit: March 2017 (page 97)
c. Annual Request for Restoration, Acquisition and Leveraging Projects for Report to EPA
d. Select Outreach Projects (page 98)
e. Program Deliverables (page100)
15. Member Comments — Shelley Thornton, Co-Chair
16. Public Comments — Shelley Thornton, Co-Chair
17. Next Meeting's Topics, Location and Date — Thursday October 13, 2016 Fort Myers
18. Adjourn — Shelley Thornton, Co-Chair
THIS MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Two or more members of the Everglades West and Caloosahatchee Basin Working Groups may be in attendance and
may discuss matters that could come before the respective body.
Page 2 of 104
CHNEP Technical Advisory Committee
Thursday July 21, 2016
9:30 am – 3:30 pm
Morgan Family Community Center
6207 W. Price Blvd, North Port. FL
DIRECTIONS TO MORGAN FAMILY COMMUNITY CENTER
Simplified directions: For more detailed directions, please consult a mapping program.
Exit 182
North Port / Sumter Blvd
Sumter
Blvd.
Morgan Family
W. Price Blvd.
Community
Center
Murdock
Sumter
Blvd.
Morgan
Family
Community
Center
W. Price
Blvd.
From North, South, East or West via I-75:
• Take I-75 to North Port Exit 182 for Sumter Blvd./Co. Hwy 771 & exit south towards North Port.
• Take Sumter Blvd./Co. Hwy 771 south +2.0 miles to W. Price Blvd. & turn right (west) on W. Price Blvd.
• Take W. Price Blvd. west +1.0 mile drive into Morgan Family Community Center on the left (south).
• Follow the Morgan Family Community Center drive past the baseball fields to the Community Center
building & follow the CHNEP signs to the meeting room.
From North, South, East or West via US 41:
• Take US 41 to North Port to Sumter Blvd. & turn north on Sumter Blvd.
• Take Sumter Blvd. north +2.4 miles to W. Price Blvd. & turn left (west) on W. Price Blvd.
• Take W. Price Blvd. west +1.0 mile drive into Morgan Family Community Center on the left (south).
• Follow the Morgan Family Community Center drive past the baseball fields to the Community Center
building & follow the CHNEP signs to the meeting room.
Page 3 of 104
CHNEP Technical Advisory Committee
Thursday July 21, 2016
9:30 am – 3:30 pm
Morgan Family Community Center
6207 W. Price Blvd, North Port. FL
Instructions for Joining Meeting Remotely via WebEx
Meeting: CHNEP TAC
Date: Thursday, July 21, 2016
Time: WebEx Link Opens at 8:30 am WebEx link & Meeting Starts at 9:30 am
Meeting number (access code): 625 605 280
To Join the Meeting Visuals via PC: Click this link Join the Meeting & follow the instruction.
To Join the Meeting Audio via PC or Phone: Either select “Listen through Computer” after joining the meeting
through your PC or call in to 1 (650) 479-3208 to listen through your phone.
Click Here to Add the Meeting to your Calendar: Click this link Add to Calendar
Please Note: If the “Join the Meeting” link above doesn’t work, you can also copy & paste the full link into
your web browser:
https://puntagorda.webex.com/mw3100/mywebex/default.do?service=1&siteurl=puntagorda&nomenu=true&ma
in_url=%2Fmc3100%2Fe.do%3Fsiteurl%3Dpuntagorda%26AT%3DMI%26EventID%3D465222907%26UID
%3D4173258942%26Host%3DQUhTSwAAAAIPeYQsSSDmCPHgfSZvial5ar_Rni7mB44oLK7FG3fsNwjQgYGwJyGrooPEjXgiLHP2McnwJqQeZN0ajuUDDW0%26FrameSet%3D2%26MTID%3Dm913f0526d80f1835c1aed4b94defd99a
Page 4 of 104
Page 5 of 104
4A. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 2014 TAC MEETING
The April 14, 2016 TAC draft meeting minutes are attached.
Recommendation:
Motion to approve the minutes from April 14, 2016 TAC meeting.
Attachment:
Draft minutes for the April 14, 2016 TAC meeting.
Page 6 of 104
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Technical Advisory Committee
April 14, 2016
Punta Gorda, FL
Members Present
David Ceilley
David Nellis
Mary Thornhill
Bill Byle
Keith Kibbey
Ray Leary
Tricia Hobson
Melynda Brown
Siobhan Gorham
Shelley Thornton
Cassondra Thomas
Don McCormick
Kris Kaufman
Citizen
Citizen
City – Winter Haven
County – Charlotte
County – Lee
County – Sarasota
FL Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
FL Department of Environmental Protection
FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Mosaic
South FL Water Management District
Southwest FL Regional Planning Council
Southwest FL Water Management District
Also Present
J.D. Kidd
Lisa Beever
Liz Donley
David Moe
Judy Ott
Laura Flynn
Kirby Wolfe
Courtney Saari
Phil Stevens
Rae Ann Wessel
Jim Beever
Lizanne Garcia
Matt Miller
Cape Coral Northwest Homeowners Association
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program CAC
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Coastal Resources Group
FL Department of Environmental Protection
FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Sanibel Captive Conservation Foundation
Southwest FL Regional Planning Council
Southwest FL Water Management District
WRA Engineering
1. Call to Order and Introductions — Keith Kibbey, Co-Chair
Mr. Kibbey called the meeting to order at 9:30 and members introduced themselves.
2. Agenda Additions or Deletions — Keith Kibbey, Co-Chair
No member comments on the agenda were offered.
3. Public Comments on Agenda Items — Keith Kibbey, Co-Chair
No public comments on the agenda were offered.
4. Consent Agenda — Keith Kibbey, Co-Chair
a. TAC February 11, 2016 Meeting Minutes
LIZANNE GARCIA MOVED, SECONDED BY RAY LEARY , TO APPROVE THE TAC
FEBRUARY 11, 2016 MINUTES. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
b. CHNEP Management Conference 2017 Meeting Dates
RAY LEARY MOVED, SECONDED BY SHELLEY THORNTON, TO APPROVE THE TAC
2017 MEETING DATES. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Page 7 of 104
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Technical Advisory Committee
April 14, 2016
Punta Gorda, FL
5. CHNEP Draft FY17 Workplan Discussion — Liz Donley, CHNEP
The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires each NEP to submit its FY17 grant application
and Associated Workplan and Budget by June 1, 2016. For FY17, EPA has allocated $600,000 to each NEP.
CHNEP partner contributions were based on previous year levels. The FY17 Workplan includes the FY16
Workplan budget amendments and incorporates the latest finance information regarding FY15 reserves from the
City of Punta Gorda. The FY17 Workplan and Budget reflects the City’s philosophy regarding potential
expenses associated with the departure of the current Director (FY16 expenses) and projecting expenses for the
next Director (FY17 expenses). The FY16 amended budget is $949,622 and the proposed FY17 budget is
$934,220. Staff are awaiting final confirmation of supplemental EPA funding to conduct of a broad risk-based,
climate change vulnerability assessment. Once the funds are confirmed, the FY16 budget will require an
amendment. At the March 10, 2016 meeting, the Policy Committee assigned the Management Committee the
task to review the contributions from local partners and make recommendations regarding adjustments to the
way local contributions are calculated. EPA and local support funding has remained static over the last several
years, while personnel, fringe and contract costs have increased. The public outreach and technical projects
represent continuing projects, with no new projects funded.
Discussion ensued, including:
• Workplan is formatted to include summary tables upfront, followed by supporting information.
• Table 3: Budget Changes Between Approved and Amended FY16 Budgets included Personnel time for
Jaime Boswell to coordinate the Volunteer Oyster Habitat Monitoring and the Fringe included the
“worst case” estimates for FRS retirement.
• Table 7: FY17 EPA Cooperative Agreement discussions included that CHNEP may receive addition
federal dollars from EPA for CCMP Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Climate Ready
Estuaries Habitat Resiliency Project support in the near future.
• Table 8: Fy17 Proposed SWFWMD Contract discussions included that the SWFWMD/CHNEP
contracts are for greater than 1 year which increases flexibility how funds are used and that FY16
SWFWMD funds haven’t been committed yet.
• Table 13: Staff Time for FY16 should be amended to reflect an additional 125 hours for Jaime Boswell
for Management Conference, Restoration and Volunteer Oyster Habitat Monitoring coordination.
• Table 14: Staff Time for FY17 discussions included that SWFWMD FY17 restoration dollars should
include development of a Restoration Needs Plan which incorporates the Restoration Targets (as
reflected in Table 8 funding).
RAY MOVED, SECONDED BY LIZANNE GARCIA, TO RECOMMEND THAT THE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE APPROVE THE FY17 WORKPLAN AND FY16 WORKPLAN
AMENDMENTS AFTER INCORPORATING SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE SWFWMD
RESTORATION TASKS, AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO SUBMIT THE GRANT APPLICATIONS
FOR FY17 FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE CCMP CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT AND HABITAT RESILIENCY PROJECTS. THE MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. CHNEP Restoration Targets — Lisa Beever, CHNEP
On February 11, 2016, the TAC recommended approval of the Restoration Targets document. SWFWMD
staff requested an additional section on target implementation. The section named “Implementation of
Restoration Targets” was added to the targets report. Recommendations of the report weren’t changed.
Page 8 of 104
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Technical Advisory Committee
April 14, 2016
Punta Gorda, FL
Discussion ensued, including:
• A section was added to the Restoration Targets report, provided in the packet and dated April 6, 2016,
about implementing the restoration targets, including a map of restoration activities.
• Map 4: Restoration Opportunities discussions included questions about options for restoring Lake
Hancock wetlands; and if targets could be addressed through acquisition, like through FL Forever.
• Table 22: FL Forever Acreages discussions included that table reflects deficit in targets after FL Forever
list is acquired.
• Map 6: 2013 Vision Map plus FL Forever Nominees discussions included that the map includes projects
added since 2008; and that land use FLUCs are being updated by SWFWMD and SFWMD and they
should be incorporated into the Restoration Needs Plan Update and Targets.
• SWFWMD suggested delaying the adoption of the Restoration Targets until the 2014 Land Use Land
Cover maps can be incorporated, restoration and acquisition needs can be recalculated and the
Restoration Needs Plan Update is completed.
• SWFWMD appreciates Lisa’s efforts to create the algorithm and complete the analyses and the
SWFWMD still has questions.
• SWFWMD needs the Restoration Plan Update and Targets to support projects within CHNEP.
• SWFWMD suggested that the Habitat Conservation Subcommittee (HCS) help develop quantifiable
metrics.
• Metrics developed with the help of the HCS will include locally specific data, enhance understanding of
how the algorithm works, and encourage partners’ support of the Restoration Needs and Targets.
• Development and approval of the Restoration Needs and Targets metrics and algorithm needs greater
TAC input and should be included regularly on TAC agenda.
• HCS will meet before TAC and summary of HCS discussions will be presented to TAC.
LIZANNE GARCIA MOVED, SECONDED BY RAY LEARY, TO RECOMMEND THAT THE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DIRECT STAFF TO DEFINE THE APPLICATION OF THE
RESTORATION TARGETS AND INCORPORATE THE TARGETS INTO THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A RESTORATION NEEDS PLAN UPDATE, AND AMEND THE FY16 AND FY17
WORKPLANS TO INCORPORATE THE TASKS. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
LIZANNE GARCIA MOVED, SECONDED BY SHELLY THORNTON, TO DIRECT STAFF TO
REINSTATE THE HABITAT CONSERVATION SUBCOMMITTEE TO ASSIST WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A SCOPE OF WORK TO DEVELOP A RESTORATION NEEDS PLAN
UPDATE WHICH INCORPORATES THE RESTORATION TARGETS. THE MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
7. Morgan Park Peace River Shoreline and Habitat Restoration Project Update — Liz Donley CHNEP
In FY15, the CHNEP, DeSoto County, Mosaic and SWFWMD, initiated the development of the Morgan
Park Peace River Shoreline and Habitat Restoration Project in Arcadia. CHNEP assembled $80,000 to prepare a
phased plan to address shoreline erosion and stabilization and to conduct habitat restoration activities. The TAC
approved the SOW at its April 19, 2015, meeting. CHNEP developed a Request for Proposals (RFP) to procure
a contractor to assist with the project and AMEC was selected. AMEC began work on the project in November
2015. AMEC submitted the Draft DeSoto County’s Morgan Park Comprehensive Project Plan (CPP) to
CHNEP. The purpose of the Draft Morgan Park CPP is to provide a phased approach to shoreline stabilization
and ecosystem restoration at Morgan Park. The draft CCP was provided for CHNEP Management Conference
and TAC review and comment. Comments were requested by May 13, 2016 utilizing the Excel table provide
electronically. Comments would be provided to AMEC to address and incorporate into the Final Morgan Park
CPP, which would be presented to the Management Conference at the July/August round of meetings.
Page 9 of 104
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Technical Advisory Committee
April 14, 2016
Punta Gorda, FL
Discussion ensued, including:
• AMEC completed desktop and field reconnaissance of Morgan Park, mapped the proposed project
areas, developed feasibility assessments for water quality/habitat enhancement/restoration and
preliminary projects and cost estimates for 2 large and 1 small capital improvement projects.
• The original concept was to complete the Comprehensive Project Plan (CPP) for FY17 funding,
requiring the CPP to be reviewed and approved by the Management Conference in July/August.
• CHNEP focused on developing the CPP and not driving the restoration project.
• Funding included FY15 dollars ($40,000 each from SWFWMD and Mosaic) and FY16 dollars ($40,000
each from SWFWMD and Mosaic).
• Ideas for specific projects will be developed following the CPP before the next TAC meeting.
• The project provided useful information; properties north and east of the park are owned by the City of
Arcadia; there are several potential access points to the north part of the park; the old interceptor canal
could provide options for restoration.
• CHNEP staff will provide the CPP for review with an Excel spread sheet for compiling comments.
No motion was requested as the item was presented for information and discussion only. Members
were asked to provide comments on Draft DeSoto County’s Morgan Park Comprehensive Project
Plan to CHNEP staff by May 13, 2016.
8. Cape Coral Northwest Neighborhood Association Request for Tidal Creek Restoration Workshop —
Judy Ott, CHNEP and Doug Kidd, Cape Coral Northwest Neighborhood Association
A request has been submitted to CHNEP by Doug Kidd from the Cape Coral Northwest Neighborhood
Association (NWNA) for CHNEP to host a day-long workshop to educate target audiences, using CHNEP staff
and FY16 funds. As explained by Mr. Kidd, the primary issue is that wetlands west of the Cape Coral North
Spreader Canal (NSC) will become further impaired over the coming decades. The primary risk factors include
increasing tide levels and future development. Sea level rise altered the wetlands and estuary west of the NSC,
contributed to breaching along the west bank of the NSC, scoured tidal creeks, and limited navigable boat access
from the NSC into Matlacha Pass. Future development will increase waterfront homes and boater density by at
least 4 times based on current land use, zoning and pre-platting. Increasing waterfront home density, improper
boater actions, sea level rise and past indiscriminant dredging compound impairments to Matlacha Pass Aquatic
Preserve. There is an opportunity to combine economic forces and ecosystem challenges to produce a net benefit
and enhancement to the estuary. A desirable benefit would be to align watercraft safety, economics, quality of
life interests of the Northwest Cape Coral boating community with ecosystem preservation and sustainability of
the wetlands west of the NSC in the Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park. The NWNA requested that CHNEP
facilitate a one-day workshop to address the issues and goals. The outcome of the workshop would be to provide
a strategy for cooperation between the regulatory agencies, environmental community and residents that would
include habitat, hydrologic, fish and wildlife, stewardship, and navigation enhancements, plus sensible
economic growth. The essence workshop would be to develop an array of net ecosystem benefits which take
into account the diverse interests of all stakeholders.
Discussion ensued, including:
• The Cape Coral Northwest Neighborhood Association (NWNA) is the largest homeowner group in
Cape Coral, with 1,000 members representing a population of 5,000; large growth is expected over the
next 25 years to >25,000 people.
• NWNA extends west from Burnt Store Road to the North Spreader Canal (NSC) and north of Pine
Island Road to the Cape Coral city boundary.
• There are >4,000 saltwater access lots between Burnt Store Road and the NSC; only 25% buildout.
Page 10 of 104
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Technical Advisory Committee
April 14, 2016
Punta Gorda, FL
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Key Ditch is located west of the NSC; was the original development boundary; still includes
connections between the NSC and Matlacha Pass and could be a problem or opportunity.
NWNA is concerned about the health of their backyard, including the Charlotte Harbor Preserve State
Park (CHPSP) west of the North Spreader Canal (NSC).
Matlacha Pass and NSC are important manatee migration routes; NWNA is concerned about increasing
boating impacts to manatees.
NWNA estimated that the number of boats may increase by 7 times, including access to inland lots.
Cape Coral is developing a conceptual for Seven Island development.
Historically several tidal creeks ran to Matlacha Pass but were disrupted by the Key Ditch and NSC.
NWNA would like restore tidal creeks to condition compatible with the environment and boating.
NWNA would like to open 3 navigation routes through the tidal creeks to increase boating access to
Matlacha Pass to reduce boating use and manatee impacts at the south end of NSC.
Opening historical tidal creeks would require partnership with the CHPSP; NWNA would to preserve
19 acres between Cape Coral and CHPSP along the NSC; talked with CHPSP staff about alternatives.
As development and boating increase, there will be additional impairments to the estuary.
NWNA would like CHNEP to sponsor a workshop to determine if and how the converging paths of
development, environment and economics can be combine to provide net ecosystem benefits.
NWNA is partnering with FGCU and CHNEP to initiate a comprehensive ecosystem approach.
Sea level rise needs to be a primary component of the planning, especial for the tidal creeks.
Tidal creek historical conditions and restoration targets need to be included; need to identify baseline
conditions and seasonal restoration targets and what we are restoring tidal creeks to.
Can’t restore tidal creeks to historic conditions, but can create and enhance habitat.
NSC isn’t a retention basin, thought he 1997 Consent Order said it was.
Dredging the tidal creeks won’t be considered restoring them and won’t be permitable through the
CHPSP; land is located in CHPSP so the project would receive much review and scrutiny.
Question if CHNEP funds would be used to support the project.
Tidal tributary workshop would be useful and valuable; better idea than litigation; could help develop
compromise and rational discussion; could include FGCU experts (Bill Mitch, Mike Parsons).
Need to consider creek morphology, similar to Tampa Bay; tributaries depend on freshwater inflow and
need to evaluate what would happen if they are disconnected.
Need to tie creek restoration tied to Charlotte Harbor Flatwoods to the north of NWNA; many
unknowns for restoration including hydrologic restoration through Gator Slough and Yucca Pens.
If the purpose of creek restoration includes increased boating access, what would the impacts be?
The settlement agreement included 1989/1990 impacts; removing barrier complicated everything.
Litigation was about removal of the barrier, is on-going and will be resolved in the near future.
The barrier created 16” freshwater head through the mangroves, which benefited fisheries; need to
consider changes in freshwater head and fishery habitat associated with barrier in and out.
Timing of a workshop is important; don’t know timing of litigation.
Boats use “breaches” through the NSC; if barrier to be put back , more boats will go out NSC south end.
Tidal creek workshop is a good idea; need to define goals and scope of workshop; may need to be
longer than 8 hours; could be a series of workshops about habitat migration, fishery, hydrology, etc.
Restoration needs to consider hydrology including conditions with and without barrier.
Restoration needs to consider urban vs. native habitats; we live on the edge of nature.
Restoration needs to consider habitat migration; CHNEP is developing habitat migration model.
Restoration needs to consider manatees; Lee Co. did a Manatee Protection Plan several years ago.
NWNA isn’t in SWFWMD boundary; need to focus on tidal creeks throughout CHNEP.
Need to refine restoration goals; need additional information and alternatives.
Page 11 of 104
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Technical Advisory Committee
April 14, 2016
Punta Gorda, FL
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Would Matlacha and Greater Pine Island Civic Associations be part of the NWNA workshop?
Need to compile and consider Cape Coral biological data.
Janicki report said tidal influence included NSC; Lee Co. will get updated, robust hydrologic model
soon and staff could run different scenarios; could use historical tidal creek locations to calibrate model.
Timing of a tidal creek workshop may be better after fall 2016 to utilize FY17 funding and staffing.
NWNA would rather do a NSC specific workshop now to keep FGCU/Dr. Mitch’s interest.
Many tasks need to be completed for a tidal creek workshop; need to understand how tidal creeks work
in this area.
Need to consider hydrologic restoration of Charlotte Harbor Flatwoods and Yucca Pens.
The NSC and berm were designed create seasonal flows through mangroves and tidal creeks; need to
return barrier to maintain flows to tidal creeks and restore hydrology.
TNC consensus was that CHNEP should host a tidal creek workshop for the entire study area, include
hydrology, hydrology and fauna, and be held in conjunction with the 2017 Watershed Summit.
A motion was requested regarding the NWNA Cape Coral Tidal Creek Restoration Workshop, but
none was offered. The item died for lack of a motion.
PHIL STEVENS MOVED, SECONDED BY DAVE CEILLEY, TO RECOMMEND THAT THE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DIRECT STAFF TO HOST A TIDAL CREEK WORKSHOP
FOR THE ENTIRE CHNEP STUDY AREA, INCLUDING HYDROLOGY, GEOLOGY AND
FAUNA. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. CHNEP Charlotte Harbor Watershed Summit: March 2017 — Judy Ott, CHNEP
CHNEP hosts the Charlotte Harbor Watershed Summit every three years to learn about current research and
restoration efforts, critical environmental issues and progress since the previous summit. Summits are important
in the CHNEP process of bringing public and private stakeholders together. The Charlotte Harbor Event &
Conference Center has been reserved for March 28-30, 2017 for the next Summit. CHNEP invited those who
would like to help develop the 2017 Summit to join an ad hoc committee. The committee would hold its initial
meeting between late May/early June to discuss: a) purpose and theme, b) sponsors, c) speakers, d) process to
accept and review abstracts, e) funding and length of summit, and f) recording findings. Important dates
included: a) abstract due date August 31, b) draft agenda November 1, and c) sponsors recognized in materials.
Discussion ensued, including:
• Topics to consider for the 2017 Watershed Summit include: tributaries, effects of MFLs on tributaries,
living on the edge of nature, system wide studies, etc.
No action request. Members were asked to join the Watershed Summit Ad Hoc Committee to help
plan the 2017 Watershed Summit.
The meeting was recessed for lunch (inhouse) from 11:45 am – 12:30 pm.
10. SWFWMD 2014 SAV Mapping Results — Kris Kaufman, SWFWMD
The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) finalized the 2014 seagrass maps in
December of 2015. Source imagery was collected December 2013 through February 2014 and creation of the
GIS-based maps was completed by the end of 2015. Results showed an overall increase of seagrass in the
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program boundaries over the 2012 acreage estimates.
Page 12 of 104
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Technical Advisory Committee
April 14, 2016
Punta Gorda, FL
Discussion ensued, including:
• The SWFWMD 2014 SAV aerials and maps would be available in early June; link would be provided.
• The 2014 SA aerials included a definition of Tidal Flats (FLUCs 6510) as: non-vegetated, intertidal
shallow-water habitats, unconsolidated sediments in low energy environments capable of supporting
seagrass, and having an alternating cycle submergence and exposure.
• 2014 aerials also included a definition and mapping of Oyster Bars (FLUCs 6540) as: dense collection
of sessile mollusks, linear or oval in shape, and didn’t differentiate between live and dead oysters.
• The results showed approximately a 5% (985 acres) increase in CHNEP SAV from 2012 to 2014.
• SWFWMD SAV reporting units are different than CHNEP strata; need convert and compare.
• Need to compare 2014 oyster maps with previous CHNEP benthic habitat maps.
• SWFWMD SAV oyster mapping capture some oysters on mangrove prop roots, but not seawalls.
• Need to check subtidal oysters in Peace River – could be a Caulerpa bed.
No action requested, as the item was presented for information and discussion only.
11. SFWMD 2014 SAV Mapping Results — Cassondra Thomas, SFWMD
The South Florida Water Management District presented an overview of the 2014 Seagrass Map covering
the southern portion of Charlotte Harbor at Boca Grande to the southern portion of Estero Bay at Wiggins Pass.
The segments covered included: Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay, the Tidal Caloosahatchee
and Estero Bay. The change from 2008 to 2014 mapping showed an overall increase in seagrass of 3,500 acres.
Discussion ensued, including:
• SFWMD 2014 SAV aerials and maps would be available in early June.
• SFWMD used the same methods and contractor as SWFWMD.
• Compared 2008 (last year SAV aerials were flown) and 2014 results.
• Conducted change analysis between 2008 and 2014 SAV.
• The results showed approximately an 8% (3,494 acres) increase in CHNEP SAV from 2008 to 2014.
• The greatest percent increase between 2008 and 2014 was found in the Tidal Caloosahatchee River.
• Estero Bay SAV were difficult to map because of turbidity.
• SFWMD future mapping is anticipated to be in 5 years.
• It would be helpful to have SFWMD SAV mapping during the same year as SWFWMD.
• SWFWMD already budgeted 2016 SAV mapping; 2014 costs were approximately $185,000 for image
acquisition and $140,000 for mapping and field work.
• SFWMD would need to include SAV mapping in their 2018 budgeting process soon.
• The TAC requested that the SFWMD and SWFWMD continue coordinating SAV mapping methods
and contractors, encouraged SFWMD to adjust their mapping schedule to occur during SWFWMD
mapping years, and encouraged SFWMD to incorporate SAV and oyster mapping in their FY17/18
budget.
DAVE CEILLEY MOVED, SECONDED BY MELINDA BROWN, TO REQUEST THAT THE
SFWMD CONTINUE TO COORDINATE SAV MAPPING METHODS, CONTRACTORS AND
SCHEDULES WITH SWFWMD AND TO INCORPORATE SAV AND OYSTER MAPPING INTO
THE SFWMD FY17/18 BUDGET. THE MOTION PASSED, WITH CASSONDRA THOMAS AND
LIZANNE GARCIA ABSTAINING.
Page 13 of 104
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Technical Advisory Committee
April 14, 2016
Punta Gorda, FL
12. Lake Okeechobee Release Management Update — Rae Ann Wessel, SCCF
Ms. Wessel presented a summary of current Lake Okeechobee release management activities, including
brief descriptions of: a) roles of SFWMD, USACOE and stakeholders, b) Periodic Scientists phone process and
purpose, c) data sources considered, d) lake levels and their significance, e) regulated flow maximums,
minimums and purposes, e) contributions of flow and nutrients from Lake Okeechobee releases vs.
Caloosahatchee watershed, and f) significance of MFL and releases and potential effects on salinity ranges and
resource health (SAV, oyster, etc.).
Discussion ensued, including:
• Historically, the Kissimmee River flowed to Lake Okeechobee, which flowed to Big Cypress and the
Everglades, but not to the Caloosahatchee or St. Lucie Rivers.
• Currently, Lake O. outflows are diverted to Caloosahatchee and St Lucy, southeast FL and Everglades.
• Need to reduce lake flows to Caloosahatchee, St. Lucy and southeast and restore flows to Everglades.
• Historic Lake O. water levels were 19-20 feet and water took 16 months to reach FL Bay.
• Can’t restore historical flows but can manage flows better to support ecosystems.
• The 2008 Lake Okeechobee Release Schedule (LORS) was meant to replicate seasonality; LORS
includes management bands for: Water Shortage, Operational and High Lake Management.
• USACOE operates Lake O. and structures and regulates water releases; coordinates release schedule
with SFWMD.
• Lake O. is 730 square miles and Tidal Caloosahatchee River watershed is 2 times as large; watershed
contributions to the river are significant; Caloosahatchee tidally influenced to S79 in Alva.
• Lake O. dikes have structural, leakage and seepage problems.
• Periodic Scientist calls with affected agencies and partners are held weekly to discuss water releases;
serve as proactive partnership.
• 2015/2016 El Nino forecast is greater than 1950s and 1998; received 14” of rain in January; Lake O.
under high alert; needed to make maximum releases.
• Caloosahatchee MFL is 650 cfs; harmful flows are 2,800 cfs; in Jan. 2015 flows were 7 time higher than
harmful levels; Governor declared state of emergency.
• During Dec. 2015/Jan. 2016, 82% of the flow to the river was from the watershed.
• SCCF RECON measures water quality from Beautiful Island to Tarpon Bay.
• Water Conservation Areas (WCA) drive system to help store water and restore flows to Everglades.
• Critical project is needed to flow water south; reservoir and stormwater treatment areas south of Lake O.
• But need Lake O. water in estuaries during droughts and dry season.
• Need to address both watershed and Lake O. flows and storage; Caloosahatchee watershed needs
450,000 ac ft of storage; Lake O. south needs 1,000,000 ac ft storage.
• C-43 Reservoir has 170,000 ac ft capacity; will provide lost storage, reduce harmful discharges, and
some dry flow; needs water quality treatment.
• Ways you can help: a) participate in SCCF oyster and SAV restoration, b) sign up for SCCF newsletter
and alerts, and c) participate in Caloosahatchee Oxbow and River Lore cruises.
• Take home messages: a) we can manage water better, b) need to establish a water budget, c) need a plan
for moving more water south, d) need to monitor watershed inflows, e) need to cite watershed projects,
and f) need to encourage SFWMD to stop tax roll back.
No motion requested, as the item was presented for information and discussion only.
Page 14 of 104
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Technical Advisory Committee
April 14, 2016
Punta Gorda, FL
13. Unified Conservation Easement Mapping and Database for Florida — Jim Beever, SWFRPC
Mr. Beever presented the results of the recent “A Unified Conservation Easement Mapping and Database
for the State of Florida". It is a GIS-based database for restoration/protection sites with recorded permanent
conservation easements. Conservation easements are an important component of the State's wetland regulatory
and wetland conservation planning efforts and an important land protection tool on which Florida has placed a
much greater emphasis. The final deliverables were the GIS database and maps, usable by any person with
internet access and ArcGIS. The GIS database can assist users with identifying conservation easements by type,
location, type of habitat, grantors, identity of easement holders, year of designation, monitoring reporting if
available, etc. Copies of the report are available upon request from the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council (SWFRPC) and the FWC website. Information on where to obtain the Map file is the report.
Discussion ensued, including:
• Before the project there was no complete map or database of the conservation easements in FL.
• Map provides extent and connectivity of landscape conservation in FL, identifies gaps, and assists
public and private conservation planning; map used for many purposes.
• Includes permanent conservation easements from: FNAI, FL NEPs, FDEP, Water Management
Districts, counties and land trusts.
• Map was provided to FNAI; will need to be updated regularly.
• Did not map: temporary easements, rural lands with active row crops, FDEP mitigation banks, proposed
easements, condition of easements.
• Link to map and database is provided in report.
• Will include map in CHNEP Research Needs.
No action requested, as the item was presented for information and discussion only.
14. CHNEP Program Report – Staff, CHNEP
CHNEP activities for the past quarter will be presented, including:
a. Florida Estuaries Alliance: requesting state support for NEPs and NERRs.
b. CHNEP Landsat Composite Map: Lisa presented examples of uses of Landsat spectral analysis.
c. Director Recruitment
d. Caloosahatchee River SAV Restoration Targets Forum: Next meeting will be held in May.
e. Public Outreach Updates
f. Program Deliverables
No action requested, as the items were presented for information and discussion only.
15. Member Comments — Keith Kibbey, Co-Chair
No additional member comments were received.
16. Public Comments — Keith Kibbey, Co-Chair
No public comments were received.
17. Next Meeting's Topics, Location and Date — Thursday July 21, 2016 – North Port
Suggested topics for the next meeting included: Lee Co. water quality, stormwater and filter marsh projects;
FWC Charlotte Harbor modeling, and FDEP Environmental Assessment and Restoration water quality.
18. Adjourn — Keith Kibbey, Co-Chair
Mr. Kibbey adjourned the meeting at 3:30 pm.
Page 15 of 104
4B. FY17 WATER ATLAS MAINTENANCE SCOPE OF WORK
The CHNEP Water Atlas FY17 Maintenance Project is included in the FY17 Workplan Technical Projects. The
purpose of the project is to continue to provide a single source of water resource data using existing up-to-date
technologies in a citizen-friendly web-based interface. Easy access is provided to citizens, scientists and
community leaders for water resource related data from throughout the CHNEP study area. A water resource
GIS base map is used to link to historical and management information including: water quality and hydrology
data, current events, environmental lands, aerial photos, a digital library and others.
The CHNEP Water Atlas Maintenance project implements the CCMP (2013 Update) Quantifiable Objectives,
including:
• SG-3: Through 2020, the CHNEP long-term monitoring strategy and data management strategy will
continue and be enhanced. The resulting Internet-based Water Atlas will be maintained systematically.
• SG-4: Through 2020, key geographic and scientific information will be presented in ways that are
meaningful to the majority of people.
The purposes of the CHNEP Water Atlas Maintenance project are to:
• Maintain the CHNEP Water Atlas for a period of 12 months.
• Enhance portions of the website as requested by CHNEP.
• Reduce long-term maintenance costs by consolidating CHNEP with other Water Atlases.
• Improve the design of the home page and new applications for the CHNEP Water Atlas.
The tasks for the project include data, website, and project management, as well as quarterly and final reports.
The period of the contract is October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017 and the total cost is $52,000.
Recommendation:
Motion to recommend that the Management Conference approve the
FY17 Water Atlas Maintenance Scope of Work.
Attachment:
Draft FY17 Water Atlas Maintenances Scope of Work.
Page 16 of 104
STATEMENT OF WORK for the
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Water Atlas FY17 Maintenance Project
for the University of South Florida
October 1, 2016 – September 30, 2017
DRAFT 2016 07 10
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of Water Atlas FY17 Maintenance Project is to maintain the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary
Program (CHNEP) Water Atlas for a period of 12 months, enhance portions of the website as desired by
CHNEP staff, reduce long-term maintenance costs by continuing the consolidation of CHNEP and other Water
Atlas projects into a single back-end data management system and website application, and improve the design
of the home page and new applications for the CHNEP Water Atlas. The deliverable product is the maintenance
of a fully functional web site for CHNEP staff and citizens to use for a period of 12 months, during which time
data will be updated on the Water Atlas, and the applications will be upgraded as indicated below. The project
budget is based on University of South Florida (USF) Water Institute costs and the required 25% overhead for
all centers within USF sponsored research system and is provided for each task. The Water Atlas also assists
CHNEP with compliance with state and federal objectives relating to facilitating public access to scientific data.
INTRODUCTION
During FY 2011, CHNEP contracted with USF to develop a CHNEP Water Atlas. The purpose of the CHNEP
Water Atlas is to provide a single source of water resource data using existing information management
technologies in a citizen-friendly interface. The CHNEP Water Atlas is a web-based, data (spatial and nonspatial) and information management and visualization system that supports the realization of CHNEP water
quality, hydrology, habitat quantifiable, and stewardship gap objectives. It makes water resource and supporting
data available to a maximum number of people in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The document catalog
section provides historical and management information related to water resources, as well as current events.
And, it provides a geographic interface for citizens to have access to a vast number of water resource related
geographic information map layers, such as parks, environmental lands, recreation sites and others. The
technologies used to develop the CHNEP Water Atlas include: Microsoft SQL Server, ESRI ArcIMS and
ArcGIS Server, and Microsoft Internet Information Server. The datasets used include: a hydrographic GIS base
map of all water bodies; parametric data (e.g., water quality, hydrology, etc.) related to these water bodies; a
corresponding sample site GIS map to allow parametric datasets to be accessible; and a watershed/basin GIS
map used to organize basin information, as well as aerial photographs and educational documents related to
water resources. There are water resource pages for each of the eight CHNEP estuary segments. The
management of CHNEP's water resources requires an informed citizenry and the cooperation of multiple
government agencies and the CHNEP Water Atlas serves as a primary tool for assisting the citizens, scientists,
and community leaders to manage water resources in CHNEP study area. The CHNEP Water Atlas is now fully
operational.
PROPOSED PROJECT WORKPLAN
All maintenance and support efforts that will ensure the CHNEP Water Atlas is available and fully functioning
are included in this project. The level of service is for 12 months and is comprised of all the services required to
maintain and update the Water Atlas based on the One Atlas framework. Two general tasks are included. The
first task, Basic Level of Services, ensures update and maintenance of the common databases held for One Atlas
applications and the basic functionality of the One Atlas website and toolsets. Efforts expended towards these
services are funded equally by all Water Atlas partners. The second task, Standard Level of Services, adds
additional services that are required to ensure the unique nature of the CHNEP Water Atlas website and to
maintain unique datasets that a partner requires for this maintenance. Note: The Basic Level of Service Task is
written as a standalone task, but for most Water Atlas projects, the assumption is that full support (addition of a
Standard Level of Service) is provided. Efforts expended towards these services are funded equally by all
Standard Water Atlas partners.
USF FY17 CHNEP Water Atlas Maintenance Statement of Work Draft
Page 1 of 7
2016 07 10
Page 17 of 104
TASK 1: Basic Level of Services
Wherever possible, the Water Atlas application is designed to update water quality, hydrology, and other data
using automated database tools. So long as each data provider continues to support the automated data update
protocols developed for the Water Atlas, USF will ensure that these tools continue to provide updated data for
the duration of this contract. USF will work with data providers to periodically update/edit sample site locations
of existing data providers to allow new data to be accessible via the web interface. Data update frequency will
be scheduled to match as closely as possible the update frequency of the data provider based on historical data.
For example, during the past few years data have been uploaded to STORET only once or twice per year by
many agencies. Therefore, USF will update data on the Water Atlas only once per year for most STORET data
sources and biannually for other. Other data updates will occur more frequently. It is important to note that these
data updates are scheduled to provide the most timely updates but at a reduced cost to the project. Table 1
indicates the primary datasets currently included as part of the Basic Level of Services Water Atlas project.
These data sources are maintained for all coastal water atlas partners.
In addition to GIS and parametric data, the Water Atlas is also designed to include numerous electronic
documents and links to other websites. With limited assistance from USF, CHNEP staff or designates will be
responsible for maintaining the published documents and links on the Water Atlas using the password-protected,
web-based Water Atlas administration section (WRAD-CMS). Also, CHNEP staff will be responsible for
accepting and replying to most email received via the Water Atlas relative to inquiries about the Water Atlas
contents. However, USF will respond to email comments related to the technology behind the Water Atlas, such
as reports of bugs or errors. CHNEP may, at their discretion, share these responsibilities with staff from partner
government agencies.
All of the Water Atlas projects hosted at USF share in the hardware, software, and other associated costs such as
new technology or components. The advantage of this system is reduced costs of Water Atlas web hosting for
all Water Atlas partners. This component includes:
Shared Site Software Maintenance Costs: USF will maintain all software necessary to ensure that the web
interface is online and accessible to the public. Software licenses to be maintained as part of this task include:
Microsoft SQL 2000 or higher, Microsoft Web Services and .NET, ESRI ArcIMS and ArcSDE, a web statistics
software package, and other miscellaneous software.
Shared Site Hardware Maintenance Costs: USF will also provide hardware necessary to complete this task.
Hardware requirements necessary to ensure that the Water Atlas will be available to all users with reasonable
access times and minimal downtime have been planned according to projected demands. However, these
demands may change due to increased or decreased user demand and will be evaluated on a yearly basis.
Currently, this task is accomplished by serving the Water Atlas web interface from servers located at USF.
However, if necessary, USF reserves the right to serve the Water Atlas from servers not located at USF.
Water Atlas Application Maintenance: USF is constantly in the process of improving, upgrading and actively
managing Water Atlas projects throughout the State of Florida. All of the Water Atlas projects hosted at USF
share in the new component development and component upgrades as well as upgrades to web technology. This
sharing of components and web technology leads to a reduced costs of Water Atlas updates and program
improvements for all Water Atlas Partners.
Web Management and Statistics: USF will function as web manager for the Water Atlas. USF will provide
password-protected access to web usage statistics, including number of users, number of web page requests, and
other standard web statistic metrics. In addition, USF will provide an online Web Usage Report which will
include common website usage statistics as well as statistics related to number of data records or sample
locations added, number of email requests received, and number of photos or documents entered.
USF FY17 CHNEP Water Atlas Maintenance Statement of Work Draft
Page 2 of 7
2016 07 10
Page 18 of 104
Software Fixes and Upgrades: During the annual contract period, USF will likely make modifications to existing
functionality as part of contractual agreements with other project partners. Whenever feasible, USF will
implement these changes to all Water Atlas projects at no additional charge to CHNEP.
Project Management: Project Management: Invoices will be sent each quarter and one annual report will be sent
at the end of the contract period. Project Management services will include travel to project meetings; travel to
maintain staff proficiency and travel to present information or findings regarding the Water Atlas project at
water resource related conferences.
Task 1 Cost: $26,000
Task 1 Deliverables:
 Data Management – Maintenance of all data sources listed in Table 1 for 12 months.
 Site Maintenance – Site maintenance and web hosting and component upgrades a necessary for 12
months.
 Annual Report – The report will summarize work effort, site usage and upgrades.
Table 1. Basic (Water Atlas) Spatial and Non-Spatial Data Sets
Data Source
Data Source Name
FDEP and USEPA Impaired Waters and WBID Boundaries
FNAI Managed Lands
Land Use/Land Cover
Sampling Locations
Waterbody Additions and Modifications
COMPS
Coastal Ocean Monitoring & Predication
System
DACS_WQ
Shellfish Environmental Assessment Data
FDEP_PLANTS
FDEP Aquatic Plant Survey
IFAS_FAWN
Florida Automated Weather Network
LAKEWATCH_V
LAKEWATCH Volunteer Water Quality Data
LEGACYSTORET_1113S000
USEPA Region 4
LEGACYSTORET_1114PEST
Legacy STORET for USEPA Region 4
LEGACYSTORET_11EPALES Legacy STORET for USEPA
LEGACYSTORET_21FLA
FDEP Historic Data from Legacy STORET
LEGACYSTORET_21FLGFWF FFWCC Legacy STORET Data
LEGACYSTORET_21FLGW
FDEP
LEGACYSTORET_21FLKWAT FDEP
LEGACYSTORET_21FLMML Mote Historic Data from Legacy STORET
LEGACYSTORET_21FLSARA Sarasota Co. Historic Data from Legacy
STORET
LEGACYSTORET_21FLSFWM SFWD
LEGACYSTORET_21FLSWFD SWFWMD
STORET_21FLBABR
Babcock Ranch
STORET_21FLBRA
Biological Research Associates
STORET_21FLCEN
FDEP Central District Water Quality Data
STORET_21FLCHAR
FDEP Charlotte Harbor Aquatic & Buffer
Preserves Sampling Data
STORET_21FLDOH
FL Healthy Beaches Program Data (Bacteria)
STORET_21FLFMRI
IMAP Water Quality Data
STORET_21FLFTM
FDEP South District Sampling Data
STORET_21FLGFWF
FFWWCC Water Quality Data
STORET_21FLGW
FDEP Ambient Monitoring Sampling Data
USF FY17 CHNEP Water Atlas Maintenance Statement of Work Draft
Data Type
Update
GIS/DB
Annually
GIS/DB
Annually
GIS/DB
Annually
GIS/DB
As scheduled
GIS/DB
When Needed
Parametric Data Near real-time
Parametric Data Legacy
Parametric Data Legacy
Parametric Data Near real-time
Parametric Data Annually
Parametric Data Legacy
Parametric Data Legacy
Parametric Data Legacy
Parametric Data Legacy
Parametric Data Legacy
Parametric Data Legacy
Parametric Data Legacy
Parametric Data Legacy
Parametric Data Legacy
Parametric Data Legacy
Parametric Data Legacy
Parametric Data Legacy
Parametric Data Legacy
Parametric Data Quarterly
Parametric Data Semi-Annually
Parametric Data Semi-Annually
Parametric Data Semi-Annually
Parametric Data Annually
Parametric Data Semi-Annually
Parametric Data Semi-Annually
Page 3 of 7
2016 07 10
Page 19 of 104
Data Source
STORET_21FLKWAT
STORET_21FLMANA
STORET_21FLPOLK
STORET_21FLSBL
STORET_21FLSCCF
STORET_21FLSEAS
STORET_21FLSFWM
STORET_21FLSWFD
STORET_21FLTPA
STORET_21FLWPB
STORET_21FLWQA
STORET_21FLWQSP
Data Source Name
Data Type
Update
Florida LAKEWATCH
Parametric Data No Update
Manatee Co. Environmental Management
Parametric Data Semi-Annually
Polk County NRD
Parametric Data Quarterly
City of Sanibel, Natural Resources Department Parametric Data Annually
Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation
Parametric Data Annually
Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section Parametric Data Annually
South Florida Water Management District
Parametric Data Semi-Annually
SWFWMD Sampling Data
Parametric Data Semi-Annually
FDEP Southwest District Sampling Data
Parametric Data Semi-Annually
FDEP
Parametric Data Annually
FDEP Water Quality Data
Parametric Data Annually
FDEP Water Quality Standards & Special
Parametric Data Annually
Projects
STORET_CAPECRD
City of Cape Coral
Parametric Data Annually
STORET_CHNEPCHB
CHNEP
Parametric Data Annually
STORET_CHNEPCHE
CHNEP
Parametric Data Annually
STORET_CHNEPCHP
CHNEP
Parametric Data Annually
STORET_CHNEPCHW
CHNEP
Parametric Data Annually
STORET_CHNEPEB
CHNEP
Parametric Data Annually
STORET_CHNEPLLB
CHNEP
Parametric Data Annually
STORET_CHNEPMP
Matlacha Pass - CHNEP
Parametric Data Annually
STORET_CHNEPPIS
Pine Island Sound - CHNEP
Parametric Data Annually
STORET_CHNEPSCB
San Carlos Bay - CHNEP
Parametric Data Annually
STORET_CHNEPTCR
Tidal Caloosahatchee River - CHNEP
Parametric Data Annually
STORET_CHNEPTMR
CHNEP
Parametric Data Annually
STORET_CHNEPTPR
CHNEP
Parametric Data Annually
STORET_CHNEPULB
CHNEP
Parametric Data Annually
STORET_CITYOFPG
City of Punta Gorda
Parametric Data Annually
STORET_FLPRMRWS
Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Parametric Data Annually
Authority
STORET_SWFMDDEP
SWFWMD
Parametric Data Annually
SWFWMD_HYDRO
SWFWMD Hydrologic Data Section Data
Parametric Data Daily
SWFWMD_HYDRO_LEGACY SWFWMD Hydrologic Data Section Data
Parametric Data Legacy
SWFWMD_LAKES_WQ
SWFWMD Water Quality Monitoring
Parametric Data Legacy
USGS_NWIS
USGS National Water Information System
Parametric Data Near real-time
USF FY17 CHNEP Water Atlas Maintenance Statement of Work Draft
Page 4 of 7
2016 07 10
Page 20 of 104
TASK 2: Standard Level of Services
Unique Data Updates and Content Management: CHNEP has unique water quality data that will be managed
under this task. These data cannot be automatically added, as is the case for STORET or USGIS. The datasets
are also updated more frequently and normally require individual actions by senior staff and faculty. This task
includes both GIS and Data Team and Faculty costs.
Product Improvement and Upgrades: This task includes improvement and enhancement to the One Atlas
Framework as stated here.
• Improvements and WEB/GIS services: This includes all Web/GIS enhancements and improvements for
the One Atlas product that are paid for by the partners. It primarily entails improvements to performance
and appearance of the product.
• One Atlas Upgrade: Included in this is a functionality upgrade that would not require changes to the
One Atlas structure or that would not require significant development efforts.
In the unlikely event that the implementation of new functionality is cost-prohibitive under the terms of the
current contract, USF will provide the sponsor with a separate estimate of the cost to make these changes.
Project Management and Travel: A faculty member (Shawn Landry) is assigned as Principal Investigator (PI) to
all Standard Level Water Atlas Projects and a staff member (Jan Allyn) is assigned as Co-Principal Investigator.
Three quarterly reports, meetings as necessary and full availability of the PI are provided to ensure that the
CHNEP Water Atlas fully meets the needs of CHNEP staff and citizens. This component task includes
quarterly reports and invoices, travel when necessary and an undetermined number of called meetings for
specific aspects of the Water Atlas. The faculty member interfaces with University staff to ensure that CHNEP
requirements are properly met.
Task 2 Cost: $26,000
Task 2 Deliverables:
 Data Management – Maintenance of all data sources listed in Table 2 for 12 months.
 Project Management and Travel – Project Management, management meetings, answering citizens
inquires and assistance required by CHNEP staff.
 Quarterly Reports – The 3 quarterly reports will summarize work effort, site usage and upgrades.
Table 2. Standard (Unique to CHNEP) Spatial and Non-Spatial Data Sets
Data Source
Data Source Name
Data Type
Aerial Imagery
GIS/DB
Artificial Reefs
GIS/DB
Bathymetry
GIS/DB
Drainage Sub-Basins
GIS/DB
Fisheries Dependent Monitoring
GIS/DB
Manatee Aerial Surveys (FMRI)
GIS/DB
Parks, Boat Ramps and Marinas
GIS/DB
Roads, Municipalities & other ancillary mapping application datasets.*
GIS/DB
Seagrass
GIS/DB
CANALWATCH_WQ
Cape Coral Canal Watch
Parametric Data
CHEVWQMN_WQ
Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Volunteer Water Quality Parametric Data
Monitoring Network
FWC_BABCOCKWEBB_ Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Parametric Data
HYDRO
Hydrology Data at Babcock-Webb WMA
LAKELAND_WQ
City of Lakeland Water quality data f
Parametric Data
LEE_PONDWATCH_WQ Lee County PondWatch Data
Parametric Data
LEE_RAINFALL
Lee County Meteorological Data
Parametric Data
LEE_WQ
Lee County Environmental Laboratory
Parametric Data
USF FY17 CHNEP Water Atlas Maintenance Statement of Work Draft
Page 5 of 7
Update
As Available
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Semi-annual
Bimonthly
Annually
Quarterly
Annually
Near real-time
Biweekly
2016 07 10
Page 21 of 104
Data Source
POLKCO_NRD_WQ
POLKCO_RAINFALL
SARASOTA_ARMS
Data Source Name
Data Type
Update
Polk Co. NRD Water Quality
Quarterly
Polk Co. Volunteer Rainfall Data
Parametric Data Legacy
Sarasota Co. Automated Rainfall Management
Parametric Data Near real-time
System
SARASOTA_SONDE_WQ Sarasota Co. Environmental Services Department Parametric Data One-Time
SARASOTAES_WQ
Sarasota Co. Environmental Services Department Parametric Data Monthly
* Includes provision for the addition of new datasets to be added to Advanced Mapping Application
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
Task
Task 1
Basic
Task 2
Standard
Deliverables
Data Management, Site Maintenance & Annual Report
Schedule
10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
Cost
$26,000
Data Management, Project Management & Quarterly Reports
10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
$26,000
Total Cost
$52,000
The key faculty and staff members from USF that will be involved in this project include: Shawn Landry (PI),
Jan Allyn (Co-PI), Keith Bornhorst, Jason Scolaro, David Eilers and Rich Hammond.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
The Intellectual rights of both USF and CHNEP will be defended at all times and both parties agree to the
“Disclosure and Ownership Document” that is included as an attachment to this Scope of Work and shall
comply with the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes (Public Records Law). USF agrees that USF Project
Director will promptly disclose all intellectual property generated during the course of this Agreement to its
Office of Research, per the employment contract with USF, and the Office of Research will promptly disclose
such intellectual property to CHNEP . Intellectual Property that originates solely with USF Project Director or
any other USF employee shall be the property of USF. Intellectual property that originates jointly between the
USF Project Director or any other USF employee, and with a CHNEP employee, USF and CHNEP shall jointly
own the intellectual property. Any intellectual property that originates solely with a CHNEP employee shall be
the property of CHNEP. The parties agree that any existing background intellectual property and/or inventions
and technologies of CHNEP, USF, the USF Project Director or USF employees existing prior to the execution
of this Agreement are their own separate property, respectively, and are not affected by this Agreement. Neither
party shall acquire any claims to or rights in any background intellectual property and/or technologies in
existence prior to the execution date of this Agreement.
Title and all ownership and proprietary rights, including but not limited to copyright, patent, trade secret, and
common law property rights relating to the CHNEP Water Atlas shall remain in USF and CHNEP shall secure
and protect the CHNEP Water Atlas and documentation consistent with maintenance of USF’s proprietary rights
therein. CHNEP is not authorized and will not be licensed to distribute the CHNEP Water Atlas or use the Water
Atlas for any use not associated with the CHNEP Water Atlas. USF reserves the right to grant rights to use the
Water Atlas and all developments and improvements thereto under this Agreement to other persons or entities
upon such terms and conditions as USF shall accept. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to
limit USF’s rights to modify the Water Atlas and all developments and improvements thereto under this
Agreement or to develop other products that are similar to or offer the same or similar modifications as any
modifications developed by CHNEP .
All covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made herein, or otherwise made in writing by any
party pursuant hereto, including but not limited to any representations made herein relating to disclosure or
ownership of documents, shall survive the execution and delivery of this Contract and the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereby.
USF FY17 CHNEP Water Atlas Maintenance Statement of Work Draft
Page 6 of 7
2016 07 10
Page 22 of 104
APPENDIX A
Disclosure of Intellectual Rights
DISCLOSURE AND OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program (CHNEP) and University of South Florida (USF) shall comply
with the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes (Public Records Law).
CHNEP recognizes that under USF policy, the results of the project must be publishable and agrees that the USF
Project Director or USF employees engaged in the project shall be permitted to present at symposia, national, or
regional professional meetings, and to publish in journals, theses or dissertations, or otherwise of their own
choosing, methods and results of project.
USF agrees that USF Project Director will promptly disclose all intellectual property generated during the
course of this Agreement to its Office of Research, per the employment contract with USF, and the Office of
Research will promptly disclose such intellectual property to CHNEP.
Intellectual Property that originates solely with USF Project Director or any other USF employee, shall be the
property of USF. Intellectual property that originates jointly between the USF Project Director or any other USF
employee, and with an CHNEP employee, USF and CHNEP shall jointly own the intellectual property. Any
intellectual property that originates solely with a CHNEP employee shall be the property of CHNEP.
The parties agree that any existing background intellectual property and/or inventions and technologies of
CHNEP, USF, the USF Project Director or USF employees existing prior to the execution of this Agreement are
their own separate property, respectively, and are not affected by this Agreement. Neither party shall acquire
any claims to or rights in any background intellectual property and/or technologies in existence prior to the
execution date of this Agreement.
If the attached Scope of Work pertains to the Water Atlas USF will grant to CHNEP a non-exclusive,
nontransferable, and non-assignable license to use the CHNEP Water Atlas. Title and all ownership and
proprietary rights, including but not limited to copyright, patent, trade secret, and common law property rights
relating to the CHNEP Water Atlas shall remain in UNIVERSTIY and CHNEP shall secure and protect the
CHNEP Water Atlas and documentation consistent with maintenance of USF’s proprietary rights therein.
CHNEP is not authorized and will not be licensed to distribute the CHNEP Water Atlas or use the Water Atlas
for any use not associated with the CHNEP Water Atlas. USF reserves the right to grant rights to use the water
and all developments and improvements thereto under this Agreement to other persons or entities upon such
terms and conditions as USF shall accept. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to limit
USF’s rights to modify the Water Atlas and all developments and improvements thereto under this Agreement
or to develop other products that are similar to or offer the same or similar modifications as any modifications
developed by CHNEP.
All covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made herein, or otherwise made in writing by any
party pursuant hereto, including but not limited to any representations made herein relating to disclosure or
ownership of documents, shall survive the execution and delivery of this Contract and the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereby.
USF FY17 CHNEP Water Atlas Maintenance Statement of Work Draft
Page 7 of 7
2016 07 10
Page 23 of 104
5. CCHMN FY16 FIELD AUDITS AND FY17 SCOPES OF WORK
The Coastal Charlotte Harbor Monitoring Network (CCMN) FY16 annual field audits were conducted during
May. All CCHMN partners successfully passed their field audits. Sampling was conducted according to the
adopted Standard Operating Procedures (CCHMN SOPs, Updated 2015) and in a technically sound manner.
Key discussion points from the field audits were: how well trained new staff were with the SOPs and continuing
to take water clarity readings under all weather and cloud conditions. The CCHMN annual meeting was held
June 10, 2016 topics included: a review of the field audit results, a demonstration of a new YSI data logging
capabilities and the CHNEP Water Atlas Water Clarity Reporting Tool. CCHMN was implemented by CHNEP
in 2001and continues to be an essential program for assessing water quality conditions throughout the CHNEP
estuaries. The annual field audits are critical for assuring the continued reliability of the CCHMN data. And, the
annual meetings are an important opportunity to exchange updated monitoring methods and technologies.
To continue the CCHMN during FY17, the Scopes of Work for the FY17 Upper and Lower Charlotte Harbor
Water Quality Monitoring with FWC are provided for review and approval by the Management Conference. The
CCHMN implements the CHNEP Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan Up-Date 2013 (CCMP)
Quantifiable Objectives and Priority Actions:
• WQ-1: Maintain or improve water quality from year 2000 levels. By 2018, bring all impaired water
bodies into a watershed management program such as reasonable assurance or basin management action
plan. By 2015, remove at least two water bodies from the impaired list by improving water quality.
• WQ-B: Continue collecting consistent water quality data from throughout the study area used to assess
impairments, determine TMDL limits and develop BMAPs. Support key programs such as the CCHMN,
partners’ long-term fixed stations and volunteer monitoring programs.
• SG-3: Through 2020, the CHNEP long-term monitoring strategy and data management strategy will be
continued and enhanced. The resulting Internet-based Water Atlas will be maintained systematically.
• SG-R: Track and present monitoring data according to CHNEP adopted targets in Environmental
Indicators.
The purposes of CCHMEN FY17 Upper and Lower Charlotte Harbor Projects are to implement the CCHMN
throughout the CHNEP estuaries for 12 months. The FWRI FIM Charlotte Harbor Field Laboratory has been
conducting the CCHMN monitoring throughout the region since its inception in 2001 and continuation of their
services is most efficient, technically sound and cost effective mechanism to accomplish the CCHMN
monitoring in these 7 estuarine strata. The CCHMN FY17 tasks, schedule and costs for both projects are
detailed in the attached 2 Scopes of Work (SOW). The cost for the FY17 CCHMN in the Six Upper Charlotte
Harbor Strata is $65,000 for 360 sites per year and in Lower Charlotte Harbor is $11,000 for 60 sites per year.
Recommendation:
Motion to recommend that the Management Conference accept the
CCHMN FY16 Field Audit results.
Motion to recommend that the Management Conference approve the
CCHMN FY17 Upper Charlotte Harbor and Lower Charlotte Harbor
Scopes of Work.
Attachment:
CCHMN FY16 Field Audit Results.
CCHMN FY17 Upper Charlotte Harbor Scope of Work
CCHMN FY17 Lower Charlotte Harbor Scope of Work
Page 24 of 104
Page 25 of 104
CCHMN FY16 FIELD AUDIT RESULTS -SUMMARY
ORGANIZATION
DESCRIPTION
I. GENERAL
Samples collected from randomly selected
sites which are selected prior to field
sampling; alternate sites chosen when: a)
water depth too shallow b) unable to get to
sample site.
Lee Co. Environmental Lab (5/18/2016)
Yes - LCEL staff randomly selected grids & sites prior to sampling
with GIS tool & estuary polygon; used GPS to find sites; sampled
as close to site as possible with >0.7 m depth.
FWC FWRI Fisheries Independent Monitoring (5/25/2016)
FDEP S Dist. EAR (5/19/2016)
Yes - FWRI FIM staff randomly selected grids & sites prior to sampling; sites
Yes - LCEL staff selected random grids & sites prior to sampling;
FDEP created aerial maps with site lat/longs & grids & used in field; were plotted on map of grids use in the field; used GPS to find sites; sampled
FDEP used GPS to find sites; sampled as close to site as possible as close to sites as possible with >1 m water depth.
with >1 m water depth.
Cape Coral Environmental Resources (5/24/2016)
Yes - CCER staff randomly selected grids & sites prior to
sampling & sites were plotted in GPS; used GPS to find
sites; sampled as close to site as possible with at least 1
meter of water depth; recorded selected & actual
lat/longs; checked actual lat/longs with grid numbers on
return to office.
Optional: 1 Duplicate field sample taken every No - Optional duplicate samples were not taken.
10 sites or 1 every sampling trip.
Yes - Blank sample taken at Site #5.
1 blank taken every sampling trip.
No - Optional duplicate samples were not taken.
No - Optional duplicate samples were not taken.
No - Optional duplicate samples were not taken.
Yes - Blank sample taken at dock after site #2.
Yes - Blank sample & readings taken at Site #10.
Yes - Blank sample taken at site #3.
Yes - Used opaque Van Dorn bottle to collect samples, syringes
Water samples collected using an opaque,
horizontal sampling device, such as an Alpha with pre-cleaned filter holders loaded with filters in field & YSI with
optical sensor to take water measurements.
or Niskin bottle.
Yes - Used opaque alpha bottle to collect samples, pump & tubing with
Yes - Used clear alpha bottle to collect samples, disposable
syringes with disposable filter holders to filter samples & YSI to take preloaded filter holders to filter samples & YSI to take water measurements.
water measurements.
Yes - Used opaque alpha bottle to collect samples,
syringes with preloaded filters to filter samples & YSI to
take water readings.
Optional: Use protective gloves.
All sampling done away from motor; when
sampling in a boat, samples taken from bow,
away & upwind from engine.
No - Optional gloves were not used.
Site #1: Yes - YSI taken off side mid-ship & alpha bottle taken near
bow; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4:
(same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1).
Yes - Optional gloves were used during sampling & changed
Site #1: Yes - YSI taken off side away from motor & alpha bottle
taken near bow; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: N/a - cancelled
due to weather; Site #4: (same as Site #3); Site #5: (same as site
#3).
No - Optional gloves were not used.
Site #1: Yes - YSI & Licor taken off side near mid-ship & alpha bottle taken
off side near stern away from motor; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3:
(same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1); Site
#6: (same as Site #1); Site #7: (same as Site #1); Site #8: (same as Site #1);
Site #9: (same as Site #1); Site #10: (same as Site #1).
No - Optional gloves were not used.
Site #1: Yes - YSI taken near bow & alpha bottle taken
off side near stern away from motor; Site #2: (same as
Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as
Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1).
II. DECONTAMINATION
All equipment cleaned in a controlled
environment & transported to the field precleaned ready to use.
Lee Co. Environmental Lab (5/18/2016)
Yes - LCEL lab prep area clean & organized; equipment
transported in cases; sample containers transported in clean bags
for protection; filter holders cleaned in lab & transported to field in
protective box & loaded with filters in field.
FDEP S Dist. EAR (5/19/2016)
Site #1: Yes - syringes & non-preserved sample containers rinsed
with ambient water before filling; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site
#3: N/a - cancelled due to weather; Site #4: (same as Site #3); Site
#5: (same as Site #3).
FWC FWRI Fisheries Independent Monitoring (5/25/2016)
Yes - FWRI FIM lab prep area clean & organized; equipment transported in
cases & sample containers transported in bags in coolers for protection. Filter
holders cleaned & loaded with filters in lab & transported to field in protective
box.
Cape Coral Environmental Resources (5/24/2016)
Yes - CCER lab prep area clean & organized; equipment
transported in cases & sample containers transported in
coolers for protection; filter holders cleaned & loaded with
filters in lab & transported to field in protective box.
Equipment (alpha/niskin bottle, pump tubing, Site #1: N/a - too shallow for bottom sample; Site #2: (same as Site Site #1: N/a - too shallow for bottom sample; Site #2: (same as Site
syringes, filters & other equipment) rinsed with #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: #1); Site #3: N/a - cancelled due to weather; Site #4: (same as Site
#3); Site #5: (same as Site #3).
(same as Site #1).
ambient water between sampling depths at
each site.
Site #1: N/a - too shallow for bottom sample; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site Site #1: N/a - too shallow for bottom sample; Site #2:
#3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1); (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4:
Site #6: (same as Site #1); Site #7: Yes - equipment rinsed with ambient
(same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1).
water between sampling depths; Site #8: (same as Site #1); Site #9: (same
as Site #1); Site #10: (same as Site #1).
Site #1: Yes; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: N/a - cancelled
Alpha bottle rinsed with ambient water before Site #1: Yes - alpha bottle & syringes rinsed with ambient water
before sample collection; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same due to weather; Site #4: (same as Site #3); Site #5: (same as Site
sample collection.
as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1). #3).
Site #1: Yes - alpha bottle & pump tubing rinsed with ambient water at each Site #1: Yes; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same
site prior to sample collection; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as
Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1); Site #6:
Site #1).
(same as Site #1); Site #7: (same as Site #1); Site #8: (same as Site #1); Site
#9: (same as Site #1); Site #10: (same as Site #1).
Optional: Equipment washed in field with
detergents (Liquinox or Alconox).
Field cleaned equipment (alpha/niskin bottle,
pump tubing, syringes, filters & other
equipment) cleaned & rinsed with DI water 3 X
after completion of sampling each site.
Prepared by J. Ott
No - Optional equipment field washing not conducted.
No - Optional equipment field washing not conducted.
No - Optional equipment field washing not conducted.
No - Optional equipment field washing not conducted.
Site #1: Yes - alpha bottle & syringes rinsed with DI water after
sampling; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1);
Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1).
Site #1: Yes - alpha bottle rinsed with DI water 3 X after sampling;
syringes & filters were disposable so not rinsed or reused; Site #2:
(same as Site #1); Site #3: N/a - cancelled due to weather; Site #4:
(same as Site #3); Site #5: (same as Site #3).
Site #1: Yes - alpha bottle & pump tubing rinsed with DI water after sampling;
Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site
#1); Site #5: (same as Site #1); Site #6: (same as Site #1); Site #7: (same as
Site #1); Site #8: (same as Site #1); Site #9: (same as Site #1); Site #10:
(same as Site #1).
Site #1: Yes - alpha bottle & syringes rinsed with DI water
3 X after sampling; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3:
(same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5:
(same as Site #1).
CCHMN FY16 Field Audit Report Summary 2016 06 01.xls -Page 1 of 4
6/1/2016
Page 26 of 104
CCHMN FY16 FIELD AUDIT RESULTS -SUMMARY
FWC FWRI Fisheries Independent Monitoring (5/25/2016)
Site #1: Yes - pump tubing & non-preserved sample containers rinsed with
ambient water before filling; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as
Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1); Site #6:
(same as Site #1); Site #7: (same as Site #1); Site #8: (same as Site #1); Site
#9: (same as Site #1); Site #10: (same as Site #1).
Cape Coral Environmental Resources (5/24/2016)
Site #1: Yes - syringes & non-preserved sample
containers rinsed with ambient water before filling; Site
#2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4:
(same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1).
Yes - Site #1: Nicole = recorded data, & Licor; Tanya = Secchi, YSI & Licor;
Matt & Rebecca = Alpha Bottle; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as
Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1); Site #6:
(same as Site #1); Site #7: (same as Site #1); Site #8: (same as Site #1); Site
#9: (same as Site #1); Site #10: (same as Site #1).
Yes - Site #1: Harry = recorded data, Secchi, YSI & Licor;
Bob = Alpha Bottle & Licor; Site #2: (same as Site #1);
Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1);
Site #5: (same as Site #1).
Site #1: Yes - surface sample taken at 0.5 m below surface using marked
line; too shallow for bottom sample; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3:
(same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1); Site
#6: (same as Site #1); Site #7: Yes - sample taken at 0.5 m below surface &
1.0 m above bottom; Site #8: (same as Site #1); Site #9: (same as Site #1);
Site #10: (same as Site #1).
Site #1: Yes - surface sample taken at 0.5 m below
surface using marked line; too shallow for bottom
sample; Site #2 (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site
#1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site
#1).
Proper order for filling sample bottles is used: Site #1: Yes - non-preserved, then preserved, then filtered; Site #2: Site #1: Yes - non-preserved, then preserved, then filtered; Site #2: Site #1: Yes - non-preserved, then preserved, then filtered; Site #2: (same as
(same as Site #1); Site #3: N/a - cancelled due to weather; Site #4: Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5:
non-preserved, preserved, then filtered.
(same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as
(same as Site #3); Site #3: (same as Site #1).
(same as Site #1); Site #6: (same as Site #1); Site #7: (same as Site #1); Site
Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1).
#8: (same as Site #1); Site #9: (same as Site #1); Site #10: (same as Site
#1).
Site #1: Yes - non-preserved, then preserved, then
filtered; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site
#1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site
#1).
III. AQUEOUS SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Lee Co. Environmental Lab (5/18/2016)
Sample collection equipment & non-preserved Site #1: Yes - syringes & non-preserved sample containers rinsed
with ambient water before filling; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site
sample containers rinsed with sample water
#3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as
before sample is taken.
Site #1).
FDEP S Dist. EAR (5/19/2016)
Site #1: Yes - non-preserved sample containers rinsed with
ambient water before filling; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: N/a
- cancelled due to weather; Site #4: (same as Site #3); Site #5:
(same as Site #3).
1 member of the field team should take all
notes; other members should conduct
consistent duties for entire sampling trip,
especially Secchi.
Yes - Site #1: Liza = recorded data, Secchi & YSI; Bret = Van Dorn Yes - Site #1: Dan = recorded data & YSI; Chris = Secchi & Alpha
Bottle; Licor in for repair; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: N/a Bottle; Site #2: (same); Site #3: (same); Site #4: (same); Site #5:
cancelled due to weather; Site #4: (same as Site #3); Site #5:
(same).
(same as Site #3).
Surface grab sample taken 0.5 m below
surface; if site ≥ 3m deep, additional bottom
grab sample taken at 0.5m above bottom.
Site #1: Yes - surface sample taken at 0.5 m below surface using
marked line; too shallow for bottom sample; Site #2: (same as Site
#1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5:
(same as Site #1).
Site #1: Yes - surface sample taken at 0.5 m below surface using
marked line; too shallow for bottom sample; Site #2: (same as Site
#1); Site #3: N/a - cancelled due to weather; Site #4:(same as Site
#3); Site #5: (same as Site #3).
NH3 & Orthophosphate samples filtered using
peristaltic pump or syringe-filter combination
with .45 micron filters; tubing for peristaltic
pump rinsed with sample water through
spigot.
Site #1: Yes - NH3 & OP samples filtered using syringe & filter
holder w/.45 micron filter loaded in field; Site #2: (same as Site #1);
Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5:
(same as Site #1).
Site #1: Yes - NH3 & OP samples filtered using disposable syringe
& .45 micron filters; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: N/a cancelled due to weather; Site #4: (same as Site #3); Site #5:
(same as Site #3).
Site #1: Yes - NH3 & OP samples filtered using pump, tubing & filter holder
pre-loaded w/.45 micron filter; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as
Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1); Site #6:
(same as Site #1); Site #7: (same as Site #1); Site #8: (same as Site #1); Site
#9: (same as Site #1); Site #10: (same as Site #1).
Site #1: Yes - NH3 & OP samples filtered using syringe &
filter holder pre-loaded w/.45 micron filter; rinsed ambient
water through filter; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3:
(same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5:
(same as Site #1).
Once filled, sample bottles put on ice, except
chlorophyll bottles, which are laid on top of
other bottles in ice chests until cooled, then
completely iced.
Site #1: Yes - samples put in ice immediately, w/Chl on top of ice;
Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4:
(same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1).
Site #1: Yes - samples put in ice immediately, w/Chl on top of ice; Site #1: Yes - samples put in ice immediately, w/Chl on top of ice; Site #2:
Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: N/a - cancelled due to weather; (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site
Site #4: (same as Site #3); Site #5: (same as Site #3).
#5: (same as Site #1); Site #6: (same as Site #1); Site #7: (same as Site #1);
Site #8: (same as Site #1); Site #9: (same as Site #1); Site #10: (same as
Site #1).
Site #1: Yes - samples put in ice immediately, w/Chl put
on ice; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site
#1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site
#1).
Prepared by J. Ott
CCHMN FY16 Field Audit Report Summary 2016 06 01.xls -Page 2 of 4
6/1/2016
Page 27 of 104
CCHMN FY16 FIELD AUDIT RESULTS -SUMMARY
FDEP S Dist. EAR (5/19/2016)
FWC FWRI Fisheries Independent Monitoring (5/25/2016)
IV. LIGHT DATA
Lee Co. Environmental Lab (5/18/2016)
Site #1: Yes - Secchi taken on shadiest side of boat w/o sunglasses; Site #2:
Secchi disk depth taken on shady side of boat Site #1: Yes - Secchi taken on shadiest side of boat w/o
Site #1: Yes - Secchi taken on shadiest side of boat w/o
without sunglasses.
sunglasses; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); sunglasses; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: N/a - cancelled due (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site
to weather; Site #4: (same as Site #3); Site #5: (same as Site #3). #5: (same as Site #1); Site #6: (same as Site #1); Site #7: (same as Site #1);
Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1).
Site #8: (same as Site #1); Site #9: (same as Site #1); Site #10: (same as
Site #1).
Light meter readings taken on sunny side of
boat.
Site #1: N/a - too shallow for Licor readings; Site #2: (same as Site Site #1: N/a - Licor in for repair; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: Site #1: Yes - Licor taken on sunniest side of boat; Site #2: (same as Site
#1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: N/a - cancelled due to weather; Site #4: (same as Site #3); Site #5: #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as
Site #1); Site #6: (same as Site #1); Site #7: (same as Site #1); Site #8:
(same as Site #3).
(same Site #1).
(same as Site #1); Site #9: (same as Site #1); Site #10: (same as Site #1).
2 Licor uw sensors validated in air before
sampling event.
Yes - readings taken for 1 air & 2 underwater (4 pi) sensors taken
in air at lab prior to sampling at Site #1 & recorded on data sheet.
Cape Coral Environmental Resources (5/24/2016)
Site #1: Yes - Secchi taken on shadiest side of boat w/o
sunglasses; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as
Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as
Site #1).
Site #1: Licor measurements taken at 0.5 m & 1.0 m
below surface; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same
as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as
Site #1).
Yes - Licor readings taken for 1 air & 2 underwater (2 pi) sensor readings in
air prior to sampling at Site #1 & after sampling at Site #10 & recorded on
data sheet.
Yes - at lab before leaving for sampling.
Yes - 2 underwater (2 pi) sensors mounted 0.5 m apart on pole, with air
sensor set level on deck.
Yes.
Licor measurements recorded simultaneously Site #1: N/a - too shallow for Licor readings; Site #2: (same as Site Site #1: N/a - Licor in for repair; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3:
#1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: N/a - cancelled due to weather; Site #4: (same as Site #3); Site #5:
for 1 air sensor on level surface & 2 uw
(same as Site #3).
(same Site #1).
sensors (0.5 m apart) with PVC pole frame
held vertically & sensors not shaded by each
other, the boat, SAV or other objects.
Site #1: Yes - simultaneously took 1 air & 2 underwater (0.5 m apart)
readings with pole held vertical & no shading of sensors & saved in data
logger & then recorded on data sheet; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3:
(same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1); Site
#6: (same as Site #1); Site #7: (same as Site #1); Site #8: (same as Site #1);
Site #9: (same as Site #1); Site #10: (same as Site #1).
Site #1: Yes - 1 air & 2 uw readings taken simultaneously;
pole held vertically; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3:
(same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5:
(same as Site #1).
Licor uw measurements taken simultaneously Site #1: N/a - too shallow for Licor readings; Site #2: (same as Site Site #1: N/a - Licor in for repair; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3:
#1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: N/a - cancelled due to weather; Site #4: (same as Site #3); Site #5:
with 2 uw sensors at 0.5 m (& 1.0 m) below
surface & 0.5 m (& 1.0 m) above the bottom & (same Site #1).
(same as Site #3).
1.0 m increments in-between as depth allows.
Sites #1: Yes - 2 uw measurements taken simultaneously at 0.5 m & 1.0 m
below the surface; too shallow for additional measurements; Site #2: Yes - 2
uw measurements taken simultaneously at 0.5 m & 1.0 m plus 1.0 & 1.5 m
below surface plus 0.5 m & 1.0 m above the bottom; Site #3: (same as Site
#1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1); Site #6: (same as
Site #1); Site #7: Yes - 2 uw measurements taken simultaneously at 0.5 m &
1.0 m plus 1.0 & 1.5 m plus 2.0 m & 2.5 m below the surface; Site #8: (same
as Site #2); Site #9: (same as Site #1); Site #10: (same as Site #1).
Site #1: Yes - uw readings taken at 0.5 & 1.0 m below
surface; too shallow for additional measurements; Site
#2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4:
(same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1).
Data qualifier used to record bottom
composition information (mucky, sandy,
submerged aquatic vegetation, hard bottom or
unknown), especially when using a 4 pi light
meter over white, sandy sediments.
Site #1: Yes - bottom type observed from surface &/or anchor & recorded or
recorded as unknown if undetermined; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3:
(same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1); Site
#6: (same as Site #1); Site #7: (same as Site #1); Site #8: (same as Site #1);
Site #9: (same as Site #1); Site #10: (same as Site #1).
Site #1: Yes - bottom composition observed from surface
&/or anchor & recorded or recorded as unknown if
undetermined; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same
as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as
Site #1).
2 Licor uw sensors mounted 0.5 m apart on
PVC pole frame.
Prepared by J. Ott
Site #1: N/a - Licor in for repair; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3:
N/a - cancelled due to weather; Site #4: (same as Site #3); Site #5:
(same as Site #3).
Site #1: N/a - too shallow for Licor readings; Site #2: (same as Site Site #1: N/a - Licor in for repair; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3:
#1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: N/a - cancelled due to weather; Site #4: (same as Site #3); Site #5:
(same as Site #3).
(same Site #1).
Site #1: Yes - bottom composition observed from surface &/or
anchor & recorded or recorded as unknown if undetermined; Site
#2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as
Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1).
Site #1: Yes - bottom composition observed from surface or
recorded as unknown if undetermined; Site #2: (same as Site #1);
Site #3: N/a - cancelled due to weather; Site #4: (same as Site #3);
Site #5: (same as Site #3).
CCHMN FY16 Field Audit Report Summary 2016 06 01.xls -Page 3 of 4
6/1/2016
Page 28 of 104
CCHMN FY16 FIELD AUDIT RESULTS -SUMMARY
V. MISCELLANEOUS
Multi-parameter sampling meter values (pH,
DO, salinity, temperature) recorded to nearest
0.01 values; conductivity readings recorded to
nearest unit. For all sites, values recorded for
0.5 m below the surface. For sites > 3m,
additional readings taken from 0.5 m above
the bottom, and, optionally, water column
profiles at each m.
Lee Co. Environmental Lab (5/18/2016)
Site #1: Yes - YSI readings taken at 0.5 m below surface; too
shallow for bottom readings; values for pH, DO, salinity &
temperature recorded to .01 units & conductivity recorded to
nearest unit; Site #2: (same as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1);
Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5: (same as Site #1).
Yes - YSI calibrated in lab before & after sampling event.
Multi-parameter sampling meters calibrated
before & after each trip; post-sampling
calibration done within 24 hours; data
managers notified of failures ASAP & no later
than before STORET upload.
Each CCHMN partner will participate in a
minimum of 2 RAMP meetings annually.
Yes - LCEL staff attended all RAMP meetings in previous year.
VI. SUMMARY TABLE
FDEP S Dist. EAR (5/19/2016)
Site #1: Yes - YSI readings taken at 0.5 m below surface & 0.5 m
above bottom; values for pH, DO, salinity & temperature recorded
to .01 units & conductivity recorded to nearest unit; Site #2: YSI
readings takes 0.5 m below surface; too shallow for bottom
reading; Site #3: N/a - cancelled due to weather; Site #4: (same as
Site #3); Site #5: (same as Site #3).
FWC FWRI Fisheries Independent Monitoring (5/25/2016)
Site #1: Yes - YSI values taken at 0.5 m below surface & 0.5 m from bottom
plus 1 m profile in-between; values for pH, DO, salinity & temperature
recorded to .01 units & conductivity recorded to nearest unit; Site #2: (same
as Site #1); Site #3: (same as Site #1); Site #4: (same as Site #1); Site #5:
(same as Site #1); Site #6: (same as Site #1); Site #7: (same as Site #1); Site
#8: (same as Site #1); Site #9: (same as Site #1); Site #10: (same as Site
#1).
Cape Coral Environmental Resources (5/24/2016)
Site #1: Yes -YSI readings taken at 0.5 m below surface
& 0.5 m above bottom; values for pH, DO, salinity &
temperature recorded to .01 units & conductivity recorded
to nearest unit; Site #2: Yes - YSI readings taken at 0.5 m
& 1.0 m below surface & 0.5 m above bottom; Site #3:
(same as Site #1); Site #4: Yes - YSI reading taken at 0.5
m below surface; too shallow for 2nd reading; Site #5:
(same as Site #1).
Yes - YSI calibrated in lab before & after sampling event.
Yes - YSI calibrated in lab before & after sampling event.
Yes - YSI calibrated in lab before & after sampling event.
Yes - FDEP South District EAR staff attended all RAMP meetings
during the previous year.
Yes - FWRI FIM staff attended all RAMP meetings in previous year.
Yes - CCER laboratory staff attended at least 3 RAMP
meetings in previous year.
FDEP S Dist. EAR (6/15/2015)
Lee Co. Environmental Lab (4/20/2015)
FWC FWRI Fisheries Independent Monitoring (4/8/2015)
Site & Grid Total Depth
Sample
YSI Depths
Licor
Site & Grid Total Depth
Sample
YSI Depths
Licor
Site & Grid Total Depth
Sample
YSI Depths
#
(m)
Depths (m)
(m)
Depths (m)
#
(m)
Depths (m)
(m)
Depths (m)
#
(m)
Depths (m)
(m)
1=
645
2=
642
3=
625
4=
632
5=
636
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.3
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.5
N/a - too
shallow
N/a - too
shallow
N/a - too
shallow
N/a - too
shallow
N/a - too
shallow
1=
395
2=
449
3=
n/a
4=
n/a
5=
n/a
2.1
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.5
1.6
0.5
cancelled
by weather
cancelled
by weather
cancelled
by weather
cancelled
by weather
cancelled
by weather
cancelled
by weather
cancelled
by weather
cancelled
by weather
cancelled
by weather
n/a - in
for repair
n/a - in
for repair
cancelled
by weather
cancelled
by weather
cancelled
by weather
1=
25
2=
35
3=
36
4=
38
5=
41
6=
42
7=
31
8=
30
9=
22
10 =
6
1.8
0.5
2.1
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
2.1
0.5
2.1
0.5
3.5
2.3
0.5
3.0
0.5
2.1
0.5
1.3
0.5
0.5
1.0 & 1.3
0.5
1.0 & 1.6
0.5
1.0 & 1.4
0.5
1.0 & 1.4
0.5
1.0 & 1.6
0.5
1.0 & 1.6
0.5 & 1.0
2.0 & 3.0
0.5
1.0 & 1.8
0.5
1.0 & 1.6
0.5
0.8
Licor Depths (m)
0.5 & 1.0
0.5 & 1.0
1.0 & 1.5; 1.1 & 1.6
0.5 & 1.0
0.5 & 1.0
0.5 & 1.0
Cape Coral Environmental Resources (4/23/2015)
Sample
Site &
Total
Depths YSI Depths
Licor
Grid # Depth (m)
(m)
(m)
Depths (m)
1=
212
2=
232
3=
234
4=
258
5=
290
1.8
0.5
2.3
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.1
0.5
1.7
0.5
0.5
1.3
0.5
1.0 & 1.8
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.2
0.5 & 1.0
0.5 & 1.0
0.5 & 1.0
0.5 & 1.0
0.5 & 1.0
0.5 & 1.0
0.5 & 1.0
1.0 & 1.5; 2.0 & 2.5
0.5 & 1.0
1.0 & 1.5. 1.3 & 1.8
0.5 & 1.0
0.5 & 1.0
VII. DISCUSSION
1. General:
a. Sampling conducted according to SOPs & in technically sound manner by all partners. Well done.
b. Annual field audits & discussions continue to be important for the precision, accuracy & continuity of the CCHMN.
2. Misc.:
a. Helpful to have polygon of estuary strata when using GIS to select random grids & sites.
b. Helpful to have EXO YSI that connects to Tablet & downloads data.
c. New staff well trained in purpose & mechanics of CCHMN sampling.
d. Glove placed on spigot of DI water jug to protect from contamination.
e. Excellent call to end sampling due to unsafe weather conditions (thunderstorms).
f. Eagle rays & dolphins.
g. Good trouble shooting of boat motor & equipment problems.
h. Bring back up field gear for equipment failures.
i. Secchi attached to tape measure for accurate measurements.
3. Reminders of Things to Watch:
a. Take Licor readings on sunny & cloudy days.
4. Discussions for Annual Meeting Based on FY15 Field Audit Results:
a. The conscientious efforts of CCHMN partners to continue conducting the sampling preciously, accurately & according to SOPs is very important & appreciated by the CHNEP scientific community - Thank you!
b. Efforts to train new staff in the field about proper procedures & reasons for procedures are very helpful & appreciated.
c. Licor readings should be taken during all cloud & sun conditions.
d. Share link to Water Clarity Tool on CHNEP Water Atlas with CCHMN partners.
e. New EXO YSI connects to Tablet & downloads data directly into Table & data can be copied into electronic data sheet.
f. TOC small glass bottle should have no air bubble greater than pea sized.
Prepared by J. Ott
CCHMN FY16 Field Audit Report Summary 2016 06 01.xls -Page 4 of 4
6/1/2016
Coastal Charlotte Harbor Monitoring NetworkPage 29 of 104
2016 Annual Meeting & Picnic
Friday June 10, 2016 from 9:30 am – 1:30 pm
Lee County Manatee Park
10901 Palm Beach Blvd., Fort Myers FL 33905
Lunch will be provided. Please RSVP at http://doodle.com/poll/kz5z6phmynpvhx3k
Thanks to Lee County Manatee Park for hosting our meeting.
Agenda
Purposes: Review CCHMN 2016 Field Audit results & share new tools.
Agenda:
• Welcome and Introductions – Judy Ott, CHNEP
•
Review CCHMN 2016 Field Audit Results – CCHMN Partners
•
Demonstration of EXO YSI Data Logging Capabilities – Liza Rollins, LCEL
•
Introduction to Water Clarity Tool on Water Atlas – Judy Ott, CHNEP
•
Picnic Lunch (provided) & Networking
Please RSVP at: http://doodle.com/poll/kz5z6phmynpvhx3k
•
Orange River Kayaking Trip (cost & time period TBD) – from Manatee Park with park kayaks
Please wear appropriate clothes & shoes.
THIS MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Two or more members of the Everglades West and Caloosahatchee Basin Working Groups, Peace River Basin
Management Advisory Committee, Peace River Basin Management Working Group, North Spreader Waterway Stakeholders
Group, or Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council may be in attendance, and may discuss matters that could come before
the respective body.
Page 30 of 104
Page 31 of 104
SCOPE OF WORK for the
FY17 Coastal Charlotte Harbor Monitoring Network
Water Quality Monitoring in Six Upper Charlotte Harbor Strata Project
DRAFT 2016 07 11
Purpose: The purpose of the “FY17 Coastal Charlotte Harbor Monitoring Network Water Quality Monitoring in Six
Upper Charlotte Harbor Strata” Project (hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT) is to provide the Charlotte Harbor
National Estuary Program (CHNEP) with monthly water quality samples and data at 30 randomly selected field sites
in Lemon Bay, Tidal Myakka and Peace Rivers, Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze/Gasparilla Sound as part of the
Coastal Charlotte Harbor Monitoring Network (CCHMN). The PROJECT is an FY2017 Workplan Technical Project
which will be conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research
Institute (FWC FWRI) Charlotte Harbor Field Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as the CONTRACTOR). The
PROJECT implements the following CHNEP Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan Up-Date 2013
(CCMP) Quantifiable Objectives and Priority Actions:
• WQ-1: Maintain or improve water quality from year 2000 levels. By 2018, bring all impaired water bodies into a
watershed management program such as reasonable assurance or basin management action plan. By 2015, remove
at least two water bodies from the impaired list by improving water quality.
• WQ-B: Continue collecting consistent water quality data throughout the study area to assess impairments,
determine TMDL limits and develop BMAPs. Support key programs such as the CCHMN, partners’ long-term
fixed stations and volunteer monitoring programs.
• SG-3: Through 2020, the CHNEP long-term monitoring strategy and data management strategy will be continued
and enhanced. The resulting Internet-based Water Atlas will be maintained systematically.
• SG-R: Track and present monitoring data according to CHNEP adopted targets in Environmental Indicators.
Background: Charlotte Harbor, besides being a National Estuary Program, is a Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD) Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) priority Water Body.
SWFWMD, the CONTRACTOR and CHNEP have been conducting long-term water quality monitoring in Charlotte
Harbor since 1993, 2000 and 2001, respectively.
The CCHMN was initiated in 2001 as part of the CHNEP Long Term Monitoring Strategy to provide regular water
quality data throughout the CHNEP estuaries using consistent, technically sound methods. The CCHMN is
implemented by a partnership of agencies responsible for different field, laboratory, data analysis and project
management tasks throughout the CHNEP estuaries. The CCHMN sampling design is based on a probabilistic,
stratified, random design. Each month, 5 randomly selected grids within each of the 13 CHNEP estuary strata are
sampled (see Figure 1). The grid system is used by the FWRI Fisheries Independent Monitoring Program (FIM).
At each sampling location, field measurements and water samples are collected for a minimum of 17 key parameters
at the surface at all sites and at the bottom for sites > 3 m deep. Water samples are preserved on ice and transported to
certified labs for analyses. The field methods are described in detail in the CCHMN Description and Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) (2004, available at http://www.chnep.org/info/CCHMN_SOP2004.pdf). The CCHMN
data is entered into the state and federal STORET water quality data bases and used to evaluate status and trends of
state, regional and local estuarine conditions. CCHMN water quality data is also used to develop CHNEP water
quality targets and numeric nutrient criteria.
For this PROJECT, the CONTRACTOR will be responsible for the Tasks described below. CHNEP will be
responsible for coordinating with Charlotte County to ensure that the County continues to support laboratory analyses
of all water quality samples collected through the PROJECT, including color, turbidity, chlorophyll a and nutrients.
CHNEP will also be responsible for compiling estuarine water quality data, quality assurance/quality control and
providing PROJECT data deliverables to SWFWMD. SWFWMD will be responsible for entering PROJECT data into
STORET. No in-kind or cash match is required for this project. To ensure successful completion of the PROJECT,
minor modifications to the Tasks shall be approved in writing by each party’s Project Manager prior to being
performed.
FWC FY17 CCHMN in Upper Charlotte Harbor SOW Final
Page 1 of 4
2016 07 10
Page 32 of 104
Page 33 of 104
SCOPE OF WORK for the
FY17 Coastal Charlotte Harbor Monitoring Network
Water Quality Monitoring in the Lower Charlotte Harbor Stratum Project
DRAFT 2016 07 11
Purpose: The purpose of the “FY17 Coastal Charlotte Harbor Monitoring Network Water Quality Monitoring in the
Lower Charlotte Harbor Stratum” Project (hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT) is to provide the Charlotte Harbor
National Estuary Program (CHNEP) with monthly water quality samples and data at 5 randomly selected field sites in
Lower Charlotte Harbor as part of the Coastal Charlotte Harbor Monitoring Network (CCHMN). The PROJECT is an
FY2017 Workplan Technical Project which will be conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWC FWRI) Charlotte Harbor Field Laboratory (hereinafter
referred to as the CONTRACTOR). The PROJECT implements the following CHNEP Comprehensive Conservation
Management Plan Up-Date 2013 (CCMP) Quantifiable Objectives and Priority Actions:
• WQ-1: Maintain or improve water quality from year 2000 levels. By 2018, bring all impaired water bodies into a
watershed management program such as reasonable assurance or basin management action plan. By 2015, remove
at least two water bodies from the impaired list by improving water quality.
• WQ-B: Continue collecting consistent water quality data throughout the study area to assess impairments,
determine TMDL limits and develop BMAPs. Support key programs such as the CCHMN, partners’ long-term
fixed stations and volunteer monitoring programs.
• SG-3: Through 2020, the CHNEP long-term monitoring strategy and data management strategy will be continued
and enhanced. The resulting Internet-based Water Atlas will be maintained systematically.
• SG-R: Track and present monitoring data according to CHNEP adopted targets in Environmental Indicators.
Background: Charlotte Harbor, besides being a National Estuary Program, is a Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD) Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) priority Water Body.
SWFWMD, the CONTRACTOR and CHNEP have been conducting long-term water quality monitoring in Charlotte
Harbor since 1993, 2000 and 2001, respectively.
The CCHMN was initiated in 2001 as part of the CHNEP Long Term Monitoring Strategy to provide regular water
quality data throughout the CHNEP estuaries using consistent, technically sound methods. The CCHMN is
implemented by a partnership of agencies responsible for different field, laboratory, data analysis and project
management tasks throughout the CHNEP estuaries. The CCHMN sampling design is based on a probabilistic,
stratified, random design. Each month, 5 randomly selected grids within each of the 13 CHNEP estuary strata are
sampled (see Figure 1). The grid system is used by the FWRI Fisheries Independent Monitoring Program (FIM).
At each sampling location, field measurements and water samples are collected for a minimum of 17 key parameters
at the surface at all sites and at the bottom for sites > 3 m deep. Water samples are preserved on ice and transported to
certified labs for analyses. The field methods are described in detail in the CCHMN Description and Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) (2004, available at http://www.chnep.org/info/CCHMN_SOP2004.pdf). The CCHMN
data is entered into the state and federal STORET water quality data bases and used to evaluate status and trends of
state, regional and local estuarine conditions. CCHMN water quality data is also used to develop CHNEP water
quality targets and numeric nutrient criteria.
For this PROJECT, the CONTRACTOR will be responsible for the Tasks described below. CHNEP will be
responsible for coordinating with Charlotte County to ensure that the County continues to support laboratory analyses
of all water quality samples collected through the PROJECT, including color, turbidity, chlorophyll a and nutrients.
CHNEP will also be responsible for compiling estuarine water quality data, quality assurance/quality control and
providing PROJECT data deliverables to SWFWMD. SWFWMD will be responsible for entering PROJECT data into
STORET. No in-kind or cash match is required for this project. To ensure successful completion of the PROJECT,
minor modifications to the Tasks shall be approved in writing by each party’s Project Manager prior to being
performed.
FWC FY17 CCHMN in Lower Charlotte Harbor SOW Draft
Page 1 of 4
2016 07 10
Page 34 of 104
Figure 1: CCHMN Strata, Grids & Partners
FWC FY17 CCHMN in Lower Charlotte Harbor SOW Draft
Page 2 of 4
2016 07 10
Page 35 of 104
Project Tasks: The PROJECT will be accomplished according to the following Tasks.
Task 1: Select and Map Water Quality Sampling Locations for the CCHMN Lower Charlotte Harbor Stratum
Each Month.
Prior to CCHMN water quality sampling each month, the CONTRACTOR will randomly select 5 sampling sites
within the CCHMN Lower Charlotte Harbor stratum according to CCHMN SOPs. Each of the CCHMN strata is
divided into 1 minute X 1 minute grids (see Figure 1), which are further subdivided into 10 X 10 cells for potential
sampling sites. Each month, within the Lower Charlotte Harbor stratum, 5 grids will be randomly selected and within
each randomly selected grid, a site will be randomly selected for sampling each month. Latitude/longitude for the
randomly selected sampling sites will be used to locate the sites in the field.
Task 1 Deliverables: Latitude/longitudes for 5 randomly selected water quality sampling sites each month.
Task 1 Time Period: Monthly.
Task 1 Estimated Budget: $3,020
Task 2: Conduct Water Quality Monitoring in the CCHMN Lower Charlotte Harbor Stratum Each Month.
The CONTRACTOR will conduct water quality monitoring for 5 sites in the CCHMN Lower Charlotte Harbor
stratum each month according to CCHMN SOPs. The CONTRACTOR will preserve the samples in accordance with
the SOPs. CHNEP staff will assist with monthly water sampling and assure that samples are delivered to the Lee
County Environmental Laboratory (LCEL) within holding times.
At each identified sampling site, field measurements will be made and recorded at 0.5 m below the surface and above
the bottom and 1 m intervals in between, in accordance with SOPs. At a minimum, field measurements will be made
for depth, temperature, salinity, specific conductivity, pH and dissolved oxygen, as well as Secchi and light
attenuation coefficients at appropriate depths. Light attenuation coefficients will be taken at sites sampled between
10:00 am and 2:00 pm.
In addition, at each identified sampling site, water samples will collected at .05 m below the surface and .5 m above
the bottom (for sites >3.0 m deep) and preserved in accordance with SOPs. At a minimum, water samples will be
collected for laboratory analyses of turbidity (NTU), total suspended solids (mg/l), color (PCUs), chlorophyll a
(phaeophytin-corrected in mg/l), total nitrogen (mg/l), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/l) total ammonia nitrogen (mg/l),
total phosphorus (mg/l) and total organic carbon (mg/l). Sample bottles will be provided by the laboratory identified
by Charlotte County. Samples will be filtered as identified in the SOPs. Samples will be kept on ice until being
delivered to the laboratory, along with the field data sheets.
Task 2 Deliverables:
• Water quality field measurements taken at 5 sites each month.
• Water quality samples collected and provided to CHNEP to deliver to laboratory for 5 sites each month.
Task 2 Estimated Time Period: Monthly.
Task 2 Estimated Budget: $4,960
Task 3: Assist CHNEP with Providing Water Quality Field Data to the Laboratory for the CCHMN Lower
Charlotte Harbor Stratum Each Month.
The CONTRACTOR will provide the field data sheets for 5 sites in the CCHMN Lower Charlotte Harbor stratum to
CHNEP each month and CHNEP will provide the data sheets to LCEL each month. The CONTRACTOR, CHNEP
and LCEL will work together to provide the field data for 5 sites each month to LCEL electronically in a format
acceptable to the CONTRACTOR, CHNEP and the LCEL.
Task 3 Deliverable3:
• Field data sheets provided to CHNEP for 5 sites each month.
• Water quality field data downloaded from data logger and provided to CHNEP and LCEL electronically for 5
sites each month.
Task 3 Estimated Time Period: Monthly.
Task 3 Estimated Budget: $3,020
FWC FY17 CCHMN in Lower Charlotte Harbor SOW Draft
Page 3 of 4
2016 07 10
Page 36 of 104
Project Schedule and Budget Summary: The PROJECT schedule and budget are summarized in Table 1.
PROJECT Tasks will be conducted be monthly for a period of 1 year.
Table 1: PROJECT Schedule and Budget Summary
Schedule
Task
Task
Deliverables
1
Select & Map Water Quality Lat/Longs for 5 randomly
Sampling Sites Each Month selected water quality sampling
sites each month.
for the CCHMN Lower
Charlotte Stratum.
Budget
# Sites
per
Quarter
15
#
Sites
per
Year
60
$ per
Quarter
$755
$ per
Year
$3,020
2
Conduct Water Quality
Monitoring Each Month in
the CCHMN Lower
Charlotte Harbor Stratum.
Water quality field measurements
taken & samples collected &
delivered to laboratory for 5 sites
each month.
15
60
$1,240
$4,960
3
Enter Water Quality
Monitoring Field Data into
Data Base Each Month for
the CCHMN Lower
Charlotte Harbor Stratum.
Water quality field measurements
entered into database & field data
sheets & database provided to
CHNEP & SWFWMD for 5 sites
each month.
15
60
$755
$3,020
15
60
$2,750
$11,000
TOTAL
FWC FY17 CCHMN in Lower Charlotte Harbor SOW Draft
Page 4 of 4
2016 07 10
Page 37 of 104
Figure 1: CCHMN Strata, Grids & Partners
FWC FY17 CCHMN in Upper Charlotte Harbor SOW Final
Page 2 of 4
2016 07 10
Page 38 of 104
Project Tasks: The PROJECT will be accomplished according to the following Tasks.
Task 1: Select and Map Water Quality Sampling Locations for 6 CCHMN Strata Each Month.
Prior to CCHMN water quality sampling each month, the CONTRACTOR will randomly select 5 sampling sites
within each of the 6 CCHMN strata (Lemon Bay, Tidal Myakka, Tidal Peace, West Wall Charlotte Harbor, East Wall
Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze) according to CCHMN SOPs. Each of the 6 CCHMN strata is divided into 1 minute
X 1 minute grids (see Figure 1), which are further subdivided into 10 X 10 cells for potential sampling sites. Each
month, within each of the 6 strata, 5 grids will be randomly selected and within each randomly selected grid, a site
will be randomly selected for sampling each month. Latitude/longitude for the randomly selected sampling sites will
be used to locate the sites in the field.
Task 1 Deliverables: Latitude/longitudes for 30 randomly selected water quality sampling sites each month.
Task 1 Time Period: Monthly.
Task 1 Estimated Budget: $18,180
Task 2: Conduct Water Quality Monitoring in 6 CCHMN Strata Each Month.
The CONTRACTOR will conduct water quality monitoring for 30 sites in 6 CCHMN strata (Lemon Bay, Tidal
Myakka, Tidal Peace, West Wall Charlotte Harbor, East Wall Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze) each month according
to CCHMN SOPs. The CONTRACTOR will preserve the samples in accordance with the SOPs and assure samples
are delivered to the laboratory identified by Charlotte County within holding times.
At each identified sampling site, field measurements will be made and recorded at 0.5 m below the surface and above
the bottom and 1 m intervals in between, in accordance with SOPs. At a minimum, field measurements will be made
for depth, temperature, salinity, specific conductivity, pH and dissolved oxygen, as well as Secchi and light
attenuation coefficients at appropriate depths. Light attenuation coefficients will be taken at sites sampled between
10:00 am and 2:00 pm.
In addition, at each identified sampling site, water samples will collected at .05 m below the surface and .5 m above
the bottom (for sites >3.0 m deep) and preserved in accordance with SOPs. At a minimum, water samples will be
collected for laboratory analyses of turbidity (NTU), total suspended solids (mg/l), color (PCUs), chlorophyll a
(phaeophytin-corrected in mg/l), total nitrogen (mg/l), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/l) total ammonia nitrogen (mg/l),
total phosphorus (mg/l) and total organic carbon (mg/l). Sample bottles will be provided by the laboratory identified
by Charlotte County. Samples will be filtered as identified in the SOPs. Samples will be kept on ice until being
delivered to the laboratory, along with the field data sheets.
Task 2 Deliverables:
• Water quality field measurements taken at 30 sites each month.
• Water quality samples collected and delivered to laboratory for 30 sites each month.
Task 2 Estimated Time Period: Monthly.
Task 2 Estimated Budget: $28,800
Task 3: Enter Water Quality Field Measurements into Database for 6 CCHMN Strata Each Month.
The CONTRACTOR will enter water quality field measurements into database for 30 sites in 6 CCHMN strata
(Lemon Bay, Tidal Myakka, Tidal Peace, West Wall Charlotte Harbor, East Wall Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze).
The data base will be in a format acceptable to CHNEP and SWFWMD (compatible with EDMS/ADAPT and
STORET). The field data sheets and database will be provided electronically to CHNEP and SWFWMD monthly.
Task 3 Deliverables:
• Water quality field measurements entered into data base for 30 sites each month.
• Field data sheets and database provided to CHNEP and SWFWMD for 30 sites each month.
Task 3 Estimated Time Period: Monthly.
Task 3 Estimated Budget: $18,180
FWC FY17 CCHMN in Upper Charlotte Harbor SOW Final
Page 3 of 4
2016 07 10
Page 39 of 104
Project Schedule and Budget Summary: The PROJECT schedule and budget are summarized in Table 1.
PROJECT Tasks will be conducted be monthly for a period of 1 year.
Table 1: PROJECT Schedule and Budget Summary
Schedule
#
# Sites
Sites
per
per
Task
Task
Deliverables
Quarter Year
90
360
1
Select & Map Water Quality Lat/Longs for 30
randomly selected water
Sampling Sites Each Month
quality sampling sites
for 6 CCHMN Upper
each month.
Charlotte Strata.
Water quality field
90
360
2
Conduct Water Quality
measurements
taken
&
Monitoring Each Month in 6
samples collected &
CCHMN Upper Charlotte
delivered to laboratory
Harbor Strata.
for 30 sites each month.
Water quality field
90
360
3
Enter Water Quality
measurements entered
Monitoring Field Data into
into database & field
Data Base Each Month 6
data sheets & database
CCHMN Upper Charlotte
provided to CHNEP &
Harbor Strata.
SWFWMD for 30 sites
each month.
TOTAL
FWC FY17 CCHMN in Upper Charlotte Harbor SOW Final
90
360
Page 4 of 4
Budget
$ per
Quarter
$4,525
$ per
Year
$18,100
$7,200
$28,800
$4,525
$18,100
$16,250
$65,000
2016 07 10
Page 40 of 104
Page 41 of 104
6. MORGAN PARK PEACE RIVER RESTORATION COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT PLAN
In FY15, the CHNEP in partnership with DeSoto County, with funding from Mosaic and the SWFWMD,
initiated the process to develop and implement the Morgan Park Peace River Shoreline and Habitat Restoration
Project (the Project) in Arcadia. CHNEP assembled $80,000 to prepare a phased plan to address shoreline
erosion and stabilization and to conduct habitat restoration activities. The TAC approved the SOW at its April
19, 2015, meeting. CHNEP developed a Request for Proposals to procure a qualified professional engineering
and environmental services firm to assist with the project and AMEC was selected as the contractor. AMEC
began work on the project in November 2015.
AMEC has submitted the initial deliverable for the Project - Final DeSoto County’s Morgan Park
Comprehensive Project Plan (CPP). The purpose of the Morgan Park CPP is to provide a phased approach to
shoreline stabilization and ecosystem restoration at Morgan Park. Tasks accomplished include:
• Desktop Reconnaissance.
• Field Reconnaissance.
• Mapping Proposed Park Project Areas.
• Development of Alternatives and Feasibility Assessments for:
• Water Quality and Habitat Enhancement, and
• Nuisance Species and Habitat Restoration.
The Final Morgan Park CCP is provided for TAC review and comment. The draft report was provided
electronically to the CHNEP Management Conference for review. Comments were aggregated and forwarded to
AMEC. CHNEP staff consulted with AMEC to discuss comments and their resolution. The native digital files
were provide to CHNEP via Dropbox and are available for review upon request.
Recommendation:
Motion to recommend that the Management Conference Approve the
Morgan Park Peace River Shoreline and Habitat Restoration
Comprehensive Project Plan.
Attachment:
Morgan Park Peace River Restoration Comprehensive Project Plan
provided separately at:
http://chnep.org/agendas2016/morganparkccp6-24-16.pdf
Page 42 of 104
Page 43 of 104
7. MORGAN PARK PEACE RIVER SHORELINE AND HABITAT RESTORATION - NORTH BEND DRAFT PHASE I
DESIGN
In FY15, the CHNEP in partnership with DeSoto County, with funding from Mosaic and the SWFWMD,
initiated the process to develop and implement the Morgan Park Peace River Shoreline and Habitat Restoration
Project (the Project) in Arcadia. CHNEP assembled $80,000 to prepare a phased plan to address shoreline
erosion and stabilization and to conduct habitat restoration activities. The TAC approved the SOW at its April
19, 2015, meeting. CHNEP developed a Request for Proposals to procure a qualified professional engineering
and environmental services firm to assist with the project and AMEC was selected as the contractor. AMEC
began work on the project in November 2015.
The Draft Phase 1 Design task is described as follows:
Amec Foster Wheeler will conceive and provide a draft design for the restoration and stabilization
of the North Bend site along the Peace River. The provided concept design will contemplate
construction in phases. For example, arresting toe erosion in the first phase and rebuilding a living
shoreline above it thereafter. The scope of design services includes geotechnical engineering, field
investigations and lab work, hydraulics/scour calculations, slope stability modeling, alternatives
analysis, permitting agency and public meetings, and a conceptual plan set. Environmental
contamination studies (e.g. Phase I or II Investigations) are not included. The design will
incorporate a soil bioengineering approach, including a living shoreline above a gray-infrastructure
foundation.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Hydrology and Hydralics Assessments
Subsurface Investigations
Slop Stability Analysis
Design Alternatives
Recommendation:
Motion to recommend that the Management Conference Approve the
Morgan Park Peace River Shoreline and Habitat Restoration Peace
River - North Bend Restoration Draft Phase I Design
Attachment:
Morgan Park Peace River Restoration Project Design provided
separately at:
http://www.chnep.org/agendas2016/morganparkdesign7-13-16.pdf
Page 44 of 104
Page 45 of 104
8. MANGROVE HEART ATTACK PROJECT SITE INVESTIGATION ANALYSIS
December 2015, Region 4 EPA awarded a Wetland Program Development Grant to CHNEP entitled
“Identifying and Diagnosing Locations of Ongoing and Future Saltwater Wetland Loss: Mangrove Heart
Attack.” A total of $75,283 supported CHNEP staff and $75,000 supported contracts with SWFRPC, Coastal
Resources Group Inc., and Terry Tattar. Project total with eligible match is $243,324.
Project deliverables includes an annotated bibliography, site investigation analysis, hand mapping, spectral data
analysis and a catalog of restoration opportunities. Because of the size of the project, Principal Investigator Lisa
Beever decided to present the site investigation analysis separately from the rest of the project. The remaining
project deliverables will be presented during the October/November Management Conference Cycle for project
approval.
Fifty-four mangrove sites were reviewed which include reference sites, boundary conditions, mangrove die-off
sites and areas which were not clear. The analysis focused on mangrove site patterns by geomorphic type and
species. We found that:
• Mangrove communities usually included 2 or more mangrove species (76%).
• Classic mangrove species zonation did not hold at the sites investigated.
• Red mangrove scrubs exist, exhibiting witch’s brooms.
• There was a stronger correlation between geomorphology and elevation.
• Black mangroves, on average, were the tallest mangrove tree (except in riverine situations).
• Red, black, white and buttonwood mangrove forests all had healthy examples. Sixty-six percent (66%)
of the 128 mangroves evaluated were healthy.
Additional findings will be presented.
Recommendation:
Motion to recommend that the Management Conference accept the
Mangrove Heart Attack Project Site Investigation Analyses.
Attachments:
Mangrove Heart Attack Project Draft Field Investigations Chapter
provided separately at:
http://www.chnep.org/agendas2016/mangrovesiteinvest7-12-16.pdf
Page 46 of 104
Page 47 of 104
9. RESTORATION NEEDS AND TARGETS PROCESS UPDATE
At its April 12, 2016 meeting, the TAC requested that Habitat Conservation Subcommittee (HCS) meet to
discuss the next steps for developing the CHNEP Restoration Needs Plan. The HCS met on July 7, 2016 in
Punta Gorda. The purpose of the meeting was to define key elements of a Scope of Work (SOW) for developing
Restoration Needs Plan what will be used for the Request for Proposals (RFP) to seek qualified contractors to
complete the project. Lisa Beever presented a summary of the CHNEP Restoration Needs Planning activities to
date (attached). Liz Donley presented a summary of the process and schedule for developing a Request for
Proposal (RFP) and implementing a project to develop the CHNEP Restoration Needs Plan (attached). Judy Ott
provided a draft-for-discussion of a SOW for the project (attached).
The HCS participants provided suggested changes to be incorporated into the next draft Restoration Needs
SOW, including:
• Include objectives, use and applicable time period of Plan in Purpose.
• Include description and map of CHNEP study area in Purpose or Background.
• Include bibliography links to existing data sources in SOW and RFP.
• Include definitions of habitats (wetland and uplands vs. open water vs. special species’) and needs
(restoration, habitat, acquisition needs, opportunities, etc.) and use consistently in SOW, RFP and Plan.
• Include restoration success criteria and metrics.
• Include consideration of water quality and climate change impacts of restoration to Plan.
• Include discussion of restorable vs. non-restorable lands and how they address habitat needs.
• Include discussion of managed lands that have been restored vs. remain to be restored.
• Include strategy for providing access to Plan and data and keeping them up-dated and active.
• Include skills needed by contractor in RFP.
• Include clear outcomes, outputs, schedule and deliverables.
• Add Task to format existing data sources consistently.
• Add Task to conduct land use change analyses and map from pre-development to current time periods.
• Add Task to identify restoration projects currently in planning phase.
• Add Task to identify up-dated restoration goals by habitat type.
• Add task to compare identified restoration goals to restoration targets.
Next steps for developing the Restoration Needs SOW and RFP include:
• Incorporate HCS discussion and edits into revised SOW and forward to HCS for review – July 31, 2016.
• Incorporate HCS second review comments into revised SOW – August 15, 2016.
• Next meeting of HCS Subcommittee to develop final draft SOW – August or September 2016.
• Approval of final SOW by Management Conference – October/November 2016.
• Staff assist City of Punta Gorda with development and release of RFP – November or December 2016.
• Include CHNEP Program Scientist and HCS member on RFP proposal evaluation team – Dec. 2016.
• Presentation of status of SOW and awardee to Management Conference – February/March 2017.
• Begin implementation of project – Spring 2017.
Recommendation:
No motion requested; for information and discussion only.
Attachments:
HCS Restoration Needs Planning Agenda July 7, 2016
Beever HCS Restoration Needs History Presentation
Donley HCS Restoration Needs Process and Schedule
Draft-for-Discussion Restoration Needs SOW
Page 48 of 104
CHNEP Habitat Conservation Subcommittee
Restoration Needs Planning
Thursday July 7, 2016
9:15 am – 12:30 pm
Charlotte Community Foundation – Education Center
227 Sullivan Street, Punta Gorda, FL 33950
AGENDA
To Join Meeting Via WebEx: Click on this link Join WebEx meeting and enter meeting number
(access code) 623 452 959 and either listen through your computer or via phone (1-650-479-3208).
Please Note: Test the WebEx link prior to the meeting – it will be open starting at 8:30 am.
If the link above doesn’t work, please copy and paste this link into your web browser:
https://puntagorda.webex.com/mw3100/mywebex/default.do?service=1&siteurl=puntagorda&nomenu=true&main_url=%2
Fmc3100%2Fe.do%3Fsiteurl%3Dpuntagorda%26AT%3DMI%26EventID%3D464843727%26UID%3D517762812%26H
ost%3DQUhTSwAAAALwNr5dhlmHsXFjlfI_TCV4_r1HgpD5cvjrJgtVfHF5Qrn_K5UFgxPVNIO5SMdqlE1bOAWG5lZycPKRmsQ9am0%26FrameSet%3D2%26MTID%3Dmdfd28132f12655092ca18245f4999632
Meeting Purpose: To define the key elements of a Scope of Work (SOW) to develop the Restoration
Needs and Targets. The SOW will be used to develop a Request for Proposals (RFP) to seek qualified
contractors to complete the Restoration Needs Plan, including the Restoration Targets.
Documents to Review Prior to the Meeting:
 Restoration Targets: Restoring the Balance (draft 4/6/2016)
 Restoration Needs Plan Update Outline (draft 5/31/16)
Networking & Coffee 9:00 am – 9:15 am
1. Call to Order, Introductions and Election of Co-Chair of the Day — Judy Ott, CHNEP
2. Review Meeting Purpose and Outcomes — Judy Ott, CHNEP
3. Review Existing Restoration Targets and Needs Documents — Lisa Beever, CHNEP
4. Review Restoration Needs Process and Schedule — Liz Donley, CHNEP
5. Identify Tasks for Restoration Needs Scope of Work — Co-Chair and Participants
6. Next Steps — Judy Ott, CHNEP
7. Next Meeting's Topics, Location and Date — TBD
8. Adjourn — Co-Chair
THIS MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Two or more members of the Everglades West and Caloosahatchee Basin Working Groups may be in attendance and may
discuss matters that could come before the respective body.
Page 49 of 104
Coordinating Science and
Restoration in Southwest Florida
Lisa B. Beever
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
&
James W. Beever III
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
September 16, 2003
Estuarine Research Federation
Seattle, Washington
Regional Partnerships
Involved in planning or implementing restoration or research
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Everglades Restoration
Regional Restoration Coordination Team
Southwest Florida Feasibility Study
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Water Management Districts
Surface Water Improvement & Management
Regional Planning Councils
Coastal Conservation Corridor Plan
Southwest Florida Watershed Council
Southwest Florida Environmental Impact Statement
Estero Bay Agency on Bay Management
Water Enhancement and Restoration Coalition
1
Page 50 of 104
Everglades
Restoration
Southwest
Florida Regional
Restoration
Coordination
Team
+
** Southwest
Florida
Watershed
Council**
2
Page 51 of 104
Southwest Florida
Feasibility Study
Charlotte Harbor
National Estuary
Program
3
Page 52 of 104
Water
Management
Districts
Charlotte Harbor
Surface Water
Improvement &
Mgmt Program
circa 2000
4
Page 53 of 104
Charlotte Harbor
Surface Water
Improvement &
Mgmt Programs
circa 2003
Regional Planning
Councils
5
Page 54 of 104
SWF Coastal
Conservation
Corridor Plan
Southwest
Florida
Environmental
Impact Statement
6
Page 55 of 104
Estero Bay
Agency on Bay
Management
Water
Enhancement
and Restoration
Coalition
7
Page 56 of 104
RPC
NEP
SWIM
CCCP
CERP
RRCT
WC
EIS
ABM
WERC
EPA
US ACOE
US FWS
NOAA
USGS
FDEP
FWC
FDOT
WMDs
RPCs
NEP
FGCU
Counties
Cities
Environmental Orgs
Business/Industry
Problem or Opportunity?
8
Page 57 of 104
Opportunities
• Technological answer to coordinate plans
• Access and ArcGIS
• NEP useful to house database and GIS layers
• EPA mandates estimate restoration needs & track imp.
• Provides meaningful service to partners
• No problem providing assistance beyond boundaries
• Take advantage of existing partnerships
• Partnerships “on the fly” & “on the road”
• Place new id’d needs back into regional plans
9
Page 58 of 104
10
Page 59 of 104
Charlotte Harbor
Caloosahatchee
Estero Bay
11
Page 60 of 104
Charlotte Harbor
Caloosahatchee
Estero Bay
Charlotte Harbor
Caloosahatchee
Estero Bay
12
Page 61 of 104
Restoration Coordination Team
3/10/03
Restoration Coordination Team
4/14/03
13
Page 62 of 104
CHNEP/Sanibel
8/18/03
CHNEP/Fort Myers Beach
10/10/03
14
Page 63 of 104
Restoration Plan
“Lee County Mitigation Plan”
•
•
•
•
Address water quality impact of roads
$100 million stormwater & mitigation, I-75 alone
Better use of funds than square retention ponds
Match potential hydrologic, habitat, & water
quality restoration with capital projects
• Restoration needs identified for Lee Mit Plan
same as NEP, SWFFS, RCT Restoration Plans
Regional Restoration Coordination Team
2/14/03
15
Page 64 of 104
Caloosahatchee
River Basin
Charlotte
Harbor Basin
• Yucca Pens
• State Buffer Preserve
• San Carlos Bay
Hydrology
• Historic Oyster Bars
Estero Bay
Basin
•
•
•
•
Agripartners Acq
Woodstork Flow-ways
Corkscrew Watershed
Estero Bay Tributaries
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Babcock Ranch
Estuarine Oxbows
C-43 Spoil Deposits
Lake Hicpochee
Big Cypress
Basin
Camp Keais Strand
Naples Bay Initiative
Lake Trafford
Southern Golden Gate
Estates
CHEC/Charlotte County
11/19/03
16
Page 65 of 104
CHEC/Myakka State Park
1/2/04
CHEC/Polk
2/25/05
17
Page 66 of 104
Process
• Eliminated duplication of efforts
• Created common language, same project names
• Provided common base for different efforts
• It’s all a beautiful tapestry!
• Gotten skilled at “partnerships on the fly”
• Created partners, not competitors
After 2005
• Loaded database info into the GIS shapefile,
abandoned separate database.
• Information expressed in map form and
adopted in the CCMP vision.
• Shapefile used as a base to the SWFFS and
expanded through the PDT.
• Shapefile used in Conservation 20/20
selection and Lee County Mit Plan.
• SWIM plans.
18
Page 67 of 104
2013 CCMP
• SG-N: Update comprehensive inventories of
research, restoration, legislative and outreach
needs. (by 2020)
• FW-F: Restore and protect a balance of native
plant and animal communities.
• In FY15, completed research needs inventory
and began restoration needs update.
• Assembled new data (CLIP) and drafted a
restoration target algorithm to help identify
potential deficiencies.
19
Page 68 of 104
20
Page 69 of 104
To Do List
1. Update targets with pending WMD LU maps.
2. Develop method to select which portion of the
target applies to protection vs restoration.
3. Assemble protection and restoration needs
from available sources (into unified files).
4. Delete lost opportunities from files.
5. Check comprehensive needs against targets
and adjust as needed.
6. Develop success criteria.
7. Prepare plan document for adoption and
loaded shapefile for distribution.
21
Page 70 of 104
22
Page 71 of 104
Considerations
1. Select priorities for special focus.
2. Take project identification back on the road.
3. Approve future update strategy (e.g. Florida
Forever added with no separate approval.)
23
Page 72 of 1047/7/2016
City of Punta Gorda
Procurement Process
1
Page 73 of 1047/7/2016
Steps in the CHNEP Process
• Policy Committee approved project concept and budget maximum (FY17 Workplan)
• HCS and CHNEP staff develop SOW
• Management Conference approves SOW (Autumn cycle)
• CHNEP staff assist City with RFP development
• City releases RFP (late Nov., early Dec. 2016)
HCS role: pre‐procurement
• Provide guidance to CHNEP staff
– Outline project: outcomes and outputs
– Define overall time table
– Delineate milestones, deliverables
2
Page 74 of 1047/7/2016
HCS role: procurement
• Potential for a HCS member to sit on procurement evaluation team (Dec. 2016)
HCS role: post‐procurement
• Assist CHNEP staff with refining Scope of Work for award (Dec 2016/Jan 2017)
• Present status of final SOW and awardee to Mgt. Conference (Winter cycle 2017)
• Review deliverables prior to presentation to Mgt. Conference (2017/2018?)
3
Page 75 of 104
SCOPE OF WORK for the
CHNEP FY17 Restoration Needs and Targets Plan Up-Date
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION 7/7/2016
Purpose: The purpose of the “FY17 Restoration Needs Project (hereinafter referred to as the Project) is
to provide the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program (CHNEP) with an up-dated Restoration Needs
Plan, including Restoration Targets. The Project is an FY2017 Workplan Project, supported by FY16 and
FY17 funding, currently identified as up to $80,000. The CHNEP Management Conference developed
and approved this Project Scope of Work (SOW) and released a Request for Proposals for the work in
????, , 2016. From the proposals received, ???? (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) was selected to
conduct the Project. The Project period is from ????, 2016 through ????, 2017.
The Restoration Needs Project implements the following CHNEP Comprehensive Conservation
Management Plan Up-Date 2013 (CCMP) Quantifiable Objectives and Priority Actions:
• FW-1: Protect, enhance and restore native habitats where physically feasible and within the natural
variability, including – submerged aquatic vegetation, submerged and intertidal unvegetated bottoms;
oysters; mangroves; salt marshes; freshwater wetlands; native uplands and water column.
• FW-F: Restore and protect a balance of native plant and animal communities.
• SN-N: Update comprehensive inventories of research, restoration, legislative and outreach needs.
Background: CHNEP completed its first comprehensive Restoration Needs Inventory in 2006 based on
needs and projects identified by its partners and through the Management Conference. The 2006
Restoration Needs Inventory included geographic information systems (GIS) files and tables describing
restoration project proposals. The proposals included both conservation land acquisition and restoration
concepts on existing and proposed conservation lands. The Restoration Needs were originally adopted as
part of the 2008 CHNEP CCMP and conveyed as maps of Land Acquisition Alternatives (see Figure 1
below) and Exotic Vegetation Removal Needs (see Figure 2 below). The restoration needs were also
incorporated into the CHNEP CCMP Up-Date in 2013 as similar maps.
One of the most useful components of the previous Restoration Needs Inventory is a GIS shapefile that
can be utilized in partners’ planning efforts and readily updated as needed. The CHNEP Restoration
Needs information has been used to assist with many regional restoration planning efforts, including:
• Southwest Florida Feasibility Study (SWFFS),
• Lee County Master Mitigation Plan,
• Lee County’s Conservation 2020 Program site selection criteria,
• Conservation Charlotte acquisitions, Peace River corridor planning,
• Mosaic’s off-site mitigation proposals,
• Southwest Florida Regional Restoration Plan,
• Southwest Florida Comprehensive Watershed Plan,
• Southwest Florida Regional Ecosystem Restoration Plan,
• Wildland Conservation’s Peace River Basin Initiative, and
• Charlotte Harbor Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan.
An updated CHNEP Restoration Needs Plan, including Restoration Targets, has been requested by the
CHNEP Management Conference to address partners’ planning needs (such as Water Management
District Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plans), enhance preparedness for grant
opportunities (such as RESTORE Act funding), support restoration and acquisition opportunities and
incorporate updated GIS tools and modeling efforts.
CHNEP Restoration Needs Plan SOW Draft for Discussion
Page 1 of 6
2016 07 07
Page 76 of 104
Figure 1: Land Acquisition Alternatives published in 2008 and 2013 CCMP
CHNEP Restoration Needs Plan SOW Draft for Discussion
Page 2 of 6
2016 07 07
Page 77 of 104
Figure 2: Exotic Vegetation Removal Needs published in 2008 and 2013 CCMP
CHNEP Restoration Needs Plan SOW Draft for Discussion
Page 3 of 6
2016 07 07
Page 78 of 104
Project Tasks: The Project will be accomplished according to the following tasks.
Task 1: Compile Existing Restoration Needs Source Materials.
• Previous CHNEP Restoration Needs database.
• Previous CHNEP GIS files.
• Previous CHNEP Restoration Needs inventory methods and Targets algorithms.
• Previous CHNEP maps.
• Restoration needs, data sources and GIS files from other agencies in the CHNEP study area.
Task 1 Deliverables:
• List, copies of and links to previous Restoration Needs inventories, methods, data, GIS files and
maps.
Task 1 Time Period: ??
Task 1 Estimated Budget: $??,???
Task 2: Finalize Restoration Targets Algorithm and Identify Restoration Targets.
• Update Restoration Targets using updated water management district land use maps, using the
CHNEP Restoration Targets algorithm.
• Develop and recommend method to divide the target between restoration and protection
strategies.
• Identify Restoration Targets, including protection and restoration needs.
Task 2 Deliverables:
• Final Restoration Targets algorithm, including restoration vs. protection calculations.
• Restoration Targets, including protection and restoration needs.
Task 2 Estimated Time Period: ??
Task 2 Estimated Budget: $??,???
Task 3: Identify and Prioritize Updated Restoration Needs Projects.
• Contact and meet with CHNEP partners to identify local land acquisition, restoration and
protection projects.
• Compile restoration and protection projects.
• Identify completed restoration and protection projects which may be deleted from needs list.
• Identify project area where the opportunity has been lost which may be deleted from needs list.
• Prioritize land acquisition, restoration and protection projects.
Task 3 Deliverables:
• A minimum of ?? meetings with partners to identify local restoration and protection project
needs.
• Database and GIS files of prioritized local land acquisition, restoration and protection projects.
Task 3 Time Period: ??
Task 3 Estimated Budget: $??,???
Task 4: Compare Identified Restoration Needs to Restoration Targets and Identify Success
Criteria.
• Evaluate if and when identified Restoration Needs will help meet Restoration Targets.
• Identify Restoration Success Criteria.
Task 4 Deliverables:
• Summary of if and when identified Restoration Needs will help meet Restoration Targets.
• Restoration Success Criteria.
Task 4 Estimated Time Period: ??
Task 4 Estimated Budget: $??,???
CHNEP Restoration Needs Plan SOW Draft for Discussion
Page 4 of 6
2016 07 07
Page 79 of 104
Task 5: Prepare Methods Descriptions and Files.
• Describe Restoration Needs Inventory methods.
• Describe and explain how to use Restoration Needs Targets algorithm.
• Provide Restoration Needs GIS analyses and Targets data files.
• Provide list of restoration projects.
Task 5 Deliverables:
• Description of Restoration Needs Inventory methods.
• Description and instructions for how to use Restoration Needs Targets algorithm.
• Restoration Needs GIS analyses and Targets data files.
• List of restoration projects.
Task 5 Estimated Time Period: ??
Task 5 Estimated Budget: $??,???
Task 6: Develop Strategy for Up-Dating Restoration Needs Regularly.
• Develop strategy for up-dating Restoration Needs regularly.
Task 6 Deliverables:
• Strategy for up-dating Restoration Needs regularly.
Task 6 Estimated Time Period: ??
Task 6 Estimated Budget: $??,???
Task 7: Prepare Final Restoration Needs Plan, Including Targets.
• Prepare draft and final Restoration Needs Plan and Targets.
• Include methods section and links to GIS and data files.
• Include process for sharing plan, GIS and data files.
Task 7 Deliverables:
• Draft and final Restoration Needs Plan and Targets, including methods section, links to GIS and
data files and process for sharing the plan, and GIS and data files.
Task 7 Estimated Time Period: ??
Task 7 Estimated Budget: $??,???
Task 8: Present Activities and Deliverables to Management Conference.
• Present interim and final deliverables at 7 committee meeting presentations – 2 to TAC, CAC,
and Management Committees and 1 to Policy Committee.
Task 8 Deliverables:
• 7 presentations to CHNEP Management Conference.
Task 8 Estimated Time Period: ??
Task 8 Estimated Budget: $??,???
Task 9: Manage Project.
• Prepare ? Quarterly reports
Task 9 Deliverables:
• ? Quarterly reports
Task 9 Estimated Time Period: ??
Task 9 Estimated Budget: $??,???
CHNEP Restoration Needs Plan SOW Draft for Discussion
Page 5 of 6
2016 07 07
Page 80 of 104
Project Schedule and Budget Summary: The Project tasks, schedule and budget are summarized in
Table 1. Project Tasks will be conducted for a period of ?? months following approval of the contract.
Table 1: Project Tasks, Schedule and Budget Summary
Task
Task
Deliverables
1
Compile Existing Restoration • Previous Restoration Needs inventories,
Needs Source Materials.
methods, data, GIS files and maps.
2
3
4
5
Finalize Restoration Targets
Algorithm and Identify
Restoration Targets.
Identify and Prioritize Updated Restoration Needs
Projects.
Compare Identified
Restoration Needs to
Restoration Targets and
Identify Success Criteria.
Prepare Methods
Descriptions and Files.
Schedule
??
Budget
??
• Final Restoration Targets algorithm.
• Restoration Targets.
??
??
• ?? meetings with partners to identify
land acquisition, restoration and
protection projects.
• Database and GIS files of prioritized
local land acquisition, restoration and
protection projects.
• Summary of if/when identified
Restoration Needs will help meet
Restoration Targets.
• Restoration Success Criteria.
• Description of Restoration Needs
Inventory methods.
• Instructions for using Restoration Needs
Targets algorithm.
• Restoration Needs GIS analyses and
Targets data files.
• List of restoration projects.
• Strategy for up-dating Restoration Needs
regularly.
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
6
Develop Strategy for UpDating Restoration Needs
Regularly.
7
Prepare Final Restoration
Needs Plan, Including
Targets.
• Draft and final Restoration Needs Plan
and Targets.
??
??
8
Present Activities and
Deliverables to Management
Conference.
• 7 presentations to CHNEP Management
Conference.
??
??
9
Manage Project.
• ? Quarterly reports
??
??
??
??
TOTAL
CHNEP Restoration Needs Plan SOW Draft for Discussion
Page 6 of 6
2016 07 07
Page 81 of 104
10. CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER SAV TARGETS WORKING GROUP UPDATE
As requested by the TAC, CHNEP is working with partners to support collaborations for restoring the
Caloosahatchee River submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Following 2 Science Forums, the Caloosahatchee
River SAV Restoration Targets Working Group was formed and met May 17, 2016 at the Caloosahatchee
Regional Park in Alva.
The purpose of the Working Group meeting was to continue developing Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
Restoration targets for the Caloosahatchee River by:
• reviewing draft revised Caloosahatchee SAV vision, goals and targets from Dec. 8, 2016 meeting,
• confirming appropriate metrics for SAV targets,
• identifying missing data and monitoring needs, and
• identifying next steps.
Topics on the Working Group meeting agenda included:
• review of the December 2014 Tidal Caloosahatchee River Forum discussion,
• process for revising CHNEP SAV restoration targets for the Caloosahatchee River,
• review potential SAV metrics and measures for the Caloosahatchee River, and
• next steps and responsibilities for developing revised Caloosahatchee River SAV restoration targets.
Potential Caloosahatchee River SAV restoration targets discussed by the Working Group included:
• Include 5 year target of 600 acres (annual average) of Vallisneria between I75 and Mid-Point Bridge.
• Include long term SAV goal of 100% of 1993 dense SAV distribution.
• Measure deep edge of Vallisneria and Halodule, overlay with bathymetry & calculate SAV goal acres.
• Overlay10 psu salinity at Fort Myers and bathymetry and calculate available acres SAV goal.
• Set restoration targets as some % of total SAV goal by specific years.
• Use adopted Minimum and Maximum Flows and Levels to define salinity zones, overlay with
bathymetry, overlay with Vallisneria and Halodule depth and salinity requirements, and identify SAV
acreage and location goals by species.
Next steps towards developing the SAV restoration targets discussed by the group included:
• Calculate density of Vallisneria and Halodule from 1993 Caloosahatchee SAV map.
• Analyze salinity data preceding 1993 Caloosahatchee SAV map.
• Investigate side scan sonar SAV monitoring methods.
• Develop GIS-based Habitat Suitability Model overlaying bathymetry, deep edge by species, salinity by
season under current, MFL and optimal flows (use Yongshan Wan model), and non-restorable areas.
• Verify that under MFL, 600 acres are available for Vallisneria interim target.
• Add 1993 Caloosahatchee SAV distribution to CHNEP SAV persistence maps.
• Document revised Caloosahatchee SAV targets and goals and provide them to CHNEP Management
Conference for consideration and adoption.
CHNEP staff will work with partners over the next several months to develop a GIS-based SAV restoration
Habitat Suitability Model for the Caloosahatchee River to aid with developing SAV Restoration Targets.
Recommendation:
No motion requested; for information and discussion only.
Attachments:
Meeting notes from the May 17, 2016 Caloosahatchee River SAV
Restoration Targets Working Group.
CHNEP
Page 82 of 104
Caloosahatchee River SAV Restoration Targets Working Group
May 17, 2016 - Alva, FL
MEETING NOTES
Attendees:
Rick Bartleson, SCCF
Lisa Beever, CHNEP
Melynda Brown, FDEP
Keith Kibbey, Lee County Natural Resources
Dave Ceilley, Johnson Engineering
Jason Cull, LCHCD
James Douglass, FGCU
Sue Fite, LCEL
Siobhan Gorham, FWC
Steven Gornak, FWC
Lesli Haynes, Lee County Natural Resources
Carter Henne, Sea and Shoreline
Stephanie Burkhardt, FWC
Ernesto Lasso de la Vega, LCHCD
Judy Ott, CHNEP
Liza Rollins, LCEL
Maria Romero, Lee County Natural Resources
Courtney Saari, FWC
Kirby Wolfe, FDEP
1. Welcome, Introductions and Purpose of Caloosahatchee River SAV Restoration Targets Working Group
– Judy Ott, CHNEP
Ms. Ott called the meeting to order at 9:30 am and participants introduced themselves.
Purpose of the meeting was to continue developing SAV Restoration targets for the Caloosahatchee by:
• reviewing draft revised Caloosahatchee SAV vision, goals and targets from Dec. 8, 2016 meeting,
• confirming appropriate metrics for SAV targets,
• identifying missing data and monitoring needs and identifying next steps.
2. Caloosahatchee River SAV Restoration Consortium – Dave Ceilley, Johnson Engineering
• Ecosystem services of Vallisneria include:
∼ habitat for fish and invertebrates,
∼ forage for manatees, freshwater turtles, fish (> 44 species), waterfowl, crustaceans and snails,
∼ stabilization of sediments, wave attenuations, improvement of water clarity & removal of nutrients.
• Vallisneria is good environmental indicator because it:
∼ tolerates oligohaline (< 10 ppt) conditions and natural fluctuations in water chemistry and sediments,
∼ is a Valued Ecosystem Component in the Caloosahatchee ecosystem,
∼ once comprised >1,000 acres in upper Caloosahatchee Estuary (Whiskey Cr to I-75; 1993),
∼ is sensitive to anthropogenic disturbances and extreme unnatural salinity regimes,
∼ can respond quickly to restored conditions.
• Factors controlling Vallisneria distribution include:
∼ salinity levels and duration of exposure,
∼ water clarity, light attenuation and color,
∼ sediment type, nutrient concentrations and genetic strains,
∼ herbivory.
• Vallisneria distribution in Caloosahatchee varied widely from 1998-2013:
∼ totaled >2,000 acres in mid- to late- 1990’s; peaked in 1998/1999,
∼ From 1998 – 2013 salinity and Vallisneria varied widely; SAV peaked in 1998/1999 but 0 in 2000,
with only small recovery from 2004-2007 before falling to 0% again.
• Loss of SAV has associated impact to local economy:
∼ Fort Myers area lost >1,200 acres of Vallisneria since 2001,
∼ Associated economic value >$25,600/acre = $31.9 billion loss to economy.
• A variety of Vallisneria restoration projects have been implemented with herbivore exclosure including:
∼ Caloosahatchee (2009-2011) and Lake Trafford (2008-2012); showed good recovery,
∼ Caloosahatchee (2011-2012), SFWMD and FGCU, above Franklin lock to establish seed stock,
evaluate planting density, genetic strains and planting locations.
∼ 2015 replanted 4 sites above Franklin Lock with FGCU, SFWMD, Lee County, UF, Sea and Shoreline.
Caloosahatchee SAV Targets Working Group Draft Meeting Notes
Page 1 of 7
Prepared by J. Ott
CHNEP
Page 83 of 104
Caloosahatchee River SAV Restoration Targets Working Group
May 17, 2016 - Alva, FL
MEETING NOTES
•
∼
∼
∼
∼
∼
∼
Vallisneria study conclusions include:
herbivory is controlling factor upstream and downstream from Franklin Locks,
mesh exclosures from herbivory were critical for success,
exclosure cages allowed seed production,
Vallisneria outside exclosures was grazed with no flowering or seeds,
growth of 2 strains was different; L. Trafford = larger, fewer plants, L. Kennedy = smaller, more plants,
2015 plantings occurred in June, flowered in Oct., natural recruitment in control in Feb. 2016..
3. Review of December 2014 Tidal Caloosahatchee River SAV Science Forum – Judy Ott, CHNEP
Existing CHNEP SAV Targets for Tidal Caloosahatchee River:
• Original 2005 CHNEP SAV targets were based on SAV light requirements and deep edge of seagrass
growth by estuary; assumed 25% of light at deep edge primary limiting factors of CDOM, turbidity and chl.
• Revised 2011 CHNEP SAV targets were based on seagrass acreage persistence and light attenuation, chl,
TP and TN levels needed to maintain and improve SAV and included scoring of stable, caution, degrading.
• Current CHNEP Tidal Caloosahatchee River SAV targets based on aerial photography, 1950s baseline
acres and 1999-2006 persistence acres; included 87 acres for protection and 6 acres for restoration.
• Current SAV targets recognized limitations of aerial photography in tidal rivers with highly colored water.
Data Sources for Tidal Caloosahatchee River SAV:
• Hoffacker Caloosahatchee River SAV Mapping 1993
∼ 1993 SAV monitoring by Allen Hoffacker; digitized to GIS by SFWMD.
∼ Showed the >2,012 acres of dense, scattered and moderate Halodule, Thalassia, Ruppia and
Vallisneria downstream from Franklin Lock.
• SFWMD Caloosahatchee River and Estuary SAV Monitoring and Research
∼ SFWMD SAV efforts included in-water and hydroacoustic monitoring, aerial mapping, mesocosm
research and modeling over a variety of locations, periods and methods from 1998-present.
∼ Vallisneria and SAV currently monitored for CERP RECOVER Monitoring and Assessment Program
at 9 locations from Beautiful Island to San Carlos Bay to Pine Island Sound.
∼ Hydroacoustic monitoring occurred from 1996–2009 at 80 transects 3 times per year.
∼ Aerial mapping occurred in 1999, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 20014; highly colored water limited
aerial photography for SAV mapping; 2014 map showed 411 ac of SAV in Tidal Caloosahatchee.
∼ SAV lab research was conducted for salinity tolerance and salinity/light/temperature interactions.
∼ SAV field research was conducted for transplanting and restoration.
∼ SAV modeling was conducted for Vallisneria using Hunt (shoots/m2) and Buzzelli (Cgm/m2) models.
∼ Modeling showed salinity, light and temperature are important limiting factors for Vallisneria in upper
Caloosahatchee estuary.
∼ Recent research evaluated CDOM mixing behavior and ecological effects in Caloosahatchee estuary.
• SCCF Caloosahatchee, San Carlos Bay, Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass SAV Monitoring
∼ SCCF conducted BACI water quality, SAV and fishery monitoring for Blind Pass dredging at stations
at 13 sites from lower Caloosahatchee to San Carlos Bay to Pine Island Sound from 6/11-12/14.
∼ SAV monitoring included shoot densities and % cover in parallel and perpendicular transects at impact
and control sites at start of wet season and after river flows 30 day average >1,500 cfs at S79.
∼ Evaluated monitoring data from 2013 pre- and post- freshwater releases for SAV; Halodule and
Syringodium densities showed no significant change but Thalassia density decreased after releases.
∼ Showed initial rapid decline of SAV near Shell Point & San Carlos Bay in all species with high flows.
∼ 2014 annual discharges at S79 (+20,000 million ft3) were less than all years since 2000 (except 2007)
and 2013 wet season discharges at S79 (+85,000 million ft3) were greater than all years since 2007.
∼ 2013 had prolonged low salinity in Tidal Caloosahatchee, southern Matlacha Pass and Pine Island
Sound and San Carlos Bay; need to analyze RECON 2014 and 2015 salinity and SAV data.
∼ Additional regional data and analyses are available.
Caloosahatchee SAV Targets Working Group Draft Meeting Notes
Page 2 of 7
Prepared by J. Ott
CHNEP
Page 84 of 104
Caloosahatchee River SAV Restoration Targets Working Group
May 17, 2016 - Alva, FL
MEETING NOTES
•
•
•
•
FDEP Caloosahatchee River SAV Monitoring
∼ FDEP monitors SAV at 6 sites in Tidal Caloosahatchee, San Carlos Bay and southern Matlacha Pass
since 2007 4 times a year from shore to deep edge, at beginning, end and intermediate stations.
∼ SAV monitoring includes Braun Blanquet Abundance, depth, sediment, SAV species composition and
abundance, SAV blade lengths, total abundance, shoot counts and epiphyte type/density.
∼ Observed 7 SAV species (Caulerpa, Halodule, Halophila, Hydrilla, Ruppia, Thalassia and
Vallisneria); Halodule most prevalent; density and deep edge varied by site, by year; can compare
rainy and dry season abundance.
∼ Plus SAV monitoring at 17 sites in Tidal Caloosahatchee, San Carlos Bay and southern Matlacha Pass
and Pine Island Sound since 2000.
FGCU Caloosahatchee Estuary and Matlacha Pass SAV Monitoring
∼ SFWMD conducted “patch scale” SAV monitoring in Caloosahatchee Estuary from 1998-2014 for preand post CERP SAV status and trends; methods described in CERP RECOVER System Status Report.
∼ Monitored 8 SAV along salinity gradient (Vallisneria/Ruppia above Ft Myers, Halodule near Iona
Cove, Halodule/Thalassia in San Carlos Bay); used quadrat for species, shoots/m2, % cover height.
∼ Included only “pre-CERP” to date; weather, management actions and other factors varied widely.
∼ 1998-2014 monthly mean flows at S79 were often outside the recommended 450-2,800 cfs range.
∼ SAV light targets for SAV (+25% of Secchi) weren’t met in upper and lower Caloosahatchee estuary.
∼ In upper estuary, salinity often >10 psu Vallisneria tolerance; decimated SAV with long recoveries.
∼ In middle estuary, little SAV during 2002-2006 high flows but sparse Halodule during 2007 drought.
∼ In lower estuary, moderate Thalassia and Halodule in 2004 in moderate; variable cover shifts to
Halodule after high flow events.
∼ Summary: Upper estuary SAV poor with little or no recovery trend (Ruppia and Vallisneria scarce,
sparse, short); Middle estuary SAV poor to fair with seasonal ups and downs since 2007 reestablishment; Lower estuary SAV fair and persistent with signs of stress and high seasonal and
interannual variability in % cover and composition.
Ceilley Caloosahatchee Estuary Vallisneria Restoration
∼ See notes from presentation above.
Spectral Optical Model & Updated Water Clarity Reporting Tool for Charlotte Harbor Seagrasses
∼ High color in CHNEP required spectral model of light attenuation; model light attenuation to evaluate
water clarity trends.
∼ Field measurements of light attenuation measure all wavelengths; spectral model includes light
attenuation by water, color, chl, turbidity at each wavelength (400 nm – 700 nm).
∼ Modeled and field-measured light attenuation were compared and model was calibrated using data
from throughout the CHNEP, resulting in very close fit between modeled and observed data.
∼ Optical model allows water clarity to be calculated from measured color, chl and turbidity data and is
good for measuring water clarity trends over time and responses watershed management activities.
∼ Modeled water clarity for a reference period (2003-2007) compared to SAV targets for each estuary.
∼ Modeled values used to determine if water quality trends are adequate to meet SAV targets.
∼ Developed a scoring system to convey trends in water clarity relative to SAV targets - showing
improving, caution or declining conditions; scoring system stricter for estuaries with SAV restoration
vs. protection targets.
∼ Optical model values for the Tidal Caloosahatchee showed: a) as salinity decreases, color increases and
% light available for SAV decreases; b) in the upper estuary, a decrease in salinity from 15 ppt to 5 ppt
resulted in a decrease in % PAR from 13% to 7%; c) in the lower estuary, decrease in salinity from 25
ppt to 15 ppt resulted in a decrease in % PAR from 19% to 14%.
Caloosahatchee SAV Targets Working Group Draft Meeting Notes
Page 3 of 7
Prepared by J. Ott
CHNEP
Page 85 of 104
Caloosahatchee River SAV Restoration Targets Working Group
May 17, 2016 - Alva, FL
MEETING NOTES
•
Additional Studies Needed
∼ Light attenuation effects of epiphytes and macrophytes on SAV and relationship to Lyngbia.
∼ Successful SAV restoration projects.
∼ Ecosystem services and fish habitat provided by SAV and minimum habitat conditions needed.
∼ Economic assessments of SAV loss.
∼ Color (CDOM) and salinity data at Fort Myers since 1992.
∼ Bathymetry contours for Caloosahatchee River and Estuary.
∼ Bottom sediment conditions for the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary.
∼ SAV deep edge in different zones of Caloosahatchee River and estuary (from exclusion cages).
∼ Factors limiting SAV growth and recovery in Caloosahatchee River and estuary.
∼ Refuge habitats for Vallisneria in different zones.
∼ Relationship of chlorophyll, temperature, salinity and color under natural vs. altered flows.
∼ The impacts of SAV loss on species of special concern.
∼ Define healthy SAV system is in the Caloosahatchee River and estuary.
∼ Better understanding of hysteresis – the lag behind causes and effects of SAV loss and recovery.
∼ Better understanding of relationships between color, salinity, flows, source of water and residence time.
∼ Better understanding of tidal bore and sea level rise, especially considering S79 flow restrictions.
Factors Limiting SAV Distribution and Health from December 2014 Science Forum:
• Water clarity; amount and quality of light.
• Sediment movement.
• Extreme salinity changes.
• Herbivory.
• Boat wakes and wake refraction off seawalls.
Suggested SAV Goals and Targets for Caloosahatchee River from December 2014 Science Forum:
• Set goal to restore a highly managed system to a more natural, sustainable system.
• Set target as 1993 SAV distribution and maximum depth overlaid on bathymetry (2.5 m?) as target acres.
• Set target as percent (50%?) of 1993 distribution, acreage and species composition by salinity zone.
• Set different targets for upper (oligohaline), middle (mesohaline) and lower (euryhaline) Caloosahatchee.
• Set target as 600 acres minimum of fully functioning and seeding Vallisneria upstream from US 41, with
10 ppt salinity (30 day moving average) at Fort Myers, as defined in MFL.
• Set targets using salinity zones based on MFL; use low flows for upper river and high flows for lower river.
• Set Vallisneria targets for upper river and Halodule targets for lower river.
• Restore sufficient acreage and locations of Vallisneria to be sustainable under heavy herbivory.
• Set targets for Tidal Caloosahatchee based on the 1993 map and adopted SAV targets for San Carlos Bay.
• Implement targets in 2 stages: restoration of SAV acres and flows for 10 ppt salinity in Fort Myers.
Additional considerations for Developing SAV Targets:
• SAV productivity condition (50-75% cover) and needed environmental factors (flow, color, salinity).
• Variability, duration and frequency of water flow, temperature, salinity and color on SAV recovery.
• Performance measures independent of CERP implementation.
• Modeled vs. real flows and conditions.
• Require monitoring; use existing (and new) monitoring sites to evaluate BACI response.
• Ecosystem services, fish habitat and economic return for cost/benefit of restoration.
• SAV metrics: % cover, canopy height, acres, biomass – above and below ground.
• SAV persistence over seasonal variation; % cover and self-sustain maintained for specific time.
• 1960s Vallisneria distribution in the upper river.
• Management tributaries as seed source, especially for Vallisneria.
Caloosahatchee SAV Targets Working Group Draft Meeting Notes
Page 4 of 7
Prepared by J. Ott
CHNEP
Page 86 of 104
Caloosahatchee River SAV Restoration Targets Working Group
May 17, 2016 - Alva, FL
MEETING NOTES
•
•
•
Optimal and minimum conditions.
Restoration of sheet flow and natural hydrology and surface/ground water connections.
Restoration of SAV (planting and herbivore exclusion) to augment natural recruitment and recovery.
Action Items from December 2014 Science Forum:
• Compile SAV, water quality/quantity and light attenuation data, identify gaps and coordinate monitoring.
• Implement pilot and large scale SAV restoration projects, focusing where most likely to succeed.
• Estimate impacts of climate change, sea level rise and rainfall changes on flows, discharges and SAV.
• Quantify light attenuation effects of epiphytes and macrophytes on SAV.
• Compile studies of light attenuation and SAV restoration projects into bibliography and share.
• Survey scientific community for SAV restoration goals, targets, locations and metrics.
• Determine deep edge of Vallisneria in Caloosahatchee using exclusion cages and other methods.
• Conduct another CDOM workshop to share knowledge learned since 2007.
• Map existing SAV in the Caloosahatchee, including tributaries, using scientifically sound methods.
• Identify policy and management changes needed to meet min. and max. flows for SAV restoration needs.
• Seek additional funding to implement SAV restoration in the Caloosahatchee.
• Up-date CHNEP Water Quality Targets report to incorporate up-dated SAV targets for Caloosahatchee.
• Investigate solutions to reduce herbivory on SAV in Caloosahatchee to level needed for SAV recovery.
• Investigate suitability of planting Vallisneria in stormwater treatment areas.
• Evaluate groundwater and surface/groundwater interactions relative to SAV recovery and restoration.
• Investigate alternate SAV monitoring methods.
• Add SAV targets and research needs to CHNEP Research Needs Inventory.
• Convene working group to develop Caloosahatchee SAV goals, targets and metrics.
• Share Caloosahatchee SAV goals, targets and metrics to CHNEP Management Conference.
4. Process for Revising CHNEP SAV Targets for Tidal Caloosahatchee River – Judy Ott, CHNEP
• Identify suggested revised SAV targets.
• Document rationale for revised SAV targets.
• Present revised targets to TAC.
• Modify revised SAV targets, if needed.
• Present revised SAV targets through CHNEP Management Conference committees for adoption.
5. Review Potential SAV Metrics and Measures for Caloosahatchee River – Working Group Participants
Working Group participants were asked to put colored dots (3 per person) on flip charts of potential
SAV metrics to help identify priority metrics. Priority metrics and discussions are summarized below.
• Metric choices on flip charts and resulting dots included:
∼ SAV density = 7 dots,
∼ SAV acres measured in the field = 10 dots,
∼ SAV acres measured from aerial photography = 2 dots,
∼ SAV species composition (fresh and marine species) = 14 dots,
∼ SAV targets seasonal = 8 dots vs. annual = 2 dots,
∼ Transect length from shore to deep edge = 6 dots.
• Steps towards defining SAV goals and targets:
∼ First need to define and identify baseline SAV conditions for freshwater and marine species.
∼ Second need to define and identify “non-restorable” areas.
∼ Third need to map/monitor existing seasonal SAV conditions.
∼ Fourth need to define goals as restoring SAV from existing to baseline conditions.
∼ Fifth need to set SAV restoration targets for freshwater and marine species to reach goals.
Caloosahatchee SAV Targets Working Group Draft Meeting Notes
Page 5 of 7
Prepared by J. Ott
CHNEP
Page 87 of 104
Caloosahatchee River SAV Restoration Targets Working Group
May 17, 2016 - Alva, FL
MEETING NOTES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
General SAV goals and targets discussions included:
∼ Caloosahatchee SAV targets need to be defined soon to focus management efforts.
∼ Define long term SAV goals and interim targets.
∼ Include freshwater and marine SAV goals and targets by salinity zones (current vs. MFL vs. optimal).
∼ Include annual and seasonal SAV goals and targets.
∼ Include tributaries.
General SAV metrics discussions included:
∼ Include fresh water and marine SAV species, with potential “mixing” zone for species.
∼ Consider annual vs. seasonal metrics.
∼ Consider SAV presence/absence (but need to define minimum abundance that represents presence).
∼ Consider SAV conditions under “normalized” flows.
∼ Total SAV restoration targets would equal freshwater plus marine species targets.
General SAV methods discussions included:
∼ Investigate methods used by other NEPs.
∼ Contact Lee County Hyacinth Control District for information about their bio-sonic instrument.
∼ Methods must be technically sound and commonly used (“routine”).
∼ Define minimum density/sparseness is needed to quality as SAV present.
∼ Consider annual vs. seasonal methods.
∼ Include mapping of both freshwater and marine SAV species.
Potential SAV metrics included:
∼ SAV distribution (acres).
∼ SAV abundance (% cover).
∼ SAV deep edge.
∼ SAV presence/absence overlaid over bathymetry.
∼ SAV species diversity and composition.
Potential SAV distribution monitoring/mapping methods included:
∼ Side scan sonar.
∼ Acoustic monitoring (LCHCD bio-acoustic equipment.
∼ Bathymetry.
Potential SAV abundance and species composition monitoring methods included:
∼ Stratified random sampling design with large quadrats.
∼ Fixed transects and quadrats.
∼ Random quadrats.
Potential SAV deep edge monitoring/mapping methods included:
∼ Transects.
∼ Side scan sonar.
∼ Bio-acoustic monitoring.
∼ Bathymetry.
Potential SAV seasonal monitoring/mapping methods included:
∼ Fixed transects and quadrats.
Additional SAV metrics considerations include:
∼ Map existing SAV conditions in field vs. potential restored conditions.
∼ Include potential response to sea level rise and climate change.
∼ Document deep edge of SAV by species.
∼ Overlay bathymetry vs. potential deep edge by species.
∼ Develop Habitat Suitability Index or Model for Vallisneria and Halodule.
∼ Show variability and range of SAV distribution since 2000.
∼ Evaluate salinity conditions preceding 1993 SAV map by Hoffacker.
Caloosahatchee SAV Targets Working Group Draft Meeting Notes
Page 6 of 7
Prepared by J. Ott
CHNEP
Page 88 of 104
Caloosahatchee River SAV Restoration Targets Working Group
May 17, 2016 - Alva, FL
MEETING NOTES
•
Potential Caloosahatchee SAV restoration goals and targets include:
∼ Include 5 year target of 600 acres (annual average) of Vallisneria between I75 and Mid-Point Bridge.
∼ Include long term SAV goal of 100% of 1993 dense SAV distribution.
∼ Measure deep edge of Vallisneria and Halodule, overlay with bathymetry & calculate SAV goal acres.
∼ Overlay10 psu salinity at Fort Myers and bathymetry and calculate available acres SAV goal.
∼ Set restoration targets as some % of total SAV goal by specific years.
∼ Use adopted Minimum and Maximum Flows and Levels to define salinity zones, overlay with
bathymetry, overlay with Vallisneria and Halodule depth and salinity requirements, and identify SAV
acreage and location goals by species.
6. Next Steps — Forum Participants
• Calculate density of Vallisneria and Halodule from 1993 Caloosahatchee SAV map.
• Analyze salinity data preceding 1993 Caloosahatchee SAV map.
• Investigate side scan sonar SAV monitoring methods.
• Develop GIS-based Habitat Suitability Model overlaying bathymetry, deep edge by species, salinity by
season under current, MFL and optimal flows (use Yongshan Wan model), and non-restorable areas.
• Verify that under MFL, 600 acres are available for Vallisneria interim target.
• Add 1993 Caloosahatchee SAV distribution to CHNEP SAV persistence maps.
• Document revised Caloosahatchee SAV targets and goals and provide them to CHNEP Management
Conference for consideration and adoption.
7. Adjourn — Judy Ott, CHNEP
Ms. Ott adjourned the meeting at 1:15 pm.
Caloosahatchee SAV Targets Working Group Draft Meeting Notes
Page 7 of 7
Prepared by J. Ott
Page 89 of 104
11. COMPENDIUM OF RESEARCH BY DR. RALPH MONTGOMERY
This report is a technical summary of the research that was conducted in the Charlotte Harbor watershed by Dr.
Ralph Montgomery, who passed away in 2015. The report was prepared by colleagues of Dr. Montgomery at
no cost to the CHNEP. Dr Montgomery began his studies of the Peace River and Charlotte Harbor in the early
1980s, with his work continuing until his passing last year. The environmental monitoring network he
established in the Lower Peace River and Upper Charlotte Harbor continues today, comprising one of the most
extensive long-term data bases of its kind in Florida. Because of the breadth of Dr. Montgomery's work, this
report is a valuable technical document that summarizes much important information for the Peace River and
Charlotte Harbor. The report is also a personal tribute to Dr. Montgomery, who was widely admired in the
region and is dearly missed by his family, friends, and colleagues.
Recommendation:
Motion to recommend that the Management Conference accept the
Compendium of Research by Dr. Ralph Montgomery report.
Attachments:
Compendium of Research by Dr. Ralph Montgomery report provided
separately at:
http://www.chnep.ort/agendas2016/montgomerytribute6-20-16.pdf
Page 90 of 104
Page 91 of 104
12. FDEP ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION WATER QUALITY ACTIVITIES
The Florida Department of Environmental Protections, Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration
(DEAR), will be presenting an overview of the Water Quality Evaluation and Total Maximum Daily Loads
Program (TMDL). This discussion will focus on updates of the prioritization of the site-specific TMDL plan
through 2022 based on 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, as well as some helpful tools to track work that is going
on around the state. Additional information can be found at the following links;
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htm (TMDL main page),
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/PriorityFrameworkDocument.pdf (priority framework document),
http://fdep.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html (interactive maps). For more information please contact Erin
Rasnake at erin.rasnake@dep.state.fl.us or 850-245-8338.
Recommendation:
No motion requested; for information and discussion only.
Attachment:
None.
Page 92 of 104
Page 93 of 104
13. FWRI MODELING TO ASSESS THE INFLUENCE OF WATER WITHDRAWLS ON CHARLOTTE HARBOR
ESTUARINE FISH SPECIES
To help set minimum flows and levels associated with planned water withdrawals from the Lower Peace River,
the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) is sponsoring research to assess the influence of
changes in salinity and temperature patterns on selected fish and invertebrate species in Charlotte Harbor,
Florida.
In order to create an ecological baseline, habitat mapping has been conducted using environmental data
(temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, depth, and bottom type). Catch rates (CPUEs) have been computed
using Fisheries-Independent Monitoring (FIM) data collected from 1996-2013 by the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC).
A statistically rigorous habitat suitability model (HSM) was developed by FWC, using generalized additive
models (GAMs), and applied to seasonally assess the spatial distributions and relative abundances of eight fish
and invertebrate species (32 species life-stages). All species chosen have affinities for low salinities found in the
Lower Peace River. Using geographic information systems, predicted HSM maps were created from the FIM
data depicting the spatial distributions and relative abundances of juvenile and adult life-stages. These represent
long-term HSM conditions by species across years. The predicted CPUE grids produced have been used to
estimate seasonal population numbers for each species life-stage.
The next phase of the study involves running “what-if” scenarios. Circulation modeling is being conducted to
predict seasonal temperature and seasonal salinity patterns associated with: a) baseline flow conditions, and b)
water withdrawal conditions. Habitat grids created from the temperature and salinity data will be used with
HSM to assess the potential impacts of 20% water withdrawals on each species life-stage by season.
Rainfall is generally low during the winter (January-March) and spring (April-June) and higher in the summer
(July-September) and fall (October-November). Using the HSM analyses, the influence of water withdrawals
during each season will be determined. The HSM analyses can help SWFWMD managers make decisions
concerning minimum flows and levels that conserve the estuarine ecosystem, while providing water to Florida
residents.
Recommendation:
No motion requested; for information and discussion only.
Attachment:
None.
Page 94 of 104
Page 95 of 104
14. CHNEP PROGRAM REPORT
CHNEP activities for the past quarter will be presented, including:
a. Director Hiring Update
b. Charlotte Harbor Watershed Summit: March 2017
c. Annual Request for Restoration, Acquisition and Leveraging Projects for Report to EPA – Due Aug. 19.
d. Select CHNEP Public Outreach Projects as of July 1, 2016
e. Program Deliverables
Recommendation:
No action required; for information and discussion only.
Attachment:
CHNEP Deliverables for April 1, 2016 – June 30, 2015.
15. MEMBER COMMENTS
16. PUBLIC COMMENTS
17. NEXT MEETING TOPICS, DATE AND LOCATION
Thursday October 13, 2016 in Fort Myers.
Please note that the October TAC will be meeting in a different building than the other Management Conference
committees.
Page 96 of 104
Page 97 of 104
14B. CHNEP CHARLOTTE HARBOR WATERSHED SUMMIT: MARCH 2017
Every three years since 2002 the CHNEP has hosted Summits to learn about current research and restoration
efforts, critical environmental issues affecting the Charlotte Harbor watershed and to review progress. Several
people have volunteered to serve on the Planning Committee for the 2017 Summit. They met on May 26 (see
below). A second meeting is tentatively planned for Friday, October 21 at the Charlotte Community Foundation.
If you’d like to help plan the Summit, please send an email to maran@chnep.org.
The planning committee made the following decisions during their meeting on May 26.
• The date of the next Charlotte Harbor Watershed Summit will be March 28-30, 2017 at the Charlotte
Harbor Event & Conference Center, Punta Gorda. There will be no theme (subtitle) .
• With expenses and financial commitments to date (CHNEP=$6,000, Mote=$2,000, SWFWMD=$1,000,
SEC=$250), we have funds to cover expenses for a three-day Summit for the facility, AV, WebEx,
converting PDF into videos, proceedings (with abstracts, similar to what has been created in the past –
only available as digital file), coffee and lunches for presenters and sponsors. As it has been in the past,
the Summit will be free to attend but participants will be required to pay for their own lunch(es).
Additional sponsor support will be required to cover any other expenses incurred. Sponsors are
recognized in materials produced after a pledge is received.
• Because we need additional volunteers at the Summit, any volunteer support of 8 hours or more will
qualify the nonprofit, business or agency to be acknowledged as a sponsor.
• A registration form on EventBrite will be created after November when the structure of the three days is
finalized. The form will give everyone an opportunity to pay for lunch and register for any of the
keynote presentations and sessions they are interested in attending.
• An invitation and online form to accept abstracts for oral and poster presentations was drafted and sent
(see next pages) to those who receive CHNEP announcements via Constant Contact.
• Posters will likely be placed in the same hall where the presentations will be made.
• Still need to consider ways to continue discussions and incorporate information learned.
• Participants will again be asked to complete an online survey after the Summit. This input helps to plan
the next Summit. For the next Summit, probably in 2020, other locations will be considered, including
similar venues and large churches.
Other ideas proposed will be furthered by anyone who volunteers for the task.
• Keynote speaker(s). Coordinated by Matt Miller.
• Consider providing CEU. Need to determine which organizations, how to apply, who’ll handle this task.
• Consider giving a prize for best student poster. Need to determine criteria, process to decide “best,”
sponsor to cover prize, how award will be made.
• Consider ways of others (heroes) to show work, e.g. citizens’ restoration efforts shown in slide show
during break. Need to determine what this might mean.
• Field trips (Note: We’ve offered boat rides and receptions at past Summits but attendance has always
very, very low.)
Recommendation:
Attachment:
No committee action required. Members are asked to join the Summit
Ad Hoc Committee to help plan the 2017 Summit.
Invitation to submit an abstract for an oral or poster presentation
Page 98 of 104
SELECT CHNEP OUTREACH PROJECTS AS OF JULY 1, 2016
If you have any questions, contact Maran at maran@chnep.org .
Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles: The CHNEP is very proud of our partners who are implementing the
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) to protect and restore the natural environment of
southwest Florida. The success of fulfilling this plan is only possible through the efforts of our partners. Many
of these partners have conducted projects and published the results of their work in peer-reviewed journals. The
CHNEP has begun creating a list of journal articles published in the last 20 years that help implement the
CCMP. Update: Please continue to email any articles you’d like to have incorporated to maran@chnep.org.
Grants: Micro-grants of up to $250 remain available for projects that can be completed by Aug. 30. These
grants are also available for projects that can be completed between Oct. 1, 2016 and Aug. 30, 2017. The Public
Outreach Grant guidance document is now available. These grants are up to $5,000 but most are funded in the
$2,500 to $3,000 range. Applications are due Sept. 7.
Events: Learn more about each event and register by visiting www.EventBrite.com, change the location to
Florida and search for CHNEP. Registration for the two trainings is only to record your interest. Additional
information will be required, reviewed and invitations to join each training will then be sent. This additional step
is necessary because of limited capacity and to help further the CHNEP plan to protect the environment.
• NAI Certified Interpretive Guide Training: Aug. 23-26 at Lemon Bay Park
• CHNEP Conservation Lands Workshop: Wednesday, Sept. 7 at Charlotte Harbor Event & Conference
Center
• Communicating Your Science: Training for scientists to help build knowledge, skills and networks to
effectively engage in the public discourse about the environment: Oct. 26 at Lemon Bay Park. This
training by COMPASS underwritten by Gulf of Mexico Coastal Training Program Initiative.
• Charlotte Harbor Nature Festival: Nov. 19 at Charlotte Sports Park
• Conservation Landscaping/Hardee-DeSoto: Feb. 18, 2017 at Turner Center in Arcadia
• Charlotte Harbor Watershed Summit: March 28-30, 2017 at Charlotte Harbor Event & Conference
Center
Harbor Happenings: The CHNEP has published this free publication since the spring of 1997. It provides
information about the "happenings" in the CHNEP study area that help implement the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) to protect the natural environment in Florida from Venice to
Bonita Springs to Winter Haven. It is published four times a year as a 16-page magazine for the interested
public. Do you have a project you'd like to share? Submission deadlines for ideas, articles and graphics are:
• February 1 for the spring issue that is usually distributed in April
• May 1 for the summer issue that is usually distributed in July
• July 1 for the fall issue as part of the calendar, which will be distributed by November
• November 1 for the winter issue usually distributed in January
Most articles are less than 500 words and are written for the interested public. Longer articles are posted on the
website and edited for length for the newsletter. Graphics are always appreciated.
NOTE: Harbor Happenings is not mailed automatically to members of the CHNEP Management
Conference. To subscribe, go to www.CHNEP.org/subscribe.html.
2017 Calendar: Entries of photographs and paintings that show the beauty and diversity of the native, natural
environment as defined by CHNEP are due by July 15.
• The CAC will consider images received during their meeting on August 3.
• If you would like a supply to distribute, please contact Maran (maran@chnep.org). Subscribers of
Harbor Happenings receive their copy in the mail. All those who helped by providing images or
donating will receive a supply if requested. Approximately 200 locations receive supplies for their
distribution either directly from the printer or from select partners who’ve offered to help in this way.
Page 99 of 104
Citizens Academy: The first phase (introductory module) was premiered at the Environmental Education
workshop on May 18. The first chapters will be finalized by Sept. 30. We’re developing a literacy plan to help
guide future phases.
Song Contest: Entries are due by August 1.
Page 100 of 104
Task
Task
2.1 Communications/
Publications
2.1 Communications/
Publications
2.1 Communications/
Publications
2.2 Events/Outreach
2.2 Events/Outreach
2.2 Events/Outreach
2.2 Events/Outreach
2.2 Events/Outreach
2.2 Events/Outreach
2.2 Events/Outreach
2.2 Events/Outreach
2.2 Events/Outreach
CHNEP Deliverables April 1, 2016 – June 30, 206
Date
Deliverables
4/8/2016 Published the Spring 2016 issue of Harbor Happenings 20(1). The 9,000 printed
copies are mailed to subscribers (about half) and provided to partners to give out. The
digital version was sent to 2,000+ subscribers through Constant Contact. It is also
posted on our website with links to additional information on subjects covered in that
issue. This issue includes a poster of alligators and crocodiles.
5/4/2016 An ad about the CHNEP was published in the 2016 edition of Discover Port Charlotte
and Punta Gorda publication. The publisher included an article about the program in
this free document that is available from many locations.
5/25/2016 Published the Summer 2016 issue of Harbor Happenings 20(2). The 9,000 printed
copies are mailed to subscribers and provided to partners to give out. The digital
version was sent to 2,000+ subscribers through Constant Contact and posted on our
website with links to additional information. This issue includes a poster of fire.
5/9/2016 The third annual 7 Rivers Water Festival was held May 7 in Simmers-Young Park in
Winter Haven. Vendors provided interactive, hands-on environmental conservation
activities. The aim of the event was to give those attending a reason and a way to get
involved in water conservation and pollution prevention. About 20 people signed up
to receive CHNEP's magazine Harbor Happenings.
5/11/2016 The CHNEP sponsored WGCU's documentary "Mullet: A Tale of Two Fish." It's
available for viewing at www.wgcu.org. The premiere on May 11 included a panel
discussion. As part of this sponsorship, CHNEP also received a short video using
aerial footage and all the aerial footage for our use in other projects.
5/11/2016 Participated as local partner in the TNC Gulf of Mexico Program retreat in Sarasota.
5/13/2016 Met with NOAA OCM staff to discuss evaluation techniques for outreach initiatives,
environmental integrity experts, etc.
5/18/2016 Sixth annual CHNEP Environmental Education Workshop was held at WGCU Public
Media at FGCU in Fort Myers May 18 at the Charlotte Harbor Event & Conference
Center. Approximately 55 people heard six presentations and joined nature and studio
tours & shared updates. CHNEP thanks the speakers who donate their time and
expertise including: Mosaic, Janet and Bruce Bunch, GE Foundation, Jelks Family
Foundation, Punta Gorda Garden Club, the Friends of Charlotte Harbor Estuary, Inc.
5/26/2016 The Planning Committee for the Charlotte Harbor Watershed Summit, March 28-30,
2017, held their first meeting to consider purpose, date, location, sponsors, logistical
details, guidance on how to solicit requests for oral and poster presentations.
6/15/2016 Participated in the Gulf of Mexico Alliance All Hands meeting June 15-17 in Baton
Rouge as the NEP representative for the Gulf programs on the Education Team.
6/25/2016 Accepted Conservation Organization of the Year award from Florida Wildlife
Federation at their annual awards ceremony for “comprehensive and effective
outreach programs to school children across the watershed” with the annual
publication and distribution of “Adventures in the Charlotte
Harbor Watershed: A Story of Four Animals and Their Neighborhoods."
6/28/2016 Participated in NOAA Regional Preparedness Training Workshop to address public
concerns during spill responses - sorting fact from fiction during response. The
workshop was invitation only and held at FWRI in St. Pete June 28-30. The goal of
the workshop/training was to improve responders' knowledge of current state-ofscience on topics related to oil spill response and how to communicate to the public
about their concerns regarding dispersant use, seafood safety, fisheries impacts and
public health.
Page 101 of 104
Task
4.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
5.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.4
Task
Everglades
Restoration
Grants &
Contracts
Grants &
Contracts
Grants &
Contracts
Legislative
Agenda
Management
Conference
Management
Conference
Management
Conference
Management
Conference
Management
Conference
Management
Conference
Management
Conference
Management
Conference
Management
Conference
Management
Conference
Management
Conference
Micro Grants
CHNEP Deliverables April 1, 2016 – June 30, 206
Date
Deliverables
6/30/2016 Provided additional ESI data sources to contractor.
4/21/2016 EPA, SWFWMD progress reports submitted
5/13/2016 FY17 EPA cooperative agreement submittal
6/24/2016 S0908 - Invoice , progress report and Deliverables hand delivered to FDEP
5/12/2016 Approved concept of the Florida Estuaries Alliance. Reactivated the Legislative
Subcommittee for input into legislative strategies.
4/1/2016 FY2017 Funding Request to Town of Fort Myers Beach
4/11/2016 TAC meeting was conducted at Charlotte Community Foundation.
4/13/2016 TAC meeting was conducted at Charlotte Community Foundation.
4/14/2016 TAC Meeting in Arcadia.
4/20/2016 CAC met at Charlotte Community Foundation in Punta Gorda to consider several
issues being considered by the entire Management Conference.
4/20/2016 FDEP progress report transmitted
4/29/2016 Management Committee meeting.
5/12/2016 Approved updated CHNEP Director Job Description and recruitment package.
Authorized Jon Iglehart to negotiate terms with top ranked candidate.
5/12/2016 Approved FY17 workplan with FY16 amendments.
5/16/2016 CHNEP Director job is posted on the City employment site. Link is sent to ANEP,
CERF, CSO Newsletter, SEC, FAEP and FLC.
6/21/2016 EPA Gulf of Mexico Program Director Ben Scaggs, John Bowie, EPA Regional
Liaison Rhonda Evans, & Regional Watershed Manager Mark Nuhfer toured the
CHNEP study area. The tour began with presentations of the program area and the
Charlotte Harbor Flatwoods Initiative. Jamie Boswell presented the Trabue Oyster
Reef pilot and monitoring. We met in Placida with FWC staff (Dave Blewett and
Courtney Saari) and Deb Osbourne (Conservation Foundation of the Gulf Coast) to
discuss hydrologic restoration projects and opportunities. We ended with a tour of
Dona Bay Hydrologic Restoration by Mike Jones of Sarasota County
4/12/2016 Venice Gardens Lake is a highly-eutrophic waterbody owned and maintained by the
Sarasota Co. Stormwater Environmental Utility. Water flows from the lake to
Alligator Cr. then Lemon Bay. A floating island was installed to improve water
quality and wildlife habitat. The floating island and educational signs can be viewed
from Shamrock Blvd to enhance public environmental awareness about issues and
solutions. The grant was awarded to Deena Lonzo, who engaged the public in many
ways, including a blog, a public viewing and many discussions with neighbors about
taking responsible actions for water quality and wildlife.
Page 102 of 104
CHNEP Deliverables April 1, 2016 – June 30, 206
Task
Task
Date
Deliverables
2.4
Micro Grants
5/3/2016 Nearly 50 volunteers removed 336 pounds of trash from Billy's Creek in Fort Myers
and 14 more bags of trash from Shady Oaks Park as part of a FGCU/FSW classroom
project on the importance of preserving water as our most precious resource. The
project was coordinated by Caloosahatchee River Citizens Association.
2.4
Micro Grants
5/4/2016 On March 25, 2016, 47 volunteers from FGCU participated in "Eagles for Clean
Water," removing 336 pounds of trash from Billy's Creek Preserve and 14 bags from
Shady Oaks Park, both in Fort Myers. The student leaders educated other students on
the importance of preserving water as our most precious resource by presenting in
classrooms, creating a poster, website (http://fdnudo.wix.com/billycreekcleanup) and
video (www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zxnCwpCYrU).
2.4
Micro Grants
5/4/2016 Tangerine Woods Owners Association continued their efforts to remove exotic
Brazilian pepper trees to create the Tangerine Woods Nature Trail. A team of
volunteers work 1.5 hour each Monday for the last 13 years to remove invasive
exotics and are now able to create
natural areas for the residents and wildlife to enjoy.
2.4
Micro Grants 5/11/2016 One hundred and fifty (150) children from 3 to 12 participated in the second annual
Catch and Release Fishing Tournament held at Downtown Bait and Tackle Shop on
May 7. The children attended "stations" to learn about stormwater runoff pollution,
fish handling and fish measurement. They then learned to fish under with the
guidance of trained and experienced anglers. Lunch was provided and they left with
several souvenirs of their experience, including a certificate.
2.4
Micro Grants 5/11/2016 On March 14, 2016 the Lee County Hyacinth Control District was the host of the
annual county Pond Watch
Workshop, an educational component of the outreach volunteer monitoring program
Pond Watch. Attended by 35 volunteers from subdivisions, communities with golf
courses and private properties that have storm water ponds. The attendees are, in most
instances, the leaders of the lake or pond committee in their community. Reports for
the annual collection of data were distributed and discussed in an open forum which
introduced as well the presentation of the link to the CHNEP Water Atlas website.
This website, sponsored by the CHNEP, has tailored a section for the Pond Watch
data since 2000.
2.4
Micro Grants 5/24/2016 The Florida Coastal Management Program Annual Meeting occurred on May 3 and 4,
2016 in Tallahassee. There were more than 82 attendees, including state and local
government staff, environmental contractors, Federal staff and elected officials. The
agenda covered community resiliency, estuarine habitat restoration, ecosystem
mapping, monitoring and management, marine debris and presentations of Coastal
Partnership Initiative Projects.
2.3 Public Outreach 4/12/2016 Venice Gardens Lake is a highly-eutrophic waterbody owned and maintained by the
Grants
Sarasota County Stormwater Environmental Utility. Water flows from the lake into
Alligator Creek then into Lemon Bay. This project installed a floating island to
improve water quality and provide habitat for wildlife. The floating island and
educational signage can be viewed from Shamrock Blvd to enhance the public's
environmental awareness regarding the issues and possible solutions. The CHNEP
provided $1,508 toward this $1,824 project. This project helps implement the CCMP
by fulfilling SG-B and WQ-M.
2.3 Public Outreach 5/24/2016 92 third grade students at Venice Elementary reached into their home communities
Grants
with native plant gardening, combined with wildlife conservation information,
storytelling and presentations. Student and family awareness of habitat loss was
Page 103 of 104
Task
Task
3.1
Research
Coordination
Research
Coordination
Research
Coordination
Research
Coordination
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
4.1
Research
Coordination
Research
Coordination
Research
Coordination
Research
Coordination
Research
Coordination
Research
Coordination
Research
Coordination
Research
Coordination
Research
Coordination
Research
Coordination
Research
Coordination
Research
Coordination
Research
Coordination
Watershed
Coordination
CHNEP Deliverables April 1, 2016 – June 30, 206
Date
Deliverables
increased and a sense of stewardship for our FL environment was encouraged. This
project is an extension of grants completed with Venice, Taylor Ranch and Garden
Elementary Schools, during which students worked with Venice High School and
community groups to address wildlife conservation issues and install native plant
gardens on the grounds of each elementary school. Their work was chronicled in
school newspapers and local papers. CHNEP provided $904 toward this $3,211
project. The project helps implement the CCMP by fulfilling SG-H, SG-F and WQ-K.
4/4/2016 Participated in CHEVWQMN water monitoring.
4/18/2016 Participated in CCHMN monthly Lower Charlotte Harbor water quality monitoring.
5/2/2016 Participated in CHEVWQMN water monitoring.
5/3/2016 Participated in Punta Gorda Earth Day celebration with watershed model and
estuaries.
5/9/2016 Participated in CHEVWQMN Spring QA Session for Pine Island Volunteers.
5/11/2016 Participated in CCHMN monthly Lower Charlotte Harbor water quality monitoring.
5/18/2016 Conducted CCHMN FY16 Field Audit for Lee County Environmental Laboratory.
5/19/2016 Conducted CCHMN FY16 Field Audit for FDEP South District Environmental
Assessment and Restoration.
5/20/2016 Final type set manuscripts for 2013 Watershed Summit Proceeding Special Issue of
FL Scientist approved by FAS.
5/24/2016 Conducted CCHMN FY16 Field Audit for FWC.
5/25/2016 Conducted CCHMN FY16 Field Audit for FWC.
6/1/2016 Prepared summary of CCHMN 2016 Field Audit results.
6/6/2016 Participated in CHEVWQMN water monitoring.
6/8/2016 Participated in CCHMN monthly Lower Charlotte Harbor water quality monitoring.
6/10/2016 Hosted and conducted CCHMN 2016 Annual Meeting in Fort Myers.
6/13/2016 Presented WMD seagrass mapping results to Estero Bay Agency on Bay
Management.
6/29/2016 Participated in conference call with CHNEP and contractor staff regarding updating
the SW FL Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) and available data sources and
contacts within CHNEP and provided data links and contact information.
4/19/2016 Participated in National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration.
Page 104 of 104
Task
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
Task
Watershed
Coordination
Watershed
Coordination
Watershed
Coordination
Watershed
Coordination
Watershed
Coordination
Watershed
Coordination
Watershed
Coordination
Watershed
Coordination
Watershed
Coordination
Watershed
Coordination
Watershed
Coordination
Watershed
Coordination
Watershed
Coordination
Watershed
Coordination
Watershed
Coordination
CHNEP Deliverables April 1, 2016 – June 30, 206
Date
Deliverables
4/27/2016 Participated in Volunteer Oyster Habitat Monitoring training.
4/27/2016 Participated in Punta Gorda Earth Day celebration with watershed model and
estuaries.
4/28/2016 Attended Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve Master Plan Advisory Committee
meeting. Reviewed plan and submitted written comments.
5/3/2016 Participated in agency 6 month post-deployment oyster restoration monitoring at the
Trabue Pilot Oyster Restoration site in Punta Gorda.
5/9/2016 ABM meeting: Erin Rasnake presented TMDL information.
5/12/2016 Directed update or Restoration Targets based on pending 2014 land use cover updates
by the water management districts. Reactivated Habitat Conservation Subcommittee
to work on Restoration Targets and Plan Update. Directed uncommitted SWFWMD
funding directed to CHNEP for the Restoration Targets and Plan Update.
5/12/2016 Participated in agency 6 month post-deployment oyster restoration monitoring at the
Trabue Pilot Oyster Restoration site in Punta Gorda.
5/13/2016 Participated in agency 6 month post-deployment oyster restoration monitoring at the
Trabue Pilot Oyster Restoration site in Punta Gorda.
5/17/2016 Participated in TNC Trabue Oyster Restoration Volunteer Appreciation event.
5/17/2016 Hosted and conducted Caloosahatchee River SAV Restoration Targets Working
Group meeting.
5/23/2016 Presented a summary of life in Punta Gorda Isles canals to Punta Gorda Mariners.
6/22/2016 Participated in FL League of Cities Lake Okeechobee Learning Collaborative.
6/24/2016 As part of Charlotte County water quality studies of Port Charlotte creeks, assisted
FAU and Charlotte County staff with deploying macroalgae samplers in tributaries to
determine source of nitrogen in water quality samples.
6/27/2016 Participated in Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve oyster monitoring.
6/28/2016 Participated in Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve oyster monitoring.