Item O06 0.6
t, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
County of Monroe � � Mayor Sylvia Murphy,District 5
The Florida.Keys l'U � � Mayor Pro Tern Danny Kolhage,District 1
�pw° Michelle Coldiron,District 2
Heather Carruthers,District 3
David Rice,District 4
County Commission Meeting
May 22, 2019
Agenda Item Number: 0.6
Agenda Item Summary #4976
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Sustainability
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Rhonda Haag (305) 453-8774
11:00 a.m.
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval to enter into a $497,211 Amendment No. 1 to the
Agreement with the University of Miami, to provide canal and nearshore water monitoring services
to measure the effects canal water quality may have on nearshore waters.
ITEM BACKGROUND: This item is for approval for the University of Miami to conduct the
canal and nearshore monitoring portion of the work, which is Phase 2 work. This work is intended
to help determine the link between canal water quality and nearshore waters and is funded 100% by
the County. The Phase I Florida Reasonable Assurance Document (RAD) Monitoring work was
previously approved and underway.
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was
provided the proposed scope of work for review and comment to ensure relevancy and accuracy of
the work. Based on their comments, the scope of work was finalized and included in the Amendment
No. 1. The scope of work was also presented to the FKNMS Steering Committee on April 18, 2019
and voted"no objection" to moving forward with the work.
This canal water quality monitoring work was included in the scope of work in the original
solicitation for the RAD monitoring and canal monitoring work. The RAD monitoring work was
negotiated first and the contract executed with the University of Miami so that monitoring work
could get underway, as FDEP had specific deadlines for the RAD monitoring. This canal
monitoring work was negotiated second and went through a longer review process with the
Technical Advisory Committee. Upon completion of the TAC review, this amendment was
finalized.
Patterns of human development in the Florida Keys have had immense impacts on ecosystem
function and have historically accelerated the amount of freshwater and nitrogen entering the
hydrological cycle. Some of these trends have been reversed recently with restoration and
remediation efforts.
Packet Pg. 2260
0.6
Small islands allow nutrients and sediment to enter near shore waters through groundwater seepage
and surface storm run-off (Aronson et al., 2003). Tropical carbonate islands such as the Florida
Keys once relied on dense broadleaf forests and mangrove wetlands to restrict nutrient input to
marine environments, supporting clear turquoise waters indicative of oligotrophic conditions. The
Florida Keys now has about 500 dredged canals of varying depths, lengths, and orientations. Canals
can trap organic material, including seaweed and seagrass, which accumulates and contributes to
poor water quality with the accumulation of nutrients. Poor design and circulation in canals have
been addressed in the past through a series of demonstration projects to remediate this problem
through back-filling, adding culverts, or adding seaweed curtains. Universal wastewater treatment
has been implemented throughout the Florida Keys, removing cesspits and septic systems as a
source of land-based sources of nutrients. However, the legacy of the past rests at the bottom of
dredged canals ("Eutrophication in coastal canals," 1972).
Nearshore marine communities are the downstream recipients of freshwater and nutrients from
island hydrological cycles. Changes in island hydrology have potential repercussions for near shore
habitats as they have been the most acutely impacted by eutrophication with the extirpation of
invertebrate species and dramatic changes in the ecological community composition (De Carlo,
Hoover, Hoover, Young, & Mackenzie, 2007; Lapointe & Matzie, 1996; Wagner, Mielbrecht, &van
Woesik, 2008; Wolanski, Martinez, & Richmond, 2009)
The question to be addressed in this scope of work ("Task 2") is, "Do canals in the Florida Keys
contribute to nearshore water quality degradation?" Task 2 aims to address this question broadly
by looking at 9 canals throughout the Florida Keys and comparing canal assessment to
underdeveloped shorelines ("non-canals") primarily in parks and protected areas. The operation
premise in FKRAD assessments is that Task 1 FRAD water quality stations located 500 meters from
shore are at the limit of land-based sources of pollution (e.g. from run-off and canals), and thus
represent an assessment of regional (vs. local) influences on nutrient loading. Task 2 will examine
the "gap" from the canals to the 500-meter Task 1 FRAD stations by sampling across a randomized
block design of the shoreline to 500 meters offshore gradient.
Task 2 is a "stand-alone" project designed to specifically address the question of residential canal
contributions to nearshore water quality. This study will address the potential contributions of local
vs. regional factors in degradation of near shore water quality after the compliance Keys-wide of
advanced waste water treatment
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
08/16/17: Approval to advertise an RFP for 2 years of water quality monitoring services in support
of the Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Document(FRAD) as requested by the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), 50% funding to be provided by DEP and 50% match required by
the County and municipalities, exact match amount to be determined after solicitation opening,
estimated in the range of$50,000-$75,000/year, which is not budgeted.
05/15/18: Approval to negotiate with vendors in rank order for nearshore and canal water quality
monitoring services in support of the Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Document(FRAD).
Packet Pg. 2261
0.6
08/15/18: Approval to enter into a$360,718.00 Agreement with the University of Miami for water
quality monitoring services in support of the Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Document(FRAD)
with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), 50% funding to be provided by DEP
through Grant Agreement MN008 and 50% funding cost share provided by the County and
municipalities.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
New Phase - Canal Monitoring to test the interaction between canal and near shore waters
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
DOCUMENTATION:
Canal Monitoring Amendment Executed by UM
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date: March 21, 2019 Expiration Date: October 15, 2021
Dollar Value of Amendment No. 1: $497,211
Total Dollar Value of Contract: $360,718.00 + $497,211 Al = $857,929
Total Cost to County for Amendment No. 1: $497,211
Current Year Portion:
FY19: $132,574
FY20: $228,015
FY21: $136,622
Budgeted:
Source of Funds: 304 Funds CPI: No
Indirect Costs:
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: None
Revenue Producing: No If yes, amount:
Grant: No.
County Match: N/A
Insurance Required: Yes
Additional Details:
05/22/19 304-23000 - PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT $497,211.00
REVIEWED BY:
Rhonda Haag Completed 05/07/2019 11:59 AM
Pedro Mercado Completed 05/07/2019 1:50 PM
Budget and Finance Completed 05/07/2019 4:07 PM
Maria Slavik Completed 05/07/2019 4:56 PM
Kathy Peters Completed 05/07/2019 8:03 PM
Board of County Commissioners Pending 05/22/2019 9:00 AM
Packet Pg. 2262
0.6.a
AMENDMENT ONE (1) TO CONTRACT
BETWEEN
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND d
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
FOR
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY MONITORING SERVICES
This AMENDMENT ONE(1) TO CONTRACT ("Amendment") is entered into on the 22nd day of May, 0
2019, to that contract dated July 18, 2019,between the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Z
1100 Simonton Street, the Gato Building, Room 2-205, Key West, Florida 33040, (COUNTY) and the M
University of Miami, 1320 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 650, Coral Gables, FL 33146 (UNIVERSITY).
a
WITNESSETH
0
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and UNIVERSITY entered into a certain contract dated July 181h 2018
("Agreement")to perform water quality monitoring services for the update to the Florida Keys Reasonable
Assurance Document(FRAD) and to perform Canal Monitoring services for the COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) via a DEP Grant Agreement
(Agreement Number MN008) provides funding to Monroe County for the performance of water quality
monitoring services to update the FRAD (Task 1). This DEP Grant Agreement (Agreement Number
MN008) includes Monroe County funds via a cost-share to support Task 1. The Agreement between
COUNTY and UNIVERSITY in turn provides the funding to UNIVERSITY to perform Task 1; and W
WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions as set E
forth herein to include a task (Task 2) to measure the effects that canal water quality may have on near
shore waters quality; and E
WHEREAS, Monroe County will provide funding for the performance of Canal Monitoring services
(Task 2). r_
0
NOW THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein,it is agreed
as follows:
1. Section 2: SCOPE OF THE WORK is hereby revised to include the Task 2 as reflected in the a
attached Exhibit A-1.
c�
2. Section 3: CONTRACT AMOUNT is hereby revised to include additional funding to support Task
2. The COUNTY shall pay the UNIVERSITY an additional amount not to exceed Four Hundred
and Ninety-Seven Thousand Two Hundred Eleven Dollars ($497,211.00) as reflected in the
attached budget at Exhibit C-1. The funds for this increase are Monroe County funds. The total
Packet Pg. 2263
0.6.a
amount to be paid to UNIVERSITY for the work performed under this contract shall not exceed
Eight Hundred and Fifty-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-Nine Dollars($857,929.00).
3. Section 5: TERM OF AGREEMENT is hereby revised to extend to October 15, 2021. The revised
Agreement term is August 15, 2018 through October 15, 2021 for work performed under Task 2. d
4. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, all other terms, conditions and provisions of the
Agreement shall apply and remain in full force and effect.
SIGNATURE OF THE PERSON EXECUTING THE DOCUMENT MUST BE NOTARIZED
AND WITNESSED BY ANOTHER OFFICER OF THE ENTITY.
(SEAL) MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Attest:
°
0
By: _ By:
Deputy Clerk Mayor Sylvia Murphy
Date
(SEAL) �?
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Attest:
B _ ° B ' ,zk o °. 2
j ca
Print Name: _ !� Print Name: Barbara A.Cole
Awdate Vice President fa Research Admh*a5v
Title: Title: ........
Date.., Date:
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF
°
On this�` clay off . 20 l�f before me ,the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared .�(� Ncncwwr to me to be the person whose name is subscribed
above or who prodLICCd 4m � -�.w �s identification, and acknowledged that he/she is
the person who executed 61e all e coi race with Monroe County for the purposes therein contained.
�, as
Notary Public
� 230642
"-2022
�
Print Nameq ,.z ; ruTrro
My commission expires; „ e
Packet Pg. 2264
0.6.a
EXHIBIT A-1
AMENDMENT TASK 2 —SCOPE OF WORK: Residential Canal WO Impacts on Near Shore
Environs
A summary of the overall costs are: d
TASK 2:Residential YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 Not to Exceed total
Canal WQ impacts on 2019 2020 2021 (6/l/21- E
Near Shore Environs 10/15/21
WQ, BENTHIC E
SAMPLING, and $0 $279,103 $200,933 $17,175 $497,211
EXTREME EVENT
4-
PROJECT OVERVIEW AND RATIONALE c
As a separate effort under Task 1, Monroe County contracted with the University of Miami Coastal
Ecology Laboratory to carry out nearshore water quality monitoring at 65 stations throughout the Keys.
in a partnership with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The scale of
watersheds makes interrelationships between the hydrological cycle, plant diversity and natural
communities easily perturbed by land-use changes on small islands. Patterns of human development in
the Florida Keys have had immense impacts on ecosystem function, and have historically accelerated the 2
amount of freshwater and nitrogen entering the hydrological cycle. Some of these trends have been
reversed recently with restoration and remediation efforts.
�s
Small islands allow nutrients and sediment to enter near shore waters through groundwater seepage and
surface storm run-off(Aronson et al., 2003). Tropical carbonate islands such as the Florida Keys once M
relied on dense broadleaf forests and mangrove wetlands to restrict nutrient input to marine environments,
supporting clear turquoise waters indicative of oligotrophic conditions. The Florida Keys now has about
500 dredged canals of varying depths, lengths, and orientations. Canals can trap organic material,
including seaweed and seagrass, which accumulates and contributes to poor water quality with the X
accumulation of nutrients. Poor design and circulation in canals have been addressed in the past through
a series of demonstration projects to remediate this problem through back-filling, adding culverts, or
adding seaweed curtains. Universal wastewater treatment has been implemented throughout the Florida a
Keys, removing cesspits and septic systems as a source of land-based sources of nutrients. However, the
legacy of the past rests at the bottom of dredged canals ("Eutrophication in coastal canals," 1972).
Nearshore marine communities are the downstream recipients of freshwater and nutrients from island
hydrological cycles. Changes in island hydrology have potential repercussions for near shore habitats as
they have been the most acutely impacted by eutrophication with the extirpation of invertebrate species
and dramatic changes in the ecological community composition (De Carlo, Hoover, Hoover, Young, &
Mackenzie, 2007; Lapointe & Matzie, 1996; Wagner, Mielbrecht, & van Woesik, 2008; Wolanski,
Martinez, & Richmond, 2009). gj
The question to be addressed in this scope of work ("Task 2") is, "Do canals in the Florida Keys
contribute to nearshore water quality degradation?"The scope of work over two years should provide E
a"Yes", or"No" answer to this question with supporting data and analyses. The challenge is to design an
efficient and cost-effective plan to understand any "halo" effect of nutrients from canals moving into Z
adjacent nearshore environments.
Task 2 aims to address this question broadly by looking at 9 canals throughout the Florida Keys and
comparing canal assessment to underdeveloped shorelines ("non-canals")primarily in parks and protected
Packet Pg. 2265
O.6.a
areas. The operation premise in FKRAD assessments is that Task 1 water quality stations located 500
meters from shore are at the limit of land-based sources of pollution (e.g. from run-off and canals), and
thus represent an assessment of regional (vs. local) influences on nutrient loading. Task 2 will examine
the "gap" from the canals to the 500 m Task 1 stations by sampling across a randomized block design of
the shoreline to 500 m offshore gradient.
Task 2 is a "stand-alone" project designed to specifically address the question of residential canal 6
contributions to nearshore water quality. This study will address the potential contributions of local vs.
regional factors in degradation of near shore water quality after the compliance Keys-wide of advanced
waste water treatment (Figure 1). 'G
C
as
E
Figure 1: Timetable of the major policies and reports that impact Florida Keys wastewater transmission
and treatment(Barreras, Kelly, Kumarb, & Solo-Gabriele, 2019). E
S
4-
0
jL' '70'"'S ,. ., . ., .. . . Cesspits are tlhna�+.. major rnnetl.p°ncid of
'u�„ : .tam.+,;rater Tmr. 4u�-r�.iuroC aarr'1 u;-as.;p'arro,;. �y
u
>1 0 . . . . . . . . .40 Beg nrOrog un guar::, 1970s, on-site vva,stewater �
ta'eatmn'vern't <ys'ternn^s(OW IS)S.) began to appear �
u.nv the Keys ,0
r; C
pan 1,9191 -1 t� ~i twr1onroa,p County adopted rats
Cxa rrwpr,r he n^akre Nan pursuant to r"u.ill 2 -2 sf 'the
Fpnrida AdminustratmVe Code (t=_A.t'.:'..) " t'Vor'k
ta`rca ra,:ur"rrn" to, p'am-c mrara7ke na^.oa ste%,r,aater ffa fl1 tunas to �
meet advanced wastewateir t:ar aU roe=nt (AW7) or M
t':mast avaHab,e t:echraaAma y (BA I�a.t"'arrn¢ :wV". % tu'a- U
redUc,e mna.tHeunt Voadlng to rmearshore waters =:
3997 . . . . . . . . . . . The FVIo rich I e,gispatur'e sets Advanced
'aPhwl'ai:..?te'wwv;uartn:a 't'rwra.atuarnetnt (u"aar+v'-p.) mm4Epu.aeuut. >%
�standards -0
1' 9' ... . .. . ... .. . . . . e:0 n;snt.y ae...0 ns.taiKr3,s C,C,�spsenolp
t+leraifif.:uatuan and aallirrnlmu-aGon parr rk"urna t �
t_b
(D
X
Chapter 2010-205 rea:pUi➢res Monroe County,
each raniuwraou^ pahty, and those s.aec:pai disrric'es. �
rye ,pnenntaUbie for wu^aste'w+w«ater taeatranrernnt tea
cu:v npv ezt.e the projeycts detafled in t.hc? E
V%rastenmm.mater Ihv°tiaster Plaen.(20^00)a
20,105 tWaro cumnWaar :pt l5ao tpnaar aJpkpage,Of Vspcau°n11C,lrarja
'Wastewater Master t"'Varui pw„
tlmn-apall,-rneirnted s
a
0110... . . .. .. . ., . . . . t`7f mew rron.;;aav trr;�.wd„ai.ay�u mat pa ant at Itey Laar;',mn wry r'at �
renetm-n ,trpmathoun uua 20�11.0 aumwci 'ps;airrs'p,g.unaa.$' to, �
�rarnrret IFpaaru.,c"ila."s aucUwrar cce ,at water tra="atm L-,nt 0
Q,Ftamo T) n"'equ ira'e arnernts a
0 . . . . . . . . ,. . Tlhe 201 3 'Staiate Budget a nclluded 50 NI �
for Keys Wastewater Iprojects U
1"he p hawuada Ipu�t�idt IIaM,ure t tair7 pisp er.p ado ad hne of C
Decernber 31, 2015 fou allll SelpStrvc tautilks, ressp tat,, E
p iri va'te package �Aacnts, and ceentralV sevver systems tb
v- tt llhiirn the Florida Keys to maneel annap'van'Nced g�
'w.wa afevwa1Cr r- ta-o-tatrnna-,m,rent "aanrual<ua'd*',p a�
Packet Pg. 2266
0.6.a
TASK 2 DESCRIPTION: RESIDENTIAL CANAL IMPACTS ON NEARSHORE WATER
QUALITY
CANAL WATER QUALITY STUDY:
The Task 2 is designed to answer specific questions relating to the impact of residential canals on the near d
shore water quality of the Florida Keys, regardless of canal design, size and orientation. The questions to
be answered include:
1. Is there a difference in water quality between nearshore waters adjacent to canals, and nearshore
waters not adjacent to canals, and does the distance from shore (zone) have an effect (up to the E
500m distance from shore)?
2. Is there a difference in the number of and diversity within marine habitat types (e.g. CMECS E
biotopes 1)between canal and non-canal nearshore environments, and does the distance from shore 4-
(zone)have an effect (up to the 500m distance from shore)? c
3. Is there a difference in the epifauna community composition and diversity between canal and non- M
canal nearshore waters, does the distance from shore matter, and how does the epifauna I,
composition and diversity compare to a reference expectation?
0
A STANDARD QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN (QAPP) DOCUMENT will be submitted as per the
FDEP protocols and reviews for this task. The task will include the collection of water quality and benthic
data; all water quality data collected for this contract will need to be uploaded quarterly by the contractor
into the Department's Watershed Information Network(WIN) database.
This task will sample surface water quality on a quarterly basis in 9 residential canals and in 4"non-canal" M
sites throughout the Florida Keys, collecting up to 15 samples per site for each quarter. Biotic sampling .0
will occur twice a year (wet season/ dry season) at all the water quality sampling stations to document
biological diversity and natural community classification in and around the canal environs. In addition,
surface water samples will be collected at some stations up to 48 hours after an extreme rainfall or storm X
event to document event impacts up to 187 additional water quality samples in one year.
TASK OVERVIEW:
Start Date: 1 May 2019 E
End Date: 15 October 2021
a
Number of Sites = 13 c
r_
• 9 canal sites c
• 4 non-canal sites
Number of Site Water Quality Samples:
• 9 canal sites with 15 samples per canal block array
• 4 non-canal sites with 13 samples per non-canal block array (no samples taken inside canals)
Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard ( MECS), see https://iocm.noaa.gov/cmecs/
Extreme events can be defined by a specific meteorological trigger,for example,over 2"of rainfall in on 24 hour period is
extremely rare,and has occurred only twice in Key West over the past 10 year(apart from direct hurricane impacts).
Packet Pg. 2267
0.6.a
TOTAL WATER QYUALITY SAMPLES per QUARTER= 15*9 = 135 (canal samples)+4* 13 =53
(non-canal samples) = 187
ONE EXTREME RAINFALL EVENT SAMPLING=up to 187 samples (optional)
Estimated total number of Canal Monitoring Water Samples per year: 748 to 935 samples (187 6
stations sampled 4 times each calendar year,plus an optional extreme event sampling).
Biodiversity Assessment=All 13 sites surveyed twice annually,Biological Assessments will be carried
out at the same sites, with 6 stations within sites sampled twice a year (84 * 2 = 168 benthic surveys E
annually). Benthic stations are a subset of the water quality stations.
Task 2 will:
1. Perform comprehensive water quality nutrient data monitoring of 13 sites with block design sampling 0
to support the County's canal program to determine the connection and impact of canals on the
nearshore waters with quarterly sampling,
2. Report and upload to Florida's Watershed Information Network (WIN) the water quality data
collected,
3. Perform an ecological survey of benthos along the same 13 sites with bloc design sampling to
determine the response of biotic communities to water quality with sampling twice a year(wet season/ 2
dry season), and 1�
4. Perform comprehensive nutrient data monitoring at water quality stations after an extreme rainfall
event for up to 187 stations in a calendar year.
Task 2a: Water Quality Block Design Description
Sampling Area Design
as
x
Water samples will be collected in a "block design," using stratified random sampling of a series of
stations that exist within a total sampling area that extends 500 meters out from the mouth of the canal E
and 100 meters parallel to the shoreline in both directions. This will result in a 500 m X 200 m area which
will be divided into 50 m X 50 m blocks. The sampling area is divided into 40 blocks. The overall sampling
area will be divided into three zones which will extend perpendicular from the shoreline. Zone 1 will
extend from the mouth of the canal to 100 m from shore. Zone 2 will extend from the edge of Zone 1 out
another 200 m from shore and Zone 3 will extend from the edge of Zone 2 out an additional 200 m (toy
500 m from shore). See Figure 2 below for an example of sample area design in Key Largo
�s
Packet Pg. 2268
0.6.a
Legend
1 Sample Area
Zone 7�, ""
1
2 , :
a ^
- ; Z
.. r
.eT• E
C�
C
%_�.��kkr � i�•rYrl � C
VW
C
a O
0 50 100 200 M1A tl L.
E
O
C
CO
G
M
C
Figure 2: Illustration of the block design to sample water quality from inshore to offshore from conol U
openings in the Florida Keys. A grid will be established in GIS that will extend 200 meters perpendicular 2
to the mouth of the canal, and 500 meters offshore. M
m
r
Sampling Area Design
m
x
w
Block sampling will be completed in two types of areas: canals (N=9) and restored or intact coastlines
(N=4) to allow for comparison between the canal and"non-canal" environs. The annual monitoring will E
consist of an estimated 187 samples per quarter divided across 13 study sites with up to 15 samples per c
site per quarter; using the following distribution (See Figure 3): E
A. 1 sample from the midpoint of the canal a
a�
B. 1 sample from the mouth of the canal E
•L
C. 2 samples from the offshore corners of the sampling area(100 m parallel to the mouth of canal, °
500 meters perpendicular to the mouth of canal) 0
D. 2 samples from the inshore corners of the sampling area(100 m parallel to mouth of canal, as far
in shore as is accessible by sampling vessel) v
E. 3 samples from randomly selected blocks in Zone 1
F. 3 samples from randomly selected blocks in Zone 2 E
G. 3 samples from randomly selected blocks in Zone 3
c�
r
Non-canal sites will have 13 stations, lacking the 2 stations at the midpoint and mouth of the canal. Q
Packet Pg. 2269
0.6.a
Legend
Sample Locations
o A
0 B -
• C y
o ❑ c
Z
O E dai.
A O
O G - ! " E
Sample Area !=�
Zone ` `` � E
C1 S
C- 2 0 0 E
G
o
0a •C
t
` r
C
O
!E
0 s0 100 200 Mt[ rs
Figure 3: Blocks will be selected randomly for each quarterly sampling event, with o total of three
samples token in each zone. Sample locations A-G correspond to the list above. m
The sample locations will require a boat for accessibility and three staff per sampling team. The x
sampling guidelines are as follows: r
a. Collect samples only on outgoing tides, while water is leaving the canal.
b. Ensure wind is not impeding water from flowing out of the canal, with collection of c
samples at mid-depth if wind is an issue.
E
Q
at
Interpolation of data o
r
.E
The data from the 15 samples will be interpolated to create a raster surface to estimate the water quality 0
parameters across the entire sampling area using a spline interpolation and a grid size of 5 meters. See
Figure 4 for example of interpolated data surface. Table 1 includes a list of water quality parameters v
which will be assessed at each sampling station within the sampling area.
c
m
E
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 2270
Table 1: List of water quality parameters to be assessed at each station
Parameter San iple 'Ill'ype Description Analytic Method NADL
NO.
...............
II'P Water Grab I'otal Phosphon,is in aqueous EPA 365.1 Rev. 2.0 0.01 1.0 nig/L., 6
z
ni=ices as nig/L., as P
---------------------------- .........................................................................................................
t a jeldahl TKN Water Grab 08 mg/l,
E
aqueous atriees as rr�g/L as
Ch�orophyH a Water Grab Phytoplank= chlorophyll a SM 10200 If 0nod.)) 1.0 rig/L., E
(corrected for phaeophytin) and
phaeophytin by
2
..Pec,,[rophotonlc try
..................................................................
4—
ei ................. i Dissolved f i,. c. Dissolved oxygen (DO) I Discrete Measurement Not app icable
0
Oxygen Measurement I concentration in water measured
by field meter
Percent DO [�°ield Percent DO saturation in water Discrete Meastiretnent Not applicable
Saturation Meastiretnent nicastired by field tn=r S
I-
0
/................................................ ............................................................... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................i..................
H Field I pl-I level in water measured �)v I Discrete Measurement Not app icable
p
0
Measurement field meter
...............
Specific [I°ield Specific conductance of water Discrete Meastiretnent Not applicable
Conductance Meastiretnent nicastired by field tn=r
.......................... ......................................................
Water Field Water temperature measured by Discrete Measuremen t Not applicable
Temperature Measurement field meter
A list of the selected canal and non-canal sites is presented in Table 2, with a map illustrating the
distribution of these sites throughout the Florida Keys in Figure 5 X
W
E
E
CID
0
E
Packet Pg. 2271
0.6.a
Legend r
Sample Points Z
Values �� _
• 0-O.t5 t i �' C
• 0.16-0.29 � �
• 030-043 E
Qom\ h
a 0A4-0.57
e 0.58-0.71 O 0 E
0.72-0.85 k y114'`r Q
ll
0.86-1.00 }lT•t+ �'A,. y '�
Value u1 ru.: ,` t�" i�^9"f
High 1
rji t
O
>
C
•L
O
0 50 100 200 Melers
CO
G
Figure 4: Examples of values for a parameter that has o maximum value of 1 and a minimum value of 0
(Top) and that dotoset's corresponding interpolated surface (Bottom). v
Table 2:List of 13 block array sites for Task 2. Listed coordinates use the WGS 1984 datum. All points
are shown in Figure 5 to illustrate the distribution of sites throughout the Keys.
m
Latitude Longitude _..- WBID : MEUuSide Type Z�Municipalil.... _Location_Name W
24.67701319 -81.33795528 8075 04N Bay Task 2-Canals 293 BIG PINE KEY
24.67715182 -81.38351516 6013C 04N Bay Task 2-Canals 292 LITTLE TORCH KEY
24.65630897 -81.2652673 8080 04S Ocean Task 2-Intact/Restored Bahia Honda E
24.57349531 -81.65383574 8079 02S Ocean Task 2-Canals 475 GEIGER KEY C
24.78404017 -80.88589007 8083 07S Ocean Task 2-Canals 164 CONCH KEY ADDED 3 E
24.73734503 -80.97775815 8082 06S Ocean Task 2-Intact/Restored Marathon Curry Hammock Q
24.69872224 -81.07367209 8081 05S Ocean Task 2-Canals Marathon 257 MARATHON
C
25.33080618 -80.28597741 6001C 10N Bay Task 2-Canals 3 OCEAN REEF CLUB L-
25.16467265 -80.39012985 6006A 09N Bay Task 2-Canals 28 KEY LARGO
24.91219746 -80.70162674 8078 08N Bay Task 2-Intact/Restored Lignumvitae Key p
24.85528835 -80.74503426 8078 08N Bay Task 2-Canals Islamorada 155 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY 2
25.17594528 -80.35268583 8087 10S Ocean Task 2-Intact/Restored Dagny-lohnson C
25.04082266 -80.4847034 8086 09S Ocean Task 2-Canals 84 ROCK HARBOR U
r
Task 2b: Ecological (Biotic) Sampling responding to water quality m
The benthic community maps will be used to determine a priori what benthic substrate and biota should
be throughout the block array. In the field, the blocks will be evaluated for the diversity of marine plants r
r
and invertebrates to determine patterns from inshore to offshore, associated with specific biotopes (Nero, a
2005). Surveyors will conduct biodiversity assessments at the water quality sampling points throughout
the block array to understand the response of benthic communities to water quality. Understanding the
relationship between species diversity and environmental/ecological properties is crucial to evaluating and
Packet Pg. 2272
O.6.a
predicting ecosystem response to changes in water quality. Various studies have focused on Biodiversity
Ecosystem Functions (BEF) by utilizing different measures of ecosystem function, such as biomass
production and nutrient cycling (Tilman & Downing, 1994), (Naeem, Thompson, Lawler, Lawton, &
Woodfin, 1994).
During the last decades, there has been increased evidence that biodiversity is strongly linked to increased d
stability of the ecosystem functions and enhanced Ecosystem Functions which in turn, are linked to
ecosystem services (Figure 6) (Cardinale et al., 2012). Therefore, invertebrate and algae biodiversity can E
be used as an indicator of Ecosystem Function (and thus Ecosystem Services)for the Florida Keys canals
and nearshore marine ecosystems. E
In Task 2b, 13 sites including canals and "non-canal" sampling grids will be surveyed twice a year (wet
season and dry season surveys). Within each site, a subset of the water sampling points will be surveyed,
each survey point will be classified by habitat and zones. The monitoring will consist of 9 canal and 4 0
non-canal sites with benthic sampling carried out using the following sampling distribution, these stations
are a subset of the water quality stations described in 2a:
A. 2 stations in Zone 1
B. 2 stations in Zone 2 �
C. 2 stations in Zone 3
0
The ecological surveys will focus on the conspicuous benthos and will have two components:
• Submerged Aquatic Vegetation(SAV)coverage,that will be assessed through the Braun-Blanquet
method consistent with previous studies (Collado-Vides, Caccia, Boyer, & Fourqurean, 2007;
Fourqurean, Durako, Hall, & Hefty, 2002; Trevathan-Tackett, Lauer, Loucks, Rossi, & Ross, M
2013), and
• Invertebrate epifauna species assemblages that will be assessed through the point intercept method.
The surveys will be carried out using a 25m transect line along with 6 quadrats (per method) placed at
random locations on the transect line within each block. Therefore,there will be an overall of 6 quadrats*2 X
blocks/zone*3 zones=36 quadrats per site and per method. Quadrats will be photographed to review
species identification and field data entry. Species will be identified using a checklist of common and E
charismatic species (Appendix 1 lists invertebrates and Appendix 2 lists marine plants).
The two components are:
1. A Braun-Blanquet assessment (Kent, 2012) of substrate and algae coverage. For each of the
following categories, coverage will be assessed in a .5 x.5 m quadrat(.25 m2) as listed in Table 3. 0
Categories include: r_
a. Bare sand or mud
b. Benthic macro algae and algal turf
C. Seagrass
2. A point intercept method to quantify epifauna categories in a 0.5*0.5m intercept quadrat Species
richness and benthic diversity will be assessed within each site. Categories will include:
a. Sponges
b. Hard corals
c. Soft corals and anemones
d. Echinoderms
Packet Pg. 2273
O.6.a
e. Mollusks
f. Annelids
A complete list of the species that will be recorded was developed from historical records and research
publications (Appendix 1). The Braun-Blanquet coverage of seagrass will allow comparison of seagrass
density performed on previous surveys used to assess seagrass health in Florida Bay (Trevathan-Tackett, z
Lauer, Loucks, Rossi, & Ross, 2013). The focus of the surveys will be epifauna and will not include
a�
infauna surveys. E
Water quality measurements will include turbidity assessments,but PAR measurements will also be made E
with the Hobo Pendants. Invertebrate biodiversity will be assessed in terms of evenness and species
richness; species assemblages will be compared between the sites and over time as per methods in Sullivan E
& Chiappone, 1992.
4-
0
Table 3: Scoring to be used for Braun-Blanquet surveys; r = rare species that occur along
transect but not in quadrats, + resent but less than 5016 of the quadrat coverage.
air)gerefcover cm
f < very fcm individu;,1%
, 50- 7 %
Data will be grouped together according to the distance from the canal and analyses will be made
accordingly. For the species assemblages, an MDS and cluster analysis will be conducted to visualize the W
similarities between blocks from the shore out to 500 m. The purpose of the Biological Assessment will
be to assess the levels and composition of species diversity and link these results with Ecological Functions E
of the ecosystem. The biodiversity assessment should provide additional support to the conclusions drawn a
from the water quality sampling. Specifically, the sampling design will address the following questions,
la `Is there a difference in water quality between canals and non-canal sites?
Ib. Is there a difference in WQ between different zones/habitats within the different sites?
Practically, does distance from "source" (i.e. canal) matter?
2a. Is there a difference in biodiversity between canals and non-canal sites?
2b. Is there a difference in biodiversity between different zones/habitats within the different sites?
Practically, does distance from "source"matter?
3. Do biodiversity patterns align with WQ patterns?
For this purpose, several univariate and multivariate analysis will be conducted in order to investigate for
statistical significance and correlation patterns correspondingly. For first questions, data will be grouped
by sites (i.e. canals vs non-canals) and the mean of each measurement (TN, TP, TKN, Chla) will be
calculated. The set of differences when subtracting non-canal from canal values will then be bootstrapped
and the mean value and the 95% Confidence interval will be estimated. This way we could identify any
Packet Pg. 2274
0.6.a
statistically significant differences in WQ between canals vs non-canal sites. The data can also be grouped
by the time of the year collected and can be analyzed separately to ensure that we capture any seasonal
variability (i.e. separate analysis for each quarter). In addition to this, a multivariate analysis will be
conducted to visualize any temporal or spatial pattern of the WQ data. An nMDS and a Cluster analysis
will be conducted using data for each measurement separately. For question lb, data will be grouped by
either zone or habitat and analyzed accordingly. The same set of analysis will be used, by utilizing the z
mean measurements of each zone/habitat. Therefore, the bootstrap technique will be used by estimating
the differences between different zones in pairs (e.g. zone 1- zone 2 or zone 2- zone 3). E
Following the same reasoning, biodiversity measurements (questions 2a and 2b) will also be analyzed E
using the bootstrap technique and NMDS and Cluster analysis. In this case, biodiversity measurements
will be further grouped by category (hard corals, soft corals etc.).
Regarding question 3, the nMDS and Cluster plots derived from questions 1 and 2 will be compared and
any overlaying patterns will be identified. In addition, the results from all the statistical tests will also be 0
compared. For example, using the statistical outcomes form questions la and 2a, we could observe
whether significance is present when with the same pattern (i.e. if we find significant differences in WQ
between canals vs non-canal sites, we should also find significance in the corresponding biodiversity).
Extreme Event Sampling:
If there is an extreme rainfall event, the team will be ready to mobilize to sample some or all of the canal 2
grids within 48 hours of the event to understand the role of acute water quality changes with storm events. 1�
This "extreme event" sampling would occur when a pre-determined meteorological trigger is reached in cu
terms of defined precipitation indices (Table 4)3. One extreme event sampling event would be carried out
once each calendar year depending on the occurrence of such events. M
Precipitation indices that are used to define extreme rainfall events are likely calculated after the fact, and
consultation with meteorologists can help define the specific triggers that would justify an extreme event
sampling in the Upper, Middle or Lower Keys. The triggers will likely be unique to each region of the
Florida Keys
Table 4: Definition of the precipitation indices used to define extreme rainfall events.
Precipitation Index with definitions and units:
PRCPTOT Annual precipitation Annual total precipitation mm
SDII Simple daily intensity index Annual precipitation divided by number of wet days mm/day 0
CDD Consecutive dry days Maximum number of consecutive dry days days
CWD Consecutive wet days Maximum number of consecutive wet days days 0
R10mm Days above lOmm Annual count of days when RR>IOmm days r_
R201nm Days above 201nm Annual count of days when RR>201nm days
R501nm Days above 501nm Annual count of days when RR>501nm days
RX Iday Max 1-day precipitation Annual highest daily precipitation mm
RX5day Max 5-days precipitation Annual highest 5 consecutive days precipitation mm
R95p Very wet days Annual total precipitation when RR>95th percentile mm
E
3 Extreme rainfall events are defined as 5 standard deviation threshold from monthly means, and
represent values that are very rare and typically only exceeded in the case of a direct impact of tropical
cyclone or cold front.
Packet Pg. 2275
•
a.
a.
m G 1 3 04
Ln
rz
rz
rz
rz
J L 1
x a' � O �� R• Q'� Y 1
Et4 K o
w
{N4 }
.g E .
i � E
tV
z
tl ,
Y=
W �
� Y r
w R
z� •
a • �
z
cc
5 r
' Jam'°°`" W •
,
y •
rz
rz
Ln
Ch
LZ
{
ZQ
lWeiw 10 niun - 6uiao;iuow ieue:D) vyn Aq pe4n38x3 }uauapuOwV 6uia04iuow leue:D :4ugwg3e44V
m �
N
0 �
a
r
m
m
a
o to
cn
� U �.ti
.ti
0
� N
1 t 7
ti
> U) R U
ZZ
E
0LU
fCS s` b O
U
0.6.a
APPENDIX 1: Preliminary invertebrate epifauna species list for near shore benthic communities of the Florida
Keys
TAXA Binomial Common Name/Description
CNIDARIA Actinoporus elegans Elegant anemone
CNIDARIA Agalophenia latecarinata feather plume hydroid
CNIDARIA Agaricia spp lettuce corals
CNIDARIA Bartholomea annulata ringed anemone
CNIDARIA Briareum asbestinum corky sea finger d
CNIDARIA Cass iopea xamachana mangrove upsidedown jelly
CNIDARIA Condylactis gigantea giant pink tipped anemone
CNIDARIA Dichocoenia stokesi elliptical star coral
CNIDARIA Diploria clivosa knobby brain coral E
CNIDARIA Diploria labyrinthiformis grooved brain coral
CNIDARIA Diploria strigosa symmetrical brain coral
CNIDARIA Discosoma spp unknown corallimorph 4-
CNIDARIA Erythropodium caribaeorum encrusting gorgonian 0
CNIDARIA Eunicea spp knobby sea rods, candelabra
CNIDARIA Eusmilia fastigiata smooth flower coral
CNIDARIA Favia fragum golf ball coral
CNIDARIA Halocordyle disticha christmas tree hydroid
CNIDARIA Lebrunia coralligens Hidden anemone 2
CNIDARIA Lebrunia danae branching cryptic anemone
CNIDARIA Manicina areolata rose coral
CNIDARIA Meandrina meandrites maze coral
CNIDARIA Millepora alcicornis branching/encrusting fire coral
CNIDARIA Millepora complanata Blade fire coral
CNIDARIA Obicella (Montastaea) spp All reef-building Montastraea
CNIDARIA Palythoa caribaeorum white encrusting zoanthid
CNIDARIA Phymanthus crucifer beaded or flower anemone W
CNIDARIA Plexaura homomalla black sea rod
CNIDARIA Plexaura spp Unknown sea rod E
CNIDARIA Plexaurella spp slip pore sea rods
CNIDARIA Porites asteroides mustard hill coral
CNIDARIA Porites porites clubtip finger coral
CNIDARIA Porites divaricata thin finger coral 2
CNIDARIA Pseudoplexuana spp Porous sea rods 0
CNIDARIA Pseudopterogorgia spp. rough sea plume
CNIDARIA Siderastrea radians lesser starlet coral
CNIDARIA Stephanocoenia intersepta blushing star coral
CNIDARIA Stichodactyla helianthus sun anemone
PORIFERA Amphimedon compressa red finger sponge (formerly H, rubens)
c�
PORIFERA Aplysina sp. Unknown Aplysina
PORIFERA Callyspongia vaginallis branching vase sponge, grey-purple tube
PORIFERA Chondrilla caribensis(nucula) chicken liver sponge
PORIFERA Cinachyra sp. dusty orange ball sponge
16
Packet Pg. 2278
0.6.a
PORIFERA Cliona (Anthosigmella) varians (brown)variable sponge
PORIFERA Cliona delitrix orange boring sponge
PORIFERA Cliona langae coral encrusting sponge NOW C.apria
PORIFERA Cliona sp. green velvel encrusting C. caribbaea
PORIFERA Dysidea etheria heavenly sponge
PORIFERA Ectyoplasia ferox orange volcano sponge
PORIFERA Haliclona sp. z
PORIFERA Haliclona viridis small green tubes
PORIFERA Ircinia felix stinker sponge E
PORIFERA Spheciospongia vesparium Florida loggerhead sponge
PORIFERA Tedania ignis fire sponge, organge color
Annelida Anamobaea orstedii Split-Crown Feather Duster
Annelida Arenicola cristata Southern Lugworm
4-
Annelida Bispira brunnea Social Feather Duster c
Annelida Bispira variegata Variegated Feather Duster
Annelida Eupolymnia crassicornis Spaghetti Worm
Annelida Hermodice carunculata Bearded Fireworm
Annelida Notaulax nudicollis Brown Fanworm c
Annelida Notaulax occidentalis Yellow Fanworm c
Annelida Sabellastarte magnifica Magnificent Feather Duster
Annelida Spirobranchus giganteus Christmas Tree Worm
Annelida Spirorbis spirorbis Seagrass epiphyte
Chordata Ascidia nigra Black Solitary Tunicate M
Chordata Botrylloides nigrum Flat Tunicate
Chordata Botryllus sp. Geometric Encrusting Tunicates
Chordata Clavelina sp. Bulb Tunicates
Chordata Diplosoma glandulosum Globular Encrusting Tunicate x
Chordata Distaplia corolla Button Tunicates
Chordata Ecteinascidia turbinata Mangrove Tunicate E
Chordata Polyandrocarpa tumida Mottled Social Tunicate
Chordata Polycarpa spongiabilis Giant Tunicate E
Chordata Rhopalaea abdominalis Reef Tunicate
Chordata Symplegma viride Encrusting Social Tunicate
Chordata Trididemum solidum Overgrowing Mat Tunicate
Arthropoda Callinectes sp. Blue Crabs
Arthropoda Paguristes erythrops Red Banded Hermit
Arthropoda Pagurus sp. Hermit Crab
Arthropoda Panuhris argus Caribbean Spiny Lobster
Arthropoda Petrochirus diogenes Giant Hermit
Echinodermata Astropecten spp Sea Stars
Echinodermata Clypeaster roseaceus inflated sea biscuit
Echinodermata Diadema antillarium
Echinodermata Echinaster echinoporous thorny starfish
Echinodermata Echinometra lucunter rock-boring urchin
17
Packet Pg. 2279
0.6.a
Echinodermata Echinometra viridis reef urchin
Echinodermata Eucidaris tribuloides slate-pencil urchin
Echinodermata Holothuria spp. Sea Cucumber
Echinodermata Isostichopus badionotus Three-Rowed Sea Cucumber
Echinodermata Linckia guildingii common comet star
Echinodermata Lytechinus variegatus Variegated Urchin
Echinodermata Tripneustes ventricosus sea egg
Mollusca Atrina rigida Stiff Pen Shell d
z
Mollusca Cyphoma spp. Flamingo tongue
Mollusca Eustrombus gigas Queen conch E
Mollusca Fasciolaria tulipa True Tulip
Mollusca Lima scabra Rough Fileclam E
Mollusca Octopus vulgaris Common Octopus
Mollusca Phalium granulatum Scotch Bonnet
Mollusca Pickfordiateuthis pulchella Grass Squid -
Mollusca Pinna carnea Amber Penshell r_
Mollusca Sepioteuthis sepiodea Caribbean Reef Squid
a
a
�s
a
a
�s
18
Packet Pg. 2280
O.6.a
APPENDIX 2: List of Marine Plants to be scored in benthic surveys. Species are grouped by Green, Brown and
Red macro algae, conspicuous cyanobacteria and sea grasses. Numbers following the species are from the
Caribbean Marine Plants Key (Littler& Littler, 2000).
MARINE PLANT SPECIES LIST Littler& Littler Key
Acetabularia spp. 442
Anadyomene saldenhae 310
Anadyomene stellata 310
Avrainvillea spp. 382 d
Batphora oerstedii 436
Bryopsis hypnoides 342
E
Bryopsis pennata 342
as
Bryopsis plumosa 344 E
Bryopsis ramniosa 344
Caulerpa cupressoides 360
Caulerpa macrophysa 362
Caulerpa mexicana 364 >
Caulerpa paspaloides 366
Caulerpa prolifera 368 as
Caulerpa pusilla 368
Caulerpa racemosa 370 r-
Caulerpa serrulata 372
Caulerpa sertularoides 374
Caulerpa taxifolia 376
Caulerpa verticillata 376
Caulerpa vickersiae 378
Caulerpa webbiana 378
Chaetomorpha gracilis 318
Chaetomorpha linum 318
Cladophora catenata 320 W
Cladophora sp. 320
Codium repens 354 E
Dasycladus vennicularis 436
Derbesia sp. 346
Dictyosphaeria cavernosa 332 c
Enteromorpha spp _
Halimeda discoidea 400
0
Halimeda incrassata 402
Halimeda lacrimosa 404
Halimeda monile 404
Halimeda opuntia 406
Halimeda scabra 406
Halimeda tuna. 408
ca
Haliphilia decipiens 480
Microdictyon marinum 312
Neomeris annulata 438
Penicillus capitatus 410
19
Packet Pg. 2281
O.6.a
Penicillus dumetosus 410
Penicillus lamourouxii 412
Penicillus pyriformis 412
Rhipocephalus phoenix 418
Udotea spp, 422
Ulva lactuca 306
Valonia macrophysa 340
Ventricaria ventricosa 336 z
Cystoseira myrica 280
Dictyopteris spp 254 E
Dictyota spp 487 M
Dictyota caribaea 260 E
Lobophora variegata 268,270 E
Padina spp 272 2
Sargassum spp 280
Stypopodium zonale 278 Z
M
Turbinaria turbinata 290
r 192 cm
������ < /iiiii/��///o%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 20
rff�� � a�1��,
,,,,;;;;; ,,,,;;;;;///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 194
0
144 �
ffttz'p 146
21a,CL11Ttt 198
204
hdr��tttt3��1Ls
204
h (, 136
Oak 170
> �1
174 �
204 w
94 M
0
M
1� p
58
46
�r�Ilddlla, '�� �
Grad 110 146 0
/�. 112
GradlIff ll4 M
Grad 114
itratrttrtll
Of
110
/�/ 116
� zt�tii
l��t
„iii�
180
� itprp �ta180
28
76
20
Packet Pg. 2282
O.6.a
MEMO 3
atadkrr �
33
111a p 78
X tff �I , ,,,, �tiC iaaaaai 216
X tff �i at1 212
t` 1L 214
214
X tff �tp 210 d
48
36 E
�
n11tp 86
T�� �tt �a� 3/'d��r11fi7tt�,
42
164
40 4-
Ttaffodp c
166
Calothrix aeruginia 470
Dichothrix spp. cm
Lyngbya sp. 450 0
Schizothrix sp. 464
Symploca hydnoides 462
Halodule beaudettei(wrightii) 484
Syringodium filiforme 484 g j
Thalassia testudinum 482
a
a
21
Packet Pg. 2283
0.6.a
REFERENCES
Aronson,R. B., Bruno, J. F.,Precht, W. F., Glynn,P. W., Harvell, C. D., Kaufman,L., . . . Valentine, J. F. (2003).
Causes of coral reef degradation. Science (New York, N.Y.), 302(5650), 1502-1504.
doi:10.1 126/science.302.5650.1502b
Barreras, H. J., Kelly, E. A., Kumarb, N., & Solo-Gabriele, H. M. (2019). Assessment of local and regional
strategies to control bacteria levels at beaches with consideration of impacts from climate change.Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 138, 11. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbu1.2018.10.046
Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P.. . . . Naeem, S. (2012). z
Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486, 59. doi:10.1038/naturel 1148
Eutrophication in coastal canals. (1972). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 3(2), 23. doi:10.10 16/0025-326x(72)90207-
x
Group, Marine Classification Work W. (2012). Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard. (0097-
6326). DataStream Content Solutions, LLC Retrieved from
http://miami.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQMLEwMwPWDIIJaYaJScmJ
4-
1mYmiZYpRgbApj2wN2SUYoSywhepNHcTYmBKzRN1kHVzDXH2OAWVkPEFkDMX4olBU6Sg9 0
GYoxsCbCFr8nVcC3iSWIsGgkGRmaJgIco2lgYFJWopFUjKwk2GRam6RamFkAuz7AQAW3CTT.
Kent, M. (2012). Vegetation description and data analysis : a practical approach (Second edition. ed.).
Chichester, West Sussex, UK, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
c
Naeem, S., Thompson, L. J., Lawler, S. P., Lawton, J. H., & Woodfin, R. M. (1994). Declining biodiversity can a
alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature, 368(6473), 734-737.
Nero, V. (2005). Benthic marine plant patterns in coastal environments of the Bahamas. Bahamas Journal of a
Science, 12(2), 14-20.
Sullivan, K. M., & Chiappone, M. (1992). A Comparison of Belt Quadrat and Species Presence/Absence
Sampling of Stony Coral (Scleractinia and Milleporina) and Sponges For Evaluating Species Patterning
on Patch Reefs of the Central Bahamas. Bulletin ofMarine Science, 50(3), 464-464.
Tilman, D., & Downing, J. A. (1994). Biodiversity and stability in grasslands.Nature, 367(6461), 363.
Trevathan-Tackett, S. M., Lauer, N., Loucks, K., Rossi, A. M., & Ross, C. (2013). Assessing the relationship x
between seagrass health and habitat quality with wasting disease prevalence in the Florida Keys. Journal
of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 449(C), 221-229. doi:10.1016/j.j embe.2013.10.004 E
Collado-Vides, L., Caccia, V. G., Boyer, J. N., & Fourqurean, J. W. (2007). Tropical seagrass-associated
macroalgae distributions and trends relative to water quality. ESTUARINE COASTAL AND SHELF
SCIENCE, 73(3-4), 680-694. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2007.03.009
De Carlo, E. H., Hoover, D. J., Hoover, R. S., Young, C. W., & Mackenzie, F. T. (2007). Impact of storm runoff
from tropical watersheds on coastal water quality and productivity. Applied Geochemistry, 22(8), 1777- 0
1797. doi:10.1016/j.apgeochem.2007.03.034
Fourqurean, J. W., Durako, M. D., Hall, M. O., & Hefty, L. N. (2002). Seagrass distribution in south Florida: a
multi-agency coordinated monitoring program. In J. W. Porter & K. G. Porter (Eds.), The Everglades, U
Florida Bay, and the Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys. (pp. 497-522). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.
Lapointe, B. E., &Matzie, W. R. (1996). Effects of Stormwater Nutrient Discharges on Eutrophication Processes
in Nearshore Waters of the Florida Keys. Estuaries, 19(2), 422-435. doi:10.2307/1352460
Littler, D. S., & Littler, M. M. (2000). Caribbean Reef Plants. Washington, D.C.: Offshore Graphics.
Trevathan-Tackett, S. M., Lauer, N., Loucks, K., Rossi, A. M., & Ross, C. (2013). Assessing the relationship
between seagrass health and habitat quality with wasting disease prevalence in the Florida Keys.Journal
of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 449(C), 221-229. doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2013.10.004
22
Packet Pg. 2284
O.6.a
Wagner, D., Mielbrecht, E., & van Woesik, R. (2008). Application of Landscape Ecology to Spatial Variance of
Water-Quality Parameters Along the Florida Keys Reef Tract.Bulletin ofMarine Science, 83(3), 553-553.
Wolanski, E., Martinez, J. A., & Richmond, R. H. (2009). Quantifying the impact of watershed urbanization on
a coral reef. Maunalua Bay, Hawaii. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 84(2), 259-268.
doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2009.06.029
d
4-
0
a
a
a
0
a
a
0
23
Packet Pg. 2285
EXHIBIT B-1
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY MONITORING SERVICES
IN MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
DELIVERABLES
FOR TASK 2 Monroe County Canal Water Quality Monitoring
d
The University of Miami will be responsible for maintaining and managing data files and field sheets/forms for z
all data and observations made in the field. All field forms will be filled-out completely and properly. The a
contractor will maintain the original forms with copies provided to Monroe County as described below. E
Field measurements of DO (concentration and percent saturation), pH, specific conductance, and water
temperature for the surface and bottom readings will be maintained in electronic data files.
Data files from field work must include all appropriate quality control and quality assurance information and 4-
metadata including geo-locational identifiers,project identifiers, and site identifiers. 0
All data submitted in electronic format by the University of Miami to DEP must have undergone a rigorous
evaluation to assess content, quality, integrity and usability.
Electronic data files must be submitted either as an Excel file, a comma delimited file (.csv), a comma delimited a
text file (.txt), or other format approved by the Department.
Each quarter, the data from the previous quarter are to be reviewed and loaded in the WIN database.
A quarterly progress report will be submitted to the County that includes the following information:
(a) A tabulation of the water quality samples collected at each station during the quarter
including sampling dates and times for each site
(b) Identify any field quality assurance problems encountered during the quarter
(c) Identify any corrective actions necessary as a result of problems encountered during the
quarter
E
(d) Copies of all field data sheets\forms and notes for samples and measurements collected
during the quarter
(e) Technical audit reports (more info on this in Appendix 5 of grant agreement) of
monitoring performed each quarter; Due: Within 30 days after first sampling event and then 2
quarterly (within 30-days after sampling events each quarter)until sampling events completed r_
�s
24
Packet Pg. 2286
0.6.a
Deliverables to be provided by the University of Miami:
Component 1 —QAPP
■ Deliverable la: Draft QAPP submitted for review; Due: Before June 15, 2019
■ Deliverable lb: Final approved QAPP; Due: No later than 10 days before first sampling event
■ Deliverable 1 c: Technical audit reports (more info on this in Appendix 5 of grant agreement) of
monitoring performed each quarter; Due: 30 November 2019
d
Component 2—Monitoring—2 years: July 2019 through June 2021
■ Deliverable 2: A summary of the samples collected and delivered to the lab for analysis. Summary of
completed monitoring activities (dates completed, sampling conducted and any not conducted and why, E
monitoring results along with interpretation of those results (as expected or not as expected submitted
electronically), along with the draft or final laboratory report and sampling logs; E
Due by 31 July 2021 but updates to be submitted quarterly.
Component 3 —Reporting -
• Deliverable 3a: Draft Final Report explaining the scientific findings; Due 1 August 2021
• Deliverable 3b: Final Report with edits incorporated, etc.; Due 15 October 2021 n
• Deliverable 3c: The University shall present the results to the Monroe County Board of County as
Commissioners.
0
a
0
x
a
a
0
25
Packet Pg. 2287
0.6.a
EXHIBIT C-1
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY MONITORING SERVICES
BUDGET WORKSHEETS BY Quarter for amended TASK 2: Water Quality in Residential
Canals
The University of Miami will submit invoices to Monroe County on the following dates: z
1. 30 June 2019
2. 30 September 2019 E
3. 31 December 2019
4. 31 March 2020 E
5. 30 June 2020
6. 30 September 2020
7. 31 December 2020 4-
8. 31 March 2021 c
9. 30 June 2021 �
10. 15 October 2021 —END OF PROJECT
a
a
0
a
a
26
Packet Pg. 2288
0.6.a
Exhibit C-I
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY MONITORING SERVICES
BUDGET WORKSHEETS BY Quarter and task.
YEAR 2 2020
TASK 2 Residential Canals Water Quality
Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4
INVOICE DATE: INVOICE DATE: INVOICE DATE: INVOICE DATE:
30 June 2019 30 September 2019 31 December 2019 31 March 2020
E
Deliverable la: Sampling events #1 Sampling events #2 Sampling events #3
Draft QAPP submitted Deliverable 2: A Deliverable 2: A Deliverable 2: A
for review summary of the samples summary of the samples summary of the samples
Due: Before June 15, collected and delivered to collected and delivered to collected and delivered to
2019 the lab for the lab for the lab for -
analysis. Summary of analysis. Summary of analysis. Summary of >
Deliverable lb: completed monitoring completed monitoring completed monitoring
Final QAPP submitted activities activities activities
Due: 30 June 2019 Deliverable lc:
Technical audit reports
WIN UPLOAD DATE: WIN UPLOAD DATE: WIN UPLOAD DATE: WIN UPLOAD DATE:
none 1-Nov 2019 1-Feb-2020 1-May-2020
$66 287 $66 287 $66 287 $66 286
YEAR 3 2021
Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4
INVOICE DATE INVOICE DATE: INVOICE DATE: INVOICE DATE: a
x
30 June 2020 30 September 2020 31 December 2020 31 March 2021
Sampling events #4 Sampling events #5 Sampling events #6 Sampling events #7 E
Deliverable 2: A Deliverable 2: A Deliverable 2: A Deliverable 2: A
summary of the samples summary of the samples summary of the samples summary of the samples E
collected and delivered to collected and delivered to collected and delivered to collected and delivered to
the lab for the lab for the lab for the lab for
analysis. Summary of analysis. Summary of analysis. Summary of analysis. Summary of E
completed monitoring completed monitoring completed monitoring completed monitoring
activities activities activities activities
WIN UPLOAD DATE: WIN UPLOAD DATE: WIN UPLOAD DATE: WIN UPLOAD DATE:
1 August 2020 1-November 2020 1-Feb-2021 1-May-2021
$47,721 $47,721 $47,721 $47,722
27
Packet Pg. 2289
0.6.a
YEAR 4 2022
Quarter 1 Quarter 2
INVOICE DATE INVOICE DATE:
30 June 2021 30 September 2021
Sampling events #8 Deliverable 3a:
Deliverable 2: A Draft Final Report
summary of the samples Due 1 August 2021 d
collected and delivered to
the lab for Deliverable 3b:
analysis. Summary of Final Report (with edits
completed monitoring incorporated, etc.)
E
activities Presentation to Monroe
County BOCC:
Due 15 October 2021
4-
0
°E
WIN UPLOAD DATE: WIN UPLOAD DATE:
1 August 2021 none
$8,587.50 $32,591.50
°E
0
°
°E
28
Packet Pg. 2290