The URL can be used to link to this page

Item M23 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 21 May 2003 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes -L No Department: Marine Resources AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of Contract between Monroe County and REEF to provide monitoring of the Artificial Reef, Spiegel Grove. ITEM BACKGROUND: A permit was required by NOAA to enter the waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary with the ship, D.S.S. Spiegel Grove destined to become an artificial reef off Key Largo. One condition of the permit required monitoring of the permitted artificial reef site and several adjacent sites. REEF provided a scope of work for the project and it was included in the NOAA permit. However, a contract for the project was not formally required of REEF. In order to provide an appropriate audit mechanism, staff is providing the attached contract for monitoring starting early 2002 through the remainder of this fiscal year and annually for the next four years. Funds for the project will be provided through the Boating Improvement Fund, at a total cost of approximately $40,000. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: Approval of the Spiegel Grove artificial reef project. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: NA STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval TOTAL COST: $40.000 BUDGETED: Yes x No COST TO COUNTY: $40.000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Fund 157. BIF REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No-L Year APPROVED BY: County Atty -L DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: DOCUMENTATION: Included -L To Follow DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM NO.: /'J~~-3 BC030550 04/25/03 5:13 p~ MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONTRACT SUMMARY Contract with: REEF Contract # Effective Date: January 1, 2002 Expiration Date: December 31, 2007 Contract PurposelDescription: Contract to monitor the D.S.S. SpieJZ;el Grove, an artificial reef off Key LarJZ;o Contract Manager: George Garrett 2507 Marine Resources / 11 (Name) (Ext. ) (Department/Stop #) for BOCC meeting on 4/16/03 AJZ;enda Deadline: 4/3/03 CONTRACT COSTS Total Dollar Value of Contract: $ 40,000 Budgeted? Yes[gl No 0 Account Codes: Grant: $ 0 County Match: $ 40,000 Current Year Portion: $ 24,000 157-62607-_-_ - - - ---- - - - ---- - - - ---- Estimated Ongoing Costs: $NA/yr (Not included in dollar value above) ADDITIONAL COSTS For: NA (eg. maintenance. utilities, janitorial. salaries, etc.) CONTRACT REVIEW Date Out Division Director Risk Management il -I -( County Attorney Comments: t"'"' - f ~ c. .:...:1. ~/.A7, '/:. )':;;_l ~- L.-{~ j .'L ~.~, ~ ~ ,. I. / CONTRACT FOR MONITORING V.SeSe SPIEGEL GROVE~ KEY LARGO~ FLORIDA THIS CONTRACT is entered into by MONROE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose address is the Marathon Government Center, 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida 33050, hereafter the County, and Reef Environmental Education Foundation, 98300 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, Florida 33037 USA, hereafter CONTRACTOR. Section 1. The CONTRACTOR and the County, for the consideration named agree as follows: 1. The CONTRACTOR agrees to monitor the artificial reef known as the U.S.S. Spiegel Grove in accordance with the Scope of Work provided in Exhibi t A. 2. Following year 1 of monitoring, a summary report will be produced outlining temporal changes in species composition and populations on the Spiegel Grove site. In addition, an analysis of the seven (7) reference sites will be conducted to document any change in composition or abundance at those locations. Summary data reports will be generated from the REEF database as well as site similarity comparisons. At the end of five (5) years a complete assessment of changes at the Spiegel Grove site and a comparison of adjacent monitoring sites will also be provided. AnReefsSpiegelREEFContract0304 04/04/03 11: 18 AM Section 2. The CONTRACTOR may invoice the County the amount of $4,000 for each monitoring event in accordance with Exhibit B. The total amount of the CONTRACT will not exceed $40,000. Attached to each invoice will be a short report documenting each monitoring event, documenting the date or dates of the event, personnel used, number of boats involved, etc. Cumulative reports may be provided for invoices involving multiple events. Upon receipt of an invoice, the County will process the invoice within thirty days for payment. Section 3. The County and CONTRACTOR aclmowledge that funds have been appropriated for fiscal year 2002 - 2003, ending September 30, 2003. If the County does not appropriate funds for this CONTRACT in future fiscal years (2004 through 2007), the CONTRACT becomes null and void upon final adoption of the County budget for that fiscal year. The CONTRACTOR will be notified that funds have not been appropriated for the CONTRACT prior to any additional monitoring events and before the CONTRACTOR has incurred any expenses in that fiscal year. Section 4. Either party may terminate this CONTRACT because of the failure of the other party to perform its obligations under the CONTRACT. If the County terminates this CONTRACT because of the CONTRACTOR's failure to perform, then the County must pay the CONTRACTOR the amount due for all Contract 04/04/03 11: 18 AM 2 work satisfactorily completed as detennined by the County up to the date of the CONTRACTOR's failure to perform but minus any damages the County suffered as a result of the CONTRACTOR's failure to perform. The damage amount must be reduced by the amount saved by the County as a result of the CONTRACT termination. If the amount owed the CONTRACTOR by the County is not enough to compensate the County, then the CONTRACTOR is liable for any additional amount necessary to adequately compensate the County up to the amount of the CONTRACT price. Section 5. The CONTRACTOR acknowledges and agrees that public use of any or all reports or other printed materials, videos, audio recordings, films and photographs produced as part of this Project may not be restricted under the copyright laws of the United States of America. Section 6. Records of the CONTRACTOR's direct personnel payroll and other costs and expenses pertaining to the Project and records of the accounts between the County and the CONTRACTOR must be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis and must be available to the County. The records also must be in form sufficient to permit a grant specific audit to be performed in accordance with the rules of the Auditor General. The CONTRACTOR must keep the records for five years following the completion of the Project. Contract 04/04/03 11 :18 AM 3 Section 7. The CONTRACTOR acknowledges that all records, data, and documents created as part of the Project are public records under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. As a result, they must be made available at a reasonable place and time upon the request of a member of the public. Failure to do so is a breach of this CONTRACT entitling the County to treat the CONTRACT as terminated on the date of the violation of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, with the County's obligation to pay extending only to work completed as of that date plus amounts previously retained, if any. Section 8. In the course of carrying out the monitoring program, the CONTRACTOR may not discriminate against any employee because of race, age, creed, color, sex or national origin. The CONTRACTOR will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, age, creed, color, sex, or national origin. Such action may include, but need not be limited to, the following: employment upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; lay-off or termination; rates of payor other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeships. The CONTRACTOR must insert language similar to this Section in any of the CONTRACTOR's subcontracts, if any, funded through this CONTRACT except for subcontracts for standard commercial supplies and raw materials. Contract 04/04/03 11: 18 AM 4 Section 9. In carrying out the monitoring program, the CONTRACTOR must comply with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act and federal regulations issued under that Act. Section 10. The CONTRACTOR warrants that it has not employed, retained, or otherwise had act on its behalf any former County officer or employee subject to the prohibition of Section 2 of Ordinance No. 010-1990 or any County officer or employee in violation of Section 3 of Ordinance No. 020-1990. For breach or violation of this provision, the County, in its discretion, may terminate this CONTRACT without liability and may also, in its discretion, deduct from the CONTRACT or purchase price, or otherwise recover the full amount of any fee, commission, percentage gift, or consideration paid to the former County officer or employee. Section 11. A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for public entity crime may not submit a bid on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a bid on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or CONTRACTOR under contract with any public entity, and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in Section 287.017 of the Florida Statutes, for the Category Contract 04/04/0311:18 AM 5 two for a period of 36 months from the date ofbemg placed on the convicted vendor list. Section 12. The CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain adequate Insurance or equivalent as provided in Exhibit C. Section 13. All communication between the' parties should be through the following individuals or their designees: Monroe County George Garrett, Director Department of Marine Resources 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 420 Marathon, FL 33050 Reef Environmental Education Foundation Laddie Akins REEF 98300 Overseas Highway Key Largo, Florida 33037 Section 14. This CONTRACT is governed by the laws of the State of Florida. Venue for litigation arising under this contract must be in a court of competent jurisdiction located in Monroe County, Florida. Section 15. The effective date of this CONTRACT is nunc pro tunc, January 1, 2002. The termination date of the CONTRACT will be December 31, 2007 THE REMAINDER OF THE PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALL Y BLANK Contract 04/04/03 11: 18 AM 6 Section I. IN WITNESS WHEREOF each PartY hereto has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized representative. (SEAL) Attest: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By By Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairman (SEAL) Attest: ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION Reef Environmental EducatioI Foundation By Title By Title APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY APP~OVED AS TO FORt,1 A~~~~ Contract 04/04/03 11: 18 AM 7 EXHIBIT A Spiegel Grove Monitoring Project Appendix A 04/04/03 11: 18 AM Spiegel Grove Monitoring Project Summary Monroe County has arranged with the Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF) to conduct pre-deployment and periodic monitoring of the Spiegel Grove and adjacent natural and artificial reef sites. Monitoring will document fish presence/absence and relative abundance at eight (8) sites during six (6) monitoring events in year one and then annually thereafter for four additional years. Summary reports will be provided following year one data analysis and at the end of year five. This document outlines the monitoring project to be carried out by REEF. Back2:round The Spiegel Grove is a 510' LSD which has been placed as an artificial reef structure in the waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. When submerged, the vessel became the largest ship ever intentionally scuttled to create an artificial reef. The site is located at position 25 04.000' / 80 18.650' and lies offshore of the main reef tract between Molasses Reef and Elbow Reef in Key Largo. Pursuant to the approval of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, a plan for pre-deployment and periodic monitoring must be in place. The Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF), is a 501 c (3) non-profit organization focusing on the collection of fish diversity and abundance data by utilizing volunteer divers trained in visual identification of local species. REEF's programs are in place throughout the Tropical Western Atlantic, Coastal North America, the Gulf of California, and Hawaiian waters. REEF's database containing over 54,000 individual fish surveys is the largest database of fish sightings in the world. REEF maintains numerous contracts with State of Florida, National Park Service, National Marine Sanctuary and Coastal Zone Management agencies to monitor fish populations in Sanctuaries, Parks, artificial reefs and other sites of interest to management and scientific concerns. Data collected during these contracts are entered into REEF's on-line database and summary reports are made available to the general public as well as researchers, scientists and managers. Purpose It is anticipated that with the sinking of the Spiegel Grove, a change in fish community structure on the sinking site will take place. This monitoring project Appendix E 04/04/03 11: 18 AM will document the changes in fish presence/absence and abundance over time at the site. In addition, seven (7) nearby reef sites will be sampled to determine any corresponding changes to fish populations on those sites. Additional studies being undertaken to document user patterns can be combined with this data to help show what effect, if any, the newly placed structure may have on fish community structure. Methods Roving Diver Technique (RDT). The RDT is a non-point visual survey method specifically designed to generate a comprehensive species list along with frequency and abundance estimates. During RDT surveys, divers swim freely throughout a dive site and record every observed fish species. At the conclusion of each survey, divers assign each recorded species one of four IOglO abundance categories [single (1); few (2-10), many (11-100), and abundant (>100)]. Following the dive, each surveyor records the species data along with survey time, depth, temperature, and other environmental information on a REEF scansheet. The scansheets are returned to REEF, and the data are loaded into the REEF database that is publicly accessible on the Internet at http://www.reef.org. Once entered into the REEF database, data are displayed by geographic location, including a complete species list, Sighting Frequency of each species and Density index of abundance for each species. (%SF = number of surveys reporting species / total number of surveys at that site Density score = ((nsxl)+(nFx2)+(nMx3)+(nAx4)] / (ns + nF + nM + nA), where n is the number of times each abundance category was assigned) Data summary reports can also be generated for side by side site comparison and summary by species. Sampling scheme The survey team will be made up of REEF Advanced Assessment Team members who have all achieved a level 4 or 5 experience level and have considerable experience and expertise in surveying local fish populations. Eight sites (see table 1) representing the Spiegel Grove sinking site, six (6) adjacent natural reefs and one (l) artificial reef will be surveyed prior to deployment at no cost to the County. Following deployment, the Spiegel Grove artificial reef and the remaining seven (7) sites will be surveyed monthly for the first three months, quarterly for the following three quarters and yearly thereafter. This scheme Appendix E 04/04/03 11: 18 AM represents a total of six (6) monitoring sessions in year 1 and one (1) monitoring session in years two (2) through five (5). Table 1. Monitoring sites Benwood Ledge (60-100') Dixie Shoals Shallows (20') Rocks next to Spiegel Grove site (125') Red Can Ledge (60-100') Benwood (30') Dixie Shoals Ledge (60-100') Spiegel Grove site (130') Red Can shallows (25') 25 03 .155/80 19.970 25 04.145' / 80 19.315' 2504.180' / 80 18.730' 25 04.308' / 80 18.909' 25 03.160 / 8020.020 25 04.213' / 80 18.971' 25 04.000' / 80 18.650' 25 04.610' / 80 18.935' Site descriptions The 8 sites to be surveyed represent a broad range of nearby natural and artificial structure. The Spiegel Grove site is represented by barren, level sand bottom with a depth of approximately 130'. The closest structure to this site is a small patch of rocky substrate located approximately 2/1 Oths of a mile from the proposed sinking location in a depth of approximately 125'. The nearest substantial reef structures are the natural reef edges at Dixie Shoals and the Red Can buoy approximately 4/1 Oths of a mile shoreward of the sinking site. These reefs are sloping drop-offs represented by low profile hardbottom with sparse coverings of small corals and sponges. Approximately 7/1 Oths of a mile inshore from the sinking site, lie Dixie Shoals Shallows and the Red Can Shallows, 2 hardbottom areas of moderate rugosity represented by low profile structure and moderate coral cover. These sites represent the nearest shallow water coral reef communities to the sinking site. More than 1 mile to the south lies another steeply sloping drop-off and the wreck of the Norwegian freighter Benwood. This site represents the closest artificial reef and harbors a large diversity and abundance of fish. Additional historical baseline data collected as part of the REEF program (more than 2,150 surveys) are available for the surrounding high profile reefs including Molasses, French, Elbow, Key Largo Dry Rocks and Grecian Rocks. Appendix E 04/04/03 11: 18 AM Reporting Following year 1 of monitoring, a summary report will be produced outlining temporal changes in species composition and populations on the Spiegel Grove site. In addition, analysis of the 7 reference sites will be conducted to document any change in composition or abundance at those locations. Summary data reports will be generated from the REEF database as well as site similarity comparisons. Similar annual reports will be provided for each succeeding year of the CONTRACT. A final report will be provided in year five which analyzes changes at the Spiegel Grove site over the five year period and provides comparison information between the Spiegel Grove monitoring site and the other seven (7) identified above. Appendix E 04/04/03 11: 18 AM Spiegel Grove Monitoring Budget Time Frame Approximate Date Amount Year 1 Month 1 July 2002 $4,000 Month 2 August 2002 $4,000 Month 3 September 2002 $4,000 2nd Quarter December 2002 $4,000 3 rd Quarter March 2003 $4,000 4th Quarter June 2003 $4,000 Year 2 July 2004 $4,000 Year 3 July 2005 $4,000 Year 4 July 2006 $4,000 Year 5 July 2007 $4,000 Contract Total $40,000 Appendix E 04/04/03 11: 18 AM EXHIBIT B Insurance Requirements Appendix E 04/04/03 11: 1 B AM , . CONTRACT FOR MONITORING V.S.S. SPIEGEL GROVE" KEY LARGO. FLORIDA TInS CONTRACT is entered into by MONROE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose address is the Marathon Government Center, 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida 33050, hereafter the County, and REEF Environmental Education Foundation, 98300 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, Florida 33037 USA, hereafter CONTRACTOR. Section 1. The CONTRACTOR and the County, for the consideration named agree as follows: 1. The CONTRACTOR agrees to monitor the artificial reef known as the U.S.S. Spiegel Grove in accordance with the Scope of Work provided in Exhibit A. 2. Following year 1 of monitoring, a summary report will be produced outlining temporal changes in species composition and populations on the Spiegel Grove site. In addition, an analysis of the seven (7) reference sites will be conducted to document any change in composition or abundance at those locations. Summary data reports will be generated from the REEF database as well as site similarity comparisons. At the end of five (5) years a complete assessment of changes at the Spiegel Grove site and a comparison of adjacent monitoring sites will also be provided. ArtRcefsSpiegelREEFContract0304 04/04/03 9:30 AM Section 2. The CONTRACTor may invoice the County the amount of $3,500 for each monitoring event in accordance with Exhibit B. The total amount of the CONTRACT will not exceed $35,000. Attached to each invoice will be a short report documenting each monitoring event, documenting the date or dates of the event, personnel used, number of boats involved, etc. Cumulative reports may be provided for invoices involving multiple events. Upon receipt of an invoice, the County will process the invoice within thirty days for payment. Section 3. The County and CONTRACTOR acknowledge that funds have been appropriated for fiscal year 2002 - 2003, ending September 30, 2003. If the County does not appropriate funds for this CONTRACT in future fiscal years (2004 through 2007), the CONTRACT becomes null and void upon final adoption of the County budget for that fiscal year. The CONTRACTOR will be notified that funds have not been appropriated for the CONTRACT prior to any additional monitoring events and before the CONTRACTOR has incurred any expenses in that fiscal year. Section 4. Either party may terminate this CONTRACT because of the failure of the other party to perform its obligations under the CONTRACT. If the County terminates this CONTRACT because of the CONTRACTOR's failure to perform, then the County must pay the CONTRACTOR the amount due for all work satisfactorily completed as determined by the County up to the date of the Contract 04/04/03 9:30 AM 2 CONTRACTOR's failure to perform but minus any damages the County suffered as a result of the CONTRACTOR's failure to perform. The damage amount must be reduced by the amount saved by the County as a result of the CONTRACT termination. If the amount owed the CONTRACTOR by the County is not enough to compensate the County, then the CONTRACTOR is liable for any additional amount necessary to adequately compensate the County up to the amount of the CONTRACT price. Section 5. The CONTRACTOR acknowledges and agrees that public use of any or all reports or other printed materials, videos, audio recordings, films and photographs produced as part of this Project may not be restricted under the copyright laws of the United States of America. Section 6. Records of the CONTRACTOR's direct personnel payroll and other costs and expenses pertaining to the Project and records of the accounts between the County and the CONTRACTOR must be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis and must be available to the County. The records also must be in form sufficient to permit a grant specific audit to be performed in accordance with the rules of the Auditor General. The CONTRACTOR must keep the records for five years following the completion of the Project. Section 7. The CONTRACTOR acknowledges that all records, data, and documents created as part of the Project are public records under Chapter 119, Contract 04/04/03 9:30 AM 3 Florida Statutes. As a result, they must be made available at a reasonable place and time upon the request of a member of the public. Failure to do so is a breach of this CONTRACT entitling the County to treat the CONTRACT as terminated on the date of the violation of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, with the County's obligation to pay extending only to work completed as of that date plus amounts previously retained, if any. Section 8. In the course of carrying out the monitoring program, the CONTRACTOR may not discriminate against any employee because of race, age, creed, color, sex or national origin. The CONTRACTOR will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, age, creed, color, sex, or national origin. Such action may include, but need not be limited to, the following: employment upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; lay-off or termination; rates of payor other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeships. The CONTRACTOR must insert language similar to this Section in any of the CONTRACTOR's subcontracts, if any, funded through this CONTRACT except for subcontracts for standard commercial supplies and raw materials. Contract 04/04/03 9:30 AM 4 Section 9. In carrying out the monitoring program: the CONTRACTOR must comply with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act and federal regulations issued under that Act. Section 10. The CONTRACTOR warrants that it has not employed, retained, or otherwise had act on its behalf any former County officer or employee subject to the prohibition of Section 2 of Ordinance No. 010-1990 or any County officer or employee in violation of Section 3 of Ordinance No. 020-1990. For breach or violation of this provision, the County, in its discretion, may terminate this CONTRACT without liability and may also, in its discretion, deduct from the CONTRACT or purchase price, or otherwise recover the full amount of any fee, commission, percentage gift, or consideration paid to the former County officer or employee. Section 11. A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for public entity crime may not submit a bid on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a bid on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or CONTRACTOR under contract with any public entity, and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in Section 287.017 of the Florida Statutes, for the Category Contract 04/04/03 9:30 AM 5 two for a period of 36 months from the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list. Section 12. The CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain adequate Insurance or equivalent as provided in ExhibitC. Section 13. All communication between the parties should be through the following individuals or their designees: Monroe County George Garrett, Director Department of Marine Resources 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 420 Marathon, FL 33050 REEF Environmental Education Foundation Laddie Aikens REEF 98300 Overseas Highway Key Largo, Florida 33037 Section 14. This CONTRACT is governed by the laws of the State of Florida. Venue for litigation arising under this contract must be in a court of competent jurisdiction located in Monroe County, Florida. Section 15. The effective date of this CONTRACT is nunc pro tunc, January 1, 2002. The termination date of the CONTRACT will be December 31, 2007 THE REMAINDER OF THE PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Contract 04/04/03 9:30 AM 6 Section I. IN WITNESS WHEREOF each party- hereto has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized representative. (SEAL) Attest: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By By Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairman (SEAL) Attest: ORGANIZA nON ORGANIZATION ORGANIZA nON Reef Environmental Education Foundation By Title By Title Contract 04/04/03 9:30 AM 7 EXHIBIT A Spiegel Grove Monitoring Project Appendix A 04/04/03 9:30 AM - Spiegel Grove Monitoring Project Summary Monroe County has arranged with the Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF) to conduct pre-deployment and periodic monitoring of the Spiegel Grove and adjacent natural and artificial reef sites. Monitoring will document fish presence/absence and relative abundance at eight (8) sites during six (6) monitoring events in year one and then annually thereafter for four additional years. Summary reports will be provided following year one data analysis and at the end of year five. This document outlines the monitoring project to be carried out by REEF. Back2round The Spiegel Grove is a 510' LSD which has been placed as an artificial reef structure in the waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. When submerged, the vessel became the largest ship ever intentionally scuttled to create an artificial reef. The site is located at position 2504.000' / 80 18.650' and lies offshore of the main reef tract between Molasses Reef and Elbow Reef in Key Largo. Pursuant to the approval of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, a plan for pre-deployment and periodic monitoring must be in place. The Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF), is a 501 c (3) non-profit organization focusing on the collection of fish diversity and abundance data by utilizing volunteer divers trained in visual identification of local species. REEF's programs are in place throughout the Tropical Western Atlantic, Coastal North America, the Gulf of California, and Hawaiian waters. REEF's database containing over 40,000 individual fish surveys is the largest database of fish sightings in the world. REEF maintains numerous contracts with State of Florida, National Park Service, National Marine Sanctuary and Coastal Zone Management agencies to monitor fish populations in Sanctuaries, Parks, artificial reefs and other sites of interest to management and scientific concerns. Data collected during these contracts are entered into REEF's on-line database and summary reports are made available to the general public as well as researchers, scientists and managers. Purpose It is anticipated that with the sinking of the Spiegel Grove, a change in fish community structure on the sinking site will take place. This monitoring project Appendix E 04/04/03 9:30 AM will document the changes in fish presence/absence:-and abundance over time at the site. In addition, seven (7) nearby reef sites will be sampled to determine any corresponding changes to fish populations on those sites. Additional studies being undertaken to document user patterns can be combined with this data to help show what effect, if any, the newly placed structure may have on fish community structure. Methods Roving Diver Technique (RDT). The RDT is a non-point visual survey method specifically designed to generate a comprehensive species list along with frequency and abundance estimates. During RDT surveys, divers swim freely throughout a dive site and record every observed fish species. At the conclusion of each survey, divers assign each recorded species one of four 1080 abundance categories [single (l~ few (2-10), many (11-100), and abundant (>100)]. Following the dive, each surveyor records the species data along with surveytime, depth, temperature, and other environmental information on a REEF scansheet. The scansheets are returned to REEF, and the data are loaded into the REEF database that is publicly accessible on the Internet athttp: . \\'\\'\\.reef.or~. Once entered into the REEF database, data are displayed by geographic location, including a complete species list, Sighting Frequency of each species and Density index of abundance for each species. (%SF = number of surveys reporting species / total number of surveys at that site Density score = [(nsxl)+(nFx2)+(nMx3)+(nAx4)] / (ns + nF + nM + nA), where n is the number of times each abundance category was assigned) Data summary reports can also be generated for side by side site comparison and summary by species. Sampling scheme The survey team will be made up of REEF Advanced Assessment Team members who have all achieved a level 4 or 5 experience level and have considerable experience and expertise in surveying local fish populations. Eight sites (see table 1) representing the Spiegel Grove sinking site, six (6) adjacent natural reefs and one (1) artificial reef will be surveyed prior to deployment. Following deployment, the Spiegel Grove artificial reef and the remaining seven (7) sites will be surveyed monthly for the first three months, quarterly for the following three Appendix E 04/04/03 9:30 AM quarters and yearly thereafter. This scheme represents- a total of six (~ monitoring sessions in year 1 and one (1) monitoring session in years two (2) through five (5). Table 1. Monitoring sites Benwood Ledge (60-100') Dixie Shoals Shallows (20') Rocks next to Spiegel Grove site (125') Red Can Ledge (60-100') Benwood (30') Dixie Shoals Ledge (60-100') Spiegel Grove site (130') Red Can shallows (25') 25 03 .155/80 19.970 2504.145' / 80 19.315' 25 04.180' / 80 18.730' 25 04.308' / 80 18.909' 25 03.160 / 8020.020 2504.213' / 80 18.971' 25 04.000' / 80 18.650' 25 04.610' / 80 18.935' Site descriptions The 8 sites to be surveyed represent a broad range of nearby natural and artificial structure. The Speigel Grove site is represented by barren, level sand bottom with a depth of approximately 130'. The closest structure to this site is a small patch of rocky substrate located approximately 2/1 Oths of a mile from the proposed sinking location in a depth of approximately 125'. The nearest substantial reef structures are the natural reef edges at Dixie Shoals and the Red Can buoy approximately 4/1 Oths of a mile shoreward of the sinking site. These reefs aresloping drop-offs represented by low profile hard bottom with sparse coverings of small corals and sponges. Approximately 7/1 Oths of a mile inshore from the sinking site, lie Dixie Shoals Shallows and the Red Can Shallows, 2 hard bottom areas of moderate rugosity represented by low profile structure and moderate coral cover. These sites represent the nearest shallow water coral reef communities to the sinking site. More than 1 mile to the south lies another steeply sloping drop-off and the wreck of the Norwegian freighter Benwood. This site represents the closes artificial reef and harbors a large diversity and abundance of fish. Additional historical baseline data collected as part of the REEF program (more than 2,150 surveys) are available for the surrounding high profile reefs including Molasses, French, Elbow, Key Largo Dry Rocks and Grecian Rocks. Appendix E 04/04/03 9:30 AM Reporting Following year 1 of monitoring, a summary report will be produced outlining temporal changes in species composition and populations on the Spiegel Grove site. In addition, analysis of the 7 reference sites will be conducted to document any change in composition or abundance at those locations. Summary data reports will be generated from the REEF database as well as site similarity comparisons. Similar annual reports will be provided for each succeeding year of the CONTRACT. A final report will be provided in year five which analyzes changes at the Spiegel Grove site over the five year period and provides comparison information between the Spiegel Grove monitoring site and the other seven (7) identified above. Appendix E 04/04/03 9:30 AM Spiegel Grove Monitoring Budget Time Frame Approximate Date Amount Year 1 Month 1 July 2002 $3,500 Month 2 August 2002 $3,500 Month 3 September 2002 $3,500 2nd Quarter December 2002 $3,500 3 rd Quarter March 2003 $3,500 4 th Quarter June 2003 $3,500 Year 2 July 2004 $3,500 Year 3 July 2005 $3,500 Year 4 July 2006 $3,500 Year 5 July 2007 $3,500 Contract Total $35,000 Appendix E 04/04/03 9:30 AM EXHffiIT B Insurance Requirements Appendix E 04/04/03 9;30 AM .. 1996 Edition GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACT BETWEEN MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND REEF Prior to the connnencement of work governed by this contract, the Contractor shall obtain General Liability Insurance. Coverage shall be maintained throughout the life of the contract and include, as a minimwn: . Premises Operations . Products and Completed Operations . Blanket Contractual Liability . Personal Injury Liability . Expanded Definition of Property Damage The minimum limits acceptable shall be: $300,000 Combined Single Limit (CSL) If split limits are provided, the minimum limits acceptable shall be: $100,000 per Person $300,000 per Occurrence $ 50,000 Property Damage An Occurrence Form policy is preferred. If coverage is provided on a Claims Made policy, its provisions should include coverage for claims filed on or after the effective date of this contract. In addition, the period for which claims may be reported should extend for a minimum of twelve (12) months following the acceptance of work by the County. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners shall be named as Additional Insured on all policies issued to satisfy the above requirements. GLl Administration Instruction #4709.5 S3 1996 Edition VEHICLE LIABILITY --- INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACT BETWEEN MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND REEF Recognizing that the work governed by this contract requires the use of vehicles, the Contractor, prior to the commencement of work, shall obtain Vehicle Liability Insurance. Coverage shall be maintained throughout the life of the contract and include, as a minimwn, liability coverage for: · Owned, Non-Owned., and Hired Vehicles The minimum limits acceptable shall be: $100,000 Combined Single Limit (CSL) If split limits are provided, the minimum limits acceptable shall be: $ 50,000 per Person $100,000 per Occurrence $ 25,000 Property Damage The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners shall be named as Additional Insured on all policies issued to satisfy the above requirements. VLl Administration Instruction #4709.5 80 1996 Edition WORKERS' COMPENSATlON INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACT BETWEEN MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND REEF Recogni7ing that the work governed by this contract involves Maritime Operations, the Contractor's Workers' Compensation Insurance Policy sball include coverage for claims subject to the Federal Jones Act (46 U.S.C.A subsection 688) with limits not less than those specified for Employer's Liability. The Contractor sball be permitted to provide Jones Act Coverage through a separate Protection and Indemnity Policy, in so &r as the coverage provided is no less restrictive than would have been provided by a Workers' Compensation policy. WCJA Administration Instruction #4709.5 91 1996 Edition WATER CRAFI' LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS _--- FOR CONTRACT BETWEEN MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND REEF Prior to the commencement of work governed by this contract, the Contractor shall obtain Water Craft Liability Insurance with terms no less restrictive than those found in the standard "American Institute Hull Clauses" (June 2, 1977 edition). Coverage shall be maintained throughout the life of the contract and include, as a minimum: · Injury (including death) to any Person · Damage to Fixed or Movable Objects · Costs Associated with the Removal of Wrecked Vessels · Contractual Liability with Respect to this Contract If the policy obtained states that coverage applies for the "Acts or Omissions of a Vessel", it shall be endorsed to provide coverage for the lega11iability of the shipowner. The minimum limits acceptable shall be: $500,000 Combined Single Limit (CSL) Coverage provided by a Protection and Indemnity Club (P&I) shall be subject to the approval of the County. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners shall be named as Additional Insured on all policies issued to satisfy the above requirements. WLl Administration Instruction #4709.5 93 1996 Edition MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA RISK MANAGEMENT -- POLICY AND PROCEDURES CONTRACTADMU<<STRATION MANUAL Indemnification and Hold Harmless for Other Contracton and Subcontracton The Contractor covenants and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Monroe County Board of County Commissioners from any and all claims for bodily injury (including death), personal injury, and property da.mage (including property owned by Monroe County) and any other losses, damages, and expenses (including attorney's fees) which arise out of: in connection with, or by reason of services provided by the Contractor or any of its Subcontractor( s) in any tier, occasioned by the negligence, errors, or other wrongful act or omission of The Contractor or its Subcontractors in any tier, their employees, or agents. In the event the completion of the project (to include the work of others) is delayed or suspended as a result of the Contractor's failure to purchase or maintain the required insurance, the Contractor shall indemnify the County from any and all increased expenses resuhing from such delay. The first ten dollars ($10.00) of remuneration paid to the Contractor is for the indemnification provided for above. The extent of liability is in no way limited to, reduced, or lessened by the insurance requirements contained elsewhere within this agreement. TCS Administration Instruction #4709.5 96 , I 1 , PACE '1/81 ( rt11"1 (;-l.Of') f c"rl-r , ill b A"'I: r It Ii i : ~ i I:: i 1:" 'i I . ! I : I II i I, I I ! i ! . ~ "J~. :-~.. a. !.l. 51,58 l "'J;-J! ~ ;! ' . ~~- 4 _ ~ --~i '; ~ 7 ~. _ Ai:: ' i t...:~ ~. ',:~' FROM.MONROE COUNTY ATTY OFFICe 10.3052823518 TO: MEMORANDUM John R. CollinsA J . Oc;'( ov\ O~ County Attom~ Suzanne A. Hutton~ Assistant County Attomey FROM: DATE: SUBJEC'.f: May 2,2003 . : Spiegel Grove Monitoring Contract i' , .......................................... You have asked the question whether TOC funds can be legally used to . i ' pay for the monitoring contract with REEF. Item 1A was tabled from the April ! 16 BOCC meeting to address the issue as to whether TDe funds would be a more appropriate source of funding the monitoring contract than the Boating Improvement Fund. Prior to George Garrett placing this item on the agenda, he did obtain from me an opinion that it was permissible under ~328.66r F.S. to use the Boating Improvement Fund for monitoring of the Spiegel Grove. At the tiIne that I rendered the opinion, I did not have a copy of the monitoring plan ~c:- was I aware of a local policy restricting the use of the Boating Improvement Fu::.d. A copy of the monitoring plan is attached to the contract in the agenda package. That monitorin.g project is directed at documentation of fish presence Zw."'ld absence and relative abundance, rather than at the purpose I assumed in my March 28, 2003 memo when I was relying on the permit issued to the County for the sinking of the Spiegel Grove. However, the fact that the primary focus of the monitoring will be fish count does not change my opinion as to the statutory permissibility of the Use of the Boating Improvement Fund as appropriate for the monitoring of the Spiegel Grove. The policy has been interpreted to preclude the use of boating improvement fund for the monitoring, i i : ! ;'f;J. tll,;,S,;!.~OM'~ONROE COUNTY ATTY OJ-'r'ICE ~.~ft~, }r ? ID,30b:.tt:l:.t:.:l51S I PAGE , and would need to be changed if the fund is to be used for any of the uses allowed by ~328.66 which are excluded by the policy. However, the County's Boating Improvement Fund is derived from both the County annual vessel registration fee and the County's portion of the State 811J11ual vessel registration I fee, and a policy could be' established for one sourcetha~ dift'ers from the policy , I set for the other source. . I based my opinion, in part, on the issuance of the ACE permit with the condition that there be monitorin.g which disclosed shifts in position which might cause navigational hazards. However, even the Army Corps of Engineer permit specified that the permit was issued for the placement of materials on the ocean floor primarily for the purpose of constrocting artificial fishing reefs and fish attractors. The ACE permit expired and the County later obtained a NOAA permit to create an artificial reef in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuaxy. That permit also required the submission of a monitoring plan to L'le Sanctuary superintendent and obtaining his written approval for the plan prior to sinking the authorized vessel. The monitoring plan, which was approyed'by the Sanctuary, focused on fish counts and is very similar to the monitoring project specified as the addendum to the REEF monitoring project. As previously noted in my March 28 memo, the statute says that the Boating Improvement Funds may be used for patrol, regulation, and maintenance of the waters and for "other boating- related activities of... It the County. The question then becomes what constitutes boating~related activities? There are four Florida Statutes that use the term "beating-related activities, one AGO, and one case which interprets them. The 2 I, i ( ; i' I_I" i:11r~~ jflS~liOM'HONROE CO,UNTY. A'.LU OJU H.C. ID:~"'w"''''''''~w'b j- '" t ' ! ...~~ .~ t j: i. i; : ~. 1-' i': ~. _.r _, " _', ; :f i -.n ~; r:"; ...-;: OS ,-~, _ ," ,>. I ' . ~. ". ~ -~; i: ~~ dash ~is! not ~levant as it deals with the proltibit;ion of personal watercraft ! ! nearshore. - ! F.S. 327.22(1) sM=mes that nothing,in the dl~pter regarding vessel ' , -"! " , : :,: ': ,:i; ,'; ., , " ",:' ',' :' i- sat~tY prohibits a countY whichexpeIl.dsmoneyfor:rother boating-related activities" from adppting ordinances providing for eqfor~ment of non-crimin~ , , ' , violations of restricted areas. AGO 92:SSopined that, ~'ordinance regulating . . . . f safety equipment on commercial fishing vessels may not be fashioned in such a way as to conflict with state law on the regulation. taking or possession of salt- -"later fish. Although this does not explicitly find fishing to be a boating-related activity, it implies it to be so. Another statute is F.S. 206.606(b) 1. Thc}t statute lumps aquatic plan control with channel marking and "other boating-related activities. '" F.S. 328.66, regarding the County registration fee, is the one which first raised the question for us as to what constitutes a boating-related activity and includes patrol, regulation and maintenance of the waters. ~328.72, F.S., deals with the state vessel registration fee, and provides for a portion of the fee to be paid to the County, to have the County's share used "for the sole purposes of providing recreational channel marking and public launching facilities and cthe:- boating-related activities, ... and for manatee and marine m~JT1ma1 ;-:::-ctection and recovery." This statute seems to have originally been the model fc: the existing policy. Since fishing would seem to be a boating-related activity, especially if aquatic plant control constitutes one under ~206.606, F.S., it is still my opinion t..~at the governing statute would allow the Boating Improvement Fund to be used for the Spiegel Grove monitoring project. However, as previously noted, 3 PAGE i '13.1iIB , I I II' I I t i' ': , : I ' iI I, I' ,I :1 ,I I j; ;1 I ~ ! I ' , ! :! f :1 I , I I 1.1 , , II II L I ,I ; , ! i' " I I i! : : " 10.3052823516 , I I ; . . I . I be amended to reflect that as of the establishment of the County vessel registration fee last year, that portion of the Boating Improvement Fund can be used for more things. The next question is whether TOC funds may legally be used for the monitoring project, and, if so, a third question would pe which of the funds would be the most appropriate for the Spiegel GroV;e monitoring project? f Inasmuch as approximately $768,000 of roc money has already been expended on the Spiegel Grove for its proper scuttling,' it is obvious that the issue of the use of TDe funds vis-a.-vis an artificial reef outside the County's ~ :l:1.sdictional waters has already been addressed and it has been found that . sucn an expenditure is permissible. The original allocation of funding for the Spiegel Grove sinking was deemed to be in the nature of advertising and promotion because of the press coverage that was expected to OCcur when the ship was sunk. Of course, we probably got way more than our money's worth on that one. Over more recent years, the TDC funds came from capital projects money. There is basically a two-prong test for the permissibility of the use of TDe funds. First, the use of the funds bas to be permitted by statute and o.:-tinance. Second, the funds have to have a primary purpose of promoting and a.ivertising tourism in the County. Capital projects are governed by F.S. ~125.0104(5)(a)1 and 4, and (b). TDC funds are primarily used for capi~ projects for acquisition and construction and/or renovation costs. The statute requires that they be for specific types of entities that meet specific criteria. There is a provision allowing TDe funds to be used for maintenance and operation of certain facilities for which actual capital expenditures are permiSsible, but TDC policy has been, for 4 PAGE: '41 :j.....' I L " , I !l i i I L; , I I I. I I ! , i : I i r ll~ it-~~'~~' ~'S::57 FROM:MONROE COUNTY ATTY'OF:F!CE~'lD:30521323516 - -- ~ I ~ II" . ~ for ~ !.~ - , _ ;..~j:" - ! ~:~ rf;: ,;;: ' J 'i ~ :;-~;- - non-profits, to fund only "Bricks and Mortar" type eXPenditures. The uses I' . l ,; : . r include zoological parks, fishing piers, and nature centers. If one can interpret . , the monitoring to actually constitute maintenance 'or dperation, and it has a ~~.e of promnting touri$m, it ,could qulllify,jror TOC expenditures. . HoWever.. there isnothin~ to indicate that the: monjtodng entails any typeo!' ~, ' -.',': t ., , maintenance or operational activity. .Th~ only actirity is the documenting of - ~.~ ~r ~._~ ; - - .. -:. '. _>~: fish cou~ts, which is directed at documenting the kuccessfulness of the establishment of an artificial reef for enhancement of fish life. Only a stretch of t.~e imagination and an assumption that the advertising or PR agencies will shoot photos of fish for advertising pUrposes could bring this within permissible Uses for TDe funds. There is no statutory language governing the zoological parks similar to that found in beach park facilities subsection regarding improvement, renourishment, and restoration. Therefore, those three activities are excluded from permissible uses for a zoological park, acquisition and !; construction of which is the category for which the last half a rnillion dollars V.'2.$ spent. No opinion regarding TDC funds' comes as. close to statutory pennissibility as AGO 92.88 does to support the use of the Boating L"':l,?rovement Fund. Although the BOCC has the prerogative of determining what constitutes a permissible us~ of TDe funds, the AG opinions interpreting the statute have made dear that the Commission cannot merely render something a rose, or a permissible TDe expenditure, in this case, merely by finding it to be so. There has to be a reasonable nexus. In other words, the fact ::::.~": ::-enourishment and restoration are permissible for certain types of facilities (~eacn parks) and not for others (and the fact that the governing statute 5 PAGE 5/8 I : I I ! I I I I I i i I I I " I I I I !l ! i, I j: I I' . , I I li I I ~I I I i \1 I 1 I : : ; i ; . '/ ! I I: I .! I ,:. f... ' 1 1 t:-.P::: -'~2 - 0~ i : ! I ! , . 15,57 FROM.MONROE COUNTY ATT~ UFFICE ID,3~~~~23516 specifically limits the uses to certain things) indie,ates'that those things not enumerated cannot be manipulated by semantics into fitting into a permissible categoIY. By way of example, until the 8tatute was r~sed to include beach I park facilities, artificial structures on beaches were not ,allowable uses of TDC . funds. AGO's 90-55 and 91-62. Further, it must be reiterated that all of the AG opinions specify that there has to be a primary purpose of promoting tourism. Even if it can be reasonably determined 1:\1at the monitoring project is a . permissible USe of TDC funds, it would appear from the foregoing that the Boating Improvement Fund would be a more appropriate Use. There is an alternative, possibly. That is to request the Key Largo Chamber of Commerce to foot the bill, since the capital expenditures were made for their project. TDC policy requires capital funding recipients to be in a position to operate and maintain the project site. Since a monitoring plan was required for the permit, and there were representations that the Chamber .....c.;.ld facilitate a mOnitoring plan, that seems to fall under activities for which :"'1e Chamber should be responsible as a matter ofTDC policy. 6 , PAGE 116/, " ;1 " : i II I ! i . . ~ I I I I I; OKl!~1/ ~~~~~E (305) 294-04641 -hr.R f- rv-Lff" IUU T d Office of the County Attorney PO Box 1026 Key West, FL 33041-1026 305/292-3470 - Phone 305/292-3516 - Fax BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAYOR Dixie M. Spehar, District 1 Mayor Pro Tern, Murray E. Nelson, District 5 George Neugent, District 2 Charles 'Sonny. McCoy, District 3 David P. Rice, District 4 . MEMORANDUM TO: County Commissioners James L. Roberts, County Administrator JDanny Kolhage, Clerk of Court George Garrett, Marine Resources FROM: Suzanne A. Hutton ~ Assistant County Attorney DATE: May 6, 2003 SUBJECT: Spiegel Grove Monitoring I have been requested to forward to you the following materials to help you with your consideration of item U, which was tabled at the April 16 meeting. The materials are (1) a May 2, 2003 memorandum discussing the permissibility of using boating improvement funds or TDC funds for the Spiegel Grove Monitoring; (2) a copy of the National Marine Sanctuary permit; (3) a May 7, 2002 letter approving the biological monitoring plan and (4) said monitoring plan that was submitted to FKNMS on April 17, 2002. The original monitoring plan is in smaller font and therefore more condensed and has a different budget than the one attached to April's item U. Also, included in the monitoring plan attached hereto is the first page of a geographic report for , the Benwood Wreck, which report was included in the original monitoring plan. Since the geographic report is 35 pages long, I am including only the first page as an example. Enclosures TO: MEMORANDUM John R. Collins!1f\ J , oC;( 0 '2--\ O~ County Attorn~\./ Suzanne A. Hutton4 Assistant County Attorney FROM: DATE: May 2, 2003 SUBJECT: Spiegel Grove Monitoring Contract ****************************************** You have asked the question whether TDC funds can be legally used to pay for the monitoring contract with REEF. Item IA was tabled from the April 16 BOCC meeting to address the issue as to whether TDC funds would be a more appropriate source of funding the monitoring contract than the Boating Improvement Fund. Prior to George Garrett placing this item on the agenda, he did obtain from me an opinion that it was permissible under ~328.66, F.S. to use the Boating Improvement Fund for monitoring of the Spiegel Grove. At the time that I rendered the opinion, I did not have a copy of the monitoring plan nor was I aware of a local policy restricting the use of the Boating Improvement Fund. A copy of the monitoring plan is attached to the contract in the agenda package. That monitoring project is directed at documentation of fish presence and absence and relative abundance, rather than at the purpose I assumed in my March 28, 2003 memo when I was relying on the permit issued to the County for the sinking of the Spiegel Grove. However, the fact that the primary \ focus of the monitoring will be fish count does not change my opinion as to the statutory permissibility of the use of the Boating Improvement Fund as appropriate for the monitoring of the Spiegel Grove. The policy has been interpreted to preclude the use of boating improvement fund for the monitoring, and would need to be changed if the fund is to be used for any of the uses allowed by ~328.66 which are excluded by the policy. However, the County's Boating Improvement Fund is derived from both the County annual vessel registration fee and the County's portion of the State annual vessel registration fee, and a policy could be established for one source that differs from the policy set for the other source. I based my opinion, in part, on the issuance of the ACE permit with the condition that there be monitoring which disclosed shifts in position whiCh might cause navigational hazards. However, even the Army Corps of Engineer permit specified that the permit was issued for the placement of materials on the ocean floor primarily for the purpose of constructing artificial fishing reefs and fish attractors. The ACE permit was renewed and the County obtained a NOAA permit to create an artificial reef in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. That permit also required the submission of a monitoring plan to the Sanctuary superintendent and obtaining his written approval for the plan prior to sinking the authorized vessel. The monitoring plan, which was approved by the Sanctuary, focused on fish counts and is very similar to the monitoring project specified as the addendum to the REEF monitoring project. As previously noted in my March 28 memo, the statute says that the Boating Improvement Funds may be used for patrol, regulation, and maintenance of the waters and for "other boating- related activities of...~ the County. The question then becomes what constitutes boating-related activities? There are four Florida Statutes that use the term "boating-related activities, one AGO, and one case which interprets them. The 2 case IS not relevant as it deals with the prohibition of personal watercraft nearshore. F.S. 327.22(1) specifies that nothing in the chapter regarding vessel safety prohibits a county which expends money for "other boating-related activities" from adopting ordinances providing for enforcement of non-criminal violations of restricted areas. AGO 92-88 opined that, an ordinance regulating safety equipment on commercial fishing vessels may not be fashioned in such a way as to conflict with state law on the regulation, taking or possession of salt- water fish. Although this does not explicitly find fishing to be a boating-related activity, it implies it to be so. Another statute is F.S. 206.606(b) 1. That statute lumps aquatic plan control with channel marking and "other boating-related activities." F.S. 328.66, regarding the County registration fee, is the one which first raised the question for us as to what constitutes a boating-related activity and includes patrol, regulation and maintenance of the waters. ~328.72, F.S., deals with the state vessel registration fee, and provides for a portion of the fee to be paid to the County, to have the County's share used "for the sole purposes of providing recreational channel marking and public launching facilities and other boating-related activities, ... and for manatee and marine mammal protection and recovery." This statute seems to have originally been the model for the existing policy. Since fishing\would seem to be a boating-related activity, especially if aquatic plant control constitutes one under ~206.606, F.S., it is still my opinion that the governing statute would allow the Boating Improvement Fund to be used for the Spiegel Grove monitoring project. However, as previously noted, 3 the policy should be amended to reflect that as of the establishment of the County vessel registration fee last year, that portion of the Boating Improvement Fund can be used for more things. The next question is whether TOC funds may legally be used for the monitoring project, and, if so, a third question would be which of the funds would be the most appropriate for the Spiegel Grove monitoring project? Inasmuch as approximately $768,000 of TOC money has already been expended on the Spiegel Grove for its proper scuttling, it is obvious that the issue of the use of TOC funds vis-a.-vis an artificial reef outside the County's jurisdictional waters has already been addressed and it has been found that such an expenditure is permissible. The original allocation of funding for the Spiegel Grove sinking was deemed to be in the nature of advertising and promotion because of the press coverage that was expected to occur when the ship was sunk. Of course, we probably got way more than our money's worth on that one. Over more recent years, the TOC funds came from capital projects money. There is basically a two-prong test for the permissibility of the use of TOC funds. First, the use of the funds has to be permitted by statute and ordinance. Second, the funds have to have a primary purpose of promoting and advertising tourism in the County. Capital projects are governed by F.S. ~125.0104(5)(a)1 and 4, and (b). TOC funds are primarily used for capital projects for acquisition and construction and/or renovation costs. The statute requires that they be for specific types of entities that meet specific criteria. There is a provision allowing TOC funds to be used for maintenance and operation of certain facilities for which actual capital expenditures are permissible, but TOC policy has been, for 4 non-profits, to fund only "Bricks and Mortar" type expenditures. The uses include zoological parks, fishing piers, and nature centers. If one can interpret the monitoring to actually constitute maintenance or operation, and it has a primary purpose of promoting tourism, it could qualify for TOC expenditures. However, there is nothing to indicate that the monitoring entails any type of maintenance or operational activity. The only activity is the documenting of fish counts, which is directed at documenting the successfulness of the establishment of an artificial reef for enhancement of fish life. Only a stretch of the imagination and an assumption that the advertising or PR agencies will shoot photos of fish for advertising purposes could bring this within permissible uses for TOC funds. There is no statutory language governing the zoological parks similar to that found in beach park facilities subsection regarding improvement, renourishment, and restoration. Therefore, those three activities are excluded from permissible uses for a zoological park, acquisition and construction of which is the category for which the last half a million dollars was spent. No opinion regarding TOC funds comes as close to statutory permissibility as AGO 92-88 does to support the use of the Boating Improvement Fund. Although the BOCC has the prerogative of determining what constitutes a permissible use of TOC funds, the AG opinions interpreting the statute have made clear that the Commission cannot merely render something a rose, o"r a permissible TOC expenditure, in this case, merely by [mding it to be so. There has to be a reasonable nexus. In other words, the fact that renourishment and restoration are permissible for certain types of facilities (beach parks) and not for others (and the fact that the governing statute 5 specifically limits the uses to certain things) indicates that those things not enumerated cannot be manipulated by semantics into fitting into a permissible category. By way of example, until the statute was revised to include beach park facilities, artificial structures on beaches were not allowable uses of TOC funds. AGO's 90-55 and 91-62. Further, it must be reiterated that all of the AG opinions specify that there has to be a primary purpose of promoting tourism. Even if it can be reasonably determined that the monitoring project is. a permissible use of TOC funds, it would appear from the foregoing that the Boating Improvement Fund would be a more appropriate use. There is an alternative, possibly. That is to request the Key Largo Chamber of Commerce to foot the bill, since the capital expenditures were made for their project. TOC policy requires capital funding recipients to be in a position to operate and maintain the project site. Since a monitoring plan was required for the permit, and there were representations that the Chamber would facilitate a monitoring plan, that seems to fall under activities for which the Chamber should be responsible as a matter of TOC policy. 6 'El5/El9/2B82 ElB: 55 3B57432357 ~ t'Al.lt. rU/l1tj PAC:iI:. tn /r':. /1':\ : i. \~",/ u.s. On'ARTMENT Of COMMERCB National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL OCEAN SER.VIC~ NATIONAt. MARINE SANC'11JARY PR9GRAM florida I<ey3 National MarlM ~ary P.O. Box 500368 Matathon, FL ~ (305) '43-~437 Voice ,(305) 743-2357 Pax May 8. 2002 Mr. George Curett Director ofMarinc Resources Monroe COtl!lty . 2798 Ovcrseal Highway, Suite 420 M81'lthon, Fl 33050 ~V- /~~v r ~\yv Dear Mr. Garrett: Enclof.ed is PcmUt FKNMs-~-019 to conduct prohibited activities in the . Florida Keys National Marine SIDCtuary.Three copies are enclosed for your signature. Retain One siJlncd copy and carry it with you while conducthlg permitted activities. The two additional copies should be signed ~ returned to the following penlons: Mr. lc,hn HaJas 'Resource Manager PKNMS P.O. E.ox 1083 Key Largo, FL 33037 Mr. John Armor Permit Coordinator NOAA/NMSp (N/ORM6) 1305 Eaat Wcst Highway, #11504 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Please note that a signc;d copy of your permit must be retumcd to tho National Marine Sanctl1ary Program Headquarters witJrln 30 days otissuance. If YOll have any questions about this permit please contact John Halas at the FKNMS Up:?er Region office at (30S) 852~7717. Thank you for your continued cooperation ,lith thp FKNMS. . , . . , l.nj Il.l-ll' 1;.1' ~.~' :.( ~, r- lu) L$;!; \~ ;(~, I. "'./ "., 1 ," -.~ ~~, . I ' ~ . ;~J ' MA y 0 9 ZDDZ' .05/e9/20e2 e8:55 3e57432357 rKNMb r,.,~ 13''':\../0.5' D67AR.TMJiNT OF COMMERCE . : /' . NalioMl ChaNe U1d Atmasp~( AdJninisu.tion \~.. NATIONAL 0C1iAN SERVICE PERMIT FKNMs-2002-019 TO OPERATE IN THE AREA TO BE AVOIDED (ATBA) AND TO CREATE AN ARTmCIALREEFINTBE FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE SANCJ11ARY This pexmit tl issued m accordan~ with the Natie>.1W Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), . 16 use f 14:11, et sell., and. the regulations thereunder (l~ Cf"R Part 922) and the Flotida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act (li'KNMSP A), PI. 101-6OS. All activities shall be conduoted in accotdance with those Iawa and regulations. No actiYity listed in IS l:::n 92.2.163 (aXl) through (13) and 15 CPR 922.164. (a) through (c) is aUowed e)t<;ept opetation in the Area TO. Be Avoided and the deposit and pet1lW1ent placement of a vessel on the seabed wilh14 the Floiida KeyS National Marine Sanctuary (PKNMS or ~anctuaIy). Subject to tht: terms aJUI conditions ofthit permit, Mr. George Oaaett. acting as ~ for the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (l1crcaftcr referred to as the . pc:tmittee), 8:1d. its subcontractor Bay Gulf. IDe., arc hereby permitted to tow the 510> Sutplus VCSlel Spiegel GJ"CI'Ve (hereinafter referred to as c'authorized vessel' into the Area To Be Avoided referred to as "h1 the Vicinity of the .Florida Keys" in the FKNMs, as described In IS CFR 922, Appendix VD to Subpart P, and deposit it On the seabed in otder to establish an artificial reef All activities must be conducted in ICCO~ with the towing aud slntcing pllUl U 8Ubmi~; to the FKNMS on April 4. 2002, the 'Army Cmps of Enlb1eem permit number t~5025S0 (IP.cs) dated March 28, 1996 as amended, the ~ent entitled "Submerged Stability Analysis for the 'Navy Ship Spiegel Grove, Mon;:oe County, Florida" prep~ by 'Coastal Systems :IntematioDal Inc., 811bmiUed on April 9, 1997, the letter frorP the U.S. Coast Guard dated May 6, 2002, and the letter frota the Florida Department of Ru~enta1 Protection dated May 8, 2002. > ? These dOCWI.ents are incoIpOrated by reference to tbls permit and made a part hereof; provi~ however, that if there are any confliQts between thete documents and the terms And conditioJ,:,s of1hJs permit, the terms and conditions of this pennit mall be controlling. No further di:ltUtbance of the cultural or natura1 resources of the Simctuary is allowed. In addition to the abOve teams and CODditions, the following tenDs and conditions apply to this permit: . ~s..2002'()19 . P~8c: 1 of6 . 95/09/2B02 as: 55 3BS7432357 FI<NMS t'Abl:. O.:l Special Conditions 1. This I)ennit is valid from the date it is signed by the Sanctuary Superintendent. The .: nking of the vessel must 04;C;11f' within one year of the dIlte that this permit is valid ; 2. The thllowing activities are allowed: ! a. Tf>\\'ing of tho authorized vessel Into the Area To Be, Avoided (ATBA) during , dE.yUgbt hours onJy; b. D #positing the vessel on the sea bottom within 250 feet of the fonowing ccordinates: !.at. :lSo 04.00' N, Lon. 800 18.70' W (hereafter referred to as "!linking coordinates"); mc~ th~ limited use of intcma1 explosives c(.nsist~t with the Army Corps of F.niinccm pe.rmit number 199502550 (IP- C~) dated March 28, 1996 as aXncnded; and ~ . c. P':rm&nent placement of the aqtborized VC38CI on the seabed. ~ { 3. The Iluthorized vcssol must be!towed' outside the ATBA to the following coordinates: Lit 2S dcg 04.00' N, Lon 80 <leg 11.00' w. At~ those ooordina~, ~l daylight hOUl1 only, the niain tug wiD be joined by a Second tug and the authoized vessel may be towed into the A TBA on a ~ course to the: sinm:.g coordinates. 1"4e authori2ed ves4cl must be undet control of the tugs at aU times and final IlWletlVflrJng and ipoaitioning must occur seaward of and at the siom g coordinates. . 4. A me.:banism for reattaching the tug to the authorized vessel must be employed in rhe Cl'ent it is r1eeessaiy to reposition the artificial ree4 after deployment of the 8J1oho 1'3. J ' 5. An aaxiliary vessel capable of towaos the 8I1i,ficial reef must be ~8 by olWite durln&: the artificial reef placemCll~ to assist as needed in positioning the artificial reef. ... . 6. The 3Jiificial reef !DUSt be sunk uPright with the bow ficiDa south east with tWo (at lCfst 800o-pound) anchon deplQyed off the bow, each auached by chain, and two anchors deployed off the stem of sufficient siD and ground tackle to hold the stem : n position. . 7. The E-=ttee 4Dd its' _gent must. depoQt the vcssc1 within 250 1l of the coordi ~ stated in Special .condition if:1. to ,O'IJ1inflin the planned buffer for sensitive resourCes. Jfneccssary, as determined by the Sanctuary Supcrintenden~ the WiSe{ must be repositioned to;assure this buffer. ' nN~S-2002-019 . Pale 2 0(6 '05/09/2082 88:55 3857432357 FKNM5 'pAGl:, -1j-4 -- 8. The SanctU8ry reserves the right to OVCI'BilQ" direct the Sinkin, . g of the vessel. incbuling the right ~e sinking ~ iriclemtmt weather. unfavorable sea condil ions, or inco~e of the permittee or its agents. Mr. John Halas, RCSOlltce Manager, and/or LCDR Dave Score wiU be the on-site Sanctuaxy representative and must be contacted 24 houtS prior to sinking. They can be, contac=ted at (305) 852-7717. 9. A coordination meeting must be c,PJ1ducted at least one ,week prior to the sinking invo1\ ing, at a mixUntum, the Sp~gel Grove artificial ~ project 1D8DIgCr, Mr. Rob Blesscr, and staff &om the MOIll'OC County Departnlent of Marine llesotrccs, United States Coast CijJard, FKNMS, and any contractors involved in the tallling and 8i11king of the artifiCial ICef. ~ Prior ':0 the detonation of any explosives as part of the ~ plan' thc fOlloWing \. acti~ S must be undertaken to mitigate potentiil cff'cct8 to sea turtles and D181'We \. IDIIDII >>l1s: 10. a. l11fny minutes prior to the planned detonation. a 0.5 nautical mile'l3dJus ~ the vessel will be 'surveyed from the air by a National Marine Fisheries Service approved, obsCIVer to ensure that no inarhle ~1I or sea turtles are present. " b. If IDIriAe mAmQ)~18 or turtles ate spotted within this radius, detonsuon &hall be delayed until the area is clear of these arUraalsi for a period of no 1_ than 30 minute$. ' 11. Addit.onaDy, the following is ~jred a it "relates to the 1ISC of CJCpI~vcs: . a. UpQa cIetonalicm, the ..... i.ru contUmo 10 be lIIIIVeye<! fur Ill> lea lhaQ 30 \ \ / ntinUfes to monitor for adversely impacted mariDe mAmmals or sea turtles. ~ v~ b. The maximum amount of explosives to be used will not exceed 30 pounds . total weight from a minimum of five separate chargeS. : c. A maximum ot eiaht individual blasts will be detllJ'ated at an interval of no lea than 0.9 scconda (900 milliscwnds). ' d Detonation ot explosives WIlt occur no sooner than one hour following sunrise and liD later tban one hour before sunset.' 12. The pt!l'U1ittcs or ita aaent is required to maintain a Jog whilo CtWbll"fiflg permitted acttyjUc:s in the SanctUary. Thc~og must contAio a descriptioQ of towina and .iDldn~ activities by day (mc1~when the vessel entered SauQuary waters) and' coordiaates of the final nlSting s~. Coonllilates must be derived from a global . posiu<1Db1g system (OPS) and inchldo the location of the vessel., bow,:stern. and higb~t point on the bridge 8Upmtlucture. This log must be submitted withU1 30 days after the sinking to: ' FI<:NMS.2002~J9 Paae 3 of6 . -........-...... ....~ I 'B5/89/2BB2 08:55 3857432357 ]6. J7. 18. FI<NMS r/-lUt:. tJbl t1b /"'Abl:. t:lO 13. Mr. John Halas Mr. John Armor Resource Manager Permit Coordinator FKNMs NOAAINMSP (Nl0RM6) P.O. Box 1083 130~ East West Highway, #11504 Key Largo, FL 33037 'SHver Spring, MD 20910 ~ In the e1'e11t ot inclement WMther, r bad sea conditions, or incompete:ace ot the peI'D1iUeo. the towed vessel must J;;~ lbe ATBA and Sanctuary waters Immediately upon reqtlest by the Sanctuuy Supen4tende,nt Or his designee, ~ f In additiol1 to abiding by the terms and conditiODS in this ptmIit, the permiUee must ~ 111 actlvities in 8CCOrdance:. with the Army' CoJps of Engjneers Pctmjt #199S02~.50(IP-CS). ~OJlJu1Y 10, 2000 and apin on lu!y 11, 2001. 14. IS. In the ev.:nt that . storm with Sb$~ winds of arcatu than 60 kDOta 0CCUr3 ~ the fiaalldnldng locauoJ) tor: the IZtiticia1 reef; Or at any time at the request of the . Sancf.uarJ' Superinte.ndcot, the pCnnittcc must resurvey the position of the autbori2ed vellel and ~ . danmgc report. 'i'.bis report must b~ submitted within 30 days of the stonn event or request by the S~tendent and must include. at a minimum, the following information: new coor~ COPS 'positions) for the bow. stem, aDd center, au estimate of the distance ~ authOAUed vessel has moved and din=ction of the movelDCllt. the dislancc frOm "'" cIos..! ln1Il ftaga,e"t '" ';"';tm> 1'010_ I ./ <.........'" hanIbouom, or ani ~ the status of the ln1Il, integrity, ODd the 11-"- disposition of any loose huII~, '.~,,)1 i" The pexmittee is Uahle for fillY ~fo Sanctuary teSOurces Qlued by p~ent 0 ~ tho artificial n:ct in a mll"t't'J mcons_t witb any of these cQndiuoJJS, inc1rvtmg placcmen-: inconsistent with the stability lUlIllysis ~titIed ~ Stability' Analysis Cor the :N'a\IY Ship Spiegel Grove, Monroe County, FJarida" PRp~ by Coutal Systems Intcmational Inc. 8I),d. submitted on April 9, 1997 that results in m~vemC1l: or collapse of the authoriZed vessel. This docwnent is on file at the FKNMs (lftiCC in Key Largo, FlOrida.i The perm:.ttee m~bmit a monitoring plan to the SanCCUaly ~tendent and~ his ~ ~I for thfI plan' ~or to: lIinlring the Authorized vesacL The ~ must CDJUre that this moni~ plan is implemented as described in the plan. Tb. SIDCtwIry. Superint=1deAt~J1\USt approve my ch~: to the monitoring plan in mitJDg at least 30 daYB prlor~ mc.b d18.uge biking e1fect If it is ~ n=asary to deviate from the monitQJing plan while monitoring is in progress, the petmittee must notify and consult \Vi~' the Sanctuary Superintendent or hla designee. vi ~ . J 10\ o~~k >~ The penn:.ttec must cn.sun: that aD reports rcquimf under Uie approVed JJlOajtoring plan required by S~ Condition #.7 are submitted consistent with the plan. All repom Dlust be submitted to the persons listed in Special Condition '#12. I FXNMS-2002-Q.9 hire 'ht6 . ~r\t... '.6.1 '''''' L./'L..J I . 85/09/2002 as: 55 3057432357 6. 7. FK/'f<1S t"Abl:. tll/ 1:lt1 t'AbI:. Ctl General Co IIdttions 1. All pl~rsons participating in activi,ries conducted under this permit mUSt bo under the Slpervision of th" pemtittec: ~d rhe pCnnittee i3 rcsponsibl~ for cnauring that all persons acting under this perm~ are 1\1Jly'aware of its terms and condjti~, n l' This pcim.it iB non~traJuferable and must. be C8tJ'icd by the penni~ or his agent at all times while qagi"8 in any.acdvity authorized by this pe.nnJt and must be displt.yed in a prominent location ion any VMSel(s). 2. 3. NOAA. resents the right to have an observer(a) aboard the pcrmittects Or pennittee'. agent's vessel durina, aJJ activities authorized by. this permit The NOA!\ Observer(s) will document the permittee's sndits agent's activities fOt:. the purpc se of determining whether the expedition was conducted in aooordance with the tcnns EU1d conditien.s of this p~t and the applicable stat1Itc and regulations. The NOM ObsetVet(s) tnaY also provide limited advice 8I1d tec1micat wistance. it req Jestecl by the pctmjttcc or its agent. The NOM ObserveJ(s) wilt not be preseJJt for the purposes of Davi8~O~ safety or ~ of perinittec9, nor for the ptJJp<lse of BpprOva1 of activities dot specifically authorized by this pennit . Vi' The penulttee IlId ms agent._ is,.. to bold !he United Stales IwmIeu aaofust ,.,v.. any Bnd all c~ arising so'ely o~t ot their coodnct of the permiUcd actiVities. \}. J 4. 5. This )ennit may be 811Bpended, revoked, or modified for violation of the terms and conditions of thi3 permit, the NMSAt the' FKNMSP A, regulations there under I or for other good C8U1e shown. Such action must be ootnmunicated in writh:g to tho permittee, and 1J\ust set furth.the rcason(s) for the action takcD. This permit may be suspende~ revoked or modified if requirements from previuus pennies issued to the pennittee are not iblfilled by their due date. Penult applications for any future work by. the permittee may not be ccmsidcrcd untiI aU rcqu1zmtents from dUs pe1"n)it are Mtincd. .. , If the P=Iittee, his &geQt, or IllY !-on I<Ifng undcf their SU/JCn'lslon conducts, or cat~es to be conducted, any ~vity in ~. Sanctuary not in accordance with the telms and conditions set forth in this permit, or otherwise violates such terms and conditions or tbia permit, dt the applicable statute and resuJ.afions, dle PemUltee, ita agent, and sudl persOn muat be subject to civil ~altjcs, forfejtum, COBtst anti an other remedies Under the NMSA, th.e PKNMSP A. and the regulations at 15 CFR. Part 922. . ~S-2002-o19 Page 5 0'6 ~ B5/09/2B02 68:55 3B57432357 1-'-HI'il~.l.I'l\:I Utr I FKNMS PAGE E1B/E1B I-'Abl:. tl ( . i 8. Shouli the pennittec wish to modify this permit to complete activities authorized under this permit the permittee m~t request so in writing. A written request (or the m.>dificatiOJ) must be 8ubmitte~ to Mr. John Hala$ at least 30 days befon: the date of proposed modified activiti~. The request must descn"bc: the natUre of the modification, a' detailed d~ption of the need and purposo for the moctific;atfon . and all ClUlselop and reportS JOqIIlrcd UIIder Spc:cia1 Collditi\lll!l #12 and 1117. . ~ 9. Tbio llODllil shaD DOl "" vaJid lIIIless prior 10 Ibo COlldutt of ~ lIC1ivlties allowed \ \! It'. by th:.s permit tho permittee JUbmjts a COpy of the signed pennit to Mr. John l~. l'? HaJas and Mr. John Armor.' \F 10. This permit docs not relieve the permitteo of l'CSpOJ1SibiIity to comply with all Other applicable Federal, State af1d loCa1laws and teguJations, and this pennit is not \1J1id until all other DecetSIUy permits and/or authori%atloDS ate obtained. Ii . . ;: 11. Any ~uestion of interpretation of. any term! or CODdition 'of this permit shaJ1 be resolved by NOAA. r I . Signature by the Pennit holc:tCl' indicatelltun acceptance- or the ~ and conditiOlU of this petmit -v George Garrc:tt Date Director of Marine ResoUl'Ces Monroe Collnty d/3/e- " t :i ~ FKNM:S.~OOz..o J? P~p 60(6 04/22/2003 16:04 305-289-2536 PLANNING DEPT PAGE 02/02 r~~ \~/ u.s. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NatiOMl 0ceaNc and Atm08pheric Admini.tr.ti01'\ NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE NATIONAL MARINE SANcruARY PROGRAM Fl0rid41<eys NatiOMl M'lrine Sanctuary P.O. b 500368 Mu.thon, FL 33000 (305) 7.f3..2431 Voice (305) 743-2357 Pax May 7, 2002 Dear Mr. Garrett: This l(:tter serves as approval of the biological monitoring plan for the Spiegel Grove Artificial Reefproject submitted to FKNMS by the Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF) on April I?, 2002. This approval is issued to you in accordance with Special Condition 17 in FKNMS Permit FKNMS"2002-o19. AB the pemrit holder for this project, y:m will be responsible for ~ng the monitoring plan is implemented as described and reports submitted on schedule. . Thank you for your continued cooperation with the FKNMS. We look forward to the reports atld trust the data will provide ~useful information on the function of the artificial reef as it relates to reef fish recruitment from surrounding habitats. Sincerely, Billy D. Caus'~Y Superintendent Spiegel Grove Monitoring Plan Summary The Upper Keys Artificial Reef Foundations (UKARF) has arranged with the Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF) to conduct pre-deployment and periodic monitoring of the Spiegel Grove and adjacent natural and artificial reef sites. Monitoring will document fish presence/absence and relative abundance at 8 sites during 7 monitoring schemes in year one and then annually thereafter. Summary reports will be provided following year one data analysis and every five years thereafter. This document outlines the UK.ARF monitoring plan to be carried out by REEF. Background . The Spiegel Grove is a 510' LSD to be placed as an artificial reef structure in the waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. When submerged, the vessel will be the largest ship ever intentionally scuttled to create an artificial reef. The site is located at position 2504.000' / 80 18.650' and lies offshore of the main reef tract between Molasses Reef and Elbow Reef in Key Largo. The site is pending final approval from the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Pursuant to this approval, a plan for pre-deployment and periodic monitoring must be in place. The Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF), is a 501 c (3) non-profit organization focusing on the collection of fish diversity and abundance data by utilizing volunteer divers trained in visual identification of local species. REEF's programs are in place throughout the Tropical Western Atlantic, Coastal North America, the Gulf of California, and Hawaiian waters. REEF's database containing over 40,000 individual fish surveys is the largest database offish sightings in the world. REEF maintains numerous contracts with State of Florida, National Park Service, National Marine Sanctuary and Coastal Zone Management agencies to monitor fish populations in Sanctuaries, Parks, artificial reefs and other sites of interest to management and scientific concerns. Data collected during these contracts are entered into REEF's on-line database and summary reports are made available to the general public as well as researchers, scientists and managers. Purpose It is anticipated that with the sinking of the Spiegel Grove, a change in fish community structure on the sinking site will take place. This monitoring plan will document the changes in fish presence/absence and abundance over time at the site. In addition, 7 nearby reef sites will be sampled to determine any corresponding changes to fish populations on those sites. Additional studies being undertaken to document user patterns can be combined with this data to help show what effect, if any, the newly placed structure may have on fish community structure. Methods Roving Diver Technique (RDT). The RDT is a non-point visual survey method specifically designed to generate a comprehensive species list along with frequency and abundance estimates. During ROT surveys, divers swim freely throughout a dive site and record every observed fish species. At the conclusion of each survey, divers assign each recorded species one of four 10glO abundance categories [single (1); few (2-10), many (11-100), and abundant (>100)]. Following the dive, each surveyor records the species data along with survey time, depth, temperature, and other environmental information on a REEF scansheet. The scansheets are returned to REEF, and the data are loaded into the REEF database that is publicly-accessible on the Internet at htto://www.reef.org. Once entered into the REEF database, data are displayed by geographic location, including a complete species list, Sighting Frequency of each species and Density index of abundance for each species. (%SF = number of surveys reporting species / total number of surveys at that site Density score = [(Ilgxl)+(nFx2)+(n~x3)+(nAx4)] / (ng + nF + n~ +nA), where n is the number of times each abundance category was assigned) Data summary reports can also be generated for side by side site comparison and summary by species. Sampling scheme The survey team will be made up of REEF Advanced Assessment Team members who have all achieved a level 4 or 5 experience level and have considerable experience and expertise in surveying local fish populations. Eight sites (see table 1) representing the Spiegel Grove sinking site, 6 adjacent natural reefs and 1 artificial reefwill be surveyed prior to deployment. Following deployment, the Spiegel Grove artificial reef and the remaining 7 sites will be surveyed monthly for the first three months, quarterly for the following three quarters and yearly thereafter. This scheme represents a total of7 monitoring sessions in year 1. Table 1. Monitoring sites Benwood Ledge (60-100') Dixie Shoals Shallows (20') Rocks next to Spiegel Grove site (125') 2503.155/8019.970 2504.145' / 8019.315' 2504.180' / 80 18.730' 25 04.308' / 80 18.909' 2503.160 / 8020.020 2504.213' / 80 18.971' 2504.000' / 80 18.650' 2504.610' / 80 18.935' Red Can Ledge (60-100') Benwood (30') Dixie Shoals Ledge (60-100') Spiegel Grove site (130') Red Can shallows (25') Site descriptions The 8 sites to be surveyed represent a broad range of nearby natural and artificial structure. The Speigel Grove site is represented by barren, level sand bottom with a depth of approximately 130'. The closest structure to this site is a small patch of rocky substrate located approximately 2/1 Oths of a mile from the proposed sinking location in a depth of approximately 125'. The nearest substantial reef structures are the natural reef edges at Dixie Shoals and the Red Can buoy approximately 4/1 Oths of a mile shoreward of the sinking site. These reefs are sloping drop-offs are represented by low profile hardbottom with sparse coverings of small corals and sponges. Approximately 7/l Oths of a mile inshore from the sinking site, lie Dixie Shoals Shallows and the Red Can Shallows, 2 hardbottom areas of moderate rugosity represented by low profile structure and moderate coral cover. These sites represent the nearest shallow water coral reef communities to the sinking site. More than 1 mile to the south lies another steeply sloping drop-off and the wreck of the Norwegian freighter Benwood. This site represents the closes artificial reef and harbors a large diversity and abundance of fish. Additional historical baseline data collected as part of the REEF program (more than 2,150 surveys) are available for the surrounding high profile reefs including Molasses, French, Elbow, Key Largo Dry Rocks and Grecian Rocks. Reporting Following year 1 monitoring, a summary report will be produced outlining temporal changes in species composition and populations on the Spiegel Grove site. In addition, analysis of the 7 reference sites will be conducted to document any change in composition or abundance at those locations. Summary data reports will be generated from the REEF database (see fig 1) as well as site similarity comparisons (fig 2). Budget Dive support (4 charters@ 1,200 for pre-deployment) Dive support (4 dive charters @600.00 x 6 events in yr 1) Materials (survey forms, ulw paper, etc) Data scanning and analysis Staff time in kind 14,400.00 500.00 3,000.00 5.000.00 22,900.00 Figure 1. Geographic report showing fish sighting frequency and density measures from Benwood wreck available on REEF website II REEF HOME \ ABOUT REEF II DATA II MEMBER SERVICES II WEB RESOURCES II SEARCH Geographic Report Region TW A Geographic Zone 34030011 (Henwood Wreck)