CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT REPORT FOR REOPENING DUNEDIN PASS FOR THE CITY OF CLEARWATER
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT REPORT
FOR
REOPENING DUNEDIN PASS
FOR THE
CITY OF CLEARWATER
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents documentation of historical Dunedin Pass and benefits and costs
associated with opening the pass.
Dunedin Pass was closed to navigation in 1979 and fully closed in 1988, although some water
exchange by overwash occurred as recently as 1991. Navigation charts dating to 1883,
identify a navigable pass - known then as Big Pass - in the general location of Dunedin Pass.
In this century, dredging and filling of Clearwater Harbor has occurred for the construction
of causeways and to create lands and canals. Filling of the harbor altered the flow of water
within Clearwater Harbor and resulted in a reduced ability of Dunedin Pass to maintain
itself by scouring and to maintain the ebb shoal. Surveys performed for this study indicate
that the extensive ebb shoal which existed offshore of the pass in 1950, has almost entirely
migrated landward and nourished adjacent beaches. The landward migration of the historic
ebb shoal caused additional sediment deposition which, in conjunction with the reduced
hydraulic efficiency, led to the closure of the pass. As such, the closure of Dunedin Pass
might not be considered a "natural event" but due to unnatural dredge and fill activities.
Prior to the closure of the pass in 1988, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
conducted a study of Dunedin Pass to determine whether improvements were justified. The
USACE concluded that an expanded and maintained channel are economically justified. In
1984, applications for permits were submitted by Pinellas County for the removal of shoals
within the pass. The 1984 permit application received a negative response and ultimately
was withdrawn by the County. On November 21, 1990, a joint permit application was
submitted by Pinellas County to the DER, the USACE, and State of Florida Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) "to re-establish a navigable connection between north Clearwater
Harbor and the open Gulf of Mexico." The proposed new connection was about 1,500 feet
south of the most recent "natural' location of the pass. The application received negative
comments from environmental permitting agencies; the application was subsequently
withdrawn and permitting efforts ceased. Local interest and continued needs have prompted
the City of Clearwater to initiate this report to evaluate the opening of Dunedin Pass.
A conceptual plan for opening Dunedin Pass has been developed and is recommended as
the optimal plan. The recommended plan calls for excavation of the pass at the location
where the pass most recently existed. A 335 foot wide channel is recommended as a
hydraulically stable channel; the channel would be expected to remain open after initial
construction. To prevent migration of the reopened pass and to provide for reliable
navigation, bulkheads or rock revetments are recommended on each side of the pass throat.
A sediment trap is recommended within the mouth of the pass to provide for sand transfer
by trapping, dredging, and disposal of sediment on the downdrift beach. The estimated total
initial cost of the recommended conceptual plan is $2.55 million. It is expected that the
pass would require dredging as frequently as every two years at an estimated cost of
$500,000. Monitoring costs are estimated at $100,000 per year for the first 3 years after
construction and $50,000 per year thereafter.
1
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Public benefits expected with the opening of Dunedin Pass include; navigation
improvements, reduced bridge openings at the Memorial Causeway Bridge and the
Clearwater Pass Bridge, improved control of pedestrian access to Caladesi Island State Park,
improvements to water quality in Clearwater Harbor, potential reduced human disturbance
of bird nesting and foraging activities near the pass, and potential restoration of habitat
surrounding the pass. At a public hearing on April 25, 1994, public interests expressed
towards opening the pass were primarily relative to improved water quality and associated
environmental enhancement, and secondly relative to improved navigation. The existing
data indicates that navigation benefits are the primary tangible benefits which would be
realized with the opening of the pass. Existing data predominantly indicates that Clearwater
Harbor meets State water quality standards and has a similar quality to that of the nearshore
waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
State and Federal regulatory stall have indicated that the existing data does not provide a
compelling demonstration of sufficient public benefits to justify opening Dunedin Pass
under existing State statutes and rules. To further document benefits towards opening the
pass, the following recommendations are made for immediate action by the City to proceed
with this project:
1) As a management tool for Clearwater Harbor, a hydrodynamic/water quality
model should be developed to evaluate possible improvements to the water
quality in Clearwater Harbor associated with stormwater improvements,
bridge/causeway improvements, and/or reopening the pass. This model is
estimated to cost $250,000 and require 2 years to develop.
2) To further define expected navigation improvements, a navigation study
should be performed at an estimated cost of $50,000; this study is expected to
require 6 months to complete.
and, 3) Data collection and field studies should be performed to identify seasonal
(summer) sea turtle nesting and bird nesting/foraging data. These studies are
estimated to cost $12,500 and require 6 months to complete.
Subsequent to completion of these efforts and if the studies reveal more tangible and
compelling public benefits, then permit applications should be prepared and submitted.
Permitting costs are estimated at $538,500 for work required to the point of intended State
agency action including the items recommended above. If a hearing is required, an
additional $300,000 to $400,000 may be required to obtain permits.
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECT
PAGE
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
Authorization ................................................ 1-1
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Scope ...................................................... 1-1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
CHAPTER 2: Public Interest Assessment
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Public Access and Navigation .................................... 2-2
Public Safety and Welfare ....................................... 2-7
Public Land Management ....................................... 2-8
Water Quality ................................................ 2-9
Avifaunal (Bird) Use of Dunedin Pass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
Habitat Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
CHAPTER 3: Alternatives
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Design Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
"Stable" Channel .............................................. 3-2
Maximum Historical Pass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
Reopen the Closed Pass ........................................ 3-3
Previously Proposed Location (Pinellas County, 1990) ......... . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Adjacent Beaches ............................................. 3-7
Erosion "Hot Spots" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Ebb Shoal ................................................... 3-9
Jetties ..................................................... 3-10
Weir and Deposition Basin ..................................... 3-13
Channel Revetments and a Sand Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
CHAPTER 4: AgencyIPublic Comments
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Agency Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Public Hearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
i i i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
CHAPTER 5: Recommendations
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Physical Improvements ......................................... 5-1
Permit Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
CHAPTER 6: References
APPENDIX A - Elements Required Under Chapter 16B-41.008 (1) (m)
APPENDIX B - Water Quality and Sediment Sampling by CH2M Hill
APPENDIX C - Avifaunal Study by Biological Research Associates
APPENDIX D - Sieve Analysis Results
APPENDIX E - Conference Reports
APPENDIX F - April 25, 1994 Public Hearing Minutes
iv
I
I
I
I 1.1
2.1
2.2
I 2.3
2.4
2.5
I 3.1
3.2
3.3
I 3.4a
3.4b
I 3.5a
3.5b
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Regional Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-3
Regional Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 2-3
Dunedin Area Marinas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
Water Quality Sampling .............................. 2-10
Seagrass Coverage .................................. 2-18
November 1993 Regional Aerial Photo ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-19
Maximum Limits Historical PasslPreviously Proposed Location . . 3-4
Reopen the Pass Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-5
Adjacent Beach Dredge Disposal ........................ 3-8
Jetty and Weir Section - Plan View ..................... 3-11
Proposed North Jetty and Weir Section Construction -
Typical Cross-Sections ............................... 3-12
Channel Revetments and Sand Trap - Plan View ........... 3-14
Channel Revetments and Sand Trap - Cross-Section . . . . . . . .. 3-15
v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
2.1 Prospective Recreational Boating within the Study Area ....... 2-5
2.2 Prospective Benefitted Boats ............................ 2-5
2.3 Local Marina Interviews ............................... 2-6
2.4 Bridge Opening Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-7
2.5 Dollar or Fuel Savings Per Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-8
2.6 Comparison of Water Quality Data...................... 2-11
2. 7 Water Quality Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-13
2.8 Bird Use (FGFWFC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-14
2.9 Historic and Current Avifaunal Use of Dunedin Pass ........ 2-15
3.1 Design Vessel Dimensions ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2 Alternatives Summary Table ........................... 3-17
4.1a Groups in Support - Summary of Comments ................ 4-2
4.1b Groups in Opposition - Summary of Comments ..... . . . . . . . . . 4-3
5.1 Permit Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
vi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
1. INTRODUCTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. INTRODUCTION
Authorization: This report is authorized by an agreement dated October 11, 1993
between the City of Clearwater and Coastal Technology Corporation. The
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Clearwater has been approved by the State. The
Plan identifies "dredging of Dunedin Pass" as an infrastructure improvement that is
''part of the local coastal zone management element for purposes of consistency with
applicable State law" (Policy 21.6.7). The Plan also identifies "Restoration and
enhancement of. . . beach areas shall be by . . . sand which is obtained from dredging
Dunedin Pass" (Policy 20.2.1).
Purpose: Dunedin Pass was closed to navigation in 1979 and fully closed in 1988,
although some water exchange by overwash occurred as recently as 1991. The City
of Clearwater has determined that it is desirable to open Dunedin Pass. The
purpose of this report is to present results of data collection and analysis relative to
documentation of historical Dunedin Pass and relative to benefits and costs
associated with opening Dunedin Pass. This report provides a conceptual evaluation
of an opened Dunedin Pass, a summary of discussions with regulatory agencies in
a pre-application conference, and recommendations for opening Dunedin Pass.
Scope: An assessment of public benefits and costs, and demonstration of necessity
and net public benefit, are critical to obtainment of the permits and easements
needed to open Dunedin Pass. Chapter 2 addresses a Public Interest Assessment.
Specifically, public benefits are addressed; costs will be added to Chapter 2 upon
identification of a recommended plan. Costs are qualitatively addressed in
Chapter 3 - which addresses alternatives.
The maximum extent of the historical pass is identified as a possible range for the
location of the pass in Chapter 3. Two alternative locations for a minimum channel
are also presented. Alternative locations are presented for disposal of dredge
material and possible mitigation of future beach impacts that may be attributable to
an opened pass. Structural alternatives for stabilizing the pass are also presented.
Chapter 4 includes agency permit requirements and comments as cited at the pre-
application conference. Chapter 4 also includes public comments obtained at a
public hearing in Clearwater.
Chapter 5 cites recommendations for City action towards opening Dunedin Pass.
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Background: Historical Dunedin Pass is located on the west coast of Florida within
Pinellas County as shown in Figure 1.1. Navigation charts dating to 1883, identify
a navigable pass - known then as Big Pass - in the general location of Dunedin Pass
(see Figure 1.1). Natural channels extend from the historical pass to the Intracoastal
Waterway. In this century, dredging and filling of Clearwater Harbor has occurred
for the construction of causeways and to create lands and canals. Filling of the
Harbor has altered the flow of water within Clearwater Harbor (DEAN, 1990) and
has resulted in a reduced ability of Dunedin Pass to maintain itself by scouring and
also to maintain the ebb shoal. Surveys performed for this study indicate that the
extensive ebb shoal which existed offshore of the pass in 1950, has almost entirely
migrated landward. It is believed that the landward migration of the historic ebb
shoal caused additional sediment deposition which, in conjunction with the reduced
hydraulic efficiency, led to the closure of the pass. As such, the closure of Dunedin
Pass might not be considered a "natural event" but due to unnatural dredge and fill
activities. The tidal hydraulics and coastal processes of the historic pass are
discussed in detail in Appendix A.
Prior to the closure of the pass in 1988, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
conducted a study of Dunedin Pass to determine whether improvements were
justified (USACE, 1985). The USACE concluded that an expanded and maintained
channel are economically justified. The USACE report recommended Federal
participation in funding be authorized by Congress if permits are obtained for the
work. Permits were never obtained and the project did not proceed.
In 1984, applications for permits were submitted by Pinellas County for the removal
of shoals within the pass. The 1984 permit application received a negative response
from the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER); the local
Regional Planning Council recommended denial; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USF&WS) cited potential adverse impact to foraging habitat of the "pipling plover"
(a threatened species) and encouraged the use of Hurricane Pass and Clearwater
Pass to meet navigation needs. Prior to resolution of issues, this application was
withdrawn by the County.
In March, 1989, the ballot for elections held within the City included a "straw ballot"
question regarding whether the pass should be opened. A total of 5,541 voted for
opening the pass; 2,793 voted against opening the pass.
On November 21, 1990, a joint permit application was submitted by Pinellas County
to the DER, the USACE, and State of Florida Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). The application requested permits "to re-establish a navigable connection
between north Clearwater Harbor and the open Gulf of Mexico." The proposed new
connection cited in the application was about 1,500 feet south of the most recent
"naturaf' location of the pass. The application cites this location as desirable so as
1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
............................ ...........................h
....... .................. ..<...... .... .........>t!
............. ........................................> .......... ........
< . >". ....... ....... ..... ......................... ............
..... ........... .... ....\. ....................J 0
... ........... . .... ........ ........... ... ..... . ........... .... ............ ........ ....... . .......... ...... ........................\ ....................... '.' 1/
................. ....... .....................j\., /
..................... ......... '. St. '" U .,,,::; >J II.
........ ........ .................. ....................................................... ":'
..... .... ...., i r\ ~ ... \ (;J
.......nvNI:.YMr lC IN. ........\ ,~l
..... .............. .....i ......<::LANO.... ....., ( ......... ............ .Ii ...... yu~' l"
....... .... ....... ...... > ...........j to.. ................t. ........ '. '.
........... ..' .................... .................... ....................1 ......
.................... ........... "i." ........... ................ "'~08 .......i' ....... ........
........... ............. ............... ................ ........................ ..........~~ x\ D
...... ...... .................................... .............. ........... "'100 I (' AN r- ....~....... ......~ .......
........... ..........., ..... .n. ~::.:~ 'J ....... j ~
O ............... < .....10/ .........
....... ..' "1\ ...... ......
....... .... ............. ........1\
Co) ............... ........... < ............................' ..........,0
................. .~ .......< ...........> .....('/:" A ,Ii ........... ...... ...
....\ R .......................... ..... ........... 1<:::1 A~ I .................
<J) ............. .' . ...... ..........~ c' /.
... ........ ~ ........ ............................ DUNEDIN /.:i, DUNEDIN
....... ................................ PASS; ~ \i, .........~
..... ...... ....... .......... ................. ........................1\ ./'
................................ > ........................ ..... } ......g .'.
............. ........>... .............. .......... ^~. ....... tvi\ .......
........ ...... ............................ .........( "" t.t< [\\")'~ )
.. '.' Ar:H ......... r r::
..... ~o ........>. ~
.... ................... .~ ~
......... ~
.. ..... ...~ .~ wAT', K
..... ..............;. c:" ..............O~
.. ........ ...... ...............................,..'-'-' ~ .~~,.
...... < .................. .............. ........ ........... ............ ........, .... ;:/~
..... ............ ........ ................ ....... '.' ..... ............ ................. ...... 0';'///1
< ......UI
.............................. ~ ...<-Itp
.......... -.;1< ~~;
............. ~< ............... ........................................., ~~I
~ .................. .......} .................... ( I)
~1-1 ~AI. I lap
K: 'V
.f ~~.f4
~2~
\ '" ;j '/
Pinellas
County
CLEARWATER
II
....
:.
';~l
Regional Map
........
.......
Figure 1.1
1-3
o '/2 1 2
I
~
~
CO
3
I
Scale in lAiles
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to minimize adverse impact to natural resources and improve stability of the pass.
The application received negative comments from environmental permitting agencies.
On February 12, 1991, the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners voted
to withdraw the application; the application was subsequently withdrawn and
permitting efforts ceased. Renewed local interest and continued needs have
prompted the City of Clearwater to initiate this report to evaluate the opening of
Dunedin Pass.
1-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. PUBLIC INTEREST ASSESSMENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. PUBLIC INTEREST ASSESSMENT
General: To obtain a State of Florida Dredge and Fill Permit for opening Dunedin
Pass, the City "must provide reasonable assurance that the project will be clearly in the
public interest" (Sec 403.918 FS). To obtain easements for the proposed channel on
sovereignty lands of the State, within the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve, the City
must demonstrate that reopening Dunedin Pass is "necessary ... to enhance the quality
or utility of the preserve or the public health generally" (Ch 72-663, Laws of Florida).
These requirements are formally addressed in a "Public Interest Assessment to
determine whether ... benefits clearly exceed the costs" of a project (Chapter 18-20
FAC).
A primary focus of this report is to address public benefits and costs. In conjunction
with this report, data was collected to demonstrate the extent of public benefits and
costs towards assessment of the feasibility and, if appropriate, towards providing a
basis for permits to open the pass.
Opening Dunedin Pass may result in the following public benefits:
a) public access to the Gulf of Mexico;
b) improved public safety and welfare associated with reduced SR 60
bridge openings;
improved public land management associated with controlled access to
Caladesi Island State Park;
improved public navigation associated with reduced travel times to the
Gulf of Mexico and reduction of congestion at other passes;
improved water quality and tidal flushing within Clearwater Harbor;
restoration of the natural habitat surrounding the historical pass;
improved habitat for endangered and/or threatened species.
c)
d)
e)
f)
and, g)
Opening Dunedin Pass may also result in the following public costs:
a) degraded water quality during construction associated with dredging
operations;
b) reduction of natural habitat associated with physical construction of the
pass;
and, c) harm to endangered or threatened species habitat.
The costs associated with opening of the pass are identified in this section of this
report. Costs are addressed in greater detail under Alternatives (Chapter 3).
Following a pre-application conference with regulatory agencies, the costs associated
with the recommended alternative are cited at the end of this section to complete
the public interest assessment. All alternatives are assumed to result in the benefits
described in this section..
2-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BENEFITS
Public Access and Navigation: Prior to 1979, historical Dunedin Pass was the main
navigation passageway between the Gulf of Mexico and Clearwater Harbor for the
portion of the harbor between the Dunedin Causeway and the Clearwater Memorial
Causeway (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). Natural channels from the historical pass extend
to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW). There are two Federal navigation projects
in close proximity to historical Dunedin Pass:
1) The West Coast ICWW running north and south through Clearwater
Harbor and St. Joseph Sound;
and, 2) Clearwater Pass Channel to the Gulf of Mexico.
At present, Dunedin Pass is closed; Hurricane Pass is navigable only by small craft
(ATM, 1993) and Clearwater Pass is the only maintained navigation channel in the
area. The Hurricane Pass Inlet Management Plan cites that Hurricane Pass is
navigable only by small craft. Bathymetric contour charts indicate an existing
limiting channel depth of -9 feet relative to MSL (ATM, 1993) but, discussions with
Caladesi Park personnel and local marina operators, indicate that severe shoaling
is occurring at Hurricane Pass which is causing the channel to become more narrow
and unreliable. Material is accumulating near channel marker 3 at the pass
entrance. Beach nourishment material placed on Honeymoon Island could be the
source of this material.
The design depth of the Federally maintained channel at Clearwater Pass is -8' MSL
(USACE, 1985). Vessels, with a draft greater than 4 feet, north of the Clearwater
Memorial Causeway and south of the Dunedin Causeway, must pass through two
bascule bridges to reliably access the Gulf of Mexico - at Clearwater Memorial
Causeway (SR 60) with a 90 feet span and a vertical clearance of 25 feet and
Clearwater Pass Bridge (CR 183) with a 50 feet span and a vertical clearance of 24
feet.
There are at least 11 commerciaVmunicipal marinas in the area and two boat ramps
(Figure 2.2). In 1985, the USACE estimated that there were approximately 2,328
recreational boats in the Dunedin Pass area - based on a physical boat count and
estimated ramp and transient boat use (USACE, 1985). The 2,328 boats accounted
for about 7.7 percent of the total boats registered in Pinellas County. Table 2.1
presents the prospective recreational boating within the study area (Honeymoon
Island to Clearwater Pass) as estimated by the USACE based on 1980 data. Actual
1990 boat registrations in Pinellas County were 44,624.
2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o 1/2 1
I
o
C,,)
.~
~
~
~
~
~
~
c.b
Scale in IoAlles
" k ...............
I ,..... >>..........
o (.... ...... ........ ..... ... .........
CALADESI ~ a ~.... ................... ........ ....... ....... .....
ISLAND .'.
f: ~",,"
Historical_____ .1' ~I DUNEDIN
.............:i' ,! ......
Dunedin Pass ll' >'\ I ............>>..... .......... ...............
Location ~b (): ..........ii\\ ............................................
) '\).2/ ............... ........ .......\
CLEARWATER ( t'1 o. .. ....
BEACH .x:/
?l I
::> j I
~J
-/
\
St. Joseph
SOU'\d
HONEYMOON $,
ISLAND ~ /0
h
""...."'.~
HURRICA~[J....
PASS
\
\
CLEARWATER
PASS
I I
/..
BELLEAIR
SHORES
7
Jo",
)3........-; I .
~i .................. ......... .....
Ji [-..i\ ......... ............. .........
~ .................. ...... ...........
....
INDIAN
ROCKS
BEACH
.~,,:
1/\.,.,:,,'
~) ...
.....
I
.:................ .....
............
2
3
I
From Pinellos County Street Mop
......
Regional Map
Figure 2.1
2-3
~> .....>
.( i..............................................
<1 .............. ......
~ ......... ...............
~.
I ........
.......
"
...
... ......
....... ..
. ..: ....
.. .. .....
I ........
\ "'- ........... ..... ........ ..........
if ....... ..... ......... .....
....... ............... ..............
...... .............. ........
......................... ........
................................ .............
............................
..
.....
...................
/
Cfr
.:......
....: ...
...
..... ...........
....... ...........:
..
r.
CLEARWATER
......:..
.............
.......... ......
.....
.:..
............:
..:..:... .....
...:..:.........:...
.................................................
..
.
. .
... ..:........ .....
............................... .........................>. ......
..................... ........... ........................... .........> .....
........ ..... ...... ............. .........
.:.
.
.....
'.:
.:.:
i. .
...............
.........
..... .......
...
.:.: ..
Source : USGS Quod Mop
for Pinellos County, FL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o 1/4 1/2
I ' ,
Scale in Miles
o
CALADESI
ISLAND
Historical
Dunedin Pass
Location
CLEARWATER
BEACH
ISLAND
Dunedin Area Marinas
Figure 2.2
2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2.1: PROSPECTIVE RECREATIONAL BOATING
WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
....................................................
.................................................. .
.............. ............................-.......
...................................................
:.:::::~~~miI4i:::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::
..::::'ffl9~.!I:::~ij#I:::::::..,:::::::::
..~~!Ri~~P.!W~::=:: ..
1985 35,043 2,699
1990 40,294 3,103
2000 49,255 3,790
2010 57,504 4,428
2020 66,517 5,122
2030 74,624 5,746
2040 83,479 6,428
Source: USACE, 1985
The USACE evaluated navigation improvements to Dunedin Pass and estimated that
a significant number of-vessels would use and benefit from the improvements as
cited in Table 2.2. The estimates do not include vessels which would be too large
(greater than 4 feet draft) to use the proposed improvements or vessels too small
(less than 16' LOA) to regularly desire access to the Gulf.
TABLE 2.2: PROSPECTIVE BENEFITTED BOATS
1980 Sail 322 175 15
Power 1,441 413 41 2,407
1990 Sail 369 202 17
Power 1,657 475 47 2,767
2000 Sail 451 246 21
Power 2,024 580 57 3,379
2010 Sail 527 288 24
Power 2,365 677 67 3,948
2020 Sail 610 333 28
Power 2,735 784 77 4,567
2030 Sail 684 373 32
Power 3,086 879 86 5,140
2040 Sail 765 418 35
Power 3,433 983 97 5,731
Source: USACE, 1985
2-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The closure of Dunedin Pass has adversely affected local navigation by concentrating
access to the Gulf of Mexico at Clearwater Pass. This has resulted in increased
vessel traffic along the ICWW, delays at bridges, and a reported lack of a quick
refuge (safe anchorage) during storms for boats in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico
adjacent to Dunedin Pass. Interviews with local marinas (see Table 2.3) indicate
that the closure of the pass has resulted in congested boat traffic in Clearwater
Harbor and that there is a long delay in travelling to Clearwater Pass and passing
through two bridges to access the Gulf. All of the marinas shown on Figure 2.2 were
contacted; only those with relevant comments (pro or con) are shown in Table 2.3.
TABLE 2.3: LOCAL MARINA INTERVIEWS
..-....-.-...-.--.........-..-...-_....__...,',......---,---_........
....................................-....................-.'...............
... .... .. ..... ........ .....-.... - ...... -...,..........- - ...". .....
.........................................-..................---.......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . .
::::::::::::::::awiaij~~:
............................................................ .
" ....-.- ........... ..... - . ...................
Marker One
(Dunedin)
Walter Prior Boat Yard
(Dunedin)
Clearwater Marina
(Clearwater)
(At this marina) "Boat Size has decreased and changed to
shallower drafts."/George, Manager.
"Boats have to go through two bridges to get to the Gulf."
Island Harbor
(Island Estates)
High 'N' Dry
(Clearwater)
George's Marina
(Ozona Smith Bayou)
"Forty four percent would use Dunedin Pass if open.
(Opening) would cause less bridge openings for through
traffic and in event of a storm, would provide an additional
access to the Harbor."lBill Held, Harbor Master
"Possibly very small impact on access for boaters to general
area."IRob, Manager
"Where we are, it has cut back the traffic past our marina.
Big boats cannot get under Causeway Bridge."
(Pass closure) "Discourages sailboats because no water at
low tide. Tide changes radically in the cove. Hurricane
Pass is shoaling near marker #3 and becomes narrow;
boats with draft greater than 3 feet use Clearwater."/Joe
Cascio
Marine Advisory Board
"North side of causeway must go through 2 bridges to get
to the Gulf. Hurricane Pass is not really reliable."/
Bill Stephan, Chairman
-
The USACE evaluated two alternative channel improvement projects for Dunedin;
a north channel and a south channel. The total annual automobile energy savings
and recreational benefits for these projects for a 50 year project life were estimated
to be $580,000 for a northerly channel and $487,300 for a southerly channel
(USACE, 1985). The USACE determined that navigation improvements at Dunedin
Pass would result in needed public benefits in excess of costs. The USACE
recommended construction of improvements upon receipt of all necessary regulatory
permits. Reopening the pass would provide navigation benefits via improved access
and safe harborage.
2-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Public Safety and Welfare: Due to the closure of Dunedin Pass, boat traffic is
forced to ClealWater Pass which results in opening of the bascule bridges at the
ClealWater Causeway and the Cleatwater Bridge. The Cleatwater Memorial
Causeway is the primary access for emergency vehicles to ClealWater Island. Bridge
opening data for Cleatwater Memorial Causeway and Cleatwater Pass Bridge are
shown in Table 2.4.
TABLE 2.4: BRIDGE OPENING DATA
.......................... ............................
.. ....................... ................. - -..
..........................
....., ................... ...--....,..,.,....-._~-..,.........................................................................-....
......................... ....................... -....-.-........................................................................--.....
...... .................ADftUjJ.......................................................... ..... .)).).....)ADftUjJ.....{.{.{.
i.........;.........:.......i.:....i.~..........:..........................................................................~...........:..~.:........................:.............i....~.....PR...............................:....1........13.......................)............~....:....:.:.......................P.........~.....~........................................:.i...:....i.i.i.i.......:.:...... ................:............... ...c~jW.M~~..am;==9Si~.~'i~::
~.~ ..............................................................................................................................~..~.............~n..~..........................
1972
3,432
10,079
1973
3,564
10,602
1974
3,702
12,850
13,118
15,243
1975
3,495
1976
3,743
1977
8,966
3,666
1978
9,893
3,996
1979
10,941
4,321
1980
(No Data)
1981
5,401
8,061
1982
3,999
6,191
1983
5,386
5,565
5,935
8,783
1984
8,936
1985
14,991
13,188
9,ls03
11,37~
12,574 24,794
14,377 24,904
12,811 23,902
12,810 24,489
11,797" 23,400
5,990
9,570
8,569
7,762
1986
5,848
1987
5,251
4,542
5,360
7,9'lB
1988
7,006
1989
1990
1991
5,046
8,080
5,365
7,678
7,732
1992
5,208
4,o~
1993
1
Data for 1972 to 1979 from USACE, 1985.
Data for 1985 to 1993 from City of Clearwater.
Data for 1972 to 1979 from USACE, 1985.
Data for 1981 to 1993 from Florida DOT.
3 Bridge closed for 2 months
4 Through October, 1993
5 Through September, 1993
2
2-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dunedin Pass was closed to navigation in 1979. From 1972 to 1978, the Clearwater
Pass Bridge, over the Clearwater Channel, averaged 11,536 openings per year and
from 1979 to 1993, averaged 13,098 openings per year; an increase of 13.5 percent.
From 1972 to 1978, the Clearwater Memorial Causeway Bridge, over the ICWW,
averaged 3,657 openings per year and from 1979 to 1993, averaged 5,171 openings
per year; an increase of 41 percent. This apparent increase in bridge openings after
Dunedin Pass was closed to navigation may indicate an increased use of Clearwater
Pass by boaters who previously used Dunedin Pass.
The USACE estimated that each bridge opening would cause approximately a two
minute automobile delay; and based on vehicular count data for each bridge,
predicted the fuel costs for each bridge opening. Table 2.5 presents estimated
automobile fuel savings per bridge opening at Clearwater (USACE, 1985).
TABLE 2.5: DOLLAR OR FUEL SAVINGS PER OPENING
............................................-.-.........,........ ...................,..........................................................
...........................",............-..................-... ...........-.... ....-.-......................................................
...............................................................-. .............................................,........---......-_...._-......
...................................,.........--.................. ............................................................,,................
........................................-.-,.,................... .................,...,.........................................................
::::mearwaterPassDraw ......M:emonalGauseway:nraw:...
))..:.:.:.:.:.:))):.:.:.:.,$\:.:.....)...:)::..................... .........i.......:.......::..............................i. .................~.................:...........j............'. $..........~................... .:i
:;:::::::::;:::::<::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::\:-.-:1:::::::::::::-:::: . . '.' _ ..,.-.._....'-...)t...-.
1985 2.15 7.40
1990 3.65 7.55
2000 3.70 7.70
2010 3.70 7.70
2020 3.70 7.70
2030 3.70 7.70
2040 3.70 7.70
Source: USACE, 1985
The USACE estimated average annual automobile fuel savings associated with
maintaining Dunedin Pass at between $30,000 and $40,000 per year due to decreased
waiting at bridges. The Oearwater Pass Bridge is expected to be replaced with a
fixed span bridge within a few years. The potential savings and reduced traffic at
Memorial Causeway are public benefits which can be realized over a long term -
with the opening of Dunedin Pass.
Public Land Management: The closure of Dunedin Pass and the formation of a
land bridge between Clearwater Beach Island and Caladesi Island has adversely
impacted the control and management of Caladesi Island State Park. Prior to the
pass closure, Caladesi Island was only accessible by boat; the majority of the park
visitors arrived by ferry through facilities under park control where entrance fees
were collected. The park is now accessible by pedestrians walking north on the
beach from Clearwater Beach.
2-8
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Park personnel have estimated that 50 to 100 people per weekday and up to 250
people per weekend day access the Caladesi Island beach from Clearwater Beach
(WATSON, 1993). Park rangers have not determined the number of people who
access Caladesi Island beach from the south and are actually using park facilities.
At the present time, the park facilities have not become "over used." Park personnel
have indicated the following adverse impacts from the pass closure:
a) Security: The park can no longer control access and boundaries. Loss
of revenue occurs from unpaid access. There have been a few more
isolated incidents of theft and vandalism than before the pass closed
(WATSON, 1993);
b) Feral Cats and Dogs: Park personnel have expressed concern that
domestic cats and dogs will access the park from Clearwater Beach and
establish themselves on Caladesi Island and become untamed. H cats
and dogs establish themselves on Caladesi Island and reproduce, these
animals will be competing with native species. At this time, cats and
dogs have not caused any problems at the park.
The park has experienced an advantageous impact from the pass closure. The south
end of the park is no long experiencing erosion and is now accreting (CUTIS, 1993).
Reopening of the pass would result in improved control of access to the park and
better management of these public lands.
Water Quality: The existing water quality for a portion of Clearwater Harbor does
not meet State standards. Reopening Dunedin Pass would eliminate what is now a
dead end canal that has formed with the closure of the pass. In addition, reopening
Dunedin Pass would provide a mechanism for improvement to the localized flushing
of Clearwater Harbor adjacent to the pass.
Limited water quality sampling was conducted in September, 1993 at 6 stations
extending from Clearwater Harbor to the Gulf, immediately west of the closed pass,
as partially shown in Figure 2.3. The data indicate that water quality degradation
has occurred in the dead end canal which formed as a result of the pass closure.
The data presented represents average values of all samples taken at each station
for each testing event. Each separate data set did not include measurements at all
of the stations. Even though the historical data covers different seasons (i.e., winter
and summer), all of the available data is presented for review. These 6 stations
replicate the locations of prior sampling locations cited in previous studies by
Pinellas County in 1989 and 1990 (PINELLAS COUNTY, 1990), and by CH2M Hill
in 1988 (DEAN, 1990); Dunedin Pass fully closed in 1988. Appendix B contains the
water quality report and data as provided by CH2M Hill for the September, 1993
measurements. Table 2.6 presents a comparison of water quality data for stations
1 through 6.
2-9
I
I
I
I
Dunedin
I Note:
closed in
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
12
Clo..d Po..
11 Gulf Harbor
10
..
12-88
~
..
..
..
---.
"'-
en
E ·
'-'
..
.
t.41n. Stal. Standard
R.f. : Chap. 1 7 302530 F AC
.
.
.
o ..
C
o
Sampling Stations
1.5
CIO..d POI'
Not. : There Is not a
Maximum Stote Standard
fOl" TKN.
Gulf Harbor
---.
.::::::..
en 1.0
E
'-'
..
12-88
z
~
I- 0.5
.
Sampling Stations
CIoI" Pa.. Naxlmum Stal. Standard
~ 1_ R.f. : Chap. 17-302530 FAC
E Gulf Harbor
0 10
0
"'- 50
"0
u
........ ...
E
.... 30
0
:=
0 20
U
0 .0
0
I-
0
Sampling Stations
Water Quality Sampling
Figure 2.3
2-10
LEGEND
. 9-93
. 2-90
* 9-89
. 12-88
I
I TABLE 2.6: COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY DATA
I 3.61 9.18 8.86 4.59 0.7 6.1 7.35 5.62 8.52
2 2.14 3.84 0.6 3.2 9.43
I 3 2.62 6.89 6.89 2.79 0.35 5.9 6.64 4.08 9.19
4 3.94 8.2 7.54 3.71 0.38 5.8 6.92 4.45 9.08
5 11.48 7.05 0.82 5.4 8.96
I 6 8.2 5.77 2.9 5.4 9.21
I 26.1 32.8 34.8 33.97 8.1 7.99 7.95 8.02 3.3 6 7.1 2.52
2 24.8 32.16 8 8.17 2.1 3.05
I 3 25.2 32.5 32.9 32.46 8.2 8 7.95 8.2 2.1 3.9 3.1 2.35
4 25.5 32.5 33.2 32.04 8.3 8.07 7.97 8.21 2.1 3.8 3.3 3.23
I 5 25.3 31.89 8.3 8.21 2.3 4.09
6 25.2 32.26 8.3 8.23 2.8 3.86
I Station 9.93
30.5 20.01 28.66 17.34 2.8 6.05 0.545 0.5 0.9
I 2 29 17.06 2.45 0.67 Not 0.95
3 29.7 19.24 27.36 16.8 4.1 5.1 0.668 0.727 0.88
4 28.9 19.45 27.62 17.13 3.81 6.7 0.569 0.66 1.08
I 5 29.3 16.22 0.73
6 29.5 16.35 <2 0.035 0.73
I
0.2 0.05 0.05 0.04 4.9 3.5 8.79
I 2 0.13 0.25 0.045 0.05 6.85 8.29
3 0.17 0.05 0.051 0.03 8.3 16.1 5.88
I 4 0.18 0.05 0.05 0.03 8.4 9.2 5.47
5 0.15 0.04 6.59
6 0.06 0.18 0.035 0.04 8.65 8.69
I
I 27.3 7
2 92.5 65.9 59 53.2
3 47.6 34.4
I 4 57.1 7.9
5 46.8 10.7
I 6 <1 44.1 <1 11.2
2-11
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
,I
I
i
I
I
I
,I
In 1993, station 2 at the western end of the closed channel had the lowest values of
dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and salinity of all stations sampled. The DO in
September, 1993 at station 2 was 1.5 mgll on a rising tide and 4.9 mgll on a falling
tide, resulting in an average value of 3.2 mgll. Surface water quality standards for
Class ill (marine) waters are contained in Chapter 17-302.530 FAC. Dissolved
Oxygen should not average less than 5.0 in a 24 hour period and should never be
less than 4.0 mgll. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) was measured at station 2 in
the closed pass and station 6 in the open waters of the Clearwater Harbor. The
BOD was approximately 2.5 mgll at station 2 and was undetectable at station 6.
These data indicate oxygen depletion at the closed channel relative to the open
waters of Clearwater Harbor. The DO measurements also indicate that the
degradation of water quality is localized and concentrated in the closed channel of
the pass which has formed a dead end canal. The measurements for stations 3 to
6 were approximately the same and ranged from 5.4 to 5.9 mgll.
The plots of the Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and total Coliform measurements
also indicate elevated levels at the closed pass compared to the open harbor. The
TKN level at station 2 is not higher than the 1988 measurements. However, the
TKN level at station 2 was approximately 1.3 times higher than station 6 in 1988, but
the 1993 TKN concentration at station 2 was approximately 20 times higher than the
value at station 6. Nitrogen levels are an indicator of nutrient input, "excessive
nutrients (total nitrogen and total phosphorous) constitute one of the most severe water
quality problems facing the State" [Chapter 17-302.300 (3) FAC].
The total coliform, while below maximum Bacteriological Quality Standards of 2,400
at any time or a monthly average of 1,000, also indicates degradation of water quality
at the closed pass. The 1988 data indicate a coliform count approximately 1.5 times
higher at station 2 than at station 6; the 1993 data indicate a coliform count 90 times
higher at station 2 than at station 6.
Interviews with local marinas indicate a decline in water quality since the pass closed
in the area (see Table 2.7) and also indicate that re-opening the pass would improve
the water quality. Only those marinas with relevant comments (pro or con) have
been included in Table 2.7.
2-12
I
t
I
,
J
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2.7: WATER QUALITY COMMENTS
Walter Prior Boat Yard
(Dunedin)
"Flow is very limited now. It doesn't come like it used to."
Oearwater Marina
(Oearwater)
"Opening of pass would improve water circulation."
Bill Held, Harbor Master
High 'N' Dry
(Oearwater)
"Decline in water quality, dirtier and siltier, increased tidal flow and tidal rips. We
are at the end of a dead end."
Caladesi State Park Marina
(Caladesi Island)
"Poor flushing, used to be very clear water and good fIShing." Mr. Kohler
George's Marina
(Orona Smith Bayou)
Marine~ryBoard
"Need to increase flushing of waters." Joe Cascio
"Pass closing cut off flow of water to Harbor Sound area." Bill Stephan, Chairman
The reopening of Dunedin Pass would result in tidal exchange between the Gulf of
Mexico and northern Clearwater Harbor. The mean bay tidal range is 1.9' and the
spring range is 2.8' as reported in National Ocean Survey (NOS) tide tables for the
Dunedin area. The tides are a mix of semi-diurnal and diurnal (NEWMAN, 1983;
DAVIS, 1990). Dean (1990) performed a numerical study of the hydraulics of a
proposed pass opening of similar dimension as considered in this study and
estimated that current velocities through the pass would be 2 to 2.5 feet per second.
The tidal prism of an inlet is the volume of water entering the inlet on flood tide or
leaving the inlet on ebb tide. The tidal prism can be calculated from field
measurements or can be estimated from theoretical relationships. For a channel
cross-section of 1,700 ft2 below -0.0' NGVD, the theoretical equilibrium tidal prism
ranges from 5.8 x 107 fe (JARRETI, 1976) to 7 x 107 fe (O'BRIEN, 1969). These
theoretical values are within range of the predicted values for a pass with a cross
section of 1,500 fe as modeled by Dean (1990).
Reopening Dunedin Pass will result in an average flow of water on the order of
65,000,000 cubic feet per tidal cycle through the pass; the exchange of this water
between the Gulf and Clearwater Harbor would clearly improve flushing and water
quality within Clearwater Harbor and would result in public benefits.
Avifaunal (JJird) Use of Dunedin Pass: Two broad categories of avifaunal are
present in the Dunedin Pass area; shorebirds and wading birds. The activities of
these birds can be separated into two distinct uses; nestinglbreeding and
feeding/nesting. Specific avifaunal studies have been performed for the Dunedin
Pass area by Biological Research Associates, Inc. (BRA) in 1994 for this study, and
in 1990 and 1989 for previous studies. The 1994 study is included in this report as
Appendix C. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) also
prepared an avifaunal assessment of a previous proposal for reopening Dunedin Pass
in 1990.
2-13
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
,I
j
,
I
I
I
I
I
j
The FGFWFC documented feeding and foraging birds on interior tidal flats and
nesting birds on the sandy beach areas of northern Clearwater Beach Island in
December, 1990; see Table 2.8.
TABLE 2.8: BIRD USE (FGFWFC)
Feeding and Foraging
in Tidal Flats
Piping Plover
Snowy Plover
Roseate Tern
Least Tern
American Oyster Catcher
Little Blue Heron
Snow Egret
Roseate Spoonbill
Brown Pelican
Nesting on Sandy
Beach Areas
Least Tern
Roseate Tern
Snowy Plover
American Oyster Catcher
The 1994 BRA study documented 11 species of wading birds and 10 species of
shorebirds nesting in the Dunedin Pass area; it was also noted and that over 40
species of birds have been sited in the area. Table 2.9 identifies wading and
shorebirds known to use the area in some manner; their historic and current use,
and their protected status. The 1994 study (BRA, 1994) was unable to document the
specific use of specific species at or near the former pass. Local "birders" have
observed that "the area has become an important nesting and feeding site for both
shorebirds and wading birds." Mr. William Cutts, the Park Manager of Caladesi
Island State Park, has indicated that park personnel have noted an increase in
shorebirds nesting and feeding on the interior sand bars of the closed pass (CUTTS,
1993).
BRA conducted a field inspection on October 10, 1990 and noted 4 listed, protected
species by the USFWS in the project area - Snowy Plover, Piping Plover, Brown
Pelican, Snowy Egret. The 1989 study by BRA concluded that the sandy beaches of
northern Clearwater and southern Caladesi Islands provided nesting habitat for
plovers, terns, and skimmers. The report also concluded that as the mud flats in the
interior of the closed pass become larger and vegetation such as cordgrass becomes
denser, these areas will become less valuable as avifaunal habitat. Most of the
shorebird bird species (i.e. plovers, sandpipers, terns, etc...) expected to occur or
actually observed in the interior region are "intolerant of dense vegetation characteristic
of cordgrass marshes and mangrove swamps." (BRA, 1989).
2-14
I
I
-
I
.)
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2.9: HISTORIC AND CURRENT AVIFAUNAL USE OF DUNEDIN PASS
.1:1::....:.lstglg:::llj::::.::.::,':.::::.::::;~9tt~n~::'jyl:::I:i.i:i:::'.:'::II::::lllij,'.:lj.::..j:!
............. .".. ........................ ..... . ....... . ....".
.:::.:::II~i::::::.:.!:i::.I.II:::.::.i ::..:.j::'148:.!:::::j',:pO.O',':"
::::::::I::::::::i::::::::::::::I:::::=::f~~t::::::i::::::..:.:::t~:.:::.:':.:.::::::j::.:.:.:"::::::!::i::::i.:.:::::':::::::::::::.:::
WADING BIRDS
Great Blue Heron
Great Egret
Snowy Egret
Little Blue Heron
Tricolor Heron
Reddish Egret
Green-backed Heron
Black-crowned Night
Heron
Y ellow-crowned Night
Heron
White Ibis
Roseate Spoonbill
I SHOREBIRDS
Brown Pelican
Double-crested
Cormorant
Clapper Rail
Black-bellied Plover
Snowy Plover
Wilson's Plover
Semipalmated Plover
Piping Plover
American
Oystercatcher
Ardea herodias x x
Casmerodius albus x x
Egretta thula x x
Egretta caerulea x x
Egretta tricolor x x
Egretta rufescens x x
Butorides striatus x x
Nycticorax nycticorax x x
Nycticorax violaceus x x
Eudocimus albus x x
Ajaia ajaia x x
Pelecanus occidentalis
Phalacrocorax aurirtus
Rallus longirostris
Pluvialis squararola
Charadrius alexandrinus
Charadrius wilsonia
Charadrius semipalmatus
Charadrius melodius
Haematopus palliatus
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2-15
x
x NL
x NL
x SSC
x SSC
x SSC
x SSC
x NL
x NL
x NL
x *
x SSC
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SSC
NL
x
x
NL
NL
T
NL
NL
T
sse
x
x
x
x
x
x
::~.:i:::.::m~t6!?I.II..::...:.:f::::::::.::.:filfau::::i1~:.:ji~..i~i:::::::$mm.!::i~:~:~:~::::
11111111,_-
x x NL
x x NL
x x x NL
Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca
I Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa jlavipes
Willet Catoptrophorus
semipalmatus
Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus
Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus
....
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres
Red Knot Calidris canutus (Tringa
canatus Auk 4)
Sanderling Calidris alba
Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri
Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla
Dunlin Calidris alpina
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus
Laughing Gull Larus atricilla
Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis
Herring Gull Larus argentatus
Black Tern Chlidonias niger
Caspian Tern Sterna caspia
Royal Tern Sterna maxima x
I Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis x
Common Tern Sterna hirundo x
1 Forster's Tern Sterna fosteri x
Least Tern Sterna antillarum x
I Black Skimmer Rhynchops niger x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
NL = Not Listed SSC = Species of Special Concern T = Threatened
I
I
2-16
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
T
SSC
* = Listed but no status
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The 1989 BRA report also concluded that human traffic on the beach results in
human disturbance of shorebird nesting activity. The landbridge between Caladesi
and Clearwater formed by the pass closure has resulted in a significant amount of
human traffic and some vehicular traffic in the area of the former pass. The 1989
BRA report stated "the sand dune area provides open sandy expenses ideal for nesting
Least Terms, Black Skimmers, and Wilson's and Sno"'Y Plovers. Disturbances caused
by humans and their pets to ground nesting species can have devastating results on
reproductive success." The proposed reopening of Dunedin Pass would reduce human
disturbance to the nesting activity of shorebirds.
Habitat Restoration: Seagrass beds are present in the shallow waters of Clearwater
Harbor and St. Joseph Sound adjacent to the project area. Data indicate that these
grass beds have declined in extent since closure of Dunedin Pass. Three types of
seagrass - turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme ),
and shoal grass (Halodule wrightii) - are present in the nearshore waters of Caladesi
Island, northeast of the project site; the beds east of Caladesi Island are the most
dense in the area (DAWES, 1989). However, in the vicinity of the closed pass at the
interior dead end canal, there are few to no existing seagrass beds (CUTTS, 1993
and EDWARDS, 1993).
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has prepared a report on the
seagrass communities adjacent to Honeymoon Island and Caladesi Island (BARD,
1992) which presents a historical comparison of seagrass coverage in the Dunedin
area. The report compared aerial photography from 1973 to 1990 provided by
Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Department of
Transportation and biological resource maps of 1950 and 1982 provided by Florida
Marine Research Institute; the 1973 to 1990 aerial photo data is summarized in
Figure 2.4. The long term data indicates a reduction in seagrass coverage of 72
percent between 1950 and 1982 and a short term reduction of 20 percent between
1973 and 1990 (Bard, 1992). The pass shoaled and eventually closed during this time
period between 1973 and 1990. The data showed a sharp decline between 1973 and
1975; the report stated that unusually cold weather most likely was responsible for
the sharp decline. The pass was closed to navigation in 1979; the pass fully closed
in 1988.
Figure 2.5 presents a regional aerial photograph of the pass (AEROMAP, 1993)
conducted specifically for this study. The observed seagrass beds in the area agree
with the DEP data (BARD, 1992) in that few seagrass beds are present in the
interior region of the closed pass. Some new seagrass beds have apparently
developed on shoals that formed in the channel subsequent to the pass closing. The
proposed reopened channel will avoid the larger seagrass beds.
2-17
I
I
I
I
I
,
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,,--... Pass
(/) 460
Q) Closed
L
0
- 440
()
Q)
I
"'-/ 420
w
C)
<t: 400
0:::
W
> 380
0
U
(J) 360
(J)
<t:
0::: 340
C)
<t:
w
(J) 320
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990
YEAR
Source : Bard. 1992
Historical Comparison of Extent of Seagrass
coverage in the nearshore waters of
Honeymoon Island State Recreation Area
and Caladesi Island State Park from 1973-1990
Seagrass Coverage
Figure 2.4
2-18
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
November 1993 Regional Aerial Photo
Scale: 1" = 1000'
Figure 2.5
2-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Previous studies (BARD, 1992 and DAWES, 1989) have documented that turtle
grass (Thallassia) is the dominant specie of seagrass adjacent to Caladesi Island.
This dominance is consistent with the findings of Zieman and Zieman (1989) who
concluded that turtle grass was the largest and most robust species on the west coast
of Florida. These previous studies (BARD, 1992 and DAWES, 1989) also concluded
that the seagrass communities were confined to shallow depths because of limited
water clarity. Dawes (1989) concluded that dense seagrass was restricted to above
mean low water -0.7' NGVD and that "turbidity is a major limiting factor for
establishment of beds at any depth below this zone." Dawes also concluded that the
water clarity degradation in Oearwater Harbor is very evident compared to northern
St. Joseph Sound because north of the Honeymoon Causeway, seagrass beds extend
to over 1 m (3.28 feet) in depth.
The DEP Division of Parks and Recreation has created seagrass protection zones
which prohibit the use of boats with internal combustion motors east of Caladesi
Island. These zones extend from the MHWL to water depths of 3 feet as indicated
on NOAA boat charts. There are no posted protection zones in the interior of the
old pass; the closest protection zones to the project site are adjacent to Moonshine
Island (CUTIS, 1993).
The proposed reopening of Dunedin Pass will not adversely impact existing seagrass
beds but would likely improve progation of seagrasses surrounding the pass.
COSTS
The recommended plan is identified in Section 5 and described in Section 3;
construction costs are estimated at $2.55 million to open a stable pass. For a stable
channel with a sand trap, maintenance dredging costs are estimated at $500,000
about every 2 years. Monitoring costs are estimated at a minimum cost of $100,000
per year for three years after construction then at $50,000 per year thereafter. Costs
identified to date include:
a) loss of seagrasses - associated with channel construction;
b) shoreline fluctuations and turbidity associated with periodic dredging
activities;
and, c) disruption of nesting and foraging bird habitat.
2-20
I
I
I
1
I
,
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
,
I
3. ALTERNATIVES
I'
I
I
I
I
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
,
I
3. ALTERNATIVES
General: Towards reopening Dunedin Pass, several alternatives exist relative to the
. size of the channel, the location of the channel, the location of dredge material
disposal, and structural features for stabilization of the pass. These alternatives are
discussed in this section.
The following are general design objectives:
1) provide safe navigation between the Gulf and Clearwater Harbor;
2) improve water quality within Clearwater Harbor;
3) minimize future maintenance requirements;
and, 4) avoid, to the maximum extent possible, then minimize and mitigate
adverse environmental impacts.
The natural channel from the old pass to the Intracoastal Waterway is considered
adequate for local navigation needs. The ICWW has a design depth of -8' MLW.
Following a discussion of the design channel for the pass, alternatives are developed
within the full range of physical feasibility and each alternative is considered relative
to these design objectives.
CHANNEL ALTERNATIVES
Desim Channel: A prior detailed navigation study by the USACE (1985) prescribes
a design channel width and depth which are accepted as a minimum channel -
sufficient to meet navigation needs. The USACE (1985) performed an economic
analysis comparing costs and benefits for various channel depths and concluded the
design vessel dimensions given in Table 3.1. The USACE proposed an interior (in
protected waters) channel design depth of 6 feet ML Wand a channel design width
of 50 feet.
TABLE 3.1: DESIGN VESSEL DIMENSIONS
... .................. ........................
.... ................... ....... ...............
....................... .......................
........................ .......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................-......
i,Sm\:' .......................
reQW~r
......................-.
..................
Draft (ft) 4 3
Length (ft) 28-36 26-40
Height (ft) 36-48 15-24
Beam (ft) 8-1 1 8-12
Source: USACE, 1985
3-1
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
"Squat" is the relative lowering of a vessel to the channel bottom because of
increased wave heights due to the presence of the vessel. Sailing vessels are
assumed to have nominal squat (< 1/2') and power vessels are assumed to have a
squat of one foot. To account for wind, waves, currents, and approach from
different directions, the USACE proposed entrance channel design dimensions at
150 feet wide by 8 feet deep (ML W).
These design channel dimensions are considered reasonable, and adopted for a
conceptual design channel. The ICWW has a design depth of 8' MLW. The
USACE proposed a channel width slightly smaller than the historical pass width
which varied from approximately 230 to 360 feet from 1974 to 1984. However,
during this time period (1974 - 1984), the pass was either unnavigable or only used
by small, shallow draft crafts.
A 150 feet wide channel is consistent with Channel Geometry and Navigation
Guidelines of the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congress
(PIANC, 1980). The PIANC guidelines prescribe a 144 feet wide channel for two-
way traffic for boat dimensions prescribed in Table 3.1. Side slopes of IV :5H are
assumed to be reasonably stable.
"Stable" Channel: The design channel dimensions (150' x 8') reflect an unstable
cross-sectional area of 1,700 square feet based on stability analysis of Dean (1990)
and Ross and Dorzback (1986). Frequent dredging will most likely be necessary to
remove shoaling material; up to 165,000 cubic yards per year are estimated to
deposit into the channel. An additional channel width and/or a deposition area are
appropriate to account for sediment transport into the pass. As cited in Appendix
A, a throat cross-section of about 3,000 square feet is estimated to be more likely an
hydraulically stable channel based on published stability curves (USACE, 1985 and
ROSS and DORZBACK, 1986). Such a "stable" channel should have the same
design depth as the design channel; if the channel were 335 feet wide, a cross-
sectional area of 3,000 square feet would result.
LOCATION ALTERNATIVES
The pass could be reopened to the maximum extent historically recorded or
alternately, at some point within the historical range. The following location
alternatives are considered - as physically feasible:
1) the limits of the maximum historical pass;
2) the same location as the closed pass;
and, 3) the location previously proposed by Pinellas County in 1990.
3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
Maximum Historical Pass: The pass could be opened by dredging within the
maximum limits of the historical pass. Figure 3.1 shows the maximum limits of the
historical pass based on the 1873 MHWL (DEMIRPOIAT, et aI, 1987). The 1873
shoreline data is the earliest reliable shoreline information for the project site and
also corresponds to the maximum known limits of Dunedin Pass (known as Big Pass
in 1873). In 1873, the pass width was approximately 1,650 feet at a depth of 19 feet
(DAVIS and GffiEAUT, 1990). The pass narrowed with time due to northern
migration and spit growth. The maximum limits of the historical pass along the
shoreline (approximately north/south) are from near DNR monument R-27 on
Caladesi Island to between monuments R-32 and R-33 on Clearwater Beach Island.
This alternative is intended to show the maximum area which might be dredged to
re-create the historical pass. If the entire limits of the historical pass were dredged,
on the order of 1.6 million cubic yards would need to be excavated from
approximately 77 acres of uplands. The estimated cost of dredging, based on
USACE (1985) estimates of $110,000 for mobilization and a unit price of $2.45 per
cubic yard, is approximately $4 million. A large opening would tend to be more
stable, against closure, than a small opening. If historical trends persisted, a large
opening would also tend to migrate north resulting in elongation of Clearwater
Beach Island and erosion of Caladesi Island. Also, it is expected that the navigation
channel would meander and migrate. The excavation would also eliminate valuable
upland marine turtle and bird habitat. This alternative is considered
environmentally and economically infeasible.
Reopen the Closed Pass: By removal of the shoals from the existing closed channel,
the pass could be restored to the approximate conditions present immediately prior
to closure. Figure 3.2 shows the existing conditions of the pass and the proposed
channel alignment for a reopened pass in plan view and cross-section. The shaded
region represents the limits of dredging to create a channel from the Gulf of Mexico
to the former channel at Dunedin within Clearwater Harbor. Approximately 218,450
cubic yards would need to be excavated to open the pass with this configuration for
a design channel; a stable channel would require excavation of about 463,000 cubic
yards.
The offshore channel excavation will require removal of approximately 22,000 cubic
yards. The entrance channel, across the closed pass, will require removal of
approximately 65,000 and the interior channel will require removal of 131,000 cubic
yards. Based on USACE (1985) cost estimates of $110,000 for mobilization, and a
unit cost of $2.45 per cubic yard, it is estimated that dredging costs would be
approximately $645,000 to achieve the design channel and $1.2 million to achieve the
"stable" channel.
3-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I l~-t
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
()
,=-+
~
~
~
'....2.500
C)
c..,
.......
~
~
~
~
C)
1.3)7.500-
\
'" ..
) ]
ClW'H1C SCALE IN Ita
.
JOO
,
JOO 600
~
Historical Pass/Previously Proposed Location
Figure 3.1
3-4
I
1.342.500
I
I C)
()
1 .........
~
~
I ~
I
I 4.
C)
I 1~+
~
~
I 4.
'-..:/
~
I (;
I
I
I
I 1=_+
~
I !l
I \
I
.... N
"\ \"
I )
I
I
1.,337.:K1O-
--
e
i
~ ..~....... ..~"'........~....'..~ ,~I~. . _..:.. :___ _' ~ _
..::: ..... ........................ ..... Seclicn A-A
~. , ".".
Re-open the Pass Alternative
Figure 3.2
3-5
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Two channel alignments were considered for the option of reopening the closed
. pass. The first alignment was a southwest channel along Clearwater Beach Island;
. the second alignment was a northeast channel along the southern end of Caladesi
Island. The channel alignment proposed combines the advantageous elements of
both options considered following the existing channel remnants and minimizes
impact to seagrass beds.
The proposed channel follows the east side of Clearwater Beach Island, south of
Moonshine Island, to the northeast end of Island Estates. Access to the ICWW
from the north end of Island Estates can be obtained by heading along the east side
of Island Estates and then to the ICWW at Seminole Boat Ramp or by heading
north along Pope Channel. Shoals at the northeast end of Pope Channel will need
to be dredged to maintain navigable access to the ICWW if this route is desired.
Reopening the pass at this location would improve water quality conditions in the
western end of the closed channel. This location is towards the northern end of the
maximum limits of the historical pass and is approximately 3,000 feet north of the
northern development on Clearwater Beach Island.
Reopening the closed pass would require frequent maintenance dredging. The long
curving navigational channel will tend to shoal quickly. If the reopened pass is not
stabilized, it will also tend to migrate towards the north. Some loss of bird and
turtle nesting habitat would occur and some minor loss of seagrasses would occur.
Previously Proposed Location (Pinellas County. 1990): Pinellas County submitted
permit applications to reopen Dunedin Pass in 1990 in the location shown in
Figure 3.1. This proposed location is towards the southern limits of the maximum
historical pass and approximately 250 feet north of the northernmost development
on Clearwater Beach Island. Dredging the pass in this location would require
excavation of approximately 98,600 cubic yards at an estimated cost of $351,570;
excavating a "stable" throat would require excavation of approximately 197,000 cubic
yards at an estimated cost of $594,000.
This location is at the narrowest portion of the undeveloped shoreline in the project
area. The channel alignment is approximately straight east to west and opens to
unconfined water on Clearwater Harbor. The location and alignment of this option
will most likely result in a more stable cross-section than reopening the closed pass.
However, if the channel is not stabilized, the reopened pass would tend to migrate
towards the north - adversely impacting valuable avian habitat. Also, reopening the
pass in this location will not eliminate the "dead end canal" feature formed on the
interior of the closed pass.
3-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DREDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
The beach compatible material excavated to create the new channel could be placed
in a number of different locations surrounding the project area. The existing
sediment characteristics are described in Appendixes A and D. In summary, it is
expected that all of the excavated material, except a thin layer of silt/mud on the top
of the existing channel bottom, will be beach compatible quality sediment.
The following disposal alternatives are considered:
1) adjacent beaches;
2) erosion "hot spots";
and, 3) ebb shoal.
These are described below.
Adjacent Beaches: Dredge material could be placed on the adjacent beaches to
offset adverse impacts associated with the creation of the pass. Historical shoreline
information shows that the former pass consistently migrated towards the north,
indicating a probable net longshore transport from the south towards the north.
Historically, the north end of Clearwater Beach Island narrowed as a spit grew
towards the north and the very southern end of Caladesi Island eroded from scour
associated with the northern migration of the pass.
Based on historical conditions prior to closure of the pass, there exists a potential
for erosion on the shoreline to the north of the reopened pass if the pass is
reopened. Dredge material could be placed along the shoreline on Caladesi Island,
north of the reopened pass. Figure 3.3 shows the fill template in plan and cross-
section. The estimated construction costs for dredging include costs for beach
disposal.
Erosion "Hot Spots": Dredge material could be stockpiled for subsequent placement
on shorelines that become eroded in the vicinity of the reopened pass. As localized
regions of severe erosion ("hot spots") develop along the shoreline from Honeymoon
Island to Clearwater Pass, the stockpiled material could be transported by truck or
barge and used for beach nourishment.
This option will require a large upland area to stockpile the dredge material. One
or more areas with a total surface area of 27 acres would be needed to store the
estimated 218,400 cubic yards of dredge spoil at an average height of 5 feet. The
use of a stockpile will require that the dredge material be handled twice:
1) transport to the stockpile location;
and, 2) subsequent transport to the localized erosion "hot spot."
3-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
,
300
,
o 300 . 600
&
~
~
1.345,000 +
&
~
:::s
()
o R-22
o R-2.:l
~
~
,.345.000+
@
?!
R-24
o
CALADESI
ISLAND
STATE
PARK
T-25
o
FILL AREA
R-26
,.342.500+
~
rf
DNA Monument T-25
000
400 300
""
Ii
{;
o~
z
0
c::
o ""
~
-10
>00
DISTANCE I'1lOW WOHUWENT IN rEEl
Figure 3.3
3-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Assuming an average distance of less than one mile between the stockpile location
and the "hot spot", it will cost approximately $5.00 per cubic yard extra for this
option as compared to direct beach disposal. The additional construction cost to
stockpile material and then place material at "hot spots" for the design channel
would be $1 million and $2 million for the "stable" channel. This option allows for
a flexible sand management approach for the reopened pass. As conditions evolve
at the reopened pass which warrant beach nourishment, beach compatible material
will be readily available to rapidly respond to these needs.
Ebb Shoal: This option entails the placement of dredge material offshore of the
newly created pass to form an ebb shoal. In the absence of an ebb shoal, sediment
in the longshore transport system will be directed at the newly created pass and
jetted offshore to form an ebb shoal. The sediments which would naturally deposit
to form the ebb shoal will create a sediment deficit at adjacent beaches - resulting
in erosion. This option attempts to: "pre-form" the ebb shoal; decrease potential
impact to adjacent beaches by reducing sediment impoundment in the ebb shoal
region; and, provide a pathway for natural bypassing. Remnants of the ebb shoal
of the historic pass are located south of the closed pass offshore of Clearwater
Beach Island.
At an inlet, an equilibrium ebb shoal forms to correspond to the tidal hydraulics,
geometry of the inlet, and wave climate. Dean (1990) estimated the equilibrium ebb
shoal of a reopened Dunedin Pass to be 377,000 cubic yards based on throat cross-
sections of 1,490 ft2. The estimated dredge quantity to reopen the pass is
approximately 218,000 cubic yards. An estimated 467,000 cubic yards are present in
remnants of the former ebb shoal centered approximately 2,000 feet south of the
closed pass.
It is anticipated that the excavated material would be placed on barges and
transported offshore for placement. The offshore region is too shallow for the use
of hopper dredges and disposal from a hydraulic pipeline would result in significant
turbidity. It is anticipated that offshore disposal will cost an additional $2.00 per
cubic yard; projected construction costs are an additional $437,000 for the design
channel and $926,000 for the "stable" channel.
The effectiveness of this option is dependent upon the stability of the reopened pass.
The historic pass migrated towards the north. As the pass reduced in the throat
cross-section and prism, the pass migrated and the ebb shoal migrated landward; the
result was an updrift offset ebb shoal. The ebb shoal was asymmetrical and offset
towards the south along Clearwater Beach Island. The reopened pass will need to
3-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
maintain a stable location to be able to place sand offshore to "pre-form" the ebb
shoal. The reopened pass would need to. be hydraulically stable against closure for
this option to be effective. There exists a potential for the material placed in the
ebb shoal to wash into the channel. The ebb currents through the pass would need
to be able to jet offshore any material from the ebb shoal that flood current or
waves deposit in the channel. Construction of an ebb shoal will result in burial of
existing benthic organisms - but recolonization would be expected to occur quickly.
STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
The historic pass, prior to closure, was unstable and migrated towards the north.
This migration resulted in growth (elongation) of the northern end of Clearwater
Beach Island and erosion of the southern end of Caladesi Island. The reopened
pass would most likely tend to migrate towards the north unless the pass is stabilized
with structural features. Structural alternatives considered include:
a) jetties;
b) a weir and deposition basin;
and, c) channel revetments (or bulkhead) and a sand trap along the south side
of the channel.
Jetties: Construction of north and south jetties would stabilize the reopened pass
(Figure 3.4a). The jetties would extend offshore to the design depth of the channel
(-8.7' NGVD). The jetties would stabilize the location of the navigation channel and
act as "training" structures for tidal currents within the channel. The jetties would
also improve navigation by sheltering boats from wave attack at the mouth of the
pass.
A typical cross-section is shown in Figure 3.4b. The cap elevation would be at +5'
NGVD and 10 feet wide; side slopes would be 1V:1.5H, with about a 50 foot wide
base at -8.7' NGVD. Each jetty would be approximately 1,900 feet long and require
approximately 39,900 tons of stone. Based on an estimated unit cost of $80 per ton
for stone, the jetties would cost approxm,.ately $3.2 million ($1,690/ft) each.
It is anticipated that the jetties would be effective in stabilizing the pass but may
have adverse impact on the adjacent beach to the north. Sediment would most likely
be impounded adjacent to the south jetty or the updrift beach and also directed
offshore to form an ebb shoal. Some sediment would also shoal in the navigation
channel. These areas of sediment deposition would most likely be offset by sediment
erosion on the downdrift beach on Caladesi Island - adjacent to the north jetty.
3-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .-t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"J
~
()
,.=-+
~
~
~
~
1,342.$00
CJ
(;
......
~
~
~
4..
CJ
4..
PROPOSED
DUNEDIN PASS
CHANNEL
1">>7~-
\
} )
Existing Contours f,.om Bothymetric Survey
by Morgan &c Eklund. Inc. dot.d 12-2-93.
~
Jetty and Weir Section-Plan View
Figure 3. 4a
3-11
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10'
ARMOR STONE
Existing
Bottom
. EI. -2.0
CORE STONE
Section E-E
(North Jetty)
10'
ARMOR STONE
Existing
Bottom
~
EI -8.7
CORE STONE
Section F-F
(North Jetty)
ARMOR STONE
Existing
Bottom
EI -8.7
CORE STONE
Section G-G
(South Jetty-Weir Section)
Proposed North Jetty and Weir Section
Construction - Typical Cross-Sections
Figure 3.4b
3-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Weir and Deposition Basin: A weir and deposition basin would include north and
south jetties, with a weir section in the south jetty. A deposition basin would also
be excavated along the interior of the weir section (Figure 3.4a). The lower weir
section would allow sand to be transported into a sheltered deposition basin to avoid
deposition in the channel. Periodic dredging of the deposition basin would allow for
sand transfer to the downdrift beach and decrease the need for channel dredging.
The weir section might be 1,000 feet long with a cap elevation of 0.0' NGVD to
allow sand to flow over the weir. Approximately 25,500 tons of stone would be
required for a southern jetty with a lowered weir section. The weir section jetty
would cost approximately $2 million. It is estimated that the additional dredging
cost to excavate the deposition basin would be approximately $80,000 based on a
unit cost of $2.45 per cubic yard. The dimensions of the deposition basin would be
1,000 feet long by 70 feet wide and 8 feet deep. The deposition basin would have
a capacity of approximately 32,500 cubic yards - equivalent to about 20 percent of
the estimated gross annual transport in the area. This alternative would improve
stability of the pass and allow for sand transfer. The deposition basin dimensions
(1,000' x 70' x 8') are approximately the largest area that can be excavated and
maintained, core boring information indicates a rock layer at approximately -
16' MLW.
Channel Revetments and a Sand Trap: Revetments or bulkheads could be
constructed along the channel shorelines with a sand trap along the south side of the
channel. The structures would stabilize the pass throat section and reduce northern
migration of the pass (Figures 3.5a and 3.5b). The revetments would provide
protection against scour and the sand trap would reduce the potential for spit
growth and allow for sand transfer. Bulkheads are susceptible to toe scour but are
more easily constructed and may be more easily removed if unacceptable adverse
impacts occur.
The revetments or bulkheads might be 700 feet along the south shoreline and 900
feet along the north shoreline and extend from the mean high water line at the Gulf
of Mexico landward to where the channel changes orientation and curves towards
the south. The crest of the revetment might be at +5' NGVD and the toe of the
revetment will be at -8.7' NGVD. The revetment would slope at 2V:IH. The sand
trap might be along the entire south side of the excavated channel resulting in a trap
area 1,850 feet long by 6 feet wide. The sand trap might be excavated to
approximately -16.7' NGVD where core borings indicate a rock layer exists (USACE,
1985). The sand trap would be 8 feet below the channel bottom and have a capacity
of approximately 60,000 cubic yards - equivalent to about one-third of the gross
sediment annual transport to the pass. The revetment would require approximately
11 tons per foot. The USACE (1985) estimated that the unit cost for revetment
construction would be $64 per ton. At $64 per ton, the total revetment construction
cost would be $1.2 million. Alternately, the bulkheads are estimated to cost about
$1 million. The extra dredging cost for the sand trap, based on $2.45 per cubic yard,
would be approximately $150,000.
3-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '-t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4..
"'J
:::;
(j
1.=....+
~
~
1,,342.500
C)
\..>
"
~
4:J
~
~
a
PROPOSED
DUNEDIN PASS
CHANNEL
'.337~-
Existi~ Contours from Bathymetric Survey
by Worqan ac Eklund. Inc.. doted 12-2-93.
i ) ~~.j!}\ ~
Channel Revetments and Sand Trap - Plan View
Figure 3.5a
3-14
--------~-~~~--~---
PROPOSED ROCK Existing PROPOSED ROCK
REVETMENT Profile REVETMENT
5
I'T'J -----
r
I'T'J
< 0
)>
-l
0
z -5
--.
w .."
I I'T'J -10
...... I'T'J
(J1 -l
I
z
G) -15
< -16.7
0
'-'"
-20
125 100 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 100 125
DISTANCE IN FEET
Channel Revetments and Sand Trap - Cross-Section
3.5b
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 3.2 presents a summary of the alternatives considered and indicates estimated
costs and impacts to surrounding resources. Maintenance dredging costs for a stable
channel are estimated at about $500,000 - about every two years. Monitoring costs
are expected to be a minimum of $100,000 per year - for 3 years after initial
construction - then $50,000 per year thereafter. Monitoring is most likely to consist
of bathymetric surveys and biological studies.
3-16
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TABLE 3.2: ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY TABLE
Maximum Historical Pass Dredge maximum limit of historical pass
Reopen Closed Pass Reopen existing closed channel
Previously Proposed by Location proposed by Pinellas County
Pinellas County (1990) approximately 2,500' south of the closed
pass
Adjacent Beaches Dredge material is placed on adjacent
beaches
w
J Erosion "Hot Spots" Stockpile dredge material to be placed at
....
-....J localized erosion "hot spots"
Ebb Shoal Place dredge material offshore to form
ebb shoal
Jetties Construct north and south jetties
Weir and Deposition construct north jetty and south jetty with a
Basin weir and deposition basin
Revetments (or bulkhead) construct north and south revetments and
and Sand Trap sand trap
Maximum
Design
"Stable"
Design
"Stable"
Design and "Stable"
Design
"Stable"
Design
"Stable"
Location
$4 million
$645,000
$1.2 million
$351,570
$594,000
Disposal
No
Additional
$1 million
$2 million
$437,000
$926,000
Structures
$6.4 million
$5.3 million
$1.35 million
High Excavation of approximately 77 acres of upland
Minimal Minimize impact to upland bird habitat and submerged seagrass,
but requires dredging of interior channel
Moderate Potential for northern migration of pass
Does not eliminate dead end channel at closed pass
Minimal
Offsets potential adverse impact to adjacent beaches
Minimal
Allows flexible approach to offset impact of pass
High
May offset potential sediment losses to offshore ebb shoal; high
turbidity potential with full placement
High Potential for erosion of adjacent beaches
Moderate Allows for sand transfer
Minimal Stabilizes pass with minimal impact to adjacent beaches
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. AGENCYIPUBLIC COMMENTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. AGENCYIPUBLIC COMMENTS
General: In advance of formulating recommendations relative to the reopening of
Dunedin Pass, advance copies of this report were provided to permit agencies and
meetings were held towards identifying:
1) requirements for completion of permit applications;
2) additional items that may be required to complete applications;
3) agency concerns, issues, and criteria;
and, 4) an apparent least impactive alternative.
Meetings were held with representatives of the State Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) on March 3, 1994, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on
April 4, 1994, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) on April 5, 1994.
Subsequent to these agency meetings a public hearing was held in the City
Commission Chambers on April 25, 1994. The following summarizes the comments
received from these meetings and the public hearing.
Agency Meetings: Conference reports from the agency meetings are contained in
Appendix E. In general, DEP staff identified that:
a) existing water quality data indicates potential improvements associated
with reopening the pass are limited to the undeveloped area at the
"dead end" of the closed pass where the "cat eye lagoon" discharges into
the old pass;
b) benefits associated with reopening the pass must be justified; other
alternatives to reduce bridge openings and improve water quality must
be demonstrated to not be viable;
c) any anticipated water quality improvements must be quantified by a
numerical model;
d) DEP will solicit comments from adjacent property owners and the
public; these comments will be weighed by DEP - in evaluating public
benefits and costs;
e) ownership of adjoining lands must be determined;
f) the project must be shown to comply with the City's and County's
Comprehensive plans;
and, g) it must be demonstrated that no adverse impact would occur with
opening the pass.
USACE staff recognizes navigation benefits relative to opening the pass. USACE
staff acknowledges that biological issues will be the key to obtaining permits; these
biological issues will be most likely addressed by the DEP and USF&WS.
4-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USF&WS staff noted:
a) the key to their evaluation of the project will be relative to manatees,
seagrasses, sea turtles, and birds;
b) seagrass maps and densities should be identified with the areas
impacted;
c) sediment cores should be taken to verify sediment suitability for beach
nourishment;
and, d) sea turtle nesting data should be collected.
Public Hearin2: On April 25, 1994, a public hearing was held at City Hall within the
Commission Chambers. Following an abbreviated presentation of the prior sections
of this report, comments were made by interested individuals; comments were, in
general, relative to local needs and objectives for reopening Dunedin Pass.
Comments were made first by representatives of "groups" and subsequently by
individuals. "Group" comments are summarized below in Tables 4.1A and 4.1B.
TABLE 4.IA: GROUPS IN SUPPORT - SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
i:$.Ii$.*=iI4.Q*liiim. .......--.........."...--......-........-..-................................................................................-...................
...........:.:...............:.......:.'.'.......-.-.-.............;...;.............;.....:..,...,.'...................,.....................,......................................:-........................................:...................:..........-:.................:................
...... ....... ." ............... ........ ............................................ .................... ......... ..... ........ ........
..................................-.......-...................-..................................................................................
.... .:::...:R#i~gD.$J#.4~~~!ij~NMIJ(9.r$ipP9rt::
. .................................................. .. .......................................................................................
Bob Henion - improve water flow (circulation) in
Sand Key Association Clearwater Harbor
- improve navigation
- reduce water flow through Clearwater Pass
Bill Stephan - improve navigation
Marine Advisory Board - improve water quality - restore what has
historically existed - including seagrasses
- impacted birdS can relocate
Sheila Cole - recreate natural inlet
Island Estates Civic Association
Phil Henderson - positive environmental effects
Clearwater Chamber of Commerce - restore 100 year old pass
- improve water quality
- provide sand for Honeymoon Island
- reduce Clearwater Pass currents
- safe harbor
- reduce bridge openings
Andy Nickolson, President - improve water quality through "good exchange"
Clearwater Marine Science Center - reduce habitat stress associated with pedestrians
David Little, Chairman - improve water quality
Committee to Reopen Dunedin Pass - - open pass - not the bridge
Chamber of Commerce - pass closed for man-made reasons
- restore wildlife to prior condition
4-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Individual comments in favor of reopening the pass predominantly focused upon
expected environmental benefits. In general, both "group" and individual comments -
in support of reopening the pass - were dominated by expectations of improved
water quality and restoration of natural resources (birds, fish, seagrasses)
surrounding the pass. Of the 21 people who spoke in favor of reopening the pass,
only 7 people cited or indicated improved navigation as a reason for reopening the
pass.
TABLE 4.1B: GROUPS IN oPPOSmON - SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
... ..... ..."......................'. ... .... ......... ................................
. .... .................... .................. ........................... ..
................... . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . ................... .
.............. . .:..'B~~p~lJ1m~!I:.!gIS9~.t9~.:~P1i9~~~9i:.:.
....:~l!lI'~i9Pl!lfP!P:.:::::(::: ..
.. ... -.- -""..,,,--. "...-- -- ...-.-... .
Marjorie Prism - inconsistency with CZM and Tampa Bay
League of Women Voters Regional Plans
- environmental impacts
- high costs
- policy - oppose efforts to alter natural system
Joyce Kane - filling of pass was natural - opening would
Audubon Society of St. damage environment
Petersberg - existing conditions are important to ecosystem
- the bridge should be fixed to alleviate traffic
congestion associated with bridge openings
Loretta Harding - seagrass decline is attributable to boat
Audubon Society propeller damage rather than closure of pass
Tom Reese - pass would cause eroSIOn of private property
Clearwater Beach Residents - legal expenence with fighting the opening of
and Manasota 88 Midnight Pass and Governor and Cabinet
denial of Stump Pass dredging - dictate likely
failure to obtain permits
- costs are high - bottomless pit
- throw away endless sums of money
Joseph Wagner - not in public interest (investigating costs and
Suncoast Sierra Club of Pinellas attorney to file a 120 hearing)
County
Fifteen people spoke in opposition to opening the pass; in general, opposing
comments reflected a perceived lack of public benefit, probable adverse
environmental impacts, and high costs required to open and maintain the pass.
Appendix F contains the minutes of the public hearing as compiled by the City
Clerk's office.
4-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5. RECO~NDATIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5. RECO~ENDATIONS
General: Recommendations are provided below for physical improvements to
reopen Dunedin Pass and to complete applications for permits. In addition,
discussion is l'rovided to justify these recommendations. In general, prior to
preparation and submittal of permit applications, the following recommendations are
made for immediate action by the City to proceed with this project:
a) A water quality model should be developed for Clearwater Harbor to
document the benefits of possible:
i) stormwater improvements;
ii) bridge/causeway improvements at Memorial
Causeway;
and/or, iii) reopening of Dunedin Pass.
b) A navigation study should be performed to document the benefits
associated with reopening Dunedin Pass.
c) Sea turtle nesting data and bird nesting data should be assimilated now
- or collected during the current nesting season.
These recommendations are relative to permit requirements and are discussed below.
Physical Improvements: The following physical improvements are recommended to
reopen Dunedin Pass:
1) Excavate a 335 foot wide, 8 foot deep channel at the location of the
closed pass with sand to be placed on adjacent beaches at an estimated
cost of $1.2 million.
2) Construct a sand trap and stabilization structures along the "throat" of
the pass to optimize sand transfer and to prevent migration of the pass
- at an estimated cost of $1.35 million.
and, 3) Instigate a maintenance and sand transfer program to minimize the
effects of the reopened pass upon surrounding beaches, maintenance
dredging is estimated to cost about $500,000 about every two years after
initial construction.
The construction of a hydraulically unstable channel would mandate annual (or more
frequent) dredging and still not provide a reliable navigation channel - as sand
would clog the pass and prevent boat passage. A hydraulically stable channel is
expected to maintain itself through the scouring action of currents; maintenance
dredging would likely be required every 2 - 3 years to maintain navigation depths
and transfer sand to down drift beaches. Although the pass might be reopened
immediately north of the existing homes on Clearwater Beach Island - at
approximately half this cost - the potential for shoreline fluctuations and boat traffic
adjacent to these homes and the orientation of the natural channel inside the pass
5-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
prompt the pass reopening where the pass previously closed. The recommended
improvements would restore the pass to its most recent location in a manner which
would provide a reliable navigation channel.
Permit Requirements: To obtain permits for reopening Dunedin Pass requires
demonstration of public benefits such that the project is clearly in the public interest
based on the factors listed in State statutes and rules. Based on the data now
available - and represented in this report - State regulatory staff (DEP) have
indicated that there is not sufficient public benefit to justify opening Dunedin Pass.
Table 5.1 summarizes items required to complete permit applications including the
estimated cost and timing required to complete each item to the point of final
agency action. Prior to final State agency action, any interested party may request
a hearing relative to the intended agency action. If a hearing is required, additional
costs on the order of $300,000 to $400,000 may be incurred in conjunction with a
hearing. The following describes each item expected to be required to complete the
permit applications:
At the public hearing of April 25, 1994, the primary public interest expressed relative
to reopening the pass was relative to an expectation of improved water quality and
associated environmental enhancement. Based on existing data, the existing water
quality in Clearwater Harbor predominantly meets State standards and is similar to
the water quality measured in the nearshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico. An
exception is at the "dead end" of the closed pass - where flow from "Cat Eye Lagoon"
(on Caledesi Island) appears to have caused a local degradation; this area appears
to be extensively used by birds to forage for food. Based on the existing data,
reopening the pass is not necessary to meet State standards in the open waters of
Clearwater Harbor. However, some water quality improvements in Clearwater
Harbor are expected with the reopening of Dunedin Pass. Based on the existing
data, only minimal water quality improvements in at least the "dead end" of the pass
channel are expected with the reopening of Dunedin Pass.
Based on the pre-application meetings, any expected water quality improvements
must be demonstrated by a hydrodynamic water quality model. Based on informal
discussions with City and County staff, the City and County have instigated a water
quality monitoring program with the intent of improving the quality of freshwater
discharges into marine waters and ultimately improving the water quality of receiving
waters - including Clearwater Harbor. Other improvements under consideration
include replacement of the Memorial Causeway (S.R. 60) with a high span bridge
and/or culverts under the causeway.
5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 5.1: PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
1) ASSESS BENEFITS
a) Evaluate Water Quality Hydrodynamic/Water quality computer model of ClealWater Harbor
Benefits and Alternatives
$250,000
2 years
b) Navigation Benefits Boat sUlVey - inventory and use
$50,000
6 months
2) PERMIT APPUCATIONS
a) Prepare Permit Refine conceptual design and compile application
Application
$10,000
3 months
b) Permit Fees
As required by permit agencies
$13,000
3) ASSESS IMPACTS. COSTS
a) Seagrasses
Map, identify densities, and estimate areas of impact
$7,500
6 months
b) Wetland Vegetation
Map, identify character, and estimate areas of impact
$7,500
6 months
c) Birds
Identify number of nesting and foraging bird families/colonies
$11,500
6 months
d) Sea Turtles
Compile existing data on nesting sea turtles
$1,000
3 months
e) Manatees
Compile existing data on manatee use of the area
$1,000
3 months
1) Benthic Organisms
Perform in faunal sampling to identify bottom dwelling organisms in dredge and fill areas
$8,000
4 months
g) Fish
Sampling and identification of fish in closed pass
$4,000
3 months
h) Hardbottom
Identify and map any reefs in fill areas along beach
$5,000
3 months
i) Turbidity
Sediment cores
$15,000
3 months
$1,500
3 months
Request mixing zone variance
j) Erosion
Develop sand transfer plan including ebb shoal growth rate
$5,000
3 months
k) Mitigation Plan
Develop a program for mitigation of avoidable impacts
$10,000
6 months
I) Construction Plans
Final construction plans are required to obtain permits
$50,000
6 months
4) OTHER
a) Riparian Interests
Perform title search
$500
3 months
$10,000
6 months
$1,500
2 months
Boundary SUlVeys
Public Notices
b) Consistency
c) Permit Processing
Demonstrate compliance with City and County Comprehensive Plans
$1,500
$50,000
Meetings, clarifications, and correspondence with agencies to point of final agency action
d) Inlet Management Plan
Planning document to fulfill State requirements for permits
$25,000
Total &tlmated Cost
$538,500
5-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Opening Dunedin Pass has been touted as a means to improve water quality in the
harbor; the effectiveness of this alternative - over stormwater; bridge, or causeway
alternatives - must be demonstrated to claim public benefits for improved water
quality. To evaluate these different alternatives and to provide a basis for water
quality improvements, a hydrodynamic/water quality model for Clearwater Harbor
is recommended. The model is not expected to demonstrate that reopening Dunedin
Pass would substantially improve water quality in Clearwater Harbor - but the model
would provide a firm basis for demonstrating any water quality improvements
associated with reopening the pass, or with bridge, causeway, or stormwater
improvements. For these reasons the model is recommended as a management tool
for Clearwater Harbor.
A clear benefit associated with reopening the pass is relative to improved navigation.
Due to the depth limitations of Hurrlcane Pass and Dunedin Pass (as proposed) and
due to the proximity of Clearwater Pass, there are a limited number of boats that
could use Dunedin Pass but cannot or would not use Clearwater or Hurricane Pass.
To estimate the number of boats that would use Dunedin Pass and to estimate
navigation benefits, a boat use survey is recommended. The boat use survey would
entail controlled aerial photography of the waterways where boats would be closer
to Dunedin Pass than to Clearwater or Hurricane Pass. From the photography, the
length of boats moored at marinas and docks can be estimated. Based on published
data, the drafts of these boats can be estimated and used as a basis of determining
the potential use of Dunedin Pass. Savings in travel time to the Gulf can then be
estimated as navigation benefits - a public benefit.
To prepare a permit application, the existing drawings in this report must be refined
and expanded to provide sufficient detail for evaluation by permitting agencies. A
formal permit application. must be compiled with permit fees for the project.
Natural resources must be mapped, characterized, and evaluated to determine costs
or impacts associated with the project. Seagrasses must be mapped by the use of
existing aerial photography; the maps then can be "ground truthed" and densities can
be determined by field observations and measurements.
Existing wetland vegetation along the shoreline of the pass must be mapped, ground
truthed, and evaluated for potential impact associated with the project.
A field survey of nesting and foraging birds is necessary to estimate the number of
nests and families that are supported by existing conditions at the pass - and which
may be affected by a reopened pass.
5-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The extent and density of nesting sea turtles must be appraised to determine the
necessity of project scheduling and measures to protect nesting turtles. This data
is likely available through the State.
The extent of manatee use of the area must be appraised based on existing data
available from local, State, and Federal (USF&WS) records. Provisions may be
necessary to protect manatees.
The State typically requires sampling and analysis of benthic (bottom dwelling)
organisms in both dredge areas and fill areas. This data will be used to determine
the existing species and their ability to recolonize after project construction.
The State typically requests that a fish survey be conducted to determine the value
of the fisheries habitat that may be affected by a project. This may be done by use
of a seine.
Adjacent to areas of fill placement on the beach, any nearshore hardbottom (reef)
may become covered by sand. Existing hardbottom must be mapped and
characterized in order to determine any potential impact.
To determine the potential for turbidity during construction and to evaluate the
suitability of sediments for beach nourishment, sediment cores must be obtained in
the field to represent excavated material. Due to the expected nature of the
material, a mixing zone variance (DEP) will likely be required.
To offset erosion on the adjacent beaches, a sand transfer plan must be developed
in conjunction with an appraisal of future ebb shoal growth rates.
Based on the determination of resources "described above, any impact must first
sought to be avoided, then minimized, and then mitigated. A mitigation plan must
be developed to identify the proposed mitigation.
Final construction plans are required to obtain coastal construction permits. These
plans must reflect the final design, mitigation plan, and show all details of
construction.
To address riparian interests and identify upland property owners, a title search is
appropriate. Subsequent to identification of surrounding properties, a boundary
survey is required. Public Notice of adjacent property owners is required to obtain
State approvals.
It is necessary to demonstrate that the project is consistent with the County and City
Comprehensive Plans.
5-5
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
After submittal of the permit applications, "permit processing" will be required. This
work is expected to entail correspondence, telephone contacts and meetings with
State, Federal, and local agencies towards clarifying submittals and negotiations
towards obtainment of permits.
An Inlet Management Plan is required to be completed after permit issuance, this
plan will be based upon design and the data collected for permits.
5-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
-
'I'
I
6. REFERENCES
I
I
I
I
,J
I:
I
U
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6. REFERENCES
Applied Technology and Management, Inc., 1993. ''Hurricane Pass Inlet
Management Plan." Prepared for Pinellas County, Clearwater, Florida.
Bard, A.M., 1992. "The Status of the Seagrass Community of St. Joseph Sound
Adjacent to Honeymoon Island State Recreation Area and Caladesi Island State
Park, Pinellas County, Florida: Ecology, Distribution, and Recommendations for
Management." District 5. Technical Report 1.
Biological Research Associates (BRA), 1989. "Letter report to Pinellas County
Reopening Dunedin Pass: Effects on the Avifauna. "
Bruun, P., Gerritsen, F., and Morgan, W.R., 1958. "Florida Coastal Problems:
Engineering Progress at the University of Florida." Bulletin Series 101, pp 33-79.
Cutts, W., 1993. Department of Environmental Protection, Caladesi Island Park
Manager. Personal Communication.
Davis, R.A., and Gibeaut, J.C., 1990. ''Historical Morphodynamics of Inlets in
Florida. " Models for Coastal Zone Planning. Technical Paper 55. Florida
Sea Grant College Program.
Dawes. C.J., 1989. '~n Analyses of Thalassia Testudinum Beds and Water Quality
Assessment for Dunedin Pass and Southern St. Joseph Sound, Pinellas County,
Florida." Submitted to Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners.
Dean, R.G., 1990. '~n Evaluation of the Reopening of Dunedin Pass." Prepared
for Pinellas County, Clearwater, Florida.
Demirpolat, S., Tanner, W.F., and Knoblauch, M., 1987. "Historical Florida
Shorelines: An Atlas Pinellas County, 1873 - 1979." Department of Natural
Resources Bureau of Coastal Data Acquisition.
Edwards, N., 1993. Department of Environmental Protection, Cleremont Office.
Personal Communication.
Hine, A.C., Mearns, D.L., Davis, Jr., R.A, and Bland, M., 1986. "Impact of Florida's
Gulf Coast Inlets on the Coastal Sand Budget." Prepared for Florida
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores.
6-1
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
.1
I
I:
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
REFERENCESCONT~ED
Jarrett, J.T., 1976. "Tidal Prism - Inlet Area Relationships." Gm Report 3. U.S.
Army Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Missouri.
Lynch-Blosse, M.A., 1977. "Inlet Sedimentation at Dunedin and Hurricane Passes,
Pinellas County, Florida." Thesis for the Department of Geology, University
of South Florida.
Lynch-Blosse, M.A., and Davis, Jr., R.A, 1977. "Stability of Dunedin and Hurricane
Passes, Florida." Coastal Sediments '77. Fifth Symposium of the Waterway,
Port, Coastal and Ocean Division of ASCE. Charleston, South Carolina.
Newman, R.J., 1983. "Clearwater Pass Glossary of Inlets Report #12." Report
Number 56. Florida Sea Grant College.
O'Brien, M.P., 1969. "Equilibrium Flow Areas of Inlets on Sandy Coasts." ASCE
Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division. Vol. 59, No. WWl, pp. 43-
52.
PIANC, 1980. "Permanent InternationalAssociation of Navigation Congress'Internation
Committee for the Reception of Large Vessels Group W Bulletin #35."
Pinellas County, 1990. Dunedin Pass Joint Application for Works in the Waters of
Florida.
Rosen, D.S., 1976. "Beach and Nearshore Sedimentation on Caladesi Island State
Park, Pinellas County, Florida." Thesis for the Department of Geology,
University of South Florida.
Ross, B.E., Dorzback, H.L., 1986. "The Pinellas Coast Inlet Study Part One -
Dunedin Pass." Center for Mathematical Models, University of South Florida.
USACE, 1985. ''Dunedin and Hurricane Passes, Pinellas County, Florida, Detailed
Project Report, Improvements for Small Boat Navigation and Environmental
Assessment." Jacksonville District.
USACE, 1977. "Feasibility Report on Navigation Improvements at Dunedin Pass,
Pinellas County Florida." Jacksonville District.
6-2
I
I
.1
I
.1
I
I
I
I
,!
I
1
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
REFERENCES CONTINUED
USACE, 1966. "Beach Erosion Control Study on Pinel/as County, Florida." Jacksonville
District.
Walther, M.P., and Douglas, B.D., 1993. "Ebb Shoal Borrow Area Recovery." Journal
of Coastal Research. Special Issue #18.
Walton, Jr., T.L., 1976. "Littoral Drift Estimates Along the Coast of Florida." Report
Number 13. Florida Sea Grant College.
Watson, D., 1993. Department of Environmental Protection, State Parks, Assistant
Park Manager. Personal Communication.
Zieman, J.C., and Zieman, R.T., 1989. "The Ecology of the Seagrass Meadows of the
West Coast of Florida: A Community Profile." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Biological Report 85 (7.25). 155 pages.
6-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
ELEMENTS REQUIRED UNDER CHAPTER 16B-41.008 (1) (M)
,I
t
I
,
I
I
'I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A
SUBJECT
PAGE
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-1
Physical Characteristics ........................................ A-1
Sediment Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-2
Ebb Shoal .................................................. A-7
Sediment Budget of Reopened Pass .............................. A-7
Wind and Wave Climate ....................................... A-9
Sediment Characteristics ....................................... A-9
Man-Made Structures ........................................ A-16
Shoreline Change ........................................... A-16
Stability and Hydraulic Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-19
Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-23
Stability of a New Pass ....................................... A-27
References ................................................ A-28
I
t
I
f
,
Ii
I
'I,
II
Ii
,J
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
Al
A2
A3
A4
AS
A6
A.7
A.8
A9
AI0
All
UST OF FIGURES
APPENDIX A
PAGE
Sediment Budget ................................... A-5
Apparent Sediment Dispersal Patterns at Dunedin Pass as
Determined from Current, Bathymetric, Bedform, and
Surface Circulation Data (Circa 1975) ................... A-6
November, 1993 Offshore Bathymetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-8
Core Log and "N" Blow Counts . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . A-II
Geological Cross-Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A -14
Core Boring Locations ............................... A-IS
Historical Shoreline Maps for Dunedin Pass
and Hurricane Pass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-I7
St. Joseph Sound Tide Data ........................... A-20
Current Velocity Data at Dunedin Pass .................. A-22
Channel Cross-Section (A) and Measured Tidal Currents (B)
at Dunedin Pass .................................... A-24
Predicted Tidal Prisms of Each Pass Versus
Dunedin Pass Throat Area ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-26
I
t
I
I
j
I
fl
I
'I
J
I
.
,
I
I
I
I
I
i
LIST OF TABLES
APPENDIX A
PAGE
Al Predicted Transport Rates (Cubic YardsIYear) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4
A2 Soil Investigations ........................................ A-9
A3 Sediment Data From Cores ................................ A-12
AA Summary of Grain-Size Analysis of Sediments from Dunedin Pass ... A-13
A5 MHWL Feet from Monument .............................. A-18
A6 MHWL Change (Ft) ..................................... A-19
A 7 Maximum Measured Current Velocities ....................... A-21
A8 Calculated Maximum Velocities Through Inlets
(Tides for Month of August, 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-27
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,I
General: Appendix A contains the information required under Chapter 16B-41.008
(1) (m) for a coastal construction permit.
Phvsical Characteristics: Dunedin Pass, previously known as Big Pass, is located
along the barrier island system of Pinellas County. The pass separated Caladesi
Island and Clearwater Beach Island and previously connected Clearwater Harbor to
the Gulf of Mexico (see Figure 1.1). Hurricane Pass is located approximately 3 miles
north of Dunedin Pass and Clearwater Pass is located approximately 4 miles south
of Dunedin.
Clearwater Beach Island is immediately south of the pass and is a developed island
connected to the mainland by the Memorial Causeway (State Road 60) which was
constructed in 1925 - 1926. Caladesi Island, to the north, is a State park which was
only accessible by boat prior to the closure of Dunedin Pass. Caladesi Island is
predominately undeveloped. Tidal flow through historical Dunedin Pass created a
channel which extends to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) along the eastern side
of Clearwater Harbor. Nautical charts dating back to 1883 indicate a navigable inlet
at Dunedin Pass (L YNCH-BLOSSE and DAVIS, 1977 and DEMIRPOIAT,
et aI, 1987).
In the late 1800's, Dunedin Pass appears on nautical charts as Big Pass; at that time,
the pass was the predominant influence over the entire Clearwater Bay and St.
Joseph Sound tidal area (HINE, et al, 1986). In 1921, a hurricane breached what
was known as Hog Island to form Hurricane Pass; the northern portion of Hog
Island is now known as Honeymoon Island and the southern portion of Hog Island
is now known as Caladesi Island. Hurricane Pass diverted tidal flow away from
Dunedin Pass. This tidal diversion contributed to shoaling in the channel at
Dunedin Pass. Memorial Causeway, to Clearwater Beach Island, was completed in
1926, isolating Dunedin Pass from Clearwater Pass to the south. Between 1926 and
1950, Hurricane Pass continued to exchange the majority of the tidal prism for this
area and Dunedin Pass began to migrate (HINE, et aI, 1986). In September, 1950,
a major hurricane struck the Pinellas County area and considerable shoaling
occurred at both Dunedin Pass and Hurricane Pass (L YNCH-BLOSSE and DAVIS,
1977); both passes experienced increased migration and spit growth.
In 1958, the dredge and fill construction of Island Estates began between Dunedin
Pass and the Memorial Causeway. This caused additional reduction in the tidal
prism. The Honeymoon Island Causeway was constructed during 1960 - 1963 and
separated Clearwater Bay from St. Joseph Sound. Hurricane Pass subsequently
controlled the majority of the tidal flow at the north end of Clearwater Harbor; the
cross-sectional area of Dunedin Pass decreased (HINE, et aI, 1986).
A-l
I
I
I
I
I
,
t
I
I
I,
I
j
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
In the 1960's and 1970's, Dunedin P~ss continued to migrate towards the north and
the south end of Caladesi Island eroded. As the pass continued to migrate north,
shoaling increased and in 1979, all navigational aids marking the pass were
discontinued (PINEUAS COUNTY, 1990); however, small vessels continued to use
the pass. The hurricane season of 1985 (Elena, Kate, Tropical Storm Joan) caused
substantial shoaling within Dunedin Pass and prevented any navigation of the pass.
Hurricane Elena eroded any remaining portion of the ebb shoal and the inlet began
to close (DAVIS and GlliEAUT, 1990). These storms most likely transported the
sediment remaining in the ebb shoal into the mouth of the pass. The tidal flows
through the pass were not strong enough to scour out the storm deposited sediments
and permanent shoals formed at the pass. These shoals further reduced the tidal
flows through the pass resulting in increased sedimentation and by 1988, the pass
was completely closed.
Sediment Budlet: The magnitude and direction of sand transport in the region of
Dunedin Pass are important design parameters for a reopened pass. These transport
parameters are also difficult values to quantify. At the historical Dunedin Pass, the
net transport direction could be reliably determined, but the transport magnitude
was much more difficult to reliably determine.
The segment of shoreline including the project area from Anclote Key south to
Indian Rocks Beach at the western extremity of Sand Key represents a single large
longshore drift cell (L YNCH-BLOSSE, 1977 and BRUUN et aI, 1958). Local
sedimentation patterns occur at inlets within this cell. Longshore transport
computed from offshore wave data predicts a net transport to the south (USACE,
1985; NEWMAN, 1983). Historical migration of the inlet and sedimentological data
indicate drift reversals, and a net transport from south to north at the historical pass
(L YNCH-BLOSSE, 1977; ROSEN, 1976; USACE, 1985).
Lynch-Blosse (1977) theorized that the down-drift offset at Dunedin Pass resulted
from circulation patterns, drift reversals, and an unusually high rate of beach ridge
formation on Caladesi Island. The study also reported that wave sheltering and
refraction due to the ebb shoal resulted in a net accumulation of sediment on the
downdrift beach on Caladesi Island. This transport resulted in the growth of large
shoals which became emergent and eventually welded to the shoreline. It was also
noted that during the 1970's, as shoals were forming on the north side of the pass,
the northern migration rate of the pass increased. The report hypothesized that the
increased rate of migration and some deepening of the channel was a reaction of the
pass to "attain equilibrium."
A-2
I
J
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
The closure of the pass was most likely due to ebb shoal sediments being transported
into the pass, as the pass w~s becoming more narrow due to (te.creased tidal pris~
and increased 'northern migation. The ebb shoal volume. was too large for the
hydraulic capacity of the pass. Eventually, the tidal currents at the pass were not
strong enough to scour out material that was washed into the pass.
Another feature affecting the transport processes at Dunedin Pass is the change in
shoreline orientation between Caladesi Island to the north and Clearwater Beach
Island to the south. Clearwater Beach Island, adjacent to the historic pass, is
orientated approximately north-south. Caladesi Island, adjacent to the historic pass,
is orientated approximately 20 degrees from true north in a northeast to southwest
direction. This large change in shoreline orientation (neglecting inlet affects) tends
to cause longshore transport gradients resulting in erosion of material at the pass.
Waves out of a southwest quadrant will cause a northerly transport gradient such
that less material is transported from Qearwater Beach Island towards the pass than
material is transported away from the pass along Caladesi Island. Similarly for
waves out of a northwest quadrant, less southerly transport reaches the pass from
Caladesi Island than is directed away from the pass along Clearwater Beach. Thus,
if the pass and ebb shoal were never present at this location, longshore transport
processes would tend to erode the beaches to "smooth" the shoreline.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimated the longshore transport in the vicinity
of Hurricane and Dunedin Passes using average ocean swell and average wind waves
observed in deep water off of Tampa Bay (USACE, 1985). This analysis also
included longshore transport estimates based on littoral drift roses (WALTON,
1976). Table A.l presents predicted transport rates from wave data and littoral drift
roses (LDR) from the north end of Honeymoon Island to the south end of
Clearwater Beach Island (USACE, 1985). Figure A.l presents a graphical deposition
of the reported transport rates for the region.
Both transport analysis (wave and WR) were based on the orientation of the north
end of Clearwater Beach Island which is approximately due north and the
orientation of the south end of Caladesi Island which is approximately 20 degrees
east of north. The transport estimates by the USACE indicate a gross transport of
195,275 cubic yards to 183,295 cubic yards per year south of the pass and 235,425
cubic yards to 163,805 cubic yards per year north of the pass. The range of
estimates account for different predicted gross transport based on wave data and
littoral drift roses. The littoral drift rose predictions agree with those by Newman
(1983) who predicted a gross transport rate of 195,275 cubic yards per year for the
northern end of Clearwater Beach Island and 154,000 cubic yards per year at
Clearwater Pass. Based on this range of gross transport and based on the transport
ratio methodology (WALTER and DOUGLAS, 1993), up to 165,000 cubic yards year
are projected to deposit within the channel. The estimated maintenance dredging
cost would be approximately $514,000.
A-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE A.l: PREDICTED TRANSPORT RATES (CUBIC YARDSIYEAR)
Honeymoon Island
R-8 to R-12
79,8351
(116,800i
61,195
(51,100)
53,015
(49,275)
33,500
(54,750)
39,015
(65,700)
61,195
(51,100)
71,780
(87,600)
122,100
(144,175)
133,645
(153,300)
128,940
(160,600)
124,790
(169,725)
122,100
(144,175)
Caladesi Island
R-18 to R-20
R-20 to R-22
R-22 to R-24
R-24 to R-27
Clearwater Beach
Island
......................
...-.......................................:..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . .
.................................
""""'"''''''''''''N''''''''''''t''''''''''''''''''''',.,.,.
............ ... .........-..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............ ............
............. ............
'{{{{{.:!,}{:)
.'iO:S6&di'?
.......-...............--..-......
. . .. ...... - . . . . . . . .. .. - . . . . . . . .
-8,055
-(29,200)
60,905
(93,075)
80,630
(104,025)
95,440
(105,850)
85,775
(104,025)
60,905
(93,075)
151,615
(204,400)
183,295
(195,275)
186,660
(202,575)
162,440
(215,350)
163,805
(235,425)
183,295
(195,275)
1) Numbers not in parenthesis
are based on wave data.
2) Numbers in parenthesis are based
on littoral drift roses.
Source: USACE, 1985
Comparison of 1950 historical bathymetric charts and surveys performed in 1976
indicate a net gain of material from the north end of Clearwater Beach Island to the
north end of Honeymoon Island (L YNCH-BLOSSE,1977). The sediment circulation
patterns for Dunedin Pass for circa 1975 are shown in Figure A.2 for ebb and flood
tidal flows. Lynch-Blosse found that sediment was directed from offshore towards.
both the north and south beaches during flood tide and that during ebb tide current
eddies generated a return flow on the north side which also directed sediment from
offshore towards the north beach. Lynch-Blosse concluded that a continuous
addition of sediments to the north beach occurred thus creating the downdrift offset
and resulting in landward migration of ebb shoals which would attach to the south
shoreline. The landward migration of sediment at the pass was apparent by the
presence of swash platforms and spits on both the downdrift and updrift beaches.
These swash platforms at the historical pass were supratidal (at times emergent) and
periodically migrated landward (LYNCH-BLOSSE, 1977) which produced "a
continuing process of offshore bar formation and shoreward migration" ... resulting ... "in
the gulfward advance of shorelines immediately adjacent to Dunedin Pass" (USACE,
1977).
A-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
o
\\ =' =
'+i======
\~
'i
'i 0
'i ~==
))==~
\I
C>
HONEYMOON
ISLAND
t
V 71,780 WAVE
t (87,600 LOR)
A
~
HURRICANE
PASS
Cswy
\I
}}
Q II
110
c> II Cl
/I
/I
~ ./1
~I/
<J .//
~I/
./I
\lUll
.11
0-11
II
o II
II
/I
o II
II
~ II
1/
II
If.
1/
;..
61,195 WAVE
(51,100 LOR)
122,100 WAVE
(144,175 LOR)
CALADESI
I S LA N D
85,775
(104,025)
~
+ 39,015 WAVE
A (65,700 LOR)
V 124,790 WAVE
t (169,725 LOR)
DUNEDIN
PASS
+ 61,195 WAVE
A (51,100 LOR)
~
,\ b)
60,905
(93,075)
~
EGEND
A Transport to the North cy /yr
~ Transport to the South cy/yr
122,100 WAVE
(144.175 LOR)
CLEARWATER
BEACH
I S LAN D
Sediment Budget
Figure A.1
A-5
~~~~--~~-~~~~~-~---
l>
I
O'l
FLOOD
~
EBB
~
Apparent sediment dispersal patterns at Dunedin Pass
as det~rmined from current, bathymetric, bedform,
and surface circulation data. (circa 1975)
Figure A.2
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ebb Shoal: The historic pass had a very large ebb shoal; in 1880 - 1885 the ebb
shoal volume was estimated to have been approximately 8.8 x 106 cubic yards
(DAVIS and GmEAUT, 1990). Figure A3 depicts the offshore bathymetry as
surveyed in November, 1993 for this study. The remnants of the former ebb shoal
can be seen offset to the south offshore of ClealWater Beach Island. This feature
is most noticeable by the position of the 10 foot contour.
The historical Dunedin Pass had a asymmetrical ebb tidal delta which varied in size
from 8.8 x 106 cy in 1880 - 1885 to 1.2 x 106 cy in 1984 (DAVIS and GmEAUT,
1990). The reported volumetric loss in the ebb shoal from 1950 to 1984 is 7.6 million
cubic yards. This represents an annual change of approximately 223,000 cubic yards.
The majority of the former ebb shoal landward of the 9 or 10 foot depth contour is
no longer present and most likely has migrated landward. Historic bathymetric
charts for the Dunedin area for the 1970's and 1980's indicate that the 4 foot to 6
foot contour was approximately 2,000 feet offshore and the 12 foot contour was 4,000
feet offshore (ROSEN, 1976; L YNCH-BLOSSE, 1977; DAVIS and
GmEAUT, 1990). The 6 foot contour in 1993 was 150 to 250 feet offshore and the
12 foot contour was 2,000 to 2,500 feet offshore. The ebb shoal appears to be offset
towards the south or the reported downdrift direction. This offset would be
consistent with the reported theoretical net transport direction, but conflicts with the
observed northern migration of the pass. The appearance of the offset could be due
to the pass migrating towards the north and the southern extremity of the ebb shoal
becoming offset relative to the "moving" pass. The availability of sediment on the
southern shoreline from the ebb shoal could have provided a readily available source
of material for the northern spit growth.
As the ebb shoal decreased in size, the pass's throat cross-sectional area decreased
from 13,986 fe in 1880 - 1885 to 753 ft2 in 1986 (DAVIS and GmEAUT, 1990). For
a proposed new pass of a minimum throat cross-section of 1,490 ft2, Dean (1990)
estimated an equilibrium ebb tidal shoal volume of approximately 377,000 cy.
Sediment Budget of Reopened Pass: Existing literature does not provide a definite
quantification of a sediment budget for a reopened pass. It is clear that any new
pass will trap significant amounts of longshore sediments. The historical pass
migrated towards the north accumulating material on the Gulf shoreline fronting
adjacent portions of Caladesi and ClealWater Islands, and in an ebb shoal. The
historical pass eroded the southern extremity of Caladesi Island which formed the
northern boundary of the throat of the pass. An unstabilized new pass would most
likely tend to migrate towards the north, trap material in a navigational channel and
A-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
:::;
I \j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.-+
~
~
.=-+
~
a
..........,
C)
(,)
.....,
~
G::;
~
~
C)
'"
I
1,337.:.00-
\
'" N
) ) ~
November 1993 Offshore Bathymetry
Figure A.3
A-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
shoals, and possibJy form offshore sand bars or spits. Table A.l (see page A4)
shows a range of predicted gross transport rates of 163,805 to 235,425 cubic yards
per .year for the project area. It is anticipated that a new pass would initially
impound a large portion of the gross transport and, in time, impound an ever
decreasing portion of the gross transport as shoals mature and adjacent shorelines
approach equilibrium.
Wind and Wave Climate: The prevailing winds at the Dunedin Pass area are from
the northeast and north during the winter months and from the east and south for
the remainder of the year (USACE, 1985; NEWMAN, 1983). Tabulated wave data
(USACE, 1985; NEWMAN, 1983) are in general agreement with the offshore wind
data; it was found that the largest percentage of onshore swell is from the southwest.
The USACE (1985) stated that ". . . waves affecting the Dunedin Pass study area rarely
exceeded a height of 6 feet and generally average less than 3 feet with a period of about
5 seconds."
Sediment Characteristics: Six soil investigations have been conducted in the
Dunedin project area. These soil investigations are summarized in Table A.2. These
studies indicate the following:
1) Silt and mud is accumulating on the channel bottom to form a thin silt
layer;
2) Below the surficial silt layer, there exists a layer of beach compatible
sand from approximately -13' MLW to -16' MLW.
TABLE A.2: SOIL INVESTIGATIONS
Date
.... .. - --...
1990 Central Florida Testing Laboratories - Standard
penetration test in "new" channel alignment
1989 Dr. Richard Davis - Sediment samples and cores at
Dunedin Channel and in the bay
1987 A&E Testing - Sediment samples and borings in
Dunedin Channel
1984 Central Florida Testing Laboratories - Sediment
samples and core borings in Dunedin Channel
1977 USF - Sediment and core log analysis for
sedimentation study of Dunedin and Hurricane Passes
1977 USACE - Sediment samples and core logs in the pass,
channel, and bay
A-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1990 - Central Florida Testing Laboratories: A standard penetration test
boring to a depth of 16.5 feet below existing grade was performed within the
"new" channel alignment proposed by Pinellas County. Soil samples were
taken at 1.5 feet increments and sieve analysis were performed. The core log
and "N' blow counts are shown in Figure A4; sieve information is provided
in Appendix D. The sieve analysis results in an average of 2.2 percent passing
the number 200 sieve. All samples were classified as SP, poorly graded fine
sand (Uses SYSTEM). The lab concluded that ''Results of testing show the
soils encountered to consist of slightly loose surficial, noncohesive sands to a depth
of not over 1.5 feet followed by clean, medium dense, noncohesive sands and sands
with varying amount of shell fragments the remainder of the boring."
1989 - Dr. Richard Davis: Sediment samples were collected and analyzed at
locations in the project area. Five of these locations were from the Dunedin
Pass Channel, equally spaced from stations 2 to 4, and one station was in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Station
Location
1
2
3w
3e
3
4
100' west of closed Dunedin Pass
100' inside closed Dunedin Pass
Along north bank of Dunedin Pass, 600' east of station 2
On the north bank of Dunedin Pass
In channel, by northern piles in Dunedin Pass
In channel, by marker 7 in Dunedin Pass approach
The stations correspond to the numbered sampling stations used for the water
quality measurements. At station number 3, three samples were taken at the east,
west, and center of the channel. The analysis showed that the "... bottom sediments
are dominated by fine quality sand with secondary amounts of shell gravel and mud."
The samples from Dunedin Pass had the highest amounts of mud of all the samples
taken.
The analysis showed at Dunedin Pass that "... the general stratigraphy of the cores
shows mud at or near the top . . ." The cores showed that pelleted mud (which
passes through the intestinal tract of organisms) was accumulating in sheltered areas
of low energy. Table A.3 presents sediment data from the core logs indicating 21
percent to 89 percent mud in the upper sample of each core.
A-l0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CENTRAL FLORIDA TESTING LABORATORIES, Inc.
BORING LOG
Client: _____ ___P_i~~~~~~ <:o~~:y_~~g!-~~e~~n~ !>.=e.a!!:~eE-~ _ _ __ Date: ___OJ.=!J..-.9Q _ _ ____
Job Location: _~~l!..n~g.!!!J'~~~ ___ _ _ ___ __ - - ---- -- - - - - - --- - -- - - - - - - -- - - - ---
Borinst No.:__~_J___ Boring Location:_~~~_~ls..e!!;Q. _ _ _____ _ _ _ Ground Elev.:_E_x.!.l2.Q.ng___
UUaol'rapb)'
DepUa Deserlptloa
IX Gray Fim! Sam w/tr
Wri.te Fim! Sam
25
LT Gray Fim! Sam w/9le11
LT 9!aY Fine Sam w/tr
10
IX Gray Fine Sam w/9le11
15
Gray Fim! Sam w/9le11
Bottan of Boring
* 1" Brown Fim! Sam
SpUapooa: ASTM D 15..
JloeIl Core: ASTM D %113
Uallled
Cl....
1
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
peaetratlon" Reslstaaee
Blows Per Foot
SP
50 70
2 3
SP
A-ll
Fiqure A.4: Core Lo~ ",,- "~,:" Blow Counts
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.....................
........................
nO' .......... ........
.,......................
.-.......................
~#mp)~
2C-1
2C-2
2C-3
2C-4
3WC-1
3WC-2
TABLE A.3: SEDIMENT DATA FROM CORES
'wE'Ii).'
.. ::::::.;.;.:.;.:.:::::::::::::::::::..~~.::::::::::::.
13.49
46.36
28.48
34.33
16.16
28.22
3WC-3 40.57
3C-1 12.49
3C-2 27.30
3C-3 43.23
3EC-1 29.47
3EC-2 39.20
3EC-3 43.03
4C-1 4.87
4C-2 30.54
Source: Davis, 1989
...... .........-...'...... .....................................
.................................,....'...................... ..........-........................'..... ..........................................................................
::~n..V~l..:... ~SaHd ..:..IM#i:.:.119~.:;,I...,!
0.15 78.50 21.35 2.58
0.04 99.01 0.95 0.07
0.04 68.82 31.14 3.93
0.06 93.80 6.15 0.61
0.12 48.95 50.93 5.79
0.11 87.38 12.51 1.34
0.10 96.45 3.45 0.35
0.00 40.75 59.25 7.20
0.18 92.89 6.92 0.80
2.11 97.22 0.67 0.05
0.17 97.49 2.34 0.31
0.05 93.72 6.22 0.78
0.72 96.68 2.60 0.30
0.00 11.09 88.91 8.71
0.36 91.32 8.32 0.76
!i:il~lf!!illljii
12.06
7.65
12.61
9.93
11.37
10.69
10.14
12.14
11.54
7.78
13.10
12.50
11.54
9.79
9.08
1987 - A&E Testing: Eight core borings were obtained along the Dunedin
Channel floor in areas proposed for navigation dredging. The core logs
showed a surficial silt layer 12" to 18" deep on the channel bottom below
which beach compatible material was present to at least -13' MSL. The beach
compatible material contained 1 percent to 5 percent fines. The bottom silt
layer contained fines of approximately 12 percent and organic matter of 16
percent.
1984 - Central Florida Testing Laboratories: A sand sieve analysis was
performed for seven locations - one in the Gulf outside the pass, one in
Dunedin Pass, five in the Dunedin Channel and approaches. The sieve
analysis showed 5 percent to 25 percent passing the number 200 sieve in the
Dunedin Channel and 15 percent to 75 percent passing the number 200 sieve
for samples in the ICWW.
A-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1977 - USF Inlet Sedimentation Study: Extensive sediment sampling was
performed in the Dunedin Pass project area. The study found that the
channel sediments at Dunedin Pass mainly consisted of shell fragments. The
updrift and downdrift beaches had similar sediment composition. Table A4
from this study presents the mean grain size, standard deviation, and skewness
in phi unit for different features at Dunedin Pass. It was found that gravel
and coarse sands (<0.0 <p) were located in the channel throat, coarse sand
(0.0-1.0 <p) was located on the updrift swash platform and outer bar, and
medium to fine sands dominated other inlet features. The sediment standard
deviation and skewness were correlated with the mean grain size.
1977 - USACE: Subsurface investigations were performed for Dunedin and
Hurricane Passes. The study concluded that "The channel through Dunedin
Pass and northern interior channel again is primarily fine sands with areas of silt
and shell to be excavated. The channel through Dunedin Pass and the southern
interior channel would require removal of fine sand with traces of shell fragments. "
A geologic cross-section constructed from bore logs (Figure AS), with the
core boring log locations shown in Figure A.6, indicates a maximum depth of
excavation in the project area of -13' to -15' MLW. Below these depths, rock,
sandstone, and limestone will be encountered.
TABLE A.4: SUMMARY OF GRAIN-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENTS FROM
DUNEDIN PASS
.__,.......".."'_..__......"'_..___...... .n ................_......._...__........
........-.'............','........................,..'........-...-.-......,.. .......-.-'.-.............'....,.,.......-............'...._'...-...'_._'_.........
. ,........,:....,>>:...'.'.............:--..-....................-......,.. ...................................................'...-.....'......_._-.-_......
i.{(I~~)9t,.)1<g..~il!.~~)..............
1.74 0.30
Channel Floor
.,.....-.-.............-.--...
.....,',.........,.-...'......,...............,..-.-.._...-.........
..........,......-....-.-.-..-.....
1t..~~pt~~U.
13 0.13
Swash Platform (Updrift)
Spit Bay/Cat-Eye Pond
Swash Platform (Downdrift)
Subordinate Channels
Channel Slope
Terminal Lobe
Spit Platform
Ebb-Tidal Delta (Downdrift)
Ebb-Tidal Delta (Updrift)
Flood-Tidal Delta
Channel Margin Linear Bar
All Environments
6
6
8
5
18
4
11
7
8
6
4
95
1.03
1.28
1.45
1.46
1.69
2.52
2.54
2.60
2.65
2.81
2.88
1.92
1.65 -026
1.70 -0.32
1.54 -0.55
1.43 -0.49
1.38 -0.55
0.88 -1.07
0.90 -1.11
0.82 -1.05
0.65 -1.02
0.62 0.84
0.47 -1.11
1.15 -0.51
A-13
-
..
)>
I
--'
~
~ -5
~
,.......
....
loJ
loJ
.....
'-" -10
:z
o
;::
'"
>
...
d -15
~ -5
::t
........
I-
...
loJ
.....
'-" -10
:z
o
;::
'"
>
...
d -IS
-
-20
-
..
-
-
-
-
..
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-0
CB-Dp':"l
I 0
-
-
o
CB-OP-7
-!j
-10
-15
-20
-5
-10
-15
-~ -w
CB-DP-4
5QO 1 opO
HORIZONTAL SCALE
(FEET)
9
2000
I
Illr~t~l~i~\{t~"~:~~},:\:t':~:'-~'~:~~~;~i~::~~\ISj;~~~i$:f;~,~;;" C'-OP-9
c...., "";!l..)--<.,)..::L.,):,,~,",. ')""":)' ...;.d........;):__.,........''''''...,...,...... ..."...... ',,"r"
:? :,;;:],:':,f-:::::.(~~'*)"~5:~:~~ :~::;<~~~:?:~ ~~;':):::: ,.~':j:: )": " .'~ :::>': '.::':~:'" H~::: ";-"";:>,:' :~~;~;:~:~:.i~~~~~:~::~);:::~:;:;;~~~~:':,.:~~:':':\:.:.~:~2::;:,~:"; :',.'\'rc.; - .
'. r I'..~ ,~). .;), . .'" .5o, ;}.". )>. O. ~):,)" -)...;).). 'l ~,'))). )". . , . " '.. .'" ..... ". . " . -..'. " ):... . ~ .....t..., "'.. ".. ~. '-.'.-.
~/'::~:.,~:::,,;~ -' ,-- > " "":~' ~'_ ' "';) ':~::'-~'r;:~:'~::~:~;~_;"'f::~;c~~~\~~1~'~I~~~~~0~
CB-DP-IO
I
CB-OP-5
CB-DP-3
.""
} :. \
" ""
o
CB-DP-4
CB-DP-2
GEOLOGY LEGEND
I}~~:;;>UI ..s..o.n.d. Fine to medium grained (SP)
mIiliIIEI ~. Fine to medium grained. silty (SM)
~""\.~ ~
[[[]]]] .sill. Low plasticity (ML)
~: : I : I
~-;~:;!-i:;:I!:;'1
I I I I I
I I
!J ) ) )1
Limestone
Sandstone
Used in combination with other symbols to indicate
rock fragments within unconsolidated material
Used in combination with other symbols to indicate
shell or shell fragments within unconsolidated material
Geological Cross-Sections
Figure A.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\\ 0
\\ = =
~=====
'\ ~ t::J. "
~ 0
~ ==
\)==
! ~....................
IT -V
\I l
Ji
a II (
110
c> 11 a
/I
II
~ .1/
~I/
() .11
~II
... ...
CB-DP-6 0 ...\ ./1 ~
. - '/ 0 CB-DP-1 ~UII
b ~ ,......... 0.11 \:
B-DP-7. ........... () <;;;>-11
-ocF0b .... OCB-OP-2 II
. C8-0P-3 II
\~o 0 1/
C LEA R W ATE R . CB-OP-8 /I
BEACH 1:.0 0 /I
I S LA N D ".. ~ /I ( .
Clearwater Municip::J1 J ..fiib O-OP-9 II
Yacht Bas ~i c.. ~... ....... .... Q, II
............... is ... '.. ..' .... /I
\:\-_'\ ...... /I
Clear~~t'Y:...~ ~ ..... + ....cCB-O-1H~
MUnlclppl...> ~ .' .... .
Marir:~{ ~ . I/Boat Ram
=-~ ~~>t . J1ii
CLEARWATER ~"" /
p ASS ~ 1If!
II I [
II !
(: ?
C>
ii ....... ....................................,
........ ..
...... ...........
<
HONEYMOON
ISLAND \
...
.:.
....
..:
.. ....
CALADESI
ISLAND
)
J\
''''''''....
~v,.....:...'.
DUN E D I...~ ................ ........i
..... ........< .......
..
........
SJ
b
.....
.
.........
\
.........
LEG END......
Core Boring .......
...... .......... Current Meter
2(i"iifid eSt at ion .. ...........................
~...................... .........i............................. ......................................... . ........ .....>.i..iii
.......-i.............................. ............. ..........
........->\.ii.................... ....... .. .. ........
.:.
.....:... .'.
..
...
............:.....:
C LEA RW ~TE~ .......... ........... .............. .....\ .......................
..........:........................ ..\.< ............ ...i.........\ii i
\><\\< ................................... ...... .......... ...... ............ ............... . ...ii'. .......... .............
Core Boring Locations
Figure A.6
A-1S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Man-Made Structures: Man-made structures influencing Dunedin Pass include:
1) Clearwater Memorial Causeway constructed in 1925 - 1926;
2) Island Estates (dredge and fill island development) constructed in
1950 - 1958;
and, 3) Dunedin Causeway constructed in 1960 - 1963.
The construction of the causeways and Island Estates has resulted in constrictions
which restrict the tidal exchange. The causeways construction sectioned off
Clearwater Harbor and, with the formation of Hurricane Pass, resulted in a
reduction of the tidal prism at Dunedin Pass (LYNCH-BLOSSE, 1977; DAVIS and
GmEAUT, 1989). The construction of Island Estates also contributed to the
reduction in tidal prism by reducing the Clearwater Harbor surface area and also by
constricting flow.
There do not appear to be any navigation or shore protection structures on the
adjacent beaches of Caladesi Island and Clearwater Beach Island. There is a small
jetty or groin on the south side of Clearwater Pass. Clearwater Beach Island, south
of Dunedin Pass, is heavily developed with primarily single family residences. Along
the Gulf of Mexico, most of the residences have constructed privacy walls along the
west side of their property. At the center of the island, approximately 2 miles south
of the pass, groins were constructed for shore protection. Along Clearwater Harbor,
the residences have constructed bulkheads and small docks. A navigable channel
with water depths of 6 to 10 feet exists along the bulkheaded east side of Clearwater
Harbor.
Shoreline Change: The shorelines along Caladesi Island, north of the historic pass,
and Clearwater Beach Island, south of the historic pass, have typically been
accretional. Figure A.7 presents historical shoreline maps for the Dunedin Pass and
Hurricane Pass,'areas. Note the reference mark at each pass to help in determining
relative changes between different years. Tables A5 and A.6 present historical
mean high water line data for DNR monuments north and south of the pass, and
shoreline changes for different time periods.
The shoreline along the southern end of Clearwater Beach Island has fluctuated due
to the influence of Clearwater Pass; however, the shoreline of central Clearwater
Beach Island has remained relatively stable. The northern end of Clearwater Beach
Island has been influenced by Dunedin Pass; the shoreline trends have been
dominated by elongation and spit growth from northern migration of the pass. As
can be seen in Figure A. 7, the northern migration of the pass exceeded the erosion
of the southern tip of Caladesi Island, and the spit in fact migrated across the
historic pass.
A-16
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N N N
OJ OJ OJ
S 0
80' 50' . v:
80' 49'
No~h
1883
A
o
,
1000rn
,
1926
1950
.........~.
. .. - - .. .
...:..::-..:..:..'-...:.........:..:.....
. . . '.". ' . "," . .
)8~11~~dSi\
1970
B
:s:
"
....
....
'0
o
?
0>
c
o
<II
<II
D
E
1976
Historical Shoreline Maps for Dunedin Pass
and Hurricane Pass
Source:Lynch-Blosse. 1977
Figure A.7
A-17
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Caladesi Island and Honeymoon Island were previously attached and known as Hog
Island. In 1921, a hurricane breached Hog Island forming Hurricane Pass. The
portion of Hog Island north of the beach became known as Honeymoon Island and
the portion south of the pass became known as Caladesi Island. Caladesi Island has
rotated in a clockwise direction subsequent to the formation of Hurricane Pass. The
north end of the island has eroded due to the development of Hurricane Pass and
the south end of the island has accreted due to shoals at Dunedin Pass attaching to
the shoreline. The southwest end of Caladesi Island historically experienced erosion
due to channel scour at the former Dunedin Pass.
TABLE A.5: MHWL FEET FROM MONUMENT
.........................~.................... ..-..........-..... ....-..............
..--.............-....'............ ..-.................-.-... . ...........-...
... - - - . ..,....... ......... ,-,.... - ,........... ................... .--..............
......-...~..........................-..-....-... .......-....-_.....
........~ ..................... ...... .............. .....-.-'........'-.....'....
.'M99~~!:': :"::::!?Ic::::i: ...19.85 ':0.'1937':0. .......j.~....,.,..
..... .. .... ..... ....
0.... .... ...... .... ..... ...
....... ..... ..... ,..... ..... . ,....
..... ...-. .... - ..... ..... ...
....... . .... ..... - . ..... .... . . ' ....
~::::::;:::...:.:.:::...:.:.., ;::::::::; :;:;;::;:....:.:.:-..;:;...::;::)::
.;;:::;:::...........-.....::;::::::
22 2.56 96.89 24.8 175.55 261.5
23 -136.16 -3.64 -34.96 219.66 361.6
24 -222.36 37.9 83.22 376.38 393.95 395.09 447.9
25 -481.47 -71.22 131.51 220.92 346
26 -605.59 -207.2 201.77 85.09 285.3
27 -400.79 -111.45 173.31 225.91 200 146.12 270
28 -461.45 -135.27 134.85 76.67 43.11 94.9
Dunedin Pass
29 39.63 261.29 129.73 244.6
30 317-59 117.35 186.36 141.64 402.4
31 151.89 -302.12 -325.34 24.46 414.3
32 -35.5 29.74 172.08 330.01 420
33 41.45 -79.99 -92.7 131.87 232 294.99 360
34 191.26 -6.84 -55.22 284.71 497.7
35 238.96 48.71 46.26 289.79 539.2
36 -41.98 64.69 7.89 67.37 74 198.6
37 69.79 53.38 53.69 42.05 107.9
A-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE A.6: MHWL CHANGE (FT)
................................,......'.'.-............. ...........-.............:.........:.:-:-:.;.;...;.......".'.:.:.'.;.:. ::::;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:;:::;:;:::::: ::::::::::::::::::.;.:.:;:.:<::::::;:::::;:.;.;.;.;.;.;:;.:;:::;:;:.: :;:;:::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:::::;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:::;:::::::;.
"M~ijijm~ij~:Il31;\1::::II::::tm@:l?;Pli4~~li4":1.?1'!9W?~::
-72.09
-31.42
45.32
202.73
408.97
284.76
270.12
22 94.33
23 132.62
24 260.26
25 410.25
26 398.39
27 289.34
28 326.18
150.75 85.95
254.62 141.94
293.16 71.52
89.41 125.08
-116.68 200.21
52.6 44.09
-58.18 18.23
Dunedin Pass
29 221.66
30 -200.24
31 -454.01
32 -35.5
33 -121.44
34 -198.1
35 -190.25
36 106.67
37 -16.38
-261.29
69.01
-23.22
65.24
-12.71
-48.38
-2.45
-56.8
0.31
129.73 114.87
-44.72 260.76
349.8 389.84
142.34 247.92
224.57 228.13
339.93 212.99
243.53 249.41
59.48 131.23
-11.64 65.85
Presently, both the north and south shorelines are experiencing accretion. Review
of DNR aerials flown in 1990 indicates that the majority of the accretion occurred
between 1987 and 1990. The average shoreline change north of the" former pass
(R-28 and R-22) between 1974 and 1993 was 98.1 feet or 5.2 feet per year. The
average shoreline change south of the former pass (R-29 to R-37) between 1974 and
1993 was 211.2 feet or 11.12 feet per year.
Stability and Hydraulic Characteristics: Tides along the northern shorelines of
Pinellas County are mixed, asymmetrical, semi-diurnal, and diurnal with a neap tide
range of 1.6 feet and a spring tide range of 3.9 feet (L YNCH-BLOSSE, 1977).
Figure A8 presents tidal elevation data for October 27, 1977, measured by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 1977). The elevations of the interior gages is
almost identical to the elevation of the ocean gauge and the lag time (about 3 hours)
between the ocean gauge and the interior gages is approximately the same for all the
interior gauges.
A-19
--------------~----
TIDE RECORDS
LEGEND
------------- Ocean Gauge
Ozona Gauge
---- Dunedin Gauge
------- Clearwater Gauge
-1 ft
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
+2 ft
+Dt
)>
I
N
o
Sea
Level
October 2 . 1977
1200
1600
2000
2400
0400
0800
1200
1600
2000
Source:USACE, 1985
St. Joseph Sound Tide Data
Figure A.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In 1977, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers measured currents at seven locations
around Dunedin Pass (USACE, 1977) over two complete tidal cycles on October 26
and 27. The current gauge locations are shown in Figure A5. Table A.7 presents
the maximum flood and ebb current velocities.
TABLE A.7: MAXIMUM MEASURED CURRENT VEWCITIES
. . .d..' ._d............
......-...............-_....
..-.........................
.-..........,...............
.........-. ..-........-......
...."...-...............- .
.........--...................
.......................... ..
........-...........-..........
.................. ..........
..............................
.............................
............-......-."......
...........-................-.
........ ......... ...........
.......-_.......... ?.......
,.......--_....-..-. ...-......
..........-........-.......-...
.......-................
)Sbiti6IJ.
.........--...'.---.......
................. .... .....
.............................
Number
.........-.......--...."... .
.......--..._.....
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.88
1.83
1.72
1.63
1.22
1.48
1.20
1.28
1.77
1.83
1.77
0.89
0.50
1.42
Source: USACE, 1984
The data indicated that the velocity and tidal flow through Dunedin Causeway
(immediately north of Hurricane Pass) lagged flow through Hurricane and Dunedin
Passes and the Clearwater Causeway by about 4 hours on ebb tide and 1 hour on
flood tide. The maximum current velocities for Hurricane Pass and Dunedin Pass
were very similar. However, at Dunedin Pass, flood currents were no faster than ebb
currents and at Hurricane Pass, flood currents were slower than ebb currents.
Current data was also measured in 1975. by the University of South Florida at 6
locations in Dunedin Pass (L YNCH-BLOSSE, 1977; L YNCH-BLOSSE and DAVIS,
1977). This data (Figure A.9) indicated that at the mouth of the pass, ebb current
velocities exceeded flood current velocities by approximately 1 foot per second. This
study also concluded that:
1) flow leaving the main channel is directed to the south west;
2) . tidal currents in the asymmetrical main channel are quite clearly
channelized;
currents in the marginal channel show no ebb or flood dominance;
the average maximum ebb current velocity was 2.13 feet per second;
the average maximum flood current velocity was 2.10 feet per second;
the duration of the ebb phase constitutes 60 percent of the tidal cycle.
3)
4)
5)
and, 6)
A-21
I
I
I
I
I
I
"........
0
I Q)
(/)
""-
E
I 0
"--'"
>-
I--
I 0
0
--.J
W
>
I I--
Z
W
0::::
I 0::::
:::::>
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
60
5
station
4/ No. (typ)
\
\ 10
\
\
\ J\
v \
, \
'...... \.. , '
\ 1 :Il /
\ \ It \,./
\'" \ ~
..../ "'\. \ I"~---'"'f;:;/"
"J, I
t "'--,
.
1\
, ,
i \,..........----.......
, ..._--....
, '.
I
I
,
,
,
I
I
,
I
,
,
,
,
"'..L ,,--
/ i2.....""y."..-'vtJ4
,
^ I I
h,. IV \.. I'
\ ~-' ""-..J ~.----../;
, I
, ,
, I
\/......, ",J
. '.
\....\ ,/,-,
'\ l
, ~
\ /'
\....."", l
'.....---... ,,~-'
.........,'
o
o
o
--1
l...L..
40
--"'
..,,'""'_J'''''\
",
'~"
'.
,
,
\
2 \
\
\
0:::
W
f-
<(
:s:
:s:
o
-l
0:::
w
f-
<(
:s:
:r:
o
:r:
20
o
o
20
m
m
w
TIME (hours)
Current Velocity Data at Dunedin Pass
40
60
80
60
3
o
o
o 40
--1
l...L..
20
20
m
m
w
TIME (hours)
40
0:::
60 w
~
3:
80 :r:
o
:r:
Figure A.9
A-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure A.I0 indicates the surveyed channel cross-section and the measured tidal
currents in 1989. The data indicated that a distinct tidal cycle existed (even though
the pass appeared to be closed) and that maximum flood current velocities were .26
feet per second and that maximum ebb current velocities were .29 feet per second.
The measured tidal currents for Hurricane Pass were very similar to these measured
in 1975 (L YNCH-BLOSSE, 1977) at approximately 2.3 feet per second for both ebb
and flood flow. The USF study also measured currents at Hurricane Pass and
concluded that flood current velocities were greater than ebb current velocity, and
that the ebb phase duration was slightly longer than the flood phase.
Tidal currents were also measured in January, 1989 at Dunedin Pass, Hurricane
Pass, Willy's Cut, North Willy's Cut, and the Dunedin Causeway (DAVIS, 1989).
Even though Dunedin Pass seemed to be completely closed to tidal exchange,
measurements indicated some tidal flow in the channel.
This study also found that the tidal currents at Dunedin Causeway to Honeymoon
Island were different for the east and west bridges. At the west bridge opening
adjacent to Honeymoon Island, the currents were strong and related to the currents
at Hurricane Pass; ebb flow was towards the south and flood flow towards the north.
At the east bridge opening at the ICWW, the currents were weak and related to the
open sound to the north; ebb flow was towards the north and flood flow was towards
the south.
Stability: Dunedin Pass was obviously an unstable inlet as evidenced by its closure
in 1988. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 1977) prepared a stability
curve for Dunedin Pass in 1977; this analysis indicated that the pass was within a
stable range with a measured cross-section of 1,816 fe. The study concluded that
"The high factor of inlet resistance for Dunedin Pass due to the long channel with low
hydraulic radius is an indication that further northward migration or extreme storm
conditions with accompanying high sediment transport rates could alter the existing stable
conditions." These conditions, as stated above, did occur and resulted in the closure
of the Pass as stated by Dean (1990), "It is clear that the Pass has shoaled from the
south with closure occurring due to filling in of the south side of the channel. Also, the
closure occurred fairly rapidly and was probably influenced substantially by the hurricane
season of 1985. . . "
Two numerical models have been performed to determine what, if any, conditions
need to be present at Dunedin Pass to result in a stable inlet. Ross and Dorzback
(1986) performed a study for Pinellas County to assess the affect of proposed
improvements of the navigation channel by use of the University of South Florida's
Center for Mathematical Models - hydrodynamic model of Clearwater Harbor. The
model was calibrated using the 1977 tidal current information obtained by the
USACE. The study simulated tidal flow in and out of Hurricane Pass, Dunedin
A-23
-------------------
)>
I
N
.j::>o
A
-
10-
B 10 Flood
em I
Isee
ft
o
I
Dunedin Pass
200
I
400
I
0-
mhhw
--------------------------------0
mllw
-
5-
meter
I
o
I
100
Dunedin Pass
.-_............. ~~,...........--..-..........-.............
,/ "W,I ....-........,...
I ..........
J ....___~_
.---. ..~\
\
o
10
8
Ebb
1 - 7 -89
10
,
12 \ 14 16 r-
\ I
''\'' ,............ /'
..... ....------..
, ","--
-,\\ ",,1"---...--......................., ..,'
''fI'' ...........
-1
-2
-3
m
..........., ".....,......
,...... .......... '." ..
," .....--..
,,1'.------.
Channel Cross-Section (A) and
Measured Tidal Currents (8) at Dunedin Pass
Figure A.10
18
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pass, Clearwater Pass, and through nearby causeways. The authors used an inlet
stability method proposed by Jarret (1976) which compares the minimum cross-
sectional area of an inlet to a spring tidal prism. The analysis concluded that
"Dunedin Pass can be restored to a stable condition by enlarging the present submerged
cross-section to 3,000 square feet. . . " The numerical modelling predicted that the
above mentioned enlargement would result in a tidal prism of 166,000,000 cubic feet.
Figure A.ll shows the predicted stability CUlVe for Dunedin Pass and shows the
predicted changes in tidal prisms for Hurricane Pass and Clearwater Pass as the
cross-section at Dunedin Pass is varied. Ross and Dzorback (1986) concluded that
if a stable section was maintained at Dunedin Pass that "No adverse effect upon either
Clearwater or Hurricane Pass is expected. An improvement in tidal prism, hence flushing
for the whole Clearwater Harbor, is expected."
Dean (1990) used a one-dimensional model to study the stability characteristic of
reopening Dunedin Pass. This study used a cross-section of 1,490 ft2 (as proposed
by Pinellas County) to determine the required hydraulic conditions at the pass to
maintain a stable inlet. Relationships between tidal prism and the minimum cross-
section for stable inlets as developed by O'Brien (1969) and Jarrett (1976) were used
to determine the required tidal prism and a velocity of 2.4 feet per second.
The model used a tidal elevation record from Clearwater Beach for August 1984 as
the tidal-driving function for the model. The study results found that for the ten
largest velocities (for the model run corresponding to one month) that only five (5)
of the ten largest velocities at a "reopened" Dunedin Pass would maintain a stable
inlet. Table A.8 presents these results and results of other model runs. The study
found that even though a reopened Dunedin Pass had higher tidal velocities than
Hurricane Pass, that the predicted tidal prism for Hurricane Pass of 192,000,000 ft3
to 236,000,000 ft3 was higher than the predicted tidal prism for Dunedin Pass of
58,000,000 ft3 to 73,000,000 fee The modeling results indicate that approximately 60
percent of the tidal prism for Clearwater Harbor flows in and out of Clearwater Pass
with the remaining portion divided between 10 percent at Dunedin Pass and 30
percent at Hurricane Pass. The report stated that "The only way to stabilize the pass
without structures will be to remove sand from the south side of the pass where it is
expected to accumulate and transfer the sand to the north side."
A-25
1.6
,,-....
()
Q)
(/)
'-.... 1.4
-
-
'-""
>-
-
() 1.2
0
Q) Proposed
>
1.0 Present Area
Area
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.8
0.8
o
DUNEDIN PASS
VELOCITY vs AREA
· Flood
6 Ebb
1000 2000 3000
Area (sq ft)
4000
Source:Ross and Dorzback, 1986
Stability Curve for Dunedin Pass
,,-....
~ 1000
()
>-
()
0 800
"'0
-
"-
600
0
..--
x
- 400
-
::J
()
'-""
E 200
(/)
Oi:
a..
TIDAL PRISMS OF EACH PASS AS THE
~EDIN PASS AREA IS CHANGED
.
.
o Dunedin
<> Hurricane
. Clearwater
~
e
e
E>
B
B
~
o
o 1000 2000 3000 4000
Dunedin Pass Throat Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)
Predicted Tidal Prisms of Each Pass vs.
Dunedin Pass Throat Area
Figure A.II
A-?h
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE A.8: CALCULATED MAXIMUM VELOCITIES THROUGH INLETS
(TIDES FOR MONTH OF AUGUST, 1984)
Dunedin Pass Open,
Other Conditions
Current
a) Hurricane Pass 2.01 1.98 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.87 1.83 1.82 1.81 1.79
b) Clearwater Pass 2.80 2.77 2.61 2.59 2.59 2.54 2.51 2.48 2.42 2.41
c) Dunedin Pass 2.54 2.51 251 2.45 2.40 237 2.36 2.34 2.32 2.25
Dunedin Pass Closed,
Other Conditions
Current
a) Hurricane Pass 2.06 2.03 1.95 1.93 1.93 1.90 1.88 1.85 1.85 1.83
b) Clearwater Pass 2.84 2.81 2.80 2.65 2.65 2.63 2.59 2.56 2.54 2.48
Hurricane Pass Closed,
Dunedin Pass Open
a) Clearwater Pass 286 283 2.82 2.72 267 2.67 266 2.60 2.60 2.53
b) Dunedin Pass 2.72 2.69 2.68 2.64 2.59 255 254 2.52 2.52 2.46
Source: Dean, 1990
Stability of a New Pass: The modelling results of Dean (1990) and Ross and
Dorzback (1986) showed that a new pass or an improved historical pass would have
a minor impact upon the tidal prisms of Clearwater Pass and Hurricane Pass. Both
studies concluded that Clearwater Pass was the predominant means of tidal
exchange for Clearwater Harbor and that the tidal prism of Hurricane Pass would
be approximately twice that of an improved Dunedin Pass. The historical data and
eventual closure of Dunedin Pass have shown that the former pass was unstable.
These modeling studies indicate that even with improvements in conjunction with
a new pass, that the tidal hydraulics of Clearwater Harbor would not be substantially
altered. It is unlikely that a stable inlet could be maintained for a new pass at
Dunedin unless the tidal prisms of Clearwater Pass and Hurricane Pass were to be
significantly reduced.
A-27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
Bruun, P., Gerritsen, F., and Morgan, W.H., 1958. "Florida Coastal Problems;
Engineering Progress at the University of Florida." Bulletin Series 101, pp 33-79.
Davis, 1989. "Current Measurements and Sediment Analysis: Dunedin Pass and
Southern St. Joseph Sound, Pinellas County, Florida." Prepared for Pinellas
County Board of County Commissioners.
Davis, R.A, and Gibeaut, J.C., 1990. "Historical Morphodynamics of Inlets in
Florida. " Models for Coastal Zone Planning. Technical Paper 55. Florida
Sea Grant College Program.
Dean, R.G., 1990. "An Evaluation of the Reopening of Dunedin Pass." Prepared
for Pinellas County, Clearwater, Florida.
Demirpolat, S., Tanner, W.F., and Knoblauch, M., 1987. "Historical Florida
Shorelines: An Atlas Pinellas County, 1873 - 1979." Department of Natural
Resources Bureau of Coastal Data Acquisition.
Hine, AC., Mearns, D.L., Davis, Jf., R.A., and Bland, M., 1986. "Impact of Florida's
Gulf Coast Inlets on the Coastal Sand Budget." Prepared for Florida
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores.
Jarrett, J.T., 1976. "Tidal Prism - Inlet Area Relationships." Gm Report 3. U.S.
Army Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Missouri.
Lynch-Blosse, M.A, 1977. "Inlet Sedimentation at Dunedin and Hurricane Passes,
Pinellas County, Florida." Thesis for the Department of Geology, University
of South Florida.
Lynch-Blosse, M.A, and Davis, Jr., R.A, 1977. "Stability of Dunedin and Hurricane
Passes, Florida." Coastal Sediments '77. Fifth Symposium of the Waterway,
Port, Coastal and Ocean Division of ASCE. Charleston, South Carolina.
Newman, R.I., 1983. "Clearwater Pass Glossary of Inlets Report #12." Report
Number 56. Florida Sea Grant College.
A-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES CONTINUED
O'Brien, M.P., 1969. "Equilibrium Flow Areas of Inlets on Sandy Coasts." ASCE
Journal of the Watetways and Harbors Division. Vol. 59, No. WW1, pp. 43-
52.
Pinellas County, 1990. Dunedin Pass Joint Application for Works in the Waters of
Florida.
Rosen, D.S., 1976. "Beach and Nearshore Sedimentation on Caladesi Island State
Park, PinelLas County, Florida." Thesis for the Department of Geology,
University of South Florida.
Ross, B.E., Dorzback, H.L., 1986. "The Pinellas Coast Inlet Study Part One -
Dunedin Pass." Center for Mathematical Models, University of South Florida.
USACE, 1985. "Dunedin and Hurricane Passes, PinelLas County, Florida, Detailed
Project Report, Improvements for Small Boat Navigation and Environmental
Assessment." Jacksonville District.
USACE, 1977. "Feasibility Report on Navigation Improvements at Dunedin Pass,
Pinellas County Florida." Jacksonville District.
USACE, 1966. "Beach Erosion Control Study on Pinellas County, Florida. " Jacksonville
District.
Walther, M.P., and Douglas, B.D., 1993. "Ebb Shoal Borrow Area Recovery." Journal
of Coastal Research. Special Issue #18.
Walton, Jr., T.L., 1976. "Littoral Drift Estimates Along the Coast of Florida." Report
Number 13. Florida Sea Grant College.
A-29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
WATER QUALIlY AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING BY CH2M HTI.T.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CHMHILL
TO: Michael Walther, P.E./Coastal Technology Corporation
COPIES: Don Holmes/CH2M HILL
Russ BowenlCH2M HILL
Steve CostalCH2M HILL
FROM: Rick GorsiralCH2M HILL
Jim Bays/CH2M HILL
DATE: October 29, 1993
SUBJECT: Dunedin Pass Re-Opening: Phase I Water Quality and Sediment Sampling
Results
PROJECT: TPA36255.AO.WQ
Introduction
Coastal Technology Corporation (CTC) is currently directing the Phase I Pre-
Application/Concept Development of the Dunedin Pass Re-Opening Plan for the City of
Clearwater. As part of the Phase I scope of work, CH2M HILL was contracted by CTC
to conduct a limited survey of existing water quality conditions within the historic
Dunedin Pass located north of Clearwater Beach in Pinellas County, Florida. These data
were intended to provide a basis for a limited comparison to water quality data collected
at the same location in 1988, as well as a basis for developing a scope for performing a
more detailed water quality assessment of the effects of Pass re-opening.
Sample Collection
Water quality and sediment samples were collected on September 28, 1993 by CH2M
HILL scientists at the old Dunedin Pass in Clearwater, Florida Sampling was conducted
between 0830-1140 hours on a rising tide and 1400-1700 hours on a falling tide. Data
taken from local tide tables indicated that low and high tides were scheduled to occur
respectively at 0511 and 1125 hours in the morning, and 1738 and 2330 hours in the
afternoon.
Station location and identification followed the same conventions as used during the 1988
sampling conducted by CH2M HILL, as shown on the sampling station map included in
Appendix B. Field measurements were taken at Stations 1, 2,3, 4, 5, and 6, and included
depth, dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, conductivity, salinity, transparency, flow
direction and velocity and wind direction and velocity.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MEMORANDUM
Page 2
October 28, 1993
Depth-composited water quality samples were collected at Stations 2 and 6 and surficial
sediment samples were taken at Stations 1 and 2 in accordance with CH2M HILL's.
FDEP-approved Comprehensive Quality Assurance Plan (CompQAP) No. 910036G for
Field Operations. Samples were preserved in the field and analyzed according to
CompQAP Plan No. 870121G for the CH2M HILL Gainesville Laboratory.
The samples were shipped via certified carrier to the CH2M fiLL Gainesville laboratory
for analysis. The total and fecal coliform samples were delivered by courier to Savannah
Laboratories for analysis to meet the short holding times for microbiological analysis. No
problems were encountered in the field sampling and all holding times were met for all
samples.
Results
Water quality samples were analyzed for turbidity, chlorophyll ~ total kjeldahl nitrogen,
ammonia-nitrogen, total phosphorus, five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BODs) and
total and fecal coliforms. Sediment samples were analyzed for percent solids, bulk density
and the following 23 ICP metals: Ag, AI, As, B, Ba, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mo,
Mo, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, So, Sr, Zn. The analytical results and field parameters are
presented in Tables 1 through 4. Original data reports containing information on the
methods, holding times, and quality control are provided in Appendix A. Copies of field
notes and a map of sampling station locations are provided in Appendix B.
I
I
I
Table 1
Analytical Results of Surface Sedim'ents
Collected at Stations 1 and 2
Dunedin Pass, Clearwater, Florida
I
I
I
I
I
I
STA nON
Parameter
Units
1
Percent solids
Bulk density
Physical parameters
(%) 78.7
(g1cm3) 1.74
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Metals
0.489
<0.03
<0.054
0.006
<0.002
<6.1
<0.005
115
<0.006
<0.01
<0.006
0.37
<0.04
2.32
0.012
<0.020
<0.015
<1.0
<0.075
<0.005
13.3
0.637
<0.04
<0.05
<0.005
<0.005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
Legend:
Station 1 - Gulfside
Station 2 - Inside Dunedin Pass
All units are in mglkg unless otherwise stated
NA - Not applicable
Source: CH2M HILL, 1993
2
84.7
1.73
0.948
<0.03
<0.054
0.021
<0.002
<6.2
<0.005
239
0.018
<0.01
<0.006
1.17
<0.04
2.86
0.053
<0.020
<0.015
<1.0
<0.075
<0.005
9.5
1.01
<0.04
<0.05
0.013
0.018
Detection Limit
NA
NA
<0.05
<0.03
<0.054
<0.002
<0.002
<6.1
<0.005
<0.5
<0.006
<0.01
<0.006
<0.02
<0.04
<0.05
<0.002
<0.020
<0.015
<1.0
<1.0
<0.005
<0.005
<0.05
<0.005
<0.05
<0.005
<0.005
I
I
I
I
I
;1
.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I,
I
I
I
Table 2
Water Quality Results of Stations 2 and 6
at Rising low Tide (l) and at Falling High Tide (H)
Dunedin Pass, Clearwater, Florida
Parameter
STATION
2-L 2-H 6-L 6-H
Nutrients
0.13 0.13 0.06 0.05
0.58 0.75 0.04 0.03
0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03
Oxygen Demand
2.1 2.8 <2.0 <2.0
Biological
6.8 6.9 7.5 9.8
100 85 <1 <1
85 33 <1 <1
General
3.7 3.3 3.4 3.6
Ammonia (as N)
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (asN)
Total Phosphorus (as P)
BOD (5 day)
Chlorophyll a (mg/cubic meter)
Total Coliform MF (coI/100ml)
Fecal Coliform MF (coI/100ml)
Turbidity (NTU)
Legend:
Station 2 - Inside Dunedin Pass
Station 6 - At channel marker "12" near Pope Channel
All units are in mgn unless otherwise stated
Source: CH2M HILL, 1993
I
I
I I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I,
Table 3
In Situ Parameters of Stations 1 through 6
at Rising Low Tide (L)
Dunedin Pass, Clearwater, Florida
STATION
Parameter 2 3 4 5 6
Temperature (C) Surface 31.5 NO 28.8 29.0 29.3 29.1
Mid 31.0 29.0 28.8 28.9 29.2 29.1
Bottom NO NO NO 28.8 29.0 29.1
.Conductivity (umhos) Surface 42500 NO 40750 41000 41750 41200
Mid 42500 39500 42500 42800 43250 43000
Bottom NO NO NO 43000 43250 43200
Salinity(oloo) Surface 25.5 NO 25.0 24.8 25.0 24.8
Mid 25.5 23.8 25.5 25.8 26.1 26.0
Bottom NO NO NO 26.0 26.0 26.1
DO (mglJ) Surface 6.0 NO 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.3
Mid 6.0 1.5 4.5 4.8 4.5 4.3
Bottom NO NO NO 4.8 4.5 4.3
Current Flow (flIsec) Surface NO NO 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.8
Mid 0.7 NO 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8
Bottom NO NO NO 0.7 NO. 0.7
Current Flow Direction Surface NO NO N SW SW SE
Mid N-NW NO N SW SW SE
Bottom NO NO NO N NO. NW
Wind Velocity (mph) 1-5 1 - 5 1 - 3 4-6 4-6 4-7
Wind Direction NE NE NE NE NE N-NE
pH (s.u.) 8.2 7.9 8.1 8.3 8.3 8.2
Secchi (m) 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1
Total Depth (m) 1.0 0.6 1.1 1.5 3.8 3.0
Time 900 830 1140 1105 1030 945
Legend:
N - North
S - South
NE - Northeast
NW - Northwest
SW - Southwest
SE - Southeast
NO - At depth of less than 1.0 meter, no data collected at surface or bottom of profile
At depth of less than 1.5 meters, no data collected at bottom of profile
. - No flow data collected due to insufficient cord on flow meter to reach bottom
Source: CH2M HILL, 1993
I
I
I
I
i
I
,I
I
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4
In Situ Parameters of Stations 1 through 6
at Falling High Tide (H)
Dunedin Pass, Clearwater, Florida
STATION
Parameter 2 3 4 5 6
Temperature (C) Surface 30.0 NO NO NO 29.5 29.8
Mid 30.0 28.9 30.5 29.0 29.5 29.8
Bottom NO NO NO NO 29.3 29.8
'Conductivity (umhos) Surface 44000 NO NO NO 40750 40300
Mid 44000 42800 41500 42750 42000 42000
Bottom NO NO NO NO 42275 42000
Salinity(oloo) Surface 26.8 NO NO NO 24.2 24.0
Mid 26.5 25.8 25.0 25.5 25.2 25.2
Bottom NO NO NO NO 25.0 25.2
00 (mgll) Surface 6.0 NO NO NO 6.4 6.6
Mid 6.2 4.9 7.3 6.8 6.3 6.4
Bottom NO NO NO NO 6.1 6.5
Current Flow (ftlsec) Surface NO NO NO NO 7.7 5.0
Mid NO 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.8 4.2
Bottom NO NO NO NO 0.7 6.0
Current Flow Oirection Surface NO NO NO NO S NW
Mid NO No Oirec. N N SW NW
Bottom NO NO NO NO SW NNW
Wind Velocity (mph) 8 - 12 5-9 10 - 12 9 -12 5-9 5-7
Wind Oirection NW NW NW N-NW N N
pH (s.u.) 8.0 8.0 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3
Secchi (m) 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6
Total Depth (m) 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.9 3.2 2.0
Time 1450 1400 1700 1645 1615 1540
Legend:
N - North
S - South
NW - Northwest
SW - Southwest
NO - At depth of less than 1.0 meter, no data collected at surface or bottom of profile
At depth of less than 1.5 meters, no data collected at bottom of profile
Source: CH2M HILL, 1993
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
Appendix A
Laboratory Results
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
Engineers
Planners
Economists
Scientists
October 29, 1993
Rick Gorsira
CH2M HILL/TPA
RE: Analytical Data for Dunedin Pass Water Quality
LGN Lab Ref. No. GN-03161 CORRECTION
Dear Mr. Gorsira:
On September 29, 1993, the CH2M HILL Gainesville Laboratory (LGN) received six
samples with a request for analysis of selected inorganic parameters. A report
for this batch was issued on October 22, 1993.
Data for soil samples were inadvertently reported as a water matrix. The values
for these two samples have been corrected to mgjkg dry weight and enclosed are
numbered pages for substitution in the original report. We apologize for any
invonvenience this may have caused.
CH2M HILL Laboratories appreciate your business and look forward to serving your
analytical needs again. If you should have any questions concerning the data,
or if you need additional information, please call me or Tom Emenhiser, Client
Services Manager, at 904-462-3050.
Sincerely,
~ "f2:f
Karen Daniels
Client Services Coordinator
Enclosures
State Certifications:
Florida No. 82112, E82124
Alabama No. 40080
California No. I-1014
CH2M HILL Quality
Analytical Laboratory
904 462-3050
Fax No. 904 462-7670
One Innovation Drive. Suite C. A1achua. FL 32615-9586
P.D. Box 370. Alachua. FL 32615-0370
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
CASE NARRATIVE
Cations
Lab Number:
Client/Project:
Dunedin Pass Water Oualitv
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Holding Time:
All holding times were met.
Digestion Exceptions:
None
Analysis:
A. Calibration:
All acceptance criteria were met.
B. Blanks:
All acceptance criteria were met.
C. ICP Interference Check Sample:
All acceptance criteria were met.
D. Spike Sample(s):
All acceptance criteria were met.
E.
Duplicate Sample(s) :
All acceptance criteria were met.
F.
Laboratory Control Sample(s):
All acceptance criteria were met.
G.
ICP Serial Dilution:
Not required for this level QC.
GN-03161
H. Other:
This is a revised report. The soil samples, 316105 and 316106,
were inadvertently reported as water. The values have been
corrected to mg/kg dry weight.
Documentation Exceptions:
None
I certify that this data package is in compliance with the terms and
conditions agreed to by the client and CH2M HILL, both technically
and for completeness, except for the conditions detailed above. Release
of the data contained in this hardcopy data package has been authorized
by the Laboratory Manager or is designee, as verified by the following
signature.
SIGNED:
DATE:
Inorganics Division
/0 /'J.? I f?3
I I
000001
I
I
I
,I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CASE NARRATIVE
General Chemistry
Lab Number:
Client/Project:
Dunedin Pass Water Qualitv
II.
III.
IV.
I. Holding Time:
All holding times were met.
Analysis:
A. Calibration:
All acceptance criteria were met.
B. Blanks:
All acceptance criteria were met.
C. Matrix Spike Sample(s) :
All acceptance criteria were met.
D. Duplicate Sample(s):
All acceptance criteria were met.
E. Lab Control Sample(s):
All acceptance criteria were met.
F.
Other:
None.
Documentation Exceptions:
None.
GN-03161
I certify that this data package is in compliance with the terms and
conditions agreed to by the client and CH2M HILL, both technically
and for completeness, except for the conditions detailed above. Release
of the data contained in this hardcopy data package has been authorized
by the Laboratory Manager or his designee, as verified by the following
signature.
SIGNED:
-/ fJA1UU-
~
f}
Isaac Lynch
Supervisor, Inorganics Division
DATE:
/0/ 'J. Cf fer>
{ I
000002
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
t
Ii
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
Engineers
Planners
Economists
Scientists
REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Florida Certification: 82112; E82124
AAI900
10/28/93
Page 1 of 6
Sample Nos: 316101 - 316107
Dunedin Pass CH2M Hill
.Attention: Rick Gorsira Project No: TPA36255.AD
.h:k:Jress: TPA Received: 09/29/93
Reported: 10/22/93
Collected: 09/28/93 by client
'Jype: water, soil
IDeation: Water Quality
I I I I I
SAMPLE NlJ1BER 316101 316102 316103 316104 316105
I I I I I
-. I I I
STAZ-L STA6-L STAZ-H STA6-H STAZ
SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS 00/28/93 09/28/93 00/28/93 00/28/93 09/28/93
08:15 00:45 14: 15 15:40 14:15
I I I I I
I I I I
GENERAL
Turbidity (NTlJ) I 3.7 I 3.4 I 3.3 I 3.6 I n/r
00/30/93 09/30/93 09/30/93 00/30/93 n/r
SOLIDS
Percent Solids (%) I n/r I n/r I n/r I n/r 184.7
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/07/93
METALS
Al lIIli run, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r 224
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Ant ilOOl1Y , ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r <7.1
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Arsenic, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r <12.8
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Barium, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r 5.0
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Beryllill1l, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r 4>.47
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Cadmill1l, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r <1.2
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Calcill1l, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r 56,500
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Chronilllll, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r 4.3
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
NOTE: Values are ng/l as substance unless otherwise stated.
Values are ng/Kg dry weight for s~le no. 316105, 316106.
n/r = not requested
NOTE: This report contains test data and no interpretation is intended or implied.
CH2M HIll Quolity
I Analytical Laboratory
One Innovation Drive. Suite C. A1achua. FL 32615-9586
P.O. Box 370. Alachua, FL 3261~70
904 462-3050
Fax No. 904 462-1670
000003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CH2M HILL Quality
Analytical Laboratory
Engineers
Planners
Economists
Scientists
REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Florida Certification: 82112; E82124
AA 1900
10/28/93
Page 2 of 6
San1> le Nos: 316101 - 316107
I I I I I
SAtV'LE NltlBER 316101 316102 316103 , 316104 316105 I
I I I I
I I I , I
STA2-l STA6-l STA2-H STA6-H STA2
SAtV'LE DESCRIPTIONS 00/28/93 00/28/93 00/28193 00/28/93 00/28/93
08:15 00:45 14:15 15:40 14:15
Cobalt, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r <2.4
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Copper, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r <1.4
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22./93
Iron, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r 276
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
lead, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r <9.4
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Hagnesiun, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r 674
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Manganese, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r 12.5
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Holybderm, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r <A.7
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Nickel., ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r <3.5
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Potassiun, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r <236
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Selenium, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r <17.7
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Silver, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r <1.2
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Sodium, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r 2240
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Strontiun, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r 238
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Thall ium, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r <9.4
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Tin, ICP n/r n/r ri/r n/r 32.1
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
VanCKfium, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r 3.1
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
Zinc, ICP n/r n/r n/r n/r 4.2
n/r n/r n/r n/r 10/22/93
NUlRIENTS
Amoonia (as N) 0.13 0.06 0.13 0.05 n/r
t<<l1E: Values are ng/l as substance lIlless otherwise stated.
Values are ng/Kg dry weight for s~le no. 316105, 316106.
f).
Respectfully subnitted,
Isaac D. lynch,
n/r = not requested
t<<>1E: This report contains test data and no interpretation is intended or implied.
One Innovation Drive, Suite C, Alachua, FL 32615-9586
P.O. Box 370, Alachua, FL 32615-0370
904 462-3050
Fax No. 904 462-1670
000004
Florida Certification: 82112; E82124
MI900
10/28/93
Page 3 of 6
San'ple Nos: 316101 - 316107
~
Engineers
Planners
Economists
Scientists
REPORT OF ANALYSIS
I I I I . I
SAMPLE NltlBER 316101 316102 316103 316104 316105
I I I I I
I I I r I
STA2-L STA6-L STA2-H STA6-H STA2
SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS 00/28/93 00/28/93 00/28/93 00/28/93 00/28/93
08:15 00:45 14:15 15:40 14:15
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (as N) 0.58 0.59 0.75 0.36 n/r
10/15/93 10/15/93 10/15/93 10/15/93 n/r
Total Phosphorus (as P) 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 n/r
10/13/93 10/13/93 10/13/93 10/13/93 n/r
OXYGEN DEtWlD
BOO (5 day) I 2.1 I <2.0 I 2.8 I <2.0 I n/r
00/30/93 09/30/93 09/30/93 09/30/93 n/r
BIOLOGICAL
Chlorophyll a (ng/albic meter) 6.8 7.5 6.9 9.8 n/r
10/20/93 10/20/93 10/20/93 10/20/93 n/r
NOTE: Values are ng/l as substcrlce unless otherwise stated.
Values are ng/Kg dry weight for s~le no. 316105, 316106.
n/r = not requested
NOTE: This report contains test data em no interpretation is intended or implied.
One Innovation Drive, Suite C, Alachua, FL 32615-9586
P.O. Box 370, AlachuQ. FL 32615-0370
904 462-3050
Fax No. 904 462-1670
000005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Engineers
Planners
Economists
Scientists
REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Florida Certification: 82112; E82124
AAI900
10/28/93
Page 4 of 6
Sample Nos: 316101 - 316107
Dunedin Pass CH2M Hill
Attention: Rick Gorsira PJ:oject No: TPA36255.AD
h:id:ress: TPA Received: 09/29/93
Reported: 10/22/93
Collected: 09/28/93 by client
Type: water, soil
IDeation: Water Quality
I
$IlJ1PLE NlI1BER 316106 316107
I I
I
STAl Laboratory
SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS 00/28/93 Method Blank
14:40
I I
I
GENERAL
Turbidi ty (NTU) I n/r 14>.2
n/r 09/30/93
SOLI OS
Percent Solids (%) I 78.7 I Not Applicable
10/07/93 10/07/93
METALS
Aluminum, ICP 124 4>.050
1O/'l2./93 10/22/93
Antinmy, ICP <1.6 4>.030
10/'l2./93 10/22/93
Arsenic, ICP <13.7 4>.054
10/22/93 10/22/93
Barium, ICP 1.5 4>.002
10/22/93 10/22/93
Berylliun, ICP 4>.51 4>.002
10/'l2./93 10/22/93
Caimiun, ICP <1.3 4>.005
1O/'l2./93 10/22/93
Calci un , ICP 2930J 4>.500
10/'l2./93 10/22/93
Chranium, ICP <1.5 4>.006
10/22/93 10/22/93
NOTE: Values are ng/1 as substance unless otherwise stated.
Values are ng/Kg dry weight for ~le no. 316105, 316106.
n/r - not requested
NOTE: This report contains test data and no interpretation is intended or implied.
CH2M HILL Quality
Analytical Laboratory
One Innovation Drive. Suite C. A/achua. FL 32615-9586
P.O. Box 370. Alachua. FL 32615-0370
904 462-3050
Fax No. 904 462-1670
nnnnnr,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Engineers
Planners
Economists
Scientists
REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Florida Certification: 82112; E82124
MI900
10/28/93
Page 5 of 6
~ le Nos: 316101 - 316107
I I
SAMPLE NltlBER 316106 316107
I I
I I Laboratory
SIAl
SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS 00/28/93 Method Blank
14:40
Cobalt, ICP <2.5 <0.010
10/22193 10/22/93
Copper, ICP <1.5 <0.006
10/22/93 10/22/93
Iron, ICP 94.0 <0.020
10/22193 10/22/93
lead, ICP <10.2 <0.040
10/22193 10/22/93
Magnesi un, ICP 590 <0.050
10/22/93 10/22/93
Manganese, ICP 3.1 <0.002
10/22/93 10/22/93
Molybdenum, ICP <S.1 <0.020
10/22/93 10/22/93
Nickel, ICP <3.8 <0.015
10/22/93 10/22/93
PotassilJD, ICP <254 <1.0
10/22/93 10/22/93
Selenium, ICP <19.0 <0.075
10/22193 10/22/93
Silver, ICP <1.3 <0.005
10/22/93 10/22/93
Sodium, ICP 3390 <0.005
10/22/93 10/22/93
Strontiun, ICP 162 <0.050
10/22/93 10/22/93
Thallium, ICP <10.1 <0.005
10/22/93 10/22/93
Tin, ICP <12.7 <0.050
10/22193 10/22/93
Van~ium, ICP <1.3 <0.005
10/22193 10/22/93
Zinc, ICP <1.3 <0.005
10/22/93 10/22/93
NUTRIENTS
Amoonia (as N) n/r <0.04
n!r 10/18/93
NOTE: Values are ng/l as substance unless otherwise stated.
Values are ng/Kg dry weight for s~le 00. 316105, 316106.
n!r .. not requested
NOTE: This report contains test data and no interpretation is intended or implied.
CH2M HILL Quality
Analytical Laboratory
One Innovation Drive. Suite C. A/achua. FL 32615-9586
P.D. Box 370. A/achua. FL 32615-0370
904 462-3050
Fax No. 904 462-1670
Ii ~-1 n (., n 7
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
Engineers
Planners
Economists
Scientists
REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Florida Certification: 82112; E82124
AAI900
10/28/93
Page 6 of 6
Sample Nos: 316101 - 316107
I I
SAMPLE NlI1BER 316106 316107
I I
I I Laboratory
STAl
SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS 09/28/93 Method Blank
14:40
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (as N) n/r <tl.04
nlr 10/15/93
Total Phosphorus (as p) n/r <tl.01
n/r 10/13/93
OXYGEN DEMAND
BOD (5 day) I n/r I <2.0
n/r 09/30/93
BIOLOGICAL
Chlorophyll a (ng/cubic meter) n/r <I..O
n/r 10/20/93
NOTE: Values are ng/l as substance unless otherwise stated.
Values are ng/Kg dry weight for s~le no. 316105, 316106.
nlr .. not requested
NOTE: This report contains test data and no interpretation is intended or implied.
CH2M HILL Quality
Analytical Laboratory
One Innovation Drive. Suite C. A1achua, FL 32615-9586
P.D. Box 370. A1achua, FL 32615-0370
904 462-3050
Fax No. 904 462-1670
nn(\rnO
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S L SAVANNAH LABORATORIES
& ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
6712 Benjamin Road. Suite 100. Tampa. FL 33634 · (813) 885-7427 .F.a~:-(813l 885-7049
LOG NO: B3-31666
Received: 28 SEP 93
Mr. Bob McConnell
CHlM Hill
2701 N. Rocky Point Drive, Suite 800
Tampa, FL 33607
Project: TPA 36255.AO/Dunedin Pass WQ
Sampled By: Client
REPORT OF RESULTS
Page 1
LOG NO
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION , LIQUID SAMPLES
DATE SAMPLED
--------------------------------------------------
31666-1
31666-2
STA. 2-L
STA. 6-L
09-28-93
09-28-93
--------------------------------------------------
PARAMETER
31666-1
31666-2
-----------------------------
---------- ----------
Total Coliform MF, col/100ml
Fecal Coliform MF, col/100ml
100
85
<1
<1
-----------------------------
---------- ----------
Laboratory locations in Savannah, GA . Tallahassee, FL · Mobile, AL · Deerfield Beach, FL · Tampa, FL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S L SAVANNAH LABORATORIES
& ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
6712 Benjamin Road. Suite 100 · Tampa, FL 33634 · (813) 885-7427 · Fax (813) 885-7049
LOG NO: B3-31666
Received: 28 SEP 93
Mr. Bob McConnell
CH2M Hill
2701 N. Rocky Point Drive, Suite 800
Tampa, FL 33607
Project: TPA 36255.AO/Dunedin Pass WQ
Sampled By: Client
REPORT OF RESULTS
Page 2
LOG NO
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION , QC REPORT FOR LIQUID SAMPLES
--------------------------------------------------
31666-3
Lab Blank
--------------------------------------------------
PARAMETER
31666-3
Total Coliform MF, col/100ml
Fecal Coliform MF, col/100ml
<1
<1
Method: Standard Methods 16th Edition
HRS Certification #'s:84385,87279,E84282,E87052
Laboratory locations in Savannah, GA . Tallahassee, FL · Mobile, AL · Deerlield Beach, FL · Tampa, FL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S L SAVANNAH LABORATORIES
& ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
6712 Benjamin Road. Suite 100. Tampa. FL 33634. (813) 885-7427. Fax (813) 885-7049
LOG NO: B3-31670
Received: 28 SEP 93
Mr. Bob McConnell
CHZM Hill
2701 N. Rocky Point Drive, Suite 800
Tampa, FL 33607
Project: TPA 36255.AO/Dunedin Pass WQ
Sampled By: Client
REPORT OF RESULTS
Page 1
LOG NO
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION , LIQUID SAMPLES
DATE SAMPLED
--------------------------------------------------
31670-1
31670-2
STA 2-H
STA 6-H
09-28-93
09-28-93
--------------------------------------------------
PARAMETER
31670-1
31670-2
----------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total Coliform MF, col/100m!
Fecal Coliform MF, col/100m!
85
33
<1
<1
----------------------------- ---------- ----------
---------- ---------- ----------
Laboratory locations In Savannah, GA . Tallahassee, FL · Mobile, AL · Deerfield Beach, FL · Tampa, FL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S L SAVANNAH LABORATORIES
& ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
6712 Benjamin Road. Suite 100. Tampa, FL 33634 · (813) 885-7427. Fax (813) 885-7049
LOG NO: B3-31670
Received: 28 SEP 93
Mr. Bob McConnell
CH2M Hill
2701 N. Rocky Point Drive, Suite 800
Tampa, FL 33607
Project: TPA 36255.AO/Dunedin Pass WQ
Sampled By: Client
REPORT OF RESULTS
Page 2
LOG NO
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION , QC REPORT FOR LIQUID SAMPLES
--------------------------------------------------
31670-3
Lab Blank
--------------------------------------------------
PARAMETER
31670-3
-----------------------------
---------- ----------
Total Coliform MF, col/100ml
Fecal Coliform MF, col/100m!
<1
<1
----------------------------- ---------- ----------
---------- ----------
Method: Standard Methods, 16th Edition
HRS Certification l's:84385,87279,E84282,E87052
~ 6i: '
1 .' I) I
. JI-t&v. (\.. (L././~Q_.f
KAthy Shefjiield [I U
Laboratory locations In Savannah, GA . Tallahassee, FL · Mobile, AL · Deerfield Beach, FL · Tampa, FL
s- ...~
..
..
-
..
-
..
..
-
,IRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
lAL YSIS REQUEST AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
---.......
L.-...J r......,... ..n..........._. . I......"" ........., ......\,0......."......., . _ ............
D 414 Southwest 12th Avenue, Deer/ield Beach, FL 33442
q. 900 Lakeside Drive, Mobile, AL 36693
Ii"J 6712 Benjamin Road, Suite 100, Tampa, FL 33634
), NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER I PROJECT NAME
PI1-3b;l~$o I tl", ~.~ ~~.s &JqJ.t.. G\tQI t ~ I MtJpRJX I REQUIRED ANALYSES
!l'NT NAME ) I TELEPHONE/FAX NO,
-H~W\ HIli )PI}- <gJ':?J. ~1fI. O~ tr ; l' ~VJ
lENT ADDRESS , L "'" CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 'hI! ~ :!-r:!-r (~ t
l7'o},v t.oc.c.."t r+- tr~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ F_ ~
'r 00':'<:'< ...../r.~
~j~E&i.~ME(S) IC)J.ENT PROJECT MANAGER j,,J .ff } ~~ -Af> oJ tJ
~o'h ~~7.,...\1 K. Go~,..-, /J~~ 0 ~ ~ U
SAMPLING SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION j'r ~
lATE TIME / NUMBER OF CONTAINERS SUBMITTED
'!iJ6 JJf1 ~
1ft J ~O
Sf-q .;1 - H
Stq ~ -1-1
)(
)(
1
}
7INQUIEi~~G~~~s
Jo :;:~u- ~ ~
CEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE)
~E7 V ;~5 ~RE)
DATE TIME RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE)
C
98t~~M~.NNA~t.AaQi;,ll5;rpRY.;q$E ONL'
~~~~T~;~~ I
~.,' ,- l ,L22J
;.,';\;(, . ." .' ,.',if . "i/
-".I:^;' , ,).i;::'!:tti
. .....i.W.
2?ATE
~;l~~
DATE
TIME ~~~IS~D BY: (mATURE)
Ilfl>' ~ -r ~
TIME RECEIVED : (51 )
L,&7-V\
pi
%
;~t}
.......
- -
. .... ." ,". I -". _.-
\_.. "' .' . .. -.. .
Phone: (305) 421-7400
Phone: (205) 666-6633
Phone: (813) 885-7427
~x (305) 421.2584
Fax (205) 666-6696
Fax (813) 885.7049
I PAGE I OF
~ STANDARD TAT
D EXPEDITED TAT'
REPORT DUE DATE
/ * SUBJECT TO RUSH FEES
rT'1a \ 'f u.... I \")'/ ~~ ,JJY
"
-
<!
:;,-
t
Q
C
w;~
.J.ATE
'.t8'l
TIME
I~o
TIME
/9 tJ7)
'.
"
-----...
5 L. ;'t;" '~~'~~~~TA~';~;/~~~,' I~~.""~
I AL YSIS REQUEST AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
..
-
~~ECT~UMBER I. PROJECT NAME '7'l
3fJ2.f'i, AO l1)u ,;eh; N rA s 5
~~~r~\. 1&c:trOdlo(,./ (ortl T~~~:r1J;i-::L ~ p~~
~NT ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE I jf ~ ~ ~ t)j ~
~ " I! /! '/.i. ~.
" & :'<:'< t.(O
IPyER(S) NAME(S)j't? Mr. \ I ICLI.ENT }ROJECT [v1ANAGER 1.& {jJ ~ ~ ()'
, f..YOA.."iltlr { 0, r'LI.OIw'NE.\,\, 1<.. (.r()~$ ,RA /J;?tf 61$;( J>
SAMPLING SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION j" ~ j!-...O
ATE TIME /
2-
:2-
NUMBE,R
MATRIX I
TYPE
..
..--.......
o 2846 Industrial Plaza Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32301
o 414 Southwest 12th Avenue, Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
o 900 Lakeside Drive, Mobile, AL 36693
o 6712 Benjamin Road, Suite 100, Tampa, FL 33634
REQUIRED ANALYSES
NUMBER OF CONTAINERS SUBMITTED
i3ftJ ()3/~
ir(yj 0 1 q.r
5'/4, '-- - L
Sffl-. ~ - L
X
1><
J /J
"':iN:;uls1YBY: (SUY1'TURYro
ZI..-' ff?J::.;..v-- T
~ IVEt'} BY: (SIGNATURE) ,
DATE
___ i
'DATE
TIME !iECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE)
- -
}''''~
TIME RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE)
C I
;/;;,fi,~. ;FdRSA VANNAH LABc:Jr:;l'ATORY USE ONLY'
>.. ..'.. ,_,: .;~._. < :"'i:'::,_.,Y:",\'~")';~; " .. ;.,..>;';~;.;;">-<l,.'<< :;':, 'A:.~,;", ;,>~':."..._<'~' ...~,l--i-('.'" :,_:,;..;:,:-, ',' ...<::',' _'.,;.i'.:<..:..:'_'. .-:.:":.
OD~,1~:ACT
s [E]NO
...
;.,
:
",,' ::A
. '~i:' ~~', '" :':':~, /"'~',
Phone: (904) 878-3994
Phone: (305) 421.7400
Phone: (205) 666-6633
Phone: (813) 886-7427
.. -
x (904) 878.9504
Fax (305) 421.2584
Fax (205) 666.6696
Fax (813) 885-7049
I PAGE I OF
.0 STANDARD TAT
D EXPEDITED TAT'
REPORT DUE DATE
* SUBJECT TO RUSH FEES
I
~ AL'I lIJA-'r"e t PI AT /1..1 ~
140
I,
I'
(i)f{ 8. f
,\J^ l '2~ I~
~
TIME /"Fffi.UTI VED B'):Y;IGtjA'T~~ i 1
L '~L. f(., L,-,rn-----
" ..., h,' -
TIME RECEIVED BY: (SIGNAtJdRE)
DATE
DATE
-.',', :
" ,,/. ,.',
1pg/P Jl~Er
DATE TIME
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Field Data Forms and Sampling Station Map
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date
Time
Station
Sampled By
11zY 11 J
14 ')"0
~.I' 1-
Gb lL~l J'lA
f-1 ~ C; /II IJL/..;L
SURFACE WATER FIELD DATA
Cloud Cover dO.t;', vtJ\..c().'3f; 1t.v.tJ~(.~/uk k~
Antecedent Rain .
Temperature
Wind Velocity & Direction t. /1 ';J;j /,/41
Tide Stage M-utI.e; t.; /fiG
Station description:
Notes:
Mid
30.0
Lf 4, a/yO
2 G,?
h,L
Bottom
U er ~ : 4'- ~ II
Surface
3(J,(}
4Lf,t1 () CJ
2',8
f,o
Temp (C)
Conductivity
Salinity (0100)
DO (mgll)
Flow (ftIsec)
Flow direction
Secchi () V 013
fl-J- cRd< Y, c;7-~
Seaitn'ent sample collected es
Water sample collected es
No
.@
CH2M HILL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SURFACE WATER FIELD DATA
Date
Time
Station
Sampled By
Off;)-?! c;3
''-tOO
..,-\- ?- - t-f
~/...f (tzA
M~<:'P^,Nl LL
Station description:
Cloud Cover tT, HA{~; tkoc..J\I\o<.ovl, J~~oJ'i...;.~
Antecedent Rain ~\.\ ~
Temperature
Wind Velocity & Direction 5" - '1 ~ NW
Tide Stage H;(..I-4. FI\(,Li'VCr
T~cl ~~''-f~i- ~~ ~;J~4 ~~kc~ ~
._~ ^"~"" ~~ f' iA.~~l \'""'-' c/.4'... .
ye(~.e ; 2- (. 0 ~"~
Surface
Temp (C)
Conductivity
Salinity (0100)
DO (mg/l)
Flow (ftlsec)
Flow direction
Secchi (;'1-1 ~
f~ 7' 77'
Sediment sample collected 'Ifb.
Water sample collected ~ -
Notes:
.- I I
rlv, ~.."... ~ e-"~'';~
~..)--\"~-': L (",}"'-"-1.
~u...r'a ~.~
G.~
(J",",,- -1..f~
w~v.~'.1
/. . .~..i. '.'
I
~y; k...JI~
/' -..
\...)" .....J,.J'j);-.-.I.)~./
: t
~- 1c;-.J-..t.
~~..v,
L~t~
9""J0, ( ~'" ;)h-.~)
Mid
28'1
I.j2}8oo
'2~/O
t1-7
o,G4
H6 Jiu.-rl1:'""-'
26-0
(uI.>itlf (JIJ )
~"'''OM
No
No
CH2M HILL
Bottom
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date
Time
Station
Sampled By
1 / 2-1 / rJ
~ 00
""11 ,.3
Cr 0 /L.. .sj I tJt
J.-{ c (6^)A)~ (1
Station description:
SURFACE WATER FIELD DATA
L. 10 k
SUN""!
Cloud Cover
Antecedent Rain
Temperature 2..~, () , G
Wind Velocity & Direction 11/ - I "" ~( J1)W
Tide Stage M~ L.c ""-' - e B R / Nlr
U,ey~ ; I.)" f~t-f
Surface
D
Temp (C)
Conductivity
Salinity (0100)
DO (mgll)
Flow (ftIsec)
Flow direction ~
Secchi (I"'~) V 0 B
pH ~ g.30
Sediment sample collected Yes
Water sample collected Yes
Mid
3//- s-
t./ I, fa tJ
2~,()
1,3
0./4
N01~
NP
Bottom
N~
\\/
@
-(5)
Notes:
'5 L "'- j 'lA/Y'l ~""J., 1 LPJ k J +E-. 10 + J-- uv0C
C;(!vr-e- JV( I~ ')~ fWIJ t; ~ Vl-<\.-tt,
~{~J-.h /fi""l .J0.M} ~i ~l'-L\",J.u.hr C&)j~;-:
()~
\
'v..A<A "'fI'<-8N\ kIMJ I ~.,u;~ ,-*...;..1 wwvJ ~ \l1ck
CH2M HILL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date
Time
Station
Sampled By
f~y;q3
~.
CJ,no/n' fU1
c #I/f U
Station description:
SURFACE WATER FIELD DATA
Cloud Cover SO ~ ~"N}J Y
Antecedent Rain
Temperature ~8 ' {
Wind Velocity & Direction 5" - ~ ~ ~
Tide Stage f1E D I Hi~H. E iN
)C-C- r1,<-~6lVJ ~ JILl
-:D C.ft~ : \O.S- ~~
Temp (C)
Conductivity
Salinity (0100)
DO (mgll)
Flow (ftlsec)
Flow direction -\ 0 .H~
Secchi (iV,~ )
fl-t
Sediment sample collected
Water sample collected
Surface
Mid
21/7
Lf? J 000
I
'27.)..
6.3
(1. rJ
5LJ
Bottom
21,3
42;2 r)
'J-~ / ()
&. (
(J,!
SlAJ
. Notes:
Z1,!:J-
40, Y.fO
, #
J- Lf . 2-
6'4
1.-:}
~
52-.f)
g,:)L(
Yes
Yes
~
-~
-sJ cloy ! ~~ ~L'1 ~~X13
1N
,.'~~(
" /
! I
.vt.,vJ
/X
-
---....
'.
\
1=1
~
,
(
CH2M HILL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SURFACE WATER FIELD DATA
Date
Time
Station
Sampled By
r !f/li J
9:r J. <, I 11-
" L~~A/~ II
Cloud Cover btJ"0 i L,.,J", t [;1 ~/~. Iftt U.
Antecedent Rain
Temperature Zl1, · i
Wind Velocity & Direction ~ - T ~~ AI
Tide Stage N1~ p) f-}." #. E '}.Iv
.
Station description:
... LI
pt f1 ,(.k (\ / 2.. - [10 ff. M I-'/f
'h.-<- ~(j<-./7 )~~ <~~~ J :~t11~~~ Iou! ~cb: Vv-a...-J ~~.1~{~1
0+ KA~' /4': AJ0u.,W 5U"", +0 -Rntd'ci..J?"""J 017 ~f
~ 'fofL ~1~(' t~
II 11
1J~fa : (I t ~~
Surface Mid Bottom
Temp fc) 21.8 'ZJ'! ZCJ, t
Conductivity 40 , 300 42 () 00 I.{ 2, () 00
I , .
Salinity (0100) 24,0 2 '7- I 1.. 25,L
DO (mg/l) '.6 0,'-( r;,;;-
Flow (ftlsec) 5:0 '1, 1 b.O
Flow direction NW ~H\J NNW
Secchi ( i L. ~ ) " N't ~!>
2'7
fH 0,3 L{ @
Sediment sample collected Yes SeA. C - H
Water sample collected @ No
Notes:
---
SAA-A (.
PC) J!lJ
fJv (-ff
i
I
I
/
/ A fl(
r !J
f!-1t7S ),
(fl~A/A/~(
~ ~ '/;:"~Q
/ /'
~
~
/-
CH2M HILL
(
I
H
~
f
~
"A tvTGtJ1J1't }6VJc I:..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SURFACE WATER FIELD DATA
4 IO...t
Date
Time
Station
Sampled By
1.1 J-~ If]
o q o(J
STA I
Goat (./l.J,
f'4 ( oIJK&~l
Cloud Cover
Antecedent Rain .
Temperature 2~. {'. C
Wind Velocity & Direction 1 - r ~ N &
Tide Stage loiN fl./}/ AI f-
,.
Station description:
pl+
Temp (C)
Conductivity
Salinity (0100)
DO (mgll)
Flow (fUsec)
Flow direction
~ Secchi ( I ~ eX.)
-'> Y-ep-:.-{ (;,,-,Jv~
Sediment sample collected
Water sample collected
5~~ NG"'(f S
Ph,,+<: 1<;-;JL-f ~ \
6://]
Surface
61.')
J( 1 /;{; r?
2t~~
N\
(
!
Mid
Bottom
f'\ I)
.
3 {. (J C
L/?, ~-()rJ
-Z 5'/ '7
b.(J
O.b5
~ N - NW
3J
Lj/)
\
~
I
~
Yes
Yes
No
-@
. Notes:
~
,0
Y It iN,-
-;:.,~...; (,,( IJ
5' (. f'I c,it, 5
.../.
.....
G-I.'I L f
" f~/r.r.. tOftJt
)( r 30 Ffff1.~'" 'vf,-r~(l f E"*
)
fJo'!' r~
-.
.
.~)< ros~ :.
p., Lt'''1.' ....'it;[
- )l
\ ';.
'!}f-./
)
S flVl J.i ......,
'.\
l .
vvA~ V
.: j CH2M HILL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SURFACE WATER FIELD DATA
Date
Time
Station
Sampled By
~J[;14J
/,4. ,2-
G-o~ SfPA
,.,.. Co CAN";! tL
Cloud Cover L {O ..~
Antecedent Rain
Temperature 2.~"~. G
Wind Velocity & Direction ~ItLM {-}" /Ve.
Tide Stage -1~ \v I P--I'S f N 6-
Station description:
{;: ~ zo~-I
11 0 \..J-f ., ?
\ h.ot.> /3 _19 Q. \
ltflB8A(~ pnLI-A 5""'~N l> ".
,
p\-l . Surface "+ Mid Bottom
.'10-
Temp (C) 2 'f. 0
Conductivity 31) )(JtJ
Salinity (0/00) ZJ.-g
DO (mg/I) I, ,-
Flow (ftlsec)
Flow direction
Secchi (ff. ) 2- 0 {-f
W A'1e-1- 'bE p:-LJ af) 2,0
Sediment sample co ected Yes No
Water sample collected (5) No
Notes:
S v./v ~ \ 5 E. p.,'l AfP ~x.. -::;: 30 A ;t-1. ;i1/tA.iy 5/hI<E 15: L. vs NotED
0"./ ~AI,) t. GI/NlJ ~ J,.--Io~b ~L(t1-ING. tot-V '/-1"PE
5f~A..'1 f NA. A l-f~"'\\v' i[o~ CL-.Q,~ 5~ ui lw.. ; ~C Oyf; oA/lL 'R.J 'YW~p to(i'.l.
(=:.)(105(;) S",,~ AlON(,.. lvESTEA...<<J .>HoA--{L;IlIE JOlA..J!4-I'-PS ~(.,(U: o-~ f'A€..KIC-O
C HJVJUE L Nil\); 6-/'IB tt r-'>K'tr'-I~- c~ """"A.., ~~,
wJ...~ ~~ J c'f~''''''\ '-ci...L.\J
~\<.~~ ..
CH2M HILL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I i
I
I
I
I
~
I {f~ C-
Date
Time
Station
Sampled By
1/28'/,/3
1140
<r'A1
6cL.~, tL!I
Me (O)J~e.. U
SURFACE WATER FIELD DATA
Cloud Cover sL. UA2E . Svt u"^j
Antecedent Rain .
Temperature
Wind Velocity & Direction ( - ~ fi'Yl'I., NE.
Tide Stage MG?> . )f; 6-11. fl., S,A> (r
Surface
28,0
40, =t50
2 > ,~
L{ - {t)
0,r6
N
53.0
9 1 \Li
Yes
Yes
Mid
28.8
/.{1., 500
2J]. L7
11, ')
~ ' b-)..
,,'
t-I)
Bottom
Station description:
l)<-fT~ ~ 4 J-. ; ~ ~
Temp (C)
Conductivity
Salinity (0100)
DO (mg/l)
Flow (ftlsec)
Flow direction
Secchi ( i \\ J.. )
ftt
Sediment sample collected
Water sample collected
N'D
,It
'7--1 Q
.~
Notes:
LV <?-~ ~
J L'":.1 --v....
I
,
!
,
{
I
I
\ -.
I .
/-
I
\
\..-:
.' :
,:
\
J] \
t
i
s-k 3
X
",...'
.~
\ . I
d\ ~. '--..L, W
,I ~f-v..h~ ~+~'^"' ~
f\
~ ~~d~~
\
\.
\
I
I
I
,
II ..t l.bV' .., to'^"" ..,... . ""'-
.'- f'oI~
! '
\
\'
\
~
CH2M HILL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11\~
I
I
I
I
I
Date
Time
Station
Sampled By
1/2.S 173
110'7
j Tit J.f
Jt;:?~~
SURFACE WATER FIELD DATA
Surface
21 t)
q I / tJOO .
')..'i,g
L-J , 80
~O.$'T
~
5:J... ()
8,2 r-
Yes
Yes
@
Cloud Cover 5 (. /1A 2 E
Antecedent Rain
Temperature "Z.Ji,'i. <:
Wind Velocity & Direction 1-/;;.. G A/a. · r':
Tide Stage /'1e. 'b - H; (J H 1).. i l (I)(r
I
Station description:
~J ~-\.~ c2....~ ~ tt~o (~:~ ~F
If iN k.. 110 u Se ~ ~JfI i V1=. /1.0 . a 1It/l.e,J ~d'" ("J~ zp~)
Notes:
. j
.- I
or,
D~\t4
~ tJ feJ-
Temp (C)
Conductivity
Salinity. (0100)
DO (mg/l)
Flow (ftIsec)
Flow direction
Secchi ( ) \'\G~ )
pH-
Sediment sample collected
Water sample collected
Mid
Bottom
23.8
L{ 3/ tJuO
-Z ,- 0
L./'T~
c:;-=r2.
~N
2 R.Cf
'i '). ~ (JO
,
L 5"". l5
/,{ ( 1~
(JIb{;
~VO
"--"
L:/
D
r r
U
......
\
\ i'AU)AU'1
, ~I
,
1)\.l1\1~';)'\ IJ PAs j
'--
---
<'T1l, If ~
'Ii: :2 0
tx
~I.\J
4 een-o!"\
~-
r:/
----
~
l:\
'-
.J
~.'
)
,
iJ
"---
CH2M HILL
c ~.M/IJ(,L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SURFACE WATER FIELD DATA
Date
Time
Station
Sampled By
9.1 2cJ ,/,3
\,., " J 0
s-rA. ~
(,- C} C2. S , .t.A
fVt~ Ccv~U
-
Cloud Cover { ; 61fr 1-1-+ 2 E.
Antecedent Rain
Temperature Z ~ 6 c:;. ,
Wind Velocity & Dire ion 4 - 6 J4-1j(. IVE
Tide Stage ME~ (ow 'f/~) -p..'$IV~
Station description: 36" f",-L-f ~on...TH of {ftfJ /..lOUse 1 fiJlf-;rE. r..".i(;.lI~f
A-T G.6IJF(~~N<:'E of ....AN'rJA ~ (l-thlMe \ ~~ t..IAI")A~/)' <-r!J!ll
""10 ~uAJE'rJi(,l .IJ~SS I~ "/.f1E cA""f frt>.) F~~'1 "",1. C'cHllb<'5 ()I-I 8EAC
l)~fT{f: 1'2.. b f~~J-
Surface
Temp (C) 29'/3
Conductivity 4 I, :;-f"O
" I
Salinity (0100) z5;()
DO (mg/l) q /6~-
Flow (ftIsec) 0,5'-
Flow direction S W
Secchi (\\-\.6l) ?Lr
f \-i I ' 3j- 8.:J.b
Sediment sample collected Yes ~
Water sample collected Yes - 0
1>.11:1 - f.Jo J""'T""A
Notes:
5u.I.IIJ 'j I (', ~ H...,... G H 6f
'IN
,'L
.........
i
i
5rlt, .,
<>4,.,/-t I-l~ f'("(T
FLov x
.Jc" k .
...~ ; 300 'Fr.
;11
l ""'- I
CON~O' (
i
,
/
i
o
7AJJ JiOUJl
......
;y
~
~
! !
"1.(/;',11, I
I
i - .
I
?~.,;J.
~
.......
"\'
~
~ ....
~
~
Mid
~1''2.
'-( J I ) ?'O
26, f
4, ~
o,rff"
'5l.O
ND
Bottom
21' (l
t-f 5/ ?- ;0
'2 6.tJ
I-{ ,~
N7J..fi
","k
Nv
N/)
/'t 0 TEN C7U G-tt Cd It.])
TO ~A-c.J.! 130 rT{) M
.~
~
iI. 'VI L.c,.. 17'
'1...-
'\.-
CH2M HILL
,
(1: '\4~f
8
........
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SURFACE WATER FIELD DATA
Date
Time
Station
Sampled By
1 hg 113
~~:~-L
G() itA (l.JI
M < ea..) ..II:: ( t.
Cloud Cover S~G-HT ~k2E .
Antecedent Rain
Temperature 2~ 0 C
Wind Velocity & Direction J.t -7 71t /.) - AlE
Tide Stage M E b lo "<.l I I), { 5f}/J (,
Station descriPtion:~~~I~(~~~---- ~}? :,.<<~ f~-e_M.)
_~ __ ~----L- __~"'- ,~-ba _ p _/J.J- o~ t _~ IhUJ€
R " f>J.o+-o l-t..1 __
1)ef?t>> - \0 f+ .
Surface Mid Bottom
Temp (C) 2-9' I 2 9' ( 21' I
Conductivity Lf ( . 2. 00 43/o(JO 4~200
. 2 G.O Z- 0( I
Salinity (0100) 2lf.8
DO (mgll) ~.3 Lf.3 Li,3
Flow (fUsee) D'i: o.'? (J . -::r ~
Flow direction S~ S~ /'J"-.J
Secchi ( j",a) tf3"
pH 8.2\
Sediment sample collected Yes No
Water sample collected ~ No
Notes:
12-<-~.,J +~ ~~ bo J~
\. "\ ~ ~ 4 ~f7 I w J- ~ or f~ {.W\.t;) c Q.t\.~'() ~ ~ (' vtd"\..
CH2M HILL
I
I cr.
,.
.,
I c.J
"
I ....
"
~
~
I ~c:;
...
~
g
I ~
~
I ...
-.2:
" ,
;
I
I
r.
I .,.
"'.-
I
I
I J:::'
I e;;
er-
e;; e;;
...
I '"
C} c;
\
, ~
I \: ~~ '"
\ '"'S"""
\ ~ to
,
,
\
I
.D
I
~~r~
~~
~ 3"
o a.
SCl)
o~
:> m
gp
~'2.
0."
_ n
.. ..
~g
o .
a-g
!a
!T2.
~.2:
~S:
- .
n -
. ..
:g
~ a.
: ~
a.-
.S ~.
._." c .
1:> 2.2'
: ~ .;:.
: - .X _' ! 5'
'-'0..- S ~
c"<
:- c
_m ~
.. -
.-_.........:- ~ ~
.-' ,3 0.
ii!~
!.o
!T5-
,,'::::~: ... .
'. ~ g
~ 3
c:.s
e.S-
0_ 3: . c::_~:;
~ c --
.. :>
. ~ ~
. .:... :: ~
; eft 5-
.3 n
. - 5';:
...~ ~
~5"
i{e:
.. <
_",_ ~ a:
.. ~
a...
- '0
it t?~~
I
,
"'~
,
.,
,.. .. ..... ,
.~ T"':~ ~~::"\J 0
..'\_- :.... C
:.- ..-:'"""'''":. ~
.-~ 0-
'. S
~j:'( ..~, f
._~_...~ '\
-' . ~ .-
:. ~ (:'):~
.' ~
.'. " !: -1 .
>- ,-......
... ~ ....
'. .
. ..-
-:;
~
_._0
,.....,.... ....
. .:. 'r:' ~
:0 ~
...
o
... .' ~'.' ~
...
---;
-
. en
:: -0
. ... f'T1
m
00
U>
.S
r-
m.
\
\
.' "i
~
... ---f;
....
~
.-..... .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
AVIFAUNAL STUDY BY BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. e
HISTORIC AND CURRENT
A VIFAUNAL USE OF DUNEDIN PASS
Prepared for:
Mr. Michael P. Walther, P.E.
Coastal Technology Corporation
800 20th Place, Suite 6
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Prepared by:
~E6~;/~
Eva E. Bailey
Senior Ecologist/Monit ring
Coordinator
(O:\0810\01\02\wp.bra\mpc01avi.tpt) 18 January 1994
I 3 9 IOU. S. H i g h way 30 1 Nor t h . Sui tel 80 . T a ill p a, F lor i d a 3 3 6 1 9 . (8 1 3) 6 6 4 - 4 5 00 FAX (8 1 3) 6 64 - 0 4 4 0
TAMPA + ORLANDO . TALLAHASSEE . JACKSONVILLE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This report briefly summarizes our review of both historic and current avifaunal use of Dunedin
Pass. The information was gathered from both published and unpublished records of
professional and hobbyist birders. Historic use is defined as pre-1980 while current use will be
considered post 1980. The avifauna found within the pass area can be separated into two broad
categories; wading birds and shorebirds. Similarly avifauna! use of Dunedin pass can be
categorized into two distinct activities; nestinglbreeding and feeding/resting. Both of these bird
categories and activities have certain unique habitat requirements that are present within the area
that would be influenced by the reopening of Dunedin Pass.
Table I summarizes historic and current bird use in and around Dunedin Pass. Table IT presents
the preferred habitat (ADD) of those birds occurring historically or currently in the pass area.
Historic Use
Historic accounts of the avifauna of the area date from the writings of W.E.D. Scott in
the 1880's (Auk No 4). This early record includes notes on nesting and migrant bird use
of the area. Additional records of wintering bird use, feeding and resting, date from the
1950's to present (Audubon Field Notes). A total of 13 wading bird species and 8
shorebird species were known to breed in the area, while over 30 species were known
to use the area for feeding or resting (Table 1). However, these early records only
present a limited picture of the avifaunal use of the area. The limited number of
investigators and survey time, may have underestimated or missed species using the area.
Detailed historic records of breeding bird populations have not been found for the area.
Current Use
Professional and hobbyist bird enthusiasts have kept accurate records of avifauna in the
Dunedin Pass area for more than 15 years. Previously BRA contacted Mr. Dave
Goodwin in an effort to determine avifaunal use (per. comm.). Recently BRA contacted
Ms. Raye-Page (Clearwater Audubon Society) in order to assess the current avifaunal
status of the area. Ms Raye-Page was in agreement with the previous assessment by Mr.
Goodwin that the area has become an important nesting and feeding site for both
shorebirds and wading birds. Currently 11 species of wading birds and 10 species of
shorebirds have been documented nesting in the Dunedin Pass area. At the same time
over 40 species of birds are known to use the area in some manner. This increase in
both the number of species nesting and feeding in the area are probably a result of
increased sampling effort.
(0: \081 0101 \02\wp.bra\mpeOlavi.rpl)
(2)
18 Jmuary 1994
I
I
I
I
I WADING BIRDS
Great Blue Heron
I Great Egret
I Little Blue Heron
I Reddish Egret
Green-backed Heron
I Black-crowned Night
Heron
I Yellow-crowned Night
Heron
I White Ibis
Roseate Spoonbill
I SHOREBIRDS
I Brown Pelican
Double-crested
Cormorant
I Clapper Rail
I Black-bellied Plover
Snowy Plover
I Wilson's Plover
I
American
III Oystercatcher
I
Table 1.
Snowy Egret
Tricolor Heron
Semipalmated Plover
Piping Plover
Historic and Current A vifaunal Use of Dunedin Pass
..-.-.
Ardea herodias x x
Casmerodius albus x x
Egretta thula x x
Egretta caerulea x x
Egretta tricolor x x
Egretta rufescens x x
Butorides striatus x x
Nycticorax nycticorax x x
Nycticorax violaceus x x
Eudocimus albus x x
Ajaia ajaia x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pelecanus occidentalis
Phalacrocorax aurinus
x
x
x
x
x
Rallus longirostris
Pluvialis squararola
Charadrius alexandrinus
Charadrius wilsonia
Charadrius semipalmatus
Charadrius melodius
Haematopus palliatus
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
(0: \0810\01 \02\wp.bra\mpeOlavi.rpt)
(3)
x NL
x NL
x SSC
x SSC
x SSC
x SSC
x NL
x NL
x NL
x *
x SSC
x
SSC
NL
x
x
NL
NL
T
NL
NL
T
sse
x
x
x
x
x
x
18 January 1994
::i::::::i.il'~I,II.:.II::::.:..:.iii::j.::::il::jlll~1.:jll::.:.li.j:.U.:j:::.:::::::I.iii:lliiiiiili:
....................... ...............................
................... ........................................ :':-:':':':':':';':':':':':':':':':':':':':':'. :.:.:.:.;.:.;.:.:.;.;.;.:-:-:.;.:-:.:.;.;.:.;.:.:.;.;.;.:.;","
:::::::N~t:::::::..:..:i~l4f::::::::.!:..:.I.t::::!.!.::EGEWFg...
........N............. mm:::f~st}f:::::::::::m:mf~~m:::.: .. .....:::::;:;::;.:.:.:::::::::;:
Tringa melanoleuca
Tringa jlavipes
Catoptrophorus
semipalmatus
Actitis macularia
Numenius phaeopus
Numenius americanus
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Limosa fedoa
Arenaria interpres
Calidris canutus (I'ringa
canatus Auk 4)
Calidris alba
Calidris mauri
Calidris minutilla
Calidris alpina
Limnodromus griseus
Larus atricilla
Larus delawarensis
Larus argentatus
Chlidonias niger
Sterna caspia
Sterna maxima
Sterna sandvicensis
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sterna hirundo
x
x
x
Sterna fosteri
Sterna antillarum
Rhynchops niger
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
T
SSC
SSC = Species of Special Concern T = Threatened
* = Listed but no status
(0: \081 0\01 \02\wp .bra \mpeOlavi. rpt)
(4)
18 Januuy 1994
I
Table 2.
I
I
I Great Blue Heron
I Great Egret
I Snowy Egret
I Little Blue Heron
I Tricolor Heron
Reddish Egret
I
I
Black-crowned Night
I Heron
Yellow-crowned Night
Heron
I White Ibis
I Roseate Spoonbill
SHOREBIRDS
I Brown Pelican
Double-crested
I Cormorant
Clapper Rail
I Black-bellied Plover*
i Snowy Plover*
I
I
Preferred Habitat of Birds Occurring in the Dunedin Pass Area
WADING BIRDS
Green-backed Heron
Fresh-water and brackish marshes, along lakes, rivers and lagoons, and
mangroves, breeding primarily in trees
Marshes, swampy woods, tidal estuaries, lagoons, mangroves and along
streams, breeding primarily in tall trees
Marshes, lakes, ponds, lagoons, mangroves and shallow coastal habitats,
breeds in bushes and trees
Marshes, ponds lakes, meadows, streams and mangroves, breeding in trees
and low shrubs
Marshes, ponds and rivers, breeding primarily near salt water in
mangroves
Brackish marshes and shallow coastal habitats, breeding in low trees,
primarily red mangroves
Ponds, rivers, lakes, lagoons, marshes, swamps and mangroves, breeds in
trees in wooded areas
Marshes, swamps, ponds, lakes, lagoons and mangroves, breeding in trees
in wooded areas near water
Marshes, swamps, lakes, lagoons and mangroves, breeding in trees in
wooded situations near water
Marshes, mangroves, lagoons and lakes, breeding in trees near water
Marshes, swamps, ponds, rivers and lagoons, breeding in low trees
Open marine situations along coast, breeding on islands on the ground
Lakes, rivers, swamps and seacoasts, breeding on the ground
Salt and brackish marshes and mangrove swamps
Tundra(breeding); mudflats, beaches, wet savanna, shores of ponds and
lakes, and flooded fields (nonbreeding)
Beaches, dry mud or salt flats, and sandy shores of rivers, lakes and ponds
(0: \081 0\01 \02\wp.bra\mpeOlavi.rpt)
(5)
18 JlDuary 1994
I
I
I
I
I
I
I!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
.:~:.~.i~.:.i:i:.:g9P1_P::::I_I:.:i:::::::.:::.:::.::::.::::::
Wilson's Plover
Semipalmated Plover*
Piping Plover*
American Oystercatcher
Greater Yellowlegs*
Lesser Yellowlegs*
Willet
Spotted Sandpiper*
Whimbrel *
Long-billed Curlew*
Marbled Godwit*
Ruddy Tumstone*
Red Knot*
Sanderling *
Western Sandpiper*
Least Sandpiper*
Dunlin*
Short-billed Dowitcher*
(0: \081 0\01 \02\wp .bra\mpeOlavi. rpt)
Sandy beaches, tidal mudflats and savanna pools, rarely far from coastal
areas
Sandy areas, and grassy or mossy tundra (breeding); mudflats, shallow
marshes, beaches, flooded fields, and shores of lakes and ponds
(nonbreeding)
Sandy beaches, especially where scattered grass tufts are present, in
migration and winter also mudflats, flooded fields and shores of lakes and
ponds
Rocky and sandy seacoasts and islands
Muskeg and tundra (breeding); marshes, ponds, lakes, stream margins,
lagoons and coastal mudflats (nonbreeding)
Tundra and muskeg (breeding); marshes, ponds, wet meadows, lakes and
mudflats (nonbreeding)
Salt marshes (breeding); marshes, tidal uwdflats, beaches, lake margins and
less frequently, open grasslands (nonbreeding)
Marshes, wet meadows, streams, lake margins, salt marshes, beaches and
tidal mudflats
Sedge-dwarf shrub tundra, moorlands and heath (breeding); beaches, tidal
mudflats, marshes, estuaries, flooded fields and pasture (nonbreeding)
Prairies and grassy meadows, generally near water, in migration and winter
occurring also on beaches and mudflats
Marshes and flooded plains, in migration and winter also on mudflats and
beaches
Dry, dwarf-shrub tundra, usually near water (breeding); rocky, barren or
pebbly coasts, sandy beaches, mudflats and shores of lakes (nonbreeding)
Barren or stony tundra (breeding); primarily seacoasts on tidal mudflats and
beaches (nonbreeding)
Dry sedge, barren or stony tundra (breeding); primarily. sandy beaches, less
frequently mudflats and shores of lakes or rivers (nonbreeding)
Coastal sedge-dwarf tundra (breeding); mudflats, beaches, shores or lakes
and ponds, and flooded fields (nonbreeding)
Mossy or wet grassy tundra, occasionally in drier areas with scattered
scrubby brushes (breeding); wet meadows, mudflats, flooded fields, shores
of pools and lakes, sandy beaches (nonbreeding)
Wet coastal tundra (breeding); mudflats, estuaries, marshes, flooded fields,
sandy beaches and shores of lakes and ponds (nonbreeding)
Grassy or mossy tundra (breeding); mudflats, estuaries, shallow marshes,
pools, ponds, flooded fields,and sandy beaches (nonbreeding)
(6)
18 JanlW)' 1994
I
1m '-_m
Laughing Gull
I Ring-billed Gull*
I
I
I Caspian Tern
I Royal Tern
I Sandwich Tern
I
I Forster's Tern*
Least Tern
I
I
I * = Not known to breed in Florida
I
t
I
I
I
I
Sandy islands with scattered patches of long grass(breeding);seacoasts, bays
and estuaries (nonbreeding)
Seacoastsi bays, estuaries, rivers, lakes, ponds, irrigated fields and plowed
lands, breeding on rocky, grassy and sandy islets or isolates shores
Herring Gull *
Black Tern*
Seacoasts, bays, estuaries, lakes, rivers, nesting on rocky or sandy coasts
Marshes, sloughs and wet meadows, primarily fresh-water (breeding);
pelagic, as well as along seacoasts, bays, estuaries, lagoons, lakes and
rivers(nonbreeding)
Sandy or gravely beaches and shell banks(breeding); seacoasts, bays,
estuaries, lakes marshes and rivers (nonbreeding)
Open sandy beaches (breeding); seacoasts, lagoons and estuaries
(nonbreeding)
Sandy beaches and flats (breeding); seacoast, bays, estuaries and mudflats
(nonbreeding)
Common Tern*
Sandy, pebbly or stony beaches, matted vegetation and grassy areas
(breeding);seacoasts, estuaries, bays, lakes, rivers and marshes
(nonbreeding)
Fresh-water and salt marshes, in migration and winter also seacoasts, bays,
estuaries, rivers and lakes
Seacoasts, beaches, bays, estuaries, lagoons, lakes and rivers, breeding on
sandy or gravelly beaches and banks of rivers or lakes
Black Skimmer
Sandy beaches, shell banks, coastal islands, tropical rivers, in migration
and winter also bays, lagoons and mudflats
(0:\0810\01 \02\wp .bra\mpcQlavLrpt)
(7)
18 January 1994
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
i
I
I
Recommendations
In order to accurately assess what effect the opening of Dunedin Pass would have on the
avifauna of the area, BRA recommends the following. A rough estimate of the hours and cost
anticipated to accomplish each item is also presented.
1. Exhaustive research to identify and describe in detail historic breeding bird
populations within the Pass area. This will provide a base that current conditions
can be compared to,
56 hours ............................... $3,500.00
2. Identify and describe in detail current breeding bird populations within the
influence of the Pass. This will identify breeding bird populations that may be
affected within the pass area,
136 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8,500.00
3. Obtain monthly counts of wading birds and shorebirds within the Pass area. This
will quantify current avifaunal use within the pass area,
208 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $11 ,500.00
4. Measure reproductive and fledging success of a selected breeding bird population
in the Pass area,
280 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $16,500.00
5. Compare reproductive success in the Pass area to other similar breeding bird
populations. This will allow the measurement of the "fitness" of the pass area
currently and allow the modelling of future "fitness" values,
56 hours ............................... $3,100.00
6. Document predation and disturbance factors affecting breeding bird populations.
Provide the necessary data that will allow the modelling of predation and
disturbance rates on the breeding bird population once the pass is reopened,
40 hours ............................... $2,200.00
7. Measure disturbance rates of feeding/resting bird populations. Provide the
necessary data to model future disturbance rates,
96 hours ............................... $5,280.00
8. Measure disturbance rates, caused by boat traffic and/or human use, within an
existing population of shorebirds and wading birds at an existing open Pass.
Provide a basis from which a model of future disturbance can be generated,
96 hours ............................... $5,280.00
(0:\0810\01 \02\wp.bn\mpcOlavi.rpt)
(8)
18 Jmuuy 1994
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
J
I
I
I
I
LITERATURE CITED
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American birds, 6th edition. Allen
Press, Inc. 877pp.
Ehrlich, P.R., D. S. Dobkins, D. Wheye. 1988. The birder's handbook. Simon and Schuster
Inc. 785pp.
Kale, n, H. W., D. S. Maehr. 1990. Florida's birds: a handbook and reference. Pineapple
Press, Inc. 288pp.
Patton, S. 1987. BRA report.
Scott, W.E.D. 1887. AUK 4: 273-284.
Sprunt, A. Jr. 1954. Coward-McCann, Inc. N.Y.
Stevenson, H. M. 1991. Florida Region. American Birds.
-------- . 1980. Florida Region. American Birds.
------ . 1960. Florida Region. Audubon Field Notes.
-------- . 1950. Florida Region. Audubon Field Notes.
(0: \0810\01 \02\wp.bra\mpcOlavi.rpt)
(9)
18 Janwuy 1994
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS
I
I
Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc.
CJe.~tin9 r:De.U'e.lopme.nt and c::Re.ua'tCh
1400 STARKEY ROAD LARGO. flORIDA 34641
Pinellas: (813) 581.7019 Hillsborough: (813) 681-7197
I LAB. NO.: 69590
MATERIAL: Lt.Gray Fine Sand v/Tr. of Small ShellSAMPlEDFROM:
PROJECT: Duned in Pas s DATE SAMPlED:
I SOURCE OF SUPPLY. P.O. 1037191
. CONTRACTOR:
CLIENT: Pinellas County Engineering Dept.
I REPORTS TO: Pinellas County Engineering Dept.
DATE TESTED:
TS & DL
Dunedin Pass
01-19-90
Lab
01-22-90
01-24-90
SAMPLED BY:
TESTED BY:
DATE REPORTED:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sample: 0 to 1.5'
SIEVE SIZE
... PASSING
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
NO.
No.
4
10
20
40
80
200
270
100.0
99.0
94.2
82.9
26.3
0.7
0.5
Unified Soil Classification - SP
Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc.
CJE.~ti~ :DE.vE.topme.nt and c::RE.ua'CCh
1400 STARKEY ROAD LARGO. FlORIDA 34641
Pinellas: (813) 581-7019 Hillsborough: (813) 681-7197
I LAB. NO.: 69590
MATERIAL: White Fine Sand
PROJECT: Duned in Pas s
I SOURCE OF SUPPLY. P.0.1037191
CONTRACTOR:
CLIENT: Pine lias County Engineering
I REPORTS TO: Pinellas County Engineering
De p t.
Dept.
SAMPLED BY:
SAMPLED FROM:
DATE SAMPLED:
TESTED BY:
DATE TESTED:
DATE REPORTED:
TS & DL
Dunedin Pass
01-19-90
Lab
01-22-90
01-24-90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I,
J
I
J
I
I
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sample: 1.5' to 3.0'
SIEVE SIZE
" PASSING
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
NO.
No.
4
10
20
40
80
200
270
100.0
99.3
93.9
87.8
33.6
1.0
0.7
Unified Soil Classification - SP
I
I
Central Florida Testing laboratories, Inc.
CJe~tinfJ r:DeveLopme.nt ad cRe~'CJ!.h
1400 STARKEY ROAD LARGO, FLORIDA 34641
Pinellas: (813) 581-7019 Hillsborough: (813) 881-7197
I LAB. NO.: 69590
MATERIAL: Whi te Fine Sand
PROJECT: Duned i n Pas s
t SOURCE OF SUPPLY: P.0.1037191
CONTRACTOR:
CLIENT: Pine 11 as County Eng i neer i ng
I REPORTS TO: Pinellas County Engineering
DepL
Dept.
SAMPLED BY:
SAMPLED FROM:
DATE SAMPLED:
TESTED BY:
DATE TESTED:
DATE REPORTED:
TS & DL
Dunedin Pass
01-19-90
Lab
01-22-90
01-24-90
I
I
I
I
I
I
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sample: 3.0. to 4.5.
SIEVE SIZE
" PASSING
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
NO.
No.
4
10
20
40
80
200
270
100.0
95.9
91.3
82.8
30.2
3.2
2.6
Unified Soil Classification - SP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Ine.
:Je~tin'J c:DeveLopl1'U.nt and c:Reua'leh
1400 STARKEY ROAD LARGO. FLORIDA 34641
Pinellas: (813) 581-7019 Hillsborough: (813) 681-7197
I LAB. NO.: 69590
MATERIAL: Whi te Fine Sand w/Trace
PROJECT: Dunedin Pass
I SOURCE OF SUPPlY: P 0 a(\'::I7 tat
CONTRACTOR:
CLIENT:
SAMPLED BY:
SAMPlED FROM:
DATE SAMPlED:
TESTED BY:
DATE TESTED:
DATE REPORTED:
of Shell
I REPORTS TO:
Pinellas County Engineerine Dept.
Pinellas County EnRineerinR Dept.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sample: 4.5' to 6.0'
SIEVE SIZE
" PASSING
3/8"
No. 4
No. 10
No. 20
No. 40
No. 80
NO. 200
No. 270
100.0
97.8
93.2
87.7
82.9
50.7
3.0
2.6
Unified Soil Classification - SP
TS &: DL
Dunedin Pass
01-19-90
Lab
01-22-90
01-24-90
I
J
Central Florida Testing laboratories, Inc.
CJE.~tin'J fJ::>E.vE.Lopme.nt and cRE.ua'U!.h
1400 STARKEY ROAD LARGO. FLORIDA 34641
Pinellas: (813) 581.7019 HillsboroUgh: (813) 881-7197
I LAB. NO.: 69590
MATERIAL: Whi t.e Fine Sand w/Trace of She 11
PROJECT: Dunedin Pass
I SOURCE OF SUPPLY. P.0.1037191
CONTRACTOR:
CLIENT: Pinellas Count.y Engineering Dept..
I REPORTS TO: Pinellas County Engineering Dept.
SAMPLED BY:
SAMPLED FROM:
DATE SAMPLED:
TESTED BY:
DATE TESTED:
DATE REPORTED:
TS &. m.
Dunedin Pass
01-19-90
Lab
01-22-90
01-24-90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sample: 6.0' to 7.5'
SIEVE SIZE
" PASSING
1/2"
3/8"
No. 4
No. 10
No. 20
No. 40
No. 80
NO. 200
No. 270
100.0
99.4
98.8
96.9
94.4
91.4
61.4
2.3
1.7
Unified Soil Classification - SP
I
I
I LAB. NO.:
.. MATERIAL:
Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc.
fJe.~tin'J fJ:::,e.ve.to pme.nt a.nd .d?e.UQ. 'U!h
1400 STARKEY ROAD LARGO. FLORIDA 34641
Pinellas: (813) 581-7019 Hillsborough: (813) 681-7197
69590
Lt.Grav Fine Sand wI Small Shell
PRO.'ECT: Duned in Pass
I SOURCE OF SUPPLY. P.O. 1037191
CONTRACTOR:
CLIENT:
SAMPlED BY:
SAMPlED FROM:
DATE SAMPlED:
TESTED BY:
DATE TESTED:
DATE REPORTED:
I REPORTS TO:
Pinellas County En~ineerin~ Dept.
Pinellas County En~ineering Dept.
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sample: 7.5' to 9.0'
SIEVE SIZE
" PASSING
1/2"
3/8"
No. 4
No. 10
No. 20
No. 40
No. 80
NO. 200
No. 270
100.0
98.9
96.2
88.0
77.4
72.0
59.7
4.5
4.1
Unified Soil Classification - SP
TS & DL
Dunedin Pass
01-19-90
Lab
01-22-90
01-24-90
I
I
Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc.
C1e~tlfU} fJJeueLopment and cRe~'tah
1400 STARKEY ROAD LARGO. FLORIDA 34641
Pinellas: (813) 581-7019 HiIIsborough: (813) 681-7197
I LAB. NO.: fiQ~QO SAMPLED BY:
MATERIAL: Lt.Grav Fine Sand v/Tr. of Small ShellSAMPLEDFROM:
PROJECT: Duned in Pas s DATE SAMPLED:
I SOURCE OF SUPPLY: P.O. 1037191 TESTED BY:
CONTRACTOR: DATE TESTED:
CLIENT: Pinellas County Engineering Dept. DATE REPORTED:
Pinellas County Engineering Dept.
Tc; It, nf.
Dunedin Pass
01-19-90
Lab
01-22-90
01-24-90
I REPORTS TO:
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sample: 9.0' to 10.5'
SIEVE SIZE
" PASSING
3/8"
No. 4
No. 10
No. 20
No. 40
No. 80
NO. 200
No. 270
100.0
97.8
92.0
87.0
82.7
41.8
1.6
1.2
Unified Soil Classification - SP
I
I
Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Ine.
CJE.~tin.'J fJ:::>E.f7E.Lopmen.t ad c:::RE.~'l.C.h
1400 STARKEY ROAD lARGO. FLORIDA 34641
Pinellas: (813) 581-7019 Hillsborough: (813) 681.7197
a LAB. NO.: 69590
MATERIAL: Lt. Gray Fine Sand wI Small Shell
PROJECT: Dunedin Pass
I SOURCE OF SUPPLY: P.O. 1037191
CONTRACTOR:
CLIENT: Pinellas County Engineering Dept.
I REPORTS TO: Pinellas County Engineering Dept.
SAMPLED BY:
SAMPLED FROM:
DATE SAMPlED:
TESTED BY:
DATE TESTED:
DATE REPORTED:
TS & DL
Dunedin Pass
01-19-90
Lab
01-22-90
01-24-90
I
I
I
1
I
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sample: 10.5' to 12.0'
SIEVE SIZE
" PASSING
1/2"
3/8"
No. 4
No. 10
No. 20
No. 40
No. 80
NO. 200
No. 270
100.0
99.4
92.2
78.1
64.7
53.0
18.0
1.8
1.4
Unified Soil Classification - SP
I
I
Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc.
fJe~ti~ r:Developrnent and cRe~wh
1400 STARKEY ROAD L6.RGO, FLORIDA 34641
Pinellas: (813) 581-7019 Hillsborough: (813) 681-7197
I LAB. NO.: 69590
MATERIAL: Lt. Gray Fine Sand wI Sma 11 She II
PROJECT: Dunedin Pass
I' SOURCE OF SUPPLY. P.0.1037191
! CONTRACTOR:
CLIENT: Pine lias Coun ty Enll i nee r i nil Dept.
I REPORTS TO: Pinellas County Enflineerinfl Dept.
SAMPLED BY:
SAMPLED FROM:
DATE SAMPLED:
TESTED BY:
DATE TESTED:
DATE REPORTED:
TS & DL
Dunedin Pass
01-19-90
Lab
01-22-90
01-24-90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sample: 12.0. to 13.5.
SIEVE SIZE
~ PASSING
1/2"
3/8"
No. 4
No. 10
No. 20
No. 40
No. 80
NO. 200
No. 270
100.0
97.1
88.5
77.3
60.3
48.1
12.2
1.5
1.2
Unified Soil Classification - SP
I
I
Central Florida Testing laboratories, Inc.
CJE.~tin~ fJJE.vE.toprru.nt and cRE.~'l.Ch.
1400 STARKEY ROAD LARGO. FLORIDA 34641
Pinellas: (813) 581-7019 Hillsborough: (813) 681-7197
I LAB. NO.: 69590
MATERIAL: Lt. Gray Fine Sand wI Sma 11 She 11
PROJECT: Dunedin Pass
I SOURCE OF SUPPLY, P.O. 1037191
CONTRACTOR:
CLIENT: Pinellas County EnRineerinR Dept.
Pinellas County EnRineerinR Dept.
I REPORTS TO:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SAMPlED BY:
SAMPlED FROM:
DATE SAMPlED:
TESTED BY:
DATE TESTED:
DATE REPORTED:
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sample: 13.5' to 15.0'
SIEVE SIZE
1/2"
3/8"
No. 4
No. 10
No. 20
No. 40
No. 80
NO. 200
No. 270
Unified Soil Classification - SP
" PASSING
100.0
99.4
95.1
90.2
83.5
71. 4
19.8
2.6
2.2
TS & Df.
Dunedin Pass
01-19-90
Lab
01-22-90
01-24-90
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc.
C1e~tlnfJ f):)eC7e[opment a.nd cRe~'l.Ch
1400 STARKEY ROAD lARGO. FLORIDA 34641
Pinellas: (813) 581-7019 HiIIsborough: (813) 681-7197
LAB. NO.: 69590
MATERIAL: Gray Fine Sand wI Sma II She II
PROJECT: Duned i n Pas s
SOURCE OF SUPPLY. P.O. .037191
CONTRACTOR:
CLIENT: Pinellas County Engineering Dept.
REPORTS TO: Pinellas County Engineering Dept.
SAMPLED BY:
SAMPLED FROM:
DATE SAMPLED:
TESTED BY:
DATE TESTED:
DATE REPORTED:
TS &: DL
Dunedin Pass
01-19-90
Lab
01-22-90
01-24-90
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sample: 15.0' to 16.5'
SIEVE SIZE
,., PASSING
1/2"
3/8"
No. 4
No. 10
No. 20
No. 40
No. 80
NO. 200
No. 270
100.0
99.7
96.7
85.8
68.0
48.9
11.5
3.3
2.8
Unified Soil Classification - 5P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX E
CONFERENCE REPORTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONFERENCE REPORT
DATE:
March 3, 1994
COMMISSION NO.: 59610
.JOB NAME: Dunedin Pass
PARTICIPANTS: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION:
Mark Latch, Division Director, Water Management
Bureau of Wetland Resource Management
Constance Bersok, Environmental Administrator
John Abendroth, Environmental Specialist III
Ken Echtemacht, P.E. II
Division of State Lands
Pete Mallison, Division Director
Mike Ashey, Bureau Chief
Division of Beaches and Shores
Kirby Green, Division Director
Neal Rogers, Jr., Engineer
Deborah Getzoff - Fowler, White
Michael Walther, P.E. - Coastal Tech
LOCATION: 2600 Blair Stone Road, Twin Towers Building, Room 609, Tallahassee, Florida
PURPOSE:
1)
2)
3)
and, 4)
The purpose of the meeting was. to identify:
specific requirements for completion of permit applications;
additional information that may be required to complete permit applications;
guidelines from each agency as to concerns, issues, and criteria for
identification of the least impactive alternative;
an apparent least impactive alternative.
REPORT: Michael Walther presented a summary of the historical pass and alternatives
under consideration. The following points were made:
a) Mike Ashey noted that the water quality data reflects limited potential for
improvement - notably only the "dead end" of the old pass appears to not
meet State standards. Mike Ashey said that it must be demonstrated that
other alternatives to improve water quality are not viable. In particular,
Mike Ashey noted that discharges from the tlcat eye" lagoon at CaIedesi Island
State Park appears to be the source of the poor water quality; Mike Ashey
said one possible solution might be to close the lagoon to prevent discharge.
b) Ken Echtemacht said that:
(i) Water quality data in other areas of the bay might be
investigated; Ken noted that the Department has recently
obtained some data in conjunction with a marina proposed by
the City.
~COASTAL TECH
rnt::.~Tt.1 . ~~V1Pflr-..!~,~~"'fT,o.! . rJVP, . F'\Ir:;I.~C~QINr; ANf)P1, t:.N"JING
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONFERENCE REPORT
March 3, 1994
Page Two
(ii) If improved water quality is anticipated then it must be
quantified as to how such improvements would happen; this
might be done with a numerical model.
(iii) Skip Davis at USF has data relative to the shoreline trends on
Caledesi Island and Qearwater Island.
and, (iv) Ken has IIno problemll with Coastal Tech's assessment of why
the pass closed and. the hydraulics associated with a reopened
pass.
c) Mike Ashey noted that the Department will request comments from adjoining
property owners and the Department is bound to consider these comments.
d) Mark Latch said that several endangered bird species (terns, plovers) are
attracted to the barren sand which exists at Dunedin Pass. Mark suggested
that the Department's relevant concerns are reflected in the intent to deny
issued by DER in 1988.
e) Pete Mallison said:
(i) The Trustees will take into account public input and opposition
-in determining whether public benefits outweigh costs.
(ii) The alternative of raising the SR 60 bridge should be
investigated as an alternative for reducing bridge openings
versus opening the pass.
and, (iii) The ownership of adjacent lands must be determined.
f) Kirby Green suggested that:
(i) a conceptual item be submitted to the Trustees to determine
whether there exists a potential for approval.
and, (ii) Honeymoon Island be considered a potential beach disposal
site.
g) Mike Ashey said that it should be verified as to whether the County
Comprehensive Plan or City Comprehensive Plan is applicable.
h) Neal Rogers said that:
(a) the City must show that no adverse impact would occur with the
bridge opening.
and, (b) reopening a pass might be precluded from use of stabilizing
structures (Neal was unsure).
i) Connie Bersok said that beach mice may have migrated from Caledesi Island
to Clearwater Island.
(f) COASTAL TECH
COASTAl. ENVIRONMENTAl. CIVIL. ENGINEERING AND PlANNING
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~COASTAL TECH
CONFERENCE REPORT
March 3, 1994
Page Three
Following discussion, it appears the least impactive alternative would entail reopening the
pass at its most recent location with minimal stabilization structures to maintain the position
of the pass.
COASTAl - ENVIRONMENTAl - CIVil- ENGINEERING AND PlANNING
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-,
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONFERENCE REPORT
DATE:
April 4, 1994
COMMISSION NO.: 59610
JOB NAME: Dunedin Pass
PARTICIPANTS: John Hall, Chief, South Florida Regulatory Field Office, USACE
Ron Silver, C.E.P., Chief, Central Permits Branch, USACE
Michael Dupes, Biologist, Planning Division, USACE
Deborah Getzoff, Fowler White
Michael Walther, P.E., Coastal Tech
LOCATION: John Hall's office - Federal Building - Jacksonville
PURPOSE:
1)
2)
3)
and, 4)
The purpose of the meeting was towards identifying:
specific requirements for completion of permit applications;
additional information that may be required to complete permit applications;
guidelines from each agency as to concerns, issues, and criteria for
identification of the least impactive alternative;
an apparent least impactive alternative.
REPORT: Michael Walther briefly described the direction towards reopening the pass at
its most recent location with at least some "throat" stabilization structures. The following
points were discussed:
a) The project will not include any Federal funding; the previous study by the
USACE identified recreational boating as the basis of primary benefits
associated with dredging and/or improvements to Dunedin Pass; current
Federal policies do not support the use of Federal funds for recreation
projects.
b) John Hall professed that in general, the ''big issues" will be biological i.e.
relative to seagrasses, birds, and nesting sea turtles. John said he'll ask the
District's Coastal Engineering staff to look at the sediment processes.
c) It was acknowledged that these biological issues would be most likely
addressed by the State Department of Environmental Protection and the U.s.
Fish and Wildlife - in consultation to DEP and the USACE.
d) Ron Silver noted that quotes obtained from the marina operators were not
exactly "ringing endorsements;" Ron said that these operators are among those
people to most benefit from the project and he would expect stronger support.
e) John Hall recognizes navigation benefits would be realized by reopening the
pass.
f) John said he would forward his copy of the draft "Concept Development
Report" to the District's Coastal Planning group and then to Colonel Salt.
~ COASTAL TE;f.;H
COASTAL. ENVIRONMENTAl. CIVIL. ENGINEERING AND PlANNING
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONFERENCE REPORT
DATE:
April 5, 1994
COMMISSION NO.: 59610
JOB NAME: Dunedin Pass
PARTICIPANTS: US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE:
Bruce Birnhak, Wildlife Biologist
Trisha Richards, Wildlife Biologist
Michael Walther, P.E. - Coastal Tech
LOCATION: Coastal Tech's Conference Room, Vero Beach
REPORT: The purpose of the meeting was to brief USF& WS staff regarding the project
and to identify issues and data that might be sought to resolve these issues. Michael briefly
described the direction towards reopening the pass at its most recent location with at least
some "throat" stabilization structures. The following points w~re made:
a) Bruce and Trisha handle projects in Pinellas County but were not involved
with the project previously; Joe Carrol previously handled the project in
conjunction with prior applications.
b) The key issues of the USF&WS will be relative to manatees, seagrasses,
turtles, and birds.
c) With respect to manatees, Trish indicated that she thinks the closed pass may
be an ideal breeding area; Trish said it needs to be determined if and how
manatees are using the area.
d) With respect to seagrasses, Trish said that maps should be prepared based on
"ground truthing" the aerials; existing densities and acreage impacted by the
project should also be identified.
e) Trish also said that sediment cores should be obtained to determine the
characteristics of sediments towards evaluating potential turbidity and the
suitability of the material for beach nourishment.
f) Trish noted that turtle nesting data should be collected.
g) With respect to birds, Bruce said that the USF& WS will rely on data compiled
by Rich Paul (813-623-6826) who is with the Audubon Society and is
recognized as an expert on shorebirds and wading birds. Bruce recognized
Dr. Glen Woolfendon as a comparable expert. Trish said that if existing data
indicates areas of concern, then bird "nesting surveys" may be required.
eCOASTAL TECH
COASTAl. ENVIRONMENTAl' CIVIl. ENGINEERING AND PlANNING
Rl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
59610
CONFERENCE REPORT
April 5, 1994
Page Two
h) With respect to the tidal shoals which have.formed since the pass closed and
which provide bird foraging habitat, Bruce indicated the importance of these
areas depends on:
(i) the number of families which are supported by the area;
and, (ii) whether the birds can feed elsewhere.
i) Bruce and Trish said that the USF& WS would likely condition any
construction to avoid the bird and turtle nesting seasons which extend from
winter through the summer.
j) Trish noted that ownership of the adjoining lands needs to be determined.
k) Bruce said that impacts might be mitigated by:
(i) possibly buying land and management of the resources;
(ii) creation of shoals;
(ill) planting of mangroves to offset loss of seagrasses;
and, (iv) slow speed signs for manatee protection.
I) Trish suggested that the pass might be opened at the location previously
proposed by Pinellas County (in 1990) and that the spit could then be isolated
to become part of the State Park.
m) Trish commented that she thought that "three passes in a 7 mile area" seems
exceSSIve.
At the meeting conclusion, Trish and Bruce noted their appreciation of being informed and
they identified that they need to do some investigation to identify details of the surrounding
resources.
t)COASTAL TECH
COASTAL. ENVIRONMENTAl' CMl. ENGINEERING AND PlANNING
f*"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX F
APRIL 25, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
DUNEDIN PASS
April 25, 1994
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in special session at City Hall, Monday,
April 25, 1994 at 6:00 p.m., with the following members present:
Rita Garvey
Fred A. Thomas
Arthur X. Deegan, II
Richard Fitzgerald
Sue A. Berfield
Mayor/Commissioner
Vice-Mayor ICommissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Also present:
Elizabeth M. Deptula
Kathy S. Rice
William C. Baker
Paul Richard Hull
Michael Walther
Deborah A. Getzoff
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Manager
Deputy City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Assistant City Attorney
Coastal Technology
Outside Counsel
City Clerk
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Garvey led the Pledge of Allegiance,
and the Invocation was offered by William C. Baker, Assistant City Manger.
Mr. Walther was engaged by the City to pursue permits for the reopening of Dunedin Pass.
He has submitted a draft Conceotual Develooment Reoort for the Reooening of Dunedin Pass, and
the purpose of this public hearing is to receive public input on the project.
Elizabeth Deptula, City Manager, stated this process began in October, 1993, when the
contract with Mr. Walther was approved. She stated Phase I is almost complete. Phase I is the
pre-permit application phase; Phase II will be the preparation and submittal of the permit
application; and Phase III, the actual permitting process.
Mr. Walther stated minimal surveys have been done and water quality samples have been
taken. An analysis of available statistics has also been done. He stated the purpose for tonight's
public hearing is to sample local opinion regarding the project. After tonight, he will be
completing the conceptual development report which will include steps to be followed in obtaining
the permits. He stated there will need to be an assessment of public benefit and cost of the
project. The Commission will, at a later date, act regarding whether to proceed with pursuing the
permits.
minsp04b.94
4/25/94
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Walther presented overheads that showed the history of Dunedin Pass, which was
originally called. Big Pass. He stated in 1926, a hurricane opened Hurricane Pass, and Big Pass
began to close. He stated the closing was also contributed to by manmade activities such as
dredge and fill projects, construction of Island Estates, Memorial Causeway, etcetera. He stated
the Pass is now completely closed, and this is not a natural occurrence. The main benefits to be
gained from reopening the Pass are improved navigation and reduced openings of the Memorial
Causeway Bridge. Opening the Pass will also provide for safe harbor and improve water quality
in the dead end of the Pass. He indicated violations of State standards for water Quality have
been found in the closed end. Mr. Walther stated the remainder of the harbor has relatively good
water quality, in that it meets State standa.rds. He stated the land bridge that now exists
between North Clearwater Beach and Caladesi Island is not desirable to the State. He reported
grass beds have developed in the closed Pass and are considered to be a bird habitat. Dredging
would temporarily lower water quality and also result in the loss of habitat, which may be
potential costs that would have to be mitigated.
Where to open the Pass was studied and the location that makes the most sense is to
open it in the location at which it closed. Cost alternatives will be investigated related to the
location of the Pass, the dredge process to be used and the placement of the fill. Mr. Walther
stated, currently, the best recommendation seems to be to dredge it where it closed, placing the
sand on surrounding beaches and providing structures to maintain the Pass with the least amount
of maintenance dredging.
In pursuing the permits, it will be necessary to investigate the alternatives to demonstrate
the most effective way to address the City's objectives for navigational improvement. Mr.
Walther stated there has been talk of a new fixed level bridge for Memorial Causeway; however,
that will be 10-15 years down the road. Changes to Hurricane Pass would need to be addressed;
all natural resources and habitat will need to be documented, and it will have to be identified how
those resources will be impacted and how to minimize, and possibly mitigate, the impact. It will
be necessary to document the sediment processes; core borings and other tests will need to be
taken. Ultimately, it will be necessary to provide assurances to the State that the City is prepared
to maintain the Pass, mitigating adverse impacts to surrounding properties. He indicated there
is a lot of work still to be done.
Deborah Getzoff stated a dredge and fill permit will be needed from the State, as well as
easements. She stated factors used to evaluate the feasibility of the project will be 1) impact on
public health, safety and welfare on adjacent properties; 2) conservation of wildlife and habitats -
she stated there is use of the area by wildlife, and that will be an important issue to the State;
3) Fishing a.nd recreational value and the marine productivity in the area; 4) whether this is a
temporary or permanent opening - she stated previous concerns have been expressed regarding
the City being committed to keeping the Pass open; 5) impacts on navigation and water flow; and
6) current conditions and value of function provided. The ultimate criteria will be whether or not
opening the Pass will be clearly in the publiC interest. Ms. Getzoff further reported Pinellas
County has been designated as an aquatic preserve. Whether or not the State grants the
easement that would be needed for the dredging will also be based on whether or not the project
is clearly in the public interest. She stated the Corps of Engineers will also evaluate the project,
and their criteria gives greater weight to navigational improvements. She stated it is extremely
important to determine public support for the navigation and recreation aspects of the project.
minsp04b.94
4125/94
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Walther indicted he will be making notes of the comments made at tonight's meeting
and include them in his report.
Bob Henion, representing the Sand Key Civic Association, stated they favor opening the
Pass as it would improve water quality and navigation. He also expressed concerns regarding the
large amount of water going through Clearwater Pass at this time, and felt the opening of
Dunedin Pass would result in less tidal flow and less turbulence.
Marjorie Prism, representing the League of Women Voters, stated they are opposed to the
opening of Dunedin Pass. She stated the project does not meet the criteria and is not consistent
with the Coastal Management Plan. She stated there are also environmental issues as this is an
aquatic preserve with flourishing wildlife. Ms. Prism also expressed concerns that it will cost over
$2 million. not including maintenance. She did not feel the opening is in the public interest.
Bill Stephan, representing the Marine Advisory Board, stated they are in favor of opening
the Pass. He agreed the navigational opportunities to be provided would be significant. He stated
they are also concerned about the environment; however, the Pass closed due to manmade
actions. He stated it is important that the water quality at the end of the Pass is deteriorating.
He indicated the bird and fish life in the area have changed. He felt the birds are taking the
oppc.rtunity of the accreted land: howelver.. it is a temporary home. Mr. Stephan reported grass
flats in that area were larger than they are now. fishing no longer exists in the Pass, and it has
become a mud flat. They support opening of the Pass as they feel it will help nature to restore
the activity and water quality in the area.
Mayor Garvey questioned if the Marine Advisory Board had reviewed Mr. Walther's draft
report. Mr. Stephan indicated they had not.
Sheila Cole, representing the Island Estates Civic Association, stated they are in favor of
opening the Pass. She stated this is not an artificial opening, but it is an artificial closing.
Phil Henderson, representing Clearwater Chamber of Commerce, stated their position in
1988 has not changed to date, and they are in support of the opening. He reported there was
strong support from the voters for the opening. He felt there would be positive impacts on the
environment and the public well being, as it would reopen a 100 year old navigational pass,
improve water quality. increase light for the grass beds, and the sand could be used to build back
the beaches. He also felt it would increase the integrity of the Clearwater Pass Bridge. Another
benefit would be the decrease in the openings of the Memorial Causeway drawbridge. and the
resultant reduction in auto pollution. He stated rangers in Caladesi Island have reported that,
when the Pass closed, birds left the area.
Joyce Kane, representing St. Petersburg Audubon Society, stated there is an ecosystem
in the Pass that supports plant and animal. activity that needs to be protected from human
activity. She stated the opening of the Pass would be thoroughly damaging, and the full impact
has not been studied. She stated the cost would be too high in environmental destruction. Ms.
Kane stated Florida Fish and Game has designated Dunedin Pass as an important habitat. She
did not feel habitat should be destroyed in order to solve a traffic problem.
minsp04b.94
4125194
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Andy Nicholson, representing the Clearwater Marine Science Center, stated they passed
a resolution to support opening Dunedin Pass. He indicated they own the private property that
would be most affected by the project. He stated with the closing of the Pass and people
walking between Clearwater Beach and Caladesi Island, the habitat is placed under continued
stress. He stated the Marine Science Center is available to work with the City in the project. He
reported heavy metals testing in Clearwater Bay have indicated copper levels do not meet State
standards.
Loretta Harding, Clearwater Audubon Society, stated Coastal Technology is using data out
of context regarding original public support for the opening. She referenced reports by other
individuals regarding loss of seagrass coverage, stating some of the loss has been the result of
dredging in St. Joseph Sound. She stated these studies do not support Coastal Technology's
conclusions regarding seagrasses.
Tom Reese, stating he is legal counsel to several residents, indicated they are opposed to
the opening as it will cause erosion to private properties. He stated he has litigated other pass
openings and has been successful. He stated Hurricane Pass is available for navigation. He felt
the City would never obtain the permit needed.
Joseph Wagner, representing the Suncoast Sierra Club, stated he agreed with Mr. Reese
that the City would not obtain a permit. He felt the Pass should remain as nature has closed it.
He felt the costs would be extremely high in order to open it, and it would be a burden to
taxpayers. He stated the Sierra Club is investigating the cost of hiring an attorney to challenge
the City's application for a permit.
David Little indicated he was the Chairperson of the task force which supported the
reopening of Dunedin Pass. He stated in 1988, the voters overwhelmingly supported the
reopening. He presented pamphlets and bumper stickers that had been produced during that
time. He stated he is surprised that environmental groups are against the opening as the purpose
of the project is to help the environment. Mr. Little stated the task force, in supporting the
opening, focused on the Pass closing was manmade. He felt it is the responsibility of the City
to reopen the Pass. He reported the Memorial Causeway and Island Estates severely impacted
nature and caused the closing of the Pass. He stated many members of the task force belong to
environmental groups. He stated he was amazed at the wildlife that went through the Pass when
it was open.
Bill Wallo stated the majority of people voted in favor of opening the Pass. He stated the
State did not notify the City of any objections. At the time of the vote, the City wanted the
County and the State to pay for the dredging. However, influential residents had the application
pigeon-holed. He stated Clearwater Pass is slowly dying, and Hurricane Pass is also silting in.
Mr. Wallo expressed concern that the currents in Clearwater Pass are hazardous to swimmers.
Joe Butler indicated he has lived on Island Estates for 30 years and, at the time Island
Estates was constructed, the City was told the closing would occur. He stated the City should
take care of the waterways. He reported this is not a political situation. The Closing is manmade
because of the islands. He reported the bottom of the bay is full of slime. He stated the City has
a responsibility to open the Pass, and that money and politics should not enter into the picture.
minsp04b.94
4125/94
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Nancy McClellan referenced a study by Dr. Davis stating Dunedin Pass has a large amount
of mud. She stated Coastal Technology's report is implying that is bad. She stated, however,
the presence of mud pellets represents a deep and protected environment. She reported Dr.
Davis' analysis of the sediment reveals it is alive and healthy. Ms. McClellan further report that,
although the current is slow, there is a distinct tidal flow. She opposes the dredging as it would
be damaging to plants, animals and taxpayers.
Joshua Magidson stated he lives in the area of the Pass, and the number of people walking
from North Clearwater Beach to Caladesi Island has been overblown. He stated the people that
impact the area are the boaters that walk across the nesting areas. He stated the cost of the
project is important in that the taxpayers will have to pay for it. He felt this was a government
boondoggle that will go on for many years, and it would be irresponsible to pursue the permits.
He requested the Commission look at the data and vote on the project as if they were having to
pay for it.
Dennis DeFlamming stated there are many considerations for opening the Pass. He felt
the one that was paramount was the pollution aspect. He stated the City owes it to the children
to open the Pass. He stated if the water in Clearwater Bay turns brown, the tourists will no
longer come here.
Keith laden stated if the metal levels are too high in the water, the source of those metals
should be addressed instead of dredging. He stated the money for the dredging should be used
to prevent runoff into the bay. He stated mother nature does not need our help.
Marsha Daniels read a letter from Professor Hind into the record. His letter indicated
dredging would be a useless exercise and a waste of money. Improvement of the water quality
is a red herring, and the source of the pollution should be addressed. His letter also indicated
inlets open and close naturally. He did not feel the opening was j~stified or cost beneficial.
Kent Rowe stated he is OPPOSEld to the opening. Only a maximum of six people walk
across to the park on Caladesi Island in a day, and there is no revenue lost to the State. He
stated claims of feral cats and dogs crossing over to Caladesi Island is also false as there are none
on Clearwater Beach. He stated he is concerned regarding the damage by the dredging. He felt
it would harm the ecology.
Dorothy Berg stated she is against the dredging. She stated Coastal Technology is using
misinformation regarding the vote to open the Pass. The question began with "if environmental
concerns are addressed." She stated the wording of the question was structured in order to
influence the result. The straw vote was too small a percentage to say the people of Clearwater
support the opening. She referenced a 1989 letter from the Secretary of the Department of
Environmental Regulation which referenced the favorable vote by the City of Clearwater, but also
stated there were other criteria to be evaluated in the permitting process. She stated there are
five environmental groups that are against the opening of the Pass. Opening it would be, as cited
in a Clearwater Times editorial in 1983, "expensive and foolhardy."
minsp04b.94
4/25/94
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ellen Pfau stated she is not interestBd in having the Pass dredged. She stated this project
has been studied and studied. Since the closing, there has been a greater number of species of
birds in that area. She stated 1988 and 1989 studies used by Coastal Technology were both
done by Biological Research, which was more interested in doing more studies. Ms. Pfau stated
Biological Research did not have a lot of experience in documenting bird habitat and, at the time
of their study, it was not nesting season. She stated opening the Pass would destroy the habitat
and the ecosystem, and she felt the cost was too high.
The meeting recessed from 7:31 to 7:40 p.m.
Walt Walker, who stated he was a member of St. Joseph Sound Ecology Association,
recommended the Pass be relocated as far south as possible, and that a sand bypass pump be
used in lieu of hardening the Pass. He stated marine habitat is not flourishing in the area, it Is
dying. He also reported boat propellers are tearing up the grass. Mr. Walker stated the grass is
barely living and, if the water quality were improved, the grass would flourish. He agreed that
stormwater quality should be addressed, but he felt the opening should also be accomplished.
He reported rangers on Caladesi Island are saying people are crossing over the land bridge from
North Clearwater Beach. He congratulated the City for hiring an attorney to assist them with this
project. He reported if the opening of the Pass is large enough, the Pass will be stable. He felt
opening the Pass would also improve the water quality.
Mr. Walther indicated a bypass pump had been considered, but a mobile dredge would be
more cost effective.
Clark Lee stated he lives at the north end of the beach, and that water Quality has
deteriorated. He stated years ago, when the Pass was open, it was one of the best areas for
fishing. He felt the City should consider doing more to prevent boats with propellers from being
around the islands in order to protect the grass beds.
Charles Pfau, referencing a 19813/8 i' Pinellas inlet study done by Dr. Ross of the University
of Florida, stated Dr. Ross's report indicated the Pass could be stable conditioned on its size and
the water prism being improved. He stated Dr. Ross's study used inaccurate information
regarding the tides and, therefore, was invalid. Mr. Pfau opposed opening the Pass.
John Meek, Jr. stated he has lived here since 1953. He reported that 25 years ago they
were able to camp out on the north side of the Pass, and the water would be crystal clear. He
stated they use to catch fish and stone crabs in that area. He stated, now, his 14 year old son
will spend countless hours along the seawall because the muck in the bay is so terrible. Mr.
Meek stated birds were there when the Pass was open. He asked that the Commission help the
ecosystem and tourism by opening the Pass.
Ike Eisenhower stated he has looked down on the west coast of Florida for over 30 years,
and the bay is in sad shape. He stated if birds do not like a location, they can move; however,
humans can not. He requested the Pass be opened.
minsp04b.94
4/25194
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page Shuman stated she is a science teacher et St. Paul's School. She read a letter from
Ralph Heath, of the Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary, in opposition to the opening of the Pass into the
record. Mr. Heath's letter stated the area was a fertile, productive habitat. Shore and wading
birds are there and the area is attracting more birds. The letter reported the habitat is
disappearing throughout the County, and to open the Pass would damage the population of birds
as they have nowhere else to go. It also reported m~.intenance dredging would cause siltation,
which would damage the grass beds. He felt if the Pass were open, it would subject the area to
greater hurricane and storm damage. He did not feel the Pass should be opened because wealthy
and influential people are too lazy to go to another pass for boating.
Vevie Dimmit stated she is tired of coming back to address this issue. She stated it is in
the Marine Science Center deed that they have to be in support of opening the Pass. She stated
when she was a child in the 1950s, Florida had the same population as Delaware. Pinellas
County now has more people than Delaware and five other states; therefore, more cars and
boats. Ms. Oimmit stated she has never known a hardened pass that did not cause beach
erosion. She requested the monies for the dredging be put into a fixed bridge for Memorial
Causeway.
Ray~Paige stated that Coastal Technology's claim that water quality will improve is false.
She stated Dr. Dean has reported that opening the Pass would result in minimal flushing action,
and it would be limited to the Pass area. She challenged the validity of the water quality
sampling, as they were done at different depths and temperatures. She stated there are birds at
the Pass, and the Pass will not remain open even with hardening.
Bill Albright stated he has waterfront lots on the beach. He stated Hurricane Pass is not
an alternative as any boat with more than a 3-1/2 to 4 foot draft is marginally able to pass
through that opening. He stated people are walking to Caladesi Island in order to avoid the
entrance fee into the park. He stated there is congestion in the Clearwater Pass area, and there
would be a 40% reduction if the dredging were to take place. Mr. Albright stated the sand from
the dredging could be used for beach renourishment.
Don Cochran stated he was born here in 191 S. He stated ..he best evidence that the
water quality is diminishing is visual. Fishing inside Caladesi Island is good where the water is
beautiful. The gulf is trying to get into Clearwater Bay. He stated there is a new pass at
Hurricane Pass. Mr. Cochran sated the current through Clearwater Pass is terrible, and opening
Dunedin Pass would reduce the current. He stated Carlouel Yacht Club is now a mud flat. He
is in support of opening the Pass.
Vic Wakeman stated he has lived on the water north and south of the causeway for over
50 years. He stated all the studies are short term studies. The wildlife was more extensive with
the Pass open. He stated manmade spoil banks have more bird life as there is greater tidal flow
in those areas. He stated the City is in this fix because of actions of the City Commission's
predecessors. Mr. Wakeman stated it was not mother nature that closed the Pass, but lack of
foresight and irresponsibility. He further reported he is a staunch environmentalist and
conservationist. For safety, there is a need to open the Pass, and the Commission has a
responsibility to undo what their predecessors did.
minsp04b.94
4125194
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Glen Warren stated he has also spent 50 years on the bay, and it is now nothing but mud.
He stated man closed the Pass with the causeway and Island Estates. He felt the Pass needed
to be open in order to give the bay some "ventilation". He also stated partially treated effluent
has been dumped in the bay for years, and this needs to be addressed.
Roland Ware stated he was born in Clearwater in 1928, at which time the name
Clearwater was appropriate as the bay was pristine. He stated the water quality will only get
worse if the Pass remains shut. He felt if the opening was done correctly, there would not be
a need for maintenance dredging. He felt it should be kept narrow so that it would flush itself.
David Perkins stated he came to Clearwater in 1925. He stated that, until the Corps of
Engineers adopted Little Pass as the one to keep open, Big Pass remained open by itself. He
stated the degradation of the water quality is terrible. There is lots of sand in the Pass, and
beach renourishment is needed. He hoped the Commission would open the Pass,
Ward Rogers stated scientific issues are being clouded by politics and emotion. He stated
all should want what is best for the area. He stated opening the Pass would cause loss of nesting
grounds, but the benefits would be improved water quality, decreased water flow through other
passes and healthy fishing areas.
Don McFarland stated he has lived in Clearwater for a long time and has seen the
deterioration of the bay. He is convinced the curtailment of water flow is responsible for that.
He felt opening the Pass should be pursued with all diligence. He said good things are expensive,
and the City should be prepared to go all the way in order to get the permits.
Mayor Garvey thanked the public for attending and showing their interest in this project.
She stated Coastal Technology will come back with recommendations regarding the best way to
proceed. She stated there are still a lot of questions to be answered. Mayor Garvey stated the
cost and the chances of getting the permits are things Coastal Technology will review in their
report. She stated, at some point, the City Commission will decide whether or not to go forward
with the project, but no decision will be made tonight.
Mr. Walther indicated he hopes to have his report completed within the next two weeks.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the steps to be taken in order to go through the
permitting process. Mr. Walther indicated his final report will identify the reCluirements and the
cost to obtain the permits, construct the Pass and maintain it. At that point, all efforts will stop
until the Commission directs him to proceed. He stated if the direction is to proceed, he will
prepare the application for the reopening. He does not know all of the data that will be required,
and there may be additional costs.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the next step was the report and the Commission
deciding a go or no go. Mr. Walther indicated this was correct. Commissioner Thomas
questioned, if direction is to go forward, whether or not there would be more public hearings.
Mr. Walther indicated there would be no public hearings required in the permitting process.
minsp04b.94
4125194
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Getzoff indicated there would be none at the local level, and the consultants would
come back at the City Commission's request.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the City Commission was in the permitting loop. Ms.
Getzoff indicated that Coastal Technology has been designated as the City's agent. She stated
because she foresees a strong issue regarding wildlife, it will be important that the City
Commission be strong in supporting the project. She stated it will be a close call in balancing the
factors.
Commissioner Thomas questioned, if the vote was three to proceed and two not to,
whether or not that would weaken the City's position. Ms. Getzoff indicated the vote would
stand as the City's position. She indicated there may be a need for Commission members to
personally interface with the other agelncies to express their support.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the number of steps that would be required if the permit
is denied and the City decides to litigate. Ms. Getloff indicated there would be a hearing with
the State with a recommended order to the State agency. She stated that could be appealed to
the District Coult of Appeal. and would take 8-18 months. If it is appealed, that could take 1-3
years for a final decision.
Commissioner Thomas stated this would be a five year process if it were the worst case,
and questioned the cost. Ms. Getzoff indicated this would be difficult to predict, but she would
estimate between $3-400,000.
Commissioner Deegan questioned what was voted on in October. The City Clerk indicated
'the contract with Mr. Walther. Commissioner Deegan stated he felt it is on the record that this
City Commission was planning to go forward with the process to administrative hearing, if
necessary.
The City Clerk will check the record.
The meeting adjourned at 8 :49 p.m.
l'I"linsp04b.94
4125194
9