HomeMy Public PortalAbout2010 Amendment to the agreement pertaining to Seagrass MitigationRESOLUTION NO. 2010-3
A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE
VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE, FLORIDA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF KEY
BISCAYNE AND CSA INTERNATIONAL, INC. PERTAINING
TO SEAGRASS MITIGATION; PROVIDING FOR
IMPLEMENTATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2008-35, the Village entered into a Professional
Services Agreement with CSA International, Inc. ("Consultant"), with an effective date of July 17,
2008 (the "Agreement"), to perform seagrass restoration and mitigation services in accordance with that
certain plan entitled "Seagrass Restoration and Mitigation Plan: Village of Key Biscayne" dated July,
2008 (the "Mitigation Plan"); and
WHEREAS, a portion of the Scope of Services set forth in the Agreement were completed
with authorization from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP"), while the
outstanding mitigation work has been delayed due to FDEP policies which resulted in revisions to
the Mitigation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Plan has been revised based on FDEP's requirements and is
entitled "Seagrass Restoration and Mitigation Plan: Village of Key Biscayne, Second Revision
(October, 2009) (the "Revised Mitigation Plan"); and
WHEREAS, FDEP has approved portions of the Revised Mitigation Plan pertaining to in -
kind seagrass mitigation and baseline monitoring, as set forth in section 3.1.2 of the Revised
Mitigation Plan; and
WHEREAS, Consultant has submitted to the Village a modified proposal for the in -kind
seagrass mitigation and baseline monitoring which sets forth the changes in the scope of work or
services necessitated by section 3.1.2 of the Revised Mitigation Plan and cost modifications (the
"Modified Proposal"); and
WHEREAS, FDEP has not yet approved portions of the Revised Mitigation Plan pertaining
to out -of -kind mitigation, and further amendments to the scope of services and compensation within
the Agreement may be necessitated once FDEP has reviewed those portions of the Revised
Mitigation Plan pertaining to out -of -kind mitigation; and
WHEREAS, the Village and Consultant desire to amend the Agreement to incorporate the
requirements of the Revised Mitigation Plan and the Modified Proposal pertaining to in -kind
seagrass mitigation and baseline monitoring, and modify the Scope of Services and Compensation
for Services pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Amendment to the Agreement attached
hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the Village Council finds that approval of the Amendment to the Agreement
between the Village and Consultant is in the best interests of the Village.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF
THE VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
confirmed.
Section 2.
Recitals Adopted. That each of the recitals stated above is hereby adopted and
Amendment Approved. That the Amendment to the Professional Services
Agreement between the Village of Key Biscayne and CSA International Inc., in substantially the form
attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby approved, and the Village Manager is authorized to execute the
Agreement on behalf of the Village, once approved by the Village Attorney as to form and legal
sufficiency.
2
Section 3. Implementation. That the Village Manager and Village Attorney are hereby
authorized to take any necessary action to implement the purposes of this resolution and the Amendment.
Section 4. Effective Date. That this Resolution shall be effective immediately upon
adoption hereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 2010.
ATT T.
leVA4,
CHITA H. ALVAREZ, MMC, VILLAGE CLERK
APPROVED AS T • ORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIEN
VILLAGE AT • RNE
3
MAYOR ROBERT L. VERNON
AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE AND CSA INTERNATIONAL. INC.
THIS AMENDMENT TO P ESSIO,,��• 1 E • V AGREEMENT (this
"Amendment") is entered into as of th Y by of % � i / , 2010 and between the
VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE, FLORIDA, a F s rida munici • corporation (hereinafter the
"Village"), and CSA INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Florida corporation (hereinafter the
"Consultant").
RECITALS:
A. The Village and Consultant entered into that certain agreement titled Professional
Services Agreement between the Village of Key Biscayne and CSA International, Inc. (the
"Agreement"), with an effective date of July 17, 2008, for the purpose of providing seagrass
restoration and mitigation services in accordance with that certain plan entitled "Seagrass
Restoration and Mitigation Plan: Village of Key Biscayne" dated July, 2008 (the "Mitigation
Plan"); and
B. A portion of the Scope of Services set forth in the Agreement were completed
with authorization from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP"), while
the outstanding mitigation work has been delayed due to FDEP policies which resulted in
revisions to the Mitigation Plan; and
C. The Mitigation Plan has been revised based on FDEP's requirements and is
entitled "Seagrass Restoration and Mitigation Plan: Village of Key Biscayne, Second Revision
(October, 2009) (the "Revised Mitigation Plan"); and
D. FDEP has approved portions of the Revised Mitigation Plan pertaining to in -kind
seagrass mitigation, as set forth in section 3.1.2, and baseline monitoring, as set forth in section
4.0, both sections of the Revised Mitigation Plan are attached hereto as Exhibit "B"; and
E. Consultant has submitted to the Village a modified proposal for the in -kind
seagrass mitigation and baseline monitoring attached hereto as Exhibit "C", which sets forth the
changes in the scope of work or services necessitated by sections 3.1.2 and 4.0 of the Revised
Mitigation Plan and cost modifications (the "Modified Proposal"); and
F. FDEP has not yet approved portions of the Revised Mitigation Plan pertaining to
out -of -kind mitigation, and further amendments to the scope of services and compensation
within the Agreement may be necessitated once FDEP has reviewed those portions of the
Revised Mitigation Plan pertaining to out -of -kind mitigation; and
G. The Village and Consultant desire to amend the Agreement to incorporate the
requirements of the Revised Mitigation Plan and the Modified Proposal pertaining to in -kind
seagrass mitigation and baseline monitoring, and modify the Scope of Services and
Compensation for Services pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Recitals Incorporated. The recitations set forth above are true and correct and
are incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Amendment Controls. In the event of any conflict or ambiguity between the
terms and conditions of this Amendment and the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the
terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control. All initially capitalized words used, but
not otherwise defined, herein shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Agreement. Except
as modified in this Amendment, the Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain
unmodified and in full force and effect.
3. Revised Mitigation Plan. Sections 3.1.2 and 4.0 of the Seagrass Restoration and
Mitigation Plan: Village of Key Biscayne, Second Revision (October, 2009) attached hereto as
Exhibit "B" shall replace those portions of the earlier Mitigation Plan attached to the Agreement
as Exhibit "B" thereto.
4. Scope of Services. The Scope of Services contained in section 1.1 of the
Agreement is hereby modified as set forth in sections 3.1.2 and 4.0 of the Revised Mitigation
Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and the Modified Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit "B."
The Consultant shall furnish professional services and provide deliverables ("Services") for in -
kind seagrass mitigation and baseline monitoring, as described in sections 3.1.2 and 4.0 of the
Revised Mitigation Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "B", and the Modified Proposal attached
hereto as Exhibit "B."
5. Compensation and Payment. The fee schedule contained in Section 3.1 of the
Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
Task 1: Mitigation Plan Revisions; Program Administration; Agency Coordination;
Permitting; and Out -of -Kind Mitigation Negotiations
Task la: Second Revision - Mitigation Plan (complete)
Task 1b: Program Administration, Agency Coordination, Permitting
Task lc: Out -of -Kind Mitigation Negotiation Support
$ 11,551.00
$ 5,283.00
$ 8,439.00
Total Task 1: $ 25,273.00
Task 2: Materials; Bird Stake Construction; and Mobilization and Demobilization
Task 2a: Consultant Purchases (sediment, bags, and misc. supplies) $
18,412.00
Subcontracted day labor to fill 6,600 sediment bags $
6,325.00
Trucking Company to deliver loose and bagged sediment
to Homestead $ 3,450.00
2
Consultant direct labor, lodging, per diem, and
associated expenses $ 28,984.00
Task 2b: Consultant costs to subcontract marine contractor $
10,753.00
Total Task 2: $ 67,923.00
Task 3: Installation of Sediment Fill
Task 3a: Consultant purchases (fuel, vessel and dockage fees,
and incidentals) $ 5,003.00
Consultant labor, vessel, navigation equipment, lodging,
and per diem $125,504.00
Task 3b: Consultant costs to subcontract marine contractor
$133,400.00
Total Task 3: $263,907.00
Task 4: Bird Stake Installation
Task 4: Bird Stake Installation $ 7,425.00
Total task 4: $ 7,425.00
Task 5: Baseline (Time Zero) Monitoring Survey of Sediment Fill Sites
Task 5: Baseline (Time Zero) Monitoring Survey of Sediment Fill Sites $ 23,180.00
Total task 5: $ 23,180.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $ 387,708.00
CONTRACT BALANCE: $ 301,000.00
ADDITIONAL FUNDS REQUIRED: $ 86,708.00
6. Counterparts., This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one
and the same instrument. A facsimile copy of this Amendment or PDF email version shall have
the same force and effect as the original thereof.
3
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed by the Village and Consultant as
of the dates set forth below their signatures.
VILLAGE:
VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE,
a Florida m i icipal c oration
By:
Genaro "Chip" Iglesi
Date Ex
A
Conchita Alvarez, Village Clerk
Approved as to Form d Legal Sufficiency:
Vil age Attorney
CONSULTANT:
CSA INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Florida
corporation
By: /76 _
Name: Ke.\) 11J WAQR,,Sc N
Title: ?ke-SA4n-t
Date Executed: \\M\\
�
4
EXHIBIT "B"
REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
SECTION 3.1.2 AND SECTION 4.0
Exhibit "A"
3.1.2 Restoration Methods
The proposed methods in this Mitigation Plan were adapted from Federal guidelines and
restoration plans for seagrass restoration and mitigation efforts. Final recommendations related
to till type (direct or bagged) for each site are based on 11etd observations. site conditions,
accessibility, and processed (post -survey) spatial data confirming width, depth, and area. Each
of the 33 sites (0.46 acres) is recommended for filling and bird staking. None of the fill sites are
recommended for seagrass planting at this time due to the time of year for implementation,
location of sites in Areas B and D where no suitable donor material Is available, and low survival
rates for planting units In Area A documented as part of the quarterly monitoring events. Bird
slaking without filling is not proposed.
Sediment Fill
Sediment till is a proposed alternative to bring each of the seagrass injuries to grade with the
surrounding unimpacted areas and is suggested as a method for badly eroded areas (Hall et al.,
2006). The purpose of this alternative is to stabilize the injury to prevent further erosion and
allow for colonization of seegrass from surrounding unimpeded areas. Two methods are
proposed for placing sediment into these areas: 1) sediment filled biodegradable, non -bleached,
non-presenred burlap bags placed by snorklersldivers directly into the inJury and 2) loose
sediment placed directly into the injury with a crane and mechanized clamshell bucket, then
capped with sediment f hied begs. Both variatbns of sediment placement are a rapid way of
returning the seafoor to its orlglnal grade and composition.
Two sediment types are recommended for placement into the fill sites based on the fill method
used: 1) 0.25 limestone pea rock for direct placement and 2) Fine Aggregate FOOT 87.089
(Lake Fill) for filling of sediment bags or other compatible material, which may include mixtures
of Lake Fill and 919.2 Concrete Screenings previously recommended and used In SNP
seagrass restoration programs. Lake Fill contains a higher content of carbonate, silts and days,
and fine sands whereas the 919.2 Concrete Screening; have a greater variation in grain size
but still have a relatively high carbonate content. As Indicated in Hall et al. (2006). the
Introduction of finer -textured sediments increases the ability of a restoration site to support
seagrass growth, In total, approximately 393 yds of compatible sediments (Table 1) will be
purchased from local quarries and trucked to staging areas locked in close proximity to the
sites. Approximately 166 yd3 of materiel will be placed by hand or hopper into 264n. x 14 -in.
burlap bags and secured using 18 -gauge, 7.54n. mltd steel wire ties for a total of up to
6,660 bags. Table 2 summarizes the reoornmended fii method, estimated number of sediment
bawooden l pallets to minimize the need, and estimated direct t for addition manuvolumes for each al hank ling during stagingd site. Bags 1 be and
placed on
transport. Each bag holding approximately 1.0 ft (0.037 yd') of material eig approximately
50 Ibs and has a height of 6 to 6 in. when lying Nat.
15
Table 2. Proposed fill method and estimated number of sediment bags end sediment volume
for proposed sites In Areas A, 5, D, and Monroe County.
SID
-
Direct Flsfl or
l Sediment of Se ent Baps
Sedlnsnt Volums ty(f)
Total Vbiruna
0d)
8ed1m nt Bags
a onl r
Cap kw Direct
Fin
,
FM
whine etch
Sedhant Bags
vows tikt5
Area A
APO2
Fn end cap with bogs
0
20
4.0
0.7
5.5
AP04
FM and cap with bags
0
33
0.5
12
7.7
AP05
Fill and cep willibegs
0
7
1.8
0.2
21
AP08
Fill and cap with begs
0
2
0.7 •
0.1
0.8
APO9
Bags only
70
0
0.0
2.6
2.6
API O
FM and co with baps
0
41
6.2
1.5
7.7
AS19
Begs only
792
0
0.0
29.3
20.3
OEP,.AP01
Begs oat.
384
0
0.0
142
14.2
0EP AP02
Fiend cap with begs
0
6
1.8
0.2
1.8
00.003
Bags only
255
255
0.0
9.4
9.4
OEP,AP04
Bans only
25
0
0.0
0.9
0.9
DEP./41105
saps Doll►
251
0
0.0
9.3
93
BREAM
Bois ooh►
- 28
_ 0
1 0.0
1
1.0
1.0
Puri B
BP10
Bags only
60
0
0.0
2.5
2.5
BP14
Bags only
615
0
0.0
22.8
22.8
BPI.
Bags NW
141
0
0.0
5.2
52
BIM
Pin and co with bags
0
146
22.8
5.4
28.2
0P19
FW and cep with bags
, 0
43
11.2
1.6
12.8
BP23e
All and cap with begs
0
17
5.3
0.0
5.0
BP24
FM and cep with bags
0
121
19.5
4.5
24.0
BP25
FM and cep with bags
0
39
14.4
1.5
15.9
BP28
Begs onhr
594
0
' 0.0
22.0
22.0
DEPJP01
_
Bags only
131
0
0.0
4.5
4.5
DEP 9P03
Baps ash
32
0
0.0
1.2
12
Area D
DEP O, POZ
1 Fill and cap with bags J
0
1 040 1 46.4
f
31.1
--1
77.4
'Monroe County
BICP01
Mil end csp with begs
0
29
2.7
1.1
3.8
BIKP02
Flll and cap with bags
0
9
1.1
0.3
1.4
81CP03
FM end cap w8h bags
0
1
OA
0.0
0.4
BKPO4
Fm and cap wish bags
0
69
10.2
2.0
12.8
51(801
Bags only
101
0
0.0
3.7
3.7
81(802
Bags only
351
0
0.0
13.0
13.01''A
sce0
Bags only
817
0
0.0
I
22.8
22.6
" nth 13
(R i
{
Bags DAiy
445
0
0.0
10.5
16.5
1.113101
Bags only
84
0
0.0
3.1
3.1
AM Sites
4'952
1 1.878 1 155.6
1
237.0
-
Total fors FM Sites
-
I
5. 393
392.6
16
Sediment Transport
The sediment or sedknent-filled bags will be loaded at staging areas onto a shallow -draft barge
(24 in. loaded draft) and secured during transport with a combination of tarps. dnder blocks, or
12 -In. x 12•in. concrete pilings. The barge win be positioned adjacent to the blowholes or deep
scars by the barge tender and spudded down with the hollow spuds (anticipated to be 8 in. with
small penetrating points) such that a minimum reach wilt be needed with the clamshell bucket
In areas too shallow for the barge and tender to maneuver, the barge wM be postllouned in close
proxhntty and sediment bags wNI be offloaded onto specifically designed floating platforms.
These platforms will be pushed to the sites manually or by a small skiff or inflatable boat that
can safely operate in very shallow water (<1 fl).
Sediment Placement
Prior to fill placement at a restoration site, any lobsters observed in the area wW be removed
end released within swimming distance, and rays or sharks will be herded from the area.
Type 111 turbidity curtains will be tnstaUed and will remain In place for up to 12 h to allow ample
time for sediment resettbm ant. If turbidity levels exceed the FDEP State water quality
standards as outlined to DEP 62402.530, fill operations will cease until the readings return to
acceptable levels. Turbidity curtains will be removed following settlement of suspended
sediments and/or when conditions have reached background levels (typically ovemight).
However, if the project team determines that weather conditons may cause curtains to break
free if left out overnight, curtains may be pulled at the end of a day's activities. Curtains wW be
moved by removing stakes and towing the floating curtains to the next restoration site for
installation around blowhole features.
In areas requiring direct placement of sediment, a front end loader or crane with a clamshell
attachment will be used to accurately place sediment into the blowhole or deep propeller scar
feature. To cap the feature, a pallet of sediment bags will be lifted from the barge wlh a crane
equipped with specialized crane forks or other mechanism. The pallets will be placed below the
surface of the water and held just above the seabed within the blowhole feature. Snorketers will
offload the bags one by one and place them in a single layer to cap the fill within the blowhole
feature. If necessary, two layers of sediment bags wW be placed on top of the first layer to
ensure a bed level with the surrounding unimpeded seagrass bed. Thls method will be
repeated for sites that require sediment bags only end can be reached safely by the crane arm.
For areas that cannot be accessed by the barge, sediment bags will be placed on a floating
platform, moved to the site, and offloaded one by one and pieced in a single or multiple layers,
depending on the injury depth and volume requirements.
Fertilizer Use
•
Each IIII site will be treated with roosting bird stakes to encourage natural fertitizatlon, a method
that has been documented to be an effective treatment to encourage re -growth of seagrasses in
Impacted areas by ensuring a regular release of fertilizer below each stake over an area of
approdmately 3 m2 (32 ft) (Fourqure n et al., 1995; Kenworthy et al., 2000). Water depths of
1.8 m (4.9 ft) or less at Mean High Water are generally considered ideal for bird feces to reach
the wallow In concentrated doses for as long as the stakes are In place (National Oceania and
Atmospheric Administration and FDEP, 2004).
17
Approximately 550 bird stakes will be Installed in the restoration sites (Table 3). This estimate
Is based on a general assumption of one bkd slakeima (one bird stake/10.8 ft2), but site
conditions and sporadic It -growth within the injury sites will dictate the final number of bird
stakes required per site. Bird stakes will be constructed of 1.0 in. (2.5 cm) outside diameter
Schedule 80 polyvinyllchloride (PVC) support poles and 2-bt. x 4 -In. x 4 -in. (5 -cm x 10 -cm x
10 -an) treated wood blocks attached atop the support poles. Bird stakes will be placed just
Inside the immediate edge of injuries and throughout the Interior of each of the blurbs at
2-m Intervals Immediately following the completion of the sediment 101 For propeller scars less
than 2 m (6.5 ft) wide, a single row of stakes will be placed down the center of the scar.
Table 3. Estimated number of bird roosting stakes in proposed fill sites in Areas A, B, 0, and
Monroe County.
Ste
i Number of 8hd Stakes
AmsA
AP02
6
AP04
10
APoa
6
'
APos
2
AP09
10
AP10
a
A819
38
DEP_AP01
25
DEP..AP02
a
OEP JAP03
11
OEP_AP04
5
DEP.APOS
13
DEP_AP07
3
Area 13
BP10
3
BP14
33
BP%
0
BPS
29
BM
20
BP23a
11
BP24
25
BP28
34
BP26
34
DEP_BP01
9
DEP 8P03
2
Area D
DEP DP02
( 37
Monroe County
BKPO1
-
3
BKPO2
2
'
BKPOS
1
BKPO4
17
BK801
—
8
BKSO2
29
GKP01 •A
44
LKP01-B
45
1.10301
7
Total for Fines
5+18
18
4.0 RECOMMENDED MONITORING FOR THE
PROPOSED IN -KIND SEAGRASS MITIGATION
The success criteria, monitoring schedule, and monitoring parameters have been modified from
the original monitoring plan and reflect recommendations and FDEP comments related to the
26 June 2009 CSA memorandum regarding success criteria and monitoring (CSA International,
Inc., 2009b). The following subsections provide the revised success criteria as well as the
proposed monitoring schedule and parameters.
4.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA
4.1.1 Restoration Sites
Success criteria for the restoration sites are provided below by restoration treatment type. At a
minimum, monitoring data must show that the mitigation sites, regardless of treatment type,
have met the success criteria or are trending toward recovery at the end of 5 years. An
additional 2 years of monitoring may be required if a reasonable expectation exists that
additional time will allow mitigation to meet the criteria.
Area A: Scars with Planting Units and Bird Stakes
• Thalassic testudinum density should reach similar densities within the treatment sites as
compared to the reference sites by rejection of the null hypothesis that the treatment sites
support 575% of the T. testudinum density observed in the reference sites at a
95% confidence level within the monitoring period.
• An BO% success rate for Halodule wrightii planting units should be reached by the 12 -month
monitoring event or additional restoration actions may be required by the FKNMS.
Area A: Bird Stakes Only
• The reduction in scar width in the treatment sites should be greater than in the control sites
within 2 years by rejection of the null hypothesis that the reduction in scar width is 50% less
than that of the control at a 95% confidence level; or
• Thalassic testudinum density should reach similar densities within the treatment sites as
compared to the reference sites by rejection of the null hypothesis that the treatment sites
support s75% of the T. testudinum density observed in the reference sites at a
95% confidence level within the monitoring period.
Sediment Fill and Bird Stakes
Propeller Scars and Narrow Injuries (<1 m)
• Thalassic testudinum density should reach similar densities within the treatment sites as
compared to the reference sites by rejection of the null hypothesis that the treatment sites
support s75% of the T. testudinum density observed in the reference sites at a
95% confidence level within the monitoring period.
25
Blowholes and Wider injuries (>1 m)
• Tha!assie testudinum density should be trending towards similar densities within the
treatment sites as compared to the reference sites by rejection of the null hypothesis that
the treatment sites support s50% of the T. testudinum density observed in the reference
sites at a 95% confidence level within the monitoring period.
4.1.2 Donor Sites
The success criteria for the seagrass donor sites have not been modified from the original
Mitigation Plan, as stated below:
• H. wrighfii densities within the donor core holes should reach similar densities as compared
to the reference areas after 1 year by not rejecting the null hypothesis that the densities at
the core holes are not different from densities at the reference areas at a 95% confidence
level.
4.2 PROPOSED MONITORING SCHEDULE
The monitoring schedule by restoration treatment and monitoring parameter as described below
in Section 4.3 is provided in Table 5. The first year of monitoring in Area A has already been
completed. The proposed monitoring schedule for the new restoration sites (sediment fill and
bird stake treatment) is different for the first year of monitoring compared to Area A because
seagrass transplantation is not being conducted. Donor site monitoring was previously
recommended to be conducted quarterly for 1 year. Quarterly monitoring has been completed,
and the donor sites have recovered as the established success criteria have been met. No
additional monitoring is recommended for the donor sites.
Table 5. Monitoring schedule for seagrass restoration efforts for the Village of Key Biscayne
Seagrass Mitigation Program.
Treatment Type
Monitoring Parameter
Months
0
3
6
1 9
12 1 18
124
30
136
48
60
Area A Restoration Sites
Planting Units/
Bird Stakes
Planting unit survival
o
o
1 0
0
0
--
--- 1
--
!
---
--
---
Planting Units/
Bird Stakes and
Reference
Percent cover
o
o
o
o
---
-.-
--
—
—
—
—
Short shoot count
o
---
---
—
o
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bird Stakes
Scar width
o
o
o
o
o
•
•
—
—
—
—
Shprt shoot count
—
---
—
1 —
1 °
1 • 1
•
•
• 1
•
•
New Restoration Sites
Sediment
Bird Stakes
Stakes
180d shoot count
•
---
---
1 ---
1 •
I -
` •
1 -
l •
I •
I •
• = Activities that have already been completed; • = Activities still to be completed.
26
4.2.1 Area A Restoration Sites
It is proposed that monitoring be conducted for up to 5 years for short shoot counts, or until the
success criteria are met for a maximum of 7 years. Beginning at the 18 -month monitoring
event, eight sites will be monitored (planting units/bird stakes and bird stakes only) for seagrass
density using short shoots. During the 5 years, a total of 11 monitoring events are proposed —
quarterly monitoring during Year 1 (completed), bi-annual monitoring for Years 2 and 3, and
annual monitoring for Years 4 and 5. If at the end of 5 years the sites are trending toward
success but have not met the criteria, 2 additional years of monitoring may be necessary.
Monitoring of scar width at bird stakes -only sites is recommended for 2 years relative to the
established success criteria.
4.2.2 New Restoration Sites
It is proposed that monitoring be conducted at up to 40% of the sediment fill/bird stake scars, or
14 of the 33 sites. Sites will be stratified by area and method (direct sediment placement and
sediment bags only) and randomly selected to reflect differences in location and treatment type.
Monitoring will be conducted for up to 5 years or until the required success criteria are met for a
maximum of 7 years. A baseline survey will be conducted immediately after completion of
restoration activities, with subsequent surveys conducted annually during the growing season.
An additional survey at 3 to 6 months may be necessary to allow for data collection during the
growing season and to coincide with Area A monitoring. If at the end of 5 years the sites are
trending toward success but have not met the criteria, 2 additional years of monitoring may be
necessary.
4.3 MONITORING PARAMETERS
Monitoring parameters remain similar to those previously proposed in the original Mitigation
Plan, with one addition: in the bird stake -only treatment, short shoot counts and scar width
measurements will be collected, as suggested by FDEP. Monitoring parameters have been
selected based on the success criteria, discussions with FDEP, and previous monitoring results.
Additionally, sediment characteristics will be described for all of the monitored sites. Table 6
shows the parameters to be monitored for each treatment type.
Table 6. Monitoring parameters by restoration treatment type.
Monitoring Parameter
Restoration Treatment
Planting Unit/Bird Stakes
Bird Stakes
Sediment Fill/Bird Stakes
Short shoot count
•
•
•
Scar width
—
•
---
4.3.1 Short Shoot Counts
Thalassia testudinum short shoot counts will be collected to estimate seagrass density within
the restoration treatment areas and surrounding undisturbed (reference) areas. The number of
short shoots of T. testudinum will be counted from within a gridded 0.0625-m2 quadrat (0.25 m x
0.25 m) (sensu Tomlinson and Vargo, 1966). The quadrat will be placed relative to tagged bird
stakes selected for monitoring based on the type of restoration treatment and injury width. To
obtain the best estimate and avoid inclusion of nonresident biota in the count, the data collector
27
will remove any drift algae or decaying seagrass leaves prior to data collection to expose
attached short shoots.
Within propeller scars and narrow injuries treated with planting unit/bird stakes, bird stakes, and
sediment fill/bird stakes, a quadrat will be placed mid -scar and 1 m from each tagged bird stake.
For the sediment fill/bird stakes treatment of blow holes and wider scars, quadrat placement
relative to the tagged bird stakes will be haphazard due to the non-linear shape of the injury;
each quadrat will be placed approximately 1 m from the nearest bird stake and the relative
bearing will be noted on the data sheet. For the reference areas, a quadrat will be haphazardly
placed approximately 1 to 2 m from the edge of the injury feature within the adjacent
unimpacted seagrass bed.
4.3.2 Scar Width
Scar width will be measured at the selected bird stake sites and corresponding reference sites
for 2 years. Beginning at one end of the scar, width measurements will be collected to the
nearest centimeter every 4 m along the scar with a graduated "T" bar. For each measurement,
the "' will be placed within the propeller scar with the top edge of the "T" against the innermost
seagrass shoot and parallel to the side of the scar so that the graduated stem of the "T» is
placed perpendicular across the scar. The distance to the nearest seagrass shoots on the
opposite side of the scar will then be measured.
28
1
EXHIBIT "C"
MODIFIED PROPOSAL
r
l (7177,1
;:._iA ir AA( ;I it WWVV.Ct1.ari-lt.LCOn-t
Hfi0`r? S\N K.in nas /\vr-rri w Phnnr ire : 772-219- :3000
;t,tuor'L. F lor•ic.lo 349117 USA Fax : 772-2.1 J-:301 O
Mr. Generao "Chip" Iglesias
City Manager, Village of Key Biscayne
Mr. Armando Nunez
Director, Department of Public Works
88 West McIntyre Street, Suite 210
Key Biscayne, Florida 33149
2 December 2009
Subject: Cost proposal to modify CSA International Inc.'s existing contract to reflect a scope change and
cost modification
Dear Sirs,
CSA International, Inc. (CSA) and the Village of Key Biscayne (VKB) entered into an agreement for professional
services in July 2008 for the purpose of providing services to implement a Seagrass Restoration and Mitigation
Plan. A portion of this work was completed with authorization from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) while the outstanding mitigation work was delayed due to FDEP policies that resulted in
additional mapping, methods changes, and plan revisions.
Recently, CSA submitted a revised Seagrass Restoration Plan: Village of Key Biscayne, Second Revision (October
2009) on behalf of the VKB outlining a proposal that, if authorized, would provide for 1) a total of 0.88 acres of in -
kind restoration (66% of the agreed to 1.33 acres of mitigation credit) and 2) an out -of -kind mitigation project that
would address the remaining 0.45 -acre mitigation.
On 12 November 2009, the FDEP authorized the VKB to proceed with restoring identified deep scars by filling and
placement of bird stakes as detailed in Section 3.1.2 of the revised plan. The VKB is currently awaiting a response
from the FDEP on the out -of -kind mitigation proposal.
As per the June 2009 meeting comprising representatives from the FDEP, VKB, CSA, and Coastal Systems
International, Inc. (CSI), the VKB is committed to conduct the in -kind restoration efforts prior as possible once all
the permits and approvals have been granted.
PROPOSAL.
The current balance of funds associated with the existing agreement between CSA and the VKB is $301,000. CSA
has estimated that the total costs for mitigation plan revisions and associated tasks, agency coordination, and
implementation of the FDEP-authorized work described in Section 3.1.2 of the revised plan (Attachment 1) will be
approximately $365,000 plus and additional $24,000 to conduct the baseline monitoring efforts. A brief technical
and cost proposal (including proposed fee schedule) is provided below. The costs reflect a 10% reduction in CSA's
rates (Attachment 2), which were adopted in October 2009 for this project.
Mr. Generao Iglesias -2- 2 December 2009
Mr. Armando Nunez
Task 1 Mitigation Plan Revisions, Program Administration, Agency Coordination, Permitting, and Out -of -Kind
Mitigation Negotiations
Task 1 is presented as a time -and -materials service for making all revisions to the Mitigation Plan, administering
the project, coordinating with the various agencies, and permitting. CSA has revised the Mitigation Plan under a
sub -agreement to CSI; however, in an effort to avoid additional fees to the VKB, CSI and CSA propose to include
these incurred costs within Task 1 under the modified contract. CSA anticipates additional plan revisions after
receiving comments from the FDEP. Ongoing program administration and agency coordination is integral to the
process of implementing the proposed mitigation.
CSA is currently working under a separate task order to begin the process of obtaining permits and/or
authorizations from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary (FKNMS), Miami -Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG), Monroe County, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as required. In order to secure these permits and/or
authorizations in a timely and effective manner, further time in addition to that allotted in the current task order
may be necessary.
As needed, CSA proposes to support the VKB and CSI to provide information, research options, and participate in
the development and negotiations related to out -of -kind mitigation or other methods to complete the outstanding
VKB mitigation.
Task la — Second Revision — Mitigation Plan (complete) 511,551
Task lb— Program Administration, Agency Coordination, Permitting 55,283
Task lc — Out -of -Kind Mitigation Negotiation Support (as needed) 58,439
TOTAL $25,273
Task 2 Materials, Bird Stake Construction, and Mobilization and Demobilization
Task 2 is presented as a fixed -price component and includes the purchase of approximately 392 yd3 of sediment
fill; 6,600 sediment bags; labor to fill sediment bags; materials and labor for construction of bird stakes; use of yard
on the Miami River; initial mobilization of a marine construction subcontractor's barge, tug, crane, and small
vessels; purchase of pallets, materials to build floating platforms, and miscellaneous items; travel to and from
Miami to Card Sound Road area (includes 2 days of barge transit); trucking costs for sediment and bag delivery to
Card Sound; and all demobilization of equipment and staff. Task 2 includes travel, lodging, and per diem for 3 of
the 6 anticipated staff during the mobilization and demobilization phase.
Task 2a — CSA purchases (sediment, bags, and miscellaneous supplies) 518,412
Subcontracted day labor to fill 6,600 sediment bags $6,325
Trucking company to deliver loose and bagged sediment to Homestead $3,450
CSA direct labor, lodging, per diem, and associated expenses S28,984
Task 2b — CSA cost to subcontract marine contractor 510,753
TOTAL $67,923
Task 3 Installation of Sediment 1 111
Task 3 is presented as a day rate for the instaNation of sediment fill in accordance with the revised plan, Section
3.1.2. The day rate ($9,100) includes all labor, the barge, vessels, navigation equipment, lodging and per diem,
fuel, and incidentals. The field work is estimated at up to 29 field days, including some weather contingency. CSA
Mr. Generao Iglesias -3- 2 December 2009
Mr. Armando Nunez
will only charge for those days in the field. The standby rate in the case of inclement weather will be charged at a
50% reduced fee.
Task 3a — CSA purchases (fuel, vessel and dockage fees, and incidentals) S5,003
CSA labor, vessel, navigation equipment, lodging and per diem $125,504
Task 3b -- CSA cost to subcontract marine contractor $133,400
TOTAL (29 days at 59,100/day) 5263,907
Task 4 Itird Stake Installation
Task 4 is presented as a fixed price for installing 540 bird stakes in the sediment fill restoration sites authorized in
the revised plan. The level of effort for installing the bird stakes is anticipated to be 2 days.
Task 4 -- Bird Stake Installation $7,425
Task 5 Baseline (Time Zero) Monitoring Survey of Sediment Fill Sites
Task 5 is presented as a fixed price for mobilization and demobilization, field work, and report preparation to
conduct the initial baseline monitoring (Time Zero) at the sediment fill sites. In total, 14 of the 33 fill sites were
proposed for monitoring. The level of effort for conducting the monitoring is anticipated to be 3 days.
Task 5 — Baseline Monitoring Survey of Sediment Fill Sites 523,180
SUMMARY TABLE
Task 1— Mitigation Plan Revisions, Program Administration, Agency Coordination,
Permitting, and Out -of -Kind Mitigation Negotiations $25,273
Task 2 — Materials, Bird Stake Construction, and Mobilization and Demobilization $67,923
Task 3 —Sediment Filling and Bird Stake Installation $263,907
Task 4 — Bird Stake Installation 57,425
Task 5 — Baseline (Time Zero) Monitoring Survey of Sediment Fill Sites $13,180
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
CONTRACT BALANCE
ADDITIONAL FUNDS REQUESTED
$387,708
5301,000
$86,708
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposed contract modification request due to changes in the scope
of work for the seagrass mitigation project. If 1 can answer any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me by
phone at (772) 219-3050 or by e-mail at amccarthy@conshelf.com.
Regards, Approved by:
My8?W .
�<
Anne McCarthy Fredrick B. Ayer II
Vice President/General Manager
Director, Coastal Restoration