Sweetwater Creek Dredging Report

Hillsborough County Municipal Service Benefit UnitSweetwater Creek

Phase II Feasibility Report

Prepared for

Hillsborough CountyPublic Works Department

Prepared by

The Abaco Group, LLC. Tetra Tech, Inc. Fishkind & Associates, Inc.1040 W. Industrial Ave., Bay 1 1901 S. Congress Ave., Ste. 200 12051 Corporate Blvd.Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Orlando, FL 32817

October 22, 2014

Hillsborough County MSBU – Sweetwater CreekPhase II Feasibility Report ES-2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In January 2009 the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners enacted CountyOrdinance 09-01, the Canal Dredging Municipal Service Benefit Unit and Assessment Procedure Ordinance.This ordinance creates a financing mechanism in which local communities in Hillsborough Countycan request that County to create discrete Canal Dredging Municipal Service Benefit Units (MSBUs)to finance canal dredging in order to resolve navigational issues in the residential, saltwater canalswithin their community.

The Hillsborough County Canal Dredging Program Manual (2009) outlines the intent and purpose ofthe County’s Canal Dredging Program and anticipated timelines for MSBUs. In December 2009,Tetra Tech was contracted by Hillsborough County to provide Professional Engineering Services forthe implementation of the County’s Canal Dredging Program. The Canal Dredging Programoutlined in the Hillsborough County Canal Dredging Program Manual (2009) has been designed tooperate in three phases: Phase I: Project Definition and Letter of Intent, Phase II: Feasibility Phaseand Phase III: Design, Permitting and Construction.

This feasibility report was prepared in support of Phase II for the Sweetwater Creek Canal DredgingImprovement Unit (CDIU). Included in this report is a review of the bathymetric survey, marineresource investigations, preliminary characterization of dredge sediments and water quality,preliminary engineering design, disposal options, environmental regulatory review, construction andbond financing cost estimation associated with the Sweetwater Creek CDIU.

In accordance with Ordinance 09-01 (§2.04(B)(1)), the boundary of the CDIU is presented in FigureES-1. Included in the CDIU are two areas depicting all benefiting parcels: 1) the 27 propertiesincluded in the Letter of Intent (LOI), and 2) five additional properties to the south that wereidentified during the Feasibility Phase. These additional properties are downstream of the propertiesin the LOI where a shoal area was identified from the bathymetric survey conducted by Post,Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J, 2006). The bathymetry indicates that the shoal supportswater depths of three to five feet and extends across the width of the creek. As such, this shoalfeature was added to the CDIU since the shoal has the potential to either impede navigational accessupstream or increase in size in the near future, thereby reducing the benefit of the proposeddredging.

Hillsborough County MSBU – Sweetwater CreekPhase II Feasibility Report ES-2

Figure ES-1. Sweetwater Creek canal Dredging Improvement Unit

Hillsborough County MSBU – Sweetwater CreekPhase II Feasibility Report Page i

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BOCC Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners

CCDPM Comprehensive Canal Dredging and Preventative Measures Study

CDIU Canal Dredging Improvement Unit

CDPM Canal Dredging Program Manual

cy cubic yards

DMMA dredge material management area

ECDU equivalent canal dredging unit

EPC Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission

F.A.C Florida Administrative Code

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

LOI Letter of Intent

m meter

MLW mean low water

MSBU Municipal Service Benefit Unit

PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbons

PEL SQAG probable effects level for aquatic organisms

SCTLs FDEP soil cleanup target levels

SQAGs FDEP sediment quality assessment guidelines

TEL SQAG threshold effects level for aquatic organisms

TPA Tampa Port Authority

USACE US Army Corps of Engineers – Jacksonville District

Hillsborough County MSBU – Sweetwater CreekPhase II Feasibility Report Page ii

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................1

2. Project Purpose & Intent .........................................................................................................................3

3. Project Area Description..........................................................................................................................3

4. Site Investigations......................................................................................................................................5

4.1 Bathymetric Survey ...........................................................................................................................5

4.2 Benthic Community Assessment ....................................................................................................5

4.3 Sediment Sampling and Analysis ....................................................................................................5

4.1 Water and Elutriate Sampling........................................................................................................10

5. Project Design..........................................................................................................................................13

5.1 Dredge Footprint and Volume .....................................................................................................13

4.1 Construction Techniques ...............................................................................................................13

4.2 Site Conditions ................................................................................................................................15

4.3 Dredge Material Disposal Options...............................................................................................15

4.3.1 Dredge Material Reuse Options................................................................................................16

4.3.2 Landfill Disposal .........................................................................................................................16

4.4 Dredging Capital Cost ....................................................................................................................16

4.4.1 Estimate Basis..............................................................................................................................16

4.4.2 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................16

6. Regulatory Coordination ........................................................................................................................20

5.1 Agency Authorizations and Permit Requirements .....................................................................20

5.2 Natural Resource Considerations .................................................................................................23

5.2.1 Wetland Impacts .........................................................................................................................23

7. Assessments..............................................................................................................................................23

6.1 Benefits Analysis..............................................................................................................................23

6.2 Total Project Cost Estimate...........................................................................................................23

6.3 Specific Assessment Estimate .......................................................................................................24

8. References.................................................................................................................................................25

Hillsborough County MSBU – Sweetwater CreekPhase II Feasibility Report Page iii

Figures

Figure 1. Project location map.........................................................................................................................4

Figure 2. Sweetwater Creek CDIU 2006 and 2011 sediment and water sampling locations..................6

Figure 3. Plan and section veiws of the Sweetwater Creek CDIU dredge area ......................................14

Figure 4. 1938 Aerial photograph of the Sweetwater Creek CDIU project area and 2006 shoreline .21

Tables

Table 1. Lists the criteria and the composite scoring for the Sweetwater Creek LOI application ........2

Table 2. Summary of 2011 sediment samples collected from proposed CDIU.......................................7

Table 3. Values of pollutant metals from 2006 and 2011 sediment cores.................................................8

Table 4. Values of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) from 2006 and 2011 sediment cores.............9

Table 5. Values of Carcinogenic PAHs from 2006 and 2011 sediment cores ........................................10

Table 6. Values of metals from 2011 surface water samples, 2006 and 2011 elutriate samples...........11

Table 7. Values of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) - 2006 elutriate 2011 water samples ............12

Table 8. Values of Carcinogenic PAHs - 2006 elutriate and 2011 water samples..................................12

Table 9. Engineer’s opinion of probable cost of design/construction....................................................17

Table 10a. Principal assumptions of cost estimate......................................................................................18

Table 10b. Cost category assumptions .........................................................................................................18

Table 11. ECDU Calculations and Subsequent Debt Allocation .............................................................24

Appendices

Appendix I Homeowner Property Approval Signatures

Appendix II 2006 Bathymetric Survey Results

Appendix III 2010 Benthic Community Assessment

Appendix IV 2011 Laboratory Results of Sediment and Water Quality Analyses

Appendix V Sweetwater Creek Hydrodynamic Evaluation

Appendix VI Sweetwater Creek Assessment Methodology Report

Hillsborough County MSBU – Sweetwater CreekPhase II Feasibility Report Page 1

1. Introduction

In March 2007, after two years of study, which included six town hall meetings and over 20 monthlymeetings, the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) accepted the findingof the Canal Advisory Committee and their Comprehensive Canal Dredging and PreventativeMeasures Study (CCDPM). The CCDPM examined eight coastal residential canal communitieswithin the unincorporated portions of Hillsborough County (referred herein as “County”) in orderto determine the location and extent of sedimentation; as well as the approximate cost forimplementing each project area. One of the primary recommendations from this study was to enacta canal dredging ordinance in which communities could independently choose to pay for thenecessary improvements. Refer to the County website for the complete set of the CCDPM studies<www.hillsborough.wateratlas.org>.

The BOCC enacted County Dredging Ordinance (No. 09-1), Canal Dredging Municipal ServiceBenefit Unit (MSBU), and Assessment Procedure Ordinance in January 2009. The County PublicWorks Department, with the assistance of other County organizations, was tasked withimplementing the County Ordinance. The resulting Canal Dredging Program Manual (CDPM)outlines the County’s Canal Dredging Program and process, its purpose, intent, and anticipatedtimelines for the eight navigation projects. It also outlines internal policies within the program sothat applicants are aware of their rights and responsibilities; as well as the County’s rights andresponsibilities. A key feature of the dredging program is that the total dredging cost of eachcommunity project is to be borne by the residents whose properties directly benefit from theproject.

Consistent with the County Dredging Ordinance, the Canal Dredging Program is limited to thecleaning, deepening and widening of navigable salt or brackish water canal waterways that areadjacent to properties located in the unincorporated areas of the County. The intent of the dredgingprogram is to provide recreational boaters in the canals with navigational access along the centerlineof the canals to Tampa Bay. Freshwater canals, lakes, historic drainage ditches or other storm waterconveyance structures, whose original intent was solely to convey stormwater are excluded fromparticipating in this program.

The Canal Dredging Program outlined in the CDPM has been designed to operate in three phases:Phase I: Project Definition and Letter of Intent, Phase II: Feasibility Phase and Phase III: Design,Permitting and Construction.

Phase I

Under Phase I, communities located within one of the eight coastal regions identified in theCCDPM (Bayport, Baycrest, Dana Shores, Alafia, Apollo North, Apollo South, Essex Downs andRuskin) can establish a Canal Dredging Improvement Unit (CDIU). The properties within thecommunity that will receive “special and peculiar” benefits from the dredging project(s) comprisethe CDIU.

Each community must select a spokesperson and define the CDIU project area, which includes theproperties that will benefit from the navigational improvements. A Letter of Intent (LOI) is thenprepared by the community stating their request for the County to investigate their CDIU. The LOIis submitted to the Director of the Hillsborough County Public Works Department forconsideration.


In January 2010, a total of five LOI applications were submitted to the County, which included LOIapplications from the Bayport, Sweetwater Creek, Flamingo Canal, Masters Canal, and Shell PointRoad communities. These LOI applications and associated information were evaluated, scored andranked by ten scoring criteria that were developed during the LOI Phase I. On September 14, 2010,a final scoring criteria and completion of a Decision Matrix was performed by a committee ofHillsborough County staff members in accordance with the procedures outlined in the CanalDredging Manual. It was determined that the Sweetwater Creek LOI was the top ranked applicationand would advance to Phase II – Feasibility Phase, of the Program. Refer to Table 1 for a summaryof the Sweetwater Creek LOI evaluation.

Table 1. Lists the criteria and the composite scoring for the Sweetwater Creek LOI application

The range of scores for the applications was from 16.42 to 21.12. The Sweetwater Creek LOIapplication complied with all of the requirements of the Canal Dredging Program Manual andscored 21.12. A total of 15 participating homeowners/residents signed the Sweetwater Creek LOIapplication. All 15 signatures were confirmed as willing participants in the County DredgingProgram, which totaled 55.56 % support within the proposed CDIU. In accordance with CountyOrdinance No. 09-1, at least 51% of different property owners located within the CDIU is required(Appendix I).

Phase II

Phase II includes the implementation of the feasibility phase of the Sweetwater Creek CDIU. Thefeasibility phase involves the review of: 2006 bathymetric survey; 2010 and 2011 marine resourceinvestigations; preliminary characterization of dredge sediments and water quality; preliminaryengineering design; potential disposal options; and agency meetings and regulatory coordination.

A summary of the 2006, 2010 and 2011 field investigations are described in Section 4 of this report.The preliminary dredge design and potential dredge material disposal options are discussed inSection 5. Results of the 2010 and 2011 meetings and guidance received from the regulatory andcommenting agencies are provided in Section 6.

The Phase II efforts also include a summary of the comprehensive assessment methodology,individual property owner benefits from the implementation of the Sweetwater Creek CDIU, and anestimate of the capital cost to implement the CDIU. The assessment methodology and associatedcosts are provided in Section 7.

Montalvo Mueller Deese

1 13% 0.26 0.26 0.26

2 Project Complexity 13% 1.17 1.17 1.17

3 Submerged Land Ownership 12% 1.20 1.20 1.20

4 Marine Resource Impacts 12% 0.96 0.84 0.84

5 Financial Stability 12% 0.28 0.28 0.28

6 Accessibility to Open Water 11% 0.55 0.55 0.55

7 10% 1.00 1.00 1.00

8 8% 0.80 0.80 0.56

9 6% 0.90 0.48 0.66

# 3% 0.30 0.30 0.30

7.42 6.88 6.82

Evaluation Criteria

Property Owner Support

Relative

Weight

Evaluators

21.12

Property Owner Diversity

Water Quality Improvement

Sediment Quality

Submittal Date

Individual Totals

Composite Score


Phase III

Upon finalization of the feasibility report, it will be presented to the Sweetwater Creek CDIUspokesperson for dissemination to the community. A petition package of the project will beprepared and validated by the community. Upon BOCC approval of the petition package, theproject will enter into Phase III (design, permitting and construction).

2. Project Purpose & Intent

Prior to the 1980’s, several residential saltwater “finger” canals were created throughoutHillsborough County. The intent of the finger canals was to maximize the waterfront surface area.The finger canal design created a low flushing/low energy environment, preventing silt, sedimentand detrital material from moving through the system. This has resulted in settling and infilling ofsediment and material in the canals, limiting ingress/egress by adjacent property owners.

Per County Ordinance 09-01, this project supports Hillsborough County’s program initiative toclean, deepen and widen saltwater canals adjacent to properties located in the unincorporated area ofHillsborough County. The purpose of this project is to allow the residential canal community ofSweetwater Creek navigational access to Tampa Bay. Navigational access of -5 ft mean low water(MLW) will be established in Sweetwater Creek from south of Memorial Highway Bridge to a pointin the waterway where existing depths are -5 ft MLW or greater.

3. Project Area Description

The project is located approximately 5,000 ft from open water of Tampa Bay and is located withinthe Dana Shores region of Hillsborough County. The proposed dredge limit extends from theMemorial Highway Bridge to a point approximately 2,300 ft south along the centerline ofSweetwater Creek (Figure 1).

The Sweetwater Creek CDIU includes all canal-front, single family residential properties along theeast side Saltwater Boulevard directly adjacent to the dredge area. It also includes the three largecanal-front parcels on the east side of the canal (Scottish Rite Temple Association, Sweetwater CoveApartments, Egypt Temple), also directly adjacent to the dredge area. Sweetwater Cove Apartmentsis a multifamily complex located along Ginger Cove Drive, which is owned by a single managementcompany and does not appear to have a homeowner’s or condominium association. In total, thereare 27 parcels within the current CDIU project area.

With the exception of small boats (ex. canoes and kayaks), the low fixed Bridge at MemorialHighway limits upstream access under the Bridge to vessels that can likely navigate to the projectarea. There are no notable navigational obstructions downstream of the project or other significantconstraints that would affect recreational vessel or construction barge access to and from the site.

The project is likely to require temporary stockpiling of dredge material for dewatering purposes,temporary containment, and/or sampling prior to final disposal. There are very limited potentialspoil containment area options within close proximity of the project area.


Figure 1. Project location map


4. Site Investigations

Baseline investigations of the Sweetwater Creek CDIU used to support the feasibility study include:1) a bathymetric survey and sediment core collected by Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., in2006 (PBS&J, 2006), 2) marine resource investigations and sediment cores collected in 2010 (TetraTech, 2011) and 3) sediment, water quality and elutriate sampling and analysis conducted in 2011.

4.1 Bathymetric Survey

PBS&J completed a bathymetric survey of the CDIU project area in February and March 2006 aspart of the CCDPM study (PBS&J, 2006). Appendix II includes the raw data plot and color contourmap of the 2006 bathymetric survey. The 2006 survey shows the shallowest areas (-0.75 to -3.00 ftMLW) at the northern end of Sweetwater Creek, south of Memorial Highway Bridge. The channeldeepens to -3.00 to -5.00 ft MLW to the south with pockets of -5.00 to -15.00 ft MLW, where thechannel is at its widest.

This feasibility study utilizes the raw data from the 2006 survey as the basis for the planning anddredged material volume estimation for the proposed project.

4.2 Benthic Community Assessment

On September 23 and 24, 2010 Tetra Tech performed a qualitative benthic resource investigation ofapproximately 7.43 acres of submerged lands and natural resources within and adjacent to theSweetwater Creek CDIU (Appendix III). Additionally, five sediment cores were collected andanalyzed for grain size (Section 4.3).

Results from the 2010 investigations confirmed the presence of mangroves southeast of theMemorial Highway Bridge, and five solitary oysters (three along the west bank south of the Bridgeand two along the east bank at the channel widening) (Appendix III - Figure 2). These resourceswere excluded from the dredge limits.

4.3 Sediment Sampling and Analysis

One sediment core was collected in the Sweetwater CDIU (DCS1) in support of the DredgingFeasibility Report for Dana Shores (PBS&J, 2006) (Figure 2). The 2.5 ft sediment core was collected onthe shoal at the north end of the proposed dredge footprint. The sediment sample yielded 96.1%sand (3.9% passing the 200 sieve), with a total organic content of 7.9%. The median grain size is0.18 mm, classifying the sediment as fine sand.

Pollutant metals in the 2006 core were reported as being below residential and commercial FloridaDepartment of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs) (Chapter 52-777, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). However, elevated levels of polyaromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs) (e.g., Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene,bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, Chrysene, Fuoranthene, and Pyrene) were detected in the sedimentsampling following the EPA 8270C method.

Sediment cores collected in the CDIU in September 2010 were evaluated using a visual assessmenttechnique that follows the Unified Soils Classification System (Appendix III). No chemical analyseswere conducted on the 2010 samples. Cores located in the middle and southern reaches of theproject site consisted of a very fine, well sorted organic muck. The core located at the most northernreach of the CDIU, just south of Memorial Highway Bridge, consisted of a well sorted, fine tomedium grained sand. A shoal has formed south of the Bridge where coarser grained material hasaggregated.


Figure 2. Sweetwater Creek CDIU 2006 and 2011 sediment and water sampling locations


In May 2011, Tetra Tech collected five sediment cores throughout the CDIU for visual assessment,chemical and physical analysis (Figure 2). Sediments were extracted using a hand corer whichpenetrated to refusal. The cores were visually assessed for average grain size, organic content, color,and odor. Organic muck was observed throughout the mid and central portions of the proposeddredge area (SED 02 to SED 04). The core sample collected towards the north end of the dredgearea (SED 01) was predominantly comprised of fine sand. The grain size results are similar to thosereported by PBS&J (2006) for DSC1. Water depths within the CDIU ranged from 2.53 to 6.46 ft. Asummary of the 2011 findings are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of 2011 sediment samples collected from proposed CDIU

Note: All sampled collected on May 27, 2011. Tide corrected to Old Port Tampa, FL NOAA Station Id:8726607. Sample SED 05 collected outside of CDIU, south of project area.

Sediment samples were homogenized, transferred to glass jars, and placed on ice prior to transportto Millennium Laboratories Inc. for chemical analysis (Appendix IV). A summary of the 2006sample (DSC1) and 2011 lab results cores are provided in Tables 3 through 5. It is important to notethat SED 05 was collected outside of the proposed dredge footprint, south of the project limits.

Tables 3 through 5 include the numerical sediment quality assessment guidelines (SQAGs) for thethreshold effects level (TEL) and probable effects level (PEL). The TEL represents the upper limitof the range of sediment contamination that has no measurable effect on aquatic organisms. ThePEL is the estimated lower limit of the contaminant concentration associated with adverse biologicaleffects. The SCTLs are the amount of contaminant in a soil that, when leached into surface waterswill be equal to groundwater cleanup target levels (GCTLs). The SCTLs reference effects on humansrather than organisms, therefore these values are typically higher than TELs and PELs.

The laboratory results shown in Table 3 from samples collected in the mid and southern ends of theCDIU (SED 02 to SED 04) indicate TEL exceedences for metals and residential SCTL exceedencesparticularly for arsenic. Table 4 also shows PAH exceedences in the mid and southern ends of theCDIU. Carcinogenic PAHs listed in Table 5 indicate exceedences of both residential andcommercial SCTLs in all samples. SQAG TELs and PEL exceedences occur in all sample locations,except at SED 01, south of the shoal formation.

Sample ID Location Sample

Time

(hrs)

Total

Water

Depth (ft)

Tide

Corrected

Depth (ft)

Depth of

Penetration

(ft)

Description

N 27o58’47.6”

W082o33’43.3”

N 27o58’43.7”

W082o33’42.9”

N 27o58’40.5”

W082o33’39.2

N 27o58’35.0”

W082o33’38.3

N 27o58’29.2”

W082o33’49.8

Fine sand with muck, slight organic

odor

SED 02 1450 4.69 6.20 1.31 Organic muck, with some sand.

Dark grey, strong organic odor

SED 01 1415 2.53 4.23 0.88, 0.62

Organic muck with fine sand. Dark

brown, strong organic odor

SED 04 1546 5.31 6.46 1.87 Organic muck with fine sand. Dark

grey/dark brwn. Detritus and strong

organic odor

SED 03 1525 4.95 6.29 1.64

Medium dark and light grey sandSED 05 1610 6.04 6.20 ~0.98


Table 3. Values of pollutant metals from 2006 and 2011 sediment cores

Note: Blue shade = Above SQAG TELs; Bold = Above Residential SCTLs; * = Containment is not a healthconcern for this exposure scenario; N/A = necessary data not available; U = undetected

EPA 7471A

EPA

6010B ICP

EPA

365.2

EPA

1664

To

tal

Ph

osp

ho

rou

s

(mg

/k

g)

No

n-P

ola

rM

ater

ials

(mg

/k

g)

7.24 0.676 52.3 18.7 30.2 124 0.13 N/A N/A N/A N/A

41.6 4.21 160 108 112 271 0.696 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2.1 82 210 150 400 26000 3 80000 N/A N/A N/A

12 1700 470 89000 1400 630000 17 * N/A N/A N/A

0.251 U 0.551 0.589 6.98 6.95 U 195 N/A N/A N/A

0.4 0.16 1.1 1.5 1.9 5.1 0.01 310 N/A N/A N/A

3.1 0.70 20.0 27.0 2.7 120.0 0.12 7800 N/A N/A N/A

6.0 1.30 34.0 40.0 65.0 190.0 0.13 9600 N/A N/A N/A

7.5 1.70 59.0 49.0 100.0 230.0 0.20 20000 N/A N/A N/A

0.4 0.19 1.3 2.6 2.4 4.3 0.01 310 N/A N/A N/A

SQAG Threshold Effects Level

DSC1

Sed

imen

tSa

mp

leID

SQAG Probable Effects Level

EPA 6010B ICP

To

tal

Nit

rog

en(m

g/

kg

)

SCTL Commercial

SCTL Residential

Metals

Lea

d(m

g/

kg

)

Zin

c(m

g/

kg

)

Alu

min

um

(mg

/k

g)

Mer

cury

(mg

/k

g)

Co

pp

er(m

g/

kg

)

Ars

enic

(mg

/k

g)

Cad

miu

m(m

g/

kg

)

Ch

rom

ium

(mg

/k

g)

SED 01

SED 02

SED 03

SED 04

SED 05


Table 4. Values of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) from 2006 and 2011 sediment cores

Note: Blue shade = Above SQAG TELs; Green shade = Above SQAG TELs and PELs; U = undetected

Pyr

ene

(mg

/k

g)

0.0067 0.0059 0.0469 N/A N/A 0.0202 0.0212 0.113 0.0346 0.0867 0.153

0.0889 0.128 0.245 N/A N/A 0.201 0.144 1.494 0.391 0.544 1.398

2400 1800 21000 2500 200 210 2600 3200 55 2200 2400

20000 20000 300000 52000 1800 2100 33000 59000 300 36000 45000

U U U 0.105 N/A U U 0.140 U U 0.137

0.0009 0.0017 0.0006 0.0630 0.0065 0.0046 0.0011 0.1000 0.0005 0.0330 0.1000

0.0089 0.0150 0.0440 1.1000 0.0150 0.0110 0.0190 1.7000 0.0022 0.3800 2.4000

0.0078 0.0110 0.0290 0.9100 0.0120 0.0084 0.0120 1.3000 0.0015 0.3000 2.1000

0.0040 0.0130 0.0160 0.7600 0.0190 0.0130 0.0140 1.1000 0.0014 0.2200 1.7000

0.0009 0.0016 0.0006 0.0045 0.0064 0.0045 0.0010 0.0034 0.0005 0.0096 0.0053



DSC1

Sed

imen

tSa

mp

leID

EPA 8270

Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons

(PAHs)

SCTL Residential

SCTL Commercial

SED 01

SED 02

SED 03

SED 04

SED 05

An

thra

cen

e(m

g/

kg

)

Flu

ora

nth

ene

(mg

/k

g)

Ace

nap

hth

ylen

e(m

g/

kg

)

Ace

nap

hth

ene

(mg

/k

g)

Flu

ore

ne

(mg

/k

g)

Ph

enan

thre

ne

(mg

/k

g)

Ben

zo(g

,h,i

)per

ylen

e(m

g/

kg

)

1-M

eth

yln

aph

thal

ene

(mg

/k

g)

Nap

hth

alen

e(m

g/

kg

)

2-M

eth

yln

aph

thal

ene

(mg

/k

g)


Table 5. Values of Carcinogenic PAHs from 2006 and 2011 sediment cores

Note: Blue shade = Above SQAG TELs; Green shade = Above SQAG TELs and PELs; Bold = AboveResidential SCTLs; Bold and italicized = Above Residential and Commercial SCTLs; N/A = necessary datanot available; U = undetected

Additional sediment sampling to the planned dredge depth (-5 ft MLW) plus 1 ft for potential over-dredge allowance is needed for complete chemical and physical analysis of the dredge profile.

4.1 Water and Elutriate Sampling

In May 2011, water samples were collected from the middle of the water column prior to collectingsediment samples at SED 01 to SED 05. Water samples were poured into glass jars, placed on iceand transported to Millennium Laboratories Inc. for chemical testing for surface water andelutriates. Tables 6 through 8 below provide a summary of the laboratory results from the 2006elutriate test at DSC1 and water quality and elutriate testing at all sites from the 2011 event.

The results were compared to FDEPs Surface Water Cleanup Target Levels (SWCTL) criteria formarine surface waters (Chapter 52-777, F.A.C.). It is important to note that samples WS 05 and ES05 were collected outside of the CDIU, south of the proposed dredge footprint.

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

(mg

/k

g)

Ben

z(a)

anth

race

ne

(mg

/k

g)

Ben

zo(b

)flu

ora

nth

ene

(mg

/k

g)

Ben

zo(k

)flu

ora

nth

ene

(mg

/k

g)

Ch

ryse

ne

(mg

/k

g)

Dib

enzo

(a,h

)An

thra

cen

e(m

g/

kg

)

Iden

o(1

,2,3

,-cd

)pyr

ene

(mg

/k

g)

0.0888 0.0748 N/A N/A 0.108 0.00622 N/A

0.763 0.639 N/A N/A 0.846 0.135 N/A

0.1 0.01 0.01 0.001 0.0001 0.1 0.01

0.7 0.07 0.07 0.007 0.0007 0.7 0.07

0.092 U 0.155 0.097 0.103 U U

0.0620 0.0510 0.1100 0.0310 0.0680 0.0047 0.0570

1.0000 0.8500 2.3000 0.7900 1.6000 0.2500 1.1000

1.0000 0.8400 1.9000 0.6700 1.3000 0.2000 0.9200

0.8300 0.6600 1.7000 0.5700 1.1000 0.0140 0.7800

0.0015 0.0014 0.0025 0.0024 0.0012 0.0046 0.0030



DSC1

Sed

imen

tSa

mp

leID

SCTL Residential

EPA 8270


(PAHs)

SCTL Commercial

SED 01

SED 02

SED 03

SED 04

SED 05


Table 6. Values of metals from 2011 surface water samples, 2006 and 2011 elutriate samples

Note: Bold = Above SWCTL; N/A = necessary data not available; U = Undetected

Water quality samples showed SWCTL exceedences for copper and mercury throughout the projectarea (Table 6). Contributing sources are likely from both anthropogenic and natural factors.

An elutriate test is designed to simulate release of contaminants from a sediment during adisturbance. Results of elutriate testing of sample DS-C1, and ES 01 through ES 04 located withinthe project area showed that concentrations of chromium, copper, lead, mercury and aluminumduring a disturbance exceeded SWCTLs (Table 6). Removing the material would be expected toresult in lower concentrations of copper and lead in solution following a disturbance.

Table 7 shows SWCTL exceedences of three PAH compounds (Acenaphthylene,Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Phenanthrene) throughout the water column. Table 8 shows SWCTLexceedences of all carcinogenic PAHs at all sample stations. There are several sources of PAHs, oneprimary source is from creosote treated pilings.

EPA 7471A

EPA

6010B ICP

EPA

365.2

EPA

1664

To

tal

Ph

osp

ho

rou

s

(mg

/L

)

No

n-P

ola

rM

ater

ials

(mg

/L

)

0.05 0.009 0.05 0.0037 0.0085 0.086 0.000025 1.5 ** ** 5

0.004 0.001 0.002 0.0044 0.004 0.009 0.0001 0.20 0.150 0.680 3.2

0.004 0.001 0.002 0.0043 0.004 0.0079 0.0001 0.23 0.100 0.780 3.2

0.004 0.001 0.004 0.0063 0.004 0.0095 0.0001 0.20 0.078 0.530 3.2

0.004 0.001 0.004 0.0038 0.004 0.0068 0.0001 0.27 0.062 0.800 3.1

0.004 0.001 0.0033 0.0066 0.004 0.010 0.0001 0.20 0.094 0.930 3.6

0.001 U U 0.009 0.014 0.044 U 0.48 N/A N/A N/A

0.008 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.008 0.008 0.0001 0.4 N/A N/A N/A

0.012 0.003 0.0075 0.006 0.012 0.012 0.0001 0.6 N/A N/A N/A

0.008 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.008 0.008 0.0001 0.4 N/A N/A N/A

0.008 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.008 0.008 0.0001 0.4 N/A N/A N/A

0.008 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.008 0.008 0.0001 0.4 N/A N/A N/A

DSC1

Elu

tria

teSa

mp

leID

To

tal

Nit

rog

en(m

g/

L)

Ars

enic

(mg

/L

)

Cad

miu

m(m

g/

L)

Ch

rom

ium

(mg

/L

)

Co

pp

er(m

g/

L)

Lea

d(m

g/

L)

Zin

c(m

g/

L)

Mer

cury

(mg

/L

)

Alu

min

um

(mg

/L

)

SWCTL Marine Surface Water

Surf

ace

Wat

erSa

mp

leID

WS01

WS02

WS03

WS04

WS05

Metals

EPA 6010B ICP

ES 01

ES 02

ES 03

ES 04

ES 05


Table 7. Values of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) - 2006 elutriate 2011 water samples

Note: U = undetected

Table 8. Values of Carcinogenic PAHs - 2006 elutriate and 2011 water samples

Note: U = undetected

Pyr

ene

(mg

/L

)

2700 0.031 110000 0.031 95 30 30 0.3 26 0.031 0.3

0.1600 0.1500 0.1100 0.0500 0.1700 0.1900 0.1900 0.1100 0.1600 0.1400 0.1900

0.1600 0.1500 0.1100 0.0500 0.1700 0.1900 0.1900 0.1100 0.1600 0.1400 0.1900

0.1600 0.1500 0.1100 0.0500 0.1700 0.1900 0.1900 0.1100 0.1600 0.1400 0.1900

0.1600 0.1500 0.1100 0.0500 0.1700 0.1900 0.1900 0.1100 0.1600 0.1400 0.1900

0.1600 0.1500 0.1100 0.0500 0.1700 0.1900 0.1900 0.1100 0.1600 0.1400 0.1900

U U U U U U U U U U UElutirate Sample DSC1

Ph

enan

thre

ne

(mg

/L

)

1-M

eth

yln

aph

thal

ene

(mg

/L

)

2-M

eth

yln

aph

thal

ene

(mg

/L

)

Flu

ore

ne

(mg

/L

)

Flu

ora

nth

ene

(mg

/L

)

Nap

hth

alen

e(m

g/

L)

EPA 8270


(PAHs)

Ace

nap

hth

ene

(mg

/L

)

Ace

nap

hth

ylen

e(m

g/

L)

An

thra

cen

e(m

g/

L)

Ben

zo(g

,h,i

)per

ylen

e(m

g/

L)

Surf

ace

Wat

erSa

mp

leID


WS01

WS02

WS03

WS04

WS05

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

(mg

/L

)

Ben

z(a)

anth

race

ne

(mg

/L

)

Ben

zo(b

)flu

ora

nth

ene

(mg

/L

)

Ben

zo(k

)flu

ora

nth

ene

(mg

/L

)

Ch

ryse

ne

(mg

/L

)

Dib

enzo

(a,h

)An

thra

cen

e(m

g/

L)

Iden

o(1

,2,3

,-cd

)pyr

ene

(mg

/L

)

0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031

0.1000 0.1000 0.1800 0.1800 0.1000 0.1500 0.0600

0.1000 0.1000 0.1800 0.1800 0.1000 0.1500 0.0600

0.1000 0.1000 0.1800 0.1800 0.1000 0.1500 0.0600

0.1000 0.1000 0.1800 0.1800 0.1000 0.1500 0.0600

0.1000 0.1000 0.1800 0.1800 0.1000 0.1500 0.0600

U U U U U U UElutirate Sample DSC1

EPA 8270


(PAHs)


Surf

ace

Wat

erSa

mp

leID WS01

WS02

WS03

WS04

WS05


5. Project Design

The 2006 raw bathymetric data conducted by PBS&J was reviewed to determine the spatial andvertical extents of the planned dredge limits in Sweetwater Creek. This review focused on portionsof the canal located 15 ft from structural boundaries and private property limits, and depths lessthan the planned dredge depth of -5.0 ft below mean low water (MLW) (-6.12 ft North AmericanVertical Datum [NAVD], Florida State Plane West 1988).

5.1 Dredge Footprint and Volume

The factors that determine the limits of the dredging footprint are:

1. Shoal areas shallower than -5 ft MLW2. 15 ft. setbacks from shorelines, private docks and shoreline structures, and private

property lines3. Upstream limit of the requesting community or upstream small craft navigation limit.

The Memorial Highway Bridge represents the community and navigation limit for thisCDIU project. The bathymetric survey of the site (PBS&J, 2006) shows shallow water areasextending south from the Memorial Bridge for a distance of about 2,100 ft.

Figure 3 shows the plan and section views of the proposed dredging area. The dredging footprintcovers an approximate area of 3.96 acres. The estimated dredging volume is 9,875 cy.

5.2 Construction Techniques

The two general techniques of dredging include hydraulic and mechanical dredging. Hydraulicdredging utilizes a pumping system that draws in water and sediment through a suction head thatsweeps the bottom much like a vacuum cleaner. The fine grain size sediments that occur in theproject area are amenable to hydraulic dredging techniques. In typical hydraulic dredging operations,the dredged material slurry mixture of water and sediment is pumped at a level of about 15% solids.This means that the volume of dredged material is roughly 5 to 6 times as large as the volume of thesediments that are in place in the channel bottom.

Hydraulic dredging can transport the dredged material significant distances away from the dredgingsite since the slurry is in a fluid state. Usually a small to moderate size dredge can pump the dredgeslurry up to a mile. The addition of booster pumps along the length of the discharge pipeline canincrease the total transport distance. In most cases with very little grade change between the waterbody and the dredged material handling area (DMMA), pumping distances of up to 5 miles are stilleconomically possible.

The DMMA is diked area that receives the dredged material slurry and is designed to allow the solidsto settle and the excess water to drain off. The dewatered dredged material may be left in place.However, it is more frequently excavated and transported with conventional construction equipmentto a different area for beneficial reuse such as fill material or to be otherwise disposed of.

A DMMA typically consists of a diked or construction barrier contained area where the dredgedmaterial can be placed and the drainage water can be managed. Geotextile tube systems may also beused in place of a dike system. The dredged material is pumped into the filter fabric tubes thatcontain the dredged material while letting the water drain out. Geotextile tube systems are effectivewhere space is limited. However, the extra costs associated with careful filling, the geotextile tubematerial costs and possible polymer additives for the retention of fine grain materials can addsignificant costs to the project.


Figure 3. Plan and section veiws of the Sweetwater Creek CDIU dredge area


Mechanical dredging uses conventional excavation equipment such as clamshell and dragline bucketsoperated by barge mounted cranes to remove sediments. Where turbidity and contaminant re-suspension are concerns, environmental buckets can be used. Environmental buckets are variationsof clamshell buckets that fully seal to minimize the loss of sediment/water when the bucket is raised.

The dredged material is typically placed into a second barge that can shuttle back and forth betweenthe dredging site and the DMMA where the barge can be unloaded and the dredged material can bedewatered and subsequently transferred to trucks for transport to its ultimate beneficial reuse ordisposal site.

Mechanical dredging removes the sediment at its in place water content. This results in a dredgedmaterial with a significantly thicker consistency then that which results with hydraulic dredging.Depending in the actual sediment characteristics, mechanically-dredged material may be suitable fordirect placement into trucks or transport containers without the extra dewatering step. The thickerconsistency, the lower dredged material volume and possible reduced processing/handling mayprovide some advantages over hydraulic dredging.

Mechanical dredging systems require that transfer facilities be relatively close to the dredge site tominimize the time and expense of transferring the dredged material from the dredging site to thehandling/truck loading site.

5.3 Site Conditions

The upland area along the banks ofSweetwater Creek is generally fully developedwith single and multi-family homes. TheScottish Rite Temple Association Inc. owns an8.34 acre parcel on the east bank of the creekthat adjoins Memorial Highway. The southernhalf of the site is an open grassed area. Thisarea could support dredging operations as aDMMA site if suitable temporary usearrangements can be worked out with theScottish Rite Temple. The roughly 2.8 acreopen area could provide space unloading ofthe dredged material from the shuttle barges,dewatering of the dredged material andtransferring of the dried dredged material totrucks for transport to a landfill for disposal.Site preparation, dredging operations and siterestoration may extend over a period of aboutone year.

5.4 Dredge Material Disposal Options

Options for dredge material disposal is directly related to the laboratory results of sediment samplescollected throughout the dredge footprint and profile. Preliminary results indicate that there are bothSCTL and SQAG TEL and PEL exceedences, primarily in the central and southern portions of thedredge footprint.

Photo 1. Scottish Rite Temple Site (Source:Google Earth 2011)


5.4.1 Dredge Material Reuse Options

Preliminary laboratory results of sediment samples described in Section 4 suggest that some of thedredge material at the north end of the proposed dredge footprint may be available for reuse.Additional sampling conducted prior to dredging activities could isolate potential clean dredgematerial on both a vertical and horizontal scale. The identification of the limits of a pocket of cleanmaterial could potentially contribute to a reduction of construction costs. Other possible options forthe identification of clean material involve batch sampling of the temporarily stockpiled material todetermine if it can be reused or requires landfill disposal.

If the BOCC supports sediment sampling efforts to isolate clean dredge material, then there may beopportunities for reuse at a restoration site. Discussions with the Tampa Bay Estuary Program wereinitiated in 2011 to identify wetland restoration projects in the vicinity of the CDIU. At that time,there were no restoration projects within proximity of the CDIU scheduled that were in need ofdredge material.

5.4.2 Landfill Disposal

Based on the results of the preliminary sediment cores, the dredging capital cost described in Section5.5 assumes that all of the dredge material exceeds residential and commercial SCTLs forcarcinogenic PAHs; and therefore requires landfill disposal. This alternative assumed that the dredgematerial will be transported to a FDEP approved landfill in self-contained/lined trucks. Additional,the costs include the fee for disposal of dredge material at a Class I facility in Bartow, FL.

5.5 Dredging Capital Cost

This section develops the capital cost estimate for the proposed Sweetwater Creek residential canaldredging project. It includes all of the preliminary investigations, the design, regulatory permittingand construction costs. It does not, however, include the cost of financing of the project. Bondfinancing will be required to afford the property owners the ability to pay their assessed portion ofthe total project costs over an extended period of time rather than in a lump sum payment at thebeginning of the project.

5.5.1 Estimate Basis

This estimate was developed during the feasibility stage of the project. As such, there areuncertainties in the costs due to portions of the project being evaluated in the preliminary reviewstage of the project for regulatory and design issues. The estimate is based upon this preliminaryunderstanding of the project issues and supported by the preliminary site investigations described inSection 4.0 of the main text. The project is at the 30% stage of the design development. Estimates atthis early stage of design development routinely include contingency allowances to account for thecosts associated with the project uncertainties and inflation. This estimate includes a 20%contingency allowance. Table 9 provides the full details of the estimate.

5.5.2 Assumptions

This section outlines the assumptions that were required to develop the cost estimate. The principalassumptions that influence several aspects of the project are discussed in first in Table 10a. Theassumptions of the estimate, that are associated with the individual cost categories, are discussedsecond in Table 10b.


Table 9. Engineer’s opinion of probable cost of design/construction


Table 10a. Principal assumptions of cost estimate

ASSUMPTION DISCUSSIONDredging footprintand volume

3.86 acre dredging area and 9,875 cubic yards of sediment in place basedupon 2006 PBS&J bathymetric survey, a maximum depth of -5 ft. MLW andsetbacks from structures and property limits. A new bathymetric survey willbe required by the regulatory agencies in Phase II.

Sediment Quality PAH exceedences of SCTL’s for commercial/industrial use requires landfilldisposal. Additional testing in Phase II may help to localize the contaminationand reduce the volume of material that has to be landfilled.

Transport Dredged material to be transported to an FDEP approved landfill in linedtrucks.

Landfill Costs Disposal fee based upon quote from a private Class I facility in Bartow, FL.Dredging Type Mechanical dredging with handling and dewatering on open area of the

Scottish Rite Temple Association site. Mechanical dredging assumed becauseof limitations of space and need to maintain the dredged material as dry aspractical for handling and disposal.

Contingency 20% allowance as is typical for a 30% stage of design development costestimate.

Table 10b. Cost category assumptions

ASSUMPTION DISCUSSIONField Data Collection

Surveys Recent surveys will be required to support design and permit applications.The sediment and water quality sampling programs include six samplinglocations in an effort to spatially define the limits of PAH contamination.The additional effort may help to reduce the overall project cost by isolatingmaterials containing arsenic and PAH contamination, thereby reducing theamount of dredged material planned for landfill disposal. Laboratoryevaluation parameters are based upon FDEP regulations for sediment(Chapter 62-777, F.A.C.) and water quality (62-302, F.A.C.).

Regulatory PermitsApplications Completing and submitting joint applications with FDEP/USACE and

Hillsborough Co Environmental Protection Commission and Tampa PortAuthority. This includes pre-application conference, application preparation,two rounds of responses to requests for additional information, and publicnoticing.

Engineering DesignFeasibility study The current feasibility study that is the subject of this report. Under the

provisions of the Canal Dredging Program Manual/MSBU ordinance, PhaseI study costs are included in the overall project cost if the community acceptsthe project.

Final Design Development of the construction documents (plans and specifications for theproject) based upon the accepted 30% design.

ConstructionSupport

Limited support for the contract bidding process, assistance with bidselection, construction observations and final certification to regulatoryagencies.


ConstructionProjectOrganization andControl

Contractor costs including required surveys and implementation of bestmanagement practices to control spills and stormwater drainage on the site.

Handling andTransfer Area

Site preparation – development of a dredge material management area(DMMA) (construction barrier type dike) to receive the dredged material, andcontrol drainage.Area use fee – proposed conceptual temporary rental of the 2.8 acres of openarea on the Scottish Rite Temple Association property.Site restoration – site cleanup, light grading and re-vegetation of spoilhandling area.Site security – temporary fencing to limit access to construction area.

Dredging andDewatering

Dredging - dredging by barge mounted mechanical dredge with additionalbarge(s) to receive and shuttle to shore for transfer of the dredged material tothe DMMA.Debris removal – contingency allowance to provide for the removal of largedebris that cannot be normally handled by the mechanical dredge.Dewatering – reworking of dredged material to promote drainage and drying.Landfill disposal – cost of disposal of the dredged material to a Class I landfillas required by PAH levels that exceed SCTL’s for commercial/industrialusage. If additional sediment testing (field data collection) from Phase II canshow that the PAH contaminated sediments are localized, then some of thedredged material will be considered for beneficial re-use, which could resultin lower unit costs.Severance fees – The state of Florida applies a fee for use of sedimentremoved from sovereign submerged lands. The fee is waived if the material isapplied to a public use project or if it is considered to be contaminated.Transportation – truck transport from the DMMA to the FDEP approvedlandfill.

Dredged Material TestingDredged Material testing – FDEP will likely require testing of individualbatches (estimated 500 cy) of dewatered dredged material before beingtransported from the DMMA to the final disposal site.Elutriate Testing – FDEP indicated during the pre-application discussionsthat testing of the drainage water from the DMMA will not be requiredbefore its release into Sweetwater Creek. This item is a contingency allowancein the event that testing is required.Sediment/water quality report – a synthesis report of the dredged materialand water testing program will be required for submission to the regulatoryagencies.

Environmental MonitoringPeriodic sampling of water to verify that the dredging operations are notexceeding permitted turbidity levels, as well as the staffing of the project withmanatee observers will be required as conditions to the regulatory permits.


6. Regulatory Coordination

6.1 Agency Authorizations and Permit Requirements

A synopsis of agency permit requirements and project thresholds associated with the SweetwaterCreek CDIU are described below. Permits will be obtained for the Sweetwater Creek CDIU fromthe appropriate regulatory agencies as determined by specific project variables (e.g., maintenancedredging, volume of dredge material.

Tampa Port Authority

Prior to 1995, the FDEP had state jurisdiction over submerged lands within Hillsborough County.In 1995 the Florida Legislature drafted requirements and granted delegation of the management andregulation of all submerged lands within the Hillsborough County Port District to the Tampa PortAuthority (TPA). The TPA and its jurisdiction was officially created pursuant to Special Act Chapter95-488, Laws of Florida (House Bill No. 1291), called the “TPA Special Act” and became thegoverning body and regulatory authority of public and private activities on Sovereignty Lands inHillsborough County. Through this Act, the TPA gained permitting authority over the filling,dredging, development and construction of submerged lands located within the jurisdictional watersof Hillsborough County.

The TPA Submerged Lands Management Rules (SLMR) provides for authorization as Consent ByRule under Section II (A) 1 (j), for "maintenance dredging of existing channels…which were eitherpreviously permitted by the Authority, Federal government, or State government, or constructedprior to July 1, 1967, provided that the dredging does not exceed original permitted depth andwidth”. In order to qualify as a maintenance dredging project, there must be clear evidence ofprevious dredging, which may be achieved by obtaining copies of past permit authorizations fordredging projects or by reviewing historic aerials. Review of a 1938 aerial of the Sweetwater CreekCDIU (Dana Shores) shows that the historic shoreline has been substantially modified compared tothe 2006 shoreline (Figure 4). The change in shoreline width and channel location confirms thatSweetwater Creek has been historically dredged and justifies the CDIU as a maintenance dredgingproject.

Pursuant to Section II (A) 5(c), Management Agreement, if a delegation of authority exists fromTPA to any local, state, or federal governmental agency, for the administration and enforcement ofthe Consent provisions then authority falls to this delegation rule. An Amended and RestatedInterlocal Agreement (Interlocal Agreement) between TPA and the Environmental ProtectionCommission (EPC) was executed on June 23, 2009 to provide delegation of permitting andregulatory authority for certain Minor Work Permits to the Hillsborough County EPC. The EPC is alocal government environmental agency created by Special Act Chapter 84-446, Laws of Florida(Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Act), which authorizes the implementation ofvarious environmental rules and regulations.

A Standard (Major) Work Permit is required from TPA for all projects that are requesting to dredgeand fill more than 10,000 cubic yards, do not qualify as maintenance dredging, or are expected tohave significant environmental or hydrologic impacts. Pursuant to TPA SLMR Section V(A)3(g)2,“New dredging to achieve navigable water depths or provide access to or flushing of waterbodiesdredged from private uplands shall not be approved unless: (a) There will be no significant and


Figure 4. 1938 Aerial photograph of the Sweetwater Creek CDIU project area and 2006 shoreline


unmitigated adverse impact to submerged or shoreline resources as a direct or indirect result of thedredging; and (b) The overall project would result in less impact to Sovereignty Lands than wouldbe caused by other allowable uses of the submerged lands within the applicant's riparian area.”

Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission

Based upon the authority of EPC’s Wetlands Management Division and the Interlocal Agreement, aMinor Work Permit is required for 1) “dredging or filling projects involving the removal from orreplacement on submerged lands of less than 1,000 cubic yards” or 2) “maintenance dredging of lessthan 10,000 cubic yards of material from existing canals, channels, turning basins, or berths wheredredging is to be removed and deposited on self-contained upland sites”. As indicated above, if theproposed dredge volume exceeds 10,000 cubic yards then the permit authority reverts back to TPAas a Standard Permit, with EPC serving as a commenting agency. The Tampa Bay Estuary Programis a commenting agency and will receive a copy of either the Minor or Standard Work Permitapplications.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

As a maintenance dredging activity, the FDEP will review the project through a request forexemption submitted in accordance with Chapter 40E-4.051(2)(a), F.A.C. Since the FDEPdelegated authority of sovereign submerged lands to TPA, proprietary authorization is not requiredto be issued by FDEP. Coordination with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commissionwill be conducted by the FDEP for guidance on avoidance and minimization measures relating tothe West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus).

United States Army Corps of Engineers:

The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) authorization would be issued through delegation ofauthority to the FDEP under the State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP). Therefore, FDEPsissuance of an exemption letter will include the USACEs authorization. Consultation with the USFish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) may be required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for project effectdeterminations threatened and endangered species (e.g., T. manatus).

Formal permitting applications will need to be submitted to the TPA and/or the EPA depending onthe final dredge volume. In order for the regulatory agencies to complete their review of the permitapplication and to render a final permit decision, it is likely that information such as, but not limitedto, the following will likely be required:

Bathymetric survey

Water quality and sediment data

Submerged aquatic resource survey

Emergent vegetation survey

Threatened and endangered species survey

Engineered drawings of plans and specifications

Appropriate set backs

Hydrodynamic evaluation or flushing study

Spoil containment and disposal site

Permit application fees


6.2 Natural Resource Considerations

6.2.1 Wetland Impacts

During an August 2010 meeting with the regulatory agencies, the concern for potential impact onupstream marsh areas in Sweetwater Creek was identified. The question is whether the dredging willchange the slope of the water surface along the length of the creek to the extent that it could lead toexcessive drainage of the upland marsh areas. An analysis of the dredging effects on the stream slopewas conducted and is described in detail in Appendix V.

The analysis shows that the water surface elevation at the upper end of the dredging area (MemorialHighway Bridge) will drop slightly (0.75 in) after dredging compared to pre-dredging conditions.Within a short distance upstream of the Bridge, the change in the water surface elevation becomesvanishingly small. As a result, no changes in water levels due to dredging are anticipated to occur inthe upstream marsh areas.

7. Assessments

7.1 Benefits Analysis

As part of the Hillsborough County Canal Dredging MSBU Program, Fishkind & Associatesdeveloped a Master Assessment Methodology as a means to determine the benefits of a canaldredging project and to equitably proportion its costs among the individual properties that receivethese benefits. The Master Assessment Methodology was accepted by the BOCC on April 20, 2011.Appendix VI outlines the features of the assessment methodology and its application to theSweetwater Creek CDIU.

In allocating the amount of special assessments to benefiting property, Florida governments haveused a variety of methods including, but not limited to: property footage, parcel area, trip rates (e.g.,roadway projects), equivalent residential units, dwelling units, acreage, and property value. Thosemethods directly relating to a dredging project were identified, and include:

access to the dredged area

potential use and navigation of the dredged area

rear lot length

existing permitted and unpermitted boat docks

boat ramps

All of the benefits from the County’s dredging project are equitably allocated to benefitingproperties based on an equivalent canal dredging unit (ECDU). The Ordinance defines an ECDU asthe apportionment unit or criteria utilized to determine the Assessment for each parcel of property,as set forth in the Initial Assessment Resolution. Appendix VI provides full details of thedevelopment of the ECDUs and their assignment to individual properties.

7.2 Total Project Cost Estimate

The total project cost estimate consists of the capital costs of construction of the project and thecosts of financing the project. Section 5 of this report outlines the design considerations of theproposed dredging project and estimates the cost of implementing the project at $1,037,199 (Table9). The financing requirement costs are outlined in Section 2.2 of Appendix VI, and total $381,023.The total project cost estimate is therefore $1,418,222.


7.3 Specific Assessment Estimate

The Sweetwater Creek CDIU consists of 27 properties, including three commercial propertiesdirectly affected by the Canal Dredging Program. Once the parcel ECDUs were determined andtotaled for each parcel, then a total number of ECDUs was calculated for the Sweetwater CreekCDIU. From there, each parcel’s ECDU total was divided by the total number of ECDUs in theCDIU to obtain the parcel’s percentage of the total ECDUs. The total debt allocation for theSweetwater Creek CDIU is $1,418,222, and each parcel’s percentage of the total ECDUs ismultiplied against that total to determine each parcel’s allocation of total debt. Refer to AppendixVI, Section 4.0). Table 11 below shows the ECDU calculations for all of the parcels located withinthe Sweetwater Creek CDIU.

Table 11. ECDU Calculations and Subsequent Debt Allocation

SITE_ADDRDredgeArea

Rear LotLength

BoatDock

BoatRamp

TotalECDUs

Percent ofTotal ECDUs

Total DebtAllocation

Annual over10 Years

4050 DANA SHORES DR 2 5 4 0 11 4.825% $68,422.99 $6,842.30

4153 SALTWATER BV 2 5 4 0 11 4.825% $68,422.99 $6,842.30

4155 SALTWATER BV 2 3 4 0 9 3.947% $55,982.45 $5,598.24

4157 SALTWATER BV 2 3 4 0 9 3.947% $55,982.45 $5,598.24

4159 SALTWATER BV 2 5 5 0 12 5.263% $74,643.26 $7,464.33

4161 SALTWATER BV 2 4 3 0 9 3.947% $55,982.45 $5,598.24

4163 SALTWATER BV 2 3 3 0 8 3.509% $49,762.18 $4,976.22

4165 SALTWATER BV 2 3 3 0 8 3.509% $49,762.18 $4,976.22

4167 SALTWATER BV 2 3 3 0 8 3.509% $49,762.18 $4,976.22

4169 SALTWATER BV 2 3 5 0 10 4.386% $62,202.72 $6,220.27

4171 SALTWATER BV 2 2 0 0 4 1.754% $24,881.09 $2,488.11

4173 SALTWATER BV 2 2 3 0 7 3.070% $43,541.90 $4,354.19

4201 SALTWATER BV 2 2 4 0 8 3.509% $49,762.18 $4,976.22

4203 SALTWATER BV 2 3 3 0 8 3.509% $49,762.18 $4,976.22

4205 SALTWATER BV 2 3 2 0 7 3.070% $43,541.90 $4,354.19

4207 SALTWATER BV 2 3 3 0 8 3.509% $49,762.18 $4,976.22

4209 SALTWATER BV 2 3 4 0 9 3.947% $55,982.45 $5,598.24

4211 SALTWATER BV 2 3 3 0 8 3.509% $49,762.18 $4,976.22

4213 SALTWATER BV 2 4 3 0 9 3.947% $55,982.45 $5,598.24

4215 SALTWATER BV 2 4 3 0 9 3.947% $55,982.45 $5,598.24

4217 SALTWATER BV 2 5 3 0 10 4.386% $62,202.72 $6,220.27

4219 SALTWATER BV 2 1 0 0 3 1.316% $18,660.82 $1,866.08

4307 SALTWATER BV 2 4 3 0 9 3.947% $55,982.45 $5,598.24

4309 SALTWATER BV 2 5 2 0 9 3.947% $55,982.45 $5,598.24

4311 SALTWATER BV 2 1 2 0 5 2.193% $31,101.36 $3,110.14

5450 MEMORIAL HY 2 5 2 4 13 5.702% $80,863.54 $8,086.35

5500 MEMORIAL HY 2 5 0 0 7 3.070% $43,541.90 $4,354.19

228 100.00% $1,418,222.00 $141,822.20


8. References

Hillsborough County, April 15, 2009. Canal Dredging Program Manual.http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/publicworks/engineering/resources/publications/stormwater/CanalDredgingProgramManuall.pdf

PBS&J, 2006. Dredging Feasibility Report, Dana Shores, Comprehensive Canal Dredging andPreventive Measures Feasibility Study (CCDPM), Hillsborough County, StormwaterManagement Section, Public Works Department, Contract 03-1322, URL:http://www.hillsborough.wateratlas.usf.edu/CCDPM/CanalStudy/Individual%20Feasibility%20Reports/Dana%20Shores/

Tetra Tech, 2011. Benthic Resource Survey Report, Sweetwater Creek, Tampa, Florida. Tetra Tech,Boynton Beach, Florida. 6 pp.

APPENDIX I

PROPERTY OWNER APPROVAL SIGNATURES

Text

Sweetwater Creek LOI

LegendSweetWaterCreekLOISignature

Signature VerifiedNo Signature

lesley.bertolotti

Text Box

Figure 3

Petition Verified BoatAddress Signed Owner Dock Ramp Owner Market Value

4161 Saltwater Boulevard * Ronald D. and Lisa F Rodriguez $506,5424163 Saltwater Boulevard * * David M. Masi (Michelle B. Garvey and David B. Kucherner signed petition) $483,2804165 Saltwater Boulevard * * * Edward L. Jr. and Rachel M. Dalton $466,2764167 Saltwater Boulevard * * * Raymond R. and Martha I. Larson $466,2584169 Saltwater Boulevard * * * Ted S. Wheless $475,2584171 Saltwater Boulevard Jose S. and May V. Lavarro + David P. and Shirley L. Beach $476,9824173 Saltwater Boulevard * * * Richard and Mimoza Noll $480,5344201 Saltwater Boulevard * * * Kevin P. and Christine L. McCarron $377,7164203 Saltwater Boulevard * * * John F. III and Carol L. Keogh $450,2074205 Saltwater Boulevard * * * Steve J. and Pam B. Toner $422,2774207 Saltwater Boulevard * * * John and Leslie M. Berlin $389,5154209 Saltwater Boulevard * * * Mark C. Stine $320,3214211 Saltwater Boulevard * * * Robin Lin Pokoj $328,8914213 Saltwater Boulevard * * * Lyudmyla Artemenko Norgart $306,9784215 Saltwater Boulevard * H. Danner Hryharrow $301,1664217 Saltwater Boulevard * Howard B. and Clare Quirk Jackson $329,2764219 Saltwater Boulevard * * Kevin C. and Maria E. Linden $305,0664307 Saltwater Boulevard * * * Linda C. Justen and Russell Richardson $355,0884309 Saltwater Boulevard * * * Peter Jr. and Martha R. Ragano $304,4864311 Saltwater Boulevard * * * Paul C. Comingore $261,4215500 Memorial Highway Scottish Rite Temple Association, Inc. $4,844,325Sweetwater Cove/Dana Shores (Apartments?) *

Total Lots 22Petition Signed (verified) 15Percentage Signed 68.18%

Early Payment Discount 4.00%Collection Fee 3.50%Bond Interest Rate 7.00%Number of Periods 30Total Available for Annual Debt Service $21,665.92

Par Amount $265,000.00Construction / Acquisition Fund $192,259.08Debt Service Reserve Fund $21,665.92Capitalized Interest Fund $37,100.00Underwriter's Discount $3,975.00Cost of Issuance $10,000.00

Interest Rate 7.00%Dated/Delivered Date 7/1/2010Capitalized Interest Through 7/1/2012DSRF Deposit $21,665.92Number of Periods 30Maturity 5/1/2041Underwriter's Discount 1.50%Total Cost of Issuance* $10,000.00

Annual Net Revenue Assessment

Address Market Value 0.15% 0.30% for Debt Service - Discount Land Value Base Size4161 Saltwater Boulevard $506,542 $759.81 $1,519.63 $1,519.63 $1,405.65 $281,520 3,1584163 Saltwater Boulevard $483,280 $724.92 $1,449.84 $1,449.84 $1,341.10 $281,790 2,8484165 Saltwater Boulevard $466,276 $699.41 $1,398.83 $1,398.83 $1,293.92 $272,700 2,6274167 Saltwater Boulevard $466,258 $699.39 $1,398.77 $1,398.77 $1,293.87 $272,340 2,8874169 Saltwater Boulevard $475,258 $712.89 $1,425.77 $1,425.77 $1,318.84 $266,220 3,1104171 Saltwater Boulevard $476,982 $715.47 $1,430.95 $1,430.95 $1,323.63 $267,927 2,7394173 Saltwater Boulevard $480,534 $720.80 $1,441.60 $1,441.60 $1,333.48 $267,750 3,2104201 Saltwater Boulevard $377,716 $566.57 $1,133.15 $1,133.15 $1,048.16 $229,950 2,4464203 Saltwater Boulevard $450,207 $675.31 $1,350.62 $1,350.62 $1,249.32 $275,010 3,1964205 Saltwater Boulevard $422,277 $633.42 $1,266.83 $1,266.83 $1,171.82 $269,280 2,7924207 Saltwater Boulevard $389,515 $584.27 $1,168.55 $1,168.55 $1,080.90 $213,312 3,2644209 Saltwater Boulevard $320,321 $480.48 $960.96 $960.96 $888.89 $179,520 2,4454211 Saltwater Boulevard $328,891 $493.34 $986.67 $986.67 $912.67 $161,568 2,8954213 Saltwater Boulevard $306,978 $460.47 $920.93 $920.93 $851.86 $163,620 2,3704215 Saltwater Boulevard $301,166 $451.75 $903.50 $903.50 $835.74 $158,166 2,3664217 Saltwater Boulevard $329,276 $493.91 $987.83 $987.83 $913.74 $183,600 2,4714219 Saltwater Boulevard $305,066 $457.60 $915.20 $915.20 $846.56 $157,893 2,6254307 Saltwater Boulevard $355,088 $532.63 $1,065.26 $1,065.26 $985.37 $288,648 2,6904309 Saltwater Boulevard $304,486 $456.73 $913.46 $913.46 $844.95 $186,219 2,1474311 Saltwater Boulevard $261,421 $392.13 $784.26 $784.26 $725.44 $121,338 2,1845500 Memorial Highway $4,844,325 $7,266.49 $14,532.98 $0.00 $0.00 $2,790,512Sweetwater Cove/Dana Shores (Apartments?) $0.00 $0.00

$23,422.61 $21,665.92

Address Base Size PIN Folio Tax District Property Use Plat Book/Page4161 Saltwater Boulevard 3,158 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00024.0 012193-0928 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0054/00344163 Saltwater Boulevard 2,848 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00023.0 012193-0926 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0054/00344165 Saltwater Boulevard 2,627 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00022.0 012193-0924 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0054/00344167 Saltwater Boulevard 2,887 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00021.0 012193-0922 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0054/00344169 Saltwater Boulevard 3,110 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00020.0 012193-0836 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0052/00524171 Saltwater Boulevard 2,739 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00019.0 012193-0834 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0052/00524173 Saltwater Boulevard 3,210 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00018.0 012193-0832 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0052/00524201 Saltwater Boulevard 2,446 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00017.0 012193-0786 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0051/00294203 Saltwater Boulevard 3,196 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00016.0 012193-0784 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0051/00294205 Saltwater Boulevard 2,792 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00015.0 012193-0782 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0051/00294207 Saltwater Boulevard 3,264 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00014.0 012193-0780 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0051/00294209 Saltwater Boulevard 2,445 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00013.0 012193-0778 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0051/00294211 Saltwater Boulevard 2,895 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00012.0 012193-0776 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0051/00294213 Saltwater Boulevard 2,370 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00011.0 012193-0774 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0051/00294215 Saltwater Boulevard 2,366 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00010.0 012193-0772 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0051/00294217 Saltwater Boulevard 2,471 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00009.0 012193-0708 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0048/00624219 Saltwater Boulevard 2,625 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00008.0 012193-0706 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0048/00624307 Saltwater Boulevard 2,690 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00003.0 012193-0816 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0052/00454309 Saltwater Boulevard 2,147 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00002.0 012193-0814 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0052/00454311 Saltwater Boulevard 2,184 U-12-29-17-0GM-000001-00001.0 012193-0812 H Unicorporated 0100 Single Family R 0052/00455500 Memorial HighwaySweetwater Cove/Dana Shores (Apartments?)

Address Plat Book/Page Neighborhood Subdivision Lot # Block # Year Last Sale4161 Saltwater Boulevard 0054/0034 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision Fourth Addition 24 1 19964163 Saltwater Boulevard 0054/0034 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision Fourth Addition 23 1 20094165 Saltwater Boulevard 0054/0034 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision Fourth Addition 22 1 19844167 Saltwater Boulevard 0054/0034 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision Fourth Addition 21 1 19934169 Saltwater Boulevard 0052/0052 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision Third Addition 20 1 20004171 Saltwater Boulevard 0052/0052 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision Third Addition 19 1 20034173 Saltwater Boulevard 0052/0052 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision First Addition 18 1 20034201 Saltwater Boulevard 0051/0029 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision First Addition 17 1 19924203 Saltwater Boulevard 0051/0029 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision First Addition 16 1 19974205 Saltwater Boulevard 0051/0029 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision First Addition 15 1 19874207 Saltwater Boulevard 0051/0029 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision First Addition 14 1 19904209 Saltwater Boulevard 0051/0029 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision First Addition 13 1 20074211 Saltwater Boulevard 0051/0029 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision First Addition 12 1 19994213 Saltwater Boulevard 0051/0029 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision First Addition 11 1 20054215 Saltwater Boulevard 0051/0029 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision First Addition 10 1 19994217 Saltwater Boulevard 0048/0062 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GI | Sweetwater Subdivision 9 1 20054219 Saltwater Boulevard 0048/0062 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GI | Sweetwater Subdivision 8 1 20044307 Saltwater Boulevard 0052/0045 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision Second Addition 3 1 20084309 Saltwater Boulevard 0052/0045 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision Second Addition 2 1 19834311 Saltwater Boulevard 0052/0045 209002.00 | Sweetwater Area 0GM | Sweetwater Subdivision Second Addition 1 1 20045500 Memorial HighwaySweetwater Cove/Dana Shores (Apartments?)

Assessment as a %Address Year Last Sale Assessed Value Taxable Value Last Year's Taxes Proposed Taxes of Proposed Taxes Rollback Property Taxes

4161 Saltwater Boulevard 1996 $356,955.00 $306,955.00 $6,428.15 $6,405.92 21.94% $7,655.164163 Saltwater Boulevard 2009 $483,280.00 $483,280.00 $12,680.00 $8,963.10 14.96% $10,706.194165 Saltwater Boulevard 1984 $321,217.00 $271,217.00 $5,702.24 $5,682.49 22.77% $6,792.004167 Saltwater Boulevard 1993 $317,659.00 $267,659.00 $5,629.99 $5,610.47 23.06% $6,706.084169 Saltwater Boulevard 2000 $354,325.00 $304,325.00 $6,374.74 $6,352.68 20.76% $7,591.634171 Saltwater Boulevard 2003 $317,927.00 $267,927.00 $5,635.42 $5,615.89 23.57% $6,712.554173 Saltwater Boulevard 2003 $470,221.00 $420,221.00 $8,728.77 $8,696.76 15.33% $10,390.754201 Saltwater Boulevard 1992 $346,944.00 $296,944.00 $6,007.48 $6,203.27 16.90% $7,413.374203 Saltwater Boulevard 1997 $312,588.00 $262,588.00 $5,527.00 $5,507.81 22.68% $6,583.624205 Saltwater Boulevard 1987 $286,826.00 $236,826.00 $5,003.74 $4,986.32 23.50% $5,961.384207 Saltwater Boulevard 1990 $317,200.00 $267,200.00 $5,620.66 $5,601.19 19.30% $6,694.994209 Saltwater Boulevard 2007 $320,321.00 $270,321.00 $9,053.35 $5,664.35 15.69% $6,770.374211 Saltwater Boulevard 1999 $287,553.00 $237,553.00 $5,018.50 $5,001.05 18.25% $5,978.954213 Saltwater Boulevard 2005 $306,978.00 $256,978.00 $8,438.22 $5,394.26 15.79% $6,448.124215 Saltwater Boulevard 1999 $301,166.00 $251,166.00 $5,544.07 $5,276.62 15.84% $6,307.754217 Saltwater Boulevard 2005 $329,276.00 $329,276.00 $9,499.46 $6,665.48 13.71% $7,952.714219 Saltwater Boulevard 2004 $305,066.00 $255,066.00 $5,905.91 $5,355.56 15.81% $6,401.944307 Saltwater Boulevard 2008 $288,648.00 $238,648.00 $10,547.64 $5,023.20 19.62% $6,005.404309 Saltwater Boulevard 1983 $224,681.00 $174,681.00 $3,741.48 $3,728.32 22.66% $4,460.474311 Saltwater Boulevard 2004 $261,421.00 $211,421.00 $5,571.56 $4,472.07 16.22% $5,347.815500 Memorial Highway $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Sweetwater Cove/Dana Shores (Apartments?)

Address Rollback Property Taxes Front Foot Depth Rear Foot Use Code Description Zone4161 Saltwater Boulevard $7,655.16 92 139 06D0 Canalfront Class 30 RSC-64163 Saltwater Boulevard $10,706.19 93 131 06D0 Canalfront Class 30 RSC-64165 Saltwater Boulevard $6,792.00 90 133 06D0 Canalfront Class 30 RSC-64167 Saltwater Boulevard $6,706.08 89 135 06D0 Canalfront Class 30 RSC-64169 Saltwater Boulevard $7,591.63 87 136 06D0 Canalfront Class 30 RSC-64171 Saltwater Boulevard $6,712.55 97 137 06D0 Canalfront Class 30 RSC-64173 Saltwater Boulevard $10,390.75 85 155 06D0 Canalfront Class 30 RSC-64201 Saltwater Boulevard $7,413.37 73 154 06D0 Canalfront Class 30 RSC-64203 Saltwater Boulevard $6,583.62 89 143 06D0 Canalfront Class 30 RSC-64205 Saltwater Boulevard $5,961.38 88 136 06D0 Canalfront Class 30 RSC-64207 Saltwater Boulevard $6,694.99 88 134 06D0 Canalfront Class 24 RSC-64209 Saltwater Boulevard $6,770.37 88 135 06D0 Canalfront Class 20 RSC-64211 Saltwater Boulevard $5,978.95 88 135 06B8 Canalfront Class 18 RSC-64213 Saltwater Boulevard $6,448.12 90 134 06B8 Canalfront Class 18 RSC-64215 Saltwater Boulevard $6,307.75 87 132 06B8 Canalfront Class 18 RSC-64217 Saltwater Boulevard $7,952.71 100 139 06B8 Canalfront Class 18 RSC-64219 Saltwater Boulevard $6,401.94 96.5 130 06B8 Canalfront Class 18 RSC-64307 Saltwater Boulevard $6,005.40 114 147 06B8 Canalfront Class 18 RSC-64309 Saltwater Boulevard $4,460.47 110 126 06B8 Canalfront Class 18 RSC-64311 Saltwater Boulevard $5,347.81 63 175 06B8 Canalfront Class 18 RSC-65500 Memorial Highway $0.00Sweetwater Cove/Dana Shores (Apartments?)

[ PRINT THIS PAGE ] [ CLOSE THIS PAGE ]

Map created on 1/10/2010 10:06:00 PM. 0 151 ft

Copyright 2004. Hillsborough County Property Appraiser.

Hillsborough County Tampa, FL : Parcel Query System http://propmap3.hcpafl.org/printmap.asp?folio=&minX=474285.117327128&minY=1326212.9...

1 of 1 1/10/2010 10:08 PM





1 of 1 1/10/2010 9:59 PM





1 of 1 1/10/2010 10:04 PM

APPENDIX II

2006 BATHYMETRIC SURVEY RESULTS

APPENDIX III

2010 BENTHIC COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT

BENTHIC RESOURCE SURVEY REPORT SWEETWATER CREEK

TAMPA, FLORIDA

Prepared By:

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 1901 S. Congress Ave. Ste 270

Boynton Beach, FL 33426

Prepared For:

Hillsborough County 4012 Gunn Hwy. Ste. 140

Tampa, FL 33618

February 2011

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Project Location .................................................................................................................................. 3

3.0 Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 4

4.0 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 4

7.0 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 6

8.0 References .......................................................................................................................................... 6

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photo 1. Live oyster observed outside the project area ................................................................................. 4 Photo 2. Sediment sample collected via hand core inside project area ........................................................ 4

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.Location Map ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2. Map of benthic survey area showing benthic resources and locations of sediment samples .... 5

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Results of in situ grain analysis for five sediment samples collected inside project area. .................................................................................................................................................... 6

Benthic Resource Survey Report Sweetwater Creek

3

1.0 Introduction Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (TtEC), on behalf of Hillsborough County, performed a qualitative benthic resource investigation as part of the feasibility report associated with Phase II of the Comprehensive Canal Dredging Program Manual (CCDPM), for the Sweetwater Creek Canal Dredging Improvement Unit (CDIU). Qualified TtEC scientists surveyed approximately 7.43 acres of submerged lands within the proposed dredge area. In addition, five sediment samples were collected throughout the proposed project area and analyzed in situ for grain size. Presented in this report are observations made during the benthic resource survey.

The purpose of the benthic resource survey was to determine presence/absence and identify the approximate location of benthic resources (i.e. seagrass, oysters) within the proposed project site. Surveys were completed prior to September 30 as NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division recognizes June 1 through September 30 as the preferred seagrass survey window (Karazsia, 2010).

2.0 Project Location The proposed Sweetwater Creek dredging area is located in the city of Tampa, approximately 2,000 feet south of the Memorial Highway Bridge. Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates for the site are as follows: Latitude 27º 85’40.94” North, Longitude 82º33’42.83” West.

Figure 1. Project location.


4

Photo 1. Sediment sample collected via hand core inside the project area.

Photo 1. Live oyster observed outside the project area.

3.0 Methods The benthic resource survey was conducted by three (3) TtEC staff; three certified divers trained in aquatic and marine biological resource. The survey was conducted in two days. Field activities were performed using a 21 ft. Mako vessel. Positioning data was recorded and processed utilizing Hypack® 2010 marine surveying, positioning, and navigation software. The navigational software provided digital navigational data logging and a real-time display of the vessel’s track. Underwater photography was used to record representative images of resources and conditions present within the survey area.

Benthic resource (seagrass and oyster beds) mapping was performed by scientific divers supported by Trimble® DGPS and Hypack® 2010 to catalog the distribution and abundance of benthic resources. Data were processed with Hypack® Single Beam Editor and subsequently exported in a .xyz format. The raw data were imported into ArcGIS® 9 (ArcMap™ 9.3) where shapefiles were created and analyzed. Georeferenced maps of benthic resource occurrences were produced.

Sediment samples were obtained using a hang core. Once on deck, sediment samples were visually assessed using the Unified Soils Classification System.

4.0 Results A total of 7.43 acres were surveyed for benthic resources at the proposed Sweetwater Creek dredging site (Figure 3). Field investigations yielded no benthic resources within the proposed project area. Individual live oysters were observed at five locations during the survey however all locations were outside the proposed dredging area (Photo 1).

A total of five sediment samples were collected via hand cores

(Photo 2). Figure 3 shows the location where the samples were taken throughout the proposed project site. Table 1 shows the results of the in situ grain size analysis for all five sediment samples (Cores 1-5). Four of the five samples collected (Cores 1-4) contained very fine, well sorted organic muck. Core 5 collected from the northern part of the proposed project site yielded well sorted fine to medium grained sand.


5

Figure 2. Map of benthic survey area showing benthic resources and locations of sediment samples.


6

Table 1. Results of in situ grain analysis for five sediment samples collected inside project area.

Sample Name Results of in situ analysis

Core 1 Well sorted, very fine, organic muck. Slight organic odor. Gley 1, 2.5/10Y greenish-black




Core 5 Well sorted, fine to medium grained sand.

7.0 Summary A team of three TtEC biologists conducted a benthic investigation as part of the feasibility report associated with Phase II of the CCDPM for the Sweetwater Creek CDIU. The purpose of the investigation was to locate and identify all benthic resources present within the proposed Sweetwater Creek dredge area. A total of 7.43 acres of submerged lands were surveyed and mapped within the project area. Results from the benthic survey yielded no benthic resources within the proposed dredge area. Individual live oysters were located just outside the project site at five different locations. In addition to the benthic investigation, TtEC scientists collected a total of five sediment samples throughout the Sweetwater Creek project area. These samples were collected via hand core and analyzed in situ for grain size. Four of the five samples contained organic muck. Only one sample, collected at the northernmost end of the project site, contained sand. This field effort was intended to meet the needs of the feasibility study and was not intended to satisfy survey requirements of the permitting process.

8.0 References

Karazsia, J. 2010. A Science-based Seagrass Survey Windown for Coastal Construction Project Planning in Florida. Prepared for NOAA NMFS Southeast Region, Habitat Conservation Division, West Palm Beach, Florida. Pp 1-14.

APPENDIX IV

2011 LABORATORY RESULTS OF SEDIMENT AND

WATER QUALITY ANALYSES

Millennium Laboratories Inc. - CERTIFICATE OF RESULTS

Tracking #: [ 8423.0 ] [ QuintessentialLIMS-Version-12.22.10 ] Page 1 of 103

Millennium Laboratories Inc.12721 Race Track RoadTampa, FL 33626-1314

Voice Phone: (813) 925-3871Fax Phone: (813) 925-3872

Email: [email protected]

Florida Department of Health Certification Number E84899 Expires: July 01, 2011

CERTIFICATE OF RESULTS

TRACKING Number:8423.0 DATE OF ISSUE:2011-06-22 17:12:33

Client Project ID: 106-4072 Hillsborough CountyLab Project ID: 011100480

This Certificate of Results is provided for:Ms. Erin Hague

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.1901 S. Congress Ave, Suite 270Boynton Beach, Florida 33426

561-735-0482

Kathy Sheffield - Lab Director/Project-Mgr. Hatem Elgendi - Technical Manager

This Certificate of Results meets all the requirements of 2003-NELAC Specifications unless otherwise specified within thisreport. This Certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written consent of Millennium Laboratories. ThisCertificate of Results relates only to items tested or to the samples as received by Millennium Laboratories Inc. The estimateduncertainty of these test results is based on statistics that can be furnished upon request. If you have obtained possession of thisCertificate of Results and you are not the intended recipient, as indicated above, please preserve the confidential nature of thisreport and notify Millennium Laboratories using the contact information above. Millennium Laboratories retains ownership ofthis document until properly delivered to the intended recipient.



Case Narrative - Observations, Opinions and Interpretations

Seven liquid samples and five sediment samples were received on May 27, 2011 in good condition. The sample coolertemperatures were 4ºC, 4ºC, 5ºC, and 6ºC upon receipt, with wet ice present. The samples were analyzed for Low-Level PAHsby EPA Method 8270C and metals (AlAsCdCrCuPbZnHg)by EPA Method 6010B/7470A/7471A. Elutriate extractions werealso performed on the sediment samples, with subsequent analysis of the elutriate for metals. The liquid samples were alsoanalyzed for Oil and Grease by EPA Method 1664-HEM, total nitrogen by EPA Method 353.2/351.2, and total phosphorusby EPA Method 365.2. The analyses for Oil and Grease, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus were subcontracted to AccutestLaboratories, Orlando, FL Certification #83510. Laboratory SOPs MLSM-0004, MLSM-0005, MLME-0005, MLME-0010,and MLME-0011 were used for the analyses performed by MLI. EPA Method 8270C Sediment - Two of the samples required dilution due to the abundance of target analytes. The surrogateswere diluted out when the samples were analyzed at the dilutions. EPA Method 8270C Water - Insufficient sample volume was provided to perform liquid matrix spikes for this analyticalmethod. However, the recoveries of the lab control spikes were within established limits. EPA Method 6010 - Elevated detection limits are reported for some water sample or elutriate sample results due to matrixinterference, as exhibited by poor internal standard recoveries. No additional QA/QC issues were encountered. All spikes and surrogates were recovered within established limits, except asnoted above. All method-specified holding times were met. Please contact Kathy Sheffield at (813) 925-3871 or [email protected] if you have any questions or require additionalinformation. The client`s chain of custody form, the subcontracted laboratory`s report and the invoice have been attached to the laboratory`sCertificate of Results.

Sample Information:ML Sample Number: Client Sample ID: Date Collected:

011100480-01 WS01 2011-05-27 14:00:00

011100480-02 ES01 2011-05-27 14:00:00

011100480-03 SED01 2011-05-27 14:15:00

011100480-04 WS02 2011-05-27 14:43:00

011100480-05 ES02 2011-05-27 14:43:00

011100480-06 SED02 2011-05-27 14:50:00

011100480-07 WS03 2011-05-27 15:12:00

011100480-08 ES03 2011-05-27 15:12:00

011100480-09 SED03 2011-05-27 15:25:00

011100480-10 DUP 01 2011-05-27 15:25:00

011100480-11 WS04 2011-05-27 15:25:00

011100480-12 ES04 2011-05-27 15:40:00

011100480-13 SED04 2011-05-27 15:46:00

011100480-14 WS05 2011-05-27 16:00:00

011100480-15 ES05 2011-05-27 16:00:00



Sample Information:ML Sample Number: Client Sample ID: Date Collected:

011100480-16 DUP 02 2011-05-27 16:00:00

011100480-17 SED 05 2011-05-27 16:10:00

011100480-18 SED 01 Elutriate 2011-05-27 14:15:00

011100480-19 SED 02 Elutriate 2011-05-27 14:50:00

011100480-20 SED 03 Elutriate 2011-05-27 15:25:00

011100480-21 SED 04 Elutriate 2011-05-27 15:46:00

011100480-22 SED 05 Elutriate 2011-05-27 16:10:00

Matrix Spike Information:Analysis Performed: Identifier MS/MSD: ML Sample

# MS/MSD:ML Batch ID:

S8270C-LL Batch 011100472--1305 060511Q

A7470A-Hg Batch 011100485--0101 060311HW1

A7470A-Hg SED 05 Elutriate 011100480--2201 060311HW1

S7471A-Hg Batch 011100484--0202 060211HS1

S7471A-Hg Batch 011100484--0402 060211HS1

S6010B-Al SED 05 011100480--1702 053111CS1

S6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn

SED 05 011100480--1702 053111CS1

A6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn

Batch 011100468--0101 053111CW1

A6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn

Batch 011100468--1101 053111CW1

A6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn

SED 04 Elutriate 011100480--2101 061411CW1

A6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn

Batch 011100506--0112 061411CW1

A6010B-Al-S SED 04 Elutriate 011100480--2101 061411CW1

A6010B-Al-S Batch 011100506--0112 061411CW1

A6010B-Al-S Batch 011100468--0101 053111CW1

A6010B-Al-S Batch 011100468--1101 053111CW1



Solids Determination

Analytical Test: % Solids Method: SOP MLEX-0005 based on method 2540G

Batch ID MLI # Sample ID Result Units LOD(MDL) Date/Time Analyzed Analyst

053111PS1 011100480--03 SED01 78.1 % 0.10 2011-05-31 11:00:00 AA

053111PS1 011100480--06 SED02 33.0 % 0.10 2011-05-31 11:00:00 AA

053111PS1 011100480--09 SED03 43.1 % 0.10 2011-05-31 11:00:00 AA

053111PS1 011100480--13 SED04 27.2 % 0.10 2011-05-31 11:00:00 AA

053111PS1 011100480--17 SED 05 80.3 % 0.10 2011-05-31 11:00:00 AA

Laboratory DuplicatesBatch ID MLI # Sample ID Result Units % RPD Precision

Limit

053111PS1 011100472--01 Batch 82.3 % 0.23 10

053111PS1 011100472QC01 Batch 82.1 %



ML#:011100480-01 container [01] Field Ident: WS01 Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-27 14:00:00 Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A8270C-LL SOP : MLSM-0004 MLSM-0005 Instrument : SMB5973 Method: EPA 8270C Low Level PAH Batch ID:060211DDate Prepared:2011-06-02 13:00:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-05 06:42:00

CAS# Parameter Result QUAL Units LOD(MDL) LOQ(PQL) DF|QF Analyst

90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.17 U ug/L 0.17 1.0 1.00 HE


83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.16 U ug/L 0.16 1.0 1.00 HE

208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.15 U ug/L 0.15 1.0 1.00 HE

120-12-7 Anthracene 0.11 U ug/L 0.11 0.20 1.00 HE

56-55-3 Benz(a)Anthracene 0.10 U ug/L 0.10 0.20 1.00 HE

50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.10 U ug/L 0.10 0.20 1.00 HE

205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.080 U ug/L 0.080 0.20 1.00 HE

191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.050 U ug/L 0.050 0.50 1.00 HE

207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.18 U ug/L 0.18 0.20 1.00 HE

218-01-9 Chrysene 0.10 U ug/L 0.10 0.20 1.00 HE

53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene 0.15 U ug/L 0.15 0.20 1.00 HE

206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.11 U ug/L 0.11 0.50 1.00 HE

86-73-7 Fluorene 0.19 U ug/L 0.19 0.50 1.00 HE

193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.060 U ug/L 0.060 0.20 1.00 HE

91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.16 U ug/L 0.16 1.0 1.00 HE

85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.14 U ug/L 0.14 0.20 1.00 HE

129-00-0 Pyrene 0.19 U ug/L 0.19 0.50 1.00 HESurrogatesCAS# Parameter Result Expect

ValueQUAL Recovery Unit Limits Analyst

321-60-8 2-Fluorobiphenyl 3.97 5.00 79 % 30 - 170 HE

4165-60-0 Nitrobenzene-d5 4.23 5.00 85 % 30 - 170 HE

1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 3.55 5.00 71 % 30 - 170 HE















218-01-9 Chrysene 0.10 U ug/L 0.10 0.20 1.00 HE



86-73-7 Fluorene 0.19 U ug/L 0.19 0.50 1.00 HE








1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 3.29 5.00 66 % 30 - 170 HE















218-01-9 Chrysene 0.10 U ug/L 0.10 0.20 1.00 HE



86-73-7 Fluorene 0.19 U ug/L 0.19 0.50 1.00 HE








1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 3.86 5.00 77 % 30 - 170 HE



ML#:011100480-10 container [01] Field Ident: DUP 01 Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-27 15:25:00 Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A8270C-LL SOP : MLSM-0004 MLSM-0005 Instrument : SMB5973 Method: EPA 8270C Low Level PAH Batch ID:060211DDate Prepared:2011-06-02 13:00:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-05 21:05:00












218-01-9 Chrysene 0.10 U ug/L 0.10 0.20 1.00 HE



86-73-7 Fluorene 0.19 U ug/L 0.19 0.50 1.00 HE








1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 2.92 5.00 58 % 30 - 170 HE















218-01-9 Chrysene 0.10 U ug/L 0.10 0.20 1.00 HE



86-73-7 Fluorene 0.19 U ug/L 0.19 0.50 1.00 HE








1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 3.96 5.00 79 % 30 - 170 HE















218-01-9 Chrysene 0.10 U ug/L 0.10 0.20 1.00 HE



86-73-7 Fluorene 0.19 U ug/L 0.19 0.50 1.00 HE








1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 3.61 5.00 72 % 30 - 170 HE



ML#:011100480-16 container [01] Field Ident: DUP 02 Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-27 16:00:00 Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A8270C-LL SOP : MLSM-0004 MLSM-0005 Instrument : SMB5973 Method: EPA 8270C Low Level PAH Batch ID:060211DDate Prepared:2011-06-02 13:00:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-06 02:06:00












218-01-9 Chrysene 0.10 U ug/L 0.10 0.20 1.00 HE



86-73-7 Fluorene 0.19 U ug/L 0.19 0.50 1.00 HE








1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 3.94 5.00 79 % 30 - 170 HE



ML#:011100480-03 container [01] Field Ident: SED01 Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-27 14:15:00Percent Solids: 78.1 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S8270C-LL SOP : MLSM-0004 MLSM-0005 Instrument : SMB5973 Method: EPA 8270C Low Level PAH Batch ID:060511QDate Prepared:2011-06-05 17:00:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-10 21:52:00


90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.0065 U mg/Kg dw 0.0065 0.042 1.28 HE


83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.00087 U mg/Kg dw 0.00087 0.042 1.28 HE

208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.0017 U mg/Kg dw 0.0017 0.042 1.28 HE

120-12-7 Anthracene 0.00064 U mg/Kg dw 0.00064 0.0086 1.28 HE

56-55-3 Benz(a)Anthracene 0.051 mg/Kg dw 0.0014 0.0086 1.28 HE

50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.062 mg/Kg dw 0.0015 0.0086 1.28 HE

205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.11 mg/Kg dw 0.0026 0.0086 1.28 HE

191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.063 mg/Kg dw 0.0046 0.022 1.28 HE

207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.031 mg/Kg dw 0.0024 0.0086 1.28 HE

218-01-9 Chrysene 0.068 mg/Kg dw 0.0013 0.0086 1.28 HE

53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene 0.0047 U mg/Kg dw 0.0047 0.0086 1.28 HE

206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.10 mg/Kg dw 0.0022 0.022 1.28 HE

86-73-7 Fluorene 0.0011 U mg/Kg dw 0.0011 0.022 1.28 HE

193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.057 mg/Kg dw 0.0031 0.0086 1.28 HE

91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.00049 U mg/Kg dw 0.00049 0.042 1.28 HE

85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.033 mg/Kg dw 0.00099 0.0086 1.28 HE

129-00-0 Pyrene 0.10 mg/Kg dw 0.0054 0.022 1.28 HESurrogatesCAS# Parameter Result Expect




1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 0.146 0.165 89 % 30 - 170 HE







83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.0089 I mg/Kg dw 0.0021 0.10 3.03 HE

208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.015 I mg/Kg dw 0.0039 0.10 3.03 HE

120-12-7 Anthracene 0.044 mg/Kg dw 0.0015 0.020 3.03 HE



205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.2 L mg/Kg dw 0.0061 0.020 3.03 HE




53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene 0.25 mg/Kg dw 0.011 0.020 3.03 HE


86-73-7 Fluorene 0.019 I mg/Kg dw 0.0025 0.052 3.03 HE


91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.0022 I mg/Kg dw 0.0012 0.10 3.03 HE


129-00-0 Pyrene 2.0 L mg/Kg dw 0.013 0.052 3.03 HESurrogatesCAS# Parameter Result Expect




1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 0.137 0.165 83 % 30 - 170 HE



ML#:011100480-06 DL container [01] Field Ident: SED02 Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-27 14:50:00Percent Solids: 33.0 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S8270C-LL SOP : MLSM-0004 MLSM-0005 Instrument : SMB5973 Method: EPA 8270C Low Level PAH Batch ID:060511QDate Prepared:2011-06-05 17:00:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-11 19:46:00





321-60-8 2-Fluorobiphenyl D 0.165 J1 D % 30 - 170 HE

4165-60-0 Nitrobenzene-d5 D 0.165 J1 D % 30 - 170 HE

1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 D 0.165 J1 D % 30 - 170 HE









120-12-7 Anthracene 0.029 mg/Kg dw 0.0012 0.016 2.32 HE



205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.8 L mg/Kg dw 0.0046 0.016 2.32 HE




53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene 0.20 mg/Kg dw 0.0086 0.016 2.32 HE




91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.0015 I mg/Kg dw 0.00088 0.077 2.32 HE


129-00-0 Pyrene 1.8 L mg/Kg dw 0.0097 0.039 2.32 HESurrogatesCAS# Parameter Result Expect




1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 0.118 0.165 72 % 30 - 170 HE



ML#:011100480-09 DL container [01] Field Ident: SED03 Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-27 15:25:00Percent Solids: 43.1 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S8270C-LL SOP : MLSM-0004 MLSM-0005 Instrument : SMB5973 Method: EPA 8270C Low Level PAH Batch ID:060511QDate Prepared:2011-06-05 17:00:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-11 20:17:00





321-60-8 2-Fluorobiphenyl D 0.165 J1 D % 30 - 170 HE

4165-60-0 Nitrobenzene-d5 D 0.165 J1 D % 30 - 170 HE

1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 D 0.165 J1 D % 30 - 170 HE









120-12-7 Anthracene 0.016 I mg/Kg dw 0.0018 0.025 3.68 HE

















1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 0.157 0.165 95 % 30 - 170 HE



ML#:011100480-17 container [01] Field Ident: SED 05 Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-27 16:10:00Percent Solids: 80.3 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S8270C-LL SOP : MLSM-0004 MLSM-0005 Instrument : SMB5973 Method: EPA 8270C Low Level PAH Batch ID:060511QDate Prepared:2011-06-05 17:00:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-10 23:58:00







56-55-3 Benz(a)Anthracene 0.0014 U mg/Kg dw 0.0014 0.0084 1.25 HE

50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0015 U mg/Kg dw 0.0015 0.0084 1.25 HE

205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0025 U mg/Kg dw 0.0025 0.0084 1.25 HE

191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.0045 U mg/Kg dw 0.0045 0.021 1.25 HE

207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0024 U mg/Kg dw 0.0024 0.0084 1.25 HE

218-01-9 Chrysene 0.0012 U mg/Kg dw 0.0012 0.0084 1.25 HE


206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.0034 I mg/Kg dw 0.0021 0.021 1.25 HE


193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.0030 U mg/Kg dw 0.0030 0.0084 1.25 HE


85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.00096 U mg/Kg dw 0.00096 0.0084 1.25 HE

129-00-0 Pyrene 0.0053 U mg/Kg dw 0.0053 0.021 1.25 HESurrogatesCAS# Parameter Result Expect




1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 0.162 0.165 98 % 30 - 170 HE



ML#:011100480-01 container [02] Field Ident: WS01 Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: HNO3(1:1) Date Collected:2011-05-27 14:00:00 Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A7470A-Hg SOP : MLME-0010 Instrument : MET-HG-01 Method: EPA 7470A Mercury (Hg) Batch ID:060311HW1Date Prepared:2011-06-03 08:50:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-03 15:58:00


7439-97-6 Mercury 0.00010 U mg/L 0.00010 0.00020 1.00 PSS





7439-97-6 Mercury 0.00010 U mg/L 0.00010 0.00020 1.00 PSS



ML#:011100480-18 container [01] Field Ident: SED 01 Elutriate Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: HNO3(1:1) Date Collected:2011-05-27 14:15:00 Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A7470A-Hg SOP : MLME-0010 Instrument : MET-HG-01 Method: EPA 7470A Mercury (Hg) Batch ID:060311HW1Date Prepared:2011-06-03 08:50:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-03 15:58:00


7439-97-6 Mercury 0.00010 U mg/L 0.00010 0.00020 1.00 PSS





7439-97-6 Mercury 0.00010 U mg/L 0.00010 0.00020 1.00 PSS



ML#:011100480-03 container [02] Field Ident: SED01 Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-27 14:15:00Percent Solids: 78.1 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S7471A-Hg SOP : MLME-0011 Instrument : MET-HG-01 Method: EPA 7471A Mercury (Hg) Batch ID:060211HS1Date Prepared:2011-06-02 18:20:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-03 10:02:00


7439-97-6 Mercury 0.0070 U mg/Kg dw 0.0070 0.014 0.700 PSS





7439-97-6 Mercury 0.12 mg/Kg dw 0.010 0.021 1.05 PSS



ML#:011100480-17 container [02] Field Ident: SED 05 Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-27 16:10:00Percent Solids: 80.3 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S7471A-Hg SOP : MLME-0011 Instrument : MET-HG-01 Method: EPA 7471A Mercury (Hg) Batch ID:060211HS1Date Prepared:2011-06-02 18:20:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-03 10:02:00





ML#:011100480-01 container [02] Field Ident: WS01 Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: HNO3(1:1) Date Collected:2011-05-27 14:00:00 Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A6010B-Al-S SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B Aluminum Batch ID:053111CW1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 10:20:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-05-31 23:27:21


7429-90-5 Aluminum 0.20 U mg/L 0.20 0.40 1.00 PSS





7429-90-5 Aluminum 0.23 I mg/L 0.20 0.40 1.00 PSS





7429-90-5 Aluminum 0.27 I mg/L 0.20 0.40 1.00 PSS



ML#:011100480-18 container [01] Field Ident: SED 01 Elutriate Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: HNO3(1:1) Date Collected:2011-05-27 14:15:00 Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A6010B-Al-S SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B Aluminum Batch ID:061411CW1Date Prepared:2011-06-14 09:10:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-14 23:08:48





ML#:011100480-01 container [02] Field Ident: WS01 Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: HNO3(1:1) Date Collected:2011-05-27 14:00:00 Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [As Cd Cr Cu Pb Zn] Batch ID:053111CW1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 10:20:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-05-31 23:30:51


7439-92-1 Lead 0.0040 U mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS

7440-38-2 Arsenic 0.0040 U mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS

7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.0010 U mg/L 0.0010 0.0020 1.00 PSS

7440-47-3 Chromium (Total) 0.0020 U mg/L 0.0020 0.0040 1.00 PSS

7440-50-8 Copper 0.0044 I mg/L 0.0025 0.0050 1.00 PSS

7440-66-6 Zinc 0.0090 mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS





7439-92-1 Lead 0.0040 U mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS

7440-38-2 Arsenic 0.0040 U mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS

7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.0010 U mg/L 0.0010 0.0020 1.00 PSS


7440-50-8 Copper 0.0043 I mg/L 0.0025 0.0050 1.00 PSS

7440-66-6 Zinc 0.0079 I mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS





7439-92-1 Lead 0.0040 U mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS

7440-38-2 Arsenic 0.0040 U mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS

7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.0010 U mg/L 0.0010 0.0020 1.00 PSS

7440-50-8 Copper 0.0063 mg/L 0.0025 0.0050 1.00 PSS

7440-66-6 Zinc 0.0095 mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS





7439-92-1 Lead 0.0040 U mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS

7440-38-2 Arsenic 0.0040 U mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS

7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.0010 U mg/L 0.0010 0.0020 1.00 PSS


7440-50-8 Copper 0.0038 I mg/L 0.0025 0.0050 1.00 PSS

7440-66-6 Zinc 0.0068 I mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS





7439-92-1 Lead 0.0040 U mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS

7440-38-2 Arsenic 0.0040 U mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS

7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.0010 U mg/L 0.0010 0.0020 1.00 PSS

7440-47-3 Chromium (Total) 0.0033 I mg/L 0.0020 0.0040 1.00 PSS

7440-50-8 Copper 0.0066 mg/L 0.0025 0.0050 1.00 PSS

7440-66-6 Zinc 0.010 mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS



ML#:011100480-18 container [01] Field Ident: SED 01 Elutriate Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: HNO3(1:1) Date Collected:2011-05-27 14:15:00 Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [As Cd Cr Cu Pb Zn] Batch ID:061411CW1Date Prepared:2011-06-14 09:10:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-14 23:12:06


7439-92-1 Lead 0.0080 U mg/L 0.0080 0.016 2.00 PSS

7440-38-2 Arsenic 0.0080 U mg/L 0.0080 0.016 2.00 PSS

7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.0020 U mg/L 0.0020 0.0040 2.00 PSS


7440-50-8 Copper 0.0050 U mg/L 0.0050 0.010 2.00 PSS

7440-66-6 Zinc 0.0080 U mg/L 0.0080 0.016 2.00 PSS





7439-92-1 Lead 0.012 U mg/L 0.012 0.024 3.00 PSS

7440-38-2 Arsenic 0.012 U mg/L 0.012 0.024 3.00 PSS

7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.0030 U mg/L 0.0030 0.0060 3.00 PSS


7440-50-8 Copper 0.0075 U mg/L 0.0075 0.015 3.00 PSS

7440-66-6 Zinc 0.012 U mg/L 0.012 0.024 3.00 PSS





7439-92-1 Lead 0.0080 U mg/L 0.0080 0.016 2.00 PSS

7440-38-2 Arsenic 0.0080 U mg/L 0.0080 0.016 2.00 PSS

7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.0020 U mg/L 0.0020 0.0040 2.00 PSS


7440-50-8 Copper 0.0050 U mg/L 0.0050 0.010 2.00 PSS

7440-66-6 Zinc 0.0080 U mg/L 0.0080 0.016 2.00 PSS



ML#:011100480-03 container [02] Field Ident: SED01 Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-27 14:15:00Percent Solids: 78.1 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S6010B-Al SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [Al] Batch ID:053111CS1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 11:40:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-01 12:19:54


7429-90-5 Aluminum 310 mg/Kg dw 8.1 16 0.808 PSS





7429-90-5 Aluminum 7800 mg/Kg dw 130 250 12.7 PSS



ML#:011100480-17 container [02] Field Ident: SED 05 Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-27 16:10:00Percent Solids: 80.3 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S6010B-Al SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [Al] Batch ID:053111CS1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 11:40:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-05-31 19:45:35


7429-90-5 Aluminum 310 mg/Kg dw 9.5 19 0.953 PSS



ML#:011100480-03 container [02] Field Ident: SED01 Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-27 14:15:00Percent Solids: 78.1 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn SOP : MLME-0008 MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [AsCdCrCuPbZn] Batch ID:053111CS1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 11:40:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-01 12:23:27


7439-92-1 Lead 1.9 mg/Kg dw 0.40 0.65 0.808 PSS

7440-38-2 Arsenic 0.36 U mg/Kg dw 0.36 0.65 0.808 PSS

7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.16 U mg/Kg dw 0.16 0.32 0.808 PSS

7440-47-3 Chromium (Total) 1.1 mg/Kg dw 0.32 0.65 0.808 PSS

7440-50-8 Copper 1.5 mg/Kg dw 0.20 0.40 0.808 PSS

7440-66-6 Zinc 5.1 mg/Kg dw 0.24 0.48 0.808 PSS





7439-92-1 Lead 27 mg/Kg dw 0.43 0.68 0.851 PSS

7440-38-2 Arsenic 3.1 mg/Kg dw 0.37 0.68 0.851 PSS

7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.70 mg/Kg dw 0.17 0.34 0.851 PSS

7440-47-3 Chromium (Total) 20 mg/Kg dw 0.34 0.68 0.851 PSS

7440-50-8 Copper 27 mg/Kg dw 0.21 0.43 0.851 PSS

7440-66-6 Zinc 120 mg/Kg dw 0.26 0.51 0.851 PSS





7439-92-1 Lead 65 mg/Kg dw 0.72 1.1 1.44 PSS





7440-66-6 Zinc 190 mg/Kg dw 0.43 0.86 1.44 PSS





7439-92-1 Lead 100 mg/Kg dw 0.71 1.1 1.42 PSS





7440-66-6 Zinc 230 mg/Kg dw 0.43 0.85 1.42 PSS



ML#:011100480-17 container [02] Field Ident: SED 05 Site Name: Hillsborough CountyMatrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-27 16:10:00Percent Solids: 80.3 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn SOP : MLME-0008 MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [AsCdCrCuPbZn] Batch ID:053111CS1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 11:40:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-05-31 19:49:13


7439-92-1 Lead 2.4 mg/Kg dw 0.48 0.76 0.953 PSS



7440-47-3 Chromium (Total) 1.3 mg/Kg dw 0.38 0.76 0.953 PSS

7440-50-8 Copper 2.6 mg/Kg dw 0.24 0.48 0.953 PSS

7440-66-6 Zinc 4.3 mg/Kg dw 0.29 0.57 0.953 PSS



ML#:011100480 Field Ident: Lab Blank Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: none Date Collected: Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A8270C-LL SOP : MLSM-0004 MLSM-0005 Instrument : SMB5973 Method: EPA 8270C Low Level PAH Batch ID:060211DDate Prepared:2011-06-02 13:00:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-04 01:08:00












218-01-9 Chrysene 0.10 U ug/L 0.10 0.20 1.00 HE



86-73-7 Fluorene 0.19 U ug/L 0.19 0.50 1.00 HE








1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 4.88 5.00 98 % 30 - 170 HE



ML#:011100480 Field Ident: Lab Blank Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: none Date Collected:Percent Solids: 100 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S8270C-LL SOP : MLSM-0004 MLSM-0005 Instrument : SMB5973 Method: EPA 8270C Low Level PAH Batch ID:060511QDate Prepared:2011-06-05 17:00:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-09 18:10:00







56-55-3 Benz(a)Anthracene 0.0011 U mg/Kg dw 0.0011 0.0067 1.00 HE

50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0012 U mg/Kg dw 0.0012 0.0067 1.00 HE

205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0020 U mg/Kg dw 0.0020 0.0067 1.00 HE

191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.0036 U mg/Kg dw 0.0036 0.017 1.00 HE

207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0019 U mg/Kg dw 0.0019 0.0067 1.00 HE

218-01-9 Chrysene 0.0010 U mg/Kg dw 0.0010 0.0067 1.00 HE


206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.0017 U mg/Kg dw 0.0017 0.017 1.00 HE


193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.0024 U mg/Kg dw 0.0024 0.0067 1.00 HE


85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.00077 U mg/Kg dw 0.00077 0.0067 1.00 HE

129-00-0 Pyrene 0.0042 U mg/Kg dw 0.0042 0.017 1.00 HESurrogatesCAS# Parameter Result Expect




1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 0.155 0.165 94 % 30 - 170 HE



ML#:011100480 Field Ident: Lab Blank Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: none Date Collected: Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A7470A-Hg SOP : MLME-0010 Instrument : MET-HG-01 Method: EPA 7470A Mercury (Hg) Batch ID:060311HW1Date Prepared:2011-06-03 08:50:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-03 15:58:00


7439-97-6 Mercury 0.00010 U mg/L 0.00010 0.00020 1.00 PSS



ML#:011100480 Field Ident: Lab Blank Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: none Date Collected:Percent Solids: 100 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S7471A-Hg SOP : MLME-0011 Instrument : MET-HG-01 Method: EPA 7471A Mercury (Hg) Batch ID:060211HS1Date Prepared:2011-06-02 18:20:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-03 10:02:00





ML#:011100480 Field Ident: Lab Blank Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: none Date Collected: Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A6010B-Al-S SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B Aluminum Batch ID:061411CW1Date Prepared:2011-06-14 09:10:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-14 14:24:09





ML#:011100480 Field Ident: Lab Blank Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: none Date Collected: Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A6010B-Al-S SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B Aluminum Batch ID:053111CW1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 10:20:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-05-31 16:17:07





ML#:011100480 Field Ident: Lab Blank Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: none Date Collected: Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [As Cd Cr Cu Pb Zn] Batch ID:053111CW1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 10:20:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-05-31 16:20:42


7439-92-1 Lead 0.0040 U mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS

7440-38-2 Arsenic 0.0040 U mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS

7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.0010 U mg/L 0.0010 0.0020 1.00 PSS


7440-50-8 Copper 0.0025 U mg/L 0.0025 0.0050 1.00 PSS

7440-66-6 Zinc 0.0040 U mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS



ML#:011100480 Field Ident: Lab Blank Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: none Date Collected: Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [As Cd Cr Cu Pb Zn] Batch ID:061411CW1Date Prepared:2011-06-14 09:10:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-14 14:27:21


7439-92-1 Lead 0.0040 U mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS

7440-38-2 Arsenic 0.0040 U mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS

7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.0010 U mg/L 0.0010 0.0020 1.00 PSS


7440-50-8 Copper 0.0025 U mg/L 0.0025 0.0050 1.00 PSS

7440-66-6 Zinc 0.0040 U mg/L 0.0040 0.0080 1.00 PSS



ML#:011100480 Field Ident: Lab Blank Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: none Date Collected:Percent Solids: 100 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S6010B-Al SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [Al] Batch ID:053111CS1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 11:40:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-05-31 17:06:53


7429-90-5 Aluminum 10 U mg/Kg dw 10 20 1.00 PSS



ML#:011100480 Field Ident: Lab Blank Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: none Date Collected:Percent Solids: 100 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn SOP : MLME-0008 MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [AsCdCrCuPbZn] Batch ID:053111CS1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 11:40:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-05-31 17:10:27


7439-92-1 Lead 0.50 U mg/Kg dw 0.50 0.80 1.00 PSS



7440-47-3 Chromium (Total) 0.40 U mg/Kg dw 0.40 0.80 1.00 PSS

7440-50-8 Copper 0.25 U mg/Kg dw 0.25 0.50 1.00 PSS

7440-66-6 Zinc 0.30 U mg/Kg dw 0.30 0.60 1.00 PSS



ML #:011100480 Field Ident: LCS/LCSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: none Date Collected: Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A8270C-LL SOP : MLSM-0004 MLSM-0005 Instrument : SMB5973 Method: EPA 8270C Low Level PAH Batch ID:060211DDate Prepared:2011-06-02 13:00:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-04 13:27:00

Laboratory Control SamplesParameters Spike

ResultQUAL LB Result Expect

ValueUnits Spike %

RecoverySpike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

1-Methylnaphthalene 3.14 0.170U 5.00 ug/L 63 0.65 50 - 150 30

1-Methylnaphthalene 3.16 0.170U 5.00 ug/L 63 50 - 150

2-Methylnaphthalene 3.60 0.190U 5.00 ug/L 72 1.7 50 - 150 30

2-Methylnaphthalene 3.66 0.190U 5.00 ug/L 73 50 - 150

Acenaphthene 3.73 0.160U 5.00 ug/L 75 0.44 50 - 150 30

Acenaphthene 3.72 0.160U 5.00 ug/L 74 50 - 150

Acenaphthylene 3.92 0.150U 5.00 ug/L 78 1.4 50 - 150 30

Acenaphthylene 3.86 0.150U 5.00 ug/L 77 50 - 150

Anthracene 3.92 0.110U 5.00 ug/L 78 3.5 50 - 150 30

Anthracene 4.06 0.110U 5.00 ug/L 81 50 - 150

Benz(a)Anthracene 4.36 0.100U 5.00 ug/L 87 1.5 50 - 150 30

Benz(a)Anthracene 4.29 0.100U 5.00 ug/L 86 50 - 150

Benzo(a)pyrene 4.48 0.100U 5.00 ug/L 90 3.2 50 - 150 30

Benzo(a)pyrene 4.34 0.100U 5.00 ug/L 87 50 - 150

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3.74 0.0800U 5.00 ug/L 75 2.0 50 - 150 30

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3.82 0.0800U 5.00 ug/L 76 50 - 150

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.12 0.0500U 5.00 ug/L 62 1.4 50 - 150 30

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.07 0.0500U 5.00 ug/L 61 50 - 150

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 3.45 0.180U 5.00 ug/L 69 5.3 50 - 150 30

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 3.27 0.180U 5.00 ug/L 65 50 - 150

Chrysene 4.31 0.100U 5.00 ug/L 86 1.6 50 - 150 30

Chrysene 4.24 0.100U 5.00 ug/L 85 50 - 150

Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene 2.52 0.150U 5.00 ug/L 50 2.8 50 - 150 30

Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene 2.59 0.150U 5.00 ug/L 52 50 - 150

Fluoranthene 4.23 0.110U 5.00 ug/L 85 0.39 50 - 150 30

Fluoranthene 4.21 0.110U 5.00 ug/L 84 50 - 150

Fluorene 3.83 0.190U 5.00 ug/L 77 0.12 50 - 150 30

Fluorene 3.84 0.190U 5.00 ug/L 77 50 - 150

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 4.03 0.0600U 5.00 ug/L 81 1.0 50 - 150 30

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 4.07 0.0600U 5.00 ug/L 81 50 - 150

Naphthalene 3.70 0.160U 5.00 ug/L 74 0.11 50 - 150 30

Naphthalene 3.70 0.160U 5.00 ug/L 74 50 - 150

Phenanthrene 4.24 0.140U 5.00 ug/L 85 0.35 50 - 150 30

Phenanthrene 4.25 0.140U 5.00 ug/L 85 50 - 150

Pyrene 3.56 0.190U 5.00 ug/L 71 0.96 50 - 150 30

Pyrene 3.52 0.190U 5.00 ug/L 70 50 - 150SurrogatesCAS# Parameter Result Expect






SurrogatesCAS# Parameter Result Expect




1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 3.49 5.00 70 % 30 - 170 HE

1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 3.52 5.00 70 % 30 - 170 HE



ML #:011100480 Field Ident: LCS/LCSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: none Date Collected:Percent Solids: 100 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S8270C-LL SOP : MLSM-0004 MLSM-0005 Instrument : SMB5973 Method: EPA 8270C Low Level PAH Batch ID:060511QDate Prepared:2011-06-05 17:00:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-09 19:46:00



ValueUnits Spike %

RecoverySpike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

1-Methylnaphthalene 0.105 0.00510U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 63 4.6 50 - 150 30

1-Methylnaphthalene 0.109 0.00510U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 66 50 - 150



Acenaphthene 0.131 0.000680U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 79 1.3 50 - 150 30

Acenaphthene 0.129 0.000680U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 78 50 - 150

Acenaphthylene 0.118 0.00130U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 72 5.8 50 - 150 30

Acenaphthylene 0.125 0.00130U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 76 50 - 150

Anthracene 0.130 0.000500U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 79 2.3 50 - 150 30

Anthracene 0.133 0.000500U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 81 50 - 150

Benz(a)Anthracene 0.147 0.00110U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 89 0.72 50 - 150 30

Benz(a)Anthracene 0.148 0.00110U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 90 50 - 150

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.152 0.00120U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 92 0.59 50 - 150 30

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.153 0.00120U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 93 50 - 150

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.139 0.00200U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 84 0.64 50 - 150 30

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.138 0.00200U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 84 50 - 150

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.147 0.00360U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 89 5.6 50 - 150 30

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.155 0.00360U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 94 50 - 150

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.136 0.00190U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 83 4.3 50 - 150 30

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.142 0.00190U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 86 50 - 150

Chrysene 0.139 0.00100U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 84 1.6 50 - 150 30

Chrysene 0.142 0.00100U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 86 50 - 150

Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene 0.152 0.00370U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 92 2.4 50 - 150 30

Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene 0.156 0.00370U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 94 50 - 150

Fluoranthene 0.149 0.00170U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 90 2.9 50 - 150 30

Fluoranthene 0.145 0.00170U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 88 50 - 150

Fluorene 0.138 0.000830U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 84 5.0 50 - 150 30

Fluorene 0.131 0.000830U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 80 50 - 150

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.153 0.00240U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 93 0.91 50 - 150 30

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.154 0.00240U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 93 50 - 150

Naphthalene 0.133 0.000380U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 80 0.72 50 - 150 30

Naphthalene 0.132 0.000380U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 80 50 - 150

Phenanthrene 0.142 0.000770U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 86 0.079 50 - 150 30

Phenanthrene 0.142 0.000770U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 86 50 - 150

Pyrene 0.125 0.00420U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 76 8.0 50 - 150 30

Pyrene 0.135 0.00420U 0.165 mg/Kg dw 82 50 - 150SurrogatesCAS# Parameter Result Expect










1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 0.136 0.165 82 % 30 - 170 HE

1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 0.148 0.165 90 % 30 - 170 HE



ML #:011100480 Field Ident: LCS/LCSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: none Date Collected: Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A7470A-Hg SOP : MLME-0010 Instrument : MET-HG-01 Method: EPA 7470A Mercury (Hg) Batch ID:060311HW1Date Prepared:2011-06-03 08:50:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-03 15:58:00



ValueUnits Spike %

RecoverySpike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Mercury 0.00497 0.000100U 0.00500 mg/L 99 1.5 90 - 110 10

Mercury 0.00490 0.000100U 0.00500 mg/L 98 90 - 110



ML #:011100480 Field Ident: LCS/LCSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: none Date Collected:Percent Solids: 100 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S7471A-Hg SOP : MLME-0011 Instrument : MET-HG-01 Method: EPA 7471A Mercury (Hg) Batch ID:060211HS1Date Prepared:2011-06-02 18:20:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-03 10:02:00



ValueUnits Spike %

RecoverySpike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Mercury 0.485 0.0100U 0.500 mg/Kg dw 97 0.41 90 - 110 10

Mercury 0.487 0.0100U 0.500 mg/Kg dw 97 90 - 110



ML #:011100480 Field Ident: LCS/LCSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: none Date Collected: Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A6010B-Al-S SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B Aluminum Batch ID:061411CW1Date Prepared:2011-06-14 09:10:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-14 14:37:16



ValueUnits Spike %

RecoverySpike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Aluminum 10.3 0.200U 10.4 mg/L 99 80 - 120

Aluminum 0.200U 10.4 mg/L 80 - 120



ML #:011100480 Field Ident: LCS/LCSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: none Date Collected: Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A6010B-Al-S SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B Aluminum Batch ID:053111CW1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 10:20:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-05-31 16:25:42



ValueUnits Spike %

RecoverySpike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Aluminum 9.53 0.200U 10.4 mg/L 92 1.0 80 - 120 20

Aluminum 9.63 0.200U 10.4 mg/L 93 80 - 120



ML #:011100480 Field Ident: LCS/LCSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: none Date Collected: Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [As Cd Cr Cu Pb Zn] Batch ID:053111CW1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 10:20:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-05-31 16:29:09



ValueUnits Spike %

RecoverySpike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Lead 0.434 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 108 6.5 80 - 120 20

Lead 0.406 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 102 80 - 120

Arsenic 0.438 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 110 4.3 80 - 120 20

Arsenic 0.420 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 105 80 - 120

Cadmium 0.214 0.00100U 0.200 mg/L 107 2.3 80 - 120 20

Cadmium 0.219 0.00100U 0.200 mg/L 110 80 - 120

Chromium (Total) 0.213 0.00200U 0.200 mg/L 107 2.8 80 - 120 20

Chromium (Total) 0.207 0.00200U 0.200 mg/L 104 80 - 120

Copper 0.422 0.00250U 0.400 mg/L 106 1.2 80 - 120 20

Copper 0.427 0.00250U 0.400 mg/L 107 80 - 120

Zinc 0.217 0.00400U 0.200 mg/L 108 0.83 80 - 120 20

Zinc 0.218 0.00400U 0.200 mg/L 109 80 - 120



ML #:011100480 Field Ident: LCS/LCSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: none Date Collected: Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [As Cd Cr Cu Pb Zn] Batch ID:061411CW1Date Prepared:2011-06-14 09:10:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-14 14:40:29



ValueUnits Spike %

RecoverySpike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Lead 0.426 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 107 80 - 120

Lead 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 80 - 120

Arsenic 0.449 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 112 80 - 120

Arsenic 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 80 - 120

Cadmium 0.207 0.00100U 0.200 mg/L 103 80 - 120

Cadmium 0.00100U 0.200 mg/L 80 - 120


Chromium (Total) 0.00200U 0.200 mg/L 80 - 120

Copper 0.401 0.00250U 0.400 mg/L 100 80 - 120

Copper 0.00250U 0.400 mg/L 80 - 120

Zinc 0.219 0.00400U 0.200 mg/L 110 80 - 120

Zinc 0.00400U 0.200 mg/L 80 - 120



ML #:011100480 Field Ident: LCS/LCSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: none Date Collected:Percent Solids: 100 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S6010B-Al SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [Al] Batch ID:053111CS1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 11:40:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-05-31 17:14:49



ValueUnits Spike %

RecoverySpike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Aluminum 980 10.0U 1040 mg/Kg dw 94 7.9 80 - 120 20

Aluminum 1060 10.0U 1040 mg/Kg dw 102 80 - 120



ML #:011100480 Field Ident: LCS/LCSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: none Date Collected:Percent Solids: 100 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn SOP : MLME-0008 MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [AsCdCrCuPbZn] Batch ID:053111CS1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 11:40:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-05-31 17:18:15



ValueUnits Spike %

RecoverySpike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Lead 39.6 0.500U 40.0 mg/Kg dw 99 5.4 80 - 120 20

Lead 41.8 0.500U 40.0 mg/Kg dw 104 80 - 120

Arsenic 40.2 0.440U 40.0 mg/Kg dw 101 3.4 80 - 120 20

Arsenic 41.6 0.440U 40.0 mg/Kg dw 104 80 - 120

Cadmium 19.3 0.200U 20.0 mg/Kg dw 97 4.3 80 - 120 20

Cadmium 20.2 0.200U 20.0 mg/Kg dw 101 80 - 120

Chromium (Total) 21.5 0.400U 20.0 mg/Kg dw 107 2.5 80 - 120 20

Chromium (Total) 21.0 0.400U 20.0 mg/Kg dw 105 80 - 120

Copper 40.8 0.250U 40.0 mg/Kg dw 102 0.96 80 - 120 20

Copper 40.4 0.250U 40.0 mg/Kg dw 101 80 - 120

Zinc 19.8 0.300U 20.0 mg/Kg dw 99 4.1 80 - 120 20

Zinc 20.6 0.300U 20.0 mg/Kg dw 103 80 - 120



ML #:011100480[ 011100472--1305] Field Ident: MS/MSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-26 11:10:00Percent Solids: 89.78 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S8270C-LL SOP : MLSM-0004 MLSM-0005 Instrument : SMB5973 Method: EPA 8270C Low Level PAH Batch ID:060511QDate Prepared:2011-06-05 17:00:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-10 02:36:00

Matrix Spike SamplesParameters Spike

ResultQUAL Parent

ResultExpectValue

Units Spike %Recovery

Spike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit





Acenaphthene 0.129 0.000755U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 70 0.15 50 - 150 30

Acenaphthene 0.129 0.000755U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 70 50 - 150

Acenaphthylene 0.137 0.00144U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 74 0.14 50 - 150 30

Acenaphthylene 0.137 0.00144U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 74 50 - 150

Anthracene 0.145 0.000555U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 79 1.8 50 - 150 30

Anthracene 0.142 0.000555U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 78 50 - 150

Benz(a)Anthracene 0.173 0.00122U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 94 0.16 50 - 150 30

Benz(a)Anthracene 0.174 0.00122U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 94 50 - 150

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.173 0.00133U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 94 1.8 50 - 150 30

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.176 0.00133U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 96 50 - 150

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.161 0.00222U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 88 0.051 50 - 150 30

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.161 0.00222U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 88 50 - 150

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.162 0.00400U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 88 0.34 50 - 150 30

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.163 0.00400U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 89 50 - 150

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.154 0.00211U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 84 0.58 50 - 150 30

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.155 0.00211U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 84 50 - 150

Chrysene 0.163 0.00111U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 89 0.36 50 - 150 30

Chrysene 0.163 0.00111U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 88 50 - 150

Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene 0.166 0.00411U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 90 3.2 50 - 150 30

Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene 0.171 0.00411U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 93 50 - 150

Fluoranthene 0.155 0.00189U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 84 2.7 50 - 150 30

Fluoranthene 0.151 0.00189U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 82 50 - 150

Fluorene 0.137 0.000921U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 75 0.44 50 - 150 30

Fluorene 0.138 0.000921U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 75 50 - 150

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.145 0.00266U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 79 8.0 50 - 150 30

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.157 0.00266U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 86 50 - 150

Naphthalene 0.129 0.000422U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 70 0.43 50 - 150 30

Naphthalene 0.129 0.000422U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 70 50 - 150

Phenanthrene 0.154 0.000855U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 84 1.4 50 - 150 30

Phenanthrene 0.152 0.000855U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 83 50 - 150

Pyrene 0.158 0.00466U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 86 0.75 50 - 150 30

Pyrene 0.157 0.00466U 0.184 mg/Kg dw 85 50 - 150SurrogatesCAS# Parameter Result Expect










1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 0.134 0.165 81 % 30 - 170 HE

1718-51-0 p-Terphenyl-d14 0.133 0.165 81 % 30 - 170 HE



ML #:011100480[ 011100485--0101] Field Ident: MS/MSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: HNO3(1:1) Date Collected:2011-05-31 Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A7470A-Hg SOP : MLME-0010 Instrument : MET-HG-01 Method: EPA 7470A Mercury (Hg) Batch ID:060311HW1Date Prepared:2011-06-03 08:50:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-03 15:58:00


ResultQUAL Parent

ResultExpectValue


Spike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Mercury 0.00508 0.000100U 0.00500 mg/L 102 8.1 85 - 115 10

Mercury 0.00468 0.000100U 0.00500 mg/L 94 85 - 115



ML #:011100480[ 011100480--2201] Field Ident: MS/MSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: HNO3(1:1) Date Collected:2011-05-27 16:10:00 Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A7470A-Hg SOP : MLME-0010 Instrument : MET-HG-01 Method: EPA 7470A Mercury (Hg) Batch ID:060311HW1Date Prepared:2011-06-03 08:50:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-03 15:58:00


ResultQUAL Parent

ResultExpectValue


Spike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Mercury 0.00554 0.000100U 0.00500 mg/L 111 2.9 85 - 115 10

Mercury 0.00538 0.000100U 0.00500 mg/L 108 85 - 115



ML #:011100480[ 011100484--0202] Field Ident: MS/MSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-31 15:19:00Percent Solids: 79.31 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S7471A-Hg SOP : MLME-0011 Instrument : MET-HG-01 Method: EPA 7471A Mercury (Hg) Batch ID:060211HS1Date Prepared:2011-06-02 18:20:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-03 10:02:00


ResultQUAL Parent

ResultExpectValue


Spike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Mercury 0.595 0.0115U 0.572 mg/Kg dw 104 3.6 85 - 115 10

Mercury 0.574 0.0115U 0.572 mg/Kg dw 100 85 - 115



ML #:011100480[ 011100484--0402] Field Ident: MS/MSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-31 15:30:00Percent Solids: 78.57 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S7471A-Hg SOP : MLME-0011 Instrument : MET-HG-01 Method: EPA 7471A Mercury (Hg) Batch ID:060211HS1Date Prepared:2011-06-02 18:20:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-03 10:02:00


ResultQUAL Parent

ResultExpectValue


Spike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Mercury 0.553 0.0130I 0.530 mg/Kg dw 102 4.6 85 - 115 10

Mercury 0.528 0.0130I 0.530 mg/Kg dw 97 85 - 115



ML #:011100480[ 011100480--2101] Field Ident: MS/MSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: HNO3(1:1) Date Collected:2011-05-27 15:46:00 Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A6010B-Al-S SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B Aluminum Batch ID:061411CW1Date Prepared:2011-06-14 09:10:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-06-14 18:32:40


ResultQUAL Parent

ResultExpectValue


Spike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Aluminum 11.2 0.400U 10.4 mg/L 108 1.8 75 - 125 20

Aluminum 11.0 0.400U 10.4 mg/L 106 75 - 125





ResultQUAL Parent

ResultExpectValue


Spike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Aluminum 11.1 0.200U 10.4 mg/L 106 8.3 75 - 125 20

Aluminum 10.2 0.200U 10.4 mg/L 98 75 - 125





ResultQUAL Parent

ResultExpectValue


Spike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Aluminum 10.4 0.200U 10.4 mg/L 100 1.5 75 - 125 20

Aluminum 10.6 0.200U 10.4 mg/L 102 75 - 125





ResultQUAL Parent

ResultExpectValue


Spike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Aluminum 9.94 0.200U 10.4 mg/L 96 11 75 - 125 20

Aluminum 11.1 0.200U 10.4 mg/L 106 75 - 125



ML #:011100480[ 011100468--0101] Field Ident: MS/MSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Non-Potable Water Preservative: HNO3(1:1) Date Collected:2011-05-24 11:57:00 Lab Filtered: No Report Code: A6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [As Cd Cr Cu Pb Zn] Batch ID:053111CW1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 10:20:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-05-31 18:09:16


ResultQUAL Parent

ResultExpectValue


Spike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Lead 0.423 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 106 0.43 75 - 125 20

Lead 0.421 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 105 75 - 125

Arsenic 0.446 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 112 0.54 75 - 125 20

Arsenic 0.444 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 111 75 - 125

Cadmium 0.204 0.00100U 0.200 mg/L 102 2.5 75 - 125 20

Cadmium 0.209 0.00100U 0.200 mg/L 104 75 - 125

Chromium (Total) 0.216 0.00210I 0.200 mg/L 107 0.46 75 - 125 20

Chromium (Total) 0.215 0.00210I 0.200 mg/L 107 75 - 125

Copper 0.449 0.00481I 0.400 mg/L 111 3.4 75 - 125 20

Copper 0.464 0.00481I 0.400 mg/L 115 75 - 125

Zinc 0.218 0.00690I 0.200 mg/L 106 4.0 75 - 125 20

Zinc 0.227 0.00690I 0.200 mg/L 110 75 - 125





ResultQUAL Parent

ResultExpectValue


Spike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Lead 0.404 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 101 4.1 75 - 125 20

Lead 0.421 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 105 75 - 125

Arsenic 0.447 0.00425I 0.400 mg/L 111 0.13 75 - 125 20

Arsenic 0.448 0.00425I 0.400 mg/L 111 75 - 125

Cadmium 0.203 0.00100U 0.200 mg/L 101 3.1 75 - 125 20

Cadmium 0.197 0.00100U 0.200 mg/L 98 75 - 125



Copper 0.420 0.00563 0.400 mg/L 103 6.7 75 - 125 20

Copper 0.449 0.00563 0.400 mg/L 111 75 - 125

Zinc 0.213 0.0180 0.200 mg/L 98 8.2 75 - 125 20

Zinc 0.231 0.0180 0.200 mg/L 107 75 - 125





ResultQUAL Parent

ResultExpectValue


Spike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Lead 0.393 0.00800U 0.400 mg/L 98 2.1 75 - 125 20

Lead 0.401 0.00800U 0.400 mg/L 100 75 - 125

Arsenic 0.474 0.00800U 0.400 mg/L 118 0.84 75 - 125 20

Arsenic 0.478 0.00800U 0.400 mg/L 119 75 - 125

Cadmium 0.222 0.00200U 0.200 mg/L 111 2.0 75 - 125 20

Cadmium 0.217 0.00200U 0.200 mg/L 109 75 - 125



Copper 0.478 0.00500U 0.400 mg/L 119 1.1 75 - 125 20

Copper 0.472 0.00500U 0.400 mg/L 118 75 - 125

Zinc 0.200 0.00800U 0.200 mg/L 100 7.0 75 - 125 20

Zinc 0.214 0.00800U 0.200 mg/L 107 75 - 125





ResultQUAL Parent

ResultExpectValue


Spike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Lead 0.439 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 110 7.7 75 - 125 20

Lead 0.406 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 102 75 - 125

Arsenic 0.476 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 119 4.5 75 - 125 20

Arsenic 0.456 0.00400U 0.400 mg/L 114 75 - 125

Cadmium 0.223 0.00100U 0.200 mg/L 112 7.1 75 - 125 20

Cadmium 0.208 0.00100U 0.200 mg/L 104 75 - 125



Copper 0.459 0.00250U 0.400 mg/L 115 9.7 75 - 125 20

Copper 0.416 0.00250U 0.400 mg/L 104 75 - 125

Zinc 0.227 0.00400U 0.200 mg/L 113 7.6 75 - 125 20

Zinc 0.210 0.00400U 0.200 mg/L 105 75 - 125



ML #:011100480[ 011100480--1702] Field Ident: MS/MSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-27 16:10:00Percent Solids: 80.31 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S6010B-Al SOP : MLME-0006, MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [Al] Batch ID:053111CS1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 11:40:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-05-31 19:53:30


ResultQUAL Parent

ResultExpectValue


Spike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Aluminum 1370 312 992 mg/Kg dw 107 0.073 75 - 125 20

Aluminum 1370 312 992 mg/Kg dw 107 75 - 125



ML #:011100480[ 011100480--1702] Field Ident: MS/MSD Site Name:Matrix: LQM-Soil Preservative: None Date Collected:2011-05-27 16:10:00Percent Solids: 80.31 % Lab Filtered: No Report Code: S6010B-AsCdCrCuPbZn SOP : MLME-0008 MLME-0005 Instrument : MET-ICP-01 Method: EPA 6010B ICP Metals [AsCdCrCuPbZn] Batch ID:053111CS1Date Prepared:2011-05-31 11:40:00 Date Analyzed: 2011-05-31 19:56:55


ResultQUAL Parent

ResultExpectValue


Spike%RPD

AccuracyLimit

PrecisionLimit

Lead 41.2 2.36 38.2 mg/Kg dw 102 2.0 75 - 125 20

Lead 40.4 2.36 38.2 mg/Kg dw 100 75 - 125

Arsenic 41.0 0.419U 38.2 mg/Kg dw 108 2.0 75 - 125 20

Arsenic 40.2 0.419U 38.2 mg/Kg dw 105 75 - 125

Cadmium 19.5 0.191U 19.1 mg/Kg dw 102 0.52 75 - 125 20

Cadmium 19.4 0.191U 19.1 mg/Kg dw 101 75 - 125

Chromium (Total) 21.6 1.31 19.1 mg/Kg dw 107 1.9 75 - 125 20

Chromium (Total) 21.2 1.31 19.1 mg/Kg dw 104 75 - 125

Copper 42.0 2.65 38.2 mg/Kg dw 103 1.6 75 - 125 20

Copper 42.7 2.65 38.2 mg/Kg dw 105 75 - 125

Zinc 22.7 4.33 19.1 mg/Kg dw 96 2.1 75 - 125 20

Zinc 23.2 4.33 19.1 mg/Kg dw 99 75 - 125



Data Flag Summary and Definitions of Qualifiers

A = Result reported is the mean (average) of 2 or more discrete and separate determinations.D = Surrogate or matrix spike diluted out.I = The reported value is between the laboratory limit of detection (LOD) and the laboratory limit of quantitation(LOQ).J = Estimated value - may not be accurate. Use of this code requires justification as follows:

1. Exceedance of surrogate recovery limits.2. Existence of no quality control criteria for a component.3. Failure to meet established precision and accuracy criteria.4. Matrix interference.5. Questionable data due to improper field or lab protocols."J" values are exclusive and are not used in conjunction with other codes.

K = Indicates off scale low and the actual value is known to be less than the value listed. Used if the value is less than the lowestcalibration standard when the calibration curve is known to be non-linear. Can also be used if the actual value is known to be lessthan the reported value based on sample size or dilution.

L = Off-scale high and the actual value is known to be greater than the reported value. Used when the sample concentration of theanalyte exceeds the linear range or highest calibration standard and the calibration curve is known to exhibit a negative deflection.

M = To be used for chemical analysis: the presence of the analyte is verified but not quantified and the actual value is less than the valuereported.

N = Presumptive evidence of presence of compound. To be used when the compound has been determined by TIC (Mass spectral librarysearch) or if presence of the compound cannot be confirmed using alternate procedures.

O = Indicates that the analysis was lost or not performed.P = The concentration determined by the second column confirmation exceeded 40%D. The presence/absence of the compound can not

be confirmed by GC/MS due to the low concentration. However, in the analyst's opinion, the compound is present in the sample andaffected by matrix interference on one GC column. The concentration most appropriate to the sample matrix has been reported.

Q = Indicates that the sample was prepared or analyzed after the holding time had expired.S = Analyte presence/absence has been determined using a historical relative retention time and mass spectral library search. If the

analyte was determined to be absent, it is reported as the PQL qualified with a U. If the analyte was determined to be present, theestimated concentration is determined using a historical calibration factor.

T = Reported value is less than the laboratory limit of detection (LOD). The value is reported for informational purposes only and is notused in statistical analysis.

U = Indicates that a specific compound was analyzed for but not detected. The reported value shall be the laboratory limit of detection(LOD).

V = Indicates blank contamination (i.e. the compound was detected in the sample and the associated method blanks).X = The spiking solution was inadvertently omitted during the extraction procedure.Y = Laboratory analysis was performed on sample that was unpreserved or improperly preserved; therefore, the data may be inaccurate.? = Indicates that the data should not be used since some or all of the quality control data for the analyte fall outside limits and the

presence or absence of the analyte cannot be determined from the data.* = Analysis was not performed due to interference.

NS = Not spiked - Surrogate or spike solution was inadvertently omitted.Hierarchy = ? *,O Y V K L M I U T A N Q J S P X.

Abbreviation Definitions and Acronyms

%REC = Percent Recovery %RPD = Relative Percent Difference DL= Dilution1 DD= Dilution2 TD = Dilution3 QD = Dilution4 DUP = Duplicate LCS/LCSD = Laboratory Control Spike/Duplicate MS/MSD = Matrix Spike/Duplicate QUAL = Qualifier

DF|QF = Dilution|Quantitation Factor LOQ [PQL] = Practical Quantitation LimitLOD [MDL] = Limit Of Detection/Method Detection Limit. The minimum concentration of an analyte of interest that can be measuredand reported with 99 % confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero. The LOD for an analyte is determined from thepreparation and analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte. LODs have been determined following the procedurespecified in "New and Alternative Analytical Laboratory Methods", DEP-QA-001/01 (September 1, 2003) which is incorporated by

reference in Rule 62-160.800, F.A.C., unless otherwise specified by a mandated test method for which the laboratory is certified.HCL(1:1)=Hydrochloric Acid HNO3(1:1)=Nitric Acid H2SO4(1:1)=Sulfuric Acid Na2S2O3=Sodium Thiosulfate HgCl2=Mercuric Chloride

MCA=Monochloroacetic Acid

Subcontracted Laboratory Certification Information

Please see attached report from Accutest Laboratories, Orlando FL Certification #E86510.

END CERTIFICATE OF RESULTS

06/28/11

Technical Report for

Millennium Laboratories, Inc

011100480

011100480

Accutest Job Number: F82896

Sampling Date: 05/27/11

Report to:

Millennium Laboratories, Inc12721 Race Track RdTampa, FL [email protected]

ATTN: Kathy Sheffield

Total number of pages in report:

Certifications: FL (DOH E83510), NC (573), NJ (FL002), MA (FL946), IA (366), LA (03051), KS (E-10327), SC, AK

This report shall not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written approval of Accutest Laboratories.

Test results relate only to samples analyzed.

Southeast • 4405 Vineland Road • Suite C-15 • Orlando, FL 32811 • tel: 407-425-6700 • fax: 407-425-0707 • http://www.accutest.com

Test results contained within this data package meet the requirements

of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference

and/or state specific certification programs as applicable.

Client Service contact: Muna Mohammed 407-425-6700

Harry Behzadi, Ph.D.Laboratory Director

Southeast

06/28/11

Reissue #1

e-Hardcopy 2.0Automated Report

21

Accutest Laboratories is the sole authority for authorizing edits or modifications to thisdocument. Unauthorized modification of this report is strictly prohibited.

1 of 21

F82896

Florida 4405 Vineland Road Suite C-15 Orlando, FL 32811 tel: 407 425-6700 fax: 407 425-0707 htpp://www.accutest.com www.accutest.com

June 28, 2011 Ms. Kathy Sheffield Millennium Laboratories 12721 Race Track Rd RE: Accutest job F82896 Reissue Dear Ms. Sheffield, The final report for job number F82896 has been edited to reflect requested corrections. These edits have been incorporated into the revised report. TKN and Total Nitrogen have been added. Please feel free to contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Accutest Laboratories, SE

2 of 21

F82896

Table of Contents-1-

Sections:

Section 1: Sample Summary ................................................................................................... 4Section 2: Sample Results ........................................................................................................ 5

2.1: F82896-1: WS01 ........................................................................................................... 62.2: F82896-2: WS02 ........................................................................................................... 72.3: F82896-3: WS03 ........................................................................................................... 82.4: F82896-4: WS04 ........................................................................................................... 92.5: F82896-5: WS05 ........................................................................................................... 102.6: F82896-6: DUP01 ......................................................................................................... 112.7: F82896-7: DUP02 ......................................................................................................... 12

Section 3: Misc. Forms ............................................................................................................ 133.1: Chain of Custody ........................................................................................................... 14

Section 4: General Chemistry - QC Data Summaries .......................................................... 174.1: Method Blank and Spike Results Summary .................................................................. 184.2: Duplicate Results Summary .......................................................................................... 194.3: Matrix Spike Results Summary ..................................................................................... 204.4: Matrix Spike Duplicate Results Summary .................................................................... 21

12

34

3 of 21

F82896

Accutest Laboratories

Sample Summary

Millennium Laboratories, IncJob No: F82896

011100480Project No: 011100480

Sample Collected Matrix Client Number Date Time By Received Code Type Sample ID

F82896-1 05/27/11 14:00 AS 05/31/11 AQ Ground Water WS01





F82896-6 05/27/11 00:00 AS 05/31/11 AQ Ground Water DUP01

F82896-7 05/27/11 00:00 AS 05/31/11 AQ Ground Water DUP02

4 of 21

F82896

1


Sample Results

Report of Analysis

Southeast

Section 2

5 of 21

F82896

2


Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1

Client Sample ID: WS01 Lab Sample ID: F82896-1 Date Sampled: 05/27/11 Matrix: AQ - Ground Water Date Received: 05/31/11

Percent Solids: n/a Project: 011100480

General Chemistry

Analyte Result PQL MDL Units DF Analyzed By Method

HEM Oil and Grease 3.2 I 5.2 1.1 mg/l 1 06/03/11 CP EPA 1664A

Nitrogen, Nitrate + Nitrite 0.050 U 0.10 0.050 mg/l 1 06/07/11 TC SM18 4500NO3E

Nitrogen, Total a 0.68 0.36 0.16 mg/l 1 06/07/11 TC SM18 4500N

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 0.68 0.26 0.11 mg/l 1 06/06/11 12:02 TC EPA 351.2

Phosphorus, Total 0.15 0.10 0.0090 mg/l 1 06/03/11 CP EPA 365.3

(a) Calculated as: (Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl) + (Nitrogen, Nitrate + Nitrite)

PQL = Practical Quantitation Limit U = Indicates a result < MDLMDL = Method Detection Limit I = Indicates a result >= MDL but < PQL

6 of 21

F82896

22.1





General Chemistry






Phosphorus, Total 0.10 0.10 0.0090 mg/l 1 06/03/11 CP EPA 365.3



7 of 21

F82896

22.2





General Chemistry






Phosphorus, Total 0.078 I 0.10 0.0090 mg/l 1 06/03/11 CP EPA 365.3



8 of 21

F82896

22.3





General Chemistry









9 of 21

F82896

22.4





General Chemistry









10 of 21

F82896

22.5



Client Sample ID: DUP01 Lab Sample ID: F82896-6 Date Sampled: 05/27/11 Matrix: AQ - Ground Water Date Received: 05/31/11


General Chemistry




11 of 21

F82896

22.6



Client Sample ID: DUP02 Lab Sample ID: F82896-7 Date Sampled: 05/27/11 Matrix: AQ - Ground Water Date Received: 05/31/11


General Chemistry




12 of 21

F82896

22.7


Misc. Forms

Custody Documents and Other Forms

Includes the following where applicable:

• Certification Exceptions• Chain of Custody

Southeast

Section 3

13 of 21

F82896

3

F82896: Chain of CustodyPage 1 of 3

14 of 21

F82896

33.1


15 of 21

F82896

33.1


16 of 21

F82896

33.1


General Chemistry

QC Data Summaries

Includes the following where applicable:

• Method Blank and Blank Spike Summaries• Duplicate Summaries• Matrix Spike Summaries

Southeast

Section 4

17 of 21

F82896

4

METHOD BLANK AND SPIKE RESULTS SUMMARY GENERAL CHEMISTRY

Login Number: F82896 Account: MLIFLT - Millennium Laboratories, Inc

Project: 011100480

MB Spike BSP BSP QC Analyte Batch ID RL Result Units Amount Result %Recov Limits

HEM Oil and Grease GP17107/GN44862 5.0 1.6 mg/l 40.0 36.5 91.3 70-130% Nitrogen, Nitrate + Nitrite GN44893 0.10 0.0 mg/l .300 0.31 102.0 80-120% Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl GP17101/GN44883 0.26 0.0 mg/l 2.63 2.68 102.1 90-110% Phosphorus, Total GP17104/GN44860 0.10 0.016 mg/l 0.300 0.29 97.9 81-118%

Associated Samples: Batch GN44893: F82896-1, F82896-2, F82896-3, F82896-4, F82896-5Batch GP17101: F82896-1, F82896-2, F82896-3, F82896-4, F82896-5Batch GP17104: F82896-1, F82896-2, F82896-3, F82896-4, F82896-5Batch GP17107: F82896-1, F82896-2, F82896-3, F82896-4, F82896-5, F82896-6, F82896-7(*) Outside of QC limits

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 1

18 of 21

F82896

44.1

DUPLICATE RESULTS SUMMARY GENERAL CHEMISTRY


Project: 011100480

QC Original DUP QC Analyte Batch ID Sample Units Result Result RPD Limits

Nitrogen, Nitrate + Nitrite GN44893 F83041-1 mg/l 0.050 U 0.0 0.0 0-22% Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl GP17101/GN44883 F82710-2 mg/l 0.43 0.37 15.0 0-20% Phosphorus, Total GP17104/GN44860 F82892-2 mg/l 0.42 0.38 8.1 0-22%

Associated Samples: Batch GN44893: F82896-1, F82896-2, F82896-3, F82896-4, F82896-5Batch GP17101: F82896-1, F82896-2, F82896-3, F82896-4, F82896-5Batch GP17104: F82896-1, F82896-2, F82896-3, F82896-4, F82896-5(*) Outside of QC limits

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 1

19 of 21

F82896

44.2

MATRIX SPIKE RESULTS SUMMARY GENERAL CHEMISTRY


Project: 011100480

QC Original Spike MS QC Analyte Batch ID Sample Units Result Amount Result %Rec Limits

HEM Oil and Grease GP17107/GN44862 F82951-1 mg/l 2.4 40.4 36.9 85.3 70-130% Nitrogen, Nitrate + Nitrite GN44893 F83041-1 mg/l 0.050 U .300 0.27 98.7 62-144% Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl GP17101/GN44883 F82710-2 mg/l 0.43 2.63 3.0 97.9 90-110% Phosphorus, Total GP17104/GN44860 F82892-2 mg/l 0.42 0.300 0.43 5.4*(a) 81-118%

Associated Samples: Batch GN44893: F82896-1, F82896-2, F82896-3, F82896-4, F82896-5Batch GP17101: F82896-1, F82896-2, F82896-3, F82896-4, F82896-5Batch GP17104: F82896-1, F82896-2, F82896-3, F82896-4, F82896-5Batch GP17107: F82896-1, F82896-2, F82896-3, F82896-4, F82896-5, F82896-6, F82896-7(*) Outside of QC limits(N) Matrix Spike Rec. outside of QC limits(a) Spike recovery indicates possible matrix interference and/or sample nonhomogeneity.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 1

20 of 21

F82896

44.3

MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULTS SUMMARY GENERAL CHEMISTRY


Project: 011100480

QC Original Spike MSD QC Analyte Batch ID Sample Units Result Amount Result RPD Limit

Phosphorus, Total GP17104/GN44860 F82892-2 mg/l 0.42 0.300 0.433 0.0*(a) 22%

Associated Samples: Batch GP17104: F82896-1, F82896-2, F82896-3, F82896-4, F82896-5(*) Outside of QC limits(N) Matrix Spike Rec. outside of QC limits(a) Spike recovery indicates possible matrix interference and/or sample nonhomogeneity.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 1

21 of 21

F82896

44.4

APPENDIX VSWEETWATER CREEK HYDRODYNAMIC EVALUATION

SWEETWATER CREEK HYDRODYNAMIC EVALUATION1. Executive Summary

As part of the feasibility study for the dredging of Sweetwater Creek, Tetra Tech staff conducteddiscussions of the project with interested representatives of local and state environmental/regulatory agencies. One of the concerns raised in these discussions was the potential for thedredging of the lower portions of Sweetwater Creek to lower stream water levels and therebyincrease drainage of wetlands in the upper reaches of the Creek. This hydrodynamic evaluationdirectly addresses this stream gradient question.The study developed a numerical model simulation ofSweetwater Creek under existing and port-dredgingconfigurations while all other conditions remained identical.A direct comparison the dynamic water surface elevationsfor both channel configurations reveals the character andmagnitude of the hydrodynamic changes in the Creek. Wemade comparisons at two locations in Sweetwater Creek.Check Point A is the first comparison point and it is locatedat the upstream end of the dredging area just south of theMemorial Highway Bridge. Check Point B is upstream byabout 2,200 ft and is located downstream of the junction ofSweetwater Creek and its branch that connects with AirportOutfall Canal (Figure 1).The only real differences in the water surface elevations atCheck Point A occur during the times around low tide. Thedeeper water of the dredged section of the creek allows thetidal signal from Tampa Bay to propagate upstream withless damping than that which occurs in the shallow watersof the existing creek. This results in a slightly lower low tidelevel. Over the range of tides in the 7-day long modelsimulation, the largest difference in water surface elevations

was about ¾ inch. Most of the other peak differencesduring the simulation period were about one-half as large.At Check Point B, the differences in water surfaceelevations between the existing and dredged creek configurations have decreased dramatically fromthose that occur at Check Point A. Check Point B differences are about one order of magnitudesmaller than those at Check Point B. This can be explained physically by noting that the existingshallow water damping of the tidal signal is still an influencing factor in the creek reach between theMemorial Highway Bridge and Check Point B.Although the dredging of the lower reach of Sweetwater Creek does exhibit a small decrease inwater surface elevations at the upper limit of the dredged area, the differences between the existingand post-dredging conditions are vanishingly small at Check Point B or about half way up the creek.It is therefore clear that the channel dredging will not have any measurable influences on waterlevels in the wetlands in the upper reach of Sweetwater Creek.

Figure 1 - Sweetwater Creek ModelDomain

2. Model Domain and Conditions

Watershed Characteristics -- The proposeddredging project is in the Lower SweetwaterCreek Watershed. The Lower Sweetwater CreekWatershed covers an area of 10.5 square miles1.Figure 2 shows a map of the watershed. Theproject area is in the southwest corner of thewatershed.The lower reaches of the Lower SweetwaterCreek watershed are tidally influenced. Figure 3shows the Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection’s mapping of LowerSweetwater Creek that includes tidal flats up intothe project area and Memorial Highway Bridge.

Figure 3 shows tidal flats within and upstream of the project area as well as shellfish beds shellfish

areas extending wellupstream of the Memorial Highway Bridge.

1Hillsborough County Water Atlas, URL: http://www.hillsborough.wateratlas.usf.edu/

Figure 2 - Lower Sweetwater Creek Watershed

Figure 3 - FDEP Tidal Area Mapping

Tides - Sweetwater Creek opens to the waters of Tampa Bay and tidal variations there enter thecreek and propagate upstream until they are damped out by frictional effects in the shallow waters ofthe creek and elevation changes. Tides in Tampa Bay are mixed indicating that they intermediatebetween semidiurnal (two highs and two lows per day) and diurnal (one high and one low per day).Figure 4 shows the typical tidal pattern over 2 weeks for Old Tampa Bay2, the nearest tide predictionstation to the site.

Figure 4 - Typical Tidal Pattern

The tide pattern follows the lunar cycle with the spring or highest monthly tides occurring near thefull or new moon (right and left sides of the plot) and neap or lowest monthly tides occurring whenthe moon is in quadrature (center of the plot). For modeling purposes we selected a 7-day sequencestarting at a neap tide condition and ending in a spring tide condition.Stream Configuration – We utilized the Hillsborough Water Atlas web site to obtain aerialphotography and topographic data to develop the details of the upper reaches of Sweetwater Creek.Previous feasibility studies3 provided bathymetric survey data for the portions of the creek extendingfrom its mouth up to the Memorial Highway Bridge.Hydrology – There is only limited gage data to characterize the hydrologic characteristics ofSweetwater Creek. There are two tributaries that contribute flow from the eastern portions of thewatershed. These are the Henry Street Canal and the Airport Outfall Canal. Figures 5 - 6 show theHillsborough County Water Atlas site water surface elevation and flow data respectively. Figure 7shows the elevation data for the Airport Outfall Canal.

2WWW Tide and Current Predictor, URL: http://tbone.biol.sc.edu/tide/

3 PBS&J, 2006. Dredging Feasibility Report, Dana Shores, Comprehensive Canal Dredging andPreventive Measures Feasibility Study (CCDPM), Hillsborough County, Stormwater ManagementSection, Public Works Department, Contract 03-1322, URL:http://www.hillsborough.wateratlas.usf.edu/CCDPM/CanalStudy/Individual%20Feasibility%20Reports/Dana%20Shores/

Figure 5 - Henry Street Canal Water Surface Elevation

Figure 6 - Henry Street Canal Flow

Figure 7 - Airport Outfall Canal Water Surface Elevation

3. Analysis

To evaluate the spatial and dynamic characteristicsof the Sweetwater Creek’s tidal and freshwaterinflow driven flow conditions, we utilized a two-dimensional finite element numerical model tosimulate the hydrodynamics. This allowed us toselect representative tides and freshwater flowconditions and evaluate the changes that mayoccur when the lower reach of the Creek isdredged. The hydrodynamic (RMA2 WES) modelwas developed for the US Army Corps ofEngineers4. This model in various versions iswidely applied by the Corps and other modelinggroups.The model for Sweetwater Creek utilizes 918quadratic elements in its mesh. Figure 1 showsthe model mesh and the various boundaryconditions that drive the model. Figure 8 shows some of the detail of the model mesh in the projectarea.

4Donnell, B.P, Letter, J.V., McAnally, W.H. et al., 2005a. Finite Element Method for Fluid Flow, Program

RMA2 WES, Version 4.5, Two-Dimensional Hydrodynamics in the Horizontal Plane, effective RMA2source code modification date: April 18, 2005, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastaland Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi

Figure 8 - Model Mesh Detail

The model simulation of the hydrodynamic characteristics of Sweetwater Creek consists of thefollowing steps:

1. Develop a model mesh that represents the three-dimensional characteristics of the creek2. Introduce the Tampa Bay tidal boundary conditions at the mouth of the creek

3. Introduce a water surface elevation boundary condition on the upstream wetland area

4. Introduce a inflow or elevation boundary conditions on the tributaries

5. Test run the model to verify that the simulation satisfies continuity requirements, executesstable runs, and produces reasonable results for the given boundary conditions

6. Complete a 7 day simulation representative of the existing conditions for Sweetwater Creek

7. Complete a 7-day simulation for Sweetwater Creek that is identical to that in item 6 aboveexcept that the depths of the lower reach are increased in accordance with the proposeddredging plan

8. Compare the water surface elevations at various points in Sweetwater Creek to identifypossible differences over the course of the 7-day simulation.

4. Results

The study developed a numerical model simulation of Sweetwater Creek under existing andport-dredging configurations while all other conditions remained identical. A direct comparisonthe dynamic water surface elevations for both channel configurations reveals the character andmagnitude of the hydrodynamic changes in the Creek. We made comparisons at Check PointsA and B in Sweetwater Creek (see Figure 1 for locations). Figure 9 presents the comparison ofthe results.

The only real differences in the water surface elevations at Check Point A occur during the timesaround low tide. The deeper water of the dredged section of the creek allows the tidal signalfrom Tampa Bay to propagate upstream with less damping than that which occurs in the shallowwaters of the existing creek. This results in a slightly lower low tide level. Over the range oftides in the 7-day long model simulation, the largest difference in water surface elevations wasabout ¾ inch. Most of the other peak differences during the simulation period were about one-half as large.

At Check Point B, the differences in water surface elevations between the existing and dredgedcreek configurations have decreased dramatically from those that occur at Check Point A.Check Point B differences are about one order of magnitude smaller than those at Check PointB with the maximum difference of about 1/10th inch. This can be explained physically by notingthat the existing shallow water damping of the tidal signal is still an influencing factor in thecreek reach between the Memorial Highway Bridge and Check Point B.

Although the dredging of the lower reach of Sweetwater Creek does exhibit a small decrease inwater surface elevations at the upper limit of the dredged area, the differences between theexisting and post-dredging conditions are vanishingly small at Check Point B or about half wayup the creek. It is therefore clear that the channel dredging will not have any measurableinfluences on water levels in the wetlands in the upper reaches of the creek.

Figure 9 - Comparison of Water Surface Elevation - Check Point A

APPENDIX VISWEETWATER CREEK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY REPORT

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CANAL DREDGING PROGRAM

SWEETWATER CREEK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY REPORT

April 18, 2012

Prepared for

Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners

Prepared by

Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 1415 Panther Lane, Suite 346/347 Naples, FL 34109 239-254-8585 Fishkind.Com

Table of Contents Section 1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………….. 1

Section 1.1 Purpose…………………………………………………………….. 1 Section 1.2 Background………………………………………………………. . 2 Section 1.3 Special Benefits and General Benefits………………………... . 2 Section 1.4 Requirements of a Valid Assessment……………….………….. 3 Section 1.5 Application of the Master Methodology……..………………….. 3 Section 2.0 Finance Plan…………………………………………………………… 3

Section 2.1 Capital Improvement (Dredging) Program Cost Estimates….. 3 Section 2.2 Financing Requirements……………………………………….... 4 Section 3.0 Assessment Determination………………………………………….. 4

Section 3.1 Special Benefit to the Property………………………………….. 4

Section 3.2 Reasonable and Fair Apportionment of the Assessments…… 5 Section 4.0 Dredging Program Assessment Methodology……………………. 5 Section 4.1 The Assessment Process………………………………………… 5 Section 4.2 Determination of Properties Receiving Special Benefits..…….. 6 Section 4.3 The Method of Apportionment of the Assessment…………….. 6 Section 4.4 An Assessment Methodology Example…………………….…..10 Section 5.0 Assessment Roll………..…………………………………………...... 13

1

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose

This report (“Report”) provides the Assessment Methodology (“Methodology”) to the Sweetwater Creek Canal Dredging Improvement Unit (“Sweetwater Creek CDIU”) for their proposed canal dredging program (“Program”). This Methodology follows the process for assessing the affected properties per the Master Methodology established on April 20, 2011. The Methodology described herein has two goals: (1) determine the special benefits that flow to the properties in the Program as a logical connection from the dredging activities, including enhanced use and increased enjoyment of the property; and (2) apportion the special benefits on a basis that is fair and reasonable. In January 2009, the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners (“BOCC”) enacted County Ordinance 09-01, the Canal Dredging Municipal Service Benefit Unit (“MSBU”) and Assessment Procedure Ordinance (the “Ordinance”). The Ordinance creates a financing mechanism in which local communities can request that Hillsborough County (“County”) create discrete MSBUs to finance canal dredging in order to resolve navigational issues in the residential saltwater canals within their community. The properties within the community that will receive “special” benefits from the community dredging projects comprise the Canal Dredging Improvement Unit (“CDIU”). (See Section 1.3 for more information on benefit types).

The BOCC plans to fund the canal dredging capital improvement program (“CIP”) with the proceeds from either bond debt financing or financial institution loans payable from special assessments that will be levied on the benefitting properties. The non-ad valorem special assessments are intended to satisfy the case law requirements for validity which will permit such assessments to be collected under the Uniform Assessment Collection Act and constitute a lien against the properties within the boundaries of the various MSBUs established to fund the CIP. Such liens will be equal in rank and dignity with the liens of all state, county, district or municipal taxes and other non-ad valorem assessments. The Methodology described herein is intended to set forth a framework to apportion the special benefits from the CIP financed with the proceeds from bonds or loans payable from and secured by non-ad valorem special assessments (the “Assessments”) imposed and levied on the properties. The report is designed to conform to the requirements of the Florida Constitution and Chapter 197, Florida Statutes with respect to non-ad valorem assessments and is consistent with the case law on this subject.

2

1.2 Background

The Sweetwater Creek CDIU is located in the northwest section of Hillsborough County. The Sweetwater Creek CDIU consists of 27 properties including three commercial properties directly affected by the CIP. 15 participating parcel owners signed the LOI application. There were two properties that have new owners since the original LOI application was signed and one of the previous owners did sign the LOI. Even if the one signature is disqualified, the totals indicate 51.85% of the property owners within the proposed CDIU are willing to participate in the Hillsborough Dredging Program. Therefore, this CDIU still does qualify.

The CIP has been estimated by the consulting engineer to total $1,037,199 and the financing costs are approximately $381,423 according to the County’s financial advisor. The total Project CIP cost to be apportioned across all affected property owners is $1,418,222.

1.3 Special Benefits and General Benefits

Dredging projects undertaken by the County create both “general” benefits and “special” benefits which are readily distinguishable. The general benefits to the public at large, including those property owners outside the CDIUs, are incidental in nature to the benefits derived from property within the CDIUs which is dependent upon the Program to provide navigable waterways within the CDIU. Special benefits flow as a logical connection to the property within the boundary of the CDIU from the dredging project. The special benefits are particular to the actual lots that receive benefit within the CDIU. The special benefits accruing to properties within the CDIU that justify imposing the assessment include enhanced enjoyment and increased use of such properties, which results in such positive consequences as increased value and marketability from better canal access and navigation ability, and, therefore, the property would have a market value benefit over non or challenged navigation types of properties, and decreased boat insurance premiums since the dredging would significantly reduce navigation hazards and promote the health, welfare and convenience of the assessed parcels of property. These differences alone clearly distinguish the special benefits which CDIU properties receive compared to those properties lying outside of the CDIU’s boundaries and establishes that dredging projects undertaken under the Program have a nexus to the value and the use and enjoyment of the lands within the particular CDIU.

3

1.4 Requirements of a Valid Assessment

Valid special assessments under Florida law have two requirements. First, the properties assessed must receive a special benefit as a logical connection from the systems and services provided. The courts recognize various special benefits, such as enhanced enjoyment and increased use of the property, which in turn may result in increased value and marketability. Second, the assessments must be fairly and reasonably apportioned in relation to the special benefits received by the various properties being assessed.

If these two requirements are legislatively determined by the BOCC in a manner that is informed and non-arbitrary, the special assessments may be levied, imposed and collected on the property. Florida courts have found that it is not necessary to calculate benefit with mathematical precision at the time of imposition and levy so long as the levying and imposition process is not arbitrary, capricious, or unfair.

1.5 Application of the Master Methodology

The Master Methodology is intended to serve as the factual predicate to evidence the existence of special benefits and how the assessment is to be fairly apportioned. Once that is established, if the assessment is levied and collected on the tax roll under the Uniform Method, its lien status is equal to property taxes and other assessments on the various properties located within a particular CDIU. This Sweetwater Creek supplemental assessment methodology report applied the algorithms and the principles set forth in the Master Methodology resulting in the actual amount of the assessments on the benefitting parcels of land within the Sweetwater Creek CDIU.

The benefits are apportioned so that no dollar amount as assessed exceeds any determination of special benefit to the property and that the amount levied on different property owners is fair and reasonable.

2.0 Finance Plan

The Finance plan includes 2 parts: 1) a capital improvement program cost estimate and 2) financing requirements. These are further described below.

2.1 Capital Improvement (Dredging) Program Cost Estimates

All the cost estimates for the Sweetwater Creek dredging project have been determined by Tetra Tech and were finalized prior to calculating the financing requirements. The cost estimate is $1,037,199.

4

2.2 Financing Requirements

Second, the County’s Financial Advisor calculated the total financing costs for the project. The County will either issue bonds or utilize bank financing to finance the cost of the project. A number of items comprise the final financing requirements. These items may include but are not limited to capitalized interest, a debt service reserve fund, underwriter’s discount, and issuance costs. The County’s Financial Advisor has noted that banks have currently quoted a loan rate in the 4.5% range based on the current market for a 10-year loan. The financing requirement costs are estimated at $381,023. The total cost estimate is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Total Estimated Cost for Project

Project Cost $1,037,199

Interest $296,023

Bond Counsel $40,000

Bank Counsel $5,000

Contingency $30,000

Financial Advisor $10,000

Total Estimated Cost: $1,418,222

3.0 Assessment Determination

3.1 Special Benefits to the Property

The Sweetwater Creek Supplemental Methodology Report determines how each parcel within a CDIU receives special benefits from the dredging project. The specific special benefits within a CDIU shall be determined relative to each parcel of land and identified for the dredging project in accordance with a supplemental methodology report that will accompany the feasibility study for that particular CDIU.

5

3.2 Reasonable and Fair Apportionment of the Assessments

The assessments have been determined and apportioned to the benefitting parcels in relation to the special benefits received by such parcels as outlined in this Report. The non-ad valorem special assessments are fairly and reasonably apportioned by applying the apportionment methodology described in this supplemental report. This is because the special benefits to the property flowing from the dredging project and the concomitant responsibility for the payment of the resultant and allocated debt have been apportioned to the property according to the reasonable estimates of the special benefits. These benefits include enhanced enjoyment and increased use, which may result in such positive consequences as increased value and marketability, decreased boat insurance premiums and promoting the health, welfare and convenience of the assessed parcels as previously set forth above.

Accordingly, no parcel within the Sweetwater Creek CDIUs has been assessed for the payment of any non-ad valorem special assessment pursuant to the Master Methodology in an amount greater than the determined special benefit to that property.

4.0 Dredging Program Assessment Methodology

4.1 The Assessment Process.

As noted above, the assessment methodology is a process by which the County allocates the costs associated with the dredging project to properties within the Sweetwater Creek CDIU that benefit from the canal dredging. The allocation is based upon the benefits that each property receives.

The County will impose assessments on parcels of land within the Sweetwater Creek CDIU. Since actual costs may vary from the estimates, the actual figures may change as additional information becomes available. Furthermore, the size and scope of the Sweetwater Creek CDIU may also vary from time to time; however, the information provided is the best available at this time.

The County plans to finance dredging projects by issuing either bonds or securing bank financing. Those financing tools could take a number of forms but the initial financing tools are intended to be long term debt secured by assessments on benefiting properties. The financing tools also fund the capitalized interest and the costs of issuance. The interest from capitalized interest funds is payable during the dredging period as well as the period between when the dredging project is completed and the benefitting parcels are included on the County’s tax rolls. The cost of issuance pays for the financial advisor, bond counsel, and other costs associated with issuing the County's bonds or bank financing.

6

4.2 The Determination of Properties Receiving Special Benefit

All property within a CDIU that receives a special benefit from the County’s dredging project will be assessed its proportionate share of the cost of funding the dredging project.

The list of property types that could potentially receive benefit are shown in Table 2. Those property types were determined by field studies, reliance of aerial maps from the County and a thorough review of the parcels involved in each CDIU.

Table 2. List of Property Types Potentially Receiving Benefit

Single Family Homes

Duplexes/Townhomes

Apartments

Non‐Profit Organizations

For‐Profit Organizations

Home Owner Associations

Condominium Associations

Marinas (commercial operation)

Restaurants (commercial operation)

Golf Courses (commercial operation)

Public Lands

Dock Owner within Condo Association or without Residential Unit

4.3 The Method of Apportionment of the Assessment

As noted above, as long as two basic principles are adhered to, Florida law allows the BOCC great latitude in determining the appropriate methodology to allocate the costs of its dredging projects to benefiting properties in the various CDIUs. The two principles are: (1) the properties being assessed must receive a special benefit from the dredging project and (2) the assessments allocated to each property must be fairly and reasonably apportioned among the benefiting properties. In allocating the amount of special assessments to benefiting property, Florida governments have used a variety of methods including, but not limited to, property footage, parcel area, trip rates (when the benefit is motor vehicle related like roads), equivalent residential units, dwelling units, acreage, and value. Those methods directly relating to a dredging project were identified and include:

7

Access to the dredged area; the potential use and navigation of the dredged area; rear lot length; existing permitted and unpermitted boat docks; and boat ramps.

Special benefit was discussed in detail in Section 1.3. Therefore, the focus in the remainder of this section is on fair and reasonable apportionment of the indebtedness the County plans to incur to fund the Sweetwater Creek dredging project. All of the benefits from the County’s dredging project are equitably allocated to benefiting properties based on an Equivalent Canal Dredging Unit (“ECDU”). The Ordinance defines an ECDU as the apportionment unit or criteria utilized to determine the Assessment for each parcel of property, as set forth in the Initial Assessment Resolution. According to the Ordinance, ECDUs may include, by way of example only and not limitation, one or a contribution of the following: front or rear footage, land area, improvement area, permitted land use, property value or any other physical characteristics or reasonably executed use of the property that is related to the Canal Dredging to be funded from proceeds of the Assessment. These ECDU values equate the benefit received by a stated amount of such particular land use category (i.e. single family, multi-family, apartments, etc.) to the benefit received by a typical property within the Sweetwater Creek CDIU. The ECDU value has been identified as the apportionment measure that is to be determined by the Master Methodology as outlined in the County’s Canal Dredging Program Manual and the Ordinance. The assignment of ECDU values to the parcels of land located within the Sweetwater Creek CDIU begins with consideration of the benefit received by a typical parcel of land from the Sweetwater Creek dredging project. In assigning ECDU values to the parcel types within the Sweetwater Creek CDIU, several factors were considered. First, the potential use and navigation of the canal by each parcel type was taken into consideration. The location of the parcel in relation to the dredging area and whether there is a permitted or unpermitted boat dock and/or a boat ramp also whether in existence or permitted and not built were considered in the apportionment process as those factors have a direct impact on whether the owners of the parcel would use the dredged channel. The rear lot length was also determined as an apportionment factor in the apportionment analysis. The more length that a parcel of land has along its rear property line along the dredged canal, the more the benefit accrues to the property in terms of accommodating larger docks and boats.

8

All of the benefits to the various parcels were apportioned by an ECDU value since it most closely relates to the benefit allocation in terms of a fair and equitable measure since the higher the ECDU, the more benefit is derived from the dredging projects. The primary direct benefit that was considered in determining the various ECDU values is the potential use of the waterways from the assessed properties within the CDIU. The benefit derived by units in an apartment or property owners association was also considered in the ECDU determination since all of the units within such apartments or associations would benefit although they are considered as a combined single unit like a single family home as there is no fee simple title to each unit. To compensate for that fact, the Consultant gave more weight to the apartment and property owners association ECDUs. The following Tables 3 through 6 provide the ECDU amounts allocated to each type of land use found in the various CDIUs. Table 3 identifies the ECDU values pertaining to the benefit received if a parcel of land is adjacent to the actual dredge area in the CDIU. “Adjacent to” means that a parcel is parallel to the actual dredging area as determined by the project engineer. Any portion of a parcel’s side property lines as extended out to the dredge area that touches the dredge area is considered “adjacent to” the dredge area. Adjacent lots do receive an additional benefit from the dredging in that they would be able to get a larger boat to their dock/lot compared to the non-adjacent lots, which do not require any adjacent dredging to remediate similar limitations on navigability. Otherwise, the dredge area would have been extended to the non-dredge adjacent lots. That is a benefit that is particular to the dredge adjacent lots. Table 4 shows the ECDU value of a parcel of land in the CDIU based on the rear lot length adjacent to the CDIU dredge area. The longer the lot length, the more benefit the parcel received in terms of allowing for larger docks and boats. Table 5 identifies the ECDU values pertaining to the benefit received if a parcel of land within the CDIU has a boat dock and the number of docks each parcel of land has. A parcel of land would receive one (1) ECDU if it has a dock no matter what the size or configuration. The parcel of land would also receive another ECDU value depending on the number of boat slips it has. In the case of a dock that is parallel to the parcel of land versus one that is parallel on most commercial and multi-family land, the parcel of land would receive one (1) ECDU for each 80 feet of dock length. The actual weighted average of the 613 lots in the five CDIUs is 78.37. Therefore, 80 feet is the middle ground used for the analysis of the ECDU values in Table 5. The length categories in Table 5 were calculated based on the fact that larger parallel boat docks could accommodate larger boats and therefore derive a greater benefit from the dredging improvement since they require a larger draft to navigate unhindered.

9

Table 6 shows the ECDU values for a parcel of land with a boat ramp. The base value for this calculation is the single family and townhome parcel where a ECDU value of two (2) is used if there is a boat ramp and one (1) if no boat ramp exists. Again, GIS and aerial analysis have indicated that single family homes and townhomes are the most prevalent in the CDIUs analyzed. If a boat ramp is located on a parcel of land that has more than two residential units on it or is a commercial operation, then the value is doubled to four (4) to take into account the increased use of the canal because of that ramp.

Table 3. Parcel Adjacent to Dredge Area ECDUs

Parcel Adjacent to Dredge Area ECDU Assigned Value Yes No

Single Family Homes 2 1

Duplexes/Townhomes 2 1

Apartments 2 1

Non‐Profit Organizations 2 1

For‐Profit Organizations 2 1

Home Owner Associations 2 1

Condominium Associations 2 1

Marinas (commercial operation) 2 1

Restaurants (commercial operation) 2 1

Golf Courses (commercial operation) 2 1

Public Lands 2 1

Dock Owner within Condo Association or without Residential Unit 2 1

Table 4. Rear Lot Length in Feet ECDUs

Rear Lot Length in Feet ECDU Assigned Value 50< 51‐80 81‐100 101‐120 >120

Single Family Homes 1 2 3 4 5

Duplexes/Townhomes 1 2 3 4 5

Apartments 1 2 3 4 5

Non‐Profit Organizations 1 2 3 4 5

For‐Profit Organizations 1 2 3 4 5

Home Owner Associations 1 2 3 4 5

Condominium Associations 1 2 3 4 5

Marinas (commercial operation) 1 2 3 4 5

Restaurants (commercial operation) 1 2 3 4 5

Golf Courses (commercial operation) 1 2 3 4 5

Public Lands 1 2 3 4 5

Dock Owner within Condo Association or without Residential Unit 1 2 3 4 5

10

Table 5. Permitted and Unpermitted Boat Dock ECDUs

Boat Docks ECDU Assigned Value Yes Number of Docks

(boat slips) *

Single Family Homes 1 #

Duplexes/Townhomes 1 #

Apartments 1 #

Non‐Profit Organizations 1 #

For‐Profit Organizations 1 #

Home Owner Associations 1 #

Condominium Associations 1 #

Marinas (commercial operation) 1 #

Restaurants (commercial operation) 1 #

Golf Courses (commercial operation) 1 #

Public Lands 1 #

Dock Owner within Condo Association or without Residential Unit 1 #

*- The # sign indicates the number of boat slips for a particular property. The number of boat slips is particular to a specific property within the CDIU. If the dock is perpendicular to the parcel of land, then the number of boat slips is used. If the dock is parallel to the parcel of land, then each 100 feet of dock constitutes one (1) dock. Parallel docks are limited in accommodating a certain number and size of boat due to only the water side of the dock being able to be used while perpendicular docks can accommodate as many boats as the boat slip configuration allows since all sides can be used with the exception of the place where the boat dock connects with the land.

Table 6. Boat Ramp ECDUs Based on Use

Boat Ramp ECDU Assigned Value Yes No

Single Family Homes 2 1

Duplexes/Townhomes 2 1

Apartments 4 1

Non‐Profit Organizations 2 1

For‐Profit Organizations 2 1

Home Owner Associations 4 1

Condominium Associations 4 1

Marinas (commercial operation) 4 1

Restaurants (commercial operation) 4 1

Golf Courses (commercial operation) 4 1

Public Lands 4 1

Dock Owner within Condo Association or without Residential Unit 2 1

11

4.4 The Sweetwater Creek Assessment Methodology

As noted earlier, The Sweetwater Creek CDIU is located in the northwest section of Hillsborough County. The Sweetwater Creek CDIU consists of 27 properties including three commercial properties directly affected by the CIP. The CIP has been estimated by the consulting engineer to total $1,037,199 and the financing costs are approximately $381,423 according to the County’s financial advisor. The total Project CIP cost to be apportioned across all affected property owners is $1,418,222. Table 7 below shows the list of the parcels receiving benefit within the Sweetwater Creek CDIU, their folio number, strap number and site address.

Table 7. List of Parcels

FOLIO STRAP OWNER SITE_ADDR

0119930000 172912ZZZ000000455700U EGYPT TEMPLE HOLDING CORP INC 4050 DANA SHORES DR

0121930936 1729120GM000001000280U ZEQING LI AND ZHIMIN ZHANG 4153 SALTWATER BV

0121930934 1729120GM000001000270U THOMAS F O'REILLY AND KAREN LYNNE CRAMER 4155 SALTWATER BV

0121930932 1729120GM000001000260U TANG WAI CHING 4157 SALTWATER BV

0121930930 1729120GM000001000250U R THOMAS AND JOANN K CHAMBERLAIN 4159 SALTWATER BV

0121930928 1729120GM000001000240U ROLANDO D AND LISA F RODRIGUEZ 4161 SALTWATER BV

0121930926 1729120GM000001000230U DAVID M MASI 4163 SALTWATER BV

0121930924 1729120GM000001000220U EDWARD L JR AND RACHEL M DALTON 4165 SALTWATER BV

0121930922 1729120GM000001000210U RAYMOND R AND MARTHA I LARSON 4167 SALTWATER BV

0121930836 1729120GL000001000200U PATEL AMISH A & WATKINS MELANIE 4169 SALTWATER BV

0121930834 1729120GL000001000190U JOSE S LAVARRO ET AL 4171 SALTWATER BV

0121930832 1729120GL000001000180U RICHARD AND MIMOZA NOLL 4173 SALTWATER BV

0121930786 1729120GJ000001000170U KEVIN P AND CHRISTINE L MCCARRON 4201 SALTWATER BV

0121930784 1729120GJ000001000160U JOHN F III AND CAROL L KEOGH 4203 SALTWATER BV

0121930782 1729120GJ000001000150U STEVE J AND PAM B TONER 4205 SALTWATER BV

0121930780 1729120GJ000001000140U JOHN AND LESLIE M BERLIN 4207 SALTWATER BV

0121930778 1729120GJ000001000130U LINDA M GARMAN AND MARK C STINE 4209 SALTWATER BV

0121930776 1729120GJ000001000120U ROBIN LIN POKOJ 4211 SALTWATER BV

0121930774 1729120GJ000001000110U LYUDMYLA ARTEMENKO NORGART 4213 SALTWATER BV

0121930772 1729120GJ000001000100U H DANNER HRYHARROW 4215 SALTWATER BV

0121930708 1729120GI000001000090U HOWARD B AND CLARE QUIRK JACKSON 4217 SALTWATER BV

0121930706 1729120GI000001000080U KEVIN C LINDEN AND MARIA E LINDEN 4219 SALTWATER BV

0121930816 1729120GK000001000030U LINDA C JUSTEN AND RUSSELL RICHARDSON 4307 SALTWATER BV

0121930814 1729120GK000001000020U PETER JR AND MARTHA R RAGANO LIFE ESTATE 4309 SALTWATER BV

0121930812 1729120GK000000000001U PAUL C COMINGORE 4311 SALTWATER BV

0119935000 172912ZZZ000000455900U GEORGIA VENTURE (Apartments) 5450 MEMORIAL HY

0119940100 172912ZZZ000000456200U SCOTTISH RITE TEMPLE ASSOCIATION INC 5500 MEMORIAL HY

12

Once the parcel ECDUs were determined and totaled for each parcel, then a total number of ECDUs was calculated for the Sweetwater Creek CDIU. From there, each parcel’s ECDU total was divided by the total number of ECDUs in the CDIU to obtain the parcel’s percentage of the total ECDUs. The total debt allocation for the Sweetwater Creek CDIU is $1,418,222 and each parcel’s percentage of the total ECDUs is multiplied against that total to determine each parcel’s allocation of total debt.

Table 8 below shows the ECDU calculations for all of the parcels located within the Sweetwater Creek CDIU.

Table 8. ECDU Calculations and Subsequent Debt Allocation

SITE_ADDR Dredge

Area Rear Lot Length

Boat Dock

Boat Ramp

Total ECDUs

Percent of Total ECDUs

Total Debt Allocation

Annual over 10 Years

4050 DANA SHORES DR 2 5 4 0 11 4.825% $68,422.99 $6,842.30

4153 SALTWATER BV 2 5 4 0 11 4.825% $68,422.99 $6,842.30

4155 SALTWATER BV 2 3 4 0 9 3.947% $55,982.45 $5,598.24

4157 SALTWATER BV 2 3 4 0 9 3.947% $55,982.45 $5,598.24

4159 SALTWATER BV 2 5 5 0 12 5.263% $74,643.26 $7,464.33

4161 SALTWATER BV 2 4 3 0 9 3.947% $55,982.45 $5,598.24

4163 SALTWATER BV 2 3 3 0 8 3.509% $49,762.18 $4,976.22

4165 SALTWATER BV 2 3 3 0 8 3.509% $49,762.18 $4,976.22

4167 SALTWATER BV 2 3 3 0 8 3.509% $49,762.18 $4,976.22

4169 SALTWATER BV 2 3 5 0 10 4.386% $62,202.72 $6,220.27

4171 SALTWATER BV 2 2 0 0 4 1.754% $24,881.09 $2,488.11

4173 SALTWATER BV 2 2 3 0 7 3.070% $43,541.90 $4,354.19

4201 SALTWATER BV 2 2 4 0 8 3.509% $49,762.18 $4,976.22

4203 SALTWATER BV 2 3 3 0 8 3.509% $49,762.18 $4,976.22

4205 SALTWATER BV 2 3 2 0 7 3.070% $43,541.90 $4,354.19

4207 SALTWATER BV 2 3 3 0 8 3.509% $49,762.18 $4,976.22

4209 SALTWATER BV 2 3 4 0 9 3.947% $55,982.45 $5,598.24

4211 SALTWATER BV 2 3 3 0 8 3.509% $49,762.18 $4,976.22

4213 SALTWATER BV 2 4 3 0 9 3.947% $55,982.45 $5,598.24

4215 SALTWATER BV 2 4 3 0 9 3.947% $55,982.45 $5,598.24

4217 SALTWATER BV 2 5 3 0 10 4.386% $62,202.72 $6,220.27

4219 SALTWATER BV 2 1 0 0 3 1.316% $18,660.82 $1,866.08

4307 SALTWATER BV 2 4 3 0 9 3.947% $55,982.45 $5,598.24

4309 SALTWATER BV 2 5 2 0 9 3.947% $55,982.45 $5,598.24

4311 SALTWATER BV 2 1 2 0 5 2.193% $31,101.36 $3,110.14

5450 MEMORIAL HY 2 5 2 4 13 5.702% $80,863.54 $8,086.35

5500 MEMORIAL HY 2 5 0 0 7 3.070% $43,541.90 $4,354.19

228 100.00% $1,418,222.00 $141,822.20

13

5.0 Assessment Roll

As described above, the debt associated with each parcel in the Sweetwater Creek CDIU will be assessed in the manner described herein. As the Sweetwater Creek CDIU has its final dredging plan agreed upon by at least 60% of the affected properties within the CDIU, an assessment roll will be developed and presented to the BOCC for approval in accordance with the Ordinance in order to process the roll each year.

Sweetwater Creek Dredging Report

Documents

Transcript of Sweetwater Creek Dredging Report