Vibracore borings (or core borings) are needed to determine the type of material present within the Project area. Vibracore borings are taken from a barge or large workboat. Hollow cylinders, ranging from 18 to 22 feet in length, are vibrated through the submerged soil. The cylinders penetrate the material until the required depth is achieved or until refusal. The cylinders are then capped with pressure (much like you can cap a straw that is in your drink with your finger) and then brought to the surface where the ends of the cylinder are capped. Once the core borings have been collected, a registered professional geologist splits them horizontally to reveal the sediment within the core, and photographs, and evaluates the sediment for specific soil properties. Project engineers and decision makers then use this information to determine the location of the potential inlet cut, the dredge required to make the cut, and the estimated cost of the excavation. Additional information on sand search and sediment investigation may be found in the paper titled “Methods of Investigation to Identify Sources of Sand for Nourishment” on the web at:
http://www3.csc.noaa.gov/beachnourishment/html/geo/sand.htm.

ECE and ATM developed a computer modeling study to provide information to aid in designing the Midnight Pass Reopening Project. The model study serves three main purposes: (1) to evaluate design alternatives and to optimize inlet channel geometry; and (2) identify what environmental changes the project might cause (e.g., salt content of the water, temperature, how much time the water remained in the estuary before returning to the Gulf) and (3) to identify project alternatives with the least adverse impacts and greatest potential benefits.

The study utilized the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) model. EFDC is a state-of-the-art (2-D, 3-D) finite-difference hydrodynamic (water-motion) model approved for use in marine environments by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The model was used to simulate the hydrodynamics (i.e., water surface elevations, currents and flows), residence times of water within the estuary and salinity throughout the Little Sarasota Bay study area. The model also provides a framework upon which a water quality model may be applied.

Vegetation provides sources of food and habitat, cover from predators, and countless other functions, such as assimilating nutrients and stabilizing soils. Environmentally, some of the most important vegetated habitats include mangrove wetlands and seagrass beds, both found near Midnight Pass.

An important step in most coastal dredging projects is to determine and define which habitats may be affected. Project planners and regulatory agency officials routinely take inventory of these habitats and the amount (acreage) of habitat that will be negatively impacted so we can compensate for that loss by creating, restoring, or preserving impacted wetlands and seagrass beds.

Biologists recently inventoried both vegetated and non-vegetated habitats throughout the middle of Little Sarasota Bay, including Midnight Pass. Marine biologists examined seagrass beds at over 300 locations, listing the species and density. In addition, wetland scientists identified wetland vegetation, the majority of which was mangrove. Some exotic, invasive species were also found (for example, Brazilian pepper).

Using data from these studies, and additional information from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, geographic information system (GIS) specialists mapped the vegetation in the Midnight Pass area and that section of Little Sarasota Bay. In the future, biologists will return to the project area for a more detailed examination of vegetation and habitats once the actual “footprint” of the project is determined.

To determine the optimal or best design for an engineering project, such as the Midnight Pass Reopening Project (Project), the team of professional engineers and scientists (Design Team) performs technical and environmental studies to evaluate the effects for different project designs on costs, performance, environmental impacts, etc..

In the case of the County’s Project, differing channel alignments, widths and depths were considered to determine the best or “Preferred Alternative”. Six different alternative designs were developed and evaluated to determine which alternative best meets the Project’s design goals and objectives. As part of this alternatives analysis, the geometry and alignment of the new Pass, the sedimentation basin and tidal channel connection to the GIWW are evaluated. The design goals that guided the development of these alternatives, and the selection of the recommended or Preferred Alternative, included: (1) providing a natural, stable channel without hardened structures, (2) minimizing future maintenance requirements, (3) minimizing adverse impacts to biological resources, (4) improvement of flushing of the interior bay waters and (5) minimizing impacts to the adjacent inlets.

The recommended, or Preferred Alternative, for the Midnight Pass Reopening Project was based on an evaluation of each alternative, in terms of their expected stability, tidal prism and current velocities, environmental impacts (wetland impacts, changes in bay water residence time, etc) expected permitting constraints, maintenance requirements and anticipated performance.

One of the most important resources in marine environments is its "fishery," comprising both nongame fish species and fishes and certain macroinvertebrates (shrimp, crabs, etc.) of recreational/commercial importance. The composition of the fish community varies according to environmental conditions, such as water temperature, clarity, and salinity; tidal flushing speeds (velocities); and availability of spawning and foraging habitats. It is important to understand that water characteristics of the water can change with time (days, months, seasons, or years), and that habitats may also change over time. Ecosystem health can in part be determined by the make-up of the fish community, and by the condition and health of individual fishes and other organisms.

The week of May 3, 2004, fishery biologists and marine scientists from Dial Cordy and Associates (contracted by Erickson Consulting Engineers) surveyed the fish community in the vicinity of Midnight Pass and nearby reference areas outside the proposed project area (8 sites in all). Both passive methods (anchored nets) and active methods (throw traps and haul seines) were employed so that all size-classes of fishes could be collected. In addition, several different habitats, including seagrass habitats, habitats dominated by algae, and sand-, silt-, and shell/rock-bottom areas were sampled.

In the vicinity of Midnight Pass and surrounding areas, biologists found most species expected to be found in a protected marine bay in southwest Florida. Individuals seemed healthy (no signs of deformities, lesions, etc.) and in good physical condition (i.e, adults not undernourished). Species captured included shrimp, crabs, catfish, rays, rainwater killifish, goldspotted killifish, silver jenny, anchovies, spot, needlefish, pipefish, pinfish, snook, spotted seatrout, crevalle jack, permit, and a juvenile bonefish. Details regarding methods and results can be found in Appendix D of the Midnight Pass Reopening Project Design Report (on-line at http://www.midnightpass-reopening.org/reports/).

Future fishery investigations will involve a more detailed analysis of data from the field survey and from other data collected in Little Sarasota Bay by the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. To better predict if and how the fish assemblage may change inresponse to the proposed re-opening of Midnight Pass (which will likely have at least a localized effect on environmental conditions in the Bay), additional data from near existing passes will be collected and examined.

The first step in the evaluation of the water quality impacts associated with the proposed opening of Midnight Pass is the determination of the baseline water quality conditions. The baseline conditions are being developed through evaluation of the historic data collected by the County and other groups since the closing of the Pass in 1983. This includes the baseline water quality data as well as numerous reports and studies conducted in the waters adjacent to the Pass. Additionally, a data search is being conducted to determine the extent of data available prior to the closing of the Pass to try and quantify, as accurately as possible, the water quality conditions prior to the closure of the Pass, and what changes have occurred since the closing. The determination of the potential changes to water quality within the waters adjacent to the Pass will be based upon the evaluation of flushing and residence time using the hydrodynamic model developed for the Feasibility Study. The results from the model will be correlated with other similar waters along the Gulf Coast and results of historic water quality evaluations since and prior to the closure.

To reopen Midnight Pass both federal and state permits are required. The type of federal authorization is called a Section 404 Permit which is required to place dredged and fill material in waters of the U.S. for purposes of dredging an inlet channel or building a beach. Placement of dredged and fill materials of the United States, including wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corp’s Section 404 regulations are found in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 320-331. Section 404 permits are highly complex because they are integrated with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which in turn triggers numerous environmental laws and regulations. This process involves development and evaluation of alternatives, impact analysis and mitigation.

Obtaining approval for a Section 404 permit for an inlet reopening project, inlet navigation project or a beach nourishment project of any size is a complex and lengthy process. The primary requirement is that applicants must be able to prove that they have selected the most practical alternative that minimizes adverse environmental impacts in order for the Project to be approved. This means that the County must document that a sequence of avoidance, minimization and compensation has been followed. The Section 404(b) (1) guidelines allow the County to take engineering cost, environmental and logistic factors into consideration. A well defined Project purpose and need are also critical elements of the Section 404 permit submitted. In their decision to issue the Section 404 permit, the USACE must determine whether the project represents the most “practical” and least environmentally adverse solution and is in the public interest.

To reopen Midnight Pass both federal and state permits are required. The type of state authorization is called a Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) which is required from the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for construction and excavation activities below mean high water and seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. The Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (BBCS) is responsible for administering and processing the “Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) Authorization to Use Florida’s Sovereign Submerged Lands and the Federal Dredge and Fill Permit”. The BBCS, under the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, is responsible for administering Section 161, of the Florida Statutes, and will process the Project’s application for an environmental resource permit, wetland resource (dredge and fill) permit and a sovereign submerged lands use authorization. These permits and authorizations are consolidated into a "joint coastal permit" or JCP. Activities which require a JCP include beach restoration and other erosion control projects such as the construction of groins and breakwaters; maintenance of inlets and inlet-related structures; and dredging of navigation channels with beach disposal of dredged material. Chapter 62B-49, Florida Administrative Code, provides the procedures and requirements that must be met to obtain a JCP.

The JCP application review process involves development and evaluation of the Project’s goals and objectives, baseline environmental data, evaluation of alternatives, impact analysis and mitigation. Obtaining approval for a JCP permit for an inlet reopening project or a beach nourishment project of any size is a complex and lengthy process. The State DEP must determine whether the project represents the most “practical” and least environmentally adverse solution that minimizes adverse environmental impacts and is in the public interest for a permit to be approved.

To reopen Midnight Pass an environmental impact assessment must be developed for the USACE and other federal jurisdictional agencies (Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries) to assess potential project impacts. This document will provide a description of the Project’s purpose and need, the existing environment and natural resources, the design rationale and basis for the Project and an evaluation of alternative project actions and designs to assess the impacts of the Project .

The environmental impact assessment (EIA) must demonstrate that the Project (referred to as the “preferred alternative”) is the most practical alternative that minimizes adverse environmental impacts. In development of the EIA, The expected adverse and beneficial impacts of the Project on the environment (flushing, water quality, sediment transport, etc.) and natural resources (fisheries, aquatic vegetation, shellfish, wildlife, etc.) must be identified, evaluated and quantified. In the evaluation of each alternative, the effect of the action on each resource (environmental consequence) must be documented and quantified, and an in-depth understanding of the enhancement and degradation potential evaluated for each alternative. The development of the preferred alternative (Project), must demonstrate that a sequence of avoidance, minimization and compensation has been followed.

A summary of findings is prepared describing expected adverse and beneficial impacts and a recommended mitigation plan to ameliorate the adverse impacts is developed. Upon acceptance that the environmental impact assessment document is complete, the USACE will determine whether the project represents the most “practical” and least environmentally adverse solution that minimizes adverse environmental impacts and is in the public interest.

The Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) application and review process for an inlet reopening project or beach nourishment project of any size is complex and lengthy. The RAI is a necessary and anticipated part of this process. In fact, a significant amount of Project resources have been allocated to respond to RAIs. The RAI is most simply described as a “checklist” that the State uses to ensure that a proposed project complies with all applicable Florida Statutes and Administrative Rules. These statutes and rules are designed to protect the health and integrity of Florida’s environmental resources and to provide reasonable assurances that approved projects are in the public benefit.

The JCP application includes 38 distinct items to be addressed by applicants. Items range from the routine, such as the name of the applicant, to complex and detailed hydraulic and physical analyses. In order to ensure the most complete initial application, the project team conducted pre-application conferences with permitting agencies. It was fully anticipated by both the County and the State that a Request for Additional Information would be issued within 30 days of the date the application was submitted.

Many of the items considered incomplete by the State will be fully addressed in the County’s upcoming response to the first RAI. Other items will remain pending either because the work is ongoing or because the required data cannot be finalized until closer to the start of project construction. For example, work on the

Inlet Management Plan is in progress and will be submitted when complete. The Erosion Control Line (ECL), on the other hand, cannot be finalized at this time because the ECL must be based upon survey data that are collected/performed no more than six months prior to start of Project construction. As another example, the requested Construction Plans and Specifications is one of several items that will be a condition to receive the State’s Notice To Proceed immediately prior to Project construction. Every item, however, will be addressed to the satisfaction of the DEP before the application will be considered complete. This process is expected to take 12 to 18 months.

The County’s response to the first RAI may trigger additional questions from the State. This, too, is a fully anticipated part of the permitting process. Through an iterative process in the form of RAIs the State seeks to clarify to their satisfaction the effects of the proposed project and thus optimize project objectives, develop design constraints, and balance the interests and needs of all stakeholders.

The water quality in East Sarasota Bay, Roberts Bay, Little Sarasota Bay, and Blackburn Bay was studied from 1997 to 2002 as part of Sarasota County’s assessment of potentially impaired water bodies. The State of Florida has standards against which existing water quality is compared to determine whether or not a particular water body will be designated as “impaired.”

In conjunction with studies to determine the feasibility of re-opening Midnight Pass, water quality data were evaluated from the County’s six years of data with specific focus on four key parameters, chlorophyll a (chl a), total nitrogen (TN), secchi depth, and dissolved oxygen (DO). The key parameters selected provide an assessment of the overall health of the bay. TN and chl a are indicators of total nutrient loading. Excess nutrients can increase algae growth, which in turn can lead to reduced DO and increased turbidity. Low DO levels can cause fish to avoid the subject waters and, in extreme cases, result in fish kills. Increased algal biomass can also reduce water clarity, resulting in decreased light penetration and decreased coverage of seagrasses that need the light to photosynthesize. Secchi depth measures water clarity.

The project team also conducted computer modeling to compare the rate of tidal flushing of the bay before and after inlet closure in 1983. Results of these studies suggest that Little Sarasota Bay has poor flushing with only 40 percent of the water exchanging every 10 days. In contrast, it is estimated that 80 to 85 percent of the water in Little Sarasota Bay will be exchanged every 10 days with the Pass reopened. Poor flushing exacerbates the water quality problems caused by increased nutrient loading from creek runoff and non-point sources.

Conclusions drawn from the water quality assessment of the four embayments include:

1. The area in the immediate vicinity of Midnight Pass exhibited the following water quality characteristics - low DO levels, high concentrations of chl a, especially in the spring and summer months, high TN, and low Secchi depth.
2. The area in the immediate vicinity of Midnight Pass often exhibits poorer water quality than sections of the bay to the North that receive greater volumes of non-point source pollution and are presently listed as impaired by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
3. The area in the immediate vicinity of Midnight Pass often exhibits algal biomass accumulations in excess of 11.0 micrograms chl a per liter (µg chl a/l), the FDEP indicator for an impaired water body.
4. The waters in the immediate vicinity of Midnight Pass are not presently listed by FDEP as impaired primarily because of the broad area over which water quality measurements define impairment.
5. Clarity in the immediate vicinity of Midnight Pass is often lower than in surrounding embayments and the DO often falls below 5.0 milligrams per liter in the spring and summer months.

Efforts to reduce nutrient loading into Little Sarasota Bay from septic tanks and non-point source runoff have resulted in recent improvements to the water quality within the bay. Increased flushing of Little Sarasota Bay by the re-opening of Midnight Pass will enhance and improve upon the progress being made.

Since 1986 the State of Florida has, by statute, incorporated inlet management planning into the statewide long-term comprehensive beach management plan. The objectives of inlet management planning are to provide for adequate sand bypassing at inlets; to improve the safety of inlet navigation; and to mitigate for inlet associated erosion losses. To this end, the Florida legislature amended Section 161.161 of the Florida Statutes to include inlet management planning as a required element of the state’s comprehensive beach management plan. Specifically, this statute mandates the evaluation of “each improved, modified, or altered inlet and determines whether the inlet is a significant cause of beach erosion.” Section 161.142 of the Florida Statutes was enacted for the purpose of establishing public policy related to improved navigation inlets. This statute addresses such issues as placement of sand from construction and maintenance dredging and sand bypassing requirements to downdrift beaches.

In order to adequately address the intent of F.S. 161.161, the Inlet Management Plan typically includes the following sections and elements within each section:

Introduction - An historical review and general description of the inlet and a summary of the stakeholders, interest groups and inlet users.

Physical Processes - A description of the physical setting (climate, geography, geology, beach and riverine processes), summary of shoreline evolution near the inlet, inlet bathymetry, and inlet influence on the adjacent beaches, inlet sediment budget (i.e., how much sand is bypassed naturally at the inlet and how much sand is incorporated into the ebb and flood shoals), description of the hydraulics of the inlet, wind and wave climate, and existing shore protection structures in the vicinity of the inlet.

Natural Resources - Vegetation zones, threatened and endangered species, beach and dune systems, existing conservation areas, estuarine wetlands, nearshore habitats, and hardbottom communities.

Inlet Maintenance and Alternative Bypassing Systems - An alternatives analysis including feasibility and technical merits, estimated annualized costs of planning design, construction, operation and maintenance, potential socioeconomic and environmental impacts, and overall sand management effectiveness.

Navigation and Public Safety - An assessment of existing navigation conditions and hazards, improvement needs, and alternatives.

Comprehensive Management Plan - A description of the maintenance, natural resources, and navigation elements of the recommended comprehensive plan, as well as a project implementation schedule and budget.

Now that we know what an inlet management plan is, why do we need one? Put simply, the Inlet Management Plan for Midnight Pass is an important planning document that provides a framework for the long-term inlet management policies for the re-opened inlet. As understanding of the inlet functioning is refined, this framework can be updated and improved to meet changing conditions.