Loading...
PBSD MSTBU Minutes 02/16/2011 W RECEIVED MAY - 9 2011 Board of County Commissioners MINUTES OF THE PELICAN BA Y SERVICES DIVISION BOARD SPECIAL WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS CLAM BAY MARKERS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16,201 I LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board held a Special Workshop to discuss Clam Bay Markers on Wednesday, February 16,2011 at 9:00 3.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas. Chairman Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman John P. Chandler ahsent Tom Cravens Johan Domenie absent Geoffrey S. Gibson John Iaizzo absent Michael Levy Theodore Raia, Jr. John Baron absent Hunter 1-1. Hansen absent Fiala ~ Hiller ,,/ ~~~I~inQ~ Coletta L' Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill absent Kyle Lukasz Mary McCaughtry Lisa Resnick Also Present: Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Marcia Cravens, Vice-President, Mangrove Action Group (MAGI Stephen Feldhaus, Secretary, Pelican Bay Foundation & Co-Chair, Clam Bay Ad Hoc Committee Tim Hall, Senior Biologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates James Hoppenstcadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Mary Johnson, President, MAG Noreen Murray, Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Kathy Worley, Co-Director Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida flpproximate(v 40 attendees AGENDA I. Roll Call 2. Audience Participation 3. Clam Bay Markers Discussion 4. Audience Comments 5. Adjournment ROLL CALL With the exception of Messrs. Chandler, Domenie, laizzo, Baron, and Hansen, all Board members present. INTRODlJCTION Chairman Dallas said the purpose of the workshop is to discuss the Services Division's position for appropriate markers in Clam Bay and that he would convey that position on behalf of the Board at the County's Clam Bay Markers Discussion meeting February 17. PRESENT AnON With red and green markers "off the table," Mr. Stephen Feldhaus, Secretary, Pelican Bay Foundation & Co-Chair, Clam Bay Ad Hoc Committee made a presentation regarding alternative markers that are being proposed for Clam Bay by the County's Coastal Zone Management (CZM) department, supported by the Pelican Bay Foundation, and that Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) deems appropriate. The proposed markers provide the Seagate community with a route into and out of the Gulf, well marked for safety, with twelve canoe/kayak trail post signs; two "Caution Clam Bay" buoys at the mouth of the IMisc.o6;drife6tulf, and one at 8442 DateLe l"2.."i:.l II ----~--" Itern#.I~~\I'\'2."l.. Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop to Discuss Clam Bay Markers February 16,2011 the exit to the Seagate community; three "Caution Shoal" buoys; and one "Caution Seagrass" buoy. All stakeholders would negotiate at tomorrow's County meeting. Dr. Raia asked if dredging is part ortne agenda and Mr. Feldhaus answered that the meeting is solely to discuss the markers. Mr. Levy asked if they are marking the channel as it exists, or would there be an indication for dredging. Mr. Feldhaus said in his opinion, the powers that the Foundation has would approve limited dredging to restore the system as it is today. The most likely location is near the drm.vbridge where proposed markers 3, 4, and Caution Shoal are. He added that Seagate or the City of Naples should consider being responsible for limited dredging around that shoal. Mr. Cravens referred to PYC pipes sticking out all over Clam Bay that are unsightly and Mr. Hall said they are survey markers and serve as reference points where surveyors are able to get repeatability of their surveys. Ms. Marcia Cravens said the shoaling that occurs south of boardwalk is not a t100d shoal, hut is an intertidal flap. Dredging in any form, for the purposes of improving navigational access is navigational dredging and not consistent with history, covenants, or deed restrictions. There were at least 2,500 petition signatures indicating they do not want channel markers or alterations made to the existing natural conditions of the system. There is an existing canoe trail permit in good standing with replacement markers. No markers needed at the Pass. The shoal and seagrass markers being on buoys could move and cause damage. Mr. Ryan Moreau ofFFWCC has said the best way to improve safety for everyone is to add informational markers, such as "Local Knowledge Required." She believes Mr. Moreau would not allow two sets of canoe trail markers. Mr. Feldhaus said the existing markers would be permitted north of the Pass and the proposed markers south of the Pass. Again, this is an attempt to reach out to Seagate and delineate a route from the boat launch in Seagate to the Gulf. Ms. Noreen Murray asked if they would define what the same level of access to Seagate is. Mr. Feldhaus said the Foundation drafted a specific agreement with charts and depths of existing areas map that Seagate turned down, and they have not presented anything since. Mr. Len Rothman, St. Lucia at Pelican Bay resident said existing conditions should dictate the type of markers and the existing canoe trail markers are sufficient. A Pelican Bay resident said in the interest of fairness. Seagate should not be denied their boating rights. Mr. Levy asked what the ditTerence is between these markers and canoe trail markers Mr. Feldhaus said the proposed markers are numbered for a clear path from Seagate to the Gulf. Mr. Hall said the proposed markers plan adds two markers at the Pass to the thirty-two canoe trail markers. Dr. Raia made a presentation about the history of navigation markers in Clam Bay and preservation of the status quo. The existing canoe trail markers satisfy the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan permit. Contrary to the County's insistence, red and green markers were not required. He recommended replacing the existing canoe trail markers that are in poor condition because these markers are suitable for everyone, including boaters. 8443 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop to Discuss Clam Bay Markers February 16,2011 Mr. Feldhaus advised that this Board not approach these negotiations from Dr. Raia's standpoint that red and green markers were not required to satisfy the 1998 permit. This approach will empower the parties who agree with the prior interpretation to attempt to rely on it in litigation and only prolong this dispute, not help resolve it. Ms. Murray asked Mr. Feldhaus to explain what the difference is between the existing markers and the markers that are being proposed. Mr. Feldhaus said the situation has changed. FFWCC and eZM decided to address what kind of markers are appropriate today, rather than what may have been appropriate in the past, like "idle speed no wake" markers. Mr. Bob Naegele said the Services Division purchased replacernent markers for the existing canoe trail. The signs are in inventory. The proposed plan seems very similar to the existing one. He questioned why they should spend money to shift liability from the County to the Foundation Mr. Feldhaus said regarding liability, a concern with red and green markers is that they denote safe passage, so there would be an obligation to ensure safe passage. Ms. Cravens referred to a document that she distributed regarding established designated uses and recommended proceeding with markers appropriate for primary designated uses, i.e., conservation and preservation, not for incidental use, i.c., motor boats. Mr. Tim Hall said the County could convert the existing canoe trail permit to cover the twelve markers in the proposed plan only effectively voiding the existing canoe trail permit. Alternatively, the County could convert the existing canoe trail permit to include existing markers #] 3 - #32 to the north and allow the County to create a new permit for the proposed twelve markers to the south. The marker numbering system could cause confusion. They could renumber proposed marker # 12 to # 1 I and proposed marker # I ] to # 12, so that # II is at the Pass and #12 would notify the user that it loops back. They could also modify proposed marker #11 to show #] J/# 13 on one sign, which indicates two permits and notify the user that it loops back. Whoever pursues the permit is liable. The Board discussed who would be responsible for the permit and liability. They purchased one set of signs and to purchase another set would cost $1 ,200. Ms. Murray said the issue is authority, not the signs or dredging. The point is that when the County did not like what the Services Division was doing, they stripped the Services Division of its authority successfully. The Foundation concluded that in spite of all of the good work that the Services Division has done. the Services Division is the County and cannot effectively fight with the County, but the Foundation can. Ms. Mary Johnson said she supports Mr. Hal\'s suggestion for an integrated canoe trail system that utilizes the existing canoe trail permit and accommodate interests in marking to the Gulf: providing that the Services Division have authority and continues to operate it. Mr. Rothman agreed that the Services Division should be the permitting authority. Board consenSllS was ifthe Foundation was paying for the permit that the County would maintain, then the Services Division should retain authority as stewards of the Pelican Bay community. Mr. Hall clarified that he is providing alternatives. but not making suggestions. They have a canoe trail permit already in place that covers all of the proposed signs except for the two that lead to the Gulf. The proposed plan eliminates one marker to the south, so it only adds one sign to the existing thirty-two markers. They could 8444 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop to Discuss Clam Bay Markers February 16, 2011 modify the location of the southern markers and adding one sign to the north. They could leave marker #12 where it is, and put markers #11 and #13 on the same sign, and the existing #13 at the bridge would become #14. They would use the existing markers, and only have to purchase two new ones. The seagrass markers and caution shoal markers could be placed on the same type of post as the numbered markers rather than as buoys. Regarding other signage on the beach that is not located in the waterway, he did suggest that they get FFWCC to approve the language for any informational signs so that the signs are enforceable. "Idle speed no wake" signs are enforceable. "Caution shallow water and natural resources present. Tilt motor up to prevent prop dredge damage to natural resources subject to fines..." are not enforceable. "'Local knowledge required" is adequate as is. Dr. Raia said he would go along any signage as long as it is an amendment of the existing canoe trail permit. Chairman Dallas said he would convey today's discussion at tomorrow"s Clam Bay Marker discussion meeting, emphasizing the Services Division's preference to retain permitting authority. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 1] :30 a.m. Minutes by Lisa Resnick\3/24/2011 8:50:12 AM 8445