The URL can be used to link to this page

PBSD MSTBU Agenda 06/06/2012 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 213a 3gw31 Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, JQat 6, 2012 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 AGENDA The agenda includes, but is not limited: Fiala Hiller Henning 1. Pledge of Allegiance Coyle ,- 2. Roll Call Colette k . 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5. Administrator's Report a. Crosswalks i. Status of Cobblestones ii. Landscaping issues at North Tram station b. Pathways i. Pause the pathways project(Dallas) ii. County's plans to "overlay" Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways c. Berm i. South berm restoration permitting ii. North berm maintenance d. Landscaping(Phase II) update e. Monthly financial report 6. Chairman's Report Misc.Comes: a. Board rules and procedures Date: 9'I f i l l', b. Board summer schedule c. Board member terms Item#: I Lo-X 2-H IL-1 d. Announcements 7. Committee Reports Copies to: 8. Old Business 9. New Business a. Conducting a joint survey with Foundation for feedback regarding bicycle lanes and accelerated paving on Pelican Bay Boulevard (Chandler) 10. Audience Comments 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence 12. Adjournment ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE(3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE(3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT(239)597-1749 OR VISIT PELICANBAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET. 5/30/2012 4:00:47 PM • ,1 Y • • PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY,MAY 2,2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday,May 2,2012 at 1:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples,Florida.The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J.Dallas,Chairman Susan O'Brien Tom Cravens,Vice Chairman Dave Trecker John P.Chandler Mary Anne Womble Geoffrey S.Gibson John Baron John Iaizzo Hunter H.Hansen absent Michael Levy Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W.Neil Dorrill,Administrator Mary McCaughtry,Operations Analyst Kyle Lukasz,Operations Manager Lisa Resnick,Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland,President,Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Jim Carr,P.E.,Agnoli,Barber,&Brundage,Inc. Kevin Carter,Field Manager,Dorrill Management Group Ellin Goetz,Fellow,American Society of Landscape Architects,Goetz+Stropes Landscape Architects,Inc. Tim Hall,Senior Ecologist&Principal,Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. Ralph B.Jimison,Certified Arborist Bill Oliver,P.E.,P.T.O.E.,Senior Vice President,Tindale-Oliver&Associates,Inc. Approximately 50 attendees REVISED AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. April 11,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. April 16,2012 Budget Subcommittee 5. Budget Subcommittee recommendation that full Board review; and vote to approve the Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget(Levy) 6. Administrator's Report a. Crosswalks i. Uniform Traffic Standards ii. Bateman Contract Update b. Pathways 411410 i. Arborist's second opinion report and recommendation ii. County's plans to"overlay"Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways 7. Adjourn ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr.Hansen,all members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion,second by Dr. Trecker to , . age amended: 1)Move item"...vote to approve Proposed FY 2013 Budget(L- , . of meeting minutes;2)add North Pointe crossing(Chandler)to crosswal add New Business "Potential Community Survey(Chandler)": The Board vo •• a in a'or and the motion was •assed 8550 Pelican Day Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes May 2, 2012 used to get drivers' attention were producing the intended effect. The answer was no. The solution would be one that reaches out and grabs drivers' attention. Mr. Oliver recommended progressing to a higher level of driver awareness that could be achieved by installing a pedestrian-activated flashing beacon light timed to continue flashing until the pedestrian crossed the intersection. Mr. Oliver explained the County uses MUTCD standards to determine signage, signals, and pavement markings; and agreed that installing additional signage that is considered"supplemental"to MUTCD standards could cause confusion.Regarding the flashing yellow lights in the roadway on Ridgewood that outline a crossing to the Phil, Mr.Oliver reasoned the design was likely"emerging technology"that was later determined to be ineffectual. Mr. Brendan Culligan (Pebble Creek) presented a video he made showing problems faced by pedestrians attempting to cross at the North Tram station mid-block crossing and at other locations within Pelican Bay. BOARD DISCUSSION Mr. Iaizzo suggested removing the cobblestones at the San Marino crossing. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to recommend to the Foundation Board to remove cobblestones at the San Marino crossing. Mr. Gibson said he supported removing the cobblestones,but the motion should include replacing cobblestones with fire-red clay brick pavers. Ms. Womble stressed the importance of uniformity and consistency as a theme established by the Community Improvement Plan. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Steve Seidel (San Marino), Ms. Kathy Mahoney (San Marino), Dr. Ted Raia(St. Raphael), Mr. Dave Cook(Crescent),Mr.Brendan Culligan(Pebble Creek)and another Pebble Creek resident supported increased traffic enforcement to control speeders,and supported removing cobblestones at the San Marino crossing or at all mid-block crossings; and agreed that resolving safety issues should not require consulting with the Foundation first and also be completed promptly. Ms. Marcia Cravens (Dorchester) suggested installing speed bumps, but Mr. Dorrill explained that speed bumps were not appropriate for Pelican Bay Boulevard,an arterial roadway. Mr. Jerry Moffatt(L'Ambiance) said the Foundation paid for the construction, but the road is owned by the County, and Mr. Dorrill added the Services Division permitted the project and is therefore responsible for maintenance. Mr. John Domenie (Breakwater)did not agree with Mr. Gibson's idea to replace cobblestones with clay brick pavers; and Ms. Mary McLean Johnson(St. Marissa)suggested amending the motion to incluI.• ci cobblestones with appropriate alternatives that increase visibility and consistency. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to make a recommendation to ation Board that they remove the cobblestones at the San Marino crossing. The Board vot avor (Chandler, Iaizzo, O'Brien, Levy, Womble, Cravens, Trecker, Baron, and and ed I alias and the motion was •assed. V Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker a re• endation to the Foundation Board that they remove the cobblestones from a 40 locations. The Board voted 9 in favor (Chandler, Iaizzo, O'Brien, Levy, '? ecker, Baron, and Gibson and 1 o osed Dallas and the motion was ,assed 8552 -4 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes May 2, 2012 Care's arborist reports that were provided by Mr.Galli(St.Maarten)that alleged the pathways widening project would cause damage to more than 30 trees. Mr. Dorrill reminded the Board that staff was previously authorized to move forward with the 8-foot pathways widening project through the bid phase and would continue unless directed differently. COUNTY'S PLANS TO"OVERLAY"PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAYS Mr.Dorrill reported the County is planning to overlay pathways along the east and west sides of Pelican Bay Boulevard by the end of July. However it is unclear whether the County plans to install root barriers or just apply a layer of asphalt to the existing path.He suggested the Board proceed with the 8-feet wide pathways project and cost share with the County what the value per linear foot is. Then, as long as the County's plans include addressing the roots problem with root barriers the Board could inform the County to move forward; or if the plans do not include root barriers,the Board could request the project suspended until further plans are developed that do address the root problem. BOARD DISCUSSION Mr.Iaizzo suggested obtaining a third arborist report. However the majority of the Board did not agree. Dr. Trecker was concerned about root pruning and root barrier measurements referenced by the arborists' reports and engineer's plans. The majority of the Board agreed due-diligence was done, but the majority of the audience did not agree that the pathways project was properly vetted.The Board did agree the pathways were in need of repair. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Rick Galli (St. Maarten) did not agree that Mr. Jimison's recommendations to accomplish root pruning would not damage trees; and requested the arborist's qualifications and full report. Ms. Marcia Cravens (Dorchester) supported Mr. Galli. Ms. Elaine Daravingas (Montenero) cited Mr. Doug Caldwell of the Institute for Agricultural Sciences (IFAS)University of Florida(UFL) who she said recommended installation of gravel root barriers and she would provide the documentation. Ms.Diane Lustig(Hyde Park)said reducing the tree canopy would diminish shade and tranquility, and suggested additional vetting before moving the project forward. Dr. Ted Raia (St. Raphael) supported having a third arborist report done. CERTIFIED ARBORIST,MR.RALPH B.JIMISON'S COMMENTS Regarding the impact to trees of the pathways widening project, Mr. Ralph B. Jimison, a local, certi practicing arborist for more than 30 years was asked for his professional opinion as to whether root pruning c done without damaging live Oak trees. After surveying the trees along the project's site route, he co r pruning could be done without damaging the trees under certain conditions.Regarding Signature Tre- s arborist report provided by Mr. Galli, Mr. Jimison said both reports come to similar conclusions: root p done effectively without damaging a tree when done concurrently with tree canopy reduction. Reducing • of the tree canopy's biomass compensates for root loss. The visual impact is barely noticea• .e ro• • tree canopy would regenerate. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker t• ' wit 8-feet pathways widening project subject to the recommendations made by the c• 'st, 1ph B. Jimison. The Board voted 3 in favor (Dallas, Womble, and Levy) an. 'frfr Trecker, Cravens, O'Brien,laizzo,and Chandler and the motion ailed 8554 June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai.Administrator's Report.Crosswalks.Status of Cobblestones(Comments by Keith Dallas) Page 1 of 1 ResnickLisa Subject: Dallas RE: Removing Cobblestones from Crosswalks Original Message From: Keith Dallas f mailto:keithjdallas@gmail.comj Sent: Friday,May 18,2012 3:44 PM To:Neil Dorrill;LukaszKyle Cc: ResnickLisa Subject: Removing Cobbles from Crosswalks The Foundation discussed our request that they remove the cobbles from the 4 crosswalks,but made no motion. There was no interest for change. Assuming that the subject will come up again at our June 6 meeting, I'm wondering if there is some other action that we could take to reduce the "thump" noise short of removing these cobbles.Could we grind them down to a flat surface?Or cut them and use a flat side for the road surface?Something like that would preserve the basic look,provide a bit more tactile surface than pavement,but still eliminate the annoying noise.Anything we do would probably only for the one location,the San Marino,who are the only abutters complaining of the noise.This revised crosswalk would look enough alike to the 3 others that we could hopefully avoid modifying them also. Ronnie is thinking of reconvening the CIP group to go over some of these items so that the Foundation and the PBSD gets on the same page. We are all tired of the back and forth between the Boards. On another note,they did voice support of my suggestion that we rethink what should be done on pathways/adjoining trees. Keith • June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report.Crosswalks.Status of Cobblestones(Comments by John Chandler) Page 1 of 1 From: )ohn Chandler To: Resnicklisd Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Cobblestones Date: Sunday, May 20,2012 1:54:32 PM Lisa, Please forward this email to all PBSD Board members as a one way communication. For those of you who did not attend the Foundation's Board Meeting on Friday, the cobblestone issue was discussed. However, after some back and forth, no action was taken in response to the motions that we passed at our last meeting. Therefore, we now have three choices: do nothing, act unilaterally or convene "CIP II" (a one time meeting of all current PBSD Board members and all current Foundation Strategic Planning Committee members) to make recommendations that both Boards will accept. In fact, Noreen Murray mentioned the "reconvene the CIP" approach toward the end of the Foundation meeting. I took the liberty of contacting Ronnie Bellone after the Foundation's Board meeting to address this topic. She is supportive of the "reconvene the CIP" approach. John Chandler -1 • June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Bateman Contracting Change Orders Page 1 of 3 STREET AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION "TEA SITE PREPARATION CHANGE ORDER REQUEST Date: June 4,2012 To: Collier County BOCC Attention: Kyle Lukasz Phone: 438-5239 e-mail: kylelukaszacolliergov.net Project: Remove/Replace curb in median at North Tram ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT EST QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENSION GENERAL Remove and replace curb,including traffic control and bond LS 1.0 $6,940.00 $6,940.00 TOTAL $6,940.00 Leo-Al. 23atemas ' LEO M. BATEMAN 3260 Cargo St WBE CERTIFIED ph(239)482-4826 Ft.Myers,FL 33916 Lic CGC 1506291 fx(239)482-8177 - June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Bateman Contracting Change Orders , Page 3 of 3 4 • i { I .7, „, r•-•-•-' ,.,- 1rn: .. } }j j t. I .P gar '...— y r , , r . ••..; .. . , , • ' A \ f fi ' �' v i 'oi:.yi r It?yam. •t. . 4 4 1.y - . -.E--e'A , . ., ,-, j i , `% '. ,_ V • ,, i Y 1 1 •fi \}i i }' J - F.. : ' .?.' ::: '': : - .-: . .. - . \ . . \ ‘ \ . ''' / t* .. i- -, •• ' '-:::.:.:.P.E.:14-i.'-.;----:.. ... It. : ,,keeti\ p 1 -1 -',V•;.:,•:;:...-::.-.'..-;!:-;:-1‘,--•.,.. ::, ',.::: Y , ' ,,1 V d' } t+. t1 •�,�+ d ,! . is S \It nl • f t t . f i t E ; ' , 1. ti w R e: , 7, l • } • I. ' ,,t--`,1...1: , rya z l '4 t }•d i� y t � ,' `‘, . .\L % c '. t - _' 7� � MLA • • ' \ ' d' 1 /.. I ' '‘‘, \ \ \' ' , , ' , ... ,' , : • — ''.-, - i ' 4, 1, t. t' a }0. 1 ! /, .4 \ , \ ' a • � i , 4 i rf ,,.-,- ,. . - ,,,--.i.1.-t.--, i' v..s ' v to • June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6aii.Admininstrator's Report.Crosswalks,Landscaping r Page 1 of 4 issues at pedestrian crossing(North Tram station&Pelican Bay Boulevard)from east to west side(Photographs by Keith Dallas) ,,,'.',7 . ♦e x7 .';�y � : Sn t r�` t R 'F rati s ''`;i)Alt• . ra'' r' 04 n `'� .. 8'1 f 0. v'z0'}„ x• __r fir -7 4 ` vy 4 _r,. . # a� ,`. l�1 ate_M V 'r k ..1 • t r srp z2. '''' «vim-s'x �Y'• rt� ' w,.s^*ay \ tt s +� .�xriy}Jr 7, "1"..7.' ♦ y. y as ,k t4 a i ,;4 y :'f. + j G� '' . i g ✓. F Mi - June 6.2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Saii.Admininstrator's Report.Crosswalks.Landscaping issues ati pedestrian crossing(North Tram station&Pelican Bay Boulevard)from east to west side(Photographs by Keith Dallas) Page 2 of 4 k.' 4 r 6 M• > �� ^ " rte �,,� � ' t.tkd* r ,moo a ti , vt + June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session • • 5aii.Admininstrator s Report Crosswalks.Landscaping issues at pedestran crossing(North Tram station 8 Pelican Bay Boulevard)from east to west side(Photographs by,Keith Dallas) Page 3 of 4 t d rif .. f y # � i 1 Y Y� i �i S • F y V• '�1„ #rte . a ' b$ t to y K` � yam. . � 1@G`4 'p k4 ' r y,,,4- .0`F , .,,Y, Gh• Rp+' ' June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5aii.Atlmininslrator's Report.Crosswalks.Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing(North Tram station 8 Pelican Bay Boulevard)from east to west side(Photographs by Keith Dallas) Page 4 of 4 ,,,,e;', .c." 3v 1a• • • ..,, .. 1 1 i )1 i t t ' • p��b! r a a # Ate } 4 g'kiW 4 ., 7, ..,, J.a "r ... r ,� °ate..� June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5aii.Admininstrator's Report.Crosswalks.Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing(North Tram station&Pelican Bay Boulevard)from west to east side(Photographs by Keith Dallas) Page 1 of 7 r y,r qq„,..,,..„,,;., , „: .„: -..'' .7-t7.-f;', - —I, '.-... • :.%I i )w/ ;r `I - 1 hr T+l Srit Ft i } ! t I 't ry• 4 t • w ' r ”•�? " ?u 'fHkAC r.y. �q .s i •v • •L� +sr i -.' ; ' ' -*,-,4•-,i; f..gam .. '-: �! ' - e. 7 .5 .. ' r ^ , ' a —• .t * ' k £ ! �.� i b 6• ,,, .te _ _ , 3P — Y�{.C"yc �'•. ate-:. June 6.2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5aii.Admininstrator's Report.Crosswalks.Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing(North Tram station&Pelican Bay Boulevard)from west to east side(Photographs by Keith Dallas) Page 2 of 7 ' S '..y7.. S '.s t�, V r k0 ` - I F• ,....„. -.! .,,,,,;,,-74, •.;,,,, .. t...: -: ,, i ' ,,, C� r - �� _ 5S7 ,.`Y �' aY f1 AI,,;...,.-.,.• r1 Yl ' P If a " , y ?' t Y tr. p°t `�� j�•Mi!' 4"-.T,,tl?q J.1 I I I 1 1 l t� V J' -, '';:et � . t' 1`..''11/,`'!".,: rr 'r'.it* .v +X�'. .•I� (� 1 4 ;/ b pp' „yb .f7 r"' ��f xtiti�::>.wra} - R �� 'f.'r`%y Y� - flsx%u y _ W.L. • 1 : J� :.. V June 6.2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5aii.Admininstrator's Report.Crosswalks.Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing(North Tram station&Pelican Bay Boulevard)from west to east side(Photographs by Keith Dallas) 4 Page o,t7 jf4t ice" _ �"g ,a S I 4 �1' l ii�' 4 p ry .s � � tit f: k f a Ft :� , k "x'#� t ,f 1''I tLl '' f 7; sa `• DISC !. r 1,4- 1 i-•. + .` �`F ^'Z f r_ j k is { � fE 4 e4�yt 9 C avtr�A r r yp 5 t Y C# i [ �5 Sty ,. . l''',',Z.,',.J' A 4' V f{f{t`F;tP at.1'''.eaVr'� `5t1,':'' _-e..,,,z,r;P i; Y '. ._ 4ts Z < / t f �` _vfi.' - t, I'•-i ��'yz ~ f Xe}�r 1 i 4 � �� u `;' A'`4 •F -at�� '' :a _ — _ ,Sr r ,„,_,,,,,,,..t.--.— ° ' /--_ _ •� June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5aii.Ad'mininstrator's Report.Crosswalks.Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing(North Tram station&Pelican Bay Boulevard)from west to east side(Photographs by Keith Dallas) Page 4 of 7 •f 11 F°,`. �t ,t '• � Sii � vu Y k4r1.,VV F ._.' T:. A , 9 if 4 A t�� }• r `y Y ��LL it - June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5aii.Admininstrator's Report.Crosswalks.Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing(North Tram station&Pelican Bay Boulevard)from west to east side(Photographs by Keith Dallas) r page 5ot7 r c l , f ' t 1 t.'tlfi �c . . I k f - T i 3 n' - 1� t 1J 4\ i k h -r f f J n , _At } � � t ! iP f• ,TWVsf4!7^•.Y,. `;m j +' ps, - .. -� Jwi'a` l# _ y rp� :c°t4. • � i., ,� .r � :n�L'cs -., ry�'rja ,��^; r':•- - � .. a � r �r" .},r ,iYk1.1 4,- h�i•-T V '''rte' — — x" '? rsJ� -"° 1 l v 3 r. - n June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Bali.Admininstrator's Report.Crosswalks.Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing(North Tram station&Pelican Bay Boulevard)from west to east side(Photographs by Keith Dallas) Page 6 of7 , - t1-311'.;',4 '1, - t t �Y} ,,11' �. - . ` a •,(, 01C''\..`,\A'.'‘'...6,,,, .I i , 844 a r e 333...� --y `a. ) a __ i �3 -,.7,.:::-.,i ��. S 7 i t n- {r ' '.' , 5 ;r,•r 1 1{ 1 { Y r "> ".4"..f."..4:''''''4:9.4‘? n om r'° t ��=N -t.. _ per...('-. `r• E',+ ' µ......wv : ,fi 'art "..i�y� af. .;:,, . , -., '...:. .7'-' ' ' ' '" . . ',', , .' ' ",.' - ' '''', ' .'„. ...'''-,.."./ ,,,e,/ ,-.''',F1).At,-ItZlii'-ii-('„•4:4;14--If.'";11.,,,fl. June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5aii.Admininstrator's Report.Crosswalks.Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing(North Tram station&Pelican Bay Boulevard)from west to east side(Photographs by Keith Dallas) ' Page 7 of 7 r i • %pt 414 i t\I 1 li k „ty„: i '' — '- . . 3 i v /; �t� 1 $j r z r- �{;� I t x I s a p �o' t i.,a � � F i' "f S y,,av - »s.s..,...�,.._ — -+ _,r - y 4) - r i . ,,. ' i i e a 1? =1 t^ r « r.y e a r1,i {� I{ t} li It . ` i 1,- '; 4 .".t.e"',444. ".4%,4'.e. 4 4"‘ 4) � �'� a r f tt icy r i i.l.vc{} ! _t1 ' ,{( `�1 r C- J 3 ti ( Y ) i+ "r1 ) .- r - , ,1,--2, 'th � ,,t' -> '--,,i: --.„.. ---,f?..'it,,,l'-'- .,:-- -7,,',‘,'4.1.i.,,, ..",,. k , ',F?''''4,1t?'"7't, ' t ',', '7'77' '44 7 I, ' ' p , VVC 4,,;;`,:,,,1„,3,:::.,t,'. ' ' 'C K' - �'y,'r4'r� k° .. . C r g t } 1 ` r j iii ° Y" r b', 4L{ 53 + trtrry t., * +ex* '*'� J o v .xz 4 $ Y , xf . K,'; ,,: rXr,44 04, l .a, ' -mg F t , d 9 m 4 ., r 3s Y a k'IA. ...,. .--:-/4,10. .--.- 01-,..: -,, ,,, ,..K4f44.. , :....,...or ;.--'4.-Ss ,.�rr�'�.(�"+y�.i,r g�cr:y ,- '�4., ; F ' .'. . '`* gr°a° . .: ,.. g„ ' - ''''''.#4k.-Ater"ti1V-'''''''4! Alit'!..j;''''S-?', 4:0-te-r'''''-'''' ,,,,,, ;ft, ^P.1444..°'",,, , .� y, r R vik-'''' �, ^'Sy y r v w s. vg P y :� � � r ' LP d 4 r N D m 4 0 { 3 ti r t F m- r• ! 'a4, gi co „ '? "' { Fftr'*,'-"tad"{ 1' m # F -vs. _ .�s" +rt ta�. fi x r r " 1 �? .r a t r�••• •• �e ,: _'• . f t o ` ... ••• a ' ..f• % � qy z,.j 9" AA '1 _ ,fi'; , , o n z; . d R- ,,....,, 7y r ��1, C1,r ; k -'r y `4''''.4.4.,':'..:-4;; x �.o , 6 ;.+h '40.,..i4.,„ aN r c ;!)"..:'''-....,A.1%:,t ys l_„/- •� y .11k- t$ U � ,I h. y f• ,'� d r . k.'It`d �6 q r t' • ,� ` r. '� ; ' rY x54 ,1,-.'7‘..42:::`'.'.1 5 } Y ! C)H 1,k't ) �I L �T l r CN- 4 • i ,X Y { p p c �,� :, r ,:f44'.. .,.u s Hs ? "r N• Al 1 WA .1%1*4 1� 4� • 'R.k' Fly i `n } � ty '�I�•y ��I T�� . .� �, c;„- fp" : :;:it r`..,,`1' `r ',,, 'k. gy ;� ", .« iori' 1 i4 l!�� ,,* a d «r,, t � - T:;\ 7 .7,"t .1' { , \ +1.-...'�}, 1 `t r R pal,}, :‘,..f,., Ir ,. fir} Z 'r "g� '; iSt a.l`� :f. ,.' 3• .; s...-i•,,,,, % ' {}, ^9 YT�r t "}'� y ,. kc-, ;,.ti ''1'4,A °„ A 1.1 *� 4f4,.. `' k it '., y % i' h^'''‘:'...t...`,.4,' 1 f'E r / , ,.'4;r .T l M1 :r.'4' -!,..:S 1 r Z t f f, a 0.•-• Y - - y�.tt' w,� j 'f �4 a f r( , ,14,4: t�j,V tiyJpm 7Y 6�gt 1-J A y i y�1 k1 7-�v t Yy,, t ,4.+•^L.�yf- v �� •`.sty1 �g» 4 `,, r 'rtr a Y�Lt � ,. � , + ` .,.. lz■c • } tip,a ' " ',.11",X,': y:v„ a (is ".«'�'* 1:4,0,44:1:,,f.3 t i' t=: , •a"�' " Cyr ;*- a `.1J J "�7J ' �.` r � �`"�.h �` «9 I� s A x IT ""' ^+�' ;+�, �L �' �`y'�a ;,� � } 1t �i t i « %�� y: s� 1. d • r • a �r E '� I, r.L ,'i d i •°' r�! to Y v, e .�c '/" is �»» k �,.�'�� q ▪ + ', r't r. d. .* aJ. [ ,.` pyp�7g . t4 n j'Nt 4,a N �, �� + p 7! ��• f t ,'!'Y >. "'r A l,' '`;: �+It r r S 's 'A'(,�,, t Y "�1.�" k,�' S .t '� :yAY'7 ,s .« "p ,:r�r t),".sr� R N ,I:t''1 Nt r�'r E r�,+:: F r r `� ' rr ,g »`i ' b, • a t ",.., a r Y sre y in r t,r 4 t,Cs, • Y-;" ;t'g r ` ` s'` t#$ p a � 'a 1hr p t' �^�.1 �,' w- , f.t r i t r.o {,� w''.,. -„: 1i " v 4 �., ,S ",,,,'',Y,4-T,,,,', �� gc ,� it�> 'f.'-',..1. r r , A.ti � � #T;"...,/ r F ■ �-r s !/ «7' ''x z ,'` p,",„"7 . Aped N •. ,‘ a �N p ,,},r'f'',A •y, f: `' 1 ',,„", 1 j;,:f : r1r! 1 € .!••! a7 ,:•++. �1L.e d* "t}.ar,,,- PR't ",� d` 7. ''f,, r M +r °t t ?N /M ,x.i.. .. era tom... .f• k. R�r��y�y� i �� ''�i i/Y+ i a+ r �• b� R , ! ' q i f i v� L' pj/ ; ye i any *il4 �r� �+� w t r tk�i' b fi �4e }„ h. !.�'�-itg. " L?__, _ ,' "VI-s ,1ZV'a"` .1=' .+H, . i . N.NoN‘• 41'''''' F 4� 1 # ${^ „i.� * �r* a ,f a i Iv # i 4,.'..*:::,) x« � ., td.a 't` a.; W yr. �, 4,' , ,,s c. ' ;.f.''' # .P Ki,{t Y t, `\'Vii, I ,,, ,, f 'yY ij S.UP- A 't ', O_?N "Y t 14..44::1„. 111 74 i >y ;,fy� .fix t 4 p .1 'Iv ;,',011;r:;1/2:. _ :v9..4., ;7! +was ' } ,' ♦♦ e I sv %,:,-; !tiw 1 v � "� y ♦.-'t•l`4 5. �:• x :' /4tp`` . "R., d° rt+y.) A 1,';(11,,:-;t `� a m 3 4 s, r y A :si ♦9n. t'ii'.'" '; �t 1� ..Y moo. {S.•{'��; ;' 1.,.' ,jr yr - 5- * ¢, Y a ikrey t tL?A r> 0-m x ,� ri � 3 r ,1c,'+� g,� ��' ��V�'`�' b,,.fwy°'�`w �!w'� � �� k`�� •5�'r��>4�� s :� ? �y .1, ♦r '# ! yS i 1�`T' fit` 4';` �m i+ a r?' � I 't'� s *fit �, . 1�`x yr. `3.a �.t, •�,,,,,...;4„. ♦ t 5_'� - ' I � � t } %/0`;14.1 '''''-.4‘.-..`,.;, ....,''''t....".--4''';',. .'`'t ti's 1 Si,•,% 7► �r �'�fir!�k i, 4 " t h v ��•, � � ' .o jE5 ...-':',-11, r i v � � x r fr -� itg k a f o 4 p±� Y µr *rte w, c t�: _ 4t,� 'YA• s ti F 5;t 'Y, . _ June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Admininstrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project(Dallas) Page 1 of 4 ResnickLisa From: Keith Dallas[keithjdallas @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:03 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle Subject: Pause the Pathway Project Attachments: Pathways May 2012.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Lisa, Please pass this message on to Board members and include it as an agenda item for our June 6th Board meeting. After considerable thought,I think we should take a pause,take whatever time is necessary,and rethink how the pathways project should proceed.The 3 recent close votes on the desired width of the pathway indicates we have not reached consensus.Attached are my specific thoughts on how we might proceed.I hope other Board members will also give this some thought before the meeting so we can have an open and productive discussion on how we should proceed. Keith � F June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Admininstrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project(Dallas) Page 2 of 4 6 Foot Pathways - The Worst of all Possible Decisions I am unhappy for a number of reasons at where we concluded our May discussions regarding rebuilding our pathways. I suspect some of you may share that sentiment. Thus I propose for our June meeting that we pause, take several deep breaths and think about a non-confrontational process for developing a mutually agreeable approach for rebuilding our pathways. The fact that we have had three different close votes on the issue indicates we have not reached consensus. After some thought, I think the most recent PBSD decision to implement a 6 foot pathway on the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard, from The Commons to North Tram Station, may be the worst of the options considered. It doesn't meet our original objectives, could cause as much damage to trees as an 8 foot pathway, and would be a waste of$250,000 to $300,000. The following is a summary of my reasoning: • Meeting CIP Objectives o Increase Capacity and Enhance Safety- The additional foot of pathway will only marginally meet these objectives. o Creating a Smooth Surface - The portion of pathway in question has fewer sections where the pavement is problematic than other areas along Pelican Bay Blvd. If increased capacity were to be abandoned as an objective, we should start in areas most affected by root intrusion. • Root Barriers and Root Trimming Still Required - Some residents are concerned that the trimming of roots and the building of 18-inch deep root barriers will cause significant damage to adjoining trees. If this analysis is correct, even a 5 or new 6 foot pathway may cause similar tree damage. • Creating Smooth Surface Pathways - Most residents agree that the current condition of the surface of our pathways needs work. The County has offered to resurface all our pathways on Pelican Bay Boulevard this summer (at no cost to Pelican Bay).Although the County project probably won't provide a long-term solution, short term it would provide smoother pathways. Our rebuilding the proposed segment to 6 feet would also produce a smooth surface, but at a very expensive price. June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Admininstrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project(Dallas) Page 3 of 4 What Should We Do? Sometimes when consensus has not been reached, the best decision is no decision. I propose we not rebuild a 6 foot pathway this summer, take the opportunity to carefully study what we will and will not get with alternative approaches, discuss our analysis in public workshops early next season and make a decision later in the season for implementation in 2013. Further we should quickly explore the ramifications of allowing the County to resurface our Pelican Bay pathways this summer. If the County project is an overlay with no grinding, we could end up with an even less safe pathway. Specifically I propose: • Exploring 3 alternatives for the section of pathway in question: o A 6 foot pathway o An 8 foot pathway o A pathway varying from 8 foot down to 6 foot where necessary because of trees or driveways • Explore the ramifications of different types of root barrier construction. • The PBSD would hire an arborist, recommended jointly by Doug Caldwell (who was referenced by Mr. Galli's arborist and used by the Montenero) and Ralph Jimison (who was engaged by Ellin Goetz). The selected arborist would discuss the ramifications of alternative construction of root barriers, do an analysis of the impact of each alternative plan on the trees along that segment of pathway, detailing the probable impact tree by tree. (Once a plan is implemented, an arborist would also work with construction staff to make sure trees were actually impacted as anticipated). • The PBSD would at the same time work with the Foundation to include in next year's residents survey questions about their views on pathways and bicycle lanes in the street. • The results of the arborist's analysis would be presented at public workshop(s) as needed, with opportunity for public discussion. Our Board meetings have not resulted in consensus building.A workshop environment lends itself more to give and take conversations and an evolution of a consensus approach, as happened with the CIP. June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Admininstrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project(Dallas) Page 4 of 4 • The PBSD would formalize the agreed upon approach, and communicate the details and rationale to the community through available sources including Pelican Bay Post. • The PBSD would make decisions later in the season for implementation in the summer of 2013. Currently staff is in the process of determining from County the specifics of their proposal to "overlay" our pathways on both sides of Pelican Bay Boulevard, including details on their intent to trim problematic roots and apply repairs, their intent to grind down the current surface, and the thickness of the proposed overlay. At our June meeting we can decide how we should have the County proceed. Conclusion This project has become much more complex and contentious than any of us ever imagined. However, I still believe it is better to take time to get the right decision than merely the politically convenient. The 6 foot pathway has mostly downsides, and not much upside.At our June meeting let us take a step back, and decide how we can carefully go forward. KID June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project(Dallas)Sample pathway motion Page 1 of 1 ResnickLisa Subject: 5bi.Administrator's Report: Pathways: Pause the Pathways Project(Dallas) Sample Pathway Motion From: Keith Dallas Jmailto:keithjdallas@gmail.coml Sent: Friday,June 01, 2012 8:49 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Sample Pathway Motion Lisa, Would you please include the attached sample of a pathway motion with the June 6th item 5.b.i., Pause the Pathway Project. • I wrote this sample to illustrate the following: • Any such project would be taken one step at a time. • Initially we would just make the decision to pause the 6 foot project and outline the process for selecting an independent arborist. • Subsequent meetings would then take additional steps as agreed by the Board to analyze alternatives and develop community consensus on how we should proceed maintaining and possibly widening pathways in the future. I see the process taking at least a year to complete,with initial work done by consultants to analyze the possibilities, and then public workshops in season to discuss the analysis, ask questions, get more answers and finally see if we can develop consensus, much like the CIP project. Of course we also will discuss at the June 6th meeting the possible County overlaying of the pathways this summer. Keith Motion Regarding Pathways for June 6, 2012 PBSD Meeting I make a motion to not rebuild the pathway along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard between the Commons and the North Tram Station this summer. The Board further directs staff to consult with arborists Doug Caldwell and Ralph Jimison to determine a mutually acceptable arborist to work with the PBSD over the next few months to develop a long-term plan for maintaining the health of trees and the viability of the pathways along both sides of Pelican Bay Boulevard. KJD June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments by Dave Trecker) Page 1 of 1 From: david trecker To: ResnickLisa Subject: Pathways Date: Thursday,May 24,2012 4:03:54 PM Lisa - Please send this to the PBSD directors as a one-way communication. Thanks, Dave As we yet again discuss the pathways project, I urge that the following be considered: - Is there a single supportable reason for 8-foot pathways? They are not dual-use; that requires 10-12 feet. They will necessitate removal of trees and hedges -- how many depends on the width and depth of the cut, but certainly more than from a 6-foot pathway. No data whatever has been given to support the need to accommodate more "capacity," apparently meaning more pedestrian traffic. To widen to 8 feet because a consultant said to do it is not very persuasive. Neither is the notion that it's an indispensable part of community improvement. - What we do in this project will influence what happens later when other pathways are repaired. A walk on other sidewalks bordering Pelican Bay Blvd. shows that widening to 8 feet will impact many trees and hedges. While widening to 8 feet between the Commons and North Tram Station doesn't necessarily mean other pathways will be widened to 8 feet,there will likely be a push for "uniformity." - Will starting over really teach us anything? Or will the same arguments pro/con remain after more "expert" input? Is there any likelihood we'll get ironclad readings on tree/hedge loss as a function of pathway width, or will we just get more disputable guidelines? These points are worth considering. June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 1 of 76 ResnickLisa Subject: FW: PBSD Pathway vote on May 2nd. From: Keith Dallas jmailto:keithjdallas @gmail.coml Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 10:13 AM To: med5©comcast.net Cc: Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle; ResnickLisa Subject: Re: PBSD Pathway vote on May 2nd. Elaine, Thanks for the information. I plan to have an in-depth discussion at our June 6th PBSD meeting of what and how we should proceed with this pathway project. I'm sure these materials will be part of that discussion. Keith On May 6, 2012, at 8:51 PM, med5 @comcast.net wrote: Dear Mr. Dallas, In light of the scientific information presented at the May 2nd PBSD meeting by Rick Galli of the St. Maarten and me (Montenero), I am pleased that the PBSD Board reconsidered the detrimental effects of an 8 ft pathway to the natural treescape along the Pelican Bay Boulevard and returned to their previous decision of a 6 ft. pathway. Although the new 6 ft. pathway is a compromise width and will affect fair fewer trees, care must still be taken to use the root barrier and root pruning methods that will be the least harmful to the trees that still remain in its path. I have attached the information supplied to me by Dr. Doug Caldwell [University of Florida, Certified Arborist, Entomoligist, and Horticulturist] which includes a paper by Dr. Edward Gilman of the University of Florida, "Deflecting Roots near Sidewalks" and a power point presentation entitled "Solutions to Tree/Sidewalk Conflicts." In the power point presentation the benefits of a gravel barrier versus a solid root barrier is shown as well as root pruning cautionary requirements. It also stresses the instability danger of trees that have been pruned improperly. I have also attached a copy of Dr. Caldwell's report in collaboration with Fred Johnson which is Pelican Bay Pathway Project specific since it is my understanding that the Board did not receive a copy of this report prior to the meeting. Since Dr. Caldwell's service is a free county service, I would be wise if the PBSD would consider consulting with this local expert during the installation of the new pathway. I hope that the PBSD Board will remain true to their May vote which was based on the facts and the best interests of Pelican Bay. Thank you for your consideration Elaine Daravingas Montenero, Chair of the Grounds/Landscaping Committee June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report. Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) . Page 2 of 76 14700 Immokalee Road Cor County Naples, FL 34120 Phone: (239) 353-4244 Public Services D FAX: (239) 353-7127 University of Florida Extension April 30, 2012 ', ` ', :,•a 1 tie 4s^,�,: t tW ¢ 'sj 11W = ' y x i p � t `1 1LYe a ,; : _ "tt"1A' ,. . e. s.. , i 4. a .t,jai 1 i ` 1.�3.Y . _me. lo, ,s .�" ,r Jsry.T... til 1:' >.. Y Y.,' m 1- '1Sf .' ry ,. Pelican Bay Project: Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Widening Date of visit: March 29, 2012 Here's some comments by Fred Johnson: Proposal:to widen path 3'and install bio-barrier to depth of 18=24"within 2-3'of trunks Impacted plants include mature live oaks situated between curb and existing path Oaks selected were culls and have been subjected to an improper pruning regimen throughout their existence. Resulting trees are 30-40 ft and planted on random centers, for the most part. In most cases, a visual survey indicates that the roots are close to the surface and the sandy soil present would logically support this observation. Branching is erratic, many with included bark in large branches, and stubs of pruned limbs. The overall condition of most is 'middle to poor.' Many are leaning toward the street due to stress from other large trees crowding the canopies.There are 30 oaks in the project area. The proposed project will impact all 30 trees to some extent. The installation of the root barrier will probably sever main roots.This will negatively impact nutrient uptake as well as stability in many cases.The planting bed varies from 6' to 10'on one axis with the trunks. The curb and road limit root growth as does the existing and proposed bike/ped path. June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session . 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) . Page 3 of 76 14700 Immokalee Road Co yer County Naples, FL 34120 Public Services Drs Phone: (239) 353-4244 sio University of Florida Extension FAX: (239) 353-7127 April 30, 2012 Opinion: • Some trees should be removed at the time of construction because they are in poor condition and will experience more trauma from the project and need replaced anyway. • Other trees will experience die-back due to trauma.This will probably be evident in the few years after the project is completed. It will occur on the side of the bio-barrier. • Some trees that are in poor condition now,will die because of the trauma. Main roots will be cut, and nutrient uptake will be cut off.The effects will start to be evident in the first year after the project. • In extreme cases,the stability of some trees will be undermined to the extent that they will fall during periods of heavy winds and rain.This could happen at any time. It cannot be ascertained how many of the trees in each of the above scenarios will be impacted. Optional Proposal: Remove the 30 trees during construction and replace with more appropriate genus/species graded at the Florida#1 standard.The entire project could be done cost-effectively during construction and, if the proposed material was specified at 4-6" caliper,the visual impact to the neighborhood of the streetscape would be largely maintained.The potential for risk from hazard trees created by the project will be removed. Fred Johnson Doug's notes I'd not do the root barrier,especially since you are probably going to lose a significant number of trees due to the process.You could try the large gravel under the new surface per Dr. Gilman's research on a select number of trees that have the greatest chance of survival. Please call or e me if there is anything else we can do. Regards, 6441:441 Doug Caldwell, Commercial Landscape Horticulture; Certified Arborist and Florida Certified Horticulture Professional http://collier.ifas.ufl.edu/CommHort/HomeCommHort.shtml June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Sbi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 4of 76 Urban Designs for Trees and People Dr. Ed Gilman University of Florida V f N w !. •Nit .{ •J a d t 1, :A l -- J 6, a Sio Sbi.une Administrato2012 r'Pelics Reporn Bay t.Pathways.ervices Divis Pause n Board the pathways Regular proSession ject-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 5 0176 Trees • Unique among living organisms and design components 1. they must grow to remain alive 2. they must grow well to become a permanent part of the design June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 6 of 76 Sidewalk Solutions : Refurbishing Existing Walks I ...__ 1 11 :: x.,, r , „, i „_ ,'• . _ . SKATEBOARDING 4 PROHIBITED ✓ 4Ya%*� % WAC-478-116-670 ��,aFq,' -+.'tx y. '� "t` °Jj VIOLATORS SUBJECT lonottell r•a 1nt y ",N11/44 TO CITATION 11:r1,44P,!:,;,,B,,, A 'SR'''W-11:!', ... ... 4,u > . A ....( ,,,;'''.mot ,, ..a.,". cruT`�"' .... Dr. Ed Gilman University of Florida- modified by Doug Caldwell June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 7 of 76 Americans with Disabilities Act • Americans with Disabilities Act (1991) guidelines state : • "surfaces must be stable, firm and slip-resistant." ..... ,..... ,. .:„ 'Ng"---- '' '' , . iiiiitt„, f ` O June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 8 of 76 Sustainability? f • r a a . 7 June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 9 of 76 tai Tf • 5,, 4 June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session • 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) ■ Page 10 of 76 . . 3. . 1 e a ". y, t 40� ✓ *. 9.r' . '`, h y..4rJ. /,.e� `:_ 6 �.1 3r' Y •• j� '' '*` t+LRF' '`i9 �} .� 1 :? , ft a. ..v.0 ,' ,• ral . . r i, Wit. Ire k June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 11 of 76 ...'44•4•,' ' '''''•: ,;‘,IfT's.cf..,,14::'•41Ne,f4,4:Mii,At: .*:),,'•5' :),411*./A: :' . 7 • i''''gr c ,. tlic.:'''.:',--*,..jer.Alt, 41 'ir"';.7 Zoot.r:;:;- ,..e.,:::,,, ...-f' ."4110',1,71,160.:.:!•,' lftr.A. ..-k : t it4iiv lipi t � ' --i ,. .,'i,. 4 '4,,,j.,-,�. r � ,,,...L. 0140 .s. 1,x,,,1 t .. . . ,....;*, 41/„.„ Al ".. t-,*- ;.,,,,,,A, ,L. >,;zfr' - ''''•'' i �:l_ s rt. M a p,• ift. a. . 4 �4 w. `" * MI6.'^` ■ Bowline Dr. , Naples June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board ss 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways Regular Se pro jection-Dallas(Commentslcorrespondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Paee 12 of 76 r :`>,-. ' tiiii,':. S.i.','::'.3..ik;n*W1:!:,.'l''''' :A.':,',,k'Y'4,,''','.,'.'Y'-7'-.-''..-',...',.., j i py • r�r ► r p} > b,> h '- ,.fir. , "Ilk .... ` t pM '* i � - I 4 - r ., . i ttr ,fi __. ... June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Pa.e13of76 \ ire .. 1 .. A , ., ",. t:� �� I ".( CAF.. lr 5 , ''' maea�z:-�._-'' June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 14 of 76 Traditional approach - ramping/grinding ;.fr..,A r y iq r ..r• 14 r L . ..,.. X '� v...,E, ' E Q Ior U. , , ...41 ,.., ‘: :i.,„. v. 1 . _ .1, El i w, ..,....i. t. µ, •i\J ,\t /ttiti i i ., illi ....,,,... _ .... . ._. .... . _, . ... .... . .. ,...., .„,,,,..T., _ ,. . .,......._ ,„,..,....,,,.,..„ ,,,....„.„..,.. ....-..„-,... ,L.- - .:_,...... - . . ... , -.., , . ,..,... ....., .„: �.;,.., ,,,,... _.......,, . .,,..:., ... ... . ,,,.. June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 15 of 76 Solutions to tree/sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates ,,�, V `,, roots , yet, minimizes t� .t.: 9■v t 4rL }.i y . p_• f a° yr /1 5 �, ' damage to tree: 4 t ;, Iry 1. remove trees and replace• n �`` ,- -- i 2. fill, then re-pour g % \ <;: 3. root prune and re-pour �i �;,; j ,i 4. root barriers i,,,' 5. re-route sidewalk 6. alternative sub-base/reinforce . • f w 7. bridging - ,- 8. alternate surface materials 9. slab-jacking ._ ;:� _�` +t'w'it" r June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session ' • 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 16 of 76 l f' y f y • 4 t.:. • • . •; .att ;� „ f A 4Yy s 7 '''.1. '.0'.4.1:4:1W/:‘*; ;g•t.- a, ,.•.U'-'t�iy°v .yy� 5 IT 1 ' � i�l• r y� .. �l te , 2 ) . —.:,:••N'zr-..-10.;,, _..'.. sj { it , S ' ' . -t`• • June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Boad Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 17 of 76 'fix-”: ,. r 1,_.:16,,,,,,,! .11 tivt. 4 'Yx'" IC• sc 4 .,---''-'41-=1", ",: y, }SSE "�r `�y"*"•Y (' a , „.....0.0„y ,.,..... ., ,,,. . .....:,. ,.,...,, ... , ,7.' `- • - w a ti . ti 9( 'v.°=" .iii ,. ÷r •` i �, r F.• ":..,.:4,.,,,,.„i.„43.?..:' 441,-t� "� ,w+: 4 r _. t- " 3 3 ; • ;. L 10,4-1: 2 rai'�x�a k ) • }�•i „e yr, 4 A ,,�„ 1C,gib.., ' I °a June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 18 of 76 Remove trees: The insanity solution ti r' y•' `.i7 j aex -srv.. I 4 l w June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 19 of 76 Solutions to tree/sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates s..4, \. ., roots , yet, minimizes "" damage to tree: ';4 •"�: `� 1. remove trees t, 2. fill, then re-pour l r -.�\l fit: pjyyy//t/��' am_ L i 4. R,_- :s9tx • _"'+t _-y tY i 3 ..nd, ki*.*t .... .. Bp1. ,,. June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session • , 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) , Pa•e 20 of 76 Add soil then re-pour -, over roots ,f it °` a' ,t . -. . ••- M s -. ° June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 21 of 78 Reinforced sidewalk j,, , 1k '.+.. ^i S"" _ _. .. - `_ }a _'3 - - 'i 1 June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 22 of 76 June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 23 of 78 Solutions to tree/sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates ;j •4, - roots , yet, minimizes , . damage to tree: 1. remove trees 2. fill, then re pour 3. root prune and re-pour • 41111 7^y A June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project- Page 24 of 76 Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Cutting roots can lead to tree failure Step one Step two F _ _..__. ,. Step three - ,^5''.4 "-�'eE a - ±+ r, +. .� +rte-• - June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 25 of 76 Cutting roots can lead to tree failure Step two �, . l , - - OPAL Step one +xv 44 4" irk,,,,- "r L Yr ":3' , t s • A, fits.„ -•� µ Step three June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project- Page 26 of 76 Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Cutting roots can lead to tree failure Step two _-- -- Stepone = " '-:set* ;4- - ) Yl�� _ .... ,_, q... ;:::-% - , ;4" ,,,, . 1.,..W;! .P �mo a +d sS d 47 ., . ♦fix �` ! . =`" � Step three J. r ? ,y 1r S June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways pro ject-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 27of 76 �.�.�}. $ �: Roots cut 15 years ago••• • 'S f' d t, .A.-, 3x trunk rule .4. 4'N.# -:''.__ "oop_„ .,} tee- �_k F :rte • i c ._ t« � f `' � ›,-,..,, Nov k . . s...? ..i :_. ,.., ,_ . -,,,olitu. . ... „........„,„.. ,.._...,..::. , _. „.•,...e.„; . .7,...k ....„:„,....„...._,::sr'' r 1, a' . fit° ' 4 * ^ ,' * -rte 4- x�'t c.' ,^ r A ,�'� r June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 28 of 76 Soil type & rooting space along with previous cultural practices affect wind resistance. J`'• a .` ., . •` ," 1. , r I E `'f ,f r x �.tom`+a.. 4 . } .� June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 29 of 76 +w, t tf ' is - t. Roots cut 8 ,,� �; 1 years ago 1A, t+t� . 3 _ . R ` Fir_ , r r. • $800,000 wrongful death �� suit against the r city } , June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session • 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 30 of 76 • imA • M � �. 3 F � .lrr „ Y. <fi sr 7.4 5u tf 4;y d r R 9 June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 31 of 76 Root flare cut with a chain saw 8 e • Large roots were cut at the base of the trunk to accommodate the P " sidewalk • It is difficult to imagine what is preventing these trees from falling over Root Flare June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session r r 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 32 of 76 _ � --�� '° ~ � fir i,,� v jry k �+ §,,- J 9°c g > t 1k..- 8 f '' v -, .: r T • Most of the roots were cut when the sidewalk was repaired • "You have to wonder where the people that performed this operation stored their brain during this proceedure" Ed Gilman June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 33 of 76 Gravity always wins ;. `m.1,. . -, ' .'.," s x • 3°s f �s I -,,,. :-.:*..f... ,..---,i'''''''' .„:.:*.-!' ,,1 ,,,,.,..::,,,::.,i.„,„,;-,.. ,:.--7::.,.:e.1,,,ic.:.:..,,,,,,,,1`,-._, ' _.,,,,.7,:..,,,,:::::„ Aim._ ''''' .',,,...,4 *,. .x t r .A,,' ii. 1 R � ,„,?^„w _ ✓,fir--�°A"* Photo:Amy Sullivan June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session r Sbi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 34 of 76 t s 4. ,,. `:;a. w_gam .e.. �A,4>. 4 w d '. ii ,.. .. � t ? r ... j • r, 1 k ..- t I June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 35 of 76 Do not cut roots over an inch or two in diameter! • Within 5 times the trunk diameter: Say trunk diameter is 15 inches; Then large roots could be cut if 75 inches away June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session • 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) ' • Page 36 of 76 June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 37 of 76 Solutions to tree/sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates *° X ': roots , yet, minimizes .-r-:, t : `,_Y damage to tree. '''-7,•.,... � � 1. remove trcc s s � r- _ 2. fill, then re pour , ! P4,-',... - �3 tr`:1. " •i ,� t " 4. root barriers 4 J •f 9/ '--1-... ' 1t ./' MF J---,---....:::":..,7 -Y June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 38 of 76 Root barriers can deflect roots Barrier installation SoJ surface A it A B Sidewalk 1 � 1 Pavement Cwt 4¢'4-a,444 a 4 s:w°eaA1f444 44• s i ".4 aa.�rla aa4 AI .... Root barrier • Barriers have been placed vertically in the soil to deflect roots away from hardscapes • Place the barriers sufficiently away from the structure (about six inches) to be protected so that as the roots grow wider they will not touch the curb or walk • Be sure the top of the barriers reaches above the top of the soil so roots do not grow over it June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 39 of 76 trunk f ' a q 1 ec.r. C: barrier These trees were planted six years ago with a root barrier. Note that many roots were deflected under the barrier but grew back up toward the soil surface once they reached the other side of the barrier. Next photo shows a close-up view. June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 40 of 76 Solutions to tree/sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates roots , yet, minimizes 4�� , 3}, .' ' damage to tree: f.- Y° rot �� - �. 1. remove trees• '"': l •At , 2. fill, then re pour i.x r� � T,I i I ��` ' /I. root barriers .1i r /o r y/ ' k tr L _._ rf< F... , _ 5. re-route sidewalk :..F yv , r✓ June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 41 of 76 Solutions Re-routing walk around tree • When damaged sidewalks are k •.••-- . .* t VA ` repaired they can be _ - •''`'rim re-routed around the -- - �` tree trunks .w.. -- • This can eliminate the ... need to prune roots ;, _ ^ that caused the walk - to lift June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 42 of 76 Solutions Re-routing walk around tree • Re-routing walks ..t around existing trees does not solve the problem if large i . (greater than one inch diameter) roots are cut and the tree dies June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 43 of 76 Redirect the road • .a =,---. ' . --.4 . .. • : • t. ' '-it*.,t., ,,. , ,, ,, ., ItAR. a,s ,.c�. .«. ,:..T' i t 1'01 sl ' s s ....,N, $. g�`�` fir' c ` . r ■ June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 44 of 76 June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 45 of 76 Solutions to tree/sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates f..,r 4tor Ari:L,...,._;r> 4.4 day_ roots yet minimizes .I t : yc damage to tree: 1 ..; - .ri 1. rcmove trees t .f ,, s,,<� ''; , - 2. fill, then re pour s t ,• q.4 :-0 7_-r,00t prune an �c, t l ro_nor rr raj Egli' Y /I. root barriers '..' f /, t'. r L 4. f : r u e C i d cwa l k _ - ,,,,,,,, _ ..Gk-_ Y � � 6. alternative sub-base/reinforce _ -=;, R s.. t x ' °t+ - 'V' 1r' V' - June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 46 of 76 Solutions Install alternate sub-base material Roots stay welt beneath the walk because they do not grow in the gravel layer II Sidewalk Sidewalk i Gravel of rubble Traditional Existing sat subbase layer Existing sod subbase Wet - Rubber chips - others? June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 47 of 76 Solutions Install alternate sub-base material 1 `, • Low density No styrofoam and reinforcing wire \*111.4 J June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session , 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Pa•e 48 of 76 One inch of raising in 13 years .4ittot. . t June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 49 of 76 Solutions to tree/sidewalk conflicts r f Create a system that accommodates ''vs �" roots , yet, minimizes t 114. iii:t0:3'-51 kf--lot,1^i = �'i; - damage to tree: t � - .. � - 4',-.;,'''- 1. remove trees . -,' 2. fill, then re pour j g'- Y '' d - /I. root barriers ;Ia,� rij,r t 117' . ,� �' � `—'t. , , .-�,-" 5. rc route sidewalk q 1 J - 7. bridging ,� , 5 /� hJ 4 r . , June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session ' 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) ' r Page 50 of 76 .. -= 4 y , - fi5 * >. t: *,'-' ,++ +-,rfio,,.,r,.. '_ 1 " ` { `,.!.R u Bridging over roots June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 51 of 76 Solutions to tree/sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates { d. ' . roots yet minimizes -: ,, � 1 �' damage to tree: 1/, y�,, - , 1. remove trees sis 1 t 2. fill, then re pour. ; r....,..;7,...,f.,,! ....''t....:-: 37-reet-pfu-n-e-a-Rd-Fe-PauF IF , `. '. root barriers L L ~ - di t' , '` z 5 rLFoute ci k 1 -' 7. Bridging r . r , - a 8. Alternate surface materials ,,•• _ - June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Se 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways projssion ect-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 52 of 76 Alternative surface materials • Materials other than concrete have been used as a sidewalk surface. These include: a crushed granite d a asphalt " ' . a rock-dust a gravel t , ; `°J 7 • wood decking ',-,...-,;.;.4-- f' a brick-in-sand - '' ‘. "` 1.--, - ` ,. � • rubber , June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 53 of 76 Crushed granite surface + ,� ! t z l •5 f r�s7<, _ ice e' ,�, ,',F, ', k,,,, . s , ^f ...'44* " lF*- . �:�1r, < ,,„:, .:- it l- � '1' f v• qq44 � ! t ,l.'t1 . • June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session ' 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 54 of 76 Asphalt over major roots -. . L :E ` ,. , ;1. ' 1 i i;„ t'" ,.1 ti.',...}?:-* ',..:.,::;,,,.7.,,..:c-;,'-';,,,:('',`;:i:-;" ' June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Pa.e 55 of 76 Asphalt seems to work nicely here l 1 1 ;. 4 y E y �{� —.ow c , — _ .< . to .., tiq d .'-':.;.":.,,,:,,,,...,-*,,..'-:,::.'.,".:.,":..::.,::,3,s, m 1 1.,{ . p _ .. . June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Sbi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 56 of 76 Rock-dust as wearing surface a , -, "1 i ••. r r ill e --�• >.s �. IL. -- cif*no f � __:,..10. ♦♦♦ al s♦ •♦ { A. . • ♦+f xat - a June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Sbi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 57 of 76 Remove slabs .CO ,,,,,,,i il t:it /...„, .. . ............. , , ..,., r i F. ./ t .n• r • ti- June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 58 of 76 Spreading rock dust . t. ,, . P mil t . , iski---,4-_,,.. . .. , . , .,:, 1 N ,-1,44i 114 ems.Neil (/(� % .: x� z.. P „t , a Y � e e.. , S ,_, ,... , - it., ., . ,,,.... li .„:„... ,.. -- „,, , ., ,,, ,.. , .-_, .e.--,..L. - - .. ..... v.... . , June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 59 of 76 Pack dust tightly ,, , , .7"- ::,,;:.:;,..4 ' ' r---- , . in .11.., , -1 ' ri , .. :„....,:,,, .. 1 ----------- , ,..... .„ I , , ,,.,,,,,,,.. I --* , ,., , Y e 4i,, ,' f a +. . ..., „..*A 4001111111065.e'LL art •�'. x June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session • 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Commentsfcorrospondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 60 of 76 s s"" � - - Finished go, • 3 t r June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Sbi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 61 of 76 * Gravel �` � 40 '‘\,\ti:.-'t..,-;,,,,, N,„,,,,,‘ AS A S • 4. y.� iiA '# hA".2-e'...-4,4,'..1-4,...yr. T fi-, t ,�* f tf wy y ,A!�'f .c. .q ;e .'1'.---'t- -.:1--1. s..�j3 � y.� � 4. M'� � � dt� � L alb ,,41,,Sit,....,. .'''...."," *<‘"*.iii,"*.fr...."--,.:''27,-:;;,, " r- ,.`4,..:::4",;:". ,...;-s----'''''''..!:-.C.' *iiilfg,";j49-4,,,r',, '1:1 '- ' '1,;„.4.. .":",.!'-',.. -- . -. " , , :7t • e'"2 �, s Q4.°` C t w y ., i,..x 'ri C 1 ''-+ Y . ' r .} s t � x s , r 1„ .'+ ,far 7t � _r ta ,�,. ,`fir a� -"J f°`� -K.fir� y . .. June 6, 20 12 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comm-e-n ts/cortrespondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 62 of 76 rr r• Brick on sand te.._ ��?? ...,. 4 1 . • June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session fr 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Pa•e 63 of 76 V. 11 � r tiir c 0 4:"...1-2.-- s #, � � ar'f ,F x r ...et p ,te `` June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 64 of 76 KBI Flexi-Pave- recycled tire matrix • Flexi-Pave HD2000 for sidewalk use ranges from $8.00-$9.00/ square foot. • Lasts longer than concrete when used over tree root zones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YLZkW3nkAw June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 65 of 76 Solutions to tree/sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates '� . r` , 4.a. roots , yet, minimizes 3 f tr -,` `h..t, ' 't.�; %./ 11 damage to tree: '?;!'t t ^I,7. '' n `. m* I- —. 1. remove trees -f r •x 2. fill, then re pour tril r�1 �"�-.;1 4 f Ys 'f. root ba rricra r ' "'ter•,. .... ((, ate "to�' idew� �—Fe rau�el,4 --;: . - 6,alternaz ve sub barn/reinforce 7. bridging S. alternate surface materials , e 9. slab-jacking 1 g June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 66 of 76 Slab-jacking (mudjacking) 1f105-<.. R A-14,111 1111111116, r � ''' Smd hofe is drilled "'"o seer Crete ♦ 11 6� ;" s rj 40, rv'F •;W' 1 me!y+ 1 E!.. A-1 piontwis mmpaund is pumped below concrete viiiimAikri oat°. -144F I Fr 42 rye 406' 441617'1. Alfef canae!e has been kreted hole c is sealed off (0■::4-1 punrpin9=panda erworrrrentedy fire» Diagram by Al CONCRETE June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 67 of 76 Slab-jacking w a. "3' •,tip>a: -a • , r . r June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session r r 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) r Page 66 of 76 What would you do? ir.„-,,,.;„....•.'. -. 4 ' '•:=;;;-. ' .4e-1 114 fi,..i."' .. . io. k„,* , ttlsizitti -.' ar4...-' . i . . r ,'4 . 4 -- s*s -f „F u a` 1 .gam °'l .r :.• r f a s n : t_ v 04 t 41*`. � +a'.. Ate_ • M B x ,, - ' ' r June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 69 of 76 Bonzai option? —joking Smaller canopy; less aggressive roots? "Keeping trees reduced in size with regular reduction pruning should provide for a tree with less root intrusions." Ed Gilman sv_ 9 f, r.. _ , °' L 1 a.......iiiiial,„ June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Sbi.Administrators Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 70 of 76 Main tain a re u ced canopy(16-20 ft?)- What's wrong with tree on right, ? , >^N r It „a . .k, t $�r' � s 5 e {t �� ;1.41:10 4- s. .� �' 4 gyp, � C tig: ' :ri t- 4-, .,•,+^0.,'a3 k .w4? € ., a, ?" fi. '. ..,/ • ,v.k`" *. • , . ® �9 C 6.^N S S 'd N �' .�S A ry n •• d �J. W S O b _ a xg o n a iog fl:• c tenME.' � "F0� 05, g A o .^I m ? *°-�7 3.NB.a & c°�gCe'.g a it„5- dR.glgq ,a;F: 3R'w a v O aa,"<, a G2 8 gvZ • , .' A- .cg^ a .- g) �_' 5 0 =.0°^ '0 W,, � Amal03, ° o,-.90 ,7" �" c54'am44F:1, 3.$ no ,zn- a,-- aa3i9'Na C r �oq � 5�.Pq _m.8," _NR- A. , n ^ n; �'w "4.Nn� ; " m ' < a°"'R 3 05N o ona^i a �$nw �a as aO ° n^�`'a Sd ,°" 3 ° a- 0^ M�3n K 8,9-ri G ^ a ^1O g F. w aA ° a .<n-A.. -3oigyd3n0ao3.PC; -v a c A . E -. £°°°-R G w. .�' 105F'o "o° ..'°p$0G6° 3� °o",i5'n ^nZR g.Zi 2) - a ' '' .'WC �RvTqA a$VIA y" 'a �5 95—§-.2 A2 "nn'4 ' a5-aaa' "ter 3 Z �` "°°�- § ^ ^ N " g".4 1 m, ` Irs' pp . �O a 0. a R ,n n m a= ^S G" m;g c °m 2 o'a E " ;'"w. o., °^g.^Pa11gn: t" o aA3"a= afro90.0.n ,7 a�na a X, v� - _ _ � m " go-E �•3 ii^ a aoq.A wr.+,�g n'a �< ° w3' ° e.n ^gg °c0 <o.al o3g ?n21 5. O N. � ill go 4y o g .".3 o=n .91R -a... °3n3 �g. g . 3A,_.. .'°-°o0.ir yo ° $ w v c..5 Yo 1 ?,o ey=n g, 2 ^2'.a c n co n A o a� d 3 4,, ^:,a -I -0,1,• . •_ " a5nno . `A.• 00ga ° V„ Ncp, a dEr3.l o cg0aa3d„d3"aGP,a< ay N '°m ^- F�. G a -• E .- R.E.,1 1,.°=-,q• n 3 a c f n =�. P_v. ' 5.3 s e Z a 2`R va0 .n. w a• g o ° d 1 . a`< -0, off � F-. ' ° ?u. ,.°,. a s a Tai ?, 0:0: gQ.AI .ory ^ 3O 9,,9” 8?,.e. rv-xc*v ,, ,9 2 ,�o m?Fr� aa � E 7' v o a $, a1o,nix 4 a ° wr. , o.c .poe.. _,. a.5=.On a nG y o° -'� �- Ez �oay2.-8 �'" ��3 ao �g bw ^ oF, " F3?.'a°0t,�° g'�a,00c� Q al o g g.w o g n § o:a a,L.c" S .-Ry w 7 c.v^N ry g w g 9 w No g e 3,a 5.A,„w e o 3 o 171 0 xAoaS-ow o'a oa a� c ;'� .. 5 ow o v � dra^ n m A f0 E a?� R g,o^S .. a•pa C eow0 ...o �o ry 5 3 a n 5. £ o E E c: � _ag.:8Z 5.^ n _ aaw .aw N F l ePF, 3g �,�aa93Xa=off' 030 0430' p''Ow -, 0^ -a. B ,o', mea9 -A .wec °' r n 4 r cgo E i' ,-">" 0H_a.'3 ,OOT^ GG-� c.00•< 3.N aagagG..,0.R.co ma 3 5 8.952� 3a_nN^ Zx a =S $ Fgw _,W, „ ER,' 5.^'x,2 -,'8cm� ; E�.g'RG. N , ° °`< R-o-T"A '-'n 3- O'°'=' C sO ;,°.g g o c R..,?,--g .r4 9 v ,o a ° o.A- $ S-c o o y o i P. rv., A -c--- y 3 'g 2",3.10 x.O w. `7 d .o n w w 6 a °� r°e ^.�°c,.° ,, 5 n ° �y q g. '` g• °.' "' °."^ °▪ ,°° Ov`'°?tea °'� ^oaagl o£ N,<s°A aaoo'.io ."45 -wan_R4'; g 02a ,<, vcb, w s' E.n33wa. ' �R ,n aoa. '� g =uIpU F702a= 7 °'^50^ 5' °o i -,Aa-c No".-.o ^..o,,a, sg �rw - ,i n^n.`a1'..a� ,=-45wge-g . Oo, °=.00C)a G � a o R ' cgREoEG ^5.2.• "'"':=1A6.'57<' o nK � - vnFIw F3 , ry , ec�,°A ,8 ng 3 ,, =, `0a °,m a 3 E 86'w .R a n 5 R e a,$< g.g ,<o g m'w 3.*° 'G •a. 5 a R E o • `° n-0 -5 - c A o a,° o v,n °' °c 2 3 a 0'30< a x '� v, ;-0 a VA : : a a°:'''''',:.6 v m 3 a^.n e n g.3 n 'n c n., -a== 0 .", a G ° a,o G� o o ? ,1 £ ^ 6a mm p To.rv'�8 � rvovmg.grno,- .cc_ma a.g3 _� o ,B ' Er 111 E m? 1 , . " .no as m ,c. o crag 7.=e wgo,OO n.° -Sao n = a c P'oo, ><K ' g . gm a° aw � 5aoa . n;3c c "orvg T . `F4a 'o•a . n 9 a C�qn N Wo ,, gri ..f .° :o< R . �.'19 =- 3 !2S `n .gg-n ^ E a - n9 . . rvwovHn'< s . < nv -n St v d4 • ^ o ry pa o a°v y a -om: a oG 2-a F m n rn a-d N A nR c o �� x �'„:-." a a B E N o 5.��.o d:� a n v m a 7 wo ,:15-L,,,-,,'a ,, 5 a o�£, g r- G."o ..n A,i 'F'S•a F" N w °' 0. �c nna3 >•vACaaRrvEall Qil ^ ^°1} °-,nA;P8,9-- no' mn '8 &.'7,F., ` w $ x A ' v 'c G' . a N A nw..^-d g F$ w R T w l ` egg o .2...g 9 ,E r;., ., a.o a_,moo :4.1-0" ".c m c 0 0^ 0 5.x:. P n a a 3 0 °�°v o -,� o�oo°� 3 '^° ganwE n 3� ^o.o° w $ I; 0 1Om g_5,-6 aynnT 3,e;..g15..-" -.5i.t5,5 04o n3 �,< ^a2, °w ° qn rn° mm .6.' ' r:,:, oo.g5w a-o0 '? ° A ^ , ° .^.23 °' ?- oR d 5 r, gt 1,4 �^,>•00 �3.o5-n0 44 &� ,E,^w4 �_. £ y^ a ,-i A'. 2 .2:218 v� ° °- 3 a ^ a... w 00`�0w -°°o A 3 iA o.N ° 2 , " o c a" ry a l m. -- 0 5. f.1 • 0-5-,. m0 =, aG�.A�'� ,,g - .320-1• En^ a . moo . rG,,;.,g, y ° oS FT" G'v .0.a�n - ay^Ta" w 0 0-wgc.3 0ga. ,9-2-w �'a'° gd ° ° m g,�"�^o 0 oy$"3 i g rig '44 asp, o m.e 3 x3 A°'3 f0 w n ^ r0-° n -'mow, $ T 3 03�� .• �� 3oO �,w � aw n^c Adao � , ��na .5:3 ,a, " °-O.< y n 5.0 ", GS'.e,�, T 1. o' °'A w n oo°d o d a B r°0 3 ,Q.n ' E ❑ A 5-� ^' Z g 711 5 S o w° g ® gaaaa � y°^ o�,� �aa �g.°� �� oaoG 3 °'°� �Ndc.o �X Z- 711 _3.3.R 8 3,p1aAOVw � Gq �aww . ow ox, o.,g, 30� R3.Y 5"5-..58..21.0i 700^ -� c.3.=3 ° °.� n g w g c " .-^R >•..5•g '° a•o o E,o-v 0- �.o r m m i! G- ` o o o 7 c _ 2 o m 5 a 5, - w £ N.Rao -?owaom ^O ,,. ....'. o.S Ao.§.. 220 754s-,.. a:o °° s � o07Gc g ,^,>• v o c m=g=' m °' G a. G A w' a '^ ' o;`^° ry A °£' a F A n g: F`� Er. fi o 5 o 5-.❑ E g °'N E o x,2 X 3 °-, 3 3 y S:N 2 ,00 a ; 0-g 0$' o? a s c g,--I° 0-^90c ' 5,- -„'6-4.^ 9_-? G " n'< 3 $.' o.0- Wig°'=O ° £ A" £ o �.' ' F 3 '0 Op15 '° Go?='< '"* 5 g 0i frna.o w1,5A ;^ '° O-0- ° Hti05•° 0ov° E ° a < w ”' a•. o ^ e°ao " °-0 °- m a '° g a 3 _,: 'n.-.. 0 °- a ,-0 9.. g7.0- 0.2: -'c . ,78- 6-00 w w 2 n g c o a•c SC 3.A ' �° N°0- , IPiii °"R." VnH g � n IO:tII g , , a R "^ g ° °n-',=c o 0 3 s w G a 10 '°�< , o. "3 o ,c - I C 1 • l N m i s ,, j d L L - a e O C c 1 .0 - w 6 FR moN c�°' mo,- Ee° h1�'ORa 12, -,18-= ,3 2 � ^ 2 A' 22 - n$a gonga v`3 u.o.� �o g 7� ,°�O r .0 . 8 a>+ ! T E ....`rJ a ^mien 0'0 .� o s o c u � 2�� g'...;;,2,C:° o .J o �� e am T`C° % oo t Eu°. ,ca e g g C a s- m y F 3 c p G :d 5 v 8 b o E -o o y i O u l C OR-4 G q. O U +n o c 0 " O M G • m 3 § E E L ., ,, L • __>•• v V o y 6 ` 3 u "° U A m + 8 gg oPA nnm ' i^�c u a.' C c a cv o a ° 81 2 : o i 8 - 0 - A 5° e0 ' E B,4>, E=r+r >. „ a•3 a 5 re @ > °..'e § e ` ooERgvtiva3c5, ge,.1E e 17.,,=,` < a Hull W -°�im ° OcRUOS 2 eo 6 s ` g o o a no A G v a n a a m a ° i - :c D 3 o W y_L I 'V 9 o A Q b l i g U J 0 �o O ..n M n Y Y 'g 1 C � G 59 U U 6 y Y It Boo le a° ,o M0 a aAa �ma Ee t5 ° uo `�° AOOa sa $s50IA,61, c� a0� a ' m°d °,y in n n°n :,o n 9 % 5.-2. 1 3 p',,:.-6.1, ,i o c .i.-.a c .m G O, :1, , .c a 1 c s oa a !t �' vc oauaam3 � `o` . . X0—. 8 o ,c, . . . --- 5 n 0 9 v 3: " ` m ,n o N °0 top'' T O 3 C M A eo-0...'- 2 .0,0 -V Y.o 1St rNi opGda Om .SAa o00 3'. a u ",.a >i ,°° 3b=~-0c 11c L,N--'E mo `5 090 33 58 and Z` Lgg'gq9 Z' Si AS 7-2Z i ai 'i O eg °�o��6 9 R g b ;,°5 5- 5.x E S e '"F. v 05. obz cce p H'E;nl u'° y IN§5 e° f oe 9 'r, 9 i°i " 3 8 E e " u°. e0C $ o 2---1O o� 2a� 3 OU � §;‘:1 -2:.--01-, -y C �sv o v NmnE ..4 3 v .2 . yY>V.E08o3S ms= . '- �`p �3o- c >' S u,� s '^ >.� c v u 0 E 2 o E •ii'E°a e g _ e i A 8-0 c ,3n�'a 'A,.2 u'' o a 7, L°'0 °x 3 s 5. $ u v 2 u 0,- 2 1,Q N Ys L N j (h� y0 3 h O U T • O CJ >.0`- i° N O _o g e o�° o 3 S a ,`"<' _ Q " " 3 s co °o v 3 v m e '� . 5 e0 m o -,v°iaE " cva 5 3 33oco` 0.cg ' 508 .. , 0 U- ` 5 ''.e' •it o E1 ° A -c E ` e ?N $'0 � -. 62-R."�y °u'_:.s. '6A6 . e ".xo � <mv - y > b vE^ a ' g� a .2Ea'E g ",=,' ='.N.°'� °0oeoc c= v0 "LZ e4E 3o s mgB a'9 od� -?gal 5 #:",..,,,, aE avF5 > 33e_, ithum' O_�'0 c-v,N'd 3ce f ^ d g*E4 3`v� nt° a°;n n0: ,nt="°,t= 1i v ,v v0.„_8-,E,n'mc7'o , 3 3a°c ° `8:2. 3^ WHH- 3d Y w E d c m G = 29 .. o G p v 9-qy� R "q"°n^vet a°1 .big EE°5E , '$ e >m v EcP, 2-i ^1 � 5n f3 A o 0 a v -.�.�-r%,M .2 ? o 5 3 .0 0.,n C 3 0 '--5.4,6"'r E d c a o 50 y a"■ S-ec T � N �A�� - Y�� 3] o8-8 3`° d8E` . 0 8_0E, .r 2zuu4Ao . .4 o 9 e °: .eeegm 3°a e ° °' 71_, 0.6:-" 3 m A E C > 9S �' A ~ s 9 ° 3 a E 08c I nv.s _ " „�� m� u 8.0 ebb4C� o � 4 T, 3v cv °0 'ti"e ,':: ,.,P1 m ;.: s -E5 0 .8 E s cm^ PT°�Z ° 5 a«'1^,ah v °c o: ,._� ° gill $ °o.. .>. 1 g.� 2 21_Y.r � m„ s'2 O n �r A �,"'�,.1,�,.1 _v a'E -5EBL ? cui.r5t0.'5.5.e3�v2sv ..46 0,'. o A 7.1 a 15rA`' � aa? 5 S e " cam >��o Q e - w m n m O ..r.p L v y'�O p °pip °°C > d 0 " ,n j v N ry y C Ei O >`` 0 3 °0r. j 2'4.1' GLm C y T,< ,i O. E VI OE 3 �n '.c L^ L^a. 90^9 hI!1 ugi�8 � GCSE 5'5 ,v o ��u. .o_-� I,v224f:, yoto� .. �t.o_ o n '3'9 A Ma g-g g o et`a@�S X 0 8 ° t, z 5- V '- °> o rL4^sa �aTj= CE-5v c°.2.2a."> y - 79.1.L1. -a.. 3"Ee3E at yoa, 01ccv-v tT8 -7'eE ° S°0°.=- o § c� a..s 1 _ 3gg a €_o, N "4__T '- Ae R ii �NE " E° oE-§cc U0 ao3g2P, w ;Ail a 33› 33 - e a ° i-, ve m c AX a-3,Os' ua�E > 8 0. ..v q ) 0 " 11/1111 E �E __ '<^a Eo lit °' � N g' � - ,u ° 0`>.50.. '-.c EQ o a a t a " , ..�V V F E .5,a 1_p k0 a rn t 5'C' 'fit`"O a o f a m 3 a St v oroYdv NN .Lt.-3P.A g,U- '?o cc r 24-v..'4 °'u i4.04-1 H Z iA N N._ - Z.,'q o O ."+ 5 O F'C 3� �'O . a G S .+ O �.0 P. C r N n = C 0 V � * w E 0 3 TE ^5 90 --irv°"' E A q � 98 o A _ a "„ c s 1 u O 'O C . o C g AT� >L Fg G ,�d s " y O m$ C t ......9,-, ...-....A A , Ti b T71,..r. v? mumrt "° s G @ 3 tm0' CC " C . 0 Cg0O B.ae :AO -VC O 0 as "0 . ° BNnoDOnn "" 5-5 0-° �_p 8 . "a-`5 °.eo0 ° c ` ms , sr o oa fv9 m 9 S d v -0 8m°�gbe E ;E uge-r" 8 ' _ °° ..6 a 51'''=-13-e s 0 .8 > J= E el3 51stc f. o . &.c 2 2 a b�-._i v m<n A N G " ' r9 E .n.e a g 2E s a N -5'E�5 2,0-5 a. ,c° v. Tr E� 5 dir _ 8 �2BY<F3 c:& 5.0862 54 o E- 2 gm ` - o ° E >V 4 : , •• nCo--1� n..�^n mo 00,3 •a0'aL1y� �^-a> .Yy❑ °�o 0 '°7 a,°. o --,,,. ..3.(-)=.=.,~8s5• -,s .-s - •°.: a ASe-c- 4 .,M1 !c woe ' w " mon zaa..9°.'45 moo, a° O1 pzcAn _aa� ^?,b �3N �' 1=5. S7 ° Dbo ,12 .;^ mno a.ra & Sm.m3zMz p °'4 ''a'v ❑. °^'.TES°� �. �On�,wo^ ?,?.° C13 ��r.�vq <a o. d28 '"AO mgm _ 0 0 0 'o o e .3 m 7 F .. a i p w C C o -o' t r, a 4 r❑ S -�c , ,o P a • 2.E g'-' 6 ' 42V o 3gx2� a°?.�ouo � bo omm c� ° "a 9 Iov' n °e� ..°A N vm � O 8 a r ^ O q 00 ' 2 ..S.. •> 7 U A -.rvrt G g5--g W p 7N 3 9• C C '�O V A.C o 0.2 =-65 - m m ° r � v 0. = 0 .0 ,� O c3tUoa np-ro-o °c ^ -,_4 ; da °.^ L c ti�Q, go °. 2 a a'3.o . G ° a ° a ^ ika m r.,^ -. , a n-,,,g N sn' ^ n . c o^ iry c ^ > C C A °- ° �o $ �O < ° 8S2oa� na ;a1 . rti n ° � .ocm5i&AS N. l.� -.HOC n^ PNO cant ° o. oa =-= 505_g �'' a a n o 0 a 3l 3 Z y.o 2 m a..,ay."" N° y p o -. m g.o W ?q . 3 noc - g. .. tv a� ca Ri8TOg-po w^ ,o 3 \ q b 2 ,o a £ 1^w°o^ R °c =o° 5 ,-.. 0 %3 S!18. c o. !JO. '5.5i1 w° o m °e °c•2 Z o .8 O“ ,° ' g- ° o ow•o .°D7 R a, ° 8 _;L ia z2 ° g g,a^__Et,a,E. ,...3 c- a, o A or, ^a. Nam o� m� ° A. `Rn hi oo DC U o w 900.,3 ›O c a =o-. c-i o r n m a ^ HI y A ^ g3 i - wv o , Io a=-v . -0m C_ �^ C F N , Rr� .s. T -� I. , � a 3 � ; ^" T a> a o o 5. 2 2. •a n,Q Ow'Q 0n° oJ,m ? ,�.'$ ° Owao o.m A ao S y.u,.,�,op= o. c &APR �n gaa0G =, A�c?�n>; 0c � Q 33.�,,! ! i o C O 'R. p i n�n a 0 3. C ..L ° .°o ff �.uf0i E�'- m n 7 c m.� c> > > n 76 a c �`^c o x o w c 'c o a 3 m n': gg a ' Sn c m°'3 �3 ` o--a e.�^. n-5. 43.o.w - ^o.g atEi r•c.� - �c� asL�w5 '. C3nw . o3g. m,?o.Ealg,, ra1g _R ^goo^ 3o `°Dorn o. ^ g n a k o ^c a 4 Qirn �ql g, S& o. N3,^ow,°c3aa3 . n�:ng'B °.�a�g', i oT PR$o°° Fina^' ga_; J =�°_34 Eogli07 , = a � a ;dator,8sl 40.13 ° as 5,o g .0. : w�RF6 .� o ^0.v .gc8 °... y. v9. o. � c °' o wo o0.n °'K 8sa`R9 wn2a aln ° i iinw`0w 3,fDi° n ° o- V o $ 3 3.7 m' `�a'a r a o. °c a a G' o.° m W '3a3ar,Kg" 3cc•° 8n' 5,1 .33x3 " 8 oc ° Bo785g 52 < 3 wm=.°�� i.+a°.n q.°°o.4°'' 5o.gc.6 g .i g,wV a3ngca mH ° 9 °32c =R3° , 0,,, _,3„0 ,g ,L .7 °� nn3.T.u� ii 051g, o y3 m N S w 5,-.45. 57-„ °o 8 °o g o 3 ° S 251 0°.1.1 8 '. -2,p_:..O 3 "8 m 5?° c ° a ''.9 - , ' ''' 'g. S N F �^ 5 1c H g. ° c ',,71,5' "•3 .o- 3 ^ 3 y ,11 aaana3A,°^; 39 .. 3and.Ac°No.gi. 6ag3a09xa-cT> ' 3oo°. a ° '352. 38 o.O-03°:°3.,,°, SE.-ync £ OEiggSS ,.g 8 $ o° " ..9-gl o"° 333;-“Ag7,P ° Egv_SoSa��>•,ggrg TEI : 9S 3 7C ` 7 g atg10 = 5K° 5 ofGc a RN§ 3 ' d � O ' ° '49F-n o " oa° CEIR BNnc. Sy ^ v °...c °°T'° °'c°Frn a R a 3 9 a. n '°^ ° g a b o a t?'cn 5.2 5 a m m 3' 3 £ 3 ° 3 8 o O: -n3ogola,e > °8o- o5-^ O'^^ 3.3 '`w^ aRs oa3g _ 3=maw? _n Pa30-°R. q$ ° 3 3 ^ ,^,. 0 ^°^ov 0.°o, }'$�05 0.o 0 w0.& ° r. ° °•c m° y3 A., 3' 0.c o. 3 Ra c n •.n , an o - °.A S ,a o°.o. n n 3 g 2 c 9 ^ a z � _oon8 $ oo �",ow3 @. y5 0.°w^ 35 q° aac c L. o. -o � . Nca3wwa3 cg,o, nmga ..c m ET c82 oW _ 9c°.."i S RS n°_•o. 3 nA c, nA'-� c - 3 w 7. June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report.Pathways.Pause the pathways project-Dallas(Comments by Joseph and Sandra Doyle) Page 1 of 2 ResnickLisa Subject: Audience Comments RE: "Pause the Pathway Project" (Joseph &Sandra Doyle) From: naplespatriots(acomcast.net Imailto:naplespatriots(@comcast.netl Sent:Thursday, May 24,2012 9:38 PM To: keithjdallas(a gmail.com Cc: nfn167990naoles.net;ibaron(awatersideshops.com; iohnchandler219(agmail.com;josiegeoff@aol.com; iaizzo©comcast.net; mikelevy435(agmail.com; naolessusan( comcast.net;djtreckerOyahoo.com;teedup1Paol.com; hunter hansen; FialaDonna; HillerGeorgia; HenningTom; CoyleFred;jimcollettacolliergov.net;iohnsusanboland(aaol.com; ResnickLisa Subject: Pause the Pathway Project--Audience Comment Mr. Dallas, While the PBSD Board reconsiders the rebuilding of the stretch of pathway on the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Commons to the North Tram station, we should let Collier County proceed with the resurfacing of the OTHER pathways in our community as planned for July 2012 since we cannot tolerate another year of delays for these much needed repairs. P.S. The bicycle lane issue on Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park was voted down by the residents 3 or 4 years ago with a resounding "NO"since there was little support to reduce the roadway from 4 car lanes to 2 car lanes with bike lanes. We would further add that the many elderly drivers in our community have diminished peripheral vision and a bicycle lane will not be useful--bikers need to use a widened pathway to avoid being hit by a car. Joseph Doyle Sandra Doyle Laurel Oaks in Pelican Bay From: Keith Dallas Imailto:keithidallas(agmail.coml Sent:Wednesday, May 16,2012 2:03 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle Subject: Pause the Pathway Project Lisa, Please pass this message on to Board members and include it as an agenda item for our June 6th Board meeting. After considerable thought, I think we should take a pause,take whatever time is necessary, and rethink how the pathways project should proceed. The 3 recent close votes on the desired width of the pathway indicates we have not reached consensus. Below are my specific thoughts on how we might proceed. I hope other Board members will also give this some thought before the meeting so we can have an open and productive discussion on how we should proceed. Keith 6 Foot Pathways-The Worst of all Possible Decisions I am unhappy for a number of reasons at where we concluded our May discussions regarding rebuilding our pathways.I suspect some of you may share that sentiment.Thus I propose for our June meeting that we pause,take several deep breaths and think about a non-confrontational process for developing a mutually agreeable approach for rebuilding our pathways.The fact that we have had three different close votes on the issue indicates we have not reached consensus. After some thought,I think the most recent PBSD decision to implement a 6 foot pathway on the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard,from The Commons to North Tram Station,maybe the worst of the options considered.It doesn't meet our original objectives,could cause as much damage to trees as an 8 foot pathway,and would be a waste of$250,000 to$300,000. The following is a summary of my reasoning: • Meeting CIP Objectives June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session • . 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways.Pause the pathways project.Comments from Richard Galli Page 1 of 4 Jun. 5. 2012 5: 17PM RVR No. 1$50 P. 1 "th* RIVER VALLEY RANCH 444 Rivery Valley Ranch Drive Carbondale,CO 81623 (970)9634300-PHONE (970)9636303-FAX FAX Cover Sheet -� `7 _r....0 12_,< - r r Date: \.V - r( 2- To: L,:1 j).- VA-3 1 C K From: \ '1CK (LL 1 FAX#: 170 61 c S (41, o Phone#: 6061 417'2 (o 'z_ RE: 1 ■ co Pia gb tt`1$s7f Nace t #of Pages: 3 rpt9er,j... ,b t 7 1 ,1,„/-crE Ica m1'-r1/ 4 ' wk. so 7 W \+4\ T a H' .-rk ts,S L,t To c9 * -7:- tivrWv , The Information In this FAX Is CONFIDENTIAL.If you have mistakenly received this FAX,please contact the sender and discard this Information. • • Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-May 31,2012 Operating Fund 109-FY 2012 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments 1,949,764.28 Interest Receivable - Improvements,Vehicles& Equipment 1,240,088.08 Due from Property Appraiser - Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets $ 3,189,852.36 Total Assets $ 3,189,852.36 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 40,947.75 Accrued Wages Payable - Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd 22,786.77 Total Liabilities $ 63,734.52 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 1,292,615.54 Excess Revenues(Expenditures) 1,833,503.00 Total Fund Balance 3,126,118.54 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 3,189,853.06 . Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-May 31,2012 Operating Fund 109-FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ - Special Assessment-Water Management Admin 666,300.00 636,316.50 636,487.06 170.56 Special Assessment-Right of Way Beautification 1,907,800.00 1,821,949.00 1,822,259.28 310.28 Insurance Co.Refund 298.00 298.00 Charges for Services 1,500.00 - - - Surplus Property Sales - 20,418.00 20,418.00 Miscellaneous 403.48 403.48 Interest 15,300.00 10,198.00 6,961.07 (3,236.93) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,713,200.00 $ 3,590,763.50 $ 3,609,126.89 $ 18,363.39 Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense $ 41,400.00 $ 27,100.00 $ 24,402.55 $ 2,697.45 Emergency Maintenace and Repairs 8,800.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 300.00 300.00 - IT Office Automation/Billing Hr. 4,800.00 3,600.00 3,600.00 - Indirect Cost Reimbursement 84,500.00 84,500.00 84,500.00 - Inter Payment/Mnt.Site Ins. Assessment 13,400.00 10,100.00 10,050.00 50.00 Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 17,900.00 18,582.00 (682.00) Telephone 3,900.00 2,600.00 2,007.80 592.20 Postage and Freight 3,000.00 300.00 107.69 192.31 Rent Buildings and Equipment 11,300.00 8,500.00 8,037.78 462.22 Insurance-General 1,200.00 600.00 600.00 - Printing,Binding and Copying 2,300.00 200.00 - 200.00 Clerk's Recording Fees 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Advertising 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Other Office and Operating Supplies 2,000.00 1,300.00 349.61 950.39 Training and Education 1,100.00 700.00 85.00 615.00 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,000.00 $ 158,100.00 $ 152,622.43 $ 5,477.57 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 132,800.00 $ 86,800.00 $ 78,384.88 $ 8,415.12 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 8,000.00 4,017.50 3,982.50 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 4,700.00 812.65 3,887.35 Landscape Materials/Replanting Program 8,500.00 300.00 - 300.00 Interdepartmental Payment(Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 11,300.00 9,715.75 1,584.25 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 700.00 286.42 413.58 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 30,400.00 33,193.00 (2,793.00) Telephone 500.00 300.00 252.28 47.72 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 4,400.00 4,349.87 50.13 Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 - - - Insurance-General 2,300.00 1,150.00 1,150.00 - Insurance-Auto 900.00 450.00 450.00 - Building Repairs&Mntc. 1,700.00 - - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 5,400.00 3,600.00 1,320.59 2,279.41 Fuel and Lubricants 8,900.00 5,900.00 1,838.35 4,061.65 Tree Triming 30,000.00 20,000.00 17,472.00 2,528.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 800.00 924.00 (124.00) Page 1 of 3 Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - $ - General Improvements - - - - Total Water Management Field Operations Capital $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Right of Way Beautification-Field Autos and Trucks $ 102,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Other Machinery and Equipmeny 1,000.00 - - Total Right of Way Beautification-Field Capital $ 103,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Total Capital Expenditures $ 104,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,393,200.00 $ 1,667,750.00 $ 1,476,391.78 $ 191,358.22 Non-Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees 79,600.00 49,352.00 49,174.56 177.44 Property Appraiser Fees 73,300.00 40,315.00 38,714.56 1,600.44 Reserves(2 1/2 months for Operations) 538,000.00 540,300.00 540,300.00 - Reserves for Equipment 94,800.00 94,800.00 94,800.00 - Reserved for Attrition (31,700.00) (31,700.00) (31,700.00) - Revenue Reserve 129,500.00 - - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures $ 1,320,000.00 $ 1,129,567.00 $ 1,127,789.12 $ 1,777.88 Total Expenditures $ 3,713,200.00 $ 2,797,317.00 $ 2,604,180.90 $ 193,136.10 Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ 793,446.50 $ 1,004,945.99 $ 211,499.49 • Page 3 of 3 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-May 31,2012 Street Lighting Fund 778-FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ - Curent Ad Valorem Tax 436,800.00 417,144.00 417,615.89 $ 471.89 Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax $ - Insurance Claim 18,330.25 $ 18,330.25 Interest 4,500.00 1,485.00 1,167.38 $ (317.62) Total Operating Revenues 598,900.00 576,229.00 594,713.52 18,484.52 Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense $ 41,400.00 $ 27,100.00 $ 24,402.44 $ 2,697.56 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 5,300.00 $ 5,300.00 5,300.00 $ - Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 $ 18,633.33 18,582.00 $ 51.33 Telephone 3,900.00 $ 2,600.00 1,486.74 $ 1,113.26 Postage and Freight 2,000.00 $ 300.00 107.69 $ 192.31 Rent Buildings/Equipment/Storage 12,100.00 $ 8,100.00 8,465.87 $ (365.87) Insurance-General 300.00 $ 150.00 150.00 $ - Office Supplies General 800.00 $ 500.00 15.36 $ 484.64 Other Office and Operating Supplies 1,000.00 $ 600.00 - $ 600.00 Total Street Lighting Admin Operating 93,700.00 63,283.33 58,510.10 4,773.23 Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense 62,500.00 40,900.00 37,448.91 3,451.09 Emergency Maintenance & Repairs 9,600.00 - - - Other Contractual Services 800.00 500.00 - 500.00 Telephone 400.00 300.00 263.59 36.41 Electricity 44,200.00 29,500.00 22,391.15 7,108.85 Insurance-General 800.00 400.00 400.00 - Insurance-Auto 900.00 450.00 450.00 - Building Maintenace & Repairs 1,700.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 4,300.00 2,900.00 2,796.73 103.27 Fuel and Lubricants 1,200.00 800.00 324.65 475.35 Other Equipment Repairs 200.00 100.00 64.40 35.60 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 300.00 - 300.00 Electrical Contractors 7,300.00 4,900.00 3,899.00 1,001.00 Light Bulb Ballast 12,400.00 7,400.00 9,183.72 (1,783.72) Page 1 of 2 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-May 31,2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 392,550.24 Interest Receivable - Improvements,Vehicles& Equipment 299,426.02 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets 691,976.26 Total Assets $ 691,976.26 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 8,529.92 Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd 10,618.75 Accrued Wages Payable - Total Liabilities 19,148.67 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 303,213.58 Excess Revenues(Expenditures) 369,614.01 Total Fund Balance 672,827.59 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 691,976.26 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-May 31,2012 Clam Bay Fund 320-FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ - Special Assessment 127,100.00 119,474.00 121,387.39 1,913.39 Miscellaneous Income 1,414.45 1,414.45 Fund 111 34,000.00 34,000.00 34,000.00 - Transfer from Tax Collector - - Interest 700.00 700.00 1,366.80 666.80 Total Operating Revenues $ 451,311.88 $ 443,685.88 $ 447,680.52 $ 3,994.64 Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees $ 163,368.75 $ 39,800.00 $ 39,126.25 $ 673.75 Other Contractural Services 70,151.60 29,300.00 28,866.87 433.13 Tree Trimming 29,000.00 14,500.00 - 14,500.00 Other Equipment Repairs 349.77 - - - Aerial Photography 7,500.00 - - Minor Operating 588.01 - - - Other Operating Supplies 1,000.00 - - - Total Clam Bay Restoration $ 271,958.13 $ 83,600.00 $ 67,993.12 $ 15,606.88 Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees $ 7,253.75 $ 7,300.00 $ 15,418.50 $ (8,118.50) Other Contractual Services 143,000.00 1,200.00 250.00 950.00 Total Clam Bay Ecosystem $ 150,253.75 $ 8,500.00 $ 15,668.50 $ (7,168.50) Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 422,211.88 $ 92,100.00 $ 83,661.62 $ 8,438.38 Non-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 3,900.00 $ 2,730.00 $ 2,427.74 $ 302.26 Property Appraiser Fees 2,600.00 1,818.00 1,482.37 335.63 Revenue Reserve 6,700.00 - - Reserves(2 1/2 month for Operations) 15,900.00 15,900.00 15,900.00 - Total Non-Operating Expenditures $ 29,100.00 $ 20,448.00 $ 19,810.11 $ 637.89 Total Expenditures $ 451,311.88 $ 112,548.00 $ 103,471.73 $ 9,076.27 Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ 331,137.88 $ 344,208.79 $ 13,070.91 Page 1 of 1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-May 31,2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 2,627,176.35 Interest Receivable - Improvements,Vehicles& Equipment 1,285,653.85 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets 3,912,830.20 Total Assets $ 3,912,830.20 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ - Goods Received Inv. Received 3,336.91 Total Liabilities 3,336.91 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 2,582,848.52 Excess Revenues(Expenditures) 1,326,644.77 Total Fund Balance 3,909,493.29 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 3,912,830.20 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-May 31,2012 Capital Projects Fund 322-FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ - Transfer from Fund 109 General 436,500.00 436,500.00 436,500.00 - Foundation Payment for Crosswalks - - 53,487.00 53,487.00 Special Assessment 331,900.00 316,964.50 316,939.94 (24.56) Transfer from Tax Collector 2,453.47 2,453.47 Interest 19,500.00 12,998.00 9,703.16 (3,294.84) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,319,846.54 $3,372,467.61 $ 52,621.07 Operating Expenditures: Irrigation&Landscaping Hardscape Project(50066) Engineering Fees $ 131,654.37 $ 23,697.79 $ 21,146.60 $ 2,551.19 Other Contractural Services 2,956,362.25 561,708.83 430,885.74 130,823.09 Sprinkler System Repairs 9,612.73 (9,612.73) Landscape material 76,139.11 (76,139.11) Permits 1,000.00 (1,000.00) Electrical 22,770.14 (22,770.14) Other Operating Supplies(Pavers) 39,568.70 39,568.70 38,553.60 1,015.10 Other Road Materials 21,323.00 - - - Traffic Sign Restoration Project(50103) Traffic Signs 50,000.00 - - - Lake Bank Project(51026) Swale&Slope Maintenance 85,000.00 - - - Engineering Fees 500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 22,275.72 - - - Total Irrigation&Landscaping Expenditures $ 3,306,684.04 $ 624,975.31 $ 600,107.92 $ 24,867.39 Non-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 10,300.00 $ 6,386.00 $ 6,338.92 $ 47.08 Property Appraiser Fees 6,800.00 4,216.00 3,896.51 319.49 Reserve for Contingencies - - - - Revenue Reserve 17,500.00 - - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures: $ 34,600.00 $ 10,602.00 $ 10,235.43 $ 366.57 Total Expenditures $ 3,341,284.04 $ 635,577.31 $ 610,343.35 . $ 25,233.96 Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ 2,684,269.23 $2,762,124.26 $ 77,855.03 Page 1 of 1 June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a.Chairman's Report. Board rules and procedures Page 1 of 6 ResnickLisa Subject: County Attorney Recommendation RE: Board Rules and Procedures From: ResnickLisa Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:23 PM To: 'Neil Dorrill'; 'Mary McCaughtry(MarvMcCaughtry @colliergov.net)' Cc: 'Jim Powers(iim(&dmgfl.com)' Subject: RE: ADVISORY BOARDS According to Collier County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 122, SPECIAL DISTRICTS, ARTICLE LXI., PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT, Sec. 122-1665(b) is relevant to member votes required to take action... Sec. 122-1665 (c) reads the PBSD Board ...shall adopt rules of procedure but, as Mary already said, no rules of procedure were ever adopted. Sec. 122-1665. -Officers; quorum; rules of procedure. (a) At its earliest opportunity,the membership of the PBSD Board shall elect a chairman and vice chairs from among the members. Officers'terms shall be for one year, with eligibility for re-election. (b) The presence of six or more members shall constitute a quorum of the PBSD Board necessary to take action and transact business. In addition,an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present shall be necessary in order to take action,except that an affirmative vote of seven or more members present shall be required to recommend the budget for the unit to the Board of County Commissioners. (c) The PBSD Board shall, by majority vote of the entire membership, adopt rules of procedure for the transaction of business of the PBSD Board and shall keep a detailed record of meetings, resolutions, findings and determinations. (Ord. No.02-27,§11,5-28-02;Ord.No.2006-05,§8) From: KlatzkowJeff Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:09 AM To: McCaughtryMary Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: RE: ADVISORY BOARDS Mary: My recommendation is that the Advisory Board comply with the ordinance, and adopt by-laws to be approved by the BCC. As an aside, Robert's Rules on reconsideration really do not work well with advisory boards, which is probably why the BCC adopted their own rules on reconsideration. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow County Attorney (239) 252-2614 From: McCaughtryMary Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:49 AM To: KlatzkowJeff Subject: RE: ADVISORY BOARDS No,the board has not adopted any of its own by-laws. From: KlatzkowJeff Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:39 AM To: McCaughtryMary Cc: Neil Dorrill; Jim Powers(jim @dmgfl,com) Subject: RE: ADVISORY BOARDS Mary: June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c. Chairman's Report.Board member terms Page 1 of 2 PBSD Board Member Terms The terms of the current 9 residential Board Members expire unevenly, 4 one year, 3 another, 2 another, and no one this last year. In a more ideal world, 2 slots would be up for election every year except every 4th year when 3 positions would be open. The purpose of this write up is to explore whether or not we should change our procedures, and if so, how. The current terms are as follows: Year Term Expires Current Incumbents 2013 Cravens, Dallas, Gibson, Womble 2014 Chandler, O'Brien 2015 Iaizzo, Levy, Trecker 2016 No one Why would it be better to have more even terms? More even terms would: • Produce more continuity with the Board. Having as many as 4 members change in a year could leave a Board with less understanding of prior decisions than would be desirable. • Make it easier to recruit Board members. The PBSD has had problems at times filling open positions (last year it took multiple tries to fill all open positions). The fewer positions open in a given year, the easier to fill them. If we wanted to change. how would we implement the change? At this writing I am not sure of actual mechanics. I've asked staff to look into how we could legally make such a change. I don't know if it would require change in our charter, or whether the BCC could merely appoint June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report Page 1 of 3 ResnickLisa Subject: FW: Clam Bay Committee From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithjdallas @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 12:01 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Clam Bay Committee Lisa, This will be discussed at June 6th meeting. Dave Trecker and MAG are writing the draft of a letter that will be considered for adoption of the PBSD.Please include this as background information to the Board and distribute before our meeting. Keith Begin forwarded message: From:James Hoppensteadt<iimhaDelicanbay.orq> Subject:RE:Clam Bay Committee Date:June 5,2012 12:48:22 AM EDT To:Keith Dallas<keithidallasammail.com> Cc:"vbellnBls(5 vahoo.com"<vbellnDlsc vahoo.com>,"sfCDfeldhauslaw.com"<st(5 feldhauslaw.com>,"JohnSusanBolandCctaol.com" <JohnSusanBolandaaol.com>,Neil Dorrill<NeiIt dmgfl.com> Keith, What I find astounding is that the Clam Bay Subcommittee would make such a recommendation without consulting with the engineer who has been intimately involved with this site for over 13 years (Humiston& Moore). That at the PBSD's own Clam Bay Workshop held February 2012,Ken Humiston, is response to a direct question said "the channel should probably be dredged between 60 and 80 feet...probably not less than 60, and not more than 80". What is astounding is that the subcommittee is apparently more compelled by advocate laypeople than experienced licensed engineers. Specifically, in the Clam Pass Annual Restoration& Management Plan Tidal Analysis Element Report No. 12 issued April 2012,Humiston&Moore states "the county has submitted an application to dredge the pass in near future, and an intent to issue the permit has been issued by the state. The limits of the currently proposed dredging are the same as the limits dredged for the 2007 maintenance". Humiston&Moore go on to say in this same report, "Overall,this indicates that the system is flushing better than it was prior to each of the two previous maintenance dredging events, indicating that maintenance dredging may not yet be needed to maintain efficient flushing...based on thirteen years of tidal flushing analysis alone, it may be feasible to extend the dredging interval beyond 5 years to further reduce long term maintenance". These observations are consistent with Erik Olsen,the marine engineer independently retained by the Foundation,who in March 2011 made the following evaluation on the submitted dredging permit: . The dredge cut is optimized to minimize frequency of future maintenance. . The dredge represents the minimum reasonable dimensions necessary to ensure success. . The dredge plan implementation will be highly regulated and the dimensions are appropriate for the results desired. This is also quite an improvement to Humiston & Moore's November 2002 assessment which stated, "Maintenance dredging of the inlet was completed in January 2002. This was almost three years after the 1999 channel improvements. In contrast, it had been necessary to dredge the inlet annually between 1995 and 1998, and several of those dredging operations reopened a closed inlet. Based on monitoring since the 1999 June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session • 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report • Page 3 of 3 or copying of this message including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error,please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. ***** Original Message From: Keith Dallas [keithjdallas @gmail.com] Received: Monday, 04 Jun 2012, 5:37 pm To: James Hoppensteadt [jimh @pelicanbay.org] CC: Ronnie Bellone [vbellnpls @yahoo.com] Subject: Clam Bay Committee Jim, Clam Bay Committee of PBSD met this afternoon and will be drafting letter described in Item# 5 (below)for consideration at Wednesday PBSD meeting.Neil also asking County (Gary?) if they want to attend. Hopefully we will see draft of proposed letter the morning of meeting. Keith (5) Send letters to the county and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers expressing concern about the recent dredging permit application. Bases for concern: (a)New analyses show the permit application would allow more extensive dredging than allowed in 1998 permit and more extensive dredging than carried out in 2007. (b)There are no legally binding triggers for dredging in the current permit application. (Ted Raia and Linda Roth, MAG) • June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9a.New Business.Conducting a joint survey with the Foundation for feedback re:bicycle lanes and accelerated paving on Pelican Bay Boulevard(Chandler) Page 1 of 1 ResnickLisa From: John Chandler[johnchandler219 @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:27 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Survey Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Please forward this email to all Board members as a one way communication. Due to a lack of time this afternoon,we did not get to "New Business". Under that category, I had wanted to mention that since one of the Foundation's key goals for the next 12 months is to conduct a member survey, I think it would be wise to contact the PBF and see if we could make it a joint survey. A couple of areas where I think it would be good for us to obtain resident feedback would be concerning a possible bike lane on PBB and a potential loan to the County to accelerate the repaving of PBB. John Chandler • June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee. Purpose of June 4,2012 meeting Page 1 of 1 PBSD CLAM BAY SUB-COMMITTEE Purpose of Meeting—To take new input on Clam Bay and to consider specific requests for action in the form of recommendations to the PBSD board. Requests to PBSD (1) Have Clam Bay monitoring data entered into STORE'. (Mary Johnson,PB Foundation) IN PROGRESS (2)Have county's annual water-quality monitoring reports sent to PBSD. (Mary Johnson,PB Foundation) DATA PROVIDED (3)Cant'out fecal coliform testing as part of PBSD water-quality monitoring to determine if high fecal levels are from humans. If so,inland water testing may be in order to determine the source, e.g.,nearby septic systems. (Marcia Cravens,Sierra Club) (4)Fund fish and bird surveys to supplement recent Conservancy benthic survey. Purpose is to establish a baseline for biological health of the estuary to complement hydrologic data. (Marcia Cravens,Sierra Club) (5)Send letters to the county and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers expressing concern about the recent dredging permit application. Bases for concern: (a) New analyses show the permit application would allow more extensive dredging than allowed in 1998 permit and more extensive dredging than carried out in 2007. (b)There are no legally binding triggers for dredging in the current permit application. (Ted Raia and Linda Roth,MAG) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive• Suite 605*Naples, Florida 34108•(239)597-1749• Fax(239) 597-4502 June 412 Linda A. Elligott U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District 1520 Royal Palm Square Boulevard, Suite 310 Fort Myers, FL 33919 RE: Permit Application No. SAJ-1996-02789(IP-LAE) Dear Ms. Elligott: The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD), an advisory arm of Collier County, has responsibility for managing the Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit (MSTBU)of Pelican Bay. One of the charges of the MSTBU is to maintain the health of the mangroves in the Pelican Bay Conservation Area, a 570-acre estuary that lies between the residential section of Pelican Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. Because of this responsibility,the PBSD has a direct interest in any dredging activity in the area. Permit Application No. SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE) deals with dredging Clam Pass, the entrance to the waterways of the Conservation Area. Such dredging directly affects the waterways and, in turn,the health of the estuary. The purpose of this letter is to report new information that has a direct bearing on the subject permit application. The new information is a result of detailed comparisons of dredge templates of this application, the previous permit [USACE 1996-02789 (IP-CC)] and actual dredging activity. These comparisons show that the dredge template in the proposed permit [SAJ-1996-02789 (IP- LAE)] is significantly different and more intrusive than the dredge template in the previous permit. More disturbing, the extent of dredging allowed by the new permit would be greater than was actually carried out in 2007,the most extensive dredging to date. See Attachments 1-4. These concerns are relevant for two reasons: (1) The subject application claims to be based on dredging conditions specified in the previous permit(Attachment 5). It is not. The dredging allowed by the new permit would be more extensive and would pose a risk to the estuary. (2) The subject application claims its primary purpose is to foster the health of the estuary. In fact, the unprecedented dredging it would allow appears to be designed to maximize sand that could be mined to renourish the adjoining county beach. c o t c u „ t Linda A. Elligott Permit Application No. SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE) June 7, 2012 Page 2 The PBSD is continuing to analyze data with the intent of recommending revisions to the subject application. Until this analysis is complete and all data are submitted to the U.S Army Corps of Engineers,we urge you to suspend review of SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE). It is no exaggeration to say the health of the Pelican Bay Conservation Area is at stake. The damage from unprecedented dredging could be significant and irreversible. Thank you for your consideration. Keith J. Dallas. Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board Enclosures ATTACHMENT 2 - Dredge Template from 1998 Permit Zt' — tom.; 0 •0 a �, as 6a `.1.2 t ■ j ., ; f . 'f 2 -'‘'` " I —7.,( ' --; I I 1 i i ill };� j 8 Jam'.,` - _ssf` ± IL, I U , i.- 1 1 1 r. , r„..1. - .70 '''141111114 � .' j - f ors W s 1" f f 1:;:.7"f t f S tl ii= R Cr": 'f,'. t� '_••+ - _ cs_ ' .' . 3i E ,}1 ATTACHMENT 3 — Dredge Template for 2007 Dredging _ N rn _ et $ K . Q - Q _� OU -11 ou :7 c ou 1 °� z� J „--ii . s= zm ! s= ° Q9.0 i nom '1 0n f a s M U U _ C' p 1 '' Q�o 5 m 1 O �-1 �O �! A W a i :._� - u i N _ L Z Z j10 S Z�'C '� ZWt+ 2 W ow.).- OWr �— ( OJ,- 4 - _WQ ~ § .... tit-- `G u a —�� NU � - '� '• °1 JWX 17-'1_ G �� ( N n 1... VAC aU0 j _ t.]O _ °- " i iz EWa ° a°Wn On¢. 73!}--OQ fr-m04 Y Ka YS - _ �, two)•.w.uraTn °' t.zad•maY. . .u. . �`Mn :• _—'. .'- m t t, f, a l-1 ! ! Q.!, ' V-... 1 <I A 4 T — OJ t ry 0 0 0 0 0 0 n O� 00000000000 O n ry ry ry n ., m a m u u.00 L tOi u 3- °u i fl t -' _ G O n - - OS 3� < t t - Z.I. o m0 u 0 0.° 3 .ys�, .=z mm�c cmm.o.�o m.e m oommm memcymm..omo mm.a.e�c ca c.r o u.o 0 ` ° :o m : z ms 4z9, ' a.19 cs. Pry h.•f n o o o P A° . ..nn- - . . . m m- . . . . . n. Lzo o ° S- r n n _ oP t- um 3 Poe .... u n u O L, 0 0 O O--- . ..m N t•m -m m . O O -H n+ o 1 4 w m Z W Z V s to --.> i I ?„\\,..,....... m N a a� W o , Z a �� UW -1O U U U •---r, ------) ____._ ..,71. re W _ Z W t N011335 o a. .,,,, . t i\ '011341". Wlii III '}I . 0 , \ . io 1411119kk 1 \J f W c..!,.. G4w i i' t O _ . E Y pS.E',LS 1 III W za cn / Qp.01 Y3S \ "' A-' '� \iP .L`rt ��• ,/�i � \ � .� \� � � 11:11'\\ 3 (1.R \ de'. .-- �• 'i t / r \ 5,a, C• G / T v \`E' at 9, `1%yam<r / m 1 �a \ W O o emu m m U m p? ■ - - - d ri m..-■ g a n 7 �u� 8 . Hr rnnnn�. 1 - ATTACHMENT 4 — Dredge Template in Current Permit Application oacfloo 000c�co`(t+O+��t0�2lcoco�mEi(®t.yc.m - • �Lp°mCs(ON7B C°r°r°coca .. -"OOaooa L M m m m ii 1n cn R.h ,. A A Pl l4 " g4 El m!n tom • " m t'°t0 40 m t0 0.i 2 SW CO F 6En;S 0 0 0 0°0 0 t?0 0 0 'O p°Q p .c F • O_fCVV Ve�cl m�m�r.cv c4'�$t$gfc" $ . c iai mi i0 t...;^_i:_...,.tl�.r :=:1�:_.:._ ...r".,�...i.n v v ro z m�°n°�o g O F CY f.Zi 1a_ !- _ ° A cit',FQ R Fi 20 2G tv Fi t%2v rs io ii5`v v� v�v m 11;&g . .. E3 o m 2 m m n r tma m 7 wi 4. O ! O �r C m.n.n ao.n ra CO to to .n CO.0 t0 rp.o m.a •• •• r r- m,71,..o.,-,;:,,,,a- •-O W p n 2 m m a'aal m m m m m m c mm .m)m m] l s mm mm to gg . to EB1t6Ii*NUS+ a t,, z n o5; 115.11! 02 pr, ama ma ma amaaa ma t0 aU41.0 a°D a4 tD tD�tO U o00000 o00000 0000 0 o 0 000000 000 a0o 0000000 000 0� a W �'✓�t�e� al m m m a 01 r m m op)6l 0'V o n tV cR Q Q tO Q m.-SO m CO CO 0, r CO 0 - p to CO o m CO p CO �`y UI U V• 0'- V'\► \►1 C_C cr Q 32 p�ta"l togton n t`t0,r,. to-.;4 Q- Ot]R[V-t'4mto(6 NOsi Ctt08'0S ''t•'al t� m'i2 t'''' _0W tto W Q°cc tO ,__.�____�ryyyC u m r!�r r- pA�Q mj p m(ma�pp tt0�(matpp(map Wop m t mp t Zn (map m m m m m m(map¢m�m Q mml m� tp7�m�m m m(map m mm m��m 0 mm m m w Q Q O m I C W mm mm m m22C)co2 2 t 22 m2m•m2 .. mmN of Mm mCa)co mmm t7 2m C' mmm 2 mo m Zm .� Q1 >fl to pp 0O c O N o =$73$m8N2P8} z2v•98°SoB 0g$ggg${ 92+2+)ow$o8}^+a$Ss'8{2}82 $0 t<' y� NO .-CV in O Gtl- -NC`+,c9 cnQ Q tD tU t+O lD f-r m 0[v Z oar y�.t ty m Q V mto star rmmmm �^ W 0m co V - O F {per t- Z W!- l 41 e/i O W cn� / I: '.l r • U W m C__ W W O a CC R ►�. Z_ Er CL CL La Qa �' r „ .may v ¢0 m <O r..,•.G t` ..� q ��,co m sin ol< �a - O ' o '4 t { C 0 0 az �� O 00 v w1 r— U r4 - y v W[' ?v ZQ �� - L4 _ 1 0 Ny - >W 00 L � <a [nom `Cd °°C N 0-7. p 3 �- xa za °° �/ z'o ,r � 0 0 W ® 2z CrO i r ATTACHMENT 5 ALLEGATIONS OF EQUIVALENCY From letter to Molly Edson and Laine Edwards of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2/19/10) from Jeffrey R. Tabar, PBS&J, consultant to Collier County: "We would just like to emphasize that this application is not asking to change the dredge template or configuration that was previously authorized under FDEP #0128463-001-JC to station 18+00." From letter to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (6/15/10), received by Linda Ellicott of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from Jeffrey Tabar: "Dredging will occur within the previous dredge footprint authorized by the FDEP (Permit #0128463-001-JC) and USACE [Permit #1996-02789 (IP- CC)]." From letter to Linda Ellicott of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from Jeffrey Tabar: "The dredge template requested is identical to that authorized under FDEP Permit No. 0128463-001-JC and USACE Permit No. 1996-02789 (IP-CC)." June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(comments submitted by Linda Roth) Page 1 of 2 6/6/12 Dear PBSD Board Member, As you know, the County has submitted an application to Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for a 10-year permit to dredge Clam Pass. I would like to share with you a brief summary of the dredge templates which were used for the dredging events in the past 12 years. All information provided is factual. All can be found in the County's current permit application. In July 1998, FDEP authorized the initial dredge template. The dredge width of the Mouth (ist segment), and the Throat (2nd segment) was 40 ft, and the depth for both was -4 ft; the dredge width of the Flood Shoal area (3rd segment) was 20 ft and the depth was -4 ft. This template was never used. In December 1998, the initial 1998 dredge template was modified by FDEP Modification #1. It authorized widening of the dredge width at the Mouth (1st segment) to 80 ft (?), as well as the Rood Shoal segment (3rd segment). Dredge dimensions for each location were specified in the permit drawings which are part of the authorized permit. Note, this FDEP Modification #1 did not authorize widening of the Throat (2nd segment). The width of the Throat remained at 40 ft as in the initial 1998 dredge template. This template was not used. In February 1999, the initial 1998 dredge template was modified by USACE Modification #1. It authorized widening of the Throat (2nd segment) and the Flood Shoal (3rd segment). The width of the Mouth (1st segment) remained unchanged at 40 if as in the initial 1998 dredge template. This dredge design was used in the 1999 dredge, and again in the 2002 dredge. However, in 2002, the Mouth was not dredged, and both the Throat, and the Flood Shoal area were dredged only -4 ft deep as specified in the authorized permit drawings. In 2006, the County submitted a dredge design which combined an 80 ft width at the Mouth (FDEP Modification #1) with the wider width at the Throat (USACE Modification #1) to the regulatory agencies for approval. However, there was no record of an official modification to combine the FDEP Modification #1 with the USAGE Modification #1. The regulatory agencies trusting the information presented by the applicant approved this extensive dredge design for the 2007 dredge, and a new precedence was set. As for the current dredge permit application, the County repeatedly stated in its permit application to the regulatory agencies that the current dredge template is identical to the previous templates authorized by the FDEP and the USACE. This is not true, as substantiated by the data shown in the Dredge Cut Comparison Table below. June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(comments submitted by Linda Roth) Page 2 of 2 If this expanded dredge design were to go unnoticed by the regulatory agencies, another new precedence would again be set. Dredge Cut Comparison Table Station 1999 Original 2007 Dredge Proposal Width Depth Width Depth Width Depth 10+10 120 -4.0 113 -4.0 167 -4.5 10+19 150 -4.0 150 -4.0 198 -4.5 12+00 160 -4.0 140 -4.0 252 -4.5 12+50 150 -4.0 (Not Dredged) 254 -4.5 Note: Stations 7+10 to 13+00 (14 stations) • Depth increases from -4.0 ft to -4.5 ft • Width varies as shown in representative stations above • 14 stations = approx. 600 linear ft = approx. one third of the total dredge length of 1800 linear ft • All depths are in NGVD After a dredge plan is approved by the regulatory agencies, the applicant's contractors are allowed to dredge less but not more than what is approved by the agencies. The Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QAQC) Plan of the FDEP permit states "The dredging depths on the plans represent the maximum dredging depth with a zero tolerance dredging beyond the design depth (i.e. plans and specifications)." I think it is in the best interests of PB, and the health of the mangrove ecosystem to prevent the County from continuously expanding the dredge templates. I have all the documents to substantiate what I have written, and I am more than happy to show them to you. Thank you for your kind attention. Sincerely, Linda Roth Montenero • June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No.1) Page 1 of 20 4030 Boy Scout Blvd.,Suite 700 Tampa,FL 70001 Phone:800.477.7275 Date:7 September 2010 Clam Pass Flushing Efficiency and Cross-Section Memorandum PBS&J performed volume change,cross sectional and differential contour analysis on _.aam Pass utilizing the bathymetric monitoring data collected from 1998 to 2009 by Humiston&Moore and ABB Surveying. The project area was broken into five segments for the analysis as shown in Figure 1 (north beach,south beach,Pass:A,B and C).The anal is of the data indicates the beaches north and south of the pass showed small reductions in vo ume allowing dredging events and recovery to pre-dredge volumes . within 1-2 years. The timeframe for the segments inside the pass to reach pre-dredge volumes were as follows: • Segment A(mouth of pass)fills in within a year, • Segment B(throat of pass)fills in within 1-2 years • Segment C(flood shoal)fills in within 3-5 yeas_ In addition,the ability to conve water to maintain a•-g:ate flushing is severely diminished en any o the ee segments have reached a critical cross sectional rrhold Indicators or triggers of-these critical cross sectional thresholds were determined to be fors e tents A&B approximately 200 square teet gment C. approximately 300 square feet. In snmrn;'ry,the analyses demonstrated that Clam Pass can continue to be dredged at a similar frequency and template designated by the previous permit. The beach compatible sand can be placed on the beach south of the pass with minimal impacts to the stability of the surrounding shorelines. ;, / . J* *ry R.Taber:P.E. Project Director June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 2 of 20 8 3Mf OU SHORELINE CHANGE(FT) O 6. 6) ./. N N A 0 0 O O O O O O it I c • I •t W . < m t r- / D 7 1. m ° \ n s 3 m 'CI r- ' DZ com v A O N -0 Z -1 3 p O cz z E O n z " O y CLAM PASS 42 D M. o 7J 0 0 °' O Z —I 0 x a A 7"i t0 N CO • •. ier 1• \ \ i Cc , y o g v v Q < < "'UO W W NCO . 1 ''''WS' , ' r. (% . N t , \ -- -5 cNi C) C Z F- � gy =m 0 E ¢On ZOj � mZ _ rn o• Q, a '<, v ao DWZawOt w 0 J Cpl c� Ow oU= OQ� o - N > P V i�'� 1 W �w u-Z N woo()( w¢ W wU p Ma\ ¢ jai ri U O mwz= iOZ tt �" U ¢O W Z z ZZ WZ V, Z ¢ ° E• T e N r wo (v �� QO oN � V) CO w o a ¢ CO• ` 8 J.--1 ,...1 N.. > -'0 DWFrZaOF \`_ sZ .J o ° � v �� v m S iu u] --' < < F a„ ¢ -. v, vy .-fir• `_ � � CO 1..- FwwZW 4 / L 2 " c° V v) w o Zwoa�mv �+ 1 �) d J a k4 \ N W4 , 5‹ x 0 N ° O J W F Zwm UawQ r.4 o) m m E ¢ 00 _ at¢-. ZOF}m,Z Z v d �°, �> Ow Ooa2Oai>N Nir 0-7)� 0 OS 00 2w� �t-�w� _ 4 N >,0 0 w 36 a ,Nm>�, ¢ W N �'..�. ix as < <= Zg=* O ~ � i N 1.0 wV pcU m -) 1� d Q ` DLL w < ypo �NDL O CY A o w co 0 J Z O J Z w - U Uw zc o <u.__ K rn W A Cl) 0 0 w U LL L4 W - co 0 >„ 0 U H J t� W � Q z d o Pk cc _ a aJ U ¢o I co U O d) m v- w ct ¢ y ~ ¢ <CC X Z = Om d N N O N 0. W m D Q Q E m 5 V a w 1 t f 1 i a CO) h O vC O h O tet O vl O —vi V V c� M N N O O Q313VfOS NUN`SS3211S 21VaHS June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 4 of 20 CLAM PASS ANNUAL RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT PLAN TIDAL ANALYSIS ELEMENT REPORT NO. 12 April 2012 1.Summary Analysis of tidal data has previously been presented in annual monitoring reports that also included analysis of changes in the bathymetry of the waterway and the beach shoreline. Bathymetric changes in channel shoals and tidal analysis both provide information that is useful in determining when maintenance dredging of the inlet should be considered in order to maintain flushing. Beginning three years ago there was a change in county policy and this tidal analysis is now being provided as a separate report from the bathymetric and beach monitoring. For a history of the comprehensive bathymetric, beach, and tidal monitoring, see "Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan Bathymetric Monitoring, Reports"#1 through#9, 2000 through 2008, prepared for the Pelican Bay Services District (PBSD) by Humiston & Moore Engineers (H&M). This is the third monitoring report that is limited to the tidal analysis only; for information on bathymetric monitoring refer to the separate County reports. The Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan was implemented in 1999 to improve flushing of the Clam Bay system and the surrounding 500 acre mangrove preserve.A part of the management plan was to dredge portions of the flood tidal shoal and some of the interior waterways to improve the hydraulic efficiency of the inlet and increase the tidal prism, which is the volume of water exchanged through the inlet on each half tidal cycle. The improved tidal prism means more water goes in and out of Clam Pass on each tidal cycle and this larger volume of water generates stronger currents in the inlet. Those stronger tidal currents are capable of scouring sand from the channel to help keep the inlet open and maintain the flushing improvements. Since the 1999 dredging, as shown in the annual Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan Reports #1 through #9, implementation of the dredging element of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan has significantly improved tidal exchange throughout the bay system.The maintenance dredging of the flood shoals in January 2002 was shown to be beneficial in maintaining the improved tidal flushing. In order to maintain the improved tidal exchange, based in part on the results of the tidal monitoring, the 2006 monitoring report recommended dredging of the entrance of the pass,and a portion o e ood shoal. Tha :edging was completed during the winter of 2007. The county has submitted an application to dredge the pass in near future, and an intent to issue the permit has been issued by the state. The limits of the currently proposed dredging are the same as the limits dredged for the 2007 maintenance. The proposed placement of the dredged material, however differs from the 2007 project in two ways. The county is seeking to place fill on both the north and south side of the inlet, along with infilling of the meandering channel entrance on the north side of the entrance dredge cut. The tidal data indicate that some shoaling may have occurred, however, not yet to the extent that preceded the previous maintenance dredging events. If dredging were to take place this year, it would be 5 years since the previous dredging. This is consistent with previous maintenance intervals of 4 to 5 years, and indicates that slightly longer intervals may be feasible without serious potential for inlet closure,yet does not preclude scheduling 1 June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 5 of 20 E Xce4t,picc 2c.c td C aoo 7 cAct,m B47 BaJ,kr //1/1,64,4g-il 12-cta6"1- 7. Conclusions and Recommendations The initial dredging of the flood shoals in 1999 and maintenance of the flood shoal channel in 2002 has resulted in significant improvement to the stability of Clam Pass. These improvements to the hydraulic stability of the inlet from the April 1999 dredging have persisted. however, the inlet channel and flood shoal areas have accumulated enough sand so that conditions are similar to those that existed prior to the maintenance dredging completed in January, 2002. Based on the July 2006 survey, there are approximately_ 12,000 cubic yards of sand within the currently perms edi dredging limits. There are a..roximatel 9 400 cubic yards in Se•ments B and C which were dredged in January 2002. This sand is expecte. o .- .-ach quality. It has been nearly 5 years since the previous maintenance dredging. Although the tidal data show that flows through the inlet are still significantly stronger than the pre-1999 conditions, and may be sufficient to mafita hllusfiing to the bay for the time being,there are indications that the flow through the inlet has dimin—a-6d somewhat since the 2002 dredging. In order to reduce the potential for tidal exchange becoming diminished to the point where flushing might be inadequate, a Notice To Proceed to conduct another maintenance dredging.has been obtained and dredging is scheduled to be conducted during 20t57.- Because of erosion along portions of the Clam Pass Park beach south of the inlet, County staff has recently considered the feasibility of obtaining additional sand for nourishment by expanding the dredging to include the inlet ebb shoal. This approach would provide immediate relief to the erosion problem on the park beach, however, it may also potentially have longer term consequences that should be carefully considered. A common impact from dredging significant portions of inlet ebb shoals is increased erosion of adjacent beaches. This occurs for several reasons including; interruption of natural transport which- relies on the presence of an ebb shoal to bypass the inlet diminished protection from waves for areas dose to the shoal, and the readjustment of dredge cut slopes to a natural repose angle as the shoal begins to reform by trapping sand from the littoral system. A more detailed discussion of this is included in Section 10 below. In response to concem over the serious impacts that are likely,-1o,_occur to the beach adjacent to the inlet from removal of the ebb shoat, and at the same time to provide some additional sand for nourishment of the ero ed ark beach, the entrance to the inlet will be 'dredged to the 80 feet widt w ifi�i ch was on inall --permitte and excavated uring earlier ..— maintenance it or to the 999'im rovem s:This wider cut was not dredged in 1999 or in 20 2. cause:. as been etermined that 80 eet is si nib ficant y wider than the equilibrium - X mac anne width supported b y.a low, an is there oror—no{ ne e ssa to ac ir h e )Xj6f _ improved ushing of Clam Bay. Furthermore the wider cut quickly s oaled in with sand from the beaches immediately adjacent to�tieinlet. This 30 feet wide cut, however, does not have the potential for the level of serious impacts to adjacent beaches that should be expected from dredging the entire flood shoal, yet it will provide approximately 3,500 additional cubic yards of sand for nourishment..Additionally, iarefal observation of how the adjacent beaches respond to this his relatively small increase in dredging scope may provide useful data regarding potential impacts from more aggressive dredging of the flood shoal. June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 6 of 20 _ The upcoming dredging_ event therefore includes dredging Station 0+00 through Station 18+00, with a dred•e cut width of 80 feet at a entrap - to the channel between Stations 0+00 and 3+00. It is recommended that the shoreline response to this dredging_be considered in determining the appropriate dimensions for dredging the entrance channel in . ,the future, because there has been no indication that dredging the entrance to dimensions much greater than the equilibrium section provides any benefit to extending the dredging _ interval. 8. Recommendations for Ongoing Monitoring. The tidal ranges and phase lags are important indicators of how well tidal flow through the inlet is flushing the bay system. This data is presented in Figures 6, 7, and 8. While these figures illustrate the improvements that have resulted from implementation of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan. they also show that there is a significant amount of scatter in the data. As an extreme example, the most recent data shows the phase lag time at the Registry more than twice the average lag time over the time since the 1999 dredging. These inconsistencies have previously been treated as random scatter in the data because they have for the most part been relatively small in comparison to the overall flushing improvements. This random scatter might be related to factors such as wind influence on tidal flow, or storm water outflow. However, the scatter makes it difficult to identify small changes that would occur in response to the gradual shoaling in the inlet and the interior channels. It is therefore recommended that the tidal data collection program be expanded to include data collection at two additional stations to provide a level of redundancy that would be helpful in understanding the variability that has been fairly consistent in the data for seven years The Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan has so far been successful in maintaining a maintenance dredging interval of up to 5 years. This represents considerable cost savings over more frequent dredging, and this cost savings is considered justification for the additional data collection and analysis which may be used to improve management practices With better understanding of how shoaling in the inlet influences the tidal parameters, it may be possible in the future to base scheduling of maintenance dredging on tidal measurements alone, and tnereoy reduce rrequency and the cost or surveys for monitonng snowing in me meet_ 9. Previous Recommendations. Recommendations made in previous reports that are still considered relevant to long term management are updated in this section. The long-term management of the Clam Pass inlet system should include continued monitoring of the inlet channel from the gulf to the interior, as well as the meandering connecting channels and along the dredge cut within the Clam Bay system. The July 2006 monitoring data show that cuts 1. 2, and 3 have remained relatively stable since the 1999 dredging. It is recommended that continued monitoring of these areas be conducted at:four year intervals. This will reduce monitoring costs. However, there have been changes in the channel cross sections of the interior portion of cut 4 between Station 18+03 and-35+37 wl steh demonstrate that this interior channel is a little more dynamic than cuts 1, 2, and 3. Most of the changes have been the result of readjustment of the dredge cut side slopes June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 7 of 20 resulting in a wider but shallower channel, with little change in net flow cross section. There has, however, been a more significant reduction of cross section, in comparison to the post 1999 dredging data, on three stations near the south end of cut 4, on stations 31+53 to 32+62. These are the three stations closest to and on the north side of the Clam Pass Park boardwalk bridge. The data show shoaling on these three stations north of the bridge, with an average cross section reduction in cross sectional area of approximately 35%. However, the cross sections at these stations remain approximately 175% greater than the pre-1999 dredging conditions. The recent shoaling in this area could therefore not be the cause of the recent large increase in phase lag measured at the Registry tide gage. and it must be concluded that the large increase in phase lag indicated for the Registry tide gage for 8/3/06 to 9/26/06 is erroneous. The shoaling on these stations has therefore not reached a condition that is critical to tidal flushing of outer Clam Bay. however, it is recommended that monitoring of the interior portions of cut 4 be continued on two year intervals The tidal studies should be continued as an integral part of the annual monitoring because they will indicate when shoaling of the inlet and other channels has occurred to the extent where tidal circulation in the bay system is affected. (Recommendations regarding tidal studies are included in Section 8 above). Although dredging portions of the meandering channels between the four bays appears to have contributed to improving the flushing of Inner and Upper Clam Bay, the tidal exchange remains relatively low at the north end of the system. If biological studies indicate further enhancement to flushing of the remote northern portion of the bay system is necessary, that may be accomplished by straightening sections of the meandering channel which connect the bays. This approach would necessitate removing small areas of existing mangrove. Although this might be considered a negative impact to the mangrove community, this alternative could include restoration of mangroves within bypassed meandering sections of the channel, which in conjunction with the improved circulation to the mangrove wetland may constitute a net environmental benefit to the broader goal of managing the ecology of the overall bay system that would justify issuance of the required regulatory approvals. 10. Comments on Coastal Planning & Engineering independent analysis of Clam Pass Impacts. A report of an independent evaluation of dredging the Clam Pass ebb shoal was prepared in September 2006 by Coastal Planning and Engineering (CP&E) for the County. That report recommends mining the ebb shoal to obtain material for nourishment of Clam Pass Park Beach. The report concludes that implementation of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan in 1999 disrupted natural north to south sand bypass of the inlet, which resulted in accumulation of sand on the beach north of the inlet and in the ebb shoal. and increased erosion of the beach south of the inlet. The process discussed in the CP&E report is that the Restoration and Management Plan dredging successfully increased the tidal prism, and the greater tidal energy on ebb flow has pushed sand further offshore where it has accumulated in the outer reaches of ebb shoal. This resulted in growth of the shoal, and sand trapped in the growing ebb shoal is a measure of a reduction in sand supply to the park beach. June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No.1) Page 8 of 20 This process as described in the CP&E report is one that may occur at inlets that are maintained by dredging, if the dredging actually increases the tidal prism. Monitoring data show that the Clam Pass tidal prism was increased by the 1999 dredging. However, there are site specific characteristics of Clam Pass that should be taken in to consideration before concluding that dredging the pass and erosion of the beach south of the inlet represent a direct cause and effect relationship. The CP&E report uses an empirical relationship to estimate the volume of sand that might be expected to be trapped by the growing ebb shoal. However,the empirical relationship is based on some rather broad assumptions, and an estimate based on the survey from September 2006 indicates that the ebb shoal actually contains a much smaller quantity of sand than the shoal volume predicted by empirical formula. Furthermore, based on recent accretion that has occurred south of the inlet, it is apparent that a significant amount of sand is already bypassing the inlet, which is an indication that the shoal is probably dose to an equilibrium condition with respect to the tidal prism. Furthermore, what this empirical relationship says is that mining of all the sand from the ebb shoal will result in a condition which is much further from equilibrium than what exists now. In order to restore itself after such a mining operation, the shoal will accumulate sand at a higher rate and for a longer period of time, which would very likely result in a chronic erosion problem on both sides of the inlet. Review of historical data from the DEP Shoreline Change Atlas, plus more recent DEP survey data, seem to indicate some level of inlet effects on the downdrift beach. However, it is not dear from the recent monitoring data that the 1999 dredging has resulted in any significant increase in those effects. What should be a more important consideration is; to whatever extent the 1999 dredging may have affected the downdrift beach by trapping sand, an extensive mining of the ebb shoal will have a much greater impact. Increasing the scope of the shoal dredging does not seem to be an appropriate way to address the erosion problem. y Although inlet processes potentially impact the beach south of the inlet, the /9 f yr—acit _• -sent mai - plan for the inlet minimizes this •otential minimizing n of the esh 1. The « •: ,'`a rred�20 to 200 interval indicate that natural • •ass is occ urri is does not mean rr n ura • pass is g1 o be aficifint to entire y address the erosion problem at the Coun yt— ark , a addition nourishment may be •- - . However, removal ofthe Clam Pass ebb shoal should not •- consi•' as i n :° • source • this • i' _ •;r wou r; • r Ti i • one • •i •r • - •!: 11�`�'i►`�1�:•a ' IG:�t<�+ •'�- . /s1 better solution wou a a ra • pass process tywork and to,�supplement that process with nourishment form other sources as needed. The CP&E report does not address the issue of impacts from the proposed ebb shoal mining. Because of the potential impacts,it is doubtful that permits could be obtained for this proposal. It is recommended that if plans are ultimately developed for dredging the ebb shoal, lliM plaans s d include a conti •:.�.h • - for address" • i •- «� that m:• cur • - • •• is "T 17" a contingency •an, including an appro • sand source,would be a •ition of the permit if such a permit is issued. It is not anticipated that dredging of the ebb shoal will have any adverse effect on the flushing of Clam Bay or on the mangrove communities in the Clam Bay system. June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No.1) Page 9 of 20 </'`` }i IE ARMY P` -t TAMPA REGULATORY HELD OFFICE,JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O.50X 19247 TAMPA,FLORA 33U6.1247 REPLY TO ARENU ON OF Regulatory Division A 7 1 1991 West Permits Branch Fort Myers Regulatory Office PUBLIC NOTICE , Permit Application- No. 199602789(IP-CC) TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This Didtrict has received an application for a Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) as described below: APPLICANT: Collier County, Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 WATERWAY & LOCATION: The proposed work is located in Clam Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, Sections 4,5, 8, 9, 32, 33, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. LATITUDE & LONGITUDE: Latitude 26°14'59"N, Longitude 81°49'21"W. WORK & PURPOSE: Over the past several years, approximately fifty acres of mangroves located primarily in.Upper Clam Bay have died. Collier County created a Mangrove Task Force to investigate the die-off and to develop an action Plan. The proposed Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan is part of a program to 'stop the expansion of the mangrove die-off areas and eventually reverse . the process and restore the dead mangrove areas. The applicant proposes -the following as principal elements and benefits of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan: 1. Installing a tidal flap gate system linking Venetian Bay with Outer Clam Bay, thereby increasing the turnover of water in Outer Clam Bay. This is proposed to improve water quality for the benefit of the extensive seagrass habitat and its associated marine life, as well as provide enhanced scouring of Clam Pass as the surcharge of water that formerly oscillated between Venetian Bay and Outer Clam Bay will be forced to exit on the ebb tide through Clam Pass. 2. Deeping and widening Clam Pass to provide 'for a significantly enhanced tidal exchange for the. Clam Bay system,, as well as provide high quality sand for "beach renourishment" and the creation of upland islands of native tree flora, which is • June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No.1) Page 10 of 20 proposed to contribute to the ecological diversity of the Clam Bay system. The dimensions o the •ro•osed excavation cut ranee •e din• o the location betw- - 3 feet to 4 fe- v W in depth with a bottom widt from 15 feet to 4. ee . 3 . ,Opening of the deteriorating network of interior tidal creeks and channels to both improve the tidal exchange capacity of the Clam Bay system, and contribute to enhanced water quality within the system. The restoration of the tidal exchange dynamics is proposed to permit the ingress and egress of marine life utilizing the mangrove embayments, accelerate the recovery of the mangrove habitat and restore the desirable estuarine quality of the Clam Bay system. 4. The selective cutting of 50 to 75 percent of the dead mangrove trees is proposed to improve the aesthetic quality of the Clam Bay System, as well as permit the establishment of mangrove starter islands to help stimulate the recovery of the mangrove habitat. The proposed tree cutting will be accomplished with chain saws to cut the dead tree trunks at close to ground level and left on site. 5, The develo•m- , and im•lementation o • freshwater/stormwater mana.ement s stem or the developed ands lying lyAng eas o Clam Ba - .ro.osed to ac litate a eexamination Cif-the role o res wa er n e am ; ' Ts ea, w A an anticieated result being a significantly reduced-level of fresh water irri•ation fo Pelican ba and a modified tandsca•ed palette to •e in r••uc- • over me. • - dire t wetland im.acts for the .ro.osed w. ,s referenced above are approxima e y 1. • acres. To al area within the Clam Bay project site comprises approximately 443 acres of mangroves and 124 acres of open water bays.. Related Permitted Activities: DA Permit 199501027(LP-CC) issued on April 3, 19964 authorized the excavation of 9,200 cubic yards of shoaled sand from Clam Pass Inlet to restore flushing to Clam Bay. •: Permit 199601979 LP-CC issued on v - _ 6 19- • authorized the manua excavat on for the re-opening of 1312 linear feet of main tidal channels within Upper Clam Bay. DA Permit 199602789LLP-CC) issued on January 28, 1997, authorized the placement of two portable hydraulic dewatering pumps and associated piping for emergency dewatering of the Bay. NOTE: This public notice is being issued based on information furnished by the applicant. This information has not been verified. THREATENED Amp ENDANGERED SPECIES: The applicant has indicated a willingness to follow the manatee special conditions which outline standard manatee construction precautions and other manatee protection measures. In light of " their willingness and the information available to the Corps of (a-) June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No.1) Page 11 of 20 Engineers, the determination has been made that the project is not likely to adversely affect the West Indian Manatee. If the FWS does not agree with this determination, formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act may be required. In addition, we have determined that the proposed work may effect the endangered sea turtle, and are initiating Section 7 consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service via this Public Notice. AUTHORIZACION FROM OTHER AGENCIES: State Department of Environmental Protection: State permit/certification may be required. The State application number is 11-304991-9. A complete set of full size drawings is available in the Fort . Myers Regulatory Office for review. Comments regarding the application should be submitted in writing to the District Engineer at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Fort Myers Regulatory Office; 2301 McGregor Blvd. , Suite 300; Fort Myers, Florida 33901 within 30 days from the date of this notice. If you have any questions concerning this application, you may contact Mr. Allison C. Clough III of this office, telephone (941) 334-1975. • • • (3) June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 12 of 20 V2a aoe kef— bo C r reSpcY.df.41ce S A c cid44, kcs District Engineer,Department of the Army reo A r ›tyt#'f tpi Attn: Linda Elligott �J May 14,2010 Page 2 without the Foundation's express,prior written approval. The Foundation has a legal obligation to its members to enforce the Covenants and to preserve and protect Clam Bay and Clam Pass area for the benefit of its members. The Foundation's governing documents provide that its general nature, purpose, and objects include enhancing the civic, social and recreational interests of its members and otherwise promoting the health,safety and general welfare of its members and their property. As such,the action being requested of the Corps to permit dredging within Clam Pass and Clam Bay is within the Foundation's general scope of interest and activity. I have enclosed for your reference a copy of a letter dated March 11,2010 we provided to the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") in aid of their review of the dredging application. Without going through it in detail here, there are three points that we made in our letter to DEP that we would like to emphasize. First, for the reasons set forth in the attached letter, by virtue of both the Covenants and its ownership of land abutting Clam Pass, the Foundation is a necessary party in any permitting process for dredging activities at Clam Pass. Please be advised that the Foundation has not approved the dredging activities in the Clam Pass dredging application submitted to the Corps by Collier County. Second, as a riparian owner of land on the beach abutting Clam Pass,the Foundation has serious and legitimate concerns about the integrity of the inlet and the erosional effects which will occur from the proposed project. O er-excavation of the ass, without any demonstrated need, will lea to realer erosional effec s on o t es an not rovide a si ni leant ushin benefit. he ' asreco: 'zed at the pass has . rforme its us in_ ction better and cm". . '-"'when dredged to a smaller cross sec ion. 'ast efforts to renourish the beach om pass dredging have proven largely unsuccessful due io accelerated erosion. Third, we continue to have concern over the lack of a demonstrated need for this project. When the protect was first conceived and the a..lication .ut together by the County, the stated purpose o the project was to2rovi•e .each compati e material for beach renoumishment, as opposed to a demonstrated need to maintain flushing in the system for the benefit of the Bay resources. Attac ed as Exhibit 7 to our March 11 letter to the DEP is a copy of Question 33 on the DEP Application and Collier Count&s Answer, from a signed but unsubmitted permit aeration, which clearly states that"The project is designed to nourish the beach of an eroded June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 13 of 20 District Engineer,Department of the Army Attn: Linda Elligon May 14, 2010 Page 3 shoreline.....In addition to the borrow bein a ood source,the excavation of the old interior. channel will improve the flushing writ in the Clam Pass ecosystem" In res..nse to criticisms about the intended ..se of the dred•in• Collier Coun • -wised the a..lication to reflect a .utative need for increased fl .',• sr Clam Ba resources. I so not believe that case as .-en ma•e .y a app scant. e monitoring reports prepares over time by Humiston&Moore do not su__est a need for dred-trig,eszecially tot a dep an wi t propose. by the ounty, except in those rare cases w en Clam 'ass closes. Excavation of Clam • • Pass without any demonstrated need, and in particular over-cxcavationt ill simply Icad to greater erosional effects on both sides and not provide any sign i�eant benefit for flushing. -- -- In addition to the matters set forth in our letter to DEP, the Foundation has serious concerns with the completeness and accuracy of the information submitted by the County in support of its application,compliance of the project with the Corps' Clean Water Act and NEPA regulations and with the scope of the described activities as it relates to the project within the Corps' review. These will be addressed further below. At the outset the Public Notice recites that it is being issued "based on information furnished by the applicant. This information has not been verified or evaluated to ensure compliance with laws and regulation governing the regulatory program." We believe the information submitted, and reflected in the Public Notice, is in part both inaccurate and incomplete. The County has chosen to piecemeal their efforts in the Clam Pass/Clam Bay System and therefore the County's application, which contains simply a description of a "maintenance dredge," is incomplete and does not present the full picture of the County's activities in the Clam Pass/Clam Bay system which are subject to Corps jurisdiction and which should be analyzed together. The County has also applied to emplace navigational markers in Clam Pass and through Clam Bay. Those two projects are in reality one project and therefore the Project purpose and scope as articulated by the applicant and reflected in the Public Notice are inaccurate. The application for navigational markers makes no sense absent the dredging project (inasmuch as they appear to mark the proposed dredged channel in the outer reaches) and therefore rather than two separate projects,they are one interdependent project. • [n its description of the proposed work, the County describes the project as one to conduct"maintenance dred rig"to an historic tarRct depth of-3.6 to 5.1 Mean Low Water. The exisimn and prior DEP and Corps prami,ts for dredging in this area col ine a limitation of dredging to -4' Mean Low Water. Unless the-----r-applicant has information which has not been June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 14 of 20 District Engineer,Department of the Army Attn: Linda Elligott May 14,2010 Page 4 r provided and of which we are not aware,there is no historical precedent to dredge greater than- 4'. This application thus does not qualify as an application for"maintenance dredging." In its discussion of avoidance and minimization information, the Public Notice recites that the a Ii ant only pro osed the "minimum amount" of dredging/fill that would make the project feasible. W e the may have made that statement, it proceeds from a false premise. The a plicant has described the cxistin• conditions of the Clam Pass/Clam Bay inlet as one in which shoa Ong in Clam Pass and within Clam Bay is constraining tidal flushing such at • water quality is adversely affected and, that beach erosion at Clam Pass Park was evident as are • concurrent aspects of shoreline retreat. We do not believe that the County's descri ption of the existing conditions is accurate and therefore tat the state ,usti 'cation or the project (ecological improvement)ca Dport a need-tor the protect. The County has not documented an ,.adverse water quality problem in Clam Bay or a causal relationship between shoaling in Clam Pass and water quality in Clam Bay. In its request for additional information("RAI") to Collier County in connection with the Count ''s a.slication for pass dredging, the DEP observer generally that t e monitonn• resorts submitted document I at e am It ay system is functioning well ecologically and that se .red i nginn the past has resuced xtent an• productivity. In short, DEP is questioning the necessian extensive dredging project. e i�Cant ha,s not submitted evidence that demonstrates a need for the project as propose¢. In fact, the available evidence, the monitoring reports for Clam Bay, suggests that the inlet is functioning we om a ti al exchange oint of view and thus does not support the need for d redging at this time. t e mat Hats support t at e applicant has failed to demonstrate need I. for the project and has neither avoided nor minimized to the extent required- by the Corps' regulations. 40 C.F.R. §230.10 i The applicant has also indicated that compensatory mitigation should not be required because there are no proposed impacts to wetlands or mangroves. This is clearly not accurate based upon review of just the dredging project (as the DEP has observed), but is even more suspect when the navigational markers are considered. The effects of the project need to be considered in total. The County has artificially segmented the project in an attempt to avoid a full consideration of its activities in Clam Pass/Clam Bay by the Corps. The Corps' Clean Water • Act and NEPA regulations prevent that. According 325.l(d)(2) "All activities which the applicant plans to undertake which are renab aso ly relate to the same project and for w ich a DADA, permit would be required should be included in the same permit application. • District e _. e•.; should re'ect as 'ncom.lete any sermit as s lica is which fails to comely with p this require ent." Moreover,the orps' NEPA regulations pro'i.a that where activity requiring a permit is "merely one component of a larger project" the scope of the environmental review June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session • 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No.1) Page 15 of 20 District Engineer, Department of the Army Attn: Linda Elligott May 14,2010 Page 5 should"address the impacts of the specific activity requiring the permit and those portions of the entire project over which the district en v veer has sufficient control and responsibility.""-33 C.F.R. Part 325, Appx. B, § 7(b). The project consists o • edging and emp acemen of navigational markers (none of which currently exist in the system) to facilitate boat passage through the Pass and through Outer Clam Bay. The effects of the project would necessarily have to consider the effects of increased boat usage, particularly where there is current no actual channel and no defined navigational channeTacross a very shallow Clam Bay. The system in its current state • n of capable of usage except by the shallowest of shallow draft vessels. I have attac ed a series of photographs documenting the condition of the Pass. • `lt is incomprehensible that the applicant has stated "the project would not result in increased watercraft usage..." inasmuch as it is opening a direct, marked, deep draft access to Clam Bay from the Gulf where none currently exists. Moreover, the applicant is proposing to ' invite greater boat usage by emplacing a series of navigational-marIFs not just within the Pass but across Clam Bay. Clearly the applicant contemplates increased water craft usage; that's- ie entire point of marking the system for navigation. The Corps is not limited in its scope of ' analysis_to the applicant's statement of the project. The attempt at segmentation in this case is similar to the segmentation attempt which was at issue in Florida Wildlife Federation v. Corps,a case arising in the South Atlantic Division, Jacksonville District involving the permitting of the Scripps biotechnology facility at Mecca Farms in Palm Beach County in 2004. The Court rejected the applicant's segmentation attempt and the claims of independent utility in that case and stated the Corps' responsibility as follows: • Representations by the applicant alone, who clearly has an interest in obtaining the permit and whose theory of"independent utility"on a record such as this,can owe_ considered a post-hoc rationalization to secure a permit as rapidly as _possible, cannot be sufficient to establish a project's independent utility, without • independent evaluation by the agency based on record evidence. Without such a basis, the Court is unable to adequately review the agency's determination, nor ▪ can the public have confidence in the agency's determination. Not unlike the impropriet of segmentation to avoid si•nificance m.s'.ulation of a project •esign to conform to a concept of independent utility, particularly with the intention that a permit be expedited, undermines the underlying purposes of NEPA. June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session . 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 16 of 20 District Engineer,Department of the Army Attn: Linda Elligott May 14,2010 Page 6 The Section 404 Guidelines under the Clean Water Act require the Corps to consider both individual and cumulative impacts of the .ro..sed project. 40 C.F.R. § 230.6 and .10(a). Cumulative impact is defined as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact o e action w en a •e. to o er past, present, an. reasonably foreseeab e future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such — ie other actions c ulative im acts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a pert of 'me." 7T`, l 08. The actual impacts o oat usage of a mar d navigattona way across a shallow bay with no discernable channel are clearly "reasonably foreseeable" future actions in this case. As such those impacts must be considered. e The applicant has entirely failed to address those impacts and the Corps' review cannot be complete without such analysis. The Corps reviews permit applications seeking to dredge and fill in waters of the United States pursuant to Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. The proposed activity for which a • permit is sought must comply with EPA's 404(b)(1) guidelines, 40 C.F.R. § 230. Further, the • Corps may deny a permit where it finds the proposed activity to be contrary to the public interest. 33 C.F.R. § 320.4. The Corps conducts the public interest analysis pursuant to regulations found at 33 C.F.R. § 320.4. These regulations provide that "[t a decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation nf the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the • proposed activity and its intended use on the public interest." 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a)(l). To this end, the Co .s is directed to engage in a case-by-case balancing of the "benefits which reasons. y may be expecte. to accrue from t e propos. against the "reasonable foreseeable „detriments." The outcome of the balancing process"should re ec a nationiconcem for both protection and utilization of important resources." Among those factors to be considered are "conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values _flood Nazar s, oo pain va ues, an use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership and. in general, the needs and welfare of the people" 33C.F.R. § 320.4(a)(2)goes on to provide general • criteria to be considered in reviewing permit applications. "[Hull consideration and appropriate I weight will be given to all comments, including those of federal, state, and local agencies and other experts on matters within their expertise." 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a)(3). A permit that complies with the 404(b)(l) Guidelines will be granted "unless the district engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest." 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a)(1). ,_e_onsidcration of the Corps' public interest review pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 320.4 compels_ either rejection of the application or denial of the permit. The Corps is required to base this f June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No.1) Page 17 of 20 District Engineer, Department of the Army Attn: Linda Elligott May 14,2010 Page 7 decision on an evaluation of all of the 'probable impacts, including cumulative impacts of the proposed acttiivi?y. As •iscus -• the Corps is not imited to t e app ican s •escnption o t e • proposed ctivity and where the applicant has attempted- o improperly segment its activities in order to avoid Corers' reyiew. the is may consider a o t e •ro. sed activities together. In this case that would include the dredging an• mar ng o the channel notwit tan.mg .t the County has attempted to secure those through two separate authorizations. The extent of the _-„public or private need for the proposed work must be considered in every application. 33 C.F.R. * § 320.4(a)J. As discussed above,the applicant's stated justification is factually suspect and not supported by the monitoring reports for the Clam Bay system. Analysis ofthe public interest w factors compel denial of the County's proposed work. The first factor articulated in the public interest review is conservation. An understanding_of the histori a ccontext is import�to consideration of this factor. The Clam Pass/Clam Bay system is one of the last remnants ofillie shallow water mangrove system which historically existed along almost all of Collier County's coastline. The effects of the destruction of the system can be seen in Vanderbilt Beach, Naples Park, Seagate, Venetian BBa�, MoorinEs Bay and Doctors Bay as welLas_at the south end of Naples in mane Shires and Port Roy al. When the Pelican Bay project was proposed in the late 1970's, one of the principal considerations in e a.•rova was e preservation an. conservation o t e Clam Pass, am Bay system. The state and federal environment. permits as well as the oca government , • - approvals all required that the estuarine system be protect e d and conserved. The 1981 Corps permit is explicit on this subject. To that end, the owner conveyed the Clam Pass/Clam Bay system to Collier County for conservation after imposing a series of significant conservation restrictions on the area. The purpose of this exercise was to preserve the ecological integrity of r the system and to preserve the system in its essentially natural state. A copy of the 1981 Corps permit, the conveyance to the County and the conservation restrictions (Exhibits 2-4 to the 3/I 1/2010 letter to DEP)are enclosed. This conservation objective has largely been observed. A kayak and canoe launch facility has been located on Outer Clam Bay. A series o cf trail markers have been placed in the system. No alterations of the system have been made except as necessary to address environmental concerns. In its comprehensive future land use plan the County has identified the Clam Bay area as a Natural Resource Protection Area ("NRPA"). In the 1990's, a series of flushin channels were constructed to address mangrove die off and to allow Tidal exchange to keep the pass open. Tie Found5ii-On supported those actions. ,Other than that, however,,there • have been no actions intended to change the character of the system. The County's current proposal to acilitate and introduce more and larger boat traffic through this system would June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No.1) Page 18 of 20 Selected Excerpts of Kathy Worley,Director of Environmental Science Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments Presented at the ACOE meeting April 2012 - ( provided to PBSD's Clam Bay Committee on 6/4/12 with emphasis added by Marcia Cravens ) All are aware that 11 , • a • - • • : t • •:. '.. • • - 41.• • .. • serve multiple ecological functions including an ecological role as habitat for many I__.. •.I- I_ -. ;Jr • • • .._ .' This• is stated in numerous scientific papers including the Multi-sp.ecies Recovery Plan for South Florida(cop provided to ACOE). This document includes lists of species that are found in and rely on mangrove systems which in the interest of time I did not comment on but can be found in the mangrove section of the Recovery Plan. The Recovery Plan does state that the two main human causes of damage to mangrove communities is coastal urbanization,which includes dredging and altered hydrology, which is also supported by numerous scientific articles. Clam Bay has seen damage from both of these human induced causes. The Conservancy performed a benthic study throughout the Clam Bay_ system. A pdf of the entire study was provided to ACOE, The objectives were to perform comprehensive maps of benthic habitat distributions in Clam Bay_; analyze benthic habitat compositions relative to thphic location; and to perform a visual survey of any benthic species_Rtillhingmangsove pip roots, Systematic benthic sampling was used to characterize sediments and biological assemblages and their distribution within the Clam Bay system. Maps showing the distributions of these assemblages are including in the report. In the summer of 2010, 872 benthic sample sites within Clam Bay were investigated. We know that substrate is one of the most important abiotic factors influencing the spatial and temporal distribution of estuarine benthic communities. Mud was the dominant substrate in the northern and southern portions of Clam Bay. We also know that flora components of an estuary that are important. June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No.1) Page 19 of 20 Shoal grass was the most prevalent species found during this survey. Previous seagrass studies suggest that the spatial distribution seagrasses in Clam Bay has persisted over the last 30 years, albeit seagrass species and extent of coverage have changed throughout the years. Seagrasses are not static in location type or extent over the years in Clam Bay. One thing that does concern me is the dredging template (in my opinion) comes to close to the known area of seagrass extent in the northeast sector of Lower Clam Bay. Given that seagrasses have declined in this system and that in all likelihood are stressed given the amount of epiphytic growth that has been documented on the blades, we should go out of our way to protect what is left. So it would be wise to reduce the dredge footprint near the seagrass beds in the northeast sector of Lower Clam Bay to avoid sedimentation on nearby beds. The currently_proposed dredge design extends right up to the beds in this area, where a buffer zone should exist between the dredging template and the seagrasses in order to protect them from disturbance and stress. (See maps of historical and current seagrass extent over the years Figs. 18 and 19 in the benthic report provided). We also know that the distribution of oyster reefs has decreased within the Clam Bay ystem, more than likely a result of dredging or clearing activities in the tributaries. We all know that dredging basically destroys the benthic community within the dredge template; after all you are removing this community when you dredge. Now these communities do rebound, but since the same area is being repeatedly dredged over the years the benthic community never truly recovers. Due to the importance of the benthic community it only makes sense that we dredge the least amount necessary to keep the pass functional, while doing the least amount of damage to the flora and faunal communities. Since the pass naturally returns to 40 ft wide why not make the cut less than 80ft as proposed and lessen the impact to other ecologically important components of the estuary. Using a smaller dredge the pass has been maintained at a width closer to 40 ft so it can be done. June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 20 of 20 4/10/12 COMMENTS OF CONCERN ON PROPOSED CLAM PASS DREDGING PERMITS by Marcia.Cravens for Sierra Club Calusa Group and Save Clam Bay- Keep It Natural Petitioners: (Please note that 20 pages of online petition comments are included with these comments) Background: 1970's Environmental Conservation Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and general public advocacy to preserve and protect Clam Pass/Clam Bay natural resources resulted in the Corps requirement for the Coral Ridge-Collier Properties owner developers of Pelican Bay to agree to permit Special Conditions. The Department of Army(USACE) authorization to fill 78 acres of coastal mangrove wetlands was predicated upon its Special Conditions and primarily required the remaining 570+ acres of undeveloped coastal barrier natural resources within the Pelican Bay Planned Unit Development/ Development of Regional Impact boundaries to be set aside in a manner that restricted it to be retained as a Conservation/Preservation area in perpetuity for the benefit of the public. The Corps permit 79K-0282 issued on November 18,1981 required that the permit with its Special Conditions be recorded in the County's Official Records of the conveyance of the remaining 570+ undeveloped acres of Clam Pass/Clam Bay. Concerns: Degradation of resources by construction/excavation is inconsistent with prior State and Federal permit authorizations and inconsistent with the 1981 Corps permit Special Conditions because of direct loss of benthic substrate from dredging and secondary erosional impacts from combined enlargement of construction and excavation projects in the Clam Pass-Clam Bay Conservation and NRPA Preserve. Repetitive and expanded dredging events alter its natural characteristics and affect its functions of aquatic nursery, wetlands habitat, and natural beach/dune areas resulting in disturbances to wildlife uses and human passive recreation that constitutes unacceptable taking of established wildlife and human uses. The 2009 application to dredge Clam Pass and later modification to infill existing tidal channel doesn't conform to Corps and County requirements to retain natural conditions of the waters, creek-lagoon shorelines, beach and dune. Conformance to prior authorizations should limit any dredging re-authorization to the minimal amount necessary to keep the Clam Bays and creeks open to the Gulf of Mexico and never done to remove the maximal amount of sand possible from the Clam Pass system. All prior permits authorized placement of sand on adjacent beaches as Incidental benefit but not as a main purpose of dredging Summary: The Clam Pass dredging application causes environmental conservation concerns because: It fails to report project area's special designations to protect coastal resource of wetlands/ beach: It fails to provide official records that protect the area from development of construction/excavation; It misrepresents the modest authorized dredge template of the 1998 JC permit and improperly discredits the original engineer of record, David Tackney as not having provided specific modeling: It omits important Cultural/Archaeological Sites that were shown by map and commented on by the Florida Department of State-Division of Historical Resources with specific conditions to avoid disturbance to them- which is inconsistent with the 1998 FDEP JC permits: It fails to ensure continued passive recreation that's compatible with habitat and wildlife uses: It fails to identify its current offshore assessment of live hardbottom differs significantly from that submitted for the 1998 JC permits - which indicates an apparent loss of approximately 200 to 250 ft of productive hard bottom seaward (offshore) of Clam Pass and adjacent beaches; It improperly asserts that a Statewide Programmatic Biologic Opinion appled to this project; EA/EIS or comprehensive data in lieu of an EA/EIS for environmental use impacts are unmet: Core logs analyses from 1990s are submitted for dredged tidal channel and aren't current; Recent cores analysis are mostly from beaches and may not meet dredge channel core criteria. Conclusion: The applicant's and applicant's consultants failed to reference and provide comprehensive reports on the project area's history and environmental characteristics which other researchers/consultants have referenced . This is likely to be largely responsible for a serious lack of understanding for the project area, deficiency of necessary information and practicable alternatives that minimize or avoid negative impacts to the project area and connected areas. This situation appears to risk insufficient reviews by Regulatory agencies. Concerns remain the proposed are inappropriate to the project site. Recommendation: Address NGO and public concerns to achieve the best environmental resource permit outcome. For Clam Pass dredging projects-it is clear to the NGOs and public that Less is Best. , , June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session • 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting;No.2) Page 1 of 17 Table 6. Percent composition of secondary benthic substrates for components of the tubiculous polychaete assemblage in each portion of the Clam Bay complex. Unidentified Unidentified mud Shell-encrusted Pectinaria gouldi worm tubes tubes tubes (trumpet worm) Upper Clam Bay Mud 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sandy mud 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Muddy sand 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Sand 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shell 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Upper Tributary Mud 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sandy mud 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Muddy sand 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sand 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shell 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Inner Clam Bay Mud 3.0 15.4 0.0 16.7 Sandy mud 52.3 69.2 0.0 83.3 Muddy sand 44.7 15.4 0.0 0.0 Sand 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shell 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lower Tributary Mud 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sandy mud 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Muddy sand 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sand 100.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 Shell 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 Lower Clam Bay Mud 62.6 92.8 0.0 31.8 Sandy mud 12.6 7.2 37.5 9.1 Muddy sand 5.7 0.0 12.5 31.8 Sand 19.0 0.0 50.0 27.3 Shell 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 lvi June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting;No.2) Page 2 of 17 " -•- .is' ' Upper .. 4,:....i., �bay ....... '''*34 ""('V 1:iA4 fil . Upper - # ,..A.:,.4 i tributary _ , 41 ,. , ■ ..1 40.' ..”c. L ytf ' Zits .. ri.g z.. , ai? , fit' Inner - TE ;u bay I f s Lower tributary r Pass g' f " • ,,G ,,;tie # 3.+ Lower , t . bay , <, *', V ,r 4t. 1 1,..401 s Figure 2. Sampling Sites lxv June 6,2012 Pelican Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Cla Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting;No.2) Page 3 of 17 Bay s t a , { x « � ,� t Ben Substrates I 4,,,,*:> Mud iv:e. ` Sand t .'s Shell Upper 1 , bay i� ' s i j.;K Yq p�f ♦� g ,r. ■ J -,,,,/-..4;-,:l 6, _ ,Y > F. y s4 "''"1t i . Upper .r '' �� ,t . tributary ■' °V' ' = �" Inner �* ` M R na.4.4 bay j� �r �, � i?� 1 1 t Lower . 1�I• + . ' ,' r,�2?�,:X a L. r ,+4 ., tributary ■■,.I E; • li- 4 . 4 r Clam �e `t' 1 ' et ,. pass . - ��°b r is.It ! Lower 1 a ^�; ,, Ai , , _0 Wes ! bay �. 1 err p s� ., �' M1''skG �..�7rjr� 4 4 EM 5p 4 E Figure 3. Habitat map of primary benthic substrates in the Clam Bay estuarine complex. lxvi June 60";"C4,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session re 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting;No.2) Page 4 of 17 ,!r' t# \ ' Seagrasses .tom * ;, Shoal grass Paddle grass Upper y t3-4‘ ,,, ,s! ' I4 � bay ,� ®� ''. ,,ms�s) : " �, R A m Upper r44` `, tributary ` 1 " 3 R4M 11 4t r ;' k as�r Inner ki1',.° ol'e"4* ° ;tar',**70,M.1,:..11(` 1 bay *. ,;; N.V4,1 'f. . IS iiwij .-4.etsjtir•;+ '..4- y ,:.,,"*.t4 Lower ti. ' ., +,,:2.4,4.'1 I .,,,, tributary a �i „,� ,,.. �` I d Y{. ir �, a ,/t trty # Clam : � r�� , ,s "t ,: e � t Lower :± / jw w bay i 'fir' ;'•r # L Figure 6. Distribution of shoal grass (Halodule beaudettei syn. Halodule wrightii), and paddle grass (Halophila decipiens) in the Clam Bay study area. lxx June 6, i S 7.Clam 2012 Bay Subcommittee Pelican Bay Services Report(Dsubmitted vision by Board Marcia Regular Cravens ession at meeting;No.2) • Page 5 of 17 1 of .> M A,_ °" - +' .> .< **M ' ` ' � ' Green Macroalgae �: ' .4-wok Green filamentous algae ' ) ? �`, Acetabularia crenulata Upper ` ; Caulerpa senularoides bay '.« t . ,.,_,,,,,0.1,,,,, :-.t , fps. .g S(q Upper .<< �E. tributary - r° , '. s,, Inner '' we T bay t - j';:fr.-,-4,; c t` _ .+ �! tip} .+� ,"\ }., .1 0 t .fig 1 , Mr w f 4.dk yX % ` 'Lower at e�` p a,¢ i•r;!.tributary sg , 4,e re r s f. i CI a fig. ;" F r,,,,,..":.;'",,, - ` i:, II" Y . aE Pass-. Yt r jt 9 • _ x°;4.0 . .• Lower r -%- .. bay g s=: , '.',....,.&.....1`4"4",i:;;,---,Y1 .. r. 1.'111- r, t ! J p cif i, w‘r" . ', Ait,S 11 .- .; sue, .I. ' . ,"a M"""0 7 Figure 7. Distribution of filamentous green algae,Acetabularia crenulata, and Caulerpa sertularoides in the Clam Bay study area. lxxi June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session • 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting;No.2) Page 6 of 17 ' . la Tubiculous Polychaetes � , Unidentified worm tubes ,; a.' ° Unidentified m s,,,. ud tubes • Upper uF e � ''':'1::: . bay ��1" f ;,�+ "",� r a ,# y ► v 14 't T 3 4. Upper Y T +; t tf & tributary e� `' �i1 t' . 41-y•• aY * ,, m• i, Inner .. ,;, ': I .4_ bay �rt��,� : z # rv�r ,•S+,yvd ap 3 M Jny t'^ �c :Y.2 x.µJ � .t . '!1-. -;,'1 Y >r4 , Lower `�' `,a;'4�.,+`+ .' . It 's e� 1 ,w tributary It !t . 1,. i k„ .�. i .y t� ' < ;',* '.;--,:".i... -14• • f 3'>' h y i£ Pass,- '-.., ,,. „.*:46--j't4p.**-\;,\:7.:,,4,.....1' ''',,''''''''‘.:-,-' ..':,..-::".!,,,:l.„,I e Lower ' .tit+*s ;%'4 jilt, bay ' '-wjax-y- Q„---Alizet,,,,,-, it:, ,,-,,,,. : _ . .... 1,-,t. '3 1:;, - ,.v ...i * -`-71. '-i, 1 f t" e ',::,1f-vi-i , .1 't '4 ...,.. a #.S. t ' w ' ap aPs 'fix ,+ 1 ,,,,,,,,iitrir. Figure 9. Distribution• of unidentified polychaete worm tubes and mud tubes in the Clam Bay study area. lxxiii June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting;No.2) Page 7 of 17 .. ;\ rah ' '� _, Tubiculous Polychaetes : s ,.�.. . Shell-encrusted tubes ir ,, Trumpet worm tubes ,i, ; ,Q, ,, iiA,,,let. ,t. ,ii.....,c,,,, ,,,, ..,....,! ,,, a tributary - .. �� 4,- .� <- i Inner bay Lower tributary �* Clam , 1 s > s lsa u Lower ; bay , ., .- 4 p r , '' '---ft' 4 ' IkA.1.. ‘,N. ti � n y ~ ♦ : ,,i i & ' r .mss+ Figure 10. Distribution of shell-encrusted polychaete tubes and trumpet worm (Pectinaria gouldi) tubes in the Clam Bay study area. lxxiv June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session t meeting;No.2) - -vou ,4 1.. 1., atilti,i, 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens a Page 8 of 17 *r Molluscs - Bivalves , • American oyster(shell) American oyster(living) • Panted venus clam(shell) 111:11,1:-: Upper Pointed venus clam(living) li bay s:1 ® Stout razor clam(shell) t �: ter}''',1t 1 s �l arta F. ■•' ty. .^n`4; # •raw r r `•. s y 1 .y? L R" ads .a:wy.■yi x #f. tributary ■ c,- 1, . i i ` ,.',1-.;''.1..,+ ': iy A i , ■ ,F iik L t`t . r'�,,- ..e..1441' r,•Inner F , -',-,',;4- , .� "Aft/■ 1 f i,• r ' � , '4 « ';'1 ■ s ' •, • '= ,i ► . Lower '� } _ I.... z tributary •" " z�' °"`. '` Y , \`" -, - . --. "S ,- i ,-,- .L >t Lower bay , a X . N •••-r_ • R Wr i i rF 7 ,-,- cukas 1°; ' s - o Figure 11. Distribution of American oyster(Crassostrea virginica), pointed venus clam (Anomalocardia auberiana) and stout razor clam(Tagelus plebeius)in the Clam Bay lxxv June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting;No.2) Page 9 of 17 3 t.`1.(1:` pr 1 :...‘3.. . + '.2,,.: ,. ,4- - -ipy-k•ek , ri,,,.. "' i` ; Molluscs - Gastropods ` 1,0 Florida crown conch(shell) ,ri . � Florida crown conch(living) ,, , rd, Mi Grass cerith Upper : bay P� 1.■ ,,, a II f:k,:. ? 't*: " „�„year^ � �,1 x 04:14.1:,,,,,,4,:b �� i:a.,r k ' .. Upper ,.� * .fin ' .r tributary ¢ 1• '4a r as + +E a4 ':`� 9 ”r' It Inner " , ' i - - 1; I. bay " % �� • 4y Al'i8t.Lower » - ,, .• tribute, �7 fir. TTF . Lower ' , �w bay �_ , � r A _ s . a V t ' . �f 7,M i l t M. }V 3 rs-", .4 11! t 1,i YYr a ..gg � IR1a to- -.-eo . Figure 12. Distribution of Florida crown conch(Melongena corona) and grass cerith (Bittiolum varium) in the Clam Bay study area. lxxvii June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting;No.2) Page 10 of 17 Echinoderms ,, �, Heart urchin tri if, + ` � � � ' A" r' '� III Brittlestar i 5y y"' y.'WZA di .i rC 1� .ik ✓'# J tributary t a; Inner .,� _s 4 ='t bay $ 1� • _ ' 8 h y( "try 40 „r " `'''-\ ✓ s1 Lower . vi a tributary it ik $ * 1 „ Y 4"40,1 .. V $ • y ' ,S �Y'A . f f - 1 r I V Clam . --E6.‘ ; -, , { Passe `*ft.?. N. * 7 s is _ , Lower bay ;;i f ■I , .34/ 1-�-„(� Tye ' S4;7 c l',..** '■. ''Ii,' ,t.,'' e ' - a Y • T� d- #...., ■3 k M Figure 13. Distribution of heart urchin(Moira atropos) and brittlestar(Ophiophragmus filograneus) in the Clam Bay study area. lxxviii June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting;No.2) Page 11 of 17 �`. ` Mangrove Prop Roots �,J> Molluscs - Bivalves * �t Nil Unidentified mussel spp. :� American oyster(shell) h Upper '"t American oyster(living) ki bay 4 I- ,0 1 ,,,,e 2 ter.,`.4,4•41.11 Kr' : Upper y •, g fi tributary �•� Al VA. .,' .R;sit4; f > , V Inner i:- bay �g m I , }_ I` .,y ._, ., .' .4 7, , 14 Lower tributary �t 7:. fgk M t .. r Pass , , Lower V;. 4.. r' bay r'. !• fir 4 at yy i ,� Figure 14. Distribution of unidentified species of mussel and American oyster(Crassostrea virginica) on mangrove prop roots in the Clam Bay study area. lxxix June 6, aves id ular Session 7.Clam Bay 2012 Subcommittee er Rep Services (Dsubmitted visionBoar by Marcia Cravens at meeting;No.2) Page 12 of 17 . 30 Mangrove Prop Roots r 4, Molluscs - Gastropods ., ii .:f Mangrove periwinkle ° Upper . .� bay . : , k - ��' . r g '° s � :' 1 Upper is` i '"tributary �`x rr } R t Inner bay , ° '�.: g Y - '' ft is -. /A 'r •• ., ' � ' "-+Lower ' '': t , c; `tributary r �,. x�. yy c a �. "{ r r,i � P :: i Lower � ' ~a t ; bay f fi ' . i r s A t. ! C. %L` r S -,n 1' °� ,t 3 �� Jai ,„, :r:r is asw," Aj ::"."'":0.147'.: :.; Figure 15. Distribution of mangrove periwinkle (Littoraria angulifera) on mangrove prop roots in the Clam Bay study area. lxxx • June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session • 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting;No.2) Page 13 of 17 Mangrove Prop Roots 1 .4 . r;: ,y,) Macroalgae Green reen filamentous algae L_J Unidentified red algae spp. Upper f C bay ., � *-- .. r, I ,, Upper ,« tributary ,- inner bay t , ' :41-•go '. . ' ' ., Lower E tributary ' i _ , ' ' ik, , - _.k." .4, .4.-:, f � n bay �.. .= t e 4 d' ' N :` " ' 1.- . .* °sue f`:ac'x ai Figure 16. Distribution of filamentous green algae and unidentified species of red algae on mangrove prop roots in the Clam Bay study area. lxxxi June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting;No.2) Page 14 of 17 . ‘ v.„„ \ n 1 - ,d Vi � Mangrove Prop Roots ot. Crustaceans • "r ':- ••■ Unidentified barnacles(shell) i„ • • -i+ Unidentified barnacles(Fving) Upper 111 II; , Mangrove crab bay 4' • • ■ ■ r r w { I . � .. Upper r tributary . • Inner ■ `y F bay ii . a ■ YR 5 Y * �.� jjaY,d ''3r, . ice a ' <j,+ Y 4$' Lower c tributary , e ■ ■ } w 64..s I t . P • .e Lower , bay " • ` s , A - ■ ■ t ., * *' . -* - , -1 i':ir" s ■ v ■ • ' is =+x .. s -0, i.:? W v_ _ Figure 17. Distribution of unidentified species of barnacle and mangrove crab on mangrove prop roots in the Clam Bay study area. lxxxii , June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session • 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting;No.2) • Page 15 of 17 Figure 19. Clam Bay Seagrass Mapping Over the Years 1992-1999 x. f. � •,. � ' - F vi � •� x $r. • ' --_..:. ,:ii.a116.4101111N,.4F", '''':, i I a- 8 t, • -- ,. 1 � Y-:._. t rte+, g -, ,,........ ,,,,, _ ,_).,,, ,\ �s x 7' a ._ 0 . -.,t - n's ii, i r 1!+e, 6 , Shoal grass THA 1999 - Seagrass Collier County Seagrass Inventory 1994 Egm Seagrass Collier County Seagrass Protection PIan1992 lxxxiv June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting;No.2) Page 16 of 17 Figure 20. Clam Bay Seagrass Mapping Over the Years 2007—2010. pa`' i 1, j, ' t °` 1..,. '‘,.''',.; ;... )11. , i W Iry ! 'f 1 ° , '. 4 ...., _li ,.. . . _ ...,......„ , . 1 ,ir. . 1 AlaiN'‘ ''''' 4' . tl- • " ' . - ,,,, .., ---,..- ; - ..*, \ .- , ,,,,,,, „ if. ,.. „ ,_ \ - -,;-- . - ,....„: ,-..,. ., . , .,,,, ,..„,..„ .._... 4: -: , , . 'r ,.., - :, ,,:: , ; ti %`1 ;, • a. ' , tip . ' , . y CSWF 2010 Shoal grass PBSJ 2009 [ Shoal grass Observed Paddle grass 1 Shoal grass Isolated PBSJ 2007 Shoal grass Sparse Paddle grass Shoal grass Present Turtle grass Shoal Grass Dense CSWF 2010 Paddle grass lxxxv June 6,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular o Sessi& C May 11,2012 • 7.Clam Bay Subcommittee Report(submitted by Marcia Cravens8 fh869i� borta) Page 17 of 17 8 of 8 (,n Z Technical note Figure 2. Known active permitted OSTDS systems within the Clam Bay watershed (source: FDOH). }2, �:. p A- 4...:a s3 t-°' &r..:1 t Legend 4 ' Mr x'14,"•••�! •� ,- i'wY', v°ti Vantle '°' aR Onsite Sewage Treatment bunt eea h Rd•'+ • t ' s.'` �tivlin J. and Disposal System yy i.#*1' . ' _, Watershed 411 ¢0 0.2 0.4 Miles " d;. . - r, ` I t I f 4 I. N r ,-_ i4F V-�i Upper .'''vrr^ • _ jT ELI Clam '''• ,f I i } ""• M � '', 1 ! 4 ,, . , .' ii 1I a�. °awe � ! Inner �t ; y ,�� Clam •.• is >r .JJ Bay 'a"? 4 r ,>s*j' .'1. .n,,• "i '% au . +'� .SS t i • v• t—' . Outer � `" �, i Bay Clam {) 4 -.-'1' ? •• Fecal coliform_technical note 3-09-2012 Plan Design Enable rn C E .. > 'o aga U co E U C ._.. '.l ,� .f,, �µJd '� Vi f t ). 4,` I f� J 'cis 2 a t if. cx 112 N 1 o 12 2 co 0,5 o , { J r°r •Ei _ [ • t J co t U 41 G (0 p._ _ '‘ Lfsf. m "r A "� S d t. v v - . H N T �'j - ,'(' tTa°, it U.S as r b*- 6 I li i.:- ..... _.., t vt te-, . ...r. :. .1.,:rit r '.",:s. Ili! § it .,,_ :1,,,;"s,FL,,,,i: ,. p: k . ,..,, _,,_, „ , .21 .1 :: .. } ,a p W I4,..., ( O 4 l" 1 1 l}r e� 'N. r i. , 3't 1/ ' rI . - .t. zi iii II U O -0 E J L c co co 00 ; O 0 1f. I z > O Q Z Z U- d' d W ... 4- ... M • 0 •'''• T L ...... CO O . O . 1d 9.9 I- 0 N— 1 z -1d 9'9 ,,..r co ••••,•..•••••' A (fl OL. .� Q.)p � V •a) C •.t iLl 1 z o I LO o i oa 1 U �� o u) 0 DI 0 > Chi o z a Z ZI a O a� • 1 p C 1 ,- U z a J n2 ce W a 4\011‘44\ 0 W 1444\14111k - 1 Z CD u) O cn T" 0 ti� W Q ! 11 W V W r >CI 4 Ii Z . cc O V <O O a au z° .. `. i i t .i T 11 i � i A 410 � .. t11241 11111LLVAATI i a 0 z ce U JO' s&44 ,_at.,. .>.. Cl) o -0 E cu c N( 6 E U U) oo a) ca 0 0 o 2 > 0 -o I .a,,4.... z > o I z Z LL I O •.. CO •'' + •'' CD •'' 0 . • �..+ .% CO O 14 + dm .11 9 7 Q I— 0 C/) > N K-.., id 9.9 ., r z ,a•.•.,,.�U 1 , 0 ••.••w. L �Q■_4.0 ....... ,,.• Q) W 0 W Co z o LC el I I o 0 0 a 0 E > a) z C9 a Z Z 0 -a a) 0 0 r c) 4 q [!/wj i _/ b z 00 Q J C. H 2 w a 0 w z CD 0 i 00 O a) CD co C . . e w es Nal:1441 .4141111 a ca 1 111140, iii, 1 ca v CNI N.' ii O 04 t. X co 0 � uou' �s bl '.. 4 1 is ir w f . i IF ,... , w o z°) a� � I £ 0 I ce 0 k II a — to C� U 0 It Z < Z Z IL _ LO O o O1 CO 'ter ••r •r, O }; r'r. r..... — a.. CO CD Ti- + td 0.t7 • ■ a I— 0 Q 11 y^ z M •T� V•9 rr,r.; CY) r•'r�•r.......... r'•• ^ J O r�''�rr•'r L 1 . o . Q) o r'' CD 1 0 w Lu Cn 0i z a 1 � � 1 5 I I PP o 1 0 }, .4_, 0 0i U > 0I 2 a' Z Z1 a a CD 0 I a •0 01 V) Z a J 0_ H Ce W ig III 3 U.1 ti,.. Z W. 41.4t u . (..9 (75 a lit 0 i i VW o C) 0) 4 i Re- Q i m (/) W 3 � 1 U LU ,,,..ig CV m O O Ce �— u. U o o a) > j z 7 co 0 Q a Z O c , 0 r- .. . • w Z a) 0 1 t i 0 0 Q*Ant *mom= d 1 U �s W o to u) 0 0 p _ ce U .3 t0 Li J L J I I I t A C 0 •MEIN a) w a) [C) [f) O L I 1 I L O O to CC) E o o O E O O O L. O + + + •Z U.1 0 0 7- N Cr) 06 z o O O O •-- Cl.) cv N T Cn () U) 0.-....., s , u�_ r � �...� ', > Q Q Q Q z z Z Z Cl) oo CO oo CV.) Li a a o D d- a) in cr) I L o Q cn i o a o o O Q Q Q Q + ,. , Q N co z N co 0 O O'Cr O O 4- CO (9 + Q+p ..C. os + + N x— 0) o CO (.0 Z- C 0 0 0 0 (1) J E O O O C 2 O + + 1.0 O In O d' Imo- Z .., . ..,:.:;i:Pitigrak:SWilintr:Pri .'''- H ._ . ..,,,„,..,,,-„,,,,„„:„.„,,,,,,,.3„,,,,,,..,,,,,e.,,„,...,,,,,,,,„„.„,.,„ , , i, 0 Kj s .- a 4, §' ,4,...-1,N,:',q1t-i-,.:1'1';;:',,.-:.,:' -tiy„:1:.:4.-,,;aellikli!".„:,..,,,,,?N.:,-k s t .--•,....,-,;:.....„ :07.7;;-- \ ,H.'-' Te„s a4 m , \ „4 .� b * ' .� ' ; IN, _ '1/4 .,.Ar'Ir r" . '''S...-• 'lit'-. S Vi or! ,..,,, ' _. fir . , . 0 g irs.,.. Nir ,e"' %. . . . , ,.. , -r w ' ,e 41`.ir. i t Ac VI CI �.- • x ,,wry., , I g) CD - ./// ■ CO „.-,,.. 0. ,. r 4. 0 0 zg V C 5 c,0 k 0 0 c7 II 0 >- (1) 0 0 f} (.11 al w Z tr I N d X Q V) W I- W • as fp I1 r W [l. Z 2 I Qla.! 1 w 0 L- in o..i W 411•0 I Z J V) Q r m I a 1 ce L. a) a W Sm V Q o i au a) W O a) t ) O O I Z 1 06 F-- CL z 0 0 Z o I I 1 I 1 g 1 1 , i I oca Z 0 0© tO -t N 0 C‘4 .4 (0 CO 0 1 T I I I I -- (OAON) `1333 NO11VA313 I A lAIN 111110 6 01ii 00li0 El pp - 8° 1;117,2 : P 53 °_f OBR ii - - RBC 0 w !1! n . a s m 4t p u 5 t ss gi Z (Sli 1:{ BicB$$ 8B; 8 }9FBABB a a - 8$KR884; fis€e8, ?8 8 - S? 8 �t8.- � �i°8 8 8 « & n iiF'°A Ya F AP V t,_,c• R F;, fi; -.'� iii I I to fg �' 17 J .. VJ ' ,8 �g � : it - k. s a E88a o _ B� - S 1B � 633 t8 ar3 s < °�w _,-- z u u 8 - r t = f � � a� r.) (V-7' U 61 2 6 3 W a. al . Li R - ?��, , ? :r t J p W - Z z. 2 .. 4? z 0a r} i o L ' ? 3o y Li c3 Q iT, go tjul,r. + lit L Za M +i Fz INC lit V2- mimil J t �. y - , : , c : a f ` UM .� \ 19' f n LIJ CS) CD • oft ?,.tX7 t� : cr+'ry -tern r4!I " *-a, �' - 11111E111"82':*0 to to i'7 th ,'m tTi meti m t--r4, ry p to tf}t- ��}7 C ames A '("3 3 0Z..; .�y I 0 .., rt sv.3 cis W j � 82882825;8824: fg2 ! !E5i! lil nub a�, „. • r; ^@ °ern .. Z.... I ;: T A 7 ..., , „..,,,,,„ ,„4..,*0",.+-'-*,e - ' gr P Cal 'N 'W i' T 25 sa T ri C., I I I I I M tzliN Mill yep Ili NI ig q- _ ,,Lkkh,NR S N. Ikik N 4414s N tik, z _c , . ...... likk 4 m i _ a r3 • + kti al I I or- Alk fill 0 I ,....i_ g N H )0 , 5„-, _ ;ri W 7 .7. 0 I °o ,_ z .. o_ 4%, .-s--;-----7:--- .2.' . , I T ( (bW `Nr 1333 NI NDII A3-13 i-eil