The URL can be used to link to this page

PBSD MSTBU Agenda 11/07/2012 7 :77 < � eta • PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit py NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7,2012 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FL. AGENDA The agenda includes,but is not limited: Fiala 1. Pledge of Allegiance Hiller 2. Roll Call Henning 3. Agenda Approval Coyle 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes Coletta a. September 5 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. September 24 Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee c. October 9 Clam Bay Subcommittee d. October 18 Landscape Water Management Subcommittee 5. Administrator's Report a. Crosswalks i. North Tram station visibility improvements ii. North Tram pedestrian crossing signal iii. Myra Janco Daniels crossing b. Landscape intersection improvements c. Berm i. South berm restoration ii. North berm maintenance d. County Transportation Department's Myra Janco Daniels Blvd.pathways and roadway paving e. Monthly financial report 6. Committee Reports a. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee i. Recommended approach* ii. Selecting arborist iii. Resident survey b. Clam Bay Subcommittee i. STORET water quality data recommendation* Misc.Corres: ii. Copper impairment in Clam Bay iii. Dredging update Date: . _LS 133 c. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee 1� i. Copper impairment in upland ponds Item 19 '�/� ii. Alternatives to copper sulfate ii. Community outreach Copies to: 7. Chairman's Report a. Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler) b. Announcements 8. Old Business a. Cobblestones at San Marino crossing(John Chandler) 9. New Business 10. Audience Comments 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence 12. Adjournment *indicates Board vote is anticipated 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. 11/6/2012 10:03:04 AM - PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY,SEPTEMBER 5,2012 • LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, September 5, 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 absent John P.Chandler absent Mary Anne Womble Geoffrey S.Gibson John Baron absent 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 Kevin Carter,Field Manager,Dorrill Management Group Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist&Principal,Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt,President,Pelican Bay Foundation Kathy Worley, Co-Director Environmental Science&Biologist,Conservancy of Southwest Florida AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of August 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 5. Administrator's Report a. Crosswalks i. Revised decibel readings report ii. North Tram station visibility improvements iii. North Tram pedestrian crossing signal iv. Myra Janco Daniels crossing b. Landscape intersection improvements c. County's Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways"overlay" d. Berm i. South berm restoration ii. North berm maintenance e. Board of County Commissioners Budget Hearing/Sept.6 at 5:05 p.m. f. Clam Bay Work Group meeting recap g. Monthly financial report 6. Chairman's Report a. Committee assignments b. Announcements 7. Committee Reports a. Clam Bay Subcommittee i. Clam Bay bird&fish survey ii. Subcommittee mission statement;proposed name change for Board revie a b. "Pathways"Ad-Hoc Committee(Dallas) 8. Old Business 9. New Business a ' I — . Clam Bay copper impairment/Landscape Water Management Sub + o 44.4 s) b. Clam Bay dredging permit(Marcia Cravens) 10. Audience Comments 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence 12. Adjournment 8567 I Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes - l September 5,2012 ROLL CALL Seven members were present (Cravens, Dallas, Gibson, Iaizzo, Levy, O'Brien, Womble) and four were absent (Baron, Chandler,Hansen,Trecker). AGENDA APPROVAL IVice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Ms. Womble to approve the agenda as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 1 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES IVice Chairman Cravens made a motion,second by Mr. Levy to approve the August 1,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Jerry Moffatt and Ms. Mollie Moffatt alleged the Board made arbitrary decisions regarding tree removal by authorizing tree removal at the North Tram station, but not at the intersection of Hammock Oak and Pelican Bay Boulevard. However several trees were removed on Hammock Oak. Chairman Dallas explained staff made a reasonable decision to remove three trees on Hammock Oak to improve visibility heading north. However Mr.Iaizzo did not agree. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT CROSSWALKS REVISED DECIBEL READINGS REPORT Mr. Dorrill explained staff repeated the sound testing at Beachwalk and North Tram station crossings that have cobblestones installed; and for comparison purposes, on Pelican Bay Boulevard at the intersections of Gulf Park Drive and Crayton Road that do not have cobblestones. Decibel readings were higher than the original tests that could be attributed to the wind,but again were insignificant.Board consensus was to delay further discussion until November. NORTH TRAM STATION VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS Mr. Dorrill reported that landscaping improvements are underway at the North Tram station to improve line-of- and project should be complete in approximately ten days. Ms.O'Brien asserted there were additional line-of-sight issues from the south heading north. PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNAL AT NORTH TRAM STATION UPDATE Mr. Dorrill referred to photographs of the type of pedestrian crossing signal that he recomme I,4 .e i j . ed at the North Tram station. The signal is self-contained, affixed to a single post, flashes an amber-light, peg I activated by pressing a button, solar-powered with a wireless transmitter and receiver; and the County agrees- o. ..'ntain i t •stimated the County would issue the right-of-way permit next week and it would be thirty days until equip .. * , Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to .As a., fou ontained pedestrian-activated crossing signals at the North Tram station. Th ;, ,> ,ted , ously in avor and the motion was ,assed. MYRA JANCO DANIELS CROSSING Mr.Lukasz reported the right-of-way permit should be issue% oroj- complete in thirty days. 8568 4 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes " September 5,2012 LANDSCAPE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS The Phase II landscape intersection improvements in the medians at Myra Janco Daniels, Crayton, Glenview, North Pointe,and Hammock Oak are complete.A significant amount of money was saved because the work was done in-house. COUNTY'S PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAYS"OVERLAY" Mr. Dorrill reported the pathways overlay is in progress. He was pleased with the work and expects the project complete by the end of September. Chairman Dallas presented before and after pathways photographs. He was also pleased with the work. Mr. Moffatt reported that County crews working on the pathways damaged L'Ambiance irrigation heads as well as Asiatic Jasmine beds at Hammock Oak and Oakmont and denied responsibility for repairs. BERM SOUTH BERM RESTORATION Mr. Dorrill reported that although the Board of County Commissioners approved Quality Enterprises' contract via the County Manager"in absentia" on August 14,the County failed to execute it. As a result,the project's start date was delayed. However Mr.Dorrill would resolve as early as today and no later than Tuesday, September 11 so the project does not need to be further postponed.During the construction period the entire south berm facility will be closed and for safety purposes, a locked fence will be built around the site perimeter. The work will take approximately sixty days and the project should be complete before Thanksgiving. NORTH BERM MAINTENANCE Mr. Dorrill explained that several months ago, Vice Chairman Cravens observed erosion on the east and west sides of the north berm. Currently, staff is performing minor maintenance work. Certain sections of the north berm would be closed temporarily.However this is a short-term project and he expects work to be complete this month. He added that staff is holding off on major restoration because the volume of fill necessary would require similar permitting to the south berm restoration project and could cost upwards of$250,000. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BUDGET HEARING/SEPTEMBER 6 AT 5:05 PM Mr. Dorrill announced that he will attend the Board of County Commissioners Budget Hearing on September 6 at 5:05 p.m.to present the Pelican Bay Services Division's Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget. qm Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board reaffirms support for the original Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget that was recommended x`'4 the Budget Subcommittee, approved by the full Board and submitted to the Board of Cj? Commissioners. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. CLAM BAY WORK GROUP MEETING RECAP Mr. Dorrill reported that he and Chairman Dallas attended a Coastal Zone Managemen ® .. ment Z: ` it-s-ting and were briefed on a variety of Clam Bay issues including water quality. The Florida Departm d e -n: Protection (FDEP) found elevated levels of copper in Clam Bay which could be attribute d to cope- sulfat r-s Division uses copper sulfate to treat algae and is exploring alternative algae treatments. Staff dist-4.04 .:tdevi4.0itt,t uses ultrasonic wave technology to break apart algae at the molecular level without harming the ' + y, ent. There is a direct correlation between fertilization and elevated nutrient levels in adjacent waterways: . er i .",plied heavily in October and November and he suggested the Board consider testing the ultrasonic de +. eI Ii4tittlt ral locations. Staff will gather more information about the device includi t -term 'g options and report back. 8569 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes September 5,2012 Ms.O'Brien was concerned that there was no record or minutes of the meeting. It Mr. Dorrill clarified that the meeting was not a public meeting, so minutes were not taken,but staff would obtain the material presented from Mr.McAlpin and distribute to the Board. Ms.Marcia Cravens alleged Mr.Gary McAlpin was developing a Clam Bay management plan covertly. Ms. Womble explained department-levels staff meetings are routine and necessary to evaluate issues before bringing to higher-ups; and suggested Ms. Cravens file a complaint with the appropriate entity if she feels Mr. McAlpin's conduct is unethical. Mr. Dorrill further recommended that Ms. Cravens request from the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) that Mr. McAlpin present staff-level work group reports at CAC public meetings. FINANCIAL REPORTS IVice Chairman Cravens made a motion,second by Mr. Levy to accept the August 2012 financial report into the record. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed CHAIRMAN'S REPORT COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS Chairman Dallas assigned Mr. Levy to the Clam Bay Subcommittee; Mr. Chandler to the Landscape Water Management Subcommittee; and appointed Ms. O'Brien as Interim Chairman of the Clam Bay Subcommittee until the Subcommittee could decide. BOARD TERMS As five members terms are expiring in March 2013,the Board briefly revisited the possibilities of staggering terms and advertising openings. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced upcoming meetings: Coastal Advisory Committee meets September 13 in the evening; Pelican Bay Foundation Board meets September 21 at 8:30 a.m.; the "Pathways" Ad-Hoc Committee meets September 24 at 3 p.m.;and the Services Division Board's next meeting is October 3. COMMITTEE REPORTS CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES/CLAM BAY BIRD AND FISH SURVEY Mr. Levy explained several years ago, the County reduced many of the Pelican Bay Services Divisi. a' "t funds and responsibilities and shifted those funds and responsibilities to another County entity.As a result,t ices Divisi•a does not have sufficient funds available to perform additional studies, such as a bird and fish survey. : :,.!.4:,, members were less concerned about cost and agreed that a bird and fish survey was within the realm of Clam }. . bcommittee responsibilities. Ms. Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida explained that prior to submitti ' -- • ••. s perform a bird and fish survey she needed to know what the Services Division's objectives were eco • ;-• that the Clam Bay Subcommittee meet to define the objectives for performing a bird and fish surv• _ • • those . • -stablished she would submit a proposal with the cost. Mr.Tim Hall agreed. The Subcommittee decided to schedule a meeting to develop obj ' or'. d fis survey and eventually make a recommendation to the full Board. Interim Chairman O'Brien requ -' • y Cr!**"r. Hall participate,as well as Ms. Cravens who Interim Chairman O'Brien tasked with developing an o' ,• fish .17(if bird survey objectives. 8570 t Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes September 5,2012 "PATHWAYS"AD-HOC COMMITTEE(KEITH DALLAS) Chairman Dallas explained that on September 24 at 3 p.m.,the"Pathways"Ad-Hoc Committee will meet to review the proposed approach for studying pathways and trees and decide on the recommendation to make to the full Board on October 3. The proposal would be distributed prior to the meeting. NEW BUSINESS CLAM BAY COPPER IMPAIRMENT/LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE Vice Chairman Cravens announced the Landscape Water Management Subcommittee would meet Thursday, October 18 at 1 p.m. to discuss educating the community about landscaping best management practices and water quality issues including Clam Bay copper impairment. Ms. Worley explained that in a water body, copper sulfate does not dissolve; it sinks to the bottom and binds to the sediment;the sediment must be removed to eliminate the copper. Mr. Hall said he is not available to participate on October 18, but if the nutrient study data is prepared Mr. Hoppensteadt would distribute to the Subcommittee. CLAM BAY DREDGING PERMIT(MARCIA CRAVENS) Ms.Marcia Cravens presented information that she had previously put forward at the June 4 Clam Bay Subcommittee meeting regarding the Clam Bay dredging permit alleging the permit application allows for more extensive dredging and wider cuts than what was permitted in 1998 and requested the Board's support. Chairman Dallas informed Ms. Cravens that the Clam Bay Subcommittee already addressed this issue and decided not to take action. Ms. Womble agreed that the Clam Bay Subcommittee would need to discuss whether to re-address this issue; and requested that future agenda items include first and last names so it is clear who is presenting an item. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms.Mollie Moffatt was concerned about traffic and the tree trimming schedule. Mr.John Domenie was not pleased with the yellow bromeliads planted at intersections along Pelican Bay Boulevard. ADJOURNMENT IVice Chairman Cravens made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded and the Board voted unanimous) in avor. The motion was lassed and the meetin: was ad'ourned at 3:41 I.m. 0 ttsp Keith J.Dallas,Chairman Minutes by LR1 9/13/201 8571 AD-HOC COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP AN APPROACH FOR STUDYING PATHWAYS&TREES OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MINUTES MONDAY,SEPTEMBER 24,2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Ad-Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways and Trees of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Monday, September 24, 2012 at 3:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay,8960 Hammock Oak Drive,Naples,Florida. The following members were present: Ad-Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways&Trees Keith J.Dallas,Chairman Dave Trecker Tom Cravens Mary Anne Womble Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W.Neil Dorrill,Administrator Mary McCaughtry,Operations Analyst absent Kyle Lukasz,Operations Manager Lisa Resnick,Recording Secretary Also Present John Iaizzo,Pelican Bay Services Division Board Susan O'Brien,Pelican Bay Services Division Board 14 in the audience ROLL CALL All Ad-Hoc Committee members were present. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT APPROACH FOR STUDYING PATHWAYS&TREES Chairman Dallas presented the proposed draft approach to study pathways and trees. SELECTION OF CERTIFIED ARBORIST Mr.Dorrill reported that Ms.Ellin Goetz,the Board's Landscape Architect recommended selecting certified arborist Mr.Ian Orlikoff,Signature Tree Service who is the same arborist Mr.Richard Galli hired to evaluate trees along Pelican Bay Boulevard.Mr.Dorrill attempted to contact Mr.Orlikoff to discuss interest in becoming the community arborist and potential tree service contractor-type conflicts and planned to provide report on October 3. The Committee directed staff to prepare and distribute on October 3 additional background information about Mr.Orlikoff and Mr.Doug Caldwell,Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences(IFAS). AUDIENCE COMMENTS The audience supported the approach and plans to conduct a community survey. DECISION ON APPROACH FOR STUDYING PATHWAYS&TREES TO RECOMMEND TO FULL BOARD The Committee discussed the draft approach for studying pathways and trees and plans to conduct a commu regarding pathways usage and preferences for marking bicycle lanes in the roadway. The Committee was pleases the 1. approach and agreed the study would take two years to complete. Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Ms. Womble that the Ad-Hoc Committee make a reco a ,. i to the full Board to approve the pathways project outline as presented with an understanding tha ey would be expedited and the entire process completed by the end of the 2014 season. •mmit r= a_•-• unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Cravens made a motion,seconded by Chairman Dallas to adjourn. 7 • vo nanimously in favor,the motion was passed,and the meeting was adjourned at 4:03 p. 1,,, Keith J.Dallas,Chairman by Lisa Resnick 9/26/2012 10:19:28 AM 3 CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY,OCTOBER 9,2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Tuesday,October 9 at 1:00 p.m.at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive,Naples, Florida 34108.The following members were present: Clam Bay Subcommittee Susan O'Brien,Chairman Michael Levy Tom Cravens Mary Anne Womble Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W.Neil Dorrill,Administrator Mary McCaughtry,Operations Analyst Kyle Lukasz,Operations Manager Lisa Resnick,Recording Secretary Also Present Tim Hall,Senior Ecologist&Principal,Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. Kathy Worley,Director of Environmental Science,Conservancy of Southwest Florida Three(3)attendees AGENDA 1. Roll call 2. Elect Chairman 3. Clam Bay restoration and management update a. Review of 2011 and 2012 Clam Bay aerial photos b. Update on channel maintenance and exotic removal c. Expenses to-date d. Date for 2012 Clam Bay restoration and management annual report to be available to Subcommittee 4. Clam Bay water quality data and STORET 5. Dredging permit 6. Fish and bird surveys 7. Date and topics for next Subcommittee meeting 8. Audience Comments 9. Adjourn ROLL CALL All Subcommittee members were present. ELECT CHAIRMAN Mr. Cravens made a motion,seconded by Ms. Womble to nominate Interim Chairman O'Brien as Chairman of the Clam Bay Subcommittee. The Subcommittee voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed fl CLAM BAY RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT UPDATE REVIEW OF 2011 AND 2012 CLAM BAY AERIAL PHOTOS Mr.Tim Hall presented 2011 and 2012 Clam Bay aerial infrared photographs and conclude et. ily that there were no observable differences between last year and this year. UPDATE ON CHANNEL MAINTENANCE AND EXOTIC REMOVAL Mr.Hall reported that channel maintenance work was completed in the worst affec - - tt aunty completed exotic removal along the beach;the Services Division removed most 1+° . .''-otics t-+.1++'..gst the mangroves and staff continues to monitor and maintain the area. EXPENSES-TO-DATE The Subcommittee briefly discussed Fiscal Year 2012 Cl.' t. .f-n ° Dorrill noted that due to higher water levels and safety concerns additional turbidity scr:,.r s pu e 1_ for e south berm restoration to control erosion which increased the total cost of the project by$-31111% 10 Clam Bay Subcommittee Meeting Minutes _ October 9,2012 ESTIMATED DATE TO REVIEW 2012 ANNUAL REPORT Mr.Hall estimated that the draft Clam Bay restoration and management annual report would be available 0 before the end of December for the Subcommittee to review. CLAM BAY WATER QUALITY DATA AND STORET Mr.Hall reported that entering water quality data into STORET is not within the scope of his current contract;and estimated that the software and service would cost approximately$10,000 in year one;and$6,000 yearly thereafter. Ms. Womble made a motion,seconded by Mr. Cravens to make a recommendation to the Board to authorize up to$10,000 in the first year to have Turrell Hall and Associates enter water quality data into STORET. The Subcommittee voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. DREDGING PERMIT Ms.Marcia Cravens,Conservation Chairman,Sierra Club presented information regarding the Clam Bay dredging permit that showed the original 1998 permit authorized a wider dredge cut design that was revised in 1999 to authorize only a thirty-foot wide dredge cut.Ms. Cravens alleged that that 2007 dredge cut of eighty feet violated the federal and state permit. Dr.Ted Raia,President,Mangrove Action Group presented triggers for dredging. Ms. Womble made a motion,seconded by Mr. Cravens to direct the Administrator to request information and provide report to the full Board on November 7 as to what kind of situation prevailed in 2007 that would have allowed a dredge cut wider than what the permit authorized. The Subcommittee voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. FISH AND BIRD SURVEYS Chairman O'Brien reported that previously,Ms.Marcia Cravens had requested the Services Division perform fish and bird surveys;Ms.Kathy Worley explained that in order to develop proposals for fish and bird surveys,she needs to know what the survey goals and objectives are;Mr.Dorrill suggested that the Subcommittee also find out what the purpose and importance of bird and fish surveys are;and Ms.Worley and Mr.Hall would provide the Subcommittee with copies of some previous surveys. DATE AND TOPICS FOR NEXT SUBCOMMITTEE The Subcommittee agreed to meet toward the end of November to discuss fish and bird surveys and the g: foot dredge cut,but would wait to schedule until after the November 7 full Board meeting. ■ AUDIENCE COMMENTS None ADJOURN I Mr. Cravens made a motion,seconded by Mr.Levy to adjourn. The Subcom , an;"";,' nz ' ly I in favor,the motion was passed,and meeting adjourned at 2:54 p.m. Susan O'Brien,Chairman b ick 10/15/20124:37:04 PM ilk 11 LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY,OCTOBER 18,2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Landscape Water Management Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Thursday,October 18 at 1:00 p.m.at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive,Naples,Florida 34108.The following members were present: Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Tom Cravens,Chairman Geoffrey S.Gibson John Chandler absent Dave Trecker Keith J.Dallas Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W.Neil Dorrill,Administrator Mary McCaughtry,Operations Analyst Kyle Lukasz,Operations Manager Lisa Resnick,Recording Secretary Seven in audience AGENDA 1. Roll call 2. Possible alternatives for use of copper sulfate to control algae/duckweed 3. Landscaping best management practices(BMP) a. Pelican Bay Services Division employees utilization of BMP b. Pelican Bay community outreach regarding the importance of BMP 4. Audience Comments 5. Adjournment ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr.Chandler,all Subcommittee members were present. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES FOR USE OF COPPER SULFATE TO CONTROL ALGAE/DUCKWEED Chairman Cravens explained that algae and duckweed grow in fresh water bodies in Pelican Bay and there are instances where duckweed will become so prolific that it will cover the entire surface,depleting oxygen and sunlight killing plants and other organisms. The method of choice because of its cost-effectiveness is copper sulfate. However there is evidence of copper impairment in both fresh water lakes and in Clam Bay and the goal of this Subcommittee is to address the problem which is caused by excessive and improper use of fertilizer. Mr.Lukasz explained that the Services Division uses copper sulfate primarily to control algae;and ' r . (Diquat)to control duckweed.He presented alternative methods to using copper sulfate in the freshwater including introducing bacteria;introducing bacteria in conjunction with aeration to increase levels of,G..vt vex oxygen and reduce nutrients and algae blooms;applying herbicide(Hydrothol);and installing sonar tl which physically breaks up algae,but was not recommended. Mr.Lukasz recommended using bacteria in conjunction with aeration and littoral .14,.'1 ,—• o 6 d implement in fresh water lakes in Basin III to test effectiveness of reducing nutrients and alg.'- , . °_'1 o, electric power for aeration is available in Basin III and would not require pure , e insta ore costly . ,,• solar-powered aerators. The Subcommittee agreed with Mr.Lukasz'recommendation to test a,,,,,r-,tw- of introducing bacteria with aeration and littoral plantings in Basin III fresh Ovate .2 i el : i. research the cost, lib 13 r Landscape Water Management Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board October 18,2012 • - including pre and post bacteria water quality monitoring of nutrient and copper levels;and the cost to monitor nutrient and copper levels in all fresh water lakes communitywide. The Subcommittee would recommend this to the full Board on November 7. Mr.Dallas suggested that prior to implementation in the lakes to inform the abutting associations. LANDSCAPING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES(BMP) PBSD EMPLOYEES' UTILIZATION OF BMP Chairman Cravens observed that although PBSD employees were trained and certified in landscaping BMP,employees do not utilize landscaping BMP in the field. PELICAN BAY COMMUNITY OUTREACH REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF BMP The Subcommittee discussed developing a video or publication to educate residents about the importance of landscaping BMP;monitoring nutrient levels of the Services Division's fresh water lakes and maintaining a separate database from the Foundation.Chairman Cravens and Dr.Trecker would draft separate proposals to discuss at the next Subcommittee meeting. PRESENTATIONS Vice Chairman Cravens presented photographs of the south berm restoration project and information about white fly ficus infestation,treatments,and alternative plantings. ADJOURNMENT Dr. Trecker made a motion,second by Mr.Dallas to adjourn. The Subcommittee voted unanimously in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 2:36 p.m. Tom Cravens,Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick 10/24/2012 1:07:16 PM 14 November 7,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5b.Administrator's Report-Landscape intersection improvements(Comments by Phil and Judy Gutermuth) Page 1 of 1 From:judesterz @aol.com [mailto:judesterz @aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 7:17 PM To: office @pelicanbayservicesdivision.net Subject: Median Landscaping Mr. Chairman, We have just returned for the fall and winter. We were VERY DISAPPOINTED in the LACK of annuals planted in the medians. The perennial landscaping is attractive, but the lack of flowers is extremely noticeable at the intersections of PB Blvd. and Myra Daniels, North Pointe and Hammock Oak. There are NO FLOWERS, just the green ground cover which is very dull and way too much. A little of that goes a long way. I would think you would want some color and flowers especially in the area at the Phil. We hope you will reconsider and plant some beautiful flowers as we have had many years in the past at these intersections. Thanks for your consideration. Phil and Judy Gutermuth St. Maarten A • B;4 \ / LP-4 : MATCHLINE P 2 . . . , " \ i \ 7 \ o..4 0■ • 4 OI 4< • < 4 E.1 - 4*i •' 1 / ' 0 6 T, • *., .,•44 -7 2- • t ', 4 \ , '• * 44,01:4 ' (c.". l , , 4" .) ,:,.: Opp. N -. 51.tA1/74°4 0 /— 's I 6,4,415 It I 6 , tr_j°Sr° 1 V \• ..• ' ( „ ; tio A,,, 4) , 6 i ONI I "• I 1 . 1 \ i 0,00.0 c. 1 I I \\\ 4,0.■0 1'1 V \\ \ °AP° ;J t■ * 6 k \ ■ \ IAA i \' • \ A ‘ Vo°• ' ' - ,,, \,■ r,i,,. 01V00':., ‘ ' \\ k ■■ • ' \ 0 \ , \, ,■ Fz`71;,77 A 1 A 3 _••. I 1> \ \P 4 i 5 :' ' t 4, •\ ‘ • g \ \'••Nol ii N s 4 g" ' ‘ ,f1. • I ,f ' 4 4:4 4. I 44 \ - 2 1 t 4 ,T, ; 3 1 ‘ . • > l'-- •.#4.1>''''- :.', 1.„4,--.1-<7. \ /• ,•4". *0 g g , !: j i I 14,\41:44 • •"'144..,... It. • 1 '7" ' I • ,4 4?i t. " -5. ° ' '/' 'fi., ,,,!. 11 s =- , ,7., ,ff /1, \ 1, 1..4*. ,, - ,',' _ • 0\\ \ 4, : P 1 a - , - . 1. ■ ,I- \ \ .,r °. R.1 1" 3 5 er6 6■ r' s', 4, , I /z 4 \ , \ ' I / /.. ' • \ s' g"- ■1 . _ \\\„ . , 'i \- :,j/.4110,'''',2 _ !•, , i ; oe,‘.\ . / , -' '+' ett•t• ir,> '' x 1 g ' °•:°%. \\ \ - ■ • • -:,•":2. • 9 <,i A( o'C3 ,;.,g ',' : : : 1 4 '\ \ • a - , 4 ■ , '= ' "..'.., e 3 Le 1 2 fl' • `' . r— - * ' t \- 5 2 \ ...4 .4, ,, • .0 • ) • ,• •• °.4- 1 •.-•z..'/,41\ '• 4. g i,--," -t,° • ,, i"-*/ N • 4 \ ''. c./• ----el \ • 44. • • g- ° / ' 4 ''• i 4 s*O•°,k\48: %•-% z-'- .1 \I ° • , ------- , 4, \\ ' , ..,.0, .-,--; , ,\,i < __- .07.013... \ \• • ci;,Aret 0,51,J° # ,( 3 g' \ \\‘ i• '4,51:1•% ' z , / iT," i \ \ • 'L r-, '4955'53 ''''' \ \\, 4■• ' MS.4 i e \ \ OW090 i , • oi,94,06,o 0 °6:690•-,,t \ \ -ourajk ' .; "..)10 \ ■ -._ 4,,„5 74 -i -. 03 ■.# 55,151... ••14 --. rlaa). 14 13 ril■-r- -" -' kt,Z442*- zi ° -I •-• ., Z Z Z > > It.g ,,, cq m ,,, , - . 0 • • • • r • • ,.- F, - 8. ,g v' c---iS s- = , - - <9. %•:',,,,,:tr'...• ; . Le, 1. 2 i i 'i i i ..g. ,',0.G i a, A 'z' ,-71,1 .5* 7" '• f 1 1 I • : : 1•11,15 g !, 7' 6 7 , - r z -1. ; O lq i R- 7 i s- 2 t- g ::,-, G 0 0 '• -"- - t;4 , „ ,, . F . .. „ ,„„z ,..., -Z- • v.i.Fo's 2. .65 3. • 3. 0. 0_ ,_ 61 .1 t55_,56,.., r.,..r ID ,._,‘ P•• E < a ): WI,s'''' -A. ‘slr'' ' '4 co ' < , a 1°. "I t"' Z •■ '•• ' a_ 12.• • 44, a ,;-;,i -t. ;.7. . : i : F • •-:". FC 8. •••:• 17 ‘ •,,, .: 9- 2- ,'.-.4 h .,.„ 4,g- 2, t •‘• o .0 • • itl. -111 159 g . ; ti 1 '. i Ea < 3' . ‘,7 o • -'' i <5, I , MATCHLI , LP .. 0 ° = 5 • /* 3 Ve Y 4 LP-1 LP 0 • ••.4 co 5'5 ± - - - • _• 4,„-,4- 44, 1-' sT- '04 565, CL . t ciec „— . • '6' E.2.EZL°4 3 : : 7 7 7 '3e I .n.P. 1 1 "S 7 •4.*:. r 9 gl- °i' r.O.t 1 ri j t.4 At, ` Q. M -° 9 ' ' ' :, ' -4/, ' -• " I.., ''' g •• ; A iv. r- • 4,, -e -1 f * f. ' - -= • 11 1 • g • Z r VI -381 a a a ,,6 a ge • ,7,- ,,.- .--, . - 3 1 g .13" • ' Z,,,' g g . . z ? • ., , cr 4 ,b ) VICi• -3, •••;3••.` • i = -.7 -._ 1. ..7 _ . a g • o - %, .. g .:. g g F, g ,.., , s. ; E., .P`,.: , qp !, i- ..„ . .. ., ,-,.. g . . . 0 . „i„:„ .4 "•., %%V a r OLO 0 075P° 11 1 1 . =T PBSD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Seal&Signature J g. .g 33 GOETZ+STROPES ji MYRA J. DANIELS BLVD AT PELICAN BAY BLVD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. NAPLES,FLORIDA 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 11 Ig 3= t.239.643.0077 www.gsnaples.com .4 PLANTING PLAN E-mail egoetz@gsnaples.com /bbromley@gsnaples.com ,.. K) 1'3 Elfin Goetz-FL#1152 November 7,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6ai. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Recommended approach* Page 1 of 2 September 24,2012 Ad-Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways&Trees of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 2. Discussion of draft approach for studying pathways and trees"PBSD Pathways Project Draft 6.3" PBSD PATHWAYS PROJECT DRAFT 6.3 Purpose To provide the basis for an informed PBSD decision for community pathways and long-term tree canopy enhancements along Pelican Bay Blvd. Public Participation The entire project will be designed to encourage public participation.As each phase of analysis is developed,the process and results of analysis will be presented in open town hall type meetings that encourage public questions and comments. The final recommendations will only be developed after the analysis phase is completed, and will be based on the consensus of the community's reactions. Step 1: Select Experts - Engineer; and - Certified Arborist (details regarding possible ways to choose the arborist will be discussed at the September 24 Committee meeting) Step 2: Experts' Assignment - Evaluate selected and representative large trees along length of Pelican Bay Boulevard to determine tree health and remaining lifetime, using 10-15 trees in 2 sections: o The Commons to North Tram Station, and o Northeast of North Tram Station to US 41 - Evaluate impact of various root barriers and pathway widths on selected and representative nearby trees in the above sections, for the following scenarios: o Existing 5-foot pathway o 6-foot pathway o 8-foot pathway - Evaluate impact to selected trees of County's recent asphalt overlay - Evaluate cost and impact to trees of using alternative materials to construct pathways: o Asphalt o Concrete - Produce written analysis documenting the above work that is specific, complete, and that can be understood by the community and PBSD Board Step 3: PBSD Board's Assignment - Conduct a statistically sound resident survey regarding: o Frequency of use of pathways for walking,jogging, and biking o Frequency of use of Blvd. for biking o Determine preference for marking Blvd. for bicycle lanes: • Keep Blvd. as is; or • Restripe with one 12-foot lane for vehicles; and one 12- foot lane dedicated to bicycles; or • Restripe with one 12-foot lane for vehicles only; and one 12-foot lane to be shared by both vehicles and bicycles(Sharrow); or • Restripe with two 10-foot lanes for vehicles; and one 4-foot lane for bicycles - Have staff revisit County practice and codes for pathways and bicycle usage Page 1 of 2 November 7,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6ai. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Recommended approach* Page 2 of 2 September 24,2012 Ad-Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways&Trees of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 2. Discussion of draft approach for studying pathways and trees"PBSD Pathways Project Draft 6.3" PBSD PATHWAYS PROJECT DRAFT 6.3 Step 4: Develop Recommended Approach - Board and staff will recommend a comprehensive approach to be used for pathways and tree canopy along Pelican Bay Blvd, including: o Type of root barriers o Pathway widths o Pathway materials o Recommended changes to the tree canopy - The recommendations will also incorporate estimated cost to implement and general implementation schedule - Report will be broadly disseminated to the community and discussed at public town hall session during season Step 5: Board Makes Final Decision Regarding: - Type, width, and placement of pathways and tree canopy - Bicycle markings for Blvd. - Possible timing - Actual vote to occur in season, after specifics have been broadly disseminated to the community Revised 9/14/2012 3:06:15 PM KID&LRJ Page 2 of 2 November 7,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6aiii.Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Resident Survey(by Keith J.Dallas,Chairman) _ Page 1 of 2 PBSD Resident Survey Pathways/Bike Lanes Overall Objectives • Survey a statistically selected group of residents (or all) regarding their usage and views on pathways and potential bike lanes. • Chairman and staff outline possible survey, to be reviewed by Ad Hoc Pathway Subcommittee. • Then work with professional firm to finalize and administer survey. • Survey should be specific enough that all responders are working with the same facts, • But short enough that residents will complete the survey. Specifically • Questions should be designed to avoid begging the question. • Should the survey be mailed (?) to all (?) residents? • Pathways o Ask about current usage of pathways, and bike riding on pathways versus Boulevard. o Ask if people are comfortable with current pathways, and if not, why. o When conflicts occur between trees and pathway maintenance, which is more important? Maybe describe alternative approaches and ask if they agree/disagree. o Should the PBSD be spending money maintaining pathways if County does not? • Bike Lanes o Describe different approaches to bike lanes on PBB and have residents rank their preferences: • No Bike Lanes • Dedicate one 12 foot lane to bikes. • Reduce vehicular lanes to 10 foot each, and add 4 foot bike lane. • Sharrow • Repaving PBB Earlier o Describe option of loaning County funds to resurface PBB o County would repay PBSD at future date. o Should PBSD consider loaning the money? November 7,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6aiii.Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Resident Survey(by Keith J.Dallas,Chairman) Page 2 of 2 _ • Landscaping o Ask if people like new landscaping? o Leave space for comments. o Should we be considering changes at our 3 entrances off US41? • Landscaping? • Brick Pavers? • Lighting o Describe need to replace lighting, and current funding plan. o Describe approach of new LED lighting on extensions to afford better lighting. o Describe schedule for replacement originally envisioned. o Should we be accelerating that schedule? o Should we be also considering replacing poles when replacing fixtures? KID 11/6/12 November 7,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6ci. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee-Copper impairment in upland ponds A Page 1 of 5 From:James Hoppensteadt[mailto:jimh @pelicanbay.org] Sent:Sunday,October 14,2012 11:03 PM To:Jerry Moffatt; Mary Johnson;Noreen Murray; Robert W. Uek; robpender @gmail.com; Ronnie Bellone(vbellnpls @yahoo.com); Suzanne Minadeo;William Carpenter Cc:'Keith Dallas'; neil @dmgfl.com; McAlpinGary; LukaszKyle; ResnickLisa;daniel.hammond @cardno.com;Tim Hall; Doug.Durbin @cardno.com;Sherona Mills; Bridget Nunez; Frank Laney;JohnSusanBoland @aol.com Subject: FW: FDEP response to Clam Bay comments Importance: High Attached is the letter Dan Hammond received from FDEP on copper impairment and dissolved oxygen. Dan's comments are below. The results are exactly as we had hoped for. First let me emphasize how fortunate we are to be represented by such exceptional professionals and have such valued relationships. As you know,it was the County's staff which first caught wind of FDEP's recent focus on Clam Bay. Because of our established working relationship,the County included the Foundation immediately in discussions. We were able to harness the expertise and ongoing work of Dan Hammond and Tim Hall,and Dan was able to craft well supported technical letters to FDEP. The contacts and relationships of both the County,and our professional consultants were important factors as well as we reached out proactively to FDEP. Really an outstanding example of the power of effective public-private partnerships and of being prepared strategically—in this case,both outcomes of our last 18-months of working with the County on water quality,Clam Bay markers,and dredging. However,as you will see,we still have work to do on the copper impairment issue. Dan Hammond and Tim Hall are working with Kyle Lukasz on reducing the use of copper sulfate and helping to identify alternates. This effort will have to be a priority of both the PBSD and the Foundation involving not only significant operational changes—which may require more funding,but also substantial education of the community about what is being done and why. Attached is the letter I received today from FDEP in response to the comments we submitted regarding the DO and copper issues in Clam Bay. It is good news on both fronts;here is a brief synopsis... Dissolved Oxygen—FDEP agreed with our assessment of DO in Clam Bay and that Clam Bay exhibits healthy biological conditions. They have agreed to move Clam Bay to a category 4c for DO,which means that no TMDL will be pursued. Clam Bay DO is a natural condition and does not constitute an impairment. Copper—It was good to get our comments on file with FDEP,but they have decided to continue with the impairment listing for copper. It will be finalized in December or January. The good news is that they have given it a medium priority,which means they will not move forward with TMDL development for at least 5 years. This gives us plenty of time to generate a water quality management plan for copper and get it approved by FDEP. Once approved and implemented,FDEP can move Clam Bay to a category 4e or 4b,both of which mean they can remove the waterbody from the list of waters needing a TMDL. So although there is still more work to do with regard to copper(which we expected),we are already on the right track and we have plenty of time to avoid TMDL development. Daniel G.Hammond SENIOR PROJECT SCIENTIST CARDNO ENTRIX Sincerely, Jim Hoppensteadt President Chief Operating Officer :Y 14 Pelican Bay Foundation,Inc. 6251 Pelican Bay Blvd. Naples,Florida 34108 Tel: 239.260.8460 Cell: 239.398.7074 Fax: 239.597.6927 pelicanbay.org *****The information transmitted is intended only for person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review,dissemination,distribution 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. ***** November 7,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6ci. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee-Copper impairment in upland ponds Page2of5 . , RICK SCOTT FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNOR "OPP �� n � ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION JENNIFER CARROLL £r BOB MARTINEZ CENTER LT.GOVERNOR 2600 BLAIRSTONE ROAD VallIMMENOW TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA 32399-2400 HERSCHEL T.VINYARD.IR. SECRETARY October 8,2012 Mr.Daniel G.Hammond Cardno ENTRIX 3905 Crescent Park Drive Riverview,FL 33578 Dear Mr.Hammond: Thank you for your comments regarding the draft assessments for the Everglades West Coast basin. It is important that we receive input from interested stakeholders to ensure accurate assessments of Florida's waters. This letter is in response to your comment letters received via e-mail dated July 25 and 31,2012. In the evaluation of these waterbodies,our assessment takes into consideration whether the results are representative of the current conditions of the waterbody. Please keep in mind that the assessments you commented on were conducted in June and all of the WaterBody IDentification assessment units (WBIDs)identified in your letter will be reassessed using the most recent data available to produce revised assessments. Your questions and/or comments are provided below,or excerpts when comments included graphs and tables or were lengthy; with our response immediately following. Cardno ENTRIX—Clam Bay Cooper comment:The current dataset used to evaluate Clam Bay for copper conforms to the requirements of the Impaired Waters Rule(62-303,F.A.C.);however the existing data may not provide an accurate representation of current conditions with respect to copper concentrations. Of the 12 exceedances observed in the samples,five have associated comments stating that a small or moderate amount of particulate was observed in the sample. These comments indicate that error may have occurred during sample collection. Since all of the exceedances were observed in Middle and Upper Clam Bay,where flushing is lowest and potential re-suspension of sediments is greatest,the potential for error during sample collection is also greatest. The comments associated with the analysis state that the copper concentration was confirmed in the undigested sample. While this may confirm that the preservative itself may not have contributed to the copper concentration in the sample,it does not mean that sampler error didn't contribute to the concentration. Since FDEP Standard Operating Protocols dictate the sample for copper be preserved in the field with nitric acid,a proportion of particulate would be dissolved during preservation and release copper into the water. Therefore,even in the undigested sample,the potential exists for particulates in the bottle to result in an unrepresentative amount of copper observed during analysis. Based on the comments associated with the copper analyses,it is appropriate to conduct further sampling that include split field filtered and unfiltered samples to confirm observed copper concentrations accurately reflect current conditions and are not associated with effects of sample collection. • November 7,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6ci. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee-Copper impairment in upland ponds Page 3 of 5 Daniel G.Hammond Page 2 October 8,2012 Aside from the potential issues with copper analysis,the Foundation and Collier County recognize that the major freshwater inputs to Clam Bay are associated with stormwater discharge. In an effort to identify the potential effect this discharge may have on Clam Bay,the Foundation and Collier County are currently working together with Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc.to develop a water quality management action plan to identify potential water quality issues and implement solutions where necessary. This plan includes four distinct management efforts: 1)Mapping the flow of water through the developed areas to Clam Bay;2)Soil analysis to improve fertilization techniques;3) Water quality monitoring to identify sources of potential contaminants and document improvements following action plan implementation;and 4)Landscape management through the creation of a guidebook providing protocols for fertilizer,herbicide,and pesticide application. This effort will allow for the identification of potential sources of copper to Clam Bay,provide and implement source control solutions(if necessary)and monitor the effectiveness. Finalization of a copper impairment in Clam Bay and development of a TMDL at this time may hinder or slow current management plans designed to improve water quality in Clam Bay by diverting scarce water resource management funds to a TMDL driven implementation plan from the current stakeholder, locally driven water quality management effort. In summary,the Pelican Bay Foundation,Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department and Cardno ENTRIX request the Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)allow Clam Bay(WBID 3278Q1)to remain on the Planning List for copper during this cycle and allow the affected stakeholders to implement the currently developed management action plan. Leaving Clam Bay on the Planning List for copper would allow the affected stakeholders to work with FDEP to implement a robust sampling plan to identify if the perceived impairment is representative of actual conditions in Clam Bay or the result of sample collection efforts. In addition,stakeholders will implement the management action plan,identify if copper is an issue in stormwater runoff, propose and implement solutions(where necessary)and monitor the improvement to Clam Bay. If an actual copper impairment exists in Clam Bay,the implementation of the management plan will document improvement and allow the locally affected stakeholders to continue cost effective water quality management and oversight of this key southwest Florida water resource. FDEP Response-Clam Bay Cooper: Clam Bay(WBID 3278Q1)is impaired for copper based on meeting the requirements of the Impaired Waters Rule(IWR rule:62-303,F.A.C.)with 12 exceedances/25 samples during the cycle 3 verified period(January 1,2005—June 30,2012). As you state in your comment,of the 12 exceedances observed in the samples,five had comments stating a small or moderate amount of particulate was observed in the sample. This comment was provided to indicate that during the lab analysis particulates were observed in the samples;however,undigested samples were analyzed and those results confirmed that copper was in fact dissolved in the water. The relative percent difference between the undigested and digested results was less than 20%. Even if these 4 samples were excluded from the assessment,Clam Bay would still be identified as impaired for Copper based on 7 exceedances/20 samples. The seven other copper exceedances(with similar results and no particulate matter observed in the samples)were well above the 3.7 pg/L threshold indicating a copper impairment for Clam Bay. A water quality management action plan designed to address stormwater discharges and other potential sources of copper(including marinas and algaecide applications)could be used as the basis for placing the waterbody in category 4e(Impaired,but recently completed or on-going restoration activities are underway to restore the designated uses of the waterbody)or even Category 4b (reasonable assurance). However,we need detailed documentation,and it seems highly unlikely that r . November 7,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6ci. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee-Copper impairment in upland ponds Page 4 of 5 - Daniel G.Hammond Page 3 October 8,2012 a - a plan could be completed before the scheduled adoption of the Group 1 lists in December or January. Based on meeting the verification requirements of the IWR,we plan to place Clam Bay on the Group 1 Cycle 3 Everglades West Coast verified list for copper with a medium TMDL priority(5-10 years for TMDL development). A medium priority for TMDL development will give stakeholders time to develop a water quality management action plan that could potentially lead to the removal of Clam Bay from the Verified list. FDEP requests that,once the water quality management action plan is completed by stakeholders,it be provided to the Department for review and documentation of how copper will be addressed in Clam Bay. FDEP has provided on the enclosed disk an example of the support documentation used for placing Clam Bayou in category 4e(Ongoing Restoration Activiti?s), and general guidance on reasonable assurance(category 4b). Cardno ENTRIX—Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen comment: FDEP has proposed to list Clam Bay(WBID 3278Q1)as a category 4d impairment for DO as part of the Group 1 Cycle 3 TMDL assessment. Category 4d listings are submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA)and added to Florida's 303(d)list of impaired waters. This listing would indicate Clam Bay is impaired for DO,but no causative pollutant could be identified,and target the waterbody for further evaluation to identify a causative pollutant so a TMDL could be developed. However,data and analysis provided here suggests that a category 4d listing is not appropriate for Clam Bay. A more accurate category would be 4c,which would recognize that Clam Bay does not meet the current DO criteria as a result of natural conditions,and not caused by a pollutant,therefore eliminating the need for a TMDL. FDEP has concluded that Estero Bay WBID 3258A represents natural conditions with minimal anthropogenic influence and is an adequate reference waterbody(FDEP 2008). The data provided in this Technical Memorandum indicate Clam Bay exhibits a statistically similar DO regime to this reference estuary segment,therefore concluding Clam Bay DO also represents a natural condition. FDEP does not intend to list marine systems with naturally low DO as impaired and acknowledges that natural estuaries in areas surrounded by mangrove forests or tidal marshes(of which Clam Bay is an example)are especially subject to low DO(FDEP 2012b and Hendrickson et al 2003). Furthermore, biological evidence suggests Clam Bay functions as a healthy estuary. The diversity of invertebrates recorded in the estuary, and the presence of indicator and oxygen sensitive species indicate that the DO regime in Clam Bay is supporting a healthy biological community. Based on the data and analysis provided here,a category 4c listing for Clam Bay provides a more appropriate water resource management goal than the proposed category 4d listing. The Pelican Bay Foundation,Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department and Cardno ENTRIX respectfully request FDEP change the proposed listing for Clam Bay(WBID 3278Q1)from a category 4d to a 4c listing. Upon finalization of the revised DO criteria for marine waters,it will be appropriate for Clam Bay to be removed from the 4c category for DO with the determination that the DO regime in Clam Bay meets the revised DO criteria. FDEP—Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen response: The Department has reviewed the Clam Bay dissolved oxygen technical memorandum prepared by Cardno Entrix and based on the demonstration that Clam Bay supports a healthy biological community and has a similar DO regime to the reference November 7,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6ci. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee-Copper impairment in upland ponds Page5of5 Daniel G.Hammond Page 4 October 8,2012 waterbody Estero Bay(WBID 3258A1)we have determined that 4c is the appropriate assessment category. The Department appreciates Cardno ENTRIX taking the time to submit comments on the draft lists for the Group 1 basin. Your input helps the Department in producing better assessments. If you have additional questions about our response or the assessments,please contact the Environmental Manager for the basin,David Tyler: (850)-245-8458,David.TylerQdep.state.fl.us or me: (850)-245-8416, ilie.Espy(a)dep.state.fl.us Sincerely, caotit:Lt,t925, Julie Espy Environmental Administrator Watershed Assessment Section Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration 2600 Blair Stone Rd, MS3560 Tallahassee,FL 32399-2400 N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN NM N N • 1 T T T T T T T T T T O T ; , . r . c ; . , ; r w 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 G 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 33 3 3 0 0 n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn nn n n m m w m w m . w m w m m m w m m w co w m o 0 CO CO CO N N N N N N O O O W N N \ \\\ t,i I m\■ w o 0 0 1-+ y D N N N N N N N 1st N N N\ N N N N N N N O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 00 O O N N N N N N V F N . . N so . 31101111.,, 111001130130, n..> 1111111.„..11111111111143: 111111111111111111111111111111 a rver re r w r w 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 El 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 <s D A a a a a a D a A a a a a a a a s a s a a N co m m m m m m m ri 10 m m m m m m m m m m m m A A A A A A A A F A A A A A A A A A A 70 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c C c C c C c c c C C c CC, c C n m Jm 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 m i m m Jm m Jm m Jm Jm CM D N . N N o w IV 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 33 3 3Q a a 'if') a a a a a a a a a -f'1; a 'S-I> a s a s a a m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m n s S? 8 n n n n n n n n 8 nnnn n n n n n n 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M a a a a a a a v a a a s a s a s a A a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a s a a a A m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 2 m m T. 3, =`; _ 2 Z O G N w s 00 00 w N U w N ~O 00 ° V N W 00 N d w V of N N V . t0 r+ w , " , w w 0] IN , g. 2. Qp pppp pppp pppp ppyy pppp pppp� pppp yypp �ppp pp pp �p pp pp pp pp (_ \ \ \\ \\\\\ Q. \\\ \ U\\ \ \ N. \ ~ ∎ N O O 4.-D.--7-----7 CO \I-.° OJ 0-1 -7 D \ \ v V O A 0N w . N.... \ 0 N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O o " , „ O0 0 O0 o Oo a . N to N N N N N N . . . .. . . . . . V , . . 1'' r . N O O O N . w w w F• O 1-• .Co. W t'-o' OD lO G 3 o O N N O f' 4 O . 1., -.1a,N O w O w O . y N DO 00 O O1 A w O A 10 OJ w w V w 3 .. O a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O in N co 9 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 O O O O 'p O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O d <W cWC W< <W< 0c<0 GWG 0CC0 cW< bCo CWC a cW< WeC co <W< cW< cW< We coC asC a N < < G G < < < < < < G G < G < G < G G G G O c 7 Q) Z all O e0 =' 3 1 1 • 1 0 1 1 1 + 1 0^ 1 • 0 D + 1 O O M n j CD 0 m 03 Cmmm — m m — > 003 cam : 3 J : 3 03 2 2 . 8 8 0 0 0 ' o o `° o_ m = ^ 0 o 3 O 3 3 .-v a v a m v Do m 1 A T " O o 3 N -0 3 = N a a as 7 - m ' T, m m m m m N 3 a N o W..-4 n 2 a m ' m ' 3 ''--' O 3 = 3 O O O O 3 3 T, '- 3,a 5- co �3 N C c . ., = - 3 m o A a `F; a 3 m a n a m m m v c N a o a r a 3 > o 3 o .o ' a ' -- N x 3 3 H 1 N m m N a i Nv 'n v a a C m e am 2 a `3n co 881282 070 J m m m - 3 3 3 3 3 3 ', m = = m 0 m w f0 n 3 N Z. a a a N a v „ 0 W 6' m m 3o > > > > > 3o °c32323m a 3 9' m '.'' 0 3 C) CO A oN °N\ N o o m m 3 0 3o D oa. D a N 00 m 0 1°�0 10�o N\ g J °c 3 m 3 m '0 aU L;3' O_ N\ N N O O n J O - 0 e O a N 3 O O O O O O DO CO o "_ -. 3 co - - '•" 0 fD 3 co 3 0) m ap C ~ ~ 0 J J o o S 0 J- C w w D D n m » c d s IU 3 m< m J ,'• 8 8 3 0 0 fD p 0 °,00 °.-`10 3 0 0 01 m 0 3 n s a m a m as co N 3 m °c m v p v p < Vi 1z 1l J 3 ; n � ; 5 ^ ° oo o 3 o p) J S a d 1 3 i.. v�»i J 3 m M " Po' a O ry * O d O 0 N N J N J W O O 2 0_ • a J a 0' 0 J 0). `3 3 3 ~ 0 7 m m s- 3 O TO' p p 3 0 a a a v a a n a n .. a N 5 - ; J m N•3 3 0 5 w 3 3 p a a m m m o '" m a a n Q m 97 1 0 o n 8 3 3 1 3 N 0 0 a m m a amam� N N 5 ,3 .3. 3 m m a0 O a 0. a '00 3 O O O J 3 J N N a N N 3 0 a m a a 3 a IIiHIIIIHI o N CD CD a1 Ilillit 1:111111111111/111 0 -o I w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w p - c - - - D c - A N O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 C . cc,a 00 v v 00 a 00 a 00 00 a 00 00 00 00 a s 00 00 00 00 , w S CO ca •3 o * m * * * * * * * v * * * F * c C m 0 0100 (0010003 m 0 (0010 m 0 m 3 0 N O w w 0 c g c c c c m m m c c c c c ' z c c E c c c ' c *, a a, , .3 < .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 -2 .3 .3 .. x m m a) -c _cm Rs s) — -0 N �O U 0.O __73 O - • O O N 0 0 O Q- O ,C C• 3 °N' N ° CO CU > m VI CO Q 0 - N tin t/� in- • o ci 03 a, ca Y S. p CO s 1-' `° E a) O j N N a > U N +� N > (,�� +U—, CO > C cn OL N — Q a) _ •ZS c co O E OD N + CU _ O w C 0 +. C U CO + 4- CO •E 0 O Ol O • CO- f° Q ' rl e-I N Jl i0 N N i N c 1- U te ,<i:' al m CD I. > o 4-, a) CD a ' 0 a + C) W if)- V). t C C O a) O > L t ++ CO U• U 4) .� .4-1 U E a O N N by ateo 0 E v co V v N V O C 4-0 CO CO O > >` a' aJ +L-+ ca ( 0- O cu Cr CU ~ N W w E U'- tio v) U C N U N C U 'in -a E C co C . N v N C as C cp O v >. a x a) m c� U +' co co °?i 4_, CO O to (D ._ O To> Q ▪ O Q � C i vs C N N Q, o a� 3Cp aJ C a..' U O 4 ' C C L CO \ .� N !° O N a) -O s_ cNi O • �-' Co E a) N t 'N. C •.... N •J .W C Q O C O O CO co .5 N (� > o ▪- J S Q O C � t U D LS co C6 O a-' N C W U c +' -O O N S. E fa O N 0 i U a ' o '� a cv v CD } cB ' f° 1—N E E Q — 0 C -0 N c-I N Q c°a1 Q F- E c � O t° Q O w � �+ v N .�F CO O N 4A a.., -0 > cC cV) CO • • • - - • Dui a i a , i000iogoliooipolilli\ -' - ' A .. ., , , % , 7,-- . . .7.7., r r.:,e,,,,„.%4": \ii.,411F",-...- ,,,,cirfseo.,' ' -4*".- .4r:, -„4„,-.4.:44,,,,, ,,,, :'-li-°74-,1 ,iip..„4:41:40,,,,l -- -,.'14 -; • ell4411 tilt , . 1 k.,ea, , ' .‘0000,1401091...../..,,,,,■.' , v 44a .tI ' It • ,•gy s 460 , ,,i,:-. , . . Iv '..to-,, ' . " r' '''' 4 i 4 4.•'':0•4, 4t ''rilliO fi.'„, :::.,t 4,A.17, At. ,:, ...._., ,,,,,,„ . . ,.- ..„.., . 4.„,,..1*.„„: , .,:... ._. .„, . a r a ` A a s - 7 „ tri", ..,:t:alik,,, 1"' Ar,_,,,,,,,„4.0...ttft:j',"- C Niiiiip..WW It. ,..:041et * , ,--0 t .A. ;. a�+ .. UP '.3,a. H 1. , z 4.11ffi':,a ,.r CD (D k R j( s CD co t C N I t s ...aa� q ." 4•• • v • w op �;, 7 -te. ta , - N ,',4r- ; ,,, -`.,-.- - ' 11110 444. r 3 w r ' tkkrit- i''.i fA ,4i.- ',--el.ist,.44$4,..—e„ -.ti 0 e, _.,..„. . . a A-. 1,,, O OD X47 t } O c- %.,42.11.. 4.14., f ....„.r.. t. vii,,, 0##, < . '“ . - � ,._,*;�''�++'r!�r, .ar.+a«rd... * -...d� -Gi.'�iirf:se.itt�&alilr�. -.'�w6°'!9'a+. o 7 .. ., ... may •46.7,4*.- 'irieST*101101900464401 o. ID - 4 -- -.,-,* - ft. *- is.1 . ,,o, ,t,.. -It p• 4, , , .., ,.„. == t �► If o 4 Pelican Bay Services • Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-September 30,2012 Operating Fund 109-FY 2012 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments 1,125,852.26 Interest Receivable - Improvements,Vehicles&Equipment 1,085,189.35 Due from Property Appraiser - Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets $ 2,211,041.61 Total Assets $ 2,211,041.61 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 17,017.39 Accrued Wages Payable . - Goods Received/Inventory Recvtd 49,776.03 Total Liabilities $ 66,793.42 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 1,292,615.54 Excess Revenues(Expenditures) 851,632.65 Total Fund Balance 2,144,248.19 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 2,211,041.61 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit . Income Statement w/Budget-September 30,2012 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 666,300.00 666,300.00 642,129.26 (24,170.74) Special Assessment-Right of Way Beautification 1,907,800.00 1,907,800.00 1,838,612.85 (69,187.15) 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 15,300.00 10,135.29 (5,164.71) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,713,200.00 $ 3,711,700.00 $ 3,634,296.88 $ (77,403.12) Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense $ 41,400.00 $ 41,400.00 $ 39,723.50 $ 1,676.50 Emergency Maintenace and Repairs 8,800.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 400.00 400.00 - IT Office Automation/Billing Hr. 4,800.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 - Indirect Cost Reimbursement 84,500.00 84,500.00 84,500.00 - Inter Payment/Mnt.Site Ins. Assessment 13,400.00 13,400.00 13,400.00 - Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 26,900.00 26,360.00 540.00 Telephone 3,900.00 3,900.00 2,884.80 1,015.20 Postage and Freight 3,000.00 3,000.00 803.81 2,196.19 Rent Buildings and Equipment 11,300.00 11,300.00 10,706.22 593.78 Insurance-General 1,200.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 - Printing,Binding and Copying 2,300.00 2,300.00 2,007.50 292.50 Clerk's Recording Fees 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,133.00 (133.00) Advertising 2,000.00 2,000.00 820.80 1,179.20 Other Office and Operating Supplies 2,000.00 2,000.00 474.53 1,525.47 Training and Education 1,100.00 1,100.00 422.62 677.38 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,000.00 $ 200,200.00 $ 190,636.78 $ 9,563.22 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 132,800.00 $ 132,800.00 $ 127,303.41 $ 5,496.59 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 12,000.00 14,877.80 (2,877.80) Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 14,000.00 37,411.81 (23,411.81) Landscape Materials/Replanting Program 8,500.00 8,500.00 812.65 7,687.35 Interdepartmental Payment(Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 22,600.00 23,250.77 (650.77) Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 1,000.00 286.42 713.58 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 42,400.00 57,319.00 (14,919.00) Telephone 500.00 500.00 588.48 (88.48) Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 5,700.00 5,846.87 (146.87) Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 100.00 188.65 (88.65) Insurance-General 2,300.00 2,300.00 2,300.00 - Insurance-Auto 900.00 900.00 900.00 - Building Repairs&Mntc. 1,700.00 1,700.00 - 1,700.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 5,400.00 5,400.00 3,431.00 1,969.00 Fuel and Lubricants 8,900.00 8,900.00 2,957.10 5,942.90 Tree Triming 30,000.00 30,000.00 29,952.00 48.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 1,100.00 1,049.30 50.70 Page 1of3 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 500.00 2,252.28 (1,752.28) - - Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 98,400.00 71,782.20 26,617.80 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 1,500.00 602.50 897.50 Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 2,500.00 5,299.00 (2,799.00) Total Water Management Field Operating $ 394,300.00 $ 392,800.00 $ 388,411.24 $ 4,388.76 Right of Way Beautification-Operating Payroll Expense $ 42,600.00 $ 42,600.00 $ 40,925.42 $ 1,674.58 Emergency Repairs and Maintenance 7,400.00 - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 400.00 400.00 - Office Automation 14,100.00 14,100.00 14,100.00 - Other Contractural Services 34,300.00 34,300.00 29,635.00 4,665.00 Telephone 3,900.00 3,900.00 3,042.80 857.20 Postage 3,000.00 3,000.00 803.89 2,196.11 Rent Buildings/Equipment/Storage 12,500.00 12,500.00 11,621.39 878.61 Insurance-General 500.00 500.00 500.00 - Printing,Binding and Copying 2,600.00 2,600.00 540.50 2,059.50 Clerk's Recording 2,000.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 Legal Advertising 2,000.00 2,000.00 820.80 1,179.20 Office Supplies General 2,500.00 2,500.00 721.20 1,778.80 Training and Education 1,500.00 1,500.00 135.00 1,365.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 129,300.00 $ 121,900.00 $ 103,246.00 $ 18,654.00 Right of Way Beautification-Field Payroll Expense*decreased fewer employees $ 762,300.00 $ 762,300.00 $ 699,117.14 $ 63,182.86 Emergency Maintenance and Repairs 3,300.00 - - Flood Control(Water Use&Swale/Berm Mntc.) 89,900.00 89,900.00 84,556.29 5,343.71 Pest Control 5,000.00 5,000.00 8,325.00 (3,325.00) Landscape Incidentals 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,054.26 445.74 Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 29,500.00 27,891.00 1,609.00 Temporary Labor*increased from payroll 235,100.00 235,100.00 263,896.18 (28,796.18) Telephone 3,200.00 3,200.00 2,638.69 561.31 Electricity 3,400.00 3,400.00 2,044.15 1,355.85 Trash and Garbage 17,000.00 17,000.00 12,569.68 4,430.32 Rent Equipment 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,828.04 (328.04) Motor Pool Rental Charge 300.00 300.00 76.93 223.07 Insurance-General 8,800.00 8,800.00 8,800.00 - Insurance-Auto 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 - Building Repairs and Maintenance 1,700.00 1,700.00 46.70 1,653.30 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 25,100.00 25,100.00 37,434.12 (12,334.12) Fuel and Lubricants 67,300.00 67,300.00 45,942.95 21,357.05 Licenses,Permits,Training 800.00 800.00 101.94 698.06 Tree Triming 63,600.00 63,600.00 61,210.50 2,389.50 Clothing and Uniforms 9,400.00 9,400.00 5,753.14 3,646.86 Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 3,000.00 2,405.27 594.73 Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 62,000.00 57,237.91 4,762.09 Landscape Maintenance 46,000.00 46,000.00 49,801.50 (3,801.50) Mulch/Landscape Materials 53,100.00 53,100.00 30,678.25 22,421.75 Pathway Repairs 6,000.00 6,000.00 - 6,000.00 Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 30,000.00 11,717.49 18,282.51 Painting Supplies 800.00 800.00 28.66 771.34 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 3,000.00 2,036.81 963.19 Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 3,000.00 4,295.88 (1,295.88) Other Operating Supplies 9,000.00 9,000.00 6,071.95 2,928.05 Total Right of Way Beautification-Field Operating $ 1,556,600.00 $ 1,553,300.00 $ 1,439,560.43 $ 113,739.57 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,289,200.00 $ 2,268,200.00 $ 2,121,854.45 $ 146,345.55 Page 2 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 $ 2,364,800.00 $ 2,218,392.45 $ 146,407.55 Non-Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees 79,600.00 79,600.00 49,610.84 29,989.16 Property Appraiser Fees 73,300.00 73,300.00 39,294.58 34,005.42 Reserves(2 1/2 months for Operations) 538,000.00 538,000.00 538,000.00 - 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 $ 1,190,500.00 $ 1,126,505.42 $ 63,994.58 Total Expenditures $ 3,713,200.00 $ 3,555,300.00 $ 3,344,897.87 $ 210,402.13 Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ 156,400.00 $ 289,399.01 $ 132,999.01 Page 3 of 3 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-September 30,2012 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 422,004.95 Interest Receivable - Improvements,Vehicles& Equipment 54,386.52 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets $ 476,391.47 Total Assets $ 476,391.47 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 1,000.00 Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd 7,221.13 Accrued Wages Payable - Total Liabilities $ 8,221.13 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 194,157.20 Excess Revenue(Expenditures) 274,013.14 Total Fund Balance 468,170.34 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 476,391.47 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-September 30,2012 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 436,800.00 436,800.00 420,991.26 $ (15,808.74) Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax $ - Insurance Claim 18,330.25 $ 18,330,25 Interest 4,500.00 4,500.00 1,894.06 $ (2,605.94) Total Operating Revenues 598,900.00 598,900.00 598,815.57 (84.43) Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense $ 41,400.00 $ 41,400.00 $ 39,723.22 $ 1,676.78 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 5,300.00 $ 5,300.00 5,300.00 $ - Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 $ 26,900.00 25,860.00 $ 1,040.00 Telephone 3,900.00 $ 3,900.00 2,250.71 $ 1,649.29 Postage and Freight 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 803.79 $ 1,196.21 Rent Buildings/Equipment/Storage 12,100.00 $ 12,100.00 11,275.44 $ 824.56 Insurance-General 300.00 $ 300.00 300.00 $ - Office Supplies General 800.00 $ 800.00 15.36 $ 784.64 Other Office and Operating Supplies 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 - $ 1,000.00 Total Street Lighting Admin Operating 93,700.00 93,700.00 85,528.52 8,171.48 Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense 62,500.00 62,500.00 60,459.84 2,040.16 Emergency Maintenance& Repairs 9,600.00 - - - Other Contractual Services 800.00 800.00 - 800.00 Telephone 400.00 400.00 443.79 (43.79) Electricity 44,200.00 44,200.00 32,977.99 11,222.01 Insurance-General 800.00 800.00 800.00 - Insurance-Auto 900.00 900.00 900.00 - Building Maintenace&Repairs 1,700.00 1,700.00 - 1,700.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 4,300.00 4,300.00 3,546.73 753.27 Fuel and Lubricants 1,200.00 1,100.00 662.92 437.08 Other Equipment Repairs/Supplies 200.00 200.00 122.60 77.40 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 500.00 - 500.00 Electrical Contractors 7,300.00 7,300.00 6,424.90 875.10 Light Bulb Ballast 12,400.00 12,400.00 10,669.58 1,730.42 Page 1 of 2 Total Street Lighting Field Operating 146,800.00 137,100.00 117,008.35 20,091.65 Total Field Expenditures 240,500.00 230,800.00 202,536.87 28,263.13 Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery/Equipment 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 General Improvements - - - - Total Capital Expenditures 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Total Operating Expenditures 241,500.00 231,000.00 202,536.87 28,463.13 Non-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees 13,500.00 13,500.00 8,461.42 5,038.58 Property Appraiser Fees 8,900.00 8,900.00 - 8,900.00 Reserve for Future Construction 228,100.00 228,100.00 228,100.00 - Reserves(2 1/2 mos.for Operations) 54,900.00 54,900.00 54,900.00 - Reserves for Equipment 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 - Revenue Reserve 22,000.00 - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures 357,400.00 335,400.00 321,461.42 13,938.58 Total Expenditures 598,900.00 566,400.00 523,998.29 42,401.71 Net Profit/(Loss) - 32,500.00 74,817.28 42,317.28 Page 2 of 2 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-September 30,2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 305,554.95 Interest Receivable - Improvements,Vehicles&Equipment 287,297.40 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets 592,852.35 Total Assets $ 592,852.35 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 3,744.00 Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd 32,940.75 Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities 36,684.75 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 303,213.58 Excess Revenues(Expenditures) 252,954.02 Total Fund Balance 556,167.60 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 592,852.35 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-September 30,2012 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 127,100.00 127,100.00 122,463.43 (4,636.57) 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 1,962.74 1,262.74 Total Operating Revenues $ 451,311.88 $ 451,311.88 $ 449,352.50 $ (1,959.38) Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees $ 163,368.75 $ 163,368.75 $ 72,490.00 $ 90,878.75 Other Contractural Services 70,151.60 70,151.60 79,109.00 (8,957.40) Tree Trimming 29,000.00 29,000.00 - 29,000.00 Other Equipment Repairs 349.77 349.77 272.00 77.77 Aerial Photography 7,500.00 7,500.00 - 7,500.00 Minor Operating 588.01 588.01 - 588.01 Other Operating Supplies 1,000.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 Total Clam Bay Restoration $ 271,958.13 $ 271,958.13 $ 151,871.00 $ 120,087.13 Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees $ 7,253.75 $ 7,253.75 $ 37,144.50 $ (29,890.75) Other Contractual Services 143,000.00 243,000.00 827.95 242,172.05 Total Clam Bay Ecosystem $ 150,253.75 $ 250,253.75 $ 37,972.45 $ 212,281.30 Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 422,211.88 $ 522,211.88 $ 189,843.45 $ 332,368.43 Non-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 3,900.00 $ 3,900.00 $ 2,449.26 $ 1,450.74 Property Appraiser Fees 2,600.00 2,600.00 1,482.37 1,117.63 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 $ 22,400.00 $ 19,831.63 $ 2,568.37 Total Expenditures $ 451,311.88 $ 544,611.88 $ 209,675.08 $ 334,936.80 Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ (93,300.00) $ 239,677.42 $ 332,977.42 Page 1 of 1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-September 30,2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 2,628,155.13 Interest Receivable - Improvements,Vehicles&Equipment 1,213,800.81 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets 3,841,955.94 Total Assets $ 3,841,955.94 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 5,940.48 Goods Received Inv. Received 44,340.66 Total Liabilities 50,281.14 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 2,582,848.52 Excess Revenues(Expenditures) 1,208,826.28 Total Fund Balance 3,791,674.80 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 3,841,955.94 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-September 30,2012 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 331,900.00 331,900.00 319,749.48 (12,150.52) Transfer from Tax Collector 2,453.47 2,453.47 Interest 19,500.00 19,500.00 13,739.89 (5,760.11) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,341,284.04 $3,379,313.88 $ 38,029.84 Operating Expenditures: Irrigation&Landscaping Hardscape Project(50066) Engineering Fees $ 131,654.37 $ 131,654.37 $ 30,725.55 $ 100,928.82 Other Contractural Services 2,956,362.25 2,956,362.25 463,228.61 2,493,133.64 Sprinkler System Repairs 13,367.16 (13,367.16) Landscape material 160,449.99 (160,449.99) Permits 2,022.50 (2,022.50) Electrical 24,294.24 (24,294.24) Other Operating Supplies(Pavers) 39,568.70 39,568.70 46,804.50 (7,235.80) Other Road Materials 21,323.00 21,323.00 - 21,323.00 Traffic Sign Restoration Project(50103) Traffic Signs 50,000.00 50,000.00 21,080.00 28,920.00 Lake Bank Project(51026) Swale&Slope Maintenance 85,000.00 85,000.00 - 85,000.00 Engineering Fees 500.00 500.00 - 500.00 Other Contractural Services 22,275.72 22,275.72 - 22,275.72 Total Irrigation&Landscaping Expenditures $ 3,306,684.04 $ 3,306,684.04 $ 761,972.55 $ 2,544,711.49 Non-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 10,300.00 $ 10,300.00 $ 6,395.11 $ 3,904.89 Property Appraiser Fees 6,800.00 6,800.00 3,896.51 2,903.49 Reserve for Contingencies - - - - Revenue Reserve 17,500.00 - - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures: $ 34,600.00 $ 17,100.00 $ 10,291.62 $ 6,808.38 Total Expenditures $ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,323,784.04 $ 772,264.17 $ 2,551,519.87 Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ 17,500.00 $2,607,049.71 $ 2,589,549.71 Page 1 of 1 , Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-October 31,2012 Operating Fund 109-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments 988,896.37 Interest Receivable 1,273.99 Improvements,Vehicles&Equipment 1,085,189.35 Due from Property Appraiser 521.31 Due from Tax Collector 22,234.29 Total Current Assets $ 2,098,115.31 Total Assets $ 2,098,115.31 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 54,615.95 Accrued Wages Payable - Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd 29,836.30 Total Liabilities $ 84,452.25 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 900,302.49 Excess Revenues(Expenditures) 1,113,360.57 Total Fund Balance 2,013,663.06 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 2,098,115.31 ■ Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit - - Income Statement w/Budget-October 31,2012 Operating Fund 109-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward $ 951,600.00 $ 951,600.00 $ 951,600.00 $ - Special Assessment-Water Management Admin 695,000.00 - 0.09 0.09 Special Assessment-Right of Way Beautification 1,878,800.00 - - Charges for Services 1,500.00 - - - Surplus Property Sales Revenue Reserve (128,700.00) - Interest 15,800.00 1,316.67 (1,316.67) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,414,000.00 $ 952,916.67 $ 951,600.09 $ (1,316.58) Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense $ 42,000.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 1,864.91 $ 1,335.09 Emergency Maintenace and Repairs 8,800.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 200.00 - - - IT Office Automation/Billing Hr. 4,600.00 - Indirect Cost Reimbursement 85,100.00 - - - Inter Payment/Mnt.Site Ins. Assessment 13,400.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 29,700.00 2,500.00 2,095.00 405.00 Telephone 3,900.00 300.00 293.10 6.90 Postage and Freight 2,200.00 200.00 - 200.00 Rent Buildings and Equipment 11,000.00 1,800.00 1,723.78 76.22 - Insurance-General 1,000.00 - - Printing,Binding and Copying 1,800.00 - - - Clerk's Recording Fees 1,500.00 - Advertising 1,500.00 - Other Office and Operating Supplies 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Training and Education 1,100.00 100.00 - 100.00 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,800.00 $ 8,300.00 $ 5,976.79 $ 2,323.21 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 135,800.00 $ 10,400.00 $ 6,400.02 $ 3,999.98 Engineering Fees 10,000.00 800.00 - 800.00 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 18,000.00 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 Landscape Materials/Replanting Program 8,500.00 200.00 - 200.00 Interdepartmental Payment(Water Quality Lab) 30,100.00 2,500.00 2,382.50 117.50 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 100.00 - 100.00 Temporary Labor 44,900.00 9,400.00 9,331.00 69.00 Telephone 500.00 100.00 36.04 63.96 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 500.00 639.00 (139.00) - Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 - Insurance-General 2,400.00 - - Insurance-Auto 900.00 Building Repairs&Mntc. 1,700.00 - - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 2,400.00 200.00 200.00 Fuel and Lubricants 3,300.00 300.00 300.00 Tree Triming 36,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 100.00 305.00 (205.00) Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 - 104.90 (104.90) Page 1 of 3 Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 8,800.00 6,708.05 2,091.95 _ Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 800.00 910.52 (110.52) Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 200.00 253.22 (53.22) Total Water Management Field Operating $ 406,800.00 $ 38,900.00 $ 27,070.25 $ 11,829.75 Right of Way Beautification-Operating Payroll Expense $ 43,300.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 1,921.43 $ 1,378.57 Emergency Repairs and Maintenance 7,400.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 200.00 - - Office Automation 9,500,00 _ Other Contractural Services 37,100.00 3,100.00 2,090.00 1,010.00 Telephone 3,900.00 300.00 293.10 6.90 Postage 2,200.00 200.00 - 200.00 Rent Buildings/Equipment/Storage 12,200.00 2,000.00 1,869.59 130.41 Insurance-General 500.00 - - - Printing,Binding and Copying 2,600.00 200.00 - 200.00 Clerk's Recording 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Legal Advertising 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Office Supplies General 2,500.00 200.00 - 200.00 Training and Education 1,500.00 100.00 70.00 30.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 126,900.00 $ 9,800.00 $ 6,244.12 $ 3,555.88 Right of Way Beautification-Field Payroll Expense $ 797,000.00 $ 61,300.00 $ 35,339.00 $ 25,961.00 Emergency Maintenance and Repairs 3,300.00 300.00 187.36 112.64 Flood Control(Water Use&Swale/Berm Mntc.) 89,900.00 7,500.00 7,058.13 441.87 Pest Control 6,000.00 500.00 - 500.00 Landscape Incidentals 2,500.00 200.00 7.31 192.69 Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 3,600.00 2,731.00 869.00 Temporary Labor 201,400.00 25,800.00 24,288.20 1,511.80 Telephone 3,200.00 300.00 215.19 84.81 Electricity 3,400.00 300.00 180.83 119.17 Trash and Garbage 17,000.00 1,700.00 1,699.16 0.84 Rent Equipment 2,500.00 200.00 8.95 191.05 Motor Pool Rental Charge 500,00 _ - - Insurance-General 9,300.00 - - Insurance-Auto 10,000.00 - - - Building Repairs and Maintenance 1,700.00 100.00 100.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 17,600.00 1,500.00 1,473.90 26.10 Fuel and Lubricants 64,600.00 5,400.00 - 5,400.00 Licenses,Permits,Training 800.00 100.00 - 100.00 Tree Triming 64,500.00 3,200.00 - 3,200.00 Clothing and Uniforms 9,400.00 800.00 724.26 75.74 Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 300.00 134.75 165.25 Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 17,200.00 17,285.34 (85.34) Landscape Maintenance 46,000.00 7,700.00 7,068.60 631.40 Mulch/Landscape Materials 52,000.00 19,200.00 18,501.00 699.00 Pathway Repairs 6,000.00 500.00 - 500.00 Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 3,800.00 3,775.24 24.76 Painting Supplies 800.00 100.00 - 100.00 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 300.00 - 300.00 Minor Operating Equipment 3,700.00 300.00 565.25 (265.25) Other Operating Supplies 9,000.00 800.00 710.91 89.09 Total Right of Way Beautification-Field Operating $ 1,549,600.00 $ 163,000.00 $ 121,954.38 $ 41,045.62 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,293,100.00 $ 220,000.00 $ 161,245.54 $ 58,754.46 Page 2 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 $ 35,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Other Machinery and Equipmeny 1,000.00 - Total Right of Way Beautification-Field Capital $ 36,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Total Capital Expenditures $ 37,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,330,100.00 $ 220,000.00 $ 161,245.54 $ 58,754.46 Non-Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 241,700.00 $ 241,700.00 $ 241,700.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees 79,300.00 79,300.00 49,610.84 29,689.16 Property Appraiser Fees 72,900.00 72,900.00 39,294.58 33,605.42 Reserves(2 1/2 months for Operations) 533,400.00 550,400.00 550,400.00 - Reserve for Operating Fund Capital Improvement 65,000.00 Reserves for Equipment 107,800.00 107,800.00 107,800.00 - Reserved for Attrition (16,200.00) (16,200.00) (16,200.00) - Revenue Reserve - - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures $ 1,083,900.00 $ 1,035,900.00 $ 972,605.42 $ 63,294.58 Total Expenditures $ 3,414,000.00 $ 1,255,900.00 $ 1,133,850.96 $ 122,049.04 Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ (302,983.33) $ (182,250.87) $ 120,732.46 Page 3 of 3 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-October 31,2012 Street Lighting Fund 778-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 404,808.14 Interest Receivable 388.22 Improvements,Vehicles&Equipment 54,386.52 Due from Tax Collector 3,217.01 Total Current Assets $ 462,799.89 Total Assets $ 462,799.89 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 1,291.39 Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd 42.00 Accrued Wages Payable - Total Liabilities $ 1,333.39 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 401,763.99 Excess Revenue(Expenditures) 59,702.51 Total Fund Balance 461,466.50 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 462,799.89 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-October 31,2012 Street Lighting Fund 778-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward $ 376,200.00 $ 376,200.00 $ 376,200.00 $ - Curent Ad Valorem Tax 440,700.00 - - $ - Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax $ - Insurance Claim 1,286.80 $ 1,286.80 Revenue Reserve $ (22,300.00) Interest 6,700.00 - - $ - Total Operating Revenues 801,300.00 376,200.00 377,486.80 1,286.80 Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense $ 42,200.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 1,864.90 $ 1,335.10 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 8,700.00 $ - - $ - Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 $ 2,241.67 2,095.00 $ 146.67 Telephone 3,600.00 $ 300.00 224.49 $ 75.51 Postage and Freight 2,000.00 $ 200.00 - $ 200.00 Rent Buildings/Equipment/Storage 11,800.00 $ 2,000.00 1,817.92 $ 182.08 Insurance-General 300.00 $ - - $ - Office Supplies General 800.00 $ 100.00 - $ 100.00 Other Office and Operating Supplies 1,000.00 $ 100.00 - $ 100.00 Total Street Lighting Admin Operating 97,300.00 8,141.67 6,002.31 2,139.36 Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense 63,900.00 4,900.00 3,130.14 1,769.86 Emergency Maintenance& Repairs 9,600.00 - - - Other Contractual Services 800.00 100.00 - 100.00 Telephone 500.00 100.00 36.04 63.96 Electricity 44,200.00 3,700.00 2,615.05 1,084.95 Insurance-General 900.00 - - - Insurance-Auto 900.00 - - - Building Maintenace& Repairs 1,700.00 - - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 1,500.00 100.00 - 100.00 Fuel and Lubricants 900.00 100.00 - 100.00 Other Equipment Repairs/Supplies 200.00 - - - Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 - - - Electrical Contractors 7,300.00 600.00 - 600.00 Page 1 of 2 i Light Bulb Ballast 13,100.00 1,300.00 1,312.77 (12.77) Total Street Lighting Field Operating 146,000.00 10,900.00 7,094.00 3,806.00 Total Field Expenditures 243,300.00 19,041.67 13,096.31 5,945.36 Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery/Equipment 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 General Improvements - - - - Total Capital Expenditures 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Total Operating Expenditures 244,300.00 19,241.67 13,096.31 6,145.36 Non-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees 13,700.00 - - - Property Appraiser Fees 9,000.00 - - _ Reserve for Future Construction 444,200.00 444,200.00 444,200.00 - Reserves(2 1/2 mos.for Operations) 57,600.00 57,600.00 57,600.00 - Reserves for Equipment 32,500.00 32,500.00 32,500.00 - Revenue Reserve - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures 557,000.00 534,300.00 534,300.00 - Total Expenditures 801,300.00 553,541.67 547,396.31 6,145.36 Net Profit/(Loss) - (177,341.67) (169,909.51) 7,432.16 Page 2 of 2 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-October 31,2012 Clam Bay Fund 320-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 268,167.82 Interest Receivable 296.68 Improvements,Vehicles&Equipment 287,297.40 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets 555,761.90 Total Assets $ 555,761.90 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 56,951.00 Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd 56,558.00 Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities 113,509.00 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 205,768.08 Excess Revenues(Expenditures) 236,484.82 Total Fund Balance 442,252.90 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 555,761.90 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-October 31,2012 Clam Bay Fund 320-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward $ 354,768.43 $ 22,400.00 $ 22,400.00 $ - Special Assessment 134,400.00 - - - Miscellaneous Income - - Fund 111 32,300.00 - - - Revenue Reserve (6,800.00) - Interest 8Q0.00 - - - Total Operating Revenues $ 515,468.43 $ 22,400.00 $ 22,400.00 $ - Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees $ 164,478.75 $ 916.67 $ - $ 916.67 Other Contractural Services 10,464.65 - - - Tree Trimming 67,000.00 - - - Other Equipment Repairs 577.77 - - - Aerial Photography 15,000.00 • 7,500.00 5,449.80 2,050.20 Minor Operating 2,988.01 - - - Other Operating Supplies 1,500.00 - - - Total Clam Bay Restoration $ 262,009.18 $ 8,416.67 $ 5,449.80 $ 2,966.87 Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees $ (29,890.75) $ - $ - $ - Licenses and Permits (250.00) - - - Other Contractual Services 243,000.00 - 827.95 (827.95) Total Clam Bay Ecosystem $ 212,859.25 $ - $ 827.95 $ (827.95) Total Capital Expenditures $ 11,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 485,868.43 $ 8,416.67 $ 6,277.75 $ 2,138.92 Non-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 4,200.00 $ - $ - $ - Property Appraiser Fees 2,700.00 - - - Reserves for Operations 22,700.00 - - _ Total Non-Operating Expenditures $ 29,600.00 $ - $ - $ - Page 1 of 2 Total Expenditures $ 515,468.43 $ 8,416.67 $ 6,277.75 $ 2,138.92 Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ 13,983.33 $ 16,122.25 $ 2,138.92 Page 2 of 2 Pelican Bay Services - - Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-October 31,2012 Capital Projects Fund 322-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 2,577,993.92 Interest Receivable 2,346.95 Improvements,Vehicles&Equipment 1,213,800.81 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets 3,794,141.68 Total Assets $ 3,794,141.68 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 27,700.00 Goods Received Inv. Received 5,325.67 Total Liabilities 33,025.67 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved Z501,578.47 Excess Revenues(Expenditures) 1,259,537.54 Total Fund Balance 3,761,116.01 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 3,794,141.68 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-October 31,2012 Capital Projects Fund 322-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward $ 2,618,011.49 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ - Transfer from Fund 109 General 241,700.00 241,700.00 241,700.00 - Foundation Payment for Crosswalks - - - Special Assessment 324,400.00 - - - Transfer from Tax Collector - - - - - Interest 25,700.00 - Total Operating Revenues $ 3,209,811.49 $ 2,795,084.04 $2,795,084.04 $ - Operating Expenditures: Irrigation&Landscaping Hardscape Project(50066) Engineering Fees $ 150,928.82 $ - $ - $ - Other Contractural Services 2,736,409.36 2,736.41 1,162.73 1,573.68 Sprinkler System Repairs (13,367.16) - - - Landscape material 64,550.01 9,682.50 7,435.00 2,247.50 Permits (2,022.50) - - - Electrical (24,294.24) - 2,285.67 (2,285.67) Other Operating Supplies(Pavers) (7,235.80) - - - Other Road Materials 21,323.00 - - - Traffic Sign Restoration Project(50103) Traffic Signs 78,920.00 - - - Lake Bank Project(51026) Swale&Slope Maintenance 192,775.72 - 21,765.00 (21,765.00) Engineering Fees - Other Contractural Services - - Total Irrigation&Landscaping Expenditures $ 3,197,987.21 $ 12,418.91 $ 32,648.40 $ (20,229.49) Non-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 10,300.00 $ 10,300.00 $ 6,395.11 $ 3,904.89 Property Appraiser Fees 6,800.00 6,800.00 3,896.51 2,903.49 - Reserve for Contingencies - - - Revenue Reserve 17,500.00 - - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures: $ 34,600.00 $ 17,100.00 $ 10,291.62 $ 6,808.38 Total Expenditures $ 3,232,587.21 $ 29,518.91 $ 42,940.02 $ (13,421.11) Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ 2,765,565.13 $2,752,144.02 $ (13,421.11) Page 1 of 1 from the September 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report-Crosswalks-Revised decibel readings report • Page 1 of 5 Crosswalk Decibel Readings Decibel readings were taken from several different types of crosswalks to determine what extent the cobble bands installed at the mid-block crosswalks impacted the amount of sound generated. These readings were taken from the Beach Walkway and the North Tram Station crosswalks that both have the cobbles/brick pavers installed. Readings were also collected from the crosswalk at Pelican Bay Blvd. and Gulf Park Dr. which only has brick pavers installed. Readings were also collected at the painted Crayton Rd. crosswalk for comparison purposes. Readings listed were collected from 15', 50' and 75' feet from the edge of road. The 50' and 75' distances are more representative of the distances that some condo buildings are located from the roadway. When comparing between cobble/brick paver crosswalks and brick paver only crosswalks at the two distances most representative of the buildings located adjacent to the roadway there was a 1-6 decibel higher reading at a cobble/brick paver crosswalk vs. a brick paver only crosswalk at 50'.At 75'there was a 4-5 decibel higher reading at a cobble/brick paver crosswalk vs. brick paver only crosswalk. These readings can be impacted by differences in vegetation, wind velocity /direction and exterior noises, which when detected as noticeable readings were discarded. When this latest set of readings was collected the wind was approximately 10-14MPH from the SW. The reading collection point for the Beach Walkway was on the east side of the road and for the North Tram was from the west side of the road. This may have contributed to higher readings at the Beach Walkway, but because of structural walls they had to be collected from those sides to reach the distances of 50'and 75'. Attached is some information related to traffic noise, in the second paragraph it states the "A 10-dBA change in noise levels is judged by most people as a doubling of sound level. The smallest change in noise level that the human ear can perceive is about 3-dBA. Increases of 5-dBA or more are clearly noticeable. " Decibel readings from the various locations and distances are listed below. Distance from Roadway Locations 15' 50' 75' Beach Walkway 76 63 57 North Tram Station 73 58 58 Pelican Bay Blvd. &Gulf Park Drive 68 57 53 Pelican Bay Blvd.&Crayton Road 63 55 53 from the September 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report-Crosswalks-Revised decibel readings report Page 2 of 5 . Traffic Noise Background Information, Introduction to Noise Human response to noise is subjective and can vary greatly from person to person. Factors that can influence individual response include the loudness,frequency,and time pa ern;the amount of background noise present before an intruding noise;and the nature of the a tivity(e.g.,sleeping)that the noise affects. , The sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies is measl4red by the A-weighted decibel scale(dBA). A 10-dBA change in noise levels is judged by most people as a doubling of sound level. The smallest change in noise level that a human ear can perceive is about 3-dBA. Increases of 5-dBA or more are clearly noticeable. Normal conversation ranges between 44 and 65 dBA when the people speaking are 3 to 6 feet apart. Table 1 shows sound levels for some common noise sources and compares their relative loudness to that of an 80-dBA source such as a garbage disposal or food blender.Noise levels in a quiet rural area at night are typically between 32 and 35 dBA. Quiet urban nighttime noise levels range from 40 to 50 dBA. Noise levels during the day in a noisy urban area are frequently as high as 70 to 80 dBA. Noise levels above 110 dBA become intolerable and then painful;levels higher than 80 dBA over continuous periods can result in hearing loss. Constant noises tend to be less noticeable than irregular or periodic noises. Table 1 Sound Levels and Relative Loudness of Typical Noise Sources Sound Subjective Relative Loudness Noise Source or Activity Level Impression (human judgment of (dBA) different sound levels) Jet aircraft takeoff from carrier(50 ft) 140 Threshold of pain 64 times as loud 50-hp siren(100 ft) 130 ? 32 times as loud Loud rock concert near stage,Jet takeoff 120 Uncomfortably loud 16 times as loud (200 ft) Float plane takeoff(100 ft) 110 8 times as loud Jet takeoff(2,000 ft) 100 Very loud 4 times as loud 2 times as loud Heavy truck or motorcycle(25 ft) 90 ; Garbage disposal,food blender(2 ft), 80 Moderately loud Reference loudness Pneumatic drill(50 ft) Vacuum cleaner(10 ft), Passenger car at 65 70 1/2 as loud mph(25 ft) Large store air-conditioning unit(20 ft) 60 114 as loud Light auto traffic(100 ft) 50 Quiet 1/8 as loud Bedroom or quiet living room, Bird calls 40 1/16 as loud Quiet library,soft whisper(15 ft) 30 Very quiet High quality recording studio 20 Acoustic Test Chamber 10 Just audible 0 Threshold of hearing Sources: Beranek(1988)and EPA(1971) PM/TRAFFIC NOISE HANDOUT,DOC, from the September 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report-Crosswalks-Revised decibel readings report Page 3 of 5 • TRAFFIC NOISE BACKGROUND INFORMATION Traffic Noise Sources and Propagation Noise sources associated with transportation projects can include passenger vehicles,medium trucks, heavy trucks and buses. Each of these vehicles produces noise;however,the source and magnitude of the noise can vary greatly depending on vehicle type. For example,while the noise from passenger vehicles occurs mainly from the tire-roadway interface and is therefore located at ground level,noise from heavy trucks is produced by a combination of noise from tires,engine and exhaust,resulting in a noise source that is approximately 8 feet above the ground. The following list provides information on the types of transportation noise sources that will be part of a roadway project,and describes the type of noise each produces. • Passenger Vehicles(cars):Noise emitted from 0 to 2 Feet above roadway,primarily from lire-roadway interface. This category includes normal passenger vdhicles,small and regular pickup trucks,small to mid-size sport utility vehicles,mini-and ful-size passenger vans. Typical noise levels for passenger vehicles are 72 to 74 dBA at 55 Mph at a distance of 50 feet. • Medium Trucks(MT):Noise emitted from 2 to 5 feet above roadn'ay, combined noise from tire-roadway interface and engine exhaust noise. This category includes delivery vans,such as UPS and Federal Express trucks,large sport utility vehicles withlknobby tires,large diesel engine trucks,some tow-trucks,city transit and school buses with udder vehicle exhaust, moving vans(U-haul-type trucks),small to medium recreational motor homes and other larger trucks with the exhaust located under the vehicle.Typical noise levels for medium trucks are 80 to 82 dBA at 55 mph at 50 feet. • • Heavy Trucks(HT):Noise emitted from 6 to 8 feet above the roadway surface,combined noise sources includes tire-roadway interface,engine noise,and exhaust stack noise. This category includes all log-haul tractor-trailers(semi-trucks),large toW trucks,dump trucks, cement mixers,large transit buses,motor homes with exhaust located at top of vehicle,and other vehicles with the exhaust located above the vehicle(typical exhaust height of 12 to 15 feet).Typical noise levels for heavy trucks are 84 to 86 dBA at 55 mph at 50 feet'. Several factors determine how sound levels decrease over distance. Under ideal conditions,a line noise source(such as constant flowing traffic on a busy highway)decreases at a rate of approximately 3 dB each time the distance doubles. Under real-life conditions,however,interactions of the sound waves with the ground often results in attenuation that is slightly greater than the ideal reduction factors given above. Other factors that affect the attenuation of sound with distance include existing structures,topography,foliage,ground cover,and atmospheric conditions such as wind,temperature, and relative humidity. The following list provides some general informationon the potential affects each of these factors may have on sound propagation. • Existing Structures.Existing structures can have a substantial effect oil noise levels in any given area. Structures can reduce noise by physically blocking the sound transmission. (Under special circumstances,structures may cause an increase in noise levels if the sothnd is reflected off the structure and transmitted to a nearby receiver location.)Measurements have shown that a single- story house has the potential,through shielding,to reduce noise levels by as much as 10 dB or greater. The actual noise reduction will depend greatly on the geometry'of the noise source; receiver,and location of the structure. Increases in noise caused by reflection are normally 3 dB or less,which is the minimum change in noise levels that can be noticed by the human ear. • Topography. Topography includes existing hills,berms,and other surface features between the noise source and receiver location. As with structures,topography has the potential to reduce or increase sound depending on the geometry of the area. Hills and berms,When placed between the noise source and receiver,can have a significant effect on noise levels.In many situations, berms are used as noise mitigation by physically blocking the noise source from the receiver location. In PDXfrRAFFIC NOISE HANDOUT DOC 2 from the September 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report-Crosswalks-Revis ed decibel readings report Page 4 of 5 TRAFFIC NOISE BACKGROUND INFORMATION some locations,however,the topography can result in an overall increase in sound levels by either reflecting or channeling the noise towards a sensitive receiver location. • Foliage.Foliage,if dense,can provide slight reductions in noise levels FHWA provides for up to a 5 dBA reduction in traffic noise for locations with at least a 30 feet depth of dense evergreen foliage. • Ground Cover.The ground cover between the receiver and the noise ource can have a significant effect on noise transmission. For example,sound will travel:very well across reflective surfaces such as water and pavement,but can be attenuated when the ground cover is field grass, lawns,or even loose soil. Traffic Noise Mitigation In theory,there are a number of options that can be used to reduce or mitigate traffic noise.These include traffic management,highway design,and noise barriers including earthen berms. In reality, noise mitigation is often infeasible due to space requirements,aesthetic issues and financial costs,or because the costs outweigh the benefits. Any specific mitigation measure recommended as part of a project must be feasible and have a reasonable cost in relation to the benefit.Potential mitigation measures are described below. • • Traffic Management: Traffic management measures include modification of speed limits and restricting or prohibiting truck traffic. Restricting truck use on a given roadway would reduce noise levels at nearby receivers since trucks are louder than cars. However,displacing truck traffic from one roadway to another would only shift noise impacts fron one area to another and may conflict with the planned function of the roadway(e.g.,an arterial generally carries truck traffic). The level of truck traffic on Sunnyside Road is too low for truck restrictions to result in a significant reduction in overall noise in the area. While reducing speeds may reduce noise,a reduction of at least 10 mph is needed for a noticeable difference in none to result. Also,because roadways are planned and designed to support speeds consistent with their functional classification(e.g.,35-45 mph on an arterial),changing speeds for the purpose of noise mitigation is not common. • Roadway Design: Roadway design measures include altering the roadv ay alignment and depressing roadway cut sections. Alteration of roadway alignment could decrease noise levels by moving the traffic farther away from the affected receivers. Because there are noise sensitive receivers along both sides of Sunnyside Road,changing the alignment nay benefit one side of Sunnyside Road,but would increase noise levels on the other. • Noise Barriers: Construction of noise barriers between the roadways and the affected receivers would reduce noise levels by physically blocking the transmission of traffic-generated noise. Barriers can be constructed as walls or earthen berms. Earthen berms require more right-of-way than walls and are usually constructed with a 3-to-I slope. Using this requirement,a berm 8 feet tall would slope 24 feet in each direction,for a total width of 48 feet. Fol-the Sunnyside Road project,berms are not feasible because of the right-of-way requirement.Eloise walls should be high enough to break the line-of-sight between the noise source and the receiver. They must also be long enough to prevent significant flanking of noise around the ends Of the walls. Openings in the wall,such as for driveways and walkways,can significantly reduce the barrier effectiveness. Because of the frequent driveways and walkways on Sunnyside Road,noise walls would not be effective in most locations. PDX(TRAFFIC NOISE HANDOUT.DOC 3 -z .0 zo- o o Cl) ... -e o o O 0- 0)119. a) cr 8, •P,1-%. co co O 03 co L... z 76 .o o .c7i z., > a) • 13 o z A.? j CO 0 ti N CO m in IA Ill In a)IZ > r-- 1--- co 03 Lri () co co -cr.,"•- .9 3 N. a) co.) n. 0 4 Ln Ln in Ln cv ' Zi t in N 1 '.0 cn m Ln C\ . In In u-) in a) id cr a. c„ 42 0 • N CO N Ill in in (1 in; Lo a) c• Lo < — in E . • o) to o ii") co Co Ln In Er) Lc) Ln VI VI < o an r.-1 0 co UI 1.0 'JD UI UI , in en co in a; to N %a ' m > N. co < >. CC 3 La al 1 < N. to IA 1-4 N. N. co m vi N N. 1.0 t.t) ..% To N rsi (-NI vs 0 -c ' r'n m rrl m o w . r,,'; m o © 0 0 E m a- m m 4- o — ........- 101 1.7. al tka '01 b (A b tr) b f., c GJ "1 CU . I-1 0.) .-I ";-4 ..-1 C-1 VI 0 CC -X C) -a 4-it >4 (1) ._0 ...4., X ,t17, X L_ cu > _0 .1-2 a) ni > cu (NI o ce ra, rs 8 /I " to ..., ›. +., , co 4-, , -0 CL ,.-- (1) 4.1 0.. a) Z an .c.' , _c r-- 1... = _C _ c <1.) .0 0 ,... 4_, iy) U -0 4.., -IC ,j,-,, i'.0 U -0 4_, --V 4-. U 'V 4-, 4;7: •..3 o .`.2 7 3 x g (GI P -Y -o x c 1,v, ? .`2 72 cs . u .D.5 §- cqui § E-0 .-§- ,, ui §- et t...) m ... 0 . ,.: O ca >.. -4..., --.. co M 4, tfl CC -0 CI- ...)e CC o — 4- CC (13 0 -5 c‘ c t!-- (.9 c tra .c _c 06 2 )- u co o cu t c20 co , co .....1 CO Z O.. U _ I \\\'I‘r. PELICAN 113 50.� BAY («e41:0; d Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. November 6,2012 Linda A.Elligott Project Manager U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Fort Myers Regulatory Office 1520 Royal Palm Square Blvd.,Suite 310 Fort Myers,FL 33919 Re: Clam Pass Dredging Permit USACE File No.SAJ 1996- 02789(IP-LAE) Ms.Elligott, Please accept this letter as a matter of record and clarification of fact. Please know that there is only one, duly elected body that represents the entire residential and commercial member interests of Pelican Bay, and that entity is the Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors. The Pelican Bay Foundation,Inc. (Foundation)is the governing association for the community of Pelican Bay(located in Collier County) and is the successor to the original developer of the Pelican Bay PUD, Coral Ridge-Collier Properties, Westinghouse Communities of Naples, and WCI. As such, the Foundation has unique rights and responsibilities for governance within the PUD which only the Foundation can exercise. Located within the Pelican Bay PUD is the area known as Clam Pass and Clam Bay. The Foundation has specific rights and responsibilities for enforcement of the declaration of protective covenants and restrictions for these areas. Additionally, while the Foundation's predecessor, Coral Ridge-Collier Properties, gift deeded the areas encompassing Clam Pass and Clam Bay to Collier County(County) in April 1982,the Foundation holds all reversion rights should any of the terms and conditions of the declaration of protective covenants and restrictions not be properly complied with. One specific covenant and restriction involves the Foundation's involvement with the dredging permit for Clam Pass. Due to its unique and sole rights and responsibilities within this area,the Pelican Bay Foundation has established a cooperative and collaborative relationship with Collier County on the recent submittal of the above referenced dredging permit application. This cooperative approach is best embodied,and memorialized in the County's response to RAI#2,which was collaboratively authored by the County's coastal engineer,Atkins, and the Foundation's coastal engineer,Olsen Associates. Among other things,this document reflects the understandings reached by the working group that: 1. The County will only dredge Clam Pass for the health of the Clam Bay system. 2. The permit is substantially consistent with the same parameters as the last dredging event of Clam Pass that was authorized by the permitting agencies. Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. • 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard • Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 597-8081 • (239) 597-6802 FAX • E-Mail: memberservices@pelicanbay.org 3. Each dredging event will be justified individually by specified"triggers"including evidence of: a. Sustained shoaling in the active portion of the dredge template,resulting in the average cross-sectional area falling consistently below 200 square feet b. Increased tidal phase lag c. Decreased tidal prism 4. Dredging decisions, including widths, depths, and cubic volume of sand removed,will be based on joint monitoring and cooperative agreement between Collier County and the Pelican Bay Foundation in light of what is needed to maintain tidal flushing for the health of the system. 5. As a"pre-remediation"measure,the first placement of beach-quality sand will be placed as infill into the meandered Pass location. 6. Appropriately, and consistent with sand by-pass principles,remaining cubic yards of available beach-quality sand dredged from the Pass channel will be placed south of the Pass. The Pelican Bay Foundation has been integrally involved in developing this approach and process and endorses it as scientifically and environmentally responsible. This has also been approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP) in its recently issued permit. The Foundation is aware of the efforts of individuals and groups that seek to derail,undermine, or delay this reasonable and responsible approach to the health and maintenance of Clam Pass and Clam Bay. However well-intentioned they may be,the Foundation believes these efforts are not representative of the best interests of the residential and commercial members of Pelican Bay,nor in the general public's best interests. Specifically,the requests that the Corps conduct a comprehensive EIS should be rejected as unwarranted and unnecessary and should be viewed as nothing more than a disruptive and counter- productive tactic. Of immediate and critical concern is the fact that storm-driven shifts in sand deposits have dramatically reshaped the direction of the Pass and clogged the Pass to the extent that not only have private structures been threatened,but the above referenced triggers have seemingly been tripped, so that plans for dredging of the Pass need to be set in motion. The Pelican Bay Foundation thanks you for your attention to this urgent matter. We join Collier County in requesting that the US Army Corps of Engineers join the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and approve of this wholly appropriate, thoughtful, and collaborative permit application as soon as possible. Time is absolutely of the essence now. Sincerely, Pelican Bay Foundation Ronnie Bellone Chair 2 Cc: Tunis McElwain Leo Ochs Nick Casalanguida Bill Lorenz Gary McAlpin Commissioner Fred Coyle Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Georgia Hiller Tim Nance Mayor John Sorey Jeff Tabar Erik Olsen Ken Humiston Coastal Advisory Committee Keith Dallas Neil Dorrill Susan Boland 3 Agenda Fern No. 10B May 26, 2009 Page 1 of 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommend Approval from the Board of County Commissioners of the Clam Pass Maintenance Dredging Permit Application that is required to perform tidal flushing of Clam Bay Estuary and is necessary to re-open the pass in the event of storm closure. OBJECTIVE: Obtain approval of the Clam Pass Maintenance Dredging permit application for tidal flushing from the Board of County Commissioners. CONSIDERATIONS: The existing 10-year permit that provides for tidal flushing maintenance dredging of Clam Pass has expired and a one year extension has been granted that will expire in July 2009. Collier County has prepared an application for a new 10-year permit utilizing the exact same dredging cuts and cross sections as the previous permit. The basis of the discharge location and contours has changed to reflect existing dune elevations. A detailed Summary of the changes from the original 10-year permit and the existing application is attached. A new permit is required to perform maintenance dredging for tidal flushing and dredging to open the pass if it is closed by a storm event. The entire updated permit application can be viewed on the Coastal Zone Management web site: http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=1350 ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Permit Sub-Committee of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee recommended approved this permit application 3-0 on March 6, 2009. The entire Clam Bay Advisory Committee recommended approval of this permit application 7-2 on 3/19/2009. The Coastal Advisory Committee recommended approval of this permit application 6-0 on 4/9/2009. This item will be presented to the TDC for funding approval prior to proceeding. FISCAL IMPACT: The Source of funds is from Category "A" Tourist Development Tax fund 195. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. This item is not quasi-judicial, and as such ex parte disclosure is not required. This item requires majority vote only. This item is legally sufficient for Board action. - CMG RECOMMENDATION: Recommend Approval from the Board of County Commissioners of the Clam Pass Maintenance Dredging Permit Application. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, CZM Director _ Page 1 of 1 Agenda Rem No. 108 May 26,2009 Page 2 of 7 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMiSSIONERS Item Number: 108 Item Summary: Recommend approval from the Board of County Commissioners of the Clam Pass Maintenance Dredging Permit Application that is required to perform tidal flushing of Clam Bay Estuary and is necessary to re-open the pass in the event of storm closure. (Gary McAlpin. Coastal Zone Management) Meeting Date: 5/26/2009 9:00:00 AM Approved By Kathy Carpenter Executive Secretary Date Public Services Public Services Adrnin. 4115/2009 1:45 PM Approved By oan/mrx|niv Costal Project Manager Date Public Services Coastal Zone Management 4/15/2009 1:58 pw Approved By Marla Ramsey Public Services Administrator Date Public Services Public Services Adn,in, 4/15/2009 3:44 PM Approved By Colleen Greene Assistant County Attorner Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 4/e1o009 12:50 pM Approved By Jmnmmtzxow County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 4/23/2009 10:03 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator OMB Coordinator Date County Managers Office Office of Management&Budget 4/27/2009 4:04 PM Approved By ma,x|naoxsvn Budget Analyst Date County Managers Office Office of Management&Budget 5/4/2009 10:10 AM Approved By Leo E.Ochs,Jr. Deputy County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's on � i^m 18/2009 5:19 pw fi}e:/YC:\AvoudaTeut\Exnnrbl30-May%2O20,%202O09\l0.%20C[)DNTY%20MANA{}ER... 5/20/2009 ..o.� Agenda tern No. 10B May 26, 2009 Page 3 of 7 C1,1.in Pass Project Scope& Changes from Previous Permit The current permit application is drafted to maintenance dredge CUT-4 in Clam Pass, Collier County, Florida. CUT-4 is located approximately halfway between FDEP range monuments R-41 and R-42 and includes the mouth of Clam Pass where it meets the Gulf of Mexico. CUT-4 Section 1 begins out in the gulf at Station 0+00 with a dredge depth of-5.5 feet NGVD and extends east to Station 3+64 to the east. CUT-4 Section 2 has a dredge depth of-4.5 feet NGVD and includes Section 2A which extends northeast from Stations 4+10 to 7+10,Section 2B which turns north from Stations 7+50 to Station 10+00 and Section 2C which turns back to the northeast from Stations 10+19 to 12+50. Section 3 has a dredge depth of-4.0 NGVD and extends to the southeast for the final 300 feet of the dredge template from Station 15+00 to Station 18+00. The bottom width of the dredge template varies from 20 feet to 150 feet wide,with the mouth of Clam Pass having an 80 foot bottom width. The template has a total of dredge length of 1550 linear feet with a 1 foot vertical to 1 foot horizontal side slope(1:1)consistent for the entire length of the project. The work will be conducted using a hydraulic dredge therefore the dredge outfall pipeline must stay within the designated dredge pipeline corridor so upland vegetation or offshore hardbottom are not adversely effected. The estimated total volume to be removed during maintenance dredging activity will not exceed 22,000 cubic yards. All beach compatible sand will be placed between range monuments R-42+180 and R- 44+100 upland of the 0 foot NGVD contour. Sand will be placed seaward of the edge of vegetation. Any sand that is not beach compatible will be stockpiled and removed to an offsite disposal location(County landfill or other appropriate site based on material). The current permit differs slightly from the previous permit submitted by Humiston and Moore in 1998. The slope of the dune changes from 1:10 to 1:15 and the berm width changes from 26 feet to 15 feet. This change was necessary to better match the existing conditions based on the survey profiles conducted in August 2008. The beach fill portion in the previous permit had a 10 foot dune top width at elevation+8 feet NGVD and then sloped down with a 1:10 slope to+5 feet NGVD where the berm leveled off horizontally for a distance of 26 feet. The fill then sloped down at a 1:10 slope to meet existing grade at 0 feet NGVD. The current permit has a 10 foot dune top width at+8 feet NGVD and then slopes down at a 1:15 slope to+5 feet NGVD where the berm levels off horizontally for a distance of 15 feet. The fill then slopes down at a 1:10 slope to meet existing grade at 0 feet NGVD. Also a taper was added to the beach fill template on the south end extending the template south approximately 100 feet in order to transition the beach fill template back into the existing grade. 1 e 1 c, 0 1 .-- -, ..,7 0 1,-,,o' -7: ■.'" , o ,,i,, !,-.',",.1„,4". 8,, '''' "'";--''`-.-----Th•' '-1414-:-'3":"Ri ''.4'..4„;.•,, '''''•41r''''-ig,,l's ..".'''f 4 l'I:-.4- 4..- m 6,_3 ,,g ,x ,......-4'-'- ,,' _ - g a`-':' g 2 0 ce"',.: ',. - `---- "' 1 .fsf.'"--''''. - '''''''i-r" '...'. i• *,-.:•7 *L_,..,Aa':7:,,, ,?,71,'0 41''''''ft . cil w ,* _..1 :, , 130."'Al-;•f*r '-'-::.,--,k -'' 'I -w4-A- 71'''-' ./-A"e41 W bi°'g U 4 t6 6''E Lef'-ii 6 68 Itte-,4,1" u &L..-L.; -Ng*14-`71'....,2„, 17,,,,g I t...)(6 0 ,!--,--„:"±-„.1, '-', --"1,4,,,_ .1",.^ ' - r•-",OP" --;---;:-.----,.:4k; '-""-, .' ,A-,..4.,,,'A el ''-'0- Z N 0, i..\`i."4,,F.-- - '" '.--p.k,.. ..1 z 6 H co E >,,c_ .7..„,..1.. , . ._ _ ..._ . _ L417FC. ta'4 9W (1) (S3 --1,......10S.-i4L- .,. --..-.....4,- ' • *g' c.i VcS =2 11‘,-. -' 47,--..-,v z.--,, "e".8 z‘lek- : ..,,..., - ,-- -4 ,,,,,. ,,.. .- ?, .-- 0,0 g ea -.4.„--.:- - ,"..;:.:, %,''''= .;,,..-1', ;`,4 ,,,,, z e.0 H.> 5,4 -0 ,,,,,, ..,-„,, ,.--1',,,,,;:tir ' "C-,--', ▪ l<c0 Li 0 1 C t k7-07,, L '. 'T, >., a g o *8 re-z 11111111111% a) ,,::_,10, •,„,,v- :- ,,. , .:::,,, ., "-"`:c4-'„41,444-9. R Ow '.4 11111110 cm 11,-447.144t ,- -- .1..,, •7.>' -"'''' ' ,?1#1 c"t 8 i Z.' LI. ! 1111 < -,e,e,,,,r,i R 0 7•.,,,,,,t,pk=7'..,..trt: ::, , '0'0,-1,4--wgr. el 7% 1 ' v ,*.t..4. 1,-0 .-: '.1 • glt.t,-;;;:-4.,'1%,, : ■,„. ''• ' _ - i i''''' t'U.V.-L,,K1 4 c, I _ - Ara itaik TrAi 41'1,14. ,,, 1..0 NI, ,,,_,-,,,•,,.., ,--,,,i, _-_, - ., _,, „..-,,:-: '* -,,,,.:.,- ,- , 4 F.,_ -4 „;.,,. .1ktz,--ik,,,,Ap-,-,s.,-,,,1:1,,,,,,. t.,, Fit i,II:I. ,,„, ..,.,,,K-,,,...„,,,,,,,;,,,,,,..,..,..--,,,---- ,..- 11),..-...-,..„.4---7 .• , .;= 1 -7,-:•,-.T.,.;-;,..--,-;), W,;X.,-c4.,:P. r..1-, 1..--4 gillil -- -_-, -•,,.--."'P--- ',.r4.$::-'="4-',:%.'.'i4='-'i'L-;‘-.7. P-- iTiiir 0-.11 . ' ,I:ftrA;;;;,44„,trV„*6-13-0Itir.' .-=',. pit grAill -- I 4W-474-1'4WA---,'----;-2- '1 _ : -,-.. --, - -;-,--7..1 ..- -',.., .. .- _ . :_- .,-41. -19‘t ,- . - Ir _ - --: -,'-e-4:i:„."-''"--'=''''-1 tr, *i.,..,,- "--• ' - , ,.. -., ,.., ......, „...,, , .. ., ' -'-i'-l.t.,_- - - --:::"..-.. '‘f'-'`.•'_.,''.------.',,-,C6 ...-..-.-': it•-.--.'rtl: "..:.,),,t - - • -'----'0',,.'1 -:---- •--:-"''''.-,z"'4;,- ti-24',,';',:4- , -:,,. ='-,- , '---- .4,-irit. t- t '--.,t r ,,,-,-4 ,-.-' - - - -- .7,•:,-f,,,--- - -,- , :'''' r 1;-.:1-v'-',,f-'1'''-__ -' - ..,I, _ , ,..„,...kZ ■':■ '','''..':t%'' :i-',' '- :- ' --'"F'&,N e-',...-,„,i.4.L4'4'1'','k,.'''ITT'.,'-1''-,'L:.:L f 4I.-,-,-fr,*.;P.--„`r-A7i',ol7,:.,_i;.;-,-i,..-_--:,-ki:c'„'_.,;4-,.--..i,...-:;i',_'1,-','c-14-,_-,--_: ,—,--.,'-' --- — 44., 4 1 1.-i,1M-11 1 I J81 J 1 f s 1-i t g I1:i 6 1 S 1 # , , ” - ,; I eI% !gill r- 1 : 4 ir ,..„ 4 cry r`r� i. jf rel- 'yam' Q.1 E 4 y+ _ 3 MI C� i- T •pq t t;fir _ y .;. - n'? _- • �. ;w } rc--�- u.- `3'.i_ +yt u •n sic�ac_�;i t - V% r n. i y Fr *7 � r I d's t. Y Iti - J,yt h do+ 4 .1.I.' y a r m : I(11* /e s -;',15,.---:,• .1'447":" - t. 3ih `� a • w • r fi r r k r 'til IW . gR ' .c ro ro :;:.:*.;-1-. S ,4= x k '• k R :.. y br i •n; n c • ! s� ' yw �c � --;--T11,&,-:,::`-,t. t � —.--.:"2-,,y.---,:m-':- ,, M1 . 7 j e. 2Y tg5 �Sy • r IF'- 3 4.R . . ,,,-...,,_.,2.;,,,..,:,,,,, r a F N44-17:7 w- ' "i 'Ailu. 5 ; q j ifi S re o;'� r..r o 3 ffi_.u* L '-'"3 ; n., N . �r z• ` u ki v S a rt.. w- n t<eV N 6 Q'' 7. pa d= _a- . p 0 i/la U G w no- n- o fWiP'("it..F -- ' '',`,.'..": '''.'''...V.ir ''''-: ;';'.1..,:'-'-• - - _ 1 I I A* - y' r as sasx stf" i-1f #1 p { • f � e 11 e 9F J i� _ ,L I,v "its' 1 e T,r"' '�' -. -' 11t.4,Mbe P1" '�I-ae a s.. V''.-.ay'+ n K22-4, a : .ake s T. �7°..[ $.. '�atrn F a.�. sct-. .z£ =e7 y . ... , _ eft i., ..0 , ''' • . , -- . „ ,1, , , 4 , Z ) .' ir'', o - ,--e` ..e-,'..-., .• : 0.4 Cs E >,0 . - '. - .- ','-',.'.0/ •'-'', _ 0 cu 13- . . , ' , . 5 1 - ... ..., .. MI - _ . -CS 41) W ' t:5) ,.. 3--,,-,,& 44'4 A 4 11111111111111. i •.---:,47_,S‘'-`---s---'..-.- 11:-''..•'.- '-,-; -,-.---:-..:, -4.-.,,:,;'".„.:`,..-;,.=.-. - ', ' , . `..ct-,..,if •:-., _,;.,,, ., : ' , ., . :ciiii - ilt l -.;..- ..-.... .--.;.,,..'- -' igi,14011 tqji• ,E„.. s A - '”"-,.:'Y`-,-,-N,'''.' „7-:!;-:',V._ •‘',:'''0,'' ''S+c'r,'•...1-, '1'-'- ' . - '--'T" . -•,'''' ''', %': ' :,','. 4,..1-6--'„, --z■l;',,;_ln, * 11J >•-' CC ,,- , ''• ' '' •L A t 0 al. . .., 6. 0 0 . I- ' • . ' - ■ 1.''''''ji--W---1 fit'ekr".--',..,:-,-..,'--;„.• :- - .;41.-=;-!;;'4*---:-':-',': i. 7.4t: 12,, ,,'WeiN'AIZ,'a,:,...71:•,,-„..,-t 'fa-,•:: = - •','I„,)Kilf 7 I.:,i;',.-.._,;'-'7C.' : --'7:,,-.,•i.a.2.74:,-:-.F: ..7 r'"7,-‘', , F1-'' Tirl:rtiV-P.41-.^,P ,'•'.1:"'"-,' ---1"..[.--.:;:'1',".,,'",''..-:';.',`„' -,--;' 7 --. "-----`..1 -..,-j,- r.-,-,,,,,,.;,.e..-,,,,,.,--:-,.,t...__.;. -t-,.;:,...,-i.:.".'-__,,,. 7tf- .:--.-,..--;-,- -, . t *,"-T7`,41=Firs,,,,. , ,.... -.,'- ,-; ,.;- ,,:"':-.1* '4-7,7,i 4 e j a' .--.7=:; -;:,- .' 1 k !II 1 ,- 4i1=4;;T:! ,.,',gri, .. .:--c;', - ::- 7, .- 71 I s 1 • .Q:.- zr- , .--t.-,, -' ,,II- .--, ,--2';,,,,'_'4f, ,. '.,,,-,'-...„._:: li * 5tl':' -',----"'4' '. ',' ,;!-, ----.''.--, ,--, :.j",'77,,:-,1 r,_ §11 Hi - -,-.-,,,,'":"..,'.,, ' ''.- .-'--:-22,,,..,,,,' ''.4,-?';'...,-ii..,-.--- '",:t-,"2,1-' .... ... ..." . ., t....a- ,.- 3. . _,........... , , - -- , • -.I , - . ". ' . 0 • k, t, e,,.„....-.,. ' ...-'•,'.:.17:-. , _:,: _4. . i„.,_,..E.,,,,,,,:, -.".V--:"..'...=4'''4,-,,77-. _,' .-;1- ' ''''..1--...;,-1.= ■.:',=,--1.1„..,,,f-.,:".:`-?‘;---:14-1.:"1-':,`,;;.,:--"- -....,-":,..-_--::",,,fe,-,4it .7'-1_,"vr- :f.-- "" caV•am ar....A......... ......A., ° . . , - • ', yo a Ny x.1".7,' ,§.T a '1-+. � r s 4 mss"* G - ._ _ az, 7...1g >� l.^-c �i t n`tF,c�k"i q' - tik `'`f "ra, 3„v '1nr err.c"� ,, v ' ,,,;a1 ' /„ , 4 at4 alrtr'qvr c Cj C%,. •..�'rG ��Elr��i,"'�'v �'h+'�Ax+�9"�r°A c,'+ `"''k .'ti q��g�� "'- y Ms;4 O - . - ''+v' �' .X tsd1.q �r �r , '4„'wra.ac �'s� �F = ,—O l O hl ,' 51-,;"1` .'ct" ,,,-,�,-,- � - ,�6,-�S kcy % k, 'may ' ea 2 x, y faS ' l a 'f S'4...t, a i. ti} Vd>r, f :a r 4 PY`t i� �-s2 F c- ,Y �� "4 � ar 1,-41,1. 1r;rte ',,X ;',.:.n,..7-4.67,:71,, 71-,;;7144--rxit,,,--,Va--e4i-AI;ari.4.,,,-5t4,:31.ct..3=.:i-T4-(4 iiiiImIg 1 p � 6, it i + Era t°' viii( ttim i tt,in gout y , iA ""Yr " w ,,+, ,_r ti, s5 ,c- , ,�.�ttl,tl1��df1•1 ✓R. 'cif -:; it� `�. � . -�a1 1::::t o mot:.• ` c s= CM LU 1s B j i i s - ®°' O Lit}LLS _ c ,ia T ass 1 f 1 , s` ,' "[ its. a F, ,�y r,,:e ', s'� '.. 3 J mr>j h St't+f s :, d k'-Y''*;: a� '. "'. 'S''.�"'' 1 ice `'" eT' ,, ri}ry �Mk s n..�3° 4 ,` -h -::',T.--'''=,7 ---...'-:,..;;" 1 J 5 a � d 1 - C e R ' J o - { R �_ _s'.♦ d'3y '3 7 .� � � l} � v..4.2-1- + l A tf WF . �•�3,F{p'�i'g"�.11,E 45. VA-,,-'5�3? .*.ea t ci.t ,. ,.y..r ',-, 1 ,......,. .r - , r_ , t r I . 1 .. i J...! 1*a 1.M I.* f,,,., 1 11 3.. 1 i.' j I 1 = f tlI i -4. 1 ;.;_r ${5 /1 tt c 1 i iJt1Y} tdi 1GaI 1C's tee, 1 1 , 5 1< .. .5 " - . ;: '� <ii< • . 6 4 {' a 0 r4r` 0 C k r;Y L.,'j 0 1 0 pu p t t s ',,,3 U,a ,y L�) C {O i FFaa ¢ i + '2 1 4:t +1 13 at? C. 1.'m r * -h t r-M rv+4 {{FF 1 N 1 4 !I !.l 6 W ii 1 8 { mow ) 7 ' r 2.1 - 1t I (L 5 ° ., 1111 �5I , C 1 Rs y, C9 ; 1,, y4 1i) , i s t� 1 1 1 k." rte•` _ "' T-3 j 1 E f $it 11 , I I ; 1 1 i i i ( 1 t �F eD I'Fa l fli 11 I ad ai 1 , I LI cu i fta i1.J 'I 1 It.a a 1 . a i;.- : i ,t. �, 't lrtr-1 f - ! , ' 0,41 U r }A I ( t • 'Ire;.1 1, It* f ( R ;',,,,,i ri 1 I I 1 arn, 1 CG I 1 1 R c.> .� r-- ! P f 1 i g 1 xr •kl y orG Iµ �Nit n b HLTMIST(�N �VVV M 11° ( &MOORE tt ; - 1 ENGINEERS c‘? COASTAL 5679 S RAND COURT X� ENGINEERING DESIGN NAPLE',FLORIDA 34110 FAX 23:594 2025 t,mss November 11 20 AND PERMITTING PW PHONE 239 594 2021 09 Memo to: Members of the Collier County CAC, FOR THE MEETING R: CORD. From: Humiston & Moore Engineers Re: Clam Bay, CAC November 12, 2009 Agenda Item VIII-1, PBS&J St:tus Memo I call your attention to the next to last paragraph on page 3 of the referenced Memo which is in your agenda information materials, (attached document for your convenience, see highlighted paragraph), the first sentence of which states: "FDEP stated that the H&M monitoring report (2007) states that that dredging of Clam Pass has not changed the tidal flushing dynamics which is the purpose of the project and that the report states that the dredge cut has increased downdrift erosion . Please note the following quoted from the referred to 2007 H&M report: "Since the 1999 dredging, each annual monitoring report has shown that implementation of the dredging element of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan has significantly improved tidal exchange throughout the bay system." If DEP staff did in fact make the statement as attributed in the PBS&J memo, it may have been in reference to the increase in width of the entrance channel dredge cut for the 2007 dredging, which was done to obtain additional sand for beach renourishment at the request of County staff. Regarding that increase in the width of the dredged channel, the H&M report states: "It is anticipated that the increase of the dredge cut at the entrance will have little if any improvement to the tidal flushing of the Clam Pass tidal system, because the wider cut results in a cross section that is larger than the equilibrium section area, and it is therefore expected to fill in quickly." If this is what the statement in the PBS&J memo is referring to the statement is completely out of context and extremely misleading. As stated the FPBS&J memo implies that the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan failed to achieve the purpose of improving tidal flushing to stabilize the inlet and aid mangrove recovery, whereas anyone familiar with this project knows that implementation of the Plan over the past 10 years has been extremely successfur in achieving those goals. The above quote from the PBS&J memo also reports that DEP staff said the H&M report states the dredge cut has increased downdrift erosion. This too is out of context. The H&M monitoring reports document that the adjadent beaches - readjust following maintenance dredging, and after dredging of a ide entrance • - channel that readjustment has included significant erosion of adja ent beaches. This is why the width of the dredge cut was reduced for the 200 dredging, to reduce potential impact to beaches and to natural sand bypass of the inlet. The H&M and Turrell Hall reports document that this approach is working well, maintaining a level of flushing of the bay system that has contribut d to recovery of the mangroves while at the same time preserving natural bypas of the inlet to reduce inlet impacts to adjacent beaches, while extending the dr dging interval from annual to at least 4 or 5 years. The remainder of the highlighted paragraph in the PBS&J memo states: " Since the monitoring report by the County's engineer at the time stated these items FDEP would like to know what the optimum dredge cut should be that would act as a flushing channel and not increase downdrift erosion — this could be determined through modeling. At a minimum the FDEP would like to see a hydrodynamic analysis that indicates increased tidal flushing." Based on the July 2, 2009 Request for Additional Information (RAI) issued by DEP, this suggestion that additional modeling may be required as part of the regulatory process appears to be the result of the fact that the June 2009 application submitted by PBS&J included the September 2006 report prepared for Collier County by CP&E, it is not in response to the monitoring reports prepared by H&M or the performance of the inlet and bay system under implementation of the 1999 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan. In all the years of monitoring, DEP staff have never indicated they wanted to see increased tidal flushing, that has been left to the environmental scientists to determine if improved flushing is needed to further mangrove recovery. So far the answer has been no. The 2006 CP&E report attached to the application seems to have created some uncertainty among DEP staff as to what activity is being pursued under the current application. See DEP July 2, 2009 RAI, item 33.a., which st tes: "The proposed project activities seem to include dredging the ebb sho south of R-41 (it is not clear), as Appendix E referred to in section (8. Alternative of the report suggests." The report and Appendix E referred to in the above quote from DEF) is the 2006 CP&E report. (It should be noted that the dredging plan in Appe dix E of the CP&E report will not increase tidal flushing to Clam Bay. Increase tidal flushing would be achieved through modification of the interior chap els as was demonstrated in 1999). There is a great deal of information in the monitoring reports prepared by Turrell Hall & Associates and H&M over the past 10 years. Considering the misrepresentation in the PBS&J memo regarding the 2007 H&M monitoring report, it is recommended that If there are remaining questions regarding the success of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan, the previous monitoring reports should be consulted. 5(h,K 64 4 l ,x 0 5300 West Cypress Street p Cp e� Tampa,Florida 33607 /44- Phone: (800)477-7275 Date: 6 November 2009 Clam Pass Joint Coastal Permit (JCP)Application Status Memo This memo summarizes the activities to date regarding the Clam Pass Joint Coastal Permit Application. The JCP application was submitted to the regulatory agencies in June 2009. The activity requested within the application is the same level of authorization that was granted in the previous permit. The request consists of dredging a portion of Clam Pass and Clam Bay to aid with flushing and improve environmental resources. Tidal flushing maintenance dredging will occur only when science dictates that the need for tidal flushing of Clam Pass and Clam Bay is necessary to assure the health and viability of the estuary. Dredging activity will be consistent with the previous authorization FDEP#0128463-001-JC to station 18+00. Subsequently, requests for additional information (RAI) were received from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP). Much of the information requested was unexpected based on previous correspondence and direction provided by regulatory agencies prior to submitting the application (based on the nature of the request to simply re- authorize the previous permit). This additional information is likely a result of the heightened level of local concern that has risen over the application and proposed dredging activity. A meeting was held with FDEP on August 18, 2009 to review the RAI and obtain clear guidance of the level and extent of information required to be submitted (see attached meeting minutes). As a result additional data collection was necessary to respond to the RAIs. This information includes: 1) Habitat Survey and Environmental Assessment 2) Geotechnical Investigation o Native Sediment Sampling and Testing o Sediment Core Boring Investigation o Beach Compatibility Analysis 3) Design Configuration and Analysis of Previous Monitoring Data The County provided approval of the above additional data collection tasks on September 10, 2009. Data collection was conducted throughout September and October, as well as previous survey data was obtained from others consultants to complete the design configuration analysis. The habitat survey and environmental assessment information was received on October 20, 2009 from Turrell, Hall and Associates and is under review. Results of the geotechnical investigation were received from the lab on November 1, 2009 and presently being analyzed. The survey data necessary to analysis the design configuration was received from Humiston &Moore, Inc. on September 28, 2009 and is under review. Based on the review and analysis of the above information, review from County staff and final response preparation we anticipate submitting a response to the regulatory agencies within 30-45 days. ; !2/ Jeffrejf P.E. Pr- tn 1 Clam Pass JCP Meeting Minutes August 12, 2009 Meeting Attendees: Lainie Edwards, Molly Edson, suburna Malakar, Jennifer Koch—FDEP BBCS Robbin Trindell—FWC (by phone) Gary McAlpin—Collier County (by phone) Jeff Tabar, Bryan Flynn, Matt Starr(by phone), Lizbeth Childs—PBS&J 1. RAI Items 25, 29, 31, 33.d& e and 35-Level and extent of environmental resource survey required. • Existing biological monitoring provided in JCP • Mangroves, Seagrass, Benthic and Water Quality (10 years) • Sea Turtle data provided in JCP(1994 e 2008)#of false crawls and nesting activity reported • Nearshore hardbottom data preformed by the County (can be provided) • Shorebirds and wading birds The County has nearshore hardbottom transects that can be provided and there is no evidence of seagrass in the pass or near the dredge areas. DEP stated that they have the hardbottom monitoring reports and that the county can reference the reports as to proof of no hardbottom in the area. DEP stated that there should be evidence in the response that a seagrass survey was performed and no seagrass was found. Robbin Trindell stated that a summary of sea turtle monitoring data would suffice instead of sending the reports that they already receive. The County is attempting to find shorebird or wading bird monitoring data through the Audubon and similar local interest groups but has not found any so far. FWC and DEP stated that if there isn't any monitoring data or information on bird usage that is fine. FWC asked if the mangroves are a rookery for wading birds and the County replied that they are not aware of any rookeries but will look while out in the field. The permit will likely contain conditions for monitoring for birds during construction. DEP stated that each item in the RAI should be addressed. 2. RAI Items 27 and 33.b- Geotechnical requirements/Beach compatibility—1998 native sampling, 2007 dredge sediment results, and 2008 surface sampling results. • Previous sampling results provided in JCP (tables listed below) DEP stated that the surface samples submitted with the RAI were not sufficient. Future samples should at a minimum include sub-surface sediments from 6"-12" below the surface and not include the top 6". Additional samples should be taken to "fill in the gaps"between the surface samples submitted. For example, cut 2c doesn't have a sample in it. The most inland samples indicated a fine content. For example, silt in sample CP8&9 is high and based on volumes these samples represent 1/3 of the dredge cut. The fine content of the sand to be placed on the beach should be comparable to that sand currently on the beach. Additional sampling (core borings) should be perfoiined to understand if there is truly a fine content. If the fines content if high then a plan should be submitted stating what will be done with the fines. 3. RAI Item 33.a—Required modeling for geo-morphological, ebb shoal, shoreline response, etc. • Dredging footprint has not been expanded, actually reduced. • Requesting same level of authorization as 0128463-001-JC. • Use of previous physical monitoring data • Modeling requirements, optimum dredge width 4. It is the County's intent to maintain the same level of authorization as provided in 0128463-001-JC,for the seaward portion of cut#4 to station 18+00. 5. Work to be performed on as-need basis in order to aid with flushing and improve environmental resources. 6. The frequency of dredging is dependent upon storm activity and the rate of in-filling of the Pass. The County stated that the intent of the application is that, as previously, prior to each dredging event the County would request a NTP for the specific cut and include the justification and details of the dredge event as part of the NTP process. This NTP would basically be issued on an emergency basis only after a true need for dredging has been demonstrated. The County had a previous conversation a few years ago with FDEP staff where it was agreed that modeling wouldn't be necessary— so why is it requested now? FDEP stated that the I-I&M monitoring report(2007) states that that dredging of Clam Pass has not changed the tidal flushing dynamics which is the purpose of the project and that the report states that the dredge cut has increased downdrift erosion. Since the monitoring report by the County's engineer at the time stated these items FDEP would like to know what the optimum dredge cut should be that would act as a flushing channel and not increase downdrift erosion— this could be determined through modeling. At a minimum the FDEP would like to see a hydrodynamic analysis that indicates increased tidal flushing. The County disputes both of these claims and stated that 10 years of monitoring indicates that the pass has not affected the beaches. The County is developing a plan to determine the optimum dredge cut that will be beneficial to the overall health of Clam Bay. This effort includes biological sampling as well as modeling but will not be completed soon or quickly. In the meantime the County would like a permit to open Clam Pass in the event that a stoup comes through and closes or severely limits flow through the Pass. DEP stated that if an emergency is declared for Collier County an Emergency JCP permit can be issued to dredge Clam Pass. The County is concerned because smaller storms affect Clam Pass more directly than the larger ones—after these storms emergencies are not declared so the County would need JCP in place to dredge the Pass. The County proposed to submit, in lieu of modeling, a review of monitoring data to support that dredging has not impacted beach and has provided flushing to Clam Bay. DEP mentioned that the previous dredging events were each so different that it may be difficult to differentiate the effects of different sizes of dredge cuts. The review of previous data should include a statement that the County is undergoing a study to optimize the dredge cut. November 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6biii. Clam Bay Subcommittee- Dredging update(presented by Marcia Cr- ens No.2) Page 1 of 11 SHE CUT Oil 1k1 CUT # C _ c 1p1 NIDC14 r,. CUT 040 404 DWwt1 1.ANII xo n LOOM - PASS k = CUT I 4A 311t CZ+✓t' X W 17. SCUTM 0 /-00--MONALK OUTER CLAM BAY N $ F z 4 1. O W o g y N M {♦ N � ,. - X. Qj :Fl.....�,S1..\ -e__._.�-:.r-4__-_.�,... :.....-:'#R':P'a ..�.'.'tYS.9ry lw..s.�,._F4a. , - a M r. U E 1 • .c�2�E1 �1 i m . i f ',) I sr ii ca ii s4 f. U _ q i f I N X07 • t '' i f i,_'t{ • y } ,' Eo s , f-rs EUN ` 1 f'c:,'! M o:a m • - r 4t. —. ,x.._ _ 4,7 1- ! J.: ,{, f ► � i i I . ; , .� ., IN . '°la o c4 jam, !.' Ian ' • r F �_ ' l ' , ' iii ^ �� ,, I I t k l; 1. sass /✓/� •. A .."IF ,, 1 i I , , .4.- I . .7_, i I SIV8 r�>t' ... „ #10? j/ 7�' ` ` ` iii Y Mill ji I , xalx !!r! I = - iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii I ti �. - t 1i iii 11111111tH 's' ,t x` rrF � if{.4S 4",.. "1.icy .,".A i November 7,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6biii.Clam Bay Subcommittee-Dredging update(presented by Marcia Cravens No.2) Page 3 of 11 From: "Neely, Merrie" <Merrie.Neely @dep.state.fl.us> Subject: Dredge limits Clam Pass Date: August 12, 2010 1:34:27 PM EDT To: 'Marcia Cravens' <goldandrose @mac.com> Cc: "Edwards, Lainie" <Lainie.Edwards @dep.state.fl.us>, "Malakar, Subarna" <Su barna.Malakar@ dep.state.fl.us> Hello Marcia, After reviewing the drawings for the previous permit it appears that a modification in early 1999 clarified the dredge depths of cut4, which were just idealized cross-sections (vague) in the original approved permit drawings—this occurred after the original permit issuance but prior to the project dredge work for cut4. The approved channel width between station 0+00 and 3+64 was 30ft wide, farther inland the channel widens and is variable in width. The dredge depths at these same stations were to—5.5NGVD with the exception of station 2+37.5 which was only permitted to be dredged to a depth of-2.5 NGVD. Farther inland the channel dredge depth shallows to -4.5NGVD and above station 7 shallows to -4NGVD. I do not see references to overdredge depths in the original permit. The same depths appear on the current application drawings with the exception of station 2+37.5 which appears to also reflect the -5.5 dredge depth. I have sent you a package in the mail with these drawings that should arrive later this week. Merrie Beth Neely, Ph.D. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Water Resources Management Joint Coastal Permitting 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. MS 300 Tallahassee,FL 32399-3000 Phone 850 413-7785 Fax 850 414-7725 The Department of Environmental Protection values your feedback as a customer. DEP Secretary Michael W. Sole is committed to continuously assessing and improving the level and quality of services provided to you. Please take a few minutes to comment on the quality of service you received. Simply click on this link to the DEP Customer Survey. Thank you in advance for completing the survey. Z - e eU y e pp .. il h m'a e— w d A' kk � C� y m� (D" U w 0 $ 5 , C` Z ri 3 __E s � � .3 C1 w �' co E Z s :st �.,' f p 3 �y .� 4 , r O s7 g r a a fif �k S E[.,.... ' it/, S k _ f ,� I�, s.4 €k 4 yg�, (.4/0 s 'z R s , /0. w . fIEl I. b.i Y 1 I I I i I s' it pZ C • irL`JJI , I 1 i i I Rl 4 R, y --41 -f J1�-'t J °11 \ 7., I I I I I I I g1i21 wt • .4 `RI Ab %/ // ' ` L Y3im I 1 aS x •s/; t� F •` . �` RaRAkR �/� ^Li■RRa L § g6S.'ciRRSA:R I9 k.AIISp f�.AA A R� A �.a it 2 Co (0 g ca p� R 8 m n \ y G o n ,3 •u E Qi \_O w O"... OJ ;aY 0 G!-T \ ° waa.c °1 1 W II m,f,',.N u an d E C9161 CO G C k J Q Z "� U O 0 c m E o �� J t w o 4 5 e W a °� �''ias oZZZ2 :6- ag. NO000 Z W 8 E =W W W Q a NNNN cc ..I ° Oa * EMI et N N N N 000 ix.c.c 0000 * o a ei:_., ;..) c„ ,,,,,, ,. 1 ZwZZ 0 50 0 GZZZZZZ � 055 O NOOOOOO ,— ta o03333 IQ W W UZ00 d00UU0CJ W W W W W w Q w w La ES w W W W W w>>>> C7 La N J N N W La ES N N N N N N Li g * j l a- 11 » I I I I I I Z Z Z Z > N 1 N N =N N N N N N Q Q Q Q Z N N N Z Z C)N N N N N N J J J J M aO OO¢QQOOOOOOaaaaN J o M o o J_I W o o d d'cc o J aU0kUUatim000UUU I I 1 1 a01 Oil g I I 25 i i i i l l l l l l i N*I *t1 N q �k*ko*k NNM<t VYV d"0V V V VQQQG}Q -CC ,, ,, W W W W Q W I--I--I-I-I-V-I-I-F-F-I-HI--I-Ce Ce Ce Ce Ce ___=_________=Q Q G G J< 000 CJ C)CJ CJ 0000000JJJJ JJ wwwwwwwwwwwwwWQaaama C9C9C7U0C9OC9OC9OC9OC9NNNN N 0 0 0 c I n Q Q Q Q G,Q Q„0 0 0 0 .0 W W W W WW W W W W w W W W a'1 CL.1.`fi CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC Cr1cc cc 12cc N N N N E5(4. W p p p p p p p p p O p p p p p p p p 3 p w = O N M 4'xi 6 i�of rn O.- 0 NM4u)6 -06 6 NN aw TV-- 1 ./..,...= 1 v. E [ I hi 0 2 O C 6 5 O3IX3K 40 1700 q 2 . 1 f2 Co E. 1Z.4 t..," = ..:,. .... , . a, .g , 6 E71 g,9, ,5 2 S''"•13 g 15 & g 8 a' 2? ,' U ,z. -z .. <13 0 G-4 LU r m E L,E 7,o a 2 (V 7 ■ ' '. f i ' ,. i X ,,,,,A:ti ■ ift E U. ' ° i e■l- „.',. :II 1 Ail' e f?1 I 116 • i . 0.1 i 3 N„ -.3. -*,.''''' ■ 'i.,I f,,'.■ ;-,i • ,: • '\ 1 '‘'.1;'::1/ „, i ..,1 .1•„, Pt( iii 1 i i , 0 ... ■ : ' et, '1' tt t ; t V. — V. f #. ., . .>.,7 -- .0 __ • ' : 1, ....-... •.j, "•:::,, I; ., t ; , I ... e --f-.- - •••■:::: .;,,,',i, :4.1:' i° . . • #44114tg; V; i.;■,' f• • I II' :I 1 I I I L y ,..-,,ig . ; „iff 7, ----Fr 4-fll'14-i-14-11411, iiiii g..tt , §e.... .., - - digr-04,2;r•.909:4.110r42'4 I ,44,15 ',.:::_,;;!,.' ''TA'' 5g,e,z '-'45- 4to I .:1,1. ",,, ' ■ , ..44\ , H .4 • . , ,_.., - 4 1W:i • 1,....;..,..........-.,,t,....„,vo.)r.,f,;:;? it ,11...7.1ro.tr.sg it% 1 11111111 s9.....2:,..-za . `10,1,./. ..• I viihillig 2 ,. 'Irofei4,* LC . • k41.4.,,Xtakg 11 -;,;gili„Ititgzs:44tMlt .. 01.411111111111111 .* .3..... .....-31FEZZL.ZZ .... _ '• _„,„,,.,_.......... . .. ■ - ,.. _ q 2 r 0,g s 1 : °2 I .,$2 1' °. ,t 2,1i .L4 .g f ,....„/ Cr 'r'g a 2■2 0 i ' fi \\ 5 VI IX 5 i g o E e“ II lob .t p:‘ . _ ilf I . _ N , i i a I i i N\ ti i 1 . ,g 'I I ' !g ,1 ;i -t1 I k s ' 2 '9 2 2 \ / .(mo.133A mown OW.113A=Lam T T C..)ou....... 7 7 0,..,4,,,, T I I xv I 1 1.1.&V i N if i ibri 1 i i i i g i 2 i 1 3 i 111. I 1 - k 1 , A W a....110111.73 ' ' Op.,•yrij..,,,,,, I 7 0,...0 I I 1 f :.% r ;%■ ,_ , I t I i E g... ,I ,1 'V 2 1 g g I I ,.,. 1 . . W.) • ■ ' , V I I to.)lal pommy . . ,=', i z • F. go V" ", J m 4 n C3 , N 2 p 42 p! x z O 1 i 'Si ,, ,s:,/j ZU cc .0-0 F i yH m •8. N r 44 '3 - Y i N '0 1 $ tRQ z°ca 1111 i; CU X af i a 8 - c O ' - ,a, - •—' - WOO•__neintins' i i % C 8 1 8 p � 8 S 1F C f__'m mums s ' Wm)•w on.. ' (w0 m muwae ' Waal•,^.+eewm La _ ££ 8 i 5 .-x 5 a 9 a G 8$g a €€ yelm a . . . (N- g . E =. i-54 co 3 U . IS g E g3 — .5.2 swat F-22 ,ZE 41 6 I § VIIV '''' 1.,,1 z or= ...... .., i5' C:*f ';; 1 : m IC 0 H g 0 , _ C...1 , or2 44 i 't i T97.., i• - n ,,..- o ! if NI . i . ;.2 ! :., g 1. 2 i - 1. 1 4. i . T r 11 14- "i . I. 11 11 $N 1 ; i i . i k _ i 2 i N&. i it.- I A' ; 1 0N- ; '..1. P.- I 1° 4 i .1 il 1 1 ,I k k k . , t ! ' 1 I 11 a 1 ' ' 1 - " - taw.7 1106.9 T' - lEg 11 El EL r t i I'll 1 IL I+ I; i 11 5 4 -E. 11 : E . i \ 1 ! K\ g I " 1■..- i _ 1 q "4,N.,_ 1 i bes i 6 1 3 Ol' ii 1 i g 1 II\ .i g i i k I a a a a a i ' 1 , - , • l.• 1 - 1 ig i p . - Ili - ,\ E g 'N E I. ■. \ . r 1 &.% 1 1 i& i ! \\ i - 1 i 1 1 l 1 g 'I ' i 11 w i g '4. a i . . i-4 _ ' . -' - woo •..ocu mums ' woo 132t,mnam woo Isso motneato ■ ' ' " , ■ . -■ coat.au 14.119 ' • z • o U m, i 'm 2 : a ram::.-. am,' _ 5 b m`a m 9 m° X . r n N Ss z 8 m :. o 1 I a u.. ?t.a _ z a ++- ,'fl YON _ �N m No Zoo i 9 E d1 a co V 1 fg S E.c4 ri a cm n m 'o D ill * R. 6 IL !k 5 G 7 1 8 : a a - wn.c 1:311106179 1.+0•m,.o0.m w..a'n>i weuw,ro m..4•1.ni....0v ' I 5 " S. 1• 111 a 1• 'g fs9 .9 g ., Y 5 c 5 t i i 5 r t e a 3 8 2 E m+a a., T w+o•,s,mason a,.o'.n,.1..70 7 wea la.;rws ' r- 1 s k n a i ; s a § 9 2s T _ 4..4 sa1...,o mra m...n . ore•m MIR. ' m.ro',,,,.s,.... N C z N C z Q 1 C a C O W J N ,.r' f w a Z z as a, it m a ;ti }� .,� jig} 0 ILI .. d E °' ji ,, ii ),,*Iii,,' E 5 .N - _ •_____ 1 iL } r I ,!-- N prig =t.11 0 CO >,p ., : r r1 3ii1 ! ' -' '3• 1 m � y 1 w i t l � r ca E � ' «. r ) t U o ■ ` , f. f t. N O 2 i J( (1S_- 1 .4. ; f O 7. • . -f,40.w,..e . 4. I. r(F 1'jys, iii E O W,5 �,yy�'` E U — .4th k«5.. `a i lf ��g. N . N } • N • <e i j„ f , i I t9 a '� , Yom.+.. f Ti e $ Ira 9* F�t i =ny z` ii , ! , ,, � Sig r i b Y 0 • 3 s; ---27--,-1:-.. .,.1/) d LL . F— 0)Qrnp y , s- - 'VIII i N LL� L 'M+cr ; . w • O N w t lr O) Q m UJ a ti y � � 11Co l - , q`, f34°}Ix 1a1e i� i . I I i i 1 i :i 1 1 1 'T V' ,ip .. ` f • 0,9, , '' , , , 1 1 . c.Ry , I Y iG /, t I , 1 1iI i gflii ? �? '1!J i 4 1:1 11 t I yyq z ! - 4 1 44 4:f H ilir . , . .cam/ ✓!' ;. ` � ��"° a :zaxen a ' r' u�. ,x aasa esa xx z xl t