Loading...
CAC Minutes 04/05/2002 RApril 5, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE April 5, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee met on this date at 1:45 p.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Room 216, Building H of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Gary Galleberg Anthony P. Pires, Jr. David Roellig John P. Strapponi Ashley D. Lupo Robert B. Stakich William Kroeschell James L. Snediker ALSO PRESENT: Ron Pennington Ron Hovell, Public Utilities Engineering Department Jon Staiger Page 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING IN ROOM 216, SECOND FLOOR, BUILDING "H" (PUBLIC HEALTH), AT THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA AT 1:30 P.M. ON APRIL 5, 2002. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Additions to Agenda 3. Old Business a. Goodland Civic Association TDC grant application b. County-wide sand search TDC grant application c. 10-year plan d. Future meetings schedule 4. New Business a. None 5. Audience Participation 6. Schedule next meeting 7. Adjournment ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISED THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. April 5, 2002 (The following proceedings commenced, Misters Kroeschell, Strapponi, and Roellig were not present:) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We'll call to order the April 5th special meeting of the Coastal Advisory Committee. I'll note for the record that I'm Gary Galleberg. We have in attendance Mr. Pires, Mr. Snediker, Mr. Stakich, and Ms. Lupo. We also have a pending new member. Mr. Ron Pennington is in back. He's been nominated by the Naples City Council, and that -- that nomination will go to the county commission. We have every expectation he'll be joining us for the May meeting. We have for the -- this is a very informal setting, of course. Before the committee we have two items that have been requested to be added, and I think we ought to discuss them for a minute and then take a motion and vote whether we will add them. One is the Barefoot Beach restoration project which we had previously turned down as being more in the private interest than the public interest. Representatives are here today, and I would like to give them a chance to speak. That doesn't indicate endorsement or lack of endorsement on what they want to say, but just the opportunity to speak I think should be afforded that group. And Mr. Hovell wants to update us on the boat that sank and broke up offshore. So if we could take those one by one -- if everyone agrees with me that we might hear the Barefoot Beach representatives' case, so to speak, I'll take that motion. (Mr. Strapponi entered the room.) MR. PIRES: I think -- just a point of order for the -- I'm not sure how formal we are in reconsideration issues in the fact that last week we had this item -- last meeting -- excuse me -- we had this item as part of our scheduled consideration. And that maybe is a question best directed to Ron. Do you-all have for our committee a Page 2 April 5, 2002 sense of a more formal reconsideration policy where a member of the committee would ask that it be brought back for reconsideration or not? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I don't think -- I'm not aware of a specific policy for this committee. I do know how it works on the Naples City Council, and that is kind of the way I'm doing it, that if the majority of-- it needs to be brought up by somebody who voted in the majority. That would be a no vote and -- and then we need a second. Then if the majority of the committee then agrees we can take a look at it again, we do. And we'll take another vote. That's how it works at Naples City Council. I'm not aware specifically of a county commission procedure or if there's a state procedure. But I think -- I think what we're doing, you know, will serve us well. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: So would anyone want to make a motion that we hear the representatives from Barefoot Beach? MR. SNEDIKER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: MS. LUPO: I'll second. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. Do we have a second? All those in favor? (Mr. Kroeschell entered the room.) THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. That was Mr. Snediker and Ms. Lupo? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We have -- during -- during my conversations -- Mr. Strapponi walked in, and now we just had Mr. Kroeschell. And I'm going to restate the motion so that we all can vote, and that is that we have -- that we have representatives here from Barefoot Beach who would like to give us an explanation about their proposal for beach restoration which we had turned down as Page 3 April 5, 2002 part of our meeting last time. We have a motion by Mr. Snediker, a second by Miss Lupo to - - to let them make a presentation. All those in favor say aye. MR. SNEDIKER: I have a question. Do we have an opinion from the county attorney on this issue? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We don't have the benefit of the county attorney on -- on reconsideration, but I think -- MR. SNEDIKER: No. I -- I mean on the original subject of whether it's available for TDC funds. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I don't believe we have the county attorney's opinion on that matter. We do have it on another matter, right. MR. HOVELL: And that's right. We didn't specifically ask eligibility on this particular project, and I -- I -- I would suppose it to be that it is -- as far as is it beach restoration or not and does it meet the Florida Statute, I think the answer would be yes, it is eligible. MR. SNEDIKER: Okay. MR. HOVELL: I think the other issues that we addressed last time were more, you know, related to a, yes, but it's private property, and how -- what's the -- what does this committee and the county want the policy to be for dealing with all those beaches that aren't currently maintained by the county but perhaps could be. And Barefoot's one. Pelican Bay is one. And, you know, we haven't come to grips with that. MS. LUPO: Does Hideaway fall within that definition? MR. HOVELL: No. Hideaway-- Hideaway kind of went through this however many years ago, and I think you'll hear that as an example of why they're asking you to reconsider. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Quite frankly, I think this motion boils down to do we want to hear from the public. I don't know why Page 4 April 5, 2002 we wouldn't want to hear from the public. And that's, frankly, the sense of the motion -- MR. STRAPPONI: Mr. Chairman, I'm coming in on the end of this. I don't know if the floor is still open for comment or question, but how long is this presentation estimated to take? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I don't have an answer for that. (Mr. Roellig entered the room.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I don't have the answer for that. MR. STRAPPONI: Is there someone present that does? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Identify yourself, please. MR. POFF: For the record, Michael Poff, Coastal Engineering Consultants, representative for Barefoot Beach. I'll be brief, less than five minutes. MR. SNEDIKER: I'll withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: You'll withdraw? MR. SNEDIKER: (Nodded head.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: All right. Do we have a motion to hear people? MR. STRAPPONI: Five minutes. I -- I make a motion that we give them an opportunity to present to us a position. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: MS. LUPO: Second. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Do we have a second? Motion by Mr. Strapponi, second by Ms. Lupo. All those in favor say aye. MR. ROELLIG: Aye. MR. STRAPPONI: Aye. MS. LUPO: Aye. MR. STAKICH: Aye. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Opposed? MR. PIRES: Aye. Page 5 April 5, 2002 MR. SNEDIKER: Aye. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: That was Mr. Pires and Mr. Snediker, I believe, in opposition. I vote in favor, so we are -- MR. KROESCHELL: I didn't -- I didn't get a chance to vote. I vote in favor, too. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. We are then 6 to 2 in favor of hearing them. The second thing to add to the agenda is simply an update by Mr. Hovell regarding the boat that broke up and sank near shore. And I guess we could do that under new business, but I've already marked on this let's make a motion, do business. So do we have a motion in favor of that? MR. KROESCHELL: I so move. MR. STRAPPONI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Seconded by Mr. Strapponi. All in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: It passes 8-0. MR. HOVELL: If it's okay, Mr. Chairman, I'll -- I'll go out of order and do the quick boat update, because, in part, I -- I wanted to explain while I'll be more disorganized today than perhaps you might otherwise have seen me be. I've spent all morning dealing with the fact that yesterday we had a boat sink just off of Vanderbilt Beach. It was a wooden-hull boat about 65 feet long and some type of houseboat. It had an upper- deck railing that you could see in this morning's newspaper. And all that wood has disintegrated into, you know, in essence, a pile of 2- by-4s strewn up and down the beach from the -- from the very north end of Vanderbilt Beach right at the county -- or I mean Delnor Page 6 April 5, 2002 Wiggins State Park line all the way down -- we've gotten complaints as far down as Pelican Bay. And we're anticipating it might even go down to Park Shore. Big mess. Further complicated by the fact that the -- the owner had called a company in. Apparently it was part of some association that helps boaters in distress. And so they called somebody in who had showed up to help perhaps salvage the boat. And, of course, it sank and immediately started breaking up. The contractor has been there now for a day plus, figured out that the owner can't really pay, and he's been going around to the state, the Coast Guard, and every office in the county you can possibly name, you know, in essence, hoping that somebody will step forward and -- and fund him to do that. But, of course, we have standing contracts to go clean up at least the high and dry part of the beach. So, you know, we showed up with our equipment, and he got rather upset and -- anyway, it's just been a long morning. I just got down here in time to -- to bring my box. I didn't get a chance to see if the room was set up in any way that we might want it set up, and so I guess we'll make do with it with the way it is. And we're looking at about almost a week worth of work to try and clean up all the -- all the debris out there. So I'm sure between the papers and the -- and the TV and what not, you know, you'll hear more about this over the next day. We did put out a press release to try and help answer some of the questions that are --. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Is there a mechanism for reimbursement from the boat owner? MR. HOVELL: As best I can tell, you know, in a situation like this when the initial indication is there's -- there's no mechanism for the boat owner to pay outright that we keep track of the costs that we're expending, and I'll refer all that to the county attorney's office. Page 7 April 5, 2002 And they may or may not seek to -- to sue them, depending on their understanding of it, you know, if there's anything to sue against. MR. STRAPPONI: Ron, was there much fuel on board? Was it much of a spill? MR. HOVELL: Yeah. There were estimated 260 gallons between the engine and the fuel tank, and that's the Coast Guard's responsibility to clean it up. And they, too, were kind of standing on the beach with no -- at least the last I heard, no known plan to do anything with it. MR. STRAPPONI: Do we know if it was gas or diesel? MR. HOVELL: Diesel. MR. STRAPPONI: It was diesel? MR. HOVELL: Because there was a spare 55-gallon drum of diesel that washed up on the beach. I don't think it had ruptured or anything, but that was in the paper or at least the website version of the paper. Jon? MR. STAIGER: Other than the fuel, was there any other contamination problem? MR. HOVELL: Well, lots of screws and nails. It's not just wood. It's kind of dangerous wood, if you will. And there is -- there is -- at one of the offshore sandbars, there is a section that's stuck out there with the steering column and what not kind of, you know, sticking out of the water. And even if any of us wanted to do anything, the winds have picked up again this afternoon, and there's 3- to 4-foot seas out there. So nobody's out there trying to do anything except other than, you know, cleaning up what we can on the beach and watching the situation continue to unfold. MR. STAIGER: Disintegrate. MR. HOVELL: Yeah. Page 8 April 5, 2002 MR. STRAPPONI: Where do we stand right now? Is the contractor proceeding? MR. HOVELL: Oh, yeah. No, we're -- our contractor. We had -- we had Lightner Contracting who is our standing fixed-term contractor that will bring equipment to clean up various things on the beach. This is just one of them. MR. STRAPPONI: I would think that it's a given because it sounds like a health problem or danger. MR. HOVELL: And he was already mobilized by Naples beach as part of the rock-sifting program, so we just -- we just stole some equipment from that project and sent them on up there. So they were there since just before lunch, less than an hour from the time I found out until the time they got there. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Since we have no way of-- a member of the public for Barefoot Beach presentation, why don't we do that now. So if-- Mr. Poff, if you would like to come up and make your presentation ... MR. POFF: Would anybody else like a copy? Again, for the record, my name is Michael Poff with Coastal Engineering Consultants. And I appreciate the opportunity to at least discuss this project before all of you and ask that you take it under reconsideration. Lely Barefoot Beach has historically been a very stable beach. During the design of the Collier County beach restoration project when we looked at the historical shoreline erosion rate, Lely Barefoot Beach was very stable. It was not included in the project because of the stable conditions. It did not need to be renourished. Page 9 April 5, 2002 Because of that no erosion control line was set. An erosion control line is set, in part, with the cooperation of the property owners, the county, and the DEP. We are going to do a beach restoration project, widen the beach, both above and below mean high water, the concept being to set the erosion control line at the preconstruction mean high water line. That will then forever demarcate the ownership between private and public lands. So by nature of a beach project or a dune project or a restoration project or a coastal structure project, these projects are often working on private property. If the county is doing the work, they typically obtain construction easements from the property owners to allow them to go in and do the work. In this case during Tropical Storm Gabrielle, as you're all very familiar with, the dunes, the beaches were severally damaged during that storm. Plants were lost; sand was overwashed; sand was eroded. Lely Barefoot Beach was no exception. The Barefoot Beach condominiums put together a project, went to the county, got a permit under the DEP emergency order back in October. Since that time they've been trying to get a vehicle-on-the- beach permit to do the work that would meet the ! O-pounds-per- square-inch requirement for sea turtle protection. That's very difficult to do. The county -- what they do in their projects is for upland sand hauls for dune projects, they bring loaders and trucks to the beach. They do the project; then they till the beach like their contracting is used to till the beach to 36 inches to meet compaction requirements. Barefoot Beach hired us to help them get the permits, get the dunes reconstructed. In doing so, we agreed that we would monitor the beaches, do the beach tilling, meet the compaction requirements. They were allowed to bring the trucks on the beach. Page 10 April 5, 2002 I would pose that the county has historically done projects where there is no erosion control line set or little public access or the public access and parking is at great distances. I'm not criticizing any of these projects; I fully support all of them. In fact, I helped design and permit some of them. I just presented them in my letter to you as examples of projects similar to this in nature where the county has worked on private property, has placed sand, has done dune restoration, has cleaned the beach, etc., etc. Almost all of the things that we're requesting have been done by the county on projects like these. To conclude, my client recognizes your concerns: debris removal, no erosion control line, private lands, public access at great distances. They asked me to revise the application. We have focused just on the cost of the sand and the cost of the plants and the irrigation of the plants. And, as I said, I would appreciate your reconsideration of their request for your support to go before the TDC, and I can answer any questions or at least try to answer any questions. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Pires. MR. PIKES: IfI may, thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few questions. I guess from the standpoint of the entity that's applying for, is there such an entity known as Barefoot Beach Condominiums, or is there a master corporate entity, because I don't believe that to be a legal entity ? MR. POFF: It's the Barefoot Beach Condominium Association. There is a master association in Lely Barefoot Beach. I believe there's several subassociations. This is one of the subassociations to the master association. MR. PIRES: From the perspective -- up in Barefoot Beach have there ever been situations the last few years where people have Page 11 April 5, 2002 been building -- I'll call it -- seaward of the control line where they have been making improvements, either on back of dune systems or seaward control line without getting permits from Collier County? MR. POFF: I don't know the answer to that question. I believe that Barefoot Beach condos were built back in the early '90s, late '80s. I know that our firm had something to do with the PUD for all of Lely Barefoot Beach, but I don't know when those condominiums were exactly built. I would think those condos would have had full permits. I know I've worked for the condos in getting permits for, like, paver improvements and dune walkover improvements. As far as one of the condominium buildings I don't believe was built unpermitted in Collier County. MR. PIRES: The only reason I raise that, Mr. Chairman-- and I have a couple more questions -- the Development Services Advisory Committee, there was a discussion about changes to the Land Development Code to address the situations of violations of the county's ordinances seaward of various buildings, including buildings in Lely Barefoot Beach. If I recall correctly, the number was there were 22 violations, and I'm not sure it was all in Lely Barefoot Beach or in The Strand where the county ordinances were not being complied with. I think it's just important to know what other issues are out there before this committee takes a -- makes a recommendation on this particular application. Do you know if they were specific to the MR. POFF: condominiums? MR. PIRES: Once again, I wasn't sure. I just heard some of that discussion at Wednesday's meeting. I wasn't there at the prior meeting by the code enforcement staff. Mr. Hovell -- Ron. MR. HOVELL: Mr. Chairman, as you'll recall when -- when I got the call about possibly adding this to the agenda, I called you, and Page 12 April 5, 2002 you had asked me to provide some background information as well. So perhaps I could share that information, and they may answer some of the questions that you may have in your mind. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Let's do that now. MR. HOVELL: One of the things that you thought we ought to point out or remind folks of is where we're talking about. And if I didn't do this upside down -- yeah, it is. Long day. MR. STAIGER: Water is west. MR. HOVELL: Wiggins Pass and the county line at -- I never get the name right -- Bonita Beach Springs -- Bonita Beach Road, and so in general we tend to think of this whole section as easily called Barefoot Beach. But to be more specific, down somewhere around here (indicating) it becomes state/county-owned land, certainly managed as a preserve anyway. And then it's -- basically from here to here is the overall PUD. But in looking into the records, there's actually four -- I'm not sure what the right word is -- subassociations, perhaps, or separate landowner associations under the master association. I don't know if anybody else can address it, but there's something called The Cottages, the Barefoot Beach condominiums. Oh, no, there's a marina club or something. MR. POFF: Miramar. MR. HOVELL: Miramar Beach Club, then the Barefoot Beach Property Owners' Association, which is in essence the single-family homes. And I think they were all done -- according to the clerk's office, the PUD was done in phases. And so as each phase was turned over, it was turned over to that association from the developer. So there are four associations, but I -- you know, I can't really address their legal -- you know, legal position in life. I did ask the attorney to come today, but the last-minute message I got was that they had moved the TDC meeting up to two Page 13 April 5, 2002 o'clock, so she couldn't be here. The second thing is, you know, Michael and I have talked about this some because obviously he's been asking how the -- how to go through the permit or the grant application process. And we had initially heard about this project at the county level because of the sand-on-the-beach issue. The turtle staff tends to get very concerned with where and when you're putting sand on the beach, where it's coming from, has the state approved it, etc. The permit was applied for within the -- whatever it was, 30- or 60-day window under the state emergency order to recover from Tropical Storm Gabrielle. But on the flip side, no -- depending on who you ask in the state, you get different answers on whether or not and how long that permit is good for, and I think the same thing happens at the county level. So my understanding, which is I'm sure different than lots of other different people's understandings, is that you had to -- you had to provide the notice to the state within about the first 30 or 60 days, and in theory you were supposed to have at least started construction if not finished it within that emergency time frame. And when we just had DEP down here a day or two ago looking at our rock- removal program, you know, I asked him what his understanding of it was. And he said-- of course, this is on the code enforcement side. And he said absolutely long ago expired; it's supposed to have been done, for what it's worth. Now, I'm sure if I could have gotten Barbara Burgeson or somebody from the county office that deals with permits, I think it's been their understanding that once they received the permit application -- and I guess the way it was worded, it wasn't even really an application; it was more of a notice -- that they were just going to allow it to happen all the way up to turtle season. You know, there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut answer as far as permits for this Page 14 April 5, 2002 particular job, and I definitely can't address, you know, what may have happened in the past. I don't remember if you had asked me to address any other-- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: You had mentioned to me and maybe you can flush it out -- and it's noted in Mr. Poffs presentation -- the unusual nature of the property there, that the beach is actually private property, is it not? MR. HOVELL: It is. In essence, he did address that. The state -- the publicly owned lands starts at, in essence, the mean high waterline, although there's some, I think, it's 19-year average, and I'm not sure who's supposed to tell you where that is. That could be 5 feet out into the surf or 10 feet up the shore. I don't know exactly where that line is, but it's a moving property line because we've not done a renourishment there. There is no permanent forever more kind of property line like there is in Naples, Park Shore and Vanderbilt and Hideaway and Marco Island. And so it is -- it is a moving target right now. And I think the other thing that we talked about last time was -- was easements that go along with these types of things if the county was going to do any type of maintenance on those beaches. And that's actually come up in two different ways over the last six months anyway. One was the request -- I think it may have been from the same group -- to do -- potentially do some beach raking there. Then there were some back and forth that the county just can't do it as part of the current program. Maybe we could do it with reimbursement. You know, that's when I went to the county attorney's office, and they started talking about, as you're probably alluding to, the lawsuit with the master association, are we really sure we want to be trying to do contracts and that kind of stuff. Page 15 April 5, 2002 And the other time was right after Tropical Storm Gabrielle we were approached, I think, by the property owners' association, the single-family homes, about coming up there and helping put the sand that had washed up into all their yards and common areas back onto the beach. And that particular one we did take to the county attorney's office. And it was, you know, even though it's putting sand on the beach which could be classified as beach renourishment We were -- of course, it would have been county equipment too -- we would be assisting private property owners, and the county attorney's office said no, it's not appropriate to do that. MR. PIRES: Because the test probably generally is you can't use public monies primarily for private purpose, and that's how it possibly could have been argued or construed. MR. HOVELL: You know, without having a chance to remember to grab that and bring it down to tell you exactly what was said, that's why I was hoping that the attorney was going to be here. MR. PIRES: And the other-- the issue that I was referencing that I heard first at the DSAC meeting was with regard to not -- not particularly beach renourishment activities but other activities, with grassing over and paving over areas, so that may be something --. MR. HOVELL: Yes, because, as I say, I don't know all the background. MR. PIRES: I'm not sure I did. Once again, I had mentioned about the litigation. I don't think it's appropriate. The litigation has been going on for years between the county and the master association over utilization over access south as well as the guardhouse. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Miss Lupo, do you have a question? MS. LUPO: I did. I wanted to know if that area that's not Page 16 April 5, 2002 renourishable is going to negatively impact the southerly beaches such as Barefoot Beach park. What's the movement as far as the area? MR. HOVELL: I don't know if anybody has a drawing of it with them, but I believe the restoration isn't -- you know, it isn't out close to the water. It's the dunes. It's recreating the dunes, both in height and the plantings that were on the dunes. So I think it's more from a storm protection point of view than from a, you know, height or width of the beach point of view. MS. LUPO: And what is Maura's opinion as far as the baggage with the turtles if the dunes are restored? MR. HOVELL: No, I don't have her opinion. I would tend to think her reaction would be that having places for turtles to nest is a good thing. But whether these dunes and how much they -- MS. LUPO: You don't know the -- as far as the extent of the turtle activity in that area is? MR. HOVELL: No. Actually Michael might know because he may have seen reports from that. I know they monitor up there, but I don't know what the results are. I'm sure Maura would have been here, but they have -- I think it's a statewide turtle conference this week. MR. POFF: Speak to the points you made, Ron? As far as permits go, the Barefoot Beach condominiums applied for and received a coastal construction setback line permit from Collier County through April 30th, 2002, during the time period that DEP's emergency order allowed that to occur. The very first thing I did when I was hired by Barefoot was call DEP. I spoke to Jenny Howard, who is the field representative for Collier County, and asked her, must I reapply for a coastal construction setback line permit from DEP. She stated to me, no, that you do not have to. If that permit Page 17 April 5, 2002 from Collier County was issued during the emergency order time frame, you're allowed to work until the expiration of that permit. So the other item would be, just to clarify that, my client is not the master association. The lawsuit between Collier County and the master association is -- is an issue, but it's not the Barefoot Beach Condominium Association. MR. PIRES: The Barefoot Beach Condominium Association is a member of the master association; correct? Correct. They are helping fund that litigation against the MR. POFF: MR. PIRES: county. MR. POFF: I can't tell you if they're funding that or not. I didn't ask that question before I came here today. As far as sea turtle activity, I've been coordinating this with Maura Krause; we've been e-mailing. She has recommended her approval to Barbara Burgeson, Steve Lenberger and staff, with regard to the project and us not meeting the 10 PSI requirements and allowing us to do the tilling. And as far as the nest numbers, I don't have the numbers memorized, but I do know that Lely Barefoot Beach is one of the most prolific nesting areas in Collier County. Part of that is because we have not had to do activities on it before. It has never been disturbed for restoration or coastal structures or things of that nature. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Dr. Staiger. DR. STAIGER: One comment about the -- the restoration of the dune on -- on basically private property, when we did the Collier County beach restoration project on Naples beach, the erosion control line in most places was out on the dry sand beach. In a few areas the dry sand beach basically was not existent, and so the ECL was up against seawall. But the majority of Naples beach, the erosion control line was out on the beach 25, 30 feet beyond the vegetation Page 18 April 5, 2002 line. And when the project was done, a 20-foot swath of dune vegetation was planted from the vegetation line out. In all -- in almost, I would imagine, probably 75 percent of that re -- rerestored dune was restored on private property that was landward of the erosion control line. And so -- but -- but we have the construction easements to do all that and a clear understanding to the adjacent upland property owners that if you let us restore the beach in front of your property, the sand goes all the way up to a logical stopping point on your property, and we do all this other work, and you get that benefit, and the city has always maintained the dry sand beach is publicly accessible anyway whether somebody claims ownership of it or not. But the -- the majority of that restored dune in the City of Naples was probably on property that was inland of the erosion control line, so it was still private property, the assumption being that restoring the dune is an environmentally beneficial thing to do. It's a reservoir of sand in case of a storm. It's habitat for a lot of different things, including a place for turtles to nest. And so there was never any question, really, about the -- the, you know, appropriateness of-- of doing the vegetation project, regardless of whether it was in front of the erosion control line or behind it. So putting dune vegetation up on -- you know, restoring the dune in Lely Barefoot Beach is a reasonable thing to do from the environmental standpoint and the -- even if it's private property, it's -- it's beneficial environmentally, whether or not the committee feels that's reasonable because it is private property and there has been this ongoing hassle about access to it. You know, that's -- I'm not addressing that. Michael can attest to that a lot of that work was done inlands of the erosion control. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We are considering this under Page 19 April 5, 2002 the rubric of TDC funds, and that is really our issue. Mr. Hovell. MR. HOVELL: And, if I could, you know, for those of you who may not already know, the process for these grant applications, they're called TDC grant applications that the Coastal Advisory Committee makes a recommendation; actually the Tourist Development Council makes a recommendation. And the Board of County Commissioners has to decide. So the -- the -- you know, should the -- should the association take a negative recommendation that they could, in essence, withdraw it, but if they do not, I believe it goes to all three groups, and there will be other chances for them to make further arguments if they so desire. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: So do we have any other questions or comments? MR. SNEDIKER: Do I understand that this work would be completed by April 30th of this year? It doesn't say which year. MR. POFF: This year, correct, except for the irrigation of the plants. All the sand and dunes will be done before April 30th. MR. SNEDIKER: But today is April 5th. It has to go to TDC and the Board of County Commissioners? MR. POFF: We're asking for reimbursement. MR. SNEDIKER: Has the work started? MR. POFF: Yes, yes. MR. STRAPPONI: I have one question: I'd like your opinion as to how you feel this restoration in the Barefoot Beach area is going to help develop tourism because we're charged with the responsibility of tourist development. That's what the taxes are for there in the first place. MR. POFF: Sure. There's a beach access to the south. It's the county state park. There's also a beach access at the north, at the county line with Lee County. And so you have two public accessible Page 20 April 5, 2002 points that not only residents of Collier County are using but tourists are using. And so from that standpoint this beach is heavily used. In fact, we had to shut down for construction because it's been -- was spring break. Everybody that was here, there were too many people on the beach to work. A lot were residents, but granted, there were some tourists there too. People running and walking the beach from access to access are using the beach. Jon, you said it better than I could have possibly said it, and I thank you for your comments. From a holistic view of the beach management process, a dune is essential for storm protection, reservoir for sand, the environmental benefits that go with that that the TDC also use for those things, recreation, and for environmental habitat, creation, protection, those kind of things, so I offer that to you. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Do we have any other questions or-- or comments? MR. KROESCHELL: Yes, I have a question. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Kroeschell. MR. KROESCHELL: I saw in here that you are 2200 feet from the Barefoot Beach park on the south. MR. POFF: Correct. MR. KROESCHELL: How far are you from the beach access to the north--. MR. POFF: It's a little over a mile. MR. KROESCHELL: 5,000 feet. MR. POFF: From the north end of the property it's about a mile and a quarter. (Ms. Robinson entered the room.) MR. HOVELL: See if I can do this. You might be able to tell better than I, but I think the condos are in this area, and the county park section is down here, and the -- the other public access is up Page 21 April 5, 2002 here. So you could almost say it's close to the middle. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We'll note for the record that Jacqueline Robinson, one of the county attorneys, has just joined us. Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Thank you, Mr. Poff. MR. POFF: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Last time we made a decision that we were not going to recommend funding for this. I think since we've reopened it and heard the presentation we should take a motion and vote. And obviously the two choices are to ratify our prior decision or to -- to overturn it. So I'll entertain a motion if anyone wants to do that. MR. PIRES: I make a recommendation not to recommend approval. Maintain the position. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Motion to not recommend approval, which is to ratify our prior decision. Do we have a second? MR. STRAPPONI: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Strapponi seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. MR. PIRES: Aye. MR. STRAPPONI: Aye. MR. SNEDIKER: Aye. MS. LUPO: Aye. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Opposed? MR. ROELLIG: Aye. MR. STAKICH: Aye. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We have 6 -- 6 ayes. Mr. Roellig and Mr. Stakich are voting in the negative. Page 22 April 5, 2002 I? THE COURT REPORTER: Pardon me? MR. STRAPPONI: One abstention. MR. KROESCHELL: I -- I can't vote on it. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Do you have a conflict? MR. KROESCHELL: No. I guess I've got to vote then, don't CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Yeah. MR. KROESCHELL: I'll vote negative. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: So the -- the vote, then, is 5 to 3 with Mr. Roellig, Mr. Stakich, and Mr. Kroeschell dissenting. Thank you. Why don't we move next -- we'll go back in order to Item 3-A which I think is the Goodland Canal proposal and Mr. Hovell. MR. HOVELL: Let's see, Goodland Canal. Is there someone from Goodland Civic Association here? Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. I didn't recognize you, too hectic today. Could you introduce yourself, please. MR. NORMAN: Yes, sir. I'm Dennis Norman. I'm vice president of the Goodland Civic Association. MR. HOVELL: Thank you for coming today. Jacqueline Robinson and I -- and Jacqueline just came in and joined us -- went down and met with some reps of the Goodland Civic Association. He was kind enough to take us around on a boat and show us the areas, and so I did refer the question to the county attorney's office, and I do have her opinion here. You know, you'll get a copy of this, but to -- to provide the short answer, most of the pages is the form that describes what the question is. The response is after reviewing the actual configuration of the canals in question, they do not appear eligible for funding the tourist development tax revenues, which is, you know, what I had guessed up front. Page 23 April 5, 2002 You know, I think the question from a legal standpoint is, can an argument be made that any of the areas that need to be addressed in some way, shape, or form are related to either beach maintenance and/or inland, lake, or river maintenance, because those are the only categories that are mentioned in the statute. And that's what we based our previous or I should say you based your previous negative recommendation upon. I believe we put this on the agenda again today -- or, that's right, it was continued from the last meeting. I think you were looking mostly to have the county attorney's opinion, which we do now have, and we do have a rep from the Goodland Civic Association. So I think if-- at this point if you have any questions either for me or the Goodland Civic Association, now would be the time or, for that matter, the county attorney, now would be the time. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Norman, did you want to say anything or make a presentation? MR. NORMAN: Well, I'm not real prepared, but I would like to plead our cause. Some of the canals that are shoaling over, we do have tourists that come and stay at the motel and at Margood and the Pink House Motel, and they're -- they're shoaling over. They bring their boats in, and they fish, you know, mullet season. Then some folks stay all winter. Like the Margood Canal is starting to shoal over. The one into Buzzards Bay, the people going into Staffs in there on Sunday and the tourists and bring their boats and all it's starting to shoal the entrance of it. A couple other places, but I -- in my opinion, it does affect the tourists. I mean, we've only got a few people that really fish for a living down there now. It's mostly tourists that come in, bring their boat and stay and two or three months or the winter now, and that's Page 24 April 5, 2002 about all. I just wanted to bring that up. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. Thank you. Do we have questions? Do we have comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I think we have --obviously, we have a legal opinion which probably would carry a good deal of weight, and then we have the -- more physical issue of certainly parts of Goodland are tourist related but parts are not, and I think it's the determination of-- that the -- this particular request relates to canals that are not really tourist related; is that correct? MR. HOVELL: Perhaps you want to ask the attorney. I mean, I think the interpretation is that regardless -- the way I view looking at grant applications is, number 1, are they eligible against comparing them with the Florida statute, and then if they are, how much of a tourist impact do they have? And unfortunately in this case, the -- the first test, I don't believe, has been met, and, therefore, it -- I hate to say it, but it doesn't matter for these tourist tax -- how much of the tourist impact it is. I mean, you could make a claim that you could have a huge tourism impact by building some inland facility, but that's not what's allowable in the Florida statute. The argument of tourism really doesn't matter if it's not eligible initially, and I think that's where we're at. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Well, that For me, at least, certainly clarifies it. Do we have any other questions or comments? MS. LUPO: Is that the opinion that they're not eligible for TDC funds? I just wanted to know the reason. MS. ROBINSON: The main reason is the fact that the tourist development tax is a tax, which means that you should not extrapolate and interpret it to mean something other than what it said. Page 25 April 5, 2002 And in the category that deals with water, which is the beach category, it clearly says that it will finance beach park facilities, beach improvement, maintenance, renourishment, restoration, and erosion control, including paths and inlet maintenance shoreline protection enhancements, cleanup, or restoration of inland lakes and rivers, to which there is public access, as these uses relate to the physical preservation of the beach, the shoreline, or the inland lake or river. There is no apparent-- readily apparent connection between the canals and any of the uses that are set forth in that particular part of the state statute. You would have to really stretch it to get those Goodland canals somewhere out to the beach area. It just isn't even close to it. We went out and looked at it, and it just doesn't seem to fit the categories that they're set forth in the state statute. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Thank you, Miss Robinson. Do we have any other questions or comments? MS. LUPO: I have just a -- a question. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Miss Lupo. MS. LUPO: So basically if it's inland rivers, it's not considered either a inland river or a beach, or it has to be directly related to the beach or --. MS. ROBINSON: It can be an inland lake or river to which there is public access. MS. LUPO: And Stan's isn't on an inland river where there is public access to it. MS. ROBINSON: No, the canals that I viewed appeared to be man-made canals. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Norman. MR. NORMAN: The entrance to Buzzard Bay, Stan's is on Page 26 April 5, 2002 Marco River. And to the Pink House Motel and Margood, all these three places empty into the Marco River. MS. LUPO: We dredge the Marco River? No. MR. HOVELL: No. And -- and that's an area that, you know, again, perhaps it's a matter of opinion. But in looking at the charts for the area, it shows the Big Marco River running from Marco Island and emptying into Goodland Bay and then Goodland Bay and Coon Key Pass and Blue Fill Creek or whatever the right name is. And so I'm not even sure we could necessarily agree that the body of water around Goodland is the Marco River. I believe it's a bay, and it's not even an inland bay. It's a -- it's a-- I don't know if coastal bay is quite the right word, but it's a tidal bay. It's not -- and, again, so that's why we didn't feel that it meets -- meets the statute. MS. ROBINSON: And that's not to say that we -- or at least I didn't make for an opinion because the canals truly look as if they need to be dredged. But I don't think that's appropriate funding source. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Well, then we all have to keep in mind, the question is is it a good idea or would it be nice or whatever, it's whether it fits within -- within our mandate of the TDC regulations. Do we have any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Is anyone prepared to make a motion? MR. STAKICH: I make a motion that we deny the question for Goodland Civic Association to use TDC money for this purpose. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Motion by Mr. Stackich to deny. Do we have a second? MR. PIRES: Second. Page 27 April 5, 2002 CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: (No response.) Second by Mr. Pires. All those Opposed? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: The motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Norman. MR. NORMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MS. ROBINSON: Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Yes. MS. ROBINSON: -- if my services aren't needed any longer, may I be excused? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Yes. I don't-- I don't believe that any of the other -- any of the other items relate to what you prepared. Thank you. MS. ROBINSON: Thank you. MR. NORMAN: Could I ask one question, too, because I've got to go to work? Is there -- where should we look? Is there any place we could look for funding to maybe get some help, the ones that need it, not necessarily every canal? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I don't have the knowledge to speak to state funding, although, you know, there may be money there. I just don't have that expertise. Maybe Mr. Hovell would have a little more knowledge there. But the decision we took today was that it's not eligible for TDC. There is the county general fund, etc., so if it's technically -- if it's a good idea from a technical standpoint, I guess I would suggest that you prepare a submission to the county commission or -- or to take a look at and see if there might be state money available. MR. NORMAN: All right. Thank you. Page 28 April 5, 2002 MR. STAKICH: Mr. Chairman, you know, just a suggestion, you know, back some years ago when Marco Island renourished the beaches the first time, they did it with an MSTU. When the first -- when the beach first was renourished on Marco Island, the decision was that there were no funds available from either the county or the state, and an MSTU, as it's formed, because it did a -- if I were on the Goodland Association and they asked for a suggestion, I would say I'd form an MSTU for the whole area because it benefits them and not any -- not tourism and that if they formed an MSTU, it really wouldn't be that expensive for everybody. But that's the only answer I see. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: That's a good idea without fully getting into that-- that discussion, because those things become complex, that is an approach. And you -- you might perhaps just call Diana Fiala (sic) who represents your area, and -- and she would be able to give you direction, I would think. MR. NORMAN: All right. Thank you. MR. HOVELL: If I could just add, Mr. Chairman, I had mentioned that as a funding possibility when we went down to take the tour. You know, I would be the -- I would still wind up being the office that handles coordinating the formation of an MSTU and ultimately doing the dredging, you know, regardless of the funding source. So, you know, once -- once my construction season is over, perhaps I can be of more assistance in trying to shepherd him through some other process other than this one. MR. STAKICH: Even though the MSTU was formed for that particular purposes of renourishing, it was under the direction -- the renourishment was under the direction of your department. MR. HOVELL: Right. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Thank you. We'll now move on Page 29 April 5, 2002 to Item 3-B, which is the county high wide sand search TDC application. We had deferred a decision on that last time because of the magnitude of the project, both in terms of activity and cost, and we wanted to have a -- a full briefing on -- on what it might entail so, Mr. Hovell. MR. HOVELL: If I could introduce representatives from coastal planning and engineering, Steve Keehn is senior engineer that I tend to deal with most, and I know that Tom Campbell, the president, is in the back. Did you bring anyone else with you? MR. KEEHN: Let me introduce Jeff Andrews. He's our specialist in sand search in our company. He's worked extensively offshore for a number of industries, including our company for quite a few years, and Tom and him today are going to present kind of-- kind of give everybody an overview of what's at stake, I think, in looking for sand and pretty much where you stand right now. We've reviewed over quite a few documents over the last month in trying to get a feeling of why you should have a budget size about what we talked about, like I said at your last meeting. So to start off with, Tom. MR. CAMPBELL: First of all, let me talk from -- from this board here, and probably I'll bring it in the middle so everybody can see what this is. Okay. This a -- this is a detailed map of your area, which is -- this is Venice -- I mean Naples here. This is a hydrographic chart -- that's a hydrographic chart or bathymetric chart which was developed from densified information that NOVA has. You've all seen hydrographic maps or bathymetric maps, navigation charts. And they only use one out of every hundred points when they do their navigation charts, but to have available in more densified fashion these hydrographic charts that we run through our computer and are able to see more offshore features by doing so. So we did Page 30 April 5, 2002 that for your area, and we're able to see a much more detailed picture of the offshore sands that are off your area, off the Captiva area. And that's noticeable in this chart, and we'll talk a little bit more about what we're seeing here. You actually see offshore sand mounds, ridges or hills that run pretty much the full length of the county but are dense in certain areas, especially off of Naples beach. And those have high potential for finding sand, and we'll talk about how that fits into your overall sand search. Now, the way we look -- look at your sand search or your needs to spend money possibly on offshore sand investigations are starting off with Hideaway Beach. Hideaway Beach is a project that's coming up. It has identified -- that's in this area here. Let me just point to it. That's in this -- right -- right in here (indicating), and there's some offshore shoal that had been planned to be used for that area. Now, every time you look where you develop a barrow area for a beach project, it involves a number of things, for example, fiber core, side scan, all those kinds of things, to develop a specific barrow area. And the smallest amount of money that we have found has been spent for one specific barrow area has been as low as $200,000. Typically it takes 200 or 300 or 350 to develop one set of barrow areas. So if we have one area here that we know is in the range of two, $300,000, that's one amount of money. Secondly, there's other barrow areas that will be needed in the not-too-distant future for the Naples renourishment project and then, ultimately, possibly for a longer term period for Marco Island area to -- to take a look at renourishing that area. So we're looking at three -- three basic areas, and there has been some -- some research so far as to what -- what apparently -- where apparently those -- those sands are. Now, if the Coastal Engineering Page 31 April 5, 2002 consultants had done some work and located in Cape Romano some shoal that looked to have some promise down in this area-- we'll talk a little about how that fits into the overall picture, whether we could use those. But even if those were to be developed, we'd have to develop them by specific application of sand investigation techniques, which would take somewhere in the range of 200 to $300,000 to develop that. So we had given you a budget, I know, if-- from last time in saying that to develop sand resources, you will -- you're probably looking in the range of anywhere from $500,000, if we're looking at multiple places, to 800,000. I think that was the range that you had looked at before. And those sound like big numbers, especially considering the fact that a lot of offshore work has already been done, but let's look at how that lays out from how that may be appropriate numbers for you to look at. I think the range, to kind of give it a range, the $500,000 range would be developing the few bar areas without further offshore investigation just to develop two -- let's say two zones would be the 500. If you're doing a little bit more offshore exploration, it goes as far as the 800. That gives you a little idea. I guess the discussion today, is it reasonable to -- to anticipate that you may want to do some, let's say, more work off of Naples beach to see what's known and maybe -- maybe look in more depth at offshore work. But in looking at offshore sand search -- and I want to refer to the slides now. Let's look a little bit-- if I could turn this around so I can talk with you -- is it still up there --. MR. HOVELL: It moved to the next slide. MR. CAMPBELL: Did it move? Now, basically when you're looking for sand, we look for different types of sand deposits, for the two different types of dredges that we use. First of all, we have the Page 32 April 5, 2002 hopper dredge which is a dredge that fills itself up with sand, and it moves along -- it's not stationary. It moves along the offshore area, and it has drag arms which go down to pick up sand. It likes to run over very long areas. It doesn't like small areas, and it cuts very shallow cuts into very long areas. So it's very good. It's efficient for offshore sand ridges, these ridges that have 3- to 5-foot depth for them, and they run for miles. There are a lot of those features off your county. They have the ability to remove rock from -- from the sand, which is a great advantage, because they can put griddles or grates in the surface, and they just let the rocks roll down to one area. The estimated cost for doing that, depending on how far away the bar area is, it takes about a million dollars to get these units in place and have all their pipes floated in place, and then it costs $5 plus 50 cents a mile generally. So if you have something that's 10 miles offshore, you can expect a unit cost of sand on the beach of about $10. And this would be the primary vehicle for getting most of the sand resources that we're aware of. Now, secondly, the other kind of dredge, which is a dredge that was used the last time in -- in -- for your Naples project, is a cutter- head dredge. And the cutter-head dredge, it's more efficient, or it likes to dredge more efficiently with deeper cuts, in other words, deeper holes and smaller areas. They don't like broad areas like the hopper dredges. So in essence they like to dredge down to China. Basically they like to go as deep as they possibly can. They don't have the ability to remove rock from the sand. Now, generally these are used when you can find a barrow area within 4 miles of-- of the shore, and a lot of times you can't do that. They can also be used if-- if the distances are further using scows or barges to full up the barges. That, indeed, was what was done in the Page 33 April 5, 2002 previous project. What happens there is that you're using two hydraulic dredges, and you're running the barges from a distant source and off-loading it at the beach. The cost of that using cutter heads and scows is a big mob demob cost of about $2 1/2 million, 'cause you're really bringing in two dredges, one to load the barges, one to off-load the barges, and then you're having these scows or vehicles moving along, and they cost about 40 cents per mile per cubic yard to place on the beach. So to look at the Cape Romano source that we had previously identified and maybe at a volume which we'll talk about in a minute as to why that volume is a million one would cost about $16 million, $16.7 million to restore Naples beach from Cape Romano, for reasons of the higher mob demob at 40 cents a mile. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Do you have an -- MR. STRAPPONI: The question was, does that $16.7 million figure include the 2 1/2 million for the setup? MR. CAMPBELL: transport. MR. SNEDIKER: MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, it does. It excludes the setup and the We're talking $16 1/2 million a yard. Yeah, that's correct. 16 1/2 a yard effectively for the Naples project, that's correct. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Then I want to ask, because it might have been on the prior slide. If so, I didn't absorb it. With the hopper method, did you arrive at sort of a global estimate that we can compare to the sixteen million seven? MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. Yes. In fact, here we go. Yeah, we haven't used a hopper estimate for that Cape Romano. All the dredgers are telling us it's too shallow to use a hopper. MR. HOVELL: That's the point I wanted to make. I don't think you connected why you only did the estimate for that one type. It's Page 34 April 5, 2002 because Cape Romano is too shallow to use the hopper dredge. MR. CAMPBELL: Too shallow -- a hopper dredge. If you notice here it says the hoppers need about 20 feet of water depth. And the depth of water, most of that is, like, 12 feet of water. So, in essence, you can't use a hopper on Cape Romano. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Also, I realize we're being very general in making that assumption. But if you're 10 miles offshore with the hopper and you're going for a million one in cubic yards, the quick math indicates that's about 11 or 12 million dollars. MR. CAMPBELL: That's correct, that's correct. Yeah. And we'll be looking at some sources that are that distance offshore. Okay. Just looking at a -- a basic nourishment project, looking at the typical cross-section, I have this little guy swimming in a tube there if you note, because a lot of people don't -- don't realize that that's the water level -- we're looking at the beach in a cross-section, and we brought a dredge in to place sand on the beach. That sand is made up of a number of components, and it's important to know what those components are when we're looking are what we're doing in a renourishment project. First of all, we have a design cross-section that we hope will always stay there, never be violated during the whole process. Then we have an amount that we'll expect will move offshore soon after the dredge leaves the site. Within a period of, like, three years, this first component will move offshore to complete the entire profile to what the coastal engineer calls the depth of closure, basically your area about 9 or 10 feet of depth. You can see, I've still broken those fills, even though it's not a real line, two components. One is the advance nourishment which erodes between nourishment advance and the other one, the design beach which we hope will stay there the entire time frame. Page 35 April 5, 2002 So when we're going -- you can see over a period of 5 to 10 years that advance fill has pretty much evaporated or moved away, but we're still left with the design beach. Now we're doing a renourishment as we are in Naples beach. We would come back in with the dredge and replace approximately half of the material that was placed the first time. So if the first nourishment was 1.2 million, we would expect to place somewhere around 600,000. It would be placed, again, in the same general area and be ready to be moved offshore by natural processes. You see the dredge leaves, and sand moves offshore, and then, of course, it phase -- that's the cycle that we're dealing with. So we're really looking at replacement of about half of the material, you know, kind of a target if we're planning for, let's say, barrow areas for Naples beach. One thing to consider is that that scenario that we just played out assumes that the material is exactly compatible with the sand that you have on the beach now. If you go to a finer sand, that wouldn't be the case. So instead of needing maybe 600,000 cubic yards, we might need more. In this case this shows the -- the per-- compatible sand would give us a wider beach. A slightly finer fill would give us less dry beach for the same material, and a -- and a coarser sand would set up more on the beach so we would need less sand. Those are the three parameters we're looking at. When you look offshore, you'll find sands -- Cape Romano drain sizes are. 18 milliliter, which is finer than was used before, so you'll need more of that sand, whereas some of the offshore shoals we're about to talk about and the truck-in sands are actually coarser materials, so you'll need less. MR. PIRES: The time frame indicated, would that increase or decrease based upon being fine sand or coarser sand? Is that a variable? Page 36 April 5, 2002 MR. CAMPBELL: It's somewhat of a variable. Actually what we do is we just put the amount of sand based on the grain size that you would need to give you a 5- or 1 O-year time frame so we'd use less of the coarser sand, more of the finer sand. And we figured-- now, one of the biggest parameters, you know, erosion is one of them. But the shape that the profiles take, now, I've given you kind of the envelope here that you can expect of the various sands that you would find. First of all, let's say we had. 18-millimeter sand like the Cape Romano sand. To provide something like a five -- a renourishment of about 600,000, that sand, you'd have to place a little over a million to do the same job. So, in essence, we have to provide more of that sand. Here the thoroughly compatible sand would provide this profile, and that would be about the 600,000, 580,000, and then the coarser sands would be in the range of 450,000. So all of those quantities are the same, would give us the same dry beach that we're looking for ultimately in our project, but they're three, you know, very different numbers relative to grain size, and that's important when you're looking farther-- MR. SNEDIKER: MR. CAMPBELL: MR. SNEDIKER: MR. CAMPBELL: MR. SNEDIKER: When we're talking coarse sands -- You'll look at the sand, it looks fine -- Is this the coarse sand that you have here? Yes. Relatively speaking, from my point of view, that's not coarse. It depends on relatively. MR. CAMPBELL: It doesn't have pebbles in it. It's not coarse in that sense. But if the grain sizes are just a little bit bigger individually, we're talking from the grain size of a. 17 millimeter to a .35 millimeter, you can't visually really see that difference unless you really look at it, you know, through a microscope or something like Page 37 April 5, 2002 that. But what -- the difference of performance on the beach is astounding. It's a lot less fine; it erodes slower; and it moves offshore less. Now, here's the three that I call -- you see, there's Tom's hill, the Tom's in Tom's hill is me, and that's what Jeff called it, I think, because he wanted to flatter me that we went out to find this big amount of sand. But we'll talk about where that sand is in a minute. But, in essence, these are the sources. We have the Cape Romano source using that cutter head/scow system, and that's where the $16.2 million number comes from. If we found an offshore barrow source off Naples beach -- and we'll talk a little bit about whether that's still possible -- and I had that .24 millimeter sand, which kind of meets the shape of your beach right now, that would be the cheapest option. That barrow source has not been found or locked in on yet. And then there's an offshore hill that's off of Sanibel that's 32 miles away from your Naples project. I think it's -- this one right here that if we applied those hopper dredging characteristics, we would-- because it's a little bit coarser, we need a little less sand, and that would be about $9 million to place on the beach. That's not a bad number, considering this one you're not sure where you get it. And then the truck haul -- that's .42 millimeter sand -- would require a little bit less than the Tom's hill sand, and it would run, based on current cost, about 9.2 million. So that gives you kind of an overview of the types of sand you could use, the different renourishments that would occur on the Naples Vanderbilt, that whole beach complex. MR. STRAPPONI: MR. CAMPBELL: MR. STRAPPONI: Tom, I have a question. Sure. Tom, can I see Sanibel? On that source, distance-wise how far is that off of Sanibel? MR. CAMPBELL: It's off of Sanibel? Page 38 April 5, 2002 MR. STRAPPONI: Uh-huh. MR. CAMPBELL: That's about 11 miles, 12 miles, so it's in federal water. Nobody can claim ownership other than minerals management. MR. STRAPPONI: I believe the line is 12 miles, isn't it? MR. KEEHN: It's -- it's 3 -- what is it? 3 leagues or 9 miles in Florida is the division point between federal and state waters, and we've driven -- we've actually drawn it on here, the red line, all the way up on this map is the line. MR. STRAPPONI: Okay. So it's in federal water. MR. KEEHN: And it's also far enough offshore that it virtually it would have no effect on Sanibel Island. It's in such deep water -- MR. STRAPPONI: Unless they want the same source. MR. KEEHN: They've already been taken care of for the near term. I think we actually show their -- their barrow areas are even closer here. MR. CAMPBELL: Let me say, I think as a matter of courtesy, you would coordinate with Captiva and Sanibel because they've decided not to use that source, and they have plenty of sources, but they were the ones who located -- you know, who helped us -- funded us to locate it. And I told them today that I would be sharing the existence of the shoal with you, but they do want to coordinate with them if you indeed decide to use it, but it is an excellent source of sand. MR. STRAPPONI: If we have barrow sources off Naples beach, why are we looking 32 miles away? MR. CAMPBELL: Right now we don't know that you have them directly offshore. We'll talk a little bit about that. That's a question of today. Should we budget enough exploratory money to try to develop those shoals? I -- I think from a visual aspect of what Page 39 April 5, 2002 we can see today, it's worth looking a little more at the area directly offshore of the Naples beach to see if we could find the same type of fills or ridge beaches and whether that sand -- now, there was a study done by Coastal Engineering Consultants in 1999 that explored in that area but not necessarily for hills. They were looking for solution pits in the -- in the limestone that might have the sand in it. So looking for solution pits is a little different than looking for hills or hopper-dredging type barrow sites. So we're suggesting today -- and this is probably the punch line of what we're talking about -- is that it probably is beneficial for you to look directly offshore as part of a Naples investigation because there is a potential savings from the 9 million down to 5.7 million. It would be right-- right offshore. However, I -- you know, if, indeed, that didn't pay off, Tom's Hill is, indeed, available to -- to be used for beach renourishment and it's not an extraordinary cost. In fact, it's quite competitive with the truck haul. It would have less of an impact on the roads -- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: One way -- I have financial background as opposed to an engineering background. MR. CAMPBELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: So I see things that way. One way to look at it, is it not, is you said five to $800,000 for the search. The request before us is $600,000. One way to look at it is betting 600,000 that you're going to save 3 1/2 million. MR. CAMPBELL: Yeah. I think you're actually bidding 300,000 in a sense because the 500 would be necessary no matter what you did. You see, in a sense if you develop two sets of barrow areas, you would have to put as much fiber core and seismic into similar known areas. The difference would be, do you explore a little bit more off of Naples beach and spend the different -- Page 40 April 5, 2002 CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: So the vicinity of 300,000 as a bet that you would find the source that you would cut the 5 million off. MR. CAMPBELL: Right, that's correct. So in essence, that would be the difference, and, in fact, maybe not the whole three, because if you did the exploratory part, the early part, and found it's not there, we wouldn't do the other 200,000. In essence, what we're saying is that even though some work has been done off Naples beach even though it didn't reveal what you wanted to see, we felt there was enough indication here in the work that was done on Captiva and the shape of your offshore shoals to warrant maybe some further looking. Yes, Jon? DR. STAIGER: Presumably if you were looking off Naples, you would investigate initial seismic methods. MR. CAMPBELL: Right. DR. STAIGER: And if you elaborated a reasonably thick area that appeared to be sand, then you go in with the coring and find it. MR. CAMPBELL: That is correct. You start cheap. DR. STAIGER: So if you don't find -- if you find that those hills are actually veneers of sand over something a lot harder, then you're not --. MR. CAMPBELL: You stop doing it. In fact, Jeff was going to share with you just briefly after I was finished, you know, the method we -- we have locked in after the Captiva work, if you wanted to see that. But I just wanted to show you this was the work done by CEC. There's nothing wrong with the CEC work. There was very high likelihood that the sand and the solution pits that they actually put their fiber cores in would have yielded a good material. It turned out that the area off of Naples did not show that those areas in the Page 41 April 5, 2002 depressions in the rock was good materials, so they locked in on Cape Romano shoals, which was appropriate. But what was not looked at in -- based on Captiva findings, these offshore sand hills or mounds that we found in Captiva, you can see in this picture here the same mound exists there, but there was no fiber cores placed or sampling in that area, because they were basically looking for these depressions in the rock or the sand. And there was a good chance that there was going to be sand there but it just didn't pay off. So what we're saying is that it's probably good to kind of plan to look at these in more detail and -- to look at them in kind of a sequence so you're not spending high amounts of dollars early in the project. Now, this is the area that we -- this is the Tom's Hill area. This is the signature that we got from this densified bathymetry. You can see what it looks like. And then here's the area off of-- off of Naples. And you can see it has very similar signature from that densified bathymetry. We think that looking along those hills would be beneficial here. Now, some of the barrow areas that were used in the early projects were in portions of these but not necessarily dead center on the hill; and, therefore, you know, setting them up as possibly hopper dredging as opposed to cutter-head dredging might be beneficial to the program. So we're suggesting that when you make application to the DEP and others, you tell them that you're probably going to spend a higher amount. You could always back off of that if you wanted to. I know you have to make a request to the TDC also for some dollars coming up. I wanted to let you know there's some reason to look at the various areas. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Would you point out, if-- if it's either on the screen or on this map where -- where the sand came from in our '95 --. Page 42 April 5, 2002 MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: -- '96 project that we've had so much misgiving about. MR. CAMPBELL: Yeah. It came from, I believe, in this -- in this area right here. So it was one of those areas, but I don't believe it was -- followed the hill totally. I believe it was, like, right in this cell right here; is that correct? MR. KEEHN: It's marked on this map here. So there's a little red block right here that was barrow Area 6, and then there's A, B, and C right out here. And you can see that here's Naples. Here are these three areas here. And this is like we said before, the 9-mile line. So you can see that they're -- they're out there in the range of 5 or 6 miles. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: So your best guesses at this point are farther out from the coast. MR. CAMPBELL: Some are farther out, but some are in the same vicinity but maybe transferred over a thousand feet or something. MR. KEEHN: And I think we're also trying to look at the sand in a different way. As opposed to deep and narrow, we're trying to look for something thin and long, slightly -- a slightly different model that we're looking for. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I was going to say, again not from an engineering standpoint, this is -- if the sand source is such that you might hope it would be, it's hopper territory. MR. CAMPBELL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Because I think-- I don't know. The state might actually require it. I really don't know. But I think from a practical standpoint, the community is going to demand the hopper method if it accepts dredging at all so that we filter the rocks Page 43 April 5, 2002 before they land on the beach. MR. CAMPBELL: That's correct. Ron. MR. HOVELL: Mr. Chairman, that's pretty much the exact direction I gave to Steve. He kept telling me we might find stuff in close. I said, "Steve, I can't imagine this county will ever again let somebody pump an unknown entity on our beach." If hopper dredge allows you to both screen it and see what you're getting before it shows up on the beach, that's what we want. And so if a hopper dredge only becomes economical if you go out at least 5 miles, then I don't care what's within 5 miles because I can't imagine the county ever going there again. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I think that's a starting point. And depending on the volume of the project that you have, you have trucking; you have groins; we've got the sand web thing going on; we have those other alternatives. But for dredging to even be in the game, I think it needs to be hopper dredging. MR. CAMPBELL: And I think it's important early on -- and this is something being done throughout the state and would be helpful in your county -- is put all the information that's ever been done in a GIS format so you have it at your fingertips, no lost information from all the previous investigations, and then you build on that to see what can be used, where we really know there is or isn't sand and then come up with some good sources. Jeff, do you have just a brief discussion of the type of investigation that could be done and kind of in stages so we would know right away where the sand is? MR. ANDREWS: I'm Jeff Andrews. This is the area off Captiva Island, and Jeff mentioned doing seismic first. We do a step before that seismic. What we do is we go out and do some bathymetries. And we identify the hills not only with the NOAH Page 44 April 5, 2002 charts but also with bathymetries itself. The very first thing we do is go locate all the existing wrecks, hard bottoms, and artificial reefs because you don't need to go there in the first place; then we look at all the historical data, as Tom was saying, that is now being put into a GIS database. That would be beneficial for future work also. Then we go -- in this particular case we identify all the Holocene sand ridges. And in this case it was about 20 sand ridges that we saw. The Tom's hills are these outer ones here, but we looked at all these hills. We did that with -- by first doing a bathymetry. So we went out and actually ran the boat across these hills because this NOAH data is at about a thousand -foot spacing so you see hills here but they may not be actually where they show. So actually the fact that we show that there's a foyer on a hill, it may not really be there because the NOAH data is not exactly -- it gives you a good indication where it's at. So when you go out and do the bathymetry, this is across Tom's Hill. You can see it's about a 20-foot hill. It goes from 30 feet to 50 feet. That's a real huge hill. So we get this bathymetry. Instead of getting it if we go up this day, we might actually take a jet probe or a location out here. But by doing this bathymetry first running across these hills and actually locating truly where they are, we can go out and set up a set of jet probes on these hills. And that's what this is. We went through that bathymetry, and we locate all these hills, and we sat up a preplan exactly where we're going to put the jet probes so we get the peaks of the hills. We get the most information from that - - from the data. Now, a jet probe is a -- we have a pump that pumps water from the ocean through a pipe. You take that pipe, and you jet it into the bottom. You see the diver here going down. They're going to stand it up and actually penetrate it into the bottom. And you get information from that probe as it goes in because you can fill shell; you can fill rock; you can actually fill different materials. So you Page 45 April 5, 2002 actually get an idea of what's there before you -- or as you're doing it. As you can see, there's a little bit of sand puffing up around there. You're going to wash out some material. We take back that material and analyze it so we have an idea what that material is. So by doing this, we actually locate the hill. We found out how thick it is, and we get material from that hill. So it's a quick and easy way before we actually go out. Now, with that we'll go through and plan our -- there it is. With that information, we'll go back and look at all the information that -- that those jet probes told us. In this case the red hills were high in silt; the yellow hills had fine sand, finer than the Naples beach. The lighter green sands were usable. They were compatible if you had to use them, but there were some areas that were extremely compatible with the native beach, and we identified those here. And we took this information and the samples to the -- to the erosion prevention district, and we showed them a different type of sand material that was out there, some fine sand. There's shelly material, so you can actually see what these hills are. And with that information, the erosion prevention district actually selected these three hills. They looked at the bags and said we want these three hills searched further. So we eliminated -- out of 20 of them we came down to just 3 hills. We do the actual -- which is the site work and the site scan. So we lay down our seismic lines. Went out there and we ran seismic -- this is a cherub subbottom profiler, and that's a real good record of the bottom, and it's great for locating these hills. Again, this is that same record. So you can see that this is the surficial sand. You have the sea floor here which has probably got some hard bottom in there, and then you've got the sand deposit. You can see the subbottom below. Of course, at the same time we're running side scan, which Page 46 April 5, 2002 actually looks out and actually tells you what's on the bottom so you can map your reef so you're not near any hard bottom areas. This is a mosaic that's been put together. We're starting to do that with maps that we produced now. Instead of just getting a sketch where you have hard bottom, we can actually produce these mosaics. This is an island off of Broward County. These are pieces of the dredge that was done offshore. This is onsite. So you get a lot of detail out of the site scan. That goes into the GIS. That's another thing to click on and look at and have in digital format. We then go out to these areas. As Ron was saying, we don't necessarily continue working with -- if the area is bad. So even with the 'vi reports, after we done the site area, we take two reconnaisse vibracore or so in each area. I'm sure you're familiar what a vibracore is. It's a steel probe operated into the sediment. When they bring the tube out, they take and -- this is pulling the plastic tube out of the core here. We look at those cores as we pull them out, and we actually do more than just look at either end. We actually split them apart. Some of what you see these cores here, and we look at them on the boat. So we're actually looking at the sand on the boat, not waiting until we get back to the office after we take 50 cores and say, well, what do we got. We look at it; we know. So we can actually stop the process at any point if we're not finding sand, and then we go back. Once we agree the sand -- this is good, we go ahead and take the rest of the cores. And this is what we found in the final process. We actually came up with these barrow areas for-- within those original areas, and we found them 3 million in this one, 3 million here, 15 million. This is the sand that Captiva has. That's why Tom's hills is not so important. They ensure because Tom's hills is out here. So they have Page 47 April 5, 2002 plenty of sand for their upcoming projects. And Tom's always emphasized that the more cores that we get within the barrow area the more successful the project is. By our process we actually get most of our cores in the barrow area. Although we're not looking out-- . MR. CAMPBELL: If any sand investigations around the state, they might wind up with one or two cores in our barrow area. Our cores really define the entire barrow area. Most of-- our investigation, you know, the expense of part of the investigation is the vibracore, and we'll have multiple cores in our barrow areas as opposed to winding up with one or two as most investigations do. So that gives you a higher degree of reliability of the type of material. MR. ANDREWS: This one only has two outside because we got outside -- DR. STAIGER: I think that's the problem that we have with the beach restoration project is the actual number of vibracores that were in the barrow areas was far less than the number--. MR. CAMPBELL: You take -- uh-huh, because you run out of money if you don't get it in a sequential way. You try to put the cores everywhere. You wind up with most of them not getting sand, where if you did the probe, you decide in a sequential matter that you get most of-- DR. STAIGER: In that case there was political pressure to sample with a clam bucket. MR. CAMPBELL: Clam bucket, yeah. DR. MR. DR. MR. DR. STAIGER: Which is, in my estimation, a waste of time. CAMPBELL: Uh-huh. STAIGER: But it was politically correct to do it. CAMPBELL: Right. STAIGER: You dig a hole, and the sand sloughs in from Page 48 April 5, 2002 the surface. You dig three, four buckets; all you're getting is more and more stuff sloughing to the surface. You're not really getting any depth penetration, but you get some nice samples. The -- yeah, the jet probing is -- is basically a qualitative --. MR. CAMPBELL: That's correct. MR. ANDREWS: It's equal task. DR. STAIGER: You can't quantify what you're dealing -- you're looking at the stuff that comes up outside of the pipe, and you can tell what it is, but you're not -- MR. ANDREWS: You can eliminate areas. It's really great for Eliminating areas. You can tell if something's bad, but if it's good, that's when you want-- . MR. CAMPBELL: Eliminate areas, and you develop your boundaries better as to where you really want to hit the cores. You know, unless you have those jet probe, you don't know where the boundaries -- where it thins out, the mud, the rocks, whatever. You do a lot of probes and then know where your boundaries are very well, and the seismic helps. MR. ANDREWS: The seismic is concentrated in the areas where you have good sand; you don't need a reconnaisse of a huge area. MR. CAMPBELL: Right. DR. STAIGER: You get-- MR. CAMPBELL: Florida? MR. ANDREWS: MR. CAMPBELL: University of-- is it University South Right. -- in conjunction with NOAH did some work off of Longboat Key and Manatee County and came back and said there was no sand in that area. They actually reported it before we got to the conference one time. And our-- do you remember that, Page 49 April 5, 2002 that presentation? We got up, the next presentation, and said we had found, like, 33 million cube yards of sand in the same area, and we used their data. So, in essence, it's a matter of how you look at the data. Their data was fine; they did a good job. But they set a -- they set a criteria that they needed at least 10 feet of sand. And actually as a hopper dredge all you need is 3 feet of sand. So they -- they eliminated all of the hills that we went back in and explored and used and ultimately used very successfully on the beach. So in essence, it's a matter of how you look at the area. If you look at it with probes and the sequence we're talking about, it really yields a lot of good information. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Roellig has a question. MR. ROELLIG: What is the depth? MR. CAMPBELL: Anywhere from 30 feet deep -- 30 feet deep to about 50 foot, in that range. MR. ROELLIG: And what's approximate depth for hopper dredge? MR. CAMPBELL: Approximate depth for hopper dredge goes down to 85 feet. Yeah, in fact, they love -- when we send them the stuff on Tom's Hill, they got real excited about it saying that's the ideal depth. You'll get bids from every -- all three, four dredgers that have hopper dredges because it's just an ideal depth. It has the right length, grain size, very little shallow--. MR. ROELLIG: That was 80-foot depth you said? MR. CAMPBELL: No. That was -- Tom's Hill was 45 feet? MR. ANDREWS: It ranges from 30 at the top to 50 off the hills. MR. CAMPBELL: Yeah. So the top of the hill's 30 and 50, or ambient depth is 50. So if you locate them, they're where they're going to be, you know, 20 years from now or 30 years from now. Page 50 April 5, 2002 DR. STAIGER: Basically the tops of sand ridges that were deposited when sea level was a lot lower. MR. CAMPBELL: That's right. DR. STAIGER: You've got a high area on the north end of Key Island that's just like that. And the coastal ridge of Naples, that's basically a ridge of sand, and it's beautiful stuff. MR. CAMPBELL: Yeah. DR. STAIGER: When you don't put sod over it, it's lovely. But that's what it is. I mean, the sea level was lower. MR. CAMPBELL: Right. DR. STAIGER: Those were beach-created beaches. MR. CAMPBELL: But these are almost as big as Captiva Island itself. That's how big those ridges are. And it probably was around that island that got flooded by rapidly rising sea level. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: In cubic yards how big is that source, as an estimate? MR. CAMPBELL: Forty-six million cubic yards. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And you just said it's basically stationary? MR. CAMPBELL: Yeah. It's basically -- it's there for you as a great backup, or you can use it -- you can't use it tomorrow because it doesn't have enough cores in it. We'd have to do some cores and maybe some seismic over it to develop it. But if you decide, let's say, if you didn't want to go offshore in Naples and look at those mounds, you would go directly to that shoal; I think it's usable. It's probably better than trucking, but you don't have the problems associated with trucking, and you might get more competitive. We were very conservative in our estimates. Some of the contractors said they would bid less on that. I would take that with a grain of salt because contractors want you to move forward in your planning so we always Page 51 April 5, 2002 round up so you have more dollars available to do it. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: In essence, that's an infinite source. MR. CAMPBELL: Yeah. That's an infinite source. The question is do you want to commit money to find similar sources right off of Naples beach. The pattern looks good. I don't know whether the board felt, well, heck, I don't want to go down that road again. Then you go to Tom's Hill or someplace else. But I think there's enough indication in what we're finding in a preliminary sense -- granted, we've only looked at this for a couple of weeks. In a preliminary sense it looks like it would be good if you have the investigative money available to you to locate a source directly off your shore, you know, and we can do some preliminary work maybe this summer. Let's say we were doing the work for Hideaway Beach; we can do auxiliary work to investigate the shoals with probes. MR. STRAPPONI: What's the estimate for that preliminary work, the estimate ? MR. CAMPBELL: I think it was, like, $45,000, something in that range for the field work. And it was $30,000 to pull it altogether. And that original 30 was part of-- part of-- regardless, because you did the investigative work on top of it, and it would add to 45. MR. PIRES: Are there any other counties along this area that within, say, that 40-nautical-mile range north of Lee County or Charlotte County they're looking at potential sand that may to want look at that source? MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. And, you know, actually there's so much sand in it that it could serve multiple counties. The dredgers were looking at the same thing, stake a claim on it and sell it. But, yes, there are people looking for sand but that I think if they follow Page 52 April 5, 2002 the procedures that we're doing, they'll find sand closer to them, and that's kind of economically more viable for a While. I think Captiva's happy with the amount of sand they found in all of the shoals nearby. I was trying to convince them that, well, this sand has some aspects to it, a little bit lighter than what you normally find offshore. It doesn't have any really shallow rock. MR. KEEHN: And I think Fort Myers Beach and Bonita have enough sand for probably a decade in this area right here. They already have a backup barrow area. This area is a little bit too far so they had to put some intermediate areas before they get all the way out here. At least for the next decade they might be taking care of that in the immediate vicinity. It's not the greatest sand in the world, but it's available. MR. CAMPBELL: MR. ANDREWS: Do you have those bags? Yes. MR. KEEHN: They're actually planning on doing a project here this summer, Fort Myers Beach and probably Bonita next year, if I'm not mistaken. MR. STRAPPONI: Mr. Chairman, I-- I think-- I certainly appreciate this overview you've given us of this source, and I think it's nice to know that -- the potential for 40 million cubic yards of sand exists within 30 miles and to keep that in our back pocket. But for fifty or eighty thousand of preliminary investigation, I'd like to see us look for sand in our backyard. MR. CAMPBELL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Any other questions or comments? Mr. Staiger? DR. STAIGER: When we did the project before, we offioaded from scows with a second dredge. If you use a hopper dredge, I mean, then we had all the heavy equipment spreading it out on the Page 53 April 5, 2002 beach. MR. CAMPBELL: Right. DR. STAIGER: When you use a hopper dredge, what's the procedure to get the sand from the hopper dredge to the beach? You still need the equipment. MR. CAMPBELL: Right. You need the equipment to move it. It's a similar pumpout facility. There's a new methodology that might apply here depending on what hard bottoms you have. It's a little more efficient, and they use hopper dredges that have bottom-dump capabilities. I don't know if you've seen those presentations. But if you could find an area about 30 feet deep with no hard bottom, you can do a very efficient hopper dredging, bottom dump to an area, build it up about 10 feet; then you cutter head that prime material right up onto the beach. And the advantage there is you're out -- you don't have to worry about turtle season on the hopper dredging because you're not going up on the beach. And the cutter heads can move that material directly to the beach with a -- you know, a -- a direct pump which is a lot faster, but there's a lot of feasibility aspects. The more probable way, the way it's generally done, is a booster type of buoy that sits near the -- near the beach and pumps out the hopper onto the beach, similar to what was done before. But the sand in the hopper is more -- more of a known quantity. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Pennington, you've been down this road before. Do you have any questions or observations? MR. PENNINGTON: Similar to what Jon was asking, I was wondering what distance offshore. We're very shallow and for that 20 feet required for the hopper dredge, going to have to go out at least a mile. That's within the pumping range? MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. They can pump it in within that-- Page 54 April 5, 2002 within that range. What that might determine is how many times you have to come to shore. So, in essence, if they're already pushing a mile to get to shore, when they split their pipe, it could only go either way, maybe a mile, a mile. Then you have to do more land, looking for land. MR. PENNINGTON: Uh-huh, okay. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Snediker. MR. SNEDIKER: The area just south of Keewaydin Island, the development there, is there more you're -- to your knowledge, that you have at this point, and how feasible and how would that be used? MR. CAMPBELL: South of Key Island? MR. SNEDIKER: Yeah. MR. CAMPBELL: In here? MR. STRAPPONI: Sorry. MR. KEEHN: We haven't gotten all the data on this one yet. There is some additional sand added that was taken by CDC, and we do not have copies of that yet. But looking at the shoals, how it's laid out, from the Moore's report about a year ago, the potential appears to be very high that there's good quality sand there. I think our reports were that it is coarse sand, but we don't have any direct evidence within our grasp right now to tell us that. And we have that on our list of material that we need to collect on that information. So -- and I think that's kind of what we were talking about the first phase of this whole thing was to -- MR. STRAPPONI: Excuse me. MR. KEEHN: I think the first phase that I know I talked to Ron about was to collect all the information that's available right now and put it in an organized fashion so we know where the high probability areas are and the low probability areas are based upon existing information. We have only introduced some of that information Page 55 April 5, 2002 today that we've collected in the last couple weeks. But there's more information out there that we still have coming to us from Alpine Seismic Survey and other companies and resources that we need to look at. MR. CAMPBELL: We've been working really the last couple weeks and really kind of answered your questions. What is the range of offshore investigation that would be reasonable? We're really not under a specific contract yet to do any -- any evaluation or -- or volumometric calculations, although we hope to be. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Roellig. MR. ROELLIG: Yes. I have another question. A thousand dollar figure was (unintelligible). CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: The question is the 600,000 we're considering, is that projected for one year or over several years? MR. CAMPBELL: It could go over several years. We were looking at it as a number to -- to fully explore the sands resources that you had. So if you -- you could budget it over a couple of years or do it, you know, whatever, it would be your preference. MR. ROELLIG: Just as a general philosophy that we would want to budget it more or less year by year rather than set aside a large amount of money, 600,000 or a million over some undetermined period of years. MR. CAMPBELL: I would think that -- you know, we need to talk to Ron about what makes sense in the first year. Hideaway Beach is probably going to be going first in terms of a sand search. I think what would make sense is to tag on something that Hideaway sand investigation if you guys felt that was a good idea to maybe do some preliminary work off of Naples shore to do some probes and to see if those sand hills have some promise. Then you would note for Page 56 April 5, 2002 the next year whether to do further investigations or not. MR. SNEDIKER: I think what we have in our budget, 600,000, at least we're looking for in this year, this year which is concluding in several months. Am I correct on that? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Really it's a -- in a budget sense it's for this year. But in a more practical sense we're talking for next year. But then if we approve it, Mr. Hovell will go to the commission and try to get a budget amendment so we don't have to wait around for six months to get started. Is that correct? MR. HOVELL: That's correct. And-- and, you know, my point of view was to get the total cost and put it in as a grant application. And if it took a year or a year and a half, you know, the money sits in the bank. I mean, I just did -- looked at the cash as of 1 April. We have -- we're now approaching $17 million in the bank. It -- me personally, it doesn't concern me in trying to break it down how much do we budget this year, how much do we budget next year. We'll spend it. I would like to proceed expeditiously because, as Tom has pointed out, we have the Hideaway Beach that we're saying we want to renourish. Although we haven't settled on an exact date two or three or four years from now, we want to do the major renourishment. And the sooner we get started, you know, and work through the process sequentially, if that takes six months or that takes a year and a half, I want to get started and work through it. Now, there are phases in it, and at each phase point, because this is a contractual agreement with the state to cost share, each phase requires that the information not only come to us and you'll get a chance to review it, but it also goes to the state and they get a chance to review it and comment before you take the next step. And I guess I'll use -- since I'm already talking, I'll use this as my opportunity to give my advertisement. I got to hear a lot of this Page 57 April 5, 2002 six months ago and talk to the state and got their opinion on who had the best capability to do sand searches and what not. And I had no problem, you know, after hearing all the input on settling on between the three firms. We have certainly, if not probably, every firm you could name of Coastal Planning and Engineering being our sand search contractor. And the state being willing to cost share also feels much more comfortable when we say, well, we're going to go to that particular company; they feel more comfortable saying, okay, then when we participate, we know -- we have a feeling of what we're going to get. Now, one of the things that makes this -- and I forget how this worked into their budget estimate. But one of the things that will make this more expensive perhaps than other previous attempts is the state is imposing what may be in another year or two the county would have thought to impose which is the requirement that they alluded to before, to put all of this stuff on a geographic information system so that it's readily available for them next time, as opposed to the way we've always done things in the past, where you get reams of data and five, ten years later everybody sits around let's start with this blank piece of paper and go engineer something. We need to make a historical file and so the state when they reviewed the draft of the scope of work for this, that was a large part of what they mandated was that all that geographic information system, according to the way the state keeps that information, has to be done in the state format. So, you know, that kind of thing is built into this budget as well. So -- and the other thing is, you know, when I turn in a grant application, I always have to turn it in for a hundred percent of the cost. But as I just mentioned, we have a contract already with the state to cost share with this and that -- when we get to the 1 O-year plan part when you look down in the reimbursement section, you Page 58 April 5, 2002 know, I didn't attribute to which project what money was for. But this is one of them the state is going to pay 50 percent up to a cap anyway that they're going to cost share so -- MR. STRAPPONI: Ron, are you looking for this committee to take any action on this today, and if so, exactly what? MR. HOVELL: This was a grant application that was continued from last meeting. MR. STRAPPONI: I thought-- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: No. It was continued because I for myself at least feel this presentation has been really valuable. It was continued because it was a big dollar amount, and I don't think we felt that we knew what we were voting on. I think today we can say we know what we're voting on. Mr. Pennington, you had your hand up. MR. PENNINGTON: Ron Pennington for the record. On Hideaway Beach, as I recall, the same source for Marco renourishment previously, was that which was down off the south end of Key Island, down in that area. We looked at that eagerly when we were going to do the Naples beach. And at that time the Marco Beach committee threatened to take legal action against us if we pursued it, and we backed off. But I would suspect that that would be a source to be considered for Hideaway. MR. CAMPBELL: It can be. It would -- you know, also political considerations up and down the state, there's another-- almost exactly the same type of situation up in -- in Siesta Key or the Venice project. You know, there was a political stop on looking at certain sands. Until today they represent a very good quality sand that can't be looked at. So we can't solve the political problems --. MR. PENNINGTON: Hideaway is in Marco. To me that might be acceptable to Marco people. Page 59 April 5, 2002 MR. CAMPBELL: Yeah. I think limited use in the Hideaway area of sand in that zone sounds like it's reasonable. We could look into the availability and size of the shoals and whether they could be revisited. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Snediker. MR. SNEDIKER: I'm chairman of the Marco Island Beach Advisory Committee and also chairman of the Hideaway Beach Committee. We are consumers. There will be no political problems, I can assure you. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Roellig. MR. ROELLIG: As I understand it, now, we're talking about 600,000 and potentially 300,000 to be reimbursed; is that correct? MR. HOVELL: I didn't bring the state contract with me. It could be, but they may have said they'd only -- up to a maximum of a hundred thousand. I don't remember what they said, but conceptually they agreed to the 50 percent, but they had a total budget figure in mind, too, so I forget how this particular one faired in that process. MR. ROELLIG: How does this sequence in with the proposed Naples renourishment? Is that -- are we still looking at 2006 or--. MR. HOVELL: Well, I think, you know, this would be on the critical path to doing it at whatever point you want to do it. And so to me, starting now, when we get to the point of being close to, say, we have a sand source, we want to get it permitted, you know, we could choose. Do we want to start the permitting process at that time, or do we want to wait? And my recommendation when we eventually get there will be let's keep going because I think there's a lot of issues. I don't want to bore you with all the details, but there's a lot of issues about easements and the politics around here and everything else. And I don't know how it works with the easements, but I do know they all expire on December 31st, 2005. And if there is an Page 60 April 5, 2002 opportunity to do this project or this potential project under the existing easements, I think we ought to go there because there are some adjacent property owners on Naples who I don't think will sign again in the future. So we ought to get our one last look in before that opportunity goes away, if it's even allowable under the easement. I haven't done all that research yet. MR. ROELLIG: So basically the time frame I see here is we start fairly soon, will be maybe 2000 and -- maybe 2003, have a sand source. Then you have to get the permit. MR. HOVELL: Yeah. MR. ROELLIG: So really there is no slack between now and 2005, if you look at --. MR. HOVELL: I would-- I would propose that -- and we don't really have to decide this today, but I would propose as a goal we look at trying to do this in the winter of 2004 and 2005 because if we wait to start on November of 2005, we only have two months. Then the easements expire unless we go through some process and get everybody to agree. Again, I'm not sure the easements are good for a new project, but assuming they are, say let's get on with this while the getting's good. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Just one quick question for clarification. I guess the grant writing of the application, is there a potential for an alternative matching funding source, and the answer was indicated as being no. That's different than, I take it, from the 50/50 cost sharing with state potential? I guess that could be clarified in the grant application. MR. HOVELL: I don't remember if I said it in the words. I think you said it at a previous meeting. The title of the amount and a couple of other things, except for all those questions in the middle, Page 61 April 5, 2002 were what got changed on these grant applications. And all the guts of the yes-no questions tended to be the same every single grant application. MR. PIRES: So on this one the answer is no. Is there a potential for alternative matching fundings for applications that --. MR. HOVELL: It's actually not a potential. It's already to some extent in place. MR. PIRES: So that can be clarified I guess. MR. HOVELL: Yeah. MR. PIRES: Okay. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I just want to note that I have about 20 more minutes of this meeting. Of course, you can carry on without me, but I'd like to be able to be allowed to vote on this. Do we have any more questions, comments? Mr. Strapponi. MR. STRAPPONI: Mr. Chairman, I've heard enough. I'd like to make a motion that we go ahead and approve the $600,000 grant. MR. ROELLIG: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Roellig seconded. Did you have a separate question, Mr. Roellig? MR. ROELLIG: No, other than the fact that switch the Xs in the grant application. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We have a motion and a second. Any further questions or comments? All those in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: very much. Excellent presentation. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Hovell. Opposed? None. It passes 8-0. Thank you On to the 1 O-year plan, Mr. Page 62 April 5, 2002 MR. HOVELL: I have today's version of a draft plan which I'll hand out. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Why don't we -- why don't we take a very short recess while we change reporters. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We're going to call the meeting back to order, and I will note for the record that Mr. Stakich had to leave during the recess, so he has departed for the day. We are going to move onto Item 3-C which is the ten-year plan recommendation for the TDC. MR. HOVELL: Did everybody get a copy of today's version? (No response.) MR. HOVELL: Okay. We have gotten the budget guidance from the county office of management and budget, so the revenue projections for both FY '02 and next year, FY '03, are the latest and greatest projections provided by that office. There were a few changes. Let's see. It was Gordon's Pass we added in fiscal year 2008, a dredging event at Gordon's Pass, because there's concern that we won't ever again get federal money to do that. In case the question was lingering in your mind, the grant application we just discussed is listed as the 625,000 FY 2002. It has 625,000 under Category C, the 600,000 for this grant application we just discussed and $25,000 for the beach emergency response plan that you recommended approval on last go-around. I think those were all the big changes. Were there any questions based on the last that you saw that you wanted me to address, or do you want me to remind you -- or, actually, not all of you were necessarily at the last one. Are there any sort of procedural things you want me to revisit? MR. PIRES: Just real quick question, I guess, that you're Page 63 April 5, 2002 estimating the increase be a greater amount of interest earned on the money. I think last time it was 4.9, and now they're forecasting 5.2 percent? MR. HOVELL: Well, last time they had told me approximately 5 percent, and when I say -- it's actually keying up a formula, and if you didn't have a point something at the end of it, it really looked funny, so I made it 4.9, just -- I rounded down one, and then they did come out as 5.2 percent. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Any other questions or comments? Mr. Kroeschell. MR. KROESCHELL: A question again on the beach-- will we be able to see the letter that you will write? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I think the answer is yes. We don't have a meeting scheduled before the April 15th TDC. Once I produce the letter, which I have not done yet, I don't see any reason why Mr. Bell can't distribute it. MR. KROESCHELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Do we have a motion? Mr. Roellig. MR. ROELLIG: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Roellig moved to approve. Second anyone? MR. KROESCHELL: Second. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Kroeschell seconded. All those-- Page 64 April 5, 2002 MR. PIRES: I think the motion is to approve the recommendation? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Approving the ten-year plan. MR. PIRES: To TDC and the county commission? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Correct. Motion by Mr. Roellig, second by Mr. Kroeschell to approve the ten-year plan for recommendation to the TDC. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Passes 7-0. Our final specific item on the agenda today is the future meeting schedule. I don't recall the precise times, but I know Mr. Hovell had -- had marked out three times where we could have regular meetings. One, I believe, is Friday afternoon, but as much as we're doing now I think that would probably be everyone's last choice. In general, there was a Monday proposal and also a Wednesday proposal. Do you remember the specifics of that, Mr. Hovell? MR. HOVELL: No. I'm sorry I don't, but I did bring -- I think I made you-all copies of that kind of thing. I printed it out again today just to see, you know, if anything had changed, but as I recall, I think you're right. It was Wednesday afternoon, Friday afternoon. Actually, we still seem to have our time slot reserved on Thursday afternoons. When we look through this schedule, we're on there, but the problem has historically been, on at least one of those -- it doesn't show up on the schedule, but I thought we were somehow bumping into the Planning Commission. MR. KROESCHELL: Oh, yes, it's on there Thursday morning. MR. PIRES: I think what happens is they have been running longer in a more detailed analysis of the various applications. Page 65 April 5, 2002 MR. KROESCHELL: What I was wondering about is didn't we get this rear half of the room. We didn't have anybody in the rear half of the room. MR. HOVELL: We haven't so far, but I'm told that, you know, they've done it that way in the past and that the people in the back understand that we are the ones up front on the mike, so we probably wouldn't suffer their noise, but they'd be suffering our noise, you know, depending on which of these dates we pick. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: That's their problem. No. I -- I didn't bring the thing with me, and I don't know if Dr. Staiger or anyone had seen the choices. I want to say it was the fourth Wednesday. I know it was a Wednesday afternoon. Does anyone have problems with Wednesday afternoons? MR. ROELLIG: The first one. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: It's either the second or the fourth because I've got issue on the first and third, so I know it's not those two. DR. STAIGER: The second Wednesday of the month is the Planning Advisory Board meeting. They don't usually go past midday, and I don't know that there's anybody in here or not. I have to go once in awhile but not routinely. MR. PIRES: The fourth Wednesday sounds like the best. DR. STAIGER: The fourth Wednesday is a good one. MR. PIRES: In the afternoons. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Why don't-- I don't think we need to vote on this. We'll just give directions. It's either the second or the fourth. Fourth would be super good. Second is good in the afternoon to secure that as our regular time to go forward. I understand it may not be starting in May but whenever we get started. MR. HOVELL: Okay. Just looking at May, neither the second Page 66 April 5, 2002 nor first Wednesday in May would work, but I think longer range certainly the -- certainly one of those will, so I'll do that for the long- range schedule. Do we want to specifically look at picking a date for our next meeting, and then beyond that I'll look for our regular -- MR. SNEDIKER: Well, the projects are meeting all the time now, the TDC forthcoming. What's the need for meetings? Do we need to have meetings now for the next several months, or should we slow up because we have an awful lot of them in the winter? I'm just asking a question. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I think, you know, it's over a 12- month period we may not need a meeting every month, but to the extent we don't need meetings, I'd like to sort of save that for July and August when traditionally the governmental bodies don't meet. There may be other things, but the thing on my mind that we can start addressing in May is beach raking and to take a look at it and understand which way we want to go because we all know we've agreed to money-wise in the budget save a placeholder for beach raking, but we have significant doubts about the beach raking activities. So I would like to just start addressing that, and we might as well start in May. Mr. Roellig. MR. ROELLIG: Another thing I'd like to see, I think we should have these kind of inputs, some kind of an update on some of the outgoing projects. Might not need any action but just two sentences, but it would be good to know something about what's happening to Parker sand web, any dredging going on, where this money's being spent. It's nice to find out there is a problem before I read it in the paper, if that's possible. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Well, that's true. That's -- I think other than -- other than these last few workshops and meetings where Page 67 April 5, 2002 we've been very focused on these grant applications, I think it's been a regular feature of our meetings to be updated, and we'll continue doing that. I think that's very helpful to all of us. For May we are -- we are on the schedule for the second Thursday and, obviously, we don't know if the prior occupants -- well, actually, it looks like we don't have many before US. MR. HOVELL: It's just the back half of the room apparently. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: What is TURN again? MR. HOVELL: I don't remember what they told me that acronym stands for, but -- DR. STAIGER: That would be May. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: It seems to me it can work. You know, they've got that divider and -- MR. HOVELL: They say they've done it before and that, you know -- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: If no one has a problem with it, we'll meet again May 9th at 1:30 in the boardroom. By that time -- I think it's, frankly, a formality, but it is required for the county commission to approve Mr. Pennington, and that we expect to occur on April 23rd, right, at the board meeting? MR. HOVELL: Depending on getting the package from the city to present, yes. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: So hopefully Mr. Pennington will be with us, and he'll have a vote on the issues of the day. That concludes our specific items on the agenda. There is no new business. We leave time at each meeting for audience participation. MS. CROMWELL: May I? Page 68 April 5, 2002 CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: You, being the audience. State your name and affiliation. MS. CROMWELL: Shannon Cromwell, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I just wanted to ask that the Conservancy be put on the agenda to discuss the beach raking project. I know you said you're probably going to wait until whenever the next meeting in May to look at that, but I would like to ask that we be put on the agenda. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And we certainly would appreciate your input. We will have -- it may extend over more than one meeting. I don't know. MS. CROMWELL: Right. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: It's not to say that we'll make a decision on May 9th, but we do want to get into the specifics of the issue, and we'll make sure that we have time for your input and presentation. MS. CROMWELL: I did write a letter which I wrote to Mr. Hovell who is going to distribute it to you, and it's in the packet, and also I talked about before the beach survey that I've been doing. That's an ongoing thing. I've also been checking the dumpsters and sifting through the dumpsters trying to see what I can find, and I've got some information pertaining to what's actually in the dumpsters and how much. I mean, I'm not, like, a biologist. It's not very scientific, but I do have that information to share also. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Well, that's the input we're looking for, so I will look forward to that information. MS. CROMWELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We have scheduled our next meeting, I guess -- that's the next item on the agenda -- May 9th, 1:30, boardroom. Do any of the members have any comments or Page 69 April 5, 2002 questions? MR. PIRES: Just a brief item. I referenced before when the Barefoot Beach people were making their presentation to the engineer that there was a DSAC meeting the other day where they talked about some proposed changes to the CCSL or CCCL provisions in the county's Land Development Code based upon some indication of some activities occurring with regards to some beachfront residential communities, you know, back end of the dune systems in the coastal area. I don't know if that's an area we should be advised of or notified of the status of that because I think our mandate, so to speak, goes beyond merely the TDC funding aspects. So a lot of issues concerning the comprehensive plan and beach aspects, so I'm wondering if it's possible to ask the staff from either Barb Burgeson of Natural Resources or Alex Sulecki in the Code Enforcement section -- she does the environmental code enforcement -- what the issues are in the beach issues in North Collier. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I think that would be a good suggestion. Dr. Staiger. DR. STAIGER: The new building code that is in effect in the State of Florida now requires the permitting for coastal construction activities to be handled by the local building officials, the city and the county. DEP will continue to process a certain part of the coastal construction setback line permit dictating how high a structure has to be for storm surge beneath it and that sort of thing. But Collier County has historically adopted, I think, a coastal construction setback line that's 50 feet from the mean high water line. The city line is whatever the state's coastal construction line is wherever it is. And I don't know if the county wants to mess with it, but it wouldn't hurt for the Collier County government to adopt the Florida coastal Page 70 April 5, 2002 construction control line for Collier County as its coastal construction control line, and then the county would be involved in permitting stuff at the same line that the state is, rather than having to do all this stuff. You know, right now their line is really kind of obsolete because it's right out on the beach practically. Like it or not, the local building officials are going to have to be involved heavily in permitting coastal construction as of-- I think, you know, '01 March or something like that when the building code is in effect. Yes, it's March 1st. And there may be some -- a lack of awareness on the part of some of the county building department staff about that, but it's out there. And it wouldn't hurt for you-all to be, you know, in the loop on what's going on with the Land Development Code changes and the like because you don't want to end up with somebody getting a permit to do something that they shouldn't. Just a comment. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Thank you. Anything else? Mr. SNEDIKER. MR. SNEDIKER: Ron, did you want to address the situation of the tardiness? You might say something about allowing these monitoring reports, keeping promises but don't see the report. Got one in there now. One of several that are past due. Am I correct? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: In reference -- I'm sorry. In reference to what? MR. SNEDIKER: I guess many different subjects, I guess. MR. HOVELL: If I could deflect that question and just hand out what I do have. MR. SNEDIKER: Okay. Maybe that solves some of it, some that are missing. MR. HOVELL: I think there are, besides this one, two others reports that Humiston & Moore owes us for-- in the way of Page 71 April 5, 2002 monitoring reports, and hopefully by May 9th -- I'll tell them when that meeting is -- we will have them. But if you could, before you leave, this is not necessarily for next meeting but, you know, as always good background stuff, the monitoring report for -- where is the title -- I'm pretty sure it's the southern end of Marco Island with the segmented breakwaters, the minutes from the March 15th meeting, -- this is saving my postage; I'm cheap -- the letter that Shannon Cromwell from the Conservancy sent, a copy for everybody, the Goodland Civic Association legal opinion, the letter from public utilities to Florida Department of Environmental Protection requesting the generic permit modification to allow the sand web system to be used in conjunction and/or separately, whatever, from trucking just to make it an option. Although, I'll tell you Mike Sole, the director, was here for the Rookery Bay beach renourishment workshop as much told me he would not approve it, but -- and a score sheet, if you will, of a list of all projects that were submitted with the recommendations. And ultimately I'll fill in the CAC recommendations and the TDC recommendations, and something like this will go to the Board of County Commissioners. So if you didn't already get one of those during one of the breaks or whatnot, please make sure you pick one up before you go. MR. PIRES: Nice deflection. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: adjourned. Any other questions or Thank you. The meeting is Page 72 April 5, 2002 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:45 p.m. COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE GARY GALLEBERG, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RPR, CMR AND CAROLYN J. FORD, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 73