Loading...
CAC Minutes 05/09/2002 RMay 9, 2002 COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE County Commissioners Boardroom Building F, 3ra Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES May 9, 2002 Chairman Gary Galleberg called meeting to order at 1:30 P.M. ATTENDANCE Members: Gary Galleberg, Anthony Pires, William Kroeschell, John Strapponi, Ron Permington, Robert Stakich Collier County: Ron Hovell, P.E. City of Naples: Dr. Jon C. Staiger Others: Shannon Cromwell - Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Ruth McCann - Marco Island Civic Association, Regina Reilly - Marco Island Beach Advisory Committee, Ken Humiston - Humiston & Moore Engineering, Julie Locascio - Friends of Tigertail Mr. Galleberg introduces new member, Ron Pennington. II. ADDITIONS TO AGENDA Mr. Galleberg asked if there were to be any additions to the agenda and Ron Hovell confirmed that there were two additions; a DEP response letter and activities summary. There was a movement to start covering new business, but Mr. Hovell wanted to first address the additions to the agenda. The DEP sent a response letter on May 6 regarding the sand web system that was being used in parts of Collier County. The DEP stated in its' letter that they consider the sand web system an experimental technology and if the county wanted to pursue it, they could not simply modify the existing permit, but would be required to submit a new joint coastal permit application. Their indication is that unless the county had a different use of the sand web system, they would not give permits for this until the system goes through full tests and they make a decision whether it will be useful for the future. Mr. Galleberg wondered how this arose since he felt that this committee, the Naples City Council, and the Board of County Commissioners agreed to not modify the permit. Mr. Hovell responded by informing the committee that actually Parker Beach Restoration, Inc. had petitioned the board at a meeting in March to modify permits in order to later decide whether to truck in sand verse using the sand web system. William Kroeschell wanted to know when the permits expire and Mr. Galleberg believed that it was 18 months of monitoring after April 30th, when the nets have been removed. Mr. Hovell confirmed. Mr. Hovell then spoke about the project where sand was trucked onto Naples and Vanderbilt beaches. He stated that they were able to truck 45 cubic yards of sand and deposit between May 9, 2002 IlL IV. Doctor's Pass and Naples Avenue, which brought that area aback to the design height, but not the ~vidth, of the renourishment project of 1995-1996. He felt this project went well and they did a good job accommodating all the hotels and beach vendor's requests. Dr. Jon Staiger later stated his agreement with this, as well. Mr. Galleberg wanted to tie that in to the discussion about the sand web system. He wanted to know how long it took to truck in and deposit the 50,000 cubic yards of sand. Mr. Hovell answered that it took about 6 weeks. Dr. Jon Staiger then provided the committee with the statistics concerning the sand web system. He stated that during the 5 months that the web was in place, about 20,000 to 25,000 cubic yards were deposited. The prediction for the project was 60,000 cubic yards. Mr. Galleberg noted that we will never know how much of that would have come back just by nature. Dr. Staiger pointed out that a benefit of the system was that during February and March, the beach with the netting did not gain or lose any sand, however, the control groups experienced erosion during this time. Ron Pennington stated that he observed the area where the Parker web had been, and he did not observe any difference between that area and the areas south. He also was concerned because south of Doctor's Pass, there is a lot of sand that is deposited on the higher beach, which he felt would not be possible with the nets. John Strapponi asked what was the cost per yard with the Parker system. Dr. Staiger answered that they were paying $8.50 per cubic yard for the sand, but when you factor in the engineering and monitoring costs, the price rose to about $20 to $25 per cubic yard. He said that after research was completed, he hoped there would no longer be a need for monitoring, although that is up to the state and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. Mr. Strapponi asked if the cost would be less than $10 per yard without the monitoring and Dr. Staiger believed it would. Anthony Pires questioned about the lack of court reporter and Mr. Galleberg and Mr. Hovell caught him up on this matter. OLD BUSINESS a. Approval of Minutes for March 15, 2002 and April 5, 2002 Anthony Pires moved to accept the minutes and William Kroeschell seconds. It passes unanimously. b. F_uture Meeting Schedule Ron Hovell states that the future meeting schedule is to be the second Thursday of each month in the boardroom at 1:30 P.M. NEW BUSINESS a. Beach Cleaning Chairmen Galleberg introduced the topic of beach cleaning by stating that he wanted to get into this subject more deeply during this meeting. Ron Hovell mentioned article from Marco Island Eagle regarding beach raking. The article recommended that the county not rake as frequently, especially with the equipment currently being used. He then introduced Shannon Cromwell from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to speak on this topic. Shannon Cromwell - She is here representing the Conservancy to inform the committee that they are concerned with the amount of beach raking that is currently taking place on Collier County beaches. They would like regulations to be established to protect the beach ecosystem and feel the raking should only be done on an as needed basis; for example, red tide, excess litter or debris, etc. 2 May 9, 2002 Ms. Cromwell stated that the Conservancy also recommends that the county set forth guidelines of"necessity". She handed out an example of necessity guidelines from the Sarasota County beach clean-up policy. Ms. Cromwell then suggested that if daily beach cleaning was still desired, that this be done by hand to remove the litter, rather than using machines. She brought in a bucket of a dumpster samplings she collected from the four beach sites; Naples beach, Park shore, Vanderbilt beach and resident's beach form Marco Island. The results were that of 37 pounds of shell and debris, they were only about five small items of litter found. Ms. Cromwell also provided some pictures she took which showed a large amount of shells and sand in the dumpsters. Ms. Cromwell noted that she has spoken with Marco Island Beach Advisory Committee and they voted in favor of limiting the number of beach rakings that they perform. She spoke the EAC who were very receptive with the Conservancy's recommendations. She also spoke with two members from the county's Natural Resources and they said they would like to work with her on this matter. Finally, Ms. Cromwell stated that the Conservancy believes that excessive beach raking is not aesthetically or economically beneficial and is detrimental to the protection of the beach eco- system. They recommended that the committee accept the changes stated in the letter by the Conservancy. Mr. Pires noted that it would be much easier to implement regulations with some other code changes or policies, rather than to change the land development codes. He then asked if the Conservancy is asking for the changes to be made below or above the rack line. Mr. Hovell answered that a permit from the state is always needed, so he believed state would cover this in the permit process. Mr. Hovell brought up the issue of the rock removal plan. If they are going to execute this plan by other means (not using raking machines), then they would have to get permission from the state to do otherwise. Shannon Cromwell mentioned that she spoke with someone form the Florida DEP and they discussed how Collier County has chosen beach raking to be their form of rock removal maintenance. They informally believed that this method could be changed and there could be another way to perform this maintenance. Anthony Pires asked Ms. Cromwell whether she feels that handpicking should be the method to collect litter so as not to disturb the beach, and she responds affirmatively. William Kroeschell stated that he sees no need to be raking beaches based on the fact that Sanibel has shells and people love that beach. John Strapponi elected to play devil's advocate, and he raised the question of what do tourists want; are they here for shelling or for walking barefoot on the beach? He then asked if Ms. Cromwell's samples were one-time or random samples, and she clarified that they were one- time samples. He asked how can we remove rocks, which is set forth by the mandate, without removing shells, and also, why is it so terrible to remove the shells? Ms. Cromwell responded that many of the shells that are raked and discarded contain living animals or are whole shells, which are desired by shellers of the beaches. She stated there is a reason for the shells to be at the beach, i.e. inhibit erosion, breakdown into sand, etc. Ron Pennington asked whether the raking is an ordinance or administrative. Mr. Hovell believed it has just evolved and is not a written policy, certainly not an ordinance. Mr. Permington commented that he has seen the beach being raked even when there is nothing on the beach to be groomed. He stated that he appreciates and concurs with the Conservancy's recommendations. 3 May 9, 2002 Mr. Galleberg said that he would not advocate upsetting the rock removal plan, but he does feel they have lost sight of the real goal and wants to focus on the issue of cleaning the beach when there is no cleaning to be done. Mr. Strapponi asked if the beach inspector suggests where and when raking is to occur, but Mr. Hovell clarified that the three raking machines will rake everyday whether or not there is a need. Gary Galleberg stated that this type of raking, overtime, will harm wildlife and the stability of the beach, which will in the future lead to more renourishing to be done. The committee then discussed the use of dragging a chain-link fence for grooming the beach. Mr. Galleberg advised that there needed to be a distinction made between grooming and raking. Mr. Hovell introduced Ruth McCann, the Executive Director of the Marco Island Civic Association. Ruth McCann - She informed that the raking began in Marco when the condo owner's paid for the beach to be renourished and as part of the permit, they were required to maintain beach after the renourishment. So, the raking was not intended for rock removal. She had a problem with changing the beach maintenance schedule due to an unscientific study. Ms. McCann suggested that if they are considering changing the plan, they should first conduct a scientific study. In regard to excessive raking, she suggested that it might be helpful to adjust the depth of the raking. Dr. Staiger commented that he feels we need to leave the rack line alone and he also agreed with Mr. Pennington that there is too much raking, especially where there isn't a need for rock removal. He concurred with the Conservancy's point that the raking should be on an as needed basis and felt a compromise needed to be made. Regina Riley - She is from the Marco Island Beach Advisory Committee and was concerned about the amount of sand compaction caused by machines, which leads to the need for tilling. She suggested that a compromise be made and to not rake everyday. Ron Pennington made a motion to request that the staff propose regulations for beach grooming, preservation, or maintenance consistent with the recommendations from the Conservancy and to provide the ability of the local entities to deviate depending on their situation to be considered at the June meeting. Second was given by Mr. Pires. Passes unanimously. Mr. Hovell clarified that tilling is a requirement of the beach renourishment permits, which is very easy to fail. Therefore, they will generally till without even checking. He doesn't think that the beach raking has anything to do with compaction. Caxambas Pass (10500) Ron Hovell informed that back in January, Taylor Engineering was hired to review all the data and monitoring reports for Caxambas pass, the breakwaters and all Marco Island beaches and asked them to make recommendations for possible future projects. Taylor Engineering has a question for the county: What do you want for a beach at the south end of Marco Island? He described the present beach. Mr. Hovell wanted to develop a process of finding this answer at this meeting. Mr. Hovell introduced Ken Humiston ofHumiston & Moore Engineers. Ken FIumiston - He brought their recent monitoring report for the committee to discuss. He pointed out an inconsistency in the report dealing with the DEP monument R148. This monument was destroyed by erosion and reset by two separate surveyors, during which, some data corrections were overlooked. May 9, 2002 Co He stated that the data showed that there was a gradual increase in beach width after with the construction of the segmented breakwater at monument R148. Mr. Humiston is in agreement that it depends what the county and the citizens would like to have done. They concluded that the current breakwater would not produce a beach of sufficient width. His recommendation was to modify the breakwater, where Taylor Engineering had recommended beach renourishment via trucking. Mr. Pennington asked how much increase in the breakwater is needed to make a significant increase in the beach width? Mr. Humiston said that conceptually (there is no design at this time), it would need another section added to the current three sections, plus they may need to add some additional rocks in between the segments to reduce wave interaction. Mr. Pennington then asked what was the estimated yield of beach width, and Mr. Humiston replied that, conceptually, they could achieve a 100-foot beach ~vidth, which is more than double the existing beach. Gary Galleberg summarized by asking if Mr. Humiston felt it was feasible to accomplish this, depending on the amount of money and community support, and Mr. Humiston replied "yes" and described how the current breakwater had helped the present beach. Mr. Pennington asked what was behind the seawall that needed to be protected. Mr. Humiston answered that it was Marco Point, a collection of high-rise condos. Mr. Pennington questioned how far were they from the seawall and Mr. Humiston believed about 30 to 4 0 feet. Mr. Pennington stated his initial reaction would be that it would be prudent to this, purely as a protection standpoint. Ron Hovell expressed concern whether the extra beach would even be much protection from a storm surge, and whether it would be worth the half-million dollars to do the project. Mr. Hovell informed the committee that they only have a permit for beach renourishment and they have about one million dollars for this budget. Mr. Galleberg stated that more information is needed in order to make this decision. Anthony Pires agreed. Mr. Pennington made a motion directing staff to bring additional information about this project and alternative uses for the money and Mr. Pires seconds. Passes unanimously. Mr. Galleberg asked for public comments. Julie Loeascio - Friends of Tigertail Ms. Locascio stated it is her belief that the buildings should have never been built so close to the seawall and she is concerned that taxpayers will be paying for a beach that is essentially a private beach. William Kroeschell thought that this beach had public access and Ms. Locascio assured that it has since been fenced off. Mr. Galleberg urged Friends of Tigertail to write a letter expressing their concern. Mr. Pires asked if the staff could summarize the reports and point out the benefits of this project to the public. Hideaway Beach Renourishment (10502) and Hideaway Beach Access Improvements (10511) Mr. Hovell stated that they have approximately $700,000 to spend on Hideaway Beach. He felt that this could lead to a discussion about project cost sharing. He questioned how valuable is it to attract tourism to Collier County, taking into account the Tourist Tax Fund. Mr. Hovell informed that they received a proposal for design and permitting of Hideaway Beach Renourishment for over $400,000, yet they only have $330,000 in the budget. May 9,2002 Vo VI. VII. Therefore, he felt that they would probably need to come up with a phased approach. He questioned the best way to proceed considering this. Mr. Pennington asked if they were committed to the project. Mr. Hovell replied "no", other than the fact that people were aware that it is already factored into the budget. Mr. Hovell questioned whether it is worth spending the money now for design and permitting if they weren't committed to spend the multi-nfillion dollars needed for the project down the road. Mr. Pires also expressed concern over whether it would be an appropriate project. After a short discussion, Mr. Pires felt it would be helpful if the staff could take another look at the projects and have an analysis and past recommendation as well as a current recommendation. Mr. Galleberg agreed and stated that he needed more information and a determination needed to be made on how to handle projects technically on public property, which are not necessarily very public. Ron Hovell noted that Hideaway beach was one of the beaches with the most significant erosion problems and he felt that it was necessary to proceed with the beach renourishment, but he also needed more information about the access improvements. Gary Galleberg asked if there was a need to talk more about project cost sharing. Ron Hovell noted that he just wanted to bring it up to see if they could adapt a policy during this summer. Mr. Galleberg then stated that at the June meeting, they would look at how the state and possibly other counties would handle this public/private issue, which he felt would be useful to them. Mr. Strapponi asked if aerials could be made available at the next meeting, as well. Mr. Galleberg thought this would be helpful for the board and for the public. d. Project Cost-sharing Addressed previously. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None at this time. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING Mr. Galleberg restated that the meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 13 at 1:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Galleberg called adjournment at 3:30 P.M.