Loading...
CAC Minutes 09/12/2002 RSeptember 12, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, FL, September 12, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:30pm, in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Gary Galleberg Robert Stakich David Roellig John S. Strapponi Ron Pennington James Snediker William Kroeschell Also Present: Ron Hovell, Roy Andersen, Allen Madsen, Jon Staiger, Ken Humiston Page 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARDROOM, THIRD FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING (ADMINISTRATION), AT THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA AT 1:30 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2002. ONE OR MORE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING BY TELEPHONE AS LONG AS A QUORUM IS PHYSICALLY PRESENT. AGENDA Roll Call Additions to Agenda Old Business a. Approval of minutes for May 9, 2002 b. Project updates c. Growth Management Plan requirements d. 10-Year Plan update New Business a. Committee elections - Chair and Vice Chair b. Parker Beach Restoration presentation of new system c. Beach re-nourishment plans d. City of Marco Island request for beach tilling / grading e. Piping Plover Draft Recovery Plan Audience Participation Schedule next meeting 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. 111. iv. V. vi. vii. viii. ix. X. xi. xii. 10270 10295 10500 10501 10502 10507 10510 10511 10255 10259 Lake Trafford Restoration Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage Caxambas Pass Dredging Marco Island Breakwater Modifications Hideaway Beach Renourishment Incremental Beach Maintenance Activities (+ FEMA) Beach Cleaning Operations (new equipment) Hideaway Beach Access Improvements Gordon Pass Emergency Dredging Parker Sand Web System 10278 Gordon Pass Jetty Sand Tightening 10290 Lowdermilk Park Renovation / Expansion September 12, 2002 COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE County Commission Boardroom Building "F", 3rd Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 l:30pm MINUTES September 12, 2002 -Chairman Gary Galleberg called the meeting to order at 1:30pm. I. ATTENDANCE: Members: Gary Galleberg, Robert Stakich, David Roellig, John S. Strapponi, Ron Pennington, James Snediker, William Kroeschell Collier County: Ron Hovell, Roy Andersen, Allen Madsen, Jon Staiger, Ken Humiston II. III. ^) ADDITIONS TO AGENDA -Mr. Pierce will participate by phone. -Presentation by FL Department of Environmental Protection on Beach Erosion Control: added to agenda after Item 4A. -Mr. Hovell requested a chance to brief the committee on some notes. -Mr. Pennington made a motion to add these items to the agenda. Mr. Strapponi seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS -Mr. Hovell reviewed his notes: 1) He informed the committee that Jim Deloney is the new Public Administrator; he replaced Jim Mudd. 2) He explained that there is a newspaper clipping available that describes some volunteers who are doing plantings on Coconut Island. Page 2 September 12, 2002 3A) 3g) 3) As background information, he provided the committee with some newspaper articles and website links that reviewed the "organic umbrella". APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR May 9, 2002 -Mr. Pennington stated that in the bottom paragraph, second sentence, it should read 45,000 cubic yards, rather than 45 cubic yards. -Mr. Pennington made a motion to approve the minutes of May 9, 2002 with the change to 45,000 cubic yards. It was seconded by Mr. Stakich. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously. PROJECT UPDATES -Mr. Hovell informed the committee on the project updates. i.) 10270 Lake Trafford Restoration - due to the high costs of the proposals received they have gone back to the drawing board. ii.) 10295 Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage - there was no change in the status, it is still in dispute. iii.& iv) 10500 Caxambas Pass Dredging & 10501 Marco Island Breakwater Modifications - information from Taylor Engineering was provided to the committee over the summer. Mr. Hovell stated he would like this to go on the next agenda and at that point, he would like the committee to vote on the staff's recommendations. v.) 10502 Hideaway Beach Renourishment & Hideaway Beach Access Improvements. Both are in design. Work orders were given to Humiston and Moore Engineers. Mr. Humiston handed out some designs for the committee. vi.) 10507 Incremental Beach Maintenance Activities (+FEMA) - they have been working out project approval for reimbursement. They have received a draft for approval that will go to FEMA. He feels they will be successful in reimbursement. To date, they have been tentatively denied everything except for Park Shore Beach. State & FEMA components go hand in hand. Mr. Humiston reviewed the preliminary plan handed out. It was submitted to Mr. Hovell today, but not to the agencies yet. Mr. Kroeschell asked at the next meeting, that the committee be provided with Page 3 September 12, 2002 vii.) the distances from the access way to the access point from the parking area. Mr. Humiston stated he would bring this information. 10510 Beach Cleaning Operations (new equipment) - they rented a "gator" over the summer, rather than the mechanical rake. It worked well. They have now bought a "gator" and continued the summer trial period. Marco Island is continuing operations as they always have done. They have fabricated a drag for smoothing. -Mr. Pierce asked about staffing numbers and overall costs? Mr. Hovell stated that staffing has remained the same. They have written to the FL Department of Environmental Protection to request changing the rock removal plan; to show the current changes. The informal reaction has been positive. Beach Rakes are being kept as standby, (at least 2). There is no change in costs, except in buying one new piece of equipment. -Mr. Pennington referred to the memo from the City of Naples and stated that he saw a beach rake in operation at Park Shore Beach, this brought him distress, and he asked the county to take action to ensure this will not occur again. He also recommended that one of the machines go to the City of Naples, one to Marco Island, and one to the unincorporated areas. He believes this will help to alleviate the problem. Mr. Hovell stated that it will be discussed by the departments and it is on the staff agenda to discuss who is in charge of "what" on the beaches and who is making the decisions. Mr. Galleberg requested that staff discuss these recommendations, put it on the next agenda, and then the committee can then vote on the matter. Mr. Snediker stated it was important to keep in mind that machines break down, (one is currently in Germany for repairs), and that he doesn't want us to get stuck without a machine if needed. Mr. Roellig stated that he wants to make sure they are consistent with the City of Naples. Mr. Hovell added, that the staff will discuss these issues and bring the recommendations back to the committee at the next meeting. Then they will ask the CAC for a further discussion and a formal recommendation. Page 4 September 12, 2002 ix.) x.) 10255 Gordon Pass Emergency Dredging - Mr. Staiger informed the committee that the Corps of Engineers will start -November 2002. They are waiting on a document from the City of Naples, stating who is in ownership of the property. The funds were cancelled since it was unnecessary, they are now being applied to the sand-tightening project. 10259 Parker Sand Web System - Mr. Staiger explained that they have completed the first post monitoring report. Project criteria have been met. Mr. Hovell added that Humiston & Moore will provide more information on the monitoring later in this meeting. Mr. Staiger explained how the criteria met was determined successful and that it took one week to remove the nets. -Mr. Humiston gave a scope of the monitoring and a summary of results. They did two computations: value change out to 1,000 feet offshore and the mean high waterline. He explained to the committee that they received new information about the computations in regards to the mean high water line, which will affect the survey. Therefore, he presented the results as preliminary, to help the committee gain an overall understanding. They saw, overall, that there was accumulation of sand in the net area and offshore losses of sand. Since the nets have been removed, this process has begun to reverse itself. One of the test areas showed that out to the mean low waterline, within the net area, there was an accumulation of-11,000cubic yards; a total accumulation in the area, including the control area was -14,000 cubic yards. Based on the DNR test plan, this would not have met the standard. For comparison, the control areas in the North and South experienced some erosion during this time. He added that this was important to note since they were expecting to see some accumulation in the recovery after Gabriel and they did not find this in the control areas. He feels this is an indication that the accumulation in the net areas is due to the nets. He explained when they expanded the computation area to 1,000 feet offshore, the numbers differed. Then there was erosion throughout the study area. He showed Page 5 September 12, 2002 xi.) an exhibit of the 3month period after the nets were removed and stated the most significant thing is that 1/3 of the 11,000 cubic yard accumulation was lost. It appears that this material is being eroded from the beach and being deposited in the offshore areas. The next two exhibits were almost the same, except they converted the biometrics quantities to cubic yards per feet of beach. You could still see a significant difference of accumulation in the test areas from the control areas. He then showed an exhibit that provided a "Birdseye view" of were accumulation and accretion occurred. He pointed out that there was a pattern of sand transport from N-S, which may be an explanation of why the accumulation of sand is in the Northern ends. prevails because the magnitude to consider in the study of data. Dave's Report, if it was safe to (N-S in winter, S-N in summer, winter of accretion is higher). This is important -Mr. Pennington asked, in reference to assume that some of the sand would have accreted naturally due to storm recovery. Mr. Humiston stated they agreed, but looking at the control areas, they did not show the same magnitude of recovery. Mr. Pennington asked if the control areas were studied in the same manner as the test areas, prior to the test. Mr. Humiston assured him that they were studied in the same manner. Mr. Galleberg asked ifHumiston & Moore, the City of Naples, and Sub- Oceanic & Parker, were all in agreement on the raw data collected. Mr. Humiston stated they were in agreement and they were also in agreement on how the data was collected. Mr. Galleberg then asked if they were drawing cause and effect from the data, that stated there was accretion in reference to the mean low waterline and erosion in reference to 1,000ft from the beach. Mr. Humiston stated it is probably cause and effect, and it seems likely that the accretion in the net areas probably attributed some to the deficit in the other areas. 10278 Gordon Pass Jetty Sand Tightening - Mr. Staiger explained that it was close to completion. The sheet pile has been installed for -lmonth, the bedding stone has been installed, and they are awaiting the armor Page 6 September 12, 2002 3c) stone. The armor stone is coming from Guatemala. The reason they bought the rock in from Guatemala was due to the contractor's discretion; the rock was of a good quality and competitive prices. -Mr. Roellig asked if it was being blasted out or cut out. Mr. Staiger informed him that he believes it is being blasted out. Mr. Humiston stated that it is being blasted out of a quarry, that the quality was stronger than that in Georgia, and the contractor went this route due to considerable cost savings. He added that it would be inspected before it is put in place. A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS TAKEN xii.) 10290 Lowdermilk Park Renovation/Expansion - Mr. Staiger stated the City has elected a contractor, they are awaiting a Coastal Construction Permit, and then they will start construction. Hopefully it will be built by the. end of the year. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS -Mr. Hovell included information regarding beach re-nourishment requirements in their summary. The Federal government focuses on defining public use and sets up policy on the percentage of funding participation for various categories of beaches. One regulation is, with privately owned/privately used, they share 0%. With privately owned/publicly used they share 65%. With publicly owned/publicly used, recreation types, they share 50%. With publicly owned/publicly used of other categories they share 65%. The FL Beach Erosion Control program, in general, will cost share a maximum of 50% of the project costs, based on public accessibility as they define as primary and secondary. In the Collier County GMP, the Coastal Management section, it is not as specific. The current wording is "if public access is not sufficient, the county shall require additional access points as part of the re-nourishment project." Marco Island is using similar wording, updated recently. The City of Naples does not focus on public accessibility as much. Mr. Galleberg noted that this is because they already have it. Mr. Hovell continued that procedurally a grant application is being submitted for the city. The appropriate first step is the CAC, the second is the City, then tourist development, and then the BCC. The main point is there are Page 7 September 12, 2002 3D) a number of ways to fund beach re-nourishment. He wanted this to be background information for the CAC in future decisions. He stated some of the points of concern will be public accessibility and the county GMP applied to city limits. They may need to establish policies to meet the way these things are written or they may possibly need to change the way they are written. -Mr. Galleberg stated they would like staff to make a proposal for the CAC to discuss and work with. Mr. Snediker wants them to look at any specific agreements that may have been made with the BCC. Mr. Pennington added, that they need to address the fact that tourism taxes are being used in beach re-nourishment projects. Mr. Roellig agreed, and added that this is a different criteria than using general funds and that it may be appropriate to come up with two sets of criteria based on either TDC or general fund use. He believes they should also have the option of looking at the projects individually. Mr. Hovell showed some photos, submitted by a concerned citizen. On Park Shore beach, there is significant washout next to private drainage. He added that some of the criteria in the policies should make sure that adjacent property owners are good stewards. Mr. Staiger stated that in making policies they may add three to four options that help deal with stormwater from private drainage systems. Mr. Strapponi asked if permits were required to put the drainage systems there. Mr. Staiger stated at the time the answer was no, but currently they would be required. Mr. Strapponi stated he has seen a trench created from the draining of a pool and he asked what could be done to remedy this situation. Mr. Staiger stated that this is to be dumped into the drainage system and not across the beaches and that code enforcement can get involved in these situations. Mr. Pennington suggested that they have expeditious corrections to the problems, since they just "trucked" sand into Park Shore. Mr. Hovell stated they have had meetings to come up with a specific proposal, they may not have it for the next meeting, but they are currently working on it. TEN YEAR PLAN UPDATE -Mr. Hovell explained that he included the current version of the 10-yr plan in the agenda packet. He noted that the CAC was previously informed of the interest Page 8 September 12, 2002 IV. being diverted from any fund it could be diverted from to the general fund and road projects, so it is zeroed out in this version. In general, this plan works with a fair amount of revenue accumulated in the long term. In the short term, it also assumes they receive -$3million in reimbursement from FEMA/state. It assumes no further cost for Hideaway Beach and $6million for the next re-nourishment, when in fact it is closer to -$9-10million. This will cause a re-evaluation of the 10yr. Plan. -Mr. Pennington asked what the basis was for all the changes of operational reserves in the three versions of the 10-yr. Plan. Mr. Hovell stated that the general intent was to comply with how they, previously, discussed reserves would be shown; displayed as operational reserves & catastrophe reserves. -Mr. Pennington asked why the changes were made to the totals in the catastrophe reserves and if the CAC plays a part in these changes. Mr. Hovell stated that they do play a part and in the next few months they will be discussing this in detail. Mr. Galleberg stated he would like staff to change presentations on this or bring a clearer perspective, so the CAC can easily determine what is available where. Mr. Hovell stated he is trying to reflect the changes made that will affect the 10yr. Plan. NEW BUSINESS 4B) COMMITTEE ELECTIONS -Mr. Pennington nominated Mr. Galleberg for another year as chairman. Mr. Strapponi seconded the nomination. All were in favor of the nomination. -Mr. Kroeschell nominated Mr. Roellig for another year as vice chairman. It was seconded by Mr. Stakich. All were in favor of the nomination. Chairman: Mr. Galleberg Vice Chairman: Mr. Roellig PARKER BEACH RESTORATION PRESENTATION OF A NEW SYSTEM -Phil Flood, Project Management Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources, explained that his office has a few groups: regulatory office, data acquisition & analyze, field survey teams, and beach management. He explained that his group Page 9 September 12, 2002 is beach management and they implement the strategic Beach Management Plan and the Florida Beach Erosion Control Program. He stated the state's beach management plan is a broad conceptual plan, which was developed regionally in an attempt to manage the shoreline in a systematic way. The plan identifies strategies to address critically eroded beaches and the focus is legislatively mandated to focus on beach restoration activities. One component is the long range budget plan. It is a 10yr. Program, which identifies specific restoration projects and their estimated costs. They implement this through the grant program; the Florida Beach Erosion Control Program, which has been around since 1965. It offers primarily financial, but also technical assistance, to local governments and other state and federal agencies on all activities managing the state's coastal beaches. 4-5yrs ago the Florida legislature set up a dedicated funded source, which gives them $30million annually. They share this with local governments, up to 50% of the non federal coastal projects. His staff reviews requests, rank the projects in order of lyf. Feasibility, and puts them into two lists. The first list is a priority list; the first $30million in projects. The second list is an alternate list; everything else below $30million. The purpose of the alternate list is that a specific project may be determined for extra funds. The criteria are that the project must be located in a area determined as critically eroded, it must be consistent with the strategic beach management plan, and it must front the Gulf or the Atlantic. Cost sharing is based on public access and parking. It is also required that public access be open to the public on a equal basis. Collier County has received funding in the past and recently. This year Collier County and Marco Island are on the Alternate list. If a priority project for some reason does not go through that year, they then turn to their alternate list. This is how Collier County received funds last year and he believes they have a shot at the same this year. He noted that there are funds available for new and innovative technologies to restore beaches. Last year they had $3million dollars mandated for this specific type of project. Half of the funds still need to be obligated. They are available till the end of the month on a first come first serve basis. This year they added $1million for new and innovative techniques. Funding on these two categories is Page 10 September 12, 2002 different. They are tied to public access and parking, but the state will pay up to 50% costs of design and permitting. The test plans will be paid 100% by the state, it cannot exceed 75% of the design and permitting costs. This year there was additional language added that allowed local governments, who received appropriation, to use the funding for alternative methods that meet the same objectives, as long as it is a new and untried approach. -Mr. Roellig asked how they define innovative. Mr. Flood stated there is a definition in the statue as far as permitting goes. They are looking for something different, something that has not been done before. Mr. Roellig asked if there is, in the erosion protection, a distinction between storm damage reduction, recreational beaches, environmental areas, etc... Mr. Flood stated their focus is largely storm protection, but tourism does come into play. They also consider public benefit. Mr. Pennington asked what type of innovative projects they have done. Mr. Flood stated they have done very little, because they need a local sponsor. Thus far, they have funded pre- fabricated erosion reefs. Mr. Pennington stated that this could also be due to the fact there are few new techniques to be tried. Mr. Strapponi asked if all other requirements have been met, was it then considered on a first come, first serve basis. Mr. Flood informed him that this was true only for the two funds already appropriated, not for regular funding. Mr. Colin Kelly, with Parker Beach restoration, stated that they would like to try a new system and apply for these available monies. He stated that this has not closed down the beach or inconvenienced the beachgoers. The positive effect is they have a nice beach. They feel they have new technology that will give them a portable, permeable growing field that can be utilized and non-obstructive to the public. The system is environmentally friendly according to Dr. Steve Bortone, of the Sanibel-Captiva Marine Laboratory. He explained that the packets provided contain letters from Mr. Bortone providing an endorsement of the environmentally friendly aspects. Mr. Bob Crawford, the city's 3ra party monitor, says that it has met and is exceeding the established criteria. They are elated because the numbers appear to show accumulation. He then reviewed the statistics that he had, and alluded to the fact that Mr. Humiston's were not Page 11 September 12, 2002 complete yet. The latest report shows loss in the furthest control areas and gain in the adjacent control areas. He added that since the nets were down there was no loss. -Mr. Pennington asked how long the nets were in place. Mr. Kelly informed him -5months. Mr. Kelly then stated, his numbers do not agree with Mr. Humiston's, so he brought Mr. Tackney along, from Tackney & Associates, to explain the difference. Mr. Kelly showed a visual of the new system, which will be below the waterline, suspended with floats. He hopes Collier County will look at this favorably and apply for some of the funding that is available for this type of innovative project. -Mr. Galleberg asked "why Collier County?" Mr. Kelly replied that Collier County has the ability to match the funds and that the other interested counties don't have the funding. He feels this would be a good place to catch the sand that was just trucked in. He explained that they don't bring in new sand, they retain current sand longer, and because of all the sand brought in, it was a good place to test. He added that Collier County is more progressive than other counties, and they are attempting to make a system to benefit all beaches. Mr. Tackney, registered professional engineer of coastal engineering, asked the board if they understand the system and how it works. He explained, in the shore zone the cobble and stone are trapped in the nets, and the sand builds up from there and spreads out. He stated it does so uniformly. He explained the survey data and his comments; that the data can be concluded in four different ways depending on bias and points of view. He reviewed the numbers included in the packets. He stated that the applicant had two control areas rather than one. The north control area had a loss of -950 square feet. of upland beach, upland to the mean high waterline). The south control gained -90 square feet, which is a negligible change. In the test area and their adjacent sites, there was an accretion of an additional 100,000 square feet of upland beach. That is the most significant statistic. He added that it is apparent, that the sand webs bring shore, from mid- shore area onto shore itself. This is similar to the summer months. They do not feel that this is due to recovery from Gabriel. They came to this conclusion by comparison to the control areas. He explained that Naples beach is unique, Page 12 September 12, 2002 because it has a two bar system; a seasonal bar and offshore there is a relatively permanent bar. They expected this to have some effect on the data, so they divided the beach into two zones and did a sand balance. The four shores area built up sand. The mid-shore area eroded. On completion, they found at the south end of the South Control area, that there was a large accretion of sand. They found that the permanent bar had grown into the test area. He is now in the process of evaluating the math balance for this other zone. They did not go beyond this, because once you get offshore of the second bar, the bottom is flat and wide. They compared each successive survey in the offshore area, and found there was significant volume change, and if February showed advance in the North area over January, then it happened in the South area, it also happened to the same degree onshore as it did offshore. They found that a calibration error of -2inches, would completely negate any information you could gain from the deep water area. They noted that the calibration error appeared to be there and appeared to effect these areas. His point was that if you want to look at the area effected by the net, then you are fairly safe in restricting yourself to that second bar, and anything beyond that is really just background and doesn't affect the deep bar. -Mr. Pennington asked if they anticipate, with the removal of the nets, if that bar would go back to it's original position. Mr, Tackney stated that it stayed "pretty much" in its stable position and that change is more random. He does not feel it was impacted by the nets North of it, due to the data. They also looked at how the accretion occurred. Originally there was more at the North end, but after a couple of months it bulged at the South, the North diminished, and then they settled out. He interpreted that even though the highest activity waves in winter come out of the Southwest, so the transport system did not run N-S. The point is that the two bulges never merged, which indicate that, with the winter wave cycle, the length of beach that was tested may have been too long. If it was reduced they could have gotten more. He stated that it was apparent to him, that there was active sand movement occurring sea-ward of the nets. This implies that the system was too long or needed to be extended farther to catch more sand. He cannot answer how stable this is, since them is only three months worth of data. Page 13 September 12, 2002 He added that he knows the surveyor has calculated that there has been a gain of material. He believes to date, this is encouraging data. -Mr. Pennington asked him to comment on intermittent nets versus more permanent ones. He stated that when there is storm damage, the sand will recover itself, and this is a way to help this natural system. He added that the sand is redistributed evenly. This is the type of case where he believes this system has some merit. He does not believe the intermittent sand nets are a universal answer to erosion problems, but he thinks there are a number of niches where they can be of significant value. -Mr. Roellig stated that the difference is, Mr. Humiston is looking at 1000 feet of profile, while Mr. Tackney is looking at 250 feet, and that it should be looked at in large segments and over a period of time the + and - will cancel out. Mr. Kelly stated essentially what they are doing is trapping sand that would be lost to the system. He added that during February they gained a net of-10 cubic yards of sand, but in the control areas lost up to 1000 cubic yards. They retained sand that was lost elsewhere, therefore this is a viable project. They have funding that will apply and he encouraged Collier County to take part in this. PUBLIC SPEAKERS 1) Jim Gunnerson, Naples Beach and Golf Club, stated that they are concerned the system, particularly in season, will negatively impact their tourism. He added that project #1 had a negative impact and he hopes the CAC will consider this in their decisions. -Mr. Hovell asked what the length of their beachfront is. Mr. Gunnerson stated they had 1000 feet and it was their understanding that they would be effected by the project. -Mr. Hovell stated that there is a TDC grant application in the staff package. Mr. Kelly stated that the system would be submerged and that the spacing will be 150-250 feet between, so he does not see this as obtrusive as experiment #1 was. -Mr. Snediker asked who prepared the grant application. Mr. Hovell informed him that one of the consultants for Parker Beach Restoration prepared it. -Mr. Snediker asked what the county's obligation would have to be. Mr. Hovell informed him that they would have to establish a $ lmillion project and budget for it, then be reimbursed. Page 14 September 12, 2002 -Mr. Pennington stated that he had spoken to people, who had negative reactions to experiment #1. He added that during season, this would be impossible because it would upset the public and therefore he could not support it. -Mr. Roellig stated that he was uncomfortable being presented with the proposal with essentially no reports of the monitoring and no indication of the length of time it would be effective. He feels, to consider changing the project and deciding its effectiveness is premature, therefore he is not in favor of the application. -Mr. Kroeschell asked the hotel if they were aware that this project had submerged nets and if they still felt it was detrimental to their guests. The hotel informed him they were aware and still felt it had negative impacts. -Mr. Galleberg stated that the decision was not on grants, but he had concerns about the rush into this. He added that he agreed with Mr. Roellig and that he believes they need to finish the first experiment and its results before moving in. He also stated that he has heard other members of the public say that it was undesirable to do this during season. -Mr. Pennington added that the first experiment was done in a relatively low intensity area and the new proposal is for a high intensity, which is quite a different effect. -Mr. Kroeschell agreed and stated he did not feel that they should support it in this area. He believes they should come back with a proposal for another area, before the CAC will even consider it. -Mr. Pennington made a motion that the CAC does Not support the grant. It was seconded by Mr. Kroeschell. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously 6-0. (Mr. Strapponi was not present). 4C) THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT PLAN -Mr. Hovell stated the choices to be made for the winter were laid out in the packets. He asked if they should continue to truck 80,000 cubic yards of sand onto Vanderbilt this winter, 27,000 cubic yards onto Park Shore, and 26,000 cubic yards onto Naples. The other option is to place sand in front of the sea-walls in order to get the natural slope back to the beach. They would only do so on Vanderbilt. The quantity would be 15,000 cubic yards. Then here would be no work by truck this winter on Park Shore and Naples. His personal opinion is that they do the latter. He added that they still have 3-4 weeks of rock removal on Page 15 September 12, 2002 Vanderbilt beach and if they attempt to do them both simultaneously, then it will be a busy month on Vanderbilt beach. -Mr. Kroeschell asked about the details of the rock removal. Mr. Hovell stated that they are V2 done on Vanderbilt beach, and as far as intensive equipment, they are done on the Naples beach. -Mr. Roellig asked if on Vanderbilt they could finish the rock removal in November and do the sand re-nourishment in December. Mr. Hovell stated that they would propose doing it simultaneously. They could combine the work on Pelican Bay into this project. -Mr. Pennington asked what degree of degradation they have had on Vanderbilt beach versus the Park Shore and Naples areas. Mr. Hovell used visuals and a 2002 survey to show the degradation. Mr. Hovell stated the design would be to do similar replacement as that done on Park Shore. If they attempted to re-grade the beach, they would narrow it. -Mr. Roellig made a motion to do the full nourishment (80,000cubic yards - Vanderbilt, 27,000 cubic yards - Park Shore, & 26,000 cubic yards to Naples). It was seconded by Mr. Kroeschell. -His reason was because you can always "back-scale". -Mr. Hovell offered expanded reasons as to why his opinion differs. In Naples they added the full quantity from DR's Pass down to Central Avenue, they stopped there due to the sand web experiment. If they do the full amount they will be placing sand in a place that is currently being monitored. For Park Shore there are no other outside influences. Therefore, 27,000 cubic yards is reasonable. He stated that because they have done it twice in the past two years, a third time may upset the residents. In regards to Vanderbilt, 80,000 cubic yards is a big quantity. Even without rock removal, it would take 3 months of heavy truck movement, when they could protect the sea-walls and the dunes for a lessor quantity and push hard during the major re-nourishment in the next two years. -Mr. Galleberg asked if Park Shore would simply be adding sand or if it would be offering a benefit in the following years. Mr. Hovell stated he feels it is important to have the natural slope on the beach, the increase of sand has benefits but he Page 16 September 12, 2002 4D) does not feel it is needed. Mr. Pennington stated the beach is in good shape currently. -Mr. Snediker stated that they should do minimum repairs now, save $1.5million dollars, and wait for the major re-nourishment. -Mr. Hovell stated that they can move the re-nourishment up and proposed that it be done in the winter of 2005. -Mr. Roellig stated that they should not ignore the public and the difficulties that it would entail, but this should be handled at the BCC level. He doesn't want to unduly factor this into their considerations. He stated that he was prepared to modify his motion to delete the sand web portion. Mr. Kroeschell stated he would withdraw his second based on this. -Mr. Galleberg stated he was in favor of discussing moving up the re- nourishment, but he could not at this point say to what year. -Mr. Pennington made a motion to follow staff recommendation (do Vanderbilt at 15,000 cubic yards to take care of immediate concerns). It was seconded by Mr. Kroeschell. -Mr. Kroeschell had concerns of how they will be reimbursed for it if they do not use it. Mr. Hovell stated that they would not lose out on the re-nourishment money. That when they did the re-nourishment, FEMA would then reimburse the money. He added it would be much easier for reimbursement to do it in the re- nourishment program and spend closer to what the money actually spent is supposed to be. -Mr. Galleber asked for the vote: Five were in favor, one was against (Mr. Roellig). CITY OF MARCO ISLAND REQUEST FOR BEACH TILLING/GRADING -Mr. Hovell stated that he included their letter in the packet. He explained Marco Island has a rise above the waterline and then it dips down the beach. This is causing swells and wet areas. This attracts birds and brings about polluted water concerns. It is also unattractive. The City requested they look at the problem and see what can be done. They spoke to the FL department of wildlife protection, to Page 17 September 12, 2002 see if they could get a permit to do something during turtle season or if it would be better to seek a permit in November for the major work; grating. He believes they would be best to do a major laser grading job and restore the beach with a shallow slope. Marco Island accrues a lot of sand. They are guessing that the problems are coming from the sand building up in the front of the beach and not the back. They are proposing to seek the permits and come back with the budget at a later point to grade halfway between 135 & 136 to 148. -It was asked if this was an engineering recommendation. Mr. Hovell stated that Taylor Engineering will come back with a detailed recommendation next week, but this is their "generic" recommendation to date. Mr. Hovell just wanted to make them aware of the situation and that they are attempting to remedy it. -Mr. Snediker added that it was distasteful to tourists or residents. It starts at the south end of Tigertail and runs down to the south end of the beach. 4E) PIPING PLOVER DRAFT RECOVERY PLAN -Mr. Hovell stated that this pamphlet was recently put out by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for comment. He explained that this is not something of a direct impact or interest to the CAC, but when you look at actions needed, there is little specification as to what they mean by management and protection. They also don't locate specifically where the critical habitats are. Mr. Hovell pulled it in, saying the longer they allow the muddy areas in Tigertail, the more likely the lagoon-type areas will extend down the beach. Therefore it is more likely it will be listed as critical habitat. This is one of the reasons people are concerned about taking care of the situation at Tigertail. Mr. Snediker stated his interpretation was that they did not detail the areas with the intention of newly developed areas being included. Mr. Hovell had a copy of the report for the CAC to review and he stated this was, again, informational. Ve VI. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION -there was no public participation. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING -October 10, 2002 at I:30PM in the same room. Page 18 September 12, 2002 VII. ADJOURNMENT -Adjoummem was at 4:45pm. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:45 P.M. COASTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL GARY GALLEBERG, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF MANPOWER SERVICES, INC. Page 19