Loading...
CAC Minutes 10/10/2002 ROctober 10, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida October 10, 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 REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Members: Gary Galleberg David Roellig James Snediker Ron Pennington William Kroeschell Ashley Lnpo Anthony Pires Robert Stakich Also Present: Ron Hovell, Jon Staiger, Jim Deloney, Maura Krauss, Ron Holder, Brett Moore, Tom Campbell, Jeff Andrews, Steve Keene. 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 OCTOBER 10, 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 September 12, 2002 b. Approval of workshop minutes for February 1, 2002, February 22, 2002 and March 1, 2002 c. Marco Island Grading / Sand Placement d. Growth Management Plan requirements e. Hideaway Beach Access Improvements f. Beach Cleaning Operations New Business a. Sand Search Update b. Marco Island Breakwater Modifications and Caxambas Pass Dredging c. Wiggins Pass Emergency Dredging d. Hideaway Beach Emergency Sand Placement 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. October 10, 2002 THE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE County Commission Boardroom Building "F", 3rd Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34104 MINUTES October 10, 2002 Chairman Gary Galleberg called the meeting to order at 1:30pm. ATTENDANCE: Members: Gary Galleberg, David Roellig, James Snediker, Ron Pennington, William Kroeschell, Ashley Lupo, Anthony Pires (left at 3:45pm), Robert Stakich (arrived late). -Mr. Strapponi was absent. Collier County: Ron Hovell, Jon Staiger, Jim Deloney, Maura Krauss, Ron Holder, Brett Moore, Tom Campbell, Jeff Andrews, Steve Keene. II. III. ADDITIONS TO AGENDA -There were no additions to the agenda. OLD BUSINESS A) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 -Mr. Roellig made a motion to continue the approval of minutes until the next meeting so that a proofreading could be completed. It was seconded by Mr. Pennington. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. B) APPROVAL OF WORKSHOP MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 1, 2002, FEBRUARY 22, 2002 AND MARCH 1, 2002. -Mr. Galleberg asked Mr. Hovell is something had been deleted on the fifth page, noting that nothing followed the asterisk, (in the form of a footnote). Mr. Hovell stated he would "clean this up", but nothing had been lost. -Mr. Roellig made a motion to approve the minutes. It was seconded by Mr. Kroeschell. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Page 2 October 10, 2002 C) MARCO ISLAND GRADING / SAND PLACEMENT -Mr. Hovell stated that he had previously sent a copy of a letter received from the Marco Island Beach Advisory Committee and/or the City. The issue was the appearance of certain areas of the beach. Mr. Hovell used photos to depict the areas of concern. Mr. Hovell added that in the annual monitoring surveys they are taking the upland survey information and making a packet for the Department of Environmental Protection. They will then apply for a permit to re-grade the beach and re-shape the sand that has accumulated in these areas. He stated that it appears the local office can issue a field permit, which is a "basic thing", with a couple of requirements. The requirements are that they can not go to any part of the beach below the mean high water line and they cannot take away more than one foot of sand in any given location. They do not see either requirement as a problem. They are hoping to have the permit within a few weeks and they hope to begin working as soon as "turtle season" is over in early November. Mr. Hovell then reminded the committee that they had established a project to do annual beach and dune maintenance with no specific project in mind. He then asked the committee if they agreed that the Marco Island Grading / Sand Placement project would fit into this category. -Mr. Pires stated he did not have a problem with this concept. He then asked if raking could occur in this area before the permit is attained. Mr. Hovell stated that it could and they were currently raking. He explained that they may only rake 1-2 inches deep, which does not get rid of the grass or the standing water. -Mr. Pennington asked if some of the water was due to the accumulation of rain. Mr. Hovell informed him that it is either rainwater or over-wash water. Mr. Hovell stated since the major re-nourishment project in 1992, sand has begun to accrete in particular areas and the water has been getting trapped behind it. He used photos to illustrate the problem. -Mr. Roellig asked what type of cost they were talking about. Mr. Hovell stated that the initial estimate for the end of Tigertail Lagoon to the residents beach area was -$30,000 - -$50,000. -Mr. Roellig made a motion that they proceed because this is a natural phenomena. It was seconded by Mr. Pennington. -Mr. Kroeschell stated that he was in favor of the project, but he does not believe that this is anything new and he believes they will begin to see this on a regular basis. Page 3 October 10, 2002 -Mr. Galleberg asked, which fund this would fit into. Mr. Hovell stated that it was fund 10509; the dune and beach maintenance project. He added that the budget for fund 10509 was -$195,000. -The motion was recalled. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 8-0. (Mr. Stakich joined the committee about five minutes prior to the motion). D) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS -Mr. Hovell stated the departments involved in the major beach re-nourishment and public access are Community Development (from a LDC point of view), the Parks and Recreation Department (from a beach access point of view), and Public Utilities Engineering (from a re-nourishment point of view). He used an aerial to show the Vanderbilt beach area that they typically re-nourish. He explained that the Parks and Recreation Department has been updating their public access review, they have a draft of this, and the conceptual thought is to identify properties on Vanderbilt beach that may be for sale and to purchase them as part of the next major re-nourishment project to allow for an increase in public access. He then stated that the public access update will attempt to address everything in the county, but there is still the political issue of the two cities and how they feel this works in with their growth management plans. -Mr. Kroeschell asked if they purchased the property across the street would it have public access to the beach. Mr. Hovell informed him that there are a number of walkway accesses with no current parking. -Mr. Pennington stated that in a long term city perspective they greatly encourage anything that would add to beach accessibility in the county, since they believe that in the city they bear an undo burden of providing beach for many of the county residents. He added that because of this he believed they would probably be in support of this. 4-B) MARCO ISLAND BREAKWATER MODIFICATIONS AND CAXAMBAS PASS DREDGING -Mr. Hovell stated that he had previously sent the committee Taylor Engineering's report relating to Marco Island in general. He used an aerial photograph to show the area reported on. He stated that the bottom line of the report posed a question to the county. The question was if the county wanted a relatively narrow beach, (as is the current beach), or a wider more recreational beach. The report then listed what would need to be done for a wider beach and for the current narrow beach. In order to maintain the beach Page 4 October 10, 2002 that is there now, (narrow), Taylor Engineering recommended maintenance dredging of Caxambas Pass on a 5-7 year cycle. If the county chose to go for a wider beach, then Taylor Engineering recommended that they make modifications to the breakwaters and less frequency to the dredging Caxambas Pass. It is staff's recommendation to go with the first option; cancel the current Marco Island Breakwaters Modification Project. This recommendation is supported by the Marco Island Beach Advisory Committee. -Mr. Roellig asked if they meant taking it completely out of the program. Mr. Hovell informed him that this is what they meant and the remaining $700,000 would be placed back into the reserves. He added that they could always revisit this in the future, but it would then be considered a new project. -Mr. Snediker stated that Marco Island Beach Advisory Committee did support this recommendation, but it was based upon the fact that Caxambas Pass would be dredged and sand would be placed in that area by the end of next year. Mr. Hovell stated that the report Mr. Snediker had received was a work order done by Taylor Engineering and it was a mix of all the projects including Caxambas Pass. Taylor Engineering will use the monitoring data to provide the next recommendations, they are aware that the goal is to dredge Caxambas Pass. When the dredging will occur is based on how difficult it will be to attain the permits. -Mr. Pennington noted that it appeared there were two agendas being used and that this should actually be item 4-B. It was found that there were two agendas. Mr. Galleberg stated that they would finish this item and then they will return to item 3-E and 3-F. -Mr. Kroeschell asked what risk they faced if they did not re-nourish this beach. Mr. Hovell stated that it gets a fair amount of protection from the breakwaters and the seawall. He believed that even if it got washed away, they would find that it would recover in that area. Mr. Staiger added that historically without putting the sand back up on the beach north of this area, it does get narrow. -Mr. Pennington made a motion to concur with the recommendation from the Marco Island Beach Advisory Committee and the advice of staff to cancel the project. It was seconded by Mr. Kroeschell. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 8-0. E) HIDEAWAY BEACH ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS -Mr. Hovell stated that the Hideaway beach access improvements had been under design over the summer by Humiston & Moore Engineers. He added that at the last meeting they handed out a preliminary design for review. There is now a choice to be made for Page 5 October 10, 2002 one of three options: 1) All sand to be placed, to provide walking access from the Tigertail Beach area up to Hideaway Beach, with one small boardwalk over Little Clam Pass. 2) Much heavier on the boardwalk side and less on the sand side; this provided for some sand at the Tigertail end, but mostly boardwalk from Little Clam Pass up to the Hideaway Beach end. 3) The preliminary design of the last meeting was a hybrid of the two. -Mr. Pennington asked if they were "totally committed" to this. Mr. Hovell stated that they have a design underway by Humiston & Moore and the question is which of the three options they should proceed under. He added that the committee could choose to recommend cancellation of the project. Mr. Snediker explained that the BCC had approved the entire project 1 ½ years ago. -Brett Moore, Humiston & Moore Engineers, stated that the only update in this plan referred to the quantity of sand, which was changed from 7,000 cubic yards to -19,000 cubic yards. He explained that Fish & Wildlife recommended keeping the boardwalk seaward of the mangroves and this is why they recommended the hybrid of the two plans. The concern is that if the boardwalk is too close it will inhibit the ability for the mangroves to grow. In the 1990 beach re-nourishment for Marco Island there was some severance of wetlands which required mitigation and this is why they chose to put the fill to the north and the walkway to the south. -Mr. Pires stated that he believed the mangroves at the Pelican Bay Walkway were doing well in their growth and growing a nice overhead for the walkway. He believes the walkway should be built in this fashion and that it will not be a detriment to the mangroves growth. Mr. Moore stated that the Pelican Bay Walkway was inserted directly in a forest of mangroves and what they had proposed in this case was to build the walkway adjacent to the mangroves. -Mr. Snediker agreed that a meandering boardwalk would be more enjoyable for the public. He added that the mangroves behind this point were in fair condition and not what you would call "healthy", and that the state has issued permits in the last few years to homeowners to clear out these mangroves. Mr. Moore stated that in the cleared areas the mangroves were "really on the fringe", but he believed the mangroves near the shoreline were left alone. -Mr. Snediker asked if they really needed the t-groin since this was a very expensive portion. Mr. Moore stated that the t-groin was actually being shown as part of the Hideaway beach project. Page 6 October 10, 2002 -Mr. Roellig asked if they had a cost estimate for the 18,000 cubic yards of sand and the boardwalk. Mr. Hovell stated that the preliminary design indicated that it would be an upland sand source and then one could plan $20-$25 a cubic yard. Mr. Snediker asked if they could use the sand from the beach re-nourishment in order to cut the cost in half. Mr. Moore stated that further into the design they will provide a cost estimate for both approaches and they will look at the most economical source for sand. -Mr. Pennington stated that he is more in favor of the re-nourishment for Hideaway Beach than building a boardwalk. He does not believe that the boardwalk would be "much utilized" by the public in order to get to Hideaway Beach when they are already at a "far superior beach". He added that this expense would be better utilized by building an access across to Shell Island. -Mr. Galleberg asked if this was preliminary in nature. Mr. Moore stated it was. Mr. Galleberg added that he agreed with Mr. Pires that a winding boardwalk would be more aesthetically pleasing if it would be approved by the state. He stated that Mr. Pennington also raised a good point, that this is not really needed and they can decide this later. Mr. Moore stated that he believes there are a large number of people who enjoy walking on boardwalks through environmentally sensitive areas and taking a look at "what is going on". Mr. Pires and Mr. Pennington agreed with this. Mr. Pennington added that it appears there are more people eager to get across to Shell Island. -Mr. Snediker asked what the time frame was. Mr. Moore stated that they will amend the plan, send it to Ron Hovell, initiate meetings with the agencies for feedback, meet with Ron Hovell, and then submit an application. He explained that they would meet with the agencies within the next thirty days and submit the application in the following thirty days. -Mr. Galleberg stated he would like something done to gauge the public's interest. -Mr. Hovell asked which option they would like to consider. Mr. Moore stated that it was his interpretation that they would go forward with this approach, make some changes to the boardwalk so it is closer to the shoreline and more interesting. He added that the quantity of the material would depend on cost and environmental impacts of the fill. -David Sommers, general manager of the Hideaway Beach Club, stated they actually presented this plan to the BCC and three of the original county commissioners were still here. He added that the board has not yet seen the revised plan, but at their last meeting their position was to go with a more natural look similar to the access that was there in the 1980's. Page 7 October 10, 2002 -Mr. Galleberg clarified that there was direction from the BCC, the CAC advice was to "hug" the boardwalk closer to the mangroves, and that cost is something they will have to consider at a later point when more information on it is available. F) BEACH CLEANING OPERATIONS -Mr. Hovell stated that they have been running with three operators, two beach rakes, and one gator. One beach rake and operator is dedicated to Marco Island. The other rake, the gator, and the other two operators rotate between Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples beaches. He believes this has been working well. There have been times when seaweed has been brought up and there has been some negative comments, but not to a high degree. He explained that they would probably continue in this mode pending an answer from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. He added that the prisoner rock removal has been working out well, they have even gone wading in the water to do rock removal. He explained that on any given day 1,000 lbs. of rock had been removed by manual labor. -Mr. Pennington stated that he noted the south side of Doctors Pass had been swept in the last few days. He believed that far more had been swept than what was required for the removal of seaweed. Mr. Hovell stated that the rake is making its cycles and he believes this is what Mr. Pennington noted. He added that the DEP rock removal plan was for weekly raking and they actually are raking biweekly. (Park Shore is not part of the rock removal program). -Mr. Staiger stated that he is still receiving complaints from various parts of Naples concerning debris on the beach. He believes, "unfortunately", that people may have gotten used to raking and if they can get an opinion out of DEP stating that they do not have to do this on a routine schedule, then people may get used to the way the beach used to be. -Mr. Galleberg stated they need to get movement from DEP for two issues, raking and the "endless" rock removal. -Mr. Hovell stated that at the last meeting there was discussion of the county divesting itself of some beach rakes to the city and staff now believes that unless the cities want to request this, they are currently in the best position to provide the consolidated service. He added that if everyone had one beach rake, it would not be possible to maintain the same level of service. Page 8 October 10, 2002 A TEN MINUTE RECESS WAS TAKEN AT 2:30. IV. NEW BUSINESS A) SAND SEARCH UPDATE -Tom Campbell, Coastal Planning and Engineering, stated that there seems to be plenty of offshore sand resources and it is just a matter of how they explore and make the best use of them. His presentation was broke into two parts: a historic overview of investigations and use of the GIS program. He added that in some cases they could not uncover past data, but with the GIS system, information from this point on will be safe. -Jeff Andrews, informed the committee of the sequences of projects done in the past. The first study was done in 1972 by the Corps of Engineers, they took 14 cores within about a ½ mile of the shoreline. The cores had little sand, which proved there was little reason to go in this area again. In 1987 the CEC did 146 cores off Collier County and Big Marco Pass. These cores identified 10 bar areas. In 1990 they did another 40 cores off of Collier County in Naples. These cores redefined the bar areas they had previously selected. In 1995 they went off shore and looked at some of the ridges and took another 74 cores. These cores are the bar area #6, which was used for Vanderbilt beach. He showed that some of these are fairly good sand sources. CEC did another 22 cores with seismic lines. They found significant solution pits, this was 4-6 miles offshore. He then showed one of the core samples they found. It contained dark material and high silk content, it was not beach compatible material. They determined with a visual logging that it was not compatible beach material so there is no grain size analysis or silk content data. In 2000, 15 cores were done off of Cape Romano Shoals. Mr. Andrews stated there were two shoals present that are usable for the Naples Beach Restoration. He stated they are deep enough for a Hopper Dredge, however the grain size is 0.18. The other area is offTom's Hills that contains over 50 million cubic yards of very clean quartz material. The four usable areas for the project are Naples Ridge, Marco Pass Shoals, Cape Romano, and Tom's Hills. He explained that Naples Ridge and Cape Romano need additional investigation. Mr. Andrews stated they would like to investigate some other areas with jet probing. Mr. Andrews then used a video to show how a jet probe works. -Steve Keene showed a listing of preliminary results from the monitoring done over the summer. The design width of the beach, through six years, is -50 feet added beach width or the total beach width, (from the back of the seawalls and vegetation), is -100 feet. He then did an estimate to find that they would need 570,000 cubic yards for the north Page 9 October 10, 2002 county area and the three project areas that were filled last time. If they added 20 feet to the design they would need 800,000 cubic yards. He explained that if they used 580,000 cubic yards it would be the same size of sand for Naples, Vanderbilt, and Parkshore Beach. If they use fine sand they will double the amount of sand needed. -Mr. Pennington asked how much sand was used for the last major re-nourishment. Mr. Keene stated it was -1.1 - 1.2 million cubic yards and they are now looking at a re- nourishment of about half that quantity. -Mr. Keene then added if they look at a coarser sand they limit the impacts and they need less sand to get the same beach width. Mr. Pennington asked if this fell within the DEP parameters of grain size. Mr. Keene stated it did and that you can go up to 0.5 or 0.6 depending on how much shell is in the sand. He then referred to the chart and what it means in potential borrow areas. He stated the Naples Ridge area is the most economical if sand is found to re-nourish the northern beaches or if this does not work they will look at the big borrow area off Sanibel Captiva Islands, offthe northwest. He added that if it was possible to consider this, then the Marco Pass area would also be compatible with the beaches of Naples and the northern county area. -Mr. Pennington asked if the complaints about beach hardening after the Marco Island Beach Restoration are now being considered. Mr. Staiger added that it had a lot of shell and a high carbonate content that caused "cementing problems". Mr. Keene stated that they can address this during the investigation stage. He added that it is a requirement in Florida that if you build a beach, you have to till it for three years. Mr. Staiger added that during the 1995/1996 beach restoration, the contractor immediately tilled the sand so it was very unobtrusive and not everyone noticed this. Mr. Pires asked why they couldn't investigate the Marco Capri Pass. Mr. Keene stated that they believe Naples Ridge should be investigated because it has the best price. Mr. Campbell stated they originally did not investigate the Marco area because there seemed to be political problem. They assumed this problem was still in place and this is why they didn't consider the Marco Shoals. Mr. Pennington stated that they did have desire for this sand, but Marco threatened to file suit against them. Mr. Staiger stated the concern was not over who owned the sand, but the removal of sand might change the wave characteristics and have adverse effects on adjacent beaches. Mr. Keene stated that this is good sand, but this is a very delicate system. Mr. Campbell stated that they would have a difficult time attempting to prove that there would be no adverse effects. Mr. Pires asked if when it was used in the past, did it not have such a heavy impact because it was a smaller Page 10 October 10, 2002 quantity. Mr. Campbell stated that this was correct and that taking sand from the outer fringe had less of an impact as well. Mr. Galleberg stated that he believed it should appear on the table at this stage, so they can get a cost comparison and if political issues arise, they can deal with them knowing what the trade off is. Mr. Campbell suggested when they do phase III of Hideaway Beach, they expand it to develop the entire area as a borrow source. He added that they may find an outer fringe that has less impact, to use as a borrow source. -Mr. Snediker stated that the natural sand at Hideaway Beach has a lot of shell in it and he does not believe there would be complaints. He added that times change and the political issue that arose a number of years ago may not arise again today and they should definitely consider the area and see what occurs. He believes Marco would have less political issues today then in the past. -Ashley Lupo asked if Rookery Bay was involved when you go down to Marco. Mr. Keenes stated that Rookery Bay was on the edge of the proposed Marco Pass borrow areas and they are taking this into consideration in the final decision. -Mr. Campbell gave an overview of their recommendations and anticipated schedule. They recommend a planning meeting conducted between themselves, Humiston & Moore, and the CAC to make a schedule and integrate future investigations. He added they should have a meeting with the agencies in the next month or two. He then explained they would like to do a phase III sand investigation in the Marco area and a phase II investigation for Naples, Park Shore, and Vanderbilt areas. They also anticipate a pre-application meeting in the near future for any project being considered in the north county area. -Mr. Andrews used the GIS system to discuss concerns in Big Marco Pass and Rookery Bay. They reviewed the vibracores that were taken in Big Marco Pass, which showed that it had good sand, but there were shell layers as well. The Rookery Bay was lacking some of the information and they would like to find the original core log for review. -Mr. Galleberg stated that at the previous presentation, he believed everyone felt as though they had made a mistake in 1996 and that Tom's Hill was now the best option. -Mr. Andrews stated that Tom's Hill has the best sand due to its high quartz content, but they would like to find it closer to Naples. Mr. Campbell stated that at the previous meeting they decided that Tom's Hill was a good "go to" source, but it would be worthwhile to use the GIS and investigate the other sources for cost saving purposes. He added they still feel Tom's Hill is a good source. Mr. Galleberg stated that a lot of people Page 11 October 10, 2002 still feel "raw" about the re-nourishment in 1996 and if they go to the Naples Ridge, the first question is how will it be different this time. Mr. Hovell stated he agreed and they need to keep this in the front of their thinking. He added that they will write in the contract, that the sand being pumped on to the beach must be screened. This will put more focus on sand being dug by a hopper dredge Vs a cutterhead. -Mr. Galleberg asked if the estimates were only for sand delivery. Mr. Campbell stated that they were and there are other aspects not considered in these estimates. For example, there will be mitigation expenses for any case. This could change the numbers greatly depending on the amount of acres. -Mr. Roellig asked if it was possible to bring the sand in by water rather than trucking it in. Mr. Campbell stated that this is a possibility, but it has not been looked into yet. -Ashley Lupo asked if the Naples Ridge cost would change depending on what they used to bring the sand to the beach. Mr. Campbell stated the estimate was based on a Hopper Dredge so they expect it to remain the same. -Mr. Pennington made a comment that even though 1 mile of the 1996 re-nourishment had rocks, 6-7 miles turned out beautifully. -Mr. Roellig asked if they have a better positioning of the dredge now than in 1996. Mr. Campbell stated the positioning is superior at this time. He added that they are also avoiding over-dredge by checking the limits daily. He explained that it is much easier to do thin, shallow cuts with the Hopper Dredge rather than going deep with the Cutterhead. -Mr. Hovell stated that this was an update on phase I, which was gathering all the information. The next step is to begin investigations. The remaining question is: is it feasible to have the pre-application meetings to do this major re-nourishment next winter. -Mr. Campbell stated it can happen, but they will have to go in high gear and they need direction from the board to do so. He added that there would be a good chance of making it if the DEP bought off on the concept of the accelerated schedule. -Mr. Galleberg stated that it stands they have further investigation to do on Naples Ridge. -Mr. Campbell stated that Tom's Hill is a "go to" spot, but they would have to do more cores in order to get permits. -Mr. Galleberg stated they had also decided to take a closer look at Marco and Capri Pass because it is possible this would be the most economical approach. -Mr. Snediker asked what the downside of an accelerated schedule was. Mr. Campbell stated that he did not believe they would make mistakes, he felt the downside is that the process may become "stalled" anyway. Page 12 October 10, 2002 -Mr. Snediker stated he would like the committee to discuss the high gear approach to this. Mr. Roellig agreed with Mr. Snediker, but wanted them to remember they are not putting as much sand on as in 2003 and this exposes the beaches to shore damage. He would like things to move in high gear so they provide more protection. -Mr. Campbell asked the CAC if they wanted to "beef it up a little" to 120-130 feet rather than 100 feet. -Mr. Pennington stated he believed that there are many plusses to speeding up the process and he would like to see the beach expanded. -Mr. Pennington made a motion to do more work in the three areas described and to fast track the process. It was seconded by Mr. Roellig. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. (Mr. Pires was not in attendance. He left at 3:45pm) C) WIGGINS PASS EMERGENCY DREDGING -Mr. Hovell passed out the executive summary that went to the BCC the previous Tuesday. He stated that they requested a budget amendment for $10,000 to get the Coastal Engineers started on the data gathering, so they can get a notice to proceed under an existing permit, a quantity estimate, and a design. He used an aerial to show how much larger the northern side of Wiggens Pass used to be. With the recent southwest winds a sand bridge has built itself across the channel. Boaters from the Pelican Island Yacht Club have been going out on a daily basis and reporting depths of 3.5 feet. He stated that it has gone from 8.5 feet when they dredged in March 2002. He stated this is a big impact to the boating community. He pointed out that the Wiggens Pass Dredging Fund got lost in the various re-organization of the county since 1994 and the money has just been sitting there collecting interest. It now has a balance of $11,800. He would like to make use of this money for the emergency dredging. The problem is that the balance remaining in this fund is probably tourist tax funds that were transferred into this fund to help with the dredging, but then the decision was made to fund it directly out of the tourist tax funds, and the transfer balance was left sitting. The County Attorney's Office is doing a trace to find exactly what the balance remaining is made up of. He added that even if they have to reimburse for the water channel of Turkey Bay, he would guess that fund 304, (Wiggens Pass Dredging Fund), would not be in a position to do this, unless it is determined that some of those funds are not tourist tax funds. -Mr. Pennington believed that the pass needs to be dredged and if the funds in this particular account are tourist tax funds, then it seems appropriate. Page 13 October 10, 2002 -Mr. Pennington made the motion that they support staff and recommend approval to proceed. -Mr. Galleberg asked if this went before the county commissioner the day before because it was considered an emergency and approval would be considered an endorsement of their action. Mr. Hovell informed him that it had been heard and they did approve it. -The motion was recalled. It was seconded by Mr. Snediker. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. (Mr. Pires was not in attendance). D) HIDEAWAY BEACH EMERGENCY SAND PLACEMENT -Mr. Hovell showed photographs of the Royal Market Point t-groin that were taken at different times. He explained some area trees are starting to be undermined by the erosion. In April they had trucked in some sand and tried to repair the area, but it has again washed out. They have received letters from the Hideaway Beach Association. He informed the CAC that under existing permits they have the requirements to monitor those existing sandbag t-groins and maintain them. Humiston & Moore is going out this month for their 6 month survey. They can use this information to determine how much sand is needed and where it is needed. go AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION -There was no audience participation. SCI-IEDULE NEXT MEETING -The next meeting was scheduled for November 7, 2002 at 1:30pm in the same room. VII. ADJOURNMENT - the meeting was adjourned at 4:07pm. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:07 P.M. COASTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL GARY GALLEBERG, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF MANPOWER SERVICES, INC. Page 14