Loading...
CAC Minutes 07/16/2004 R July 16, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, July 16, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1 :30 PM in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Ron Pennington Murray Hendel James Snediker John Arceri Paul Sullivan Tony Pires (Excused) Graham Ginsberg (Excused) John Sorey III (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Ron Hovell, Utility Engineering Dept. Dr. John Staiger, City of Naples Maria Bernal, Tourism 1 ____""'.___",0'_ . AGENDA PACKET INDEX COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FRIDAY, JULY 16,2004 1 :30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. CHANGES AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS V. APPROVAL OF CAC MINUTES A. Approval of minutes of June 10, 2004......................................................... Pg.l VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Election of Vice-Chairman. .......... ............................. .............. .............. ........... ..Pg. 11 B. Recommendation for Collier County Vacant Seat............................................. ... .....Pg. 12 VII. OLD BUSINESS A. County / City of Naples Beach Renourishment Update...............................................................Pg. 16 B. Hideaway Beach Renourishment Update ....................................................................................Pg. 31 VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS X. COMMITTEE MEMBER DISCUSSION XI. NEXT MEETING DATE/LOCATION A. Joint Coastal Advisory Committee and Tourist Development Council Meeting September 9,2004, BCC Board Room XII. ADJOURNMENT July 16, 2004 I. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ron Pennington at 1 :30 PM. II. Roll Call: Roll call was taken with Mr. Ginsberg, Mr. Sorey III and Mr. Pires being excused. A quorum was established. III. Changes and Approval of Agenda Add VII. A. (1) Amendment to Coastal Planning and Engineering Task. Mr. Arceri moved to approve the agenda with addition of the Amendment. Second by Mr. Sullivan. Carried Unanimously 5-0. IV. Public Comments - None v. Approval of CAC Minutes A. Approval of Minutes of June 10,2004. Mr. Hendel was in attendance - his name needs to be added to the Attendance Sheet. Mr. Hendel moved to approve the minutes of June 10,2004 as amended. Second by Mr. Pennington. Carried unanimously 5-0. VI. New Business: A. Election of Vice-Chairman Mr. Pennington nominated Mr. Arceri as Vice Chairman. Second by Mr. Hendel. Being no other nominations, nominations were closed. Carried unanimously 5-0. B. Recommendation for Collier County Vacant Seat The position was re-advertised as there was only one applicant at the time. There are now three applicants. Mr. Pennington gave his opinion of the excellent credentials Mr. Roellig has for serving on the Committee. Mr. Snediker nominated Mr. Roellig for the vacant seat on the CAC Committee as a recommendation to the BCe. Second by Mr. Arceri. Mr. Arceri mentioned ifMr. Roellig is approved for the position and Pelican Bay becomes part of the City, he would no longer be an eligible member and be removed. Carried unanimously 5-0. VII. Old Business A. County/City of Naples Beach Renourishment Update - Ron Hovell Mr. Hovell informed the Committee they still have a number of outstanding issues. The following was part of his presentation of the update. . Hardbottom data is the biggest issue. . Need to deal with noise & work hours 2 July 16,2004 · Easements - a few properties are not allowing an easement. Will discuss concerns. Need assistance from CAC members to contact organizations for community support. · Erosion Control Line · Stonn Water Outfalls · Federal Sand Lease Mr. Hovell read an e-mail from Coastal Planning & Engineering reporting on a meeting that they held yesterday with Senior Marine Biologist and DEP representative that is reviewing the application. Keys points ofDEP's concerns are impact to Marine habitat and mitigation. The 2 types of potential impact discussed were the direct coverage by the fill of the Hardbottom and the increase of femoral impact to the reef......... Femoral means there are some portions of Hardbottom that are covered by the shifting sand at anytime. Part ofDEP does want the project to go forward this winter. However, Mr. Hovell doesn't feel they understand the complete bidding requirements and the timeframe etc. They have explained it to them and all the ramifications of the timing, but still not sure they get the whole picture. Park Shore is about a mile and a quarter long and wish to extend the area to make it 3 miles long into Clam Pass Park. The extensions bring the project into areas where the near shore Hardbottom is closer to the project area than other areas. Their (DEP's) concern is extending the project. Mr. Pennington mentioned he spoke with Mike Steven - Coastal Engineering. Mr. Steven said they did not experience any encroachment on the Hardbottom area. When Mr. Pennington told him DEP said they had done so, Mr. Steven stated it was not a factual statement. Mr. Pennington also met with Representative Goodlette and told him of the concerns. Rep. Goodlette has strong ties in the area and was interested in helping in any way he can. Mr. Pennington mentioned they were told in the RAI-3 they were to submit drawings and cut down the area of nourishment and felt they may have to do that. Mr. Hendel asked about the time schedule. Mr. Hovell doubted they would be able to start by December and lucky if they do it this winter. Maybe with political pressure they may get a pennit issued in less than 90 days from the time they accept the application complete. The question is can they do the work before they have to get off the beach by April 15th. If they go beyond the first week of December it would be very risky with the typical winter weather patterns. Mr. Hendel then asked if they should just plan for next year. Mr. Hovell responded he is basically starting to plan for next year. If they all resign themselves that it will be next year and they are done with proceeding, then DEP looks at other projects and they may not get their pennit for another 9 3 ,- ___._.,M."' , July 16, 2004 months to a year. They need to continue to press in hopes of doing it this winter- if they do not get a permit until December or January, which is too late, they will at least have the permit in hand. Biggest concern is the condition of the beaches now and what conditions they will be in the next year and a half. They are in better shape now than they were in 1995 before the last project - then there was no beach. Mr. Hovell stated they need to put all the things they are going to do in the Contract Documents. Once complete, time has to pass for final permit If they can communicate with monitoring etc. that's great, but ifno permit is received until November and then they try to go for bids - they have missed it. Mr. Hendel was concerned about starting the project, not finishing and all the complaints they will receive from the residents. He wondered if they did start and couldn't finish if all the equipment etc. would be removed from the beach. Mr. Hovell responded they can allow them to start as soon as possible; which would probably be November 1st but felt they have already missed that deadline. The other thing is they have to make sure they get the best qualified contractor. Mr. Pennington mentioned if the beach is shortened, there would be less sand to move. Turtle monitoring and the winter weather situation was discussed. Cost increase was discussed if the proj ect is not started on time. Park Shore Drive area was shown and discussed with the possibility of cutting out the northern portion of 85 feet. Mr. Hovell wanted to fulfill Parks & Rec's desires of seeing more beach width at Clam Pass Park. They did not want to compromise on the northern and southern limits around Clam Pass; they would rather compromise on the width to stay away from impacting the Hardbottom. Mr. Hendel stated if they are going to do it - they should do it right and do it all the way. He would object to having it done and not going north to Park Shore all the way to Clam Pass. Mr. Hovell responded that is their goal and they might compromise a bit on the width but not the length of the project. It sounds like they may come up with a small mitigation plan which could cost them up to $lM which is not in the budget. From August 30, for the three month period, DEP issues a Notice of Intent to Issue a Permit. It then has to be published in the Federal Register and then they notify a number of interested Federal & State Agencies. Then 30 or 60 days they have the permit that is not issued until they receive all the comments. Those comments then may have to be incorporated into the permit conditions. Their track record, as he mentioned earlier, is like 110 days. 4 July 16,2004 Dr. Staiger stated they have to provide Fish & Wildlife Service and the CORP and EP A 30 days to respond and DEP has to provide the Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission a similar time period. If they get unhappy, they will say they don't have time to evaluate it and recommend denial until the time the need is given to them. If they are concerned about Hardbottom and it is not addressed in the responses, they can do that. One thing crucial, with City Council support, is to push for as long a project as they can get. The longer the project, the more stable the beach is. Mr. Hovell stated it is a risk to award the Contract without a permit. Mr. Pennington suggested they move forward, work diligently to get things in place and he will do what he can and also work with Rep. Goodlette on meetings etc. Mr. Hovell stated the permitting agency will not tell the County to exclude the north part of Park Shore. If they continue to not like that portion, they will continue to send a Request for Additional Information to make them modifY the application or deny the application. They would make them change the application. Everyone would be opposed to changing the application. Mr. Hendel would oppose the whole package if they had to change the application. If that had to be done, Mr. Hovell would call a special meeting and discuss it with the City Council and Board of County Commissioners Mr. Hovell said the meeting in Tallahassee covered this particular subject. The letter written objected to the quantity of material in that area. They have agreed to scale it back and not delete the project limits, just less wide. Less than 85 feet. Funding was discussed. Mr. Hovell stated in November/December they went through the BCC to get $100,000 set aside to answer requests for additional information from the State and have gone through two rounds. Coastal Planning & Engineering suggested $30,000 for, hopefully, the final RAI. An Executive Summary has been written and will try for the July 27th BCC Agenda. This is a Time & Materials Contract. Mr. Arceri moved to amend to allow up to $30,000 more for the consultant to answer the DEP RAI. Second by Mr. Sullivan. Carried unanimously 5-0. B. Hideaway Beach Renourishment Update · Different issues - Mangroves, Outstanding Waters, Rookery Bay and the Sand Source. · Good Communications with DEP for minor tweaks to help insure this is the last RAI for Hideaway. · If all things stay on track and 90 days hold true, mid-November they could have a permit. · 100 days for the sand. · T -Groins - not sure on log time 5 July 16, 2004 The State recognizes they need to do something. The permits for the temporary T -Groins had been extended by two years, but not fully extended. They are not permitted to truck in sand, so if they do not get the other permit, they do not have permission to truck in sand this winter. They are extending it to the point they need to continue monitoring it. Won't make them remove the temporary T- Groins in advance of having a new permit. So many things are up in the air. In talking with the engineers, they are always optimistic, but that is not always the case. Discussion followed on awarding the Contract. There were questions concerning the referendum this fall for Hideaway. The Vice Chairman of the Taxing District was in attendance. He was asked for a clarification. Mr. Eric Breckson - Vice President of the Special Taxing District of Hideaway Beach - a meeting was held that day on the subject. The referendum will be August 31 st. Eligible voters will be those that are registered Florida voters living in Hideaway Beach. They will do a mailing to all residents of Hideaway because they are not privy to the information as to what the registration is. The Superintendent of Elections told them unless they are a candidate running for office, that information is not available to them. It will be by absentee ballot . for the residents that are not in Florida by August 31 st. Everyone will get a sample ballot and instructions on how to request an absentee ballot. This is a regular County Election voting at their precinct. This requires a simple majority of those voting and this is a Municipal Election and has nothing to do with the Hideaway Beach Assoc. Mr. Hovell read portions of a draft letter written to DEP. They talked about the permit fees being an issue and the County paying it. Talked about construction plans and specifications - stated they revised them and are working with Humiston & Moore Engineers and the City on their project. Important part he read was as follows: "It was adjusted to avoid potential impact to the sea grasses identified to further detailed investigation as requested by DEP." Talked about Mangrove issues, permit drawings, geotechnical analysis, overfill ratios, where in the borrow area the sand is going to come from, (making modifications on the shifting of sand). Discussion on endangered species and the Turbidity Control measures. He is pretty confident this will be the last report. State should have it on Monday or Tuesday. Discussed having a joint meeting in August or September with Tourism. Will hold off until further clarification. 6 July 16,2004 Mr. Hovell mentioned there has been a lot of concern on Wiggins Pass and he received the Wiggins Pass Annual Monitoring Report and will make it available on the County's Website. VIII. Public Comments - None IX. Announcements Mr. Pennington mentioned one ofthe things on the RAI-3 was concerning the storm drains in Naples. He asked Dr. Staiger ifhe would respond. Mr. Hovell stated Steve Keene said the questions seem to be focused - not on the functionality of the storm water pipes - but whether they impede lateral access up and down the beach. As long as they could show it doesn't interrupt the public's ability to use the beach, they would be satisfied. Future changes will be a separate subject. Dr. Staiger reported the following: · Coastal Planning Engineering is helping them deal with outfall issues. On hold until they get some guidance from DEP on how to proceed. · Questions dealt with Outfall in preventing any lateral access along the beach and they do not. They stick far enough out and do not create any washout or gully. · Potential of becoming derelict? They are part ofthe cities storm water management system. If one is damaged in a storm, they have to repair it. Some have disappeared after a storm, but stick out far enough to drain properly. They are not hazardous or no chance of getting beat up in a storm. · Extending them? Didn't feel any need in this project to extend the pipes. They are at an elevation - if building a beach and adding width to it, they will be functional without adding length to them. There are no drains across the beach at Park Shore. Only 8 or 9 and start at Lowdermilk Park and down to First Ave. South. · Discussed solutions with CP&E that are implemented elsewhere in the State, which would be to have an x-filtration system at the seawalL Would like to get something designed as to not plug up with sand and may have to do next winter. **Mr. Arceri asked about the conversation in last months meeting concerning the South Beach Renourishment on Marco and the Caxambas dredging issue. He noted many comments were made about the dredging is not necessary and alternative for sand source that may be more efficient. He questioned the vote that failed and then the vote to approve a further study. 7 July 16,2004 Mr. Pennington explained Mr. Pires felt the comments going back to DEP were pretty weak and should be more substance in it, more particular on supporting the sand source. The best sand source is from the Pass and they wouldn't look at something else. Concern was DEP may look at alternate sand sources and why would they use this particular one. The vote was approved with the recommendation that it be toughened up somewhat to give more strength to the alternate sand source. Mr. Hovell mentioned the end result was the permit application was changed saying there are no other alternatives (which is incorrect), to explaining there were other alternatives. The one in the permit application is the best choice. It has been signed by the City Manager and forwarded to Taylor Engineering and will shortly submit to the State. Mr. Pennington again mentioned the negative vote was because the language was so soft in justifying the sand source that was to be used. Mr. Hovell explained originally it said - here is the permit application - and the vote failed to say "yes" approve the permit application. Then another motion was made - if they changed from no alternatives to describing there were alternatives, and then why they wouldn't work; the vote then was 5-0. - Mr. Arceri said part of the argument is the need to dredge for navigational reasons and asked ifDEP cared. Mr. Hovell answered they did and would be lucky to be dredging a year and a half from now because they are going to get many RAI's indicating they do not want to see it happen. They were told by DEP the last time they did it would be the last time they were permitted to do it. They say the emerging shoals are Piping Plover habitat. When dredging sand tends to fall down the emerging shoals may disappear. Their main concern is the impact to the Piping Plover habitat. If they say they are doing it for beach renourishment - they will ask to see if the beach is in bad shape. Would have a hard time proving that. If doing it for navigation, they will ask to be shown that the navigation is in bad shape. He felt they would have a hard time proving that also. Mr. Arceri said they had a consultant report last year say that was a beach that is eroding and needs work. They stated Caxambas Pass is filling up. In asking what is expected of them, Mr. Hovell stated to wait until it gets worse, but really didn't know. Anything impacting the Piping Plover habitat is their main concern. Mr. Hovell said the State has 30 days to accept it or not and they will know for their September meeting. He has looked at the data along with Mr. Snediker and there is 8 foot channel depth anywhere they want to go. Mr. Arceri disagrees and is going by the Waterways Advisory Committee plus his own personal knowledge of the area. 8 July 16,2004 Mr. Hovell said in looking at the survey data there is 8 feet of depth. They need to talk apples to apples on the map and area. If there is a navigational issue, someone should plat it out on a map. Mr. Arceri would like to have the subject on the September Agenda and get the Waterways Advisory Committee report on their findings. Discussion followed on funding, the channel, width, safety, dredging areas and the survey data. Mr. Hovell stated the survey data from Taylor Engineering showed the depth and width was there. The channel markers are there and the width is there etc. Mr. Pennington asked that it be placed on the Agenda for the next meeting in September. He also asked to be provided with a copy of the final permit request. Mr. Sullivan stated the shoals were there by a small degree but now growing by the day. He is familiar with the area and no longer is there a high tide, low tide situation. The shoals are getting bigger and wider and closer to the shore. Mr. Pennington stated the State Statutes has a requirement saying the passes will be maintained. The last time they monitored the area was 2002. There was a presentation made and felt they may as well start to address the area. ***Mr. Pennington mentioned there was a discussion in the past concerning Joint membership on the TDC and CAC. The County Commissioners discussed it concerning other committees etc. and whether there was a potential conflict. They referred it to the legal department for an opinion. Mr. Hendel mentioned the Attorney discussed it at the TDC meeting and said the Commissioners were okay because of the Statutory. It was also announced that the BCC had dropped the matter. ***There is a shoaling problem in Doctors Pass - not scheduled for routine dredging until next year. Need to advise the public to proceed with caution. ***The Agenda was published on the Website for the first time. There were no negative comments. XI. Next Meeting Date/Location · Mr. Hovell will send out copies oftheirresponses ofRAI-3 · A special meeting could be called if necessary. · Next meeting September 9th -Joint Meeting if necessary 9 ...~."._~"._._...- July 16, 2004 . Maria mentioned the BCC has a Workshop in the morning with another meetingat 4:30 so their meeting will need to conclude at 4:00 PM After much discussion it was decided to hold the next meeting on Wednesday, September 8th at 1 :30 PM. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:48 PM. COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman Ron Pennington 10