Loading...
CAC Minutes 09/08/2004 R September 8, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, September 8, 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 (Excused) James Snediker (Excused) John Arceri Paul Sullivan Tony Pires (Arrived 1 :33PM) Graham Ginsberg John Sorey III ALSO PRESENT: Ron Hovell, Utility Engineering Dept. Dr. John Staiger, City of Naples Maria Bernal, Tourism 1 , _.~...~._~._.. ~....._---- NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 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 July 16, 2004 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Post "Charley" Beach Impact Assessment B. Clam Pass Park Beach Renourishment C. Recommendation for County Coastal Systems Management VII. OLD BUSINESS A. South Marco Beach RenourishmentlCaxambas Pass Dredging; Request for Additional Information #1 B. Wiggins Pass Monitoring Report C. County/City of Naples Beach Renourishment Update; Consideration of Plan Alternatives; Monitoring Plans; - 49mb POF File O. Hideaway Beach Renourishment Update; Consultant Funding Budget Amendment; Monitoring Plans; FDEP Letter; Link to FOEP Notice; Drawings for the Hideaway Beach Renourishment VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 8, 2004 Page 2 X. COMMITTEE MEMBER DISCUSSION XI. NEXT MEETING DA TE/LOCA TION A. October 14,2004 - BCC Board Room XII. ADJOURNMENT September 8, 2004 I. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ron Pennington at 1 :30 PM. II. Roll Call: Roll call was taken with Murray Hendel and James Snediker being excused. Tony Pires arrived at 1 :33 PM. A quorum was established. III. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Sullivan moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Arceri. Carried Unanimously 6-0. IV. Public Comments: David Weigel the County Attorney has reviewed the Citizens Advisory Committee Ordinance 2001-03 and noted that the Rules of Procedure should be adopted by majority of the full committee. His research indicates that this committee doesn't have current rules or adopted rules. He offered the County Attorney's office to this committee. They can provide a baseline or template of Rules of Procedure similar to what the Board of County Commissioners uses. This Committee can adopt with the added changes needed. Mr. Pennington stated that the Committee has adopted Roberts Rules as far as rules of order are concerned. This was done by a Resolution quite some time ago, and he isn't sure as to how this may be in the records. David Weigel mentioned that Roberts Rules apply more to a default situation. The Board of County Commissioners turns to Roberts Rules when there is a lack of a rule. He suggests maybe two to three pages of typical rules that provide for Chairman, Vice Chairman, absences, points of order, recognition of participants from the public, and recognition of members. He also added that in late September or early October there will be Sunshine Law and Public Records Law Seminars. Mr. Pennington asked him to provide the recommended template before the next meeting to Ms. Bernal so it could be added to the agenda for the next meeting. V. Approval ofCAC Minutes A. Approval of Minutes of September 8, 2004. Mr. Arceri moved to accept the minutes as written. Second by Mr. Ginsberg. Carried unanimously 6-0. VI. New Business: A. Post Charley Beach Impact Assessment Mr. Hovell gave a quick report on the Disaster Declaration and potential FEMA assistance. For hurricane Charley the State and County took a look at the beaches and decided they didn't meet enough of the damage threshold and wasn't eligible under The Charley Disaster Declaration. Collier County isn't included in the Frances Disaster Declaration at all. 2 September 8, 2004 Mr. Allen Madsen reported on his assessments of Charley and Frances. There is a net loss of sand making the beach flatter. We don't have the protection from the dune system that we once had. We lost 30% of the dune system. Marco Island didn't see much erosion maybe because it's flat and the waves could've broken up early. During a high tide it will be difficult to use the beach because of the loss from the dune system. Clam Pass dune system is basically shot. Mr. Pennington did his own assessments and is guessing the beaches probably lost 2ft. of sand in depth. Charley brought more sand in and brought the sand bar to the beach. With Frances we lost what we gained plus more. Clam Pass at high tide has no beach. At low tide they have what they use to have. Mr. Sorey added his concern of two areas in Naples . The steps to the pier are no longer usable . Rocks between Third Ave. S. and Fourth Ave. S. This needs to be repaired immediately. Dr. John Staiger suggested grading sand to the steps of the pIer, but thinks it's premature and it should wait for recovery. a. Clam Pass Park Beach Renourishment Mr. Pennington was advised of efforts to expand the use of Clam Pass Park. County Managers in discussion with Pelican Bay had suggested extending a Boardwalk South from the Pavilion. He later received concerns that the beach had eroded and was questioned about the ability to accommodate people along the beach. He inspected the beach on three different days: · 8/l/04-High Tide 2-3 ft. waves-South access steps to the Pavilion were closed off due to the erosion washing under the steps · 8/8/04--Low Tide and more beach. The bar across the outside of the pass entrance had diverted the current flow south. · 8/15/04-- Two days after Charley-Dr. Pass light had been extinguished by Charley-Day marked 1 and 2 were cleared away. He brought to the Committee's attention Florida's Statute 161.142 Declaration of Public Policy Relating to Improved Navigational Inlets. Pelican Bay has the present permit to dredge so he proposes inciating action to obtain the permit to get the sand moved back to the beaches. Mr. Pires added his assessments as well. He walked the boardwalk and has never seen water that high. The dock is in pieces and the canoe trail marker signs were submerged. He thinks they should wait to see what the course of nature would take within the next two months before they take any action. In reference to the Pelican Bay permit, the County, under PBS Data of Pelican Bay Service Division holds it, which is a division of Collier County. The Developer of Pelican Bay paid all the funds for the permit which was approximately three million plus. He paid this because the County Commissioner decided no other members of Collier County should have to pitch in for it. They may be sensitive 3 September 8, 2004 for someone to latch on to their permit or to make changes to the permit. That could have an adverse affect to the millions they've spent to restore the health of the bay system when no one pitched in. Mr. Pennington believes they shouldn't do anything that would be determinal, but to increase that flow. It could be increased by taking the bar out. He believes they would need a new permit and it wouldn't have anything to do with Pelican Bays permit. Mr. Ginsberg added that the sand should be taken out to make the channel deeper. Mr. Humiston stated that the bar interferes with the flow of the water. The large bar is from high wave energy and high tides. Wave energy will push the sand back to the shore. It wouldn't make much difference to take sand from the bar. Illustrations showed the rates of accumulation of sand. The bar may extend the limits of the permit. If dredged once every three years you'll get 9-10 thousand yards of cubic sand. There's not enough sand in the inlets to satisfy the beach erosion problem. A couple of suggestions: . Improvements made by PBS district including the dredging of the internal waterway, which reduced the frequency of dredging to reduce long-term cost. . Dredging the offshore bar. Once it's dredged the offshore bar is the first to reform. Mr. Pennington agreed, but going back to statute 161.142, State policy says it can be done. There is enough in 2005-projected budget. This is an improved Navigational Inlet Mr. Sullivan added that the 2005 Budget Projection has $235,000.00 going toward Clam Pass. Public Comments: Mrs. Martha Dykman states that this area was designed as a boating inlet. It's difficult to navigate in the narrow channel. The beach is narrowing, very crowded and is in need of maintenance. At high tide there is no beach. Mr. Pires doesn't agree with the Navigation of Clam Bay or Clam Pass, but if the definition of a Navigational inlet is a definitional issue from a State perspective then it could be a problem. Authorizing the expenitudure of money now could be premature. The renourishment should be looked at later. Mr. Steve King, Coastal Planning & Engineering discussed with DEP to stockpile sand near the Clam Pass area and truck haul to the beach. He didn't want to bring up the issue until the permit issue was resolved for the North Collier Renourishment Project. DEP is looking at the inlet impacts to the hard bottom or habitat in our area. They propose we monitor all the impacts that are occurring. Mr. Arceri moved that this matter be held in obeyance, but to be considered after the initial permitting portion for the Beach Renourishment Program is done then possible amending the permit to provide for a solution to the Clam Pass Beach. Second by Mr. Sullivan. Carried unanimously 6-0. 4 --- September 8, 2004 B. Recommendations for County Coastal Systems Management Mr. Pennington met with County Manager Mudd on 8/19/04 to discuss many concerns such as sponsorship, Clam Pass, Wiggins Pass and Management of County Coastal Systems. He recently discovered there was no one in the County Government with responsibility for the Coastal Systems. He appointed Mr. Pires, Councilman Arceri and himself as a Sub- Committee to develop a recommendation to bring back to the committee. VII. Old Business A. South Marco Beach Renourishment/Caxambas Pass Dredging: Request for Additional Information #1 Mr. Arceri stated that this project is the renourishment of the south beach area with the most public access. In 1997 the beach was dredged in Caxambus Pass because it was beach quality sand. This was a good practice. In 1995 the County did an inlet management study that showed that the pass should be dredged every seven years for stability of the entire coastal system, which was messed up by the building of seawalls. There's a critical navigational problem. 50% ofboater's use this pass to get to the Gulf of Mexico; if it were closed off most boaters would have to travel a longer time to get access. This is a beach renourishment project that's combined with critical dredging of that pass. FDEP will be visiting at the end of the month. The focus should be on two things: . What are we reading from the FDEP's request for information . Anything preliminary as far as the monitoring Michael Trudnek, Taylor Engineering answered Mr. Arceri's questions stating that currently their consultant is out surveying the pass and beaches, but hasn't provided any data yet. This pass is indeed filling in. The next answer is there were no red flags coming from the DEP that they would have a problem with this. They just requested all the supportive information to show there is no adverse impact to the island. Mr. Arceri added that DEP said after the 1997 dredging that we must go through the permit process to dredge again. Mr. Trudnek stated that the last permit says if you want to use Caxambas Pass as a site again you have to appear for a new permit. That's a new DEP permit that Army Corp. permit is a IS-year permit, which expires March 2005, and we are going to apply for a one-year extension to complete the project. They've had 1 RAI so far. Typically they have three RAI's for these projects. If the responses to RAI#l are submitted within a month, DEP has 1 month to submit RAI#2, then DEP will have another month to submit RAI#3. If everything is satisfactory DEP will give their intent to issue it and they have 90 days to issue the permit. All the supportive data will be sent to DEP. Since they requested a survey after Charley, they may request another one after Frances. It's still feasible to start this project November of 2005. The only place to get beach quality sand would be five miles offshore and it would increase the cost of this project. 5 September 8, 2004 Mr. Arceri spoke with Nancy Richie who said that this area is a turtle nesting area and a beach renourishment project would help the turtles. DEP should want to fund this project. Mr. Pires suggested that in response to the RAI #, number seventeen to supply evidence maybe they should attach a letter from the City of Marco stating they are the senior planner who is in charge of this. Mr. Hovell brought up another item of concern. At a recent Waterways Committee some standards were set for channel depths. They may want to check to see if this project would have to meet that depth. Gale Vinson member of Marco Island Waterways Advisory Committee stated that dredging is needed in Caxambas Pass. He claims this is a very dangerous navigational problem. People are trying to stay away from the sides of the channels and wakes are beginning to get bad. After passing marker five many people in smaller boats cut over to go between the groins and the beach. We should dredge from the outer light, which would add on approximately 900 ft. of dredging and put it at pass marker six will give a straight channel providing the dog light being taken out as well. Mr. Trudnek added that the permit could be modified to cover that area, but that area only has I-2ft. of beach compatible sand. Mr. Arceri stated as part of this review if they tried to solve this second navigational problem then it would be less money to do it with this project than do it as a separate project later. He advised Michael Trudnek to come back and tell them how much extra money is needed to solve that problem. City Council may authorize that extra money not from TDC funds, but from City funds. Mr. Sorey moved that the payment of the permit fee should not exceed $3,000.00. Second by Mr. Arceri. Carried unanimously 6-0. Mr. Paul Kwa, Project Manager for Public Utilities and Engineering added it would cost an estimated 1.5 to 1.8 million dollars. When they get the bids back they want to meet with CAC for the funding of this project. Mr. Hovell stated they are hoping the funds would come from the Tropical Storm Gabrielle and the DEP indicated this project maybe something they would cost share, but they don't have a contract yet. Hopefully one million will be reimbursed. Mr. Pennington called a break at 3:50 PM to resume at 3:55 PM. Mr. Pires was excused but they still had a quorum. B. Wiggins Pass Monitoring Report 6 September 8, 2004 Mr. Ken Humiston showed an update of the Monitoring Report that showed the flood channels trying to cut straight across, which contributed to the erosion on the north side. In 1995 an Inlet Management Plan was prepared that had a provision for deepening the Gulf entrance channel to function as a sand trap, which would expand the dredging intravel and reduce long term maintenance costs. The implementation of that recommendation was done in 2000 and has been dredged two times since then. Some recommendations to increase dredging intervals: . Bottom depths increased maintaining 18.5 ft. Depth . Dredge straight across channel which would provide stronger currents to push sand. The sand is beach quality sand. The monitoring plans purpose is to determine if reductions of impacts of beaches is sufficient and if navigation improvements are sufficient. If so they continue monitoring. Mr. John Findley, Estuary Conservation Association stated that some documents that he read from CEC made the recommendations to take the channel out or straighten it through. It's unhealthy to the estuary system. A box cut that is equal and the depths coming in to it would reduce the amount of turbidity. Requirements out of the Wiggins Pass Management Plan are 8ft. The dredging is scheduled to be done every two years and mobilization and hydraulic dredging should be done this November. Under the Torts Development Plan, it shows categories of use of the original 2% tax revenues specific by project or special use. For a 24 month period for each project or to be used as follows: . Category A-Beach Improvement, Renourishment, Maintenance, and Restoration. It doesn't state anywhere that the sand has to be beach quality sand. Emergency dredging needs to be done. There are enough FEMA funds that could help Clam Pass as well. Mr. Pennington advised him that Mr. Hovell has stated that Collier County doesn't qualify under either of the most recent hurricanes. For Management purposes that sand would have to be put on the adjacent beach in order for that to be funded. There are funds for Wiggins Pass in 2005 TDC Projections in the amount of$452,000.00. Michael Poff, Coastal Engineering Consultants stated that 8/30/04 ECA hired them to do a condition survey of Wiggins Pass in the wake of Post Charley. Accessing the conditions of the channel, comparing the volume, control depth and the shoaling rate since the last survey. The control depths varied from -3.5 to 5 ft. in NGVD. The volume in the permitted channel was 65,000 cubic yards. The control depth was -3.9ft. The channel shoaled in approximately 8,300 cubic yards. Brian Leiding - is concerned that the FEMA money isn't available. In FEMA's letter it stated that if the navigational waterways were affected by Charley then they would give the funds. A restriction is that it has to be accomplished by early December. We can save this County money if they pay. Mr. Hovell replied stating the Federal Government has a FEMA Public Assistance Guide that describes what categories they will pay. Categories A & B is when they will assist. Charley was a Category A & B, Beaches was a G and inlets weren't included at all. 7 " --~,..,_. ._'--""~-"'---'---~"-"_. September 8, 2004 Mr. Ken Stead is concerned will the navigation in Wiggins Pass. He stated that tourist income goes more to the waterways and recreation and he wants to go forward with emergency dredging in Wiggins Pass. Mr. Ray Bernier is concerned with safety issue in Wiggins Pass. Dredging needs to be done quickly or more navigational problems could occur. Mrs. Linda C. Roosa claims that Wiggins Pass is unsafe and is currently closed off. Emergency funding is needed now to make it safe. It needs to be fixed before the tourist comes back. Mr. Doug Fee, North Bay Civic Association favors a moderate depth of 8ft. in Wiggins Pass. A balance of the Estuary needs to be considered as well. Mr. Ginsberg questions Mr. Hovell on how deep the inlet is, how safe or unsafe and what can be done to have the channel at a reasonable depth. Mr. HoveU responds by stating that in the upcoming years budget, which begins in October, is the annual monitoring of Wiggins Pass, which will be done in May. It may not be easy to address this issue yet. The only places the permit allows them to place the sand is in the State Park and the County Park. They don't want the sand on their beaches and they don't want the pass to be dredged. Mr. Pennington responded that this committee determines whether to dredge or not. It does qualify for TDC funding in accordance with the current policy. Mr. Arceri added that the FDEP permit expires in 2010. It states the sand should be disposed of at Barefoot Beach or at Delnor Wiggins. He then asked if this permit defines the depth and isn't Barefoot Beach eligible for renourishment under the current permit. Mr. Hovell answered by stating that the Parks and Recreation Department weren't interested in having the sand placed on their beaches. Barefoot Beach is eligible under the permit. The permit allows dredging from station 0-100 at 8.5ft.from station 100 and above is dredged at 13ft. Mr. Brent Moore added that dredging a flood shoal isn't very popular, but dredging the inner shoal improves the hydraulics to push the sedimation further offshore. Mr. Pennington moved to proceed to request staff to proceed with the action to dredge Wiggins Pass, but it should be in accordance with the Inlet Management Plan with the exception of not having 13ft. depth, but conform to the natural channel. Second by Mr. Arceri Mr. Sorey asked for a consideration of amending the motion to attempt to get on the TDC Agenda for September 27,2004. This needs to be expedited due to all the problems. 8 ---- September 8, 2004 Mr. Jack Wert replied this could be added to the TDC agenda if directed. According to the policy that the County Commissioner approved last December an application, grant application and a sponsor for the project will be needed. Mr. Pennington stated that there isn't anyone in the County that has an oversight of all these items except for this Committee. He wants this Committee to be the initiator ofthis request. Mr. Pennington moved to amend the motion to attempt to get this on the September 27,2004 agenda. Second by Mr. Arceri. Carried Unanimously 5-0. C. County/City of Naples Beach Renourishment Update: Consideration of Plan Alternative Monitoring Plans; 49mb PDF File Mr. Steven King - Coastal Planning and Engineering addressed the proposed documents that will be submitted to DEP for RAI#3 on The North Collier County Beach Renourishment Project. The displayed chart showed the area's which are to be renourished. The yellow area is the primary area's to be renourished when the permits are issued. The red area is an additional area that's being permitted for the ten year horizon. Mr. Pennington requested to delete the red area because they aren't going to renourish past Gordon's Pass. Mr. King continued in proposing to use coarse sand with area T -1 which would provide a steeper beach and should intercept in shallower water. DEP hasn't accepted this as of now. There is no clear evidence of hard bottom covering. The issue is DEP isn't recognizing all of the individual projects. They are trying to blend them all together. The monitoring requirements we must do are as follows: · Physical Monitoring-Survey's and Aerials · Environmental Monitoring-Sea Turtles and birds · Biological Monitoring and Mitigation The monitoring itself will cost $450,000.00 which is an additional cost. There isn't a way to count how many artificial reefs that have been done. In the future they could be counted if they are the right type. Mr. Hovell added the right type is the natural limestone and what has been used here are tires and concrete rubble. The cost can be discussed at the next meeting. D. Hideaway Beach Renourishment Update; Consultant Funding Budget Amendment Mr. Hovell stated there are three work orders that need CAC recommendations and a Budget Amendment in order to fund them. Two of the three are things related to permitting. One is related to the mangrove. Maybe $8,000.00 to do a mangrove study to determine what should be done. $45,000.00 or more is needed to complete the permitting process. Mr. Kwa added that the permits aren't approved yet, but they may be in November. 9 September 8, 2004 Mr. Pennington entertained a motion from staff to transfer $92,000.00 from TDC to do items one and three and $8,000.00 for item two. Motion made by Mr. Arceri. Second by Ginsberg. Carried unanimously 5-0. VIII. Public Comments None IX. Announcements None X. Committee Member Discussion None XI. Next Meeting . October 14, 2004 - BCC Board Room . Maria mentioned that a meeting will be held right after their next meeting so their meeting will need to conclude at 4:00 PM. After discussion it was decided to hold the next meeting on October 14,2004 at 12:30 PM. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair. Coastal Advisory Committee Chairman Pennington 10