Loading...
Backup Documents 05/26/2009 Item #10C '10C-(l~ May 23, 2009 Donna Fiala, Chair Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 RE: 1) Clam Bay Legal Status 2) Clam Pass Maintenance Dredging Permit Application (Item lOB County Manager's Report Board of County Commissioner's Meeting May 26, 2009) 3) Navigational Markers in Outer Clam Bay (Item 10C County Manager's Report Board of County Commissioner's Meeting May 26, 2009) Dear Chairwoman Fiala and Commissioners: I appreciate the efforts of the Commission, county staff, stakeholders and concerned citizens to uphold the long-term environmental viability of the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area (NRP A). A comprehensive management plan that focuses on the improving and maintaining the long-term ecological health of this area is overdue and will not only protect the biological integrity of this important resource, but will be beneficial to the quality of life for both residents and visitors alike. 1) Clam Bay Legal Status As you all are no doubt aware, various competing interests have made the tasks assigned to the Clam Bay Subcommittee fraught with controversy. One major question that has not been resolved between various parties is what entities are legally entitled to make decisions affecting this estuary and what entities are legally required to sign off on any projects that occur within the estuary. The Clam Bay Subcommittee was advised by county staff that any decisions that the subcommittee made regarding markers, dredging and other projects were within the County purview and thus could be sent to the Commission for final decisions. At the time the Clam Bay subcommittee voted on the issues, (that will be presented by county staff) we were unaware that the legal jurisdiction was being challenged. Recently it was brought to my attention that Pelican Bay is claiming the right to sign off on decisions affecting not only the wetlands but the actual waterways within the Clam Bay system. Their claim is apparently based upon deed restrictions agreed to by the Sovereign Submersed Internal Improvement Land Trust disclaiming submerged lands within Clam Bay as State Sovereign Land. Prior to making decisions, (such as marking the channels and dredging permits), it would be prudent to straighten out these claims so that any decisions made have been cleared by those parties that have any legal rights. lOC-u~ 2) Clam Pass Maintenance Dredging Permit Application The following is a minority opinion written as one of the two technical appointees to the Clam Bay Subcommittee, both who voted no on approving this permit application. While I appreciate the fact that many of the suggestions made by the Clam Bay Subcommittee were incorporated into this version of the permit, (in particular that the application was modified to indicate that tidal flushing is the primary reason to dredge the pass and that beach renourishment is a byproduct and does not trigger the need to dredge Clam Pass), I still have some major concerns. If you decide to move forward with the permit I urge you to please revert to the dredging specifications that were applied in the 2002 maintenance dredging in Clam Pass and not the specifications that are in this permit which reflect an increase of the dredge width from 40' (2002 maintenance dredging) to 80'wide (2007 maintenance dredging). Minimizing the dredge width at Clam Pass will help to preserve the natural sand bypass and minimize subsequent erosion to the adjacent beaches. The dredging that occurred in 2007 (80' width) had several negative results as stated in the Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan Monitoring Report NO.8 2007 and the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Eight Annual Report 2009 (section 5.2) prepared by County consultants Humiston and Moore and Turrell, Hall and Associates respectively. "The monitoring therefore appears to indicate that minimizing the amount of dredging of the ebb shoal and dredge cut across the beach helps preserves natural bypass at the inlet and minimizes potential impacts to the park beach. The park beach width, however, was inadequate in 1998, and remains so today. To further evaluate the potential for using Clam Pass as a sand source for restoring the park beach, the 2007 dredge cut was expanded to permit limits. This provided additional sand for placement on the park beach, and is providing another opportunity to observe beach response to the wider dredging limits." "This approach of determining the optimum amount of material that can be obtained from Clam Pass for beach restoration should be evaluated very carefully because a common impact from extensive dredging of inlet ebb shoals, as well as the cumulative impact of regular maintenance dredging, is increased erosion of adjacent beaches". "It is anticipated that the increase of the dredge cut at the entrance will have little if any improvement to the tidal flushing of the Clam Pass tidal system, because the wider cut results in a cross section that is larger than the equilibrium section area, and it is therefore expected to fill in quickly". According to the reports increasing the dredge depth and width in 2007 caused the pass to fill in faster than the smaller dredge cut specifications, which seems to indicate that the wider cut is not a good idea. I would like to see comparisons between the 2002 dredge and the 2007 dredge and subsequent inlet response, beach erosion and profiles in order to make an informed decision regarding optimum dredge cuts, particularly at the Pass. Perhaps this permit could be tabled until you have heard directly from the consultants for the County that stated these opinions prior to making your decision. laC - ~~ One option that has not been presented to you by County staff for your consideration, would allow for dredging the pass in case of storm closure while allowing time to gather the necessary data to design a management plan is to apply for an extension of the existing permit. This approach will provide the necessary time to perform biological, ecological, and physical studies so that a more informed approach can be designed to keep the pass open in the future. This way we are not putting the cart before the horse and will be able to make a more informed decision about long-term pass maintenance. FDEP would likely be amenable to an extension as this approach is working toward a more long-term solution that both maintains and improves the biological integrity of the estuary. This approach was presented at the Clam Bay subcommittee and recommended by the two technical advisors, myself and Mr. David Roelig. Alternative strategies that would allow the Commission to accomplish the overall goal of being able to keep the pass open in case of storm closure and perform maintenance dredging to insure estuary viability include: 1) Table this issue until you can hear from the consultants who performed post evaluations on the 2002 and 2007 dredging cuts and the ramifications of different dredge cut configurations. 2) Pass the Permit with the following modifications: A) Revert to the smaller cut specifications that reflect the 2002 maintenance dredge (40'width at the Pass). B) Monitor the effects of the dredging to determine if there are quantifiable impacts caused by the cut width. Careful observation of how the adjacent beaches respond to different dredging specifications may provide useful in determining the most functional dredging specifications for the Pass in the future. 3) Ask staff to apply for an extension on the existing permit and perform an ecological evaluation in the mean time to determine what long-term Pass maintenance plan best applies to the goals of maintaining and improving the biological integrity and long-term viability of the estuary. I respectfully ask that you take the third option as until a management plan has been adopted it is premature to begin making decisions such as initiating a long-term 10 yr dredging permit. I believe that a more viable and sensible plan at this stage is to get another extension of the existing permit to keep the pass open in case of closure, so that the County would have time to investigate and weigh the ramifications of a new permit in concert with all the other components that make up a management plan for the estuary. 1 OC~ ~R 3) Navigational Markers in Outer Clam Bay While I appreciate the endless hours spent devising a solution to this issue that is palatable to the majority of interested parties, I still believe that the current plan is not the most environmentally sound solution. The following is a minority opinion written as one of the two technical appointees to the Clam Bay Subcommittee, both who voted no on approving this application. Since Clam Pass is a natural, very dynamic pass that changes location quite frequently, from an environmental perspective I have a problem with Marker # 1. Sooner or later Marker # 1 more than likely will end up on the beach as shown in the photographs below. This marker could also end up erroneously guiding unfamiliar boaters over the shallow ebb shoal, which could lead to groundings, which is detrimental to the environment. As far as marking the interior pathway (Markers 2 -14) I don't have a problem with this environmentally, however the use of buoys is a strange option. Environmentally friendly small Coast Guard approved poles (that don't leech out creosote and arsenic) would be a more efficient choice as they could also be used to also hold the kayak trail signs, while offering ospreys a place to roost. Therefore, if you decide to move forward with the installation of these markers I urge you modify this plan by removing Marker #1 and reverting to Coast Guard approved small poles for Markers 2-14. These changes should be acceptable to most parties involved in this dispute. 10C~ cg Clam Pass 2008 Clam Pass 2009 10C-- 0R Thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 239-403-4223 or by email at kathvw@conservancy.org Sincerely, Kathy Worley Co-Director of Environmental Science Conservancy of SW Florida