5/3/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

has not been successful. Item A is required to bring the project into compliance with the MON.permit. Items 2 and C are needed to bring the project into compliance with the CUP. All the conditions of the CUP must be met before any ground water can be withdrawn from the irrigation wells. Services for Amendment No. 7 will be perf armed on an hourly rate basis using rates established in the Agreement up to a not-to- eaceed amount of ;14,565. This, added to the current contract amount of $117,423., will result in- a new contract amount of ;131,988. INKEDATICKS AND PM Staff recommends that the Board authorize theChairman 018.00. to sign the attached Amendment No. 7. Funding is from Account 418-000-169 Commissioner Adams questioned the need for Item A, and asked if there was an error in engineering the wetland. Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that Bob Pitchford of Kimley-Horn has been active during most of the life of the project and could answer the Board's questions. Bob Pitchford, vice president of Kimley-Horn & Associates, confirmed that although he was not involved in the program originally, he came on board a little bit later and carried out the project through the consumptive use permitting. The -wetland in question is a 1.6 acre wetland which existed adjacent to the original golf course. There had been problems with that wetland because of the work done by the drainage on the existing golf a; course. During the evaluation as to how. tonbuild'the new golf course and allow the wetland to work, there was a decision to allow this wetland to remain with no activity except the construction of a cart path across that wetland. When the new golf course was contoured, we allowed storm water off the golf course to run into the wetland and enhance it in that manner. The permit that was issued by St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) did not require any monitoring of the wetland, and the basic permit did not even reference it. SJRWMD did include it in a staff report as a wetland that needed enhancement and that was about the end of it. So the primary issue that the development team was dealing with was that it was a perched wetland, which meant that it was higher than normal, and there was a differential between the water level in the lake which is just adjacent to this wetland and the actual floor of the wetland, so it was impossible to enhance that wetland by the lake system. The plan was to drain from the new golf course into that wetland. When SJRWMD made their inspection of the littoral MAY 0 ,� mAY 21 soca. 92 .3 4.8 J