Loading...
CAC Agenda 01/09/2014 Coastal Advisory Committee Agenda January 9 , 2014 Meeting Agenda and Notice COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE(CAC) THURSDAY,JANUARY 9,2014-1:00 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS THIRD FLOOR,COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES •Sunshine Law on Agenda Questions •2014 CAC MEETING DATES I. Call to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Roll Call IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda V. Public Comments VI.Approval of CAC Minutes 1. November 14, 2013 Minutes VII.Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report VIII. New Business 1. Renourishment Update-Verbal * Vanderbilt * Park Shore * Naples * Pelican Bay 2. 2015 Renourishment Permit CP&E Proposal Approval * Backup Material (Proposal) 3. March Workshop/Planning Beach Renourishment a.Approval CP&E Proposal - Beach History Summary Report and lessons learned past Renourishment * Backup Material (proposal) b. Approval H&M's Proposal for Oprtions moving forward * Backup Material (proposal) 4.Tropical Storm Debbie FEMA- PW Approval * Backup Material (PW-00679) * Backup Material (PW-01079) 5. FDEP Local Government Funding Request (LGFR) * Backup Material (FY 14-15 LGFR Draft) * Backup Material (FY 2014-2015 Beach Table Draft) IX. Old Business X.Announcements/Information 1.The Economic Value of Beaches- 2013 Update 2. Public Notice for 2014-2015 Grant Applications XI. Committee Member Discussion XII. Next Meeting Date/Location February 13, 2014 Government Center, 3rd Floor XIII.Adjournment All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing,to the board prior to the meeting if applicable. For more information, please contact Gail D. Hambright at (239) 252-2966. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252-8380. Public comments will be limited to 3 minutes unless the Chairman grants permission for additional time. Collier County Ordinance No. 99-22 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities(including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners) before the Board of County Commissioners and its advisory boards, register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO: Anthony P. Pires, Jr., Esq., Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee Clam Bay Subcommittee FROM: Colleen M. Greene,Assistant County Attorne (,,1�(1(r DATE: March 18, 2010 RE: Sunshine Law and Agenda question The issue presented is whether the Sunshine Law requires that an agenda be made available prior to board meetings. In summary,the answer is no. The Sunshine Law Manual(2009 Ed. Vol. 31)provides the following: The Attorney General's Office recommends publication of an agenda, if available, in the notice of the meeting; if an agenda is not available, subject matter summations might be used. However, the courts have held that the Sunshine Law does not mandate that an agency provide notice of each item to be discussed via a published agenda. Such a specific requirement has been rejected because it could effectively preclude access to meetings by members of the general public who wish to bring specific issues before a governmental body. See Hough v. Stembridge, 278 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). And see Yarbrough v. Young, 462 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (posted agenda unnecessary; public body not required to postpone meeting due to inaccurate press report which was not part of the public body's official notice efforts). Thus, the Sunshine Law has been interpreted to require notice of meetings, not of the individual items which may be considered at that meeting. However, other statutes, codes or ordinances may impose such a requirement and agencies subject to those provisions must follow them. Accordingly, the Sunshine Law does not require boards to consider only those matters on a published agenda. "[W]hether to impose a requirement that restricts every relevant commission or board from considering matters not on an agenda is a policy decision to be made by the legislature." Law and Information Services, Inc. v. City of Riviera Beach, 670 So. 2d 1014, 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Today's Coastal Advisory Committee Clam Bay Subcommittee was properly noticed in compliance with the Sunshine Law on or about February 1, 2010. Further, the agenda for today's meeting was also publically noticed on the County's website on Monday, March 15, 2010. The related back-up materials for the agenda were supplemented and available on the County's website on Wednesday, March 17, 2010. In addition, a number of these materials also appeared on the agenda for the Coastal Advisory Committee meeting on Thursday, March 11, 2010. In my opinion, there is no violation of the Sunshine Law and no legal issue regarding the date the agenda was published. cc: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management t;*4: Collier County `4'*444'44044"- Growth Management Division Planning & Regulation Natural Resources MEMORANDUM TO: CAC Board Members FROM: Gail Ham bright, Accountant DATE: December 10, 2013 SUBJECT: 2014 CAC Scheduled Meetings Please mark your calendar for the following 2013 CAC scheduled meeting dates: January 9, 2014 February 13, 2014 March 13, 2014 April 10, 2014 May 8, 2014 June 12, 2014 July 10, 2014 August 14, 2014 September 11, 2014 October 9, 2014 November 13, 2014 December 11, 2014 All meetings will be held in the Board of County Commissioner's chambers,third floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, unless otherwise noted. A public notice will be sent out before each meeting. 4..). •.04p ,,( •=f H '• '* I 54 CAC January 9,2014 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 1 of 5 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, November 14, 2013 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3`a Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Jim Burke Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland (Excused) Victor Rios Debbie Roddy Nick Penniman (Excused) (Vacancy) (Vacancy) ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples CAC January 9,2014 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 2 of 5 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view online. I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:00PM II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously S— 0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. October 10,2013 Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes of the October 10, 2013 meeting subject to the following change: • Page 5, Item XI, line 5 — from "Mr. Roddy...."to "Ms. Roddy...." Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously 5—0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Budgeted Revenue Report The Committee reviewed the "Collier County Tourist Tax Revenue FY 14 TDC Revenue Report" dated through October 31, 2013. 2. Expanded Revenue Report September 2013 The Committee reviewed the "FY14 TDC Revenue Report" updated through October 31, 2013. VIII. New Business 1. Beach Renourishment Truck Haul Progress—Update Gary McAlpin provided the document"Truck Haul Beach Renourishment Summary" for information purposes. He noted: • The work on Vanderbilt Beach is substantially complete as of 11/13/13. • The work in the area of Lowdermilk Park will commence on 11/17/13. • The work for the Naples Beaches is anticipated to be completed by 1/1/14. • The work associated with the Pelican Bay Beaches will be undertaken following the issuance of a Notice to Proceed (NTP) by the Florida Department of Environmental CAC January 9,2014 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 3 of 5 Protection however, the permit for this area of work is subject to a request for an Administrative Hearing. • If the NTP is granted, the work will be conducted in December of 2013 or April of 2014. Speaker Bob Krasowski provided an update on the request for an Administrative Hearing. He reported the County has agreed the work in the Pelican Bay area will be conducted between 11/1/13 and 5/1/13, outside of turtle nesting season. Chairman Sorey commended all involved in the project as to date, it is running smoothly. He recognized Mr. Krasowski for the original concept of renourishing the beaches via a truck haul project. 2. 15 Year Permit Application *Backup Material Mr. McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve fee proposal for services needed to prepare a State Joint and Federal Permit Application for a 15 year multi-use permit for the Collier County Beach Renourishment Project under Contract No. 11- 5772 with Coastal Planning and Engineering for a time and material cost not to exceed $98,921 under Project 195-80096"dated November 14 2013 for consideration. He reported: • The concept is to obtain a"15 Year Master Permit"to perform routine or emergency renourishment. • The permit will require issuance of a"Notice to Proceed"when individual projects are proposed. • The Master Permit will provide more beach management flexibility to the County and reduce the need for environmental reviews when the permit modifications are sought expediting the permit process. • The work necessary to obtain the permit is expected to take approximately 9 months. Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the fee proposal for services needed to prepare a State Joint and Federal Permit Application for a 15-year multi-use permit for the Collier County Beach Renourishment Project under Contract No. 11-5772 with Coastal Planning and Engineering for a time and material cost not to exceed$98,921 under Project 195-80096. Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously 5—0. 3. CAC Applicant *Backup Material Mr. McAlpin presented the Executive Summary"Review of CAC Applicants" dated November 14 2013 for consideration. He reported Ian J. Butler has filed an application with the County requesting appointment to the Coastal Advisory Committee. Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners appoint Ian J. Butler to the Coastal Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 5-0. CAC January 9,2014 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 4 of 5 4. Intertidal Sand Mining—Marco Island Mr.M cAlpin provided the memo"Intertidal Sand Mining—Marco Island"dated November 14, 2013 for consideration. He noted: • The proposal is to utilize the mined sand to reconstruct the existing gradient and drainage patterns of the beach area to prevent accumulation of standing water. • The work is anticipated to cost $5,000 to $10,000 and be completed by February of 2014. • The Marco Island City Council has endorsed the project. Mr. Rios moved to direct Staff's to undertake the necessary steps to develop a conceptual design including identifying the scope, cost and permissibility of Intertidal Sand Mining on Marco Island at a cost not to exceed$10,000 and to submit the information back to the Coastal Advisory Committee for review no later than the regularly CAC meeting scheduled for February 2014. Second by Ms. Roddy. Carried unanimously S—0. IX. Old Business 1. Beach Workshop Gary McAlpin provided memo dated November 14, 2013 outlining the concept of conducting a Beach Workshop several months after the current truck haul project is completed. The workshop is to address the history of beach renourishment since 1995, to review the current truck haul project and examine options for beach renourishment moving forward. Consultants will be engaged to assist County Staff in addressing the items. Committee discussion occurred noting two projects which should be considered are the reconstruction of the jetty at Doctors Pass and the development of underwater reefs. Mr. McAlpin recommended the reconstruction of the jetty at Doctors Pass be considered at this point in time and to incorporate the concept of underwater reefs into the "15 Year Master Permit." The Committee reached consensus on: 1. Directing Staff to move forward and develop the concept. They recommended Staff coordinates the item with Linda Penniman who is seeking input to address similar concerns. 2. Directing Staff to bring an item forward for reconstruction of the jetty at Doctors Pass. 3. Consider the use of underwater reefs when developing the "15 Year Master Permit." Speaker Bob Krasowski reported he supports the concept, especially examining the work undertaken in previous projects to determine the positive and negative aspects of them so the process may be improved as the County moves forward. X. Announcements 1. Letter of Resignation CAC January 9,2014 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 5 of 5 Gary McAlpin provided a letter from Larry Honig dated November 5, 2013 to Mayor John Sorey, III notifying him of his resignation from the Coastal Advisory Committee. XI. Committee Member Discussion Mr. Burke requested clarification on the status of the requests for Administrative hearings for the permit to renourish the Pelican Bay beaches. Mr. McAlpin reported Lee County's deadline for filing an amended petition is November 15, 2013. There is a hearing scheduled for the Corkscrew property owners on November 15, 2013. XII. Next Meeting Date/Location December 12,2013—Government Center,Administration Bldg. F,3rd Floor There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 2:02 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee John Sorey, III, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended . CAC January 9,2014 VII-1 Expanded Revenue Report 1 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX REVENUE FY 14 TDC Revenue Report 31-Dec-2013 FY 14 Adopted Variance to FY Description Fund Budget FY 14 Forecast FY 14 Actual 14 Forecast Beach Facilities 183 693,700 98,339 112,235 13,897 TDC Promotion 184 5,440,200 771,202 880,155 108,953 Non-County Museums 193 369,200 52,338 59,728 7,391 TDC Admin 194 1,800,600 255,253 291,321 36,068 Beach Renourishment 195 5,706,000 808,881 923,159 114,277 Disaster Recovery 196 0 0 - 0 County Museums 198 1,489,000 211,080 240,895 29,815 Gross Budget $15,498,700 0 $2,197,093 $2,507,493 $310,400 Less 5%Rev Res (774,900) Net Budget 14,723,800 Collections %Budget Collected to %over FY 13 %over FY 12 %over FY 11 Month Actual FY 14 Cum YTD Date collections collections collections Oct 574,901 574,901 3.7% -8.43% 9.44% 20.06% Nov 876,087 1,450,988 9.4% 19.29% 26.66% 40.15% Dec 1,056,505 2,507,493 16.2% 10.14% 14.25% 40.85% Jan 2,507,493 16.2% n/a n/a n/a Feb 2,507,493 16.2% n/a n/a n/a Mar 2,507,493 16.2% n/a n/a n/a Apr 2,507,493 16.2% n/a n/a n/a May 2,507,493 16.2% n/a n/a n/a June 2,507,493 16.2% n/a n/a n/a July 2,507,493 16.2% n/a n/a n/a Aug 2,507,493 16.2% n/a n/a n/a Sept 2,507,493 16.2% n/a n/a n/a Total 2,507,493 2,507,493 YTD 8.01% 17.08% 35.24% t , r,, ' .,;;. Bal to Collect 12,991,207 1/6/201411.42 AM H:\Revenue Report\Monthly Gas,Sales,and TDC Receipts CAC January 9,2014 VII-1 Expanded Revenue Report 2 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX REVENUE FY 14 TDC Revenue Report 31-Dec-2013 Budget Comparison 5 Yr Collect 5 Yr Collect Budgeted Actual Budget to Actual Forecast Month • History-Cum History-Monthly Collections Collections $Variance Collections Oct 3.5% 3.5% 548,712 574,901 26,189 548,712 Nov 8.2% 4.6% 717,469 876,087 158,618 717,470 Dec 14.2% 6.0% 930,912 1,056,505 125,593 930,911 Jan 22.4% 8.2% 1,269,166 0 n/a 1,269,167 Feb 35.1% 12.8% 1,978,765 0 n/a 1,978,763 Mar 50.6% 15.5% 2,400,701 0 n/a 2,400,702 Apr 69.3% 18.7% 2,898,005 0 n/a 2,898,010 May 79.1% 9.8% 1,523,102 0 n/a 1,523,100 June 85.4% 6.3% 970,266 0 n/a 970,262 July 90.3% 4.9% 756,037 0 n/a 756,037 Aug 95.5% 5.3% 814,545 0 n/a 814,545 Sept 100.0% 4.5% 691,020 0 n/a 691,020 Total 100.0% 100.0% 15,498,700 2,507,493 310,400 15,498,700 Tourist Tax Revenue Collection Curve N $3.5 c 0 $3.0 $2.s h g 0 $2.0 _2 Budgeted Z $1.5 , u ......... ... Actual $1.0 i Forecast $0.5 $0.0 ....................................._...._........................................_............._....................................................................................................._.......................... ro C ° v a ro 'f o zo -, 2 av g 1/6/201411:42 AM H'.\Revenue Report\Monthly Gas,Sales,and TDC Receipts r 0 0. a> cC a) C c v N .- > oCD N X O) rp C 7 @ CO. lD m In m H m -7 W 4- H p N 00 crl m H O' V= O a N l0 N 4 En H a> C) H Hi H H H H H H H H N H 0 H 0 H 0 H H W 4 W W W Cl, W W W a cn m m Cl) cn cn H H H a a a a a a a h It It h h it t CA H a * 0 * * H * r H *H H+ H >+ H H H >+ I 0 * U H * W W 0 * UHi Cl) x H x � x ' x w a * cx Cl) a H W a 0 0. a 0 a H a a a a Q U 4 O 4 4 a s W � W P4 •H z H W H 0 H 0 0 0 0 U a W H W CU CO Pa W Cn MI a w w w w w w w w w w w a U 7 CO ui O ui r Ln U r U r U uP U m U m U TV W o w m W m W m W in W W Lc) H Q m 0 t- Q Ca 2 H Ca q lP O lP V rl in N N N tn O \ H N \ > V' > N > N H O� r o O N 0 o O r- o m 0 0 N N `Zi Z Ln Zi rn Z 2 N N Io sr co Q O H H H N H a H w H H H 0 N U m U r-i U to U r U vP U U m rn O O m O O O m O O d, Q Ul M [- 41 H H N to r c) o. a) cc a) c aa) 5. > oX N (Z' • cu •a m c = co co• X C!) H Cl) N CO o 0 TY Cn H Cn CO Cl) Ot C)) In Cn Cl) rn W rn l0 o N l+0 �] r r r o N FC a FG H FG d' r r� r � a Q o H rn H o H O H to H N H H H H H N H F r O> Tr 0 O o 0 H 0 w 0 N 0 O 0 0 H 0 O o H H H H H o H H H H (N H H ui N N H W U 4 a a a a a a a a a a a Lx) w w w w w w w w w C!) Cl) C!1 Cl) cn cn Cn Cl) Cf) Cl) a a Kt a a a a a a a w a H h r7 ,'7 h r7 r7 r7 h r]p u U zz zz zz zz zz n D D b b D n H h h + h h h h h h h h O a x 4, w a �* 6 - w * w H� 1 Z z 0 rpTi w * # * ySaa as �a ;✓a w w oCx * a U)IX a oa �a as as as as Ha as Ell aa Q as 41 KC 414 Hg4 0r, w� a Z H H w z X F KC 0 H 0 a m 0 U w o H H r p w w at w w w w w w w U w w w w w w w w w w a w H a a r co in H . o w v, in U r U r U u) U m U ar U H U W U m U U o d, W H W o W ,-i win W m W m MN W 0) W W u) H as N q kJD q to O as iD q as N as to as as W N o Ln CO N o N H o 1p tp N in o o H r r Q Z lD O rWi ON O m O O o O p O N z m z O) z $Zi W Zi D\ Z 2 ll00 H Ln r r co 0 o F ron H ro H m H H co H (N E-,F ron H in H H H o n1 U Ol U o U al U cN U r U N U to U D\ U U al Q O O O H O O r O O N p o p O N u in N L4 v. in • N < 00 CO a to%CI 00 to .~-I N N tD 0 o N N n .H 0 n 00 a'. N U2 � N n a O ui ri .1 0i t^ o 0. K a to n .-1 N a ttG a, N. Q. W M M M M M M M M {/y N Y N N N N N h K N IA a) v a0) s a 0 0) m o N n n N h W m N ry a ° ° o° n m 00 • U Oi i CO C 0 N X 1-1 co-)W to iD m a m m `� m oo N U,- ] N N to o m 0 Q = 0 l0 n n ti EA- o ti ti o m ni U> tf') Q h an an h ,o N h Cr N 4 N 0 9 d o m h `T °m ti Z?" tN a 0 a i Ill m N N H to to H to an v. v. N N in .. r ro a to N. r.. N o r ZI OtN or f ti i o m v m IN an an ao u. N N N Y. '.j V1 'Cl. N °f m e o ° y :xi .• m m m o N a m m m .a n YJ v. an 1n an 4, v. h h I V H H CA r c m m m 2 9 v1Oi, m om m to e° .`-t °e< vri t°n o trr. e n F W Let N H V1 N N N N N vr .CO } J Z Z 0o D 2 o 0 N 0 a N o m m .' m O c ry a± 1' < va0i v00i to .1 in W v. an v. v. v. v. an v J N J 0 u y - • IIIIII N a Ol Aj N tD a N r to v0 0o n < N N N t0 N to O W 00 D to 0o O to o < LID Z N m O m N to a N 0 N m m lN O N N co m▪ p to Oa n o O ry m o m W o m U N N N N N co C ao v. V. v. N N V. v. N - VI. p N OD 00 F.', V N O N N to N 0. f r N 1' 0 a ri Oi o o ri n 7 3 ;11 .r-i .a-i - ti N N ZN N H H N N N an H ,.y N K a V to r m .. O rn m W o O n m 0p N o N N m N r rt O t0 H O O O N Q V1 H V. N N V. H 01 N N wr m o + --1 ■ti J O O 0 O O N O O N Q 5 0 . m o O 0 0 O H LL O 0 0 a ..,, . ,..., .• co 0, tti ... 2 N cn no m 1- r. o 1-.- m o r. "I m 'C P oi 4 4 r: e .; g 0 0- 0 .4. a, a N 01 en o_ ,-, L-• Lo .-I eo ..4 Ln Q) 4 ni ni ni" ni rfi 1.4 rei" rn ce ;,..1 1,1. V). IA a) = c NO ce •zr ...I en o rg, n3 N ..5. m F, . . P. ',,? ‘7.3 N Ce 1.1 0 t 14 S)-1 er-i g g Oir" M a)-0 L t=1 ,=.9 ‘-', NNNtN Ln a) w in in in VI VI VI VI VI 4 a^73 to, .1.4 CO C = CV C CL cry X a, gi ID 1.11 1— . RI R.. 2 'a a 2 l, . . o— , ... p ..6. <••-• 0 E `06 F): 4,, g ,,:1- 2 r.1 ",rf 1,1 rt V1 1-I rn oa CS ■:;411 :4,1 g„, tn N cn n .:, a 00 10 01 T1'; cc, rn .-• tv ry N • in in in in in VI VI 1.1. ,Z VI ,i , '...4 E 0 rS3 r:, a ..-.. 0 N CO . an an ar; Eul E. tri a - '4 r A ■-• T■''l T1 IV' '4 '''''N' r. ..n. ..,, tn. tr. tn. tn. tn. tr, .-■ in. co 0 , 0 2 0 N, `,..:,. N I-I ri c2 '‘.6 '53 In in in n. 4 El ls,' g■ 6: 4; " a n, a . r• o N m m m v, v, v, v, ..-. v, v, v, rri 1/1. I- I— 01 IJ/ ..1t7 V). N Cn .709' 'A , rv En 'Z' 01 ri. c7 = 0 El 'I.rni.2 - 1.17 rM't d 0 Cn N 0 Z < n an N va tO n CO VI g Z 0 In D ce An v; g.9 gal F.0 ?.0u8 0 4 5 2 ''' r7; .-. rn tot :? ,,, O i ^,.. "2,' 4 ;,1 cr. co ce E La ov o, o, 1/1 1.0 VI VI. VI 0.1. = 4/1 —a 0 g...) ao i; g ccila E 2 rri, va N nn tO '12 il 111 Ma Ic 'i i LIP CO g .4 01 u. 4 1.4 N it- Fi to ro 8 0 o rn 'LS 00 ,-■ N FO ;II_ PI rn.. 1-1 CO N. i g g .4 g cri ce 4 t-4 IN ,s1 4 o cn tn. at ff, r, . Cn . `41 71 § A in .0 CO ,-. ni op NN .T,.. . va vs va v. an va ,..j 0 Va fai O nu A 17 ni N ,i0 N 1.11 2 4 ' rin' 0 `=:, LT1 00:. " ", s° u, . .6 0 ',8tAFj ...-p. tf,' N0 > ■I-1 .-1 0 VI ''' lel 1.0 ,';:: V-, V, in t 4.',-■ • .-1 z ," 0 fo53 2 mr, a c0 7.3 rF91 i;'''0 O r-N., F/vii. , 01 ...' o; t-47 ,-,- e r.4 t r" n '4 g; O an va a I./1 ce ''.. F.,11• '01 ! P, 2 ■9+ 2 r9 a' -LT n g rr ^ 't^ u^i n N m N coo N r g 1� t0 tG tD N N 01 in N C O. C N N ice/! N VT h N in 01 C W N N N H N 7 C ✓ N w re O• N f m ° c ..° �1j N tD a)N W h N N mC N C a. ro W (3) to l7 10 n O b 0 t::-. 1O O Ln -iL U > n a ,,, ari co 0t j n ii e n N F,, ° a N V N t0 N N a' H N° o ^tD 1: Ill 1, 111 N s ^ N n m o v° FIJ N N I- I- H n O '0‘21 O 0 1 1 2 W VNmi 0 m 01 ° N O• W a H N N N N N rl F J N Z Oc n. 0 C U t;', m 'r-..`8 01 U Q m n m m m W H an an J J O U Q2 m m m m m .. ry 01 K 1D n H h H H H CM W N N▪ H DD V! Ci 0 Z o n m o ^ .c ° a o n to 2 an N of N t N a - .n in in K N N Ol m• p 10 0 m o O 10 in U in N N N N N n an O K m N o a Fl n o n : E ° w N O N tel 2 W m N 0 ~ Oti n N N N O N LA G N N N d N N V N N Y1 O N tJ°W 31 N O n O O m m O o N .O m N v J N a p 0 O .N 1 N Q 0 N▪ 1O N PI O O N m n Q O1 00 u1 an N 10 N N m O1 -C O N 01 r N 011 n N N co wo O ▪ W N O N 4.N N N ~ ~ N N 1 N 1 - H a0 Ct N 7 C v > W a O N W n a ■`" ^ e 10 N II Ia , a o a+ ur v. h N a'-0 CD to 1/1 N CO C 7 f0 C X CZ W m n N m o e ID 4... 7 O n O Q— O 7 lb lb N v° N U Q H N N 0 JI a m m rN°n o e o p rri n o y �' VI Vt h VI VI 44 .an 1./1 N N O m N m o ^ N Cr IN Lo 2 CO mai m m O. P .nil H h N h N Vni - N in N m ,r-l3 01 t V C o 0 0 o m 21 0.1% ti p N N 1.0 N N Vf vN N M O O N ° t0 la • g 00 2 0a N to Ol n � °° N m N Q• U v. wr H W z 5 0 W u n '" m v`Oi ° m 10 L.) > N n o 0 to 12 W Q m N ti N vi m ti ti n o W ▪ V) N IA N N N N N H J —I 0 0 i e o n � m o w a 7 m m m N o m O re No N p -m 0. CO Vt Vt V Vt n ut to o. N a 7 m m ry ° CO' au 0 Lo Z N of ai 00 oo 01 ai .-i- 41 VI VI N in VI 0.1 VI VI t0 N aC 01 m m a o uJ m an f n m A. U V1 N H N N N VI N H at O N aC f m so a m e o 1°a am • G O an an V. an h v, h H 01 O to 2 u US I N m ry N 0o v m °n n `" v 0 p 1n o a n ry o m n G H N .ail in in. in Vat Vf1 ..n. N 0 aR 0- O O 'A o N N ry m N a J N F 1 O 1N 0 O O m N O O N N N 0 N 0 0 N O N N ¢ 0a1 00 n N 1N!) n t~0 N U', 00 8 N N N 00 N N t0 O N n OOr V1 N N N lD lfl O t0 01 M d K N 00 N D01 N l0A 00 N N ~ C 4 lD N P V1 1D t0 N 00 .i yn1 Vf W vY N VF in VY h Vf v* 0 00 N 0: O N o v m m a0 N N 0 0) 1O e . , °m .m. u1Oi a m ~ N a' LF N ry m a vi m 00 N M a> W u? M ut V. VI N N V. 1..j LL -0 N as C 7 co m X -,W Q= O l0 m m m w iry m o n t0 V> W ¢ vt h . vi vrvi H ✓t ur n' N m thl v n m n m m 1D 'c': N m v a'OO .n. to to G n ro N ry n oro N N H vt VI VI to vi H Vi. M 0, 10 a vo o to on m o O j vi o. ro 00 o v a m v. ut ut v. ut u• ut Af H a v n 009, '� QI a 0 o n o 0 m 01 N g us E-7.: n n v`oi 10 10 ° o co li Ii ;; iii ;: N m N m m 1MD v N F R N N N v. N N N v. ai Q v 2 W 01 D J n N 0 00 O J V N P. ^ m m 00 V N m 7-1 O 00 L v■ on v. on i i + M N. J J 0 V T ry ry m O 1-1°0¢ v o n tii 4. m w to A 01 n coo , to LL v. v. v. h vt vt H 1p H CO K 1°0 01 vv a `� ono o n IC cr 4 u1 m o 1n o n .o 0 m o 01 0 Z u3 o N a n 00 In v, vs an v. an an v10 11' N P9 N N W N m ry ry .0 o N 1u 0 00 in a W 4 m r:° m m m u1 m " m u v uv. vv. .vi. tn. 01 0 H v. vt of nj i? 00 m N m v 4 m o o O a to m 0 n ,y rn w m ° m v a 'ti O v (^ u v , v. vM Z In 00 N W m n O N N O O H 00 ul m e ry 00 n n Gm r N m 00 o '-^ itt H elm. H H v. vnrv. H N N w 0 ■ m n O o 2 0 a N ..N ry N m O v N Li Q s o o N 0 0 o s o 0 0 0 0 0 �LL ▪ Co N N lD N N 0 '-I M O t 0 - n b CO .M-1 CO N N Inn vz O 0. O in N Co Co W m Co G O ce N Co .4" O 4' N N n -0. tO N~ ' N N N N N N N N VT .-C VT VT VT VT N VT i/f VT AA ✓ a) D 7 O N NIX m W m N n N O O)U f .° m o n CO ry C C ° H H 1/1 $ in in Co CO 7 33 in VT C X Q) -)W C °U o 0 ^ m a .° M 3 S o m o n ro G o_ ig 0 0 2 rp, .1 h h in N G Q to .n .n in N n 0 Co o Co o M n m Co 7 I a .0 in O ai O •■ In P..' l'-i: ro 2 cc o 2 m co O N 2 • d m w v m N e $ In ti O • H H H H H N air' O vt V CO W 01 y m P W n .h. ry m 0 J QI o ',.-1 n v c N D) • .n .n .n .n .• .n .n to Ot V F an D) IA §1U n o ry ri e S n o '501 M o�C Q .°o o °a m °m e 0 W H n F N W an H H rn .n .n .n ti J ry ry 2 , W Z Oti 0 to O �[ V m m .ni m "'cc �+ C ON u 0 Co N 0) O 0 t0 to ix 2 2 - O O N Ifl w g .n .. 1/. to rt1 w N .i J N J O O u y O O N m Q ry N m V ■O .-I QCo .c .On m O m D: LL WI V) V) n U1 VI V/ . ti Q vT 2 W n J y O .n n O n d Co n n tn. .0 Z Z Co '_sl O O Co i N. a to .n vs d .n .n .n N N n CO O . N 00m m Co m Co m T O v. .O O O n 0 ,,."1 O` V W NO Po IT n m g 1 O n etl 1 G n V, CC $ to m N m o to Co o N a a gn en O H H .n tot H H n Z H N Co n Co Co Co n Co o N CO IT CO CO m m O 2 Q N m S O N N N In. .n N to M N K CO O. O N CV m ti ID N Co N O N O O O : a ri - O O O O 2, 2 O O O n Q 01 CO LO m Q o o a i t o 0 0 V N O^1 eol N N ^ . O a N ri ep vi evi �O en' a .-i N M N N N N N Ma N CC W N N N YT in. in N N N a) 7 C N w N °' f N °% 4 h m N o co An to CD 1 a 0 N as c 7 0 cp X CO W C U'-o 7 a a m R, M <- • N N o> N -.� $ N o N N n N N N Ill N O — Q h p h O m O N. N N• N H VT 0 p 14 N N N N N N N N YJ N F F ch 2 K ?LT? N umi V o ▪ O e O• z ^ N ^ ° �° i to N LA rF 'CU F L I- z z • 0.O Q U n n m N O M co C O Q t` .~-� O 0 cc m VI H N H WV H N H M LA- W N J J 0 U n T i O m N O a 0 a vi co r co mN N in N N In in H m LL j m to n On n 31 ro °o, N to Z N ui Q N N in N to N N N H cc f0 c'.4 01 2• O m O O N CO er N N N e\ V N N N N in N N, tat O oC [fl m O n O of .mi ,G GO f m n ry • & 3 N O N N N N N N N i in of Z Eb O 0 N n lD p co N G �„ N a v m n " m VNI N tm/T H N N N e\ o C• `O O O O N O OO 'r eN N N IJ N N Q N N i 22 22 U 8 • N - O O I- X N O O O O O O N N H N N 01 N 0 0 01 n o O 0 N N O Ni VI al 10 o -4 a 0 a Onn 1(0 O .4-N N M N en IX W N N N N N �-1 N N in. co N C C V U7 0 > fO n n o rn m .-4 ~ O W m CO a . ry Co N o H. O an 0 0 a) F u, u. » u n h v N a' CES C C 0 C 0. 40 X O —33W � CO ry m m C) i p o ill 0> r a' in in L, on in tn ° .N ✓I. 01 in 00 O ry O ;i O ti N M O� 1U N CO O / T M r^/1 pp N 7. ut .c.1- N N H N H N 44 H 01 N N am co 0v O 00 � ry m n D ry m a a N h H H H H in WV in N H 01 a mn ° N O N a a n 8- ao 0 O v an H an v n u v n v a VT In m NO m � Co sl a N m 00 ry o m aai F- Q N m am .0 a N.mi N Hh ut vt H ut vt M in. 1. in O• 2 a, ~ Z = tD a m m a v n m rn Wo '4. N m Z 0 f 1-1 ° .01. IN• o al D Z H u v. V, V, v, N 0 0 cc J Q a pp m an W m N J h vi V N/1 O N n N 1D m N In Q n ry m O m m W m n v� m 401O D d i � N O O a .o aVa Q V V V Vl V / V Cr N 0 N .+ m p N m 4 O 2 00 n n IN a N an VT an An an N H N N O N 6 CO .n ON m C1`6.1' ~2 e m a r.s c ,n .n .n .n an an .n ,n .. Z in W N m m o ry m a m ti O N .. ti m m n m N 0 . N N N N N N V N N N K N O .N N .m 1 a ..1 O Y g \ g g o N\N \ N Z r Q 8 M O ,91 N LL O S O O N O ras O 'C ` 2 _ } 7 2/ vs- > 00 :cn1n 1 i 0\ ( 0 0 0. 0 0 in 0 _ \/_ <-k ` \ m cCa O U 5 r § & 2 2 2 6 & a / il \ \ \ E. \ \ \ \ \ § / _01 op k \ w N cci N ra: N V/ in _ali VI ) . : IQ co in I— & i \ _ o 0 i 1- § § lel § § | in 3 in in in an In In � in al U 0. § § k 0 o F. 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 § ii ID o up o an Pal WI Cr 4 to to an an an in an an Ita § \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\r. cc § \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ CO 2 00 ( } } } vi } } } } \ )\ ®\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \co § a�\ \ at n N f\ R w. H• m p O N N 0.-t O V CO 0 a r g N m a0 WD r0 , O aN v Q 0 w ~ .'1 O � lO 10 d ew O C .-1 O O N R 01 01 N N N W N N N co in. , CO r V. in. N N V? c a ; f\ W to .^, ,:19 to ty0 O n a 0 U7 O N d r d n 03 R N 2 ao O''' m d to 2 eb 03 t ° .n .n .°n vdi .n v. N tn N ▪ ^ H Ni CO C 0 N C X CL W as W T to N N N O O O o U 7 o D m N ry .i a 0> - Q ° ° :° Vt m :°, N N N ✓ d' ie at vi en m ao m N N I d m N o� e e m IA ^ N n d oO .-e V! 03 cn O O ', m N W ., N 00 Z n N ., N to O m N _ N n m u rn o V, N V. V. V. ut V. V. ya N d •, m M �,I 00 W N N to W m ea Q O M W N N M O N rn m m v.• h v. H ut N h N N m t o V o a N o N a n F • v1-1.VI v. v. v. v. vi v, an ..1 2 m J W O H m ° I- = .o a op o en o m m °n m C u N m a Z W V. H V. V. V. V. Vt V. O O N = u ce W O J Q d m O to t IS O J l'TS O b O rcl 14 o ° .n .n .n .n .n .n N L" O O W d n n 01 b 0 Q o m ., N N 0 .n V to do N ro e N 0 Vt CO CO Vt Vt V Vt a CA N K In • n m N o N m W N m ti LA U t m n O r H o H H H v, H n v N et 0 pp O CO OW ai N W N N Ol d M N d .O ry V .D .D rl > d .0 0 n N O n .n n .n d, v. N Vt H A Z VT H e[ n 51 b O W ■O n DO Ln m o m d N N tnt G d O O N M N N v, H v, h N N Lrl Vt wr N m o N m tg, O N m N O N N O N N O 0 , O O N O O _ $ ® _1-1 _I—I _1-1 _ _01 _10 _01 _ 0 / 2 ° § -0 L 6 m m - an an /) � _ ° ` , , ` 2 an \/a 0\\ 4 in \ in \ \ \ \ \ \ ƒ\d _ / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N 0 _ i— i— v) _ on ' k j 2 2 _4. _ Z LIJ CC 2 / _ § LO In co co Cg § \ \ ( \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \k on § & } } } } } \ } \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ 1'1 r.11 721 Li \ \ _ \ | I _ .5 _ _ 45 _ ( } a § v. � In in In In /) ` & M 03 )/a \\ \ } \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \ \ ) \ \ ) \ \ d E \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ ) in vi } _ Ul 2 = \ \ § P. § \ CO § & E2 Q• d \ in an or' an or. In vi. an rn _oi ■ Z ¥ z \ 2 2 \ \ \ / \ \ \ \ 0 \ ( \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m en re m isi Loƒ . . / . . _cri § i \} \ \ \\ f \ \co 0 > \ \ In an an an an v. _tfl IX § ■& In:Li ® _ . _ 0 ` ° ` \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1- -C ` $ 2 & 2 2 2 2 2 ■ $ &« \} 'cl In L � a i in\\ I , , - & \/a \>\ } ■\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ to \ \ \ N \ \ n in • \ ® N in CO N in An ® \ _ CO rrs I ƒ}§ \ § § \ I[ fn r Crl § \ to tor § 2 § § 5 \ 2 2 5 } § o § & \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \§o ]u 7,_ W 0 F9 o u | 5 J 5 3 3 § 2 5 . fO m el in B �k § \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ . tn , In An Wi. in _IA d jC B \ \ 2 \ \ \ N \ \ k n CO 1A M O N U1 N Ol 1!1 CO Q O V1 tD N Co N N O 1' Y1 V1 00 Co N M M O M '"1 = OF V1 M N 00 N d d M a K O O 0 O1 al N .^-1 N N w W N N N 4 N N N y N Dt . ce N N N H {A Co n Co f H in. d 7 C • N Co N O N m 10 m o �° Co N 00 N c m v a)) vt to cr, m c 7 CO 03• n W N U>W Q :° ill tai. to v, v, iD. A. a N CMp to m w a m to to .Nn RI o uiOi m m M u° o N N — vl vl vs H v. uv M N Co• o Co Co 00 lD .-1 Z Co o 0 00p m o± pa v0 i1 -7.I ° voni N m vMai •a N vl v u v* M N N � .N h ry m No e ry- m O Q I N ^rn r 2 00 mm N vAll V.v, in N I- F M E� n O T O N a 0 Q O h a m M H C' H 1/1 u N N N N O Z W 003 O V rvW ry ro O ti m O N V Q l0 W ^ ry O m ^ O C v• ai in vai vai tai. H 4, N W o N J J O CO V Q m Co c .n- O M N tD ry h Si O N N M m N W v. v v. to lo to v. to M H N N C V O a n O m o N Q m ro vt m ry o al u1 2 1 N P, (4 N a N N V ry N ut Vl N N '.j N 0G M CO ti to a N O n W 1D O N 2 O I� M O co h Ol M ✓ N ti h o CO 4, H ti N v p N W N C. N 00 pOpD I� O M O I� a tn. - W M cp - N m N N O to N ,II. N H h tail VI N N 2 N OC N m n Ft" m aD N 03• Of N W CO .... O CO 01 CO G r q to H N P N N CU d N O N Q t0 I� W T O '� eNi N .a-1 O ON ON N N N \ N N F U i O O O O O2 `. N M O LL N O O N N O O O N f .x N p00 N prpl M M C Vn N m H r to t0 N tD N N to a C 0 v' ca. vi Vt tD to 00 m 1D 2 t m N N M CO N M CO C 0 a Ct W ti ti ,. N N _ _ ti N LA si- a) i in. to VI. L� '. VT 1/0 VY N N C a a) W to Co > m m m ^ o m N m o a (V rr 2 01 N 1a n m n m W N l0 Oi r-: aOO vs pp CO La an -0 aa� N 10 t0 lD ~ C N t,/1 N N Vl Vf Vt N a ca N W N) o co x M i ! ! : ! ! ! ! : O`.y o{A 01 o 01_ W -, m n O W O N co. W co 1D a0 ZN N N N N VI N N H N) Y ce p N co d Z N N N t�0 N 40 I N W ;I m °m / 1. n m m o 40 0 N N N N in V1 N N (� O H I W as m vii ti m .�-i n ID vO1i 0 O Q) vii vii v^. N m e a N O, W N N N O1 N N N N N I. D: W N (� Z a1 0 n N N U) al a N N T O ID O W• 4 O tOa n O O u�l N M In o ~O Q N h VN. VN. N N N N 1- a 0 N N N N 1– — z• O H o n m n .ai $ $ Off O O• U m m .-. m CO .-� C U = Q O M ^ N N N m cm N m m 0 O O M N CC W K .Ni. vi. in v., vii .ii. vii vi. .--I J Q a N J O > } al 01 N N W N OI M Oat • 0: U 0 N VI VI m 0 V ^' cn6 ul M N tail O O N N IS O m • co co 0( O1 to l0 10 01 O M cc L.0 r.1 N u N N N N N v 2 g u n o m n s a ▪ a= N P. m n oo n v1Di o us o of ao a Dt in m Z O O N .N-. O O N N N N N Z a _ C N G o Z• C 01 o W LO N O 0] n O V1 10 O O n N VI Cr, (..) t0 01 O a0 i N V ai N al co rr,N N "� V1 Z AA W z . a Q fO CI N m o On a o N D- ,, 01 4 at ai 10 ut V tD 0 0 Q > vii 0 co to v°1 N m m M 0 N N N N N N N V. N Q +n N cc m 8 NN N m ,^y v m m m m m w 01 O O O N M O n N ^ N a U M v N 3 v o to ao o N N N N N N N N N W lD n 00 m O N M V O O O O N H .1 J >' N N N N N N N N N < 4 O O N co O O 0 N 1 l O yl O O O O O O O O O f • N N N N N N N N CAC January 9,2014 VIII-2 New Business 1 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve Proposal from Coastal Planning & Engineering dated October 24, 2013 to prepare a State Joint Coastal and Federal Permit Application for Time and Material under Contract 09-5362-S2 for a not to exceed amount of $98,971.50, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. OBJECTIVE: To approve proposal from Coastal Planning & Engineering to prepare a State Joint Coastal and Federal Permit Application. The purpose of this scope of work is to secure a 15-year multi-use permit in order to perform routine or emergency nourishment along Collier County beaches. The permit will allow for Collier County to be ready for an emergency response to a major storm event with approved sand sources. Borrow Area T1 will be re-permitted for use as an offshore sand source. The permit will include the use of upland sand sources to supplement or substitute for an offshore sand source. The template will be a composite of the 2005/06 and 2013/14 design. The project will be designed with a 6 to 10-year project life, but will accommodate sea level rise during the project life. The permit application will request approval of two major nourishments from offshore sand sources supplemented by truck haul projects. In addition, multiple truck haul projects, every couple of years, using upland sand sources, will be requested as a substitute for dredging from offshore sand sources. The aim is to provide the County flexibility to change with the dredging market and needs of the County. The major differences between this permit applications compared to previous permits are as follows: ❑Beach management flexibility o Permitting three types of projects — routine maintenance, major post-storm restoration, and emergency hot spot nourishment using both offshore sand source and truck haul from an upland sand source. o Emergency truck haul will be permitted to allow for quick sand placement above and below mean high water during an emergency situation. o Permit three (3) upland sand sources and Doctors Pass as a sand source to supplement the offshore sand source. ❑Sea level rise incorporated into the design o This will allow for a progressively higher beach and dune template to help combat rising sea level. ❑Longer design life o The current design life is variable, which will be changed to a design life of between 6 to 10 years to allow for beach management flexibility and economy. ❑Longer permit length of 15 years o The FDEP permit length will allow fifteen (15) years or two beach nourishment events. If the Permittee is unable to complete two events within 15 years, they may request an extension. o We will request that the Corps accommodate this rule in their permitted length. ❑Expedited permitting process if feasible o Reduce the time and cost for securing a new permit. CAC January 9,2014 VIII-2 New Business 2 of 2 o The FDEP project criteria for expediting the project is: Beach nourishment projects that are constructed and maintained with no substantial changes in project scope, and past performance indicates the project has met design expectations are eligible for a simplified and expedited permitting process. o The Corps stated that the permit processing would be straight forward as long as there were no major policy changes in such things as critical habitat, endangered species, or in basic conditions for their treatment. o An application for a new BOEM license will not be part of the scope of work. o The entire 2006 and 2013 fill lengths will be permitted, with the option of including gaps where no nourishment is required. CONSIDERATIONS: The Scope of Work (SOW) has been prepared in support of Collier County's effort to permit a comprehensive renourishment program for its beaches under the new FDEP 15-year permit rules. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for this project is currently budgeted in Collier Beach Design & Construction Project 80096 -Tourist Development Tax Fund 195. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:Ther e is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff is recommending that the CAC and TDC approve this item. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: RECOMMENDATION: To approve Proposal from Coastal Planning & Engineering dated October 24, 2013 to prepare a State Joint Coastal and Federal Permit Application for Time and Material under Contract 09-5362-S2 for a not to exceed amount of $98,971.50, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. Prepared By: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Natural Resources Department Attachments: A) CP&E Proposal; CAC January 9,2014 VIII-2 New Business 1 of 10 Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc.,A CB&I Company 3 2481 NW Boca Raton Blvd. u Boca Raton, FL 33431 Tel: +1 561 391 8102 � - Fax:+1 561 391 9116 www.CBI.com December 31, 2013 Gary McAlpin Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: State Joint Coastal and Federal Permit Application Development and Submittal, Collier County Beach Renourishment Project, Contract No. 09-5362 Dear Gary: The attached scope of work and fee proposal is for services needed to prepare a permit application for a 15-year multi-use permit for the Collier County Beach Renourishment Project. This proposal assumes a "best case scenario" for permitting the next project with an efficient, timely permitting process. This proposal was revised on October 24, 2013 per discussions with Coastal Zone Management and on December 31, 2013 to change the contract number. The Scope of Work, fee proposal, and hourly rate sheet to perform this work are attached as Exhibits A, B, and C. The proposed work will be performed by Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. a CB&I Company. The work described in Exhibit A has a time and materials cost not to exceed $98,971.50. The rate sheet is attached as Exhibit C. Work will begin immediately after our receipt of your signed written notice to proceed. Please sign below and return to me as your acceptance and authorization to proceed. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, , (` e L...___.____ Ste Atio Ke ehn, P.E. Senior oastal Engineer Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. Please Reply To: Stephen Keehn Phone: 561.391.8102 E-Mail Address: Stephen.Keehn(a CBI.corn CAC January 9,2014 VIII-2 New Business 2 of 10 EXHIBIT A Scope of Work State Joint Coastal and Federal Permit Application Development and Submittal, Collier County,Florida October 25,2013 This Scope of Work (SOW) has been prepared in support of Collier County's effort to permit a comprehensive renourishment program for its beaches under the new FDEP 15-year permit rules. This scope of work assumes a favorable permitting environment (i.e., assuming no major obstacles, delays, or new studies are introduced by State or Federal agencies or excessive delays due to understaffing or other priorities). The permit application will be for essentially the same project built in 2005-06 and planned for 2013, which will simplify permit processing. The project area extends along the Gulf Coast in Collier County, FL between FDEP monuments R-22 to R-79. The purpose of this scope of work is to secure a 15-year multi-use permit in order to perform routine or emergency nourishment along Collier County beaches. The permit will allow for Collier County to be ready for an emergency response to a major storm event with approved sand sources. Borrow Area Ti will be re-permitted for use as an offshore sand source. The permit will include the use of upland sand sources to supplement or substitute for an offshore sand source. The template will be a composite of the 2005/06 and 2013/14 design. The project will be designed with a 6 to 10-year project life, but will accommodate sea level rise during the project life. The permit application will request approval of two major nourishments from offshore sand sources supplemented by truck haul projects. In addition, multiple truck haul projects, every couple of years, using upland sand sources, will be requested as a substitute for dredging from offshore sand sources. The aim is to provide the County flexibility to change with the dredging market and needs of the County. The major differences between this permit applications compared to previous permits are as follows: • Beach management flexibility o Permitting three types of projects — routine maintenance, major post-storm restoration, and emergency hot spot nourishment using both offshore sand source and truck haul from an upland sand source. o Emergency truck haul will be permitted to allow for quick sand placement above and below mean high water during an emergency situation. o Permit three (3) upland sand sources and Doctors Pass as a sand source to supplement the offshore sand source. • Sea level rise incorporated into the design o This will allow for a progressively higher beach and dune template to help combat rising sea level. • Longer design life o The current design life is variable, which will be changed to a design life of between 6 to 10 years to allow for beach management flexibility and economy. • Longer permit length of 15 years COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING, INC.,A CB&I COMPANY CAC January 9,2014 VIII-2 New Business 3 of 10 o The FDEP permit length will allow fifteen (15) years or two beach nourishment events. If the Permittee is unable to complete two events within 15 years, they may request an extension. o We will request that the Corps accommodate this rule in their permitted length. • Expedited permitting process if feasible o Reduce the time and cost for securing a new permit. o The FDEP project criteria for expediting the project is: Beach nourishment projects that are constructed and maintained with no substantial changes in project scope, and past performance indicates the project has met design expectations are eligible for a simplified and expedited permitting process. o The Corps stated that the permit processing would be straight forward as long as there were no major policy changes in such things as critical habitat, endangered species, or in basic conditions for their treatment. o An application for a new BOEM license will not be part of the scope of work. o The entire 2006 and 2013 fill lengths will be permitted, with the option of including gaps where no nourishment is required. The following services are proposed in this scope of work: A. Administration The project manager will be responsible for general project administration with assistance from other senior staff as appropriate. Administration includes coordination, meetings, progress and status updates, budget control, scheduling, planning, internal meetings, and other associated management tasks. B. Prepare Joint Coastal Permit Application Every effort will be made to seek and secure a 15-year permit. State and Federal permits and approvals will be required to implement future beach renourishment, once the existing permit expires. We will evaluate and incorporate existing and recently acquired design, geotechnical, and environmental documentation into a Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) application package that presents the information in the approved agency format. No new or additional field investigations or studies are proposed. In addition to descriptive information, the permit application will include the appropriate sketches and drawings to graphically describe the project. We will provide the draft JCP package to Collier County for review and comment. Electronic copies (Adobe Acrobat PDF format on CD- Rom) of the JCP application will be prepared and submitted to the FDEP for distribution and review. We will also submit one (1) hard and electronic copy of the permit application to the appropriate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) representative responsible for project review and comment, and we will provide electronic copies to other agencies as needed. The permit application will incorporate the results of the 2013 nourishment project. The permit documents will include information pertinent to beach erosion, beach performance, environmental setting, design details in permit drawings, sand source criteria, and any other information deemed important by State and Federal agencies. The permit will also incorporate 2 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC.,A CB&I COMPANY CAC January 9,2014 VIII-2 New Business 4 of 10 information developed in recently completed geotechnical investigations, engineering studies, and physical monitoring reports. 1. Pre-Application Meeting We will coordinate with the County and State and Federal resource protection agencies to schedule a project pre-application meeting. We will schedule the pre-application meeting sufficiently in advance to allow those State and Federal agencies responsible for project evaluation to attend. Agencies that will be invited include the FDEP, USACE, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). The purpose of the meeting will be to describe the design decisions that we and the County reached in formulating the proposed project. Goals of the pre-application meeting are to obtain agency input on the proposal, identify additional data needs and concerns, and develop responses to those issues before submittal of the JCP. By meeting with the agencies before formal submittal of the JCP, we will identify the critical tasks and criteria needed to process a 15-year permit. The FDEP has new rules for repeating nourishment projects that will reduce the amount of effort required, but they have not been finalized nor formally accepted by the USACE. This phase includes one trip to Tallahassee to meet and coordinate with the agencies. Consultation with the Corps of Engineers (USACE) in Ft. Myers will occur to fully investigate criteria for an expedited permit process and a 15- year permit length, and how the Corps process can be integrated into the new FDEP procedures. We will make recommendations to the County based on the results of these meetings. 2. Prepare Engineering Sections We will prepare an updated engineering summary of the project area that will supplement previously submitted engineering reports. This summary will analyze recent trends and contain an updated sediment budget for the area. We will update the design based upon previous design templates and maximize the design life where feasible. The design will account for historic volumetric and MHW change rates. The design will propose a progressively higher beach and dune design template in order to account for future sea level rise. Dune restoration and planting will also be included within the plan. This design methodology will be documented within the engineering summary for use in permitting. Along with the engineering summary, we will prepare a project and construction description, project schedule, impact analysis, and other required engineering documents and drawings for the permit application. Permit sketches will be developed and finalized within this phase. The permit sketches will include a plan-view design with corresponding beach profile cross-sections along with borrow area design. Results of the previous engineering, inlet and monitoring reports will be incorporated into the permit application. The engineering report and attachments will make a case for an expedited FDEP permitting process. The criteria that beach nourishment projects that are constructed and 3 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING, INC.,A CB&I COMPANY CAC January 9,2014 VIII-2 New Business 5 of 10 maintained with no substantial changes in project scope, and past performance indicates the project has met design expectations will be used for a simplified and expedited permitting process under the following criteria: a. Beach nourishment has been conducted at least once since the initial construction of the beach restoration; b. Physical and biological site conditions have not changed since initial construction of the project that would result in a violation of water quality standards or a significant adverse impact to the coastal system; c. Physical monitoring data and analysis has shown the project has performed according to design expectations; d. The project has met performance expectations, with due regard for storm impacts, by maintaining the beach restoration project through the design nourishment interval; e. The advance nourishment fill volume is not greater than the design volume used in the preceding maintenance events after an allowance for incidental erosion of the design profile (backshore berm); f. Biological monitoring data and analysis has shown no additional adverse impacts greater than those anticipated by the original permitted project; g. For the item f above, an analysis of actions at Blind Pass will address how they met FDEP Strategic Management Plan and interlocal agreement criteria. h. The applicant has conducted and submitted to the Department all the physical and biological monitoring data and analysis required by permits for the preceding project. 3. Prepare Environmental Sections Our biologists will review and compile updated environmental data (e.g. sea turtle nesting data, shorebird nesting, and hardbottom resources) that may be requested by FDEP and/or USACE. This will include pre-construction hardbottom biological monitoring data collected in August 2013 before the 2013 beach renourishment project. A biologist will coordinate with various agencies to obtain any additional data. No new field work is proposed. Environmental sections of the JCP application, including threatened and endangered species present, existing natural communities, wildlife surveys, biological resources, etc., will be prepared by a qualified biologist. Biologists will also provide additional information for the USACE which may be required for consultation with USFWS and NMFS, such as the Manatee Biological Evaluation (USFWS) and the Section 7 Consultation Checklist (NMFS). We will assist the USACE in preparing a public notice, consultation letter and advertising the public notice. Based upon recent guidance, it is anticipated that the environmental information submitted with the JCP application and within the Manatee Biological Evaluation (USFWS) and Section 7 Consultation Checklist (NMFS) will be sufficient to satisfy NEPA requirements, including Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation with USFWS and NMFS and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation with NMFS. It is assumed that the USFWS Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion (SPBO) for nesting sea turtles and the USFWS P3BO for piping plovers will apply to this project. If a 4 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING, INC.,A CB&I COMPANY CAC January 9,2014 VIII-2 New Business 6 of 10 hopper dredge is utilized for the project, then the terms and conditions from the NMFS Gulf of Mexico Regional BO (GRBO) should be applied. Use of a cutterhead dredge would require concurrence from NMFS with a "not likely to adversely affect" determination or a separate BO for this project. This scope of work does not include the preparation of a Biological Assessment (BA), EFH Assessment or Environmental Assessment; it is expected that the environmental data provided to USACE during the permit application phase will be adequate to obtain all agency approvals. The environmental and biological criteria needed to justify an expedited permitting process (62B-49.0055, see Section 2 above) will be integrated into this section. Environmental, geology, and cultural resources documents developed for permitting and monitoring from the permit agencies for the Collier project over the last 10 years will be assembled and organize on a CD for use by the permit agencies. This will provide an accessible reference for agency action on this repeat project. 4. Prepare Geology Sections Results of the past geotechnical investigations will be incorporated into the permit application. Existing permit sketches of Borrow Area T1 should suffice. A compatibility analysis of the borrow areas will be developed for the permit application. No new field work is being proposed. Design of a borrow area, preparation of permit sketches and assembling geotechnical data in FDEP format for permitting the Cape Romano sand source subject to availability of funding remaining in this task order after completion of RAI No. 1 response. No new research, investigation or analysis is assumed as part of this task. Upland sources will be researched and characterized in addition to the offshore borrow areas. This will include a recent sand sample and laboratory report characterizing the sand supplier product suitable for Collier County beaches. This will allow flexibility of sand source options during emergency nourishment situations. A small report of local sand sources will be prepared along with an analysis of representative mine samples for use in permitting. 5. Prepare Special Plans In addition to project-specific engineering and scientific information, the following items will be required to receive a permit for the project. These plans will be based on those prepared for the last permit and will be submitted as data acquisition allows: a. Sediment Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QA/QC) Plan: A revised Sediment QA/QC Plan will be developed and submitted to the FDEP for review and approval. The new plan will integrate the latest sediment data from the project area. Separate plans will be developed for the offshore borrow areas and upland sand sources. 5 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING, INC.,A CB&I COMPANY CAC January 9,2014 VIII-2 New Business 7 of 10 b. Physical Monitoring Plan: The physical monitoring plan for the beach and offshore borrow area will be updated. Monitoring will consist of profile surveys of the beach and periodic surveys of the borrow areas. The plan will be submitted to FDEP for approval. c. Biological Monitoring Plan: The biological monitoring plan for the beach will be updated, if needed. Monitoring will consist of various diver investigations of the nearshore hardbottom habitat. Results of the 2013 pre-construction dives will be included. C. Respond to Agency Comments/RAI Phase This task includes preparing responses for one (1) Request for Additional Information (RAI) from the Corps and FDEP, as well as travel to visit FDEP offices one (1) time. The FDEP is using an extended information collection period in lieu of RAI No. 2, which will be covered in this task in conjunction with task E. We will also recommend actions to be taken by the County should they be needed to move the permit process along. Recent experience shows that one round of RAI responses with an extended question period should address all the major issues, except when the agencies are slow to process the permit application due to understaffing, inexperience or other priorities. Anything beyond a first set of RAI and reasonable extended questions period or equivalent will be discussed with County staff to develop a course of action. Recent physical monitoring results will be provided to FDEP to supplement the permit application. D. Finalize Permit Application Process This task includes: Negotiating Permit and BO Requirements, Issuance of Public Notice, Response to Comments on Public Issuance, Coordination of Final Permit Issuance, and providing last-minute documents to assist agencies in issuing the permit This proposed scope of work assumes that the following tasks will not be required based upon recent guidance: a chapter 62B-41.008h survey, Environmental Assessment, Biological Assessment, EFH Assessment, a new Division of Historic Resources investigation of the beach or borrow area, mitigation plan, modeling, and other major field investigations or reports. This scope of work does not include County permitting or other administrative actions. The pending BOEM lease will be good for at least 2 years, and no action will be included towards application of a newer lease. Permit fees will be provided by the County. 6 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING, INC.,A CB&I COMPANY \ pk- _„ - Q}- _ -; ; - ; ° 4/j �, ; , © 2 &\ !m ■ ! !` ^ N , ) c \\j §{ ‘.1 , e . 20 ik - �R ~ - 0 ~ - -, .7, , 000 '41" # P2 , ~ §". !`® k #I 7 , , !! = . / ` ~ ® - \ ! !!§ \ ON \ ,2)! ! - 0¥ � ,l�: 2q § q".g , , � , . §| ; Ua 7 \� (2` ` 1 _ . - g!§ 4 }. `2 !k!® I „ ! X22[ 2 !;«| ! ` - Oil 4 9 { r�© I MI' 7 , � ! `i ) !!;0 ! 1 ® ® } @)§ 0, §� "- .2a | 0 N _ § k� ®1 \ V" .3i= ƒ „ - ) o�| 8� - _ ! ! ,- O I , .93 ` } , ■ a" : / •kL ! N , , , !!] !~ ` § \ // ` \ - ° §q� -f / r... :: 7 § k �k. \ E /° ° | § ! � ! f\ ) | t . ! ! [ ! . a ! � ) {$ / i ) / ` 1 “\// / ifi 3000 1 ! � ! | | E, | 1 - , ,.� ,, 2 ! CAC January 9,2014 VIII-2 New Business 9 of 10 EXHIBIT C RATE SCHEDULE CAC January 9,2014 VIII-2 New Business 10 of 10 Schedule B Contract No: 09-5262 "County Wide Engineering Services" Standard Hourly Rate Schedule for all disciplines Personnel Category Standard Hourly Rate Principal $195 Senior Project Manager $165 Project Manager $148 Senior Engineer $155 Engineer $119 Senior Inspector $85 Inspector $65 Senior Planner $140 Planner $110 Senior Designer $115 Designer $100 Environmental Specialist $115 Senior GIS Specialist $145 GIS Specialist $100 Clerical $60 Surveyor and Mapper $130 CADD Technician $85 Survey Crew - 2 man $130 Survey Crew- 3 man $160 Survey Crew- 4 man $180 This list is not intended to be all-inclusive. Hourly rate fees for other categories of professional, support and other services shall be mutually negotiated by the County and firm on a project by project basis as needed. CAC Jun 9,2014 VIII-3 New Busines 1 of 1 11/14/2013 Conduct a Beach Workshop several months after the current Truck haul project is complete to address: 1. Beach History Summary Report • Knowing where we've been relative to the beaches from 1995 will help us determine where we need to go i. Year by year "sand budget "developed beginning in 1995 addressing each major beach segment. ii. Beginning conditions iii. Annual erosion impacts iv. Sand bypassing events and potential impacts v. Storm and storm damage vi. Renourishment activities—Dredge and Truck Haul • Developed for Barefoot &each' vVigginxPass, VanderbibBeach' Pa|icanGayBeache4 Clam Pass, Clam Pass beaches/Seagate, Park shore Beach, Doctors Pass, and Naples Beaches, • Graphically displayed/Automated to show location of MHW and Hardbottom year by year. 2. Review of existing Truck Haul project • Summary of Metrics • Lessons learned • Good, Bad and the Ugly • Lee County and FDEP Petitions 3, Options Moving Forward • Coastal givens—width of beaches,closeness of hardbottom, shallow coastal environment, Sand supply imitations, Renourishment season/endangered species, location of Inlets, Quality ot offshore sand/screening * Federal 50 year grant • FEMA/Federal and State funding • Permitting issues and Challenges—federal,state and Local • Trends in the dredging industry • Periodic maintenance or major dredging events • Regionalization—opportunities and drawbacks • Owning our own dredge—Needs, size,economics, payout,joint ownership • Beach hardening options/limitations 4. January 9, 2014 Community Forum headed by Linda Penniman addressing Beach renourishment, CAC January 9,2014 VIII-3a New Business 1 of 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve a proposal from Coastal Planning & Engineering dated December 16, 2013 for a Historic Beach Performance Presentation under Contract 09- 5362-S2 for a not to exceed amount of $19,980.60, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. OBJECTIVE: To approve a proposal with Coastal Planning & Engineering to provide a Historic Beach Performance Presentation. CONSIDERATIONS: The scope of work is in support of Collier County's effort to create a series of images showing shoreline and/or volumetric trends since 1995 for all project reaches for presentation to County residents. The goal is to integrate historic events, measured beach changes and annual or multi-year processes in a visual display that will create a framework to assist in future planning of the Collier County beach management program. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for this project is currently budgeted in Collier Beach Design & Construction Project 80096 -Tourist Development Tax Fund 195. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:Ther e is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff is recommending that the CAC and TDC recommend this item for approval. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: RECOMMENDATION: To approve a proposal from Coastal Planning & Engineering dated December 16, 2013 for a Historic Beach Performance Presentation under Contract 09-5362-S2 for a not to exceed amount of$19,980.60, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. Prepared By: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Natural Resources Department Attachments: CP&E Proposal CAC January 9,2014 VIII-3a New Business Coastal Planning & Engineering, inc.,A CB&I Company 2481 NW Boca Raton Blvd. CBI Boca Raton,FL 33431 Tel; +1 561 391 8102 Fax:+1 561 391 9116 www.CBl.com January 3, 2014 Gary McAlpin Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Historic Beach Performance Presentation - Contract No.: 09-5262 Dear Gary: The attached scope of work and fee proposal is for services needed to prepare a visually captivating presentation on Collier County's historic beach performance. This proposal is based on our discussions with Coastal Zone Management on December 6th, 2013 and their outline dated November 11, 2013. This proposal was revised on January 3, 2014 to change the contract number. The Scope of Work, fee proposal, and hourly rate sheet to perform this work are attached as Exhibits A, B, and C. The proposed work will be performed by Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. a CB&I Company (CB&I). The work described in Exhibit A has a time and materials cost not to exceed $19,980.60. The cost sheet is attached as Exhibit C. Work will begin immediately after our receipt of your notice to proceed. Please sign below and return to me as your acceptance and authorization to proceed. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, Ste hen K` ehn, P.E. Seni .,Coastal Engineer Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. Please Reply To: Stephen Keehn Phone: 561.391.8102 E-Mail Address: Stephen.Keehnt CBl.com CAC January 9,2014 VIII-3a New Business 2 of 7 EPit vi ,,,) ii-- Authorized Corporate Signature 7"-A Jyyut s Pie re-v Printed Name L1 i c---e Prys tQ 1t Title CLIENT: Collier County Government Acknowledgement and Acceptance Authorized Representative Signature Printed Name Title Date cc: Sheri Dindial, CB&I CAC January 9,2014 VIII-3a New Business 3 of 7 EXHIBIT A Scope of Work Historic Beach Performance Presentation,Collier County,Florida December 16,2013 This Scope of Work (SOW) has been prepared in support of Collier County's effort to create a series of images showing shoreline and/or volumetric trends since 1995 for all project reaches for presentation to County residents. The goal is to integrate historic events, measured beach changes and annual or multi-year processes in a visual display that will create a framework to assist in future planning of the Collier County beach management program. A. Administration The project manager will be responsible for general project administration with assistance from other senior staff as appropriate. Administration includes coordination, meetings, progress and status updates, budget control, scheduling, planning, internal meetings, and presentation of the final product to Collier County. This work will utilize existing data assets and reports to meet the objectives of the presentation. B. Prepare Historic Beach Performance Presentation In order to prepare a visually stimulating and easy to understand presentation that summarizes the historic beach performance of Collier County beaches from Barefoot Beach to Gordon's Pass, the following actions will be performed by Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., a CB&I Company(CB&I): 1. Compile historic beach survey data and normalize datasets to be referenced to a uniform vertical and horizontal datum. 2. Research activities that may have affected the beaches throughout the County for the same time period as the survey data. We will seek County assist in completing the record prior to 2003. Events may include: o Beach nourishments by dredge or truck haul o Construction or removal of structures o Sand bypassing at inlets o Storm impacts o Inlet dredging 3. Calculate both MHW shoreline and volumetric changes for each reach individually since 1995 annually and over 5-10 year time periods. 4. Create a Microsoft PowerPoint animated presentation for each individual reach that will display measured changes as well as potential influential events. Slide will transition to one another to display changes and pertinent data. Reaches include: o Barefoot Beach o Clam Pass Park/Seagate Dr. o Wiggins Inlet o Park Shore o Vanderbilt Beach o Doctors Pass o Pelican Bay o Naples Beach o Clam Pass CAC January 9,2014 VIII-3a New Business 4 of 7 5. Create lists, tables and figures to record the various pieces of information that will support the visual presentation. 6. Utilize GIS and CAD support as needed to incorporate aerial photographs and maps into the visual presentation. 7. Explore ways to display the historical information to develop the clearest method of portraying historic beach performance to an interested County resident. This will be done in consultation with the CZM office. C. Presentation Present the result at a time and location selected by the County. D. The CB&I Team: Thomas Pierro,P.E.—Senior Project Manager/Engineer Nicole Sharp, P.E.—Professional Engineer Tara Brenner—Junior Engineer Angela Belden—Senior CAD/GIS Specialist Heather Vollmer—GIS specialist Steve Keehn,P.E. -Advisor 2 iU) 0D N o(n c O N N co V' M O > N U 69 t N ▪ CO 0 .— U O N U) O il 69 LO VI C Z ° as U co IF'� 00 N '- t') O OO Q— O U= tai CAC January 9,2014 VIII-3a New Business 6 of 7 EXHIBIT C RATE SCHEDULE CAC January 9,2014 VIII-3a New Business 7 of 7 Schedule B Contract No: 09-5262 "County Wide Engineering Services" Standard Hourly Rate Schedule for all disciplines Personnel Category Standard Hourly Rate Principal $195 Senior Project Manager $165 Project Manager $148 Senior Engineer $155 Engineer $119 Senior Inspector $85 Inspector $65 Senior Planner $140 Planner $110 Senior Designer $115 Designer $100 Environmental Specialist $115 Senior GIS Specialist $145 GIS Specialist $100 Clerical $60 Surveyor and Mapper $130 CADD Technician $85 Survey Crew - 2 man $130 Survey Crew - 3 man $160 Survey Crew- 4 man $180 This list is not intended to be all-inclusive. Hourly rate fees for other categories of professional, support and other services shall be mutually negotiated by the County and firm on a project by project basis as needed. CAC January 9,2014 VIII-3b 1 of 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve a proposal with Humiston & Moore Engineers dated December 26, 2013 for Professional Services to assist the county with services related to current industry trends under Contract 09-5262-S2 for a not to exceed amount of$10,000 and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. OBJECTIVE: To move forward with Professional Services to assist the County with services related to current industry trends as outlined in proposal. CONSIDERATIONS: Humiston & Moore will contact dredging contractors, marine contractors, other engineers, the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, various offices within the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to gather background information to provide a written summary of opinion relating to the current trends in the various areas outlined in the proposal. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for this project is currently budgeted in Collier Beach Design & Construction Project 80096 -Tourist Development Tax Fund 195. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff is recommending that the CAC and TDC recommend approval of this item. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: RECOMMENDATION: To approve proposal with Humiston & Moore Engineers dated December 26, 2013 for Professional Services to assist the County with services related to current industry trends under Contract 09-5262-S2 for a not to exceed amount of $10,000 and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. Prepared By: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Natural Resources Department Attachments: Proposal CAC January 9,2014 VIII-3b 1 of 6 ' HUMISTON � &MOORS °4 ENGINEERS COASTAL 5679 STRAND COURT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34110 ENGINEERING DESIGN FAX 239 594 2025 a» csr x ��: w. ;»a,:»s�e:. AND PERMITTING PHONE:239 594 2021 December 26, 2013 Gary McAlpin, P.E.,Coastal Zone Management Collier County Public Utilities Engineering Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Proposal for Collier County Contract 09-5262-S2 Request for Work Order Dear Gary: In response to your request for Professional Services to assist the County with services related to current industry trends, the following Scope of Work is proposed per Paragraph 1.2.2 of Contract Agreement 09- 5262-S2 and is proposed in compliance with the Agreement: 1) Contact dredging contractors, marine contractors, other engineers, the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, various offices within the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to gather background information to provide a written summary of opinion relating to the current trends in the following areas: a. Dredging and truck hauling for beach restoration and maintenance projects, b. Opportunities or limitations in regionalization of projects for state funding participation, c. Direction of state funding, d. State DEP policies on roles of coastal engineers in design, construction observation and monitoring, e. Operation of a dredge by the county, and f. Beach hardening and shore protection opportunities. 2) The deliverable for item 1) will be a 5 to 7 page summary delivered in draft form by the end of January 2014. 3) Upon receipt of input from County staff, the report will be finalized within one work week of receiving comments. 4) As many of the areas to be addressed in the report are policy related and subject to change, the purpose of this document is to summarize current trends industry and regulatory trends in construction, management and funding for consideration by the county staff in the management of their beaches. 5) H&M will attend and present the findings of this report with County staff at a county workshop to be scheduled in March 2014. F:\H&M-22-000\22-063-Collier-County\Collier County Beach Trends\Current_Industry_Trend_Proposal.docx Page 1 of 2 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-3b 2 of 6 We proposed to provide these services on a time and materials basis at a not to exceed amount of$10,000. Upon acceptance of this proposal,please issue a Work Order to incorporate these services. If county requests that H&M provide additional services, such services would be provided as Additional Services to be billed on a time and materials basis in accordance with the fee schedule that is included as part of the existing referenced Agreement, or the budget for any Additional Services tasks will be negotiated separately as deemed necessary, and a budget amendment will be requested. Sincerely yours, HUMISTON MOO' ENGINEERS Brett D. Moore, P.E. President F:\H&M-22-000\22-063-Collier-County\Collier County Beach Trends\Current_Industry_Trend_Proposal,docx Page2of2 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-3b Collier County Beach Nourishment Trends 3 of 6 Humiston and Moore Engineers Contract 09-5262-S2 Date:December 26,2013 Report on Currents Trends-Beach Restoration&Maintenance I.II.Prepare Draft Report 5 toi7eeaseRegulators,Etc. I p t? .III.Presentation at Workshop I. Contact Contractors,Engineers,Regulators,Etc. I. Conferences and meetings RATE/UNIT HOURS/QTY COST MARKUP 'AMOUNT Principle Engineer i 175 14 $2,450.001 Senior Engineer 1 145 2 $290.001 Analyst ...___. 125 0 $0.001 Engineer III ! 105 0 $0.001 Engineer li V 95 4 $380.001 Engineer 11 90 3 ! $27000 Seniot Technician ; 85 0 $0_001 Env-Sci/field observati 75 0 $0.00 Jr.technician 1 70 0 f ( $0.00:_ Micro soft proltech 1 55 0 $0 00 IAdmin/clerical 40 0 $0.00; ;PLOTTING.BOND 1 25.001 i _.._.__$0.00,1 'PLOTTING VELLUM1 10.001 0 $000 1EXPENSE mallm_gs,copying '; _ $0.00. EXPENSE/ $0 00 —. $3,399.09 Total Task I $3.390.00 1 — CAC January 9,2014 VIII-3b 4 of 6 Collier County Beach Nourishment Trends Humiston and Moore Engineers Contract 09-5262-S2 I 1 i 1 I 1 I Date:December 26,2013 'Report on Currents Trends-Beach Restoration&Maintenance II. Contact Contractors,Engineers,Regulators,Etc. r it Prepare Draft Report 5 to 7 pages I III. Presentation at Workshop I 1 II.Prepare Draft Report 6 to 7 pages II.A. File Draft with County I tt 1 RATE/UNIT 1 HOURS/QT`COST MARKUP 1AMOUNT Principle Engineer 175 15 1 $2,625 00 Senior Engineer 145 2 $290.00: Analyst 125 0� $0 00 _. En.sneer III 105 0 $0 00 Engineer II 95 2 • $190.001 Engineer 11 90 2 1 $1800.1 , ,Seniot Technician 85 4 T $340.001 lEnv-Sci/field observati 75 0 $0.001 —..._... $0.001 Fl Micro-soft technician of tech 55 0 $000 Admin/clerical I 40 1 $40.001 PLOTTING,BOND 25.00 $0.001 'PLOTTING,VELLUM 10.00 $0.001 f EXPENSE-mailings,copying ' $0.00 EXPENSE �. _.$0.00 Task IIA $3.665.00 II B. Finaize Reoort f RATE/UNIT HOURS/QT'COST MARKUP ._......_......-- Principle Engineer 175 41 $700.00" Senior Engineer _ 1451 0 $0.00 Analyst 1251 $0.00,_ :Engineer III 1051 0 $0.00 g, $95.00 Engineer I 90, 0 En rneer II --__ - 95 --- 1 --_ I— �_ _$0.00, Seniot Technician 851 2 $170.00_1_ Env Sci/field observati 75 0 $0.001 Jr.technician 70, 0 $0.00 Micro-soft pro f tech 551 0_ $000; Admin/clerical 401 1 $0.00 PLOTTING,BOND 25.0 T $0.001 (PLOTTING,VELLUM 10.001 $0.00'- !EXPENSE-mailin.s,co. ing 1 $0.00 EXPENSE( $0.00; , .Task IIB $965.00 _ T ;Total Task If $4.630.00 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-3b Collier County Beach Nourishment Trends 5 of 6 Humiston and Moore Engineers Contract 09-5262-S2 Date:December 26,2013 Report on Currents Trends-Beach Restoration&Maintenance I. Contact Contractors,Engineers,Regulators,Etc j II.Prepare Draft Report 5 to 7 pages III.Presentation at Workshop i III Presentation at Workshy • III Create PowerPoint and coordiante with count and consultant IAttend Workshop .^ 1 i _ RATE/UNIT 1 HOURS/QT COST I MARKUP AMOUNT Principle Engineer 1751 8 $1,400.001 t Senior En ineer 145, 4 $580.00,,_ g Angst 1251 $0 00} Engineer III , 105' 0{ $0.00 Engineer II 951 0 $0.00 — -I-- Engineer 11— , 90 0 $0.00 Seniot Technician 85 0 $0.00 Env-Sci/field observati 75 Oa„ $0.00 Jr technician 1 701 01 . $0.00 Micro soft prJ tech I_ 55' 0 t $0.00 Admin/clerical , 40 I $0.00 PLOTTING, BOND 7 25.00 $0.00 $0.00 PLOTTING,VELLUM 10.00' _ EXPENSE mailings,copying $0.00, EXPENSE $0.00' 1 11,9:80.00 i 'Total Task II , CAC January 9,2014 VIII-3b 6 of 6 Collier County Beach Nourishment Trends Humiston and Moore Engineers Contract 09-5262-S2 Date:December 26,2013 I. Contact Contractors,Engineers,Regulators,Etc. _ 1 I Total for Task I $3,390.00 Task 1 I r_. Task II II.Prepare Draft Report 5 to 7 •a.es , File Draft with County , $3 Finalze Report Total for Task $965.00 _ sk II $4,630.00 Task III III.Presentation at Workshop I — Total for Task III $1,980.00 1 1 [Total for Tasks I,II, &Ill $10,000.00 ,Summary Breakdown of Costs i I RATE/UNIT. HOURSIQT`COST 'MARKUP AMOUNT Principle Engineer 175 41 $7,175.00$7 175.00 Senior Engineer 145: 8 i $1,160.00 _ Analyst 1 125 0 $0.00 Engineer III ! 105 0� $0.00 Engineer II, 95 7 $665.001 ___L Engineer I 90' ( $450.00 61 I $510.00 i. Jr.technician 70 0 $0.001 1 { Senior Technician Env-Sci/field observati 75 0: ( $0 00' Micro-soft proj tech 551 _ 0 _ $0.00; Admin/clerical 40 1 i $40.00: PLOTTING,BOND ! 25.00 0 I PLOTTING,VELLUM 10.00 0 ! $0.00', EXPENSE-mailings,co m 0 $0.00, pY g EXPENSE i 0 1 $0.00 Total: $10,000.00 --l' I — ._.. — '. I CAC January 9,2014 VIII-4 New Business 1 of 2 From: McAloinGary To: J-lantrightGail Subject: FW:Collier County: DR-4068 Project Worksheets&DR-1785 RFR/Payment Status Date: Thursday,January 02,2014 1:21:38 PM Attachments: 5R-DR-4068 P2 Letter Pkg 45 PW 679-0 Collier Cntv.odf DR 4068 PW 3.odf DR 4068 PW 23.odf DR 4068 PW 679.odf pR 4068 PW 1073.pdf pR 4068 PW 1079.pdf Importance: High New business item 4 Attach this email sheet and PW's 679 and 1079 to the agenda. From: McAlpinGary Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 11:02 AM To: CoxMichael; 'Seibert, Robert'; 'Cai, Yan (Contractor)'; 'Cai, Yan (Contractor)' Subject: FW: Collier County: DR-4068 Project Worksheets& DR-1785 RFR/Payment Status Importance: High Mike, I requested this from FEMA because to the best of my knowledge, I never receive this from you. Do you have any record of sending this information to me? I'm not interested in throwing anybody under the bus but want to make sure that I just did not miss something. Bob Seibert and Yan Cai, I don't see an expiration date on these PW's. Am I missing something? Based on the expiration date, we may need to get these extended for a year. The work will be done after 11/1/2014 (completion of turtle nesting season). My understanding is that Bob can extend these the first time based on his signature. Comments? Gary From: Hyatt, Steven [mailto:Steven.HyattCaem.myflorida.com] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 2:21 PM To: McAlpinGary Cc: Rosenberg, Evan; Day, Cathy; Pallo, Larissa; Hughes, Pam; Bishop, Alvin Subject: Collier County: DR-4068 Project Worksheets& DR-1785 RFR/Payment Status Importance: High Gary, As discussed on yesterday's conference call with FEMA, attached are the (5) project worksheets from FEMA for DR-4068. Of the (5) attached, all have been officially obligated with the exception of PW 1073 which was made ineligible by FEMA. I've also attached the notification letter that was sent to Mr. Michael Cox in reference to FEMA's obligation of package #45, which contained PW 679 for DR-4068. If you require additional CAC January 9,2014 VIII-4 New Business 2 of 2 documentation, such as the original documents with the project worksheet, you can find them under the Project Summary page, Related Documents, in FloridaPA.org. In regards to the Request for Reimbursements (RFR) on the Tropical Storm Fay PW's 561 and 1145, they were received and approved. However, the payments associated with those RFR's will not be approved and will instead be used to offset the amount owed on Hurricane Wilma PW 2700. As you're fully aware from the conference call yesterday, FEMA has yet to make a decision on the 1st appeal for DR-1609 PW 2700. Until they do, we are required to invoice for the funds that were deobligated and use any funds owed in other disasters to offset the invoice amount. If you would like more information on this issue, our Grants Supervisor can provide more detail if needed. Please let me know if you need anything further on these issues. Thank you! Steve Hyatt Deputy Public Assistance Officer, Recovery Florida Division of Emergency Management Tallahassee, FL 32399 Office: 850-487-1660 steven.hyat0 em.myflorida.com From: Johnson, David [mailto:David.Jahnson5C fema.dhs.gav] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:21 AM To: Hyatt, Steven Cc: Taylor, Karen; Wilson, Paul Subject: Copy of PWs for Collier County Importance: High Steve, Please pass these PWs onto the Subgrantee(Collier County). Thank You, David J Johnson SR Program Manager Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IV, Recovery Division, Public Assistance 3003 Chamblee-Tucker Road Atlanta, GA 30341 0:770-220-5242 C: 404-693-1806 ;r P r b°u, r, , i�F 1{,er:=a ; ,,, °V. i.,.T,.a'3 "l nt a„1 '.IS ,c by r._C C F:, \ /\ -o (n/ / e <= 0 \ os — I C } 2 \ % ii \II _/2/// — o c c / . 0 _ co % co o� co \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 5 ` eL / \ \. E \ ui \ \ ',-D- - /_ 0 c CD \ C \ 0 6 E / \ 0 I 2 CO » { 473 I 0 o o $ 2 Jr, U f m < 2 $ ƒ ) @ u) _ 6 2 / < < f w = \ Q 7 . o ? a Q / I Q / k / i ƒ ƒ % / ƒ q CO 2 C CD U / /\ o . {fy 5 C \ - 0 3 x / ƒ _ a > j J o n ® ' < = a o E 2 .Q \ / } E ) 9 0 co \ % Q.Q. / •1- » Z \ - $ [ / 2 ® e \ $ / / 2 ! ° E \ \ \ 2 _1 _ 0 9 RI ! 7.1 \ \ . co o } 2 — o ^ L.L. L. g g g E \ Cl) 0 ~ 8 9 = g \ .0 1 \ / / CO CO 2 o z o U) x = R @ • ƒ < \ \ \ : _CL CL CL. . 7 i / 7 ) \ 7 p k c \ f e \ ; 4<< I 3 & j $ < < < .0 3 R L 2 / \ ci } : Ti) \) ; — § ! : 7 )z/ 9 \\§ I i } 7 ( % \ IIra/ F-- f a!Lb \ § / E I / \ § II _ c . cn $ § \ o \ 2 . f o \ i ƒ m f \ ( . '5 \ \_ k = § % — \ } / • ,- / \ 11.1 % 'e @ ƒ "5 c F- ._ p / UI LI 7 9 CO \ o \_ 0) / \ 111 / Q N. $ N- ° E a) / 7 / CO r-- A ) p E \ 9 0 a) . \_ $ 2 N N - 75 9 \ $ N N N $ i c o E ? eL J * C •- t § ƒ \ \ % u \ / \ } k \ 2 < / % k ƒ \ \ \ 2 k 3 O m O n = ± r R & [ / a \ \ J ( § § E [ \ .N e # g e 72,— o \ } % % ( sE k ^ `N- u) LE- ,,, x z = z 2 ) / a) a) x ® 2 / / o a) § 2 \ / 7 » \ 7 7 I / % ] 2 k k \ \ 7 7 * E / % E Q. E » u $ < « 4 2 7@ 1 & ± 1 z 2 _1 & < < < O 3 g L ± u ƒ \ Li a) { r \ �) _ - \ \ . \ \ , _ \ 0 7 . < 3 3 \ \ 0 \ ' < 9 \ { CO >e• } oci o_in 2 o \ £ \ y ((II 6 2 E » ! / I a , E as a) a N = \ \ \ 2 % \ 2 \ / _ > o ƒ \ a u H I E m a \ \ ° � I / _» n ZS co \ £ \_ — k co _ \ \ c f m 2 0 \ E o = E L & c o Cr) \ ( o \ / ° / CL 0 2 • G 2 \ e § O \ $ U 0 \ O E C) co - ° \ \ { \ ƒ \ \ \ < L b » 2 o s G f o E / \ O % E I p 2 — ) 4 m ± < N C m f E ) ) \ \ - \ \ Lij \ / / \ H } c 9 9 \ / ' S 2 + \ 0 - o 2 _ CO { \ o / 0 \ Z 0 \ O \ \ 0 E / _ « q u / E \ / \ \ \ yR > 6 2 — = o } H / a) Z 0 0 b \ Z. _ ƒ ® ƒ v co E z � \ � � � � ) \ = 2 / 3 \ E § a 0 0 / 0 Z } E \ \ E ƒ \ \ $ m m e ) 2 a = Cl- e = o e m C. Z L z u > @ U) f 2 \ z 2 3 » o 2 O \ E § \ / / ƒ 2 = ) 8 r < § ° $ / f % \ 0) \ E 0 < 2 < 2 \ E E - ) @ ' / / 2 k $ § \ E 2 i i ± _ E s \ a E < < 3 E m E < G a < 0 k 0 / co 4- U N 4) V O0 t' ) 7 N C II Q) V) c• CD 0 WI a) a) W. _) a) a) a) a) cv a) 0) Cl) CO o u) Z ,-- m v > �� 5i 5 > > > > > > 5 > 5 .' 9 O t v < 00 U > -r O c _) :c3 r Ln S �^ In 17 N co Osi Y Y 00 aE N-0 GD r0 .YQ 4=- C O csj O N r N CD ID -O co co 'Cr ) 0 t O 'Cr LO O 0) CO CO r r a a a co CO 00 a U .6 cd v to r 3 1-3 O E li - CD CO O CO O .- Oj Cn N Q a N SD CO 0 Q O .0 O O 9 D -0 ti cc .5 C � J 2 4- U Ln -D Y 00 O i Q d r r N QCO a N CO p 0 0 N p C (6 u) ` N CO F- N N C O Z co M N 0 C 0 O ' a E Q) a) N W CD O N lf) r (O O O _ -o O I` - co N g Z co L C co Lir-7- O r t co -D .0 0 -0 o .fl `; co 9 co a) 0 0 � a m N o a � Y � Y � � 0 0 � Y COamo- N o 4=-' _ W a (n N Co CI- Q N U ,- = E a`) -o m ❑ E - -C 'CO' 2Z N N O Q -, O Q) N — C a) C >� OCU u) CO @ O O H CO W W W N CL OUJ CL W > U a COca CO O 0) a) -3 CIU U a U in U a) 4 LL N N N N C a W W -3 W (0 Q a) N c o - Q U 0 Z ❑ W W WCD D FCD E O- O E Z Z LL ❑ ❑ LL > Ico o a C� O ca O c@) U it 0 0. C Q N T L) N Q a) • U N IT cc 0 @ L) N W = n I To N N N o') V C CO F- � a) w W O C C C 0 0 a (B O` ❑ O O O •E_ C Q _.o N UW V N (6 (0 a a o Q O 0 0 Lu -0o To E To 0 OOO ._ U U S a C / C a) U 0 L iD7 1 CL D) D) ( iN .C uCl) C .--, o O W 75 N a) a wn 4-, .-.O a) � U CL 15- om o E ° ° p U� o oV) 0 °° °� U) a) oa ° oEC a `aQa Ea) o CL a U 0m a CL D SD va w >` ww co 0 itCD iz- 0 92 Qa_ IL - U 0 0 0 U) N U) CD C1) CD N V) U) U) LO U) NO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ a) o u) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) E• a) O O C C C C C C C C C C C C C 0 .0 c D O c6 c6 c0 c0 ca c0 c6 ca c6 c0 co ca (o O cn O O O HL a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) O o 0 O W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W a fn (f) (/_) u) D D (/) u) CD v_) u_) (n v_) IV N O _N I N O N O N I i a) 0) N r N C• N O N CA N 6 N CA N O N O N 0) N ON N a c r r r r r r r r 1- r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r =r Ca ' 0 ' 0 ' 0 ' 0 10 ' 0 10 ' 0 ' 0 ' 0 ' 0 O ' 0 ' 0 ' 0 ' O E❑ C) NONpNONONONC) NONONNONONONONONONC) "5 0 (n U w (0 (n w U 0 co (0 w w u) (n w a) a) Z WZ W Z W Z W Z W Z W Z W Z W Z W Z W Z W Z W Z W Z W Z W Z W • E = = = = = = = = = = = = = _ = = • U _10 J0 J O J O J O _10 J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O 0 - 0 Q ❑ < ❑ < ❑ < ❑ < ❑ < ❑ < ❑ < ❑ < ❑ < ❑ < = < ❑ < ❑ Q ❑ < ❑ < ❑ - a S 2 2 S S 2 2 2 S = S = S 2 2 2 Q r C) 8 O N N C 110 a y C m G co � Z6 > > _ a) -0 o -c d: 3 U N � •Ca) oc � `� a) C U> u O C Cn CD 0) a) N w a) a N 0 'fp a Cf w = o (0 O op n ca CO N (Oq N O c) c E U •C L.-% c >" N J 7 N N a) CA O O N 9 co ac O to C .-. .... O - I- N w O N 035o y N rn Q W MN rE 'N cn oZ CD �° € a) a) -0 L- `. C) •O O ao N II N c (C U O c `) V CD O t c) a) C c a U TO E-) 2 L-0 O O C 7 C cc is Cl) 0 O (t) CO U N .r 9 N c M a) •Q C N v) c 0 C �.- >, a) n C fl O co N O a (a ' v ca o E v) ` 0 Z H. = - 3 V 'a �O v) a) 7 0 dr O C C (/) C N CI- N) ao2 �° � - o E c . C a o c 0 o -c o O c W 3 it cll c E a) m a Q a)o m -3 a o CO 03- , u) -o o C • m rn rn c m e o) c o °° °-' U Cfl .Ot (Q L O c .c C — LL E � oE � C `n °) oLO � �d � ° so � E LL (0 a U CO N a o � C1 g O) 0) U . a,�, _ � o CO E a0 1 'E cc -O m 0 (0 to E 'p O ' "a CO t (i s m = co Utz ° c 9 o ) ,Q mz cm m H o0F.° M 000a) CwO y O O CO N u, LL m N W LL w m • U V C O E D a) C d a) a) m CO '6 -0 N- U co W v) • O N O W v) p) v) p CO • CO CO N = N m a0) a 2 oQ0) a 9 .s v., = a) a) .o ►iUrnE _ O N m O O J a) a Q (0 N m Q 15 (D O` O m - N a) - CO N (A O - a O Z CO Z U LL LL M >- o a Z M Z a Z a) U 3 E (1 J Is? .a •E a) I ot) a q E r U a ir) 15 C`' O o L a) c - NY � o . n co N .- O O Co C`• ca 41 m ' u) E N `o C7) N C N p O U C 1- '5 o 6 o o 0 N N N p • ili a)a U 2 E a) a) (n u) al N a) o gI gI z ( U) CO. a) M J J N N C U) �' a) CO o V < = < = U -o "a 7 y f0 N 2' U E ii Q Q U U (o A a 0 8- r N ) a 5T) II N C U cri.N CO 7 _ co m a) -D c6 8 Z O U N O u) co N 9 o O L c0 c a) a. O g N c) Q U> co N @ Q) a a) N c0 'Q LL n a) a) a) p .0 . m c E EO To 0 'O m O W CO N 8 O E a7, O a) O a c c U U O c a) a � a) U `� (� "• a _ N E 13 N -0 !n N L -� N N ..-c- _ aci � � � oTO � .'� N � � c� o N a) 0.-0 w o ° > co . co 0 n o E ° w ,� ° a) 3 U a ` € a) co - co .N :C.C' a@ m N 5 c a E cNV ° 3 0n • U c N c 7 U w ° 0 Q 1 • (n c a) Q c O O ' c0 L a? c0 a) N a) E a) @ "- r "p al ,— U aj m•a) c a) s M m 3 3 0 ° o U c) 2 a) E a) -0 O o -C ° r- 2 z °- a) 3 N o = a) 0 N .` c) o u) a) c o o .0 CL m �' ae6i � o �� o o � a o g in u' a) 70a cn c c c °) a 0 � - a) a � com ° oo °) � ' a E c ai E � a) � a) O U C N -O . c U •• p 7 U co . ) co ° 1 -°° d NcN ca -o ' o — ` _-6 a- - o I so ° ° m a O ° '� N C E �' . a) ai ( -) c.,N ) > - 0. 0 L- U .- ai o . a a) O N •U a) O c w o I -LL.c ° rn a L o l't o v -° ` a N C a) Ou @ - O J c _c • c a r c N o 9 )N o e" E p 0 ` .o c E - a) c o 0 C) t0 a)Z 05' U c •N O N U C O U W N a) a) a) U - a) a) - v u) @ ° -� o 7. co N o c E o N U a a) (1)i U) .U 3 c 4 a 0 . .` 2) .5,O , - E 'a) a) C) 2 — c 'p W cN . U cc O a hhUw w Q 3• >, a) .° o � E v vi 0 d r'n !n 5 .E Q U)) -0 ,Q a 5 ct E 1- o aa)i E d .- N c-i cri v N Lri ce , F 7 C O C O co r U f6 n O Qa C w U 0 O E 0 a) N v y 4 O N N C 0 ii N c z'm O = 3 � °> >. cco � Q N c a) ,4 N O a) N v3 z m cca c 0 3 co o N °o 0 a) O a) a) 2 •E ' . v ui 0 r- o a aa)) a) To •X m 0 ° °° C o rnE .o -0 _o m 0 a) -0w v� m 2 o m T `o ,_a) c° 3 ° c a) ( a) a) c) -c w N .rn �' L 9 •_°-O U U c 0 a) E O- 0 co co O a) 0 >,N 0 a Z. O Q 'E U) O CO 2 -0 c00 -0 0 i= •C c0 C O•'N N � � � � _ ILO y @ p NOS < r 3 -0 a) o Q c`o a) 3 } Q o o o L E 'E w ` O o - C magi � 00000 � � � °' � w;-0Caaa)i .- (DQ ° cco3 11 s ° c W w a au') 'k t ° w .u) co �i cn a°)) ° = o ` o �° u) aa)) cn 3 rn CO U a) ` is .- o co t a) >,m .0 u> a c a) . v F a) c oc co mUO . c ,n -oococ u, a- � cnm a) o g � o � mca � oa2tia ° c'ao oo ° w : aic�o .c � a Q a ° a) cn N c ° 3 U E ° c c E CO •- 4 s a`) N cn ccr) O 00 N ,-Cr) E N ca m > CU W E a) >, co a) N a) •rn-(OO ° ` . a v as o -c o a) ZErno3Ca>- £ coma) a) o .Nu, Q � - ° U0 rn cu 0 U @ • -0 c -pr- >. s UQO -c °O (U cn 3 j y in' 2 a) V 2 m � ca d U w a 0 a c) N a ui v@ .a f-C ,co, c tWi N w o o n a) of - _C c o coi . 1 CIO o QCO> a c 3 m e CD o c N U �. O c co U a) N ui O F- s O a) c,� t -c c 0 h a 0 ao Lii 0) Q 0 V = c ' m o Q•a) Q m o .- 7o - m,v 3 '� m ,_ c0 a t N �j 7 U U) rn N O OU c C O T Z CO O cy c Z E aa)) '' ` L D a) U 0 a) .E co o -a O Ea w c6s U aiN °o cy ° m ate) •N 0L E a) T_o 0 92 a co co cn •c a c� ,� a N o c N c w U o a u) c co a) c a) U) ca - 3 .X a) cca E E - m m CD z a ° c .g •� ° a) a CO m •�v 4-6 C C O U U ° O m ° co ° 3 ° E `� c6 ° E U �o N o a ra a c •°) ` o E cca •o a 8)) -8 ED_ .°)a} v Lc./2. cCO o 'a w ° 4 T N a) 0 CU � 0 Q ca O ° cn co U a N .:.g- oa a) C) O C 0)'- O N O O U C Q N 0 Z ti C O a N CO a) 0 - a) = a) '; a) c) — U L_ N U c0 U w a— C m c U Q 8 c . c.. o �° a�i co .o o° 3 y E m m up- r cn as o a v w r W = co ° a 4— a`) .S is m CO a) ,-.- a) OD w -C 2 .° co a) -o ai o .- a To" N = 0 .a) -0 O L -0 O U ti -0 0) O-.`- O O cco a a) o U 7 O N °' N 8 a c 2 co is m m ai a m c° . m °c _c N U o f-° c N0 a vi ° 0) o E o ' U .. 0 E a) U U) U c0 CU 'O U CU o _,C O mow 5 O o .c a CO N is < 2 •5 E N O ° L ° U N CU O U 7 co >. co g N C E U a) O` ` U a) 0 L w = ai 0-9 0E E mac) aa)) 0 >- o = mmaCam; wgccoo '. wo ._ '= .- cn •- m m o N o cn c o E m ai U V u) E a) c}o -0 -0 Y U c a iv - 2 aj �? uJ < �_ 7 d U Vi a c •C Q° U o r m U N 4 0 .N N '0 3 U O U 'N 3 0 m d o :°- co •C O c -a a o Q 5 ° o o) v c_CO u) a) - u) fA -8 -0 0 >,•5-0 •o -8 v) 3 n Q rb 5 m a) a o . o ° .c CU oo a cn E ° co ° ° ° a) L m 0 0 o a) o 0 rn ce < Z .- c O u) 3 = 2 = u) > U U c∎i E o cn li a a E w - U c R) 7 0 7 c 0 2 N a) 0 L 0 It' a a) Y 2 0 O 8 a) c M O- w U a a (r) 0 a) N O N • N N C II W y Pd 0 [Y) a) C y a) as _ _ (� 4Z � C to p f6 0 E 4 U�o E t .Q N EEO N 1 U> o� a) _c o to •'3 a) to C . . a) Co -0a ° N o F) = •2 m U o 8 U U 2 ,R w Coo O 0 N C-\ U 0 .23 0 N N N (t .= N (O u _ a) c U 0 c W n -0 0 E -a a' N a C a) 0 E _ a). Co ai N > o ,Q U o) v E 7 0 - E U o 0 ,- co m U a a) k .) to 2 N N N to o •>. n c u) : O a) a) _ -E- Inc) ca N in Co II-` ✓ 0 w c = ' E ci m i, 0 U rn as a) O 0a)< O O a o O CNO L a N CO I t0 a) co 2 2 c 7 a 2 - U (� (fl a 0 � o a) 0 Co a) E Cl- C ca W • 0 CO U ° Ns g O W 3 O E 0 c p o U o a o 0 o c y @ o O N c cn > C .O O cn N N H m me a) o0 ° v U o `73 a) .E CO ` ° 3 co - -0 -� co D cn Z m ° 2 Co .- U c -00 4 w ww rn 00 ca) � aa) W aa)i .OQ -° �° M E `� " °) IN N ca Co x) E E .0) E U a� a) 0 c? ° ° N 'n -6.- 0 a) -0 c v a0i E _ 0 a) a) < cn to c 3 _ +T - Co ea 2 n 3 0 a) ~ U U > O a) i -' 0 ca E - > H CO Cl)r -o m -0 a 0 -0 _a 0 D cU o 3 '3 0 ` . 0 cn o 0 o E ° 0 o 0 a�iN 0 0 ° E rn ` .� v m o co U coo ° 0 >,U U 1-_- co •3 o Co �? � � � a) _° 0 N ,�° � a 0 UQ ° a) cQ c ,cn ' @ 0) Co ( co lL 0 0 c co g to a) a) ° Ow a°i c 0 o m � E 0 -a •E co 0 co U S E co �� o cam U 0 (DE W a c 0 � a 0 oo 2 SR rn o o o :? ? o -- cn Co -, o .� ° � ° -L" OS-s to 0 aS co - � ° a w ° 0 0 s n a) o c -0 aa) c a) -0 0 = n m rn ca Co n E -°) o 0 a a0i a°i a 0 0.'c ° c ° c �- 1:72 c ,Q O N m e -0 c o f0 w _ -) U g H o a `. v) _° w F•1 N > °- - E0 mRaci a20 5 m to 'c U .. N ° m0 0 N 0 •N c t0 'O .0 N E cn 3 O ca c '° a) ° U) u) O ` ` = 0•co � a° n'_rn v ns E 0 � -0 Us a) @ao o U 0 0 'o S c a cn E o -. t .a 2 -o3 00 a.) o c < a) ° ,crn @ ° -0 a) `- c' w rn aa) aiio 0 c ° � to 0 Y co a) o .` o co in ui - -ate ,E - `- o to o- -0 - co o .+ E '- E ,cn 3 ° x- ,0 0 n a a) to = 3 -2 , � Q a) 2 _ -C .( D-E a -0 Q ° o Q o o a-0 U o O � o H H W o 0o aLWi. $ C) ° < v 3 Lri 2 m ca Q 3 � E n CO m o f v) ,- e» U c'.i ci v I- H z D ,Q a 4 E C 0 0 -0. 0 y a 0 U is O_ co `O a) 2 w 8 0 O f7 y L 0) 8 N N ii -0 c_ 'o a> N O O _ m U 7 3 c a) (q g Z p) Q v 0 U> 0 c 13 c0 Z >- Z Z .t � p II rn CO ao c• °- c o o —I OI 00 N c0 a co C ` U as CV a) ° °N +J C -O II co .c i0 0.O) c rn E 1 d co N >, 0. 2 �' � c s aa w 0 O IN T — a .-Q N 00 N a '- .9 g co O N 0) (0 C C m O m c m O co .� c0 0. p N 0 N N C ccs F C co a) a) ° O as O S a .5 N U J co co C. 0 L co I 0 — ° 0 ° ° ° a� a� a 2 co N U O O a) @ E co E .- 6 O C O O _ N 9 N U = C y .. ••E C iii C a) 0 w O ._+ O Y O N (0 co 7 d (n c U TE N ° ° o g _ o aa)) c uS -6 o «. rn -, »- c o c U LE 0 (n w a) 0 ° ii o E o m 2 N O °O CO 0 > N O O 0 N 0 O) U 0 in Cs- CO c0 CO y- CO T U C c0 C ` O U) a) �i a� ° = E 0 = U ° ° ° 2 m 3 r = 5 E = w a r.. '� o 0 a) > a) >< a) o = °° ii C 0 ,0 0 co 0 0 .. — a) J co - a f' - a V, m 0 c CO °- in a) H 0 H cn 73 - m E u > fo E °' _Z cp Z3 -0 -a -a r U a Ct E R Cr) 3 a) m & 2 0 0 o a) a E N c , N O ., Y 03 .c s O .: co ° �c 5 Q O a 4c t @ 0 cv a) c w s _ (n c°o as CD a� = E c a , u) E a) a t Q Q. N f0 N rn N O " 0 c0 a) a) L E 'cv 3 nr C CO '� 5 t N a) w U c °' c 3 c 0 �,(o m °� E d O Q c 0 ,:: — w 0 E o co o m 0c - o z I-0 - s = ,= = o 0 co a) o. = O > 0 ca ° a a s o aa) w ¢° o X o 2 O 0 a) > o >, a o m 0 0 0 ca >, o a 0 r a a � N O N UCN C W.N O j m C ID U I 0 U>- c Y co a) r- Z Z > Z Z Z s `ej k O N -a -6 E . N a m m c 2 N Z E 13 —cc -c O cu N a LL ,• f C E — a) U U m L L o a) Q N N g m m . _� °•C ° ` � N n N O m U co 9� � °� o o w ( of u) Y >, Z >. i a w c co ° U 0 § .:7) ,o w 3 II C rn ° 0 0 m 7, 2 E ii, ar o a F a) s m co A a o > Y a) --ooa a a a) CI 4 tri t -p .5 N (� v t o, c°) t Q - Q' >' Z Z 6 Z 8 E a E a) = 3 = Li E. N O co a a) L L N 1 ' 5 co 8 0 3 '0 0 c L.o co a aa) ca c V y N •q 2 a E ) as co 3 `-' E a u) c ° a o 0 c 0 fo 0 o a� ° is m r a ° N w c`o N a rn n a) o To o c 0 2 co a) uJ W t) rr r3 c.• ' d, O LO C C (o y Q +. .. O N y O a) ` O LL 0 _ Lo. 0 0 a) oa u. (o `) . a N L Q O O U c N O U O p p O co a)(o .N oc 2— "w ( O c a • u) ii N 1 'O o w • 03 Z �N 0 a� a..) (1) — O v 1- .B c 5@ o 8 2• a03 ° N E c - = T E C co • C m . p = E n p O ° O d € � - n>, a) N C 1 +r i a 0 N N w _ O g o o L c.. = o c co u _ 4••••L U "a C o E. E cn E >$ Z IV Q N 0, O 0 a) N ... 1 0 CD o n a a ° m " c o >. a) 7- > o o n O N a) N Y > tCO N N N L ,�. p co Y co o va N c E 2. v c, Y 2 c z � z � 3 m 3 5 0 E c -c •°- Q a� •1 L a� a) a) L w w , m �, �, ° _iii • E -0 o ,_ = = Q = 0 'a) o a) ,_ 0 °, o @ - a '.--' Q E _ >, Q Q Q a) >, > o >, a) L o 0 o g>, Lri (Li r. = - n co of Q (n "- Q = d 5. rZ 0 = a) To <- N I I N C '6 O N CO 7 •3 3 O o O Cl) a) u) c CD Viz °' Q Q Q' `5 g 0_ o U> - O O O O O 0 i. E O pNj O r-) 2 O co c- �1'^ c ; co Co U W } E O U N � V' a) L M a s rii 0 E N Lo L) k •° Z E O a� O' FQ t N y Q ° m a) V" Q T i� W vi a) £]. � r — a) w co N i— O.'. ~ M V C N F- N Z d'! W a J O ~a t w Q ca c_`nu U W m a) w ++ 0 9 i, U 0 w 0 co-8 f0 E ti,". N ..o = E 0 .0 a) m U a) a) Q Z Z co W U ii m 0 a) Q c o 0 U vQ .. co a) 0 0 a m •O M O t6 ca 0 T r3 a. 0 _ cn . w aes m c N rm 8 g� Er' E M o w 8 J 'a N O O 7 a RS a� +- 0 7 O I c V I as o 0 c N E J J CO _ pi = N Q O � (n � N � N � Q -O w d N C c L O O. c in "O E o 5 a is cn D. U O ,- i as= r+ (f) -a N 7 U Cl- �'a Y �;'' U ` 2) O CO g U O a N. c0 2 � N o C n w o2S °- a a) U = I II N � � C a) 0 c. ui tn C O a) o 0 O 0 a) v 00 E 7 ) CO o as 8 as as .—E .a) 7(...''= w 0 ~ CO o U U a� - a`) U Q La N 0 I a v g E O) N O) N° N a U 0 � E N 0 ° c� o I a) O N a o © rn `a O c c� (� O t)7 O U y ! (n N CO t E z W z W M E n G> C a) N E cnn _ _ °� *-• m a) U -c D J C9 J C3 d ,— N M = E o 'i w .r 0. a) c a) 8 Q Q E. Q u � (/) 0) Iii ru v al DU CV (1, II C ms cri i7) LThj o co "8 1-3 = , 0 sr *c5 a) 1.) t7 Lc) 0 . } a) a. tt-- o In W c■J ui C) `-t5 ,- - U) . 15 13 .1-3 • a) -) a • = c) ..E 41 -, o -0 • ,- , . -o c''.1 CD 9 9 Oi 0 a) 1 L.) - CZ • . ' r- n3 c , (1) ,__: N (7) 0-) E • co c4) r..3 th s co U) a) a) 9 oLo . . . . co E co 123 Tu 6.-5 "- c) 4-- 0 9 c' C Tt3 • 2 .c u) 0 a) . ,_ -0 o c) o <- -0 c u-, .., , • • u) -o 47-0 8 a) 2 0 0 _c _c c - - o - ocNI • co 4.- a) Ti. -c9 co c • (/) w . .-I . -43 -0 -Cs ,,,, _ 1 ,.."-' 0 co c < (0 c\I 1— 0 0 0 0 -, ,-- Is-- cc) CO (0 z a n3 (D < < .F.,.., z 0 c) Luz ,0 . c) 222200 ,- 1.9 ,- u- c • co o 2 cs, (..) (f) ,../ ll C L.L. %,NI •r° rtt .tt :tt .tt t.:., co .._ 0) ._ _ t: 11 _c 2 ..c _c (f) (,) _ _c a) a) a) cu a) rfi - E • ‘-- I, (1) E .5 co To co '6 co i- o_ (1.) co E cr) cri a.. (-.) I-- on C) C.) 0 C) C) -,:, 0- > a. • 8 co (/) u.) (I) 2 c u) u) 2 .. q (n CD C = 2 o a) c a) a) ',T) a) a. a. a. a. a_ (13 0 E a) a) 1- g a) 9 II = E . • - (:, u) • LL1 LL1 LU I.1.1 ili -C -5 < ea (.4 >, co 2 co co -6 0 a) co 0 0 0 0 0 v) a) (0 6 ct) co CO cz 1 V) < C C Z C Z Z 0 N a Z LL LL LL U.- LL Lt. U_ D > 1— Z11_ OZ cf) -o Z ? C o ..., cu 0 u) 2 -6 7:1- g a) = g 4E, o E ctl 9 0 co a) — E' ..k. 8 ? U- U) 22) -o 4 2 0_ 1 c 7°_ co 11) ii a) To co _G >, .....cw F-E. E E o) -= a) 0 = 47- c au) -E E - .8 x o_ E ° E C.) • -§ o 1.1-1 en< 6 cp E - a) m 0 -c-3 o -- -8 u_ Fr) 0 2 1 a _ u..1 L.) u) li 1E o ..., o 11 U) d a 0 Z a c3 co , Q) >, - 0 C 0 (/) 0 -6 0 Tu a_ o :8 a) 2 u) Lti o -P -o a) 2 z o U) -= c I 0 .c- a u) 0 IC 1)J T- 0 c o -6 --g c) 04 a = g co 2 >, = .2 _ a) a) .6D 2 0 _c (.1) ',7 (7.) = 0 (1) ,... L, (7) u) CO = o 5 = , cu 0 a) 0 = • cu E o 8 —J 0 V) = 0) WI += t c) co .a.) i Ea co Z E o co 27 co a .- --, '. 0 Z *.k.' a 0 co 2 a E F? • k /j 8 )) a . # o1• ) 2 f/a t t Ce / 2 / \ § 2k \ )_ / \ 6o \ § § t 0 0 7 \ ® � \ \ ( 5 a = _ § § f % ) ¢ J f \ co / \ \ f \ Smm / E m \ k \ \ 7 co f E .E u_ \ \ 2 t % a u ) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ƒ 00 [ Q>-/ / § / a c t 7 co w q a .b q / \ \ \ � �1 re 2 \ � /te k \ da � 0\ $ \ § / / ; § � § § § § / / k 7-23: \ ( 7 2 \ k 0) LI d 2 • pf ) f k L $ § ± § ƒ A / _. \ k /•/ UJ � m E ' E 2 / \ _ \ . ' ƒ La 2 c ; ) UI a) H \0 E / , \ 0 / • ƒ o / \ _ < y O ; o = . « 2 # E � � ' - \ 8 # e k ' '47-$ b ° ■ & 4 ° o• k \ ) \ _ { ) 7 2 a) ƒ 5 @ % ' £ 8 o Q 0 Q & _ 0 , L / « 0 . S 0 E 2 I § ° k § j / } 0 j \41 g ) § 2 w 7 UJ d \ \ • k k k \ / } t § § \ / / < m i 2 § § _ § _ § § ± 2 R ) 8 ± / a a; C. _ N N a) II C "0 O1 To C Nz O m (6 c 0 a ..U-. U i p 0) OZrn C O > w (� O' } O > � tT O> _c a 0 C ° a) 4 U In O a) C U q) w 1 .L O U r LO@ C o O O O j L p Nr. 3 o f° (o _. o E. o a a E o a>i co w co °' a) ° a) -g a) C7) a) L J a0 U f0 '� .N 3 L t C _ y co•CO y > >0 O (n (0 C C C C (n en N ? O 0 a U 0). > a a) f0. N N V) U L O N CO CI)0 O C 'p a 0 a) N 42 E a) C C o f a) 2 ° _c ct c 2 0 E o C a (0 C p O O)a c E co C U tO(0) U a ( E C 'L-' C O a) 2 O O. u) •C C a) a rn O C N co-p ojf (0 --E _o O N a O U N a) 0 ° m w -O C Cf) O 5 g o o o 0 II Ty C U c E (0 a) C O a 0 () 0 C 7,5 TS :° a) C > ' n2 a) m m c m S) g a) N �EIL .> y cn oz o c c L. a R. 3 0 . •E a) •- ,.0 a) y C y '- C C m N a) w O oC O a) 1- a) V) ° U O 0) co .0 a) 0o a a �2 o @ 0. O N L C >, N t 7 ? = O } �a Lb L-• .92 J N 0 0 0 C -0 0 co N ` 0 (0 N a Q O N • > a) O a) ( a) co co C O a) O apo0 N d' - W I ((pp O C N a N -C -0 L C - 0 0) Y o .W a (V N N O L a) ,... co C -0 N O .L) p 0 N • N cp a) U .0 O •,� T ( O N a) 3 a) a) C a M a) U 0) ��1 �0 i y U fn tq _ C O. Q .N C c2 C O).- O a p L a O U 6 a C 'O d �4 O L c� E a) 0 t 0 1= c E 92 @ m T a• HU m c i0 a rn c cu m > °na c o 10- o 2 12 c c H L "O' O a O E a) N M O O O U ° C O L N a) U a.) °1 N '� N E i a) O I1 is ° a) 4? •C •C a) 7 la O C L .a u- N O C N '�2 N -0 a) `0 O aa) a) E a) C° o "- '� ).C (0 Y �' R.c Y v co c o _a a a m 3 LLJ O ?9 L E LL N co O a •C ? V C„ O c co 0 U N .0 3 a) m =cr, 0 17 aa) a �0 ° aai E o a) a) Mo N r 0 > m a°i o ) o w .E .c o CD p) ° o v 0 ' m a p _o- m c o E @a C.) ,(1) Lo 4 o) > co Lo .. .0• O y p O C d N '° O N C0 ?! N O U w M oa a -° ? co V O C N V-- "0II N a O E 45 ii.0 N o c@ , U ..4 N .Y O N C o 0 N �� O =• a) o a 0 w, iil1 g a tU c ` ai 3 c a 0 co o .o ? `-' U•O .0) 0) � N U -0 N Cr '> CO C ;C C p en 0 E .`o r a) _ 0 0 c C ao U to -p N a) N a o m a) 7 a F L C r N a) w p (0 y 3 .L-. c c a) rn N a U 9cj L p C O a`) w a L C .�. a a) C ° +L-' t a' .0 > co o oo a ° m a) o v) (j 'n . rn Q 0. a) ',7-C U O (O a C ? 70 (n a C -) X ` L ' .. o O • U O .. 1] O CO 'o > a - U O a) N a N O U C a In O N � c o a`°i °) ° C o co •E o a) a c s Q E m °O aa) Z a) .o v .o g °- (n m .y o a) gi m m �' (n c � ._ E a) N a L 2 co O •in Q •C (0 0 a) > a c 0 C C 0 N a) O N T 0) 4) 0 .0 0 v) a) a) a ,aa)C) Q a) .. - rn° 0 n N c 3 0 ac) o 0 O > rn 0 ,- h': .N..� L O N .2. 0 U AA L CO p` N P. •0 a) 7 w -p C �. @ C CD_ .,,0 g� a) m CO C a O co O y a) a C O N p V O co� 00 ° a) O I.L L 3 .Z o d p a C O w -d �O a) N a) CO O O D '00 N C ay• a) n X L p C a} L >^ a) t 92 i[ c 0 N ! N C 0 O y10 Ya) a-� C L. C N c00) CO Qo CO a �Q _ Cd - a �0 C c = a � m a) ( o o is) t In o U to a) C > U o !� 4) r g2 a C w N .,_ N CO 0)- V a) M CO Z C CO ° t w Y ° ° o o c C ,a c (n a c Q O m o -, Z w 8 m a) c o co rn N° a co o .4)N q c�� L (� w v H hi IL LL > > Q > (o sa u a VV) L ri -0 `r. CD 00 u- a) _ ac) � U) a C a E. L — �i ai - (ri a L 5 • ai N N C I N O O a a U) _ p C N O p L O _ O)rpO)Z LL U> � " N5 fl ° 3cQ� m43m @ N II'' ° '~ C O 0 0 a w C L U -c C O_p fa N U d N L m a) p U N ? m a)• c 0) j .C12 C • c O- 00 .a Y 5 C a) L cs cL c = w 3 O ` m •3 .SP a) ° a 1 a) o N o N m N U N co ° w a .Q N 2 o O N to Y N (0 ..E->? ar L N N c 'Q .CZJ t • a) LL _ t m t� o r v 3 o a`°'i ° v 3 c a .� .c m -- L t c a U `� Y a a) .4 -0 v C w .� N O C O N C U 7 .O N .� C O. X CO co .5 69 C O c O-) O O M U > U c)S a 10 fV t •o w a) a 5 ° ,-- co Q N to O.} i`/) L co .N. O CO w r0., m a `- a 0 N C U U) . •g N n p f0 LL CO to a) N N N O Y O X U a7 O 0 C a) O O'-C LL y O N O U L C a ¢ O) a) g N „O H a) m CO C U U Cl)• ° '00 a) Ca) 5 D N a N q N C N a >. a 0 a) c C7 v a a) D z ° 0 5 U .c c °c •DU - °4 o c °- W L H .,• U . '@ N ,O O a . a > CO O cV CU U m a) pC L O.L C O N C ° .W U 7) U O .O L -° `O a) $' p . O U d m _a_ O U pp Q .O a) O.C O N co N L N to a V d :a O L C ° 0., d fh DC C C O. fa > L 32 .c a) C l0 N O 0 N 7 O) co U __ co C N L •• N N L.. O C ? a N N N C 0 U O g� O O. N p L c N N p, 0 .L`., a) co c 3 Q m m c y o uf°i w .o m Q ga)) CO `� C ° -00 Z co 2 fO NO m a) '~ LO., a) a) Y N O 0 (- O a `° C a) t o a) °- C U U L ° LL .L.. L ° o O) a`) a) N. N O .c O L O C C -0 -2 4) a) c o 3 N •C N 9• w O L — 0 C _ 0 Efl p (b 2 g L O d C a) a. Zs T o 0 E O V N O u. C ._ ° ° CO w 0 C d U w C) a ° L C - W NO L N O) .. LL O Q N " O >- �) II To 7 U 4 • C O a) 0 a a CO C C S a , .N N p U a) i U d O U L, w '� N .O 0 a C . N a) CD V E> g N U w 2 O 2, ° a) N L N N a CO o @ U O IL y a m c 3 C 0 ( Q a c w N a a a N , >° ° N a`) a`) °_ cg� N ° LO. o o tQ1) aa`) aa) o f m 0 o L (O .2 CL C -0 a C N t a) U w 3 d' U .0 a) `) N . co N U O n 2 +LO„ O 0 L L '� c N a) U C •^w .L., o w U U d O E y @ N c ca 0 -= a) O U 2 Y m o m '` g c a c o o aa E CO •o .E ' 0- ° @ .� o rn m o W T o c p 3 N 7 O 3 c U p N C N O L fa a V rn w s p-.E O`p -° ° Oo >, N a n oLO °- � v N v a n co N Z N _U _ co O N a O L fa a)a c a L a) CO C (0 2 '~ °IIllIs' L O_` ° o cc N -C N a) O co cI O c a) CO O L C a) N L U co N L a o' 0) U •c (a a) t N O C !ilhWlii a c c LLa o co M r�• o o c ; v) CD api a' c o .� N w L .� Q 3 w m = c ED_ azi a) o Ear �) o u L o . U o n o U) 2 3 3 gip+ °-= C C w 7 C N N @ O a 'N d 3 —CD ,...° L CO °C as o CD a M a) N° U m O r g m a co 3 0 L l c ry o o c O •-' U = O 05 O)N a T (O U o O .-, CO i n _ p n a o o � m N a? o o o o 0 0 ° o g L a.92 a °) ° o N N l9 0 o `6 N c y a) c g-w Q N W . ° ,c as LO N N a) $2 o V -0 a L O C _ •c a a) .LO-. w N 3 L Oc�) al,o CO' `� o_ 9t m O L L O O C o 0 0 g� O -c a t O-V N N a 3 C CO'_ — 'p U 3 C) 7 2 m O a a p -°p a t -O c a :? m O w 00 ° C F' O a f0 �a a1°i ° `n rD r o N .t a) o t u a o ° ri 8 CO CO c �' CD E w c m o o0 o U Q w a m ° m ca 2 C a Q U) 0.r) c ac m }a) L z.L U O n CD a a 0 U L L N g U C C ? C6 6 ? O co 0 N C @ C C O- O co co 'O N O O O 2' O N O Y C (O 0 a) ^ c m C 0 3 6 c .E 3 co a) ai as '� C A m u .z 0 C u o o c � w m -o aa) 3 -o 5 co c`0i .Q v c- c o O ° t u U ` a U) oQ 7 .a ,° 3 0 to N S m = m 3 N Ti a Q Q 'Q ° a t a°�i w U) N a n Q X 3 3 4g Q U) Q > _° 0 C pN N- I 8. ca. a) fa a O N a a) O N O M a) d' U) N (O O. � a) V aD U) .- U N M a> `"• N a O N N C O N 0 7 O m c 3 O O O O , _ O N O cV N U> a:, 0 N N .4 a ` - (� N N Q acai o -a b9 69 c 6 V O E • O 0 'C L 0 m o O -0 O CV O Lll Li.' = Z N d} to rt c' 0 F- a a� -J o) II) Z ch 0 0 2 N 8 N H U c w d) -61 vi c O N U Z a) co U• N O O 7 0 N c = -a ca Cr a ca 3::, 03 N fV O — cc N C7 c aa, 0 -0 O C . 3 W cc Q } H_ N (O @ ,L N 0 w Z Z co c cp `) E O 2 0 - 3 Q N i H J U) J N 9 C fa N a) N O ° Q N U a) c ii } w Z O •`– m .Z - Q. — N a) N O 2 c cy, c Q N m CO C U c0 N N N co n m �. t In O N N O .` U -p co T ° m o H d 0 E J cc d 2 a) 2 -p R g °' a� NO 0 Q li v@ -C a co 2 d rn a) a) ate`) U . 0 q ,° `° . as 2. m 8 o' c 0 H U m Q c c U ? a) n ai Z V' 4 o '- N N N C W'y C o L"m U a) 3 a) a) a) N cu ZO� 0 c a) c c g QI O O o E E E S U'> a °a. a a E E E 0 0 0 Q Q Q ¢ 0 N a) a)C t 1 z z z z z z z a) a) CO CL CV o CO �, a°i a`) m T a°i a) a) m m il C CO 0 p a O co to m V O ° -p a) CO a a Q) -a aa)) a ,Q? c .Z' c) 3 N a) a ° a a) 3 a) a) . a) . a = O cn co V N c C O 3 c000 c000 � 30 o � a3 ° i2-L.•co u) co a U co co a 2 c>' c = U L--a N N J 0 co O. Q c v o. c -O E a .n -0 coo •� N f° -0 m cr o c a _ E c o c co .� c m• as 'Cl-) CO ° @ O. v co ° m °- U c -a p�) co a) (U a°� — ,= a) �, m °- a°i 2 —�° •a, 15 CD -c 2 w o oa) . mo 0 . Emo ° coon) Nc cu R---) �C ° 3 E 3 N • a 3 a N �, N m m o f U a) a) a) N cn c• C u) a) a) a) - a) a) N U `n C - E 3 c a) N c 6-p a °-•`- o a a•- -° = c N .2 @ cn CO N o a °-•� .o ° �� a < o J ° co co • -° a3 a) L a) — En a) o < v> c s �n a ? w cU 0 • a) oU o a) . 0 u) .c — o P? 8 oU m a) ' ° U m t o c •°`- .c@ �_ U c Y m o -5 2 .o m -°p a? of)) w s c) c .cc. _ >. c a E 7.")" '5 E U '-5 E N 6 o � .@ a o c c .3 E a°i 'a 3 a) 2 0 0 a) 'o o o a) -a) c m E m a s 3 m o o a) o 4 a) owU m ° wU a) ° 5 0 in a c o m o owU a) c aw a c °-U 0 E m aU m 0 E m '� a)— o co . as a c ° U cyv E ca — 0 8 ET @ QD aa) .E Q v) aa) .Q m `o .° ° o 3 (° - @'a Q m .m aci a Q s n = f0 ° o E = az a) o f rn rn m c o ?`io m o a) E z ° a w E 6 z ° > -0 o Z ° > n o c o o m Q �, ° a c ° w o �' Z m U > ° a) �, ° a) O w F w E g o Q o 'm ° o) o ° F c F 4- E LL .Q O o D .E co c t ° u) ` >,W y 0 o a) O D •E@ z 'c•N N y Z Z y co ,n Z a i CO a) c N c m e Z cn Z w 0 5 Z o o me O o u coo c io c •5 E c E ,a m .o - O o 2 ..o = • OU .o °a .Q , U :... , , ;_, o U . = = . o c C C0 • • a) .a) o m U fo 0 U ° m c 7 U a o w :p < "a o v) "o o a) a) a) ■ 3 � 7 U Q -0 O cn LE 'a Q a 2 x < o a) a) o oc � oc 'no ) o o c a) Q.°- E � v, ' 'cv c -0 c 5 x (I) a) 2 o o c � o N a) W W U CC y ° c) a U U cC - c.) T.) ,2 w co a.- U) I- . a a) a Q a) W W U IX .. c-) U ,a U U icb U n Q o _ 88 92Q 75 cn c a) cn � 0 0 ° g a) o) 0) co co co c .a) .1 =a co c) Q c < c '5 a � � `a co ° Q U) N N C N C co c a a) U) o 0 W Ua) w U V u) 0 u) 0 U) 0 W U) W o 2 y a) 6 a a a a. a a ° I I = I I I I TO w W W W W w w 0. .0 t s .c .c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t . a a) a) a) a a) a) a> a) O a) c c c c I I I g jl it LL LL W W W a r C) a) p w II N c 0 O' m O Z'm U N N coza''c c a) mc 'O C o o L • '� m 4 U I O.a) N O N a) , N C Ca a) U) U L ) C w 1 U> O O U) . 0 (° (° W W a) x (II F- o •CV -8 _ O 0 0 _ N >- Ea 0 W N � O N 20 o (C° C a L CC a) 0 0)N ,� F- o 9 0 C 0 M M U) N .o 2 H • (n v S (n W W o m � Mo L ca 0 ca (,) w U C7ZM w y N- L > rn o o u)) O 0 0 c � C Q � cn � � 2 °� � 0 C L n Z Z '- m a) (° rn � W r� N ... = i° N Q c ° _ .c? C co m 3 2) 2 _ Lo L a) 3 E m CO c a E cn T, v �Q E a) Urt a) O � 3 'a L :? LNN � L c o � a4 ) a) o N N C L -0 C N U ,— 0 -o C 3 0 N C rn 0 0 2 v T CD (1.) _C 0 a) a) � a) Q mo3 °) � � � � c °' c -760N a F,-. _ o _ ,, Cr) m E 'c c i° c,--e, '5 a) O co o °, o o L m `° i° f° c it- _ 3 U U �- O O 15.(T3 a 0 0 ; C 3 C '5 co a E co 03 -6 v) 0 N p Q (0° H o a c 0 N - 0 CO° (0 ~ .O I Q- L N .a-0 a) N E o0 m a) U .0 (n N - �' a v N N C *- N N �' co am Z a) O .c N- N f° C) -0 Q 0 •C C Y- o 0 0 ) O A U' 0) U) L 0 -C co Q) `) T U •- € •L-' M .L O '2 C a no N ch U .° a) I° co .5 LP- � m U o 0 U = v-) 3 o o o 0 C o co 0 v •o m E o fn ° o cu ', E -£ g - L L D N a) N (° C 0 a) ‘- 0 N a) a) U a E CO &- .C (° N Z am (Do - o c a n.� "E •c C = U U -0 (D CO 0 ao c 0 -0 3 - `* a 0 000 O a) d -°-p a3 T U 0) N 0 (0 " 0 a) L +c- N E .- N � c - C a) c - c1) - F2 S ao ID C asi a ° £ @ 0 rn o a) 0 �S o EN- 0) Rz zM1- V c° o20 cc (° m �' a ) Q a) .1 m N m C a U N c00o o co` � c� � F °o' Z ° N m a) � p °�° IL 0 V a) N >, U O a. E M C N 0 M „, O 0 N 0 .r 3 M a o) >,a Co 7 • w - (° o a w N o 01"- N- 0 a) .c U 7 C -D 0—0 E 0 ' 0 ° a) v :5 0 m Q 2---.N izz u) a°c) � -8)V0 0OO oOw a° vwcwi) UJO 3 0 (° C - C E F- °) 7, F c ••a (U° o .� co) E 2 2 2 2 8 ? o a) 8 E c'c o aa)) 0 0 0 0 0 1 c - @ c y _ t U W C a) ' < a Q E LL c° t o z w -3 ` >,u_ 1- E v CO o =a (° a) o S a x�• rn v o� a c m C a) o O N LE a) - 0 .- c N a) p N- • 0 c � CO �,a:? Ei° N N N N y CC " U U '' N a.- CO p) CO Co O O O N-O F o Q co W z -° o Q . Q a < zz L > „—• U v) 0 U)) U) cc 0 0 Z (n 2 2 O z N OT d I- Z O J c) u) i W W u) O� 0- 0 N r 3 ° O w O o . a3.) r 5 8 m a) d -0 CC 0 3 ,T. _ 5 Q o O W 0 a a rn 2 I O co i) � co a a W W Z = F2 sr ) . \!\\\ a § 2 \/ - k $c / o — 2 2 '§ a/ m ) _ kf � G co 2 % >5f / 7 \ E\ \ � \ g \� \ ƒ [ § k � k f m ± / \ •) S 7 o c ± 12 f k / tea o as % E .2 ( \ a CO CO § 8 c 7 \ - » \ b I \ k ( / \ � � � � � _ _ � 7 / ® ® � ("■1 CO ( ƒ / \ e \ \ � I [ o 2 2 o \ )0. [ 2aZo0 � z , I— R ƒ / 0 0 f \ - a CL E .t \ .8 \ N k \ \ cu 2 I r-- 7 ! / \ 0 \ \ 3 f W )■2 / ) 2 k ƒ k \ 7 7 a)k c ' .g ƒ / �_ ƒ 7 p k ƒ \ ) a w ' \ ) _ Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants CAC Jane 2bfIf 15 VIII-4 New Business 1 of 15 PA-04-F L-4068-PW-01079(0) Applicant Name: Application Title: COLLIER(COUNTY) CCGGS13-South Marco Beach Period of Performance Start: Period of Performance End: 07-03-2012 01-03-2014 Subgrant Application - Entire Application Application Title: Fe Application Number: O4•H.4 P�,R3,..rs1O79 Application Type: z.. r rat- _:>'c;atti>r Pt'd Preparer Information Prefix Mr. First Name GREGORY Middle Initial Last Name SLATTON Title Beach Specialist Agency/Organization Name FEMA PA TAC Address 1 FEMA JFO Address 2 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste 79 City Tallahassee State FL Zip 32303 Email steven.hyatt@em.myflorida.com Is the application preparer the Point of Contact? No Point of Contact Information Prefix Mr. First Name Len Middle Initial Last Name Price Title Administrator-Administrative Services Division Agency/Organization Collier(County) Address 1 3299 East Tamiami Trail Address 2 Suite 601 City Naples State FL https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 07/31/2013 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants CAC Jane 2,af 15 VIII-4 New Business 2 of 15 ZIP 34112-5749 Phone 239-252-8908 Fax 239-252-8720 Email lenprice @colliergov.net Alternate Point of Contact Information Prefix Mr. First Name Steve Middle Initial Last Name Hyatt Title Deputy PAO Agency/Organization Florida Division of Emergency Management Address 1 2555 Shummard Oak Blvd. Address 2 City Tallahassee State FL ZIP 32399 Phone 850-487-1660 Fax Email steven.hyatt@em.myflorida.com Project Description Disaster Number: 4068 Pre-Application Number: PA-04-FL-4068-RPA-0063 Applicant ID: 021-99021-00 Applicant Name: COLLIER (COUNTY) Subdivision: Project Number: CCGGSI3 Standard Project Number/Title: 799- Recreational or Other Please Indicate the Project Type: Neither Alternate nor Improved Application Title: CCGGSI3-South Marco Beach Category: G.RECREATIONAL OR OTHER Percentage Work Completed? 0.0% As of Date: 11-29-2012 Comments Applicant may request an Improved Project to incorporate repairs decribed in this PW with a planned renourishment project. 11/30/12-As described in 44 CFR 13.43, applicant must maintain all work-related records for a period of three(3)years from applicant closure (final payment), all records relative this project worksheet are subject to examination and audit by the State, FEMA and the Comptroller General of the United States and must reflect work related to disaster specific costs. Attachments Damage Facilities(Part 1 of 2) https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 07/31/2013 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants CAC Janda 21f 15 VIII-4 New Business 3 of 15 Site Facility Facility Name Address County City State ZIP Previously Action Number Damaged? 1 South Marco Beach South Marco Island Collier Naples FL 34112 Yes Comments Attachments Hard Copy User Date Document Type Description File File Name Action Reference GREGORY 12-_ Additional DR1785 Marco DR1785 PW and docs.pdf SLATTON 02- Beach PW and (9.17 Mb) View 2012 does GREGORY 12 FDEP approved 2005 Permit%20Drawings% View SLATTON 02- Drawings/Sketches plans 20(12-22-05).pdf(1.62 Mb) 2012 FDEP Permit GREGORY 12- Additional Modification 2006 Permit Mod(12-27- View SLATTON 2012 Information adding north 06).pdf(2.42 Mb) beach GREGORY 12- Additional FDEP Beach FDEP Beach Management SLATTON 02- Information Management Plan-S. Marco excerpt.pdf View 2012 Plan excerpt (28.88 kb) GREGORY 12 SLATTON 02- Map Location Map Location Map.pdf(898.71 kb) View 2012 GREGORY 12 SLATTON 02- Photos Site Visit Photos Photo Sheet.pdf(287.75 kb) View 2012 GREGORY 12- Marco Beach SMarcoFinalDrawings.pdf View SLATTON 02- Drawings/Sketches Plans (841.82 kb) 2012 GREGORY 12 Additional Volume Change Marco Volume Change View SLATTON 2012 Information Table Table.pdf(39.27 kb) Facility Name: South Marco Beach Address 1: South Marco Island Address 2: County: Collier City: Naples State: FL ZIP: 34112 Was this site previously damaged? Yes PA-04-FL-4068-PW-01079(0): South Marco Island, FL https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 07/31/2013 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants CAC Jan&Aff f 15 VIII-4 New Business 4 of 15 Location: PA-04-FL-4068-PW-01079(0): DAMAGE DESCRIPTION As a result of high winds and surf associated with Tropical Storm (TS) Debby , the applicant-maintained public beach lying between FDEP R- monuments R139 and G-5 in Collier County sustained significant beach erosion. Applicant's estimated erosion along 9,594 linear feet (LF) of shoreline is based upon a pre-storm survey(December 2011)and post- storm and storm survey(August 2012) by applicant's coastal engineer, Atkins.The Damage Dimensions: attached Collier County Tropical Storm Debby Post-Storm Report, October 2012, describes survey methodology and details volume change locations in Table 16. Table 16 details losses along the full profile width of engineered beach between R139 to G-5, and shows that a total of 16,959 CY eroded during the 8-month period December 2011 —August 2012. PA-04-FL-4068-PW-01079(0): ****SCOPE OF WORK**** WORK TO BE COMPLETED As an engineered, nourished, and regularly-maintained beach, South Marco Beach is eligible under Category G for PA funding to restore it to its pre-disaster condition.Applicant requests FEMA PA reimbursement of costs to replace sand erosion attributable to T.S. Debby. Debby-related sand loss is the volume lost between the applicant's pre-and-post storm surveys minus normally-occurring background losses during that 8-month interval.The engineering report does not detail the background losses, but states that the project area lost 5,595 CY between December 2010 and December 2011, a monthly rate of 466 CY. The Debby-caused loss was 16,959 CY—466 CY/mo x 8 months = 13,228 CY.The attached Volume Change Table details the changes over the improved beach. Applicant plans to replace the Debby-related losses as an integral part of his next scheduled beach renourishment project along with the replacement of 76,728 CY of T.S. Fay loss previously approved in Improved Project DR1785-PW 561.Applicant will include this PW's sand volume as a separate contract line item. No work has been done to date. Scope of Work: The cost estimate for this PW is based on estimated costs for DR1785 PW 561. No additional costs for mobilization/demobilization, environmental monitoring, or a geotechnical study are included since those costs were estimated and included in the DR1785 PW. Estimated costs are comparable to historical costs experienced by other applicants for similar work in the area and are deemed reasonable. Upon completion, this site will be returned to its pre-disaster design, function and capacity within the original footprint. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state and/or federal permits as they may apply to this project. ************ Notes: To be eligible under Category G the beach must meet the following criteria (ref. PA Guide, FEMA-322, June 2007, pgs 86,87): A beach is considered eligible for permanent repair if it is an improvedbeach and has been routinely maintained prior to the disaster. A beach is considered to be an "improved beach" if the following criteria apply: the beach was constructed by the placement of sand to a designed elevation,width, grain size, and slope; and the beach have been maintained in accordance with a maintenance program involving the https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 07/31/2013 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants CAC Jan&W 214015 VIII-4 New Business 5 of 15 periodic re-nourishment of sand. By accepting this grant, applicant certifies that all work will done on property for which he is legally responsible and is accessible to the general public. Documentation maintained by the Applicant must typically include: a) Design documents including engineering specifications and grain size analysis b)"As-built"plans of the project c) Documentation of regular renourishment of the beach d) Pre-storm cross-sections of the beach e) Post-storm cross-sections of the beach. The project specialist has reviewed design plans, FDEP permits, and other documentation provided by the applicant and is satisfied that the facility meets FEMA's criteria for an improved beach. An excerpt from the FDEP FL Beach Management Plan is attached and ststes that the beach has been filled and imprroved in various ways since 1991. The subgrantee is requesting direct administrative costs that are directly chargeable to this specific project.Associated eligible work is related to administration of the PA project only and in accordance with 44 CFR 13.22. These costs are treated consistently and uniformly as direct costs in all federal awards and other subgrantee activities and are not included in any approved indirect cost rates.******* 12/2/2012 -As described in 44 CFR 13.43, applicant must maintain all work-related records for a period of three (3)years from applicant closure (final payment), all records relative this project worksheet are subject to examination and audit by the State, FEMA and the Comptroller General of the United States and must reflect work related to disaster specific costs GIS Coordinates Project Location Latitude Longitude R144 25.92148 -81.7293 R148 26.91094 -81.72893 Special Considerations 1. Does the damaged facility or item of work have insurance coverage and/or is it an insurable No risk(e.g., buildings, equipment, vehicles, etc)? 2. Is the damaged facility located within a floodplain or coastal high hazard area and/or does it Yes have an impact on a floodplain or wetland? If you would like to make any comments, please enter them below. sitl�?XIEYY Et .in;„ti FIRM 12021C0836H Zone VE 3. Is the damaged facility or item of work located within or adjacent to a Coastal Barrier No Resource System Unit or an Otherwise Protected Area? 4. Will the proposed facility repairs/reconstruction change the pre-disaster conditions (e.g., No footprint, material, location, capacity, use of function)? 5. Does the applicant have a hazard mitigation proposal or would the applicant like technical No assistance for a hazard mitigation proposal? 6. Is the damaged facility on the National Register of Historic Places or the state historic No listing? Is it older than 50 years?Are there more, similar buildings near the site? 7. Are there any pristine or undisturbed areas on, or near, the project site?Are there large No https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 07/31/2013 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants CAC JaniggegcY A,lf 15 VIII-4 New Business 6 of 15 tracts of forestland? 8. Are there any hazardous materials at or adjacent to the damaged facility and/or item of No work? 9. Are there any other environmental or controversial issues associated with the damaged No facility and/or item of work? Attachments Document Hard Copy File User Date Description File Name Action Type Reference GREGORY 12-02- Map FIRM FM12021C0836H.pdf(9.44 View SLATTON 2012 Mb) For Category C, D, E,F,and G Projects only Is effective mitigation feasible on this project? No If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required Will mitigation be performed on any sites in this project? If you answered Yes to the above question, the next question is required Do you wish to attach a Hazard Mitigation Proposal? If you answered Yes to the above question, the next two questions are required Please provide the Scope of Work for the estimate: Would you like to add the Hazard Mitigation Proposal as a cost line item to the project cost? Comments Applicant requested mitigation on DR1785 PW 561 Attachments Cost Estimate Is this Project Worksheet for Cost Estimate Format (Preferred) Repair Sequence Code Material and/or Unit Unit of Unit Price Subgrant Cost Action Description Quantity Measure Budget Class Estimate CEF Cost Estimate 1 90.00 (See Attached 1 LS 161,194.00 CONSTRUCTION $ 161,194.00 Spreadsheet) Total Cost: $161,194.00 Insurance Adjustments(Deductibles, Proceeds and Settlements) Sequence Code Material and/or Unit Unit of Unit Price Subgrant Cost Action Description Quantity Measure Budget Class Estimate 1 9999 Direct Administrative 1 LS $0.00 PERSONNEL $0.00 Costs Total Cost: $0.00 Total Cost Estimate: $ 161,194.00 https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTi le=&topTi le=dsHeader&b... 07/31/2013 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants CAC Jane 27o44f 15 VIII-4 New Business 7 of 15 (Pcforred Es0rnate Typo+insurance Adju tmo cts)'Aw:rood cost hoe tteols $161.104:00 Roma ring cost line items:S 0 00 Comments Attachments Document Hard Copy File User Date Description File Name Action Type Reference GREGORY 12-09- Calculation CEF CEF CCGGS13 South Marco View SLATTON 2012 Sheet Estimate Island.pdf(115.93 kb) Existing Insurance Information Insurance Type Policy No. Bldg/Property Content Insurance Deductible Years Amount Amount Amount Amount Required Comments Attachments Comments and Attachments Name of Section Comment Attachment Applicant may request an Improved Project to incorporate repairs decribed in this PW with a planned renourishment project. 11/30/12 -As described in 44 CFR 13.43, applicant must maintain all work-related records for a Project Description period of three(3)years from applicant closure (final payment), all records relative this project worksheet are subject to examination and audit by the State, FEMA and the Comptroller General of the United States and must reflect work related to disaster specific costs. DR1785 PW and docsrdf 2005 Permit°Jo20Drawings%o 20(12-22-05).pdf 2006 Permit Mod(12-27- 06).pdf Damage Facilities FDEP Beach Management Plan -S. Marco excerpt pdf Location Map.pdf Photo Sheetpdf SMarcoFinalDrawings.pdf Marco Volume Change Table Special Considerations FM 12.021C0836H_pdf Mitigation Applicant requested mitigation on DR1785 PW 561 Cost Estimate CEF CCGGS13 South Marco lsland.pdf CCGGS13 - Signed Application_Part1.pdf Application Level CCGGS13 - Signed Application Part2.pdf CCGGS13 - Signed https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 07/31/2013 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants CAC Janis 20�f 15 VIII-4 New Business 8 of 15 Appl ication_Part3.pdf CCGGS13 - Signed Application_Part4.pdf Bundle Reference#(Amendment#) Date Awarded PA-04-FL-4068-State-0045(44) 07-29-2013 Subgrant Application - FEMA Form 90-91 Note:The Effective Cost Share for this application is 75% FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY PROJECT WORKSHEET DISASTER PROJECT PA ID NO. DATE CATEGORY NO. 021-99021-00 12-14-2012 G FEMA 4068 - DR -FL CCGGS13 APPLICANT:COLLIER(COUNTY) WORK COMPLETE AS OF: 11-29-2012:0% Site 1 of 1 DAMAGED FACILITY: COUNTY: Collier South Marco Beach LOCATION: LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: 26.91094 -81.72893 25.92148 -81.7293 PA-04-FL-4068-PW-01079(0): South Marco Island,FL DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS: PA-04-FL-4068-PW-01079(0): DAMAGE DESCRIPTION As a result of high winds and surf associated with Tropical Storm(TS)Debby,the applicant-maintained public beach lying between FDEP R-monuments R139 and G-5 in Collier County sustained significant beach erosion.Applicant's estimated erosion along 9,594 linear feet(LF)of shoreline is based upon a pre-storm survey(December 2011)and post-storm survey(August 2012) by applicant's coastal engineer,Atkins.The attached Collier County Tropical Storm Debby Post-Storm Report,October 2012,describes survey methodology and details volume change locations in Table 16.Table 16 details losses along the full profile width of engineered beach between R139 to G-5,and shows that a total of 16,959 CY eroded during the 8-month period December 2011—August 2012. SCOPE OF WORK: PA-04-FL-4068-PW-01079(0): ****SCOPE OF WORK****WORK TO BE COMPLETED As an engineered,nourished,and regularly-maintained beach,South Marco Beach is eligible under Category G for PA funding to restore it to its pre-disaster condition.Applicant requests FEMA PA reimbursement of costs to replace sand erosion attributable to T.S.Debby.Debby-related sand loss is the volume lost between the applicant's pre-and-post storm surveys minus normally-occurring background losses during that 8-month interval.The engineering report does not detail the background losses,but states that the project area lost 5,595 CY between December 2010 and December 2011,a monthly rate of 466 CY.The Debby- caused loss was 16,959 CY—466 CY/mo x 8 months=13,228 CY.The attached Volume Change Table details the changes over the improved beach.Applicant plans to replace the Debby-related losses as an integral part of his next scheduled beach renourishment project along with the replacement of 76,728 CY of T.S.Fay loss previously approved in Improved Project DR1785-PW 561.Applicant will include this PW's sand volume as a separate contract line item.No work has been done to date.The cost estimate for this PW is based on estimated costs for DR1785 PW 561.No additional costs for mobilization/demobilization,environmental monitoring,or a geotechnical study are included since those costs were estimated and included in the DR1785 PW.Estimated costs are comparable to historical costs experienced by other applicants for similar work in the area and are deemed reasonable.Upon completion,this site will be returned to its pre-disaster design,function and capacity within the original footprint.The applicant is responsible for obtaining all local,state and/or federal permits as they may apply to this project.************Notes:To be eligible under Category G the beach must meet the following criteria(ref. https://isource.fema.net/emm ie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 07/31/2013 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants CAC Jant. 2D 15 VIII-4 New Business 9 of 15 PA Guide,FEMA-322,June 2007,pgs 86,87):A beach is considered eligible for permanent repair if it is an improvedbeach and has been routinely maintained prior to the disaster.A beach is considered to be an"improved beach"if the following criteria apply:the beach was constructed by the placement of sand to a designed elevation,width,grain size,and slope;and the beach have been maintained in accordance with a maintenance program involving the periodic re-nourishment of sand.By accepting this grant,applicant certifies that all work will done on property for which he is legally responsible and is accessible to the general public.Documentation maintained by the Applicant must typically include:a)Design documents including engineering specifications and grain size analysis b)"As-built"plans of the project c)Documentation of regular renourishment of the beach d)Pre-storm cross-sections of the beach e)Post-storm cross-sections of the beach.The project specialist has reviewed design plans,FDEP permits,and other documentation provided by the applicant and is satisfied that the facility meets FEMA's criteria for an improved beach.An excerpt from the FDEP FL Beach Management Plan is attached and ststes that the beach has been filled and imprroved in various ways since 1991.The subgrantee is requesting direct administrative costs that are directly chargeable to this specific project.Associated eligible work is related to administration of the PA project only and in accordance with 44 CFR 13.22.These costs are treated consistently and uniformly as direct costs in all federal awards and other subgrantee activities and are not included in any approved indirect cost rates.*******12/2/2012-As described in 44 CFR 13.43,applicant must maintain all work-related records for a period of three(3)years from applicant closure(final payment),all records relative this project worksheet are subject to examination and audit by the State,FEMA and the Comptroller General of the United States and must reflect work related to disaster specific costs Does the Scope of Work change the pre- disaster conditions at the site? r Yes Special Considerations included? F Yes r No F No Hazard Mitigation proposal included? Yes F No Is there insurance coverage on this facility? Yes F No PROJECT COST ITEM CODE NARRATIVE QUANTITY/UNIT UNIT PRICE COST CEF Cost Estimate 1 9000 (See Attached 1/LS $ 161,194.00 $ 161,194.00 Spreadsheet) 2 0000 Insurance 0/LS $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Adjustments 3 9999 Direct Administrative 1/LS $0.00 $0.00 Costs TOTAL $ 161,194.00 COST PREPARED BY GREGORY SLATTON TITLE Beach Specialist SIGNATURE APPLICANT REP.Len Price TITLE Administrator-Administrative Services Division SIGNATURE COLLIER(COUNTY) : PA-04-FL-4068-PW-01079 Conditions Information Review Name Condition Type Condition Name Description Monitored Status CWA CONDITION: The subgrantee is responsible for coordinating with and obtaining any required section 401 and 404 permit(s)from FDEP Beaches and Coastal Final Review Other(EHP) Clean Water Act Management Division to No Approved (CWA) obtain a Coastal Construction Control Line(CCCL) permit prior to initiating work. The subgrantee shall comply with all conditions of the required permit. All coordination pertaining to these activities https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 07/31/2013 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants CAC JaNe9,1- if 15 VIII-4 New Business 10 of 15 should be documented and compliance maintained in their permanent files. Failure to comply with these conditions may jeopardize FEMA funding;verification of compliance will be required at project closeout. If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, applicant will monitor ground Standard disturbance and if any Final Review Other(EHP) Condition#3 potential archeological No Approved resources are discovered,will immediately cease construction in that area and notify the State and FEMA. This review does not address all federal, state and local requirements. Acceptance of federal funding requires Standard recipient to comply with all Final Review Other(EHP) Condition#2 federal, state and local laws. No Approved Failure to obtain all appropriate federal, state and local environmental permits and clearances may jeopardize federal funding. Any change to the approved Standard scope of work will require re- Final Review Other(EHP) Condition#1 evaluation for compliance with No Approved NEPA and other Laws and Executive Orders. NHPA: Prior to conducting repairs, applicant must identify the source and location of sand material. If the sand souce is privately owned, or is located on previously National Historic undisturbed land, FEMA Final Review Other(EHP) Preservation Act consultation with the State No Approved (NHPA) Historic Preservation Officer will be required. Failure to comply with this condition may jeopardize FEMA funding; verification of compliance will be required at project closeout. Executive Order Final Review Other(EHP) 11988- No Approved Floodplains ESA CONDITIONS: Per the Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion (SPBO; Service August 22,2011),the subgrantee must adhere to the following: Sea Turtle https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 07/31/2013 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants CAC JartAe9,121314f 15 VIII-4 New Business 11 of 15 Reasonable and Prudent Measures,the Standard Manatee Conditions for In- Water Work shall be implemented, commitments outlined in the SPBO regarding piping plovers must be implemented, FWC standard guidelines for the protection of nesting shorebirds must be Endangered implemented for work between Final Review Other(EHP) Species Act February 15 to August 31, No Approved (ESA) surveys shall be conducted daily throughout the construction period.All of these conditions are included in the USACE permit and consultation with USFWS. Verification that these project conditions have been met will be required as part of project closeout. Non-compliance with EHP project conditions may jeopardize federal funding. CZMA CONDITION: The subgrantee is responsible for obtaining any required FDEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems Coastal Zone permits/waivers. Compliance Final Review Other(EHP) Management Act with FDEP requirements No Approved (CZMA) constitutes compliance with Florida CZM. Failure to comply with these conditions may jeopardize FEMA funding; verification of compliance will be required at project closeout. At close out this project is subject to actual cost recalculation.Applicant is required to submit at close out, line item cost that can be aligned with the CEF format Final Review Reporting Close out cost used to estimate the costs for Yes Approved Requirements submission this project and the DR 1785 pw 561 project. At close out this worksheet is subject to recalculation to comply with FEMA second appeal, Collier County, DR 1393, May 14, 2012. Cory Spaulding TAC. If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, EHP Review Other(EHP) Standard applicant will monitor ground No Recommended Condition#3 disturbance and if any potential archeological resources are discovered,will https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 07/31/2013 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants CAC JairdAe9IAAf 15 VIII-4 New Business 12 of 15 immediately cease construction in that area and notify the State and FEMA. This review does not address all federal, state and local requirements. Acceptance of federal funding requires Standard recipient to comply with all EHP Review Other(EHP) Condition#2 federal, state and local laws. No Recommended Failure to obtain all appropriate federal, state and local environmental permits and clearances may jeopardize federal funding. Any change to the approved Standard scope of work will require re- EHP Review Other(EHP) Condition#1 evaluation for compliance with No Recommended NEPA and other Laws and Executive Orders. NHPA: Prior to conducting repairs, applicant must identify the source and location of sand material. If the sand souce is privately owned, or is located on previously National Historic undisturbed land, FEMA EHP Review Other(EHP) Preservation Act consultation with the State No Recommended (NHPA) Historic Preservation Officer will be required. Failure to comply with this condition may jeopardize FEMA funding; verification of compliance will be required at project closeout. Executive Order EHP Review Other(EHP) 11988- No Recommended Floodplains ESA CONDITIONS: Per the Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion (SPBO; Service August 22,2011), the subgrantee must adhere to the following: Sea Turtle Reasonable and Prudent Measures,the Standard Manatee Conditions for In- Endangered Water Work shall be EHP Review Other(EHP) Species Act implemented, commitments No Recommended (ESA) outlined in the SPBO regarding piping plovers must be implemented, FWC standard guidelines for the protection of nesting shorebirds must be implemented for work between February 15 to August 31, surveys shall be conducted daily throughout the https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 07/31/2013 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants CAC Jariifye9, fif 15 VIII-4 New Business 13 of 15 construction period.All of these conditions are included in the USACE permit and consultation with USFWS. Verification that these project conditions have been met will be required as part of project closeout. Non-compliance with EHP project conditions may jeopardize federal funding. CZMA CONDITION: The subgrantee is responsible for obtaining any required FDEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems Coastal Zone permits/waivers. Compliance EHP Review Other(EHP) Management Act with FDEP requirements No Recommended (CZMA) constitutes compliance with Florida CZM. Failure to comply with these conditions may jeopardize FEMA funding; verification of compliance will be required at project closeout. CWA CONDITION:The subgrantee is responsible for coordinating with and obtaining any required section 401 and 404 permit(s)from FDEP Beaches and Coastal Management Division to obtain a Coastal Construction Control Line(CCCL) permit prior to initiating work. The EHP Review Other(EHP) Can Water Act subgrantee shall comply with No Recommended (CWA) all conditions of the required permit. All coordination pertaining to these activities should be documented and compliance maintained in their permanent files. Failure to comply with these conditions may jeopardize FEMA funding;verification of compliance will be required at project closeout. Internal Comments No. Queue User Date/Time Reviewer Comments Award 07-29-2013 7 Review SYSTEM 02:48 PM ACCEPTED GMT Reviewed project, storm related sand quantities are calculated with normal background erosion subtracted based upon applicant supplied data. Worksheet sand quantities were calculated in compliance with May 14, 2012 second appeal for this applicant, FEMA DR 1393. Repairs for sand lost in this https://isource.fema.net/emm ie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 07/31/2013 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants CAC JaAit e9,12ifif 15 VIII-4 New Business 14 of 15 disaster are to be done in conjunction with the applicant's regular beach nourishment and sand loss from DR 1785 PW 561. Project is subject to close out recalculation of actual costs. Present costs are based upon estimates. At close out TAYLOR 07-02-2013 the two FEMA projects from different disaster will be 6 Final Review MOODY 08:47 PM recalculated based upon actual costs as well as to pro rate the KAREN GMT fixed costs proportionally as is detailed in the second appeal which describes the method of calculating FEMA eligible costs when FEMA projects are combined together and or combined with the applicants regular beach nourishment cycle. Cory Spaulding TAC JOHNSON 06-25-2013 5 Final Review SR DAVID 12:02 PM 6-25-2013 PW need to have a Final Review Completed GMT JOHNSON 06-25-2013 4 Final Review SR DAVID 12:01 PM 6-25-2013 PW need to have a Final Review Completed GMT Reviewed project, storm related sand quantities are calculated with normal background erosion subtracted based upon applicant supplied data. Worksheet sand quantities were calculated in compliance with May 14, 2012 second appeal for this applicant, FEMA DR 1393. Repairs for sand lost in this disaster are to be done in conjunction with the applicant's 06-14-2013 regular beach nourishment and sand loss from DR 1785 PW SPAULDING 561. Project is subject to close out recalculation of actual 3 Final Review CORY GMT PM costs. Present costs are based upon estimates. At close out the two FEMA projects from different disaster will be recalculated based upon actual costs as well as to pro rate the fixed costs proportionally as is detailed in the second appeal which describes the method of calculating FEMA eligible costs when FEMA projects are combined together and or combined with the applicants regular beach nourishment cycle. Cory Spaulding TAC SOW: Collier County (25.92148, -81.7293), CAT G-Applicant made repairs to South Marco Beach, consisting of placing 13,228 CY of beach-quality sand on 9,594 LF of damaged beach surface, between monuments R139 and G5. Beach returned to predisaster condition. -ssander5-02/06/2013 18:26:33 GMT CWA: See condition. -ssander5-02/06/2013 18:15:00 GMT CZMA: See condition. -ssander5-02/06/2013 18:16:19 GMT EO 11990: Not in wetlands per review of USFWS National 05-31-2013 Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapper, accessed 02/06/2013. - COLLINS ssander5-02/06/2013 18:22:08 GMT 2 EHP Review DAWN GMT PM ESA: Per USFWS concurrence letter dated April 24, 2013 (attached). SEE CONDITIONS. -dcollin3- 05/31/2013 13:41:45 GMT EO 11988:The project is located in Zone AE per Collier County FIRM Panel# 12021C0836H, dated 05/16/2012. Floodplain avoidance by relocating the facility or abandoning its use is not a practicable alternative and the no-action alternative would adversely impact social or economic resources for the community. See FIRM attached in EMMIE. - ssander5-02/06/2013 18:19:14 GMT NHPA: See condition.-ssander5-02/06/2013 18:14:30 GMT Quality ROCQUE Sub grantee application has been reviewed appears to be 1 Assurance! RAYMOND 01-11-2013 correct with required information attached. Quality 02:28 PM https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 07/31/2013 Federal Emergency Management Agency E-Grants CAC JaAifA9,`20lif 15 VIII-4 New Business 15 of 15 Control GMT https://isource.fema.net/emmie/dispatchDestination.do?menuTile=&topTile=dsHeader&b... 07/31/2013 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 1 of 4 From: McAloinGary To: HambrightGail Subject: FW: FSBPA Review of DRAFT LGFR for FY 2014-15 Date: Thursday,January 02,2014 1:09:32 PM Attachments: LGFR Fxternal Review E-mads.docx Please see me From: McAlpinGary Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 2:03 PM To: CasalanguidaNick; LorenzWilliam; KearnsAllison; StanleyTherese; OberrathKaren; Keehn, Stephen; 'Brenner,Tara D'; CastilloTara; Pierro, Thomas; FinnEd; 'Carr-Betts, Erica' Cc: IsacksonMark Subject: FW: FSBPA Review of DRAFT LGFR for FY 2014-15 All, It's still a long was off still but based on our ranking, I am cautiously optimistic that Collier will receive State FDEP funding this year. A lot of last minute hard work went into raising our score. Thanks for all the hard work from CP&E and support from Ed Finn to make this happen. This could be worth approximately$1.6M to us. Gary From: Debbie Flack [mailto:floridabeaches)aol,com] Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 2:00 PM To: Gary Appleson; Kevin Bodge; Melody Bolster; Todd Bonlarron; Jim Boyle; Paul Brazil; Al Browder; Dave Bullock; Tom Campbell; Ken Craig; Tim Day; Kathy Fitzpatrick; Juan Florensa; Joe Gerrity; Paolo Ghio; Gretchen Harkins; Steve Keehn; Craig Kruempel; Eddy Labrador; Cathy Lewis; McAlpinGary; Michael J Mcgarry; Brett Moore; Erix Myers; Erik Olsen; Kate Parmelee; Brad Pickel; Thomas Pierro; Tamara Pigott; Michael Poff; Gene A Rauth; James Robinson; Kathleen Rooker; Dan Rowe; Andrew Squires; htompkinsco.st-johns.fl.us; Jim Trifilio; Mike Walther; Rob Weber; Laird Wreford; Thomas Pierro; Chris Creed; 'Alexandrea DavisShaw'; 'Bill Smith'; 'Brian Flynn'; 'Charlie Hunsicker'; 'Donald G. Donaldson P.E.'; 'James Gray'; 'James Houston'; 'Leanne Welch'; 'Martin Smithson'; 'Richard Bouchard'; 'Steve Boutelle'; 'Virginia Barker' Cc: Lisa Armbruster; Diana Ferguson Subject: FSBPA Review of DRAFT LGFR for FY 2014-15 Please see the attached memo from Alex Reed and my response regarding the local government funding assistance program for statewide beach management . There is very limited opportunity for FSBPA to satisfy the "formal input" requirement in Chapter 161, but we will make some sort of effort to do so. (Sec .161.101 (14) reads: "In establishing annual funding priorities,the department shall seek formal input from local coastal governments, beach and general government interest groups, and university experts.") After cursory review, looks like around 55 beach (LGFR, pages 6-9) and inlet projects (p.11)are part of the FY 2014-15 project ranking/selection process, plus a very hefty monitoring category ($3.7 M) which provides partial funding for 23 projects. Total price tag is approximately$88 million. What is not obvious is what the draft list does not include and that is at least 3 major projects that DEP eliminated as "determined to be premature." Not sure what other projects that didn't make CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 2 of 4 it through the preliminary agency assessment process and for what reasons, given no agency communication prior to the 12/23 e-mail. Obviously,we need to get a read on the Department's authority to make this determination which virtually preempts legislative consideration. All I am aware of is the 18 month FCO intent to be ready for construction (July 1 thru Dec. 31 of the following calendar year) and the readiness-to-proceed criteria as only a tie-breaker in the ranking exercise, but I certainly could be missing something. Keeping in mind this is not final product and is still under department review,we can still guesstimate what the program will look like if DEP's annual $25 M request is not substantially increased by the Legislature. At a statutory minimum, inlet management projects will receive $2.5 million for FY 2014-15. If the Legislature follows DEP's monitoring request that sits at the top of the beach restoration and nourishment list,that leaves just$18.8 million for projects. You can review the list, but bottom line,this level of funding would accommodate just 15 projects, 9 of 15 are for reimbursement of completed construction, and 4 of the 15 are for design only.There are only a few "new" constructions for next fiscal year which might be of concern to lawmakers, and one of these is at a 100%state cost for breakwater rehab in Monroe County which is contrary to current emphasis on cost-effectiveness,specifically leveraging not-state funding. As you review the LGFR separate draft lists for beach and inlet projects, it becomes painfully apparently many good projects will go unfunded, which has happened to a number of these worthy projects on multiple occasions. Time for FSBPA to make sure decision-makers are aware that substantially more state funding is needed to match local and federal dollars to sustain Florida's beaches,at least in the near future,while remaining available to address project specific inquiries during the upcoming legislative appropriations process. Please send any related comments and questions on the draft LGFR to me ASAP, Lisa and I will go to work. I don't believe our response will be final or comprehensive by the agency's Jan. 9 due date, but I am asking you to provide to FSBPA any comments and questions you might have that are either project specific or policy-related. We will do our best to share your input with DEP immediately and with the Legislature during the Jan. committee weeks, but especially after the project lists are formally transmitted by the agency to the Legislature. t—Thk Debbie Flack, President Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association 850.906.9227 (Office) 550,510 5409 (Cell) tee CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 3 of 4 From: Reed, Alex (3illian) [mailto:Alex.Reed©n©deo.state.f!.us] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 4:35 PM To: floridabeachesCahaol.com; Lisa Armbruster; iaryCa`lconserveturtles.orq; Holly Parker; Robert G. Dean; sjames©fl-counties.com; rmatthewsCa�flcities.com; Diana Ferguson Cc: Reed, Alex (Jillian); Buda, Rob; Courson, David; Florko, Catherine; George, Vincent; Weeks, William; Dow, Roxane; Irwin, Danielle; Yaun, Shelley; Thomasson, Mark Subject: FW: Request for External Review- Beach Management Funding Program FY2013/14 Local Government Funding Request Dear External Review Team, The Beach Management Funding Assistance Program has completed its annual review and ranking of statewide beach and inlet projects requesting funding for FY2014/2015. As a representative of the coastal community,the Department asks that you review and provide comments on the draft FY 2014- 2015 Local Government Funding Request (LGFR), prior to its submittal to the Governor and Legislature for funding consideration.The draft document can be found on the program webpage through the following link: ftp://ftp.dep.state.fl.us/pub/ENV-PRMT/Beach Funding Assistance Program- BECP/Multiple Counties/Draft LGFR/ I have also provided two spreadsheets that contain the ranking tables used to track the scores and prioritization of the beach and inlet projects, based on the criteria outlined in Chapter 62B-36, Florida Administrative Code. These spreadsheets are very large but they summarize the points awarded for statewide projects. Detailed ranking information is provided in the project assessment sheets located in project folders, arranged by County,through the following link: http://www.dep.state.f!.us/beaches/programs/beep/fund-red.htm The Department would like to thank you in advance for your efforts. Please provide comments to me by January 9,2014. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Happy Holidays! Program Administrator Beaches and Mines Funding Assistance FDEP Division of Water Resource Management 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard MS 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 office#850.922.7857 fax#850.488.7708 alex.reed@dep.state.fl.us CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 4 of 4 From: Floridabeaches (mailto:floridabeaches@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:15 AM To: Reed,Alex(Jillian) Subject: Re: Request for External Review-Beach Management Funding Program FY2013/14 Local Government Funding Request Thank you. Merry Christmas. Debbie Flack, FSBPA Sent from my iPhone From: Debbie Flack [mailto:floridabeaches@aol,com] Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 11:23 AM To: 'Reed, Alex (Jillian)' Cc: Danielle Irwin (Danielle.Irwin@).dep.state.fl.us); 'Thomasson, Mark' Subject: RE: Request for External Review- Beach Management Funding Program FY2013/14 Local Government Funding Request Alex: Given the arrival of this draft list after hours on 12/23 and the comments due date of January 9, it is very unlikely that FSBPA will be in a position to generally endorse this list during the legislative process without benefit of the traditional opportunities of the past for program staff briefings, input, questions from FSBPA and others, and final discussion. I had hoped our willingness to provide input last year, despite the unreasonable time demands we responded to,was a one-time only"transitional"challenge. Not sure what happened to the more open,extended and collaborative process of the past, but don't see how this limited holiday-impacted schedule satisfies the statutory requirement in subsection 161.101 (14)that "the department shall seek formal input from..." This subject requirement has had considerable exposure during recent FSBPA and legislative discussions on this ranking/selection subsection. I am copying Danielle and Mark only because this is an issue that surely lends itself to the current proviso emphasis on selection process recommendations. It either has to be given real meaning and impact, or the department should argue for its deletion. Based on your request, FSBPA will still attempt to seek input from our Executive Committee and expert working group, and those local sponsors that have already shared concerns with at least the agency's preliminary project assessments, but I am not certain to what extent we will be able to gather sufficient or complete questions and comments for you within this timeframe. In turn,the lack of project specific input could make the 2014 legislative appropriations process more difficult than it need be. tr—%,,„\ Debbie Flack,President Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association 850,906.9227(Office) 850 510 5409(Cell) CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 1 of 67 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Division of Water Resource Management Beach Management Funding Assistance Program December 23,2013 Fixed Capital Outlay Local Government Funding Requests For FY 2014/2015 Q11\O1ECIIONa AO 6\ • L, F LOR A CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 2 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 4 Beach Restoration and Nourishment Projects 5 Beach Restoration and Nourishment Projects Table 6 Inlet Sand Bypassing/Inlet Management Plan Implementation Projects 10 Inlet Sand Bypassing/Inlet Management Plan Implementation Projects Table 11 Post-construction Monitoring 12 Beach Management Projects Duval County Shore Protection Project 13 Anna Maria Island Cortez Groins/Coquina Beach Project 14 Ft. Pierce Shore Protection Project 15 Anna Maria Island-Manatee County Shore Protection Project 16 Gasparilla Island-Lee County Shore Protection Project 17 Jupiter/Carlin Segment- Palm Beach County Shore Protection Project 18 North Boca Raton Segment- Palm Beach County Shore Protection Project 19 Ocean Ridge Segment-Palm Beach County Shore Protection Project 20 Longboat Key Beach Nourishment 21 Lido Key Beach Nourishment 22 Ft.Zachary Taylor Breakwater Rehabilitation and Nourishment 23 St. Joseph Peninsula Beach Nourishment 24 Ft. Pierce Beach Truck Haul 25 Collier County Beach Nourishment 26 South Amelia Island Beach Nourishment 27 Pensacola Beach Nourishment 28 Delray Beach Nourishment 29 Jupiter Island Beach Nourishment 30 Wabasso Beach Restoration 31 Bathtub Beach/Sailfish Point Feasibility 32 South Marco Island Beach Nourishment 33 Segment II-Broward County Shore Protection Project 34 Navarre Beach Nourishment 35 Long Key/Upham Beach Groin Replacement 36 Bonita Beach Nourishment 37 South St. Lucie County Beach Restoration 38 Charlotte County(Knight/Don Pedro Island)Beach Nourishment 39 Mid-Town Beach Nourishment 40 South Siesta Key Beach Nourishment 41 Marathon Beaches Storm Repair 42 Central Boca Raton Beach Nourishment 43 Hallandale Beach Nourishment 44 Phipps Ocean Park Beach Nourishment 45 Key Biscayne Beach Nourishment 46 Perdido Key Beach Restoration 47 Hillsboro Beach Nourishment 48 South Boca Raton Beach Nourishment 49 Mid Reach, Brevard County Shore Protection Project 50 2 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 3 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests TABLE OF CONTENTS(cont'd) South Palm Beach Island Beach Restoration 51 Coral Cove Park Dune Nourishment 52 Curry Hammock Dune Nourishment 53 Vero Beach Restoration 54 Regional Monitoring 55 Inlet Management Projects Port Canaveral IMP Implementation 56 Lake Worth IMP Implementation 57 St. Lucie IMP Implementation 58 East Pass IMP Implementation 59 St.Andrews IMP Implementation 60 South Lake Worth IMP Implementation 61 Sebastian IMP Implementation 62 Longboat Pass IMP Implementation 63 Boca Raton IMP Implementation 64 Venice IMP Implementation 65 Ft. Pierce IMP Implementation 66 Southwest Gulf Coast Regional Inlet Study 67 3 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 4 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests INTRODUCTION Florida is dependent on its 825 miles of sandy beaches fronting the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Straits of Florida for the enjoyment of its residents and tourists. Beaches provide storm protection for public infrastructure and private upland development. Beaches also provide habitat for many species, including many that are endangered and threatened. Each state dollar spent protecting Florida's beaches with widespread public access prevents the loss of$8 in state taxes paid by out-of-state tourists and resident users of Florida's beaches(Florida Atlantic University,2003). Florida's beach management program, pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes (F.S.), the "Beach and Shore Preservation Act", provides for a variety of local government-sponsored erosion control activities (e.g., feasibility and design studies, construction of erosion control structures and engineered sand placement, and post-construction monitoring to document project performance and potential impacts). Restoration involves the initial placement of sand to rebuild a beach that has been severely eroded. Beach nourishment,or periodic maintenance,places sand on previously restored beaches at specific intervals based on project performance in order to maintain original design intent, such as storm protection, recreational beach area and habitat enhancement. The Department of Environmental Protection(DEP) is charged, in Sections 161.091, 161.101, 161.143 and 161.161, F. S., with developing and implementing a comprehensive, long-range statewide beach management plan. DEP has developed, in coordination with local sponsors and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), a Strategic Beach Management Plan (SBMP), Long Range Budget Plan (LRBP),and an inventory of beach erosion control projects.The SBMP adopts strategies for erosion control activities at critically eroded beaches and inlets.Projects must have a clearly identifiable beach management benefit consistent with the SBMP to be eligible for state funding assistance. DEP currently designates 398.6 miles of sandy shoreline as critically eroded. Since 1998, when the Legislature dedicated a portion of the Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund for beach management, $579.1 million has been appropriated to cost-share with local governments on local and federally authorized projects, with each level of government contributing about one-third of the cost of the entire program. This has resulted in the restoration and subsequent maintenance of over 222.1 miles, or nearly 56%,of the state's critically eroded beaches. The funding requests for FY 2014-2015 consist of fifty-nine different projects,which total over$88 million. The prioritized list of beach erosion control projects is organized in two sections: "Beach Restoration and Nourishment Projects"and"Inlet Sand Bypassing/Inlet Management Plan Implementation Projects." Each section contains a list of eligible projects ranked in priority order,based on the authority in Sections 161.101 and 161.143, F. S. and the procedures outlined in Chapter 62B-36, Florida Administrative Code, recently amended in 2013. Projects have been evaluated by DEP, based on consistency with the SBMP, permitting status, readiness to proceed with the proposed funding phase, and the appropriateness of the amount of funding requested. 4 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 5 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests BEACH RESTORATION AND NOURISHMENT PROJECTS DEP has developed a multi-year repair and maintenance strategy to implement the state responsibilities for a comprehensive, long-range, statewide program of beach erosion control; beach preservation, restoration, and nourishment; and storm and hurricane protection.The principles of this strategy are to: • Maximize the infusion of beach-quality sand into the coastal system; • Implement those projects that contribute most significantly to addressing the state's beach erosion problems; • Extend the life of beach restoration projects and reduce the frequency of nourishment; • Encourage regional approaches to ensure the geographic coordination and sequencing of projects; and • Reduce equipment mobilization and demobilization costs. The funding requests for forty-seven Beach Restoration and Nourishment Projects ("Beach Projects") for FY 2014-2015 total nearly $74 million. Projects are presented in the following order: • The Post-construction monitoring list: a comprehensive list of all projects requesting funds for state and federal permit—required monitoring; • Beach Restoration and Nourishment Projects; • Regional Monitoring. Projects have been evaluated by DEP and ranked in priority order.The descriptions of the proposed projects are based primarily on information provided by local governments. Funding eligibility and state cost share are calculated individually for each project based on the public access,as defined by program rule. A summary funding table of the beach restoration and nourishment projects, in priority order as described above, is provided herein. 5 I LO L LO CO CO CO CO > `2 CO 't c~o_ r•-• N- CO_ CO_ CO r, N O CO C)) O CO C)) 0 N CO) 0 3 N c ~ f— f- CO C) 0 N CO C) w _M cri w E 2 Cr; M Cl) 1 o CO O) c; 0'o O m O fA 69 Ef3 EA Ef3 U, 69 Q-0 y g 3 0 0 69 c u_ mz oL? O 0 0 0 v o O 0 .C'� c•c- o CO 0 0 0 N. o 0 0 a) o> a, LO o LO o CO 0 0 rn° co a) w L m u: 12 M CO M 0 N. CV o 2 O) 69 Es (V) Ef3 M O ° O EA EA 6,3 EA i0 c H ER .c.: E G fb Z '. ,- °' 0 � 0 O CO v C) o o o ° Y� Cn CO N O CO 0 N- N y m 0 iz is C) N. co O CO N CO N a • c C) Ln N.' EA N Ef3 6 e- a, -o O I— 0�• (� J• Ef3 try ER ER 69 0 m = w N -,w c c `O a ' o � 0) 0 0 N 0 0 v-0 g CD In in o O N o L - c O s ce N N 0 d• CO O N °w c a E J a a M �- CO O CO L[) N §" j 44 C1 ~ ) N CD CO 0 ER 0 CEO NO CO O aci ti m c Z V C Z M N N •. �- C W Cl) to U, 69 EA 69 y rn 2 y W C C g L.N a 0) Z .N U. CO v/ r O O 69 N 0 69 0 'C 0 C O N co 0 0 co Lc) '� O `�_- (7 r CO r O O a d L.. 01 !E N co M co M E c v o h.Z 0) EA EA 00 69 ° o `g Z •p L '0 EA Ef3 m•� a n CI W = > Z a w m d N CD O E O i. C VV —E 0 ,O . O E c 0 Z AE O r o ii a)y •'L 2 2 Z a,Q a) W EQ O C c L c c L C L C L V, c - W �J re of c •rn ,9)y .0 .9N ,a) w .c)w .EIn m 2 cam as O ( CO c u, cc in c u) ca,a a, • = r 0 c a) 0) O a) 0) o a) 0 0) O a co o I— G 0 0U 0 0U 0 0 0 (.) N.0 NNN QCe , v CN Cl) E t W - - °? y m ^ O p'� C li V Q O C C C •O"- O... W N = C a) O O O -c ca C 2 cc 0 Ii Q Q- C 0) a) O O CD hO CO vict U m C E C N N N O O J > U � 2 co 2 J EL Ux. o 2Nc y,E E LL Q C C �.. ,O)a, N E C d O . V C a) O Q O M 7 C Q O L :C d LLJ O y, •O0 r CO dr GN `. OE Nom- V O V O a) (0 --- (12•v. O-O w i U C !a 0 - ) J E . i ) a t-2 rn 0 .CwCE a cQ •co mca, _ _ a _w i+ U) •� R � r4 2 COO. Ca. 0 0 •4r C .�a� • mac L 13 cE �' ur2 O 3 O` N N N 0 N 0) 2 0) C U 2 X U E m v,c a, 0,N E L -- ca ` .0 s o N .Ca to mc? o•E- �.) C - fn coo O a V !C C) O as Z C .0 O O O OL d R fA N S U O MO co O N'� aw c }I O L U r L r., E ++ •L �Md — d .- W O .- c 7 7 W... .) U2 C) . N d V � C) cI9 � C) Om V m V 2.°Naia, m d , . 1C d CC o O ^ d !0 C d a C d *+ d .0 0) > > c'Ft,0 •0 y C O C c4 t va O C 7 O M O O•Q, O 'ti O w nc°,awa �. O O = L C 0) O ^ i C O ._ Ea O ._ 7 co O n5 a 0. 20 aQm0LS u_ a4( UaCIUa ' aazaa -- NMI CO N N N N- C- O N O CO CO N- 0) ' CO CO CO O O N- CO (o CO I- I > CO O O O 0) C!) d c,, o y = p O N In O N O N 00 O Cn `�€ v CO N N- Lf) N. O co co .- Co 0 N c Ln (A CO CO O N CO (C) 0 0 O a M w w E +, T- C'') In co- CO' CO N r- N C'') CA 0 8 N pop c r c- N . c•- a- a- N CO CO CO CO Q c� N d4 fA 69 69 69 69 64 69 69 69 Ef3 69 C LL caa)i UN N'� o a: C)�w U) 0 O O O O O (n rn o O _'m Q_ o v O O O o O o CO O - O O a) U > r- 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 CO (D Cr) 0 0 22 0 of U) o c') 0 0 0 (o ti L o o c ui a _ 0 O CO LO LO CO N CO CD O CO 0 2 c LL CA N N- LO. (0 Cam') U) 0 CD CD Cr) c'o o Z N N c. , ur? , .- O 1� 4 N r- .2= n O 69 N tf) 69 to r r 69 s- ■ it o �- 69 69 69 69 (9 69 2 E zz, (?) Z ,� - a) 0 In o o u 0 CO N CD O 0 f0 ° O O CO 0 69 N. O N CO 0 0 0 Y CO CO LO it) O Cr) N M O 0 O •N w m 8 Z r O N- CS) Cn CO CA N CD CA O o i�. E m V o U) Co N. O a) co O co (n a 0• W N- 0) M '�' Co d Cr) LO O 0 CD ,c, 0. 3 V C4 69 69 CA d9 CO. CD 00 cr Lo c 0 -a I— co N C 64 Ef) 69 69 69 69 b9 o c $ w J m a d ~ c o Ce i W c o a ° O O O LO O N d' N CD C') O o J a ai� z O a O co O co N O N. CO O C) O y o a E CD C') O (n O v 0 CD (n CO O 0) O o a 0 O a 0 ui ti C) o (n - N- (N (0 0 0 8 2 N (n M CO CO Cr) C- N N CO O CO LO c -c y Z V C a Ce w N. CO CO LI) N CO CO '- LO 0 CO (D y cE o • _ 69 CSI 69 69 69 r- CO ' , (C') 0 °w 0 W 'a Z 69 6R? 69 69 69 69 69 69 m c c .c y N En le U) C Z •N LL 2 in co co co co co co O co ti O O o c O N r+ _ O 69 69 69 O 69 69 c 7 00 E/> o.o - w • Q c W O o a ° u d N 0) N O C) E c o $ • c d M d (n N 0'0 g g Z i = . r N CD N N 'c o W 0 LL CA 69 69 GO 69 CA T 7 > Z w a) U. U. O in ` 0 n O ' ' Z C C C C d ` a 0 c O O 0 o 0 0 0 0 o O O Y E o o U U U U U U U U U U U o �o aci Z E C Z �+ 7 O O O 7 Q O 2 L L C L C �- �- C 2 C L �- C 2 2 c N W J d H ii w (n .0) cn rn rn rn .2) to.� (n v) .0) w to .E 2 2 a� 2 Run H '5' iv c c cu) c C cocoa c u) c c „ w C Q L t 0 0 o °) o °) o O °) O °) O 00) 0 O o ,.E. � o as 0 0 000 0 U 00000 000 0 -2-a; 8� y Q � N O a o>' o E2 U. w r CD W C5 co W u) N En Cn O C V) CO 0 O. m a� oc o °1 IX c 0 Y c6 - i^ 0 O Cn Cn ..- O o ?3? - m LL Q, CO as as S O O 7,-( O 5`N -, > N oo >2 icx = N v- U LL U O 46 m a o w ID Q (5 co a) 0 a 0 .4-) CL cc v c � (cats ° ` 8 ce W 0 moot 0 m oo C`a m �` ' a) o m = ; = oo° o `~ O CO J 0- U LL U' (n ULL0Cn NUmH ! E0 cg , NaEci ch� pO , LL d r o3 o< �;IF u 0 O_ as o - oLLi E N E'• V' i (� L (� N C. N 01 L. CO C= V d O R c O Y CV Cd t O V 2 v r o o °) N0• .7.-...mw, (5r-, CCre C) co co �+ y,,, C04+ ovt 'a t, CC) S,mwc0-irn E �t a Y c m c �' L a '� m >r C C _ C C C) 0- c c d c -o o w o c� 03 .a W e m m m W t = a an d a) cam Ca c �° d m o C 8 C n C z „ o aE >, ECaRQ, odcoEEEoEdo nEo +, �y82.2 4, � m ,, OL 0Lt 3 dZ ` d VLQt VSm +, LZ W it coo �.. C) c U .c N Y ,u) U Y CA .c a) C) L M 0 ca .0 >, U N N L o o 12 Ei v d 43 ?-I CD C O v L d •C r 'c N 1r 64 3 w 'C R '> c'o D o •0 d c 3 0 N a) co 0- E ° = = c = L �O E. = 0 w n8a�a L O CC L O O - O �.,; L �,; d y.; E 0 0 O O d O d L = 0 C- d a0aaJZJZLLmU) WLLWOZU) ZaZ0anZ D - NMv M I� CD CO CO N- CO I- N- T- 00—> CO I` N O 0 N- 1' 0 CD C) C) N. O N N- 0 O ID CO CD ID CO CO CO N L r v. ,, , N -cr.- O co- Cf) r) CC) I- O O CO v O y O N CD ,- O CO N co co CD CO CD 0 3 N r d CO CO CO C) a) O CO a M 06 (0 E CS CA 05 •- CD O r- e- N t` O O 'd• o-8 o m V N CO CO d CD CC) Cl) tC) CD CD CD Q } 0 3 to to to to to 69 EA H-} EA 65 69 EA c L.L. c N y o w Z n C ') 0 0 •-' 0 0 CO CD La, a O`�c° c 0 CD 0 If 0 0 0 N- C) ` a, <- 0 O I' O 0 O 0 O '4 0 0 CO N o 0 O> °O _ y E O O CD CO CO O CC) CD LC) co- CO c C II) O CCU N co — co CD N N Cr) '1• 0 Cr) Cn o N o0 N CO CA N- EA CD 0 CO N- CO 2 c F- EA p r CO $ ° iEA r N-- EA EA EA fA 0 n EA EA EA ' a .•. E co 0 Z N O H O CD 0 CD E- CD O CO Cr) O 0 CO 0 O y CO O 0 N N N Nt t• 0 O 9 T c o Z O CO O r- 0 I` CO O CD O N to o 0 n C) CD - d' 1.6 CA 1.6 cr c- O O a LL 0 V U co N CO O CO Is-- r- 00 CO c N- A CO N CD N tE N 'E EA N C E a 0.W -J EA ER CV. A n d Cn o m E E E EA ECD E E o c p O c , = cC t4 to U o n = ° LU 0 v rn N O v' rn O ti O cD o 0 a TO Q. a) = ") 0 LE) ..- Cn 0 N- t` CE) CD N 0 � 'o c a, O g 0 O N 00 0 LO N ti CA CO 0 0) 0 o a E J a X .°3 tr) Cr; cD v ct N w M o N- 8• ;, > 0 Q CO N M CO CC) CO ' CO CO CO CD N CO n m y f"' a) Cr) a ++ r N 0 CO T CX) 6`3 O U) D) EA 00 y c L d Z C� C N 65 EA N EA r lf) N CO-• ccY p 0 W C :0 Z EA EA EA 69 EA EA EA 0 o 2 CC 4-1 C IJJ L N O. m C O 2 O in O O O O O N O 0 CD 0 c w, 1n a Z •0) LL I 69 0 0 EA 69 EA CO EA EA CA EA c o @ c O N �, U) U) co co O M Co o.o o • Q d a) co co CD d' co o n c, o 'a CD CO N- CO •- E c m $ - C O EA tf) �- CV EA o'o C 0 0 Z •C L Z EA EA EA y c v n W = > O yE u_ LL O z d o m O 41 U' < c c c C C C C c C c 2 o.. E C t+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O E op w Rs Z t) a) :_. :. :_. :. •. •- •- . y 0 0 CA 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 U U 0 O aK o �0 c Z p Q •4; ea c 7 c 2 — c c E 7 m Q a, O r C - C C C L " ` s_ O .L " C c W a,J I- � a c0 n u .0)17') .0).0)n v u .0 n 0 .�� 'E, 2cain Q a. C ccnC U.) 55 cCOC cv) c cu) c a L LL C a) O O 0) /0 a) U) O O O O /0 a /0 //O� 0) //O� a v 1 � I— g o O 0 U 000 000 U 0 000 00 V.<6N Nc ' N N la'...,. N o uu W R N LL C c C O N 0aa> hoc d O O = O co O as ` o m wco gym } = a o o U o 0 c U a), m CO O . o ,2 Q U Cl) 0 0 -� � Cl) Oo cOi o o � m > co a 00 cri D Q ea c a3 c U c o c c o w c O c) c . N � LU V _ c O c O J CO 0 3 o ff2 5 .O o o E 0 IX m J m O ,_ CO O O .: -C O O CD CO O CO •� � 0 O 2 0 co c) 0 d � v) U0I- (0C/) 0 00Q 8`2 J 0)W y° E __` a LL 4-, .0 oo °Wa O V L Z c.) Ca o N E OIL — w CO V co O E v u,a a) .0 .0 C) 0) N V d d �m U o ° °a,o L Ra° .9 3 2 ,-. E a) om CD CO,�v,s CO � .� Z s ch O a M co E O a u a c ++ (f) N 1, 2 t .�t O Z d C M mu o d ce c E y w o C._ 0 c m 0 EO C n CO v O C 0 C m C 2 C m ) .) C m c" 0 o co ` a) = = ,.. a) a) , — CO J O U 0 0) CA 0) C) O d 6 8 C 0 c 0• CL II 2 .0 C � msY� `MC/5 % Z %e 3tv) .0 o 00)imso `c - t .ar •` E C C) co.0 .g r r O +O'' - - r=.1 'i d +�'' •` •c a>i o•o m o -2 0 0 7 ca O 'O > O C O C O Cn C4 v) -0 7 7 15 a_ C = wkual�a to L O O O O s.. Ea O O 2 O O cot d 0 0 0 c d O mdU) ZfnC0- ZZJU' mU) k0O: 2ZU) Z2WUZ - Nc.,cr- O N. r N- co CO CO r r r r r r r M 00 N . CO 'I' d' d' ON r `W M 1� LC) C) r Cl) N 1 d" Nr i O Co CO. LC) Co r C) co c0 C1) M M r) ~ M N M O C) r M O CO CO CO N Y 4 O N O r N O r M CO 0) LC) p'; N c E LC) Co N s- s- N N N CO- M C") c") m 1 M a N Co Co CO N- N- N. N-- N- N- N� N- N- 0 v o m m U N EA to (a EA Ef) EA EA <39 EA EA. EA v9 Q= }CV U LL C ; ' c C z '- O 00 O C) C) CO CO O O O 0 O 'N c "u,to N` 0 CO 0 0 0 N- d' 0 0 0 0 N o y lo CO O LC CO r N- ) LC O 0 O O 03 `E. o o U> rn M 1- 0 Co N o r- O cr c) ci. t° @ a 2 UO) co LN) CO r- co Co -• N- O LC) N c s ° p N - 0 r N N CO Et Co C)) Ell r N CO 0 c 0) LL ° H N N Co N N 69 Er) •g•-• Efl C'7 0° g EA N .'c a ER2o a Z co N c n O CO O d C O CO CO C) d r CO O O O O M a' o N- V' O Er). co EA N Y CC) Co N. N- 0) LC) Co CO O O 00 w•` 8 H N O 1.6 N.- N- r N O C7 • a LL o ✓ z V CO N- N - N- 0 v v N N- LO CO L co N O O N d' EA LC V' EA CO o- ,'' 3 69 EA EA CO c w V J r r N el Ce E} EA r r ER o 0 0 8 0 Cl) mo c 1NN - to~ ER o To Li on = N O a V Co O d CD r O N c o .0 E J i d LU co N- C) N LC) 0) Co 0 0 O 0 O c° o a Q a a/ d LC) CO ti U') r r CO N- O O O O 3 n m w 4.0 N- N O O 1-- LC) CO CO O LC) O O M c c L w 11- 00 +. Co r N- r N� co N r N- N- Cf) Lf) CO o o C� C M CO O N 69 M ER r ' EA di- N N- a `� o 0 C •- d EA.- to , ,1 69 69 EA M u, c) c m W C ~ Ea EA ER r•y oa c, 2 N = Z EA c„ w Z 'co U- LU c t c 0 'Cl) 2 O O O 0 O O O O C) O 0 0 LC) o o 4- 4' Ce Q = = Ea ER EA EA EA EA 69 69 EA E9 E9 EA to o n m Y cu C E N O O Ern o C o° f0 Z 'C i m a) N i 0 c n W = > 0 LL O w E co 2 LL LL O Z Hwy d a O w 0 w n o E Z O V Q C C O O< 8 ° c-ci W W J Z y M ) 0 0 i c) c .0• 0 p^ � c L c c c c sz To `o E, a s H = � f- M 'o c 'Uc c Cl)• Cl)• Cl)) as C as N C no =� °' a/ O CI) O a) O 0 a) a) a) a) O O 0 0 E N N o m N ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ L.L. 0 L.L. U 2 LL 2 . Q t Tr 0 ate, a V O H I- o -d o o` W 0) N N >, p c m .° co0 m LL IX O a) ca Y tV U o U U a) ,,5 0 a, c a LPL a �a d 4-- co) 0 O N 0 > > f0 3 8 c O L a c m 0 V o o U) c 0 a) co (EN) c o c o g I- CO c a 0) c 0. �'o 8Eo Ce Q c> — � � cac) L) � m 4:-. > E � E � W = w ow W p - �o o a) = .� o - a) -' c>s m o m o p a o ❑ � �,� OJ CO JC� 2F- m > mwUUmU � maUn. 0 L.L. � v mE NwE a °' _ CD °wa 'C 03 V p C C o y cLL E CO O t, O V O E o.L' a) m r m c a) C) two E Y C) Z 2 I% 7 a) . C w a � rn � C C) c R p t 0 m O •` t-o o.c co V O. a) �. R �0/ > Y Y may/ O a c a c m C C c C m 4) 4E' c m O C a c C t 0 75 c•"7' o•E-o y as m d o o CO o v d t t O j 0 o V c c c ac To 77, N O D U T•- _7 a -C - 0tNZO � .c mt � � 4., a ` Vt = i O ,-co Joo `,T,- C .` Q.` m .` 6- .` t L c .0 O •- 0 m O Q '> > c.o oa o c>S C Q. 7 >, g ".42. N u) O 7 7 — C '0 7 p i 3 N C) w a E.a i d CC O C O d O d a) — O O O O I. O d O O 7 a) a) d IZaZYZ0WIZNZi0au) a0Z0W > W I- . Nov CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 10 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests INLET SAND BYPASSING/INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS, Navigational inlets are critical components of the state's commercial and recreational infrastructure, but they contribute significantly to beach erosion by interrupting or altering the natural drift of sand. For this reason,the Legislature has directed the DEP to further commit its comprehensive beach management efforts to addressing beach erosion caused by inlets. Inlet management activities are conducted under the provisions of Section 161.161, F. S., for the purposes of evaluating the erosive impact of the inlets on adjacent beaches and to recommend corrective measures to mitigate identified impacts. Such inlet management projects include, but are not limited to, inlet sand bypassing,modifications to channel dredging,jetty redesign,jetty repair,disposal of spoil material, and the development,revision,adoption or implementation of an inlet management plan. Funding for the inlet projects will be used to implement the actions recommended in the specific Inlet Management Plans(IMP)or the statewide SBMP.IMPs adopted by DEP are incorporated into the SBMP by reference along with other inlet management strategies. Feasibility studies conducted by local governments, federal and state studies and reports, and the study reports authorizing federal shore protection projects are also incorporated by reference. In FY 2014-2015, funding requests for twelve Inlet Sand Bypassing/Inlet Management Plan Implementation Projects("Inlet Projects")are included in the Beach Management Funding Assistance Program. These projects total over$14 million in requested state funding. The funding priorities established by the Department must be consistent with the requirements and legislative declaration in Sections 161.101(14), 161.142, 161.143 and 161.161(1)(b), F. S. The Legislature amended Section 161.142, F.S., and created Section 161.143, F.S., in 2008 to strengthen the DEP's commitment to managing`sediment around inlets. These sections direct the DEP to develop and maintain sediment budgets for each inlet and ensure beach quality sand is placed on adjacent eroding beaches. It further establishes funding priorities and ranking criteria for inlet projects and requires the DEP to provide an annual inlet project list to the Legislature for funding. Program rule 62B-36,Florida Administrative Code was amended in August of 2013 to incorporate new ranking criteria specific to inlet projects. These new criteria were used in ranking projects for FY2014/2015. The funding requirements provided in Section 161.143, F.S., also include provisions that o At least ten percent(10%)of the total amount that the Legislature appropriates will be used for the three highest-ranked inlet projects; o At least fifty percent(50%)of the funds appropriated for the feasibility and design category will be made available for inlet management projects which involve the study, design or development of an inlet management project;and o Inlet projects may receive 75%state cost share for the proposed activity. A summary funding table of inlet sand bypassing/inlet management plan implementation projects is provided herein. This summary table is followed by the beach restoration and nourishment project descriptions in the same priority order as provided in the summary funding table. Finally, descriptions of the individual inlet projects complete this document. 10 0 0 o O o 0 0 CO CO CO CO CO CD _ O O LO o O LE) LL) .- j3 LC) co N- LO co ti N- CO co 00 c0 co - -R 0 O d' LE) O M CO .- O) - O I- O LO CO O N CO .- CO CO N N- LO a w an d r- .- as N'- C)) CO O CO N - — CO .9 N O N c 7 w EA EA .- .- '- � .- ,- � A • L a 7 0 Nn EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA Q 7 '1:21 N O g 3 N w C 2 O O O O O O O O O O O '� a LT U n o O O O C o o O LU O O O O in E S c) _ O O Co O O O O - CO O O O M 8 U > LO O LO N nt N `' O M N L L N fl w 0 69 EA CO O N N- EA CO LO CO N N = Ze EA EA u3- N 3 H EA EA _c Z CC 0 o c Z W O O O 0 O O O O O O O O C) 0) O -7 O O to co O Lf) O co O O O O co m E -- 0 Lc) O N- N O N- O N C) co O Lt) CC co Co co CO O Co s CO . N O N Co a)cc)a C) co C) co N N - LO LC) _M LO CO Co 5 to W Z C EA EA LC) N EA EA EA EA EA EA EA to 0 Q 0 J EA EA ter N c o cu IX Xald � �' o_1 fl O) = Z O O O O O O o Co 0 o O o CD m 8 2 0 a Ili' O 0 1.0 LO O LO O CO 0 0 O O ‘" a J a) rL Ln O N N- O N O co N� L.C) O Ln co w p = Q a iX LV O Co O CO co Ln ti O ti C> c J .5 �O EA cr) co co N- N- N LO co CO CO CO 'Cr M .--• !r.N 0 Z C M N EA EA EA EA to E!) o m _ • Cl) EA EA EA EA w c 2 CA Z E - co a Z M LL J o >v OQc a a) 8w N 1- O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 a a).p z 00 E!} Ef3 ter Ef3 Ef} EA EA EA EA Ef3 oc Z• -c L i -� 3 C W CO° CO v. a w� LL Ni 0 Q LL CO CO a`) -oo'3 O .*"' (9 z w c N 1- 0 a) a) a) a to N a- Z 0 N C C c 6 C C C L 2 W �J w cac E o 0 0 0 S 1 o o g Z. Z. s �, 2 co in J s — o U c U O C C U .C U w t Z a 15 •- o L. o ` 0) ` ` 0 O 0) ` .0> ` ` c c) a • R C - v a) c o c Cl) N u) N c C N CO am Cl) t1/) ) CCDD a g 3 ` Q N z 'o u_ 0 co o o co 0 co o o u_ u_ 2 ) a Tt Z N a � , N U U U (� U V U c ow LLI 13 C%1 0 0 a CL LT • m d Z. c 0) C o L-8 >- IL E C ++ x s .. 3 U L Jo Ta c m _0 a o a) N) (0 o 1-° c o = o L Q _10. COQ C co c ) a m c c p z 0 o c Z 7 a� Cl) CO co O o aa)) co 0 c o o - C N o �.' o - E aa)) a') LL I- LL! Ua. 1- m 2 0 ti O 0C/) E � LoUC ' 0 acio J _o .0 2 - " +• T cc ifi t a m _ >,0 Ea - C 0 N W a a a. o o as a Q. d t E a)M aic >Eo _ a. c gc = cow, CyC C a C C N 00 Z Log04+ 00 0 . 00. 0 Noao2o do 3 - o • Ca C t C C C N y C X G) C C a C y G = C d C N - o m'fl. O C a) O a) •d a) Ln 1.. a) a ca a) 40 a) — m - a) u a) a) To Ow) ) a 0 _a) aa)) Ja) a _a) t coa) co 0gi dvd •� dso Q aoiNi0 N2�G Q N2 V) a Q = a Ja O. C CI C1 Z. C C a c. 3 „co H - N ao _ _`°J _ CO NLI �cCO ink in - m > U. c° I- CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 12 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests BEACH RESTORATION AND NOURISHMENT POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This category serves to provide continued funding for monitoring activities associated with a previously funded and constructed project. Eligible program activities include physical and biological monitoring required by permit. FUNDS REQUESTED: Funds will be used to support the following projects identified in priority order. First year monitoring required by permit is included in the construction funds on the beach projects list. "Credits" derived from the pro-ration of the post- construction monitoring list from funding shortfalls since FY2011/12 may have been added to the FY 2014-2015 list. Project Federal State Local Total Anna Maria Island/ Cortez Groin Replacement & Coquina Beach Nourishment $0 $32,500 $32,500 $65,000 Ft. Pierce Shore Protection Project $0 $135,000 $135,000 $270,000 Anna Maria Island/ Manatee County Shore Protection Project $0 $202,104 $202,104 $404,208 Brevard County SPP/ North & South Reaches $0 $321,068 $365,855 $686,923 Gasparilla Island- Lee County Shore Protection Project $0 $55,988 $69,012 $125,000 Longboat Key Beach Nourishment $0 . $131,043 $443,957 $575,000 Blind Pass Ecozone Restoration $0 $62,500 $62,500 $125,000 St. Joseph Peninsula Beach Nourishment $0 $42,895 $78,106 $121,000 Martin County Shore Protection Project $0 $342,300 $357,700 $700,000 Collier County Beach Nourishment $0 $72,540 $152,460 $225,000 South Amelia Island Beach Nourishment $0 $262,864 $407,536 $670,400 Pensacola Beach Nourishment $0 $87,700 $87,700 $175,400 Jupiter Island Beach Nourishment $0 $123,327 $811,674 $935,000 Wabasso Beach Restoration $0 $1,075,000 $1,075,000 $2,150,000 South Marco Island Nourishment $0 $16,158 $61,228 $77,386 Bonita Beach Nourishment $0 $13,564 $26,436 $40,000 South St. Lucie Beach Restoration $0 $239,195 $310,805 $550,000 Charlotte County Beach Restoration $0 $402,746 $493,041 $895,787 Marathon Beaches Emergency Repair $0 $4,500 $4,500 $9,000 Key Biscayne Beach Nourishment $0 $54,706 $54,706 $109,412 Estero Island/ Lee County Shore Protection Project $0 $22,500 $22,500 $45,000 Hillsboro Beach Nourishment $49,812 $31,428 $90,526 $171,766 Destin Beach Restoration $0 $31,643 $33,655 $65,298 TOTAL $49,812 $3,763,267 $5,378,500 $9,191,580 12 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 13 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Duval County Shore Protection Project LOCAL SPONSOR: Duval County LOCAL CONTACT: Thomas W. Heal, P.E. PHONE: (904)255-8749 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of approximately 10.1 miles of Atlantic shoreline between DEP Monuments R31 - R80. Initial restoration of this federal project was completed between 1978 and 1980. Nourishments were constructed in 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995, 2003 and 2005. The last nourishment was completed in 2011. Design of the 2017 nourishment is beginning. Staff has determined that 94.41% of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design. Federal State Local Total $250,000 $31,159 $34,841 $316,000 13 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 14 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Anna Maria Island Coquina Beach Nourishment& Cortez Groins Replacement LOCAL SPONSOR: Manatee County LOCAL CONTACT: Charles Hunsicker PHONE: (941)745-3727 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment(R36-R41.3)of approximately 1.4 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R34-R41.3 along Coquina Beach and replacement of three groins in Cortez Beach(R34—R36) in Manatee County. Restoration of the Coquina Beach segment(R36—R41.3) and the City of Anna Maria segment(R7—R10)was completed in 2011.The beach was impacted by Tropical Storm Debby in 2012 and FEMA funding is available for storm repairs in FY2013/2014. Reconstruction of the Cortez Groins is also scheduled for FY2013/14. Design continues for Longboat Pass jetty. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design(Coquina Beach and Longboat Pass Jetty),construction(Cortez Groin replacement and Coquina Beach Nourishment),and monitoring(Coquina Beach). Federal State Local Total $631,000 $2,007,250 $2,007,250 $4,645,500 14 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 15 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Ft. Pierce Shore Protection Project LOCAL SPONSOR: St. Lucie County LOCAL CONTACT: Richard Bouchard PHONE: (772)462-1710 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of approximately 1.3 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R34-R41 in St. Lucie County.The federal Ft. Pierce Shore Protection Project was initially constructed in 1971, with nourishment in 1980, 1999, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007,2009 and 2012. Emergency truck haul nourishment was conducted in 2011 from R34-R35,with federal nourishment following in 2012. Construction of the federal emergency nourishment was completed in 2013 and beach placement of the FCCE dredging of the inlet is planned for 2013/2014. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design(GRR and permit renewal). Federal State Local Total $0 $166,000 $166,000 332,000 15 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 16 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Anna Maria Island- Manatee County Shore Protection Project LOCAL SPONSOR: Manatee County LOCAL CONTACT: Charles Hunsicker PHONE: (941)745-3727 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of approximately 4.5 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R12—R36 in Manatee County. The Central Beach project (R12 - R36) is part of the federal Manatee County Shore Protection Project, which was restored in 1993. Nourishment was completed in 2002. In 2005, a portion of the island received federally funded hurricane recovery nourishment. Federal nourishment is scheduled for FY2013/14 to repair damages sustained during Tropical Storm Debby. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design (Port Dolphin Beneficial Use Project),construction and monitoring. Federal State Local Total $8,838,872 $2,126,401 $2,126,401 $13,091,674 16 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 17 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Gasparilla Island-Lee County Shore Protection Project LOCAL SPONSOR: Lee County LOCAL CONTACT: Justin McBride PHONE: (239)533-8130 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of 3.1 miles of shoreline on Gasparilla Island between DEP Monuments R10 - R26A in Lee County. The project is part of the federal Lee County Shore Protection Project. Restoration was completed in 2007. Federal nourishment is scheduled for FY2013/14 to repair damages sustained during Tropical Storm Debby. Design efforts to complete the federal Limited Re-evaluation Report (LRR) are ongoing. Staff has determined that 89.58% of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design of the federal project(LRR update). Federal State Local Total $461,505 $106,822 $131,673 $700,000 17 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 18 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Jupiter-Carlin Segment-Palm Beach County Shore Protection Project LOCAL SPONSOR: Palm Beach County LOCAL CONTACT: Leanne Welch PHONE: (561)233-2434 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of approximately 1.1 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R13 - R19 in Palm Beach County. The federally authorized project was restored in 1995 and nourished in 2002.The project receives routine bypass material from Jupiter Inlet. A federal Section 934 Report is required for continued federal cost sharing and development of the report is ongoing.A dune restoration project was completed on this beach in January of 2013 under the EFO issued by the Department in response to Hurricane Sandy. Nourishment is scheduled for FY2013/14, including federal storm repairs for damages sustained during Hurricane Sandy. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify proiect phase): Construction(reimbursement)and year one post construction monitoring. Federal State Local Total $0 $1,625,000 $1,625,000 $3,250,000 18 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 19 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: North Boca Raton Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: City of Boca Raton LOCAL CONTACT: Jennifer Bistyga PHONE: (561)416-3397 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of 1.5 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R205 - R212 in Palm Beach County. Restoration was completed in 1988 with nourishments in 1998 and 2010.The federal FCCE storm repair project is scheduled for FY2013/14. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design,construction and first year monitoring(additional sand placement for the FCCE project) Federal State Local Total $4,520,400 $1,012,750 $1,012,750 $6,545,900 19 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 20 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Ocean Ridge Segment-Palm Beach County Shore Protection Project LOCAL SPONSOR: Palm Beach County LOCAL CONTACT: Leanne Welch PHONE: (561)233-2434 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of 1.4 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R152 - R159 in Palm Beach County. The federally authorized project initially included beach restoration and construction of eight T-head groins in 1998. Nourishment occurred in 2005,covering 1.1 miles of the project to the south of the groin field.Maintenance disposal material from South Lake Worth Inlet sand trap was placed in 2008. Bypass material from the South Lake Worth Inlet Sand transfer plant,which was refurbished in 2010, will be placed annually in the project area. Construction of a 2.25 acre mitigation reef was completed in 2011. A federal Limited Re-evaluation Report (LRR) is in development to authorize federal participation in future nourishments.Construction is scheduled for FY2013/14. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction and first year post construction monitoring. Federal State Local Total $1,426,445 $751,300 $751,300 $2,929,045 20 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 21 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Longboat Key Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Town of Longboat Key LOCAL CONTACT: Juan Florensa PHONE: (941)316-1988 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of 9.8 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R44 -R67 in Manatee County and R1 -R29.5 in Sarasota County. The project was restored in 1993. Nourishment to address storm impacts occurred in 1997. Nourishment of the entire project area was completed in 2006. Construction of an adjustable groin designed to enhance the performance of a small portion of the project was completed in 2010.Emergency placement of sand on the North End was completed in 2011. An interim nourishment using sand from the Port Dolphin LNG pipeline corridor is scheduled for FY2013/14 to address three hotspot locations. Construction of two permeable groins for the stabilization of the North End of the island is also scheduled for FY2013/14.Nourishment of the entire project is scheduled for FY2015/16. Staff has determined that 45.58% of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction(nourishment and North End structures)and first year monitoring. Federal State Local Total $11,959,131 $2,335,034 $7,910,835 $22,205,000 21 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 22 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Lido Key Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: City of Sarasota LOCAL CONTACT: Alexandrea DavisShaw PHONE: (941) 365-2200 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of approximately 2.2 miles of shoreline between DEP monuments R31 - R44 in Sarasota County. Restoration of the northern 1.2 miles was conducted in 1998. The remainder of the project area was restored in 2000-01. The first nourishment was conducted in 2003. Hurricane recovery nourishment of the project was completed in 2009 with funding from FEMA. Subsequent hurricane recovery nourishment to repair damages sustained during Tropical Storm Debby is scheduled for FY2014/15. The federal nourishment is scheduled for FY2016/17. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction of the Tropical Storm Debby Emergency Repair Project. Federal State Local Total $2,325,000 $387,500 $387,500 $3,100,000 22 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 23 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Ft. Zachary Taylor Breakwater Rehabilitation and Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: FDEP, Division of Recreation and Parks LOCAL CONTACT: Sri Tamisetti, P.E. PHONE: (850)245-3104 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of approximately 0.3 mile of shoreline within Ft. Zachary Taylor State Park in Monroe County. Restoration was completed in 2007. Nourishment is scheduled for FY2013/14, in conjunction with rehabilitation of the breakwaters. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost share. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design,construction and monitoring of the breakwater rehabilitation and nourishment. Federal State Local Total $0 $1,533,000 $0. , $1,533,000 23 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 24 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: St. Joseph Peninsula Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Gulf County LOCAL CONTACT: Don Butler PHONE: (850)229-6111 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of 7.5 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R69-R105.5 in Gulf County. Restoration was completed in 2009 and monitoring is ongoing. Due to damages sustained from Tropical Storm Gustav during the restoration in 2008, the County is working with FEMA to construct a hurricane recovery project between DEP Monuments R74.8-R95.3. The first nourishment, outside the FEMA project, is scheduled for FY 2015/2016. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design(nourishment and sand source investigation). Federal State Local Total $0 $230,425 $419,575 $650,000 24 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 25 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Ft. Pierce Beach Emergency Truck Haul (2011) LOCAL SPONSOR: St. Lucie County LOCAL CONTACT: Richard Bouchard PHONE: (772)462-1710 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of approximately 1.3 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R34-R41 in St. Lucie County.The federal Ft. Pierce Shore Protection Project was initially constructed in 1971, with nourishment in 1980, 1999, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007,2009 and 2012. Emergency truck haul nourishment was conducted in 2011 from R34-R35. Construction of the next federal nourishment is planned for 2014. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify protect phase):, Construction(reimbursement). Federal State Local Total $0 $675,000 $675,000 $1,350,000 25 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 26 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Collier County Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Collier County LOCAL CONTACT: Gary McAlpin PHONE: (239)252-5342 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of three segments along 6.0 miles of shoreline in Collier County. The segments consist of the following components: Vanderbilt Beach,approximately 1.5 miles between DEP Monuments R22 - R31; Park Shore, approximately 0.8 miles between DEP Monuments R50 - R54.4; and Naples, approximately 3.7 miles between DEP Monuments R58 — R79. Restoration was completed in 1996. Nourishment was completed in 2006. A truck haul nourishment was completed in 2013, which included FEMA storm recovery funds to address damages sustained during Tropical Storm Faye. Staff has determined eligibility for state cost sharing to be 48.46% for Vanderbilt Beach, 33.16% for Park Shore, and 95.02% for Naples. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction(reimbursement)and monitoring(year one and reimbursement). Federal State Local Total $6,400,000 $1,621,672 $3,408,328 $11,430,000 26 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 27 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: South Amelia Island Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: South Amelia Island Shore Stabilization Association&FDEP (Div. of Rec. & Parks) LOCAL CONTACT: Bill Moore& Sri Tammisetti PHONE: (904)277-5103 & (850)245-3104 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of approximately 3.4 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R60—R79 in Nassau County. Restoration was completed in 1994 with subsequent placement of sand dredged from the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway following in 1997 and 2001.Nourishment was completed in 2002 with cost sharing between the South Amelia Island Shore Stabilization Association (SAISSA) and FDEP's Division of Rec. and Parks. Construction of a terminal groin and breakwater was completed in 2005. Nourishment was completed again in 2011. Staff has determined that 78.41%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design,construction and post construction monitoring(reimbursement for the 2011 nourishment). Federal State Local Total $0 $4,1;27,584 $6,399,281 $10,526,865 27 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 28 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Pensacola Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Santa Rosa Island Authority LOCAL CONTACT: Paolo Ghio PHONE: (850)932-2257 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of approximately 8.1 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R107 - R151 in Escambia County. The project was first restored in 2003 and, with the assistance of FEMA, nourished in 2005/06, following storm impacts. The current project consists of construction of a FEMA storm recovery nourishment to repair damages sustained during Tropical Storm Gustay. Construction is scheduled for FY2014/15 (Spring 2015). Staff has determined that 100% of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design,construction and monitoring(reimbursement and year one post construction). Federal State Local Total $0 $8,532,302 $8,532,302 $17,064,604 28 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 29 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Delray Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: City of Delray Beach LOCAL CONTACT: Leanne Welch PHONE: (561)233-2434 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of 2.7 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R175—R188 in Palm Beach County.The federal project was initially constructed in 1973 with nourishment in 1978, 1984, 1992,2002,2005 and 2013.A federal storm repair project is scheduled for FY2013/14. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction(FCCE storm repair project)and monitoring. Federal State Local Total $2,595,317 $1,006,016 $1,006,016 $4,607,349 29 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 30 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Jupiter Island Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Town of Jupiter Island LOCAL CONTACT: John Duchock PHONE: (772) 545-0100 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of 6.1 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R75 - RI 11 in Martin County. Restoration was completed in 1973.Nourishments are completed on a 3-4 year cycle.The last nourishment was conducted in 2012,using FEMA storm recovery funds to repair storm-related damages. Sand search investigations are ongoing. Staff has determined that 26.38% of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design(reimbursement for permitting and sand search), construction(reimbursement)and monitoring. Federal State Local Total $2,215,000 $1,380,993 $9,089,007 $12,685,000 30 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 31 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Wabasso Beach Restoration LOCAL SPONSOR: Indian River County LOCAL CONTACT: James Gray PHONE: (772)226-1344 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restoration of approximately 6.1 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R20 - R51 (critically eroded section) in Indian River County (Sector 3). Phase I construction was completed in 2010. Phase II construction was initiated in 2011 and completed in 2012. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction(reimbursement for the restoration). Federal State Local Total $0 $5,650,000 $5,650,000 $11,300,000 31 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 32 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Bathtub Beach/Sailfish Point LOCAL SPONSOR: Martin County LOCAL CONTACT: Kathy FitzPatrick PHONE: (772)288-5429 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of 2,950 feet of Atlantic shoreline between DEP Monuments R34.8 - R37.6 in Martin County. Dune restoration was completed in 2010 for Bathtub Beach and Sailfish Point separately, using material from the flood shoal. Emergency dune nourishment using upland sand sources has been conducted periodically since the restoration following storm impacts. A design analysis is proposed to determine the sustainability of combining the two segments. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design. Federal State Local Total $0 $125,000 $125,000 $250,000 32 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 33 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: South Marco Island Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Collier County LOCAL CONTACT: Gary McAlpin PHONE: (239)252-5342 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of 1.06 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R143-G4 in Collier County. Restoration was completed in 1997 and nourishment was completed in 2007.Nourishment was completed in 2013 included FEMA storm recovery funds for damage sustained during Tropical Storm Faye. Staff has determined that 41.76%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction (reimbursement for nourishment and structures) and monitoring. Federal State Local Total $687,345 $233,254 $883,861 $1,804,460 33 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 34 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Segment II- Broward County Shore Protection Project LOCAL SPONSOR: Broward County LOCAL CONTACT: Eric Myers PHONE: (954)519-1231 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restoration and nourishment of Atlantic shoreline in Broward County, Florida between Hillsboro Inlet and Port Everglades (i.e., Segment II). The project consists of approximately 1.38 miles of beach nourishment between DEP Monuments R36-R41.3 and R51-R53 and 3.56 miles of initial beach restoration between DEP Monuments R53 and R72 in Fort Lauderdale. A portion of the Segment II shoreline, R-32 to R-49, was originally restored in 1970. This portion of the project was nourished in 1983 and the initial restoration was expanded to R-26 to the north and to R-53 to the south. The proposed project will be the first nourishment of the previously constructed areas of the Segment II shoreline since 1983. The proposed project will include sand placement and hardbottom mitigation construction. Staff has determined that 88.3% of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction,mitigation and monitoring. Federal State Local Total $5,637,500 $2,036,419 $2,576,081 $10,250,000 34 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 35 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Navarre Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Santa Rosa County LOCAL CONTACT: Roger Blaylock PHONE: (850)981-7100 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of 4.1 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R192.5 -500 feet east of R213.5 in Santa Rosa County. The restoration was completed in 2006.A small truck haul hot spot nourishment was completed in April 2010 from R192 - R194 to repair damages sustained in 2008. Federal funds for the 2010 truck haul listed below include FEMA and Florida DEM funds. The first nourishment of the entire project is scheduled for FY 2013/14.Staff has determined that 96.45 %of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design,construction and first year monitoring. Federal State Local Total $1,760,000 $4,854,857 $5,211,196 $11,826,053 35 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 36 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Long Key/Upham Beach Erosion Control Structures LOCAL SPONSOR: Pinellas County LOCAL CONTACT: Andrew Squires PHONE: (727)464-4633 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and construction of permanent rock structures to stabilize approximately 3,788 feet of shoreline located at Upham Beach at the north end of Long Key between DEP Monuments R144 - R146 in Pinellas County. The federal project was initially constructed in 1980 with nourishment occurring on a four-year cycle. Five geotextile groins were installed to improve the nourishment interval to six years. Construction of the nourishment project and interim repair of damaged geotextile groins was completed in 2011. A federal feasibility study to determine the amount of federal participation in the construction of permanent structures is scheduled for FY2014/15. The Department issued a Joint Coastal Permit for the construction of the permanent structures on October 30, 2012. Staff has determined that 100%of the project area is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design (permanent rock structures), construction (permanent rock structures and reimbursement for geotube repairs) and year one monitoring. Federal State Local Total $0 $4,484,000 $4,484,000 $8,968,000 36 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 37 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Bonita Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Lee County LOCAL CONTACT: Justin McBride PHONE: (239) 533-8130 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of approximately 0.8 mile of shoreline between DEP Monuments R226 - R230 in Lee County. Restoration was completed in 1995 with nourishment in 2004.The next nourishment is scheduled for FY2013/14. Staff has determined that 67.81%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for (Please specify project phase): Design, construction (reimbursement) and monitoring (year one reimbursement). Federal State Local Total $0 $582,574 $1,135,426 $1,718,000 37 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 38 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: South St. Lucie County Beach Restoration LOCAL SPONSOR: St. Lucie County LOCAL CONTACT: Richard Bouchard PHONE: (772)462-1710 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restoration of 3.4 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R98-R115 in St. Lucie County. In 2004,a federal feasibility study was initiated. The project was restored as a non-federal project in 2013. Staff has determined that 86.97% of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction(cost overrun for restoration). Federal State Local Total $0 $38,271 $49,729 $88,000 38 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 39 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Charlotte County(Knight/Don Pedro Islands) Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Charlotte County LOCAL CONTACT: Dan Quick PHONE: (941)575-3603 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of approximately 2.1 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R28-R39 in Charlotte County.Restoration was completed in 2003. The first nourishment was completed in 2006. Nourishment was completed again in 2011, using FEMA funds received to repair damages sustained during Tropical Storm Faye. A feasibility study for the stabilization of the south end of Manasota Key/Stump Pass Beach State Park is ongoing, along with design for the nourishment in FY2015/2016. Staff has determined that 89.92%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Feasibility Study (terminal groin at south end of Manasota Key), design (sand search and nourishment), construction (reimbursement of 2011 project)and monitoring(reimbursement and ongoing). Federal State Local Total $2,348,332 $1,041,759 $1,275,320 $4,665,411 39 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 40 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Mid-Town Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Town of Palm Beach LOCAL CONTACT: Robert Weber PHONE: (561)383-5440 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of 2.4 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R90.4 - R101.4 in Palm Beach County. Restoration was completed in 1995 from R95 -R100. The project included construction of eleven groins which were completed in 1996. In 2003, nourishment was completed in an expanded shoreline length between R90.4 - R101.4. The project was nourished using FEMA funds in 2006 in response to the 2004/2005 hurricane seasons and again in FY2010/11 to repair damages sustained during Tropical Storm Fay. Partial nourishment is scheduled for FY2013/14. The project is estimated to be 92% eligible for state cost sharing(subject to verification). Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction and first year monitoring. Federal State Local Total $0 $5,531,960 $6,494,040 $12,026,000 40 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 41 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: South Siesta Key Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Sarasota County LOCAL CONTACT: Curtis Smith PHONE: (941)915-4111 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of 2.1 miles of shoreline along South Siesta Key between DEP Monuments R67- R77 in Sarasota County. Restoration was completed in 2007.Nourishment is scheduled for FY2014/15. Staff has determined that 75.74%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design,construction and year one monitoring of the nourishment. Federal State Local Total $0 $2,963,327 $4,861,673 $7,825,000 41 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 42 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Marathon Beaches Emergency Repair LOCAL SPONSOR: City of Marathon LOCAL CONTACT: Debra London PHONE: (305)289-4103 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of a 0.3 mile segment of Coco Plum Beach and a 0.3 mile segment of Sombrero Beach in the City of Marathon in Monroe County. Following damages sustained during Hurricanes Rita and Wilma(2005),a dune restoration project was completed for Coco Plum Beach in 2006 using approximately 4,100 cubic yards of sand. A beach management plan was developed for both beaches in 2008 using hurricane recovery funds to assist in documenting future storm damage. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction(reimbursement)for a FEMA repair project, exotic plant removal and first year monitoring. Federal State Local Total $156,896 $20,000 $20,000 $196,896 42 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 43 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Central Boca Raton Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: City of Boca Raton LOCAL CONTACT: Jennifer Bistyga PHONE: (561)416-3397 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of 1.5 miles of shoreline between DEP monuments R216- R222.9 in Palm Beach County. Restoration was completed in 2004, with nourishment in 2006 following storm impacts.The next nourishment is scheduled for FY2013/14 to be constructed along with the federal North Boca Raton storm repair project. Staff has determined that 83.18%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify protect phase): Design(reimbursement), construction, and first year monitoring. Federal State Local Total $0 $3,887,916 $5,460,284 $9,348,200 43 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 44 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Hallandale Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: City of Hallandale Beach LOCAL CONTACT: Steven Parkinson PHONE: (954)457-1669 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of approximately 0.82 miles of critically eroded shoreline between DEP Monuments 310 feet north of R124 to R128 within the City of Hallandale Beach in Broward County, Florida. The federal project was restored in 1971 and nourished in 1979, 1991 and 2006. Construction of a hot spot nourishment by the City is scheduled for fall 2015. Staff has determined that 98% of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design(preconstruction biological monitoring). Federal State Local Total $0 $367,537 $382,538 ° $750,074 44 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 45 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Phipps Ocean Park Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Town of Palm Beach LOCAL CONTACT: Robert Weber PHONE: (561) 838-5440 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of 1.4 miles of shoreline located between DEP Monuments R118.7 - R126 in Palm Beach County. In 2004, a 3.1 acre mitigation reef was constructed to compensate for impacts to hardbottom resources. Restoration was completed in 2006. FEMA dune restoration was completed in 2011 to compensate for damages sustained during Tropical Storm Fay. Nourishment is scheduled for FY2014/15. An expansion of the project limits is proposed which will change the project eligibility. Staff has estimated that 78% of the project was eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction. Federal State Local Total $0 $812,370 $1,270,630 $2,083,000 45 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 46 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Key Biscayne Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Village of Key Biscayne LOCAL CONTACT: Armando Nunez PHONE: (305)365-8945 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of approximately 1.2 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R101 - R108 in Dade County. Restoration was completed in 1987 with nourishment following in 2002. A second nourishment(truck haul) was completed in 2012. Staff has determined that 98% of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Reimbursement for design,construction and post-construction monitoring for the 2012 nourishment. Federal State Local Total $0 $1,075,794 $1,075,794 $2,151,588 46 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 47 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Perdido Key Beach Restoration LOCAL SPONSOR: Escambia County LOCAL CONTACT: Tim Day PHONE: (850) 595-1144 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restoration of approximately 6.5 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R1 - R34 in Escambia County, Florida. Beach and dune restoration is proposed for the 3.0-mile beach segment between R19 and R34,protective berm construction is proposed from R12.5 to R19 and dune restoration is proposed for 2.4 miles between RO1 to R12.5. Construction is scheduled for spring 2015. Staff has determined that 51.7% of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction of the restoration project and first year monitoring. Federal State Local Total $0 $4,210,526 $12,077,774 $16,288,300 47 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 48 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Hillsboro Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Town of Hillsboro Beach LOCAL CONTACT: Jean Marie Mark PHONE: (954)427-4011 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of 1.14 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R6-R12 in Broward County. The project was initially restored in 1972,with nourishment occurring in 1998 and 2011. The 2011 nourishment was partially funded with FEMA funds and Florida DEM matching funds,noted below in the Federal category,as a result of damage sustained during the 2004/05 storm seasons. Design of the FY2015-16 truck haul nourishment is proposed to mitigate the erosional effects of Tropical Storm Sandy. Staff has determined that 51.54%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design. Federal State Local Total • $71,151 $204,949 $276,100 48 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 49 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: South Boca Raton Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: City of Boca Raton LOCAL CONTACT: Jennifer Bistyga PHONE: (561)416-3397 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of approximately 1.0 mile of shoreline between DEP Monuments R223.3 -R227.9 in Palm Beach County. Restoration was completed in 1985 with nourishment in 1996,2002 and 2010.The project area also receives bypass material from maintenance dredging of the Boca Raton Inlet conducted annually by the City's dredge.Nourishment is scheduled for FY2013/14 using material from the Boca Raton Inlet ebb shoal. Staff has determined that 97.8%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design,construction and year one monitoring. Federal State Local Total $0 $1,385,190 $1,447,510 $2,832,700 49 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 50 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Mid Reach-Brevard County Shore Protection Project LOCAL SPONSOR: Brevard County LOCAL CONTACT: Mike McGarry PHONE: (321)633-2016 ext. 52696 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restoration of approximately 7.7 miles of shoreline between DEP Monuments R75 - R118 in Brevard County.The Mid Reach segment is located between the North and South Reaches of the federal Brevard County Shore Protection Project. Design of the project is ongoing. Staff has determined that 81.06%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design(erosion control line and pre-construction monitoring). Federal State Local Total $0 $28,360 $41,613 $69,973 50 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 51 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: South Palm Beach Island Beach Restoration Project LOCAL SPONSOR: Palm Beach County LOCAL CONTACT: Leanne Welch PHONE: (561)233-2434 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Feasibility analysis and design of beach restoration project along 2.06 miles of critically eroded beach between R- 128+860 to R-138+400 in Palm Beach County. A 2004 special session of the Florida Legislature designated emergency funding in conjunction with FEMA funds for a feasibility study in the southern portion of the project south of the Town of Palm Beach. Dune maintenance projects were conducted in 2007 and 2009. The project was expanded from the original South Palm Beach project area described in the Strategic Beach Management Plan. Several alternatives have been explored including the use of breakwaters. An Environmental Impact Statement is in progress in order to construct a future erosion control alternative. Eligibility has not yet been determined for this project,since it is in the feasibility phase. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Feasibility study(Environmental Impact Study). Federal State Local Total $0 $118,703 $522,845 $641,548 51 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 52 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Coral Cove Park Dune Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Palm Beach County LOCAL CONTACT: Leanne Welch PHONE: (561)233-2434 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of the dune between DEP reference monuments R5-R7.6 in Palm Beach County. The initial dune restoration was completed in 1993 using sand from an upland source. A 2004 special session of the Florida Legislature designated emergency funding in combination with FEMA funds for a dune maintenance project. Funding was provided in H5PB1 at 90% state cost share. The project required no additional maintenance until significant erosion occurred in the winter of 2011/12. A dune repair project was completed in 2012/13 to address storm impacts from Hurricane Sandy. A subsequent nourishment to fill the dune template is scheduled for FY2014/2015. Staff has determined the project is 100%eligible for cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction and first year post construction monitoring. Federal State Local Total • $0 $470,000 $470,000 $940,000 52 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 53 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Curry Hammock State Park LOCAL SPONSOR: Florida State Parks LOCAL CONTACT: Sri Tamisetti, P.E. PHONE: (850)245-3110 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restoration of a 0.1 mile segment of critically eroded beach at Curry Hammock State Park on Long Point Key in Monroe County. In 2005, a feasibility study was completed to investigate potential sand sources for state parks in the Keys, to respond to damages sustained during Hurricanes Rita and Wilma. The restoration project was conducted in 2008 with nourishment in 2011. Designs for a more comprehensive program are being developed by the Division of Recreation and Parks to address erosion caused by Tropical Storm Debby. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Feasibility study. Federal State Local Total $0 $75,000 $0 $75,000 53 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 54 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Vero Beach Restoration LOCAL SPONSOR: Indian River County LOCAL CONTACT: James Gray PHONE: (772)226-1344 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project consists ofthe restoration of 14,212 feet(2.7 miles)of shoreline.The current plan calls for further beach condition monitoring and a beach project feasibility analysis. Due to the extensive hardbottom in close proximity to the shoreline,the average unit fill volume is anticipated to be 15 cubic yards per shoreline foot. The project area extends from R-72-R-86. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Feasibility(Environmental Impact Statement). Federal State Local Total $0 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 54 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 55 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Regional Monitoring LOCAL SPONSOR: FDEP LOCAL CONTACT: Gene Chalecki PHONE: (850)488-7813 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Regional Data Collection and Processing Program is designed to address statewide coastal erosion and change analysis and outlines the minimum data collection efforts necessary to accomplish the program goals. It includes a combination of in-house and contracted work efforts that provide for complete statewide coverage of the program jurisdictional areas on an eight-year cycle. The data collection cycle includes the acquisition and development of the following: •Aerial Photography •Aerial Oblique Photography for reconnaissance and emergency response •Conventional topographic and bathymetric surveys •Laser remote sensing technologies including topographic and bathymetric data(LIDAR) •Computer based stereo photo modeling These data are used to support all aspects of the statewide beach management and coastal permitting programs, including the planning and design of beach restoration and nourishment,post-hurricane response and recovery activities,and the development of the critically eroded beaches inventory. The collection and analysis of the data is coordinated with other statewide initiatives including the annual aerial digital photo acquisition initiative,the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional Sediment Management efforts, and the local government project sponsors to increase cost efficiency and avoid duplication of efforts. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Funds will be used for the collection and processing of aerial photography of the Southwest region from Pinellas to Collier County. Federal State Local Total $0 $250,000 $0 $250,000 55 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 56 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Port Canaveral IMP Implementation LOCAL SPONSOR: Canaveral Port Authority LOCAL CONTACT: Carol Noble PHONE: (321)783-7831 ext.256 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In 1996,the Department adopted the Port Canaveral Inlet Management Plan which recommends corrective measures to mitigate the impacts of Port Canaveral Inlet. Plan recommendations include: • Bypassing beach compatible maintenance dredge material to the downdrift beaches. • Placing suitable maintenance dredge material in nearshore areas. • Restoration of downdrift beaches. • Conducting structural improvements to stabilize the inlet and improve bypassing. • Investigating the feasibility of using innovative technologies to recover beach compatible maintenance dredge material. • Implementation of a comprehensive beach and offshore monitoring program. Port Canaveral Inlet is a federally authorized and maintained inlet.The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers has completed structural improvements to the north and south jetties and periodically bypasses sediment to the downdrift beaches and nearshore. Federally-funded bypassing of material excavated from the 1,6 mile-long fillet updrift of the North jetty last occurred in 2010. The locally funded bypassing of sand trap dredge material was initiated in 2011. Completion of the maintenance dredging of the South Jetty Sediment Trap occurred in 2011. All bypass material is placed between RI -R14 south of the inlet. Permitting of the next bypassing event and updates to the IMP are ongoing. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Feasibility(update of the IMP)and Design(permit renewal and coordination). Federal State Local Total $380,000 $100,500 $33,500 $514,000 56 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 57 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Lake Worth Inlet IMP Implementation-Federal Bypassing LOCAL SPONSOR: Town of Palm Beach LOCAL CONTACT: Robert Weber PHONE: (561) 838-5440 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In 1996,the Department adopted the Lake Worth Inlet Management Plan. The recommendations include: • Reactivate and enhance the performance of the existing sand transfer plant. • Perform a study to implement changes with the L-groin to improve sand movement into the sand transfer plant(STP). • Bypass all beach compatible dredged material during channel maintenance activities to downdrift beaches. • Conduct additional studies to determine the downdrift beaches to be restored as mitigation for the effects of the inlet. •Conduct studies to determine the necessity of expansion of the settling basin. • Implement a comprehensive beach and offshore monitoring program. Lake Worth Inlet is a federally authorized and maintained inlet. A sand transfer plant was constructed on the north jetty in 1958 but was not operational between May 1990 and May 1996. Phase I re-construction of the STP was completed in 2010. Phase II construction is scheduled for FY2014/2015 and will include installation of a booster pump and extension of the discharge pipe. Mitigation will be required for extension of the discharge pipe. Federal bypassing scheduled for FY2012- 2013 will be conducted by the USACE with beach placement of compatible material. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Funds will be used for marine turtle monitoring for the federal bypassing project. Federal State Local Total $0 $54,000 $18,000 $72,000 57 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 58 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: St. Lucie Inlet IMP Implementation LOCAL SPONSOR: Martin County LOCAL CONTACT: Kathy FitzPatrick PHONE: (772)288-5429 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In 1995, the Department adopted the St. Lucie Inlet Management Plan, which defines the measures needed to mitigate the adverse impacts of St. Lucie Inlet on the coastal system. Plan recommendations include: • Continue periodic maintenance dredging activities including dredging of the channel and sedimentation basin (approximately 4-5 year cycle). • Dredge interior inlet flood tidal shoal and place beach quality material on downdrift beaches(1999). •Investigate options which include modifications to the north jetty(2009)and expansion of the sedimentation basin(2000). • Implement a comprehensive beach and offshore monitoring program. • Evaluate the feasibility and need for an extension of the south jetty. Federally authorized improvements began in 1982 with the construction of a sand trap inside the inlet. Regular sand bypassing from the sand trap was been completed on a 4-5 year cycle with placement of sand on the beaches of Jupiter Island south of the inlet. Deepening of the sand trap in 2000 and emergency dredging in 2002 resulted in nearshore disposal of material. The sand trap was last dredged in 2007 with material placed on Jupiter Island. The last sand bypassing event was completed in 2012. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction of FY2013/2014 bypassing event(reimbursement)and monitoring. Federal State Local Total $6,465,600 $4,781,250 $1,593,750 $12,840,000 58 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 59 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: East Pass IMP Implementation** LOCAL SPONSOR: City of Destin LOCAL CONTACT: Lindey Chabot PHONE: (850) 837-4242 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Department adopted a revised Inlet Management Plan in 2013. One of the implementation strategies of the plan is the stabilization of Norriego Point to reduce the maintenance dredging requirements within the navigation channel. Stabilizing Norriego Point will also reduce the future emergency fill requirements, allowing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to place a greater volume of material from channel maintenance dredging events onto adjacent beaches. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Nourishment of Norriego Point and construction of the northwest seawall and rock revetment. **Program funding may not be necessary for the project,which has been identified to receive Natural Resource Damage Assessment(NRDA)funding through the BP Oil Spill recovery efforts.However, until funding is secured,the request will be considered for inclusion in the LGFR. Federal State Local Total $0 $3,768,250 - $1,256,750 $5,025,000 59 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 60 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: St. Andrews IMP Implementation LOCAL SPONSOR: FDEP, Division of Recreation and Parks LOCAL CONTACT: Sri Tammisetti, P.E. PHONE: (850)245-3110 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Stabilization of the inlet shoreline along the western side of St. Andrews Inlet in Bay County, Florida. Construction will include four offshore breakwaters designed to provide protection for the environmentally sensitive and biologically diverse Gator Lake in St. Andrews State Park while increasing the volume of sand being bypassed to the downdrift beaches of Panama City Beach (Bay County Shore Protection Project). Staff has determined that 100% of the project is eligible for state funding. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design,construction and first year monitoring of four(4)breakwaters. Federal State Local Total $0 $2,220,000 $20,000 $2,240,000 60 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 61 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: South Lake Worth Inlet IMP Implementation LOCAL SPONSOR: Palm Beach County LOCAL CONTACT: Leanne Welch PHONE: (561)233-2434 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restoration of the Ocean Ridge segment immediately downdrift of the inlet was completed in 1998. Expansion of the inlet sand trap was completed in 2002.The sand transfer plant was damaged in 2004 and repaired.Reconstruction and remodeling of the sand transfer plant was completed in 2011. Dredging and expansion of the sand trap is ongoing and construction is scheduled to be complete in 2013. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction(seagrass mitigation)and monitoring. Federal State Local Total $0 $536,250 $178,750 $715,000 61 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 62 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Sebastian IMP Implementation LOCAL SPONSOR: Sebastian Inlet Tax District LOCAL CONTACT: Marty Smithson PHONE: (321)724-5175 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A sand trap was constructed in 1972 to hold approximately 200,000 cubic yards of material.A dredge materials management area (DMMA) was designed and constructed in 2011 to provide for stockpiling of beach quality sand from the interior channel dredging and sand trap for bypassing to areas south of the inlet from DEP Monuments R3 - R17 (Ambersand) in Indian River County. Phase I of the sand trap bypassing was completed in 2012 and Phase II, including an expansion of the sand trap, is planned for 2013. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Monitoring. Federal State Local Total $0 $153,000 $51,000 $204,000 62 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 63 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Longboat Pass IMP Implementation LOCAL SPONSOR: West Coast Inland Navigation District,Manatee County and the Town of Longboat Key LOCAL CONTACT: PHONE: Chuck Listowski, West Coast Inland Navigation District (941)485-9402 Charles Hunsicker, Manatee County (941)745-3727 Juan Florensa,Town of Longboat Key (941)316-1988 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Inlet Management Plans for Longboat Pass, in Manatee County, were completed in 2008 and 2011. Design of a sand trap with bypassing is nearing completion and construction is scheduled for FY2014/15. Design for the navigation channel dredging and bypassing is ongoing. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Feasibility(2011 IMP reimbursement),design(sand trap and navigation channel bypassing)and construction with year one monitoring(sand trap). Federal State Local Total $0 $1,374,866 $458,289 $1,833,154 63 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 64 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Boca Raton IMP Implementation LOCAL SPONSOR: City of Boca Raton LOCAL CONTACT: Jennifer Bistyga PHONE: (561)416-3397 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Boca Raton Inlet Management Plan was adopted in 1997. The weir on the north jetty was extended 50 ft. seaward to allow for the creation of a wider beach in conjunction with nourishment north of the inlet in 2004. In 2008, the wooden crib structure of the north jetty was rehabilitated with quarried rock. Bypassing activities occur annually using the city- owned dredge. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Design(permit), construction(bypassing),and monitoring. Federal State Local Total $0 $395,700 $131,900 $527,600 64 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 65 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Venice Inlet IMP Implementation LOCAL SPONSOR: West Coast Inland Navigation District LOCAL CONTACT: Chuck Listowski PHONE: (941)485-9402 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Dredging of the flood shoal to create a sand trap and bypass material to the adjacent eroding shoreline between DEP Monuments R115.5 - R117 in Sarasota County. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Construction with year one monitoring. Federal State Local Total $0 337,500 $112,500 $450,000 65 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 66 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Ft. Pierce IMP Implementation LOCAL SPONSOR: St. Lucie County LOCAL CONTACT: Richard Bouchard PHONE: (772)462-1710 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Ft. Pierce Inlet Management Plan adopted in 1997. Ft. Pierce Inlet is a federally maintained inlet. A feasibility study has been completed and design of the sand trap was initiated. Further study is proposed for a sediment tracer study and alternative bypassing methods. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Feasibility. Federal State Local Total $0 $450,00 $150,000 $600,000 66 CAC January 9,2014 VIII-5 New Business 67 of 67 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2014/2015 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Southwest Gulf Coast Regional Inlet Study LOCAL SPONSOR: West Coast Inland Navigation District LOCAL CONTACT: Chuck Listowski PHONE: (941)485-9402 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Regional feasibility study for evaluating the potential for establishment of flood shoal sand traps to transfer sand from the flood-tidal delta within the flood shoal region of thirteen inlets in Manatee, Sarasota,Charlotte and Lee counties. Funds will be used for(Please specify project phase): Feasibility: Funds requested for FY 2014-15 will be used for completing an evaluation at each inlet including a brief literature search, and if warranted,cursory field work for environmental and sediment data collection and analysis. Federal State Local Total $0 $187,500 $62,500 $250,000 67 2'ap og H " ma mm v, n m 0000mmomm n n0mn0mmmv^mrvmm0mmmmmmm°, omoo0 11 aIt mrvnnm m mm mom000 '., y9 «g' y(, Q y y> 0 0. 0. 0 0 0 0. ...... 0 �$ i� 0 00000 G m Om 00 m «, n I00000muOO n m0°,o°,O!fl000o0mm mv,mN0000000 o 2011 o mo 00 0 0 0 o00o00000 0 0000o00o0o0o00,00000000000000 33 ` 19 wit :IP Oaw'E 5ry 31 $i^ ry rvry rvry ry o ry 00000000 a 000000000000000000000orvrv00000 910;::. a 8 e ' Eliza as as a a a 000000000 a 00000000000000000000000000000 up}E 5"u E g FPN =dL o rvry rvry ry ry o rvrvrvrvorvrvrvry ry oorvrvrvrvoarvrvrvrvorv00000arvoorvrvorvory yLL 'ad 1 W g� �Vi ry o0 on ry ry 0 rv0000o0rvry ry 0orvrvrvrvrvorvoorvrvorvoorv."".rvorv0ry Ty2 a ma as a a a 000000000 a 00000 m00000000000000000000000 , EY 3I 8 „ `: ta � o mo o � �000aoomo o a�a0000aaaaaaaaoaaoaaa000a000 v, 0 a0 0m m 0 0 00000x000 a 00000000000000000000000 000 $ � m 10 NM d a m.n�m�„ N00 000000000 �303a 1 gm m §0 m m m rRmnR?,X1.4mm ry 8vn�RPMFZ.V.22,82i:1-®w 8Nry w2AF i$V •:( 2 C 8 a o0 00 0 0 0 00000rv000 0 0000mo-000n00000000000000000ry Cit o 00 00 o 0 0 0000oi5oo1 0 000§,F eEoo 000xo0oxrv0a0$,so80g n - m0 < n arv,„ o2m rvvrvOrvO o oxnnrvrvo ry 0 ry !:-.000-01! A 0 1a Xs x W FWWR 2 �WEXP, X WmEWWWWWmW� g RWWgmWHR Fq u a ^n ‘, 1 t o § ea - u m it i ; m°u E u 1 n : "° J 5 „q E E p - s n 1,1)e.E rcmm° 5 m s�-W9ttm��k. d E Ell nam m „p% a eE a° l °Zc201G tlczeRoaUf ismuom „ '% cK mi ? 2v 8111am § ssg;�� ee�gsm s 'NZ'm' KKK mm mmr mrvn om K mmo 1 a a W m m m r rvnm wry mm B � ;113 'a; ` o OriRgt ° 3F § 5 555 : § §§§g §18 ?$4§F, gi 11 it A g 81'58 !t9-.!.§Y;PO' ry g' 1111 11111111 e Q :!:!: - m m >eeowo�.ry ry ��_0ommm�vo0eoo.-rva�0. ... 1-1 8 88. 88 8 0 882888888. 8!,2888812g!,21221!! 888 8 888 88 a41 iIa ag + m 8 $ 88888$$ 88 8 88 p ry 8 8 522.8$ aS 8 w° 8R��� $�RB ad Ra tl ''. _ ry ry _ ry ry o ry n ry ry o ry o 0 o ry 0 o ry ry o 0 o ry ry o c !e u L 3 o �o ..o o .-��0--0 000_,- --_..- ,0 5 m 1„,1„, mrvwmo-<o oonrvt�rvo�-o rv�m� on '^4 tl s0 00 .0 0 0 0 00.0..0.0 0 000000000000000000000 0. F . .. 0w 0 0 0 0.0.00.0. 0 000000000000000000000 0. galF 0 0. 0. 0 0 0 00000000. 0 000000000000000000000 0. f; E00.00.000 0 0000.0000000000000..0 0. : : :; :: : : : ° 000o w<oo_0 - 0 . a0_07108.080„ 0 ::::::::::::::::;:::: m o ry n 0 �x .,0 n ry 0';ono arrw }¢9 i 11 ry y m g ER,iR ill E m Km ° § ill Y`<{ 8 8 8 g$8 8 R ill I2 NU INma"` c t? 8o Ebh< <n m E . co nE na 5 aL E ;1 i V E EZcoE y -ms °it 11; gmi 'illt11111 11 11z EmEz a S F 0 i 121i;2: `'5!wfAxirc1am ita1 y LFa , a ° 0 m Ewa x o @a 2 € g€'g aea g "1im§l.>Pa .2,2 ;Vaamagg2>�= :e a 00 83 -, z 62.361,7A,51°3u00 0 mz m `o0o oidia010000000" a AR AR R R R R RR R R 0 A AH R RA R s §$ 2 2s2 an R! »Rm » R R N a a� s moo 8 g R N RR aa $ o Rs RA g s mR 8-% R R R< E „ „E » „ » » a^ „ » " » „as » » »» » » F J o w i lib' 1st yEo, iifo�8 I $ o,iii515s,v 1 a$,61 Ili ! e o0 i 8 P� 0 iN8 l m$0� ENS°°"° 0N0°8 0o o8 a NiS u u Lig u 0 uu Ls u uu u u u u v u1' 2 N i uu° u € f u u$^€�€li a fsiufo0u ,uIl�e"plgmg$m�tuiu u s g � u° i � 0a vu '�,$gp0u �Eu°°. .8�8 �u�$E 8 a� - '21 1 " 3 ,E % 2 Joh 41 ¢ o". 1`gga 8 -2n �d Y 1, 2 9 i sN s e a g Esu N5u a8 a$Sm �S5°Sug 1. *# un $ nr LL - a UU Yw uum' R.Fr r> U E_ e e ; e 1 L a N N Yo a $ P a� a m n huIII':l J m stil .z°E , 1.5151N5, zrco gu, `" s Ia�na a b Eek °)`aT.�O 7 �g"nna£ASP2 Cal"mt:,iLi eli -1�c°1 aC a ms8 2, " norma° ke zo° I ° ��---- u -"' 'gin aa 'a a�°§ mf. � gm33�am g "° �'g o�9mmya a c1isz I E ! �. 0 Ytilyti u a 8iim41°PYm,9�'w -0g""m3iaaS2m 1 -$ ;'-'13 ilitI u2ti3-,1“ N a ills€;g.�s g§eliamla8t4t= se ° aQm,'iQ 0 $aon9:�,m u�u a1-'m,3m" isi,f, ,u,s" z°a '9�ivAn'. 2 . e e e e e e * eeeeJ'a eee X *ege eee eeee a of f #KYR ]I!oLle N 88 8g. 8 8 8 82888Q88Z 888-8818R m�88,..688886 $8 4a88 76 C S18 88 4 8 8 "2222282 m 22222248 2"8"4"2422"282-2 R < < Yneo R R e EmlERs :inrilgmmo� �3aassB '-"I e oe xa�m 1 NNN P"R"PI"ViriMAFAW,-,IMFF „R RR RR R aRR "§R' '8 R �AgRR0RRB<.RRmoIaa sR No ER sa R 86 iNs60mRERE sa sa� » » »°'» » N „ „ -gs R s P R RmR ,r°,Rrg§Rio Rw RSA Ammar R R tnm AR § R R 0 RgR RH a N RRRN n„,RNN1 RNs- mRn §RR1 a $R„ a$ 8n E m AM$AR26444 H Arm R ^NNF V -.I-R R E g § ViE I aa R a Ez9 ' » Q mmM » &, » sR»so6,a$sss ss sssss ora sss» N r 4F°=E 8 ° 8 8 88,8 1°, ` 8EQ$mN8 8 'E B P, 16 ILT o o °a” 8 8 i$° ?5 SEE 5'5 ,it i gt. f�f8ao niN" i8N AMAg S LLgA o u uu uou o 0 o uo u su u'`°uu°."3 u. uLL 8 §§ € § : „ a i star€€$ t.4.5 �:It ms a o I3 u u9 u u �a u$ 5 u§Su 3f' FuPm'FE u V u m g 003387, `,':4,5' i ,:u°0 II uu _ rii,ow` 9 is 'i s,'" s" m a u Fiu -oN o0i8 uma �u€8u�u2xumna _ r 3F U u s e e a e 1 e 8 c¢ w t weI a s'' w m° E m° '.,2 g i n. E; t °e 3°l 5 E n e ti e g le iei ° a 2110 '.° S ilgclit illil3iz fpm l gE $eaEae m acucW ! € m 8 z 5�;a °a mm`zm»mzm5i o°`e� a N E C l d 9 R 8 °�' S N s`m i u m°c i m L yy f a l i rc o n .S K i o Il 5g u e 1l D z f am-S8LNY �°'1!0°ilmmpig IIx? E�f 1 8-.4";4-574X81nR8.1 1;ass u a ;x2111 €8Fit2iaiS�°�E 8 " "° a 8 u $ LL a i u 5 m g m m i i C 9 E w 8 ,5 u ° noa`m n¢nut0 � zmo ��,g7LL� u n0�3" uz" °Lu s,Rsu3 a$dui'i °� u>°a The economic value of beaches -- a 2013 update By James k. Houston U.S.Army Engineer Research and Development Center 3909 Halls Ferry'Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180 fames.r&nrston a>,usace.army mil ABSTRACT ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Few Americans are aware that the travel and tourism(T&T)industry is among Amer- Beach restoration, travel and tour- ica's largest industries,employers,and earners of foreign exchange;and beaches are ism,economic development. its leading tourist destination.In an era where the availability of jobs is a major issue Manuscript submitted 26 b Novemer and their offshoring a significant concern,the T&T industry is the largest employer 2012,revised and accepted 2 November in the U.S. and its jobs are difficult to offshore. U.S.economic competitiveness is of concern,since it runs large trade deficits,but its largest trade surplus is in T&T; ary 1013. where it runs a multi-billion-dollar surplus even with China. Survey after survey finds that beaches are the leading U.S.vacation destination.However,beach erosion Labor Statistics 2012c). States compete is a major concern for many beaches.As beaches such as Waikiki decrease in width with each other to attract manufacturing tourists head to other destinations,including foreign beaches.Beach nourishment has industries, especially high-technology been shown to increase tourist numbers and provide a good return on investment,in industries,but few have policies to attract particular to the federal government through taxes.However,the U.S.lags much of T&T businesses. However, the number the world in the growth of tourism infrastructure investment including restoration of of high-tech U.S. manufacturing jobs beaches.As a result,the growth of U.S.tourism is projected to lag much of the rest declined almost 30%from 2000 to 2010 of the world.Renewed U.S.investment in tourism infrastructure is important to grow with only 1.8 million remaining; about the economy and number of jobs and to reduce the L.S.trade imbalance. one-eighth the number of T&T jobs (Washington Post 2012). For example, FTpuston (1995a; 1996; 2002; 2011a) and exceeding the GDP of all Figure 2 shows employment trends at 2008) described the economic countries other than the United States IBM that currently has less than a quarter value of America's beaches. He (United Nations 2010). Similarly, T&T of its employees located in the U.S.Since noted that the travel and tourism(T&T) contributes $1.3 trillion to America's 2004, about 85%of R&D employment industry is becoming increasingly domi- GDP(World Travel and Tourism Council growth in U.S.multinational corporations nant in economies throughout the world. 2011b).This is 8.7%of U.S.output and has been abroad(TradeRcform 2012). However,few realize that T&T is among makes it the third largest contributor to America's largest industries,employers, GDP behind real estate rental and leas- Not only are manufacturing jobs in and earners of foreign exchange; and ing(12.6%)and manufacturing(11.7%) a long-term decline, but many service- beaches are its leading tourist destina- (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012a: sector jobs face"ofl'shoring."Princeton tion.Although high-technology industries World Travel and Tourism Council economist Alan Blinder, who was vice grab the news,the U.S.runs a trade deficit 2011b).T&T also produces$124 billion chairman of the Federal Reserve during in these industries and high-technology in annual tax revenue for all levels of the Clinton administration,says that 25% jobs are increasingly "offshored" in to- government in the United States;without of American service-industry jobs are at day's world economy.T&T is difficult to this revenue,each U.S.household would risk of being offshored (Blinder 2009). offshore and is providing the economic pay $1,055 more in taxes (U.S. Travel T'&'I'is a rare industry where()Mitering growth,jobs,and foreign exchange that Association 2012). is difficult.There can be intense competi- make the U.S. competitive in a world tion among countries for tourism,but if economy.However,tourists have choices T&T MEANS JOBS iN AMERICA a tourist wants the tourist experience at in international tourism,and the U.S.has T&T is both the world's and Ameri- Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco,the neglected tourism including supporting ca's largest employer(Figure 1)provid- tourist has to go to San Francisco. In the infrastructure investments. This paper ing 255 million jobs throughout the world current tough economic times, Adrian updates and lends support to the canclu_ (8.7%of jobs)and 14.3 million jobs in Cooper,chief executive of Oxford Eco- sions of nd lendsuston(1995a; 1996; 2002; the U.S.(10.2%of total employment) nomics,recently said of T&T:"It's one of 2008) on the economic importance of more than one out of every 10 jobs(U.S. the healthiest sectors in the United States beaches to the national economy. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012b,World ..,"(New York Times 2012b). Travel and Tourism Council 2011 a). T&T AND THE ECONOMY In contrast, all U.S. manufacturing in- T&T 1S KEY TO INTERNATIONAL T&T is the world's largest industry, dustries from Apple to General Motors COMPETITIVENESS contributing $6.3 trillion in 2011 to the to Boeing employ only 12.0 million The l?S rsamajor player inthe inter- world's Gross Domestic Product(GDP) people, having steadily lost 3.2 million national T&T industry,International tour- (World Travel and Tourism Council jobs in the past 10 years(U.S.Bureau of fists who represent l0%-15%of tourists in the U.S.,spent$153 billion in 2011,a Shore&Beach ■ Vol.81,No. 1 ■ Winter 2013 Page 3 >t E of$17 billion (U.S. Travel Association � h 2009: U.S. Department of Commerce 2011). The federal government receives •`"' 56%of tax revenues from domestic T&T. and state and local governments receive " N ��•. , �s"` 28% and 17% respectively, despite lo- r cal governments providing much of the tourist-support infrastructure(U.S.Travel ". Job e"--- Association 2009).Assuming the federal government receives the same percentage tvt 4-1tp �. of taxes from international as domestic '`' tourists, it received $9.5 billion in taxes from international tourists in 2011. , BEACHES ARE KEY e ;£ • TO U.S.T&T .,x Beaches are the key element of U.S. T&T. since they are the leading tourist destination(Figure 4).A survey by Trip- Figure 1.Travel and tourism is America's leading employer. Advisor (2011) of planned 2012 travel Figure 2.Number of IBM employees in the U.S.and India(New York Times found that beaches are the leading U.S. 2012a; Computerwor/d 2010), tourist destination with 44% of survey respondents planning beach vacations. 140000 An AB(:;IWashingtan Post poll (ABC/ Washington Past 2012)found beaches the 120000 — most popular summer vacation destina- United States tion with 72%of Americans expressing I000(8) a favorable opinion of going to the beach r" for summer vacation.Further,they found snout) — Americans spend a full 40%oftheir allot- ,-' ted vacation days at the beach and 52% of respondents planned to holiday at the 60000 — beach in the next 12 months. Beaches India have long been considered the number 40000 — �' one family vacation destination, but Match.com (2012) reports that 72% of singles say the most important factor in choosing a summer travel destination is a 0 I I I I beautiful beach.Going to beaches is not 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 just an American obsession.Expedia.com Year (2012)found in a survey of 8599 adults in -- - - - 21 countries that"... the beach is by far 14%increase over 2010. and growth in all agricultural products and$24 billion the favorite destination for the majority 2012 has been rapid and is estimated to to- for civilian aircraft as seen in Figure 3 of the world's travelers." tal about$170 billion(Brand USA 2012; (U.S. Department of Commerce 2011). Klein et al. (2004) performed a de- Department of Commerce 2011). The U.S. even had a•T&•I'trade surplus tailed analysis of tourism in the I.J.S.and This is greater than the combined value of$4.4 billion with China(U.S.Depart- tailed ded there wasis"...strong evidence of exports in the few areas where the U.S. ment of Commerce 2011).Americans take for the unique quality of the coastal zone has significant exports --- agricultural pride in hl.S.high-technology industries, as the net for tourism."Indeed, zone coastal grains,aircraft,computers,and telecom- but the U.S. ran a trade deficit in high- states receive about 85%of tourist-relat- munications equipment (U.S. Census technology goods of almost$100 billion ed revenues in the U.S. largely because Bureau 2012).The U.S.ran a trade deficit in 2010 (National Science Foundation beaches are tremendously popular(World of$727 billion in 2011 but, in contrast, 2012).This deficit has quadrupled since Almanac 2tro).Although there are many T&T was one of the few bright spots of 1998,whereas exports of high-technology interior attractions from Yellowstone to trade with international tourists spending goods by China, India,and countries in more in the 11.S.than U.S.tourists spend Southeast Asia have increased during the Grand Canyon and from Las Vegas abroad,resulting in a trade surplus of$43 the same timeframe from $75 billion to to Branson, Missouri; the popularity of billion (U.S. Department of Commerce $375 billion annually(National Science beaches dominates tourism.For example, 2011). 'l"&T has the largest surplus of Foundation 2012)• Venice Beach,California,has 16 million any trade category, being greater than tourist visits annually(Travel and Leisure the U.S.trade surplus of$19 billion for International tourists visiting the U.S. 2012). This is almost 50% more visits produced estimated tax revenues in 2011 than the combined visits to Yellowstone Paged Shore&Beach • Vol.81,No. 1 ■ Winter 2013 (3.3 million),Yosemite(4.0 million),and the Grand Canyon(4.4 million)(National Park Service 2012a).California beaches alone had 659 million day visits in 2001 (California Department of Boating and Waterways and State Coastal Conser- Agricultural Grains vancy 2002) or 720 million in 2010 if adjusted for U.S.population gmwth(t.S. Census Bureau 2011). This compares with day visits of 280 million to all 388 Civilian Aircraft National Park Service properties—in- cluding national seashores and monu- ments and buildings such as the Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument, and Travel White House (National Park Service and 2012b). It is estimated that in 2001, Tourism approximately 180 million .Americans I _-... made 2 billion visits to ocean,gulf,and inland beaches(Clean Beaches Council II I I I 2012). Assuming beach visits increase 0 I0 20 30 40 50 in proportion to increasing population, Billions of Dollars about 200 million Americans made 2.2 I billion visits to beaches (Figure 5) in Figure 3.U.S.trade surplus among the few areas where exports exceed 2010(U.S.Census Bureau 2011).As seen imports. in Figure 6,this is twice as many visits economy ($73 billion) in 1998 yields as the combined 1,08 billion visits made an estimate that U.S. beaches currently to properties of the National Park Service contribute about $225 billion annually (280 million),Bureau of Land Manage- to the national economy in 2012 dollars meat(70 million),and all state parks and (King 1999; Clean Beaches Council recreation areas(725 million)(National 2012;and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statis- ` Association of State Park Directors 2012; tics 2012d).This is seven times the$31 N" Bureau of Land Management 2012), billion contribution of the National Park Moreover,many of these visits to state Service system to the national economy parks and recreation areas were visits (U.S. Department of the Interior 2012). to beaches. For example, state beaches Moreover, beach tourism contributes in California account for only 2.7%of significant tax revenue to the federal " California state park holdings, but ac- government.Beach tourists in California • -- ---------- ---w-= count for 72%of visits(King 1999).The paid an estimated$8.1 billion in federal Figure 4.Beaches are America's 2.2 billion beach visits also dwarf the 137 taxes in 2002(California Department of leading tourist destination. million visitors to the top 20 theme parks Boating and Waterways and State Coastal polled in New Jersey said the New Jersey in the L.S.in 2010 including properties of Conservancy 2002). Again, taking the shore was "going downhill." By 1998, Disney,Universal,Six Flags,Sea World, ratio of beach visits nationally to those in only 27%thought the New Jersey shore Busch Gardens, Knotts Berry Farms, Califhrniaand converting to 2012 dollars, was in decline, with 86% saying that Hershey Park, Dollywood, and other beach visitors contribute about$25 bil- the shore was one of New Jersey's best theme parks (Themed Entertainment lion in federal tax revenue annually. features (Zukin 1998). The difference Association 2012). BEACH RESTORATION between 1989 and 1998 was construe- Beaches make a large contribution to PROVIDES A STRONG tion of the beach nourishment project America's economy. Beach tourism in ECONOMIC RETURN from Sandy Hook to Bamegat Inlet,New Florida made a contribution in 2005 of Beach erosion is the No. 1 concern Jersey'which is the largest beach nourish- over$60 billion to its economy in 2012 that beach tourists have about beaches ment project lin terms of volume)in the dollars(Murley et al.2005;U.S.Bureau (Hall and Staimer 1995). With about world (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of Labor Statistics 2012d). Similarly, 20,000 mi of eroding shoreline and 2,700 2001). This project not only brought in King(1999)shows that California beach mi of critically eroding shoreline (U.S. tourists,but provided critical protection tourism made a contribution in 1998 Army Corps of Engineers 1994), beach during Hurricane Sandy.After a tour of of$73 billion to the state and national erosion is a serious threat to the nation's damage along the New Jersey from Hur- economy in 2012 dollars,Multiplying the beach tourism and,therefore,a threat to mane Sandy,New Jersey Ciovemor Chris ratio of visitors to national beaches(2.2 the national economy.Restoring beaches Christie said: "If you look at the towns billion)and visitors to California beaches through beach nourishment can greatly that have had engineered beaches,up and (720 million) by the contribution of increase their attractiveness to tourists. down the skate,those are the towns whose California beach visitors to the national For example, in 1989, 74% of those damage was minimal. Other towns that didn't, the damage was much greater. 1 Shore&Beach ■ Vol.81,No.1 ■ Winter 2013 Page 5 � ; . � � were run down, and Miami Beach was M -� , not the place to visit.By 1977,%ince mag- az, (1977) reported: So rapidly has i ; _ r`� , 04000‘ if. the seven-mile-long island degenerated ' t t= gq01 -' f# :Af*, ' : 1;.1 that it can be fairly described as a seedy, ,� ; t - backwater of debt-ridden hotels."Beacht if . )f 4 a I .. a ems.-� ilt, tiiii, c, � � � � Z,�- " � , �" ° nourishment in the late 1970s rejuvenated ' - `f ' i . - ,1 Miami Beach and opened its beaches to • . , ,, '°" - i, the public(Figure 8), Beach attendance, It ilf r 3. 'fit c , ,t ,r „4---,' -e �� _ *fir' based on lifeguard counts and aerial f s; ) �., r r � „ a� � � � � r ,-. F i c_ .� - , sun�cys, soared from 8 million in 1978.,� t 3"• •p. ” . z *�`* ", to21 million in 1983(Wiegel 1992).The lks, •t` f , t' '„,, .t. �`' „0.:_,,,,,, •i`4federal government paid 58.7% of the f % lIA , k-F; , ..-,,4: � cost of the beach nourishment,or about ' ''' ;�� � $30 million,and the Corps of Engineers t ,,,-114, _ 4. t • ( estimated the annual capitalized cost of ' ° ; r,; _ .; . ` 'C _ 1#,%,' the project was$2.78 million with a fed- IA , ,...:, # : r eral share of$1.6 million(Wiegel 1992). - R - t, ;0 In 2011 tourists contributed$13 billion 00 I� to the Greater Miami economywith 44% s' ''a ;O - +* } `'' J of these tourists staying at Miami Beach ' ;` and accounting for a proportionate$5.7 , r -, _, , , billion to the Miami Beach economy -� .. ” ... (Greater Miami and the Beaches,2012). Figure 5.Some of the 2.2 billion annual beach visits. International tourists make up 48%of all overnight visitors,and,since they spend Figure 6.Day visits to beaches compared with day visits to the other major more than domestic tourists,contribute at tourist attractions in the United States. least$2.9 billion to the Miami economy (Greater Miami and the Beaches 2012). Thus, international tourists alone make an annual contribution to the economy Bureau of Land Management of Miami Beach that is over 50 times the cost of the$51 million Miami Beach nourishment project and over 1,000 times t ' Theme Parks its annual cost. in addition, the U.S. re- ceives over$1,800 in foreign exchange 1 — ($2.9 billion)annually at Miami Beach National Parks for every $I of its share of the annual cost of the beach nourishment($1.6 mil- lion).This compares,for example,with a State Parks& Recreational Areas return of less than$3 in corn trade surplus . ($13.7 billion)for each$1 ($4.6 billion) of crop subsidy.The$4.6 billion in crop Beaches subsidy goes to 52 recipients,who then each receive an average annual corn sub- sidy payment over 50 times the federal o I i I i I t I i I government's annual share of the cost of 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Y.5 the Miami Beach nourishment project Billions of Day Visits (Environmental Working Group 2012). It is instructive to compare the federal think that's a lesson for us as we move earnings at Miami Beach increased 56% investment in beach infrastructure(beach forward.”(N1.com,2012) the year after completion of the beach res- nourishment)versus federal tax revenues A study of beach tourism in Florida toration project.This one-year increase in from tourists.From 1950-1993 the federal (Klein and Osleeb 2010)concluded that tourism income of$290 million was more government and its cost-sharing partners beach nourishment projects can have a than five times the$51 million cost of the spent an average of$34 million in 1993 dramatic impact on the tourism sector." beach nourishment(Wiegel 1992). dollars($54 million in 2012 dollars)an- The impact was seen in"... visible dis- Miami Beach is a good example of the nuttily on beach nourishment(U.S.Army continuities and increases in the slope in economic benefits of beach restoration. Corps of Engineers 1994).Starting in the ... tourism-sector earnings"after beach Miami Beach had virtually no beach by mid-1990x, the federal investment in- nourishment. They noted that tourism mid-1970(Figure 7).As a result,facilities creased to about$100 million a year(Mar- Page 6 Shore&Beach ■ Vol.81, No. 1 ■ Winter 2013 Lowe 1999),but then declined to a 2012 ��`'�� � � ::, � ; t. "•r7, ' "'ii funding of only $44 million (Americanviiii4 ' . Shore and Beach Preservation Associa- r don 2012).As shown earlier,beach tour- ;. ,, ,. .,* ,,;at r 4.1. , . ists provide about$25 billion in annual '.1::' %I-0, . d federal tax revenue.Therefore,for every " ..� -0 'I(t orb, • $1 the federal government spent on beach �, =p4''` nourishment in 2012($44 million),it col kms. 't ' ` '- :, �. lected about$570($25 billion)annually4 y;~.~ in tax revenues from beach tourists.Also .t '" � `' shown earlier was that international tour 1,. t « .r ists provide about$9.5 billion in annual 1 ' _ t .... 0.#M., _.rwrr federal tax revenue. Thus, international ° tourists annually provide about$215 in tax 1 �~*• 1 , revenues for every$1 the federal govern { waw ► 1 :*_,. • meet spends on beach nourishment.Figure , ; *1- 0 9 compares what the federal government : t would spend in 10 years on beach nourish- `';a , - , . ii 'a` ment at the 2012 rate(the one-year cost r -"..�„ would be too small to see on the plot) °° .. `- k 7: t' versus tax income from international and - ' .` 1 , ." beach tourists. i= »„ i With almost eight times as many annual Figure 7.n Miami Beach before and after beach nourishment. beach tourist visits(2.2 billion)as visits to all properties of the National Park Service Figure 8. Miami Beach today. (280 million), the recreational value of beaches is clear.However,the 2012 federal investment in beaches of$44 million is less than 1.4%of the$3,1 billion budget '` �. of the Park Service(National Park Service 2012c), which critics maintain is itself inadequate. The National Parks Conser- vation Association asserts that national parks are underfunded by$500 million to ,, � � $600 million annually, have a$10.8 bil , lion backlog of'needed maintenance,and :44,1"?';',:,,,,, % "` r b,_ `; »�st LTi ' ' • RS%of those surveyed say parks should �5 ( � have sufficient funding to fully restore �, ` � them (National Parks Conservation As ,,.'.� 7. �, .. sociation 2012). Similarly, many beach 4- '' i, i,„:7,,,,,,: � " '. visitors would agree with Congressman 1,. Frank Pallone Jr. from New Jersey,who - " * �1. or noted: "In the same way we look at our . national parks as a national treasure,we i.v,,, should Zook at our beaches as a national .„,, , ,,,,, ,,,, "" :::, treasure"(New }'ork limes 2007). ':T " 1.14:04%° '' ,.w ,, For federal involvement in water resource projects. the Office of Man- in the nation,so there is no net national significant net loss to the state of Cali- agement and Budget (OMB) requires economic gain due to beach restoration fornia and the federal government from the Corps of Engineers use a National (Robinson,2002). a failure to maintain California's beaches. Economic Development(NED)criterion Surveying 2,719 households in southern King and Symes (2003) assert that r for evaluating projects. This criterion California and extending the analysis to assumes "full employment of the na- OMB's policy unduly limits the federal all California beaches, they concluded lion's resources." In the case of beach interest in California's beaches. They that: "...a significant number of beach nourishment,OMB chooses to interpret examine OMB's assumption that visitors visitors would, in fact, travel outside the NED criterion as meaning that full who decide not to recreate on Califor- of California and outside of the U.S. if nix's beaches will spend their dollars employment of the nation's resources there were no beaches in California.." elsewhere in the U.S., creating no net implies that any new economic activity If California beaches were unavailable within a beach community can only occur economic or tax impact for the federal for recreation. they estimate that beach at the cost of economic activity elsewhere g°vemment. They determined there is a goers would instead spend about $3.1 Shore&Beach ■ Vol.81,No.1 111 Winter 2013 Page 7 I locked in the past. For example, OMB assigns a high priority to a dredging project on the U.S, Pacific coast when Ten Years of its net effect is to allow Pacific Rim Beach countries such as China to import prod- Nourishment ucts into the U.S. more cheaply, since Cost the U.S. imports more products from these countries than it exports. Cheaper Annual Taxes products are a value to consumers, but From their importation increases the U.S.trade International deficit and reduces the number of U.S. Tourists jobs. Recreation projects not only create ,., Annual jobs to support domestic tourists,but jobs Taxes to support foreign tourists as well.Over From 90%of the benefits of the Miami Beach Beach nourishment were recreational benefits, Tourists so the project would not have proceeded with current OMB policies (Wiegel 1992). Yet foreign tourists spend $2.9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 billion annually at Miami Beach, over Billions of Dollars __ 1,800 times the federal government's share of the annual cost of the nourish- Figure 9.Ten years of federal beach nourishment costs at the 2012 rate versus ment. Inclusion of recreational benefits annual federal revenues from international tourists and beach tourists. in Corps of Engineers projects would produce significant benefit/cost ratios and Figure 10. Nourished beach in Spain. lead to more U.S.jobs. r . , t WORI.,D IDE COMPETITION tr •-: FACING U.S. A �� Houston (1996) noted that T&T's, - r x ., g. , ; `, , , economies,employ- - importance to world , ,, .,;Av' ment,and international competitiveness "a �. �, has not been lost on America's economic - "` ,, „ competitors. Germany and Japan have out spent the U.S. in infrastructure in- , " s , t vestment for decades including spend- C ;,,,11,11r,,,,,k,7„..., + ` i :" ing freely to maintain their beaches as ,,,,111,',''''''4,-.11,.;i *' f t , � " infrastructure investments.For example. s E � , ' ., d { »` ,` *i » bs a„, Germany spent about $3.3 billion over x VV ` ' 1 71`*`- 40 years on shore protection to protect a r '”" - +i 1 coastline less than 5%the length of the �; '�, r _ e';'71.014...4,,,„::: U.S coast(Kelletat 1992).This is about le' '..'' �'' ' a te . ',, five times corresponding U.S. expendi- t4i:#°: , i'. -' 1 , i Q �` • tures over the same period,25 to 50 times `''*•-" a greater share of GDP,and 500 to 1,000 times the GDP per mile of coast(Houston billion in other states and S2.4 billion federal expenditures on shore protection 1995b). Japan's budget for shore pro- outside the United States. King and for California, the federal government tection and restoration has topped $1.5 Symes (2003) use standard techniques avoids tax losses of$41 to S62. billion in a single year(Marine Facili- from the federal Bureau of Economic ties Panel 1991). This is more spent in Analysis to show that the unavailability Current OMB policy relegates ret- a single year than the U.S.spent in over of California beaches would produce an rection projects to a lower priority than 40 years from about 1950 to 1990(U.S. navigation, flood control, and envi- annual economic loss to the California Army Corps of Engineers 1994). Spain economy of$8.3 billion and there would ronmental restoration projects. In fact, with its extensive beaches is a major tour- beach a further loss of$6 billion to the U.S. restoration projects that would ism competitor for the U.S.It conducted national economy. They note that the have a large positive economic impact a five-year program in the early 1990s to state of California and federal govern- on tourismrevenues have to be primarily both restore existing beaches and build ment would lose$761 million and$738 justified on reduction of storm damage, new ones and spent more than the U,S. million respectively in taxes. With the with recreational benefits not permitted to spent for beach restoration over 40 years account for half or more of the benefits. annual federal cost of shore protection in (Figure 10)(Ministerio de()bras Publicas C alifornia beaches ranging between$12 Relegating recreation to a lower priority y,'Trans ortes 1993).The wisdom of the million and 18 million. for every $1 of than navigation is an example of thinking P Page 8 Shore&Beach ■ Vol.81,No.1 1111 Winter 2013 extensive beach restoration in Spain is , seen in the fact that currently tourism is �t r•. 10011 the only booming part of a dismal Span- ; ish economy (Biggins 2012). Almost " :r " miliN s 90% of international tourists to Spain Ixoe choose coastal regions for their vacationst ' (Yepes and Medina 2005). "t i 1.1.5 LOSING LEAD � � In the early 1990s the U.S.was domi '� • nant in world'r&T.The U.S.Travel and •s • • "_ � 9 Tourism Administration (1993) noted: "There is probably no country in the world Figure 11 (above).Left that has a reater corn arative advanta rw picture is a portion of e g p gam, in tourism than the United States." The Waikiki Beach. Right Wall.Street Journal(1994). noted the U.S. c"�e ex is the restored Gold domination of world T&T, saying they Coast of Australia. t1.S.received over 45%of the developed world's travel-and-tourism revenues and Figure 12(left).Greek a 60% of its profits. However, Congress tourism ad. in 1996 abolished the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration,whose primary function was marketing U.S. tourism 014': , internationally. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(1998) • noted as a result of the abolishment: Hawaii 2012). In contrast, Queensland. 1990s on international marketing(Brooks "The U.S. is (the) only country in the the location of Australia's Gold Coast, 1995; Hotel-online 1998;. Balzer 1998). developed world without a government- has pulled even with Hawaii in the num- The U.S. started to recognize that its funded National Tourism Office and tier of international tourists with each neglect of T&T was hurting its economy (it)bodes badly for the country's future having about 2 million annually(Figure and passed the Travel Promotion Act of tourism growth." 11)(Tourism Queensland 2012).Hawaii 2010.This Act initiated in 2012 the Brand The decline of the U.S. 'I'&'I" Indus- was spurred into action to address the USA public/private partnership, which try started playing out in earnest in the eroding Waikiki beaches when a study has the mission of promoting increased 1990s as America's share of the global showed that if Waikiki were allowed to international travel to the U.S. (Brand inbound tourism market dropped 35% continue eroding away. there would be USA 2012). from 1993 to 2005.The U.S.lost 18%of an annual loss in tourist revenues of$2 THE FUTURE its international market share in.just five billion and tax revenues of$150 million The future of T&T in the U.S. is not years from 2000 to 2005."the significant (Hawaii1"'purism Authority 2012). rosy as a result of its lack of invest- drop in international tourists cost the This worldwide competition is well ment. The U.S. ranks 133 in the world American economy $386 billion from recognized outside the U.S.For example, in the growth of T&T infrastructure 1993 to 2005 including $44 billion in Houston (1996) noted that in the mid- investments(World Travel and Tourism 2005(National Tour Association 2007). 1990s the U.S. spent only $16 million Council 2007).As a result, it ranks 128 The U.S.share of the global travel market in advertising to international tourist of 181 countries in expected T'&T'growth decreased precipitously from 17.3% in markets, and this compared to Spain's in 2012 and is forecast to rank 132 from 2000 to 11.2% in 2010. (National Tour $170 million in advertising(Washington 2012 to 2022(World Travel and Tourism Association 2012). Post 1995).At the time,the U.S.ranked Council 2011 a), lagging countries such 3.314 in the world in international tourism as Namibia, Azerbaijan. Kyrgyzstan, There is a world economy in tourism advertisement, trailing Malaysia and and Zambia, which have few tourist that gives consumers ample choices and Tunisia,(Brooks 1995)and spending less attractions (World Travel and Tourism produces stiff worldwide competition for than 4%of what Greece spent(Figure 12) Council 2012). tourists. If Florida beaches become run and 5% of what Spain spent (National down,German tourists can choose Span- lour Association 2007).However,even CONCI USiONS ish beaches.if Hawaiian beaches decline, r&T is among Americas leading Japanese tourists can choose Australia's this minimal U.S.spending on advertise- industries, employers, and earners of Gold Coast beaches that have been re- ment to international tourist markets was foreign exchange;and beaches are Amer- eliminated In fact,there is evidence that eHrninated when Congress abolished the lca 's leading tourist destination (Figure international tourists are shifting away U.S.Travel and Tourism Administration 13).Few Americans realize that beaches from the U.S. For example, Waikiki in 1996."Ihe U.S.then had no nationally are a key driver of America's economy funded tourism advertising while coun- beaches are severely eroded, and the and that they support U.S. competitive- triesnumber of international visitors to Hawaii such as Australia,Canada, France, ness in a world economy.Perhaps Amen- is lower in 2010 than in 1988(State of Greece,Singapore.and Spain each spent cans do not appreciate the importance of $100 million or more annually in the Shore&Beach ■ Vol.81,No. 1 ■ WInter 2013 Page 9 I 1 Marlowe,Howard,1999."Assessing the Economic Biggins,J.,2012.'Despite economy,Spanish tour- census.gowprod/cen2Ulofbriefs/c201 Obr-01. Benefits niAmerica's Coastal Region.'http/i• isrn prospers."Smartptanet http://ww s smart- pdf wwwcoastalcoalition.orgrfacts/coastalregions planet.com/hlogiglohal-observer/despite- U.S. Census Bureau 2012, "U.S. International html. economy-spanish-tourism-prospers/3579. Trade in Goods and Services, Annual Match coin 2012. "Match.corn Names Miami Robinson.0.,2002."What are the National and Revision for 2011."http://www.census Best Summer Vacation Destination for Sin- Regional Eco Benefitsof`Shore!'-Dice- gov!foreign-trade/Press-Release(20i Ipn/ gles." http.//match.mediaroom.com/index. tion Projects?"Pmeeedingsof`aWorkshop for final_,revisimsiilfull php?s 3&it m=97 the National Shoreline Management Study, U.S. Department of Commerce 2011 "United J Ministerio de Obras Publicas y Transportes 1993. 23-24 July 2002.The George Washington States Travel and Tourism Exports,Imports, "Recuperando La Costa."Serie Monografias, University,Washington DC. and the Balance of Trade: 2(111."help:/' Centro de Publicaciones,Madrid.Spain. State ofHawaii.Department of'Business,Economic www.tint.ita.doc.govioutreachpages/down- Morley,J.F.,L.Alpert,W.B Strange.and R.Dow Development.and Tourism 2012. `Annual loud__data._table/2011_International_Visi- 2005."Tourism in paradise: The Economic Visitor Research Report"http://hawaii.govt ton._Spending.pdf Impact of Florida Beaches." Proceedings dhedt/intivvisttor-stats'visitor-research/20I1- U.S.Department ot'the Interior 2012. "The De- of'the 14th Biennial Coastal Lone Confer- annual-visitor.xls. partment of the interior's Economic Con- once..New Orleans, Louisiana,http:!/www. Themed Entertainment Association 2012. 2010 tributions,Fiscal Year 2011."http://www csc.noarsgov/czJCJOS_Proceedingspol%20 -Theme Index." http://www.themeit.com/ doi.gov/ppe/upload/20II-Econ-Report- fi lesiAlpert.pdf etea/2010Report.pdf FINAL-0727,,20l2.pdf. National Association of State Park Directors 2012. Time magazine 1977. "Business: Ebb tide at U.S.Travel Association 2009. "The Impact of "America's State Parks Alliance Launched Miami Beach."Available online at http:// Travel on State Economies,2009 Research to Advocate for Healthful and Economic www time.cosn/time/magazine/arti- Report."http'.//commerce.idaho.gov/assets' Benefits Provided by the 50 States."http:// cle/0,9171,945864,OO.htm1. content!docsrResearchilinpact%20o1%20 www.naspd_org. Tourism Queensland 2012. "Tourism Facts and Travel%20on%20State%20Economies%2(1 National Parks Conservation Association 2012. Figures-Year ended June2012,"http://www. 09.pdf "Made in America, investing in National RI.com.au/fms/tq.._corporate/research°%20 U.S.Travel Association 2012."Talking Points and Parks for Our Heritage and Our Economy" %28NEW%29/Summary"/n20Visitor%2OSta- Facts."http://www.ustravel.orglmarketing/ http//www.npca.org/assets/pdf/Made,,ln_. tistics%12%20June%20Tcurism%20Facts%20 national-travel-and-tourism-weekitalking- America__Report.pdf. and%20Figures.pdf points-and-facts National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration TradeReform 2012. "U.S. high-tech jobs lost as U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration 1993. 1998."Promotion oflnternational Tourism to technological lead shrinks." http://www. "World Tourism at the Millennium."L.I.S. the United States"http://www.yoto98.noaa, tradereform.org/2012/0l/u-s-high-tech-Jobs- Department of Commerce,April 1993,97 p gov/yoto/meetingitour_rec 3I6.html. lost-as-technological-lead-shrinks/ Wall Strew Journal 1994. "The Other American National Park Service 2012a "Ten Most Visited Travel and Leisure 2012."America's most crowded Dream Team."15 February 1994. Parks,Park Visitation Figures"http://www leaches"http://wv w travelandleisure.com/ Washington Post 2012. "U.S. losing high-tech npca.org/exploring-our-parks/visitation.html? articles/americas-most-crowded-beaches. manufacturing jobs to Asia."hop://www. gelid"COzezfij4LlCFQcGnQod'l'XcAPg. TripAdvisor 2011."'TripAdvisor Announces 2012 National Park Service 2012h."NPS Stats,National washingtonpost.eom/business/economy! Travel Trends Forecast."http/hvww.tripad- us-losing-high-tech-manufacturing-jobs-to- Park Service Visitor Use Statistics"haps// visor.com/PressCenteer-i4894-cl-Press••Re- asia12012/0III 7/giQA9PISGP._siory.htnnl. irma.nps.gov/Stats/. leases.html. Washington Post 1995."Chefs Bemoan a Reduc- National Park Service 2012c.Budget,http://www. United Nations 2010 "GDP/Breakdown at Cur- tion in Their Favorite Deduction."Page 1)4, nps.gcwlatwtrtusbudgethtm. rent Prices in US Dollars(All Countries)" 11 April 1995. National Science Foundation 2012 "Deficit in http://unshats.un.org/ursd!snaama/dnitransfer. Wiegel.R.L..,1992."Dade County.Florida,Beach Goods Trade,Surplus in Services and Intim- asp?Bl}.2. Nourishment and Hurricane Surge Study." gibles,Science and Enginecrine Indicators U.S.Army Corps of Engineers 1994."Shoreline Shore&Beach.60(4),2-26. 2012,Overview"hop//www nsf.gov/statis- Protection and Beach Erosion Control Study, World Almanac 2012. Funk&Wagnalls Corp., ticsiseiadI2/pdf/overview.pdf. Phase I:Cost Comparison of Shoreline Pro- Mahwah,NJ National Tour Association 2007."The Case for a tection Projects of the U.S.Army Corps o1' World Travel and Tourism Council 2007. "l'he Cabinet-Level Tourism Department in the Engineers."Water Resources Support Center, 2007 Travel and Tourism Economic Re- United States Federal Government"hnp:i/ Washington,DC..USA. search." hop//www.wttc.travellbinipdf/ www.ntaonline.com/doc.._lib/caseforcahi- U.S.Army Corps of Engineers 2001."Sandy Hook original.-,pdf.file/world.pdf netleveltourism.pdf. to Bamegat Inlet,New Jersey,Beach Erosion World Travel and Teurism Council 2011a."Travel National Tour Association 2012."NTA Questions Control Project."http://wwwnan.usace.army. &Tourism,Economic Impact 2012,World," House Vote to Defund Brand USA."http:// mil/LinkClick_aspx?fileticket=9uKL.Sa8OA1 http://www.wttc.org/site._media/uploads/ www.ntaonline.com/articlesiindex,cfm?actf M%3d&tabid-4611&mid-12742. downloads/world2012.pdf on=view&articlelD"2447&menutD-0. 11.S. Bureau of labor Statistics 2012a. "Manu- World Travel and Tourism Council 2011h."Travel New York ]'tines 2007. "The Search for Sand factoring: NAICS 31-33,Workforce stasis- &Tourism,Economic impact 2012,United is No Day at the Beach." 16 September tics."http://www.bls.goviiag/tgs/iag31-33. States." http//wwwwtt:c org/site,_-medial 2007,http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/ him#workforce. uploadsidownloads/uttited states20I2.pdf. travel/l6hcads.html. U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012b "Table A-i World Travel and Tourism Council 2012."League 1 New Yin*Times 2012a."t!nboxedExtra:I.BM.and Employment status ofthe civilian population Table Summary, 2012." http://www. I America's,lob Challenge"http:i/bits.blogs. by sex and age."http:!/www bls.gov/news. wttc org/site_media/uploads/downloads/ nytimes.com/2012/01/0 Punboxed-extra-ibm- release/enpsit t01.him. NewLeaguetablesummaryl'3ase20l.pdf and-amencas-job-challenge/. U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012c."Databases, Yepes,V.and J.R. Medina 2005."Land Use Thur- New Fork limes 2012h."Travel Fairing Is on the Tables& Calculators by Subject, Minto- ism Models in Spanish Coastal Areas ACase j Rise."http//www.nytimes.com/2012/01 24;' factoring."http/idata.bls gov/timeseries/ Study of the Valencia Region.",/. Coastal business/for-travel-and-tourism-hiring-is-on- CES3000000001. Res.,SI 49,83-88,ISSN 0749-0208. I the-rise-cautiously.html?,_r0. U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012d."Databases, lIlk in, Cliff, 1998 "New Jerseyans, Summer NJ.com 2012. "Dune size determined extent of Tables&Calculators by Subject.CPI lnfla- and Shore Features: A Long Term Look, storm damage on NJ beaches"Available lion Calculator."http:/./www.bls.govidata/ The Shore- Looking up(Save the Beach online at http:!/www ti.conb'news/index. inflation calculator.htm. Passes)"The Srar-Ls'dger/Eagleton'Rutgers sshl2012/1l/dune_size_detennined_extent_ U.S. Census Bureau 2011 "Population Distrihu- Poll,http://www.rci.rutgersedu'"eaglepol/ of html. lion and Change:2000 to 2010"http:f/www. Ledger.din/Release 119.dir/release3.htm. Shore&Beach ■ Vol.81,No. 1 X Winter 2013 Page 11 erworld.com/s/anicle/9169678/IBM_stops_ Figure 13.Everyone's dream. disci osing_U.S.,,_headeount_data Environmental Working Group 2012."Farm Sub- tidies,The United States Summary tnfonna- lion"hupailarnt.ewg.org/region.php7fips-0 0000&progcode=total&yr=201 i. Fxpedfa com 2012 "Expedia Releases 2012 Flip Flop Report: Study Examines Beachgoer Behavior and Preferences Across Five Coriti- nents."http://mediaroom.expedia corn/travel- news/expedia-il ip-flop-report-1671. . Greater Miami and the Beaches 2012 Greater Miami and the Beaches,2010 Visitor In- dustry Overview Visitor Profile,Economic Impact,Hotel Performance,Jobs http://www. miam iandbeaches.com/Pictures/WehRpt/An- nual%20 Report%2020 I0.pdf Hall:C.,and M.Staimer 1995 "Concerns about the >,Akt '' co tat'USA today,Page I A,9 August 1995. Hawaii'T'ourism Authority 2012."Waikiki Beach Maintenance Project" http://hawaii.govt -- '�"� " dlnr/occl/manuals-reports/110211%20'ihai- kiki%201.teach°,20Flierpdf/at_download./ tile. Hotel-online 1998."Increased Pressure on National ''" Promotional Budgets.-http.//www.hotel- tourism to the national economy because REFERENCES online com/News/PressReleases1998_4thl 98% of the 1.4-million tourism-related ABC/Washrngtonl'osi 2012 "Summer Vaca- Nov98 PATA.html. U.S. businesses are classified as small tion Perennial: The Mountains or the Houston,J.R., 1995a. "The Economic Value of businesses,and this makes the industry Beaches http://www.langerresearch.com/ Bear.hes"The CERCutar.Coastal Engineer- uploads/1127a31FavorabilityNo3T.pdf ing Research Center,Waterways Experiment extremely fragmented (U.S. Travel and American Shore and Beach Preservation Associa- Station,Vol.CERC-95-4,Dec 1995,1-4. Tourism Administration 1993). Lack- tion 2012."ObamaBudget aDisappointment Houston,James. R., 1995b. "Beach Nourishment, ing national advertising from either this to National Coastal Advocacy Group."http:// Coastal Forum."Shore & Beach, 63(1), fragmented industry,or until recently a www asbpa.ore'pdts/ASBPAPress^i°2otte- 21-24. national travel office,the importance of lease Feb1420I 1.pdf. Houston,J.R.,1996."International Tourism&U.S. Balzer,S.,.71.998."Congress weighs S IOOM dowry Beaches,"Shore&Beach,64(2),3-4. T&T to the national economy has not for U.S.tourism." The Business journal, r Houston,J.R.,.OG2, "The Economic Value of been communicated to the American http://phoeni .hcentral.com/phoenis/sto- Beaches--.-2002 Update"Shore&Beach, people.The conclusion one draws today ries/199"8/17/story7.htm1 701.1),9-12 is the same as that noted by Houston Blinder,A.S..2009."On the measurability ofaf- Houston, J.R.,2008. "The Economic Value of shorability."http://voxeuorg/artiele/twenty- Beaches- a2008l:pdate.".5'hore&Beach, (1995a):"Without a paradigm shift in at- five-percent-usiobs-are-ofshorable. 76(3),22-26. titudes toward the economic significance Brand USA 2012 "Tourism Remains an Economic Kelletat,D.1992."Coastal Erosion and Protection of travel and tourism and necessary in- Bright Spot International Traveler Spending Measures at the German North Sea Coast"J. frastructure investment to maintain and On Pace for A Record Year."http://www. Coastal Res.,8(3),699-711. restore beaches,the U.S.will continue to thehrtndusa com/press-releasesieContent. K ing, P., 1999. "The Fiscal Impact of Beaches asp?periurismRemains an Economic Bright in California." Public Research Institute, relinquish a dominant worldwide lead in , Spending University of San Francisco,http://online. y Spot:International Traveler ndin On Pace S its most important industry'." for A Record Year&content=I I9&cat=l6. sfsu edu/-pgking/handouts/thefiscalimpac- Brooks,B.,1995.interview with Professor Robert totbeaches pdf ACKNOWLEDGEMENT'S Bryer,Florida State School of Business Nor- King,P.and D.Symtes 2003"The Potential loss in I appreciate the both the review of this ida State Times,http://www.fsu.educ fstimei Gross National Product and Gross State Prod- paper by Bob Dean and the encourage- FSTimes/Volume2/Issuer/ganda.htmi. uct from a Failure to Maintain California's ment he provided me to write the original Bureau of[.:and Management 2012. '(he BL.M's Beaches."San Francisco State University, Priorities for' Recreation and Visitor Ser- http://userw•w•w.sfsu edu/pgking/Econ%20 and update papers. 1 also appreciate the vices" http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc./ Impact"%20ot%200ut%20o1%20State%20 reviews by anonymous reviewers and the medialibiblrn/id/publieations.Par.99986.File. and%20For'Vo2(hourism%20v7.pdf editor that improved the paper. datirecvisit.pdf&ei=PQN4IJKrYG5SC9QTv Klein,V I...and J Osleeb 2010."Determinants of loGgDg&usg-AFQjCNEjIfy4IK6AmYyPt, Coastal Tourism: A Case Study of Florida Z70KOhayDX78g&sig2-35QF8Jx8VZG7A Beach Counties."J. Coastal Res.. 26(6), 3K8aiWxQQ 1149-1156. http://www.jcronline.org/doi/ California Department of Boating and Waterways pd1710.2112%2FJCOAS'RES-D-09-00152.1 and State Coastal Conservancy 2002 Califor- Klein,Y.L.,J.Osleeb,and M Viola 2004."Tourism- nia Beaclt Restoration Study,January 2002. generated earnings in the coastal zone: A Sacramento,CA. http://www.dbw.ea.govi regional analysis"J. Coastal Res.,20(4), PDF/Reports/BeachReport/FUli.pdf 1080-1088.West Palm Beach(Florida).ISSN Clean Beaches Council 2012"('lean Beaches Vital 0749-0208. to US Economic Recovery."http://www. Marine Facilities Panel 1991."U.S.Japan Wind and cleanbeaches coml. Seismic Effects Panel." 17th Joint Meeting, Canputerirorld 2010. "IBM stops disclosing J-(4), 1-9,Tokyo,Japan tJ.S. headcount data."http://www.comput- Page 10 Shore&Beach 111 Vol.81,No.1 ■ Winter 2013 „dirt -14 Collier County Government r�j R \ Growth Management Division Contact: Connie Deane Natural Resources Department Community Liaison 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive 239-252-8192 or 8365 Naples, FL 34104 colliergov.net twitter.com/CollierPIO facebook.com/CollierGov voutube.com/CollierGov January 9,2012 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACCEPTING CATEGORY "A” GRANT APPLICATIONS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA The Coastal Advisory Committee is currently accepting Category "A" grant applications for fiscal year 2014-2015. The application is located on the following Web page http://www.co ndex.aspx?page=1352 and is due by the close of business Friday, March 31, 2014. Applications can be mailed to the Coastal Zone Management office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. For more information, call Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management director at 252-5342 or Gail Hambright, Accountant, at 252-2966. -End-