Agenda 04/12/2016 Item #16A17 4/12/2016 16.A.17.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation for approval of the 2016 Collier County beach renourishment plan and make a
finding that this item promotes tourism.
OBJECTIVE: Obtain a recommendation for approval and concurrence to proceed with the 2016
Collier County Beach Renourishment Plan, which includes a five (5) year sand supply
solicitation, a Request for Proposal (RFP) for engineering services to obtain a Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Notice to Proceed (NTP) and concurrence of
expected timing, costs and permit restrictions.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The 2016 Collier County Beach Renourishment Plan has been developed by staff and includes:
1. 2016 Beach Renourishment - The physical beach surveys conducted in
January/February 2016 indicated that the Vanderbilt Beach, the Park Shore Beach and
parts of the Pelican Bay Beach need renourishment in 2016. The beach width
measurements and three years of advanced renourishment placement was included in the
calculations and indicate that Vanderbilt Beach (R22-R30) will require approximately
30,000 CY's (cubic yards) of renourishment; Park Shore Beach (R44-R53) will require
25,000 CY's to 30,000 CY's of renourishment; and Pelican Bay Beach will require
approximately 34,000 CY's of renourishment. No renourishment is recommended for
the Naples Beach (R58- R79). The area south of Doctors Pass will be renourished when
Doctors Pass is dredged when the installation of the Erosion Control Structures is
complete. These quantities have been confirmed by an independent Peer Review
consultation.
Advanced renourishment quantities have been included into the recommended
renourishment totals to compensate for the average yearly erosion on each beach
segment. This will assure that Collier County's beach width standards will be maintained
over the three year design duration of this project. The volumes identified above for FY
16 and the lack of need for beach renourishment in FY 15 indicate that an annual
program with a three year advanced renourishment better serves the interests of the
public. It lowers our average costs associated with mobilization, engineering, and
permitting. It also reduces the frequency of impacts to beach segments, access points, and
heavy truck traffic. The results of our annual surveys will be discussed during the AUIR
process to continue to refine the best value approach.
Preliminary discussions with the Beach Committee Chairman for the Pelican Bay
Services Division indicated that a more realistic renourishment quantity that the Services
Division is willing to compensate the County for would be approximately 7,500 CY's to
10,000 CY's. No sand will be placed on the Pelican Bay Beaches without an executed
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining the terms and conditions of the Pelican
Bay Beach renourishment.
Packet Page -579-
4/12/2016 16.A.17.
Based on this analysis, staff is recommending that the County proceed for planning
purposes with a project to be built after November 1, 2016, using truck haul construction
and either off road vehicle transport on the beach or sand fluidization and pipeline
transport. The sand fluidization and pipeline transport placement approach is being
considered to enhance public safety and will be bid as an option. Stated quantities will be
used for planning and bidding purposes and will be adjusted prior to construction during
the pre-construction survey that the contractor performs.
Cost to complete this work with engineering, sand supply, transport, beach placement,
Construction Engineering Inspection (CEI) and certification is expected to be $3M to
$4.5M after reimbursement of the Pelican Bay renourishments costs.
2. Five (5) year Sand Supply Contract and engineering support—Staff is recommending
that the County bid a 5 year sand supply contract for supply of approximately 50,000
CY's per year for a total placement over a 5 year period of 250,000 CY's. The supply
contract will be awarded based on "At-Beach" pricing utilizing a mine price per ton plus
a specified transportation price of$0.20 per ton per one way haul miles. This will assure
that Collier County receives the best overall price of sand delivered to our site. The
average grain size will also be increased to 0.4mm from 0.33mm to utilize more
commercially available sand that meets the requirements of our FDEP permit. A larger
grain size will also hold a steeper angle of repose and better withstand erosion.
An engineering Work Order (WO) not to exceed $12,000 will be required to develop the
specifications, Quality Assurance Plan and bid package to complete this work.
Proceeding with the engineering to develop the sand supply contract is critical to
completion of this task and recommended by staff.
3. Engineering Services — The renourishment of beaches in this plan will result in
construction costs in excess of $2M and require a RFP solicitation for engineering
support. Staff will proceed with the development of an engineering services package to
include design, specifications, construction drawings, procurement support, a Notice-to-
Proceed, and project certification. Consultant selection will be based on qualifications
however the estimated cost for this work is not expected to exceed $130,000 and be
reimbursable on a time and material basis. This cost is included in the $3M to $4.5M.
This solicitation will be consistent with previous truck haul beach renourishment projects
that the County has performed in the past.
4. Sugden Park Lake renourishment — The Sugden Park lake shoreline will be
renourished with 10,000 CY of beach quality sand in the sailboat launch area, the main
park beach and the water ski beach/stands area. Restoration of inland lakes may be
funded with tourist development tax funds with a finding that the project promotes
tourism. This project is part of the beach renourishment program and will be funded
using Fund 195. To fund this project with Fund 183 funds would be inconsistent with the
definition of beach park facilities and it has been defined by the County based on
Packet Page -580-
4/12/2016 16.A.17.
historical expenditures. Sugden Park is an inland lake and not a beach park as
traditionally defined. Expected cost to be approximately$400,000.
5. Permit Restrictions—Both the United State Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the
FDEP permit restrict sand trucking activities on Corkscrew Road to daylight hours due to
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concerns of interference with Florida Panther foraging
activities in the twilight hours. This may possibly restrict the number of truck trips a
trucker can complete per day and increase costs. This will depend on the mine selected
to provide sand and approved truck routes specified by the County.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated
with this Executive Summary.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Overall 2016 beach renourishment program as outlined will cost
between $3M to $4.5M including Engineering and CEI services. The sand supply contract
including the engineering to develop the RFP package will cost approximately$750,000 per year
for 5 years. The cost of the Pelican Bay Beach renourishment is not included in the $3M to
$4.5M specified costs and will be reimbursed by the Pelican Bay community. The
renourishment of Sugden Park lake shoreline will be approximately $400,000, is not included in
the Renourishment estimate of$3M to $4.5M and will be paid via Fund 195.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: At the March 10, 2016 Coastal
Advisory Committee meeting this item was unanimously recommended for approval by a 7 to 0
vote.
At the March 28, 2016 Tourist Development Council meeting this item was unanimously
recommended for approval by an 8 to 0.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved as to form and
legality. As discussed above, the "restoration of an inland lake to which there is public access as
these uses relate to the physical preservation of the inland lake" is an authorized expenditure of
tourist development funds. Based on the County's Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended and
Funding Policy Resolution No. 13-81, this project is eligible for funding using Fund 195 and not
Fund 183 beach park facilities. Using Fund 183 would be an inconsistent expansion of the
definition of beach park facilities based on the County's historical expenditure. This item
requires a finding that the expenditure promotes tourism and majority vote for approval. — CMG
RECOMMENDATION: To approve the 2016 Beach Renourishment Plan and make a finding
that this item promotes tourism.
Prepared by: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Capital Project Planning,
Impact Fees and Program Management Division, Growth Management Department
Attachment:
1) 2016 Beach Renourishment Sand Analysis
Packet Page -581-
4/12/2016 16.A.17.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 16.16.A.16.A.17.
Item Summary: Recommendation for approval of the 2016 Collier County beach
renourishment plan and make a finding that this item promotes tourism.
Meeting Date: 4/12/2016
Prepared By
Name: HambrightGail
Title:Accountant, Coastal Zone Management
3/15/2016 3:18:09 PM
Submitted by
Title:Accountant, Coastal Zone Management
Name: HambrightGail
3/15/2016 3:18:10 PM
Approved By
Name: McAlpinGary
Title: Manager-Coastal Management Programs, Coastal Zone Management
Date: 3/16/2016 11:20:08 AM
Name: Tara Castillo
Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Capital Construction&Maintenance Budget/Fiscal
Date: 3/17/2016 1:59:13 PM
Name: TaylorLisa
Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Capital Construction&Maintenance Budget/Fiscal
Date: 3/17/2016 3:12:19 PM
Name:NorthrupAdam
Title: Procurement Specialist, Procurement Services
Date: 3/21/2016 7:05:54 AM
Name: PattersonAmy
Packet Page-582-
4/12/2016 16.A.17.
Title: Division Director-IF,CPP&PM, Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees and Program
Management
Date: 3/21/2016 9:26:17 AM
Name: LynchDiane
Title: Supervisor-Operations,Road Maintenance
Date: 3/21/2016 10:45:36 AM
Name: MarkiewiczJoanne
Title: Division Director-Procurement Services,Procurement Services
Date: 3/21/2016 6:46:06 PM
Name: GreeneColleen
Title: Assistant County Attorney, CAO General Services
Date: 3/22/2016 10:33:38 AM
Name: OberrathKaren
Title: Accountant, Senior,Grants Management Office
Date: 3/22/2016 3:15:14 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Administration
Date: 3/23/2016 1:38:58 PM
Name: StanleyTherese
Title: Manager-Grants Compliance, Grants Management Office
Date: 3/24/2016 1:48:54 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 3/28/2016 11:06:04 AM
Name: FinnEd
Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior,Office of Management&Budget
Date: 4/4/2016 6:36:26 PM
Name: CasalanguidaNick
Title: Deputy County Manager, County Managers Office
Date: 4/6/2016 3:21:12 PM
Packet Page-583-
4/12/2016 16.A.17.
COLLIER COUNTY BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT
METHODOLOGY
DEP PERMIT 0222355-001-JC Mod (012-JN)
USACOE Permit SAJ-2003-12405 Mod (MOD-KS)
COLLIER COUNTY
PREPARED BY
HUMISTON&MOORE ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 2016
This report by Humiston & Moore Engineers (H&M) presents the analysis of a monitoring
survey, conducted in January of 2016 used to estimate the immediate future sand
renourishment requirements based on the design beach width standard established prior
to the 2005/2006 project. This monitoring survey was conducted by Sea Diversified Inc.
(SDI) between January 11th and January 26th 2016 subsequent to the December 2013 and
2014 truck haul renourishment projects for the Collier County Beach Nourishment Project.
Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay beaches were surveyed prior to a storm impacting the area on
the weekend of January 16th and 17th while the beaches south of Clam Pass were
surveyed after the storm. In order to document the impact on Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay
beaches, a wading depth survey was conducted on February 13, 2016. Project limits for
this report were based on the monument range information provided in second and third
columns of Table 1 derived from the 2005/2006 nourishment project fill template.
Table 1. Project Monument Range— Design Standard
Project North Limit South Limit Design
Area of Project of Project Standard
Beach (Monument) (Monument) (Ft)
Vanderbilt R-22 R-30.5 100
Pelican Bay R-30.5 R-37 100
Park Shore R-48.5 R-54 85
Naples R-58A R-79 100
A Design Standard beach width and a corresponding fixed baseline were established prior
to the 2006 project. The Design Standard for the beach width from the baseline is shown
in the last column of Table 1. The baseline was set at the seawall, edge of vegetation,
building line or equivalent, at each monument. The beach width was determined by the
distance from the baseline to the mean high water elevation of +0.33 NAVD (+1.61
NGVD) at each DEP reference monument.
1
Packet Page -584-
4/12/2016 16.A.17.
Projected erosion rates (shown as a negative number by convention) represent the
amount of sand needed in addition to the design beach width to offset the background
erosion anticipated in the respective project area to account for the time period between
renourishment events in order to maintain a beach width equal to or greater than the
Design Standard. These estimates shown in Table 2 for one and three years were
provided by CB&I; the three year rate is used in this analysis.
Table 2. Projected Erosion Rates
*Annual *3-Year
Project Reach Erosion Erosion
(CY/Yr) (CY/3 Yrs)
Vanderbilt(R-22+300 to R-30.5) -9,702 -29,106
Pelican Bay (R-30.5 to R-37) -3,331 -9,993
Park Shore(R-43+650 to R-54+400) -11,138 -33,414
Naples(R-58A to R-79) -27,069 -81,207
*Rates provided by CBI
The sandy beach width from the baseline to the mean high water line was compared to
the Design Standard for each project area to determine the advance volume remaining at
each monument. This volume was calculated using the hatched area as shown in
Figure 1 for beach profiles having widths greater than the Design Standard, and the
effective distance or the distance between the monuments. This volume was deducted
from the 3-year erosion projection to determine the amount of sand needed to offset the
projected erosion rate for a 3-year renourishment interval. In cases where the existing
profile is landward of the design width at the mean high water line then this amount would
be needed in addition to the three year projection.
Figure 1. Typical Profile—Available Advance Volume
TYPICAL PROFILE
(R-23 SHOWN FOR REFERENCE)
10-
----9EACH WIDTH---
f' AVAILABLE VOLUME OF SAND SEAWARD OF THE DESIGN
BEACH WIDTH BETWEEN +4.0 NAVD (BERM ELEVATION)
AND THE NEARSHORE PROFILE CLOSURE.
5-4.0' NAVD
BERM ELEV. I/2015 PROFILE SHIFTED TO
THE DESIGN WIDTH AT THE
1.4 MHWL
0 w 0.33' NAVD (MHW)
1/2016 PROFILE
NEARSHORE PROFILE CLOSURE
-5-
-10- w 3
2
w �
U7 Uz
LI
-15
0 200 400
DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.)
2
Packet Page -585-
4/12/2016 16.A.17.
Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay beaches were originally surveyed prior to a storm impacting
the area on the weekend of January 9 and 10, 2016. A wading depth survey was
conducted on February 13 at monuments R-23, R-24, R-26, R-30, R-32, R-34, and R-36
in order to document the nearshore changes as a consequence of the storm activity. The
beach profiles for this survey follow a typical pattern showing upland loss as the profile
slope decreased near the shoreline and there is indication the nearshore bar was
impacted as shown in Figure 3. These upland losses were estimated (Column 10 of
Table 3), added to the projected volumes calculated from the advance volume analysis
depicted in Figure 2 to update the projected sand requirements for 2016 shown in
Table 3.
Figure 3. Typical Wading Depth Beach Profile - February 2016
0- SURVEY LEGEND
-�- 2016-01 MONITORING SDI
2016-02 MONITORING SDI (WADING-DEPTH)
o g_ " UPLAND VOLUME LOSS ////
IMPACT TO NEARSHORE BAR
0-�
_ 0.53' NAVDQ_jMNW)
W
-5- 2
-10 ,
0 200 400
DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.)
Table 3 shows the project area(s) shaded in light gray and the reaches with sand losses
in excess of the projected 3-year erosion rate are shaded dark gray. The results of the
advance volume analysis described in Figure 2 are shown in Table 3: Column 9, and the
results of the upland loss analysis described in Figure 3 are shown in Table 3: Column
10. Columns 11, 12 and 13 show the resultant sand losses by monument, the losses
totaled by reach, and the projected beach width at each monument if the losses were to
be replenished.
3
Packet Page -586-
Table 3: Projected Sand Requirements 4/12/2016 16.A.17.
= a a = a =
° m c t'c
E c c E
)O e rn EC'', (/) U6 -,(4 6 o �
,Q W p CO
O Column# 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
o
o **Fill Weighted 1/2016 Width ***2016 Net Upland Total Project Projected
a FDEP Effective 3 Year Beach less Advance Advance Volume Volume Volume Beach
Mon. Distance Erosion Width Des.Std. Volume Volume Loss-Feb. Req'd Req'd Width
(Feet) (CY/3 Yrs) (Feet) (Feet) (CY) (CY) (CV) (CV) (CY) (Ft)
R 22 145 5C76F.' ,._ 15 -
_ s
1 e- & ' :s ,�':..v - kt A m y co
1. LL1r { 1T .::4aY .:.:4, may'r�` Y ... . 6. �°`T?ii'St(ti` yJj:
46 .Fa V.,, 2i.. ,.s 4 - :g'kjt RF i#;t::v=�I >" !kt ��q-*
d t - -' of
.¢ R-31 1,022 -1,676 123 23 6,964. 5,289 -3,584 1,704,
o 2294
m
co
R-32 1,012 -1,65'9 119 19 6,859 4,210 . =3,621 58/x.
a)
a
R-38 102 Notes:
y R-39 107 *Provided by CBI
a R-40 115 **Based on the 2005/2006 Fill Template
E R-41 146 ***Based on the available volume seaward of the design beach width
U R-42 53 between+4 NAVD(2013 berm elevation)and the nearshore profile
R-43 47 closure.
o
co R-47 953 -2,989 104 19 4,505 1,516 1,516 1,948
mm R-48 1,000 -3,136 96 11 3,567 431 431
5ti"- fie. f�§ -. 1ivP:`� C: F ° r h ;N:: he�yy Y
5;�.. ys,,,;i. T�IL7.- _ '.,�6' ..- -w n .. �,.J . G . iC,�•°.. p •�•a x. a P,;1 .'s'._
cn T-50 1,208 ' 787 11:- 30 12,884 9,097 9,097
m R-51 1,108 3 473 97 12 4,197 724 9 821
... ao- _ : _.; s `
;i,: �aa�tJ �� F"°�6t r.., �6q r a 3n � ....cf.):..:::;:..:.i. , cur -:•';'.:4:,:'
.xo.ff)I
T-54 729 -2,286 114 29 6,610 4,324 4,324 4,324
INU-55 121
R-56 153 North of Doctors Pass
T-57 167
1
R-61 1,04,) -4,559 138 38 11,463 6,904 '!3='!94' ` 6,904
A ,
pTt 2 , ,�14W 1 ' . 43'4x1�3' 7.02 r3•',
� srx.� 1ry , 46 -9,.�. t""iti4; fr Fr t ,y,tv,i y '
t�9.f " ° '
u.A.04. 854 3 74 -•`Q.1 :' •1% :_....1„..R '. }, ,244.,_ 1
T-65
804 -:,495 11- 12 3,860 365 CD 365
R-66 813 -3,533 127 27 9,291 5,758 c:. 5,758
2 �o R-67 805 -3,497 171 71 21,627 18,129 S' 18,129
°p 6' R-68 810 -3,521 166 66 22,867 19,346 19,346
co y °. T-69 69 805 -3,498 137 37 12,457 8,960 0 8,960 co
co Z R-70 800 -3,479 133 33 10,824 7,345 7,345 142,063
R-71 803 -3,491 139 39 13,933 10,442 a 10,442
R-72 808 -3,510 170 70 25,349 21,838 m 21,838
R-73 814 -3,537 178 78 27,381 23,844 23,844
R-74 803 -3,490 187 -,7 29,526 26,037 ° 26,037
Q5 1•56 :