Loading...
Agenda 02/26/2013 Item #11E2/26/2013 11. E. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the Atkins North America peer review of the Coastal Planning and Engineering volume design for the 2013/14 beach renourishment project and approve the proposed project bid form and bidding approach. OBJECTIVE: Approve the peer review of the design volumes for the 2013/14 beach renourishment project along with the bid form and bidding approach used on this project. CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Peer review of the Coastal Planning and Engineering (CPE) design beach volumes. Atkins North America conducted a peer review of the design beach volumes for the 2013/14 beach renourishment project (Attachment 1). Atkins evaluated CPE's design, design calculations, modeling results, and construction standards for the beach fill templates of the Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples beaches and compared the current proposed design to the project constructed in 2006. The project deliverables are summarized as follows: "A detailed explanation of the total quantity of sand to be placed on the beach as part of the renourishment Project. " — Based on Atkins's review, the total quantity of sand to be placed on the beach in 2013 is 419,120 cubic yards (CY's) as per the CPE design recommendations. This volume was independently confirmed with Atkins's volume calculations and is within 10% of the Atkins's calculated volume of 387,395 CY's. The difference predominantly exists in the end section tapers of each renourishment segment where engineering judgment of the design professional is needed due to increased erosion and sand spreading. "This (review) will include plots of the beach profiles at each of the surveyed monuments showing the 2006 -6 year design template and the computed quantity of sand necessary to restore the original 2006 -6 year design template. (unmodified not including any inlet management projects). " - The sand necessary to restore the unmodified 2006 -6 year design template based on current conditions is 408,005 CY's. This is consistent with the 419,120 CY's calculated by CPE for the 2013 beach fill template. Appendix A of the Peer Review contains the plan and profile plots identifying the differences from the 2006 and 2013 designs. Table 5 identifies the quantity differences by beach segment. • "A table will be provided identifying the amount of sand to be placed throughout the project area at each profile, for each of the 3 areas. " — This is included in Appendix B of the Peer Review. • "Any and all assumptions shall be listed to explain how much sand is proposed and specifically where it is proposed to be placed as part of the 2006 -6 year Packet Page -373- 2/26/2013 11. E. design template in each of the project areas. " - The assumptions are listed in CPE's Design Matrix under Special Adjustments. The methodology used to determine the design life of the 2013 project is the same method used in 2006, and that project achieved its design life. • "Figures will confirm and show any differences on the profile if the new project fill differs from the unmodified 2006 -6 year design template. The memorandum will explain why their differences, if any, based on review of the reference document. - Profiles listed in Appendix A identify the differences between the 2006 -6 year design and the 2013 -6 year design. All the profiles have differences that can be attributed to either the project length changes; the design template geometry; the dune or berm crest elevations or the fill densities. The composite erosion rates dictate the project length and fill densities. The post construction monitoring dictate the design template geometry and the dune crest and berm crest elevations designed at whole numbers for the ease of construction. Additionally, Atkins has reached the following Peer Review conclusions: 1. The methodology used by CPE to determine the design life of the 2013/14 project (design matrix, advanced renourishment, and special adjustments) was the same method used in 2006, and that project achieved its design life. 2. The design approach utilized by CPE is consistent with the design approach commonly used by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) where the "advanced renourishment" is intended to address erosion rates throughout the proposed design life of the project. 3. The design approach is fundamentally sound and appropriate based on the review of the data, documents, design drawings and reports as prepared and provided by CPE. 4. The beach fill template is appropriate to meet the design criteria based on Atkins' assessment of the design and experience monitoring the project areas since 2006. The differences between the 2006 unmodified template volumes compared to the 2013 template volumes are attributed to adjustments based on the annual beach monitoring results and the measurement of erosion rates before and after the 2006 renourishment. Staff is recommending incorporating these adjusted volumes into the 2013 design. Should the Board wish to stay within the 2006 template, staff wants to make sure that the Board is aware that the locations with higher erosion rates may require interim renourishment. This differential is predominately located south of Doctors Pass. This area has experienced severe erosion since 2006 and required a $1,500,000 emergency renourishment in 2010. Staff has designed a six (6) year design life for this area. This design life can be reduced if interim renourishments are planned. 2. Bid Form and Bidding Approach • Based on the 419,120 CY's sand volume quantity verification by Atkins and the scope managed potential of this project when overall funding is identified, staff is recommending a simplified bid format similar to the successful bidding approach Packet Page -374- 2/26/2013 11. E. used for the last renourishment in 2005/06. An overall project target volume of 375,000 CY's would be established with pricing by beach segment remaining unchanged for an "actual volume placed" ranging between 250,000 CY's - 500,000 CY's. Additionally, truck haul and dredging pricing would be solicited. This approach is more in line with industry standards and will simplify an already complicated bid form and eliminate confusion. This is intended to lead to lower pricing and preserve the volume and price flexibility that the commission directed. It will also allow a downward adjustment if funding is unavailable or an upward adjustment if an entity such a Pelican Bay wishes to add additional sand volume. A proposed bid form is listed as Attachment 2 to this Executive Summary. As indicated in previous Board discussion, staff believes and the industry has confirmed that significant cost savings can occur if fixed renourishment costs can be shared with other municipalities that are conducting renourishment with complementary schedules. The City of Longboat Key and the Captiva Erosion Control District are conducting renourishments that appear to complement Collier County schedule. Both these municipalities have expressed interest in working with Collier County to develop an approach to benefit from fixed cost savings without compromising Collier's schedule or our direct contracting approach. If directed, staff will explore these opportunities and bring recommendations back to the Board. FISCAL IMPACT: Regardless of the final design volumes or bid format, this project will be scope managed to meet the available project funds in Tourist Development Council Fund 195 to complete this work. As indicated on the bid form, Collier County can change the volume by reach +/- 33% with no change in unit costs. The total volume range is 250,000 CY's to 500,000 CY's with a target bid volume of 375,000 CY's. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: No impact to the growth management plan would result from this Board action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: At the February 14, 2013 Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting this item was recommended for approval by a 6 to 1 vote. This item will be presented to the Tourist Development Council (TDC) on February 25, 2013 with results communicated to the BCC via written memorandum. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, requires majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action. — CMG RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation to approve the Atkins North America peer review of the Coastal Planning and Engineering volume design for the 2013/14 beach renourishment project and approve the proposed project bid form and bidding approach or provide additional Packet Page -375- 2/26/2013 11. E. final direction to the County Manager or his designee in order to expediently move forward with a bidding process. Prepared by: Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Attachments: A) Collier County Peer Review of Beach Renourishment Projects, January 2013 B) Proposed Bid form for the 2013/14 Beach Renourishment C) 2005/06 Bid Form D) Power Point Presentation Packet Page -376- 2/26/2013 11. E. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 11.11.E. Item Summary: Recommendation to approve the Atkins North America peer review of the Coastal Planning and Engineering volume design for the 2013/14 beach renourishment project and approve the proposed project bid form and bidding approach. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management) Meeting Date: 2/26/2013 Prepared By Name: HambrightGail Title: Accountant,Coastal Zone Management 2/4/2013 10:50:40 AM Approved By Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P &R Date: 2/19/2013 2:37:24 PM Name: LaPierreBarbara Title: Management/Budget Anal yst,Transportation Administr Date: 2/19/2013 4:46:52 PM Name: LorenzWilliam Title: Director - CDES Engineering Services,Comprehensive Date: 2/19/2013 5:38:10 PM Name: McAlpinGary Title: Director - Coastal Management Programs,Coastal Zon Date: 2/20/2013 10:21:14 AM Name: MarkiewiczJoanne Title: Manager - Purchasing Acquisition,Purchasing & Gene Date: 2/20/2013 10:21:45 AM Name: MarkiewiczJoanne Title: Manager - Purchasing Acquisition,Purchasing & Gene Packet Page -377- Date: 2/20/2013 10:24:59 AM Name: MarkiewiczJoanne Title: Manager - Purchasing Acquisition,Purchasing & Gene Date: 2/20/2013 10:26:14 AM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning Date: 2/20/2013 10:31:17 AM Name: GreeneColleen Title: Assistant County Attorney,County Attorney Date: 2/20/2013 11:21:04 AM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney Date: 2/20/2013 11:43:13 AM Name: FinnEd Title: Senior Budget Analyst, OMB Date: 2/20/2013 11:53:11 AM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager Date: 2/20/2013 1:28:55 PM Packet Page -378- 2/26/2013 11. E. Attachment A COLLIER COUNTY PEER REVIEW OF BEACH RENOURISHMENT DESIGN Prepared For: Collier County — Coastal Zone Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 2/26/2013 11. E. AT KINS Prepared By: Atkins 4030 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 700 Tampa, FL February 2013 Packet Page -379- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. COLLIER COUNTY PEER REVIEW OF BEACH RENOURISHMENT DESIGN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Atkins was tasked by Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department with the peer review of the County "s 2013 beach renourishment design developed by Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. (CPE). The review focuses upon the formulation of the currently proposed beach renourishment design project (2013 project) and its comparison to the project constructed in 2006 (2006 project). Atkins evaluates CPE` design, design calculations, modeling results, and construction standards for the beach fill templates at Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples Beaches. Please note that Atkins was not tasked to develop a design analysis for the Vanderbilt, Park Shore, or Naples project areas nor is the currently proposed design a product of Atkins" design work. Atkins was tasked via scope and County staff to conduct a peer review of the proposed design as developed by CPE for merit and to ensure the design meets standard engineering practices and principles. Any concerns regarding the specifics of the design should be directed to the design engineer (CPE). Atkins" findings are presented herein. Per the County "s scope of work to Atkins the following deliverables are: I ) A detailed explanation of the total quantity of sand to be placed on the beach as part of the renourishment project: Based upon our review of the design matrix, design drawings and reports as prepared and provided by CPE, the total quantity of sand to be placed on the beach in 2013 per CPE` approach is 419,120cy. This volume was independently evaluated by Atkins" volume calculation methods which yielded a volume of 387,395cy (within 10% of the volume by CPE). The taper volumes, areas at the end of the nourishment template segments, are predominantly where the variance exists between the CPE and Atkins volumes (see pages 5 — 7 of section II.A.ii) 2) This will include plots of the beach profiles at each of the surveyed monuments showing the 2006 — 6 year design template and the computed quantity of sand necessary to restore the original 2006 — 6 year design template. (unmodified not including any inlet management projects): Appendix A contains plan view and profile plots at each of the surveyed monuments showing: (a) a comparison of the 2006 - 6 year design template (unmodified) and the 2013 beach fill template and (b) the computed fill density (cy /ft) of sand necessary to restore the original 2006 — 6 year design template (unmodified) and the 2013 beach fill template. As reflected in Table 5 (see pages 13 — 14 of section I1I.B) a total of 408,005cy would be required to rebuild the 2006 beach template as compared to the 419,120cy as calculated by CPE for the 2013 beach fill template. 3) A table will be provided identifying the amount of sand to be placed throughout the project area at each profile, for each of the 3 areas: The Comparative Volumetric Summary Table in Appendix B identifies the amount of sand to be placed at each profile for each segment of the project (Vanderbilt, Park Shore & Naples). 4) Any and all assumptions shall be listed to explain how much sand is proposed and specifically where it is proposed to be placed as part of the 2006 — 6 year design template in each of the project areas: The assumptions are listed in CPE` Design Matrix under Special Adjustments and include taper sections, minimum fill densities, and additional volumes needed based upon modeling. The methodology used by CPE to determine the Packet Page -380- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. design life of the 2013 project (design matrix, advanced nourishment, and special adjustments) was the same method used in 2006, and that project achieved its design life. 5) Figures will confirm and show any differences on the profile if the new project fill differs from the unmodified 2006 — 6 year design template. The memorandum will explain why there are differences, if any, based on the review of the referenced documents: Figures 3 & 4 in the report are examples of the profile comparisons in Appendix A detailing variations in the 2006 — 6 year design template and 2013 beach fill template design. Differences in the 2013 design and the 2006 design can be assigned to one of the following four categories: • Project length • Design template geometry • Dune crest and berm crest elevations • Fill densities The differences can each be attributed to the following elements of the design approach utilized by CPE: • Composite erosion rates (project length and fill densities) • Post - construction monitoring (design template geometry) • "Whole number" elevations for ease of construction (dune crest and berm crest elevations. The CPE Design Matrix is an engineering analysis that consists of calculations to determine total beach fill volume based on the minimum beach width, erosion rates, advanced placement of fill material, special adjustments and the 6 year project design life. Atkins calculated volumes for the 2013 project using the "average end area" methodology utilizing (a) XYZ coordinates provided by CPE; and (b) effective distances identified in the Design Matrix. Atkins modified the effective distances for the tapers in CPE`Is Design Matrix based on the design drawings. The differences between the design drawing volumes as calculated by Atkins and the CPE Design Matrix volumes are: Atkins" volume calculation is 387,395cy and CPE` Design Matrix volume calculation is 419, l 20cy. The 2013 project volumes calculated by Atkins are 31,725cy less than the Design Matrix volume (see Table 3 and Appendix B). To further verify volume calculations, Atkins used (a) a separate "average end area" volume calculation and (b) a "surface to surface" comparison in AutoCAD Civil3D. Both methods supported the volume as calculated by Atkins. The difference in volumes is within 10% of the total volume of the project and due to engineering judgement exercised by CPE to increase the volumes in the taper sections. The proposed 2013 beach nourishment project has less total volume than the 2006 project (667,000cy), because the total project length was reduced from 44,378 ft. (8.4 mi.) to 24,616 ft. (4.7 mi.) based on need and past project performance. The total project length has been reduced and consequently less volume is being placed. The 2013 project does have a slightly higher fill density (15.7 cy /ft in 2013 to 15.0 cy /ft in 2006) meaning slightly more volume will be placed per linear foot of beach. This is due to subtle differences in the project areal extent and profile geometry. R -44, and R -58A through T -62 required fill beyond the 2006 template in order to � Ni� Packet Page -381- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. address hotspots that were identified through yearly monitoring. The additional fill required based on the design matrix at R -59 increases the potential for impact to nearshore hardbottom per the equilibrium toe of fill analysis, but based on our review of the 2006 project performance this area is not expected to cause impact. The design criteria necessitates (a) a minimum design beach for a period of six (6) years and (b) no impact to nearshore hardbottom. The design approach utilized by CPE is a) consistent with the design approach commonly used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) where the "advanced nourishment" is intended to address erosion rates throughout the proposed design life of a project; and, b) fundamentally sound and appropriate based upon our review of the data, documents, design drawings, and reports as prepared and provided by CPE. The 2013 beach fill template proposed by CPE is appropriate to meet these criteria based upon Atkins" assessment of the design and our experience monitoring the project areas since 2006. AL Packet Page -382- Attachment A COLLIER COUNTY PEER REVIEW OF BEACH NOURISHMENT DESIGN TABLE OF CONTENTS 2/26/2013 11. E. I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. ..............................1 1I. ENGINEERING DESIGN REVIEW ..................................................................... ..............................4 a. FILL VOLUMES ................................................................................................ ..............................4 i. Design Matrix ................................................................................................ ............................... 4 ii. Design Drawings .......................... .................................................................. ............................... b. MODELING RESULTS ..................................................................................... ..............................7 c. CONSTRUCTION METHODS ........................................................................ ............................... 7 d. EVALUATION OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE ........................................... ............................... 8 i. Design Life ..................................................................................................... ............................... 8 ii. Avoidance of Hardbottom .............................................................................. ............................... 8 III. PROJECT COMPARISONS — 2013 vs. 2006 ....................................................... .............................11 a. 2013 PROJECT .................................................................................................. .............................11 b. 2006 PROJECT .................................................................................................. .............................12 c. COMPARISON SUMMARY .......................................................................... ............................... 13 IV. DESIGN APPROACH EVALUATION ................................................................ .............................19 V. REFERENCES .................................................................................................... ............................... 22 ATKINS Packet Page -383- Attachment A LIST OF FIGURES 2/26/2013 11. E. Figure 1. Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay, Park Shore, and Naples Beach Location Map . ..............................3 Figure 2. Example of Equilibrium Profile at R -59 derived from CPE drawing .... ............................... 9 Figure3. Comparative Profile at T- 62 ....................................................................... .............................15 Figure4. Comparative Profile at R- 28 ....................................................................... .............................16 Figure 5. Vanderbilt comparative plots of design volumes for 2006 design and 2013 design ............ 18 Figure 6. Park Shore comparative plots of design volumes for 2006 design and 2013 design ........... 18 Figure 7. Naples comparative plots of design volumes for 2006 design and 2013 design ...................19 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of 2013 Project Design, CPE Volume Summary ........................ ..............................2 Table 2.2013 Project Design, Atkins Volume Summary .......................................... ..............................2 Table 3. Comparison Summary of Design Matrix Volumes and Design Drawing Volumes ................ 7 Table 4. Comparison of 2013 Project Design Matrix and Design Drawing Volumes .........................12 Table 5. Summary of 2006 Project Volumes ............................................................. .............................12 Table 6. Comparison of 2006 design volume to 2013 design volume with 2013 project extents ........ 17 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - Plan View and Comparative Profiles Appendix B — Comparative Volumetric Summary Table Appendix C — Glossary of Terms AT Kirvs Packet Page -384- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11.E. COLLIER COUNTY PEER REVIEW OF BEACH RENOURISHMENT DESIGN I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide an independent engineering review of the beach renourishment design as currently proposed for the following areas, as shown in Figure 1: • Vanderbilt • Park Shore; and • Naples Beach Please note that Atkins was not tasked to develop a design analysis for the Vanderbilt, Park Shore, or Naples project areas nor is the currently proposed design a product of Atkins" design work. Atkins was tasked via scope and County staff request to conduct a peer review of the proposed design as developed by CPE for merit and to ensure the design meets standard engineering practices and principles. Any concerns regarding the specifics of the design should be directed to the design engineer (CPE). Atkins" findings are presented herein. The review (a) focuses upon the formulation of the currently proposed beach renourishment design (2013 project) and its comparison to the project constructed in 2006 (2006 project) and (b) evaluates the design drawings, calculations, modeling results, and construction standards as identified /provided by Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. (CPE). The following documents /files /reports were used for this peer review analysis: • "Collier County Beaches 2013 -14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary ", November 2012 - prepared by CPE • "Collier County Conceptual Renourishment Project Analysis ", October 2011 — prepared by CPE • "Collier County Beach Renourishment Project Three Year Post - Construction Monitoring Report", September 2009 — prepared by CPE • "Collier County Beach Renourishment Project" Permit Sketches, November 11, 2012 (Adobe pdf and AutoCAD file formats) — prepared by CPE • 2006 project and 2013 project design template coordinates XYZ format — provided by CPE The 2013 design is intended to maintain a specific minimum design beach width for a period of six (6) years while maintaining "no impact to nearshore hardbottom ". The minimum design beach widths are identified by CPE (2012) as the following distances measured from "a landward baseline at the existing seawalls or edge of vegetation" to the Mean High Water Line (MHWL, +0.33ft NAVD88): • Vanderbilt: 100 feet • Park Shore: 85 feet • Naples Beach: 100 feet Packet Page -385- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. The minimum design beach width criteria establish the landward -most location to which the MHWL may erode. For clarity, the phrase , ,advanced nourishment" will be used throughout this report when referring to fill placed seaward of the minimum design beach width. The advanced nourishment method, was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and is the industry standard design approach for determining beach fill placement volumes. Table 1 shows the volume calculations conducted by CPE, the 2013 project design proposes: (a) 59,724 cy for Vanderbilt, (b) Ocy (No Fill) for Pelican Bay, (c) 118,247 cy for Park Shore, and (d) 241,149 cy for Naples Beach. Table 1. Summary of 2013 Project Design, CPE Volume Summary Reach R Monuments Length CPE Volumes (FT) (MILES) (CY/FT) (CY) Vanderbilt R -25 +500 to R -30 +500 5,082 1.0 11.75 59,724 Pelican Bay - 0 0.0 0.00 0 Park Shore R -43 +600 to R47 +500 T -50 to R -54 +400 8,914 1.7 13.27 118,247 Naples Beach R58A -400 to R -64 +500 R -68 +200 to R -72 +600 10,620 1 2.0 1 22.71 241,149 Total: 24,616 1 4.7 1 17.03 419,120 As reflected in Table 2 below, and per volume calculations conducted by Atkins using data provided by CPE, the 2013 project design proposes: (a) 59,156 cy for Vanderbilt, (b) Ocy (No Fill) for Pelican Bay, (c) 121,074 cy for Park Shore, and (d) 207,165 cy for Naples Beach. Table 2.2013 Project Design, Atkins Volume Summary - Reach _ R- Monuments _ _ Length Atkins Volumes (FT) (MILES) (CY/FT) (CY) Vanderbilt R -25 +500 to R- 30+500 5,082 1.0 11.64 59,156 Pelican Bay - 0 0.0 0.00 0 Park Shore R -43 +600 to R47 +500 T -50 to R -54 +400 8,914 1.7 13.58 121,074 Naples Beach R58A -400 to R -64 +500 R -68 +200 to R -72 +600 10,620 2.0 19.51 207,165 Total: 1 24,616 4.7 15.74 387,395 2 Packet Page -386- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. t . figure 1. Vanderbilt, Pelican -Bay, Park Nhore, and .Naples Beach Location _Ylap BAREFOOT 9EACH KWqGGINS Ss TALLAHASSEE JACKSONALLE DFLNO IGGI PROJECT STATE PAW -T ORLANDO PROJECT LOCATION TAMPA A7LANrJC OCE" LEE HENDRYCO 0 BCCA RATON VANDERBILT CO. MIAM VANDERBILT BEACH CNII GULF N 7000M 11 M 09 0 1- hffixlco ov4p Not Como E co. OF M45xjco PELICAN SAY PARK E--\ R40 SHOR I; AM SREW PERMITTED IDPELINE �'OF R I D OR PARK SHORE PROPOSE PIPELINE DOC FASS� SR M CORRIDOR 20' COWOUR 1 '14' NAPLES NAPLES R70 LEGEND: PERMITTED PIPELINE CORRIDOR PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR PROJECT LIMM PROPOSED FILL AREAS GULF N P ROFIQSE:) NEAR5HURE OPERATIONAL AREAS PERMITTEDOFrSHORE MEXICO OPERAMONAI L AREAS ROYAL A R70 FDEP NmwrAENTs NOTES, GCh7ocAy PASS I. COCIPUJINAtES ARE IN rtET BASED ON FLORIDASTUE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM. 0 EASE ZONE, NORTH ALERICAN DATUM OF 1963 INAD84), 2. FiLLWIDTHS ARE HOOT TOSCALE. SR &% SR €S4 (CPE, 2012) Packet Page -387- IN FT R1 Attachment A II. ENGINEERING DESIGN REVIEW A. FILL VOLUMES 2/26/2013 11. E. i. Design Matrix As identified in the November 2012 "Collier County Beaches 2013 -14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary" prepared by CPE "the method used to determine fill volumes is based on beach width, erosion rates, hardbottom, and design life." Development of the total design volume can be placed in the following categories: • Volume required to achieve minimum design beach • Advanced Nourishment — Volume required to maintain the minimum design beach for a period of six (6) years, based on composite erosion rates specific to each R- Monument. • Volume required to address projected future erosion from the date of the August 2012 survey to the 2013 construction timeframe. • Special Adjustments for taper sections, minimum fill densities, and additional volumes needed based upon modeling. Simple geometry, composite erosion rates, and engineering judgment were used to define specific volumes for each of the categories above. Volume - Minimum Design Beach The following equation was used by CPE to determine the volume (Vol) required to achieve the minimum design beach: Vol = w(B + h )deff Where: w = distance between 2012 MHWL and the minimum design beach width (ft) B = berm height ( +4.Oft NAVD88) h` = absolute value of the depth of closure elevation ( -11.3ft NAVD) deff = effective alongshore distance (ft) As reflected in Appendix E (Design Matrix) of the November 2012 "Collier County Beaches 2013 -14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary", prepared by CPE, the total volume required to achieve the minimum design beach is 119,303 cubic yards. According to the Design Matrix, of the 24 R- Monument profiles within the 2013 project area, only 10 of the profiles violate the minimum design beach width according to the location of the 2012 MHWL. These ten profiles are identified as hotspots that additional fill material would be required to meet the design criteria. Volumes - Advanced Nourishment and Future Erosion The development of the advanced nourishment volume by CPE, as reflected in the Design Matrix, is generally consistent with the design approach commonly used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) where the "advanced nourishment" is intended to address erosion rates throughout the proposed design life of a project. The volumes required for advanced nourishment were based upon long-term annualized erosion rates developed by CPE for the periods from: 4 Packet Page -388- Attachment A • 1996 to 2004; and • 2006 to 2012 2/26/2013 11. E. The 2005 erosion rate was not included because it was the year of the nourishment project. More recent maintenance nourishment events were included in the composite erosion rate. Relative to "Future Erosion ", CPE'P Design Matrix incorporated erosion for 2012 to 2013 in anticipation of project construction during the summer of 2013. It was noted that erosion for 2012 to 2013 utilized an erosion rate 25% greater than the composite erosion rate. CPE indicated that the erosion for 2012 to 2013 is based upon the annualized composite erosion rate assuming it would take 1 year and 3 months from the time of the last survey (August 2012) until construction (November 2013). Volumes — Special Adjustments Special adjustment volumes account for (a) a minimum fill density of 10 cy /ft, (b) additional volumes based upon modeling, and (c) taper sections. It is a commonly accepted practice for engineers to utilize experience and judgment to adjust design volumes as they deem appropriate, as reflected in the special adjustments calculated by CPE. Doctors Pass Inlet Management Plan (IMP) It should be noted that affects of bypassing at Doctors Pass were accounted for in CPE` Design Matrix at R -58A and R -58. The Doctor "s Pass Inlet Management Plan was based upon the Tackney Report in 1994 and accepted by DEP in 1997. The report indicates 30,000 cubic yards of material would need to be by- passed from dredging of the navigation channel and ebb tidal shoal every three years (10,000 cy /yr avg.) and placed upon the beaches, in the area of greatest need, south of Doctors Pass. The methodology utilized in the Design Matrix to define preliminary project volumes is considered wholly acceptable and appropriate. ii. Design Drawings Design drawings were developed by CPE using the Design Matrix as a basis for development of beach fill design templates. The data for the design drawings prepared by CPE was provided to Atkins in XYZ coordinate format. Atkins calculated volumes for the 2013 project using the "average end area" methodology utilizing (a) XYZ coordinates provided by CPE; and (b) effective distances identified in the Design Matrix. Please note that Atkins modified the effective distances for the tapers in the project areas when calculating the volumes based on the design drawings. As reflected in Table 3 below for the project area: Atkins "volume calculation is 387,395cy and CPE`° Design Matrix volume calculation is 419,120cy. Although CPE also used the "average end area" methodology to calculate volumes as reflected in the Design Matrix, the distinction between Atkins volume calculations and CPE "s volume Packet Page -389- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. calculations is in the approach to calculating the taper volumes. CPE used engineering judgement and knowledge gained from the design and performance of the previous project to determine the taper volume required. A comparative summary of the volumes as calculated by Atkins and the Design Matrix volumes as prepared by CPE can be found in Appendix B. To further verify volume calculations, Atkins used (a) a separate "average end area" volume calculation and (b) a "surface to surface" comparison in AutoCAD Civil3D. Both methods supported the volume as calculated by Atkins. Please note that the 2013 project volumes calculated by Atkins are 31,725cy less than the Design Matrix volume (see Table 3 and Appendix B). The differences between the design drawing volumes as calculated by Atkins and the CPE Design Matrix volumes appear to be: • differences in approaches used to calculate taper volumes, • differences in design drawing and design template fill densities, and • a result of reduced fill templates at specific locations where nearshore hardbottom had the potential to be impacted. The following differences in the design volumes have been noted based on the comparison between the Design Matrix and the design drawing volumes calculated by Atkins: • Vanderbilt — 568cy reduction • Park Shore — 2,827cy reduction • Naples Beach — 33,984cy reduction Although there is a difference between Atkins" and CPE° volume calculations of approximately 31,725cy it should be noted that: • this volume accounts for less than 10% of the total project volume and • additional changes in volumes are expected to occur based upon: • changes in beach conditions throughout the project area prior to construction and • potential revisions to the project design that may occur during the permitting process. 0 Packet Page -390- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. Table 3. Comp arison Summary of Design Matrix Volumes and Design Drawing Volumes Reach R- Monuments Length"' g Design Volume CPE Matrix(') Atkins Volume s�Zl (FT) (MILES) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT) (CY) Vanderbilt R -25 +500 to R- 30+500 5,082 1.0 11.75 59,724 11.64 1 59,156 Pelican Bay - 0 0.0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Park Shore R- 43+600 to R47 +500 T -50 to R -54 +400 8,914 1.7 13.27 118,247 13.58 121,074 Naples Beach R58A -400 to R -64 +500 R -68 +200 to R- 72+600 10,620 2.0 22.71 241,149 20.23 214,794 Total: 24,616 4.7 17.03 419,120 15.74 387,395 Notes: (1) Derived from CPE 2012 "Design Matrix for 6-Year Renourishment Intery al' in App endixE of the "Collier County Beaches 2013 -14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary" (2) Volumes derived by Atkins utilizing point files, elevations, and drawings provided by CP &E B. MODELING RESULTS As reflected in the October 2011 "Collier County Conceptual Renourishment Project Analysis — Numerical Modeling Report" prepared by CPE, extensive modeling was conducted to evaluate multiple alternatives and their effects on nearshore waves, hydrodynamic flow, and alongshore shoreline change. CPE modeled I 1 design alternatives using the Delft 3D -WAVE software to conduct a detailed wave investigation. The results of the wave investigation were then used to drive both the Delft3D -FLOW (hydrodynamic flow) and UNIBEST -CL+ (alongshore shoreline change) models. It was noted that although 11 design alternatives were evaluated during the modeling effort, none of the design alternatives were the 2013 project design because after the modeling phase was complete the design parameters were changed. The modeling alternative to rebuild the 2006 project (referred to as Alternative 1 in the CPE modeling report) most closely matches the 2013 project design. In some cases, during the design process, intensive numerical modeling is conducted early in the design process for preliminary design alternatives. Changes to the actual design may occur following completion of the numerical modeling for a variety of reasons. These reasons may be, but are not limited to, results of the modeling, potential impacts to environmental resources, changes to the project objectives, and design criteria. This appears to be the case for the modeling efforts conducted by CPE. The data, methods, and approach are reasonable and acceptable based on our review of the modeling conducted by CPE. C. CONSTRUCTION METHODS As reflected in the November 2012 "Collier County Beaches 2013 -14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary" prepared by CPE, an evaluation of potential construction methodologies was conducted. It was noted that the 2013 project is proposing the 7 Packet Page -391- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. option of the use of either an offshore sand source or an upland sand source to construct the project. Given our experience with previous fill projects that were permitted and bid to allow the use of an offshore sand source or an upland sand source, this allowance can facilitate , ,Competitive bidding" between dredge contractors and contractors proposing the use of upland sand. This approach is considered appropriate and favorable due to the extensive distance between the project areas and the offshore borrow area. D. EVALUATION OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE i. Design Life The design life for the 2013 project is six (6) years, as reflected in November 2012 "Collier County Beaches 2013 -14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary ", prepared by CPE. An evaluation of the proposed six (6) year design life indicates that the project will likely meet and potentially exceed expectations. As identified in the Design Matrix section above, CPE developed and utilized long -term annualized erosion rates to determine the volume required to maintain the minimum design beach width for a period of six (6) years. The approach used by CPE to identify the long -term annualized erosion rate is considered an acceptable approach. The use of the long -term annualized erosion rate is expected to "dampen" the signature of volume change anomalies associated with storm events, small scale maintenance nourishment events, or other unusual changes in sediment transport trends throughout the project area. The methodology used by CPE to determine the design life of the 2013 project (design matrix, advanced nourishment, and special adjustments) was the same method used in 2006, and that project achieved its design life. ii. Avoidance of Hardbottom As noted in the Introduction of this report, a primary requirement of the design is no impact to nearshore hardbottom. Impact to hardbottom can be characterized as direct burial of nearshore hardbottom attributable to the placement of fill material. Assessment of potential hardbottom impacts is generally predicted utilizing the "cross -shore adjustment" of fill material known as "equilibration ". Equilibration occurs when fill material placed within the design template "adjusts" and some of the fill material migrates seaward of the constructed template. Material erodes from the upper portion of the fill template and accretes at the lower portion of the profile. The seaward extent which the fill is projected to migrate is identified as the predicted equilibrium toe of fill (ETOF). The location of the predicted ETOF is then compared to the landward edge of hardbottom. If the predicted ETOF is seaward of the landward edge of hardbottom then there is a potential for impacts to hardbottom resources to occur. Packet Page -392- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. An example of the equilibration of a design template is reflected in Figure 2 below. Figure 2 contains a profile derived from CPE permit sketches, dated November 9, 2012, at R -59 which identifies: • Erosional portion of the design template • Accretional portion of the profile • Equilibrium toe of fill; and, • Landward edge of hardbottom There are numerous methodologies that can be applied to develop an equilibrium profile. Appropriate methodologies are generally selected via "engineering judgment" as each project site has unique factors and characteristics that affect how the fill material might equilibrate. Some of the factors include, but are not limited to, a) borrow source grain size distribution, b) project site bathymetry; and, c) nearshore wave climate. Figure 2. Example of Equilibrium rrotile at K -59 derivea from t rr, arawing 1 R -59 — — - E`Q'UILI"`HR UI'J, '-iR FILE 10 HARDP ?TTOV 5: SL.PE D < ,f EL. _ y_C? FT FL. ' C. FT YX - ` �7 ,I, is } lima _ Equilibrium �= Toe of Fill Erosion L Landward Edge of I'D / Hardbottorn Accretion —1� f � _ iJ CKi ii41 4.... 4C{ ) The equilibrium profile methodology applied by CPE for the 2013 project is known as the "profile translation" method. The profile translation method is generally used when (a) a project is a "renourishment" project utilizing the same borrow source as was used for the previous project or (b) the borrow source has a similar grain size distribution as that of the existing beach. Packet Page -393- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. It is assumed that the fill material will assume a similar shape to that of the existing beach or a historical profile which has been deemed to represent an appropriate equilibrium profile shape within the project area. As part of their evaluation of the 2006 project performance and equilibration, CPE conducted the following comparisons: • The change in distance between the depth of closure ( -11.3ft NAVD88) and observed ETOF (referred to as the "Point of Intercept" by CPE) for historical profiles to show a landward migration of the active profile, • The submerged length of the active historical profile (above depth of closure) to determine the most representative historical monitoring profile (determined to be 2011) to be used for the profile translation method; and, • The added beach width compared to the change in the depth of closure along historical profiles. When comparing the depth of closure and the observed ETOF CPE utilized "averaged" profiles to characterize each of the three reaches using a single profile for each reach. The associated profiles utilized to develop the "averaged" profiles are as follows: • Vanderbilt — R -24 to R -28 • Park Shore — R -50 to R -53 • Naples Beach — R -58 to R -60 The purpose of this comparison was to show that: • The 2006 project fill remained well landward of the depth of closure and • Even with added beach width, the average profiles reflect a landward recession of the depth of closure indicating a steepening of the profile. The submerged lengths of the monitoring profiles were evaluated for all monitoring years from 2006 to 2012 "to identify the most characteristic dataset" to be utilized by CPE to develop the equilibrium profile via the profile translation method. Please note that CPE deemed the 2011 survey data as the most characteristic data for the following reasons: • A sufficient amount of time has passed since initial construction to allow for equilibration of the 2006 project. • The 2011 submerged active profile lengths were near average. • The 2011 surveys did not appear to be influenced by storm events. CPE selected the 2011 profile as the most appropriate for the profile translation, and then utilized a "mass balance" to determine the cross -shore location of the equilibrium profile. This is achieved by ,sliding" the equilibrium profile landward or seaward along the existing profile until the total volume of material between the equilibrium profile and the existing profile matches the volume within the 2013 design template. 10 Packet Page -394- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. At certain R- Monuments within the 2013 project area the predicted ETOF extends close to the landward edge of hardbottom. This prompted a comparison of the 2006 and the 2013 project templates at these R- Monuments. Because the 2006 project resulted in no documented hardbottom impacts, and the 2013 project will be using a sand source with similar grain size and soil characteristics as the 2006 project, it may be expected that a similar template for the 2013 project will likely result in no impact. Please note the following R- Monuments and qualitative comparisons of the 2013 templates to the 2006 templates: • R -28 — Less fill proposed • R -46 — Less fill proposed • R -51 — Similar amount of fill • R -53 — Less fill proposed • R -59 — Significantly more fill proposed Based on the qualitative assessment of fill volumes, it appears that all profiles, except R -59, will not likely result in impact. Relative to R -59, it is recommended that further evaluation of the potential impacts to hardbottom be conducted in order to address concerns from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) about hardbottom impacts at this location. III. PROJECT COMPARISONS — 2013 vs. 2006 This section of the report will provide a: • detailed explanation of the total quantity of sand to be placed as part of the 2013 renourishinent; and • comparison of the (a) 2013 project Design Matrix and design drawings and (b) 2006 project design. A. 2013 PROJECT The 2013 project, as calculated by Atkins using data provided by CPE identifies a total volume of 387,395 cy over 4.7 miles of beach which will result in an average fill density of approximately 15.7 cy /ft. As identified in the Design Matrix and in the FDEP permit application file, the total volume, as calculated by CPE, is 419,120 cy. A comparison of these volumes is presented in Table 3 below. As discussed in previous sections, the Design Matrix volumes are based upon composite erosion rates and the 6 year project design life. The fill quantities from the Design Matrix appear to have been modified at specific R- Monuments throughout the project area to maintain a "no impact to the nearshore hardbottom" design. This resulted in a further reduction in fill volumes at specific profile locations throughout the project area. Additionally, taper volume calculations in the Design Matrix appear to be based on engineering judgment. 11 Packet Page -395- Attachment A Table 4. Comparison of 2013 Proiect Design Matrix and Design Drawing Valnmec 2/26/2013 11. E. Reach R- Monuments Length() Design Volume Matrix(i) JAtkins Volumes( �) Difference (FT) (MILES) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT) (CY) Vanderbilt R -25 +500 to R- 30+500 5,082 1.0 11.75 59,724 11.64 59,156 0.11 568 Pelican Bay - 0 0.0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Park Shore R- 43+600 to R47 +500 T -50 to R -54 +400 8,914 1.7 13.27 1 118,247 13.58 121,074 -0.32 1 -2,827 Naples Beach R58A -400 to R -64 +500 R -68 +200 to R- 72+600 10,620 2.0 22.71 241,149 19.51 207,165 3.20 33,984 Total: 24,616 4.7 17.03 419,120 15.74 387,395 1.29 31,725 Notes: (I) Derived from CP &E 2012 "Design Matrix for 6-Year Renourishment Interval' in Appendix of the "Collier County Beaches 2013 -14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary" (2) Volumes derived by Atkins utilizing point files, elevations, and drawings provided by CP &E B. 2006 PROJECT The 2006 project volumes for the pre - construction (Sept/Nov 2005) to immediate post - construction (June 2006) were 667,562 cy over 8.4 miles of beach, which resulted in a placed fill density of about 15 cy /ft. An evaluation of the total volume of material required to rebuild the 2006 design on the 2012 surveys was also conducted. Table 5 below reflects that a total of 408,005cy of material would be required and would result in an average fill density of 9.19 cy /ft. Please note that: • Vanderbilt would require 78,430 cy • Pelican Bay would require 20,850 cy • Park Shore would require 117,810 cy • Naples Beach would require 190,915 cy The 408,005cy of sand required to rebuild the entire 2006 template is very close to the total volume determined by CPF� design matrix for the 2013 beach fill project of 419,000cy. Table 5. Summary of 2006 Proiect Volumes Reach R- Monuments Length (2l Volume As Built Rebuild on 2012 Surveys 131 (FT) (MILES) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT) (CY) Vanderbilt R -22 to R -31 8,798 1 1.7 13.81 121,487 8.91 78,430 Pelican Bay R -31 to R -37 6,102 1 1.2 9.33 56,955 3.42 20,850 Park Shore R -45 to R -55 10,543 1 2.0 13.44 141,739 11.17 117,810 Naples Beach R -58A to R -79 18,935 1 3.6 18.35 347,381 1.0.08 190,915 Total: 44,3781 8.4 15.04 1 667,562 9.19 j 408,005 Notes: (2) Derived from CP &E 2012 "Design Matrixfor 6 -Year Renourishment Interval' in AppendixE of the "Collier County Beaches 2013 -14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary" (3) Volumes derived by Atkins utilizing point files, elevations, and drawings provided by CP &E 12 Packet Page -396- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. C. COMPARISON SUMMARY The overall differences between 2006 project and the 2013 design are as follows: • total project length • template geometry • dune crest and berm crest elevations • fill densities These differences are identified in the profiles within Appendix A and further explained below. It should be noted that none of the 2013 design templates are exactly the same as the 2006 design template. Total Project Length The total project length for the 2013 project is 4.7 miles while the 2006 project was 8.4 miles. This is a considerable difference in project length. The reduction in project length for the 2013 project is based on CPE` assessment of volumetric requirements to achieve the minimum design beach width, the 6 -year design life, and maintain no impact to nearshore hardbottom. This assessment is reflected in CPE° Design Matrix where specific locations within the 2006 project did not warrant fill placement based on volume of material remaining within the 2012 survey. Template Geometry The seaward berm slope of the 2013 design template below Mean Sea Level (MSL) is a 1 OH: 1 V slope to existing grade while the 2006 design template reflects a 15H:1 V slope down to existing grade. The 2006 template included a compound beach fill slope that transitioned from a l OH: 1 V slope to a 15H:1 V slope at MSL. The 2013 slope keeps a consistent l OH: l V beach fill slope for the entire lower portion of the profile. Relative to the difference in design template slopes below MSL, CPE indicated that during development of the 2006 design CPE utilized an approach to identify the expected slope of material below MSL. This was generally intended to account for adjustment of fill material below MSL that the contractor cannot control. CPE indicated that post- construction monitoring data from 2006 to 2012 reflected a slope below MSL of approximately l OH: l V which resulted in the change reflected in the 2013 design templates. Dune Crest and Berm Crest Elevations As reflected in the profiles in Appendix A, the dune and berm crest elevations for the 2013 design template are 0.3 feet higher than that of the 2006 design template. It was also noted that the dune crest elevation for R -58A and R -58 is 1 foot higher than the dune crest elevation for all other 2013 design templates. Relative to the dune and berm crest elevations, CPE indicated that "the 0.3 feet was applied to allow for the inclusion of additional volume of sand without extending the template seaward and to result in "whole number" elevations in the NAVD88 vertical datum for ease of construction." 13 Packet Page -397- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. Fill Densities Additional discussions regarding the differences in fill densities between the 2006 project and 2013 project are provided below. In the following sections, two separate comparisons are made between the 2006 project and the 2013 project. The two comparisons are: 1. A comparison of the total 2006 project to the 2013 project. 2. A comparison of the 2006 design templates within the 2013 project shoreline extents to the 2013 project. i. Comparison of Total 2006 Project to 2013 Project The 2006 project entailed placement of 667,562cy of material over 8.4 miles of beach, while the 2013 project proposes 387,395cy of material over 4.7 miles of beach. This is a 42% reduction in total volume and a 44% reduction in project length. This comparison of reduction in project volume and length from the 2006 project to the 2013 project indicates a very slight increase of fill densities from 15cy /ft for the 2006 project to 15.7cy /ft for the 2013 project. So the overall volume placed in 2013 will not be as much as in 2006, but slightly more volume will be placed per linear foot of beach. The increase in fill densities reflects a "larger" fill template at locations where fill is being proposed. However, it should be noted that there are locations where the 2013 fill template is a "smaller" fill template (Please see Appendix A). Figure 3 below shows a larger fill density at T- 62, which is in the Naples Beach reach. At T -62 the 2006 project required 8.9 cy /ft while the 2013 design proposes 18.0 cy /ft. However the seaward extent of the toe of slope of the 2013 fill template is in the same location as the 2006 fill template. So the extent of the fill area is the same in 2013 as it was in 2006, but the fill density is double that of the 2006 template. The 2013 template results in a wider beach and more sand placed on the "dry beach" above the MHWL. Please note the following regarding changes in fill densities from the total 2006 project to 2013 project: • Vanderbilt reflects a reduction of 2.2 cy /ft • Pelican Bay is not within the 2013 project area • Park Shore reflects a slight reduction of 0.7 cy /ft • Naples Beach reflects an increase of 1.9 cy /ft Modifications to the 2013 project volumes and fill densities as compared to the 2006 project can generally be attributed to the Design Matrix which utilized background erosion rates and special adjustments to define project volumes. 14 Packet Page -398- Attachment A Figure 3. Comparative Profile at T -62 2/26/2013 11. E. A comparison of the 2013 project and 2006 project in plan view and profile view (see Appendix A) indicates that the most noticeable difference in the plan view comparison between the two templates is the 2013 project does not cover as much linear feet of beach as the 2006 project. Areas that were nourished in 2006 but do not require the minimum 10 cy /ft fill density have been removed from the proposed 2013 project (except for taper sections). Please note that the minimum 10 cy /ft fill density is generally the minimum fill density under which a dredging contractor can effectively construct the fill template. The following areas are sections that a) cannot cost - effectively be filled or b) based on erosion rates have sufficient fill to maintain the minimum design beach for the next 6 years and have been removed from the 2013 project area: • Vanderbilt Beach north of R -25 +500 • Pelican Bay and Clam Pass Beaches from R -31 to R -43 • Park Shore Beach from R -48 to T -50 • Naples Beach from R -65 to R -68, and R -73 to R -79 While these areas may not have sand placed directly in these locations as it was in 2006, the beach fill template will equilibrate and these areas may see benefit from longshore sand transport from the nourished areas. For the majority of the project the seaward limit (toe) of the 2013 beach fill template is landward of the 2006 design. The exceptions to this are found in the north taper of Park Shore near R -44 to R -45 and R -58A to T -62 in Naples Beach, which were 15 Packet Page -399- 20 T -62 PROFILE 720 2006 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE j LANDWARD CREST EL 37 (NAVD 881) 2013 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE LANDWARD CREST EL. 4.0' (NAND 88 2006 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE as ^, SEAWARD CREST EL 2.7'( 88) 0 2013 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE SEAWARD CREST EL 3.0' (NAVD 88) Z 0 W _ -0 O z w UJ z -n z m W 00 -20 M ( CROSS SECTIONAL VOLUME: 2006 (8.9 CUBIC YARDS) X2013 (18.0 CUBIC YARDS] -30 -30 0 +00 1+00 2 +00 3+00 4 +00 5 +00 6 +00 7 +00 A comparison of the 2013 project and 2006 project in plan view and profile view (see Appendix A) indicates that the most noticeable difference in the plan view comparison between the two templates is the 2013 project does not cover as much linear feet of beach as the 2006 project. Areas that were nourished in 2006 but do not require the minimum 10 cy /ft fill density have been removed from the proposed 2013 project (except for taper sections). Please note that the minimum 10 cy /ft fill density is generally the minimum fill density under which a dredging contractor can effectively construct the fill template. The following areas are sections that a) cannot cost - effectively be filled or b) based on erosion rates have sufficient fill to maintain the minimum design beach for the next 6 years and have been removed from the 2013 project area: • Vanderbilt Beach north of R -25 +500 • Pelican Bay and Clam Pass Beaches from R -31 to R -43 • Park Shore Beach from R -48 to T -50 • Naples Beach from R -65 to R -68, and R -73 to R -79 While these areas may not have sand placed directly in these locations as it was in 2006, the beach fill template will equilibrate and these areas may see benefit from longshore sand transport from the nourished areas. For the majority of the project the seaward limit (toe) of the 2013 beach fill template is landward of the 2006 design. The exceptions to this are found in the north taper of Park Shore near R -44 to R -45 and R -58A to T -62 in Naples Beach, which were 15 Packet Page -399- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. identified as hotspots based upon the composite erosion rates within CPE`� Design Matrix and areas requiring significant amounts of additional fill beyond the 2006 design template. Some translation of the template was required to accommodate the fill densities calculated in the Design Matrix and to meet the minimum beach width requirements. As noted in previous sections, the 2006 template included a compound beach fill slope that transitioned from a I OR I V slope to a 15H:1 V slope at MSL. The 2013 slope keeps a consistent I OR 1 V beach fill slope for the entire lower portion of the profile. CPE changed the slope for the 2013 template after examining the beach profiles from the yearly monitoring efforts exhibited a 10:1 slope was prominent throughout the nourished area with the 2006 offshore sand source. Figure 4 shows the comparison between the 2013 and 2006 beach fill templates at R -28. Figure 4. Comparative Profile at R -28 CR R -28 PROFILE UPPER BERM CREST 5H:IVSLOPE 16 LOWER BERM CRE 10H:1VSLOPE I { 20 1Q i in a -F10 wl W -20 ; -20 0+00 2f'w 4+00 6+00 8+00 10+00 12+00 14+00 LEGEND: - -- EXISTING GROUND - -- MEAN HIGH WATER 433' NAVDB8) --- 2006 DESIGN BEACH FILL TEMPLATE — �— MEAN LOW WATER ( -1.68 NAVDB8) •— 2013 DESIGN BEACH FILL TEMPLATE +w+. HARDBOTTOM LANDWARD LIMIT ii. Comparison of 2006 Design Templates within 2013 Project Shoreline to 2013 Project A direct comparison of the 2006 design template to the 2013 design template within the current proposed project shoreline indicates that the 2013 design proposes an additional 66,679cy beyond that of the 2006 project (see Table 6 below). It should be noted that in order to conduct this comparison, it was assumed that the 2006 design utilized the same taper lengths as reflected in the 2013 design because the 2006 design covered a different shoreline extent. iGel Packet Page -400- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. Table 6. Comparison of 2006 design volume to 2013 design volume with 2013 project PYtPn to Reach R- Monuments Len th(" g Volume 2006 De sign lt� 2013 Desi n�tl Difference (FT) (MILES) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT) (CY) Vanderbilt R -25 +500 to R- 30+500 5,082 1.0 13.6 69,261 11.6 59,156 -2.0 - 10,105 Pelican Bay - 0 0.0 0 Park Shore R -43 +600 to R47 +500 T -50 to R -54 +400 8.914 1.7 12.1 107,567 13.6 121,074 1.5 13,507 Naples Beach R58A -400 to R -64 +500 R -68 +200 to R -72 +600 10,620 1 2.0 1 13.5 1 143,888 19.5 207,165 6.0 63,277 Total: 24,6161 4.7 1 13.03 1320,71 6 15.74 387,395 2.71 66,679 Notes: (1) Volumes derived by Atkins utilizing XYZ point £des elevations, and drawings provided by CME Figures 5 through 7 show comparative plots of the volumes required to fill the 2006 design and 2013 design for each of the three project areas — Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples Beach. Relative to the comparative plots reflected in Figures 5 through 7, note the following: • Areas shaded in red reflect regions within the project area where the 2006 design template would require more volume than the 2013 design template. • Areas shaded in blue reflect regions within the project area where the 2013 design template would require more volume than the 2006 design template. • The composite erosion represents the total volume of erosion represented by CPE "s composite erosion rates based on the 6 -year design life. • The "Net Volume Difference" is the 2006 design volume subtracted from 2013 design volume The direct comparison of the 2006 design template to the 2013 design template within the current proposed project extents indicates that the 2013 design proposes: • 10,105cy less than the 2006 design along Vanderbilt • 13,507cy more than the 2006 design along Park Shore • 63,277cy more than the 2006 design along Naples. As indicated in previous sections, the volumetric differences between the 2006 project and the 2013 project can be attributed to the use of composite erosion rates which were, in turn, utilized to develop the volume required to achieve a 6 -year design life of the proposed project. This explains why in some locations throughout the 2006 project area: • no fill is proposed, • less fill is proposed than the 2006 design template, and • more fill is proposed than the 2006 design template. 17 Packet Page -401- Figurt Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. Figure 6. Park Shore of desiL3n volumes for 2006 sign and 2013 design S 4ti p `4,<- L� 4D q;4 ♦`' qfv �� R -Mom "t 2006 Volume Greater thar, 2013 M 2013 Volume Greater than 2006 =composite Erasion 18 Packet Page -402- ire 7.N ..._.................... __. __.. SD=0 45.000 40,010 35,000 30,000 E Y 25800 a 4' 20,000 25,000 2o,oao 5,000 0 Attachment A arative plots of design volumes for 2006 2/26/2013 11. E. and 2013 desi 410 VIP 4b1 q�l Woa \ 11 S 11.0 4�1 V R- Monument 2006 Volume Greater than 2013 0 2013 Volume Greater then 2006 — Composite Erosion IV. DESIGN APPROACH EVALUATION In order to evaluate the expected efficacy of the 2013 project design, Atkins evaluated CPE°`§ proposed design based on the following criteria: (a) minimum design beach for a period of six (6) years; (b) no impact to nearshore hardbottom. The overall design approach utilized by CPE is fundamentally sound and appropriate based upon our review of the data, documents, design drawings, and reports as prepared and provided by CPE. The design approach is also consistent with the design approach commonly used by the USACE where the "advanced nourishment" is intended to address erosion rates throughout the proposed design life of a project. Based upon our review of the design matrix, design drawings and reports as prepared and provided by CPE, the total quantity of sand to be placed on the beach in 2013 per CPFe approach is 419,120cy. Atkins` verified using independent volume calculation methods which yielded a volume of 387,395cy (within 10% of the volume by CPE). Atkins calculated volumes for the 2013 project using the "average end area" methodology utilizing (a) XYZ coordinates provided by CPE; and (b) effective distances identified in the Design Matrix. Atkins modified 19 Packet Page -403- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. the effective distances for the tapers in CPE` Design Matrix based on the design drawings. The differences between the design drawing volumes as calculated by Atkins and the CPE Design Matrix volumes are: Atkins" volume calculation is 387,395cy and CPE` Design Matrix volume calculation is 419,120cy. The 2013 project volumes calculated by Atkins are 31,725cy less than the Design Matrix volume (see Table 3 and Appendix B). To further verify volume calculations, Atkins used (a) a separate "average end area" volume calculation and (b) a "surface to surface" comparison in AutoCAD Civil3D. Both methods supported the volume as calculated by Atkins. The areas at the end of the nourishment template segments, or taper volumes, are predominantly where the variance exists between the CPE and Atkins volumes.The difference in volumes is within 10% of the total volume of the project and due to engineering judgement exercised by CPE to increase the volumes in the taper sections. The comparative profiles in Appendix A show the computed quantity of sand per linear foot required to rebuild the 2006 beach fill template and the amount proposed for the 2013 beach fill template. The Comparative Volumetric Summary in Appendix B indentifies the amount of sand to be placed at each profile for each segment of the project (Vanderbilt, Park Shore & Naples). The assumptions are listed in CPE` Design Matrix under Special Adjustments and include taper sections, minimum fill densities, and additional volumes needed based upon modeling. The methodology used by CPE to determine the design life of the 2013 project (design matrix, advanced nourishment, and special adjustments) was the same method used in 2006, and that project achieved its design life. Figures 3 & 4 in the report are examples of the profile comparisons in Appendix A detailing variations in the 2006 and 2013 beach fill template design. The 2013 project does have a slightly higher fill density (15.7 cy /ft in 2013 to 15.0 cy /ft in 2006) meaning slightly more volume will be placed per linear foot of beach. R -44, and R -58A through T -62 required fill beyond the 2006 template in order to address hotspots that were identified through yearly monitoring reports. The additional fill required based on the design matrix at R- 59 increases the potential for impact to nearshore hardbottom per the equilibrium toe of fill analysis, but based on the 2006 project performance this concern is alleviated. The CPE Design Matrix is an engineering analysis that consists of calculations to determine total beach fill volume based on the minimum beach width, erosion rates, advanced placement of fill material, special adjustments and the 6 year project design life. The proposed 2013 beach nourishment project has less total volume than the 2006 project (667,000cy), because the total project length was reduced from 44,378 ft. (8.4 mi.) to 24,616 ft. (4.7 mi.) based on need and past project performance. The total project length has been reduced and consequently less volume is being placed. The 2013 project does have a slightly higher fill 20 Packet Page -404- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. density (15.7 cy /ft in 2013 to 15.0 cy /ft in 2006) meaning slightly more volume will be placed per linear foot of beach. This is due to subtle differences in the project areal extent and profile geometry. R -44, and R -58A through T -62 required fill beyond the 2006 template in order to address hotspots that were identified through yearly monitoring. The additional fill required based on the design matrix at R -59 increases the potential for impact to nearshore hardbottom per the equilibrium toe of fill analysis, but based on our review of the 2006 project performance this area is not expected to cause impact. The design criteria necessitates (a) a minimum design beach for a period of six (6) years and (b) no impact to nearshore hardbottom. The design approach utilized by CPE is a) consistent with the design approach commonly used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) where the "advanced nourishment" is intended to address erosion rates throughout the proposed design life of a project; and, b) fundamentally sound and appropriate based upon our review of the data, documents, design drawings, and reports as prepared and provided by CPE. The 2013 beach fill template proposed by CPE is appropriate to meet these criteria based upon Atkins" assessment of the design and our experience monitoring the project areas since 2006. 21 Packet Page -405- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. V. REFERENCES Atkins, Inc., Collier County 2012 Coastal Monitoring Report, October 2012 Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Beach Renourishment Project Three Year Post - Construction Monitoring Report, September 2009 Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Conceptual Renourishment Project Analysis, May 2011, Revised October 2011 Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Beaches 2013 -14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary, November 2012 0) Packet Page -406- Attachment A APPENDIX A — PLAN VIEW AND COMPARATIVE PROFILES Packet Page -407- 2/26/2013 11. E. 23 rtirryyWrrrra rr ra --ati. Attachment A 2/26/2013 11.E. Attachment A 2/26/2013 1 1.E. wlik 17, i m Ill gill I I I I m Z D Z C O (O W W 5 Z O 0 u) z m m m m me EV CM O Z W a'9r" O O r f r 2 �M M DOOmMzo " f I s ,0 m r M —1 D 0 r O O c ' M T Z T cn m v (A T Ill 0 I',Ti " R-Q3Q i �G —I ice` i �. a- .., n f +v-N x £ 1 ,E si, '' �.%` �`o 333 �.r `�, m�;._ �.":�i .. iM71 ;r ,y °*az �^k""r'as -Y ./, I n t `� rN.��P -° r t" k r .+' u, ,ud"„�'2L�'' .✓ x vrr 1 s 2 r nu.7 b`g g� •% '' w 'Pobv is c N'r fOi'1 O xs�aI �- a s E Id # ,� a t s ,, -" �kzi Jy !,"l ^; rati �rrT �. q- 11 I l X 1 Y z � � 3! � � Klc t+ max„ a � , j f rt+ St u w , y C 1 O �J w *�N�,� ,a d Ill �t"' a ,,#",:�•�; s IT'f' '" `- z t lla eJ a i Ch y R -028 �` c* z & to O �."� �F •`� �° �� AM NATG LIN -,, . . �C 301:fs MATCHLINE .... .. �.,.::. .cam, .ate. .- r s,r. a, °., sW ..� 3, .,.....', L ,�MATCNL�t�E r �' `. _ �. MATCHLINE COLLIER COUNTY 28N N. HORSESHOE ORME E V R NAPLES. FL 311W „�A w+x N.°mr�imd nm.uq.a �.X f1 COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ° REPORT - PEER REVIEW ji'I Z PROJECT DESIGN. d; BEACH FILL TEMPLATE - VANDERBILT "' °°"" "" ° "" E ORIdNAL N43UE e,� D DATE: D Packet Page -409- 1 T 0 1 2 :. q. M. .,p..�.�u...�.�..,,.w....._.a�. ., r�_.,. Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. iy �rprrM.rrr.a �.wYIM•rw.rOi� ra p -� Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. I�I��Yp�rYWl►�Yti%tiYr WMO�� rt -�. Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. rr WrW�rrr.+Ww.rrrpr♦ rr Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. =-� ""Waft- �«--� -- o -- Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. Attachment A 2/26/2013 11.E. rrrrwl�Mrrrrw..riyMp.r ra �u -Yr Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. :..mow».,,....– .�.w«...- .. -»-.. . %—. Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. =r� - M-r Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. .% Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. =-------- --»-�. - ft Attachment 2/26/201311.E. -R m -- Attachment A > _T <S m0 00 z ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) C7 r > Cn r- 0 (!a r!j M > cc 0 0 0 C) II N) C) CD H r- GM) " M C . zo > I !1 M =11 .. Im w 0 m M z ) Cn U) G ,13 3 C) 0 z z;o 00 M 0 M M C: > > 0 > 0 z z C-) X r- --i --i cf) M M C er r M < � �_7� M M M M z z r- 01 G) DD M M ;o Cow Co ct) z Z vv Co 00 pill :11"i 2 V A C) 0 Co C) 0 Co 70 rV 0 TI M 2/26/2013 11. E. ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVID 88) N) + O + ITI Co CO 4 cn CD M M M 70 rV 0 TI M 2/26/2013 11. E. ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVID 88) N) + O + ITI Co CO li 0 M C. M T CD 0 Cow co a) M M > > 0 0 r F 7 mm z z cn Cn z 0 + + C, 0 C) 0 0 (99 CIAVN) 1333 NI NOIiVA3Ml (99 GAVN) igBzl NI NOUVA913 COLLIER COUNTY Aj I I 2SW N. HORSESHOE DRWE NAPLES. M COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT - PEER REVIEW IAI PROJECT DESIGN -BEACH FILL TEMPLATE PROFILES -VANDERBILT ..... DATE: M 1 0 -Packet Page -421- 1-4 10) IN 14 1w CD C:) C:) Co w O j M Co + M M r + > > 0 _n _n F= F M M z z Ln u) 8) z 0 C) li 0 M C. M T CD 0 Cow co a) M M > > 0 0 r F 7 mm z z cn Cn z 0 + + C, 0 C) 0 0 (99 CIAVN) 1333 NI NOIiVA3Ml (99 GAVN) igBzl NI NOUVA913 COLLIER COUNTY Aj I I 2SW N. HORSESHOE DRWE NAPLES. M COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT - PEER REVIEW IAI PROJECT DESIGN -BEACH FILL TEMPLATE PROFILES -VANDERBILT ..... DATE: M 1 0 -Packet Page -421- 1-4 10) IN 14 1w M GM) M z > 0 X C� 5 00 0 M O U) M G) C) 0 z z ;o M M 0 M > M C: > > z Z 0 0 o Cn M M C a -10 r- < r M > 4 mm iit M M z z r- ;E 0G) > I M M M Co z z vo Coo + I 1 1 Attachment A > 0 _T 0 1 M Mm m0 Lrl ;o ;u 0 i F4 0 + 00 + M Cl > Z > > r- -.4 Cn > rn > ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) ;o 0 r- cc > Cn M Z CD 0) r- 0 > 71 M Co + + M M > > 71 + M 0 on C) o 0 C) M II 2> -.1 Z z M 0) o M + 0 0) CD M > T-1 M C, Z 00 0 M C) 0 n 00 C) i 3i + r- + o M 06 C) C." v (99 GAVN) i33=l NI NOUVA313 > -4 < M M M Fn 0 * Cn x ;a o -4 M r- Co M -n -n M F F < M 0 < M ;o C) 1 z z co Ln Cn ;o M PQ 75 --1 0 M 8) 0 ;o > Cn -0 M M (n M + M (n O 0 M x 0 0 M + Z 0 M 0 C) z Cn M GM) M z > 0 X C� 5 00 0 M O U) M G) C) 0 z z ;o M M 0 M > M C: > > z Z 0 0 o Cn M M C a -10 r- < r M > 4 mm iit M M z z r- ;E 0G) > I M M M Co z z vo Coo 2/26/2013 11. E. ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) 0 0 8 0 0 01 + I 1 1 0 Mm C: Lrl 0 0 + n + M Cl > > rn > ;o cc M Z CD 0) o M Co + + M M > > C:) M 0 on C) o 0 M M Z z M ch Cn + 0 0) rn C) T-1 M C, + 00 C) 0 M 00 3i + + o 06 C) CD 0 N N (99 GAVN) i33=l NI NOUVA313 2/26/2013 11. E. ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) 0 0 8 0 0 01 + I 1 1 0 Lrl 0 n + F + C:) C) 0 M M 0 0 0) M C, + 00 M 00 U. + CD i N N 0 0 0 -n -n F F mm z z Ln Cn PQ 8) z Z + 0 0 0 P I COLLIER COUNTY .....On SHOE.RNE —LES.FLUIN COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT - PEER REVIEW z PROJECTI)ESIG N - BEACHFILL TEMPLATE PROFILES -VANDERBILT —7- —Packet Page -422- (99 GAVN) i33=1 NI NOUVA313 > < S m0 N C7 0 1> Z cn D 0 r D to r0 w m m N + O a 4 m om w Z M S m 0 �S o M m Fn ;u o-1 m M O A � O O n --I o r S � G) m =m m Z rn �m + S Z o M v 0 z Cl) W"Lm m m N C Z ND o is rn� DwoZn mS m �7 M WON�G �Cn °o c, m>0zz� �MCo0 y D D Z Z C)0O T m o m D Z o a r r N -1 -I Cn m m c m °o r rrrrm > vG w mm M M ( { m o w � � p DD z z r S OG) 9 S M m _ M D + F M o w � O � O M w ov mm Attachment A ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) N O O O O N O N 1 O O O O O (88 GAVN) 133 NI NOliVA313 IJ 00 O TI r M W 00 m� N m 0 w �S M G7 �= o � � o M m Cn M O-1 w m < N O_ A W ++ D m o v S G7 m =m M rn S Z o M 0 0 z Cn -w S� Mm N C CD � S M �;o Cn ° D D Cl mD O S M Z -I o m°o N 0 0 rn M N m + 0 0 A o o is O 2/26/2013 11. E. ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) N O O O O N O O O (88 aA`dN)133A NI NOUVA313 0 N v X 00 O TI r M v m N A w N O N If E "" COLLIER COUNTY 4 4 d E > nN N. HORSESHOE DR oM`e.x�iw�e nx..am.w `o..w n NAPLES. F JAI" () COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M�r.bYemnee�w� v�lv,I N m m m REPORT - PEER REVIEW b c b Z PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILL"«m°a E TEMPLATE PROFILES - VANDERBILT > Co 1 0 Packet Page -423- A o o is O 2/26/2013 11. E. ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) N O O O O N O O O (88 aA`dN)133A NI NOUVA313 0 N v X 00 O TI r M v m N A w N O N SNS��� w•R o -YIp m0 I N DO Attachment A Cl) y ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) 0 r my 00 0 0 0 0 C r N j ++ :m O II = M m °- Nom M X99■ ins MON I ME ' I r I (7 Im S N N m z D o p x O �wrncn 0MMZ I0 G) 0ZZ� � x w 0 rmmc z 0 0 0 N o��cn rmmc D D m M my iI I f z z r= 0G) Dy m� �m r O O W Z 00 CO OD m eo w z M_ M �0 + m o0 g� mm in- ;0 o= M < N M ° .P � w + n m °o r < =D =m M m ;0 m -t m + z ° cn o = A mCQ N C-: m O rn 50 mm O ;0 o m o m� D 0 2 M Z o = 00 m N O 0 rn -I M m �+ Fn °o + I 0 O w N ' O O O O o O (88 OAVN) IBB=l NI NOUVA313 2/26/2013 11. E. I I Inc I � p o 0 C 0 0 0 0 IQ + N 00 (') r M � j eM.�4��a+eeww�i.�m�irtr� miw.ee.eser�w�rewi m �g I REPORT - PEER REVIEW '° I + / M o m 2 ......- .....�.. ! \ I m CD M Nm�; \ I if � < M �. n , m Packet Page -424- n � _ 1 n ?� m K� +I C I z-0 _0 M �! r 0 i C) + r J M m O � ! II III � j CD II ti+y i < N I ( __ Cn M M o? I \ < I it n j CY) 0 1 m D m I 3 i I iI p � t i i i Ipf Gym l I I I E = m l; I o o I I If j f I MX m+ I I I iIm 0 W 2 z o my 0 >> I ! ! E zCn I \I m II � = o I I III T -n M m r r 1 O I CD O;0 + ( J + I mm I III z I 11 j m + I l �m°o s I i D D I I pI i r i IoW I M 0 °o° I i M o + I 0 O w N ' O O O O o O (88 OAVN) IBB=l NI NOUVA313 2/26/2013 11. E. I I I I+ s I i N O j f o � ' O O O O O N (88 GAVN)133A NI NOUVA313 ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) a p o 0 C 0 0 0 0 IQ + N 00 (') ! 1 COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING eM.�4��a+eeww�i.�m�irtr� miw.ee.eser�w�rewi m �g REPORT - PEER REVIEW '° I + / V 'IIE Z O 2 ......- .....�.. ! m CD M Nm�; I °D I �. D m Packet Page -424- n � _ 1 ?� m K� +I C I z-0 m �! C) + r < M m O � CD co i < N I ( __ Cn M M o? I / I j < 0 n CY) 0 1 m D m I 3 i I iI p Gym = m l; I MX m+ I I iIm 2 z o my 0 zCn \I m = o I III M m O I CD O;0 + ( J + I I 11 j m + I �m°o D D r i M 0 °o° I i M o co W I I rrn °o D D N 0 0 -n -n M oo I i Ij I mm i N Cn � i P It Cl I j I I I I+ s I i N O j f o � ' O O O O O N (88 GAVN)133A NI NOUVA313 COLLIER COUNTY C ]SW N. NOMSESNDE DNNE NAPLES. M NtOI (') ! 1 COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING eM.�4��a+eeww�i.�m�irtr� miw.ee.eser�w�rewi m �g REPORT - PEER REVIEW '° w ° V 'IIE Z ......- .....�.. m g! ' PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILLa Nm�; I TEMPLATE PROFILES -VANDERBILT �. D m Packet Page -424- ==;A.ow .. a ­ft. Attachment A > m0 ;0 ;o 0 0 L> z > q ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) ch 0 r- > cn L 0 0 r- C-) IQ M > C) 0 +o Cl c2 II CD � mz 1 0 0 Z� Q 55 M 0 m M G) z C, Cn G) 0 0 z G) z;o w Co 0 M M C:: > > > z Z 0 0 0 > (n M IT! C: r r- < M M M II DD z z r- 1 0 M M O C4 00 W z Z m o0 Plsr 2 O C) rn M C) C) C) 0 0 0 ;o 6) 0 TI M 2/26/2013 11. E. ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) Zo ;o 7_77, Cn �� o T I M M n AN M r- M M M i i Cf) 0 -0 M Co C) C) -n -n M r 11 mm > z z M Lf) Cl) z 0 Co c 0 + 0 ;o 6) 0 TI M 2/26/2013 11. E. CD C) r r 0 po 0 0 0 0 C:) C) CD h) (89 OAVN) i99=1 NI NOUVA312 (99 CIAVN) i22=1 NI NOUVAD12 COLLIER COUNTY T _T_ 2000 N. HORSESHOE DR14E NAPLES. FL COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT -PEER REVIEW PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILL TEMPLATE PROFILES -VANDERBILT ORIMALISWEDDATE: Packet Page -425- 1 1 ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) Zo ;o CA �� _0 T I M 0 n AN M r- Cf) 0 -0 M C) C) M 11 o > M Co c 0 + 0 0 Co 03 + 0 > M M > 0 00 M M z z n L N) Z (o . 0 T C, 71 1 CD C) r r 0 po 0 0 0 0 C:) C) CD h) (89 OAVN) i99=1 NI NOUVA312 (99 CIAVN) i22=1 NI NOUVAD12 COLLIER COUNTY T _T_ 2000 N. HORSESHOE DR14E NAPLES. FL COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT -PEER REVIEW PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILL TEMPLATE PROFILES -VANDERBILT ORIMALISWEDDATE: Packet Page -425- 1 1 ==;A� .% Attachment A 00 03 M M z 0 > 1 m n 0 1 M Cl) (1) L7 CD 0 Z Z ;o M Co 0 m0 M M C M ;u > > > z z 0 0 0 i jq O 0 0 N) C. 0) W Z1rrN > Z C/) > O, w Co M + M ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVID 88) > C-) r- ;o 22 t < > cn -n M n r- C) > 6 t�� r1a C. C) C, 0 L) t�) cl 0 0 a C) + 0 + M M Z Z ;o ° C2 pj 6 .11 C!o CD C) mm C2 > > z 1,4 Fan no w M M M M X 10, M z >0 Xp ; o n Co" Y) 0 C) r C/3 Cn M CD CD M M rn M C) + CD 0 o o --' 00 1 1 1 i i 00 03 M M z 0 + -1 C) Cl) (1) L7 CD 0 Z Z ;o M Co 0 M M C > > > z z 0 0 0 O N) C. 0) W Z1rrN O, w Co M + M 4- _H Cn M M C > 0 ;o 22 t < -n M n F F M M M M Z Z i Cn Cn CD C) mm > > z z z ­ 0 > > -j M M ZJ ;o C) Q N) CD CD 0 P Co Co (.� (99 GAVN) 133=1 NI NOUVA3-12 z Z 00 00 000 COLLIER COUNTY zwN.moRs SMEDRNE COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT -PEER REVIEW Z PROJECT DESIGN -BEACH FILL TEMPLATE PROFILES -VANDERBILT - CD 1 0 1 — Packet Page -426- 0 0 i CD W Co M M > > 0 0 M M Z Z C/) Cf) Z 0 K C:) CD C (99 GAVN) i99A NI NOliVA919 ul :.. �a Attachment A n m n o m < _ m0 II N 00 D z y ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) C-) r I I I IrTI y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;m r + 0mmz o 0 II 0 0 0 r/ O 0 I �Cow0 !M �DDZ t I t m GM-M) I I I �0 ? ( f I r + 0mmz o l ? J I 0 0 0 0 Z Z M 0 I �Cow0 !M �DDZ 1 z 0 0 0 022.E N os I �1rrN o i t +o I MM I t j I r O t j =0 ? I i I � T ? t D D M r r rr mm I + I mm I z z [ p Cn mm r zz I i kI O r 2 G) O 0o TI r C0 m i .ZI O WM N O 0 O tY, 0 CO w (88 OAVN)133=1 NI NOIiVA313 Z m I I + 3 I COLLIER COUNTY o � ]l00 N. HORSE SHOE DRIVE N"LES.F UlU 0 d e"�n�nrmiien m�``wr`i,kw�v k "COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT - PEER REVIEW i Z PROJECT DESIGN -BEACH FILL t I t m GM-M) I I I = N N m 0 ? ( f I Awrn[p o o 0mmz o l ? J I 0 0 0 0 Z Z M I I �Cow0 j �DDZ 1 z 0 0 0 022.E N os I �1rrN o i t +o I MM I t j I r O t j =0 ? I '[J < T ? t D D M r r rr mm oo i i mm I z z [ p mm j zz i kI O r 2 G) 0o TI r C0 .ZI O WM N O 0 O O O � O CO w (88 OAVN)133=1 NI NOIiVA313 Z 00 m0 w0 3 I COLLIER COUNTY nI I > p R ��•ttt ]l00 N. HORSE SHOE DRIVE N"LES.F UlU 0 d e"�n�nrmiien m�``wr`i,kw�v k "COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT - PEER REVIEW i Z PROJECT DESIGN -BEACH FILL TEMPLATE PROFILES - VANDERBILT �.. r D 1 0 1 Packet Page -427- 2/26/2013 11. E. T 4) 1 ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + CD C-71 0 +' m 0 I l I 1 O 0 rn 0 0 Co t O 0 0 O 0 N t O O V m N A W + o o O O O O N (88 GA`dN)133A NI NOIiVA313 Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. D m n o 1 m i G= m0 N D Z Cn y ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) 0 r- D i > Cn O m y ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 (r M N( _ o m N; O i _ o m r-* o N °o r 0 ! m M m j ! i c; c m j ;o No m ( m v m M ©1 €Z 2 N N m D o o �wrn[n 0mMz OZZO �mm00 z 0 o 00 �rrN U) rmmc D D < mmv II IE Z Z S D D mM X �7 � O OOD W Z 00 °o =D wz I ;O D i O (r M N( m N; i _ o m r-* o r 0 C, m M j c; i i„ ( m . 2 M i 0 � D I m O m M r Li a n i m m `{ o_ 1! 0 Fn ;o f �_ m m N I j m °'m rnM 1 I o_ � -0 � I t Ili < cn m mO �I ! �I m m m mO j ! `� Cl) 0 -0 -U'i ;i w+ 1 I _<� n i � A w+ I I ! O -p m m C) rn ° r� ! I) G i n C) m ° ! >� ! j j ! �) I m N to O m� �� II �rn j ! j m _� 5 i I) m i m xm --I 1 I i oN =m �r --I °o t! I I i -qm °o M o i I I m y ! Z (n t i p Z m I 0 1 +, i ( Ca f = Tio C l j t i I!im 11 j m� I V m t f u ! N m j I I 1 ! �C OC II CD j I i� j 'D o{ N O t ! ! �i i I N °! i ! M �) TI� i t y ! m� o0 m y f rn w !! m rn �C) ! Co Co w�I j �I f ? °+ =- m m °O I D D Z ' ' !' ' I O ! TI Z1 ! O T_ T f rn 1 mm ! mm t I ! z z II D N! cn (n r Z Z I 0 °__ 71 W a OD 0 0C I II I -n -T-I O _ o O O O O ° N O O O O ° ° O O N (88 GAVN)1333 NI NOI1Vn3-13 (88 4AVN)1333 NI NOLLVA313 COLLIER COUNTY 2W N. HORSESHOE DRIVE ,i NAPLES. MUM n R COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING o g REPORT - PEER REVIEW z PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILL�w; TEMPLATE PROFILES - PARK SHORE D m o �. Packet Page -428- = ED DATE: I Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. D m 0 0 m I G) I < 2 m0 Eq N 30 O � M' cn o- ia m� M� 0 �r 2 ? =r mC M= �r zi I N Z I r ( O z 0 0 0 D ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) i m ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) I m N N 0 oc rr i` ! o� 0 ;a �s�° r < m n r ODOO 1 I O -I-Ifn 2 0 i r rrI D W N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! O m W 00 N N 0 0 0 0 0 :m N, 0 °o m c= I ! + i{{ D D m� ( i i'I m? n rn I { i! C/) m <N i < m cn m + I GI ! A 1 I I Cl) p n m 1 U) � 0o m ° I m a i f I p CM ([7 -1 o 1 ! I 0 m s rn { I l m cn rn + m 1 oN m� i I _0 m� I !ilo ! zz I l rn ! 0 {/ m Nm I` u m i I ilm r mm 1 i! Al X Om i M i �L7 _ I! I,,-0 -Iz o 00 my I I O � M' cn o- ia m� M� 0 �r 2 ? =r mC M= �r zi I N Z I r ( O z 0 0 0 1I�O I O m� 1 { "- i m ��' I m N N 0 oc rr i` ! o� 0 ;a �s�° r < m 2 m ODOO 1 I O -I-Ifn 2 0 i i i ll I m O m m� i ! O m N O j Co m cn j ! o -O x {ILn °o m c= I ! = W m i{{ D D m� ( i i'I m? n rn I { i! C/) m <N i < m cn m + I GI ! A 1 I I Cl) p n m 1 U) � 0o m ° I m a i f I p CM ([7 -1 o 1 ! I 0 m s rn { I l m cn rn + m 1 N !ilo zz I l rn ! 0 {/ C) u m i I ilm r mm 1 i! Al m m i M i �L7 _ I! I,,-0 -Iz o 00 my I I 7 I ! I ! 0 ! It 1, l i m ( zCl) i m O O O � O �oow0 ( rl ` �I mN i r z 0 0 0 1I�O I O m� 1 { "- i 00o I 1 ! 1' i I m N N 0 oc rr i` ! o� DrrN 2 m ODOO 1 I O -I-Ifn 2 0 i yyi I r IT! mC N O j 00 �nrnGi cn rm ' t I rm °o 1 0 0 0 Ozz� i{{ D D m� ( i i'I m? m n �oow0 z 0 0 0 o NN 022 2 00o I 1 ! 1' i �mTO Z DrrN -{ o+ i ODOO 1 I O -I-Ifn 2 0 i yyi I r IT! mC N O j 00 °o m m n rn I -Di M m M m o 0 mm e z I I s rn rn + mm zz rnrn {i i w v 1 �L7 _ On r ! O W N -� O O O O O O � O m w (88 aAVN)133=1 NI NOliVA913 < G O p 0 O 0 O g i COLLIER COUNTY e is UN N. HORSESHOE ORNE NAPLES. FL rrsww.n uYCM wr YrMSM ff EE COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING § REPORT - PEER REVIEW.„ o m '1s' Z E! i PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILL TEMPLATE PROFILES - PARK SHORE D 0 1 Packet Page -429- - { O 1 O i + to 0 A w O 06 N O N O O O O O N n (88 GAVN)133:1 NI NOUVA313 w 1� 80R !0 -Iql. Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. D m () 0 to r G) I M O -1 N Cl) D ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88). C-) r r 0 m y W 00 N s N O O O O O W N N 00 O O O O O r + + °o -— CD c(D j j I i Co ° III jZ7 I I m IN I Pill 01 Iwl I� Z D 3oQQ Za rn cn j I I O j j 10 +' I I ' rn + I m °o I I I) I I A I II m I ^ o / lip Ij op + n m 01 --I m I I 1 III I I I j i i m { / W0 W W I I; i } C Co Z 00 m oD m oD § m @ o II{ COLLIER COUNTY 3800 N. HORSESHOE DWE M..i. - w..I..e NAPLES. FL JINN���_ EE ° o E COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORINGaa~ K o g REPORT - PEER REVIEW €I z PROJECT DESIGN -BEACH FILL TEMPLATE PROFILES - PARK SHORE D Packet Page -430- M M D < IN 00 z � D C7 r D (n r M D O _ Attachment A ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) W N N 0 0 0 0 o C 2/26/2013 11. E. ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) N N 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I! I 11 I�� I I f + ° ° o � O � I \ I Co w C2 u Z CD m� / I r 0 ° oD I / i m V I I o wz I , O a p !( ' COLLIER COUNTY 2.. N. HORSESHOE MM M I lcnc IM + S o ti I I m NA LES,M—U m.wuwmm W ,��nas°,vo �iv10 12 1\ f II I nmsM[M9sv,r+m,°F k i ! 1 0 0 �) I I rnw j l i i I I IMTI m I I m r- W !I C N PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILLba.; s I 0 0 I l 0� M 0 IIz I I 1 -5 2 tv m ,M K ``' m i I f' < X n { < N / I W+ i / I S O n l) .+ 00 m D m / j < rn fn I// I 0 M Om i „rn S M i i I i Z I M X I t l oo I I =z o_i _i' I -°t o m y o (� m o zcn m`� i ( MM " I;I-Dt 4 z NO C Z7 c I I owrn(n 'gym M Co t / (' Co Ommz �Cn °O i (n G) G) r m I i 00 Ozz� my tl III �m 1CC 1 o - ! I z000 -1 NN \ O S S^ S o p .-OrrN OrMMC � O + 0 W W M o rn i CC-)0 ji K K ;o O 25 -n i I r1-m j MM m pp MM tl t rD Ln L III N ' Ill +O _ ' —E _°'._.i v , I I O W I� D D f t ' z z I N A I II) 3 r S t. i m -TI -TI } m -DI t 2/26/2013 11. E. ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) N N 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I! I 11 I�� I I f O O O ° ° o � O � I \ I Co w (88 4AVN) 1333 NI NOIIVA313 Z / I r 0 0o / i m V I I o , g a p !( ' COLLIER COUNTY 2.. N. HORSESHOE MM M I ti I I m NA LES,M—U m.wuwmm W ,��nas°,vo �iv10 12 i i I I f II I nmsM[M9sv,r+m,°F k i ! 1 0 0 I I I I rnw j l i i I I D D I % 1 I !I C N PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILLba.; s I 0 0 I l i i , M IIz rn I 1 -5 I I ! III 4 O i ( { 0 Cn O .D O m TI F M v m N A W N O N O O ° N (88 QAVN)133� NI NOIiVA313 ^ O O O ° ° o � O Co w (88 4AVN) 1333 NI NOIIVA313 Z 0 0 0o 00 t g a p !( ' COLLIER COUNTY 2.. N. HORSESHOE MM x ° MYbnY� NA LES,M—U m.wuwmm W ,��nas°,vo �iv10 12 COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING nmsM[M9sv,r+m,°F 'o o REPORT - PEER REVIEW° Z m C N PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILLba.; s TEMPLATE PROFILES - PARK SHORE D m 0 Packet Page -431 -� 0 Cn O .D O m TI F M v m N A W N O N O O ° N (88 QAVN)133� NI NOIiVA313 Attachment A D < S m0 I N w � Z 2/26/2013 11. E. c y i ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) C7 r I( D (n -I S 12 , r 0 m D W 00 N N 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 N N 0 0 0 0 0 :m N� +o I N� + m M =+ m K=+ I D o! _ C D 0 j W 3: j I j N o m� ! < � ! m I 'o m� al C !' (n i j� om I 1 z � Nom w= i I O m ;0 m V m M ©1 11111111111113.1 M ©1 € S N N m Z D o o r �wrncn 0mMz 0ZZO �mwm0 z 0 0 0 CO22. -. C T T p IC7��(fl rmmC �Mrom mm D D z z r S D D mM �m O OI CJ OD �? z vv 00 co CO w n w Z i I O w Z I( -I S 12 i 10 I I m M =+ m K=+ I D o! _ C D 0 M� M M r' `�� 0� < � ! m M� m m al C (n i j� � 1 z � w= i \ I I m O �' O m w S ( r< m I O <m ` zoom .Z7 ! �m t I �' w v �J A I JI i m— X W p I it _ �f/ a) Eli o -4 o I o' it =< (7 �� I =� � f t j / < SD f/ III��� S Gym It ! j�� ( �m 1 I It m c M J ! E 0 Sm m ij i! m i I mho !i1 °o moo0 z (n / I, I j, rn z (n I I i m mn? I t/ I I mry I f I r �C-: I I I °+° E 1 u, K ;D M I i i j 1 I I _ t i r- m C:) a r m i -� o -I D I l� D i j I M D i , m D I I f o S o M rnw 1 m rnw Z o j w w } I I J Z o w w I I i S 0 1, I 1 I I S C j D D S S ! t ! N O _n -n ' I I "(( O T T I t ! ( it I w F F 1 r 1 I {I M m m m 0� ! Cn� ; I + -� _ °o -< 1 _ I I i�� + j m I I I o0 I I�I -n -m�l t �' + O W N� O O ON O O O (88 OA`dN)133J NI NOUVA313 COLLIER COUNTY L00 N. NORSESNOE DRIVE °, W� wee NAPLEb. PL 3A1W �ry •re•MnMS• tw°wl°.r "COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT - PEER REVIEW � PROJECT DESIGN -BEACH FILL TEMPLATE PROFILES - PARK SHORE W 1 0 1 Packet Page -432- = A 1 I + _ O O O O O O N (88 CIAVN) 133J NI NOI1VA913 4+I�R4MNR.MO�ti •BR � -e+ D < 2 m0 x nO 2: z Cl) D n r- > Cn r 0 mD ;m II N ' O n N 0 ro � Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N + t- / D m� I om w z I -n IT N E (2 r r �O + I m �2 o I G m > o J m D-I i ( I I m O m M o ; v x in— I '_= a) m K I'm j I it= Cn m v < N / I I < r (� o I � --1 CCD / I O m (n / v M r I(I N =m M I / I'm Milly + m + �r mo C) ! 1m z U) -- mW ! N C-: p i � I rn� i � I i I it 1i M m O o Dm i c --I o M rn w I i z 0 Co Co I CD O TI TI ! II 1 M m z Z (n Mo -T= O o N o� O W N O N O O O O O N (88 (1AVN)1333 NI NOLLVA313 z D p 100 X o Awrnfn oa 0Cn�G) 1333) 0 z z ;o �mm00 Z 0 0 00 022.E TI TI p Drr� ;orrN O--1 --1 C/) rmmc 0 < mm� mm Z Z r 2 �D mM �m � O O W Co _ z 0o OD Co �co COLLIER COUNTY F F g p > 2800 N. HORSESHOE DR NAPLES. FL Nom.�d � MwwM�»minl - �nCOLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING »r. uoN.°p.bm.tn1O HY��nd m°r N o g REPORT - PEER REVIEW PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILL !ia Z m II G TEMPLATE PROFILES - PARK SHORE Co �d. Packet Page -433 r 2/26/2013 11. E. ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N + t- / D m� I om w z I -n IT N E (2 r r �O + I m �2 o I G m > o J m D-I i ( I I m O m M o ; v x in— I '_= a) m K I'm j I it= Cn m v < N / I I < r (� o I � --1 CCD / I O m (n / v M r I(I N =m M I / I'm Milly + m + �r mo C) ! 1m z U) -- mW ! N C-: p i � I rn� i � I i I it 1i M m O o Dm i c --I o M rn w I i z 0 Co Co I CD O TI TI ! II 1 M m z Z (n Mo -T= O o N o� O W N O N O O O O O N (88 (1AVN)1333 NI NOLLVA313 Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. > <x m0 N D Z Cn y I I I ( ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) wz ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) 0 r- rn w O C) r > Cn + - m m -t-- - �j�- ; - - - -, ° e my po 0 0 0 0 o po 0 0 0 0 0 :m N� o r m N-• o " -.) �x 0 I 1 r ° M i I mm I m o A II ° I = C I - ° ° w= I I j ° ° _ -Di i r C m ! I 00 _ -Di ( I' Cn V m� a( 00 D < j !{ m O m o; _ A I O c � m �� j! r< i j 0 I I °- om n ( I l�l << x A 4 I cf. m D i ' :17 0m I i, If 1 10 II W m ;o m V M 11111111112131 Moll 1 I m S N N m z DpoxO M W m (n o M M Z O Z Z O �wao0 rmmC DDDz Z 0 0 O N D r r C) �7rrN C] Cn D D M mm f# !I Z Z r S O G) Dy mM �m � O rnw w �? z 00 N w m0 Z wz I I I ( O wz I rn w O C) r I + - m m -t-- - �j�- ; - - - -, ° e on � +� I it m m�Nl -0x o' r m I -.) �x 0 I 1 r ° M i I mm I m o m z I = C i I - ° w= I I N O cFn� S i r C m o m I ; M CO o m ( I' Cn V m� a( < j !{ m O m o; _ A m O c � m �� j! r< i j 0 m cam �� O O O O n ( I l�l << x A 4 I cf. m D 1, ! m Cn O m D f I i, If 1 10 II W m I m m �M I i ,_= Z5m I,m Cn i ' mX I ( i (<< M m� jlo i m M m 11'u) r- n M xm rn! l 11'° + 2 0 °o I I I i 0 0 -I 2 zz °o (I I m z� b ! '� I ip,mm I z� G jl,� ( 20 I j !Io I m I 0 ! ! mbo t o C it l -1 j T °o j t m C) i % m 0, II Ii, M m12 w I I N I 1, -0 Cn °! i ii m I ? o v D IIi m I !i m > D i j m ' I it °o ° 1 j ;) I I I rn w C) Co Co + - m m -t-- - �j�- ; - - - -, ° e on I m o z I Ln L i I - ° I_ i I N O I M CO I f ; I I A I O ° W N ° O O O O O (88 QAVN) iE9=1 NI NOUVA313 I p I p M K MoM A W + o , O O O COLLIER COUNTY 2M N. NORSESNOE DRWE o ° {fii•��I NAPLES. K UIN j b..'�io.a�ar�iwnratiiN.eN�nri m^�w�i.°.eo 4w�ee COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT -PEER REVIEW w o o a V ES�i Z.....�.v,.m.aa".°.�.:. web m gF p N .E PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILLAp -. TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES > W 0 Packet Page -434- (88 QAVN)133=1 NI NOI1VA313 .:.NN,MM..i.b.... .R o_..F. Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. D tD 0 0 m r _ <x m0 i N n0 D Z m cn D ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) 0 r r n W N N W N 1 N M D O O 0 0 O 0 0 00 O 0 0 O O CJi CD 0 n r m V m N A Li TJ .-I1 O W N O N O w N O N O O O 0 0 O O O ° O N � O m w (88 QA`dN)133=1 NI NOliVA913 (88 4AVN)1333 NI NOUVA313 D D O O OD w 00 COLLIER COUNTY I!!t 33C0 N. NAPNORSESE D WE LES. NO FL Jt1W w.wen+.w���v�iN.v. uvu+v.a.evsnw (� v E sbrvrawi..YbsmmM�ov.vd �yse�IL COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING a o S REPORT - PEER REVIEW g'g Z PROJECT DESIGN -BEACH FILL;°.; i TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES � °�� E ORIOMAL ISSUED DATE: D w 1 0 �. Packet Page -435 - E T _ o O I O II 2-DI I I / 0 S-DI o m j N m ? omD < I �/ .Z7 pm w Z I I ( 0 w Z ! z z W m cn -0 x m �� _0 x O mm (n o r- o cD m� ° o t i 1 I ! t mm N i I I O C m 1 I 1 I Y � I I I I I N N I i MC:) s i rn ?m W W M°+ I D D f o ! I/ x x m o D m i I� m IIII� D m m 11 II! _0-0 m �) (n (n x� it ii ! �mT �i _1 cn i ( x� t x m E! i o I x m m !� X .� -1 M X -4 -•1 m+ i °o i m -I m+ m0 m0 I I 0 zcn �� ZCn s I m / ! iIm =rn !m m� i t1 I m m? S m SNNm00 NoT °C I! !1 i j'" I i i II o-n rn;1 D0 V5 C m= j i 3 i' m M co Woo p +! _�! I': + OWcno rcn 0 1 i i? �Cn O 0 I !I D z z� m D ; I I ! ! m � �mm0 t i i I > z i Zeno ° NN I ! I) 1 b i O x 2 �mTp 2 °o ° rnw I I ! S r- r- m Z o W W ( I I �) i I z o y 0 cn = o D D W ! + S °o _0_� m SS f I I �i m N CD mmv I i m m oo i z z I r > -I ; I I I, i v r>- D N m o I i m o w o j 1 I� I o f ( I (I lI Z Z iUI o -co i 0_ m TI TI CJi CD 0 n r m V m N A Li TJ .-I1 O W N O N O w N O N O O O 0 0 O O O ° O N � O m w (88 QA`dN)133=1 NI NOliVA913 (88 4AVN)1333 NI NOUVA313 D D O O OD w 00 COLLIER COUNTY I!!t 33C0 N. NAPNORSESE D WE LES. NO FL Jt1W w.wen+.w���v�iN.v. uvu+v.a.evsnw (� v E sbrvrawi..YbsmmM�ov.vd �yse�IL COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING a o S REPORT - PEER REVIEW g'g Z PROJECT DESIGN -BEACH FILL;°.; i TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES � °�� E ORIOMAL ISSUED DATE: D w 1 0 �. Packet Page -435 - E T _ ! I I i = c: II I I 0 < In m 1 II m0W ! z z W m cn m r- 0 M mm (n I ° o 1 I ! t I rn ` i ! m f f 1 I 1 I Y � I I I I I N N I i s rn W W I D D f x x m m �) (n (n _1 t f I I E! CJi CD 0 n r m V m N A Li TJ .-I1 O W N O N O w N O N O O O 0 0 O O O ° O N � O m w (88 QA`dN)133=1 NI NOliVA913 (88 4AVN)1333 NI NOUVA313 D D O O OD w 00 COLLIER COUNTY I!!t 33C0 N. NAPNORSESE D WE LES. NO FL Jt1W w.wen+.w���v�iN.v. uvu+v.a.evsnw (� v E sbrvrawi..YbsmmM�ov.vd �yse�IL COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING a o S REPORT - PEER REVIEW g'g Z PROJECT DESIGN -BEACH FILL;°.; i TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES � °�� E ORIOMAL ISSUED DATE: D w 1 0 �. Packet Page -435 - E T _ Attachment A D m 0 < 2 m0 4 N m r Z C D ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) n r D (n m D o 0 0 0 0 o C m !� ++ N• i Q II , o m I I ED o w Z V M IIIIIIIIII11FAII 1111111111111-3. IIIIIIIIIII101 IT IT A z m i 1 t Z x m N N D o 0o x 0 xCA) rnv5 W O 0 � 0MMZ O Z Z ;o �moo0 rmmc Z00C) Coax, C TI m 0 50rrN O ��u) rmmc �r �r I<71 m m i Z Z r x 00 �x D D m m LJ X � O w z 00 00 00 + ELEVATION ( (NAVD 88) Cn 1= oo 0 0 0 + 3000 N. HORSESHOE DRNE NAiLES. iL 3,1W tiy,.,,.arsrv.n wrw n+nw e�ww.�� ��v.rdv� > D I r O < m ;o ewe nar�iie �rn �..ei+i rwov mr mm �\ !I mom CD = REPORT - PEER REVIEW ! m k' N I iI 2 _ -a a) 0 w K I m �° I ! I li / ! <c<n m Packet Page -436- - m n m -n a I I I� t r- OD t7 0rX o � 0-4 o ! �_ I. O mm m i rm i IImm < �r ! w m I// o zD � u !E�5 I I -i C � xm jj i! m 1 E MX p< m I I --I m i� �� m 0 00 I` \`� I m I I z to �m "' I c� xm 1 I!iI<� � M CD j M -4 � SZ + oc i1 'v m m ( i I m0 o (m cn Z(n --4� -q � mm°+D o � 0 m ! i� --1 -n O M I -0i = D m f ! I ���i m > i f j i �U) o 1 I E) = o ! ! It CD m< m rn f Z o ED Co I I ° nn It m xx O TI -n m oo l i i � 1 Z Z I 3 I D (n (n f mo_ 0 0 I' < ( f 2/26/2013 11. E. O C) C) O 0 O N O O O (88 4AVN) 1333 NI NOUVA313 ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) 00 S 0 0 0 0 0 + 3000 N. HORSESHOE DRNE NAiLES. iL 3,1W tiy,.,,.arsrv.n wrw n+nw e�ww.�� ��v.rdv� 0 s t O ewe nar�iie �rn �..ei+i rwov mr - ----- CD = REPORT - PEER REVIEW m� ! o y N I PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILL _ -a Z7 0 w I I TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES M -I x m Packet Page -436- - I -n m I i t m 0rX o D mm i w m i ! ;a C � w 0 =_ 1 � ! 0 o p< m I I i� �� I` \`� o m o m m I I Co I m �m I c� xm 1 I!iI<� � M CD j � SZ + , jl'0-0 i1 'v m m ( i I m0 o (m cn Z(n -q � ! I o � 0 m ! i� --1 -n M I -0i = I I D i ���i m �U) o 1 I E) CD m< O C) C) O 0 O N O O O (88 4AVN) 1333 NI NOUVA313 :0 ,+ O + j o 0 t k- A w O ' O W N O ' N O O O O O N (88 4A`dN)133J NI NOIIVA3-13 COLLIER COUNTY c r 3000 N. HORSESHOE DRNE NAiLES. iL 3,1W tiy,.,,.arsrv.n wrw n+nw e�ww.�� ��v.rdv� 0 s t COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ewe nar�iie �rn �..ei+i rwov mr - ----- REPORT - PEER REVIEW Z m'N N PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILL _ -a TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES D m Packet Page -436- - :0 ,+ O + j o 0 t k- A w O ' O W N O ' N O O O O O N (88 4A`dN)133J NI NOIIVA3-13 .:..«.�... Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. r I m n o m 1 n 1 z mo N 50 cn D ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) m C) r- > cn r C) W m D 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 N 0 W 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 N 0 + N� I, ro �D i I I 'A p °D I ( I O m C4 Z I I I w Z I I �= i I i' i' i i Im �= Wiz+ i Im -0 +I W .� — � � o i _ -0 1 ' � I = c � M m i i O X mm i 0 cn i m rG A m I O m o� 1 i 0 m {I _ �� Co O j° r- i O n �i ' n m° I +' I� m m ' / r m I j _ j o ( m M� �� �y I M -� °O --I m °O i I=TIC) f I i I I' D MV ZCn > Zcn rn FL m� I 1 E i�� N� iam o� i I i Ii, , o� = ao0�(o rn� I i °+° W o o g m m 1 I � ��0 �rCn ° i �¶ 3 �I�TI 0zZZ -ID I j -DiD �mmOC mD 4 I i I ! z00a p = =� � I NN °° � j i ; I f� b ; 2 J oo tI I �, oz 0m DrrN T No m rn Z w I I I i I i I ; I i i m °rn Z o 0000 w 1 I I I 0 0 c rrmmc I m °o ' DD I I i �� ° = 0T nn M I 1 I( ; 10 0 I I r 5 I I ';' i ! N ° I I �z m ° TT I i TT w t �I M —DI�� w rr� I I i) �� ? t I Wz M m °m °m I I j i� °m °m � i �I p I m cn I ICI cn c_n 1 'I m y N I 1 (' —I N i �_ 1 I cn (� _._ o I ( 0 w it t i I ZZ I j� i -4 cn I O eo N I I' r� �_ t 00 I i 00 I i (� t �{ -n j i i E m n I 'I I I it i ° ° O O O O O O � O Co w (88 QAVN)1333 NI NOUVA313 (88 4A`dN)133-=1 NI NOliVA3l3 00 m o0 au Co > COLLIER COUNTY Il00 H. HORSESNOE DRNE . ? •fff NAPLES.RUIU ('' COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING �".wi�1na�m.em �mHamYnia.eP m�iw.y a o t REPORT - PEER REVIEW Z m S''€ PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILL A; TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES m'"°° "'"°°°""' a.., "'°°° E ORHNNALW8UED -; a m n Packet Page -437 - m I Attachment A D m 1 C 1 0 11 m < _ m0 4 N m D Z 2/26/2013 11. E. �1 w v m rn rn f .P 0 0 0 0 0 W p p C D ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) I �0 0 0 0 r ^� O 10 rn +i ! 0 0 v m + 1 I I I Im ! m D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 = r ' m + + i °o Z D ° o x 0 CD I mwrn(n o II 6 I I j =' I 6 p22N CDO I N �1 w v m rn rn f .P 0 0 0 0 0 W p p °+D ` I I (I m °+° I �0 0 0 m ^� O 10 rn +i ! 0 0 v m + 1 I I I Im ! O Z Z m ��I . �1 w v m rn rn f .P 0 0 0 0 0 W p p °+D ` I I (I m °+° 0 0 m ^� O oMMz rn 0 0 -1 0 G) G) 1 III ! O Z Z m = N � € Z N m Z D ° o x 0 mwrn(n �1 w v m rn rn f .P 0 0 0 0 0 W p p °+D ` I I (I m °+° o p.�� ^� O oMMz -1 0 G) G) 1 III ! O Z Z m �ww0 Z D D D z(700 N N p22N CDO I N Drr� o Co CO �mmC °o j DD M -I'1 -n I i I - r mm{ mm i ilI z C0 C0 1 N E 6 o -c + l ° I Z Z Z A O I I 0� n� f T + m] O °O W IV O 0 O O O � O c w (88 CIAVN) 1333 NI NOI1Vn3-3 Z 00 wM COLLIER COUNTY 2800 N. HORSESHOE DR c NAPLES, M Ul" n ` , � I E °COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING revwe�°e°xF��ovv+w�MVV mi g i REPORT - PEER REVIEW ;*' • �, �+; ,, in PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILL..� TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES Packet Page -438- 9 -4 t ! I 0��I i i I m T Ii I o rn I m II m ( I I i j i i II i 1 i a I J I f II j a j 00 O m Co I I 1 mm II ! Iij -n -n F r l I m m J (I Z Z U) (n I I ( E -4 -1 { n0 i � � l iII _...li_ ... .v._.. ('1� w N O O C O Cl O (88 GAVN)1333 NI NOUVA313 ivi Iml 0 A w N =-=w*—uwo-ft 1.a --.ft. m0 N 00 > Z to D > to 0 > Iv m I M C-M) M z o X b Z� 00, 55 0 o =! M M o mn z 0 r, C) G) -,15 O- o 0 Z Z;o w M 0 M > M z C > > z 0 0 a) > --j Cn M M C 10-0 < M M M IE z 171 M z r- g; 0 > M -A M ;o OD z Z GG vv Co M MIMI 0 Attachment A ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) 0 C, + C> 00 + 0 0 rn 2/26/2013 1 1.E. ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVID 88) Zo + -r$, U M i I Co + + C, O I w Co 1 1 0 + C> O > > TT I I i 1 1 0 0 M M Z z In Cl) I I I + i (=> I 0 . .. p oz ri 0 0 + + 0 o C) 0 6 0 0 CD 0 t�) —1 C) 8 0 0 0 (99 CIAVN) 1-D9=1 NI NOUVAB-19 (88 GAVN) i33=I NI NOI-LVAB-IB COLLIER COUNTY 2100 N. H01WEMOE bNNE NAPLES.F U— COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT - PEER REVIEW Z7 PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILL TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES Mr IL MOICO OATS M 1 0 1 Packet Page -439- 1 (3) 4 00 0 M 1.4 I C) IN 14 I w 4 cn 0 a M I ED a) M II j M ;o 0 z (D C) Co (f) 0 0) 0 M C) Co Q M 0 > Z Cf) M z M M z z J) (n 1 1 M C/) Z z i NO m 0 0 -n r0 -n tj + + 0 o C) 0 6 0 0 CD 0 t�) —1 C) 8 0 0 0 (99 CIAVN) 1-D9=1 NI NOUVAB-19 (88 GAVN) i33=I NI NOI-LVAB-IB COLLIER COUNTY 2100 N. H01WEMOE bNNE NAPLES.F U— COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT - PEER REVIEW Z7 PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILL TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES Mr IL MOICO OATS M 1 0 1 Packet Page -439- 1 (3) 4 00 0 M 1.4 I C) IN 14 I w tiI�MYMYY�P�� M4 >o -�N Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. D m 0 0 m m I < S m0 i N >Z y ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) e C7 r O w Z 1 C-) m p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m N 71 O N� +p II .a O II O No O + I I i i I_ m 4 om !� Nm cn C m ; ' i , { v m IIIIIIII11wal 1111111111113.1 •©m �I €m L7 m = N N m Z Dpoxq �wrncn Om�� O z Cn z D D Z z0c-) v CO2S.� C T 'TI p > r: r— N ���In rmmc �DDM m m (i i� Z Z r S 0G) �S D� �o mw o, w Z ov Mo D w Z I O w Z 1 O m II L7 + f m O + I I_ m -0 = p cn C i G j 0 mm ,, r� m m 1 i�I 0� z 0 m cn m 1 i m 0 m w m I t III m rn m i / I m W m m N " i o = Co -0D m m ( < N I j i c m 0 !I ! =rte m n� °i !'<�Z Cn I C7�po1 Dm !I` I!I�0 U >M i 1 f� I Ism m � \� cm 1 j cam 1 "° ( i �m i i�m zm j I I m i Sm . I iI o :i1-xl i I ! CD �� i % I II rn i m f 2 Z ! I m I m m y I I m o p! m 0 i Z V0 j i% m Z(n I �/ I (i - I m� i i ! � m ii C) C: rnA III �m I %D o ;o N it i I O I ! I -DID Dm t I m m 1 r 11 ;I D I 1 14' z Dom OD S M � O� rn �0 I I EI Z o .._ m °p m Co m m I 0 Z o i + mCo DD I E I f r +— at- DD I !I �>! _°o! m =_ i 1 i t rL7 �z i m 00 I I( j C) -n -n i TI TI I I' m �Z ZZ ! m ZZ D 0 L I I i it p N + I -T- I i �; z, m o � m C) I i� 0 I I h —Z-1 N j - v M 1 ( ! �, m m o O N O O O O O O O O O N (88 QA`dN)1333 NI NOIiVA313 (88 QA`dN)133J NI NOIIVA313 COLLIER COUNTY B C o ?I > 2e N. HORSESHOEIR P P F {[ NAPLES, FL m�°i+Fb FN°aonw.°Y°uw�i °P��°°. 1 i..�+nubwH mnwwMnae..irP�..re� m�i..� COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ,p o a REPORT - PEER REVIEW �*- F'° Z PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILL Si € TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES m n Packet Page -440- - S�rRMP/DYAr�I� IYR SY -� D < 2 m0 I N 0 O z Cl) D nr D cn C-) o m O :m rv� 0 11 s 0 Q II S 4 N m K C2 c w �= M — G) �S o v 0 D mm Fn- ; a o� S M N O .A a) + O D m o r � 2 L7 m =m mx ;o 4 rn M 2 z o M 0 o z Attachment A ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) 0 0 0 0 N O v tV O n F M w 00 N ' O m� N m 0 w -I S M — G7 �S o C) D � MM mm Y) ;D o� is S M M 0 A W + C7 m o �m S =m M rn iz 0 my o z cn mT N O = M ; aD °o D D m rn*> y --I M Z � o m o0 N 0 0 rn M .D N M + 0 0 A 0 O 2/26/2013 11. E. ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O (88 GAVN)133=l NI NOIIVA3-13 0 X N O a 'T1 r M V M D A w N O N I m �o� mN ' °m I p I M om C i lvNm SI p yoox.. rn� D Owo -tn-I Al mm w ( i' I I m Co O m —�- C, � cmi> (n G) 1530 cn D"' � i m:�i �W WO rmRIC A Z1 p i ZCiCip -I NN ( I I� Wcn p28- �TTO m ooa 0) w i 1 I pm i D r r N z o! co W �p prmmC °o mm ! II C = nn i I O�< O -n -n I =lrrm I �m F mm m r r oo M m z In Cl) I O m y n> i� i I� it i (n f� z , mm i I ZZ Il rS go i.0 i.0 I I T M S TI -n m' I � I M o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 O 000 w (88 CIAVN) 1333 NI NOUVA313 z 00 OD 00 OD 00 COLLIER COUNTY E'� P e LSO N. NORSESNOE DRNE..,..,,i NAPLES. RWN >...w.c K ••uw�M ..a w. ul. m.o.rw rne�auw. cwN..wrwm. M' � E! -.- COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ^ N m REPORT - PEER REVIEW Z PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILL„m®, TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES D m 1 n 1 Packet Page -441 w 00 N ' O m� N m 0 w -I S M — G7 �S o C) D � MM mm Y) ;D o� is S M M 0 A W + C7 m o �m S =m M rn iz 0 my o z cn mT N O = M ; aD °o D D m rn*> y --I M Z � o m o0 N 0 0 rn M .D N M + 0 0 A 0 O 2/26/2013 11. E. ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O (88 GAVN)133=l NI NOIIVA3-13 0 X N O a 'T1 r M V M D A w N O N ==;� -• --® Aftachment A > 0 1 m 0 < a: m X ;u I N 00 > Z 2/26/2013 11.E. ° \/ -4 (n > ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) 0 r- > Cn r- 0 r9 > c CD 0 (D C) § 0 0 0 0 1-4 1(, 101 141 w m m + + j ;u 1 44 C5 m i§S�zm 11 > Co " :,mp — X C n 0 0) (n \§§\ 0 Z Z;o Co a) 0 M M C > > > z z (7) 0 0 o==- -n -n§ --I /%%/ C) 1 + I Cl I C) Co Co m m > > 0 C) + C. m m 0 0 -n (99 CIAVN) 133=1 N1 NOIiVA3-13 + < ƒ =I;, -n -n + C. C� M CO 00 CO OD %> 3 F F C/) ®9 � � \ ( � Z � mm 2—H SHOE DRWE + m m H�ORS LES,�UIW z z CD CD COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING Ln Ln m REPORT - PEER REVIEW CD U) + . ... .. ..... .. z + 0 m m TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES w 1 0 1 Packet Page -442- > > z z Z Cn o) z z z OZ 4 -n F, E1 1 0 4i -n + m m Cn m 0 0 / 0 m C', . ...... . + C) 00 + 0 C:) + C) 0 r- - N) N) C) C, Z 0 m Co (n --I /%%/ C) 1 + I Cl I C) Co Co m m > > 0 > C) + C. m m 0 0 (99 CIAVN) 133=1 N1 NOIiVA3-13 < ƒ =I;, -n -n z M CO 00 CO OD %> 3 F F C/) ®9 \ \/ Z � mm 2—H SHOE DRWE m m H�ORS LES,�UIW z z COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING Ln Ln m REPORT - PEER REVIEW CD U) + . ... .. ..... .. z + 0 m m TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES w 1 0 1 Packet Page -442- > > z z Z Cn o) z z z OZ 4 -n F, E1 1 0 4i -n m Cn m m C) . ...... . + C) m X C C) CD (99 CIAVN) 133=1 N1 NOIiVA3-13 ƒ \\ �/ CO 00 CO OD i/ COLLIER COUNTY � � /� 2—H SHOE DRWE H�ORS LES,�UIW COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT - PEER REVIEW CD mm > > PROJECT DESIGN - BEACH FILL TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES w 1 0 1 Packet Page -442- C:) C) . I I 0 C) w �j — CD 0 CD (99 GAVN) �Dd NI NOLLVA9-1g I P-0 -!4 CA) 0 m 1-4 101 ƒ �/ � i/ � � /� i CD C) CD mm > > m m z z Cn o) OZ 4 -n F, 4i C:) C) . I I 0 C) w �j — CD 0 CD (99 GAVN) �Dd NI NOLLVA9-1g I P-0 -!4 CA) 0 m 1-4 101 Attachment A 0 1 m m0 ;u ;a -IN 00 >Z v OD + ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) w 0 Z Z;o CD M 00 0 0 + > > > z m z z 0 C) 0 ED m a: -4 CO CC C3 Q1 w 0 mm 0 > + m m C 0 !Z 00 0 z < M -n + F: F m a C> O O O O O 2/26/2013 11. E. 0 ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) 63 00 0 0 0 + �4 Ln 0 + m O O 0) O Cl M z 2: M 0 0 X Z� om V5 0 m m z Cn (n G) 000 OD + i + 0 0 Z Z;o Co m 0 M M C > > > z z z 0 C) 0 ED m a: CO CC C3 Q1 w mm 0 > + m m C 0 !Z 00 z < M -n F: F m Z mm mm z z i I --j I j C) M C) o m m > > Z z z z 0 -4 0 ;u Cn -n m < m 0 4 W L j + + M M 0 0 O W N C) C) 8 0 C) C) 0 C) C) C) CD N O m w (99 CIAVN) i39=1 NI NOUVA919 (99 GAVN) 133J NI NOUVA9-13 z Z COLLIER COUNTY N. HORSESHOE DR x •1111 NAPLM.F UIU of COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT — PEER REVIEW Ai 1 1 z PROJECT DESIGN -BEACH FILL TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES E OMONAL MSUE-D-7. > Packet Page -443- =- ---� -- »» Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. D m n o 1 m r I i < 2 m0 I N m r Z Cn D ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) 0 r m D Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r :m ++ u o t I �Qlr C2 p N 0 M i5 N DOOxp t xwo)cn O O 1V ©1 R131 m lal 0 0 rn 0 0 -I- M M —*-1 i 0 r 00 I rL� zz I �z -n T ( I rr I �m E I Z / z z { I ; o mi _..� �...�.�.. �.3.�_ z s O} N I --I T n� m M M 1 _ ........ ........ . . . ....... ...... + y v 0 -4 p T p M + i m � O Co w (88 QAVN)1234 NI NOUVA313 Z CO Co M m ao m COLLIER COUNTY ORS SNOE ORIVE 2W N. HE u n R NRVLE6. FL MO k COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ar bww'+�ti� T�1nw.nw�i1� m�i.e ^� °g REPORT - PEER REVIEW 41 a �tiS '^°dw m 4j p PROJECT DESIGN -BEACH FILL tA TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES��� «� a m n Packet Page -444 -= .P 0 0 rn 0 0 v m Co I / ( ! c, + F 0 m M Co I ' a 0 0 I O i (88 GAVN)1333 NI NOIIVAEIE M IIIIIIIIIIRI ° IN M t I �Qlr G7 T i M =NNmz i5 DOOxp xwo)cn 0 °o Omm� 1000) 0 Z Z X �mm0 rmmc z 0 0 a = =� Co Z7rrN O O -1 Cn °O rmmc m D D mmv i 0 o C) z z r = rn 1 M D D + -I- M M —*-1 i 0 r 00 I rL� zz I �z -n T ( I rr I �m E I Z / z z { I ; o mi _..� �...�.�.. �.3.�_ z s O} N I --I T n� m M M 1 _ ........ ........ . . . ....... ...... + y v 0 -4 p T p M + i m � O Co w (88 QAVN)1234 NI NOUVA313 Z CO Co M m ao m COLLIER COUNTY ORS SNOE ORIVE 2W N. HE u n R NRVLE6. FL MO k COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ar bww'+�ti� T�1nw.nw�i1� m�i.e ^� °g REPORT - PEER REVIEW 41 a �tiS '^°dw m 4j p PROJECT DESIGN -BEACH FILL tA TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES��� «� a m n Packet Page -444 -= .P 0 0 rn 0 0 v m Co I / ( ! c, + F 0 m M Co I ' a 0 0 I O i (88 GAVN)1333 NI NOIIVAEIE M IIIIIIIIIIRI ° IN t I It/ T i i5 I \ (n j M i C) rn 1 M (I r I / 4 I I I 0 0 z i C) 0 4 I ( I I O m I 0) i i I ( I Do + y v 0 -4 p T p M + i m � O Co w (88 QAVN)1234 NI NOUVA313 Z CO Co M m ao m COLLIER COUNTY ORS SNOE ORIVE 2W N. HE u n R NRVLE6. FL MO k COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ar bww'+�ti� T�1nw.nw�i1� m�i.e ^� °g REPORT - PEER REVIEW 41 a �tiS '^°dw m 4j p PROJECT DESIGN -BEACH FILL tA TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES��� «� a m n Packet Page -444 -= .P 0 0 rn 0 0 v m Co I / ( ! c, + F 0 m M Co I ' a 0 0 I O i (88 GAVN)1333 NI NOIIVAEIE M IIIIIIIIIIRI ° IN � O Co w (88 QAVN)1234 NI NOUVA313 Z CO Co M m ao m COLLIER COUNTY ORS SNOE ORIVE 2W N. HE u n R NRVLE6. FL MO k COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ar bww'+�ti� T�1nw.nw�i1� m�i.e ^� °g REPORT - PEER REVIEW 41 a �tiS '^°dw m 4j p PROJECT DESIGN -BEACH FILL tA TEMPLATE PROFILES - NAPLES��� «� a m n Packet Page -444 -= .P 0 0 rn 0 0 v m Co I / ( ! c, + F 0 m M Co I ' a 0 0 I O i (88 GAVN)1333 NI NOIIVAEIE M IIIIIIIIIIRI ° IN .P 0 0 rn 0 0 v m Co I / ( ! c, + F 0 m M Co I ' a 0 0 I O i (88 GAVN)1333 NI NOIIVAEIE M IIIIIIIIIIRI ° IN 0 0 I O i (88 GAVN)1333 NI NOIIVAEIE M IIIIIIIIIIRI ° IN Attachment A APPENDIX B — COMPARATIVE VOLUMETRIC SUMMARY TABLE Packet Page -445- 2/26/2013 11. E. 24 Attachment A ant a o... :o..e _ r•..........er..,e v..n......ea. c....,......, R- Monument Design Volumes Effective Distance at Matdxut Taper Length Effective Dislancetr' Atkins Volume'" Difference R47 (FT) (CY/FT) I (CY) (Fr) (Fr) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY) R -18 R -19 R -20 R -21 R -22 _ -- R-23 R -24 R -25 R-26 (Taper) ':`986. ': 10.0 '9;864 - _ :':500 x-736 .:13.6 :9:433 X33 rR -27 • ^' 1095; ': 18.1 19,851 1,(395 '18.0 19.710 - -141 :- ' ?R-28- '1026 , 10.V 10,256 1;026 ' -10.2 10.450 ' r194 - ::R =29,': -942" . .: =10.0 ` ':9:423- -:: =942 :.x10.0 '.;9.385 - -38 -R -30 (Taper) :1033 - - -- 10.0 -_ - -- r- .10.330 - - - -- - 500-,, - - -- ' =: 783 - - -- `.:13.0- ___- 10,179 _ - -- '.151 ����- �R-333 R -34 - - - -- _ R -35 R -36 R -37 -- - _ R -38 R -39 R-40 R-41 R-42 R-43 RZ (Taper) 350 825 , :;38.1 :14;942 :::9;942: . R45', ;1,078 S:35A = - '38;138 :: ":1,078 :28.5 � :'30,703 - -7.435 r111A6 � , :1,040 - :10.0 ':10;403 ::1.040 x:9:9 '10,333 '.: -8l R-47 (Taper) , . -953. r: 5.2 5.000 R-49 T -50(Ta ) '1,208 ' :3.1' ;::2,500 "::500 - 250 ':'14.5 :3,635 !7125 - R -51 , =: 1;108 - .':14.5 :;16.057 3 :108 : <14.3 16,045. : -12 '< .:R -52 ', -967 ':`26.6 35,726 ,'..967 :26.5 25;608 R-53::, 1.060 ::12.2 125923 ' ':1,060 "12.2 .125956 :33 R- 54i(Taper) ____ R -55 ;:500 _�__ . 5.0 ..... ':2.500' x400 860 215 :2;134 -- 366 ' . R -56 R -57 'Ta I :;14,613 '.200 100 1:'75.5 '7.550 :- 7,063 - =" R -58A :667 :73.6 < 49,122. '- 404 :.75.5 <30,509 - 18.613" 'R =58 :'737 ': 58.4 -: 43.057' 'L937 ''6118 45,530 : 2;473`: R -59 '.- 1,035- :f30.4 .231,470 :.1[035 - ;-25.7, 26:565 "4.905' + - - R-60 1,081 ' " 10.0 ::10.813 ' 1,081 ' 10.0 : 10,850 - :37 '-Rbl :1:049 10.0 !:10.488 ;LIM ':13.7 :14375 <3,887 R -62 11 ,015 -s 17.8 `,18.098 ';1;015 ' -18.0 >18.309 °210 ' =R-63 >. 967' 183 :17.691 ? "967 - -18.2 :17,585 5 =106 -- '.. Rfi4(Taltet9 R-65 ^ R-66 R-67 '_ 854_ .,.5..9 '> 5,000 500 _^ -:: :604 ='5.3 '3:221 '- 1;779.:. R 66 R-69 (Ta r) : '805 62 : .5.000 :600 505 0.4 ':187 - -4,813 R -70 < 800 15.6 -" 12,513 800 15.6 :x12,504 -9: -: R -71 803 "22.8 !:18,284 '.803 - :22.8 ':`78:291 7':: R- 72(Taer) p ___ R -73 8 __07 __ -s: 6.2 __ 5.000 - 60 - 0 507 3:3 >.1.690 •3, 310 - - - -- _- R-74 -- -R 75 -- - -- - - -- - -- R -76 R_77 R -78 R -79 I R -80 R -81 I R -82 I _L i _ R -83 11 otal: 14.616 419.I1U 11,U51) 387_M - 31.725 Notes: (1) Derived from Tables 5 through 7 of the Sept 2009 Three Year Post- Commuction Monitoring Repon prepared by ME (2) Derived from ME 2012 "Design Matrix for 6 -Year Renourishment Interval" in Appendix E of the "Collier Country Beaches 2013 -14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary" (3) Volumes derived by Atkins utilizing point files, elevations, and drawings provided by CME 2013 project extents Effective distance developed by Atkins using different length than identified by CPE Effective Distance Equation for Tapers '1R -flan where dg = effective distance used for volume calc in taper da MA =effective distance for adjacent R- Monument d, =taper length Packet Page -446- 2/26/2013 11. E. iii AJ APPENDIX C - GLOSSARY OF TERMS Packet Page -447- 2/26/2013 11. E. 25 Attachment A 2/26/2013 11. E. APPENDIX C — GLOSSARY OF TERMS Advanced Nourishment — Portion of the beach fill design template that is "sacrificial" and is intended to maintain the design standard during the initial renourishment interval of the project. Berm — A plateau between the dune and water line along the beach profile. Design Standard — the minimum design beach width that has been established from a landward baseline (seawall, vegetation line, property line) to the mean high water line (MHWL) for each beach community. Vanderbilt and Naples Beach have a 100 foot design standard, Park Shore has a 85 foot design standard. Equilibrium Toe of Fill (ETOF) — The predicted seaward -most extent to which beach fill placement moves offshore on the existing profile. This is based upon predicted adjustment to the profile shape based on fill material sediment characteristics. Toe of Dune — The location where the dune face transitions to the beach berm. Toe of Slone — The location where the slope of a design feature intersects the existing profile. 6 -year design template — Beach fill project intended to maintain the minimum beach design standard after six years that includes: 1) Volume necessary to achieve design standards 2) Volume necessary to maintain that standard for six years 3) Volume necessary to account for erosion from latest survey to proposed construction start 4) Volume necessary independent of inlet bypass projects 5) Special design conditions (tapers, minimum densities, model results) 2006 unmodified 6 -year design template project (2006 project) — The beach fill design constructed in 2005/2006 intended to maintain a 6 year minimum beach design standard with the five categories stated above, based on composite erosion rates from 1996 to 2004. 2013 6 -year design template project (2013 project) — The currently proposed project with fill volumes based on the August 2012 survey and the composite erosion rate from 1996 to 2004 and 2006 to 2012 combined. Project is scheduled for construction in 2013. I OH:1 V — A measure of slope. "10 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical" Packet Page -448- u 0 a` O u 8 s e a° �i W W O V d O U e 0 U d U m R 07 z CC 6 Z L n O U u u � o n V vi \O M E M E i n E t � U � y O _ s IA 00 u a o 3e O «+ O W O O O C � O � a CWC .L U T ca ti o °tz � o C p L R U U O O d O O C C E In O O r y C to td of d m a, O D L o o o E w QA Cu W r? It O It w O O V] O � s W 3 a m s .L Co C m O p• 3 ?� J 7 O �+ ca Q L _ N �/ C ~ ° OD Ct ° a` 0 0 N H � U U ob to y ^ — N Ln ri cn 7 rn r oo a _ — G Packet Page -449- 2/26/2013 11. E. 7 L O C c 3 O H 2/26/2013 1 1.E. DRAFT Collier County Beach Renourishment Project Bid No. Bid Alternative 1: In Combination with Captiva Island Schedule of Bid Items Bid Item for Nourishment between 11/1/13 to 5/1/14 No. Units Unit Price Subtotal 1. Mobil ization/Demobilization I L.S. 2. Payment and Performance Bond I L.S. 3. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area or Transport Sand from Upland Sand Source, Place and Grade at Vanderbilt Beach 57,000 C.Y. 4. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area or Transport Sand from Upland Sand Source, Place and Grade at Park Shore 112,851 C.Y. 5. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area or Transport Sand from Upland Sand Source, Place and Grade at Naples Beach 230,149 C.Y. 6. Beach Tilling 25,000 L.F. 7. Turbidity Monitoring 1 L.S. 8. Maintenance of Traffic I L.S. 9. Mobilization /Demobilization Turtle Trawler I L.S. 10. Relocation Trawling 8 Day 11. Endangered Species Observer I L.S. 12. Set Buoys for Primary Pipeline Corridor (P1, P2. and P3), Pumpout and Booster L,OCatlotlS 3 L.S. Instructions: 1. Item 8 does riot apply for offshore sand source bidders 2. Items 9, 10. '1 1. and 12 do not apply to upland source bidders 3. Collier County can change the volume by reach +/- 25% with no change in unit cost. The total volume range is 300,000 cy to 500,000 cy with a bid volume of 400,000 cy. TOTAL $ Total Written in Words: Packet Page -450- 2/26/2013 11. E. DRAFT Collier County Beach Renourishment Project Bid No. Bid Alternative 2: In Combination with Longboat Key Schedule of Bid Items Bid Item for Nourishment between 11/1/13 to 5/1/14 No. Units Unit Price Subtotal 1. Mobil ization/Demobilization I L.S. 2. Payment and Performance Bond I L.S. 3. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area or Transport Sand from Upland Sand Source, Place and Grade at Vanderbilt Beach 57,000 C.Y. 4. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area or Transport Sand from Upland Sand Source, Place and Grade at Park Shore 112,851 C.Y. 5. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area or Transport Sand from Upland Sand Source, Place and Grade at Naples Beach 230,149 C.Y. 6. Beach Tilling 25,000 L.F. 7. Turbidity Monitoring I L.S. 8. Maintenance ofTrafflie I L.S. 9. Mobilization /Demobilization Turtle Trawler I L.S. 10. Relocation Tra -,sling 8 Day 11. Endangered Species Observer I I-S. 12. Set Buoys for Primary Pipeline Corridor (P1, P2. and P3), Purnpout and Booster locations 3 L.S. Instructions: 1, Item 8 does not apply for offshore sand source bidders 2. Items 9, 10, 11. and 12 do not apply to upland source bidders 3. Collier County can change the volume by reach +/- 25% with no change in unit cost. The total volume range is 300,000 cy to 500,000 cy with a bid volume of 400,000 cy. TOTAL $ Total Written in Words: Packet Page -451- 2/26/2013 11. E. DRAFT Collier County Beach Renourishment Project Bid No. Bid Alternative 3: In Combination with Captiva Island and Longboat Key Schedule of Bid Items Bid Item for Nourishment between 11/1/13 to 5/1/14 No. Units Unit Price Subtotal 1. Mobil ization/Demobilization I L.S. 2. Payment and Performance Bond I L.S. 3. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area or Transport Sand from Upland Sand Source, Place and Grade at Vanderbilt Beach 57,000 C.Y. 4. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area or Transport Sand from Upland Sand Source, Place and Grade at Park Shore 112,851 C.Y. 5. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area or Transport Sand from Upland Sand Source, Place and Grade at Naples Beach 230,149 C.Y. 6. Beach Tilling 25,000 L.F. 7. Turbidity Monitoring I L.S. 8. Maintenance of Traffic I L.S. 9. Mobilization /Demobilization Turtle Trawler I L.S. 10. Relocation Trawling 8 Day 11. Endangered Species Observer I L.S. 12. Set Buoys for Primary Pipeline Corridor (P1, P2, and P3), Purnpout and Booster Locations 3 L.S. Instructions: 1. Itern 8 does not apply for ofl-shorc sand source bidders 2. Items 9, 10. 11. and 12 do not apply to upland source bidders 3. Collier County can change the volume by reach +/- 25% with no change in unit cost. The total volume range is 300,000 cy to 500,000 cy with a bid volume of 400,000 cy. TOTAL $ Total Written in Words: Packet Page -452- 2/26/2013 11. E. DRAFT Collier County Beach Renourishment Project Bid No. Bid Alternative 4: Extended Construction Period (September 15 - May 30) Schedule of Bid Items Bid Item for Nourishment between 11/1/13 to 5/1/14 No. Units Unit Price Subtotal 1. Mobilization/Demobilization I L.S. 2. Payment and Performance Bond I L.S. 3. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area or Transport Sand from Upland Sand Source, Place and Grade at Vanderbilt Beach 57,000 C.Y. 4. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area or Transport Sand from Upland Sand Source, Place and Grade at Park Shore 112,851 C.Y. 5. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area or Transport Sand from Upland Sand Source, Place and Grade at Naples Beach 230,149 C.Y. 6. Beach Tilling 25,000 L.F. 7. Turbidity Monitoring I L.S. 8. ;Maintenance of Traffic i L.S. 9. Mobilization/Demobilization Turtle Trawler I L.S. 10. Relocation Trav -ling. 8 Day 11. Endangered Species Observer I L.S. 12. Set Buoys for Primarti Pipeline Corridor (P1, P2, and P3), Pumpout and Booster Locations 3 L.S. Instructions: 1. It:ern 8 does not apply for offshore sand source bidders 2. Items 9, 10. 11. and 12 do not apply to upland source bidders 3. Collier County can change the volume by reach +/- 25% with no change in unit cost. The total volume range is 300,000 cy to 500,000 cy with a bid volume of 400,000 cy. TOTAL $ Total Written in Words: Packet Page -453- Attachment C 000405 Collier County Beach Renourishment Bid No. 05-3854 Schedule of Rid Itamre 2/26/2013 11. E. Bid Item No. Units Unit Price Subtotal BASE BID — Construct Beach Fill Hydraulically 1. Mobilization/Demobilization 1 L.S. $2,329,057.00 $2,329,057.00 3. Payment and Performance Bond 1 L.S. $133,418.00 $133,418.00 Beach Fill 4. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area, Place and Grade at Vanderbilt Beach (R22.5- R31 95,337 C.Y. $24.09 $2,296,668.33 5. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area, Place and Grade at Pelican Bay R31 -R37 59,812 C.Y. $27.14 $1,623,297.68 6. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area, Place and Grade at North Park Shore R43.5 -R48 25,705 C.Y. $27.42 $704,831.10 7. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area, Place and Grade at Park Shore R48 -R54.5 132,491 C.Y. $22.56 $2,988,996.96 8. Dredge Sand from Borrow Area, Place and Grade at Naples Beach R58A -R79 312,049 C.Y. $26.06 $8,131,996.94 9. Beach Tilling — Deleted Deleted Deleted Beach Fill Subtotal $ 15,745,791.01 Environmental Monitorin 10. Set Buoys for Pipeline Corridor P1, Pum out & Booster Locations 1 L.S $8,243.00 $8,243.00 11. Set Buoys for Pipeline Corridor P2, Pum out & Booster Locations 1 L.S $8,243.00 $8,243.00 12. Set Buoys for Pipeline Corridor P3, Pum out & Booster Locations 1 L.S $8,243.00 $8,243.00 13. Set Buoys for Pipeline Corridor P4, Pumpout & Booster Locations 1 L.S $0.00 $0.00 14. Turbidity Monitoring 1 L.S. $170,058.00 $170,058.00 Environmental Monitoring Subtotal $194,787.00 Offshore Sea Turtle Monitoring (Hopper Dred a only) 15. Mobilization /Demobilization Turtle Trawler 1 Event $3,642.00 $3,642.00 16. Relocation Trawling 5 Da $3,500.00 $17,500.00 17. Endangered Species Observer 1 L.S $52,117.00 $52,117.00 Sea Turtle Trawling Subtotal $73,259.00 BASE BID — TOTAL $18,476,312.01 Packet Page -454- • o z o o _ " O O X— (D 0- N. O rr O N O Ln O Ln O 3 r. Ln rD O O —h C: rD rD L rD P-0 r+ cD O 0- CD CD =3. (D� V) O ('7 O 3 0- o. O n w w Cr O N� O� 0 0 O rD r+ O CD ov D O C7 T O 3 r+ Packet Page -455- N �K o- rt O� O ;;v rD O 3 r-r CD� Ln 0 tn� Ln IE 0 O CD C O 3 m -v CD �v rD (D' 9 rD CD c+ CD CL ov C7 n O� O 11 r+ O QL 2/26/2013 1 1. E. CD C r� O n O N 0 w N Co CD CD O N� e--F n Packet Page -456- 2/26/2013 11. E. rD rD C O I i i I I I D ^� O D N• � r O• cn cn cn O. m 0- cn Q1 Cr4 * � • n C: O O N a. cn 0 < ry. D ,�. O N -_h w D Q � v 0 C: o ° o a- �- rn I m cn o _ N rt "' '+ O)0 �' iD � :• O*Q V) 0 CL �' Q `� . W O (� Cr v t =3 cn cn D N O �• M CL m _ Oro• r+ cn -+� -P N O n V) cn 110 3 OZ 5 � �• Q �• � D O fD r-r � Ln N � Q 5• N ° Ln prq' M cn M r+ O O1 w In M F–' O f7 O v — rD o '< O o M N r N Q AND ((D Q F p O� 0 4 X 0 N G M =3 Q � M M a) :3 (D CD Ln —1 Q M' CL v O m n Cr O) � M M r�, C M r-+ 0 r+ = m. D � M M 1. Cr n C. :3 � M M r+ Ors n O a� v i cn cD I Packet Page -456- 2/26/2013 11. E. rD rD C Packet Page -457- rrDD 3 (. n � CD r~ � rD ° + < n rF cn rD O :" I Q CL FQ rD :3 r--f (D rD• 3 cn rD O 3 rD Q Q • n v O Ih m O 3 0 rF O NJ W rD rD rr m rF O 2/26/2013 11. E. CD mn C CD 9 r-+ N m CL I I rD 3 rD rD 3 rD rD D -0 O -o "' CL rD Q- -O — V) rD n O m N O rr � rh rD -0 O 0- n N =�; rD cn -a rD O . ° < O-Q a) r�-r � 3 r+ rD 0 E -0 -i rD n rD o 3 _ o O N O :3 a O FY :3 rD 3 O N ° CL O rr rD o rD n rD cn cu Q C 0 cL rD N' r. n rD M rn-I•. � � � rD � ray. r•h o e�-h �� � n rD Q Co O Cl M rD O V) Ln Cr --I O �. (D O rD n < C =3 r+ fD(D a� O p �' 3 Or rt �. .c O W C - N O' � rD Cu n CL rr+ — rr a) • N rh O rD L' r+ rD CL N N _h -h rD rD OrU � — N O CU — O N N N' M CD Packet Page -457- rrDD 3 (. n � CD r~ � rD ° + < n rF cn rD O :" I Q CL FQ rD :3 r--f (D rD• 3 cn rD O 3 rD Q Q • n v O Ih m O 3 0 rF O NJ W rD rD rr m rF O 2/26/2013 11. E. CD mn C CD 9 r-+ N m 2/26/2013 11. E. • • = �• � 0 e�F m — D (D O — CD CD ( rD 3 -1 aq rD �- Lh rD rD o o o p0 O 3 �v 0 r+ CD 3 C O cD M cD —. =3 �' v N CD . O (D O 3 =r O —. � rD O r-r � p � N on O *< r-f- =)7 _. o � � O O � rt to 0 � - -0 O r+ i N N �+ CL • _ • r.... ` • uj • cn e-+ r.+ r-r =)7 (D O (-D n Packet Page -458- Url N O N w CL N O N -P CD n (D CL n r+ O 0 CD O 3 �D Cr eft �D (D D �D n' W O n. CD n W 0 0 O_ 3 CD Cr cD � Cr Ln�- cn CD CD � N rt O O O w O n � L n Vl CAD O O 0 O 0 O O (D O -,3 O - N � W rt O O �CL O N C: N N O CL F" CD O rt CD D LA rt Packet Page -459- 2/26/2013 11. E. • O c (D E —h wo 3 (D �. 0 m Cr cD � Cr Ln�- cn CD CD � N rt O O O w O n � L n Vl CAD O O 0 O 0 O O (D O -,3 O - N � W rt O O �CL O N C: N N O CL F" CD O rt CD D LA rt Packet Page -459- 2/26/2013 11. E. • c O —h < (D �. rt a n 1 O mm 3 rt 3 Co O rD CL 3 -L D O -� W %-A p Ul O O O C7 0 A O 2/26/2013 11. E. Packet Page -460- 0 T 0 M�s 3 N r+ w con O. o m o o Ul O al N O rt '' L' rp 9 o Cil CD 7 m a o a a an d CL (moo W? ry a = O O GQ O t9 aq S w o n a o OF m m O � o 0 0 D C C C d m fi S c O _ w o � w N �n O C n O � O O p O a O S to $ A GQ a w3 o � e � a tD 7 Packet Page -460- 0 T 0 M�s 3 N r+ w m d r ;r C t� p rrn 4 Z aMi N • • • • • • CL N � � a N N W N O w ul a N O m t0 f.+ -1 W 4 fp a VO1 N ^ VNt 00 W O O W Q lu Cu 07 C C � H � C A 2/26/2013 11. E. E4 Z Rs Ti li i ltd- Y 'dal Y Im 11� uh5 h f4^ t Y 1 a� i i f�E; m t�1r'`" �� r u�luNfraiiv f 1 � �_��� - "w.._� �'�, �... -� i - _. -- .`•"FS� err �t _ i f ,yciPt?t7r F�,1LLtFK3 RL�N t'_ r t 3. t � ,_..tom aw- i . i 1 3 b ,Wwwr,�_, 4rxsrxt e+.. ry s r 1 - LL3 u C G t - ..CC ;l. m S660 - i LJ Packet Page -461- Packet Page -462- 2/26/2013 11. E. • • • Un • • • • �. p W O OZ On O r-r CD C7 3 O r+ O -'; rt — C: • aq O -� n N 7C O CD Ln r-F -� 'C -i p p Ln o e-+ < < n : :3 iD O rD � CD n rD cn rDD rD C: p O p e--I+ - CD .30 �_'�< �� `-+ O n n O CD fD 3 m r..h nO X -0 CD r-r N C: Cr rp C, (D n 3 � LA r+ O O r+ � L 3 r -,h rD CDL rD � � to e-+ c� CU n CL W N n CD CD r-+ to O C: r+ N 0 FD N o �. O C7 O aq n rt CD aq Packet Page -462- 2/26/2013 11. E. • • • Un W N 3 O O —� Cr. C- o- z o o 0 _. _. =3 F' O r(D CL 3 O a' D rD CL o CD (D O 0 D O � O cn' r `-1'. O N' O .. a� o• n OT rD Q O �' rD C r�' 3 O 3 o I r rD r) a) O o 3 0 r+ � o Q � v,' rD rD 3 CL 3 CD LA o r (D cD O --N O -' n CD N =3 O =r �+ �. h rD . ORS r-r =)7 - F cn Packet Page -463- 70 rD r- ov C7 n r+ O� O 1 r+ O CL 2/26/2013 11. E. CD C CD f CL Mn C7 (A V) O Mal N O W N .p 00 rD C'1 CD O 3 N� S