The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 04/02/2013 W AGENDA BCC WORKSHOP MEETING April 2 , 2013 Co er County Board of County Commissioners WORKSHOP AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples FL 34112 April 2, 2013 1:00 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners r J1 N'N WORKSHOP AND SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East,3rd Floor Naples FL 34112 April 2,2013 1:00 P.M. Georgia Hiller- BCC Chairwoman; BCC Commissioner,District 2 Tom Henning-BCC Vice-Chairman; BCC Commissioner,District 3 Donna Fiala-BCC Commissioner,District 1; CRAB Vice-Chairman Fred W.Coyle-BCC Commissioner,District 4 Tim Nance-BCC Commissioner,District 5; CRAB Chairman 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. 2014 Beach Renourishment Peer Review and Sand Placement/Quantity 3. Affordable Housing Inventory Report 4. Clam Pass Dredging—This item may require the Board of County Commissioners to take action during this portion of the Special Meeting. 5. Public Comment 6. Adjourn Notice: All persons wishing to speak must turn in a speaker slip. Speakers will receive three(3)minutes. Collier County Ordinance No.2003-53 as amended by Ordinance 2004-05 and 2007-24,requires that all lobbyists shall,before engaging in any lobbying activities(including but not limited to,addressing the Board of County Commissioners), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the Atkins North American peer review of the Coastal Planning and Engineering design for the 2013/14 beach renourishment project and conduct a workshop to determine exact sand volumes to be placed for the 2013/14 project. OBJECTIVE: Approve the peer review of the design for the 2013/14 beach renourishment project and conduct a workshop to establish the exact sand volumes to be placed in the 2013/14 project. CONSIDERATIONS: Atkins North America conducted a peer review of the design beach volumes for the 2013/14 beach renourishment project (Attachment 1). Atkins evaluated Coastal Planning and Engineering's (CPE) 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 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. Staff also shared the peer review with other interested parties in order to address any additional concerns regarding the 2006 template volumes compared to as-built volumes. No material discrepancies were found. The review verified Atkins's conclusions that the 2006 design template within the 2013 proposed project shoreline would require approximately 320,000 CY's to renourish. The 2013 proposed shoreline includes project gaps where no renourishment is required. These gaps did not occur in 2006. In 2006, 8.4 miles of beach was renourished verses 4.7 miles planned in 2013. 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. The Pelican Bay beach segment will not present a problem since the Pelican Bay community will compensate the County for any renourishment that occurs on the private beach portions of Pelican Bay. The area south of Doctors Pass within the City of Naples is the area of greatest concern. Up to 100,000 CY's of material is in question and requires resolution. Staff is recommending a workshop be held and that sand bypassing from Doctors Pass and reduced placement volumes be discussed and considered. This workshop should be held with the Commission and other interested stakeholders after bidding is completed and project funding has been firmed up but prior to the issuance of the notice to proceed. Exclusive of the area south of Doctors Pass, renourishment volumes range between 300,000 CY's to 400,000 CY's with an exact quantity decision required before renourislunent is scheduled to begin on 11/1/2013. Should the Board wish to implement in some project areas, less than a six (6) year design, staff wants to make sure that the board is aware that the locations with higher erosion rates may require interim renourishment. Staff has designed a six (6) year design life for this area. This design life can be reduced if interim renourishments are planned. 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. 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 simple majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action. —CMG RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation to: 1. Approve the Atkins North America peer review of the Coastal Planning and Engineering design for the 2013/14 beach renourishment project. 2. Conduct a workshop to determine exact sand volumes to be placed for the 2013/14 project. Prepared by: Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Attachments: A) Collier County Peer Review of Beach Renourishment Projects, January 2013 B)Power Point Presentation Attachment A COLLIER COUNTY PEER REVIEW OF BEACH RENO um DESIGN Prepared For: Collier County—Coastal Zone Management Department 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive Naples,Florida 34104 3 : r ' t P .'d fix:- a Vi? k a r ai , ,* ynY j , It iiii,, .... I yy 6116 F ti•� 0. ._ �.r ,'+w P N f _ , .. _ .. . _ . ,, JK --s Prepared By: Atkins 4030 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 700 Tampa,FL February 2013 AIKINS Attachment A COLLIER COUNTY PEER REVIEW OF BEACH REN URISHMENT 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 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 g 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 o the design engineer(CPE).Atkins"findings are presented herein. should be directed to Per the County."s scope of work to Atkins the following deliverables are: 1) A detailed explanation of the total quantity of sand to be placed on the beach as 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"s 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 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 III.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 identing 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 • ATKINS Attachment A 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"s 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"s Design Matrix volume calculation is 419,120cy. The 2013 project volumes calculated by Atkins are 31,725cy less than the Design Matrix volume (see Tabte 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 ATKINS Attachment A 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. ATKI N S . Attachment A COLLIER COUNTY = lor a v s:.: .,, PEER REVIEW OF BEACH NOURISHMENT DESIGN TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. ENGINEERING DESIGN REVIEW 4 a. FILL VOLUMES 4 i. Design Matrix 4 ii. Design Drawings 5 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 Attachment A LIST OF FIGURES 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 Figure 3.Comparative Profile at T-62 15 Figure 4. 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 ATKINS Attachment A 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 off'vegetation" to the Mean High Water Line (MHWL, +0.33ft NAVD88): • Vanderbilt: 100 feet • Park Shore: 85 feet • Naples Beach: 100 feet 1 Attachment A 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 Length Reach R-Monuments 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 R-43+600 to R47+500 Park Shore T-50 to R-54+400 8,914 1.7 13.27 118,247 R58A-400 to R-64+500 Naples Beach R-68+200 to R-72+600 10,620 2.0 22.71 241,149 Total: 24,616 4.7 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 Length Reach R-Monuments 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 I 0.0 0.00 I 0 R-43+600 to R47+500 Park Shore T-50 to R-54+400 8,914 j 1.7 13.58 121,074 R58A-400 to R-64+500 Naples Beach R-68+200 to R-72+600 10,620 t 2.0 19.51 207,165 Total: 24,616 4.7 15.74 387,395 Attachment A Figure 1.Vanderbilt,Pelican Bay,Park Shore,and Naples Beach Location Map BAREFOOT BEACH TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE lilGGLNS FASS u < * DELNOR-Y.'EGGt %_ A PROJECT ORLANDO STATE PAR{ a k7 a Li?CATION TAM1IAA ATLANTIC i �� OCEAN `'_ I HENDRY CO. 'N 4 BCCA 1 LEE - • RATON YANDERBIL C C°" _—''� RILA!.il v?CO VANDERBILT I BEACH eo l s7.' Ct. �R A �,, F- �'R$4 F MONROEGO, FYCO Y' , ,' \ I �k MEXICO ,a es ' F PELICAN _ - - °_, _. _....._ 1 ''' BAY 1 ,\ .i u t \ PARK ---\ I ti� SHORE \ CLAM PASS - .) \ " F � tiizi PERMITTED " N cnm v6.4nooa PIPELINE CORRIDOR ! F f tF -- / .---- % � -I I — --,----- ----1 _= & -n .,:0 PARK SHORE ROPOSED aPELINE. DOCT4RSP..ASS...1 1♦� sRa'�6 ORRIDOR 4 20' CONTOUR ' r' i „t- 0 NAPLES sRI156 NAPLES .?" -_- I, --1 I. y v;cam � � yy- .k�Y /� R70 — . ,ER 33 L....,,_--- " la 7t ` 1-----\1 LEGEND: t." : —�--- P EMITTED-PIPELINE CORRIDOE - It k ------.. _ PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR - - - — I___ J PROJECT LIMITS Q PROPOSED FILL AREAS GULF rppry� �� m PROPOSED NEARS HORE OF ,1' ✓ OPERATIONAL AREAS ® PERMITTED OFFSHORE MEXICO � 7 ROYAL �, OPERATIONAL AREAS c'3 MO FDEP hIONIRAENTS ("g� : . Go?cJc7N PASS S .` NOTE,$: 1. COL RIJIIA1 ES ARE IN BEET \ n �. 3A,LO ON FLORIDAST.A.TE K R 0`�41X0 800(,�, PLME COORDINATE SYSTEM, g 1 ft ti, l C \ A.1 ZONE,NORTH AMMAN - `� Y r$ DA11JMOF15363{NAOS:). \4 'N ,rA u GRAFHIC SCALE INFT 2. FILLINIDTHS ARE NOT TOSCALE. i • u < (CPE,2012) Attachment A II. ENGINEERING DESIGN REVIEW A. FILL VOLUMES 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(+4.0ft 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: Amok 4 Attachment A • 1996 to 2004; and • • 2006 to 2012 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"s 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"s Design Matrix at R-58A and R-58. The Doctors 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 Rrovided 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"s 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 5 Attachment A 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"s 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. 6 Attachment A Table 3. Comparison Summary of Design Matrix Volumes and Design Drawing Volumes Design Volume Lengthtll Reach R-Monuments b CPE Matrix(1) Atkins Volumes(2) (FT) I(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 59,156 Pelican Bay - 0 0.0 0.00 0 0.00 0 R-43+600 to R47+500 Park Shore T-50 to R-54+400 8,914 1.7 13.27 118,247 13.58 121,074 R58A-400 to R-64+500 Naples Beach 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 Interval"in AppendixE 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 11 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. 4n some-eases;during the-design process-,-intensive numerical modeling is-eondueted-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 Attachment A 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. 8 • Attachment A 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 Profile at R-59 derived from CPE drawing 1._) - R-59 --- AUG05T 201: CONST UC'RCM! - - - EQUILIBR'UM ' C LE 10 — : z:5l.%t�`s HARIBOTTOV J 5.1 SLOPE EL. = F-1. EL. - 5.0 FT. ■ L_ 1 f:_ _ Equilibrium Toe of Fill Erosion Landward Edge of dez Hardbottom -1 — Accretion _15 1 I I I 1 I 100 200 .500 400• 500 ,,o DISTANCE FROM MONUMENT (FEET) 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. 9 • Attachment A 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 Attachment A 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 renourishment; 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, calculated b y--C P R, is-449,120 e A comparison ofthe-se plumes 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 Attachment A Table 4. Comparison of 2013 Project Design Matrix and Design Drawing Volumes Length (I) Reach R-Monuments Design Volume Matrix(1) Atkins Volumes(2) Difference (FT) 1(MILES) (CY/FT)! (CY) .(CYIFT)) (CY) (CY/FT) (CY) Vanderbilt R-25+500 to R-30+500 5,082 I 1.0 11.75 59,724 11.64 1 59,156 0.11 568 Pelican Bay - 0 0.0 0.00 I 0 0.00 I 0 0.00 I 0 R-43+600 to R47+500 1 I Park Shore T-50 to R-54+400 8,914 1.7 13.27 1 118,247 13.58 121,074 -0.32 -2,827 R58A-400 to R-64+500 Naples Beach R-68+200 to R-72+600 10,620 2.0 22.71 1 241,149 19.51 1 207,165 3.20 33,984 Total: 24,6161 4.7 17.03 1419,120 15.74 1387,395 1.29 1 31,725 Notes: (1)Derived from CP&E 2012"Design Matrix for 6-Year Renourishment Interval" in AppendixE 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 CPE"s design matrix for the 2013 beach fill project of 419,000cy. Table 5. Summary of 2006 Project Volumes Volume Lengths�1 Reach R-Monuments y As Built Rebuild on 2012 Surveys(3) (FT) 1(MILES) (CY/FT)I (CY) (CY/FT) (CV) Vanderbilt R-22 to R-31 8,798 1.7 13.81 121,487 8.91 78,430 Pelican Bay R-31 to R-37 6,102 1.2 9.33 I 56,955 3.42 I 20,850 Park Shore R-45 to R-55 10,543 2.0 13.44 I 141,739 11.17 I 117,810 Naples Beach R-58A to R-79 18,935 3.6 18.35 I 347,381 10.08 190,915 Total: 44,378 8.4 15.04 667,562 9.19 I 408,005 Notes: (2)Derived from CP&E 2012"Design Matrix for 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 on, , Attachment A 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"s 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"s 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 10H:1V slope to existing grade while the 2006 design template reflects a 15H:1V slope down to existing grade. The 2006 template included a compound beach fill slope that transitioned from a 10H:1V slope to a 15H:1V slope at MSL. The 2013 slope keeps a consistent 10H:1V 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 10H:1V 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 Attachment A 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. xmr 14 Attachment A Figure 3. Comparative Profile at T-62 T-62 PROFILE 20- 20 2006 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE LANDWARD CREST EL.3.7'(NAVD 88)J 1 2013 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE 1 LANDWARD CREST EL.4.0'(NAVD 88) 10- 10 2006 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE m SEAWARD CREST EL.2.7'(NAVD 88) 2013 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE - I SEAWARD CREST EL.3.0'(NAVD 88) i -I Z 0 -0 0 u. -n z tir � hOo -20= 4 __ - .L-20 CROSS SECTIONAL VOLUME: ®2006(8.9 CUBIC YARDS) 2013(18.0 CUBIC YARDS) -30 i -- r - r r - i — - - r-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 Attachment A identified as hotspots based upon the composite erosion rates within CPE"s 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 10H:1 V slope to a 15H:1 V slope at MSL. The 2013 slope keeps a consistent 10H: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 R-25 PROFILE 20' - --- - f-20 UPPER BERM CREST - - - 1( `51-1:1V SLOPE! {{ 10 LOWER BERM CREST- t ---I 10 r- 9 1 1041:1V SLOPE RPI 211,11 ity!I�L�I3) 6 -10 -10 I -20- _ 20 St I -30, ---'- --t -r --i t - - i - -30 0+00 2+00 4+00 5+00 8+00 10+00 12+00 14+00 LEGEND: ---EXISTING GROUND ---MEAN HIGH WATER(0.33'NAVD88) ---2006 DESIGN BEACH FILL TEMPLATE -- -4 MEAN LOW WATER(-1.66 NAVD88) -2013 DESIGN BEACH FILL TEMPLATE 1M.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. • 16 Attachment A Table 6. Comparison of 2006 design volume to 2013 design volume with 2013 project extents Length c1) Volume Reach R-Monuments b 2006 Design(I) 2013 Design(1) Difference (FT) l(MILES) (CY/FT)I (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 I 0.0 0 R-43+600 to R47+500 Park Shore T-50 to R-54+400 8,914 1.7 12.1 107,567_ 13.6 121,074 1.5 13,507 R58A-400 to R-64+500 Naples Beach R-68+200 to R-72+600 10,620 2.0 13.5 143,888 19.5 207,165 6.0 63,277 Total: 24,616 4.7 13.03 320,716 15.74 387,395 2.71 66,679 Notes: (1)Volumes derived by Atkins utilizing XYZ point files,elevations,and drawings provided by CP&E 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 indicate d-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 • Attachment A Figure 5. Vanderbilt comparative plots of design volumes for 2006 design and 2013 design CIO 25.000 - --- ---North Vanderbilt south E- (2013 Project Area) ---> 20.000 I_ ___.__ /‘hilathirilt_________________):..__- 15.000 -----— - — Z I s 10,000 3.000 I /NetVomeDIreZ1O,1O5 CY 0.25 5-25 paper) 5•27 5-28 0-25 R•30(Taper) 5-11 ft-Monument ■ 2006 Volume Greater than 2013 . 2013 Volume Greater than 2006 —Composite Erosion al Figure 6. Park Shore comparative plots of design volumes for 2006 design and 2013 design 35,000. _._._. _ _— —._ —_—_— orth Park Shore } South (2013 Project Area) 30,000 -- "Gap,r 1 1< >1 25,030 I I 20,000 - I_ _ 1 — L ls,o0o 1 r 4 • I I ,. I 10000 — I N 02 I •O. 5.000 i E - -- / -- rol Net Volume Difference:+13,507CY Q Sr' '?1 - \ th l''' \ „E• 7zs y\ y\ y'L \ �\ �h y� y1 `Y 2 .pQ Q Q• Si4° P 4' \.,G P C ,�.,G ? T T Gt:� or ApC o< y0\ ya\ c) O 5-Monument ■ 2006Voistme Greater than 2013 - 2013 Volume Greatarthan 2006 --Composite Erosion 18 I Attachment A Figure 7.Naples comparative plots of design volumes for 2006 design and 2013 design 50400 --- ---- North ------- — South <-- Naples --* 45.000 < (-20-13-Project-Area) --- ) – I I « „ I ,0.000 -- ---- ---1---Gap___ 1 _—____.__________ K >1 :5,000 —— — I — 1 --+___------- I 1 I 1 30 000 1--" I E I 1 '5,000 ____ _._. • _1_ —` 1– _____---- I I I I I 20,000 — -r .I I I 15.000 - I I I I I I I 20.000 .-_—_--`-- — — I _ I 5000 "— Net Volume Difference:+63,277CY — a — — – – — — e' ea gF' y'b 45 00 b1 61. 45 a� 45 r,E 4% 45 .,Y .t0 ‘1 .\ `^s h 'L 43` 4 C C' 1 ft-Monument ■ 2000 Volume Greater than 2013 . 2013 Volume Greater than 2006 --composite E rosion IV. DESIGN APPROACH EVALUATION In order to evaluate the expected efficacy of the 2013 project design, Atkins evaluated CPE"s 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 CPE"s 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 0 provided by CPE; and (b) effective distances identified in the Design Matrix. Atkins modified 19 Attachment A the effective distances for the tapers in CPE"s Design Matrix based on the design drawings. The 110 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`Ss 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"s 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 . Attachment A . 0density (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. C 9 t i t i 0 /1 Attachment A 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 Attachment A 1 APPENDIX A—PLAN VIEW AND COMPARATIVE PROFILES 1 Q Cla ga qBq yiy 73 ••••■& ;:■:;=1:V...A.....a.ay.kr w/A2AN•11.10111■21.12-212. MIK 20-a21. Attachment A › I 03 I 0 i o I ril 1_, m I 0 I I MATCHLINE . C-301 I ) MATCH LINE MATCHLINE --- C-300 1 MATCHLINE 1, ; 1 1 I----_ I: I . o ■,"1 ,'Fr',•t o (( -...... #' , ■ I I . : 1 r- . F----------------I - . , — I--—---- . , . . .- 1 . ; 1,:. , ; , __I . .. , • :.., , ..... ._... • _ : .4 • ... I .. . -. ' --1 I I : . : . I 1?1 11 W I 113 , 1 .... t , -) 1 -( 1 1 . 1 ,, 1 ' _„1 ,----, ; I [Jo' ._, _ , 1 , ,, , :,, , i / 1 ••' . M '.. •4 .V , \k- s : 2 t!):,..- .,• E. I •-i ) I 1'; ' • '..`"...i ".•,,i.: • , I 2 .. ,'• 0 / , 1 I, m , _. . , = ...... ——— mr- I _ _, .-- , u) cri 0 < \ ■ 0 CI xi CD ——— C— 1 II r- 0 ■_._ .-- ) — 1— -0 - -0 -0 ) • -0 • . I m c:s - . . , 0 - • m I ,,.1-"•••, s, CD qM ,, 0 4. • t ..1 ts0 ..."\ s..) 0 C:' I . ( I > . l i, -0,:. , -0 m , , _ I S'' \‘ 0 x > o 0 's, / (------J 's I , ; x i - ,-, i ., — 1 , F. , :, › i4„,a,. , 1 I IF I „.. --1 m _, .., ,___ -I__,``,--- ,—_< m 1 1 , co 0 m m 1\3 I'si to 1\3 73 o0 ( ‘,.., ' nioo 8 0 0 8 › x Elf I x -0 i / --; > z c o co oa ca cr) Z 0 . • I ! = O r- 1 ° c°F(I) =to co co 0 .) I _ 7„, ,T —I ETD 5 > mmmm -,,n1 . I- - - .,, 1\3 1 ---, , , Hi t -P. ....-7_1 z 7:, >> > ....,--0 . '=— + m -) ■ ( zr oc> oonoo„; : .i----.*” 1 =. I g o 0 1 0 co i ii ' I C' 0 1_,0 z , ... ,..0 71 11 71 C . C 1 ), '\ = z m co-c50 Z _I-- 0 ' . I-- ' 4 l. ,--, ■ , * 0)z -1 --I --I 2 • ,, 0 7:1 r- r- 1- m Z .. ci. $4, , 1 , . • . >002E00)71Z ° 4 . C ( t' . I- I M I , \ -< 0) m m C) -. F d)- I- I , _ .., _ 5 `', , -, H i I__ I I _... COLLIER COUNTY CI e.3 - ! X COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING I I ••■• REPORT-PEER REVIEW o ====..,•,, PROJECT DESIGN- 4 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-VANDERBILT ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: > I 0 I 0 I o I T 1 m I I 1 ".=.04.........................M.-. ---'—KR Attachment A No I D I m , � 1`1 I I N ', ✓ DZOCOc°DwwrnZO L I w I _ w F W i w co co m m T`' - D L DOOOwcn-nzZ �` , -0 C)mr, mr0-Iy —, � � a 1. O1 ) w„ m 0 7 —L I `� m rr m Z > 0 ' R 0,?0 Q m 0 L -1 tgi, " * , r Z \` X - et ate,, C IAt J . Vim_ _ I . WO `x: r '". ''140° e.. -- . I *Tl �� w I o o .. 4.40r40":00.,.... '. ,, =— I 0) ' w j R-029.4 P 5 - ,I ° I p -1 • p 0 I JI I ?„ I NE r _r--- — I I —D 1 `r II: II o _ i m 1M / / l Cn U G7 c ,, i I r0 /"' w C7 m m I .' I m o w m w = W I _ I % !_• -- -, ° 0 I — m UJ I rl 2 11 1 z w n 1 n i o r- I m 2 °- m I u I--—— 8 02 I ) I I c' 0) 1 _o I I i MATCHLINE r—'I I I C-301 MATCHLINE MATCHLINE -- C-300; f C-300 , MATCHLINE C ''','1 i i 1 = ::1 > -"`"' COLLIER COUNTY I 3800 N.HORSESHOE ORM 2 -o, NAPLES.FL 54106 cl _ x COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING _ a - REPORT-PEER REVIEW Z ,,,,, . , PROJECT DESIGN- "� I p .` BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-VANDERBILT ,�„„,,a f,:,k.,.k,,,,,, " „,,. �'"I ORIGINAL ISSDEDZDAT=: v I 5 I 0 I D I 7 I 7 I 0 I T bay Us 1..--.-.ha-�..1,.mw.,...0-=-. �..0-.- Attachment A I 7 I 0 I I 7 I 0 I = ATCHLINE _ C-303 MATCHLINE ATCHLINE I I C-302 MATCHLINE "i. zi 1101111111 (�/ < :A %I ■ \I O m it I i ill I M 1 1 I -,- ;I IO ,n v7 ) iir7 II IIM /-7-------/..j 1 MI. 1 I __ ,\j Cr R-044 7 ■`r"� I I _° m o \I �l! `vim / LT, / i 07 in 0 ID 70 M W z l 0 n �, II n co D g r cp m / l C, \ 8 o N I r \ o � I � i 0�3p (• ') G7ommNrvrvtv77mz - I I '� 0 0 0 0 0 DOZOc0°cwwrnz0 II _ .` = ter-� 2CO W CO mr�r 1l% l"Ea i0c> 00000 , ( m 00 -10coxiiz ,) m _ m z O m n „c � cnOOH� 1- rrrr�r7C > OOOa1OZoo I cam r I O r O 70 C Fa cnmm nm I (j F- r fl m H H I C ::_ = ' !x "`"• COLLIER COUNTY I ' - _ I ---- :Will L > 2800 N.NORSESNOE DRIVE 3 R - NAPLES.FL 04104 W A COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING N REPORT-PEER REVIEW % r r m E VI .,. PROJECT DESIGN- �d,. � ana.__, n oP r BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-PARK SHORE s,,,, „..n,rt�,a , � ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: D I ID I 0 1 0 I m I 11 I 0 I I re■liZLHEZAHHI.\ORR Iamb 010.1■■.■••i.ty1H1Hr YARY1.1UNWCis 10 4 SO—.,..„. Attachment A › to I 0 I 0 1 ni I 7 I 0 I I "TCHTINE ' = 4443 AM . I C-304 /. MATCHLINE - t 9, - , ff.11.TiCaLINB 1011kipor v - -id .' ' :-- 1 1 C-303 (.. MATCHLINE t4 ., .. N....... ' ' I .... I I .. 0 • ..., ** --- . ... - ' 4 , 6 --- • _ . , \ 1■ I t,) \, 8 I a] _ N I —'v I ,). \ .' i 4" • l'.4 1 1 I , . : I 0 2 Fiji / > ; m F \ -0 I— r'l* : I XI -.1 _ m E 1 /-'' `• \ 7:1 I _ I X MIR > ... R-047 -1 > . \.--) m ( *tr. - - „,,,,. •, ; i' --- .., . , sr., I g 9 . i 5, ., .,,\, ... !I 4U1414 A , * A . MI =..-- I -- co mC 1 C4 cn co V-- .. • vt Arie,?, . .. EN .... . ■ ... "....*'.., ..P . , -01 -■• 1 , I ) ) '' I .. .,••••;, p• ■.■ X • , ,' c !. t f/ M . I _ , I 2m ) _ Lmit cn Cn 0 i . ---.. m 1 L, \- , rj; 1 i■ , 0 , 1 0, H 1 , al: < 1 --- -- -N- _.---, . , _, . im, / ‘,__-) 0, _ 0 I / > > L. -.. -0 i — , — I ) 1 ii m 8 cp GERIV 1 1 m t ,1 0 II o ' I ITI , ,,:- 1 1 mom , / I i •. _ I a,„,r,,. . 1 ,.,,,,• 1 cs, . % ,• - --....-...6.....,..„0.,,,5 -1, , =. •• ..___., 4 ... ,■.,_4, r- ' . — -1 — 1 ,_,--, -.f 1 ' ir- itis - ' vf- Q, _. ...... , l- 1 1 I ,-- z ,, . , [17 ','=== ‘-:-T7 \., .., co o m m -0 0 t ''' 01007CISC'C'S>7Z) '1 1! ' -k'. i ' L ' -- --, w › ... co E.,,,i-,)°,0 .„ 4; , , , '---.1 'WM 0 coFm =0":, 030-0 I., r----..--17,,S, [II 114•11 I ' . i 11 i °C> 00000- "...alma,' ” "` * rr 1/4-Itt.-• , _ ) - _,01 •• / / 11 \ R3,X' Ci)Z—I rl r-F- ,-rt,,e ,••-•••,•,, , 1 r , , / I\ `-----,-1 I = ■ ( '' Omr- rril- 0-1 ° --- I i',:i C ::-■%" i.,r——i 1p -II= I ..... \ 44' AEI)7... I / / -...J I 0_ '*1 iil.r=',.= 0 co H .. / .___i ...\ -H .__,../ -/ _ I - — MATCHLINE C-303 MATCHLINE MATCHLINE' I /1 , E. --.=.• C-302 MATCHLINE COLLIER COUNTY 7n.HormttLmn e.ex.H.rmarrHow•E tN.Rs He■ . I Hr.Ho in Hs co,neni i csemi p.m..*HaJ enHets,,Hrauon c A I NAPLES COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING =.1.,.=t —=.. c E ... — REPORT-PEER REVIEW V1::"?‘Tj°1'1:1-7rt=t',==,. A -7,;.=--c, - Z PROJECT DESIGN- a-,;.;...-=r,7--;-:-"r7-7-1.-:".r: Al • LA BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-PARK SHORE ;``j;,7'„,7, ,J;ZZL':'"'"`"''"'''''''`"'-'" r"'''''"-'' f 1° I ORIMNAL ISSLL I CO I 0 I 0 I_ 71 I -n I I I '15■■■■■=640.,,ca.bm.........f........7,,,..1...r sa,,-.-., ...at a.-1.1.1 Attachment A > I 7 II 0 I = 1 C-304 .. MATCHLINE 1. I C-305 -_, t ,— ( kMA±CHLINE ATCHLINE / \ -----, ,..r..M" )NTCHLINE IIM \ : ,.. -._ • -----__ I 7 . , ..,, \\ I ii-_,_ t,- I f, I I ■__ — -ii ' , . -, , *'S't ., I I ,t iv... ',' ?' C'.! - '' ' ''--C.'''',... I ,7 -- ..• c- ,k ... . -.5..,..4-., ., I ...;........ . --„. 40-04. :,4, .,, i ... . . . (-, ..,.. _, ..i,„ ..„.....;,.., . - -10.460 1,,,. ..,..A.......„.e....r.,,,, I I - .›.,., ,... ......... .............................., , ,c t4,'"'l ,, :1111:',4 tiflitk , "it•-•,,--St.-",)1, .3* 1 .,.... .,4 ' I , „rt - , ' .. rex:- , • -1) 4, % . t, ,te % 1 I I --) ./ , , ..4 '-'-'- I' i ) • / I 1 , , r" "II ( / i - - -' / ■' ' I I \ I I ■ , . ... , A I I I I - - 1 1 - ,. .. ._., I . _J A •• , \ .t. , .III; 1, 0 I •II.II ;1*. , ' • ....- .4, : ,_. .1 t , „I:,4 .4: ----_ ‘,.., 4,,,.-o -;• '-4 I - , 0 (A. (...rf - G) ;,14.: „Irt c,•-f-• A t.. 7, i .4 r ,r .4'' ----.' `■ ‘. -,1:, ,.. > ,,, 'ff''' ' 73 — ' . 410011; \ I M i . ._..,. . \ I I 1 .. r, _ - c, r , ' ,_ ,. 1 I (n - , , , -.., 0): > ■ I ; .._,., __,, / ) ( ' o. „,„,/ . ,. 11, ■ --, 1' i•-,A7 I ) I ■ -'-'-- ( , ‘ ' ' -', I I 8 ,,,,) ), \ - ---..„ . . , irt, ..,*.....' _-_, - -1:* •;Pler-''''' .- > 0) I cu __ N-JAP1 ,,,,•41',. •• - .„. - - ,- \ _ _ • t. . „ • L-----1- 'r*'**.' ''' .- '''- I 33 1;>1 i / \ ) HuTn ! ,> : Ei ,' --.:;,-*i.:,-, ,i - ,- . 0 0 , ., , „, , , x . ,f, e , 1 1 gi im , .: - . . , , .- . • , • : . 1 ›, 'F / ---■ r- ,./... M > ZCOC.Oco w a-) Z 0 „Li I ,— m I 1 I cS f , . H ( _ + , , ,N,...4-,-----,,- om b" om z- H°11 11 11 0 ,. Ci) H Z " C ''. 1 H H I— r- IT' Z ., / R-048 V Z , I i H -- 0 (-) i- 000 , ........----,.--• I c , . . _ ,. - t..-i„,=. , up m 1 cr) 71 M 0 pj .- u) I I — . MATCHLINE I I I C-304 / MATCHLINE _ 1 I C-303 / MATCHLINE MATCHLINE \ ... .i....... 1 COLLIER COUNTY „,,,,,,„,„•,.„„,„,„„„,„„„,„.„ .1 i I 280I1 N.HORSESHOE DinVE , I NAPLES FL UTNE A I 0 e 9 a _ 8, 1 X.... Q m ,_8 ''COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING r.'"".1..,,-, REPORT-PEER REVIEW ...., 4.... 44 1 A i .1, • _-e, „..scs.akm.,.., r.e_l■e,unr.,a c bell,71C I:1Y COC,Iltn-, 7, Z -,-, -•:--, PROJECT DESIGN 1. „. .,....... NAL ISSUED D : I '• I VII BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-PARK SHORE :1`..=:.':;,::,==.''''' ' ' ----- - ' ORIGI ATE'- B 0 • 1 0 / al • I 0 i I ::41=1. 4....halls. ...•---�—•- �.-s Attachment A 1 0 l D I 0 P , 1 0 1 I MA - '1." _ t C-306 / MATCHLINE MATCHLINE- .-'- '`i�.`. t I C-305 \ MATCHLINE t I . 9 / II ,h . �LL 1 O \I \ / %/ 1 i J \J 1 _ . IQ R 052 ': 1 III ii. . .••.� • 1 is I � t 0z I _ 1 "1- — It ,. ./„___/- CD I 3. / o �, .` y I r-, — o I I ----'— - n - ac G7 , % 1-. m t m = R-0510 // ,\I 0 a. \. t O \- II" n \ _ 7--1 *t°'I o D t : ,. cn a I r ZCOcowwrnZO w m t 1 4X '.1 = I [�i,mOOO� i=111180 ,. ' 0)11' 1 t, `•_n z Z ��7 rrrmz • I 'ii'i' 1 • 1 A omOr7' mrOHD �� ~' , J * Ill 001- 7>0 7300 .l7z1 £t. °4't I N m,lm nmm a, I 1 = 1 1- m cn -1 Z p. ,l � ^ l MATCHLINE . * t l= 4 C-305 - --r ' ( IvlAACHLINE C) MATCHLINE "' _ C-304 -----/ ,l ATCHLINE """' COLLIER COUNTY \ FAQ 6110 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE 4 ,. ..o, NAPLES.FL 34106 9 u x COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING _ A N _ REPORT-PEER REVIEW - A L. PROJECT DESIGN- >,,,, >,. • Y .�.oE1�> I AI , „_-.m,,, BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-PARK SHORE .U„�<..� <s� �..., ,., ['I ORIGIA..LISSU=_D DATE I T I 0 I 0 I , 1 , J 0 I i =.ei � .-' -rd. .1-1 - Attachment A D 1 m I 0 1 a 1 m 1 m 1 0 I 1 �y . s `'` �, J' a I ... ) I \ = I. j ° ■ CO li `\ ■ ) r 1 I it j ; I r i l — 1 I I :% \ \\ rm its j R 054 0 \ /, I I 1 ' _ ( , wr : CD 01 CD I ( , i I 1 o ('\•,j .i- -' N v I I I m `1 -1 f 1 II m W = 1 �, C) r") I I n ° I I - II (n _< -- m O D O I b (' /�l i— o m I % j' 1 1 /i 1 H --7 — I O n - r'`;\ / — : it co o m m 7J 1 I i I m 1 I ) I . , \ /..../1, 7111 1 im co 0 m m n) Iv NJ n) 30 -D z C7'--1 o m D°zpc �oc°�fl�wrnzo \." / °cipFw = mmcomm I;z mODmmm ncDZpnnnp „ I I � �:� /; 00-i -- cam •---,t , m m mp0 n 1111 c � ---- R053 "' - ° I 'LI) o m Z--I �7�rrrmz !� /�� 1 LIT] C DOp co cn -nz0 Im �^ mk, OrnrKmrp-1 > - ,1,i . 00 r- 7300 70 ,. 1 r._ $ m Z m 11 I J 7zi IQ 0) M m n m I t� - MATCHLINE I .i`Ulla I C-306 / MATCHLINE MATCHLINE I 1 I C-305 \ MATCHLINE ell / COLLIER COUNTY . ,� •- 9 2800 N NAPLES, L 341 DRNE APLES FL Se104 wamrurwti _ n COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING `s"~ `.`m+:°'°"'°'°'�°"=-,. A 0 _ §, REPORT-PEER REVIEW „a, '.°,�°n'°.„„' ,",�„°...e;'" A I y.: PROJECT DESIGN- r..a",.. :..,n..�>.,.s °. _- • .,°,r BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-PARK SHORE ""' �.I ORIGINAL onrE: .. ...1.o.�� . I m I .-n I n I i • " -b.1--.k— — �.so-am, Attachment A 1 m I 0 I 0 m I , I C) , f l MATCHLINE I C-308 __� ' MATCHLINE MATCHLINE 1 N C-307 w ••CHLINE ----- R-059 e ` `,l _ 1 j \ , m_ ` ,') 1 -ID \Ili DO nt _ I m / — h 1 � /%,� Boa / r,� j z : , ,... - --- y• ,."..) s'.\\ ` ' T 8a. M , o \ ° OEA,o \ o D 1 11=111 m \ 1 \ \ L� �r m \ i w co c)m m o 0 0 0 77 -0 0 /i—'----1 u W I> 77 =�r-Cn 20003 CO mm �// ' wODmmm c)cDn0nnn0R —", nn -1 W 2222 — m mHmOOmm ncD7 __---------- z (I) -Z1 _A PPP�O m Z-177c)rrrmZ DO O T omrr �mrOZHD 1,-- I wm O r O p 7.1 I ,` T z N \ I N m F m \ z I ^� -1 / \ I /d ..• T \ I — r,,err • ` 1 - ■1 " COLLIER COUNTY '-I 1 I ` 3500 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE I NAPLES,FL 3e104 I nc COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING -'« a I _ _ - REPORT-PEER REVIEW „°e '''' "".".'°°`;,'...-'-°'r'„ ,Ip�l� I PROJECT DESIGN- - -n.w,x.« q;a L`.x_.t yv -�l I _5�,' BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES ,...„,»,«,�,,,, ,,,E s IT I ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: > I m I 0 I 0 I rl J , I U I I .�=' -�---^-nel~Pag�-loisiolp.11411. M--O-..- Attachment A r I a I 0 I 0 I I 7 I 0 I ('`MATCHLINE I C-309 MATCHLINE MMI J MATCHLINE C-308 LL MATCH HLINE INE I I I /,, [ 1___1 I—---:1 ....""=--i n...- i c .. 'Is; r I __.14 Carl a`• I 1 j -- cr. -°.-0,d I Eli , R o ' 1 (% 0 0 d. 1 111 o S ��I �; al a C_ �I l'\ I-- 1L U) W m ) ' i m J a I I 1 I h r c ( — .G AL, I n 1 m '= I `�• 0 i ■ ■ 1 0 n _ o L 4-Q60 , - 1 i < _ li 0 C..) °0 D 1 ,I -0 m 1 M -= O A r =ma w — o I — 11 11 gym ! Im % o "3 I DI2 r �, (- � II �� I IM 1 I \ \ -.. w wnmmts.)mIvvDJ-00 1 �. ✓ 1w 000000 > OZ C O w W W W Z OD 1L ', %, F.- 2 07 07 co 1 � Cm�7O2°888 —I 11 I 2 „ ,,o4oE7222C)-< 1 I i m. CD 0 0 2 O r r r c 0 1 ti I :I \ 1,�.-/ > oo -,IncnTzo is I� J nor mOO Z7 1 L-,\ ro 0mm _I m -0 j II MATCHLINE I 1 ' P-1 C-308 LL .../ i' MATCHLINE MATCHLINE I NM C-307 W r\_ N}ATCHLINE • COLLIER COUNTY , 3800 N.HORSESHOE DRIP=_ ^•�n.V.....�a. S —1 NAPLES.FL 34154 *_a m+ww pie ,..we..e.a.rar A _ eww.ar.ea.=w 9 X '=COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING "....."«°""w"CPw.."..° .: .. "°v;, w REPORT-PEER REVIEW D = "*, -„ ` - Ao r - - Z H PROJECT DESIGN- ....... , A BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES n �c'1 I 1 .,. ORIGINAL DATE:� I C I 0 I E ( � I I I.e.imc Wm}W•ir imik Ilm■■••(FM'1.460,14.Y.Ms...Y. .....2.-... Attachment A > 1 0 I 0 1 o 1 m 1 m 1 0 1 m MATCHLINE r 1 Ii C-310 . l , 't /------KA AlC H L I N E MATCHLINE ,z1 C-309 I •-- MATCHLINE [-- _.—___.— = = ——----I I , _ L. Si I , E "a I j , i' : 1 ' = J. 4`. „4„, IP : $i',- ., ',* . ,j0r■• ' MI .'-•010-401./10All a 1 -,,,, - i • 1 . -,..- 1 - , 14' ' -.,.: i 1 ,.„es_ ...,,„ 1 . , c 1.. ' ---...„, r, 41.1 1 1 1.._ I , . 1 , 1 ; a r/i rri ViO 5 M rM '\__J ) i NI AV./4 i I , \ . „ : \ '- \ (1 I 6- ru ', — I i 1 . \ c., I .,___ .., I— jIlt 1 IIIII I 'I, , , - , kV fLI R-063 .v. 1 II (;) -) 4 , ' c ' 1 . 1 %-' ( . 7 ----- Izi \ 0) - cn G) 1 . !t1 O) 1 V — _ __,. i o 0 I o 0: r- c2 M I 0 7 , m ci 7 : F cl-) m - r- - c) 20 _ o . oi *e. „1 I I_ 1 mr- 3 8 . .• 0 . - 11 . C> I 0 z-, i , 1 I Nrii I Im . c) ; 3-.1 I .. z < ; . au 0 m ni 1.3 1..3 r.,na 70 -0 0 Cnin H. ,__ w cn Dzc0,080.,0-)zo 3 ( I- — 7 , 1-4 Ea Ei>rnmmrnm m , 1 ' >(-7' I 7-062 \-2. — C)-->c-3 0 0 C) 0 c) - I ' 0 0-I -- co 1 1 2 -‹ I \ \ __ -7 mm 00 OO Z I m 0)5 0 2! _,:2:2 :2 C= c) L___ , , m z r, >0 0 —co 0) -n z 1 , m r- 0---I D 1 mi 8 mo r-r I I' _L1 I , ,. I— 1 F 7ZI === 1 --\ r- m Z ___._ CD -I I % \ --I __I 7,- ..-... s — MATCHLINE 1 ,i C-309 MATCT-ILINE MATCHLINE I ' I C-308 MATCHLINE 1 COLLIER COUNTY -_:„,i ■ 1 1 i > 2500 N.HORSESHOE DR.,' L.1 I I NAPLES.FL 34104 4' I .A 9 MI I'IICOLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING =::::=,..-.•=2,,,,==t 1r, . . === • • '--4: - REPORT-PEER REVIEW , 1 Z mcgay.ofircinfornalloncent,entneretanete.-:e.herremalre I PROJECT DESIGN- BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: > I M I 0 I 0 I M I IS I 6) I I ,..1,.._,,.,„ Attachment A r----- --1 7 I I MATCHLINE I 1r j I C-311 MATCHLINE MATCHLINE 1 1 C-310 MATCHLINE II r______ • 111111111.1., I I I _ **I i .. ., , . •i ., _ .-...-wkiri $ ' I i I ■ OKdir..■10". _T I I _ -. - * i 1 Alt i__________ I I .1 c I I *.' LA. et - ' ' ..1". ' i ' V:• •:1•110:10:•::*:••:`P I I r-____ 1 ' C I 1 1 I I V I s', Asir. 1 L 1 ..._ } IQ ____ / I i 44C-7 L_ , ,_ 66, ,„ __ r.,,.....r................... I r—--------- i i , ch 0 c) 70 I I I _____________s I I > > I- -0 t M I I----------- - I I '• 1 i I 0 I I / 1 i 0 I tu I I CO > I ) (---- CD I- 0 m L 1 IA r 1 1 I I , , , 1 $,F4Alle Cr) IF 1k10'A I 1 I I p Oa' — cp ...A. h—--—————— I I ,. ) r ,,__ - . , , .,_ -„,.., I . ---\ I / I ( w 1 , , > Z_IC ::8 E;Ez 0 1 L----_ 1 I ,/ i j-ni Ea 5›mramm,m >,---73 z 73> >> --- 0 — >n00000 -< _ 00 U .......:......-.........e.„,w.,„ 1 ,,/ _ ( -C 0 7171CW ' *- r kn, cnooZ .11- -- 0 diad I it* 1 ,,,- I I r n_T c..)>Om 0 2 mC 0 r_C/)br 1 Z.H >6- :-4 , , -< alt. / tio 1 , , ',.* )' lir - 1 / _---. L ---- cn -I , MAP'-.0,1"..47"..019'.41PAR IN , H _./ MATCHLINE r C-310 , ' ..,!-----6AiCHLINE t_______I MATCHLINE I—II- \ C-309 i MATCHLINE , ,t.. COLLIER COU A .....` .,, ....., ,....., ''' ,T. i ; . > MO N NORSESHOE DRIVE I 1 At NAPLES FL 1,104 4 I o n 1 . -.- COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ■.0.:,:.:17:-.7.vz..wr.=::-= g — REPORT-PEER REVIEW A I - p 7.p-7'.,"" Z , , , .. ,,7r:°=, . .., PROJECT DESIGN- A I BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES ..■ ,„,...,,...,,,,,, ,,, ., „ ORIGINAL ISSUED DA-E I 7 I 0 I 0 I 7 I 7 I ., I• , ' s.x.�t ..vl�.-,_...,r,�...,-. �, ,.v.wi- Attachment A > J o o I 7 I ( T MATCHLINE w I C-312 MATCHLINE MATCHLINE q• — C-311 MATCHLINE 1 T " . 0 1 1 * I C g ,,,,,* , . „ ..i viol _ I a a I . „ - , a r .E I I '� ' I _ R.—,........ C , — nom ". - ---- m - ,,,,P44:,440 c-_-_-__----1 * .t R "s ° Wit//�� ,rev- m co -- - _� — — I o I•. r "+n� .t d 43 ,•t I G �+ °"' n ;s. (�— O — I I O F-1 I O 4r �/�/1�8' C r ° : z r-- 3D - I _ ; — I co m z� I o 5) I I < D > — --1---- = I m • m I 1 o n �. T-069 s 1 ii oco m � 1 Cis'"?' �. -- 1. - 1 1 1 H " 1, D I r ,,f-� c 11 l Im 1 m C m m f V .) .) IU ZJ v 0 r———_——— ,? 1 •i m0071o° ° °° DA I > ZCOcowwcrZ0 TcnFu' =m Co Co 0 -i 1- 1 � mODmmmmm I k. 0 > 00nn � -.,. — 00Dpm2 = SO� i' — m m O ,i ,i nc0 I 1 A O O r r r m z I 1 i o• mmr- m�� O H > I _ I 068 00r= x100 { �/lr�i��s., 1 1 r: Z m M m n m i-- r m I 1 o) IL H I I- MATCHLINE C-311 I MATCHLINE` MATCHLINE I if C-310 L MATCHLINE ""• COLLIER COL'v 1 f sSOe HORSESHOE DRIVE F„ A I NAPLES FL:5154 V I n x COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING n I °- REPORT-PEER REVIEW • "▪ �'°" ,,,,'°*„�,',",a°�'="r° 4r`.J I E.- -- PROJECT DESIGN- :. y"LL ,.,.�..E_". , 1 -I °.°w.,�r BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES m"p e.,,,,,,,-,,,.,,,,,, I'I° O RI3IN AL ISSUED DATE: D I o I 1) I o I ffi i , I n I ? 1.. 1_ r. m.n,-Y- Attachment A j If_1_ D I a I _ - I I o A A i i ft — 1 I i , , 47., . . co 7¢'_ I ......4 „,..0 er t ' ..(i 7:::.*-..::, '. it ,N.:i' ; te -0 � � _� �® 1 .H _Ii....„( .,. , ,,.. ..„,.. : I 416 , '" , / 0 F 1 j. .;` p m ,' 91� .- + '. L I x D i rmZ Atli'• 1 I :U Z I 1 o m I------ 1 I cn ----- �I I ,.,:I 'it i T 1 I .1'I \c i m � ° 0 . . — — o , m— II n I 1 3 w m o D J �-- m CD O m I 5 o m L. n i O a I — T r;y. h072 0/- ►�y u- I-- — m TII r ;- S I H 1 D I {,,, r.I . j — 1 ' r , . . . .,. CO c)mmNJN, N) N X-00 ,. ,. - r w o00o p I w mOO� o oDZI m DZCOcowwrnZO 1 X 0�F� =m Dotamm . I .. Ir— m— 1 D mODmmm e#' it m CO ��z u> > > � II I a O --I w= _=OW LL----1 ._ _,4/rag z �nZ -I �� r�c �� m PD DO0OrrmmZ f------ C O o7OQZ > I -a m Omr �mrp-ID I 1 001 1J00 -< N mmz mm -1 m � (- rnm c F--- aY4 I -'! I MATCHLINE -' I C-312 MATCHLINE MATCHLINE r�/� Man C-311 MATCHLINE F e "- 3 Ry I .."' COLLIER COUNTY I 2 p ( NNN N.HORSESHOE DAN_ --5 � TS• J Ii�` F M1APLES FL SCIE6 ,11 n X -COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING . I N o - REPORT-PEER REVIEW V1"„".a " ,;; `„;; ., a '•'• -- 2 PROJECT DESIGN- asp • '£ _ i f_wpm BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES .�„,„,,,,,,,..,,.,,,,-�.,.,_ .„� r F... c •---:° I ORIGINAL ISSUED6DATE: > I o 1 0 I o I in I m I n I _ :=:;, n-.\1...-..., ti.•. Attachment A > I ru 1 0 I 0 1 m I a I 0 I z < 2 m0 N 00 cn y ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) nr D n W N j "0 N W N - -- N m y O O O 0 Co O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 r + 1 —! + — L_ J -- (—I . -- F.1 o —.� -- ___L_ p , — u 1 0 .Z�7 p /� 70 II <, I r W o �! D p 0 0 , TI I 71 ro r 1 I- -, ----- m o '— _ C, m o O O ' j — 1 \\ i y \ _ \1 1 j r 1 cn v E 1 / ' z A. ! / I < ? / < o._ _/ (J _._ _ _-_ + _ —_„__ _ /-_-_-L W.__ _I o / m o — / 0 - I`� m 1 m 1 / N / To- o O O 0 1 0) rn -i m m m m 1 D + o 1 1- o cn -I D . I H m m � 111` r-m Em\ I v — ff I 2NNmo I D - 00 x •• 1 CA xi wo(n CO I m m + I + z o - -_ — 0 -- - 0m 0 1G) G) 7 I I O Z Z D r Kmao0 I _ Z000 CM N / N NN / 0C22N oo I 000 1 I Gm710 O W ITW I \ s o co W r ? IJ r r N + --m co 1 - - + m m — f-- ? O -I -(/> p 1 KK7J O 2 = /1 0 22 1 D 1\ T 1 � � / II1 I — m my 0 0 i m m \ mm 1 Z Z ' - r — -- -z r - H cn 0) 1 cn(n • I N -1 N 7=1 I m o O 1 m mm _ _ 1 I Z � 0 I I—2 I' � 0 am m I 00 -< r--- <I- 1 m * Z \l 1 m m m + 1— -1 1— , -- ----.— a ZJ O i 0 j O N O O --■ O O N O O O O O O N c.o O cow (88 aAVN)133d NI NOIIVA313 (88 UAVN)133d NI NOI1VA313 z DD 0o - oo co co \ l COLLIER COUNTY - _ ! ' 3800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE nU ..'.. I NAPLES,FL 3e106 .",.......a I ,. cc x COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING % cs REPORT-PEER REVIEW . 11 .,„ I PROJECT DESIGN•BEACH FILL w, = ",'E" -I ,_I 6„ TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT ,E ORIGINAL ISSUED SDATE: > I p I 0 I 0 I m I m I 0 I = • - -a-A .A.A,-.A1- Attachment A D I a 1 a 1 a 1 m I m I 0 I z < 2 m0 70 7.1 N- Q 0 a •••• Z . 0 y ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) m 0 r D to m> o 0 0 0 0 0 Ni 0 o p 0 0 0 Ni — - m IV " + ' r�I� ' + ' / Ni O I t I O / X ° N = -I Il N o m I 71 / 71 . m ° ° D I .(l 2] CO wz i � 0 0 , ' i I T , m o�_ _ - - m _ ° I � c I -D m - D I D m O 'm = W v \ i , m 1 cn Ni m I i 1 -' < X C) / 1 Dm o % i `�< 0 i - '" o / - I- / �, cn m m - -< mr / i11 ,- / m /� 111 0 G)m I I i, s-ti o I I i f Ni I H —I m �1 rn I I rn cy, mo °o � — 1 -i-- °o+ f I I �Im zm j1, � I -1 1 m — •1 i II m I m Ni 1 _ o c i 11 v `� z Do8x - rn -I 1 �1wrn (n II=TI m 1 l I co rn Ommz -0 Cr) 0 1 0 o , o 550 >> I Ozzx m * III ammo > il, o — rmmc -- — — 0= I-. -I 0 0 i , C 0 / C 'm 71 Ni p m rnW i - 0)w i . > rr - z o 03 CO I I o m W I a 0 73 r r Ni-I -I(A = ° »II—r 1 +O > > I a rmmc R �:a 0 ° II 1 1 ° II -1 r- 0 Tit 1 mm t rr I I rr= \ H -1 --I - rr - rr I �._ ., - mm r 00 I r 00 / — I zz zz I ! CD CD 1 �CO� / I ° H m +g I 1 +-- H ---�I / 0 w K i \ zz � , w z / N N I w O / - ? t r— = . T 1 rn C �l�l 11, 'T7 z DD -I -J i I� I `e x .-a ° t�J N i O N O W N !. O _ N O O O ° ° O O O ° O N i O on (88 QAVN)13Rd NI NOIIVA313 (88 aAVN)133d NI NOI1VA313 z• z < < 0 0 - tb O 0 Oa -"' COLLIER COUNTY - „. q - 3800 IL HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES,FL 34106 •ac p.m.N rat n c i X ,. - COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING = I 1 0 0 REPORT-PEER REVIEW 1 Z I PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL � m u TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT (° ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: > I a I n I ..C I m o.,4 1 , I I = =54..0 -p--.. �a-_-.... Attachment A D I o I 0 I a I m I M I a I I > N W r!..) > N m D o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I- + I i ____ _ + _� I r _ m T - 11 > N> O '' ` 70 N> O - X I I, N ! III If I N IV 2 2--I I 2-DI II - N m i , -o m K I 13-F co o °D - t I °D i ' I X 0) wz 1: O wz 1 O M '' 1„) �, _ Ertl �� N I J= o -- - i - __ m- �x o - - I il---r m- - m- Imo co mD — mom O m O m ().7/ \ i I o 71 m A ,-Imj \\ • '' o X TI 77 o-{ - 1 1 ; - = m m 0 0 � 1 II > = m m E `''m / j _ < 71 0 wm Ii1v, < � n v mo / I 1 1 n m mo i i �' m cn n-I o / I r Cr) m — n o ! / I i r m Umi D m / I ` - >m I / r- / I, m I I----0 / j I, m I =D ■ /I 1 I ! o =D I o -i / j , o H I I o =m I 1 I .0-I = m 1 73 -x1 / I I K 77 -I 1 m - m + I I I' - -i m o' I I 11 ;70. v m0 o I �'{ Dr- -- m 0 o I I ID . ZO 1 Him zul � Il m _ �� s m a ■ I II v - I I ( . A E 0 m�`? c I m,� I *� ' z o C I I NoC 1 D�oXO rn� I I I rnH I I, 2 N W o o-� + /I 1I x + 4 i N mmz -a o -p--._ -_i.,71 -13 0)0C)O) 0 r-D o I ' -DID o 1 I � �G70 D I m * Ktnm0 mD 1 I' 777 1 i ' - DDDZ 0 I I 0 �� 0 I 022 2 I o -No ) I , H i 0 (o o I ammo m > I 0) G3 1 Z I CD G3 I D i-i- �, z o mw I H + i mm 1 �mmc o mm - —�— i' _ +o mm 1 - a m ° n c0i j m ° n C0) I _ 71 N , m 1 �I o == 1 I -1mrr° m ° n n ( I °m ti-nn I ' D - . 8 r-rr- I ti H -- rr-Ir- I I nmv m T o0 1 - m oo I - , - mm I 11 mm i I �I I z z t i ra z z D N CD CO I D > 1 I I m o- -< -G - I �{,� — m N.) =I I - III -- mm I j 11 0 I i It I w I II >> I zz 1 8 ! P.O I rI I 6' N 1 1' -- 0'0 I II, �_ i II -<� 1 III - m ** I - --I / i I� -mm I ' I m --I D + i \ IJ� I . 1 lI { \ / �.,.-I LI_- m mm o_II__ � r - o � , .Zl O W N . O p NO O W N O > N O O o O O O O N >O 6'w (88 OAVN)133d NI NOI1VA313 (88 OAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 zz Op 00 00 co w - - - _ ` -"-"' COLLIER COUNTY - 3800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES.FL 34006 o -� COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING -4,-.....4.4..-.9..,,..,„.4...,,,,...,,.. . REPORT-PEER REVIEW Z ., PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL �>,F„} I 1-1 TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: D I p I o I m..,,>aa 10- >n I T 1 1 1 0 1 I .. f1-P-r, N0• -�- Attachment A 1 m I 0 1 o I m I m I 0 I z < 2 m0 -I N DO ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r D 0) , r (� W N N W N N ITi D o 0 0 0 o O O 0 0 o O O O O ;m N • 0� I 1 1 IV _a + ' I ' — N 1 i I I' i .Z�7 ° u m � III / p mH III c• o m ° m I .(l y 1Tl 1 ' 70 CO w Z I ■' w Z I 0 TI -n m S I m _ � O + _-y" "' c m mO +_ _At . 2 -00_-, m 2 0 — 1-_ m— -02 o I I. -0 D D i II O < m D< o 11 O C — m m i c r m mm 1 I I 1 m m CT) _ I j m O m W x _ \ j I' p 73 m x o 1 ! EI = co m o--I \\ I I = W m K 03' 1 V < m \\\ 1 1 al G 17 0 m \I 1 I = < �l 0 m O 1 g 2 lA m m p 0 / - I r 0 (m Dm o / I 'I r m 0) Dm o / I rO m.._ -< � / 1 i' -0 � I- I / i !' m � - ! II SD - / Iilo Sm 'l 0 = m • II 0 m X � III XI- a, illm m 0 o I I I m m °0 I ZO) I jl r ZW / IIID I --I a ( i D '--I o - \ I ( I j t m 2 1 I m 2 Y I .1 .-- — s( I L) m �° I *o m 1 I lj i Z OO / oc I I . y2oX. rn _1 j 0)H // 7003 co � -1 S 1 I 11 im I j l A + - H I m OO � 0 -. 0 o 1 1 �m co I i, u 1 3 3L7 Dm / I DD 1 1 I O Z Z m I I I m D / I I _ W WO D I 1 X7 / i ' D D D Z 0 — / I I — I I 022 o I 11 2 boo I 11 � ?iTION I s rnw i 1 iI Z , rnw I I I Dr F -� Z o_ W W I t o_ W CO I j a O -I --ICo = o+° DD i I' m o DmmD i I 1 + n rmmc m CSC) 1 j I N 22 I • ,I, 7--I r- o �� I I ' o mm / I It DDS rn — rr 1 ! II -I — rr \ Hi - mmy m 00 I I , m i I - E m m I I I E m m I I I II I I m o- { 1 `1 - m o- 75 -< — I I i' w 0 I ' j II o � i 1 w mm DD I I I 8 I I c.z2 -- O ° j - Il -- A0 I I << I 11�( I I I - z yD �-mi�l I \ ! ' -. \I .1 � j 1 I E' mm o_ I I o+ l I I F X xi O W N 0 p p 0 W IV •-+ 0 00 IV O O o O O O 0 N _L O 6' w m U? (89 GAVN)133d NI NOI1VA313 (88 OAVN)1333 NI NOI!VA313 z < G O o — O co co co t `°`"` COLLIER COUNTY 3800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE 'tle NAPLES,FL X106 _a _ I Si. 9 X COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING � REPORT-PEER REVIEW `k;:'°° _ -",,'R`a,"„,� 1 PFrno PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL . 1 OESCPV TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT ��'I' ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: 1, I 0 I 0 I 0 I ,; I M I 0 I ? ' n,..." WC .a Attachment A D I CO I 0 I 0 1 to I n I C) I I <2 M O 7:1 xi D O ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r r 0 0 N > N W N j N El y 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I— + 1 L I , — + I ----?\-/4 , I ---1 - II m o — - - o I :i7 N \ W 1 W o N c- N o _ _ -I -a m O O I . m m N r N + _ m + - _ m -- r- - -- _ . 1 1 1 cn Ci A 1 = A 0 1 1» 1 < o --/ j O/ l m i I o I / o I rn / m II m I - 1m I m 1 H 1 U E O - I v - /I Iv MM / \ ff z I y I --- i C a X- 1 a7 w 0,In 1 I ` W ooI co h � 0,(D � 0 — 0 i O 0 1 0 ozzz i 1 -WWO I / - r-mmc — I — I I 2000 INS I INN, I 0022N o °I O° I C-n-II O 6) W I W W 1 >r r- O W co I A 0-i-1(n +O_ - o+ -'- m co W 1 I- 0 rrnrn.D o - 22 I o 22 / HDDM -n - I -n-n l _ �� k � � i mm ZZ -- —J ZZ I — - I {No -I -1 I I -_ (n7 N I 0 I i I I DD � Z 1 I NZ Z Z O I CO 0 j - w o - *_ Zr I -<< r 1 F m III D y I `� J a \� I 1 M a o+ T---I- - - 1 +o l i--1 —I 1 Fri 7.7 0 W N j O 0 O p 0 W N i 0 p C O O O O o O °) w m w (88 GAVN)133A NI NOI1VA313 (88 OAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 z < < 0 0 b 0 0 0 / """` 2BD0 COLLER COUNTY =- -s IC HORSESHOE DRIVE S NAMES.FL 3,Os '; -, n ° �'COLLIERCOUNTYBEACHMONITORING C c� • _ Irc REPORT-PEEP.REVIEW '' - I I PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL ., I I • V) TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT o ea 0�- oRlc�eaussucDSDATE D I m I 0 I 0 I 5 I n r C I -=;= .. NM WI-W- Attachment A ) I p 1 0 I 0 I m I 1 I 0 I I < 2 Z-11 RI DOZ ro ,., CD D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) Or D 0 W -( W N _ 0 - N m D O O O O O o 0 0 O O O 0 O r + i I - m o -1 o — II 0 \ X17 0 1 .ZI7 1 Q II /41. I W o 1 -0 -0 m °- 7j A m 0 0 rn -n N r N r + m + -. - _ rn 0 — o O r I 1 _ I \\)_, 1 \ I 2 \i r0 I / _ / -CI / / N m (It I r -I 1 - el M I m - I G) - I - I m I =NNmo � / D°°o x .. 1 i N WOO_i co I o —_ / m M m Z o��c�srf�c+a�E� .er,�ncyrv�c,on��onr - +0 1 Otnvo0 o t\ 0 / OZZX / /1 Ka) WO I / - rmmc — i — t DDDZ �� 1 r� / OC I_ o o_ / o o / m m o CO I O C a ` D r r - o co m 1 o CO m a 70 r- o— mm / + — mm--� a / 0 _o rmmc i Iv I I /< -irrm mm I mm F 1 — r- r- _ rr- rr mm- 00 1 00 mm mm I 0 Z Z Z Z _ _ _ �� N•1--1 N � W 0 .. I 0 .. W mm DD -. z —.1Z ZZ N0 °' O I—I — 0 m - O m O� �r- {I _ I- A = m m A D D\ -J - H ++ T-'- r— 1 0 1 r___________1 + `----' '— o , r ` 20 O W N O N O O -' N W N O O O O O O O O O O N -,O CO w (88 aAVN)1333 NI NOI1Vn313 (88 OAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 zz 0o co Co CO CO "", COLLIER COUNTY h,. ,tie..��m.�.�we..,.,.,,,,„.,„.,,,,„,:n.,,,,„„,,,...,.,„ .�>..,.d.,.. �mI III..... 1600 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES.FL 6G10< �. rraan� 9 X -- 'COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING - REPORT-PEER REVIEW Z ,.,,, I PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL �P mom, ,wt `,mY`_T, I TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT �,M...m.,�,-> ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: D I m I 0 I 0 I R I , I 0 I _ r.Z. n1.,1....a:L...., -.... Attachment A v 1 m I 0 1 0 1 m 1 T I 0 I I < 2 m0 Si N XI o ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) m 0I- > 0 W N _, N _, N m D o 0 o o 0 o 0 0 Q 0 0 o 0 o n _,R1 o o X o ■\ I X w o II, � 0 { 01 N - -D co o O X - 71 m 0 0 t 11 N ! r' O r O O O - I 1 I 1 Cri V \ \ V I C \ 2 o < ` I oo % I o / 1_ / r j I! / m l/ m // o 1 N O o m i) W / m P. i rn 1 i 1 O O j _ r I I m I - I m / f m 1 2 N N m o I X•• Z7 n m W L. co m co } ----' } - — '1— —i---- m m Z 0 o cn O 0 0 I I I OZZx �1 I — w w O — D D D Z I I Z 0 0 0 (N N.3‘ I �N\ / C�C N 0o I co 7 / CTI 711, �� O W 1 / A 70 r- 1- N O+ m co I --- -- - O+ --- co m 03 I - 1 - A 0 --I -I cn o > > 1 DD / rmmc 70 0 O I = 0 i _ m i-r- 71 71 1 -i,1 aD- — -L Fr- 0 _ mm 00 0 U { rnC N3 -71 71 N -I -i O O m mm o 1 N D D o z 1 m z Z Z O , c.D -Ti r 2 p -n r RI 2 P D D —L— + _____I J — --- — -1 H o 2 70 70 O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O 0 O O N O CO w (88 QAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 (88 QAVN)133A NI NOIIVA313 z < < — 0 o o co co __ - = v -°"' COLLIER COUNTY - - 1 I 1 2800 HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES FL 2410< '°' 9 X COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING _ REPORT-PEER REVIEW PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL o. TEMPLATEPROFILES-VANDERBILT ‘,..._„_o„".� ,,,. ""'.`. -,E_ 1 ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE D I M I 0 1 0 I m I m I 0 I I ■ = °WWI-a-., .V.an3-�- Attachment A > I m I 0 I 0 I m I ii I 0 I I < I m0 .Z17 N D (1111114) O u cn D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r . f-n W Ni •.-,. Ni W N.., j Ni El y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 — ' m N + ! - 1 , _f________ N i + i I — 11 -' i I \ 7J 0 I � ..� 73 X 11 =-DI I CI .1, _-1 ! 11 'i tr..lima . -A.-- l6 W.SIS-1.- Attachment A I a I 0 1 0 I m I T� 1 U 1 = <2 m0 N w D ZO • u Cn D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) O r- r 0 W N - - Ni W N ' Ni F./ 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m N.� o ' - --'T II - - N - o-I--- I l - - -Ni - - I' L - i. ' 1 c? 11 m� 1 m� I I ,.3 o I -p I .• -p m co ,_,N3 m - I X 1m - .I i 73 a wz I _ 0 Nz i i 0 I 71 71 cn C _ti- r 0 l i 0 < m r 0 f' r m - ! O D / j ! 0 D D < m mH I i , m0m mH 1 * r m I 11 o �1 -U X m 1, m O m (/) :i7 1 ! 2 07 m CI).0 I ; o �J 'i7 �7 0 -I - 1 I - m 0 p H I i 1I 51 I W m E �' m I i I' 'vii �7 Wm I I I, Z < X 0 mo , I 1 � il < OO Co mo ? I I I -. + __1 I I „, _, 7.7 A rn + V - _ ► 11+ Cr)�.O n _I n -1 o / I f O m 0 -1 o / 11 O .D m- m I II - m / -U m to J - r� / ! fpm 1 r � / 1 ; m SD I I II ° SD =- I II °o 1 G)m / 1 1 G) m I Ij, 0 1 I ((.1 j H 2 I j -� 1 m /i I I m x i i i ct izo+ i it =za - - II 11 M 0 0 1 1I D m 0 o 1 I1 .11 D Z N 1 1 m -Z-1 { I I, m - tS 3 tin // I 'Iv 2N I S e i m Nc - // I N,c I `! IN) imz o.O ,I °A I ,I >oox•°- �_ / I , 0= / 1 X W CD U) m m I I m m co / ! 1 N N W 0 0� �� 1 I -_ �X + I I ----__ mmz - 0) O I - 0) O I DD o I > o i I iI� 70p I > I ozzx m* I m* l i Kwmo I _ - r m m C 0 - \ II 0 / Z000 H 4N NN I I -I (N)N\ / ! 0 2 2. I O O_ 1 11 2 00 co I ( 1 * ?' „° m °'W III m >FF-, W W I ? Z7 r r N Zi o tp to 1 I i - - S a m Co I I r a 0-I -I� / rmmC ism °o 00 1 i 11 w 0 00 1 III ��m o -n I 11 ° �� I I It D D•G --I - rr- F. 1 I I -I -1- rr-r- I II mmv m 00 1 I 1 m 00 / I , - - Z -.Z Z____i_...-- ---1---r -Z `z z - � -_ - __ 1 P --1 N - � 1 -- 1 1 ' m + - �� - I j �� E o .. — � III ° � .. , � I w K K o I I o ' i w ZZ rnrn I I N° 1 j +II r2 -1- Co:-.1 1 I, - .a)Ca 1 1 0 0 00 1 C)C) ` I .I <-< I I « 1 l i " I -I--I 1 I Ii - Hi mm 0 s 0 `2 '�Z7 0 W N --� 0 O O ° W N s ° O O no O O O O O O N o w IW (88 OAVN)133A NI NOIIVA313 (88 OAVN)1 31 33a NI NOLLVA3 Z<0 - o co -""' COLLIER COUNTY 4,11 000 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE av 4 NAPLES.FL.00 n X 'COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING °o, REPORT-PEER REVIEW . 2 -.., PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL o^6M`cTC„ I Lp„Y ¢” TEMPLATE PROFILES-PARK SHORE "' > I C 1 0 1 .or,.o 0,o....,, � I ? ,.�E. I , 1 u� :;. ORIGINAL SSU=_o oaT1. =.m.... N.'2.-4.- Attachment A D I m I n I 0 I m I m I 0 I z 7 Ri loft E > Z U) > ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) m 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I + J I + , RI °o III o° I I - n) i I' �' I ,CJ .2 „ III ,, Cho I I I' CO m 1' 73 i Z7 m ii O 71 1 O + NJ ' m + m o I Ii o // ,I — ! /r i — li 1 j '■ II — 1 1 V I' -, I. I , - I I II I+ A ►+ I j ' _ 0 s' — — 0 / <o IQ) 0 / I I-/ 11 ►I I -o / ' O M = ► I m — / 111 T / / I It ( ! ' o o, rn 1 I 0 owW ! I,m + I I m m o / I ! o / m \► i II 11 1 j 1 D I I i m ` I m - I I i m I I I ► =^' ^'m0 / I 1 D III 000x.. • ! j , 1 j , N �7wo�cn r W00=I ) , I I w+ j I w 0lm_n0GZ) 00 1 ! 1 0 1 I II 0zz73) I I I I I CO Q]O I , I rmmc — I I - / I 1 —, D D D z \ I III 0==-. 00 I i oo / I , *mT10 0) w } rnw 1 I 4 ��Fn o_ oo0 ) I I; o mo) __r/ D-I -I 0) 00 D D 1 I O D D ) —if A rmmc 0n \ I I 00 i iI -a 13< ?i n i 't 22 h"TI 11 _ �HH— -- I- rr- / i II — I-r— j mm DD / I ' DD j I mm t/ j ( mm I I I CA czix ) • I i Cr)ZIi w o , j c — i I mm I I ' 0 i II w D D N) Z ► I co 1 iI z= � O � I , — 0° / I O— 0r ) ! II -<m 1 I <_ / 1 mr' I i l — m -1 -A.1 j , -I r-- I , P3 D y .P �/ I �, / 1 I T mm a , ► � o-, , > IIi -- B X), o 0 0 0 0 o oo 0 0 0 0• 0 0 0 O N CO Coca w (28 QAVN)133d NI NOI1VA313 (88 QAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 0 zz << D D — Cb co 0 0 I. COLLIER COUNTY - I 1 III El , 5 = f,. : ....' /BOO N.HORSESHOE ERNE NAPLES.FL 1,106 9 x r- -.COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING . REPORT-PEER REVIEW PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL 31W TEMPLATE PROFILES-PARK SHORE ',. o„E. - ORIGINAL ISSUED D I m I o I_ 0 I m m I . C) I _ • Attachment A I a I 0 i o I in I ii I 0 I T < 2 m0 21 N CD O ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) iD 0 r r0 W Ni > _, Ni W N _s. � Ni m D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 m N' o I '1 • ' —__ o_-- I _ - — _ o 1 1 I 1 1 70 N II = III I( I '/ O NJ m I i -D m ° N' m - I j 70 Y ! 70 a wZ I I O ( 0 C N r + I_ -- — — m m = ° j = n— m o D I 0 (n 71 1 ' 11 o M -00 in r I I 0 - - / I ,I 2 W m l m // I I1 0 1 i 1 - V I I _ < N / 1 ! 70 1 I 1 1 I D m- ° I i !i< m 0 ° ■ rr.�nnnnivw� - r -0 / 1.111 / 1 I -0 -< I- , 0� ! / j I m O- m / I ;,m �// i o 2 m I I I Ni 11 4 I rn m m x I 1 0° I 1 i -I rn I 10 I O) / j i m rl -I m + --1______-_ -I + _. K�_ I t m 0 o° � I I m °0 1 I r-• / _ CO I i \ k I D• SSS I I II ir. l r7 mCO' - I I i r - II j m - I z ox 4Iw I ! 2oom0 rn � I I i1 I I N � wrnlx-n jm w i II ao 1/ i N X00-1 � � + 1 II -I + l I 000U)nG) -r° m ° i I 5 o / I 1 G)G.G) D D 0 zz73 m * / I I I W CO O > ! j ' I ' — rmmc 0 73 - I — Z000 -i �N� l I i o0 1 022.-_ 2 00 / * „-70 m °)c-.) I I I OD OD i Dr-r o WW i 1 o WW I t, .D r r IV -I + m m /— + ------._—. + -- m m / , A m o T 1 R. ,c] N 2 2 i I I 2 2 � DD-mG wI 1-r- I I I I F' I mm` m 00 i 1 i 5 1 00 I i - ! al it i j 1 zz 1 — j y 0)Co f I CD to i I f I I -I N --I l I N --I I • o f I I o I I - m E 0 / 1 1 0 I m m _ A / z z I II a I N r2 - L., 0, i I I -- O o l I �_ �� / III I •T jI - -I� I t I 71 i— j 1 . z DD a �/ \ IL, / I FA• 77 m O j O ° N° 0 W N _, 0 s° N° co i O O O o O O N O .6).03 co CO (88 OAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 (99 aAVN)133d NI NOI1VA313 z << 00 - o c co q ce I \ v ` -"'"" COLDER COUNTY I — / "` 600 N.PLESESHOEDRIVe NAPLES,FL 3c"Od `—) COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING I I c REPORT-PEER REVIEW - I ' Z PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL u" I _ V) TEMPLATE PROFILES-PARK SHORE Rr�,.�, ,m.."� """"'" o„E_ `”'""'�' a.1 ICRIGINAL ISSUEDDA1E: > I p I 0 I 0 I in I • T I 0 I 2 e1'µ.0r • .'.•■"""""'"''""""° "' .A as,-w. Attachment A s I p I D CO r-0 W N m > o 0 0 0 0 0 0o w 0 0 0 m N O+ F , 0 0 O o o O O II i NJ 2 o 11 o m K i iI m -i I iI } Iv CO oD • Nm — III U 1 I o lI • w Z wZ D 0 + • I I I r m- N j ,I � � o ] � m �zo , L_ m -1 S m �� I m m < -17 m .�g� Fn. 23 o -I on c 0 73 w o �7 is S \ III r m < N \\ I' = � m � m II ', O � � o° + I Ij < n m° a // i I m O m CD rD � o // I ! a' O Dm 0 I� I I, = m m (� cn 0m I( _ / I II r �J _i -I Sm i O G)m I ! II O m m M x I m m m t `I m -1 m rn / m � xI i tv SZ 0+ 1 I Iv - -Im °+' 1 , 0 70 I m0 o I I00 I Z 0 —lrn J z (n ( 1 to m0 o I i II -1 Z co I A Shrum , oC / 'D ° C I ! D000x.. rn� i rn� I II m X) wrncn �= `m = i '� WOOZ m,�mj ++ _ �� m' co I m 0(n N O r 0' o° I , �� o ( - I OZZO DD / ! Dm 0 I �� wa00 mD I I , m� I II r 13=1. 11=111 \ I I D I II OZ22^O ° /00, ► i , ° N I i * ..� mo S o -. 1 oo / I �, Drr -° m o 0007 I I I m o rn(a III 0--I-I -ri� i +0 -pm m -- I I z o coax S o DD ! -I o— mm —� + MmC m SS / 1 m nn t I -i� rvm o KJ TT I i o I DI -DI� err- I rn -- r"rr - I mm CI CJ I j m o0 I !I ii I I ZZ D ry -�-I �-I �� 1 m + c — I 11 + c-<�° 1 I m • °_ /wN 1 j I orn / �I it , / , ,1 m mm a + I II .Z7 O W N I 0 _, 1•3 0 -i 0 o O O o O ° 0 O O 0 O 0 o w (92 4AVN)1333 NI NOI±VA313 (88 QAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 << w m w m -_ ' _ - > -' COLLIER COUNTY ._` III 2000 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE ww:a.xmmsrrn.r.,ar;+n M°N° m NAPLES.FL 3,106 m^a'"+enwa<m.�.. e�.R.pwn,eeHm.�vis_w ea C7 COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING • memecik...,,.>ee,w .wemsw uu,.ne ,uewnow�pa w.»W. erwwea e.c - �� rev. , $ I I T r REPORT-PEER REVIEW :e. PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL Q I I p> p I TEMPLATE PROFILES-PARK SHORE - w - a f I I I D• ekwn-..wv I nm.'I1.ss I'l°-IORIOINAL ISSNED6 GATE: . Y I I 3 n.A0�...0 .V.SO-.... Attachment A D 1 S I U I 0 1 m I l I 0 I I <I m0 zl'f 0 0 0 D Z u D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r I l D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r + I I — --- - m N - 00 TII / II _ j it ,� 70� o u -I I - m it -CI 0) °- m I ' 0 m ca Z C 0 + ---- I -— r� m m _ -0 m °° 111 11 O < m. D D I / 11 r- - m ( j I , m ro mm ffmTl \ 11 o Z1 -0 77 (n7 _ \ i __ m m K ° _ _ \I I i = < M 0 v °-' m I I Il � (o K m v <N / i II < Or nri m 73 c° .r> I / h ° mod— I ��— - 0 - m — r / i 1.N — . -<� I j I 0 ? D - I II °m 2m / j I' -I m m X / j K I m m ° I j I r z Z 0- I — in o 1 74 Z(n I { 1,v-' m i -I I i1 I L7 mw I I - m 0 T I D,0XO � X j II I Xwrn (n m = 0 I N omoo - K,mm + i_ I _L- I 1 _ Ofmn(—mn0 Dm ° I 1 1550 OZZ3J m : II _ 1-mm0 D I I — rmmc DDDZ a I IN N1 z00o N = I oo O 11 *mTlo m 0 W 1 Dr- 1 Z o 1 co 00 j i ° y a o-I-I(n o D rmmc I _ -0 -0< 0 mm / I 1 ADD 03 -"- 1- 1- 1 I - m"—' m I oo I { Iz z I I I a 1 I DNI -7=.1 I I II m o- ;<-< ---7- I m � I � I mm zz •• N I / j11 r Z ''- CD 0 i I {{I 00 \ II ��, -<-< I — = i m m 1 m DD 1 \ ./ 11 I mH + -- 1 r71 0 5 Z)A O W N O 0 N o O O ° N O O W m (88 QAVN)133d NI NOI1VA313 z << o0 - 0 0 0 co _ _ ' i - -S COLLIER COUNTY S00 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE .A _ NAPLES,FL 306 I j ry ,0 COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING = 1 ry E. = REPORT-PEER REVIEW - - l I Z PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL i fe _,`. ,_- ��sM,,, TEMPLATE PROFILES-PARK SHORE .. ..w m.,,, _ - l0` D ORION.,ISSUEDD1 : D I 5 I 0 I 0 I I -n I 0 I I • µ n1. 14,-. FA W�1-Ya- Attachment A 20 7:1 D I m I a I I m I I I 2 loft • r- o ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r- > 0 W N j > N W N - > N m > O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I- + i- 1 + L I II > ° I I I 0 I ,0 ., 0 cn No a 2-I I I 00 _ -I I I f :: CO N • !!0 Ill �_ I in - i '• I m O o ND I X IVm I I �i o Z I I I w Z :.• o 1 'r1 •�� TI i.. m O + f j m O + I . '.'�'% 1 m -u I 0 iv- -O I 0 - - --� 0 I 0 .v� ...../. m- m mm :O°:`i'* cn c En"X i N to :0 44.1".� S -0 b.)_ i*i**. w = av 1 r0 < rmri ► *" M° a. I ,..a,1," — m ° a I ° Zi -o x - DK ° c�•• 1 p < m D � I I < � r--0 1 1 CD X r- -0 / I Fi ,- l- N i -<D I 1 > m O m -< D - i I j O O -1 2-I 1 I 'I �, ° 77 2 70 2 --I I I m m m Om I I { = m m 0 Om I I I N 0 m m� / I < < �1 m � 1 jf o m �mrn I j � � � m xi I II' °' + r n—Co- � Z ++ — / -I 1 iD- 0 - - I �I 0 0 S p o / m zm ° I 1 ! m m m zo) I � .4 I m -1 c I I IN -> I r 2 N D .,� I O m° - 1 x I °)°, m°'- - j m - I Z N I I ( N T / 1 I D � 8X0o 0 o � i � Im °0 I j .. rnI OH / H m pp p -I mm 1 1 jI I m2 Co I j m co � � °o• � I -Di �70 0 I I r _ 1G;) 0 1- m i / I m rm I i OZZ2J H 1 I Iv -1D I _ � C11co0 rn> 1 j 1 m * I j 1 _ 2 0 0 0 p `�N NN I 1 0 �N N1 1 p S 2 co O I 1 I -I 00 0 I I ammo m > rnco I I I z > rnw 1 I I A ArrN Z o -'W co u.-,&s..� Z o Om ___— I I tI _— A 0 -I --I Co = o DD I I -I °O� DD 1 11 rmmc K K ;0 ITI 2 2 1 1 m 2 2 I j -0 � m O m -n 1 I ' N TT I j l c.-Di ---I- °� - rr- r 1 ( rn c3 F- I--rr- I I I m m m 0 0 I I I m 0 0 I 11 — Izz 1 1 Di + �C G — 1— i t D + -< 1 I m m o .. I I m o I I m ■ 1 11 ZZ 0 0 /I I- I - .0) 'Co I r - wcn I I• 73 G I -'I—i 1 1 D _ I r I Xi D ' II ± m m m +O --- , �- - ° . > `L Z1 ° W N > 0 0 N O W N > O N O O O ° O O O 0 0 N ■ O o w CO (98 OAVN)1333 NI NOLLVA313 (88 OAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 z 00 — m o' Co o' C -- COLLIER COUNTY - - Al I -�"�4 L I f I r H j 2600 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE - QI E 'fro NAPLES.Fl.36104 dg'7I1 C) COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING I w § REPORT-PEER REVIEW V V. _ 2 .�..E PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL - . .-M"`* hPE�Y IEo. =owl a TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES ,,,,,"�w,,,,,,b OA. c I0RiO1NAL ISSUED DAiE: D I m I 0 I 0 I m i 7 1 U I 1 4 - Al,o.1t., Attachment A > I m I 0 1 0 I m 1 m 1 0 1 z 0 W N N W N > _ N !i1 D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - r N � +°_ i i___ ro � +oy o D I I/ �D I .-;>o, i Z]] co wZ I 1 0 WZ •i�� O - S 11 --I S j► •,4 m S °- ,�a S co •-- ; — m --I II z -0 m m I I `I — z -0 L7 11 r < m In / I ±' O xi i o = 1 ! jl W w= / j !I m m m 11 1 = M O m m / ! 11 �� o ;0 -0 Z mo I IIIcn _ 'U m A mo / I1 = = W m n -W-I p- / l/ I D / jl r n - / I 1- - I �1 0 � m -I m m H I , m 1 1 :1 N I 1 °o 1 j 1 CD M X ! 11 -I I m �, 1' 1 -I m rn I. mZ 0o I IIIK IZZ00--- - I � zm ► jl, � ZO) I I ID tS I 1 I E m - / i m _ i I I 1-11 - y G) mom! 1 I l m m? I i Z °C ) Iv N I D o o X O rn� ! I co I j °- �-I I j 11 2 1 w 000H mm m I m m I I m CO m �Z 0 1 -0 + -I O▪CDCOG) mcn 0 I ! 1 r-O °° I . i 0ZZO�7 m- � / I I m* I I ( l - r CO W 0 3- 1 j 1 D 1 \ 1 1 - 0 E I 0 1 Z000 CI\Jrv1 I I o �N1 I u S S N = 00 0 E 1 1 S 0° I *mmc, m > ww I I m rnw I j D F F N Z o_ co co I I I Z o I WW 1 I ? O-I -I 0) -I +°o m m - I I �I- - H +°o m rn ____I_ I I _�. p 1MM7J m = = I I it m II / m O - T I ', 0 1 m -n / I 1 o - I I �I r r i I I 1 rn Ijmv M O O / i � 00 I 1 1 r 3 N •w I f > o—,--<< I- I ---- > N+°o -<--I . I 11 I w I 1 I ZZ cno III acln I r8 -- 0) 0 1 _! �� I 00 0 I I 00 I I S I m I j� �` , �\ j /Dy I 0 0 0 o O o IJ .1 O .CD.6) CO w (88 QAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 (88 QAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 z << O 0 - co w o o - ; "`" COLLIER COUNTY - „ -,-_,m„ ,,,„„,.„,,„, 2888 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES,FL 34104 r'` 9 x "�"COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING a. I ,t o _ REPORT-PEER REVIEW - ;u m° v I ,.. PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES , M «,.-m.,. a�,MM.e.,�..�. �. ._,�....E.,.�; o, ,�alo��, ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: D I m I 0 I 0 I III o,E. I m I 0 I I • = =1, do I.,-..... Attachment A > I o I 0 I o I n I "n I 0 I I < x M 7 =-J N oELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) LI cio n r r Cl) W N I N W N I > F.1 N D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ; r i + _ - P".1 ro> C O ` N> ° _ 0 I I - XI N ° i I II II 2-I I N 2--II III o M I -o m ii m ° om i •�• �] j171 1' X w wZ OV I 0 co I ) 0 —— I' L r � o r. < m r- ° ! II it D I , D I .' mm 4� 1 ' < r- w }1 mm I I ■'';' (7)7:1 11I m O m I -nom _ ! j, 02 I ,IZS W_m -max I 11��, I �' < < ZmJ <ti � �� I cn C m0_ I cn m m0_ .. _1 w -- I r O C7 -1 co + !I- m-- o i 1 1 O m m _" ; 0 j o G m - rD 0 ! 'I m m u' 0 1 ! I 0,3 I - r <r- / i '^000 j1 \\ I !f o o Al -0 ; =D -- I rn I> - \ '1 = co fn 111 m o I < < U m I X I I m X / j II < O n m m X� 1 - 2] --1 / CD �m rn 1 I r � m rn / i p O -� I 0 °0 1 III m m p 0o " - / I I m m cil ZCD 1 I t - Z (n I I ,I ti - 1 X oC i ' N-n T 1 j ' m xoom � � �ffi 1 i !{ °C I I n 411 D7wrncn m2 CO I �' mx 0 1 i ' > W � � Z �� O I Ii � Aoi i 11 p to rn G) ran ° 1 I- 0n ° I �� l G) Dm / I I > m I Ozzx m� 1 III m* 1 j II — rmmCC 71 — 1 I �I M — I ! II — Z000 o 0 1 i ! o �o0 1 111 Il �T �o m > �w 111 m > �w I II p Xrr- rr- N Z o+ -OW I---. ( 11 Z °} -.- IWTIi 1 I It A -,-0 -0 m o ! n n 1 I o m m I DDS rn rr / I I) r=r I r r ( - r I- mm` m oo 111 m O0 ( - mm I mm i I > ZZ III ZZ , I D N -i� _� I I' D N -i -1 1- i I w �� 0 i '' o I I zz 03C II °w t II r. x (00 �' J 1 II 73 Hx -1� U -I- , ,I - m -DID 4,„.. `-J _I IL_ } `-' L- m ° t ' -i ■ o f , I I Zl ° W N O IV O W N i O > N o O o O ° O O O ° ° N >O la) .o.) w co (88)AVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 (88 QAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 z 00 - O 0 __ _ _� O ; '.. 0 .NAPLEPLE S,FL L 3,1 k106- R COLL COUNTY BEACH MONITORING = j REPORT-PEER REVIEW 2 a 2 1 PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES c -� `, x`_E __`G. �.,., p cI ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: C I 0 I 0 1 0 I m I 1 I 0 I ■ t;. -., 3E3 Attachment A D I S I o I 0 I m I n I 0 I I <2 m O 7-JN n0 trn D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) nr cn D'0 r W N - N W N -, - N m D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m n,� +o ( N o+ --� I ; - o N 1 D f #�> 2 0 j� o n 2 CO ° m� ! II m I j, m ° H 1 I .Z] H I I .Z] m III *� I ! , O 77 1-1 N ! �/ N II r- c• + 1 ! 1 m � i + — I m 2 00 - - 1 al c oo ' cn c - a _ H 11 r < m m-I i t 7.., < m 1, 0-62:1 1 fir -I / I ,I = mOm off 1 I = m 0 m J NS 1 - o X ;D 0)2 \ Il O -9 Z7 m I , cn S W m m \ 11 S CO m M C> .. f 0 M 0, 0 1 n m- O i I LI r r0 n H n m O // I it < r0 ° co - / I Oo m Dr I ! I g2 m - rTI / i j' m Ill o i- m / I I 0 m co 2D / I iI N SD - / 1 m / I 1 O � Om / ! I,N 2 rl / I ( °) i 2 m I i I o m m X // m I 75 H / !• I a) m H m a+' 'I 1 11 _-_I. -1 m - - I j' -1 m Z o° � - If----- (I- o I m Z °o I 111 - - _ r 2� I i I'I m -IC I 1 >�T I 0 m_' I ! mm - I � ! I'' m - I m "M I 1 II n) c I 11I� 2 N N m m 0 c / j 1 I N XiCo0cX-n-n m2 w 1 ' m w i I 1 I' o 1 i 4 I " co 0550 rm ° I 1 1 , DD0 I i , 1000 > I OZZa7 m� I I I mD I 1 II CO CO 2 -i O I O � D rmmc o - I DDDZ 0 I l Z 2 �o I 0 Z . -I oo , 0 I i CD CD nmo m rnc � z o o 1 I OHn Drr-. z o 070o I I o co co / j l '-I--I p r r ry 2 0 -1- mD mD --r--__ - I II .�. m o - MI D --I__-%-- i 1 ---0>- a rmmc m C)n j l N nn I i t r_0 .,-a m m N 2 2 1 0 2 2 f I K 2 o m n ?)-n DD -< C) F' � I i t -I -- r-rr- I ! I mm - mmv m _1 00 ! 1 m 00 1 ! 1 H - -------- - -------- CB m i Z zz - zz ill I o _ f r m cn I j 0 ,_ m , D ,� 11 1 I ' cmn I I D lv -i 1 --I I m +°o- -< -< - - I I - m +°o--t- ;< -< ---;---I , 1 (, D Z v < ! II w 11, Z zz H a)W i 1 -- O N I i .Zm7 - �_ i 0 it �� I 1 'I m - m TIT , I --i T 1 _l___ , Fn' `-I -Ij 1 1 U I l i 1 m m o ,-t-- — I j_________,_ I o-; _� I _LIB — `2 zl ZJ o , N j ° O O ° W N ° O O Iv O O O O O O N O Cr).0.1 03 w (88 OAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 (88 OAVN)1333 NI NOLLVA313 z < < 0 O - w 0 m 0 . _ _ - - -°`"' COLLIER COUNTY -- LAn� i000 N.HORSESHOE ORM W I -o NAPLES,FL XtOd a .COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING p - __- REPORT-PEER REVIEW 31 Z ..., m I PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL EL I V) TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES �„, ,,,°„m.„, '`°”" '"' '�" ORIGINAL , u DATE I M I 0 I 0 I m I n I 0 I = n. - Faka•sa Attachment A D 1 to 1 0 I 0 I m I 1 I U I I 03 r 0 W Ni Ni W N -+ Ni mm1 D O O o 0 0 O o O O O 0 o o O o= O jI1 ' rn iIn r/ Q II I I i _ co no a q I I I 7] I �] a '� ; 0 j ; 0 i ' =i� + _ i m + ) m °o 0 -- I I ti, _ I I i II II I II I I I V I \� 11 -, J \I I A_ I Ili - - A - --- I-- I I '+ < °o I I i I °o /// I( r — - \` ' cn I / j iI, 0 - -! I ! I _ / i II 1 1 1 < / 1 1 0 rn / I I r /I I I - I m ct co / i ' m rn /I I o — / i -m -- + - I �I , - O V/ N O I 11 -u / 1 1 0 1 1 SSS 1 I I -I I I I 11 m m i ! , m . I III I z 1 I m i j Il 0 o m o 1 I I r- 1 I 7 �carncn 1 I ' -1 1 { I 1l' N I m I ol I I L7 L7 � 0 I I I OZZZ7 I I 1 j I 0 I ' I I I'�03m0 j — I - T I / zoo o lNN1 I 0zz.-. 0 I 0 I �Cl' Flo _�W I �W i D r r j O co co I I O co co ,7rrN -- I n Ormmc o°' DD— i I - °o+ mDmD - - , — -- a 77 22 I I ( 22 ( 11 -7ii-r-m ?� n I i ' �T I 'I I rr I I -- rr I m m j o o I 1 1 0 o I 1 1 - m m t i m m I I CD CD I I cn� I ! I o-' -< -< — i , I -- o �- ' ! i t— I ! .1 — w m m o I I ° I 1 1 w I D D 1 I rn , 1 z z � Z I I z ■ i I I r = 1 rn � I i ' -I- n0 I i 11 G7 • o F I - I C = I '<r I I I rn F I - m I T I 11 I III 1 xi o 1 2 Zl ° co N .�.. O O ° W N O 10 N co O O O co co O N p Iw (88 GAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 (88 QAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 z<0 -v -°"" COLLIER COUNTY = 260 N. ORSESHOE DRIVE —J NAPLES.FL SetOa - I co -�] -�"COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING IVIr. - - REPORT-PEERREVIEVI! u° _ I I T.T PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL M�ti �R _ervm f`nN KS - TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES a„N-ms oars ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: I 0 I 1) I D I m I 71 1 n 1 1 Au. -ttr--. NP..-.•- Attachment A 7• I <D I 0 I o I m I 11 I U I I < 2 m0 77 70 - N to D Z Z 0 CD y ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 01- r--' 0 W N ' N W N - - N El D 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 r + _ L_ H + t I f — 1m °o I —III o -- ( — N ! I' ! ■ 0 Q II III ( c ! II o ! i �� -0 ! .1 ff co q -- i 4 i 3D I ' I I 77 m 1) 0 11 0 ! A r- + _ I I m + i 1 m O o ! III it 11 / i I i I I 11 I 'I0, I \\ i In \\ • I _ � ! Ip ,,ii/ ! ' m 1 I / ! / ! ' 0 N i I Ill o ! I i1 m 0 rn ! 1 o rn ! _ o / ! r____— m Oo / I tl °o / \ / i i // I I 1 U t,Em / II I / IIm _, I O i i m _ I I -0 z I ; =oom0 ! I ! I XW� Cn I I I I I I m• N 0 0 0-i O+ _�. I ! o+ ___._ __1. I ! II u 0- CDcn0 oo I I o 1 ! II OZZ O ! ;I O Z Z p I I I I co m 0 / I ' I I ' D X - - rmmc __ __ I I I I �7 D z000 (NO 1\3‘ I ! ■ I I 0z 0=2,-. OO_ I I I /o O_ I I I co co -nmo _ 0w I ! I 0w I I II HO Dt=r - o WW I I o I WW I i I -1-I A 70 r r N + -I- m m ----I-------- I -----. —. + ---- m m ---I !+ -----0 D- A 0-I-�mC 0 DD I oo DD I ! 1) Kr -0-0< :� I I ' �� I I -Z -I r--< ,n, rr 1 rr I III �m mmv 00 I I I 1 00 1 1II H - Zz- I -- 1 it _ mm j I o I cncn 1 1 wcn I m I • 1 N -1 --1 1 I I' Ni ( -1 -1 I ! I' to O--- -< -I-1- o-I ----� !� Z i ! f ! ' I I jII O1 m D D wZ ( I ! I z I ! II z z w0 f 1 ! i -- NO I ! 1 m 0- 10 m 1 ! O m I I 70 n fir= I I {r= I 1 1 - "m I T r I ! ' I 1 r I I I' n l D I ! z D > A_ \� 11 -�1_i a ( �J i 73 7:1 O W N O y O N O O W N !O O -�O N O O O O O O N O CO w (88 GAVN)133d NI NOI1VA313 (88 aAVN)133d NI NOI1VA313 z << 0 0 - o o o 0 _ —"`' COLLIER COUNTY II-HORSESHOE - ' c. 3SOO RIVE NNLE5,FL<O< 7C 'COLL IER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING I REPORT-PEER REVIEW I I _ PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL NM['cTM r ',`£_, I -. _ TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES „„ �„m..,,. c•l o I ORIGIAALIJSUED DATE: > I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I -1 I 0 I I =-, ..^--...-.... ...--..- Attachment A I m I 0 1 0 I P 1 m I 0 I 1 o 0 0 O o 0 M o 0 o o o o 0 • o I I N I , I 'Zi) 1 i 0 11 = D� I I 1 0 I--I-I j 1 co o D 1 .(7 i D I 77 m w z I I w z I I 0 -I 2 j T -1 z j , i TI 0 -D o0 ! 1 -- r-S o ,- ::�`: S r I H MI D v m D I I 0 < I m , _ < m m r w o -I - r W off ti v ! m O m wS I m O m a,S / ! _ m M o Xi -0 70 m / ! 1 mo I I = m m K mN ■ f < 0 I rn +o — I 1 < A-- 207- H 7.1 0 o---_ __ j I I • r- 0- m G 0mo 1 ! ISco m 0Ho 1 � i < c3 7:, —�-- jI, < ° m H �� ■ ! I � mc =D _ \1 i I � m =D i I Op I 1 j 0 G)m i I Om I I ,N I / I m f X / I Io Q 711x1 rn ! to I �H / i 0 m Z Z o - a)-----i------ =Z o - - ' j I H.._-- moo / ! I I SSS I , m z cn / I s m S 1 m Sw I ( _� / j D 1 O mom! / I ! mn2 / i I m i I m N','1 / N -f ' Z oc / ! Im a I `. yNoX � o / I ao0 I (O aiA A - Woo-1 �3 co / i - - �m o- I 1 I a O{ (mn cmi)� -0) °0 1 I 1-0) o ( I I 1 6 50 I I >m I ! D ! OZZ / �mm00 mD __ I I ' D7 Pi I , I I 0> :D 2 0 0 0 O ' ' I I O z O / I OSSN H oo I i ' WOm H �o0, I I , *`TmO m _, a)co 1 ! I HO m .s ow I ! I D ,=1= 1 Z o WO I xrrN + - - mm — 0> H o+ -- mm _�_j I I -- a OHHO) = o DD 1 I rmmc S o DD I I K � U m 22 I I I r_Gv7 m == I i I 1- r- m ,1 1 i ' =� m- I i i ' HH- w r-� I I I (nZ w - I--I- t mm M 0 I I ' -I -I 1 OO I ! , zz 1 I I OO - I mm I i I I CD CD I I ( Cr)cn i _ . .1 1. . I I D N Ll-1 I I I - - cn D N ={=i 1 i , t m o -i l I z' m . j - 1 I I I , O 1 j , W . D D N-A I I I z 4...CI I j I H coo I I 1 r= �l O) I 1 m -.- A�.i 1 0 0 I O'5 ! 0 0 I *S -<-G I I I m �� I I rii 11 71 I i , 0 m m I , i T m m o ---- (--- ---._i_.-_.__1 t i--' ,- -1 0 S 20.Z7 O W N O o N O , fV o _, N jO O O O O O O O O N IO• _I- (88 QAVN)133 NI NOI1VA13 (88 QAVN)13d NI NOIIVA13 COLLIER COUNTY /N► 2000 N.HORSESHOE DRNE NAPLES,PEN OH 'h n s c : -."°COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING - I REPORT-PEER REVIEW M I '" PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL `ra TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES ,„,,Q«,�,. , ^' �"_�+ ," ""°' II 0 .•x•^• I u...nn [. I I ^ wr. ORI NAL LSSUED DATEE: • • • Attachment A ) 1 o I 0 I 0 I m I m I 0 I I G 2 M O 70 7o N n O N D Z to D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0' r n W N - -, N W N - N T D 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 l ' + -_i____ _c__ - -- ' N O f if N 0 . 0 —' —f I � — u s I i No -I > 1 ; 11 N iD ; ,l o m � I ! it - m __ I -, 11. a q om i- X ;m ! 1I. ;i7 m caZ I I I'7 0 wZ I I) 1 -12 I I' 'e• -12 ; I m- N i I r m- N t .r: "0 2 + --- I !- 171 = o+ -J-- m S; 0 I I r O ; - I D mITl , I =cri mm • Ia, o-I G o= r < m 2 - m a I m r m <r a i i m 5 7-I V C N O X -o 73 C N O :U a7 ap, + -_ .- -= m m K-- Ho + --- - 1 I 2 m o . W �� o- m o � 1I < xi 0 I Dm o , i i � C 0 n 73 r- � 161 r n m r- I ; (iv cn m - � D i 2 m =i =>D ■ I `I O x --I 0m 1 II � m 0m I tom ccn i m ■ i 11 w S m I r co 70 - 1 i 1 O zi, 1 I i O m -1 m _ 1 I ' m -1 m 1 1 I m 2 Z p —1 2 Z o / I N I m 0 O / I/ Z �/ I I O m^'�O I i j 2-1/ mm - m s z Nm / c //I I o o SomO rnZ / I ° I D i Oo .. l w-I j lW m � I m I N W m O m m p M N co O O Q Z -0 O) 00 I 1 — I I -0 m cn 00 I 1 0 0 0 m D I I I D I I - �mm0C > - 11 I Il DX X I1 I 1 D � - t7D I a7D / \ I O Z / I I O Z C722� _ °o ° I I Il pm I °o° ■ I I I 070) O ammo m co co I I n m c')c° I III -i-OI >FF—, z o_ ca co 1 I I H a o-I--Ico = o D D I rf- Kr- I oo mDmD _ .-..+_- -fir a r- mmC m S2 1 ! II r0 N SS 1 I I r0 mr�rnl Ni mm I 1 k-z 00 m m I I' � � t =1 ° I -� -Di�� " � � I ! �z -I PP 1 ! 11 mz m m m o 0 I 11 --1 m oo i i ,I , - _—__m m I I I p m m I i m z z- r O r Z z 1 - co co I I D N -I 7 I ; 1 0 D N -I-I I I I 0)m 75 11 mo-I- 75 { _ , I — zoI mp t I I - I z O - H I -I ■° 1 •• I I I 1 W DD N I I 'I Z NN I ! I Z i Z -- c)a .co I I m -,-- cwo Co I I H l O— C7 O I 1 C7 C7 I T7 I m * -I I I ' -I I �-I 1 I II -�i �� } i i_L.. _.. I - m mm 0 1 0+ ,- - t z` 70 7J p W N j O p p p W N O N o O O O O O o O N O in Lo 0 w (88 OAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 (88 0AVN)133d NI NOLLVA313 zz O 0 - om co 0 ■ / _ ." '<"' MO COUNTY 0 N.HORSESHOE RIVE l NAPLES,FL 34106 ��wyll /1 -COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ,, REPORT-PEER REVIEW c r Z &..• PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL I I TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES ,._,,,�,�,.,, "'+'�'+_,. ��.__. =t<-=°,- I ORIGINAL IS SU_D DATE: D I 0 I 0 I 0 I m I m 1 n I = va---- Attachment A D I m I 0 I 0 I m I m I 0 I I < 2 m O 73 N XI • 0 D Oz .• D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88)r 0 r I--0 W N - _, fV W N - –, N m > o ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 0 r + i 1 + I I – n m °o °o i7 – N ° 11 1 W 7 IV I cv I r, m °- — I ;U ;0 m O O N r N I– m — o __ o I m - � I 4 / m °o +-i 11- oo v / H / - �.� s r 1 m / r / y; I m 1 -- / – =1" I" mzo I I D o °o x - / / m Z7 w rn (n / o� ( u III 00000 _i CD+ / ---- + - 1 O 0, 0 °o I °o I O Z z 0 I / I 03 O I _ XI D _00 / -20 / D I 2 1 02 o�\ � oz oo W (n o W(n 6)w I 1C) w p*-n -no i ) 6) I r r o co co I ce o W CO I 19 A 70 N + -- m m --I– -0>- A 0rmmc ° c>i > I — Kr ° nn I Kr K� A 22 rO 22 I rL) -I- I- r 71 -n =Z mm I rZ i-I 0)m -- 1-r- I u)m mm { 00 -Z'I 0 I Z - 0 II _ CDcn 0 �� I I "' --1-7-1 — —�v (n N q� I (n m o � --I z +°o-- « I z w K 0 I 0 z z rn O H N O I H I- = m -- C)m I m O G) -<F 0 -G r I w - 'm < I 'a I- m 1 1 m RI z D D .A � �� J H a / I H Fn- m m +O -' I ° I I O ■ O - N O O -' N co o o O ° ° o O O ° ° N O 6) W (88 QAVN)133d NI NOI1VA313 Coo QAVN)1333 NI NOLLVn313 z 0 0 co w co - _ - = i �_ '°`"' COLLIER COUNTY _ • MC N.HORSESHOE DRIVE = NAPLES.FL SA1DA 'rh-°' s n ��- COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING - 'p"' N = - REPORT-PEER REVIEW Z... I r,r Z PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL w _._ _ L TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES �..,„ee«„�„„-„, ,,,E ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE I o I 0 I 0 I m I -n I o I I n ~ µo._, Attachment A D I m . 1 0 I 0 I 5 I ii I 0 I I < I M O N Cn• o ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) to 0 r r W j -CO Ni 0 N W N 0 - N m D O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 r + — — __ r_i +0 __--"— I — � m - o 1 0 V .Z�7 0 SCI O Il I i N.) D _ / m °- Y 0 ; I 0 m 1*. --rl % TI r N.) - ----- m N- -- -- I _ m I N , I i V I < 1 I cn II J ? / 1 0 . ∎ Co + - - L----1- '� - _- + -- t - 2---!-- O N.) O G 1 � rn / � I—I / - O I m / m 1 E I m I -o I N O I D I 00 m C) 1 H rn I rn + ! ------!n- + — I - -- 00 o I m I I -o SSS r- - ;A fl I m / I D •. s m I I m ' Z I I v I o o m p I / IX ommZ o 03 Co 1 CA _—� — — 0 i C0 CD o z z IJ I i �mmcc I D� II D� - AD �D DDDZ / , I 0Z �1 I 1 OZ 0II� C" 1\ I W(n oo I ( co co 1 / I O "il -T1 0 W I O W W I i --I--I D r r- O W co I a Xi- I- + -- mm --I OD- + - mm f-- - OD a o—I —Icn °o DD I � r ( oo DD I I rr -,-0 --0< _ = I �_z II I I _RZ —Irrm 2J2 ► 1m rT--rm I ( =m rr I - 1-r- I (n mmv I 00 I - 00 Z — mm I Q L mm 0 I I I 1-1 Ll — I o f Z o-- - - w o l O o i f co I 5 E E I I -I 1 D D I N Z I z I o z z ■ � O 1 —1 1 �O I H i m I m O� nr I 1 'hr- I co I 7 *_ -< 1-. I m qtr I m rrll I T I n -I I ii .P I �� l 1+0 11 �iii�_ -0 W N O O O O cow (89 OAVN)133J NI NOLLVA313 (88 OAVN)133d NI NOI!VA313 zz O co Co co iE_ _ = q > COLLIER COUNTY -- 800 HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES.FL 3.04 ,4 r` 'COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING 1 N REPORT-PEER REVIEW I Z PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL 1 TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES I,�„ a .�,.m�.,� »m,....2.,_ o,re. .Y�....,�... - p1 loamlN<.ussuE„,,, > 1 01 1 0 I 0 I m I 7 1 0 1 I nom, - Fr a su-•ft- Attachment A D I m I o I o 1 m I ¶ I 0 I I � ° — N D0 to Co D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r m> O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 I-- + 1 I L - °+ I 1 I - e m O '- - - u s 0 A 0 ;CJ o 1 � i I C rv3 f 1%- X m O r N N r- m + m— / i = I c 1 v \ r 1 k, 1 i o / < I — a / r .- I m I 1 ------I o 1 Oo / 1 m I m 1 I D - � Im - 1 - m I N N m 0 / 1 y o °o X.. � N W 0 0 _, 0+ _/-- -.-__ -_- °+°__--_ 1 I • m O(n00,,GG)) 00 / 0 / <Z Z-5 O 1 I _ � aoom0 I D0 I S� OSSO boo, I OZ �NN� / oZ `<TITIO rnw I Om °° I 0o OFF -,. m 0 mm I -I 0w A Jrr1" mm --i --_ _ 0 m m I 0� 0 —i-i� 00 > > I KI_D- °o` DD - �� a rmmc RKKA II 1 r_O II ' i _G) mm < I �z Tlm I R �H _II� rr1 i �Z - rr-� I c�nm - mm oo ► - 0O I - I 0 171 MI I Z Zn I m0 Zi to I I Om __ _ O + -I-I I 0 ct) i N --I I 0 1 I 0 .-< - I z o+ -- 1 - - 1 0 0 f 1 z0 w 1 --I 0 zz N`' 0 I -1 I °0 ' I - I-S n?� I m - O T I m O1" �r 1 nr= 1 -n I m {r I II S 1 T m D D ` l I -I a `. / I -I I'' m m +o I -- -- -— +o .--- i .- -- - '' 70.Zl ° W N , O ' N 0 !O 0 -a N O O O ° o o ° O Al _.O 6'w w w (88 DAVN)133d NI NOI±VA313 (88 DAVN)1333 NI NOI!VA313 z 00 - ww 0 all)s 11.n -COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING � t, REPORT-PEER REVIEW I I PP.OJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL nc „ o_LN TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES `�"' -- - 1 II -� '" D I 1 : 0k 1 T 1 ll 1 C) 'r `- ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: Attachment A APPENDIX B—COMPARATIVE VOLUMETRIC SUMMARY TABLE 2 Attachment A 2013 Project-Comparative Volumetric Summary Design Volumes Effective Taper Effective R-Monument Distances'-) Matrix'=s Length Distancete Atkins VolumeO1 Difference (FT) (CY/FT) E (CY) (FT) (FT) (CY/Fr) (CY) (CV) CIO R-17 R-18 R-19 R-20 R-21 R-22 R-23 R-24 R-26(Taper) 986 10.0 4 9,864 500 736 _ 12.8 r 9.432 -432 R-27 1095 18.1 _ 19.851 1.095 18.0 19.710 -141 R-28 1026 10.0.. 10.256 1,026 10.2 10.450 194�-- R-29 .942 10.0 9.423 942 10.0 ' _9385 -38 -R-30(Taper) 1033 10.0 10330 500 783 13.0 10.179 -151 R31 ..-31 R-32 R-33 R-34 R-35 I R-36 -1 R-77 i i-- R-38 L R-39 1 _. R-40 1 _ E R-41 1 R`12_____ R43 -------r i- R44(Taper) _1.000 _ 5.0 _5.000 350 825 16.1 14,942 9,942 R45 1,078 35.4 38,138 1,078 28.5 30,703 7(435 R-46 1,040 10.0 10.403 1040 9.9 10.323 -80 R47(Taper) 953 5.2 5,000 500 703 6.7 F 4.739 -261 R4 ,,8 _ _ R49 _ + r T-50(Taper) 1,208 2.1 I 2500 500 250 145 ! 3.625 1125 R-51 1.108 14.5 1 16.057 1.108 14.5 I 16,045 -12 R-52 967 26.6 1 25.726 967 26.51 25,608 -118_ -_ R-53 1,060 12.2 7 12,923 1,060 12.2`�}( 12,956 33 -R-54(Taper) .. 500 5.0 5 2300 _ 400 860 2.5 I' 2,134 -366 R-55 1 1 R-56 1 -- - 1 R-57 `�-"- _- a ___ Taper j1 14,613 200 100 _ 75.5 L 7,550 -7.063 R-58A 667 73.6_j 49,122 404 75.5 J 30509 -18.613 R-58 737 584 1 43,057 737 61.8 1 45,530 2.473__ R-59 1.035 30.4 1 31,470 1.035 25.7 [ 26.565 .4,905__ R-60 _ 1.081_-_10.0 _1_10.813 1.081 10.0 E 10,850 37 R-61 7.049 10.0 ___L 10,488 1.049 13.7 1 14.375 3,887 --- R-62 1.015 17.8 1 18.098 1.015 18.0 i 18.308 210 R-63 967 18.3 1 17.691 967 18.2 17.585 -106 R-64(Taper) 854 5.9 5.000 - 500 604 53 1 3.221 -1.779 I R-65 R-67 t _ R-68 _ R69(Taper) 805 6.2 5.000 600 _ 505 0.4 _ 187 4,813 R-70 800 15.6 1 12313 800 15.6 12504 -9 R-71 803 22.8 1 18.284 803 22.8 18,291 7 "'R-72(Taper) _ 807 6.2 I 5.000 _ 600 507 33 (- 1.690 -3310 R-73 1 1 R-74 -; R-75 _ - -"- R-76 R-77 R-78 R-79 1 R-80 I I R-81 1 R-82 1 R-83 1 Total: 24,616 419,120 22,080 387,395 -31.725 Notes:(I)Derived from Tables 5 through 7 of the Sept.2009 Three Year Post-Construction Monitoring Report prepared by CP&E (2)Derived from CP&E 2012"Design Matrix for 6-Year Rerourishment Interval°in Appendix E 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 2013 project extents Effective distance developed by Atkins using different length than identified by CPE Effective Distance Equation for Tapers {(droper)<D SD)), d„r,_(dR_n„q){100%- 0 dlf-blew whore d g=effective distance used for volume talc in taper d,,,,=effective distance for adjacent 8-Monument d,,,,,,,=taper length Attachment A Q APPENDIX C—GLOSSARY OF TERMS 73 75 Attachment A Ask 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 Slope—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. 10H:1 V—A measure of slope. "10 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical" . < _c a.) U a -0 -1-J 0)O ® ra C . c6 E c .4_j — • 44— CO > OD a Can C E •— (U L. t/) aJ a) V 0 •C = , �' a) 4— L. co cu0 2 1 _c -1-) > •— U Up O O 0- O Q cc C -0 C-% , -0 la C c6 'W CU c O as C _o a� � � co co ro m -a -0 ,_ .– :„ O m N •— O L_ C c co d- a) v, E O a) a� E-- :3 (9 %—I > � mi M — 0 m = -0 . c—I _0 > C p u c6 a 0 a� •- cc � ® O N w = 4- N a) Ni rn s F- O O OA O _ .� U a Z � m .=' a' a' 0 I cu E�, ® a -a 0 c� `" ej 0 •— O Q' 0 E cN '4= ..c @ Q.) .-Z 7=4_ (-) :!-_-.% LO 0 —a co ® `+� rNI co • ■ a5 X Ln do -� z qs 0 CI > CD O ck3 O •N - a Cr O v O E O a v Q,C O � � O � h o � -0 U L � Q) Q) -a O i z CU co CI >- �- OO Z 0 L LCD u Oli cn I 0 C3 0 O v V/ 0 a .o C -ZN ' .Z �, ▪X }, -0 C ® 0 g E Cu O v O • of "' �� (▪77) 03 > L � O ® m _ , Q O O v Qj 0 L Q) -J I I I I I i CL C _ 03 4-) w r—I ® aJ 0 0 o C 4.-) •� r0 (6 lD ® •a) U L � � ® .4—, (f) -E—J v a i v � U a) _0 a r0 `1' C .0 ^ , .O L E a) a--I W •.., 0_ ,- " 0 ® E E co 0 cu S. ® ® `� (f) C 00 v p CAA N cu co c O v) cu cu LO O L '� C L _ u� bp hA c c 's- o ;,, O 4-1 v) • _ _ — _ U° 0 U t11 E N to ci') 0 MI 73 cu I- 1-- ct3 U c3 I I I I t2 4-"' N V) c3 I— U L_ D a_ t LO N *4 e--4 I ;i " — ^I (� k N W .mac. h b �.. ° M co Q' to w ° r-+ v") t.Cli .1 . c °o U > �4 ° N a) �"� ¢, �� ' o 00 a, o E a, U 00 0 ° c, �, 0 _ ct CD ,01 D W G1 N �' N P4 .1, .. O - oo M O O VI O O U a) P'' a) N N -cu cu > 71-[ In 0 .- ,--I ,i+ U .- E ray V/ E V .,-y CD : a h � eI ° w o N Qo �, M -4 V) _ CU .. —, cn •ems > li: No 0 .N , N a) 0 = 4 C C A"- •- Lo C -o L co ch W CIA CU C6 l0 c co •� U -c c6 p 4—) c6 a) O .� O C a) 4-6 E c tap E •_ cn ca " D_ C › _. ul to u co E , u c75 0 _ C O CU O - ' i—i O Q O U •— v 0 ca O U 0- V) 0 � U �z 0 4_, a) o c . a) Q. (D co E7:, 0 . 0 4_, -47.,- (...,.., .7) a) 0 0 — etoco O ;+_ I. - cn cn co C F. O a� Q 2 O O .� O cu > E .' ' a) a) o • E m a.) -0 .= l0 O O ° 75 -c) 5 U > O N I'D L- C (CIL) -C Cl.) C E "' L.- L.. -o V �( c6 N O 0 CD 0 73 CU •— 1 o a) a--, - C 0 a) o a) C au N > Q W 0 .cn U 0_ N > • • • • • • .,(f; C�% W ^ 1 U CCD O c p .0 ca p a) -•-e. bA (f) v — — C G) Q 41 -Cp S7 CU C C O � O O � ca m R3 W CU c ° c E 0- c au c E u R3 co o a) a� ca > _O U N >c aA LO O O •E . 0 (0 -1-) z _ � la O ca O � U 'El" � La U _c .— -0 0_ 03 Evl E . .J>% EQ) O .J O E U � c � wcECD E -O +, � Co •— c6 v ra v -o (f) 0- v (r) . ca _o 4-) ow +1 >, " a) L E E C °� w E U cu ; E O U 00 $2 • 0 • • Q.) bA N a, u 8 8 8 d L Q• i O ® o d U ® i p F _ QJ ® L. co CL) 0- cn CU N CO ro U CU *.0 a. > c E r ( a.) o a— �+ as ® �° N -o {v-+Cl 5 .� U cam. o `. N CU---+ • •� en V) •— CO�, ® QJ QJ N CC5 (-0 =d 4-, C la -+ a) • MOM y U aJ co cl) E au o ,t, ® U c L o o o ® cn 'ttO co 0 ° �-- ° E aj cn °o O '- N a L( ■ ,-- QJ CO • Q , i /� ,y� O 0 C o V 1 © a cu — V N 0 U N N co `F- •i CU en C W _, v c 0- Q N l v •- Q0) au EU Co co O QJ A la) crs v o >> C 0 u ® C C6 U _c U 4— 0- C.J () s_ Uc : -P q o a.) o CB " C _, C E )r � t V) � i Qn C.) c) Pte- Z 1 1 3 3 0 C __..:. p. 3 Q 1.' 01 Sam E ...... 4,,', U if .` V- -ir V E‘ . E 1 : , ; . ' C i LLl fi �. -C Q W Q N 1. o f °' LIJ as C CO 0 z a3 o L -° . oz0U ri a.) zz .� IF`'� CO C 11'' 0 0 `` o 0 Q� ': Q O U ' .- 1 A 1 y5. frj ,.i ;,v. •• 1 M �Ai 1.+r ,,, . A _,,.,,,.... . ...T.- , ...,:; 0 '5 N 4.::: it,, ., . ,, . ,7st -::; - : .--'''' ! . ' Y-:4' ' r. W U CD O O N CZ C IL a) 4.1 -� tl� C(3 (L) � o O n .u) a . _o 0 0 (1) U 41•0`'= O o �-- a) 4""j .� m - 0) 73 ( a_ 0 CI3 RS CO CD - U > p Cl) � (1) ca ° �, - L 4) u � O x ° > ca o o w n N (f)' � O m > o w • • • =1::i I"::,1 ...? :..,.;' 14:-4-t:ii,4.:t''':'k'4.-.7,:ri:-,:i'erra,,,,,i';r.i.'N11,1.11,:f-,,,,I1 :-.,... . ;,li:LI: ' - 4 Tr, '4 ti,VA:i t'imlitliff)r1-."- D '" :'1 W ,, . +-+ U N_II (13�O O S . L . cL < U 01 2 z § 1 aO ,¢O m wk z N I / g LL ° 0 t' "°_` / U p a o U q _ Q W K a w / O a•VA 0218 30t•'0 I ' / o o J z/L W —7'3 LT., ° �2 2 o W ■w cr...- Q I' Z ® NA i CC 0 Wp g OLUSO1 3 0 N W r/ I OOOEOt3 U W co a �„= z 'ac m D i w - 1 `r- m x a Q„ a D. 11101 Q; ;IHi 7 ° �i v� 1M 0 W Q _! m a iii tii is 2 m d v° c - �� 4 . \1 d`' Jig _ 8 U I1 0 �\1�1 V OOOEaE 3 II U y O1 --- 11 �I - rq t7 m a ti d F-A \V�1� r y O w _1 Z / I \1 K 0 2 Z, m ° Q} // I W i s 0 LLO - w H 0 0 UQ I I1 d Q O w 0 o ♦0 w n - m 1 o Q ¢•MIN cc - ^ z 0 d II Z Z fyn,� O Q w w m S �i.f > �� Hw0 I 8 0 w �ogWm�m �. .10 N. L 11 Y Z(Y b N J Q J Cr�-N� F LL Q Y W^O. ID/�� 11 ¢O �d o II N 11 R F J LL g J LL J W ZmfnQ‘ F- W_O N p s :1, r�O dcA IL ILU II oho 2oz oz0 aa �zw h1 Iw � wZmwowoz � CO - R I - t K O O 7 O w f1 W w a z O Z LL Q \ 4 1 w L. .w KO.wA p. ?°°0°,° "p I' aaa aaO aO LL OoWNF- 1 11 ^ OODBg 3 � \ ` Z O U 8 1 II f/' ® w m._ n, 11 1--y c 1 II % 1 — d Z z z 9 I ii) y ii '11 Cl) L CD .ai CD E L (I3 as p L ccs CC3 CL a) co 0) C ......t rs) C O) •..- co (i) 0 CD O CI �� 0 °D 0 0 '- C5) C -I., _ CD CO CD U CD 0 C .— _C CO i CD (I) E CD E L 0 a) > 2 a. y€ w ''i �z '7 ,/� x8'�`-$.4*. iykd fi -',+ t V; 1_ ;V NYC ' a i 4' • . L 4- 0 /�L L.L. '0 i ., - C i CIO o >, } N Q 73 13 CO w oC N o ��` 'C' ''U - CO .— 0 o •L > p c F..., , . T I� xf k cL -J '''7 N • E �s O f tom- cN•CO CN - ' 7' ` 2 o •:: . -o a co N co - CO • • . . - "' 11411110 . • U , - . ..4 2-. , co a) , - s_. -8 a). L.. 2 . a) ,.. c o (i..) s._ O 0 1 -8 ....0 Cl) a..) ,.., E ..---.... -C — -I-, i+-.. 4- 0 c N 0 _..c I .4-0 -.! I- . 0 C a Z Z a.) O. E .. -8 a) 3— 75 f10°111111111r 1 E -...._. m 0 ...., w _. ij o 0 IN CI Irl ,...-2 g 0 a) E . 0 0,0 8..,,s LT. 0, _ . .. ....„, ._ _c ...... > S LI 01 S 0 g- i 01- — -8' S 1- . >N- s:, E SR a) 0 anvN'13a -uopenan _0 a) ...... s._.. a ,0011k =NB 4— Iiii 0 (..) , g (1) 0 (1) • (IC3 LEM C 3 t -F. ........ .. .4_, . . ,,,, . .............. t,„ U) 0) P a = - 0 , -i (13 Cl) a C -C3 CIO (1) a et 44 -4-..., >1 z g (I) > a) (0 c > 3.- O ..., .., E (N S 7-1-% I - -4--1 fLi W CIO -g r-s ;4 (.1.) s.... 03 -0 -0 (.1.) (ll > b 7:3 -8 > c Ili c) co 'C"?1 ID Cl) (13. 3,- 111 e 0 -g Q) • z., . . 00 t■I , o 0 I.-. 0 1-g. t2.g Cti IT.. 0)+0 UOIleIS g ro' —o ■•I - • '. .5.-- ''''.j.1 .>••''•-: '' ^ " -- Li ' _ , ■ . .. c . - D o ; o ,: ip . -,, t 4 ... . , . . ' 83CIAVN'zaal-uczernal3 .4„. ,••,otor.l.. ..... ...it,- 4, r> 4.— - - S .......-......4 IA/ 0 0 /„� o co I 4' W C (0 U ` -.<7 � N O Z O J �_ n, O (1) - LL N F 0 C ui W CC a. F N CtS a3 -C W O� N 1 F 0 X ±i ri CL IC minim rz v_, w d d W it- • 0 Lij =NM eN Co. . ♦N W VI- ) V o z 2,-- i U a Q o u_U Z C Iii W Q W(7 Wn, U z Q�W j..., m2 QZ�J J_ '' f z as� 0• Z °(9 8° 9 mW QD �W V♦ 0 0 WW Q m❑ — O t-CC a (7 W CD III ) ! CD CD C U � om> 7 t o z CO to O N O nn,, (a11JN 133 NOIltlA3l3 v CD -0 > D <C 0 D < LL • • • • • ' , 0 L 7 C o0 N 7 .CO , p 0 0 p r 4...J 1MGGINS PASS _N R-17 N R-16 C R-19 - a U) U t/ R-20 a.) 1 R-21,_ E -0 W N r, R-22 } '^ J ../r R-23 cc Z nl(1) (1) O O I l --441 R 24 Z . ..0 0 .I • 2 O 10111.' R-25 a3 g VJ ! R-26 z ■_ii I- S N O l z- /�� . R•27 a U O L = R-28 1-- milmm 4....0 co W I R-29 j W _ u R-30 O UM U `F-- a O ° o / o• R-ii a O L ry N CEI^, j U W Q tai O m R-32 W ^ y• R-33 to .- 1-.. O \,wV�. R_35 w n` ° \ �\ E W O , ',.OV�ti ;2' R-36 d E z -" \ R 3r a O Z N c L N L. t7 < R-38 N c W / . C T O D w R-39 m CO m 0 ''' R-40. . V! o l1 o R41 ❑ _F-+ T -i-� -- L /T[ Z CLAM PASS O 0 LO Cr.5 • Y6 ✓ f o E c co o w N CO (/) -0 0) 0 � Cl)- = S ,� p N o — O Ci) ah 0_ O Z c CD a) _c 2 _ eL (., CO C CO c'' `f' .c s- (1) c3 •S: ci- 0 -0 N Q o (/) ° o _ C a3 E - cin U N w ca .N. w — eN � CO c -� o ci m > d Z CO C(3 c Z Z I I I U) _ m cn al • • r .a �; ' * h , : , :11,...,*("t1 : !,:',...411,0 \4,''',v1,,..: If f;i1,4' .....'-„ li : -,..,; .-4, " i m• "" *' .i p"s ' . r~ ,.► i N' t r A CD (n .c Q) (1) �- = • E v- o0 06 c ) ° a) c .I n m CV d' co O -a 13 p O C > 'd' (a RI > O w CQ a O w O C6 rs) 4-E.a) -� lM o - O cn ♦^ L C i U 'C 0 o g 06 D z .�, � (/). . u) w E >.,a. E C) c 2 N 2 > < (a n Q Q • (n( U LQ I-- Q .C '/MA imp y r ' I 0 +i +� F4 u O Ln O LO O ° °° N o WIGGINS PASS _ R-17 c--- R-18 R-19 0 C R-20 R-21 �� }r R-22 C4 .. l► R-23 w 4:, R-24 R-25 CD t��/ C7 �..'j � a R-26 V/ u "- d R-27 U m z- ,-.-,-,:;::,;,,,,,,,,1,'':.,;""' R-28 > �,��/I: R-29 �� I �� _ R-30 % a R-31 Z...> . m R-32 ti3) CD Y v� R-33 Is' R-34 y' a r R-35 I ii R-38 a •MOM = A J \ R-37 z C i J � f R-38 � ` R-39 •MEM 0 } . . .. . ` 7. i R-40 I B R-a1 c CLAM PASS E ,c R-43 R-43 � R-44 r S, `e R-45 Z r,,,,, �^ � M R-46 O fir,j; /: ' �. i R_47 Q c°V �'� Y R-48 V uJ R-49 OJ ��//�� Z Sa i %M,- ,, R-51 E A 3W, I - . ✓ ta_ vs I R-52 7 AINO i R-53 ZO R-54 g 0 �—� U-55 • R-56 ck Z — T-57 DOCTORS PASS �" R-58A � �!/i✓.0 sou�'ilii�/,1lri//lL,/!!/�/�/(��i� i i i .: ,•' MC ?2) I i R-60 1 -, � R-61 F- L) C j f/r , ter--- • R-62 R-53 r.. -- R-83 Ul Y R-64 • `-- R-66 ` - .- ma s .` R-67 Q v:. R-68 _ G! m i/ R-69 U N F- Zec.../�jj%', i�/lly`�//lf / R-72 O to CO Z r" R-73 O �— C N 'c R-74 N N C) W `� - R76 E N N O R-76 r N N ■/./� \ / .- R-77 N y J V I �" __ R-78 0 C t o V ^' R 79 - J 0) /AW R-80 �O N O Iii R-81 �" 0_ 0.. �` R-82 00 Cl) M CD R-83 O O O R-84 N = N O ❑ 2 ❑ I .4 j - Aliks >-% >1 ,- >lb C.) C.) C) , ,>1 r_ 0 0 0 CD 0 CD — CD CD CD Ti CD II■•• cD000 .---..) cloto 'V cpcDoN. coh- cDcs _ CD Li. 6 04 6 c N h. (NQ COCO0 , 1%.- NOCO gd- 716 '. N int) C (\- CU C cp ______ u) cn froft,...... .•-• co •NMI W C CL MO W CD Cil CO C (2 a. D 0 u) I 0 1.... Cl) 0 c) C 0 0 al • CD CI a) 0 E E . o = 0 u) a) E co • . c) c co Ti •■z 111 > W El? IMO 0 M (D 0 41:t 0 7:3 > CO a3 2 co i., -1-.0 c CZ C c 0 45 0 (9 73 C -C„5 r3) C.7) •.-- 4.• .4...J .... 0 IS st-."- all •MEN 2 = z Cl) 0) 0 .11 0 Ft= Cf) i (i) Cl) 0 CD • • • • • • • • 0 II I) 4 -,-- P 1 N � f W in /f N - u> v- ix a cc co oc >- a EM / a Q z m wN a •I c w -1I -1 [x N Q W Nj}-• ' ° a z a - EE1 i< NM t 111111111111111.1 Wirreill 2 . ow 7., z,� art z U '" T °'-'� N } � N Q O Ch, _.0 a (51, ==..%4 ).."-<1�Y. ��' N d N Jr � lll� �'r, � amm , r ti a o \ CD O. i I l': tr.-- - t th ,,.,.,; i 4-; - 1----; S ° - f > 0 oZ J °o Ha x L. >11- C — p E c ¢ce U O ` i-U - _, O V _ _ -f — )_ A+ M 0 > r a Q �� Lv/7 1) W Q N G 1 I ' i ,y , 0 4X4 ik ; } G 4 Cl) i a) Co 'i o a) o 0 E tab O 4,- 0 }+ >� a =i) V L-'■_ O I O cD O G) O >, co' .— O N c o F._ -a G) C15 CD ctsC 0 ca 13 E 73 0 CD 0 o C O U) Cl) ca °o >+ >, 0 0 0 >, 0 C.) aj O •O o O O .‘- O O O O O ` v O O O o 0 00 0 3 0 1.n -a 0 N O S N ,CO L L C c N ID E L Z O CO r e— M 01 Z ge M -0 t6 0 L ) C) r O p Q N n co O O p O 0 d' ti O ,T- N to O N i.o N N ^� ._ co co co co >, C) O a) O O 0 > _ C) C) C) C) co C) C) a) © O O 0 ca U -0 T-- ¶- CO e- e- N tV i N Z -I (I) Q W Allak - Q. 4. / / 4, :1 7.—.:- ...„,-.---7...— 71117,7"---■..mpe On ),. 1 .... ec„, - .,..,.. ,1 \ s, _, _,_ /"- i ( _ .____ ,_.,.)-1. cr.. r _ ( ,- \__ -- --=:\ A„.__:‘,■.. _)/ 1 ---.\ -----0 . .. ;$;4' ' rI' , • Eg re . aerial it +.4 tZt 1. 0 \ ,i-k Jr c,‘ fiVtionellswoo ., a)VI , ■4 ) 05 v ,/ t,,- ? a3 c) ,k- \ \'14), --, \ t _) ! K ,,,?: L— — , 1 I ( ------ 8 ...(i.. < , } ; I \t 1\\\\\\;5'.'w u a 5 a .L. (-- '1 .R. i.- c5) - ,,..., ,,,, 4-,.. 0 c*.-1.2t-1"'" • m P — ' A. \\iseg \j..., = _ 0: . .,. C :1 •- 4 1 V; "" 4, .. , E.' , -c•AI9 ,-.- z 5 CC5 2= c•?s ,-,;.,' _____ . - 03, (I) 1 \ .\,\•,\ i ,-- s .. ,.f .,.6,--, r-N 0) ••,4 -.),- ' -. ‘10., . , , ^, . Ar. .4 =Rz 1?-..--, Spo. Moi \‘`-, - b".6g .--. ' • (i) si cl '="SpINO — 5.— 121 i■,A ; 'QF,F, E14 ;11;_1i 0 1 KI -x \ r:. 11 • I'. '■ 46A + ; , i, •ill.N - oo-,1 ` i . I, 1662bbtib .. ___.1.:, ____%.. il_ i t____i_ COBiruirr-- -= ff"fr.' -,-- ,,, (1.) i Nig=‘;-...#.10.- ---..480 c._=.---* . - 's's) -•\ , .';, (3) ,,„,- ,,-4 r /tr.".'k•, .., CD .4—. ,;„/,, .; - •. , **. t -,, ,, ca,.4i 1 ‘A 1 i'' l'[.._ ,. ‘ 011 ..ozz HI. 2v Nou.3 ul., 410 ,..... CC5 .. ...„ '"g.••• , '- VII ', , \ 1 \ (1)pi '' I P:moominawmawaroll 1 )/41 \ 'N\ ''' , \\ Iv Z 2 ,,, ,,, A:,-,.--,-..--•,-,.,, / . --._ , I,, \' .I - -4 t. „.,-:--- .,k1 , , ...,,,\ ti --cs u) ...1 ii,* 9. 'T 'al ' „3 , p 1 i ,- . '1 Z-t----t.c,- ,4-'.A-.0.•-4 0,0,',0').\.-..., -,,:,,, ',\-V--:.„....,4_,-. ls e ,.__ 7 l■, .bi.F.i,n,,,.\ 4 c a.) (u1)5 , a.- i 0— Cf) 0 5, ' 54— 0 ' ' V' • r ,V.." te. giL. , v z •rn Tz , .4,....1 •• . :'. 4 i 1 Z • \ 4.6 --CV.) V\ ' CL - A 111 'A\\ -.'7' i'( l 0 / , ,. .., ..,., • * .,, _ (0,„z ,„.,,,,,, _.... ... ,.., - . .....1-cf.,-_, (.. \v,,,\ - it 0 741'. 1„- . „ .,.. . , ./7" 7 *.-ip., - ,- 1-7:t " / ( / _I - ' . 4' ., • '--, '''`'. : t I'm c, kj -I ..---- ' i es, ma .. . ,...... _ .____--_------- ,--------' \ \__-------- - ............., c\' ,j. c "i. rii i:' i 'Z'," ca d •C OJ III . w z toe T III o O U CJn P1 • (1) E (Y, E o N U U D CU O U o O VI c aJ a) E U v O • 'o E '� -•F" OO a v ) H - c)S 8 . 1.0 0-4 N o - p U o Z � - c • .4_) • ,- • Q.) cn v CA r--� bA O ft 00 '� Q.) N p u)-,C Z � c .� .41 cn M r--i ric; X - rd U 8 N E 4-I •U 0 Cl)' CI 4'11)J "r6 C)?i 7A' E 4J 4J N U V C 4J 4J 7zst V -r--+ U U 1La 4 Q'' Z. . 0 • rl a u w U I= ft C51 al-4 CU S.1 .74. 4-j au a .4 o CU 4 s v 40 o , o o v ft �., v � w 3 •� 1 it O a (1)U et u •� +� CU M O ft h ft rC3 •• ,M �� ti) '� v v 4O •C aJ ,.. O O v ai .Z4J t:10 CIU E ci' '..z CI) rt 7, >", v _� CU ,. v 0 rn v j a4 H H c, e C 4 3 r+ / A -4—) -- } l In oo W ftf ^ U ,-tom r,.' 0 -. -zs W■ Cal F." C5 ,p M t~ to p,., U MO maw C M':„ ri p cl • = bO - O c U r" W > O co N .�_ v to N o o p _In ,n +, s~ _r E ? 00 0' C p O I , G - c` N N al In E - -- V © U 0. cs © s—, ›I rd CU o Q E ©Hs: 1 CU 1.4 ^ 1 to O F .-� • N L E" , ,...<1.) . M = p I) , " U� p '•" N Cl c Q .� co x . w._ n C, W a O `� } -1 a r c, U Q C U _ a) a, cA � h! H M Cli L O c,; V tO 0. jI U U O ,mss Q co) ueu o D s L. 'c m o CD ''Z a 3 Vi CL U i 41.)CI > CZ ci :a Z , ' H • N fit' ' Y ,ak «rA t CU V rj 4--J V 4) •rte Q ;-.^1 4 0 H 1-7,...., „q ,.., V v ›-` O U o 0 fq cu o'� +- a; �O O r� v C..) 4-, `n th CU cn rci co cu CP •►� bA ,--+ p ►-0 roZ-4 'Ti E 2 —c5 ,.,,,., rci E .r.4 0 C/) rIC$ CU cip c!r:11 ' -i '< 4-) CP • c,..I TALLAtir,SFEE JACKSONVILLE LEE 0 (.9 VAN DE FE Li *\----% i BEACH \ c bc'2'..er,.1,, ,2 ,,--70.-Ulf L, -4_ 1 CL.'IF m ospoe co. MEXICO W. o , PELICAN -----=`----------=--=- -,--.--------ZW---.--z-_.-1-,_frr , _ PARK SHORE el` j_ 0 PROPOSED /I' -. Ch ft I PIPELINE Doctors Pass ',y , . i ..- , ——.\ N PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDDF 'N'' Al PROPOSED FILL AREAS --.))I GULF I ,,) i / \ OF ') A r-- .. L. RA =DEP Nt3N1PKIITS ,j Lo CFAA'10r.,F„NO 7.:TH..w.:,Rg;AN 4 _ tl 1 Z mom 0 doolluilmi Ill% 0 0 0 0 CV N 0 1 I 0 i C) I —1 + I i I CO I ( I 1 ) I / // ---...,-- a)gil i i rip a) / < •-X ....- I / 0 0 -- 11. ' / ± St < i=---- ::,- 2 t- ; 11.•1 / 0, i 1 ..... CO s- CNI CD u.,Li i—1— i C \ = 3_(- F- LO .... I-- — (1) POIS C.) _J_1 fl. ,,77-2, MC IMMO 11 a 1_. •Il - . ' -I- g! LL. '—LL.CO i i .--- . ou ° C C\I 2''.-1.Lu()m...„)i CD ;. 1 I Cr)c •— %....,,. 0 03 , CD ta 0•— cp c., ,•-+Z•-• ._ CI) co a I s; C) m . S.. - • e 0 EL.INGsl:Lii ' (1:; ''"' ' C•1 E CD 4—' 1 4 I I II j CI) . ;•.-4 (--..) C:14 0 cD c- , V I US\v ..,:,; J. i il NI NOII V....'..,j I .: . . } . t,�" � P 4�$ i,, � �4 4 4 a3 S N{ d r f. � a � 90 V4r 1 1' 4 A n a 54 G E F 11 Af ; '� 0 . , .,..- . .„.--....• ••••••••- • •••• : •.:•.,v.---.,„‘1 A 4.,,o„rrk.1,0 ". .. ' 1",104, 4 -\.ez..,-,.t..,-'T."-,".,.. ,..'j:,-.- ' sN=.• kit .74�"-� ri ''"�i;"a e y' .,dt + s,5y*..+,,C•'. :..;:i''..,..1'-'%.7-'.,:, :• ' ''''' ili:,4.4,444,7''''•:,,L..:fiY*Oet:'":--,,,,'-',.0'.':",-,q4,74 it.17- i'r-''''''''',i'": i < o c_7 C o IN N 0 I i n L C ri r : i j W••s, I —1 L f. -t = I` I/ Z w 1 �_ i. 1 ,1. ft/ L s ?. CD i I H 1 L Y. ■ CD 1 1 I I L I ® I_I- N t ; 1 in � P w _i 1:e ►/ I ~ J i _I_I r1 L ti E re K CO 0 CL = _ 0 ¢ _ �� + zW <J •r∎I zw CU li. •_ 1 T N o o LL 6vo-7o -I J I z .o W,^ 1-.1 0) O N x.G3 z �1 1 �U) Q a) E,w:�lc,�= W ,. L w I }}s O J I ( I ( 7 N i ' r Cl.) I � C r --- . -,- j` v U.A``I I`) _J-J '`;I Nil .. - .J • tri mxtaz ISIMMt ' 17.00 . 11663/44,4 CD (2) 0 0 C,,1 cs4 c ) I 1 i i • - I \ I i \ criai , \ a.)fo I / _ o n > > < < z z‘. .'. I 1 1 fr: 0 W o 0 / z z , < < :71- 111, 1 i i I i i I La tA C) G) Lo .... I 1 j-- I 0.. Z ..... LL • C_D CZ L•r_LI I ,..., o o m cr C.) c.,<<c,j z r■■■4 (..) = """ + S l'il WI 03 n •1•••1 Cti U.. "''' (N 0 03 L4■4 a) , LL c,z z -_..-. ociort„.. 0 CO ET,(-75 ;-4 c •—, D) z,ocawm U) •— 0) 0) U) p 40 tr)0 z rz .xoa—•:1. (I) 13 a) at.1.101csII (1) (1) 1. — 0 1111f -4.-J . 1 • e 0 r1:1 i I E c• 1 I I I I 0 cu H cf) I 0 cu 1 + 0 • 0 0 ._, Cli c\ (7-NJ I I (1) 1:4 :,' ' :TA V i\J,) [ 1H--i NI NOII ',./A -1; V z 0 ■I I C_c M _ N o W N . A 41 O so E o 1"'r A ", tO V 0 it N 2 0 N `r ' U N (p in • 0 O " i . 0 ea p L Cq r m + 6 ‹t F�+�1 C0 {f} 4U N -1– N CH- ■ •�--+ E M Q N A X CJ . CIO Z d E R zi ar 0 c co h. V C U d 7 I 1 to 0 na U N N 4J z ce •— t. O O O 0 km 712 4, N N r1 .�-. in �, n sp kit*OD r V 1 Z _ FIRI . ssed sao}�od4 sr C ids O mss. J00 ° 9sb v ° ssb E ( Ca I M "s N ^ es6 s CCS r or l7 E O L Q a h o O CD • s °s M `` i o N V) Q o 03 • b L 91 V) IT 8 Cl_ a o �� O N Y E M ^^ I tea N FBI p `0lf > ten, s rts i W ga a Z R G L nrk 4, 1 :,9 6 E rt I rtJdH O . Cr) s� a --Y 0 0 0 f"t� OM M N in 0 N H N in TAI ft 411 �1 • Ifi-. ! i f I A �lr i E 1f r o! g. h U eNI ea P a I N I o eq h d CO es 0 s— L. d O U f , s93 0 O a E u e N 7� ° j > `,a e >a. cn T 9, ek N O O fi9d III e-i O rgb C m i j 096- a �S. d ar V 3 , i d� O a+ I I-4 } de O Is U I III I I_ I - _. "� r 4 ' s -r- dS 0 q 0 o o q o o o 00 in 0 0 WI LA w tn sp1eA Aqi C/1 z I February 25,2013 New Business 7-c 13 of 74 Figure 1. Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay,Park Shore, and Naples Beach Location Map 3PREFOOTHEP.CH `V 1� TALLAHASSEE Il9GGaNSF1SS r ', �11� 4,FZ• it _JACKSON1I1C L' PROJECT ORLAfDD STATE PARK R0` A r.:; LocATION ``` TAMPA ATANT C`r OCFAA' y6----71.'g I HENCRYCO. N. . 0 BCCA - \ LEE n RATDN VANDERBILT co ix —,' MIA±.+I VANNERBILT F -- ' 4 BEACH n-E _f 14?MOOD -_ `- ,1� v ,& m GULF f J "�.�r �rI OF ; < " MEXICO _,V I .Rao --- uilti M NROE CO. \ C.1. , MEXICO 0 x�.�._-` PELICAN a BAY 8 u \ PARK ----\ I f \ SNORE No CLAM PASS. ( t SRE 3S ,- \ \ -- -A I K i F'_("VITTED 1rP L!, , N F3Pao.f / I: / N C'VW PIPELINE CORRIDOR --- ' — ._= �, -=t_- .�-p—_ 3 PARK SHORE PROPOSED } y 1' I�, II1 PIPELINE noGr RsFass1 r sTin,r ` — CORP'[�OR S \.. r 20' CONTOUR. -- 4 +,- rC1 . NAPLES `- f3 - t sir 856 NAPLES =- _ N fnrw� rf ��Iy �_ It N V 0000 .... 0 .- //IA--- i -,...-,-''' Vlf I.1\ \ — l 1ty I E-- LEGErrn_ ,� `l\\J. PERN1IT(ED PIPELINE CORRIDOR • \, l 'I i PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR <Jai N J (.____... ,1 PROJECT MITE P 0 �J rf PROPOSED ALL \\, d GULF —=.,s��' �_ Iii po,,,,scr)NEARs.,tol:E OF �'1, OPEPATIJNA.LAREAS �Il '1};1Q m PERMITTED OFFSHORE AlEX/CO ,46_/07,) \\\i OPERATIONAL AREAS sOtI.T ROYAL L. R70 FDEP i.10,,NLF'.IENTS 20 NOTES! GO,?DONPia5S cIs I. COC•N INAIES,'kCINFa:r BASED ON FLORIDA STATE. c � �\ PLAtiE CCORDIN'ATE SYSTEM, 1,� { - 47�e_ _,C�\ E,A ONE,EORTH AMERICAN `; �`+( Y I \\ DATIII,IOF19 aINAI)H:i, �,L f 1'f},,� uI GR HID SCALE IN FT 2, F1:.LINIDTHSARENOTrOSCALE. 1 tl1 (CPE, 2012) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to accept the 2012 countywide affordable housing inventory report. OBJECTIVE: To present the 2012 countywide affordable housing inventory to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) — inclusive of"restricted" (restricted by regulatory requirements, e.g. Affordable Housing Agreement) and "unrestricted" (market rate) residential units. CONSIDERATIONS: Staff was directed to annually inventory certain residential units within the County to determine the number of units that can be categorized as "affordable" based on qualifying criteria of the State Housing Initiatives Program (SHIP), and then present the results to the Board. To create the inventory of affordable housing units within the County, staff conducted multiple GIS queries of the Property Appraiser's database in order to identify the affordable mortgage ranges for the very low (50% of the County's Area Median Income (AMI)), low (80% AMI), moderate (120% AMI) and affordable workforce (140% AMI) income levels (refer to specific categories in the attachment titled "Staff Analysis"). It should be noted that the 2010 affordable housing inventory assumed a `discount factor' of -12.42 percent, which was applied to countywide residential properties to determine valuations (refer to general explanation in the attached Staff Analysis document); a mortgage interest rate of 6.5 percent for borrowers; and, the inventory did not include the 140% (AMI) affordable workforce housing income category. Conversely, the 2012 affordable housing inventory assumed a 6.19 percent `sales factor'; a mortgage interest rate of 4 percent; and, the inclusion of the affordable workforce housing income category. These differing assumptions resulted in higher property valuations as compared to 2010 valuations; increased `buying' power for purchasers; and, an increase in the number of categorized affordable housing units within the County. For the 2012 inventory, staff mapped the affordable housing units for each Commission District using the following parameters, which yields sixteen(16) different scenarios: • affordable housing categories - very low, low, moderate and affordable workforce income; • household size -two and four persons (as agreed to by the BCC in 2010); and, • monthly recurring debt - $0 and $300 (as possible representative figures of household debt, such as student loan, car payment, credit card, etc.). The detailed results and mapping per the above parameters are provided as attachments to this Executive Summary; importantly, the explanation of the information depicted on the maps is contained within the attached "Staff Analysis." The range of housing units, qualifying as affordable, by specified area, appears in the table on the following page. BCC Directed Affordable Housing Inventory Page 1 of 2 BCC Hearing Date 01/13/13 Area 2-Person Household/50% of Median 4-Person Household/140% of Median Income/$300 Recurring Debt: #DUs Income/$0 Recurring Debt: #DUs District 1 485 (24%of total) 38,082 (26%of total) District 2 150 (8%of total) 29,850 (22%of total) District 3 440 (22%of total) 26,443 (19%of total) District 4 407 (21%of total) 27,515 (20%of total) District 5 494 (25%of total) 17,627 (13%of total) Total 1,976 139,517 Notes: 1.The unit counts include all ownership dwelling units,except mobile home and cooperative units. 2.There are 199,805 dwelling units in the County,inclusive of all unit types and both ownership&rental. 3.Affordable mortgage figures are based on the following:4%interest rate;$250.00 escrow payment for property taxes and insurance; monthly recurring debt of$0 or$300.00;and,expenditure of not greater than 30%of income on housing-related costs. The dwelling unit figures in the 140% column are cumulative, i.e. the figures in that column include those units within the 50% column and all other scenarios not shown in the table (see attached "Staff Analysis" for further explanation). The above ranges of countywide totals (1,976 and 139,517) represent 1% and 70% of the total dwelling units (199,805) within Collier County (includes all dwelling unit types in both ownership and rental units). FISCAL IMPACT: The presentation has no fiscal impact as this is an informational item only GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: The presentation has no GMP impact as this is an informational item only. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is ready for Board consideration and approval. A majority vote is needed for Board action. --HFAC RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners accept the Affordable Housing Inventory Report. Prepared by: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section, Planning and Zoning Department, Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation Attachments: 1) Staff Analysis 2) Affordable Housing Map Series BCC Directed Affordable Housing Inventory Page 2 of 2 BCC Hearing Date 01/13/13 Staff Analysis—BCC Directed Affordable Housing Project Steps to create the inventory of affordable housing units within the County: • Conduct a GIS query from the Property Appraiser's database of all residential sales from May 2011 through May 2012, by the closing sales price, and based on the State Housing Initiatives Program (SHIP) 2012 income limits for two and four person households, and assuming that those households have no ($0) monthly recurring debt. The affordable mortgage for those households earning 50% (very low), 80% (low), 120% (moderate) and 140% (affordable workforce) of the County's median income of$72,800 is as follows: a. A 2-person household earning 50% of the median income could afford a mortgage of $100,280; and, a 4-person household earning 50% of the median income could afford a mortgage of$138,244. b. A 2-person household earning 80% of the median income could afford a mortgage of $191,657; and, a 4-person household earning 80% of the median income could afford a mortgage of$252,663. c. A 2-person household earning 120% of the median income could afford a mortgage of $313,982; and, a 4-person household earning 120% of the median income could afford a mortgage of$405,098. d. A 2-person household earning 140% of the median income could afford a mortgage of $375,041; and, a 4-person household earning 140% of the median income could afford a mortgage of$481,342. • Conduct a GIS query from the Property Appraiser database of all residential sales from May 2011 through May 2012, by the closing sales price, and based on the SHIP 2012 income limits for 2 and 4 person households, and assuming that those households have a three hundred dollar ($300.00) monthly recurring debt. The affordable mortgage for those households earning 50% (very low), 80% (low), 120% (moderate) and 140% (affordable workforce) of the County's median income of$72,800 is as follows: a. A 2-person household earning 50% of the median income could afford a mortgage of $37,441; and, a 4-person household earning 50% of the median income could afford a mortgage of$75,406. b. A 2-person household earning 80% of the median income could afford a mortgage of $128,818; and, a 4-person household earning 80%of the median income could afford a mortgage of$189,824. c. A 2-person household earning 120% of the median income could afford a mortgage of $251,144; and, a 4-person household earning 120% of the median income could afford a mortgage of$342,260. d. A 2-person household earning 140% of the median income could afford a mortgage of $312,202; and, a 4-person household earning 140% of the median income could afford a mortgage of$418,503. 1 • Establish a `sales' factor for the specified one-year period by comparing the Sales Price to the Total Just Values for qualifying properties (affordable housing threshold range of $0 - $453,284), followed by averaging the percentage change (sum of percentage change for all properties divided by the total number of properties) for those same properties; this yielded a `sales factor' of 6.19 percent. • Apply the established `sales factor' of 6.19 percent to the countywide residential inventory to derive the number of affordable units at the various affordable mortgage thresholds described above. The following two tables depict the number of housing units categorized as affordable, and organized by Commission District. This data provides the potential supply of affordable housing units. However, it is unknown how many of these units are actually available; it is unknown how many of these units may be presently occupied by persons meeting the qualfing income levels; and, the data does not identib)the demand(need)for affordable housing units. It should be noted that the dwelling unit figures listed in each row are cumulative. For example, in District 1, the 4-person household count within the 50% median income range includes those units within the 2-person household count within the 50% median income range, and the 4- person household count within the 140% median income range includes all units listed in the table for District 1. Similarly, the data shown on the attached maps also reflect cumulative figures. $300 Monthly Recurring Debt 50%of Median Income 80%of Median Income 120%of Median Income 140%of Median Income 2-Person 4-Person 2-Person 4-Person 2-Person 4-Person 2-Person 4-Person Area Household Household Household Household Household Household Household Household District 1 17,164 SF 26,909 MF 485 4,775 13,347 20,990 27,145 33,468 31,504 36,291 District 2 15,299 SF 24,153 MF 150 1,733 6,219 13,955 19,170 24,734 23,233 27,765 District 3 14,895 SF 13,207 MF 440 3,201 10,062 16,731 20,619 23,887 22,882 25,620 District 4 14,528 SF 22,655 MF 407 2,764 11,370 17,592 20,971 24,547 23,623 26,325 District 5 16,742 SF 1,015 MF 494 3,089 9,216_ 14,146 16,242 17,224 17,050 17,482 Total 1,976 15,562 50,214 83,414 _ 104,147 123,860 118,292 133,483 Notes: 1.The unit counts include all ownership dwelling units,except mobile home and cooperative units. 2.There are 199,805 dwelling units in the County,inclusive of all unit types and both ownership&rental. 3.Affordable mortgage figures are based on the following:4%interest rate;$250.00 escrow payment for property taxes and insurance;monthly recurring debt of$300.00;and,expenditure of not greater than 30%of income on housing-related costs. 4. Abbreviations:SF refers to single family and MF refers to multi-family units. Overall, the above table shows District 1 contains the largest inventory of potential affordable housing units, followed by District 2; District 5 contains the least amount. Additionally, an 2 analysis of the total residential unit count within each District, when compared to the affordable housing unit counts within the above table, reveals that District 5 contains the highest number of affordable units; 98% of the total units (17,757) within District 5 are within the affordable housing ranges (50% - 140% of the AMI)prescribed in Florida Statues - followed by District 3; District 2 contains the least amount. The following identifies each respective Commission District's highest range of affordable housing dwelling units (combination of all categories - very low, low, moderate and affordable workforce) as a percentage of the countywide dwelling unit total (199,805) in Collier County (includes all dwelling unit types in both ownership and rental units). District 1: The highest (36,291) dwelling unit count represents 18 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. District 2: The highest (27,765) dwelling unit count represents 14 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. District 3: The highest (25,620) dwelling unit count represents 12 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. District 4: The highest (26,325) dwelling unit count represents 13 percent of the countywide_ dwelling unit sum. District 5: The highest (17,482) dwelling unit count represents 9 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. $0 Monthly Recurring Debt 50%of Median Income 80%of Median Income 120%of Median Income 140%of Median Income 2-Person 4-Person 2-Person 4-Person 2-Person 4-Person 2-Person 4-Person Area Household Household Household Household Household Household Household Household District 1 17,164 SF 26,909 MF 8,829 14,461 21,185 27,252 31,647 35,845 34,944 38,082 District 2 15,299 SF 24,153 MF 3,254 7,288 14,067 19,245 23,302 27,256 26,000 29,850 District 3 14,895 SF 13,207 MF 6,264 11,670 16,949 20,696 22,911 25,463 24,738 26,443 District 4 14,528 SF 22,655 MF 6,421 12,318 17,736 20,976 23,680 26,086 25,437 27,515 District 5 16,742 SF 1,015 MF 6,140 10,243 14,258 16,279 17,062 17,446 17,352 17,627 Total 30,908 55,980 84,195 104,448 118,602 132,096 128,471 139,517 Notes: 1.The unit counts include all ownership dwelling units,except mobile home and cooperative units. 2.There are 199,805 dwelling units in the County,inclusive of all unit types and both ownership&rental. 3.Affordable mortgage figures are based on the following:4%interest rate;$250.00 escrow payment for property taxes and insurance;monthly recurring debt of$0;and,expenditure of not greater than 30%of income on housing-related costs. 4. Abbreviations:SF refers to single family and MF refers to multi-family units. 3 Overall, the above table shows District 1 contains the largest inventory of potential affordable housing units, followed by District 2; District 5 contains the least amount. Additionally, an analysis of the total residential unit count within each District, when compared to the affordable housing unit counts within the above table, reveals that District 5 contains the highest number of affordable units — 99% of the total units (17,627) within District 5 are within the affordable housing ranges (50% - 140% of the AMI) prescribed in Florida Statues, followed by District 3; District 4 contains the least amount. The following identifies each respective Commission District's highest range of affordable housing dwelling units as a percentage of the countywide dwelling unit total (199,805) in Collier County(includes all dwelling unit types in both ownership and rental units). District 1: The highest (38,082) dwelling unit count represents 19 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. District 2: The highest (29,850) dwelling unit count represents 15 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. District 3: The highest (26,443) dwelling unit count represents 13 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. District 4: The highest (27,515) dwelling unit count represents 14 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. District 5: The highest (17,627) dwelling unit count represents 9 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. 4 m s r P/' i. '6' ° k r i - 7 -'7.';u ` 4 o l .l :4:0...,2:• 9 Z p� V V V V V 4 N -n 0 n CO, rn v -t fli ! a •r o e a) O .0 N• m P •••` .t n - 6 , • ; .325':.: - so.glim-i . g 7y o rlG l� d d •� d ~ 0 miaow r Q r cn r in t 0 y- 0 9.vl y • • �co utnniw• r W A W N ..r Q ,y„ 3' 0 0 A 0 2) 0 N O 0 yl O C CA C - W N .a •• rj ''� N O •0 N w ° 0 Q3 ° (o ° 3 VI A �• A co W :� 7 p 0 • . W �I G0 W .C1 0 C 0 Q •q W 00 0 ( x 0�0L030 D _ F. o N • ° .... ... Q4 ,p , , 44. 3 m o a �. z a p 0 w 'p 01 ►+ O O 3 y 3 (D O ,I o d n - : .p y 0 3 w 3 Y p n n ^ " ' 3' r S ,,I O w 7J - C 0 7• (D . ° p p n_° m ° .w�. G 7 7 0 3 D o g • j _ A A A _ A Ro .. w .< h g. 9 ° ' ° 0 O A VI CO y t. V a N . p A --.1 O O C!1 .. N J N A . , ; W Q 0° '6 Z A O \ .w `� o sr,29 ° 0 • A V V) o p 0 7 r . O I.' �1 .^ 4 a y' L> -1�• t • d oo y C; 5. 5. C• 5 4 ,.. D j• � � a ' N 3. Q iiiih 0 a .p k' . . $•=� : .i.. •� : y N �..d 1 E'w NN.F G rr:Y. +© Ls • O o � a r � 00.� Y 0 O ' a o _ N 0 d c m W N ro® c ii •oc. . .,� O • o n 0 0 .., ) • • 3 i+�O N rA. O\ N W 0 3 d;;;: . CA (!1 N �1 0 (D T _ fl 'o A 7 C 7 / 51 ° i o. ' m N y - W ►+ N O\ 07 N 0 3 y 3 J y g i z ➢ 3 • W 00 V1 © cA 7J C 0 p'cr,o S p p So . c, r 0 7 0 cn Y 3 3 p p °3 - n�i ,- ' �' -n n~ 3 3 3 3 3 3 y m■ �, •� _ 0 L1 q e a. u a' ' O y o ° _ 7 _ _. y •- V a N J °.�csr. N a t g O N rr c,N W N �.— g hN-. ON J OOi S0 42. 0 (10 0O ;Q� •_° �® SR 23 • • A O N �1 CU 0 ii 0 c s w 0 o a {p s 2t'i p yr "�L O. i��few x,,c.7,4.. J N r!fi ' Ii.K Z5 1f :yts .. ^ o > ,, � �r.rlr y I c 7c•�[.(",�f d d d d M ,4= `/ •p� lr'r .y 2 ''$, pgt�t'i1(s =r ..��... Q rn rn VI IA �. y O y O a. !Y :4"1.4.�, L. 0 $# • UI N r.+ Q 5 i-O.- C= n c y m OO • • .114 ' I v A .+ O■ 00 O,:-.1 y �G c 0. a '� A C11 a N 00 nn v !•. '< O 0o N A O ,.0 3 N „ 0 _ �•.;,• -o CJ( © a 7 C I • . 3—111E11— . ^h gg •9 ='• c0 00 A '_' N - 3 ( y 0 // p 3 x -� 0 3 y v '7)5 • ~O A J W �1 R7 C p T 3 ,"-. - o o '� - '^ r'- r c. N \O Cll O O\ 0 7 7 0 0 3 3 N Ta I In q O. 3 1 1 3 m Z ,.. �� - f�i, G y S �" g. o o •b O R° ,t 0 0 'o O 0 - N 3.. 5. S 2 2 © a, O,F,,;.0 J 011 ". N N yr�� ° ., rf..N .•■7.1 Q : N N ' tl N J N 0-, �O O CIAi .Z+ 0 j o ��,41 9 SR 29 • • - • v A 0 cip 0 p 0 0 k I ■ 1,1 '1.4 41:1‘ifFeAliVri61X41511 ,3. «ro. y. n o. o OA r] 00. 'CP° °o )1•.'1 ; ,�RIr1 ,R« v v v t v N Z O f v, t o Di 7 �4 i ,t. ! o s a r5 F� / ��r `�fai y a 0 . .. •n V •1`T�ty y�•�i Y, •� U • •fif IL i ...3 ^I ^2 '1 n"f C/] , ,-SI •� O s il ° •5« 1$ 9 :!, 6 "e3. 7)• Fi• C 0, -•p o y' p rii+ y• r ► t'' - . Q• le..4•12e. �.^s.•a.3: �: t ..? l m a n �! > 5, r . A •�, Acjii Se•t • m '. o .0 N s O • o c• oo 0 a S .!' 0 • - y p. r�1 y N n � v �+ '+ K W 0 ... a 'o o •• is-14 ? N O\...--4 T C N a V7 L7 W C 7 0 • p. O O N J ►17 0 (0 •. T 7 A 00 A 0 -I O ° 7 C 7 V. y r o o p y A m •1 C rC11 N rP ►+ �. {C y 3 ^' 3 W q O • N F+ VP VI -D ta 0 •3" y 0 3 n T °z 3 y • a W h+ (O 00 U O - C 0 5 N I. ~ Y • �o. 2. ' n Rt. -i N ' S ' y N V ao o 4.P. a g' .r ►+ N N N W r• W N'MI vn N ON 0Z 0 N CO U CO W O . �` • p O W N W A y .. N O'- Skrn • N o I o $ o C O p � � i iJ�7Sl . y O (11 o iL tU� D Q..14. '.".•; • 49. - -N • • o v.re �4- w o £ ® � : ° 1.41 W N r✓ 0 , T .'m '© c ;- : to ooh '° o Goo �,`` • '-3 o ° o ° 0 v N W 4_ VD N• o 1. 1° O O JI .w-' ..-4 N O 0 -, S 000003 ° n l0 CA) cn � Dlo c D a a' " ° N •• - w w ,orl o., . _. 3 � � o _ m i °° m J+N W N 7 N O °; • oo ° o, ci .oa m c o (0 3 IV = = : ;;;; i m,F.. J O C °,,,,'•�y Fri•s pn � ° ° o ° o . z w^'..00 0O 8 oo � .+ JOO ao o ■ ow0oo 0., P-. -- o I ., sn2v • • "3 .4. 0 C11 A �. W. �/ �° ellOti usyy 4. o ° z � `5�i4410. C7C7ddCy - �! n },{.,. _P `1 Vi Vl Vi in Vl �1 ((1 .. �r'77`11 o i't!" r Mgr•1.�•'�`3 ai r j r� R F3 S 'S '•! CA ti' �. "• N ,,1 � . "h�'`s44, 4' 3 4, - ' , 0, P O ,'a FA' ri n n ri CA n" z .,, ^' sf L��7 ., o° r ¢Pv••:104114.yy 4 �V' `� _ ,'d��y. ��o° t r V� •A W N �+ Z ,yy, T -, N CD �C ` v. ft0 0 o a I ,D ►-3 O tl 0 a 'o A '+ O\ 00 O\r7 0 ID �,, . ea m Sh Sal 01 0o W 40 C/1 n a1 9, Q O A. r+ . N O oil 0 (D -, T 40 co 40 Ch W ►+ O 0 e a 00 3 z o c a u 3 a 3 0 i' y __ • VD �1 •P 0-` N�O 7'�"' y p 3 0 O Z x m m z °m° s • 4 1 "' w 00 40 w a - c 0 N _ x v m D 'e p VI CA LA N Ch ►2J ^ .. 0 T 0 S • o 15 7 r m 3 n r- • n N •J �"+ N fr O ,4, rr 0 ° _ T n~ 3 3 3 3 3 A 7 ° O ! .., VJ .7 - -. a Q n m Z H g o90 m • it R° p .a o v > > o .. o �' 7 N •J N q g .,Yrya. �. p w ( 2 6 O G1 O O vc J �7 N N ,!N , o .p -. '. ,p CFI - n N W• r„ O _0 saw • • \• . 40 G.' G\ Vi N y 6N) O o UJ W 0 o 0 0 i Ator. a 0 s ® ; .r �:.T 0 - n C -17 N o >- ,,„, J '•�% y 4 m o ja r '''. a,4'.',,a;i r a m. ✓r y�„•r Cy C7 C7 C7 l7 S� • i s;:- •(i 0 'i"�a.�_'"f ?;�'JET}s nvy c�,a 1 �. u�i'�{n O •x -c -( Uj fl' -n m o _.a �;ryyo*�ww xtiaY' .11 y n n' co) N •, -' Q T• K ® .-.. . . . .... ..O .�.:. o m.. a t" . O 0 ry '('D'' O N "� n M a Q .'9 fD 3 •/ f O' -, 0 (D O 0 .• ( ' 3 C N c o ©0 • - - � .. N A O�) O � T 7 O v V1 , 110000`i ° ib 0 A W �D..A iO N 0/1 n 4,. 4, N N 3 N c yla o 3 A 3 o -..+ .. ' r A y o ° A� s 0.1 J N .+ iJ. N N c ✓ = n d n H p P E°0 • N -O w b J 4 N N W 0 M3 0 0 r 0 0 o • m 3 3 3 ° ° 3 n •`z L7 m - c ~ T - O y w 3 3 3 3 y �'m • m CA -. " O. l 3 s ° A N^ a 4 n ; ►+ pr N N N W 7 -. O r W --1 01 V(r.1 (A OD. w N :1:9 O.P N 00 z C 0 (J 7..` • o o t 00 C■ cn .i. •• - o O O o ON W CJ1 J v 0 SI(29 • 0 • 01 1 O O 0 O _ r V;..' -- • ;,11*-4 .1.7 1.1.6. tja'O• ^ 0 .s N 1 +,s v a. _. `1 Y mi • ,..i d d C7 d d N, L J ^y°* ri.b kilo•4:� .@=4, 1.� �1j1'n » 9f,(�•��il Q vi v, in v. fn n..., -, O. .nrl� ,{.,y r. o .4:, •• a• Ir•C r ,'F! r '.'3 �. -t� ^s� -t ^t t/j a -a N ,0 a,, 4 9R�aCJ�. " r:-. .,••© tit .P W N r✓ 0 ,M Q T '' tD a y ; iv c r) 0 3 'O N£ (1': O a 0 X0 a o <7 0 ? • ,4 J — UI \0 U1 W O '(U =. 0 7 D C1 N CO 1-' U1 7 0 LA e v y.o C 7 3 ay1 _00—� .,m 44 � ... N w zi o ° m 31:1'0. (b W 00 da 0 0 a 3 I N _r^ • N .N Q ,y $ �`- ' = v o " 'no o • Q l W VI b ? "17 N. c c T _�� ° - - P 3,. r- A w 1-I. O O VD --1 Q 7 '. 0 0 M1y' 3 3 3 3 3 ;1 z', m ,.. �• d O CA n' # n. 3 w ZO �� m p C• '''C -a J . R o ° O o W:•.4 J ACT s 0000 • rn N I .•�? ° ms. . b T Vl .OD'co A N"It N F e,,p o J Vl W O CO .�- O W W J - •. O O •sale • ■ • . ( O G1 O o • CA A o = 1 �• ? . x -- s' rti" rzoz sow oo ..3 d d d d C7 3 n 0 0 0 :`t. RULVtt° , ° r VI A. W N F•' Q r,• �y S 00 • O I a. a O d N CI ©° ° �• • o C W A o i 6D • ; r• O N 3 y N 0 '1 1 •� , n P n .'0 o 10 co e p 0 �• �1 • • nn 1p 0 p,• Y. • - t 0 o VI N ON .p J r-+ 0 2 C 7 » Q. h�'f. �'r* _4). •. • V• Oi w ~ ° ° t T 000003 0 ° e• �1 r f: �a;• 9 70 tn IIi9Ih ••8. fh ~ N'Oil N Oa pi J° z m d 3 a 3 sI G O • m W a' to y . 0 i _; O J N J J y rd N a o V I 00 T O W J . 9 V w -• N° .. CA A W VI � SR 29 _ • • I.y .v p p o (A cn O O O r.r. t, to co - o iir-lerr AA e...) 0 2. , e Qg ■• L}p A.ft`.:. Z . A t W N}• O n i i H q .P me „ O 4•r Vii • C� 1"g '•$ 1.11 W N ,1. 0. . 0 i �Q :� �� .n y, ;a 'i' , N ty T� a - O N N 4 ° O i • O� J 1-0 c d V P y o '0 23 00 iO m '� ON r arc O ® • o O fa o D 3 E ;?.r _ n 0• _a NC u2 0 111,1 •• �- 'd• o w '- c� awcn d " ° m a w w� c ♦ �— vlin � owoNOr�r, om •, TO '< O c0owol � 3 '� :. 0 – se C..) GO a C 00003 _ N 9 3 a 3 B ° N _y • N.▪ b tea, N O O VI N 3 ,ta (D 0 S.' n - d z n° Sr • ND 01 VI C/1© N YI O � S� -± " o 3 y a N .fi 00 .D W .Q 0 0 0 0 r �" q 3• 1 3 rn ZO N O •/• 0 m - _ • R° 0 to - -n 0 o . S '° .. g N N 'J 9 ° o •da,• g N 2 � W A. J O1 W O '■ .. �. C. 0 co •. sRZ9 • • .. O1 N i--, CA O ... c 0 0 V] N A 0 O 0 O ____._ .,...___ • 1 .ti•i„1.2%° yV'II tP 0 i ■ L ti G j0 G 7 . o .,,,,,, i b y t N 7 v� �' l� r` .•%rii i..30. - O t� d P. d .III D _ O L �7t Q- in. in vi in i� / ...'+✓c��•�;Lnda o t}� c+m � �� ,..3 �c •s ^I �•t �s C�/� A• C V (D / y`Zi d4r +�•i�+rt1 ",,/ c ry n ri ri ri n Vl y "t 0 �' O :7M1 ♦«� 'i}a � .... • VI .A W N ►+ C "' 0' " tD ( ° '• .y lM. z p. O fl1 N Y. l • 7 �,._ga o d C ry �j A O j1 cql © c V1 .'* O '0 N r , O • m r."r.y3 'Q '3 O 9D n Prt0 , 9D 0 .,.4. fy 0° • I o VI 00 970 .+ ,� - C 7 W ii ii - ►+N N I-, VI 01 .l7 0 -, 00000 C 9 vI � N1o {' �° N , 1a.'1• 3 A -, �' o ff w �� v 01 ■O r r•+ o-•, N - 3 O N 0 s d i a° • N• 00 00 O N S,/1 N ,H O 'S O 3 '� "n, n J W 8..J J J ! 3 C 0 :„, 3 I �°• -� 3 y v p A N J 00 J 0 ',° g • p m w VI VI 00 0 �l 0 y, 0`� 3 3 3 3 y ..- m m r •"•• (/j 3 D• 0 o' o, o. o. m to ZO q 0 VI — -„K co 46 ..,.. N N J 4a W A W .. A• W N CJ1 GO■l�A 0 N DO`d+ r: \ 00 N $ 00 W 01 `L v O ° sftz9 c • O■ .p J ■l .{. 00 r-, N O O 1.i m o Uj O 0 0 O 0 8 yM.�}�{ n -- P r ak 7 '�13 N �' ■• i i77',, '•`:'• �I� m ,~••i�T:,r, 1� d d d �. ' o R ;.• M. cn o� ry�y yiY :M•a�; •!10.0� ®=}:f � ± yw , •�l A` J r N . T 0 a■t " � OZ., =1 /..-►r t gRi�� ;14 •4 VI 4:.• W N *+ O . O. 9 0 i - +9viper Z 9 w w D it to °o , _ 'O' W N I QN a v . in d ® q• © = 9D W A CD CD y o O fD n E T 00 ^� 2 'ZIT P r• N to •/ r < v-+..4.,_,.....141\ N N N O N 9 T 7 sn .+ a .-� 3 _. o 3 o D N qN . m N O J N J W - 3 yi .,, 1111:1008 21 9n 0 _ O II .� b' 3 s '� i "''" D • 0 CA 1-' N ND W O 71 �, C D, 3 - = d ° 3] v m O1 W W \O O 0 ° 9� o r- 5 d O 7 0 0 0 ' 3 3 3 3 3 y m �•4 • it v 0 S 0• O j. . 3. p. . 3. ZO ' B R7,0 a to — M —.X1 — ) H y R ° .. O .+ I-+ N N N W 'N N Attie. N p 2 " 11 W r l T VI r.1 Q\ A N N W . s d ,• ° ti- B .•'y. 000 N VI O cm, . - .- 0 s. ° ° SR29 • • W Vi 0 ['in p mime o rn (s) C\1 • Ir""I cu • rowl 0 U 0 N C N a) D L O■ T:3 0 I— a) -0 a) ,15 o o �- Ci O O 4.E O O 4)O) V V O c .2 O O •— V -o O O r H O O O V N O kL V O 4� p O 4� 4� O a � •O cm _ O L O O O 0) � E O .� v 0 0 a -0 8 „in CD © Q >, O O a V o Q -0 O O 4) a) .... E .76 O to V oa oa 'AD O > Q O V i � V � s M a (/) 4) C - .&)-- •' 0 c� -0 o tn 0) ...... 45 4 o a) (I) 8 a 4D lo I p _0-- U a)0 E o -c V 4 r- y C-5 - 4 a� 1 0 4, C a) 4) -c <C ,a } -0 - ..,... -0 is 1 o Q ° o 0 0 a) o .0 a� .c 12 0 o S .*- N S o •Zi. 1 = -0 -c w I ''' a) --. N I--- 0 o .o 0 0 0 a o a t12 i CV i. & S) "tle, & 8 1- csi O T N � N 14 M LJ .O N co ' o } M +. 00 O N n` O O 00 m OO O CO .E to 0 O Nf' v a� 00 -- , -a 0 -C o o _ C �` C O 000 N 0 0 `-t O r. .0 O U C C C N N N s- ( � v' mot/. 0 � t/- i r tn. (J) 0 a. 0 xi 0 0) O }ate 0 0 O o D a * a * C) -_ woo w o o N N E 0 0 0 E 1) fit) 40 '0 -+--_ C O d- �t Daft N N M M �- r= C = M M C C CO O^0 O^O O O -U < — t/} t/) < — t/} t/). t/? t/). t/} t/). -�0 o .n o O O Lv-- 0 t� co O to t} t0 to • t0/). co O 4, C C 10 0 d a) O E O E ov ov in = Oo c N � O O O O O ltj M O O O O O O CL bA ,.* , I © ,......_ ........ ........ ri (NI -. ..... ,I ...„ O. .� O bA.4_, O O - I +-� Oh rf M C .= p M M el 1.-.1 con 1-c 7- O M v © ce CC — M bA itn .,1- N Pr,., �, ,G �, ^ ,+-. .-� Q .v. V •� .� �"10 r .m ct +.+ r.., r.., , , CC czt G1 " C x C Z C U Ca "' © • • f_ • • •- • • 14.• al • ^j�� f i • hil!l• ~. 4.... i••. E ;-°;;.: • MIS w••• L } vW •▪ i�� riW�.13 • •• - n • # • , C , �■ p ii --� 'V — O O O O O M p V) pop O O O O © © 0 oc 11-, ... © 00 ■,G ce s Cid 4.14 - P. M In O °' © CT �n . •.-~ C» D c.0 c ,..o ri c t:11) . v N ,., _ = o - ' O e� , ^ N ln �cc n C •. I 44 4) i, o --. ..et M a N it •CJ C.0 y V V CIO L ^.r L' ••.r V ••.r y - — '.r 'ir i., it r~ � = O — V1 © V1 CV CO, CI . . ' V • x �L Q C Q A E • . .• • • t • • • •. d 41 Oil/ • .. N� ,a ! # h •. J .. • nail ♦ 4 .4 t f:,;: � M ; : i rill rot ... nil: 3.-i .1 x9 • 1.1.:,1*i ' O III P! Y • i , .IRO. r •.•. A I l• 1: V 4" 1 l r •..... r ' ' 0 N .... .... O I ct I O O O O O O 00 en ""'"11 M N © O © © © •"• Ga) ..= p . v r-- c= c= ch .i. 0 o c � C u M oo ("1 p C •� O b M N N N r—+ G -I M �� a t T.cl,I 7. . o N M tit CI U_ -c.r ice. U_ y U ',.•Q — — ... ,- ... T.. L� i. =.• .� — resin O (1) CC ice+ •—C C Z C U C — C © • t I I I :1 • f . }• f A: l�+r . '.. ., i • I llo + 1 ., .. i Iii !HH •,,,,,, i. I 11111/ ,,. ►ni dabs. 'af_f43 0 .F. i!▪ �:+ { • i fiiiii op. ^ A▪ , N l �n • fil ; T �' u • • r 00 00 �� rte. ��+ - O O © © O © M ' �" O © © O © © `- a �M,g Q c o c c o o_ It 00 Id = ^.• Id O in © 0 CT VG N ©ev ONO O O b� �p N vG N O CC; •= M N N N ---- c ;3■ •i 1 , N .-. N M CID cl ? V — CJ it U y U "" U • CC •.. — •– �,' •- C� --' C4 •— v_a •.. © CC Q Q = Q U Q "� Q Z E..� • I , ,' I •• 7 s'N 7 d tip 1i 8 •mot f i 11114 ..:.. :15.1:15 ; } 0 I il,NO � , hi f 1.■:i:. 4. P f .'t• P Y' .• ` s _ _ is_ - - 7 t" _ 4 ' IS I. 1 • C' U U U 71 U U .L L L �C .L •1_ y e y 6. eO y eO y 0 a y 6 e 0 O N 0 O O 0 r 60 ,-- 3003 C` -4� O ~ co O ~ N. O ~ 0% I — O■0 CI 7:2 .0:w .Q 13 w N _6 .0: ^to a 8 w :9° 6 .0 Q N tM o � -0 a mic:>: r N -0 0 O Nr = M N = N V Q Q y.. 'Tt of N oil M '''') in r Q N r r r 0 e — I. 04 1. ff e in OO• ■ N O N Q N N O N M∎„ r r N. •4;) r rm. Le) r N O CO 1%.0p _ _ p N p M p 0 "I0 CO Q .O 0 r N 11 CO CO II— r r UMW O O "C O ^co O 0 O O N ^ O 0. NII■ Iliq 16 tli lb- cj C C C C C ,O D D a O a O •� r4 ,..N N ^ yU 2 "a Cc? Nla F . .v) N C Hi 1 ... C ..y. C oQ v o . a oW co oO ^ oQ r U i U = 2 U2 Vs U Vs U 7. 0 0 C 0 � H 8 N - 0 ) N0NLt) _ W in -0 L N u- NO Q -IE O' -. (� � �) CON o4M � N � •Or- Q V , N � � * r- C o — 0 4 O H 0)N y a) o a) a) C � ^ O } o } � H O -� .Eo = DO � ^ a } y .E = N 0 H73 Dy ' N .OL ) N V o 0 H } � 00 0. 0 O 0 � 0 D -00 V MM4oO OD O Oa) �— � � HM O - NE D O a) 0 = ; N la)OD > 0N 0 -o 0 8 ?. 3 0 = 0 00 a) 0 7 - 0 '0 I O N O y ?) `D` N E '- . - bN CO N. 7 .W .� .> 0)'— 3 41 0 1 1 O L i 44-ili E O 'y O = 1 r- r- o 0 D a D K0 0 0 0 H } Z 0 I- ou o � o o o - V 0 CD -0 i >% ,e O O = w Q 4E 1- O i ow . 8 U tr; la, 6 :g....) 2 3 O gc .c c 5 a) of =0' li O > O H — a) a V ti a) } N a) -o -a ._ .v)D 0 0 > a � 3 = a� ._ n .0 O v D _ U 'v) - 0) a O a) = U > >. _ = U C O 1.1 s a) O O O O •o (D .... c 4:Di c ,z 0 -6 .. O O Vf Vf TD O li — 8 46 E .4 2 c > -o } a N O a) 1 E 026 Q 'i a) � O 2a) + } O 0) E } a) aa) � o — � •- ♦- - E N L O at a o - D a) a O Q N N ti 0) o = •�� •- rt•. a � o () } o V V 0 y i i 0 2 0 0 m •- N -c E } E o 0 0 D E V V) 0