The URL can be used to link to this page

CAC Agenda 06/11/20206/19/2020 June 11, 2020 1 Collier County, FL June 11, 2020 • Sunshine Law on Agenda Questions • 2020 CAC MEETING DATES I. Call to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Roll Call Meeting Agenda and Notice Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) Thursday, June 11, 2020 - 3:00 p.m. Collier County Board Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Third Floor, Naples, FL IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda V. Public Comments VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. January 23, 2020 VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report VIII. New Business 1. 2020-2021 Tourist Development Council (TDC) Fund 195-Grant Application Requests • Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Grant Applications o TDC 2021 Category A Grant Application - Beach Maintenance o TDC 2021 Category A Grant Application - Pier Maintenance o Turtle Monitoring Grant Application 2. 10-Year Plan https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-governmentladvisory-boards-and-authorities/coastal-advisory-committee/cac-agendas/2020-cac-agendas/j u ne-11-2020 1 /3 6/19/2020 June 11, 2020 1 Collier County, FL o Fiscal Year 2021 to -Year Plan 3. 2020/21 Beach Renourishment ES (passed by the Board of County Commissioners on May 26, 2020). 4. Taylor Engineering Contract Award ES o Taylor Engineering Work Order 5. ES for CSA Ocean Sciences (CSA) Hardbottom Monitoring o CSA 202o Hardbottom Monitoring Proposal 6. ES Aptim Local Government Funding Request (LGFR). o Aptim 2021-2022 LGFR Proposal 7. ES Water Quality Recommendations 8. 202o Annual Monitoring Report - Draft 9. Friends of Tigertail Discussion of the Tigertail Lagoon Dredging by Linda Columbo IX. Old Business 1. Verbal Update Feasibility Study - United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) X. Announcements XI. Committee Member Discussion XII. Next Meeting Date/Location 1. July 9, 2020 at 1:00 P.M. XIII. Adjournment All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board prior to the meeting if applicable. For more information, please contact Gary McAlpin at (239) 252-5342• If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 33o1 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252-8380. Public comments will be limited to 3 minutes unless the Chairman grants permission for additional time. Collier County Ordinance No. 99-22 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing https://www.coll iercountyfl.gov/your-governmentladvisory-boards-and-authorities/coastal-advisory-committee/cac-agendas/2020-cac-agendas/ju ne-11-2020 2/3 6/19/2020 June 11, 2020 1 Collier County, FL the Board of County Commissioners) before the Board of County Commissioners and its advisory boards, register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-governmentladvisory-boards-and-authorities/coastal-advisory-committee/cac-agendas/2020-cac-agendas/j u ne-11-2020 3/3 January 23, 2020 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida, January 23, 2020 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 4:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 5th Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN: David Trecker Joseph Burke Steve Koziar Thomas McCann Jim Burke (Excused) Robert Raymond Debbie Roddy Sam Young Terry Hutchison ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Manager, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Stephanie Molloy, City of Naples 1 January 23, 2020 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view online. I. Call to Order Chairman Trecker called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Il. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Joseph Burke moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously 8-0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. October 10, 2019 Mr. Hutchison moved to approve the minutes of the October 10, 2019 as submitted. Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report The Committee reviewed the "FY20 TDC Revenue Report" through December 31, 2019. VIII. New Business 1. 2020 Annual Monitoring * H&M Proposal * Work Order * Backup Material Mr. McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve proposal dated December 10, 2019, from Humiston & Moore Engineers for Collier County Beaches and Inlets Annual Monitoring for 2020 under Contract No. 15-6382, authorize the Chairman to execute the work order for a not to exceed amount of $226,920.50 and make a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism" for consideration. He noted the monitoring includes Collier County, City of Naples, Marco Island Beaches, Wiggins, Doctors, Clam and Caxambas Pass and will be used to develop recommendations for 2020 beach renourishment work, which is anticipated to begin in November. Ms. Roddy moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve a proposal dated December 10, 2019, from Humiston & Moore Engineers for Collier County Beaches and Inlets Annual Monitoring for 2020 under Contract No. 15-6382, authorize the Chairman to execute the work order for a not to exceed amount of $226,920.50 and finds the expenditure promotes tourism. Second by Mr. Young. 2 January 23, 2020 During Committee discussion, the following was noted: • The item is scheduled to be heard by the BCC on January 28th and if approved will move immediately to contract with the work being completed in early April for beach areas. • The scope includes the Pelican Bay and Doctors Pass South jetty rebuild area to determine any sand that needs to be placed in the template. • A determination on the effectiveness of any previously existing or newly installed or repaired erosion control structures is not included in the scope of work. Motion carried unanimously 8 — 0. 2. Phase II Feasibility Study APTIM * APTIM Proposal Mr. McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve a professional services Work Order with APTIM Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. for a not to exceed cost of $44,202.60 under Contract No. 15-6382 to support Phase II of the Collier County Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction (HSDR) Feasibility Study performed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, approve all Budget Amendments and make a finding that this item promotes tourism (Project No. 80301) " for consideration. He noted: • The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is developing a Storm Damage Reduction Feasibility Study for Collier County and the County has been providing input on the plan through their consultants. • The proposal is to provide additional funding for the consultant's assistance to the USACE as the Study enters the design phase. • The Study was anticipated to be available by January 15, 2020, however the USACE has notified the County the completion will be delayed until March 15, 2020. • The work will be invoiced on a "Time and Materials " basis. Mr. Hutchison moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioner approve a professional services Work Order with APTIM Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. for a not to exceed cost of $44,202. 60 under Contract No. 15-6382 to support Phase H of the Collier County Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction (HSDR) Feasibility Study performed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, approve all Budget Amendments (Project No. 80301)" and finds the expenditure promotes tourism. Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 3. 14COl Amendment No. 2 • Amendment Mr. McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. 14C01 with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems Beach Management Funding Assistance Program for Collier County state approved work and make a finding that this item promotes tourism" for consideration. He noted the work is necessary for the County's Grant application to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for funding assistance and requests are due by March 31, 2020. Mr. Hutchison moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. 14C01 with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems Beach Management Funding Assistance Program for Collier County state approved work and make a finding that this item January 23, 2020 promotes tourism and finds the expenditure promotes tourism. Second by Mr. Koziar. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 4. Collier Creek Report Mr. McAlpin reported the County has been developing a plan with their consultant (APTIM) to address navigation concerns in Collier Creek (the area provides access to 1/3 of Marco Island boaters) due to sediment accretion in the channel. The goal is to minimize the maintenance costs for the area and prolong the timeline and extent of the dredging requirements. Steve Keehn of APTIM presented the PowerPoint "Collier Creek Management Plan Alternatives Refinement — Hideaway Beach Tax District Board Meeting, January 23, 2020 " for informational purposes highlighting: • The analysis began in 2015 and includes data collection, analysis and computer modeling of the conditions in the area. • The channel is currently subject to high turbulence and strong currents and the objective of the plan is to maintain safe and economical navigation at Collier Creek. • The plan, which has preliminary approval from FDEP, is to shift the template of the channel easterly, remove the existing jetty and construct a new jetty approximately 400 feet westerly from the existing jetty tip, to help to control sediment morphology in the area. • A Sediment Budget has been developed as part of the plan which incorporates the Hideaway Beach area and includes the following features: • Limiting sand placement east of h-9 for beach nourishment only. • Sand in excess of beach nourishment needs, or to keep the lagoon open should be disposed of where it will minimize impacts to the inlet (offshore disposal). • Sand dredged from Collier Creek should be used primarily for beach nourishment or placed in an offshore stock pile area. • Minimizing inlet dredging, encourage sand conservation and sand transport away from the inlet. • The proposed groin will be permeable, mitigate down drift impacts of the T-groins and promote a zero net loss of State lands. • The plan is moving into the permitting stages with construction anticipated to begin in 12 — 18 months and the project taking 4 months to complete. During Committee discussion it was noted consideration should be given to providing navigation lighting on the jetty. Speaker Ben Farnsworth, President, Village de Marco West reported they are in favor of the plan as the area has been subject to navigation issues which need to be addressed for all those utilizing the channel. 5. CAC Sub -Committee Report Chairman Trecker provided the "CAC Subcommittee on Water Quality" report noting the Subcommittee has met and discussed various topics and determined any recommendations made to the BCC should not be crafted to duplicate state or local projects or studies underway elsewhere, not involve lengthy studies to gather bullet-proof support and be made periodically to the BCC in outline form with the understanding that county resources may be needed to flesh out the proposals El January 23, 2020 if the BCC decides to pursue them. Following discussion, they developed the following recommendation for the Committee's consideration regarding the County's Fertilizer Ordinance: 1. Adequate county resources be made available to promote%nforce compliance with fertilizer Ordinance 2019-18 in unincorporated Collier County. 2. A task force of representatives of Pollution Control and Code Enforcement Departments meet with and ensure lawn/landscape maintenance companies that work in Collier County have the required training and certification to comply with the ordinance and understand the need to adjust fertilizer levels when using recycled water for irrigation. The concern is the Ordinance, as it exists, is an important document, however adequate resources in the compliance and public education arena are not being dedicated to its implementation. Mr. McCann moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Adequate county resources be made available to promote%nforce compliance with fertilizer Ordinance 2019-18 in unincorporated Collier County and, 2. A task force of representatives of the Pollution Control and Code Enforcement departments meet with and ensure lawn landscape maintenance companies that work in Collier County have the required training and certification to comply with the ordinance and understand he need to adjust fertilizer levels when using recycled water for irrigation. Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. The other recommendation formulated by the Subcommittee involves determining the costs and benefits associated with reducing the nutrient levels in the County's re -use irrigation water. There is a concern the current practice is contributing to the demise in water quality in the area. Mr. Raymond moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners identify appropriate Advanced Wastewater Treatment studies that provide a thorough cost -benefit analysis for substantially reducing nutrient levels in Collier County wastewater treatment. If no appropriate studies are available, the CAC recommends that a consultant study be undertaken to determine the cost for substantially reducing nutrient levels in Collier County wastewater treatment. Second by Mr. McCann. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 6. Update on Truck Haul Beach Renourishment 2019 Mr. McAlpin reported the project was completed with no major issues. IX. Old Business None X. Announcements 1. 2020 CAC Scheduled Meetings Staff provided the 2020 CAC meeting schedule to the Members of the Committee so they may make appropriate plans for the year ahead. 2. 2020-2021 Grant Application Notice Staff provided a copy of the notification "Coastal Advisory Committee Accepting Category "A " Grant Applications" for informational purposes, noting the requests are due back by March 31, 2020. January 23, 2020 3. Timing of TSP-USAGE Mr. McAlpin reported the USACE has notified the County the provision of the report will be delayed until March 15, 2020. 4. Introduce Jessica Arencibia Ms. Arencibia, the part time County employee who will be responsible for managing the grants in the program, was introduced to the Committee. 5. Introduce Andy Miller Mr. McAlpin noted Mr. Miller could not be present, but is the replacement for him as he is retiring in January of 2021. The goal is to have Mr. Miller on board now to provide a smooth transition in leadership of the Department. XI. Committee Member Discussion None XII. Next Meeting Date/Location February 13, 2020 — Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 5:31 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee David Trecker, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended 3 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX REVENUE FY 20 TDT Collections Report 30-A r-2020 Fund Reporting Fund Adopted Budget Annual Forecast YTD Forecast YTD Actual Variance to YTD Forecast Beach Park Facilities 183 184 193 194 195 196 198 758 1,020,000 823,563 692,286 724,390 32,104 TDC Promotion 9,750,400 7,722,630 6,491,633 6,790,306 298,673 Non -County Museums 542,800 439,387 369,348 385,500 16,152 TDC Admin - - - - - Beach Renourishment 11,102,600 8,967,176 7,537,797 7,884,902 347,105 Disaster Recovery - - - - County Museums 2,000,000 1,766,750 1,485,128 1,554,744 69,616 TDC Capital 4,069,300 3,285,051 2,761,410 2,889,994 128,584 Gross Budget 28,485,100 23,004,556 19,337,603 20,229,836 892,233 Less 5% Rev Res 1,424,300 % over/(under) forecast 4,056,244 Net Budget 27,060,800 Collections Month Reported Actual Cum YTD % Budget Collected to Date % Variance FY19 Collections % Variance FY18 Collections % Variance FY17 Collections Nov Dec Jan 1,397,567 2,068,386 3,207,045 1,397,567 4.91 % 16.829/o 12.94% 11.00% 26.179/6 31.889/o 60.42% 3,465,953 12.170/6 6,672,998 23.430/6 8.140/6 22.009/6 61.17% Feb 4,540,732 11,213,729 39.379/6 13.420/6 20.55% 58.210/6 Mar 4,980,638 16,194,368 56.859/o 12.140/6 26.759/o 51.10946 Apr 4,035,468 20,229,836 71.029/6 -33.140/6 -29.170/6 -2.28% May - 20,229,836 71.029/6 n/a n/a n/a June 20,229,836 71.029/6 n/a n/a n/a July 20,229,836 71.02% n/a n/a n/a Aug Sept Oct 20,229,836 71.029/6 n/a n/a n/a 20,229,836 71.029/6 n/a n/a n/a 20,229,836 71.02% ri a n/a n/a Total 20,229,836 20,229,836 YTD 1.3% 7.0% 38.2% Covid-19 update 03 28,485,100 Budget Comparison Month Reported 5 Yr History -Cum 5 Yr History- Monthly Budgeted Collections Actual Collections Budget to Actual Variance Forecast Nov Dec 4.47% 4.47/ 1,271,875 5.94% 1,692,667 1,397,567 125,692 1,271,900 10.41% 2,068,386 375,718 1,900,000 Jan 19.75% 9.34% 2,661,905 3,207,045 545,140 3,050,000 Feb 33.42% 13.670/6 3,894,531 4,540,732 646,201 1 4,350,000 Mar 48.12% 14.700/6 4,186,728 4,980,638 793,910 4,980,638 Apr 67.89% 19.769/6 5,629,896 4,035,468 1,594,428 1,688,969 May 77.39% 9.50946 2,705,872 405,881 June 83.08% 5.69% 1,621,687 324,337 July 87.820/6 4.750/6 1,351,776 405,533 Aug 92.850/6 5.02% 1,430,182 572,073 Sept 96.64/ 3.799/6 1,079,848 539,924 Oct 100.00% 3.36% 958,132 526,973 Total 100.00% 100.0% 28,485,100 20,229,836 892,233 23,004,556 %over/(under)budget 4.6% Tourist Development Tax Collection Curve $6,000,000 $5,500,000 $5,000,000 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 -sudgeted Collections -Actual ColleRions $3,500,000 $3,000,000 Forecast $2,500,000 OKII $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 Month Reported 5/18/20206:41 PM HARevenue Report\TDC 2 Receipts FY19 and Forward COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX REVENUE Fund Reporting Fund Adopted Budget Annual Forecast YTD Forecast YTD Actual Variance to YTD Forecast Beach Park Facilities 183 184 193 194 195 196 198 758 1,020,000 823,563 692,286 724,390 32,104 TDC Promotion 9,750,400 7,722,630 6,491,633 6,790,306 298,673 Non -County Museums 542,800 439,387 369,348 385,500 16,152 TDC Admin - - - - - Beach Renourishment 11,102,600 8,967,176 7,537,797 7,884,902 347,105 Disaster Recovery - - - - - County Museums 2,000,000 1,766,750 1,485,128 1,554,744 69,616 TDC Capital 4,069,300 3,285,051 2,761,410 2,889,994 128,584 Gross Budget 28,485,100 23,004,556 19,337,603 20,229,836 892,233 Less 5% Rev Res 1,424,300 % over/(under) forecast 4.6 % 4,056,244 Net Budget 27,060,800 Collections Month Reported Actual Cum YTD % Budget Collected to Date % Variance FY19 Collections % Variance FY18 Collections % Variance FY17 Collections Nov 1,397,567 1,397,567 4.91% 16.82% 12.94% 31.88% Dec 2,068,386 3,465,953 12.17% 11.00% 26.17% 60.42% Jan 3,207,045 6,672,998 23.43% 8.14% 22.00% 61.17% Feb 4,540,732 11,213,729 39.37% 13.42% 20.55% 58.21% Mar 4,980,638 16,194,368 56.85% 12.14% 26.75% 51.10% Apr 4,035,468 20,229,836 71.02% -33.14% -29.17% -2.28% May - 20,229,836 71.02% n/a n/a n/a June - 20,229,836 71.02% n/a n/a n/a July - 20,229,836 71.02% n/a n/a n/a Aug - 20,229,836 71.02% n/a n/a n/a Sept - 20,229,836 71.02% n/a n/a n/a Oct - 20,229,836 71.02% n/a n/a n/a Total 20,229,836 20,229,836 YTD -1.3% 7.0% 38.2% Covid-19 update 03 28,485,100 5/18/20206:39 PM H:\Revenue Report\TDC 2 Receipts FY19 and Forward COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX REVENUE Budget Comparison Month Reported 5 Yr History -Cum 5 Yr History- Monthly Budgeted Collections Actual Collections Budget to Actual Variance Forecast Nov 4.47% 4.47% 1,271,875 1,397,567 125,692 1,271,900 Dec 10.41% 5.94% 1,692,667 2,068,386 375,718 1,900,000 Jan 19.75% 9.34% 2,661,905 3,207,045 545,140 3,050,000 Feb 33.42% 13.67% 3,894,531 4,540,732 646,201 4,350,000 Mar 48.12% 14.70% 4,186,728 4,980,638 793,910 4,980,638 Apr 67.89% 19.76% 5,629,896 4,035,468 (1,594,428) 1,688,969 May 77.39% 9.50% 2,705,872 - - 405,881 June 83.08% 5.69% 1,621,687 - - 324,337 July 87.82% 4.75% 1,351,776 - - 405,533 Aug 92.85% 5.02% 1,430,182 - - 572,073 Sept Oct 96.64% 3.79% 1,079,848 - - - 539,924 526,973 1 100.00% 3.36% 1 958,132 - Total 100.00% 100.0% 28,485,100 20,229,836 892,233 23,004,556 % over/(under) budget 4.6% $6,000,000 $5,500,000 $5,000,000 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 Tourist Development Tax Collection Curve Budgeted Collections Actual Collections $3,000,000 t Forecast $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 > U C O a)o) Z 0 > a) ? Uo 8. O O LL Q ? Q Month Reported oCL f O Covid-19 update 03 5/18/20206:39 PM H:\Revenue Report\TDC 2 Receipts FY19 and Forward EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the Tourist Development Council Grant application requests from the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island and Collier County for FY-2020-2021 in the amount of $5,742,100; budget these expenditures; approve agreement; and make a finding that these expenditures will promote tourism. OBJECTIVE: To obtain approval of Tourist Development Fund 195 Grant application requests for 2020-2021 in the amount of $5,742,100. CONSIDERATIONS: To review and approve the received TDC Grant Applications as follows: FY2020/2021 Tourist Development Council Fund 195 Grant applications PROJECT/DESCRIPTION: STAFF REQUESTED RECOMMENDED 1. Beach Renourishment Pro'ects Naples Beach FY 2021 Beach Renourishment Program - 90068 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 USACE Feasibility Study Technical Support - 80366 $150,000 $150,000 Local Government Funding Request LGFR - 90065 $25,000 $25,000 SUB -TOTAL $2,175,000 $2,175,000 2. Inlet Pro'eets Wiggins Pass Monitoring - 80288 $25,000 $25,000 Collier Creek Permit, Jetty Rework and Channel Training - 90072 $1,1009000 $1,100,000 SUB -TOTAL $1,125,000 $1,125,000 3. Re ulato Beach Tilling - Collier Count - 80171 $30,000 $30,000 Biological Monitoring Nearshore Hardbottom - 90033 $185,000 $185,000 Shorebird Monitoring - 90297 $25,000 $25,000 Physical Beach and Pass Monitoring - (Vanderbilt, Clam Pass Beach, Park Shore, Naples and Marco South Beaches along with Wiggins, Doctors, Collier Creek and Caxambas Pass) - 90536 $170,000 $170,000 Sea Turtle Protection Program - Collier Count - 99999 $170,000 $170,000 SUB -TOTAL $580,000 $580,000 4. Beach Maintenance Beach Maintenance - City ofNaples - 90527 $197,000 $197,000 Beach Maintenance - Collier County/Marco Island - 90533 $354,200 $354,200 Heavy loadout Ramp/Access - Collier Blvd - 80407 $20,000 $20,000 SUB -TOTAL $571,200 $571,200 5. Structures Naples Pier Repair & Maintenance - 90096 (Category D $135,600 $135,600 SUB -TOTAL $135,600 $135,600 6. Administration 195 Admin Costs - 90020 $75,000 $75,000 185 Project Management and Administration - 99195 $846,000 846,000 Tax Collector Fee's 2.5% - 99195 $234,300 $234,300 SUB -TOTAL $1,155,300 1,155,300 TOTAL GRANTS $5,742,100 $5,742,100 Beach Renourishment Projects: Exceptional beach experience for our residents and visitors has been at the heart of our success in the past. These projects are required to maintain that experience. Approval is recommended. 2. Inlet Projects: Projects required to maintain the beaches, inlets and the engineering and permitting required to support construction. Approval is recommended. 3. Regulatory and Permit Compliance: All these items are required by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit, required by law or required to maintain critical programs between required permit activities. Approval is recommended. 4. Beach Maintenance: Beach maintenance is required along with beach renourishment to experience an exceptional experience for our visitors and residents. Approval is recommended. 5. Structures: The City of Naples is requesting $135,600 in grant funding for the upkeep and safety of the Naples pier. This year completes the payoff amount ($64,400) of the pre -spending advance of Category D funds to rebuild the pier. Approval is recommended 6. Administration: Administrative program and project management cost to manage the beach program. Approval is recommended. FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Year 2020/2021 proposed Beach Renourishment Fund 195 budget appropriates funding for these grant applications. The source of funds is Tourist Development Tax dollars. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the growth management plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: This item will be presented to the Tourist Development Council at its June 22, 2020 meeting. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote for approval. - CMG RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve the Tourist Development Council Grant application requests from the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island and Collier County for FY 2020-2021 in the amount of $5,742,100; budget these expenditures; approve agreement; and make a finding that these expenditures will promote tourism. Prepared By: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division ATTACHMENT(S) 1. CZM Grant Applications FY20-21 (PDF) 2. TDC 2021 Cat A Grant App Beach Maint Signed by City Manager (PDF) 3. TDC 2021 Cat A Grant App Pier Maint Signed by City Manager (PDF) 4. Turtle Monitoring Grant Application (PDF) COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: Doc ID: 12504 Item Summary: Recommendation to approve the Tourist Development Council Grant application requests from the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island and Collier County for FY-2020-2021 in the amount of $5,742,100; budget these expenditures; approve agreement; and make a finding that these expenditures will promote tourism. Meeting Date: 07/14/2020 Prepared by: Title: — Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Name: Jessica Arencibia 05/27/2020 4:38 PM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - IF, CPP & PM — Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Name: Amy Patterson 05/27/2020 4:38 PM Approved By: Review: Procurement Services Level 1 Purchasing Gatekeeper Growth Management Department Level 1 Reviewer Zoning Gary McAlpin Additional Reviewer Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Amy Patterson Growth Management Operations Support Heather Meyer Growth Management Operations Support Raquel Ovares Growth Management Operations Support Christopher Johnson Grants Level 2 Grants Review Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Growth Management Department Jessica Arencibia Deputy Department Head Review Office of Management and Budget Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review County Attorney's Office Colleen Greene Additional Reviewer County Manager's Office Level 4 County Manager Review Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending Pending Pending Pending Additional Reviewer Additional Reviewer Additional Reviewer Additional Reviewer Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Skipped 05/27/2020 4:14 PM Pending Pending Pending Pending 07/14/2020 9:00 AM COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance Naples Beach FY20/21 Beach Renourishment Program (No. 90068) 1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization: Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government 2685 South Horseshoe Drive Unit 103 Naples. Florida 34104 2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number: Name: Gary McAlpin 3. Address: Collier County Government 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive City Naples ST FL ZIP 34104 Phone: 252-5342 4. Organization's Chief Official and Title: Burt Saunders - BCC Chairman Board of County Commissioners 5. Details of Project- Description and Location: Truck haul beach renourishment of the Beach just south Doctors Pass to R-60. 6. Estimated project start date: October 1.2020 7. Estimated project duration: 8 Months 8. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: $2.000.000 9. If the full amount requested cannot be awarded, can theprogram/project be restructured to accommodate a smaller award? Yes() No (X) Collier County Tourist Development Council Category "A" Grant Application Page 2 Naples Beach FY20/24 Beach Renourishment Program (No. 90068) PROJECT BUDGET PROGRAM ELEMENT AMOUNT TDC Funds Requested $ 2,000,000 City/Taxing District Share $ State of Florida Share $ Federal Share $ TOTAL $ 2,000,000 PROJECT EXPENSES: (Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring etc.) En _ in�g, Permitting, Construction $ 2,000,000 and project certification $ TOTAL $ 2,000,000 I have read the Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Funding Policy covering beach renourishment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will comply with all guidelines and criteria. Signature of Sponsor Organization's Chief Official Date COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance USACE Feasibility Study Technical SuIport (80366) 1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization: Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government 2685 South Horseshoe Drive Unit 103 Naples. Florida 34104 2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number: Name: Gary McAlpin 3. Address: Collier County Government 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive City Naples ST FL ZIP 34104 Phone: 252-5342 4. Organization's Chief Official and Title: Burt Saunders - BCC Chairman Board of County Commissioners 5. Details of Project- Description and Location: Engineering and technical support for the USACE Feasibility Study 6. Estimated project start date: October 1.2020 7. Estimated project duration: 12 Months 8. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: $150,000 9. If the full amount requested cannot be awarded, can the program/project be restructured to accommodate a smaller award? Yes (X) No () Collier County Tourist Development Council Category "A" Grant Application Page 2 USACE Feasibility Study Technical Support (80366) PROJECT BUDGET PROGRAM ELEMENT AMOUNT TDC Funds Requested $ 150,000 City/Taxing District Share $ State of Florida Share $ Federal Share $ TOTAL $ 150,000 PROJECT EXPENSES: (Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring etc.) Engineering and Technical Support TOTAL $ 150.000 $ 150,000 I have read the Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Funding Policy covering beach renourishment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will comply with all guidelines and criteria. Signature of Sponsor Organization's Chief Official Date COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance Local Government Funding Request for FDEP (90065) 1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization: Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government 2685 South Horseshoe Drive Unit 103 Naples. Florida 34104 2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number: Name: Gary McAlpin 3. Address: Collier County Government 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive City Naples ST FL ZIP 34104 Phone: 252-5342 4. Organization's Chief Official and Title: Burt Saunders - BCC Chairman Board of County Commissioners 5. Details of Project- Description and Location: Consultant support to develop the FY 20/21 LGFR to FDEP for partial program funding. 6. Estimated project start date: October 1.2020 7. Estimated project duration: 12 Months 8. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: S25.000 9. If the full amount requested cannot be awarded, can the program/project be restructured to accommodate a smaller award? Yes O No (X) Collier County Tourist Development Council Category "A" Grant Application Page 2 Local Government Funding Request for FDEP (,90065) PROJECT BUDGET PROGRAM ELEMENT AMOUNT TDC Funds Requested $25,000 City/Taxing District Share $ State of Florida Share $ Federal Share $ TOTAL $25,000 PROJECT EXPENSES: (Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring etc.) Consultant support FY 20/21 LGFR TOTAL $ 25.000 $ 25,000 I have read the Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Funding Policy covering beach renourishment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will comply with all guidelines and criteria. Signature of Sponsor Organization's Chief Official Date COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance Wiggins Pass Monitoring - 80288 1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization: Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government 2685 South Horseshoe Drive Unit 103 Naples, Florida 34104 2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number: Name: Gary McAlpin 3. Address: Collier County Government 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive City Naples ST FL ZIP 34104 Phone: 252-5342 4. Organization's Chief Official and Title: Burt Saunders - BCC Chairman Board of County Commissioners 5. Details of Project- Description and Location: Monitoring of Wiggins Pass 6. Estimated project start date: October 1.2020 7. Estimated project duration: 12 Months 8. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: S25.000 9. If the full amount requested cannot be awarded, can the program/project be restructured to accommodate a smaller award? Yes O No (X) Collier County Tourist Development Council Category "A" Grant Application Page 2 Wiggins Pass Monitoring - 80288 PROJECT BUDGET PROGRAM ELEMENT AMOUNT TDC Funds Requested City/Taxing District Share State of Florida Share Federal Share TOTAL $ 25,000 $ 25.000 PROJECT EXPENSES: (Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring etc.) Consultant monitoring TOTAL $ 25.000 $ 25.000 I have read the Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Funding Policy covering beach renourishment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will comply with all guidelines and criteria. Signature of Sponsor Organization's Chief Official Date COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance Collier Creek Permit, Jetty Work and Channel Training (No. 90072) 1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization: Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive Unit 103 Naples, Florida 34104 2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number: Name: Gary McAlpin 3. Address: Collier County Government 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive City Naples ST FL ZIP 34104 Phone: 252-5342 4. Organization's Chief Official and Title: Burt Saunders - BCC Chairman Board of County Commissioners 5. Details of Project- Description and Location: Collier Creek Permit, Jetty Work and Channel Training. 6. Estimated project start date: October 1.2020 7. Estimated project duration: 12 Months 8. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: $1.100.000 9. If the full amount requested cannot be awarded, can the program/project be restructured to accommodate a smaller award? Yes O No (X) Collier County Tourist Development Council Category "A" Grant Application Page 2 Collier Creek Permit, Jettv Work and Channel Training (No. 90072) PROJECT BUDGET PROGRAM ELEMENT AMOUNT TDC Funds Requested $ 1,100,000 City/Taxing District Share $ State of Florida Share $ Federal Share $ TOTAL $ 1,100,000 PROJECT EXPENSES: (Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring etc.) Contractual Services/En ing eering_ TOTAL $ 1,100.000 $ 1,100,000 I have read the Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Funding Policy covering beach renourishment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will comply with all guidelines and criteria. Signature of Sponsor Organization's Chief Official Date COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance Beach Tilling — County Wide (80171) 1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization: Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government 2684 South Horseshoe Drive Unit 103 Naples, Florida 34104 2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number: Name: Gary McAlpin 3. Address: Collier County Government 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive City Naples ST FL ZIP 34104 Phone: 252-5342 4. Organization's Chief Official and Title: Burt Saunders - BCC Chairman Board of County Commissioners 5. Details of Project- Description and Location: Beach tilling is required by FDEP permit and is performed directly prior to turtle nesting Season. Tilling is paid on an acre basis for re -nourished beaches. Approval is recommended 6. Estimated project start date: October 1.2020 7. Estimated project duration: 12 Months 8. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: S30.000.00 9. If the full amount requested cannot be awarded, can the program/project be restructured to accommodate a smaller award? Yes ( ) No (X) Collier County Tourist Development Council Category "A" Grant Application Page 2 Beach Tilling 80( 171) PROJECT BUDGET PROGRAM ELEMENT AMOUNT TDC Funds Requested $ 30 0. 00.00 City/Taxing District Share $ State of Florida Share $ Federal Share $ TOTAL $ 30,000.00 PROJECT EXPENSES: (Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring etc.) Contractual Services TOTAL $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 I have read the Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Funding Policy covering beach renourishment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will comply with all guidelines and criteria. Signature of Sponsor Organization's Chief Official Date COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance Near Shore Hard Bottom Monitoring (No. 90033) 1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization: Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive Unit 103 Naples, Florida 34104 2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number: Name: Gary McAlpin 3. Address: Collier County Government 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive City Naples ST FL ZIP 34104 Phone: 252-5342 4. Organization's Chief Official and Title: Burt Saunders - BCC Chairman Board of County Commissioners 5. Details of Project- Description and Location: Biological Monitoring is required by FDEP permit to determine the health of the near shore hardbottom as a result of the recent renourishment. Agproval is recommended. 6. Estimated project start date: October 1.2020 7. Estimated project duration: 12 Months 8. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: $185.000.00 9. If the full amount requested cannot be awarded, can theprogram/project be restructured to accommodate a smaller award? Yes ( ) No (X) Collier County Tourist Development Council Category "A" Grant Application Page 2 Near Shore Hard Bottom Monitoring (No. 90033) PROJECT BUDGET PROGRAM ELEMENT AMOUNT TDC Funds Requested $ 185,000.00 City/Taxing District Share $ State of Florida Share $ Federal Share $ TOTAL $ 185,000.00 PROJECT EXPENSES: (Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring etc.) En in�g Fees/Consultant TOTAL $ 185,000.00 $ 185,000.00 I have read the Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Funding Policy covering beach renourishment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will comply with all guidelines and criteria. Signature of Sponsor Organization's Chief Official Date COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance Shorebird Monitoring (No. 90297) 1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization: Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government 2685 South Horseshoe Drive Unit 103 Naples, Florida 34104 2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number: Name: Gary McAlpin 3. Address: Collier County Government 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive City Naples ST FL ZIP 34104 Phone: 252-5342 4. Organization's Chief Official and Title: Burt Saunders - BCC Chairman Board of County Commissioners 5. Details of Project- Description and Location: Shorebird Monitoring is required for Vanderbilt. Park Shore. Naples and Marco South Beaches bk FDEP permit. AUUroval is recommended. 6. Estimated project start date: October 1.2020 7. Estimated project duration: 12 Months 8. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: $25.000 9. If the full amount requested cannot be awarded, can theprogram/project be restructured to accommodate a smaller award? Yes ( ) No (X) Collier County Tourist Development Council Category "A" Grant Application Page 2 Shorebird Monitoring (No. 90297) PROJECT BUDGET PROGRAM ELEMENT AMOUNT TDC Funds Requested City/Taxing District Share State of Florida Share Federal Share TOTAL $ 25,000.00 $ 25.000.00 PROJECT EXPENSES: (Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring etc.) Contractual Services TOTAL $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 I have read the Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Funding Policy covering beach renourishment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will comply with all guidelines and criteria. Signature of Sponsor Organization's Chief Official Date COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance City/County Physical Beach and Pass Monitoring (Vanderbilt. Clam Pass Beach, Park Shore, Naples. Marco South beaches along with Wiggins. Doctors, Collier Creek and Caxambas Passes) (No. 90536) 1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization: Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government 2685 South Horseshoe Drive Unit 103 Naples, Florida 34104 2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number: Name: Gary McAlpin 3. Address: Collier County Government 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive City Naples ST FL ZIP 34104 Phone: 252-5342 4. Organization's Chief Official and Title: Burt Saunders - BCC Chairman Board of County Commissioners 5. Details of Project- Description and Location: This Physical Beach Monitoring is required by FDEP permit and future renourishment. Beaches monitored will be Vanderbilt. Clam Pass Beach, Park Shore. Naples. Marco South and the southern portion of Barefoot Beach. Passes monitored will be Wiggins. Doctors. Collier Creek and Caxambas. Approval is recommended. 6. Estimated project start date: October 1.2020 7. Estimated project duration: 12 Months 8. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: $170,000.00 9. If the full amount requested cannot be awarded, can theprogram/project be restructured to accommodate a smaller award? Yes ( ) No (X) Collier County Tourist Development Council Category "A" Grant Application Page 2 City/County Physical Beach and Pass Monitoring (Vanderbilt. Clam Pass Beach, Park Shore. Naples. Marco South beaches along with Wiggins. Doctors, Collier Creek and Caxambas Passes) (No. 90536) PROJECT BUDGET PROGRAM ELEMENT AMOUNT TDC Funds Requested $ 170,000.00 City/Taxing District Share $ State of Florida Share $ Federal Share $ TOTAL $ 170,000.00 PROJECT EXPENSES: (Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring etc.) En in�2 Fees TOTAL $ 170,000.00 $ 170,000.00 I have read the Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Funding Policy covering beach renourishment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will comply with all guidelines and criteria. Signature of Sponsor Organization's Chief Official Date COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance Beach Cleaning/Maintenace Collier County/Marco Island (No. 90533) 1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization: Coastal Zone ManagementCollier County Government 2685 South Horseshoe Drive Unit 103 Naples. Florida 34104 2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number: Name: Gary McAlpin 3. Address: Collier Countv Government 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive City Naples ST FL ZIP 34104 Phone: 252-5342 4. Organization's Chief Official and Title: Burt Saunders - BCC Chairman Board of County Commissioners 5. Details of Project- Description and Location: This item is required to maintain the beaches and is recommended for abbroval. 6. Estimated project start date: October 1.2020 7. Estimated project duration: 12 Months 8. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: $354.200 9. If the full amount requested cannot be awarded, can the program/project be restructured to accommodate a smaller award? Yes (X) No ( ) Collier County Tourist Development Council Category "A" Grant Application Page 2 Beach Cleaning/Maintenance Collier County/Marco Island (No. 90533) PROJECT BUDGET PROGRAM ELEMENT AMOUNT TDC Funds Requested $ 354,200 City/Taxing District Share $ State of Florida Share $ Federal Share $ TOTAL $ 354,200 PROJECT EXPENSES: (Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring etc.) Operating Expenses TOTAL $ 354,200 $ 354,200 I have read the Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Funding Policy covering beach renourishment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will comply with all guidelines and criteria. Signature of Sponsor Organization's Chief Official Date COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance Heavy Loadout Access Ramb Collier Blvd — SR 951 (80407) 1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization: Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive Unit 103 Naples, Florida 34104 2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number: Name: Gary McAlpin 3. Address: Collier County Government 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive City Naples ST FL ZIP 34104 Phone: 252-5342 4. Organization's Chief Official and Title: Burt Saunders - BCC Chairman Board of County Commissioners 5. Details of Project- Description and Location: The heavy load out site for barges and renourishment equipment used by CZM and contractors is in need of repair, cleanup, grading and security measures. This item will cleanup and level the site with fill material. 6. 7. Estimated project start date: October 1.2020 8. Estimated project duration: 12 Months 9. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: $20.000 10. If the full amount requested cannot be awarded, can theprogram/project be restructured to accommodate a smaller award? Yes ( ) No (X) Collier County Tourist Development Council Category "A" Grant Application Page 2 Heavy Loadout Access Ram Collier Blvd — SR 951 80( 407) PROJECT BUDGET PROGRAM ELEMENT AMOUNT TDC Funds Requested $ 20,000.00 City/Taxing District Share $ State of Florida Share $ Federal Share $ TOTAL $ 20,000.00 PROJECT EXPENSES: (Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring etc.) Contractor haul shell fill material and Cleanup TOTAL $ 20.000.00 $ 20,000.00 I have read the Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Funding Policy covering beach renourishment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will comply with all guidelines and criteria. Signature of Sponsor Organization's Chief Official Date COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance Fund 185 Administration 1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization: Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive Unit 103 Naples. Florida 34104 2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number: Name: Gary McAl i}inn 3. Address: Collier County Government 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive City Naples ST FL ZIP 34104 Phone: 252-5342 4. Organization's Chief Official and Title: Burt Saunders - BCC Chairman Board of County Commissioners 2. Details of Project- Description and Location: This item funds County staff to manage the projects. maintain the beaches, administer the program and is broken down as follows: Staff includes the CZM Manager: Senior Operations Analyst: a Project Manager: a Field Supervisor: 2 equipment operators to clean and maintain the County and Marco Beaches. This also includes an additional staff position with the ability to transition to the Coastal Zone Manager when the current Manager retires within January 2021, Indirect Administrative Costs required for administrative functions like purchasing, information technology, motor pool and human resources: Current rent: Division Fiscal Support: and charges for the Tax Collector are also included. Annroval is recommended. 3. Estimated project start date: October 1.2020 4. Estimated project duration: 12 Months 5. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: S1.155.300 If the full amount requested cannot be awarded, can the program/project be restructured to accommodate a smaller award? Yes (X) No () Collier County Tourist Development Council Category "A" Grant Application Page 2 Fund 185 Administration PROJECT BUDGET PROGRAM ELEMENT AMOUNT TDC Funds Requested City/Taxing District Share State of Florida Share Federal Share TOTAL $ 1,155,000 $ 1,155,000 PROJECT EXPENSES: (Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring etc) Administration Cost $ 75,000 185 Project Management & Administration $ 846,000 Tax Collector Fee's (2.5%) $ 234,300 TOTAL $1,155,300 I have read the Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Funding Policy covering beach renourishment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will comply with all guidelines and criteria. Signature of Sponsor Organization's Chief Official Date COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION 2021 Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance Naples Beach Maintenance (Project Title) 1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization: City of Naples 735 Eighth Street South Naples, Florida 34102 2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number: Name: Dana A. Souza, Community Services Director Address: 280 Riverside Circle City: Naples State: FL ZIP: 34102 Phone: 239/213-7120 FAX: 239/213-7130 Email: dsouza(&naplesgov.com 3. Organization's Chief Elected Official and Title: Hon. Bill Barnett, Mayor 4. Details of Project- Description and Location: Description: This is an annual TDC funded project essential for support of maintenance on local beaches. The City is responsible for the upkeep and grooming of TDC eligible beaches within the City limits. Under this project, the City removes litter, accumulation of algae and rocks along public access beach portions of the Gulf within the City's jurisdictional limits. Funding is a benefit to both residents and tourist populations, and to the preservation of the beach, shoreline and its overall appearance and investment. This year's request includes the partial reimbursement for beach maintenance equipment operator, landscape tech's and service workers salaries. FY20 total costs for beach maintenance personnel is $245,277 for salaries only, plus benefits. Requested amount of $197,000 is an increase from last year's approved amount of $191,000 to cover the annual salary increases for the beach maintenance staff. Location: Signification coordination of effort continues between the City and Collier County concerning beach maintenance. The project boundary location is from southernmost State -permitted beach cleaning area within the City's jurisdictional boundary northward to Clam Pass in Collier County. 5. Estimated project start date: October 1, 2020 6. Estimated project duration: 12 Months 7. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: $197,000 8. If the full amount requested cannot be awarded, can the program/project be restructured to accommodate a smaller award? Yes () No (X) Collier County Tourist Development Council Category "A" Grant Application - Page 2 Naples Beach Maintenance (Project Title) PROJECT BUDGET PROGRAM ELEMENT AMOUNT TDC Funds Requested $ 197,000 City/Taxing District Share $ State of Florida Share $ Federal Share $ TOTAL $ 197,000 PROJECT EXPENSES: (Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring etc) Beach Maintenance Staff Salaries $ 197,000 TOTAL $ 197,000 I have read the Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Funding Policy covering beach renourishment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will comply with all guidelines and criteria. Charles T. Chapman IV, City Manager 2-12-2020 Date EXHIBIT A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ELIGIBILITY: Beach Maintenance activities will take place on beach area that are least 80% classified as eligible under the TDC guidelines. The project boundary location is from southernmost State -permitted beach cleaning area within the City's jurisdictional boundary to Clam Pass in Collier County. ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY: The City of Naples will be the primary recipient and lead agency for controlling and completing all aspects and activities proposed in this grant application. The City will remain the lead agency for the duration of funding and will be the sole point of contact for all matters related to this proposal. The City has the managerial and financial capability to ensure proper planning, management, and completion of the project described in this application. BUDGET ASSURANCES: Dual Compensation: involved simultaneously in two or more projects, 100% of their time for any such dual involvement. PROJECT LOCATION MAP: If a City project staff member or consultant is the staff will not be compensated for more than COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION 2021 Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance Naples Pier Corrosion Mitigation Proiect (Project Title) Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization: City of Naples 735 Eighth Street South Naples, Florida 34102 2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number: Name: Dana A. Souza, Community Services Director Address: 280 Riverside Circle City: Naples State: FL ZIP: 34102 Phone: 239/213-7120 FAX: 239/213-7130 Email: dsouza(&naplesgov.com 3. Organization's Chief Elected Official and Title: Hon. Bill Barnett, Mayor 4. Details of Project- Description and Location: Description: This annual TDC funded project includes labor, material, supplies and equipment for Phase II of corrosion mitigation on the Pier pilings. Phase I will be completed in FY20 with an estimated cost of $135,000 and Phase II to be completed in FY21 with an estimated cost of $165,000 totaling an estimated cost of $300,000 for this project. The Naples Pier is a public access beach facility and a tourist attraction and destination. The pier structure has a shoreline erosion control and beach preservation effect. The Pier, a historically significant structure originally constructed in 1887, serves as a public access beach facility, as a major tourist attraction and vacation destination. The Naples Pier captures out -of -county and local visitors as well as tourist populations from through -out the region and world. Location: The project location is at the 12th Avenue South terminus beach end. Please refer to Project Location Map found in Exhibit A below. 5. Estimated project start date: October 1, 2020 6. Estimated project duration: 12 Months 7. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: 5135,600 Collier County Tourist Development Council Category "A" Grant Application - Page 2 Naples Pier Annualized Repair and Maintenance (Project Title) 8. If the full amount requested cannot be awarded, can the program/project be restructured to accommodate a smaller award? Yes O No (X) PROJECT BUDGET PROGRAM ELEMENT AMOUNT TDC Funds Requested $ 135,600 City/Taxing District Share $ State of Florida Share $ Federal Share $ TOTAL $ 135,600 PROJECT EXPENSES: (Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring etc) Labor, Repair, Maintenance, Supplies, Materials $ 135,600 $ TOTAL $ 135,600 I have read the Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Funding Policy covering beach renourishment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will comply with all guidelines and criteria. 5-22-2020 Charles T. Chapman IV, City Manager Date ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ELIGIBILITY: The pier structure is no more than one-half mile from a public beach facility, public access point, and hotel or motel facilities and is on a beach area classified as eligible. ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY: The City ofNaples will be the primary recipient and lead agency for controlling and completing all aspects and activities proposed in this grant application. The City will remain the lead agency for the duration of funding and will be the sole point of contact for all matters related to this proposal. The City has the managerial and financial capability to ensure proper planning, management, and completion of the project described in this application. BUDGET ASSURANCES: Dual Compensation: If a City project staff member or consultant is involved simultaneously in two or more projects, the staff will not be compensated for more than 100% of their time for any such dual involvement. c� a.� COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORV "A" CRANT APPLICATION Reach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance Collier County Sea Turtle Protection Program/Environmental Compliance 1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization: Collier County Parks and Recreation Department North Collier Regional Park 15000 Livingston Roars Naples, FL 34109 2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number: Name: Barry Williams, Director Address: 15000 Livingston Road City: Naples, FL, 34109 Phone: 239-252-4035 FAX: 239-514-8657 Other: 239-290-7035 3. Organization's Chief Official and Title: Barry Williams. Director Collier County Parks and Recreation Department 4. Details of Project- Description and Location: The following activities require coastal construction permits tram the State of Florida and thus a sea turtle monitoring program. 1. Beach nourishment: 2. Construction. excavation or maintenance of coastal inlet and related shoals; 3, Beach cleaning and grooming, activities landward of the mean high-water fine. 4. Beach cleaning fallowing a red tide or storm event. The following excerpts from current regulations (Chapter 16B-41 Rules and Procedures Cor Application for Coastal Construction Permits. Florida Administrative Code), provides for the scope of the permitting process and protection of marine turtles as it relates to the aforementioned activities. 16B-41.001 Scope This chapter provides the requirements and procedures for the issuance. denial, transfer, renewal, modification, suspension and revocation of coastal construction permits. In this Chapter Coastal Construction is defined as "any work or activity on or encroaching upon sovereignty lands of Florida, below the mean high-water line of any tidal water of the state, which is likely to have a material physical effect on existing coastal conditions or natural shore and inlet processes." 16B-41.0055 Protection of Marine Turtles (Florida Administrative Code) (1) In keeping with the Departments Authority to protect marine turtles pursuant to Section 370.12, Florida Statutes, any application for a permit under this Chapter for coastal construction that affects marine turtles shall be subject to the conditions and requirements for marine turtle protection as part of the permitting process. (2) The Department shall require appropriate measures to protect marine turtles and their habitat, such as: nest surveys, nest relocation. nest marking, modification of coastal construction, measures to reduce sand compaction, and short and long term monitoring to assess the impacts of the permitted coastal construction on marine turtles and their habitat. The Parks and Recreation Department, marine turtle permit holders for Collier County. monitor the following beaches for sea turtle activities as State and federal permit requirements for beach renourishment. beach raking. allowance for the use of vehicles on the beach for surveys, beach cleanup following a red tide or storm event and special events . Barefoot Beach: construction, excavation or maintenance of Wiggins Pass (only that area included within the area of influence of Wiggins Pass: 1 mile north of Pass south to Wiggins Pass): pass material disposal location (renourishment), beach cleaning following a storm event and red tide Vanderbilt Beach: beach nourishment: construction. excavation or maintenance of a coastal inlet and related shoals (Wiggins Pass and Clam Pass): beach cleaning and grooming activities landward of the mean high-water Iine, Park Shore: beach nourishment: construction, excavation or maintenance of a coastal inlet and related shoals (Clam Pass and Doctors Pass). Upland sand temperature studies as required by the State. City of Naples: beach nourishment, construction, excavation or maintenance of a coastal inlet and related shoals (Doctors Pass and Gordon Pass) City of Marco Island: construction, excavation or maintenance of a coastal inlet and related shoals (Big Marco Pass and Ca+cambas Pass), Beach nourishment: Hideaway Beach T-Groin; beach cleaning and grooming activities landward of the mean high-water line. The duties and associated costs of the prop_ram are as follows: I. Administrative/permitting 2. Reconnaissance and beach zoning including installation and maintenance of DNR location reference monuments for CZM and Sheriff department 500 feet increments along 26 miles of beach 3. Daily monitoring (7 days/wk./beach -April 01-May 01 depending on renourishment schedules through Oct31) 4. Evaluation, mapping and data entry 5. Responding to sea turtle disorientations (associated with renourishment and beach profile, as required by the State) 8. Reports (Sea Turtle Protection Plan Annual Report; special reports per each beach nourishment and T-groin units, Index Nesting Beach Reports (Vanderbilt); State Productivity Reports, Beach Compaction Reports) 9. Mobilization/demobilization- 10. Vehicle maintenance- ATV°s, penetrometers. data loggers 11. Supplies- acquisition, maintenance, inventory l2. Sand studies including beach compaction, sand temperature and ground/surface water studies and associated reporting requirements 13. Dune vegetation monitoring and exotic removal 14. Nest relocation in construction areas 15. Monitoring and reporting of escarpments 16. Additional studies required as required State/Federal permits (Florida Statute Chapter 161-053 F.A.C. Chapter 62b-33) 17. Stranding reports and removal of injured. sick and dead sea turtles from all County beaches (average 50-100/yr). 18 Public awareness- news media and public speaking upon request. 19. State mandated beach lighting compliance inspections and follow-up 21. Assist with maintaining rope and posting along the dunes 22. Other duties as requested by CZM Department 23. Provide technical assistance and respond to data requests from coastal engineering consultants upon request. The purpose of this application is to obtain funds to perform the requirements of a sea turtle protection program in the specified locations. 5. Estimated project start date: October 1, 2020 6. Estimated project duration: One (1) year 7. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: S 170,000 8. tf the full amount requested cannot be awarded, can the program/project be restructured to accommodate a smaller award:' Yes ( ) No ( X ) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the FY 20/21 10-Year Capital Planning document for Fund 195-Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance and Fund 185 Program Management and Administration and make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism. OBJECTIVE: To obtain approval for the 10-year capital planning document. CONSIDERATIONS: A 10-year capital planning document has been developed by Collier County staff to identify and balance long-term capital requirements/expenses and revenues received from the tourist development tax Fund 195 for beach renourishment and pass maintenance. This document is strictly used for planning. All grant requests and expenditure requests will be reviewed and approved by the Coastal Advisory Committee, the Tourist Development Council, and the Board of County Commissioners. Additionally, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Local Government Funding Request (LGFR) program requires that a 10-year planning document be utilized and approved for all municipalities seeking cost -share funding for Beach Management projects. Approval of this document for planning purposes satisfies the intent of this program. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact for this action. Funding for this program is provided by Tourist Development Taxes. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: This item will be presented to the Coastal Advisory Committee and the Tourist Development Council at their June 2020 meetings for review and approval. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote for approval. - CMG RECOMMENDATION: To approve the FY 20/21 10-Year Capital Planning document for Fund 195-Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance and Fund 185 Program Management and Administration and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. Prepared By: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division TDC Beach Renourishment Capital Fund (195) 7,875,602 2021CZM 10 Year Projection Proposed Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY21-FY25 FY21 - FY30 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 ources Roll forward (sum of reserves) 50,743,000 51,199,600 54,324,500 59,585,400 25,705,000 32,202,900 (6,226,200) (1,150,300) 5,386,900 5 Year Totals 10 Year Totals 46,763,000 46,763,000 Carry Forward to Fund Project Roll - - - - - - TDT (Fund 195) Revenue 9,734,100 11,102,600 11,213,600 11,325,700 11,439,000 11,553,400 11,668,900 11,785,600 11,903,500 12,022,500 54,815,000 113,748,900 Revenue Reserve (512,000) - - - - - - - - - (512,000) (512,000) Reimbursements/Miscellaneous Revenue 1,250,000 - - - - 1,250,000 1,250,000 FEMA/FDEP Reimbursements - 3,360,000 3,360,000 3,360,000 Interest 500,000 507,400 512,000 543,200 595,900 257,100 322,000 (62,300) (11,500) 53,900 2,658,500 3,217,700 Total Funding 56,485,100 63,603,000 66,285,200 66,193,400 71,620,300 37,515,500 44,193,800 5,497,100 10,741,700 17,463,300 108,334,500 167,827,600 Uses FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 5 Year Totals 10 Year Totals Proj. No. Beach Projects Proj. No. Collier Beach Renourishment - - 80301 Collier Beach Renourishment - - - - - - - - - - - - 90068 Naples Beach Engineering, NTP & Renourishment 2,000,000 3,000,000 - 5,000,000 - 5,000,000 10,000,000 90067 Park Shore Beach Engineering, NTP & Renourishment - 2,500,000 - 2,500,000 2,500,000 5,000,000 90066 lVanderbilt Beach Engineering, NTP & Renourishment 5,000,000 - - - 5,000,000 - - - 5,000,000 10,000,000 90069 Clam Pass Beach Engineering, NTP & Renourishment - 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 3,000,000 90070 Pelican Bay Beach Engineering, NTP & Renourishment 1,250,000 - - - - - - - 1,250,000 1,250,000 90062 Marco Central Bch Regrade - - - - - - - - - - - 90071 Marco Island South, NTP & Renourishment 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 3,000,000 90074 North Park Shore Beach NTP & Renourishment (project coord w/Park Shore) - - 80165 County Beach Analysis & Design - - - - - - - - - - - 90065 Local Government Funding Request (LGFR) 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 250,000 80366 Beach Resiliency 50,000 35,000,000 35,000,000 50,000 35,050,000 70,100,000 USACE Feasibility Study Technical Support 150,000 150,000 150,000 Cost Share participation - 35%for BASE design/permitting/construction ($25M) 9,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000 Collier Perferred Scope over USACE Recommended (base/storm surge) Plan - - Cost Share Resiliency Structural Solutions - Study, Modeling, Peer Review 500,000 500,000 500,000 Cost ShareResiliency Structural Solutions -Permitting, Engineering, Design 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 450,000 900,000 Cost Share Resiliency Structiral Solutions - Construction 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 5,000,000 15,000,000 Proj No. Inlet Projects - - 80288 Wiggins Pass Dredging 25,000 150,000 25,000 850,000 25,000 150,000 25,000 850,000 25,000 150,000 1,075,000 2,275,000 90549 Doctor'sPass Dredging 600,000 600,000 600,000 1,200,000 88032 Clam Pass Dredging (Pel Bay) 20,000 250,000 20,000 250,000 20,000 250,000 20,000 250,000 20,000 540,000 1,100,000 90072 Collier Creek Modeling, Jetty Rework and Channel Training 1,100,000 - - - - - - - - 1,100,000 1,100,000 Proj No. Regulatory - - 80171 Beach Tilling -County Wide 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 150,000 300,000 90033 Near Shore Hard Bottom Monitoring 185,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 925,000 1,850,000 90297 Shorebird Monitoring 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 250,000 90536 City/County Physical Beach and Pass Monitor 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 850,000 1,745,000 99999 Transfer to Fund 119 Beach Turtle Monitoring 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 850,000 1,745,000 Proj No. Maintenance - - 80378 Tractor Shelter - - 90527 Beach Cleaning -Naples 197,000 197,000 197,000 197,000 197,000 197,000 197,000 197,000 197,000 197,000 985,000 1,970,000 90533 Beach Cleaning-County/Marco 1 354,200 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,154,200 2,154,200 80407 Jolly Bridge Maintenance 1 20,000 20,000 20,000 TDC Beach Renourishment Capital Fund (195) 7,875,602 2021CZM 10 Year Projection Proposed Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY21 -FY25 FY21 - FY30 FY22 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY25 FY29 FY30 Vegetation Repairs -Exotic Removal (phase out) 5 Year Totals 10 Year Totals 90044 - - Proj No. Structures - - 90096 Naples Pier 135,600 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 935,600 1,935,600 Proj No. Administration - - 90020 Fund 195 Admin Costs 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 375,000 750,000 Total Direct Project Cost 4,661,800 11,197,000 10,752,000 5,397,000 44,702,000 4,097,000 49,202,000 5,427,000 4,132,000 6,977,000 76,709,800 146,544,800 99195 Interest Redirection - - - - - - - - - - - - 99195 Transfer to 185 Operating 846,000 978,800 978,800 978,800 978,800 978,800 978,800 978,800 978,800 978,800 4,761,200 9,655,200 99195 Transfer to Tax Collecter (Revenue Collection Exp) 234,300 227,600 229,900 232,200 234,500 236,800 239,200 241,600 244,000 246,500 1,158,500 2,366,600 99195 Reserves General - - - - - - - - - - - - 99195 Reserve for Catastrophe (increase by 500K/yr up to 10M in reserves) 8,570,000 9,070,000 9,570,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 99195 Reserve for Unrestricted Capital - - 99195 Reserve - FDEP/FEMA Refuding/Deob - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Programmed 14,312,100 21,473,400 21,530,700 16,608,000 55,915,300 15,312,600 60,420,000 16,647,400 15,354,800 18,202,300 92,629,500 168,566,600 Unencumbered Reserve Balance to Roll 42,173,000 42,129,600 44,754,500 49,585,400 15,705,000 1 22,202,900 1 (16,226,200) (11,150,300) (4,613,100) (739,000)1 15,705,000 1(739,000) G:\FISCAL\Budget\BUDGET FY 21\Capital\CZM\CZM 195 FY21 OMB FINAL 6220 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the fall truck haul beach renourishment project for the Naples Beach from Doctors Pass south to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) beach monument R-60 scheduled for November 2020 with a not -to -exceed project cost of $2,000,000; authorize all necessary budget amendments; and make a finding that this item promotes tourism (Project 90068). OBJECTIVE: To obtain a recommendation approving the project and funding for the 2020 truck haul beach renourishment project. CONSIDERATIONS: Staff is seeking project approval and authorization for a budget amendment for a 35,000 CY truck haul beach renourishment project for the Naples Beach between the South jetty of Doctors Pass to the R-60 beach segments for a not to exceed price of $2,000,000, which shall include but not be limited to the following cost estimates: • Engineering design, permitting, inspections and project certification - $110,000 Sand purchase by the County - $525,000 • Construction ➢ Mobilization - $40,000 ➢ Transportation, distribution, and placement of beach sand - $1,050,000 ➢ Maintenance of Traffic - $20,000 Staff inspectors and inspections ➢ Turbidity monitoring - $20,000 ➢ Construction surveys -pre, post, and record survey - $40,000 ➢ QA/QC inspections of delivered sand and truck chain -of -custody control - $30,000 ➢ Geotechnical sampling and analysis - $5,000 Shorebird monitoring - $5,000 Contingency - $155,000 The cost estimate is based on recent historical pricing to support an anticipated construction start date of November 2020. Placement of this sand is expected to renourish this section of the beach until the next dredging of Doctors Pass, assuming no exceptional storms, hurricanes, or unexpected weather conditions. All individual project expenditures as estimated above will be presented and approved by the BCC prior to execution of funds. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this renourishment is provided in the Tourist Development Tax, Fund (195) Beach Renourishment, Project 90068, and is being requested of both the Tourist Development Council (TDC) and Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for FY2021. An FY 20 budget amendment will be required to realign project budgets within the Tourist Development Tax Fund (195) Beach Renourishment to fund a work order with Taylor Engineering, Inc. to provide professional engineering services for Naples Beach Renourishment from just south of Doctors Pass to FDEP reference monument R-60. The Partial reimbursement of this work may be provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: This item will be reviewed and approved by a special meeting of the TDC which will occur prior to this item being presented to the BCC for approval on 05/26/2020. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: On the condition that the TDC has heard this matter prior to this item being heard by the Board, this item is approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote for approval. -JAK RECOMMENDATION: To approve the fall truck haul beach renourishment project for the Naples Beach from Doctors Pass south to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) beach monument R-60 scheduled for November 2020 with a not -to -exceed project cost of $2,000,000; authorize all necessary budget amendments; and make a finding that this item promotes tourism (Project 90068). Prepared By: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve a work order with Taylor Engineering, Inc., to provide professional engineering services for Naples Beach Renourishment from just south of Doctors Pass to Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) reference monument R-60 under Contract No.18- 7432-CZ for time and material not to exceed $102,585 and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. OBJECTIVE: To move forward with professional Engineering Services for the FY 2021 Naples Beach Renourishment from just south of Doctors Pass to FDEP reference monument R-60. CONSIDERATIONS: Taylor Engineering, Inc., will assist the County in conducting beach renourishment activities on Naples Beach from just south of Doctors Pass to FDEP reference monument R-60. This work order will provide professional services including engineering design, preparation of construction plans and technical specifications, bidding services, coordination with permitting agencies for Notice to Proceed, and serving as the Engineer of Record for the construction event. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for this work order, in the amount of $102,585, are available within Tourist Development Tax, Fund (195) Beach Renourishment. Authorization for the required budget amendment realigning funds into Project No. 90068 is requested under companion item #12353. Partial reimbursement of this work may be provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Tourist Development Council (TDC) will review this item at its May 22, 2020 meeting. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote for approval. - CMG RECOMMENDATION: To approve a work order with Taylor Engineering, Inc., to provide professional engineering services for Naples Beach Renourishment from just south of Doctors Pass to FDEP reference monument R-60 under Contract No. 18-7432-CZ for time and material not to exceed $102,585 and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. Prepared By: Andrew Miller, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division i WORK ORDER/PURCHASE ORDER Contract 18-7432-CZ "Professional Services Library Coastal Engineering Category" Contract Expiration Date: March 9, 2025 This Work Order is for professional Engineering Services for work known as: Project Name: Naples Beach Truck Haul Nourishment Project ' Project No: 90068 The work is specified in the proposal dated May 7, 2020 which is attached hereto and made a part of this Work Order. In accordance with Terms and Conditions of the Agreement referenced above, Work Order/Purchase Order # is assigned to: Taylor Engineering, Inc. Scope of Work: As detailed in the attached proposal and the following: * Task 1 Kickoff Meeting and Survey Review * Task 2 Engineering and Project Design * Task 3 Construction Documents * Task 4 Acquire FDEP Notice To Proceed * Task 5 Bid Assistance * Task 6 Construction Administration Schedule of Work: Complete work within 245 days from the date of the Notice to Proceed which is accompanying this Work Order. The Consultant agrees that any Work Order that extends beyond the expiration date of Agreement # 18-7432-CZ will survive and remain subject to the terms and conditions of that Agreement until the completion or termination of this Work Order. Compensation: In accordance with the Agreement referenced above, the County will compensate the Firm in accordance with following method(s): oNegotiated Lump Sum (NLS) Lump Sum Plus Reimbursable Costs (LS+RC) ®Time & Material (T&M) (established hourly rate — Schedule B) ❑ Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), (define which method will be used for which tasks) as provided in the attached proposal. Task 1 —Project Kickoff Meeting and Survey Review $1,870.00 T&M ' " Task 2 — Engineering and Project Design $23,502.00 T&M Task 3 — Construction Documents $16,772.00 T&M " Task 4 - Acquire FDEP Notice To Proceed $10,904.00 T&M Task 5 — Bid Administration $13,232.00 T&M ' Task 6 — Construction Administration: $36,305.00 T&M Total Project Fees: $102,585.00 PREPARED BY: Andy Mi ler, Principal Project Manager APPROVED BY: Amy Patte on, Department Director APPROVED BY: 6� - J�mb -da- i r = C;5 Thaddeus Cohen, Department Head S- r % Z-- 0-c., Date S_la�a0 Date Ot�zvv D e By the signature below, the Firm (including employees, officers and/or agents) certifies, and hereby discloses, that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, all relevant facts concerning past, present, or currently planned interest or activity (financial, contractual, organizational, or otherwise) which relates to the proposed work; and bear on whether the Firm has a potential conflict have been fully disclosed. Additionally, the Firm agrees to notify the Procurement Director, in writing within 48 hours of learning of any actual or potential conflict of interest that arises during the Work Order and/or project duration. ACCEPTED BY: Taylor Engineering, Inc Jenna N. hillips 5/I2/2020 Date T A Y L 0 R E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. = Delivering Leading edge Salutiaras May 7, 2020 Mr. Andrew Miller, P.E. Principal Project Manager Collier County Coastal Zone Management 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Unit 103 Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Naples Beach Renourishment Truck Haul Project Collier County, Florida Mr. Miller: Per your request, Taylor Engineering is pleased to submit the enclosed scope of work and fee proposal (Exhibit A) for engineering, design, and construction administration for the Naples Beach Renourishment Project. Primary tasks include design, development of contract documents, pursuit of agency Notice to Proceed, bid assistance and construction administration services. Taylor Engineering will perform these services on a time and materials basis, for a total cost not - to -exceed fee of $102,585.00 Please contact me at (941) 702-5871 orjphillips@taylorengineering.com with any questions. Sincerely, Jenna Phillips, M.S. Regional Office Lead Attachments (1) 1 800 2nd Street, Suite 714 1 Sarasota, FL 34236 I (941 ) 702-5871 WWW.TAYLORENGINEERING.COM EXHIBIT A May 7, 2020 Scope of Services for Naples Beach Truck Haul Engineering, Design and Construction Administration Services Collier COUNTY, Florida Introduction: Collier County (COUNTY) has contracted with Taylor Engineering, Inc. (TAYLOR) to perform engineering services related to renourishment of the Naples Beach, located south of Doctor's Pass. TAYLOR and subcontractor ESA will provide all labor and materials to complete the engineering services outlined in this scope of work. The COUNTY recently completed construction of two erosion control structures south of the Pass to help stabilize the eroding beach in that vicinity. The project will entail placement of approximately 35,000 CY of beach quality fill from an upland sand source along nearly 2,000 linear feet of beach, located from the south jetty to approximately R-60. The beach quality sand will be sourced and hauled from Stewart Mines in Immokalee, FL to the project site. TAYLOR and subcontractor ESA will provide the COUNTY with engineering, design, and construction administration and services as detailed below. Assumptions: • All proposed work is covered under previously obtained permits. As such, the scope excludes any additional permitting efforts. • Previous Sediment QA/QC plans, monitoring plans, turbidity plans, etc. will be provided by the COUNTY for inclusion in the FDEP Notice to Proceed (NTP) submittal package. • No hardbottom, biological, turtle or shorebird assessments will be required as part of this scope of work. We assume such work will be performed directly by the COUNTY. • The outfall management plan, mitigation plan and Erosion Control Line survey are not required as part of this scope of work and will be provided by the COUNTY. Scope of Work: Task 1— Kickoff Meeting and Survey Review The TAYLOR and ESA team will attend a kickoff meeting with COUNTY staff or via conference call. During this meeting, we will review the project scope and schedule, obtain available permit records and recent beach profile survey data. We understand that this project area provides a designated disposal area for maintenance dredging of Doctor's Pass (typically every 4 years). In addition, the COUNTY also holds a permit for construction of the erosion control structures, which may include pre-fillingibeach nourishment of the structures within the project area. Under this task, we will obtain and review the existing active permits and compare the beach fill templates associated with each separate permit for consistency. COUNTY staff indicated that a recent beach profile survey was performed by others in March 2020, which will serve as the baseline survey for beach fill design. TAYLOR will obtain the electronic survey files from COUNTY in XYZ format. Upon receipt, we will review the data for use in the design task. Deliverables: • Kickoff meeting summary EXHIBIT A Task 2 — Engineering and Design Survey data (collected by others, as provided by the COUNTY) will be used to design a beach fill template in compliance with the FDEP permit no. 0222355-0134C. TAYLOR will prepare plans showing the survey data presented in plan and profile views that indicate existing grades and proposed fill templates. The proposed fill template will include berm elevations and range from the R-monument, design slopes and end fill tapers. TAYLOR will perform volume and estimated toe of fill (ETOF) calculations to determine the amount of sand required to achieve the fill template on a profile -by -profile basis. The volume -based distribution of sand will be generally within the permitted template area, estimated to be between 30,000 to 40,000 CY. Under this Task, TAYLOR will coordinate with the COUNTY's vendor, Stewart Mines, to obtain gradation and granulometric data for review. We will verify that the sand characteristics align with the permit requirements and meet the COUNTY's approval. TAYLOR will work with ESA who will provide a peer review of the design plans. Upon completion of the design, TAYLOR will submit the design documents to COUNTY staff for review. Upon approval from the COUNTY, TAYLOR will incorporate into the construction documents. Deliverables: • Design Drawings, Design Calculations Task 3 — Construction Documents TAYLOR, with support from ESA, will prepare a set of construction documents, including final construction plans and technical specifications as necessary for COUNTY staff to advertise the bid. TAYLOR will also prepare an estimated Opinion of Probable Cost and construction schedule for COUNTY review. In preparation for bid advertisement, TAYLOR will also develop the submittal register, bid form and prepare a bid schedule as part of the draft bid package. Detailed drawings will be prepared to scale and will serve as the basis for the contract drawings in the final package sent to prospective bidders. Drawings will include the topographic & bathymetric survey data, plan and profile views, construction access points and easements where applicable. TAYLOR will prepare and provide the draft construction documents and bid package to COUNTY staff for review. Upon receipt of COUNTY comments, we will revise the construction documents and furnish the final construction drawings for approval prior to reproduction of copies suitable for distribution to prospective bidders. Deliverables: • Electronic drawings, technical specifications, and bid package files • Signed and sealed construction documents for submittal to the COUNTY for Request for Bid. Task 4 — Acquire Notice -to -Proceed TAYLOR will pursue a Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Notice -to -Proceed (NTP) prior to bid advertisement. The NTP Package will include the design drawings with cover letter and sediment QA/QC documents. TAYLOR will submit the package to regulatory agencies. Prior to submittal, TAYLOR and ESA will prepare for and attend video/conference call with FDEP, and one meeting in person EXHIBIT A in Tallahassee or onsite in Naples, if necessary, to discuss the project. Two Senior Coastal Engineers/Project Managers will attend those meetings. The NTP package will be submitted by August 1, 2020 with projected issuance of the notice to proceed (Oct 1). TAYLOR will prepare and submit the following for review and approval by the Department: a. Physical Monitoring Plan b. Biological Monitoring Plan c. Final Sediment Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plan, including project -specific sediment quality specifications for grain size distribution, color, and carbonate composition to ensure that the sediment from the mine will meet the standards in Rule 62B-41.007(2)0), F.A.C., for the exclusion of non -compatible fill material. The Plan will provide procedures for testing the quality of the sediment after it is placed and methods for remediation of any areas of fill material that do not comply with the sediment quality specifications. d. Detailed final construction plans and specifications for all authorized activities. The plans and specifications shall include a description of the beach construction methods to be utilized and drawings and surveys which show all biological resources and workspaces (e.g., staging areas, access corridors, etc.) to be used for this project. Deliverables: Notice -to -proceed submittal package as described above. Task 5 — Bid Administration TAYLOR will assist the COUNTY with bid administration. We will coordinate with the COUNTY to determine an appropriate date for a Pre -Bid Conference. TAYLOR and ESA will prepare for and attend the Pre -Bid Conference and answer prospective bidders' questions. TAYLOR will prepare a summary of the meeting for COUNTY review and records. Throughout the bid period, TAYLOR and ESA will assist the COUNTY by providing written responses to prospective bidders' questions and Requests for Additional Information (RFIs). We will communicate frequently with COUNTY staff regarding receipt of prospective bidders' written inquiries. For purposes of this scope of work, the assumed bid period is 30 days. Following bid closure, TAYLOR will obtain copies of sealed bids from the COUNTY and shall review them for accuracy, completeness and contractor qualifications. TAYLOR will coordinate with ESA to evaluate the bids and provide a written recommendation for award to the COUNTY within one week from receipt of the bid package submittals. TAYLOR and ESA will prepare a recommendation to Board of COUNTY Commissioners (BOCC). Two Senior Coastal Engineer/Project Managers will attend the BOCC meeting. Deliverables: Summary of Pre -Bid conference Written responses to RFIs from prospective bidders Bid tabulation, review and recommendation of award EXHIBIT A Task 6 - Construction Administration Services Once construction contract(s) have been approved, TAYLOR and ESA will provide construction phase services that include attending pre -construction meeting(s), construction oversight/monitoring through part- time on -site representation, permit compliance review services, and payment authorization. Under this task, we will provide the following construction phase services for the COUNTY as designed and permitted: a. Part time on -site owner's representative (1 day per week) b. Review of construction template/record drawings based on asbuilt surveys performed by others. During the estimated 30 days (or 4 weeks) of construction activities, TAYLOR's FOR will provide the complete services necessary to certify the project to the permitting agencies and to ensure that the project is constructed in reasonable conformity with the plans, specifications, and permit provisions. These services will be provided by TAYLOR staff and ESA's senior coastal engineer, Bryan Flynn, PE, who has been responsible for constructability review during the design and permitting phase for a prior Naples Beach Nourishment project. Bryan D. Flynn (ESA) will serve as the part-time owner's representative. TAYLOR and ESA will review the contractor submitted survey data, turbidity monitoring reports and daily construction reports. Such reports must be submitted to TAYLOR and ESA on a timely basis, by the Contractor, Surveyor and COUNTY Construction Management staff. TAYLOR will review asbuilt surveys in ACAD and perform independent comparison to the design template. Progress Meetings — The TAYLOR team will lead weekly progress meetings with the COUNTY, Contractor, and Construction Management Team to discuss in detail the construction progress and the requirements and responsibilities of each participant. We will provide a weekly progress report to the COUNTY within 3 business days of the meeting. Construction Plan Interpretation — TAYLOR and ESA will assist the Contractor and the COUNTY's Construction Management Team with interpretation of the plans, specifications, and contract provisions and consult with the Contractor and COUNTY's Construction Management Team when an interpretation involves complex issues or may impact the cost and duration of performing the work. If in the opinion of ESA or the EOR, construction activities violate the requirements of issued permits, the FOR shall immediately notify the COUNTY and the Contractor. We will review and assist the COUNTY's Construction Management Team with analyzing changes to the plans, specifications, or contract provisions and any extra work which may be necessary and recommend such changes to the COUNTY's Construction Management Team for approval. Site Visits — TAYLOR and ESA will visit the construction site at appropriate stages of the work, as necessary (for up to 7 onsite visits) to assess the general progress of the work and to verify that the project is being constructed in reasonable conformity with the approved plans and specifications. During the site visits, we will address any design related questions that arise during construction, review and document issues, and recommend solutions. TAYLOR and ESA staff will monitor the sediment quality at the mine, sediment delivered on site and at specific R-monument locations. We will send a summary of the site visit to the COUNTY detailing work progress, Contractor questions, issues encountered, and recommended solutions to the COUNTY. Shop Drawing & Test Reports Review — TAYLOR and ESA will request, receive, review, reject and or approve shop drawings, product data and tests results submitted by the Contractor for all pertinent items needed in construction. ESA shall also review the submittals to determine satisfactory compliance with the project plans and specifications, noting their approval or stipulations. TAYLOR and ESA shall determine EXHIBIT A the acceptability, subject to COUNTY approval, of substitute materials and equipment proposed by the Contractor and receive and review (for general content as required by the specifications) maintenance operating instructions, schedules, guarantees, and certificates of inspection, which are to be assembled by the Contractor in accordance with the contract documents. When appropriate, shop drawings shall be approved and copies sent to the COUNTY for record and to the Contractor for use in procuring and constructing components of the project. Record Drawings — Upon final completion of the work, TAYLOR will prepare record drawings from as - built survey information provided by the Contractor, incorporating all changes made during construction, by using record information certified by a Surveyor and Mapper licensed in Florida. TAYLOR will provide to the COUNTY two (2) plan sets signed and sealed by the EOR, one reproducible set (Electronic PDF) and one CD-ROM computer disk copy of the record drawings. Permit Close-out - Upon completion of construction, TAYLOR will provide the required documentation and certification of completion letters to the COUNTY, FDEP and USACE. Construction site observation fees are based on a part-time onsite representative, up to 1 day a week for an estimated 30 day active construction duration. The scope also includes up to 2 site visits by the Engineer of Record (EOR) for a total number of 7 site visits. If construction work continues beyond 30 days; we will prepare a change order to COUNTY for review and approval in order to continue to provide support with the COUNTY's approval, through the completion of the project. Deliverables: • A weekly status report submitted to the COUNTY project manager. • A final project report submitted to the COUNTY. • Electronic copies of all photos, drawings, documentation and reports on CD Schedule TAYLOR will begin work immediately upon receipt of COUNTY Notice to Proceed (NTP). Below is an outline of the proposed project schedule assuming TAYLOR receives an NTP no later than May 15, 2020. Should the NTP be issued after May 15', 2020, the schedule will be prorated/extended by the number of days authorized after May 15t1i. Task Description Task Duration (Days) Estimated Completion Date I Kickoff Meeting & Survey Review 10 25-May-20 2 En ineering & Design Services 45 30-Jun-20 3 Construction Documents 40 15-Jul-20 4 Acquire Notice to Proceed* 45 1-Se -20 5 Bid Assistance 45 1-Nov-20 6 Construction Administration 60 15-Jan-21 Note: *assumes that FDEP will issue NTP within 30 days EXHIBIT A Fee Estimate TAYLOR will perform the scope of services as outlined based on Time and Materials Not To Exceed $102,585.00. TAYLOR will invoice the COUNTY on a monthly basis. TAYLOR ENGINEERING, INC. COST SUMMARY BY TASK P2020-079: COLLIER CO NAPLES BEACH TRUCK HAUL ENGINEERING SERVICES TASK 1: Kickoff Meetinq and Survey Review Task Labor Hours Rate Cost Totals Project Manager Engineer Senior Designer Total Man -Hours Labor Cost Total Non -Labor Cost 6.0 160.00 -' 960.00 ' 2.0 130.00 -" 260.00 ' 4.0 140.00 -' 560.00 12.0 1,780.00 •1 11 Total Task 1 1,870.00 TASK 2: Engineering & Design Services Task Labor Hours Rate Cost Totals Senior Project Manager 8.0 203.00 ' 1,624.00 ,' Project Manager 26.0 160.00 4,160.00 ' Engineer 36.0 130.00 4,680.00 Senior Designer 40.0 140.00 5,600.00 Scientist/Geologist 2.0 115.00 230.00 Total Man -Hours 112.0 Labor Cost Non -Labor Units Unit Cost Cost ESA Subcontractor 1.0 7,108.00 7,108.00 16,294.00 EXHIBIT A Reproductions 2.0 50.00 100.00 Total Non -Labor Cost 7,208.00 Total Task 2 23,502.00 TASK 3: Construction Documents Labor Hours Rate IasK Cost Totals Senior Project Manager 6.0 203.00 ` 1,218.00 ' Project Manager 26.0 160.00 ' 4,160.00 ' Engineer 40.0 130.00 5,200.00 Senior Designer 8.0 140.00 ' 1,120.00 Clerical/Administrative 4.0 73.00 ' 292.00 Total Man -Hours 84.0 Labor Cost 11,990.00 Non -Labor Units Unit Cost Cost ESA Subcontractor 1.0 Reproductions 2.0 4,582,00 4,582.00 100.00 200.00 Total Non -Labor Cost 4,782.00 Total Task 3 16,772.00 TASK 4 Acquire Notice To Proceed Task Labor Hours Rate Cost Totals Senior Project Manager Project Manager Engineer Senior Designer Senior Environmental Specialist 2.0 203.00 ` 406.00 20.0 160.00 3,200.00 ' 4.0 130.00 520.00 ' 4.0 140.00 ' 560.00 ' 14.0 167.00 / 2,338.00 Scientist/Geologist Clerical/Ad m in istrative Total Man -Hours Labor Cost Non -Labor Rental Car for FDEP Mtg Travel (Naples or Tallahassee) 1.0 ESA Subcontractor 1.0 Reproductions 1.0 TASK 5: Bid Administration EXHIBIT A 16.0 115.00 1,840.00 2.0 73.00 146.00 62.0 9,010.00 Units Unit Cost Cost 120.00 120.00 1,724.00 1,724.00 50.00 50.00 Total Non -Labor Cost 1,894.00 Total Task 4 10,904.00 ask Labor Hours Rate Cost Totals Senior Project Manager Project Manager Engineer Total Man -Hours Labor Cost Non -Labor 8.0 203.00 1,624.00 28.0 160.00 4,480.00 28.0 130.00 3,640.00 64.0 Units Unit Cost Cost Mileage (Pre -Bid Meeting, 200 Mi Roundtrip) 1.0 90.00 90.00 ESA Subcontractor 1.0 3,398.00 3,398.00 9,744.00 Total Non -Labor Cost 3,488.00 Total Task 5 3,232.00 EXHIBIT A TASK 6: Construction Administration Services Task Labor Hours Rate Cost Totals Senior Project Manager 22.0 203.00, 4,466.00 Project Manager 26.0 160.00 4,160.00 Engineer 12.0 130.00� 1,560.00 Senior Designer 40.0 140.00 5,600.00 Scientist/Geologist 4.0 115.00� 460.00 Total Man -Hours 104.0 Labor Cost Non -Labor Units Cost ESA Construction Oversight 1.0 19,789.00 19,789.00 Mileage (Site Visits, 200 Mi Roundtrip) 3.0 90.00 270.00 16,246.00 Total Non -Labor Cost 20,059.00 Total Task 6 36,305.00 / Total 102,585.00 Task1 —Project Design......................................................................................$7,108.00 Task 2 — Construction Documents................................................................................................$4,582.00 ' Task 3 —Acquire Notice-to-Proceed.......................................................................$1,724.00 Task4 — Bidding Support ..................................................................................$3,398.00 Task 5 — Post -Design Services...............................................................$19,789.00 . Total......................................................................................................... $36,601.00 Schedule Estimate The following schedule of completion is anticipated. 1. FDEP NTP submittal within 30 days of the County's NTP. 2. Construction Planset and Bidding Documents within 45 days of the County's NTP. 3. Bidding Support will start with the pre -bid conference date and end with a recommendation to BOCC for award. Assumptions 1. Tasks will be paid on a time and materials not to exceed basis. 2. Previous Sediment QA/QC plans, monitoring plans, turbidity plans, etc. will be provided by the County for inclusion in the NTP. 3. No hard bottom, biological, turtle or shorebird assessments will be required as part of this scope of work or will be provided by the County. 4. The outfall management plan, mitigation plan and Erosion Control Line survey are not required as part of this scope of work or will be provided by the County. Naples Beach Renourishment Project Design & Permitting Services for the Collier Coastal Zone Management Department 18-7432-CZ - Professional Services Library - Coastal Engineering Category Naples Beach Renourishment 4, 2020 SCOPE OF SERVICES Background Environmental Science Associates (ESA) will support Taylor Engineering (Taylor) attending project coordination meetings, providing constructability reviews on design plans, aid in acquiring a notice proceed from the regulatory agencies and support preparation of bidding documents in support of the County's solicitation of the bid. The Naples Beach Nourishment Project plans to place sand at the following segment: • R-58A to R-61 (Lowdermilk Park) Task 1— Proiect Design Survey data, collected by others, will be used to design a beach fill template in compliance with the FDEP permit 0222355-013-JC. Plans will be prepared by Taylor showing the survey data presented in plan and profile views that indicate existing grades and proposed fill templates. The proposed fill template will include berm elevations and range from the R-monument, design slopes and end fill tapers. ESA will provide previous design and permitting documents to aid in the design. Volume calculations will be completed by Taylor to determine the amount of sand required to achieve the fill template on a profile -by -profile basis. Complete sets of design documents will be presented to ESA for review. Deliverables: Review and comments on Stakeout Tables, Design Drawings, Design Calculations Schedule: Design review will be completed by June 30'' Task 2 — Construction Documents Construction documents will include construction plans and technical specifications necessary for contractors to bid the project. ESA will support Taylor in preparing technical specifications and general provisions to support the County's bid process. Detailed drawings will be prepared by Taylor to scale and will serve as the basis for the contract drawings in the final package sent to prospective bidders. Drawings will include the topographic & bathymetric survey data, in plan and profile views and include construction access points and easements. Submittals will be provided to ESA for review and comment. Taylor shall revise any changes promptly and shall furnish the final construction drawings for County approval prior to distribution to prospective bidders. Final cost estimates will be included as well as a bid schedule, which will include a detailed estimate of the quantities and work to be performed for bidding purposes. Components of the Contract Documents that will be provided include the following: Construction Plans Technical Specifications Appendix Information (Permits, aerial photography, sediment documents, and any other relevant information). Deliverables: Review and comment on drawings and specification files Schedule: Construction documents will be completed by July 15, 2020 Task 3 — Acquire Notice -to -Proceed The Notice -to -Proceed (NTP) Package will include the design drawings with cover letter and sediment QA/QC documents and submit to regulatory agencies. Taylor will host/prepare for one video/conference call with FDEP and one with USACE, to discuss the project. ESA's Senior Coastal Engineer will attend those meetings. The NTP package will be submitted by August 1, 2020 with projected issuance of the notice to proceed (Oct 1). The following will be submitted for review and comment by ESA: a. Physical Monitoring Plan b. Biological Monitoring Plan c. Final Sediment Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plan, including project -specific sediment quality specifications for grain size distribution, color, and carbonate composition to ensure that the sediment from the mine will meet the standards in Rule 62B-41.007(2)0), F.A.C., for the exclusion of non -compatible fill material. The Plan will provide procedures for testing the quality of the sediment after it is placed and methods for remediation of any areas of fill material that do not comply with the sediment quality specifications. d. Detailed final construction plans and specifications for all authorized activities, including a vessel operations plan. The plans and specifications shall include a description of the beach construction methods to be utilized and drawings and surveys which show all biological resources and work spaces (e.g., staging areas, access corridors, etc.) to be used for this project. Deliverables: Review and comment on the Notice -to -proceed submittal package as described above. Schedule: Notice -to -proceed will be submitted to the agencies by August 1" Task 4 — Bidding Support Taylor will coordinate with the County to determine an appropriate date for a Pre -Bid Conference. ESA staff will prepare for and attend the Conference, and assist in answer prospective Contractor inquiries or transcribe Contractor inquiries for subsequent research and response to all Conference attendees as appropriate. 2 During the bidding period, ESA shall communicate frequently with Taylor and County staff regarding receipt of prospective Contractor written inquiries seeking interpretation of the Contract Documents. Should the County receive such information within the stipulated time in advance of the advertised bid opening date, ESA will assist Taylor with preparation of bid addenda as appropriate by providing technical response to items. Such items include clarification that may be warranted to the contract drawings, technical specification and supplemental general conditions or other construction -related issues as appropriate. ESA will obtain copies of sealed bids from the County and shall review them for accuracy, completeness and contractor qualifications. ESA will aid Taylor in evaluating bids and provide a written recommendation for award to the County based on a review of the submitted bids. ESA will prepare for the recommendation to Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). One Senior Coastal Engineer will attend the BOCC meeting. Task 5 — Post -Design Services Once construction contract(s) have been approved, ESA will support Taylor with construction phase services that include: attending pre -construction meeting(s), construction oversight/monitoring through part-time on -site representation, permit compliance review services, and payment authorization. Under this task, ESA will provide the following post -design services for the Collier County Naples Beach Nourishment Project as designed and permitted: a. Part time on -site owner's representative (1 day a week) b. Review of construction template/record drawings (AD & BD quantities) (surveys performed by others) During the estimated 30 days or 4 weeks of construction activities, it shall be the responsibility of Taylor as the FOR to provide the complete services necessary to certify the project to the permitting agencies and to ensure that the project is constructed in reasonable conformity with the plans, specifications, and permit provisions. These services will be provided by ESA's senior engineering staff that has been responsible for constructability review during the design and permitting phase of the project. Bryan D. Flynn, PE will serve as the part-time owner's representative. Survey data, turbidity monitoring reports and daily construction reports will be provided to ESA on a timely basis, by the Contractor, Surveyor and County Construction Management staff. Progress Meetings - ESA will lead weekly progress meetings with the County, Contractor, and Construction Management Team to discuss in detail the construction progress and the requirements and responsibilities of each participant. ESA will provide a weekly progress report to the County within 3 business days of the meeting. Construction Plan Interpretation — ESA will work with Taylor to assist the Contractor and the County's Construction Management Team with interpretation of the plans, specifications, and contract provisions and consult with the Contractor and County's Construction Management Team when an interpretation involves complex issues or may impact the cost and duration of performing the work. If in the opinion of ESA or the EOR, construction activities violate the requirements of issued permits, the FOR shall immediately notify the County and the Contractor. ESA will review and assist the County's Construction Management Team with analyzing changes to the plans, specifications, or contract provisions and any extra work which may be necessary and recommend such changes to the County's Construction Management Team for approval. ESA Site Visits - ESA will visit the construction site at appropriate stages of the work, as necessary to assess the general progress of the work and to verify that the project is being constructed in reasonable conformity with the approved plans and specifications. During the site visits, ESA shall address any design related questions that arise during construction, review and document issues, and recommend solutions. ESA's staff also have experience with previous Collier County truck haul beach nourishment projects, permit compliance and oversight of marine construction throughout Florida. These individuals will monitor the sediment quality at the mine, sediment delivered on site and at specific R-monument locations. ESA will send a summary of the site visit to the County detailing work progress, Contractor questions, issues encountered, recommended solutions to the County. Shop Drawing & Test Reports Review - ESA will request, receive, review, reject and or approve shop drawings, product data and tests results submitted by the Contractor for all pertinent items needed in construction. ESA shall also review the submittals to determine satisfactory compliance with the project plans and specifications, noting their approval or stipulations. ESA shall determine the acceptability, subject to County approval, of substitute materials and equipment proposed by the Contractor and receive and review (for general content as required by the specifications) maintenance operating instructions, schedules, guarantees, and certificates of inspection, which are to be assembled by the Contractor in accordance with the contract documents. When appropriate shop drawings shall be approved and copies sent to the County for record and to the Contractor for use in procuring and constructing components of the project. Record Drawings — Upon final completion of the work, ESA will with Taylor to prepare record drawings from as -built survey information provided by the Contractor, incorporating all changes made during construction, by using record information certified by a Surveyor and Mapper licensed in Florida and provide to the County two (2) plansets signed and sealed by the EOR, one reproducible set (Electronic PDF) and one CD-ROM computer disk copy of the record drawings. Permit Close-out - Upon completion of construction, ESA will support Taylor with the required certification of completion letters to the County, FDEP and USACE. Costs are based on a part-time onsite representative, averaging one (1) day a week beginning in November 1', 2020 and continuing through December 1", 2020. If work continues past December 11; ESA will continue to provide support with the County's approval, through the completion of the project at a day rate. Deliverables for Task 5 will include: 1) A weekly status report submitted to the County project manager. 2) A final project report submitted to the County. 3) Electronic copies of all photos, drawings, documentation and reports on CD. Budget Estimate Work for this assignment will be performed for the amount of $36,601.00. Work will be billed to the County on a monthly basis based on the percentage of work completed for the preceding month. 18-7432-CZ Hourly Rate Schedule Title Hourly Rate Principal $231 Senior Project Manager $203 Project Manager $160 Senior Engineer $177 Engineer $130 Senior Inspector $126 Inspector $93 Senior Planner $150 Planner $120 Senior Designer $140 Designer $105 Environmental Specialist $120 Senior Environmental Specialist $167 Scientist/Geologist $115 Senior Scientist/Geologist $153 Marine Biologist/Hydrogeologist $120 Senior Marine Biologist/Hydrogeologist $145 Senior GIS Specialist $155 GIS Specialist $115 Clerical/Administrative $73 SeniorTechnician $103 Technician $83 Surveyor and Mapper $125 CADD Technician $107 Survey Crew - 2 man $145 Survey Crew - 3 man $180 Survey Crew - 4 man $215 Senior Architect $160 Architect $125 MeyerHeather From: MillerAndrew Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 2:53 PM To: MeyerHeather Subject: Naples Beach Renourishment Hello Heather, Please see Sara's email below regarding Taylor Engineering. Thank you, Andy Miller, P.E. Principal Project Manager (239)-252-2922 c (239) 300-5862 Collier County Growth Management Department Coastal Zone Management Section 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Unit 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Andrew. Miller colliercountyfl.Rov From: SchneebergerSara <Sara.Schneeberger@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 2:51 PM To: MillerAndrew <Andrew.Miller@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: Direct Select Andy, The next firm in rotation for 18-7432 CZ is Taylor Engineering, Inc. Please be sure to add this email to the requisition. Thanks! Respectfully, Sa4ra, Sc+L, +rge r Procurement Strategist Co er C014*1ty Collier County Procurement Services 3295 Tamiami Trail East, Bldg C2, Naples FL 34112 239-252-8985 Collier County Procurement Services has partnered with BidSync to provide Free web -based Bidding services to its vendors, suppliers and contractors. Register today at www.bidsync.com. For Registration Assistance, please contact BidSync customer service at 800-990-9339 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the proposal by CSA Ocean Sciences, Inc. to continue the required post -construction hardbottom monitoring for the Collier County Beach Nourishment Project in summer 2020 with CSA Ocean Sciences, Inc. for Time and Material not to exceed $159,997.30 under the already approved and executed Contract No.17-7188, authorize the chairman to execute the work order for the proposed services, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. OBJECTIVE: To continue to conduct post -construction hardbottom monitoring of Collier County's coast as required by regulatory permits and accept a proposal dated May 19, 2020 to perform biological monitoring in 2020. CONSIDERATIONS: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers require nearshore hardbottom monitoring to be performed on a yearly basis to assure that beach renourishment sand has not migrated onto the nearshore coral outcropping off the coast of Collier County. This work is required to be performed during the spring and summer of each year when underwater visibility in the Gulf of Mexico is greatest. Fieldwork must be completed, according to permit, by September 30, 2020. On May 8, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved contract 17-7188 for a three-year period, with an option to renew for an additional two years, with CSA Ocean Sciences, Inc. This work order is within the third year of the initial three-year contract period. A Work Order will be released against the master contract identifying specific scope of work, schedule and pricing for the summer 2020 nearshore hardbottom monitoring. The Work Order for 2020 is for a not to exceed Time and Material price of $159,997.30. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: This item will be presented to both the Coastal Advisory Committee and the Tourist Development Council prior to being presented to the BCC. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote for approval. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this work is available in the Tourist Development Tax Beach Renourishment Fund (195) project 90033. RECOMMENDATION: To approve the proposal by CSA Ocean Sciences, Inc. to continue the required post -construction hardbottom monitoring for the Collier County Beach Nourishment Project in summer 2020 with CSA Ocean Sciences, Inc. for Time and Material not to exceed $159,997.30 under the already approved and executed Contract No. 17-7188, authorize the chairman to execute the work order for the proposed services, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. Prepared By: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Collier County 2020 Hardbottom Biological Monitoring Submitted to: S A - tyL Collier County Coastal Zone Management Section Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division 2685 South Horseshoe Drive Unit 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Submitted By: f CSA CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. 8502 SW Kansas Avenue Stuart, Florida 34997 Office: 772-219-3000 z 1 TRACE OO PV;; SafeGulf CERTIFIED AUTHDRIZED PROVIDER The content of this document is the exclusive property of CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. It has been provided for the purpose for which it is supplied and is not for general release or disclosure. The recipient of this document should take all measures to ensure that the contents are only disclosed to those persons having a legitimate right to know. The recipient should also note that this document is provided on the express terms that it is not to be copied whole or in part or disclosed in any manner to third parties without the express authority in writing from CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. Collier County; Coastal Zone Management Section Gary McAlpin Director Tel: 239-252-2966 Gar.mcalpinkcolliercountyflgov CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. Chip Baumberger Project Scientist 2 Ports, Harbors and Beaches Group Tel:772-219-3053 1 Cell:772-332-7150 cbaumbergergconshelf corn The following version(s) of this proposal have been issued: O1 Date 1 May 2020 Description Collier County 2020 HB Monitoring i EH 02 5 May 2020 Fee Schedule and Proposal Revision CB 03 8 May 2020 Cost Revision CB JJ 04 12 May 2020 Cost Modification CB 05 19 May 2020 Task 4 Revision CB 1 Privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary information intended for a specific individual and purpose. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Scope of Work.................................................................................................................................. I Task 1: Administration, Travel, Mobilization, and Demobilization ........................................................1 Task2: Field Monitoring Survey.............................................................................................................. 2 TransectMonitoring.............................................................................................................................. 2 Nearshore Hardbottom Edge Surveys................................................................................................... 3 Task 3: Analysis, Reporting and Deliverables......................................................................................... 3 Task 4: CSA diver and vessel support ...................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Deliverables...................................................................................................................................... 4 4.0 Project Schedule................................................................................................................................4 5.0 Rates, Resources, and Billing Schedule............................................................................................4 6.0 HSSE Overview................................................................................................................................6 7.0 Proposal Terms................................................................................................................................. 7 8.0 Literature Cited................................................................................................................................. 8 2 Privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary information intended for a specific individual and purpose. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. 1.0 INTRODUCTION CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. (CSA) is submitting this price estimate to conduct post -construction hardbottom monitoring for the Collier County Beach Nourishment Project and Wiggins Pass Maintenance Dredging and Navigation Improvement Project in summer 2020. This estimate was prepared at the request of Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management, for a pending work order from Collier County under Professional Services for Nearshore Hardbottom Monitoring contract #17-7188, and is based on the scope of work for the Collier County Beach Nourishment Project Final Hardbottom Biological Monitoring Plan (BMP; Revised 2013). This project will conform to all associated Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permits, which include: Collier County Beach Renourishment FDEP Permit No. 02222355-001-JC and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Permit No. SAJ-2004-08754; Doctors Pass Maintenance Dredging FDEP Permit No. 0235740-001-JC and USACE Permit No SAJ-2004-09754; Wiggins Pass Maintenance Dredging and Navigation Improvement FDEP Permit No. 0142538-001-JC and USACE Permit No. SAJ-2004-07621. The price estimate for the post -construction hardbottom monitoring includes an in -water survey of 34 previously established monitoring transects. The survey will be conducted according to the 2013 BMP by experienced marine biologists using similar methods as those utilized in previous surveys for this project. A report of the 2020 results and comparison with previous surveys will be compiled. Per the BMP, the survey will be conducted between May 1 and September 30, 2020 and all data deliverables will be provided within 60 days of completion of fieldwork. Draft and final versions of the report will be submitted within 90 days of completion of fieldwork. CSA will provide two American Academy of Underwater Sciences (AAUS)-certified marine biologists from our Ports and Coastal Sciences division to join the Collier County team as subject matter experts who will guide field activities and the data collection processes. CSA has built in conservative estimates of levels of effort to decrease the likelihood of change orders or additional approvals from Collier County, and utilizing best management practices, we anticipate being able to complete the below tasks within or under the costs provided in Table 1 (Section 5.0). Mobilization, administration, travel, field work, analysis, and reporting comprise Tasks 1-3, and a CSA staffed field effort is presented as Task 4, in the event Collier County CZM is unable to staff the field team during optimal conditions. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK TASK 1: ADMINISTRATION, TRAVEL, MOBILIZATION, AND DEMOBILIZATION CSA will provide project administration including oversight, coordination, and management of the 2020 nearshore hardbottom monitoring program. CSA's Project Manager will be responsible for supervising all managerial aspects of the project and will have oversight of all team personnel, including field scientists (i.e., subject matter experts), authors, editors, and technical and support staff. CSA will plan and execute project activities in order to meet required deadlines and/or client needs for the project. CSA will hold a kickoff meeting with Collier county staff to review the scope of work and confirm project logistics prior to beginning mobilization efforts for the monitoring survey. After coordination with Collier County on acceptable weather and sea state conditions, CSA will mobilize a two -person scientific dive team and required equipment during ideal sea -state and weather windows to perform surveys. It is assumed that Collier County will provide a vessel, captain, and two divers to support the survey. Several mobilizations and demobilizations may be necessary to complete all tasks depending on weather and sea conditions. Therefore, Task 1 includes provision for up to three round trips and associated meals for a two -person team. Additional trips to and from Collier County will be billed on a Time and Materials basis Privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary information intended for a specific individual and purpose. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. under the agreed upon rates as needed with prior approval from Collier County. CSA will confirm visibility of nearshore waters with Collier County staff prior to mobilization to minimize travel back and forth during the monitoring due to poor sea state and water visibility. Travel to and from Collier County is anticipated to take one half -day each and includes appropriate per diem according to Class B travel. TASK 2: FIELD MONITORING SURVEY A total of 34 permanent monitoring transects (50-m length) established in 2006 by Coastal Planning and Engineering (CP&E) during the original baseline pre -construction survey and those installed in 2018 for the Wiggins Pass hardbottom monitoring will be surveyed in 2020 for the Field Monitoring Survey. The transects are located among five beach segments: Wiggins Pass, three transects (R-18+900, R-19+400, and R-20); Vanderbilt, seven transects (R-21+080 to R-29+700); Pelican Bay, six transects (R-31+480 to R-38+380); Park Shore, nine transects (R-43+550 to R-55); and Naples Beach, nine transects (R-58+300 to R-65). The hardbottom monitoring survey is estimated to take 24 field days. The transect endpoints supplied by Collier County as listed in Table 1 of the BMP will be utilized to re -survey all transects. Each transect will be re -occupied by extending a 50-m tape along the transect length and aligning it with permanent markers installed and maintained during previous monitoring surveys. The field team will maintain and replace permanent markers as necessary during the field survey. Due to the permit requirements, the Wiggins Pass and Park Shore segments will receive priority for monitoring to ensure that Collier County maintains compliance with FDEP permits. As only Wiggins Pass and Park Shore were nourished between 2018-2020, these 12 transects are required for post -construction monitoring. The remaining segments will be surveyed as conditions permit, to provide supplemental background data for future planned renourishment projects from 2020-2022. Transect Monitoring Along each 50-m transect, the team will conduct line -intercept and interval sediment depth measurements, survey of 11 benthic quadrats, collect coral photo quadrats, and conduct a coral census as described in the BMP. Quantitative video of each transect will be recorded at 40-cm height off bottom at a slow 4 m/min speed for archival purposes. A high definition (HD) video camera with video lights and two lasers mounted to converge at a point 40 cm from the camera will be used in the survey to ensure that divers maintain the appropriate height off the bottom. Sediment depth measurements will be made at 1-m intervals along the entire length of the transect, with a marked stainless -steel ruler inserted up to 30 cm into the sediment. A delineation of hardbottom and sand cover will be made by meter of coverage along the transect, and the maximum height of hardbottom at the start of each transect will be recorded. A 0.5 m X 0.5 m quadrat (0.25 m2 area) will be sampled at 11 individual hardbottom locations spaced every 5 m along the transect, in the same locations as those established and surveyed during the pre -construction monitoring survey. Quadrats containing 100% sand due to cover by sand will be surveyed and included in the dataset. Within each quadrat, percent cover by major benthic taxonomic groups including macroalgae (total percent cover of the dominant species), coralline algae, turf algae, sponges, hydroids, wormrock, octocorals, stony corals, bryozoans, and tunicates will be visually estimated, as well as percent cover of various abiotic substrate types. Maximum and average height of the thalli will be measured for the two dominant macroalgae species in each quadrat. Within each quadrat, sediment depth will be measured at five haphazardly selected positions and the maximum vertical relief of hardbottom will be measured. Still digital photographs of each quadrat will be collected at the time of survey. Privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary information intended for a specific individual and purpose. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Nearshore Hardbottom Edge Surveys The nearshore hardbottom edge (landward edge of hardbottom) seaward of the equilibrium -toe -of -fill (ETOF) of each beach segment will be mapped during the survey. Two divers will swim the nearshore hardbottom edge located immediately west of the ETOF, recording video of the edge and associated benthic community. The team will tow a DGPS buoy on a short tether (taut line), which transmits continuous buoy/diver positions to Hypack® hydrographic survey software on board the vessel. The HD video camera will be held at an oblique angle and filming will occur simultaneously with the DGPS buoy to allow geo-referencing. If the continuous nearshore hardbottom edge crosses east of the ETOF toward land, the mapping will continue until the edge of hardbottom ends. TASK 3: ANALYSIS, REPORTING AND DELIVERABLES Data deliverables and reports will be provided to Collier County and the FDEP, with conformance to requirements and schedules set forth in the 2013-approved BMP. A comprehensive raw data deliverable will be provided on an external hard drive within 60 days of completion of field survey activities and will include all video and photo data, Excel spreadsheets of quadrat data, draft GIS shapefiles, and *.pdf copies of field data sheets, as applicable. Notification of survey completion will be made by letter or email to the FDEP Joint Coastal Permit Compliance Officer. As per Contract #17-7188, nearshore hardbottom monitoring results will be compiled into a report by December 30 of the same year (assuming fieldwork is completed by September 30). The report will discuss the results of the 2020 Nearshore Hardbottom Monitoring Survey and include comparisons with annual monitoring survey results from the 2018 (CSA Ocean Sciences 2019a) and 2019 (CSA Ocean Sciences 2019b.) beach nourishment projects. The monitoring report will include graphs, tables, and statistical analyses of collected data. Geo-referenced maps showing hardbottom along transets and the nearshore hardbottom edge will be included. All reports will be provided in electronic format with a hardcopy on request. TASK 4: CSA DIVER AND VESSEL SUPPORT Tasks 1 through 3 assume that the required 4-person dive team will consist of two CSA divers and two Collier County Coastal Zone Management divers working from a Collier County vessel. In the event Collier County divers are unable to participate in the survey, CSA will provide additional scientific divers as necessary. CSA will also provide a suitable survey vessel and operator in the event the Collier County vessel is unavailable. Task 4 consisting of CSA vessel, operator, and four scientific divers is also included in this cost estimate, only to be used if Collier County staff and/or vessel is unavailable and survey conditions necessitate fieldwork. This task comprises 3 days of a full CSA dive team including 4 divers, one vessel operator, CSA vessel, and all necessary equipment normally provided by Collier County, as well as travel to and from Collier County. This task would only be billed if necessary. Privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary information intended for a specific individual and purpose. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. DELIVERABLES Task 2: Data Deliverables: • All video and photo data; • Point Count files; • Excel spreadsheets of quadrat data; • Draft GIS shapefiles: pipeline corridors, nearshore hardbottom edge, and transects; and • *.pdf copies of field data sheets. Monitoring Report: • Graphs, tables, and statistical analyses of collected data; • Geo-referenced maps showing hardbottom along transects and the nearshore hardbottom edge; • Selected qualitative imagery of transects and nearshore hardbottom edge; and • Provided in electronic format, pdf, with hardcopy on request. 4.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE The project schedule will be updated twice per month by the Project Manager with input from Collier County and the FDEP (as appropriate) to provide status of task activities and track critical milestones and precedent activities. This bi-weekly update will identify any problems early and enable corrective action to be taken quickly. The updated schedule may be provided to Collier County on request. CSA will convene a project kickoff meeting with Collier County staff and field survey participants to ensure that all necessary personnel, field equipment, and monitoring standard operating procedures are in place prior to initiation of the survey. To minimize mobilization and travel costs, CSA will endeavor to conduct the monitoring survey in its entirety as weather permits. 5.0 RATES, RESOURCES, AND BILLING SCHEDULE The labor and equipment rates found in the following table (Table 1) are from the Professional Services for Nearshore Hardbottom Monitoring Contract #17-7188 between CSA and Collier County, April 2018. The costs are on a Time and Materials Not -to -Exceed basis and will be billed monthly once notice to proceed is given. Table 1. Cost breakdown of CSA hours, survey days, and travel by task. Task # Project Schedule Administration, Travel, Monthly; Task 1 Mobilization, and T&M $15,000.50 1 $15,000.50 net 30 Demobilization Task 2 Field Monitoring Survey T&M $3,214.27 24 $77,142.48 Monthly; net 30 Task 3 Analysis, Reporting, and T&M $36 900.58 1 $36 900.58 Monthly; Deliverables net 30 Task 4 CSA Diver and Vessel T&M $10 317.91 3 $30,953.74 Monthly; Support net 30 T&M = time and materials. Privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary information intended for a specific individual and purpose. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Table 2. Estimated fees, based on the agreed -upon labor and equipment rates in Table 1. Project 1pr Description Quantity Rates Sub Total 6 Administration, Travel, Mobilization, and Demobili Labor $ 13,872.10 Total k $ 15,000.5 PS2 86 $ 106.19 $ 9,132.34 PSI 42 $ 95.02 $ 3,990.84 PM1 4 $ 122.96 $ 491.84 T1 4 $ 64.27 $ 257.08 Travel $ 1,128.40 Vehicle Rental 8 $ 63.00 $ 504.00 Fuel 96 $ 3.15 $ 302.40 Meals 7 $ 46.00 $ 322.00 2 Field Monitoring Survey Im-$ 77,142.48 Labor $ 57,948.48 PS2 288 $ 106.19 $ 30,582.72 PSI 288 $ 95.02 $ 27,365.76 Travel $10,650.00 Vehicle Rental 24 $ 63.00 $ 1,512.00 Fuel - Vehicle 120 $ 3.15 $ 378.00 Lodging 48 $ 136.50 $ 6,552.00 Meals 48 $ 46.00 $ 2,208.00 Equipment $ 8,544.00 Underwater Video Camera (2) 48 $ 95.00 $ 4,560.00 Digital Camera (2) 48 $ 55.00 $ 2,640.00 Dive Equipment (2) 48 $ 25.00 $ 1,200.00 3 Diver Recall System na ysis, Reporting, Labor 7.2 and Deliver-551e $ 20.00 $ 144.00 $ 36,667.48 $ 36,900.58 SS2 8 $ 209.59 $ 1,676.72 SS1 8 $ 173.27 $ 1,386.16 PS3 10 $ 139.73 $ 1,397.30 PS2 176 $ 106.19 $ 18,689.44 PS1 72 $ 95.02 $ 6,841.44 GISA 28 $ 92.22 $ 2,582.16 GIST 12 $ 81.04 $ 972.48 OM 1 $ 192.84 $ 192.84 TE2 10 $ 111.79 $ 1,117.90 DP 24 $ 75.46 $ 1,811.04 Reimbursables $ 233.10 Digital Media 2 $ 78.75 $ 157.50 Fedex 2 $ 37.80 $ 75.60 Privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary information intended for a specific individual and purpose. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Project Task 4 Rates Description Quantity 1Sub Total (US CSA Diver and Vessel Support MJW Labor $ 22,378.84 Total 30,953.74 PS3 44 $ 139.73 $ 6,148.12 PS2 44 $ 106.19 $ 4,672.36 PS1 44 $ 95.02 $ 4,180.88 T3 44 $ 103.40 $ 4,549.60 T1 44 $ 64.27 $ 2,827.88 Travel $ 4,290.90 Fuel - Truck 66 $ 3.15 $ 207.90 Fuel - Vessel 90 $ 3.70 $ 333.00 Dockage 3 $ 52.50 $ 157.50 Lodging 20 $ 136.50 $ 2,730.00 Meals 18.75 $ 46.00 $ 862.50 Equipment $ 4,284.00 Survey Vessel 3 $ 550.00 $ 1,650.00 CSA Truck 3 $ 150.00 $ 450.00 Underwater Video Camera (2) 6 $ 95.00 $ 570.00 Digital Camera (2) 6 $ 55.00 $ 330.00 Hypack Survey Software 3 $ 110.00 $ 330.00 Laptop Computer 3 $ 70.00 $ 210.00 Dive Equipment (4) 12 $ 25.00 $ 300.00 Diver Recall System 3 $ 20.00 $ 60.00 Dive tanks 48 $ 8.00 AL $ 384.00 $ 159,997.3 Labor Categories and Equipment rates in Table 2 correspond to those found in the Collier County Professional Services Contract #17-7188 with CSA Ocean Sciences, dated 2018. 6.0 HSSE OVERVIEW As a leading international marine environmental consulting firm, CSA attaches great importance to its Health, Safety, Security, and Environment (HSSE) Management System to protect human health, avoid and prevent incidents and injuries, and minimize impacts to the environment. CSA emphasizes the importance of HSSE for every activity and provides the resources, knowledge, and training necessary for staff to meet HSSE objectives, including Stop Work Authority for all staff if a safety uncertainty arises. CSA's commitment to safety is reflected in the daily activities of its personnel as well as the personal involvement from management in support of the HSSE Management System. FHsronays America% In recognition of this commitment to safety, CSA was the recipient of the prestigious "America's Safest Companies Award" by EHS Today magazine (November 2019). This corporate award honors companies that clearly demonstrate their commitment to employee safety and health, environmental management, and risk control and have been deemed America's Safest. To be considered one of America's Safest Companies, a company must demonstrate transformational EHS leadership in the form of support from management and employee involvement; innovative solutions to safety challenges; injury and illness rates significantly lower than the average for their industry; comprehensive training programs; evidence that prevention of incidents is the Privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary information intended for a specific individual and purpose. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. cornerstone of the safety process; excellent communication internally and externally about the value of safety; and a way to substantiate the benefits of the safety process. UNIVERSITY OF CSA is also a recipient of the "Sunshine State Safety Recognition Award" SOUTH FLORIDA from the University of South Florida for employee and management emphasis on safety (March 2017). The Sunshine State Safety Recognition Award serves as validation of a company's achievements and track record. Achieving Standards • PEC Safety Authorized Provider for SafeGulf, SafeLandUSA, and 112S Clear —provides trained, professional safety personnel for offshore environmental monitoring and marine activities; • Organizational Member of the American Academy of Underwater Sciences (AAUS) and the Scientific Boating Safety Association (SBSA); • CSA utilizes a Safety and Environmental Management System (SEMS) approach to safety program administration; • CSA is implementing ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 45001:2018 conformance standards; • ISNetworld Member Contractor for environmental consulting; • Extremely low Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR) (rolling TRIR is 0.0) and Experience Modifier Rate (currently at 0.76); and • CSA's HSSE Director is Lead Auditor -certified. CSA's corporate HSSE policy statement and HSSE Manual are available upon request. 7.0 PROPOSAL TERMS CSA's commercial proposal price calculations were based upon our professional services contract with Collier County as well as "Project -Specific Terms," which are outlined below. If Collier County (Client) has issues with any of these items, CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. reserves the right to modify its original proposal price in order to meet any cost increase arising from any modifications requested by the Client. This proposal contains privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary information intended for a specific individual and purpose. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. CSA is certified by TRACE International Inc. and conducts business ethically and in compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, U.K. Bribery Act, and other anti -bribery legislation. CSA has implemented and strictly adheres to anti -bribery, anti -corruption, and third -party risk management corporate policies and procedures(https://www.traceintemational.org_o. CSA holds these standards in high regard and expects the same from its clients and subcontractors. Project -Specific Terms Field days for the environmental sampling are estimated and assume that the vessel, operator, navigation, and two divers will be provided by Collier County. Actual costs charged will be based on the actual number of field days spent by CSA personnel based on rates listed in Table 1. The field survey operations cost estimate assumes 24 survey days within three separate survey efforts, any additional costs incurred due to weather and sea conditions, vessel/equipment, and/or other delays will be charged at the agreed upon Equipment and Labor Rates as T&M. Tasks 1 through 3 assume that the following will be provided by Collier County at no cost to CSA: o Vessel & captain; Privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary information intended for a specific individual and purpose. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. 0 2 field team divers; o Scuba tanks; o DGPS buoy with telemetry; o Hypack navigation; o Transect maintenance equipment and supplies; and o A vessel log of daily activities. Reporting • Project technical details, pertinent information necessary for the Project Description section of the report, and other requirements will be provided to CSA in a timely manner. • Price for preparation of deliverables is based on a single draft and final document addressing a single set of comments for each deliverable. 8.0 LITERATURE CITED Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2018. Collier County, Florida Hardbottom Biological Monitoring Plan for permits: Collier County Beach Nourishment Project, FDEP permit no. 0331817-004-JM and Wiggins Pass Navigation Channel Expansion and Maintenance Project, FDEP permit no. 0142538-008-JC. July 2018. Tallahassee Florida. 17 pp. CSA Ocean Sciences. 2019a. Collier County Beach Nourishment Project 2018 Pre -Construction Hardbottom Monitoring Report. Jan. 16, 2019. 114 pp. Submitted to Collier County CZM and FDEP in fulfillment of permit required monitoring for Collier County Beach Nourishment Project FDEP Permit No. 0331817-004-JM and the Wiggins Pass Navigation Channel Expansion and Maintenance Project FDEP Permit 0142538-008-JC. CSA Ocean Sciences. 2019b. Collier County Beach Nourishment Project 2019 Hardbottom Monitoring Report and Supplemental Post Red Tide Survey. Nov. 25, 2019. 70 pp. Submitted to Collier County CZM and FDEP in fulfillment of permit required monitoring for Collier County Beach Nourishment Project FDEP Permit No. 0331817-004-JM and the Wiggins Pass Navigation Channel Expansion and Maintenance Project FDEP Permit 0142538-008-JC. Privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary information intended for a specific individual and purpose. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve a work order with APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.; to provide professional engineering services for 2021-2022 Local Government Funding Request under Contract No.18-7432-CZ for time and material not to exceed $22,713.99, authorize the Chairman to execute the work order, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. OBJECTIVE: To move forward with preparation of the 2021-2022 Local Government Funding Request (LGFR) for Collier County's shore protection projects. CONSIDERATIONS: APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. will assist the County with Preparation of the 2021-2022 LGFR for Collier County's shore protection projects; South Marco Island and Collier County Beach Renourishment projects, and the County's inlet projects: Wiggins Pass and Doctors Pass. All the elements of the projects as they apply to Rule 6213-36 and the LGFR application and guidance documents will be evaluated in order to increase Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) ranking and cost -sharing opportunities where practical. Additionally, APTIM will update the application response to account for the modification of the LGFR based on the latest rating guidelines and rules and current project cost information. Once APTIM has completed a draft of the LGFR application, they will provide it to Collier County for review and comment prior to submittal to FDEP. FDEP will review the application and may request additional information (RAI). APTIM will respond to FDEP's RAI and provide additional information to the FDEP on behalf of Collier County as needed. FDEP then reviews the applications in detail and provides initial project rankings and initial project assessments. Collier County will then have the opportunity to respond to the initial project assessment. APTIM will then perform a review of the initial project assessment on behalf of Collier County and, if warranted, provide the County with a draft letter to the FDEP identifying the area within the application that may provide additional points to the County. Contract No. 18-7432-CZ was approved by the BCC on March 10, 2020, item 16.E.4 (Attachment 1), to provide small (less than $200,000) engineering services to the County's Coastal Zone Management project managers. Generally, these contracts are used for small projects less than $100,000, and which have a limited scope of work with relatively short durations. This contract has a five year duration with an option to renew for one additional year. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for the proposed work order, in the amount of $22,713.99, is available in the Tourist Development Tax Fund (195), Project No. 90065, FDEP LGFR Analysis. Funding for this work order will not be requested for reimbursement from any grantor agency. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: This item will be presented to both the Coastal Advisory Committee and the Tourist Development Council prior to being presented to the BCC. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote for approval. RECOMMENDATION: To approve a work order with APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.; to provide professional engineering services for 2021-2022 Local Government Funding Request under Contract No.18-7432-CZ for time and material not to exceed $22,713.99, authorize the Chairman to execute the work order, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. Prepared By: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division APTIM 2481 NW Boca Raton Blvd. Boca Raton, FL 33431 Tel: +1 561 391 8102 www.aptim.com May 21, 2020 Gary McAlpinI Director Collier County Coastal Zone Management 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: 2021-2022 Local Government Funding Request (LGFR) Preparation (Contract No. 18=7432) Dear Gary: This letter is in response to Collier County's (County) request for a proposal for Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC (APTIM) and Coastal Protection Engineering LLC (CPE), herein referenced as the APTIM Team, to support the County with submittal of the 2021-2022 Local Government Funding Requests (LGFR). The APTIM Team will assist the County with preparation of the 2021-2022 LGFR for Collier County's: South Marco Island Beach Renourishment Project, North County Beach Renourishment program including Doctors Pass, and the County's inlet project at Wiggins Pass. Included as Exhibits are; the Scope of Work (Exhibit A), Fee Proposal (Exhibit B), sub -consultant proposal (Exhibit C) and the Rates Schedule (Exhibit D). The APTIM Team proposes to provide these services on a time and materials basis not -to -exceed $22,713.99 under the terms and conditions of the existing Contract No. 18-7432-CZ Amendment #1 dated May 7, 2020. Sub -consultant will provide services on a lump sum basis. The APTIM Team will conduct this work collaboratively, and in line with previous Collier County roles and responsibilities, resulting in an efficient work effort without duplication of efforts. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, all work will be completed within 180 days of receiving the Notice to Proceed. Sincerely, Holly Berckenhoff, EIT Coastal EIT Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC cc: Tara Brenner, PG, PE, CPE Erica E. Carr -Betts, EI, APTIM Beau Sumard, PG, APTIM Jeffrey Andrews '►FTiT Director of Operations Title Exhibit A Scope of Work 2 2021-2022 Local Government Funding Requests (LGFR) Collier County, Florida Scope of Work Contract Number 15-6382 Introduction In order to distribute state funds for shore protection and inlet management projects, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) requests that local sponsors submit an annual Local Government Funding Request (LGFR) for their projects. The FDEP is in the process of modifying the LGFR application and ranking system, which is expected to be implemented with the submittal of the 2021-2022 LGFR. This scope of work details the tasks required to assist the County with preparing and submitting the 2021-2022 LGFRs to the FDEP, and responding to both the FDEP's Application Review and Project Assessment for Collier County's South Marco and North County Beach Renourishment projects, and inlet maintenance projects at Doctors Pass, and Wiggins Pass. It is anticipated that the FDEP will revise their ranking methodology document based upon changes to the LGFR. This new document, as well as participation in the LGFR workshops, will serve as a guide when formulating responses on behalf of the County. Members of the APTIM Team have been closely following the LGFR changes and will prepare Collier County's applications collaboratively in order to maximize the County's scoring opportunity. Once a draft of the LGFR application has been completed, a copy will be provided to Collier County for review and comment prior to submittal to the FDEP. Following application submission, the FDEP will review the applications in detail and provide initial project rankings and initial project assessments. The APTIM Team will perform a review of the initial project assessment on behalf of Collier County and, if warranted, provide the County with a draft letter to the FDEP identifying the areas within the applications that may provide additional points to the County. 1. South Marco Beach LGFR Application The APTIM Team will assist the County with preparation of the 2021-2022 LGFR for Collier County's South Marco Island Renourishment Project. Building upon past LGFR applications, the APTIM Team will update the application response to account for the latest application format, rating guidelines and rules, and current project cost information. All the elements of the projects as they apply to the 6213-36 Rule and the LGFR application and guidance document will be evaluated in order to optimize FDEP ranking and cost sharing opportunities where practical. This will include research to identify qualifying public lodging establishments and updated County zoning. 2. North County Beaches & Doctors Pass LGFR Application The APTIM Team will assist the County with preparation of the 2021-2022 LGFR for Collier County's North County beaches (Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples Beach) and Doctors Pass projects. Building upon past LGFR applications, the APTIM Team will update the application response to account for the latest application format, rating guidelines and rules, and current project cost information. All the elements of the projects as they apply to the 6213-36 Rule and the LGFR application and guidance document will be evaluated in order to optimize FDEP ranking and cost sharing opportunities where practical. This will include research to identify qualifying public lodging establishments and updated County zoning. 3. Wiggins Pass LGFR Application The APTIM Team will assist the County with preparation of the 2021-2022 LGFR for Collier County's Wiggins Pass inlet maintenance project and will determine if Collier Creek will qualify for future funding within the modified LGFR application process. All the elements of the projects as they apply to the 6213-36 Rule, LGFR application, and guidance document will be evaluated in order to increase FDEP ranking and cost sharing opportunities where practical. Additionally, maps will be updated and the FDEP's application response will be reviewed and, if required, a response to the draft assessment will be completed. 4. Sub -Contractor CPE will provide professional services in support of Tasks 1-3. Exhibit B Fee Proposal 3 EXHIBIT B ESTIMATED FEE PROPOSAL FOR 2021-2022 LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING REQUEST (LGFR) PREPARATION COLLIER COUNTY, Contract No. 18-7432-C7 May 21, 2020 Task Item Cost Senior Project Manager sneer Engineer Planner GIS Specialist P Clerical/ Administrative Sub -Contractor (CPE LLC) Hours (Hours) Hours Hours Hours Cost 1 South Marco Beach LGFR Application (T&M) $49945.00 3 16 8 10 2 2 North County Beaches & Doctors Pass LGFR Application (T&M) $7,770.00 8 20 13 16 2 3 Wiggins Pass LGFR Application (T&M) $49945.00 3 16 8 10 2 4 Sub -Contractor (LS) $5,06199 4,813.32 Total Hours = 14 52 29 36 6 $4,813.32 Rate = $203 $130 $120 $115 $73 1.05 Cost= $2,842 $6,760 $39480 $4,140 $438 $5,053.99 TIME & MATERIALS TOTAL $17,660.00 LUMP SUM TOTAL $5105199 TOTAL $22,71199 F:1Marketingl Proposals\Florida Counties\Collier\2020\631013674 - FY21-22_LGFR\Exhibit B -Collier LGFR 2021-22- Costxlsx Exhibit C Sub -Consultant Proposal COASTAL PROTECTION ENGINEERING April 20, 2020 Revised May 21, 2020 Holly Berckenhoff Coastal Engineer Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC Submitted via email to Holly. Berckenhoff@aptim.com COASTAL PROTECTION ENGINEERING 5301 N. FEDERAL HWY, SUITE 335 BOCA RAYON, FL 33487 Re: Proposal to Assist with Collier Local Government Funding Request Applications Dear Holly 561-565-5100 This proposal is in response to Aptim Environmental &Infrastructure's (APTIM) request for Coastal Protection Engineering LLC (CPE) to assist APTIM with review of Collier County's three (3) Local Government Funding Request (LGFR) applications. We propose to provide professional services as Principal, Project Manager, and Senior Marine Biologist to participate in phone calls with APTIM, the County, or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) related to preparation of this year's LGFR applications. CPE will also review draft applications prepared by APTIM for South Marco, Collier's North County Beach Renourishment, and Wiggins Pass prior to submittal. Our fee proposal to provide these services is $4,813.32 as detailed in the attached and will be billed on a lumpsum basis. All work will be performed in accordance with the existing Master Service Agreement between APTIM and CPE executed July 24, 2019. This cost is limited to a projection of hours and estimate of effort based on information known at this time. Should the project or client require additional services beyond these estimated hours, we will discuss adjustments with APTIM as deemed appropriate. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at 631-896-9137. Sincerely, Tara g�ewv�,e� Tara Brenner, PG, PE Senior Coastal Engineer Coastal Protection Engineering LLC Mobile: 631-896-9137 tbrenner@coastalprotectioneng.com COASTAL PROTECTION ENGINEERING Attachment 1 COASTAL PROTECTION ENGINEERING Page 12 Quote No. 2®20034 Submitted to: APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure LLC 2481 NW Boca Raton Blvd, Boca Raton, Florida, 33431 Client Contact: Sherifa Dindial sherifa.dindial@aptim.com Project Name: Date: 05/21/2020 Collier -Principal Engineer (TP) Collier -Project Manager (TB) Collier -Senior Marine Biologist (LF) �uAaia� PROTECTION EMfi1NEERING Provided by: Coastal Protection Engineering LLC 5301 N. Federal Hwy, Suite #335 Boca Raton, FL, 33487 Project manager: Tara Brenner Phone:+16318969137 E-mail: tbrenner@coastalprotectioneng.com 4 220.00 880.00 24 152.38 3,657.12 2 138.10 276.20 S u btota I : 4, 813.32 Tax: 0.00 Total (USD): 4,813.32 Exhibit D Rate Schedule DocuSign Envelope ID: 80B82885-B471-4CCC-BC63-021 FDAD6CE8B SCHEDULE B-ATTACHMENT 1 RATE SCHEDULE Title T Hourly Rate Principal $231 Senior Project Manager $203 Project Manager $160 Senior Engineer $177 Engineer $130 Senior Inspector $126 Inspector $93 Senior Planner $150 Planner $120 Senior Designer $140 Designer $105 Environmental Specialist _ $120 Senior Environmental Specialist $167 Scientist/Geologist $115 Senior Scientist/Geologist $153 Marine Biolo ist/H dro geolo ist $120 Senior Marine Biologist/I-lydrogeologist $145 Senior GIS Specialist $155 GIS Specialist $115 Clerical/Administrative $73 Senior Technician $103 Technician $83 Surveyor and Mapper $125 CADD Technician $107 Survey Crew - 2 man $145 Survey Crew - 3 man $180 Survey Crew - 4 man $215 Senior Architect $160 Architect $125 The above hourly rates are applicable to Time and Materials task(s) only. The above list may not be all inclusive. Hourly rates for additional categories required to provide particular project services shall be mutually agreed upon by the County and firm, in writing, on a project by project basis, as needed, and will be set forth in the Work Order agreed upon by the parties. ® Grant Funded: The above rates are for purposes of providing estimate(s), as required by the grantor agency. Page'.) of 3 First Amendment to Agreement # 18-7432-C7 Aptim F,nvironmental &. Infrashvcture, LLC CAO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the recommended approach to address the Water Quality Improvement within Collier County and make a recommendation for approval to the Board of County Commissioners. OBJECTIVE: To address recurring Coastal Water Quality issues within Collier County. CONSIDERATION: The Board of County Commissioners (Board) through Ordinance 2019-10 (6/11/2019, Item 17F), gave responsibility to the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) for reviewing water quality issues that affect the County's bays, estuaries, inlets and shoreline. In pursuing this responsibility, the CAC based on input from its water -quality sub -committee, County and City operating divisions and water -quality experts is recommending a sharply limited approach: • Limit recommendations to those that pertain only to Collier County. • Avoid duplication. Proposals should not compete with or duplicate state or local projects or studies underway elsewhere. • Avoid lengthy studies to gather bullet-proof support for recommendations. • Make brief periodic recommendations to the Board, understanding that county resources may be needed to flesh out proposals if the Board decides to pursue them. Numerous possible measures to deal with coastal water -quality problems were reviewed and deemed inappropriate for additional focus due to: • Successful mitigation programs from other entities, both local and state. • Sampling, testing and reporting procedures set by (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) FDEP and other groups. • Provision of signage and other warnings of health -endangering conditions by Department of Health and FDEP. • Research into levels of algal -generated toxins that affect people under study by state and academic entities. • Preventative measures underway by FDEP to toughen waterborne nutrient standards. • State legislation to monitor septic systems and curb nutrient runoff. • Procedures included in the proposed Stormwater Utility, such as street -sweeping programs. The Coastal Advisory Committee recommends that the Board approve the following: 1. Improve compliance with the County fertilizer ordinance. The CAC recommends that adequate county resources be made available to promote/enforce compliance with Ordinance 2019-18, which, if followed, would substantially reduce nutrient levels in inland lakes and waterways leading to coastal areas. The limited resources in Pollution Control and Code Enforcement that are devoted to water -quality issues preclude robust training and enforcement. As such, the ordinance has little value, relying mostly on voluntary compliance from those aware of the new rules. Even a modest increase in manning for training, inspection and enforcement purposes would, we believe, be beneficial. 2. Form a working group to meet with lawn/landscape maintenance companies that work in Collier County to ensure the necessary training and certification to comply with the fertilizer ordinance. and the understanding to adjust fertilizer levels when using recycled water for irrigation. The CAC recommends the working group be composed of representatives from Pollution Control and Code Enforcement. The working group will focus on the following issues: • Nutrient runoff from fertilizer and irrigation water feeds algae in Collier County lakes and waterways that lead to coastal areas and contributes to red tide near the shoreline. FDEP has listed five coastal waterbodies impaired because of high nutrient levels. • Irrigation water from wastewater recycle has high nutrient levels. When irrigation is overused or improperly contained, it runs into storm sewers, containment lakes and eventually the Gulf, impairing coastal waterbodies, stoking algae growth and worsening red tide. • Adjust fertilizer levels when using recycled water for irrigation. • The County Manager or his designee will assemble members of the task force. 3. Make a recommendation as to the cost -benefit of installing Advanced Wastewater Treatment to reduce nutrient levels in recycled irrigation water. Collier County does not use Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT). The technology is well developed and could be adapted to Collier facilities. The question is whether the nutrient reduction would justify the cost. • The CAC recommends an investment/operating cost assessment be made. Adequate data may be available to allow such an assessment without hiring an outside consultant. • If such data are not available, the CAC recommends that a consultant study be undertaken to evaluate the cost -benefit of installing such AWT for substantially reducing nutrient levels in recycled irrigation water. Any contract for a consultant will be returned to the Board for approval. 4. Other water -quality recommendations will be considered in 2020. FISCAL 1 M PACT: No fiscal impact will result from this activity. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Coastal Advisory Committee will review this item at its June 11t1i meeting. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote for approval. — CMG RECOMMENDATION: For the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) to approve the recommended approaches to address the Water Quality Improvement within Collier County and make a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Prepared by: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division COLLIER COUNTY BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT 2020 POST -CONSTRUCTION ANNUAL MONITORING SUMMARY May 2020 DEP PERMIT 0331817-005-JC USACOE PERMIT SAJ-2003-12405 MOD (MOD -KS) DRAFTCOLLIER COUNTY PREPARED BY HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS HIM File No. 25026 SUBMITTED TO: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION HUMISTO 1N & MOORE r ENGINEERS COASTAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING Main Office: 5679 Strand Court Naples, FL 34110 Phone 239 594 2021 Fax 239 594 2025 e-mail : mail(a)humistonandmoore.com COLLIER COUNTY BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT 2020 CONSTRUCTION AND ANNUAL MONITORING SUMMARY DEP PERMIT 0331817-005-JM USACOE Permit SAJ-2003-12405 Mod (MOD -KS) COLLIER COUNTY PREPARED BY HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS MAY 2020 Table of Contents Paqe Introduction & History ..................................................................... 1 SurveyInformation......................................................................... 5 Volume & Shoreline Change............................................................ 6 Upland Volume Change.................................................................. 25 Advance Nourishment Losses.......................................................... 29 Summary..................................................................................... 32 AerialImages................................................................................ 38 Environmental............................................................................. 38 Conclusions................................................................................. 39 References................................................................................. 41 List of Figures Figure 1. Monitoring Area Location Map Figure 2. Fill Templates for Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay Beaches Figure 3. Fill Templates for Park Shore Beaches Figure 4. Fill Templates for Naples Beach Figure 5a. Typical Beach Profile Comparison Figure 5b. Schematic Diagram for Typical Shoreline and Volumetric Analysis Figure 6a. Beach Profile Showing Shoreline and Volumetric Accretion Figure 6b. Typical Park Shore Beach Cross Section Figure 7a. Shoreline Analysis R-17 to R-41 Figure 7b. Shoreline Analysis R-42 to R-57 Figure 7c. Shoreline Analysis R-58A to R-84 Figure 8. Average Beach Width & Design Standard vs. Time Tables Table 1. Permit History for DEP Permit Number 0331817-001 Table 2. Collier Beach Nourishment History Table 2b. Collier County Beach Nourishment Project Contractor History Table 3. Survey Dates and Description Table 4. Project Monument Range Table 5. Shore Normal Limits for Volumetric Analysis Table 6a. Shoreline Change R-17 through R-41 Table 6b. Volume Change R-17 through R-41 Table 7a. Shoreline Change R-42 through R-57 Table 7b. Volume Change R-42 through R-57 Table 8a. Shoreline Change R-58A through R-84 Table 8b. Volume Change R-58A through R-84 Table 9a. Upland Volume Change — Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay Beach Table 9b. Upland Volume Change — Park Shore Beach Table 9c. Upland Volume Change — Naples Beach Table 10a. Advance Nourishment Remaining R-22 to R-37 Table 10b. Advance Nourishment Remaining R-42 to R-54 Table 10c. Advance Nourishment Remaining R-58A to R-79 Table 11 a. Shoreline Change Summary Table 11 b. Volume Change Summary Appendices A. Monitoring Plan - Revised August 2017 B. 2019 Park Shore Nourishment Completion and Certification C. Major Storm Information D. Beach Profiles R-17 through R-84 E. 2006 Post -Construction Volume and Shoreline Change F. Historical Shoreline Change for Reference Monuments R-17 to R-84 (Beach Width Comparisons) G. Oblique Aerial Photographs taken in May 2020 ii COLLIER COUNTY BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT 2020 POST -CONSTRUCTION AND ANNUAL MONITORING SUMMARY DEP PERMIT 0331817-005-JM USACOE Permit SAJ-2003-12405 Mod (MOD -KS) DRAFT INTRODUCTION & HISTORY COLLIER COUNTY PREPARED BY HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS May 2020 This report by Humiston & Moore Engineers (H&M) presents the analysis of an annual monitoring survey conducted in March of 2020, and comparison of data from previous surveys. The survey was conducted by Sea Diversified, Inc. (SDI) between March 3rd and March 27', 2020. The survey scope is consistent with the requirements of the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) permit number 0331817-001-JM dated October 2, 2015, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) permit number SAJ-2003-12405 (MOD -KS), and the approved Monitoring Plan dated August 2017 included in Appendix A. Recent DEP permit history is summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Permit History for DEP Permit Number 0331817-001 Permit Modification Date of Issuance Description of Modification Number -001 October 2, 2015 Original Permit -002 October 23, 2015 Revised Biological Monitoring Plan -003 January 8, 2018 Authorizes Dune Vegetation Planting -004 November 20, 2017 Major Modification Adding Clam Pass Park to the Project Area -005 July 23, 2018 Revised Hardbottom Biological Monitoring Plan Collier County, located on the southwest coast of Florida, includes 148 DEP reference monuments from Barefoot Beach south to Marco Island. The monitoring area for this report shown in Figure 1, overlaid on an aerial image acquired in December 2019, includes DEP reference monuments R-17 located south of Wiggins Pass in Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park, south to R-84, north of Gordon Pass in Naples. CONTROL INFORMATION & PROJECT DESIGNATION FDEP EASTING NORTHING AZIMUTH PROJECT MONUMENT (FEET) (FEET) (DEG) LOCATION R-17 383927.4 710889.5 270 h R-18 384127.0 709906.7 270 h `o R R-19 384326.0 708878.0 270 R-20 384517.5 707866.6 270 R-21 384728.9 706858.3 270 R-22 384938.9 705839.5 270 R-23 385137.3 704891.6 270 v R-24 385417.1 703871.6 260 R-25 385647.5 702813.9 270 m W R-26 385847.4 701850.5 270 = R-27 385990.2 700866.9 260 o a R-28 386161.7 699684.0 275 z R-29 386341.5 698847.1 270 R-30 386537.6 697837.4 270 R-31 386705.3 696813.6 270 R-32 386891.1 695824.5 270 > W R-33 387046.2 694818.9 270 m O R-34 387226.5 693808.1 270 a R-35 387408.2 692827.8 270 cZQi W U R-36 387522.6 691835.2 270 a W R-37 387678.2 690789.1 270 ro R-38 387783.7 689818.1 270 `o R-39 387874.7 688799.5 270 R-40 387963.8 687793.8 270 o �° a R-41 388051.6 686785.6 270 R-42 388209.4 685731.0 265 o v R-43 388248.5 684692.3 270 Z R-44 388359.1 683701.5 270 R-45 388478.9 682660.0 270 R-46 388538.8 681554.5 270 W R-47 388553.8 680581.0 270 p R-48 388568.5 679648.1 270 a R-49 388583.3 678581.0 270 T-50 388612.9 677495.2 270 0 R-51 388714.1 676169.5 270 R-52 388834.0 675291.9 270 cc a R-53 388929.6 674247.9 270 T-54 388951.4 673177.4 270 U-55 388974.6 672131.1 270 R-56 389065.2 671211.8 270 N. of Doctors T-57 389142.0 670447.6 270 R-58A 389353.6 669202.4 270 R-58 389668.6 668693.6 270 R-59 389847.3 667728.9 270 R-60 390145.2 666685.1 270 R-61 390438.0 665648.5 270 T-62 390431.8 664628.1 270 R-63 390641.5 663641.5 270 R-64 390814.4 662732.0 260 T-65 390899.0 661954.0 260 Lu R-66 391078.4 661148.1 260 O D: R-67 391148.4 660351.0 260 a 2 R-68 391220.2 659545.1 260 U ro T-69 391274.6 658735.7 260 R-70 391351.4 657941.3 260 W R-71 391469.6 657147.2 260 a 2 R-72 391609.0 656356.0 260 R-73 391593.8 655544.4 260 R-74 391736.2 654741.2 260 R-75 391888.5 653966.1 260 R-76 391908.9 653165.9 260 R-77 392074.4 652384.9 260 R-78 392106.6 651619.7 260 R-79 392141.7 650514.4 260 R-80 392232.4 649367.2 260 R-81 392335.7 648294.8 275 0 2 R-82 392476.3 647432.1 270 t o R-83 392651.2 646399.6 260 0 z o R-84 392689.3 645439.8 260 HUMISTON C & MOORE FDEPR FOR: COLLIE ENGINEER~ DATE: 5 1 2 COASTAL I ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 25026 ♦lito] ►19iv, MUTHS .E: MAP SCALE: 1 "= TUM: NAD83 FIGURE: 1 E'Jair. 5679 STRAND COURT NAPLES, FL 34110 FAX: (239) 594-2025 PHONE: (239) 594-2021 www.humistonandmoore.com The Department issued permit 11-254473-9 for the construction of the Collier County Beach Restoration Project in 1996 authorizing the placement of approximately 1.2 million cubic yards of sand between monuments R-21 and R-79; this permit expired in April 2006. In January 2005, JCP Permit 0222355-001-JC was issued to maintain the restored beach authorizing the distribution of 670,000 cubic yards of sand. In July 2013, a DEP permit modification (-012) was issued for the placement of sand in five areas experiencing high erosion along Collier County Beaches, and in September 2013, a permit modification (-013) was issued for the placement of sand on Pelican Bay Beaches. A 15-year multi -use permit was issued on October 2, 2015, superseding permit 0222355-001-JC, authorizing periodic nourishment of the Collier project area beach including the: Clam Pass Park beach from R-42 south to R-43.5, and the beach south of Doctors Pass utilizing an offshore borrow area, sand dredged from Doctors Pass, or sand obtained from an upland source. After the 2006 restoration there were emergency truck haul projects (listed in Table 2a) from 2010 to 2012 for Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples beaches utilizing relatively smaller quantities of fill than previous and hydraulic renourishment projects. The December 2013 project distributed 225,000 cubic yards of sand on Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay, North Park Shore, Park Shore and Naples Beaches while the December 2014 project renourished only Naples Beach with 52,350 cubic yards of sand. No sand was placed in 2015. As part of the December 2016 project approximately 76,000 cubic yards of sand were placed on Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay and Park Shore beaches. Most recently the Park Shore reach was nourished with approximately 130,000 cubic yards of truck hauled sand from October to December 2019 as described in the Completion and Certification Statement provided in Appendix B. The sand for all Collier Beach nourishment projects (2013- 2019) was supplied from an upland source, distributed by truck and grading equipment. The 2018 Wiggin Pass project placed sand both north, outside of the monitoring area; and south of the inlet along Delnor-Wiggins State Park within the monitoring area. Most recently, the 2019 dredging of Wiggins Pass and Water Turkey Bay placed sand in the nearshore, north of the inlet and outside of the monitoring area. Although sand was placed both north and south of the Clam Pass inlet in 2017 as part of the maintenance dredging project, the only sand placed in the project area for 2017 was approximately 2,500 cubic yards placed south of the inlet to monument R-43, the reach added to the project as part of the 2015 permit modification. In 2018 another 8,250 cubic yards of sand, dredged from the inlet, was placed in the project area from Clam Pass south to monument R-43. Most recently both sides of the inlet were regraded in April 2020 after the monitoring survey for this report was conducted. The Doctors Pass project placed sand in two areas south of the pass within the project limits. Approximately 5,800 cubic yards' of the sand dredged from the pass were placed immediately south of the inlet within the Doctors Pass Erosion Control Structures Project (0338231-002-JN) area after construction of the structures was completed in June, while the majority of the sand, approximately 25,000 cubic yards', was placed further south near Lowdermilk Park. In both cases, the sand was placed in the nearshore. ' Based on volume change calculations from the Doctors Pass Erosion Control Structures Project 2018 Post - Construction Monitoring Summary, H&M Engineers, December 2018 Table 2a. Collier County Beach Nourishment History (R-17 to R-84 for 2005 thru 2019) Date Project Project Type Sand Placement Volume (CY) 2005 Collier Beach Restoration Offshore Dredge R-21 to R-79 667,620 2005 Wiggins Pass Dredging - Nearshore Disposal Inlet Dredge R-11 to R-14 68,500 2006 Doctors Pass Dredging - Nearshore Disposal Inlet Dredge R-60 to R-62 53,600 2007 Wiggins Pass Dredging Inlet Dredge R-18 to R-19.5 48,400 �ffClam Pass Dredging 2009 Wiggins Pass Dredging - Nearshore Disposal Inlet Dredge R-11 to R-14 50,000 2009 Doctors Pass Dredging - Nearshore Disposal Inlet Dredge R-60 to R-62 32,500 2010 Naples Beach - Emergency Truck Haut Truck Haut R-58A to R-58 3,000 2011 Park Shore:// 2011 Naples Beach -Emergency Truck Haul Truck Haul R-58A to R-58 22,400 2011 Wiggins Pass Dredging - Nearshore Disposal Inlet Dredge R-11 to R-14 50,000 2012 Vanderbilt Beach - Emergency• to I 11,000 2012 Naples •-ncy Truck Haul Truck Haul R-61 to R-63.5 12,000 2013 Wiggins Pass Dredging (Partial Nearshore) Inlet Dredge R-12 to Inlet 66,000 2013 Clam Pass Dredging Inlet Dredge � R-40 to Inlet 2013 Clam Pass Dredging Inlet Dredge Inlet to R-44 2013 Doctors Pass Dre.. . Inlet Dredge. • I 44,000 2013 Vanderbilt. / .: ,370 / . ./ 2013 Park Shore (Segmented Fill Template) Truck Haul R-44 to R-55 66,090 2013 Naples Beach (Segmented Fill Template) Truck Haul Inlet to R-69 65,850 2014 Naples Beach (Segmented Fill Template) Truck Haul Inlet to R-78 5Z350 2015 Wiggins Pass Dredging (Nearshore) Inlet Dredge R-16 (N. of Inlet) 13,000 20161W1am Pass Dredging Inlet Dredge R-42 to R-43.5 / . 1 -fit--• • . . • - / 2017 Clam Pass Dredging Inlet Dredge R-40.5 to Inlet 3,000 2017 Clam Pass Dredging Inlet Dredge Inlet to R-43 500 A250 2018 Clam Pass Dredging Inlet Dredge R-42 to R-43 2018 Wiggins Pass Dredging - Nearshore Disposal Inlet Dredge R-12 to R-14 37,700 2018 Wiggins Pass Dredging - Nearshore Disposal Inlet Dredge R-16 (N. of Inlet) 4,500 2018 Wiggins Pass Dredging - Nearshore Disposal Inlet Dredge R-18 to R-20 56,280 2018 Doctors Pass Dredging - Nearshore Disposal Inlet Dredge Jetty to R-58.5 * 5,800 2018 Doctors Pass Dredging - Nearshore Disposal Inlet Dredge R-60 to R-62 25,000 / . ' 20,000 • Park Shore to 110,000 2020 Water Turkey Bay Dredging - Nearshore Disposal Inlet Dredge R-12 to R-14 26,650 2020 Wiggins Pass Dredging - Nearshore Disposal Inlet Dredge R-12 to R-14 21,400 Total Volumes (Cubic Yards) Placement in the Collier Beach Project Area (Offshore Dredge): 667,620 ProjectBeach Beach Placement in the Collier Beach / Placement in the Collier ProjectBeach Beach .. /// IFNearshore Disposal Doctors Pass Dredging (Jetty to R-62): 116,900 Beach Disposal Clam Pass Dredging (R-40 to R-44): 68,850 Beach Placement Clam Pass R-42 to 20,000 Beach Disposal within Monitoring Area (North of Project): 48,400 Nearshore Disposal within Monitoring Area (North of Project): 56,280 Project Area Sand Placement (less Clam Pass): 1,347,930 Project Area Sand Placement (with Clam Pass): 1,436,780 Monitoring Area Sand Placement (with Clam Pass): 1,541,460 The volumes in cubic yards (CY) have been rounded for clarity. Since the construction of the 2006 nourishment project, sand has been placed within the monitoring area from dredging of three inlets (Wiggins, Clam and Doctors Passes) as well as emergency truck -haul projects from 2010 through 2019. A chronological summary of the sand placed within the monitoring area from 2005 to 2019 is shown in Table 2a while Table 2b provides contractor information for the 2006-2019 Collier Beach nourishment projects. Six major storms have impacted Collier County since 2004: Hurricane Charlie (2004), Hurricane Katrina (2005), Hurricane Wilma (2005), Tropical Storm Fay (2008), Tropical Storm Debby (2012) and Hurricane Irma (2017). Storm tracks and a brief description of each are included in Appendix C. The City of Naples experienced a meteotsunamiz in January 2016 and again on December 20, 2018. A graph of the observed water levels at the Naples Tide Station on those days documenting the meteostunami is also included in Appendix C. Additionally, in 2016 west and southwest Florida were impacted by Tropical Storm Colin (June) and Hurricane Hermine (September). Table 2b. Collier County Beach Nourishment Project Contractor History Project Type of Project Contractor 2006 Hopper Dredge Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., LLC 2013 Truck Haul Eastman Aggregate Ent., LLC and Phillips & Jordan, Inc. 2014 Truck Haul Earthtech Ent. Inc. and Phillips & Jordan, Inc. 2016 Truck Haul Earthtech Enterprises Inc. 2019 Truck Haul Earthtech Enterprises Inc. SURVEY INFORMATION — MAJOR RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS Monitoring surveys were conducted annually from 2006 to 2020. Representative surveys presented in this report are listed in Table 3 showing the approximate date of survey, type of survey (pre -construction, post -construction, or monitoring) and the surveyor. The monitoring survey analyzed in this report was conducted by Sea Diversified, Inc. (SDI) from March 3rd to March 271", 2020. This report also analyzes the pre/post 2006 project in comparison to the monitoring survey conducted in March 2019 and most recent survey in 2020. The beach profiles included in Appendix D compare the surveys listed in Table 3, and are shown in Figure 1, a plan view of the monitoring area depicting DEP reference monument locations and azimuths overlaid on a 2019 aerial image of Collier County. Additionally, the 2019 post -construction survey conducted from October to December 2019 by Oceanside Solutions, LLC was analyzed in the section referencing advance nourishment. The post -construction survey spanned the 2019 Park Shore fill template from monument R-42 south to R-54+400 with a limited offshore scope. This survey is further described in the Completion and Certification Statement provided in Appendix B. z Meteotsunamis have the characteristics similar to earthquake -generated tsunamis, but are caused by air pressure disturbances often associated with fast moving weather systems, such as squall lines. These disturbances can generate waves in the ocean that travel at the same speed as the overhead weather system. Development of a meteotsunami depends on several factors such as the intensity, direction, and speed of the disturbance as it travels over a water body with a depth that enhances wave magnification. NOAA 2015 Table 3. Survey Dates and Description for the Collier Beach Nourishment Project Date *2005-November Pre Construction CP&E 2006-June Post Construction CP&E **2007-2017 Annual Monitoring Surveys Various 2019-Feb/March Post -Construction Monitoring Sea Diversified Inc. 2019-Oct to December Post -Construction Oceanside Solutions LLC 2020-March Post -Construction Monitoring Sea Diversified Inc. *Survey for monuments R-17 thru R-21 dated September 2005 by DEP used to complete survey scope. ** Surveys were conducted and reported annually from 2007 to 2017 but not presented as part of this report. Surveys used for the determination of as -built quantities for the 2006 nourishment project were conducted immediately pre and post -construction and at intermediate stations along the beach extending to the limits of fill while monitoring surveys analyzed in this report were conducted according to the scope outlined in the monitoring plan. The 2005/2006 nourishment project was interrupted by Hurricane Wilma in October 2005, consequently, there are two pre -construction surveys following the scope outlined in the monitoring plan to document changes by Wilma: one conducted in September by DEP and another in November by CPE, both are referenced in this report. Reviewing the post -construction report it was noted the September survey more accurately represents as -built information for shoreline change while the November survey more accurately represents as -built information for volume change. The majority of the analysis in this report utilizes the November survey with the exception of monuments R-17 to R-21 not surveyed in November, and a portion of the shoreline change summary at the end of the report. The information from the October 2006 Collier County Beach Nourishment Post -Construction Engineering Report is included in Appendix E. VOLUME & SHORELINE CHANGE Project limits for this report were based on the monument range information provided in Table 4 and are illustrated in Figures 2 through 4, comparing the horizontal limits of the beach fill for the 2006, 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2019 projects. Vanderbilt Beach/Pelican Bay and Park Shore Beaches were each nourished by one continuous fill operation in 2006, the fill was "segmented" in 2013 so the truck haul could address the area(s) in most need of fill. The same was done in 2016, and no fill was placed from 2014-2015 or 2017-2019 on Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay Beaches. Park Shore Beach was nourished from October to December 2019 with one continuous fill template. Naples Beach was nourished with a segmented fill in 2013 and 2014 to address hot spots, and no fill was placed from 2015-2019. In addition to the nourishment projects, inlet dredging and disposal projects at Wiggins, Clam, and Doctors Pass were conducted as referenced in Table 2a. Also, erosion control structures along the south side of Doctors Pass were completed in 2018. A Design Standard beach width (shown in the last column of Table 4) and a corresponding fixed baseline (shown in Figures 2 through 4) were established in 2003. The baseline was set at the seawall, edge of vegetation, building line or equivalent, at each monument, and the beach width was determined by the distance from the baseline to the mean high water elevation of +0.33 NAVD (+1.61 NGVD) at each DEP reference monument. The March 2020 mean high water line (MHWL) and 2003 baseline are shown in Figures 2-4. This dry sandy beach width was then compared to the Design Standard for each project area. (The distance from the monuments to the baseline is shown in Table 5.) Although the 2003 Baseline runs throughout the entire monitoring area from monument R-17 south to R-84 the Design Standard only applies to those beaches within the original project area as shown in Table 4. Table 4. Project Monument Range Project North Limit South Limit Design Area of Project of Project Standard Beach (Monument) (Monument) (Ft) Vanderbilt R-22 R-30.5 100 Pelican Bay R-30.5 R-37 100 Clam Pass Park* R-42 R-43.3 85 North Park Shore R-44 R-48 85 Park Shore R-48 R-54 85 Naples R-58A R-79 100 *The beach in Clam Pass Park from R-42 south to R-43.5 was added in 2015 and was not part of the original project design. Appendix F presents information for the beach width measured from the baseline to the MHWL, for each year from 2005 (pre -construction) to the most recent survey conducted in March 2020. A tabular summary is shown at the beginning of the appendix followed by information for each monument located within the monitoring area. Monuments not included in the project monument range shown in Table 4 will not include the 2003 Baseline on the associated graph. 7 FIGURE 2: FILL LIMITS FOR VANDERBILT & PELICAN BAY BEACH (NO FILL PLACED IN 2014 OR 2015 R-22 11 R-23 1 IiR-24 1 R-25 1 1 �R-26 n n (CONSTRUCTION \ R-22 (CONSTRUCTION \ R-22 (CONSTRUCTION FROM 112006 1 FROM 1012013 1 FROM 1112016 TO 512006) Vi R-23 TO 112014) V R-23 TO 1212016) 1 1 1�R-24 �R-24 \ 1 \n R-25 1 i R-25 V 1 ki R-26 !0 R-26 R-27 VANDERBILT BAY R-28 11,000 CY III] R-29 �R-30 I�R-31 1 I 1 R-32 1 1 1� R-33 1 ' R-34 1� R-35 I R-36 FILL LIMITS (1 SEGMENT) 312020 MHWL IV *EMERGENCY FILL YEAR/QTY. p.r �I R-37 CLAM BAY R-38 I I R-39 I �E, R-40 I R-41 R-27 VANDERBILT BAY R-28 R-29 �iR-30 iR-31 1 R-32 1 1 1 R-33 ' R-34 1 1 R-35 I R-36 FILL LIMITS (2 SEGMENTS) I �R-37 312020 MHWL �I CLAM BAY R-38 I NOTES: 1. EXHIBIT FOR I R-39 ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. APPROX. FILL LOCATIONS MAY NOT PRECISELY DEPICT POST CONSTRUCTION o R-40 CONDITIONS. 2. AERIAL IMAGES COURTESY OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE ARE DATED I R-41 DECEMBER 2019. R-27 VANDERBILT I BAY R-28 1 _ R-29.,,_ R-30 I I�R-31 1 1 1 R-32 1 1 v R-33 1 R-34 R-35 I R-36 FILL LIMITS (2 SEGMENTS) I R-37 312020 MHWL �� CLABA M R-38 I 1 R-39 I R-40 I R-41 FIGURE 3: FILL LIMITS FOR PARK SHORE BEACH (NO FILL PLACED IN 2014-2015 OR 2017-2018) R-39 I R-39 I R-39 I R-39 (CONSTRUCTION FROM (CONSTRUCTION FROM (CONST UCTION FROM (CONSTRICTION FROM 1120061TO 512006) 1012011 TO 112014) 111201 TO 1212016) III 10120191TO 1112019) 2020 IIo R-40 REGRADE' I� R-40 R-40 I� R-40 AREA I I I I R-41 E, R-41 E, R-41 Ei R-41 Ei R-42 *2007 R-42 R-42 Ei R-42 21 K *2013 9.6K 2016 14.5K *2017 2.5K I' R-43 I R-43 I R-43 I R-43 *2018 8.2K I I I I I I I �R-44 I R-44 I R-44 I ViR-44 I Ei R-45 I I R-45 I I R-45 I I Ei R-45 I R-46 R-46 R-46 R-46 **2012 I 7,800 CY I I :iR-47 :iR-47 IIR-47 i�R-47 I I i R-48 I I I i R-48 I I r R-48 I I I:i R-48 I �r R-49 I �� R-49 I i� R-49 II-I �r R-49 I T-50 I I I T-50 I I ii T-50 I I li T-50 I R-51 I IlR-51 I �R-51 IIR-51 I E R-52 I I El R-52 I I Ei R-52 I I E R-52 I FILL LIMITS (1 I FILL LIMITS (2 I FILL LIMITS (2 I FILL LIMITS (1 SEGMENT) I o R-53 SEGMENTS) I o R-53 SEGMENTS) o R-53 SEGMENT) I o R-53 312020 MHWL I 312020 MHWL 1 312020 MHWL I 312020 MHWL I 11IT-54 IT-54 �I 'IT-54 1 'IT-54 *DRED I PROJECT I "U-55 NOTES: 1. EXHIBIT FOR ijU-55 I 1 iiU-55 I-U-55 (YEAR/QTY.) I ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. I I NE I **EMERGENCY FILL �R-56 APPROX. FILL LOCATIONS MAY NOT 1 DR-56 PRECISELY DEPICT I �R-56 1 �R-56 I POST CONSTRUCTION 1 I pT-5 CONDITIONS. 2. AERIAL IMAGES I pT-5 COURTESY OF THE I iiT-5 7 oT-5 PROPERTY APPRAISER'S � + OFFICE ARE DATED DECEMBER 2019. FIGURE 4: FILL LIMITS FOR NAPLES BEACH (NO FILL PLACED IN 2015 OR 2016) I R-58A (CONSTRUCTION FROM 1/2006 1� R-58A (CONSTRUCTION \ FROM 1012013 � R-58A (CONSTRUCTION FROM 1112014 R-58 TO 512006) �° R-58 TO 112014) �� R-58 TO 1212014) \ i \ i 1i R-59 R-59 R-59 **I 2018 *2010 3,000 C 1 5,800 CY *201 1 I� R-60 I� R-60 NEARSHOR � R-60 22,400 CY 1 **2013 44,000 CY I I **2018 o R-61 R-61 25K CY ° R-61 NEARSI HORE *2012 1 i T-62 I i T-62 1 + C7 T-62 12,000 CY I 1 R-63 I'� R-63 1' R-63 I ��k3 R-16 R-64 I R-64 T-65 T-65 1? T-65 R-66 I I o R-66 I I R-66 I I�R-67 I I�R-67 I�R-67 R-68 � R-68 R-68 C T-69 I T T-69 � T-69 R-70 R-70 I R-70 I R-71 I I R-71 I I R-71 I' R-72 R-73 o R-72 I �� R-73 o R-72 11 R-73 FILL LIMITS (1 I FILL LIMITS (3 I FILL LIMITS (5 SEGMENT) R-74 SEGMENTS) I � R-74 SEGMENTS) I � R-74 /2020 MHWL it R-75 3/2020 MHWL i o R-75 3/2020 MHWL R-75 R-76 I R-76 R-76 NOTES: *EMERGENCY FILL Ei R-77 1. EXHIBIT FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES Ei R-77 ° R-77 **DREDGE PROJECT ONLY. APPROX. FILL I (YEAR/QTY.) I LOCATIONS MAY NOT I R-78 PRECISELY DEPICT POST CONSTRUCTION I R-78 J R-78 CONDITIONS. 2. AERIAL IMAGES LjAw COURTESY OF THE o PROPERTY APPRAISER'S I R-79 OFFICE ARE DATED R-79 R-79 DECEMBER 2019. Relative shoreline and volumetric change were determined for the surveys conducted in 2005, 2006, 2019, and the most recent survey in March 2020 for this analysis. Shoreline change is the distance between the mean high water elevation for different surveys while volumetric change compares the change in the volume of sand between surveys (by convention positive values indicate accretion and/or beach fill and negative values indicate erosion). The nearshore limit used for the determination of the volume of sand was the baseline while the offshore limit was the -11.3 NAVD (-10.0 NGVD) approximate depth of closure (DOC) used in previous monitoring reports. Alterations in the DOC were made as appropriate to account for unusual volumetric changes occurring such as movement of the nearshore bar causing significant change beyond the previously used DOC. The effective distance used to compute volume is the distance along the beach between beach profiles, and is consistent with those used in the October 2006 CP&E Post - Construction Engineering Report shown in Appendix E.4 The volumetric change was computed utilizing the average end area method. Table 5 shows the distance from the DEP reference monument to the shore normal limits used for the volumetric analysis determined by the baseline and the estimated DOC. These volumetric limits are also shown graphically on the beach profiles provided in Appendix D. The volumetric changes discussed in this report (and shown in Tables 6b, 7b, 8b, 9a, 9b, 9c) are not representative of design quantities for future beach renourishment projects; they are rather an indication of erosion or accretion occurring since the previous renourishment within the monitoring area. Design quantities for fill projects consider other factors as well as erosion or accretion, including but not limited to the existing beach width, advance nourishment requirements considering sea level rise, predicted erosion prior to construction, storm losses, tapers, gaps, berm height, and design life. The November 2005 pre -construction survey and June 2006 post -construction survey document changes to the beach profiles before and after construction. Consequently, there can be significant differences between the as -built quantities and the quantity computed from the 2005 and 2006 monitoring surveys. As -built volumes are based on interim surveys conducted during construction usually for the determination of payment on nourishment projects. The same is true for the March 2019 and March 2020 monitoring surveys regarding the recent Park Shore Nourishment Project. Clam s Ir - ay_21, 2 2 3 Depth of closure (DOC) in coastal engineering terminology typically means the depth beyond which no change in bottom elevation is seen from normal coastal processes measured by monitoring surveys. The depth of -11.3 feet NAVD was established early as part of the monitoring of Collier County beaches. There are cases of sand accumulation or loss beyond -11.3 feet NAVD and in those cases the analysis is extended further offshore to ensure analysis of data within profile closure. 4 Exceptions include fill template taper locations at the ends of fill segments. 11 Table 5. Shore Normal Limits for the Volumetric Analysis (Surveys 2005 to 2020) Distance Distance Distance Distance DEP from from DEP from from Ref. Monument to Monument to Ref. Monument to Monument to Mon. Basline Closure Depth Mon. Basline Closure Depth ID (Ft) (Ft) ID (Ft) (Ft) Wiggins Pass R-51 R-52 30 80 600 700 R-17 187* 400 R-18 100* 1,100 R-53 79 700 R-19 50 600 T-54 18 700 R-20 44 600 U-55 10 600 R-21 50 500 R-56 T-57 55 100 700 800 R-22 30 600 Doctors Pass R-23 -6 600 R-58A 40 800 R-24 20 700 R-25 23 600 R-58 159 800 R-26 20 600 R-59 25 500 R-27 0 600 R-60 85 700 R-28 -15 700 R-61 185 900 R-29 29 700 T-62 8 900 R-30 33 700 R-63 54 700 R-31 35 600 R-64 68 700 R-32 55 700 T-65 20 800 R-33 45 700 R-66 100 900 R-34 40 700 R-67 50 800 R-35 66 700 R-68 52 900 R-36 46 700 T-69 57 900 R-37 65 700 R-70 R-71 50 75 900 800 R-38 62 700 R-39 53 800 R-72 110 800 R-40 78 700 R-73 0 800 R-41 80 800 R-74 R-75 R-76 65 135 30 1,000 1,000 900 Clam Pass R-42 84 700 R-43 46 700 R-77 R-78 84 40 900 900 R-44 49 700 R-45 73 700 R-79 -10 900 R-80 0 900 R-46 72 700 R-47 34 700 R-81 -20 800 R-48 36 600 R-82 10 800 R-49 35 600 R-83 70 900 T-50 19 600 R-84 0 700 Dark Shaded portion of chart represents 2005/2006 project area. Light shading portion of chart represents project area added in 2015. Monument R-17 and R-18, adjacent to Wiggins Pass, is in a highly dynamic area and the landward limits were adjusted accordingly to measure changes along the active beach profile to 20 and 80 feet respectively. 12 Figure 5a shows a typical beach profile comparison for surveys conducted in 2005, 2006, 2019 and most recently in March 2020 with the elevation (referencing the NAVD vertical datum) on the vertical axis and the distance from monument (in feet) on the horizontal axis. The bounds of the shore normal limits for the volume analysis described in Table 5 along with the corresponding beach widths and Design Standard width are depicted. The area change at this monument from the 2019 to March 2020 survey, denoting accretion and erosion, averaged with the area change at each adjacent monument is multiplied by the distance between the monuments to obtain the net volume change between adjacent monuments. Figure 5a. Typical Beach Profile Comparison SHORELINE CHANGE (LOSS) FROM 2019 TO 2020 10 312019 DISTANCE ABOVE DESIGN STANDARD WIDTH OR ADVANCE FILL 51- 0 2005 PRE -CON BEACH WIDTH 312019 BEACH WIDTH 2 -5 DESIGN STANDARD BEACH WIDTH _}0 312020 MONITORING w BEACH WIDTH 6/2006 POST -CONSTRUCTION BEACH WIDTH -20 SURVEY LEGEND 2005 PRE -CONSTRUCTION - 2006 POST -CONSTRUCTION 2019-03 MONITORING 2020-03 MONITORING ® 512019-31202G ACCRETION ® 3/2019-3/2020 EROSION _ 0.33' NAVDJMNW) 3/2019 NEARSHORE BAR 312020 SHIFT IN NEARSHORE BAR DEPTH OF CLOSURE OF VOLUME ANALYSIS FOR ENTIRE PROFILE - BASELINE TO DEPTH OF CLOSURE (DOC)� 200 400 coo DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 13 Figure 5b is a schematic depiction of the elements involved in the analysis of shoreline and volume change in this report. (This particular case shows a beach width greater than the Design Standard.) Two adjacent DEP reference monuments and associated monitoring azimuths are shown along with the baseline, Design Standard width (85 or 100 feet), mean high water line, and approximate DOC. Also shown are comparative beach profiles at the adjacent monuments and the associated area change between the monitoring surveys to be compared. Shoreline change is the difference in the "Distance from the Baseline to MHWL" for different monitoring surveys. Volumetric change, determined by the formula shown (at the bottom of the figure) for the average end area method, utilizes the cross sectional area change for different monitoring surveys at adjacent monuments and the length of beach between those monuments. The comparative profiles are analyzed at a minimum offset from the baseline to the approximate DOC as shown in the figure and Table 5. Figure 5b. Schematic Diagram for Typical Shoreline and Volumetric Analysis r ��P`� � �► �, f Off. ��r ? Q`4� BASELINE G MEAIy HIGH WA -_ LENGTH LINE (,MHWL)- -�- �G�� DISTANCE a� K; EFFECTIVE DISTANCE ' COMPARATIVE BEACH PROFILES AND ASSOCIATED AREA CHANGE �Q 0 (AREA T APPROXIMq TE DEPTH OF CLO AREA 2), 2 X EFFECTIVE SURE DISTANCE AY P�G��O J4`v 5 O�yJ��4 GAG QED I�P4 b� G J�p NOTE: DESIGN STANDARD CAN RE 85' OR 100' DEPENDING ON THE LOCATION. EXHIBIT 15 TYPICAL AND ACTUAL DISTANCES VARY. In the following sections of this report, corresponding values between those shown in the Tables and report text are highlighted in blue for ease of reference. The volumes in cubic yards (CY) shown in the tables were rounded to the nearest value of 10, distances are shown in feet rounded to the nearest whole number. 14 Vanderbilt Beach & Pelican Bay Beaches This portion of Collier County bounded on the north by Wiggins Pass (between R-16 and R-17) and to the south by Clam Pass (between R-41 and R-42) was renourished as part of the Collier Beach project in 2013 and 2016 as shown in Figure 2. Approximately 21,400 cubic yards of sand were removed from Wiggins Pass at the start of 2020 and placed north of the inlet in the nearshore outside of the monitoring area along with approximately 26,650 cubic yards of sand dredged from the interior Water Turkey Bay Channel. Sand dredged from Wiggins Pass was placed south of the inlet on Delnor-Wiggins State Park Beach in 2007, and in the nearshore in 2018. In 2012 an emergency truck haul project placed 11,000 cubic yards of sand from R-26 south to R-30 along Vanderbilt Beach. Clam Pass was dredged in March and April of 2013 and approximately 10,000 cubic yards of sand were placed both north and south of the inlet on the adjacent beaches from R-40 to R-44 upland of the mean high water elevation. Clam Pass was dredged in 2016, and although the sand was placed south of the inlet, approximately 5,500 cubic yards of sand were regraded adjacent to the channel along the inlet shoreline on both the north and south sides. The 2017 interim dredging placed 3,000 cubic yards to the north and 2,500 cubic yards of sand to the south of the inlet. In April/May 2018 dredging placed over 8,200 cubic yards of sand south of the pass between R-42 and R-43, and most recently in April 2020 mechanical excavation and grading was conducted to reshape the inlet mouth after sand migrated toward the inlet from the south. Table 6a shows the beach width from the baseline at each monument for the 2005 pre - construction, 2006 post -construction, March 2019 monitoring, most recent survey conducted in March 2020, and the corresponding average beach width for the four different reaches between Wiggins and Clam Pass, denoted as; Delnor-Wiggins, Vanderbilt Beach, Pelican Bay Beach, and North of Clam Pass. Table 6b shows the as -built volumes for the 2006 through 2016 nourishment projects as well as the volume change from the pre to post -construction surveys for the 2006 nourishment project, the volume changes from the 2006 post -construction survey to March 2019, March 2019 to March 2020, 2005 pre -construction and 2006 post -construction to the most recent survey in March 2020. The reach south of Wiggins Pass in Delnor-Wiggins State Park from monument R-17 to R-21 was nourished in 2018 with over 56,000 cubic yards of sand dredged from Wiggins Pass and subsequently placed in the nearshore between R-18 to R-20. The placement of sand in the vicinity of R-19 appears to be equilibrating as indicated by the loss of over 6,700 cubic yards (-6,740) of sand from the disposal area, the shoreline gain to the north at R-18 (26), and to the south at R-20 (11) and R-21 (15). The inlet effects on the adjacent beach to the south is evident at R-17 losing 17 feet (-17) in this most recent monitoring period and over 170 feet (-172) since the 2006 project. Excluding the losses at R-17 the reach has an average width of 96 feet. Vanderbilt Beach represented by monuments R-22 south to R-30 all have beach widths greater than the Design Standard of 100 feet with the exception of R-27 at 99 feet. The reach has an average width of 112 feet, a negligible shoreline change (+1), and an associated volumetric loss of 2,000 cubic yards (-2,010) in the most recent monitoring period mainly due to the volumetric losses from R-24 to R-27 totaling 6,400 cubic yards (-6,400) of sand. Vanderbilt Beach retained 123,500 cubic yards (123,540) of the fill placed from 2005 to 2016 totaling almost 234,000 cubic yards (121,500+112,210) or approximately 53% (53%;Table 10b). 15 Table 6a. Shoreline Change R-17 thru R-41 (Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay, North Clam Pass) Beach Width from Baseline (Ft) Shoreline Change (Ft) 2005 to 2006 to 3/2019 to 2005 to 2006 to DEP Design 11/2005 6/2006 3/2019 3/2020 Mon. Standard 2006 3/2019 3/2020 3/2020 3/2020 Wiggins Pass (Ft) R-17 - 51 77 -78 -95 26 -155 -17 -146 -172 R-18 - 97 108 64 90 10 -44 26 -7 -18 R-19 - 111 99 140 136 -12 41 -4 25 37 R-20 - 98 104 68 79 5 -36 11 -19 -25 R-21 - 88 103 64 79 15 -39 15 -9 -24 R-22 100 106 106 96 109 -1 -9 13 3 3 R-23 100 100 121 106 112 21 -15 6 12 -9 R-24 100 114 130 123 124 17 -7 1 10 -6 R-25 100 94 135 114 114 41 -21 0 20 -21 R-26 100 109 148 121 117 39 -27 -4 8 -31 R-27 100 79 121 107 99 42 -15 -8 20 -22 R-28 100 96 138 102 105 41 -36 3 9 -33 R-29 100 86 144 110 110 58 -34 0 24 -34 R-30 100 109 142 117 114 33 -25 -3 5 -28 R-31 100 109 132 122 123 23 -10 1 14 -9 R-32 100 107 138 118 122 31 -21 4 15 -16 R-33 100 90 103 99 90 13 -4 -9 0 -13 R-34 100 80 103 105 101 23 2 -4 21 -2 R-35 100 79 103 78 85 24 -25 7 6 -18 R-36 100 81 96 87 80 198 15 -9 -7 -1 -16 R-37 100 99 92 88 -7 -5 10 -1 6 R-38 - 106 87 94 111 -18 6 17 5 24 R-39 - 97 93 93 84 -4 0 -9 -13 -9 R-40 - 71 80 87 73 10 6 -14 2 -7 R-41 - 104 108 101 75 4 -7 -26 -29 -33 Clam Pass Reach Average Beach Width Ft Average Shoreline Change Ft Delnor-Wiggins 89 98 51 58 9 -47 6 -31 -40 R-17 to R-21 Vanderbilt Beach 99 132 111 112 32 -21 1 12 -20 R-22to R-30 Pelican Bay Beach 92 110 99 100 17 -10 0 8 -10 R-30.5 to R-37 N. of Clam Pass 94 92 94 86 -2 1 -8 -9 -6 R-38to R-41 Monitoring Area 94 112 93 93 18 -19 0 -1 -19 R-17 to R-41 Shaded portion of chart represents 2005/2006 project area. Table 6b. Volume Change R-17 through R-41 (Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay, North Clam Pass) As -Built Volume (CY) Volume Change (CY) DEP Reference Effective 2005 to 2010 to 2005 to 2006 to 3/2019 to 2005 to 2006 to Distance 2013 2016 Monument (Ft) 2006 2012 2006 3/2019 3/2020 3/2020 3/2020 Wiggins Pass R-17 to R-18 1,003 6,300 -29,650 3,690 -19,660 -25,960 R-18 to R-19 1,048 48,400 2,540 16,800 nl-3,440 15,900 13,360 56,280 R-19 to R-20 1,029 2007 (2018) -2,080 23,780 t6 -3,300 18,400 20,480 R-20 to R-21 1,030 ----------------- 2,050 1,560 630 4,240 2,190 R-21 to R-22 1,040 1,610 2,230 970 4,810 3,210 R-22 to R-23 968 4,520 1,180 3,490 1,770 6,450 5,270 R-23 to R-24 1,058 8,340 5,940 10,730 350 17,020 11,070 R-24 to R-25 1,083 13,700 11,240 11,650 -2,860 20,030 8,790 R-25 to R-26 984 15,890 3,810 15,390 0 3,670 -2,060 17,000 1,610 R-26 to R-27 994 18,430 18,240 16,690 1,130 f° -1,480 16,340 -350 35,470 R-27 to R-28 1,195 22,520 15,900 18,110 -1,190 1,110 18,030 -80 11,000 R-28 to R-29 856 14,380 8,360 14,020 -4,450 1,520 11,090 -2,930 R-29 to R-30 1,029 14,660 8,090 14,110 -5,080 -160 8,870 -5,240 R-30 to R-31 1,037 9,060 11,340 4,570 4,340 -200 8,710 4,140 R-31 to R-32 1,006 8,960 2,630 8,710 6,460 -760 14,420 5,700 R-32 to R-33 1,017 9,090 13,900 1,650 -2,400 13,150 -750 1,440 R-33 to R-34 1,027 10,880 14,250 7,970 -4,720 17,510 3,260 R-34 to R-35 997 11,280 6,280 15,710 2,720 N -930 17,500 1,790 R-35 to R-36 999 12,990 13,600 8,500 14,140 -4,220 'Q -1,390 8,530 -5,620 R-36 to R-37 1,058 3,750 3,440 8,820 -4,710 -1,480 2,630 -6,190 R-37 to R-38 977 1,710 -670 2,800 3,840 2,130 R-38 to R-39 1,023 2,580 2,910 1,150 6,630 4,050 R-39 to R-40 1,010 2017 7,760 3,440 10 11,200 3,450 R-40 to R-41 1,012 10,400 3,000 9,430 -13,080 9,760 6,100 -3,330 Total Volume Change (CY) Clam Pass Delnor-Wiggins 104,680 10,420 14,720 -1,450 23,690 13,280 R-17 to R-22 Vanderbilt Beach 121,500 112,210 101,250 24,290 -2,010 123,540 22,280 R-22 to R-30 Pelican Bay Beach 56,950 35,890 75,530 9,870 -11,680 73,740 -1,810 R-30.5 to R-37 N. of Clam Pass 13,400 21,480 -7,400 13,720 27,770 6,300 R-37 to R-41 Monitoring Area 178,450 266,180 208,680 41,480 -1,420 248,740 40,050 R-17 to R-41 Shaded portion of chart represents 2005/2006 project area. Volumetric change quantities are not representative of design quantities for future beach renourishment projects rather an indication of erosion (negative value) or accretion (positive value) in the monitoring area. 17 Pelican Bay Beach represented by monuments R-31 south to R-37 has an average beach width at the Design Standard of 100 feet (100), no change in average width (0) since last year, while showing a total loss of almost 12,000 cubic yards (-11,680) of sand in this most recent monitoring period. The majority of the erosion was in the southern portion of the reach from R-33 to R-37 losing approximately 8,500 cubic yards (-8,520) of sand while having an average beach width of 91 feet, ranging from 80 to 101 feet from R-33 to R-37. The Pelican Bay reach retained almost 74,000 cubic yards (73,740) of the fill placed from 2005 to 2016 totaling almost 93,000 cubic yards (56,950+35,890) or approximately 79% (79%;Table 10b). The dynamic beach north of Clam Pass lost an average of 8 feet (-8) while gaining almost 14,000 cubic yards (13,720) of sand in this most recent monitoring period. The beach widths within the reach range from 73 to 111 feet and are generally wider to the north. The majority of the volumetric gain in the most recent monitoring period was at R-41, adjacent to the inlet, gaining almost 10,000 cubic yards (9,760;Table 6b) of sand in the most recent monitoring period. The beaches adjacent to Clam Pass, on both the north and south side, were regraded in April 2020 after the 2020 monitoring survey was conducted. Park Shore and Clam Pass Beaches This portion of Collier County is bounded on the north by Clam Pass (located between R-41 and R-42) and to the south by Doctors Pass (located between R-57 and R-58A). It was renourished with sand as part of the Collier Beach project in 2013, 2016, and 2019 as shown in Figure 3. Most recently, in the winter of 2019 approximately 130,000 cubic yards of truck -hauled sand were placed from R-42 south to T-54+400 as described in the Completion and Certification Statement provided in Appendix B. Clam Pass was dredged in 2007, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2018, and in April 2020 the mouth of the inlet was regraded. Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sand were placed south of the inlet to R-43.5 in 2007. Approximately 10,000 cubic yards of sand were placed both north and south of the inlet (20,000 cubic yards total) on the adjacent beaches from R-40 to R-44 in March and April of 2013 (upland of the mean high water elevation). In 2016, another 14,500 cubic yards of sand were placed south of the inlet to R-43.5, in 2017, and approximately 3,000 cubic yards of sand placed to the north and 2,500 to the south of the inlet, and in 2018 over 8,200 cubic yards of sand were placed south of the inlet between R-42 and R-43. In addition, there was an emergency truck haul project in 2011 placing approximately 7,800 cubic yards of sand from R-45 to R-46. At the southern end of the reach, the jetty on the north side of Doctors Pass was rehabilitated and enhanced in 2011. Table 7a shows the beach width from the baseline at each monument for the 2005 pre - construction, 2006 post -construction, March 2019 monitoring survey, and most recent survey conducted in March 2020; along with the corresponding average beach width for the four different reaches between Clam Pass and Doctors Pass denoted as; South of Clam Pass, North Park Shore, Park Shore, and North of Doctors Pass. Table 7b shows the as -built volumes for the 2006 through 2019 nourishment projects as well as the volume change from the pre to post -construction surveys for the 2006 nourishment project, the volume changes from the 2006 post -construction survey to March 2019, March 2019 to March 2020,and the 2005 pre -construction and 2006 post - construction to the most recent survey in March 2020. 18 Table 7a. Shoreline Change R-42 through R-57 (Clam Pass to Doctors Pass) Beach Width from Baseline (Ft) Shoreline Change (Ft) 2005 to 2006 to 3/2019 to 2005 to 2006 to DEP Design 11/2005 6/2006 3/2019 3/2020 Mon. Standard 2006 3/2019 3/2020 3/2020 3/2020 Clam Pass (Ft) R-42 85 103 96 107 108 -7 12 1 5 12 R-43 85 66 52 69 66 -14 18 -3 0 14 R-44 85 72 84 64 91 12 -20 27 19 7 R-45 85 76 66 76 132 -10 9 56 56 66 R-46 85 88 84 75 97 -4 -8 22 9 13 R-47 85 104 115 102 116 11 -13 14 12 1 R-48 85 81 99 88 109 18 -11 21 28 10 R-49 85 98 96 80 104 -2 -16 24 6 8 T-50 85 88 117 115 128 29 -2 13 40 11 R-51 85 64 127 87 111 63 -40 24 47 -16 R-52 85 58 126 70 113 68 -56 43 55 -13 R-53 85 64 114 85 99 50 -29 14 35 -15 T-54 85 83 125 100 121 42 -25 21 38 -4 U-55 - 93 74 125 138 -19 51 13 45 64 R-56 102 91 136 145 -10 45 9 43 54 T-57 110 123 143 152 13 20 9 42 29 Doctors Pass Reach Average Beach Width (Ft) Average Shoreline Change (Ft) S. of Clam Pass 84 74 88 87 -11 15 -1 3 13 R-42to R-43 N. Park Shore Beach 84 90 81 109 5 -9 28 25 19 R-44to R-48 Park Shore Beach 76 117 89 113 42 -28 23 37 -5 R-49 to R-54 N. of Doctors Pass 102 96 135 145 -6 39 10 43 49 R-55to R-57 Monitoring Area 84 99 95 114 15 -4 19 30 15 R-42to R-57 Shaded portion of chart represents 2005/2006 project area. R-42 and R-43 added to the project area as part of a 2015 permit modification. Clam Pass County Park Beach received approximately 20,000 cubic yards of truck hauled sand placed from R-42 to R-43.5 in the dynamic reach south of Clam Pass during the renourishment project completed in December 2019. Although the subsequent equilibration of the fill created a disparity in width of over 40 feet (108-66) between R-42 and R-43, the average beach width of the reach was 87 feet in the most recent monitoring period, down 1 foot (-1) since March 2019, while remaining slightly above the Design Standard of 85 feet. The net volumetric loss to the reach in the most recent monitoring period was approximately 4,800 (-4,810) cubic yards of sand while the north side of the inlet gained almost 10,000 cubic yards (9,760;Table 6b). This reach has been nourished with over 75,000 cubic yards (75,450) of sand since the 2006 project while retaining almost 7,500 cubic yards (7,420) of sand since the 2005 pre -construction survey or 10%. 19 Table 7b: Volume Change R-42 to R-57 (Clam Pass to Doctors Pass) As -Built Volume (CY) Volume Change (CY) DEP Reference Effective 2005 to 2010 to 2014 to 2005 to 2006 to 3/2019 to 2005 to 2006 to Monument Range Distance (FT) 2006 2012 2013 2016 2019 2006 3/2019 3/2020 3/2020 3/2020 Clam Pass R-42 to R-43 1,039 55,450 20,000 -7,110 19,340 -4,810 7,420 14,530 R-43 to R-44 997 1,210 -90 7,670 4,970 12,550 12,640 R-44 to R-45 1,048 9,710 20,430 -750 5,890 14,350 19,490 20,240 8,480 7,800 R-45 to R-46 1,107 10,180 68,000 -5,090 11,910 7,600 14,420 19,510 R-46 to R-47 974 10,040 (2011) 11,290 -1,310 8,680 -2,750 4,630 5,930 1,630 R-47 to R-48 933 9,190 1,240 1 4,680 7,800 -940 11,540 6,860 R-48 to R-49 1,067 11,600 5,150 8,040 3,260 16,450 11,300 R-49 to T-50 1,086 11,610 9,250 14,250 510 24,000 14,760 T-50 to R-51 1,330 26,750 8,510 27,110 14,320 640 42,070 14,950 R-51 to R-52 886 23,960 4,790 44,000 21,080 -2,390 6,190 24,880 3,800 9,760 R-52 to R-53 1,048 24,720 12,520 17,420 -970 6,780 23,230 5,810 R-53 to T-54 1,071 13,410 6,590 9,530 3,180 6,830 19,540 10,010 T-54 to U-55 1,047 1,990 50 3,730 14,870 5,780 24,380 20,650 U-55 to R-56 924 -2,440 29,060 1,480 28,090 30,530 R-56 to T-57 768 2,310 17,580 920 20,800 18,490 Total Volume Change (CY) Doctors Pass South of Clam Pass * 75,450 -7,110 19,340 -4,810 7,420 14,530 Pass to R-43 North Park Shore Beach 27,710 159,200 -2,560 41,950 23,230 62,630 65,180 R-43 to R-48 Park Shore Beach 114,040 86,220 93,270 51,300 29,990 174,550 81,280 R-48 to R-55 North of Doctors Pass 0 0 -130 46,640 2,400 48,890 49,020 U-55 to T-57 Monitoring Area 141,750 320,870 83,470 159,230 50,810 293,490 210,010 R-42 to T-57 Shaded portion of chart represents 2005/2006 project area, and the darker shading represents 2016 fill area. R-42 and R-43 added to the project area as part of a 2015 permit modification. *20,600 cy, 2007; 9,600 cy, 2013; 14,500 cy 2016; 2,500 cy, 2017; 8,250 cy from R-42 to R-43.5. The 14,500 cubic yards placed from R-42 to R-43 was part of the 2016 Clam Pass project and not part of the 2016 truck haul project as - built volume. Volumetric change quantities are not representative of design quantities for future beach renourishment projects rather an indication of erosion (negative value) or accretion (positive value) in the monitoring area. North Park Shore Beach represented by monuments R-44 south to R-48 was nourished with approximately 68,000 cubic yards of sand in the winter of 2019. The average width of the reach is 109 feet, with an average increase of 28 feet in the most recent monitoring period, and all profiles in the reach have a width above the Design Standard width of 85 feet. Considering the changes along the entire profile, from the Baseline to the DOC, the volumetric change from March 2019 (6 months pre -construction) to March 2020 (2 months post -construction) was over 23,000 cubic yards (23,230). This encompasses all changes, erosion and/or accretion, occurring from the pre - construction period (April thru September 2019) through the post -construction equilibration (January and February 2020). This segment of beach was nourished with almost 187,000 cubic yards (27,710 + 159,200) of sand from 2005 to 2019 retaining over 62,600 cubic yards (62,630), or approximately 34% (34%;Table 10b). Park Shore Beach represented by monuments R-49 south to R-54 was nourished with approximately 44,000 cubic yards of sand in the winter of 2019. The average width of the reach is 113 feet, with an average increase of 23 feet in the most recent monitoring period, while all profiles in the reach have a width above the Design Standard width of 85 feet. Considering the changes along the entire profile, from the Baseline to the DOC, the volumetric change from March 2019 (6 20 months pre -construction) to March 2020 (2 months post -construction) was almost 30,000 cubic yards (29,990). This encompasses all changes, erosion and/or accretion, occurring from the pre - construction period (April thru September 2019) through the post -construction equilibration (January and February 2020). This segment of beach was nourished with over 200,000 cubic yards (114,040 + 86,220) of sand from 2005 to 2019, retaining almost 175,000 cubic yards (174,550), or approximately 87% (87%;Table 10b). The beach north of Doctors Pass represented by monuments U-55 south to T-57 (adjacent to Doctors Pass) has an average beach width of 145 feet, an increase of 10 feet, and shows a net volumetric gain of approximately 2,400 cubic yards for the most recent monitoring period. The reach, likely benefiting from the north to south net sediment transport updrift of the north jetty, has not been nourished since 2005 yet shows a net volumetric gain of almost 49,000 cubic yards (48,890) of sand since 2005. Naples Beaches Portions of Collier County Naples Beaches bounded on the north by Doctors Pass (located between R-57 and R-58A) and to the south by DEP reference monument R-84 located approximately one mile north of Gordon Pass (located between R-89 and R-90) were renourished as part of the Collier Beach project with sand in both 2013 and 2014 as shown in Figure 4. Doctors Pass was dredged in 2006 and 2009 with sand disposed south of the inlet in the nearshore area adjacent to monuments R-61 and R-62. The pass was dredged again in 2013 and approximately 44,000 cubic yards of sand were placed on the beach immediately downdrift of the inlet from the south jetty extending south to monument R-60. Most recently, the pass was dredged in August/September 2018, and sand was placed in the nearshore immediately south of the pass to R-58.5 (north disposal), and near Lowdermilk Park from R-60 to R-61.8 (south disposal). Volume change calculations based on the pre and post -construction surveys indicate an approximate 5,800 and 25,000 cubic yard gain in the two disposal areas, north and south respectively5. In addition, there were three emergency truck haul projects placing approximately 37,4006 cubic yards of sand from the jetty south to monument R-63.5 from 2010 to 2012. Table 8a shows the beach width from the baseline at each monument for the 2005 pre - construction, 2006 post -construction, March 2019 monitoring survey and most recent survey conducted in March 2020; and the corresponding average beach width for the three different reaches denoted as Naples Beach R-58A to R-60, Naples Beach R-61 to R-79 and North of Gordon Pass. Table 8b shows the volume change from the pre to post -construction surveys for the 2006 nourishment project as well as the as -built volumes for the interim fill projects from 2010 to 2014. Also shown are the volume changes from the 2006 post -construction survey to March 2019, March 2019 to March 2020, as well as the 2005 pre -construction and 2006 post -construction to the most recent survey in March 2020. The existing jetty and groin south of the pass were rehabilitated along with the construction of a breakwater and detached groin between the two existing structures as part of the Doctors Pass Erosion Control Structures Project (DEP Permit 0338231-001) completed in July 2018. The second annual monitoring report will be submitted later this year and will address this segment of the Collier Beach Project in more detail. 5 Doctors Pass Maintenance Dredging 2018 Post -Construction Monitoring Summary, H&M Engineers, December 2018. 6 3,000 cubic yards were placed in 2010, 22,400 cubic yards in 2011, and 12,000 cubic yards in 2012. 21 Table 8a. Shoreline Change R-58A through R-84 (Naples Beaches) DEP Design Beach Width from Baseline (Ft) Shoreline Change (Ft) 2005 to 2006 to 3/2019 to 2005 to 2006 to Mon. Standard 11/2005 6/2006 3/2019 3/2020 (Ft) 2006 312019 3/2020 3/2020 3/2020 R-58A 100 12 78 103 105 65 26 2 93 27 R-58 100 70 134 58 61 64 -76 3 -9 -73 R-59 100 70 146 104 94 76 -42 -10 24 -52 R-60 100 ------------------------ 65 -------------------------------------------------- 108 109 106 43 ---------------------------------- 1 -3 ------ 41 ---------------------------- -2 R-61 100 83 129 164 141 47 34 -23 58 12 T-62 100 57 122 104 122 66 -18 18 65 0 R-63 100 87 120 91 104 33 -29 13 17 -16 R-64 100 102 119 77 86 17 -42 9 -16 -33 T-65 100 106 136 104 99 30 -32 v -5 -7 -37 R-66 100 112 148 143 114 36 -5 -29 2 -34 R-67 100 154 184 173 160 30 -11 -13 6 -24 R-68 100 144 145 138 138 2 -7 0 -6 -7 T-69 100 107 140 112 108 33 -28 -4 1 -32 R-70 100 68 167 106 99 99 -61 -7 31 -68 R-71 100 62 178 124 129 116 -53 5 67 -49 R-72 100 73 196 146 151 123 -50 5 78 -45 R-73 100 82 129 154 156 47 25 2 74 27 R-74 100 67 157 158 164 90 1 6 97 7 R-75 100 84 135 145 136 51 10 -9 52 1 R-76 100 60 137 127 135 78 -11 8 75 -2 R-77 100 78 137 142 162 59 5 20 84 25 R-78 100 86 124 104 115 38 -19 11 29 -9 R-79 100 80 80 79 82 1 -2 3 2 2 R-80 - 86 100 76 84 14 -24 8 -2 -16 R-81 - 92 98 89 84 6 -8 -5 -8 -14 R-82 - 63 57 63 76 -7 6 13 13 19 R-83 - 41 43 54 79 2 11 25 38 36 R-84 - 23 34 57 58 11 23 1 35 24 Reach Average Beach Width (Ft) Average Shoreline Chan e (Ft) Naples Beach 55 117 94 92 62 -23 -2 37 -25 R-58A to R-60 ............................................................... -------------------------------------------------- •----------------------------------------- ---------------------------- Naples Beach 89 141 126 126 52 -15 0 37 -15 R-61 to R-79 N. of Gordon Pass 61 66 68 76 5 2 8 15 10 R-80 to R-84 Monitoring Area 79 124 111 112 45 -13 2 33 -12 R-58A to R-84 Shaded portion of chart represents 2005/2006 project area. 22 Table 8b. Volumetric Change R-58A through R-84 (Naples Beaches) Effective As -Built Volume (CY) Volume Change (CY) DEP Reference Distance 2005 to 2010 to 2014 to 2005 to 2006 to 3/2019 to 2005 to 2006 to Monument 2013 (Ft) 2006 2012 2016 2006 3/2019 3/2020 312020 3/2020 Pass to R-58A 473 21,740 25,400 6,480 5,800 -440 1,500 3,820 4,870 5,320 R-58A to R-58 540 6,540 (2018 4,070 -8,0200 360 -3,590 -7,660 R-58 to R-59 985 22,220 44,000 10,380 )i 19,040 -18,7002 -5,360 -5,020 -24,060 R-59 to ...................................................................................................................... R-60 1,085 17,240 R58A-R60 3,920 .............................. 8,690 17,260 ...........................................................,.............................................................................................. 1,760� -5,440 13,580 -3,680 R-60 to R-61 1,077 8,360 " 86,100 25,000 I 18,080 15,280 -10,780 22,590 4,510 4,080 R-61 to T-62 1,020 7,040 (2018) 26,730 5,720 -6,850 25,600 -1,130 12,000 -------------- T-62 to R-63 1,008 18,620 11,860 20,330 23,020 -8900 -3,640 18,480 -4,530 R-63 to R-64 926 18,920 9,410 11,750 -610M -3,120 8,010 -3,740 R-64 to T-65 782 8,690 60 6,730 -4,260 7 530 2,990 -3,740 T-65 to R-66 825 10,420 13,230 3,110 -4,370 11,980 -1,250 R-66 to R-67 800 12,850 16,680 8,550 -6,500 18,730 2,050 R-67 to R-68 809 8,880 10,660 6,410 -4,080 12,990 2,330 R-68 to T-69 811 9,550 4,540 8,040 -4,220 -2,920 890 -7,150 T-69 to R-70 798 16,950 2,630 11,440 -13,750 -2,570 -4,890 -16,320 R-70 to R-71 802 32,220 6,350 18,220 -10,030 370 8,570 -9,660 R-71 to R-72 803 33,310 3,930 25,410 -2,420 4,150 27,140 1,730 R-72 to R-73 811 22,800 210 8,710 18,530 5,730 4,700 28,960 10,430 R-73 to R-74 815 14,980 15,270 9,650 3,530 28,450 13,180 R-74 to R-75 789 13,120 9,090 6,300 -1,270 14,110 5,030 R-75 to R-76 800 15,110 8,370 810 -420 8,760 390 R-76 to R-77 798 18,150 10,080 15,170 6,460 3,650 25,280 10,110 R-77 to R-78 765 12,200 7,760 8,580 1,830 18,170 10,400 R-78 to R-79 1,105 4,050 1,260 -470 2,930 3,720 2,470 R-79 to R-80 1,150 -860 -13,060 5,720 -8,200 -7,340 R-80 to R-81 1,077 5,780 -11,480 1,310 -4,380 -10,170 R-81 to R-82 874 4,230 3,210 610 8,040 3,810 R-82 to R-83 1,047 -10 8,320 5,150 13,450 13,470 R-83 to R-84 960 1 70 10,790 4,180 1 15,040 14,970 Total Volume Change CY South End of Monitoring Area Naples Beach 61,200 111,210 39,930 -23,460 -6,620 9,840 -30,080 Pass to R-60 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Naples Beach 286,220 205,290 265,440 39,950 -24,830 280,530 15,110 R-60to R-79 North of Gordon Pass 0 0 9,210 -2,220 16,970 23,950 14,740 R-79to R-84 Monitoring Area 347,420 316,500 314,580 14,270 -14,480 F314,320 -230 Pass to R-84 Shaded portion of chart represents 2005/2006 project area. The 44,000 cubic yards (R58A-R60) project date was October 2013. *Doctors Pass dredge volume placed in the nearshore from R-60 to R-62: 53,600 in 2006 and 32,500 in 2009. Volumetric change quantities are not representative of design quantities for future beach renourishment projects rather an indication of erosion (negative value) or accretion (positive value) in the monitoring area. Naples Beach represented by monuments R-58A south beach immediately south of Doctors Pass, influenced monument R-58A to R-60, and the beach beyond the R-61 south to R-79. to R-79 is broken into two areas: The by the effects of the jettied inlet from immediate inlet impacts from monument 23 The reach immediately south of the inlet, Naples Beach (north), is represented by four beach profiles: R-58A south to R-60, two have beach widths above the Design Standard of 100 feet, one just below (R-59, 94 feet), and one profile, R-58 located immediately north of the rehabilitated groin, has a smallest beach width (61) in the monitoring area. The average width of the reach is 92 feet, a negligible change (-2) from last year. The volume change for the most recent monitoring period shows the total loss of approximately 6,600 cubic yards (-6,620) including a localized loss of approximately 10,800 cubic yards (-10,800) of sand from R-58 to R-60, and a volume gain of 4,180 cubic yards (3,820+360) from the jetty south to R-58. The beach has equilibrated and reshaped since the construction of the structures in 2018. Although the average width of the beach may continue to be near the Design Standard of 100 feet, monuments may have more or less beach width depending on their location relative to the structures, and wind/wave conditions immediately prior to the survey. The reach shows a net loss of over 30,000 cubic yards (-30,080) of sand since the 2006 project was completed, while retaining almost 10,000 cubic yards (9,840) of the over 170,000 cubic yards (61,200 + 111,210) placed since 2005 or approximately 6%. The average annual volumetric loss in this reach has reduced from approximately 11,0007 cubic yards (2006- 2019) to 6,600 (-6,620) cubic yards (2019-2020). The majority of the profiles in the reach from R-61 south to R-79, Naples Beach (south), have beach widths larger than the Design Standard for Naples Beach of 100 feet with the exception of monuments R-64, R-70, and R-79 having widths of 86, 99, and 82 respectively. Approximately 25,000 cubic yards were placed in the nearshore from R-60 to R-61 in 2018. The reach shows an average width of 126 feet, a negligible average shoreline change (0), and a 25,000 cubic yard (-24,830) total net loss of sand in the most recent monitoring period. This includes a localized volumetric loss of approximately 44,300 cubic yards (-44,300) from R-60 south to R-70 with an associated average shoreline loss of 4 feet (4). Naples Beach from R-60 south to R-79 has a net gain over 15,000 cubic yards (15,110) of sand since the 2006 project was completed while retaining almost 280,500 cubic yards (280,530) of the over 490,000 cubic yards (286,220 + 205,290) placed on the beach or in the nearshore since 2005 or approximately 57%. The beach North of Gordon Pass is partially represented by monuments R-80 south to R-84 located outside of the project area. Although all of the monuments have beach widths below the 100 foot Design Standard to the north, as low as 58 feet at monument R-84 located within the fill template taper, the reach shows an average 8 foot (8) gain in beach width and an associated total gain in volume of almost 17,000 cubic yards (16,970) of sand in this most recent monitoring period. The reach appears to be benefitting from the predominant north to south sediment transport gaining almost 24,000 cubic yards (23,950) in volume since 2005. Although Vanderbilt Beach and Pelican Bay Beach lost volume in the most recent monitoring period, the average beach width for both reaches met or exceeded the Design Standard. Pelican Bay Beach has a lower average width than Vanderbilt, and lost more sand in the most recent monitoring period. Park Shore Beaches were renourished in late 2019 meeting the beach width Design Standard and show volumetric gain. Naples Beach (north) shows losses in both width and volume as the reach equilibrates to the structures constructed in 2018; the average width for the reach is just below the Design Standard. Naples Beach lost sand, in particular at the north end of the reach, yet maintained an average width above the Design Standard. 7((61,200+111,210)-(39,930-23,460))/14 years = 11,139 cy/year 24 UPLAND VOLUME CHANGE The Design Standard used for the Collier Beach Project pertains to the upland portion of the beach without consideration to changes in the nearshore as shown previously in Tables 6b, 7b, and 8b containing volumetric changes offshore to the DOC. In order to isolate upland volumetric changes to complement the information provided by changes in beach width, the limits of the volumetric analysis were altered to the 2003 Baseline and the MHWL for the area above the MHW elevation. Figure 6a shows a typical cross section containing three beach profiles: The 2006 post - construction, March 2019 and 2020 monitoring surveys. The upland volume change for the period from the 2006 to the March 2019 is the area shaded in light gray, the upland volume change from March 2019 to March 2020 is shaded in dark gray, the change from 2006 to 2020 would be a combination of both the light and dark gray areas. Similarly, upland volume change was calculated for surveys from 2005 through 2020, analyzed for the monitoring area, and shown in Tables 9a, 9b, and 9c. Negative values indicate volumetric losses or erosion. Figure 6a. Beach Profile Showing Shoreline and Volumetric Accretion f0 0� 2006 BEACH WIDTH z -$ 312019 MONITORING BEACH WIDTH w -10 312020 w MONITORING BEACH WIDTH 6F7 -20 SURVEY LEGEND -- - 2006 POST -CONSTRUCTION 2019-03 MONITORING 2020-03 MONITORING ® 312019-312020 UPLAND VOLUME CHANGE Q 2006-312019 UPLAND VOLUME CHANGE 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD or MONUMENT (FT.) DEPTH OF CLOSURE 0.3V NAVDMf•!W 600 The upland volume change, or the volume change from the Baseline to the MHWL was determined for each survey period analyzed. Table 9a a shows the upland volume change for the reaches from R-17 south to Clam Pass. As sand placed in the nearshore during the 2018 dredging project for Wiggins Pass redistributes, the upland shows accretion at all monuments in the most recent monitoring period totaling over 8,000 cubic yards of sand (8,230) after losing over 25,000 cubic yards (-25,420) in previous years. The reach has lost almost 14,000 cubic yards (-13,960) of sand since the 2006 project. Vanderbilt Beach also shows accretion, possibly due to the southward migration of sand placed during the 2018 Wiggins Pass dredging project, gaining almost 6,000 cubic yards (5,820) in this most recent monitoring period after losing over 9,000 cubic yards (-9,330) in previous years. Having been renourished since the 2005/2006 project. Vanderbilt Beach shows almost 48,000 cubic yards (47,820) of sand remaining since the 2005 pre -construction survey. 25 Although the Pelican Bay Beach indicates a gain of over 19,000 cubic yards (19,120) since the 2005 pre -construction survey, the reach shows a loss of over 1,600 cubic yards (-1,630) in this most recent monitoring period, after losing 6,300 cubic yards (-6,310) in previous years. The reach shows a volumetric loss at 4 of the 6 segments analyzed in this most recent monitoring period and at 5 of the 6 segments from 2006 to 2019. The dynamic reach north of Clam Pass shows a 5,000 cubic yard (-5,360) loss in the most recent monitoring period and a gain of over 9,000 cubic yards (9,360) since the 2005 pre -construction survey. This reach was regraded in April 2020 after the monitoring survey was conducted as well as the reach south of Clam Pass. Table 9a. Upland Volume Change R-17 through R-41 (Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay, North Clam Pass) Upland Volume Change (CY) 2005 to 2006 to 3/2019 to 2005 to 2006 to DEP Reference Monument 2006 3/2019 3/2020 3/2020 3/2020 Wiggins Pass R-17 to R-18 1,580 -11,910 620 -9,710 -11,290 R-18 to R-19 150 -4,540 2,960 -1,430 -1,580 R-19 to R-20 -50 -2,660 1,740 -980 -920 R-20 to R-21 840 -5,460 1,860 -2,770 -3,600 R-21 to R-22 730 -850 1,050 930 200 R-22 to R-23 1,140 970 670 2,770 1,640 R-23 to R-24 3,450 1,400 1,440 6,290 2,840 R-24 to R-25 4,990 1,090 530 6,620 1,630 R-25 to R-26 6,370 -490 260 6,140 -230 R-26 to R-27 7,190 -1,810 610 6,000 -1,200 R-27 to R-28 9,490 -4,520 1,100 6,070 -3,420 R-28 to R-29 7,620 -3,530 400 4,480 -3,140 R-29 to R-30 7,330 -2,010 -150 5,170 -2,160 R-30 to R-31 3,750 -430 960 4,280 530 R-31 to R-32 3,830 -480 1,430 4,780 950 R-32 to R-33 4,740 -970 -480 3,290 -1,450 R-33 to R-34 4,830 70 -1,270 3,630 -1,200 R-34 to R-35 5,660 -1,740 60 3,980 -1,680 R-35 to R-36 5,250 -2,620 -620 2,000 -3,250 R-36 to R-37 2,760 -570 -750 1,440 -1,330 R-37 to R-38 420 1,100 130 1,650 1,230 R-38 to R-39 1,020 2,170 -1,200 1,980 960 R-39 to R-40 2,040 3,980 -2,790 3,230 1,190 R-40 to R-41 1,540 2,460 -1,500 2,500 960 Total Volume Change (CY) Clam Pass Delnor-Wiggins 3,250 -25,420 8,230 -13,960 -17,190 R-17 to R-22 Vanderbilt Beach 51,330 -9,330 5,820 47,820 -3,510 R-22 to R-30 Pelican Bay Beach 27,070 -6,310 -1,630 19,120 -7,960 R-30.5 to R-37 N. of Clam Pass 5,020 9,710 -5,360 9,360 4,340 R-37to R-41 Monitoring Area 86,670 -31,350 7,060 62,340 -24,320 R-17 to R-41 26 The beach from R-42 to T-54+400 was nourished with 130,000 cubic yards of sand in 2019. There was upland gain throughout the entire reach in this most recent monitoring period (22,920 and 19,800) and since the 2005 pre -construction survey (32,990 and 73,350) as shown in Table 9b. Table 9b: Upland Volume Change R-42 to R-57 (Clam Pass to Doctors Pass) Upland Volume Change (CY) 2005 to 2006 to 3/2019 to 2005 to 2006 to DEP Reference Monument Range 2006 3/2019 3/2020 3/2020 3/2020 Clam Pass R-42 to R-43 -30 2,300 2,010 4,280 4,310 R-43 to R-44 1,160 100 4,230 5,480 4,330 R-44 to R-45 410 110 7,980 8,500 8,100 R-45 to R-46 790 260 6,720 7,770 6,980 R-46 to R-47 2,320 770 1,990 5,080 2,760 R-47 to R-48 2,610 1,540 2,000 6,160 3,550 R-48 to R-49 2,890 680 2,730 6,290 3,400 R-49 to T-50 5,210 1,350 2,390 8,960 3,750 T-50 to R-51 13,540 -680 2,530 15,390 1,850 R-51 to R-52 10,960 -4,210 3,410 10,160 -800 R-52 to R-53 10,940 -4,540 3,780 10,170 -760 R-53 to T-54 7,680 -30 2,620 10,270 2,590 T-54 to U-55 2,680 7,090 2,340 12,110 9,440 U-55 to R-56 -80 11,570 340 11,830 11,910 R-56 to T-57 1,580 8,660 270 10,510 8,930 Total Volume Change (CY) Doctors Pass South of Clam Pass -30 2,300 2,010 4,280 4,310 Pass to R-43 North Park Shore Beach 7,290 2,780 22,920 32,990 25,720 R-43 to R-48 Park Shore Beach 53,900 -340 19,800 73,350 19,470 R-48 to R-55 North of Doctors Pass 1,500 20,230 610 22,340 20,840 U-55 to T-57 Monitoring Area 62,660 24,970 45,340 132,960 70,340 R-42 to T-57 After losing upland sand in previous years (4,080) the Naples Beach (north) reach shows a moderate gain (460) in this most recent monitoring period and a gain of almost 27,000 cubic yards (26,810) since the 2005 pre -construction survey, likely due to sand placement from the dredging of Doctors Pass, the construction of the erosion control structures, and interim fill projects. Similarly, Naples Beach from R-60 south to R-79, shows a gain of almost 3,000 cubic yards (2,930) in the most recent monitoring period as well as a gain of over 165,000 cubic yards (165,630) since the 2005 pre -construction survey. The reach north of Gordon Pass generally shows relatively moderate upland accretion totals throughout the successive monitoring periods. 27 Table 9c. Upland Volumetric Change R-58A through R-84 (Naples Beaches) Upland Volume Change (CY) 2005 to 2006 to 3/2019 to 2005 to 2006 to DEP Reference Monument 2006 3/2019 3/2020 3/2020 3/2020 Doctors Pass Pass to R-58A 3,890 70 890 4,850 960 R-58A to R-58 5,260 -2,560 570 3,280 -1,990 R-58 to R-59 11,510 -4,900 -290 6,310 -5,200 R-59 to R-60 9,770 3,310 -710 12,370 2,600 R-60 to R-61 5,960 9,140 -1,060 14,040 8,080 R-61 to T-62 6,370 5,290 1,110 12,780 6,400 T-62 to R-63 6,650 -690 2,420 8,390 1,730 R-63 to R-64 4,970 -2,380 560 3,150 -1,820 R-64 to T-65 3,740 -1,740 -590 1,410 -2,330 T-65 to R-66 5,430 950 -2,270 4,110 -1,320 R-66 to R-67 7,310 3,290 -1,840 8,770 1,460 R-67 to R-68 6,590 2,920 -40 9,470 2,880 R-68 to T-69 5,620 310 -320 5,610 -10 T-69 to R-70 7,870 -1,990 -1,400 4,490 -3,380 R-70 to R-71 11,090 -2,980 -580 7,530 -3,560 R-71 to R-72 12,100 -610 180 11,670 -440 R-72 to R-73 9,000 3,710 280 12,990 3,990 R-73 to R-74 8,110 5,660 370 14,150 6,030 R-74 to R-75 9,140 3,320 -890 11,570 2,430 R-75 to R-76 9,310 230 630 10,170 860 R-76 to R-77 9,220 400 2,920 12,540 3,320 R-77 to R-78 6,410 210 1,920 8,540 2,130 R-78 to R-79 3,820 -1,100 1,530 4,250 430 R-79 to R-80 1,420 -1,630 800 600 -820 R-80 to R-81 1,620 -1,980 -130 -480 -2,110 R-81 to R-82 530 620 -30 1,120 590 R-82 to R-83 330 2,510 540 3,380 3,050 R-83 to R-84 760 2,540 190 3,490 2,720 Total Volume Change CY South End of Monitoring Area Naples Beach 30,430 -4,080 460 26,810 -3,630 Doctors Pass to R-60 Naples Beach 138,710 23,940 2,930 165,630 26,880 R-60 to R-79 North of Gordon Pass 4,660 2,060 1,370 8,110 3,430 R-79 to R-84 Monitoring Area 173,800 21,920 4,760 200,550 26,680 Pass to R-84 28 ADVANCE NOURISHMENT LOSSES Figure 6b. Typical Park Shore Beach Cross Section ADVANCE FILL PLACED IN 20 ADVANCE FILL REMAINING IN 20.' 2019 PRE -CONSTRUCTION DISTANC 10, BELOW DESIGN STANDARD ° 312019 - - - - BEACH WIDTH DESIGN STANDARD _S BEACH WIDTH ` 312020 MONITORING BEACH WIDTH W -f0 1212019 w POST -CONSTRUCT BEACH WIDTH z J w v, m -20 SURVEY LEGEND 2019-03 MONITORING 2019-12 POST -CONSTRUCTION 2020-03 MONITORING - -------------- 0.33' NAVDQMtLWJ- 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 600 Advance nourishment is the amount of fill placed seaward of the Design Standard width. This sand is placed to maintain the Design Standard width as sand erodes from the beach over time in `advance' of the Design Template. Figure 6b shows the March 2019 and 2020 monitoring surveys as well as the December 2019 postconstruction survey for a typical cross section located within the Park Shore fill template. The fill placed seaward of the Design Standard width, as shown by the December 2019 profile, represents the advance fill, while the March 2020 beach profile shows the equilibration of the fill immediately post -construction. Tables 10a, 10b, and 10c show the post - construction width of the beach in either 2006 or 2019 (Column C2), the time the last continuous fill template was constructed in the area; and the March 2020 beach width (C3). Erosion into the 2006 or 2019 fill template is noted (C4) along with the percentage of beach width remaining above the Design Standard of 85 or 100 feet, compared to the original width of the advance fill (C5). Profiles within the tapered portion of the fill template, graded to transition with the existing beach, were not included in the analysis. Other than emergency segmented filling, continuous beach fill templates were last constructed in 2006 for Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay, and Naples Beaches while Park Shore was nourished recently in late 2019 with a continuous template. Tables 10a, 10b, and 10c compare the 2006 post - construction beach widths for Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay and Naples Beaches and the 2019 post - construction beach widths for Park Shore to the most recent survey conducted in March 2020. Beach widths less than the Design Standard are noted otherwise the percentage of advance nourishment remaining is provided.$ 8 Percentage of advance nourishment remaining = 100 x (C3-DS)/(C2-DS); DS = Design Standard Width 29 As shown in Table 10a, Vanderbilt Beach from monument R-22 south to R-30 shows only one monument just slightly below the Design Standard width of 100 feet. On average approximately 35% of the advance fill remains based on the 2006 post -construction and 3/2020 monitoring surveys. Pelican Bay Beach from monument R-31 south to R-37 has three monuments below the Design Standard Width of 100 feet, not including monuments located in the taper, while approximately 28% of the advance fill remains based on the 2006 post -construction and March 2020 monitoring surveys . Table 10a. Advance Nourishment Remaining R-22 through R-37 (Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay) Column 1 C2 C3 C4 C5 2006 3/2020 Advance DEP Beach Beach Eroded into Fill Monument Width Width Design Remainin g Template (Feet) (Feet) (%) R-22 106 109 Taper - R-23 121 112 - 58% R-24 130 124 - 79% R-25 135 114 - 40% R-26 148 117 - 35% R-27 121 99 Yes 0% R-28 138 105 - 13% R-29 144 110 - 23% R-30 142 114 - 33% R-31 132 123 - 72% R-32 138 122 - 57% R-33 103 90 Yes 0% R-34 103 101 - 40% R-35 103 85 Yes 0% R-36 96 80 Yes 0% R-37 92 98 1 Taper I - 35% 28% "Taper" indicates a monument located with the fill template taper to the existing beach. Gray shading shows the most recent nourishment of the reach or the December 2016 segmented filling extents. 'till As shown in Table 10b, Clam Pass and Park Shore Beach from monument R-42 south to T-54 shows only one monument below the Design Standard width of 85 feet as the reach was recently nourished with approximately 132,000 cubic yards of sand. On average approximately 79% of the advance fill remains based on the December 2019 post -construction and March 2020 monitoring surveys. Table 10b. Advance Nourishment Remaining R-42 through R-54 (Clam Pass and Park Shore) Column 1 C2 C3 C4 C5 12/2019 3/2020 Advance DEP Beach Beach Eroded into Fill Monument Width Width Design Remaining Template (Feet) (Feet) (%) R-42 111 108 - 90% R-43 107 66 Yes 0% R-44 93 91 - 75% R-45 144 132 - 80% R-46 106 97 - 57% R-47 110 116 - 100% R-48 104 109 - 100% R-49 95 104 - 100% T-50 129 128 - 98% R-51 106 111 - 100% R-52 99 113 - 100% R-53 128 99 - 33% T-54 1 117 1 121 1 - 1 100% 79% Gray shading shows the most recent nourishment of the reach or the November 2019 nourishment extents. As shown in Table 10c, Naples Beach (north) from monument R-58A south to R-60 shows two monuments above and two below the Design Standard width of 100 feet. On average approximately 44% of the advance fill remains based on the 2006 post -construction and 3/2020 monitoring surveys. The beach has equilibrated and reshaped since the construction of the structures in 2018. The upland beach may have more or less beach width depending on their location relative to the structures, and wind/wave conditions immediately prior to the survey. Naples Beach from monument R-61 south to R-79 shows two monuments just below, and another 14 feet below the Design Standard width of 100 feet. On average approximately 59% of the advance fill remains based on the 2006 post -construction and March 2020 monitoring surveys. 31 Table 10c. Advance Nourishment Remaining R-58A through R-79 (Naples Beach) Column 1 C2 C3 C4 C5 2006 3/2020 Advance DEP Beach Beach Eroded into Fill Monument Width Width Design Remaining Template (Feet) (Feet) (%) R-58A 78 105 - 100% R-58 134 61 Yes 0% R-59 146 94 Yes 0% R-60 108 106 - 75% R-61 129 141 - 100% T-62 122 122 - 98% R-63 120 104 - 20% R-64 119 86 Yes 0% T-65 136 99 Yes 0% R-66 148 114 - 29% R-67 184 160 - 72% R-68 145 138 - 84% T-69 140 108 - 20% R-70 167 99 Yes 0% R-71 178 129 - 37% R-72 196 151 - 53% R-73 129 156 - 100% R-74 157 164 - 100% R-75 135 136 - 100% R-76 137 135 - 93% R-77 137 162 - 100% R-78 124 115 - 63% R-79 80 1 82 1 Taper I - 44% 59% "Taper" indicates a monument located with the fill template taper to the existing beach. Gray shading shows the most recent nourishment of the reach or the December 2014 segmented filling extents. SUMMARY A minimum beach width standard established in 2003 was applied to design the 2006 project. This standard distance represented the minimum total sandy beach design width at each reference monument, and was measured from a fixed baseline set at the seawall, edge of vegetation, building line or an equivalent feature representing the landward limit of sandy beach in 2003. The distance varied throughout the project from 85 feet at Park Shore and Clam Pass Beach to 100 feet at Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay, and Naples Beaches. Figures 7a through 7c plot the beach width at each reference monument for the five segments of the project area (Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay, Clam Pass Park, Park Shore, and Naples) with the corresponding Design Standard beach width. The graph also shows the project area, associated average beach width, and highlights the portions of the beach below the Design Standard during the March 2020 monitoring survey in a darker shade of gray. 32 Figures 7a through 7c also show, as a black dashed line, the average beach width within each segment of the project area for comparison to the Design Standard. It is important to consider this localized variability in erosional areas in planning beach management strategies because localized erosional areas may simply be temporary features tending to migrate along the coast as sand waves (or sand -deficit waves), and the performance of the beach fill should not be expected to be uniform throughout the project area from one survey to the next. However, where erosional areas persist for long periods of time or cover a majority of the project area, they become problematic and should be investigated to determine the cause and addressed accordingly. Monuments R-17 through R-21 shown in the left side of Figure 7a are within the State Park Boundary and not part of the Collier Beach Nourishment project. Wiggins Pass was dredged in 2018 and sand was placed in the nearshore both north and south of the inlet as evidenced by the spike in beach width at monument R-19 in Figure 7a. The balance of the park remains below the Vanderbilt Beach Design Standard of 100' as the sand placed near R-19 continues to equilibrate. Monument R-27 has a width of 99 feet (99;Table 6a), just below the Design Standard, while the remainder of the Vanderbilt Beach project area, and the north end of the Pelican Bay Beach project area have widths above the Design Standard of 100 feet as shown in Figure 7a. The southernmost end of Pelican Bay is below the standard, but should benefit from the wider beach to the north combined with the predominate north to south net sand transport in the County. Monitoring of Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay Beaches is recommended in order to evaluate the need for nourishment. The reach located on either side of Clam Pass, from Monuments R-38 south to R-43, outside of the project area, have widths varying from 66 to 111 feet (Tables 6a,7a) while having an average width just higher than the Design Standard of 85 feet (86, 87;Tables 6a,7a) as shown in Figures 7a and 7b. The beach south of the inlet was nourished in late 2019 and both sides of the inlet were regraded since the time of the March 2020 survey. This dynamic portion of the beach adjacent to Clam Pass will be monitored and addressed along with the management of the inlet. 33 Figure 7a. Shoreline Analysis R-17 to R-41 5C. 140 130 120 70 60 54 Vanderbililitfl—mna 1 1 Beach S Design Width MAL ABeach Below 1DO' Design Pelican Ba 1m m o N e] Q u] cD 1� a] m 4 N M Q u] 0 (North) Monument (South) Figure 7b. Shoreline Analysis R-42 to R-57 150 140 130 120 u. 70 60 50 (North) Monument (South) C 34 Park Shore Beach, shown in Figure 7b, was nourished in late 2019 and has an average width approximately 25 feet above the Design Standard width of 85 feet while the reach adjacent to Doctors Pass, south of Park Shore, continues to accrete showing an average width 45 feet above the Design Standard. No nourishment is recommended for Park Shore Beaches at this time. Monuments R-58A and R-58 on the left side of Figure 7c are located immediately south and downdrift of the recently rehabilitated south jetty for Doctors Pass; they are also near the rehabilitated small groin and newly constructed breakwater and detached groin. Sand dredged from Doctors Pass in 2018 was initially planned for this area from the jetty to R-58. Due to the project being conducted in the summer, sand was placed in the nearshore, south of the inlet in two areas: adjacent to the inlet (5,800 cy;Table 8b) and the majority of the sand (25,000 cy;Table 8b) placed near Lowdermilk Park in the vicinity of R-61. Monuments south of the jetty', R-64 and R- 70, are below the Design Standard of 100 feet as well as R-79 located at the south end of the reach within the taper of the 2006 fill template. The beach width at R-58 was 61 feet, almost 40 feet below the Design Standard. Due to the relatively low beach widths, nourishment is recommended for Naples Beach (north). Although the reach south of the project area, from R-80 to R-84 shows an average increase in beach width in the most recent monitoring period, the average width is 24 feet below (76;Table 8a) the 100 foot Design Standard. Sand placed within the Naples Beach reach should eventually benefit this area due to the north to south net sediment transport. Continued monitoring is recommended for this portion of Naples Beach. Figure 7c. Shoreline Analysis R-58A to R-84 200 T — 180 160 LL 84 Naples Beach Project Area —3I2020 Beach Width Beach Below Design Width Area Protected by the Erosion_ Control Structures Q v a —IL I - -OE Y3esign-sta r tie Average Beach Widt _ Naples Beach (north) Naples Beach iv- ra e Beach width - Naples Beach h Width Average Widt South Naples Beach ca u' u�rnn a - - o m" M Q 1p z w p r- i- ti m m OFa: Q� = o ¢ [r cc tc ¢ er o ¢ ¢ (North) Monument {South} 9 The area south of the inlet, protected by the newly constructed erosion control structures including monument R-58 will also be addressed in the separate report for permit 0338231 -001 -JC. 35 The average beach width for each project area was plotted vs. time in Figure 8. The general recession of the post -construction beach is evident in the section of the lines from 2006 to 2013 and the subsequent rise due to the 2014 and 2016 renourishment for Vanderbilt Pelican Bay, and Park Shore Beaches. Naples Beach has maintained an average width well above the 100 foot Design Standard since the 2006 project was constructed, Vanderbilt remains steady with an average width approximately 10 feet below Naples Beach, and Pelican Bay Beach continues to have an average width near the 100 foot Design Standard. As a consequence of the 2019 nourishment project, Park Shore Beach has an average width approximately 25 feet higher than the 85 foot Design Standard. Figure 8. Average Beach Width & Design Standard vs. Time 150 T LL if'u 75 50 u] CD 00 di O N M M O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Monitoring Survey Date Overall net shoreline change for the Collier Beach Nourishment project is summarized in Table 10a showing the current beach width compared to the September 200510 pre -construction survey and the as-built11 information providing a range for the percent of added beach width in the last two columns. Generally, the project beaches lost an average of 9 feet (9-18) since the 2006 project was constructed while maintaining an average of 35 feet above the 2005 pre -construction beach width or approximately 70% (63% to 79%) of the average 44-55 foot gain due to the 2006 nourishment project. The amount of beach width remaining as a percentage of the gain from the 2006 project ranges from a gain of approximately 50% (36% to 61 %) in the Pelican Bay reach to retaining approximately 78% (80% to 76%) in Naples Beach project area, excluding the gain due to the recent nourishment of Park Shore Beach. 10 The 9/2005 pre -construction survey by DEP was conducted prior to Hurricane Wilma. This survey provides shoreline change values closer to the as -built information than the November 2005 pre -construction survey conducted after Hurricane Wilma. Shoreline change information is shown in Appendix E. 11 As -built information for the 2006 project is also shown in Appendix E as well as Tables 6b, 7b, and 8b. 36 Table 10a. Shoreline Change Summary 2005-2020 Shoreline Change (Feet) Added Beach Width Project Area Remianing (%) 2006 9/2005 to 2006 to 3/2019 to 9/2005 to As -Built* 9/2005** As -Built* 2006** 3/2019** 3/2020** 3/2020** Vanderbilt 48 42 -21 1 22 46% 52% Pelican Bay 42 25 -10 0 15 36% 61 % North Park Shore 41 12 -9 28 31 76% 261 % Park Shore 63 50 -28 23 45 72% 91 % North Naples Beach 79 71 -23 -2 46 58% 65% Naples Beach 1 60 1 63 -15 0 48 1 80% 1 76 0 Average: 1 55 1 44 -18 9 35 1 63% 1 79% *Shoreline change based on Tables by CPE shown in Appendix E. **Shoreline change based on monitoring surveys. Volume change and volumetric as -built information are summarized in Table 10b. Total as -built volume is compared to the volume change from the 2005 pre -construction and 2006 post - construction surveys. The last column represents the volume remaining as a percentage of the combined as -built volume for the project area since the 2005 pre -construction survey. Generally, the entire project retains 53% of the fill placed from 2005 to the present or almost 725,000 cubic yards (724,830) remain on the project area beaches of Collier County of the over 1.2 million cubic yards (1,377,640) placed in the 15 years since the project began. At the extremes and excluding the recently nourished Park Shore Beach: North Naples Beach ranging from Doctors Pass to monument R-60 retained 6% of the over 170,000 cubic yards (172,410) while Pelican Bay Beach retained 79% of the almost 93,000 cubic yards (92,840) of sand placed. The high losses at the North Naples Beach segment resulted in the design and implementation of the erosion control structures completed in 2018. Table 10b. Volume Change Summary 2005-2019 Volume (CY) Volume Volume Tot. Vol. Volume Volume Volume Remianing from All NourishmentProjects Project Area As -Built As -Built Added Change Change 2005-2017 2005 to 2006 to 2005 to 3/2019 to 2005 to (%) 2006 3/2020 3/2020 3/2020 3/2020 Vanderbilt 121,500 112,210 233,710 -2,010 123,540 53% Pelican Bay 56,950 35,890 92,840 -11,680 73,740 79% North Park Shore 27,710 159,200 186,910 23,230 62,630 34% Park Shore 114,040 86,220 200,260 29,990 174,550 87% Naples (R58A-R60) 61,200 111,210 172,410 -6,620 9,840 6% Naples (R60-R79) 1 286,220 205,290 491,510 -24,830 280,530 1 57% Totals: 667,620 710,020 1,377,640 8,080 724,830 53% Volumetric change quantities are not representative of design quantities for future beach renourishment projects rather an indication of erosion (negative value) or accretion (positive value) in the monitoring area. As -Built Volume for the 2006 project based on Tables by CPE shown in Appendix E and Tables 6b, 7b, and 8b. The highly dynamic Clam Pass Park beaches, added to the project in 2015, are not considered in this Table. 37 The north to south net sediment transport is evident throughout the project area. Vanderbilt Beach immediately north of Pelican Bay Beach retained 53% while Pelican Bay retained 79% as sand travels southward increasing the volume in the Pelican Bay project area system. Similar trend: North Park Shore (34%) feeding Park Shore (87%); North Naples (6%) and Naples (57%). It should be noted North Naples Beach is located immediately south of the Doctors Pass and sand bypasses this area and attaches to the shoreline further south. This is worth considering in management strategy because sand placed in the northernmost reach will tend to feed the beaches in the more southern project reaches. AERIAL IMAGES The 2020 rectified aerial image files required under the monitoring plan and provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, in Mr. Sid format referenced to the NAD83 datum in feet Florida East Zone, and were submitted to the Department in May 15, 2020. Oblique aerial images were acquired on May 24, 2020 in order to further document the condition of the beach at the time of this report. These images are included in Appendix F along with monument locations and survey azimuths. Additional oblique photographs are provided within this report for reference. ENVIRONMENTAL The permittee has reviewed the specific Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) and Terms and Conditions in the Revised Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion (SPBO) dated 13 March 2015 and the Piping Plover Programmatic Biological Opinion (P3BO) dated 22 May 2013, and agreed to follow the measures included to minimize impacts to nesting sea turtles and the piping plover. Collier County (permittee) is currently conducting the sea turtle nesting monitoring program headed by Maura Kraus (Mau raKraus(a)colIiergov.net) and the shorebird monitoring program headed by Christopher D'arco (ChristopherDarco(a�-colliergov.net). The programs include the following: • Sea turtle nesting monitoring is an ongoing program with the County including escarpment surveys. • Shorebird monitoring will be conducted by the County including breeding and non -breeding birds, piping plovers and red knots. Annual shorebird data reports for the County are anticipated to be submitted by fall of 2020. • Compaction testing and subsequent tilling is conducted by the County. • Results of the surveys are submitted to the appropriate agencies. • Educational material including signage, flyers, kiosks, etc. are continually reviewed and improved in part by County staff. • Pre -construction meetings are held prior to the start of any project. Shorebird and sea turtle monitoring procedures during construction are discussed and implemented accordingly. • In 2013 the County adopted and implemented a hardbottom biological monitoring plan (modified in 2018) including annual reporting and agency submittal. • The County continues to make every effort to maintain compliance with the conditions of the SPBO and the P3130, and the conditions of the associated Corps and DEP permits. Sea turtle monitoring reports, lighting guidelines, and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Codes and Technical Reports are posted on the County website: http://www.coll iergov. netlyour-government/divisions-f-r/parks-and-recreation/sea-turtle- protection/publications-reports 38 The Collier County Coastal Zone Management provides information to the public on a wide variety of coastal programs and projects: http://www.colliergov.net/your-government/divisions-a-e/coastal-zone-management And information on protected species: http://www.colliergov.net/your-government/divisions-a-e/environmental-services/protected-species Although the protection measures for the eastern indigo snake will be incorporated into the project during the pre -construction phase, there is no vegetation removal or clearing involved in this beach nourishment project. The 2019 project was constructed October to December, from the upland, with truck hauled sand. There were no impacts to seagrass, hardbottom reef habitat, historical/archeological/cultural materials, shorebirds or manatees. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are presented for the Collier County beach segment from Wiggins Pass south to north of Gordon Pass. Although shoreline recession continues at monument R-17 located in the reach south of Wiggins Pass in Delnor-Wiggins State Park, the reach continues to equilibrate from the placement of sand in 2018 showing a loss of 6,700 cubic yards (-6,740;Table 6b) from the disposal area. Excluding the shoreline recession at R-17 the reach has an average width of 96 feet (Table 6a) and an associated volumetric loss of 1,450 cubic yards (-1,450;Table 6b) in this most recent monitoring period. Vanderbilt Beach has beach widths above the Design Standard with the exception of R-27, one foot below, and a total volumetric loss of approximately 2,000 cubic yards (-2,010;Table 6b) considering the entire beach profile. There was gain of almost 6,000 cubic yards (5,820;Table 9a) in the upland portion of the reach in the most recent monitoring period. Although continued monitoring is recommended, Vanderbilt Beach appears to have sufficient volume in the active beach system to maintain the County standard; evaluation for renourishment is not recommended at this time. Pelican Bay Beach has an average width of 100 feet despite having four monument beach widths below the Design Standard Width. The reach lost volume in this most recent monitoring period considering changes, both along the entire beach profile of 11,700 (-11,680;Table 6b), and the upland only of 1,600 cubic yards (-1,630;Table 9a). This area continues to benefit from the wider beaches at Vanderbilt Beach acting as a feeder beach. Continued monitoring of Pelican Bay Beach is recommended to determine when renourishment will be needed, or if any of the localized erosion areas below the Design Standard remain within normal ranges of variability. Clam Pass Beach was regraded on both the north and south side in April 2020 after the 2020 monitoring survey was conducted. The beach on the south side of the pass was nourished as part of the 2019 Park Shore Nourishment Project. The dynamic beaches north and south of Clam 39 Pass are monitored as part of the Clam Pass maintenance dredging permit (0296087-001- JC) under the purview of the Pelican Bay Service Division of Collier County. Park Shore Beach was nourished with approximately 130,000 cubic yards of sand as part of the 2019 truck -haul project. The Design Standard beach width is being maintained in this reach and the beach north of Doctors Pass. No nourishment is recommended for Park Shore Beach. Naples Beach, not nourished as part of the 2016 or 2019 truck haul projects, received approximately 30,000 cubic yards of sand dredged from Doctors Pass in 2018 placed in the nearshore. The majority of the sand was placed near Lowdermilk Park and the balance placed near the south jetty at Doctors Pass. Naples Beach (north) has beach widths at two of the four monuments under the Design Standard Width and the lowest width in the monitoring area of feet (Table 8a) at R-58. Although Naples Beach has an average width 26 feet greater than the Design Standard, the reach lost over 55,000 cubic yards (-44,300-10,800;Table 8b) of sand from R-58 south to R-70 considering the entire beach profile and 4,400 cubic yards (-3,430-1,000;Table 9c) from the upland portion in this most recent monitoring period. Evaluation for renourishment is recommended for Naples Beach, with consideration given to distributing a larger proportion of the fill to the northern part of this reach to act as a feeder beach to the more southern portions of this reach. All project areas for the Collier Beach Nourishment Project show an average gain in beach width of approximately 50 feet (44 to 55;Table 10a) during the 2006 project while retaining an average of 35 feet (35;Table 10a) or approximately 70% (63%-79%;Table 10a) of the increased width due to the 2006 project based on the March 2020 monitoring survey. Including the inlet dredging projects, over 1.5 million cubic yards (1,541,460;Table 1) of sand were placed in the monitoring area since 2005 with over 1.4 million (1,436,780;Table 1) in the project area. In March 2020 approximately 856,55012 cubic yards of sand remain in the monitoring area or approximately 60%. 12 Volume Change 2005 to October 2017: 856,550=248,740+293,490+314,320;Tables 6b,7b,8b 40 REFERENCES APTIM, Post -Irma Impact Survey, September 25'h to October 7', 2017 Atkins, 2005 to 2014 Historical Beach Analysis, July 2014 Atkins, Collier County Beach Renourishment Project 2010 Four Year Post Construction Monitoring Report, March 2011 Atkins, Collier County 2014 Truck Haul Renourishment QA.QC Report, February 2015 CB&I CP&E, Collier County, Florida 2013-2014 Hot spot & Tropical Storm Fay Beach Renourishment Project, May 2014 CP&E, Collier County Beach Nourishment Post -Construction Engineering Report, October 2006 CP&E, Collier County Beach Nourishment from an Upland Sand Source, and Doctors Pass North Jetty Rehabilitation 2011 Post construction Report, June 2011 Collier County Parks and Recreation Department, Collier County Sea Turtle Protection Plan Annual Report — 2014, February 2015 Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, December 2019 Rectified Aerial Images Florida Department of Environmental Protection, JCP Collier County Beach Renourishment Project, Permit 0222355-001-JC, January 12, 2005 Humiston & Moore Engineers, Collier County Beach Nourishment Project 2015 Four Month Post Construction Monitoring Summary, June 2015 Humiston & Moore Engineers, Wiggins Pass Navigation Channel Expansion and Maintenance Dredging Project 2015 Two -Year Post Construction Monitoring Summary, March 2016 Humiston & Moore Engineers, Clam Pass Physical and Tidal Monitoring Report 2018, December 2018 Humiston & Moore Engineers, Doctors Pass Erosion Control Structures Project 2018 Post - Construction Monitoring Summary, December 2018 Humiston & Moore Engineers, Collier County Beach Nourishment Project 2019 Post Construction Monitoring Summary, June 2019 41 48K WIGGINS PASS VANDERBI LT BEACH PROJECT AREA —1.4K 'ELICAN BA BEACH PROJECT AREA FIGURE 6. VOLUME CHANGE AND FILL PLACEMENT 312019 TO 312020 XX K=VOLUME DREDGE AND PLACED NORTH OF THE PASS IN 2018 a +XX K=VOLUME CHANGE FROM DOCTORS PASS 312019 TO 312020 NAPLES BEACH PROJECT AREA I �. —14.5K 1 °' - " p -- CLAM PASS PROJECT AREA CLAM PASS = REGRADED 412020 l � NOTES: 1. APPROXIMATELY 130K CY OF TRUCK HAULED SAND WERE ; +51 K PLACED FROM R-42 TO ° T-54+400 IN LATE 2019. DARK SHOR 2• WIGGINS PASS PLACEMENT VOLUME OF 48K BASED ON * :: BEACH 21.4K DREDGED FROM WIGGIN PROJECT PASS AND 26.6K FROM WATER AREA TURKEY BAY. (CONTINUED HUMISTCHN TO R-55) & MOORE all „= ENGINEER ` CQA5TAL _ f ENGINEEWNG OES,GN AND PERMITTING Appendix A Monitoring Plan — August 2017 Attachment No. 37-1 Physical Monitoring Plan August 2017 Physical monitoring of the Collier County Beach Renourishment Project requires the acquisition of project -specific data to include, at a minimum, topographic/bathymetric surveys of the beach, offshore, and borrow site areas. The monitoring data is necessary in order for both the project sponsor(s) and the Department to regularly observe and assess, with quantitative measurements, the performance of the project, any adverse effects which have occurred (e.g. to adjacent shorelines), and the need for any adjustments, modifications, or mitigative response to the project. The scientific monitoring process also provides the project sponsor(s) and the Department, information necessary to plan, design, and optimize subsequent follow-up projects; potentially reducing the need for and costs of unnecessary work, as well as potentially reducing any environmental impacts that may have occurred or be expected. This plan is a detailed Monitoring Plan required by FDEP (Permit No. 0331817-004-JM). Dredging of Doctors Pass is anticipated to occur every 4 years. Specific requirements are as follows: a. Pre -construction topographic and bathymetric profile surveys of the beach and offshore shall be conducted within 90 days prior to commencement of construction. Surveys conducted for purposes of construction bidding and contracting may be used to provide pre -construction conditions. When only a partial project is constructed, pre -construction surveys can be limited to the construction area plus 5,000 feet north and south or to the edge of the nearest inlet. Post -construction topographic and bathymetric profile surveys of the beach and offshore shall be conducted within 60 days following completion of construction of the project. Surveys conducted for purposes of construction contracting and payment may be used to provide immediate post -construction conditions. When only a partial project is constructed, post -construction surveys can be limited to the construction area plus 5,000 feet north and south or to the edge of the nearest inlet. Thereafter, topographic and bathymetric monitoring surveys shall be conducted biennially until the next beach nourishment event or the expiration of the project design life, whichever occurs first. The monitoring surveys shall be conducted during a winter or spring month and repeated as close as practicable during that same month of the year. If the time period between the immediate post -construction survey and the first annual monitoring survey is less than six months, then Collier County may request a postponement of the first monitoring survey until the following winter or spring. If the monitoring survey falls within 6 months of construction, it may substitute for the pre - construction survey. In the event that a post -storm survey of the project monitoring area is conducted, this post -storm survey may serve as a biennial monitoring survey. The monitoring area shall include profile surveys at each of the Department of Environmental Protection's reference monuments within the bounds of the beach fill area and along up to 5,000 feet on the adjacent shoreline on both sides of the beach fill area. For this project, this will include DEP reference monuments in Collier County from R-17 to R-84 inclusive. An intermediate profile is established south of Doctors Pass, and labeled R-58A. FDEP profile lines R-58A, R-58, R-59, R-60, R-60+518, R-61, R-61+408, R-61+816, and R-62 shall be surveyed within 90 days prior to commencement of a Doctors Pass dredging operation and within 60 days following the completion of a dredging operation. Only the profiles associated with the disposal area used and one profile to the south needs to be surveyed. These profiles shall be integrated with annual monitoring where practical. Additional lines are to be surveyed within 90 days prior to commencement of a renourishment project in the Park Shore extension area (near Clam Pass between R-42 to R-43+500) and within 60 days following the completion of placement. Bathymetric and topographic surveys in the vicinity of Clam Pass in support of nourishment of the extended Park Shore placement area (near Clam Pass) will take place in Segments A and B at approximately 100 foot intervals and at intermediate points between existing R- monuments. Special survey lines shall be surveyed in the vicinity of Clam Pass Park to document the potential impact to inlet stability by beach nourishment in the extended Park Shore reach, inlet dredging disposal within the south Clam Pass disposal area, or natural forces. Additional beach profile surveys will be taken at R-41+470, R-42-250 and R-42+500. The cross sections in Segment A (inlet throat) include station 0+00, 1+00, 2+00 and 3+00. Segment B consists of Stations 4+10, 5+10 and 6+10. These segments should be the first to show instability in the inlet due to various causes. The survey will occur pre- and post -construction and 1-year and 2- year post construction of the Nourishment Project in Clam Pass Park north of R-44+500, or until the next maintenance dredging of Clam Pass, whichever occurs first. Profile surveys shall extend landward to the seawalls or 50 feet landward of the 5.0' contour line. Profile surveys will extend seaward to the —14.3' NAVD contour or 2,000 feet from the shoreline, whichever is the greater distance. All work activities and deliverables shall be conducted in accordance with the Department's May 2014 Monitoring Standards for Beach Erosion Control Projects, Sections 01000 - Beach Profile Topographic Surveying and 01100 - Offshore Profile Surveying. b. Bathymetric surveys of borrow area T 1 are not required. Borrow Area T 1 is located approximately thirty-three (33) miles to the northwest and offshore of the placement area, outside of State waters, and is not covered under the State permit requirements. No post -construction survey of Borrow Area T1 is planned, other than the survey performed by the dredger using a registered Florida surveyor. C. Bathymetric surveys of Doctors Pass are required pre- and post -construction as well as annually for monitoring purposes. A pre -construction bathymetric profile survey of Doctors Pass and Moorings Bay shall be conducted within 90 days prior to 2 commencement of a dredging operation. A post -construction bathymetric profile survey shall be conducted within 60 days following the completion of a dredging operation. If the Contractor's pay survey of the inlet meets the requirements of post -construction survey as stated below, Contractor's pay survey(s) will be submitted as the post -dredge survey. These surveys can be integrated with annual monitoring where required. Between dredging operations, monitoring surveys shall be conducted biennially until the permit expires. The monitoring surveys shall be conducted during the same month that the previous post -construction survey was taken. The monitoring area shall include channel profile surveys at the lines appearing in Figure 1 and on Tables 1-5. As a minimum, profile surveys shall extend to the limits indicated in Figure 1 and on Tables 1- 5. All work activities and deliverables shall be conducted in accordance with the Department's May 2014 Monitoring Standards for Beach Erosion Control Projects, Sections 01000 — Beach Profile Topographic Surveying and 01100 — Offshore Profile Surveying. d. The Permittee shall submit electronically an engineering report and the monitoring data to the Division of Water Resource Management within 90 days following completion of the post -construction survey or biennial monitoring survey. The survey data and control information shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Department's paperless initiative, in an ASCII format stored as specified in the Department's May 2014 Monitoring Standards for Beach Erosion Control Projects, Sections 01000 - Beach Profile Topographic Surveying and 01100 - Offshore Profile Surveying. The report will summarize and discuss the data, the performance of the beach fill project, and identify erosion and accretion patterns within the monitored area. Results should be analyzed for patterns, trends, or changes between surveys and cumulatively since project construction. In addition, the report shall include a comparative review of project performance to performance expectations and identification of adverse impacts attributable to the project. The report shall specifically include: • The record of volume and location of beach nourishment and beach placement of inlet sand bypassing material. • The volume and percentage of advance nourishment lost since the last beach nourishment project as measured landward of the MHW line of the most recent survey; • The most recent MHW shoreline positions (feet) in comparison with the design beach width at each individual monument location; • The MHW shoreline position changes (feet) relative to the pre -construction survey at each individual monument location for all the monitoring periods; • The total measured remaining volume (cy) in comparison with the total predicted remaining volume (cy) above the MHW line and above the Depth of Closure for the entire project area over the successive monitoring periods; and, • Other shoreline position and volumetric analysis the Permittee or engineer deem useful in assessing, with quantitative measurements, the performance of the project. 3 The report shall include computations, tables and graphic illustrations of volumetric and shoreline position changes for the monitoring area. An appendix shall include superimposed plots of the two most recent beach profile surveys, the design profile and pre- and post -construction beach profile at each individual monument location. The approved Monitoring Plan can be revised at any later time by written request of Collier County and with the written approval of the Department. If the project is constructed in separable reaches or if one or more reach is eliminated, the monitoring limits shall be modified, accordingly. When evaluating the performance of beach renourishment in the extended Park Shore Placement Area (near Clam Pass) the following should be taken into consideration: The purpose of nourishment in Clam Pass Park is to restore erosion losses since 1999 by maintaining a beach width from the baseline of 80 feet, while the purpose of Clam Pass dredging is to restore the alignment of Clam Pass to the previously approved location and to conduct periodic maintenance dredging of a portion of the Clam Pass Channel in order to maintain tidal exchange between Clam Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. A number of parameters are provided in the NRPA Management Plan (2014) for consideration for determining whether to consider maintenance dredging. These include tidal range data, cross sectional areas in Sections A, B and C of the inlet and flood shoal, volume of shoaled material, inlet length and ebb shoal location. The amount of sand to be dredged during each maintenance dredge event will be based on a pre -construction survey conducted prior to each maintenance event. The inlet throat (Segment A) will be graded as necessary to shape the inlet so that it closely mimics the natural inlet cross section at stable inlet conditions. The beach -compatible sand will be placed north of the Pass, along Pelican Bay Beach, and south of the Pass, along Clam Pass Park Beaches. Analysis of post -nourishment physical monitoring data will evaluate shoaling rates within the Clam Pass dredging template including Sections A, B and C. The shoaling rates and inlet stability parameters will be compared to critical conditions as identified in the Clam Pass NRPA Management Plan. f. Monitoring reports and data will be submitted to the FDEP, Division of Water Resources Management, JCP Compliance Officer, in Tallahassee. The report and individual submittals will be labeled at the top of each page: "This monitoring information is submitted in accordance the approved Monitoring Plan for Permit No. [XXXXX-XXX-JC] for the monitoring period [XX]." A9 Physical Monitoring Summary Monitoring Task Pre- Post- 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Project Project Year Year Year Year Beach Profile Surveys1,2 X X4 X X R-17 to R-84 Bathymetric Surveys Borrow Area T1 X Bathymetric Surveys Doctors Pass X X Bathymetric Surveys 5 Clam Pass X X X X Monitoring Report X X X 'Surveys from R-17 to R-21 may be conducted as part of the Wiggins Pass Maintenance Dredging Project during years when surveys are required by both projects. 2Intermediate profile R-58A included. BBorrow Area T1 resides in Federal Waters, and the County requires the Contractor to conduct a post - construction survey by a Florida registered surveyor. 4When only a partial project is constructed, pre- and post -construction surveys can be limited to the construction area plus 5,000 feet north and south or to the edge of the nearest inlet. 5Clam Pass is surveyed when sand is placed by nourishment activities north of R-44+500 Reference Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (BBCS), Monitoring Standards for Beach Erosion Control Projects, May 2014. Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., 2014. Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan, Version 6.5, November 2014. P:\Collier\152588 Collier 15 Year Permit\FDEP\RAI No. 1_021215\Attachment No. 37-1 -Physical Monitoring Plan March 2015.doc 5 Appendix B 2019 Park Shore Nourishment Completion and Certification COASTAL PROTECTIaN E0SINEERING February 26, 2020 JCP Compliance Officer Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Resource Management 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 3544 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 COASTAL PROTECTION ENGINEERING 5301 N. FEDERAL Hwy, SUITE 335 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 561-565-5100 Re: Completion and Certification Statement for Collier County 2019 Renourishments: Clam Pass Park, North Park Shore and Park Shore - FDEP Permit No. 0331817-004-JM, FDEP Permit No. 0296087- 007-JN, SAJ-2003-12405 (SP-MMB) and SAJ-1996-02789-(MOD-RMT) Dear JCP Compliance: This letter is being provided in compliance with General Condition No. 11 of the subject FDEP permits. An email notification of substantial completion was sent in December 2019, and this letter is a statement of final project completion and certification for sand placement as described in the permits. This statement is based upon approximately weekly site visits by the engineer, construction observations by Collier County (County) inspectors, Contractor's construction reports, and Contractor's surveys. All locations and elevations specified by the permits have been verified. The activities authorized by the permits have been performed in compliance with the specifications approved as part of the permit and the revised, signed and sealed construction plans provided in Attachment A. The distribution of fill was modified during construction to address changes in the beach that occurred since the pre -construction survey (March 2019), to incorporate the expanded Clam Pass Park disposal area (USACE Permit SAJ- 1996-02789-(MOD-RMT) received October 2019), and as approved by the County. As -built signed and sealed survey drawings are provided as Attachment B. The fill was placed within the permitted template except at a few locations on the beach where it protruded outside of the +% ft. construction tolerance such as near the intercept of the upper and lower berms, or the submerged portion of the construction profile. These features led to scattered points that exceed the permitted template during construction however, the majority of the constructed beach is within permitted limits and no significant impacts to the project area were observed. Collier County contracted Earth Tech Enterprises (Earth Tech) to perform the 2019 Renourishments of Clam Pass Park, North Park Shore, and Park Shore via truck hauling methods with sand purchased by the County from Stewart's Immokalee Mine. The project commenced on October 16, 2019 and demobilization was completed by December 19, 2019. Post -construction tilling is planned to be conducted by the County prior to the 2020 turtle nesting season. 41 COASTAL PROTECTION ENGINEERING CIAarAI PIIIEITIIN Page 12 EAIINFElIIII Hauling and grading activities were conducted during daylight hours, seven days per week with the exclusion of a few weekend days and four days for Thanksgiving. All sea turtle nests within the project area had hatched prior to placement of sand. Turbidity monitoring occurred three times per day during daylight hours when sand was being placed below mean high water and were submitted to JCP Compliance on October 21, October 28, November 5, November 19, and November 26, 2019. The contract value of 165,000 tons (110,000 cy assuming a 1.5 tons/cy conversion factor) was paid to the Contractor based on County acceptance of fill placement by truck weight tickets, surveys and visual observations. Table 1 presents the project tonnage by reach. Pre -placement and post -placement surveys on 100-ft stations measured approximately 132,000 cy of volume change within the project area between October and December due to sand placement activities, sand movement by natural processes, and bulking of sand due to truck hauling placement methods. Table 1. Project Tonnage Summary Project Reach Clam Pass Park Reach Extents R-42 to R-43+500 Tonnage 25,000 North Park Shore R-43+500 to R-48+500 85,000 Park Shore R-48+500 to T-54+400 55,000 2019 Renourishment Area R-42 to R-54+400 165,000 Post -construction sediment samples were collected by Collier County at each R-monument within the project area (R-42 to R-54). Sieve analysis and carbonate content testing were performed by Ardaman & Associates, Inc. and the results are provided in Attachment 3 and summarized in Table 2. The post - construction sample at R-42 exceeded the target mean grain size and shell content. The northern project taper is R-42 and did not receive direct sand placement from the project. Visual observations confirmed that the post -construction sample at R-42 was comprised of material likely placed by natural methods rather than the truck haul placement activities due to its high shell content and proximity to Clam Pass inlet. The post -construction sample at R-50 was measured to be slightly below the target mean grain size. The average mean grain size of these samples is 0.37mm and falls within the compliance specification range. �.41ST1 RamacsaM Faalatt.uc Table 2. Post -Construction Sediment Testing Results Summary COASTAL PROTECTION ENGINEERING Page 13 Sample ID Ivicala vi all Size (mm) -.)Uf [Ing Value (phi) wit Lontent (% Shell Content 00 Munsell Color Value Compliance p Values? 1 1 • 1 1 ' ' / Yes Yes • � 1 • 1 • ■ 1 1 No 1 � � •1 1 0.37 If you have any questions, please contact Collier County or me Sincerely, Tara Brenner, PG, PE Senior Coastal Engineer .a Coastal Protection Engineering LLC Owl D STATE Of ►► • Mobile: 631-896-9137 sj► ..... A 1D•�¢�*`�►� tbrenner co astaIprotectionenl com �s 11 11#1 is%%�t��* cc: Gary McAipin, Collier County Clint Perryman, Collier County Chris ❑'Arco, Collier County Bryan King, Collier County Andy Miller, Collier County Stephen Keehn, APTIM Holly BerckenhofF, APTIM Attachment A Revised Construction Plans DELNOR-WIGGINS STATE PARK GULF OF MEXICO r NOTE: ^� FILL wIM49 A.RL Nm TC 2019 PARK SHORE RENOU RISH M ENTS CONSTRUCTION PLANS mI COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DONNA FIALA ANDY SOUS, ESQ. BURT L. SAUNDERS PENNY TAYLOR WILLIAM L. McOANIEL JR. SHEETINDEX 1 COVER SHEET 2 CONTROL DATA SHEET 3-8 FILL PLACEMENT PLAN VIEWS 9-12 FILL CROSS SECTIONS _Sig�GOUHty GENERAL NOTES: 1. COORDINATES ARE TN FEET BASED ON FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, EAST ZONE, NORTH AMER iCAN DATUM 1963, (NAD83). 2. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1908 (NAVD88). 3. DATE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY: 2017. 4. 2009 HARDSOTTOM DELINEATED BY SIDESCAN SONAR. 5. 2013, 20iR AND 2019 HARDBOTTOM EDGE DIVER DELINEATED. 6. THE ECL WAS BASED ON A 1995, 2004 AND 2019 SURVEYS. 7. THE CROSS-SECTTONS REPRESENT THE REFINED DESIGN FOR PLACEMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 109.5111 CUBIC YARDS WITHIN THE CLAM PASS AND PARK SHORE TEMPLATES PERMITTED BY FT1£P PERMIT NOS. 0296087-097-IN AND 0331517-004•IM AND USACE PERMIT NOS. SAI-1996.02789 (MOD-RMT) AND SAI-2003-12405. 8. MHW BASED ON MARCH 2O19 SURVEY, 9. APPROVED TRUCK ROUTES ARE PROVIDED VNTHIN THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 10. REFINED DESIGN AND FILL PLACEMENT EXTENTS BASED UPON PRE -PLACEMENT SURVEY CONDITION (OCTOBER 2019) LEGEND g o €; u R-44 FDEP MONUMENT AND 10 E ._ ...... FROSIQN CONTROL LINE e — — — — — — — — MARCH 7019 MEAN HIGH WATER LINE ' PROJECT BASeLINE +' �HEiV —1,00 BASELINE STATIONING ,4►��j� 4��EN3� �' ='R ��a FILL PLACEMENT AREA NO- 'o = PUBLIC ACCESSOF CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AUGUST 2009 SIDE SCAN SONAR • F �� J HARDBOITO{H /••SS' AL •�/II 2013 DIVER DELINEATED HARDSOTTOM 1�� • 2016 DIVER DELINEATED HARDBOTTOM (CIA OCEAN SCIENCE, 1NC.) CERTIF!{ATLON: I CERTIFY THAT Tit ESL PLINF ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH TIIE AMLICASLE SOCTIMS OF 621e-4J. F.A C UMWING NO 2019 NEARsHORE HAROSOTTOM �Q - C-1 (CSA OCEAN SCIENCE, INC.)- MPS Nv.r.-N'. ADSr 007E ? "� E�y ii o J J Of C d d C 01 C W d O `o 6o No� LL� �a I Ea a r a a a [F pm 5^ 9� i m c� o w65 o �.'o NGW z D 8 a 8 u n NOTES:" 1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ALL CONTROL. 2. R-MON NOT TO BE USED FOR SURVEY CONTROL, PROFILE STATIONING ONLY. 3. REFERENCE POINTS PUBLISHED FROM FEP IN NAD83190 PER FDEP. 4. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, EAST PfEp!lYy�ERICAN DATUM 1983. (NAD83). j� M FEET REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 ""JJ» CATIONS FOR PRE -PLACEMENT AND POST -PLACEMENT SURVEY IREM�. •• O• = •• - I CERTIFY THAT THESE AWJS ARE IN [pNP1,IANCF YII'fH * •r ` 1:CERTIF ATHAT y ��A��,�+; HS APP E N5 OF 628.41, F,A. C• �Ir _•''_• a a�-ate 41 f ••r rAK 0 tEWNE4 P,E. NO. i2JUS DAU uxaw�ac no. SHEEP ; OF 1$ PROJECT BASELINE COORDINATES STATION ID NORTHING FASTING AZ R-42: 0+00 685731 386124.J7 265 R-42: 1+00 685623.03 388132.31 265 R-42: 2+00 685523.31 386134.83 265 R-42: 3+00 685423.59 386147.35 2fi5 R-42: 4+00 685323.88 386154.67 265 R-42: 5+00 685224.1E 388162.39 265 R-42: 6+00 685124.44 388169.91 265 R-42: 7+00 685024.73 386177.43 2fi5 R-42: 8+00 fi84925.01 388184.95 2fi5 R-42: 9+00 684825.29 386192.47 265 R-42: 10+00 684737.5E 386199.09 265 R43: 0+00 684692.2E 386202.5 270 R-43: 1+OD 684592.88 388213.3 270 R-43 2+00 684493.47 388224.09 270 R-43: 3+00 684394.05 388234.89 270 R-43 4+00 684294.64 388245.68 270 R-43: 5+00 684195.22 388256.4E 270 R-43 6+00 684095.81 388267.27 270 R-43: 7+00 683996.39 388278.07 270 R-43 6+00 683896.98 388288.8E 27D R-43: 9+00 683797.5E 388299.6E 270 R-44: D+00 683701.4 388310.1 270 R-44: 1+00 _ 683601.e2 388319.2E 270 R-44: 2+00 683502.24 388328.42 270 R-44: 3+00 683402.66 388337.58 270 R-44: 4+00 683303.08 388346.74 270 R-44: 5+00 683203.5 388355.9 270 0.-44: 6+00 683103.92 388365.06 270 R-44: 7+00 6830Q4.34 388374.22 270 R-44: 8+00 682904.7E 388383.38 270 R-44: 9+00 682805.18 368392.54 270 R-44: 10+00 682705.E 3884D1.7 270 R-45: 0+00 662659.95 3884D5.9 270 R-45: 1+00 682560.05 388411.4 270 R-45: 2+00 682460.2 368416.9 270 R-45: 3+00 682360.35 388422.4 270 R-45: 4+00 662260.51 388427.9 270 R-45: 5+00 682160.66 388433.4 270 R-45: 6+00 682060.81 388438.91 270 R-45: 7+DO 681960.9E 388444.41 27D R-45: 8+00 6818fi 1.19 388449.9 27D R-45: 4+00 681761.2E 388455.41 27D R-45: 10+00 661661.41 388460.91 27D R-45:11+00 681561.5E 388466.41 270 R-46: 0+00 681554.5 388466.8 270 R-46: 1+00 681454.65 388472.24 270 R-46: 2+00 681354.E 388477.67 270 R-46: 3+00 681254.94 368483.11 270 R-46: 4+00 681155.09 368488.55 270 R-46: 5+00 683055.24 368493.4E 270 R-46: 6+00 680955.39 388499.42 270 R-46: 7+00 680855.54 388504.8E 270 R-46: 8+00 680755.68 388510.29 270 R-46: 9+00 680655.83 388515.73 270 R-47: 0+00 680581.1 388519.8 270 R-47: 1+00 680481.11 388521.17 270 R-47: 2+00 680381.12 368522.54 270 R-47: 3+00 680281.13 388523.92 270 R-47: 4+00 680181.14 388525.29 270 R-47: 5+00 660081.15 388526.6E 27D R-47: 6t00 679983.16 388528.03 27D R-47: 7+D0 679661.17 386529.4 27D PROJECT BASELINE COORDINATES STATION ID NORTHING FASTING AZ R-47: 8+00 fi79781.18 388530.77 270 R-47: 9+00 679681.18 388532.15 270 R-48: D+00 679646.1 368532.E 270 R-48: 5+00 679548.11 388534.07 Z70 R-48: 2+00 fi7944B.12 366535.54 270 R-48: 3+00 679348.13 388537.01 270 R-a8: 4+00 679246.14 366538.48 270 R-48: 5+00 fi74146.i5 388539.95 270 R-48: 6+00 679048.1E 366541.43 270 R-48: 7+00 678948.18 386542.9 270 R-46: 8+00 678848.19 366544.37 270 R-46: 9+00 678748.2 388545.84 270 R-48: 10+00 678648.21 386547.31 27D R-49: 0+00 678560.95 388548.3 270 R-49: 1+00 678400.99 388552.5 270 R-49: 2+00 _ 678381.08 388556.64 270 R-49: 3+00 678281.1E 388560.84 270 R-49: 4+00 678181.25 386565.04 270 R-49: 5+00 678081.34 388569.28 270 R-49: 6+00 677981.43 388573.48 270 R-44: 7+DO 677881.52 388577.fi7 270 R-49: 8+00 677781.E 388581.87 270 R-49: 9+00 677681.69 388586.07 270 R-49: 10+00 677581.78 388590.2E 270 T-50: 0+60 677495.21 388593.9 270 T-50: 1+00 677395.43 388600.69 270 T-50: 2+00 677295.6E 388607.48 270 T-50: 3+00 677195.89 388614.2E 270 T-50: 4+00 677096.12 388621.05 270 F-50: 5+00 676996.35 386627.84 270 T-SD: 6+DD 676896.58 388634.63 270 T-50: 7+DO 676796.81 388641.42 270 T-50: 8+00 676697.05 386648.21 270 T-50: 9+00 676597.28 388654.49 270 T-50: 10+00 676497.51 388661.7E 270 T-50: 11+00 676397.74 388668.57 270 T-50: 12+00 676297.47 388675.3E 270 T-50: 13+00 676198.2 3886B2.15 270 R-51: 0+00 676169.5 388fi84.1 270 R-51: 1+00 676069.61 388692.03 270 R-51: 2+00 675970.13 386699.9E 270 R-51: 3+00 675870.44 368707.64 270 R-SI: 4+00 675770.7E 388715.81 270 R-51: 5+00 675671.07 386723.74 270 R-51: 6t00 675571.39 386731.67 270 R-51: 7+00 675471.7 388739.E 270 R-51: B+00 675372.02 388747.53 270 R-52: 0+00 675291.95 388754.1 270 R-52: 1+00 675192.33 388763.12 270 R-52: 2+OD 675092.75 388772.35 270 R•52: 3+00 674993.18 388781.57 270 R-52: 4+00 674693.E 388790.79 270 R-52: 5+00 674794.03 388800.01 270 R-52: 6+00 674694.4E 388809.2a z70 R-52: 7+00 674594.88 3B8818.46 270 R-52: 8+00 674495.31 388827.6E 270 R-52: 9+00 674395.74 388836.91 270 R-52: 10+00 674296.Sfi 388846.13 270 R-53: 0+DO 674247.67 366650.E 270 R-53: 1+00 674148.2 368856.31 270 R-53: Z+00 674048.5 388666.02 27D R-53: 3+00 673948.79 366873.74 270 PROJECT BASELINE COORDINATES STATION ID NORTHING FASTING AZ R-53: 4+DO 673849.D9 388881.45 270 R-53: 5+00 673749.39 386889.1E 270 R-53: 6+DO 673649.64 388896.87 270 R-53: 7+00 673549.9E 388904.58 270 R-53: 8+00 673450.28 388912.29 270 R-53: 9+OD 673350.5E 368920.01 270 R-53: 10+00 673250.6E 388427.72 270 T-54: 0+00 673177.4 388433.4 270 7-54: 1+00 673077.44 388936.3E 27D T-54: 2+00 672977.49 388939.3E 270 T-54: 3+00 672877.53 388942.34 270 T-54: 4+00 672777.58 386445.32 270 T-54: 5+00 672677.62 388948.3 270 T-54: 6+00 672577.67 38B951.28 270 T-54: 7+00 672477.71 388954.2E 270 T-54: 8+00 672377.7E 388957.24 270 T-54: 9+DO 672277.E 388960.23 270 T-54: 10+00 672177.84 388963.21 270 U-55: 0+00 67213J.1 388974.E 270 RANGE MONUMENT COORDINATES MON ID M. DATE NORTHING FASTING AZ M. ELEV. R-42 JAN1988 685731.00 388209.40 265.0 4.23 R-43 1AN1973 684692.30 388248.60 270.0 4.84 R-44 1AN1973 6B3701.50 388359.10 270.0 fi.74 R-45 JAN1973 682660.00 388478.90 270.0 3.84 R-46 JAN1988 681554.50 388538.80 270.0 11.81 R-47 JAN1988 680581.00 388663.80 270.0 11.90 R-48 1AN1988 679648.10 388568.50 270.0 11.8E R-49 JAN1988 678681.00 388583.30 270.0 11.9E T-SD 1UN1978 677495.20 388612.90 270.0 S.fi4 R-51 JAN1973 676169.60 388714.10 Z70.0 4.9E R-52 IAN1973 675291.90 388834.00 270.0 fi.72 R-53 IAN1973 674247.90 388929.60 270.0 5.82 T-64 JUN1978 673177.40 388951.40 270.0 7.9E U-66 APfl1979 672131.10 388974.60 270.0 7.13 SURVEY CONTROL (NAD 83/90, NAVD88) STAMPING NORTHING FASTING ELEVATION GPS-9113 705508.22 386344.57 21.14 R•52 COLL CO 73 675293.87 388836.9 5.61 5110 C 1978 654861.5 393616.0 4.85 'e','i's'.��, • , ..y' r }. N. `_e'.;q /.: {•-�. '. �. �. 1' ! a -+ti at : r 7L. - 4 "}r{�•�-.��, f ,}:.'! }�r.Y`�L•t.';•4 Y'J"1. z.7 — �•,`��,,a , i, ..�{ .y.Yi�' OUTERIt �• � "�r", ��.• CLAM ' f' F. • r �'�� 5, s a + �f• .,'�~' .z..�.'�[ f1'�_ i, jai,'' _may_ iiik' i^^^jjj 1 'I +: .% ��r�r-sii.�i.� BAY _ + L. `ST t1 d r '`. ; vn ��•� ;vr,F,�l..1 ,�, t•.•�:t- �• , f.. ,a 1, +� COUN'h' PARK • �r 'ram^• 'r i C 01 �, F•� W Cc „�• ��'1'►�!j''t j �' '10, n IL $ _I �• JCLAM PASS3=800o O tom} O 1p f- I.I I 1 �� . � ��i * _ •z 2� LLl r� WEB sTArE of GULF i�,p• *.` OF o1D0' O, • �` �'" � MEXICO ��o R 1 r GRAPHIC SCALE ,'•� ti j�R„t�`��y s CERTIFICATION; I CERTIFY THAT THESE PLANS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH DRAWING NO. NE APHE AP BLE S OF 62B-41, FOF 62B-41, F.A,C, w a-aoa� Pv-1 TARA BRENN ER G.E. ND. 82305 DATE EMEEi 3 OF IZ r. - •ti`�, OUTER CLAM BAY LANDWARD LIMIT OF FILL 1 5q Ai •. �,�� LEAn?jpA55 COUNTS PARK \ i � \ - _ 1 ' r f-. -1 NAPLES CAY W OoW o o o a o �'-- 2 L 1 2019 ECL 2019 MHW 2004 ECL. p� V GULF OF MEXICO wt� m d za o a u. Y p� LL� U 2Q 1 0 3 V nm P© ROCK GROIN UPPER BERM CREST SEAWARD TOE OF UPPER BE RMy� II IM y LOWER BERM CREST Iw z CONSTRUCTION TOE OF FILL 5 1 I 1 1 E end -I �n Y t,+s".,o�ssusi+lrsi�b� �`, *-�4 E�a•S Icy. � og NO 62Sp3 •• *' •Yf: �s zCz w �N� ��: i • wUo z one %f�/6IWALi%� fi GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT CERTIFICATION: I CERTIFYTHAT THESE PLANS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH oPAwlrva rvo. THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF 62B-41, F.A.C. 1190 pA}[ PV-2 SHEET a OF 1E TARA BRENNER P AV NAPLES C:AP i � 5 �. •y � I y I f �SEgG4f !�- bR II I u rtR-45 Oo � i J I P2 ROCK GROIN OROCK GROIN yel R - V. NORTH GULF i7^j -CON V EYOR WONT$ 1 '• r ��.. + R-a5 g o a PARK,SH- - / 1 - LANARZTT OF FILL 1}, A UPPER BERM CREST { I SEAWARD TOE OF UPPER BERM 2004 ECL 1 2019 MHW LOWER BERM CREST. v Ia CONSTRUCTION TOE OF FILL Iz r J J I e C GULF No esaoa f :ti • T o � �_�� GUL.s*�d3 zw AO OF ' �N� -zi' R yr MEXICO S 9 sTAT9 OF 11,57 W 8 s l 0 100 200 QA19 Gt-;' Q� GRAPHIC ��' CERTIFICATION: 1 I CERTIFY THAT THESE PLANS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH DRAWING NU- zl iii THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF 62B-41, F.A.C. a a�l-ao PV-3 TARA BRENNER G.E. 0. B2305 DATE SHEET 5 OF L2 .; VIA j` 4 -a-; / PARK SHOAm 0F � � I 20D4 ECL UPPER BERM CREST gal 2019 MHW SEAWARD TOE OF UPPER BERM QI LOWER BERM CREST fl -y` CONSTRUCTION TOE OF FILL S o � a I 6 E 3B)Spp L' I I I GULF OF i BII MEXICO 81 1995 ECL 1 Iz Iu If I I � �1 ti*Ifllf f+�. 4 fyo j lip $2305 r rcN t= i I o�g 3 zoo STATE OF n 100 2 p�� 4NAL GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT =1041011111� CERI�yFICATION: 7 CERTIFY THAT THESE PLANS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH DRAWING NO, F E APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF 62B-41, F.A.C. A.. a a1 o DATF PV-4 SHEET 6 Of i'. TARA fiF.A P-F-M I`'• �/a/J%�j r $ '~r'— r r� '; AFiIFS}ICYRf ;, { #�� 'N Tla. j�6 ''I p° I LANDWARD LIMIT OF FILL f, ■y 1995 ' � ■, - �w� a UPPER BERM CREST �L� 2819 MMW CONSTRUCTION TOE OF FILL SEAWARD TOE OF TIPPER BERM LOWER BERM CREST o r� r - I 4tit F 1 � J 'l � GULF OF MEXICO J J Ts t 1 IM sun at i*= �60 �N klE srAr CW jr w u, o o 100 2Go r� tAF 'S; �►, � q4 °Nw a o ��+�till GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT CERTIFICATION: I CERTIFY THAT THESE PLANS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH RAWING NO. THE APPLICABLE SETrOry$OF 62B-41, F.A.C. �- TARA 6RENNER P.E. NQ. B230S DATF12 1E 30 i .5 -10 VERTICAL SCALE IN FT E 0 110002200 { HORI20NTAL�SCALE EIIN FT PROFILE R-42 -------- PRE -PLACEMENT OCT 2019 CONSTRUCTION ` TEMPLATE \ MEAN 111GH WATER EL.= 0.33 FT-NAVO - --'- MEM 101V wAI EA EEf— -1-07 rf. NjlVp I -100 0 100 200 30D 400 500 600 700 OOP 900 DISTANCE FROM MONUMENT (FEET) 0 PRO LE R-11 --------- CONSTRUCTI NT OCF 2019 � CONSTRUCRON o TEMPLATE 5:1 SLOPE 5:1 SLOPE EL. = 6.5 FT. . EL. = �1 I MEAN HIGTI WATER EL= 0.33 FT. NAVD \ : : MEANLOWWATEREL--1.66R. NAVD 1 W -100 0 200 200 300 400 500 600 700 600 900 DISTANCE FROM MONUMENT (FEET) J J PROFILE R-44 --------- PRE -PLACEMENT OCT 2019 CON ON �[ TEMPLATE s u I • EL. = 5.0 Ff. 4 T _MEAN IOGN WATER EL._0.33 FT. NAVD \1 "rT�w Inw w� E� - -�;es Fri rwva �k - .- a` I 100 0 100 200 3D0 400 500 600 70D AAA an DISTANCE FROM MONUMENT (FEET) PROFILE R-41 -------- PRE -PLACEMENT OCT 2019 o CONSTRUCFION 0 o + TEMPLATE i \ � 5:1 SLOPE S : EL. = S.D'FT. ♦I EL. =3.0 FT. \ 30 L �1 :MEAN HIGH WATER K.= 0.33 FT. kAW — — — — — �'— — — — — — \• — ;MEAN LOW: WATER EL'= -j.Ai FF:NAVD n 1`t` f ��'+♦ 0 .. .. n ti i 0 M me same i ~*�• i*- fNaO 5 z. -20D 0 100 200 3DO 400 500 600 700 800 900 i � � 2 LL ar�T DISTANCE FROM MONUMENT (FEET) NOTE: R-43 AND R-44 PERMITTED DISPOSAL AREA OF FDEP PERMT NO. 0296087-007-IN AND USACE PERMIT NO. SAI-1996-02789 (MOD-RMT). R-45 TO U-55 PERMITTED UNDER FDEP PERMIT NO. 0331817-004-IM AND USACE PERMIT NO. SAI-2003-12405. ►A/Ti S� v + "E� 11414 IS 1110 CERTIFICATION: I CERTIFY THAT THESE PLANS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH NIMWpN TMEAPPLICABLE ON$ OF 62B-41. F.A.C. a c%1-C�ci x5-1 T BRENNCP P.' NO. 82305 DATE ISHEET 9 OF 12 15 10 15 10 -5 -10 s 1'4 VERTICALFT 100 2 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FT PROFILE R-46 -------� PRE -PLACEMENT OCT 2019 CONSTRUCT' ON s� TEMPLATE TEMPLATE 11aa ¢ M z 1Ij 5;1 SLOPE 1 EE. '= 4:3 FT 10 �1 MEAN KIG" WATER EL,_= 0.33 IT, NAVD ----- -------:MEMI ' LR1V'WAT£k Ei.--S.fi9 R. NAYO I I inn n inn onn ��n a�� tno uoo -,00 ono a� DISTANCE FROM MONUMENT (FEET) PROFILE R-47 --------- PRE -PLACEMENT DCT 2019 CONSTRUCTION TEMPLATE 1� 5:1 SLOPE 1L EL. = 3.0 IT. 10 1 71 MEAN HIGH WATER IL u MEAN IW1Vl�TFAI EEL.-1- 66FT 'NAVD I -Ioo o 100 zoo 300 4o0 soo Eno Inn ann 9ni PROFILE R-41 --------- PRE -PLACEMENT OCT 21119 CONSTRUCTION TEMPLATE M1L s:1 SLOPE EL: = 4.3 FP. ' �L EL. ='3.0 FT. I MEAN MGM WATER EL.- 0.33 FT. NAVO ___________________�_- 1 l: MEAN wWv ATNSEL.--1.68 FT, XAVU I loo n mn >nn ann ann sno enn Inn AeeQr DISTANCE FROM MONUMENT (FEET) PROFILE R-49 PRE -PLACEMENT OCT 2019 CONSTRUCTION ... - TEMPLATE I 1 5:1 SLOPE yy EL: = 4'.3 FF: M1 y EL. ='3.O IT. y 'MEAN HIGIi WATER EL = 0.33 FT., hAVh S -MEAN LOW'WATER $.,'_ -l.bB Fi. NAVD 4.,```otUP of lt��..,'fr 3 asp I I o 100 11 100 200 3oa 40o soo 60o 70o Boo 90o �� i za DISTANCE FROM MONUMENT (FEET) DISTANCE FROM MONUMENT (FEET) NOTE: R-43 AND R-44 PERMITTED DISPOSAL AREA OF FDEP PERMT NO. 0296087-007-IN AND USACE PERMIT NO. SA]-1996-02789 (MOD-RMT). R-45 TO U-55 PERMITTED UNDER FDEP PERMIT NO. 0331817-004-IM AND USAGE PERMIT NO. SA]-2003-12405. s �rr OFW0z in •��,�� OHO N u CERTIFICATION: I CERTIFY THAT THESE PUNS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH anwmc rvo THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF 6IIM-411 F,&r— a �r a� XS-2 TAAR 6"w4EA P I. Nf>- [L2m SHEE7 10 of 12 is 10 2 5 u 0 W s 40 5 10 VERTICAL SCALE IN FT fl Ioo 2 j HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FT PROFILE T-SO ---- ---- PRE -PLACEMENT OCT 2019 CONSTRUCTION TEMPLATE 5.1 SLOPE I EL. = 4.3 FT: EL. = 3.0 FT. 10 \ �1 MEAN MGM WATER liL = 0.33 FT-NAVD ---ten --- + MEAN LOW WATER EL, _ -1.68 FT. NAVD 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Ron 90a DISTANCE FROM MONUMENT (FEET) PROFILE R-51 PRE -PLACEMENT OCT 2019 L - CONSTRUCTION I TEMPLATE 1 5:1 SLOPE ' EL, 3,Q FT - \I l :MEAN HR9N WATER EL'= 0.33 FT_ TyRVC F — — — — —. — — :MEAN LOW WRTEl_EL -1.68 FT-:NAVD DISTANCE FROM MONUMENT (FEET) PROFILE R-52 --------- PRE -PLACEMENT OCT 2019 CONSTRUCTION .0 A n TEMPLATE A` 5:1 SLOPE 5 - EL = 4.3 FT: :EL. = 3.0 FT. � 10 :MEAN PiL WATER EL. = 0.33 FT. NAVD 0 — —_ _ — — ___ _""___�..--_—__ MEAN LOW: WATEREL. -1.66 Fi. NAVD 4 �y t 0 L9 5 -inn a Inn Inn Inn Inn Rnn In. Inn onn DISTANCE FROM MONUMENT (FEET) PROFILE R-53 PRE -PLACEMENT OCT 2019 _ CONSTRUCTION TEMPLATE 5:1 SLOPE :EL. =4:3 FT. - t : EL. = 3.0 FT. `\ 10 l :MEAN NIp WATER [L.= 0.33 FT-fMYD 1 ^ " :MEAN LOW:WATER EEL - -1.68 FT. NAVD io0 0 in0 ton inn onn cnn 6nn 700 800 90 DISTANCE FROM MONUMENT (FEET) NOTE: R-43 AND R-44 PERMITTED DISPOSAL AREA OF F➢EP PERMT NO. 0296087-007-IN AND USACE PERMIT NO. SAI-1996-02799 (MOD-RMT), R-45 TO U-55 PERMITTED UNDER FDEP PERMIT NO. 0331817-004-IM AND USACE PERMIT N0. SAJ-2003-12405. +�a.�!/fHgerilllrr�rr i j�a•4E. r� �h� J+ *[• �'* WU i o z rr !} � 0zw C n ATf ■TU Ir1 KC'�L N 0.18 /rr/prlF! a"o CERTIFICATION: I :F. RTIFY THAT THESE KANS ARE IN COMPLIANCE W fTM InAr6n m• THE APPLICACLE SECTIONS OF F•A.C. FARA RLNNER P•E. NO, R2305 QATE XS-3 SHEET a OF Q U .J .J 1s PROFILE T-54 � TAPER SECTION ------"- PRE -PLACEMENT OCr 2019 CONSTRUCTION V 10 TEMPLATE GI d C > z 'z 5:1 SLOPE C 2 5 i EL = 4.3 Fr. W C n w 5 10 Ow -- _-_------__ MEAN LIIf$1 _WATER_E1.=0.33 FT. IHYO ` M O Q---- w -------' ----� — — MEAN LOW WATER EL. _ -1.68 FT. NAVD O o W _5 d o O °m L; -15 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 200 BOo 9o. DISTANCE FROM MONUMENT (FEET) Q � � kk d e� 15 PROFILE U-55 r ]0 ---- ----PRE PLACEMENT OCT 2019 CONSTRUCTION TEMPLATE _ O a S l O 0 -------`----------------MEAN HIGH WATER EL:=0.33 Ff. NAVD — �- — —. — -- — —------------ 'MFJW III1YWAiER.EL. -ieS PT. NAvu 6� c w _s ti` E a`�`�Nlyl�iy�+f, -1D s No asses d t� _ i ego E 1 .15 --100,t d IUD zoo 300 400 500 690 700 goo 900 w'- !�•ti TAT! OF }� � 0 w 0 Z c } DISTANCE FROM MONUMENT (FEET) S ti O �� o ti o WN 0 On 7 wU i NOTE: I VERTICAL SCALE IN FT [ER FIGTiON: LwwARM1 RM1 {li9i R-43 AND R-44 PERMITTED DISPOSAL AREA OF FDEP PERMT NO. 0296087-007-IN AND I CER7'iFY 7HAi TMESE PLOS ARE III CQMALI7 u WITH 0 100 200 USACE PERMIT NO. SAI-1996-02789 MD-RMT). R-45 TO U-55 PERMITTED UNDER FDEP THE APPLICABLE SfG71ONS OF 621491. F.A.G PERMIT NO. 0331817-004-IM AND USACE PERMIT NO. SA3-2003-12405. ) �Q XS-4 { HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FF 1• - Tyµ tNHER P-E N - SnEET 12 OF 1x �m 0 I- z e -- -T _ I__. = HUM N' Q�v 1M0 :: tea" to 2 o0 �vm L V ¢' �jU 9 c 9 'w'R�;"r1� r J�� a /7�j+�" Pr��'•N4+f'y'ta '�� q•-F- !.�{L 3' 1,.F ±iL1aA �i� T -t r ``._� �, '�~F �. .r •� olixok r�_ LOCATION MAP & SURVEY LIMITS = 600, PROJECT CONTROL TABLE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 - FL EAST 0910 HIP OF MKOMp SURVEYORS NOTES 1) CHAPTER 61C17-6 OF THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE REQUIRES THAT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BE PLACED ON THIS DRAWING. "THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY" 2) THE TOPOGRAPHIC DATA WAS COLLECTED USING A TRIMBLE REAL-TIME KINEMATIC (RTK) GPS POSITIONING SYSTEM AND CONVENTIONAL METHODS. 3) HORIZONTAL COORDINATES IN DRAWINGS ARE REFERENCED TO THE FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, EAST ZONE (0901), NORTH AMERICAN DATUM, 1983 (NAD83), COORDINATES IN U.S SURVEY FEET, U.N.O. (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) 4) ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEET AND TENTHS AND REFER TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). ALL ELEVATIONS ARE ABOVE DATUM AND ARE CONSIDERED POSITIVE UNLESS PRECEEDED BY (-) SIGN. 5) PROJECT STATIONING, PROFILES AND BACKGROUND FILES PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 6) THE DATA CONTAINED HEREON CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED AT THE SITE DURING THE DATES OF THE SURVEY AS SHOWN. THIS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY IS REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL POST -FILL STATIONS COLLECTED BETWEEN NOVEMBER 6. 2019 AND DECEMBER 3, 2019 AS DIRECTED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER. THE COMPARATIVE PRE -FILL TOPOGRAPHIC DATA AS PLOTTED ON SHEET AD-5 TO AD-11 WAS COLLECTED BETWEEN OCTOBER 2, 2019 AND OCTOBER 4, 2019. ]) THIS SURVEY IS INTENDED TO DOCUMENT POST -FILL BEACH SITE CONDITIONS EXCLUSIVELY FOR THIS USE BY THOSE TO WHOM IT IS CERTIFIED. THIS SURVEY IS NOT TO BE USED BY OTHERS FOR CONSTRUCTION, PERMITTING, DESIGN OR ANY OTHER USE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF OCEANSIDE SOLUTIONS, LLC. THIS MAP IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. 8) SURVEY ACCURACY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, QUALITY CONTROL, AND QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS WERE FOLLOWED DURING THIS SURVEY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LATEST USACE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MANUAL AND FLORIDA STATE MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS (M.T.S). 9) THIS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE NUMBERED SEQUENCE OF SHEETS 1 THROUGH 11. THIS MAP IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. m� A� �T-s1 W � IZE U � x O�oa a O O a� 9A ONE MET U O a LEGEND —4 — — BASELINE STATIONS O J INDEX TO DRAWINGSDRAWING NO. DE VJ i 9 iB: STIR s0U G "n - APH—Al- 0TOIb3;STAlw O - - - o O—;ATA10.00 (n ¢ yGry $ o ZiLLI rc�m�s Q w x�r 3y 0s$S3u SHEET NO. KuNt AD-1 PROJECT B I/ T -09N P19 IU.I�o i1.Rti:t7/' amn ee0vrmnnox>ro.ls cteu �� + it it it it ii it It IB it it HARD BOTTOM AS DELINEATED By OTHERS R-4 I P, go IT IT it it it li t it it it it 3i Z V V V Mmoa-51-, POST -FILL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 1 -100 g P, o t + + + it :t it i! it it it i: -7 7"i it t; it V it it "t V it Z -t ti it it 2019 MHW POST FILL MONUMENT R-42; STA 0+00 TO R-45; STA 0+00 0 0 + + + it it N it it it V it it it N it it i: it ;t it ii it it it it it i: L V -8 '-6 — — — — — — - + + R— + + + �+ + + + —.T-- — --� — — ;L-;--+'J— — -.Z i� it i; it N it it it I it it :i :i it it i! it ii it it it it it it it it it i; 3 it it it it it it it t: it ii V �t it it Z it It V it it it v 2019 MHW POST FILL HARD BOTTOM AS DELINEATED BY OTHERS MONUMENT STA 0+00 TO R-48; STA 1 +00 LEGEND -4 — — — — BASELINE STATIONS Hip Q)lp n[OMM) THIS MAP IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEA- OF A FLORIDA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. CJ r.w SHEET NO. AD-2 PROJECT NO P19-0906 o O 2019 MHW POST FILL it Jr, POST -FILL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 1 - 100' o o P iS is ate t¢ CONSTRUCTION ACCESS o 2019 MHW POST FILL MONUMENT STA 1+00 TO T-50: STA 11+00 o + n N i8F —� •' •e ,• 2019 MHW POST FILL PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS MONUMENT T-50; STA 11+00 TO R-53; STA 10+00 LEGEND BASELINE STATIONS 50, xA Hip OO 1p G3[O Gap oxe mcx=iop Fee'r THIS MAP IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. HARD BOTTOM AS DELINEATED BY OTHERS k! A Z O OLu $NS u SHEET NO. PROJECT P19-0906 IM.I�o i1.Rti:t-1P' ouon eee�uxnnory No.�sc�sc �� o o a o0000� o a o �+ �W o 5L--lk7-----� -----h�---- D-ss i V V �17 2019 MHW HARD BOTTOM AS DELINEATED BY OTHERS \(l\0 l POST -FILL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 1 - 100' MONUMENT R-53; STA 10+00 TO R-54; STA 10+00 LEGEND Hip OO [P n[E@Q)O HM) THIS MAP IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. BASELINE STATIONS a o .7 0 C7 O a O E-I �ll I~ -I It H O a SHEET NO. PROJECT P19-0906 oaow�,sr,� o�s,.9 %PI� u d � terr, w _ o F sa Po U FF� a SwM w Hz G° } o s.a Iwo e.oa awo m > o En- o o m � 0 a z �— O >WH z w a O w �rcr E o �WEEos LLJ SHEET 10 � G3C�. HIP 0 Q�Mm) AD-5 PROJECT NO. v[ar scene., =,o r+. ayT P19-0906 THIS MAP IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. hudroSAJR W o�U u w o i OR a �WM w a } o y e.aa awo ..oa e.00 m m o � m ❑ o No m z � z �F 0 >WH z a R� u w �� o oo x w a O Z nrcr 0 s o c wmwrs m scow. oe ers na+m s..r�rzs s w cwarzn v n, n SHEET N0. PROJECT NO. v[ar scene., =,o r+. ayT P19-0906 THIS MAP IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. c a a } o y z.00 3.00 ..00 s.00 m > o a �a u w o � i a o0p u HIWe �6 a �WM w w-z G° o No m � 0 a z �- O >WH z w a O = nrcr 0 E o SHEET NO. HIP 00 MQ�Mm) AD-7 PROJECT NO. v[ar sce�e.I =Io r+. ayT P19-0906 THIS MAP IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. rjo � W 7 OF 1 w o � i a o0p U HIWe �6 a �WM w a c c o } o y o.00 o.00 o.ao o.00 m m o � m ❑ o No m i C ,wj z �F 0 >WH z w a uj SHEET NO. � G3C� HIP 0 Q�Mm) AD-8 PROJECT NO. v[ar seers., =,o rt�.ayT P19-0906 THIS MAP IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. �� W 8 OF 1 w o � i a o0p a �WM w a c c o } o y o.oa i+oo roa 3.ao m s o Q m ❑ o No m � 0 a z �- 0 >WH z �a goo a oo a x a zzz ao0 � a O� a s ``^^ N Vl Z O w a �rcr 0 E o SHEET NO. HIP 00 MQ�Mm) AD-9 PROJECT N0. v[ar sce�e.I =Io r+. ayT P19-0906 THIS MAP IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. u w o � i a o0p u HIWe �6 a �WM w I..z o° a } o y srao ,.00 a.ao woo m > o o No m � 0 a z �- 0 >WH z a zzz ao0 C) � a O� a s ``^^ N Vl Z O w a O Z w �rcr E o �WEEos LLJ W X Vmw.SHEET NO. HIP 00 MQ�Mm) AD-10 PROJECT N0. v[ar sce�e.I =Io r+. ayT P19-0906 THIS MAP IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. 2 Y ii" u m o � i a o0p u HIWe �6 a �WM w a } o y awo 211 � � o g m' � 0 a z �- 0 >WH z a zzz; ao0 a , �� C) 0 �a o� a s ``^^ N Vl Z O E a O Z w E �rcr o �WEEos Q�2 �= aa.o.,,..®,w.o. M,�"�•,",•"� c wmwrs m scow. oe ers na+w. s..r�rzs s w awrzn v n, n SHEET N0. HIP 0 � G3C�Q�Mm) AD-11 PROJECT N0, v[ar sce�e.I =Io r+. ayT P19-0906 THIS MAP IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. rjo SAJR W 116111 o� ZAII X Attachment C Post -Construction Sediment Testing Results C.G�C0�Tc� Ardaman & Associates, Inc. y� 9970 Bavaria Road �ORpK� Fort Myers, Florida 33913 Phone (239)768-6600 Fax (239)768-0409 Florida Certificate of Authorization No. 00005950 QA REPORT OF SEDIMENT COMPLIANCE PARAMETERS PROJECT: 2019 BEACH RENOURISHMENT TRUCK HAUL PROJECT FILE NO: 19-32-4126 PROJECT #195-90067/90074/90069 CONTRACT #13-6164 TE' PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES" COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORTED TO: COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COPIES: 2-CLIENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION E-MAIL: ATTN: MR. CLINT PERRYMAN clinton.perryman®colliercountyfl.gov 2685 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE, SUITE 103 NAPLES, FL 34104 SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Number Sieve Diameter (mm) Sieve Diameter (phi) Weight (Cumulative) Percent Retained (Cumulative) Percent Passing (Cumulative) 3/4 inch 19.0 1 -4.25 0.0 0.0 100.0 518 inch 16.0 -4.0 3.1 1.6 98.4 No.3.5 5.6 -2.5 13.9 7.2 92.8 No.4 4.75 -2.25 18.5 9.6 90.4 No.5 4.0 -2.0 23.1 12.0 88.0 No.7 2.80 -1.5 33.0 17.1 82.9 No.10 2.00 -1.0 44.3 22.9 77.1 No.14 1.4 -0.5 62.2 32.2 67.8 No.18 1.0 0.0 80.0 41.4 58.6 No.25 0.710 0.5 98.9 51.2 48.8 No.35 0.500 1.0 119.5 61.9 38.1 No.45 0.355 1.5 138.1 71.5 28.5 No.60 0.250 2.0 157.9 81.8 18.2 No.80 0.180 2.5 172.7 89.4 10.6 No.120 0.125 3.0 188.8 97.8 2.2 No.170 0.090 3.5 191.5 99.2 0.8 No.200 0.075 3.74 191.8 99.3 0.7 No.230 0.063 1 4.0 192.0 1 99.4 0.6 MUNSELL COLOR: I OYR-8/1 CARBONATE CONTENT: 10.6% SORTING VALUE (phi):1.82 MEAN GRAIN SIZE (mm): 0.79 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT 193.1 grams SILT CONTENT (%): 0.7 SAMPLE NO. 10 R42 SAMPLE LOCATION 12-18" DEEP SAMPLED 12:30 PM DESCRIPTION WHITE FINE SAND, TRACE SHELL PROPOSED USE BEACH RENOURISHMENT DATE SAMPLED 11/23/19 BY CLIENT REMARKS: MOISTURE CONTENT = 0.3% GLORIA WHITE GREG HAINS , P.E., SR, MATERIALS ENGINEER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR FL. LICENSE: NO. 87677 AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS THE PURL C AND OURSELVES ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONF DENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS CONCLUS ONS 4R EXTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS IS RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL. GG�E a/,, Ardaman & Associates, Inc. � 9970 Bavaria Road '001M� Fort Myers, Florida 33913 Phone (239)768-6600 Fax (239)768-0409 Florida Certificate of Authorization No. 00005950 GA REPORT OF SEDIMENT COMPLIANCE PARAMETERS PROJECT: 2019 BEACH RENOURISHMENT TRUCK HAUL PROJECT FILE NO: 19-32-4126 PROJECT #195-90067190074�90069 CONTRACT #13-6164 TE' PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORTED TO: COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COPIES: 2-CLIENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION E-MAIL: ATTN: MR. CLINT PERRYMAN clinton_perryman®coiliercountyfl.gov 2685 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE, SUITE 103 NAPLES, FL 34104 SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Number Sieve Diameter (mm) Sieve Diameter (phi) Weight (Cumulative) Percent Retained (Cumulative) Percent Passing (Cumulative) 3/4 inch 19.0 -4.25 518 inch 16.0 -4.0 No.3.5 5.6 -2.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.4 4.75 -2.25 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.5 4.0 -2.0 0.1 0.1 99.9 No.7 2.80 -1.5 0.2 0.1 99.9 No.10 2.00 -1.0 0.4 0.2 99.8 No.14 1.4 -0.5 1.9 1.0 99.0 No.18 1.0 0.0 6.1 3.3 96.7 No.25 0.710 0.5 15.5 8.4 91.6 No.35 0.500 1.0 36.8 20.0 80.0 No.45 0.355 1.5 68.1 37.0 63.0 No.60 0.250 2.0 113.5 61.7 38.3 No, 80 0.180 2.5 157.0 65.3 14.7 No.120 0.125 3.0 178.3 96.9 3.1 No.170 0.090 3.5 182.3 99.1 0.9 No.200 0.075 3.74 183.0 99.5 0.5 No.230 0.063 4.0 183.1 99.5 0.5 ... ...wn MUNSELL COLOR:10YR-711 SORTING VALUE (phi): 0.79 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT 184.0 grams CARBONATE CONTENT: 1.1 % MEAN GRAIN SIZE (mm): 0.33 SILT CONTENT (%): 0.5 SAMPLE NO. 11 1943 SAMPLE LOCATION 12-18" DEEP SAMPLED 12:26 PM DESCRIPTION LIGHT GRAY FINE SAND PROPOSED USE BEACH RENOURISHMENT DATE SAMPLED 11/23/19 BY CLIENT REMARKS: MOISTURE CONTENT = 1.6% GLORIA WHITE GREG HAINSWORT .E., SR. MATE IALS ENGINEER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR FL. LICENSE NO.87677 AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS, THE PUBLIC AND OURSELVES ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS OR EXTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS IS RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL. in Ardaman & Associates, Inc. MAN 9970 Bavaria Road Fort Myers, Flonda 33913 Phone (239)768-6600 Fax (239)768-0409 Florida Certificate of Authorization No. 00005950 OA REPORT OF SEDIMENT COMPLIANCE PARAMETERS PROJECT: 2019 BEACH RENOURISHMENT TRUCK HAUL PROJECT FILE NO: 19-32-4126 PROJECT #195-90067/90074/90069 CONTRACT #13-6164 TE' PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA G�E4�T 719,WW REPORTED TO: COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COPIES: 2-CLIENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION E-MAIL: ATTN: MR. CLINT PERRYMAN clinton.perryman@colliercountyfl.gov 2685 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE, SUITE 103 NAPLES, FL 34104 SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Number Sieve Diameter (mm) Sieve Diameter (phi) Weight (Cumulative) Percent Retained (Cumulative) Percent Passing (Cumulative) 3/4 inch 19.0 -4.25 5/8 inch 16.0 -4.0 No. 3.5 5.6 -2.5 No.4 4.75 -2.25 No.5 4.0 -2.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.7 2.80 -1.5 0.2 0.2 99.8 No.10 2.00 -1.0 0.3 0.2 99.8 No.14 1.4 -0.5 1.3 1.0 99.0 No.18 1.0 0.0 3.5 2.8 97.2 No.25 0.710 0.5 9.9 7.8 92.2 No.35 0.500 1.0 28.2 22.2 77.8 No.45 0.355 1.5 55.0 43.2 56.8 No.60 0.250 2.0 87.1 68.5 31.5 No.80 0.180 2.5 112.8 88.7 11.3 No.120 0.125 3.0 124.0 97.5 2.5 No.170 0.090 3.5 125.8 98.9 1.1 No.200 0.075 3.74 126.0 99.1 0.9 No.230 0.063 4.0 126.1 99.1 0.9 0rw .w» MUNSELL COLOR: I OYR-7/1 SORTING VALUE (phi):0.79 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT 127.2 grams CARBONATE CONTENT: 0.9% MEAN GRAIN SIZE (mm): 0.33 SILT CONTENT (%): 0.9 SAMPLE NO. 12 R44 SAMPLE LOCATION 12-18" DEEP SAMPLED 12:20 PM DESCRIPTION LIGHT GRAY FINE SAND PROPOSED USE BEACH RENOURISHMENT DATE SAMPLED 11/23/19 BY CLIENT REMARKS: MOISTURE CONTENT= 1.2% GLORIA WHITE GREG HAINSWOR ., SR. MATERIALS ENGINEER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR FL. LICENSE NO.87677 AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS, THE PUBLIC. AND OURSELVES, ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS OR EXTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS S RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL. GC'�EO�Tcr+ Ardaman & Associates, Inc. 9970 Bavaria Road ebKp�a Fort Myers, Florida 33913 Phone (239)768-6600 Fax (239)768-0409 Florida Certificate of Authorization No. 00005950 OA REPORT OF SEDIMENT COMPLIANCE PARAMETERS PROJECT: 2019 BEACH RENOURISHMENT TRUCK HAUL PROJECT FILE NO: 19-32-4126 PROJECT #196-90067/90074/90069 CONTRACT #13-6164 TE ' PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORTED TO: COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COPIES: 2-CLIENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION E-MAIL: ATTN: MR. CLINT PERRYMAN clinton.perryman@colliercountyfl.gov 2685 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE, SUITE 103 NAPLES, FL 34104 SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Number Sieve Diameter (mm) Sieve Diameter (phi) Weight (Cumulative) Percent Retained (Cumulative) Percent Passing (Cumulative) 3/4 inch 19.0 -4.25 5/8 inch 16.0 -4.0 No.3.5 5.6 -2.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.4 4.75 -2.25 0.1 0.1 99.9 No.5 4.0 -2.0 0.1 0.1 99.9 No.7 2.80 -1.5 0.2 0.1 99.9 No.10 2.00 -1.0 0.3 0.2 99.8 No.14 1.4 -0.5 0.8 0.5 99.5 No.18 1.0 0.0 2.7 1.8 98.2 No.25 0.710 0.5 8.3 5.5 94.5 No.35 0.500 1.0 25.8 17.1 82.9 No.45 0.355 1.5 57.5 38.2 61.8 No.60 0.250 2.0 102.4 67.9 32.1 No.80 0.180 2.5 136.0 90.2 9.8 No.120 0.125 3.0 149.0 98.9 1.1 No.170 0.090 3.5 150.4 99.8 0.2 No.200 0.075 3.74 150.6 99.9 0.1 No.230 0.063 1 4.0 1 150.6 99.9 1 0.1 MUNSELL COLOR: I OYR-7/1 SORTING VALUE (phi): 0.69 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT 150.7 grams CARBONATE CONTENT: 1.6% MEAN GRAIN SIZE (mm): 0.31 SILT CONTENT (%): 0.1 SAMPLE NO. 13 R45 SAMPLE LOCATION 12-18" DEEP SAMPLED 12:14 PM DESCRIPTION LIGHT GRAY FINE SAND PROPOSED USE BEACH RENOURISHMENT DATE SAMPLED 11/23/19 BY CLIENT REMARKS: MOISTURE CONTENT = 1.1% 0 GLORIA WHITE GREG HAINSWORT , .E., SR. MATERIALS ENGINEER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR FL. LICENSE NO. 87677 AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS THE PUBLIC AND OURSELVES ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS CONCLUSIONS 08 EXTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS IS RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL Ardaman & Associates, Inc. 9970 Bavaria Road @ORpC� Fort Myers, Florida 33913 Phone (239)768-6600 Fax (239)768-0409 Florida Certificate of Authorization No. 00005950 QA REPORT OF SEDIMENT COMPLIANCE PARAMETERS PROJECT: 2019 BEACH RENOURISHMENT TRUCK HAUL PROJECT FILE NO: 19-32-4126 PROJECT #195-90067/90074/90069 CONTRACT #13-6164 TE ' PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES` COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORTED TO: COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COPIES: 2-CLIENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION E-MAIL: ATTN: MR. CLINT PERRYMAN clinton.perryman@colliercountyfl.gov 2685 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE, SUITE 103 NAPLES, FL 34104 SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Number Sieve Diameter (mm) Sieve Diameter (phi) Weight (Cumulative) Percent Retained (Cumulative) Percent Passing (Cumulative) 314 inch 19.0 -4.25 518 inch 16.0 -4.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.3.5 5.6 -2.5 0.5 0.4 99.6 No.4 4.75 -2.25 1.1 0.9 99.1 No.5 4.0 -2.0 1.4 1.2 98.8 No.7 2.80 -1.5 1.9 1.6 98.4 No.10 2.00 -1.0 2.7 2.2 97.8 No.14 1.4 -0.5 5.6 4.6 95.4 No.18 1.0 0.0 11.6 9.6 90.4 No.25 0.710 0.5 22.0 18.3 81.7 No.35 0.500 1.0 39.4 32.7 67.3 No.45 0.355 1.5 58.7 48.7 51.3 No.60 0.250 2.0 83.3 69.1 30.9 No.80 0.180 2.5 107.0 88.8 11.2 No.120 0.125 3.0 118.2 98.1 1.9 No.170 0.090 3.5 119.8 99.4 0.6 No.200 0.075 3.74 120.0 99.6 0.4 No.230 0.063 4.0 120.0 99.6 0.4 BwaLelw.1.230 MUNSELL COLOR: I OYR-7/1 CARBONATE CONTENT: 3.4% SORTING VALUE (phi): 0.98 MEAN GRAIN SIZE (mm): 0.37 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT 120.5 grams SILT CONTENT (%): 0.4 SAMPLE NO. 14 R46 SAMPLE LOCATION 12-18" DEEP SAMPLED 12:09 PM DESCRIPTION LIGHT GRAY FINE SAND PROPOSED USE BEACH RENOURISHMENT DATE SAMPLED 11/23/19 BY CLIENT REMARKS: MOISTURE CONTENT = 0.6% C,4-jL--Aj1 m20 GLORIA WHITE GREG HAINSW , P.E., SR, MATERIALS ENGINEER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR FL, LICENSE NO. 87677 AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS, THE PUBLIC, AND OURSELVES, ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS OR EXTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS IS RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL ME&Ardaman & Associates, Inc. 9970 Bavaria Road Fort Myers, Florida 33913 Phone (239)768-6600 Fax (239)768-0409 Florida Certificate of Authorization No. 00005950 QA REPORT OF SEDIMENT COMPLIANCE PARAMETERS PROJECT: 2019 BEACH RENOURISHMENT TRUCK HAUL PROJECT FILE NO: 19-32-4126 PROJECT #195-90067/90074190069 CONTRACT #13-6164 TE " PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES" COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA c�-r`"a REPORTED TO: COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COPIES: 2-CLIENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION E-MAIL: ATTN: MR. CLINT PERRYMAN clinton.perryman@colliercountyfl.gov 2685 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE, SUITE 103 NAPLES, FL 34104 SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Number Sieve Diameter (mm) Sieve Diameter (phi) Weight (Cumulative) Percent Retained (Cumulative) Percent Passing (Cumulative) 3/4 inch 19.0 -4.25 5/8 inch 16.0 -4.0 No. 3.5 5.6 -2.5 No.4 4.75 -2.25 No.5 4.0 -2.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.7 2.80 -1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.10 2.00 -1.0 0.1 0.1 99.9 No.14 1.4 -0.5 0.8 0.7 99.3 No.18 1.0 0.0 3.0 2.7 97.3 No.25 0.710 0.5 9.0 8.1 91.9 No.35 0.500 1.0 23.3 21.0 79.0 No.45 0.355 1.5 43.6 39.2 60.8 No.60 0.250 2.0 70.3 63.2 36.8 No.80 0.180 2.5 94.3 84.8 15.2 No.120 0.125 3.0 106.5 95.8 4.2 No.170 0.090 3.5 109.2 98.2 1.8 No.200 0.075 3.74 109.7 98.7 1.3 No.230 0.063 4.0 109.8 98.7 1.3 "..aw-um MUNSELL COLOR: I OYR-7/1 SORTING VALUE (phi): 0.92 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT 111.2 grams CARBONATE CONTENT: 0.6% MEAN GRAIN SIZE (mm): 0.36 SILT CONTENT (%): 1.3 SAMPLE NO. 15 R47 SAMPLE LOCATION 12-18" DEEP SAMPLED 12:01 PM DESCRIPTION LIGHT GRAY FINE SAND PROPOSED USE BEACH RENOURISHMENT DATE SAMPLED 11/23/19 BY CLIENT REMARKS: MOISTURE CONTENT = 3.6% lu--4 % I4 lolA GLORIA WHITE GREG HAINSWORT , .E., SR. MATERIALS ENGINEER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR FL. LICENSE NO. 87677 AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS, THE PUBLIC, AND OURSELVES ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS OR EXTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS s RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL ME&Ardaman & Associates, Inc. 9970 Bavaria Road 9pRpgb Fort Myers, Florida 33913 Phone (239)768-6600 Fax (239)768-0409 Florida Certificate of Authorization No. 00005950 OA REPORT OF SEDIMENT COMPLIANCE PARAMETERS PROJECT: 2019 BEACH RENOURISHMENT TRUCK HAUL PROJECT FILE NO: 19-32-4126 PROJECT #195-90067/90074/90069 CONTRACT #13-6164 TE' PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORTED TO: COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COPIES: 2-CLIENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION E-MAIL: ATTN: MR. CLINT PERRYMAN clinton.perryman@colliercountyfl.gov 2685 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE, SUITE 103 NAPLES, FL 34104 SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Number Sieve Diameter (mm) Sieve Diameter (phi) Weight (Cumulative) Percent Retained (Cumulative) Percent Passing (Cumulative) 3/4 inch 19.0 -4.25 5/8 inch 16.0 -4.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.3.5 5.6 -2.5 0.1 0.0 100.0 No.4 4.75 -2.25 0.4 0.1 99.9 No.5 4.0 -2.0 1.2 0.4 99.6 No.7 2.80 -1.5 1.8 0.5 99.5 No.10 2.00 -1.0 2.8 0.8 99.2 No.14 1.4 -0.5 5.3 1.6 98.4 No.18 1.0 0.0 11.2 3.3 96.7 No.25 0.710 0.5 24.8 7.4 92.6 No.35 0.500 1.0 61.6 18.4 81.6 No.45 0.355 1.5 131.7 39.3 60.7 No.60 0.250 2.0 228.2 68.1 31.9 No.80 0.180 2.5 298.0 89.0 11.0 No.120 0.125 3.0 327.0 97.6 2.4 No.170 0.090 3.5 331.6 99.0 1.0 No.200 1 0.075 3.74 332.4 99.2 0.8 No.230 1 0.063 1 4.0 1 332.6 1 99.3 0.7 a...n.�...W30 MUNSELL COLOR: I OYR-7/1 CARBONATE CONTENT: 2.7% SORTING VALUE (phi): 0.77 MEAN GRAIN SIZE (mm): 0.32 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT 335.0 grams SILT CONTENT (%): 0.8 SAMPLE NO. 16 R48 SAMPLE LOCATION 12-18" DEEP SAMPLED 3:31 PM DESCRIPTION LIGHT GRAY FINE SAND PROPOSED USE BEACH RENOURISHMENT DATE SAMPLED 11!25/19 BY CLIENT REMARKS: MOISTURE CONTENT = 2.1 % GLORIA WHITE GREG HAINSWORT , P.E., SR. MATERIALS ENGINEER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR FL. LICENSE NO. 87677 AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS, THE PUBLIC. AND OURSELVES, ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS CONCLUSIONS OR EXTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS IS RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL �rI&Ee'T Ardaman & Associates, Inc. 7 9970 Bavaria Road ��T- Fort Myers, Florida 33913 Phone (239)768-6600 Fax (239)768-0409 Florida Certificate of Authorization No. 00005950 OA REPORT OF SEDIMENT COMPLIANCE PARAMETERS PROJECT: 2019 BEACH RENOURI SHM ENT TRUCK HAUL PROJECT FILE NO: 19-32-4126 PROJECT #195-90067/90074/90069 CONTRACT #13-6164 TE ' PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORTED TO: COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COPIES: 2-CLIENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION E-MAIL: ATTN: MR. CLINT PERRYMAN clinton.perryman@colliercountyfl.gov 2685 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE, SUITE 103 NAPLES, FL 34104 SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Number Sieve Diameter (mm) Sieve Diameter (phi) Weight (Cumulative) Percent Retained (Cumulative) Percent Passing (Cumulative) 3/4 inch 19.0 -4.25 5/8 inch 16.0 -4.0 No. 3.5 5.6 -2.5 No.4 4.75 -2.25 No. 5 4.0 -2.0 No.7 2.80 -1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.10 2.00 -1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.14 1.4 -0.5 0.7 0.8 99.2 No.18 1.0 0.0 2.7 2.9 97.1 No.25 0.710 0.5 7.0 7.5 92.5 No.35 0.500 1.0 17.1 18.4 81.6 No.45 0.355 1.5 31.9 34.4 65.6 No.60 0.250 2.0 53.0 57.1 42.9 No.80 0.180 2.5 75.5 81.4 18.6 No.120 0.125 3.0 88.6 95.5 4.5 No, 170 0.090 3.5 91.4 98.5 1.5 No.200 0.075 3.74 91.8 98.9 1.1 No.230 0.063 4.0 91.9 99.0 1.0 MUNSELL COLOR: I OYR-8/1 CARBONATE CONTENT: 1.1 % SORTING VALUE (phi): 0.82 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT 92.8 grams MEAN GRAIN SIZE (mm): 0.30 SILT CONTENT (%): 1.1 SAMPLE NO. 17 R49 SAMPLE LOCATION 12-18" DEEP SAMPLED 11:49 AM DESCRIPTION WHITE FINE SAND PROPOSED USE BEACH RENOURISHMENT DATE SAMPLED 11/23/19 BY CLIENT REMARKS: MOISTURE CONTENT =1.0% GLORIA WHITE GREG HAINItWH, P.E., SR. MATERIALS ENGINEER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR FL. LICENSE NO.87677 AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS, THE PUBLIC, AND OURSELVES, ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS OR EXTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS IS RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL ME& GL�Eb/�tn Ardaman & Associates, Inc. 7 9970 Bavaria Road FOR pK� Fort Myers, Florida 33913 Phone (239)768-6600 Fax (239)768-0409 Florida Certificate of Authorization No. 00005950 QA REPORT OF SEDIMENT COMPLIANCE PARAMETERS PROJECT: 2019 BEACH RENOURISHMENT TRUCK HAUL PROJECT FILE NO: 19-32-4126 PROJECT #195.90067/90074/90069 CONTRACT #13-6164 TE' PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORTED TO: COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COPIES: 2-CLIENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION E-MAIL: ATTN: MR. CLINT PERRYMAN clinton.perryman®colliercountyfl.gov 2685 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE, SUITE 103 NAPLES, FL 34104 SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Number Sieve Diameter (mm) Sieve Diameter (phi) Weight (Cumulative) Percent Retained (Cumulative) Percent Passing (Cumulative) 3/4 inch 19.0 -4.25 519 inch 16.0 -4.0 No. 3.5 5.6 -2.5 No, 4 4.75 -2.25 No.5 4.0 -2.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.7 2.80 -1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.10 2.00 -1.0 0.2 0.1 99.9 No.14 1.4 -0.5 0.7 0.4 99.6 No.18 1.0 0.0 3.0 1.5 98.5 No.25 0,710 0.5 9.0 4.6 95.4 No.35 0.500 1.0 25.6 13.0 87.0 No.45 0.355 1.5 64.8 32.9 67.1 No.60 0.250 2.0 126.8 64.3 35.7 No.80 0.180 2.5 173.2 87.9 12.1 No.120 0.125 3.0 192.0 97.4 2.6 No.170 0.090 3.5 195.3 99.1 0.9 No.200 0.075 3.74 195.7 99.3 0.7 No.230 0.063 4.0 195.8 99.3 0.7 MUNSELL COLOR: IOYR-7/1 SORTING VALUE (phi): 0.66 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT 197.1 grams CARBONATE CONTENT: 1.7% MEAN GRAIN SIZE (mm): 0.29 SILT CONTENT (%): 0.7 SAMPLE NO. 18 R50 SAMPLE LOCATION 12-18" DEEP SAMPLED 3:24 PM DESCRIPTION LIGHT GRAY FINE SAND PROPOSED USE BEACH RENOURISHMENT DATE SAMPLED 11/25/19 BY CLIENT REMARKS: MOISTURE CONTENT = 2.7% GLORIA WHITE GREG HAINSWORT:i%_ERfALA ENGINEER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR FL. LICENSE NO, 87677 AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS, THE PUBLIC AND OURSELVES ALL REPORTS ARE SUBM TTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS OR EXTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS -S RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL 40.r1) Airdaman & Associates, Inc. 9970 Bavaria Road eoa Ago Fort Myers, Florida 33913 Phone (239)768-6600 Fax (239)768-0409 Florida Certificate of Authorization No. 00005950 QA REPORT OF SEDIMENT COMPLIANCE PARAMETERS PROJECT: 2019 BEACH RENOURISHMENT TRUCK HAUL PROJECT FILE NO: 19-32-4126 PROJECT #195-90067/900741190069 CONTRACT #13.6164 TE' PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORTED TO: COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COPIES: 2-CLIENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION E-MAIL: ATTN: MR. CLINT PERRYMAN clinton.perryman®colliercountyfi.gov 2685 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE, SUITE 103 NAPLES, FL 34104 SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Number Sieve Diameter (mm) Sieve Diameter (phi) Weight (Cumulative) Percent Retained (Cumulative) Percent Passing (Cumulative) 3/4 inch 19.0 -4.25 518 inch 16.0 -4.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.3.5 5.6 -2.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.4 4.75 -2.25 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.5 4.0 -2.0 0.3 0.2 99.8 No.7 2.80 -1.5 0.5 0.3 99.7 No.10 2.00 -1.0 0.7 0.4 99.6 No.14 1.4 -0.5 1.6 1.0 99.0 No.18 1.0 0.0 4.4 2.8 97.2 No.25 0.710 0.5 10.2 6.4 93.6 No.35 0.500 1.0 26.8 16.8 83.2 No.45 0.355 1.5 63.0 39.5 60.5 No.60 0.250 2.0 115.1 72.3 27.7 No.80 0.180 2.5 147.3 92.5 7.5 No.120 0.125 3.0 157.8 99.1 0.9 No.170 0.090 3.5 159.2 99.9 0.1 No.200 0.075 3.74 159.2 99.9 1 0.1 No.230 0.063 4.0 1 159.2 1 99.9 1 0.1 MUNSELL COLOR: I OYR-7/1 CARBONATE CONTENT: 2.0% SORTING VALUE (phi): 0.66 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT 159.3 grams MEAN GRAIN SIZE (mm): 0.32 SILT CONTENT (%): 0.1 SAMPLE NO. 19 1151 SAMPLE LOCATION 12-18" DEEP SAMPLED 3:17 PM DESCRIPTION LIGHT GRAY FINE SAND PROPOSED USE BEACH RENOURISHMENT DATE SAMPLED 11/25/19 BY CLIENT REMARKS: MOISTURE CONTENT =1.8% GLORIA WHITE GREG HAINSWO P.E., SR. MATERIALS ENGINEER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR FL. LICENSE NO.87677 AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS, THE PUBLIC, AND OURSELVES ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS OR EXTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS IS RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL ME&Ardaman & Associates, Inc. 9970 Bavaria Road Fort Myers, Florida 33913 Phone (239)768-6600 Fax (239)768-0409 Florida Certificate of Authorization No. 00005950 GA REPORT OF SEDIMENT COMPLIANCE PARAMETERS PROTECT: 2019 BEACH RENOURISHMENT TRUCK HAUL PROJECT FILE NO: 19-32-4126 PROJECT #195-90067/90074/90069 CONTRACT #13-6164 TE' PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA C, C,Gp.F REPORTED TO: COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COPIES: 2-CLIENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION E-MAIL: ATTN: MR. CLINT PERRYMAN Clinton.perryman@colliercountyfl.gov 2685 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE, SUITE 103 NAPLES, FL 34104 SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Number Sieve Diameter (mm) Sieve Diameter (phi) Weight (Cumulative) Percent Retained (Cumulative) Percent Passing (Cumulative) 3/4 inch 19.0 -4.25 5/8 inch 16.0 -4.0 No. 3.5 5.6 -2.5 No, 4 4.75 -2.25 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.5 4.0 -2.0 0.1 0.1 99.9 No.7 2.80 -1.5 0.3 0.2 99.8 No.10 2.00 -1.0 0.5 0.3 99.7 No.14 1.4 -0.5 1.4 0.8 99.2 No.18 1.0 0.0 4.6 2.5 97.5 No.25 0.710 0.5 16.4 8.9 91.1 No.35 0.500 1.0 49.2 26.6 73.4 No.45 0.355 1.5 96.5 52.2 47.8 No.60 0.250 2.0 148.0 80.0 20.0 No.80 0.180 2.5 176.1 95.2 4.8 No.120 0.125 3.0 182.6 98.8 1.2 No.170 0.090 3.5 183.5 99.2 0.8 No.200 0.075 3.74 183.8 99.4 0.6 No.230 0.063 4.0 183.9 99.5 1 0.5 MUNSELL COLOR: IOYR-7/1 SORTING VALUE (Phi): 0.68 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT 184.9 grams CARBONATE CONTENT: 2.1% MEAN GRAIN SIZE (mm): 0.37 SILT CONTENT (%): 0.6 SAMPLE NO. 20 R52 SAMPLE LOCATION 12-18" DEEP SAMPLED 3:11 PM DESCRIPTION LIGHT GRAY FINE SAND PROPOSED USE BEACH RENOURISHMENT DATE SAMPLED 11/25/19 BY CLIENT REMARKS: MOISTURE CONTENT = 2.1% �j" I I Z07A GLORIA WHITE GREG HAINSWOR P.E., SR_ MATERIAL ENGINEER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR FL. LICENSE NO. 87677 AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS, THE PUBLIC, AND OURSELVES, ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS OR EXTRACTS FROM 08 REGARD NG OUR REPORTS IS RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL LG0.ED�jF Ardaman & Associates, Inc. =Am 9970 Bavaria Road Fort Myers, Florida 33913 Phone (239)768-6600 Fax (239)768-0409 Florida Certificate of Authorization No. 00005950 OA REPORT OF SEDIMENT COMPLIANCE PARAMETERS PROJECT: 2019 BEACH RENOURISHMENT TRUCK HAUL PROJECT FILE NO: 19-32-4126 PROJECT #195-90067/90074/90069 CONTRACT #13-6164 TE " PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORTED TO: COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COPIES: 2-CLIENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION E-MAIL: ATTN: MR. CLINT PERRYMAN clinton.perryman@colliercountyfl.gov 2685 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE, SUITE 103 NAPLES, FL 34104 SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Number Sieve Diameter (mm) Sieve Diameter (phi) Weight {Cumulative) Percent Retained (Cumulative) Percent Passing (Cumulative) 3/4 inch 19.0 -4.25 5/8 inch 16.0 -4.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.3.5 5.6 -2.5 1.1 0.6 99.4 No.4 4.75 -2.25 1.5 0.8 99.2 No.5 4.0 -2.0 1.6 0.9 99.1 No.7 2.80 -1.5 2.3 1.2 98.8 No.10 2.00 -1.0 3.1 1.7 98.3 No.14 1.4 -0.5 6.0 3.3 96.7 No. 18 1.0 0.0 14.9 8.1 91.9 No.25 0.710 0.5 35.8 19.4 80.6 No.35 0.500 1.0 66.1 35.9 64.1 No.45 0.355 1.5 97.0 52.7 47.3 No.60 0.250 2.0 137.0 74.4 25.6 No.80 0.180 2.5 168.3 91.4 8.6 No.120 0.125 3.0 180.0 97.8 2.2 No.170 0.090 3.5 181.8 98.8 1.2 No.200 0.075 3.74 182.1 98.9 1.1 No.230 0.063 4.0 182.2 99.0 1.0 8-0.9 wN MUNSELL COLOR: I OYR-8/1 SORTING VALUE (phi): 0.90 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT 184.1 grams CARBONATE CONTENT: 3.4% MEAN GRAIN SIZE (mm): 0.39 SILT CONTENT (%): 1.1 SAMPLE NO. 21 1153 SAMPLE LOCATION 12-18" DEEP SAMPLED 11:37 AM DESCRIPTION WHITE FINE SAND PROPOSED USE BEACH RENOURISHMENT DATE SAMPLED 11/23/19 BY CLIENT REMARKS: MOISTURE CONTENT = 1.7% J GLORIA WHITE GREG HAINSWOR .E., SR. MATERIALS ENGINEER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR FL. LICENSE NO.87677 AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS, THE PUBLIC AND OURSELVES ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS AND ALITHORIZAT'ON FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS CONCLUSIONS OR EXTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS iS RESERVED PEND NG OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL. GC'�£O�Tct+ Ardaman & Associates, Inc. 9970 Bavaria Road @ORpK� Fort Myers, Florida 33913 Phone (239)768-6600 Fax (239)768-0409 Florida Certificate of Authorization No. 00005950 OA REPORT OF SEDIMENT COMPLIANCE PARAMETERS PROJECT: 2019 BEACH RENOURISHMENT TRUCK HAUL PROJECT FILE NO: 19-32-4126 PROJECT #195-90067/90074190069 CONTRACT #13-6164 TE' PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES" COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORTED TO: COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COPIES: 2-CLIENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION E-MAIL: ATTN: MR. CLINT PERRYMAN clinton.perryman@colliercountyfl.gov 2685 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE, SUITE 103 NAPLES, FL 34104 SIEVE ANALYSIS Sieve Number Sieve Diameter (mm) Sieve Diameter (phi) Weight (Cumulative) Percent Retained (Cumulative) Percent Passing (Cumulative) 3/4 inch 19.0 -4.25 518 inch 16.0 -4.0 No. 3.5 5.6 -2.5 No.4 4.75 -2.25 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.5 4.0 -2.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 No.7 2.80 -1.5 0.1 0.1 99.9 No. I0 2.00 -1.0 0.2 0.2 99.8 No.14 1.4 -0.5 0.8 0.7 99.3 No.18 1.0 0.0 3.3 2.9 97.1 No.25 0.710 0.5 10.9 9.6 90.4 No.35 0.500 1.0 26.7 23.6 76.4 No.45 0.355 1.5 47.3 41.9 58.1 No.60 0.250 2.0 75.7 67.0 33.0 No.80 0.180 2.5 100.3 88.8 11.2 No.120 0.125 3.0 111.6 98.8 1.2 No.170 0.090 3.5 112.7 99.7 0.3 No.200 0.075 3.74 112.9 99.9 0.1 No.230 1 0.063 1 4.0 112.9 99.9 0.1 MUNSELL COLOR: I OYR-8/1 CARBONATE CONTENT: 3.4% SORTING VALUE (phi): 0.79 MEAN GRAIN SIZE (mm): 0.33 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT 113.0 grams SILT CONTENT (%): 0.1 SAMPLE NO. 22 R54 SAMPLE LOCATION 12-18" DEEP SAMPLED 11:33 AM DESCRIPTION WHITE FINE SAND PROPOSED USE BEACH RENOURISHMENT DATE SAMPLED 11/23/19 BY CLIENT REMARKS: MOISTURE CONTENT = 0.5% , p GLOFI1A WHITE GREG HAINSWORTH, SA. MATERIALS EN INEER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR FL. LICENSE NO. 87677 AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS, THE PUBLIC AND OURSELVES, ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS OR EXTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS IS RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL Appendix C Major Storm Information Major Storm Events near Collier County From 2004 to 2015, five major storms have made landfall near Collier County having the potential to disrupt coastal processes and change the beach topography in the project vicinity. Each storm's track can be seen in Figure 1. 'Hurricane Charlie (9-15 August 2004) Charley was the strongest hurricane to hit Florida since Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Before Charley made landfall on August 13 near Cayo Costa, which is just north of Captiva, it had made landfall in Cuba as a category 2. The storm decreased to a category 1 while making landfall in Cuba but then increased steadily as it made its way to Florida's southwest coast. Charley hit Florida as a category 4 hurricane with maximum sustainable winds of 150 mph. Hurricane Charley was a small storm in size but caused great damage to Florida's southwest coast. 2Hurricane Katrina (23-30 August 2005) Hurricane Katrina is one of the most devastating hurricanes making landfall in the United States. Katrina was the making of three storms in the Atlantic Ocean and made landfall over the Bahamas as a Tropical Strom. While heading to Florida's east coast the storm strengthened to a category 1 hurricane just before making landfall near Miami -Dade County. The storm weakened to a tropical storm while passing over the peninsula. After spending six hours on land with winds estimated up to 70 mph, the storm entered the Gulf of Mexico just north of Cape Sable on August 26. Not soon after entering the Gulf, Hurricane Katrina grew in size and ultimately hitting the United States again in Louisiana as a category 5. Figure 1 Storm Tracks (2004 to 2012) Po �� ff� C� TROPICAL STORM DORT 2012 TROPICAL STORM FAY 2008 — HURRkCANE WILMA 2005 - HURRICANE NATRINA 2005, - — HURRICANE CNARL)EY 2004 L COLUiR PROJECT LOCATION Qa� NOTE: oM 1. HURRICANL TRACKS ARE APPROXIMATE AND BASED srue.+.mri ON INFORMATION FROM NOAA. ]. EXHIBIT IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. 'Hurricane Wilma (15-25 October 2005) Hurricane Wilma was the strongest hurricane recorded for 2005 with winds up to 185 mph. Forming in the Caribbean Sea, Hurricane Wilma reached a category 5 hurricane over open waters. Wilma then decreased to a category 4 just before hitting the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. After passing over land, the winds decreased to 100 mph. After a brief increase over the Gulf of Mexico, Wilma entered the U.S. near Cape Romano Oust south of the project area) as a category 3 hurricane on October 24. Wilma caused ten tornadoes while making landfall in the U.S. and caused damage to the surrounding coastline. 4Tropical Storm Fay (15-26 August 2008) Tropical storm Fay made landfall in Florida a record setting four times. After passing over the Florida Keys with winds up to 50 mph the storm slightly increased to 65 mph winds before making landfall just south of Marco Island on August 19. Rainfall estimates in Florida reached over 27 inches causing severe flooding. Storm surge and prevailing winds by the slow moving storm caused moderate coastline erosion along southwest Florida. 5Tropical Storm Debby (23-27 June 2012) Tropical Storm Debby reached a peak wind speed of 65 mph while in the Gulf of Mexico. After forming in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, the storm headed north. After influence from a low pressure, the storm then turned west and eventually made landfall in Florida near Steinhatchee on August 26. Winds were recorded at 40 mph when making landfall on Florida's west coast. Although the storm hit northern end of the peninsula, it is recorded that Pinellas and Charlotte Counties' beaches lost 10 to 15 feet of shoreline. The City of Naples experienced a meteotsunami' in January 2016. A graph of the observed water levels at the Naples Tide Station on January 17, 2016 documenting the meteotsunami is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Observed Water Level in Naples Florida on January 17, 2016. 6.0 4.0 2.0 NOAA/NOS/CO-OPS Observed Water Levels at 8725110, Naples FL From 2016/01/17 00:00 GMT to 2016/01/17 23:59 GMT mvwj mua14.cmcr wr vperauunW viceanuyrapmc rruuucu anu nerviues 00:00 04:00 08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 1/17 1/17 1/17 1/17 1/17 1/17 --- Predictions —Verified -- Preliminary b.0 0 5 Hurricane Irma (August 30-Septmeber 11, 2017) Tropical Storm Irma formed in the far eastern Atlantic Ocean, just west of the Cape Verde Islands, on the morning of August 30th. Over the Meteotsunamis have the characteristics similar to earthquake -generated tsunamis, but are caused by air pressure disturbances often associated with fast moving weather systems, such as squall lines. These disturbances can generate waves in the ocean that travel at the same speed as the overhead weather system. Development of a meteotsunami depends on several factors such as the intensity, direction, and speed of the disturbance as it travels over a water body with a depth that enhances wave magnification. NOAA 2015 2 following 30 hours Irma intensified into a major hurricane with highest sustained winds of 115 MPH, a category-3 storm on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale. As Irma began to approach the northern Leeward Islands on September 4th and 5th, the hurricane rapidly intensified while moving over warmer water and into a more moist atmosphere. The storm became a rare category-5 hurricane on September 5th, with maximum sustained winds of 185 MPH. This made Irma the strongest hurricane ever observed in the open Atlantic Ocean, and one of only 5 hurricanes with measured winds of 185 MPH or higher in the entire Atlantic basin. Over the next few days Irma continued moving west, passing through the northeast Leeward Islands, Virgin Islands, and just north of the islands of Puerto Rico and Hispaniola, while maintaining its category-5 winds. The storm finally "weakened" to a category-4 hurricane on September 8th, but still had devastating winds of 155 MPH while moving through the southern Bahamas. Irma intensified to a category-5 level once again that evening, with top winds of 160 MPH, as it approached the northern coast of Cuba. Irma moved west along or just inland from the northern coast of Cuba on September 9th. This interaction with land disrupted Irma's structure a bit, as a hurricane requires plenty of deep warm water beneath the storm's center to maintain the extremely low pressure and strong winds. Thus Irma weakened slightly to a category-3 hurricane with winds of 125 MPH. Resilient Irma made a final attempt to re -intensify while crossing the open waters of the Florida Straits. The storm quickly reached category-4 intensity with 130 MPH winds early in the morning of September 10th, while approaching the vulnerable Florida Keys. The major hurricane made landfall near Marco Island in southwest Florida around 3 pm EDT on September 10th, as a category-3 storm with 115 MPH. Naples, Florida reported a peak wind gust of 142 MPH. Irma moved quickly northward, just inland from the west coast of Florida on September 10th and 11th. When Irma first developed in the far eastern Atlantic, despite its strength, its wind field was quite small. As the storm approached Florida, however, its wind field expanded dramatically. As Irma hit Florida, tropical storm force winds extended outward up to 400 miles from the center, and hurricane force winds extended up to 80 miles. Hurricane force wind gusts (i.e. 74 MPH or more) were reported along much of the east coast of Florida, from Jacksonville to Miami. In addition to the long periods of heavy rain and strong winds, storm surge flooding also occurred well away from the storm center, including the Jacksonville area, where strong and persistent onshore winds had been occurring for days before Irma's center made its closest approach. By the time the minimal hurricane reached northwest Florida (on the morning of September 11th), the wind gusts across south Georgia and northwest Florida were generally in the 45 to 60 MPH range (Fig. 8). Conditions improved rapidly once the storm center passed by as strong, dry southwest winds aloft made the system asymmetric, with nearly all of the rain and most of the strongest winds being along and north of the poorly -defined center. Irma weakened to a tropical storm in south Georgia in the afternoon, and further into a tropical depression while moving north across central Georgia in the evening. See the Figure 3 in this section showing the 2017 storm tracks. According to the National Weather Service, wind gusts over 50 mph and heavy rain impacted the Naples area on Thursday December 20, 2018. At approximately 1:30 pm another meteotsumami hit the Naples area with wave heights momentarily increasing by 3 feet over the projected level and decreasing rapidly over the next hour. Figure 4 shows the predicted and actual water levels on December 20, 2018. 3 Figure 3. Hurricane Tracking Chart for 2017. J]S^ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE r 15 X017 NORTH ATLANTIC HURRICANE TRACKING CHART ySlh 4m T". Ts NAME AANE 2&U ARR 19-21 o 2 3 TC TE [PET VINDY JUN t6.20 JUN W-13 a 7S OqN 411L 11.15 6 TS EL11Y JUL x.AUG 1 - - 6 r N !i FRANw GERT AUG 7.10 AUl;3 -17 - 6 MH HARVEY AUG 17-5EP 1 } 9 YH ..MA AUG J"EP 12 t 10 MM 2OSE 5£P SII 18 : + 11 1% is H MA MH NA11A LEE VARIA 9 SP SEP liJO 5£P 1679 -.. Li_ ,^. 77��n + 11 N HATE OCT T5 to t1 MA Ts TS OPHELAA —LWE RINA OCT •1s acr ZS NOV 5-9 ++' - - 8++.�++• ... + .:•�• 1 ? +� 10 962'mp g � 3 2 En �3 22 21 2t•� -�990 Ynp 5_9"b � fir 1 29 rb • 1. }• 20 •- 2� 24 29 + 12• • 3F • B .. -28 25 2rr.Ig is •. + .6 16 20 7: Ill 437 mb?72822 •• • �941 i mp • mb 26 I] }~Y 17 7}fi • 25 23 ,xrt.+r IB 19�• 1 1V 13 }� 2 8 ��.��9,,8t 11 •259 i R 7 i;0. 8 •' , ti 11 25` \♦ •1 { LJ •3i� i • 2 /i72z�yro .12 15 21 972mVg 6 2d `1.11 • V } r 3a� If, 12 9952mb $.*6 i t 9 81#7 • Q 1Q07 mb 10 76 i3 ! 15NI3 •� 9 Q 10 23 - -'•� 23 • }t q 4 17 • 8 . a a Ab • 14 .22 • 'v87 !Ilb 22. • \ • 10 j7 20 1 36 •667 ffQ 1p mh - 914 mb � 2. • •m - •t14 3i 6 2t tt • 6• f 936ma� r • ® • 20�• • 5 • 1B 16 92 20 _• • • 17 • • • d 19 90aMb • to 8 -.�� —7 • • 5 1'' • • 17 17 • 9fi 8 • • .1 r.Is;�I .-��: �_�� ,`J • 14 IB '� • 13'n t� r_wrncan6 7pStrom �k ® • • ❑ Twropkal Qopre L'_ • e ` 17 1025 rob Subwop"I Sit • ® Svbnplcal no V10ve1Low Lwam COP1FORMAL COMC PROJECT6N STANGAWO PARULELSAT x ANC! m *07 Mb _ - � Exer6lropwal 5 SCALEOi NAUT1CALMiLES • Posltlon at C 0 200 — Paslii—rdnte a Figure 4. Observed Water Level in Naples Florida on December 20, 2018. NOAAINOSICO-OPS Observed Water Levels at 8725110, Naples, Gulf of Mexico FL From 2018112/20 00:00 GMT to 2018112/20 23:59 GMT 4.0 00:00 12120 — Predictions NOAAJNOS/Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services 06:00 12:00 18:00 12120 12120 12120 Verified — Preliminary 4 4.0 2.0 0.0 -2-0 References 1 Blake E.R., D.P. Brown, R.J. Pasch, "Tropical Cyclone Report Hurricane Charley," National Hurricane Center, September 2011, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/. 2 Brown D.P., R.D. Knabb, and J.R. Rhome, "Tropical Cyclone Report Hurricane Katrina," National Hurricane Center, December 2005, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/. 3 Blake E.R. and H.D Cobb III et. al, "Tropical Cyclone Report Hurricane Wilma," National Hurricane Center, January 2006, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/. 4Beven, J.L. and S.R Stewart, "Tropical Cyclone Report Tropical Storm Fay," National Hurricane Center, February 2009, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/. SKimberlain T.B., "Tropical Cyclone Report Tropical Storm Debby," National Hurricane Center, January 2013, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/. 6National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Detailed Meteorological Summary on Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Irma Synopsis" National Weather Service, January 2018, https://www.weather.gov Naples Daily News, Scientists: Waves that surprised SWFL beachgoers last week caused by rare meteotsunami, December 27, 2018 5 Appendix D Beach Profiles R-17 through R-84 10 5 0 Q -5 2 ti W W -10 W -15 -20 -25 -50 BEACH PROFILE: R-17 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 - - - - - - - - - - - 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE Z0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -5 I W i i -10 W-15 W I W W -20 > > -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 1600 1800 2000 MHW) 10 11-1-I-nr - -II 5 0 c Z -5 W -10 W -15 -20 -25 -50 f0 - 0 5-_ NV Q 0 Z -5 -10 W -15 t� W -20 -25 0 BEACH PROFILE: R-18 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SEE DETAIL ABOVE ":::N� 0.3i 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) MHW) 10 11-1 rY!"1I rYr -rTIll 5 0 0 Q -5 Z ti W W -10 uj W -15 -20 -25 -50 10 - 5 0 Q 0 Z -5 - -10 W -15 - j W -20 - -25 0 BEACH PROFILE: R-19 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E ,NG SDI NG SDI 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SEE DETAIL ABOVE 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) MHW) BEACH PROFILE: R-20 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI MHW) 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — — — — — — — — — — — 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE a 0-------- I--------------------� 0.33' NAI/D_(MHW) 2 -5 w i�- -f0-15 7� W W of -20 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 11- 1 - I- --- I II 5 0 W -10 W -15 -20 -25 -50 10 - 0 5 a 0 Z -5 W -10 - W -15 - LA W -20 - -25 0 BEACH PROFILE: R-21 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SEE DETAIL ABOVE MHW) __________________ 0.33'NAVD(MHW) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 0 Z BEACH PROFILE: R-22 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE -5 gI -f0 W -15 W W -20 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 0.33, 1800 2000 MHW) BEACH PROFILE: R-23 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) wT�---------- I SEE DETAIL ABOVE 0 i -I - - - - - - - - i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Z 0 -70 I I ICI > I W I W W -20 o o l -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 1800 2000 MHW) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-24 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ------- ---------------------- 0.33' NAVD_(MHW) 0 Q Z -5 ti W W -10 - W -15 -20 W Z Z W m p -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 - - - - - - - - - - - 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE Q 0.33' NAVD(MHW) Z 0 -------------------- -5 W -15 W I W W -2D -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) - - - - HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPES, FL 3410 FAX: (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING OESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com 10 5 0 0 Q -5 Z ti W W -10 uj W -15 -20 -25 -50 BEACH PROFILE: R-25 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) MHW) 10 - - - - - - - - - - 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE Q 0-------- I --------------------- 0.33' NAB-L(MHW) Z -5 I gI -10 ui uj -15 ZD W -20 > o -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-26 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ------- -- -------------------- 0.33' NL_ _(MHW) 0 0 Q 2 -5 ti W W -10 W -15 0 -20 W s Z Z W � u! ut m p -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — — — — — — — — — — 5 <, SEE DETAIL ABOVE a 0.33' NAVD 2 0 ---------- ----------------- W -5 I= -10 7 W -15 W W W -2D o of -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPES, FL 3410 FAX: (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-27 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ------ ------ ------------------- 0.33' NAVD_(MHW) 0 Z � ti W W -f0 W -15 i 0 -20 W Z Z W N u! m p -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — — — — — — — — — — 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE a 0.33' NADL(MHW) ZL 0 —— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -5 i -10 W -15 W W W -2Do of -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) - - - HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPES, FL 3410 FAX: (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com 10] A/rA III 1/1nr nrTA �� IVGH�IC On VICG VG I i91L 5 0 0 Q -5 2 ti W W -10 W -15 -20 -25 -50 BEACH PROFILE: R-28 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) MHW) 10T�----------- 5 � SEE DETAIL ABOVE 0.33' NAVD MHW IW W-15 20 to I col -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) A 1rA PY 11/1PYr Mr A 11 10� IVGPlCJI7VlCG UGIi91L 5 0 — — Q -5 2 ti 4 W -10 Lu W -15 -20 i -25 -50 0 C BEACH PROFILE: R-29 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 600 MHW) 10 — — — — — — — — — — - 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE a 0 — — — — — — — -- -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33' NAB/D-(MHW) Z _ -5 4 -10 I I g W -20 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) BEACH PROFILE: R-30 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E "" "" -""- ""NSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE Z0 - - - - - - - - - -5 _ -10 g ` W -15 W W -20 , -25 0 200 400 600 MHW) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.33' NAVD (MHW) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-31 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 1D VrPnOr7I/l�CG Ur-1'41L 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 � --- ------T- — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33' NAVD (MHW) — — — — — — 0 0 Q Z -5 ti W W -10 uj W -15 -20 W � — Z Z W � m G -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — — — — — — — — — — 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE Q 0.33' Z 0 -- I. -------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -(MHW) -5 _ -10 > IW W W -20 0 0 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) - - HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERSFOR: COLLIER COUNTY 3410 FAXLENAP239L594-2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com Air A rY 11^1r PY rTA II IV GP, ICJr7 VlCL UL I/9IL 5 0 — — 0 Q -5 Z ti W W -10 bi W -15 -20 -25 -50 0 2 W 5 Z Z co W Q W m p BEACH PROFILE: R-32 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI — — — 0.33' NL_ _(MHW) 600 iu —— — — — — — — — — - 5- SEE DETAIL ABOVE Q0 —� —-------- I --------------------- 0.33' NAI/D (MHW) Z I. I � -5 - 5 IW I W. -15 W -20 0 0 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 5 0 0 Q -5 Z ti W W -10 uj W -15 -20 -25 -50 0 BEACH PROFILE: R-33 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E -..._ NG SDI NG SDI 600 MHW) 10 - - - - - - - - - - - -I 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE , Q 0 -I- -------- --------------------- 0.33' NAVD(MHW) -5 - -10 W -15 I2 W -20 I o -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-34 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 iv�ilR�rivR� UGliAi1L 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ---------- --... ------------------- 0.33' NAVD_(MHW) 0 0 Z -5 ti W W -10 W -15 -20 W Z Z W V1 Vf m C -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 - - - - - - - - - - 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE Q 0.33' NAVD(MHW) 2 0 -------- --------------------- -5 ._ W -15 W W W -2D � iol -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) - - HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPES, FL 3410 FAX: (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com BEACH PROFILE: R-35 1 — is —2, —2. —50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI MHW) 10 — — — — — — — — — — � 5 I SEE DETAIL ABOVE , a 0 —y ------ I --------------------- 0.33' NAVD1MHW) 2 —5 4 g II —f0 W —15 W W W ' oI —20 —25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 5 0 0 Q -5 Z ti W -10 W -15 -20 -25 -50 0 10 - 0 5 % Q 0-- - Z -5- - 10 W -15 W -20 -25 0 SEE DETAIL ABOVE 200 400 600 BEACH PROFILE: R-36 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI 600 MHW) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.33' NAVD (MHW) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-37 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 IVr-P,R0nL1Rr- UG I/YIL 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 -----T --- -- — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33' NAVD1MHW) 0 o Q -5 \ Z ti W W -10 W -15 2 -20 W 0 s Z Z W � V1 Q m W � -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) f0— ---------� 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE I 0.33' NA'/D(MHW) Z I._ ------- --------------------- -5 _ I_ I II -10 > uj -15 IW I W W -20 o o -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING � M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT FOR: COLLIER COUNTY FAX: (2 FL 34110 ENGINEERS FAX: (239) 594-2025 I COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-38 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 114CPnJnVhCG L/G IiAi1L 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 � 0 — — — — — T — -- — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33' NAVD_(MHW) 0 Q -5 Z ti W W -10 uj W -15 -20 W Z W h Q m -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) — — — — — — — — — 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE Q 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33' NAVD�MHW) Z -5 _ W -10 W -15 j W -20 -25 LT 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-39 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 Nr-P,R.3nUPRr- UG I AIL. 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ---- ----- ------------------------ 0.33' NAVD_(MHW) p 0 Q Z -5 W W -f0 W -15 -20 W Z W Q m -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — — — — — — — — — — - 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE a 0.33' NAD_(MHW) Z 0 — ------ ------------------ -5 W -15 W W > > -20 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) - - - - HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)RE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPES, FL 3410 FAX: (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING OESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com 10 5 0 0 Q -5 Z ti W W —10 uj W —15 —20 —25 —50 0 BEACH PROFILE: R-40 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E -•..- NG SDI NG SDI 600 MHW) 10 — — — — — — — — — — � 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE Q 0 � — — — — — — — I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33' — —(MHW) —5- - lu W —15 W W I 7D —20 p —25 0 200 400 600 Boo 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) BEACH PROFILE: R-41 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) I----------� 5 / SEE DETAIL ABOVE - - -5 I . -10 L -15 I W W -20 I p -25 0 200 400 600 MHW) ------------ - 0.33' NAI/D (MHW) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) BEACH PROFILE: R-42 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NSTRUCTION OCEANSIDE NG SDI MHW) W - W -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) iu — — — — — — — — — — 7 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE a Z� III�I ----------�— -------0.33AiD 0 _(MHW) -5 is I= I=I W -20 � o -2s 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 .,-. I -- 11 5 0 0 Q -5 Z ti W -f0 W -15 -20 -25 -50 0 BEACH PROFILE: R-43 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NSTRUCTION OCEANSIDE NG SDI 600 MHW) 10 — — — — — — — — — — — 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE a 0 - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.33' NAVD(MHW) Z -5 g II -f0 -15 j I jl W -20 > o -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 5 0 c z -5 W W -f0 Lu W -15 -20 -25 -50 0 10 — — — — — — — — — — — —I 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE a0 — — — — — — — — — — 2 -5 I I 4 -f0 W -15 W W -20 y -25 0 200 400 600 BEACH PROFILE: R-44 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NSTRUCTION OCEANSIDE NG SDI 600 MHW) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33' NAI/D(MHW) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 5 0 0 Q -5 Z ti W W -10 uj W -15 -20 -25 -50 0 5�_ o -� Q 0 - Z -10 W -15 i W -20 -25 0 BEACH PROFILE: R-45 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NSTRUCTION OCEANSIDE NG SDI 600 MHW) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.33' NAI/D (MHW) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-46 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 IVC/AR,)nURr- u�wIL 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2019-12 POST CONSTRUCTION OCEANSIDE 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ----- ---- --------------------- 0.33' NAVD_(MHW) 0 �- 0 Z -5 �- Lu w -10 -15 ti 0 -20 w ? Z W V1 �? V) m p -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 5- SEE DETAIL ABOVE Q 0.33' NAI/D_(MHW) Z 0 — --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -5 -10 w -20 o -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) - - - - HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPES, FL 3410 FAX: (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENDINE Eft DESIGN AND PERMI1TT7T ING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-47 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 NEARSr1ORE ur- ,41 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2019-12 POST CONSTRUCTION OCEANSIDE 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 --------- --... ------------------- 0.33' NAVD (MHW) p 0 Q Z -5 _ Lu -10 w -15 ti 0 -20 w 2c Z Z W h � u! m p -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — — — — — — — — — — 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE a 0.33' NAVD�MHW) Z 0 --------------------- -5 -f0 �I J w -15 j -20 o -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) - - - HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPES, FL 3410 FAX: (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING OESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-48 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 IVGfil�CJI7uRr- u� IAIL 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2019-12 POST CONSTRUCTION OCEANSIDE 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ------- ------------------------ 0.33 NAVD_(MHW) 0 2 -5 W -10 _ d W -15 ti 0 -20 W Z Z W �? oQp p -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10� — — — — — — — — — — -- 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE a 0.3V NAVD (MHW) Z 0 ----- --------------------- -5 -10 W -15 W W _ W = -2D of -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) - - - - HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPES, FL 3410 FAX: (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENDINE Eft DESIGN AND PERMI1TT7T ING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com BEACH PROFILE: R-49 W - d W SURVEY LEGEND ennc_, I nmr CP&E NSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NSTRUCTION OCEANSIDE NG SDI -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 0 5 2 0 - -5 -10 W -15 W -20 -25 0 SEE DETAIL ABOVE MHW) 0.3V NAVD (MHW) I 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-50 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2019-12 POST CONSTRUCTION OCEANSIDE 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ------- -- -------------------- 0.33' NAVD(MHW) 0 0 Z -5 � W -10 d W -15 -20 W 2 W h V1 m O -2$ -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — — — — — — — — — — 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE a 0.33' NAI/D_(MHW) Z 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -5 W -10 W -15 W W W —20 0 > > -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) - - - - HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY FAX: (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING OESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com 10 A/rA nfll i^nr nrTA 11 5 0 2 -5 W -10 J W -15 -20 -25 -50 0 10 0 5 Q 0 Z -5 W -10 w -15 J W -20 -25 0 BEACH PROFILE: R-51 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E --.- , .,,,.,1 1INLI SDI NSTRUCTION OCEANSIDE NG SDI 600 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) MHW) MHW) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-52 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E tD 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2019-12 POST CONSTRUCTION OCEANSIDE 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ------T--- -------------------- 0.33 NAVD_(MHW) 0 2 -5 W -10 d W -15 ti 0 -20 W ? Z W V1 �? V) oQp p -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10T — ----------I 5 I _ SEE DETAIL ABOVE a _ 0.33- NAVD (MHW) 2 0 — ------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — W -5 -10 W -15 La W W > > -20 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) - - - HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPES, FL 3410 FAX: (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING OESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com BEACH PROFILE: R-53 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NSTRUCTION OCEANSIDE NG SDI —50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE I Z 0-- - - —5 —10 La-15 W W ' —20 —25 0 200 400 600 MHW) — 0.3V NAVD (MHW) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: T-54 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2019-12 POST CONSTRUCTION OCEANSIDE 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ------- ----- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33' NAVD (MHW) 0 0 Z -5 � W -f0 J W -15 ti -20 W 2c ? Z W ur � v, m o -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE a 0.33' NAVD_(MHW) 2 0 ----------------------- W -5 I� -f0 — JI W -15 W W J W -20 V -25 0 200 400 660 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPES, FL 3410 FAX: (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING OESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: U-55 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI -- --- — -- -------------------- 0.33' NAVD_(MHW) p 0 2 -5 W -10 d W -15 -20 0 Z W 0 -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10T ----------� SEE DETAIL ABOVE 0 Q 5- ,. I 0.33' NA'/D�MHW) 2 0---- -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -5 -10 -15 J W -20 ' =I 0 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) - HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M(X)RE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY FAXNAPLE239L594-2025 �oASTAa, DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 I ENGINEERING DESIGN ANDPCRMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-56 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10DrE. 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ------- — —— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33' NAVD (MHW) 0 0 2 -5 i W -10 w -15 O_ -20 W $ Z Z W Q 00 W p -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — — — — — — — — — — 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE a I 0.33' NA'/D_(MHW) Z 0 — \ --- --------------------- I I. W -5 -10 La-15 W I W W -20 _ 0 -25 0 200 400 600 860 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ` � ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY (2 FL 34110 FAX: (239) 594-2025 FAX: I COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: T-57 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 1 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ------ --- ---- —----------------- 0.33' NAVD_(MHW) p 2 -5 v W -10 W -15 Q 0 -20 W � Z W h � Vt m p -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — — — — — — — — — — — 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE a I 0.33' NAYD (MHW) 2 0 — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -5 -10 w -15 W I W -20 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY FAXNAPES, FL 3410 : (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING OESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com BEACH PROFILE: R-58A SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 0 5 2 0 -5 -10 w -15 W -20 -25 SEE DETAIL ABOVE MHW) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.33' NAVD=-(MHW) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) BEACH PROFILE: T-58 1 -2, -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI MHW) 10 — — — — — — — — — — — 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE , Z 0 ----------------------- 0.33' NAVD�MHW) -5 -f0 W -15 W W W = o-20 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-59 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 ivr-ARSrivRc UC 1 /O L 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 --- --- -- --- ------------------- 0.33' NAVD1MHW) 0 0 2 -5 - Lu -f0 \ w -15 ti -20 w 3 � 2 y c� � m � -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — — — — — — — — — — 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE a I 0.33' NAVD�MHW) Z 0 II — — — — ------------------- -5 _ I----- I I -f0 > Lu -15 IW I W w -20 I� 0 I sI 0 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING & MOORE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPLES, FL 34110 FAX: (239) 594-2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 I ENGINEERING DESIGN www.humistonandmoore.com AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R- 60 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ------ -- — --------------------- 0.33' NAVD (MHW) 0 — ---t 2 -5 Lu -10 � w -15 Q 0 -20 W Z Z W y � (� m p -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — — — — — — — — — — 5- SEE DETAIL ABOVE a0 �— I 0.33' NA'/D_(MHW) Z — --- i —r -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — u- -5 I I I I J -15 W -20 I o I i Z.3 1 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPES, FL 3410 FAX: (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 I ENGINEERING OESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com BEACH PROFILE: R-61 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 0 5 2 0 - -5 W -10 w -15 J W -20 -25 0 MHW) 0.3V NAVD(MHW) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: T-62 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 102019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 p -- -- — ----------------------- 0.33' NAVD (MHW) 0 Z -5 W -10 d W -15 —20 i5 Lu i5 C] -25 —50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — — — — — — — — — — 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE 0 i I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33' — —(MHW) 2 —5 —10 J-15 La— W I� —20 > > —25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)RE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT NAPES, FL 3410 ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY FAX: (239) 594 -2025 ':oASTAa, DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING OESIGN www.humistonandmoore.com ANDPC RM ITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-63 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 INEPR$rivRE UG lAi1L 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI —1� 5 — — — — — — — ... ------------------- 0.33' NAVD_(MHW) 0 — Z -5 W -10 -15 ti 0 -20 W 5 Z Z Li W d � Vt m O -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — ---------� 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE Q 0.33' NAVD (MHW) 2 0 --------------------- -5 Lz „ -f0 Lz -15 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPES, FL 3410 FAX: (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING OESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-64 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 lYr-PRSrivRc Ur-IAAIL 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 -----T --- - -------------------- 0.33' NAVD_(MHW) 0 0 Q Z -5 W -f0 — W -15 ti 0 -20 W - 2 Z W CD OQp p -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10T— — — — — — — — — — 5 I SEE DETAIL ABOVE a 0.33' NAVD (MHW) Z 0 — ---- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -5 L -f0 LLJJ 4i -15 = J -20 o -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) - - HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPES, FL 3410 FAX: (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING OESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: T-65 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ------- — —-------------------- 0.33' N_ _(A4HW) 0 0 > Q Z -5 Lu -f0 � W -15 -20 W o — JI Z Z W Vl � (n m 0 -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — — — — — — — — — — 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE Q I 0.33' NAVD(MHW) Z 0 — — — — ------------------ -5 -f0 w -15 W W > > -20 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING MO(7RE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY 3410 FAXLENAP239L594-2025 coAST.0 DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 I ANGIPCRMIrTNGIGN JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-66 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 ivr-, i 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33' NAVD_(MHW) p 0 Q Z -5 W -f0 W -15 O -20 W Z h h -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — — — — — — — — — — — 5DETAIL ABOVE , a 0.33' NAVD�MHW) Z 0--- — ---------------- -- -5 — -f0 W -15 W -20 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY FAX: (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING OESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com ■ A W d W -2, -50 10 - 0 5 2 0 -5 -10 w -15 - W -20 - -25 0 BEACH PROFILE: R- 67 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) DETAIL ABOVE `-\- - - - - - I - - MHW) _0.1V NAVD (MHW) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 5 0 0 Q —5 Z W —f0 J W —15 —20 —25 —50 10 - 0 5 Z0 —5 W —10 w —15 J w —20 —25 0 BEACH PROFILE: R-68 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SEE DETAIL ABOVE MHW) 0.3V NAVD(MHW) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) LL. WE M05-1 la 7i iIFIJ 5 0 0 Q -5 Z W -10 J W -15 -20 -25 -50 0 f0 - 0 5 a 0 - Z -5- - 10 w -15 J W -20 -25 0 600 BEACH PROFILE: T-69 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI MHW) 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SEE DETAIL ABOVE 0.3V NA'IDfMHW) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-70 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ---- -- —— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33' NAVD (MHW) 0 Z -5 W -f0 J W -15 ti -20 W 0 's ? Z W H � N OQp p -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10�------------ 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE Q 0.3V NAVD (MHW) 2 0 ---- -------------------- -5 -f0 W -15 W W W = -2D J - > > -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPES, FL 3410 FAX: (239) 594 -2025 COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING OESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com 10 5 0 Z -5 W -10 J W -15 -20 -25 -50 10 0 5 a 0 Z -5 W -10 w -15 J w -20 -25 0 BEACH PROFILE: R-71 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI MHW) 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) ;: SEE DETAIL ABOVE _ _ _ _ 0.33' NAVD (MHW) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) AIrA Merl 1^Mr- nrrA �� 10-1 Nap,R-)nuRG UG I �91L 5 0 -15 -20 -25 1 -50 10 f 0 5 2 0 -5 — W -f0 w -15 W -20 -25 0 BEACH PROFILE: R-72 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI ______________ 0.33'NAVD(MHW) 0 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SDETAILABOVE — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — T 600 0.33' NAVD(MHW) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-73 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ------ —— ... ------------------- 0.33' NL_ _(MHW) 0 Z -5 W -f0 W -15 -20 W 0 Z Z W h � y m o -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 15 SEE DETAIL ABOVE Q 0.33' NAVD(MHW) 2 0--i- ------ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — W -5 -f0 W -15 IW I W W -20 to I I o -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING � M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT FOR: COLLIER COUNTY FAPLES, FL 34110 ENGINEERS FAX: (239) 594-2025 I COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com 10 5 0 Z -5 W -f0 W -15 -20 -25 -50 10 - p 5 2 0 - -5 W -10 W -15 W -20 -25 0 0 BEACH PROFILE: R-74 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SEE DETAIL ABOVE SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI MHW) 600 0.3V NAVD(MHW) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R- 75 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E to ivy ihCJnVhCG ur i vim 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ---------- ----- —---------------- 0.33� NAVD (MHW) 0 0 Q Z -5 W -10 d -15 -20 W Z. Z Z W N � y Q �0 W p -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — — — — — — — — — — 5 DETAIL FZ ABOVE a I 0.3V NA'/D (MHW) 0 —�-- ----- -------- -------------- W -5 -10 W -15 I W I I W W lO I I -20 o -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M[H)HE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ` � ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY (2 FL 34110 FAX: (239) 594-2025 FAX: I COASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com BEACH PROFILE: R- 76 1 ^il -2 -2 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI MHW) 10T----------� 5 J I SEE DETAIL ABOVE , Z0 �— —------- I --------------------- 0.33' NA'/D_(MHW) -5 -iD Lu W -15 I I I -20 p -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-77 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5 ------ -- ----------------- 0.33' NAVD_(MHW) 0 2 -5 W -10 W -15 2 0 -20 W _ ? Z W �? m O -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10�---- --------- 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE Q 0.33' NAVD�MHW) 2 0 - -- - _- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -5 -10 W -15 W -20 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING MO(7RE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPES, FL 3410 FAX: (239) 594 -2025 1:0ASTAL DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENQI PCRMIMNG IGN ANGJOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com 10 5 0 0 Q -5 Z W -10 d W -15 -20 -25 -50 0 BEACH PROFILE: R- 78 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 - - - - - - - - - - - 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE o 2 0 - - - - -5 - W w -15 W W -20 -25 SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI MHW) 600 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.3V NAVD (MHW) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 11-I 1/1 - -rTIll 5 0 0 Z -5 W -f0 d W -15 -20 -25 -50 0 10 — — — — — — — — — — — -- 5- SEE DETAIL ABOVE Z0 — — — — — — — — — - -5 W -10 � w W -20 -25 0 200 400 600 BEACH PROFILE: R- 79 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI 600 MHW) _____________ 0.33' NAVD (MHW) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 •Ir 1- I--r ---•11 5 0 0 Q -5 Z W -f0 W -15 -20 -25 -50 0 f0 0 5- 0-- -5- W -f0 W -15 W -20 -25 0 SEE DETAIL ABOVE BEACH PROFILE: R-80 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI 600 MHW) ________________ 0.33'NAVD(MHW) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) BEACH PROFILE: R-81 1 -2, -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI MHW) 10 — — — — — — — — — — — 5 0 SEE DETAIL ABOVE — . — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33' NA D�MHW) 2 I -5 W I it -f0 Lu -15 IW W W I -20 o o -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) BEACH PROFILE: R-82 1 -2. -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI MHW) 10 — — 5 � SEE DETAIL ABOVE a 0 i------- --— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.33' NA/D (MHW) Z -5 -10 -15 4' -20 -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 1Ir1!1 f+l,--r -rT111 5 0 0 Q -5 Z W -f0 W -15 -20 -25 -50 0 BEACH PROFILE: R-83 200 400 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E NG SDI NG SDI 600 MHW) 10 — — r>SEE DETAIL ABOVE 5 a I 0.33' NAVD�MHW) 0-- Z --------------- — -5- -10 W —15 La W ' I -20 o -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) SURVEY LEGEND BEACH PROFILE: R-84 2005-11 PRE CONSTRUCTION CP&E 2006-06 POST CONSTRUCTION CP&E 10 2019-03 MONITORING SDI 2020-03 MONITORING SDI 5-- 0.33' NAVD (MHW) 0- --- — — ---- -------------------- 0 Z -5 W —10 W -15 i _20 W 0 Z Z W � m 0 -25 -50 0 200 400 600 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) 10 — — — — — — — — — — 5 SEE DETAIL ABOVE I 0.33' NA ID 2 0 — _ — — — — -5 ZZ -f0 -15 4' ICI -20 o -25 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 DISTANCE SEAWARD OF MONUMENT (FT.) HUMISTON COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING MO(7RE BEACH PROFILE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY NAPES, FL 3410 FAX: (239) 594 -2025 coAST.0 DATE: 3 31 20 FILE: SECTION SCALE: SHOWN PHONE: (239) 594-2021 ENQINEERINC.DESIGN PERMITTING AND JOB: 18022 DATUM: NAVD FIGURE: www.humistonandmoore.com Appendix E 2006 Post Construction Volume and Shoreline Change (CP&E) TABLE 3 VANDERBILT BEACH AND PELICAN BAY MHW SHORELINE CHANGES AND ADDED BEACH WIDTH PROFILE AS SEPT.05 NOV.05 AREA BUILT to JUN. 06 to JUN. 06 WIGGINS PASS R-17 26.6 R-18 7.6 R-19 -11.0 R-20 5.8 R-21 16.3 R-22 -1.2 1.3 R-23 --------------- R-23 ------------------------------------------------------------ 24.6 25.4 23.3 R-24 32.7 14.5 19.0 R-25 45.3 49.4 43.9 R-26 57.0 42.7 44.4 R-27 66.2 53.2 44.9 R-28 51.7 44.8 48.1 R-29 67.0 67.3 61.1 R-30 39.7 35.1 33.9 R-31 36.4 25.2 27.4 R-32 44.2 37.3 28.3 R-33 38.0 14.7 12.0 R-34 47.3 31.5 20.8 R-35 43.1 33.6 22.3 R-36 40.7 21.3 12.2 --------------------- R-37 ------------------------------------------------------------ 10.7 -9.6 R-38 -3.0 -22.4 R-39 18.3 -4.2 R-40 21.6 6.3 R-41 -7.3 2.0 CLAM PASS VANDERBILT 48.0 41.6 39.8 R-22 TO R-31 PELICAN BAY 41.6 27.3 20.5 R-31 TO R-37 -M-ON---O-----N-G -A--R- EA------------------------------------------------------0-.8- R-17 TO R-41 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 4 NORTH PARK SHORE AND PARK SHORE MHW SHORELINE CHANGES AND ADDED BEACH WIDTH PROFILE AS SEPT.05 NOV.05 AREA BUILT to JUN. 06 to JUN. 06 CLAM PASS R-42 -4.6 -7.1 R-43 -8.7 -13.0 R-44 26.2 12.3 R-45 0.6 -7.8 ----------- R ---------46 -------------4T.5 4.5 ---------------- U.6 .6 ---------------------- -3.7 R-47 30.7 12.4 10.7 R-48 46.5 19.0 17.7 R-49 43.3 6.4 -2.7 R-50 57.0 40.4 30.0 R-51 86.4 68.8 63.7 R-52 99.2 88.6 69.1 R-53 45.7 49.3 49.8 R-54 48.3 43.5 42.3 --------------------- R-55 ------------------------------------------------------------ -5.9 -20.7 R-56 -5.2 -9.3 R-57 39.7 12.7 DOCTORS PASS --------------------- PROJECT AREA ----------------------------------------------------------- 55.7 36.4 305.8 R-46 TO R-54 MONITORING AREA 23.1 15.3 R-42 TO R-57 I I- I COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 5 NAPLES BEACH MHW SHORELINE CHANGES AND ADDED BEACH WIDTH PROFILE AS SEPT.05 NOV.05 AREA BUILT to JUN. 06 to JUN. 06 PASS -DOCTORS -------------------- R-58A ------------------------------------------------------------ 118.4 66.7 63.3 R-58 96.8 77.5 59.4 R-59 59.9 86.9 71.5 R-60 41.9 51.1 44.5 R-61 12.6 41.3 48.9 R-62 49.9 68.3 70.1 R-63 93.7 49.7 38.7 R-64 47.9 19.9 14.8 R-65 36.0 50.5 30.5 R-66 60.6 53.6 36.2 R-67 43.8 67.7 30.7 R-68 35.2 38.0 2.2 R-69 51.4 43.3 31.6 R-70 109.9 106.7 100.2 R-71 123.5 123.4 120.7 R-72 136.3 127.8 126.2 R-73 54.7 53.7 50.0 R-74 76.8 78.3 86.4 R-75 52.4 70.4 51.4 R-76 64.5 93.2 76.3 R-77 47.7 59.6 61.3 R-78 40.6 54.3 44.0 R-79 --------------- R-79 ------------------------------------------------------------ 2.6 4.1 0.8 R-80 28.5 17.8 R-81 10.4 9.2 R-82 15.7 0.7 R-83 16.0 8.8 R-84 15.4 18.5 --------------------- PROJECT AREA ------------------------------------------------------------ 66.1 67.4 57.2 R-58A TO R-78 --------------------- MONITORING AREA47.0 ------------------------------------------------------------ R-58A TO R-84 14 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 6 VANDERBILT BEACH AND PELICAN BAY VOLUMETRIC CHANGES (CY) PROFILE AREA EFFECTIVE SEPT. 05 NOV. 05 FROM / TO DISTANCE FT DESIGN AS -BUILT to JUN. 06 to JUN. 06 WIGGINS PASS R-17 TO R-18 1,002 2,229 R-18 TO R-19 1,047 -258 R-19 TO R-20 1,029 -3,088 R-20 TO R-21 1,030 1,896 R-21 TO R-22 -------------------------- 1,040 -----------------. -------------- --------------- 2,489 -------------- --------- TO R-23 568 3,706 4,515 3,790 2-,-9-8--6- 2,986 R-23 R-23 TO R-24 1,057 8,662 8,336 5,557 7,007 R-24 TO R-25 1,082 12,893 13,698 9,690 12,529 R-25 TO R-26 983 15,963 15,892 15,819 16,983 R-26 TO R-27 993 18,856 18,425 16,754 18,293 R-27 TO R-28 1,195 23,327 22,519 19,783 19,538 R-28 TO R-29 855 14,093 14,383 14,833 15,215 R-29 TO R-30 1,028 13,436 14,662 15,549 15,122 R-30 TO R-31 1,037 10,753 9,057 8,372 5,083 R-31 TO R-32 1,006 10,207 8,957 11,916 9,931 R-32 TO R-33 1,017 10,174 9,093 14,588 15,641 R-33 TO R-34 1,026 10,799 10,881 13,058 15,598 R-34 TO R-35 997 11,177 11,277 16,466 16,440 R-35 TO R-36 999 11,245 12,993 13,544 14,369 R-36 TO R-37 1,057 3,623 3,754 8,014 9,132 R-37 TO R-38 976 -350 1,977 R-38 TO R-39 1,022 -2,089 3,417 R-39 TO R-40 1,009 2,255 8,839 R-40 TO R-41 1,012 -1,032 9,435 CLAM PASS -------------------------- VANDERBILT -------------------•-------------- 8,798 121,689 ---------------•-------------- 121,487 110,147 -------------- 112,756 R-22 TO R-31 PELICAN BAY 6,102 57,225 56,955 77,586 81,111 R-31 TO R-37 MONITORING AREA 24,067 189,785 n R-17 TO R-41 17 COASTAL PLANNING tic ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 7 NORTH PARK SHORE AND PARK SHORE VOLUMETRIC CHANGES PROFILE AREA EFFECTIVE SEPT. 05 NOV. 05 FROM / TO DISTANCE FT DESIGN AS -BUILT to JUN. 06 to JUN. 06 CLAM PASS R-42 TO R-43 1,039 -5,456 -6,534 R-43 TO R-44 997 -690 1,022 R-44 TO R-45 -----R------------------- 1,048 ------------------- -------------- --------------- 3,178 •-------------- -320 --------5,07 R-45 TO R-46 1,106 6,551 8,478 -2,357 -5,071 R-46 TO R-47 973 11,890 10,040 -3,011 -1,948 R-47 TO R-48 933 9,337 9,187 2,982 4,122 R-48 TO R-49 1,067 11,040 11,604 2,770 4,770 R-49 TO R-50 1,086 12,062 11,608 6,150 9,768 R-50 TO R-51 1,329 26,096 26,745 24,038 28,411 R-51 TO R-52 885 23,669 23,960 21,004 20,654 R-52 TO R-53 1,048 24,766 24,719 19,332 16,803 R-53 TO R-54 1,070 13,220 13,412 11,757 10,173 R-54 TO R-55 1,046 1,593 1,986 6,710 3,941 R-55 TO R-56 923 -1,950 -2,338 R-56 TO R-57 768 -23 2,647 DOCTORS PASS -------------------------- N. PARK SHORE ------------------- 3,012 -------------- 27,778 ---------------•------------- 27,705 -2-,386 -------------- -2,897 R-45 TO R-48 PARK SHORE 7,531 112,446 114,034 91,761 94,520 R-48 TO R-55 MONITORING AREA 15,318 140,224 141,739 84,434 86,100 R-42 TO R-57 20 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 8 NAPLES BEACH VOLUMETRIC CHANGES PROFILE AREA EFFECTIVE SEPT. 05 NOV. 05 FROM / TO DISTANCE FT DESIGN AS -BUILT to JUN. 06 to JUN. 06 PASS ---DOCTORS - - - - ----------- R-58A TO R-58 -------------------•-------------- 521 22,602 ---------------•-------------- 21,736 6,838 -------------- 4,747 R-58 TO R-59 985 23,123 22,219 22,905 18,219 R-59 TO R-60 1,085 17,447 17,238 16,723 16,192 R-60 TO R-61 1,077 9,591 8,356 21,169 19,194 R-61 TO R-62 1,020 6,192 7,037 24,388 27,401 R-62 TO R-63 1,008 18,303 18,615 20,628 22,986 R-63 TO R-64 926 19,227 18,918 11,100 12,282 R-64 TO R-65 782 9,586 8,688 5,438 6,052 R-65 TO R-66 825 10,404 10,419 11,509 11,201 R-66 TO R-67 800 11,404 12,854 13,959 15,865 R-67 TO R-68 809 8,334 8,879 8,538 10,789 R-68 TO R-69 811 9,378 9,548 3,630 7,166 R-69 TO R-70 798 18,059 16,945 10,186 10,899 R-70 TO R-71 802 31,932 32,220 18,091 18,652 R-71 TO R-72 803 33,727 33,305 21,132 25,950 R-72 TO R-73 811 22,423 22,798 15,331 18,544 R-73 TO R-74 815 16,037 14,982 7,388 14,346 R-74 TO R-75 789 10,498 13,124 10,498 8,505 R-75 TO R-76 800 14,614 15,105 13,492 7,992 R-76 TO R-77 798 16,766 18,147 8,390 14,859 R-77 TO R-78 765 11,433 12,199 2,843 8,279 R-78 TO R-79 1,105 4,203 4,049 -5,264 2,100 R-79 TO R-80 1,150 -8,438 -1,570 R-80 TO R-81 1,077 -2,809 3,070 R-81 TO R-82 874 -1,676 2,774 R-82 TO R-83 1,047 -2,640 194 R-83 TO R-84 960 -5,118 395 -------------------------------------- NAPLES BEACH -------- 18,935 -------------- 345,283 --------------- 347,381 ---------8---- 26,91-2 -------------- 302,220 R-58A TO R-79 -------------------------- MONITORING AREA ------------------- -------------- ---------------•-------------- 248,231 -------------- 307,083 R-58A TO R-84 23 COASTAL PLANNING tic ENGINEERING, INC. Appendix F Historical Shoreline Change for R-17 through R-84 (Beach Width Comparisons) Table 1F: Wiggins to Clam Pass Historical Beach Widths (R-17 to R-41) DEP Design Beach Width (Feet) Mon. Standard 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 412013 2/2014 4/2015 1/2016 1/2017 10/2017 3/2019 3/2020 Wiggins Pass R-17 51 77 44 78 180 113 172 127 68 -13 17 -19 -79 -95 R-18 97 108 172 148 130 106 102 87 94 67 46 52 64 90 No No R-19 112 99 182 149 127 90 103 94 81 83 77 78 140 136 Data Data R-20 98 103 107 118 107 75 72 81 81 71 67 63 67 79 R-21 87 102 99 108 99 83 94 94 93 85 69 67 63 79 R-22 100 107 107 120 112 112 124 118 108 118 120 112 105 103 101 96 109 R-23 100 100 121 129 116 118 113 122 116 110 117 114 107 105 106 106 112 R-24 100 114 130 138 119 116 135 124 125 99 114 112 112 117 116 123 124 R-25 100 95 135 136 112 112 124 112 113 93 108 106 98 116 111 114 114 R-26 100 109 147 148 123 123 135 121 123 107 140 127 117 133 124 122 117 R-27 100 79 121 117 98 96 97 89 91 90 123 109 98 115 94 107 99 R-28 100 97 138 123 112 108 112 111 99 88 120 119 108 119 110 102 105 R-29 100 86 143 120 105 108 107 106 98 93 123 119 109 119 106 109 110 R-30 100 110 141 131 109 125 113 108 117 110 125 123 113 116 116 117 114 R-31 100 109 132 121 117 136 131 124 117 102 130 131 123 125 115 121 123 R-32 100 107 139 123 109 127 126 131 120 115 122 129 119 118 119 117 122 R-33 100 91 104 96 99 108 111 113 105 95 103 105 102 105 103 100 90 R-34 100 80 104 103 87 93 110 100 102 89 100 95 94 95 89 105 101 R-35 100 79 103 98 79 94 97 94 87 82 104 94 83 89 84 78 85 R-36 100 81 96 92 79 82 92 90 90 78 96 90 81 87 83 87 80 R-37 100 99 92 99 92 98 95 83 95 85 93 95 91 96 93 87 98 R-38 - 106 88 116 104 104 101 77 109 93 101 104 102 110 104 94 111 R-39 97 93 104 88 80 111 94 107 97 107 110 107 111 95 93 84 R-40 71 80 81 76 73 107 118 83 114 98 125 115 93 87 87 73 R-41 104 108 112 138 173 99 131 80 158 157 193 146 141 118 101 75 Clam Pass S. of Wiggins Pass Avg. Beach Width - 98 121 120 - 129 - 93 109 97 83 59 55 48 51 58 R-17to R-21 Vanderbilt Beach Avg. Beach Width 100 131 129 112 113 118 112 110 101 121 116 107 116 109 111 112 R-22 to R-30.5 Pelican Bay Beach Avg. Beach Width 92 110 104 94 106 109 105 102 92 107 105 99 102 98 99 100 R-30.5 to R-37 N. of Clam Pass Avg. Beach Width 95 92 103 101 107 105 105 95 115 116 133 118 114 101 94 86 R-38to R-41 Notes: 1. Beach widths from 2005 to 2014 for monuments R-17 to R-21 by Humiston & Moore Engineers. 2. Beach widths shown from 2005 to 2014 for monuments R-22 to R-41 based on: 2005 to 2014 Historical Beach Analysis, Atkins, July 2014. 3. Beach widths for 2005 R-17 to R-21 based on September 2005 survey. 4. Beach widths shown for all monuments from 2015 to 2019 by Humiston & Moore Engineers. 5. Shaded portion of table represents the 2005/2006 project area. Table 2F: Clam to Doctors Pass Historical Beach Widths (R-42 to R-57) DEP Design Beach Width (Feet) Mon. Standard 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2/2014 4/2015 1/2016 1/2017 1012017 312019 3/2020 Clam Pass R-42 103 97 79 63 82 87 52 88 47 73 33 53 46 78 108 108 R-43 64 52 79 67 73 57 55 61 39 73 54 47 62 63 69 66 R-44 85 74 84 64 67 65 63 62 35 60 76 80 70 75 59 64 91 R-45 85 76 67 61 65 69 63 74 30 78 99 96 84 96 67 75 132 R-46 85 88 84 64 71 84 67 78 82 61 98 88 82 87 72 76 97 R-47 85 103 114 99 99 103 88 80 97 84 101 105 104 113 98 102 116 R-48 85 82 99 101 89 91 88 88 104 82 84 98 96 99 79 88 109 R-49 85 99 96 97 90 93 104 106 108 92 97 88 90 99 93 80 104 T-50 85 87 116 129 108 123 126 143 122 97 120 117 115 110 101 114 128 R-51 85 64 126 112 102 96 97 108 90 90 123 106 97 93 84 87 111 R-52 85 59 125 94 84 85 57 76 79 56 110 100 86 91 68 69 113 R-53 85 64 114 97 89 83 80 64 84 83 99 95 96 94 78 85 99 T-54 85 83 126 101 99 93 94 98 104 95 124 113 114 118 109 100 121 U-55 - 93 73 93 91 98 99 105 115 111 108 122 121 125 120 125 138 R-56 103 91 101 108 115 113 129 123 108 113 151 153 147 138 136 145 T-57 110 123 109 109 103 109 138 99 146 150 198 167 163 126 143 152 Doctors Pass S. of Clam Pass Avg. Beach Width 84 74 79 65 77 72 53 75 43 73 44 50 54 71 88 87 R-42 to R-43 Park Shore Beach Avg. Beach Width 80 105 93 88 90 84 89 85 80 103 99 94 98 83 85 111 R-44 to R-55 N. of Doctors Pass Avg. Beach Width 102 95 101 102 105 107 124 112 121 124 157 147 145 128 135 145 R-56 to R-57 Notes: 1. Beach widths shown from 2005 to 2014 based on: 2005 to 2014 Historical Beach Analysis, Atkins, July 2014. 2. Beach widths shown from 2015 to 2019 by Humiston & Moore Engineers. 3. Shaded portion of table represents the 2005/2006 project area. Table 3F: Doctors to Gordon Pass Historical Beach Widths (R-58A to R-84) DEP Design Beach Width (Feet) Mon. Standard 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 212014 12/2014 4/2015 1/2016 1/2017 10/2017 3/2019 3/2020 Doctors Pass R-58A 100 13 78 24 21 35 50 57 6 12 140 71 52 40 32 55 104 105 R-58 100 70 134 105 82 75 74 79 54 83 144 124 125 103 90 82 58 61 R-59 100 71 146 124 103 99 97 101 84 101 121 111 122 115 107 97 104 94 R-60 100 68 108 115 103 115 112 109 100 104 109 126 107 98 102 99 108 106 R-61 100 82 129 127 118 150 138 140 132 111 125 158 139 138 153 133 164 141 T-62 100 57 123 111 90 100 86 103 104 97 105 136 145 102 118 98 104 122 R-63 100 87 120 96 99 106 88 89 106 72 116 87 106 113 98 102 91 104 R-64 100 103 119 110 112 122 110 107 122 96 107 103 96 91 102 99 77 86 R-65 100 106 135 116 115 122 115 103 127 128 125 122 120 112 108 105 104 99 R-66 100 112 147 136 129 131 124 115 131 122 129 119 126 127 124 126 143 114 R-67 100 153 184 177 160 152 151 152 164 172 174 171 172 171 163 157 173 160 R-68 100 144 146 165 163 150 152 152 151 151 162 163 167 166 143 147 138 138 T-69 100 107 140 151 140 124 130 132 116 136 149 149 156 137 128 136 112 108 R-70 100 69 168 140 139 123 130 120 109 130 140 124 136 133 122 124 107 99 R-71 100 62 178 145 139 129 132 125 112 123 144 129 147 139 124 137 125 129 R-72 100 73 195 167 156 154 150 149 128 122 155 158 172 170 147 155 145 151 R-73 100 85 129 155 157 150 150 147 125 127 153 158 186 178 145 156 154 156 R-74 100 68 157 155 147 138 142 145 136 140 144 145 176 187 149 157 158 164 R-75 100 84 135 111 126 140 140 128 135 134 116 100 147 115 121 152 145 136 R-76 100 60 138 117 110 98 108 100 104 78 113 116 94 111 103 113 127 135 R-77 100 78 137 124 116 108 111 124 132 108 116 120 111 119 114 127 142 162 R-78 100 86 124 118 109 110 115 134 126 92 100 97 103 101 106 135 105 115 R-79 100 80 82 100 81 100 110 101 109 126 105 97 99 89 98 108 79 82 R-80 - 86 101 96 90 88 117 111 105 117 112 107 100 99 93 94 76 84 R-81 92 99 95 86 92 89 97 98 117 115 111 107 111 102 99 89 84 R-82 63 58 70 69 81 60 64 73 89 83 87 89 85 75 78 63 76 R-83 41 43 51 62 67 58 45 51 71 56 45 81 79 70 75 54 79 R-84 23 34 43 45 53 52 67 44 59 53 49 72 67 47 68 57 58 R-85 R-86 R-87 Not Analyzed as Part of This Report - Shown for Reference Only R-88 R-89 Gordon Pass Naples Beach Avg. Beach Width 86 140 130 122 122 121 121 118 116 130 128 134 128 121 125 121 121 R-58 to R-79 Naples Beach Avg. Beach Width 61 67 71 70 76 75 77 74 91 84 80 90 88 77 83 68 76 R-80 to R-84 Notes: 1. Average width for Naples Beach project area does not include the width shown for monument R-58A 2. Beach widths shown from 2005 to 2014 based on: 2005 to 2014 Historical Beach Analysis, Atkins, July 2014. 3. Beach widths shown from 2015 to 2019 by Humiston & Moore Engineers. 4. Shaded portion of table represents the 2005/2006 project area. R-17 2005 Beach Width= 51 Beginning Width= Beginning Width= 113 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 59 End Beach Width= 77 End Beach Width= 172 Beginning Width= 77 Beginning Width= 172 00 Annual Erosion= -33 Annual Erosion= -45 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 44 End Beach Width= 127 Beginning Width= 44 Beginning Width= 127 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -59 eV Annual Accretion= 34 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 78 End Beach Width= 68 Beginning Width= 78 Beginning Width= 68 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -81 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 78 End Beach Width= -13 Beginning Width= 78 Beginning Width= -13 O I� Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= 30 End Beach Width= 180 End Beach Width= 17 Beginning Width= 180 Beginning Width= 17 rl 00 G Annual Erosion= G Annual Erosion= -36 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 180 End Beach Width= -19 Beginning Width= 180 Beginning Width= -19 o Annual Erosion= -67 Annual Erosion= -60 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 113 End Beach Width= -79 Beginning Width= -79 O N O Annual Erosion= -16 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= -95 -95 2020 -79 2019 19 2018 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 -1 2016 2015 2014 c L O 2013 g° Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 L M } 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (Aug. 2008) 2008 2007 2006 Hurricane Wilma(Oct. Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2005) 2005 -125 -100 -75 -50 Net Change -16.0 ft -60.0 ft 17 -36.0 ft 30.0 ft -81.0 ft 68 77777� 127 -59.0 ft -45.0 ft 59.0 ft 11 No Data -67.0 ft No Data 78 77 -25 0 25 50 75 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) 102.0 34.0 ft -33.0 ft 26.0 ft 100 125 150 175 200 —iFMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-18 2005 Beach Width= 97 Beginning Width= 97 Beginning Width= 106 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -4 rV Annual Accretion= 11 rV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width- 102 Beginning Width= 108 Beginning Width= 102 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -15 N Annual Accretion= 64 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 172 End Beach Width= 87 Beginning Width= 172 Beginning Width= 87 Annual Erosion= -24 Annual Erosion= tV Annual Accretion= tV Annual Accretion= 7 End Beach Width= 148 End Beach Width= 94 Beginning Width= 148 Beginning Width= 94 kD Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -27 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 148 End Beach Width= 67 Beginning Width= 148 Beginning Width= 67 Annual Erosion= -18 Annual Erosion= -21 rV Annual Accretion= rV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 130 End Beach Width- 46 Beginning Width= 130 Beginning Width= 46 T-q 00 GAnnual Erosion= G Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 10 N Annual Accretion= 6 End Beach Width= 140 End Beach Width= 52 Beginning Width= 130 Beginning Width= 52 Annual Erosion= -24 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 12 End Beach Width= 106 End Beach Width= 64 Beginning Width= 64 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 26 End Beach Width= 90 90 2020 R-18 64 2019 52 2018 46 00"Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 67 2016 2015 — 2014 ao c `o *= 2013 - c g Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 - L v r 2011 - — 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (Aug. 2008) 2008 Wiggins Pass Dredge 48,000 CY (2007) R-18 to R-19.5 Inn-7 2006 Hurricane Wilma(Oct. 2005 Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2005) 2005 1 1 - 0 25 50 87 1 1 No Data Net Change 26.0 ft 12.0 ft 6.0 ft -21.0 ft -27.0 ft 7.0 ft No Data -15.0 ft -4.0 ft -24.0 ft 130 148 -18.0 ft -24.0 ft 172 64.0 ft 10 75 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) 11.0 ft 150 175 200 fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-19 2005 Beach Width= 112 Beginning Width= 112 Beginning Width= 90 Annual Erosion= -13 Annual Erosion= rV Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 13 End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width- 103 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 103 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -9 N Annual Accretion= 83 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 182 End Beach Width= 94 Beginning Width= 182 Beginning Width= 94 Annual Erosion= -33 Annual Erosion= -13 rV Annual Accretion= rV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 149 End Beach Width- 81 Beginning Width= 149 Beginning Width= 81 kD Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 2 End Beach Width= 149 End Beach Width= 83 Beginning Width= 149 Beginning Width= 83 Annual Erosion= -22 Annual Erosion= -6 rV Annual Accretion= rV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 127 End Beach Width= 77 Beginning Width= 127 Beginning Width= 77 r-i 00 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= tV Annual Accretion= rV Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 127 End Beach Width- 78 Beginning Width= 127 Beginning Width= 78 N 0) Annual Erosion= -37 Annual Erosion= rV Annual Accretion= rV Annual Accretion= 62 End Beach Width= 90 End Beach Width= 140 Beginning Width= 140 O N O Annual Erosion= -4 tV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 136 2020 — R-19 2019 Wiggins Dredge Nearshore Disposal (July 2018) 2018 - Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 78 77 2017 - - 83 2016 - 2015 ►400! c 2013 c 0 0 2012 v 2011 2010 136 -4.0 ft 62.0 ft 1.0 ft -6.0 ft I n ft 81 -13.0 ft 9 103 No Data -9.0 ft Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 90Z 13.0 ft -37.0 ft No Data 127 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (Aug. 2008) 2008 Wiggins Pass Dredge 48,000 CY (2007) R-18 to R-19.5 2007 2006 Hurricane Wilma (Oct. 2005) Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2005) 2005 0 25 50 112 75 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) 149 -22.0 ft -33.0 ft 83.0 ft -13.0 ft 150 175 200 fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-20 2005 Beach Width= 98 Beginning Width= 98 Beginning Width= 75 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -3 N Annual Accretion= 5 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 103 End Beach Width= 72 Beginning Width= 103 Beginning Width= 72 00 Annual Erosion= G Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 4 N Annual Accretion= 9 End Beach Width= 107 End Beach Width= 81 Beginning Width= 107 Beginning Width= 81 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 11 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 118 End Beach Width= 81 Beginning Width= 118 Beginning Width= 81 00 Annual Erosion= G Annual Erosion= -10 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 118 End Beach Width= 71 Beginning Width= 118 Beginning Width= 71 O I� Annual Erosion= -11 Annual Erosion= -4 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 107 End Beach Width= 67 Beginning Width= 107 Beginning Width= 67 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -4 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 107 End Beach Width= 63 Beginning Width= 107 Beginning Width= 63 N G1 C Annual Erosion= -32 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 75 End Beach Width= 67 Beginning Width= 67 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 12 End Beach Width= 79 2020 R-20 2019 - 2018 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 2016 2015 2014 o,o c 2013 Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) c G 0 2012 L �o a 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (Aug. 2008) 2008 2007 2006 urricane Wilma(Oct. Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2005) 2005 0 25 50 67 67 Net Change 12.0 ft 4.0 ft -4.0 ft -4.0 ft -10.0 ft 81 81 0.0 ft 72 oe No Data 9.0 ft -3.0 ft -32.0 ft 107 118 No Data -11.0 ft 11.0 ft 107 103 4.0 ft 5.0 ft 98 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-21 2005 Beach Width= 87 Beginning Width= 87 Beginning Width= 83 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= 15 cV Annual Accretion= 11 End Beach Width= 102 End Beach Width= 94 Beginning Width= 102 Beginning Width= 94 00 Annual Erosion= -3 0 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width= 94 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 94 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -1 eV Annual Accretion= 9 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width= 93 Beginning Width= 108 Beginning Width= 93 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -8 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width= 85 Beginning Width= 108 Beginning Width= 85 O I� Annual Erosion= -9 Annual Erosion= -17 eV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width= 69 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 69 00 0 Annual Erosion= 0 Annual Erosion= -2 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width= 67 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 67 0 Annual Erosion= -16 Annual Erosion= -4 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 83 End Beach Width= 63 Beginning Width= 63 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 16 End Beach Width= 79 2020 R-21 2019 2018 — Hurricane Irma 2017 — 2016 2015 2014 wo c �L O *= 2013 c g° Tropical Storm 0 2012 L 2011 2010 - 2009 — ' Tropical Storm 2008 — 2007 — 2006 Hurricane Wilrr 2005 Hurricane Katri 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) tMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-22 2005 Beach Width= 107 Beginning Width= 107 Beginning Width= 108 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 10 End Beach Width= 107 End Beach Width= 118 Beginning Width= 107 Beginning Width= 118 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 13 N Annual Accretion= 2 End Beach Width= 120 End Beach Width= 120 Beginning Width= 120 Beginning Width= 120 CAnnual Erosion= -8 C Annual Erosion= -8 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 112 End Beach Width= 112 Beginning Width= 112 Beginning Width= 112 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -7 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 112 End Beach Width= 105 Beginning Width= 112 Beginning Width= 105 O II% C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -2 cV Annual Accretion= 12 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 124 End Beach Width= 103 Beginning Width= 124 Beginning Width= 103 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -6 p Annual Erosion= -2 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 118 End Beach Width= 101 Beginning Width= 118 Beginning Width= 101 C Annual Erosion= -10 C Annual Erosion= -5 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width= 96 Beginning Width= 96 O cV O Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 13 End Beach Width= 109 109 2020 R-22 96 2019 1 2018 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 1103 2017 105 2016 2015 112 2014 120 ao L 2013 118 c ° Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) Z108 0 2012 } 118 2011 124 2010 - 112.Z 2009 _ Tropical Storm Fay (Aug. 2008) 112 2008 - 120 2007 - 107 2006 urricane vviima (Oct. Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2005) 107 2005 0 25 50 75 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) 150 175 13.0 ft 5.0 ft 2.0 ft 2.0 ft 7.0 ft 1 2.0 ft 10.0 ft -10.0 ft -6.0 ft 12.0 ft 8.0 ft 13.0 ft 0.0 ft Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-23 2005 Beach Width= 100 Beginning Width= 100 Beginning Width= 116 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -6 eV Annual Accretion= 21 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 121 End Beach Width= 110 Beginning Width= 121 Beginning Width= 110 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 8 N Annual Accretion= 7 End Beach Width= 129 End Beach Width= 117 Beginning Width= 129 Beginning Width= 117 CAnnual Erosion= -13 C Annual Erosion= -3 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 116 End Beach Width= 114 Beginning Width= 116 Beginning Width= 114 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -7 N Annual Accretion= 2 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 118 End Beach Width= 107 Beginning Width= 118 Beginning Width= 107 O I� C Annual Erosion= -5 p Annual Erosion= -2 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 113 End Beach Width= 105 Beginning Width= 113 Beginning Width= 105 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 9 N Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 122 End Beach Width= 106 Beginning Width= 122 Beginning Width= 106 C Annual Erosion= -6 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 0 End Beach Width= 116 End Beach Width= 106 Beginning Width= 106 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 6 End Beach Width= 112 R-24 2005 Beach Width= 114 Beginning Width= 114 Beginning Width= 125 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -26 cV Annual Accretion= 16 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 130 End Beach Width= 99 Beginning Width= 130 Beginning Width= 99 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 8 N Annual Accretion= 15 End Beach Width= 138 End Beach Width= 114 Beginning Width= 138 Beginning Width= 114 00 Ln CAnnual Erosion= -19 C Annual Erosion= -2 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 119 End Beach Width= 112 Beginning Width= 119 Beginning Width= 112 C Annual Erosion= -3 p Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 116 End Beach Width= 112 Beginning Width= 116 Beginning Width= 112 O II% C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 19 cV Annual Accretion= 5 End Beach Width= 135 End Beach Width= 117 Beginning Width= 135 Beginning Width= 117 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -11 C Annual Erosion= -1 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 124 End Beach Width= 116 Beginning Width= 124 Beginning Width= 116 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 1 cV Annual Accretion= 7 End Beach Width= 125 End Beach Width= 123 Beginning Width= 123 O cV O Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 124 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 ►40V c `o c 2013 0 0 2012 M v 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 124 Net Change R-24 1 1.0 ft 11 7.0 ft Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) -1.0 ft 117 5.0 ft Fill Placement 35,470 CY (2016) R-24 to R-30 Upland Source 112 1112 0.0 ft Fill Placement 66,000 CY (2013) -2.0 ft R-23 to R-30 Upland Source 114 99 15.0 ft Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) -26.0 ft 125 1.0 ft 1242 13% -11.0 ft 19.0 ft 11 -3.0 ft Tropical Storm Fay (Aug. 2008) 119 -19.0 ft 138 Fill Placement 12,000 CY (May 2006) 130 8.0 ft '000; Hurricane Wilma (Oct. 2005) 16.0 ft Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2005) 114 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Design Standard fNIHM (+.33 NAVD) R-25 2005 Beach Width= 95 Beginning Width= 95 Beginning Width= 113 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -20 cV Annual Accretion= 40 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 135 End Beach Width= 93 Beginning Width= 135 Beginning Width= 93 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 1 N Annual Accretion= 15 End Beach Width= 136 End Beach Width= 108 Beginning Width= 136 Beginning Width= 108 CAnnual Erosion= -24 C Annual Erosion= -2 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 112 End Beach Width= 106 Beginning Width= 112 Beginning Width= 106 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -8 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 112 End Beach Width= 98 Beginning Width= 112 Beginning Width= 98 O II% C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= 18 cV Annual Accretion= 12 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 124 End Beach Width= 116 Beginning Width= 124 Beginning Width= 116 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -12 C Annual Erosion= -5 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 112 End Beach Width= 111 Beginning Width= 112 Beginning Width= 111 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 1 cV Annual Accretion= 3 End Beach Width= 113 End Beach Width= 114 Beginning Width= 114 O cV O Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 0 End Beach Width= 114 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao �L 0 *= 2013 c 0 0 2012 L 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 R-25 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 201 Fill Placement 35,470 CY R-24 to R-30 Upland Sour( Fill Placement 66,000 CY R-23 to R-30 Upland Sour Tropical Storm Debbie (Ju Tropical Storm Fay (Augu! Fill Placement 16,500 CY (I urricane vviiMa (Oct.. 20( Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2( 25 R-26 2005 Beach Width= 109 Beginning Width= 109 Beginning Width= 123 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -16 cV Annual Accretion= 38 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 147 End Beach Width= 107 Beginning Width= 147 Beginning Width= 107 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 1 N Annual Accretion= 33 End Beach Width= 148 End Beach Width= 140 Beginning Width= 148 Beginning Width= 140 CAnnual Erosion= -25 C Annual Erosion= -13 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 123 End Beach Width= 127 Beginning Width= 123 Beginning Width= 127 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -10 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 123 End Beach Width= 117 Beginning Width= 123 Beginning Width= 117 O I� C Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 12 eV Annual Accretion= 16 End Beach Width= 135 End Beach Width= 133 Beginning Width= 135 Beginning Width= 133 00 C Annual Erosion= -14 C Annual Erosion= -9 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 121 End Beach Width= 124 Beginning Width= 121 Beginning Width= 124 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -3 N Annual Accretion= 2 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 123 End Beach Width= 121 Beginning Width= 121 O N O Annual Erosion= -4 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 117 2020 R-26 2019 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2018 - Fill Placement 35,470 CY (2016) 2017 -24 to R-30 Upland Source 2016 2015 ba b 2014 Fill Placement 66,000 CY (2013) o R-23 to R-30 Upland Source 107 2013 Fill Placement 11,000 CY (2012) o p ` Tropical Storm Debbie R-26 to R-30 Upland Source (June 2012) 0 2012 `m v r 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (Aug. 2008) 2008 2007 Fill Placement 18,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma Oct. 2005 Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2005) 2005 117 121 124 133 117 127 140 123 121 �13 123 mZ 123 �14 147 109 0 25 50 75 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Net Change -4.0 ft -3.0 ft -9.0 ft 16.0 ft -10.0 ft -13.0 ft 33.0 ft -16.0 ft 2.0 ft -14.0 ft 12.0 ft 0.0 ft -25.0 ft 1.0 ft 38.0 ft 150 175 200 Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-27 2005 Beach Width= 79 Beginning Width= 79 Beginning Width= 91 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -1 cV Annual Accretion= 42 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 121 End Beach Width= 90 Beginning Width= 121 Beginning Width= 90 C Annual Erosion= -4 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 33 End Beach Width= 117 End Beach Width= 123 Beginning Width= 117 Beginning Width= 123 CAnnual Erosion= -19 C Annual Erosion= -14 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 98 End Beach Width= 109 Beginning Width= 98 Beginning Width= 109 Annual Erosion= -2 C Annual Erosion= -11 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 96 End Beach Width= 98 Beginning Width= 96 Beginning Width= 98 O I� C Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 1 eV Annual Accretion= 17 End Beach Width= 97 End Beach Width= 115 Beginning Width= 97 Beginning Width= 115 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -8 C Annual Erosion= -21 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 89 End Beach Width= 94 Beginning Width= 89 Beginning Width= 94 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 2 cV Annual Accretion= 13 End Beach Width= 91 End Beach Width= 107 Beginning Width= 107 O cV O Annual Erosion= -8 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 99 2020 R-27 2019 2018 - Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 Fill Placement 35,470 CY (2016) R-24 to R-30 Upland Source 2016 2015 2014 Fill Placement 66,000 CY (2013) o R-23 to R-30 Upland Source *= 2013 Fill Placement 11,000 CY (2012) 0 R-26 to R-30 Upland Source 0 2012 } 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (Aug. 2008) 2008 2007 - Fill Placement 19,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 urricane Wilma (Oct. 5) Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2005) 2005 0 25 50 w 115 109 123 Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 11 121 79 75 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) 150 175 Net Change -8.0 ft 13.0 ft -21.0 ft 17.0 ft -11.0 ft -14.0 ft 33.0 ft -1.0 ft 2.0 ft -8.0 ft 1.0 ft -2.0 ft -19.0 ft 4.0 ft 42.0 ft 200 Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-28 2005 Beach Width= 97 Beginning Width= 97 Beginning Width= 99 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -11 eV Annual Accretion= 41 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 138 End Beach Width= 88 Beginning Width= 138 Beginning Width= 88 C Annual Erosion= -15 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 32 End Beach Width= 123 End Beach Width= 120 Beginning Width= 123 Beginning Width= 120 CAnnual Erosion= -11 C Annual Erosion= -1 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 112 End Beach Width= 119 Beginning Width= 112 Beginning Width= 119 C Annual Erosion= -4 C Annual Erosion= -11 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width= 108 Beginning Width= 108 Beginning Width= 108 O I� C Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 4 eV Annual Accretion= 11 End Beach Width= 112 End Beach Width= 119 Beginning Width= 112 Beginning Width= 119 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -1 C Annual Erosion= -9 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 111 End Beach Width= 110 Beginning Width= 111 Beginning Width= 110 C Annual Erosion= -12 C Annual Erosion= -8 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width= 102 Beginning Width= 102 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 3 End Beach Width= 105 105 Net Change 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 ao c L 2013 c 0 g Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) � v r 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) R-28 3.oft 110 -8.0 ft Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 119 -9.0 ft Fill Placement 35,470 CY (2016) 11.0 ft R-24 to R-30 Upland Source ZO -11.0 ft 119 -1.0 ft R-29 2005 Beach Width= 86 Beginning Width= 86 Beginning Width= 98 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -5 eV Annual Accretion= 57 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 143 End Beach Width= 93 Beginning Width= 143 Beginning Width= 93 C Annual Erosion= -23 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 30 End Beach Width= 120 End Beach Width= 123 Beginning Width= 120 Beginning Width= 123 CAnnual Erosion= -15 C Annual Erosion= -4 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 105 End Beach Width= 119 Beginning Width= 105 Beginning Width= 119 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -10 N Annual Accretion= 3 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width= 109 Beginning Width= 108 Beginning Width= 109 O I� C Annual Erosion= -1 p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 10 End Beach Width= 107 End Beach Width= 119 Beginning Width= 107 Beginning Width= 119 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -1 C Annual Erosion= -13 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 106 End Beach Width= 106 Beginning Width= 106 Beginning Width= 106 C Annual Erosion= -8 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 3 End Beach Width= 98 End Beach Width= 109 Beginning Width= 109 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 110 110 Net Change 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao c c 0 2013 g Design Standard 6 2012 fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) v r 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) R-29 1 9 1.o ft 1 3.0 ft Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 119 -13.0 ft Fill Placement 35,470 CY (2016) R-24 to R-30 Upland Source 109 10.0 ft -10.0 ft 119 -4.0 ft 123 Fill Placement 66,000 CY (2013) R-23 to R-30 Upland Source 93 30.0 ft Fill Placement 11,000 CY (2012) Tropical Storm Debbie R-26 to R-30 Upland Source 98 (June 2012) -5.0 ft -8.0 ft 106 1107 -1.0 ft -1.0 ft 108 Tropical Storm Fay (Aug. 2008) 3.0 ft 105 -15.0 ft 120 -23.0 ft Fill Placement 15,000 CY (May 2006) 1 Hurricane Wilma (Oct. 2005) 57.0 ft Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2005) 86 R-30 2005 Beach Width= 110 Beginning Width= 110 Beginning Width= 117 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -7 eV Annual Accretion= 31 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 141 End Beach Width- 110 Beginning Width= 141 Beginning Width= 110 C Annual Erosion= -10 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 15 End Beach Width= 131 End Beach Width= 125 Beginning Width= 131 Beginning Width= 125 CAnnual Erosion= -22 C Annual Erosion= -2 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 109 End Beach Width= 123 Beginning Width= 109 Beginning Width= 123 Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -10 N Annual Accretion= 16 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 125 End Beach Width= 113 Beginning Width= 125 Beginning Width= 113 O II% C Annual Erosion= -12 C Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 3 End Beach Width= 113 End Beach Width= 116 Beginning Width= 113 Beginning Width= 116 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -5 p Annual Erosion= 0 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 0 End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width= 116 Beginning Width= 108 Beginning Width= 116 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 9 N Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 117 End Beach Width= 117 Beginning Width= 117 O N O Annual Erosion= -3 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 114 2020 - R-30 2019 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2018 Fill Placement 35,470 CY (2016) 2017 - - 2016 - 2015 Fill Placement 66,000 CY (2013) R-23 to R-30 Upland Source 2014 Fill Placement 11,000 CY (2012) R-26 to R-30 Upland Source 2013 c g° Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 `m v r 2011 2010 2009 - Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 2007 Fill Placement 5,000 CY (May 2006 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 2005 0 25 50 114 Net Change 7 -3.0 ft 1 1.0 ft 116 0.0 ft 113 3.0 ft -10.0 ft 123 -2.0 ft 125 15.0 ft 11% -7.0 ft 117 9.0 ft 08 -5.0 ft -12.0 ft 125 16.0 ft 9 -22.0 ft 13 -10.0 ft 141 110 31.0 ft 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-31 2005 Beach Width= 109 Beginning Width= 109 Beginning Width= 117 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -15 N Annual Accretion= 23 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 132 End Beach Width= 102 Beginning Width= 132 Beginning Width= 102 C Annual Erosion= -11 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 28 End Beach Width= 121 End Beach Width= 130 Beginning Width= 121 Beginning Width= 130 CAnnual Erosion= -4 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 117 End Beach Width= 131 Beginning Width= 117 Beginning Width= 131 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -8 N Annual Accretion= 19 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 136 End Beach Width= 123 Beginning Width= 136 Beginning Width= 123 O I� C Annual Erosion= -5 p Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 2 End Beach Width= 131 End Beach Width= 125 Beginning Width= 131 Beginning Width= 125 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -7 C Annual Erosion= -10 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 124 End Beach Width= 115 Beginning Width= 124 Beginning Width= 115 N C1 p Annual Erosion= -7 p Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 6 End Beach Width= 117 End Beach Width= 121 Beginning Width= 121 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 2 End Beach Width= 123 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao c �L c 2013 0 0 2012 L 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 R-31 Hurricane Irma (Si Fill Placement 27,01 R-31 to R-36 Uplani Tropical Storm Dek Tropical Storm Fay Fill Placement 10,0 Hurricane Wilma ( Hurricane Katrina ( 25 R-32 2005 Beach Width= 107 Beginning Width= 107 Beginning Width= 120 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -5 eV Annual Accretion= 32 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 139 End Beach Width= 115 Beginning Width= 139 Beginning Width= 115 C Annual Erosion= -16 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 7 End Beach Width= 123 End Beach Width= 122 Beginning Width= 123 Beginning Width= 122 CAnnual Erosion= -14 p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 7 End Beach Width= 109 End Beach Width= 129 Beginning Width= 109 Beginning Width= 129 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -10 N Annual Accretion= 18 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 127 End Beach Width= 119 Beginning Width= 127 Beginning Width= 119 O I� C Annual Erosion= -1 p Annual Erosion= -1 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 126 End Beach Width= 118 Beginning Width= 126 Beginning Width= 118 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 5 N Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 131 End Beach Width= 119 Beginning Width= 131 Beginning Width= 119 C Annual Erosion= -11 C Annual Erosion= -2 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 120 End Beach Width= 117 Beginning Width= 117 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 5 End Beach Width= 122 2020 122 Net Change 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao c `o *= 2013 c 0 g Design Standard 0 2012 fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) a 2011 2010 J7 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) R-32 11 5.oft Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 9 -2.0 ft 1 1.0 ft 19 129 -1.0 ft -10.0 ft 7.0 ft 122 Fill Placement 27,000 CY (2013) R-31 to R-36 Upland Source 115 7.0 ft Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) V20 -5.0 ft -11.0 ft 131 5.0 ft 126 -1.0 R-33 2005 Beach Width= 91 Beginning Width= 91 Beginning Width= 105 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -10 rV Annual Accretion= 13 rV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 104 End Beach Width- 95 Beginning Width= 104 Beginning Width= 95 Annual Erosion= -8 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion- 8 End Beach Width= 96 End Beach Width= 103 Beginning Width= 96 Beginning Width= 103 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= rV Annual Accretion= 3 tV Annual Accretion= 2 End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width- 105 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 105 kD Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -3 N Annual Accretion= 9 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width= 102 Beginning Width= 108 Beginning Width= 102 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 3 rV Annual Accretion= 3 End Beach Width= 111 End Beach Width= 105 Beginning Width= 111 Beginning Width= 105 00 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -2 N Annual Accretion= 2 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 113 End Beach Width= 103 Beginning Width= 113 Beginning Width= 103 Annual Erosion= -8 Annual Erosion= -3 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 105 End Beach Width= 100 Beginning Width= 100 O tV O Annual Erosion= -10 rV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width- 90 90 2020 - R-33 0 2019 - 3 2018 - Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 1105 2017 - 2016 - 102 2015 105 103 2014 Fill Placement 27,000 CY (2013) or c R-31 to R-36-Upland Source 95 2013 c g° Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012105 a } 2011 113 2010 111 2009 J08 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 400, 2008 99 96 2007 Fill Placement 10,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 104 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 91 2005 0 25 50 75 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Net Change -10.0 ft -3.0 ft -2.0 ft 3.0 ft 3.0 ft 2.0 ft 8.0 ft 10.0 ft -8.0 ft 2.0 ft 3.0 ft 3.0 ft 8.0 ft 13.0 ft 150 175 200 Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-34 2005 Beach Width= 80 Beginning Width= 80 Beginning Width= 102 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -13 tV Annual Accretion= 24 tV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 104 End Beach Width- 89 Beginning Width= 104 Beginning Width= 89 Annual Erosion= -1 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 11 End Beach Width= 103 End Beach Width= 100 Beginning Width= 103 Beginning Width= 100 Annual Erosion= -16 Annual Erosion= -5 tV Annual Accretion= rV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 87 End Beach Width- 95 Beginning Width= 87 Beginning Width= 95 kD Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -1 N Annual Accretion= 6 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 93 End Beach Width= 94 Beginning Width= 93 Beginning Width= 94 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 17 rV Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 110 End Beach Width- 95 Beginning Width= 110 Beginning Width= 95 00 Annual Erosion= -10 Annual Erosion= -6 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 100 End Beach Width= 89 Beginning Width= 100 Beginning Width= 89 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 2 N Annual Accretion- 16 End Beach Width= 102 End Beach Width= 105 Beginning Width= 105 O N O Annual Erosion= -4 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 101 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 bA �L c 2013 0 0 2012 L 041151 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 R-34 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) Fill Placement 8,500 CY (2016) R-34 to R-37 Upland Source Fill Placement 27,000 CY (2013) R-31 to R-36 Upland Source Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) Fill Placement 10,000 CY (May 2006) Hurricane Wilma (OctoberMU57 Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 25 50 R-35 2005 Beach Width= 79 Beginning Width= 79 Beginning Width= 87 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -5 N Annual Accretion= 24 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 103 End Beach Width- 82 Beginning Width= 103 Beginning Width= 82 Annual Erosion= -5 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion- 22 End Beach Width= 98 End Beach Width= 104 Beginning Width= 98 Beginning Width= 104 Annual Erosion= -19 Annual Erosion= -10 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 79 End Beach Width= 94 Beginning Width= 79 Beginning Width= 94 kD Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -11 N Annual Accretion= 15 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 94 End Beach Width= 83 Beginning Width= 94 Beginning Width= 83 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 3 N Annual Accretion= 6 End Beach Width= 97 End Beach Width= 89 Beginning Width= 97 Beginning Width= 89 00 Annual Erosion= -3 Annual Erosion= -5 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 94 End Beach Width= 84 Beginning Width= 94 Beginning Width= 84 N 0) Annual Erosion= -7 Annual Erosion= -6 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 87 End Beach Width= 78 Beginning Width= 78 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 7 End Beach Width- 85 2020 85 Net Change R-35 7 7.0 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 L 2013 0 g Design Standard 0 2012 tMHWL (+.33 NAVD) v 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) ft 84 -6.0 ft Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 89 -5.0 ft Fill Placement 8,500 CY (2016) R-34 to R-37 Upland Source 8 6.0 ft -11.0 ft 94 -10.0 ft 104 Fill Placement 27,000 CY (2013) R-31 to R-36 Upland Source 82 22.0 ft R-36 2005 Beach Width= 81 Beginning Width= 81 Beginning Width= 90 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -12 N Annual Accretion= 15 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 96 End Beach Width- 78 Beginning Width= 96 Beginning Width= 78 GAnnual Erosion= -4 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 18 End Beach Width= 92 End Beach Width= 96 Beginning Width= 92 Beginning Width= 96 Annual Erosion= -13 Annual Erosion= -6 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 79 End Beach Width= 90 Beginning Width= 79 Beginning Width= 90 kD Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -9 N Annual Accretion= 3 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 82 End Beach Width= 81 Beginning Width= 82 Beginning Width= 81 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 10 N Annual Accretion= 6 End Beach Width= 92 End Beach Width= 87 Beginning Width= 92 Beginning Width= 87 r.4 00 Annual Erosion= -2 Annual Erosion= -4 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 90 End Beach Width- 83 Beginning Width= 90 Beginning Width= 83 N 0) Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 90 End Beach Width= 87 Beginning Width= 87 O N O Annual Erosion= -7 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width- 80 2020 80 Net Change 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao c L 2013 c 0 g Design Standard 0 2012 fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) v r 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 z 2005 I I 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) R-36 7 -7.o ft g 4.0 ft Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) -4.0 ft 87 Fill Placement 8,500 CY (2016) 6.0 ft R-34 to R-37 Upland Source 81 -9.0 ft 90 -6.0 ft 96 Fill Placement 27,000 CY (2013) 18.0 ft R-31 to R-36 Upland Source 78 Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) -12.0 ft 90 0.0 ft 90 -2.0 ft 92 10.0 ft 82 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) f79 3.0 ft -13.0 ft 92 Fill Placement 9,000 CY (May 2006) -4.0 ft 96 urncane Wilma c o er 15.0 ft Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 81 R-37 2005 Beach Width= 99 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 95 9.0 C Annual Erosion= -7 Annual Erosion= -10 eV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 92 End Beach Width= 85 Beginning Width= 92 Beginning Width= 85 00 Annual Erosion= 0 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 7 N Annual Accretion= 8 End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width= 93 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 93 Annual Erosion= -7 Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 2 End Beach Width= 92 End Beach Width= 95 Beginning Width= 92 Beginning Width= 95 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -4 N Annual Accretion= 6 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 98 End Beach Width= 91 Beginning Width= 98 Beginning Width= 91 O I� Annual Erosion= -3 Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= nl Annual Accretion= 5 End Beach Width= 95 End Beach Width= 96 Beginning Width= 95 Beginning Width= 96 rl 00 G Annual Erosion= -12 Annual Erosion= -3 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 83 End Beach Width= 93 Beginning Width= 83 Beginning Width= 93 00 Annual Erosion= 00 Annual Erosion= -6 N Annual Accretion= 12 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 95 End Beach Width= 87 Beginning Width= 87 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 11 End Beach Width= 98 2020 2019 R-37 98 87 Net Change 11.0 ft 93 -6.0 ft 2018 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) -3.0 ft 6 2017 Fill Placement 8,500 CY (2016) R-34 to R-37 Upland Source 91 5.0 ft 2016 -4.0 ft 2015 95 2.0 ft 2014 93 8.0 ft L 2013 85 0 Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) -10.0 ft Design Standard 0 L 2012 95 fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) a 12.0 ft >_ 2011 83 -12.0 ft 2010 - 9 -3.0 ft 2009 98 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 6.0 ft 2008 92 -7.0 ft 2007 - 99 Fill Placement 9,000 CY (May 2006) 7.0 ft 2006 92 Hurricane Wilma c o er -7.0 ft Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 9 2005 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) R-38 2005 Beach Width= 106 Beginning Width= 106 Beginning Width= 109 Annual Erosion= -18 Annual Erosion= -16 rV Annual Accretion= rV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 88 End Beach Width- 93 Beginning Width= 88 Beginning Width= 93 Re Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 28 N Annual Accretion- 8 End Beach Width= 116 End Beach Width= 101 Beginning Width= 116 Beginning Width= 101 Annual Erosion= -12 Annual Erosion= rV Annual Accretion= rV Annual Accretion= 3 End Beach Width= 104 End Beach Width- 104 Beginning Width= 104 Beginning Width= 104 kD Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -2 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 104 End Beach Width= 102 Beginning Width= 104 Beginning Width= 102 Annual Erosion= -3 Annual Erosion= rV Annual Accretion= rV Annual Accretion= 8 End Beach Width= 101 End Beach Width= 110 Beginning Width= 101 Beginning Width= 110 rl 00 Annual Erosion= -24 Annual Erosion= -6 N Annual Accretion= tV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 77 End Beach Width= 104 Beginning Width= 77 Beginning Width= 104 N 0) Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -10 rV Annual Accretion= 32 tV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 109 End Beach Width= 94 Beginning Width= 94 O rV O Annual Erosion= tV Annual Accretion= 17 End Beach Width- 111 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao c �L O *= 2013 c 0 0 2012 L 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 R-38 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) Fill Placement 9,000 CY (May 200E Hurricane Wilma c o er 2005) Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 25 50 R-39 2005 Beach Width= 97 Beginning Width= 97 Beginning Width= 107 Annual Erosion= -4 Annual Erosion= -10 rV Annual Accretion= rV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 93 End Beach Width= 97 Beginning Width= 93 Beginning Width= 97 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 11 N Annual Accretion- 10 End Beach Width= 104 End Beach Width= 107 Beginning Width= 104 Beginning Width= 107 Annual Erosion= -16 Annual Erosion= 3 rV Annual Accretion= rV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 88 End Beach Width= 110 Beginning Width= 88 Beginning Width= 110 kD Annual Erosion= -8 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= -3 End Beach Width= 80 End Beach Width= 107 Beginning Width= 80 Beginning Width= 107 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= rV Annual Accretion= 31 rV Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 111 End Beach Width- 111 Beginning Width= 111 Beginning Width= 111 T_q 00 rq Annual Erosion= -17 Annual Erosion= -16 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 94 End Beach Width= 95 Beginning Width= 94 Beginning Width= 95 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -2 N Annual Accretion= 13 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 107 End Beach Width= 93 Beginning Width= 93 O N O Annual Erosion= -9 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 84 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao L c 2013 0 0 2012 L 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 R-39 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) Clam Pass Dredge and Fill from R39 t 15,000 CY (Mar. 2013) Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) Fill Placement 9,000 CY (May 2006) Hurricane Wilma October 2005 Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 25 50 R-40 2005 Beach Width= 71 Beginning Width= 71 Beginning Width= 83 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= rV Annual Accretion= 9 rV Annual Accretion= 31 End Beach Width= 80 End Beach Width- 114 Beginning Width= 80 Beginning Width= 114 Re GAnnual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -16 N Annual Accretion= 1 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 81 End Beach Width= 98 Beginning Width= 81 Beginning Width= 98 Annual Erosion= -5 Annual Erosion= rV Annual Accretion= rV Annual Accretion= 27 End Beach Width= 76 End Beach Width= 125 Beginning Width= 76 Beginning Width= 125 kD Annual Erosion= -3 Annual Erosion= -10 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 73 End Beach Width= 115 Beginning Width= 73 Beginning Width= 115 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -22 tV Annual Accretion= 34 tV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 107 End Beach Width- 93 Beginning Width= 107 Beginning Width= 93 00 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -6 N Annual Accretion= 11 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 118 End Beach Width= 87 Beginning Width= 118 Beginning Width= 87 Annual Erosion= -35 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion- 0 End Beach Width= 83 End Beach Width= 87 Beginning Width= 87 O N O Annual Erosion= -14 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 73 73 2020 R-40 2019 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Clam Pass Dredge and Fill from R39 to R41.5 15,000 CY (Mar. 2013) 0 2013 c g Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 ' L M a r 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 76 2008 2007 81 Fill Placement 9,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 80 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005 Hurricane Katrina (Au ust )005) 87 93 107 115 18 g 2005 71 T 0 25 50 75 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Net Change -14.0 ft 0.0 ft -6.0 ft -22.0 ft -10.0 ft 27.0 ft -16.0 ft 31.0 ft -35.0 ft 11.0 ft 34.0 ft -3.0 ft -5.0 ft 1.0 ft 9.0 ft 150 175 200 MHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-41 2005 Beach Width= 104 Beginning Width= 104 Beginning Width= 80 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= tV Annual Accretion= 4 tV Annual Accretion= 78 End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width- 158 Beginning Width= 108 Beginning Width= 158 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -1 N Annual Accretion= 4 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 112 End Beach Width= 157 Beginning Width= 112 Beginning Width= 157 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= rV Annual Accretion= 26 rV Annual Accretion= 36 End Beach Width= 138 End Beach Width= 193 Beginning Width= 138 Beginning Width= 193 GAnnual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -47 N Annual Accretion= 35 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 173 End Beach Width= 146 Beginning Width= 173 Beginning Width= 146 Annual Erosion= -74 Annual Erosion= -5 tV Annual Accretion= tV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width- 141 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 141 00 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -23 N Annual Accretion= 32 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 131 End Beach Width= 118 Beginning Width= 131 Beginning Width= 118 Annual Erosion= -51 Annual Erosion= -17 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 80 End Beach Width= 101 Beginning Width= 101 O N O Annual Erosion= -26 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 75 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 75 Net Chanee R-41 101 -26.0 ft 118 -17.0 ft Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 141 -23.0 ft 146 -5.0 ft �-47.0 ft 157 193 36.0 ft Clam Pass Dredge and Fill from R39 to R41.5 -1.0 ft 2014 ao 0 15,000 CY (Mar. 2013) *= 2013 c ° Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 L v r 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 Clam Pass Dredge and Fill 21,000 CY (Apr. 2007) 2007 Fill Placement 9,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 2005 0 25 50 80 78.0 ft -51.0 ft 131 32.0 ft 99 -74.0 ft 173 35.0 ft 138 26.0 ft 112 4.0 ft 75 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) 4.0 ft 150 175 200 tMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-42 2005 Beach Width= 103 Beginning Width= 103 Beginning Width= 88 Annual Erosion= -6 Annual Erosion= -41 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 97 End Beach Width- 47 Beginning Width= 97 Beginning Width= 47 Annual Erosion= -18 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion- 26 End Beach Width= 79 End Beach Width= 73 Beginning Width= 79 Beginning Width= 73 Annual Erosion= -16 Annual Erosion= -40 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 63 End Beach Width= 33 Beginning Width= 63 Beginning Width= 33 GAnnual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 19 N Annual Accretion- 20 End Beach Width= 82 End Beach Width= 53 Beginning Width= 82 Beginning Width= 53 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -7 N Annual Accretion= 5 N Annual Accretion= 0 End Beach Width= 87 End Beach Width= 46 Beginning Width= 87 Beginning Width= 46 T_q 00 Annual Erosion= -35 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 32 End Beach Width= 52 End Beach Width= 78 Beginning Width= 52 Beginning Width= 78 N 0) Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 36 N Annual Accretion= 30 End Beach Width= 88 End Beach Width= 108 Beginning Width= 108 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 0 End Beach Width= 108 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 108 Net Chanee R-42 10 Fill Placement 130,000 CY (2019) 0.0 ft R-42 to T-54+400 Upland Source Clam Pass Dredge/Fill 8,250 CY R-42 to R-43.5 (May 2018) 78 j� Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 30.0 ft 32.0 ft 46 Clam Pass Dredge and Fill from 53 R-42 to R-43 14,500 CY (2016) -7.0 ft 33 20.0 ft -40.0 ft Clam Pass Dredge and Fill from 26.0 ft 47 R-42 to R-44 5,000 CY (Mar. 2013) -41.0 ft Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 88 36.0 ft 52 -35.0 ft 7 .00 5.0 ft Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 19.0 ft 3 -16.0 ft Clam Pass Dredge and Fill from R-42 to R-43.5 21,000 CY (Jan. 2007) 7 -18.0 ft 97 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005 Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 03 -6.0 ft 85 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) Design Standard R-43 2005 Beach Width= 64 Beginning Width= 64 Beginning Width= 61 Cm Annual Erosion= -12 Annual Erosion= -22 rV Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 52 End Beach Width- 39 Beginning Width= 52 Beginning Width= 39 Re Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 27 N Annual Accretion= 34 End Beach Width= 79 End Beach Width= 73 Beginning Width= 79 Beginning Width= 73 Annual Erosion= -12 Annual Erosion= -19 rV Annual Accretion= rV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 67 End Beach Width- 54 Beginning Width= 67 Beginning Width= 54 kD Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -7 N Annual Accretion= 6 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 73 End Beach Width= 47 Beginning Width= 73 Beginning Width= 47 Annual Erosion= -16 Annual Erosion= rV Annual Accretion= rV Annual Accretion= 15 End Beach Width= 57 End Beach Width= 62 Beginning Width= 57 Beginning Width= 62 T_q 00 0 Annual Erosion= -2 0 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 55 End Beach Width= 63 Beginning Width= 55 Beginning Width= 63 0 Annual Erosion= 0 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 6 N Annual Accretion- 6 End Beach Width= 61 End Beach Width= 69 Beginning Width= 69 O N O Annual Erosion= -3 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 66 2020 R-43 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao c `0 *= 2013 c 0 0 2012 a 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 0 66 Net Change 9 Fill Placement 130,000 CY (2019) -3.0 ft R-42 to T-54+400 Upland Source 63 6.0 ft 6 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 1.0 ft Fill Placement 20,430 CY (2016) 47 R-43 to R-47 Upland Source 15.0 ft -7.0 ft 54 -19.0 ft Fill Placement 1,200 CY (Jan. 2014) 73 Clam Pass Dredge and Fill from R-42 to R-44 34.0 ft 5,000 CY (Mar. 2013) 61 Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) -22.0 ft 2 55 6.0 ft Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) Clam Pass Dredge and Fill from R-42 to R-43.5 21,000 CY (Jan. 2007) Hurricane Wilma(October 2005) 64 Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 25 50 75 85 100 125 150 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) -2.0 ft -16.0 ft 6.0 ft -12.0 ft 27.0 ft -14.0 ft 175 200 fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) Design Standard R-44 2005 Beach Width= 74 Beginning Width= 74 Beginning Width= 35 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 10 N Annual Accretion= 25 End Beach Width= 84 End Beach Width- 60 Beginning Width= 84 Beginning Width= 60 Annual Erosion= -20 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 16 End Beach Width= 64 End Beach Width= 76 Beginning Width= 64 Beginning Width= 76 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 3 N Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 67 End Beach Width= 80 Beginning Width= 67 Beginning Width= 80 Annual Erosion= -2 Annual Erosion= -10 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 65 End Beach Width= 70 Beginning Width= 65 Beginning Width= 70 O I� Annual Erosion= -2 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 5 End Beach Width= 63 End Beach Width= 75 Beginning Width= 63 Beginning Width= 75 rl 00 Annual Erosion= -1 Annual Erosion= -16 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 62 End Beach Width= 59 Beginning Width= 62 Beginning Width= 59 Annual Erosion= -27 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 5 End Beach Width= 35 End Beach Width= 64 Beginning Width= 64 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 27 End Beach Width= 91 2020 R-44 2019 2018 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 Fill Placement 20,430 CY (2016) R-43 to R-47 Upland Source 2016 2015 2014 b Clam Pass Dredge and Fill from R-42 to R-44 5,000 CY (Mar. 2013) 2013 c Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012)e 5 0 2012 v r 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008 2008 2007 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 2005 0 25 50 64 iff 59 75 91 Fill Placement 130,000 CY (2019) R-42 to T-54+400 Upland Source Net Change 27.0 ft 5.0 ft -16.0 ft 5.0 ft %% -10.0 ft .18C 4.0 ft Fill Placement 66,000 CY R-44 to U-55 (2013) 16.0 ft .,0 Zen 25.0 ft -27.0 ft 62 -1.0 ft 63 -2.0 ft 65 -2.0 ft 67 3.0 ft 64LI -20.0 ft 84 10.0 ft 74 85 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) Design Standard R-45 2005 Beach Width= 76 Beginning Width= 76 Beginning Width= 29.7 CAnnual Erosion= -9 C Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= 48 End Beach Width= 67 End Beach Width= 78 Beginning Width= 67 Beginning Width= 78 C Annual Erosion= -6 0 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 21 End Beach Width= 61 End Beach Width= 99 Beginning Width= 61 Beginning Width= 99 CAnnual Erosion= 0 Annual Erosion= -3 cV Annual Accretion= 4 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 65 End Beach Width= 96 Beginning Width= 65 Beginning Width= 96 C Annual Erosion= 0 Annual Erosion= -12 N Annual Accretion= 4 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 69 End Beach Width= 84 Beginning Width= 69 Beginning Width= 84 O I� C Annual Erosion= -6 0 Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 12 End Beach Width= 63 End Beach Width= 96 Beginning Width= 63 Beginning Width= 96 rl 00 0 Annual Erosion= 0 Annual Erosion= -29 N Annual Accretion= 11 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 74 End Beach Width= 67 Beginning Width= 74 Beginning Width= 67 0 Annual Erosion= -44 0 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 8 End Beach Width= 30 End Beach Width= 75 Beginning Width= 75 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 57 End Beach Width= 132 2020 2019 132 Net Change 2018 2017 2016 2015 as L 0 2013 c 0 Design Standard 0 2012 fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) } 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 0 25 50 75 85 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) R-45 75 Fill Placement 130,000 CY (2019) 57.0 ft R-42 to T-54+400 Upland Source 67 8.0 ft Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) -29.0 ft 96 Fill Placement 20,430 CY (2016) 12.0 ft R-43 to R-47 Upland Source 84 -12.0 ft 96 -3.0 ft R-46 2005 Beach Width= 88 Beginning Width= 88 Beginning Width= 82 Annual Erosion= -4 Annual Erosion= -21 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 84 End Beach Width- 61 Beginning Width= 84 Beginning Width= 61 Annual Erosion= -20 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 37 End Beach Width= 64 End Beach Width= 98 Beginning Width= 64 Beginning Width= 98 00 Ln Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -10 N Annual Accretion= 7 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 71 End Beach Width= 88 Beginning Width= 71 Beginning Width= 88 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -6 N Annual Accretion= 13 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 84 End Beach Width= 82 Beginning Width= 84 Beginning Width= 82 O I� Annual Erosion= -17 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 5 End Beach Width= 67 End Beach Width= 87 Beginning Width= 67 Beginning Width= 87 00 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -15 N Annual Accretion= 11 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 78 End Beach Width- 72 Beginning Width= 78 Beginning Width= 72 N C1 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 4 N Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 82 End Beach Width= 76 Beginning Width= 76 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 21 End Beach Width- 97 ?017) ;Y (2016) iurcP ' R-44 to U 61 lune 2012] and Source ;ust 2008) 6 (May 2006 er 2005 st 2005) 50 R-47 2005 Beach Width= 103 Beginning Width= 103 Beginning Width= 97 p Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -13 eV Annual Accretion= 11 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 114 End Beach Width= 84 Beginning Width= 114 Beginning Width= 84 Annual Erosion= -15 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 17 End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width= 101 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 101 p Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width= 105 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 105 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -1 N Annual Accretion= 4 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 103 End Beach Width= 104 Beginning Width= 103 Beginning Width= 104 O I� C Annual Erosion= -15 p Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 9 End Beach Width= 88 End Beach Width= 113 Beginning Width= 88 Beginning Width= 113 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -8 C Annual Erosion= -15 eV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 80 End Beach Width= 98 Beginning Width= 80 Beginning Width= 98 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 17 cV Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 97 End Beach Width= 102 Beginning Width= 102 O cV O Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 6 End Beach Width= 108 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao c �L O *= 2013 c 0 0 2012 L 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 R-47 R Hurricane Irma Fill Placement 2 R-43 to R-47 Ur Fill Placement 61 Tropical Storm C Tropical Storm Fill Placement 4, Hurricane Wi m Hurricane Katrir T 25 2005 Beach Width= 82 Beginning Width= 82 Beginning Width= 104 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -22 cV Annual Accretion= 17 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width= 82 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 82 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 2 N Annual Accretion= 2 End Beach Width= 101 End Beach Width= 84 Beginning Width= 101 Beginning Width= 84 CAnnual Erosion= -12 C Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= 14 End Beach Width= 89 End Beach Width= 98 Beginning Width= 89 Beginning Width= 98 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -2 N Annual Accretion= 2 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 91 End Beach Width= 96 Beginning Width= 91 Beginning Width= 96 O I� C Annual Erosion= -3 p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 3 End Beach Width= 88 End Beach Width= 99 Beginning Width= 88 Beginning Width= 99 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -20 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 88 End Beach Width= 79 Beginning Width= 88 Beginning Width= 79 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 16 N Annual Accretion= 9 End Beach Width= 104 End Beach Width= 88 Beginning Width= 88 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 21 End Beach Width= 109 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao c �L 0 *= 2013 c 0 0 2012 a 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 109 Net Change R-48 Fill Placement 130,000 CY (2019) 88 21.0 ft 7 R-42 to T-54+400 Upland Source 7 9.0 ft Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 99 -20.0 ft Fill Placement 1,630 CY (2016) 9 R-47 to R-48 Upland Source 3.0 ft -2.0 ft 98 14.0 ft 84 Fill Placement 66,000 CY R-44 to U-55 (2013) 2.0 ft 82 Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) -22.0 ft 104 16.0 ft 8 0.0 ft 88 -3.0 ft Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2.0 ft 89 -12.0 ft 10 2.0 ft Fill Placement 5,000 CY (May 2006) 99 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) 17.0 ft Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 82 0 25 50 75 85 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-49 2005 Beach Width= 99 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 108 Annual Erosion= -3 Annual Erosion= -16 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 96 End Beach Width- 92 Beginning Width= 96 Beginning Width= 92 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 1 N Annual Accretion= 5 End Beach Width= 97 End Beach Width= 97 Beginning Width= 97 Beginning Width= 97 00 Ln Annual Erosion= -7 Annual Erosion= -9 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 90 End Beach Width= 88 Beginning Width= 90 Beginning Width= 88 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 3 N Annual Accretion= 2 End Beach Width= 93 End Beach Width= 90 Beginning Width= 93 Beginning Width= 90 O I� Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 11 N Annual Accretion= 9 End Beach Width= 104 End Beach Width= 99 Beginning Width= 104 Beginning Width= 99 00 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -6 N Annual Accretion= 2 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 106 End Beach Width= 93 Beginning Width= 106 Beginning Width= 93 N C1 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -13 N Annual Accretion= 2 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width= 80 Beginning Width= 80 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 24 End Beach Width- 104 2020 R-49 Fill Placement 130,000 CY (2019) 80 R-42 to T-54+400 Upland Source 2019 2018 - Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 - 2016 - 2015 2014 oa L Fill Placement 66,000 CY R-44 to U-55 (2013) 0 +c = 2013 0 Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 - — `m v r 2011 - 2010 - 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 2007 — Fill Placement 10,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) 93 0111 97 97 96 90 104 Net Change 24.0 ft -13.0 ft -6.0 ft 9.0 ft 2.0 ft -9.0 ft 5.0 ft -16.0 ft 108 2.0 ft 1106 104 2005 Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) I L99 I 0 25 50 75 85 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) 2.0 ft 11.0 ft 3.0 ft -7.0 ft 1.0 ft -3.0 ft 150 175 200 Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) T-50 2005 Beach Width= 87 Beginning Width= 87 Beginning Width= 122 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -25 cV Annual Accretion= 29 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 116 End Beach Width= 97 Beginning Width= 116 Beginning Width= 97 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 13 N Annual Accretion= 23 End Beach Width= 129 End Beach Width= 120 Beginning Width= 129 Beginning Width= 120 CAnnual Erosion= -21 C Annual Erosion= -3 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width= 117 Beginning Width= 108 Beginning Width= 117 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -2 N Annual Accretion= 15 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 123 End Beach Width= 115 Beginning Width= 123 Beginning Width= 115 O I� C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -5 cV Annual Accretion= 3 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 126 End Beach Width= 110 Beginning Width= 126 Beginning Width= 110 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -9 N Annual Accretion= 17 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 143 End Beach Width= 101 Beginning Width= 143 Beginning Width= 101 C Annual Erosion= -21 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 13 End Beach Width= 122 End Beach Width= 114 Beginning Width= 114 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 14 End Beach Width= 128 2020 2019 - T-50 Fill Placement 130,000 CY (2019) R-42 to T-54+400 Upland Source Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2018 2017 2016 2015 Fill Placement 66,000 CY R-44 to U-55 (2013) 2014 as c L 2013 9 0 Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 L M v 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 2007 Fill Placement 28,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) 2005 Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 87 8 128 Net Change 114 14.0 ft 10t 13.0 ft 110 -9.0 ft 15 -5.0 ft -2.0 ft 117 120 -3.0 ft 23.0 ft 122 -25.0 ft 126 -21.0 ft 17.0 ft 3.0 ft 15.0 ft 21.0 ft 129 13.0 ft 116 OOOOM 29.0 ft 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-51 2005 Beach Width= 64 Beginning Width= 64 Beginning Width= 90 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 62 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 126 End Beach Width= 90 Beginning Width= 126 Beginning Width= 90 Annual Erosion= -14 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 33 End Beach Width= 112 End Beach Width= 123 Beginning Width= 112 Beginning Width= 123 00 Ln Annual Erosion= -10 Annual Erosion= -17 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 102 End Beach Width= 106 Beginning Width= 102 Beginning Width= 106 Annual Erosion= -6 Annual Erosion= -9 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 96 End Beach Width= 97 Beginning Width= 96 Beginning Width= 97 O I� Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -4 N Annual Accretion= 1 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 97 End Beach Width- 93 Beginning Width= 97 Beginning Width= 93 00 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -9 N Annual Accretion= 11 N Annual Accretion - End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width= 84 Beginning Width= 108 Beginning Width= 84 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= -18 N Annual Accretion= 3 End Beach Width= 90 End Beach Width= 87 Beginning Width= 87 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 24 End Beach Width= 111 2020 R-51 Fill Placement 130,000 CY (2019) 2019 R-42 to T-54+400 Upland Source 84 2018 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 2016 2015 2014 wo L Fill Placement 66,000 CY R-44 to U-55 (2013) ° 'c ' 2013 ° Tro al Storm Debbie June 2012 g p( ) 0 2012 - - `m v r 2011 - 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 2007 Fill Placement 22,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) 2005 Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 64 93 01%, NOR 111 A- 112 126 0 25 50 75 85 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Net Change 24.0 ft 3.0 ft -9.0 ft -4.0 ft -9.0 ft -17.0 ft 33.0 ft 0.0 ft -18.0 ft 11.0 ft 1.0 ft -6.0 ft -10.0 ft 14.0 ft 62.0 ft 150 175 200 Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-52 2005 Beach Width= 59 Beginning Width= 59 Beginning Width= 79 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -23 cV Annual Accretion= 66 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 125 End Beach Width= 56 Beginning Width= 125 Beginning Width= 56 C Annual Erosion= -31 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 54 End Beach Width= 94 End Beach Width= 110 Beginning Width= 94 Beginning Width= 110 00 Ln CAnnual Erosion= -10 C Annual Erosion= -10 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 84 End Beach Width= 100 Beginning Width= 84 Beginning Width= 100 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -14 N Annual Accretion= 1 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 85 End Beach Width= 86 Beginning Width= 85 Beginning Width= 86 O I� C Annual Erosion= -28 p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 5 End Beach Width= 57 End Beach Width= 91 Beginning Width= 57 Beginning Width= 91 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -23 N Annual Accretion= 19 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 76 End Beach Width= 68 Beginning Width= 76 Beginning Width= 68 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 3 N Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 79 End Beach Width= 69 Beginning Width= 69 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 44 End Beach Width= 113 —Design Standard FMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-53 2005 Beach Width= 64 Beginning Width= 64 Beginning Width= 84 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -1 cV Annual Accretion= 50 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 114 End Beach Width= 83 Beginning Width= 114 Beginning Width= 83 C Annual Erosion= -17 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 16 End Beach Width= 97 End Beach Width= 99 Beginning Width= 97 Beginning Width= 99 CAnnual Erosion= -8 C Annual Erosion= -4 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 89 End Beach Width= 95 Beginning Width= 89 Beginning Width= 95 C Annual Erosion= -6 p Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 83 End Beach Width= 96 Beginning Width= 83 Beginning Width= 96 O II% C Annual Erosion= -3 p Annual Erosion= -2 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 80 End Beach Width= 94 Beginning Width= 80 Beginning Width= 94 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -16 p Annual Erosion= -16 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 64 End Beach Width= 78 Beginning Width= 64 Beginning Width= 78 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 20 cV Annual Accretion= 7 End Beach Width= 84 End Beach Width= 85 Beginning Width= 85 O cV O Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 14 End Beach Width= 99 2020 R-53 Fill Placement 130,000 CY (2019) 2019 R-42 to T-54+400 Upland Source 7 2018 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao L Fill Placement 66,000 CY R-44 to U-55 (2013) c 2013 83 g° Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 `m } 2011 64 2010 8 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 2007 Fill Placement 10,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 urricane Wilma (October 2005) Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 64 2005 - 99 Net Chanee 14.0 ft 7.0 ft 94 -16.0 ft -2.0 ft 1.0 ft 95 -4.0 ft 99 16.0 ft -1.0 ft 4 20.0 ft -16.0 ft -3.0 ft 33 -6.0 ft 89 -8.0 ft 97 -17.0 ft 11 50.0 ft 0 25 50 75 85 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) T-54 2005 Beach Width= 83 Beginning Width= 83 Beginning Width= 104 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -9 cV Annual Accretion= 43 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 126 End Beach Width= 95 Beginning Width= 126 Beginning Width= 95 C Annual Erosion= -25 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 29 End Beach Width= 101 End Beach Width= 124 Beginning Width= 101 Beginning Width= 124 00 Ln CAnnual Erosion= -2 C Annual Erosion= -11 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width= 113 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 113 C Annual Erosion= -6 p Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 93 End Beach Width= 114 Beginning Width= 93 Beginning Width= 114 O I� C Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 1 eV Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 94 End Beach Width= 118 Beginning Width= 94 Beginning Width= 118 rl 00 p Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -9 N Annual Accretion= 4 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 98 End Beach Width= 109 Beginning Width= 98 Beginning Width= 109 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -9 N Annual Accretion= 6 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 104 End Beach Width= 100 Beginning Width= 100 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 21 End Beach Width= 121 2020 T-54 Fill Placement 130,000 CY (2019) 2019 R-42 to T-54+400 Upland Source 2018 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 2016 2015 2014 Fill Placement 66,000 CY R-44 to U-55 (2013) .L ° *= 2013 c ° Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 `m v r 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 2007 — Fill Placement 4,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 2005 121 Net Change 21.0 ft 109 -9.0 ft 18 -9.0 ft 11 4.0 ft 1.0 ft 113 -11.0 ft 124 29.0 ft 104 -9.0 ft 6.0 ft 9/8 94 f 4.0 ft 1.0 ft 93 M\M-6.0 ft 99 -2.0 ft 101 -25.0 ft 12 43.0 ft 0 25 50 75 85 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) U-55 2005 Beach Width= 93 Beginning Width= 93 Beginning Width= 115 p Annual Erosion= -20 p Annual Erosion= -4 eV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 73 End Beach Width= 111 Beginning Width= 73 Beginning Width= 111 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -3 N Annual Accretion= 20 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 93 End Beach Width= 108 Beginning Width= 93 Beginning Width= 108 p Annual Erosion= -2 C Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 14 End Beach Width= 91 End Beach Width= 122 Beginning Width= 91 Beginning Width= 122 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -1 N Annual Accretion= 7 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 98 End Beach Width= 121 Beginning Width= 98 Beginning Width= 121 O II% Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 1 cV Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width= 125 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 125 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -5 N Annual Accretion= 6 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 105 End Beach Width= 120 Beginning Width= 105 Beginning Width= 120 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 10 N Annual Accretion= 5 End Beach Width= 115 End Beach Width= 125 Beginning Width= 125 O cV O Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= 13 End Beach Width= 138 2020 U-55 2019 2018 - Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 - 2016 2015 2014 ao L Fill Placement 66,000 CY R-44 to U-55 (2013) 0 *= 2013 Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) c 0 0 2012 v r 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (Aug. 2008) 2008 - 2007 73 2006 Hurricane Wilma (Oct. 2005) 99 0*3 108 125 Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2005) 93 2005 0 25 50 75 85 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) 138 Net Chanee 13.0 ft 5.0 ft -5.0 ft 4.0 ft -1.0 ft 14.0 ft -3.0 ft 4.0 ft 10.0 ft 6.0 ft 1.0 ft 7.0 ft -2.0 ft -20.0 ft 150 175 200 Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-56 2005 Beach Width= 103 Beginning Width= 103 Beginning Width= 123 CAnnual Erosion= -12 p Annual Erosion= -15 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 91 End Beach Width= 108 Beginning Width= 91 Beginning Width= 108 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 10 N Annual Accretion= 5 End Beach Width= 101 End Beach Width= 113 Beginning Width= 101 Beginning Width= 113 CAnnual Erosion= Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 7 cV Annual Accretion= 38 End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width= 151 Beginning Width= 108 Beginning Width= 151 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 7 N Annual Accretion= 2 End Beach Width= 115 End Beach Width= 153 Beginning Width= 115 Beginning Width= 153 O I� p Annual Erosion= -2 p Annual Erosion= -6 eV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 113 End Beach Width= 147 Beginning Width= 113 Beginning Width= 147 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -9 N Annual Accretion= 16 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 129 End Beach Width= 138 Beginning Width= 129 Beginning Width= 138 C Annual Erosion= -6 C Annual Erosion= -2 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 123 End Beach Width= 136 Beginning Width= 136 O N O Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 9 End Beach Width= 145 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao c �L O *= 2013 c 0 0 2012 L 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 R-56 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 20 Tropical Storm Debbie (Ju Tropical Storm Fay (Augu! Hurricane Wilma Octo e Hurricane Katrina (August 25 T-57 2005 Beach Width= 110 Beginning Width= 110 Beginning Width= 99 p Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= 13 eV Annual Accretion= 47 End Beach Width= 123 End Beach Width= 146 Beginning Width= 123 Beginning Width= 146 C Annual Erosion= -14 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 109 End Beach Width= 150 Beginning Width= 109 Beginning Width= 150 pAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 48 End Beach Width= 109 End Beach Width= 198 Beginning Width= 109 Beginning Width= 198 C Annual Erosion= -6 p Annual Erosion= -31 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 103 End Beach Width= 167 Beginning Width= 103 Beginning Width= 167 O I� C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -4 eV Annual Accretion= 6 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 109 End Beach Width= 163 Beginning Width= 109 Beginning Width= 163 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -37 eV Annual Accretion= 29 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 138 End Beach Width= 126 Beginning Width= 138 Beginning Width= 126 C Annual Erosion= -39 C Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 17 End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width= 143 Beginning Width= 143 O N O Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= 9 End Beach Width= 152 T- 5 7 143 9.0 ft 126 17.0 ft Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 163 -37.0 ft 67 -4.0 ft -31.0 ft 11 48.0 ft 150 Fill Placed from T-50 to T-54 (Dec. 2013) 4.0 ft 1 Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 47.0 ft -39.0 ft 138 29.0 ft 109 om 6.0 ft 103 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) -6.0 ft 109 0.0 ft 109 -14.0 ft 12 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) 13.0 ft Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 0 R-58A 2005 Beach Width= 13 Beginning Width= 13 Beginning Width= 12 p Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= 65 eV Annual Accretion= 128 End Beach Width= 78 End Beach Width= 140 Beginning Width= 78 Beginning Width= 140 n O O Annual Erosion= -54 � \ Annual Erosion= -69 N Annual Accretion= Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 24 End Beach Width= 71 Beginning Width= 24 Beginning Width= 71 p Annual Erosion= -3 Annual Erosion= -19 eV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 21 End Beach Width= 52 Beginning Width= 21 Beginning Width= 52 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -12 N Annual Accretion= 14 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 35 End Beach Width= 40 Beginning Width= 35 Beginning Width= 40 O I� p Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -8 eV Annual Accretion= 15 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 50 End Beach Width= 32 Beginning Width= 50 Beginning Width= 32 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= 7 eV Annual Accretion= 23 End Beach Width= 57 End Beach Width= 55 Beginning Width= 57 Beginning Width= 55 C Annual Erosion= -51 Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= 49 End Beach Width= 6 End Beach Width= 104 Beginning Width= 6 Beginning Width= 104 M O C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= 6 cV Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 12 End Beach Width= 105 10 1.0 ft R-58A 55 Doctors Pass Dredge and Fill 49.0 ft 5,800 CY (Sept. 2018) From South Jetty to R-58.5 Doctors Pass Erosion Control Structures 23.0 ft 32 1 Constructed (June 2018) 40 -8.0 ft -12.0 ft 52 Fill Placement 3,000 CY from Doctors Pass Dredge and Fill 71 R-58A to R-58 (Dec. 2014) -19.0 ft 44,000 CY (Dec. 2013) From South Jetty o R -60 140 -69.0 ft 128.0 ft 12 Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 6.0 ft 6 Fill Placement Upland Source 23,000 CY -51.0 ft 57 from South Jetty to R-58 (Apr. 2011) Fill Placement Upland Source 3,000 CY 50 from South Jetty to R-58 (June 2010) 7.0 ft 15.0 ft 35Oe*0000� Tropical Storm Fay (Aug. 2008) 14.0 ft 1 -3.0 ft 24 Fill Placement 5,000 CY (May 2006) -54.0 ft Hurricane Wilma (Oct. 2005) 65.0 ft 13 Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2005) R-58 2005 Beach Width= 70 Beginning Width= 70 Beginning Width= 83 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 64 eV Annual Accretion= 41 End Beach Width= 134 End Beach Width= 124 Beginning Width= 134 Beginning Width= 124 n O O Annual Erosion= -29 � \ Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= Annual Accretion= 20 End Beach Width= 105 End Beach Width= 144 Beginning Width= 105 Beginning Width= 144 CAnnual Erosion= -23 Annual Erosion= -19 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 82 End Beach Width= 125 Beginning Width= 82 Beginning Width= 125 C Annual Erosion= -7 C Annual Erosion= -22 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 75 End Beach Width= 103 Beginning Width= 75 Beginning Width= 103 O II% C Annual Erosion= -1 p Annual Erosion= -13 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 74 End Beach Width= 90 Beginning Width= 74 Beginning Width= 90 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -8 N Annual Accretion= 5 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 79 End Beach Width= 82 Beginning Width= 79 Beginning Width= 82 C Annual Erosion= -25 C Annual Erosion= -24 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 54 End Beach Width= 58 Beginning Width= 54 Beginning Width= 58 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 29 N Annual Accretion= 3 End Beach Width= 831 End Beach Width= 61 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao c `o *= 2013 c 0 0 2012 v } 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 R-58 Hurricane Irma Fill Placement 3 R-58A to R-58 ([ Doctors Pass Dr( From South Jett, Tropical Storm C Fill Placement fr South Jetty to R- Fill Placement U1 from South Jetty Tropical Storm f Fill Placement 1 Hurricane Wilm Hurricane Katrii T 25 R-59 2005 Beach Width= 71 Beginning Width= 71 Beginning Width= 101 p Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= 75 eV Annual Accretion= 20 End Beach Width= 146 End Beach Width= 121 Beginning Width= 146 Beginning Width= 121 n O O Annual Erosion= -22 � \ Annual Erosion= -10 N Annual Accretion= Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 124 End Beach Width= 111 Beginning Width= 124 Beginning Width= 111 pAnnual Erosion= -21 Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 11 End Beach Width= 103 End Beach Width= 122 Beginning Width= 103 Beginning Width= 122 C Annual Erosion= -4 C Annual Erosion= -7 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width= 115 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 115 O I� C Annual Erosion= -2 C Annual Erosion= -8 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 97 End Beach Width= 107 Beginning Width= 97 Beginning Width= 107 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -10 eV Annual Accretion= 4 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 101 End Beach Width= 97 Beginning Width= 101 Beginning Width= 97 C Annual Erosion= -17 C Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= 7 End Beach Width= 84 End Beach Width= 104 Beginning Width= 84 Beginning Width= 104 M O C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -10 eV Annual Accretion= 17 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 1011 End Beach Width= 94 2020 R-59 2019 2018 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 2016 2015 Fill Placement 26,000 CY from R-59 to R-64 (Dec. 2014) 2014 Doctors Pass Dredge and Fill 44,000 i o From South Jetty to R-60 +' 2013 ° Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 L v } 2011 2010 - 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 2007 - Fill Placement 18,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 2005 0 25 50 94 9 97 99 Net Change 04 -10.0 ft 7.0 ft 107 -10.0 ft 115 -8.0 ft 122 -7.0 ft 111 11.0 ft 12/2014 -10.0 ft 121 20.0 ft 17.0 ft -17.0 ft 101 4.0 ft 103 71 T 75 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) -2.0 ft -4.0 ft -21.0 ft -22.0 ft 75.0 ft 150 175 200 Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-60 2005 Beach Width= 68 Beginning Width= 68 Beginning Width= 104 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 40 eV Annual Accretion= 5 End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width= 109 Beginning Width= 108 Beginning Width= 109 n O O Annual Erosion= � \ Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 7 � Annual Accretion= 17 End Beach Width= 115 End Beach Width= 126 Beginning Width= 115 Beginning Width= 126 CAnnual Erosion= -12 p Annual Erosion= -19 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 103 End Beach Width= 107 Beginning Width= 103 Beginning Width= 107 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -9 N Annual Accretion= 12 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 115 End Beach Width= 98 Beginning Width= 115 Beginning Width= 98 O I� C Annual Erosion= -3 p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 112 End Beach Width= 102 Beginning Width= 112 Beginning Width= 102 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -3 C Annual Erosion= -3 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 109 End Beach Width= 99 Beginning Width= 109 Beginning Width= 99 C Annual Erosion= -9 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 9 End Beach Width= 100 End Beach Width= 108 Beginning Width= 100 Beginning Width= 108 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -2 N Annual Accretion= 4 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 1041 End Beach Width= 106 106 2020 - R-60 18 2019 - 9 2018 - Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2 2017 - 9 2016 107 2015 Fill Placement 26,000 CY from R-59 to R-64 (Dec. 2014) 109 12 b 2014 Doctors Pass Dredge and Fill 44,000 CY (Dec. 2013) o From South Jetty to R-60 104 *= 2013 Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) c ° 100 0 2012 } 109 2011 - 112 2010 Doctors Pass Dredge and Fill 32,000 CY (Apr. 2009) from R-60 to T-62 Near Shore Disposal 2009 115 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) Z03 2008 — - 115 2007 12/2014 Net Change -2.0 ft 9.0 ft -3.0 ft 4.0 ft -9.0 ft -19.0 ft 17.0 ft 5.0 ft from R-60 to T-62 Near Shore Disposal 108 Fill Placement 18,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) 2005 Hurricane Katrina (August 2005 68 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) 4.0 ft Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) -9.0 ft -3.0 ft 3.0 ft 12.0 ft -12.0 ft 7.0 ft 43.0 ft 200 R-61 2005 Beach Width= 82 Beginning Width= 82 Beginning Width= 111 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 47 eV Annual Accretion= 14 End Beach Width= 129 End Beach Width= 125 Beginning Width= 129 Beginning Width= 125 n O O Annual Erosion= -2 � \ Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= Annual Accretion= 33 End Beach Width= 127 End Beach Width= 158 Beginning Width= 127 Beginning Width= 158 CAnnual Erosion= -9 p Annual Erosion= -19 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 118 End Beach Width= 139 Beginning Width= 118 Beginning Width= 139 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -1 N Annual Accretion= 32 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 150 End Beach Width= 138 Beginning Width= 150 Beginning Width= 138 O I� C Annual Erosion= -12 p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 15 End Beach Width= 138 End Beach Width= 153 Beginning Width= 138 Beginning Width= 153 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -20 N Annual Accretion= 2 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 140 End Beach Width= 133 Beginning Width= 140 Beginning Width= 133 C Annual Erosion= -8 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 31 End Beach Width= 132 End Beach Width= 164 Beginning Width= 132 Beginning Width= 164 C Annual Erosion= -21 C Annual Erosion= -23 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 1111 End Beach Width= 141 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 rillEj! oa �L 2013 0 0 2012 a, 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 141 Net Change R-61 164 -23.0 ft Doctors Pass Dredge and Fill 133 31.0 ft 25,000 CY (Sept. 2018) From R-60 to R-62 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 153 -20.0 ft 138 15.0 ft 39 -1.0 ft Fill Placement 26,000 CY from -19.0 ft R-59 to R-64 (Dec. 2014) 125 158 33.0 ft Fill Placement 66,000 CY from R-61 to R-64 & T-69 to R-72 (2013) Tropical Storm 111 14.0 ft Fill Placement 12,000 CY (2012) Debbie (June 2012) -21.0 ft from R-61 to R-63.5 132 -8.0 ft 140 2.0 ft 138 Doctors Pass Dredge and Fill 32,000 CY (Apr. 2009) -12.0 ft from R-60 to T-62 Near Shore Disposal 150 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 32.0 ft 118 -9.0 ft 127 Fill Placement 27,000 CY -2.0 ft Doctors Pass Dredge and Fill 54,000 CY (Mar. 2006) from R-60 to T-62 Near Shore Disposal 129 j (May 2006) Hurricane Wilma (October 47.0 ft Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 82 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) T-62 2005 Beach Width= 57 Beginning Width= 57 Beginning Width= 97 p Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= 66 eV Annual Accretion= 8 End Beach Width= 123 End Beach Width= 105 Beginning Width= 123 Beginning Width= 105 n O O Annual Erosion= -12 � Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= \ N Annual Accretion= 31 ri End Beach Width= 111 End Beach Width= 136 Beginning Width= 111 Beginning Width= 136 CAnnual Erosion= -21 Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= 9 End Beach Width= 90 End Beach Width= 145 Beginning Width= 90 Beginning Width= 145 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -43 N Annual Accretion= 10 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 100 End Beach Width= 102 Beginning Width= 100 Beginning Width= 102 O I� C Annual Erosion= -14 p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 16 End Beach Width= 86 End Beach Width= 118 Beginning Width= 86 Beginning Width= 118 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -20 N Annual Accretion= 17 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 103 End Beach Width= 98 Beginning Width= 103 Beginning Width= 98 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 1 N Annual Accretion= 6 End Beach Width= 104 End Beach Width= 104 Beginning Width= 104 Beginning Width= 104 C Annual Erosion= -7 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 18 End Beach Width= 97 End Beach Width= 122 2020 2019 T-62 2018 - Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 - 2016 2015 Fill Placement 26,000 CY from R-59 to R-62 (Dec. 2014) 2014 Fill Placement 66,000 CY from W o R-61 to R-64 & T-69 to R-72 (2013) 2013 Tro ical Storm Debbi Fill Placement 12,000 CY p C (2012) from R-61 to R-63.5 (June 2012) 0 2012 a } 2011 - 2010 - Doctors Pass Dredge and Fill 32,000 CY (Apr. 2009) from R-60 to T-62 Near Shore Disposal 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 90 2007 Doctors Pass Dredge and Fill 54,000 CY (Mar. 2006) 2006 from R-60 to T-62 Near Shore Disposal Hurricane Wilma c o er 2005) Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 57 2005 - - 122 Net Change 104 18.0 ft OOPM 6.0 ft 118 -20.0 ft u 145 -43.0 ft 12/2014 9.0 ft 105 136 31.0 ft 97 8.0 ft 104 -7.0 ft Design Standard 1.0 ft fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) 103 100 111 Fill Placement 23,000 CY 123 (Mav 2006) 17.0 ft -14.0 ft 10.0 ft -21.0 ft -12.0 ft 66.0 ft 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) R-63 2005 Beach Width= 87 Beginning Width= 87 Beginning Width= 72 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 33 eV Annual Accretion= 44 End Beach Width= 120 End Beach Width= 116 Beginning Width= 120 Beginning Width= 116 n O O Annual Erosion= -24 � \ Annual Erosion= -29 N Annual Accretion= Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 96 End Beach Width= 87 Beginning Width= 96 Beginning Width= 87 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 3 eV Annual Accretion= 19 End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width= 106 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 106 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 7 N Annual Accretion= 7 End Beach Width= 106 End Beach Width= 113 Beginning Width= 106 Beginning Width= 113 O I� C Annual Erosion= -18 p Annual Erosion= -15 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 88 End Beach Width= 98 Beginning Width= 88 Beginning Width= 98 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 1 N Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 89 End Beach Width= 102 Beginning Width= 89 Beginning Width= 102 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -11 cV Annual Accretion= 17 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 106 End Beach Width= 91 Beginning Width= 106 Beginning Width= 91 M O C Annual Erosion= -34 C Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 13 End Beach Width= 72 End Beach Width= 104 2020 R-63 2019 2018 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 12/2014 2017 2016 2015 Fill Placement 26,000 CY from 2014 R-59 to R-64 (Dec. 2014) Fill Placement 66,000 CY from L R-61 to R-64 & T-69 to R-72 (2013) 72 c2013 Fill Placement 12,000 CY 2012 2 from R-61 to R-63.5 0 2012 — v } 2011 — 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 2007 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 2005 0 25 50 �r kw NOmom 87 i ropicai Storm (June 2012) 75 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Net Change 13.0 ft -11.0 ft 4.0 ft -15.0 ft- 7.0 ft 19.0 ft -29.0 ft 44.0 ft -34.0 ft 17.0 ft 1.0 ft -18.0 ft 7.0 ft 3.0 ft 24.0 ft 33.0 ft 150 175 200 Design Standard —M—MHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-64 2005 Beach Width= 103 Beginning Width= 103 Beginning Width= 96 CAnnual Erosion= Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 16 eV Annual Accretion= 11 End Beach Width= 119 End Beach Width= 107 Beginning Width= 119 Beginning Width= 107 n O O Annual Erosion= -9 � \ Annual Erosion= -4 N Annual Accretion= Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 110 End Beach Width= 103 Beginning Width= 110 Beginning Width= 103 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -7 cV Annual Accretion= 2 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 112 End Beach Width= 96 Beginning Width= 112 Beginning Width= 96 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -5 N Annual Accretion= 10 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 122 End Beach Width= 91 Beginning Width= 122 Beginning Width= 91 O I� C Annual Erosion= -12 p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 11 End Beach Width= 110 End Beach Width= 102 Beginning Width= 110 Beginning Width= 102 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -3 p Annual Erosion= -3 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 107 End Beach Width= 99 Beginning Width= 107 Beginning Width= 99 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -22 N Annual Accretion= 15 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 122 End Beach Width= 77 Beginning Width= 122 Beginning Width= 77 C Annual Erosion= -26 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 9 End Beach Width= 96 End Beach Width= 86 86 2020 ' R-64 2019 99 2018 - Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017IF - 91 2016 2015 96 Fill Placement 26,000 CY from R-59 to T-64 (Dec. 2014) 103 2014 Fill Placement 66,000 CY from R-61 to R-64 & T-69 to R-72 (2013) 96 2013 Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) c ° 0 2012 `m v r 2011 2010 2009 2008 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2007 Fill Placement 6,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma October 2005 Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 2005 102 , 12/2014 110 107 1 112 122 Net Change 9.0 ft -22.0 ft -3.0 ft 11.0 ft -5.0 ft -7.0 ft -4.0 ft 11.0 ft -26.0 ft 15.0 ft -3.0 ft -12.0 ft 10.0 ft 2.0 ft -9.0 ft 16.0 ft 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-65 2005 Beach Width= 106 Beginning Width= 106 Beginning Width= 128 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -3 cV Annual Accretion= 29 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 135 End Beach Width= 125 Beginning Width= 135 Beginning Width= 125 n O O Annual Erosion= -19 � \ Annual Erosion= -3 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 116 End Beach Width= 122 Beginning Width= 116 Beginning Width= 122 Annual Erosion= -1 Annual Erosion= -2 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 115 End Beach Width= 120 Beginning Width= 115 Beginning Width= 120 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -8 N Annual Accretion= 7 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 122 End Beach Width= 112 Beginning Width= 122 Beginning Width= 112 O I� Annual Erosion= -7 Annual Erosion= -4 eV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 115 End Beach Width= 108 Beginning Width= 115 Beginning Width= 108 rl 00 G Annual Erosion= -12 Annual Erosion= -3 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 103 End Beach Width= 105 Beginning Width= 103 Beginning Width= 105 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -1 N Annual Accretion= 24 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 127 End Beach Width= 104 Beginning Width= 127 Beginning Width= 104 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -5 cV Annual Accretion= 1 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 1281 End Beach Width= 99 2020 R-65 2019 2018 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao c L 2013 c g° Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 `m v r 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 2007 Fill Placement 11,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 2005 0 25 50 A LI 12/2014 12 120 122 125 128 3127 116 106 115 Net Change 75 100 125 150 175 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) -5.0 ft -1.0 ft -3.0 ft -4.0 tt -8.0 ft -2.0 ft -3.0 ft -3.0 ft 1.0 ft 24.0 ft -12.0 ft 7.0 ft 7.0 ft -1.0 ft -19.0 ft ►•1i1 Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-66 2005 Beach Width= 112 Beginning Width= 112 Beginning Width= 122 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 35 cV Annual Accretion= 7 End Beach Width= 147 End Beach Width= 129 Beginning Width= 147 Beginning Width= 129 n O O Annual Erosion= -11 � \ Annual Erosion= -10 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 136 End Beach Width= 119 Beginning Width= 136 Beginning Width= 119 Annual Erosion= -7 Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= 7 End Beach Width= 129 End Beach Width= 126 Beginning Width= 129 Beginning Width= 126 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 2 N Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 131 End Beach Width= 127 Beginning Width= 131 Beginning Width= 127 Annual Erosion= -7 Annual Erosion= -3 nl Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 124 End Beach Width= 124 Beginning Width= 124 Beginning Width= 124 rl 00 G Annual Erosion= -9 G Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 2 End Beach Width= 115 End Beach Width= 126 Beginning Width= 115 Beginning Width= 126 G Annual Erosion= G Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 16 N Annual Accretion= 17 End Beach Width= 131 End Beach Width= 143 Beginning Width= 131 Beginning Width= 143 G Annual Erosion= -9 G Annual Erosion= -29 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 1221 End Beach Width= 114 2020 R-66 2019 2018 - Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 - 2016 - 2015 - 2014 ao c L 2013 c g° Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 `m v r 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 2007 - Fill Placement 16,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) 2005 Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 0 25 50 114 143 126 1 4 7 126 j 12/2014 119 12 122 131 15 147 112 75 100 125 150 175 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Net Chanel -29.0 ft 17.0 ft 2.0 ft -3.0 ft 1.0 ft 7.0 ft -10.0 ft 7.0 ft -9.0 ft 16.0 ft -9.0 ft -7.0 ft 2.0 ft -7.0 ft -11.0 ft 35.0 ft 200 Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-67 2005 Beach Width= 153 Beginning Width= 153 Beginning Width= 172 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= 31 cV Annual Accretion= 2 End Beach Width= 184 End Beach Width= 174 Beginning Width= 184 Beginning Width= 174 n O O Annual Erosion= -7 � \ Annual Erosion= -3 N Annual Accretion= Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 177 End Beach Width= 171 Beginning Width= 177 Beginning Width= 171 Annual Erosion= -17 Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 160 End Beach Width= 172 Beginning Width= 160 Beginning Width= 172 00 Annual Erosion= -8 0 Annual Erosion= -1 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 152 End Beach Width= 171 Beginning Width= 152 Beginning Width= 171 Annual Erosion= -1 Annual Erosion= -8 eV Annual Accretion= nl Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 151 End Beach Width= 163 Beginning Width= 151 Beginning Width= 163 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -6 eV Annual Accretion= 1 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 152 End Beach Width= 157 Beginning Width= 152 Beginning Width= 157 C Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= 12 cV Annual Accretion= 16 End Beach Width= 164 End Beach Width= 173 Beginning Width= 164 Beginning Width= 173 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -13 eV Annual Accretion= 8 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 172 End Beach Width= 160 160 Net Change 73 -13.0 ft 157 16.0 ft 2017) 163 -6.0 ft \171 -8.0 ft 12/2014 1172 -1.0 ft from 14) 71 1.0 ft -3.0 ft 174 2.0 ft 172 64 8.0 ft rune 2012) 12.0 ft 152 1.0 ft 151 152 -1.0 ft -8.0 ft 160 ;ust 2008) -17.0 ft 17 Y (May 2006) -7.0 ft 184 )er 2005) ist 2005) 153 31.0 ft 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) 2005 Beach Width= 144 Beginning Width= 144 Beginning Width= 151 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= 2 eV Annual Accretion= 11 End Beach Width= 146 End Beach Width= 162 Beginning Width= 146 Beginning Width= 162 n O O Annual Erosion= � \ Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 19 Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 165 End Beach Width= 163 Beginning Width= 165 Beginning Width= 163 Annual Erosion= -2 C Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 163 End Beach Width= 167 Beginning Width= 163 Beginning Width= 167 00 Annual Erosion= -13 Annual Erosion= -1 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 150 End Beach Width= 166 Beginning Width= 150 Beginning Width= 166 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -23 eV Annual Accretion= 2 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 152 End Beach Width= 143 Beginning Width= 152 Beginning Width= 143 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 152 End Beach Width= 147 Beginning Width= 152 Beginning Width= 147 C Annual Erosion= -1 Annual Erosion= -9 eV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 151 End Beach Width= 138 Beginning Width= 151 Beginning Width= 138 Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 0 End Beach Width= 1511 End Beach Width= 138 2020 R-68 2019 2018 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 lnic �)nir �v ! IFill Placement 4,500 CY from R-67 to T-69.5 (Dec. 2014) 2014 ao c `o *= 2013 c g° Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 a } 2011 2010 - 2009 - Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 - 2007 Fill Placement 7,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 2005 0 25 50 138 168 143IF_ 12/2014 151 151 _ 152 165 146 144. 163 75 100 125 150 175 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Net Chanel 0.0 ft -9.0 ft 4.0 ft -23.0 ft -1.0 ft 4.0 ft 1.0 ft 11.0 ft 0.0 ft -1.0 ft 0.0 ft 2.0 ft -13.0 ft -2.0 ft 19.0 ft 200 Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) T-69 2005 Beach Width= 107 Beginning Width= 107 Beginning Width= 136 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 33 N Annual Accretion= 13 End Beach Width= 140 End Beach Width= 149 Beginning Width= 140 Beginning Width= 149 n O O Annual Erosion= � \ Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 11 Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 151 End Beach Width= 149 Beginning Width= 151 Beginning Width= 149 Annual Erosion= -11 Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= 7 End Beach Width= 140 End Beach Width= 156 Beginning Width= 140 Beginning Width= 156 Annual Erosion= -16 Annual Erosion= -19 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 124 End Beach Width= 137 Beginning Width= 124 Beginning Width= 137 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -9 cV Annual Accretion= 6 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 130 End Beach Width= 128 Beginning Width= 130 Beginning Width= 128 00 G Annual Erosion= G Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 2 N Annual Accretion= 8 End Beach Width= 132 End Beach Width= 136 Beginning Width= 132 Beginning Width= 136 G Annual Erosion= -16 Annual Erosion= -24 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 116 End Beach Width= 112 Beginning Width= 116 Beginning Width= 112 G Annual Erosion= 0 Annual Erosion= -4 N Annual Accretion= 20 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 136 End Beach Width= 108 2020 108 Net Change 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao `o *= 2013 c 0 g Design Standard 0 2012 fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) v } 2010 2009 2008 2007 f- 2006 2005 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) T-69 12 -4.o ft Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 136 -24.0 ft 8.0 ft 128 137 -9.0 ft 156 -19.0 ft Fill Placement 4,500 CY from 7.0 ft R-67 to T-69.5 (Dec. 2014) 149 149 0.0 ft Fill Placement 66,000 CY from 13.0 R-70 2005 Beach Width= 69 Beginning Width= 69 Beginning Width= 130 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= 99 cV Annual Accretion= 10 End Beach Width= 168 End Beach Width= 140 Beginning Width= 168 Beginning Width= 140 n O O Annual Erosion= -28 � \ Annual Erosion= -16 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 140 End Beach Width= 124 Beginning Width= 140 Beginning Width= 124 C Annual Erosion= -1 C Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 12 End Beach Width= 139 End Beach Width= 136 Beginning Width= 139 Beginning Width= 136 00 Annual Erosion= -16 Annual Erosion= -3 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 123 End Beach Width= 133 Beginning Width= 123 Beginning Width= 133 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -11 eV Annual Accretion= 7 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 130 End Beach Width= 122 Beginning Width= 130 Beginning Width= 122 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -10 Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= 2 End Beach Width= 120 End Beach Width= 124 Beginning Width= 120 Beginning Width= 124 C Annual Erosion= -11 Annual Erosion= -17 eV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 109 End Beach Width= 107 Beginning Width= 109 Beginning Width= 107 M O C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -8 eV Annual Accretion= 21 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 1301 End Beach Width= 99 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 O R-70 1.107 -8.0 ft Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 124 -17.0 ft 2.0 ft 122 -11.0 ft 133 -3.0 ft 136 12.0 ft 124 -16.0 ft Fill Placement 66,000 CY from 140 10.0 ft R-61 to R-64 & T-69 to R-72 (2013) 130 ,/ Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 109 21.0 ft -11.0 ft 120 -10.0 ft 130 z 7.0 ft -16.0 ft Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 139 Z -1.0 ft 140 �16 -28.0 ft Fill Placement 18,000 CY (May 2006) Hurricane Wilma c o er 2005) 99.0 ft Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 69 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-71 2005 Beach Width= 62 Beginning Width= 62 Beginning Width= 123 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 116 cV Annual Accretion= 21 End Beach Width= 178 End Beach Width= 144 Beginning Width= 178 Beginning Width= 144 n O O Annual Erosion= -33 � \ Annual Erosion= -15 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 145 End Beach Width= 129 Beginning Width= 145 Beginning Width= 129 Annual Erosion= -6 Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 18 End Beach Width= 139 End Beach Width= 147 Beginning Width= 139 Beginning Width= 147 Annual Erosion= -10 Annual Erosion= -8 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 129 End Beach Width= 139 Beginning Width= 129 Beginning Width= 139 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -15 cV Annual Accretion= 3 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 132 End Beach Width= 124 Beginning Width= 132 Beginning Width= 124 rl 00 G Annual Erosion= -7 00 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 13 End Beach Width= 125 End Beach Width= 137 Beginning Width= 125 Beginning Width= 137 Annual Erosion= -13 Annual Erosion= -12 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 112 End Beach Width= 125 Beginning Width= 112 Beginning Width= 125 G Annual Erosion= G Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 11 N Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 1231 End Beach Width= 129 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 129 Net Chanee R-71 1jr 4.0 ft Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 137 -12.0 ft 124 13.0 ft 139 -15.0 ft -8.0 ft 147 Fill Placement 9,000 CY from 129 18.0 ft R-71.5 to R-73 (Dec. 2014) 1 -15.0 ft Fill Placement 66,000 CY from R-61 to R-64 & T-69 to R-72 (2013) 123 21.0 ft Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 11.0 ft 112 -13.0 ft 125 -7.0 ft 132 3.0 ft 129 -10.0 ft Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 139 -6.0 ft 145 Fill Placement 26,000 CY (May 2006) -33.0 ft 178 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) 116.0 ft Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 62 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-72 2005 Beach Width= 73 Beginning Width= 73 Beginning Width= 122 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 122 eV Annual Accretion= 33 End Beach Width= 195 End Beach Width= 155 Beginning Width= 195 Beginning Width= 155 n O O Annual Erosion= -28 � \ Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 3 End Beach Width= 167 End Beach Width= 158 Beginning Width= 167 Beginning Width= 158 Annual Erosion= -11 Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= 14 End Beach Width= 156 End Beach Width= 172 Beginning Width= 156 Beginning Width= 172 Annual Erosion= -2 Annual Erosion= -2 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 154 End Beach Width= 170 Beginning Width= 154 Beginning Width= 170 Annual Erosion= -4 Annual Erosion= -23 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 150 End Beach Width= 147 Beginning Width= 150 Beginning Width= 147 rl 00 G Annual Erosion= -1 G Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 8 End Beach Width= 149 End Beach Width= 155 Beginning Width= 149 Beginning Width= 155 G Annual Erosion= -21 Annual Erosion= -10 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 128 End Beach Width= 145 Beginning Width= 128 Beginning Width= 145 G Annual Erosion= -6 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 6 End Beach Width= 1221 End Beach Width= 151 2020 R-72 2019 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2018 2017 2016 Fill Placement 9,000 CY from 2015 Fill Placement 66,000 CY from ao 2014 _ o -64 & T39 to R- L c2013 ropica Storm Debbie (June 0 2012 `m v } 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay(August 2008) 2008 — 2007 Fill Placement 18,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) 151 Net Change 1 6.0 ft 55 -10.0 ft 8.0 ft 147 170 -23.0 ft 12/2014 -2.0 ft 172 158 14.0 ft 3.0 ft 33.0 ft 122 —6.0 ft 128 -21.0 ft 149 -1.0 ft 2005 Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 73 1 - 0 25 50 75 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) -4.0 ft -2.0 ft 156 -11.0 ft 16 —28.0 ft 195 122.0 ft 150 175 200 Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-73 2005 Beach Width= 85 Beginning Width= 85 Beginning Width= 127 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 44 cV Annual Accretion= 26 End Beach Width= 129 End Beach Width= 153 Beginning Width= 129 Beginning Width= 153 n O O Annual Erosion= � \ Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 26 Annual Accretion= 5 End Beach Width= 155 End Beach Width= 158 Beginning Width= 155 Beginning Width= 158 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 2 eV Annual Accretion= 28 End Beach Width= 157 End Beach Width= 186 Beginning Width= 157 Beginning Width= 186 G Annual Erosion= -7 Annual Erosion= -8 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 150 End Beach Width= 178 Beginning Width= 150 Beginning Width= 178 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -33 cV Annual Accretion= cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 150 End Beach Width= 145 Beginning Width= 150 Beginning Width= 145 rl 00 G Annual Erosion= -3 G Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 11 End Beach Width= 147 End Beach Width= 156 Beginning Width= 147 Beginning Width= 156 G Annual Erosion= -22 Annual Erosion= -2 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 125 End Beach Width= 154 Beginning Width= 125 Beginning Width= 154 G Annual Erosion= G Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 2 N Annual Accretion= 2 End Beach Width= 127 End Beach Width= 156 2020 R-73 2019 2018 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 2016 2015 Fill Placement 9,000 CY from R-71.5 to R-73 (Dec. 2014) 2014 wo c L 2013 c g° Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 `m v r 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 2007 Fill Placement 14,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005 Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 2005 0 25 50 Fill Placement 213 CY (Jan. 2014) 127 129 85 75 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) 156 Net Change 1 2.0 ft 1 6 -2.0 ft 11.0 ft 145 178 -33.0 ft -8.0 ft 186 28.0 ft 153 158 5.0ft 26.0 ft 125 2.0 ft -22.0 ft 147 -3.0 ft 150 0.0 ft 150 157 -7.0 ft 2.0 ft 155 26.0 ft 47.0 ft 150 175 200 Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-74 2005 Beach Width= 68 Beginning Width= 68 Beginning Width= 140 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= rV Annual Accretion= 89 rV Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 157 End Beach Width= 144 Beginning Width= 157 Beginning Width= 144 Re n O O Annual Erosion= -2 � \ Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 155 End Beach Width= 145 Beginning Width= 155 Beginning Width= 145 Annual Erosion= -8 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= rV Annual Accretion= 31 End Beach Width= 147 End Beach Width= 176 Beginning Width= 147 Beginning Width= 176 kD Annual Erosion= -9 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 11 End Beach Width= 138 End Beach Width= 187 Beginning Width= 138 Beginning Width= 187 Annual Erosion= 4 Annual Erosion= -38 tV Annual Accretion= tV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 142 End Beach Width- 149 Beginning Width= 142 Beginning Width= 149 00 Annual Erosion= G Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 3 N Annual Accretion= 8 End Beach Width= 145 End Beach Width= 157 Beginning Width= 145 Beginning Width= 157 N 0) C Annual Erosion= -9 C Annual Erosion= rV Annual Accretion= rV Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 136 End Beach Width- 158 Beginning Width= 136 Beginning Width= 158 Cm Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= rV Annual Accretion= 4 tV Annual Accretion= 6 End Beach Width= 140 End Beach Width= 164 2020 R-74 2019 2018 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 2016 2015 Fill Placement 10,000 CY from R-74 to R-78 (Dec. 2014) 2014 ao c `o *= 2013 - c g° Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 v } 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 2007 Fill Placement 8,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 2005 1 0 25 50 M. 75 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) 140 136 145 142 138 147 155 157 164 Net Change 6.0 ft 1.0 ft 8.0 ft -38.0 ft 187 176 11.0 ft 31.0 ft 1.0 ft 4.0 ft 4.0 ft -9.0 ft 3.0 ft 4.0 ft -9.0 ft -8.0 ft -2.0 ft 89.0 ft 150 175 200 Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-75 2005 Beach Width= 84 Beginning Width= 84 Beginning Width= 134 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -18 cV Annual Accretion= 51 cV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 135 End Beach Width= 116 Beginning Width= 135 Beginning Width= 116 n O O Annual Erosion= -24 � \ Annual Erosion= -16 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 111 End Beach Width= 100 Beginning Width= 111 Beginning Width= 100 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 15 cV Annual Accretion= 47 End Beach Width= 126 End Beach Width= 147 Beginning Width= 126 Beginning Width= 147 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= -32 N Annual Accretion= 14 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 140 End Beach Width= 115 Beginning Width= 140 Beginning Width= 115 Annual Erosion= Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 6 End Beach Width= 140 End Beach Width= 121 Beginning Width= 140 Beginning Width= 121 rl 00 0 Annual Erosion= -12 Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 31 End Beach Width= 128 End Beach Width= 152 Beginning Width= 128 Beginning Width= 152 G Annual Erosion= G Annual Erosion= -7 N Annual Accretion= 7 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 135 End Beach Width= 145 Beginning Width= 135 Beginning Width= 145 G Annual Erosion= -1 Annual Erosion= -9 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 1341 End Beach Width= 136 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao c �L O *= 2013 c 0 0 2012 L 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 R-75 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 201 Fill Placement 10,000 CY f R-74 to R-78 (Dec. 2014) Tropical Storm Debbie (Jui Tropical Storm Fay (Augu! Fill Placement 8,000 CY (K Hurricane Wilma cto ei Hurricane Katrina (August 25 R-76 2005 Beach Width= 60 Beginning Width= 60 Beginning Width= 78 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= 78 eV Annual Accretion= 35 End Beach Width= 138 End Beach Width= 113 Beginning Width= 138 Beginning Width= 113 n O O Annual Erosion= -21 � \ Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= Annual Accretion= 3 End Beach Width= 117 End Beach Width= 116 Beginning Width= 117 Beginning Width= 116 CAnnual Erosion= -7 p Annual Erosion= -22 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 110 End Beach Width= 94 Beginning Width= 110 Beginning Width= 94 C Annual Erosion= -12 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 17 End Beach Width= 98 End Beach Width= 111 Beginning Width= 98 Beginning Width= 111 O I� C Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 10 eV Annual Accretion= 2 End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width= 113 Beginning Width= 108 Beginning Width= 113 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -8 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 10 End Beach Width= 100 End Beach Width= 123 Beginning Width= 100 Beginning Width= 123 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 4 N Annual Accretion= 14 End Beach Width= 104 End Beach Width= 137 Beginning Width= 104 Beginning Width= 137 M O C Annual Erosion= -26 C Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 8 End Beach Width= 781 End Beach Width= 145 2020 R-76 2019 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2018 2017 2016 2015 Fill Placement 10,000 CY from R-74 to R-78 (Dec. 2014) 2014 ao c 2013 c Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 } 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 2007 Fill Placement 15,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005 Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 60 2005 ■- 0 25 50 135 Net Change 127 8.0 ft 113 14.0 ft 10 10.0 ft 11 -8.0 ft 12/2014 94 17.0 ft -22.0 ft 11 3.0 ft 113 35.0 ft 78 -26.0 ft 104 4.0 ft 100 -8.0 ft 108 98.9 10.0 ft -12.0 ft 110 m\-7.0 ft 117 -21.0 ft �13 78.0 ft 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-77 2005 Beach Width= 78 Beginning Width= 78 Beginning Width= 108 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 59 eV Annual Accretion= 8 End Beach Width= 137 End Beach Width= 116 Beginning Width= 137 Beginning Width= 116 n O O Annual Erosion= -13 � \ Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 124 End Beach Width= 120 Beginning Width= 124 Beginning Width= 120 00 Ln CAnnual Erosion= -8 p Annual Erosion= -9 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 116 End Beach Width= 111 Beginning Width= 116 Beginning Width= 111 C Annual Erosion= -8 p Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 8 End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width= 119 Beginning Width= 108 Beginning Width= 119 O I� C Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -5 cV Annual Accretion= 3 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 111 End Beach Width= 114 Beginning Width= 111 Beginning Width= 114 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 13 N Annual Accretion= 13 End Beach Width= 124 End Beach Width= 127 Beginning Width= 124 Beginning Width= 127 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 8 N Annual Accretion= 15 End Beach Width= 132 End Beach Width= 142 Beginning Width= 132 Beginning Width= 142 C Annual Erosion= -24 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 20 End Beach Width= 108 End Beach Width= 162 2020 R-77 2019 2018 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 2016 2015 Fill Placement 10,000 CY from R-74 to R-78 (Dec. 2014) 2014 - - ao c L O *= 2013 c ° Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 v } 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 2007 Fill Placement 8,000 CY (May 200E 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 7-005) Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 2005 1 T 0 25 50 162 Net Change 142 20.0 ft 127 15.0 ft 114 13.0 ft 119 -5.0 ft 6.0 rt -9.0 ft �120 4.0 ft 116 12/2014 8.0 ft 132 -24.0 ft 124 8.0 ft 13.0 ft 116 124 78 75 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) 3.0 ft -8.0 ft -8.0 ft \ -13.0 ft 137 59.0 ft 150 175 200 Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-78 2005 Beach Width= 86 Beginning Width= 86 Beginning Width= 92 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 38 eV Annual Accretion= 8 End Beach Width= 124 End Beach Width= 100 Beginning Width= 124 Beginning Width= 100 n O O Annual Erosion= -6 � \ Annual Erosion= -3 N Annual Accretion= Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 118 End Beach Width= 97 Beginning Width= 118 Beginning Width= 97 CAnnual Erosion= -9 p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 6 End Beach Width= 109 End Beach Width= 103 Beginning Width= 109 Beginning Width= 103 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -2 N Annual Accretion= 1 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 110 End Beach Width= 101 Beginning Width= 110 Beginning Width= 101 O I� p Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= 5 eV Annual Accretion= 5 End Beach Width= 115 End Beach Width= 106 Beginning Width= 115 Beginning Width= 106 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= eV Annual Accretion= 19 eV Annual Accretion= 29 End Beach Width= 134 End Beach Width= 135 Beginning Width= 134 Beginning Width= 135 C Annual Erosion= -8 C Annual Erosion= -30 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 126 End Beach Width= 105 Beginning Width= 126 Beginning Width= 105 M O C Annual Erosion= -34 C Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= 10 End Beach Width= 921 End Beach Width= 115 2020 R-78 2019 - 2018 Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 2016 2015 Fill Placement 10,000 CY from 2014 R-74 to R-78 (Dec. 2014) W c L 2013 c 0 g Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 v } 2011 2010 - 2009 - Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 - 2007 — Fill Placement 2,000 CY (May 2006) 2006 Hurricane Wilma (October 2005) Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 2005 T - 0 25 50 115 A- 12/2014 106 101 103 9 100 92 124 86 75 100 125 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) 10.0 ft 135 -30.0 ft 29.0 ft 5.0 ft -2.0 ft 6.0 ft -3.0 ft 8.0 ft -34.0 ft 126 134 -8.0 ft 19.0 ft 5.0 ft 1.0 ft -9.0 ft -6.0 ft 38.0 ft 150 175 200 Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-79 2005 Beach Width= 80 Beginning Width= 80 Beginning Width= 126 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -21 N Annual Accretion= 2 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 82 End Beach Width= 105 Beginning Width= 82 Beginning Width= 105 n O O Annual Erosion= � \ Annual Erosion= -8 N Annual Accretion= 18 Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 100 End Beach Width= 97 Beginning Width= 100 Beginning Width= 97 CAnnual Erosion= -19 p Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 2 End Beach Width= 81 End Beach Width= 99 Beginning Width= 81 Beginning Width= 99 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -10 N Annual Accretion= 19 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 100 End Beach Width= 89 Beginning Width= 100 Beginning Width= 89 O I� C Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 10 N Annual Accretion= 9 End Beach Width= 110 End Beach Width= 98 Beginning Width= 110 Beginning Width= 98 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -9 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 10 End Beach Width= 101 End Beach Width= 108 Beginning Width= 101 Beginning Width= 108 N 01 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -29 N Annual Accretion= 8 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 109 End Beach Width= 79 Beginning Width= 109 Beginning Width= 79 M O C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 17 N Annual Accretion= 3 End Beach Width= 126 End Beach Width= 82 2020 - R-79 2019 - 2018 - Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 2017 - 2016 - 2015 - — 2014 wo c �L O 'c ' 2013 g° Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 0 2012 - `m v r 2011 2010 2009 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) 2008 2007 2006Hurricane VVIlma (October 2005) Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 2005 0 25 50 82 -q.er 108 98 12/2014 89 99 Y 10 109 100 R0111 75 100 125 150 175 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) 3.0 ft 29.0 ft 10.0 ft Mr, 10.0 ft 2.0 ft -8.0 ft -21.0 ft 17.0 ft 8.0 ft 1 10.0 ft 19.0 ft 18.0 ft 2.0 ft Kill] Design Standard fMHWL (+.33 NAVD) 2005 Beach Width= 86 Beginning Width= 86 Beginning Width= 117 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -5 N Annual Accretion= 15 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 101 End Beach Width= 112 Beginning Width= 101 Beginning Width= 112 n O O Annual Erosion= -5 � \ Annual Erosion= -5 N Annual Accretion= Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 96 End Beach Width= 107 Beginning Width= 96 Beginning Width= 107 pAnnual Erosion= -6 p Annual Erosion= -7 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 90 End Beach Width= 100 Beginning Width= 90 Beginning Width= 100 C Annual Erosion= -2 C Annual Erosion= -1 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 88 End Beach Width= 99 Beginning Width= 88 Beginning Width= 99 O I� C Annual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -6 N Annual Accretion= 29 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 117 End Beach Width= 93 Beginning Width= 117 Beginning Width= 93 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -6 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 111 End Beach Width= 94 Beginning Width= 111 Beginning Width= 94 C Annual Erosion= -6 C Annual Erosion= -18 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 105 End Beach Width= 76 Beginning Width= 105 Beginning Width= 76 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 12 N Annual Accretion= 8 End Beach Width= 117 End Beach Width= 84 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 84 NetChanee R-80 7 8.0ft 94 -18.0 ft Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 1.0 ft 93 -6.0 ft 99 -1.0 ft 100 12/2014 -7.0 ft 107 112 -5.0 ft -5.0 ft 117 Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 05 12.0 ft -6.0 ft 111 -6.0 ft 11 29.0 ft 8 Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) -2.0 ft 90 E\ -6.0 ft 96 -5.0 ft 101 Hurricane Wilma October 2005 15.0 ft Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) 86 T 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) tMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-81 2005 Beach Width= 92 Beginning Width= 92 Beginning Width= 117 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -2 N Annual Accretion= 7 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 99 End Beach Width= 115 Beginning Width= 99 Beginning Width= 115 n O O Annual Erosion= -4 � \ Annual Erosion= -4 N Annual Accretion= Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 95 End Beach Width= 111 Beginning Width= 95 Beginning Width= 111 CAnnual Erosion= -9 p Annual Erosion= -4 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 86 End Beach Width= 107 Beginning Width= 86 Beginning Width= 107 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 6 N Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 92 End Beach Width= 111 Beginning Width= 92 Beginning Width= 111 O I� C Annual Erosion= -3 p Annual Erosion= -9 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 89 End Beach Width= 102 Beginning Width= 89 Beginning Width= 102 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -3 N Annual Accretion= 8 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 97 End Beach Width= 99 Beginning Width= 97 Beginning Width= 99 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -10 N Annual Accretion= 1 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 98 End Beach Width= 89 Beginning Width= 98 Beginning Width= 89 M O C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -5 N Annual Accretion= 19 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 117 End Beach Width= 84 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 84 nio+ rknnan 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) tMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-82 2005 Beach Width= 63 Beginning Width= 63 Beginning Width= 89 CAnnual Erosion= -5 p Annual Erosion= -6 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 58 End Beach Width= 83 Beginning Width= 58 Beginning Width= 83 n O O Annual Erosion= � \ Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 12 Annual Accretion= 4 End Beach Width= 70 End Beach Width= 87 Beginning Width= 70 Beginning Width= 87 pAnnual Erosion= -1 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 2 End Beach Width= 69 End Beach Width= 89 Beginning Width= 69 Beginning Width= 89 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -4 N Annual Accretion= 12 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 81 End Beach Width= 85 Beginning Width= 81 Beginning Width= 85 O I� C Annual Erosion= -21 p Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 60 End Beach Width= 85 Beginning Width= 60 Beginning Width= 85 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 4 N Annual Accretion= 3 End Beach Width= 64 End Beach Width= 88 Beginning Width= 64 Beginning Width= 88 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -15 N Annual Accretion= 9 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 73 End Beach Width= 73 Beginning Width= 73 Beginning Width= 73 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 16 N Annual Accretion= 13 End Beach Width= 89 End Beach Width= 86 tMHWL (+.33 NAVD) R-83 2005 Beach Width= 41 Beginning Width= 41 Beginning Width= 71 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -15 cV Annual Accretion= 2 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 43 End Beach Width= 56 Beginning Width= 43 Beginning Width= 56 n O O Annual Erosion= � \ Annual Erosion= -11 N Annual Accretion= 8 Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 51 End Beach Width= 45 Beginning Width= 51 Beginning Width= 45 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 11 eV Annual Accretion= 36 End Beach Width= 62 End Beach Width= 81 Beginning Width= 62 Beginning Width= 81 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -2 N Annual Accretion= 5 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 67 End Beach Width= 79 Beginning Width= 67 Beginning Width= 79 O I� C Annual Erosion= -9 p Annual Erosion= -9 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 58 End Beach Width= 70 Beginning Width= 58 Beginning Width= 70 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= -13 C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= 5 End Beach Width= 45 End Beach Width= 75 Beginning Width= 45 Beginning Width= 75 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -21 N Annual Accretion= 6 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 51 End Beach Width= 54 Beginning Width= 51 Beginning Width= 54 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 20 N Annual Accretion= 25 End Beach Width= 71 End Beach Width= 79 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 79 Net Chanee R-83 54 25.0 ft 75 -21.0 ft Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) 5.0 ft 70 79 -9.0 ft -2.0 ft 81 45 12/2014 36.0 ft -11.0 ft 56 -15.0 ft 71 Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 20.0 ft 51 45 6.0 ft 58 -13.0 ft 67 -9.0 ft Tropical Storm Fay (Aug. 2008) 5.0 ft 62 11.0 ft 51 Z 8.0 ft 43 Hurricane Wilma(Oct. 2005) 2.0 ft 41 Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2005) 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) tMHWL (+.33 NAVD) � • I 2005 Beach Width= 23 Beginning Width= 23 Beginning Width= 59 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= -6 cV Annual Accretion= 11 eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 34 End Beach Width= 53 Beginning Width= 34 Beginning Width= 53 n O O Annual Erosion= � \ Annual Erosion= -4 N Annual Accretion= 9 N Annual Accretion= rl End Beach Width= 43 End Beach Width= 49 Beginning Width= 43 Beginning Width= 49 CAnnual Erosion= p Annual Erosion= cV Annual Accretion= 2 eV Annual Accretion= 23 End Beach Width= 45 End Beach Width= 72 Beginning Width= 45 Beginning Width= 72 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= -5 N Annual Accretion= 8 N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 53 End Beach Width= 67 Beginning Width= 53 Beginning Width= 67 O I� C Annual Erosion= -1 p Annual Erosion= -20 cV Annual Accretion= eV Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 52 End Beach Width= 47 Beginning Width= 52 Beginning Width= 47 rl 00 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 15 N Annual Accretion= 21 End Beach Width= 67 End Beach Width= 68 Beginning Width= 67 Beginning Width= 68 C Annual Erosion= -23 C Annual Erosion= -11 N Annual Accretion= N Annual Accretion= End Beach Width= 44 End Beach Width= 57 Beginning Width= 44 Beginning Width= 57 C Annual Erosion= C Annual Erosion= N Annual Accretion= 15 N Annual Accretion= 1 End Beach Width= 591 End Beach Width= 58 2020 R-84 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 ao �L 0 *= 2013 c 0 0 2012 L v } 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 0 58 44 pt. 2017) 72 . 12/2014 Tropical Storm Debbie (June 2012) 67 Net Change 1.0 ft -11.0 ft 21.0 ft -20.0 ft -5.0 ft 23.0 ft -4.0 ft -6.0 ft tMHWL (+.33 NAVD) -23.0 ft 15.0 ft 52 -1.0 ft 53 /45 Tropical Storm Fay (Aug. 2008) 8.0 ft 2.0 ft 43 9.0 ft =/ 34 Hurricane Wilma(Oct. 5 11.0 ft Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2005) 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Beach Width From Baseline (Feet) Appendix G Oblique Aerial Images Acquired in May 2020 - i - - _. t,. \.. w,l :.:.e.«ra,wa: � .�;x� .tom n� �� s.;.s Aerial Images Acquired on May 21, 2020 at approximately 12:30 pm. 4 Aerial Images Acquired on May 21, 2020 at approximately 12:30 pm. 40 `�`' _ - �•- 'M1. irk. 'st- =-`-_- „WIN" too `r N7 -wor n lab - 4w Awkft a AM VIM! wpm -;25 C7,; C7- 440, --, kl;�,r. .r.�1 ! � + L�w Aerial Images Acquired on May 21, 2020 at approximately 12:30 pm. -_- T - -. - _. - - -- - -- - I 15 Aerial Images Acquired on May 21, 2020 at approximately 12:30 pm. 16 l '.,'L ...1 : .. .. - .... R-35 Aerial Images Acquired on May 21, 2020 at approximately 12:30 pm. 18 Aerial Images Acquired on May 21, 2020 at approximately 12:30 pm. 19 ai �#, 4, . I Aerial Images Acquired on May 21, 2020 at approximately 12:30 pm. „AD, it. a a ,.* a - . .A .z 4 21 Aerial Images Acquired on May 21, 2020 at approximately 12:30 pm. 22 S 4 I , R-44 r" R-45 y rtr� 7- as � - �'.._ N _ -48 r „� Au ,•dle' _-'ter, aa1� ��h. 'd^ � � . r - �� .. - - or R-49 , 51, Ar 4 ' ,F-Pr i J .,C l 'gip � .eP 'tip .rin. l.i�: iE. �. w� 77 -uw, Ar KV 2 � •.. -ten,,• `t., - wo .ww�wjv, 49w, � � r op �� i . Win, _ - r..-s. - •. �d �; �i.� _ - _c a Jr *%.m� wci4—„cT'^.-.- r. YPY Ij j r . � y i 7 r - .PI ►'3C - 71 Zw ell- J R 5 r T MAN! 17 - - �-- ��eee---{{{ c7i-si rs ,z ��:-�v,.i�rii+'vr" '. I�-. '.X•� •'�.�r. �. '1! �Y7 k ' -ram r r :. >� 'ik IvPt�a, - a Ao y V 1�� as M. �w + ' lei 777`-� ILI -i'�4 � .i�StfR Jy •}�F , �� tJ;L ,. Ti Zr Im lip AF+IU•� of. �.z-...:j�k r `` ` fit• - ,y r led vow -r a 0 IPWIP 'ter 1 l .W,i •' fig - -�iis ' `� - C ' ,.. '�•'� , i �.. .. Tlq FM~ r.i -x' , -y, - f�'ak.�F'' e...�•"F �'* `' a5• . •"u ,IAli �. , R-70 JSr - r _ ��,. - ,4 .3.,'I�� ' f ,' '. yam. -�i '�►,:. Lam' ter_. ' R •• fPI .1 Fla • ov It Vj*W Sri rv. Fir Amp,, s �� 1 �=!'x 7j s 60, r UK tar lar—. ' �lxv <,,,�m.- 1 ��• '��'. �'�►-�.�''� i ,�-' mot. _. ... �� tp am Al lit, "^ •. :'WIN. ' m va, motw: _ kv zt- r, riy ' -•...tom ,�,-�-- 'F'. - �;.. - � :�jf� � _- ' ,�`�� - I r i "� �Ter?'�; �-` �,,, -. .: ...ems �6-' - � r -I - }•-' cam•= :, r��_. �- Y+ - .,.TiT'F_Y� 9 "� fir � `k}.`•3"Y✓SsrY � �yy�' Also ,�> . •�� +ray �`'�'w�r... fat, w AM Vp � = All mod. ' '- ? ,,% i( - JAY r4 l ode «3,.10r aka $i Mt lap 3 IZ- ' Tit � Y ui�S i flaw- P. c. , 7�v 9, i 2 wr�, - I _ � � _ � �1 sue-, �- r•- - - _ 4! , _. _llip" y _..,..: . .. s+4-'•�:-- �4r• - IL ir Apw r zmw * —wk� F pow - r ,� s 1 _ 9 0 Army Corps Unveils $4.6 Billion Plan To Protect Miami -Dade From Storm Surge Army Corps Unveils $4.6 Billion Plan To Protect Miami -Dade From Storm Surge I WUS... Page 2 of 9 (https:Hmed iad.pu bl icbroadcasti ng.netlplsha red/n pr/styles/)_la rgelnprsha redl2020061871631435.jpeg) A $4.6 billion plan by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would help protect areas around Biscayne Bay from hurricane storm surge, like this flooding during Irma. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plan to protect Miami -Dade County from hurricane storm surges over the next 50 years with floodgates across rivers, and a mile -long flood wall along its upscale waterfront, could cost nearly $4.6 billion. The tentative plan (https://usace.contentdm.ocic.org/utils/getfile%ollection/pl6021coII7/id/14453), which is now open (http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/MiamiDadeBackBayCSRMFeasibilityStudy/) for public comment, is the latest (https://www.wirn.org/post/army-corps-has-tentative-plan- storm-surge-miami-dale-flood-gates-and-walls#stream/0) and most fully detailed. The plan also calls for elevating about 2,300 flood -prone structures. N "If you go back and look at the amount of flooding that occurred during Hurricane Irma and the potential damage and flooding that could occur if something bigger came in like a Hurricane Andrew or Katrina, that's what they're trying to protect us from," said Miami's public works and resilience chief Alan Dodd, who is also a retired colonel who ran the Corps' Jacksonville District. The agency is developing a similar storm surge plan for Monroe County and other coastal communities. But the scale of the walls and gates — and cost — makes Miami's plan stand out. FE-2 "It's only been used in a few places around the United States," said Miami -Dade County Resilience Chief Jim Murley. "That's why it will draw, we're sure, significant attention." When early conceptual plans (https://www.wi rn.org/post/could-flood- gates-and-buying-out-homes-save-miami- army-corps-considering-it#stream/0) were unveiled over the summer, some homeowners worried (https://www.wlrn.org/post/flood-gates- flood-waI Is-and-home-buyouts-comi ng- soon-miami#stream/0) about having property seized to make room for the .LJQl i.i0.'r0 VIII.pig) Miami's Environmental Justice Clinic said The latest plan moves a floodgate across the Miami River creating flood protection for some and not closer to Biscayne Bay and eliminates flood wall in others, based on a cost -benefit analysis, Edgewater. could also unfairly exclude some poor CREDIT U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS neighborhoods. The study says land will need to be acquired, and estimates the cost at $406 million. However, it's vague about seizing land and says that would be a last resort. The county is also reluctant to seize land, Murley said. The Corps and the county share the cost of the project, with the county covering 35 percent. "There's been no committment by the county to use eminent domain for any purpose on this project, because we don't feel we're at the point where we have sufficient information," he said. rol When it comes to raising or moving structures, the owner needs to be willing, he said. Environmentalists also say walls and gates could damage seagrass beds, interfere with manatees and other wildlife, and cost more than improving natural barriers like coral reefs and mangroves. The latest 400-page plan, along with 13 appendices, does little to address those concerns, said Miami Waterkeeper Executive Director Rachel Silverstein. "Almost every individual who showed up to make a public comment about this study was almost begging for green infrastructure," she said. "Things like restoring coral reefs, building mangroves, dune ecosystems, wetland restoration, and all of those things both provide an environmental benefit, but have also been shown to be really potent storm surge protection features." The plan now up for public comment is one of eight alternatives considered. It focuses on seven of Miami-Dade's most vulnerable areas because protecting the entire county would be too costly. The goal of the project is to reduce storm surge damage and increase resilience, Corps officials say, but not address tidal flooding, like king tides linked to lunar cycles. In addition to flood gates, pumps and flood walls would be constructed along the Miami River, Little River and Biscayne Canal. Homes and other structures that repeatedly flood in Arch Creek, Little River, Edgewater, Aventura, Cutler Bay, North Beach and South Beach could also be elevated. About 3,800 would be provided with additional flood -proofing. Countywide, police stations, fire stations, hospitals, and critical structures like pump houses, would be given additional flood protection. This latest plan moves the flood gate on the Miami River closer to the mouth of the river, said project manager Holly Carpenter. The latest version also eliminates a flood wall in Edgewater and sharply reduces the number of structures to be elevated or flood -proofed. The plan is also far from final since the $3 million study does not include money for expensive studies modeling flooding or studying hydrology. "The level of design right now is basically a conceptual level," Carpenter said, relying on existing information. "We're about 50 percent of the way through a three-year study. And the study will conclude only with the 10 percent level of design." Whatever final design is constructed, she said the agency must ensure it doesn't worsen flooding. "We're not going to prevent storm surge flooding from one side and then induce more moderate flooding on the interior due to the walls," she said. "We do have the authority to ... add additional pumping stations or whatever planning is needed to make sure that doesn't happen." The agency is taking public comment for the next 45 days and will hold virtual meetings on June 9 and June 11. More information is available on the Corps' Back Bay web page (https.11www.saj. usace.army. mil/Miami DadeBackBayCSRMFeasi bi li tyStudyl). Copyright 2020 WLRN 91.3 FM. To see more, visit WLRN 91.3 FM (https://www.wlrn.org/). TAGS: STORM SURGE (/TERM/STORM-SURGE) 2020ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON (/TERM/2020-ATLANTIC-HURRICAN E-SEASON) f Share (http://facebook.com/sharer12hp?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwusfnews.wusf.usf.edu%2Fpost%2Farmy-corps- unveils-46-bi I lion-plan-protect-m iam i-dade-storm-su rge&t=Army%20Corps%20Unvei Is%20%244.6% 20Bi I l ion%20PIa n%20To%20Protect%20M is mi-Dade%20From%20Storm%20Suree) V Tweet (http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwusfnews.wusf.usf.edu%2Fpost%2Farm -- corps-unveils-46-bi I lion-plan-protect-miam i-dade-storm-surge&text=Armv%20Corps%20Unvei is%20%244.6% 20Bi I l ion%20P la n%20To%20Protect%20M is mi-Dade%20From%20Storm%20Surize) • Email (mailto:?subiect=Army%20Corps%20Unveils%20%244.6%20Billion%20PIan%20To%20Protect% 20M iami-Dade%20From%20Storm%20Surge&body=https%3A%2F%2Fwusfnews.wusf.usf.edu%2Fpost% 2Farmy-corps-unveils-46-bill ion-plan-protect-miami-dade-storm-suree)