Loading...
CAC Agenda 04/13/2023 UpdatedFebruary 9, 2023 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida, February 9, 2023 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: David Trecker VICE CHAIRMAN: Joseph Burke Steve Koziar (excused) Thomas McCann Jim Burke Robert Raymond Robert Roth Raymond Christman Erik Brechnitz (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Andy Miller, Coastal Zone Manager Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Farron Turner, Management Analyst I, Coastal Zone February 9, 2023 Anyone in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording from the Communications, Government & Public Affairs Division or view it online. I. Call to Order Chairman Trecker called the meeting to order at 1 p.m. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum of seven was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. McCann moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Raymond. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. V. Public Comments [Comments not related to the Army Corps of Engineers or Emergency Berm Project] Shelley McKiernan, Mermaid of Naples, told the CAC: • Water is important to her. • She learned about our water and that we have major issues. • We also have an issue with sand, but there's not enough information to determine if it's a major problem. • Bacteria, mold and fungi exist in sand, although it's killed in water. She'd like to believe the sun kills it in sand. • People get nail fungus and immune -compromised people are being warned by doctors to avoid beaches. • She's requesting that the county look into studies about sand, especially due to the hurricane. • People are having reactions to sand. • The sand should be tested. Chairman Trecker told her that part of the CAC's responsibility is to look at water, which is related to what she's discussing. We're resurrecting the CAC Water -Quality Subcommittee and he recommends that she meet with them and the Pollution Control Department to ask for a response. Ashley Jenkins, an environmental advocate, told the CAC: • The Gulf of Mexico has been affected by the hurricane and has taken on debris and organic matter. • She and Shelley have been on a hunt for clean water. They spoke with the City of Naples and tried to speak with Rhonda Watkins in county Pollution Control. • Turning sand over isn't alleviating the problem. • There were 20 deaths in the country for vulnificus, with one in Collier County. • We are renowned for tourism and visitors come for our beaches. • This sand problem has been swept under the rug. • Councilwoman Petrunoff told her that hydrogen peroxide is one of the simplest, most natural ingredients and can do wonders to disinfect pathogens such as fungus and bacteria. • Ecolab, which is in Cape Coral, has biological materials that can be put on sand for an economical rate. It's already used in city lakes. • Beaches are our cash cow, but she won't walk barefoot on them since the hurricane. • She's seen people's feet contaminated with flesh -eating bacteria after being on beaches. That's one of the many pathogens afflicting people. 0► February 9, 2023 • Residents contacted her this weekend to ask what she's doing for local advocacy in the county. • The beaches smell horrendous, a culmination of red tide and debris washing up on beaches and killing animals. • Category 3 waste hit our area from Everglades City due to its impaired water treatment plant. • Dilution is not the solution. This problem won't go away. Chairman Trecker said he'd give her the same advice as the speaker before her, to meet with the CAC Water -Quality Subcommittee and Pollution Control staff. Mr. Roth noted that Dr. Dabees is in the audience and asked what they could do. He agreed wastewater contains many pathogens and many are long dead or can't live in salt water. What can we do other than testing sand? Vice Chairman Burke said there's a SID-criteria for particle size. Mr. Roth asked if they could test the material for quality. In New York, when it's moved, it must be sampled. Chairman Trecker noted that they have a time certain item coming up in a few minutes and asked if they could continue the discussion after that. VI. Approval of CAC Minutes January 12, 2023 Mr. Burke noted that Farron's last name should be changed to her married name, Turner, in future minutes. Mr. Burke moved to approve the minutes of the January 12, 2023, meeting. Second by Mr. McCann. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. VII. Staff Reports [Heard following Old Business] Extended Revenue Report "FY22 TDT Collections Revenue Report" dated December 31, 2022. Mr. Miller detailed a PowerPoint presentation and reported that: • There's an actual to budget variance of almost 57% in the positive, which is good. • The trajectory is down slightly, but still well above our budgeted numbers. • For the last couple of years, it's been that way and we're hoping for a continuation. Chairman Trecker noted that there was some slow down, but it's still a good, positive variance. Mr. Raymond asked what category the Paradise Coast Sports Complex falls under. Does it fall under TDC capital? Mr. Miller said he wasn't certain and would find that answer. Vice Chairman Burke said he was shocked that revenues were only slightly down since Hurricane Ian. Mr. Roth noted that the blue line showed the budget and the red line shows actual. Can we put another line for last year to show a comparison to last year? He noticed they were up in November and down in December compared with last year. Mr. Miller said he'd ask the team that puts together that report. At the least, they could give the CAC that information superimposed on this report. February 9, 2023 VIII. New Business 1. Executive Summary - CSA Ocean Sciences, Inc. - 2023 Hardbottom Monitoring Proposal Mr. Miller reported that: • This is an annual item that we bring to the CAC about monitoring of the hardbottom to gauge the impacts that our beach renourishment projects have on the near -shore hardbottom. • The amount, $378,000 plus, is substantially different from what we had last year by about $100,000. • The extra effort we're talking about doing this year is a side -scan sonar effort. Our previous side - scan sonar was in 2009 and it's ever -changing because of the shifting sands offshore. We want to get a fresh data set so we can enhance our monitoring. Chairman Trecker noted that would be particularly important this year because of the sand redistribution from the hurricane. Mr. Miller agreed and outlined the recommendation. Recommendation to approve a proposal for CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. to continue the required post - construction hardbottom monitoring for the Collier County Beach Nourishment Project in summer 2023 for time and materials not to exceed $378,594.35 from the Tourist Development Tax funds under Contract No. 17-7188 and make a finding that this item promotes tourism (Fund 195, Project No. 90033). Mr. McCann moved to recommend approving a proposal for CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. to continue the required post -construction hardbottom monitoring for the Collier County Beach Nourishment Project in summer 2023 for time and materials not to exceed $378,594.35 in Tourist Development Tax funds under Contract No. 17-7188 and made a finding that this item promotes tourism (Fund 195, Project No. 90033). Second by Mr. Raymond. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. 2. Executive Summary - Rick Croft Enterprises Inc. dba Texas Trailers - 2 Mobile Cargo Units Quote Mr. Miller reported that: • This is related to Hurricane Ian. Our Coastal Zone staff rakes our beaches on Marco Island and Vanderbilt Beach and we keep one tractor at Tiger Tail Park and one at Vanderbilt Beach parking garage. Staff did a tremendous job this year prior to the hurricane. We have a lot of expensive equipment in these areas, including $100,000 tractors and beach -raking equipment, and they brought all the equipment that was mobile up to higher ground, closer to our offices at South Horseshoe Drive and by the courthouse. Unfortunately, we have two small storage sheds that are bolted to the ground that contain equipment and we couldn't move the sheds, materials and equipment out, so they were damaged. Staff did a great job afterward coming up with a plan to help mitigate that. Instead of installing permanent sheds, we could get similar -sized trailers to keep in the same locations. In the event of a storm, they can drag them to higher ground and save taxpayer money. He outlined the recommendation: Recommendation to approve an expenditure of $26,220 in Tourist Development Tax funds to Rick Croft Enterprises Inc., dba Texas Trailers, under Contract Number FSA20-EQU18.0 — Heavy Equipment (Piggyback Contract 251) for the purchase of two mobile cargo trailers for the storage of equipment and supplies used for beach maintenance activities and make a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism. Mr. Raymond moved to recommend approving the expenditure of $26,220 in Tourist Development 4 February 9, 2023 Tax funds to Rick Croft Enterprises Inc., dba Texas Trailers, under Contract No. FSA20-EQU18.0 — Heavy Equipment (Piggyback Contract 251) for the purchase of two mobile cargo trailers for the storage of equipment and supplies used for beach maintenance activities and made a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism. Second by Mr. McCann. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. X1. Old Business 1. Update - USACE Collier CSRM - 1:15 p.m. Time Certain Chairman Trecker told the CAC: • This is an important project, a 50-year, multi -year study to provide protection against major storms to coastal buildings and infrastructure. • The program started years ago and never reached the end of the first stage, the feasibility study, which is being restarted. • It's critical that we understand the ground rules so we can provide input. • Although we've been critical of the Army Corps of Engineers, it's the best agency in the country, and possibly the world, for this type of analysis. • We're lucky to have them and want to provide guidance as they restart this critical study. Michelle Hamor, Chief of the Policy Branch of the ACE Norfolk District, introduced herself. Chairman Trecker told her Andy Miller is here, as well as some stakeholders who will be impacted by the study. He asked her to handle her presentation in three stages: the presentation, answer questions by the CAC and then questions by the audience. Ms. Hamor detailed a PowerPoint presentation, Re -initiation of the Collier County Coastal Storm Risk Management Stud Chairman Trecker told the public he has copies of the study if anyone wants one. He commended the Army Corps of Engineers for its extensive, thorough work and asked about the beaches that were discarded from the earlier study. Are you now proposing that the reinitiated study be based on Course Of Action No. 4, no hardening, or will it start from a blank sheet of paper? Ms. Hamor told the CAC: • We estimated that we would formulate the plan to focus on the beaches, dunes and nonstructural, given the environmental compliance and the limited experience with storm -surge barriers and flood walls in this area. • It would be an interim response, so if more hardening was recommended later, we have not fully responded or provided a complete solution with just beaches and non-structural. • When we look at plans, we are looking at maximizing that benefit. When we explain why we have to invest this money in Florida, the feds want to know that they're getting a good return on their investment, so we look at what plans maximize that net benefit. • That net benefit is damages reduced minus the cost of that plan. That's our goal when we look at the federal interest. • It will include structural as we move forward. • If that's not something Collier County supports, there's an opportunity to evaluate a Locally Preferred Plan, which is a subset of a recommended plan that maximizes the net benefit and does not include structural measures. We can identify that early and it can be part of the analysis. Chairman Trecker asked if the options that were discarded earlier in Course of Action No. 4 are back on the table and if hardening will be re-evaluated. Ms. Hamor said that was right. We'll have to evaluate that as we look at the federal interest plan, the one that maximizes that net benefit. The option is that we can include the Locally Preferred Plan so that we can evaluate both options together. February 9, 2023 Chairman Trecker said that has a direct bearing on some of the original environmental objections to this and called the Conservancy's and other groups' attention to that. A discussion with Ms. Hamor ensued and the following points were made: • The hardening is going to be re-evaluated and is not completely off the table. • Feasibility studies are generally a 50-50 cost share, but this is 100% federally funded. • As we move into design and construction, assuming the identified plan has federal interest or we have been approved to recommend the Locally Preferred Plan, that cost share is generally 65/35, with 65% federal funding. • That's a major incentive for the county, even if we don't get everything we want. • Federal money can't be used for a project that provides a cost that exceeds the value of the structure being protected. When the Army Corps of Engineers formulates for alternatives, it works to identify a plan that maximizes that return. • The plan is to achieve environmental compliance. • The Army Corps is required to be justified at a BCR (Benefit -Cost Ratio) of one or more, but the plan will look at what maximizes that net benefit and what modifications can maximize that benefit. • The original study stopped because the Army Corps was told to go back and evaluate costs due to supply and demand issues after COVID. There was one area that was very close on the benefit -cost ratio, so it was possible that if we were able to get through that cost analysis, we might have to go back and reformulate. That would require more time than we had allotted. But we were also waiting to get an answer from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works on whether we were able to push that environmental compliance into PED (about 47: 00 on the video) and when that answer came back as no, we didn't have enough time remaining in the study to be able to reevaluate the recommended plan based on the updated cost. And we didn't have enough time to complete the environmental compliance and that's when the study expired. • The direction from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works has directed that the Army Corps will achieve environmental compliance. Once a plan is formulated and the more complex it is, including structural measures, the more work is necessary to achieve environmental compliance. It's very important for our partners and resource agencies to identify what's necessary to achieve compliance. • The federal interest in the project is based on depreciated replacement value. When the Army Corps evaluates structures, those are the damages that are being reduced. The Army Corps looks at a structure in the condition it is in today, so it may be a lower value than what's seen on Zillow or parcel data. We look at how much would it cost to replace it in its existing condition. That's the benefit the Army Corps developed. • There are other features that the Army Corps evaluates, such as if a beach reach is identified as having a benefit -cost ratio, such as recreation and tourists coming to the beach, which is an economic driver in Collier County. The Army Corps reaches a threshold for each feature to allow those benefits to be included, but it's primarily to reduce damage within that area. • The Army Corps is not looking at the flood insurance $250,000 exposure limit. For each structure, the Army Corps looks at the age and occupancy type and then develops low, average and high values for that structure type to calculate an appreciated replacement value for that structure. • Mr. Roth and Vice Chairman Burke agreed hardened structures are probably needed and hope the community's feelings have changed about that since the flooding from Hurricane Ian. • The original study bombed in the City of Naples and residents were unified in their opposition, but Hurricane Ian was a game changer for the county and city, so it's good to move forward on this. • 75% of the public beaches involved are in the City of Naples, so the city wants a stake in this study as a full partner and wants more community engagement for Naples and Marco Island. • The community wants not just meetings, but the ability to understand the context of their choices so they can make mindful choices and provide good input throughout the process. • It's important for this study to move forward because of the impacts of sea -level rise and because there will be more storms. • All options — physical and natural structures — need to be considered, and we'll probably need a mix to be successful. D February 9, 2023 • Dan Hughes' presentation was based on the original study, that not every area is going to be protected due to the criteria the Army Corps must follow. The county likely will have to come up with money to support other structures. • The recommended (original) plan will reduce future damages to structures in Collier County by 36%, so 64% of future damages remain after the plan's implementation. This project is not designed to be a complete and singular solution to eliminate coastal storm risk and prevent all effects of storm risk. The county should move forward with its own resiliency efforts. • That was based on the structural measures at Doctor's Pass and Wiggins Pass, so if structures are removed from consideration, the county's residual risk likely will increase because it will not keep the water out of those areas. • Community input is needed to determine the level of residual risk the community is comfortable with accepting. When you remove beaches, dunes and non-structural, residual risk may increase as the Army Corps looks at other options. • The original Course of Action No. 4 said that Pelican Bay would be reevaluated because the initial study omitted some of the beach buildings, such as the Ritz -Carlton, which have considerable value and weren't considered. • The original guidance suggested that areas like Pelican Bay and perhaps part of Marco Island could fund some of these efforts and be included in the actual implementation of the program. • Private beaches could be renourished at the same time, but funding cannot come from the federal government. It would have to come from the county. • The community needs digestible information, such as graphics to show flooding, and to prevent the misinformation about hurricane barriers that are needed that occurred the last time. Hopefully, the damage caused by Hurricane Ian will help change public perception. • The county could help with communicating simple, digestible information. Mr. Miller introduced another member of Ms. Hamor's team, Abby Preddy, a project manager and planning team lead for the Collier County CSRM feasibility study. Ms. Preddy told the CAC: • Board of County Commissioners approval was set for last week or this week. • That Army Corps requested that they move forward with a course of action for beach and nonstructural only. • Even though the Assistant Secretary of the Army Office approved the schedule and the budget for that Course Of Action, they did not approve it moving forward for us to go full steam ahead with that Course Of Action or removing structural components from the design. • That's why they want to reformulate the plan. We're not just moving forward with beaches and non- structural only. We need to manage expectations as we do that formulation and bring in public feedback and input to make screening decisions because there are many trade-offs between structural or non-structural. • There are tradeoffs for performance and actual risk management, as well as cost for damage actually reduced. • The Tamiami Trail Flood Wall is a special structural measure from our recommended plan because it is the only measure proposed in Planning Area 5 and it protects the county's socially vulnerable areas, is not economically justified and it wasn't in the previous study. • We primarily look at economic damages in that NED (National Economic Development) benefit, but because of the number of structures, residential communities and socially vulnerable communities that the floodwall protected, we requested and were accepted for an exception. • As we move forward to discuss with the county and the community the potential of screening those structural measures, residual risk, costs and benefits, that will all come into play and be important. We can't screen some structural measures based on cost alone because there are many other things to consider, such as comprehensive benefits, social equity, environmental impacts, etc. [Public speakers] 7 February 9, 2023 Kathy Worley, director of Environmental Science, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, told the CAC: • The Conservancy appreciates that the county and the Army Corps are considering steps to mitigate sea -level rise and storm surge impacts. If you are proceeding with the same plan alternative that was recommended by the Army Corps in 2018 without any changes there will be a high probability of negative impacts, not just to our natural resources. • The Army Corps admitted that its plan only addresses attenuating storm risk, storm surge and, to some extent, beach erosion, but very little at the time was focused on natural solutions that work with Mother Nature instead of against her. • It also does not look at other innovations that have occurred since that time. • The approach doesn't consider the ramifications of all aspects of climate -change challenges that we're facing today. Both inland and coastal areas must work together. Looking at this in isolation of just the coast could be a mistake because it could trigger other unintended flooding challenges inland. • Alternative 4A has a heavy reliance on the hardened structures and this approach could have significant environmental, water quality and quality -of -life implications. • Impacts to the surge barriers, sluice gates and flood walls on hydrology and water quality have the potential to be significant when you close them or build these structures. You've got to think about what's happening inland to fresh water. During storms, you don't just get water coming in from the Gulf, it's coming down from the sky, causing increased flooding. We already have flooding problems in roadways when we have heavy rains. • Will these structures cause further impoundment inland? • We ask that modeling be done to see what happens to the inland areas if there is storm surge and sea - level rise in combination with heavy rains that accompany storms with the proposed structure and hardenings, so we don't end up flooding other areas to save the coast. It must be looked at together. • That is outside the Army Corp's purview, but we can't afford to get that wrong. April Olson, Senior Environmental Planning Specialist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, told the CAC: • The Conservancy represents 6,500 member families. • How much of the 2021 draft feasibility report in EIS will form the basis for the 2023 feasibility study and EIS. She heard words like "revisit, reformulated and re-evaluated," so it sounds like the 2021 alternatives will serve as the baseline for this new report. • According to the timeline, the planned milestone is due in October 2023, which appears to be when the county will be asked formally to support this TSP. Would a Locally Preferred Plan have to be submitted well before October 2023 for it to be considered? • By what date does a Locally Preferred Plan have to be submitted and what is the process? • Based on what was stated at the January 24, 2022, Board of County Commissioner meeting, it sounds like the Army Corps would discourage the county from requesting any major changes to the study and tentatively selected plan after the TSP milestone and after the draft feasibility report. An EIS comes out in December 2023. The Army Corps would only be open to minor changes after the draft report is published. If so, isn't that counter to NEPA (Natural Environmental Policy Act) rules? • What happens if critical issues are discovered in the draft feasibility report and EIS during the 45-day comment period starting December 2023 and these issues necessitate significant changes to the plan and study? • The Draft -Feasibility Plan states that "the construction of the jetties at Wiggins Pass' storm surge barrier would result in anticipated significant impact to the natural barrier, island hydrology, bathymetry and sediment transport." How much of this part of the plan will be reconsidered? Ms. Hamor responded that: • For the timeline, the TSP we're looking at is October 2023. • If the goal is to do a Locally Preferred Plan, we identify that early so it can be included in our analysis and won't delay completion of the study as it moves forward. It is always the right of the non-federal sponsor to identify a Locally Preferred Plan, which can be early or later. When it's identified, it impacts the schedule. P.] February 9, 2023 As the focus of developing the NED plan, the one that maximizes net benefits, we can formulate a Locally Preferred Plan, but we will still need to request permission to recommend it when we go into our draft report. Formulating it early and defining what it looks like, the future -with and the future - without analysis will be helpful in telling the story. In the final report, NEPA is what guides us toward getting environmental compliance. If an issue needs to be addressed, we have to stop and address that. We cannot complete the final report until those issues are successfully addressed. As we roll out the charrette and public meetings, we would consider comments from resource agencies and the community regarding significant impacts or effects that would be show -stoppers in terms of a measure, such as if we could not overcome the environmental compliance for a barrier at Wiggins Pass. We do develop mitigation when we formulate our measures, but we're really looking for input from the community and resource agencies. Chairman Trecker asked if there were any comments from Pelican Bay. Dr. Dabees, speaking on behalf of Pelican Bay and other parts of Collier County, said: • We appreciate the re -initiation of the study and look forward to being more inclusive in the next phase. • The Pelican Bay area is within the Collier County analysis and previous study. We had issues with some of the recommended action. As we move forward, we welcome the engagement with the county and the Army Corps of Engineers as they develop this plan. We also had some concern about how Marco Island was formulated in the previous plan. We look forward to working with the county on this. Mr. Christman presented the following points to Ms. Hamor: • The Army Corps has a very clear and specific timetable and process, including the completion of the TSP by October and the draft plan by December. • A Locally Preferred Plan is a relatively recent concept that's been promoted by a lot of groups nationwide and he wasn't certain how often, if at all, it's been implemented. • It seems like local residents would best determine whether a Locally Preferred Plan, which might include alternatives to Army Corps plan, is needed, but that could only be determined when there is a draft plan. • It appears that if Collier County and the City of Naples wanted to pursue a Locally Preferred Plan, they would need to begin work on that well before October. • Can she shed light on that process procedurally? If a Locally Preferred Plan is pursued, is that onus, financially and otherwise, on the non-federal sponsor or can it be added to the scope of work for the Army Corps and local sponsors to carry out? Ms. Hamor responded that: • When we evaluate alternatives, we're looking for those in the NED plan that are economically justified, engineeringly feasible environmentally and socially acceptable and Corps compliant. That would be the focus for the alternatives. • When we get comments on structural measures, the reason we're not able to just pull those out or screen those measures out is that we need to work through them. Are they engineeringly feasible or are they environmentally acceptable, so they may not fall out immediately, but may fall out later. • If the expectation is that there is a subset the county would like, then we would want to identify what that is based on public comment as we go through alternatives. • That might get modified as we work through the planning iteration, but that would be part of the scope of work that we would focus on for the feasibility study and it would be included within the Army Corps' scope of work. • We would have to request approval to recommend that later. • Some findings and recommendations in the alternatives analysis may score higher than others for the Army Corps of Engineers, but there may be other preferences that could constitute the Locally Preferred Plan. M February 9, 2023 Vice Chairman Burke noted that: • The Corps has established criteria, so if the county wants to pursue other activities outside of that, it needs to replicate that flood -model criteria to get a direct comparison. • We could ask the Army Corps if it's worse to be 36% protected or if the county pays X dollars more, how can it get 50% protected? • If we're going to evaluate other options, we need to start with the same base model, so we all need to agree this is the flood inundation under a Category 3 at this angle hitting the coast. • This is all very specific in the current Army Corps plan. If you change any of those variables, you come out with a totally different answer. Chairman Trecker said that because of the proposal for the extended study, he was led to believe that this would be the COA No. 4 with no hardening. And now you're saying no, that's too narrow, it's now going to be somewhat broadened as you reevaluate? Vice Chairman Burke said we experienced the real -world event (Hurricane Ian) where even if we had the no - hardening, we were at risk, a significant risk. The Army Corps was thinking the county was limiting costs and was very anti -hardened structure. Mr. Christman said the city certainly was. The biggest worry all residents have is will the Army Corps be flexible and will residents have an opportunity for true input and citizen engagement in the new plan? The fear is that they will be boxed into solutions they may not prefer. Ms. Hamor said we heard the public from the last feasibility study and will increase our public outreach. That will include briefings to committees like the CAC and others, as well as providing opportunities for additional public comment. We will increase that opportunity so we can get community feedback. We need to ensure that the meeting dates are widely published so we can get the turnout we need to get that feedback. Chairman Trecker thanked Ms. Hamor for her input. He noted that this won't be the last of these sessions. 2. Update — Emergency Berm Project Chairman Trecker said we discussed this extensively at the January meeting and the minutes were thorough. The various stages are spelled out. Kudos to Andy for all the work. Where does it stand now? Mr. Miller told the CAC that: • We're trying to get contracts for the sand supplier to the BCC and approved. They're expected to go to BCC's second meeting in February. • That will allow us to have three sand suppliers, Stewart Materials (Immokalee), Vulcan (Materials Co.) mines in Moore Haven and Garcia Mining Co. in Clewiston. • We need a lot of sand this year to do this berm project. One single mine is not going to be able to provide that amount of sand in the time we need the work done. Two mines will have to work in parallel with two different contractors. • He's reviewing the final engineering documents from APTIM engineers, who have been working since December/January, putting together the berm project and coming up with quantities. • If we can get those plans and specifications finalized and sent to Procurement to put out to bid, our target is to do a 10-day construction bid, get the bids in, award the contracts and start hauling sand. • We hope to be close to that effort by the end of February or the beginning of March, possibly mid - March, but we're doing everything we can to get it started as soon as we can. Chairman Trecker asked if the plan was to get an extension from FEMA. Mr. Miller said in all likelihood, yes. The clock is ticking and every day lost will probably push us into April or May. Chairman Trecker said that will take us into turtle -nesting season, but you can work around that. Mr. Miller said yes, we'll do extra monitoring and if we have to relocate nests or avoid them or add a pile of sand to fill in the gap after the turtles hatch, then we'll do that too. February 9, 2023 Chairman Trecker asked if Naples and Park Shore would be first because they need the most sand. Mr. Miller said that was correct. Naples' and Park Shore's sand requirements are larger than the beaches to the north volume -wise, so we want to start that project first, then we will probably follow a couple of weeks later with Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay and Barefoot Beach and Marco Island. Chairman Trecker commended the support by the BCC to approve the $24 million. Attorney Greene noted that there was one public speaker on this item. Ashley Jenkins, told the CAC: • She's heard rumors since 2000 that Florida would be under sea level and called that nonsense because physics shows it's not possible. • There is less area to boat in due to depths rising. • Did the sea levels rise or has our sand merely migrated, offsetting levels and causing a false rise? • She's been told it would cost millions to dredge our bays, considering that the benthic mat from all the nutrients ... cause a decrease in coastal water tides being at levels we witnessed one year ago as sea levels, so it appears that the sea levels have risen. • Sea levels in our areas have not engulfed us in any model proposed since the United Nations invented global warming. • In the past month, she and Shelley McKiernan advocated for an equipment -free dredging project with the Big Cypress Water Basin affecting Golden Gate Canal and Henderson Creek. • This has impacted coastal waterways, such as the passes that lead to the Gulf of Mexico. • She encourages the CAC to hold an intercounty meeting to treat the bays in a five-year plan and retrieve the displaced sand, saving us millions of dollars. • Because much of this damage was created by sand displacement during Hurricane Ian, it would be of interest to secure funding from FEMA to conduct this endeavor. • The FDEP also has issued a statement that all Collier County estuaries are currently impaired for nutrients in the absence of criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus in the upstream watersheds. Meeting the downstream merit criteria and the estuaries that feed the Gulf of Mexico are impossible via existing regulatory mechanisms. They have encouraged us to seek solutions in-house in Collier County. • These excess nutrient levels feed red tide, which impacts the health of our coastal waterways and beaches, but you feel a berm is necessary. • As a resident for the past six years, she disagrees. Water will find the lowest area to intrude and this merely is a symptom cure instead of a solution. • If you put these sand dunes on our coast, if we were to have another surge, the water will simply move into the intercoastal waterways and then hit the islands or the land from behind. • This is a Band-Aid to the problem. • Can she assist the CAC with facilitating an intercounty meeting to come up with a solution? Chairman Trecker asked what group she wanted them to work with. Ms. Jenkins said there are various solutions and she could put together a white paper on cost-effective solutions that cost less than millions of dollars that would solve a benthic mat. That's when all the bacteria breaks down and you get sludge, which forms almost like a firm area that then pushes water up because all the debris has formed a sediment at the bottom. That's occurring in many of our bays due to constant nutrient overload. Chairman Trecker asked her to put that together and he'd send it to Coastal Management. Ms. Jenkins said she'd do that. Chairman Trecker said we've made the point that reimbursement of tourist -tax dollars would apply to areas like Pelican Bay that were covered. He asked Lisa Jacob (in the audience), of Pelican Bay Services, to tell Pelican Bay Services that some private expenditures are probably going to be needed. You've got a 75% reimbursement from FEMA and other federal money is likely. The governor has made it clear there's going to be state money. But Pelican Bay Services Division may be asked to contribute funds. 11 February 9, 2023 Mr. Christman said the city and FEMA have been working very hard to get this project going, but the timetable has slipped. Last week, City Council discussed this beginning closer to mid -February or late February and now it may be mid -March. Once it starts, the public will probably react because it will be noisy and invasive enough that there will be issues. We've got to do it, but the conflicts with turtle nesting season are more substantial than we thought. Residents are going to be concerned because there are few things that are more important to the average city and county resident than annual turtle -nesting activity. He wanted to sensitize them to that as the county moves forward. Mr. Miller said we've already been working with our county turtle monitoring people, making them aware that this is a possibility and they've given us guidance on certain options, including avoiding the nests and potentially relocating them. It's important to get as much of the work done prior to the May 1 st deadline and we'll make every effort to do that. They may have guidance on what beaches we need to tackle first, but from the reports we saw last year, the turtles were all over the place and very abundant, so we don't know if we'll have the same issue this year, but we'll get through it. 3. Update - Tigertail Lagoon / Sand Dollar Island Ecosystem Restoration Mr. Miller reported that: • After your approval, we took it to the TDC, which approved it and made a recommendation about additional sand that was required in the change order for 85,000 yards of additional sand to be dredged. • Hideaway Beach Taxing District asked for reimbursement for 60,000 of the 85,000. When it went to the Tourist Development Council, they asked why we didn't kick in the extra 25,000 to cover it all. • They made a recommendation and approved that. Mr. Roth noted that Dr. Dabees was in the audience. He saw something about the Hideaway project on social media recently. There's a natural breach that occurred in an unnamed storm around 2020 that is refeeding the lagoon by the parking lot and Hideaway, where people wade across. Will the new island that's being built seaward of that affect it or will that breach be closed off or filled in? How will that all come together? Dr. Dabees said the breach that occurred almost a year ago has been flushing or circulating water on the south part of the lagoon, but that also comes at the expense of a lot of sand moving in inside the lagoon, covering valuable resources, and on seagrasses and other things, and also destabilizing the beach in front of the Gulf shore of the park. When we continue construction of the protective berm along the middle section of Sand Dollar Island, that will close that meandering breach. We're close to working in that area now and that breach will be closed. Instead, we're recreating the flow channel within the lagoon that will act as the main source of tidal water to go throughout the two -mile -long lagoon. Mr. Roth asked if it will continue to feed that section of the lagoon. Dr. Dabees said yes, a big part of that design was dictated by the condition at the at the dead-end of the lagoon, the water quality. We're installing a real-time CIM (Continuous Instream Monitoring) that collects water quality and flow measurements, which will be part of our future monitoring for the health of the lagoon. X. Announcements XI. Committee Member Discussion XII. Next Meeting March 9, 2023, 1 p.m. XIII. Adjournment 12 February 9, 2023 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 2:53 p.m. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee David Trecker, Chairman These minutes were approved by the Committee on , (check one) as presented, or as amended 13 Collier County Tourist Development Tax Revenue FY 23 TDT Collections Report 28-Feb-2023 Fund Reporting Fund Adopted Budget Updated Annual Forecast Budgeted YTD YTD Actual Variance to Budgeted YTD Beach Park Facilities 183 184 193 194 195 196 198 758 1,175,500 1,318,351 362,766 505,724 142,958 TDC Promotion 11,544,400 13,190,366 3,562,668 4,740,570 1,177,902 Non -County Museums 627,100 703,308 193,527 269,132 75,605 TDCAdmin - - 0 - - Beach Renourishment 12,799,000 14,354,382 3,949,845 5,504,749 1,554,904 Disaster Recovery - - 0 - - County Museums 2,000,000 2,000,000 617,211 1,085,425 468,214 TDC Capital 4,688,800 5,258,601 1,446,991 2,017,614 570,624 Gross Budget 32,834,800 36,825,007 10,133,007 14,123,214 1 3,990,207 Less 5% Rev Res (1,641,700) 12.15% % Over/(Under) Bud 39.4% Net Budget 31,193,100 Collections Month Reported Actual Cum YTD % Budget Collected to Date % Variance FY22 Collections % Variance FY21 Collections % Variance FY20 Collections Nov 2,354,075 2,354,075 7.17% 4.59% 98.49% 68.440/. Dec 2,646,668 5,000,743 15.23% -9.02% 66.791/6 27.96% Jan 3,711,512 8,712,255 26.53% -17.45% 29.23% 15.73% Feb 5,410,959 14,123,214 43.01% -9.39% 52.99% 19.16% Mar - 14,123,214 43.01% n/a n/a n/a Apr 14,123,214 43.01% n/a n/a n/a May 14,123,214 43.01% n/a n/a n/a June 14,123,214 43.01% n/a n/a We July 14,123,214 43.01% We n/a n/a Aug Sept Oct - 14,123,214 43.01% We n/a n/a 14,123,214 43.01% n/a n/a n/a 14,123,214 43.01% n/a n/a n/a Total 14,123,214 14,123,214 YTD -9.63% 53.82% 25.95% Budget Comparison 5 Yr History- Cum 5 Yr History- Monthly Budgeted Collections Actual Collections Budget to Actual Variance Updated Forecast Nov Dec 4.2% 9.7% 4.2% 1,365,982 2,354,075 988,093 2,354,075 5.5% 1,821,219 2,646,668 825,448 2,646,668 Jan 18.6% 8.9% 2,919,311 3,711,512 792,201 3,711,512 Feb 30.9% 12.3% 4,026,494 5,410,959 1,384,464 5,410,959 Mar 44.7% 13.9% 4,555,896 - - 4,555,896 Apr 62.0% 17.296 5,656,127 5,656,127 May 72.7% 10.7% 3,509,645 3,509,645 June 79.1% 6.5% 2,119,755 2,119,755 July 94.8% 5.79,. 1,867,801 1,867,801 Aug 90.5% 5.7% 1,869,836 1,869,836 Sept 95.1% 4.69,. 1,517,914 1,517,914 Oct 100.0% 4.9% 1,604,819 - 1,604,819 Total 100.0% 100.0%1 32,834,800 1 14,123,214 3,990,207 36,825,007 %over/(under)budget 39.4% 12.150/6 Tourist Development Tax Collection Curve $0,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 -omreiee mi.nm: $S;000,000 $4,,000,000 $3,OOO,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $' 2 0 u g Q Q N O Month Reported F:\OMB\TDC Revenue\TDC Update Report\2023\TDT Tax Collector Reports\04-TDC Updates February Collier County Tourist Development Tax Revenue FY 23 TDT Collections Report 28-Feb-2023 Fund Reporting Fund Adopted Budget Updated Annual Forecast Budgeted YTD YTD Actual Variance to Budgeted YTD Beach Park Facilities 183 184 193 194 195 196 198 758 1,175,500 1,318,351 362,766 505,724 142,958 TDC Promotion 11,544,400 13,190,366 3,562,668 4,740,570 1,177,902 269,132 75,605 Non -County Museums 627,100 703,308 193,527 TDCAdmin - 0 - - Beach Renourishment 12,799,000 14,354,382 3,949,845 5,504,749 1,554,904 Disaster Recovery - - 0 - - County Museums 2,000,000 2,000,000 617,211 1,085,425 468,214 TDC Capital 4,688,800 5,258,601 1,446,991 2,017,614 570,624 Gross Budget 32,834,800 36,825,007 10,133,007 14,123,214 3,990,207 Less 5%Rev Res (1,641,700)1 12.15% % Overonder) Bud 39.4% Net Budget 31,193,100 Collections Month Reported Actual Cum YTD % Budget Collected to Date % Variance FY22 Collections % Variance FY21 Collections % Variance FY20 Collections Nov Dec 2,354,075 2,354,075 7.17% 4.59% 98.49% 68.44 % 15.23% -9.02% 66.79% 27.96% 2,646,668 5,000,743 Jan 3,711,512 8,712,255 26.53% -17.45% 29.23% 15.730/6 Feb 5,410,959 14,123,214 43.01% -9.39% 52.99% 19.16% Mar - 14,123,214 43.01% n/a n/a n/a Apr 14,123,214 43.010/6 n/a n/a n/a May 14,123,214 43.01% n/a n/a n/a June 14,123,214 43.01°/n n/a n/a n/a July 14,123,214 43.01% n/a n/a n/a Aug 14,123,214 43.01% n/a n/a n/a Sept Oct 1 14,123,214 43.01°/u n/a n/a n/a 14,123,214 1 43.01% 1 n/a I n/a I n/a Total 1 14,123,214 14,123,214 1 YTD 1 -9.63% 1 53.82% 1 25.95% F:\OMB\TDC Revenue\TDC Update Report\2023\TDT Tax Collector Reports\04-TDC Updates February Collier County Tourist Development Tax Revenue Budget Comparison 5 Yr History -Cum 5 Yr History- Monthly Budgeted Collections Actual Collections Budget to Actual Variance Updated Forecast Nov Dec 4.2% 9.7% 4.2% 1,365,982 2,354,075 988,093 2,354,075 5.59/o 1,821,219 2,646,668 825,448 2,646,668 Jan 18.6916 8.99/6 2,919,311 3,711,512 792,201 3,711,512 Feb 30.9% 12.3% 4,026,494 5,410,959 1,384,464 5,410,959 Mar 44.7% 13.9% 4,555,896 - - 4,555,896 Apr 62.0% 17.29/o 5,656,127 5,656,127 May 72.7% 10.7% 3,509,645 3,509,645 June 79.1% 6.5% 2,119,755 2,119,755 July 84.8% 5.7% 1,867,801 1,867,801 Aug 90.5% 5.7% 1,869,836 1,869,836 Sept Oct 95.1% 4.69/o 1,517,914 - 1,517,914 1 100.0% 4.9% 1,604,819 1 - 1,604,819 Total 100.0% 100.0% 32,834,800 14,123,214 1 3,990,207 1 36,825,007 % overl(under) budget 39.4% 12.15% $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 Tourist Development Tax Collection Curve -gudgeted Collections $5,000,000IN �Hc[ual Collections $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 zo o LL g a Month Reported F:\OMB\TDC Revenue\TDC Update Report\2023\TDT Tax Collector Reports\04-TDC Updates February EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve a proposal from APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. to provide professional engineering services for 2024-2025 Local Government Funding Request under Contract No. 18-7432-CZ for time and material not to exceed $26,052.00 and make a finding that this item promotes tourism (Fund 195, Project No. 90065). OBJECTIVE: To move forward with preparation of the 2024-2025 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 2024-2025 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. APTIM will evaluate all the elements of the coastal projects as they apply to the Florida Admin. Code 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 applicable. Additionally, APTIM will update the application response to account for the modification of the LGFR based on the latest rating guidelines, 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. The County will issue a Work Order under Contract No. 18-7432-CZ, which was approved by the BCC on March 10, 2020, item 16.E.4. APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC is located in Boca Raton, Florida and was founded in 2002. They were selected as one of three firms on the County's 18-7432-CZ Coastal Engineering Services Library contract and have provided engineering and permitting services to the County for over fifteen years. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for the proposed work order, in the amount of $26,052.00, is available in the Tourist Development Tax Fund (195), Project No. 90065, FDEP LGFR Analysis. The source of funding is Tourist Development Tax. 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 the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) on April 13, 2023, and the Tourist Development Council (TDC) on April 17, 2023 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote for approval. — CMG RECOMMENDATION: To approve a proposal from APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. to provide professional engineering services for 2024-2025 Local Government Funding Request under Contract No. 18-7432-CZ for time and material not to exceed $26,052.00 and make a finding that this item promotes tourism (Fund 195, Project No. 90065). Prepared By: Andrew Miller, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Division 9 APTIM February 17, 2023 Andy Miller Collier County Coastal Zone Management 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 APTIM 6401 Congress Avenue, Suite 140 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Tel: +1 561 391 8102 www.aptim.com Re: 2024-2025 Local Government Funding Request (LGFR) Preparation Collier County, Contract No. 18-7432-CZ Dear Andy: This letter is in response to Collier County's (County) request for a proposal for support services for Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC (APTIM). The services will include funding and technical support to assist the County with submittal of the 2024-2025 Local Government Funding Requests (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), Estimated Fee Proposal (Exhibit B), and the Rates Schedule (Exhibit C). APTIM proposes to provide these services on a time and materials basis not -to -exceed $26,052 under the terms and conditions of the existing Contract No. 18-7432-CZ dated March 10, 2020 and as amended May 7, 2020. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, all work will be completed within 210 days of receiving the Notice to Proceed. Sincerely, Nicole S. Sharpp, P.E. Coastal Market Lead Aptim Environmental & In cc: Steve Keehn, P.E., APTIM Erica Carr -Betts, APTIM re, LLC Client Authorized Signature Name Title CAO ,>,APTIM Exhibit A Scope of Work ,,APTIM 2024-2026 Local Government Funding Requests (LGFR) Collier County, Florida Scope of Work Introduction 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. This scope of work details the tasks required to assist the County with preparing and submitting the 2024-2025 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. Once a draft of the LGFR applications have 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. APTIM will perform a review of the initial project assessment on behalf of Collier County and, if warranted, provide tlhe 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 APTIM will assist the County with preparation of the 2024-2025 LGFR for Collier County's South Marco Island Renourishment Project. Building upon past LGFR applications, APTIM will update the application response to account for updates to the project. All the elements of the projects as they apply to the 6213- 36 Rule and the LGFR application and guidance document will be evaluated to optimize 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. 2. North County Beaches & Doctors Pass LGFR Application APTIM will assist the County with preparation of the 2024-2025 LGFR for Collier County's North County beaches (Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples Beach) and Doctors Pass projects. Building upon past LGFR applications, APTIM will update the application response to account for current project status and cost information. All the elements of the projects as they apply to the 626-36 Rule and the LGFR application and guidance document will be evaluated to optimize 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. 3. Wiggins Pass LGFR Application APTIM will assist the County with preparation of the 2024-2025 LGFR for Collier County's Wiggins Pass inlet maintenance project. All the elements of the project as they apply to the 6213-36 Rule, LGFR application, and guidance document will be evaluated 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. S ,, APT IM Exhibit B Estimated Fee Proposal 8 ESTIMATED FEE PROPOSAL FOR 2024-2025 LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING REQUEST (LGFR) PREPARATION COLLIER COUNTY, Contract No.18-i432-CZ February 17, 2023 PREPARED BY: Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC GAD ESTIMATED FEE PROPOSAL FOR 2024-2025 LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING REQUEST (LGFR) PREPARATION COWER COUNTY, Contract No. 18-7432-CZ February 17, 2023 Senior Project Senior I Engineer GIS Specialist Clerical/ [ Task Item cost Manager Engineer Administrative F (Hours) (Hours) (Hours) (Hours) (Hours) 1 South Marco Beach LGFR Application $8,208.00 8 24 8 10 2 2 North County Beaches & Doctors Pass LGFR Application $9,636.00 8 j 28 10 14 2 3 Wiggins Pass LGFR Application $8,208.00 8 24 8 10 2 Total Hours = 24 76 26 34 6 Rate = $203 $177 5130 $115 $73 Cost = $4.872 $13.452 $3,380 $3,910 $438 TOTAL II $26,052.00 - - y:itPefeLlSappst4lartceGr�1_P+opos:iKtF laii^_a Ccuntiesl of=_1202?�3?050380 LGFR 202ir.25A.%MF.iIA-Collin l GFR 202e-25-CW %'eA ,_ APTIM Exhibit C Rate Schedule DocuSign Envelope ID: 80682885-13471-4CCC-13C63-021 FDA06CE8B SCHEDULE B-ATTACHMENT 1 RATE SCHEDULE Title Hourly Rate Principal $231 Senior Pro-ect Manager $203 'Project Mona. er $160 Senior Engineer S177 $130 Engineer Senior Inspector 5126 $93 Inspector Senior Planner S150 Planner $120 $140 Senior Desi er Designer $105 Environmental Specialist _ 5120 _ _ _ $.167 _ $115 _ Senior Environmental Specialist Scientist/Geologist Senior Scientist/Geologist $153 Marine Biofo�,is_t1llydroeolist $120 Senior Marine Biola ist/t-1 dro eolo ist __$145 _ Senior GIS Specialist $155 GIS Specialist $115 Clerical/Administrative $73_ Senior Technician $103 Technician 583 ..... Surveyor and Mapper $125 CADD Technician $107 $145 Survey Crew2 man Survey Crew - 3 man - $180 Survey Crew - 4 man _ f $215 S160 Senior Architect Arcmtect aiA.3 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_ i t x x t Page 2 of 3 First Amendment to Agreement # 18-7432-CZ C ,lU Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC cAo Co Ter COu-nty Procurement Services Division Direct Select Form Request Date Contract No. Proposal Cost Estimate Construction Cost Estimate 02.17.2023 j 18-7432-CZ $27,000 ..... .. N/A Requested By (Use name as it appears in Outlook): Division l Department: Andrew Miller Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, & Program Management Administrative Agent (lf different from Requestor): Library Category: Coastal Engineering vendor Name:APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC Work Assignment Title: Professional Support Services 2024-2025 LGFR Description of Requested Services: APTIM will assist the County with preparation of the 2024-2025 LGFR (Local Government Funding Request) 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. Justification: O Past experience with project (Select all that apply and explain ❑ Continuation of previous work assignment below) ❑ Unique qualifications ❑ Other Comments / Explanation of Direct Select: APTIM prepares the LGFR applications annually 45-217655 FY 2022 and 45-211503 FY 21 and provides cost effective and efficient services due to their previous experience. Requestor: Andrew Miller i�,9itally y0nW by g n zor��an,z e:<, Signature: Date: dl5rl7 Division Director: Beth Johnssen Dipilally signed by ° Signature:Johnssen_b n„e�`� 2d--O2°°221-,3S,37 Date: - Procurement Director Sarah Hamilton SarahHamilto ogaawsaaJ oy Si nature: o.0 aw"eaas,2:,,:o, g n Date: asar Return this completed form to: ProcurementSrvcsReq@colliercountyfl.gov. Please be sure to attach the fully approved form to the requisition in SAP. Rev. December 2022 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve a proposal from Humiston & Moore Engineers to provide professional engineering services for State required Annual Monitoring of Collier County Beaches and Inlets for 2023 under Contract No. 18-7432-CZ for time and material not to exceed $52,004.00 and make a finding that this item promotes tourism (Fund 195, Project No. 90536). OBJECTIVE: To move forward with the annual required beach and inlet monitoring surveys and reports for Collier County Beaches and Inlets for 2023. CONSIDERATIONS: The Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Section is tasked with the maintenance and monitoring of over thirty (30) miles of coastline, beaches, estuaries, channels, and bays. CZM has specific goals, objectives, and criteria to meet as identified within the Collier County Growth Management Plan Land Development Code, and the Codes of Laws and Ordinances regarding the county's coastal aquatic resources. In order to meet these goals and objectives, CZM has been charged with a variety of programs including the implementation of beach re -nourishment and dredging projects, the artificial reef program, derelict vessel program, waterways marker program, as well as any related operations that are required to maintain the health, aesthetics, and safety of the county's coastal waterways and communities. Yearly physical monitoring of the beaches and inlets is required by FDEP permit. Results of this report are used to evaluate, recommend, and prioritize annual beach segment renourishment. The 2023 Annual Monitoring proposal is $118,508.00 less than last year due to the majority of surveying having been completed by Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC as part of their Hurricane Ian Post -Storm Survey (PO 4500221699). Humiston & Moore Engineers will obtain the survey information from Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC and create their reports utilizing the finalized surveys. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding in the amount of $52,004.00 is available within Tourist Development Tax Beach Renourishment Fund (195), Project 90536 (County/Naples Beach Monitoring). FDEP cost -share funding will be requested if eligible at a future date to reimburse Collier County for a portion of the completed work. 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 (CAC) on April 13, 2023, and the Tourist Development Council (TDC) on April 17, 2023. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote for approval. — CMG RECOMMENDATION: To approve a proposal from Humiston & Moore Engineers to provide professional engineering services for State required Annual Monitoring of Collier County Beaches and Inlets for 2023 under Contract No. 18-7432-CZ for time and material not to exceed $52,004.00 and make a finding that this item promotes tourism (Fund 195, Project No. 90536). Prepared By: Andrew Miller, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division IiUMISTON & MOORE 'ENGINEERS COASTAL k ENGINEEP.ING DESIGN AND PERMIT71NG February 21, 2023 (Proposal valid for 120 days.) Andrew Miller, Principal Project Manager Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Collier County Government 2685 South Horseshoe Drive Unit 103 Naples, FL 34104 1 •G i.l-'•. ja I ... .. I'�#:!�:e' 334 59d 20P1 Re: Proposal for Collier County Beaches and Inlets Annual Monitoring for 2023 Collier County Contract 18-7432-CZ; HM File No 29-018.2023Beach-Monitor Dear Andy: Enclosed is a proposal for the Wiggins Pass Inlet, Doctors Pass Inlet, South Marco Beach, and Doctors Pass Erosion Control Structures (includes survey) monitoring reports for 2023, The completion date for all work is estimated to be 365 days from the date of the Notice to Proceed. Rectified aerial images acquired for 2023, provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, are to be submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) by Humiston and Moore Engineers (HM) as part of the work described below for all projects and an aerial image book provided to CZM in pdf format for online posting. The monitoring report and survey for Central Marco, conducted biennially, is not required for 2023, and the borrow area for South Marco is also not required. These items are not included in the scope of work for the 2023 monitoring. The monitoring summary reports for Wiggins, Doctors and South Marco will be prepared based on the Post -Ian survey conducted by APTIM. This survey does not include the half monuments from R-10 to R-22, the MHWL east of R-17, R-60+518, R-61+408, R-61+816, G-1, K-1 and K-2. The associated reports will be modified accordingly and alternative analysis provided as applicable, The Doctors Pass Erosion Control Structures Report will be based on a survey conducted by Sea Diversified Inc. (SDI). Task 1 Wiggins Pass — Final Monitoring Report Prepare and submit the annual monitoring summary report for the Wiggins Pass Navigation Channel Expansion and Maintenance Dredging Project based on the Post -Ian survey conducted by APTIM. The monitoring summary includes inlet/beach profiles, inlet volume change from previous monitoring surveys, information relative to the 2022 dredging, other information in compliance with the DEP monitoring requirernents, comments from CZM staff after review of draft summary, and applicable recommendations. Task 1 Wiggins Pass Monitoring Report (H&M)............. .................. .... $ 12,688 TM Deliverable: One electronic copy of the Final Monitoring Report Page 1 of 3 9 Task 2 Doctors Pass - Final Monitorinq Report Prepare and submit the annual monitoring summary report for Doctors Pass Maintenance Dredging Project based on the Post -Ian survey conducted by APTIM. The monitoring summary includes inlet/beach profiles, inlet volume change from previous monitoring surveys, information relative to the 2022 dredging, other information in compliance with the DEP monitoring requirements, comments from CZM staff after review of draft summary, and applicable recommendations. Task 2. Doctors Pass Final Monitoring Report (H&M)..................................$ 9,318 TM Deliverable: One electronic copy of the Final Monitoring Report. Task 3 South Marco Beach- Final Monitorinq Report Prepare and submit the annual monitoring summary report for South Marco Beach Nourishment Project based on the Post -Ian survey conducted by APTIM. The monitoring summary includes beach profiles, volume change from previous monitoring surveys, other information in compliance with the DEP monitoring requirements, comments from CZM staff after review of draft summary, and applicable recommendations. This survey scope does not include the Caxambas Pass borrow area, not required by DEP in 2023. Task 3 South Marco Beach Final Monitoring Report(H&M)..........................$ 7,601 TM Deliverable: One electronic copy of the Final Monitoring Report. Task 4 Doctors Pass Structures Survey and Final Monitoring Report Provide the annual monitoring report for the Doctors Pass Erosion Control Structures (ECS) Project consistent with the monitoring plan approved by the DEP. This scope of work is based on the survey of DEP monuments R58A-400 south to R-64 (17 profiles)*. • Survey is scheduled to be completed by October 2023 pending unforeseen conditions such as poor weather conditions. • A Final Monitoring Report will be submitted to CZM and DEP within 90 days after the completion of the survey. Task 4a, Doctors Pass ECS Survey (SDI) ...... ...............................................$ 9,900 LS Task 4b Doctors Pass ECS Initial and Final Monitoring Report (H&M).................$ 8,894 TM Total Task 4 Subtotal (SDI + H&M)................................................ .................... $ 18,794 The final monitoring summary includes beach profiles, shoreline/volume change from the previous monitoring surveys, other information in compliance with the DEP monitoring requirements, comments from CZM staff after review of the draft summary, and applicable recommendations. Deliverable: One electronic copy of the Final Monitoring Report. *Includes beach profiles R58A-400, R58A-300, R58A-150, R58A, R58A+150, R58A+300, R58A+425, R58, R58+150, R58+300, R58+600, and R59 to R64. Page 2 of 3 C'�C Task 5 2023 Aerial Image Book Prepare an updated aerial image book for the Collier County Beaches ranging from DEP reference monument R-1 south to R-89 and from Hideaway Beach reference monument H-16 including the entrance to Collier Bay south to DEP reference monument R-148 including Caxambas Pass. The monument locations will be overlaid along with the names of existing structures as noted in the 2022 book. The rectified images will be the latest available from the County Appraiser's Office. The ECL, latest MHWL, and vegetation line will be shown along with the distance from each to the 2003 Baseline. Task 5. Aerial Image Book(H&M)..................................................... $ 3,603 TM Deliverable: One electronic copy of the final Aerial Image Book. Total (SDI + H&M)........................................................ $ 52,004 Tasks 1 thru 5 Tasks will be billed on a time and materials basis, unless otherwise noted. The budgets for these tasks may therefore be considered as not -to -exceed amounts with the understanding that in the event regulatory requirements or requests from County staff result in Additional Services exceeding the estimated budget amounts, a budget amendment will be requested. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS Brett D. Moore, P.E. President Page 3 of 3 �O Colller County Beaches and Inlets Annual Monitoring 2023 Contract 18-7432-CZ Estimated Summary SUMMARY BREAKDOWN BY TASK Task 1 Wiggins Pass Final Monitoring Report $12,688.00 Task 2 Doctors Pass Final Monitoring Report $9,318.00 Task 3 South Marco Final Monitoring Report $7,601.00 Task 4 Doctors Pass - Structures Survey and Final Monitoring Report $18,794.00 Task 5 2023 Aerial Image Book $3.603.00 it $52.004.00 SUMMARY BREAKDOWN BY SUB -TASK Task 1 'Mggins Pass Final Monitoring Report $12,688.00 TM $12,688 Task 2 Doctors Pass Final Monitoring Report $9.318.00 TM $9.31E3 Task 3 ;South Marco Final Monitoring Report $7,601.00 TM $7,601 Task 4 Doctors Pass Structures Survey $9.900.00 LS Task 4 Doctors Pass Structures Final Monitoring Report $8,894.00 TM $18.794 Task 5 :.W3 Aerial Image Book $3.503.00 TM $3,6o3 SUMMARY $52,004 Sea Diversified Survey 9,900.00 (LS) Title Rate Hours $52,004 PRN2 Principle $231 29 $6,699 3133 Englneer $130 182.5 $21.126 SIN Scientist/Geologist $116 70 $8.050 SRT Senior Technician $103 41 $4.223 TEC Technldan $83 10 $830 CAD C add Technician $107 11 $1,177 Humiston & Moore Englneers TOTAL $52.004 42 04 (TIVI) Humiston & Moore Enylneem $42,104.00 (TM) TOTAL H&M $42,104.00 SDI Only so.gD0.00 Grand Total $52 004.00 s UocuSign Envelope to: 4&4A2CF9-7E©A-4899-A592-21BE50C5C49A SCHEDULE l3-ATTACHMENT 1 RATE SCHEDULE Title Hourly Rate Principal a231 S203 Senior Project Manager Project Mane er S160 Senior Engineer $177 lan xlncer SOO Senior Inspector $126 Inspector S93 _ Senior Planner S150 -- Manner 5120 Senior Designer Designer S 140 _ ---- --- S 105 Envirunrnental S. ccialist S120 Senior Environmental S ecialist S167 ScienlistlGealogist S 115 Senior Scientist/Geologist S 153 Marine Biolo gistAI -drogeolo gist 5120 Senior Marine Bialoist/llydrop eolost _ 5145 5155 Senior GIS Specialist GIS Specialist _ _ $115 -- -- Clerical/Administrative S73 Senior 'technic ian S 103 _ _ I e_c_hnicitin Surveyor and Ma .cr S83 $125 CARD Technician $107 Surve Crew - 2 man _ I S 145 Survev Crew - 3 man S180 Survev Crew - 4 man S215 Senior Architect Architect S160 S 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 2 of 3 First Amendment to Agreement P 18-7432-C7. I lumiston & Wore Engineers, P.A. CAS �e ti. Co der county Direct Select Form Request Date Contract No. Proposal Cost Estimate Construction Cost Estimate 08.11.22 18-7432-CZ $170,000 N/A Requested By (Use name as it appears in Outlook): Division I Department: Andrew Miller Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, & Program Management Administrative Agent (If different from Requestor): Library Category: Coastal Engineering Vendor Name: Humiston & Moore Engineers, P.A. Work AssignmentTitle:2023 Collier County Beaches and Inlets Annual Monitoring Description of Requested Services: Permit -required annual beach and inlet monitoring and report. Justification: ❑� Past experience with project (Select all that apply and explain ❑ Continuation of previous work assignment below) ❑ Unique qualifications ❑ Other _ Comments I Explanation of Direct Select: H&M performs this work annually and is best suited to continue based on their experience and their knowledge of the County's requirements. -- .......--..P""?y Requestor: Andrew Miller a Jp lby Signature:MillerAndrew "'' �'�'` O�Ie: 2022.00 RG7:15:20 Date: 08.11.22 G1'OQ Division Director: Beth Johnssen 6i0lefy aprsecl Cy Signature:.lOhrlSsen ��,02022.G5,2,G207. _ '°'W Date: Procurement Director: BigelowCathe ,Iw„y�,b�„n Signature: rine "�Ip 8AC2GdlOGo:sza2 Date: Revised 06/1712021 9