Loading...
CAC Agenda 06/12/2025June 12, 2025 Meeting Agenda and Notice Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) Thursday, June 12, 2025— 1:00 p.m. Collier County Board Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Third Floor, Naples, FL Sunshine Law on Agenda Questions 2025 CAC MEETING DATES I. Call to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Roll Call IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda V. Public Comments VI. Approval of CAC Minutes May 8, 2025, VII. Staff Reports Extended Revenue Report VIII. New Business 1. ES - FY26-27 LGFR Applications and Resolution • Resolution • FY26-27 - Collier Beaches Application • FY26-27- South Marco Application • FY26-27- Wiggins Inlet Application 2. ES - CAC Vacant Seat • Applications IX. Old Business X. Announcements XI. Committee Member Discussion XII. Next Meeting Date/Location June 12, 2025 at 1:oo 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 Andrew Miller at (239) 252-2922. 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 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. COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2025 —1:00 PM COLLIER COUNTY BOARD CHAMBERS COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, 3RD FLOOR, NAPLES, FL Present: Chairman Joe Burke, City of Naples Vice -Chairman Dave Trecker, Unincorporated Collier County Linda Penniman, City of Naples — City Council Bob Raymond, Unincorporated Collier County Robert (Bob) Roth, City of Marco Island Steve Koziar, City of Marco Island Jim Burke, Unincorporated Collier County Absent: Dr. Judith Hushon, City of Naples Erik Brecknitz, City of Marco Island — City Council ALSO PRESENT: Andy Miller, P.E., Manager, Collier County Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Managing Assistant County Attorney Justin Martin, Public Works Director, City of Marco Island Mohamed Dabees, Ph.D., P.E., D.CE. Rhonda Watkins, Environmental Specialist, Collier County Pollution Control Nicole Sharp, P.E., Director, Coastal Sciences and Engineering, APTIM Any person who decides to appeal a decision of This Board, you will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor This Board shall be responsible for providing the record. I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Joe Burke. II. PLEDGE OF ALLLEGIANCE Led by Chairman, Joe Burke. III. ROLL CALL Chairman, Joe Burke, advised that a quorum was met with two members absent: Dr. Judith Hushon, and Erik Brecknitz. There was discussion and a motion made by Dave Trecker to allow Erik Brecknitz to attend the meeting through Zoom (if able to do so); seconded by Bob Raymond; carried unanimously. Andy Miller indicated that the committee would be advised if Erik Brecknitz joined in. No indication throughout the meeting of Mr. Brecknitz joining the meeting via zoom. IV. CHANGES AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman, Joe Burke, asked if there were any changes to the agenda — none. Motion made by Bob Raymond, seconded by Steve Koziar; Motion to approve agenda approved unanimously. V. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. VI. APPROVAL OF CAC MINUTES There were changes to the agenda suggested by Joe Burke on page 3, and Mr. Burke indicated that he would supply the edit. Bob Roth corrected the name of Ms. Watkins on page 4, should be "Rhonda Watkins". For consistency, Dave Trecker suggested that all parties be listed with their respective titles and where they are from. A motion was made by Linda Penniman to approve the minutes of April 10, 2025, as corrected; seconded by Steve Kozier; motion carried unanimously. VII. Staff Reports Extended Revenue Report Andy Miller presented slides from 2024 and 2025 as a comparison to the 2025 Tourist Development Tax Collection Report dated April 30, 2025. This year's collections exceed last year slightly, and the excess of revenue is 31.9% above the budget. In response to Dave Trecker's question about the current balance of the 1105 Fund, Andy Miller did not have an update from the last report of $52 million, but he advised that it should be slightly above that amount. VIII. New Business 1. ES -Sand Dollar Island Beach Storm Restoration Recommendation to approve Tourist Tax Fund 1105 funding in the amount of $647,843, for reimbursement of the costs to restore the beach sand berm of the Tigertail/Sand Dollar Island spit in Northwestern Marco Island, resulting from impacts of Tropical Storm Debby and Hurricane Helene and Milton, and authorize the necessary budget amendment and deem that this expenditure promotes tourism. Tigertail Presentation: 2 Justin Martin, Public Works Director, City of Marco Island — Introduced the Executive Summary record presentation, as well as the presentation by the City of Marco Island. - Presented last year for the same project; however, this is a different request of the previous request for assistance with the annual maintenance fees. Today's request is for reimbursement of expenditures for restoration of the sand berm, resulting from three storms that we had, that affected and caused erosion on the coastline of the Sand Dollar Spit. Martin is joined by Dr. Mohamed Dabees, who will present the actual presentation. - This is a request for reimbursement for costs related to restoring the sand berm at the beach resulting from the storms, just like any beach renourishment program occurring in other parts of the state and specifically, Collier County. - One thing unique to this project and this portion of Marco Island is that we have a standard source that is right there to recycle the sand (don't have to truck in sand). It makes the cost of this renourishment a fraction of the cost, compared to other parts of Collier County, Lee County, Sarasota and further. - This sand spit is naturally occurring, and that is why we have a bi-annual maintenance plan, where we recapture that sand from the end of that spit with excavators, and trucks bring it up the beach and renourish the needed areas. - The spit is the first line of defense when you have waves and storms. Since this is a narrow spit, it is a sand berm that is susceptible to breach. That is how it is designed. It is a long, skinny sand spit that serves as the first line of defense for wave action, and it serves as the first line of defense for storms (not just landfall). - We had Tropical Storm Debby and Hurricanes Helene and Milton, and all three of those affected this beach since we completed the bi-annual restoration in the past year. - This is a significant tourist attraction (similar to Keewayden), and not a lot of people are familiar with the Tigertail Sand Dollar Spit. It attracts as much boating traffic as Keewayden. - We intended to present the reimbursement request as early as March, but we are now into May, so the cost that was presented with the agenda packet was $575,000. The final actual cost, after completing all the work based on the cubic yards, exceeds that by another $72,000, which brings the total to about $648,000. This will also be covered in the presentation. - Between this committee meeting and the Tourist Development Counsel meeting, we will be changing the numbers so that they have that updated number. - The Sand Spit is shore -bird nesting area, it is on the national birding trail, and birding tourists come worldwide. - It is a sea turtle nesting habitat, it is a prime location for sea turtles, and we have Collier County officials who monitor during the nesting season. - We have several tours that stop on the island, including Dolphin Explorer, Sunshine Tours, Eco-Endeavors, Florida Saltwater, Off -the -Hook Adventures, etc., and then many boat rentals that stop at Sand Dollar Spit. 3 - This sand spit is a nature -based solution to be that first line of defense, like a bumper on a car. It is intended to take the effects of that wave action and then be restored. - People misunderstand when the spit is breached, but that is the intent: to be mechanically excavated and restored after storm events at a fraction of the cost. - It is part of a project that is permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Corp of Engineers, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. This was extensive permitting that was coordinated with the Audubon Society, and a lot of the environmental groups, and through all that, it was decided that this was a very beneficial and important to the eco-system. - The area behind the spit is a flow channel, that is a tidal channel that serves to provide tidal flushing into the lagoon and Tigertail Beach Park, which is now an estuary for spawning marine life such as fish, horseshoe crabs, and a dozen other important marine life fed by the tidal channel provided by this Sand Dollar Spit. Mohamed Dabees, Ph.D., P.E., D.CE - This is one of the signature projects in SWFL that has been recognized as a natural and nature -based solution. - We chose to work with nature for solutions, rather than putting hard barriers. - This presentation supports our request for reimbursement for post -storm recovery and impact. All the work has been done; it has already been restored. That is thanks to all the stakeholders of the City of Marco Island and Collier County. By February, we were already done with the repair. - Our best bet for mitigating storm impacts is to have a plan. Having plans and permit authorizations are the two legs that fix storm damage. It takes years on other projects to get permits. - We had significant damage, and we were able to restore it at such a low cost, that you will not see in any project in Florida. - There was discussion on the barrier island and the effects of coastline and chronic erosion from fixed structures. Marco Island is a very heavily developed island that creates chronic erosion issues. The anchors (the two ends of the island) hold the island together. Cape Marco — hard structure — where we have rock abatement; North side - we have a preserve, mangroves, wetlands. All these natural forms are multitiered, energy dissipation mechanisms. Cape Marco is still being repaired, and the magnitude and cost will be higher than our initial cost of the spit. - We are in a vulnerable state (open coast and warming gulf that keeps sending us storm after storm); consequently, we must have a plan, authorization, and a funding mechanism, so we can respond. - Provided photos of destruction of the spit after Ian and post construction, that put it back to what it was pre -hurricane Irma. This is a multitiered system with a sandy berm as the first line of defense, and a tidal lagoon which is the catchment reservoir (the sand that gets over washed and allows us to use it for maintenance), and also the conduit for flow to feed the eco-system which is viable for a lot of wildlife, and for tourism and recreation. C! - The concept of the project: * Main element — natural/nature-based resiliency system — multitier coastal storm risk management, including sand pit, tidal lagoon, and mangrove shoreline; *Lagoon Flow Channel — restore tidal exchange — improve water quality — maintain & promote SAV — inlet closures/opening; * Renewable sand source — sand trap — maintain inlet open — cyclic use of sand — incremental adaptation. [Relies on self-sufficiency — get the sand from the tip of the spit, that we call the sand trap.] - Marco Island Regional Sand Management Plan: Coordinated with Collier County and City of Marco — the major five projects (Sand Dollar Island, Tigertail Lagoon, Hideaway Beach, Collier Creek Entrance Channel & Capri Pass Navigation Channel), and broke down the major 5 projects to determine who is responsible for doing what. Those discussions took place earlier last year, and the plan (absent tropical storms) was a maintenance cycle with cost - sharing between the city and county for managing this natural system. If we fast forward to getting that agreement, getting those allocations and plans in line, we entered the 2024 season. We had Tropical Storm Debby and Hurricanes Helen & Milton, as major hurricanes with significantly large storm surge, that not only impacted our project area, but also impacted the whole coastline all the way to Pinellas County. Each county was impacted $10 of millions of dollars for beach repair. - Provided table of major storms in SWFL and Central Florida over a 20-year history: Governed by stochastic level of storms. From 2022 to now, we had 4 named storms — Ian, Idalia, Helene and Milton, and also Tropical Storm Debby. There was discussion about options — natural features versus hard structures. Discussion on impact of sand intrusion throughout the state. - Displayed a table of beach profiles pre -Ian, after Ian, and after Milton. - Displayed a table showing multiple breaching at several barrier islands. The difference at the Sand Dollar Spit — it was recovered as part of the design. - Displayed a slide of workplan and resiliency elements for Sand Dollar Spit (sand was retrieved at 10-15% of original cost). - Displayed photos of pre and post storm recovery and restoration (November 25, 2025 to April 25, 2025) - Barriers also protect mangrove vegetation, which can't survive the Gulf water. - We can't put artificial reefs and oyster reefs in the Gulf, and we cannot put a barrier island off the coast to protect us. There are physics' parameters that control what we can and cannot do. The best that we can do is work with nature and understand how nature works. - Displayed photo of the boaters, etc. parked at the spit showing a variety of recreational benefits (including kite surfers) - Value of the project: displayed slide detailing pre-2022 trends from 2017-2022 which included 400 feet of shoreline retreat, 20 acres of wetland loss, shoaling and closure of the lagoon entrance, and water quality degradation. This is between Irma and Ian. At 80 feet per year, it would have reached Tigertail Park and the buildings. Discussed the option of hard structures but pointed out that these types of structures had already failed, and they require a lot higher price to fix. Twenty acres of wetland were recovered with this project. The entrance 9 to the lagoon was opened up (from significant shoaling), which allowed these recreational benefits to happen. We have improved water quality. - Displayed slide showing results of the 2024 storm impacts without the project (350 feet further in) which would have resulted in an expensive plan to protect ourselves, and a total loss of critical wildlife space and habitat. - Displayed slide showing the value of the project's restoration costs versus regional coastal restoration. - Displayed slide of the Project Costs and Funding — 2024 Maintenance and Post Storm Recovery — Hurricane Restoration - $647,873 (increase due to final survey of $72,800). - Summary and key points — tourism, eco-system, coastal resiliency benefits, fast restoration, cost effectiveness, unanimous city council support and County/City Management Plan Dave Trecker had questions relating to who is responsible for paying for the reimbursement cost, possibly Emergency Management. Reviewed the Executive Summary (last paragraph on page 1), which referred to an agreement between the City of Marco Island and Collier County. Trecker asked for a copy of the agreement. The summary indicates that the parties to the agreement have defined responsibilities, and that the county agreed to fund the biennial maintenance. Trecker questioned that the reimbursement request did not cover biennial maintenance, but something beyond that. Dr. Dabees advised that this request for reimbursement is to support the restoration from the storm impact of hurricanes Helene and Milton and that this is in addition to biennial maintenance. Bob Roth, being from Marco, needed to ask a few questions in response to the emails received from residents of Marco Island. His understanding of the management plan: Last year, 50150 funding was approved with the county agreeing to fund a maximum of $350,000 and that City of Marco would be on the hook for anything above that (references the minutes). Dabees disagreed on the terms of the agreement: the agreement is for maintenance, not emergencies; we can't pre -plan a major event. When a big storm occurs, the situation would be assessed at that time. The agreement with the county was a one-time agreement. Any reimbursement for storm damage must come in front of the board and county commissioner for approval. Roth asked if this board could expect a reimbursement request every time there is a hurricane. Suggested consideration of another funding source in the county. Dabees states that Marco Island is part of the county's coastal management and no different than Barefoot beach or Vanderbilt or Park Shore. Roth agreed these are county beaches, but he thought it was more about a private community (further discussion between the role of Hideaway Community and the community funding the project). Dabees' take is that the project is being singled out and is no different than any other project in the county. - There was discussion on number of emails submitted asking that this project be stopped. There was some discussion between Roth and Dabees on Tax Funding with Collier County beaches. Further discussion on Hideaway's initial permit, their involvement in funding, and their responsibilities versus the counties' 2 responsibilities. Martin and Dabees failed to understand why they are getting singled out over other beaches in Collier County. Dabees provided a detailed account of the ask for assistance to the state and county after Irma to assist with the lagoon. The issue was over the inability to get a permit because it was a preserve, and so they went to the Hideaway Community, and they reluctantly agreed, but always insisted that this was a county responsibility. Roth asked if it would be logical to assume that when there are future hurricanes, Marco Island and/or Hideaway will come to this board for approval of some sort of reimbursement and ultimately Tourist Development Council and County Commission. The answer was yes. - Some discussion on the intent of citizens complaining about the project and potential misinformation. Roth did point out that the Audubon Society was involved, and certainly has credibility, and they wrote a lot of letters. Martin pointed out that the Audubon Society was involved with the permitting, they did extensive coordinating with the Audubon Society, and it was permitted. - Roth asked about the original purchase order which included a line item Earth Tech to hydraulically remove the sand from the mangroves. It was never done, rather it was listed again on a change order, and he did not think it was ever done. Dabees said it was done but with different means. They had sand encroachment in the mangroves along the shoreline and could not use the excavator because it would break the mangrove roots. So, they dug up to the roots and they hydraulically flushed the roots with the excavator. Roth had a question about a living shoreline at Cedar Key used to reduce storm energy, and wondered why the DEP did not approve one of these living shorelines or something offshore to reduce some of that energy before it comes ashore and hits the berm. Dabees advised that Cedar Key is in Big Bend, and they do not get the same level of wave energy that we have, plus it is sheltered. With active shorelines, submerged structures and submerged reefs do not work unless they are combined with other emerging structures. The best defense for storm surge is large beaches, and we attempt to do this with beach renourishment, unless you are going to build a big island, which will cost billions of dollars to create. Roth brought it up because at the South end of Marco Island, right offshore from the Marco condominiums, a riprap shoreline was put there to break the energy before it got to those buildings. Dabees advised that those buildings were impacted severely by Hurricane Ian and the cost of fixing that seawall is more than the money they spent on restoring two miles. Dabees advised that Humiston and Moore redesigned those breakwaters, which are over 500 feet. If you try to do that over 2 miles: it brings in more challenges with fish habitat and impacts on resident beaches. The fact that this is a protected reserve, with a lot of endangered species, they had come up with something that the agencies deemed as no impact on their protected species. - In response to Linda Penniman's question about City of Marco support, Justin Martin advised that the City of Marco support is not dollars but through votes. Penniman advised that she was not comfortable voting for Tourist Tax Funding, because she does not believe it is for tourism, rather, she heard protection of ►/ properties, mangroves, water quality, restoration of an eco-system. She cannot, in good conscience, release funding for restoration. Martin stated that the Tourist Development Counsel last year deemed that this was the proper use of tax dollars because of the tourism associated with it. Martin reiterated that it does promote tourism and provided examples previously stated. You can have a tourist attraction that has environmental benefits and a restorative feature; that the Sand Dollar Spit is part of the Marco Island shoreline, and the rest of the beaches in Marco Island are part of the beach renourishment through tourist tax dollars. DaBees says that Sand Dollar Spit is no different than Clam Pass or Pelican Bay. Everything in the Clam Pass talks about mangroves and environmental protection and restoration of the inlet and the quality of the bay. - Joe Burke verified the funding amount of $647,843. Burke indicated that he would read what the ask is and ask for a motion. Colleen Greene intervened and advised that there will not be a tourist tax funding agreement, that is set forth in the title, because this is a request for reimbursement. If the City of Marco had come to this board prior to doing their work, there would have been an agreement with terms and conditions, but because the work is completed, this is just a request for reimbursement, so the motion need not be read. Andy Miller confirmed that fund 1105 is the correct fund. - Joe Burke read the recommendation: Recommendation to approve a reimbursement request by the City of Marco, under Fund 1105 for the amount of $647,843, associated with costs to restore the beach and berm of the Tigertail Sand Dollar Island Spit, in northwestern Marco Island, resulting from impacts from Tropical Storm Debby and Hurricanes Helene and Milton, and authorize the necessary budget amendment and deem that this expenditure promotes tourism. [Colleen Greene supplied wording on budget amendment and promotion of tourism.] - Dave Trecker suggested a roll call. Steve Koziar made a motion that the reimbursement request be approved; Joe Burke seconded. Roll Call: Bob Raymond — No; Jim Burke — No; Linda Penniman — No; Steve Koziar — Yes; Joe Burke — Yes; Dave Trecker — No; Bob Roth — No. We two yeses and five nos. - Colleen Green advises that the item will still go forward with the TDC with committee vote noted. - Joe Burke asked if there is a way we can reach a resolution, whether it is within our jurisdiction or not? - Colleen advised that one of the reasons you have this on your agenda is that we do believe it is an eligible expenditure of tourist tax dollars. If she did not think it was eligible as an expenditure for Tourist Development, the legal considerations would say that. In the Tourist Development Tax Statute, there is authorization for expenditures for this type of beach improvement, restoration, erosion control renourishment. If we did not think it was authorized, the legal considerations would say that and so would the executive summary from staff. - Joe Burke — Good information and in the future, this should be treated like any other project. 0 - Bob Roth — We have already agreed to $350,000. I could see that being the county's contribution to this on our bi-annual basis. - Joe Burke — I look at it like it's the same thing; we do a beach renourishment, four months later a hurricane comes in and then we are doing an emergency fix - it job. No different than what was going on there. One of my questions would be if FEMA would contribute and offer some level of reimbursement. I think that is where the nature preserve comes in. The Corp wouldn't touch it either because of that. I think it should be treated in the future like any other. - Bob Roth — Can I get a suggest another motion. No response. I would go with $350,000. Already covered. • Residents' Opinion Several emails were attached to the agenda from residents of Marco Island, who protested the funding of this project. Discussion of same addressed above. Presentation 1. Collier Creek— Nicole Sharp, P.E., Director, Coastal Sciences and Engineering, APTIM - Andy Miller advised that Nicole would be presenting by zoom in response to Erik Brecknitz's request for an update on Collier Creek (a long-awaited project), and our efforts to make improvements to the Collier Creek Inlet, terminal jetty and perpendicular groin. We have been trying to get a permit with the Corp since late 2021. Nicole has joined us today to give an update on where we are with our communications with the Corp and hopefully some sense of when we might finish off that effort. - Nicole Sharp: The Collier Creek project is a critical project for the community to help reduce the navigation hazards that we do have within that area. The plan has been to modify the dredge templet, to construct a rock drawing, modify the existing terminal jetty, and place the sand in the Big Marco, Capri Pass disposal area. We presented permits in December 2021 to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Army Corp of Engineers. The permitting process with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is completed. We received permits in March 2023 from the FDEP. The Corp of Engineers has been a little bit more difficult to deal with throughout the permitting process. We sometimes send emails, and they go non -responsive for months on end. To multiple emails, we had six to seven months of them being non -responsive in 2023 and 2024. We do copy leadership in the emails, and they are aware of the non -responsiveness. - Project progress: Since November or December of last year, through the federal permitting process, we did go out to public notice in late 2024, and we had no adverse public comments received. That was a very positive step forward. In addition, formal consultations for the project through National Marine Fisheries and Florida Wildlife & Fisheries and all five services. Those did occur in early 2025, so initiation with FWC commenced on February 3, 2025, with National Marine Fisheries Service. The Army Corp of Engineers initiated a Section 7 9 consultation on March 17. We have followed up with the Corp to ask them the status on both, and we have not heard back from Mr. Fleming, who is our permit processor with the Corp. We are pinging him on that biweekly for a status update, and requests for how we can get this project moving forward. We did let them know that this is a critical project to the community, and we are trying to address navigation hazards. We are trying to advocate as much as we can on behalf of the county. - Joe Burke — in response to Burke's question on a rough ETA, advises that they are at the last phase of the federal permitting process. The consultation with the federal agencies, usually Fish & Wildlife takes about usually 90-120 days to coordinate with them. They might have questions, and then they can produce what is called a RAI (request for additional information). We are trying to ensure that we are very responsive, and on top of everything. Additionally, the National Marine Consultation Service can be up to 120 days. If all things go well, we could be looking at 120 to 150 days. If we have additional questions, that resets the clock, and sometimes it buys them an additional 30 days. We are hoping for the best, but there is some possibility that we will have questions from the federal level. - Joe Burke — the message to take back to Erik is 4 months to a year. - Bob Roth —Are there any changes to the original proposal? None, it is still the original project in 2021. - Steve Koziar: Comments that since the permits have been pending, he was hoping that there was a plan to go to the Corp of Engineers. Suggested that something is going on with Collier Creek. - Nicole: Have been working with Andy and team with lobbying; we have struggled with project processor and expressed our frustration. We are continuing to advocate to move this thing forward — being a squeaky wheel and poking them. - Andy Miller: FYI, the Commissioner and Lobbyists are in Washington, and we hope to hear back from them when they return. 2. FY23 Water Quality Report — Rhonda Watkins, Environmental Specialist, Collier County Pollution Control Bob Roth requested Rhonda Watkins appear and give a presentation on the 2023 water quality report. Ms. Watkins presented a slide show and a quick introduction to pollution control. - Inhouse NELAC Certified laboratory; program is NEFAP certified. Basically, like auditing from an outside entity which ensures the quality of our data. - Follow the standard operating procedures DEP sample collection. - Monitor both surface water and ground water throughout the county, and we also collect and analyze samples for other agencies (like City of Naples, Pelican Bay Services Division and Coastal Zone Management). - Today's presentation is on surface water quality monitoring for the 2023 data. - Monitor 54 sites in the freshwater portion of the county. - Monitor three sites for Lake Trafford Watershed and 9 sites monthly for Cocohatchee River. 10 - For the FY 23 assessment, used water quality standards found in Florida Administrative Code 62-302. We do not have numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus in our canals. We do have those American criteria for our estuaries. I used the closest standard for the peninsular nutrient region that is used in Lee County by DEP to assess streams. Any accidents of nitrogen or phosphorus or chlorophyll in our canals are not true exceedances. They are just used here to screen data for the purpose of assessment. The assessment I did is very simplified compared to the DEP impaired water assessment. I am not trying to duplicate that assessment; I am just trying to figure out whether the result is good or bad yearly. Slide shows the highest level of exceedances: Total Nitrogen at 28.80% and Dissolved Oxygen Saturation at 28.50% in FY year 2023. Total Nitrogen, Dissolved Oxygen, and Enterococcus Bacteria are exceeded most frequently; but as a collective nutrient (including Phosphorus and Chlorophyll), which is an indicator that Algae Blooms have the highest number of exceedances in FY23. - The biggest takeaway from FY23 [Shows slide of water quality highlights for FY23]: Good news — 50% of the watersheds showed decreases in the overall percent exceedances compared to FY22. Other 50%, no change and there were no copper exceedances at any of the trend sites. Had at least one exceedance at one of our source tracking sites in Lely. Bad news — 53% of those watersheds showed increases in nutrients; 45% showed increases in algae blooms bacterial levels, but not in 60% of the watershed. Every watershed had at least one exceedance. - [Provides a graph detailing percentage of exceedances for nutrients, dissolved oxygen, bacteria, metals, ph & turb.] Rhonda provided as a handout a Collier County Pollution Control Map showing the waterbody ID, 2022-2024 impairments, ongoing restoration activities, natural conditions, TMDL Complete, Roads and County Boundary as well as a Table of the 2022-2024 Verified Impaired Waters by WBID. Lake Trafford had the most exceedances in 2023. Cow Slough and Silver Strand are both heavily influenced by agriculture, and Silver Strand has phosphorus contamination coming from a fertilizer plant. Every five years we contract out a trend analysis of our data. [Provides a slide regarding trend analysis]. This report looks at the cumulative long-term trends and the most short-term trends. Highlighted from the report: [Shows a graphic showing phosphorus trends in the county.] In that graphic you can see Camp Keais, Fakahatchee Strand, Rookery Bay East and Haldeman Creek Upper and Lower have increasing trends. [Shows a graphic showing total nitrogen trends in the county.] There are increases at Camp Keais, Cocohatchee Inland, Cow Slough, Fakahatchee Strand, Haldeman Creek Upper, Ten Thousand Island, Rookery Bay East and West, and Wiggins Bay Outlet. [Shows a graphic showing total copper trends in the county.] Copper is going down almost everywhere, and we only have one watershed that had an increase in copper. [Shows a graphic showing total iron trends in the county.] Iron is another one where we have impairment and we have increasing trends, and this is from groundwater pumping or base flow into the surface water. [Shows graphic of 11 Current Impairments] DEP conducts this assessment every two years. Since the last assessment, we increased the number of impaired waterbodies from 25 to 26, but we decreased the number of parameters not meeting standards from 59 to 44. [Shows a table of current TMDLs.] Shows existing TMDLs and new copper TMDLs. The copper TMDLs are Naples Bay, Rock Creek and Haldeman Creek Lower. The copper is so bad in Collier County because of the herbicides used to treat algae blooms, so the root cause of the copper is still nutrients causing algae blooms. Since we don't have nutrient criteria, we can't regulate the nutrients. We also can't regulate the copper because it is a pesticide, and we are pre-empted by the Department of Agriculture on pesticide regulation. Additionally, these TDMLs are all marine water bodies and the marine standard for copper is 3.7 mg per liter. - We are continuing to work with DEP, but it feels like we are being set up for failure. We have more TMDLs coming — bacteria TMDLs for 10 more watersheds: Cocohatchee Inland, Cocohatchee River, Gordon River Marina, Gordon River Extension, Haldeman Creek Upper, Lower Naples, Bay Oak Creek and Rock Creek. [Shows slides of Source Tracking Efforts.] Did 23 source tracking events concentrating on fecal indicator bacteria and nutrients. We did sampling in the first 4 watersheds; no sampling at Silver Strand because it is a known source of nutrients due to a fertilizer plant. Did some sampling for rain events and storm events — showed bacteria levels elevated for 3 days after storms. Almost all the sites were elevated for both bacteria and nutrients. Issue with homeless camps, human and dog DNA at the Cocohatchee River, and various tributaries at Gordon River contributing to bacteria and nutrients. [Shows slide of source tracking efforts.] Running out of tools. Sucralose is present in surface and groundwater everywhere reused irrigation is used. DNA costs $700 per sample or $1,000 to include bird or dog DNA. If homeless camps are present, data is not distinguishable. Isotopes take extensive sampling for fingerprints of all sources — expensive $1,000 a sample. In addition, we have limited resources; takes a lot of manpower. Will continue to monitor in bacteria and copper. Provided a map of the county -wide sampling. Bob Roth — Based on this Collier County has a water quality problem and is there anything meaningful being done? That would be a question for public utilities. Nicole relates some of the projects that have been. Hard due to restrictions to regulate nutrients and copper Solution: Give TMDLs to all the estuaries and monitor each watershed. IX. Old Business None. 12 X. Announcements Advised that this was Steven Koziar's last meeting and that he had been a committee member for ten years. Mr. Koziar was presented with a plaque on behalf of the CAC committee and staff as a thank you for his work with the committee. XI. Committee Member Discussion Bob Raymond suggested that there should be discussion on limiting the time and putting a maximum of 15-20 minutes for each presenter. Agreed that we should ask Erik Brecknitz on Robert's Rules. The committee agreed it was a good suggestion. XII. Next Meeting Date/Location June 12, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. (Andy Miller can't think of anything pressing for June & July). XIII. Adjournment There being no further business for the good of The County, the Coastal Advisory Committee Hearing was adjourned at 3:03 p.m. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee The Minutes were approved by: NAME SIGNATURE As presented on Or amended on Chairman, Joe Burke 13 Collier County Tourist Development Tax Revenue FY 25 TDT Collections Report 31-May-2025 Fund Reporting Fund Adopted Budget Updated Annual Forecast Budgeted YTD YTD Actual Variance to Budgeted YTD Beach Park Facilities 1100 1101 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1,357,700 1,685,045 991,618 1,319,199 327,582 TDC Promotion 13,643,700 17,415,433 9,964,891 13,197,694 3,232,803 Non -County Museums 724,300 898,930 529,004 702,266 173,262 TDCAdmin - 0 - Beach Renourishment 14,782,800 18,346,968 10,796,851 14,359,901 3,563,651 Disaster Recovery - - 0 - County Museums 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,460,731 2,000,000 539,269 TDC Capital 5,415,500 6,721,190 3,955,296 5,262,897 1,307,602 Gross Budget 37,924,000 47,067,567 27,698,390 36,841,958 9,143,568 Less 5% Rev Res (1,896,200) 24.11 % % Over/(Under) Bud 33.0% ff Net Budget 36,027,800 Collections Month Reported Actual Cum YTD % Budget Collected to Date % Variance FY24 Collections % Variance FY23 Collections % Variance FY22 Collections Nov 2,137,562 2,137,562 5.64% -16.72% -9.20% -5.039/6 Dec 3,465,253 5,602,815 14.77% 5.839/o 30.939/6 19.12% Jan 4,632,754 10,235,570 26.99% 5.02% 24.82% 3.04% Feb 6,466,174 16,701,744 44.04% -1.10% 19.509/6 8.289/6 Mar 7,042,625 23,744,369 62.61% 2.54% 10.669/6 8.839/6 Apr 8,422,508 32,166,877 84.82% 3.489/o 15.42% 0.809/6 May 4,675,081 36,841,958 97.15% 9.54% 15.559/o -3.29% June - 36,841,958 97.159/6 n/a n/a n/a July 36,841,958 97.15% n/a n/a n/a Aug 36,841,958 97.15% n/a n/a n/a Sept 36,841,958 97.159/6 n/a n/a n/a Oct - 36,958 Ni36,84,958 97.15% n/a n/a n/a Total 36,841,958 YTD 2.15% 15.74% 4.40% 47.067,567 Budget Comparison 5 Yr History -Cum 5 Yr History- Monthly Budgeted Collections Actual Collections Budget to Actual Variance Updated Forecast Nov 4.8% 4.8% 1,827,211 2,137,562 310,352 2,137,562 Dec 11.0% 6.2% 2,338,559 3,465,253 1,126,694 3,465,253 Jan 20.2% 9.2% 3,502,227 4,632,754 1,130,527 4,632,754 Feb 33.1% 12.8% 4,869,752 6,466,174 1,596,422 6,466,174 Mar 47.3% 14.2% 5,397,019 7,042,625 1,645,606 7,042,625 Apr 64.3% 17.0% 6,460,316 8,422,508 1,962,192 8,422,508 May 73.0% 8.7% 3,303,306 4,675,081 1,371,774 4,675,081 June 79.1% 6.1% 2,299,023 - - 2,299,023 July 84.7% 5.6% 2,134,934 2,134,934 Aug 90.7% 6.0% 2,277,930 2,277,930 Sept 95.5% 4.8% 1,816,973 1,816,973 Oct 100.0% 4.5% 1,696,749 - - 1,696,749 Total 100.0% 100.0%1 37,924,000 36,841,958 9,143,568 47,067,567 oved(under) budget 33.0% 24.11% $9,000,000 Tourist Development Tax Collection Curve $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 --evaaxaeeune€t9ns -+--aceuai eonanane $4,000,000 - $3,000,000 $2,000,000 - $1,000,000 2. o LL i a a o Month Reported M:\Revenue Report\TDC Revenue\TDC Update Report\2025\TDTTax Collector Reports\07-TDC Updates May.xlsx EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the submittal of the Local Government Funding Request (LGFR) Beach Project Applications to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for Fiscal Year 2026/2027, and to approve a Resolution supporting the County's applications to FDEP, and make a finding that these items promote tourism. This action maintains the County's eligibility for State Cost Share Funding for future renourishment projects. OBJECTIVE: To approve the submittal of the LGFR Beach Applications to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and approve a Resolution in support of the applications for long range budget plan requests for beach renourishment projects for fiscal year 2026/2027. CONSIDERATIONS: On March 18, 2025 (Agenda Item 16.13.7.), the Board awarded a Work Order to APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. under Contract No. 18-7432-CZ to assist the County with the preparation of the 2026/2027 Local Government Funding Request (LGFR) for Collier County's coastal protection projects. APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., assessed all the elements of the County's coastal projects required by Chapter 62B-36, F.A.C., the LGFR applications, and related documents in order to increase the County's FDEP ranking and cost -sharing opportunities. The evaluation was completed for the County's coastal protection projects: South Marco Island, Collier Beach Renourishment Projects, and the County's inlet projects: Wiggins Pass and Doctors Pass. APTIM completed the applications on behalf of the County. The Fiscal Year 2026/2027 applications will entail the following locations and funding requests: • South Marco Island — Design, Permitting, Monitoring (Physical & Turtle) and Beach Tilling • Collier County Beaches — Doctors Pass Design, Permitting, Construction, Monitoring (Physical, Biological, Shorebirds, and Turtles) and Beach Tilling • Wiggins Pass Inlet — Permitting (Full Channel Dredging), Construction (Full Channel Dredging), Monitoring (Physical & Environmental), and Beach Tilling This item is consistent with the Quality of Place Objectives of the County's Strategic Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: The Local Government Funding Requests are prepared yearly for anticipated state cost share funding reimbursement. The application requests are estimates based on project scope, funding availability, ranking, and other state and federal funding. Projections for future years are also included in the requests for informational purposes. The total FY 2026-2027 estimated total costs $15,303,525 include: BEACH STATE SHARE LOCAL SHARE FUNDING REQUEST South Marco Island $41,300 $112,225 $153,525 Collier County Beaches $6,283,300 $8,542,700 $14,826,000 Wiggins Pass Inlet $161,500 $161,500 $324,000 Total Request $6,486,100 $8,816,425 $15,303,525 Tourist Development Tax funds are currently available within Beach Renourishment Fund 1105 to accomplish this work. State approval may lead to future state cost share participation on these projects through FDEP grant agreement and contract. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This item is consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote for approval. — CMG RECOMMENDATION: To approve the submittal of the Local Government Funding Request (LGFR) Beach Project Applications to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for Fiscal Year 2026/2027, and to approve a Resolution supporting the County's applications to FDEP, and make a finding that these projects promote tourism. Prepared by: Andrew Miller, Coastal Zone Management, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Division RESOLUTION NO.25 - A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SUPPORTING THE COUNTY'S "FLORIDA BEACH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2026/2027 FUNDING REQUESTS" TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR LONG RANGE FUNDING REQUESTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2026/2027, AGREEING TO SERVE AS THE LOCAL SPONSOR, SUPPORT PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND COMMITMENT TO PROVIDING THE REQUIRED LOCAL COST SHARE. WHEREAS, Collier County's Coastal Zone Management, acting on behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, has prepared Florida Beach Management Program 2026/2027 Funding Requests to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for long range grant funding for Fiscal Years 2026 /2027; and WHEREAS, the funding requests are to fund the following three Collier County Projects: 1. Collier County Beach Nourishment a. FY25/26 - Design - Naples (R59-R79) &Vanderbilt Beaches (R22-R31.5) b. FY25/26 - Construction - Naples (R59-R79) & Vanderbilt Beaches (R22-R31.5) C. FY26/27 - Monitoring - Physical, Biological, Shorebirds, Turtles, Tilling 2. Marco Island Nourishment a. FY26/27 - Monitoring - Physical, Biological, Shorebirds, Turtles, Tilling 3. Wiggins Pass Dredging a. FY26/27 - Design - Permit Modification FDEP and USACE b. FY26/27 - Design — Interim Dredging Design C. FY26/27 - Monitoring - Physical, Biological, Tilling [04-COA-01030/ 1950889/ 1 ] 1 WHEREAS, the timely maintenance and restoration of these high quality and readily accessible public recreational beaches is critical to preserve their value and viability, and to provide a boost to both the environment and the economy of Collier County tourism, including hotels, restaurants and related commercial activities; and WHEREAS, the role of the County government in maintaining and restoring beaches is appropriate and crucial; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners supports these three funding requests and requests approval from the FDEP for each funding request for Fiscal Years 2026/2027; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners agrees to serve as the Local Sponsor; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is able and committed to providing the required Local Cost Share; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners agrees to support proposed project activities; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners supports funding contained in previously approved funding contracts, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has enacted the Tourist Development Tax Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended, which commits funding to beach renourishment, beach maintenance and beach park facilities. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The Board supports the Florida Beach Management Program 2026/2027 [04-COA-01030/ 1950889/ 1 ] 2 Funding Requests prepared for submittal to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for long range funding for Fiscal Years 2026/2027, and requests approval from the FDEP for each funding request; 2. The Board of County Commissioners is willing to serve as the Local Sponsor and support the maintenance and renourishment projects. The Collier County's Coastal Zone Management has the staff dedicated to provide Project Management and Administrative support; and, 3. The Board of County Commissioners is committed to providing the required Local Cost Share. The required funds have been committed through the Tourist Development Tax Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote favoring same, on this day of ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK As Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Colleen M. Greene Managing Assistant County Attorney 2025. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BURT L. SAUNDERS, CHAIRMAN [04-COA-01030/ 1950889/ 1 ] 3 Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application PART I: GENERAL INFORMATION Local Sponsor Collier County Coastal Management Program Federal ID Number (FEID) 59-6000558 Primary Contact Name Andrew Miller Title Manager Mailing Address Line 1 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Unit 103 Mailing Address Line 2 City Naples zip Code 34104 Telephone Number 239-252-2922 Email Address andrew.miller@colliercountyfl.com Additional Contact Information Joshua Thomas Grants Coordinator I, 239-252-6048 Joshua.Thomas@colliercountyfl.gov PART II: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that all information provided with this application is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Local Sponsor Electronic or scanned signatures accepted. Printed Name Burt L Saunders, Chairman Date Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application PART III: EVALUATION CRITERIA 1. Project Name: (as listed in the Strategic Beach Management Plan) Collier County Beach Renourishment 2. Project Description: Include county, location with reference to DEP range monuments, brief project history, and description of proposed activities. The project includes nourishment and monitoring of the Collier County beaches, dredging of Doctors Pass, and erosion control structures for sand retention. The project is located between FDEP R-22+300 to R-37, R-42 — R-54+400, and R-58A to R-79, and includes three reaches, Vanderbilt Beach, Park Shore, and Naples. Dunes will be restored to pre -storm conditions when damaged. Permit design is to a 100 ft. wide beach in Vanderbilt and Naples Beaches and a 85 ft. wide beach in Park Shore, with a 6-year project design life. Between 2017 and 2020 approximately 38,000 cubic material was placed from Clam Pass onto the beaches on either side of the inlet and an additional 20,000 cy was placed in the newly permitted segment. Park Shore Beach was nourished with approximately 130,000 cubic yards of sand as part of the 2019 project. Naples Beach received approximately 30,000 cubic yards of sand dredged from Doctors Pass in 2018 placed in the nearshore. The reach from the Doctors Pass south jetty to R-60 was nourished with sand in late 2020. Vanderbilt Beach (R-22 to R-32, 77,340 cy), Pelican Bay (R-33 to R-36, 20,000 cy) and Naples Beach (R-62 to R-74, 57,330 cy) were nourished in 2021 through Truck Haul. In Spring 2022, Doctors Pass was dredged with material placed at Lowdermilk Park from R-60 to R-62. Following the passage of Hurricane Ian, an emergency berm project restored portions of the dry beach within the project areas in spring/summer 2023 and spring 2025 in South Naples due to easement issues. Park Shore was nourished in 2024 (R44 to R54). The County plans to conduct sand placement on Naples (R59-R79) and Vanderbilt Beaches (R22-R31.5) in 2025/2026 due to the impacts of Helene and Milton. Historically, the County has utilized upland sand mines and conducted truck haul projects to renourish their beaches; however, the County will continue to pursue the potential use of offshore borrow areas through further investigations in upcoming years. Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application 3. Use of Requested Program Funds: Provide a brief description of tasks to be completed in each requested phase (Feasibility, Design, Construction, Monitoring, or USACE Multiphase). Indicate which tasks are cost reimbursement from previous fiscal years. FY 2025/2026 Design - Naples (R59-R79) and Vanderbilt Beaches (R22-R31.5) Helene and Milton FY 2026/2027 Construction - Naples (R59-R79) and Vanderbilt Beaches (R22-R31.5) Helene and Milton Monitoring - Physical, Biological, Shorebirds, Turtles, Tilling It is of note that a portion of the monitoring funding is to be allocated toward Collier County salaries nd fringe benefits. 4. Map: Provide as an attachment. The map(s) of the project area must be formatted at a minimum of 1" = 200' scale and include a compass rose and legend. Map elements must include: 1. Project boundary: DEP reference monuments and shoreline designated as critically eroded 2. Eligibility: Indicate lengths of eligible shoreline based on criteria outlined in Chapter 6213-36.007, F.A.C. a. Beach access locations: indicate primary or secondary access, and include the shoreline length, number and location of auto parking spaces, mass transit stops, bike parking spaces, and public restroom facilities within 1 /4 mile walking distance of each access b. Public lodging establishments: include the length fronting the project shoreline, and include the length of street -side frontage for lodging within 1 /4 mile walking distance of a secondary beach access location 3. Recreational benefits: Comprehensive list of current land use designations of properties fronting the project shoreline 4. Value of upland property: Include one -quarter mile buffer and provide a comprehensive list of the values of properties (data from year 2024) that are enclosed or intersected by the buffer. The 2024 property value tax roll data and ArcGIS shapefiles can be obtained from the Department of Revenue website: https://floridarevenue.com/property/Pages/ Data Portal_RequestAssessmentRolIGISData.aspx. See Guidance Document for more information. Vanderbilt: R-22+300 to R-37 = $5,928,547,076 Park Shore: R-42 to R-54+400 = $8,561,367,132 Naples: 58A to R-79 = $9,214,776,084 South Naples: R-79 to R-89 (Since there is no established ECL in this area the PV was not determined) 5. Project length: Total restored project length (in feet) of the critically eroded area (as listed in the Strategic Beach Management Plan). • Vanderbilt: R-22+300 to R-37 = 14,985 feet • Park Shore: R-42 to R-54+400 = 12,976 feet • Naples: 58A to R-79 = 19,103 feet • South Naples: R-79 to R-89 = 9,960 feet Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application 6. Eligibility: Required for all beach projects pursuant to Chapter 6213-36.007, F.A.C. Provide as a separate attachment, if needed. • Location/Access Name: Use the official name of the park or road that is associated with the public access. • DEP Reference Monument: Use the DEP monument that is closest to the main public access location. • Type of Access: Indicate Primary or Secondary beach access in accordance with the definitions in Chapter 6213-36, F.A.C. • Width of Access/Frontage: The length of the legal boundary (in feet) of the public access or lodging along the beach project shoreline. For public lodging establishments that do not front the beach, indicate the street -side length of the legal property boundary (in feet) that is used as the main access to the establishment. • Number of Eligible Units: A unit is defined as one automobile parking space, one rental unit in a public lodging establishment, one mass transit stop, or four bicycle parking spots. • Additional Width from Eligible Units: Total distance (feet) added to the Width of Access/Frontage. If there are multiple types of eligibility units used for this calculation, show the calculation separately for each. • Total Eligible Shoreline: Sum of the Width of Access/Frontage and Additional Width from Eligible Units columns. Eligible shorelines cannot overlap. • Website Link for DBPR License: Provide the link to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) website for proof of licensure for any public lodging establishments used for eligibility or the Recreational Benefits ranking criteria. Location/ Access Name DEP Reference Monument Type of Access Width of Access/ Frontage (ft) Number of Eligible Units g Additional Width from Eligible Units Total Eligible Shoreline (ft) Website Link for DBPR License See Attached M1 Q Q CL Q _ ^ OLLO — U co LU LL — m _ LL ate+ 0 +m+ N +-+ CO O M �o Q Nm am Ql a) m LU v c 00 U N U CO N U U O/ " CJ ^ V Q u J 0 \C \ 0 C N V J J Lu \C J M \C E M E 00 z m E LA E O O. Q Q Ln m O O O Q Q Q N N Q 00 Q Q Q Q Q 0J o Q N U) Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q w Z Z m Z c U Z Z Z Z Z w U Z Ln Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Y C N m c.> U m Y d U m J U !O 0 .— N M 00 J V U N U N (p LL y0, -6 Lu N _ -a m -6 Q N 0 o w � o a 0 Ln Lu Q `0 a) 3 TLL >- co 3 �r1in '0 E N E Ln E m 3 m U3 3- 3 r 3 m m 3 Ln 3 ° 3 Ln u 3 z� 06 Z,; co � � \ 06 Q u Q a ii y Q °� Q Q u Y Q � L Q t Ln t N t Ln C N O O O O O (9 O Ot0 OlD Ol0 Ol0 OLD OlD Ol0 O i Lp w0 N N N M lD WpQ N Nn N O 00 O c Wy� .... N O c-I O O L .E L .0 fl_ O O O 00 t0 O c-I O N r-I N e-I 3 Y O 00 cN-I V eN-I V Vl 0 Vl M �t V �t V 7 C O O I0 O N O Ol c-I c-I _ O N N ci M i-y M 7 W V 00 7 00 Ol 00 M lD M lO M t0 M lD M l0 f6 C Ol E N N GJ E lf1 N c-I N N 10 C Vl > O N N N ++ W a w Y V) to++ W W a a v i o r n N w a `p 'a C m Y f0 Z C ate+ C. C. V 1n eo C O m o 0) ono O m O m N 00 m m m O a O y U N oo C O m m O a N ,� O N - l ,� - .� n .� N ti N ,� N ,� N ,� N N 3 d Y 3 1 Y 6 a ° m 0 0 v 00 v 00 m c c L Q O O n O N Ln O O O O m o c i O O O O O O O O O O O O O O "6 h M M �D ID l0 '6 \ N Ol 01 LD wZlD lD l0 LD wLD LD Lfl Y 3 v 3 Nv U Q u Q u m > u rts cv O ro —0 u ro cv O O fo O fo O fo O fo -0 ro a u a-- o-0 o 0 0 0 0- u E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 T Q o` u u N D_ O d o_ O a u v M u v M u u N u v V1 T Q H 0_ O a` o_ O J u u to u v N u v V1 u v M u v to u v N u v N u v M u v N u v M u v N u v N u v N C w E C N N N N 10 N Ol N O M V V U N Lf M Ul l0 Vl C w E C Ol Vl c-I l0 M lD V t0 1l1 �O LD LD n lD W l0 Ql l0 O r K C Of C C C K ofK C C C K CL K K K K 0 Y O > > a C O O 0 Y ai O u N m v i Y 1 ai = 0 0 a� o Q L = a O z ro o_ Y = l7 Z Q Z Z Z Z Z > Q v1 \ tl0 f9 V u co cu a0 C O v� L C O O to Z N 0� O O � Z N > Q Y t0 J N > Q N > Q N > Q N > Q N > Q t0 N > Q OJ > Q N > Q N > Q O uf9 co m +' o_ O VI ro a 0 v N (a N N s L s l0 r a -a ., c-I C -a uu 0 r?o ai U (° 2 > C 3 3 N Q n O M N U U f0 J N J =O r-00 Z to N N UO W r. a 0 =Q vm o0 N 00 N �t U ct \C 00 C Lo O m V N Q ajN a Q a Q a a a Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a a a Q Z N -4 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z O M a) W CJ U- m NLL _ N O � O T t0 3 r' 3 � 3 co a 11 t � M ri a —' N O> c^ w m c w v w c S v � rn c M c S m w 0 lD 0 l0 0 lD 0 l0 0 l0 c v w m lD a j m W V W m W m l0 m w m to m w m w Lm m w 0 0 O O 0 m tD m 10 O � N O N lD N N N N rl O N rl N O O O O o N c-I N rl O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O f6 u C - i m i m (0 i (0 m i 0 -c ], i -c -c f0 -c f0 -c (0 -c (0 c c o u U1 V1 sao 0 a o J a 0 c o u N N 0 a c 0 u 41 VI a 0 c 0 u N N a c 0 u 41 VI a 0 c 0 u N N a c 0 u 41 VI c 0 u N N E .- C 0 c 0 u N N 0 a c 0 u 41 VI 0 c 0 u N N a c 0 u 41 VI 0 c 0 u N N a c 0 u 41 VI 0 c 0 u N N a c 0 u 41 VI 0 c 0 u N N a c 0 u 41 VI ^ Lrl N n M ^ t I� 111 ^ l6 ^ 1� 00 o6 00 00 Ol T a L L v1 Qj v1 in v1 in v1 in v1 r O O N m w w 0 OJ N cu a N 0 W 0 W 0 W N W N V1 Q a a a a a a m a a a a a a N a j j m6 liJ 1p 1� 00 Ol o f r t r s t r t v a s _t, ei co a --I e � e�-I �^-I Q 01 c-I N m N M m M M Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application 7. Schedule and Budget: Provide as a separate attachment, if needed. Clearly indicate project phase: Feasibility (F), Design (D), Construction (C), Monitoring (M), or USACE Multiphase (USACE). Include the year of post -construction monitoring in the description. 8. Cost Reimbursement: Specify eligible costs incurred during the three years prior to the current application's fiscal year that are not in a current DEP agreement and have not been reimbursed (this includes fiscal years 23/24, 24/25, and 25/26). Eligible costs will be added to the current funding request. 9. Current and Future Costs: Specify eligible costs for the current application's fiscal year that are not in a current DEP agreement and have not been reimbursed as well as the estimated costs for the next 4 years. Note: If Construction costs are requested in the. current fiscal vear, then the Year 1 Post -Construction Monitorina costs will be added to the current fundina reauest Fiscal Year Project Phase Description Federal Cost State Cost Local Cost Total Cost 23/24 23/24 23/24 24/25 24/25 24/25 25/26 Design Naples (R59-R79) and Vanderbilt Beaches (R22-R31.5) Helene and Milton _110 �Y $84, 800 $115, 200 $200, 000 25/26 25/26 26/27 Monitoring Physical, Biological, Shorebirds, Turtles, Tilling $0 $350,100 $475,900 $826,000 26/27 Construction Naples (R59-R79) and Vanderbilt Beaches (R22-R31.5) Helene and Milton 0 `h0 �Y $5,933,200 $8,066,800 $14,000,000 26/27 27/28 Monitoring Physical, Biological, Shorebirds, Turtles, Tilling $0 $266,100 $361,700 $627,800 27/28 27/28 Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application Fiscal Year Project Phase Description Federal Cost State Cost Local Cost Total Cost 28/29 Monitoring Physical, Biological, Shorebirds, Turtles, Tilling $0 $290,000 $394,300 $684,3000 28/29 Design Permitting (FDEP and USACE) $0 $84,800 $115,200 $200,000 28/29 29/30 Construction Doctors Pass Rock Removal and Realignment Dredging $0 $1 ,483,300 $2,016,700 $3,500,000 29/30 Design Park Shore R43+500 - R54+400 $0 $42,400 $57,600 $100,000 29/30 Monitoring Physical, Biological, Shorebirds, Turtles, Tilling $0 $316,100 $429,800 $745,900 30/31 Design Vanderbilt Beaches (R22-R31.5) $0 $21,200 $28,800 $50,000 30/31 Construction Vanderbilt Beaches (R22-R31.5) $0 $2,966,600 $4,033,400 $7,000,000 30/31 Monitoring Physical, Biological, Shorebirds, Turtles, Tilling $0 $344,500 $468,500 $813,000 8. Tourism -related impacts: Criteria is calculated by the Department using 2024 data. For reference, tax data can be obtained from the Department of Revenue website: https://floridarevenue.com/DataPortal/Pages/TaxResearch.aspx See Guidance Document for more information. (-- Current funding request includes construction and year one post -construction monitoring C Project is managed by two or more counties Additional comments Local Option Sales Tax Coll. March 2024 - February 2025 = $799,733,836 Line 39 of Form 10 March 2024 - February 2025 = $171,317,447.91 9. Federal involvement: The documentation to verify authorization, federal cost share percentage, and status of funding award must be provided with the application materials for the award of points. Is the project Federally authorized by the USACE? No Authorization Year: Expiration Year: Does this project have a signed USACE Chief's report or Civil Works Congressional authorization for the No requested phase? USACE federal cost share percentage for this project (excluding FCCE): Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application Select all that apply for the requested project phase(s) and include documentation with application materials. C Executed USACE project agreement C Included in USACE work plan C Approved FEMA Project Worksheet C Included in Congressional Appropriations Act C- Other documentation: Collier County and the USACE have executed a federally funded feasibility study and the project is listed in a current federal budget document. 10. Storm damage reduction benefits: Criteria is calculated by the Department. What is the volume (cy) of advanced nourishment lost since the last sand placement event of (See Below) a beach restoration or nourishment project as measured above the Mean High Water contour? Data should be consistent with the annual post -construction monitoring reports. For restoration projects, what is the historical erosion rate? -0 , 61 foot/yea r 11. Cost effectiveness: Criteria is calculated by the Department. A project design analysis and supporting documentation must be provided with the application materials for the award of points. See Guidance Document for more information. What is the proposed sand placement volume (cy)? What is the nourishment interval (years)? Select all that apply for the current project funding request: Naples (150,000CY) and Vanderbilt Beaches (150,000CY) 6 C Enhanced longevity: Propose structural or design components that could extend the beach nourishment interval �. Dune addition: Incorporate new or enhanced dune structures or new or existing dune restoration and revegetation projects C Innovative technology: Propose innovative technologies designed to reduce project costs C Regionalization: Two or more local sponsors manage projects together or projects propose regional sediment management strategies to conserve sand resources or reduce project costs Upland Volume Change 5/2023 to 12/2024 Vanderbilt Beach: R-22 to R-30.8 =-54,200 cy Pelican Bay Beach: R-30.8 to R-37 =-34,990 cy Additional comments for storm damage South of Clam Pass: Pass to R-43 = No Data 2023 reduction benefits and North Park Shore Beach: R-43 to R-48 =-25,060 cy cost effectiveness Park Shore Beach: R-48 to R-55 =-39,840 cy Naples Beach Doctors: Pass to R-60 = 10,570 Naples Beach: R-60 to R-79 =-71,860 cy Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Beach Projects Application 12. Previous state commitment Has the Department previously reviewed, approved, and cost -shared on a feasibility or design phase for this project? Yes Has the current proposed project phase(s) received a partial state appropriation within 3 years of phase completion? No Additional comments 13. Accessible beach area: Criteria is calculated by the Department. Provide additional information for consideration. Describe the landward and seaward edge of the accessible beach width Provide the project boundaries (R-monuments) Provide citations of reference sources 14. Recreational benefits: Provide the percentage of linear footage within the project boundaries which is zoned recreational or open space; for commercial use; or to allow for public lodging establishment, or the equivalent. Provide additional documentation and DBPR website link in a separate attachment, if needed. There is no advance nourishment remaining in the beach profiles and all of the profiles are eroded in to the design template along a majority of the shorelines following the storms in December 2024 Vanderbilt: R-22+300 to R-37, Park Shore: R-42 to R-54+400, Naples: 58A to R-79, South Naples: R-79 to R-89 Humiston & Moore Engineers Collier County Beach Nourishment Project, Post -Construction Annual Monitoring Summary Vanderbilt: La Playa Resort (600'), Recreational(292'), Ritz Carlton(730') Total 1,622/14,985=11 % Park Shore: Recreation/Commercial (2,580') Total 2,580/12,976 = 20% Naples Edgewater Beach Hotel (265'), Four seasons Hotel (939') Total 1,204/19,103= 6.3% 15. Mitigation of inlet effects: Criteria is calculated by the Department. The project is within the influence of Doctors Pass. Since the IMP adoption in 1997, 273.5% of the bypassing objective has been supplied by construction. Additional comments 16. Successive unfunded requests Is the current proposed project phase(s) a successive, unfunded request? If so, how many years of successive request(s) is the current application? Does the successive request add the construction phase? Yes Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application 17. Environmental habitat enhancement: Criteria is calculated by the Department. See Guidance Document for more information. Is the project within a designated critical habitat area for threatened or endangered species that is subject No to extensive shoreline armoring? Is the project within a non -designated area where extensive shoreline armoring threatens the habitat of No threatened or endangered species? If yes to either of the above, does the project exceed best management practices to incorporate turtle - friendly designs and management strategies to protect resources or benefit critical habitat preservation? Provide an explanation and supporting documentation for the strategies which exceed best management practices 18. Readiness to construct Does the project have an active state permit? Yes Permit number 0331817-001-JC Authorization date Expiration date Oct. 2, 2015 Oct. 2, 2030 Does the project have an active federal permit? Yes Permit number SAJ-2003-12405 Authorization date April 6, 2016 Expiration date April 6, 2031 Have all necessary easements been acquired for the upcoming or proposed construction phase? Yes Has the necessary local funding been secured for the proposed project? If so, provide a copy of the Yes draft Resolution. The signed Resolution is due by September 26, 2025. Is an Erosion Control Line established along the project length? Additional comments for readiness to construct Yes Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application Provide additional information and comments below or attach supporting documents. I I I I I I I r I � 4 I r I I I l _ v a I � I E p?7 2� U 61 DE o z �� 41 (6 r 000 I U U10, z m x �• J g �I o w W O LL N z cA I 3 I I � N I n w O U m E N � i + sal ° w w w d T LT E u d7 y I m c N _ C 3 I ` � W n � F d 'a N � O C � a J N � .6 O O I E o > 7 0 6 �+ r a r� r r Q U ♦ I Y V� N Mu 3 .v `♦ I � O d m I N U u a ♦ I ++ N .fl d I Z r ti i 3 LL A �5�r'' e I 41 OC 11 f I' J , N I � LL I = I N C o I � At _ I 3 o { � I I gr � I Q 0 w` cq t Y m cn o U m = m C i m E iL ILL ° o _ o o I.� v B a i a L O O W m W 'N��J W LL !7 IL • I #• I U _T C r• a in f a m a C N N m n v E CL F a � N � O I C oN d I J Q) N � O .o QCJ -00 a LL —44 •:r m -o ai N ♦ -0vat IIi N U u a u I � � I v 41 o U ~ } I O 01 $ o fu � u O I _ V z p m V 0 I o I I - I W [7 0o LL ` , N k I I � � I a I } o 's ° 5 p V m O v l L T C U 7 7 om L Lu LL 0 I o _ > S T E T -0 °n LE E C u u1 w I N I W m n v E , � h N � 'a O C � a WON Q) v v r _ E a c o � m it ��cy p :� o r o . V L ICU ♦I m .v p E 111 N U u a m ------------ Cun 1° - - I m a� Q ro r I O V ) z m I C rc J , u I c I I N I a I � v I oo LL I N I o I Y s _ _ c 41 Fow Y3 ai ocq V m W O U o T c U v E 01 o a � 0 W m W � �• � 2 W � d 0 cu _ - --- - C W 1 E I O _ 1 j u a E > IZ° E C u N c cm I ] C a a in � m I c C O N N m n v E a � N 'a O C � a J 'D O LL wn O Q, U y 7 E a c o � p o y, U c _ m .v E E L O m 111 N U u 61I O 0 N c a v Ir cn E v (D B a LL E vU z m o I rrt i I N LL 0 �( I �� I o i\ y I I v O �o w G o *I o U m E o c U `y v f. -�• a a Q -I v .� a V a 01 o. l I u 0 0 p w a iL lip cuE l? _.. I C I o - _ I C I c CK I IV 01 C W m � a a E O Q O J m Q) N � o `o a u- r o _ m ♦� m .v v � f%I N U u a m O a dj O I � 41 � o� I = m�_� Z O � V c � L f6 Q. UJ OC O V Z m V O o I _ J , N I - 0 I J I L I 7A.1 � oo l I � N o I � I _ Q I ° ;, C 0 I o �(. I wen cc I � - a fO 0 w m w . ! " o 0 v � r V V 16 fR C I v o V T G lL U 4 ,O � � O m a in w I C I o N C N m n a E CD o ¢ o li z Is o .o a aL � E fa 0 o a ti Im v a E a c o > v ♦� m .v v � L O 111 N U U p, 61I o>ro °� � MIM—MM—M v v � �� O�j \ / E )( 250 - } au Ecw Lm m 4 ~&�± \ ju� E § , - / c$ k \mE U \ � � \ ■o ��. ` �jLi k ��. �:=50—w I 41 ' m § / ' / §! rr ' = u (n dE$ a k )J� . , U 010 � / LL 2 3 r ® � . , \ / : O�j �\ \ 0 m § LuLU { E ( E )( \{ot }}\{ LM m 2 ~&�± 0 j`�= .k .. . ! ~/ LL � CA � 0 - , & ' # \ / « - Lu Lu \ k § $ � � ( ( § `$ R o u 0/ 0 w@ : _ �§§§ / { Lu � _ \ o }\ y ( k % \ f _ a I) ) / 7 f 4 E j r } } 011 { \ ( a E ` 2 0.5 ZL E jg2m 2 ~&�± ju\� 1111,11 � � « � � (\e a >am � «=a � e = � �\ $ ƒ ■� � ■ w� & .i .---- ��, 4 I ' I I I I J � v f = �z U J v a� , 0 � � - n 1 � •�F6 I o I _ oo EL I m 1 � 1 I s i M a I o I 4 LU L� 12 m s) I 1 I v E v _ � of I ' w Iry w 41 1 CY ro 1 y w I E d c J O ? � _T � � v LT C N C C1 p . a in V O O w` 0 N W `m n E a � N � 'a O C � a J a N � p w _H O � v � r � o Z, o o ♦� m zn ='a L Ojzn ill I^ ,_r_.- ._ -r - -- -__-_. - --- _-__.._I M Q1 I I A I Q Q} o T A: ..�. v o J , n I I I � � •i .I n I W oo LL ID- ` � N t I I I l III pp8 � I N I L ' I � I m I v Iv v� a� ii lip v Iv � L y V Q 16 C .0 O W C U 0 0 o w LL a E w LT u N N L � C oN a to C C J rj U N � o .o O LL � E N' .� • N C v r o 1%1 N U u a 61I o>ro°� Z N _ _ r I I ° y a1 I l a41 m fu C¢sym aj M U c @ L Q r Q Z U p J 3 40, 6 3 d1 LL w Z r m p W o LL K .• (a` N Vb { I o I I o I I o 'w I ° w u v U m E a v v _w u w a a tf a o M o w a w v C & v E L u I I I 16 cc O1 C J N O V T G In lL U U 07 o b CM .o d in w m _ C N C Y w a E u � 8 d W � V � C Q O ta J t I a N � O LL O a IS y C m � Q m fll N U u gC - _ - - - - - - _ - - - - M S 3 U 41 d _ U Q) x v ro E�s�a m � (%] 8 S a _ s 0 I E V C UJ OC CL I U p J , N v I I c 4 I Cii o lL y� o I i5 I N I # _ I I 3 I � o I i I � � - } a I g I o I w I 5 N v m E IT W 0 w cq m o v v u° w P 21 W N W lL IL � a � L t V U [6 6 C J O q Ery U 2 LL C 6N1 77 O pC E E U VI W O N C Y w a E u 8 d W � � V � C Q C N Z ta o .o O LL N E i s'f E a a $ � � Q M 111 N U u a 61I o O N�a I I v I I I I I I I I I i in Am \ � > - E � F � � j k \JC ��2 U § a 4 � & } r■ � , , , .21 ƒ 2 t / & « _ 2 § � } ..-. ., . . . [ 3 § |||!� ( \ j \ -• ~&®3 @ / juj! ----------- - - - - --------- - - - - -- N I v I � I � I U C ^ro C ti'rimm m I m V g v�o,m o Ln I O n I ' V I ' L (O > I N ' U p a r r I � I E I � ' ` I I � I { I I t W oo li { I N ' � h ' f I { I ' I � I h ' � I ' { I I m w 'I 3 0 ' Iv I I 'r lu � I O Q w w � ® i O u o I I I I a 3 N � �o m A. C C J N U N � O •o O LL � O E � _ i (Ii N U u a O d O 0 N _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 - � r _M U Cfu tinmm m U0)Ofu 8 N Y UV a O m o o m E a w d < | 1-- V) CO = e I /!@! | d / /� � )±� /0 . - 9 � \ . ' § � $ ®2 w 3■ # ± 5 ± : � /fƒ /\\ IL Ln LLJ \ ! Cl E \ CL � \ � k 2 \�? N 61 IARO� V U _ Y r U �Od Ic FA &J.:.- - I �I I - z V a I � " I ]AIL`, o tit o m - T Om W tp W v D C I E QJ J I o O I I o c 0 I U 0 I � I � � a w I � I I N . I I I a� I N a I V E I � � I 9 No 0 I C N a I � I �p� I I I I I I � � a LL A I E 81 1 1, a i E occu • v C I v I (A ry U u a I I Z ni I I I I I I I N LL C _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r � I � � I � � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I I - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ 4 I !v+ ggqnq% m [n N QJ 8a� Q) c= L ro U o d J v 4 c 0 0 w c 0 N (6 a) U � N �12v� o CD z U QJ$aL M L 41 0Y y L O U (� m 4 I I I li 1 I � I I I I z ,CA o I o I 3. ..., f y �JLI o 1 � I r 1 I • 1. ." , �,, I ` ��"� ' o N 1 I J U� cu °' E N Y N N � O U 1� m W 5 W 1 w w o a o C � I t �I g I I � I ' oI I o 1 I a v I I I c rn r I 1`` a LO E I 1 � I I N 1 I ' ' I I I � 1 I io I 1 ' a t I ' 9 r4 0 1 I C N a I I ' , I I ' 1 I I ' 1 I I I v a 1 I a LL — - — - - — - — - I in 0 Q, v I E v cu I o cu �� o 0 o v -A- �X � rnU yro � I I N U u a I yl o� L 0 N � d � -- - --- I Z - - - _ _ - - r - - _ N I UJ - - 3 I u (6 N OC � � _ x I I I w o ,L 7-7777 � I I I I 1 I I I nr IM LL Irn ( lip a c Ic o I_ - V lu O N ip W C u W o` U m E I I C N I U O I c U w I o I I o p 3 p I W L a LL I I I ' I I I I I N I I I o I I v I I a w dN m a I � C I I J n°I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � � I � I `a LL I � o I � I o � 'o�' 16 -°o� I N U u a I 61I 00 m I � N � a � __________________ I Z --i N I I I I I I I iS IE w w OO LL N z CA O 0 3 m a v a C 0 O W 'i v i c C O U m N E u 0 U a c Q. � 0 o w m w Wu�u- I � � P 7 i r I a LL Fryry � �h• ' 1;'-.ASi�) U N 7 E I to ° v m ry rJ E a I ________________ _______I CL a 17 - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ I hi 4-1 I � I � f6 ro - I U E o O � � I — C I 0 (6 f6 V v0' I J ,I � I N I I I � o I I I I I I ' W I I 00 LLL � I N v' O I � o I ' I I 3 I O I I ' I � I y I Q l a ' rr woto O Uo m o o ,rn u o_ I W Lu C 1 UJ j W C 0 0 W 11 1 44 I � > .F i .o ELL. Z d v I I 1 � F to IY V I 1 � N ti 1 � C f i I ° E a }2 C CD oq E .6 ► � � yj � U u N i - T-- I I I I I I I I � I I Ii ---T-llqw-yam-_ r � I I I ' ' ' I I I U C m � mmC y� ra � O Qj U NP �m 3 � i v o W ■ oo ILL R N . 2 CA I I I I I ' � 3 a � I y + a` C I. I I O w` Iti oy m E av f v 3 w 3 w u ' I u w CY � I •J• � I I I/ � I •� • © ._'.�'� T to I. a rc N � v i ro I n d E I CD.O N 0- 0 H o .o a LL v, E 0 {, �f'i,.i •�� � -moo c � r 111 N U u a 61I o>f0°� O Nna I I N m 0) �aoa m N N da y I r 0 L (6 Q3 I U � I J ,I � 1 N , I I I v I I o I I I W oo LL � I N I I I z CA o 0 fiy1 � 3 1 , I , I , , I m E Q I C C a r m w I a o rn l rn r I — � I � w I • f J a= In o n p V 1O a C U V y 0 d O d Q W � i a ~, ii c C a 9 No O c v N a in QCOU C a LL u E Q, 0 v � av a ai o a c lu a as=i ill N U a m v I I v I I - + 1 4 - ^ v m CD I � o I I L I � 41 — C 1 � m U u I J ,N v A f I w I W a It I N CA I 0 3 I o I I I I y s _ o w 3 U- LL C C ui m t7 L lL Q� LL I c I =o C � C C fll � O � N O VI d' LL] c N _ i w a � E a e � o � N a �0B a v v O .o O LL u E O Mom. m.va E ffl N U u a m ■�� A }ƒ ƒ ���---�--� w . � -- - --- - - ----- - --------------, , ' � u a- c K(\�\\ m ƒ § e :he dE2 ¥J� - ( a x , _ ) � $ \ _ .) ! - k =2 L) ' /\)ƒ ; 0.)/ \||| }ƒ �\} _ §22�= �0N ( a \®�\ /}\{ a 0 U d C fo C) m N O 0)'— n aj U u m O -J o o a a 0 Lb O V c 0 � Q 2 W N -------------- - I = c I� I _ U c 1-� I m ro cn a a o m I V � I r6 j m I O V I U I � I � ' I � ' I o I I I I I I ' I N I I � OO lL � I N I I I E o ' 3 I I o I I F I I I I � I I = I c I � I � I I o I � � w C .y N d J .- g I a o � m I � 1 O U s I c U v u o d t � W m O = I N b N G �q E E a d oNCL a J I� 0 a M a 0 0 O LL O � a c �Umaci U W N U.aE 111 N U u a m 0 o O d Z N ------------------------------------------------------ cma, ,_.� ' » ! - _ -28 ® ' , E u E )(\/ ( CD / Ln j = e a3l� E . ' 0 t - ` . 0 \ � , ! , , . m ; LL �0. z z ��� , . . { -.. -�-- •� " ) � \ .') / # \ 3v 2 , \\)2 )))/ J!||| 2 )ƒ �\\ o . { \ [ � }\\$! . ., . of 5 © bt! 2\/}\ / w w Y ----- - -----------------_. ---T- r - - - - _ -_. ._ _ _... _I rY ' I W � 3 r � r U C p fo I I m 3LLm r^ Q) � m 1 I U) �a x ' O 01'— o I ' U C Q I •O � C � (6 m V O' u I I l 0 I o l I 1 I N N C 3 0 � I o � � I 1 ' I I � aF, I o o . I W � I � C C R _ _ y U : V Q C W ' a a) ou I c a- J .� d D U o ? c U v u O d t � W � O � a a -o 0 0 a W u E 0 o a ti srw E a c O � N o r � U m N u a IDa cs I N (E k\ /§ |!4 $l Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application PART I: GENERAL INFORMATION Local Sponsor Collier County Coastal Management Program Federal ID Number (FEID) 59-6000558 Primary Contact Name Andrew Miller Title Manager Mailing Address Line 1 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Unit 103 Mailing Address Line 2 City Naples zip Code 34104 Telephone Number 239-252-2922 Email Address andrew.miller@colliercountyfl.com Additional Contact Information Joshua Thomas Grants Coordinator I, 239-252-6048 Joshua.Thomas@colliercountyfl.gov PART II: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that all information provided with this application is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Local Sponsor Electronic or scanned signatures accepted. Printed Name Burt L Saunders, Chairman Date Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application PART III: EVALUATION CRITERIA 1. Project Name: (as listed in the Strategic Beach Management Plan) South Marco Island Beach Renourishment Project 2. Project Description: Include county, location with reference to DEP range monuments, brief project history, and description of proposed activities. The South Marco Island Beach Renourishment Project is located on the southwest Florida coastline of Collier County between Florida Department of Environmental Protection monuments from reference monument R-144 to R-148+600 (G-4). The project's borrow area is the Caxambas Pass Borrow Area with upland sand mines permitted as supplemental sand sources. Structural repair of five existing erosion control structures was completed in 2013/14. The South Marco Island Beach Renourishment Project was then renourished through truck haul methods in November of 2016 with approximately 13,200 cubic yards of beach compatible material to offset storm damages caused by Tropical Storm Debby. Approximately 80,000 cy of dredged material from Caxambas Pass was placed in the South Marco Island Beach project area in March of 2020. Additionally, emergency sand placement occurred on the dry beach in June 2023 following the passage of Hurricane Ian. This project includes yearly physical beach monitoring, beach tilling, and environmental monitoring as required by FDEP and USACE permits. FDEP staff has previously determined that 53.96% of the project is eligible for state cost share. Monitoring funds are requested in this application. Construction is anticipated in FY2027/2028. It is of note that a portion of the monitoring funding is to be allocated toward Collier County salaries and fringe benefits. Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application 3. Use of Requested Program Funds: Provide a brief description of tasks to be completed in each requested phase (Feasibility, Design, Construction, Monitoring, or USACE Multiphase). Indicate which tasks are cost reimbursement from previous fiscal years. Monitoring - Physical and turtle monitoring and beach tilling funds. It is of note that a portion of the monitoring funding is to be allocated toward Collier County salaries and fringe benefits. 4. Map: Provide as an attachment. The map(s) of the project area must be formatted at a minimum of 1" = 200' scale and include a compass rose and legend. Map elements must include: 1. Project boundary: DEP reference monuments and shoreline designated as critically eroded 2. Eligibility: Indicate lengths of eligible shoreline based on criteria outlined in Chapter 6213-36.007, F.A.C. a. Beach access locations: indicate primary or secondary access, and include the shoreline length, number and location of auto parking spaces, mass transit stops, bike parking spaces, and public restroom facilities within 1 /4 mile walking distance of each access b. Public lodging establishments: include the length fronting the project shoreline, and include the length of street -side frontage for lodging within 1 /4 mile walking distance of a secondary beach access location 3. Recreational benefits: Comprehensive list of current land use designations of properties fronting the project shoreline (see attached maps) 4. Value of upland property: Include one -quarter mile buffer and provide a comprehensive list of the values of properties (data from year 2024) that are enclosed or intersected by the buffer. The 2024 property value tax roll data and ArcGIS shapefiles can be obtained from the Department of Revenue website: https://floridarevenue.com/property/Pages/ DataPortal_RequestAssessmentRoliGISData.aspx. See Guidance Document for more information. 5. Project length: Total restored project length (in feet) of the critically eroded area (as listed in the Strategic Beach Management Plan). Just Value Total: $2,894,787,662 4,130 feet Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application 6. Eligibility: Required for all beach projects pursuant to Chapter 6213-36.007, F.A.C. Provide as a separate attachment, if needed. • Location/Access Name: Use the official name of the park or road that is associated with the public access. • DEP Reference Monument: Use the DEP monument that is closest to the main public access location. • Type of Access: Indicate Primary or Secondary beach access in accordance with the definitions in Chapter 6213-36, F.A.C. • Width of Access/Frontage: The length of the legal boundary (in feet) of the public access or lodging along the beach project shoreline. For public lodging establishments that do not front the beach, indicate the street -side length of the legal property boundary (in feet) that is used as the main access to the establishment. • Number of Eligible Units: A unit is defined as one automobile parking space, one rental unit in a public lodging establishment, one mass transit stop, or four bicycle parking spots. • Additional Width from Eligible Units: Total distance (feet) added to the Width of Access/Frontage. If there are multiple types of eligibility units used for this calculation, show the calculation separately for each. • Total Eligible Shoreline: Sum of the Width of Access/Frontage and Additional Width from Eligible Units columns. Eligible shorelines cannot overlap. • Website Link for DBPR License: Provide the link to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) website for proof of licensure for any public lodging establishments used for eligibility or the Recreational Benefits ranking criteria. Location/ Access Name DEP Reference Monument Type of Access Width of Access/ Frontage (ft) Number of Eligible Units g Additional Width from Eligible Units Total Eligible Shoreline (ft) Website Link for DBPR License Marco Beach Ocean Resort R-143 Secondary 117 60 0 117 Hilton Marco Island Beach R-144 Secondary 500 320 0 500 mPs.uwww.myn°gym°ro°�s..�°mru�° City South Beach Public Assess R-144 Secondary 20 90 4,752 4,772 N/A Marriott Crystal Shores R-144 .2 Secondary 362 71 0 362It, psO----yf°r-°CeOSeC—L— Marco Beach Vacation Suites R-147 Secondary 400 30 0 400 N/A Swallow Ave R-148 Secondary 20 70 37696 27680 N/A Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application 7. Schedule and Budget: Provide as a separate attachment, if needed. Clearly indicate project phase: Feasibility (F), Design (D), Construction (C), Monitoring (M), or USACE Multiphase (USACE). Include the year of post -construction monitoring in the description. 8. Cost Reimbursement: Specify eligible costs incurred during the three years prior to the current application's fiscal year that are not in current DEP agreem nt and have not been reimbursed (this includes fiscal years 23/24, 24/25 and 25/26. Eligible costs will be added to the current funding request. 9. Current and Future Costs: Specify eligible costs for the current application's fiscal year that are not in a current DEP agreement and have not been reimbursed as well as the estimated costs for the next 4 years. Note: If Construction costs are requested in the. current fiscal year, then the Year 1 Post -Construction Monitoring costs will be added to the current funding request Fiscal Year Project Phase Description Federal Cost State Cost Local Cost Total Cost 23/24 23/24 23/24 24/25 24/25 24/25 25/26 25/26 25/26 26/27 Monitoring Physical, Turtle, Shorebird, Tilling $0 $41,300 $112,225 $153,525 26/27 26/27 27/28 Construction Beach Nourishment and Services $0 $1,346,500 $3,653,500 $5,000,000 27/28 Monitoring Physical, Turtle, Shorebird, Tilling $0 $45,100 $122,200 $167,300 27/2a Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application Fiscal Year Project Phase Description Federal Cost State Cost Local Cost Total Cost 28/29 Monitoring Physical, Turtle, Shorebird, Tilling $0 $49,100 $133,300 $182,400 28/29 28/29 29/30 Monitoring Physical, Turtle, Shorebird, Tilling $0 $53,500 $145,300 $198,800 29/30 29/30 30/31 Monitoring Physical, Turtle, Shorebird, Tilling $0 $58,400 $158,300 $216,700 30/31 30/31 8. Tourism -related impacts: Criteria is calculated by the Department using 2024 data. For reference, tax data can be obtained from the Department of Revenue website: https://floridarevenue.com/DataPortal/Pages/TaxResearch.aspx See Guidance Document for mote information. C, Current funding request includes construction and year one post -construction monitoring C, Project is managed by two or more counties Additional comments 9. Federal involvement: The documentation to verify authorization, federal cost share percentage, and status of funding award must be provided with the application materials for the award of points. Is the project Federally authorized by the USACE? Authorization Year: Expiration Year: Does this project have a signed USACE Chief's report or Civil Works Congressional authorization for the requested phase? USACE federal cost share percentage for this project (excluding FCCE): Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application Select all that apply for the requested project phase(s) and include documentation with application materials. C Executed USACE project agreement C Included in USACE work plan C Approved FEMA Project Worksheet C Included in Congressional Appropriations Act C Other documentation: 10. Storm damage reduction benefits: Criteria is calculated by the Department. What is the volume (cy) of advanced nourishment lost since the last sand placement event of a beach restoration or nourishment project as measured above the Mean High Water contour? Data should be consistent with the annual post -construction monitoring reports. For restoration projects, what is the historical erosion rate? 11. Cost effectiveness: Criteria is calculated by the Department. A project design analysis and supporting documentation must be provided with the application materials for the award of points. See Guidance Document for more information. What is the proposed sand placement volume (cy)? What is the nourishment interval (years)? Select all that apply for the current project funding request: C Enhanced longevity: Propose structural or design components that could extend the beach nourishment interval C Dune addition: Incorporate new or enhanced dune structures or new or existing dune restoration and revegetation projects C Innovative technology: Propose innovative technologies designed to reduce project costs C Regionalization: Two or more local sponsors manage projects together or projects propose regional sediment management strategies to conserve sand resources or reduce project costs Additional comments for storm damage reduction benefits and cost effectiveness Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application 12. Previous state commitment Has the Department previously reviewed, approved, and cost -shared on a feasibility or design phase for this project? � Has the current proposed project phase(s) received a partial state appropriation within 3 years of phase completion?� Additional comments 13. Accessible beach area: Criteria is calculated by the Department. Provide additional information for consideration. Describe the landward and seaward edge of the accessible beach width Provide the project boundaries (R-monuments) Provide citations of reference sources 14. Recreational benefits: Provide the percentage of linear footage within the project boundaries which is zoned recreational or open space; for commercial use; or to allow for public lodging establishment, or the equivalent. Provide additional documentation and DBPR website link in a separate attachment, if needed. 15. Mitigation of inlet effects: Criteria is calculated by the Department. Additional comments 16. Successive unfunded requests Is the current proposed project phase(s) a successive, unfunded request? If so, how many years of successive request(s) is the current application? C Does the successive request add the construction phase? Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application 17. Environmental habitat enhancement: Criteria is calculated by the Department. See Guidance Document for more information. Is the project within a designated critical habitat area for threatened or endangered species that is subject to extensive shoreline armoring? Is the project within a non -designated area where extensive shoreline armoring threatens the habitat of threatened or endangered species? If yes to either of the above, does the project exceed best management practices to incorporate turtle - friendly designs and management strategies to protect resources or benefit critical habitat preservation? Provide an explanation and supporting documentation for the strategies which exceed best management practices 18. Readiness to construct Does the project have an active state permit? Permit number Authorization date Expiration date Does the project have an active federal permit? Permit number Authorization date Expiration date Have all necessary easements been acquired for the upcoming or proposed construction phase? Has the necessary local funding been secured for the proposed project? If so, provide a copy of the draft Resolution. Is an Erosion Control Line established along the project length? Additional comments for readiness to construct C C Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Beach Projects Application Provide additional information and comments below or attach supporting documents. 3ir F." O U - - - - - - - - L - - - _ - - - - - - - - fo a) = O o �vLLmm av ro o �°°Z_ Z � rns ' o � d� o U c 4 $ L ro , (3) V 75 ro m � U O J , n Q 0 0 w ri J '� C V p m E 0 U o O W 0 N W O w a j E m N E a C 3 • U � m a 201' in C �C O N rn N C U '6 � J V C � a a® c LL � a N t p U m � i f vLLmM o Cm� z s a y =3 a) U o U ra � U p m' J o i!/ m i n n c a E o o r N V U K C OL j Q O N a O_ Z aj v0®Dj v� �o n L zw �S m �> c c 2 -00 u m w Ln ad+ Ntga$' 0 4 N Y U v a) i O N =� o U m L fv��m mfu ��� Z g U c 4 o L p L V > _ ...... O M U u '�T, J J `\I �a _o n o E o z� aS, o+ v � > o r- c ce � 3 0 w O O U v° Y m c 4.. mUfOE � �i� v vun OI Z N V a •--i N _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - mml]WM IV - 1 ro d ;5 N U ccr0 , M ; ,p i z say a) U � o > O ru U O J I I I I ,I I � v o I I I I N O LL O N � I I I I I 3 p S � Q .° w IF O m y C 7 I a O d ALL. W 16 W LT Iti d I I j J I _ l c LT f a i n 0 C C N m C Ny u E. c-6 I a ~ v o I I 9 0 0¢ v C N a I y I I I I I I I I I I I y. X - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - , v j LL l u a &� N L p �� o U U LL m m CD m M L ru u r6 Z . � 0 cy,ra � ° t = O f ru m' m oo, o wr I � ♦ , I ``` """���\\\III §� I � I � I \\ / Q N O _.- A , W C N u C 3 ,� •� m U f O O m: u 0 1 w w � 1 I I o O , I � > m I 3 O / d H \ Cb 0 ----------- 0 E n it ° m � c -0. ° O u V L N p� L 0Cv NI Nu 1 I Z ti N Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Inlet Projects Application PART I: GENERAL INFORMATION Local Sponsor Collier County Coastal Management Program Federal ID Number (FEID) 59-6000558 Primary Contact Name Andrew Miller Title Manager Mailing Address Line 1 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Unit 103 Mailing Address Line 2 City FNaples Zip Code 34104 Telephone Number 239-252-2922 Email Address andrew.miller@colliercountyfl.com Additional Contact Information Joshua Thomas Grants Coordinator I, 239-252-6048 Joshua.Thomas@colliercountyfl.gov PART II: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that all information provided with this application is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Local Sponsor Electronic or scanned signatures accepted. Printed Name Burt L Saunders, Chairman Date Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Inlet Projects Application PART III: EVALUATION CRITERIA 1. Project Name: As listed in the Inlet Management Plan (IMP) or Strategic Beach Management Plan (SBMP) Wiggins Pass Inlet Management 2. Project Description: Include county, location with reference to DEP range monuments, brief project history, and description of proposed activities. The Wiggins Pass Project is located on the southwest Florida coastline in Collier County between FDEP monuments R-16 and R-17. The initial phase of the latest Inlet Management Plan Study was implemented in 2013 for maintenance dredging and initial realignment of the channel. In 2015, an interim maintenance dredging project cleared the shoal across the main inlet entrance channel. Material was placed in the ebb shoal disposal area north of the channel and within the flood shoal disposal. In Spring 2018, dredging split 2/3 of the total volume to the north and 1/3 of the total volume to the south to maintain the navigation of the inlet, refine and reinforce the alignment begun with the 2013 project. In March 2020 the County conducted a small interim dredging project, but due to storms since this project completion, the County needed an emergency dredging project to remove shoals that impeded navigation. As such, Wiggins Pass was dredged between January 26, 2022 and March 10, 2022. The County is planning on conducting a complete maintenance channel dredging in 2025 pending receipt of Federal permit modification. Based upon that schedule, the County anticipates conducting an interim channel dredging in 2027/2028. The requested funds are for design and monitoring. FDEP staff have determined that the project is eligible for a 50% state cost share. It is of note that a portion of the monitoring funding is to be allocated toward Collier County salaries and fringe benefits. Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Inlet Projects Application 3. Use of Requested Program Funds: Provide a brief description of tasks to be completed in each requested phase (Feasibility, Design, Construction, or Monitoring). Indicate which tasks are cost reimbursement from previous fiscal years. The requested funds are for design and monitoring. No requests from previous years. 4. Map: Provide as an attachment. • Format: The project area must be formatted at a minimum of 1" = 200' scale and include a compass rose and legend. • Required elements: Project boundary, DEP reference monuments, shoreline designated as critically eroded, area of inlet influence, and permitted sand bypassing placement area 5. Project length: Total restored project boundary (in feet) as listed in the IMP or SBMP. 110,560feet 6. Schedule and Budget: Provide as a separate attachment, if needed. Clearly indicate project phase: Feasibility (F), Design (D), Construction (C), or Monitoring (M). Include the year of post -construction monitoring in the description. 7. Cost Reimbursement: Specify eligible costs incurred during the three years prior to the current application's fiscal year that are not in a current DEP agreement and have not been reimbursed (this includes fiscal years 23/24, 24/25 and 25/26). Eligible costwill be added to the current funding request. 8. Current and Future Costs: Specify eligible costs for the current application's fiscal year that are not in a current DEP agreement and have not been reimbursed as well as the estimated costs for the next 4 years. Note: If Construction costs are requested in the current fiscal year, then the Year 1 Post -Construction Monitoring costs will be added to the current funding request. Fiscal Year Project Phase Description Federal Cost State Cost Local Cost Total Cost 23/24 23/24 23/24 24/25 24/25 24/25 Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Inlet Projects Application Fiscal Year Project Phase Description Federal Cost State Cost Local Cost Total Cost 25/26 25/26 25/26 26/27 Design Permit Modification FDEP $0 $21,500 $21,500 $43,000 26/27 Design Interim Dredging Design $0 $75,000 $75,000 $150,000 26/27 Monitoring Environmental & Physical Monitoring, and Tilling $0 $65,000 $65,000 $131,000 27/28 Construction Interim Dredging Construction $0 $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 27/28 Design Permitting $0 $75,000 $75,000 $150,000 27/28 Monitoring Environmental & Physical Monitoring, and Tilling $0 $71 ,400 $71,400 $142,800 28/29 Design Full Channel Dredge Design $0 $84,000 $84,000 $168,000 28/29 Monitoring Environmental & Physical Monitoring, and Tilling $0 $78,000 $78,000 $156,000 28/29 29/30 Construction Full Channel Dredge Construction $0 $900,400 $900,400 $1,800,800 29/30 Monitoring Environmental & Physical Monitoring, and Tilling $0 $67,500 $67,500 $135,000 29/30 30/31 Design Interim Dredging Design $0 $105,869 $105,869 $211,737 30/31 Monitoring Environmental & Physical Monitoring, and Tilling $0 $73,575 $73,575 $147,150 30/31 Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Inlet Projects Application 7. Sand reaching the inlet Provide the estimated annual quantity (cubic yards) of beach quality sand reaching the 20,600 cubic yards per year. updrift boundary of the improved jetty or inlet channel: 8. Severity of erosion Provide the annual bypassing objective (cubic yards/year) adopted by the IMP or SBMP or 20,600cy/yr (1/3 south,2/3 north) as determined by a Department -approved study: 6,867 cy/yr to the south 13,733 cy/yr to the north 9. Balancing the sediment budget Provide the current annual average of bypassed material (cubic yards) since the adoption 40,225 cy since 2018 of a bypass objective: Provide a brief description of when the last sediment budget engineering analysis was completed for the inlet and area of inlet influence. Discuss any proposals to update the sediment budget. Dredging: 2011: 49,900 cy removed from Wiggins Pass. 2013: 107,370 cy removed from Wiggins Pass 2015: 9,400 cy removed from Wiggins Pass and channel. 2018: 96,000 cy removed from Wiggins Pass and channel. 2020: 48,041 cy removed from Wiggins Pass. 2022: 66,033 cy removed from Wiggins Pass and channel. The 1995 Inlet Management Study and corresponding strategic beach management plan was implemented starting in 2001. A new study was completed in 2012, permitted and initiated in 2013. FDEP approved the final plan in April 2018. Since adoption, the bypassing objectives have been met. Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Inlet Projects Application Historical bypassing volumes: In the table below, provide the annual bypassing volumes (cubic yards/year), for the previous ten years (from the last calendar year or the most recent calculation). Attach additional documentation as needed. Year Quantity Bypassed (cy) - Sand Transfer Plant Quantity Bypassed (cy) - Dredging Dredge Location Placement or Disposal Area 2013 661064 Ebb Shoal (remaining dredged material not bypassed) R 12-R 16 2014 2015 91400 Ebb Shoal and Interior Channel R15.5-R16 2016 2017 2018 53,396 Ebb Shoal and Interior Channel R12-R14 2019 2020 48,041 Ebb Shoal R12-R14 and R18-R20 2021 2022 661033 Ebb Shoal and Interior Channel R18 and R20 2023 2024 Total per method 0 242,934 Total bypass volume Years since IMP adoption Annual average bypass Bypass objective 242,934 cy 7 years (2018 34,705 cy/yr (2018-2023) 20,600 cy/yr Percentage of bypass objective: 168.47 % Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Inlet Projects Application 10. Increased bypassing and cost-effectiveness Provide the estimated increase in annual bypassing of sand (cubic None proposed at this time yards/year) proposed for the project: Provide the estimated shortfall of annual bypassing of sand (cubic None yards/year) within the inlet system: Is the proposed project requesting construction phase funds for a major inlet management project component? No If yes, and for the award of points for the cost-effectiveness of using inlet sand criteria, provide an opinion of probable cost per unit volume of the inlet and all other sand sources, certified by a licensed professional engineer. 11. Inlet Management Plans Select all that apply: Existing IMP: The proposed project has an existing IMP or completed Inlet Management Study that has been approved by the Department. Updated IMP: The Department has received and approved an update to an existing IMP in the C form of a current Inlet Management Study/sediment budget analysis within the previous five years, or there is an update proposed to an existing IMP in the current application. C New IMP: A new inlet management study is proposed for submission to the Department for an adoption in an IMP. 12. Enhanced longevity of proximate beach nourishment projects Annualized beach nourishment volume of proximate beach nourishment project: 13. Active permits Does the project have an active state permit? Yes Permit number: 0142538-015-JN Authorization date: 1/2/2013 Expiration date: 1/2/2028 80,000 CY maintenance (30,0 Does the project have an active federal permit? Yes Permit number: AAJ-2004-07621(IP-MJD) Authorization date: 2/13/2013 Expiration date: 2/13/2025 Beach Management Funding Assistance Program Local Government Funding Request Fiscal Year 2026/2026 Inlet Projects Application 14. Federal funds available Does the proposed project have federal funds available? If so, provide supporting documentation. 15. Secured local funds Has the necessary local funding been secured for the proposed project? If so, provide a copy of the draft Resolution. Additional comments No Yes - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .--i 0 m I � c fo m U U o I m cn cv fu I -+ W a N o m (n Z :3 c a� 9md� U c o L l0 > 5 x 75 I I — (U U 0 Jo I I I 0 I � I � I I W o LLL I � I N ' I � I z Cl) o o � I I I ' a � _ I a� I • j I 0- 1u-+ Iv c U Irn 3 N L O 0 c 0 w Q a I > c v r d rn c C O 0 d (n U Q I c I .o I N I I I � y I u Q a 0 . v a N N i N �00 N � O o+ v 3 m � c o > C� c c 3 o'o v°moo, mv�E (iI N V U n O IN d Z N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I O I Om I (a N U ( o f `wLL�M N m � d� :3 N C 3 U C o L m x I O (O m U p J I o I i I I I I w 0 LL 0 � I N I I ) o I '} I � I oa I ' 2 � I � CL I � W / M M C U u E LZ O� O1 3' 3 N (UO O O C I C U U CL v I V .0 W W N in F I f I , I O � 3 3 V�i U m U Q c 'c 0 N 1n y u Q a � v on ry N C N 0 �00 • N O iS � v o ''. o �M5 0 o "oo N (i N V U n OI N d Z ry - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M I UJ 0 I 0m LL (a Xfu m o W a- a 2c co p = W C 9 _ f U C o N m U CU m J 1� I I o I I I � I O � o 1 W o ti I I I I I I I � I I I � I I Q I I c O I � V nl - I� � m E m l rn 3� 3 v I w O o 0 V G W W R 0 0 I , I I I C O � L ' N 3 C _ O O •• U Q G •C O N � y a n N • 0 •p ry � �00 N � ' � O �y O1 N 7 O � I C = 3 O d mv�E (AI N V U n ON d Z N l `f ;1 1 ;'f v � of I� I� Is u c - � a (1) -c-- fn m U fnru o s dLLOM`M .. CL m � Z ay a)c 0 s o �j Nru > U p J o m Q 0 0 o � w 2 0 a ' 3 0 E O o >�mo u a w w a LL. a c 0 N v � 0 0 a LL ti E 0 w rn $ 3 Ec w cZ0rY o u�mw �vv N B B GI Naa$' z 4 N avi Ea I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I � I I I I I � I I � I I I I I I Aga I • y '11 , c Ufuu d m (�D fu � M m d ¢� �n C :3 U c _L�� O U U p J ra EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Review of CAC Applicants OBJECTIVE: To make recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for appointment to the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC). CONSIDERATIONS: Mr. Bob Raymond's term expired on May 22, 2025. This seat represents the unincorporated area of Collier County. Mr. Raymond has reapplied, and a second applicant, Mr. Thomas D. Sabourin has also applied. County Ordinance indicates that Advisory Boards and Councils are encouraged to make recommendation on vacancies to the Board of County Commissioners. Attached is a recap of the applicants for this vacancy. Please review these applicants with the goal to make recommendations for appointment to these CAC vacancies. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote for approval. — CMG RECOMMENDATION: To review applicants and make recommendations for appointment to the CAC vacancy. PREPARED BY: Andrew Miller, Coastal Zone Management *Per Ordinance Ma bersh ip of ihi s Committec k I I k assembled ksM upon ftm iJ iorrty with oasts processes, inlet dynamics, cmtal aidnagement prgmms, oi demonstrated i nteresi 1 n uh pfogram �; rfJ evant education and expos ence; leadersh 1 p ad i nvol vemeol in co mmunity affairs; and wilIipgtss to ARtod mcc6 s aqd to undc take and complete COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) APPLICANTS 2021 Candidate Name Current Qualifications/Educational Background/Community Service Resident/ Meets Recommend Occupation Elector Ordinance Requirements Robert Raymond Retired Qualifications/Experience: Yes Yes Current member of the Coastal Advisory Committee Treasurer and founder Collier Citizens Council. Past Treasurer of the Greater Naples Better Government. Once served on the City of Naples Pension Board, Code Enforcement Board and Police Review Board. Retired from E I DuPont, Owned The Coffee Beanery (corner of 5t' &8' St S, Naples) Education: BS from Rochester Institute of Technology Community Service: Volunteered at the Naples Chamber of Commerce Visitor Center and was chief photographer for the Naples Chamber. Volunteered at the Naples Zoo and City of Naples Police Department. Page 2 Advisory Board Application Form Collier County Government 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252-8400 Application was received on: 05/28/2025 11:47:37 AM Name: Robert J Raymond Board or Committee: Coastal Advisory Committee Category (if Applicable): Representing the County Place of Employment? Retired Do you or your employer do business with the County? No How many years have you lived in Collier County? More than 15 Home many months out of the year do you reside in Collier County? I am a year-round resident Have you been convicted or found guilty of a criminal offense (any level felony or first degree misdemeanor only)? No Would you and/or any organizations with which you are affiliated benefit from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board? No Are you a registered voter in Collier County? Yes Do you currently hold an elected office? No Do you now serve, or have you ever served on a Collier County board or committee? Yes If yes, please list the boards / committees: Currently serve on Coastal Advisory Committee. Please list your community activities and positions held: Current Treasurer of Collier Citizen Council. Past positions: Served on City of Naples Pension Board, City of Naples Police Review Board, City of Naples Code Enforcement Board, Volunteer Naples Chamber of Commerce Visitors Center, Volunteer Photographer Naples Chamber, Volunteer Naples Police Department, Volunteer Naples Zoo, Volunteer Photographer for City of Naples, Volunteer Trainer Collier County Visitors Centers, Volunteer Photographer for several charitie organizations in Collier County, served on the committee to finish building Freedom Memorial, served on Naples Better Government Committee, served on the board of GSAC, served on the board of Collier County President's Council. Education: BS college degree Experience / Background: BS college degree COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) APPLICANTS 2025 Candidate Name Current Qualifications/Educational Background/Community Service Resident/ Meets Recommend Occupation Elector Ordinance Requirements Thomas D Retired Qualifications/Experience:Mangrove Action Group of Pelican Yes Yes Sabourin Bay, President Sienna Reserve HOA, Chair of ARC Background:B.S., Zoology, University of Michigan M.S. Marine Sciences, California State University Ph.D. Marine & Estuarine Biochemistry & Physiology, Louisiana State University Post -Doctorate NIH Fellowship, Oregon State University Marine Sciences Center Page 2 Advisory Board Application Form Collier County Government 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252-8400 Application was received on: 05/22/2025 12:22:53 PM Name: Thomas D Sabourin Board or Committee: Coastal Advisory Committee Category (if Applicable): Place of Employment? Retired Do you or your employer do business with the County? No How many years have you lived in Collier County? 5-10 Home many months out of the year do you reside in Collier County? I am a year-round resident Have you been convicted or found guilty of a criminal offense (any level felony or first degree misdemeanor only)? No Would you and/or any organizations with which you are affiliated benefit from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board? No Are you a registered voter in Collier County? Yes Do you currently hold an elected office? No Do you now serve, or have you ever served on a Collier County board or committee? No Please list your community activities and positions held: Mangrove Action Group of Pelican Bay, President Sienna Reserve HOA, Chair of ARC Education: B.S., Zoology, University of Michigan M.S. Marine Sciences, California State University Ph.D. Marine & Estuarine Biochemistry & Physiology, Louisiana State University Post -Doctorate NIH Fellowship, Oregon State University Marine Sciences Center Experience / Background: B.S., Zoology, University of Michigan M.S. Marine Sciences, California State University Ph.D. Marine & Estuarine Biochemistry & Physiology, Louisiana State University Post - Doctorate NIH Fellowship, Oregon State University Marine Sciences Center