The URL can be used to link to this page

CAC Agenda 10/13/2011 R Meeting Agenda and Notice COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2011 - 1:00 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS THIRD FLOOR, COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES •Sunshine Law on Agenda Questions •PUBLIC NOTICE 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 1. September 8, 2011 VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report 2. Project Cost Report 3. Clam Bay Markers 4. Long Range Funding Requests 5. Beach Easement-Verbal Report Only 6. Dune Restoration Report 7. FEMA Time Extension Requests-Tropical Storm Fay 8. Category"A" Ordinance Changes-Verbal Report Only VIII. New Business 1. Clam Pass Water Quality Presentation -Time Certain 1:15-2:30pm a. Backup Material b, Backup Material 2. Engineering Approval Marco South Renourishment a. Backup Material 3. Conceptual Design Presentation- Barefoo/Vanderbilt; Clam Pass/park Shore; Naples Beaches a. Presentation b. Backup Material - Including Technical Memo Dated 8/31/11 IX. Old Business 1.Wiggins Pass Channel Straightening Project Discussion 2. Potential Project Deferrals Discussion X. Announcements XI. Committee Member Discussion XII. Next Meeting Date/Location November 10, 2011 Government Center, 3rd Floor 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 Gail D. Hambright at (239) 252-2966. 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 3301 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. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO: Anthony P. Pires, Jr., Esq., Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee Clam Bay Subcommittee FROM: Colleen M. Greene, Assistant County Attorne DATE: March 18,2010 RE: Sunshine Law and Agenda question The issue presented is whether the Sunshine Law requires that an agenda be made available prior to board meetings. In summary,the answer is no. The Sunshine Law Manual(2009 Ed. Vol. 31)provides the following: The Attorney General's Office recommends publication of an agenda, if available, in the notice of the meeting;. if an agenda is not available, subject matter summations might be used. However, the courts have held that the Sunshine Law does not mandate that an agency provide notice of each item to be discussed via a published agenda. Such a specific requirement has been rejected because it could effectively preclude access to meetings by members of the general public who wish to bring specific issues before a governmental body. See Hough v. Stembridge, 278 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). And see Yarbrough v. Young, 462 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (posted agenda unnecessary; public body not required to postpone meeting due to inaccurate press report which was not part of the public body's official notice efforts). Thus, the Sunshine Law has been interpreted to require notice of meetings, not of the individual items which may be considered at that meeting. However, other statutes, codes or ordinances may impose such a requirement and agencies subject to those provisions must follow them. Accordingly, the Sunshine Law does not require boards to consider only those matters on a published agenda. "[W]hether to impose a requirement that restricts every relevant commission or board from considering matters not on an agenda is a policy decision to be made by the legislature." Law and Information Services, Inc. v. City of Riviera Beach, 670 So. 2d 1014, 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Today's Coastal Advisory Committee Clam Bay Subcommittee was properly noticed in compliance with the Sunshine Law on or about February 1, 2010. Further, the agenda for today's meeting was also publically noticed on the County's website on Monday, March 15, 2010. The related back-up materials for the agenda were supplemented and available on the County's website on Wednesday, March 17, 2010. In addition, a number of these materials also appeared on the agenda for the Coastal Advisory Committee meeting on Thursday, March 11, 2010. In my opinion,there is no violation of the Sunshine Law and no legal issue regarding the date the agenda was published. cc: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management CAC October 13,2011 VII-1 Staff Reports 1 of 8 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, September 8, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business Herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Randy Moity Jim Burke Murray Hendel Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios (Excused) Wayne Waldack ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples CAC October 13,2011 V8-1 Staff Reports 2 of 8 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view online. I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Waldack moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following changes: • New Business to be heard after Item VI. Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 7- 0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. May 12,2011 Gary McAlpin,Coastal Zone Management Director presented the Executive Summary"Recommendation to review and re-approve the May 12, 2011 CAC Minutes with revisions"dated September 8, 2011. Mr. Pires moved to re-approve the minutes of the May 12, 2011 Coastal Advisory Committee meeting subject to the following changes: • Page 4- 1. Regulatory and Permit Compliance—the motion for Grant approval for "Beach Tilling"was listed twice. Deletion of the duplicate approval. • Page 4— 1. Regulatory and Permit Compliance-addition of the motion "Mr. Pires moved to approve a Grant Request in the amount of$30,000 for the "Biological Monitoring Collier County 90033. Second by Mr. Moity. Carried unanimously 8-0." Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 7—0. 2. June 9,2011 Mr. Waldack moved to approve the minutes of the June 9, 2011 Coastal Advisory Committee meeting. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 7—0. VIII. New Business 1. Collier Bay Dredging Approval Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary"Recommendation to award Bid No.11-5763 to Energy Resources, Inc in the amount of$262,000 for the emergency CAC October 13,2011 VII-1 Staff Reports 3 of 8 dredging of Collier Bay entrance channel and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract after County Attorney approval" dated September 8, 2011. Mr. Moity moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners award Bid No. 11-5763 to Energy Resources,Inc. in the amount of$262,000 for the emergency dredging of Collier Bay. Second by Mr. Moreland. Motion carried 4 "yes"—3 "no." Chairman Sorey,Mr. Hendel and Mr. Pires voted "no." Mr. Pires stated his "no"vote was predicated on purchasing policy and bid evaluation concerns (he recognized the work is required and should be completed). Mr. Burke arrived at 1:23 p.m. 2. Conceptual Plan Approval—Marco South Renourishment a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary"Recommend Approval of the conceptual design and program approach to the Marco South Beach Renourishment project" dated September 8, 2011. Staff recommends the current approach for completing the project be modified due to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) funding concerns. Michael Poff,Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. provided the Slideshow "Marco Island Beach Alternatives Analysis— CAC, September 8, 2011. " The Committee requested Staff to place an item on a future meeting Agenda outlining the process involved for the establishment of Municipal Service Taxing Districts(MSTU's). Mr. Moity moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners authorize the expenditure of funds in the amount of$146,000 for completion of the engineering work for the southern part of Marco Island Beach. The intent of the motion was to complete Items#2 and #3 as listed in the Executive Summary. The Committee directed Staff to contact FEMA and request an extension of the funding deadline. Without a second, the motion was not considered. 3. Category "A" Ordinance Changes Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve and authorize Staff to advertise proposed amendments to the Tourist Development Tax Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended. Amendments include (1) delineating the allocation of administrative costs in support of Fund 194 Tourism Promotion, Fund 195 Beaches, and Fund 183 Beach Park Facilities, (2) incorporating into the ordinance the Category "A"Funding Policy approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and directing that the Funding Policy be CAC October 13,2011 VII-1 Staff Reports 4 of 8 included in the Collier County Administrative Code, (3) incorporating provisions of Section 125.0104(5)(A)1, Fla. Stat., relating to the use of Category "C"funds for museums, and(4) removing expired provisions pertaining to the use of certain revenues for tourism destination marketing"dated September 8, 2011. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney reported the Tourist Development Council recommended only proposed Amendment#1 be approved by the Board of County Commissioners.. Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve proposed Amendment#1 as outlined in the Executive Summary subject to the following change: • Ordinance Section 4b, Administrative Costs, line 2/3 —to read "...shall not exceed 15%of Category "A" Tourist Tax revenues." Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 8—0. 4. RFP Engineering Consultants Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary (dated September 8, 2011)"Obtain a recommendation of approval from the Coastal Advisory Committee to solicit an RFP for Engineering Consultants as required to provide: 1. Design Engineering and Permitting for the renourishment of the Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches 2. Design Engineering and Permitting for the Marco Island South Beach The Committee recommended the Scope of Work include a provision for recommendations to modify any conceptual plans related to the locations as necessary. Mr. Moreland moved to approve Staffs request to solicit a RFP for Engineering Consultants to provide: 1. Design Engineering and Permitting for the renourishment of the Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches 2. Design Engineering and Permitting for the Marco Island South Beach. Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously 8—0. 5. CEC Proposal for Marco South Beach Renourishment Design/Permitting Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary"Recommendation to award a $126,000 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants for the design and permitting required to obtaining a FDEP permit for the 2012 Marco South Beach renourishment project along with modifications to the existing USACE permit" dated September 8, 2011. No action was taken by the Committee. See Item VIII.2. 6. CEC Proposal for Construction,Administration Collier Creek- $18,650 Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary"Recommendation to award an $18,650 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants for construction support and project certification for the Collier Bay dredging project" dated September 8, 2011. CAC October 13,2011 VII-1 Staff Reports 5 of 8 Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners award an $18,650 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants,Inc. for construction support and project certification for the Collier Bay dredging project. Second by Mr. Waldack. Carried unanimously 8—0. 7. CEC Proposal for Processing JCP Application for Marco South Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to award an $20,000 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants develop and submit the JCP permit application to FDEP for the 2012 Marco South Beach renourishment project" dated September 8, 2011. No action was taken by the Committee. See Item VIII.2. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report—Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report—FY 2010—2011" updated through August, 2011. 2. Project Cost Report—Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the"FY 2010/2011 TDC Category "A: Beach Maintenance Projects"updated through August 29, 2011. 3. Clam Bay Marker Permit Update—USACE Letter Gary McAlpin presented a letter from the Chief Enforcement Officer of the US Army Corps of Engineers—Jacksonville District dated July 25, 2011 outlining the status of the Clam Bay Marker permits. Speaker Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club,Calusa Group 4. Beach Easement Executive Summary Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners on how to proceed with an Easement Agreement for use between Collier County and Beachfront Property Owners requiring the Property Owners to provide public beach access in exchange for publically funded major beach renourishment, vegetation planting and dune restoration to the subject property dated September 8, 2011 for information purposes. No action was taken by the Committee. 5. Report on Clam Bay Water Quality a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary"Recommendation to obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners on how to proceed with an easement agreement for use between Collier County and Beachfront Property CAC October 13,2011 VII-1 Staff Reports 6 of 8 Owners requiring the property owners to provide public beach access in exchange for publically funded major beach renourishment, vegetation planting and dune restoration to the subject property"dated September 8, 2011. Chairman Sorey reported it would be an "update" item with the Consultants requested to be in attendance at a future meeting to provide comment as necessary. Speaker Marcia Cravens,Sierra Club, Calusa Group Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Break: 3:01 p.m. Reconvened: 3:12 p.m. 6. Long Range Fund Requests with FDEP Gary McAlpin presented the document"FY 2012-13 Local Government Funding Request"-Project Name: Collier County Beach Nourishment Project dated September 8, 2011 for informational purposes. No action was taken by the Committee. 7. Captiva/Collier Combination Project a. Additional Backup Gary McAlpin presented an email to Gail Hambright from himself dated August 29, 2011 - Subject: CAC meeting 9-8-2011 Staff reports -Item #7 for information purposes. No action was taken by the Committee. 8. Critical Erosion Designation for Clam Pass Gary McAlpin presented the document"Critical Erosion Area Evaluation for Clam Pass Park and North Shore, Collier County, August 18, 2011." Speaker Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club,Calusa Group Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida No action was taken by the Committee. 9. Lee County Renourishment—Update Gary McAlpin presented an email to Gail Hambright from himself dated August 29, 2011 - Subject: CAC meeting 9-8-2011 Staff reports-Item #9 Florida Dock and Dredge - Ft. Myers Beach for informational purposes. No action was taken by the Committee. CAC October 13,2011 VII-1 Staff Reports 7 of 8 10. Wiggins Pass Straightening—Update Gary McAlpin presented the document"Scope of Work for preparation of Inlet Management Plan, County Environmental Impact Statement and geotechnical investigation for design and permitting of Wiggins Pass improvements for Contract#10- 5572-May 2011(revise August 31, 2011)" for informational purposes. No action was taken by the Committee. 11. Fund 195 Spending Analysis Gary McAlpin presented the document "195 Spending/Budget Analysis for Fiscal Year 2008/2009 through 2011/2012" for informational purposes. No action was taken by the Committee. 12. FEMA Fay Update and Revision Timing Gary McAlpin presented an email to Gail Hambright from himself dated August 29, 2011 - Subject: CAC meeting 9-8-2011 Staff reports -Item #12 FEMA-TS. Fay update/timing for informational purposes. No action was taken by the Committee. 13. Sensitivity Analysis Gary McAlpin presented the document "TDC Funds Sensitivity Analysis"dated September 8, 2011 for informational purposes. No action was taken by the Committee. IX. Old Business None X. Announcements 1. Mr. Pires 10 Year Service Award Gary McAlpin reported Mr. Pires was recognized for his ten years of service to the Coastal Advisory Committee. XI. Committee Member Discussion None XII. Next Meeting Date/Location October 13,2011 —Government Center,Administration Bldg. F,3rd Floor There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 3:52 P.M. CAC October 13,2011 VII-1 Staff Reports 8 of 8 Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee John Sorey, III, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended 0 2 \ f ` ur-z0g0[0 /k § ( NNNNN N ( a. OCO < - 0 I � -«--I��. . at- 0- -"§_;■k§kkgA£kk Bk0iKK.-04N.7K • ®m.w.t■o{KKEm ! kk[k2»;ZJ J E : N - / • k , a� §§§lR0-°-of 0 t ! ,e .,,a222�kkg.i§ O »»»2. ■ § k ( § | nr-V4:18g I >2 ® ` - k kVg[§§m'Sgi: i -me§■0.Sq U • k■a,rrw_aa� ! - 88888000Q ■ ! 222»»Q=.#^2# # k43 NN�kkkk § 0 - t - mm9m=;■ m • nvweiVVatottiwei C 00 ; 9 0EEI!e l E Iti ,3n ,447 k . • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 , 1 1 i O I N 10 , I ei O 1 1 1 Q. a 0 ik 1 I • m I I OVIc_o I o ,-- t I < = 0 I ' U> N 1 1 I 1 1 ' H I rn 01 V' V' 1 '-1 H 1 CO N Or N I V' N I co N N In 1 N co H 1 CJ) Ul CA CO U) V. Cl) In I co co w N 1 a‘H Or < 01 In 1 rl 1 r l H H rn I H M H C. H w I H O H 0 1 0 0 0 H H E. H I ' I I W In ' CO N rn CO 1 01 0, a rn 1 a w a CO a H r.A4 W I a a N < W In 1 W N CA CO W H W In 1 W W H a Cl) V' 1 co o co C!I Ul U) 01 I Cl) U) 0 v 1 m In 1 a 1-1 I N N 1 CO 1 1 N I Or N N 01 1 d' '.CD7 N I a In C 0 a N a ,--I-I I a a N 4 H I 4 0 FC 4 In FC N 4 44 ron 1 H r-, 1 N rl I N 1 I I F rl ' N H V1 I ,-.1 H 1.--7 01 r-) I(r1 ) NN I 14 r 1 r-i U Cj H I C V' b Or a o ' In 1 aNj h ..4, h N 1 h h > W H I H rn 1 w 1 1 H I I C4 '1. 1 N 2 v' N o ' Z m 0, i-J M 1 C) rn C) V' ... CO :.J N I '7. iJ w W h o 1 h o 17 h CO h N h I7 0 a; H i H In N I N * V' 1 0) Q I 41 * I H I * I H I * >1 I H r' H H' v, H y' o .,,, H In 1 I 0 1 CO r Or H CO F' r1 I , N E N , a M * U 0 0) I CO ,a' I Z w K Hi C) r1 1 in [I) C) W 1 N r I N W C) U I 41 H H * I to W I * * N I H 01 m ' < o Cx w I * Ln CCI)• Cl) a' O 1 a H < a N 1 ,- rx H Al F>r' o I a: CA a: CO H W a d' I O a U ��Uiii a 0, C) a, N H a, v' I a; a a Or • a 4 o ' U d H-1 O a a < N a < N I x a H < CO • a N I N E H 0 rl H 0 In HH Z w I n H W U l 0 H N 1 >, * N 1 * 01 * CO * o * 0 * * v' * * * 5 CO * NN * CO * i * < CO HI O • M 1 H H In N U In ; V' o 0 H N R'' n 01 O co N H CA CO a7 N W sr CA N a) CO CA Cl) N .7 W N W CO W CO W 0 W N CA FA PI a0 CL, or C=, N C:, C�, o Cx. r{ 44 1,4 Ho LO o W U d n CO H 7y �y �j co in < W < CO /y �0 W o F+' I C` h w 1) m t-D I7 N 17 w 10 F-' 01 or 01 C) U N H ' 111 O H N O 01 CO N.. Or U .d' U ' U rn U N U -I U U CO H CA 01 CA In CA w W r'I W CO a a o H a N q In a a w a 0 o N In In N N H N N r1 U H� --..s, H N > CO C N H Hi ,7 ON r7 J N o 0 Or O N 0 <r 0 ° 0 0 0 OO H .H z V' U) 01 z z 1 In •' w O 1 N H H rl w N Cr H N H rN H H H H INn o• H N H N O N U CO 0 CO O N O co U U c rn O N O r1 O N 0 0 a U .4' H v W H H N W 0 N N vi O d N : co is oU1 co Q _ O U > ce, U) O U) N U) N U) N C!) O CO N U) CC • U) in U) i)) H CV U) Ul a H a M PI] N < N a N < •� N w o 4 r R a a, r rY m r Q w N H 10 . (-■ M E-> m H lD , F 1n F N E-+ a) F H F F 1a H• N 0 <V H N 0 10 O CO O N O h O Lc 0 0 ,-c ID F H F F M F r F F M H m H n) H H W a al a H a N a VV'' a iinn a in a IRn' a, C : a a N a, W H W a' W a) Cl) .4r Cl) sr W N W M Cl) N . W W H U) U) In U) N Cr, Crl U) 01 U) En a, Cl) M CO Cl) O H , 10 r, d' In IC I o m H In N ID N In w C) j 7 0 N D w 0 N U a 0 LO CD N C'.) N C7 C7 .:r r U) N J In C) N 0 C r w 4 d w Kt M 4 H 4 d' RC < o < N 4 4 oM CN a U) r- >, F al H in a) 10 N CV In 01 1 a m ) M a o ) H a N a 'a t j p r D a r C 0 h h r h H h r h w h h CO h 10 h r; ON O C)) 10 N C') N U It) l D U g 10 10 H ` to 0 a' tz Q; M >■ z 0 m z 10 7 a3 U) W U) N V' Z r U) U) m W D r C) CO * C) m C) N U) m V C h N h N * I') M h r h 10 h h N h l`"' h h O H M M I * r-i a' ui ai N * Cl) O a 41 0 V' a M N M a, N * C`a O H I 04 >' o * >+ CO H H * )' 1') H o <>' m >' a1 >' M ?' >4 1n M * lD �✓ 0 * r4 10 a, C>) a 1D >. m cV 5 r Ca* Z M E lD Ix S L N E. m Z H .7E r E m U H* U) C) H * N �.., N * C) H C) a * * H In Z 01 0 co E o rC N x M W r a H * * In a U) �a r x a N - lx H JCL' u) W 0: d' 'AI lD 0 0) I.I D:: CA x 1n < -n> U) Oa O CDC4 O as O a:a H aa, r M Hal O as ,a rx 44 (T) F. Kt `" ZrC a� N H� co F N U4 n U4 N CC N a C< w UQQ�� in Z 0 H H W M F 0 )n rt; U d• C 0 H F-) E U) 0; C H N H a:* 0\ * CO * N * 0) * In * al * a, N * U) * * V'Hi H F* in * H rn * U) * i * 2 PC N N * ° * X C * N * Z * 1D r) N H N V' CO N >' N C.) M i O H N N a> CO V. N U1 1G ■ G N O W C: U) W W H . a) O cn V' ❑7 a7 al (N W lD 1/) W N (..) Cl) m W 10 W 0) W In W M W CO W ID C17 in Cl) Cl) M C,, V' C:. H R. Co W M Ci. r fl. M R. O Ix, o 4, R, H 04 a1 H LI) H N a, O W 01 w w H a a in in in V. a1 O : m ti m O U m m H < o Q (::3-1 H ��7y r U � N IN h V' h m h N � al F-) in F) FD ON O 1D H a) H H 0 H m CO 10 a1 10 N m ^ a1 U H U a U 01 CI in U N U r CU H U I.C) C) U 10 H W .CD W N - Cz7 N W ID Cl) V W v' W W W M W C37 O H q H Ca o Ca in C) a1 C) M C] H C) N Ca lD q Ca o 0 M H H ■ H 1D II) N 10 I N I) ' O O N N M l0 in 0) M O 'J 0 C H ) O J N ;> H C O J m .> H ✓ C N o O N O H O H 0 w O m O r 0 a) 0 in 0 O H H Z Z m Z M 2 In Z in Z Z a) Z H Z Z 10 H , U) N In CI M 1-1 M ID V' N H N N o F H F In H o F-, Ir, H e' F In E-, m E-' Ir) H F In M U H U u) C) o1 U V' U V' U M U a,, U o U U m M O H 0 V. O H 0 rr, O r 0 O r- O m 0 0 m C-7 m M I M i H r- 41 r) I v' co § N CO 2 § 00 N K cc e ' d a >2 c § �\ e ° § J M cci. Mrci. _cc; _ .0ƒ � � 0 o ! \- 0 co CO 4 n ** an an 4 o > st I ®I ] \ _ ■_ _ ~ 7 IN \ ! _ ; 2 \ k § N § VI 5 3 5 5 5/ IN \ a k el m \ \\ VA IA / I- I- in ® ^ 2 k \ } \ _ _ \K Ili - kz _ N 10 0 0 N & CC 2 \ _ID K u.i§ M. ! \ % k k \ \ §\ \ N & ƒ k \ \ k \ VI \\ kCI CC kk t \ \ \ \ \ \ \ in It k \ \ \ ` k\/§ }/ ?tI 1111 / \ ( k B \ \ \ \ \ 0 § k k r r. r $ 2 k -t -, CO � E § k _ _to m co m in _cci _ & w _ g/ | t o _ 721 CO in \/ ( \ k CO v, _ an In 0> r • ! ; co p. _ \ a ■ \ \ ! \ \ P. \ k k zi \ to In R,!$tn an IA ) 8_ \ F. \ \ \ Q • § _ ! 5k § k \ an \ \ _ E ■ ° cc m7 ILA / a § u ■ # m ... § ) ■ _ \ § k \ _ § CO A§ il \ \\ ƒ\ \ \ IA co § 5 in o \ ins } / ∎ . \ § / A - 2 3 in an 1-1 \} § § 2 @ - m o 5 72 5 &7 ( \ ® - an k\ H\\ 0 I- ^ CO N S ^ / §{ _ _ k _ 0) ƒ 0 \km 2 R ! 2 < \ 0 Co ® _ ° ° \/ M _ _ _ ` \ \ ! § G E 6 ¥0 § °\ } _ a f \/d } \ \\ \ kCo ®crl ®in _r. II— I— VI CO K 0. ƒ .79 PO o & a _ w z ■3 M _ o § @4 IX 2 . ® ® ° _ IJJ § ) } \ \ \ ) \\ 9 &sr7 & § E u. �\ § •/ •\ \ } Co Co % Co ; ° Q 0 2 } \ \ \ i 1" k k _ 01 04 01 0 _ a ®1"- k d & H\ \ \ \ 2 t k § § § / ffI a k k \ \ $ / # L. o < ti co= 0 au \ _ an N _lfl `• �In Q> � ® ` m 2 a a a = a 3$ ) \ _ _ a _ � § k 0 an rn an _ _ at co 3 \\ m _ an � a\ ; » 7 R. § § _ • " - ! 2 ▪ ~ k § . tO V/ k § Z J § § ` _ q § w B \ \ \ \ \ )ƒ § D m ° k D 7 § § ▪ in k Q N 9 « $ / $ « 7\ ce in ) } _ _ _tyl Q ; r r. g § # a \ } \ a§ CY 00 § \ in 4 in � _NI 3. ! S § k B \ \ \ \ \ 0 k In it in § o / 2 k ~ ` k \ \ N 4/1 / \ \ �/ 0 N | _ ; en ]\� § \ K 51 � \/ \ § 3 7 N a N\\} \ \ \k § ara N ( m§ \ ) \ an \ \ § ar N Sk N \ ! at § [ 8' K _ a/ § 2 - - k } a J § d R _ _ _ . _ tl § & �en § \ \ \ \ \\ § tz co ! P [ - k \ N 0 \ \ ) § ( ( , » 2 § » 3 \ \ \ /} o k / k 0 0 / ■\ \ k P. N va $ $ 0 a � o m \ 2 e an 5 3 5 § # ; ! cri 6 & LI in in % ; n 1 } 2 \ NI 2 ° , CO -4.13 4m o | \ k N k m k \{ m H 4- 0. )4 _ _1-4 _1-1 _ _IA k j\ 2 2 . 0 < 0 [ } $ƒ < & 0 . § & 7 E R ! # K 9 \ en 2 E N E § 7 �/ s $01 N § \ / VU I CO a 6 a/r. 01 �• 0 03 10 rq co Z § an in in § _ an an Lei' S - $ i N rJ 0 d \ / 4 an _ an VI ° 4" % § _ & § @ $ \ m 0 2 > VU V - VU VU \k \ a ( } \ \ ( . in § 0 k } } } } } }ig } U — & � \ § ( \ 1 ■ © _ ° ® in ■ Lei m LIJ Z § I o I CO 4 Z ■ \\ r. k \ U, 0 / 0 _ ■§ & 3 3 a $ 7 Sk ( } \ \ \ \ }ƒ q S k ca. en § \ k _ § ! ( k § \ \ \ \ \ \ 6 n § - - e ° § § § i § N an %o in 4/3 ® ® 4" ® CDƒ k) e a i ! co rn IT /3'.-0 _ in _ o > � ` § - i i �\ ] j ' � an d } . . _ _ ) 0 an I-I a /} \ / / \_ § LA 0 IX k _ a . PI al in- } \\ o 2 § ) ) ` 2 \ \ \ \ \ Co N § § \ Ce u. § ` 2 on r.co in _ N. In In in ri- � Cr a k a i i\ 0 k _in @ / § ■G = 2 _ § � e § ° ° .IA ® ® | _ 2 ] § k \ \ \ \ \ } ° - B 2 \ § � g. rt CO) § a m cej -# k k 7 k § QE § - _ __ A. . )/e IV CO Cigo r3: 00 7,1 0 111 AD o= % ■ )\ _ & & 5 5 ± 6 5 J $ 2 } V1 V/ VA-si � ,4 \ ƒ } ƒ _ J IA - \ / \ } \ \ in in } ƒ ƒ i N 4/1 § al RI e \ VI VA k in r1 0 v§ _ 2 ° 2 .co § 0 B in In in _ z an In 4 § § - a } $ $ s kr,§ w _riJ -IC'S , _ a § § / \ / } \ \ CO \ cc @k 2 f \ k § i v, in _ 5§ 0 ! ; k o ® _ ® in - VA_ E .9 1 ; #) \ \ \ \ \ \ k N CO \ 0 $ CO § A § e ' / m f # § f\ / _ _ __CO 0 \/ e ge N at 0 2 2 ( lo v, an m \$ e . , r•I ▪ , - ` ®$ wt C \ ( (\ / }in an - ) \ N \ \ \ \\ - \ / vi � ■ VI N ) } ƒ V1 f ` � | \ ) « : N ) \ | — 4 _ _ • _ o 6 § ) § \ a• a _ § a. k u § cn U2 § § \ \ \ \ \ \\ § / \§ .1 \ & \ \ \ =7 et 10 c. co il S §• \ \ a \ a \\ ce B & & & a Q§§ & ] f _cn 01 In } _ ; k 5 ,Lrl , , _§ 9 g ; # B \ \ \ ....-5- \ \ 1- § g 2 k k k $ g k § 7 v / in ■ \ J0 R/e ) ( / \ /2 / • _ v, _ v, a@ Q> - ` " / ON N } 0• to 0 V. N _in N § N - �k k } \ k \ & 2 VT � 2 \ • \ \ \ \ § ! . 5 § IN k \ r. d CO VI an In w. ...4 -ch irc/ 0 CI 1. �.k k } § . �- ` �§ ° - = \ ! � § _ 0 0 I 0 _ A.} g \ / k B 'CO In } _ \ _ ait cc to ; § 7 • E a $ a a _ \ \ CO\ \|• \ S \ \ n � a in% § \ v.+ a in ®\ ( k \ \ \ \ \ k 2 § § ( CO IA g N i a2 m f r4 4.4 f ° $ - - _ _1.4 _CTI & a ]E - \$ e k ) \\\ § J 7 ki / } 7 }/ « $ D § } ) \ \ \ N. � \d } in ƒ k \ ° tn vs \vs ° 1 1 N m ` § ■ r k k ■ § § \ q q \ k \ / 0, ` d \ } N 1:11 2 K _ _ § k LIJ = i r. B / � V § VD / k Ce CO § 0 $ ƒ \ &$ u.§ 2 0 k k k k \ /a K \ 01 i in •01 Z / k ° § , , •n C �$\ vs vs ■In � vs! � to 0 & \ \ \ \ ¥k d ! ° \ da B \ \ \\ \ k 2 o k ) N N la 2 2 CV 2 0 s $ N CO / o O. $ _ _I-I 111.14 o cc fk 2 , ! ill LA O 7 o E ° ® ° _ _ 3& » @ ` "& © / f W in d & { \ \ } \ \ M 3 in an V. an ' 01 2 ` ® _el | in _ & } } } 2 § d \ } 2 § ° ° _ ® e & 9 0 a 2 \ \ 2 1 0 . \ \ \ in § N ' u. a et ® ° } _ ° \ § \ \ 7 \ k \\ cC ta �o \ \ V. I/1 a fa Tr e in i MI OW & § 08 R ` ( k / \ \ \ k\ \\ 2 N ID 2 ; § 0 0 0 m 2 f\ ° N k \ _N _01 CO N w - k ) \ke \/ILI o7 % ! VI \&e , , ) , \ _2 gi ) § } _co' in VI $$ IA RI 6 \ \ \ to N \1111. r0 an Fr n \k k \ in v.. an \ 40 an co. al in o CI N 14 cn e■I IA in al Ci § \ % « § § § 2 7 7 § - $ . k § § § B \ \ \ \ \ \ CO U 1 - § ! A § ,% a a a a a k § in CI D k \ \ \ \ \r-I IN / 2 § \ 7 § § ¥ ) \ / # 5$ | ; § \ \ to \ \ \ ri N § VI in VT � _ d I ( a\ / \ k 2 co k k k CT % 0 t \ \ _14 _ _ _ CD � w _ g/ m • \ } co \ \ \ { \ 05 — ri( (k i \n \ r. n2 \ \ \ \ \ \ 2 rn § } _ } / i / } \ § Or \ k § § cn o • \ _ _01 3 e - _ez � § ) _ rn § ) \ \SI \ \ \ \ § § & \ § § • \ m _ in § & 2 0 2 to N cm in K \ \ @ ! ce 14 § \ \ $ \ $ \ Cn IX N k / § _ 7 & 5 3 3$ - » 2 ( \ \ \ \ \ \$ • ! 2 da \ \ \ \ \ \ N CCOO pCpOp m m V 01 F N 10 10 eel l0 N N O r N N 0i ui 1c 10 0. N y - M N N M 0 M 00 — co G Z N N N N N N CO 00 ■ Y 46 iA iA iA iA VT iA o it cc n en Oto`r f 0' 10 m ,t .- 0 0 n S N 10 a; N g 'Cl. N CO t0 N Ul co W N N t" 114 N N m Ln • if, 46 CO as CO N Oco •f M N N 1— 0 1/1 O r o 01 tn CO 4 Q V^1 N N Vii 4% " M N CC 44 W CO : : - I N N N N N N VI /1. 1 Y M IX en r94 co tki Z m °m m n° , coo N O N N N h N N • W J at m cn N N N N n ro . ti N M 2 11 g N tn N m m 00 v. ...I N N N N N N 00 N K W N H Z N O n CO N ID M .i N 1l1 cn O N • N m 0 10 W Q 100 n O N N 0 J ~ N N N N N N r N N N an V) Vl eH Z O M ~ O u m c0 m co .`-i uMi O = O0 O N 10 N V N m n5 O^1 O O CO Y N N N .1 N N N W C H ti tn H N 4 J d J Q n O N m N N cL V1 01 N V1 to T • 0: N vi m a 40 .1 0 n 0 0 0 W a O CO .r 1 .; 14 .: c cc LL N N W N N V) ey R 44 2 M a .", o m 000 4-1 ■ey QN n 00 N N e` 0 m 10 O N. N 0 in ZQ O O N .-I O .1 W Z Vf V) N N in N N O cci r•tn ifl Z m n O O O N cn O 1D o S 00 v■ O 0, V W co W W 1� n n N VI O N V) V> N N N " I— N Z W 2 cg �a 01 ro La � N N ! a W ‘.0 a • a �T.a > O W .-I N H Q Z N H N N M. V? CO M W en to M l�0 O V1 at m - a 10 0o 01 m N• 0 d vi of ad [8i m rft N N VI N tan N en i? n co .I S O O O O S O O Q N S 8 o CZ ry 0 N Co • O a d y m E Y$W U Ow o N,.— <= O U> .- V pp = n CO CI ii : ,,,-D.,- N Z 0 ; 8 Wv To 0 N_ M U h 46 N° La LL 9 U Co w v M M 0 O N 0 0 CO ea 74 to 1,.. '2 a.. cn sr yco V, V, N W w W W 4 V,cri E 0 CO in 0 0 RS ?C a u mrn °i o4 § as o• v g To WW a n n N • (h N }, C m m N e E t � a O N G1 m w w w fa W E. n co v. ■ o °n' Li m a a, N a °� E3 w 'o 49 oo O p M N W < N O S iJV) LL II 9O Of 8 fh o tD S p E ? n ? C^7 N O� N CO e U tam V D s s s ci ci. ca § o ca ra 13 O m o 0 61 69 69 • w U w SEe� rn 1 °�o o 2 � }� ,� 5m� o �� ° �co m s La rn m co 3 i 3 z 0 Z In al n co v> LO •1 NI g § co co coo °m m co °w °w .Q o. 35 u. TS C N 0. o OZ 8 Z > E ` z �G E 8 d :o U 13 L o . LK 71. O fn U U m � w Z U N O N N O U> a m > 8. _ O{� 0.N. °�D 1- CO LC1 § IR Q 8 M W O fWA N Z 'a a0n W ��i. W 2 m Cpp N N °- C C °� f0 111 V 'w 'f,� a an da mo (9_ I- m ^ Uv a �= ..LLB+.:,° Zv °no 4 m c w 1- LL .�: `O N m U.c W m- u) N a y 5 4 0 c Z 4' U I:: o 0 o n N Cpl°p O r M M N n n n n Vi H N o 8 N.[h N n o A j N n r N La i0 m m 69 w w 69 9+ w 69 69 69 ■ to e To a a. c ` x w w w In o h o 8 N C O n N o a g� 22 m a co gE3 o R' ,9 co w f9 w 69 w e9 V. 'fl .+ N 2 n O O li C m r) n o W m o n n 8 O1 0 ,i c E n Eam U• m > 69 V) V) N /9 H VI 69 69 ti o° 8 8 8 8 _ m 8 § 8 § 8 0 Ts 7 co La 'C m o U a m' c EE ^aa ao_ .� .°cam �� ° co a � a c m c n c LL` 2 ° E V d m c 0 .i rna z � zx � w Z CD c LS c7, coN o g I C) C) LO cu a v ° up w o o in in 0 rn o u. \ ® f { ~ � a .5� «c b ° _/- § ii \1 \k ° /. .CO CO )22 � � > Q> cc) § } - ! a-2g'E t 0 & O� | ` ! k Co Z m§ e0 (- = Co 2 To � $ 7a ° �� iE ! 0 ) 7)4 # 3\ 4 k01 0 2 ! 2u CO co cv co E M co to ® - \ W N j 2s m of cn ow co | az 2l ul n § /2 - � )$ ~ ./ . CO oX to . _ 7i 0 12 \ ,0 0 ccv o/4O ~ ` - ° Y _ _ _ § « �!15 co § 8 oz : co ° - 69 - � / ` C \{ / 5 5j ! \ &7 z CI_ § 2 k ] .-- . / k CAC October 13,2011 VII-3 Staff Reports - , 1 of 7 McAlpinGary From: KeyesPamela Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:26 AM To: McAlpinGary Subject: Clam Bay Markers Gary, Collier County received a FWC permit for the Clam Bay Markers/information signs on Sept 9t". Once received I realized that the 5 buoys should have been permitted as markers. We requested an amendment to FWC, last week. I received a call from Ryan Moreau, with FWC today stating that Commissioner Hiller called and said that the markers in the North are supposed to be under Pelican Bay Services Division and the old permit. Ryan is waiting on closing out the old permit until he receives clarification on the Boards ruling. Thanks, Pamela Keyes,Environmental Specialist Coastal Zone Management 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: (239)252-2980 Fax: (239)252-2950 Under Florida Law e-malls ?ubli,; .c c rcls II yo,,do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request.do not send electronic mail 10 to+s emit r c U i Hi -=by!elephon,or in writing. ceitovvv"it foprvutit at s 7,417 tdd C, rPFP 45uve asc� s/,a 2,o/I CAC October 13,2011 VII-3 Staff Reports 2of7 • • McAlpinGary From: Moreau, Ryan[ryan.moreau @MyFWC.com] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 9:00 AM To: McAlpinGary; KeyesPamela Subject: Clam Pass Permit Attachments: clam pass.pdf Gary/Pamela: Attached is a copy of your Clam Pass permit for information markers.A hardcopy will follow in the mail. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you and have a wonderful weekend! Ryan Moreau, Planner Florida Fish & Wil;tli/c C orrservotion Commission Division of Law I-o/i?rceinent Boating & Waterways Section Waterway Manageliient Unit 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32.'390-1 000 850.617-9547 O//ire:' 850.488-9284 Fox Ryan.Moreau @myfwc.com 1 CAC October 13,2011 VII-3 Staff Reports 3of7 s." ;."r' at . September 9,2011 ° %; i .'' Mr.Gary McAlpin,Director Collier County Coastal Zone Management 3299 Tamiaini Trail East, Suite 102 Florida Fish Naples,Florida 34412 and Wildlife Conservation RE: Permittee: Collier County Commission Permit# 11-020 Clam Pass/Bay Canoe and information Markers,Collier County. arlItI1153I01!!r i Kathy Barco Dear Mr. McAlpin: Chairwoman Jacksonville The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission(FWC) received your initial Florida Kenneth W.Wright Uniform Waterway Application on August 5,2011,requesting permission to install ninety-five Vice Chairman Winter Park (95) information markers within the Clam Pass/Bay system. Rodney Barreto Miami The FWC is authorized to issue this type of permit pursuant to Rule 68D-23.101,Florida Ronald M.Bergeron Administrative Code(F.A.C.). Based on the complete information submitted with your Fort Lauderdale application, your request for a uniform waterway permit has been approved subject to the Richard A.Corbett following conditions: Tampa Dwight Stephenson 1. Permit is approved contingent upon the consent of and, if necessary,the issuance of Delray ay Beach Brian S.Yablonskl appropriate permits by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Tallahassee Coast Guard. 2. It is unlawful to place markers on private submerged lands or other property or structure not .,<oct,t■Y3 it.jFr Nick Wiley owned by the person or governmental entity placing them without first receiving the written Executive Director consent of the owner of the submerged lands,other property,or structure as to the placement Greg Holder of the markers. A copy of such written consent, if required,must be provided to the FWC's Assistant Executive Director Boating and Waterways Section. (Pursuant to Section 327.40,Florida Statutes(F.S.),the Karen Ventimiglia placement of any uniform waterway marker on state-owned submerged lands does not subject Deputy Chief of Staff such lands to the lease requirements of Chapter 253,F.S.) 3. Permit provides for the placement of ninety-five(95)uniform waterway information markers )i4151on rt�.,,.V _,,ior.,,,,,,,tt at the coordinate positions identified on both the map and in the application. Colonel Jim Brown Director 4. Per your application a website address is to be included on your information markers.The (850)488.6251 presence of information on the website that is contrary to law or this permit is cause for (850)921-6453 FAX revocation. Wildlife 3rt 5. Permit authorizes the placement of markers and does not authorize any invasion of private 888-404-3922 rights,grant any exclusive privileges,or obviate the necessity of complying with any other Managing fish and wildlife federal,state or local laws or regulations. resources for their long-term well-being and the benefit 6. All markers associated with this permit must be installed within a reasonable period of time. of people. Upon completion of the installation of markers,thePerinittee will notify this office in writing tommotinimpamon within 30 days. If the latitude and longitude of any marker installed is different from that 620 South Meridian Street listed in the application,a request for a permit amendment must be submitted. Such a request Tallahassee,Florida 32399-1600 must include the final"as-built"latitude and longitude in degrees and decimal minutes Voice:(850)488.4676 (referenced to the WGS-84 datum) for the markers installed. Hearing/speech-impaired: (800)955.8771(T) 7. Permittee must comply with the marker specifications and placement requirements detailed in (800)955-8770(V) Rules 68D-23.106,68D-23.108 and 68D-23.I 09, F.A.C. The permit number and, if MyFWC.cwn CAC October 13,2011 VII-3 Staff Reports Mr, Gary MeA 1pin 4 of 7 Page 2 September 9, 2011 applicable,reference to the regulatory instrument creating the restricted area must be displayed on each marker. These numbers and/or letters must be displayed in black block characters measuring at least one inch in height. Retroreflective materials must be used for all white background and international orange displays on markers. An example of authorized"Information"markers is enclosed as Attachment A. 8. Permittee must immediately report discrepancies of markers covered by this permit and make corrections to discrepancies within 30 days. Reports of discrepant markers and/or notice of corrective action completed will be made by calling FWC's Boating and Waterways Section at(850)488-5600. 9. Permittee must comply with Rule 68D-23.110,F.A.C.,which requires the inspection of all markers triennially, notification of completed inspection made to FWC within five(5)days, and maintenance of the inspection documentation. Failure to inspect and maintain documentation of the results of the marker inspection is grounds for rescinding the permit. Please be advised that FWC may request a copy of the inspection documentation at any time. 10. Permittee,by accepting this permit and placement of the uniform waterway markers,does hereby,to the extent authorized by law,agree and promise to hold harmless the State of Florida, its employees,agents or successors, from fault with respect to any claim or claims arising from alleged negligence in the placement, maintenance,operation and removal of any and all marker(s) placed pursuant to the permit. Permittee further agrees to indemnify the State of Florida for any and all legal fees and costs incurred in defense of any suit brought against the state as a result of alleged negligence by the Permittee in the placement, maintenance,operation,or removal of the uniform waterway marker(s). I I. Permittee must install, inspect,maintain,and remove all markers covered by this permit at its own expense and as directed by state law and these permit conditions. 12. Permittee shall comply with Rule 68D-23.106(4),F.A.C., in the event of discontinuance or removal of any marker covered by this permit. 13. Failure to comply with the requirements or conditions of this permit shall be cause for immediate revocation of the permit. The FWC retains the right to modify or rescind this permit should information become available indicating the permitted activity is likely to create a serious threat to public safety or that the recipient does not need the permit(in its current form). if you have any questions regarding this permit or its applicability, please contact our office at(850)488-5600. A person whose substantial interests are affected by FWC's action may petition for an administrative proceeding(hearing)under Sections 120.569 and 120.57,F.S. A person seeking a hearing on FWC's action shall file a petition for hearing with the agency within 21 days of receipt of written notice of the decision.The petition must contain the information and otherwise comply with Section 120.569,F.S.,and the uniform rules of the Florida Division of Administration,Chapter 28-106,F.A.C. Upon such notification,the Permittee shall cease all work authorized by this permit until the petition is resolved. The enclosed Explanation of Rights statement provides additional information as to the rights of parties whose substantial interests are or may be affected by this action. CAC October 13,2011 VII-3 Staff Reports Mr,Gary McA 1pin 5 of 7 Page 3 September 9, 2011 Sincerely, Ryan Moreau,Planner Division of Law Enforcement Boating and Waterways Section Waterway Management Unit DG/rm Enclosures: Explanation of Rights Chapter 68D-23 FAC Attachment A-•Marker Example CAC October 13,2011 VII-3 Staff Reports 6of7 FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS If your substantial interests are or will be determined by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's action or proposed action stated in the accompanying notice,you may make any one of the following elections on the attached Election of Rights form and file the form within twenty- one(21)days from the date you receive the notice of agency action or proposed action. If you so choose, please return the completed Election of Rights form with the enclosed Petition for Administrative Proceeding form completed in accordance with Chapter 28-106,Florida Administrative code,or a substitute document in compliance with Chapter 28-106,of the Florida Administrative code,to the address listed on the Election of Rights form. I. If you wish to contest the agency action or proposed action,but do not dispute any of the issues of material fact set forth in the notice,you may request an informal proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(2),Florida Statutes. In the event that your request for an informal proceeding is granted,you will be given the opportunity to either simply present a written statement challenging the grounds upon which the Commission has chosen to justify its action or inaction or present evidence in mitigation. Any request for an informal proceeding in this matter should be directed to the Commission by checking the space marked as I on the Election of Rights form and filing the completed and signed form with the Commission within twenty-one(21)days from the date of receipt of the notice. In making such a request,you must include with the completed and signed Election of Rights form either the completed and signed Petition for Administrative Proceeding form completed in accordance with Chapter 28-106,Florida Administrative code,or a substitute document in compliance with Chapter 28-106,of the Florida Administrative code. 2. If you wish to contest the notice of agency action or proposed action and you dispute one or more of the issues of material fact as set forth in the notice,you may request a formal hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1),Florida Statutes. If there is a disputed issue of material fact and your request is otherwise complete,an administrative law judge shall be furnished by the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Management Services pursuant to Sections 1 20.569 and 120.57(I).Florida Statutes. A petition shall be dismissed if it fails to state disputed issues of material fact, it otherwise is not in substantial compliance with the requirements of 28-106.201(2)FAC,or it has been untimely filed. Any request for a formal hearing in this matter should be directed to the Commission by checking the space marked as 2 on the Election of Rights form and filing the completed and signed form with the Commission within twenty-one(21)days from the date of receipt of the notice. in making such a request. you must include with the completed and signed Election of Rights form either the completed and signed Petition for Administrative Proceeding form completed in accordance with Chapter 28-106,Florida Administrative code,or a substitute document in compliance with Chapter 28.106,of the Florida Administrative code. Failure to make any election in this matter,as provided above,within twenty-one(21)days from the date you received the notice,shall be considered a waiver of your rights to any administrative proceeding as provided in either I or 2.above. Mediation is not an available alternative with respect to this action or proposed action. S:\DLE\Boating and Waterways\Waterway Management\Perrnits\UWlvt Permits\Form Letters\Explanation of Rights.doc CAC October 13,2011 VII-3 Staff Reports • 7of7 CA ION RK R 4 SH AL CLAM P A SS . : PERMIT NO.;11.020 0rprwwrir.. . gar.+ �weMrw�n.wrwr CLAM PASS - CAUTION LOCAL KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED KEEP LOOKOUT FOR BOATERS AND SWIMMERS WWW.XXX.NET PERMIT NO.:11-020 E-71444:11 I • r i:1117. CAUTION Obli$4 q}= w SEAGRASS LAf' I . n w CAC October 13,2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 1 of IVIECOX Rick Scott Florida Department of Governor 10#404 Environmental Protection Jennifer Carroll rr T.t.Governor 1: �_ j Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building �' 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Valanagaginev Tallahassee,Florida 32399-3000 I lerschel T.Vinyard Jr. Secretary September 19,2011 Mr.Gary McAlpin Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail E.,Suite 103 Naples,FL 34112 SUBJECT:Collier County Beach Nourishment Dear Mr. McAlpin, The Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems has prepared its draft Local Government Funding Request(LGFR)for FY2012/13,based upon long range budget plans submitted by local governments. The subject project has been reviewed by staff for consistency with program guidelines and included in the LGFR. However,the funding request that you submitted may have been altered based on the following reason(s): • The Department has approved the inclusion of the Barefoot Beach Segment into the Collier County Project. However,the Department does not feel that a critical erosion designation is warranted at this time for the proposed Clam Pass segment, north of Park Shore. Therefore this segment will not be eligible for state cost sharing. j In preparation for the upcoming legislative session,the Bureau is preparing to finalize the LGFR for formal submission to the Governor's Office and Florida Legislature for their consideration. Enclosed are the Project Description and Project Evaluation Form for the above referenced project. Please note that any requested first-year post-construction monitoring funds have been included with construction funds. Any post-construction monitoring funds after the first year will not appear in the project description,but they have been included in the combined"Post-Construction Monitoring"category in the LGFR. Please review this information and provide comments or updated cost estimates by October 3,2011. Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed information,please contact me at(850)413- 7783. Sincerely, A_i1/4-..„1 , a- ''''Vf"---- l Vincent George Project Manager Enclosures CAC October 13,2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 2 of 9 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2012/2013 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Collier County Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Collier County LOCAL CONTACT: Gary McAlpin PHONE: (239)530-5342 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of four segments along 8.6 miles of shoreline in Collier County. The segments consist of the following components:Vanderbilt Beach, approximately 2.8 miles between DEP Monuments R22 -R37; Park Shore, approximately 2.1 miles between DEP Monuments R43.7-R54.4; and Naples, approximately 3.7 miles between DEP Monuments R58—R79. Restoration was completed in 1996. Nourishment was completed in 2006. Design for the FY2013/14 nourishment is proposed and includes FEMA storm recovery funds from damage incurred during Tropical Storm Faye. Staff has determined eligibility for state cost sharing to be 100%for Barefoot Beach, 48.46%for Vanderbilt Beach, 33.16%for Park Shore, and 95.02%for Naples. FUNDS REQUESTED: Funds will be used for design. FEDERAL $475,200 STATE $51,068 LOCAL $107,332 TOTAL $633,600 21 CAC October 13,2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 3 of 9 Collier County Beach Nourishment Project Length (ft): 45560 New or Existing: Existing Severity of Erosion: 2 Threat to Upland Structures: 0 Recreational/Economic Benefits: 2 Federal Funding Commitment Federal Authorization: 0 Current Cooperative Agreements: 0 Local Sponsor Finance/Administrative Support Long Term Funding Source: 3 Dedicated Administrative Support: 0 75% Quarterly Report Submission: 0 Previous State Commitment Previous Feasibility Cost Sharing: 1 Increased Longevity 0 Nourish Previously Restored Shoreline 5 Project Performance: 8 Mitigation Of Inlet Effects: 0 Innovative Technologies Competitive/Innovative Technologies: 0 Previously Untried Technologies: 0 Sea Turtle Refuge: 0 Regionalization: 0 Significance: 9 TOTAL PROJECT POINTS: 30 CAC October 13,2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 4 of 9 " Florida Department of (lo !nor r`�.. �°° p Governer itil: ; -' Environmental Protection Jennifer Carrell #=. ;l 1, Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building (.i. (�uvcrnor asp WikQ 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard IMINIMMONE Tallahassee,Florida 32399-3000 Herschel I. Vinyard 1r. Secretary September 19,2011 Mr.Gary McAlpin Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail E.,Suite 103 Naples,FL 34112 SUBJECT:Wiggins Pass IMP Study Dear Mr. McAlpin, The Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems has prepared its draft Local Government Funding Request(LGFR)for FY2012/13,based upon long range budget plans submitted by local governments. The subject project has been reviewed by staff for consistency with program guidelines and included in the LGFR. However,the funding request that you submitted may have been altered based on the following reason(s): • Only funding for the Inlet Management Plan(IMP)study was included in the funding request. The Department must approve and adopt the recommended strategies of that IMP before cost sharing in the design of any strategies can be eligible for cost sharing. In preparation for the upcoming legislative session,the Bureau is preparing to finalize the LGFR for formal submission to the Governor's Office and Florida Legislature for their consideration. Enclosed are the Project Description and Project Evaluation Form for the above referenced project. Please note that any requested first-year post-construction monitoring funds have been included with construction funds. Any post-construction monitoring funds after the first year will not appear in the project description,but they have been included in the combined"Post-Construction Monitoring"category in the LGFR. Please review this information and provide comments or updated cost estimates by October 3,2011. Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed information,please contact me at(850)413- 7783. Sirwerely, i\1 ' r\ 4,0_,, c„,,, ,‘_-its. , n ..., Vincent George Project Manager Enclosures CAC October 13,2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 5of9 • FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2012/2013 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Wiggins Pass IMP Study LOCAL SPONSOR: Collier County LOCAL CONTACT: Gary McAlpin PHONE: (239)530-5342 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conduct inlet management study for Wiggins Pass in Collier County. Study will include feasibility studies between DEP monuments R14-R16.3(Barefoot Beach Park),which has recently been designated as critically eroded. Staff has determined that 100%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing for the study. FUNDS REQUESTED: Funds will be for a feasibility study. FEDERAL $0 STATE $41,531 LOCAL $13,844 TOTAL $55,375 55 CAC October 13,2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 6 of 9 Wiggins Pass IMP Study Project Length (ft): 2300 New or Existing: New Severity of Erosion: 2 Threat to Upland Structures: 0 Recreational/Economic Benefits: 5 Federal Funding Commitment Federal Authorization: 0 Current Cooperative Agreements: 0 Local Sponsor Finance/Administrative Support Long Term Funding Source: 3 Dedicated Administrative Support: 0 75%Quarterly Report Submission: 0 Previous State Commitment Previous Feasibility Cost Sharing: 0 Increased Longevity 0 Nourish Previously Restored Shoreline 0 Project Performance: 0 Mitigation Of Inlet Effects: 0 Innovative Technologies Competitive/Innovative Technologies: 0 Previously Untried Technologies: 0 Sea Turtle Refuge: 0 Regionalization: 0 Significance: 0 TOTAL PROJECT POINTS: 10 CAC October 13,2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 7of9 Rick Scott Florida Department of Governor ' f # , Environmental Protection , ,, +4 Jennifer Carroll -t"r. '/ ' Lt.Governor Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building G ,.. ,;. 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee,Florida 32399-3000 Herschel T. Vinyard Jr. Secretary September 19,2011 Mr.Gary McAlpin Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail E.,Suite 103 Naples,FL 34112 SUBJECT:Marco Island Beach Nourishment Dear Mr.McAlpin, The Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems has prepared its draft Local Government Funding Request(LGFR)for FY2012/13,based upon long range budget plans submitted by local governments. The subject project has been reviewed by staff for consistency with program guidelines and included in the LGFR. However,the funding request that you submitted may have been altered based on the following reason(s): • Funding for an additional breakwater has been removed from the request. The Strategic Beach Management Plan does not address the addition of breakwaters as an approved strategy. Feasibility level investigations must be completed to demonstrate the need for additional breakwaters before they are eligible for cost sharing. In preparation for the upcoming legislative session,the Bureau is preparing to finalize the LGFR for formal submission to the Governor's Office and Florida Legislature for their consideration. Enclosed are the Project Description and Project Evaluation Form for the above referenced project. Please note that any requested first-year post-construction monitoring funds have been included with construction funds. Any post-construction monitoring funds after the first year will not appear in the project description,but they have been included in the combined"Post-Construction Monitoring"category in the LGFR. Please review this information and provide comments or updated cost estimates by October 3,2011. Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed information,please contact me at(850)413- 7783. Sincrely, Vincent George Project Manager , Enclosures I CAC October 13,2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 8of9 Marco Island Beach Nourishment Project Length (ft): 4800 New or Existing: Existing Severity of Erosion: 4 Threat to Upland Structures: 0 Recreational/Economic Benefits: 1 Federal Funding Commitment Federal Authorization: 0 Current Cooperative Agreements: 0 Local Sponsor Finance/Administrative Support Long Term Funding Source: 3 Dedicated Administrative Support: 0 75% Quarterly Report Submission: 0 Previous State Commitment Previous Feasibility Cost Sharing: 1 Increased Longevity 0 Nourish Previously Restored Shoreline 5 Project Performance: 6 Mitigation Of Inlet Effects: 0 Innovative Technologies Competitive/Innovative Technologies: 0 Previously Untried Technologies: 0 Sea Turtle Refuge: 0 Regionalization: 0 Significance: 1 TOTAL PROJECT POINTS: 21 CAC October 13,2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 9of9 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Beach Management Funding Assistance Program FY 2012/2013 Local Government Funding Requests NAME OF PROJECT: Marco Island Beach Nourishment LOCAL SPONSOR: Collier County LOCAL CONTACT: Gary McAlpin PHONE: (239)530-5342 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nourishment of 0.9 mile of shoreline between DEP Monuments R143-148 in Collier County. Restoration was completed in 1997 and nourishment was completed in 2007. The next nourishment is scheduled for FY2012/13 and includes FEMA storm recovery funds for damage sustained during Tropical Storm Faye. Staff has determined that 41.76%of the project is eligible for state cost sharing. FUNDS REQUESTED: Funds will be used for construction. FEDERAL $2,025,000 STATE $157,098 LOCAL $595,288 TOTAL $2,777,386 44 CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 1 of 4.11 .—\*44101‘ farth Balance ' September 28,2011 Corporate Office 2579 North Toledo Blade Boulevard Ms. Pamela Keyes North Port,FL 34289 Collier County -Coastal Zone Management 941.426.7878 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Suite 103 94 l 426 8778 fax Naples, Florida 34112 www.earthbajanee.coni Re: Collier County Dune Restoration Sea Oat Monitoring—September 2011 Monitoring Event Dear Ms. Keyes: This letter details results of the third sea oat monitoring event that was completed in September 2011. EarthBalance biologists monitored the survival of new beach plantings at five Collier County beaches: Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Park Shore, City of Naples. and Marco Island, Four 50- square foot plots were permanently marked at each location, totaling 20 plots. Each plot contained approximately 50 newly planted sea oats. An effort was made to place the plots where they would not include existing plants, but this was not always possible due to the till-in nature of the planting. One of the plots at Park Shore was not sampled because it was overgrown with scaevola, which covered up approximately half of the planted sea oats. Two additional plots, one at Park Shore and one near 16th Avenue South, could not be found, probably because of sand accumulation covering the marker stakes. The total number of plants in each plot was recorded during the time zero monitoring event that was completed in May 2010, and again in September 2010, March 2011, and September 2011 to determine percent survival. Each individual plant was measured to obtain the average height of the sea oats in each plot. The survival and growth data are summarized in the attached table. The data from the September 2010 and March 2011 monitoring events are included for comparison. Fixed-point photographs comparing the baseline and current conditions of each plot are provided as Photos 1-38. The sea oats generally exhibited good survival, ranging from a high of 123%at Vanderbilt Beach to a low of 65% at Marco Island. Survival exceeding 100% is a result of new shoots, which are impossible to distinguish from the planted sea oats, growing at Vanderbilt beach. It is a good indication that the sea oats are actively growing and coalescing within the plots. The data track the results of the previous monitoring in March 2011. There was a general increase in percent growth compared to the previous monitoring event. Percent survival did not change significantly since the last monitoring event, increasing at Vanderbilt Beach and the City, decreasing at Park Shore and Marco Island,and staying the same at Barefoot Beach. Offices In: Dai(:wort•North Port•Thlkilitssiee CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 2 of 25 'General observations indicate that sea oats do best on the water-ward face of the dune and the dune crest, particularly where windblown sand is actively accumulating. Sea oats on the back slope and dune swale survive but exhibit slower growth and seed production. This can be readily observed in both the monitoring plots and in natural stands. Future planting efforts should consider using alternative species, such as bitter panicgrass and saltmeadow cordgrass in back dune areas. This is the final monitoring event. Sincerely, EarthBalancez Charles L. Kocur,Jr. Vice President CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports ■ 3 of 25 Uniola Paniculata -Sea Oats September 2011 Monitoring Event Plot I 47 � _ 38 81% 19.4 22.2 14% Plot 2 41 37 90°/a 18.8 20.6 10% Plot 3 46 40 91% 20.8 21.2 2% Plot 4 46 45 98% 18.3 26.8 46% Illillainnallinglill 160 89% 19.4 22.9 18% s A,,, . " Plot 1 46 56 122% 19.3 22.4 16% Plot 2 53 74 140% 19.0 22.6 194/0 Plot 3 42 46 109% 21.5 22.7 6% Plot 4 59 70 119% 18.8 22.7 21% TOTAL 200 246 123% INIMEMIN 22.6 16% r > � .. e a tr e -"4„;-- „ a Plot 1 60 1* N/A 20.8 N/A N/A Plot 2 47 2* N/A 22.1 N/A N/A Plot 3 54 42 78% 22.0 26.6 21010 Plot 4 56 47 84% 18.0 23.3 29% 110 89 81% 20.0 24.8 24% Plot 1 45 42 90% 18.3 28.2 54% Plot 2 55 52 87% 19.0 25.1 32% Plot 3 60 62 73% 18.8 27.2 45% Plot 4 57 3* 11111MaiM 19.5 N/A N/A TOTAL 160 156 98% 18.7 26.7 43% Plot I 45 31 69% 20.4 26.2 28% Plot 2 49 24 48% 18.4 29.8 62% Plot 3 43 31 72% 16.6 23.6 42% Plot 4 44 1111111111111.111 70% 13.6 23.5 73% TOTAL 181 117 65% 17.3 25.5 47% 1*Plot overgrown with Scaevola 2*Plot not found due to sand accumulation or overgrowth of Coin vine 3*Plot not found,likely due to sand accumulation CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 4 of 25 Uniola Paniculata -Sea Oats March 2011 Monitoring Event Plot 1 47 35 74% 19.4 20.5 6% Plot 2 41 39 95% 18.8 20.2 7% Plot 3 46 42 91% 20.8 18.2 -14% Plot 4 46 44 96% 18.3 27.4 50% TOTAL 180 160 89% 19.4 MIIII, MIII 11% Plot I 46 53 115% 19.3 20.0 4% Plot 2 53 47 89% I9.0 23.1 22% Plot 3 42 45 107% 21.5 20.0 -7% Plot 4 59 73 124% 18.8 21.3 13% TOTAL 200 218 109% 19.4 20.8 7% Plot 1 60 43 72% 20.8 22.9 10% Plot 2 47 45 96% IIIIWBMIIIII 27.0 22% Plot 3 54 51 94% 22.0 25.0 14% Plot 4 56 51 91% 18.0 19.1 6% TOTAL 217 190 88% 21.0 22.9 9% t Plot 1 45 43 90% 18.3 26.5 45% Plot 2 55 48 87°!0 19.0 22.1 16% Plot 3 60 44 73% 18.8 25.2 34% Plot 4 57 51 89% 19.5 24.3 25% TOTAL 217 186 86% 20.0 23.9 19% °..x%,r° 41: .',..'61,''?:-,;;;,_.4. E .....ah',"x , .., rv.,t:--A ..P .41 :..e' : ..'a,4. eir.,.. Plot l 45 31 69% 20.4 25.3 24% Plot 2 49 32 65% 18.4 26.0 41% Plot 3 43 IIIIIIIIEIIIIII 74% 16.6 18.6 12% Plot 4 44 33 75% 13.6 18.2 34% TOTAL 181 128 71% 17.3 22.0 27% CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 5 of 25 Uniola Panieulala -Sea Oats September 2010 Event � ,, Plot 1 47 37 79% 19.4 19.6 I% � Plot 2 41 40 98% 18.8 19.0 1% Plot 3 46 42 91% 20.8 19.3 -7% Plot 4 46 44 96% 18.3 31.8 74% TOTAL 180 163 91% 19.4 22.7 17% 221„!L ' x. '� '''" rya" " � „, Plot 1 46 y45 98% 19.3 19.0 -2% Plot 2 53 53 100% 19.0 20.0 5% Plot 3 42 42 100% 21.5 19.4 -10% Plot 4 59 59 100% 18.8 20.2 7% TOTAL 200 199 100% 19.4 Plot 1 60 58 97% 20.8 23.0 11% Plot 2 47 47 100% 22.1 25.4 15% Plot 3 54 54 100% 22.0 24.3 10% Plot 4 56 54 96% 18.0 21.1 17% TOTAL 217 213 98% 21.0 23.8 13% Plot 1 45 35 78% 18.3 26.8 46% Plot 2 55 47 85% 19.0 22.3 17% Plot 3 60 57 95°l° 18.8 28.3 51% Plot 4 57 51 89% 19.5 31.6 62% TOTAL 217 190 88% 20.0 28.0 40% a ,l#. .'' , s.*:4; + . ... - max:;' Plot 1 45 34 76% 20.4 26.3 29% Plot 2 49 29 59% 18.4 27.8 51% Plot 3 43 30 70% 16.6 19.3 16% Plot 4 44 28 64% 13.6 19.0 40% TOTAL 181 121 67% 17.3 23.2 34% 1 CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 6 of 25 Staff Reports 1>a ,.. r r # �� r� ,�� ' hex ' r,.. .� +? « ',' ' i g 4 i '******,,, '''r '''s "0 ..,: .1.' ;,41.::.;:N1' ."* ., Eof�F9# 3= F �; ', .- . Beach .'.. p t ,,,,..ti [,tm et:4"4 ''„+ 7*/ y . ;ti r` Baseline 1Barefoot Plot 1,Photo I.• » � ♦ - . 4� k, ! 3 `.• "' �.� V .p � +* ° 4 ( i '' 1*ee ., .,�,,-.w. .sir � "}„ ;» «.. - c x► ; s ... r, .:, . a s ."----N Photo 2. Barefoot Beach Plot 1,September 2011 Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring September 21111 Event [ ] , [ ( {� �` CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 7 of 25 Ar a xf $^ pw It ` ; �. i�` �'' --'T :- Ali 2010 Photo 3. Barefoot Beach Plot 2,Baseline -,,. ... . . ...,..7.. - -,•!''' ' . ilet , [N:1'4..- '' ' , : '-:„... . ,, ,,',''''','' •-.1,:ir, a_ ,, w , { a• .-t - rte. - .: .,.-`... rgxr a: . a - 1 fir. '" . a� t • 4'� „ o Photo 4. Barefoot Beach Plot 2,September 2011 Y Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring September 21111 Event itt Bdldfl ( � CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 8 of 25 ' ' ,,.',..- ' ;1,, ,....„''',4014fit ...' 1 tr:,,4 o 1,, ..,,, , . '.,,. . '- -_. -: •""'..,:7;t:t i . .■7414114:7 4 4' -' pol. .,... "-4.='= .. w �r arc. ' fir` r "° f4t1 ,), j~ Photo 5. Barefoot Beach Plot 3, Baseline 6 -. ' :. ,.+. y.,,,, °",1,:t" . +, ' t_ ", Dui " .. +" w � ,,� 'tea 7 S a.. 's;. '" � �p is v ° , -, . .,..„..., `` ,„--..4,. . lt. 04 \ i,F '?". v.si4. —4�},'...t.' c � � _i taw+°' x �+ �,- "" � ,"; �; Photo 6. Barefoot trtBt. Plot 3,September 2011 Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring , September 2011 Event {] ( a ( Q CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 9 of 25 A} 3F e x ^N ir P # t b -. ! d.i w.. .■ ,fi,, r ,_ Photo 7. Barefoot Beach Plot 4,Baseline '4 fir. � 4 B ; �. Y ^� t ¢ j. q.Ova """IDS s + {Ay' �� t f� yp ¢ a Photo 8. Barefoot Beach Plot 4,September 2011 Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring September 2011 Event ( 4 Q K, Oc CAC t ,2011 VII-6 Staff ober Reports 10 of 25 0,4= . 4,0,t , .:;.,,,),%:' ''i.,:-.4.'":::(4.:'::-: , ,:-..t:',01:". ' -': b w . ..„ , 3 d „ i "' -v` ' t t t`y, 4Sme poi . :' '6 i C Photo 9. Vanderbilt Beach Plot 1, Baseline a 444,-,:.., .,,' ','1:*.41,1k., .:'-4,,,_,.. ',',,':7'..* r*." Photo 10. Vanderbilt Beach Plot 1,September 2011 Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring n [ arch Balaacev Se tentber 2011 Event CAC 11 October C ° 13,2011 VII-6 of Staff Reports $ 1 *''' r t ...,,, %. ,, ..A. ,„ , ,„ .„. 0 .0 i , . ! , \.,,,., , --,...„00 , , i. ,,,, ,, '..,4,;,. ,..v.. t _,..: 1 ..,_, , „ ,,,,- ).,Jj �e ''' .4-.;' ,.!-, - )..,' —i..., ?:, 1.:-. . --. -* \ ,, Nit:.:ii.;(41. r,,,,, r ' P, -....:*-?1.,:"* ' '- /1 Pk ,... , �:. Photo 11. Vanderbilt Beach Plot 2,Baseline F 1 n ' ,, ,< a�S°t" of r.:::.,..140...;;„ .a- .4''''�` e uMi ' H .� Photo 12. Vanderbilt Beach Plot 2,September 2011 Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring September 2411 Event r h did H { �' CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 12 of 25 %'. � •a* � t L r to t /''''' . tV; -iv e . d e ,, ,fir.. b ?" 'a Photo 13. Vanderbilt Beach Plot 3,Baseline t- ",,‘ : :ilit't' i''''' *1 kt, : '''', ''''''' } m , `'` _ , ,,,,, _ hx,.,,,,,a. ,. .. .. 1 � 8 Rio ,m, _.,, m 7t, r=fie q µ" ¢* nay " ,-,, ..,, ,,,.,. . 7 r, r .«�. Photo 14. Vanderbilt Beach Plot 3,September 2011 Collier County Dune on Monitoring September 2011 Event Ed ith 6 d l d l ( Q Restorati CAC 13 of October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff 25 Reports 11 '1,104 II:z , x a 1 ; -,'' 1 ♦ 70k. " gg dF-3�'v r '' _. � � � st` °rob .. ,� Ewa.. A Photo 15. Vanderbilt Beach Plot 4,Baseline _ . .. ,. , . w '''' * If #1,,,p .. - _ ,..... ,,...t.„,„.,,..0. lt,.. .....,..1 t6„,,,,' 1,,,,,,c..„, ,,,....44,4,9!...,,,, Photo 16. Vanderbilt Beach Plot 4,September 2011 �i Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring , September 2Q11 Evens ( t t I d H c e. VII-6 CAC October 13,Staff Repo rts 2011 14 of 25 94F gyp_'-^J- f +g Jill;,f /1 kAs •p M1 V � + i,S t3 �{ . }mow.` . ■ Photo 17. Park Shore Beach Plot 1,Baseline t fi II! k $ R4 i * ''7..' ' , ' 4 2)1t4i'".",jt4t7';'''' ,.— ' . ft000,,voic 4„,....,„„ , ., ,,,,.., .16: , ,. „ .,____,. ...,. 4i ' Photo 18. Park Shore Beach Plot'1'',September 2011 0.r„,,,...n 4 0Nf Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring tt ; September 2011 Event # ( $ I a C @ J CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 15 of 25 • 7.,. , •.f „ , 4 . ,.• ,..,. . ar, ;. x f { v '* Photo 19. Park Shore Beach Plot 2,Baseline r Collier County Dune Restoration ong September Monit 2011 Evenrit [ d r t h B d I d n ( Q i) CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 16of25 r ,41. a„, ,,,,,,,.. ,,,, .,. ..,, .„..„... ,. 7 . ,, ,.. ,L s, , :.,,,, ,,,,, ,.,rift 7 I :r.....,- —,,/ I - ,o.,.iii,,,,,•,,, ,!' r .+ Photo 20.Park Shore Beach Plot 3,Baseline ` , b k '''''''',.:.,Lt."•,':''°'-' , \di-,, '''tf,. 1, 14, .4?...,i .... „ , . .:‘,.: ‘, 1, .. ,..:1- ', '- ',.h ^.*tie ge .* .'.-__ ...i.4' ,, ,: %'10- ' .-..„. 7, '!";,:,11 '',0' ''7,-::::\, - :'",-;-.,,".,..4.:•‘'1 , t'.10',. ":',,':, 'I "�st ! Photo 21. Park Shore Beach Plot 3,September 2011 Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring f h I e.o. September 2011 Event t a r tB d d CAC II , V -6 Staff Reports 2011 VII-6 17 of 25 October . Ye -.t 4 S + d 1, r- w in. te � ' a - y , d r , S ', - v } " a Photo 22. Park Shore Beach Plot A, Baseline tl• F .ems. 4 lk. m Photo 23. Park Shore Beach Plot 4,September 2011 ,,,Th Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring Septerrtirer 2Ol l Event i t {� ( P Ot , VII-6 CAC Staff ober Reports 011 18 of 25 c ?'-� , 1: k'' t'f'.4 'tr ►'' ,� , ' 1.: . ',.i, L , iq � � :, - Y ij k F. Photo 24. City of Naples Beach Plot 1,Baseline s 4.R + $" , '41rWitito..-- A -, ..'fil 4.,,:1 '..4 40 , it".., , . , ',' Iltio1 _,,. i78 t • •. ..wrik i40 Este i. i 9 a- i r .L.,/,,,,,_ 1 " ,, s iillfr Photo 25. City of Naples Beach Plot 1,September 2Q1 t Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring September 2011 Event { ( t �'' ; CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 19 of 25 01 d w R t d •, e /` ,. '* ,t , . to`—' ., y , , t. . , „... .._ . . ,, -- ...4„.„.. - ` Malty z.Photo 26. City of Naples Beach Plot 2, Baseline i' E' 4 `it ' t k. - ' ' Tom.• - . : , °,g ' # _ a,r t s , r^o it�_r.. �+ '. ° . Photo 27. City of Naples Beach Plot 2,September 2011 Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring P EdrthBalaH ( Q Se tember 2011 Event CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 20 of 25 . x 4 _ al..t."' vVvi,,„‘ 'I ' liV , ;,, ' '414""' s � ... ' \ :' w- ‘. alm 4‘..' '10 a r " Photo 28. City of Naples Beach Plat 3,Baseline e Ate; R may . i ae** ' ' ---.."--- ,.. , ..,..... .. ,... 4 -- ' j�j}j�t ^a- r' 0 ,,.'44k',4 44 1;1,..4. Photo 29. City of Naples Beach Plot 3,September 2011 Ir Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring September 2011 Event { ( a (Q ` CAC Oct , V -6 Staff ober Reports 2011 21 of 25 a • f y ��,Z; 1. ,€ �� .k kir x^ ,,,.. q. az x ; ,_ xF r 4 Y a: #?., x Vii.$ , x t.,. ... w_id�W. ,w,b,......_,..t&.e.,.am_ Photo 30. City of Naples Beach Plot 4, Baseline Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring n earth E ce Se tember 2011 Event CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 22 of 25 - at .‘ .„„#t . Llt, + ::°.. w+ tia .-' , ,,,.;„,,,,,,r,:* y t .- eta l.-w . d s :.. . :r 44'* �' °,4 *.,,,,,t,'--* „,.. SS pr .4',...r.'*''''-,.;-:-. " 7 '` . . .. E r C 3 'g.',:1,:t--644','" N * .. . Photo 31. Marco Island Beach Plot 1,Baseline f ' _ -'• bra 'B - . e ' :4 n"fit ay" -A"'^° ., _„<",..,",,, i t- a► :'o'''``ff L k ti:t , 4 'r C ?: .,s rya 7 Y- <+ ti- R" ¢':' :S3' s 'A r r`+w +n,ate ,,.. '..: ' Y z'"yrr s�S t i.: L ! t i4 '''..-4-,*: •';•Y .4t < t ` 4 :( , � ".� � it, } }o rs r r r Photo 32. Marco Island Beach Plot 1,September 2011 �f Y Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring R ; September 2011 Event [ a t t h B a t a n CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 23 of 25 x � 5 *`<u ilogvit r Ar N5" 4,''�T$ --Wi n. ,. � .'l N °: l:r ` '...4'. �4. ' � r der ,ter ' .® a.' � ;. '� 3' a '\ * . ` ., s ..., 0, p 1' .... QA .". 3•.9 P ° .w. .. �- .:� 'w +' ' r� A 'am.' 'n .,,a* mF Photo 33. Marco Island Beach Plot 2,Baseline n Y k b ii f r t k }. i y, � 0,x, 8 y .rho[`'• , „ 4 yak - T i ,•.•,..,/, $o r ? a,^.- r, .. ., ,Lam.. '''' �„ .r 4 , `.a" . `, "k "r ,.i .114 '+ `• a 1 $ "0. mod. 4 •Photo 34. Marco Island Beach Plot 2 September 2011 �� Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring September 2011 Event ( E' v CAC October 13,2011 VII-6 Staff Reports 24 of 25 .sue . *tea � g 1• . ,+p 4-" �' a,N. +t f G\4,y� "' �'�' +- _y: t +fin'. �R 1k ri �_ '� "" om, ' _ k .. , ,I, 4(1'0." "-., • 'LANA imt i rte .- ., , ..,sescii Ltk,"*„. . r - ---' . 44.4. - ee 14.'"it „ ,„J "I IFT a 80 Photo 35. Marco Island Beach Plot 3,Baseline 1--, ' -1.7 , .'*- „ 7 d t. ,a , r" ',.... - x _ ;� .- a wt 9 ! a 'i 3r r £ fM a �e.' . �. f'g„r�i �?�t , �, 4 t V ,' r - { K _ y am". y&v r ' fit:Yys4 `±. t , a: t, S . Photo 36. Marco Island Beach Plot 3,September 201 I Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring , September 2011 Event ( { Q CAC October 13,2011 v2511-06f Staff Reports 25 Y Y ".,sPiGPfi„ , - - . dye �� „,�ed'��' ^�� : ® 4 :A'fin} n.' - r «.. : 5 i} �° yew I fm_ , 4 t {`vi 4.T d , -i ( ps ► ":! A /19';'''-— '.:rifi ..:-;:: *:$,i ' ; i to f:-.-. Photo 37. March Island Beach Flot 4,Baseline ". : es „ R«�„ p. -c �� t y. A ft's p f`'. e*�i k q • d. t�l!-tr fl r �1 . �4," � s J - fi1,41-4k .4 � , ��" s. �k . e� # s ■"4:,,,j- „ jj;-4,6*-1'..1.,=j: Photo 38. Marco Island Beach Plot 4,September 2O1 I Collier County Dune Restoration Monitoring September Zllil Event ( �` C e CAC October 13,2011 VII-7 Staff Reports 1 of 5 9/30/2011 Robert Seibert Re: TS FAY— DR 1785: • PW 1146 —Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples Beaches for 175K CY's of sand at a budgeted cost of$7.9M. • PW— 561 —Marco Island Beach for 77K CY's of sand at a budgeted cost of $2.8M. Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples Beaches Collier County is request a time extension for TS Fay, PW-1146—Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples Beaches for 175K CY's of sand at a budgeted cost of$7.9M. PW 1146 is currently authorized until 8/23/2012 and Collier County is-requesting its extension until 12/31/2014 to complete the permitting and beach renourishment. Rather than just place the sand on the beaches, our approach was to develop a plan that addresses our high erosion rates and beach hot spots. Our overall objective was to identify and engineer a more robust beach better able to withstand and resist normal and storm induced beach erosion. Our specific objective was to maximize the time between major beach renourishments by investigating/installing some level of advanced erosion control or positive erosion control devices. To accomplish this, Collier County has been engaged in conceptual engineering and system modeling for the past 9 months. Both these studies are now completed and attached.: These studies allowed us to develop a conceptual design that can now be taken to Florida Department of Environmental Protection for permitting. We investigated and modeled the following erosion control methods: • investigated and modeled submerged breakwaters that mimic natural reefs; • breakwaters off shore; • removal of existing groins; • the addition of T-heads to existing outfall pipes/supporting groins; • T-head groins attached to the beach; • rock jetty's and spurs to existing jetties; • advanced renourishment where practical. Our study developed the following conclusions based on a combination of existing practices and new alternative summarized below: CAC October 13,2011 VII-7 Staff Reports 2of5 1. Continue the existing beach fill practices: Vanderbilt Beach (R22.5 to R31.5); Park Shore (R45.5 to R54); Naples Beach (R58 to R79) along with Inlet Bypassing at Wiggins, Clam and Doctors Passes. 2. Initiate the following new practices: • Widen and raise the beach to support a 10-year nourishment interval. Nourishment alone with a wider beach may be sufficient to address the worst hot spots for a 10 year design life. • Add Barefoot Beach (R14 —R16) to rebuild the ebb shoal beach • Nourish Clam Pass Park (R42-R45.5) providing a feeder beach for Park Shore • Return the disposal area for Doctors Pass dredging to the area immediately south of the pass, using the permitted beach template. • Modify or remove structures (groins and outfalls) from beach based on a sequence to address those with the largest impact, lowest cost and easiest to address outfall solution. Start with the structures locates closest to Clam and Doctors Passes. Removal must be accompanied by, continued periodic nourishment and inlet bypassing. • Add a spur to the south Doctors Pass"jetty to reduce losses from Naples Beach into the inlet and maximize the effectiveness on inlet bypassing. • Plan on small (truck haul) nourishment project, between major nourishment interval, to address hot spots caused by significant storms and changes in wave climate, long shore transport and inlet bypassing not anticipated in this report and modeling. • Delay any decision on adding other structures to the plan, unless the detailed design and/or permit restrictions significantly restrict use of an adequate fill template. • The borrow area from the previous renourishment project (T1) will be utilized to support the renourishment project. The coarser sand used during the last renourishment has steepened the beach profile, as expected, and in general, most profiles within the County have experienced retreat at the toe of fill greater than the magnitude of shoreline retreat. This means that the permitted template can be increased in size without increased threat to nearshore hardbottom. This makes a 10 year nourishment interval feasible with few limitations. Specific recommendations are as follows: 1. Barefoot Beach (R14-R16): Nourish with approximately 100,000 cy of sand to supplement sand bypassing in support of the new Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan. 2. Vanderbilt Beach (R27-R31): Increase advanced nourishment where practical, and construct a feeder beach or increase fill volume near the hot spots. Consider structures only after nourishment alone proves insufficient or ineffective thru performance monitoring. CAC October 13,2011 VII-7 Staff Reports 3of5 3. Clam Pass Park (R42-R44): Renourishment with approximately 30,000 CY of sand to supplement sand bypassing as part of the new Clam Pass maintenance dredging permit. Schedule maintenance dredging at different times from beach nourishment, so that maximum volume can be placed down drift of the inlet in a limited template. This fill will act as essential feeder beach for northern Park Shore. 4. Seagate Drive hot spot (R44- R46): Remove groins in conjunction with feeder beach created at Clam Pass Park. Increase advanced nourishment to supplement any short fall from these actions. 5. Park Shore (R51-R54): Nourish for 10 year design life supported by modeling. Increase advanced nourishment or feeder beach volume in the vicinity R48 to address model hot spot. Delay consideration of any structures until performance monitoring of this `nourishment alone option can be completed. 6. South of Doctors Pass (R58): Increase nourishment rate, modify Doctors Pass dredging permit to dispose sand in the permitted beach fill template south of Doctors Pass. Build spur off of groin to stabilize this severe hot spot so that it perform with a 10 year renourishment interval. Bypassing to the close disposal areas and nourishment alone may address most of the needs in this area, and additional structures should be delayed until performance monitoring of nourishment alone option can be completed. Timing of nourishment and dredge disposal should be separated, so that the limited space in the template can be maximized, 7. South of Lov dermilk Park (R62-R64): Modify or eliminate groins vicinity R62 and R65 in conjunction with increased nourishment. Consider alternatives for groin modification (such as elevated outfall combination structure). Drainage modification may not be feasible, since they are controlled by another party. Create feeder beach at Lowdermilk Park to mitigate change dredge disposal practices: 8. Design all reaches for,a 10 year project life and skip reaches that do not need fill to meet this goal. Maintain capability of truck haul project to address small hot spots if they occur. 9. Create a schedule for groin removal or modification, starting with the groins immediately south of Inlets. Modify future plans based on performance monitoring,, We are convinced that Our overall objective to develop a more robust beach better able to withstand and resist normal and storm induced beach erosion will be achieved with the implementation of these general and specific recommendations. This however will require additional time to permit these solutions. A major permit modification from FDEP will be required. We are targeting that our revised permits can be completed in 18 to 24 months with renourishment following immediately and complete by 12/31/2014. CAC October 13,2011 VII-7 Staff Reports - 4of5 Collier County is recommending that the FEMA authorized quantities be incorporate as the first portion of our project. Using the Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples beaches as an example, the first 175,000 CY of sand placed on these beaches would be invoiced along with the mobilization/demobilization. Engineering and permitting cost would be invoiced as it would be completed during the engineering and permitting phase of this project. This would allow you to close your project out a soon as possible. FEMA would benefit because any mitigation work accomplished by the County will reduce future storm impacts. The time extension is required to engineer and permit this approach and to mitigate future erosion and reduce costs for Collier County as well as further minimizing FEMA participation in replacing sand. South Marco Beach (PW 561) Collier County is request a time extension for TS Fay; PW 561 -Marco Island Beach for 77K CY's of sand at a budgeted cost of$2.8M. PW 561 is currently authorized until 8/23/2012 and Collier County is requesting its extension until 12/31/2014 to complete the permitting and beach renourishment. Similar to the request for the Vanderbilt,'Park Shore and Naples Beaches, Collier County has completed the conceptual design and modeling study of this beach with the goal of developing a more robust beach that is better able to withstand normal and storm induced erosion. Our specific objective.was to maximize the time between major beach renourishments by investigating/installing some level of advanced erosion control or positive erosion control devices. This study has now been completed and is attached. These studies have allowed us to develop a conceptual design that can now be taken to Florida Department of Environmental Protection for permitting and incorporates the following major points: 1. Beach Renourishment including system modeling to determine the optimum sand placement quantities to maximize the renourishment cycle. Modeling determined that 104,000 CY's will optimize the fill template to resist future erosion. 77,000 CY's is authorized under FEMA's disaster order. 2. A new FDEP permit will be required and is expected to take 6-12 months to obtain. The existing USACE permit is good till 2021. However, the existing Biological Opinion does not authorize renourishment during turtle nesting season. 3. Refurbishment of existing erosion control structures is required. There are three breakwaters and two groins at the end of Marco Island to control erosion. These structures need to be rebuilt to the original design to perform as intended. This CAC October 13,2011 VII-7 Staff Reports 5of5 will require permitting from FDEP and the USAGE to restore the structures to their original design and function. Permitting is expected to take 6 to 8 months. 4. The addition of an additional Erosion Control Structure is recommended. When modeled, an additional Rock Groin located between R147 and R148 out performed both a feeder beach alternative and an additional segmented breakwater alternative in reducing beach erosion. The model predicts beach width and volume are sustained by 20%-25% over other options at this critical location. Initial placement of sand behind the Rock Groin is anticipated. It is also anticipated that beach width and volume will continue to be sustained as the area behind the Rock Groin fills with sand after initial placement. Permitting for this option is expected to approach a year and will dictate the overall completion of the Marco Island beach project. 5. Work with the USACE to determine if the Regional Biological Opinion that was just issued within the past 90 days supersedes the permit Biological Opinion. FEMA would benefit because any mitigation work accomplished by the County will reduce future storm impacts. The time extension is required to engineer:and permit this approach and to mitigate future erosion and reduce costs for Collier County as well as further minimizing FEMA participation in replacing sand. J. Gary McAlpin, Director. Coastal Zone Management 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34112 GarvMcAlpinC colllerUwv net (239) 252-5342 Fax: (239) 353-4061 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1 New Business 1 of 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Review and recommend for approval the Clam Bay Water Quality studies conducted by Atkins and Cardin Entrix for Collier County and the Pelican Bay Foundation. OBJECTIVE: Review and recommend for approval the Clam Bay Water Quality studies conducted by Atkins and Cardin Entrix for Collier County and the Pelican Bay Foundation. CONSIDERATIONS: Attached Water Quality reports for Clam Bay as follows: 1. Collier County: Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the Clam Bay - Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria -Atkins 2. Dissolved Oxygen Site Specific Alternative Criteria Development— Cardno Extrix 3. Email Russ Frydenborq to David Tomasko dated 9/7/11 ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff is recommending approval of this item. FISCAL IMPACT: The Source of funds is from Unincorporated Fund 111. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. This item is not quasi-judicial, and as such ex parte disclosure is not required. This item requires majority vote only. This item is legally sufficient for Board action. - CMG RECOMMENDATION: Review and recommend for approval the Clam Bay Water Quality studies conducted by Atkins and Cardin Entrix for Collier County and the Pelican Bay Foundation. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, CZM Director CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business vl ,of 42 Collier County: Numeric Nutrient Criteria Z Clam Bay – Development of Site- Specific Alternative Water Quality i- Criteria �; <`July 2011 Draft ( � f id I�9�tli,1p��na i vi pdxlP F.M^ ! lt„; r 0 aA I 1 6 i 'x v -a”' I -v;,-4,!. A ye- ry'1 III .x �- e';.X.'°-4. tie ''',:,7:-:- , .„-`<!-'1,141s yr a,7A� �,�� ,cd s r , w,,� 4 ey l c„" rx�' r tx„1 x.91 Plan Design Enable CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 2 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria Table of contents Chapter Pages Introduction 2 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Background Information 1 1.2. Report Objectives 3 2. Data Sources 4 3. Naples (WBID 3278Q) 4 4. Is Clam Bay"impaired"using existing FDEP criteria? 6 4.1. Fecal coliform bacteria 6 4.2. Dissolved Oxygen 7 4.3. Chlorophyll-a (Nutrient Criteria) 9 4.4. Sediment Characterization 10 5. Review of previous TMDL development 11 5.1. Salinity based Nutrient Targets 12 6. Techniques to derive numeric water quality criteria for Clam Bay 16 7. Proposed water quality criteria for Clam Bay 16 7.1. Is Clam Bay Healthy? 16 7.2. Proposed NNC normalized for salinity 17 7.3. Conceptual Management Responses 20 7.4. 2010 Clam Bay Management Assessments 22 8. Downstream Protective Values 23 9. Literature Cited 24 Tables Table 1. Water quality comparison between Clam and Moorings Bay(2009-2011) 5 Table 2. Fecal coliform bacteria summary statistics(2009-2011) 7 Table 3. Dissolved oxygen correlation with potential causative parameters 8 Table 4. Dissolved oxygen statistics for four WBIDs in Southwest Florida (from Atkins 2011) 8 Table 5. Quarter and annual average chlorophyll-a values for Clam Bay(2009-2011). 9 Table 6. Chlorophyll-a correlation with nutrients and secchi depth. 10 Table 7. Summary of DO Monitoring Data in the Verified Period for Hendry Creek,WBIDs 3258B and 3258B1 (Table 2.2 from Hendry Creek TMDL, FDEP 2008). 11 Table 8. Conductivity(pM) summary statistics for Estero Bay wetlands, Hendry Creek(Freshwater) and Hendry Creek (Marine). 12 Table 9. Comparison of expected total nitrogen based on Estero Bay wetland relationship with average conductivity with Hendry Creek TMDL target TN and Average TN. 16 Table 10. List of benthic organisms identified in Clam Bay(Conservancy of Southwest Florida 2010). 16 Table 11. Conductivity(pM) summary statistics for Clam Bay and Estero Bay wetlands 18 Table 12. Comparison of expected TN and TP based on Estero Bay wetland relationship with average conductivity and average TN and TP. 19 Table 13. Comparison of TN and TP screening criteria, Hendry TMDL targets, Clam Bay proposed NNC and Clam Bay average. 20 Table 14. Minimum, median and maximum proposed DPV TN and TP concentrations for Charlotte Harbor estuary compared to proposed Clam Bay DPV values. 23 Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 3 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria Figures Figure 1.Upper, Inner, and Outer Clam Bay are all part of the Clam Bay system. 1 Figure 2.Proposed revision dividing Clam and Moorings Bays into separate WBIDs. 5 Figure 3.Relationship between color and dissolved oxygen in the Fakahatchee Strand (WBID 3278G; p<0.05)(from Atkins 2011) 9 Figure 4.Location of sediment cores collected in Clam Bay. 10 Figure 5.Location map of Estero Bay Wetlands(WBID 3258A), Hendry Creek (Freshwater) (WIBD 3258B), and Hendry Creek (Marine) (WBID 3258B1). 12 Figure 6.Kruskal-Wallis comparison of medians for conductivity values in Estero Bay wetlands(EBW), Hendry Creek (Freshwater) (HCF)and Hendry Creek(Marine) (HCM). 13 Figure 7.Diagram of salinity distribution patterns along an estuary from the riverine(freshwater) input to the Gulf(Ocean). 13 Figure 8.Significant correlations between salinity and total nitrogen (mg/L)were found for the Hillsborough River, Sarasota Bay, Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay Wetlands. Graphs shown with best-fit line and 95%prediction limits. 14 Figure 9.Expected, upper, and lower(95 percent prediction limits)total nitrogen concentration for Estero Bay Wetlands based on the average conductivity. 15 Figure 10. Expected total nitrogen concentration for Hendry Creek(Marine) based on the average conductivity using the Estero Bay Wetland best-fit equation with 95 percent prediction limits. 15 Figure 11. Mann-Whitney comparison of medians for conductivity values in Clam Bay and Estero Bay wetlands(EBW). 18 Figure 12. Clam Bay potential TN target based on Estero Bay Wetlands regression and Clam Bay salinity with 90 percent prediction limits. 19 Figure 13. Clam Bay potential TP target based on Estero Bay Wetlands regression and Clam Bay salinity with 90 percent prediction limits. 20 Figure 14. Clam Bay conceptual water quality flowchart 21 Figure 15. Management response matrix using outcomes from both TN and TP evaluation. 22 Figure 16. Management response actions in response to various outcomes. 22 Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber ii CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 4 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria 1 . Introduction 1•1. Background Information 1.1.1. Clam Bay Clam Bay is an important natural feature in Collier County. The Clam Bay system consists of three tidally influenced lagoons: Upper, Inner and Outer Clam Bays (Figure 1). Associated with the increased development of Collier County,there has been concern among the public that Clam Bay might have been adversely impacted by environmental pressures that typically accompany population growth. In its historical configuration, Clam Bay would have received fresh water discharges mostly via small tidal creeks and groundwater inflow.Watershed development most likely increased both the amount of freshwater discharged into Clam Bay due to an increase in stormwater runoff, as well as loads of total suspended solids, nitrogen, and phosphorus(PBS&J, 2008). Figure 1. Upper, Inner,and Outer Clam Bay are all part of the Clam Bay system. Upper Clam Bay t Inner Clam Bay kp Outer Clam Bay The Clam Bay system was impacted in the 1950s by the construction of two roads; Vanderbilt Beach Road to the north and Seagate Drive to the south. Historically, Clam Bay was connected to the Gulf of Mexico indirectly via Wiggins Pass to the north and Doctor's Pass to the south, as well as its direct connection via Clam Pass. Outer Clam Bay temporarily lost its historic connection to Moorings Bay(located to the south) in the 1950's when Seagate Drive was constructed. As it was originally configured, Seagate Drive cut off tidal connections to the south, and Clam Pass was left as the only connection to the Gulf of Mexico. In response to water quality concerns, culverts were placed under Seagate Drive in 1976 to allow for tidal exchange between Clam and Moorings Bays. Originally,the culverts were intended to allow flows only from Moorings Bay into Clam Bay, but their construction was such that flows occurred in both directions(Collier County, 1997). In the 1980s,the tidal connection between Upper Clam Bay and Vanderbilt Lagoon (to the north)was severed due to development activities (Collier County, 1997).Although Clam Bay's watershed had been extensively developed,the shoreline of Clam Bay has remained in an almost entirely natural condition, with mangroves, rather than seawalls, as the dominant feature. Though watershed development has not directly impacted the shoreline features of most of Clam Bay, secondary impacts associated with the alteration of freshwater and nutrient delivery could have produced a negative impact to the overall ecology. Excessive nutrient(i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) concentrations in Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 1 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 5 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria surface waters can lead to eutrophication,which can be indicated by algal blooms, decreased water clarity, depressed dissolved oxygen levels, declines in seagrass coverage, fish kills, and reduced benthic productivity. However, in estuaries such as Clam Bay, nutrient concentrations are only one factor determining the degree of eutrophication. For Clam Bay, other critical factors could include residence time and the interaction of other chemical constituents(i.e.,tannin concentrations). While it would not be unreasonable to expect that water quality within Clam Bay could have experienced negative impacts associated with the rapid population growth that has occurred in Southwest Florida, it has also been concluded (Conservancy of Southwest Florida, 2010)that, "...the spatial distribution of seagrasses in Clam Bay has remained relatively consistent over the last 30 years." In addition,the organic content of sediments in the Clam Bay system does not appear to be indicative of substantial over-enrichment by nutrients(PBS&J 2010). Instead, it has been suggested that the fine-grained sediments that characterize much of Clam Bay are likely due to reduced flushing rates and low tidal velocities within Clam Bay(PBS&J 2010) a conclusion similar to those reached by the United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) in the 1970s(EPA, 1977)and by Collier County in the 1980s (Collier County, 1987). The lack of evidence for excessive nutrient enrichment in Clam Bay may be due to the substantial stormwater treatment system that occurs on the western boundary of the Pelican Bay development, as noted in PBS&J (2008). Levels of metals in Clam Bay sediments did not exceed threshold levels except for a site within one of the canals within the Seagate neighborhood;this elevated level of arsenic was postulated as perhaps being due to the use of pressure-treated wood for docks in that canal(PBS&J 2010). 1.1.2. State and Federal Water Quality Guidance The State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has historically used a narrative standard for nutrient concentrations in surface waters,which states that nutrient concentrations must not cause "...an imbalance of flora and fauna." This approach has generally served Florida well, as it allows for the recognition that there can be locations where water quality impairment from a regulatory viewpoint can actually reflect natural conditions. In the 1990s, the State of Florida passed the Florida Watershed Restoration Act(FWRA; Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida)wherein FDEP committed to a specific course of action to meet the requirements of the Federal Government's Clean Water Act(CWA). Within the CWA, Section 303(d) requires states to submit lists of surface waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards and to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads(TMDLs)for these waters. Under Florida Law(Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida), a TMDL is defined as"...the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body or water segment can assimilate from all sources without exceeding water quality standards..." The FWRA directed FDEP to develop a method that would clearly define those waters that should be included in the state's 303(d) list of water bodies that did not meet their appropriate water quality standards (i.e., "impaired waters"). Waterbodies on this list would then require a TMDL to be developed. To prepare the 303(d) list, FDEP relied upon advice received from various Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) made up of individuals with expertise in matters of water quality and ecological assessments. TAC's were formed for developing impairment criteria for lakes, streams, and estuaries, as it was determined early on that separate criteria would have to be developed for these very different types of waterbodies. Based on input from these TACs,the State of Florida's Environmental Regulation Commission adopted (in 2001) a FDEP- approved method for identifying impaired surface waters in Florida(Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code; Identification of Impaired Surface Waters)also known as the"Impaired Waters Rule" or IWR. After the development of the IWR, FDEP implemented a plan for the development of numeric nutrient concentration criteria(NNC)which was reviewed and approved by EPA. FDEP's plan to establish NNC was designed to establish NNC for lakes and streams as a first effort. The plan called for adoption of criteria by the end of 2010, but the schedule was accelerated in response to EPA's January 2009 determination that NNC are necessary under the CWA. In January of 2009,the Assistant Administrator of EPA concluded that the State of Florida's narrative standard for nutrients was inadequate, and that EPA would then "...propose numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for lakes and flowing waters within 12 months, and for estuaries and coastal waters, within 24 months." The push by EPA to develop NNC (rather than allow FDEP's EPA-approved process to continue)originated from legal action brought against EPA in 2008 by Earthjustice, a public interest law firm. Earthjustice filed a lawsuit to require EPA to create NNC for Florida waters, in a lawsuit filed on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation,the Sierra Club, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, and the St. Johns Riverkeeper. In August 2009, EPA entered into a Consent Decree with Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 2 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 6 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria Earthjustice to settle the 2008 lawsuit by committing to the development of NNC for lakes and flowing waters by January 2010, and for estuaries and coastal waters by January 2011. Final standards were to be established for lakes and flowing waters by October 2010 and for estuaries and coastal waters by October 2011. More recently the parties involved in the original Consent Decree agreed to extend the timeline for proposed estuarine and coastal waters nutrient criteria to November 14, 2011,with a deadline for finalized criteria for NNC for estuarine and coastal waters of August 15, 2012 As relates to coastal systems such as Clam Bay, an earlier(2010) EPA report on numeric nutrient standards for estuaries and their watersheds seems to have been withdrawn from further consideration. The withdrawal of this earlier report appears to be based at least in part on strong and negative feedback from the various resource management entities and the FDEP. In their latest timeline, EPA has stated that it will release revised numeric nutrient criteria for estuaries,their watersheds, and coastal waters by November 2011,with final nutrient criteria developed by August 2012. The schedule for estuarine and coastal water criteria requires EPA to propose estuarine and coastal waters nutrient criteria and downstream protective values for Florida by November 14, 2011 to allow for peer review by the Science Advisory Board (SAB)and to allow for public comment,followed by potential revisions to the proposed NNC by EPA. For Clam Bay, prior assessments have indicated that existing water quality standards described in FDEP's IWR are often times not met, particularly in Upper Clam Bay(i.e., PBS&J 2009). In that report, PBS&J (2009) noted that"Data from these five locations, while not properly located for ambient monitoring purposes, clearly indicate that Clam Bay would be classified as a "Verified Impaired"for water quality. Levels of dissolved oxygen(DO)are frequently below standards set in the IWR(FAC 62-302.530). Additionally, the data indicate that portions of Clam Bay exceed threshold values of chlorophyll-a established in the IWR (FAC 62-302.530)." In response to concerns raised by Collier County, PBS&J (2009)designed a water quality monitoring program for Clam Bay,which is currently being implemented by Collier County staff. Water quality data are now collected using FDEP-trained staff, sampling procedures are consistent with a Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan, station locations are appropriate for an ambient monitoring program, and the data are uploaded into the currently used database for the storage of biological, chemical, and physical data for ground and surface waters, the STORage and RETrieval database, or STORET(which was not done for earlier data collected in Clam Bay). However, it was also concluded (PBS&J 2009)that both the DO and the chlorophyll-a standards outlined in FDEP's IWR can be inappropriate in Southwest Florida water bodies, and that Collier County should work with staff from FDEP to develop site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC)for parameters such as chlorophyll-a, total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus(TP), and DO. This report is meant to propose SSAC for Clam Bay, based on guidance provided by EPA(2010) in"Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2010 (75 Federal Register 75762). This report uses a combination of relevant background information, a summary of existing studies on Clam Bay, and well-developed and scientifically appropriate empirical methods to develop NNC for Clam Bay. The methods employed are consistent with prior studies conducted for the Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Programs(i.e., Janicki Environmental, Inc., 2010) as well as guidance outlined in EPA(2010). 1.2. Report Objectives The report addresses six topics which are outlined below: Section 2: Data sources Section 3: Should Naples(WBID 3278Q)which combines both Clam Bay and Moorings Bay, be split into two separate WBIDs Section 4: Is Clam Bay"impaired"using existing FDEP criteria and is impairment likely due to nutrient- related impacts to water quality? Section 5: Review of previous TMDL development Section 6: Techniques to derive numeric water quality criteria for Clam Bay Section 7: Proposed water quality criteria for Clam Bay Section 8: Downstream protective values Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 3 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 7 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria 2. Data Sources The data used for the analyses included data provided by Collier County, the City of Naples and IWR Run 42 data (supplied by FDEP)to create a comprehensive dataset. All available water quality data were subject to a quality assurance/quality control plan. All stations identified with an organization code of 21 FLKWAT (Lakewatch)were removed from the dataset prior to analysis. At this time, Lakewatch data are not included as part of the datasets used for the determination of impairment status by FDEP. Data from the following eight waterbodies were retrieved and reviewed: Clam Bay, Moorings Bay, Estero Bay Wetlands, Hendry Creek, Charlotte Harbour, Sarasota Bay, and the Hillsborough River. 3. Naples (WBID 3278Q) The Naples WBID(3278Q)was comprised of both Clam and Moorings Bay(Figure 2). In response to water quality concerns, culverts were placed under Seagate Drive in 1976 to allow for the restoration of historical tidal exchange between Clam and Moorings Bays. Originally, the culverts were intended to allow flows only from Moorings Bay into Clam Bay, but their construction was such that flows could occur in both directions (Collier County, 1997). While a re-established hydrologic connection exists between Clam and Moorings Bay, comparisons of nine water quality parameters between the two Bays indicate statistically significantly differences in water quality (Table 1). A Mann-Whitney comparison of medians test was performed using data provided by Collier County and the City of Naples, which included data from 2009 to 2011. Eight of the nine parameters were statistically significantly different(p<0.05)when comparing median values in Clam to Moorings Bays(Table 1). Overall, Clam Bay has higher TN, TP, chlorophyll-a, and color values compared to Moorings Bay. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)was the only parameter with similar values between Bays. Salinity, temperature, Secchi disk depth and DO for Clam Bay were below the values calculated for Moorings Bay. The substantially different water chemistry between Clam and Moorings Bay, in addition to the land use and hydrologic modifications which have occurred in both systems, suggests that separation of the two waterbodies is required for water quality purposes. Although Clam Bay's watershed had been developed rather extensively, the shoreline features of Clam Bay have not been altered nearly as much as the shoreline features of Moorings Bay, which had undergone significant modifications due to dredge and fill activities as early as the 1970s. Through coordination between FDEP, Collier County, and the City of Naples, FDEP agreed to divide WBID 3278Q (Naples) into two separate waterbodies(pers. Communication Jennifer Nelson, FDEP). The proposed name for the northern WBID is Clam Bay which will be defined using the Clam Bay drainage basin. The southern WBID will encompass Moorings Bay. The new WBID designation best reflects the water quality and hydrologic variability shown between the Clam and Mooring Bay systems (Figure 2). Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 4 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 8 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria Figure 2. Proposed revision dividing Clam and Moorings Bays into separate WBIDs. Clam Bay } Moorings Bay ;, r « d C-84 Table 1. Water quality comparison between Clam and Moorings Bay(2009-2011) Median, Significantly Parameter different? Clam Bay Moorings Bay Salinity(ppt) 32.2 34.8 Y Temperature(°C) 23.9 27.0 Y Secchi Depth (m) 0.7 1.3 Y Color(PCU) 30 15 Y Chlorophyll-a (pg/L) 6.2 3.2 Y Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 0.62 0.43 Y Total Phosphorus(mg/L) 0.046 0.032 Y Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 4.9 6.2 Y BOD(mg/L) 2.1 2.1 N Data from Collier County and City of Naples(2009-2011) Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 5 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 9of42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria 4. Is Clam Bay "impaired" using existing FDEP criteria? The FDEP IWR contains approved methods for evaluating water quality of lake, stream, and marine waterbodies. Clam Bay is designated as a Class II, marine waterbody. Class II status indicates that the designated use of the waterbody is for shellfish propagation and harvesting. Clam Bay data provided by Collier County for the period of 2009 to 2011 were compared against the appropriate standard for fecal coliform bacteria, DO, and chlorophyll-a. If Clam Bay water quality fell above or below"impairment"for DO or chlorophyll-a, data were then compared against FDEP (2010)and EPA (2007)threshold concentrations for nutrients: — 1.0 mg TN/liter screening level used by FDEP(2010)and EPA(2007) — 0.19 mg TP/liter screening level used by FDEP(2010) and EPA(2007) Additionally, assessments were performed to evaluate potential nutrient impacts on DO directly or indirectly on water clarity(Secchi disk depth). Finally, toxins levels in sediments were quantified and 210 Pb and 137Cs testing were utilized to evaluate the sediment accumulation rate in Clam Bay. 4.1. Fecal coliform bacteria Fecal coliform bacteria standards are more stringent for Class II waterbodies compared to Class III (recreational use). The appropriate standard to evaluate fecal coliform bacteria impairment status in Clam Bay, based on the F.A.C. 62-303.470 is stated as follows: Class II waters shall be included on the verified list for coliform impairment if, following review of the available data as described in subsection 62-303.460(2), F.A.C. (a) The number of samples above 43 counts per 100 mL meet the requirement in subsection 62-303.420(6), F.A.C., with the exception that paragraph 62-303.320(4)(a), F.A.C., does not apply and samples collected on different days within any four day period will be assessed as daily samples, or (b) The water segment includes a sampling location that has a median fecal coliform MPN value that exceeds 14 counts per 100 ml for the verified period. To calculate a median value for a sampling location, there shall be at least 20 samples collected during the verified period. Fecal coliform bacteria data from Clam Bay were compared to two criteria. The first criteria evaluated was to test if sufficient samples exceeded 43 CFU/100 mL based on the sample size(N=132). A minimum of 19 samples are required to not meet the fecal coliform bacteria criteria in order for Clam Bay to be placed on the verified list. Sixty-eight of the 132 data points(52%) exceeded Class II standard of 43 CFU/100mL. Based on this comparison alone, Clam Bay is impaired for fecal coliform bacteria. The second criteria compared the median fecal coliform value for each station to 14 CFU/100 mL(Table 2). Sufficient data points are not currently available to complete a station by station comparison with the 14 CFU/100mL criteria required for the verified list. However, only ten samples are required by station for inclusion on the planning period list. All nine water quality stations had median fecal coliform bacteria values above 14 CFU/100mL. Though values exceed the regulatory standard, it should be considered that fecal coliform bacteria may not be an appropriate indicator of pathogenic diseases in sub-tropical environments such as Florida. The specificity of the fecal coliform test is compromised by the more constant and warmer ambient water temperatures in Southwest Florida. The inability to specifically identify humans as a source of bacteria using traditional indicator testing protocols has been noted by Fujioka (2001)and Fujioka et al. (1999)for various tropical locations. Source identification studies are recommended to determine whether anthropogenic factors cause of the elevated bacteria concentrations prior to developing recommendations for remediation (Bernhard and Field 2000). Elevated fecal coliform bacteria concentrations have been attributed to wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals and birds(Levesque et al. 1993, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2002). In prior TMDLs, birds were estimated to produce 200 to 400 million fecal coliform bacteria per bird per day(humans about 2 billion per day; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2002). Using a low end estimate of 200 milion fecal coliform Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date JobNumber 6 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 10 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria bacteria per bird per day, one bird could cause 124,000 gallons of water to exceed 43 CFU/100 mL. The total volume of Clam Bay is approximately 105 million gallons. Therefore, it is feasible to expect that 850 birds could produce enough bacteria—every day—to cause 105 million gallons of water to exceed 43 CFU/100 mL. Fecal coliform bacteria are susceptible to both die-off due to the saline environment and in- situ production. Regardless, it is within the realm of possibilities that birds are an important source of the bacteria in Clam Bay. In an effort to quantifiably identify the potential fecal coliform bacteria sources to Clam Bay, Collier County is pursuing a microbial source tracking effort for Clam Bay. Samples will be collected in Clam Bay and analyzed for bacterial genes or viruses specific to humans. Positive results would indicate an anthropogenic source but negative results do not prove that human sources are not present. Table 2. Fecal coliform bacteria summary statistics (2009-2011) N Average Median Geoma tric Minimum Maximum Criteria Clam 132 55 44 35 1 310 43 Bay Station statistics CBI 11 109 94 89 28 310 14 CB2 14 95 70 80 32 230 14 CB3 14 58 60 49 17 111 14 CB4 14 56 47 43 6 114 14 CB5 16 52 48 37 1 115 14 CB6 16 28 16.5 18 3 88 14 CB7 16 24 22 16 3 54 14 CB8 16 54 27 32 4 290 14 CB9 15 42 28 23 1 153 14 Data from Collier County(2009-2011) 4.2. Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen standards are differentiated based on the salinity designation of the waterbody. Clam Bay is designated a marine waterbody,therefore the appropriate standard to evaluate DO impairment status in Clam Bay based on F.A.C. 62-303.470 is as follows: Dissolved oxygen concentrations shall not average less than 5.0 in a 24-hour period and shall never be less than 4.0. Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above these levels shall be maintained. Dissolved oxygen concentrations in ambient waters can be influenced by many factors, including temperature and salinity; 4.2.1. Is Clam Bay impaired for Dissolved oxygen? Dissolved oxygen data from Clam Bay were compared to the minimum 4.0 mg/L criteria. Based on the sample size (N=144), a minimum of 18 and 20 samples are required to not meet the DO criteria in order for Clam Bay to be placed on the planning or verified list, respectively. DO values were below the minimum criteria of 4.0 mg/L in 30 of the 144 samples. In accordance with the IWR standard for DO, Clam Bay is impaired for DO. Sufficient daily DO data are not available to calculate a daily average for comparison with the 5.0 mg/L daily average criteria. To calculate the daily DO average, a minimum of four temporally independent samples(at least 4 hours apart) is required. Additionally, a minimum of 20 samples are required in to be eligible for placement on the verified list. As of June 2011,only 17 sampling events have been completed in Clam Bay. 4.2.2. Is dissolved oxygen impairment linked to nutrients? A correlation analysis between DO and multiple parameters(i.e. nutrients, color, salinity, temperature and chlorophyll-a)was performed to identify the potential cause for suppressed DO concentrations in Clam Bay (Table 3). A significant regression was not observed between DO and TN. Dissolved oxygen was indirectly Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 7 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 11 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria related to TP (p=0.0157) but TP only explained 4%of the variability in DO values. The best explanation in variability of DO concentrations in Clam Bay is predicted by a multiple regression model including color and temperature (r2=0.38). Table 3. Dissolved oxygen correlation with potential causative parameters Potential causative Response Model p value r2 relationship parameter parameter Total phosphorus Dissolved oxygen exponential 0.0157 0.04 inverse Color Dissolved oxygen exponential 0.0000 0.14 inverse Salinity Dissolved oxygen exponential 0.0188 0.04 direct Temperature Dissolved oxygen exponential 0.0000 0.33 inverse Chlorophyll-a Dissolved oxygen exponential 0.0003 0.10 inverse Total nitrogen Dissolved oxygen NA NS NA NA Data from Collier County(2009-2011) While the FDEP IWR requires a minimum DO of 4.0 mg/L in all Florida estuaries, DO values below 4.0 mg/L are expected in Southwest Florida (Atkins 2011). The Fakahatchee watershed (WBID 3278G) has been identified as a reference watershed that has undergone minimal disturbance. Despite this, the median DO in the Fakahatchee Strand (3278G)was significantly lower than the Faka-Union North and South Segments and the Rookery Bay(Inland East Segment)watersheds(Kruskal-Wallis; p<0.05, Table 4). Additionally,the median DO concentration in the Fakahatchee Strand was lower than the Florida freshwater and marine DO standard (5.0 mg/L). Table 4. Dissolved oxygen statistics for four WBIDs in Southwest Florida (from Atkins 2011) WBID WBID Name Average Median Minimum Maximum (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 3278G Fakahatchee Strand 4.1 3.7 0.2 12.8 3278H Faka-Union (North Segment) 5.3 5.2 1.6 12.8 32781 Faka-Union (South Segment) 6.2 6.4 1.2 12.9 3278V Rookery Bay(Inland East 6.2 6.4 2.1 11.4 Segment) Similar to Clam Bay, no significant relationships between TN and DO or TP and DO were observed at the water quality sites reviewed in the mostly pristine watershed of the Fakahatchee Strand. Therefore,there is little evidence to suggest that TN or TP load reductions would have an impact on DO in the Fakahatchee Strand. However, a significant correlation between color and DO was evident in the Fakahatchee Strand (p<0.05; Figure 3). Tannins(color) are predominantly produced from leaves,wood, bark and other detritus from trees. An increase in tannins(color) usually coincides with an increase in organic material resulting in a decrease in DO. Due to the heavily forested landscape within the Fakahatchee Strand (85%natural land cover), increased levels of tannins or color would be expected, especially during wetter time periods. Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 8 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 12 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria Figure 3. Relationship between color and dissolved oxygen in the Fakahatchee Strand (WBID 3278G; p<0.05)(from Atkins 2011) Fakahatchee Strand 2000-2008 14 1L •4, • y= 15.016x' 3'' J • R2= 0.1377 E 10 •• * • • • • ♦ • 5.0 moil standard y 4 ••• ♦ • _ * • + • • 0 2 •�• 0 t 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Color(PCU) 4.3. Chlorophyll-a (Nutrient Criteria) Chlorophyll-a is evaluated as a proxy for nutrient impairment. The IWR provides a narrative interpretation of nutrient criteria (F.A.C. 62-303.450)which allows for the development of a site specific alternative threshold with the presence of sufficient data that reflect"imbalance in flora or fauna". In the absence of sufficient data, estuaries and open coastal waters are subject to a standard of annual chlorophyll-a average of 11 pg/L (F.A.C. 62-303-353). Based upon the data available for Clam Bay, the default standard of 11 pg/L was used to assess nutrient impairment. 4.3.1. Is Clam Bay impaired for chlorophyll-a (nutrients)? The technique for calculating the annual average chlorophyll-a values is provided in F.A.C. 62-303-350. In summary,the chlorophyll-a average for each three month season (Quarter 1, Quarter 2, Quarter 3, and Quarter 4) is calculated. The chlorophyll-a average of four consecutive seasons is calculated to assess impairment. For Clam Bay, sufficient data were only available in 2010 to calculate an annual average(9.0 pg/L)which was below the 11 pg/L standard required for estuaries (Table 5). However, a separate evaluation of the annual chlorophyll-a average for Upper Clam Bay(14.6 pg/L)alone indicates elevated phytoplankton production. While Clam Bay is not impaired for chlorophyll-a or nutrients based on chlorophyll-a values below the 11 pg/L threshold, further investigation of the elevated values in Upper Clam Bay might be warranted. Table 5. Quarter and annual average chlorophyll-a values for Clam Bay(2009-2011). Year Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4` Annual 2009 8.3 2010 6.8 8.2 15.1 5.9 9.0 2011 7.7 Data from Collier County(2009-2011) 4.3.2. Is chlorophyll-a linked to nutrients? A correlation analysis between chlorophyll-a and TN and TP was performed to identify the potential cause for elevated chlorophyll-a concentrations in Clam Bay(Table 6). A significant regression was observed between chlorophyll-a and both TP and TN,which explained 22 and 25%of the variability in data, respectively. However, despite the link between nutrients and chlorophyll-a, a resulting impact on water Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 9 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 13 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria clarity(Secchi disk depth)was not observed. Connections between nutrients and chlorophyll-a, chlorophyll- a and water clarity, and water clarity and seagrass is thus not evident in Clam Bay. Table 6. Chlorophyll-a correlation with nutrients and secchi depth. Potential causative Response parameter parameter Model p value r2 relationship Total phosphorus Chlorophyll-a exponential 0.0000 21.54 direct Total nitrogen Chlorophyll-a exponential 0.0000 24.83 direct Chlorophyll-a Secchi Depth NA NS NA NA Data from Collier County(2009-2011) 4.4. Sediment Characterization As part of a study performed by Atkins(formerly PBS&J)for Collier County in Clam Bay(PBS&J 2010), a sediment characterization was completed to address the the predominance of fine-grained sediments in Clam Bay and the potential for such sediments to be influenced by flushing rates within Clam Bay. The sediment characterization study included an assessment of the physical and chemical characteristics of sediments throughout the Clam Bay system (including organic content, carbonate content), an assessment of levels of toxins throughout the bay, and an assessment of the relative rate of accumulation of sediments throughout the bay. 4.4.1. Toxins In 2010, cores were collected from 13 sites in Clam Bay for sediment physical (organic and carbonate contents) and chemical characterization (toxin levels) (Figure 4). Low levels of organic enrichment suggest a lack of impact from excessive algal blooms. Only one site (station 2) had toxin values above established thresholds. Elevated arsenic was observed at this site within the Seagate canals, which could have been due to the pressure-treated wood used for docks in this canal. A review of the sediments indicated that Outer Clam Bay's sediments are mostly a mixture of fine-grained sediments, rather than sand. The sediment composition are likely due to reduced current velocities within Clam Bay(US EPA 1977, Collier County 1987). Past studies of Clam Bay have shown that areas with fine- grained sediments have lowered diversity of benthic invertebrates (Collier County 1987) Figure 4. Location of sediment cores collected in Clam Bay. '' ^"4;117.- �� ^$ a fd d } '� 4�i iP ,.. 1 4.4.2. Sediment Accumulation Sediment cores were collected from five locations in Clam Bay(two from canals and three from open bay systems) (Figure 4). The cores were frozen and transported to Louisiana State University(LSU)to be analyzed for 10Pb and 137Cs. 21 0Pb provides relative sediment accretion rate estimates while 137Cs provides a reference point for dating using residual of nuclear bomb fallout(which peaked in 1963/64). At the open bay sites, 0.32 to 0.35 cm/yr sediment accretion rates were measured. These values are within,range from Sarasota Bay(0.32 cm/yr; Tomasko and Keenan 2010) as well as within the range of expected rates with and without accelerated sea level rise (0.24 to 0.52 cm/yr; Clark 1992). Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 10 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 14 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria 5. Review of previous TMDL development While Clam Bay appears to be impaired for DO, nutrients cannot be linked to these low values. Additionally, elevated chlorophyll-a concentrations are found in Upper Clam Bay, but a resulting impact on water clarity is not evident. While a local interpretation of the TMDL development process is logical in nature it is not accurate as to the application of Florida statutes: The Conservancy of Southwest Florida expressed the following sentiments in 2009, "...in order to triggera TMDL, dissolved oxygen levels have to be below standards in concert with causative pollutants. Biological Oxygen Demand, Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus also have to exceed State standards. Dissolved oxygen levels recorded in Clam Bay have been below the State standard, typical of a lot of estuarine waterways in the County including Rookery Bay... these levels are not surprising and can be defended(K. Worley 2009)." Presently, screening levels exist for TN and TP but there are no nutrient standards for the state of Florida. However, TMDLs have been developed in waterbodies with DO impairments even when TN and TP concentrations were below screening criteria (i.e. Hendry Creek TMDL, FDEP 2008). Hendry Creek, freshwater(3258B) and marine(325881), located in Lee County, have both been declared impaired for DO (Figure 5), and in 2008, FDEP developed a TMDL requiring a 32%load reduction for TN, even though nutrient concentrations were below(TN)or well below(TP) screening criteria (Table 7). Table 7. Summary of DO Monitoring Data in the Verified Period for Hendry Creek,WBIDs 3258B and 3258B1 (Table 2.2 from Hendry Creek TMDL, FDEP 2008). `bM ti ,'� i 2s', Est y w. ,,, ^. �_,>:. w`,, °r> .. des _. ..� °�9u �•, . :. _ �,�:.,' .' Total number of samples 59 39 IWR required number of violations for the Verified List 10 7 Number of observed violations 31 34 Number of observed nonviolations 28 5 Number of seasons during which samples were collected 4 4 Highest observation(mg/L) 13.0 6.9 Lowest observation(mg/L) 1.1 0.5 Median observation(mg/L) 4.9 2.6 Mean observation(mg/L) 5.0 2.7 Screening value for BOD(mg/L) 2.0 2.1 Screening value for TN(mg/L) 1.6 1.0 Screening value for TP(mg/L) 0.22 0.19 Median value for BOO observations(mg/L) 1.5 1.3 Median value for TN observations(mg/L) 0.775 0.886 Median value for TP observations(mg/L) 0.03 0.054 Possible causative pollutant by IWR TN TN FINAL ASSESSMENT Impaired Impaired MgIL—Milligrams per liter;BOO—Biological oxygen demand;TP—Total phosphorus. For the development of the Hendry Creek TMDL, a reference wetland(the Estero Bay Wetlands-WBID 3258A)was selected to establish target nutrient concentrations (Figure 5). FDEP stated that, "Estero Bay Wetland has similar hydrologic features to Hendry Creek and the anthropogenic influence is minimal, making it a good reference waterbody for developing a target concentration representing"natural conditions (FDEP 2008)". The target TN and TP concentrations for Hendry Creek(Marine)were calculated using the median values from the Estero Bay Wetlands, 0.6 and 0.05 mg/L, respectively.. Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 11 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 15 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria Figure 5. Location map of Estero Bay Wetlands(WBID 3258A), Hendry Creek(Freshwater) (WIBD 3258B),and Hendry Creek(Marine) (WBID 3258B1). 0 Iona Estero Bay Wetlands (WBID 3258A) Hendry Creek (Freshwater) junta Raa (WBID 3258B) Foci Myers Beach o ,.Sanibel Hendry Creek (Marine) (WBID 5•1• Salinity based Nutrient Targets Using the period of record data from IWR Run 42, the conductivity(a proxy for salinity) values for each waterbody from the Hendry Creek TMDL were compared to evaluate the hydrologic similarities between water bodies(Figure 6,Table 8). A Kruskal-Wallis comparison of medians indicated that the Estero Bay Wetlands (EBW) is statistically more saline than Hendry Creek (Freshwater; HCF)or Hendry Creek(Marine; HCM; Figure 6). The importance of evaluating the conductivity characteristics of the reference location compared with the selected waterbody is because Hendry Creek is part of an estuary(Figure 7), and by definition, an estuary is"a body of water formed where freshwater from rivers and streams flows into the ocean, mixing with the seawater"(www.epa.gov). Due to the changes in hydrologic inputs and weather impacts, the salinity(conductivity)at any given point in an estuary vary in a given day. A variation in hydrologic inputs(freshwater flows) results in a change in salinity in the estuary. Nutrient concentrations have been shown to be inversely related to salinity in various locations in Southwest Florida (i.e. Hillsborough River, Sarasota Bay, Charlotte Harbor, Estero Bay Wetlands; Figure 8). Table 8. Conductivity(pM)summary statistics for Estero Bay wetlands, Hendry Creek(Freshwater) and Hendry Creek(Marine). WBID Average Median Minimum Maximum Estero Bay Wetlands 46,488 48,475 2,500 61,400 Hendry Creek(Freshwater) 3,638 755 250 40,400 Hendry Creek(Marine) 11,679 4,975 96 52,500 Period of record data from IWR Run 42 Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 12 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 16 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria Figure 6. Kruskal-Wallis comparison of medians for conductivity values in Estero Bay wetlands (EBW), Hendry Creek (Freshwater)(HCF)and Hendry Creek(Marine)(HCM). 80000 g 60000 - - ▪ 40000 - — - v 0 20000 - 0 h EBW HCF HCIA Figure 7. Diagram of salinity distribution patterns along an estuary from the riverine(freshwater) input to the Gulf(Ocean). River ;Frsah Water) ..-... . .... .� 0.55 psu -441 Oligohaline Ni 5 psu ro Zvi� f p�A. Mesohaline - Estuary - -' 18 psu (Brackish Wa ar) Polyhaline -- 3© psu Ocean Euhaline 13 Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date JobNumber CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 17 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria Figure 8. Significant correlations between salinity and total nitrogen(mg/L)were found for the Hillsborough River,Sarasota Bay, Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay Wetlands. Graphs shown with best-fit line and 95% prediction limits. Hillsborough River Charlotte Harbor 3.Total Nitrogen=exp(0.08356-0.0306509*A.Salinity) A.TN=1.37947-0.0237786'A.SALIN 4 - ° E 2- E O - ° O 2 ° g ° ° 00 10 20 30 40 00 io 20 40 e Salinity(ppt) Salinity(ppt) Sarasota Bay Estero Bay Wetlands A.TN=exp(-0.0436092-0.0253919'A.SALIN) tivittrientanalysis.TN= 1.24451-0.0191291*conductivitynui \ . . .°. . ynu3 . r 3- _ rn ❑ _ E 2 ❑ m _ o ❑ o � .$❑ .t ° 'tee... ❑0 0 o 1 0 2 : 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Salinity(ppt) Salinity(ppt) Revised nutrient targets for the Estero Bay Wetlands can thus be calculated after normalizing for conductivity. The best-fit equation for Estero Bay Wetlands between conductivity and TN is linear(Equation 1) Equation 1: Total nitrogen (mg/L) = 1.30908—0.0000166414*(Conductivity(pM)) Using the average conductivity for Estero Bay Wetlands(46,488 pM),the corresponding TN value is 0.54 mg/L(Figure 9). The upper and lower limit at the average conductivity value are 1.08 and 0.0 mg/L, respectively,when using the 95% prediction limits(Figure 9). In comparison,the conductivity-normalized TN concentration for Hendry Creek(Marine) based on the average conductivity is 1.11 mg/L using the Estero Bay Wetlands best-fit equation (Figure 10). As a result,the average TN for Hendry Creek(Marine) (1.09 mg/L) is less than the conductivity-normalized TN target(1.11 mg/L; Table 9)derived from the reference WBID of Estero Bay Wetlands. Based upon the conductivity-normalized TN target, Hendry Creek (Marine)does not have elevated TN. This approach to developing conductivity-normalized TN and TP targets serves as the foundation for developing NNC for Clam Bay. Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 14 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 18 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria Figure 9. Expected, upper,and lower(95 percent prediction limits)total nitrogen concentration for Estero Bay Wetlands based on the average conductivity. 2 , - 0 . - 0 - J - 0 - 6. 1 .5 -0 0 - E - 0 - `� 1.08 mg/L- Upper Limit — O p ❑ 00 Z _ 00 ! O c •(lb s I ` • p" _ .`� D • ttit r4 0.5 _ �,`~ 0.54 mg/L- expected TN .Olr. 0.0 mg/L- Lower Limit 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 Conductivity (uS) Figure 10. Expected total nitrogen concentration for Hendry Creek(Marine)based on the average conductivity using the Estero Bay Wetland best-fit equation with 95 percent prediction limits. 0 I -1 .5 -13 a - �. '° 1.11 mg/I TN - - ! - 't - 0 CID 8 — D © 00 0 0 — - 00 ' o % - Z _ *' �'9 0 - a 00.'J! _ • ..Id 0 - 0 .- . I I ar■ 8 1 . 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 Conductivity (uS) Atkins Doc Name i Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 15 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 19 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria Table 9. Comparison of expected total nitrogen based on Estero Bay wetland relationship with average conductivity with Hendry Creek TMDL target TN and Average TN. Average TMDL(EBW) Expected TN based WBtD Average TN Conductivity 'Target TN on EBW relationship* Estero Bay 46,488 NA 0.54 0.60 Wetlands Hendry Creek 11,679 0.60 1.11 1.09 (Marine) 6. Techniques to derive numeric water quality criteria for Clam Bay Three approaches have been developed to derive numeric nutrient criteria by FDEP(Taken from FDEP 2nd draft overview of marine NNC approaches(11/2010) 1. Maintain healthy existing conditions - provides for maintaining the current nutrient regime in a system determined to be biologically healthy (from the standpoint of nutrient enrichment). 2. Historical conditions 3. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) modeling or response-based approach 7. Proposed water quality criteria for Clam Bay 7.1. Is Clam Bay Healthy? Multiple studies including water quality collection and analysis, pollutant loading model development, benthic invertebrate evaluation, toxin quantification and sediment accumulation rate assessments have been completed to evaluate the"health"of Clam Bay. After reviewing these studies,the weight of evidence suggests that Clam Bay is a healthy system. The Conservancy of Southwest Florida recently completed a benthic habitat assessment in Clam Bay(2010), with forty-five different types of organisms identified, including polychaetes, crabs, shrimp, seagrass and clams (Table 10). However,water quality in a "healthy"system can still fail existing criteria. In order to supplement the conclusion that Clam Bay is a"healthy"system which experiences natural fluctuations in water quality, a comparison of Clam Bay to an FDEP-established reference waterbody was completed. The Estero Bay Wetlands has been previously identified as a reference waterbody by FDEP and is located in close proximity to Clam Bay. Evaluating Clam Bay water quality based on a comparison with Estero Bay Wetlands could be a valuable supplement for the conclusion of Clam Bay's overall ecological health. Table 10. List of benthic organisms identified in Clam Bay(Conservancy of Southwest Florida 2010). Species or lowest taxon listed Common Name Kingdom Phylum Class Polychaeta polychaete Animal Annelida Pectinaria gouldi trumpet worm Animal Annelida Panopeus herbstii common mud crab Animal Arthropoda Eurypanopeus depressus depressed mud crab Animal Arthropoda Rhithropanopeus harrisii white fingered mud crab Animal Arthropoda Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 16 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 20 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria Species or lowest taxon listed Common Name Kingdom Phylum Family Ocypodidae mangrove mud crab Animal Arthropoda Family Grapsidae mangrove mud crab Animal Arthropoda Family Coenobitidae mangrove mud crab Animal Arthropoda Uca spp. fiddler crab Animal Arthropoda Callinectes sapidus blue crab Animal Arthropoda barnacle Animal Arthropoda Family Penaeidae penaeid shrimp Animal Arthropoda Order Amphipoda amphipod Animal Arthropoda Order Decapoda decapod Animal Arthropoda Family Portunidae portunid crab Animal Arthropoda Anguilla rostrata American eel Animal Chordata (order Anguilliformes) Class Ascidiacia sea squirt Animal Chordata (subphylum Tunicata) Moira atropos heart urchin Animal Echinodermata Ophiophragmus filograneus brittle star Animal Echinodermata Crassostrea virginica American oyster Animal Mollusca Family Mytilidae mussels Animal Mollusca Tagelus plebeius razor clam Animal Mollusca Anomalocardia amberiana pointed Venus clam Animal Mollusca Argopecten irradians Atlantic bay scallop Animal Mollusca Mercenaria mercenaria quahog Animal Mollusca Bittiolum varium grass cerith Animal Mollusca Melongena corona Florida crown conch Animal Mollusca Strombus alatus Florida fighting conch Animal Mollusca Pleuroploca gigantea horse conch Animal Mollusca Chicoreua florifer dilectus lace murex Animal Mollusca Family Melongenidae whelk Animal Mollusca Vermicularia fargoi West Indian worm snail Animal Mollusca Urosalpinx cinera Atlantic oyster drill Animal Mollusca Littoraria angulifera mangrove periwinkle Animal Mollusca Family Cerithiidae cerith Animal Mollusca sponge Animal Porifera blue-green algae Bacteria Cyanobacteria Caulerpa sertularoides green algae Plant Chlorophyta Acetabularia crenulata green algae Plant Chlorophyta Halodule wrightii shoal grass Plant Tracheophyta Halophila decipiens paddle grass Plant Tracheophyta Thalassia testudinum turtle grass Plant Tracheophyta Subfamily Lemnaoideae duckweed Plant red drift algae Plant Rhodophyta Acanthophora spicifera spiny seaweed Plant Rhodophyta 7.2. Proposed NNC normalized for salinity The data used for the comparison between Clam Bay and Estero Bay Wetlands were from the IWR Run 42 and Collier County for the period of record. The median conductivity values were compared using a Mann- Whitney comparison of medians(Figure 11). While the medians were found to be significantly different with Estero Bay Wetlands slightly more saline, the overall range was fairly similar(Table 11). Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 17 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 21 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria Figure 11. Mann-Whitney comparison of medians for conductivity values in Clam Bay and Estero Bay wetlands (EBW). 80000 60000 - - . ' w 1 40000 - ro�• ; - 3 - v c - 0 0 20000 - - 0 Clam Bay Estero Bay Wetlands Table 11. Conductivity(NM)summary statistics for Clam Bay and Estero Bay wetlands WBID Average Median Minimum Maximum Clam Bay 42,453 45,093 150 64,465 Estero Bay Wetlands 46,488 48,475 2,500 61,400 Period of record data from IWR Run 42 and Collier County Both Clam Bay and the Estero Bay Wetlands are classified as estuaries;therefore, salinity values can vary over a single day,week or season.As previously discussed, nutrients vary as a function of salinity. As such, target nutrient concentrations should be normalized to a salinity regime. The variability in TN as a function of conductivity is similar in both Clam Bay and the Estero Bay Wetlands(Figure 12). Similar to the calculations previously completed for Hendry Creek(Marine),the linear regression line between conductivity and TN for the Estero Bay Wetlands was used to calculate a potential TN target for Clam Bay(Equation 1). Using the average conductivity value 42,453 pS (25.4 ppt)for Clam Bay, the corresponding TN is 0.60 mg/L providing a potential TN target(Figure 12,Table 12).A potential target TP was also calculated using the exponential relationship found between TP and conductivity in the Estero Bay Wetlands(Equation 2). Based on the average salinity for Clam Bay(42,453 pS), a potential target for TP is 0.057 mg/L (Figure 13,Table 12). Equation 2: Total Phosphorus(mg/L)= exp(-2.3091 -0.0000129727*conductivity(NS)) Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 18 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 22 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria Figure 12. Clam Bay potential TN target based on Estero Bay Wetlands regression and Clam Bay salinity with 90 percent prediction limits. 2 . , •Clam Bay - ❑ - - • • • ❑ °Estero Bay Wetlands _ J - • ❑ • _ v, 1 .5 —° o • — E - . •» ❑ - 1 At' n • . . r z -�`'�• 0.60 mg/L TN w.,°b►❑ • - ti 0.5 � - L - •'Llipitt • ❑• • 42,453 pS Q 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 Conductivity (uS) Table 12. Comparison of expected TN and TP based on Estero Bay wetland relationship with average conductivity and average TN and TP. WBID Average TMDL(EBW) Expected TN based Average Conductivity(pS) Target TN on EBW relationship TN Estero Bay Wetlands 46,488 0.6 NA 0.60 Clam Bay 42,453 0.60 0.71 TMDL(EBW) Expected TP based Average Target TP on EBW relationship TP Estero Bay Wetlands 46,488 0.050 NA 0.068 Clam Bay 42,453 0.057 0.055 Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 19 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 23 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria Figure 13. Clam Bay potential TP target based on Estero Bay Wetlands regression and Clam Bay salinity with 90 percent prediction limits. 0.4 * Clam Bay o _ J - ° Estero Bay Wetlands - C) - o 0.3 - ,,.. _ 3.... - 4 - 0 - 0.2 -- O. 0 • • O a° O C' - • • . -•ca 0.1 ---- ` ra • 1 - 0.057 mg/L TP ` �' - ' - i3 ° ° '' ' i ,» 42,453 pS —' 0 - i 1 1 I 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 Conductivity (uS) The proposed Clam Bay numeric nutrient criteria for TN and TP at the current average salinity are similar to the targets established for the Hendry Creek TMDL but lower than the screening criteria accepted by both FDEP and EPA(Table 13). Presently, the average Clam Bay TP(0.055 mg/L) is below both the FDEP and EPA screening criteria (0.19 mg/L)and the proposed target TP of 0.057 mg/L(Table 13). In contrast, the average Clam Bay TN (0.71 mg/L) is below the screening criteria(1.00 mg/L) but above the proposed target TN NNC (0.60 mg/L; Table 13). Based upon this comparison, should Clam Bay be considered impaired since the average TN concentration is above the proposed target? That issue is considered in the next section (Section 7.3) of this report. Table 13. Comparison of TN and TP screening criteria, Hendry TMDL targets,Clam Bay proposed NNC and Clam Bay average. Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Phosphorus(mg/L) FDEP and EPA screening criteria 1.00 0.190 Hendry Creek TMDL 0.60 0.050 Clam Bay proposed NNC* 0.60 0.057 Clam Bay average 0.71 0.055 *calculated using nutrient vs. salinity relationship from EBW 7.3. Conceptual Management Responses The proposed Clam Bay NNC provides a protective approach to water quality evaluation and management for the waterbody. The proposed NNC are lower(more stringent)than the FDEP and EPA screening criteria, and they were derived based upon a nutrient:salinity relationship from the Estero Bay Wetlands, an established reference WBID. However,the NNC have to be considered in the context of salinity due to the variability in nutrient concentrations found within a given salinity range. Therefore, management responses due to deviations from the proposed NNC should be a function of magnitude and duration of any exceedances, similar to the management approach used by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 20 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 24 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria As part of the development of the Numeric Nutrient Criteria, FDEP is considering revisions to the existing DO standards for freshwater streams, lakes and estuaries in Florida (Frydenborg et al., presentation from 6/14/2011). A revised technique for streams and lakes evaluated the DO values for all sites with a Land Development Index(LDI) less than 2, a stream condition index(SCI) greater than 40, nitrate concentration less than 0.35 mg/L and conductivity values less than 250 umhos/cm. Sites were selected based on these four parameters in order to minimize the effect of confounding variables. The sites which satisfied these four criteria were identified as reference locations for DO evaluation. Using available data, the 10th percentile DO value was calculated to produce both state-wide and regional minimum DO standards. DO values below the 10th percentile value more would result in violation. A modification of the reference site approach FDEP is considering to modify the DO criteria was used to identify salinity-normalized TN and TP criteria for Clam Bay. Because Clam Bay appears to be co-limited by both TN and TP were selected to evaluate water quality. The 90th percent prediction limit for the Estero Bay Wetlands regression between TN or TP and conductivity was produced. The 90th percent prediction limit was selected because 10 percent of the TN and TP values at the corresponding conductivity would be expected to exceed the prediction limit. This approach is consistent with the calculation of the 10th percentile of reference waterbody DO values. Similar to the color grading system implemented in Tampa Bay, Clam Bay would be assigned a green, yellow, or red designation annually based on the magnitude and duration of exceedances of the 90'h percent prediction limit. The color designation would then be used to identify if management actions are required. Within a calendar year,each individual TN and TP value collected within the waterbody would be compared to the nutrient:conductivity 90th percent prediction limit(Figure 14). An annual percent exceedance would be calculated to determine the magnitude of exceedance. The minimum number of samples required to not meet an applicable water quality criterion by FDEP to be included on the Planning or Verified list equates to approximately 13 and 15 percent exceedance rates, respectively. To be consistent with the method currently implemented by FDEP to identify impaired water bodies, if greater than or equal to 13 percent of the TN or TP values in a calendar year exceed the 90th percent prediction limit ,the duration of exceedance would then be determined. Based on the duration of exceedance(one year or greater than one year),the outcome designation is assigned. If less than 13 percent of the values exceed the 90th percent prediction limit, then the outcome is"0". If the magnitude (i.e., 13 percent) and duration (i.e., >1 year) of the exceedances are small,the outcome is"1". If the magnitude or duration of the exceedances is large, then the outcome is"2". If both the magnitude and duration of the exceedances are large, then the outcome is"3". The management response for Clam Bay would be determined based on the outcomes assigned to both the TN and TP evaluations for the magnitude and duration of exceedance (Figure 15). Figure 14. Clam Bay conceptual water quality flowchart no>_13%of all I N&/or fP values from a calendar year No exceed the 90%prediction limit from the refererne Whit)? flu twine 0 Yes ?13% Magnitude of ?15% exceedance Duration of Duration of exceedance exceedance 1 year >1 year 1 year >1 year Doti rim e1 Ott t( Outcome 2 Outcome3 Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 21 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 25 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria Figure 15. Management response matrix using outcomes from both TN and TP evaluation. Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Outcome 0 Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Outcome 0 Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Annual management response actions would be identified based on the response to nutrient concentrations of phytoplankton and DO, as well as impacts on water clarity(Figure 16). If the outcome of the TN and TP evaluation was green,then no management actions are required. However, if the outcomes are yellow or red then further evaluation of the effect of elevated nutrient concentrations on both phytoplankton biomass and DO concentrations need to be reviewed. If there is no relationship between nutrients and chlorophyll-a or DO, then no management actions are required. If there is a signification relationship,then the impact of chlorophyll-a on the water clarity(Secchi disk depth) needs to be evaluated. If there is no relationship between chlorophyll-a and water clarity,then no management actions are required. If there is a significant relationship between chlorophyll-a concentrations and water clarity, an outcome designation of"yellow" (indicative of small magnitude or duration of exceedances) identifies that management actions should be taken to identify the potential causes and responses for the elevated nutrient levels. It the outcome designation is"red"(indicative of a large magnitude or duration of exceedances), management actions should be taken to implement recommended response tactics to reduce nutrient concentrations. The "health"of Clam Bay would be assessed annually. Figure 16. Management response actions in response to various outcomes. Green Response Yellow or Red evaluation Hold the line Evaluate phytoplankton/ significant dissolved oxygen (p<0,05) Not significant response to nutrient (p-O.OS) concentrations Evaluate water clarity Not significant response to chlorophyll-a (p>0,05) Significant(i)<(?.OS) Small difference or short duration Idei atif'{potent ! u c s Identify potential and IrnIer�t Large difference or causes and reconmenr et reSpon5e lung duration responses 7.4. 2010 Clam Bay Management Assessments Using the technique outlined in the previous section (7.3), Clam Bay was evaluated using water quality data from 2010. A total of 97 TN or TP samples were collected in Clam Bay in the 2010 calendar year. For TN, Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 22 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 26 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria 23 of the 97(24%) samples exceeded the 90 percent prediction limit. Greater than 13 percent of the TN values were in exceedance in 2010 and only one year of data is available for analysis, The outcome for TN is"1". For TP, 3 of the 97 (3%) samples exceeded the 90 percent prediction limit, resulting in an outcome of "0". In 2010, Clam Bay would be designated as"yellow". While there is a relationship between nutrients and phytoplankton biomass, no relationship exists between nutrients and DO, or between chlorophyll-a and water clarity. Therefore, no management actions are required and a"hold the line"approach is recommended. 8. Downstream Protective Values In addition to the development of NNC for Clam Bay, proposed downstream protective values(DPVs)can be estimated using the salinity:nutrient relationship. DPVs are generally assigned to the portion of a watershed classified as freshwater in order to protect the downstream waterbodies. As such, it should be reasonable to solve the salinity:nutrient relationships established for TN and TP in the Estero Bay Wetlands assuming a salinity of 0, indicating inflows of stormwater runoff. Since the Estero Bay Wetlands has been identified as a reference waterbody, establishing DPVs for Clam Bay based on a more"pristine"waterbody should result in more adequate protection. For TN,the median DPV equates to 1.31 mg/L but could range to as high as 1.8 mg/L using the 90th percent prediction limit(Figure 12). For TP, the median DPV equates to 0.1 mg/L but could range to as high as 0.25 mg/L using the 90th percent prediction limit(Figure 13). The proposed DPVs calculated for various segments of the Charlotte Harbor estuary range from 1.43 to 2.61 mg/L for TN and 0.14 to 0.81 mg/L for TP (Janicki Environmental Inc., 2011). Thus, the proposed DPVs for Clam Bay are within the range identified for Charlotte Harbor(Table 14). Table 14. Minimum,median and maximum proposed DPV TN and TP concentrations for Charlotte Harbor estuary compared to proposed Clam Bay DPV values. Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Charlotte Harbor Clam Bay Charlotte Harbor Clam Bay Minimum 1.43 NA 0.14 NA Median 1.64 1.31 0.29 0.10 Maximum 2.61 1.80 0.81 0.25 NA=not applicable Atkins Doc Name 1 Doc Version 1 Doc Date 1 JobNumber 23 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 27 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria 9. Literature Cited Atkins 2011. Collier County Watershed Management Plan. Submitted to Collier County. Draft May 2011. Appendix C EPA. 1986.Ambient Water Quality Criteria for DO. EPA 440/5-86-003. Clark, P. 1992. Implications of a sea-level rise on the Sarasota Bay region. Pp. 7.1-7.24 in: Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program. Sarasota Bay Framework for Action. Collier County. 1987. Preliminary Analyses of Seagrass and Benthic Infauna in Johnson and Clam Bays, Collier County, Florida. Department of Natural Resources Management, Collier County, Florida. 29 pp. Collier County, 1997. Clam Bay Natural Resources Protection Area. Report. 85 pp. Conservancy of Southwest Florida. 2010. Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Benthic Habitat Assessment. Submitted to Pelican Bay Owners Association, Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., and the Mangrove Action Group. 116 pp. EPA 1977. Field Studies—Parkshore and Clam Bay Systems Naples, Florida. Report from US EPA Region IV, Surveillance and Analysis Division. Atlanta, GA. 57 pp. EPA. 2010. Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 131 [EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596; FRL-XXXX-X] [RIN 2040-AF11]Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. EPA. 2007. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Northern and Central Indian River Lagoon and Banana River Lagoon, Florida: Nutrients and Dissolved Oxygen. USEPA Region 4. FDEP. 2008. TMDL Report: Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs for Hendry Creek(WBIDs 3258B and 3258B1). 39 pp. FDEP. 2010. TMDL Report: Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs for Brushy Creek(WBID 1498)and Sweetwater Creek(WBID 1516), and for DO and Nutrients in Lower Rocky Creek(WBID 1563). FDEP Southwest District. Fujioka, R.S. 2001. Monitoring coastal marine waters for spore-forming bacteria of faecal and soil origin to determine point from non-point source pollution.Water Science and Technology.44: 181-188. Fujioka, R.S., Stan-Denton, C., Borja, M., Castro, J., and K. Morphew. 1999. Soil,the environmental source of Escherichia coli and enterococci in Guam's streams. Journal of Applied Microbiology. (Symposium supplement)85: 83S-89S. Janicki Environmental, Inc. 2010. Empirical Approaches to Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Southwest Florida Estuaries. Prepared for Tampa Bay Estuary Program, Sarasota Bay Estuary Program and Charlotte Harbor Estuary Program. 56 pp. Janicki Environmental, Inc. 2011. Charlotte Harbor: Numeric Nutrient Criteria:Task 9- Downstream Protection Values. Draft Letter Memorandum submitted to Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. Levesque, B., P. Brousseau, P. Simard, E. Dewailly, M. Monica, D. Ramsay, and J. Joly. 1993. Impact of Ring-Billed (Laws delawarensis)on the Microbiological Quality of Recreational Water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 59(4): 1228-1230. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2002. Regional Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation of Fecal Coliform Bacteria Impairments in the Lower Mississippi River Basin in Minnesota. Submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 2002. PBS&J. 2008. Clam Bay Seagrass Assessment. Submitted to Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department. Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 24 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business Collier County- Numeric Nutrient Criteria 28 of 42 Clam Bay- Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria PBS&J, 2009. Clam Bay System: Data Collection and Analysis. . Submitted to Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department. PBS&J. 2010. Technical Memorandum: Summary of Preliminary Findings on Sediment Studies. Submitted to Collier County. Tomasko, D.A., and E. H. Keenan. 2010. Potential Impacts of Sea Level Rise on Sarasota Bay Seagrasses. In"Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium, BASIS 5: 20-23 October 2009. St. Petersburg, Fl."S.T. Cooper(ed.) p.463-477. Atkins Doc Name I Doc Version I Doc Date I JobNumber 25 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business 29 of 42 David A.Tomasko Integrated Water Resources, Atkins North America 4030 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33607 Email: Davi�l.tomasko @atkinsglobal.com Telephone: 1.813.282.7275 Direct Telephone: 1.813.281.8346 Fax: 1.813.636.8583 j i�" �ep�ilddF Jll44 „�� —�� ,, �r6p� Mir � 1 , ''''',',X.::::'-'.:41'0,� 'id'� � �� )( '� .��rU:l'�,i�lI iii 4�i 9u ib k : fi & rQ - J'`� I�,Ni( 1�t ,.7 n : *ti �� NG:,1r' " ari Q C: y'iG�v it '�I1� s 4 5 iN a '4611114111.11 .,, ' di of ; ©Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo,`Carbon Critical Design'and the strapline 'Plan Design Enable'are trademarks of Atkins Ltd. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business 30 of 42 Standards and Assessment Section Comments on Collier County: Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay-Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria (Atkins July 2011 Draft) The Atkins proposal represents an innovative approach that potentially would account for a greater level of natural variability than a simple distributional reference approach. However, I cannot recommend that DEP support the current proposal or adopt it as a water quality standard because the proposed nutrients limits are overly stringent and perhaps unrealistic for Clam Bay. The document makes a convincing argument that Clam Bay is a healthy system. Thus, it could be concluded that the existing TP and TN concentrations are protective. The problem with the proposal is that it could lead to the conclusion that Clam Bay requires nutrient reductions both in terms of within-bay concentrations as well as within upstream waters(i.e., exceeding DPVs). The problem originates from the fact that the conductivity to TP or TN relationships differ between Clam Bay and Estero Bay Wetlands(Figures 1 and 2). The proposal sets nutrient targets based on the regression line between conductivity and TN or TP for the Estero Bay Wetlands (EBW). Limits are then set at the average conductivity(42,453 µS)of Clam Bay. The corresponding limits are 0.60 mg/L and 0.057 mg/L for TN and TP, respectively. I would interpret these levels to represent long-term limits. Inspection of the conductivity and TP regression relationship from Clam Bay(Figure 1)suggests that 0.057 mg/L might be a reasonable long-term TP limit for the Bay. However, inspection of the TN regression lines suggests that 0.60 mg/L TN would be overly stringent(by 0.21 mg/L)for Clam Bay, where a TN of 0.81 mg/L corresponds with 42,4531.1S. 0< —Clem Bar Reira0On 7 --Clam Bay 90%upper Wed.Limn 035{'` —EBW Regression --EBW90%Upper Wen Limit 03 025 CMn IW'i0%pro<.d6rYaa<n<EBW pre<ia limY \y � ':S opo L:cn eat<Skit a.m.of E.<«<In1 EBYf Ota�on.inY 015 0.05 .......- "- Ii.63 IS 0 10000 20000 30000 41000 50000 60000 Conductivity)p 5) Siva E %f of 103y Cl. -)B,V-"-,x. V'aied.u,c, w, ht.Hf O'I.3•(0:40 dIV-Chun Bay llbfl Ll0fnlrU'3:03 Ii.aOrfntu it'.c1; .-onllai--2.309104.1.2373,'2.0050 ;rn;i1P)*-1,4)0347-3.3031,-'3'COPo0 RS'quare 1 0.012912 R-•uata 0.12Y841:' Root Mean. •oar,Error. 10519709 Root Maw S•are Error 0.311U Observations- ", - 186 Oboor,ationa 137:: Trim Estbnme Sid t Rain PtobHt) loon Estunme Sid ............ t P.41d.._...(r rh>91 11n [1101 f Mt<erespt -2.309f C212475 10:97 <.CUt71: Intercept -1.47b$ 0 156236 -9 45 c1i761:. 03ND I9F{15 acoolx 206 4.00.0' EONS .33E05 3:395.:0 -9 92 x013101 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business 31 of 42 Figure 1. Summary of regression analyses between conductivity and total phosphorus concentrations for Clam Bay and Estero Bay Wetlands. Cam Bev Rem"or 15 i ---C.m B.OL60090%Po n Lnn ESA'Reresi. • - --BB'K�er 9C%heallmn �y4 - E X I. • o j ay6 B 10000 20000 12000 20000 50006 *0000 Conduct MN/ip6) BN.ariate FN of TN BY CCa'4UBay=Estero Bay wetlands 6021112 1'n Nlhd3,CO•) v-CLan tin 6..5 54 7N=1.3010821.1.664125'0061 IN 14,63'-2.64)25YC0,..1 R4.141141 =6717 a 3 `Rom Moan 9 u9nE;ror 0271: '.....�° •J.• ObammNna 184 aarvm Twm [.i an.ve S1A 1Rain P„h Hf Twm Esnmat. NA tNano P0 o2>;Y: 3 .94 1 oo1 bn 16aln :8 l.° f111 i43t tt 7.. 4.i+ 6 tONO 1:24 - ]15NFIX- 12 54 «I• i UNII t e70` ..':.h f1F 'OY -.i` t ONO Y,1f•fK i r:l: N 1 _[i(B:li,... Figure 2.Summary of regression analyses between conductivity and total nitrogen concentrations for Clam Bay and Estero Bay Wetlands. The document proposes an interesting approach for assessing annual achievement of the long-term limits. There are elements of the approach that DEP may want to consider,with some modification,for reference or existing condition based nutrient thresholds. Monitoring data are initially assessed against upper 90%prediction limits calculated from conductivity regression relationships to TN and TP for EBW. The assessment is conducted by evaluating the percentage of measurements above the 90% prediction limits as well as duration of exceedances on an annual basis(Figure 3A). The waterbody would be assigned to a management outcome (status) if the nutrient data exceeded the frequency and duration requirements. A green status indicates that Clam Bay meets both the TP and TN limits. Yellow or red status indicates that the bay is not meeting either or both of the limits. An evaluation of chlorophyll and DO responses to nutrient concentrations would be conducted if the bay were to be placed into either yellow or red status (Figure 3B). If there is not a significant relationship,then no management action is required;that is,the water is not impaired. However, if there is a significant relationship between nutrient levels and chl-a,then the impact of chl-a on water clarity would be evaluated. Management action would only be taken if there is a demonstrated significant response between chl-a and clarity or between nutrient levels and DO. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business 32 of 42 A. B. ■..«, rAa.n d<a Yes r al a6c etr �*irr"ktan 51k1dN:..,r G .a YFx'n 4,401,■ ,o- t1.3 2]>'k u-o k4 4"?u"iYd G t City tc nl top tlfn ,1P1)0,1—IMF year •g i<r;a i 'M 4 rear st,rel...Aa5: rata 1tln Glxrai 11a1■Nn adn: EMI MI 111111 '..: tNF..r9f*/r'nuan( A ' Figure 3. Flowchart describing the proposed a)conceptual assessment of 90th percent prediction limit exceedances based on duration and frequency;and b) management responses to the various outcomes of the assessment. Outcome 0 equates to"Green"status in the second flowchart(B),while Outcomes 1,2,or 3 equate to"Yellow"or"Red"status depending on duration of exceedance and whether just one of the nutrient parameters exceeds the limit or both exceed. This assessment approach is highly prone to trigger unnecessary assessments given the differences in the conductivity to nutrient relationships between EBW and Clam Bay. DEP staff calculated 90% prediction limits for both the EBW and Clam Bay(Figures 1 and 2). The Clam Bay prediction limit for TN is well above the prediction limit for EBW indicating that Clam Bay would exceed the EBW derived limits with a frequency significantly greater than the assumed 10 percent. For TP,the Clam Bay and EBW prediction limits intersect at 27,500µ5, meaning that below 27,500 pS the EBW based limit would be overly stringent(i.e., >10%exceedance),while above this conductivity level the EBW limit would not be sufficiently protective(<10%exceedance). In other words,the TN limits are prone to high type I errors, while the TP limits would be prone to both high type I and II errors depending on the conductivity. Ultimately, application of the EBW derived limits to Clam Bay would require response evaluations more frequently than is truly necessary. The proposal suggests that DPVs can be derived by assuming a conductivity of zero based on either the regression lines or 90% prediction limits. However, inspection of the data and regression analyses suggest that the EBW DPVs would be overly stringent for Clam Bay. Both the TP and TN concentrations associated with 0µS are significantly greater than the values predicted for EBW(Figures 1 and 2). The proposed DPVs would most likely necessitate substantial upstream nutrient reductions. An alternative approach would be to develop existing condition nutrient thresholds using the conductivity to TP and TN relationship from Clam Bay. The document already argues that Clam Bay is not impaired at existing nutrient levels. Specific Comments 1. Pages 9-10: What is the p value for the regression analysis between chlorophyll a and secchi depth? Are there any transparency measurements for Clam Bay or is Secchi the best available measure of water clarity? 2. Page 18: The 90%prediction limits referenced in Figures 12 and 13 appear to be two-sided prediction intervals. If that is the case,then the upper limit represents a level that would be CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business 33 of 42 expected to be exceeded only 5%of the time, not the assumed 10%. Note: 90%of the data are expected to fall between a 90% prediction interval,with 5%above and 5% below. The prediction limits shown in Figures 1 and 2 were calculated as 80%prediction intervals. 3. Page 19: The r-squared value for the TN-conductivity regression from EBW was 0.21. Although conductivity only explains a small portion for the TN variability, it does explain substantially more of the variance than a simple percentile of the reference distribution meaning that a salinity normalized TN criteria would be less prone to statistical errors. Normalizing the nutrient data to salinity(or conductivity) is a defensible approach. 4. Page 20: The r-squared for the EBW TP-conductivity regression is only 0.04. I do not believe that this is a sufficiently robust relationship to derive criteria. The prediction interval is extremely wide as a result of the uncertainty in the relationship. As stated in our general comments,the relationship between TP and conductivity is much stronger for Clam Bay. A "maintain the existing condition"SSAC could be developed using this relationship. 5. Page 21: The minimum number of samples exceeding applicable criteria required to place a water on the verified or planning lists under the IWR were established to provide a statistical test with a known and consistent confidence level. Reducing these numbers to set percentages (i.e., 13 and 15%)will eliminate that consistency. The conceptual flowchart(Figure 14)should reference the IWR planning and verified list binomial thresholds in order to maintain full consistency with the statistical assumptions of the statistical test. 6. Figure 21, Figure 14: There will be a higher than a 10%probability of Clam Bay being placed in Outcomes 2 or 3 for TN if the thresholds are developed based on EBW. Likewise,there will be a greater than 10%chance of Clam Bay TP being list in Outcomes 2 or 3 during low salinity years. 7. Page 22, Figure 16: Overall, I believe that the assessment approach has a lot of merit and is analogous to the biological verification process proposed by DEP for freshwaters. I would recommend that a hard chlorophyll a threshold (e.g., 11 .ig/L) be added to the response assessment;that is, Clam Bay would be considered impaired for nutrients if the chlorophyll a concentration exceeded the threshold and there is a statistically significant relationship between either nutrient and chlorophyll. CAC October 13,2011 cloy VIII-1-a New Business 3Cardno ENTRIX Shaping the Future Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Site Specific Alternative Criteria Development DRAFT INTERIM REPORT Prepared for the Pelican Bay Foundation Cardno ENTRIX has prepared this brief draft summary of dissolved oxygen (DO)analyses to date concerning the development of Site Specific Alternative Criteria (SSAC)for Clam Bay. The purpose of this interim report is to keep the Pelican Bay Foundation and Collier County abreast of the recent data collection and analysis activities concerning this effort and provide information that may be useful in discussions with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) regarding water quality regulatory efforts to manage the Clam Bay resource. The results presented in this summary should be viewed as draft since dissolved oxygen data collection activities are ongoing. FDEP has embarked on a revision of the Florida freshwater and marine dissolved oxygen criteria, but does not expect to have draft rule language for review until the end of 2011 at the earliest. Currently, FDEP has a draft Technical Support Document(TSD) posted on its website regarding criteria revision methodologies and is going through a Peer Review Committee process to determine the most scientifically defensible criteria development process. For marine waters,the proposed methodology is the Virginian Province method and Clam Bay dissolved oxygen data will be evaluated against this methodology here to determine the current status of Clam Bay DO relative to potential revised DO criteria. Virginian Province Method for Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Development This methodology is an aquatic life based approach that defines three DO concentration levels based on survival,growth,and larval recruitment of sensitive estuarine species. The three DO concentrations are defined as follows: 1. Criterion Minimum Concentration(CMC)—DO concentration below which any exposure for a 24 hour period would result in unacceptable acute effects. Using 23 native Florida species, FDEP's draft TSD sets this level at 2.9 mg/L. 2. Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC)—the mean daily DO concentration above which continuous exposure is not expected to result in unacceptable chronic effects. Using 12 native Florida species, FDEP's draft TSD sets this level at 4.8 mg/L. 3. Final Recruitment Curve(FRC)—establishes the duration of exposures at DO concentrations between the CCC and CMC which can be tolerated without causing unacceptable effects on total larval survival. The following graph illustrates these draft criteria: CAC October 13,2011 rayVIII-1-a New Business 3 drdno ENTRIX Shaping the Future 1- -- - f 5.0 _ Growth CCC =4.8 mg/I. I 4.5 Final L rval Recr ifrrler t Cry FRC 03 4'0 Criteria Continious Concentration ' t• s= —Criteria Minimum Concentration _ u 3.5 —Final Recruitment Curve - O U p 3.0 - .._.__Juvenile SuTvivial CIVIC..=1.9.p .L 0 - 2.5 f , l , f ; 11 ∎ 1 , l : tllf " l ) . ffi11 ∎ HI Jif : 1 , . 1 . 2 , , ( f , tf •1 , 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Duration,days Figure 1. Potential revised marine DO criteria as described in FDEP's Technical Support Document: Derivation of Dissolved Oxygen Criteria to Protect Aquatic Life in Florida's Fresh and Marine Waters(FDEP 2011). Clam Bay continuous recorder DO data will be evaluated against these potential criteria to determine the current status of Clam Bay. FDEP's TSD does not address potential criteria implementation strategies at this time. DRAFT Clam Bay Results to Date Collier County has conducted three continuous recorder deployments at 3 locations (Upper, Middle, and Outer Clam Bay)during 2011. Each deployment lasted between 4 and 6 days. The first deployment occurred in March/April,the second in May and the third in August. A fourth location in Clam Pass is included in the monitoring program,however logistical and data issues have hampered data collection at this location and therefore this station is not included in this summary. A brief summary and discussion of the data is presented in the graphs below. CAC October 13,2011 raw) VIII-1-a New Business 3Cardno ENTRIX Shaping the Future 14 , 12 - o - 10 - - - T a 8 _ ® - rn — E O - o g . - 4 • 1';I — - — — B Upper Clam Bay - I o Outliers 2 - — . + Extremes _ 8 Middle Clam Bay - - 0 Outliers 0 - + Extremes April ^ May August Outer Clam Bay o Outliers Month + Extremes Figure 2. Box plots showing dissolved oxygen data from each station and each deployment during 2011 compared to the potential CMC and CCC criteria. 14 12 - U - 0 J10 1 76, E N• 8 O! 0 • 6 _ N 4 - - 8 Upper Clam Bay 2 - - 0 Outliers + Extremes o 8 Middle Clam Bay o Outliers 0 + Extremes Upper Clam Bay Outer Clam Bay s Outer Clam Bay Middle Clam Bay o Outliers Location + Extremes Figure 3. Box plots showing a summary of all dissolved oxygen data collected at each station during 2011 compared to the potential CMC and CCC criteria. CAC October 13,2011 cagy VIII-1-a New Business 37ardno ENTRIX Shaping the Future As figure 2 indicates, expected seasonal differences in dissolved oxygen concentrations are occurring at all stations with Clam Bay. Figure 3 shows Outer Clam Bay tends to have somewhat higher DO than Upper or Middle Clam Bay. All stations and deployments show measurements that fall below the current minimum DO criteria of 4.0 mg/L and the potential CMC of 2.9 mg/L. Median DO falls below the current minimum criterion during the August deployment at Upper and Middle Clam Bay, but does not exceed the potential CMC at any station. Figure 4 shows the mean daily dissolved oxygen concentration at each station over each deployment period. This figure provides a more accurate comparison of Clam Bay to the potential revised criteria. The CMC is defined as the concentration below which exposure for a 24 hour period is expected to result in acute effects. Therefore, individual measurements may fall below this level, however,acute effects are not expected unless this criterion is exceeded for an entire 24 hour period. Similarly,the CCC is defined as a mean daily DO concentration,so the mean was calculated for each 24 hour period during each deployment at each station. As the figure indicates,Outer Clam Bay exceeded the potential CCC during at least one 24 hour period during the April and May deployments,while Middle and Upper Clam Bay had daily mean DO concentrations that fall below the CCC criterion during the May and August deployments. Outer Clam Bay and Upper Clam Bay showed average daily DO below the CMC during at least one 24 hour period during the May and August deployments as well. Although the average DO concentration for a 24 hour period fell below the CMC at these locations, not all measurements for that day did, so the CMC was never actually exceeded for an entire 24 hour period at any station. 10 9 -- J 8 c 6 S a _ O > 4 0 2 • 1 0 1/1/2011 3/2/2011 5/1/2011 6/30/2011 8/29/2011 10/28/2011 12/27/2011 Date • Upper Clam Bay • Middle Clam Bay A Outer Clam Bay —CMC CCC Figure 4. Mean daily dissolved oxygen concentrations at each Clam Bay sampling location during each deployment compared to the potential CMC and CCC criteria. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business 3Cardno ENTRIX Shaping the Future An important consideration in evaluating dissolved oxygen data is the time of day samples are collected. Temperature, photosynthetic activity, and seasonality can affect the DO at any given time of day. Figures 5, 6, and 7 show a summary of DO data collected over all deployments at each station by hour of the day. 10 9 - - 8 E 7 DA 6 5 I O v 4 0 3 2 - 1 - 0 1 1 1 t 1 f t 1 1 f ? I ! t r 1 r 1 1 i I 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hour of Day —Outer Clam Bay —25th Percentile —75th Percentile Figure 5. Outer Clam Bay dissolved oxygen data by hour of the day for all deployments. Also shown is the 25"'and 75th percentile distribution of measurements. 10 9 -a 8 E 7 to �C 5 O -0 4 c 3 - h 2 - 1 -0 r r iiiiiiiiil . m r 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hour of Day - Middle Clam Bay —25th Percentile —75th Percentile Figure 6. Middle Clam Bay dissolved oxygen data by hour of the day for all deployments. Also shown is the 25th and 75th percentile distribution of measurements. CAC October 13,2011 rot)VIII-1-a New Business 3aardno ENTRIX Shaping the Future 10 9 -. 8 J E 7 c 6 be 5 -- — O iivaiiIIIIIIIIII1 c 2 1 - 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 r t 1 r i t 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hour of Day Upper Clam Bay —25th Percentile —75th Percentile Figure 7. Upper Clam Bay dissolved oxygen data by hour of the day for all deployments. Also shown is the 25th and 75th percentile distribution of measurements. As expected,figures 5, 6,and 7 indicate Clam Bay experiences diel swings in DO likely as a result of photosynthetic activity in the Bay. Middle and Upper Clam Bay experience larger swings in DO than Outer Clam Bay. These swings,typical of estuaries throughout Florida (and actually all waterbodies), were acknowledged as a potential issue with criteria implementation during the recent FDEP DO workshop in Jacksonville, FL(august 11 2011). The Peer Review Committee discussed potential problems in evaluating DO measurements against any criterion because of the large daily swings in DO and the time of day the sampler collected the measurement. At the heart of the problem is the acknowledgment that not all estuaries are monitored with continuous recorders and FDEP cannot require all potential stakeholders to purchase or rent and deploy continuous recorders to monitor compliance with the criteria. Therefore,the Peer Review Committee suggested conducting an analysis to determine if a certain time of day could be identified that most represented the daily average DO concentration. When completed, only data collected during this time frame would be used to measure compliance against the criteria. This would allow a determination of compliance based on an instantaneous measurement. To this end,figures 5,6, and 7 also depict the 25th and 75th percentile distributions of the data set for each station. Using this distribution,the assumption is made that measurements within this range are the most representative of the mean DO value over a 24 hour period. This analysis shows that,for all CAC October 13,2011 rim)VIII-1-a New Business 4tardno ENTRIX Shaping the Future stations, measurements collected between approximately 10 am and 3 pm on any given day provide the best representation of the mean daily DO concentration. Ongoing Analyses Not Included In This Summary The following bullet list presents some of the analyses and data compilation efforts that are ongoing. This list is not comprehensive as new analyses are continually being explored. • Clam Bay is being compared to continuous recorder from Estero Bay which has been identified as a reference system by FDEP. Preliminary analysis of Estero Bay continuous recorder dissolved oxygen data over the same time period as Clam Bay data indicates a very similar dissolved oxygen regime between the two systems. • Biological data from Clam Bay is being compiled to compare against the list of species used by FDEP in developing the Virginian Province method for Florida. • Clam Bay DO data is being analyzed with temperature, pH,salinity,conductivity,and nutrient data identify the factors most affecting DO in Clam Bay. • An evaluation of the necessity of developing a SSAC for DO in Clam Bay given the ongoing effort by FDEP and if so,what thresholds would it include and what supporting documentation is necessary. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business 41 of 42 Mc_ sinGary Werom: Frydenborg, Russel[Russel.Frydenborg©dep.state.fl.us] ent: Wednesday, September 07,2011 1:52 PM To: 'Tomasko, David A'; Weaver, Kenneth Cc: Joyner, Daryll; Mandrup-Poulsen, Jan; McAlpinGary; KeyesPamela; Keenan, Emily C.G.H.; Bartlett, Drew Subject: RE: Technical memorandum on NNC for Clam Bay Dave, Ken Weaver and I have reviewed your August 31,2011 Technical Memorandum that outlines proposed numeric nutrient criteria for the protection of Clam Bay. We are pleased that you thoroughly incorporated Ken's previous technical recommendations,and as such,we both find that your proposed numeric nutrient approach is a scientifically defensible method to protect the designated use of Clam Bay,while minimizing Type I errors. This is good work. Thanks, Russ Please take a few minutes to share your comments on the service you received from the department by clicking on this link DEP Customer Survey. From:Tomasko, David A f mailto:David.Tomasko @atkinsglobal.comj Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:30 PM •To: Bartlett, Drew Cc:Joyner, Daryll; Mandrup-Poulsen,Jan; Weaver, Kenneth; Frydenborg, Russel; McAlpinGary; KeyesPamela; Keenan, Emily C.G.H. Subject:Technical memorandum on NNC for Clam Bay Drew: Attached is a technical memorandum produced for Collier County's Clam Bay estuary. This memo is a shortened version of the earlier report FDEP reviewed,with a focus on the derivation of the salinity-normalized TN and TP targets. As per guidance from FDEP,the targets are based on data from Clam Bay alone. However,the longer back-up report will include a comparison of Clam Bay's nutrient vs.salinity relationship with that from FDEP's reference WBID of Estero Bay Wetlands. We've also used the upper 10th percentile limit for determining what is an appropriate TN or TP concentrations(based on the salinity)and the percent of results that can"exceed"this guidance is based on the percent of exceedances required to place a water body into either the Planning or Verified Impaired lists compiled by FDEP. • The larger report will also include results from our just-completed first round of source ID efforts for bacteria, using DNA sequence tests with Bacteroidetes(which are obligate anaerobes)and the human polyoma virus. Both results were negative. We also ran a test where we collected droppings from birds(Ibis)in the mangrove canopy of Clam Bay and found that a single bird defecation amount produced approximately 290,000 fecal coliform bacteria. This latter test not only shows that birds can be a source of a laboratory's finding of"fecal coliform bacteria" but it showed that a single bird's individual defecation event can produce enough bacteria to cause 180 gallons of water to exceed the 43 cfu/100 ml standard for Class II waters. We are excited by these findings,and will consider them in combination with a sanitary features survey to discuss the likely sources of bacteria in Clam Bay. Gary and others wanted me to express our gratitude to you and your staff for giving us the guidance needed to develop these NNC for this important natural resource. 1 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-a New Business 42 of 42 Thanks, w Dave • David A.Tomasko,Ph.D. Senior Group Manager Integrated Water Resources ATKINS North America Cell: +1 (813) 597 3897 Direct: +1 (813) 281-8346 4030 West Boy Scout Boulevard,Tampa,Florida 33607 Email:David.Tomaskot atkinsalobal.com l Web:www.atkinsolobal.com/northamerica www.atkinsolobal.com This electronic mail communication may contain privileged,confidential,and/or proprietary information which is the property of The Atkins North America Corporation,WS Atkins plc or one of its affiliates.If you are not the Intended recipient or an authorized agent of the intended recipient please delete this communication and notify the sender that you have received it In error.A list of wholly owned Atkins Group companies can be found at http://www.atkinsolobal.cvm/site-services/disciaimer Consider the environment.Please don't print this email unless you really need to. • • • 2 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-b New Business 1 of 7 Z Technical note Project: Clam Bay Numeric To: Gary McAlpin, Collier County Nutrient Criteria Subject: Proposed Guidance From: David A. Tomasko, PhD Emily Keenan, MS Date: Aug 31 2011 cc: The proposed Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) provides a protective approach to water quality evaluation and management for the waterbody. The proposed NNC are lower (more stringent) than the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) screening criteria, and they were derived based upon a nutrient: salinity relationship from Clam Bay. However, the NNC have to be considered in the context of salinity due to the variability in nutrient concentrations found within a given salinity range. Therefore, management responses due to deviations from the proposed NNC should be a function of magnitude and duration of any exceedances, similar to the management approach used by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. A modification of the reference site approach FDEP is considering to modify the dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria was used to identify salinity-normalized Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) criteria for Clam Bay. Because Clam Bay appears to be co-limited by both TN and TP were selected to evaluate water quality (PBS&J 2008). The 80th percent prediction limit for the regression between TN or TP and conductivity in Clam Bay was produced (Figures 1 and 2). The 80th percent prediction limit was selected in order to identify the number of TN and TP values at the corresponding conductivity that exceed the upper 10th percentile of data. This approach is consistent with the calculation of the 10th percentile of reference waterbody DO values as per guidance by FDEP. Clam Bay would be assigned differential designation based on the magnitude and duration of exceedances of the 80th percent prediction limit for salinity-normalized nutrient concentrations. The designation would then be used to identify if management actions are required. Individual TN and TP values collected within the waterbody would be compared to the upper nutrient: conductivity 10th percentile prediction limit (Figure 3). The minimum number of samples required to not meet an applicable water quality criterion by FDEP to be included on the Planning or Verified list would be selected from Tables 1 and 2 to be consistent with the method currently implemented by FDEP to identify impaired water bodies. If the number of exceedances is greater than or equal to the minimum number of exceedance required to be classified as impaired, the duration of exceedance would then be determined. Based on the duration of exceedance (one year or greater than one year), the outcome designation is assigned. If less than the minimum number of samples required based on sample size exceeds the upper 10th percentile prediction limit, then the outcome is a category of"0". If the magnitude (i.e., > 5 exceedances) and duration (i.e., >1 year) of the exceedances are small, the outcome is a category of"1". If the magnitude or duration of the exceedances is large, then the outcome is a category "2". If both the magnitude and duration of the exceedances are large, then the outcome is a category of Page 1 of 7 100021347.00 Plan Design Enable CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-b New Business 2of7 tl) Technical note "3". The management response for Clam Bay would be determined based on the outcomes assigned to both the TN and TP evaluations for the magnitude and duration of exceedance (Figure 4). Management response actions would be identified based on the response to nutrient concentrations of phytoplankton and DO, as well as impacts on water clarity (Figure 5). If the outcome of the TN and TP evaluation was classified as "green", then no management actions are required. However, if the outcomes are classified as "yellow" or "red" then further evaluation of the effect of elevated nutrient concentrations on both phytoplankton biomass and DO concentrations need to be reviewed. If there is no relationship between nutrients and chlorophyll-a or DO, then no management actions are required. If there is a signification relationship, then the impact of chlorophyll-a on the water clarity (Secchi disk depth) needs to be evaluated as well as an evaluation of the annual chlorophyll-a data to the 11 pg/L standard based on the F.A.C. 62-303-353. If there is no relationship between chlorophyll-a and water clarity or annual chlorophyll-a concentrations are below 11 pg/L, then no management actions are required. If there is a significant relationship between chlorophyll-a concentrations and water clarity, or annual chlorophyll-a concentrations are above 11 pg/L, an outcome designation of"yellow" (indicative of small magnitude or duration of exceedances) identifies that management actions should be taken to identify the potential causes and responses for the elevated nutrient levels. It the outcome designation is "red" (indicative of a large magnitude or duration of exceedances), management actions should be taken to implement recommended response tactics to reduce nutrient concentrations. Using this approach, the health of Clam Bay would be assessed on a regular basis. Page 2 of 7 100021347.00 Plan Design Enable CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-b New Business 3 of 7 Sly Z Technical note s. Figure 1. Clam Bay proposed TN NNC based on Clam Bay linear regression with 80 percent prediction limits. o ❑ 0 J -� o Upper 10th rn 1 .5 -\ el,.� `` percentile - - N 'N 0 "" prediction c _ ` Q \ Q limit _ ) 1 N., 0 0. E - 0.81 rn 1L N'4 ❑ ° 1.� do \y as ^., r o No y: - N o 42,453{pS a14/, �,., ' 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 Conductivity (US) Figure 2. Clam Bay proposed TP NNC based on Clam Bay linear regression with 80 percent prediction limits. L7 .,—.., \ J., a M E0.15 - ,� a .. , a 0.1 - ` �\ 0 Upper 10th '\ percentile . o - „ �� a°„�'; o prediction - - 0.050 mgiL P ,ll' .:"'„M„�,6 limit CL +� rt. s • 0.05 - =_ 0,�..., ,;. - o �. 42,453 pS 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 Conductivity (uS) Page 3 of 7 100021347.00 Plan Design Enable CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-b New Business 4 of 7 tie) z Technical note s. Figure 3. Clam Bay conceptual water quality flowchart Do?the minimum 11 of samples from a calendar year exceed the -- proposed NNC 80%prediction limit for all TN&/or lP values in NO Clam Bay? Outcome Yes 80%confidence Magnitude of 90%confidence (Planning list) exceedance (Verified list) based on IWR , binomial s. Duration of distributions Duration of exceedance exceedance 1 year >1 year 1 year >1 year i t Outcome 1 Outcome? Outcome) Outcome Table 1. Minimum number of samples not meeting an applicable water quality criterion needed to put a water on the planning list with at least 80% confidence(Table 1 from F.A.C.62-303) Sample sizes Are listed if they Sample Are listed if they have have at least this # of sizes at least this # of — samples that do not samples that do not From To meet a criterion From To meet a criterion 10 15 3 256 264 31 16 23 4 265 273 32 24 31 5 274 282 33 32 39 6 283 292 34 40 47 7 293 301 35 48 56 8 302 310 36 57 65 9 311 320 37 66 73 10 321 329 38 74 82 11 330 338 39 83 91 12 339 348 40 92 100 13 349 357 41 101 109 14 358 367 42 110 118 15 368 376 43 119 126 16 377 385 44 127 136 17 386 395 45 137 145 18 396 404 46 Page 4 of 7 100021347.00 Plan Design Enable CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-b New Business 5of7 i„/') Z Technical note Ne Sample sizes Are listed if they Sample Are listed if they have have at least this # of sizes at least this # of samples that do not samples that do not From To meet a criterion From To meet a criterion 146 154 19 405 414 47 155 163 20 415 423 48 164 172 21 424 432 49 173 181 22 433 442 50 182 190 23 443 451 51 191 199 24 452 461 52 200 208 25 462 470 53 209 218 26 471 480 54 219 227 27 481 489 55 228 236 28 490 499 56 237 245 29 500 500 57 246 255 30 Table 2. Minimum number of samples not meeting an applicable water quality criterion needed to put a waterbody on the Verified list with at least 90% confidence(Table 3 from F.A.C. 62- 303). Sample sizes Are listed if they Sample Are listed if they have have at least this # of sizes at least this # of — samples that do not samples that do not From To meet a criterion From To meet a criterion 20 25 5 254 262 33 26 32 6 263 270 34 33 40 7 271 279 35 41 47 8 280 288 36 48 55 9 289 297 37 56 63 10 298 306 38 64 71 11 307 315 39 72 79 12 316 324 40 80 88 13 325 333 41 89 96 14 334 343 42 97 104 15 344 352 43 105 113 16 353 361 44 114 121 17 362 370 45 122 130 18 371 379 46 131 138 19 380 388 47 139 147 20 389 397 48 148 156 21 398 406 49 Page 5 of 7 100021347.00 Plan Design Enable CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-b New Business 6of7 i„I') z Technical note G Sample sizes Are listed if they Sample Are listed if they have have at least this # of sizes at least this # of samples that do not samples that do not From To meet a criterion From To meet a criterion 157 164 22 407 415 50 165 173 23 416 424 51 174 182 24 425 434 52 183 191 25 435 443 53 192 199 26 444 452 54 200 208 27 453 461 55 209 217 28 462 470 56 218 226 29 471 479 57 227 235 30 480 489 58 236 244 31 490 498 59 245 253 32 499 500 60 Figure 4. Management response matrix using outcomes from both TN and TP evaluation. Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Outcome 0 Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Outcome 0 Outcome 1 --_ Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Page 6 of 7 100021347.00 Plan Design Enable CAC October 13,2011 VIII-1-b New Business 7of7 tl) Technical note se Figure 5. Management response actions in response to various outcomes. Green Response Yellow or Recl evaluation Hold the line Evaluate phytoplankton/ significant dissolved oxygen (pc0.05) Not significant response to nutrient (p-0.05) concentrations Evaluate water clarity Not significant response to chlorophyll-a/ (p?0.05) compare annual chlorophyll-a to 11 1.1g/L. Significant(pc0105)or Small difference or exceed , short duration Identify potential causes Identify implement cicntif �i3tntial yl Large difference or causes and recommended response long duration responses Page 7 of 7 100021347.00 Plan Design Enable CAC October 13,2011 VIII-2 New Business 1 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to award two Work Orders totaling $146,000 to Coastal Engineering Consultants for the design and permitting required to obtaining a FDEP permit for the Marco South Beach renourishment project along with modifications to the existing USACE permit. OBJECTIVE: To award two Work Orders totaling $146,000 to Coastal Engineering Consultants for the design and permitting required to obtaining a FDEP permit for the Marco South Beach renourishment project along with modifications to the existing USACE permit. CONSIDERATION: Collier County will renourish the Marco South Beach by placing 104,000 CY's of beach compatible sand dredged out of Caxambas Pass on the southernmost 4,400 LF of beach. The Southernmost 4,400 LF of Marco Island beach is designated as Critically Eroded by FDEP. The South Marco beach between R144 and G-2 has been renourished in 1990, 1997 and 2006. The worst erosion in this segment is the last 2,000 feet between R147 and G2. Staff is recommending approval and issuance of the two Work Orders to Coastal Engineering Consultants for the project design and permitting. Also included will be modifications to the existing USACE permit as necessary to incorporate the recently issued statewide Biological Opinion. The items are as follows: • Work Order 1 —JCP permit application with FDEP for$20,000 • Work Order 2 - USACE Mods/Permit Processing/Design/Documents for$126,000 This item is only for the engineering, permitting and detailed design for the renourishment of the Marco South Beach and does not include any erosion control structures activities design, permitting or construction. $300,000 was budgeted for FYI 1/12 to perform the design engineering and permitting for this activity including the rebuilding of the 5 existing erosion control structures and the addition of a new erosion control structure in the vicinity of marker R147.5. A copy of their proposal is attached. FISCAL IMPACT: $126,000 is estimated to perform these activities. The Source of funds is from Category A Tourist Development Tax fund 195. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of this request. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-2 New Business 2 of 2 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The TDC and the BCC should make a finding that this project and expenditure will promote tourism in Collier County. This item requires majority vote and is legally sufficient for Board action. -CMG RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation to award a $126,000 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants for the design and permitting required to obtaining a FDEP permit for the 2012 Marco South Beach renourishment project along with modifications to the existing USACE permit. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, PE—Coastal Zone Management CAC October 13,2011 VIII-2-a New Business 1 of 6 Collier County CEC Contract No. 09-5262 South Marco Beach Renourishment JCP Application Scope of Work SCHEDULE "A" WORK ORDER NO. 1 Collier County proposes to place approximately 104,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sediment excavated from the Caxambas Pass borrow area to restore approximately 4,400 feet along South Marco Island. The proposed beach fill falls within the 2006 project limits, as previously permitted by JCP0235209-001-JC (FDEP) and SAJ-2005-2726 (IP-MN) (USACE). The FDEP Permit expired in 2010, thus new state approvals are necessary for the Project. The USACE Permit expires in 2021; however a modification is necessary to authorize construction during sea turtle nesting season. The County proposes the Project for the primary purposes of restoring storm protection, natural resource habitats, and recreational beach areas to offset the storm damage caused by Tropical Storm Fay in 2008. Post-storm surveys and analyses documented approximately 77,000 cubic yards eroded within the permitted fill template. The County is seeking federal reimbursement as defined in FEMA Project Worksheet, Declaration No. 1785DRFL. This scope of services defines the Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) Application preparation related services associated with the beach fill placement only. TASK 1: JCP PERMIT APPLICATION (FDEP) CEC shall arrange, prepare for, and attend via teleconference or webinar a pre-application meeting with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Based upon the 2006 project permits from the FDEP and USACE and USFWS Biological Opinion and results of the pre-application meeting, CEC shall prepare for County review and approval updates of the following Supporting Documents: • physical monitoring plan, • sediment QA/QC plan, • shorebird management plan, and • turbidity monitoring plan. CEC shall prepare for County review and approval, a draft JCP application for the FDEP authorizations required for the Project including an "Application for Joint Coastal Permitting, Authorization to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands, and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit" and a Public Easement or Consent of Use for the previously utilized pipeline corridor if necessary. The application shall include the following: • County provided documents(e.g. agent authorization letter, permit fees), • City of Marco Island consistency letter with comprehensive plan, • permit drawings, • sketch and legal description for previously utilized pipeline corridor, • analysis of potential Project related impacts to spawning marine fisheries for construction between May 1St and October 31st, • coastal systems assessment (prepared under a prior work order), • alternatives analysis and modeling results (prepared under a prior work order), and Page 1 of 2 September 7,2011 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-2-a New Business 2 of 6 Collier County CEC Contract No. 09-5262 South Marco Beach Renourishment JCP Application Scope of Work • existing historical geotechnical data for the native beach and borrow area from the prior projects. CEC will verify the JCP Application processing fee amount and notify the County when payment by the County is due to FDEP. In the application, CEC will request: • construction plans with updated survey data (within 6 months) be a condition for issuance of a"Notice to Proceed" following agency review and acceptance of the final design, • mixing zone within the fill area, and • waiver of dredge fees for use of borrow material obtained from sovereign lands. CEC shall incorporate County review comments and submit the JCP Application and Supporting Documents to the FDEP. ASSUMPTIONS The scope and budget estimates for the Project are based on the following assumptions. A. The County shall provide the following: • Permit Fees, • Public Noticing, and • Agent Authorization Letter. B. Final Design, Permit Processing, and Construction Services shall be provided under subsequent work order(s). BUDGET TASK DESCRIPTION TIME & MATERIALS 1 JCP Permit Application (FDEP) $ 20,000 Page 2 of 2 September 7,2011 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-2-a New Business 3 of 6 Collier County CEC Contract No. 09-5262 South Marco Beach Renourishment Design and Permit Processing Scope of Work SCHEDULE "A" WORK ORDER NO. 2 Collier County proposes to place approximately 104,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sediment excavated from the Caxambas Pass borrow area to restore approximately 4,400 feet along South Marco Island. The proposed beach fill falls within the 2006 project limits, as previously permitted by JCP0235209-001-JC (FDEP) and SAJ-2005-2726 (IP-MN) (USACE). The FDEP Permit expired in 2010, thus new state approvals are necessary for the Project. The USACE Permit expires in 2021; however a modification is necessary to authorize construction during sea turtle nesting season. The County proposes the Project for the primary purposes of restoring storm protection, natural resource habitats, and recreational beach areas to offset the storm damage caused by Tropical Storm Fay in 2008. Post-storm surveys and analyses documented approximately 77,000 cubic yards eroded within the permitted fill template. The County is seeking federal reimbursement as defined in FEMA Project Worksheet, Declaration No. 1785DRFL. This scope of services defines Final Design and Permit Processing related services associated with the beach fill placement only. No design or permitting of structural repairs or new structures is included in the services at this time. TASK 2: USACE PERMIT MODIFICATION LETTER Based upon the Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion for Beach Placement in Florida (SPBO), CEC will prepare for County review and approval, a letter report rendering a professional opinion specific to how the Project qualifies for the SPBO. CEC shall incorporate County review comments and submit the letter report to the USACE along with a complete copy of the JCP Application (prepared under a prior work order). Within the submittal, CEC shall request the USACE expedite both coordination with the USFWS to deem the Project eligible for construction during sea turtle nesting season and issuance of a permit modification to adopt the SPBO into the federal authorization. TASK 3: PERMIT PROCESSING Subsequent to submittal of the permit application, CEC will serve as the County's agent for the permit process. CEC will proactively engage FDEP and USACE staff to informally monitor the process, address staff questions, and facilitate agency consideration of the application. CEC will compile, clarify, and provide existing information as may be requested by FDEP and USACE staff. CEC will seek to negotiate permit conditions for the project that are acceptable to the County. For the purposes of this scope, it is expected that FDEP and USACE will make one (1) request for additional information (RAI) each, and that one (1) meeting will be required with FDEP staff in Tallahassee to favorably conclude the permit application. It is assumed that existing information (including design details/analysis) will be sufficient to meet permit application requirements with minor adjustments, clarifications, or analysis. If FDEP mandates additional surveys, geotechnical data, modeling analyses, or studies beyond those identified herein, CEC Page 1 of 4 September 7,2011 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-2-a New Business 4 of 6 Collier County CEC Contract No. 09-5262 South Marco Beach Renourishment Design and Permit Processing Scope of Work will undertake these additional tasks under separate authorization as may subsequently be approved by the County. TASK 4: FINAL DESIGN Based on the permit processing results including comments received from the agencies, accepted preliminary design documents, and the 2011-12 annual monitoring surveys (beach profiles, inlet, shoals, etc. to be performed by the County's other consultants), CEC will prepare for review and approval by the County, construction plans and technical specifications to show the general scope, character and extent of the work to be furnished and performed by the contractor. CEC shall design the final beach fill and borrow area including horizontal and vertical control, survey baseline, construction access and staging area, beach fill limits, design fill templates, pipeline corridors, borrow area limits, dredge templates, mixing zones, and construction quantities. TASK 5: BID AND CONTRACT PROCUREMENT PROCESS CEC shall prepare a Final Opinion of Probable Construction Cost. CEC shall prepare supplemental conditions and bid schedule forms for inclusion in the Bid Documents. CEC shall assist the County in coordinating a one-time bid process. These services will include attending one meeting as requested by the County, e.g., pre-bid meeting; assisting the County issue addenda as appropriate to interpret, clarify or expand the Bid Documents; assisting the County in obtaining bids from dredging contractors; assisting the County in evaluating the bids; and making a recommendation for award to the lowest responsive bidder. CEC provide technical support to the County during the construction contract procurement process, request and obtain permit required items from the contractor, and coordinate the Notice to Proceed from the FDEP. TASK 6: PROJECT ADMINISTRATION & CLIENT COORDINATION This task includes coordination with the County including routine meetings (5 budgeted); stakeholder meetings (2 budgeted); routine email updates to the County; and written or phone correspondence in reference to the Project beyond the scope of tasks described above. TASK 7: CONTINGENCIES Due to the complex nature of the work involving marine environments, it is anticipated that additional work may be necessary such as field work, stakeholders meetings, or agency coordination. A contingency budget is recommended for these circumstances. ASSUMPTIONS The scope and budget estimates for the Project are based on the following assumptions. I. Annual Monitoring Surveys The County shall provide the following survey/monitoring deliverables for use by CEC in the Project design by March 1, 2012 in order to provide sufficient time for preparation of the construction plans required by FDEP as a condition of Notice to Proceed: • controlled (scale rectified) digital photography, • current beach profile, borrow area, inlet, and shoal survey data as xyz files in Excel or similar file format, and • survey certification and monitoring report. Page 2 of 4 September 7,2011 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-2-a New Business 5 of 6 Collier County CEC Contract No. 09-5262 South Marco Beach Renourishment Design and Permit Processing Scope of Work No beach, inlet and shoal, or borrow area bathymetric survey data collection is included in the scope. II. Borrow Area The borrow area shall be the previously permitted Caxambas Pass Borrow Area. In recognition of the three prior successful projects (1990-91, 1997 and 2006), and due to the time constraints, it is assumed that no geotechnical testing, i.e. vibracoring, will be required, thus none is proposed in this scope. The borrow area design shall include the magnetic anomaly buffer area previously identified and incorporated into the 2006 project, thus no magnetometer survey is proposed in the design phase. If deemed necessary during the design phase, in recognition of the time constraint, this survey could be conducted as a pre-construction requirement. Because the County has previously permitted this borrow area and utilized it successfully for a sand source, it is assumed that wave refraction analyses to verify that no adverse impacts to adjacent shorelines will occur from borrow area excavation will not be required thus none are proposed in this scope. III. Beach Fill Because this is the next maintenance cycle of the existing permitted Project, CEC bases this scope on the following assumptions: • The Project has an established Erosion Control Line for the entire shoreline to be renourished, and • The County has its own property or has obtained construction easements from private upland property owners for construction access and staging and to allow for placement and maintenance of beach fill and coastal structures upland of the ECL. IV. Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion The federal authorization permit modification process scope and budget are based on the assumption that the Project qualifies under the SPBO and that Project will be eligible for construction during sea turtle nesting season. V. Miscellaneous A.The County shall provide the following: • Funding related tasks (FEMA coordination, public access requirements, etc.), • Agency related permit processing fees, • Construction Access/Staging area agreements if required, • Local approval by the Board of County Commissioners and Marco Island City Council for construction during sea turtle nesting season, and • Public Noticing requirements for permit issuance. B. Construction Services shall be provided under subsequent work order(s). Page 3 of 4 September 7,2011 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-2-a New Business 6 of 6 Collier County CEC Contract No. 09-5262 South Marco Beach Renourishment Design and Permit Processing Scope of Work BUDGET TASK DESCRIPTION TIME AND MATERIALS 2 USACE Permit Modification Letter $ 7,000 3 Permit Processing $ 62,000 4 Final Design $ 19,000 5 Bid and Contract Procurement Process $ 8,000 6 Project Administration $ 10,000 7 Contingencies $ 20,000 Total $126,000 Page 4 of 4 September 7,2011 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3 New Business 1 of 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Review with the CAC the Conceptual Design Report for Barefoot/Vanderbilt, Clam Pass/Park Shore, and Naples Beaches OBJECTIVE: For the CAC to review the Conceptual Design Report prepared by CP&E. CONSIDERATIONS: For information and review. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. RECOMMENDATION: For information and review. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, CZM Director - N a) ox ^ N C a) rm -' }/ ••+ ,` J O Z o Q = c O 0 •_ U e _ >> O 0 U■ ,,,EAttr.:;. /'w/`^ W .- a �- O L- _c . - ce W (I) as) CO 0 -k U C C = O p - --+ U > LI -I CI CO D D 0 = C/o 4) a) L.— ° .,,,irt . .,. 0�' E C O O a) I. • a) .r CL W -- O N N C N CI ` m CD o °� Z W m 0MO U O> N U cz 1.>.N. C6 L E a_ E W nn11 (D z W U c Cl) c co U co a' Ci. E ° c ci) a) .._.;_-, o o ., A“pl, C > ` o W 0. w W Om u) a) c V) H- oö = O - .O O 76— 0 c •O o_ -,= c to � E .- � O...a w co .g. O 0 -I-.' +� co c • -a 73 U ° Cl) x O O c O O v 0 0 C� u_ 2 D I O Z • • • • • • • : W .- N i CZ Cll — p _C '-00 o L > C O ' = p co 0, (n O > r> co O U) - C, CO p p O _±-'' a) a) 0_ a) > -� N — O C 1 co O O ..c. L.- E2 co L._ o) 0 o f IN C -0 (I) (D CD O O '� � � �- � U co L O 4- N .� 0 CO ,U � D O - p p 0 ~ 5, 70 %v CI) O C Q1 C7 v o p _c -o ca cn • :m d ,% N O N N C N `m a oZ o"LN O w 0 U> v rte ""� '``^`1 \-- �1 t t ��- w 8 �+% &o / m `;..=; 0 q / OCOM 3 r W , - -... Q ° V. WOOS 3 J rsi..e-, 3 4 ---/ • i OOOME 3 — � J r aooac 3 ZQ 7 y z V1 �1,12 f' 1 _ Q O N OQ ppz � z;1. �,� o z g° W H o / o ao a8 OOOGlL 3 / CO a z aJ OOOLIL H ;Q • / O z a W CC it aFa QzQ O , / - zI- Ili CL U((71) 0Q G°o / $$$ uiN z> W`qSu2 0. // I Z �Z W 4 / , W .o z0 U "i a $Z - OOOCIL3 OOOCK] > g O y 2 d, � N z w .., U 4,,- U \ 2) / \ UIIHHHHI I' IHIHHHI c ) � � \ § 0 - 2 3 •_ . = 8 c 3 \ ' IIWM CO © ® © _ = t E 2 E e § 2 § § f \ k / \ k { i k \ k \ \ / ƒ * ■ /© . cA O 2 ƒ x - - .% I § a. CO 0 1 3 ¥ 1 < / _ F a ] . 2 % I \ \ \ a ( 2 § / Da g / c ' \ ( 2 » 7 , / / R . m % k V \ � 0 > =w/ . b1 )td:� Ny O N c C6 7;3 7 Zr, o °� t 0 N r> v 0 Q = O 0 > co g 5 g ,11, 1 z § 0 0 , a ° • n cc I W y K y 8... („,,3 3aVa o J a 0 ° Z OJ�Q Wi- _ 0J . p . .' JO 00000*3 § I •_" OOOE0t3 IX lk N cs y C c — x 80,i, �,r• z '11 HOV39 10.- dalk 1111111"11 1119k30NVA •. e J ® d 4 _'� A, 4 rMINIF Il � 3s- � , y _ � . 44 111, 4 K 'g`,. am '\ O z , §GI g g 0 lil ow = Q .§ co ao0 W i OcPcr z g 8 k i w i Nozig 4� N 000eee r g <a g yj Uma oa z z z -a Q Z W P 7 H i1 7 a 3 L L c -- o d O 0_ ' N ' (� t_n C < - 0 •— � s- CO O O -— -0 D (1) `66 C c (D O n a� C6 Co w co x O -'--' (n -c 4--+ . - _a cn >, -C3 cn c CO -0 - co C o (u U) o U cD o > . — -c a2a3 `� oEo Li. -4-a o � � • E— o �L.... o � Oco .4•-• •— ui 2 a) • , cy) a3 —0 4- alcn U > • .11.a CU o • 2 c O (io : 0- o R3 U O 4— cn o E c O E -c U O .o O -�--, .a? U e...„' -1-1,_, CO c0 Z-6 13' CD L_. U .v C cn co (13 X .c -- CD - U 0 I— c a) a _c_ .c_. >, c w rr a. , r 1� T a 0 O N , 8 N 0 M 7 C)m (V N - U) ill za) 8 01aN z —) y2v I s O> Co (oO - to CO 0 - O O - in in M 8 o c , > a) 2 z cB �f o C a v z 1 co La o-' � > a�i ~ c O - > O +`- - uQ 0 CO co a) t U Cl_ `o ix N CI) O C y M N U o to N a _ T Al 0 O X o O N 8 ,[ L co O 0_ r! .i O QZ O to O Co co Nf N O N cr co co O N ' r- T T T (DAVN`a1)uopeA013 H '5 2 c., C z c?cog LI-1 11 g < 02 cv u j i cci.-2 (/) 0 (...) c) , -.... 4- W —1 D O i •-(5- 4 NI% c -4* P i a3 .......... .1,.; * # p 0—>- 5. 0 Li. En Lu 111000c• k D , 1C- ' z 0.- O Z D .0 mob •Sa 4 .CI' f rr A 4, ce 112- ..iP > I co , tt a z I- ._ - cn t.,.. w Z . ''r CD EU T. a) fi, EP_ a_ ' a) Ira w .'. < L12 .1. •*- I co... E0 0 ce 0 4....0 o ci) <• C9Dk 6 0 co 45 W Et3 0 0 CI. 22 -0 < a 2 < rz t < al I O H c ...c iii cf) ... s_. LI I- F.‹Z - n 45 ce ".'NO$ Z 0 cn w — ...j CC CH— cn ,,, / LLI w CD Ill . . -0 0- ."' 40., } .k. .e• C . a) co z < . , < z cs, >< cu ,t ifftwi ,frIk . cc UJ 0 C) a .... CC 0 0 ,4r - .1- cc 111 EL U " ' R7 N N � w\ _I N W C � 7 O � m 3 W a y Z �♦, ■_ o f• '• _ W U> ° ♦ ' W �a ♦^ C C ) • W i CD CZ E 4-0 IA V Ct3 4-0 O O •+ CCS • V O mbiloy ._ cu (,) as c (/) CD tCS O CD C _es,>% E •._ • , w F N O w N C C id 7 m m a y oz 93 N U M o A U 11:,t ii - '.„ (10 MC tiff'*:' '1 1, :i. 4 0 Cra, z (Li) al . , .,.. ICD i . , oit*ir:, ::- . CCO 111111111.1119V4,-.,—,,,,MiL..,45,.„5 .,�, (11:5 ' ' Cifil) ,.........,....., ,, •• MEC 2 ..,..., ... ,„„,...,, ,,. . . ...„. . . . .. : T , _ y O N N C Vi.N 7 :m v^ a y W W O 'pa U=o U U O ._ co , Oa) _c.....,, -0 a) cy c13 . — CD () Cl) v },, . =a) o w 0)O .o -0 r7 CI) o _ 0 a_ ii....... 4,171. ci) v— a) D (/) Q , _C(.0 CY) U U o O CO D > W O O a) }, LL N N CU . . . . . . . . � � N c� 'Cr o 4) a) a) -C a) — O > > > . > ca co c) CO CCS CCU � � 1-,-8 O Q L_ O O a) a) a) co co a) c 2 - • a) a) Q Q Q m Q I I • • • . ,W U N- N N C m g ■` O a Z 13 N r_ L.0 . 0 U> � ilz al ‘7) a) C/) >% c E L. to E ' E 4) En • v 2 L C Rem" C •Ism (.) ,... 1„,„ C .... 14... o co co ....1 03 ci. •.... co til.)1 8 m 0 — 0 C3) c cl) `D (I) 1:2 47.-- 8x- To 2 cL c CU :C-2 ED. a) L. a) c)� to .. .� cu � } � �cm _ 0.CD -c as 13 4-# Ts ..c as .c 44. ■— 73 CO CC°0 c •— .0) O w co O— Cl. O >E (i) a) cn 2 • — U.... w co w e O >+ O L CO as v 0 4— O O E t� O -0 E .� a� a) >1' co -c +a m a)CC3 — CD 0 CL (1) > V) ...c E Es. w .c 5 > .. ,,,,L.- = 0 w E c a� 01 n En m a) CI img -13 2 e‘m 6 (f) c 2 ..c E m as' rn oi E ,..... .... ...., ••••• . w ...--_ — 0 — 0 R, 2 05 7,6 — 03 1:1 0 2 o5 it,.„. ,,L A N•. .4,k 4,.',j 1.s •,',. '' " '' ' 1 g 03 , , :I . ,.,,, :„, t.,4 ■ r° 7 *1 . 'i—,.. ;•,"•1.t' ! .,,, S" .°"*i iL" '; ', 11' , ,,, ,1 "'''. * ,A', ;;;.... .. :,"'.•*. '-s•'1 kii ill Ii < L ..•(.4, . 0 '.L, t:..•.'" Z . tir• ) 4. I L-1311 •wo■iii _ . ,..... U. X) SIN■ AM a) ri .9te q& 8g 9'1 9R 44R RR w x c c C t W f r rc ec tX Cc M W (4 Ct C ce fx ce cg I- CU ...., a 1 ce > 111 Ca „ i 1 I I 1 I Z I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I - g g ....1.._ 0 1 >, 13. u k+,■• I - - i Co„,, c = I - --....-------....// 03 g .c 91 o w 0 1 - A /, ..■ 14soa i _ \ .0? IF \r" g > - 1 L.. •...■ ......= CO °c' § &'t ''' Pj 2 ! •:! ! 'c! ( ) '15 > ...' , W ij n , - LI- it141. — - Cl) (N5.sc z C4 2 it a) 3 .o a> 0 t s 0 2: • '"i,;,;.7`.,,..:5‘.•••* # . t''':''"it;-:;••t••.'":"'7,:• -4' .. .e.".*••• (....).> '-. (I) . ,- -,, ,,.,,!,'", '":51:,.'11.4:::'..." e•i!"'''i' •'t•'",*•"..1'.4.,.4.g.''• ' F 0 . ,...!4".7, 41.41-=)° - s... '' ' ' '''' . -'-'' '-"• '1: 40, ., C.) ... ,,, _ . . . - , , , . < • I I , ! ! ...., -I-4 (/) 1 .1 4-0 w . t M L... 0 CO $ `5 a ..0 0 4 ! * ! ! ! a Cc et ir ! ! T I 0 T t.,. I 1 CO T 1 I I 1 1 T - I 2 1 I I , -- ? 73 1-- I , I I ..- .., ,„. - a) -- ---.... - : A-0 .--- \ / , CO 2 , ....... I ,-- \ • a i -i-a :g • . „,_ - ,, , Ali cc '' \ , a . .\.‘ ' 8s\''., i - / i I (/) - \ ' I I 1 I . . . -.. @ 1 - I 1 I I I . 1 1 .... at, I li'. ft' gt9 ci. _ \,: a , , I ,..., $ a , ._ 3 . . Z -, w _ 0 ..• u , .._... . , , .— N .� � tom. { - - ..4 ' , ..,,;, *1!1' ; U> (1)Rr r ��*-+M i yid a � � R5 C r . � 3 aP � � 3 �2M ..4.�.� sNk am�� N a ye .^ o cr) E '' N 0 C • o CZ 00 a) IN ca .I—. ..„..„„. .1.,;::::""---..:;,:::::1,., (Is 0 x , `"`' � • _ arc. , C �CD �.., 0 . ` .0 = ° L w 0 O c4 W _. Q ,< — u, E, 'n c., 2 : co 2 f, c2;z (f) ___ L_.. I I -4-1 0 4.—• (/) '''' .. "4-* ' ,""eiiet,41,,..?: °°,', till-,t,"' 0,'''.' _ ."2..,,, . -64 % 441 ......Z 1 ** ' '' 'liji f t. "''' if 1.4 I 1* , ..:'7 ' 011:/t1tglitel1 ir -11—# ri )..1 t - 4 44 iie- 411" p 00.000000,00.11KIV. , 1 o (I) 6 ... I■ tit Z 9 C SI u1 § , (1) ....i 1 >N 73 i a a 1 ! ; • 1 f C C ) w ! Fit CC CC S i I CO LIMN. 0 V f I I 1 I 1 = '/4 ° ,- 4"''',.rie i Ili - 4 .. lt.) % "I\*----. ..1. ),........ a. fr V\„.I.\ O p , .,1,„... - •, _.....i 2,,a , ,, , , \ ,„ 1 N ',..,........,,,, 1 ‘,.. a O ce - 5 _C t , ,./# ---, _ w, .... „ , . i , l N, ... .- ,.. - ....- r, I i - x S... OWN : ■ ...---. a. ' D , „ - N N C m Za +.../ O VJ D QMo ♦� V U> - U) U) E CO U C .}-0 • 0 a) .00 U2ca) D m (,0 u) cn a) 0 (f) cn O ED v O F-- L_ D }' C6 C0 4) — 0 ro _C C O 6 — tCS U 0 a) •-i•-•-• cu w cu c c C-- cu P c .— 4,-. co � ca. O L 0 • O w O- E a) 0_ ±=a a) a) <( a ° 73 c, C . c _c .4_ -a co - -' o - a) m C O O E O O C6 O p a) O : fl d) — I- 22 .c 7 OU 11.. Co O W _ U °` RN N N C 7 f0 m o o o Mw 0 a Q5 ! C y y� Cva fa —ya X{ " X', 4 m A +,.K W T M,,� i F f$ eA'M., C f a 'N W 1 N w �#4# 1 i I u 9 C la .,. 0,..t. § 1 { a) w E 1 4,„ 1 O G Q K C K C C C C IC Q C C Q K it 1 1 U A . il 1 , T 1 I I 7 1 1 I T 1 1 1 1 ,1-. T T 1 tR t rl, , , a ° NNet).4 I !. - , / , R a 1 1 1/'I t a) ? ,, . . i s, q�i1 `a 41 1 Y { R CVO , , y 0.4 r - y N 1 1 1 1 i I I i I I i 1 t I 1 I 40 o '`, '� '- Cl, O N N C • 7 m a o d z 15 O 10 v 9S Q- o U> N C flA * Lyr 1"'l�r •�i/' 1' Pt P ?« 7111/ S} 4 � PaP? 7 �i + tp T gg V R § Z C 4 W i GI_ E E $ $ . . . $ $ $ . . . . i O 1 0(^ R W T I T T 1 1 T T T 1 1 T I O g 1a f 1 )\\ I/ ' 4,1 'i!'y M1.. .. .. ' S— u - s 4,0 !"!1 1 D tl I f i I Q O > W re C3 CL ,I, • N N N C • N ` m oz p Tv Q M O U > N (O O � CO 0 O O 0 �•. M O ti M O r O 00 N' V Q c.f.) c,.)- ) O M Lc) N ' d co r- I- W N CO CO (0 O MO W J I CO N N N N CO G ' Q d O M �t d O O O N M CO Z CD W .Q 'DEL CLL' t F 0 = tx to rt CI ie:t 13 •F+ W U r CO O N N C 7_ N M LO 7_ CCI m g v W o M L() 0) U > N 15 .— Cia ArD N..... -0 O i O CL C w -- 1.0 L O 7.3 - O N LO co E o U •— c6 U c� - , (in U E2 •c ) Lo. IQ --a CL o) 0 1.5 c Ts' 73 a)a) t C• c U •X CO 0 (n N j W Q) P- U)) O -= L. c ci O -- O m -w t/) a co p -tn m c/ c — 4) Cn w C� o O O Q. Q E wc1 .> v, E -c co > � Z E � � 5 � moo ca E c 0 co o ...,O p co U • . D , U- 7 N c:, N il P p O N) O 9,a �/p CO Q M o U E co _C V• 4- .� co co 0 w w a_ o 'til a) L 4— -O �O >, '( C.) -§ CO „. p p C� 0 0 U U co +-% O co .w o U O 0 - CD CO 4— co O N -(/) .c O (_ O L •- Q , = p n- N -4E5= E L o ai a) E (1) w W .c > Q) U) (n 0 a) 'L 'L CD O ' O co > CO Z Z Z C co -E5 o < 0 8 N v7 N .$.i')' N y ti ri 7 `m co N a3 v a, a; =° H � Z w E 0c & N - ° H ❑ o § .M N �zUO °QU > N / / o Slims .. / i eu Limos =Ii i o (ID - • C I • — ..+ I a. a J I S ....--"- - °!10115 I aii) I ..c • kin 00 N o - w y op a QAVN`U)uo snap L N O N C V/ LO V I r N aU CO N 1 N- . '1'1Z M N o D U> 1 N .o O O O (14D cO Cr) CO N N a) 1 1 i a) z o ,t- . - up up Lc) I I I 0 Z d- (1) 0 O N Cr) d' 1 1 1 • • • w _ '- Cl) O y N C 7 ` m N T� z y 8 2 N U 2 , U > N O co co v I o CO V) .. z a O CO o E Z5 0 U > a3 O O c O a) U E n o CD a) = ...= C (i) . . -5 c c 0 Lf) O 0 41. CO O .0 `n e O) U L p __ 4- -- Lo 0 f O O O Y L C13 ao O •� N CO 0 ..c L_ > E/2 c E 45 ,..c O O I- 1 LL c cn • • W ii � N N N C .N 7 co a Z O f6a o U ° > r� 0) • MUM (41) Cin 0 IMO U 0 EL U `- N a� m' © s" 40? to N _ow rt �� Imo• L( r O0 P• O ( N co Q`�° G =' C) e= r r N N r CO 40.U> M Q i 6, Q 0) M o 4g N �} 4? N. . -1"*.::. c) . c (0 a 0) N CD c (0 't ti N 0) O CT3 Q 7 0,42 . C't �'; . ;�� w .„ #iie, r c. W O 0) 0 Cis) m Co Cl) CD N C c ... Q_1 N'. N! (0 CO 0) 11) .�+ .� e0fi CO3) co CO rr � w w 0 Q W r } CO © O b03 0440'} 1) C0)1 CO 7.4.—. O ; tO C) "�Ct IBC) U) M w (n r •c N ! — 0 N Cl) co) W Q W c N 0) c, N co), 4ii. L� 0 O� o 0 ,:co. .L 000. ©' B rs c c� -� o '5 o v' c c E o' 0 w — C c 0 o y o o c © ' © Z v o c + c j E > ' U =' E 'v) ' _ .i L� Li CI) L1' N LY 0 W U '' e N O N N C N 7 A m 0o � z 0-O f0 a U M o U > c., o c Cl) 0 .- O � ca .— 0 (/) a c 0 .4—• 0 cn U 0 o 13 as O w _c •— . 1 N C C) O •— a) 2 cn O U -C C.) a, •m o C.) CU CD C .. CD , >% .- ca . — CO 4-• 0 a) a) E . N 7 U > E c to E C co 12 • _ w Sim cp co 01 - t�■ Ca' 15 _ C •C cr C iv a, a, C O o s . < 1— z . • • • • ,,., , W -. v N O N N N 7 m P, g gZ �N V Q .6 O O> r`°i mew u5 CO CO L VJ O co Ci3 3- V/ CZ) N Q. O •- U CA L. c C ■=' c-0 . O v O = (0 v L co Lm to .� CO s 0 •a� •..... _o c *a co O 6 w a) CU WE 6-0 Z •0— u) c U c c —7; as c c E a) 4p O O ca ucs _ oom -, () 2 � 2 I I I I I • - "w U 7 fq N N = '^ O ci CD Z 0 0 °' y 0 m N ^ V' _ i.i. U o CI) 13 co O RS •- v 147a 0 MC V CD E a, E to >, 2 C.) a' - — O t = O i to > RS >% = i C = 14.11 V) •- — co � tCS a) •— cu U C RS RS 0 a — 13 CD_ C (Q O > •C RS la ca RS a) E ca " E o C66 a) czs 2 s •_ O RS L. CD >, I 1 w 2 c I I I I I if _ v,o y N C pi N 7 ` m CD L O N O '3a U o <= 0> n' W _4-• Cn CL) W > E - (D 0 U) L- - ...... .. a) 7.7,-- c (f) a.. c CO CO (/) n 2 °' › aD 1CD a. 4-• C o a o 0 -1-• C CD o co CD — 0 a) co -0 D co Q o 2 • • • ,.,„. .. .. ..,:„ .:..„ ,. . . . _,.._. . W ,,.. , , a U ✓ N O N C •N • 7 a m Z O `° v y o 0 0> g • CIL C O o • =NM 140•1 • o � o .MIN m tN o C13 4,) L o Q a W CL • m " , k N . > r', tl r o W U „' m 0 .� •• �'• t p i CO • f $ r.. • o) '�(.CO 4. E a) 1.i W O 1 0 0 (1) w ,,r (J r N N N a, '4 �*rx s O N aq� ��,3`.ps�.��y „� r V fh O �il�a ' U> M cu IF�1q�41' �,, ♦ r vowµ s" -e a� 1:- t 4s— : l �•i a >�x M I • �� _row ;kf E y b ��1 h T* f- .-,l X34, K 1, �� rti'1 ■ co O N N C r N 0) 7 o g •O ZN U"o r- 0 > co C N- C 0 O w N ■_ _ C 0 CICS � }+ •� U) o > .CO CD O � ' 2 •0 j O MEMNON 2 (ZS C = W Alsa — ° cn C C o a) co 4D �0 -i >, E D U co C Q) a) CM C O 0 C ..... 0 > co 7 • x D CU Tli WCD C C E 0 U W • N O y N C • N O N � c" w o U> . Co 0 0) (2 C CO U n C) CD O D :'_' Cl) 2 o cm 2 +� E c O a co U Z w o6 C O Z3 CO g u- O },.(1)._ 0 a) -00 -- CD- U p o -- E cn .+(-6 - a) o a) 405 co a) a) cl C/) Cf) o z • • • • • • W N O N N C U) Vi V1 a) m a m o Z N CU �j o• R U) O L (.) > v -0 a) U) .c C N '"_'' 0 r •-o C C — o) E m N C u) C }, U) O o O) W f5 Q C E co C a) U)O U) U) •-' co 0- L i/5 a L ( ^^ll a) « //� a) VJ c O 0 Q �` L += C E" as CDA 0 w _ aa)) a) 0) o Q U a L D•� O - 0 C c 0 N CL o U _a 6 > U) N 0) ...., - 0 U) C .4-i C o L -2 m O> .ca ° p O C C to U to L > E N L 0) m E + o c w CO 42 (0 o O D U .n a n 0 ° n c U n o O w c c 03 • • D cu < o E N C a) c L QW O L W CQ < ' -+ L O E w D L ) o c 0 L Q) C •- O ° C ^W • U L C 0 = O E >+ i•;-- 0 O ° N C L cB O 4-°_ (n -C Q U U T . > O - c a) o � D Cl- cU C O .> o C E ( ° c _2 co m c C CI c a) Cl- cn n _a -c _° -a C -- 0 o co -°a CU a o E } E5 w o -2 c Q ° f- c •L °' 2 2 (a • L O 0 W L L a) �? o p = o .« m 06 a) o S E 0 -L- ° '`•' U -2 c c +-• U 4 Q Z C `� C c`l) ° c m m >' aa)i o o a� p 0 0 s_ c m U U CO 0) 2 c Cr) CU CO U c U -O N - a) Q c ai m > > a) a� c a) 0 C U) aa_ cn o < caC aCCDoom 0_ a = C.)CLU) a° a N O N N C 7 IL ` m a 3 yo;Z y �N CJ � ' CJM o U> . i r . poi Grpp �;• "� It' fit 6y Lu_Il zp�� ' gyp, C 0 . I[ ' ( ' ' 4 `t d Ate, W : Li 4` CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 1 of 260 COLLIER COUNTY CONCEPTUAL RENOURISHMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS 4 • � - K Prepared For: Coastal Zone Management Department Collier County Government Prepared By: Coastal Planning& Engineering,Inc. Boca Raton,FL May 2011 Revised October 2011 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 2 of 260 COLLIER COUNTY CONCEPTUAL RENOURISHMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION This report describes the evaluation of conceptual structure and beach fill design modifications on five coastal segments along the Collier County Coast between Wiggins Pass and Gordon Pass. The purpose of this study is to develop conceptual designs that address the effectiveness of existing structures and beach fill design templates, and changes needed to solve hot spots and improve project performance and durability. Beach fill alternatives with a higher and wider beach berm will be evaluated with structural modifications to achieve these goals. The segments are located at Barefoot Beach, Vanderbilt Beach, Clam Pass Park, Park Shore, and Naples. The study consists of three phases 1) the development of a sediment budget, conceptual fill designs, and cost estimate, 2) a numerical modeling study of coastal processes and shoreline change, and 3) interrogation of the numerical model to evaluate structural and non-structural alternatives. Permitting complexities will be addressed for each alternative. The four alternatives consist of: 1. Storm replacement project based on TS Fay FEMA fill quantities. 2. Nourishment using the 2006 design in the 3 original segments. 3. Higher and wider beach with 10-year design life. 4. Structural modification or additions. This design study assesses the feasibility of several renourishment alternatives for the beaches of Collier County. One alternative addresses the renourishment needs of the original three segments constructed as part of the 1996 and 2006 renourishment projects, both with the FEMA approved sand volume or the 2006 design standard. The third alternative is increasing the design width of the beach along with the consideration of including two additional small segments adjacent to Clam and Wiggins Passes. The same borrow area (BA-T1) is proposed as the primary sand source for use in the upcoming renourishment project. The fourth alternative considers structural changes or additional methods needed to meet the project objectives. A modeling report is included with this study to investigate the performance of groins and to assess the feasibility of the fill distribution proposed. The modeling shows that with a strong nourishment and inlet bypassing program, most of the remaining structures could be removed, reducing regional hot spots caused by seasonal fluctuations of the beach at the groins. The main objective of this study is to develop a design that will enhance project performance and increase the project life to maintain a healthy beach for up to 10 years without significant impacts to the natural resources within the project area. The performance of the beach in avoiding hardbottom coverage has exceeded permit expectations, and the results of four years of physical monitoring indicate that the beach can be widened without a significant increased risk of hardbottom impacts. The analysis and modeling indicate that the recommended plan with a 10 year project life is feasible with the use of minimal new structures. 1 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 3 of 260 1 BAREFOOT BEACH ■ WIGGINS PASS . r" i TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE k 1 DELNOR-WIGGI j;.` i_- PROJECT STATE PARK • � N T S LOCATION ORLANDO ir TAMPA ATLANTIC OCEAN HENDRY CO. \ 0 BOLA VIA tr LEE ° RATON ,` j w c MIAMI VANDERBILT /',:, ° c 4 GULF N 700000 / 8;,� Z4 o`.y<,�� m i f:•,' GULF MONROE CO. MEXICO l R30 MEXICO N 0 .a� EXISTING 88 PIPELINE 't o CORRIDOR y A R40 CLAM PASS 4 © ► SR 896 �.ti N 680000 : N 880000 r I PARK SHORE IIIII DOCTORS PASS SR 886 r it:'' ','-,. Igi \\, s, Om SR 856 NAPLES - ' N 660000 ....4---- J '• 00011 NAPLES N 860000 C: 0111111 .� SR 84 U y . N, � LEGEND: r} EXISTING PIPELINE CORRIDOR ..01 PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR \ I I EXPANDED TEMPLATE GULF { : FEMA TEMPLATE OF ® EXISTING TEMPLATE 4 MEXICO ' (•-=__-:_I NEW SEGMENTS1RTROYAL (104 \ A R70 FDEP MONUMENTS GORDON PASS NOTES: i. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET ° BASED O RDNATESYST • . _ ____ PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, R � 00\ \\\ EAST ZONE.NORTH AMERICAN a �i�1� DATUM OF 1983(NAD83). r 4 ,., GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT \ 2. FILL WIDTHS ARE NOT TO SCALE. . 411111111•11119 . FIGURE 1. Project Location Map 2 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 4 of 260 The study area encompasses approximately 13 miles of coastline between the Wiggins Pass and Gordon Pass (Figure 1). Collier County is approximately 115 miles south of the entrance of Tampa Bay and about 100 miles west of Miami, Florida. The County is bordered to the west and southwest by the Gulf of Mexico, to the south by Monroe County, to the east by Dade and Broward Counties, and to the north by Lee and Hendry Counties. II. PROJECT AREA HISTORY The beaches of Collier County have been actively maintained for 16 years. This maintenance includes structures, beach nourishment, and inlet bypassing. Beach Nourishment The initial major nourishment project in Collier County occurred in November 1995 to restore nearly six miles of critically eroded shoreline. Approximately 1,270,600 cubic yards of material was placed on Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples Beaches. Sand for the project was obtained from four offshore borrow areas and supplemented with fill from upland sand sources. The project also included the extension of the north Jetty of Doctors Pass by approximately 75 feet, the removal of 36 groins, and the restoration of six rock groins and a pile cluster groin. The project also included the restoration of ten existing stormwater outfalls on northern Naples Beach. Between February 21 and May 23, 2006, Collier County constructed a beach renourishment project in Vanderbilt Beach (R-22 to R-37), Park Shore (R-45 to R-55), and Naples Beach (R- 58A to R-79) along approximately 8.5 miles of shoreline. This project used an offshore sand source as well as sand from ongoing inlet maintenance at Doctors Pass. Approximately 668,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand from the offshore sand source and approximately 53,600 cubic yards of sand from inlet maintenance were placed within the project area. Supplemental fill projects, such as truck haul, have taken place within the project area since construction of the 1996 project. The most recent truck haul projects took place in summer 2010 and spring of 2011 in order to address two erosion hot spots within the County. The summer 2010 project took place between July 2, 2010 and July 9, 2010. Approximately 2,650 cubic yards (3,712 tons) of sand was placed south of Doctors Pass from R-58A-500 to R-58A+100. The second project took place in March 2011 and placed 22,393 cubic yards and 7,836 at Doctors Pass (R-58A-400 to R-58) and Park Shore (R-45+600 to R-46+400)respectively. Inlet Maintenance Periodic dredging and bypassing has taken place at Wiggins Pass, Clam Pass, Doctors Pass, and Gordon Pass in recent history. 3 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 5 of 260 Wiggins Pass Wiggins Pass is a natural inlet located south of Big Hickory Pass between R-16 and R-17 in Collier County. The pass has known to be open since 1885, and it is the northernmost inlet in Collier County. Since 1927, the pass has remained relatively stable and was first dredged for navigation in 1984. Wiggins Pass is currently dredged at regular intervals of approximately 2 years to maintain navigable depths for recreational boaters. The average yearly rate of dredging since 1984 has been about 20,370 cubic yards per year, with sand being placed on the beaches to the north and south of the pass. Currently, a comprehensive inlet management study and permit is being prepared to create straightened navigation channel. Clam Pass Clam Pass is another of Collier's natural inlets, located 5 miles south of Wiggins Pass between R-41 and R-42. Clam Pass is a small inlet subject to periodic closures and seasonal variations. Between 1954 and 1970, the pass migrated about 600 feet to the north (UF, 1970). From 1995 through 2002, a total of 78,725 cubic yards was dredged from the inlet system and placed onto adjacent beaches, primarily to the south. In 2007, approximately 22,000 cubic yards of material was dredged from the pass. In the future, this pass will be dredged to maintain tidal flushing of the Clam Bay Estuary. Doctors Pass Doctors Pass is the northernmost stabilized inlet in Collier County and is located south of Clam Pass between R-57 and R-58. The first modification of the inlet occurred in 1960, when the pass was widened and stone jetties were constructed for stabilization. As part of the 1996 Collier County Restoration Project, the north jetty was extended approximately 75 feet. The channel was first dredged in 1966 and 10-year dredging permits were issued in 1984 in order to maintain the pass and address impacts to adjacent beaches. In 1997, the DEP adopted an inlet management plan that specified all dredged material be placed on the beaches or inshore zone south of the inlet meeting a minimum bypassing goal of 10,000 cubic yards on an average annual basis. Maintenance dredging has traditionally occurred at Doctors Pass every 3 to 4 years. The County conducted maintenance dredging of Doctors Pass in the winter of 2009. Approximately 36,000 cubic yards of dredged sand was placed in the nearshore area south of the inlet, between R-60 and R-62. Recently, inlet management was altered at Doctors Pass to place dredged material further south. Historically fill was placed immediately south of the pass near R-58. However, due to a change in permit conditions starting in 2005, dredged material is now placed between R-60 and R-62 at Lowdermilk Park. 4 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 6 of 260 Gordon Pass Gordon Pass is another major stabilized inlet, located south of Doctors Pass between R- 89 and R-90. Gordon Pass is the southernmost inlet within the study area and has been known to be open since 1885 (USACE, 1972). The first modification of the inlet occurred in 1962, when the pass was widened and the south jetty was constructed for stabilization. The north jetty was constructed in 1977 and lengthened in 1987. The Gordon Pass Inlet Management Plan (CPE, 1998) recommended dredging 22,000 cubic yards per year on a 5-year maintenance cycle, of which at least 13,000 cubic yards per year be bypassed to the south. The pass was last dredged in 2010. III. STRATEGIC BEACH MANAGEMENT PLAN This plan represents the State's beach objectives. Projects which meet State objectives are easier to permit and receive state funding. In 2008, the FDEP Bureaus of Beaches and Coastal Systems updated the Strategic Beach Management Plan for the Southwest Gulf Coast Region. The sub- region for Collier County (Naples Coast) extends from the Lee County line in the north to the midpoint of Keewaydin Island in the south. The barrier beaches are separated from the mainland by mangrove swamp, salt marsh, and small bays. The Plan identifies 8.5 miles of critically eroded beach within this sub-region, which is attributed to winter frontal systems, tropical weather systems, and the effects of the inlets (Wiggins, Clam, Doctors, and Gordon Passes). Barefoot Beach should be part of the plan in its next update. The following sections are excerpts from the Management Plan (FDEP, 2008) and pertain to the critically eroded areas of Collier County: Wiggins Pass, Collier County: Place beach quality maintenance dredged material on adjacent beaches north and south of Wiggins Pass within areas of greatest need; monitoring and analysis of inlet effects. Vanderbilt Beach, Collier County, R-22.3 to R-30.5: Maintain the project through monitoring and nourishment using sand from offshore and bypassing sources. Clam Pass,Collier County: Monitor Park Shore, Collier County, R-50.65 to R-57.5: Maintain the project through monitoring and nourishment using sand from offshore and bypassing sources. Doctors Pass, Collier County: Place all beach quality dredged material on the beach or nearshore zone south of the inlet meeting a minimum bypassing goal of 10,000 cubic yards on an average annual basis. Naples, Collier County, R-57.8 to R-89: Maintain the project through monitoring and nourishment using sand from offshore and bypassed from Doctors Pass; evaluate alternatives to restore the remaining critically eroded shoreline. 5 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 7 of 260 Gordon Pass, Collier County: Place beach quality maintenance dredged material on downdrift beaches south of the inlet. New for the Strategic Beach Management Plan During the study, several recommendations have been developed to improve the current beach management plan. One major change is to include Barefoot Beach into the plan. Barefoot Beach was recently declared a critically eroded area, and it is recommended that beach quality material be placed from R-14 to R-16. It is also proposed that the location of the sand dredged from Doctors Pass be placed immediately south of the pass near R-58A and R-58. The lack of sand placed at this location during recent dredging has led to a hot spot south of the inlet. IV. RECENT MONITORING RESULTS The results from the fourth annual monitoring survey (October 2010) of the 2005/06 Collier County Beach Restoration Project have become recently available; therefore, the results from October 2010 and portions of findings from the July 2009 monitoring report were used within the preliminary design. Shoreline Changes The Mean High Water(MHW) elevation measured at each profile is used to represent the typical shoreline location. In Collier County, the MHW elevation is +0.33 ft NAVD 88. The MHW shoreline is approximated by the high-tide mark on the beach. The average MHW shoreline changes from November 2005 (pre-construction)to October 2010 are listed in Table 1. The total beach width remaining(Figure 2)within the project area since construction along with the design standard and hot spots is illustrated in Figure 3. The pre-construction survey considered in this report was conducted in November 2005 within the constructed areas and September 2005 in other regions of the monitoring area between R-17 to R-84. Survey monuments are located approximately 1,000 feet apart along the shoreline (Figure 1). The June 2006 survey used within the report is the post-construction survey, and the surveys for 2008, 2009, and 2010 are used for monitoring purposes for the project area. 6 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 8 of 260 TABLE 1 MHW SHORELINE CHANGES MHW SHORELINE CHANGES PROJECT AREAS JULY 2009 REMAINING NOV.05 TO TO OCT.2010 JUNE 2006 JULY 2009 OCT.2010 VANDERBILT BEACH 3.8 37.4 15.1 18.9 (R-22 to R-31) PELICAN BAY 4.6 22.5 15.9 20.4 (R-31 to R-37) PARK SHORE -5.6 30.9 14.1 8.5 (R-45 to R-55) NAPLES BEACH -4.5 56.5 36.8 32.3 (R-58A to R-79) AVERAGE -0.4 36.8 20.5 20.0 Figure 2 illustrates the concept of added beach width remaining versus total beach width remaining. The MHW shoreline changes discussed within this section refer to the amount of added beach from the 2005/06 project remaining. The total beach width remaining is the amount of sandy shoreline that is currently present from baseline, such as a seawall, edge of vegetation, building line, or equivalent, out to the water's edge. The goal is to maintain a total beach width of 85-100 feet between nourishments. 10 --- TOTAL BEACH WIDTH DESIGN ... ADDED BEACy WIDTH DESIGN EXAMPLE DESIGN TEMPLATE PRE-CONSTRUCTION PROFILE -MHW lU O EXISTING PROFILE ADDED BEACH _ ` WIDTH REMAINING r "" w 5 tatr , TOTAL BEACH '.. WIDTH REMAI 4ING - -10o 50 100 150 200 250 300 NOTES DISTANCE(FEET) 1.BASELINE SET AT SEAWALL,EDGE OF VEGETATION,OR EQUIVALENT FIGURE 2. Beach Width Description (NAVD=NGVD-1.28') 7 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 9 of 260 Recent shoreline trends in the last year (2009 to 2010; Table 1) indicate shoreline gains in Vanderbilt Beach and Pelican Bay, which are north of Clam Pass, and losses to the south of Clam Pass at Park Shore and Naples Beach. In comparison to beach widths measured after construction in 2006, Park Shore has lost the greatest percentage of shoreline, retaining only 28% of shoreline width gained from the 2005/06 project. The other two reaches have retained over 50% of their shoreline width. MHW shoreline changes are listed in more detail on a profile by profile basis in Appendix B. Vanderbilt Beach On average, the project area has receded -18.5 feet since construction in 2006, although the shoreline was accretional over the past year. The average beach width remaining in October 2010 is 18.9 feet from the 37.4 feet measured post-construction. Since 2006, survey measurements within the fill limits indicate an average shoreline change rate of- 4.3 feet per year. Pelican Bay Over the past 4 years, Pelican Bay has had both an erosional and accretional trend. From post-construction to 2008, the shoreline lost much of its added beach width. Since 2008, a majority of that beach width has recovered. Overall, the project area has approximately 20 feet of beach width remaining compared to the 22.5 feet of beach width measured post-construction. The average shoreline retreat measured within this reach is approximately-0.5 feet per year. Park Shore On average, the project area has receded -22.4 feet since construction, with -5.6 feet of shoreline change since July 2009. The average beach width remaining in October 2010 was approximately 8.5 feet. Since 2006, the Park Shore Beach area has lost approximately-5.2 feet of shoreline per year. Naples Beach The Naples Beach project area has eroded -24.2 feet since construction, which equates to approximately -5.6 feet per year of shoreline retreat. The project area contains approximately 32.3 feet of added beach width remaining. A majority of the erosion that was experienced within the Naples region is north of Lowdermilk Park, which is caused by the inlet effects of Doctors Pass. Beach Width Remaining versus Design Standard The design standards for Vanderbilt Beach, Park Shore, and Naples Beach are 100 feet, 85 feet, and 100 feet, respectively. The design standard, which generally measures the amount of sandy beach from a line established in 2003, is used as a basis to identify beach performance and hot spots. From comparing the design standards to the present condition of the beach, six areas that 8 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 10 of 260 warrant attention were identified from Figure 3. Vanderbilt Beach (R-27) contains one narrower beach width spot. Park Shore (R-46 and R-52) and Naples Beach (R-58 and R-63) have two areas of narrower beach width. Pelican Bay has a narrow point at R-36. Based upon the beach width remaining 4-years after construction, these beaches are narrower than the design standard established in 2003. The area south of Clam Pass and north of Wiggins Pass, Barefoot Beach, would warrant attention, but they were not part of the 1996 or 2006 beach renourishment projects. The Clam Pass and Barefoot Beach are being considered for inclusion into the upcoming renourishment project. A narrower design width will be considered at Clam Pass Park and the hot spot south of Doctors Pass. Although Figure 3 illustrates the desired beach width standard, environmental restrictions to avoid hardbottom coverage and other limitations did not allow for the placement of the optimal sand volume in all areas in the 2006 project. 9 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC N o c O f� it) '1 0 to o u') (. N .- i- ,- ,- h N N o N • CO S WIGGINS PASS °�' ; C.) R-17 ° Zo g R-18 pp-9 c`0 (C R-19 jillIl U=o u' R-20 Q = p R-21 U > � I ad R-22 +/ c�1 R-23 R-24 o { P*.-- 4 R-25 ' m. _ -26 R' R-27 o• ' w R-28 Z R-29 ! w R30 R-32 R33 0 R p �.+ . —,a R-35 z v .� R36•)moo- �~ R 4o U a CLAM PASS E 0 z 4 ",„ ,,,,,, ''"4 4",,,,,,,,,,° R-42 Z w C9 " ''m�'' ' , R-43 a z Z -...,,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,,,:,,,,,---_:\,- R-45 ... w •4 i R-47 74 Z W 411 R-48 —I E 5 R-49 1— w w T50 Z a" o 0 F a' R-52 ? r Z • o V j ' U-55 d: I R- cc! J Q CD z Q * -a DOC TORS O cn ' e ?�� O U R-59 I— R-60 1 Fy R-61 `` -.- R- x� M R-64 g 5 R-65 R-66 U Q R-67 W O R-69 1— R70 ,c R-73 0 � iiil R'73 c 7) , R-74 y w `►. R-75 0 to © Q A R-77 R-78 R-79 NE .E R-80 ` w-) . R-81 8. o R82 N � ¢¢ R-84 = 0 a 0 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 12 of 260 Volumetric Changes The volumetric changes discussed in this report represent the difference in the quantity of sand measured along the beach between surveys. All volumetric changes are given in cubic yards. Volumetric changes were calculated between the dunes (upland) and the approximate depth of closure. The depth of closure is defined as the seaward limit of the active beach profile and it is assumed that sand transport beyond this depth is negligible. A depth of closure of -11.3 ft NAVD (-10 ft NGVD) was used to determine volumetric changes for each monitoring area (CPE, 2003). The depth of closure is landward of the hardbottom. The landward and seaward limits were fixed to define a consistent region for all volumetric calculations. Volumetric changes at each profile are listed in Appendix B. Vanderbilt Beach The project area has lost -10,267 cubic yards of sand since construction at an average rate of-2,370 cubic yards per year. Profile comparisons indicate a gain of 12,668 cubic yards over the last year, which is probably recovery from Tropical Storm Fay. Overall, this reach has approximately 81%of the as-built volume remaining in October 2010. Pelican Bay Pelican Bay, after initial losses, has been accretional the later years, similar to the accretional trend that it experienced after the 1996 project. This reach has gained approximately 3,500 cubic yards since July 2009. This reach has over 100% of its as- built volume remaining. TABLE 2 COLLIER COUNTY VOLUMETRIC CHANGES VOL.REMAINING NOV.05 TO PERCENT PROJECT AREAS DESIGN AS-BUILT JUNE 2006 JULY 2009 OCT.2010 REMAINING VANDERBILT BEACH 121,689 121,487 108,642 85,707 98,375 81% (R-22 to R-31) PELICAN BAY 57,225 56,955 78,858 62,913 66,416 117% (R-31 to R-37) PARK SHORE 140,224 141,739 93,593 78,982 53,924 38% (R-45 to R-55) NAPLES BEACH 345,283 347,381 296,568 301,676 264,518 76% (R-58A to R-79) TOTAL 664,421 667,562 577,661 529,278 483,233 72% 11 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 13 of 260 Park Shore The Park Shore project area has lost -39,669 cubic yards of sand since construction at a rate of approximately -9,150 cubic yards per year. Over the past year, the Park Shore reach has been in an erosional state and has lost approximately -25,058 cubic yards. Overall, this reach has approximately 38% of its as-built volume remaining, with major losses occurring to the north from R-45 to R-48. Naples Beach Since construction, the Naples Beach project area has lost approximately 32,050 cubic yards, which is approximately -7,400 cubic yards per year. Overall, this area of the 2006 project has approximately 76%of its as-built volume remaining. Additional Study Areas The two newly proposed areas to the next nourishment project have been erosional over the past decade. The MHW shoreline and volumetric changes at Barefoot Beach are listed in Tables 3a and 3b below, while the MHW shoreline changes south of Clam Pass are listed in Appendix B and the volume changes are summarized below. Barefoot Beach Since 1992, the shoreline north of Wiggins Pass at Barefoot Beach has retreated an average of approximately 87 feet. The worst area of erosion is occurring at R-16, where, since 1992, it has lost approximately 437 feet of shoreline. The shoreline at R-14 and R- 15, also have high rates of erosion since 1992. The higher losses that have occurred since 1992 can be attributed to the northern migration of the flood channel and inlet management practices, which allowed for an approximate even disposal of dredged material on the north and south shorelines when it should have favored the north. The erosion is concentrated within half a mile of the inlet. TABLE 3a BAREFOOT BEACH MHW SHORELINE CHANGES MHW Shoreline Changes(ft) Profile 1988 1992 2001 1992 2001 2009 R-11 12 7.0 15.8 R-12 -4 29.7 56.3 R-13 19 9.9 29.8 R-14 114 -83.5 -9.9 R-15 63 -70.9 -71.0 R-16 185 -264.1 -173.0 N.TOTAL 64.8 -62.0 -25.3 12 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 14 of 260 TABLE 3b BAREFOOT BEACH VOLUMETRIC CHANGES Length Volumetric Changes(cy) Profile (FT) 1988 1992 2001 1992 2001 2009 R-11 501 -1,413 -1,314 11,238 R-12 987 -11,275 5,046 52,660 R-13 971 478 966 37,697 R-14 997 31,821 4,415 -24,752 R-15 1032 12,726 -32,854 -30,107 R-16 537 21,586 -81,447 -72,771 Wiggins Pass N.TOTAL 5,025 53,924 -105,188 -26,035 The shorelines near Wiggins Pass have been eroding at an accelerated rate since 1992, which directly affects the amount of recreational area available to the public. During the period from 1992 to 2009, the largest shoreline retreat was observed at R-16 with over 400 feet of shoreline lost. Approximately 10 acres has been lost from the Gulf beaches since 1992. The shoreline recession on South Barefoot Beach has caused vegetation, such as mangroves to be lost, and it has also created a dangerous scarp along the shoreline that is hazardous to park users. Along with the loss of vegetation, walking paths that were present in 1973 at Barefoot Beach have been eroded away and are no longer present in several areas to the west and south. This affect's the public's accessibility to the County Park and enjoyment of nature along the former loop path. In comparison to the shoreline changes, the volumetric changes also indicate that the shoreline north of Wiggins Pass is highly erosional. From 1979 to present, the shoreline shifted and is now in a state of erosion. The worst of the erosion is seen at R-16 where approximately 201,000 cubic yards have been lost. This erosion has caused the southern tip of South Barefoot Beach to nearly shear off, which in return has lost valuable recreational area and habitat within the park. The causes of erosion are both natural and man influenced. Nourishment will restore the eroded portion of the beach that new inlet management practices would take decade to address. Clam Pass Park and Vicinity In the last two decades, erosion has increased south of Clam Pass, and is only partially addressed by placement of dredged material south of the inlet. South of Clam Pass, the erosional arc extends to R-48 for the 1988-2010 period. The arc of erosion south of the pass increased by 2,000 feet between 2005 and 2010. Since maintenance dredging began in 1999 in order to improve flushing of the pass, the erosional trend has increased south of the pass and decreased to the north of the pass. Since 1998, the northern shoreline has been accretional, while the southern shoreline has eroded approximately 16 feet. Even 13 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3 b New Business 15 of 260 with the existing bypassing program in place at Clam Pass, the downdrift shoreline is showing an increased impact compared to the pre-1998 period. Figure 4 illustrates the shoreline changes centered around the inlet. It can be seen that during the time period from 1998 to 2005, the erosional arc from the inlet extended to R- 46. In the past five years, the erosional arc has expanded and now extends to R-48. The figure illustrates that the erosional area south of the pass is growing, which is threatening the shoreline farther south and could cause further loss of vegetation and habitat. The largest shoreline recession is at R-45. This point is located south of the Clam Pass disposal area. Consideration should be given to extending the disposal area 500 to 1,000 feet further south. SHORELINE POSITION COMPARED TO 1998 SHORLINE VICINITY OF CLAM PASS 1988 TO 2010 80.0 - ------- 1988 to 1998 60.0 ■ 1998 to 2005 -+-1998 to 2010 40 0 • • ■ -- -1998 to 2010(WMthout 20.0 A ■ x ■ -20.0 ■....._ __ • ._ - __.. ■ __.- • M• -400 _ . _.. '... _.... LL ✓ -60.0 ... z c -80.0 ....... . ....., E ......... ...... -100.0 -120.0 _. ........ .. . ...... .. R34 R35 R36 R37 R38 R39 R40 R41 Clam R42 R43 R44 R45 R46 R47 R48 R49 Pass R-MONUMENT LOCATION FIGURE 4. Shoreline Changes near Clam Pass (1998 to Present) When fill and bypassing is discounted, the area with the greatest erosion is located at R- 43, which has experienced over 100 feet of shoreline loss (if there was no fill placed) since dredging began in 1999. The increased erosion south of the pass is associated with the dredging implemented within the area in order to restore flushing to the Clam Bay system. The increased flushing has improved mangroves and other aquatic habitat within Clam Bay based on annual monitoring conducted by Terrel Hall and Associates through 2010 for the Pelican Bay Services Division. The gap in the hardbottom south of the pass and the groins at the Seagate Drive public access are contributing to the erosion in this area. Two groins are located between R-45 and R-46, and the hardbottom gap is north of this region. In addition, an examination of the comparative profiles show the 2005 14 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 16 of 260 hurricane season was a catalyst to increase erosion, with an offshore shift in profile volume measured with the November 2005 profiles, and the disappearance of this volume in the 2010 profiles. The volumetric changes for 1998-2010 are shown in Table 4 below, along with the impact from bypassing and nourishment. Table 4 illustrates volumetric changes from 1998 to 2010. TABLE 4 VOLUMETRIC CHANGES (C.Y.) JUNE 1998 to OCT. 2010 Volumetric Profile Dist.(ft) Change Fill Placed(C.Y.) Net Vol. Net Ann. Jun.98 to Oct. 10 1999 2002 2005/6 2007 Change Change R-42 1,057 -13,691 6,400 2,345 4,400 -26,836 -2,176 R-43 1,015 -10,213 22,400 8,208 15,400 -56,221 -4,558 i R-44 1,016 -4,088 3,200 1,173 2,200 -10,661 -864 R-45 1,073 -6,636 -6,636 -538 R-46 1,040 332 13,104 -12,772 -1,036 R-47 954 -1,749 8,002 -9,751 -791 R-48 1,000 4,824 10,150 -5,326 -432 R-49 1,076 2,194 10,193 -7,999 -649 Total 8,231 -29,027 32,000 11,725 41,449 _ 22,000 -136,201 -11,043 During the time period from 1998 to 2010, the Clam Pass area from R-42 to R-49 eroded approximately 29,000 cubic yards. Also during that time period, 107,174 cubic yards were placed within the same area. Accounting for fill placed, the Clam Pass area eroded approximately 136,000 cubic yards or-11,000 cubic yards per year. Recently, from 2005 to 2010, erosion within the study area has increased. The annual erosion rate has more than doubled and was measured to be approximately -27,500 cubic yards per year when fill within the study limits was accounted for. This increase in erosion may have been triggered by the 2005 hurricane season. For the period since dredging began, there is a 29,000 cubic yard deficit south of Clam Pass through R-49. The Clam Pass Park Pavilion is located between R-42 and R-43 south of the inlet. These two profiles have some of the highest erosion rates within the study area. Since 2005, these two profiles have lost almost 45,000 cubic yards of material. If these profiles continue to erode at the current rate, portions of the pavilion could become undermined. 15 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 17 of 260 The Clam Pass Park Area is currently not designated critical, but Collier County has applied for it to be designated as critically eroded. The shorelines near Clam Pass have been eroding at an accelerated rate since 1998, which directly affects the amount of recreational area available to the public. During the period from 1988 to 2010, the largest shoreline retreat was observed at R-43 when fill placed at the profile was factored out. The shoreline recession at Clam Pass Park has caused beach vegetation to be lost, which is habitat for gopher tortoises. V. PROJECT PERFORMANCE Since April 2006, the shoreline has gone through three periods: Initial adjustment which occurred through 2007, Tropical Storm Fay recession which dominated coastal processes through September 2008, and a moderate shoreline recovery which can be observed since 2008 in Figure 5a. Volumetric changes are steadier than the average shoreline changes. The design volume for the entire project area, R-22 to R-79, was 664,421 cubic yards. The same area had an as-built volume of 667,562 cubic yards. Volumetric changes measured from the pre- construction November 2005 survey to the five year post-construction in October 2010 survey measured 483,233 cubic yards remaining in the project area or 72%of the design volume. Figure 5a illustrates a summary of the project area's average shoreline and volumetric changes since construction. It shows the average shoreline width and volume remaining in the project area at the time of each monitoring survey compared to the pre-construction condition in 2005. From April 2006 to June 2006, the large drop in shoreline width is due to initial equilibration of the beach from the construction profile. The beach equilibrates by losing sand from the shoreline to build the submerged toe of the beach. At equilibrium, there is a relationship between the shoreline width and sand volume. The expected average project width based on the initial fill volume of 667,600 cubic yards is 27 feet. This suggests that the beach width of 56 feet measured in April 2006 is out of equilibrium, and is adjusting to the corresponding the volume placed. Since June 2006, the beach has been relatively stable volumetrically, while the shorelines have fluctuated. From the plot, it can be seen that Tropical Storm Fay did have a significant impact upon shoreline width in 2008, but less impact upon the volume. This indicates that the sand is still within the active beach profile and not all has been lost. The coarse sand is providing an average width of 20 feet in 2010, more than expected from the volume alone. 16 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 18 of 260 Collier County Project Performance 60 900,000 Apr-08 1-- 56' 50 - 750,000 y < 40 Jun-07 600,000 v 3 Jun-06 u 30 -- - -450,000 C sop-06 pt Jul-08 Oc410 d 20 300.000 10 - 150,000 Nov-05 0 - 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 eN.91 Survey Date 1 Baseline is November 2005 survey. —e—Beach Wdih 2 Volumes measured to-11.3'NAVD 3 Beach width measured at MHW(00.3'NAVE)) —r—Volume FIGURE 5a. Collier County Project Performance The results of the recent monitoring studies indicate that Tropical Storm Fay did affect the beaches of Collier County and caused approximately 175,000 cubic yards of erosion which qualified for FEMA category G assistance. This FEMA funding will provide the foundation for the next renourishment project, and the smallest alternative is sized for the FEMA approved amount for illustration. The basis for increasing the design width was developed with the original permit in 2003. However, this was restricted by permit conditions, but it is now supported by the results of recent physical monitoring. Data from the recent beach renourishment monitoring programs in Collier County indicate that coarser sand fill sections equilibrate to a steeper, shorter profile than the original finer sediments (Figure 5b). The toe of the active profile has not translated seaward as presupposed by the simple profile translation method of design, but it has actually receded in most cases. The 2008 storm season provided the wave energy needed to equilibrate the entire profile, causing an overall landward recession of the beach toe as predicted by theory. The toe retreat compared to earlier profiles is illustrated in Appendix C. Profiles from the 1995 pre- construction to the latest in 2010 are compared. The November 2005 and June 2008 surveys represent post-storm profiles from Hurricanes Katrina & Wilma and Tropical Storm Fay respectively, and make a good basis for analyzing storm profile adjustment with and without the higher quality sand. The September 2005 and July 2009 and October 2010 surveys are largely unaffected by large storms, and make a good comparison pair for typical beach conditions. 17 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 19 of 260 Park Shore Average Profile R40 to R43 10 s —Nov 2005 —June 2008 6 4 2 -2 4 _6 _8 37.1' -10 NA1/0.11.0 -12 150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 Distance(FT) FIGURE 5b. Profile retreat at Park Shore between November 2005 and June 2008 A post storm beach profile survey was conducted in Fall 2008 and compared to beach profiles taken in November 2005. In addition, the surveys conducted after the 2008 storm seasons showed that moderately sized storms do not cause a seaward advance of the beach toe of the active profile over adjacent hardbottom habitat. Figure 5b illustrates the landward recession of the toe of fill for four averaged profiles in Park Shore. The average profile receded an average of 37 feet in this example, with added beach width at MHW remaining positive. In this case, if we extend the beach width by 37 feet, it would bring the profile out to the conditions at the time of construction, therefore no hardbottom coverage. In most cases, there is room to spare for additional beach width beyond the 2006 design that would not encroach on the hardbottom. As a preliminary design estimate based upon this performance, beach width were extended by the recession distance of the toe. We have reviewed the recession of the -10 ft-NAVD contour as a basis for design. There has been change in the datum used since the 2006 project. The current datum is NAVD, which is 1.28 feet lower than the NGVD datum used for the 2006 permits and design. The average depth of closure was found to be -10 feet NGVD, which is -11.3 feet NAVD. The depth of closure is based on the intersection of successive profiles and is not a constant -11.3 ft NAVD, but varies along shore. In general, the depth of closure is shallower than -11.3 ft NAVD for profiles behind hardbottom and deeper that -11.3 ft NAVD in regions where there is no offshore hardbottom. The region south of R-67 generally has no nearshore hardbottom. This means that design of a new beach width will be done on a profile by profile line basis, which will be performed in a detailed design phase. The current design study is conceptual and did not analyze profiles on an individual basis or include spreading or diffusion calculations. In this study, the 18 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 20 of 260 average recession of the -10 ft NAVD contour was used to determine an allowable increase in the beach width design. The average profile retreat indicated by the retreat of the -10 ft NAVD contour is between -40 ft and-25 ft, respectively for the 2005-08 and 2005-09 pairs respectively. Avoidance of hardbottom is not necessary south of R-67 and in some reef gaps where the beach width is not restricted by hardbottom. There are a few other points where the hardbottom is sufficiently offshore, so that the beach width is practically unrestricted. Coverage due to lateral spreading of hardbottom must be considered in these cases in final detailed design. This should be done using 3D analysis methods. VI. SEDIMENT BUDGET ANALYSIS A sediment budget illustrates the sand movement and volume changes during a specific time period over a particular segment of the coast. A sediment budget was developed for the period after the recent nourishment project and is presented in Figure 6. The post-construction sediment budget was based on the monitoring results from 2006 to 2009 surveys and sediment bypassing information from each inlet. The changes in the inlet shoal volumes were based both on bathymetric survey data and dredging records. Sediment transport is shown by arrows. Volume changes within littoral cells and the inlet shoals are illustrated using plus and minus signs in front of numbers representing 1,000 cy/year. The cells represent the active beach and nearshore region between the toe of dune and depth of closure. In the study area, the sediment transport is generally towards the south. At the inlets, sediment naturally moves into the inlet, but is generally bypassed through dredging and some natural process. Overall, 300 cubic yards per year is shown to enter the system near Barefoot Beach at R-10, and approximately 700 cubic yards per year was determined to be leaving the area and going south to Gordon Pass. The volume change in each cell is based on monitoring results from the 3 year monitoring report. The alongshore transport arrows show the direction and magnitude of sand movement at each cell boundary. Dredge and fill operations are illustrated. The budget indicates a reversal in alongshore transport south of each inlet, and is only an illustration of processes during the 2006-9 period, and does not necessarily represent the average conditions. At Wiggins Pass during the time frame of this analysis (2006 to 2009), approximately 2/3 of dredged material was placed to the north at Barefoot Beach while 1/3 was placed to the south at Delnor Wiggins State Park. This placement ratio created an equal amount of accretion north and south of the inlet. This is what is recommended within the updated Wiggins Pass Inlet Management and Realignment Study. The sediment budget shows Naples Beach is relatively stable except just south of the inlet, through to Lowdermilk Park. Both Vanderbilt and Park Shore, on the other hand, have an erosion trend. The dredge and fill arrows show that sediment bypassing has been beneficial, supporting accreting beach areas wherever sand is bypassed, except south of Clam Pass. 19 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 21 of 260 `It ii 0.3 0 �• BARE-•+T IfIL BEAC COON sorr - I 6., 07117,•••�p t O., D OR- L..t \• -4.2 WIGGINS 0 6000 12000 ,16.6^ TATE PARK t` +5.1 t t GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT _5,x- 5.9 .-- -10.5 4.7 w1 • DERBILT BEACH 0 ' ° PELI. •N BAY -2.1 6.8 oR40 .v CLAM -A'S +0.8 !l SR 89t1 -.. GULF ,'y^ tx OF —5.6' i x/CO 8.4 tR50 -6.6 PI HORE 15.0 ?, PS' 11.0 +40 s t SR886 1. +3.4 2 - . -10.4 t\— 10.6_ 7.5 W' SR 856 ION NAPLES +10.2 03I11 um ;1 SR 84 hi 7.9 , 1 +7.2 `x\' tj, =,PORT ROYAL 0.7 ', — LITTORAL SAND TRANSPORT RDON PASS R90 ,.. -- MECHANICAL SAND TRANSPORT GO AKEEWAYDIN (DREDGING OR TRUCK PLACEMENT) Ys- }ISLAND ALL VALUES IN CYJYR.x 1000 . o FIGURE 6. Sediment Budget for Collier County,FL (2006-2009) 20 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 22 of 260 VII. LONG TERM EROSION TRENDS Erosion trends were determined using monitoring data for the periods 1996-2004 and 2006-2010 in order to compare erosion experienced during the two renourishment projects and to create a composite erosion rate of the two time periods. The long term erosion rate accounts for all fill placed directly in the project area during the monitoring period. Figure 7 illustrates the erosion trends throughout the project area. The units are in cubic yards per year per foot of beach. From comparing the past and current volumetric changes, six areas of high erosion are identified within the study area. One area is in Vanderbilt Beach centered near R-27. The next area is located directly south of Clam Pass at R-42 to R-44. There is an area of erosion at Park Shore near R-52. A newly developed hot spot directly south of Doctors Pass was identified at R-58A to R-58. An area of interest also lies south of Lowdermilk Park at R-63. An area of past erosion and more moderate erosion since 2006 was identified near R-71 in Naples Beach, but given its current state of beach width, it is not as serious as the other five. Two areas outside the 1996 project area warrant attention. Delnor Wiggins State Park has a high erosion trend at R-18, but this area has had an accreting shoreline since 1985, since dredge disposal has more than mitigated for any. Barefoot Beach has the highest erosion rate adjacent to Wiggins Pass, while the beach further north has been effectively mitigated with sand dredged from the inlet. Collier County Average Erosion Rates from 1996-2010 1996-2004 ��2006-2010 ■Mt'ont}xnito(1996 to 2010) -^-^--2003-2009 -18.00 Barefoot Beach I lot Spot -16.00 __14.00 Doctors Pats Hot Spot -12.00 i v -10.00 G -8.00 z e Park Shore --6 on e Hot Spot -1.00 A _1.� i A►. Ali al lit" 0.00 C:7e7e7eAF A707eAFAF7e F7epFA7eA10FF7e 7e A7e7e FGF7e7oF-1F 7oFAFF7e F<'17eF 7e Ale 7CAFAAA70RA7eARF7e 70A F7aF7D:AAFFAF de'duaoca��: : b3 fsJJ..,,NA,fgri,4 R 3.T a��nn b.hfT yy fiTj, wvw N �� n,N7 OwtJ—OGaetiQ.tnA..ti�0•C Ge S A•w -a.G OCmJP:nA V,J��aoJP�•F• N -b�aewC PwN�O�OatiT.nAUN—O.OaO•vLwN� Now 9 )•manuranents onh avallabie from Jona 20!X1 to Ma)2004 for l (. F to zt. time period I DEP R-;Monument 2.1 Aecreuonal)81110.are not spoon Represented In aro on the plot FIGURE 7. Erosion Trends throughout Collier County 21 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 23 of 260 The design developed in the report was based on erosion rates from 1996-2004 and post- construction (2006) to the October 2010 survey in order to create a composite erosion rate of the two time periods. The composite erosion rate was needed to help balance the higher rates of erosion experienced in the past years due to larger storms to the quieter period before 2004. If the erosion rates from the four-year monitoring(2006-2010)were used, the design volume would be much larger. Calculations for the long term erosion rate can be found in the monitoring reports. VIII. INFLUENCES AND IMPACTS Storms Over the past seven years, the project area has been hit or experienced far field effects from several hurricanes and tropical storms. Before the 2006 project was constructed, a series of storms impacted Collier County's shorelines. These storms impacted the beach profiles such that they were unable to fully recover before the 2006 construction. A list of the storms that have affected the area from 2004 to 2008 are listed below. The 2004 Atlantic Hurricane Season produced sixteen storms; nine of which were hurricanes, six tropical storms, and one tropical depression. The storms that affected the west coast of Florida during this season are listed below. 2004 Storms Duration Intensity Tropical Storm Bonnie 8/03/04 - 8/14/04 65 mph, 1001 mbar Hurricane Charley 8/09/04 - 8/14/04 150 mph, 941 mbar Hurricane Frances 8/25/04 - 9/10/04 145 mph, 935 mbar Hurricane Ivan 9/02/04 -9/24/04 165 mph, 910 mbar Hurricane Jeanne 9/13/04 - 9/28/04 120 mph, 951 mbar The 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season was the most active season on record, with Hurricane Wilma setting the Atlantic record. A post Hurricane Wilma survey was performed in November 2005, about a week after the storm. This survey data was collected in order to reassess the beach conditions of Collier County after Hurricane Wilma's impact on the coastline. The other storms which affected the west coast of Florida during the 2005 Hurricane Season are listed below. 2005 Storms Duration Intensity Tropical Storm Arlene 6/08/05 - 6/13/05 70 mph, 989 mbar Hurricane Cindy 7/03/05 - 7/07/05 75 mph, 991 mbar Hurricane Dennis 7/04/05 - 7/13/05 150 mph, 930 mbar Hurricane Emily 7/10/05 - 7/21/05 160 mph, 929 mbar Hurricane Katrina 8/23/05 - 8/31/05 175 mph, 902 mbar Hurricane Rita 9/17/05 - 9/26/05 180 mph, 895 mbar Hurricane Wilma 10/15/05 -10/25/05 185 mph, 882 mbar Duration periods are from development to dissipation. Intensity is the highest recorded mile per hour and the lowest recorded atmospheric pressure in millibars. 22 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 24 of 260 During the 2008 Hurricane season, Collier County's shoreline was impacted by several storms. Of these storms, Tropical Storm Fay. had the greatest impact upon the shorelines due to the storm making landfall several mles south at Cape Romano. Fay adversely affected the shoreline near Collier County and accounted for approximately 175,000 cubic yards of erosion. The significance of the storms mentioned above relate to the amount of volume placed on the beach for the 2006 Renourishment Project. Due to the active season in 2004/2005, the permitted design was not capable of fully addressing all the erosional losses that occurred due to template restrictions imposed for hardbottom avoidance. Therefore, the beach renourishment project was not able to fully address the sand deficit at some profiles or anticipated long term storm impacts, which affected the performance of the recently placed sand. Groins Traditional methods of looking at hot spots, such as beach width standard and high erosion rates were described earlier, but often features such as groins can have impacts totally.missed by normal 1,000 foot spacing of monitoring line surveys. From historical shorelne analysis using aerials, it can be seen that groins play a large role in affecting the width of the shoreline. In some areas of Collier County, the impacts of coastal structures have a limited range, but an important effect. On Naples Beach, there are many structures along the coast between Doctors Pass and Gordon Pass. There are no visible groins on Vanderbilt Beach or Barefoot Beach. Park Shore has three small groin-like structures in the vicinity of Seagate Drive (R-45). j" * fib° ` « 9 , Photograph la (2006, left) and Photograph lb (2008, right): Shoreline variability near groin with outfall. 23 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 25 of 260 Depending on the dominant wave direction, the groins within Naples influence the public's perception of the beaches performance in close vicinity to the structure (Refer to Photographs la and lb). If the wave direction is predominantly from the north for a period of time (winter), a fillet will form on the northern, or updrift, side of the groin and a deficit will be created downdrift. If the wave direction were to change and become predominant from the south (summer-fall), the updrift and downdrift areas would reverse, causing the previously accreting shoreline to become erosional while the previously eroding shoreline trends toward accretional. Through the use of modeling (discussed later), it is readily apparent that removing all the structures along the Naples shoreline will help shoreline performance largely by reducing the size of seasonal variations in beach width at the groins. An in-depth modeling study has been completed to determine shoreline response to removing the structures and is provided in Appendix A. This study shows that groins can be removed, leading to a better performing beach. Although beach performance is improved, groins cannot be removed without addressing the outfalls at Naples Beach. A comparison between historic charts, aerials, and the 2009 aerial photograph (Figure 21) shows a reversal in alongshore transport at the groins. The size of the opposing offset at outfall #2 (Photographs la and 1b) indicates there is a strong refraction-diffraction effect on Naples beach caused by the shape of the nearshore hardbottom and the bathymetric high that extends offshore from northern Naples Beach. Any modification to the lengths of the groin/outfall combination needs to balance the beach offset versus the stabilizing influence of the structures. The optimum beach design will not be achieved until the outfall can be fully addressed, since many groins are paired with outfalls. Groins also perform poorly in regions of weak alongshore transport, which is characteristic of Collier County's coastline. If the magnitude of the net alongshore transport is near the trapping capacity of the groins, then strong offsets and impacts due to groins are more common. Some groins were retained and repaired with the 1995/96 project, since they contributed to beach stability. They were retained for the 2006 project for the same reason. A strong nourishment program can mitigate for any groin effects by maintaining desired beach widths without the seasonal variations caused by many of the groins. If the conditions can be improved as proposed in this report, then groin removal should be pursued. Supplemental Fill A portion of the sand that has been added to the project area beaches has been placed by various truck haul, or supplemental fill projects. During the 1996 to 2004 time period, a significant amount of fill was placed within the project areas. This supplemental fill helped extend the life of the 1996 project by acting as advanced nourishment, especially in hot spot areas. From 1996 through 2003, an estimated 394,000 cubic yards of sand was added to the beaches between Wiggins Pass and Gordon Pass from truck haul and inlet bypassing (Collier County, 2003). Approximately 144,000 cubic yards of this volume was added in 2002. No inlet bypassing or truck haul operations are known to have 24 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 26 of 260 occurred during the time period between June 2003 and May 2004. These supplemental fill operations significantly added to the stability of the project area beaches during that time period. From 2006 to 2008, no truck haul projects occurred within the project area. The only source of supplemental fill during this time period is that from inlet maintenance dredging. In 2007, both Clam and Wiggins Passes were dredged. At Wiggins Pass, approximately 6,800 cubic yards of sand were placed updrift at R-12, and 48,400 cubic yards were placed downdrift at R-18 and R-19. At Clam Pass, approximately 20,000 cubic yards were placed downdrift and R-42 and R-43. From 2009 to 2011, several supplemental fill projects occurred within or on the boundaries of the project area. In 2009, both Doctors Pass and Wiggins Pass were dredged. The 2009 Wiggins Pass maintenance dredging project removed approximately 49,600 cubic yards of sand from Wiggins Pass and placed it in a spoil site nearshore of Barefoot Beach State Preserve (between approximately R-11.4 and R-14.2) and Delnor Wiggins State Park. At Doctors Pass, approximately 36,000 cubic yards of sand was removed and placed in a nearshore area south of the inlet, between FDEP reference monuments R-60 and R-62 at Lowdermilk Park. Wiggins Pass was also dredged in March of 2011. Approximately 50,000 cubic yards of material were placed on Barefoot Beach to the north between R-12 and R-14.2. In July 2010, a small truck haul project took place just south of Doctors Pass. Approximately 2,652 cy (3,712 tons) of sand were placed on the beach. The sand was kept landward of the MHW line during construction. In early 2011, a truck haul project was performed south of Doctors Pass at R-58A-400 to R-58, which placed 22,393 cubic yards of sand. In addition to the Doctors Pass sand placement, Park Shore (R-45+600 to R-46+400) also received 7,836 cubic yards of material from an upland sand source. This sand was placed to address erosional hot spots that have appeared during the recent project's monitoring. Hardbottom Constraints A major concern when designing the renourishment project in 2006 for Collier County was adverse effects to the nearshore hardbottom habitat. Hardbottom coverage is undesirable to both the County and FDEP. In order to avoid coverage, constraints were placed on the design template, which impacts the width and renourishment interval of the project. The renourishment interval was 6 years. These constraints appear to have been overly cautious based on the performance of the high quality sand placed in 2006. There is room for increased width with a safety buffer from the hardbottom in most areas of the county. The hardbottom has been mapped annually using side scan survey techniques between 2005 and 2009. The results of dives confirm the line established by side scan survey results. In the nearshore region, hardbottom coverage or encroachment can occur at a 25 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 27 of 260 few locations based on a design with a project life of 10 years, but most areas can easily hold the needed sand. Even with the added space created by the high quality sand, there are still profiles where little sand can be added. At these locations, the equilibrium toe of fill or depth of closure is near the edge of hardbottom with insufficient space to place the sand needed for a longer project life. The locations of potential coverage are listed below: Vanderbilt R-31 N. Park Shore R-45 to 48 Park Shore R-50, 51, 53 Naples R-58, 58A These profiles need to be supplemented with other design techniques to achieve the desired design life. This can include structures, supplemental fill or feeder beach. These methods will be examined during modeling and detailed design. . Management Changes Shoreline management changes have been implemented from the 1996 to 2006 renourishment projects. During the lifespan of the 1996 project, sand dredged from Doctors Pass was placed downdrift of the pass near survey monument R-58 (Figure 6). Since the construction of the 2006 project, the sand dredged at Doctors Pass was placed on Lowdermilk Park's shorelines (R-60 to R-62). The effect of placing the fill farther south becomes apparent when historic shoreline rates are compared for the area near R- 58. The lack of fill placed at or near R-58 has created a sand deficit which was significantly smaller prior to 2004 when looking at historic volume and shoreline changes. Placing some of the dredged sand immediately downdrift of Doctors Pass should be re-considered in order to reduce erosion rates or a structural solution may be necessary. A second area where management changes are proposed is at the Barefoot Beach shoreline north of Wiggins Pass. This issue is currently being addressed under the Wiggins Pass Channel Realignment and Inlet Management Study. Additional Effects The performance of the shoreline in Collier County is also dependent on the position of the hardbottom with respect to the beach. From historic shoreline analysis, areas that have gaps in the nearshore hardbottom tend to have higher erosion rates than shoreline with continuous hardbottom in the vicinity. An example of this gap influenced erosion is near monuments R-44 to R-46 and between R- 61 and R-62. Without the hardbottom to stabilize the sediment transport in these areas, waves can more easily move sediment from the beach to the offshore. 26 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-13 New Business 28 of 260 IX. HOT SPOT ANALYSIS Several "hot spots", or areas with higher erosion rates and thinning recreational beaches, were identified within Collier County. Some of these hot spots have persisted since the 1996 project, while others have evolved over time. The hot spots were identified based upon beach width maintained (Figure 3), areas of high erosion (Figure 7), and areas in close vicinity to coastal structures (Figure 8). Based upon these criteria, there are six areas of concern within the project area, with other minor areas that can be more easily managed. North Wiggins Pass (Barefoot Beach) This reach is being considered for inclusion in the next beach renourishment project. This reach is located outside of the 2006 project limits, but can be most economically nourished as part of the larger project. The area north of Wiggins Pass extending from monument R-14 to R-16 (Barefoot Beach) is currently an area of high erosion. Since 1992, this area has eroded on average approximately 224 feet and has lost approximately 240,000 cubic yards of material. The combined rates of high erosion and recession are caused by inlet effects and warrant attention (Photographs 2a and 2b). The erosion at this site is currently being addressed in the Wiggins Pass Channel Realignment and Inlet Management Study. Recent dredging events have placed sand near this hot spot as an interim measure. The solution is a combination of improved sand placement from inlet maintenance dredging, supplemented with beach nourishment over a 10 year period. The sand lost since 1992 will be replaced at a controlled rate that rebuilds the beach and ebb shoal north of the inlet. Poie ti r 1 . s '.t , Photograph 2a (left) and 2b (right). Current Conditions at Barefoot Beach in March 2010 27 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 29 of 260 South of Wiggins Pass The area immediately south of Wiggins Pass, Delnor Wiggins State Park, has a historic erosional trend, which has been mitigated with sand dredged from Wiggins Pass since 1985. This area has higher erosion rates in part due to the dredge spoils placed in the area combined with the encroaching hardbottom in the region. Overall since 2006, the area between R-18 and R-20 would have lost approximately 10,000 cy/yr if not for fill placed from dredging on the beach to maintain its shoreline width (Figure 7). Again, like the area north of Wiggins Pass, this site is being addressed in the updated Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Study, and does not warrant nourishment. In addition, it is a state park that historically makes its own management decisions. Vanderbilt Beach Since 1996, the area in the vicinity of R-27 in Vanderbilt Beach has experienced elevated erosion and is nearly violating the design standard. Since 2006, the shoreline within this area has eroded approximately 27 feet, and has also experienced an erosion rate of approximately 2,000 cubic yards per year. This area of erosion was present prior to 2004, and there appears to be a shift in the peak erosion to R-30. There is a gap in the hardbottom located offshore of R-27 (Photograph 3) in combination with hardbottom veering closer to the shoreline south of this point,which aids in sediment loss through the gap offshore. Modeling is currently underway to better understand reef gaps, such as the one that occurs here and their effects on neighboring shorelines. From a preliminary analysis, it appears that the erosion occurring at this location can be solved with additional sand placement or a feeder beach. ,-7 T 1 I ° 6� q 9 110126 - R.-27 Photograph 3. North Vanderbilt Beach Hot Spot vicinity R-27, which is influenced by a gap in the reef,followed by hardbottom line close to shore. Pelican Bay The Pelican Bay shoreline between R-34 and R-36 does not meet the project beach width standard, but its shoreline and volume change rates are relatively stable or accretional 28 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 30 of 260 since 2006. Prior to construction of the reach, several storms impacted the shoreline in late 2005, which were not fully addressed by construction. Therefore, sufficient sand could not be added to restore the shoreline to its pre-storm condition plus its new design width. The nearshore hardbottom has a significant influence in this region, since it is close to shore with more relief than other areas. It may be able to maintain itself as a smaller beach width due to its relative stability at its current size and for being downdrift of Vanderbilt Beach project. This was a privately funded beach project in 2006 with no public access. South Clam Pass(Clam Pass Park) This hot spot stretches south from Clam Pass (Photograph 4). The hot spot is likely caused by natural inlet impacts, inlet dredging, and the combination effect of close nearshore hardbottom followed by a hardbottom gap starting at R-44. The hardbottom characteristics are similar to that offshore of Pelican Bay. This hot spot is not part of the existing beach erosion control program. Over the past year, the area between R-42 to R- 44 has experienced approximately 8,000 cubic yards of erosion. This area should be added to the Park Shore Reach for beach nourishment, with fill extending down to R45 south of Seagate Drive. An inlet study is currently underway to renew the permit for dredging Clam Pass and maintaining the Clam Bay System, and this may address some of the down drift erosion caused by the inlet. Dredged material from Clam Pass is bypassed south of the inlet, but is insufficient to address all the erosion. North Park Shore The region between monuments R-45 and R-48 in North Park Shore (Photograph 4) is a newly developed hot spot. It was partially nourished in 2006, but not in 1996. Prior to 2004, this area was accretional. The nearshore hardbottom is in close proximity to the shoreline. This hot spot was recently nourished with truck haul sand in an area that was losing approximately -3.3 cubic yard per foot per year, which was most likely exacerbated by the 2004/2005 hurricane season and nearby groins. There is a contribution from being downdrift of the Clam Pass Park hot spot, whose nourishment could moderate this new erosional trend. A possible solution to this erosional area is the placement of a feeder beach directly south of Clam Pass and remove the groins which have a substantial impact upon the immediate shoreline surrounding them. 29 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 31 of 260 t R 4{ ,, R 42 R-43 R•44 44,0, R- 5 Photograph 4. South Clam Pass and North Park Shore Hot Spot at R-42 to R-44 and R-45 to R-46, respectively. Park Shore The region between R-51 and R-53 (Photograph 5) has been an area of higher erosion and narrowing beach since at least 1996. Since 2006, this area has lost approximately 14,500 cubic yards of material. The shoreline at R-51 is still above the design criteria of 85', but at R-52 and R-53, the shoreline is below or at 85' of design width. Since construction, the shoreline at this location has retreated an average of 45 feet. A gap in the hardbottom occurs at R-52 along with a close edge of hardbottom to the south, which tends to cause higher erosion rates. Due to the encroaching hardbottom, additional sand will be investigated as a solution prior to considering structures. Olt 4 �. Photograph 5. Park Shore Hot Spot at R-51 to R-53 South Doctors Pass The area downdrift of Doctors Pass (Photograph 6) has experienced a high rate of erosion since the 2006 nourishment project, and has been narrow since 1996. It is difficult to maintain a 100 foot beach width in these conditions. The fill density and template was enlarged with the 2006 project in an attempt to address this issue. The erosion that is presently occurring south of the Pass is most likely due to a change in inlet management. Prior to 2005, sand dredged from the inlet was placed downdrift of the pass, which 30 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 32 of 260 helped to reduce erosion rates. Since 2005, fill has been placed in the nearshore of Lowdermilk Park, which has caused a deficit of sand from R-58A to R-59, partially exposed by ebb shoal shrinkage. In addition, the FDEP limited fill quantities to avoid coverage of nearshore harbottom within the traditional ebb shoal area. The hot spot currently extends from the jetty to R-58, which is located near the groin, and has lost approximately -5.9 cubic yard per foot per year, or approximately 9,000 cy per year. Improved management practices can reduce erosion, but this area will probably need structures to mitigate the full inlet impact. mor R 5 .ai 11 w- c ;VIL ► • r tea, Photograph 6. Naples Beach hot spot area showing Indies West, Gulf View Beach Club,and the Chateau of Naples south of Doctors Pass. South Lowdermilk Park The area to the south of Lowdermilk Park near R-62 and R-63 (Photograph 7) is another hot spot. This area contains the Naples Resort. Since 2006, the area near the two survey R-monuments has retreated on average 35 feet. Volumetrically, this area has lost approximately 16,000 cubic yards since 2006. This area is downdrift of the location where sand is placed offshore at Lowdermilk Park during maintenance dredging of Doctors Pass, which may account for part of the increased erosion. The shoreline is also affected by groins within the vicinity. The nearshore disposal for sand dredged at Doctors Pass, groins, and a reef gap followed by an encroaching hardbottom closer to shore are influencing the hot spot. Preliminary model results suggest shortened or eliminated groins may mitigate the problem (Figure 8). 31 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 33 of 260 o- w'4 ,e.: $ z e, 5 Photograph 7. South of Lowdermilk Park Hot Spot at R-62 to R-64. South Naples Beach The edge of the continuous hardbottom ends near R-66. North of this R-monument, the hardbottom acts as a mechanism to keep the sand within the active beach profile, except where significant gaps occur. South of this area, the sand is more easily swept further offshore by storm waves and currents. The area in South Naples that is most affected is between monument R-70 and R-72. Since 2006, this area has experienced approximately 10,000 cubic yards of erosion, but this is a reduction from the 1996-2004 trend. Although this area has experienced a higher erosion rate since 1996, sufficient sand was placed during the last project to maintain a healthy shoreline width (Figure 3). �9 ° 7! R 72 ' r+i ew f7U Photograph 8. South Naples Beach Hot Spot — Moderately high erosion but good beach width. 32 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 34 of 260 Hot Spot Rankings Ten hot spots were identified during this study and are shown by the matrix in Table 5, where each X shows a level of severity and relative importance of the hot spot. The matrix is based on the coastal processes discussion in this report. Hot spots with a total level of importance of 3 and above were considered for specific attention in the design and modeling study. Table 5 Hot Spot Assessment Collier County Beach Nourishment Project Erosion Maintain Groin Hardbottom Management Relative Hot Spot Rates Beach Width Impacts Limitations Practices Importance Code Barefoot Beach R14-R16 XX NA X 3 M,N DelnorWig.Sins State Park X 1 Vanderbilt Beach R27&R31 X X X 3 S,* Pelican Bay.R35-R36 _...-X...._._.... X ?_. I.._._._._...._ Clam Pass Park R42-R44 XX NA X X 4 M,N Seagate Drive R45-R46...................................................................X............._. X X 3 S&G ParkShore R51-R54 X X _..............................................................-X.......................... _.__......_S,..._'........... South of Doctors Pass R58 XX XX X X X 7 M,Str South of Lowdermilk Park R62-R64 X X X 3 S&G South Naples R71 _ XX 2 I Code S More sand or feeder beach likely solution G Shorten or remove groin likely solution M Management change needed Str New structure needed N Nourishment 1 No special consideration * Structures as fall back solution Priority Yellow,blue,green. X. BORROW AREA CHARACTERISTICS Borrow Area T1 is proposed as the primary sand sources for use in the upcoming renourishment project. Borrow Area T1 was used for the 2005/6 renourishment project and is located 33 miles from Vanderbilt Beach (Figure 19 and end of report). From studies performed during the last renourishment, the sediment within the borrow area is characterized by light-gray (5Y 7/1), fine grained quartz sand. The shell content ranges from 1% to 18%. The silt content is 1.7%. Both the shell and silt contents generally increase with depth. The sand is moderately to poorly sorted, which was found to be 0.92. The mean grain size was found to be 0.32 mm. These values were determined using the moment method. For areas with finer native sand and no nearshore hardbottom, such as South Naples or Port Royal, the Cape Romano sand source is a potential source (Figure 19). A design level geophysical and geotechnical investigations targeting the Cape Romano Shoals was completed in 2008, consisting of seismic reflection profiling, sidescan sonar, magnetometer survey, vibracoring and a cultural resources report prepared by a marine archaeologist. Based on the 33 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 35 of 260 data that was collected, a sand resource area was developed and divided into Primary and Secondary Areas. The Primary Area contains material having an approximate grain size of 0.24 mm and contains an estimated 900,000 cy of material. The Secondary Area contains an estimated 2 million cy of material having a mean grain size finer than 0.24 mm with cut depths more difficult to dredge. Final borrow area design and permitting are required before use, although all pertinent information is available. The beach and borrow area characteristics are compared in Table 4 TABLE 6 COLLIER COUNTY RENOURISHMENT PROJECT BEACH AND BORROW AREA CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPATIBILITY Mean Grain Size Sorting Silt Location (PHI) (%) (PHI) (mm) Vanderbilt Beach R-27 2.17 0.22 1.57 4.65 Pelican Bay R-33 1.72 0.30 1.86 1.72 Park Shore R-52 2.51 0.18 0.92 2.61 Naples Beach R-64 2.11 0.23 1.31 1.52 Naples Beach R-73 2.29 0.20 1.31 1.28 Port Royal R-84 1.83 0.28 1.76 1.26 2003 Beach Composite 2.08 0.24 1.50 2.17 See 2010 Beach Composite 1.59 0.33 0.90 Note 1990 Native Beach 1.89 0.27 1.51 2.55 Borrow Area Borrow Areas Volume Toms Hill I(T1) 1.67 0.32 0.92 1.75 3,570,000 cy Toms Hill 1 (T1)-Cut#1 1.59 0.33 0.90 1.65 870,000 cy Cape Romano 2.06 0.24 0.43 1.90 900,000 cy Notes: Approximately 630,000 cy taken from Toms Hill in 2006 based on post-construction surveys. The 2010 beach condition is assumes to have BA T1 Cut I characteristics in the fill area R22 to R79. 34 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 36 of 260 Upland sand sources and sand from the maintenance dredging of inlets can supplement the primary borrow areas and address small hot spots as they occur. The Immokalee Mines in northeast Collier County can provide sand sorted into a variety of characteristics, and has been used successfully on the county beaches. The two offshore borrow areas require different dredging strategies. Borrow Area T1 needs to be dredged using a moderate size hopper dredge. Large hopper dredges with deep draft are impractical in the extremely shallow waters offshore of Naples. The water around the Cape Romano borrow area is relatively shallow, and will require either a small hopper dredge or a hydraulic dredge/scow combination. An advantage of the smaller dredge is that they can get much closer to shore to pump out. The asymmetry between the type of dredge may limit the effectiveness of using both borrow areas in the same contract. If a scow system is used, then the same equipment can be used with both offshore sand sources. Sand Source Compatibility The compatibility of the borrow areas for renourishment not only depends on fill grain size, but also the slope of the new beach created with this sand. Due to its use during the last renourishment, all of the projects beaches are compatible with Borrow Area T1. It is anticipated that a construction slope of 1 V:10H will result from use of the coarser sand from Borrow Area T1, which is a change from the 2006 construction plans. Only a few of the project area's beaches will be compatible with the Cape Romano sand source. This is due to the finer sand within the borrow area or the possibility that the equilibrium profile resulting from the finer sand from Cape Romano could encroach upon nearshore hardbottom. Both borrow areas contain sands that appear to be similar in color to the existing beach. Native Beach Sand Characteristics The beach sands in the project area are gray fine grained sand with shell based on 2003 samples. The dry beach color is light gray (5Y 8/1 to 5Y 7/1), but the sands become darker on the sub-aerial profile. The sands have been influenced by previous nourishment projects, truck haul sand, and bypassing at inlets. These activities have added moderate quantities of shell, minor rock, and coarse sand from upland sources, which make it difficult to accurately define the engineering qualities of the beach. A number of rock removal projects between 1996 and 2003 have had a visible influence on the beaches of Naples and Vanderbilt. Grain size data has been collected between 1988 and 2003. The alongshore and cross- shore location of beach sampling has changed over time, and a direct comparison among composite values may not be accurate. In 1988, four samples were collected at each profile at elevations between approximately +2 to -5 feet, which may bias a composite towards the high side. In 1990, four samples were collected at each profile at the following elevations: +1.5, -5, -9 and -14/16 ft NGVD. If the deepest sample is ignored, the sample values may approximate the active beach profile. The 1988 and 1990 samples 35 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 37 of 260 represent native beach conditions influenced by small fill projects and inlet bypassing activity. The average beach grain size for 1988 and 1990 are 0.32 mm and 0.27 mm, respectively. In 2003, a comprehensive sand sample collection was undertaken, with 10 samples collected across the entire profile at the following elevations: +5, +1.5, MHW, MTL, MLW, -3, Trough, Bar, -6.5 and -9 ft NGVD. These samples were taken after rocks and shell were removed from the beach and coarse truck haul sand was placed on eroded beaches. The average composite mean grain size for 1998 and 2003 were 0.33 mm and 0.24 mm, respectively. The impact of rock cleaning is evident in these values. Anomalies exist in the historic beach sand data. The 2003 composite mean grain size for Park Shore is 0.18 mm compared to a history in the 0.28 mm to 0.35 mm range. The coarser grain size is the likely characteristic. At Port Royal, the beach shape in 2003 is flatter than indicated by the sampled grain size. In this case, other data shows this region is being transformed by fill moving down drift from the Naples project. The current implied grain size of the beach is similar to the sand placed during the recent renourishment project, which was 0.31 mm. No recent comprehensive sand sampling has been conducted. XI. OUTFALLS The coastal engineering impact of the 10 outfalls in Naples was characterized by FDEP in their "Intent to Issue" document on the Collier County Beach Nourishment Project dated December 2004, as follows: "Although these outfalls are adversely affecting the beach by contributing to erosion, impacting turtle nesting habitat, interfering with lateral beach access and degrading water quality, the cost of retrofitting the stormwater system is too great to require removal of the outfalls at this time." Based on this finding, the following was a FDEP condition in the January 2005 beach permit. Outfall Management Plan. The County shall submit a long-range management plan (including an identification of viable funding sources) for the removal of storm water outfalls from the beach. Submittal of an acceptable plan will be a requirement of the Notice to Proceed for the second nourishment event. The following three documents were reviewed to evaluate the impacts: 2002 Drainage Reconnaissance Report (CPE 2002), Collier County Contour Map based on 2004 Lidar survey, 1995 Erosion Control Line (on contour map) and September 2009 aerial photographs (Figure 21). Based on these documents, which show all 10 outfalls, the outfall impacts are moderate to imperceptible. There are two strategies for satisfying this permit condition with FDEP: propose no significant changes on the beach but with upland improvements or propose elimination or modification of all or some of the outfalls on the beach. The City of Naples attempted to satisfy FDEP by proposing the former, but their proposal was not accepted. FDEP did extend the time 36 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 38 of 260 limit for a plan to the following nourishment project. The outfalls are summarized in Table 7 and shown on Figure 21. The outfalls are associated with coastal structures on the beach. As part of this study, modifications to the groins associated with the outfalls will be evaluated, but solutions to the outfalls and their drainage will not be addressed. The groins associated with the outfalls cannot be modified without solutions to the drainage. TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF OUTFALL CHARACTERISTICS NOMICNAL ADMIN. HISTORIC EROSION PIPELINE INVERT PIPE TOP El. El.(Ft (Ft G TYPE and No. NUMBER LOCATION IMPACT DIAMETER NGVD) NGVD) CONTRIBUTORY AREA 1 RG-16-1 R60+265' Small- 24 in PVC -0.02 2.11 In Rock Groin for Adjacent Moderate Condo Next to Rock Groin for 2 0-16-1 R62+650' Moderate 2 x 30 in PVC Both-0.14 2.49 hotel,parking lots,Gulf Shore Blvd.and Ponds Next to Rock Groin from 3 0-17-1 R63+535' Moderate 18 in.PVC -0.09 1.54 8th Ave.N.and Gulf Shore Blvd. 4 0-17-2 R64+000' Negligible 18 in PVC -0.66 0.97 7th Avenue North and Gulf Shore Blvd. 5 0-17-3 R65+000' Negligible 14 in PVC 0.23 1.52 6th Avenue North and Gulf Shore Blvd. Small- Residential lots between 6 0-17-4 R65+410' Moderate 2 x 30 in PVC 0.17&-0.52 2.46 6th and 4th Ave.N.,Gulf Shore Blvd.and Lake 7 0-17-5 R66+415' Negligible 24 in PVC -1.22 0.91 3rd Avenue North and Gulf Shore Blvd. 8 0-18-1 R67+400' Negligible 30 in PVC 0.84 3.47 1st Avenue North and Gulf Shore Blvd. 9 0-18-2 R68+430' Negligible 18 in PVC 0.30 1.93 Gulf Avenue 1st(Shohorre Blle vdd..v and 10 2nd Avenue South and 0-18-3 R69+000' Negligible 18 in PVC -0.40 1.23 Gulf Shore Blvd. Modeling has shown that the groins have a localized impact and show seasonal offsets, although the net regional erosional impact is negligible. The largest outfalls have two pipelines and drain upland lakes. Their removal is not a simple undertaking without addressing the drainage. One solution may be to elevate the discharge above the beach and shoreline, similar to what is shown in Photograph 9a. A lower outfall elevation at the waterline can also have a negligible impact on shoreline position (see Photograph 9b). These processes allow the shoreline to assume it natural alignment without the offset common to pipelines and groins that intercept at the waterline. 37 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 39 of 260 aa - , .r Photograph 9a: Elevated outfall discharge in Avalon NJ _- gym. . s ....a` w ST_ e� ', , 'fiy Photograph 9b: Low elevation outfall on Naples Beach XII. DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND ALTERNATIVES The goal of the new design was to maintain a sandy beach width standard for the design life of the project. The 2006 design life of 6-years was selected to minimize impacts to hardbottom areas. One of the alternatives considers a 10-year renourishment interval which is desired by the County where possible. 38 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 40 of 260 The beach width design standard was derived from the implied design of the 1996 project. The beach width is 100 or 85 feet from a baseline at the back of the beach to the MHW line (see Figure 2). The baseline is at the seawall, edge of vegetation or equivalent, or at the landward edge of the sandy beach. Smaller design beach widths are needed south of Clam and Doctors Passes to avoid hardbottom impacts. The 2008 project's monitoring results are utilized to demonstrate how the coarser grain sizes used in the last renourishment performed in a manner (Figure 5b) consistent with theoretical models of equilibrium profiles (CPE, 2003). These results confirmed the prediction of no further toe advance. With this confirmation of theoretical predictions, the design profiles for the upcoming renourishment can be made wider and higher without increasing risk to the nearshore hardbottom impacts. This additional width and height will provide an increased storm protection and allow for less frequent renourishment episodes. The higher beach berm was selected to mimic the trend in higher natural beach berms observed from monitoring surveys. Method The method used to determine fill volumes is based on beach width, erosion rates, hardbottom, and design life. Erosion rate volumes were calculated from the 1996 to 2010 profile data collected from historic monitoring surveys. These erosion rates were combined with required fill need to achieve the design shoreline position, and the total volume for the anticipated renourishment project resulted. The total volume calculated provides for the design width to be maintained for a period of 6 years for Alternative 2 and 10 years for Alternative 3. Sample calculations are provided in Tables 10-12 at the end of this report. The conceptual design did not consider the spreading effects or alongshore transport. There are gaps in the design fill distribution shown in the Tables where no fill is needed based on existing beach width and erosion rates. A "sand everywhere" design will require additional fill volume and cost. A volumetric summary is provided in Table 8. Barefoot Beach and Clam Pass Park will increase the volumes for Alternative 3 by 130,000 cubic yards (refer to Table 8). The current design is conceptual and does not fully address all the variables needed for hardbottom avoidance. The design describes a fill distribution (Tables 10-12) based on a method discussed with Figure 5b, which is largely 2 dimensional. A detailed 3 dimensional method needs to be used to calculate the cross-shore intercept of the construction template and its lateral and cross-shore equilibration. The intercept described by these calculations with the near shore bottom needs to be plotted against the hardbottom edge, and then refined until a sufficient buffer from the existing hardbottom to the toe of equilibrated fill is formed. Since the hard-bottom edge is uneven, supplemental transects must be surveyed to supplement the FDEP R-monument profiles. It is an iterative process that will improve the conceptual design. The conceptual design is a good estimate, but line by line adjustments should be expected. The detailed design phase will determine where and how much the beach can be raised and widened. 39 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 41 of 260 Alternative 1: FEMA Design The design volume for Alternative 1 is based on the quantity of sand needed to replace storm losses from Tropical Storm Fay. Due to the small amount of fill authorized by FEMA, fill was centered around the areas with the greatest need and loss from Tropical Storm Fay. These fill areas will receive a minimum of 10 c.y./l.f. of fill, which is the minimum amount of fill that the contractor can practically place. The total volume for the FEMA alternative is 175,000 cubic yards. The breakdown of the location and volume of the fill is described below by reach in Table 8. The design method in spreadsheet form is provided in Table 10 at the end of this report. TABLE 8 PRELIMINARY DESIGN VOLUMES REACH DESIGN VOLUME(C.Y.) ALT. 1 ALT.2 ALT.3 Vanderbilt 40,000 41,733 58,056 R22 to R31 N.Park Shore 21,000 40,881 49,729 R45 to R48 Park Shore 30,000 97,251 136,337 R49 to R55 Naples Beach 84,000 302,166 413,008 R58A to R79 SUBTOTAL 175,000 482,031 657,130 Barefoot Beach - - 100,000 R14toR16 Clam Pass 30,000 R42 to R44 TOTAL 175,000 482,031 787,130 Vanderbilt Beach The limits for FEMA fill placed on Vanderbilt Beach extend from R-25 to R-29. Vanderbilt beach will receive approximately 40,000 cubic yards of sand which will be centered around R-27. 40 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 42 of 260 Park Shore The north Park Shore FEMA limits extend from R-45 to R-47. These profiles will receive 21,000 cubic yards of fill centered about R-46. The south Park Shore FEMA limits extend from R-51 to R-53. The design volume for this area is 30,000 cubic yards centered about R-52. Naples Beach The fill limits for the Naples Beach FEMA project extend from R-58A to R-65 and R-70 to R-72. In total, this area has a design volume of 84,000 cubic yards. The profiles to the north will receive 64,000 cubic yards of fill concentrated near R-62 to help mitigate losses to Doctors Pass. The area between R-70 and R-72 is also designed to receive 20,000 cubic yards, with fill centered about R-71. Alternative 2: Traditional/Existing Design The design volume is based on the quantity of sand needed to re-establish the design berm and provide 6 years of advanced nourishment using the 2006 project design. The design berm is 100 feet in Vanderbilt and Naples Beaches and 85 feet in Park Shore Beach. The amount of fill needed to bring the historic project areas back to design standard with a six year design life is 482,031 cubic yards (Table 8). The design method in spreadsheet form is provide in Table 11 at the end of this report. Vanderbilt Beach The fill limits of the previously permitted project in Vanderbilt are approximately R-22 to R-31. This area needs approximately 41,733 cubic yards to refill the 2006 design. Park Shore Beach The fill limits of the previously permitted project in Park Shore are approximately R-45 to R-55. Overall this area needs 138,132 cubic yards to bring it back to the intended design standard. Naples Beach The fill limits of the previously permitted project in Naples are approximately R-58A to R-79. Overall, this area needs 302,166 cubic yards to return to its full design intent. Alternative 3: Expanded Design The design volume for the expanded design is based on the quantity of sand needed to widen the construction profile to provide 10 years of advanced nourishment. The design beach width 41 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 43 of 260 remains the same as Alternative 2, except as stated below. The area south of Doctors Pass and Clam Pass will have a design width of 80 feet. This design volume includes raising the berm 1 foot for the expanded design option. The berm will be raised from 4 ft NAVD to 5 ft NAVD, but additional analysis will be needed to provide the proper transition between the natural beach and berm system, and the additional height may not be practical everywhere. From preliminary analysis, it appears that approximately 75% of the profiles can be heightened. A typical cross-section comparing the 2005/06 permitted template versus the expanded template is shown Figure 8. The design method in spreadsheet form is provided in Table 12 and 13 at the end of this report. Typical Naples Beach Profile 2006 vs 2010 Template Comparison s- 2010 Protilc 6_ •2006 Template Expanded Template 2_ 0 1 v0 x o a 1s �_ 1 $- -10 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Distance(ft) FIGURE 8: Typical Naples Profile. Vanderbilt Beach The fill limits of the Vanderbilt project area are approximately R-22 to R-31. Approximately 58,056 cubic yards is proposed within this project area to expand its design life and raise the berm elevation. The design beach width and berm elevation is 100 feet and 4 ft NAVD respectively. An increased elevation of 5 feet NAVD will be used where the landward intercept is accommodating and/or where beach width is restricted by near shore hardbottom. 42 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 44 of 260 Park Shore Beach The fill limits of the Park Shore project area are approximately R-45 to R-55. Overall, approximately 186,166 cubic yards of material is proposed for placement within this reach. This volume is restricted at a few areas due to the close proximity of hardbottom, which may limit project life. This may be moderated by analysis during modeling or the detailed design phase. The design beach width and berm elevation is 85 feet and 4 ft NAVD respectively. An increased elevation of 5 feet NAVD will be used where the landward intercept is accommodating and/or where beach width is restricted by near shore hardbottom. Naples Beach The fill limits of the Naples Beach project area are approximately R-58A to R-79. The expanded design within this area requires 413,008 cubic yards of material. The profiles immediately south of Doctors Pass near R-58 cannot fit an expanded template needed to support a 10 year renourishment interval due to potential hardbottom impacts. Modified inlet management practices should be able to address much of the hot spot problem, supplemented with a spur off the Doctors Pass jetty. The volume for this reach does not change with a change in inlet disposal locations, but the distribution of fill in Table 12 does. The design beach width and berm elevation is 100 feet and 4 ft NAVD respectively. An increased elevation of 5 feet NAVD will be used where the landward intercept is accommodating and/or where beach width is restricted by near shore hardbottom. The design width south of the inlet is 80 feet through R-59, due to the hardbottom restrictions. New Areas The two new areas that are proposed for the expanded project are located directly north of Wiggins Pass and directly south of Clam Pass. Barefoot Beach The Barefoot Beach area is located from R-14 to R-16 and has recently been designated as a critically eroded area by the FDEP. Approximately 100,000 cubic yards is proposed within this area to supplement fill placed from the maintenance dredging of Wiggins Pass and the proposed inlet realignment project. Initial estimated total cut volumes from Wiggins Pass are realignment approximately 80,000 cubic yards. This material will be used to fill the meander channel and create dikes along with restoring the shoreline to the north. The shoreline at Barefoot Beach requires more sediment than available from dredging the Pass, so supplementing it with fill from the renourishment project will aid in its restoration. It is estimated that 25,000 cubic yards can be provided on the initial inlet dredging, and at least 35,000 cubic yards every 4 years thereafter. In conjunction with nourishment, almost 200,000 cubic yards can be placed in 8 years. The design berm elevation is 4 ft NAVD or equal to the natural 43 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 45 of 260 beach. The design goal in conjunction with inlet management is to restore the beach towards historic widths. Clam Pass Park The area south of Clam Pass from R-42 to R-45 is the second proposed expansion area to the Collier County Renourishment Project. Fill to the north of Park Shore will stabilize the area, acting as a feeder beach. Approximately 30,000 cubic yards is proposed within this area. The fill will supplement sand from bypassing at Clam Pass, which alone is insufficient. The disposal site for Clam Pass bypassing should be extended further south to address a hot spot located south of R-44. The design template will be the similar to that proposed for the Clam Pass dredging project. The design beach width and berm elevation is 80 feet and 4 ft NAVD, respectively. An increased elevation of 5 feet NAVD will be used where the landward intercept is accommodating and where beach width is restricted by near shore hardbottom. The width is restricted for this entire reach. Alternative 4: Erosion Control Structures Structures have been proposed as one means of alleviating erosion in hot spot areas. Some types of structures suitable for use in Collier County are illustrated at the end of this report in Photographs 10 through 15 and Figure 20. Structural changes being considered for modeling are described in section XIV. Alternative 5: Alternative Sand Sources/Construction Methods Alternative sand sources and construction methods will be considered during design and project life. Each of the borrow areas that are proposed for use during the upcoming project requires different equipment in order to bring sand to the project area. For Borrow Area T1, a medium sized hopper dredge will be needed along with approximately 3 miles of submerged pipeline to transport the material to the shore. Booster pumps will also be required to supply extra force to ensure the sediment can transverse the entire length of the pipeline. For the Cape Romano borrow area, a hydraulic dredge with a scow will be required to remove sediment from the source. A small hopper dredge would also be feasible. Due to each of the borrow area's unique traits, a joint borrow area bidding scenario is unlikely, but could be feasible if a bidder used a hydraulic dredge and scow. In addition to the initial fill placement, upland sand sources may be used to alleviate erosional hot spots. Truck haul projects are advantageous when a small area requires extra fill, but they cause an unwarranted nuisance and need to be avoided. Mobilization prices can be costly for dredges, so using an upland sand source helps reduce the cost for smaller projects. 44 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 46 of 260 Gaps in Fill Currently, gaps are proposed where a portion of shoreline does not need fill. If desired by the County, these gaps can be filled in at a minimum 10 c.y./l.f., which is the smallest practical amount a dredge contractor can place. This "gap fill", however, will substantially increase the cost of the project, but does help prevent lateral spreading of the design fill into surrounding areas. It is important to note that these gaps may be modified in the final design. Some gap areas may be partially filled in to alleviate losses from spreading and to account for detailed hardbottom avoidance. Below is a list of the areas where there are gaps in fill plan and no fill will be placed for Alternatives 2 and 3: R-22 to R-24 R-50 R-66 to R-69 R-31 R-54 R-73 to R-75 R-49 R-55 R-77 to R-79 XIII. SCHEDULE The project is tentatively scheduled for the November 2013 to April 2014 period, and will take approximately 4 months. If construction savings are desired, then summer construction in conjunction with another community offers the best prospect for savings. The May-July period has the calmest weather, which will lead to a shorter construction period and higher production rate when pumping. XIV. TASK LEADING TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE 2013-14 PROJECT The project cost includes dredging and the professional services and management necessary to bring the project to construction and complete the required pre-, during- and post construction monitoring and inspections. This list should be updated based on a pre-permit application meeting with FDEP. A list of the tasks needed to prepare the project for construction and conduct the inspections and investigations necessary are summarized below: Permit Design, Plans and Specification for 2013-14 Project Pre-Application Meeting FDEP Pipeline Corridor Mapping-3 New Ones with Operational Areas Special Design Survey for Structures, ECL& 3D Design Process ECL Survey Structural Areas Survey intermediate lines at hardbottom inflection points for 3D design 3-D Design Update (around hardbottom) with larger fill section and new reaches Add Clam Pass Park and Barefoot Beach Address Hot Spots and Hardbottom Avoidance with intermediate profile line Run model with refinements and to revalidate design and Spreading magnitude Design structure modifications and removals Prepare BOEMRE Environmental Assessment 45 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 47 of 260 Prepare& submit permit modification to 2005 Permit with new Permit Sketches RAI Cycle with Meetings Update biological and physical monitoring plans Develop Hardbottom Impact Assessment Develop Plans and Specifications Bidding and Award Pre-, During- and Post-Construction Task Pre-Construction Survey Pre-Construction Biological Monitoring Hardbottom mapping using side scan Construction Assistance Services Pipeline Corridors Monitoring Shore Bird Sea Turtle Monitoring Post-Construction Survey, Report and Certification Post-Construction Biological Monitoring and Report XV. COST ANALYSIS The cost of the project is principally a function of distance to the borrow areas, cut depths, and shallowness of the nearshore bathymetry, which leads to long pumping distance after the sand has traveled to the submerged pipeline location. Grain size, water depth at the borrow area, and equipment play a secondary role. This cost estimate is based on experience derived from the 2005/2006 Collier County Renourishment Project, recent dredge industry practices, and a price adjustment of 2.2% per year until 2013-14. Dredge contractors are placing a larger percent of cost in mobilization, and less in the unit cost component. The cost in Table 9 is summarized based on the volumes in Table 8. Given the ever increasing cost of dredging, combined bidding of the Collier County project with a similar regional project from the west coast of Florida could provide a significant cost savings. We have an estimate for cost saving considering a joint biding with another county or city government. A limited amount of structural work is considered, which includes building the south jetty spur at Doctors Pass and the removal of a few groins. Some matereail form groin removal may be suitable for use in the Jetty spur. The cost estimate includes removal of some of the existing groins for Alternative 2 and 3, and the construction of a jetty spur for Alternative 3. There is no cost difference for the alternatives designed to support sand bypassing to the Lowdermilk Park or adjacent to the Doctors Pass south jetty disposal area. Doctors Pass dredging would be less expensive with the closer disposal area. Fill for a feeder beach or additional advanced nourishment to a hot spot has been included for use during the detailed design phase of this project. The cost for increasing the beach design elevation to 5 ft. NAVD is small and will decrease the potential for hot spots. The County currently has a FEMA approved project based on erosion experienced during Tropical Storm Fay. This funding can help support the mobilization and demobilization costs, 46 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 48 of 260 which are a costly component of the project. The County may also obtained cost sharing money from the FDEP, which will be used for applicable areas of the project. Alternative 2A illustrates one way to reduce the price of the project. It keeps the renourishment interval at 6 years, while keeping the two new reaches and limited structure funding. There are many strategies and small changes to the project that can be implemented to reduce the price, which can be fleshed out during the planning and implementation process. For example the cost savings of reducing the renourishment interval from 10 to 8 years amounts to $2.8 million. A moderate savings is assumed in the cost estimate from use of joint bidding and construction with an adjacent project to including cost efficiency desired by the dredge contractors. The greatest dredging cost savings need the following characteristics: -Early availability of draft Plans and Specifications -Long and Flexible Construction Timetable -Combined bidding with similar public projects -Construction period includes calmer months—May to July The total project cost including engineering, permitting, surveys and monitoring for the three main alternatives are provided in Table 9. Potential savings are estimated, including reducing the project to an 8-year life. 47 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13.2011 VIII-3-b New Business 49 of 260 TABLE 9 COLLIER COUNTY PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Alt.l FEMA Alt.2 Alt.2A Alt,3 10-yr Design Existing Existing Nourishment Item Unit Unit Cost Design Design Interval Construct Beach Fill Hydraulically Fill Volume C.Y. 175,000 482,031 612,031 787,130 I.Mobilization/Demobilization L.S. $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 Beach Fill 2.Vanderbilt Beach(1222.5-R31) C.Y. $28.00 $1,120,185 $1,168,707 $1,168,707 $1,625,832 3.Pelican Bay Beach(R31-R37) C.Y. $31.55 $0 SO $0 4.North Park Shore Beach(1243.5-R48) C.Y. $31,88 5669,391 $1,303,126 $1,303,126 $1,585,146 5.Park Shore Beach(R48-R54.5) C.Y. $26.23 5786,7811 52,550,508 $2,550,508 $3,575,581 6.Naples Beach(R58A-R79) C.Y. $31129 $2,544,759 $9,154,037 09,154,037 $12,511,965 7.Hot Spot/Feeder Volume C.Y. $29.59 S591,806 Environmental Monitoring 8.Set Buoys for Pipeline Corridor $28,74746 $28,747 $28,747 $28.747 $28,747 9.Turbidity Monitoring $197,692.43 $197,692 $197,692 $197,692 $197,692 Offshore Sea Turtle Monitoring(Hopper Dredge only) Ill.Mobilization/Demob.of Turtle Trawler Event $4,233.83 $4,234 $4,234 $4,234 $4,234 II.Relocation Trawling Day $4,068.75 564,730 $178,297 $178,297 $243,063 12.Endangered Species Observer Day $673.18 $10,710 $29,499 $29,499 $40,215 13.Payment and Performance Bond L.S. I $91,272 $183,148 $183,148 $241,043 SUB-TOTAL $9,218,501 $18,497,995 $18,497,995 $24,345,324 New Reaches 14. Barefoot Beach C.Y. $28.15) S0 SO 52,800,(0)0 52,8(8),000 15. Clam Pass Park C.Y. $31.71 $0 50 $951,310 0951,3(8) New reaches Sub-total $3,751,300 $3,751,300 Alternative 4:Structures SO SO 5400,000 $1,600,000 16.Phase I Removal of Groins $O $0 540008) $700.0(8) 17.Jetty Spur SO SO SO 5900,000 Professional Services $906,950 $906,950 $1,265,301 $1,490,987 It Final Design and Permitting $266,460 $266,460 $487,562 $576,000 19.Pre-,During&Post Construction Services $640,491 $640,491 $777,739 $914,987 Sub-total without Savings $10,125,451 519,404,945 $23,914,595 $31,187,611 Project Saving Goal Sub-Total -51,233,490 -51,818,586 -52,016,322 -55,614,001 20.Combined Project/Mobilization 41,000,000 -$1,000,000 -$1,000,1100 -$1,500,000 2I.Year Round and Flexible Construction Specs 4333,490 4918,586 -$1,166,322 -$1,500,000 22.Turtle Relocation $100,000 $100,000 $15(1,000 0150,000 23.Reduce Project Design Life to 8 years. $0 $0 $0 -$2,764,001 Sub-total with Savings $8,891,961 $17,586,359 $21,898,274 $25,573,610 5%Contingency $444,598 $879,318 $1,094,914 $1,278,680 TOTAL S9,336,559 $18,465,677 $22,993,187 $26,852,290 48 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 50 of 260 XVI. MODELING The purpose of this task is to evaluate the effectiveness of existing structures and beach fill design templates, and changes needed to solve hot spots and improve project performance and durability. In general, the modeling shows a 10-year nourishment interval is feasible and most of the groins can be removed, resulting in improved performance of the beach. Beach fill alternatives with a wider beach berm were evaluated through modeling with structural modification to achieve these goals. These segments are located at Vanderbilt Beach, Park Shore and Naples, in addition to Clam Pass Park. The modeling work was completed in two phases consisting of a numerical modeling study of coastal processes (calibration) and shoreline change and integration of the numerical model to evaluate (production) structural and non-structural alternatives. The preliminary alongshore transport (LST) results are show in Figure 9. The areas of increasing transport correspond to hot spots, while regions of decreasing transport should be accretional. The clearest agreement is provided south of Clam Pass through northern Park Shore at Seagate public access (R-42 to R-46) and South of Doctors Pass through Lowdermilk Park(R- 58A to R-60). The curves also show erosion areas at the Naples Pier(R-74 to R-75), Park Shore (R-50 and R-52) and Vanderbilt Beach (R-25). The sediment budget (Figure 6) and this curve have differences, which reflects bathymetry and wave climate from different periods of time. The curve represents a specific calibration period of 2006-9, and the LST will vary depending on wave climate. The modeling is described in detail in a separate report attached as Appendix A. All alternatives will be referenced using an M suffix in this report, to distinguish them from the fill alternative discussed earlier. Modeling shows that a wider fill placement and removal of some of the existing structures is the most practical and direct solution, while many of the structures modeled had less convincing performance. The feasibility of a wider beach still needs to be investigated with a detailed 3D design and consultation with the permit agencies. Modeling was performed using shoreline model Unibest, except at or near inlets where Delft3D was used. Each model is defined by the design shoreline, project life, and structures considered. Modeling Alternatives Alternative M1. Nourishment with existing structures and 2006 post-construction shoreline— 3 year run and 1 year seasonal for all 3 Reaches. Alternative M2. Nourishment with existing structures removed and 2006 post-construction shoreline—3 year run and 1 year seasonal, and comparison to Alternate 1: a. Park Shore b. Naples Alternative M3. Two T-groins at the major combined outfall/groin locations in Naples. Alternative M4. Add two artificial reefs at Park Shore with 3 year run using DeIft3D. 49 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 51 of 260 Alternative M5. 2013-14 Fill Plan with traditional inlet bypassing, disposal locations and structures with 10 year run for Naples. Alternative M6. 2013-14 Fill Plan with switch disposal location for bypassing at Doctor Pass and new fill density in old disposal location with a 10 year run. Alternative M7: 2013-14 Fill Plan + Permeable tapered groins at Park Shore hot spot vicinity R52 with 10 year run. Alternative M8: Spur groin at Doctors Pass south jetty— 10 year simulation using Delft3D. Alternative M9. 2013-14 Fill Plan at Vanderbilt Beach + additional sand at R29 to R30 hot spot. — 10 year run. Alternative M10: 2013-14 Fill Plan at Park Shore and no structures for 10 year run Alternative M11: 2013-14 Fill Plan at Naples with no structures and disposal location south Doctors Pass for 10 year run. The modeling is based on conditions from a specific time frame starting in June 2006, immediately after construction of the 2006 project. The sediment budget and shoreline changes reported in this document were the basis for calibration, along with the wave climate using Wave Watch III data for the same period. In addition, the model assumes that historic inlet bypassing will continue at a 4-5 year interval, which is typical for Clam and Doctors Passes. Wiggins Pass bypassing has a relative small direct impact on the modeling, since there is a nodal point between Vanderbilt Beach and Wiggins Pass. Modeling for the Wiggin Pass is contained in a separate report developed for the Wiggins Pass region (CPE 2009). Each modeling run starts at a specific shoreline position, either the 2006 post construction or 2013-14 design shoreline, and is run for the equivalent of 1, 3 or 10 years. Each of the alternatives, in conjunction with the calibration runs, was developed to address specific issues in the project area. The results of these runs, summarized below, were analyzed with either of two methods. These were either a direct comparison of alternatives using the same specific conditions or a comparison of the alternative's performance over a 10 year period against the projects beach width standard. Alternatives M1 and M2 were the basis for calibration and provided a basis to analyze seasonal fluctuations of the existing conditions with and without structures. The with-structure condition is based on the existing groins as calibrated in the model. The without structure condition removed all the structures within the Park Shore and Naples reaches. Vanderbilt Beach has no visible structures. The results were significant. The beach will perform better without structures. First, a comparison of beach performance with and without structures using grid spacing at 1000 foot (R-monument) intervals shows insignificant differences between Alternatives M1 and M2. At grid spacing of approximately 50 feet, there is a significant difference between the two alternatives, as shown in Figures 10 and 11. For example, a comparison of the 3-year run on Park Shore shows the northern groin caused a 15 foot greater recession than the without groin 50 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 52 of 260 conditions. Similar results occur at each major groin location. The northern groins in each reach have the greatest impacts. They are also located near the two hot spots nourished in 2011 by the County. The summer (tropical season) —winter fluctuations in shoreline position have a similar signal. Generally, groins cause a very localized offset-fillet in the shoreline, that has a very focused area of benefit and impact that is not visible with monitoring at 1000 foot increments. With a robust nourishment and inlet bypassing program, the benefits for groins fade, especially in a project area with a weak long shore transport direction and magnitude. Additional details on the modeling are found in Appendix A. Alternative M3 looks at a T-Groin to reduce the impacts from the major groin/outfall structures on Naples Beach. These structures are located south of R-62 and R-65 as shown on Figure 12. The T-groins benefit is very localized and still caused an offset in the shoreline. Their impact is smaller than the existing groins, but with the impact spread out further away from the structure. The reason that an impact persists is that the groin stem is lengthened to allow installation of the cross to the T. This lengthening has the ability to trap more sand than the short existing groins and outfalls, although it spreads it out better. The conditions at Park Shore between R-49 and R-54 are very unique. There is significant offshore hardbottom with gaps that vary in distance from the shoreline. In addition, at the vicinity of R-49 to R-50, there is a major bend in the shoreline, which in combination of the local hardbottom interrupts the alongshore transport in the region. The center of a regional hot spot is at R-52, where there is a gap in the hardbottom or the hardbottom is further offshore. Alternative M4 looks at filling the gap in the hardbottom alignment with an artificial reef 100 feet wide and extending most of the distance between R-50 and R-53. The goal was to mimic the existing hard bottom and see if this has a significant benefit to the shoreline. The results did reduce erosion and trap some sand near shore, but generally it was not a significant amount. Another Park Shore alternative considered was a series of permeable tapered groin. These groins would have permeability similar to Longboat Key (Photograph 13) and tapers similar to what was built in Pinellas County (Photograph 11 at end of this report). The set of groins was centered on the Park Shore hot spot at R-52, and generally ran from R-51 to R-54, tapering from a 200 foot length in the center. The layout is visible in Figure 13 for Alternative M7, which shows the result from this analysis. The sawtooth effect and large offset caused by the groins is very prominent, and they cause a violation of the design beach width at the downdrift end of the groin field. The downdrift effect grows with time, expanding landward and to the south between the 5th and 10th year. Since the wider beach fill alternative alone provides a more direct solution to the erosion in this area, this alternative was not pursued further. This alternative would be expensive. Alternatives M5, M6, M9, M10 and M11 look at the 2013-4 renourishment project with a 10- year project life (Table 9, Alternative 3) with and without removal of all structures, and other modifications. The results of this modeling are shown in Figures 14 to 17. These figures show the shoreline change sequence for the three reaches from year 0 (labeled 2013 beach width design) to year 10. The alongshore fill limits in the model are illustrated by the bold green line (labeled 2013 beach width design). The project limits are illustrate by the bold red line labeled the design standard. Fill is not placed or needed everywhere in the project limits. In all case, the design is violated near the location of some of the structures. Without any structures the 51 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 53 of 260 violations disappear or shrink substantially in size. The 2013-14 design without structures is the recommended plan, in conjunction with increased sand placement near hot spots identified by the modeling. This selection is a combination of Alternative 3 and M9 to M11. The selected alternatives do have minor point violations of the design after 10 years. The original design for Vanderbilt had a violation of 15 feet between R-29 and R-30 using the design based on Table 9. By adding approximate 11,000 cy of sand in this region, the violation was reduced by half as shown on Figure 14. At Park Shore, there is a similar violation between R-44 and R- 45, and a small violation of less than 5 feet at R-48.5. The violation between R-44 and R-45 can be addressed by lengthening the disposal area for Clam Pass by 500 to 1000 feet further south. The beach design has been widened using a conservative method for the purpose of this conceptual engineering report. It may be feasible to add additional sand to address the design shortfall, but it would encroach on the hardbottom. It would be prudent to wait for the 3D design stage to see if the design would allow addition fill in these three regions without threatening the hardbottom, and then verify the widening works using the model. The area south of Doctors Pass is losing approximately 10,000 c.y. per year. This hot spot needs increased sand bypassing and fill to address the high erosion, or a means to slow the losses. Alternative M8 is a 100 ft long jetty spur, which will slow the losses from this area (see Figure 18 at the end of the report). The spur will trap approximately 2,750 cy, and slow losses around the south jetty into the inlet. The trapped sand will supply down drift beaches during the winter (south) transport season. The jetty stem should be sand tight to prevent additional losses. The spur will directly protect an area 300 feet south of the jetty(Figure 18). Based on the results of analysis and modeling described in this report, structural alternatives proved to be less successful than the simple wider beach design. The type of structural alternatives that proved most effective includes elimination of existing structures and the use of a jetty spurs. Pictures of pertinent structures are provided in Photographs 10 through 15 at the end of the report. In general, if sufficient sand can be placed on the beach through nourishment and inlet bypassing, then a structural solution is less important. The structures that should receive earliest consideration for removal are located in the north sections of Park Shore and Naples. Structures have less seasonal or long term impact the further downdrift of the inlet they are located. 52 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC '- Cl, 01') N C : m .O y °Z0 Q-9 N Q M O V> � , s,.' w o I d, ''';::1:' ' ' .* ' '''''' n ':"-iilir ' ' ,4 , ,,;'10,;" - '''''''' 't*:'".Y.:;1',t ) '' -,. ''' a., ;+ ¢ 1.. g ,:, _,,, ii„,....,,-,,,,:.,,f;:,,,,,' 1!,-,....,,,,,,:r;i:t....-t-:.:- ....,.. ,T..,,- 4.,O ? ! r 1� i 4 " ' = ((QQ�Q1 4i <0 cke E ` - o :C G)'' M *" 3a Sri.> UI� C IN 648 (^[ 1I�ntil-N-C n0 N W (/)N"I° h pp U N7 MppW �N?ppV d9 Y H NN U ''0 RQdRQ'ddR d0_d�d2Y ddQdQ R 4-,4,1�N NK dd N N c ria ddQQ:iili a ddce ddddce 2ace 0 jj 111 r t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I l 1 1 I mill I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I +■O - o al N 0.84 4 d a E 6 � ) c z E GT, Q a� Z I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 ii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 11 N M V ID�D I�CO pp N M Q N�p O) .-N M V LO OD f�ap O) L2, M 1n n '49)0)g N M stow O)O,-NM V NCD1�CD O) CV(V N NNN"'..MMgM(h Mf MVgq°��T' 'T Q ��U)U)1- cL c$cgWWWWWWWremxrrnrenl-1�cr CC CC CC IX M X K X d'W 4'2 CC M CC Ce d'd'R'd'Q'0.'0_d'd'Q'2'R'�'F a'd' a'H 0_'2'a'0_'a'�'�'a'R'0.'R'a'�'R'R'R'�0_'R�Q'd' (gpoN) uo!leoo1;uawnuow-y (gjnog) — . G g3 " C (6•s> — co zu 2 2 0 Q c? _ 'a IQ 5 in I tri co . • 11. ' .'''' i -"' !`,., ' -'..r....2‘7 ..''" : . '' , • 11.* 0. , tot m ,„:0-.... tgo I cu „. ... -....-_ ,..,.„), .,-T,_ ,,,e4,-.,,,, .., i‘...,, , —4,01.giv!,;;;*- /11,`," 1 — I ,r co - if,,I4 , .f".•'It^y, 4 'IC '', '.11:.: '... =4, . ' '''.11,,TOrip.ii,1,, ? 2 ‘ Ln CD °, ,"." ' *,'. la',;;' '^.1:.1, li"ir, ---• • . *. ' 4''' . j 1 .,. . .,: IF, .' 4 111‘ V .11$ 4°.' ' i ',.::•%'%.' i. 10 ' .0,, .0. 411", '''''.t.::<,:. I i t R 0.00.0000,04,11000011M. . 1 1 I t0'.; 1; 1 1 cu ..c %- co Ct. 1 (..1.• i 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 r I I — Iii 2 Da 0 ., 5 . , . , - N ...... I ri II I ..". fK 011 St > - t , - E C I I E i •, ,, . il cu 1 , I I i \ 4 4, Aii°$ ''' s .- 4. ; Il WI ''',,, # CD t , .. . .,, .-. I\ \/ OA - \, , .0"* sv. - '' g CO a 4 . 4 . , re at eg cr tr a .-- v. 0 gj c..1 C ri g :al 0 2 . 0 - 0 c?15 0 5 in 1/1 1 '' W'' I a) :"'' =*'!'''' '. ,1. °' '' i ' , ' . ' i .,,i)'''"!^, '''''''';',.. '''''''. .1"°+,., ''''.' : t '' ' I;•', 'E T V) ),.., ... ... I . 0 1 ..c :t•-• U.1 —:1 1 I =MC . 1 . PC ft C Ce C C CC CP a a 0. 1 ct3 Z ......• rsi 2 LIT T r 4 C I TIF LI 7 1 7 - s 2 I- I a) > z i ..- . _.....___ I ,_ / - 7 I a) ,, ., , ,t N. , ■ . - . , i , i i ,...... \ ., , — ce \ ... - lw t .... ,k * !. t VI / '...,", /.,., Os 0) I- N a ■ f — -a, a v St - ti I / ? , —0 U. _ r _ I _ 11111111 .,. j L 1 I 1771 p. va P. $ P r $4 Fi f 4 r? 4 4 .i 4 f f 4 f : : . . . . . . . CY C OE OK CO CO CO TO ---. — N O N N C CO a1 3 Z O- O M o U> in vi �5 a mn 8 ¢5-.A a kg2s uses` a," r co ,,,,*:,..w&£'S°g° 'k 3 5 :'4 ode:.. `� '�,a �t. � 0 co ' , d Fl d9` ,s�. �tltu'„ 'O 1 § .Z ro O rL ppp `V` I'1 4 4 4 4 4 4 R 4 5- ^ 4 ' 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 ° Ln 2 K K ¢ a ¢ ¢ C ¢ K rc ¢ ¢ K ¢ ¢ C R Q K C C C K a+ 3 � c m L L u I 1 r 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I r 1 1 CO G1 CO N cu C. 5 ; IF — r N OA 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1tj 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 111 g LL 3 3 4 R 4 +'i 4 4 4 ? 4 4 4 4 s 4 4 R ¢ ¢ z rc rc rc rc a cc cc ¢ cc cc ¢ ¢ cc s cc s cc iz cc z s y o w N c vi i) 7 m 3 OZN Q fh O U> i`n° I c .-' i,4 ,M 4 ,o. o— ;044,2. }104 n z a F i. 4 iii IDA ° G1 A z 1 E g. W 41 a t 3 I IC CC IX IC R T I I I I I tll - jS r f \ \\ �I �\ ♦ 1f 1 r ` ,� ♦'wr _. ..°�. / 4�t f amp I w t ♦s«t.". gF' � \`aA .:\ I* i — , CC ~ h C 1 ■ A i - f,f , - (��(((,,,�� t. i t ti a'' t 1f Af A� YYYY — F N I ♦z1 1 7 [ 1 1 ggqY 1. YI 1 1 ; ca R .2 — co 0 z . .......... 8-9 Fl (...)5 tr) 1 IR 1 o tCh 414.* 0 I 44121,4.4 VI ,, fe.„*. IA- :. .4.' 1-44 ;',"- i m cc -------' r; ' --. rst • .t 0.:1.,t.".; .' ' * ,4 i .. ,....." X -0 ',•..'„ + ' '''' ......, co U.1 6 tn i , . ,s ., 3 ,:,.. W - W 1 c 2.1 ■ 2 u. ' cL CP 1 1 "0 0.) 1 & 011 '1 ! 1 I E Eg ft a C CC a a a a a la C a a CC CC IX CC CC C 0 1 C2° A -5 cc c., co 1 t T I I I 1 t 7 1 1 T r i I r T"' ' 1 T I I 41-4 a 4 /1- , . i * 4 la 4 44 a 4 t * ,4, 24 „ . - 4 4. I •jt'..,,/*4 ‘,. a • e *fr..*'44.4' % 2 i • t ,* 4 ' ift,\. e ■ ." ... al/ ,* % . f %til ■ F. ''''il ' ‘ ''' I M ' C E 4 it * ' # ba ii 1 I I I I 1 I I I i i I 1 ( i I i I i I ae cr a a a a tr. cc ti 6: a at et a. tz a a a cc — c n '5 2 CN1 C c6 2 0 a) 8 Z.9 cz 0 5 2 $ A i . 4 , ..... ,, , - - ,.. . - --...,..... ' I .. , r i -4t c3 . * . 1.„. ,4p'0.i'1i4*''''., 4.1'1,:00 44 4^ o'p A 44.i",,,I•i,•i'1..0''r'',;',‘,.....-14../4, g,0*■04. ,;,§J'' iO42..1 ife 7 . . 2 2 Z • cv ... 0 0 a a . 4 . 1 :::L6 CQJ al CU in 1 i f ..t i ..,.. . . . i E E 0 --. T r T 1 I I I T 1 T T QJ CC •• r — $ I g - t---- ? -... CZ 1 or -.....;—_,........ 14 i” - g Z .■.% i N, Or -- "d"' ' # N., •■ # % -- R , o 2' = ' = ..,.. ....... I c ,,,,,vi„,, ..,, or ''''.' ..„ 4. `i ,,, . .% . -'-- .. . -, -'s . *- i : IA cc r,$,• : . 1 1 s Ss, 4, S., ..0 ..... .s ' '.. 12 g h,,,,, / , 5 s ' -'-; , .., - F § I = 01 1 - .... - $ $ $ $ $ •.. 4TT t t I .., - t `.. N N C C6 g m ti OZcctl UU`_'0 — U> G I I ti c I w O L d'.4' f �,', ,� q ; �4 �,, .. O '- T 4`x ,,. . 0 wl ,' i It �:4.-- I, ,hilt kc �g� " i N N R O P22 a v W LL 41 J � �1 a a n g § N kr 3 a & a a a & « `�1 O l0 1 o. n_ 3 R , V N 1 T 1 1 f i I f [ i ( I I "v o C. / El' J Aa....,y q t\i /e 1 i t\r t 1 tx fl \ / I ' J f l \�I N tt j I, y L jY ■ " M — r V _ n N O_Q 1 1 1 f I 1 1 I I f I 1 l g ii .— ti) ,, V) 0 CD CO CV C ___ -a ri.6-5 -0 '-' co g i -6) c Z o 0 . 8-9 gi 1 E 0.,(-2-0 < _ CV o 9 5 0 (..) I el' +a-?) 4.- * f.,". . '' •:' ' ' '7,,'''';,'':, 7' '7' ''.-.' ,,',.,, 1'.:■'1',:'.7:4: et:6 7 11:■,:A*;i'''l '7..'''''.1.'.. ., ;" ”.., ".a..' i .,..:. .,., '.."%;7`;:': -:..,',,, '..,:: ,-,,,;••!,,, f,.1. .:,: ,- ' " ' .:-...'" ' ''°L -.F., • . ..• ..f..-„vt.•• i::' - -,:.- . •-• . — - ,,, , tn ;;;"4.:::-°:' ,l'ie. ',' :',.`.•,, ,,, :: .. . :-... ..A.,_ ,..:„ '' - ,,,.2:..?. '- , -',.'.., ',,,.- ... . -,..,,• „ ..,,&, ,,,,„,: ...', ...j.L' ; : „., , ,. ''''' - w. 1 t'' „,L...• ,, - a) . '.';'-.'"'t V ...:.- lit . ' •"*.,,, op'''ookMVIIOner* :- ‘,..,,„ - — g E 1 , E 1 : — ici:::L.0044,00row 5 i aU. ,,, al -Co ... 0 .... 0 ■ :1 Z ,V- ... t?. 9 " -- rg & a w c 1 I I c I 1 . ,_ F I , I 1 1 VI I 1 1 I 1 I 0,901111,4 = I I , — 4 • I ■ ,.. I _ 8 2 3 _ . i'....% / ., i' 1.."` ... .■..... N N ' / ......,,:/ '' ? 1 • 0 CU ■ CL co - .. -,‘ : ‘s--- , 4-- ' •• . AI `. ---- \-•'---- - ; ‘`,....•'. .e — . I , 811111. — : 1 1 5 ir > CC ' co g. c _ N ... cu (V 4..... I- fii I CZ I I 1 I 0 1... I I I I ... w' P P: i .'4. ri i I I I I I gq p. ; f3.2. ... I I R i !ft ft - ! = . I° c 0 c N E dQ 1n v1 (0 N c 1 Q• --m' a s ., O z O ts 8 s S R R 9 o Q J. M •C +•' 13 ar L i ',, ■51," ro $,Z '''' ' \ , " O v '' g L L 3 c c O ,- (0 L 3 LL 0 0. v a t fi IP 1 c aTi c 15 2 e m 8 yw1 j AU&WON t9OVN sem14 II c o " Ni 1 3 n tn s o °1 II8 $ S R R F. o rs ti: „,. * _ .� 1 U 'C �.�`�t ♦ �.q (Y)Ou 4UWJ-C9OYN Pg3'14 o L > r v 0 4 0 a o▪ v co ,0 .Q.11.' I (CO io C U 00 (0 $ 1 1 •6 0O f9)6thW°N.CERN 11103 14 c N ▪ 0 < 13 CO 1A • (0 0J c OA LL CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 64 of 260 XVII. PERMIT GUIDANCE The permits from both the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the United States Army Corps of Engineers are still valid from the previous 2006 renourishment project. It is recommended that if an expanded project is the desired design choice, coordination with permit agencies and permit modifications be obtained as soon as possible. Federal and State permit modifications will be required for the next project, and the existing permits expire in January and November 2015 respectively. Unless construction occurs in the 2013-14 non-sea turtle nesting period, a new permit will be required from the State, since extensions are not allowed beyond 10 years. Construction should be planned prior to January 2015. Under the current permit, this means completion prior to May 1, 2014. With the new Programmatic Biological Opinion from the FWS, the dredging season should be extended into sea turtle nesting season, which will extend the practical dredging period 8 months. The May-August period is the calmest during the year, which is the most economical for the type of dredging proposed. There was strong resistance at FDEP against allowing a larger fill template in 2006 based on a performance analysis presented during the permitting process. Monitoring results since 2006 have shown that the expected performance has materialized. As such, the conceptual design has used this performance to enlarge the cross-sections and increase the project life so that most areas of the project can perform for 10 years. The conceptual design will require a significant detailed design process to consider lateral spreading, intermediate profiles, and the three dimensional nature of the nearshore hardbottom in the project area. Some at FDEP will not readily accept this design process, and some give and take should be expected. The permit modification should ask for permission to ford Clam Pass when moving construction equipment between the Vanderbilt and Park Shore Reaches. XVIII. FEDERAL SAND SOURCE COORDINATION The primary sand source for the next project is Borrow Area T-1 located in Federal waters offshore of Sanibel Island. This sand resource is managed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), formally MMS. At a meeting with BOEMRE at the Annual FSBPA meeting in Clearwater, the agency described their procedures for a new lease. Even though Collier County has previously been given a lease for BA T-1, a new lease will be required for each use of the sand source. In addition, BOEMRE will require a new environmental assessment (EA). BOEMRE is still working out the requirements for a new lease on a previously used sand source, and the requirements will likely be heavily influenced by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Colleen Finnegan of BOEMRE said that a wave refraction analysis may not be required for the next EA, but did not know the other requirements yet. Based on previous experience, the County should plan on over a year to secure a combined BOEMRE lease and appropriate permit modification, since each Federal agency will wait until the state permit modification is decided before taking action, and BOEMRE will wait on the Federal agency decisions. 63 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 65 of 260 XIX.NEW INVESTIGATIONS The next nourishment project will require a permit modification and some new offshore investigations. Existing permit conditions will require monitoring which will lead to offshore investigations and environmental surveys. Based on recent experience with the truck haul sand placement project and the Wiggins Pass dredging, biological monitoring of the nearshore hardbottom will be required similar to what was done between 2005-2009. An extension of the project into Barefoot Beach and Clam Pass Park will need to be supported with a pipeline corridors and operational areas to support hopper dredge operations. It may be cost effective to consider adding a dedicated pipeline corridor to Naples Beach south of R-70. Negotiations should be conducted with FDEP and appropriate Federal agencies to determine if monitoring conditions will change from those adopted in 2005. This has been proposed by staff at FDEP for similar projects on the east coast. Likely tasks are listed in Section XIV of this report. XX. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions have shaped the conceptual design for the project: • If sufficient sand can be placed on the beach through nourishment and inlet bypassing, then a structural solution is less important. In general, the modeling shows a 10-year nourishment interval is feasible and most of the groins can be removed, resulting in improved performance of the beach. Modeling shows that a wider fill placement and removal of some of the existing structures is the most practical and direct solution, while many of the structures modeled had less convincing performance. The consideration of new structures should also be delayed until sufficient monitoring of the expanded project is performed. • The borrow area from the previous renourishment project (T1) will be utilized to support the renourishment project. • The coarser sand used during the last renourishment has steepened the beach profile, as expected, and in general, most profiles within the County have experienced retreat at the toe of fill greater than the magnitude of shoreline retreat. This means that the permitted template can be increased in size without increased threat to nearshore hardbottom. This makes a 10 year nourishment interval feasible with few limitations. • Additional field investigations are necessary to permit the next project. • A 3D design phase is needed to refine the design to allow additional fill in these five regions without threatening the hardbottom. This detailed and refined design should be verified using the model. • For economy, gaps in fill placement should be allowed in the project area to reduce the amount of fill needed and its associated cost. 64 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 66 of 260 • A jetty spur at Doctors Pass will reduce losses into the Pass from Naples and trap sand during the tropical storm season, which will be naturally released during the winter season. • The two recent hot spots at Seagate Drive and south of Doctors Pass can be solved with changed inlet management practices and additional nourishment. • The disposal area for sand bypassed from Clam Pass should be extended further south to address a small hot spot. • Beach and inlet dredging should be scheduled for maximum mutual support of sand placement in restricted disposal areas. The major project goal is a 10-year design life achieved with a wider and higher beach that addresses hot spots and increases the durability without hardbottom impacts, building on the 2006 permitted design. The three inlet projects are addressed in their separate inlet management studies, permits, and monitoring reports. The inlet work should be scheduled to complement, but not necessarily coincide with the beach nourishment work. Specific objectives are: • Barefoot Beach (R14-R16): Nourish with approximately 100,000 cy of sand to supplement sand bypassing by the new Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan and restore the eroded beach. • Vanderbilt Beach (R27-R31): Increase advanced nourishment where practical, and overfill near the hot spots. Consider structures only after nourishment alone proves insufficient or ineffective through performance monitoring. • Clam Pass Park (R42-R44): Renourishment with approximately 30,000 cy of sand to supplement sand bypassing as part of the new Clam Pass maintenance dredging permit. Where practical, schedule maintenance dredging at different times from beach nourishment, so that maximum volume can be placed down drift of the inlet in a limited template. This fill will act as essential feeder beach for northern Park Shore. Extend the existing dredge disposal area further south, to eliminate a small hot spot between R44 and R45. • Seagate Drive hot spot (R44-R46): Remove groins in conjunction with feeder beach created at Clam Pass Park. Increase advanced nourishment to supplement any short fall from these actions. • Park Shore (R51-R54): Nourish for 10 year design life supported by modeling. Increase advanced nourishment or feeder beach volume in the vicinity R48 to address model hot spot. Delay consideration of any structures until performance monitoring of this nourishment alone option can be completed. • South of Doctors Pass (R58): Increase nourishment rate, modify Doctors Pass dredging permit to dispose sand in the permitted beach fill template south of Doctors Pass. Build 65 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-13 New Business 67 of 260 spur off of groin to stabilize this severe hot spot so that it performs with a 10 year renourishment interval. Bypassing to the closer disposal areas, a jetty spur, and nourishment alone may address most of the needs in this area, and additional structures should be delayed until performance monitoring of nourishment alone option can be completed. Timing of nourishment and dredge disposal should be separated when feasible, so that the limited space in the template can be maximized. • South of Lowdermilk Park (R62-R64): Modify or eliminate groins in the vicinity of R6-2 and R-65 in conjunction with increased nourishment. Drainage modification must be decided before structural modifications can be implemented. It is also recommended to create a larger beach at Lowdermilk Park to mitigate for the change in dredge disposal practices. • Design all reaches for a 10 year project life and skip segments that do not need fill to meet this goal. Maintain capability of truck haul project to address small hot spots if they occur. Consolidate small density fill sections into constructible reaches. • Create a schedule for groin removal or modification, starting with the groins immediately south of inlets. Modify future plans based on performance monitoring. XXI. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommended plan is based on a combination of existing practices and new alternatives. The 2013-14 Design Alternative 3 without structures is the recommended plan. Modification to inlet management practices and beach drainage are needed to supplement the plan. 1. Continuation of Existing Practices. a. Beach fill i. Vanderbilt Beach R22.5 to R31.5 ii. Park Shore R45.5 to R54 iii. Naples Beach R58 to R79 b. Inlet Bypassing at Wiggins, Clam and Doctors Passes 2. New Practices: a. Widen and raise the beach to support a 10-year nourishment interval where practical. b. Add Barefoot Beach (R14—R16)to rebuild the ebb shoal and beach. c. Nourish Clam Pass Park (R42-R45.5)providing a feeder beach for Park Shore. d. Return the disposal area for Doctors Pass dredging to the area immediately south of the pass, using the permitted beach template from the 2005 permit. e. Modify or remove structures (groins and outfalls) from beach based on a sequence to address those with the largest impact, lowest cost and easiest to address outfall solution. Start with the structures located closest to Clam and Doctors Passes. Removal must be accompanied by continued periodic nourishment and inlet bypassing. f. Add a spur to the south Doctors Pass jetty to reduce losses from Naples Beach into the inlet and maximize the effectiveness on inlet bypassing. 66 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 68 of 260 g. Plan on small (truck haul) nourishment project between the major nourishment interval to address hot spots caused by significant storms and changes in wave climate, long shore transport, and inlet bypassing not anticipated in this report and modeling. h. Delay any decision on adding other structures to the plan, unless the detailed design and/or permit restrictions significantly restrict use of an adequate fill template. From conceptual analysis of the project, the following are recommendations for future investigation: • Conduct detailed 3D design of the recommended alternatives using the 2011 monitoring results at each profile location and verify and refine design in model. • Identify additional pipeline corridors for hopper dredges and scow operations. • Begin permit modifications process for increased project size. 67 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 69 of 260 XX. REFERENCES Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Beach Restoration Project 6-Year Monitoring Report(contains Appendix A: Drainage Reconnaissance Report), October 2002. Coastal Planning& Engineering, Inc., Collier County Preliminary Engineering Report, 2003. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Beach Restoration Project 8-Year Post- Construction Report,November 2004. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Beach Renourishment Project Two-Year Post-Construction Monitoring Report, December 2008. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Beach Renourishment Project Post- Tropical Storm Fay Report, October 2008. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Beach Renourishment Project Post- Construction Monitoring Report, October 2006. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2009 Collier County Annual Topographic and hydrographic Survey Report (September 2009 Aerial Photographs).November 2009 Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Critical Erosion Area Evaluation of Habitat and Recreation for Barefoot Beach, Collier County February 12, 2010. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. ,Critical Erosion Area Evaluation for Clam Pass Park and North Park Shore, Collier County August 18, 2011. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2009. Wiggins Pass, Collier County, FL Numerical Modeling of Wave Propagation, Currents and Morphology Changes Phase II: Numerical Modeling of Alternatives Report. Report prepared for Collier County Wiggins Pass Modeling Evaluation Working Group and Coastal Zone Management Department, Collier County, FL. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. Engineering Report for a Maintenance Dredging, Navigation Improvement and Erosion Reduction Project For Wiggins Pass, Florida February 2010. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Joint Coastal Permit for Collier County Beach Renourishment Project. Permit No. 0222355-001-JC. 2005. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Permit No. SAJ-2003-12405 (IP-MN). November 17, 2005. 68 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 70 of 260 REDFISH - ' I PASS , 1 " CAPTIVA ;1 W g u ISLAND BLIND oo ASS SANIBEL •� Q `,�rj ISLAND SAN CARLOS ' ■,'i 4 + •'�. ESTEROISLAND N,B _... N,BOQIO \ Q 'ft, \ • Ca V! t * it LOVERS KEY BORROW N O a AREA T1 N °. 'Fty \ 33.7 Mktsl, 1 BAREFOOT ti WIGGINS �`�BEACH � � ~ - - - -• 1 PASS - �t' k N 100000 \ 4, VANDERBILT ,..0` 1 BEACH f y C1 I 4'I• ' PARK 9 MILE LIMIT-' / y PASS .0. 1k f SHORE 1 DOCTORS �,) ASS ?'� GULF \ i NAPLES OF y MEXICO y N WM) Ili N WMRXI RN`' . 1 ORDON 4:1: 7SS :... 3, , ``\ ,," 0 20000 40000 \\ ;� CAP I PASS \IX ,,,t,,, GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT \ BIG RCO PASS `►'�-aK�4� kit SR1 ` 044 44 a ■ J'� y ` NOTES: \, o w ' 1.COORDINATES HEREON ARE BASED ON FLORIDA STATE \ cif/ PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, EAST ZONE,NAD 1983. \ 2.ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET BASED ON \ ' y/4 NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM, 1929(NGVD 29). \ \ CAPE ROMANO `SORROW AREA u u u u N, FIGURE 19. Cape Romano Borrow Area 69 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-13 New Business 71 of 260 W •�► 3 . i. o 40 ",„ p .aunt „ t r � mmm ,f11; ,-�j ' iY;i, p]' p sii Photograph 10. Examples of spurs off jetties at Bakers Haulover Inlet in Miami, FL stabilizing adjacent up-and down-drift beaches. i4,1. 4, d r ` i ,,,,,- p y , -11*. . , ,,,, ,...- ,1,19,,,,koz-HNTi- - .fix „ 0. a'•'n- aar d t:, .«as „nom Photographs 1 la and b. T-groins with transition to downdrift public beach at Upham Beach in Pinellas County,Florida. Public beach is south of condominium. 70 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 72 of 260 v I Bed Le e '. Eft] 2 ., . it ' ''''; C '' 4 ' 1 $A -1 ) c " -2 zs 'uas` zsa -3..,,,.. ,,. 4 .. 4 -5 �r -7 x -8 r � , -9 VI fast SZtt. -` * wasa t a —10 Figure 20. Longboat Key model conditions showing salient growth at detached breakwaters. t ems.'. aY � v � s 1, It 0,40' �I�N ' , 3 4' ; , i, m H .rte d N°h �r+�y� „ '` �� °C 'E��.e �� .rte. 0m .r4'u i 6 m Photograph 13. Longboat Key Permeable Groin maintaining beach width in 2010 four years after latest nourishment. 71 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 73 of 260 y z p : ,P ;p 50 0 $0 100 Meters Photograph 14. Parabolic bay shape at T-groins in South Naples . u Photograph 15. Pile groins in South Naples beach area in 2004. 72 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 74 of 260 0 MEXI OF �` o z ce J NI u~ a Oa 866000 STUDY �' iA / a.. . W v AREA w ; - i CL p 14.. •A JSBLVD E. ......i w -.....-4 M. m .. = Q 662000 1 d J 0 u a .. I �o J 664000 0 Z U./ '1 41'14 J CI J w Z <4 J J U.. 0 J fT} � LL, C? .60000 H -M III . 0 ii tti W -3 O. .:2000 u.4 J J I,' 0 J 7 H xi- O w d Et..- w . J 11.1 0 J J Z-J v Q Z �e LL J .000 — a- € �A d a f NOTES: N a 1)NAPLES BEACH OUTFALL LOCATIONS ON SEPTEMBER 2009 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY ACA. 0 450 900 W c E Feet 2)COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON FLORIDA STATE PLANE, EAST ZONE,NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983(NAD83). S FIGURE 21. Naples,Florida Aerial Photograph with Outfall Location 73 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 75 of 260 TABLE 10 Alterantive 1:FEMA DESIGN VOLUMES PROFILE EFFECTIVE DESIGN 2010 MHW BERM DEPTH OF COMP. FINAL NUMBER DISTANCE WIDTH TO DESIGN HEIGHT CLOSURE EROSION VOLUME (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT-NAVD) (FT-NAVD) (CY/YR) (CY) Wiggins Pass 800 . .• . . . R-22 100 100 -24.5 4.0 -11.3 0 0 R-23 1,017 100 -11.9 4.0 -11.3 0 0 R-24 1,074 100 -36.2 4.0 -11.3 0 0 R-25 1,051 100 -24.6: 4.0: -11.3 -1,647 6,000 R-26 986 100 -35.9 4.0i -11.3 -1,321 8,250 -- R-27 1,095 100 3.1 4.0 -11.3 -2,434 12,000 _ R-28 1,026 100 13.3 4.0 -11.3 -826 8,250 R-29 942 100: -7.2: 4.0: -11.3 -863 5,500 R-30 1,033 100 -14.4 4.0 -11.3 -556 0 R-31 1,092 100: -32.5: 4.0 i -11.3 0 0 Clam Pass 350 R-45 1,078 85 21.9: 4.01 -11.3 -1,034 6,000 R-46 1,040 85 18.0 4.0 -11.3 0 9,000 R-47 953 85: -3.9 4.0 -11.3 -373 6,000 R-48 1,000 85 -2.8 4.0 -11.3 -700 0 R-49 1,077 85 -18.4: 4.01 -11.3 0 0 T-50 1,208 85 -43.2 4.0 -11.3 0 0 R-51 1,108 85 -13.1: 4.0: -11.3 -3,415 7,500 R-52 967 85 28.0 4.0 -11.3 -3,945 15,000 R-53 1,060 85: 5.1 4.0: -11.3 -1,946 7,500 R-54 1,059 85 -8.7 4.0 -11.3 0 0 U-55 985 85 -14.7 4.0 -11.3 0 0 Doctors Pass 431 .• . .-• R-58A 877 100 112.7 4.0 -11.3 -3,457 5,000 R-58 737 80 36.6 4.0 -11.3 -5,738 5,000 R-59 1,035 100 -0.7: 4.0 -11.3 -2,715 7,500 R-60 1,081 100 -11.6 4.0 -11.3 -75 8,000 R-61 1,049 100 -42.3 4.0 -11.3 -785 7,500 R-62 1,015 100 15.01 4.0 -11.3 -3,219 11,000 R-63 967 100 11.6 4.01 -11.3 -2,701 10,000 R-64 854 100 -9.5 4.0 -11.3 -565 5,000 R-65 804 100 -14.51 4.0 -11.3 -1,168 5,000 R-66 813 100 -25.2. 4.0 -11.3 0 0 R-67 805 100: -51.8 4.0: -11.3 0 0 R-68 810 100 -51.6 4.0 -11.3 0 0 R-69 805 100: -30.3 4.0 -11.3 0 0 -:- R-70 800 100: -30.5 4.0 -11.3 -2,537 5,000 R-71 803 100 -33.2: 4.0 -11.3 -3,733 10,000 R-72 807 100 -51.4 4.0 -11.3 -1,819 5,000 R-73 813 100: -50.8 4.0: -11.3 0 0 R-74 803 100 -41.91 4.0 -11.3 0 0 R-75 795 100 -39.8 4.0 -11.3 0 0 R-76 799 100 -7.0 4.0 -11.3 -855 0 R-77 782 100: -11.1: 4.0: -11.3 0 0 R-78 933 100 -14.8 4.0 -11.3 0 0 R-79 1,128 100: -9.7: 4.0 -11.3 0 0 Gordon Pass 550 : PROJECT AREA 41,066 96 -13.2 4.0 -11.3 -48,427 175,000 FILL LIMITS AND QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE. PACollien8500.78 Collier County Conceptual Design and Modeling\Final Design and Cost\CC2010-DESIGN WITH NEW DISPOSAL AREA 081112-Copy.xls 10/5/2011 OIO O N N M W W N O ,-W Y♦O O��pp++ 0 0 W N W‘N M M W O O O 0 0 0 W,-0 0 0,-0 0 0 v- •10 W,-W W MW.Y M W N ,-W N M N,- W 0 aD M N V.MA W W Y 01 W .....-.N.iiDD N M W M W N M W W rO W C W♦ 1D O JQ 2 , Y m 1 N M.- ..-.-♦ M N, am* a.,-,-,4 W'm V N Z'�, N N N W N W W N MM r C J U ILL O" 1 c•j N > dm 00000.00 0 W N W.-O 0 Y O n 0 0 0 m N V O O t0 W O W 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 O m 0 O O 0 N W 'c;',2 N M M W OI N n W M W W OI n Gp a n M�- O N J M N 3-9,.j Z o atre> N N W U C7 O O Q _ 1 U > J 000 O Nrp S"M�N O S M N M O O N V 0 0 00 N N S^a S W o o O o o^ O o o W O O o .11/i W W m Y W W W W N n N pYWo i00 .-�Opr O N M N ODD WW W O a♦ N W 0 7 1 a ' '- N ^a N N m S N N S M W W YI N a MO"' 1 y OIO O N N M W O n O M Y N b N O W O O O N N W 0 0 N Y o Y NN N tN+l S NO�-0W r0.0 0 0 0000,.000§000 0 yy OOn W W O .-O i:5,74.11 .2 W W 0 . Y N.O M n N N.- m N O.- O n N n- N r Am 1 ::::: :: gN x N 0 0 01 N ao 6666666666666o.-6666N666 r Q O o K 5 wz• L I n z.. 1............................... ....o 0 o W ry 0 rn a o .O O n N o 0 a,O o O 0 00 0 M 00.-N0000 Y 7 N O000 -000 W o >Ur 16.0 .0WYIN. OWNNrOWN00.0 000.NOOWNWWWW.VNOWWMWWW ,-om 422. i W f L. �II' ; 3 ...._......_,...........0.............. ..................6. ............. R .......... 0 0 0 o o O 0 G o 0 00000.'0000o 0 00000000000000000000000 O g w > Z Okororo6 ro oroao roem ro 0r0 ro 6rom0 rorororcr0 ro,G6rD ro rp r6ba b ro0orD W tutor W o 2• 0w^ o N• W Mt � ' I . i OIO O n N M N cp N O Y O r 0 0 0 Y e0 0 � O N n m W o N S...O....O O O�S....W O O O_.N O O O N .. 8 � Z p QN O ...ma Y n n' NN Nn W o MW aOO ' 77N,- ri ri � � l� o 0L � m Y .10 0U F W co n W• W 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 r0 X O O O O O S r np O o N S O O O O p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N VOf ma, 28 O N W M r0 S n ~1 'O 'M rN V W W s 5» g 1 20-$ E g>▪ H t • w W W N Wpp^a na O 8 R S 2 O 0'm n N S'o O R N 0000000 N Y H r i i a 4 O >LI SI O b0 nmYO SNbN NN Y' ..0W.o.w W e-N a O W W» 'fr4 N YN nMmN N.--m o? TT rN 1.W-NNMMmNNOin Mgt.,rQ n yJOV.r U m> f • LL M M M M M M M M M M M M M,M M M M M.....M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M.M.M.M.M.........F... .-. M1� M. I 0 "d.g 7'7777 ______'''- r u F-,4 1 H Oo 0'0 0 0,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 999.... 9909....90.... ...9900 0 1-,A a s a a Y a a v a a a v Y a Y Y a a a a a v v a Y Y a a v Y a a a a a a v a Y a a a Y a e KLU4 n CO Y1- .._... _.`..' Z. .._.._N...W.'....N W W...6....M N.Y....N.........0000....a....N....N... O 6 n.r R•..• O M O W N N rV O O O N m o OD YSNMMMh NDM' NQ N*4. q.-.W. YN oN Gh O of N-h JYC y N r .17'7 N.- v N , .7 r �N N N M M M h N v M ��■ 1 2w - O 1 N 0 S S S O O O S O 5......W W y W W W W W W W y W W S S S S S S O O S S S S S S S O O S S S S W Q you 1 O a 1u a w^a goo o.00 aoomM o_m 000 N.,rn�.ornvco,o._o�w 000mmomm owoorr ral-o o w - C a a W FLL. I� I' W 'tea' I t- Z a a m „ „ w o w o W w a N N N N 0N.N N M M A ro N N d m W N O N N 0 W W O N N C ^n W W a a °YYYYYoNm v-0- eeNN W 4 4 4 9c9, WWnnn r nno v W O.Z 0 S t9 j a LL W 4m MOB 00000o 0002,08,„:00,0c00 N O N N-0 0 0 OQ1 7/N 0 0 0 O N 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N- N J_ r ■ , Y[7 N ,. N C M el y y W U LO O N Z m O O O O O O W s m O O m O O V O O OiO O N O O O O O O S ✓ Q W N n ( " 0 O m N 07 OD S N + l ' • N N M 0 D o M ri O Nm r.^N O V r M mN S m� N pN u 0M N A ro 1-_,0 U 03 0 O >5n y O O O 000 N m S g 0 0 0 0 N 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 N O O O O-0 0 0 0 O 0 O a N r O C m m N.I N N O O 0 O 22 O Mn r j fV V m O.-N O 0 f W G -t7 l — V 4 N V oK ' N W 0 O N W� 2 2 N O QN U 02> 6 2 2 Q 0 0 0 0 000,-00r-woo O o 0 0 0 O r O O m 0 0 0 0 O o m O O O O 0 M o 0 0 0 0 m O 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 M 4 a° 0 0 0 000000000 00000N-000000 0 0 Oi o 0 0 o.-0 0 o 0 o v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > O C a 0 2 W Y O 2 °2 2 U 2 z ...........00....... .0........................................0 ..... .... .... ..... ... .. z . ............. ........... W Q 0 0 0��o'o o m N o M o.-d�� 0 0 0 0 0 i�M o o v c"a'o o"" oo".-o c"0""'o"�i-o"o"�o""o p..-.�o�o o" o"0"o�� .....o I' > 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O O l Y O 0 0 0 O O Y I O V 0 G N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 t f!c V O O(V N O O O O N O 0 0 0(M O O O g _ °Z W f 2 N• 42 6 00• z I o 2 W o o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 O0 00 000o O O OC OO O o O OO O O OO OO OO O O O _...0 O z 0 0 0 6666666666 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- 0 No W�Y J Q° °......._.............._...... ._........._. ...... _......... ....._.. __. .. . . ...._ . .. ......_...... ......... . ................. ... .............. N J ° am Ao H _ . r∎-N �O O M n.O O N op 0 0 . r�n N .- 0 0 m O O O O O _ F }a N r m p y N r' ur m w a p d Mml- a° g N MN Z z 0z0 i °w € W ° N U W0 O 2 g 000000000 0O000000 -O0 N 2 0 o O O^0 0 0 Oi0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r J O 0 OI Mm MO $14-i c,(NO f0M N ? a J 2 r 00 ,- 'O .m-M - m m 0 1- E, O N J U M N i Z 2 ?> p Qp ry 8 (� tpp i m N p py W s�3ka YO >I, wO O 8418 R. °8 mSO 00000N-N Ng 008'4 0000 §x§(Omm USD_ONOvNQgOf.r-Ol CDs Imo Q - ar a'0 7 w fV Y O Or M m O fV.� N OO N OQ n N Y w N N M M N N N W n l;l q r w N > a W JU N.-N i N i Y Y E N 2 W g >> Q u_ MMM MMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMM.i")•[ •ih.M.Ni•i"1•i")•••••.M•M.M.M.t.1.M<+1M, M Mi✓�inMMMiMMMi7MMM••• M (A9 „ „ n A ; M G o a Z ..............06.6........._.0.0..0..00000 0............. ..... - 000 0000000000 00000000000000 000"0'0 000"0"0"0"0"0"0 000"0 0"""0"'0'0"0"""' ""a"' E F 0 v v 6 44444.4:4444 a v o v a v a v o v a v a v 444444,i4444444<44444444 ° 2 a .m a a' a U Q m W L =LL •Z U W N N N mN(?{Dm n NO0 Zy- O n N NN T O!O 0 MmNm 00N'Nmwrr 4 rSoc w.-q vi o.O Nw in N N GD�pM ippN gtV 8.-Tm On 0 N ' q NN NM G I0�1 O O O pow mw N Q Q ................y e Q 8888888888 OO m m m m m m m m m m m m 0 888888888881888888880888 2 W O a mow 8§; 0 W W {§2 oo rr N-imp u,NNp m p0�Om 0NLU0 app 8Or o 0�m(1 rrM cm' 0tCCN OMO0OS 0$m01�0n 0)00 N a v10 f0m 00001 OOT OO,t7N Oo OO NOO N Q>O o O.Omr OO.O N mmm mm mm m Q 4 LL y N W° W H z I N K N N w * wwN w w O A A L J pa n U a r n n W r < ° _W 7-V.T C N N N N N N N OOM a N wwm vw 53w O� r C w a rig az 3 c ° a n J J i LL -12 0 Zj M 0 O O O O O N M N O O 000 N M n ry 0 0 N S 0 0 n W fQ O O S N N O O - O O O O O S O O O N m J ffVV ttVV (Z`PS yN J �N.- I'M,- cV a N C el N F.m h WU 7 i r Z a $ 000m N o �mw �oo oo 0000Noo0AO0o tS w n_�ui 2 � i dm2 �$ �oBA� i VV i 1 N O y N Q M N C1 ri V h m,..-N,N A M m N yyOp "i27,--'46. O S YI r n y Me _ at si V> R N O O b O O O N C N O O O O O m O O O O b m N 0 N 0 O O O 6 N O O O O O O 2 Z Q N V O mo m c. 0U) O - -f tV f N N W 0 R -W O F o O zz W • a N Ui ' . z m Q R Z000 OOOM O MV W 00 00000M000•-r oo )'1 NN OOU,(.Y)0000 OOOOOAOOO NN ck a w m {p N tC+'!! ,0 MM ,W c'1 A O I�tND, (6 N N U J = N O O N 000 A N N C 7 N O ,-N M j 1-10 m a 20> 2 a ? y O O O 0 0 0,n 0 0.-M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O m o o O O V O O O o O N A o O O O o o O o m ii S O 6 6 6 6666600666 0 0 0 0 0 n)N O 0 N 0 0 0 0 6666066,-46o;664066660066 K 0 _• 000Y s N 6_ • ..............00 0......00.................0...............0......0..0... Z 0 0 0 O O O m N O m A�0 O O O O O m 0 0 OO O O N N. 0 0 tC O O O O O m M m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O > 666 0 6 0 m.-O m V m.- O O O O.-m N 6.-N 0 0 0.- O O O O O O m m 0 0 0 0 Yf 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 O O? o- 2 zQzyK I C1 z a y I w C z � W K ...................... .................56............................6...........................56686,567565b .... .. .. .. .. O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U M O w LL, .66666666666666666666666 2 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 666 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 66666666666 ........... r,0 4 LL o W J 0 of N ag M0 0 o O A Ny20. O O Op O MS 00.00000. ^ppppN 6.N0O00OOOA7 O Ow m A N M.-Am,- m + N y f F j z N O Q ,A O M n Q O A A A N A M N A CO d Q O a a0 * 'i t?n.7 M NN Tc1 c1/17 1 w Y z K U K U 0 W o CC O W• 0 O N 000000000 0 0 0 N N O 0 0 0 0= o o m O o O ig m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 J • W a W O N M A N m ND ON Z E 52 06 WZO Z U $ o > W w 0 w w 200 r TN MNOO r-mpCC 00000/y,tpp Y�GDoopy, o oMng O0 pop NA�Ap 4 fO.-N gyp yNS ry.12 ApM N j > >2 CQ O N O m M N O O.M N m N?A N A q N A OD O M.-CND A A,-O ai N.-A F N f0 M 0 8 C -n,,N V m- e1177-1'T N au I� q r N N N vi s m N N N 0)0 YI OQ ui > z 0J0 " N7N aP 1 ' T th . N w0 a 3 w K> 0 .................. ..._..........._._._........._............._......_............... ... O MMM MMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMM.......MM.•M MMMMMihMMMN.MMMih<�MMi+i th y a• >> , , , , , , , , , , , , , „ a M 3 cow • Q W ........................_.. ......................................................................... � 006 0000000000 0 0 0"o'6 0 0 0 0"o"�0'6 0 0 0"o""o'o o o"o'o"0"0 "0"'0"o'o"o""0""o"'o'o'o"0"`"" 'in"�� 0 6 F 0 vi)0,(i ,n N N Ui u)N Y)N,n N N Vi N Vl,A N N N,A N,N,A N N N N,n,n N,N u),n Lei N Ni,.1 N N,N N vi N,n 6666 z '2_> Q T m= U AE ........Z m,O.N..._. .N fO. NN 0 Mp Np N�+....Q.-m m OA.-V m 0 m• Q U' ,464 N.-,0 7,O M M A V N -m M N m M m,A m V N tR R r'q�.-W V N.-.-. .co. t o.oC'�N N. .Cf••• 0 SS yW , , tt++�l. th. , ' 7T "v- " 717" ' , , O Q LL Li go0 ...._._. _.......................................-6006"60000 .600._...... ............._ .... ................_... ..,.....—*boo...__........ p Q vao SSSooSSSSS mmmmmmmmmm2mmm mmoSSS000g$.........................._.p..........p.....p..........................m...... m ~....._.__ m O O 0 o'66 • 0 0 0 S S O d o SOS o O S S n LL l �F . a • LL m p; O �p m p� pp 0. ,,pp��pp Q�pp mm Qq! K W W ON SM 8000N OO mOO MNOO.O 00,00N,- 0.00.0o r 000,0 m m S m W 0m S SS mS r r,mN0 d 0.N• LL W O W Q r 2 z 0 13 fAV, N NN g`Y An� nm A A a 0 ww Jm 7 NNN NNNritWirV gq 3p2 CfunY4 43§4. n P= U CL 7 KKK�,KK K KK�KKK K ;KKKKK KKKF=K R'K R7 O ff' KD:'2620:'W KKKKKLL'KKKK¢K6 KLL'? W N 0.z 0 o - § a 7 J J LL CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 79 of 260 APPENDIX A MODELING REPORT COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 80 of 260 COLLIER COUNTY CONCEPTUAL RENOURISHMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS - NUMERICAL MODELING REPORT Prepared for: Coastal Zone Management Department Collier County Government Prepared by: Coastal Planning & Engineering,Inc. 2481 N.W. Boca Raton Blvd. Boca Raton,FL 33431 C.O.A. FL. #4028 October 2011 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 81 of 260 COLLIER COUNTY CONCEPTUAL RENOURISHMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS - NUMERICAL MODELING Table of Contents Modeling Objectives 1 Modeling Study 13 Numerical Modeling of Shore Protection Alternatives 50 Final Consideration 85 References 86 List of Figures Figure No. Figure 1: Project Location. 3 Figure 2: Tide Gage Location. 4 Figure 3: Typical Observed Gulf Tides Location: 26.1402°N, 83.268°W (See Figure 2). 5 Figure 4: Wave Hindcast Station. 7 Figure 5: Directional distribution of wave period bins at the selected WW3 grid point. 8 Figure 6: Directional distribution of wave period bins at the selected WW3 grid point. 8 Figure 7: Maximum significant wave height (Hs) and wave period (Tp) per directional band at the selected WW3 grid point 9 Figure 8 Directional distribution of wind velocity bins at the selected WW3 grid point. 10 Figure 9: Maximum wind velocity per directional band at the selected WW3 grid point 10 Figure 10: tidal oscillation used in Delft3D and Unibest-CL+ simulations. 15 Figure 11: Offshore representative wave conditions for Collier County, FL. 16 Figure 12: Regional wave grid (white), intermediate wave grid (red) and local wave grids (yellow). 19 Figure 13: Wave propagation through regional domain. Offshore condition Hs=10.66 ft;Tp=7.85 s; PDir=309°; Wind speed=21.7 knots; Wind Dir.=330°. 21 Figure 14: Wave propagation through intermediate domain. Offshore condition Hs=10.66 ft; Tp=7.85 s; PDir=309°; Wind speed=21.7 knots; Wind Dir.=330°. 21 Figure 15: Wave propagation through local domain (Vanderbilt Beach). Offshore condition Hs=10.66 ft; Tp=7.85 s; PDir=309°; Wind speed= 21.7 kt; Wind Dir.=330°. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. 22 Figure 16: Wave propagation through local domain (Park Shore). Offshore condition Hs=10.66 ft; Tp=7.85 s; PDir=309°; Wind speed= 21.7 kt; Wind Dir.=330°. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line 22 Figure 17: Wave propagation through local domain (Naples Beach). Offshore condition Hs=10.66 ft; Tp=7.85 s; PDir=309°; Wind speed= 21.7 kt; Wind Dir.=330°. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. 23 Figure 18: Wave propagation through regional domain. Offshore condition Hs=5.74 ft; Tp=5.53 s; PDir=163°; Wind speed= 19.6 knots; Wind Dir.=169°. 23 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 82 of 260 Figure 19: Wave propagation through intermediate domain. Offshore condition Hs=5.74 ft; Tp=5.53 s; PDir=163°; Wind speed= 19.6 knots; Wind Dir.=169°. 24 Figure 20: Wave propagation through local domain (Vanderbilt Beach). Offshore condition Hs=5.74 ft; Tp=5.53 s; PDir=163°; Wind speed= 19.6 kt; Wind Dir.=169°. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. 24 Figure 21: Wave propagation through local domain (Park Shore). Offshore condition Hs=5.74 ft; Tp=5.53 s; PDir=163°; Wind speed= 19.6 kt; Wind Dir.=169°. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line 25 Figure 22: Wave propagation through local domain (Naples Beach). Offshore condition Hs=5.74 ft; Tp=5.53 s; PDir=163°; Wind speed= 19.6 kt; Wind Dir.=169°. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line 25 Figure 23: Instrument location. 28 Figure 24: Water level calibration simulation -North Domain. 29 Figure 25: Water level calibration simulation - South Domain. 30 Figure 26: Waves (right), currents (center) and sediment transport (left) maps associated to a northwest wave condition (top panels) and south wave condition (bottom panel) -Clam Pass. . 31 Figure 27: Waves (right), currents (center) and sediment transport (left) maps associated to a northwest wave condition (top panels) and south wave condition (bottom panel) - Doctors Pass. 32 Figure 28: Net sediment transport map-Calm Pass region. 33 Figure 29:Net sediment transport map -Doctors Pass region. 34 Figure 30: net sediment transport curve obtained from Delft3D simulation (negative values indicate transport towards the south). 35 Figure 31: Representative cross-shore profile at UNIBEST 37 Figure 32: Numerical grid for Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay. Each blue line crossing the coastline represents a grid division. 38 Figure 33: Numerical grid for Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay. Each blue line crossing the coastline represents a grid division. 39 Figure 34: Numerical grid for Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay. Each blue line crossing the coastline represents a grid division. 40 Figure 35: Beach profiles surveyed by CPE (2006) - Area 1: Vanderbilt Beach and Pelican Bay. 42 Figure 36: Beach profiles surveyed by CPE(2006) -Area 2: Park Shore. 43 Figure 37: Beach profiles surveyed by CPE(2006) -Area 3: Naples Beach. 44 Figure 38: Volumetric calibration for Vanderbilt Beach and Pelican Bay. 46 Figure 39: Volumetric calibration for Park Shore. 47 Figure 40: Volumetric calibration for Naples Beach. 48 Figure 41: Vanderbilt-Alternative M1 after the 3 year simulation. 51 Figure 42: Park Shore -Alternative M1 after the 3 year simulation. 52 Figure 43: Naples -Alternative M1 after the 3 year simulation 53 Figure 44: Park Shore—Comparison of Alternative M1 (structures) and M2 (no structures) after 3 years of simulation. 55 ii COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 83 of 260 Figure 45: Naples — Comparison of Alternative MI (structures) and M2 (no structures) after 3 years of simulation. 56 Figure 46: Naples— Comparison of Alternative M1 (structures) and M3 (T-groins) after 3 years of simulation. 58 Figure 47: Parabolic Bay shape adjustment for the north T-groin proposed by Alternative M3. The red line indicates the equilibrium coastline position. 59 Figure 48: Parabolic Bay shape adjustment for the south T-groin proposed by Alternative M3. The red line indicates the equilibrium coastline position. 59 Figure 49: Initial bathymetry without artificial reefs used by Delft3D model for Alternative 4 analysis 61 Figure 50: Initial bathymetry with artificial reefs (between monuments R-50 and R-53) used by Delft3D model for Alternative 4 analysis. 61 Figure 51: Differences between initial bathymetry maps with and without reefs -Alternative 4.62 Figure 52: Beach profile with and without artificial reef. 62 Figure 53: Impacts (red) and benefits (green) associated to the artificial reefs after 1 year of morphological simulation. 63 Figure 54: Vanderbilt — Results of Alternative M5 (2013 template) after 10 years of simulation. 65 Figure 55: Park Shore — Results of Alternative M5 (2013 template) after 10 years of simulation. 66 Figure 56: Naples—Results of Alternative M5 (2013 template) after 10 years of simulation67 Figure 57: Naples — Results of Alternative M6 (2013 template switching bypass location) after 10 years of simulation. 69 Figure 58: Park Shore — Results of Alternative M7 (2013 template + permeable tapered groins) after 10 years of simulation 71 Figure 59: Proposed spur at the southern jetty of Doctors Pass. 72 Figure 60: Delft3d results associated to a NW offshore wave condition ( Hs: 10 ft, Tp: 8.1 s, dir: 303.75°). Figures on top panels illustrate current conditions; figures on the bottom panels show scenarios considering the addition of the proposed structure. Results include wave fields (left), current velocity fields (centre) and sediment transport patterns(right) 73 Figure 61: Delft3d results associated to a South offshore wave condition ( Hs: 6 ft, Tp: 5.6 s, dir: 168.75°). Figures on top panels illustrate current conditions; figures on the bottom panels show scenarios considering the addition of the proposed structure. Results include wave fields (left), current velocity fields (centre) and sediment transport patterns(right) 74 Figure 62: Net sediment transport without the spur 75 Figure 63: Net sediment transport after the addition of the spur. 76 Figure 64: Impacts and benefits to the morphology associated to the addition of the spur. 76 Figure 65: Analytical solution based on Parabolic Bay shape equation. The red line indicates the equilibrium coastline position 77 Figure 66: Vanderbilt— Results of Alternative M9 (2013 template + feeder beach) after 10 years of simulation. 79 Figure 67: Park Shore—Results of Alternative M10 (2013 template +removal of structures) after 10 years of simulation. 81 Figure 68: Naples — Results of Alternative M1 1 (2013 template + switching bypass disposal location +removal of structures) after 10 years of simulation. 83 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 84 of 260 COLLIER COUNTY CONCEPTUAL RENOURISHMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS - NUMERICAL MODELING Table of Contents List of Tables Table No. Table 1: NAPLES, FL TIDAL DATUM 6 Table 2: Project area existing structure summary 12 Table 3: Delft3D-WAVE grids characteristics. 19 Table 4: Delft3D-WAVE model setup. 20 Table 5: Delft3D-FLOW grids characteristics 26 Table 6: Delft3D-FLOW model setup. 27 Table 7: UNIBEST grids characteristics 37 Table 8: UNIBEST model setup. 41 Table 9: List of the shore protection alternatives investigated. 49 Table 10: Bypass volumes and disposal timing and location. 64 List of Appendices Appendix No. A Wave/flow computational grids and bathymetries B Seasonal analysis of effects of structures on the coast iv COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-13 New Business 85 of 260 COLLIER COUNTY CONCEPTUAL RENOURISHMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS - NUMERICAL MODELING 1.0 MODELING OBJECTIVES 1.1 Objectives The performance of the beaches of Collier County and the locations of several erosion hot spots are described in a complementary engineering report that included an analysis of post- nourishment shoreline changes, erosion rates and historical aerials (CPE, 2011). Several alternatives were proposed in the report to address the erosion at the hot spots. These alternatives include placing additional fill in areas where fill templates were previously limited by hardbottom, integrating and improving the use of dredge spoils for hot spot mitigation, removing or modifying existing groins, and adding erosion control structures to mitigate acute erosion. This report summarizes the modeling results of a multiphase study to evaluate the effectiveness of existing structures, beach fill design templates, and hot spot management alternatives. The following list provides a summary of alternatives investigated in this modeling study: Alternative 1. 2006 Fill Template (nourishment only). Alternative 2. 2006 Fill Template removing the existing structures at Park Shore and Naples. Alternative 3. 2006 Fill Template with construction of T-head groins at Naples. Alternative 4. 2006 Fill Template with submerged artificial reefs at Park Shore. Alternative 5. 2013 Fill Plan with traditional disposal locations of dredged material from Doctors Pass. Alternative 6. 2013 Fill Plan switching disposal locations of dredged material and fill density at Doctors Pass region. Alternative 7. Fill Plan combined with permeable tapered groins at Park Shore hot spot. Alternative 8. Spur at southern jetty of Doctors Pass. Alternative 9. 2013 Fill Plan combined with additional fill at hot spot-Vanderbilt. Alternative 10. 2013 Fill Plan with no structures at Park Shore. Alternative 11. 2013 Fill Plan with disposal adjacent to inlet with no structures at Naples. 1 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 86 of 260 1.2 Summary of the Project Area's Coastal Environment The study area extends along 13 miles of coastline from Wiggins Pass to near Gordon Pass. Collier County is approximately 115 miles south of the entrance of Tampa Bay and approximately 100 miles west of Miami, Florida. The County is bordered to the west and southwest by the Gulf of Mexico, to the south by Monroe County, to the east by Dade and Broward Counties and to the north by Lee and Hendry Counties (Figure 1). The barrier beaches of Collier County are separated from the mainland by mangroves, salt marsh and small bays. The study area includes three inlets: Wiggins Pass, Clam Pass and Doctors Pass. Inlets interrupt the predominantly southern littoral drift and cause erosion of the adjacent beaches. The majority of shoreline is bordered by nearshore hardbottom. Historical analysis of the erosion rates has shown areas with gaps in the nearshore hardbottom tend to have higher erosion rates than shorelines bordered by continuous hardbottom. The effect of the hardbottom and its gaps on propagation of wave energy, and consequently, on sediment transport will be investigated as part of this modeling study. Collier County has maintained its beaches through the use of structures, beach nourishment, and inlet bypassing. Prior to 1996, groins were commonly used to slow the littoral drift and hold sand. Part of the initial nourishment project in 1996 was the removal of 36 groins from the shoreline. Several groins still remain in the project area and have an influence on the immediately adjacent beaches, forming fillets that change with the direction of wave approach. Since 1996, the County has nourished some portion of the beach every one to four years, placing nearly 2.27 million cubic yards in total. Sand sources have included offshore borrow areas, inlet bypassing, and truck hauls. Storms have regularly impacted the beaches of Collier County and are a primary cause of erosion. A series of storms that occurred prior to 2006 were so severe that the beach profiles were unable to recover. Although the majority of the beaches were renourished in 2006, all of the erosional losses were not addressed due to construction template restrictions imposed for hardbottom avoidance. Since construction, the shoreline has been impacted by several storms, most notably Tropical Storm Fay. Tropical Storm Fay had a significant impact upon shoreline width in 2008, but less impact upon the volume. This indicates that the sand is still within the active beach profile and not all has been lost. 1.2.1 Tides Tides at the project location are mixed tides. Typical observed tides near the Gulf shoreline (see Figure 2) appear in Figure 3. During the majority of the 14-day spring-neap cycle, there are two (2) high and two (2) low tides each day, with different high tide and low tide elevations. Published tidal datums at the location in Figure 2 appear in Table 1. Differences between the published tidal datums (LABINS, 2003) and from the site observations in Figure 2 are probably due to meteorological effects such as wind stresses. Although the mean tidal range in the Gulf, 2 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 87 of 260 based on the established tidal datums is approximately 2 feet, the tide range during spring tides can exceed 4 feet, as shown in Figure 3. BAREFOOT BEACH O ........ ,�..,�F 0 WIGGJNSPASS ` TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE R- OELNO Y1flCiG� � sw� 'v<-' PROJECT-� STATE PARK a lie• N TS LOCATION TAMPA ORLANDO ANA y ATZANTlC OCEAN ( HENDRY CO. 0 BOCA t•� ' RATON•� = 7 GULF N 700000 VANDERBILT mit..\. < 0 Q � OF , 7 m MEXICO -R30 O F MONROE Co. MEXICO f l EXISTING %D PIPELINE t CORRIDOR j Kfl W 4 R40 CLAM PASS ' SR 880 r N 600000 j t N PARK SHORE s i:, t " v. y DOCTORS PASS .{ . SR 886 ell 1116111 II;* SR 856 N e6oa0o NAPLES 1f,/ .Ow NAPLES N 660000 f�� `M. M� SR 84 •• NI LEGEND; EXISTING PIPEUNE CORRIDOR 4,..:4 PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR I EXPANDED TEMPLATE GULF I ':: : FEMA TEMPLATE OF A v .. EXISTING TEMPLATE ME,Y/CO NEW SEGMENTS ` pRT ROYAL agaVON A R70 FDEP MONUMENTS GORDON PASS .-1,, NOTES: 1. COORDPIATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON FLORIDA STATE 0 4000 8000 PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, 1 � 't i- 1 EAST ZONE,NORTH AMERICAN A 'Y.. }' T ttt��- 111 DATUM OF 1983(NAD83). u _, ' e �t,> W GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT 2 FILL WIDTHS ARE NOT TO SCALE. !., Figure 1: Project Location. 3 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 88 of 260 vs r C 81'48'40*W 81'48'30"W 81'48'20-W le NOAA 8725110 Station `, 4 n' m s0 81.48'40"W 81•48'30-W 81"4820'W Figure 2: Tide Gage Location. 4 COASTAL PLANNING &ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 89 of 260 0 0 0 0 .o �.- 0 co O tot - 0 , o f o 'L --1, O w co _ Cr: .. _ 1- g O Q ) -H ° — o V — - r c J .- a it O — 0 i+ I Cl) 1 o "'9- 0 N i" r 0 . — I ° 00 _ r- 0 0 Z 0 o --I 0 ° o --1 0. .- U) o u7 r 14) N U) M (4)0 I O Water Level (feet NAVD) o Figure 3: Typical Observed Gulf Tides Location: 26.1402°N,83.268°W(See Figure 2). 5 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 90 of 260 Table 1: NAPLES,FL TIDAL DATUM '�" NA .,.. .. HIGHEST OBSERVED WATER LEVEL(12/21/1972) 5.98 4.33 3.69 MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER(MHHW) 2.87 1.22 0.58 MEAN HIGH WATER(MHW) 2.61 0.97 0.33 NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM-1988(NAVD) 2.28 0.64 0.00 MEAN SEA LEVEL(MSL) 1.65 0.00 -0.64 MEAN TIDE LEVEL(MTL) 1.61 -0.04 -0.67 NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM(NGVD29) 1.00 -0.65 -1.28 MEAN LOW WATER(MLW) 0.60 -1.04 -1.68 MEAN LOWER LOW WATER(MLLW) 0.00 -1.65 -2.28 LOWEST OBSERVED WATER LEVEL(03/15/1988) -2.48 -4.13 -4.77 1.2.2 Waves Wave climate adjacent to the project area are primarily based on the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) WAVEWATCH III (WW3) hindcast at the grid point shown in Figure 4. The hindcast data is associated to the position 26.1402°N, 83.268°W at a nominal depth of 180 feet, assumed to be a deep water most of the time. It consists of wave/wind data time series including Hs (significant wave height), Tp (peak wave period), PDir (peak wave direction), wind velocity and wind direction, covering the time period between February 2005 and September 2010 at 3 hour intervals. The directional wave statistics at the WW3 grid point appear in Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7. Based on the NOAA wave hindcast, the prevailing wave directions are from the south- southeast, and the northwest, (Figure 5 and Figure 6). The hindcast suggests nearly half of the waves come from the landward direction. This is due to the prevailing winds approach from the east. The waves coming from the northerly direction bands during average conditions tend to be higher than the waves from the southern direction. Wave conditions associated to western directional bands have longer periods. As a result of the wave approaching direction, the prevailing sediment transport direction along most of Collier County is from north to south except in shadow of Sanibel Island and its shoals. 6 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 91 of 260 During the fall and winter months, the prevailing waves are from the northerly direction bands. During the late spring and summer months, the prevailing waves are from the southerly direction bands. The highest and longest waves under average conditions occur during the winter months. During the peak of hurricane season stochastic storms can increase the wave height. The specific wave cases used in the modeling study will be discussed later in this report. e711VW ermaw «,^mow • fair,,.. _ 6 ww 3(nd P�Ent 213 1402 N. u.2C8 1Et0 ft depth. 1Gt fi el 70"W I R'OWIN evorw Figure 4:Wave Hindcast Station. 7 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 92 of 260 Offshore wave rose(26.1402°N 83.268°W,180 ft depth) February 2005 to September 2010 NORPH '0' w+ WEST ,":{e • EA8'f Its(feet] ->10 ®6.10 1 —14-e r1 • 1-2 •0.1 8R£iN Figure 5: Directional distribution of wave period bins at the selected WW3 grid point. Offshore wave rose(26.1402°N 83.268°W,180 ft depth) February 2005 to September 2010 NOON SA in I 5' WEST • EAST I.p(v( ■>10 .8.10 ®4-6 .2-4 HOUTN Figure 6: Directional distribution of wave period bins at the selected WW3 grid point. 8 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 93 of 260 Directiortai Wave Statistics-NOANNCEP WW3 2005-2009 HaMCast Hs tat' •---T3415I3 310 30 100 00 no •n f0 t 240 20 t20 210 150 100 Figure 7: Maximum significant wave height(Hs)and wave period(Tp)per directional band at the selected WW3 grid point. 1.2.3 Winds Based on the wind data time series provided by NCEP/NOAA hindcast program for the same WW3 grid point and time coverage as the wave information, it can be concluded that the prevailing winds come from the easterly direction bands (Figure 8). The maximum wind speed between February 2005 and September 2010 was approximately 60 knots, occurring on October 24, 2005 during Hurricane Wilma(Figure 9). 9 COASTAL PLANNING &ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 94 of 260 Offshore wind mse(26.1402°N 83.268°W) February 2005 to September 2010 STN am" 7�y rc1 I • r... N }}J wind Velocity • x'26 °. .72.2e 18-22 14.18 1 10.14 6.10 5cx+1>t Figure 8: Directional distribution of wind velocity bins at the selected WW3 grid point. D1recAonai Wind Statistics-NOANNCEP WW3 2005-2009 Hincicast 8 2916 226 916 45 7126 675 270 80 20 2475 117.% r0 725 135 Sans 167 tai Figure 9: Maximum wind velocity per directional band at the selected WW3 grid point. 10 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 95 of 260 1.2.4 Sediments The existing beach was assumed to have sediments from Borrow Area T1 which were placed during the 2005/2006 renourishment project. The mean grain size of sediments sampled from the borrow area was 0.32 mm (CPE, 2011). The shell content ranges from 1% to 18%. The silt content of the borrow area sediments was 1.7%. Based on the Borrow Area T1 sand samples, the coastal sediments are fine grained quartz sand with low silt content. Given the low percentage of silt, the bottom damping of currents and waves occurs primarily through bottom roughness rather than viscous damping. Further information regarding the grain sizes and sediment densities used in the Delft3D model appears later in this report. 1.2.5 Structures The existing structures in the project area are listed on Table 2. These structures include the three small groin-like structures in the vicinity of Seagate Drive (R-45), the terminal groins on the north and south sides of Doctors Pass, the Naples Beach groin field between Doctors Pass and Gordon Pass (R58-R89). Alongshore offsets presented in Table 2 represent approximate distances in feet measured from monument to centerline of structure. The model's representation of the various structures is discussed later in this report. 11 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-13 New Business 96 of 260 Table 2 Project area existing structure summary. t g V� Ai*: `Wig rte r 3x'" '- X cOLL R1 �� "' AL N � i �I III * 4_ d aU�� ■ " 1O1 'MEN TRUCTU1. , ADDITIONAL N( , OFFSET TYPE DES* I 'TTC3 1 f 1 R-44 +500 Groin Rock pile(typical) 2 R-45 +430 Groin Rock pile(typical) 3 R-46 -330 Groin Rock pile(typical) DOCTORS PASS JETTIES Armor stone jetty(typical) 4 R-58 +000 Groin Rock pile(typical) 5 R-59 +300 Groin Rock pile(typical) 6 R-60 +265 Outfall Single pipe under rock pile 7 R-62 -250 Groin Rock pile(typical) 8 R-62 +650 Groin&Outfall Rock pile with adjacent double outfall 9 R-63 +535 Groin&Outfall Rock pile with adjacent single outfall 10 R-64 +000 Outfall Single pipe 11 R-65 +000 Outfall Single pipe 12 R-65 +410 Outfall Double pipe 13 R-66 +415 Outfall Single pipe 14 R-67 +400 Outfall Single pipe i 15 R-68 +430 Outfall Single pipe 16 R-69 +000 Outfall Single pipe 17 R-69 +350 Groin Pile cluster(PCG-18-1) 18 R-74 +500 Pier 12th Ave South(City of Naples) 19 R-79 +600 Groin Pile cluster(PCG-21-1) 20 R-80 +050 Groin Timber(typical) 21 R-80 +375 Groin Timber(typical) 22 R-80 +815 Groin Pile cluster(PCG-21-2) 23 R-81 +150 Groin Timber(typical) 24 R-81 +465 Groin Timber(short) 25 R-82 +100 Groin Timber(typical) 26 R-82 +580 Groin Pile cluster(PCG-22-1) 27 R-83 -275 Groin Timber(typical) 28 R-83 +175 Groin Timber(typical) 1 29 R-83 +500 Groin Timber(typical) 30 R-83 +670 Groin Timber(typical) 31 R-84 -100 Groin Timber(typical) 12 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 97 of 260 2.0 MODELING STUDY 2.1 Methods Three different models were applied to better investigate the causes of erosion problems at the project areas of Collier County, and to assess the effectiveness of existing structures, beach fill design templates, and hot spot management alternatives. On a first step Delft3D-WAVE model (which uses SWAN model formulations) was used for a detailed wave investigation. Secondly, from coupling with Delft3D-WAVE results, two other numerical models were applied: Delft3D-FLOW and UNIBEST-CL+. Delft3D-FLOW model was chosen to represent flow and sediment transport patterns at Clam Pass, Doctors Pass and their surroundings while UNIBEST-CL+ was used to simulate morphology changes and to test the performance of most of the proposed alternatives. Areas not covered by UNIBEST-CL+ due to its limitations when too close to inlets were also solved with Delft3D model. 2.1.1 Delft3D-WAVE (SWAN version 40.72AB) Waves approaching a coastline may refract and diffract due to the presence of shoals and channels or obstacles such as islands, headlands, or breakwaters. The effects of refraction are readily accounted for in phase-averaged (i.e., spectral) wave models. These models can also account for the generation, dissipation and wave—wave interactions of the waves in deep and shallow water(e.g., Booij et al., 2004). The effects of diffraction are traditionally computed with phase-resolving models such as mild-slope models or Boussinesq models. A combination of the two types of model capabilities is the third-generation spectral wave model SWAN. SWAN can be applied to simulate the evolution of random, short-crested wind-generated waves in coastal waters, estuaries, tidal inlets and lakes. The waves are described using the two- dimensional wave action density spectrum, even when non-linear phenomena dominate (e.g., in the surf zone). Therefore, the SWAN model can accurately transform offshore wave data into nearshore taking into account processes such as wave generation by wind; wave dissipation by depth-induced breaking, whitecapping and bottom friction; non-linear wave-wave interaction and wave propagation through obstacles. 2.1.2 Delft3D-FLOW (version 3.60.01.7844) Delft3D-FLOW (Deltares, formerly WL I Delft Hydraulics, 2009) is a numerical modeling system which simulates among other two-dimensional and three-dimensional hydrodynamic flow, computation of sediment transport and morphological changes as well as their interactions in time and space. 13 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 98 of 260 The numerical hydrodynamic modeling system Delft3D-FLOW solves the unsteady shallow water equations in two (depth-averaged) or in three dimensions. The system of equations consists of the horizontal equations of motion, the continuity equation, and the transport equations for conservative constituents. The sediment transport and morphology module supports both bed-load and suspended load transport. Based on the sediment transport estimates at each flow time step, the Delft3D model calculates the subsequent changes to the bathymetric surface. Typical time steps in Delft3D range from 1 second to 60 seconds. Water levels, currents, and bathymetric elevations are then sent to the Delft3D-WAVE model at each wave time step, which is on the order of 0.5 to 3 hours. 2.1.3 UNIBEST-CL+7.0 UNIBEST model (Deltares, formerly WL I Delft, 2010) is a coastal engineering tool in coast erosion control and management that can be applied to simulate the nearshore response of an alongshore nearly uniform coast where effects of wave breaking and wave-driven alongshore currents in combination with alongshore directed tidal currents are predominant on the basis of the single line theory. In shoreline models such as UNIBEST, the basic assumption is that only longshore transport is taken into account. That implies that no offshore losses or gains occur. The active area of the beach profile moves perpendicular to the shoreline without changing its shape during the process. The model then balances the sediment transport alongshore and its cross-shore distribution along the representative profile in response to the computed wave distribution, tides, and currents. Various initial and boundary conditions may be introduced as to represent a variety of coastal situations. Along the modeled coastline sediment sources and sinks may be defined at any location, to address inlet sediment gains, subsidence, offshore sediment losses, beach mining, etc. UNIBEST is indicated for modeling the morphological impacts of various coastal engineering measures, such as headlands, permeable and non-permeable groins, coastal revetments and seawalls, breakwaters, harbor moles, artificial sand bypass systems and beach nourishments. The effect of wave shielding (diffraction, directional wave spreading) behind coastal structures can also be incorporated in the model. Wave data can be derived from a variety of sources. Given this study's objectives, UNIBEST-CL+ was selected for its ability to model the shoreline evolution near small scale features such as groins and time efficiency in model setup and production of results. 14 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 99 of 260 2.2 Model Data Unibest-CL+ model and Delft3D model were loaded with waves, wind and tide data. Offshore wave/wind data were obtained from NCEP/NOAA hindcast database. These data was used as input on Delft3D-WAVE model, which accounts for wave propagation and generation processes in shallow waters. Some simplification on the input data is required to make the modeling process viable. The simplified information used as input to the models is presented below. 2.2.1 Tides for modeling Unibest-CL+ and Delft3D considered a harmonic tide on shoreline and morphology simulations. The simplified tidal cycle has a period equal to 12 hours and oscillates between MHW and MLW, with a tidal range of 2.01 feet. Mean sea level in the model were assumed to be at -0.64 ft NAVD, as indicated in Naples, FL tidal datum (Table 1 and Figure 10). Schematized tidal range-Collier County,FL 0.5 0- - -0.5- m 1 - - -1.5- - -2 i 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Time(hours) Figure 10: tidal oscillation used in Delft3D and Unibest-CL+simulations. 2.2.2 Waves and winds for modeling For the morphological modeling (Delft3D) and shoreline modeling (UNIBEST-CL+) procedures there is a need of reduce the wave/wind climate into a limited number of representative conditions. The offshore (WW3) wave/wind conditions were divided into 65 "square" bins of offshore wave height and direction. For each bin a representative wave/wind parameters was defined (Figure 11). 15 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 100 of 260 The selection of the representative wave conditions was performed by: 1) Defining a wave direction window includes all the waves that approach the study area. Based on the shoreline orientation the directional range considered was 157.5 degrees to 360 degrees. Wave conditions from outside this range (0 degree to 157.5 degrees) were assumed to propagate toward offshore areas, being unimportant to the study are morphodynamics; 2) Creating directional (PDir) and wave height (Hs) bins with resolution of 22.5 degrees and 2 feet, respectively. Offshore wave conditions with Hs lower than 1 feet were considered calm conditions, having limited importance to coastal processes and were excluded from analysis; 3) Defining a representative wave/wind condition associated to each bin, where the representative Hs and Pdir are the central points of the bins, the representative Tp is the average peak period and the representative wind is the resultant wind vector associated with the wave/wind conditions found in the class. 4) Defining the frequency of occurrence associated to each class based on the number of offshore wave conditions found in each class. Classes with frequency of occurrence equal to zero were excluded. Representative Wave Conditions-Collier County,FL 25 ■ Wave records(2005-2010 time series) 23- Dir x Hs Classes • Representative Wave Conditions 21 -• • • 19 - 17 • • • 15 • - 13 $ • • •. • : • 11 O • • ., •. • • •• 3 Po'J-a"~C: , ,, i( r • 'b•p 3?' hti1 ,� + L4�e tt<.t ,t �s�r•.., . . j' !, _ '``ASS .Y .1 •r• -..;;k°�'i..a j;.."•i >>a'` ��F�3�,..; Tr w".� �t w f.?�-1��'H'`Ye�2F�P�'x�;+..;:��_.Jr ,y�'-•aL�M`z; o 2i .; 6 4 I; .. t ,". 157.5 180 202.5 225 247.5 270 292.5 315 337.5 360 Offshore wave direction(0) Figure 11: Offshore representative wave conditions for Collier County,FL. 16 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 101 of 260 The wave and wind information presented in this section were used as input to Delft3D-WAVE model (SWAN formulation), which accounts for wave propagation and wind wave generation processes. Wind data was also used as input in Delft3D, which computes wind induced currents. 2.2.3 Bathymetry data for modeling The primary sources of topographic and bathymetric data sources for this model study were: • Surveys of Doctors Pass (December 2006) and Clam Pass (2006) by Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. (CPE). • The July 2009 surveys of the internal bays. • The June 2006 beach profile surveys of Collier County (to a depth of-11.3 feet NAVD) by CPE. • The 2004 Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) survey by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Joint Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Technical Center of Expertise (JALBTCX). • Combined surveys from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Geophysical Data System (GEODAS). • Digital Elevation Models from the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS). • NOAA Nautical Charts (number: 11429 and 11426). Conversions between MLLW and NAVD were based on the tidal datums in Table 1. A ratio of 1200.0 m to 3937.0 U.S. feet was utilized to convert between feet and meters. 17 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 102 of 260 2.3 Model configuration, parameter selection,and calibration 2.3.1 Delft3D-WAVE Five computational grids were created to perform the computation of wave propagation processes from deep waters (WW3 information), through shallow waters, to Collier County shore (Figure 3): 1. A regional wave grid designed to examine regional wave transformation processes. 2. An intermediate wave grid designed to examine detailed shallow water wave propagation processes. The intermediate grid was nested within the regional wave grid. 3. Three local wave grids designed to examine detailed wave processes near the shoreline. The local grids were nested within the intermediate wave grid. Local wave grids provided the wave information required by Delft3D-FLOW and Unibest-CL+. • North wave domain - between R-18 and R-62 (Vanderbilt Beach, Clam Pass, Pelican Bay, Park Shore, Doctors Pass and Naples). • South wave domain - between R-52 and R-88 (Park Shore, Doctors Pass and Naples) • Doctors Pass wave domain -between R-51 and R-73. All five grids are constructed in Cartesian coordinates based on the Florida State Plane Coordinate System, East Zone, North American Datum of 1983 (FLW-NAD83). Grid characteristics are summarized in Table 3. The model's developers (Deltares) have established guidelines for smoothing and orthogonality that were used in this model study. The smoothing represents the change in cell size between two rows of grid cells. A smoothing value of 1.1 indicates that the cell size between two rows of grid cells increases by 10%. The maximum smoothing value recommended by the model's developer is 1.2. The orthogonality is equivalent to the angle between the longshore and cross-shore grid lines. The angles between the longshore and cross-shore grid lines should be at least 87.7 degrees within the area of interest. All 5 grids follow the Deltares guidelines for smoothing and orthogonality. 18 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 103 of 260 Numerical grids used in Delft3D-WAVE computations 1200000 rt 1000000 e 800000 0 600000 W 400000 200000 .200000 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 FL-East NAD83-Eastfng(ft) Figure 12: Regional wave grid(white),intermediate wave grid(red)and local wave grids(yellow). Table 3: Delft3D-WAVE rids characteristics. 1 '� 8 M .n, '�w Joi 10111. i4 f ; �� : d , I ' Re_ional 7713 8953 61 10033 10827 121 Intermediate 899 2762 93 860 2585 191 Local North 39 203 127 118 243 233 Local South 38 558 104 59 266 324 Doctors Pass 26 496 122 30 200 292 19 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 104 of 260 Computational wave grids and the bathymetric contours associated appear in Appendix A. The coastal structures in the areas covered by the local domain were included in the simulation as obstacles to the wave propagation. Delft3D-WAVE model coefficients and definitions are presented in Table 4. Since SWAN is a spectral wave model, the modeler is able to set up the resolution of the spectral bins (both in frequency and directional spaces). The same frequency space was used within the 5 wave computational domains: 24 frequency classes from 0.05 Hz to 1 Hz. Directional space was considered circular (i.e. from 0° to 360°). The resolution of the directional space was varied though the different wave domains: regional wave domain computations considered 45 directional bins (classes with 8°); wave propagation on intermediate wave domain were conducted considering 90 directional classes (spectral resolution of 4°); finally, the directional spectrum of local wave domains were divided into 180 classes, resulting in 2°bins. Table 4: Delft3D-WAVE model setup. D WAS Model] finit nut 10 Nypld��i ,N Spectrum Shape JONSWAP Peak Enh. Fact. 3.3 Forces Radiation Stress 1 Depth induced Breaking (B&J model); Alpha/Gamma 0.73 JONSWAP Bottom Friction; Type/Coefficient 0.067 Wind grown Activated Quadruplets Activated Whitecapping Komen et al. Refraction Activated Frequency shift Activated Example results of Delft3D-WAVE are presented in Figure 13 to Figure 22. From regional domain results it can be observed the substantial dissipation of wave energy occurs while the offshore wave conditions propagate thought the shallow continental shelf. On intermediate domain results it can be observed the influence of the bathymetry and coastline contour in the wave propagation (e.g. the shadowing effect of Sanibel Island to Collier County during NW wave conditions). Finally, from local domains it is noticed the large amount of energy dissipated from deeper to shallower waters (i.e. bottom friction). Further, it can be viewed that bathymetric features acting in different spatial scales, from regional contours to gaps in the reefs, influence the wave height near the shore, where sediment transport and morphological processes play the role. 20 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 105 of 260 Hs 10.66 ft Tp:7.85 s Dirp:309.38° Wind Sped.21,7 kt Wind Dir 330.25• 11 1200000 , v'. 10 lit , 9 1000000 8 g 800000 7 6 1 800000 ..., 4 5 : ,4 u. 400000 { w � " 3 «a 200000 + 4 ' 2 s�+i war 1 0 0 -200000 0 200000 400000 800000 800000 1000000 FL-East NADS3..Esstn0 tft) Figure 13: Wave propagation through regional domain.Offshore condition Hs=10.66 ft;Tp=7.85 s; PDir=309°;Wind speed=21.7 knots;Wind Dir.=330°. Hs:10 66 ft Tp 7,85 s (airp.309.38° Wind Speed:21.7 kt Wind Dr 330,25' ,. 11 600000 N• .,i 10 Sir, ,s.O . 0 •.... 4c 750000 gQ moos .,. "Y `r"ti`N.wN.i.^.▪ti ...6 650000 \\ ‘N.^.\\N. 000000 'i* 6+.A.\\*.,. _ ' `"+..'.\ .`.w .3 1s, ▪`.N.a,. 550000 '..1' "s.'.`."s0.%,:. .... 2 1 500000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 0 FL-E 41 NAD83-Es,g(1t) Figure 14: Wave propagation through intermediate domain.Offshore condition Hs=10.66 ft;Tp=7.85 s; PDir=309°;Wind speed=21.7 knots;Wind Dir.=330°. 21 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 106 of 260 M.10110i01 SP ISS pp tkk t00 311 w«e hop otop an 0.0 `"4"4"'."4"110,00.***,"94,•o f; tp L. &`r .� ,, R'V* E4 i oo, 14 \ 1 3 a>,,. `t y eao0o0 . 2 .<.}. ) \\°.4'x°4\'x'x`4'. .a»I s' .,ra fix+"4 3x44 ax4 4' 1 ``x",.O"404.`x"'.`.'-*`. .a �. 1 . 0 3.19000 JMlUp00 3tM111c sot. .c. a x a 3, an » ”, ,“ aw EL{*.,MOW-Ew1+p Nn 1411) Figure 15: Wave propagation through local domain(Vanderbilt Beach).Offshore condition Hs=10.66 ft; Tp=7.85 s; PDir=309°;Wind speed=21.7 kt;Wind Dir.=330°.Dashed line in left panel represents-12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. ,..ippepti TP?NW PIP.10030 wM11.41.i.4R.a av D..++ C" '4"4`x*x"4.4.."**.^*',... .. ,t 3' *ui 1.44 r4'4 y.'",04.e4`Y,,.a4`t to *...,+....,., 4`.00.`4`i i"4 'i S.F�' t a N.L i. emx '4"x".''."4'i"4 i 4 .N. yp, �� YAk°n� woo,. -�" `....N. N. '"w'+i`,`.. ."*. 8 c4ia`".°".,�,.`a x....\""K"x". gam. 1 q . 1890000 "x.i"i`',. .\\ .,q„` :.8 t f.•" Mw '`.'4"x"4 . .... x'4",."" t (tfx- I E'.^A'°."k"x`4'x 4 4`xA 4 _ ■ I .a�i- .-,..... 22727 ie 0°.013 .4 .`4`.4 s ma � 4�.`4 '"x`S`.`4�.0`*: 0000`400'.00 3 e, ,. 00000`4 400 t yy 2 000000`4 .004. 3, yyyTTT '- R.n. snoop ,4,4"+.",..:`'x`.``a"°.`'S ..' .......1 mos..,, Gam . 30011° maw 300010 M s' ,r •• FL too PAM-E... t) .wry)} Figure 16: Wave propagation through local domain(Park Shore).Offshore condition Hs=10.66 ft;Tp=7.85 s; PDir=309°;Wind speed=21.7 kt;Wind Dir.=330°. Dashed line in left panel represents-12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. 22 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 107 of 260 W 1O*O(* IP 1115x0 OR 30*36 Wa.�rt..q,0 a*.a" "Ow% 4`'VV`'y`. ti`4 .. OacKa4 Rw './.. '° , rayr , , '] 4�.4`.,,.`\-.`4\""�'o I...,her.. ..4,{. 7 a want M" \.,'4„,V"• 4'"4 N• ~..'.44 w. d A.1 N'v4'•.'a".'4'?+Y'dyti .i.� €, 4.. .w Il_b.,.-.. ' 1 1461300 @ J\, ". a*. .' ".,.'4y - ..a.i a \"4.,4,.`,'`I.N.`"."'4 t wS \4\NS.,',.,",* NN N `v 11 w *36000 \.,4,,."y'+�.` ”.l\`w ` t 4 ■ 65+000 _a. 3 j ■ 651600 `\' 4▪ 'r"4'*.\N.0. } 2 ,,j N.N,^'4`+.'.*.".".,s '4 . Ni i 1 { .`4`S.▪"'t N.,*",,,.'****,4 vota. 4aap f ) . i 382000 -.._....>._J116000 UMW...... .. 3 0 i ., . .iI i. . . Ft Ego NAO*8.Eagle*(10 tb Ma Figure 17: Wave propagation through local domain(Naples Beach).Offshore condition Hs=10.66 ft;Tp=7.85 s; PDir-309°;Wind speed=21.7 kt;Wind Dir.=330°. Dashed line in left panel represents-12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. Hs:574 ft Tp:5.53 s Dtrp;163.13' Wind Speed: 19.59 kt Wind Dir 169.234 11 rtt 1200000 1 t i t & ' to 1 1 titt 9 1000000 1 k 1 ftti: 11 lift a t fttt 600000 [ t 1 t 1 1 t It 1 1 't tilt t M Alt tttttt It e 1t1 III ? ft i 000000 111 1 it ! ?i t 1 t t t �5 111 i1 tt ! ttttt - 1111 III ! tttttt 4 ttttlttt tttitt 400000 kiii t t t 1 1 1 1.1 1 1 11tttttt 11ttttt 3 11 1 t 1 ltttttt ttitttt lit 1ttt ` 1111tiitttttltt it5tt 1i ilt l t t tt .f`2 20000 0 t t t t t j t t t t t fi t t1ttttt 1l !'4 1 11 0 0 -200000 0 200000 400000 800000 800000 1000000 FL•Ea st NA083•EaEt ng(ft) Figure 18: Wave propagation through regional domain.Offshore condition Hs=5.74 ft;Tp=5.53 s; PDir=163°;Wind speed=19.6 knots;Wind Dir.=169°. 23 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 108 of 260 Hs:5 74 ft Tp:5.53 s pity:163.13• Wind Speed 1959 kt Wind Da 169 23' 11 600000 '.'. ' 10 tt1 f t t 1 0 8 750000 I t t I t I t t I I t t- f i " tpi1ttl e 1# 1 €700000 1 t t t t t t 1 t �! 7 ttt t t ' t ' t : ; i S t� i tlt / ft ft , iyes0000 11tttlttl # e} t tttttt ,� , t t tttlttt '.: k 600000 T t f t f t t t tIIItttt4 3 590000 I i ? : . t tf t 1 500000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 0 Rt.EW NAOI3.E.sb g tit) Figure 19: Wave propagation through intermediate domain.Offshore condition Hs=5.74 ft;Tp=5.53 s; PDir=163°;Wind speed=19.6 knots;Wind Dir.=169°. Hi 974 tR! TP 5.911.4 dR:19313 141n414,044.0*.b..M 7#°t"7-/-7 / 11 f f f f f f f.f F a1 r 8 fffflll// 10 . :I fflfff}f,ti: .-0.1 'ft/If/tit 44 6 I r. fftfffllli/ '', fffflfflfl ' ' Hfflfflttl° „ 6 '. �, fffffllllll le fffffllllltt , 7 lffffif/fit/ , I11111111411,/ .1 _.. ._ ff1flffffttl - 1 1111111111t41. 1..,1 `'��__ 1111111111/4i., 5 j -._-�. !645560 ffffffflftit 6 ^,x 1111 f tat Ht./ 11., I1fflfltflll, 3 1ffffflllft i .i �.-- t esw -. f 1 f f! f ft t fif + 2 , lffffflllt,tl 1ff1ff11titi n4i { ff/111111t>7r 1 . /fflf1111t1t ' , __ i,*.11l/ 111 . ' 0 3,7011) 3(hxo MOW 31:000 1R 74 4.. 1, +, x. .x r ft,Cm NAM-E+w 1t° 14 fib Figure 20: Wave propagation through local domain(Vanderbilt Beach).Offshore condition Hs=5.74 ft; Tp=5.53 s; PDir=163°;Wind speed=19.6 kt;Wind Dir.=169°.Dashed line in left panel represents-12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. 24 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 109 of 260 44F 5741!1 TP 553m pR 16313 WM MNyyyP,R,P.1, 66°°°6 "Try i T-TT „7„.'7,.-7 -.+{4 11 «�. '?;may° r ..,. .., 1_... 1 1 t/t f / t J 1 I i / toll// ///il 1D tttffttttft ,,: —p r ttt /tltttrrl.a i tilt / it / 1rr, o t/tttlttttJ • o ittttltJtt / " "' a ... tttttfttrrJ' .., t. tt t/l / t t r, of It1tttttl// 7 f / I /1///// /:� "_` " ` ,, fttlttfttt> r —1 /it/fllllll *3.3 r.... /// // ,/,/, / I:. 4 , z ffltt/tf/tJ t �� /5 $ ttfl// //J, W /1 /tt ? ,, ,, $ "°:° ttfilltl 11,11`,40, 4 tt /ltttt/ tJ : 111111tllt / ;' 3 „ 11111111111;14" _ •�� f Ifftf/ tf/t/ s°:= . '"i ttttttttftt 42 tffttlfttt l bf°° ltit/ I 1.' D°** i ttf111111t . ' f l..L JJ!:t - � ' 366°°p 3M6d6 5105DCD zr rn U 4* a4 '• 4* 34 M 1N 4 PLAfi NAM EWA%it A1 Figure 21: Wave propagation through local domain(Park Shore).Offshore condition Hs=5.74 ft;Tp=5.53 s; PDir-163°;Wind speed=19.6 kt;Wind Dir.=169°.Dashed line in left panel represents-12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. FitA74fib TP553(R CAR 16311 Wave yPPR y 67°aoo 1`i r n , t r ,- i 11 ///1111 /r `' ttl1/11/1 • o ttttthl/1t� 4 10 1 / ltlltft / . ' it ■ 4„ 111// / / 4/ ° ' t, a //!hilt ,t �i _ ., itlf if/ t/1r_ � 6646°5 tttttttiJI ' a �„ 1 ttttlllltt . °5 fft/ tlIJtt ' 7 ss I' ft/ 0/ / /t/ i , ,,r flltttt/tt S. a _090 rifftht/t tfltttft/t ',• � i• / ttt/ / flit ■ .° IS w tit /tit/ r/ ... i ttttlttltl , tthflttt /l , ■rr, // / /l// tt /l ,-a'� / /// /tht �A ° 3 /// / hill/ a , .a.1 D 4 ; ( { IRMO /11/ 1/ 11 / , , ,,, III/t/1/tttft1 if;;II lt/l/,t J, . 1 _LW ii[I! 363,7°° M65° MOW 304000 FL tam NAM-EAY'17 At W A Figure 22: Wave propagation through local domain(Naples Beach). Offshore condition Hs=5.74 ft;Tp=5.53 s; PDir=163°;Wind speed= 19.6 kt;Wind Dir.=169°. Dashed line in left panel represents-12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. 25 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 110 of 260 2.3.2 Delft3D-FLOW Hydrodynamic, sediment transport and morphology computations were conducted using Delft3D model. Three computational grids were created to represent the study area. The north flow domain extends approximately 7.75 miles in alongshore direction, from monument R-19 to R-61, including Vanderbilt Beach, Pelican Bay, Clam Pass, Park shore and Doctors Pass. The cross shore extension is approximately 2 miles, through depths of approximately 22 ft NAVD. South flow domain extends approx. 5.7 miles along the shore, covering the area between monuments R-54 and R-87 (including Doctors Pass and Naples Beach). The cross shore extension of south flow domain is similar to the north flow domain, approximately 2 miles. Doctors Pass flow domain covers a smaller area in relation to north and south domain, but with higher resolution. The alongshore extension of this computation grid is approx. 3.2 ft (between monuments R-53 to R-71). As the other two flow grids, the cross shore dimension of Doctors Pass flow domain is about 2 miles. The grids are constructed in Cartesian coordinates based on the Florida State Plane Coordinate System, East Zone, North American Datum of 1983 (FLW-NAD83). All the three grids attend the specifications of smoothness and orthogonality suggested by Delft3D model developers (Deltares). The resolution and the number of cell of the flow grids described above are presented in Table 5. Computational flow grids and the bathymetric contours associated appear in Appendix A. Table 5: Delft3D-FLOW I rids characteristics. Crostskatre Direction agshore fraction Max. ��yg ♦ xa$y',dp j €eino ,1111,, North 24 324 126 36 362 497 South 25 351 126 40 671 420 Doctors Pass 17 325 154 23 177 372 The following structures were included in the Delft3D-FLOW model as "thin-dams", or features along a grid line that break or block flow: • The terminal groins on the north and south sides of Doctors Pass; • Park Shore and Naples groins; • Naples Beach pipe outfalls; • Naples Beach pier; Delft3D-FLOW model parameters and definitions are presented in Table 6. The simulations were performed in 2DH mode (depth-averaged). 26 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 111 of 260 Table 6: Delft3D-FLOW model setup. _ F . Vii i s 1 9a } "—"4t2 :,i�:.Rah�-'. M�4y.��., a� � —„1. Gravity 9.81 m/s2 Hydrodynamic Water Density 1025 kg/m3 Constants Air Density 1 kg/m3 Formula Chezy Bottom Roughness Uniform Value U=65;V=65 Stress Formulation Due to Wave Forces Fredsoe Viscosity/Diffusivity Horizontal Eddy Viscosity 1 m2/s Horizontal Eddy Diffusivity 10 m2/s Reference Density fror Hindered Settling 1600 kg/m3 Specific Density 2650 kg/m3 Sediment Dry Bed Density 1600 kg/m3 Median Sediment Diameter(D50) 0.25 mm Initial sediment layer thickness at bed mapped Equilibrium Sand Concentration Profile at Inflow ON Boundaries Spin-up Interval Before Morphological Changes 710 min Minimum Depth for Sediment Calculation 0.1 m Sediment Transport Parameters Default Morphology Factor for Erosion of Adjacent Dry Cells 0.5 Current-related reference concentration factor 1 Current-related transport vector magnitude factor 1 Wave-related suspended transport factor 1 Wave-related bed-load transport factor 1 Tide levels obtained at the NOAA Tide Gage 8725110 on the Naples Pier (Figure 2: Tide Gage Location. Figure 2) were used as input on Delft3D-FLOW model. The model results were compared with measurements at several tide gages — namely: Harbour Drive, Gulfside Clam Pass, Gulfside Doctors Pass, South Seagate presented on Figure 23. Measurements were performed by PBS&J (Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis, 2009). An 8 days period between August 15th, 2009 and August 23`d, 2009 was used for the flow verification simulations. The verification of water levels was performed both for north and south (Figures 24 and 25) flow domains. 27 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 112 of 260 r " gv . South 8r Y6$ g „ Orrery , Ih+nrr Clans Et,sv rt a .., Lau((3tC!rt C36'1i.YGr S PAs. ��, - GuHSidt Ctsrrs "4o tfi se,jrtc Dr So 1th sr.Ye,tr 9r °�.,• F " ♦ water Lrwit7) *". .. Wars i."44*ad Citrate ft) r. 1 r rr.rte e 1'1{FM Y YI1'41i.tK Maw Mhwmewi tr (1A N1 PAS S—I M►TIWMENT DEPLOYMENT • lSIR UFO 4+1011 u0% Figure 23: Instrument location. Initial sediment layer thickness was mapped in order to account for the presence of hardbottom in the simulations. The hardbottom has been mapped annually using side scan survey techniques since 2003. The results of dives confirm the line established by side scan survey results. The sediment layer thickness was defined to be zero in the areas where the bed composition was identified as hardbottom. It means that hardbottom areas cannot be eroded or behave as a source of sediment to the littoral drift during the simulation. In the rest of the domain it was specified a sand layer with 16 ft of thickness. Delft3D-FLOW is able to couple with Delft3D-WAVE to compute wave induced currents, sediment transport and bed changes. Additionally, the hydrodynamic model can provide water level, currents and bed level information to be used in wave model computations. The 65 representative wave conditions were simulated using Delft3D suite in coupling mode (computing waves, hydrodynamics, sediment transport and bed level changes). Delft3D-FLOW was also forced by the schematized tides and winds described previously. Schematic results of waves, currents and sediment transport associated to a northwest and a south wave conditions are presented in Figure 26 and Figure 27. 28 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 113 of 260 § § 8 0 § I 1 'g 0 . g ' . '. , . - § . 8 — _ •., - 0 0 a 0 '....,,, . § § . • 0 8 ,,, : rtc:(°." — _ g yr, , I- , g ..... $ \ ,., ,.„, •a- N.. "--> a, (N cn 8 6 ,.../ 8 6 § 2 ...- 8 .- " ''''' _ _ Q tij _ fr _ o o 6 j — o Go 0 c5 — o Lii co g 2 g Lij . U) a 2 0 ix 0 (.0 0 2 ce 2 rt _ a) ce To . Ira 8 > 8 2 . 0 0,) ...) > 0 . 0 0 _ Q 0 — g — g 2 — _ cn - 5 - 0 tt 5 ..- m ' ,- ir) .- 0 0 4- 03 0 . 0 to ta I a) 0 433 a> CL § _. g E _ ( _ „„q o _ - (9) _. co . - .., 0 0 0 0 0 0 I , a :- 79 0 8 0 eS \ . 0 0 § H _ Q r-- — _ — .. — _ F,- N. § ., 8 co , ...,, co 8 ,, § Q _ Q ' Q . — CO - t CO \-. — rz iS ifl ‘,. § . 0,0 ,,,. c:, H , 1 ,- 1 , 1 § 1 S o mil § . § I , 1 1 , . I Nr CV 0 C 'T- C4 0 c.? sr,.. sr rsi a c., sr,_ V' Cs1 0 t",:l llt: g Me g g i 0 jaaj laej Wei Figure 24: Water level calibration simulation-North Domain. 29 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 114 of 260 § § 1 i •% Q Q Q , co co co 8 8 8 — — — ......„„, . . C>. . § § _ — -.... _ Q . g ...... _ . . g g 4... •■••••• o . ..... 4., CV Lii ------,„, ....-> Q g 2 2 cc To ct (-----' to a Ct. a 25 _ -, co o O3 za . 0 . _ _ Q 0 0 0 8 0 cs, — g Q 0 0 0 , 0 „ 0 . . . ,,c,,,,, 0 . ,. ,\ . J , g i. g 17 N 0 N Tr.. v. N 0 N /.,... V N 0 C14 ..T.,._ lee; leeJ 0 mei 0 Figure 25: Water level calibration simulation-South Domain. 30 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. .. I ei g - a i i R . ,, a ..,,,, 7 7 r.,' ■b 9 a 1..•,,,,-!°, , 1 Y 657 1 I % t,.. , 1 if 1 x .2 . A .-,..,. . I 1$ > ti o II 4,! e isoi II I. ”A IL' re ; 1 r g § 400040N-€00,4.1 0.3AI ;3 0 Z i 2 .t _ ' . a a op 6.4.0. E10010.3 id ,v, ,., :C' e' Z g a LU 1 0 '111111 -— , 1!±., ,2 i ... I:.!I•Is r; ;i 7=--it.7fitiffii.-iiii7:1:1.i ,i 6 I 1- *tr t t 1 t 1';ttt5.311t%titliSttl"::,-E,0,1:'.„9.?.,1 x 1 i - ..1:41x..,64::: .. „ ;...s..3,,, --ii"),41,f,.;.. I < 1 I i .:. 1 ,,, z„::•:,...i.'503:4;,,,,:.:::1'. : iv :,,,,t,.a.„`i'.: a-r-4,11,7*.u., :',.•;44:1,+i:,..rWA'..', 1 a 0 0 . 'd''!"',.', :":'-',. ,70*^... "-*''':-*.•''"9' '::,,,:.-t ',',,'tf..."* .0''..■*-.-'1 . ''::.t;i':, '1' '';'..2'...=,71-L,',:;34!kr;I:;-•$:'''',„:;!!"'''',RT-'11'P'.', st E , ' 2 i I 00 - awypoN LSOVN,"'3" I 8 01)01100aN-ttiavN on-1.1 . ^ " --- . .., r - ° a * : a 0 ''''' .. : 0 A z AA .,.: A 1, ' , AAt , 1 " . . pt„, .„ * i ---/--1-- . ix Fi2 1:24,V;7".:;$,'.,,,it.. 4 § i g ", ‘..." =,, '' ■ :',. '-'1 „ „ • -, R! —i: , l' ;`, , , , '1",„ .■.^ .,`: g : ., '''. ti' 1 3,1,; .‘:. i", 1•:,,. `::',. ::',' "i.: 1: '=", :. i 1 i 1 i': ::•'. s. ;-'. ..':'`Z. ..*:" '':"' I -t i:, .", ":;‘, ::.. :::..:z. '::'. ■ : ■ c 1 ;' „iz, .i, 1 1 %. i8 , -•: Z. 77. 7'.... ...''. 1:„ ,,..„,ZZ:°- 1-* -----" 1,'4., Y.: ::: ...• , t°-- 7',-- 1 I 1 i i 1 00 001,40N-"a""311 2 2 00 0004taN 2 I .... _ , c t . -. , ., vnot „,,,,,,,,,,, ' '''''.1 ,,,,,,,,f,,.'s'-is'''''1,,:6'.:‘•,-,..t.,,,.....,...'.,:--0;:',,,s;-',.,':-..,7`...71;':,....7,,.:',..'_41p.5,,,x.,.v 1 cz,:' 1.'1 g i . .: ,,..), .,,e"2.',„. ;.;.::*;:"'"'.."' 1 ,2 ...;.11, lte''''''.. i• .... r.,-,-..,::, If 'El . g i 1 i 1 i ,I '2 ' I 'a ik. Is kg I i t i s § x i a .A. 1 § . 'A f .ae 7, i * 1 I i a 1 1 § i 8 a' § ta 0 1 1 i i I .., - . - ..! 4,- z ,...: g z N lara-U 4, :. a)sufw°N.'egav „ o ' - ' ' '"-'1 2 w , „ 00 auw:.ceav;tae3-14 i' ‘ 3 UJ WI WI " . " trP ii,;.::,=-5*:---'::: z .., '' ;,,%:-.;:::,-;.... ..,`";';'..- ! "' ..„;;...,..;;S=L.-:,,,,:,;;S%,-----.;-.8 .ia z ---,.g 60 ..,, -, 0.:';'. .7..:--r;;;;,.'71- 1 .:. : ...,3.,Hr4.;:1 i IrP ,?".%. , I t.,$ -,' -/•;'..'";;';i';',. .4.,;7.",1;t7:7::::..",;"•.'-1-`;'!'.teTi°.::. ° -, ''''''4**12'-'-`.:•..171-17 .7:Tr'''''' i i i.j. '„.., '''';7',4:.:1471-1;.!".5",::"::::r. ' ."-It"..:-i-il."11.11"j■=1'-',..5.:-..:1-:''St. ",..*.'.7:7;.:1**; -*OtiV,tei 1 g ', i . - ;, t4:t,-:.:i-,-;-.,!4.1 r:' ,-.. ;,.,-;,,i-,„7:,1,,,,,l,r1::,,,,,,,t,,, ,,1"w„;:ik,',„7-„,'-'2',;-.!..,--11 tp,. u) a ],-,, 111:3"r7::-;0'..i.1.-It...11„,-;;',*5.,:itlt.--7,7%.1,;',:j.',44;';',,7„--7-°:'14. ,,V1 e 0 5 . - ' Si t.4:1"4=1 "...tal,"“t-V;":1,,,V*,,,,,i-,',-;:«..i,';,-;.-4;i..7.4,;--11101011':!-.:*1'44';.-?1,, $ e 1 is - ,...; ;:,:.;;;:)..1... ,., -,-,,::::- . ., §...4 .1- 4:01;0,,,,;,::t,,-.:.,,,,,,:v.::+:"4„,,,,,,,t,;‘.c-........:_.,.:!,.:.,:,,t4p,,... e a 3, i--:,, .......",p,:-::,,c0.!14.-..,,,,,. .,,,, ,,::-,.. ,,„.,: ... .-*;,:," i:44:::;,:4,..oteeiti:,,,„4„.:Iu„.--..,..,,,,,„,...t.„,2,0 ; n i:„,.E..,.. .....,-:::::71.....::::.,;, ..5,,k),,,F„,..-_, .,-;,;:;,,,,,„.i.. . ,..:.,..,..„..., -; A 1 :-?--"*..,-.' a ' '-' -"=2---:',::...13$'-7:eli.li4.k1A:jiivt":''.; -''-:ii'.-..,:.. ...; 3 t.17,77, ,.;r-,,,4e 4 :::,,,,,.....,........tir,:::,2.,:$44,;,„;r:c,e::,p::,:--ith' .:,.:.- --.."-**--Nrqikep/P-:-t. gmlaq ": - ,,p., ,-- ,4i,,, : h'.::.;......-'::::.-,z;:: .:,..:1.:i!.;::::::Alf„...4 .:,rt.'.•::°:'- ,-14f..,.-, ,.: :,k- „fillil,- ,,,;,. ,,,,,,-,!... ,,' --' -.4,,,,,:,,,-1 p 2 7,•:;...','::::::',..:A;i,„:i.:%:, .::,.,,..-2.7.‘...'-',W.,. E -,-(4,4'4:13M1114.41;47-14",,,,if:':r6i* ...I .P.,;:::''',14:::::::'::.:, ..:.'::'.:.>„:.:•:"*.i.i..gitiAl.:.'ir.';', ,...^..t.,:.- ..., .. 2,,..,.,:;;j':€ .: . .:,:ifiitgAnt:t7:11 . . i.: .11:,: :„...•.:.:.,. ' •,- ze,iik=ii- -.7:101160,-',#-. -,-.- # 7„ :::.. •,,.',..-..s......,,..?7,:-.-„...:::',!.,,: eg:::'',.I.::'...':','.••:„.:i.y2i.:-::::.,.:::::,,..,:s:IY.,::,:',..:'.::',.:-.:.-: :he..0.---,T.,..., ! ! ,4 t I '--- 1 I ,eu.moN-C9CreN"3' ., 1 - ' gayN1=3-li . 0,)*.ipow-c '' '.\I „,. . _ . . -- ss - .. .. *Ilk - - • •-. - , i'lr t —4,00 „.- 11. t - -- I a 4t'o- ..' s .1.,,,,,,, t •0? 1 ' .' ; s.. ‘ ' ,s` s.‘,-;`,-;‘,--:•.'„---‘,".. .....1 ,i,loc.,i„t A g ' \''' ,:; : s-", .',‘-'-.,.s.‘. \''''',"'-'''s,.'-''''• 1- t r .‘,H.',4:-_.' ,r_ , CI ' .11 I .r -- -,A.'. --.'''',A...,. '' 1 %iii:'''' l'.,.,V ''' t ? t .,,t :... :.F., ,...: _el ,.-!-'..,-,,,,,„,,,::::(,:;-„,„.7.- -,:,t,J:•.'. .4.;,"" "„, .t. ?'•',',,,,‘'.'z,-;,'s.,`,.,,';,•‘-'`.*:,,.`"s.*'.:„N-s`',..„.7,-.*,-',,..„,,,,-7,'4";,,,::.:". i i ,,,,.''''..:.::::-,:-.‘:".' ' ' . ?i- §i‘ •'..*,-..;,:•:,,•,•,,..'s,..„,,N.'"Z,„•„"•,.„,,,.-,,,,‘•:;,,.,:„.,!4;',..,:-,',4,,„,144.,.7.,..q1,,, T, g ..._.. ! ! ,...z ,..,- :, ■VOVN 4{)6,4,3.N'' i I i I rs 606 B„,,,poN-£9001,"3-14 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 117 of 260 The simulation of the 65 wave conditions, computing hydrodynamics and sediment transport considering the frequency of occurrence of each condition, allowed the assessment of the net sediment transport map over the time period simulated. Net sediment transport maps for Clam Pass and Doctors Pass regions are presented in Figure 28 and Figure 29. Additionally, net sediment transport maps were integrated along the grid profiles (cross shore oriented) in order to obtain the net sediment transport curve for the whole study area (Figure 30). Net Sediment Transport (c.y/ft/yr) 687600 180 160 687150 140 a i t' 1341` -. 120 c 686700 th V 100 CO 0 N W.% Z 686250h'w 80 r.. 60 685800 40 20 386400 386800 387200 387600 388000 388400 FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) Figure 28: Net sediment transport map-Calm Pass region. 33 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 118 of 260 Net Sediment Transport (c.y/ft/yr) 60 670500 50 11 � r 670000 40 { 30 co 1 z 669500 co W 71' lir (y aD(i.gyp' 20 669000 t 4:, 10 668500 1 i .,n 0 387000 387500 388000 388500 389000 389500 FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) Figure 29: Net sediment transport map-Doctors Pass region. 34 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2 011 VIII-3- CAC Business b New 260 60 119 of October 13, , R.22 I - R-23 - R-24 1 1 - R-25 i R.21 - - R-27 R-22 - R-23 - R-24 - - R-30 -'-- ; R.25 - R-28 - - R-32 R-27 - - R-33 R-28 - R-30 - R-31 - - R_37 14,,,,7„,,,,,„ "' 07,' ,, • r,475'1014:.'i R-32 - R' R-33 - - R39 R•34 - <„, - R-40 ,e R-35'-. - R-41 R-36 - '''-'`› ± R-37 - *--- R-38 - - R-44 R-39- - R-45 R-40- - R-48 12't.■s R-41 - - R-47 R-42 - - FR:48 R-43 - c."' c R-44 '.. o R-45 - R- t **M3 R-48- 52 R.47- , R-48- -• R-40 - -_- uRR1.55554573 .06, 7-50- R-51 .- 3 R.52- - R-58 oc R-53 - 2 R.54 - - R-59 - R-80 U-55 : - R.,61 1 A' ,it • Fi-p_ T- - R.62 - R.83 R-58 - - R-84 R-59 - R.60 - - R-131 R.81 - - R-88 .e R-62 - ,no. ,,O.• , 0 ys - RI R-83 r- - R-7 - R-71 0 R-64 - - R.72 - R.73 ^-- P.86 - 74 R-87 - - R- P.68 - I; RR...777987 395000 - R-;.-ii R-69 - R.70 - 400000 R-71 - R.72 - R-73 - F1.74 - - PR-80 375000 385000 39°°0:sting(ft) - _51 380000 NAnin-E R-75 - R-78 - i FL-East R-77 - 5000 R-78 - i 79 - I 0 R- I .2500 ,--) R-80- -8°CIC TransPcx1 s ro Y-,)" .1 .7500 .50(10 Sediment Figu re 30: N et sediment transport curve obtained fr am Del ft3n simulation 20 05-201° (negative values indicate transport towards the south). 35 COASTAL PLANNING ENGINEERING, INC. NG a ENGIN CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 120 of 260 In Figure 26 and Figure 27 it is possible to observe longshore currents in the surf zone induced by waves approaching the coast obliquely. Waves (orbital motion) and currents carry sediments along the shore. When the sediment transport magnitude increases along the transport direction, erosion processes usually can be observed. Likewise, deposition is observed when sediment transport magnitude slows down and approaches zero, and then the material that falls out and accumulates in the quieter waters. Based on transport patterns showed on Figure 28 it is expected that erosion occurs in both sides of Clam Pass, with sediment transport toward the inlet and sedimentation inside the pass. Further to the south the figure indicates an acceleration in the transport rates; according to the numerical model results which indicates a tendency towards erosion in this area. In Figure 29 the effects of Doctors Pass jetties on the net sediment transport are shown by the vectors. It is noticed that the magnitude of the alongshore sediment transport breaks near the north jetty. Deposition is expected on the main channel of the inlet. South of Doctors Pass there is an intensification of the transport. Accordingly, model results indicate erosion southward from Doctors Pass, being consistent with the morphological behavior observed in this area. From the net sediment transport curve (Figure 30) it can be concluded that the model indicates the existence of a nodal point in Vanderbilt Beach (near monument R-33). This sediment transport is for the 2005-2010 period, when the 2005 tropical storms had a strong influence. Effects of Clam Pass and Doctors Pass can be noticed in the net sediment transport, with a small effect at the smaller inlet. Additionally there is a strong variation of the net transport magnitude along the shore, that may be related to alongshore variations in the wave energy in direction induced by bathymetric features such as the hardbottom. 36 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 121 of 260 2.3.3 UNIBEST-CL+ 7.0 The total project domain was subdivided into 3 different areas being Area 1 — Vanderbilt Beach and Pelican Bay (from monument R-19 to R-40); Area 2 —Park Shore (from R-43 to R-57); and Area 3 -Naples (from R-59 to R-84). Three numerical alongshore grids were created to perform the computation of shoreline changes (Figure 32: Numerical grid for Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay. Each blue line crossing the shoreline represents a grid division in Figure 32, Figure 33 and Figure 34). Along the grid, several cross- shore elevation profiles were defined. Wave information enters at the seaward limit in order to compute the wave/current and sediment transport distribution across the entire profile (landward of the endpoint). An example of such profile can be visualized in Figure 31. Grids specifications are given on Table 7. Table 7: UNIBEST I rids characteristics. 'd'V - + ar'" m� � �g w° wy a� m 1°b d m d a #� t � E9 r its az a i r C� # r �' w� � #1: Vanderbilt 41 107 6.5 16.5 R-19 to R-41 #2: Park Shore 32 111 6.5 16.5 (R-43 to R-57 #3: Naples 30 136 6.5 16.5 (R-59 to R-84 • m4 far* _ �t ,dV 4� a'LS �,�„ r a4 ,�} 5^—� i r r ,y ,� w C§{� r:i ,,`*• �< �q:f.<K', I <��-44 5 f._f<S^<Ce!<iy_ylltl3^,<l Sl.i�!<<f•<313�yfSf<�<•<•!�4 -460 -350 -300 -250 -204 -15D -104 -50 0 50 Seewer4e—Xw,Cross Shore Pro be— Landw¢rds Figure 31: Representative cross-shore profile at UNIBEST. 37 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 122 of 260 , 144y ". 4 ...., (..}7,,,,_ ..... ,: .. !:*i,- ,,, . . ....7..4 ...'N',"`%....,''''''' ‘'.....i ',47,iii• . . -1 .. " r."". L . .„. -- �� ,rte � ` � '>p'',dta `-'" ii:-. itt a x .„ -,k t . Vii: t i� ..,,,...,,,,,,:,:„. _ .,,,, ,om.,:to,,p.1.4...0.:___,,,,t,„44. -4:-..,.,...,..,,..,,a, ...,,,,v3,..04,..,...,,iitt.,,,,,_.. ...;,,itl,.......ur,,t:,:,,,c....,.._...,.....„: ,414,L-7 --'"44**,'i--,IFIr",= ' �ti ^ t*' i q: J� r wp �,C "n y, Y tx�'T --% } *, A * Y ft*,- 11Y C "."."-.°,........, i , r ` „ 7 Y ' " ! K Ry k I. k t '.t *w s i "� . °# L $',,, �r M C.* s b p -a 1 1 c rb.P.. .. a : .. ` ; � . el;"° •, • ." "' tfi : + < sa 1. ib 'PP xx..,a;• 3 t c r ma fle` St Tarrd Mgt° c� `' a , Figure 32: Numerical grid for Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay. Each blue line crossing the coastline represents a grid division. 38 COASTAL PLANNING &E NGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 123 of 260 1. ...1..„4 rA s + p 4 S I 1 4 `rg sg ` • Ahab #: ,, . i gat 4. V' . s waa E V.*:'.4 Efi . • ,` ,bl t! :r 'tom..., � t»r' y',-2 :��, " et.»'�..E 4e�k 4 `�� 'V 4 sy aG ' e xr z may" €� ' ..."',14,.. -_ €�+.^c.+ra.C,flk.,... i.c,^a+ $$ `TMs 4" '" 'k:`sti t"a lit"' Y. 4�i •3 t� r: � > Y .b M :,1-, gi( :ti t c pfd f. `" ry w ilt.1 ,- ;, r a ffi 4 4• '' ".Y '. i -': ,,M ` 3 :;; ,..' . .,> , .I w a ♦ r.t f 4 ,,,..;-,ii-w ffi'ti Figure 33: Numerical grid for Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay. Each blue line crossing the coastline represents a grid division. 39 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 124 of 260 iil * r` �; i ag c wfl f a •yy'� a. q :}SS-e �� J-'Maa '. .,, .,-.‘.,,,,s, a,.;I'0,4,t4:::- :2,".„.i'M",liit`'' / a.4. e '-,,..:„.,„„1.;',Y T 9' !�a k 1 f .;.,%,"-•,', d .!*! '!"1 IY � ,i ".,..",*-1,-*-,.�ice?.sik 1 ,m! t ".,- r. .4} �` ,d9 +a `4e. N " 4' 4' 1° t� �, t ,'44:(4)124411.ro , ., .tsx.e f, t Y +!� . . "w ry ," '44 y T r•Y 4+ .3,y @� ✓} ,yf 1;t M1 -,'.�,A r-A.1. ' :4 k y I t& mss,, 1 •Figure 34: Numerical grid for Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay. Each blue line crossing the coastline represents a grid division. 40 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 125 of 260 Calibration of UNIBEST-CL+ 7.0 model for Collier County was performed based on the observed volumetric changes from June 2006 to July 2009. The morphology's calibration goal was to reproduce the trends observed in terms of erosion and deposition patterns during this time-period. For that purpose, the 65 representative wave cases were propagated on Delft3D-WAVE model from deep waters through shallow waters and their frequencies of occurrence were associated to the analyzed time period (June 2006 to July 2009). The cross-shore elevation profiles used on the three UNIBEST domains were measured on June 2006 beach profile surveys of Collier County, performed by CPE (Figure 35, Figure 36 and Figure 37). From the same data, the initial coastline position was obtained based on the 2006 MHW position. The existing beach was assumed to have sediments from Borrow Area T1 which were placed during the 2005/2006 renourishment project. The mean and median grain size of sediments sampled from the borrow area was 0.32 mm and 0.285 mm, respectively (CPE, 2011). Important parameters such as D90, sediment fall velocity, sediment density and porosity were estimated based on the literature (van Rijn, 1993; Engelund & Hansen, 1972). Other relevant input and calibration parameters are presented on Table 8. Structures included in the models are the same as for Delft3D-WAVE and Delft3D-FLOW models, described on as well as the two proposed T-groins just south of Lowdermilk Park(R62-R64), to be discussed on Alternative 3. Table 8: UNIBEST model setup. Parameters Selected Value Breaking Parameter(Hb/db) 0.73 Breaking Parameter 1.0 Bottom Friction Coef. for Waves(Optional): 0.05 Active height 4.5 Coastline angle(offshore directed—nautical convention) 256-270 Water level MHW-MLW schematized tide Water&current interaction formulae Linear interaction(original UB formula) Sediment transport formulae Bijker(1967,1971) D50 0.285 D90 0.59 Sediment fall velocity 0.04 m/s Sediment porosity 0.4 Sediment density 2650 kg/m3 Water density 1025 kg/m3 Sources Bypassed volumes from inlet management plan Boundary condition Y constant(fixed)with free transport 41 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 126 of 260 Vanderbilt - 2006 Measured Profiles R-019 [ft NAVD] R-020 * a ..� _ ..� 0 R-021 ; A . . r di ' R-022 w ,- r 31.,...43.-. A. --, .. . -2 R-023 x m 1*. r R-024 .....; .4 -4 .. ; _ R-025 -a -ems R-026 i;:' „. 1i. R-027 x ' ,e..-r.-A• -, -{7 S ,- 324 - R-029 , 'tom R-030 '<.� :y. . .,.,* -1 0 P -% t. R-031 -°--� . r.`�� . °� r ,," ',.. -12 R-032 �-- •b" ` R-033 1..1 -14 R-034 sn, R-035 , 4 R-036 * ,3 -16 1 R-037 N R-038 i '% -18 4 R-039 1 i +k.„. ,,„ -20 R-040 . R-041 t - . -22 t imago"1;2,11 Terra Mat',,s'�J 382000 384000 386000 388000 390000 FL-East NAD83- Easting (ft) Figure 35: Beach profiles surveyed by CPE(2006)-Area 1:Vanderbilt Beach and Pelican Bay. 42 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 127 of 260 Park Shore - 2006 Measured Profiles f R-042 '�' f° 0 [ft NAVD] w r' ,:, . \ a.;t 11 —2,R-043 a- ;, ° 4!R 044 R-045 s R 047 ` ;* r.,� 6e .' . Q ` ° —8 s � w . :t: •= , R 048 ,; 4� v a � -10 R-049 , ,.. t � s � -.e` .a i At-74,k., ' .:; ---gam -12 R-050 1 ; R-051 .. '"' —14 —16 • R-052 .➢� it R-053 a ' Li-. . . 'A2'1¢ j �dav t� � `a —18 R-054 !ta . ''' V 3 f fi_ _ �"i� . .a�. .' —20 R-055 " , R-056 t . —22n R 057 ... a 385000 390000 FL-East NAD83- Easting (ft) Figure 36: Beach profiles surveyed by CPE(2006)-Area 2: Park Shore. 43 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 128 of 260 Naples - 2 Measured Profiles 0 R 059 / t `:. ,,� '^ [ft NAVD] R-060 ,—...,,�.,M.. � ��»:" y r .ire A` $, 2� �; R-061 .. R-062 -2 R 063 .. , ; .1 .,' Y R 064 ' '. 0,1 �A1 R-065 � . �� " �� 74 -'t R-066 --'1" ^ E R-067 . . t, T w R-068 R-069 R 070 ., gg t, R-071 �°, .. _10 R 072 ' k �'} p" d $� RYoFn A#9tC" A R-073 �' ,,,,,,7". „:' �., -12 R-075 R-078 �� ;o - :r —14 } R078 , raix ' R 079 n •* " R-077 R-080 -18 R-081 q 1, � R-082 ' �, ,� ,".,0 -20 , f` °'.L.,1:'. R-083 = k �' , -22 R 084 ' ,, LL CAS ` j n * f 390000 395000 FL-East NAD83- Easting (ft) Figure 37: Beach profiles surveyed by CPE(2006)-Area 3: Naples Beach. 44 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 129 of 260 Another important observation is that along with beach fill operations, dredging and bypassing has taken place at Wiggins Pass, Clam Pass and Doctors Pass due to periodic inlet maintenance activities. During the analyzed time period, approximately 48,400 cubic yards of sand were dredged from Wiggins Pass and placed downdrift in Delnor-Wiggins State Park between monuments R-18 and R-19.5 approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sand were dredged from Clam Pass between January and April 2007. The material was placed downdrift at Park Shore, between monuments R-42 and R-43.5 (CPE, 2008). At Doctors Pass, 32,551 cubic yards were removed and placed near Lowdermilk Park between monuments R-60 to R-62 (CPE, 2009). In order to account for artificial bypass during the simulated period, sediment sources were defined at the specific locations. According to UNIBEST user manual, along the modeled coastline sediment sources and sinks may be defined at any location, to address river sediment accretion, subsidence, offshore sediment losses, bypassing of sand, beach mining, etc. Sinks were also used on the model in between the monuments R-26 to R-29, located at Area 1. After a number of model runs and sensitivity analysis, the large erosion rate in the vicinity of R-27, one of the major hot spots, was not being accurately represented. The sink was used to address inlet effects not fully addressed in the model. In addition, there is a gap in the hardbottom located offshore of R-27 in combination with hardbottom veering closer to shore just south of this point which aids in sediment loss through the gap offshore. Model limitations could be related to alongshore gradients not captured by the model, limitations on model formulations (waves/transport) or offshore loss of sediment beyond the depth of closure through the mentioned gap. Then, to artificially include erosion rates at the mentioned area, sediment sinks with total volume of—4,900 c.y./yr were used. Calibration results are presented on Figure 38 to Figure 40. UNIBEST model setup for Collier County is considered good for representing overall patterns of erosion/deposition observed in the region. Changes were calculated between the dunes (upland) and the approximate depth of closure. The depth of closure is defined as the seaward limit of the active beach profile and it is assumed that sand transport beyond this depth is negligible. A depth of closure of-11.3 ft NAVD was used to determine volumetric changes for each monitoring area (CPE, 2003). The landward and seaward limits were fixed to define a consistent region for all volumetric calculations. The variation in hardbottom characteristics along and cross-shore is difficult to model and calibrate, and capturing the inflection points is a significant accomplishment. The calibration of magnitudes was not as close, except at the north end of each reach, where hot spots and structures prevail. 45 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 130 of 260 Volume Changes(In-between monument locations)-VANDERBILT R.019 I i I I I I I R.019 .# R-020— R-020 w a +:0" �r—. f r *4 +....r.;R 021 4., R.021 4 fi ' R-02 — R-022 R-023— — R 023 "*,e. •if •"., Lf": .: R-024 — _ '^ " I. R 024 w t .a s ra* xti R-025— — R.025 , te" R-028 ..A -61a.0 ',4;‘,w,,,,,,,,,,1*---'a.. R 027— — ?a •" R-027 i '- znArrs{i. R-028 -. . R.029 R-029 ^ I R+030— — R030 's ' R031 — 4,11 R-031 R-032— ° R-032 4cr R-033 R-033 R-034 — ('. R-034 R.035— — R•035 R-038— — 4 R 036 R.037 — — iro 111 R•037 R-038— — R-038 R-039— — 6 -. R-039 R-040- t..,,.",,, ``r t 4 g• 8000 4000 2000 0 -2000 -4000 •6000 •8000-10000 R-040 Volume Cha C. ) 382000 384000 386000 388000 ( Y FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) Measured Simulated Figure 38: Volumetric calibration for Vanderbilt Beach and Pelican Bay. 46 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 131 of 260 Volume Changes(In-between monument locations)-PARK SHORE ■ 1 r,,.,� -.� I I I I R-044 — — R.044 R-045— s — R-045 ,„4 R-048— — R-046 R-047 — } R-047 t. 1 , 4 R-048— � .. q R.049 f — R-049 ..K\`‘.. R-050— — R050 R1 R-052— — R-052 ".1r tt '_ R-053— > — R.063 .tr.).` VA, R.054 — R-054 + }apt . .!f' R-055 R.055 4 1` 4gy; cs g R.0556— — 44 Q r 1 t i i i R-050 Et 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0-2000.4000.8000.8000 „'� Volume changes(c.y.) 686000 388000 X0000 FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) Measured Simulated Figure 39: Volumetric calibration for Park Shore. 47 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 132 of 260 Volume Changes(In-between monument locations)-NAPLES 1 1 r I •- �_ R-060- - R 060 < R-061 - - R-061 R.062- - .a. R-062 S4° A R-0e3- - R-063 > ' R-064- _ a , R•064 1 R-065- - R-065 r R-066- R 066 t R•067- - R-087 ***: '6 R•068- - R-088 R-069 0,. - R-070- y R-070 " 8-071 - - R-071 8.072- f' - R-072 & c 8-073- - c �"m, ,»-,1 1 R-073 R-074 - - *" R-074 tor;,.- m R-075- . , R-075 .; R-076- - R-076 rp; R-077- _ R-077 �' R-078- 8-078 s x - aA"'• 8-079 - 8.079 -,,. . R.080 j 8-080 R1 - f�J - „ R•081 R-082- - t r R-062 `.. - , R-063- t.,, � �s 1 1 1 1 1 8-083 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 -5000 -10000 ` ,I...- # °rra , Volume changes(C.y.) 387000 389000 391000 393000 395000 FL-East NAD83-Easing(ft) Measured Simulated Figure 40: Volumetric calibration for Naples Beach. 48 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 133 of 260 3.0 NUMERICAL MODELING OF SHORE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES On Table 9 it is provided a summary of alternatives investigated in this modeling study: Table 9: List of the shore protection alternatives investigated. Alternative Descnpti9n M1 2006 Fill Template(nourishment only) M2 2006 Fill Template removing the existing structures M3 2006 Fill Template with conversion of existing structures to T-groins at Naples Beach M4 2006 Fill Template with the addition of submerged artificial reefs at Park Shore M5 2013 Fill Plan with traditional disposal locations of dredged material from Doctors Pass M6 2013 Fill Plan switching disposal locations of dredged material and fill density at Doctors Pass region M7 2013 Fill Plan combined with permeable tapered groins at Park Shore hot spot. M8 Addition of Spur at southern jetty of Doctors Pass M9 Similar to Alternative M5,but adding a feeder beach/additional fill (Vanderbilt) M 10 Similar to Alternative M5,but removing the existing structures(Park Shore) M I I Similar to Alternative M6,but removing the existing structures(Naples Beach) The simulations were performed using the same model setup/parameters used in calibration. The performance of each alternative was assessed by: • UNIBEST-CL+ simulations (3 years simulation for alternatives M1, M2, M3 and M10 years simulation for alternatives M5, M6, M7, M9, M10 and M11); • Delft3D simulations(1 year simulation for alternatives M4 and M8); • Analytical model analysis - parabolic shape (alternatives M3 and M8). 3.1 Results UNIBEST model was calibrated by comparing measured and simulated volume changes. The reason why it was chosen to work with volumes rather than directly with the shoreline is that longshore line model is not able to account for changes in profile shape along the simulation (e.g. profile adjustments during storm wave conditions), and volume changes integrated along the beach profile are not influenced by such processes. Differently from profile volume changes, the beach width can vary greatly in response to profile adjustments (cross shore sediment transport, from the shallow part of the profile to the offshore sand bar). Each UNIBEST modeling run starts considering a specific initial shoreline position, either the 2006 post-construction or 2013-14 design shoreline, and is run for the equivalent of 1, 3, 5 or 10 years. Each of the alternatives was developed to address the specific issues in the project area. UNIBEST results associated with each of the alternatives were analyzed in terms of beach width 49 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 134 of 260 remaining. The design standard, which generally measures the amount of sandy beach from a baseline established in 2003, is used as a basis to identify beach performance and hot spots. The current design standards for Vanderbilt Beach, Park Shore, and Naples Beach are 100 feet, 85 feet, and 100 feet, respectively. It is based upon beach width remaining and design standard for each area that results of alternatives performed with UNIBEST are presented on the next section. Thus, it is of great relevance to be aware that UNIBEST results are not intended to be treated as a forecast, rather they should be used in a comparative basis to support the evaluation of the most suitable engineering solution for each of the analyzed areas. Alternative Ml Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2006 Simulation period: 3 years Areas included on the alternative simulation: 1, 2 & 3. Structures: All existing structures in the project areas. The performance of Alternative MI was verified using UNIBEST CL+ model on a 3-year run. The results of the simulations are presented in Figure 41 to Figure 43. Environmental restrictions to avoid hardbottom coverage and other limitations did not allow for the placement of the optimal volume of sand throughout the areas in the 2006 fill template. The results shown on Figure 41 and Figure 43 indicate almost no violation of design standard within the limits of project areas after three years. Results for Naples (Figure 43) indicate that areas in between monuments R-62 and R-64 violated the standard, probably due to the groins in this area. In Park Shore, it is worth highlighting that area outside the 2006 project area, especially in the vicinity of R-44 which suffers from pronounced erosion rates. This problem may be affecting the performance of adjacent beaches. As shown in Figure 42, it is possible to visualize that almost the whole area from R-44 to R-46 present some level of erosion problems, and may be impacted by the inlet. 50 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 135 of 260 Beach Width Remaining- Vanderbilt 8-019. 1....--. �- ,.._--. 8-019 7( R020� `rY- `,` R-020 i M "ham` . $ ,, .,: ,11 8-021, } R.021 s R.022 r R-022 i<, �.nw^v;)'...-' R-023 l� .s X _'14 : .. 1� R-023 + r' : a: > :... R-024-- --, - R-024 „:+c`tea:a"«.. R-025- i r -- R-025 1 L t -5 . t R-028 '1-r R.026 ' S, .„ R-027'-- -, R-027 , ' ... •r.`," r. s r r >, y<,am" R-028>. I R-028 k��f r' t R-029'-- 1 ■ -`i 8-029 '#" x ; t r a, 4'1 y 1_{ . y r �q„ '''': }...rte R-030- r . 8-030 , a .• '1 s R-031- r -+ R-031 •' = ,. 7% ' 1�' ' ■ i *;;,,,,,t. 8.032 E- ' 8-032 .<r ?.� ''..-„, 1,,, R033- ` R033 e l R-034'- ., -i 8-034 it R-035 .,, - R-035 1.1 41 R-038 8-038 °, , , R-037;.... ;1 1 R-037 $ ' / 1 d R•038 I 8-038 k 8-039= !_._. 1....._.` R-039 145 130 115 100 85 383000 385000 387000 389000 Distance from baseline(ft) FL-East NAD83•Easting(ft) 2010 2006 template year 3 Design Standard Figure 41: Vanderbilt-Alternative Ml after the 3 year simulation. 51 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 136 of 260 Beach Width Remaining- Parkshor e _1 , -r- 1 I , ._, R-043— , R-043 , , , ,0 ; ', U 1/4 la R-044, w N ■ , R-044 • ) t 1 , ■4411; , e . w w" IP `,;,', '''1' • % ; R-045+ - , R-045 ., w 1 ' ' . , A 7 ' ,, R-046*. , 0 ' R-046 , , ., ,, , ' ' < . . . R-047— — R-047 . S w '4'41;SI , OA. , ,.' * R-048 • R-048 , w A .4°61tZ•.'.. • lit .- R-049— / — R-049 le Iti• 1' .2 1 •AN■wwwww*i 1 .., I 0.,.; 7 ^—* R-050— '', -' R-050 4•6011;.0 L 1 1•""t.t. I ss 404-1 t * 17,*-; ‘ ' R051 w ' ..,,,,,,, R-051 4 , :; lit, .' s,■, t' ,-- .. 0 :: '' : , R-052 '' — R-052 1 4. R-053 / R-053 * 1.4:;:fi P.'. • - , , R-054— w. — R-054 . ■ N ' R-055• ., R-055 --wat 7 Tw. I ' ' I 130 115 1 00 4 85 70 55 40 25 387000 391000 from baseline(ft) FL-East NA083-Easing(ft) 2010 2006 template year 3•With Structures -----Design Standard --- _ .........__ _ Figure 42: Park Shore-Alternative MI after the 3 year simulation. 52 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 137 of 260 Beach Width Remaining- Naples R-060 �'i 1 R060 ' '♦` R-061• .'/. a 8061 p ,_—.- 1,e .. V R-062= - } R-062 4*:1',"V T,lit, R-063 R•064 i_. t.--- R-064 "r. / t R-065• ■ i R-085 [y i ' x ,., r " R-066' 066 ;- R r ",6, 3I' ..yA• R-067...... ` ' R-061 • i!. s 7« P '.� b R-068 r- ', R-068 ' t a R-069'.•-' `1 - R-069 c f za ,1 l "k R-070 t- i -i R-070 .< R .,. , R-071 - i 1 R-071 ' R•072• ,,•. R-072 R-073* R-073 + t ' u- 4s R-074,_. ' •i R-074 .. •" R-075 i R 075 s r+ y iY ,f-'' . / a } x we R-076• , R-076 ^ 4 ` // ..../l' I t 4.-� t.,3.4t R-077-- ! R-077 s1. . ill. R-078• ' R-078 =-` r i .. p i t P, ' 190 175 160 145 130 115 100 85 70 389000 391000 343000 distance from baseline(ft) FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) 2010 2006 template year 3-With Structures Design Standard Figure 43: Naples-Alternative M1 after the 3 year simulation 53 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 138 of 260 Alternative M2 Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2006 Simulation period: 3 years Areas included on the alternative simulation: 2 & 3. Structures: All the existing structures in the project area were removed (excepted by the Naples Pier and Doctors Pass jetties). Alternative M2 was simulated for 3 years in order to test the performance of the 2006 beach fill template through two areas using UNIBEST CL+. The simulation of Alternative M2 is similar to Alternative Ml, but all the structures, except by the Naples Pier, were removed from the model to verify how the existing structures affect (positively and negatively) the performance of beach fill. Results of Alternatives Ml and M2 were compared on Figure 44 and Figure 45. In general, structures have only a localized impact on the coast. On the model results is observed positive effects updrift the structures and negative effects down drift - offset-fillet formation. On a seasonal basis, the presence of the structures is responsible for an offset on the coastline that interchanges seasonally from tropical/summer to winter when dominate wave directions reverses from southern to northwestern dominance (More details on seasonal behavior are presented on Appendix B). Local hot spots became milder after removal of existing groins. The Park Shore area between R- 44 and R-45 showed significant improvement although it still remained below desired beach width after the three years simulation. As for the Naples area, between monuments R-62 and R- 64, the coastline behavior tended to be more smoothed, with lower variability of beach width along the shoreline. The coastline offset diminished and beach width was maintained above design standard after the simulated period. The greatest structural impact occurred north of Naples and Park Shore reaches. 54 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 139 of 260 Beach Width Remaining- Park Shore " T ' ' r •.. T 7 I " , R-043 H , , ''' R•043 NA% i , : , N. .:11 l• , ■ . ■ , i , i •04 R-044 R4 i „,,,•,•.:- . a ■ ' '',... ' • • a a R•045• • R•045 '''' i • ' .' ',"•• . •.'1 r • ' ' :• 'ilk: ''' • '''•''. .,' : • ' 3', . . ' 4 v,. ' . 1%.— 8-048 i / I ' R-048 : 4 ..,A . ,...; . 1 il . • " 8-047- •■ i H 8-047 ' • ...sov: ‘ , \ i .. , 8-048 I-- \,' -i R•048 ' l kJ 4,--ci. , ; ,., 0,:. titt, . , , . 8-049- , „/ '-'' R•049 ' ' ''•'''''' ' ''' , . . IL ,/.• ., , do.c:;-! 1 .it„„„..il - 1 . R-050- < — R-050 , •88,00,•„„i , ft , , *OW , • Y. • r ..feel'.1.1;-r,..-• / ,, 14.4! , R-051 R-051 '''•••.„, : •7,-,, 4,`, ; • N „ : r...„, '''•","••••.. , 8-052- . '', — 8-052 k ' : ...1 t. .. tt, . t a 4 R-053 „...' Av. H ,, --" R-053 MO , . . , . i R "-- is, r/ 7 R-054 s. \ ■ , ....•";• t,,,,,,, -.„ ,r i I' 1 : 8-055 i--- i ) H 8-055 ',74,,• 2, , 130 115 100 85 70 55 40 25 387000 389000 391000 Distance from baseline(ft) FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) 2010 —2006 template year 3•No Structures year 3-With Structures —Design Standard Figure 44: Park Shore—Comparison of Alternative M1 (structures)and M2(no structures)after 3 years of simulation. 55 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 140 of 260 Beach Width Remaining- Naples YTVV ''''.. -' •• •°. R-060* , , 8-060 ,■ , 8.061, ' , , , R-062- ' —i R-062 *71:V " „ :, .. 7 . ■ : , , --•- . ; .‘"' . 8-063• j R-063 / , .,... '', * 7* . ,-• ',.,, : *'‘-..„1-.. R-064> . 8064 r : " .•...1;',.... R-065 R.065- 1 : , 1 , • t ' 8-066• , 8-066 t.1,..., ... "" ''',-, .t • 8-067, i„...' ,' , 4 ,.. ... , 8-068' N.\ , R-068 • , , , '1. •„ . , ,.. , A , R-069' t `.., .-. .. : ,... ' 0.# g ;+,■'''.#1,*.:glt— * ' ; R-070•- e I .-- V I I' I , 8.071'— , - 8-071 8-072 . ... 1 r I / ., • R-072 •k ''' ..k^.'''.. 10,,,,r1 ., i.;Wt._-4,* .... - ,..-, ....e. R.073■ .... t , .. R-073 'I '.,. .,, •,' i...0.01,,itr-a R-074,- % -• 8-074 , ' • Str+1 ■ -. R-075■- 1 " ..„, _ --, ' * r.,„: '-- R-076• / , , 8-076 I i; ,:i,• . „., ,,„,,Ii „/ 8-077...,.. -• R-077 ■ R-078- \ • , R-078 ...L " . 2 *14% • 6 1 \\ ' f-'.:":' .1.1. ;, , i, , R -079 1,-.. 190 175 180 145 130 115 100 85 70 389000 391000 393000 Distance from baseline(It) FL-East NAD83-Basting(ft) r 201° - template year 3•No Structures year 3•11Mtb Structures ----.17 Design Standard Figure 45: Naples—Comparison of Alternative M1(structures)and M2(no structures)after 3 years of simulation. 56 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 141 of 260 Alternative M3 Model: UNIBEST+Analytical solution (Parabolic bay shape) Fill template: 2006 Simulation period: 3 years Areas included on the alternative simulation: Area 3. Structures: All existing structures in the model domain plus two T-head groins. The simulation of Alternative M3 was performed only for the Naples Beach domain (area 3) aiming to evaluate the effectiveness of the two proposed T-head groins on the performance of the 2006 beach fill template. For that purpose, two existing structures (rock piles groins) located near monuments R-62 (+250 ft) R-65 (+ 410 ft) were modified into T-head groins. They contained double pipeline outfalls. UNIBEST model was used to simulate effects of the new structures on the shoreline caused by interruption of longshore transport. The model results presented on Figure 46 indicate an increase of the offsets in the coast associated to the modified structures. That would be due to the T-groins being longer and having lower permeability than the existing groins. An analysis using the parabolic bay shape tool proposed by Hsu & Evans (1989) was conducted (Figures 47 and 48). It is important to recognize that this analysis method has limitations in presence of well defined net sediment transport trends. The model is a simple second order polynomial that fits the curved section of the beach on the plan view, in response to a user defined diffraction point (or control point), predominant wave crest approach and position of the straight part of the beach (which is not directly influenced by the diffraction/control point). The equation do not account for offsets in the coastline induced by the structures in responses to littoral drift fluxes. The results presented in Figure 47 and Figure 48 indicated higher efficiency of the southern T- groin (located between monuments R-65 and R-66) in comparison to the northern one (placed between monuments R-62 and R-63). However, the initial coastline used in the analysis of the northern groin already had an offset caused by the existing structure while the coastline near the southern T-head groin was quite straight suggesting the existing structure near R-65 has minimal effects on the littoral drift. Combining both the models results, it is possible to conclude that the addition of solid structures (non-permeable) along Collier County coast induce the formation of offsets in the shoreline — pronounced deposition of sediments updrift and erosion downdrift the structure because not enough sand bypasses around the groins. Therefore, the addition of non-permeable T-groins would not be an efficient solution to mitigate the erosion in the analyzed area, and may even induce adverse effects on the coast. In regions with strong net drift, the offset can be minimized when the groin fillet reaches equilibrium, and bypassing is then robust. The net littoral drift is weak in Collier County. 57 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 142 of 260 Beach Width Remaining- Naples R-060'. .0-- , R-060 '..E.; f ... :: : ''.. ..... .:-1 ( „, -.. ..., .. , R-061• • .--- --- ,...... 4.•,"‘ :V ,, ` , R-062 i e -..,. ,' R-062 i ' : .00,.• . 40, A: .......,_ ....„4 , R-063, R-063 28.‘,. 1, .., „ . ,.. ' ' ' R-064-- , r.„,„ ! R-064 1 ; 1 R-065 ,, , R-065 '...-' ,•• ' / .e R-066 ,- R-066 ...- 4 *• ' ;',, ..'"»..' , 1 R-067• (' ' , .,': -,,,N — R-068 A :.1 ., . •••' - " ‘ ', R-089-- ..'t s't .., R-069 -- I '- ---- 1 / I R-070 ' .-- e R-070 , , t 'Z' a ''■• -"';74,.::i t .o.; 10 ''' R-071. ' e ' t R-071 ......,- .,.. ' .• ,...., ; I y/ . R-072■ `•.• 1 R-072 ' ,. .. R-073' I`'d • R-073 , , f" ) • 1. l'' , * *.a.,43.1:... R•074.,. , R-014 R-075.. . ■ , 6 , R-076 -- ■ -.. R-076 1 / , R-077:-- --.3 $$ . R-078' ii , R-078 '' ' ..ir,. ••..- ■ s. 0 .*,• ". „ ., R-079 1 , ,.., 190 175 160 145 130 115 100 85 70 389000 391000 393000 Distance from baseline(ft) FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) . .. ------- 2010 2006 template year 3-M1 year 3-M3 Design Standard Figure 46: Naples—Comparison of Alternative M1 (structures)and M3(T-groins)after 3 years of simulation. 58 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3 b New Business 143 of 260 hi p # i g ■ti 0 "/'it + ti,:.. l''''''44-**- / „ .!. ' , A YAK S 1i I I I I I I . 0* 50* 125 A ' ' 3.The red <, ,s fill Figure 47: Parabolic Bay shape adjustment for the north T-groin proposed by Alternative M line � indicates the equilibrium coastline position. a„„:„. 'tk ;;;;sois„Z:.'..5 lit iktv„vvi, ' 5� f i1A4 ,,4x P 4 > ' IIIIIII ,3,. . ort xse isoen ”. Figure 48: Parabolic Bay shape adjustment for the south T-groin proposed by Alternative M3.The red line indicates the equilibrium coastline position. 59 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 144 of 260 Alternative M4: Model: Delft3D Fill template: 2006 Simulation period: 1 year Areas included on the alternative simulation: Area 2 Structures: All existing structures in the model domain +2 proposed submerged artificial reefs. The region between R-51 and R-53 has been an area of higher erosion and narrowing beach since at least 1996. Since 2006, this area has lost approximately 14,500 cubic yards of sand. The shoreline at R-51 is still above the design criteria of 85', but at R-52 and R-53, the shoreline is below or at the design standard width. Since construction, the shoreline at this location has retreat an average of 45 feet. A gap in the hardbottom occurs at R-52 along an inflection in the shoreline at R-50 that interrupts longshore transport. Alternative 4 considers the addition of two submerged artificial reefs in Park Shore to reduce erosion trends between monuments R-51 and R-53 by reducing the wave energy that reaches the shore. The northern reef is approximately 100 ft wide and 600 ft long and the southern reef is approximately 100 ft wide and 1000 ft long. The artificial reefs were positioned at approximately -12 ft NAVD, being the crest of the structure at approximately -5.8 ft NAVD. This alternative was simulated using Delft3D model, since the position of the proposed reefs is too close to the shore to be simulated using UNIBEST model. The purpose was to see if it could mimic the natural hardbottom in this gap and conserve sand on the beach. Delft3D model was forced with tides, waves and winds described in previous sections of this report. Actual scenario (without reefs) and Alternative M4 scenario considering the presence of the reefs were simulated by one year. The initial bathymetries are presented in Figure 49 and Figure 50. The differences between these bathymetry maps are presented in Figure 51. A typical beach profile on the region of the reefs is presented in Figure 52. The comparison between the final bathymetry maps with and without the addition of the artificial reefs is presented in Figure 53. The solid green areas are the reefs themselves. Results show the effects of the reefs are relatively slight, in the order of±0.5 ft after the 1 year simulation. While the erosion/sedimentation magnitudes that outcome from the model for this region are in the range of±4 ft. The volumetric effects of the artificial reefs after the 1 year simulation are in the order of+3000 c.y., being positive effects (green) of approximately +12,000 c.y. and negative effects (red) of approximately -9,000 c.y. This alternative would be difficult to permit and is expensive. 60 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 145 of 260 Bathymetry map without reefs(ft) 679000 ,. 4,w. . ; CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 146 of 260 Difference between bathymetry maps with and without the reefs(ft) 679000 .. .6 •! 6 mx & Ia ;'7'., ''r K 677000 .4� �r .., *e* ; 4.", ! ww! : ,, �Kr,fi,2 Z , ±:P ♦ r t. ,., ! "a " 1 '''' 4 > i C 0; y» . ♦4 iL.m, rx 1 675000 ,? .. ; + w ti , - t o r „ ... a r 4 ww '4 ' 4 ► " 4* °. ( ?' 673000 , "�" r �� 384000 386000 388000 390000 392000 FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) Figure 51: Differences between initial bathymetry maps with and without reefs-Alternative 4. Beach profile with/without artificial reef - Collier County,FL I I 1 I I I 5 - 0- - 0 a c -5- - c O a N i W -10 _ -15/ With reef Without reef I 1 1 I , C 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Distance along the beach profile(ft) Figure 52: Beach profile with and without artificial reef. 62 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 147 of 260 Impacts(-)I Benefits(+)of the artificial reefs in morphology(ft) 679000 x 4 ;4— .`4 a .«4';3 . ° 3 ;',* .`,"'°• 4 \+a cw M A4 2 a 677000 '1:1771 -.I 675000 -1 tif e b0 '- a+ ,z i 4f<4 -2 4 4 4 i it*°94't • 673000 ,. r, tit. ,=aka -4 384000 386000 388000 390000 392000 FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) Figure 53: Impacts(red)and benefits(green)associated to the artificial reefs after 1 year of morphological simulation. Alternative M5 Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2013 Simulation period: 10 years Areas included on the alternative simulation: 1, 2 & 3. Structures: All existing structures in the model domains During the 2006 re-nourishment project restrictions did not allow for the placement of the optimal sand volume in some beach segments. Over the time, some of this areas were unable to maintain the target beach width. Alternative M5 tested the performance of the 2013 advance fill template. Major differences are the inclusion of Clam Pass Park and wider beaches where erosion rates are known to be high based on monitoring surveys. A narrower design width however were set for Clam Pass Park (80 feet instead of 85 feet) and south of Doctors Pass (80 feet against 100 feet) in order to avoid hardbottom coverage. The traditional disposal locations of dredged material from Wiggins Pass, Clam Pass and Doctors Pass were maintained. Bypassed volumes considered for these longer runs were defined based on the historic bypass rate (see Table 10). 63 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 148 of 260 Table 10: Bypass volumes and disposal timing and location. Area Year Vie Year ' Volume Disposal location .„EUELldr r EEPE(a;1 � 9 _ ELEN EL EVEw., .nod Vanderbilt 4”' 25,000 cy 8"' 16,500 cy R-18 to R-20 Park Shore 4"' 27,000 cy 9"' 27,000 cy R-42 to R-44 Naples 4th 50,000 cy 9"' 50,000 cy R-60 to R-62 The 2013 fill template is intended to last for 10 years. Results are shown on to Figure 54 to Figure 56. The model indicated that for Vanderbilt Beach the performance was not as intended. There was violation of design standard between years 2 and 5 near monument R-29. On the 10th year, shoreline retreat on that area exceeds 15 feet below desirable beach width. For Park Shore the model indicates major violation of design standard widths in between monuments R-44 and R-46, where the three existing groins on Park Shore are located. Down drift impacts caused by the structures and inlet seem to be affecting the performance of the beach fill. On Naples beach overall performance of the Alternative M5 is close to the intended. In most part of the area the beach maintains wider than the design standard width, except by the vicinity of R- 63 as well as in R-76, where the design standard is violated. It is recognized that the region of R- 63 is highly influenced by the existing structures, which induces the formation of offsets in the coast and additional retreat of the shoreline downdrift the structures. 64 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 149 of 260 Beach Width Remaining- Vanderbilt R-019 -_, R-020 — '� —3 R-020 I , . , ;;;;'' 1 a s,, ■ i l R.021 — `' .} R.021 .'t``" "' } R022 F _i R022 % P R-023% R-023 x $y* - 1-;, ;- :: R-024- . - R-021 " aK" a« " • ti , R-025- ‘,.r R-025 , •' R.026 _ R-026 R-027 - �., R-027 • ...,. r' ' Sz� c y�E: R-028 1_ R-028 •,, ' "14044 3 R-029'^ 8-029 v ' n ! 4 R-0304-- 8-030 ''. 9 ° R-031•— 1- --" R-031 si a, 8.0321— `;,s.. R-032 R-033 - ��1 8.033• • R-034- i R-034 ' ar 4 4s 8435 R-035 " `, •• 4; N R-038 ' 8-036 3'; R-037 t ,'f R-037 R-03s w R-038 R-039 i 1 ^. !__ •= R-039 ; 150 125 100 383000 384000 385000 386000 387000 388000 389000 Distance from baseline(ft) FL-East NAD83•Easting(ft) ------ 2010 2013 template(year 0) year 2 year 5 '- - year 10 Design Standard Figure 54: Vanderbilt—Results of Alternative M5(2013 template)after 10 years of simulation. 65 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 150 of 260 Beach Width Remaining- Park shore R-043' I ; R-043 a ( I e t.�,.3 R-044■_ ■ - R-044 ni R-045..._ ; CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 151 of 260 Beach Width Remaining- Naples . — R-060{ R-060 i R-061: •_ , R.061 1 i#,*{i ;�� w. c __ I •i.f R-062=— R-062 R-063, ^, { R-063 z+ a R-064■ �- 4 R-064 �� i r r �.�" �� R-065 i.. � R-065 'V,?,rel R-066, ,' R� .Ra f , r J , R-067. , i' R-067 ! , •.1 S %tea°'.' f � F T. R-068 i._ R-068 #, i y z ar r R-069- •1 R-069 a'.". * j }rr . 4 R-070-- a R-070 R-071•.. ■ _ , R-071 R.072 R-072 t\ ' =ay e R-073■-. aa.. R-073 g Aax' ri x. R-074- , R-074 es`BAR f R.075. R.075 £ k# ' , t R-076> R-076 ,x ►.. x r i' +r R-077;— r R-077 ';' ix• R-0781._. 1 i R-078 �a, �. `.� li . 4, rxt t R-078 i R-079 ., ,• 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 389000 390000 391000 392000 393000 Distance From baseline(ft) FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) 2010 2013 template(year 0) year 2 year 5 year 10 Design Standard Figure 56: Naples—Results of Alternative M5(2013 template)after 10 years of simulation. 67 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 152 of 260 Alternative M6 Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2013 (switching disposal location of dredged material from Doctors Pass and fill density on the disposal locations). Simulation period: 10 years Areas included on the alternative: Area 3. Structures: All existing structures in the model domain Alternative M6 was simulated only for Naples and it was based on Alternative M5. Major differences are the switching of disposal locations of dredged material from R-60/R-62 to R- 58/R-59 (volumes are the same specified in Table 10 of the main report) as well as fill density on those locations. Since the dredged sand is disposed through R-58 and R-59 on Alternative M6, the design template is not as wide as in Alternative M5 along this area, being denser at R60-to R- 62 (which is the disposal location proposed by Alternative M5). Model results indicate better performance for Alternative M6 than for Alternative M5. Near monument R-63 the final shoreline barely violates the design standard. The effects of the structures on the coastline however are more pronounced. Too much sand is being trapped north of R-62. The same volume could be more evenly distributed over the vicinities had the structures been removed. This will be tested on later runs. The switched disposal area may also be cheaper. 68 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 Vlll-3-b New Business 153 of 260 Beach Width Remaining- Naples r � F d 7 bx 4_.:0. "f r/ >'± R-060 n �(., ,- f ♦ , J s R•061 R•O61 r / .,P Y R-082 1- R 062 t. , 8-063• R 083 8-064't- y r R-06� .. dry '"=" a, .t 8-065 - = i R-065 t! i #. . R-066 1. 0 ' R-066 " rte. , � 8-067 _ ,., I,' 8067 'a i�� .. i R-068, s., R-068 e"t,E R-069. i? 8-069 tax++1 1 ;t°"4. _p ax n 1.�A�r- .� R-0701 ..,r — R-070 s i:c' '1 ' , o R-071- it R-071 R-072 R-072 I 14 r.t__ x , tlar 6 M1^R?# * . R-073, s R-073 M to 1 , r,,,,■ T• , _.V � f R-074. R-074 s b '• `zn 8-075 F-- — R-075 t r•+ R-076• 8-076 f P 8-077 t-- , e R-077 Yom.. i4° R-076 S R-078 .4 T�w P : IN . 8-079 R-079 Yr"°r 225 200 175 150 125 100 389000 390000 391000 392000 393000 Distance from baseline(ft) FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) ----- 2010 2013 template(year 0) year 2 r 5 Y� year 10 Design Standard Figure 57: Naples—Results of Alternative M6(2013 template switching bypass location)after 10 years of simulation. 69 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 154 of 260 Alternative M7 Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2013 Simulation period: 10 years Areas included on the alternative: Area 2. Structures: All existing structures in the model domain + 10 proposed permeable tapered groins in Park Shore. Another Park Shore alternative was proposed to mitigate the high erosion rates of the hot spot located between monuments R-51 and R-53, discussed previously on Alternative M4 description. Alternative M7 combines the addition of 10 permeable tapered groins together with the 2013 advance fill template evaluated on Alternative M5. UNIBEST results presented on Figure 58 indicate that the permeable groins performance was not as intended since the design standard was violated in a few regions. As well as for Alternative M3 (which proposes the addition of two T-groins on Naples beach) it was observed that not enough sand bypass the groins, leading to positive effects updrift the structures and erosion downdrift. Alternative M7 is efficient between monuments R-51 and R-53, but the permeable tapered groins caused further erosion south of that area, forming another hot spot and violating the design standard. The downdrift impacts increases with time, expanding to the south between the 5th and 10th year. Since the wider beach fill alternative itself(Alternative M5) provides a solution to the erosion in this area, Alternative M7 was not pursued further. 70 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 155 of 260 Beach Width Remaining- Park shore R•043•- , R-043 \+. i R-044 M i i _. R•044 i � A i f r it x . . R•045• R-046� ., 8.046 1 ', 4 t S . R-047•— - f 8-047 z.* 4.t.*' R-048• ! R-48 " . t " i s a +ir J. a°a 1 o-"4 *4.:. R-049�-- 1s - R050 R.050 -Atm li i `. it ,. rllr,. R•051 '. \` R•051 "�'►,,,, }R i." 4 f C 4 i`8-052 R-052 Y r . r t ?" JJ r :q. y.' (/R-054--- R-0S4 � ``qt inw w R-055 4r 'r } 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 387000 388000 389000 390000 381000 Distance from baseline(ft) FL-L=ast NAD83-Easting(ft) ------ 2010 2013 template(year 0) year 2 year 5 _----year 10 Design Standard Figure 58: Park Shore—Results of Alternative M7(2013 template+permeable tapered groins)after 10 years of simulation. 71 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 156 of 260 Alternative M8: Model: Delft3D and Analytical solution (Parabolic bay shape equation) Fill template: 2006 Simulation period: 1 year Areas included on the alternative: Area 3. Structures: All existing structures in the model domain and the addition of a spur to the southern Doctors Pass jetty. In Alternative M8 it is proposed the construction of a spur in the southern jetty of Doctors Pass with the purpose of creating wave shadowing in the region just south of the inlet, in order to reduce the high erosion rates observed in this area and enable the formation of a fillet of sand currently absent in this region. The proposed spur is approximately 100 ft long measured from the edge of the southern groin of Doctors Pass, being perpendicular to the existing structure (Figure 59). The permeability of the spur on Delft3D was set to be zero (non-permeable) for both currents and waves. Spur at southern jetty of Doctors Pass(Aternative 5) - Collier County, FL J670000 • .4\ Z M f`^ u. LL 669000 0 4 388000 388500 389000 389500 FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) Figure 59: Proposed spur at the southern jetty of Doctors Pass. In order to verify the influence of the spur on flow, waves and transport patterns, the scenario with the structure was simulated for one year on Delft3D model. The model was forced with waves, winds and tides previously described on this report. Model results of waves, currents and sediments transport associated to a northwestern wave condition and to a southern wave condition, with/without the spur, are present in Figure 60 and Figure 61. 72 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. N C Z m 2go 82g n _ n ry O o ., r �..,,.. ,., P 4 n V M n H O Ir' a ,. I'?, „ - ' ,, i.,. , raj l:f-- w .^gam J.+ t ,.-*r^� r r„v.:M1 .2 o €A f IP I IA I 1 � v 1,..,,- 9 0 u a ti e R 1 1 E` 1 P x = ; 1:. a (Y)IL.IL.N i9W141.3 li woufa N'CYOYNI..3'li '" C e P. n ., h w o M a ,Q.. ee A .v �+ sr 1 , L w ~ ? .a ?t, * .-k +it, Z$ ; € , o- a#,k, a Z yy N ,�i ' W 'r "W .r ��a- ( 5 9 V (i) uµrory team.31d (C)&*fofi team 1=3'li .n IX i .,�..... _.._...... .,.^ e o u Itt1S� , u"u till I1 ue , r te, tt tit tttt ♦ ttttitttlt as tifilif x, : t , , r�tt_ tt t t 1 i:: , t , t t r t, t t ►', lilt ' 3 0 ttttttttttttt t �rtttttttrrtjti y € € € I t It ga F F. g , o to (t)tfirpp+.N-ieWH 1••3'li W WN team Iw?'ld ,'7,i r w 2=o co)° A. n° w o w < 0 ++ n N o . o v ZS V41 Ilia' .'�g w 4 •k O � • du* te *3 i f-.i' , -r- y, ' q `aR 7#p q oXYe ate,^ I FFBii Y WGd+xy 1,41 ...K .. �E �' C e $ z € 8 III If b ts z iii s i n a. u 1. 44 0i e le a o L II a w i 1 �� 'w' O rot�u4�UON•tYOVN 1M3•lj (ti)O0N)aN•OWN p.3-'}� C 1 0 c O C V N h n M (V N O r M N N O u r I '.-•' {� 16 "may"' S `9 °.' aw' e > r O g � ��i y f t z 4q� +f go- Rr" xm $ r a 33 ^y < rt:" j6 1 ��?'' a wP, i' lt, . X,� #a'm^ as..� tip' : 3 u, b "a" wtl i {ityb�P,„, ,-n 't i i h � �� i ree^' ",„zP'Y fi„ - e ';',;1104' n z+"far ' ' : x -- ii m �i • 4 (t)a+NFrw1-L9OYN w3-1! c&O wnN-tIOYN P•3'ld S ti 1..... .. . �1 . e ## `\ ♦g dB ,v y.v '� ` r �0�1„ v,\�,�»` 2 pa v ��,: .w.±y'v �„* I sa=+. g S \V`”-�v..•V••' '^y,''« ,,.1 "5,.+,. '-: J '. �a•rv,,..�„'.. ,A, .,\t, ,. 4A7",,r;,S, II *�`*„,'`,.."'-;,„,,,,,'"4.""7.."' "� y,,,w...`'' :'" (t - S A+.."`y""` ,,^�",`" ` '4"`"` ' ."�'*,� ' thy, LL n °� iiii�,,,,,"•-• 41pa.,+„ �,��"�+! "� t ,�"%„'"w`';�' �, � �d 5k: $ "S`"`.'*"``�k ' i it " �"�:n,. �" : Y +' �4fi5� 9ry� '� wF .d".�wwi s a4 , ..+3.i .�^ SUnwb,,d ..I Ito B.)I PON,EYOYN 0."."61 (w1 -£QOYN i�3'1d CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 159 of 260 Figure 62 and Figure 63 show the net sediment transport maps obtained after the one year morphological simulation (including 65 wave/wind conditions and tides). Figure 64 shows the effects of the spur in morphology in the end of the 1 year simulation. The impacts/benefits were obtained by calculating the differences between the final model results with and without the spur. The efficiency of Alternative M8 is noticed in Figure 60 and Figure 61. The wave energy and flow velocities are reduced by the spur, diminishing sediment transport on the area behind the structure. The positive effects are visible in the comparisons of the net sediment transport maps, that were created based on the whole simulation including 65 different representative wave conditions (Figure 62 and Figure 63). On the former the arrows show intense net sediment transport to south from the very tip of the southern jetty while the latter shows a shadow zone where net transport is slowed down. The morphologic results of such changes are illustrated on Figure 64. The area in green shows positive effects of the spur. The model results indicate that the new structure will trap approximately 2,750 c.y. of sand in relation to no action scenario, slowing the intense loss of sediments from this area. A 300 ft beach length south of the jetty is directly protected by the spur over the 1 year simulation. An additional analysis was conducted with the analytical method (parabolic bay shape fit). The results obtained are consistent with the Delft3D outcomes, indicating the fillet formation near the southern jetty of Doctors Pass (Figure 65). Net Sediment Transport(c.y/ft/yr) 60 670500 4140 EAt 50 i A 3,ry %k ° 40 870000 a s 'rr 30 689500 tr 20 689000 r t 1 , 10 668500 387500 388000 388500 389000 389500 0 FL-East NA083-Easting(ft) Figure 62: Net sediment transport without the spur. 75 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 160 of 260 Net Sediment Transport(c.yift/yr) 60 1�I, 670500 4MP 50 #4 670000 =i a ;` 40 30 889500 tft 00- 20 869000 ' •..; 10 I -' .'s 688500 387000 387500 388000 366500 389000 389500 FL-East NAD83•Easting(ft) Figure 63: Net sediment transport after the addition of the spur. Impacts(-)/Benefits(+)of the spur in morphology(ft) —_— — 4 3 670000 2 € 1, Z ih 869500 j , 0 Y,M 2750 c.y, u. i s i • -2 869000 -4 3 388000 388500 389000 389500 FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) Figure 64: Impacts and benefits to the morphology associated to the addition of the spur. 76 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 q�ab New Business 161 of 260 \> .« + . , »! 14 o \ © w< . . w<,w. / . \ ,g, . . . m ? 'lb:-1 i d2< . :>. / ° \ «. > .\� 7. « � : I I I I I Oft 100It . 290* I \ . y . Figure 65: Analyti l solu o based on P nbl Bay shape equati on.Th e red lin e indica t the equilibrium coastline po mmm 77 COASTAL PLA NNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 162 of 260 Alternative M9 Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2013 Fill Plan (Vanderbilt Feeder Beach or additional fill) Simulation period: 10 years Areas included on the alternative: Area 1 Vanderbilt Structures: None. The simulation of Alternative M9 was performed only for Vanderbilt Beach. It was defined based on the results of Alternative M5 for Vanderbilt Beach. The 2013 design template was modified to include wider beach where the results from Alternative M5 showed violation of design standard widths (in the vicinity of monument R-29). Results presented on Figure 66 indicate the efficiency of this advance fill plan. Slight violation of design standard is observed only on the 10 year curve (less than 7 ft between monuments R-29 and R-30), a reduction from 15 feet over M5. It is important to recognize that during UNIBEST calibration step, sediment sinks were added to the model to better represent the erosion rate in north Vanderbilt. Thus erosion magnitudes may be influenced by the longer periods of simulation (i.e. 10 years). The additional sediment quantity added to 2013 design was equivalent to the 15 feet recession arch, which indicated that a sand volume greater than the deficit from the standard is needed to address the hot spot. 78 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 163 of 260 Beach Width Remaining- Vanderbilt R-019" ....*1 , r ,........... 8-019 .. 8-020I 8-020 ► [( R-021 1- w>- R.021 a 1 1 a .' ( ,. 8.022'.= -f R-022 , R-023. -+ R-023 * r' -- i.i r R-024- 8-024 ' .,' ''; r 'taw . R-025« ." R-025 " a i* !% , i :t. r y , F t'�_ 8.026 R-026 " 7 8-027 �4 8-027 i � 1 * �m Z- f c 8.028+ : R-028 ' R-029 �� R-029 -{. t'""` `4 . s , R-030 R-030 .., r. -030 . _ , 4 i R-031 8-031 •R-032 -i R-032 .4` ,. R-033 r- `b`, R.033 11, , 1 R-034- N R-034 4 R-035 h 8-035 R-038 -- 8-036 ° V' 8-037<- ,� R-037 `` R-038- R-038 . - t ,, R-039 e- ! ...i._ (...... ..4,4'':. l .._..- R-039 . 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 383000 385000 387000 389000 Distance from baseline(ft) FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) 2010 2013 template(year 0) year 2 year 5 --- year 10 Design Standard Figure 66: Vanderbilt—Results of Alternative M9(2013 template+feeder beach)after 10 years of simulation. 79 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 164 of 260 Alternative M10 Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2013 Simulation period: 10 years Areas included on the alternative: Area 2 Park Shore. Structures: All structures were removed Based on results of Alternative M2 (without structures) and M5 (with the 2013 advance fill template), the performance of the advance fill template without the structures on Park Shore was modeled. As expected, the removal of structures diminished the offsets on the coastline as well as improved the beach width remaining on areas between R-44 and R-46 when compared to results of Alternative M5. The model results presented on Figure 67 indicate that there is still violation of design standard between R-44 and R-45 of about 14 feet, a distinct improvement over the existing condition. However the situation on the whole northern sector after 10 years of simulation is better than the conditions in 2010 (represented by the 2010 purple dashed line). South of this area beach in general is at the design beach width with only and a slight violation of less than 5 ft at R-48.5. The smaller violation may be tolerable, given its small size. The larger one may be restricted by nearshore hardbottom, and require further analysis during detailed design. In addition, it may reflect the short bypassing disposal area, which ends just updrift of this hot spot. An extended disposal area may solve this hot spot. 80 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 165 of 260 Beach Width Remaining- Park Shore R-043,— Iil 8-043 i d, R-044 - R-044 4/0 '4*i .19F4 , e i , , ., e i 8.045;- ' R.045 3, . ti ll t i w - i e 4 I. : r -s,. P4+Rei s a* R 048,,. " R 448 y# « a -- ': s F,Il i 5 i t 4 ,.. r•t. : " ,ass R-047._. + t'' R-047 a '� m•re 7�6r° „7,.:i s ti R-048• 8.048 � ' ., *ja 414 * : ''4.8.049- -' R.049 1 I ;' ' ' *F ,z . mil — 4,° "jlr R-050 - f k — R-out ".� wrf °' d 8-051" '' 8-051 'ms1 8-052 R-052 r 4 +i 1 % i , ` `." ei , c R-053 R-053m r - i s ` f I ,`it R-054— ' e'e 8-054 ,. y,. '.°; 'a r \ E j r -"I • *1 ,• {;gt I. 7 a l r+L e 8-055,- R-055 164.: aI1A, ,. r 175 150 125 100 75 50 387000 388000 399000 390000 391000 Distance from baseline(ft) FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) I. 2010 2013 template(year 0) year 2 year 5 year 10 Design Standard Figure 67: Park Shore—Results of Alternative M10(2013 template+removal of structures)after 10 years of simulation. 81 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 166 of 260 Alternative M11: Modeled with UNIBEST Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2013 Simulation period: 10 years Areas included on the alternative: Area 3 Naples. Structures: All existing structures were removed, except by the Naples Pier. Based on the results of Alternative M2 (without structures) and M6 (with advance fill template switching bypass disposal location) the performance of the 2013 advance fill template without the structures on Naples (Alternative M11) was tested. As expected, the removal of structures diminished the offsets on the coastline as well as it improved the beach width remaining on areas between R-62 and R-64 when compared to results of Alternative M6. Within the 10 years simulation no violation of design width occurred at this region, proving that with an advanced beach fill width and a modified inlet bypassing program, the benefits for groins fade, especially in a project area with a weak long shore transport direction and magnitude. A small violation exists further south that can be addressed with additional fill, since hardbottom is not a restriction in this area. 82 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 167 of 260 Beach Width Remaining- Naples 0. s --1.-'0.i.. R-060 t , * r, , R-060 r n 1 R-061 v „ R-061 ; - g . . . R-082 r R-082 . .' �; R-063 ., i 1 R-063 R-064 R.064 • t r rim, R-065 R-065 •' + .q x»ti R-066 I r` R-066 •�r' ,•"° J'I r R-067; r R-067 i t ,° •, '-„+:';t ' -"•* i. R-068■ R-068 ■-' y ♦ l4 R-069 , i R-069 :s„ ig .z 2. ... r a r • # R-070• < R-070 �" »� R-071 f.-- iJ R-071 ;� e � s o y2 R-072 I i R 4172 y t kk� * :` R-074• ,, R-074 , c T R-075 . R O75 . i to .a 5 R-076• R-076 '. }� R 1tics R-077 R-077 • a L 'a S R-078 r R-078 . A. >, r . R-079 e- R-079 ,, ” 225 200 175 150 125 100 389000 390000 391000 392000 393000 Distance from baseline(It) FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) -----_.2010 2013 template(year 0) year 2 year 5 -- -- year 10 Design Standard Figure 68: Naples—Results of Alternative M11 (2013 template+switching bypass disposal location+removal of structures)after 10 years of simulation. 83 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 168 of 260 4.0 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS Alternatives MI and M2 provided the assessment to the fluctuations of the existing conditions with and without structures. The with-structure condition considers the existing groins/outfalls as calibrated in the model. The without structure condition removed all the structures within the Park Shore and Naples reaches (except for Doctors Pass jetties and Naples pier). Vanderbilt Beach has no visible structures. The results indicate that the influence of a few of the structures is significant to the coastline behavior and beach fill templates tend to perform better without these structures. Generally, groins cause a very localize offset-fillet in the shoreline, that has a very focused area of benefit and impact. The impact is not visible monitoring at 1000 foot increments (distance in between R-monuments). With a robust nourishment and inlet bypassing program, the benefits for groins fade, especially in a project area with a weak long shore transport direction and magnitude. Alternative M3 considers the modification of two existing structures into T-groins to reduce the erosion on Naples Beach. The T-groins are longer than the existing structures and also lead to offsets formation in the coastline due to the blockage of the littoral drift. The T-heads are not able to prevent the offset formation. Alternative M4 looks at filling the gap in the hardbottom alignment with an artificial reef 100 feet wide and covering most of the distance between R50 and R53, where there is a gap in the hardbottom or it is located further offshore. The goal was to mimic the existing hardbottom, dissipating the wave energy and reducing the erosion on the area. The model results indicate that the artificial reefs did reduce erosion and trap some sand near shore, but generally it was not a significant amount compared to alternative M-10 results. Another structural alternative (M7) considered a series of permeable tapered groin on Park Shore. The model indicated that the sawtooth effect and large offsets caused by the groins are very prominent, causing violation of the design beach width at the downdrift end of the groin field. The type of structural alternative that proved to be effective was the addition of a 100 ft jetty spur on the southern jetty of Doctors Pass, creating a fillet in this area and reducing sediment loses (Alternative M8). Alternatives M5, M6, M9, M10 and Ml 1 look at the 2013-14 renourishment project with a 10- year project life template, removing structures and switching bypass disposal locations. Based on the results of analysis and modeling described in this report, structural alternatives in the straight sections of Collier County coast proved to be less successful than the simple wider beach design. The 2013-14 design without structures is the recommended plan, in conjunction with increased sand placement near hot spots identified by the modeling. The selected alternatives (M8, M9, M10 and Ml1) had shown minor points violations of the design after 10 years of simulation, which should be addressed during the detailed design phase. 84 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 169 of 260 5.0 REFERENCES Benedet, L.; Finkl, C.W., and Hartog, W.M., 2007. Processes controlling development of erosional hot spots on a beach nourishment project. Journal of Coastal Research, 23(1), 33-48. Benedet, L., List, J.H., 2008. Evaluation of the physical process controlling beach changes adjacent to nearshore dredge pits. Coastal Engineering volume 55(12). 1224-1236. Booij, N., Haagsma, IJ.G., Holthuijsen, L.H., Kieftenburg, A.T.M.M., Ris, R.C., van der Westhuysen, A.J., Zijlema, M., 2004. SWAN Cycle III version 40.41 User Manual, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. Hartog, W.M., Benedet, L.B, Walstra, D.J. R., van Koningsveld, M., Stive, M. J.F., and Finkl, C.W. 2008. Mechanisms that Influence the Performance of Beach Nourishment: A Case Study in Delray Beach, Florida, U.S.A. Journal of Coastal Research, 24(5) 1304-1319. Hsu, J. R. C., Evans, C., 1989. Parabolic bay shapes and applications. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Parte 2, 87, 557-570. Land Boundary Information System, 1999. Land Boundary Information System 1999 Digital Orthographic Quarter-Quad, State Plane - NAD83 — MrSID, http://data.labins.org/2003/MappingData/DOQQ/doqq_99_stpl.cfm. Land Boundary Information System, 2003. Land Boundary Information System Water Boundary Data, http://data.labins.org/2003/SurveyData/WaterBoundary/ waterboundary.cfm. Lesser G.R., Roelvink J.A., Van Kester J.A., T.M., Stelling G.S. 2004. Development and validation of a three-dimensional morphological model. Coastal Engineering 51 (2004) 883—915. Microsoft, 2006. Microsoft Streets and Trips 2007, Microsoft, Redmond, WA. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2006. National Geophysical Data Center National Ocean Service Hydrographic Survey Data, http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/gdas/ims/hyd_cri.htm I. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009. National Data Buoy Center Station EGKF 1 - EGK - Egmont Key, FL, http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=egkfl. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009. WAVEWATCH III Model Data Access, http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/waves/download.shtml? 85 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 170 of 260 National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Tides and Currents, http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/. Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2008. Manatee County Government Geographic Information Systems Small Tiles - —3-15mb each, Collection Date: February 2008, http://public.mymanatee.org/gishome/jsp/ortho_map_08.jsp. Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2009. FY 2009 Southwest District Orthophotos, Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, FL. Distributed by USGS Earth Explorer, http://edcsnsI7.cr.usgs.gov/EarthExplorer/. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Wave Information Studies, http://frf.usace.army.mil/wis/wis_main.html. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2006 Post Hurricane Wilma Lidar: Hurricane Pass to Big Hickory Pass, FL, http://csc-s-maps- q.csc.noaa.gov/dataviewer/viewer.html?keyword=lidar. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008. TEC - Survey Engineering and Mapping Center of Expertise Corpscon Version 6.0, http://crunch.tec.army.mil/software/ corpscon/corpscon.htm1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center U.S. Waterway Data Dredging Information System, http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ ndc/data/datadrgsel.htm. U.S. Geological Survey, 1996. Digital Elevation Models, http://data.geocomm.com/catalog/US/61093/subl ist.htm I WL I Delft (Waterloopkundig Labaratorium I Delft Hydraulics), 2009. Delft 3D-FLOW, Simulation of multi-dimensional hydrodynamic flows and transport phenomena, including sediments, User manual. WL I Delft Hydraulics, Delft, The Netherlands. WLIDeIft Hydraulics (2010). UNIBEST, A software suite for simulation of sediment transport processes and related morphodynamics of beach profiles and coastline evolution. Theoretical reference document. WL I Delft Hydraulics, Delft, The Netherlands. ENGELUND, F. AND HANSEN, E. A Monograph on Sediment Transport in Alluvial Streams. 3rd. ed. Technical Press: Copenhagen. 1972. VAN RIJN, L.C. Principles of sediment transport in rivers, estuaries and coastal seas. Aqua Publications: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 1993. 86 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 171 of 260 APPENDIX A Wave/flow computational grids and bathymetries COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 172 of 260 Regional Wave Grid 1200000 1 : a a '," 1000000 g 500000 I 1 800000 3 u. 400000 200000 -200000 0 200000 400000 000000 500000 FL-East NA083-Ea•Wq(R) Regional wave grid. Regional Wave Grid Bethymetry(ft NAVD) 0 1200000 ;q ` •» . e �t� � �S h 9t. 1000000 �� 411 'tz t 1- X33 r }(g -80 g 900000 z I t` ii 0 Z .1 e3 z gyp$( 900000 a 4z �_ ti? -100 y E 4, i ,' ■ d grk -120 400000 €z . L -140 200000 ''.I' ft., t: -150 Ito -180 -200000 0 200000 400000 500000 800000 FL-Eat NAD83-Easmrq(11 Bathymetry map associated to the regional wave grid. COASTAL PLANNING &ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 173 of 260 Intermediate Wave Grad 060600 750000 700000 g I „050000 u 000000 550000 500000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 F.-Ead NAt7Q3-Emote((0 Intermediate wave grid. Intermediate Wave Grid Bethymetry(ft NAVO) 0 000006 } .ro t , s. 750000 700000 050000 -50 550000 .60 500000 .70 200000 230000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 f.Eat NADa9-Eaaa%((0 Bathymetry map associated to the intermediate wave grid. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 174 of 260 Local Wave Gild(north domain)-Collier County,FL 705006 &.,y a._ s g 111+.:" 'x• S6 w. 700000 " ilZit �a. e 1490000 �t' +tea ' W 660000 675000 670000 I 065000.: , '' """a 365000 375000 365000 395000 405000 FL-East NAD63-Eaaarg(6) Local wave grid-north domain. Local Wave Bathymetry(north domain)-ft NAV()-Collier County.FL , . 705000 � : Nt 700000 • 'r y4 5 • 695666'1�U�F"'dr � r . 690006 to Vie '.. q .ts v. 660000 klk 675000 ;waa+ •670000 005000 365000 375000 365000 395000 405000 FL-E•t NA063-Easwq(et Bathymetry map associated to the local wave grid-north domain. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 175 of 260 Local Wave Grid(south domain)-Collier County,FL 860000 �� yI� =p *a" • ', 71* No 670000 665060 660000 �.i# 655000 • 650000 *: 645000 tom+ .1 385000 375000366000 395000 405000 FL-East t4AD63•Ewing(18 Local wave grid-south domain. Initial Wave Bathymetry(south domain)-ft NAVD-Collier County.FL 0 660000 „ .. y - x ry 675000 ' ;;; (ume MwR* 5 670000 665000 P is -�•10 yR 666006 .ers :F, s I t � i 655000 650000 665000 4. ,wee 365000 375000 365000 395000 403000 45 FL-East NAD63-Essaisa(1t} Bathymetry map associated to the local wave grid-south domain. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VII$-3-b New Business 176 of 260 Local Wave Grid(Doctors Pass domain)-Collier County,FL 680000 a'c u'k^P i k 3 875000 S d r — 885000 ;a - it 3 P Salo 0."c.r a 'Ytfri t. VItt 2 P i 855000 375000 385000 3E5000 FL-East NAD83-EssWp(8) Local wave grid-Doctors Pass domain. Local Wave Bethymetry(Doctors domain)-R NAVD-Collier County,FL .�: 0 680000 t t M+� N '� 875000 iwlr -10 d 870000 �$ I *, e 6a�Y t• S °{ • 160000 x p 855000 375000 385000 305000 FL-East NA063-Ea►tlrg{10 Bathymetry map associated to the local wave grid-Doctors Pass domain. COASTAL PLANNING &ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 177 of 260 Flow Grid(north domain)-Collier County.Ft. 70 00 a„e skill's 4 • 700000 fs ” 665000 " , g L�sj1 ';',.'-:,..1‘.'44.4-,4:',... 6' � T- 665000 �l� ) e 7{ Z ut d a t Fi'6dW00 675000 670000 4 s 365000 375000 3*500D F 385000 4050'5 00 L.EaN NAD83-Eaainp(11) Flow grid-North domain. Initial Flow Bathymetry(north domain)-ft NAVD-,Collier County,FL rr 7a y 705000 ,.. -, a y, 700000 s -5 ,, .. S( j-10 i f690000iIrf I " 6x5000 E i °, �,17 a I ° -15 660000 r*.' Mr , 675000 y k at. a a,s« .Zp 670000 ter. 665000 �..., ',.,. 365000 375600 365000 385000 405000 E:L-East NAD63-EaNinB(1t) Bathymetry map associated to the flow grid-North domain. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 178 of 260 Flow Grid(south domain)-Collier County,FL 660000 ��" e�:l ° - s - sir 575000 z r 670000 t t - ` ' ,, /655m 1-0_, ''*. ./.'''•i),"'" ' t ., 060000 u. 655000' ... ∎, 6 �� 4_ 645000 , � 375000 4 FL-Eat NAD63 Flow grid-South domain. Initial Flow Bathymetry(south domain)-rt NAVO-Collier County.FL 0 660000 ,±„ a ru%i . 7' ,; ' 675000 ° ,h d a , 670000 t •...,»*- ' _. 5 M 6 de^ .iib Qnr. 665000 1 rti 060000 U! g is 655000. t - ` .kP 650000 .s ' $ -20 645000 ^' 385000 .., 365000 185000 405000 FL-Eat NAD63.864500(5 Bathymetry map associated to the flow grid-South domain. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 179 of 260 Flow Grid(Doctors Pass domain)-Collier County.FL 6$0000 a'W a} .6, 1l i $ i1,F w k C 1 d a per. w 675000 , '+* 8 570000 " '. _.. . � 665066 LL 4 4 1 0 . m, .A t 660000 ;; .,-- "`' 655000 375000 765006 395004 FL-East NA083-Easep(6) Flow grid-Doctors Pass domain. Initial Flow B#hynte(ry(Doctors domain)-ft NAVD-Collier County,FL 0 666060 a 675000. . .4 , ", I'll .j .. -10 670000 I j ,en 9R I t5 665000 ,. . °: .t'* 7, 1� 660000 . . "` '' '� rY `24 .c r m n«. . „3 fl 655000 .j .�D i �k r °�.a 375000 369006 3Y5000 -25 FL-East 746063-Easti g(6) Bathymetry map associated to the flow grid-Doctors Pass domain. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 180 of 260 APPENDIX B Seasonal analysis of effects of structures on the coast COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 181 of 260 Because of the high variability of the annual wave climate, a schematic wave climate is used to simulate a typical year and evaluate potential net sediment transport. Based on net trends the performance of the proposed alternatives and impacts on beach changes were evaluated. But the seasonal variability of the wave climate was also briefly evaluated specially to better understand the climate influence on sediment transport trends and on coastline behavior. From Figure 69 it's possible to observe that not only the coastline have offsets due to the presence of structures but they also change periodically depending on prevailing wave direction. Analyzing the wave roses (Figure 70 and Figure 71) separated for each season, it is possible to observe that during tropical-summer, the wave climate is characterized by small waves (< 4 ft). However, as this period corresponds to the hurricane season, some events of extreme wave heights (e.g. greater than 10 ft) occur sporadically in the wave record especially from southeastern direction. Conversely, during winter, the wave climate is more energetic, with waves greater than 5 ft being more frequent and with prevailing direction on the northwestern quadrant. Nevertheless, the extreme events in these seasons are not as energetic as the ones in summer and fall, because they are generated by cold fronts, rather than by hurricanes; although they are more frequent. In general, the winter and more energetic climate is responsible for great of the alongshore transport in Collier County beaches. From Figure 72 and Figure 73 it's possible to see that winter variations on the coastline are greater as well as the net transport (Figure 75 and Figure 74). During the tropical-summer, when hurricane events take place, erosion due to cross-shore processes rather than alongshore become more relevant. Since construction, the shoreline has been impacted by several storms, most notably Tropical Storm Fay. Tropical Storm Fay did have a significant impact upon shoreline width in 2008, but less impact upon the volume. This indicates that the sand is still within the active beach profile and not all has been lost. This sand may eventually go back to the beach during recovery interval of times. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. N G N N C Q— N ti co ^•,� Gi ., ++ e o 4 ci a Q cp Z w a im e UJ zea 0— O o Z N U.1 Csi „a > ,i� � O Z_ Z IZAw o CL O .. ,. .'3 .. �) 6 is O. e�� ^` . , � � w �,�w g is • a` . ;4! —.., "y x 'rs +r, , ,.�tiM1 nah umrotrRcaniaa"��b. " " " on -. GT. 0 0 N CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 183 of 260 summer wave condition,(June-November) NOIM m wcxi • LAST Hs(ni Figure 70: Tropical-summer wave rose(2005-2010). Winter wave condition,(December•May) MORIN ,sr 410_ �. • EAST H.roi ■+w ■s.,s : urw,. IN Figure 71:Winter wave rose(2005-2010). COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 184 of 260 Shoreline changes after 6 months- Park Shore j R-043 t- --- - R-043 km. '�r i * '3# . R-044 - ._ 8-044 ---- ,, t k R t . a }440 .1 8-045 - R-045 w v e - k R-048 F. 8_048 r � '�` I + 4 e , 8-047- - - R-047 ' Zj . k I `',, ' s{ fir 07;77 8-048 R-048 {,< rt•r R-049 _.-'° -- R-049 '�'• 1114_. 5,,.. 41 g R-050!- ,�. - R-050 .*: te- R-051 r-- - - R-051 sy„ , I. ;. R-052 .... x s �i .!" L S tir `, "7. , i ....--._- dye �." xx. R 053 8.053 ' r ' R-054• 8-054 4 I $.. tee .,. ,.s 4Y'r.■ r,^ 1 r R-055 R-055 ph 5 0 -5 387000 389000 391000 Shoreline changes(ft) FL-East NAD83-Easting(ft) Summer Winter � Figure 72: Park Shore-Comparison of shoreline changes between summer and winter seasons. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 185 of 260 Shoreline changes after 6 months. Naples N g+ ♦ y. ■ kk y+gm 0.s:.,-: �} £1:1';':"::::k e R 060- 8060 1 # ::: R-061 .`, R 061 } , -- ------ , . :T R-062— t R 062 , 1a R-063 8-063 c' 8-061 . ' I r — R-064 7. 8.065 — ■ R•065 +r 'x �''"j • • a R-066 L. R-066 ' a� R-067 1— :,t .. R-088�--.. ,' 8.069 ` tK a a " • • R 069 �� R-069 at !« - 8-070(— t 8.070 a s+-`i'- ,,,y "4:74 ` ■ 8-071 i R-071 a ► r • R 072 R-072 R-073 ,. R 073 a+' y, R-074�._ _ �` _ R-074 ' �. '�e""' R-075 I— - R-075 �'� d« tf rs r 1 R si i • R-078 r R-076 . "* • ,� 4.0 ,:,,, --- B" rdi R 077•._. 8-077 .:# s / »3 t 5 R-078•--- �� R-078 �; p i i`- .. ‘,.%-'1,..= f a R-079 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 388000 391000 393000 Shoreline changes(ft) FL-East NA D83-Easting(ft) Summer Winter L Figure 73: Naples-Comparison of shoreline changes between summer and winter seasons. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 186 of 260 UN5SEST Sediment Transport Curvskaa21R-42 a R-57) R-043 1 1 ) t 1 R-044 r R-044— — R-045 ,;: R-048 46 4* ' .. R-048_ _ It 4:; 4- fi R-047— ^ mtYS- s�, R-048 6ID= 8.048— — g 4 ', / R-049 t _ .., 1 R-049— — 'f.ni, `.+ d - 4 ir; ) — R-050 d x R-051 ,¢ "�+- aRt R-051 — — rq g ) R-052 a„y" e R-052— — I it- f M► 8.053 . . '. R-053— — '.. q 4' k ii 4 R-054 r' ER* v%, R-054 — Trowel/Sunnier { 15-...ti Winter t*i ,, ..t NaVig R•055 *R C a i+ off.` R-055— ) `5: 3: 8.058 ' R-058 1 I f _ tt 11 -20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 385500 388500 387500 388500 389500 390500 Sedunera trarapon(c.y/yr) FL-East NA1383-E. ing(R) Figure 74: Park Shore-Comparison of sediment transport during summer and winter seasons. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC , VI-3-b October New Business 187 of 260 UNIBEST ced"i,nc,4 TI r t enWOr Cut eAree3(R-59 a R-84) 'R-058 c_..„._1 112 R - R-080 R-081 R-062 . r 8-062`- �.r"r - wintereUSurvr�er 8-063 winter 8-063- /// - y 8 \\ R-084 - R-064- �-`�... - a 8.065 lci R-065" - r tl R-066 R-066- • *3 R-067 R-087- R-068 e� - • • "al ... ° 3F 9 n R-068- \ - R-069 ' -- - •R-069- - t ' R-070 y a R-070- - 4= R-071 R-071 - -„ $ "• R-072 R-072- - a �=`^} R-073 R-073- \\\ - f „t..,,..'. R-074 "" R-074- - R-075 .. RATS- � ._ �. } R-076 °` r;t 3. R-077 • • R-077 - - R-078 c- R-079 _} s, R-080 1it R-080- _ �. �. - R•081 1:.',F 42ir; R-081 - - ir. � R-082 R-082- - ro Ii rep h R-083 n '' j a -20000 •15000 •10000 -5000 0 5000 387000 389000 391000 393000 395000 SeNment irensPwt)c.y.yr) FL-East NAD83-Eastin0 M) Figure 75: Naples-Comparison of net sediment transport during summer and winter seasons. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 188 of 260 APPENDIX B COLLIER COUNTY MHW AND VOLUMETRIC CHANGES COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 189 of 260 MHW SHORELINE CHANGES AND ADDED BEACH WIDTH(FEET) SHORELINE CHANGES ADDED BEACH WIDTH REMAINING PROFILE JULY 09 JUN.06 NOV.05 NOV.05 NOV.05 NOV.05 AREA to 2010 to 2010 to JUN.06 to JUN.08 to JULY 09 to 2010 WIGGINS PASS R-17 57.3 1 02.0 26.0 27.5 70.7 1 28.0 R-18 -3.3 20.3 10.5 50.6 34.1 30.8 R-19 11.2 27.2 -12.4 37.5 3.6 14.8 R-20 6.7 3.6 5.3 20.3 2.2 8.9 R-21 -0.7 -4.6 15.0 20.8 11.1 10.4 R-22 12.4 17.9 0.3 6.1 5.8 18.2 R-23 -5.3 -9.9 22.2 15.1 17.6 12.3 R-24 19.3 2.9 17.8 7.1 1.4 20.7 R-25 12.3 -11.3 42.2 19,1 18.6 30.9 R-26 11.9 -13.0 40.3 15.9 15.4 27.3 R-27 0.9 -26.9 43.5 20.6 15.7 16.6 R-28 4.4 -25.3 41.4 13.8 11.8 16.1 R-29 -1.2 -36.3 58.0 20.2 22.9 21.7 R-30 -12.0 -28.2 33.4 0.9 17.1 5.2 R-31 -4.6 -0.4 24.1 9.6 28.3 23.7 R-32 -1.3 -12.5 32.8 2.9 21.6 20.3 R-33 3.5 5.1 14.3 7.2 15.9 19.4 R-34 16.9 6.0 24.0 6.7 13.0 30.0 R-35 3.1 -6.3 24.7 -0.1 15.3 18.4 R-36 9.8 -4.0 14.9 -2.2 1.1 10.9 • R-37 -3.6 2.4 -6.4 -7.2 -0.4 -4.0 R-38 -2.6 14.5 -18.4 -1.1 -1.2 -3.9 R-39 31.0 16.7 -3.2 -9.1 -17.5 13.5 R-40 34.1 29.3 10.4 8.7 5.6 39.7 R-41 -73.2 -10.9 5.3 -1.1 67.5 -5.6 CLAM PASS • VANDERBILT 3.8 -18.5 37.4 14.1 15.1 18.9 R-22 TO R-31 PELICAN BAY 4.6 -2.0 22.5 4.0 15.9 20.4 R-3I TO R-37 - • PROJECT AREA 4.1 -11.4 31.0 9.8 15.4 19.5 R-22 TO R-37 • MONITORING AREA 5.1 2.3 18.6 11.6 15.9 21.0 R-17 TO R-41 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 190 of 260 MHW SHORELINE CHANGES AND ADDED BEACH WIDTH(FEET) SHORELINE CHANGES ADDED BEACH WIDTH REMAINING PROFILE JULY 09 JUN.06 NOV.05 NOV.05 NOV.05 NOV.05 AREA to 2010 to 2010 to JUN.06 to JUN.08 to JULY 09 to 2010 CLAM PASS R-42 5.2 -10.6 -7.1 -41.5 -23.0 -17.7 R-43 -16.9 5.1 -12.7 2.4 9.3 -7.6 R-44 -2.1 -22.7 12.1 -6.1 -8.5 -10.6 R-45 -5.6 -3.8 -8.8 -10.8 -7.0 -12.6 R-46 -16.9 -16.9 -4.4 -17.4 -4.3 -21.3 R-47 -14.7 -25.9 11.2 -4.3 0.0 -14.7 R-48 -2.7 -11.2 17.8 7.0 9.3 6.6 R-49 11.0 6.8 -1.9 -9.2 -6.1 4.9 R-50 2.2 11.0 30.0 23.7 38.9 41.0 R-51 0.7 -29.5 63.4 39.1 33.2 33.9 R-52 -28.3 -69.1 68.3 27.1 27.6 -0.8 R-53 -2.5 -35.2 51.2 24.3 18.5 16.0 R-54 1.0 -31.5 42.3 16.1 9.9 ____ 10.8 R-55 0.8 26.3 -19.1 -1.5 6.4 7.2 R-56 -1.5 22.2 -9.8 7.1 14.0 12.4 R-57 6.5 -13.2 13.3 -0.2 -6.4 0.1 DOCTORS PASS PROJECT AREA -5.6 -22.4 30.9 11.8 14.1 8.5 R-46 TO R-54 �_� __ _ MONITORING AREA � -4.0 -12.4 15.4 3.5 7.0 3.0 R-42 TO R-57 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 191 of 260 MHW SHORELINE CHANGES AND ADDED BEACH WIDTH(FEET) SHORELINE CHANGES ADDED BEACH WIDTH REMAINING PROFILE JULY 09 JUN.06 NOV.05 NOV.05 NOV.05 NOV.05 AREA to 2010 to 2010 to JUN.06 to JUN.08 to JULY 09 to 2010 DOCTORS PASS ___ R-58A -57.9 -100.8 65.4 8.3 22.5 -35.4 R-58 -1.0 -59.7 64.4 12.7 5.7 4.7 R-59 -1.6 -45.5 74.5 35.3 30.6 29.0 R-60 -3.0 3.6 431 38.4 49.7 46.7 R-61 -12.2 12.7 47.2 39.7 72.1 59.9 R-62 -14.2 -37.5 65.7 32.2 42.4 28.2 R-63 -18.4 -32.4 34.2 12.9 20.2 1.8 R-64 -12.4 -9.6 16.7 9.5 19.5 7.1 R-65 -7.4 -20.9 29.9 9.6 16.4 9.0 R-66 -6.3 -22.5 35.1 17.0 18.8 12.6 R-67 -0.7 -32.7 31.1 7.9 -0.9 -1.6 R-68 1.8 5.7 2.2 19.2 6.1 7.9 R-69 6.9 -9.8 32.9 33.1 16.3 23.1 R-70 7.2 -37.4 99.1 70.5 54.5 61.7 R-71 2.9 -45.9 117.2 78.4 68.4 71.3 R-72 -3.7 -44.5 123.1 84.6 82.3 78.6 R-73 0.3 21.1 48.4 75.9 69.3 69.5 R-74 4.6 -15.6 87.5 76.4 67.3 71.9 R-75 -0.2 5.0 50.9 41.9 56.1 55.9 R-76 9.5 -30.3 77.5 49.5 37.7 47.2 R-77 2.9 -25.9 59.0 38.5 30.2 33.1 R-78 4.7 -9.4 38.3 22.9 24.2 28.9 R-79 10.2 28.4 1.8 1.0 19.9 30.2 R-80 29.0 15.6 15.6 4.0 2.2 31.2 R-81 -3.0 -12.3 5.7 -10.6 -3.7 -6.6 R-82 -20.3 1.4 -6.7 1.8 15.0 -5.3 R-83 -9.2 15.0 2.3 21.1 26.5 17.3 R-84 -1.1 17.5 11.3 21.8 29.8 28.8 PROJECT AREA -4.5 -24.2 56.5 37.0 36.8 32.3 R-58A TO R-78 MONITORING AREA -3.3 -16.7 45.5 30.5 32.1 31.2 R-58A TO R-84 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 192 of 260 COLLIER COUNTY VOLUMETRIC CHANGES VOLUMETRIC CHANGES VOLUME REMAINING PROFILE AREA EFFECTIVE JULY 09 JUN.06 SEPT/NOV.05 SEPT/NOV.05 SEPT/NOV.05 SEPT/NOV.05 FROM/TO DISTANCE(FT) to 2010 to 2010 to JUN.06 to JUN/SEPT.08 to JULY 09 to 2010 WIGGINS PASS R-17 TO R-18 1,002 -5,734 38,828 2,994 17,335 47,556 41,822 R-18 TO R-19 1,047 -9,481 5,120 2,469 9,670 17,070 7,589 R-19 TO R-20 1,029 -716 341 -1,943 2,602 -886 -1,602 R-20 TO R-2I 1,030 -3,037 -4,646 1,773 546 164 -2,873 R-21 TO R-22 1,040 -1,055 491 1,924 1,769 3,470 2,415 R-22 TO R-23 568 623 3,415 2,720 3,535 5,512 6,135 R-23 TO R-24 1,057 4,767 6,364 6,607 6,637 8,204 12,971 R-24 TO R-25 1,082 4,751 4,986 11,930 9,913 12,165 16,916 R-25 TO R-26 983 3,354 -404 16,440 10,784 12,682 16,036 R-26 TO R-27 993 3,482 -1,833 17,964 11,553 12,649 16,131 R-27 TO R-28 1,195 494 -3,133 18,790 14,501 15,163 15,657 R-28 TO R-29 855 86 -5,381 14,559 10,184 9,092 9,178 R-29 TO R-30 1,028 -2,557 -12,283 14,676 6,759 4,950 2,393 R-30 TO R-31 1,037 -2,332 -1,998 4,956 5,101 5,290 2,958 R-31 TO R-32 1,006 -160 1,965 9,735 15,799 11,860 11,700 R-32 TO R-33 1,017 1,181 -1,541 14,979 19,319 12,257 13,438 R-33 TO R-34 1,026 1,466 -22 14,814 17,237 13,326 14,792 R-34 TO R-35 997 -155 -4,487 16,062 14,604 11,730 11,575 R-35 TO R-36 999 1,056 -4,387 14,282 12,596 8,839 9,895 R-36 TO R-37 1,057 115 -3,970 8,986 8,008 4,901 5,016 R-37 TO R-38 976 -838 535 1,902 10,020 3,275 2,437 R-38 TO R-39 1,022 4,528 5,054 3,216 15,048 3,742 8,270 R-39 TO R-40 1,009 7,631 7,348 8,742 16,073 8,459 16,090 R-40 TO R-41 1,012 1,633 8,525 9,445 21,390 16,337 17,970 CLAM PASS VANDERBILT 8,798 12,668 -10,267 108,642 78,967 85,707 98,375 R-22 TO R-31 PELICAN BAY 6,102 3,503 -12,442 78,858 87,563 62,913 66,416 R-3I TO R-37 PROJECT AREA 14,900 16,171 -22,709 187,500 166,530 148,620 164,791 R-22 TO R-37 MONITORING AREA 24,067 9,102 38,887 218,022 260,983 247,807 256,909 R-17 TO R-41 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 193 of 260 COLLIER COUNTY VOLUMETRIC CHANGES VOLUMETRIC CHANGES VOLUME REMAINING PROFILE AREA EFFECTIVE JULY 09 JUN.06 SEPT/NOV.05 SEPT/NOV.05 SEPT/NOV.05 SEPT/NOV.05 FROM/TO DISTANCE(FT) to 2010 to 2010 to JUN.06 to JUN/SEPT.08 to JULY 09 to 2010 CLAM PASS R-42 TO R-43 1,039 -5,012 -4,890 -6,453 -688 -6,331 -11,343 R-43 TO R-44 997 -3,307 -3,409 1,098 10,191 996 -2,311 R-44 TO R-45 1,048 -908 -5,497 -239 2,725 -4,828 -5,736 R-45 TO R-46 1,106 -2,612 -2,460 -5,112 88 -4,960 -7,572 R-46 TO R-47 973 -4,803 -6,384 -2,016 2,523 -3,597 -8,400 R-47 TO R-48 933 -3,266 -7,507 4,122 4,491 -119 -3,385 R-48 TO R-49 1,067 -892 -2,289 4,875 7,188 3,478 2,586 R-49 TO R-50 1,086 -2,116 3,724 9,847 14,234 15,687 13,571 R-50 TO R-51 1,329 -4,820 -769 28,391 29,096 32,442 27,622 R-51 TO R-52 885 -3,505 -8,706 21,701 20,238 16,500 12,995 R-52 TO R-53 1,048 -3,962 -11,860 17,682 19,507 9,784 5,822 R-53 TO R-54 1,070 -863 -6,388 9,825 15,165 4,300 3,437 R-54 TO R-55 1,046 1,781 2,970 4,278 11,009 5,467 7,248 R-55 TO R-56 923 3,450 11,905 -2,196 9,043 6,259 9,709 R-56 TO R-57 768 2,990 3,768 2,587 9,465 3,365 6,355 DOCTORS PASS _ N.PARK SHORE 3,012 -10,681 -16,351 -3,006 7,102 -8,676 -19,357 R-45 TO R-48 PARK SHORE 7,531 -14,377 -23,318 96,599 116,437 87,658 73,281 ____R-48 TO R-55 PROJECT AREA 10,543 -25,058 -39,669 93,593 123,539 78,982 53,924 R-45 TO R-55 MONITORING AREA 15,318 -27,845 -37,792 88,390 154,275 78,443 50,598 R-42 TO R-57 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 194 of 260 COLLIER COUNTY VOLUMETRIC CHANGES VOLUMETRIC CHANGES VOLUME REMAINING PROFILE AREA EFFECTIVE JULY 09 JUN.06 SEPT/NOV.05 SEPT/NOV.05 SEPT/NOV.05 SEPT/NOV.05 FROM/TO DISTANCE(FT) to 2010 to 2010 to JUN.06 to JUN/SEPT.08 to JULY 09 to 2010 DOCTORS PASS R-58A TO R-58 521 -10,861 -27,270 4,604 -9,897 -11,805 -22,666 R-58 TO R-59 985 -5,003 -26,757 17,956 -4,985 -3,798 -8,801 R-59 TO R-60 1,085 -10,761 -5,037 15,795 2,370 21,519 10,758 R-60 TO R-61 1,077 -16,291 8,429 17,738 11,383 42,458 26,167 R-61 TO R-62 1,020 -9,037 -4,339 26,630 16,597 31,328 22,291 R-62 TO R-63 1,008 -2,181 -10,161 22,568 10,983 14,588 12,407 R-63 TO R-64 926 -649 -1,000 12,360 8,903 12,009 11,360 R-64 TO R-65 782 -533 2,187 6,173 7,695 8,893 8,360 R-65 TO R-66 825 -1,432 -959 11,206 10,202 11,679 10,247 R-66 TO R-67 800 -229 -890 15,785 11,165 15,124 14,895 R-67 TO R-68 809 1,494 4,691 10,923 10,444 14,120 15,614 R-68 TO R-69 811 1,436 4,500 7,131 8,561 10,195 11,631 R-69 TO R-70 798 2,151 -869 10,386 4,820 7,366 9,517 R-70 TO R-71 802 1,763 -3,393 18,135 10,047 12,979 14,742 R-71 TO R-72 803 -469 -4,216 25,672 21,035 21,925 21,456 R-72 TO R-73 811 -695 1,621 18,095 20,206 20,411 19,716 R-73 TO R-74 815 1,768 3,910 14,018 15,793 16,160 17,928 R-74 TO R-75 789 1,224 4,131 8,274 9,285 11,181 12,405 R-75 TO R-76 800 1,612 2,400 7,898 6,950 8,686 10,298 R-76 TO R-77 798 5,447 2,564 14,820 12,521 11,937 17,384 R-77 TO R-78 765 3,751 6,325 8,238 11,589 10,812 14,563 R-78 TO R-79 1,105 337 12,083 2,163 ..-9,434 13,909 14,246 R-79 TO R-80 1,150 1,940 9,501 -1,449 636 6,112 8,052 R-80 TO R-81 1,077 3,055 -913 3,065 -4,116 -903 2,152 R-81 TO R-82 874 -1,051 -2,315 2,652 -678 1,388 337 R-82 TO R-83 1,047 -4,005 4,547 151 7,971 8,703 4,698 R-83 TO R-84 960 -1,393 7,904 390 10,055 9,687 8,294 NAPLES BEACH 18,935 -37,158 -32,050 296,568 205,101 301,676 264,518 R-58A TO R-79 MONITORING AREA 24,043 -38,612 -13,326 301,377 218,969 326,663 288,051 R-58A TO R-84 CAC October 13,2011 VIII-3-b New Business 195 of 260 APPENDIX C COMPARATIVE PROFILES 1995-2010 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC 0 0 I d- E, 2 // N N C I ' r 7 i m i y 3 / y O 0� o ' 0 0 ,' ' If U> r (N t rF r r t t / O —O i co / r r • i r ' O rr _O r / In o r t r o U / J Z ;/ 0 0 1 ro I- S N F- W 0 , d W O 1 LL J ( 0 11 W F- 0 (n z f r. W W W ,_O rr L W W 0 W Li I II- CD r W /', CC 0 N i 09 (N o 0.1 it W 0 CO N z N � I- II o i F- If II O / (n N Cu 1 0 z W > z D 4,, 0) 0) 0 D - o W `:. s- Z -, 0 J r~- ■ LL �i' 0 ,-. - CC 0 O 0 0 I I I I I Z 9 0 9— Zl— 9l— 17Z- (GAVN 1iid) 'ATE] 0 0 Nyy r N C 1 N r m f O Z N L - 4 / 0 M O f o U 1 I,Q U> — N y 1(3 A' O O I 00 f 1 • r 1 1 /f 0 f • 0 7 Li) 1 N t — / O i C) it Z t O O r _0 W O I a 0 J 1 1 , W I t 3 CJ (n i Z 1 Ii 1.1-1 .W 0 I , W W W r 0 I • W W W W W /t ' N- N D t , • 0 N 0 ()-) p 1/1 U 0 CO N / , Z N- r,-) I vt H- II II O I /_ N LO / 0 Z W Q 1 / CO / ,,�. I -. cE r O O O ' O 0 N rrn Li . °,_!.%r N (N 0 Z .- Lf) LO J N J 0 > Z j 0-) -7 0 Z -) 0 -^ a_ 0 O O I I I I I E 9 0 9- ZL - 8L - -17Z- (GAVN 1]3J) 'AI-13 0 0 y c\ E; s N N C C6 m r ` a ; , r C w' 8aN 0 V M O j _0 V5 °' N ',,5 0 ,7„.> o .. . 0 _O r Lr, o z ,. O I' 2.,, - N I- Q o' o r• d W O 1- J 0 W r U Z 0 W I- -' ,`'i' WW W W 0 LU LU Li- W 00 CO • h N O Y co 0 CCI d' N V O DO Z II Z.') If II O © Z W < k 1 ' ` o 0 0 _0 0 0 O O .. W --i N N O Z i�r L) CO J N J CD 0) > Z W .- Z O J '^ -• L_ T\ o , - C O d O 0 1 I N I ZL 9 0 9- ZL- 9L- t7Z- (GAVN 1]]J) 'AT1] O O N N C ( / m ` ( ■ o Zc N O� O // —O V,! -1 ( N r 4. F› °' 0 (i� -O v' CO 4- _ p ` r'L3 `,l 0 N lS f O r(.,_. U Z 4:_'. O 0 ��', _0 LLILLI o H.- LU J 0 `,; W i{` 0 V1 Z cr W..W _O W w 0 iJ LPL W O.) /3' L c 0 co • ( O r w h" d- h- r Z r i o II II 3 H- N (o CI Z w < r O - N -"' C. / cc CO 0O __0 r O O O O N J N N 0 Z ,- In CO J N CD a> > Z J r Z —) 0 o — CC 0 C 0 0 I I I I El 9 0 9— Zl— 21— tzZ- (OAVN 1JJJ) 'AIUU 0 0 t �y N V G t N N C 6.715 7 x / as 3 5.2 8 , -0 r) " r.. 0 o v 5 N -- N r O .O oo 'i-r O O Ln N {' O . U P Z 1 0 O _O Q ol' a — w U F- W O J :r 0 `' W H 0 0 Z 0 '.. cc W W _O r W L'-1 W 0 W L W w C / W E CO 0 P- CC) (N in CO I---- 0 , W CC) ./ U 0 C N i,. Z N') < II O ' ( ' I-. .II--Ii —0 4 ' _ Ni co 0 Z W < N /' O O O O O O 0 N W ,, N (N 0 Z LC) CD J N —J -- 0 0 > Z 0 .-; W ,— ,— Z -) 0 J W 0 — CC 0 O O I ZL 9 0 9— ZL— 9L— 1Z- (GAVN 1333) 'A3l3 O 0 '- N O N N N C F N m r ` O N O r Z • 0p.° 0 O> N r� N J r 1 O _O O .O in L 0 1 -. 0 1� : / U / a Z o O 4, f- o LL O J j W r,' 0 ,<; Z W f- I-- 12'[ 0 W w 0 C CD o o LUJ LC) N ( () o Q II O F-- II I O r/ 0 Z W Q ..r N r N O O O O O O o N O Z In c0 J N M rn OD 0 w /'" ,- ,- Z -7 O l,_ O 0 0 I ZL 9 0 9- ZL- 9L- 1Z- (GAVN 1333) 'AT] O O G % N N C c7 CO Z N 0 - w 0 USN N 0 7- _O CO id7 O O Ln 0 r O ° O `V O J 0 0 w U_I LU r O U LL U LJJ 0) CO (n 00 N 0 Lit in N O co Z O Q II -O 1- II Il 0 N CO Z LiJ < • r r� N O V O O O O O O O N W N N O CD J O) On O W Z Ll '• - O O O I I N ZL 9 0 9— ZL— 91— — (GAVN 1]],d) 'A 1 0 0 o �' 1 N N C i j S al ■ N 1. a) 3 i ▪Z N ` p?w j' 0 U M0 J _0 M 3 U> N ti N ,tr i< t i. S 0 _O C/i l 0 / In %3, O is o c z O /7 _ i o N 1- Q i - w O lit.i b w O l F�- LL- o w 0 cn i it z o , w 1- F- ct. .W..w _0 f- ,. . w w w 0 < Li L.L_ Li- W O) i._- w 0 f/" (n 00 O LiJ In N U O co Z <C I I _O I- II Il o Ni CO O Z w < N r.- , in CO 0 -O O O O O O ,," O O (N V) W ' � N N O Z -<_. in CO J N J 0i O > Z y - O) O) 0 D ) U w . - Z 0 IJ_ O - 0 0 d • • O 0 I 1 I I I Z 9 0 9- ZL- 8L- bZ- (GAVN 1]JJ) 'A 1] p i O O I •N (N c c4*; ` m N o .9 f 0 Ue, O _O v U> cv ; N t 0 4,- _O G - c0 c` ,. ■ .;;I,.': 0 _o Ln O O Z I o -- 1— 1 Q O LIJ Z 0 • LJ-J w —O w w w 0 I Li w w W 0) w o • O LD • N N) O (n Co co ' W N In N Q 0 pp Z ''') {C I I _o I— If Il O i cn Ni c0 o Z w < e / Ln N J Ln CO O `O O O O O 0 N O O N w N N O Z Ln Co J N J 0) 0) > Z 0 �--' 0) 0) 0 0 -, o w z -) 0 _I 0 ' 0 - 0 0 0 1 I I I 1 Z 9 0 9— ZL— 9L— -17Z- (OAVN 13]J) 'All] 0 0 E. N C y� N N M.V1 (I a w I O U ° _O c ,n U > N I N c.• 0 0o 4` O in L 0 • o 0 0 f:--- c 1_ O ~ J Q Z 0 LL LJ. .L J 0 _0 LJ 0 Ln O °° LJ Ln Q 0 co N z r---- rn , Q II _0 F- If Il 0 i Ni LU rr E Z LJ Q r r rr r CO ,,,rr N In (-0 0O ._O 0 0 0 0 O (' O O (Ni W r. N N O Z LULU Co _J N J 1, O> > Z ++ Cr) CD 0 D u LJ ,— ,— Z --) O Cr 0 a • O O f I I I N I ZL 9 0 9- ZL- 8L- -17Z- (GAVN 1]3A) 'AiI3 0 0 -- N d ! O N S N N G t ■ G m \ Z O 8-� 0 a V> � N • O o co t' 0 t. O O in ..) 0 `{ z 4 0 0 _o I- N F- v 0 w 0 F- w J 0 r , w f , 0 U) V LiJ I- I- 0 r� LU o w -o w 1%-, w w LL o N o D r. Cr) co O o I, U cO N r') t < II -O / I- II Il O / : N CO !, E Z w < ,-,,- N rr'r N !� fr to LD oO _O O O O O O ,. O 0 N i") Lij rl, N N O Z in cD J N J „ -r`" O) O) > Z -- w _ Z --) O ! O 'r J _ �l, OM1 F O O I Zl 9 0 9— Zl— 8l— t7Z- (GAVN i31J) 'Ail] O 0 a-- y S 2 N N C r N ` m ' N cZ (Ng to O .- ( 0 c? O i O r U> N N t I 0 t• —0 00 r eJ i, O O in N i 0 • o o ` o 1-- "r CV 1- U '? O w ifi 0 ( w 1 CJ .. ' w I- I `W. .w _00 i w i� l- o 0) /rr - w w 0 rr st N _f'7 w a) LD a,. a N Z Ca rn II .y U II II 0 0 z w < r -� r r • ry W /r N r° Ln O 0O -O O O O O O ,'f O o N Lij r N N O Z ..,e CO w N w _ ` 6) a > Z a .-; m 0) 0 a -) 0 w r- ,- Z -) 0 J 0 - - - CL 0 • 0 0 I r 1 1 N I Z 9 0 9- ZL - 8L - 17Z- (GAVN 1i�_d) 'AID] 0 0 `- N N /` N N C V ci 1 7 ` m Zco p p C 0 c o —O dC 4,-> N°D N O _O f co Ic _o Ln O of U � 1' Z 0 o y —0 y. N H- g Q — J U a J o Y` J ,-r 0 (n y. Z J W-.W _0 I- (2 J J 0 J J J W 0 L� LLI CC N o 'cl- d' O co LLI O N c- U 0 < II _O '4 H- II Il 0 I N CD rs' © z J Q �r r r r 0 N I .}S' O 0 _0 �� 0 0 0 0 0 I..--' 0 0 (N N N 0 z _� LC) CO J (N J 0 c > Z c +% - rr.`.. O7 O7 0 D - U J Z -) 0 J 7 . " 0 — CC 0 0 0 I I I I ro I Z 9 0 9— Zl— 8l— 17Z- (OAVN 1333) 'A 13 0 _o co o w N N C L N ri ` m 1 N -0 t z N O a w '' UMO t 0 .O g t U> N N +.- r P. V 0 _O 00 ,` 0 ~' 0 Ln TD c U Z 0 ' 00 K N I- Q t .. W U 10 O I- LL. Ai H j- U (n z � W. .W _0 w W W 0 W 0 • N) No O a co Ln 0 W r O N i V Z M CD rq '' II r. �r"• I- II II ^O i N co rr � 0 Z W Z : -: /"=- o 0 - C.) J 1 ;t - 0 - C 0 0 0 I I I I Z 9 0 9— Zl— 91— -17Z- (OAVN 1]]J) 'A 1] 0 0 N / d O. 2 N N C N N .1 Z N d O M O _0 a _ O_ O > N N 0 _0 oo 0 o Ln L Q) . D o• Z %, 0 o f o w o J 0 w LL J - •7' -t` \/\/---"--\-- W I-: -. .:- - C.) V) Z CI , - W F- F- ` Et W 1-1-1 W 6 0 Li W W Li W 0C In z_. V) 00 �O O Li) (7) c0 N -= z 0 • II : ' :Lo o Jam Z _ CD J N J ' LJ ,- Z -) o J o - EY 0_ 0 0 I I I I I E. 9 0 9- Zl- 9l- t7Z- (GAVN 1]3-d) 'A 1 O 0 , N ZS N y r (N c ri m t II oa)o r z <o O n N t 0 U . o r _O U > c N .: 5 ' 0 0 00 (,. 0 , . —O u) i 0 s U Z 0 O O N 1 Q T o - —O w o :.' H LL.__„",.. t' 0 w Wit- U C/) Z 0 w I-- LU O �r L w w O LL! U 0 ! ' W 0 a.'S • N 0 <1�y Lil co LD 00 c\I r z co M 11 r �' D Z W Q r ti N `, .. r0 1 -I i L/ ) CO Oo _O O O O O O �� O O (N — N) N N 0 Z I _ 0 O> > Z 0 0 _ . CD 0 0 D - U w �. _,. Z - 0 J L.: 0 — ft 0 CL 0 0 I I I I ) I Z 9 0 9— Zl — 91 — 17Z- (0AVN 1]3A) 'A 1] O O d y j N o N vi•VJ 7 ` m N O Z co �� w 1 -00 N U 5 N 1 N t 1 t 0 O 0 I . O _Li) O !i O }` Z (• • O O /r ON _ Q •L U W O w O W 1 J • ;.fl { {iJ O (n f.-. . z E I'd I-1-) _O W w O w CI d- (f) O O 0 W c) 00 N / Q c 0 N) I I _O F- II Il O i/ �_ N CD 0 Z W < r/ t) I . if) (9 0O —O i O O O O O J �' 0 0 N — v) W (N N 0 Z c0 -J N J `-' r 0) rn O 0 -) 0 W — Z -) 0 Lu O CY \H , 0 0 0 I I I I I N I Zl 9 0 9- Zl- 8l - -17Z- (OAVN 1333) 't3-13 O 0 t R2 1 N r vi t CO 1 NI Z 1 Q a I 0 M O O Q 9 > N I N I r I I t 1 1 0 ) _O s co t 7 t t 1 I I O —O 1 LC) N O `� U r t Z 1 O r . O 1 _O 1- 1 N I- Q t W U / L_ J ;.. a �. W I. (C..) 0 Z i" W H- I- ct W..Ld _O 5 LL W W d O • Li W W W O) i`I W 00 h O r • O N N O 0 W co 1'9 r (3 C5-) N / Z CO rs) / I I 1'o I- II II O i Ni CO 0 Z W Z 0 -: Cr) CD 0 J -) U W ., ‘- r- Z -) 0 0 ` L- 0 - CC O 0 0 I I I I N) I Z 9 0 9— ZL— 2L— 17Z- (DAYN 13]x) 'AT1 O 0 R N w N C N C6 N 7 `m N X71 Zt0 O-9 N Uri 0 _O v U 5 c N / O i _O co t i i I 1 O _O I In L t 1 O 0 • Z ' 0 • O O N f— b - CD w O ( ~ _J i 0 I w 0 .' Z i w i- f- ` w / w w W LLJ 0 , u_ w 1— w i Y 00 0 / • N i/ Cn co O / w 0 co 0 I U co � Z CO 1,-) II '` F- II it~ O ,'r (r) N CO z 0 Z w < r r / r / if) �l Lo up O O O O O O O O N � �''� W N N O Z (0 CO N LL Z O O • 1 0 • • 0 0 I I I N ZL 9 0 9- ZL - 9L- -17Z- (GAVN 1M) 'AT E O 0 N N c` N .N 7 OS l t N O M / 0 U- _t 1 U> N i N J 1 1 1 O O t I, O _O In t L I N t 3 0 f C.) 1 r I Z i O O <' -O L r N I- Q 1 :. J CD A J 0 , J J i O W F- ` Z n ( D r--i� W J -O I J J J O L_ J J W Ce In D V) N O _� Ln O N N z CI) CO M) '/ I-II II O r' V) N CD D f, ° 0 Z J Q / LU ro \ L() c0 0 ^O °,.. O O O O 0 O 0 (N r`) J (IN N 0 Z in co J (N J 0) Cn > Z _ __ 0) 0) 0 :) -) U 1_,J I--- Z -) 0 J ■ J 0 CL 0 0 0 I I I 1 N I ZL 9 0 9- ZL- 9L- -bZ- (QAVN 1]]J) 'AI]] 0 0 CO .1 N 1 N C 1 M 1 ` m i C1-) t 3 1 ayo 1 oZCD 1 00Aw 1 O rr o _O V ' m (.)5 N I N r i 1 r r r 0 _O i 00 r I r 1 t J I i 0 _O r in r a) / O } 0 • Z , 0 O _O 1— r N I- Q r W O 'a w O J r0 W 0 z 0 u_i ~ . .w •W~ O Y~, w 0 CC 0) M I. O ,,�~` I-W cc //"f/ U o7 N 7 / z CO 1,) // II I] o / (n N CO // 0 Z L1) < 7 •') 1 CC r LT) CO O _0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N-) Li N N 0 Z In CO J N J o o> > z D .: CD CD O D --) u Z - 0 J L.L. 0 - C O 0_ 0 0 I I 1 I I ZL 9 0 9— ZL— 8L— bZ- (aAVN 1iid) 'Ail] 0 0 1 .ct- o 2 N N C•C6 c 7 I ts Z N I 0 9 w 0 U M 0 —0 ¢= 1' r U> a N I 0 _O I Ib t 0 t -O u) a) F O o k z 0 J _O N H- Q Lil U w OJ `r r'/ F- 1 w w > .. _O w w w w 0 '. w Li a)w CO d 0 Ln 00 O 5/ w 0 h () cc DO N f Z cO N7 I I O Q Y I-- II II —O NI co i 0 Z w .< 1 .y l CO 1 I'') in CO O _O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 (N LI ---- N N 0 Z LO CO J N J 0 0 > Z ID ID .- 0 0 O D U w ,— '_ Z --) 0 -Si . LI__ 0 — 0 0 0 I I 1 I N I ZL 9 0 9— ZL— 8L— -17Z- (GAVN 1]]J) "A 1] 0 i, 0 (0y 7 N C i N f ri 75 m i y 7 O y O I t Z N 0 UCH+)O 1 _O V co 7 U> N rr N S 1 r 0 i H° e r t r r� 1 0 _O L(-) a O U 1 f Z / 0 O i; O N I- 7 W O Js W O LL i✓ 0 ( z O �✓ IW LJ..W 0 W W '0 i Li W W W 0) W ✓✓ CC 0 if) C21 ✓ • 0 i ✓✓ (A co co 0 / f✓ / C;) c N ✓ Z c0 .-/ �C 0 J I— II II 0 J✓/ N O f 0 Z W > Z D O7 O) O D -, O W c Z O J i• W O '• W O O 0 Z 9 0 9— ZL— 9L— -17 Z- (OAVN 1333) 'A313 O O y N C 6-7) � m 0 ; I a N V 0 O> N _ _rn O f N 0 _o Ib 1 1 / O r _o Ln L r a) O 0 Z O O _O — , N Q W O lb W O W J W N / Z 1. w. w O w W W C w 0 • 0 CO r ' -" (n W CO 00 N 00 aJ~ z CO rr) II —0 II Il O N CO 0 Z w < t 0 t y d LC) CO 0O _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (N V) W t N N O Z / in (0 J N O) 0 > Z 0 0 0 0 0 —) U w r Z -) 0 J .. 0 0 Q_ • 0 0 I I I ZL 9 0 9- ZL- 8L- -17Z- (OAVN 1]]_d) 'A 1 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 — 18 —12 —6 0 6 12 cA I I I 1 0 O o • 73 • 0 m P1 o z p c_ c 0 co co cO ; r c z < co co — N m 01 U1 — Z (/' 0 1 0 N 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 '''.'11 ZJ O O O) U) / CO I r r' r' I r' > m Z 0 / CD N C O U II --I '`. 0 J II 01 Z r/ / N W W r CO O m O O 00-,1 � 7 NJ CD 0 m _..t'r CO m m -'i - ■ 0 P m 0 m O -H - 0 Z cn 0 `> -1 m O s— rO m Q �' D m c)— i 0 O ) z r. 0 / O t 1 o— ; O ) 1 } / t j c i O 0 1 / N <n N 1 o =n 0- - r NQO / Q 0 0 N c f N c0 1 c co N CD N d N N 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 C;,, I I I I 0 0 o 0 -n I `-• r- o m z > 0 c c 0 co cD .----- r --' c Z < cD (D NJ 0 0 - 01 _ Z o N N m CA N 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 .1 Z7 0— 0 N t / D m Z 0 0-) N (7) I, 0 II II --1 �' O— II O > 1 N Co co m r. CO 0 CD N J 0 CA / i 0 m .r cfl m -9 m 0 ° m m P1 `, 0 2:1 H - 0 'f z •> (1 0 < --I ro < 0 ' O m -H c) m p •'' D m . > O z f n O O , O r / CO 0— 0 / C D N °WO N 0 O c0 N W 5o N 1 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 (A I I I 1 0 0 o 73 - __. .. o •_ _ m 0O C- / C 00 (0 (0 r.- r r' C Z < (0 CO N r- 0 CP . Z 0 N N 0 C„i —` N 0 0 r' 0 0 0 0 0 ZJ 0— 0 0 (i `\ I i CA i r i/ i > m / Z 0 , , 0 N i cr)O II I I ---I 0— II A Cr1 0 Z `. N Co co m / ---.I N 0 O - c.0 / N ; m C0 m m -n 7 / 0 p m m m . 0— m..m 7 0 Z r, cn Cr --1 m C 0 O m 0 m Q " -1 -1 N / O .� 0- z O .. 1 (� O (D I 1 Ui O— i O l t I t 1 r t A CO 1 O i O t 1 i N <n N IV D _O / �QO0— 1 0 o m 9. f W t N -'s W N N O N j m " 0 O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 - 18 -12 --6 0 6 12 c� I I L- I 0 0 o qi - -i 0 ,-_ m 1 0 _ m n C- c 0 co (o c z < <o - N r 0) 01 !'�J Z 0 NJ N) m CA — N 0 0 /. 0 0 0 0 0 �/ CJ 0— 0 01 i I 1 / / I rl > m Z 0 ,/' O) / 0_ II II - ,/ 0 II ci,, 6., Z / N C° D3 m // ■ ---,1 W CJ / 0 U1 Crl J 1 O Co _ Z7 1 0 m / ■ co m m -f / 0 m m m. . . . . r 0— -,Ti o z (7 n -1 m / c / 1 0 m - 0 m , 0 f D —1 NJ ( 0— / O O 0 O (D 1 C_ 0 0 I 1 ( / C 0 0 N <0 NJ 1 co / Oo fo o N c O o) z (S O fD CO N W i / N O N I) t 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 CA I I I I 0 o , o !.'' z) 0 m n 0 (0 (9 m ° c_ C 0 _ " C Z < N I- 0 Ui Z 0 NJ NJ En Cry - N 0 0 - O 0 0 0 0 f' Z] O- O a) LT, I CD t` -N ti Ui / '1 , i > m Z 0 /r O-) N ( ) i 0_ ll II A /` I I � L C) i N � 00 J CO N m ! 0 -N 0) J O) CO O m m 0O G� m m m t 0 m m 23 o -I - m Z Ui 0 C m .--. O M o m , Q D -1 N O `. O- Z o 1 n 0 j F 0 0 o- 0 N < n N A n o,g. O— roQQ 0 O m/ F fD t cbw t y- 7 NI N O NJ N 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 — 18 —12 —6 0 6 12 c� I I I I 0 0 • • • o — ro r— 0 z — m , n c 0 0 co co --rte 1 -- 0 Z < (o (o — iv r CP rf Z 0 N N rn•- N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /°� i7 O— O ul r co � -P rn i > m z o /l NJ - 0 II II -{ 7, J 0 D r,. CA 0 z N CO CO C7 C1I (n O u S 0 m L° m m m '' 0 m m 0- m m Z o --I - m 7 C7 -+ m ' w• m t 0 m se > i >— -1 —I N O O z ...` 0 O .'., CD r 1 cri O J 0 .t / / CO O— i O t 1 N r � _.„. > _ ) O W p 0 ii c S2 O 1 0 2 0 c C W N _ N N O N) N ,_, 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 c,i I I I I 0 O • o 0 - r= o z _ — m n c_ C 0 CO co ___J_c 1 r' C Z < t.0 t0 r — N r 0) CD .-^" Z 0 N N) [2 CA — N) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i. Z] O— 0 0 Ui t I D t\ -A J e . . . . . . . . .. ... . . .. . . D m Z 0 ' 07 d' O II .II. . ,—' 0 II Z i CA 0-) f f / N W C0 C� v 03 O m 0 CP Un U-I CO O m 1 C m m m 0 P m m m O— m.-rn •q7_. . .. -7 D --1 _ m i Z V) C7 r"- - m 0 t, O -i ' 0 O •,, rl .. .% D ■ N -I O— / 0 O S z I 1 n 0 0 t\ Ui_ a O O .1 '-k/ i r C O— t 0 1 ii 1 • • \\) N < n N c rn —D I Q 0 N v:i 0 1 p Z O 1 W '' ! co.W CD N y O0 N (A — 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 c.., I I I I 0 0 o '/ 0 r o z — , `T' C0 c_ c 0 co co --- r -- c z < co Co m 1 0 U' ,/ z 0 NJ NJ m CA N 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 / T O- 0 � qq cy) t -P v\ Co i q / r > m Z 0 7 N (n 0 II II ---I -',� 0 II LA 0 > N CO ---,J r") a w J 00 Co M O CP 0 U' - a D (0 co ZJ rn rn 0 P rn m rn q) o- rn..m U _ —1 _I rn v Z U) C) r --1 m 0 r' f 0 rn -I o rn O > rn — -_1 0- r/ O 0 , Z I t C) o 6 U' o 0 co 0— I 0 / N < h N -n w 0 ,I N Cr 0 o2 ` * C 1 co y W .C, y O N `,` N -P r> 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 - 12 -6 0 6 12 c� I I I I I I 0 0 •o • --- -- - O m • r- _ - m O Z o c_ C O CD CD r C Z < CD CD N f (J1 Z O N N rn C - N 0 0 i 0 O O 0- 0 0 a) J r Z7 C 1 D J j > m Z 0 7 II J-. Z_,,, N Co J ,,,-'4,.. co co m > o CO w `: 0 w - m Fri o_ . rn m m s 0 m m (f) n --I hi C r- O m O ;_ - > . r 0 O O Z :Joe - 0 O ti' 1 a• U-1 a O •- %%% Co 0 o y N <0 N CO C4'' 0 N v C a2, O c C W tn..i O N N -P , 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 clJ I I I I 0 0 o 0 F - o m O c_ C z c.0 cfl -,- - r r- C Z < <o c0 "" N r M Ul j' Z O N N .'l - ' m O O O O O .. -1 O o 07 U I s.,/' 1 O > m Z 0 �.> o-N II 11 A ' i II CA o z CO v C7 i' I J ■ O O W Ui M 71 O . m m m o— -H m CID Z n -I m O t r r o T 0 71 ,i --4 o- o O z 0 0 o '. 1 o „ N < C N j =m , O— i 0 w a O c m o f m CO w 1 7 N 5 O 1 N N i 0 O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 I E I I 0 O o - - -,,..- .. '' om O Z '� m C O CO Co __ f r- � r` C Z < CO CO — N r 0-) 0 -.+' ' Z ' m W N) 0 O O ,- (--. 0 O O O O s Z] O- O 6) Ui / r r / > m Z 0 //r 0 N II II H �i 0 II C� 0) n / N CO �l / -,I W 0� m ' / O J (n �t O -A 0 Z7 / CO m TI T1 Ti e'>' 0 G� m m m 1 0— -1 m-1 m . ( ) n -1 m O O -n -- 0 m 0 ri N O O O '/ z .. / o r 0 LP O . O CO O-- O _ -/ 1 r^" 'fr i N5 n N w D -o n _ o O_ O N c E.z cr,t a m v , f tD f CO / C W N - m O N I f N -+ N 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 cA 1 1 1 1 0 0 • • • • o v • • 0 . m n m o 0 c 0 0 CO CD r I- 0 Z < CO CO s N fl 0 Ui -- Z 0 NJ NJ I?1 _ N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-- 0 0) Ui `" N /t ,i ,. I •> m Z 0 -2 cn N , s ' 0 II II --I tom O II W 0) Z t/t N 00 U-1 m r! 0 N 00 C9 0 W 0 N �ZJ fl m CO m TI -1 TI 0 . m m m 0- m mT1 ZJ ,t o -I -i m Z ( 0 r -H rn r 0 Si' 7 1q 0 m .)t/ n m Q s m 0 .'t O O Z 0 ✓ 0 0- r 0 •j s/' -i CO r-?' 0 /�% O �� /' /- 1 NJ w O tr c Q 1 NV stt O i o f - W iir t c y W Z N fp N I m .., O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 C�., I I I I 0 0 o `, v 0 } I- o C- z m o c_ C 0 co Co _�/ r 0 z c co ° N CTI - '. . Z O N N - m CA N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 r' 73 o- O 6) U-1 a I CO a .7) U� s CA i D m Z o N !! .,a) 0 _ I I I I --1 r r O II D (..,,, o) Z ; N J c7 J - m o Co N Cr) 0 0 00 7 I m Co m -71 m o mm m OJ m m -I -I m ,) O Z I U) Cl /i' -t m © n O m - n m- O �� D o- o °- z I o .. r, 0 o I a' o- 0 c 1 0— , I o I t' ti N < n N )1 co O J c Q O i m i ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 cA I I I I 0 O • o • - -- - - 0 -r-, 1 oz _. - -- m c c 0 co co r N Z o N N m (,,J N 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 C.--- 0 o O is r i• D m Z 0 r , O) N U, i- 0 II 11 /r O II fr (..,1 cy) Z 17 N W J C7 '--J J` fT l CD - (I)O if J m . m m m -!--,o G� m m m 1 cn 0 r —I m 1 0 ; r ,---. O m O D - I N O - 0- r; Z ` J Y Y 0 FD cs of o i. { ,i o .f I N ,\..) , <n 1 aw 0—' 1 NQ0 0 1 o Z o CO 1 y W 7 'N 1 9 N 9 N / H 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 cA I I 1 I 0 0 o 0 r m /r P - _ _ m C CO LU !-,---.- 1- • C Z < CO CO N r- 0) Ui / J Z 0 N) N — t M CJ N 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C00 07 CP i CJ U > m z 0 CD N p 0 II II r' 0- II D t, CJ 0l Z <y' N 0 ) J 71 0 CD N Cn e J W . CP i-C r) > 0 m f', CO m m -Ti m o m m m o-' m..m qzi O Z 4,..~ ; V) 0 At --I P ~ .. 0 .. r 0 M 0 m O > m 0 rf O 0 z • 0 O CP_ e' O J)=, t, 0) 0_ e-- 0 J. 1 N <0 N W'' D _ o w n 0 c o NR c N W N• c. N - N 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 uI4 I I I I 0 0 o v-U - ...: O -9 I- 0 0 0 L c 0 Co CD �- C Z < CD CD ter, ~- - N r- 0 U- O N 0 O m C� I ; 0 0 0 o O- O 0") U1 -/ CO r Ul 0 41Y` 1 • J > m Z o �' o I Ii --i % �, N O II > • � CJJ 6) Z r r i N CO J C7 CO 1111 ■ O O N U) - CD U' N M m CD o 1 m m m 71 1 o- m m 0/� z/ J. � 0 U) , -I m C r- / > 0 -n m O D m — y .. - N 5J O o F,, Z I 0 )/ I O 1 , 1 , (.11 O_ t O i O O rh N <0 N CA -h o ca O— c O o m i f tg / N_7 co N N N O N N P 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 (,�., I I I I 0 o I o - 0 m ' P- m_ m oO C- c 0 co .o - n C z < CO co N) 1-- a) Ui z 0 N N m � ( N 0 0 O O 0 O 0 -1 o- 0 a> u "-'' CO ,- (III v ,t ~ > m Z 0 �., N (7) 5 o II I I --I „, 0 11 ,. ce c,d a-) Z -'�/ N JO m (//4 J O -N N op Z)D m Co m TI T O ° m Fri m 0 m 73 o z ,, : a -1 0 % © n O m 0 - n> m - N O . O O t:- ( ) - r 0 0 CD Ui_ O o rs co_ O 0 r w <D N > 0 t o w C7 O ( NQ6 O �° omn x N ( N W N O i I CA N fI N 0 O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 cI,,, I I I I 0 o o v - __< 0 m I P �- __. m OO L C 00 CO CO -_' r' C Z < CO CO r.r N 0 0 U1 Z 1 0 N N .• C„0 N 0 0 '� 0 0 0 0 0 tj O- 0 u-1 A I t C t, CO 1 D i r i i i > 0 Z 0 O o N II II i //'� 0 II W o Z i N 03 CD () J m 0 0 N) (n tI CP D -I=• o p I m / A o m m m r o- �. . ,1 � •O Z ' (n 0 -I m / 0 / r i 0 Fri O / D I -I N 1 I _ 0 I 0 O t .. A' 0 r O i 1 cn : O— O i ' it A t r f co O i 0 f „: I t f IQ CO N �} W O- r\ 2`C0 0 N fA O (T) O A * N r m_ r y W � fD O ! N CA N A 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 - 18 -12 -6 0 6 12 c� I I I I 0 0 o -U 0 _ _ �< rr, C co c0 r- r~ c z < co Lo N r— GI 01 Z O N N -- m N O 0 -` J O O O O O ‘ r ZJ 0— O O ui CD 00 > m Z 0 ri a) IN ( y 0 ll 11 k ; y II ci4 Z co 00 71(n O O")o, o, " I (o a' ZJ ri M r o ' m m m ' .1 o - Z D - rn n r Z (n 0 rT c - 0 i r- -p r< 0 rrn — 0 .. -i N " o I - o\ Z o 1 '''.5' N t 0 O I — 0 Ul 0_ i 0 CO� e. O �: O a t N <0 N - OQ > M W„ 0 N & St 0 0g. 3. W_ 1 N N N /, V 0 O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 — 12 —6 0 6 12 c� I I I 0 O • o • — ,+ 0 m 1 _ _ , m o c C o co ,- -* C Z < (O �O N I— C U µJ~� Z 1 0 N N..) m W — N 0 0 , 0 O O O O Ave" , ZJ O— O CP CO i' oil • 'f / CO ./r > m Z 0 N 0 - � U II --I t ---.J J m . t O Co J -N N o J (0 7 j m CO 0 -7-1 m 71 O . m m m .0 0 m. .m_.Z.._ . . . i• 0 i m `,OW Z (7) 0 —i m 0 i;. ' 0 m O D m --i NJ s. O O— z O 1 C O CD U� O O co O O • N C n N w - D _, CO n w O_ O Q O N Ch m c *2 5. I W C W N . 3 N3 N O-... N H O 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 c,4 I I I I 0 0 o ,o - 0 . ;-` m I— f m nO c 0 0 L r C Z < CO CO ___ — N r 0 Z cA O N NO O -"� ..' O 0 0 0 0 , 0— O 0 q=1 I O 0 0 ■ / > m Z 0 CD N ( y' 0_ u ii > C.,,J 6c Z ', N (1) 0) i O -P i 1 U-1 cc 0 m r , Co m m m Ti j_ O -i m O Z 0 0 m C r O m =i • o m O > m , - -i N �'. 0 o-- z o ., .r C) o 0. c ,, o_ ti o -r 0o ..:.$44-\.) o- 0 N < o N p n _ ! O W O i•-') v R 0 1 p N Q ~ \ y , W / ci O N H 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 I I l 1 I 0 o o m - o • . -, I- C- m 0 c zo -- 1 - 0 Z < CO CO N r U .• Z O N N r r m C.,4 N O O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 rn cn O.) r _ > m z o A O N 0 II II - O II A '5`. c� o, Z r, N C A° O U, m O A 0, ,/ W -P • A m m 0O m i O m m 0 m m <, - o --I m 2 CA 0 -I m 0 / fi r, 0 O ,J D m m - .. -1 -i N_ 5 o 4. z 0 '2- 0 FD s Ul o 0 CO I): o 0 I ' N N n o 6- O ,,, -. QO O rn zS2 0 a � � c' CO N W i a N N - 4, ., 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 - 12 -6 0 6 12 c.4 I I I I O O o -U O I- ,. C Z < (_0 LO :,. .. N n Cr) C Z O N N N m Q O O O O t/, 20 CD r i N ' r > m Z 0 /rrrr N r' o ii I I ---i I O- II A i Z N a' n I 2 CD o . m m m o- rn m Z i L 0 -I pi Y a ;r ); O -n �/; n O - N Q `,, - O- ? O O Z n ' o x — cn 1a O / i r> r o— O ` r r'� N , 'A G D / N An O W O N C R CD 8zo Lco 1 N W i N 0 i N) % w 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 u�4 I I l 0 0 o ; o °_ c_ C ZO co (..0 r- C Z < N n M U1 rriZ O N N W N O O O O O O� O cp rf' CD , 1 C.A rt r,' r > m Z O M N O_ II II --1 • �r/ 0 II c.,,,, C) Z ` N N r r M CO ---9 TI TI o . m m m O— M--�--7.J.......... t o ,1 hi m i O n En O ) -' N " 0- 0 Z o , 1" n L" 1 Ui i _ O i O 1 t C tk 0- I O i 't, r r t N <0 N w = D I o w n O t Q 0 rn IV o f i CD y W I y N I m 1 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 - 18 -12 -6 0 6 12 0 O -U o `--.,.t -U I % 0 m r- C 0 co co r C Z < co co N) r- C (..n .,' ....-.- Z 0 N N M (A — N) O 0 0 0 0 0 0 --"° O— 0 0) U0 r, I Y� C ' > m Z o / 0 II II -- /- 0, > � II - cf,J Z .?-- 07 0 N m O Co J f 0 - N �r� m ,i co 0 O r�i r� m — T7 Y O m rn . CD Z -I O ,j' n O rrn ° D - {N 0 o r, .. I i r o 9, 1 rD e o o 0 s- •e .n N) ;- twn o— N6- O 0 it C A O f 1 co J N W b N N I: w p f. 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 - 18 -12 -6 0 6 12 c� I I I I 0 0 o _ 0 m ,._- P m o z n c O CO C C z (.0 - N fl O 01 Z•o N N) m N O O oO O 0 0 0 :0 o- O O CP ' A. 7 0 rf > m Z 0 " O) N „' O U II --i 7 0 11 "r 04 01 Z i N) LU 0) m /'r O O O W (D CP ri/ 1 D (SD _p ),J m m o m m m . .m qJ o —1 m f 0 z ,. -H P _,.e.- __ O I— O m O ,' D m - - N O O O Z , y O cD , r O O „fr. 1 J _ r CO O O f r 1 N d 0 N " cA11 0 w 0 NA.O 0 / o m C f 9,r N W N) O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 - 18 - 12 -6 0 6 12 cA_ I I I I 0 o o 0 < '� 0 m c o c 0 ZO cD Co ` r- ,-' 0 Z < co co N)u.1 O N 0 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 ZJ 0 N 0) Ui - , ." . o-) s' - -1.-' > m Z 0 ` N 0 U i i -4 /rf 0 II > '- Ci o) Z . � n • .� 0 0 /��. J i CO 0) �7 CO m r m o 0 . m m m ,' M r,.).) • �- -I - 0 Z r r U) 0 l r --I m r I4� I- O m -i m O # > -I N 0 Z 0 .. n 0 3 = m' Ui o , o ,1 co 0 o 0 N) A < D rn wn 0 0� � 0 rn Z a) % f m I CO 1 y W N O 4 N) (n - 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 w I I I I 0 0 • o -u 0 • -n r m 0 c C ZO co co o Z < c9 CO N fl C) U Z W N 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 �� r'.• 0 1 > m Z 0 C) N 0_ Ii I I —1 i 0 II rrr (...,J 6) Z co ' N rr 0 m • r° 0 CA rr - U • r° CO m co m m m O m m err o— m t Z )1,r Cl) 0 H m 0 1— r•---.. 0 m 41 n m — p A D —I N '—' 0_ > 0 1 O.. t 0 i O N' Ui I _ 0 i O / t J CO o ! I I. ■ N e) N X► A. 2 own 0— t co,,, Q O .r m gr , J y w J t N O � N N 7 I O 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 uI,, I I 1 I 0 0 o -U 0 F 0 c- z `4� m c C 0 co \, r h C Z < (D (SD — N r 0) U Z O N N m W N O O // 0 O O O O O— O 0) Li, u) 07 J J I • > m Z O OD N O_ II II J O II W Z f' N Ui O O UZJ (r' M m o V Z (n n -. m ----• o -s D 71 N O— O r� n 1 r> o i C O `1 O J O O ,,,:N N < n A =D 0 w n NCT 0 O Si' ono m I I W ■ V1 .. J N N l N O N N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 I (,, I I I I O O • o ` 1J 0 � T __. P L O C z O C- O CO CO c z < Co CO r N r- 0) 01 Z O N N M T J I CA N O O 0 o O- O CO I� / i i , / 4111p D rTl Z o O N ` O A , C '/ r, O) Z � N CO U �' co m f'f N �I 0 .,'~ O J W 1 LP � TJ ��s I ri CO T m o • •a l o o_rn ' , Z U) 0 rf1 0 , r- f 0 m , O , D N_ o ° zz I 1 n I (' o 9 ( . O ) 0 1 ■ .1 i O ) O i), i. N GC) N CO -D p W h 0- N & O g f p O * ce W N _ t fD O N r. N N / O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 I I (., I I I I 0 o • o zi - , r 0 -,", P 0 z _. _ _- rn n c C a CO CO - g r' C z < c0 co -- -, z N r- 0 O NJ ND , _ 71 Cni N 0 0 O— 0 00 0 0 Cr)j „~.r' CCD 1 J r .' O r I > m Z o , N 0— U II I (.,,, o) z ;' N CO U m .'- rn J ' LJ CO CO ;- O 01 -N /' 0 c m m m r o P m rrl m ', O— M rn —I -H m r Z t Cr) n 1 r © r- c” 0 m -1 f 0 rrl rr, , D No- �1 a o r z n 0 r o 1 1. .t. { r I r, V t cc 4 O- { o i r r l x r: f; N <0 N o D Cl n O NCr0 H N 1 O 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 W I I l 0 0 o 70 .} o _ , n i-__ m n O C 0 CD r C Z < CO CO N r- C U Z 0 N N - m N 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0 „••''''''0— 0 O U - ZJ f v j- `r 7 N m Z o 0 u iI - 0 II > 0 0) Z N ...• 's U) " 0 -...,1 7.:) J 1 m M ,m -9 0 n m m m 0— m m Z o -H —+ m Z 0 n -1 rn 0 r- O m -H n m - q . ' D -1 N_ t- 0 0 0 0 ['� t' n O i 1 CD _ I Ui O- ,,,,, O 3 s, t 1' f', L' i•, t . OD ! O t, t r J, f• I, BCD -, r c wn 0 \ v O ' m°v ! F m ` CO t y w { N N m O N t N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 c� I I I 1 0 0 o -U • \. o n °_ C c p CD co �"- C Z < La _.. . r_ N r— a) Un * Z o N N i m C,.i — N) O O --- o— O 00 0 O °°✓/ I O J N , ID P1 Z O r CD ,, . O ll II —H O— LI A J} cA 6) Z i N O Ul C7 !/ CO prj 2,,7 '',r o 0--I rn m Z U) 0 r —1 m C •;, O c_) m Q D m , �_ --1 -i N `. o— Z o !- n I O , I U,_ o , t r ; } 1 ,• r ' Co 1 O O ti f r' <n N N -; n 0 w O 1 NQO r a O 1 O A Q to 4 H N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 c� 1 I I I 0 0 o — _- 0 i [In t m n O C- C 0 co up " r c Z < co N r' 0) (II /-- m NJ O O o / O O O O ZJ O O— CO '.-l` v i CA t D m Z t 0) N r O_ li II --1 r O �I D N m 0 LP ,r' O CO 0 4N _P m m . C.0 m m m -7 0 G� m m Fri o m M• O —I —I m ,, Z (n 0 . 1 m 0 m ,�.. o 1 D m I NJ 1 0 O I z t 0 i 0 CD r UI a . O— O i t t,,, CO 0 0 .t 1. N <n N co -°o W O Q0 0 z f m co w N O N a. N A 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 U I I 1 1 0 O o - <7) .r M r- nO c_ C ZO co co ,� r C Z < to CD . - N n Cp Cil Z O N N) En cA N O O Y O O O O O -' / Z] O— O cP J r . •� r Dm z `. o_ ll II� 1 `i O II r z CD P m 0 J J CA .4=. - f' 0 0-) - 2.:) �; m m O O m m m ' . O �_ -I -1 m f r U) n - -+ r;-i , w': P m ;, 0 m a y m - - -1 N -- O o- z o n 0 CD' • _ ,A O O E _ 1 co rl O { O • N <o N e a r D ° Wn O N0-0 C zD O 5. f CA 00 N C W N• O / N N 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 U, I I I 1 1 0 0 O 0 -7 '; r= m 0 L C 0 Co CD -... .-4`.. r -' C Z < (..9 (..0 _. N) ( 0) C)) z 0 N N m CA — N 0 0 s 0 0 0 0 O Z] 0 ( O) Ui _> ` /r. I .// --,I CP I > m z o 0) N -i O II I I -i 0 Z N CO C.II fn O co Co i/ 0 co , 1 0 LD m 71 7J ./ 1 M Co m m , 0 m m m ,. 0— m._m X �A,.. 0 — — Z r''-- 0 —1 rm C 1 f O m =-i - n m , > m O ' D N 0 0 z 0 C) S. o CD C • 0- 0 ■ ,-i CO , 0- 0 i 1 t I N <0 N = D °.WO O N 2 0 , o f I CO N W N O I N N 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 c.A I I I I 0 0 o x — N_.. , 0 t. m m n O c_ C 00 co cc — I C Z < co c0 N 1— C C1 Z r m N O O 0 J 0 0 0 0 -' --. xJ 0 0 6) - v C<1 > m Z 0 �, C) N 0— �I II > /I .__ I I c c,,, O) Z Ol - W El �'/e r co N) — u) O 0 O - �� D up o) ZJ /f I m -, co m m m 7 O . m m m . O- 0 -1 -1 m Z (i) CD /: 0 m M i)y m —, > -i N O O Z O C7 , O O— ), O i • CO • O— 4 O ;• • iv C n N) -> o N f O cQ O OfzD 0 x co• W N _ � ,, j N I w -P i 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 c� I I I 0 0 o 7o f O C z 0 CD co r J . r N r 6 U1 z 0 N) N __ M N 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 D O— C I J v D m z u L� j-% r r ~ CD N ( "7'. 0 ll II h � .` II W a) / / N N LO N m 0 0 UJ �'' �I W �. 0 - Ut 73 �f• M 0 r m m m ..r'/ 0 m m o- - o -� - rn z c7) a • -1 m 0 , r 0 m Q '` D M -' - -I N 5 z i O 0 0 U) 0— 0 i CO O— C' 0 ,j, h •6 a' < D N ` � `h 0— °•&O O o �ooa w N N N O t N • N 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 - 12 -6 0 6 12 c,4 I I L_ I 0 0 o 73 O -n oc- z -.,---_ m n C 0 co C - _ 0 Z < co co r N r 0 Ui z 0 NJ N - r_ m WO O 0 0 0 0 ,i ry I •••`,- -,, Co D m z N � e v\ 0_ lU II ---I s > 0 II A ;/ t U z ,' / N ,.`7-., rf fi o .O N • �i'r �.I 0 m 0 m .-' o m m /0- -1 -1 m l o Z ' ( n m tr.. 0 r 0 m iv C7 m - D -H N t 0 o z i 0 Ui_ 41 O f' dj 1. '0j-r ) 00 }5 O J O .' N 0 a° -,'" CO 0 O t °.&Q O t A 1 c,A d 1 co y 1 m w i y C N I 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 — 18 —12 —6 0 6 12 cA I I I I 0 O 0— r' C_O i O c— Z — m (-) c_ C 0 CO r C Z < co Co y Z N I— o) cr 0 N N) r?I (.,-i — N) 0 0 -. 0 0 0 0 0 O— 0 o I r' r''' - r' t ; 0 A 0 II II ri II Z r' N r N !. 1... e„te cn O irN r r f m .1,m O Z U) 0' m v r r i_ O m r n m f D m —` —H N O O— ” O z :: n O CD O— O CO 0— 1 0 V N <h N t 0 7- O— �QO 0 rn Z 0 O m a f m t W l N W i m N N N) O a (,,-P 1 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 w I I I I 0 0 o 0 r nO c_ C ZO CO Co ---` C Z < (O CO E NJ. r 0) 01 , Z- 0 0N i m C.,1 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t O Z2=1 0 n /' 0 i > rfl Z 0 `'.;:/ 07 N (7) 00_ H H D it c.,.., 6) z N Lc P 0 ,,. N c0 ITl , o N CA J N � D m '-r' m /f CO m m 0 . m m m ,• o— Fl m m 4. 0 Z 0 ■ -1 i v;> m 4' 0 m 4+ n m D —I -H N 1 o— , 0 0 O I c Ui V. 0— �r o S c 0 .1 0 a' r a 1' yfi q !' N ,i O < w r Q C5 2 0 ° m 8. I f m 1l N � N / 0 0