The URL can be used to link to this page

CAC Agenda 11/10/2011 R Meeting Agenda and Notice COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 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. October 13, 2011 VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report 2. Project Cost Report 3. CAC Meeting Minute Discussion 4. FEMA PW 00561 Time Extension Request 5. Laser Grading North Marco Beach 6. Marco South Permitting-Verbal Update 7. Collier Creek Dredging-Verbal Update 8. Bureau of Ocean Management Lease a. 11/9/11 Letter to Bureau of Ocean Engergy Management 9. Beach Cost Share Presentation to TDC 10. GLDD Schedule Flexibility Memo 11. Beach Economics a. Backup Material VIII. New Business 1. Revised 10 Year- Fund 195 Master Plan a. Backup Material 2. Wiggins Pass Sub-Committee Discussion 3. Conceputal Design and Modeling Report- Marco South Renourishment a. Backup Material b. Backup Material/Analysis IX. Old Business 1. Water Quality Clam Pass/Bay * Draft Summary as directed by CAC on 10/13/11 X. Announcements XI. Committee Member Discussion XII. Next Meeting Date/Location December 8, 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 CMG-- 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 X,l.11 ,,+nip r. Collier County Government Communication & Customer Relations Contact: 239-252-8848 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 102 www.colliergov.net Naples, FL 34112-5746 www.twitter.com/CollierPlO www.facebook.com/CollierGov www.youtube.com/CollierGov October 19,2011 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 10,2011 1:00 P.M. Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee will meet Thursday, November 10, at 1:00 p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners chambers, third floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples. * The following websites will provide information on this committee: http://www.collierRov.net/Index.aspx?page=18 http://www.collier2ov.net/Index.aspx?page=1263 Two or more members of the City of Naples City Council, City of Marco Island City Council, Tourist Development Council and the Pelican Bay Service Division may be present and may participate at the meeting. The subject matter of this meeting may be a future item for discussion and action at these Board meetings. In regard to the public meeting: All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board/committee prior to the meeting if applicable. All registered public speakers will be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman. Collier County Ordinance No. 2004-05 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. 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 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. For more information, call Gail Hambright at (239) 252-2966. CAC November 10,2011 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 1 of 6 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, October 13, 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 Randolph Moity Jim Burke Murray Hendel Robert Raymond (Excused) Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios 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 November 10,2011 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 2 of 6 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. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 7—0. V. Public Comments Speaker Linda Roth,Pelican Bay Resident VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. September 8,2011 Mr. Pires moved to approve the minutes of the September 8, 2011 meeting subject to the following change: • Page 5, Item VII.5a. -delete language mistakenly referencing the Executive Summary for Item VII.4 and replace with the language: Gary McAlpin submitted the documents "Dissolved Oxygen Site Specific Alternative Criteria Development DRAFT INTERIM REPORT" prepared by Cardno Entrix" and "Collier County:Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay, Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria—July 2011 Draft"prepared by Atkins and "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), " (a response from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection). Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 7—0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report—Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the"Tourist Tax Revenue Report—FY 2010—2011 " updated through September 2011. 2. Project Cost Report—Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 2011/2012 TDC Category "A: Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through October 3, 2011. CAC November 10,2011 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 3 of 6 Mr. Rios arrived at 1:11 p.m. 3. Clam Bay Markers Gary McAlpin provided an update and submitted the following documents for information purposes: • Email from Pamela Keyes, Environmental Specialist, Coastal Zone Management to Gary McAlpin—Subject: Clam Bay Markers dated September 23, 2011. • Letter from Ryan Moreau, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission to Gary McAlpin dated September 9, 2011 —Re: Permittee Collier County, Permit #11-020 Clam Pass/Bay Canoe and Information Markers—Collier County. Speaker Ted Raia,Pelican Bay Resident 4. Long Range Funding Requests Gary McAlpin submitted copies of 3 letters from Vincent George, Project Manager, Florida Department of Environmental Protection—"Subject: Collier County Beach Renourishment;", "Subject: Wiggin's Pass IMP Study"and "Subject: Marco Island Beach Renourishment" all dated September 19, 2010 and copies of related "FY 2012/2013 Local Government Requests for Collier County Beach Renourishment, Wiggin's Pass IMP Study and Marco Island Beach Renourishment" for informational purposes. 5. Beach Easement-Verbal Report Only Gary McAlpin reported a proposed easement for public access to those areas renourished with public funds landward of the erosion control line was considered by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). The BCC chose not to pursue the easements and elected to complete the renourishment project utilizing conventional construction easements. 6. Dune Restoration Report Gary McAlpin submitted a copy of a letter from Earth Balance to Pamela Keyes, Environmental Specialist"Re: Collier County Dune Restoration—Sea Oat Monitoring— September 2011 Monitoring Event"and backup report for informational purposes. 7. FEMA Time Extension Requests- Tropical Storm Fay Gary McAlpin submitted a copy of his memo to Robert Seibert dated 9/30/2011 "Re: TS FAY —DR1785"outlining the rationale for a proposed request for an extension of time to complete the permitting and beach renourishment for the beach damage caused by Tropical Storm Fay. 8. Category "A" Ordinance Changes- Verbal Report Only Gary McAlpin reported the Tourist Development Council has recommended the Board of County Commissioners consider a change in the Tourist Development Council Ordinance in the area of Administrative Costs. VIII. New Business 1. Clam Pass Water Quality Presentation - Time Certain 1:15-2:30 p.m. a. Backup Material CAC November 10,2011 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 4 of 6 Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Review and recommend for approval the Clam Bay Water Quality studies conducted by Atkins and Cardno Entrix for Collier County and the Pelican Bay Foundation"dated October 13, 2011 and related backup material 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 Frydenborg to David Tomasko dated 9/7/11 4. Technical Note—Project: Clam Bay Numeric Criteria prepared by David A. Tomasko, PhD and Emily Keenan, MS of Atkins dated August 31, 2011. He requested the Committee approve the 4 documents following the following presentations: David Tomasko,Atkins -overview of his studies on the water quality of Clam Bay (document#1). Doug Durbin, Cardno Entrix-overview of his report on dissolved oxygen site specific criteria(document#2). Speakers Linda Roth,Pelican Bay Resident submitted the document"CAC Meeting— 10/31/11 —Re: Clam Bay Water Quality NNC" for review by the Committee. Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida submitted a document commenting on the proposed Atkins Report to the Committee and staff for review and comment. Marcia Cravens, Pelican Bay Resident, Sierra Club Break: 3:18 p.m. Reconvened: 3:23 p.m. The Committee noted the Reports, as currently exist are comprehensive, but not cohesive with conclusions and recommendations. In order to facilitate actions/comments that may be requested of any party, they requested the documents be reviewed and submitted with an Executive Summary citing the recommended water quality criteria and a self inclusive report(s) with timelines, conclusions, recommendations and backup material as necessary. 2. Engineering Approval Marco South Renourishment a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary(ES) "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"dated October 13, 2011 and related backup material. The Work Orders incorporated 7 tasks in total as identified in the ES. He noted staff is now requesting approvals of only 3 tasks: Task#1 —JCP Permit Application (FDEP) in the amount of$20,000.00 and Task 2 - USACE Permit Modification Letter in the amount of$7,000.00 and Task 3 -Permit Processing in the amount of $62,000.00 for a total of$89,000.00. CAC November 10,2011 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 5 of 6 Mr. Moity moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve Work Orders totaling$89,000.00(eighty-nine thousand dollars) to Coastal Engineering Consultants for the permitting required to obtain a FDEP permit for the Marco South Beach renourishment project along with modifications to the existing USACE permit as indicated by Staff above. Second by Mr. Rios. Motion carried 7`yes"—1 "no." Mr. Pires voted "no." 3. Conceptual Design Presentation - Barefoot/Vanderbilt; Clam Pass/Park Shore; Naples Beaches a. Presentation Steve Keehn, Coastal Planning and Engineering,Inc. presented the document"Collier County Conceptual Renourishment Project Analysis,prepared by Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. dated May 2011, Revised October 2011" for consideration and related slideshow"Conceptual Engineering Report, Collier County Beaches, Florida" b. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Review with the CAC the Conceptual Design Report for Barefoot/Vanderbilt, Clam Pass/Park Shore and Naples Beaches"dated October 13, 2011 and related backup material. Gary McAlpin requested the Committee: 1. Endorse the conceptual design as proposed. 2. Direct staff to move forwards with permit applications and 10 year plan based on Alternative #3 as identified in the above Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc report. 3. Endorse the timeframe for the project of 2013-2014. Mr. Hendel left at 4:50 p.m. Speaker Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club Jeremy Frantz, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida submitted a map of travel for endangered turtle"Kyra." Mr. Rios moved to approve staff's requests listed above. Second by Mr. Moity. Motion carried 6 "yes"—1 "no." Mr. Pires voted "no." VIII. Old Business 1. Wiggin's Pass Channel Straightening Project Discussion Gary McAlpin reported the composition of the Wiggin's Pass Subcommittee should be reviewed given its hiatus from activities. The meeting to be held on October 16, 2011 will be cancelled. The Committee directed staff to meet with Mr. Moreland to develop a list of potential participants for the Subcommittee/Work Group for approval by the Coastal Advisory Committee/Board of County Commissioners. CAC November 10,2011 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 6 of 6 2. Potential Project Deferrals Discussion The Committee directed staff to provide a list of projects which may be deferred for the purposes of re-allocating the funding to the beach renourishment project. Speaker Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club. IX. Announcements None X. Committee Member Discussion Mr. Moreland reported former Board of County Commissioner member Frank Halas is now a member of the Estuary Conservation Association. Mr. Rios requested the schedule for the laser grading on Marco Beaches and the status of the renourishment of Tigertail Beach. Gary McAlpin noted he will contact Mr. Rios with the scheduling for the laser grading and an update on Tigertail Beach. XII. Next Meeting Date/Location November 10,2011 —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 5:08 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee John Sorey, III, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended CAC November 10,2011 VII-1 Staff Reports 1 of 18 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX REVENUE As of November 2,2011 FY 12 Revenue Report Budget FY 12 FY 12 Net Fund FY 12 Current Forecast FY 12(5%) Budget 183 2,153,300 2,153,300 (107,700) 2,045,600 184 3,262,500 3,262,500 (164,100) 3,098,400 193 310,900 310,900 (15,500) 295,400 194 1,516,100 1,516,100 (75,800) 1,440,300 195 4,371,800 4,371,800 (218,600) 4,153,200 196 0 0 - 0 198 1,435,500 1,435,500 (71,800) 1,363,700 Gross Total $13,050,100 $13,050,100 -$653,500 $12,396,600 (653,500) Net Total 12,396,600 Collections ' %Budget Collected to FY 11 FY 10 FY 09 Month Actual FY 12 Cum YTD Date compare compare _ compare Oct 525,334 525,334 4.026% 9.71% 18.07% 31.38% Nov 525,334 4.026% n/a n/a n/a Dec 525,334 4.026% n/a n/a n/a Jan 525,334 4.026% n/a n/a n/a Feb 525,334 4.028% n/a n/a n/a Mar 525,334 4.026% n/a n/a n/a Apr 525,334 4.026% n/a n/a n/a May 525,334 4.026% n/a n/a n/a June 525,334 4.026% n/a n/a n/a July 525,334 4.026% n/a n/a n/a Aug 525,334 4.026% n/a n/a n/a Sept 525,334 4.026% n/a n/a n/a Total 525,334 525,334 Projected 13,133,822 Bal to Collect 12,608,488 Budget Comparison 5 Yr Collect 5 Yr Collect Budgeted Actual Month History-Cum History-Monthly Collections Collections _ Variance Oct 3.4% 3.4% 441,512 525,334 83,822 Nov 8.0% 4.6% 597,183 0 n/a Dec 13.8% 5.9% 765,937 0 n/a Jan 22.0% 8.2% 1,063,782 0 n/a Feb 34.8% 12.8% 1,676,253 0 n/a Mar 50.6% 15.8% 2,063,994 0 n/a Apr 68.8% 18.2% 2,376,281 0 n/a May 79.2% 10.3% 1,348,212 0 n/a June 85.3% 6.2% 804,557 0 n/a July 90.4% 5.0% 653,389 0 n/a Aug 95.5% 5.2% 678,129 0 n/a Sept 100.0% 4.5% 580,871 0 n/a Total 100.0% 100.0% 13,050,100 525,334 83,822 Tourist Tax Revenue $25 $20 S $1.5 I $1.0 . -Budgeted Actual I Sas . $00 _..._... 1122011818 PM H'.Vtevenue ReportMonthy Gas.Sales,and TDC Receipts 0 N O y '" C a E f o ? Z (/)CO , < - 0 , 0> N O1 O1 co N r-1 dr co N N in rn rn co Cn, 1!) 0 in ('1 V: C CO N CO ,()) C' U) m U) () In 4 H H F 4 4 N /•(; ul 0 0 0 0 H. 0 0 0 E. E. 0 C4 (n w w a a w w w w w m (n w C 4 a a a a 4 a E , u a a a a h t h h h h co E. 0 o a 4, 0 4, « E. O. O. I >• >' H >. ■ >1 r • • G X CO O E. I w w U 1, H W a 0 a a CD a H 4, * a, Cl) a a a 4 u 4 O 4 a 4 H 4 w 4 4 4 ° E. Z Z H w U E. h i : i .1. o U a w H W 4 CO CO CO CO CO W ow Cr.. Cr.. w Cr.. w w U z z h h h U U u C) U U C) C.7 w w Hi G W G 0 G 0 0 0 N H 0 • > > > > > > > H 0 Z 0 Z C Z r-i a• . al m co N H .. O E. w E. N F N E. in E m E. E. r) N U CO U m U in C) O U U) ; U U M MI O a' 0 N . 0 0 V' O m Cr) N in O 0 N 17O N ' I I , I . I • E. (N O y t a E te 5 zcnao a=o U> 01 Cl) ■.0 ' Cl) N Cl) N C l 1` C1) o Cl) CO Cn r+t m , in ,a cn ,- w 7 m a N co 4 1 ;n `r Co PC a1 Kt co FC u I-1 r) Oo O or) G ri 0 O e1 R N N E. U1 E. E- M E. E F E w E. H 0 a 0 (N 0 0 (N H E E in ri W . 0 c' a a w w w a a a a a a a w w w w w w w Cl) � Cl) m ul Cl) m cn Cl) m , • I • o 0 C: , w 4 4 a 4 4 At a , >., E. • E. • a a a a h h h ]h ra� I h h 0 C) I 4 I I zz zz zz O 4. a w Cl. A* Kt E. aE * HE E g At H Z E o al * 0 H W H O x W * * �CEa Ea as x >a Wa w Oa * a cl)a KC a 0 0a as as as 4a E:a as ap ER4 z4 a< F4 w�C �< z4 '04C w4 cn E.Kt O x H 0 H O H CO I:4 H x* * * * * * * * * * E. E E E ?-' 5 O Rl W W W al rA P7 W W a1 U W W W W W W W W Cr) W a w a C a a. r:. a :=I c*. w H a a 1-3 t h h h h U U U U U U U U U U H 0 Q �Q Q A Q C c Cc A o N ■ \ I - ■ 0 0 o C 0 0 z 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z Z A CO E m E. in E. O E. ate' E. CO Co d in U co U Ol U 0) U In U cn U (N(N CC) N U 41l C.-% C..)U r"1 "1 O 0 Cn 0 '-+ 0 o 0 w 0 O to 0 ,-i 0 O ,.n A r'1 H V' N N a' in al k N 1- r- � 0 N § § ; In in « CM K N 4 .4 - .r § 2 _ _ _ _ _ k �� ■ ° >© m et z ■ } /3 \ _ _ _ _co Q> . 2 4• \ in } in \ \ § In § } ni co ai N d \ M .4 , m \ \ \ \ \ \ _§ § § m k k re a _ \ ) a _ a w _ z 4 ` \ W \ in _ t" _ 4 0 in ! m k§ \ N ` §§ \ \ \ \ \ K \ § ID • \ \ F. \ \ri \ k 0 § n 2 § \ \ \ ■\ \ \ $ & ! I D E §0 co - v, I I _ % , B, d \§ § d d d §n q - .. LT. 2 2 § 0 CO 7 $ 2 $ \ 4 r CO et 01 it N al \/ t - - ® ® v _ Ea §2 k ! K zmc E F. § Q _ _ U) _ UI U) < - o 2 in ; Q D k \ \ \ \ \ § \\ )- k ( \ CO VI VI IN U) § an 2 \ \ \ \ \ \ § 3 i 4 ! ni 4A I . k\ / \f \ \) o $o {§ I / 0 3 7 ce k } F. \ \ \ •\ 4 IJJ M vs § 704 \k| \ - - _ } ill VI _ in co 4 ` § D \ \ \ \ \ \ i vs |§ q\ ON al co _U In § ■} k NO 2 1n 7 & 7 ) \ CO 0 § � k § G ® ® - \ $ § tl } §NO \ , , 8 8 \ } o on ) ~ n C0 N yc d 2 U - - - ® _ k\ re �O ® ! § rn VI p2 \ in ® - ® /3 % in 0> CO D N / \ \ \ \ \ D , o. } 2 7 \ d \ Kr 7 \an ƒ n 2 2 § } } \ IIn A k w m CC d \M ® ® ®® ® _CR E g D § \ § @ CC ■ J ) & 7 k # 0 U D ƒ N \ \ \ } \ to co ..n } in } _IA in § } \ { \ \ \ % IX 'NI>k in _ .4 � _ _ . cc co b & - in rr2 in in _ 141 an d k Z.1 ` ) a 'Z' \ \ \ \ \ 1- c § § CO N .4 a' / in § Q ; $ f 4 a' 7 a $ co y{ ! _ _ laE /\ 2 § \ \ \ } \ \ 7 0 O> N § G gl 2 = a > & $ a N § { 14 } / i P. / N in d \ _en N _ v, V. _ \ ] N 2 0) •) _ _ _ pi in § § i 7 2 FO LO IN 2 10 o R 3 V, V, _ _ w § _ k E / E. \ s\ \ \\ d § ! tCI o D } } } } } } in • / _ ■ 3 f \ 7 k / ) re au di k}@ } } }§ & /} L / k t a an a z & a 2 / \ an Cr2 00 01 rn_ _ an an B k 0 - , , , , _§ § @ k.$ \\ , , 8 \ , R � 4 a 0 N 0 IA ct 113 § N k § & § 7 \ , R § _cr,Ill \7 { k - _ _ _ E 2 § ; ci p/« E in gi < \0 ® §°a 7 @ ! N 7 \ K 2 5 5 \ \ \ N \ \ WI VI VI N. \ \ \ ) /in VI CO in up 1 _0 CO_ / \ _rq in eu ! m ) in >.- 4. ( ■\ \ \ \ \ . § i 2 0 E ( R ¢ ° J v3 _ v, - N\o \ \k \ \ rei § % E ! @ 01 | k \ \ 0 / \ \ k f { K k a q 3 « \ \ \ { § IA 2 ) $ rcl; § \ \ \ \ \ \ } AA | 3 7 a N \ \ \ § \ \ \ al § E § § k an Fi■ an to in � \ ; $ § \ k. / \\ \ \ \ a - R « *4-1 d 2 a }et N re A c ' § ,C. ƒ( K ©©« 2/e ■ ! k \- 0 & ® 3 6 « = 5 0 ® 2 0 ! 7 # } D = & 8 5 - = / co \ \ _ & CO 3 a a 4. ~ N. z ! \ G _ _ - n u 0 5 in ( \§ § NI rn \_ vl in v. v., ° VI § r. t d \ I- 2 § 0)ni. _ _ _ef z � } ! § \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I k i \ $ ) $ 2 L.J ] \ k\ \ \\ \ § ] \ _ _ ƒ 04 0 N , , e aN iN n) vs ! ■ } } \ \ \ \ \ \ N / � 0 \ I \ -oi \ \ - § \ �( ( ( d ( ) R � o / 't 2 § /{ ( _ _ _ _ _ _ f/ s )k CO ® § _ i _ tn in'an k o7o )§ e 4 i o \ § j } 17, r,c.i d to _ in _ i \ k f ƒ 0 ry 4"§g m/ c } , k \g v., er - Z C4 CL i t 00 CC B J \ \ \ \ \ K —I 0 U cc \ \ e LLA & 2 K ® -N - - ® - $ IIC ILA 441 fall r4 VI o to n in in cn an a LLA 4" \ j \ \ \ / / \ . !k _ - ® ® _rn o , . ®# % .. 2 , 'a ,94 k a-. d d d ( d d •; e § N k k k 2 IA a / \ k \ �ƒ - - ® - k/ ce CD ; )k CO E _tr.\ \\ ` ` ` = 2 & } ID ] \ / \ 1 } § i } } § } N\ \ \ \§ N - 4/3 § 2 N \ \ } \ \ f 2 \ \ } } } f \ § / - \ _ _rn / v, 2• ■ O 7 , S § 0 \ \ I I I Z - § § § 2 f%§ w tn. _ 0® i D e, k _ $ k In \ \ } }} } 0.•.. 2 K 2 p „ 3 } $ $ § ) ) 7 N § / \ } $ \ \ \$ $ k. \B \ \ R \ \ R - \ k § & § N N P. N 2 ° - m \ m 7 m /« - ® - ® - Ecy ° us t 2 k« 2 ( vl an _ _ VI 0 > - ] \ \ \ ( ( \ } § d \ \ \ \ \ \ \ vs d \ / _ _ V in re- _ in cn rr■ _rn' N il } VI 1,1. - "ry vs en LA 74 ! 0• CI irt � IC 4 \ _ _ \ \ _ _ § o. 2 , $ 6 = iv D ) t4 _ V/ I" ® _ § - k § • \§ & ( K \ & \ \ N 3 k 7 cr, in CO n co ta an re _ in \ _N up a , .rz. 0 w w § ol( / } f CO In $ ! \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 2 § § g 0 } N I- 4 k k k § -ci I k & E fCC s § Zke k § )70 _ V.I. _ o> - ; §tO a, 12 N D } } \ \ \ \N § to \ } \ \ \ \ \■ N k k a G to u, a a ! § §4. an k \ ( N k k ! to tO rei V3 _ to ' : :§ _ § k ■ \ \ \ \ ■\ \ 0o � 2 _ ce co § ! ® ® , . & IA \ i / \ $§ a a v. , an. in cc ! k § K N a a a D m § !1°1• \ 0 \ \ \ \ i N u, to I % , .. 2 } k ) d 2 § d d R � / 7 k ( § o § w f i f 2 k N f« Q _ _ _ _ / [ E_ ■ m Lri 4-I k k CO • f ) _ _ in An 01 o7 % )§ f . • , 2 4 } \ \ \ / r. \ ®ru iv id. _ } \ \ \d \ \ in to gn :11 In v, An, *0 40 q4 k \ | # § \ q \ m § § 0 ! § 2 K 0 k o § 2 = 12 LIJ 2 / An _ _ 03 cn _ _to § k \ ! & } k | _ 5 g Z 5 = $ k 4.rA { \ \ \ \ M.Iff \ CC a a a \ 2 ! § 2 a } } } } / $ ! O § } } { / a {7 d + ` a\\ k \ d B \ \ k N 0 '- c k § § N m 2 a � V. 7 $ y{ 4 I _ _ _ k/ co f $®Zke E _ _ rti 01 _ 7\ ./ o» � Fx © / _ _ v. f IN ] ,co , •cci , 4"rO d I } - \ \ IN 4 k & \ \ § \ \ k '41 2 N In I— F- 0• \ a _vi K a I \ § I § § crl al $ 2 / k \ \ \ \ \ $ § \ ) \ \ \ \ \ \ k # A 2 k ® & a \ \ vs co \\ \} f \k% % , , in § / 2 ) \ \ \ N z ; in o• 0 m j + \ N \7 7 q , .. 7 } 8 ii 8 \ , § k 8 ( ° d d ; � CNI § § k 0 r - 8\ \ K- N -1-4 46#« _ k\ o� k$ CO (ce in Pi 07o ®in 0 > - § ] \ \ / co \ \ $ to N \ \ \ to d \ V a IN V cri co _VI PI cn \ _ Vt _ _ co _ ri cn Ft N § § & } \ 7 VI§ ® $ » O1 P3 rril 7 § & _ _PI. - ® \ u 7) L N ! a m to§ _ in Vt V, _ � in 0 in / \ \ \ \ $ Ce k en \ f / } § § 7 in ce o ® Vt V) Vt Vt V _In % g % \ \ \ \ \ \, \ er gm in m e - § e f in 7 m k§ \ IA § # \ /# 1.4 .1,^ VT 4.6 _ / [ Ece s « ■ i IN §% Z7« E A _ , ,\\\ $ § } k « in ere a a & § 7 m § \ in in en 1 / ` i k ID a a a \ a a _IN > / 7 N 11 R k) ..n. - a a ® 2 § . @ ri Zei co to co J . \ � gf _ in v. in ® o / ) _ ! ) \ N. \ \ N \ § § § m k 2 § § \ A. / \ \ \ ) & N K 7 N CFI CO IA k { \ cri / ! N § N V1 3 7 & 7 7 cL k \ 2 a i + 2 3 30 / g a7 o } \ CO CO \ k }} % a \ .. ( k ( \\ \ \ ,, - N § f . } §00 I W # 7§ f N g m # § 2 [ )- — ® - — - ®■ E _ & kke / \ in 0 7 / _ato in tr, in _ _ o> .– § K k \ ! § ° _ ® - k m cz in. § § co rn LO LU▪ § ) j o in z _ & a & $ & k § ! 2 LI3 LO § a / to in in vi ®CO -ri 6. I LIJ - a \ al to i ] 7 io IN co' co 4,6 X > _ _ _ _ _ % § z ~cri - ` k d } - § 1 § \ \ \ \ tn \ ni « \ K = 7 en u I a, . ci in co ix LIJ ■ ▪ \ IA � _ 'rn cn Q. , rel . , , 4" S ■ ," cn ( § o « , az \ o u. cc j } { } } _ ? 2 m a - S CO a ■ k k \ in @ $ _ & _ _ _ _ an § a Q [ 2 o 0 o• d \ / N IA ; 3 _ i 5 • ` § ci u, ni & k g \ \ \ \ \ \ J re" 2 , cl AP - N § $ } \ \ \ \ \ §cri § N (( CO § a\\ K K \ \ k L . O N O N a C m o E ECE o > U Z(/) M N Q C O U> so c n co co [7 N N es • Z g � 8 U 5 w� N N M W •d LL y O)o a y' Ls 8 U ui w Cl) U 0 r n N. co. V c o 8 rn g 8'O Q Q w rn O. o rn N n Q L O M n - - a W a a y W :W to 4, W CA Vi V) W W oo 0 8 h pC e 8 g 8 C � � N. g M - 8 A C- 8 m CO N = W V, Vi V, 69 V) 69 Vi 69 v- SIR LL N �Y V7 g e L A3 2 Les In O RI a N (1) 1 yW H V) Vi V1 zzi W C 0 W Z1.6 co K 69 69 69 co 0 co co N. p 0 co. u CO. V N O 8 S 8 y Q C N ° ▪=0 LL .? 0 0 O n u N zci CO C C N . ✓ tam O > w w w Vi Vi to Vi w Vi t.:1 8 8 8 S a ao $ o ro N ru 3 C m O) V 0 y 'O• l0 f20 L a W Y H d A8 ga o rn co i, 8 a` 3c � � co m8 °� Z 0 U� } ta a co od a10i 4. do $ m 0 m co I• 2 Z J 0 Z u) co) n co u) n co O Q1 O) N N CO n o g 0 N 'G n oo 0D D D COD cco 0 0. e 0 m rn m rn rn LL _ .LCD. 0 C O G ' O N cm o8 £ O y 20. a N C IS O)a O y E � a? z• o=e 8 a > U U m E w Z Zfn � 0 d cr 8 Q N O m Y CJ U> (NI 0 O n a a 8 0g 8 I P yyc w co w a U U N am/ Z H N 0°Q� C W S {gyp N ...l`') N U a N a.r N .�. U co 7.. 0'- a ZuS U u. o O "' N A t W fh co a J c z U N to 8 U a ` 8 M rs w a U E a w w W e9 W w H w w 49 n 8 ' N O ,.. 8 88-... a C N ^ co O O 00 O.' a�D N 1s ,O. N O C C N co 1f1 TO m n co 19 49 49 69 19 49 69 49 69 a 8 L" 0 7 co w 9 Q C X W E9 W tO S 8 8 c N 0 r c) G ' a p) n N 8 C C co. c co. N p O E uS n 8 N v C6 m 0 f9 64 49 w 69 69 t9 c g 8 0 c v ;,� 8 g 'faQ�o I°. E .. co op co rs co O co O tL c a Ni v ref ^ O a0 Er n n Z •S °) ° i tam 0 U y • 49 49 49 69 49 49 69 49 19 o° 8 8 8 8 am 8 8 § 8 W '0 8 co N. W - LO � N. o,m •c 0 w w m, vi w CD 8T) '_ p c '� o d S. w X f d c d a rn d v d a9 'a m co N C d 0 2 a N to 2 a t m m ' t a v 8 C a (1) y O Z ct gU 8 U a Z 2 Q O K z C ` w > ci Z O N o co 8 Q a c 0 N 0 to '4) N u') Y) N IL r) 0) 0) 0) O) cm o) O) o) 2 ! ƒ . f y2 ` � - k\ E \\ CD M ° �� 4'CD CD //{ � � : - o> n 8 § } © . a �3) 'E � � % . 0 a§ 7 | Q. 0 2 k2 < \G/co « _< o ) 3 ! #%i . { 7 3 /G2 k m CO O. , 8 cri e: ! ! m CO .G» E el w _ : _ ? _ @ m q k $ . k . 8CO CO _el G. 8 «. ) k / \ # 1 . . 49 44 41, « k m cO ri a E : .- / ta c v, 69 fft m k � k 2 - \�1 CO ~ ` � - uƒ _ _ _ o a . . $ . • k g » a.- f ,-cn % .. i£ 0 1'I g t # f& /! m ■ Co " § « . .iy . 0. . . c to in k u. . x 0 ca CAC November 10,2011 Etv o llier VII-3 Staff Reports 1 of CLERK OF THE RC IT COURT Dwight E. Brock COLLIER COUNTY OUR OUSE 3301 TAMIAMI IL E ST Clerk of Courts Clerk of Courts P.O. BOX 4 3044 Accountant NAPLES, FLORIDA 4101-3 Auditor Custodian of County Funds April 25,2011 1 To: The Honorable Fred Coyle,Chairman Board of County Commissioner Workshops or District Town Hall Meetings Mr.John Sorey,Ill,Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee and Subcommittees Dr.James Talano,M.D.,Chairman E.M.S.Policy Advisory Board The Honorable Fred Coyle,Chairman Public Safety Coordinating Council The Honorable Georgia Hiller,Chairman Tourist Development Council and Subcommittees Please be advised that the Collier County Clerk's office provides abbreviated minutes for the advisory boards and committees of the Board of County Commissioners as requested. These summary minutes are intended as nothing more than a recap of action items taken by the board. They are not intended as a transcript. You may obtain a video tape from the Board of County Commissioners through the County Manager that gives a detailed recounting of individual participants. The Clerk can also provide verbatim minutes. If that is desired,the advisory board will have to bear the cost. I have instructed my vendor to provide a recap of action items only. A transcript may be obtained through the DVD or alternative verbatim transcription if requested. If you have any questions you can contact me in regard to this issue. ectfully, 1,6�& i Dwight E. rock Clerk of the Circuit Court DEB/sb cc: Hon.F.Coyle,Chairman, BCC Hon.J.Coletta,Vice-Chairman, BCC Hon. D.Fiala,BCC Hon.T. Henning, BCC Hon.G.Hiller,BCC L.Ochs,Cty.Mgr. P.Morgan,Mgr.,Clerk BMR Phone (239) 252-2646 Fax (239)252-2755 Website: www.collierclerk.com Email: collierclerk@collierclerk.com CAC November 10,2011 VII-3 Staff Reports 2 of 5 From: Patricia L. Moroan on behalf of Minutes and Records To: JlambriahtGail;Minutes and Records Subject: RE: Minutes of Meetings Date: Wednesday,November 02,2011 4:36:59 PM Gail, The issues/problems that we have had in the past is when abbreviated/summary minutes contain too much detail and either board members or citizens complain that it wasn't their intent, or they didn't say those exact words, or "my whole statement wasn't there", "for the record" and they never took it off record,why wasn't every point mentioned exactly how I stated, etc. This clarified process, whereby the minute-taker only puts in the action items: Roll Call,Agenda Item titles, Vote Count (opposing vote if the Advisory Board member states why they voted against the majority), Public Speaker names, Next Hearing Date, and Adjournment, doesn't bring forth the same questions/problems that the "expanded" minutes bring. The only thing that can be acted upon is WHAT THE ADVISORY BOARD MOTIONS/APPROVES BY MAJORITY. If they give direction to have Staff do something or bring back something,that is their ACTION (by Consensus, if they do not formally vote but agree in majority"nods"). Our office doesn't process many committees' abbreviated minutes any longer and haven't had any issues since the process has been clarified as to what was within our contract with our vendor. Some staff members take care of that process for other advisory committees, while others use a court reporter for verbatim transcripts. Of course, the minutes that are prepared for the Coastal Advisory Committee state"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". We would be happy to provide court reporting services to the CAC if they are requested/desired for their meeting minutes in the verbatim format. Regards, Trish Morgan, BMR Manager Clerk of the Circuit Court &VAB Minutes and Records Department From: HambrightGail [mailto:GailHambright @colliergov.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 2:09 PM To: Minutes and Records Subject: Minutes of Meetings Could you tell me if other BCC appointed committees have had issues with the minutes that are taken for their committee meetings or if they have requested additional information? Your input on this matter is very much appreciated. CAC November 10,2011 VII-3 Staff Reports 3 of 5 Thanks, gait O. Nandbaclit, accountant Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34112 Phone:(239)252-2966 Fax:(239)252-2950 Stream Fax(239)252-6502 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-maii address released in response to a public records request. do not send electronic mail to this entity Instead:contact this office by telephone or in writing. 0 N O (,) a a Ex o@ zcnu., <M`o U> v o Q) N- N. O) Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 N If) OO) O) O O N O O O M M 2 M Ti O QOj O O N O O O ,0 N M CO M N M a0 II *' 9- - Fs >. . J0 3 a) y a 8 ca a V OD 'B c c 3 _ v co °& o a) rn °' M 0 00 O M 3 K) E c O 0 0 rt sr (0 (0 O O O) ri E . Z Ou 41 ,c 4;uow aad 04 ° 0 M N m 003` Q aD 0 Pai�lq sa;nuiyy V v p c a 76 G. v ` Q +'4 E c cv O O 1- , '3 m x v o In OD co N -0 O l'- 0 0 .a Cl) N v O v ■ In OD "0 6. 0 O Q a) ao > a, � 4.= NN N- a te x m O) M N. O 5 a) N G> 3 >, a! J N M LO M O "7 CO DD t _ < w cn 0 In co In in . as v c .3 a, Q) r * In * ,— V C jC_ U 4 1_ U * r MI E t = a,ZS _ _ _ r Q N ,-- N 0 N 0 ` O M C N aC u CD O CO O O N N N 72 N Ll M C r _CO U N N M Q 0 d m V in. «° O to (O Z W 0 0 N C y JD a E CL cu 0 :3 Z u) io OC">w <= o O> in «' O O O O u) O O O O u) u) O to u) C U) O O O f- (0 O 1() 0 I- N O N N N- O (O O M N- O N O M CO O 1- It: 2 0 O N4 CO 0) 0 1- 0) CO CO CO y N Tr N C) .- CO CO C N N d r.+ R C) 0 d to O C7 O LO u7 47 4-. In to CO CD f,. (C) (0 C) N- N N Z N Y q;uow gad � 0 CO V T- N d N CO CO 0 CO 0 U) pall!q swum w E Co Et I' < cl Q O O a: CO . ' >- O I- O p o CO N N oo M oo d O CO`o (t)) M Q �� pOj ik G1 to (7 N m N- O d (5 tto J N CO C .0 V i# A) oo M N N M N E O �* O o .-- O co 0 O U 0 4t O O L c■I O jo `- O O M O N r ,- M U N r ti O v u`) (O n ao co a d m 1 CAC November 10,2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 1 of 4 _ _/ — . A. - A► — \_ -_ir r _ ''REQUEST FOR PROJECT TIME EXTENSION PAGE 1 of 2 (COMPLETE EACH CELL - PREPARE A SEPARATE REQUEST FOR EACH PROJECT) DECLARATION NO. PW NO. FIPS NO. DATE: CATEGORY FEMA - FL- DR- 1785 PW 00561 021-99021-00 10/28/2011 G APPLICANT: COUNTY: DAMAGED FACILITY: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Collier Marco Island Beach DATE OF DECLARATION: DATE OF PROJECT DATE PROJECT IS CURRENTLY APPROVED THROUGH: APPROVAUFUNDING: 08/24/2008 03/04/2009 08/23/2012 ! NUMBER OF PREVIOUS TIME EXTENSIONS: PERCENTAGE OF WORK COMPLETE AS OF THE DATE OF THIS REQUEST: Two 15% MILESTONES: PROJECTED DATE: ACTUAL DATE: 1.DESIGN FINALIZED AND APPROVED: 01/01/2013 2.BID PACKAGE OR WORK ORDER ISSUED: 04/01/2013 ' 3.CONTRACT ACCEPTED/NOTICE TO PROCEED: 05/01/2013 4.SCOPE OF WORK STARTED: 11/01/2013 5.SCOPE OF WORK FINISHED: 05/01/2014 6.CERTICATE OF COMPLETION/PROJECT APPROVAL: 12/31/2014 PROVIDE A DETAILED TIMELINE OF DELAYS IN CONJUNCTION WITH DOCUMENTED JUSTIFICATION DESCRIBING THE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES OR UNUSUAL PROJECT REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPLICANT. L (This must be provided for approval consideration. Add attachments as necessary for a complete request description): Marco Island Beach Collier County is requesting a time extension for PW 00561 from 8/23/2012 to the new date of 12/31/2014. PW 00561 is authorized to place 77,000 CY's of sand on the southernmost 4,400 LF of Marco Island beach between R144 and G-2. This beach has been designated as Critically Eroded by FDEP. The Time Extension is requested to permit this project and allow the addition of County-funded items to the recovery project, which are designed to improve resiliency of these engineered beaches at no extra cost to FEMA. Our beach renourishment objective for Marco Island was to identify and engineer the most robust beach renourishment that was able to resist both normal and storm induced erosion. To accomplish this, Collier County has been engaged in conceptual engineering and system modeling of this beach for the past 9 months. This study is now completed and it has allowed Collier County to develop a conceptual design that can now be taken to Florida Department of Environmental Protection for permitting. A copy of the Conceptual Design and Modeling Analysis for Marco Island is attached. Coastal Engineering Consultants were awarded a Work Order for this renourishment program. The program consisted of three components with the following recommendations: 1. Beach Renourishment including system modeling to determine the optimum sand CAC November 10,2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 2 of 4 placement quantity to resist future erosion and maximize the cycle between renourishment events. This quantity was determined to be 104,000 CY's of which 77,000 CY's was authorized under FEMA's disaster order. A new FDEP permit will be required and is expected to take 6-9 months to obtain. The existing USAGE permit is good through 2021 but will require the Biological Opinion to be amended. 2. Refurbishment of existing erosion control structures is required. There are three _ r breakwaters and two groins at the end of Marco Island to control erosion. These structures will need to be rebuilt to the original design to perform as intended. This will require authorizations from the FDEP and USAGE to restore the structures to their original design and function. Permitting is expected to take 6 to 8 months. 3. The addition of an additional Erosion Control Structure was investigated between R147 and R148 for additional erosion protection. However, the Cost-to-Benefit of this item could not justify the inclusion of this item into the project scope. This analysis is detailed in the conceptual design report. With these recommendations, Collier County is proceeding with the permitting of the beach renourishment portion of this program and will be contracting in the immediate future the rebuilding of the 5 existing erosion control structures. Collier County is convinced that our objective to develop a more robust beach better able to resist both normal and storm induced erosion will be achieved with the implementation of this plan. This however, will require additional time to permit these solutions. A new FDEP will be required and we are anticipating that this can be accomplished in 6—9 months. Turtle nesting season must also be considered in the execution of this project. If permitting wlll not support an installation during the non-turtle nesting season of November 1, 2012 to April 30, 2013 then the installation must be accomplished during the next years non-turtle nesting season which ends April 30, 2014. We expect everything to be complete by 12/31/2014. Although FEMA will benefit from reduced future storm impacts resulting from any County-funded ' mitigation work outlined above, Collier County is requesting a time extension only. This time extension is required to engineer, permit and construct this approach. This time extension will also further minimizing/reduce FEMA's exposure/participation associated with future storm events. Projected Project completion Date: 12/31/2014 Applicant understands that: 1)approval is based on the information provided with this request; 2)any changed conditions are to be immediately brought to the attention of the Governors Authorized Representative;and, 3)approved projects remain subject to all previous requirements for accountability,completion,and closure. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: DATE: 004/r 10/28/2011 PRINT NAME and POSITION: CONTACT NUMBER: ( J. Gary McA/p/n, Director- Coastal Zone Management (239) 252-5342 CAC November 10,2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 3 of 4 McAlpinGary From: Cai,Yan Yan.Cai 31 em.m orida.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 1:29 PM To: McAlpinGary; John Sorey; PryorCheryl; OberrathKaren; CoxMichael Cc: Zgodzinski, Joseph; Seibert, Robert Subject: RE: Time Extension Request PW 00561 -Marco Island Beach Renourishment Good afternoon Gary, I have received your time extension request on PW 561 and the design conceptual report via email. A new TE request on PW 561 will be entered into FL PA. In addition, the TE request on PW 1156 has been entered in FL PA and is available for your review. I will review both time extension requests and prepare state recommendation letter accordingly. Thank you Ms. Yan Cai Planner IV Florida Division of Emergency Management Office: (407) 858-2761 Fax: (407) 858-4429 www.floridad isaster.orq From: Seibert, Robert Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 11:40 AM To: McAlpinGary; Cai,Yan; John Sorey; PryorCheryl; OberrathKaren; CoxMichael Cc: Zgodzinski,Joseph Subject: RE: Time Extension Request PW 00561 - Marco Island Beach Renourishment Gary, This confirms receipt of the request and the associated documents. Thanks for the input. Yan, Please copy me on the confirmation of your review. Thanks, Bob Robert M. (Bob) Seibert Lead Deputy Public Assistance Officer Florida Division of Emergency Management Phone: 407-858-2803 Blackberry: 850-528-5096 Fax: 407-858-4429 email: robert.seibertAem.mvflorida.com Mailing address: Florida Division of Emergency Mgt. Attn: Robert M. Seibert 5900 Lake Eleanor Drive Orlando,FL 32809 1 CAC November 10,2011 VII-4 Staff Reports 4 of 4 Frdm: McAlpinGary f mailto:GaryMcAlpin@)colliergov.netl Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 9:53 AM To: Seibert, Robert; Cai, Yan; John Sorey; PryorCheryl; OberrathKaren; CoxMichael Subject:Time Extension Request PW 00561 - Marco Island Beach Renourishment Importance: High Bob, Attached is an email of our time extension request for PW 00561 and a copy of our design conceptual report. The time extension request is two pages and attached as the first two files. The originals will follow in the mail. Yan, Can you please confirm that you have received the document and please forward to anyone else in your organization that is required to receive this document. Also,can you confirm that you have received our extension request for PW 1146 and nothing else on our part is required. Thank You, Gary J. Gary McAlpin,Director Coastal Zone Management 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 103 Naples,Florida 34112 Ga rvMcAluinttcollierttov.net (239)252-5342 Fax:(239)353-4061 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 2 CAC November 10,2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 1 of 4 Option 1- Laser Grading Marco Beach - laser grade the beach from the south end of Sand Dollar Island in the vicinity of R135 south to R138, approximately 3,000 feet. This work will stop at the north boundary of MICA. The beach is so wide in this location that stagnant water puddling is a common occurrence. The objective is to fill in as many of the low spots as is possible with the existing beach sand. We do not intend to add any additional sand to the beach but rather fill in the voids. The beach will be essentially flat, maybe with a 1:400 slope. Engineering to permit this, I am estimating at$40K-$50K and will take 6-9 months to obtain. Construction will take say$20K-$25K. This approach might last 1 to 2 years. We would need to get a multi-year permit and each time grading is requested there would need to be a before and after survey. Several issues of concern with this approach: 1. FWC will require the Biological Opinion to be modified and the generally don't like to permit major activities on the beach sooner that every 4 years. 2. Without increasing the beach elevation above the average wave height, this problem will not go away. Wave energy will push the surf landward and runnels will develop as the surf seeks the path of least resistance to return to the Gulf. 3. Turtle nesting in a low lying accretional area is a problem Option 2—Change the profile of the Beach by adding Sand—If 2.5 feet was added at the base of the berm for the 3,000 length of beach and tapering the Boo feet width of the beach. Approximately 100,000 CY's of material would be necessary. This material is available in the Capri Pass Borrow site that was used to supply sand for the 2005 Hideaway Beach project. Engineering/permitting on this project would cost $100K to$150K and at$15-$20 per CY construction would cost approximately$2,000,000. This approach would: 1. Provide a positive grade to the beach. 2. Improve percolation 3. Provide a better habitat for turtles Option 3—Do nothing—Only$20,000 in funds have been budgeted for this work. Additional funding is not available for this work without re-prioritization of existing projects. CAC November 10,2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 2 of 4 From: Cowart.Jennifer To: Wettstein,John; McAloinGary Cc: hones,Valerie;Wetherington,Michael;edwards. Lainie;"Nancy Richie" Subject: RE: Laser grading the North Marco Beach Date: Thursday,October 27,2011 11:47:47 AM Mr. McAlpin, As per the below comments from Beaches staff in Tally, the field permits for laser grading of this area on Marco that I have issued to you in the past have been issued in error on my part. Therefore, the current request and all future requests for laser grading will have to go through the CCCL Administrative Permit application process. I apologize for the confusion. Thank You, Jennifer Cowart Division of Water Resource Management Bureau of Beaches& Coastal Systems P.O. Box 2549 Fort Myers, Fl. 33902-2549 office: (239)344-5627 fax: (850)412-0590 pager: (850)488-7708 From: Wettstein, John Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:26 AM To: 'McAlpinGary' Cc: Jones, Valerie; Wetherington, Michael; Cowart, Jennifer; Edwards, Lainie Subject: RE: Laser grading the North Marco Beach Beach scraping is generally prohibited under CCCL rules. Beach scraping has been allowed in the past as an emergency measure to provide protection for storm threatened structures.Any activity that lowers elevations is a concern. I think that the laser grading process proposed for Marco Island would interfere with coastal system functions. The one foot excavation refers to the maximum limit of excavation for clearing uplands under a field permit. I believe that due to the size and scope (eg. location,depth and amount of excavation volume) this activity would require processing as an administrative permit.A copy of the application is attached.Some preliminary information would be useful in assessing the request. Photographs, surveys and a GIS aerial depicting the work area would be a good start. Where is this proposed activity in relation to property boundaries, mean high water and the ECL? How large of an area will be affected? What are the slopes, locations and excavation depths and amounts of in situ material to be graded? How much and of what quality and source is the beach compatible fill that can be imported to achieve the required grades? CAC November 10,2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 3 of 4 What area and type of vegetation is proposed to be removed or prevented from growing in this area? Is this activity described in the state beach management plan or addressed in a JCP? It may have been done before but I'm not too familiar with it. From: Cowart, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 12:23 PM To: 'McAlpinGary' Cc: Wettstein, John; Jones, Valerie; Wetherington, Michael Subject: RE: Laser grading the North Marco Beach I have forwarded your request to Beaches staff in Tally for their review and comment. Thank You, Jennifer Cowart Division of Water Resource Management Bureau of Beaches& Coastal Systems P.O. Box 2549 Fort Myers, Fl. 33902-2549 office: (239)344-5627 fax: (850)412-0590 pager: (850)488-7708 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: McAlpinGary[mailto:GaryMcAlpin @colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 11:58 AM To: Edwards, Lainie; Cowart, Jennifer Cc: PerrymanClinton; Nancy Richie; Victor N Rios Subject: Laser grading the North Marco Beach Importance: High Lainie and Jenny, Now that turtle season is over, Marco Island would like to laser grade their beach from the south end of Sand Dollar Island in the vicinity of R135 south to R138. A little less than 3,000 feet. The beach is so wide in this location,stagnant water puddling is a common occurrence. The objective is to fill in as many of the low spots as is possible with the existing beach sand. We do not intend to add any additional sand to the beach but rather reshape it to improve drainage. We have performed this work in the past in conjunction with a renourishment and as a standalone operation. We look for this work to be a standalone operation in continuation of our normal beach maintenance. I wanted to double check your requirements and restrictions. As I remember: 1. This is a local permit that Jenny Cowart would permit. Our application is through the Ft. Myers office through her. 2. One foot of sand is the maximum amount of sand that can be relocated from one location to another. The locations must be adjacent but I don't remember the maximum distance we are allowed to transport the sand. Is there a distance restriction? 3. What engineering surveys if any, will you need pre and post laser grading. We are scheduled to conduct the annual physical monitoring of this beach in December 2011 and if engineering is required, I would CAC November 10,2011 VII-5 Staff Reports 4 of 4 like to use this annual monitoring survey for my pre laser grading survey. I look forward to your response and guidance on this issue. J. Gary McAlpin, Director Coastal Zone Management 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34112 GaryMcAloinacolliergov.net (239)252-5342 Fax:(239)353-4061 Under Florida Law e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead contact this office by telephone or in writing CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 1 of 12 COLLIER COUNTY CONCEPTUAL RENOURISHMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS SELECTED SECTIONS AND DESCRIPTION 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. 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. 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. COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 2 of 12 BAREFOOT BEACH 0--.. 1, ..," 1,4,..„.1191M WIGGINS PASS TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE DELNOR-WIGGI ♦i CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 3 of 12 X. BORROW AREA CHARACTERISTICS Borrow Area T1 is proposed as the primary sand sources for use in the upcoming renourishment project. Borrow Area Ti 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 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 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 Ti 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 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 4 of 12 from Borrow Area T1, which is a change from the 2006 construction plans. I PASSlSH��t F CAPTIVA ,i w w m ISLAND 1 s BLIND 1 vo ASS !, ` SANIBEL Q a ISLAND SAN .. ,{ CARLO S o • \`'•• o 611, yy i' ESTEROISLAND N 700000 �,.+'�"J \ N 760000 \ o Q ,- Y LOVERS KEY A 1 \ oo r' BORROW\ AREA Ti \ O. F` \ 331 M1LES 1,1+'is BAREFOOT \ ,.,, WIGGINS ..BEACH — � � ' PASS - t" k N70=0 , ♦ VANDERBILT N7w000 1 BEACH CLAM R4!• g PARK I PASS SHORE I 9 MILE LIMIT �� R '�� DOCTORS 41' ASS ?\ 1 GULF , , NAPLES OF N 66 0000 MEXICO R,t N 640660 •z 1 y\• Ili \ ORDON `Atii SS ' \\ 1t '‘ 0 20000 40000 CAP I PASS �� i' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT \ BIG CO PASS !I,; :U I, .c)1 A ■;%40-Nt N 660000 \ , r.....„.0. \ 046111` < I NOTES: \ o , 1/4414, • 1.COORDINATES HEREON ARE BASED ON FLORIDA STATE \PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM,EAST ZONE,NAD 1983. \ _Al� i 2.ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET BASED ON \ ^ Le.,,. NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM, 1929(NGVD 29). \ \ \ CAPE ROMANO \BORROW AREA \\ FIGURE 19. Borrow Areas COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 5 of 12 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 1 (T1) 1.67 0.32 0.92 1.75 3,570,000 cy Toms Hill l (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 TI Cut 1 characteristics in the fill area R22 to R79. 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. COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 6 of 12 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 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. 1 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. Selected Alternative: 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 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. COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 7 of 12 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. 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. 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. COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 8 of 12 Typical Naples Beach Profile 2006 vs 2010 Template Comparison 8 • 2010 Profile 6— - - —2006 Template �. ..r ■Expanded Template 2_. 0 1 \10 Z 0 15 a .2_ _. 1 -6_. - ` ...... ... -8- .. . . .10 , 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Distance(n) FIGURE 8: Typical Naples Profile. 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 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 9 of 12 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. 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. 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 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 10 of 12 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. • 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. COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 11 of 12 • 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 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. COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 12 of 12 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. 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. COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC • • Cotter County Public Services Division Coastal Zone Management CCCOPY November 9, 2011 Ms. Renee Orr, Chief Strategic Resources Office Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 381 Elden Street MS 4010 Herndon, VA 20170 RE: Request for Non-Competitive Negotiated Agreement for use of OCS sand from Collier Borrow Area T-1. Dear Ms. Orr: By way of this letter, the Collier County, Florida requests to enter into a non-competitive negotiated Agreement with the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), for the use of sand from an existing Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) borrow area for purposes of renourishing the Collier County beaches. This is a non-federal beach renourishment project with construction anticipated to occur between November 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014. Borrow Area T-1 was used in the 2005/2006 Collier County Renourishment Project in which approximately 668,000 CY's of T-1 material was used to renourish 13 miles of Collier County coastline between Wiggins and Gordon Passes. The OCS sand borrow area T-1 is located in federal waters, approximately 33 miles offshore of Vanderbilt Beach in Collier County. It is requested that up to 1,000,000 cubic yards of sand be dredged from the OCS borrow area for placement along the Collier County beaches for shoreline protection. The sand will be hydraulically excavated by hopper dredge, then transported to the project area and hydraulically pumped from the dredge to the beaches. The location, methods and scope of the presently proposed project are unchanged from the 2005 project activity. It is our ,01 I r Collier County Coastal Zone Management•W.Harmon Turner Building,Suite 103.3301 East Tamiami Trail•Naples,Florida 34112.239-252-2966•FAX 239-252-2950 www.colliergov.netfcoastalzonemanagement Ms. Renee Orr,Chief November 9,2011 Page 2 of 2 understanding that as a result of this request, BOEM will inform Collier County what, if any, additional environmental' survey/studies of Borrow Area T-1 may be required. Additionally, this project shall be constructed pursuant to existing State of Florida permit 02222355-001-JC. Maps and description of the offshore borrow area and the onshore project areas are attached. The purpose of the project is to restore erosion losses to Collier County beaches as a result of storm waves and tides, including Tropical Storm Fay in 2008 and subsequent storms. In addition to periodic beach placement of material dredged from inlet bypassing, this project has renourished with sand on two subsequent occasions. The most recent project renourishment was in 2005, pursuant to erosion caused by severe hurricanes in 2004. The renourishment sand for the project was from the same OCS borrow source that is proposed herein, constructed per prior lease agreement OCS G- 23707, dated September 27, 2005 (copy enclosed). The public benefits of the proposed activity are significant. These include shore protection and storm damage reduction benefits for diverse residential, commercial, and public beach-park improvements, along with improvement of the beach resource and environmental habitat along this publicly-accessible, critically-eroded gulf shoreline. Beach profile data indicate that the previous renourishment has been highly successful in restoring this shoreline's sandy beach, and that the project has met or exceeded performance predictions. Collier County looks forward to renewing its relationship with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for the use of Federal OCS sand for renourishment of our beaches. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 239-252-5342 or via email at GaryMcAlpin ancolliergov.net if you have any questions relating to this request. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, 94;1*147 /114&Nlift4sni J. Gary McAlpin, P.E. Coastal Zone Management Director Collier County Public Service Division Attachments Ms. Renee Orr, Chief November 9,2011 Page 2 of 2 CC: Leo Ochs Jr., Collier County Manager Marla Ramsey, Collier County Public Services Division Administrator John Sorey, City of Naples Vice Mayor Steve Keehn, CP&E Senior Coastal Engineer Colleen Finnegan, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Colleen Greene, Collier County Assistant County Attorney United States Department of the Interior =" * MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE Washington, DC 20240 +� �-,r Mr. Gary McAlpin SEP 2 7 2005 Coastal Projects Manager Collier County Public Utilities Engineering Department 3050 Horseshoe Drive,Suite 218 Naples,Florida 34104 Dear Mr.McAlpin: Please find along with this cover letter,a draft final lease agreement and lease stipulations to allow for the Minerals Management Service to enter into a Noncompetitive Lease for the Collier County,Florida, Beach Renourishment Project.We understand that the proposed project will place approximately 673,000 cubic yards of OCS sand on 8.6 miles of beach to restore Vanderbilt Beach,Park Shore,Pelican Bay and the City of Naples public beaches. The sand source is a sand ridge identified as Borrow Area T1. The project will provide the County with storm protection for the upland properties,provide sea turtle nesting and shorebird habitat,and increase areas for beach recreation. Please review the draft lease as soon as possible and provide your comments to me at the address below: Minerals Management Service Marine Minerals Branch 381 Elden Street Mail Stop 4010 Herndon,Virginia 20170 Once we have your comments in hand,we will evaluate any suggested changes you might have. Upon completion of a final lease agreement approved by all parties,we will send three copies to you for signature by the Collier County,Board of Commissioners and subsequent signature by our Associate Director. A final agreement with all signatures will be provided to you for your records. Please do not hesitate to contact Tony Giordano of my staff at(703)787-1283 if you have any questions. Sincerely, 142_ Barry S nicker Acting Chief,Marine Minerals Branch cc: GOMR—Joe Christopher TAKE PRIDE .11=;,"7 IN AMERICA '�"' • 16F3 UNITED STATES Office DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE Washington. DC NEGOTIATED NONCOMPETITIVE LEASE FOR SAND, GRAVEL AND SHELL RESOURCES ON THE Lease number OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF This form does not constitute an information collection as defined by OCS-G-23707 44 U.S.C.3502 and therefore does not require approval by the Office of Management and Budget. .1_s !case. is made under the authority of Section 8(k)(2)(A)(i)of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of August 7, ,i 543 L.S.C. 1331 et seq.),P.L.95-372,as amended by P.L. 103-426,(hereinafter called the"Act"),between the ..:: ;! States of America(hereinafter called the"Government"),acting through the Minerals Management Service ::,.inatier called the"Lessor"),and the Collier County,Board of County Commissioners,Florida(hereinafter called 'Lessee'1, In consideration of the promises,terms,conditions,covenants,and stipulations contained herein or ..:.,,hid hereto,the parties mutually agree as follows: '_rtiI>n I. LeaseAArea. Under the terms and conditions of this lease,the Government hereby authorizes the removal .p in 673.000 cubic yards of sand only for exclusive use in the beach re-nourishment of a portion of Collier County ,.;:1 ,. The sand will be placed on 8.6 miles of beach to restore Vanderbilt Beach, Park Shore.Pelican Bay and the .. ■u'Naples public beaches. The sand source is a sand ridge identified as Borrow Area T1 which is located 33 .••. ,;nom the beaches to be re-nourished between DNR monument(R-20)in the north and (R-80)in the south. This . : ,rization includes the right of the Lessee to remove and place sand on these beaches prior to the expiration of this . . c from the Federal Outer Continental Shelf(OCS)areas within the T1 Borrow Area within the tbllowing • ,.iinates: Borrow Area Tl. Corner Coordinates Collier County Renourishment Project Fasting Lat.(Degrees) Long.(Degrees) Lat.(Decimal) Long(Decimal) 208557 26 23 24.9 8227 02.1 26.39024 82.36726 201944 26 23 23.8 82 23 14.9 26.38995 82.38746 201928 26 23 43.7 82 23 15.3 26.39548 82.38757 201026 26 23 47.6 82 23 25.2 26.39657 82.39034 201762 26 24 03.3 82 23 17.3 26.40093 82.38814 _05279 26 2403.5 82 22 38.7 26.40098 82.37740 205452 26 24 01.8 82 22 36.7 26.40050 206055 26 23 56.8 82 22 30.0 26.3991 1 82._z 750 206711 2 7 , 82.37501 6_3 :7.7 82 22 22.8 26.39784 82.37299 206583 26 23 42.6 82 22 24.1 26.39517 82.37335 207313 26 23 36.9 82 22 16.0 26.39360 82.37110 207800 26 23 37.1 82 22 10.6 26.39363 82.36962 -. _. .. 208557 26 23 34.9 82 22 02.1 26.39024 82.36726 16F ; Section 2. Statutes and Regulations. This lease is issued subject to the Act(43 U.S.C. 1337(k)(2XA)(i)),all regulations,orders,guidelines,and directives issued pursuant to the Act and in existence upon the Effective Date of this lease,all regulations,orders,guidelines,and directives subsequently issued pursuant to the Act that provide for the prevention of waste and conservation of the natural resources of the OCS and the protection of correlative rights therein,and all other applicable statutes and regulations. Section 3. Effective/Expiration Date of Lease. The lease will be effective upon signature by both parties. This lease will expire one hundred eighty(180)calendar days from the effective date if the Lessee does not issue a Notice to Proceed to a dredging contractor during that time. If a timely Notice to Proceed is issued,then the lease will expire three hundred sixty five(365)days from the date the dredging contractors receive notice,or upon completion of the project,whichever occurs first. A written request for an extension of time may be submitted to MMS by the Lessee not less than thirty(30)days or more than ninety(90)days prior to the expiration of the lease. Section 4. Notice of Operations,The Lessee shall immediately notify the Lessor of commencement or termination of operations after the Lessee receives such notification from its contractor. Section 5. Plans and Performance. All operations in the leased area shall be conducted in accordance with the final approved project plan and all conditions as referenced in Attachment 1: Collier County Lease Stipulations,and all applicable regulations,orders,guidelines and directives. The Lessee shall provide the Lessor with a copy of the Project's"Construction Solicitation and Specifications Plan" (herein referred to as the Plan)for review and approval. Not withstanding any other provision of this lease,no activity or operation authorized by it at the designated offshore borrow sites shall be carried out until the Lessor has determined that each such activity or operation described in the Plan will be conducted in a manner that is in compliance with the provisions and requirements of the lease. Any modifications to the Plan which affect the designated offshore borrow sites must be approved by the Lessor prior to implementation of the modification. The Lessee acknowledges and assumes primary employees,contractors or other persons or ies acting on the Lessee's behalf,nand conducted by the Lessee,re compliance with the terms and provisions of this lease in any contract entered into by the Lessee with sluchepa parties.does not warrant the content or quality of the sand for the P ec' The agrees to conduct periodic reviews and inspections of such activities purposes ensure compliance with a t�and further conditions of the approved plan and this lease. Any modifications to the approved project plan shall be approved by the Lessor prior to implementation. The Lessee further agrees that no activities authorized by the approved plan or this lease will be carried out in a manner that(1)interferes with or endangers operations under any lease issued or maintained pursuant to the Act,(2)causes any undue harm or damage to aquatic life,(3)causes pollution,(4)creates hazardous or unsafe conditions,(5)unreasonably interferes with or harms other uses of the leased area,or(6)disturbs cultural resources. Section 6. Safety Requirements. The Lessee shall require that all necessary steps be taken to assure that their Contractor:(1)maintains all operations within the leased area in compliance with regulations,orders,guidelines,and directives intended to protect persons,property,and the environment,including mineral deposits and formations of mineral deposits not leased hereunder,and(2)allows prompt access,at the site of any operation subject to safety regulations,to any authorized Federal inspector and shall provide any documents and records that are pertinent to occupational or public health,safety,or environmental protection as may be requested. This lease is valid only if such steps are incorporated in the contract between the Contractor and the Lessee. Section 7. Violations,Suspensions and Cancellations. If the Lessee violates any provisions of this lease,the Lessor may,after giving written notice,suspend any further operations of the Lessee under this lease,except such operations as may be necessary to remedy any violations. If the Lessee fails to remedy all violations within thirty(30)days after receipt of suspension notice,the Lessor may,by written notice,cancel this lease and take appropriate action to recover all damages suffered by the Government by reason of such violations. 1 6 F3 Section 8. Responsibility for Damages Suffered.Cosh of Expenses Incurred by the Qovernment. The Lessor does not warrant that the sand to be used in this project is suitable for the purpose for which it is intended. If the Lessor incurs any damages,costs,or liabilities resulting from the use of such sand,or through the negligence of the Lessee or its agents,contractors,or employees in relation to any operations conducted under this lease,the Lessee shall indemnify the Lessor for such costs,damages,or expenses incurred. Such indemnification is not to be construed as a further waiver of sovereign immunity in excess of the legislative waiver of sovereign immunity in Section 768.28, Florida Statutes. Section 9. Asslanment or Tra sfer of___Le ,This lease may be assigned or transferred without written approval Section 10. Surrender of Lease.The Lessee may surrender this lease by filing with the Lessor a written relinquishment that shall be effective on the date of filing. Section 11. Stipulations.The Lessee shall be subject to all the appended Stipulations to this Lease. • • F� THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Lessor Collier County-Board of County Commissioners (Lessee) (Signature of Authorized r) (Signature of Authorized Officer) Fred W co yIr (Name of Signatory) (Name of Signatory) Fred Coyle,Chairman Associate Director Collier County,Board of County for Offshore Minerals Management Commissioners (Title) (Title) 11 q—o 5 (Date) (Date) je , KO C Attestedr Clerk of Courts • (D ,. Attsst ' :1*i ram'S $igi atiw'e 1�►. (Address of Lessee) If this lease is executed by a corporation,it must bear the corporate seal Item# ,Approves as tc Tom & lega1 sufficiencb Agenda It-VI-6c Date C.Fte Colleen M. Greene Res' 12_ �� - Assistant County Attorney Recd ck2-.1/11))11 utYC 16 F. ._..:�•.Cr::. 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE NEGOTIATED NONCOMPETITIVE LEASE FOR SAND, GRAVEL AND SHELL RESOURCES ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA STIPULATIONS Pt'LATION NO. 1 -Post-Drifting Hvdroeraphiclurvevs of the Ocean Borrow Site ••j_ed excavations within the ocean borrow site shall not exceed maximum slide slopes of 2:1 and shall not result in •,:cation of a deep pit or hole. A hydrographic survey is required by the Lessee after the dredging is completed. 111�data shall be submitted to the Lessor within two(2)weeks after receipt by the Lessee. The hydrographic data be in a format that is compatible with pre-dredging hydrographic data to enable the latter to be subtracted from •,;rmer to calculate the volume of sand removed and the shape of the excavation. '1 'LATION NO.2-Endaneered and Threatened Species Under the National Oceanographic Atmosuheric ;unistration(NOAA)Fisheries Jurisdiction :rte terms of section 7(b)(4)and section 7(o)(2)of the Endangered Species Act,taking that is incidental to and :e:tded as part of the agency action is not considered a prohibited taking provided that such taking is in ante with the terms and conditions set forth below.The documented incidental take,by injury or mortality,of Kemp's Ridley's,three(3)green turtles,one(1)hawksbills,five(5)loggerhead turtles,and one(1)shortnose ::.,n is set per fiscal year for all channel dredging and sand mining by hopper dredge in the United States Army ,t Engineers(USACE),Jacksonville District west of Key West by the November 22,2003 Gulf of Mexico ,.nal Biological Opinion pursuant to section 7(b)(4)of the ESA. This take level represents the total authorized er;ear for hopper dredging projects conducted and permitted by the USACE Jacksonville District. . see shall ensure that the following standards shall be met: raper Dredging: Hopper dredging activities in Gulf of Mexico waters from the Mexico-Texas border to Key est.Florida up to one mile into rivers shall be completed,whenever possible,between December 1 and March . when sea turtle abundance is lowest throughout Gulf coastal waters. The Lessee or its agent shall discuss with Lessor and National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration(NOAA)Fisheries why a particular project .:a;nut be done within the December 1-March 31 "window." • c/Ters: The Lessee or designated representative shall arrange for NOAA Fisheries-approved observers to be and the hopper dredges to monitor the hopper spoil,screening,and drag-heads for sea turtles and Gulf sturgeon .heir remains. Observer coverage of hopper dredging of sand mining areas shall ensure 50%monitoring(i.e.,one observer). rational Procedures: During periods in which hopper dredges are operating and NOAA Fisheries-approved :•Vers are not required,the Lessee must: • • 16F3 a. Advise inspectors,operators and vessel captains about the prohibitions on taking,harming,or harassing sea turtles b. Instruct the captain of the hopper dredge to avoid any turtles and whales encountered while traveling between the dredge site and offshore disposal area,and to immediately contact the Lessee or its agent if sea turtles or whales are seen in the vicinity. c. Notify NOAA Fisheries if sea turtles are observed in the dredging area,to coordinate further precautions to avoid impacts to turtles. d. Notify NOAA Fisheries and immediately by phone(727/570-5312)or fax(727/570-5517)and if a sea turtle or Gulf sturgeon is taken by the dredge. 4. Screening: When sea turtle observers are required on hopper dredges, 100%inflow screening of dredged material is required and 100%overflow screening is recommended. If conditions prevent 100%inflow screening,inflow screening may be reduced gradually,as further detailed in the following paragraph,but 100%overflow screening is then required. NOAA Fisheries must be consulted prior to the reductions in screening and an explanation must be included in the dredging report. a. Screen Size: The hopper's inflow screens should have 4-inch by 4-inch screening. If the Lessee or its agent, in consultation with observers and the drag-head operator,determines that the drag-head is clogging and reducing production substantially,the screens may be modified sequentially:mesh size may be increased to 6- inch by 6-inch,then 9-inch by 9-inch,then 12-inch by 12-inch openings. Clogging should be greatly reduced with these flexible options;however,further clogging may compel removal of the screening altogether,in which case effective 100%overflow screening is mandatory. The Lessee or its agent shall notify NOAA Fisheries beforehand if inflow screening is going to be reduced or eliminated,and provide details of how effective overflow screening will be achieved. b. Need for Flexible,Graduated Screens: NOAA Fisheries believes that this flexible,graduated-screen option is necessary,since the need to constantly clear the inflow screens will increase the time it takes to complete the project and therefore increase the exposure of sea turtles to the risk of impingement or entrainment. Additionally,there are increased risks to sea turtles in the water column when the inflow is halted to clear screens,since this results in clogged intake pipes,which may have to be lifted from the bottom to discharge the clay by applying suction. 5. Dredging Pumps Standard operating procedure shall be that dredging pumps shall be disengaged by the operator when the drag-heads are not firmly on the bottom,to prevent impingement or entrainment of sea turtles within the water column. This precaution is especially important during the cleanup phase of dredging operations when the drag-head frequently comes off the bottom and can suck in turtles resting in the shallow depressions between the high spots the drag-head is trimming off. 6. Sea Turtle Deflecting Drag-head: A state-of-the-art rigid deflector drag-head must be used on all hopper dredges in all Gulf of Mexico channels and sand mining sites at all times of the year. 7. Dredge Take Reporting: Observer reports of incidental take by hopper dredges must be faxed to NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office(727.570-5517)and the Lessor(703-787-1165)by onboard endangered species observers within 24 hours of any sea turtle,Gulf sturgeon,or other listed species take observed. A report summarizing the results of the hopper dredging and any documented sea turtle or Gulf sturgeon takes must be submitted to the Lessor and NOAA Fisheries within 30 working days of completion of the dredging project. Reports shall contain information on project location specific area dredged),start-up and completion dates,cubic yards of material dredged,problems encountered,incidental takes and sightings of protected species, mitigative actions taken(if relocation trawling,the number and species of turtles relocated),screening type 16F3 ttrlow,overflow)utilized,daily water temperatures,name of dredge,names of endangered species observers, --•:rcent observer coverage,and any other information deemed relevant. rt Turtle Strandings: The Lessee or designated representative shall notify the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage ':ctwork(STSSN)state representative(contact information available at: ,itio://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/seaturtleSTSSN.jsp)of the start-up and completion of hopper dredging operations and cd-leveler dredging operations and ask to be notified of any sea turtle/sturgeon strandings in the project area that, .a the estimation of STSSN personnel,bear signs of potential drag-head impingement or entrainment,or interaction with a bed-leveling type dredge. information on any such strandings shall be reported in writing within 30 days of project end to NOAA Fisheries 'iutheast Regional Office. Because of different possible explanations for,and subjectivity in the interpretation of potential causes of strandings,these strandings will not normally be counted against the USACE Jacksonville District's take limit;however,if compelling STSSN observer reports and evidence indicate that a turtle was killed by a hopper dredge or a bed-leveling type dredge,that take will be deducted from the ITS'anticipated take level that USACE Jacksonville District where the take occurred. rporting-Strandings: The Lessee or its representative shall provide NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office Ind the Lessor with a report detailing incidents,with photographs when available,of stranded sea turtles and Gulf sturgeon that bear indications of drag-head impingement or entrainment. This reporting requirement may be nciuded in project report required in Term and Condition No. 7,above. . onditions Requiring Relocation Trawling: Handling of sea turtles captured during relocation trawling in oomociation with hopper dredging projects in Gulf of Mexico navigation channels and sand mining areas shall be :.inducted by NOAA Fisheries-approved endangered species observers. Relocation trawling shall be undertaken Where ay of the following conditions are met. a. Two or more turtles are taken in a 24-hour period in the project. b. Four or more turtles are taken in the project. c. 75%of the USACE,Jacksonville District's sea turtle species quota for a particular species has previously been met location Trawling Waiver: The Lessee or designated representative may request to the USACE Jacksonville i,trict and NOAA Fisheries a waiver of part or all of the relocation trawling requirements. NOAA Fisheries will .•nsider these requests and decide favorably if the evidence is compelling. ocation Trawling-Annual Take Limits: The November 2003 Opinion authorizes the annual(by fiscal year) z of 300 sea turtles(of one species or combination of species)and eight Gulf sturgeon by duly-permitted, )AA Fisheries-approved observers in association with all relocation trawling conducted or contracted by the ar Gulf of Mexico USACE Districts to temporarily reduce or assess the abundance of these listed species during ad in the 0-3 days immediately preceding)a hopper dredging project in order to reduce the possibility of lethal :per dredge interactions,subject to the following conditions: Trail Time: Trawl tow-time duration shall not exceed 42 minutes(doors in-doors out)and trawl speeds ,mall not exceed 3.5 knots. Handling During Trawling: Sea turtles and sturgeon captured pursuant to relocation trawling shall be handled in a manner designed to ensure their safety and viability,and shall be released over the side of the vessel, away from the propeller,and only after ensuring that the vessel's propeller is in the neutral,or disengaged, position(i.e., not rotating). Resuscitation guidelines are attached(Attachment 2). • 16F ; c. Captured Turtle Holding Conditions: Captured turtles shall be kept moist,and shaded whenever possible. until they are released. d. Weight and Size Measurements: All turtles shall be measured(standard carapace measurements including body depth)and tagged,and weighed when safely possible,prior to release;Gulf sturgeon shall be measured (fork length and total length)and—when safely possible—tagged,weighed,and a tissue sample taken release. Any external tags shall be noted and data recorded into the observers log. Only Fisheries- approved observers or observer candidates in training under the direct supervision of a NOAA Fisheries- approved observer shall conduct the tagging/measuring/weighing/tissue sampling operations. e. Take and Release Time During Trawling- Turtles: Turtles shall be kept no longer than 12 hours prior to release and shall be released not less than three nautical miles(nmi)from the dredge site. If two or more released turtles are later recaptured,subsequent turtle captures shall be released not less than five nmi away. If it can be done safely,turtles may be transferred onto another vessel for transport to the release area to enable the relocation trawler to keep sweeping the dredge site without interruption. f. Take and Release Time During Trawling-Gulf Sturgeon: Gulf sturgeon shall be released immediately after capture,away from the dredge site or into already dredged areas,unless the trawl vessel is equipped with a suitable(not less than:2 ft high by 2 ft wide by 8 ft long),well-aerated seawater holding tank where a maximum of one sturgeon may be held for not longer than 30 minutes before it must be released or relocated away from the dredge site. g. injuries and Incidental Take Quota: Any protected species injured or killed during or as a consequence relocation trawling shall count toward the USACE,Jacksonville District's incidental take quoMinor skin abrasions resulting from trawl capture are considered non-injurious. Injured sea turtles shall be immediately transported to the nearest sea turtle rehabilitation facility. h. Flipper Tagging: All sea turtles captured by relocation trawling shall be flipper-tagged prior to release with external tags which shall be obtained prior to the project from the University of Florida's Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research. This Opinion serves as the permitting authority for any NOAA Fisheries-approved endangered species observer aboard these relocation trawlers to flipper-tag with external tags(e.g.,Inconel tags)captured sea turtles. Columbus crabs or other organisms living on external sea turtle surfaces may also be sampled and removed under this authority. i. Gulf Sturgeon Tagging: Tagging of live-captured Gulf sturgeon may also be done under the permitting authority of this Opinion;however,it may be done only by personnel with prior fish tagging experience or training,and is limited to external tagging only,unless the observer holds a valid sturgeon research permit (obtained pursuant to section 10 of the ESA,from the NOAA Fisheries'Office of Protected Resources, Permits Division)authorizing sampling,either as the permit holder,or as designated agent of the permit holder. j. PIT-Tag Scanning: All sea turtles captured by relocation trawling(or dredges)shall be thoroughly scanned for the presence of PIT tags prior to release using a scanner powerful enough to read dual frequencies(125 and 134 kHz)and read tags deeply embedded deep in muscle tissue(e.g.,manufactured by Biomark or Avid). Turtles which scans show have been previously PIT tagged shall never-the-less be externally flipper tagged. The data collected(PIT tag scan data and external tagging data)shall be submitted to NOAA,National Marine Fisheries Service,Southeast Fisheries Science Center,Ann:Lisa Belskis,75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami,Florida 33149. All data collected shall be submitted in electronic format within 60 working days to Lisa.Belskis @noaa.eov. k. CMTTP: External flipper tag and PIT tag data generated and collected by relocation trawlers shall also be submitted to the Cooperative Marine Turtle Tagging Program(CMTTP),on the appropriate CMTTP form,at the University of Florida's Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research. 16F3 I. Tissue Sampling: All live or dead sea turtles captured by relocation trawling or dredging shall be tissue- sampled prior to release,according to the protocols described in(Attachment 3). Tissue samples shall be sent within 60 days of capture to: NOAH,National Marine Fisheries Service,Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Attn:Lisa Belskis,75 Virginia Beach Drive,Miami,Florida 33149. All data collected shall be submitted in electronic format within 60 working days to Lisa.Belskis @noaa.gov. The November 2003 Opinion serves as the permitting authority for any NOAA Fisheries-approved endangered species observers aboard relocation trawlers or hopper dredges to tissue-sample live-or dead-captured sea turtles,without the need for a section 10 permit. m. PIT Tagging: PIT tagging is not required or authorized for,and shall not be conducted by Endangered Species Observers(ESO)who do not have l)section 10 permits authorizing said activity tg.1d 2)prior training or experience in said activity;however,if the ESO has received prior training in PIT tagging procedures 11114 is also authorized to conduct said activity by a section 10 Hermit.then the ESO must PIT tae thetimal prior to release(in addition to the standard external flipper tagging). PIT tagging must then be performed in accordance with the protocol detailed at NOAA Fisheries'Southeast Science Center's webpage: http://www.sefsc.noaa,goy/seaturtlefisheriesobservers.jsp. (See Appendix C on SEC's"Fisheries Observers" webpage). PIT tags used must be sterile,individually wrapped tags to prevent disease transmission. PIT tags should be 125 kHz,glass-encapsulated tags-the smallest ones made. Note: If scanning reveals a PIT tag and it was not difficult to find,then do not insert another PIT tag;simply record the tag number and location,and frequency,if known. If for some reason the tag is difficult to detect(e.g.,tag is embedded deep in muscle,or is a 400 mHz tag),then insert one in the other shoulder. n. Other Sampling Procedures: All other tagging and external or internal sampling procedures(e.g.,PIT tagging,blood letting,laparoscopies,anal and gastric lavages,mounting satellite ur radio transmitters,etc.) performed on live sea turtles or live sturgeon are not permitted under The November 2003 Opinion unless the observer holds a valid sea turtle or sturgeon research permit(obtained pursuant to section 10 of the ESA,from the NOAA Fisheries'Office of Protected Resources,Permits Division)authorizing the activity,either as the permit holder,or as designated agent of the permit holder. .). Handling Flbropapiiomatose Turtles: Observers handling sea turtles infected with fibropapilloma tumors shall either: 1)clean all equipment that comes in contact with the turtle(tagging equipment,tape measures, etc.)with mild bleach solution,between the processing of each turtle or 2)maintain a separate set of sampling equipment for handling animals displaying fibropapilloma tumors or lesions. Tissue/tumor samples shall be sent within 60 days of capture to: NOAA Fisheries,Southeast Fisheries Science Center,Attn:Lisa Belskis,75 Virginia Beach Drive,Miami,Florida 33149. All data collected shall be submitted in electronic format within 60 working days to Lisa.Belskis @noaa.gov. This Opinion serves as the permitting authority for all NOAA Fisheries-approved endangered species observers aboard a relocation trawler or hopper dredge to tissue- sample fibropapilloma-infected sea turtles without the need for a section 10 permit. Hard-ground Buffer Zones: All dredging in sand mining areas will be designed to ensure that dredging will not occur within a minimum of 400 feet from any significant hard-ground areas or bottom structures that serve as attractants to sea turtles for foraging or shelter. NOAA Fisheries considers(for the purposes of this see the November 2003 Opinion only)a significant hard-ground in a project area to be one that,over a horizontal distance .>f 150 feet,has an average elevation above the sand of 1.5 feet or greater,atd has algae growing on it. The Lessee or its agent shall ensure that sand mining sites are adequately mapped to enable the dredge to stay at least 400 feet from these areas. If the Lessee or designated representative is uncertain as to what constitutes :ignificance,it shall consult with NOAA Fisheries'Habitat Conservation Division and NOAA Fisheries'Protected .resources Division for clarification and guidance. ;'rousing-Personnel on Hopper Dredges: All contracted personnel involved in operating hopper dredges «hether privately-funded or federally-funded projects)receive thorough training on measures of dredge operation •nat will minimize takes of sea turtles. It shall be the goal of each hopper dredging operation to establish operating 'rocedures that are consistent with those that have been used successfully during hopper dredging in other regions .r the coastal United States,and which have proven effective in reducing turtle/dredge interactions. Therefore, • 16F3 COE Engineering Research and Development Center experts or other persons with expertise in this matter shall be involved both in dredge operation training,and installation,adjustment,and monitoring of the rigid deflector drag- head assembly. 15. Dredge Lighting: From May 1 through October 31,sea turtle nesting and emergence season,all lighting aboard hopper dredges and hopper dredge pump-out barges operating within three nmi of sea turtle nesting beaches shall be limited to the minimal lighting necessary to comply with U.S.Coast Guard and/or Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements. All non-essential lighting on the dredge and pump-out barge shall be minimized through reduction,shielding,lowering,and appropriate placement of lights to minimize illumination of the water to reduce potential disorientation effects on female sea turtles approaching the nesting beaches and sea turtle hatchlings making their way seaward from their natural beaches. STIPULATION NO.3-Endaneered and Threatened Suedes Undgr the Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS) Jurisdiction The Service anticipates 13.2 miles of nesting beach habitat could be taken as a result of this proposed action.The take is expected to be in the form of:(1)destruction of all nests that may be constructed and eggs that may be deposited from March 1 through April 30 and from September 1 through September 30 and missed by a nest survey and egg relocation program within the boundaries(footprint)of the proposed project;(2)destruction of all November 1 through February 28(or 29 as applicable)when a nest survey and egg relocation program notrequi from to be in place within the boundaries(footprint)of the proposed project;(3)reduced hatching success due to egg mortality during relocation and adverse conditions at the relocation site;(4)harassment in the form of disturbing or interfering with female turtles attempting to nest within the construction area or on adjacent beaches as a result of construction activities;(5)misdirection of hatchling turtles on beaches adjacent to the construction area as they emerge from the nest and crawl to the water as a result of project lighting;(6)behavior modification of nesting females due to escarpment formation within the project area during a nesting season,resulting in false crawls or situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable nesting areas to deposit eggs;and(7)destruction of nests from escarpment leveling within a nesting season when such leveling has been approved by the Service. Incidental take is anticipated for only the 8.7 miles of beach that has been identified for sand placement,as well as the interstitial beaches(totaling 13.2 miles).The Service anticipates incidental take of sea turtles will be difficult to detect for the following reasons:(1)the turtles nest primarily at night and all nests are not found because(a]natural factors, such as rainfall,wind,and tides may obscure crawls and[b]human-caused factors,such as pedestrian and vehicular traffic,may obscure crawls and result in nests being destroyed because they were missed during a nesting survey and egg relocation program;(2)the total number of hatchlings per undiscovered nest is unknown;(3)the reduction in percent hatching and emerging success per relocated nest over the natural nest site is unknown;(4)an unknown number of females may avoid the project beach and be forced to nest in a less than optimal area;(5)lights may misdirect an unknown number of hatchlings and cause death;and(6)escarpments may form and cause an unknown number of females from accessing a suitable nesting site.However,the level of take of these species can be anticipated by the disturbance and renourishment of suitable turtle nesting beach habitat because;(1)turtles nest within the project site; (2)beach renourishment may occur during a portion of the nesting season;(3)the renourishment project will modify the incubation substrate,beach slope,and sand compaction;and(4)artificial lighting will deter and/or misdirect nesting females and hatchlings.The amount or extent of incidental take for sea turtles will be considered exceeded if the project results in more than a one-time placement of sand on the 8.7 miles of beach that have been identified for sand placement. If,during the course of the action,this level of incidental take is exceeded,such incidental take represents new information requiring re-initiation of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The FWS believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize take of loggerheads,greens.hawksbill,or kemp's ridley sea turtles. The Lessee shall ensure that the following standards shall be met: 1. All fill material placed must be sand similar to a native beach in the vicinity of the site that has not been affected by prior renourishment activities.The fill material must be similar in both coloration and grain size distribution 16F3 and grain frequency,mean and median grain size,and sorting coefficient)to the native beach and shall not contain: A. Greater than 10 percent,by weight,silt,clay,or colloids passing the#200 sieve; B.Greater than 5 percent,by weight,fine gravel or cobbles,exclusive of shell material(retained by the#4 sieve); C. The more restrictive of 5 percent coarse gravel,cobbles,or material retained on the%-in sieve,or in a percentage or size greater than found on the native beach;and D. Construction debris,toxic material or other foreign matter,and not result in contamination of the beach. 2. Beach nourishment shall be started after October 31 and be completed prior to May 1.During the May 1 through October 3 1 period,no construction equipment or pipes shall be stored on the beach; If the beach nourishment project will be conducted before May 1,daily early morning surveys for sea turtle nests must be conducted from March 15 through April 30 or until completion of the project(whichever is earliest).In the event a sea turtle nest is excavated during construction activities,all work shall cease in that area immediately and the permitted person responsible for egg relocation for the project should be notified so the eggs can be relocated per the following requirements: A. Nesting surveys and egg relocations will only be conducted by personnel with prior experience and training in nesting survey and egg relocation procedures.Surveyors must perform under the supervision of a qualified professional with a valid FWC Marine Turtle Permit.Nesting surveys must be conducted daily between sunrise and 9 a.m.Surveys must be performed in such a manner so as to ensure construction activity does not occur in any location prior to completion of the necessary sea turtle protection measures;and 3. Only those nests that may be affected by construction activities will be relocated.Nests requiring relocation must be moved no later than 9 a.m.the morning following deposition to a nearby self-release beach site in a secure setting where artificial lighting will not interfere with hatchling orientation.Nest relocations in association with construction activities must cease when construction activities no longer threaten nests.Nests deposited within areas where construction activities have ceased or will not occur for 65 days must be marked and left in place unless other factors threaten the success of the nest.Any nests left in the active construction zone must be clearly marked,and all mechanical equipment must avoid nests by at least 10 feet. • if the beach nourishment project will be conducted during the period from November 1 through November 30, :icily early morning surveys for sea turtle nests must be conducted until the last nest hatches.In the event a sea :ante nest is excavated during construction activities,all work shall cease in that area immediately and the ,•ermitted person responsible for egg relocation for the project should be notified so the eggs can be relocated per ,:te requirements in 3A and 3B above; mtnediately after completion of the beach nourishment project and prior to March 15 for 3 subsequent years,if iacc d sand still remains on the beach,the beach shall be tilled as described below to a depth of 24 in.All tilling :aivity must be completed prior to March 15. If the project is completed during the nesting season,tilling shall <>t occur in areas where nests have been left in place or relocated unless authorized by the Service in an Incidental .:ke statement; v ual surveys for escarpments along the project area must be made immediately after completion of the beach •>urishment project and prior to March 15 for 3 subsequent years if placed sand still remains on the beach.All :arras shall be leveled,or the beach profile shall be reconfigured,to minimize scarp formation. In addition,weekly ur Heys of the project area shall be conducted during the 2 nesting seasons following completion of fill placement .'allows: 16F3 A. The number of escarpments and their location relative to DEP reference monuments shall be recorded during each weekly survey and reported relative to the length of the beach surveyed(e.g.,50 percent scarps). Notations on the height of these escarpments shall be included(0 to 2 feet,2 to 4 feet,and 4 feet or higher)as well as the maximum height of all escarpments;and B. Escarpments that interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 in high for a distance of 100 feet must be leveled to the natural beach contour by April 15.Any escarpment removal shall be reported relative to R- monument locations.The Fish and Wildlife Service must be contacted immediately if subsequent reformation of escarpments that interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 in high for a distance of 100 feet occurs during the nesting and hatching season(May 1 to October 31)to determine the appropriate action to be taken. If it is determined escarpment leveling is required during the nesting or hatching season,the Fish and Wildlife Service will provide a brief written authorization that describes methods to be used to reduce the likelihood of impacting existing nests.An annual summary of escarpment surveys and actions taken must be submitted to the Service.(NOTE:Out-year escarpment monitoring and remediation are not required if placed material no longer remains on the dry beach.) 7. The lessee or designated representative must arrange a meeting between representatives of the contractor,the Fish and Wildlife Service,the FWC,and the permitted person responsible for egg relocation at least 30 days prior to the commencement of work on this project.At least 10 days advance notice must be provided prior to conducting this meeting.This will provide an opportunity for explanation and/or clarification of the sea turtle protection measures; 8. From March 15 through April 30 and November 1 through November 30,staging areas for construction equipment must be located off the beach to the maximum extent practicable.Nighttime storage of construction equipment not in use must be off the beach to minimize disturbance to sea turtle nesting and hatching activities during this period. In addition,all construction pipes placed on the beach must be located as far landward as possible without compromising the integrity of the existing or reconstructed dune system.Temporary storage of pipes must be off the beach to the maximum extent possible.Temporary storage of pipes on the beach must be in such a manner so as to impact the least amount of nesting habitat and must likewise not compromise the integrity of the dune systems(placement of pipes perpendicular to the shoreline is recommended as the method of storage); 9. From March 15 through April 30 and November 1 through November 30,all on-beach lighting associated with the project must be limited to the immediate area of active construction only and must be the minimal lighting necessary to comply with all safety requirements.Lighting on offshore equipment must be minimized through reduction,shielding,lowering,and appropriate placement of lights to avoid excessive illumination of the water, while meeting all U.S.Coast Guard and Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA)requirements. Shielded low pressure sodium vapor lights are recommended for lights on offshore equipment that cannot be eliminated,and for illumination of the nesting beach and nearshore waters.Light intensity of lighting plants must be reduced to the minimum standard required by OSHA for General Construction areas,in order not to misdirect sea turtles.Shields must be affixed to the light housing and be large enough to block light from all lamps from being transmitted outside the construction area(Figure 1); 10. A lighting survey shall be conducted from the nourished berm prior to April 15 of the first nesting season following nourishment and action taken to ensure no lights or light sources are visible from the newly elevated beach.A report summarizing all lights visible,using standard survey techniques for such surveys,shall be submitted to the Service by May 15 and documenting all compliance and enforcement action.Additional lighting surveys shall be conducted monthly through August and results reported by the 15th of each month of the first nesting season after project completion; 16F3 S oreline OCEAN Beach WORK ARM Beach No Illumination No Illumination Zone 's Zone side Shietc °i1b " w" Slde Shield Light Source CROSS SECTION tikws 4#w---C" BEACH LIGHTING am; te... SCHEMATIC Figure 1. Lighting diagram. 11. AU reports describing the actions taken to implement the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement must be submitted to the Lessor and the South Florida Ecological Services Office,Vero Beach,Florida,within 60 days of completion of the proposed work.Types of reporting will include,but is not limited to,that related to tilling,scarp reduction,nest and hatching data,lighting,and egg relocation,and shall include details such as dates of actual construction activities,names,and qualifications of personnel involved in nest surveys and relocation activities,descriptions and locations of self-release beach sites,nest survey and relocation results,and hatching success of nests; 12. In the event a sea tunic nest is excavated during construction activities,all work shall cease in that area immediately and the permitted person responsible for egg relocation for the project must be notified so the eggs can be moved to a suitable relocation site; 13. Upon locating a dead,injured,or sick endangered or threatened sea turtle specimen,initial notification must be made to the FWC at 1-888-404-3922,the South Florida Ecological Services Office,Vero Beach and the Lessor. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured specimens to ensure effective treatment and care and in handling dead specimens to preserve biological materials in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death.In conjunction with the care of sick or injured endangered or threatened species or preservation of biological materials from a dead animal,the finder has the responsibility to ensure evidence intrinsic to the specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed;and 14. In the event a hopper dredge is utilized for sand excavation,all conditions in the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion for Dredging of Gulf of Mexico Navigation Channels and Sand Mining Borrow Areas Using Hopper Dredges by COE Galveston, New Orleans, Mobile, and Jacksonville Districts(Consultation Number F/SEW2000/01287)must be followed,and the Service shall be sent copies of the reports specified in the Biological Opinion. 16F3 STIPULATION NO 4-Calculawyn of the Vol me of e ,d m To ascertain the total volume of sand placed,the Lessee will require that the contractor forward copies of the data employed to make this determination,the methodology used,and the calculations to the Lessor within two(2)weeks after receipt by the Lessee. STIPULATION NO.S-Nadoaal Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Continency Plan The Lessee must require that the construction solicitation and specifications contract use language which its contractors and subcontractors prepare for and take all necessary precautions to prevent discharges of oil and releases of hazardous materials.In event of an occurrence,notification and response will be in accordance with 40 CFR 300 and applicable regulations of the State of Florida. The Lessee shall notify the Lessor of any occurrences and remedial actions,and provide copies of reports of the incident and resultant actions. $TIPULATION NO.b-Archaeoloeirnl Reoortina Requirement Plan If the Lessee or any contractor operating on the Lessee's behalf discovers any archaeological resource while conducting dredging operations in any of the offshore borrow areas the Lessee or contractor operating on the Lessee's behalf shall immediately halt operations within the area of the discovery and report the discovery to the Chief,Leasing Division,MMS. If investigations determine that the resource is significant,the Chief,Leasing Division,will inform the lessee how to protect it. STIPULATION NO.7-Use of Electronic Posidonine System on Dredee and Tapsmfttal of Locatiggand Production Information to the Lessor Use of Electronic Positioning System and Transmittal of Location Information to MMS: To ensure the accuracy of the dredge relative to the borrow area specifications denoted in this lease agreement,during all phases of the offshore operation conducted within the borrow area,the Lessee will ensure that the dredge is equipped with an on-board differential global positioning system(DGPS)capable of maintaining and recording the location of the dredge within an accuracy range of no more than plus or minus 3 meters. The specific system will be approved by the Lessor prior to the conduct of any dredge procedures within the borrow area. Location information(latitude and longitude)in NAD83 must be supplied on CD-ROM on a weekly basis to Minerals Management Service,Chief,Marine Minerals Branch(MMB),381 Elden Street,MS 4010,Herndon,Virginia 20170. Submittal of Production and Volume Information to the Lessor: The Lessor will ensure the accuracy of cut depths and widths,cut slopes,and site production(sand volumes removed) within the borrow area as specified in the project's operational plan and this lease agreement. This information is routinely collected continuously throughout the period of dredge operation at a borrow site. The Lessor shall retain all access rights to all operational data at any time during which dredging is occurring within the designated Federal borrow area. The Lessee will submit a"certified"summary of all operational,production,and survey activity data to the MMS Chief,MMB at the address above on CD-ROM on a weekly basis,in a format and method agreed to between the Lessor,the Lessee,and the dredge operator prior to the commencement of operations at the borrow site. Any maps and/or profiles submitted to the Lessor will be provided in digital spatial'format compatible with Arc GIS. Information pertaining to the volume of material removed must be provided with explanatory text outlining each preceding day's activities and production values. • • 16F � •:,,lowing completion of all activities within the lease area,the Lessee,in cooperation with the dredge operator,shall -,ubmit to the Lesssor,a"certified"copy of the complete operational data set(dredge tracklines,cut slope angles,cut ier.rn.etc.),outlining any deviations from the original operational design plan. This report should be in MS Word orrnat and should be sent to the Chief,MMB at the address above. ST I IPULATION NO.8—Submittal of Protect Completion Report to the MMS i.'lxm final completion of the project authorized under the terms and conditions of this lease,the Lessee shall submit to Minerals Management Service,Chief,Marine Minerals Branch,381 Elden Street,MS 4010,Herndon,Virginia 20170, ane r 1)paper copy and one(1)electronic copy of a project completion report. The report shall contain,at a minimum, the following information: • the names and titles of the project managers overseeing the effort(both for the Lessee and the dredging/engineering firm),including contact information(phone numbers,mailing addresses,and email addresses), • the location and description of the project,including the final figures relative to the total volume of material extracted from the borrow site and the volume of material actually placed on the beach or shoreline(including a description of the volume calculation method used to determine these volumes), • a narrative describing the final,as-built features,boundaries,and acreage,including the restored beach width and length, • a table,an example of which is illustrated below,showing the various key project cost elements, Project Cost Estimate($) Cost Incurred as of Construction Construction Completion($) Engineering and Design Inspections/Contract Administration Total • a table,an example of which is illustrated below,showing the various items of work construction,final quantities,and monetary amounts, Item Estimated Unit Unit Estimated Final Bid Final 96 Quantity Price Amount Quantity Unit Amount Over/ Mobilization and Price Under Demobilization Beach Fill Any beach or 1 offshore hard structure placed or removed a listing of construction and construction oversight information,including the prime and subcontractors, contract costs,etc., a list ot'all major equipment used to construct the project, • a narrative discussing the construction sequences and activities,and,if applicable,any problems encountered and subsequent solutions, a list and description of any construction change orders issued,if applicable, a list of any pipelines or other oil/gas-related infrastructure in the project area,the owners,and any contacts made. a list and description of any safety-related issues or accidents reported during the life of the project, 16F3 • a narrative and any appropriate tables describing any environmental surveys/efforts associated with the project and costs associated with these efforts, • any additional pertinent comments, • a table listing significant construction dates beginning with bid opening and ending with final acceptance of the project by the Lessee, • An appendix containing the as-built drawings,beach-fill cross-sections,and survey data. The report shall be submitted within 120 days following completion of the project. I 'UL• IONN, 9— b �oasta�l Permlt No 02223te nm irof_ ' of ;co 1) ,r r .: _., er Flo ti; '• .in The Lessee is required to submit to the Lessor copies of all information mandated under Florida's Joint Coastal Permit for the Collier County Beach Nourishment Project. 1 6 F3 Attachment 2 SEA TURTLE HANDLING AND RESUSCITATION GUIDELINES Any sea turtles taken incidentally during the course of fishing or scientific research activities must be handled to prevent injury to live specimens,observed for activity,and returned to the water according to the following ndled with due tng A) Sea turtles that are actively moving or determined to be dead(as described in ara released over the stern of the boat. In addition,they must be released only when fishing or scientific collect' gear is not in use,when the engine gears are in neutral p 8raph(B)(4)below)must be recaptured or injured by vessels. position,and in areas where they are unlikely to be ton 8) Resuscitation must be attempted on sea turtles that are comatose or inactive by: 1. Placing the turtle on its bottom shell(plastron)so that the turtle is right side up and elevating its hindquarters at least 6 inches(15.2 cm)for a period of 4 to 24 hours. The amount of elevation depends on the size of the turtle;greater elevations are needed 9 arters to left by holding the outer edge of the shell(carapace)and lifting one side about 3 inches(7.6 cm) and right alternate to the other side. Gently touch the eye and pinch the tail(reflex test) ( .6 cm)then )periodically to see if there is a 2. Sea turtles being resuscitated must be shaded and kept damp or moist but under no circumstance be placed into a container holding water. A water-soaked towel placed over the head,carapace,and flippers is the most effective method in keeping a turtle moist. 3. Sea turtles that revive and become active must be released over the stern of the boat only when fishing or scientific collection gear is not in use,when the engine gears are in neutral are unlikely to be recaptured or injured by vessels. position,and re areas test or they y p � Y essels. Sea tunics that fail to respond to the reflex test or fail to move within 4 hours(up to 24,if possible)must be returned to the water in the same manner as that for actively moving turtles. 4. A turtle is determined to be dead if the muscles are stitT(rigor mortis)and/or the flesh has begun to rot; otherwise,the turtle is determined to be comatose or inactive and resuscitation attempts are necessary. Any sea turtle so taken must not be consumed,sold,landed,offloaded,transshipped,or kept below deck. These guidelines are adapted front 50 CFR '223.206(dX I). Failure to follow these procedures is therefore a punishable offense under the Endangered Species Act. 16F3 Attachment 3 PROTOCOL FOR COLLECTING TISSUE FROM DEAD TURTLES FOR GENETIC ANALYSIS Method for Dead Turtles IT IS CRITICAL TO USE A NEW SCALPEL BLADE AND GLOVES FOR EACH TURTLE TO AVOID CROSS- CONTAMINATION OF SAMPLES • Put on a new pair of latex gloves. • Use a new disposable scalpel to cut out an approx. 1 cm(2 in)cube(bigger is NOT better)piece of muscle. Easy access to muscle tissue is in the neck region or on the ventral side where the front flippers A insert near the plastron. It does not matter what stage of decomposition the carcass is in. • Place the muscle sample on a hard uncontaminated surface(plastron will do)and make slices through the sample so the buffer solution will penetrate the tissue. • Put the sample into the plastic vial containing • Use the pencil to write the stranding ID number saturated Na initials,year,month,day,turtle BELOW) species,state and carapace length on the waterproof Y.vial with number by day), EXAMPLE:For a 35.8 cm curved carapace elrepnroof p�label and place it in the vial with the sample. in AMPL the label should.8 cm curved length green turtle documented by Jane M.Doe on July 15,2001 iniG Georgia, Jane Doe AJMD20010715-01,Caudal,,Georgia,CCL=35.8 cm. If this had been the • responded to on July 15,2001,it would be JMD20010715-03. Label the outside of the vial with the same information(stranding ID number,species,state and carapace length)using the permanent marker. • Place clear scotch tape over the writing on the vial to protect it from being smeared or erased. • Wrap par'afilm around the cap of the vial by stretching it as you wrap. • Place vial within whirl pack and close. • Dispose of the scalpel. • Note on the stranding form that a part was salvaged,indicating that a genetic sample was taken and specify the location on the turtle where the sample was obtained. • Submit the vial with the stranding report to your state coordinator. State coordinators will forward the reports and vials to NMFS for processing and archiving. *The 20%DMSO buffer in the plastic vials is nontoxic and nonflammable. Handling the buffer without gloves may result in exposure to DMSO. This substance soaks into skin very rapidly and is commonly used to alleviate muscle aches. DMSO will produce a garlic/oyster taste in the mouth along with breath odor. The protocol requires that you WEAR gloves each time you collect a sample and handle the buffer vials. The vials(both before and after samples are taken)should be stored at room temperature or cooler. If you don=t mind the vials in the refrigerator,this will prolong the life of the sample. DO NOT store the vials where they will experience extreme heat(like in your car!)as this could cause the buffer to break down and not preserve the sample properly. Questions: Sea Turtle Program: NOAA/NMFSISEFSC,75 Virginia Beach Drive,Miami,FL 33149 Phone: 305-361 4207 • 16F3 A PROTOCOL FOR COLLECTING TISSUE FROM LIVE TURTLES FOR GENETIC ANALYSIS Method for Live Turtles IT IS CRITICAL TO USE A NEW BIOPSY PUNCH AND GLOVES FOR EACH TURTLE TO AVOID CROSS-CONTAMINATION OF SAMPLES 1. Turn the turtle over on its back. 2. Put on a new pair of latex gloves. 3. Swab the entire cap of the sample vial with alcohol. 4. Wipe the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the rear flipper 5-10 cm from the posterior edge with the Betadine/iodine swab. 5. Place the vial under the flipper edge to use the cleaned cap as a hard surface for the punch. 6. Press a new biopsy punch firmly into the flesh as close to the posterior edge as g possible and rotate one complete turn. Cut all the way through the flipper to the cap of the vial. 7. Wipe the punched area with Betadine/iodine swab;rarely you may need to a ! 8. Use a wooden skewer to transfer the sample from the biopsy PP y pressure t stop bleeding.P Y NaCI with 20%DMSO*(SEE BELOW) Punch into the plastic vial containing saturated 9. Use the pencil to write the stranding ID number(observer initials,year,month,day,turtle number by day), species,state and carapace length on the waterproof'paper label and place it in the vial with the sample. EXAMPLE:For a 35.8 cm curved carapace length green turtle documented by Jane M.Doe on July 15,2001 in Georgia.the label should read AJMD20010715-01,C.C.mv_das,Georgia,CCL=35.8 cm. If this had been the third turtle Jane Doe responded to on July 15.2001,it would be JMD20010715-03. 10. Label the outside of the vial with the same information(stranding ID number,species,state and carapace length)using the permanent marker. 11. Place clear scotch tape over the writing on the vial to protect it from being smeared or erased. 12. Wrap parafilm around the cap of the vial by stretching it as you wrap. 13. Place vial within whirlpak and close. 14. Dispose of the biopsy punch. 15. Note on the stranding form that a part was salvaged,indicating that a genetic sample was taken and specify the location on the turtle where the sample was obtained. 16. Submit the vial with the stranding report to your state coordinator. State coordinators will forward the reports and vials to NMFS for processing and archiving. *The 20%DMSO buffer in the plastic vials is nontoxic and nonflammable. Handling the buffer without gloves may result in exposure to DMSO. This substance soaks into skin very rapidly and is commonly used to alleviate muscle aches. DMSO will produce a garlic/oyster taste in the mouth along with breath odor. The protocol requires that you WEAR gloves each time you collect a sample and handle the buffer vials. The vials(both before and after samples are taken)should be stored at room to mind the vials in the refrigerator,this will prolong the life of the sample. DO NOTTresttore the vials whereothey don't will experience extreme heat(like in your car!)as this could cause the buffer to break down and not preserve the sample properly. Questions:Sea Turtle Program,NOAA/NMFS/SEFSC,75 Virginia Beach Drive.Miami,FL 33149 Phone:305-361-4207 _ I • • 16F3 Genetic Sample Kit Materials:LIVE turtles 1. latex gloves 2. alcohol swabs 3. Betadine/iodine swabs 4. 4-6 nun biopsy punch B sterile,disposable(Moore Medical Supply 1-800-678-8678,part#0052442) S. plastic screw-cap vial containing saturated NaCI with 20%DMSO,wrapped in parafilm 6. wooden skewer 7. waterproof paper label,3 x 4pencil to write on waterproof paper label 8. permanent marker to label the plastic vials 9. scotch tape to protect writing on the vials 10. piece if parafilm to wrap the cap of the vial 11. whirl-pak to return/store sample vial Genetic Sample Kit Materials DEAD turtles 1. latex gloves 2. single-use scalpel blades(Fisher Scientific l-800-766-7000,cat.#08-927-5A) 3. plastic screw-cap vial containing saturated NaCI with 20%DMSO,wrapped in parafilm 4. waterproof paper label,3 x 4 pencil to write on waterproof paper label 5. permanent marker to label the plastic vials 6. scotch tape to protect writing on the vials 7. piece of parafilm to wrap the cap of the vial 8. whirlpak to return/store sample vial CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 1 of 12 COLLIER COUNTY CONCEPTUAL RENOURISHMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS SELECTED SECTIONS AND DESCRIPTION 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. 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. 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. COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 • • VII-8 Staff Reports 2 of 12 i g BAREFOOT BEACH RI 1 y��"•� WIGGGINSPASS f'�ti Z TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE DELNOR- I V� `_if WK a. PROJECT ORLANDO STATE PARK r N.T s. LOCATION TAMPA • ATLANTIC OCEAN HENDRY■ CO. Q BOG L%,�� LEE RATON pl�i\-= CO. ' MIAMI ivl� VANDERBILT i;.:) i� co�i N 700000 l GULP l'. ,..4 >� OF .. MEXICO GULF MONROE CO. ' MEXICO 0 EXISTING ,'� PIPELINE � 1 A CORRIDOR u .QM40 CLAM PASS A, ® �� SR 896 ii 1----) N ' PARK SHORE ,,,:,,.. illi V .-, i , DOCTORS PASS -(i ! SR 886 t;.:.iii Itiiii_ � SR856 N 880000 NAPLES' % ■,�� NAPLES N 080000 Oil . NMI. SR 84 © . Nil LEGEND: 1 ,,61 EXISTING PIPEUNE CORRIDOR PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR 1 1 EXPANDED TEMPLATE \ - GULF 1 { :;?: .: FEMA TEMPLATE OF 555`i /////A EXISTING TEMPLATE MEX/C�Q 1 {ART ROYAL :s._..1 NEW SEGMENTS , A RIO FOEP MONUMENTS GORDON PASS {{{jjj 90 NOTES: 1. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET •' BASED ON FLORIDA STATE 8 0 4000 8000 PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, ■, } 8 EAST ZONE,NORTH AMERICAN •ti'• bbbY DATUM OF 1983(NAD83 r • t W GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT 2. FILL WIDTHS ARE NOT TO SCALE. FIGURE 1. Project Location Map I COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 3 of 12 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 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 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 l V:l OH will result from use of the coarser sand COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC • CAC November 10,2011 • VII-8 Staff Reports 4 of 12 from Borrow Area T1, which is a change from the 2006 construction plans. REDFISH-� I l PI PASS , WI CAPTIVA ,t u ISLAND ■ BLIND 1 p ASS `∎ `■ SANIBEL • o- Q ...{ ISUM C LAR SAN o� 4 \ -'' V .\"`�ESTEROISLAND N 100000 \ f N A0000 Ac • LOVERS KEY • 4• BORROW N �o AREA T1 N. •, F: \\ 33,1 41E4 1`'� BAREFOOT N WIOGINS `: BEACH • \ _ PASS _et, N•00010 1 4 t . VANDERBILT pow. 1 BEACH r fI CLAMR 4 / PASS h / SHORE 9 MILE LIMIT,/ i DOCTORS R j,I' ASS GULF \ i( NAPLES OF I • I' , MEXICO 1 N010000 N 40000 ik R;1y• i i 1 ORDON It'''.v\ . • \ SS 0 20000 40000 \ CAP PASS \N‘1 .i GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT \ BIG CO PASS &4'1' •t ►�.l N 600000 ` t l< • libkill!trl NOTES: 1 a • 0 • w e 1,COORDINATES HEREON ARE BASED ON FLORIDA STATE \ r // < PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM,EAST ZONE,NAD 1983. \ - _4, 2.ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET BASED ON \ L*`• NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM. 1929(NGVD 29). \ \ \ CAPE ROMANO \90RROW AREA W W FIGURE 19. Borrow Areas COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 5of12 TABLE 6 COLLIER COUNTY RENOURISHMENT PROJECT BEACH AND BORROW AREA CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPATIBILITY Mean Grain Size Sorting Silt (PHI) (%) Location (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 i ; 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 I 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 1 characteristics in the fill area R22 to R79. 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. COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 • VII-8 Staff Reports 6 of 12 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 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. Selected Alternative: 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 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. COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 7 of 12 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. 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. 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. COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 • VII-8 Staff Reports 8 of 12 Typical Naples Beach Profile 2006 vs 2010 Template Comparison a X2010 Profile 6.. -2006 Template WWI ...Expanded Tca plak i -s ♦io , z u , �2 ♦_ . ♦ $- . . . . . .10 i I 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Distance(ft) ( FIGURE 8: Typical Naples Profile. 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 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 9 of 12 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. 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. 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 COASTAL PLANNING 8 ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 • VII-8 Staff Reports 10 of 12 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. • 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. COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 VII-8 Staff Reports 11 of 12 • 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 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. COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 • • VII-8 Staff Reports 12 of 12 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. 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. COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING,INC CAC November 10,2011 VII-9 Staff Report 1 of 15 FDEP Cost Share Program 7/7/2011 J.Gary McAlpin • Key Points: To be eligible for the FDEP State Cost Share program: • The section of beach must be designated as Critically Eroded by FDEP,and • Public access must exist to the public on an equal cost basis Public access is defined per FS 62B-36 as: • Primary Beach Access—a site with at least 100 public parking spaces and a public' restroom. Granted eligibility one half mile on either side of the access plus the width of the access. • Secondary Beach Access- is a site that may have parking and amenities but does not qualify as a primary access. Granted eligibility for the width of the access plus up to one quarter mile one each side of the access at a rate of 52.8 feet per parking space. Spaces must be marked and not greater than one quarter of a mile from the access point. • Hotels are considered public access and the width of the beach access is counted but not the parking spaces. • State lands are considered public access and the width is eligible along with the primary ip • or secondary access rules. • Shoreline lengths cannot overlap • The sum of the eligible shoreline lengths divided by the total project length is calculated to determine the percentage of the eligibility for cost sharing. • FDEP will cost share up to 50%of the eligible public assess percentage for the non- federal share of projects. For Collier County public access must exist to the public on an equal cost basis means: • Parking passes must be available to the public and residents on an equal basis. The value that is assigned to beach passes (stickers)for residents must be available to the visitors at the same cost. • The city of Naples and the County must operate same basis. Yearly evaluation by FDEP of all state projects to determine if local projects will receive cost share participation by the state. Submittal this year is 7/15/2011. Three projects will be submitted: Barefoot/Vanderbilt/Park Shore/Naples Beach; Marco South Beach; and Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan. State funding is tight and project evaluations more critical. • Collier ranking last year was low 30's with a funding cutoff at 40 or higher. CAC November 10,2011 VII-9 Staff Reports 2 of 15 ill CRITICALLY ERODED BEACHES IN FLORIDA +� 1 9 vll T.±&" `�� t .' . ... - .4 . ,,, j f-- .: . , ........ ,- , ,,, ,,,,,o,,; - 4 i AI.;,, 1.'.' 4: 4,' ''''' f7 _ yr` i 'F Y'_. fil at • aa ? if ' r- . • _' '^�.� .&' a .F. i..• Updated,June 2011 • 1 FLOR IA BUREAU OF BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATE OF FLORIDA Cekr,f44.4..t■ P44(14144747 ys --"P f....5'.7-0 CAC November 10,2011 VII-9 Staff Reports Definition of Critical Erosion 3 of 15 The earlier statewide inventories of critically eroded areas included only those erosion problem areas where the threat existed to development or recreational interests. The current inventory of critically eroded areas was formulated based upon an updated and modified definition of critical erosion. The following definition has been adopted by the Bureau to identify critically eroded areas: Critically eroded area is a segment of the shoreline where natural processes or human activity have caused or contributed to erosion and recession of the beach or dune system to such a degree that upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources are threatened or lost Critically eroded areas may also include peripheral segments or gaps between identified critically eroded areas which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects. It is important to note, that for an erosion problem area to be critical, there must exist a threat to or loss of one of four specific interests — upland development, recreation, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources. Many areas have significant historic or contemporary erosion conditions, yet the erosion processes do not currently threaten public or private interests. These areas are therefore designated as noncritically eroded areas and require close monitoring in case conditions become critical. IP In contrast, in some areas the erosion processes are not particularly significant except to the extent that adjacent public or private interests may be threatened. Whether erosion is critical results from the existence of a threat to interests in need of protection. Lacking any threat an erosion condition is not a critical problem. 4 CAC November 10,2011 VII-9 Staff Reports CHARLOTTE COUNTY BEACH INLET of 15 critical noncritical critical noncritical R1 -R17 Critical 3.0 0 0 0 R17 -R19 Noncritical 0 0.4 0 0 R28 -R39 Critical 1.8 0 0 0 R47.5 -R49.5 Critical 0.4 0 0 0 5.2 0.4 0 0 LEE COUNTY R7 -R26.7 Critical 4.0 0 0 0 Boca Grande North Shore Critical Inlet 0 0 0.2 0 R27 -R33 Noncritical 0 1.1 0 0 R46 -R52 Noncritical 0 1.2 0 0 R60 -R65 Noncritical 0 1.0 0 0 R66,east 1000' Critical Inlet Shoreline 0 0 0.2 0 R66-R71 Critical 1.0 0 0 0 R71 -R78 Noncritical 0 2.0 0 0 R79 - R82.3 Critical 0.8 0 0 0 R83 -R84 Critical Inlet Shoreline 0 0 0.2 0 R84 - R109 Critical 5.0 0 0 0 R109-R118 Critical 1.7 0 0 0 R129-R133 Critical 0.9 0 0 0 R175(-.4) -R200 Critical 5.0 0 0 0 R211 -R213 Noncritical Inlet Shoreline 0 0 0 0.3 R214-R222 Critical 1.5 0 0 0 R222 Noncritical Inlet Shoreline 0 0 0 0.1 III R222.7-R225.9 Critical 0.8 0 0 0 R226-R230.4 Critical 0.9 0 0 0 21.6 5.3 0.6 0.4 COLLIER COUNTY R14-R16.3 Critical 0.4 0 0 0 R22.3 -R30.5 Critical 1.6 0 0 0 R50.65 -R57.5 Critical 1.3 0 0 0 R57.8 -R89 Critical 5.6 0 0 0 R90 -RI 11 Noncritical 0 3.9 0 0 Sea Oat Island Noncritical 0 0.9 0 0 Coconut Island Noncritical 0 0.1 0 0 H3 - H11 Critical Inlet Shoreline 0 0 0.8 0 R134.5 -R139 Critical 0.8 0 0 0 R143 - R148 Critical• 0.9 0 0 0 V23 -V31.4 Critical 1.6 0 0 0 V33.8-V41.8 Critical 1.5 0 0 0 V41.8-V43.5 Noncritical 0 0.3 0 0 13.7 5.2 0.8 0 TOTAL GULF COAST 183.5 70.2 4.0 0.9 • 11 CM"Alnvnmhnr 1f`91111 VII-9 Staff Reports 5 of 15 June, 2011 • ' Location Classification Lee County � ' 4 R014 - R016.3 Critical 4 R022.3 - R030.5 Critical `' R050.6 -R089 Critical R090- R111 Noncritical gg s .,ic? ' Sea Oat Island Noncritical Pass 'ItIF: Coconut Island Noncritical 4. H3- H11 Critical Inlet , R134.5 - R139 Critical R143-R148 Critical :i V023 -V031.4 Critical rit-0 !lain V033.8 -V041.8 Critical ' , V041.9 -V043.5 Noncritical y t� : , ,fan a. Doctors ' . „, ,, , P 1 ass ; ...ai Naples : �' I '°'°,; Gordon Pass r r 44 .2' ," , .%4 i X Keewaydin Island �k .' '..*40.01 ' ''''C,." ):,,,,!:`-ite't;- 16,,,, , , , , ,. ,. • Y.,,,,, Little Marco Pass • 'V'_,,,'-'-elit, _,...': - , Sea Oaf Island 443'.,, ` ` r caPri Pass ' f 0.....4. 1 . Coconut iaiand , r ,7: Big Marco Paso ®'``- Gulf Of Mexico Marco Island l`,- 1► �;c\S yam . ;Iii -Peit,c71 a j Caxambas Pass ;Qe '- *.- 1. V ..V:3 '4.' t lj ID 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Kice Island Miles Morgan Pass �. Kilometers Morgan Island °gip= 0 2 4 8 8 16 Caee Romano CAC November 10,2011 1 VII-9 Staff Reports „ 6 of 15 (b CHAPTER 62B-36 BEACH MANAGEMENT FUNDING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 62B-36.001 Purpose. 62B-36.002 Definitions. 62B-36.003 Policy. 62B-36.004 Project Eligibility.(Repealed) 62B-36.005 Annual Funding Requests. 62B-36.006 Project Ranking Procedure. 62B-36.007 Project Cost Sharing. 62B-36.008 Criteria for Evaluating Project Applications.(Repealed) 62B-36.009 Project Agreements. 62B-36.010 Disbursement of Program Funds.(Repealed) 62B-36.011• Post Completion Project Review.(Repealed) 62B-36.001 Purpose. The Beach Management Program works in concert with eligible governmental entities to achieve protection, preservation and restoration of the sandy beaches fronting the Atlantic Ocean,the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida.The Department may enter into a cost sharing agreement with eligible governmental entities for the implementation of beach management projects.This rule establishes funding request procedures,project ranking,cost sharing procedures and project agreement requirements pursuant to Sections 161.088, 161.091, 161.101 and 161.161,F.S. Specific Authority 161.101, 161.161 FS. Law Implemented 161.088, 161.09!, 161.101, 161.161 FS. History-New 6-10-83,Formerly 168-36.01, 16B-36.001,Amended 12-25-03. 62B-36.002 Definitions. (1) "Annual Funding Request and Local Long Range Budget Plan” is the document submitted by the eligible governmental entity which includes a detailed description for the next fiscal year's funding request and a schedule for the disbursement of funds to be requested for beach management projects or related activities over a given period of time. (2)"Beach Management"is protecting,maintaining,preserving, or enhancing Florida's beaches including but not limited to, restoring or nourishing beach and dune systems, dune protection and restoration activities, restoration of natural shoreline processes, inlet management activities to facilitate sand bypassing, construction of erosion control structures, supporting engineering and environmental studies,project monitoring,mitigation,and removal of derelict structures and obstacles to natural shoreline processes. (3) "Contractual Services" are the provision of engineering, professional, or scientific services for eligible activities as otherwise described in this chapter. Such activities may be performed by a private company or individual,or, if approved by the Department,pursuant to subsection 62B-36.007(4),F.A.C.,an eligible governmental entity. (4) "Critically Eroded Shoreline" is a segment of shoreline where natural processes or human activities have caused, or contributed to,erosion and recession of the beach and dune system to such a degree that upland development,recreational interests, wildlife habitat or important cultural resources are threatened or lost. Critically eroded shoreline may also include adjacent segments or gaps between identified critical erosion areas which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects. (5)"Department"is the Department of Environmental Protection. (6) "Eligible Governmental Entity" is any state, county, municipality, township, special district, or any other public agency having authority and responsibility for preserving and protecting the beach and dune system. (7)"Inlet"is a short narrow waterway including all related flood and ebb tidal shoals and the inlet shorelines,connecting a bay, lagoon, or similar body of water with the Gulf of Mexico, the Straits of Florida, or the Atlantic Ocean. Improved, altered or modified inlets are those where stabilizing rigid coastal structures have been constructed, or where inlet related structures or features such as channels have been constructed or are actively maintained and the channel depth is greater than the inlet system would support in a natural state. (8) "Project Agreement" is a contract executed between the Department and the eligible governmental entity that explicitly defines the terms and conditions under which the project shall be conducted. (9)"Project Boundary"means the shoreline of the beach management project and the first row of development immediately landward of the beach vegetation line or beach erosion control line,whichever is further landward. (10) "Project Phase" is a logical step required in developing and implementing a project. A typical project will normally include the following phases: , , ,pit (a)"Feasibility"—is the characterization of the erosion problem and constraints on remediation alternatives,development and analysis of alternatives to address the problem,and selection of the cost-effective,environmentally sound alternative that avoids or -minimizes adverse impacts. - t CAC November 10,2011 • VII-9 Staff Reports 7 of 15 • (b)"Design and Permitting"—is the development of plans,specifications,permit applications and final costs for the project. (c)"Construction"—is the execution of the selected project. (d)"Monitoring"—is the collection of project performance,biological and environmental data. (11)"Public Beach Access"is an entry zone adjacent to a sandy beach under public ownership or control which is specifically used for providing access to the beach for the general public.The access must be signed,maintained and clearly visible from the adjacent roadway.The types of public beach access sites are: (a)"Primary Beach Access"is a site with at least 100 public parking spaces and public restrooms. (b)"Secondary Beach Access"is a site that may have parking and amenities,but does not qualify as a primary beach access. (12)"Public Lodging Establishment"is any public lodging establishment currently licensed by the Department of Business. and Professional Regulation in the classification of"hotel","motel"and"resort condominium"with six or more units and fronting directly on the sandy beach. (13)"Statewide Long Range Budget Plan"is the planning document used by the Department to schedule the disbursement of funds over a given period of time. It is developed in coordination with eligible governmental entities based on the Strategic Beach Management Plan and Local Long Range Budget Plans. (14)"Strategic Beach Management Plan" is the Department's adopted plan for management of the critically eroded shoreline of the state and the related coastal system. Specific Authority 161.101, 161.161 FS.Law Implemented 161.088, 161.091, 161.101, 161.161 FS. History—New 6-10-83, Formerly 168-36.02, 16B-36.002,Amended 12-25-03. 62B-36.003 Policy. (1) The Beach Management Program is established to develop and execute a comprehensive, long range, statewide beach management plan for erosion control, beach preservation, restoration, nourishment and storm protection for the critically eroded shoreline of the State of Florida.This comprehensive program includes the Strategic Beach Management Plan, the Critical Erosion Report, shoreline change reports, inlet management studies, state and federal feasibility and design studies, the Statewide Long Range Budget Plan,and other reports as the Department may find necessary for a multiyear maintenance and repair strategy.The comprehensive program is implemented through projects consistent with the Strategic Beach Management Plan and included in the Statewide Long Range Budget Plan. (2)The Department shall annually review available information and revise the designations of critically eroded shoreline in the • Critical Erosion Report. Eligible governmental entities shall be notified of any proposed changes and be given an opportunity to submit additional information to justify or refute proposed revisions. (3)Beach management projects funded by the Department shall be conducted in a manner that encourages cost-savings,fosters, regional coordination of projects, optimizes management of sediments and project performance, protects the environment, and provides long-term solutions. Appropriate feasibility studies or analysis shall be required before design or construction of new projects. (4)Beach and dune restoration and nourishment projects funded by the Department shall be accessible to the general public and access shall be maintained for the life of the project. Inlet sediment bypassing and the initial restoration of adjacent shorelines ' impacted by improved, modified or altered inlets, do not have to provide for public access, except for when an Erosion Control Line has been established.Shoreline segments shall be evaluated for public access as set forth in subsection 62B-36.007(1),F.A.C. ---> (5) Beach management projects will be evaluated on a case by case basis and may be cost shared, pursuant to Rules 62B-36.006 and 62B-36.007,F.A.C.,when determined to avoid or minimize adverse impacts and be cost effective as demonstrated by feasibility and design studies. (6)Activities primarily related to navigation or other infrastructure improvements at inlets are,generally, not eligible for cos sharing. However, components of projects which mitigate critically eroded shoreline caused by alterations, modifications or improvements to inlets,implement components of the Strategic Beach Management Plan,and which do not increase impacts,are eligible for cost sharing of up to 50%of the non-federal share for those components which: (a)Are designed to minimize the erosive effects to the downdrift shoreline caused by the inlet by improving or facilitating the efficiency of sand bypassing,such as the construction of sand bypassing facilities,sand traps and jetty alterations;or (b)Cost effectively place beach quality sand on the adjacent eroded beaches,such as the incremental cost of placing sand on the beach rather than in an offshore disposal area.The Department will cost share only in the incremental cost of placement of the material, not mobilization and demobilization of equipment, design studies, or any other activity normal to the operation and maintenance of the inlet. (7) Eligible governmental entities are encouraged to consider existing inlet navigation maintenance activities as potential sources of sand when developing beach restoration or nourishment projects. (8)Beach management projects authorized by Congress for federal financial participation shall be cost shared up to 50%of the non-federal share. Eligible governmental entities shall pursue federal appropriations to the maximum extent possible in order to proportionally reduce state and local project costs. The Department will not cost share on the federal portion of an authorized project unless an immediate threat to upland properties and financial loss is demonstrated. - 2 CAC November 10,2011 • VII-9 Staff Reports 8 of 15 • • i, (9) Upon notification from the Department of the 60-day submittal period, eligible governmental entities shall submit an updated Annual Funding Request and Local Long Range Budget Plan. Annual funding shall only be requested for projects expected to be initiated or continued in that fiscal year. (10)The Department shall annually review and rank all projects requested by eligible governmental entities for the next fiscal year, and maintain a current project listing in priority order. As part of the review, the Department shall seek formal input from local coastal governments, beach and general government interest groups, and university experts. The project listing shall also identify unranked projects and funds needed for statewide and regional management activities, state sponsored or co-sponsored demonstration projects,new feasibility and design studies,and a consolidated category for project monitoring required by permit. In determining the final project ranking,the Department shall consider likely available funding and include a primary and alternate list of all projects. The primary list shall include those projects where legislatively appropriated funding is anticipated to be adequate to fund the projects. The alternate list includes those projects where funding is not anticipated to be available. Funding that may become available due to savings or scheduling changes shall be made available in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year to projects in the following order: (a)Projects on the primary list that require additional funds to complete the project phase. (b)Previously funded projects that require additional funds to complete the project phase. I (c)Projects on the alternate list in priority order. (d)Emergency situations as determined by the Department. (11) The Department, in consultation with the eligible governmental entity, has the discretion, pursuant to Section 161.101(20),F.S.,to revise funding for projects identified on the primary or alternate list if it is determined by the Department that the project is not ready to be initiated during the fiscal year. If the Department revises funding for a primary list project, at the request of the eligible governmental entity, the project shall be included on the subsequent year's primary list, regardless of prioritization pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006,F.A.C. (12)Eligible governmental entities may design and construct beach management projects prior to the receipt of funding from the state and may subsequently apply for reimbursement from the Department pursuant to the procedure in subsection 62B-36.009(3),F.A.C. Specific Authority 161.101, 161.161 FS. Law Implemented 161.088, 161.091, 161.101, 161.161 FS. History—New 6-10-83, Formerly 16B-36.03, Amended 4-27-86,Formerly 16B-36.003,Amended 12-25-03. 62B-36.005 Annual Funding Requests. (I) Annual funding requests for cost sharing of projects shall be submitted by the eligible governmental entity to the Department. Projects previously submitted, but not funded, and projects with cost overruns should be included. Eligible governmental entities who have received funding for projects in past fiscal years and who anticipate requesting funding in subsequent years shall update the Local Long Range Budget Plan as to costs and scheduling.The Local Long Range Budget Plan shall be consistent with the Strategic Beach Management Plan and have a 10-year minimum time frame. The submittal shall be in electronic format and include: (a)A detailed project description,including project boundaries by Department range monuments,methods used in conducting the project,and data or analysis to apply the ranking criteria required by Rule 62B-36.006,F.A.C. (b) A map of the project area depicting the public beach access, the public parking within one quarter mile of each beach access, public restroom facilities, the public lodging establishments, and comprehensive plan designations of commercial and recreational facilities within the project boundary. (c) Current license documentation on public lodging establishments within the project boundaries, including the number of units available,if used to document public access. (d) A current or updated resolution from the eligible governmental entity which includes statements of their support of the project, willingness to serve as the local sponsor, and a statement of the extent of their ability and willingness to provide the necessary local funding share to implement the project. (e)A schedule of activities by project phase. (f)The annual project cost estimates that indicate cost sharing by the eligible governmental entity,with sufficient supporting detail depicting costs of project phases. (2) The Department shall evaluate projects submitted to determine eligibility, project ranking and priority, and the extent of cost sharing. Upon completion of the evaluation process,all eligible projects will be incorporated into the Department's Statewide Long Range Budget Plan, which will be submitted to the Legislature along with the Department's legislative budget request prioritizing projects according to the criteria in Rule 62B-36.006,F.A.C. (3)Funding requests shall be evaluated and ranked on the basis of information provided by the eligible governmental entity, except where such data is superseded by better quality information obtained by the Department. Failure to provide all required information and documentation relating to eligibility and ranking criteria will result in the request being declared ineligible or Opreceiving reduced ranking points. Failure to provide accurate information will lead to termination of the project's eligibility for the requested fiscal year. - 3 CAC November 10,2011 VII-9 Staff Reports 9 of 15 • Opecific Authority/61.101, 161.161 FS. Law Implemented 161.088, 161.091, 161.101, 161.161 FS.History-New 6-10-83, Formerly 16B-36.05, Amended 4-27-86,Formerly 16B-36.005,Amended 12-25-03. 62B-36.006 Project Ranking Procedure. (1)Eligible projects requesting funding for the upcoming fiscal year will be ranked in priority for the Department's legislative budget request. Projects previously ranked for a construction phase will retain their project score through the monitoring phase. Eligible projects will be assigned a total point score by the Department based on the following criteria: (a)Severity of erosion.The severity of erosion score is determined by the average rate of erosion for the project area over 30 years based upon the Department's long term data base for the project length at 2 points per foot of erosion,rounded to the nearest wh le foot,for a maximum total of 10 points. (b) Threat to upland structures. The percent of developed property containing structures within the project boundaries at or seaward of the projected 25- ear return interval storm event erosion limit times ten, rounded to the nearest whole number, for a maximum total of 10 points (c) Recreational and economic benefits. The percentage of linear footage of property within the project boundaries zoned commercial or recreational,or the equivalent,in the current local government land use map times ten,rounded to the nearest whole number,for a maximum total of 10 points. (d)Availability of federal funds.Projects with Congressional authorization for the project phase shall receive 5 points.Projects with a current Project Cooperation Agreement executed for the project phase or with available federal funds shall receive 5 points. Maximum total for availability of federal funds is 10 points. ' " e Local sponsor financial and administrative commitment. Local �} p governments who have a long term funding source dedicated to the restoration and management of the beach project shall receive 3 points; those with staff dedicated for administrative support shall receive 1 point; those with 75% or better compliance record for submitting quarterly reports and billings correctly and on time over the previous year shall receive 1 point for a maximum total of 5 points. (f) Previous state commitment. Projects where the Department has previously cost shared a feasibility or design phase shall receive I point;projects to enhance,or increase the longevity of a previously constructed project shall receive 4 points;and projects that will nourish a previously restored shoreline shall receive 5 points,for a maximum total of 10 points. (g)Project performance.Performance points shall be based upon the expected life of a project,as documented in a feasibility • study or on the actual nourishment interval. Projects shall receive 1 point for every year of the expected life or actual life with a maximum total of 10 points. (h) Mitigation of inlet effects. Projects that implement strategies in the Strategic Beach Management Plan for sediment bypassing or supplemental nourishment to adjacent beaches shall receive points based upon th ercentage of the target bypass volume to be achieved times 10 for a maximum total of 10 points. (i) Innovative technologies. Projects to address erosion that are economically competitive an environmentally sensitive and designed to demonstrate an innovative application of existing technologies shall receive 3 points; projects that demonstrate technologies previously untried in the state shall receive 5 points for a maximum total of 5 points. (j)Enhance nesting sea turtle refuges. Projects that are adjacent or within designated nesting sea turtle refuges shall receive 5 points. (k) Regionalization. Projects where two or more local Povernmental entities couple their projects for contracting to reduce costs shall receive 5 points. ivY{G�1pta� (l) Significance. Projects shall receive points based upon the projec length at one point a mile, rounded to the nearest whole number,for a total maximum of 10 points. (m)In the event that more than one project receives the same number of points,the Department shall assign funding priority to that project most ready to initiate construction. Specific Authority 161.10/, 161.161 FS. Law Implemented 161.088, 161.091, 161.101, 161.161 PS. History-New 6-10-83,Formerly 16B-36.06, 16B-36.006,Amended 12-25-03. 62B-36.007 Project Cost Sharing. (1)Until the unmet demand for repairing Florida's beaches is satisfied,the Department intends to cost share equally the costs with local governmental entities, except where actual cost savings from regional coordination can be demonstrated pursuant to subsection 62B-36.007(2), F.A.C. The Department will cost share up to 50% of the non-federal share of projects subject to adjustment for the level of public accessibility calculated using the following criteria: (a)Primary beach access sites shall be granted eligibility for one-half mile in each shore-parallel direction from the access site plus the shoreline length of the access site. (b) Public lodging_establishments shall be granted eligibility based upon the percentage of units available to the public, rounded to t1 nearest I 0%,times the property's beach front footage. • (c) Secondary beach access sites shall be granted eligibility air shoreline length of the access site. Additional eligibility shall be granted for up to one-quarter mile in each shore parallel direction at a rate of 52.8 linear feet per parking space,provided: 1.Parking is located within one-quarter mile of the secondary beach access site;and - 4 { CAC November 10,2011 VII-9 Staff Reports 10 of 15 2.Parking is clearly signed or otherwise clearly designated as parking for the general public on an equal basis. (d)Eligible shoreline lengths cannot overlap. (e) The sum of the eligible shoreline lengths, as defined above, is divided by the total project length to determine the percentage of the total project that is eligible for cost sharing. (2) Cost savings, which occur due to the planned geographic coordination or sequencing of two or more projects between eligible governmental entities, may qualify for additional reimbursement. Geographic sequencing means combining two projects together for the purpose of construction contracting. In order to determine the increase in the state's cost share the projects shall be bid jointly and separately to demonstrate the cost savings of combining the projects.The cost share shall be adjusted not to exceed the state's maximum cost share amount of 75 percent of the eligible costs. (3)All costs of environmental and performance monitoring required by the Department's permit with the governmental entity or a permit issued to the US Army Corps of Engineers,are eligible for cost sharing. (4) The Department will cost share for private contractual services necessary to conduct the project. Services may be contracted to a governmental entity if the Department is shown evidence that the entity's proposal is cost effective, of sufficient professional quality,and otherwise in the general public interest.In determining whether contractual services are cost effective,the Department shall consider cost estimates provided by the governmental entity from fully qualified private companies or individuals. Specific contractual services performed by or for local governments shall be subject to specific accountability measures and audit requirements and be consistent with the principles of Chapter 287, F.S., for competitive bidding and opportunity. Specific Authority 161.101, 161.161 FS. Law Implemented 161.088, 161.091, 161.101, 161.161 FS.History-New 6-10-83,Formerly 16B-36.07, Amended 4-27-86,Formerly 16B-36.007,Amended/2-25-03. 62B-36.009 Project Agreements. (1)The Department and the eligible governmental entity will execute a project agreement when funds are available and the project is ready to proceed.The project agreement shall include the following: (a) The estimated costs for each eligible project item, including the amount of the local sponsor's share, the Department's share,and when applicable,the federal share; (b)A scope of work and estimated date of completion for each eligible project item;and • (c)A periodic reporting and billing schedule. (2)The Department's annual financial obligation under the agreement shall be contingent upon a legislative appropriation and continued availability of funds.Funds not expended in a timely manner are subject to reversion to the General Revenue Fund. (3)Eligible governmental entities may design and construct beach management projects which are consistent with this rule and Chapter 161, F.S., prior to the receipt of funding from the state pursuant to Sections 161.101 and 161.161, F.S., and may subsequently apply for reimbursement from the state within three years pursuant to Section 161.101,F.S.,provided that: (a)The eligible governmental entity and the Department have entered into a project agreement,which approves the project and establishes the basis for reimbursement before the project phase commences. No reimbursement shall be granted for work accomplished prior to the date of the agreement unless specifically set forth in the agreement; (b)The project has been subject to review by the Department in the design and construction phases and the project has been found to be consistent with the intent of Chapter 161,F.S.,for project eligibility and cost effectiveness; (c)Reimbursement shall be limited to eligible project costs as specified in the written agreement referenced in paragraph(a) above and this rule; (d)The project has been prioritized as required in Section 161.101(9),F.S.,and is subject to legislative appropriation;and (e)Complete documentation of all costs are provided to the Department, pursuant to the requirements of the State's Auditor General. Specific Authority 161.101, 161.161 FS. Law Implemented 161.088, 161.091, 161.101, 161.161 FS. History-New 6-10-83,Formerly/6B-36.09, 16B-36.009,Amended 12-25-03. • - 5 CAC November 10,2011 VII-9 Staff Reports 11 of 15 \e ^, t Laaend: )'* Bnundxrbe V.„,„:,, 4 \� QPUbIicly-Owned Property(Beach Access) i�. �j ; Slate Land Tr- ' \] L.,,..... —�—.....a.._.a.v.. /�/Grieco!Erosion Area • FDEP Monuments • HOtes' 4 mk% _ i.Coordinates ere In feel based on the Florida State Plane Coordlrrale System,East Zone North A rericen Datum of 1983.(NAD83). 2.Date of Aerial Photography:2009. 3.Pubgdy-Owned Property end Beach Hotels 1.1 ,'`• arch Resort Condos prodded by the t .. Collier CIo my(OS Depanrnenl. H I; .. F a #5Y� qe.2 \ q+ k ,- i i.IL 4 a a= s;F ,, ' '''/.-4tI ...'''2:, tAlt2.'i r'1 1. Fes. . ' #2".,{ rf ,..,'.-A itrai....lir,tre,l P ti' Wiggins ins 99 ._. ��t bra '+ Pass * � r .,. � ' x' '"" COASTAL PI ANNa/O a 5 r # to ^^, Kz'+. ENGINEER:::„I,«,. a '..' y ...x...r..-...t w !k Collier County Beach , -.kl Long Range Beach Plan 0 250 500 ; Barefoot Beach Segment. Feat �+", �yy�jj . �.w.r e l I Inch•500 lees •,.. 2 "s .. CAC November 10,2011 V1I-9 Staff Reports 12 of 15 £ �y —706000 & e it 'k- 1 ' I.. 6,a{' A {YA' Project Boundaries , "" D PUvNC Beach Access d Parking xd Zoning: ,'.•' t ' t,� � % Commeroiel(2.077 Linear Feet l 25%) ^ {h �, ,� -_ ' Reveetionai(23e Linear Feel 13%I CL �• •. .••. �,e... Y ��CrgltllErosion Arne r ! ' ''*�"A 0 POEP Monumems ,AtNotes; t .. 1 1,Coordinates ere in feet based on the Florida A T .f. State Plane CGarolnate System,East Zone, ',p 1 - AMr 'W: , North American Oatum of 1983.(NA093). ];*+ ,< L ` •z oats of Aerial Photography 1009 Ft•i 1, �I at9j.'41.'#1,M+.-. `f l 4 at., ),.^7?• ■ yy ( ye a yyrrr^• t 1L -' � i7 ♦ .f '1' ITT' 1. f . P ''4 �� i 11 r70a00D 'fi At,' 4�• 1MIt M i I _,, t;s kt_14 fe.R..r'aI 7 ---4"4:':4".':'=" 111.',J J:1,J1 .1 -Vi„ e .O �f Jri 1' 6 ti t1' ij.a i''" C 1 e‘ r'-p CLa• t'. - 4 3'� ae�u 7j..• � f -:.� s -"4i -e 1,"..1Cy,.,- a'' 4 - 717x" 9•1 a* , -!i'1. t'1.41 - -i•*'1$a 1•<.a r°_ y,A,..r K tU 49'9,s. iT-"+ 71,11.-•!$1 702009 - t.i rtr 5L�" . s „' i'7,.`1, d Y - t � a $ ; p tJ t Mexi, 4 t* t: L1op. .t4. ofa • r a s e t•#s ,, i t o A- -4-' ' .. : ft3 'f ' ' t§ F i- • i - ya . p Sae,�.,a y > ?', J.. _' ,f"-4 'u1- S �� , , k r9• te` i< 4tJ,134 a4 1 ;, = a i t• .lii ''.•'.i.i i.'; . # 4j3; age ., y,. 1 t ',,, qt= r u Q �q , Lai —700000 ' Fn . 1 `- ys,. �•-v •,p'Y .� w' et� �r Lr________ , tw, � ,_. 4 cJ ,{1211 CM`" r i ''.1" ay .y +,xt .1 ".,un,. litR1 Vel H 4.11 s41et..4 ' COASTAL PLANNING I Qv,; ♦,� t aNGIN�a ,1N0. \, . E i 1 ,1 \ c., }■• ,. , .< Corner County Beach a *e u;- Long Rang.Beaeh Plan G. ;,� s Vanderbilt Beeeh Segment IMEM! Pee /iron•700 fee 3. i.uii� ®_ %A o� c e \ or nee It. -t- EAvoier, -"Irv- .t.440 tea,,, sue. CAC ee 1 VII-9 StafNovf Reports,2011 13 of 15 -? 8, P7.;. rr a�, y < �,� 1saend: ( ' ' "1 =1 ,' f P .h r.. Project BOonaar'oo 61, ( ,, QPUbFC ewrh Access d Pazkl9q 4)' ,f .,,., E eommer ia1(100 Linear Feet/0.8%) �yi'°„,' �b�p' %,°F.,!,° a Recreational(2.129 Linder Feel 118%) a 4 c3' ''''A Ce6ml Erosion Area F.t,o�.r - �t FDEP MOnurnante " CQ.y a° Notes; `""i+r�+,,(r, ..�. ',1 Coorthrate Care m(. 1'saes en the Finnoa ,,yµe!� 0 p 0 ate Plane Coerd :System.East Z.Orio -, P,t X07 a North American Dat of 1981(NA983). F d'I <':ta"a^p 2 Date of Aerlal Photoq ph.2009. ittf2. i f ef,ytL - SVr xi ..—... 'rr 4 .Ilse In a 4, •fit° #� it :,..,, .i�t .'� k'�r r� fF 1 p Artl , t k w1�p� 1 ,he ,—(� is .* t..--k'. .1.,° ; t L ; � ''1:v, t)F 'V',I ,...,0,-;-. t� a • nd` _'.ty�pi 1 r-V•V-..:4 7^ fin " '$! � at. uA .,'''"1"- i "A I I.."My,.1$,,' icy.M1q<d'�` *'..:„'4;;'v sm°:2�4 r€®...1.i 3� 'r '�°° ", I ° A " ,.5„�'( t>T; ;tra.e.er y1yFrsa f f mow..;,, 0 + .. 1 5A Y:M Ct Yy. ;,�x i 6 ^'is tr e 4�tom, t d 4„�' i' dr r'''',„” - {-,,,,i4.4.l ., `Y S SC T:A ;$h,ry �� ..4 �Js�Ltapw °w.,br,�"` q;...;....,.._0::.,,,-.. .+� j y .- a',.a y{ A,,ow: t t.:�V."I• „: s � S A�r,* ... c� ;.tii.4.1"a 1 k ' ) is `•r'4 �,*t '''''''',1;;,,•r�� i•,•e +tAA� "�( at i� i11:631Srft..1".A-0 7/-r-r- s.:3+ ��4`n . y ,4e d aJ 'L O ' �;. . ? S ri xi�e j ,'1" # ,a _v rn EM ?1^ Al YP fF ��j`'[mss r$ a i -w- -` ._ `x f. ea r hF?" ja` #a.,o' A + a,a „by 874000 W r (�p 4 ,4"' f , .F- -'s t�'r tµi >oy 'S 8Dt�5,21 i I l a , t 4 ' r CA 'V An"'r'•dC L i&A . MOINEERINn,NC.}` 7 ' � '� It:+';',7,.elvi r:11::.,:1!:.:,.,:::117,70,iff,:lk...4:7,.■■..':: C 4' X1KE � kii " 9 '. c2 � a s. Collier County;each ( > Long Range;each Plan I ? _p' a; 0 625 1.269 C� r,r,.;;. dl. .�. ,m. '3}. Perk SAore Segment 1! Feet 1 inch.1,369 leer FIIQS ; }L"�. {t a(e t 1.ia1'S ' .?M h^S i.. CAC November 10,2011 VII-9 Staff Reports 14 of 15 670000 R "1; i y 4Sk' lgaeag ✓` y` { Project Boundaries 1 & 1:k`Kna k, ":•,,'} Q Public Beach Access a Peking 1 r S P.SS '31 p {,y _ n e t, Zoning: H e i A3 G '4 ,q p y �Comrntiona(I.7e 1�mea Feet l%) `C f ,", ' : ., x a j; Recreational me near Feet r s%I 686000 N 1. �\} ` ; S,'. 'Critical Erosion ents tii 4 +, ♦ DEP Moname40 `A" ..{ ,44. et - *::=1.-24.1.Coo.Ometes are In feet based on the Flonoa • m ,s ;e:','-1•,.a_,,, !! Slate Plane Cooro a SY4l83.East Zone, t-^eC, ny,. 7p Nortl+An a cen Oat of 1983)N0083). 1 nti .)} p 1 Date of Ae ai Pllotog aptry 2008 666000 aZavr ,;/w 3' i$ t- s tali�tvt^ s 'X'' tJ _ .4,:c4,4",..-'—:,;::'y 1 i� :. �� S� f� ,y� '4,1':',''' rTi N t 103 4 r tli 4 11 t S f.4 '} •,µ t` � i.'i.`.:0 � : � a F. p^ � f f N�, �� /4 '''',..it,',.-f 664000 • 4 8 t _ R 5y fY 4 .. ° t , , r e w 4 M+ t s;1 f� 1 ::t 7 a kA '` rp a yw f 4iu ;e` k i ,z, PA. � Lam" -• -..,,,,,,.....:,/1 Cw ` ! w '.pr 4 I• » rS•s s ee2000 ?e .' ' , o P k ! a ' ' ,';' "k,.' 1 „d (1 r Y <t °° 3 r.:I 1 S f • �i a rt 7 f S It dlnr� to Sk N. .,.)i Gulf of k i e6r tr e ` 860000 !Mexico tl s•2, -, r 1.S t y4 3 a�r t'P 1sa F 4'0 6s7 g4 1. ii. _ i \eI , ,4,r;'�shy ti , 'i $ r ILIF 666000 ny 3 3' ”` " L! �e E 4A `, 4 `„f t j l.. j a'' )f#�w f'- '656000 -;1:;'::)'.;*;-) , 4f ^ j fad' q 3 F } l n3 . � 7Z tZS h I1Slx P '-Yr h 14 k^ y h' a, ,- fr+.i 654000 I • ._.� ,a 1' u . a :., i._ • I ` - I COASTAL►LANNC. a iM01NaaRINO,INC. e -}- N k I os S( r' 1 r Collier County Beech Ili g a ' Long Range Beach Plan 0 75 1,500 Naples Segment Feet .� : .11'' -: ' " cit ,.,., I Inch•1,600 feel g y e a{ .ski ''P� :.Iii2M11• iG CAC November 10,2011 VII-9 Staff Reports 15 of 15 4 ., '',"s== lag s V vPmmuenrcce eeaxumn.,...'` ^q`, 1-4, - asnlny F' �C mercW fL,t9� 'nnx Fed/x714) *ems '}, -:R Ipntl fo L-renFMll o%1 " CCj�. ", .. t' Y•' a ;s, ^,,C611.l Eroaiun Are' ! �,."rye , .1 A MEP 4o,.m..ms u Vas/. ., 3 ��1 .r ;10,'� 1 coo,olnatea are In Yeel based nn the Fiorifla + Slate Plane CoordTate Syeten,teat Lone, .71 V 1 Date of P of of 1993(NADR$1•�l Y-" `1j '- 2.Date of Aenal Pndoy aPhY 2019 R. ter, 15 t' ° , o atMt' -�, t,!s ve � 'N 4.r,i,1 F ar 1 Val ViA,-, r et JI• -{t ,\-"4- 1 � OC�tifK. $ x-srSLe p. n S . '' t fit,` ` k`+/ ;0 G:._ ' �fi�r ti 3� ,1,- �' 4',,, ti -;fi t r x fir, r >M, t Pz w E 3� � 1 -p _ - -- * ;'` )- r,gy tp 2ry Ark GULF OF !. + a#� .: .1 67e000 t 1 "T',t �-i - ,y� ..../ drjt o: Z '''':=t• tf, ?-4.*:'-; ti 14 ,1111 ',,,-'ilPt 7:"IL,.,F,v, 6 to \'t ' ';!'` ;.' "„+', 'I il 4.1.011% era a 1 � ,r L '+ a Fm ee ii. 11 � yOSr .L:.' a - 3,+,f:. Pa ki )414 tit k f ,law b { tQyr ��gr X91! [{� g 1 i � �y sii' 674000 'v' r + +r 'rWe` 1 AF ..,", `1d`?"tski r. ''''-'1';'''. -.. �f `COAK G tJ �� , $50 tNGSE L MARIeR6 4 i4 °'C i eROWrcaMO Wc. 5� 'e. ,� .11,- s r., .1/ \el — '� — ,a `) w.- Collier County Beach 'aai "' "`'°'"- Long Range Beach Plan ,,._� South Marco Segment o T26 660 .550 feet 'az 1M,cM1 '7,t ,;0 CAC November 10,2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 1 of 2 Great Lakes 2122 York Road Dredge&Dock Oak Brook.Illinois 60523 Company 630 574 3000 1 November 2011 J. Gary McAlpin, Director Coastal Zone Management 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Gary, Re: Upcoming Beach Projects Thanks for taking time to meet with Sam Morrison, our Area Manager and me at the FSBPA conference. It is always good to see you. I wanted to reiterate some of the constructability comments we shared during that discussion which also included the folks from Captiva as well as Steve Keehn from CPE. 1. Mobilization Savings. For sure, one of the biggest costs on a large scale dredging project is mobilization. We often encourage our clients and consulting engineer friends to combine similar projects whenever possible to allow for cost efficiencies, Based on our past experiences and your anticipated plans, combining projects with the Captiva Erosion Control District appears to be the right thing to do As we discussed, there are no hard and fast numbers to apply, but with mobilization costs in the general in the range of $2,000,000 to$5,000,000 per project there are certainly significant cost savings to be realized. 2. Environmental Windows.Working around the turtle windows can result in significant cost savings also. Most of the industry's annual hopper dredge work gets compressed into the winter months by Federal budget delays and endangered species issues. This impacts our costs not only by increased scheduling pressures, but also puts the work into the more difficult weather months when working in the ocean becomes more dangerous and costly. Our industry typically has our best equipment availability in the summer months and as a result, the Corps and other clients look to schedule whatever projects that have such flexibility for those months when costs are reduced and schedules are more reliable. 3. Scheduling. Flexibility is always important for a vessel operator, like a hopper dredging company. There are two ways for you to show that flexibility and win favorable pricing. One is to bid the project with sufficient lead time to allow the contractor to get his support equipment(pipeline, etc)to the job site on a reasonable schedule. What is important for this point is that it is not critical when the work starts, it is more important when it ends. If you have scheduling issues, identify them, but provide flexibility wherever you can. In line with that, the second way is to provide as much completion time as possible and then not object to the contractor performing other projects often called"opportunity projects". While it is difficult to quantify the cost benefits to you upfront, we can tell you that we do lower our prices for those projects on the order of 5%to 20%when such flexibility is allowed. CAC November 10,2011 VII-10 Staff Reports 2 of 2 Gary McAlpin 1 November 2011 4. Partnering. One of the best things you can have with industry is a good relationship. While in any given contract or project there may be issues and conflict, in a perpetual business like ours,we have to assure each other's success. Engaging us in the conversation upfront is valuable to us on a lot of levels as we hope it is for you. You have always been straight with us and that has allowed us to put our best price on the table. Good luck as this project moves forward,we look forward to working with you again. Please don't hesitate to contact Sam or I with other questions or comments. Regards Great Lakes Dredge& Dock Company William H. Hanson Vice President CC: Sam Morrison, GLDD VII-I I Old l l Repoi lJ 1 of 2 HEALTHY BEACHES ARE VITAL TO FLORIDA'S ECONOMIC RECOVERY Florida's beaches are the primary economic engine that drives the state's coastal cities and counties. Beaches remain a top tourist attraction—82.3 million out-of-state visitors traveled to Florida in 2010, of which 16.5 million —20%—were beach visitors. In addition, the top 5 visited state parks in 2010 were all beach parks. Unfortunately, 399 of the State's 825 total miles of sandy beach are critically-eroded. Many of our beaches are starving to death, robbed of the natural flow of sand by navigation improvements at our inlets. Over 218 critically- eroded miles are part of a "managed" erosion control project, mostly restoration, nourishment, or inlet sand bypassing. Over half of these miles of nourished beach are part of a federally-authorized project which enjoy up to 65%federal cost-sharing. Florida has 62 beach projects. BEACHES— FLORIDA'S ECONOMIC ENGINE "Tourism in Florida fell during the recent recession, but it is leading the state's economy during the recovery. Florida's beaches, the biggest attraction to out-of-state tourists, are playing a critical role in helping the state pull out of the most severe recession since the 1930s." (William B.Stronge, Ph.D.,Chair Emeritus,Economics, Florida Atlantic University) FLORIDA In 2010,Florida beach tourists spent$11.7 billion and the total sales tax paid was$352.8 million. After indirect and induced spending, the,total impact on Florida's,gross state product was$22.7 billion. This created 244,827 jobs and resulted in$8.4 billion in earnings. Florida's leisure and hospitality employment recovered earlier than the rest of Florida's economy. In fact,the state's leisure and hospitality industry has recovered 90% of the jobs it lost during the recession. Many of these jobs are in Florida's beach communities. Every county where leisure and hospitality jobs were lost during the recession and have since fully recovered are coastal counties that enjoy miles of beachfront—Escambia, Lee, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach. NATIONAL Florida's beaches contributed $52 billion to the US economy(2007 dollars). The United States receives$320 in taxes from beach tourists for every$1 it spends on beach nourishment. VII-I I Olan r epui W 2 of 2 FLORIDA'S BEACHES ARE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE Infrastructure is defined as the underlying foundation on which the continuance and growth of a community depend. Clearly, beaches are a vital part of Florida's coastal infrastructure,and maintaining them is of critical importance. Healthy beaches, many restored and nourished, are the most effective and only natural form of storm protection for private and public structures and infrastructure, especially roads, bridges, and utilities. rkt- There was dramatic evidence of the storm nom d �r protection value of restored beaches following the �a h. unprecedented 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. A ,;,w� �� study of 28,000 properties in eight �� Florida counties showed that restored beaches prevented a loss of$1.8 billion in property values. , 'u, � � WHY RESTORE AND NOURISH FLORIDA'S BEACHES When asked which activities Lee County visitors enjoyed most during their visits, beaches consistently topped the list.The number one concern for beach tourists is eroding shorelines. While most revenue sources are down dramatically, this is generally not the case for the tourist development tax. Tourist tax revenues in Lee County grew by 4%in 2010,visitation in paid accommodations grew by 5.6%,and these visitors spent nearly$1.5 billion. From both a national and state perspective, all beach nourishment projects provide far greater benefits to the economy than their cost to taxpayers: On average,every state dollar spent on beaches generates$8 in return revenues (FAU, 2003). Every dollar spent by the State of Florida for beach restoration and subsequent nourishment is matched by$1 in local government funding and up to $3 in federal dollars. For every dollar invested in nourishing Miami Beach,the nation's economy earns$1470 in foreign exchange(2008). Tourists now contribute $11 billion annually(City of Miami Beach,2007).Half of all visitors to the greater Miami area visited the beach in 2010,and 40%said the beaches were what they liked the best about the Miami area. When considering whether the State can afford to spend money on its beaches please consider whether we can afford not to. We must work to maintain the beaches that make our coastal communities highly desirable to visit, work and live. The economic value of beaches — A 2008 update By James R. Houston U.S.Army Engineer Research and Development Center 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39/80-6199 James.R.Houstonnerdc.usace.army.mil T Touston(1995a; 1996; 2002)de- HA and offshoring is increasingly taking scribed the economic value of Article submitted 30 March 2008, place in high-technology industries(As merica's beaches.He noted that revised and accepted 4 May, 2008 sociated Press 2007b).For example,the the travel and tourism industry is becom- pharmaceutical industry is increasingly ing increasingly dominant in economies and retail trade that contribute 8.7%and shifting its research and development to throughout the world.However,few re- 7.4%respectively to GDP(U.S.Census China and India(PRNewswire 2005).Dan al ize that travel and tourism is already Bureau 2007a).TTE also produces$104.9 Scheinman,senior vice-president for cor- America's largest industry,employer,and billion in annual tax revenue for all levels porate development at Cisco System Inc, earner of foreign exchange;and beaches of government in the United States said, ""We came to India for the costs, are its leading tourist destination. Al- (Travel Industry Association 2007). we stayed for the quality,and we're now though high-technology industries grab Travel and tourism is both the world's investing for the innovation"(Business the news,the U.S.runs a trade deficit in s R&D lab in and America's largest employer with Week 2005). Microsoft's industries and high-technology jobs Beijing is cited as one of the world's most are increasingly "offshored" in today's TTE employing 231 million people productive sources of innovation incom- world economy. Travel and tourism is throughout the world and 15 million puter graphics and language simulation difficult to offshore and is providing the People, or more than one out of every (Business Week 2005). economic growth,jobs,and foreign ex- 9.7 people, in the United States(World change that make the U.S. competitive Travel and Tourism Council 2007b). In Not only are manufacturing jobs in a contrast, all U.S. manufacturing indus- long-term decline,but many service-sec- in a world economy. However, tourists tries from IBM to General Motors to Intel tor jobs face "offshoring." Princeton have choices in international tourism,and employ only 14.2 million people, hav- economist Alan Blinder, who was vice the U.S. has neglected tourism and in ing steadily lost 3.1 million jobs since chairman of the Federal Reserve during ism. This paper investments supporting tour- 2000(U.S.Department of Labor 2006). the Clinton administration,says the num- ism. This paper updates and lends sup- Although many states have policies to ber of jobs at risk of being shipped out port to the conclusions of Houston attract manufacturing industries, espe- of the country could reach 40 million importance 1996; beaches on the economic cially high-technology industries, few over the next 10-20 years (Associated importance of beaches to the national have policies to attract travel and tour- Press 2007a).This means that one out of economy. ism businesses.However,there are only every three service-sector jobs could be TRAVEL AND TOURISM about one-third as many high-technology at risk. IS LARGEST INDUSTRY jobs as travel and tourism jobs in the U.S. Travel and tourism is a rare industry AND EMPLOYER Travel and tourism is the world's larg- where offshoring is difficult.There can e be intense competition among countries est industry with the broad measure of economic activity, Travel and Tourism , ? - for tourism,but if a tourist wants the tour- Economy (TTE),contributing$5.4 tril- ist experience at Fisherman's Wharf,San lion in 2007 to the world's Gross Domes- . , Francisco, the tourist has to go to San tic Product (GDP) (World Travel and 1 ) Francisco. Travel and tourism may be Tourism Council 2007a)and exceeding ignored in the U.S. because of percep- the GDP of all countries other than the ! lions that this industry has low-wage jobs. United States (International Monetary However, U.S. per-capita wages for Fund 2007).States (International TTE contributes Apeer-reviewed technical journal travel and tourism jobs average 13% published quarterly by higher than average U.S. per-capita $1.4 trillion to America's GDP (World l' '�,�y�rtiin tnar cea;tstal c�ctxrr�nty wages(Holecek 1995).Switzerland pro- Travel and Tourism Council 2007a).This is 10.2% of U.S. output (World Travel vides a good example of high wages in and Tourism Council 2007b)and makes as tourism,since it depends on tourism more TTE the largest contributor to GDP just than any developed country yet has one ahead of durable goods manufacturing and ec:Olo v since 1926 of the world's highest per-capita in- comes. Page 22 Shore&Beach • Vol.76, No.3 • Summer 2008 TRAVELANDTOURISM: travel and tourism,since they are the lead- (Murley et.al 2003,U.S.Department of KEYTO INTERNATIONAL ing tourist destination(USA Today 1993; Labor 2007).Similarly,King(1999)shows COMPETITIVENESS Carlson Wagonl it Travel Agent Poll 1998; that California beach tourism makes a The U.S.is a major player in the inter- Washingtonpost.com:Poll 2001; Chivas total direct and indirect contribution of national travel and tourism industry.In- Poll 2001,TripAdvisor 2007,BusinessWire $73 billion to the national economy.Mul- ternational tourists,who represent 10%- 2007).Coastal states receive about 85% tiplying the ratio of visitors to national 15%of tourists in the U.S., spent$108 of tourist-related revenues in the U.S. beaches(2 billion)and visitors to Cali- billion in 2007(U.S.Department ofCom- largely because beaches are tremen- fornia beaches(567 million)by the con- merce 2007).This is greater than the corn- dously popular(World Almanac 2007). tribution of California beach visitors to bined export value of U.S. agricultural Although there are many interior attrac- the national economy($73 billion)in 1999 grains,aircraft,computers,and telecom- tions from Yellowstone to the Grand Can- and adjusting for inflation yields an esti- munications equipment (U.S. Census yon and from Las Vegas to Branson,Mis- mate that U.S.beaches currently contrib- Bureau 2007b). The U.S. runs massive souri;the popularity of beaches dominates ute$322 billion annually to the economy annual trade deficits of hundreds of bil- tourism.For example,a single beach loca- in 2007 dollars(Clean Beaches Council lions of dollars,but travel and tourism is tion(Miami Beach)reported more tourist 2007,King 1999,and U.S.Department of one of the few bright spots with a trade visits(21 million)than were made to any Labor 2007). This is more than twenty surplus of$7.2 billion(U.S.Department National Park Service property (Wiegel five times the$12 billion contribution of of Commerce 2007)in 2006.This surplus 1 992;National Park Service 2007a).Miami the National Park Service system to the is greater than the U.S.trade surplus of Beach has more than twice as many tour- national economy(National Park Service $5.5 billion for all agricultural commodi- ist visits as the combined number of tour- 2006). As was noted to be the case for ties(U.S.Department of Commerce 2006). ist visits to Yellowstone(2.9 million),the foreign tourists,most taxes paid by beach The U.S. surplus in travel and tourism Grand Canyon(4.3 million),and Yosemite tourists also flow primarily to the federal was$26.4 billion in 1996,but U.S.poli- (3.2 million)(National Park Service 2007a). government.For example,a study of tour- cies that discourage international tourist California beaches alone have more tour- ism at Huntington Beach, California, visits and lack of competitive activities ist visits(567 million)than combined tour- showed that the federal government is to attract international tourists have ist visits(272 million)to all 388 National the main beneficiary of beach tourism stalled visits.Americans take pride in U.S. Park Service properties - including na- with tourism at Huntington Beach gen- high-technology industries,but the U.S. tional seashores and monuments and erating$135 million in federal revenues, ran a trade deficit in high-technology buildings such as the Lincoln Memorial, $25 million in state sales tax revenues, goods of$102 billion in 2006 (Associ- Washington Monument, and White and$4.8 million in local revenue sales tax ated Press 2007b). This deficit has House(King l999;National Park Service and parking fees(King 1999). doubled since 2000 with the U.S.being 2007a).It is estimated that each year ap- ECONOMIC RETURN OF the largest importer of high-technology proximately 180 million Americans make BEACH NOURISHMENT goods from China (Associated Press billion visits to ocean, gulf, and inland Beach erosion is the No. 1 concern 2007b). beaches(Clean Beaches Council 2007). that beach tourists have about beaches International tourists visiting the U.S. This is almost twice as many visits as the (Hall and Staimer 1995). There are produced estimated tax revenues in 2006 combined 1.06 billion visits made - 33,000 kilometers of eroding shoreline of$13.6 billion (U.S Department of erties of the National Park Service ce(27(272 and 4,300 kilometers of critically erod- Commerce 2007 and U.S. Chamber of million),BureauofLandManagement(55 ing shoreline in the U.S. Beach erosion Commerce 2005). The U.S. Travel and million),and all state parks and recreation is a serious threat to the nation's beach Tourism Administration (abolished by areas(735million)(NationalAssociation tourism and, therefore, a threat to the Congress in 1996)published data show- of State Park Directors 2007, Bureau of national economy(U.S.Army Corps of ing the recipients of$7.5 billion of tax Land Management 2007).Moreover,many Engineers 1994). Restoring beaches revenues from international tourists in of these visits to state parks and recre- through beach nourishment can greatly 1995 (U.S.Travel and Tourism Admin- ation areas were visits to beaches. For increase their attractiveness to tourists. istration 1994).The majority of these tax example,state 7%of s in California ac- For example,in 1989,74 percent of those revenues(53%orabout$4billion)went count for only 2.7/oofCaliforniastatepark polled in New Jersey said the New Jer- holdings,the federal government with state gov- holdings, but account for 72%of visits sey shore was "going downhill." By ernments receiving 33%.Local govern- (King 1999).The 2 billion beach visits also 1998,only 27 percent thought the New ments that provided most of the tourist parks in 138 million visitors to all theme Jersey shore was in decline with 86 per- support infrastructure received only parks n the U.S. including properties of cent saying that the shore was one of New 14.3%of the tax revenue.Assuming the Disney,Six Flags,Universal,SeaWorld, Jersey's best features(Zukin 1998).The federal government received the same Busch Gardens,Paramount,Knotts Berry difference between 1989 and 1998 was percentage of taxes from international Farms, Hershe Dollywood, and construction of the beach nourishment other theme Parks rks(T(Theme Park Insider tourists in 2006 as 1995,the federal gov- 2005) project from Sandy Hook to Barnegat ernment received $7.2 billion in taxes Inlet, New Jersey, which is the largest from international tourists in 2006. Beaches make a large contribution beach nourishment project(in terms of BEACHES: KEY TO U.S. to America's economy. Beach tourism volume)in the world(U.S.Army Corps TRAVELANDTOURLSM in Florida made a$52 billion contribu- of Engineers 2001). Beaches are the key element of U.S. tion to the economy in 2007 dollars Houston(1996)cites beach nourish- Shore&Beach • Vol.76,No.3 • Summer 2008 Page 23 ment at Miami Beach as a good example of Boating and Waterways and State that there were 232 million visitor days of the economic benefits of beach resto- Coastal Conservancy 2002). If the esti- per year to California beaches.They es- ration. Miami Beach had virtually no mated 2 billion national beach tourists timated that if California beaches were beach by mid-1970. As a result, facili- pay proportionately similar taxes as the unavailable for recreation, beach goers ties were run down, and Miami Beach 567 million California beach tourists and would instead spend about $3.1 billion was not the place to visit. Beach nour- the 11.2%inflation from 2002 to 2006 is in other states and $2.4 billion outside ishment in the late 1970's rejuvenated considered, beach tourists paid federal the United States. King and Symes Miami Beach and opened its beaches to taxes of about$32 billion in 2006.There- (2003)use standard techniques from the the public. Beach attendance, based on fore,for every$1 the federal government U.S.government's Bureau of Economic lifeguard counts and aerial surveys, in- spends annually on beach nourishment Analysis to show that the unavailability creased from eight million in 1978 to 21 (about$100 million per year),it collects of California beaches would produce an million in 1983(Wiegel 1992).Tourists about$320($32 billion)in tax revenues annual economic loss,including indirect now contribute $11 billion annually to from beach tourists. and induced effects, to the California the economy (City of Miami Beach are tourists With over seven times as many annual 45% economy of$8.3 billion and there would 2007).Almost 45 of these tour ar be a further loss of$6 billion to the U.S. international tourists, and they ists re beach tourist visits(2 billion)as visits to national economy.Further,they note that, all properties of the National Park Ser- « ute almost $5 billion to the economy vice(272 million),the recreational value These are not economic impact esti- (City of Miami Beach 2007). mates, but instead reflect the decisions of beaches is clear.However,the annual The$5 billion annual contribution that federal investment in beach maintenance of br state ers to spend their money in international tourists make to the of about$100 million is less than 4%of other states and countries. Unlike eco- economy is almost 100 times the $52 the$2.65 billion budget of the Park Ser- million impact estimates,where substitu- million cost of the Miami Beach beach- vice (National Park Service 2007b), tion is possible,these estimates represent nourishment project that has lasted with which critics maintain is itself inad- a net loss to the U.S.and state economy." minor maintenance over 30 years(Hous- equate. The report "Endangered Rang- They note that the state of Cal ifo e $and ton 1996). The capitalized annual cost ers"by the National Parks Conservation federal government would lose $761 of the project over its current 30-year life Association noted that national parks are million and$738 million respectively in is about$1.7 million.Stronge(2000)re- underfunded by $600 million annually taxes if indir Y t and induced effects are ports that half of Florida tourists are (National Parks Conservation Associa- included.The obtained their estimate of beach tourists.Assuming half of interna- tion 2004). Most Americans support in- the loss of tax revenues to the federal tional tourists to Miami Beach are beach creased funding for the National Park government by assuming the ratio of lost tourists, international beach tourists Service with 61%of those surveyed say- federal income tax to Gross Domestic spend almost $2.5 billion annually in ing they would be willing to donate to Product (GDP) was 0.097, the ratio of Miami Beach.Using the capitalized an- the Park Service on their tax returns(Na- lost corporate and excise taxes to GDP nual cost of the Miami Beach project of tional Parks Conservation Association was 0.027,and they ignored social secu- $1.7 million, this means that for every 2005). Similarly, many beach visitors of taxes. With the annual federal cost $1 that has been invested annually to would agree with Congressman Frank of shore protection in California beaches nourish the beaches at Miami Beach,the Pallone Jr.from New Jersey,who noted, being between $12 and 18 million, for U.S.has earned about$1470 annually in "In the same way we look at our national every$1 of federal expenditures on shore gov- foreign exchange.This compares with a parks as a national treasure, we should protection for California,the federal$62. return of less than$0.40 in agricultural- look at our beaches as a national trea- ernment avoids tax losses of$41 to$62. trade surplus($5.5 billion surplus in ag- sure"(New York Times 2007). The conclusion by King and Symes ricultural commodities 2006)for each$1 (2003)that,"...a significant number of King and Symes(2003)assert that the of crop subsidy($20 billion in U.S pro- beach visitors would,in fact,travel out- ducer support in 2006--U.S.Department U.S.Office of Management and Budget's side of California and outside of the U.S. of Commerce 2006; Reuters 2006). (OMB)current policy limits the federal if there were no beaches in California" interest in California's beaches. They would hold true for beaches throughout It is instructive to compare the fed- note that OMB believes visitors who de- the U.S. As a rough estimate, if we as- eral investment in beach infrastructure cide not to attend California's beaches sume the tax loss to the federal govern- (beach nourishment)versus federal tax will spend their dollars elsewhere in the ment determined by King and Symes for revenues from tourists.From 1950-1993 United States,creating no net economic California beach tourism (232 million the federal government and its cost-shar- or tax impact for the federal government. beach visits) holds proportionately for ing partners spent an average of$34 mil- They examine OMB's assumption and national beach tourism (2 billion beach lion (1993 dollars) annually on beach determine there is a significant net loss visits), the federal government would nourishment(U.S.Army Corps of Engi- to the state of California and the U.S. lose about $6.4 billion in tax revenues neers 1994).The federal investment has from a failure to maintain California's from indirect and induced effects if increased since the mid-1990s and is beaches.They surveyed 2719 households beaches were unavailable due to erosion approximately $100 million a year in southern California and extended the (Marlowe 1999). A California study of analysis to all California beaches.Since ($738 million times 2 billion divided by beach tourism showed that beach tour- some of the 567 million visitor days per 238 million). Moreover, under current ism in California provides $8.1 billion year include visits to piers and board- OMB policy,beach restoration projects in tax revenues (California Department walks,to be conservative,they estimated have to be justified solely on reduction Page 24 Shore&Beach • Vol.76, No.3 • Summer 2008 of storm damage with recreational ben- the country's future tourism growth." Singapore, and Spain each spend $100 efits only considered incidental benefits. The decline of the U.S. travel and million or more annually on international The inclusion of recreational benefits tourism industry started playing out in marketing (Brooks 1995; Hotel-online would produce large benefit/cost ratios. earnest in the 1990s.America's share of 1998; Balzer 1998). WORLDWIDE COMPETITION the global inbound tourism market has THEFUTURE FACING U.S. dropped 35 percent since 1993.The U.S. The future of travel and tourism in Houston (1996) noted that travel and has lost 18%of its international market the U.S.is not rosy as a result of its lack tourism's importance to world economies, share in just five years. The significant of investment.The U.S.ranks 133'in the employment, and international competi- drop in international tourists has cost the world in the growth of travel and tourism tiveness has not been lost on America's American economy $286 billion in the infrastructure investments(World Travel economic competitors. Germany and Ja- last 13 years including $44 billion in and Tourism Council 2007b).As a result, pan have outspent the U.S. in infrastruc- 2005(National Tour Association 2007). the U.S. ranks 127 in predicted interna- ture investment for decades including tional tourist growth from 2005 to 2014, There is a world economy in tourism spending freely to maintain their beaches lagging countries such as Burkina Faso, as infrastructure investments.For example, that gives consumers ample choices and Bangladesh,and Laos that have few tour- Germany has spent about$3.3 billion over Produces stiffworldwide competition for ist attractions (World Travel and Tour- 40 years on shore protection to protect a tourists. If Florida beaches become run ism Council 2007b). coastline less than 5 percent the length of down,German tourists can choose Span- the U.S coast(Kelletat 1992).This is about ish beaches.If Hawaiian beaches decline, CONCLUSION five times corresponding U.S.expenditures Japanese tourists can choose Australia's Travel and tourism is America's lead- over the same period and about 25 to 50 Gold Coast.In fact,there is evidence that ing industry,employer,and earner of for- times a greater share of GDP (Houston international tourists are shifting away eign exchange; and beaches are 1995b)—or 500 to 1,000 times the GDP from the U.S. Waikiki beaches are se- America's leading tourist destination, per mile of coast.Japan's budget for shore verely eroded,and the number of Japa- Few Americans realize that beaches are protection and restoration has topped$1.5 nese tourists visiting Hawaii is down 36% a key driver of America's economy and billion in a single year(Marine Facilities from 1997 to 2006(Hawaii Department support U.S.competitiveness in a world Panel 1991).This is more spent in a single of Business, Economic Development, economy.Perhaps Americans do not ap- year than the U.S. spent in over 40 years and Tourism 2006).In contrast,the num- preciate the importance of tourism to the from about 1950 to 1990(U.S.Army Corps ber of international tourists visiting the national economy because 98 percent of of Engineers 1994). Spain with its exten- 5%restored beaches of Australia's Gold the 1.4-million tourism-related busi- sive beaches is a major tourism competi- Coast has been increasing by about 5 nesses in the United States are classified tor for the U.S. It conducted afve-year annually(Tourism Queensland 2007). as small businesses,and this makes the (U.S. program to both restore existing beaches This worldwide competition is well industry extremely fragmented anon and build new ones and spent more than recognized outside the U.S.For example, Travel and Tourism Administration the U.S. has spent for beach restoration Houston (1996) noted that in the mid- 1995).Lacking national advertising from over 40 years (Ministerio de Obras 1990s the U.S.spent only$16.3 million either this fragmented industry or a na- Publicas y Transportes 1993). in advertising to its international tourist tional travel office, the importance of markets, and this compared to Spain's travel and tourism to the national U.S BEGINNING TO LOSE LEAD $170 million in advertising(Washington economy has not been communicated to In the early 1990s the U.S.was domi- the American people.The conclusion one Post 1995). The U.S. ranks 33rd in the nant in world travel and tourism. The draws today is the same as that noted by Travel and Tourism Administration world in international tourism advertise- U.S. Houston (1995a),..Without a paradigm (1993) noted, "There is probably no ment, trailing Malaysia and Tunisia, shift in attitudes toward the economic country in the world that has a greater (Brooks 1995),spending lessthan 4/o of significance of travel and tourism and comparative advantage in tourism than what Greece spends and 5/o of what necessary infrastructure investment to the United States."The Wall Street Jour- Spain spends(National TourAssociation maintain and restore beaches, the U.S. 2007). India spends four times as much nal(1994)noted the U.S,domination of will relinquish a dominant worldwide world travel and tourism,saying the U.S. advertising to international tourists than lead in its most important industry." receives over 45 percent of the developed does the U.S.(National TourAssociation world's travel-and-tourism revenues and 2007).Ireland spent 180 times more per REFERENCES capita on tourism advertisement than the Associated Press 2007a."Factory Jobs:3 Million Lost 60 percent of its profits.However,when U.S(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Since 2000,"20 April 2007, a new Congress swept in in 1996,it abol- < http : //www. breitbart . com / fished the U.S. Travel and Tourism Ad- Administration 1998).However, even article.php?id-1)80KGR480&show article=l> this minimal U.S.spending of$16.3 mil- Associated Press 2007b. "U.S. tech trade deficit tops ministration,whose primary function was $1028 in '06," <http://www.usatoday.com/ marketing U.S. tourism internationally. lion on advertisement to international money/economy/2007-0 7- 17- g tourist markets was eliminated when 713215445_x.htm> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Balzer,S. 1998. "Congress weighs$I00M dowry for Administration(1998) noted as a result Congress abolished the U.S.Travel and U.S. tourism," The Business Journal, <http:// Tourism Administration in 1996. The phoenix.bcentral.com/phoenix/stories/1998/08/ of the abolishment, "The U.S. is (the) U.S.currently has no national) funded 17/story 7.html> only country in the developed world y y Brooks,B.1995."Interview with Professor Robert Bryer, without a government-funded National tourism advertising while countries such Florida State School of Business,"Florida Slaw g as Australia, Canada, France, Greece, limes,<http://www.fsu edu--fstime FSTimesNol- Tourism Office and(it)bodes badly for ume2/tssue1/ganda.html> Shore&Beach • Vol.76,No.3 • Summer 2008 Page 25 Bureau of Land Management 2007."Recreation and Visi- pan.J-(4),1-9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2001."Sandy Hook to for Services." <http://www.blm.gov/woist/en/ Marlowe,H. 1999."Assessing the Economic Benefits Barnegat Inlet,New Jersey Beach Erosion Con- prog/Recreation.i.html> of America's Coastal Regions," <http:/; trol Project. <http:/;www.nan.usace.arny.mil Business Week 2005."A New World Economy,The bal- w w w.c o a s t a I c o a I i t i o n.o r g%facts/ businessiprjlinks%coastal/seabrite/index.htm> ante of power will shift to the East as China and coastalregions.html> 1/SA Today 1993."More plan vacations this year,"Page India evolve," 22 August 2005, <http:// Ministerio de Obras Publicas y Transportes 1993. Dl, 17 March 1993. www.businessweek.com/magazine/content% "Recuperando La Costa,"Serie Monografias, U.S.Census Bureau 2007a."The 2007 Statistical Ab- 05 34/b394840I.htm> Centro de Publicaciones,Madrid,Spain. stract.Gross Domestic Product in Current and Real BusinessWire 2007."Leisure Travel expected to Grow Murley,J.F.,Alpert,L.,Matthews,M.J.,Bryk,C.,Woods, (2000) by Industry,"<http://www.census.gov/ Despite Economic Challenges in Year Ahead Ac- B.,and A.Grooms 2003.Economics of Florida's compendia/statab/tables/07s0649.xls> cording to 2007 National Leisure Travel Moni- Beaches, The Impact of Beach Restoration, U.S.Census Bureau 2007b."Exports of Goods by End- tor,"<http://eon.businesswire.com/releases/lei- Florida Atlantic University, Use Category and Commodity," <http:// sure/travel/prweb531002.htm> National Parks Conservation Association,2004."En- www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/ California Department of Boating and Waterways and dangered Rangers," <http://www.npca.org/ 2006pr/final_revisions/exh6.txt> State Coastal Conservancy 2002. "California what_w e_d o/visitor_experience/ U.S.Chamber of Commerce 2005."Impact of Travel& Beach Restoration Study,"January 2002,Sacra- endangeredrangers/> Tourism on the U.S.and State Economies,"<http:/ mento,CA, National Parks Conservation Association 2005."New /www.supporttravel.com/portal/travel/report/ <http://www.dbw.ca.gov/PDF/Reports/Beach Report/ Poll Says 3 in 5 Would Donate to National Parks uskey.htm> FUll.pdf% on their Federal Tax Returns, <http:// U.S.Department of Commerce 2006,"U.S.International Carlson WagonlitTravel Agent Poll,1998."Beach Blan- www.npca.org/media_center/press_releases/ Trade in Goods and Services,December,2006," ket Bingo," <http://www.carlsontravel.com/ 2005/page-27600601.html> <http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/interna- About Us/News Release/9801/980625.htm> National Association of State Park Directors 2007."State tional/trade/2007/pdf/trad1206.pdf> Chivas Poll 2001. "The best place to vacation is the Park Facts."<http:!/www.naspd.org/> U.S.Department of Commerce 2007."U.S.International beach," <http://www.chivas.com/polls% National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Travel and Tourism Balance of Trade,"<http:// vacation results.html> 1998."Promotion of International Tourism to the tinet.ita.doc.gov/outreachpages/ City of Miami Beach 2007."fourismOverview,"<http:/ United States,"<http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/ inbound.total_intl_travel_spending_1996- l www.miamibeachfl.gov/newcity/depts/econdev/ yoto/meeting/tour_rec 316.html> 2006.html> visitors%20Profile.asp> National Park Service 2006."Study:National Parks Huge U.S.Department of Labor 2006.Bureau of Labor Statis- Clean Beaches Council 2007."The Blue Wave Campaign, Economic Return on Investment"22 August 2006, tics, "NAIL 31-33: Manufacturing." <http:// Promoting Clean and Safe Beaches," <htlp:// <http://home.nps.gov/applications/release/ www.bls.goviiag/manufacturing.htn> www.cleanbeaches.org/bluewave/bluewave.cfm> Detail.cfin?ID"685> U.S.Department of Labor 2007.Bureau of Labor Statis- Hall,C. and Staimer, M. 1995. "Concerns about the National Park Service 2007a. "2006 Recreation Visi- tics.'inflation Calculator,"<_http://www.bls.govi coast,-USA Today,Page IA,9 August 1995. tors Ranked by Number of Visitors," cpi/> Hawaii Department of Business,Economic Development. <www2.nature.nps.gov/statsiranked2006.pdf> U.S.Travel and Tourism Administration 1991"World and Tourism 2006. <hawaii.govidbedt/info/visi- National Park Service 20076. "National Park Service Tourism at the Millennium."U.S.Department ofCom- tor-stats/HAWAII HISTORICAL 2006.xls> Budget History,"<http://home.nps.gov/applica- merce,April 1993,97 pp. Holecek,D.P.1995."Tourism,"Special Report 76,Michi- I i o n s/b u d g e t 2/d o c u m e n t s/ U.S.Travel and Tourism Administration 1994."impact gan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan tenyear_budget_history.pdf- of International Visitor Spending on State Econo- State University, <http://www.msue.msu.edu! New York Times 2007."The Search for Sand is No Day at mien."U.S.Department of Commerce,December msue/imp/modsr/04089576.html> the Beach," 16 September 2007, <http:// 1994. Hotel-online 1998. "Increased Pressure on National travel.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/travel! U.S.Travel and Tourism Administration 1995."Travel Promotional Budgets," <http://www.hotel- I6heads.html?pagewanted=print> Outlook Forum.Forging New Strategies in Tour- online.com/Neo/News/PressReleases1998 4th/ National Tour Association 2007."The Case for a Cabi- ism Research."U.S.Department of Commerce,17 Nov98 PATA.html> net-Level Tourism Department in the United States October 1995. Houston,J.R.I995a."The Economic Value of Beaches," Federal Government," <http:// Wall Street Journal 1994."The Other American Dream The CERCular,Coastal Engineering Research www.ntaonline.com/doc_lib/ Team,"15 February 1994. Center,Waterways Experiment Station,Vol.CERC- caseforcabinetleveltourism.pdf> Washington Post 1995."Chefs Bemoan a Reduction in 95-4,Dec 1995,1-4. PRNewswire 2005."Cost-effective R&D Outsourcing Their Favorite Deduction," Page D4, I I April Houston,J.R. I995b. "Beach Nourishment,"Coastal Attracts Global Pharmaceutical Industry to India 1995. Forum.Shore&Beach,63(1).21-24. and China,"<http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/ Washingtonpost.com: Poll 2001."Where do you like Houston, J.R. 1996. "International Tourism &U.S. news/release?id=152432> to spend your spring vacation," Beaches,"Store&Beach,64(2),34. Reuters 2006. "Green pay, Not Crops Subsidies, US <www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/education/ Houston,J.R.2002."The Economic Value of Beaches- Activists Ask,"May 9,2006. kidspost/poll/> 2002 Update,"Shore&Beach,70(1),9-12. Stronge,W.B.2000."The Economic Benefits of Florida's Wiegel,R.L.1992,"Dade County,Florida,Beach Nour- International Monetary Fund 2007. <http:// Beaches: Local, State and National Impacts." ishment and Hurricane Surge Study,"Shore& www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/ <http://www.coastalcoalition.org/ACCarticles/ Beach 60(4),2-26. weodata/index.aspx> stronge.htm> World Almanac 2007.Funk&Wagnalls Corp.,Mahwah, Kelletat, D. 1992. "Coastal Erosion and Protection Theme Park insider 2005."Disney Slams Universal in New Jersey. Measures at the German North Sea Coast,"J. 2005 Theme Park Attendance," <http:// World Travel and Tourism Council 2007a."Executive Coastal Res.,8(3),699-711. www.themeparkinsidercom/flume/200512/2/> Summary,The 2007 Travel and Tourism Economic King,P.1999."The Fiscal Impact of Beaches in Califor- Travel Industry Association 2007.Return on Investment, Research,"<http://www.wttc.travel/bin/pdf/temp; nia."Public Research Institute,University of San <http://www.tia.orglpressmedia/TWFA/roi.html> executivesumnary2007.html> Francisco, <http://online.sfsu.edu/-pgking! TripAdvisor 2007."TripAdvisor Survey Reveals Soar- World Travel and Tourism Council 20076."The 2007 handouts/thefiscalimpactofbeaches.pdf:. ing Fuel Costs Won't Slow Travelers Down This 'Travel and Tourism Economic Research,"<http:// King, P. and D. Symes 2003. "The Potential Loss in Summer," <http://www.tripadvisor.com/ www.wttc.travel/bin/pdf/original_pdf_file/ Gross National Product and Gross State Product PressCenter-i82-c 1-Press Releases.html> world.pdf> from a Failure to Maintain California's Beaches," U.S.Army Corps of Engineers 1994."Shoreline Protec- Zukin,C.1998."The Shore-Looking up(Save the Beach San Francisco State University, <http:!/ Lion and Beach Erosion Control Study, Phase I: Passes).The Star-Ledger/Eagleton-Rutgers Poll, userwww.sfsu.edu/-pgking/pubpol.htm> Cost Comparison of Shoreline Protection Projects <http://slerp.rutgers.edu/releases/119_3.htm> Marine Facilities Panel 1991.U.S.Japan Wind and Seis- of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,"Water Re- mic Effects Panel,17th Joint Meeting,Tokyo,Ja- sources Support Center,Washington,D.C.,USA. Page 26 Shore&Beach • Vol.76, No.3 • Summer 2008 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-1 New Business 1 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommend that the CAC recommend approval of the revised 10 year - Fund 195 Master Plan. OBJECTIVE: CONSIDERATIONS: At the October 13, 2011 the CAC requested a review of the 10- year Master Plan with the objective to defer, combine or eliminate potential projects due to funding constraints. A revised 10-year master plan dated October 31, 2011 is attached and has incorporated the following changes: 1. Advances Wiggins Pass channel straightening project to FY 12/13. T his eliminates $50K in engineering for FY 11/12 and also a $7 50K maintenance dredge in FY 12/13. 2. Moves Clam Pass dredging out till FY14/15. ( Tidal flushing needs to sets trigger). 3. Moves Doctors Pass dredging out to FY14/15 and potentially combines with Clam Pass. 4. Uses Caxambas Pass as the sand source for the FY 12/13 Marco Island Sand Source and eliminates the need for dredging Caxambas Pass for this cycle. 5. Eliminates the Vista Emergency Truck haul project scheduled for FY11/12 and accomplishes with 13/14 renourishment. 6. Splits Marco design into the beaches ($150K) in FY 11/12 and the structure rebuild ($100K) in FY 12/13. 7. Splits Marco Renourishment in FY12/13 for $1,800K; Structure rebuild in 13/14 for $1,200K and eliminates an erosion control structure from the scope $700,000. 8. Eliminates Laser Grading at a price of$20K. With these changes and no Federal or State funding, staff is predicting a $5,000K shortfall in FY 13/14 with a $20,000K major beach renourishment project. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of these changes to the 10 year master Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: The Source of funds is from Category "A" Tourist Development Tax fund. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been r eviewed and appr oved by the County Attorney's Office. This item is not quasi-judicial, and as such ex parte disclosure is not required. This item requires majority vote only. This item is legally sufficient for Board action. - CMG CAC November 10,2011 VIII-1 New Business 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the CAC recommend approval of the revised 10 year- Fund 195 Master Plan. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, CZM Director . p Q p q w • ° ° s sssei essssess s$ gsg ss g §isps8 g 48 ° 01 § Ii § F. § 8°§880 .▪ •� ad O 8 S A 8 8 ,n N r 2„,„4,,,,r;,,,.4,,,,,, P O 5,N Vi O 1 a0 a0 C al;1 Y) 8 .ti .y.7 O O S 84 G VI �O O O N h v 00 N b a0 °' O .C. 0T0 N .t5 M N b O� l� a00 0�0 '' O < P M N 0 r n eq r 0 N V N n iy O N ... n .:N ni N N - tii .. Ni V) ... ..+r -y, 0 ; N :°• oal C'b' r m' ei e: D F 4' F V, N F N A'... n .---. o o e 0 0 0 0 0 e e e e o C A. 0 1 a q k k S Q k k o R q g § 010 ° Q o g g g F . r o 0 0 0 D a 1NN ^ 8 ' Fe E E. ER qp A 'iN '9+ ri ;in' <ro 3 00 oto 000'-0 a � N h. N v " N h a 8 N nON v N C 6, * a N- �i ? CO vi A 6. s N O O O O § § C0 § a3 Q q O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 8 . 8 N O O O o $ g N Q 0 8o 0 8 8> ,- N N , 1 Ne a 9 8 = N E , $ e e, P a v v tp t�4 n °, 0°84 r.g N 0 R N v g n N N N O 0N} N ya. , .. - , T r M N .. o e g e e e Q e e Q O g 4 s Q k $ $ 8 g $ k Q g o $ $ 8 - Q -40 O 0 g o k g Q M . 00 0S g o 2. N giri 0 3 N8O0N$ v O°tn 9 Q 1 s n 14 F. n 1 0 cl- `"e $ :- 4 2 w $ �N r r -_ d. a _ y y W O P9 N 1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 o Q O Qg g 0 0 0 O O 0 ° $ _ 85 y � g gN M ,aoo0o00 Mp - h N M 06 yj'q"' rj 006.460 t0 F. v ... N C N O O N V P 4. °N, a N-. ,..1 goo th a tL 6. 4. o o § 8 O QQ 00000 0 gg QQ gg gg Q p pq O Q p 8 Q o O o Q O O O a < a 0 0 i f 8 E 1 O a g S e N. r a H S _ O in N r O O O O S O • 1• 9i $ f.,-..,,i',..,614 v r° td 3 e ^NN� ,. vi- = 00040 `& z N .Nw N a ei .M. to N N NON V N Z } N y N O y A. . o 4. fa' i, W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 Q Q k ° F. qpg�� Q 0 0 0 4 0 & 188 § k § § 5 8a1 k a 8 k8 8 '9i h °0010000 i o - ryi pp 0 0 0 o 7 ti ° S . m b r h _ .. r 2 �' N N N i 2 �+ $0 0 V O V O. N l o v .. N 8 .i N naN t�v • } ...5'. N N to LL0 . 0 „, g.. . . 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n gg 8 � 8 8 � 8 8 � � „ 8so800 44r5. t _irj sA S .t '� r to "1. o0 g.c s ds b _ _ a N th �p, a „eg8484 lD N N )- ti fya. O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o O O O O §°8§88 U' 0- pg § Ii & 81. § 1 § k § kg, §8 $' $§ t �i . § 88 89P' E e 0 0 W Pi $ 4 s r $ S w 2 ; - 04, .�. 9.., E o� .'Yj °: 4 ,4 N �N°'N p 0 4 p v f- N N ^1 N N N 4 N ., v = N in P t- G N V A Q th 8 `o to N U >. 4 t N N 4 t0 M ei . u.U o o Q o 0 0 o Q e Q o Q q 1 g o k g Q 8 k Q g g Q Q $ $ Q g.. Q Mks.o O g y e S 8 8 'A PC E, 8 8 g 8( k : .1T..i3e � r - 0, N9E $ 257: i7 ? - 1 s''� , N $645id N v .N. r N N n0� N N - N 0' N N N in V M h t}r. } t N D. •- L. It. �))h ° ° ° ° ° ° e ° O O O O o O O Q Q O p 8Q „ Q N� g -..4. $, 8 g pg �i as as Oa 8 8 'n °0°0 0 top p0 $ 3 .R N n g y - 0 , b r t'9, . N S-1 ^ O r �yi 5 a^k P SI S-1 "° rr"1 00 5 8°o A O p N ,i.. N b eeVV 11 'rt N ° `N' N` N N C O -......0. �,pi. } N. y 0 r N a y N N 0 0 ' 0. g. N {y e e 1 e e e a. °' eeee "'e a i. tuev � inn 5 °o a " 9 P. 111 Em 6 e u mm0NC o) • m m'PO'GOno 0 s a° 0 v 0 g c * * a p b $ o a 8 o n p c 9 Z Z Z 3 m 0 8 8 0 "2 "g $ $ F' 8 a e e a C r F o E E f z g e b6 `;', -- F V m n < a 0 0 S : v o y Z Lai Y 3 F-',2 ",', .:2 =' U 'fi L'.12; 8 L b � D C D C 8 °'8 ° 3 C rr, a F ° to °' i rn Y �° m G7 < CC CC cC u e 0 • E y e n .. w IL1i1 `u i'1i Uw y o . y�u < y U E..' w `e E E E a rn E 'O yt gg V.5 V C a � -e aE a Q > > o fi a � � Q t � �e a 1,4 a < F VF°. c E , E N00 ca .7 c 1A ai L. C 0 � coVO to CJ a V e O LL Cu ,L �' a .� ce E s `o !/� m« K ▪ - c 8 a U s fs E.E o s re 5 to a 8 w „ Q '� °� a K U m.. d :: w o m s w° o l-H m a . .6 z W z = ? m Z o • •i X w 1 m .44 rt t E a Z 'Pi E > y CA > W 0�. 0 umi F- �� at w" mod w � a _ =tar: °o� t: Z Z � a ce 0 m 000. e a U t- v ^ o W W ` V u m w a eo 'Z' v U ' G, g Gra r W 9 0 ,�' i F' 'aa m 3 m d kl�"-G6 w C>. O 't t .33 . �. a U U a t F 64 I Di H O I CAC November 10,2011 VIII-2 New Business 1 of 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommend that the CAC appoint a three-member subcommittee made up of members of the CAC to review, analyze and recommend to the CAC on matters concerning the straightening of the Wiggins Pass Channel. OBJECTIVE: Recommend that the CAC appoint a three-member subcommittee made up of members of the CAC to review, analyze and recommend to the CAC on matters concerning the straightening of the Wiggins Pass Channel. CONSIDERATIONS: After a period of contract and permit concerns along with the completion and analysis of geotechnical borings, staff is recommending that the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee be reconvened with a modified approach. Over the past year, public concerns have been voiced that the working group does not fully represent the interest of the entire community. To rectify this, Staff is recommending that: 1. A three member CAC subcommittee be established made up of members of the CAC. Only this three member committee will vote on and make recommendations to the CAC. 2. As before, all meetings will be noticed with the general public encouraged to attend. The Chairman of the subcommittee will establish rules for public participation into subcommittee agenda items. 3. This approach follows the approach that was used for the Clam Bay Subcommittee. 4. The advantage of this approach is that subcommittee members do not need to be appointed by the BCC and public meeting can begin as soon as public notice has been established. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff is recommending this approach. FISCAL IMPACT: The Source of funds is from Category "A" Tourist Development Tax. 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: Recommend that the CAC appoint a three-member subcommittee made up of members of the CAC to review, analyze and recommend to the CAC on matters concerning the straightening of the Wiggins Pass Channel. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, CZM Director CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3 New Business 1 of 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommend that the CAC review and approval the Conceptual Design and Modeling report for Marco Island Beach renourishment program. OBJECTIVE: Recommend that the CAC review and approval the Conceptual Design and Modeling report for Marco Island Beach renourishment program. CONSIDERATIONS: The Marco Island Conceptual Design and Modeling Report is complete. CAC review and approval is requested. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff is recommending approval of this report. FISCAL IMPACT: The Source of funds is from Category "A" Tourist Development Tax fund. 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: Recommend that the CAC review and approval the Conceptual Design and Modeling report for Marco Island Beach renourishment program. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 1 of 70 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND NUMERICAL MODEL ANALYSIS OF SOUTH MARCO ISLAND EROSION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES FINAL REPORT ' .. -, ' '. .-..;:".-f ' V.,,- - -:"?''.., ,;.4 ,-26'.,:1*.;:. ,,,' ' :lir. :-, a � • i• i s 4 t . 3 ,r s - d -. �� a tt } 1st ? - . v vim . 7• bt 4 4 .' ,„ .p a , ti, -. . } +aq '. $- 9 r e' .� � ° x _a r a; ci �• . ►, tea, �� a wtir3 Prepared for: Collier County Coastal Zone Management 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 103 Naples,FL 34112-5746 October 31,2011 CEC File No. 10.094 lipCOASTAL a COASTAL TECH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS `�°"'`AL TIC""�`O°' "°" INC CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 2 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 SCOPE OF WORK 1 3 PLAN FORMULATION 4 3.1 South Beach History 4 3.2 Historic Volume and Shoreline Change 5 3.3 Beach Fill Performance 7 3.4 Borrow Area Screening 8 3.4.1 Preliminary Investigation 9 3.4.2 Compatibility Analysis 9 3.4.3 Borrow Area Accessibility and Volume 10 3.4.4 Summary 11 3.5 Structural Alternatives Screening 11 4 NUMERICAL MODELING STUDY 12 4.1 Objectives 12 4.2 Input Data 13 4.2.1 Bathymetry 13 4.2.2 Structures 13 4.2.3 Sediment 13 4.2.4 Water Level 13 4.2.5 Waves 13 4.2.6 Wind 15 4.2.7 Current Velocity 15 4.3 Model Calibration 15 4.3.1 Calibration Details 15 4.3.2 Calibration Modeling Using MIKE21 16 4.3.3 Calibration Modeling Using Delft3D 20 4.3.4 Calibration Summary 22 4.4 Model Validation 22 4.4.1 Model Validation Details 22 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 3 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 4.4.2 Validation Modeling Using MIKE21 23 4.4.3 Validation Modeling Using Delft3D 239 4.4.4 Validation Summary 35 5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 36 5.1 Performance Analysis 36 5.1.1 Modeled Alternatives and Objectives 36 5.1.2 Model Results: Morphology Change Analysis 42 5.1.3 Model Results: Shoreline Change Analysis 45 5.1.4 Model Results: Volume Change Analysis 46 5.1.5 Model Results: Design Fill Performance Analysis 47 5.1.6 Model Results: Alternatives Performance Analysis Summary 49 5.2 Fiscal Analysis 49 5.2.1 Construction Budgets 49 5.2.2 Benefit to Cost Analysis 52 6 ANALYSIS OF ADDITIONAL GROIN BENEFITS 52 7 REFINEMENT OF GROIN LOCATION and DESIGN 53 7.1 Revised Alternative 3 53 7.1.1 Design Details and Objectives 53 7.1.2 Model Results: Morphology Change Analysis 54 7.1.3 Model Results: Shoreline Change Analysis 55 7.1.4 Model Results: Volume Change Analysis 57 7.1.5 Model Results: Design Fill Performance Analysis 57 7.1.6 Model Results: Beach Fill Width Sustainability Analysis 60 7.2 Summary 61 8 INCREMENTAL BEACH MANAGEMENT APPROACH 62 9 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION 62 10 REFERENCES 644 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 4 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report List of Figures Figure 1. Location Map 2 Figure 2. South Marco Island Beach Restoration Area 3 Figure 3. South Marco Island Historic Shoreline Change Rates 6 Figure 4. South Marco Island Historic Volume Change Rates. 8 Figure 5. Measured Morphologic Changes between October 1999 and October 2001. 14 Figure 6. MIKE21 Computation Grid. 17 Figure 7. MIKE21 Modeled Morphologic Changes between Oct. 1999 and Jan. 2001 with Volumetric Change Rates. 18 Figure 8. Delft3D Computation Grid. 20 Figure 9. Delft3D Modeled Morphologic Changes between Oct. 1999 and Sep. 2001 with Volumetric Changes 21 Figure 10. Location Map of Instrument Deployment 23 Figure 11. Wave Height-Measured vs. Modeled MIKE21 24 Figure 12. Wave Period-Measured vs. Modeled MIKE21. 25 Figure 13. Wave Direction-Measured vs. Modeled MIKE21. 26 Figure 14. Wave Roses-Measured vs. Modeled MIKE21. Wave Direction Convention Defined as Follows: 270-Degree Direction Denotes Waves from West to East, 180-Degree Direction Denotes Waves from South to North. 27 Figure 15. Current Magnitude-Measured vs. Modeled MIKE21. 28 Figure 16. Current Rose-Measured vs. Modeled MIKE21. Current Direction Convention Defined as Follows: 270-Degree Direction Denotes Currents from East to West, 180- Degree Direction Denotes Currents from North to South. 29 Figure 17. Wave Height-Measured vs. Modeled DeIft3D. 30 Figure 18. Wave Period-Measured vs. Modeled DeIft3D 31 Figure 19. Wave Direction-Measured vs. Modeled Delft3D. 32 Figure 20. Wave Roses-Measured vs. Modeled Delft3D. Wave Direction Convention Defined as Follows: 270-Degree Direction Denotes Waves from West to East, 180-Degree Direction Denotes Waves from South to North. 33 Figure 21. Current Magnitude-Measured vs. Modeled Delft3D. 34 iii CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 5 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Figure 22. Current Rose-Measured vs. Modeled Delft3D. Current Direction Convention Defined as Follows: 90-Degree Direction Denotes Currents from West to East, 180- Degree Direction Denotes Currents from North to South. 35 Figure 23. Alternative 1: Permitted Beach Fill Plan. 37 Figure 24. Alternative 1: Permitted Beach Fill Typical Section. 37 Figure 25. Alternative 2: Permitted Beach Fill with Feeder Beach Plan. 38 Figure 26. Alternative 2: Permitted Beach Fill with Feeder Beach Typical Section. 38 Figure 27. Alternative 3: Permitted Beach Fill with Additional Groin Plan (Groin Width is Exaggerated for Exhibit Purposes). 39 Figure 28. Alternative 3: Conceptual Groin Profile. 40 Figure 29. Alternative 3: Conceptual Groin Section 40 Figure 30. Alternative 4: Permitted Beach Fill with Additional Breakwater Plan 41 Figure 31. Alternative 4: Breakwater Conceptual Design Profile 42 Figure 32. Alternative 4: Breakwater Conceptual Design Section. 42 Figure 33. Alternative 1 vs. Alternative 2 Morphologic Change Comparison. 43 Figure 34. Alternative 1 vs. Alternative 3 Morphologic Change Comparison (Groin Width is Exaggerated for Exhibit Purposes). 44 Figure 35. Alternative 1 vs. Alternative 4 Morphologic Change Comparison. 45 Figure 36. Shoreline Change Analysis. 46 Figure 37. Design Beach Fill Volume% Remaining within Beach Fill Template at R-147. 48 Figure 38. Design Beach Fill Volume %Remaining within Beach Fill Template at R-148. 48 Figure 39. Design Beach Fill Volume%Remaining within Beach Fill Template at G-2. 49 Figure 40. Design Beach Fill Width %Remaining at R-147, R-148 and G-2. 53 Figure 41. Alternative 3-R: Permitted Beach Fill with Revised Additional Groin Plan. 54 Figure 42. Alternative 1-R vs. Alternative 3-R Morphologic Change Comparison (Groin Width is Exaggerated for Exhibit Purposes) 55 Figure 43. Shoreline Change Comparison Analysis Between Alternatives 1-R and 3-R(Groin Width is Exaggerated for Exhibit Purposes) 56 Figure 44. Design Beach Fill Volume %Remaining within Beach Fill Template at R-147. 58 Figure 45. Design Beach Fill Volume% Remaining within Beach Fill Template at R-148. 59 Figure 46. Design Beach Fill Volume% Remaining within Beach Fill Template at G-2. 60 Figure 47. Design Beach Fill Width % Remaining at R-147, R-148 and G-2. 61 iv CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 6 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Historic Shoreline Change Rates at MHW. 5 Table 2. Summary of Historic Volumetric Change Rates. 7 Table 3. Borrow Area Sediment Characteristics. 9 Table 4. Summary of Borrow Area Screening. 11 Table 5. Historic vs. MIKE21 Modeled Volume Change Rates. 19 Table 6. Historic vs. MIKE21 Modeled Shoreline Changes at MHW. 19 Table 7. Historic vs. Delft3D Modeled Volume Change Rates. 20 Table 8. Historic vs. Modeled Volume Changes for all Alternatives. 47 Table 9. Alternative 1 Construction Budget 50 Table 10. Alternative 2 Construction Budget 50 Table 11. Alternative 3 Construction Budget 51 Table 12. Alternative 4 Construction Budget 51 Table 13. Summary of Planning Level Construction Budgets. 52 Table 14. Historic vs. Modeled Volume Changes for Alternatives 0, 1-R, and 3-R. 57 v CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 7 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 1 INTRODUCTION Marco Island is the largest barrier island within Southwest Florida's Ten Thousand Island area. It is located in Collier County, Florida along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Its beach spans from Big Marco Pass on the north end to Caxambas Pass on the south end and is the most popular attraction for the island residents and visitors. A location map of the Project area is presented in Figure 1. According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP, 2011), the beach segment between R-143 and R-148 on the southern end of Marco Island is designated as critically eroded (Figure 2). Based upon historical shoreline and volumetric change studies conducted by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. (CEC) and observations made by Collier County Coastal Zone Management (CZM) staff, there is localized erosion of the dry beach approximately 2,000 feet in length extending from R-147 to G-2. This corresponds to the only public beach access with adequate parking in south Marco Island. Tropical Storm Fay severely eroded this beach when it made landfall in August 2008. Collier County was successful in obtaining federal disaster assistance to restore this beach to offset the storm losses. Seventy-seven thousand (77,000) cubic yards of beach fill were authorized as defined in FEMA Project Worksheet, Declaration No. I785DRFL for an estimated total project cost of$2.8 million dollars. As part of the County's comprehensive beach and inlet management approach, CEC, along with their partner Coastal Technology Corporation, was awarded a contract to develop the conceptual design for the next scheduled renourishment cycle for South Marco Island Beach Renourishment Project currently scheduled for 2013. The primary purposes of the Project are to restore storm protection, natural resource habitats, and recreational beach areas to offset the storm damage caused by Tropical Storm Fay and background erosion due to the coastal forcing functions. The consulting team is also tasked with a numerical model study and analysis of an additional structural alternative that could compliment the upcoming renourishment and future projects by extending the Project life and addressing the localized erosion of the dry beach in a cost effective manner. 2 SCOPE OF WORK This report summarizes shoreline and volumetric changes between R-143 and G-2 based on monitoring survey data obtained from the County and FDEP and presents a numerical modeling study that was performed to evaluate erosion control alternatives. The historic data were used to calibrate the model while additional survey, hydrodynamic, and wave data were collected for model validation. Documented herein are the conceptual design details for each alternative, including beach fill volume, material quantities for structures, and borrow area screening. The numerical modeling study calibration, validation, and results are represented. An alternatives analysis was performed to compare and contrast the alternatives in terms of performance and planning level construction budgets. A summary of the work performed along with recommendations to complete the conceptual design and select the preferred alternative conclude the report. CAC November 10,2011 VW-3-a New Business 8 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report allt COMM omullii"umrir Igo jr, 9 ow 0. Hziaaarrfousqj CI =MT COWRY --. COLUIll COTINIT , COLLIER COUNTY 110.° I 0 ,t....4, 0 ' a h . c \ist *..4 ‘40y ,.... ,., R I AV') tVILLTER CcganT MARCO ISLAND somaiimaiTr A1RAL PHOTOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM GOGGLE EARTH, DATED 2008. 4 )fa BIG MARCO PASS r BORROW AREA .. mARCO \II,S IAND SOUTH MARCO BEACH PI L AREA --'---.. 1 ...f:AXAMI3AS PASS ...- . EXISTING ,,,' ,/ BREAKWATERS , KW , / ISLAND CAXAMBAS PASS .„,' i; BORROW AREA CAPE ROMANO CAPE ROMANO SAND RESOURCE AREAS \ t immins. e•— •31.11Y 0 10,000 20,000 40,000 OF MEXICO SCALE: 1" = 20,000' Figure 1. Location Map 2 South Marco Island CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 9 of 70 Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report - , los.4 . 4,:4•11:14:,...;„„,..i1c- ii- x,�� ? .s '^4 ''ir A ' . , X' � a Als$1s,' iirrii,i..‘,. s ,, , +'S, _ "' f . * s °, ',C. " ' '' , r, 0. 3 I ` vox_; „'ate. k� r Figure 2. South Marco Island Beach Restoration Area 3 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 10 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 3 PLAN FORMULATION 3.1 South Beach History Marco Island is a low, wave-built, sandy barrier island aligned with the regional coastline. Its arcuate shoreline varies from a northwesterly orientation along its northern segment to a north- south orientation along its southern segment. The average elevation on the island is generally less than 10 feet. The island lies between the Big Marco — Capri Pass dual inlet system to the north and Caxambas Pass to the south. South of Caxambas Pass is Kice Island, an uninhabited barrier island. Further to the south and east lie the Ten Thousand Islands and Cape Romano, the end of the Florida Gulf Coast barrier island chain. Today the beachfront is almost completely developed with multi-story condominiums and hotels. For centuries, Caxambas Pass was utilized for fishing, shelling, and marine transport by the native Calusa to the early white settlers in Collier County with little, if any, impact to the inlet. Severe erosion on Marco Island in the 1970's and 1980's concurrent with increased development on Marco Island led to an assessment of beach and inlet processes at Caxambas Pass. Between 1926 and 1952, no measurable changes in the tide-dominated inlet configuration were observed. With its two shallow ebb channels, Caxambas Pass remained in a relatively stable position over the 26-year period. The ebb delta shoals acted to store southerly-directed sediments in the wide, shallow offshore platform. This storage area provided a feeder deposit that nourished the central and southern Marco Island beaches during periods of northerly-directed transport. Marco Island was a balanced system under these conditions. The inlet shoals served to modify wave patterns and store sediment moving under nearly equal longshore energy flux from north to south (Stephen, 1981). Federal military activity led to the first significant and influential use and development of South Beach. Seawall construction by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Navy between 1958 and 1959 replaced the natural sandy flow boundary at the southern end of Marco Island with a concrete structure. The close proximity of the seawall to the level of high tide swash had an immediate impact on the shoreline. Sand was deflected and transported south, overnourishing the updrift side of the ebb delta. During this period, an approximate 2,500-foot long intertidal spit was formed trailing south from the seawall. This spit redirected flow from Caxambas Pass and caused the ebb channels to empty due south. Westerly tidal currents were completely blocked by sediment bypassing the seawall. Sediment transport from the rapidly eroding beachfront continued to deposit on the ebb tidal delta shoals. It is postulated that the spit was breached during severe storms between 1967 and 1968. Concurrently, a new tidal channel was opened adjacent to the seawall at the location of the breach. Between 1967 and 1976, over 300 feet of erosion occurred along the southern 2,000 feet of Marco Island's shoreline. In order to restore the integrity and stability of the barrier beach and inlet system and to maintain it that way, in the mid 1980's the County embarked on a long-term management plan of Marco Island and Caxambas Pass to address the anthropogenic influences that led to the significant beach erosion. The design goal was to reorient Marco Island's shoreline to its equilibrium orientation and restore the pass to a tide dominant inlet (CEC, 1996). The first step was to construct a rock revetment adjacent to the seawall to reduce reflected wave energy, and allow natural beach recovery. In 1990-1991, the next step was implemented. Specifically, Marco Island's South Beach was restored through a major beach nourishment project. Approximately 4 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 11 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 575,000 cubic yards of sand were placed along approximately 6,000 feet of shoreline north of Caxambas Pass to restore the shoreline to its pre-1958 position. Two short terminal rock groins were constructed perpendicular to the seawall to reduce rapid end losses at the southern end of the fill and help reorient the shoreline. The groins were long enough to hold the profile on their updrift side, but of insufficient length to maintain the desired dry beach width in front of the seawall several hundred feet further to the north (CEC, 1991). In 1996, the third step was implemented via constructing three detached breakwaters approximately 600 feet seaward of the seawall. The breakwaters were designed to create a salient along the shoreline by managing wave energy and reduce sand losses into Caxambas Pass. It was anticipated these structures would provide wave sheltering, perch the beach fill, prevent re- exposure of the seawall, and preclude wave reflection (CEC, 1997). South Beach was first renourished in 1997 when approximately 80,000 cubic yards were dredged from Caxambas Pass and placed on the beach between R-144.5 and the north terminal groin, G-2 (CEC, 1998). The second renourishment project, constructed between November 2006 and January 2007, included the placement of approximately 176,000 cubic yards of material on the beaches of South Marco Island. The beach fill spanned approximately 4,400 feet of shoreline beginning at R-144 south to G-2 (H&M, 2008). 3.2 Historic Volume and Shoreline Change Bathymetric/topographic survey data collected between 1990 and 2009 and published in several monitoring reports including Taylor Engineering (Taylor, 2003), Taylor (2005), and Coastal Planning and Engineering (CP&E, 2010) were used to analyze and compute historic volume and shoreline changes. Table 1 and Figure 3 present a summary of historic shoreline change rates at Mean High Water (MHW) within the Project area for four periods between 1991 and 2009. Tropical Storm Gabrielle impacted the Collier County coastline, making landfall in Venice on September 14, 2001, thus the 1997-2002 rates include the effects of this storm. Tropical Storm Fay impacted the Collier County coastline, making landfall in Naples on August 19, 2008, thus the 2007-2009 rates include the effects of this storm. Table 1. Summary of Historic Shoreline Change Rates at MHW. 1991-19961' . 2009t"1997-2002" 2002-2004" - 2007-2009t MON. (ft/yr) (ft/yr) (ft/yr) r (ft/yr) R143 ,0 1.1 3 5.6 -8.3 u 8.0 R144 ." w -6.1 m 1.4 -3.7 6.7 cti R145 G7 0 .0 -4.2 m o w -0.1 -0.9 4.5 R 146 a `4 v -4.8 -9.9 -6.9 c 2.9 R147 - -20.6 �; y -10.7 -6.8 -18.5 R148 U -36.0 U -17.4 5.2 N -25.8 Ch G2 N/A 1..4 -6.1 4.5 0.4 t Taylor(2003),tt Taylor(2005),ttt CP&E(2010) N/A denotes Not Available 5 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 12 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report pp COG STARING , - , — CONSULTANTS �.: � ., R-'144' ; ---f— 1991�6 a F � ' mot. I _ °,.-.....===° 1997.02 I —+— 2007-09 , ill f' " 4 `. „ gig `;1 1 '-',..-- '---°-•,'-'-,,,;"-;',„1,,:''',i,...."....;'!:::,:::::.i,';',,,,,',.::''„' ' , ,'''''--- ''''''',- .,,j!, ' ...,,,,,,E1 j R-143 i. i b . ,., R-146 i ` g�° f " 4 vrA., ��b , li.i:';',4 ‘..:'?;..F..!.li::::::::>; '.:?1,\t,,....'''.....45:!..)::!il-- ' '-0:- : ':''?!=?.°'''ll '''''' x t ::.!..4..:',.]::•';'5,..'',',''''. •:'''..•..-'.71''.'. ' '''.." " . ----, :. t - g R.147 & ' f qs \o „.::::,..,,,, :-.:: ... ,. , ..,... - ..'.•.:' ..44o,•41 ' 'i''...,'g 3 ", I� R-148 rY '^a `ro Y,,.„y»`4 ° .:: ®.' `' � -_,4•10 ° Q g 2•3:4„..,. .� 4 a o a o • 1 c•1 rA S 0 C M N r �iiiiliiiiliiiiliiii iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil i.,... : = .. Shoreline Change Rate(ftlyr) File No 10.094 Oct 26,2010 � � ' � � File Name l0094�Histortic-Shorlelinee Volume langeAnalysisl '' ,,,,,,,,:r:: . ,' z' bu Figure 3. South Marco Island Historic Shoreline Change Rates. 6 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 13 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report A comparison analysis of the pre-breakwater, 1991-1997, and post-breakwater, 1997-2002, periods indicates that after the installation of the three breakwaters, the shoreline erosion between R-147 and R-148 reduced by approximately 50%. Further, the zone in which the erosional trend occurred along the shoreline moved south from the shoreline segment between R- 143 and R-144 to the segment between R-144 and R-145. An analysis of the 2007-2009 period indicates that the point moved even further south to the segment between R-146 and R-147, however, the rate of erosion at R-147 and R-148 increased by 73% and 48%, respectively. The post-breakwater-installation erosion rates reduced compared to the pre-breakwater-installation erosion rates, indicating the structures have positively benefited the Marco Island South Beach Project area. However,the localized erosion south of R-147 continues. Table 2 and Figure 4 present a summary of historic volumetric change rates within the Project area for the same periods. Table 2. Summary of Historic Volumetric Change Rates. Effective Dist! 1991- �, - 1997- 2002- 2007- (ft) 19961 200211. 200411 2009111. Mon. ' (cy/yr) (cy/yr) (cy/yr) .z (cy/yr) R143 1,080 -1,300 8,900 -1,200 3,600 ej 44 R144 1,050 o 44 -3,900 tq °� 5,300 600 1,900 R145 993 - -3,600 a 3,900 -3,300 4,800 R146 964 ° -3,100 '4 c4 -1,100 -10,400 eI4 3,400 R147 926 .. -11,500 a. y -400 -7,200 °c -4,400 R148 428 -10,400 5 -1,400 800 -4,800 G-2 45 N/A 0 -800 500 t Taylor(2003),tt Taylor(2005),ttt CP&E(2010) N/A denotes Not Available During the pre-breakwater period, 1991-1997, the segment between R-144 and R-148 was losing sand with a total loss rate of 32,500 cubic yards per year. After the installation of the breakwaters, the segment of the Project area north of R-146 indicated a change in volumetric change trend from negative to positive. Further, between R-146 and R-148, a significant reduction in sediment losses occurred. An analysis of the 2007-2009 period indicates that the positive volumetric change trend extended further south to include R-146. However, the rate of volumetric losses between R-147 and R-148 increased from 400-1,400 cubic yards per year during the 1997-2002 period to 4,400-4,800 cubic yards per year during the 2007-2009 period. 3.3 Beach Fill Performance Utilizing the data presented in CP&E (2010) specific to beach fill width and volume placed for the November 2006 to January 2007 construction period, and the CEC February 2011 survey, beach fill performance was evaluated, and the following determined. North of R-146, approximately 87% of the fill volume remained in the template, while only 51% of the volume remained within the template south of R-146 to the groin, G-2. With respect to beach fill width measured at MHW, north of R-146, 100% of the beach fill width remained in place attributed to sediment transport from the north to the south into the beach fill area; while on average, only 33%of the beach fill width remained in place south of R-146 to the groin. Overall, 7 ,2011 VIII-3-a CAC November New Business 14 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report COASTAL - ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC R-144' lip 1991-06 " 1997-02 9 i --• 2007-09 '� .. > ' 'Y `e k , . .....- , . . ......,- R 145 . r '?Ya ,,. . \11,t dY i��i � 76 a'" � k2 '�I 6 999 I i , . . , .„ , Ib ��a f �.� � `` � 2 R-147' U 6� ri I! . dn'r r; s ;.,�� • " i s ',i � i a R-1481 y z,�i, .I O a a G o Iiiii ii Volume Change Rate (ftlyr) File No 10.094 Oct.26, 2010 File Location I:A O\100941Shoreline and Volume Change Analysis) " , , File Name 1 0094-Histortic-Volume-Change-Rate.lay � ' x Figure 4. South Marco Island Historic Volume Change Rates. approximately 64% of the 2007 project volume remained within the permitted fill template; and, on average, approximately 67% of the beach fill width remained within the permitted fill 8 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 15 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report template. The post-construction MHW changes were computed between January 2007 and February 2011. The Project shoreline has been eroding at an average rate of-7.2 feet per year during this period. 3.4 Borrow Area Screening 3.4.1 Preliminary Investigation CEC evaluated four (4) potential borrow areas for Project including Caxambas Pass, Cape Romano Primary, Cape Romano Secondary, and Big Marco Pass to determine the optimal sand source for this Project. Borrow area locations are presented in Figure 1. The Caxambas Pass borrow area originally delineated by CEC, in conjunction with Collier County, as the sand source for the 1990-1991 original nourishment project on South Beach. Consistent with the Caxambas Pass Inlet Management Study (CEC, 1996), the borrow area was realigned with a natural scour channel. This area provided sand for the 1997 and 2006-2007 renourishment projects. Located over eleven (11) nautical miles to the southeast of the southern tip of Marco Island, the Cape Romano Primary and Secondary borrow areas were identified during the Emergency Sand Source Search Evaluation Phase III (Fink) et al., 2009). The Big Marco Pass borrow area was identified for the 2005 Hideaway Beach renourishment project(CP&E, 2003) and is located within a large ebb shoal north of Marco Island. Bathymetric surveys, jet probes, surface grab samples, sidescan surveys, seismic surveys, vibracores, and geotechnical sampling data were analyzed. The borrow areas were evaluated for grain size characteristics, percent fines, and color, and were compared with native beach samples. Borrow area proximity to the South Marco Project area and completeness of the study were also considered. 3.4.2 Compatibility Analysis The borrow areas were analyzed to determine whether the available sand was suitable for the Project by comparing their sediment characteristics with those of the native sediments within the fill limits. Table 3 presents a summary of the borrow area sediment characteristics. Table 3. Borrow Area Sediment Characteristics. Number Mean of Grain Grain Size Silt Shell Color Borrow Area Name Cores Size R(m) (#230) Content (Munsell) (m m) Caxambas Pass 6 0.41 0.19 to 0.68 2.93% 5.0%t 5Y 8/1 Cape Romano Primary 5 0.28 0.24 to 0.33 2.21% 1.5%fit 5Y 7/1 Cape Romano Secondary 10 0.25 0.21 to 0.35 1.89% 1.2%tt 5Y 7/1 Big Marco Pass 12 0.21 0.12 to 0.52 2.04% 8.3%" 5Y 8/1 t Shell content weight%gravel content above the No.5 sieve tt Visual shell estimate reported for overall average(Fink)et al.,2009;CP&E,2003) 9 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 16 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report According to the 1987 native beach sediment sampling (CEC, 1996) and FDEP standard sediment quality assurance guidelines (62B-41-007(2)(j),F.A.C.), the proposed beach fill material is to have the following sediment characteristics: • Allowable silt content <5% • Allowable shell content <5% • Native beach mean grain size 0.26 mm • Native beach mean grain size range 0.17 to 0.43 mm • Munsell color range 7/1 to 8.5/0.5 Silt Content All four borrow areas have less than 5% silt content. The native beach has less than 5% silt content. Thus, all four areas are compatible with the native beach. Shell Percentage Grain size statistics or visual estimates of shell were reported for the samples collected from the various borrow areas. The Caxambas Pass, Cape Romano Primary, and Cape Romano Secondary borrow areas are compatible with the native beach. The Big Marco Pass borrow area had greater than 5% shell content listed for the overall borrow area. However, large portions of the borrow area contained less than 5% shell. Additional refinement of the borrow area and a coarse material management plan would be necessary to ensure that all sand placed is beach compatible. Based on this, the Big Marco Pass borrow area, although not excluded, is ranked as less desirable. Mean Grain Size Based on the mean grain size, all four borrow areas fall within the mean grain size range of the native beach, and thus are compatible. Sediment Color Based on the sediment color, all four borrow areas have light colored sand, 5Y 7/1 to 8/1, which is within the acceptable color range, and thus are compatible with the native beach. 3.4.3 Borrow Area Accessibility and Volume As a result of the compatibility analysis presented in the previous section, all four identified borrow areas were suitable for the Project site with respect to grain size, color, shell, and silt contents. Additional criteria used to evaluate the borrow areas included the amount of geotechnical data, distance from the Project site, and available sand volume. According to the December 2009 survey, the Caxambas Pass borrow area had approximately 155,500 cubic yards of sand remaining within the 2006 permitted borrow area limits including a an overdredge tolerance. Based on a historic infilling rate of approximately 13,300 cubic yards per year, approximately 192,000 cubic yards are projected to be available within the borrow area footprint for the anticipated 2012-13 Project construction window. The borrow area is approximately 0.5 miles south of the fill limits. According to Finkl et al. (2009), the Cape Romano Primary borrow area contains over 1,000,000 cubic yards of compatible beach sand. The borrow area has had a limited amount of 10 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 17 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report geotechnical data collected. Five (5) vibracores were collected as part of the 2009 study. Based on the composite grain site data, this borrow source has the finest sand material of all of the borrow areas reviewed. The site has not been previously permitted as a sand source for a nourishment project, and additional work may be required to obtain a permit. The borrow area is located approximately 12.5 miles south of the fill limits. According to the 2005 Hideaway Beach post-construction survey (H&M, 2006), approximately 120,000 cubic yards are remaining within the Big Marco Pass borrow area limits. It is located approximately 4.0 miles north of the fill limits. 3.4.4 Summary Four borrow areas were identified, analyzed, and arranged into a prioritized ranking list. Table 4 presents a summary of the screening process, which includes the proximity to the site, volume estimate, and additional comments that were considered in the evaluation. Based on the borrow area screening analysis, the Caxambas Pass borrow area meets all of the beach fill compatibility requirements and is closest to the Project site. Therefore, Caxambas Pass is identified as the preferred borrow area for the 2012-2013 South Beach renourishment cycle. Table 4. Summary of Borrow Area Screening. Borrow Distance Volume Rank Area to Site Estimate Comment Name (miles) (cy) Caxambas 0.5 192,000 Closest to Project site. Used in 1990, 1997, Pass and 2006 South Marco nourishment projects. 2 Cape Romano 12 5 over Furthest from Project site.Never permitted. Primary 1,000,000 3 Cape Romano 12 0 over Grain size less than native. Never permitted. Secondary 1,000,000 4 Big Marco 4.0 120,000 High shell content. Used in 2005 for Pass Hideaway Beach project. t Projected to 2012-2013 Project construction date based on infilling rate 3.5 Structural Alternatives Screening The County and one of its outside consultants had previously examined the conditions of the existing erosion control structures and recommended they be repaired to their original design function. Thus, the model study and alternatives analysis conducted by CEC and CTC and described herein assumed that the two rock groins and the three breakwaters would be repaired. Building upon the performance of the Project to date, as analyzed and reported by Taylor (2003), Taylor (2005), H&M (2008), and CP&E (2010) and adding CEC's own historical perspective of the South Marco Project goals, objectives, permit issues, and design standards, the consulting team conducted a preliminary evaluation to screen the following structural alternatives: 1) Repair existing breakwaters: restore existing structures to their original design; 2) Repair existing terminal groins: restore existing structures to their original design; 3) Modify existing breakwaters: relocate, resize, and/or realign existing structures; 4) Modify existing terminal groins: relocate, resize, and/or realign existing structures; 11 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 18 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 5) Enhance existing breakwaters: add new structure(s) to enhance existing structures; 6) Enhance existing terminal groins: add new structure(s)to enhance existing structures; and 7) Beach fill: redesign beach fill to move the "center of mass" northward and act as a feeder beach (i.e. no structural changes). Based upon this evaluation, the following alternatives were developed for consideration in the model study: 1) Place beach fill within the 2006 permitted beach fill template; 2) Redesign beach fill to move the "center of mass" northward in order to act as a feeder beach; but with no new structures; 3) Add one (1) additional terminal groin north of the existing terminal groins at the approximate location of the seawall return; 4) Add one (1) additional breakwater north of the existing breakwaters. 4 NUMERICAL MODELING STUDY 4.1 Objectives The main objective of this task is to predict, using numerical model simulations, the sediment transport magnitude and directions, bathymetric changes, beach fill diffusion, shoal development, and channel sedimentation rates for each alternative carried forward from the Plan Formulation phase of the Project. Based upon the model results, for each alternative: 1) Depict predicted changes in coastal processes; 2) Qualitatively assess the expected performance, advantages, and disadvantages; 3) Develop planning level construction quantities; and 4) Develop construction budgets. The Project site includes a previously nourished beach along South Marco Island, an inlet (Caxambas Pass), a borrow area whose footprint is within the inlet system including the channel and ebb shoal, erosion control structures including three (3) detached breakwaters and two (2) rock groins, and shoreline armoring (seawall). The depth-averaged (2D) model option was selected for the simulations because the beach has a very mild slope and the water depth is relatively shallow, on the order of 12 feet approximately 1,000 feet seaward of the shoreline. The deepest point within the Pass is approximately 20 feet. Further, there is no significant fresh water input; and, therefore, the vertical density and velocity stratification due to salinity variation is negligible. The beach along the Project area is subject to both erosion and accretion, and the borrow area within the ebb shoal is subject to infilling over time. The primary forces behind these processes are wave action and tidal currents associated with the inlet system. Therefore, three (3) separate simulation modules addressing flow, waves, and sediment transport were included and dynamically coupled within the model. The calibration and validation steps were performed for two independent time periods and utilized different input data. 12 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 19 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 4.2 Input Data The input data used in the calibration/validation simulations included bathymetry, shoreline, structures, sediment characteristics, and time series of water level, current velocity, wave forcing, and wind forcing. The sources and characteristics of these data are presented below. 4.2.1 Bathymetry Several comprehensive bathymetric and topographic survey data and shoreline and morphologic volume change data were identified, including 1999 (annual) and 2001 (post-storm) surveys, a 2004 LIDAR survey, and 1997 to 2002 shoreline and volume change data. The 1999 data was available from CEC's archives, the 2001 data was obtained from the FDEP's website, and the 1997 to 2002 data was obtained from Taylor (2005). The shoreline data was developed based on the survey data and according to the published MHW value. All bathymetric and topographic data were converted to the NAD83 horizontal and NAVD88 vertical datums. Accretion and erosion trends between the 1999 and 2001 surveys were analyzed (Figure 5), noting the 2001 survey extent was limited only to the FDEP survey reference points(`R-monuments'). 4.2.2 Structures Structures accounted for in the calibration included the existing three (3) detached breakwaters, two (2) rock groins, and a seawall. All these structures were represented on the computational grid as model features to mimic their physical influence on the morphological processes during model simulations. 4.2.3 Sediment An analysis of historic sediment data was performed to develop the sediment parameter representative of the Project area. The mean grain size of 0.4 mm was used in model simulations. 4.2.4 Water Level The Gulf of Mexico tidal database was used to extract tidal constituents and create time series of water elevations along each of the open boundaries for model calibration. The water levels were used as model forcing. To provide this forcing data for the model during the validation analysis, two (2) tide gauges were deployed by CEC in the offshore and inside the pass to concurrently measure water elevations at 10-minute intervals between January 14, 2011 and February 2, 2011. 4.2.5 Waves The NOAA National Center for Environmental Prediction Western North Atlantic (WNA) regional model data were used as wave forcing for the calibration analysis. The wave data covered the period from October 1, 1999 to October 1, 2001 and were available at 3-hour intervals. The recording frequency was one (1) measurement per hour. The model's radiation stress feature was activated during the calibration analysis to take into account wave-induced setup and nearshore currents. To provide wave forcing data for the validation analysis, two (2) RD wave gauges were deployed by CEC, one in the offshore and the other between the breakwaters and shoreline to concurrently measure wave parameters, including significant wave height, peak period, and peak direction between January 14, 2011 and February 2, 2011. 13 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 20 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report COASTAL File Na 10.094 Feb. 14,2011 ENGINEERING LIDATA120I01100941Modeling\ContourMaps\Oct-1999tbruOct-20011 INONSULTANTS Volumes Based on 1999-2001 bed level change-Volume-Limits-2.lay South Marco Morphologic Changes Between October 1999 and October 2001 d -1 t O I ' r CP la +` R-143 . w °cD a -' , � } i. -7. ,,v;- '. s " aC 4 r .w , „ �, ,,p Change R O 144 ": t. ) e TM �I E ° x1 0.4 s}- R146 ® �tes * r o � y P �� 0.1 �"� '''R-146 I ', "':'' ■ -0.1 1 i! . r • . , ` 'o R-1470: r =� 0.6 cn , 4 r; E •'.� -08 V d 1(r Z o 4::: -1.0 ; � ,,, tis° a R-14,8,,,,-,." .; • �� :v•-: ' r 'fir rv, o © ti 0 0 0 ti '726000 126500 127000 127500 Easting (m) Figure 5. Measured Morphologic Changes between October 1999 and October 2001. 14 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 21 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 4.2.6 Wind The NOAA NCEP Western North Atlantic (WNA) regional model data were used as wind forcing for the calibration analysis. The wind data covered the period from October 1, 1999 to October 1, 2001 and were available at 3-hour intervals. For validation, the data measured at the NOAA NDBC Naples Station at 6-minute intervals were used. Wind forcing was included during the calibration analysis to account for wind induced setup and currents. 4.2.7 Current Velocity An ADCP current meter was deployed by CEC in Caxambas Pass concurrently with wave and tide gauges to measure current velocities to provide data for the validation analysis. The currents were measured at 10-minute intervals between January 14, 2011 and February 2, 2011. 4.3 Model Calibration 4.3.1 Calibration Details Models Two models were considered, DHI's MIKE21 and Deltares' Delft3D. Both models are state-of- the-art with features capable of simulating the processes driving morphologic changes in the Project area. However, the two models are different in terms of numerical solution techniques: MIKE21 is a finite volume model based on unstructured mesh, and Delft3D is a finite difference model based on structured curvilinear mesh. Model results were compared and analyzed to determine which model performs better in the Project's setting. Calibration Period The time frame between 1997 and 2002 was selected for calibration because it represented the period between the breakwater installation / 1997 renourishment project equilibration and the 2005 renourishment project, and sufficient data were available as summarized above. The goal of calibrating the model for this period was to reproduce as accurately as possible the measured morphologic changes by forcing the model using the available water lever, wave, wind, and sediment data. Computational Grid and Forcing Computational grids were created to include four (4) open boundaries: west (offshore), north, south, and east. Along each boundary, time series of water levels with 10-minute intervals computed based on seven (7) tidal constituents extracted from the Gulf of Mexico tidal database were applied. The water levels were specified in the flow module, which computes various hydrodynamic parameters, including water surface elevation, current velocity, and current- induced bottom stress within the computational domain. Wind forcing was also specified in the flow module to account for wind-induced surface stress and current. The morphology module, which computes both bed-load and suspended load transport of non- cohesive sediments, was activated and coupled with the flow module. This allowed for calculation of morphologic changes in every cell of the flow module computational grid. 15 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 22 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report The wave module was activated because wave action is an important process causing morphologic changes in the Project area. The computational grid used in the flow module was also specified in the wave module for simplicity. Identical wave forcing obtained from the WNA data was specified along three open boundaries: west (offshore), north, and south. The east open boundary was specified near the throat cross-section of Caxambas Pass. Wave conditions were not specified along this boundary, as waves, in general, do not propagate from inside the pass in the east-to-west direction,. The wave radiation stress and wave setup features were included in the calibration analysis to account for water level and velocity components associated with shoaling and breaking waves. The coupling of flow, waves, and sediment transport was done dynamically. That is, every time the wave simulation is performed, the hydrodynamic conditions including velocities and water elevations, and morphology conditions (bottom elevation) are used as input to the wave module. After the wave simulation is completed, wave-induced setup and currents are used in the flow module to enhance the hydrodynamics and account for wave forcing, which, in turn, is used in the morphology module to compute sediment transport and changes in bed. The initial bed elevations were specified based on the comprehensive October 1999 survey. Upland parts of the grid not covered by the survey were interpolated using the 2004 LIDAR data and deep water parts of the grid beyond the seaward limits of the survey, over 3,000 feet from the shoreline, were filled through interpolation of the NOAA chart data. 4.3.2 Calibration Modeling Using MIKE21 Figure 6 presents the computational grid used in the MIKE21 model with fine grid spacing concentrated on the south end of the beach where the existing breakwaters and groins are located. Preliminary model simulations indicated significant spurious accretion along the shoreline within the model domain. Multiple simulations using varying model parameters were attempted to resolve this issue. Based upon recommendations from the MIKE21 developers, DHI, improvements to the original model setup were implemented including: 1) Revision of the computational grid to better and more accurately resolve the surf zone along the entire length of the South Marco shoreline, 2) Revision of the sediment transport table to include a larger range of current magnitudes and water height/water depth ratios, 3) Refinement of wave and current directional spacing, 4) Changing the fifth-order Stokes waves formulation, which tended to produce too large of an onshore-directed transport, to the first-order Stokes waves formulation, which resulted in stronger offshore-directed transport, 5) Utilizing the empirical formulation for the concentration of suspended sediment instead of the deterministic approach, and 6) Increasing the Manning's bed resistance parameter and wave breaking parameter, which resulted in a narrower surf zone and stronger alongshore currents and littoral transport. 16 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 23 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report TAL COAS ENGINEERING File No 10.009 June 3,2011 CONSULTANTS I\DATA\2010\10094\Modehng\MIKE21\South Marco Clean-11-09-2010\SMS grid generation-revised 2011-05-03\MUCE21-gnd lay INC MIKE21 Grid(Revised Version) f< ,1r i, Elev. *`e. './. . rupor�f�.' 3.0 l4 4 jV•. 2 5 y tata .t a — 0.5 •,t � l, — 0.0 r j ►.., —E � 7, 25 0 � 1i O:.,. -4 0 Z fr ®Y , — 4 5� iD s O ' hto i Al��•alter; - -6 5 f � 1 4�� y`tgf�r�sf t#wy y 4er r�l�1O��t/04,1► -8.5 -90 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 J 1 I I 1 124000 126000 128000 Easting(m) Figure 6. MIKE21 Computation Grid. Results of a 16-month simulation between October 1999 and January 2001 using MIKE21 are presented in Figure 7. The modeled volumetric changes were annualized to compare them with historic data. The predicted erosion / accretion patterns match observed historical patterns along South Beach, noting that the beach to the north of the Project area has been historically accretional to stable, followed by erosion of the south end. CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 24 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report ppCOASTAL File No. 10.094 May. 16,2011 ENGINEERING 1:1DATA\2 0 1 011 0 0 941Modelinngg'MIKE211SouthMarco Clean-11-09-20101Result\ 1CONSULTANTS coupled-simulation-2011-05-03.mfrn-ResultFiles\ Volumes Based mB edlevel change_01-23-2001 -Volume-Limits.lay South Marco - MIKE21 Results 1999-10-01 - 2001-01-23 Volume Change Rate (cylyr) o ,, ik i .1§ 1 Mt ,0,. l' LO CD fi- r i = , . a ° ' _ ` : Change yly R-144 �. (m) +42(110c r a11, ' .r j .� rrar= 2.00 h jJ, k w v 1.00 t ' -t!! L r'' ; 0.80 • +2,400 cylyr ", _-R-145 L ,. . 0.60 �; '` — 0.40 � ," " '` a 1n 0.20 G O f R1 6 0.10 +2,300 cy/yr .a 4 viii r 1 ,., f+ x "--.'.• _ —' -0.05•k � z ,. , � � � 0.10 CA C ffii �� x '• _ 0.20 ,� �� k , R-147 m ,� , ,, e -0.40 .0 -15 cylyr ', 0 v .,-. ` '' ,vim, -0.60 tj 0.80 O ' 1.00 I 'r R148 �r 2.00 -1,900 cylyr 4 - . L=z-1.' . ,.! - 0., ik . ,,,, . .....''. :'4*, . 'II ti .:;•'" .,,,,,,..,:to. Y O d O r) �,. ', Ls) `� ° P. •)f ' fai; ::',2.,;-----.....•••••••••: '(111 :- t y o-31 '. o C7 o `26000 126500 127000 127500 Easting (m) Figure 7. MIKE21 Modeled Morphologic Changes between Oct. 1999 and Jan. 2001 with Volumetric Change Rates. 18 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 25 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Table 5 presents historic volume change rates for the 1997-2002 period and modeled volume change rates between R-144 and R-148. The predicted volume changes are on the same order of magnitude as the historic change rates with the exception of R-146. Table 5. Historic vs. MIKE21 Modeled Volume Change Rates. Location 1997-2002 Historic Change Modeled Change Rate (cy/yr) Rate (cy/yr) (Taylor, 2005) R-144 5,300 4,200 R-145 3,900 2,400 R-146 -1,100 2,300 R-147 -400 0 R-148 -1,400 -1,900 Because the area south of R-148 was not surveyed in 2001, an analysis of model performance there was not conducted. However, according to the historic infilling rates of a borrow area within Caxambas Pass permitted in 1997, the infilling rate between 1997 and 2002 was approximately 13,300 cubic yards per year. The modeled infilling rate within the footprint of the borrow area was predicted to be approximately 1,500 cubic yards per year. While this is less than the historic rate, a review of Figure 7 indicates the depositional area exists, just located to the north — northwest of the borrow area. It should be noted that the historic infilling rate between 1997 and 2002 was derived using the post-construction survey and, as such, would include the rapid infilling during the first season following construction. It is likely that the post- equilibration infilling rate would be less. Table 6 presents historic shoreline change rates for the 1997-2002 period, measured shoreline change based on the 1999 and 2001 surveys, and modeled shoreline change. While the model overestimates the shoreline erosion between R-143 and R-145, it does predict the same order of magnitude of measured shoreline erosion between R-146 and R-148, which is the focus area of the analysis. Table 6. Historic vs. MIKE21 Modeled Shoreline Changes at MHW. Location 1997-2002 Historic 1999-2001 Measured Modeled Trend (ft/yr) Change Rate (ft/yr) Change Rate(ft/yr) R-143 5.6 -4.2 -60.4 R-144 1.4 2.7 -37.8 R-145 -0.1 -1.2 -49.1 R-146 -9.9 -21.7 -38.0 R-147 -10.7 -10.9 -34.9 R-148 -17.4 -59.2 -48.3 19 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 26 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 4.3.3 Calibration Modeling Using Delft3D Figure 8 presents the computational grid used in Delft3D. ppCOASTAL ENGINEERING File No 10.094 June 3,2011 CONSULTANTS I�2010�100944ivfodeing�DeIft3D1C1rid1De1f13D-gndlay INC Delft3D Grid Bret 11:= : Depth 1aa1 :w u�ww (m) f aai etta liallt p# a'.q%aaaia-iiiaaali!► eaa#awlrlRf il:Y 9 iwai:wawac�w :i 8.5 ... 11.""awiiiw m�aagf't'. O bqR�!et'. laaaiii! ■ ., 0 -,z v ° iiiaaiiiiw=iwiiiiieiii': 75 'a7 4.uaaonaaaaaauueen, .; s �:+�amaaaaawaaammwmaadc... 6.5 era zxgs� v�a':1.'''"aaawawamawwtaafl @I _, 8 �aar. auraaawmasaaemaaaus o „� �'" ��a m na.aaraauaiaaaamwwwuuu: ^^� 5 5 gvaaaw aeaaaiawawmwaa° �; �w+,' ALI iwwaaarq - - ° — 4.5 .- ==:-----------nc 4 co >` -----------------------------------------------------e — 3 5 E Ga .- — 25 �`�O!\1 Z o nt N. li wrawiia1421011,wwis.°%100 010 ivae' ,.eAll ®®AOA!!�!lleA -2.5 'qm `tIrl sai.i°'% 10,;,,at "%10.00000\00�®*®1+!\y\`\!!i\\ _3 oil, #r#rraaaa • °#.`.`::aiwpr +�ar�a'�vaee e��AAl��rl� �! M� ' i .qq y11 w�a#.ii..art............... ea a\1111 .. �_ � .�� >....a� r� I 124000 126000 128000 Easting(m) Figure 8. Delft3D Computation Grid. Results of a 2-year simulation between.October 1999 and September 2001 using Delft3D are presented in Figure 9 and Table •7. Smilar to the preliminary MIKE21 model results, the DELFT3D model introduced artificial accretion and significantly overestimated accretion along the beach and within the borrow area footprint, albeit at a much higher magnitude. Attempts to eliminate the problem by varying model parameters were not successful. Table 7. Historic vs. Delft3D Modeled Volume Change Rates. Location 1997-2002 Historic Change Modeled Change Rate (cy/yr) Rate (cy/yr) (Taylor, 2005) R-144 5,300 31,400 R-145 3,900 11,300 R-146 -1,100 15,100 R-147 -400 32,200 R-148 -1,400 3,100 20 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 27 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report OAgTAL File No. 10.094 June 9,2011 ENGINEERING I.IDATA12 0 1 011 0 0 941Modeling%Delft3D12011-03.01-2-year Flow and Morphology with Waves and Wind(Flaw Only)- NSUL'fANTS Small GrichOutputl Volumes based on bed level change_2001-09-20-Volume-Limts.lay INC- South Marco - DeIft3D Results 1999-10-01 - 2001-09-20 Volume Change (cylyr) O Si 1 , 1, t * 5 • i, ; 1i � °s a 5A i R-143 , <� # 1t • , 6 Elev.• My �i , Change o +31,400'-cyfyr , \ `► i' R-144 ,,. °� (m) o / � � �I h "- - � 4.00 o a f w , " co . �F r �� ;a 2.00 t. +11,300�cyfyr , fI I i I,'. .R-145 :'- r', ,,,,,:‘A'' * ■ R: 1.00 I e' t� .. � � .• � 0.50• 1.—..... �.1; 1 br .t : *. 0.40• ■ o t its:, � � .. � „ 0.20 +13,100 cy/yr ? i 1111.6 R-146 sae -0.20 -# , - II -0.50 "� 1� t ii. 1. ' Pam co i i4 , �: `t -1.00 : ' k Q . .. l�? -R-147 t ; t �� S -1.50 t i +32,200 cyfyr ;t i L., t° . t.. -2.00 4 0 ' .t: k , 4.00 ti i r. 4 R-148 `` t 2 +3,100 c'yfyr I+ i;: r ` yi i • r �J .."....1..'l i 1 °i-...Q 'i 2 d ' " r i . s f t NS■ 4t "I° F U) i t +.+- a O - .} 1 ti i . ._., 726000 126500 127000 127500 Easting (m) Figure 9. Delft3D Modeled Morphologic Changes between Oct. 1999 and Sep. 2001 with Volumetric Changes. 21 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 28 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 4.3.4 Calibration Summary Initially both models predicted accretion along the Project shoreline orders of magnitude higher than measured and observed data. Significant improvements were made with the MIKE21 model that resulted in similar order of magnitude rates and patterns for accretion and erosion trends along the Project shoreline as those measured and observed. 4.4 Model Validation 4.4.1 Model Validation Details The two models used in the calibration phase, MIKE21 and Delft3D, were employed for validation. As previously stated, five (5) instruments were deployed by CEC to collect data between January 14 and February 2, 2011 (Figure 10): -Offshore Macrotide gauge to measure water elevation -Offshore RD to measure waves and currents - RD behind the breakwaters to measure waves and currents -ADCP to measure currents inside Caxambas Pass - Macrotide gauge to measure water elevation in Caxambas Pass The goal of validating the model was to reproduce as accurately as possible the measured wave, tide, and current velocity using the model parameters achieved during the calibration process. 22 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a 0 New Business 29 of 7 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report d i ,4 � � �r.. ..t4 R F t Pte;k a' 7 s f , r!', r 4/t y&a 'A ue- 'P' a.. q d ' s ■Wave Gauge and Cu r , , ■ } Behind Breakwatersi � ' ' s .; 'tea b ' Offshore Tide and = Wave Gauges p �' � , . „i 2.5 miles "k Current Meter Inside Pass Tide Gauge Figure 10. Location Map of Instrument Deployment 4.4.2 Validation Modeling Using MIKE21 Figures 11 through 13 present a comparison between measured and modeled by MIKE21 wave height, period anal direction, respectively, f o r the offshore and landward o fthe breakwaters locations. 23 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 30 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Offshore-Measured 1.5 Offshore-Modeled(MIKE21) 1 as I �0.5 t, /7\\ 1\,) 0 15 20 25 30 Julian Day 1.5 Behind Breakwaters-Measured Behind Breakwaters-Modeled(MIKE21) 1 E V! 0.5 , ',. i gyp \ ,jpl j r 1 I! VI 1 ; i j ‘A i I I,. 1. V vj v , I J 0 15 20 25 30 Julian Day Figure 11. Wave Height—Measured vs. Modeled MIKE21. 24 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 31 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 10 — — Offshore-Measured Offshore-Modeled(MIKE21) I I s — / I c� 6 — ��:A I'I I 11I i I rlV„ cu I L I � III \ 1I I i p 1 1 to L ,V, is,. 'l4 \'R 1.I I I I iI�✓ I 1 i,.', y Iv , a 4 , I Al. J.- i t l II, tII \ I , II.I ~ L +r I I /\! i j �� l• i' II. A �/;I' I I(\ I1j �1fi I�� irl:�` , l' V Y�1 i n 2 — rl �, / ,, L. 0 , I ■ I I I I I , , , I I , i. I , 15 20 25 30 Julian Day 10 Behind Breakwaters-Measured Behind Breakwaters-Modeled(MIKE21) I II l 1 I V V\ fi , iI , h 1 II • �A ( d I 1 , ` ri C i :I I' 'i i ��; ! I I !1 IP I\ j• w V I�1 1 1 I I I I j 1 1 1 I I I J 1 1 1 1 i i 1II 1 1 1 11 . I. \ I 'J1 1 Ii I I' 11 I v yy, Ir ,I1 i I I I ' 11 I�1 k 1 II 1\ \ I !I IIli\ l:l III 11 NI ''I lit, I 11 Y ,Ji IIa� d l l l 1 i t III i w 1 ; �� v,, I I y �i1,, 1i 1'I 1 I I lV d CD nnii :I i I ` i ' I li ll i I �1 I� 4 l Il i 1 II r t LI 1 1 LII,I (\)1 VII A I ,iiI 1 I 'y �1 �I ;, 11 ill VIIIIN�II I ', I I VIII , I Vh l' 1 ,ii V 'I'l I IIN OI IX , I\ , \I 1-1\1\ Pi . VI V V C ,171.IHI- I I 0 15 20 25 30 Julian Day Figure 12. Wave Period—Measured vs. Modeled MIKE21. 25 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 32 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Offshore-Measured Offshore-Modeled(MIKE21) 350 I 1, h,v\,,v11 iI 300 ' it 250 .IWV ` Y 1 200 I 1 I c l 150 l ,/ ,.,V I jA p P 50 .1 0 bl 15 20 25 30 Julian Day Behind Breakwaters-Measured Behind Breakwaters-Modeled(MIKE21) 350 I I' 300 I I A I i� 1\, M I. 4 A. 4 I� jII NV .1 l ; \4I 1 \ �, is I250 'I!! V I 1 ! I m 150 I ! I 1 I �I y �� VV I I I�• o II IIi I� it i I I, !1I IIP I 100 II l' i r. j •50 I I i i � I 0 15 20 25 30 Julian Day Figure 13. Wave Direction—Measured vs. Modeled MIKE21. Figure 14 presents a comparison between measured and modeled by MIKE21 wave roses. 26 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 33 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Wave Rose - Offshore Measured MIKE21 2y ' 0 o 5 zro 4 t n Maw s Wave Rose - Behind Breakwaters Measured MIKE21 13 ", 113 l•"' 7( wow,Mega L nXM 7 r V ?,ri � . � :r� ��ir.. � ' '# i Figure 14. Wave Roses — Measured vs. Modeled MIKE21. Wave Direction Convention Defined as Follows: 270-Degree Direction Denotes Waves from West to East, 180-Degree Direction Denotes Waves from South to North. Figure 15 presents a comparison between measured and modeled by MIKE21 current velocity magnitudes offshore and landward of the breakwaters. Figure 16 presents a comparison between measured and modeled by MIKE21 current roses. 27 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 34 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Offshore-Measured 2 Offshore-Modeled(MIKE21) 1.8 1.6 H 1.4 i 111 Is A I I 'Cl 1.2 I h R 0 1 I^ I i :' I II �: 11 2 4 ii 1 li rj�I 11j,� 'I. i ti , ' , I! ( ; 1 , I fI 111 i��p, � �I I�; I1111 1l Ili I ' " kill I �� III �� 11 i 0.6 ; II . ;11 ' I' lI Ilk l 1Iq , 1\ I� II I jii , lii � � 11'1 1 it � I. 0.4n I • 1i h 1 ' II„ II: iII' kII !I I II 1 l, Ill, I Ali ' J I II ri �+ lh fir 'I,roi Ili l,ll�,�Ig111A1t1, it n h! n • 0.2 r ^�I I l ri li� 4(11 Il l.i Id I I 'i1 I Ii.1 th n r,i�,,,' li, , mil\h'l j 11,11 11.1011 , 1111� ,,Ali11i , ,Ail '�1\rll �i 1 i, I i ', ' 1\i,�`,II ,,11,1Ilil i, i i,(, i�,ir 111: III I 1 ,I� ��(�, ' If 1 �� r I 1 �I,� ��I,.i�� 1 ,1 , 1, ,I t 1 ,11�11�1,� ,i, II�II i, , I ,pl,i i� Y Y V IJ v'I 'i0 14 'I'I V ,, Ai',: ,� , ( ,l i + C 41 YJI„r JIiJ V��i+ u41 ��'y 1��. i yr �, Y��4dl� 'y �,�>li ,y; � ,,�,,jJ9 „Y r +J � ri 'i ° 15 20 25 30 Julian Day 2 — Behind Breakwaters-Measured Behind Breakwaters-Modeled(MIKE21) 1.8 — 1.6 — N £ 1.4 — �^ i • 11 3 1.2 — +6;) 0.8 — i �l I I I i' 'i H - I, 1 ( I ' I�1111 U 0.6 = i1 ' , AII , A( I'' I I1hl 1 i; II� r !i it k4i r�l 1I I hi III! i ' . 1:I ' 1: II I .ij�l 0.4 — 'I! �I 0 .1111:Y �1kli '11111 1 1II 'i' 1 I , I 1 I ' 1 i Y A',' !I i , Ii :!' I.I i 1 !� '�� '�I \I II' I � i 1 L' 1 11 X11 I: ,J7 i, I R� � I i 0.2 — Ii I I ,1 f i1 ,� . 1.I I I I I �.: I I II' J I I ,1,1 1d,�111�y .1i �� 11,4 �11, \it I will Il _ "IIli 1 1i .I ,, � r III 1„i : :`� , \ii 11;1 T1.4 I ,11.. . 0, '.i U All Is �1 i t i : L ,,,I , ,,, II 1,'u 11,, ", ' �• Y' Y I` i� v [I I'tI i4 4 1, ,`,i 'i i't,II ° 15 20 25 30 Julian Day Figure 15. Current Magnitude—Measured vs. Modeled MIKE21. 28 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 35 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Current Rose - Offshore Measured MIKE21 400 ' \4' Cuint Mag,xtuds Ligand im 3442 u_ 'K r . Z V_ - ,.mac .,.._ Y' ' _r Current Rose - Behind Breakwaters Measured MIKE21 ft tzt Currant Magnitltl•L•grnu W 1 fr f ‘\, /S 7 ..i o ate ' Figure 16. Current Rose— Measured vs. Modeled MIKE21. Current Direction Convention Defined as Follows: 270-Degree Direction Denotes Currents from East to West, 180-Degree Direction Denotes Currents from North to South. 4.4.3 Validation Modeling Using Delft3D Figures 17 through 19 present a comparison between measured and modeled by Delft3D wave height, period, and direction, respectively. 29 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 36 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 1.5 -- Offshore-Measured Offshore-Modeled(Delft3D) 1 1 ; E r, 0.5 1 ' 'V \�r I ` IA d r,, 1 0 15 20 25 30 Julian Day 1.5 Behind Breakwaters-Measured Behind Breakwaters-Modeled(Delft3D) 1 E I a) x k 0.5 i 1II, , 4/1 i I I Ai 't i i n I i I 1 I I I' 'J 11 r� 11¢g ti A 1 �� ; ' V. A', 1 c-, i II r �,}� I Y ,I A I I , , Y jib / I _ 0 15 20 25 30 Julian Day Figure 17. Wave Height—Measured vs. Modeled Delft3D. 30 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 37 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Offshore-Measured 10 — Offshore-Modeled(Dtlft3D) 'i - I II 8 — I - li - ci 6 — t ■ ' '.r� is w �j j d ' Y !. I ✓`i i 1 �I LI CO '' i 'L Y H 4 1V \I\. f ' ' i 1 : n ' ICl �! f‘l .\ 2 — `+ J ' 0 ' 1 t 1 1 t 1 1 i 1 1 1 i l i t I 1 15 20 25 30 Julian Day 10 — --- Behind Breakwaters-Measured ' - Behind Breakwaters-Modeled(Delft3D) 1 4 II A, \ h :I; ` 1 1 m 17. 6 l/i�. ji 11, 1 pp i' I:1 ". i 1I 1 ,I I �j .1 I ' 4 'a 1 I V 1 I V;,, o, I--' �j; ti,1� ;i v III �, " V' II �l I ,'r _ �- rk 2 Vi II , y 0 ' 1 �� , I , , 15 20 25 30 Julian Day Figure 18. Wave Period—Measured vs. Modeled Delft3D. 31 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 38 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Offshore-Measured Offshore-Modeled(Delft3D) 350 — i 6 �� A P,`� 1, 300 — � i� ' ;I , 1,v , - 250 — � �:666„1.; 1 l' - 0 200 — { `' I11'1 o - ml :� ! 1I•avi 150 — q ,fir ,� L_ - .i I - i'Y 100 — it 50 — ' i _ r I I i ii I I i i I i I I 1 i I I 1 , 15 20 25 30 Julian Day Behind Breakwaters-Measured Behind Breakwaters-Modeled(Delft3D) 350 �j h, q 300 ,I 6_fl n \ 6 ail w\ f n-v , � " '.r1 1 � ! 1 1 I 11 f'v1 I II I'i A7 4 1 p i II '' 11 ILA\\ I i r i hII'ii 1 1 `i 1 250 i i,q i 1, 4"'i 7 1i, iil W ill 1 1 4 i 61 u j tii 166 Ijl ii 1 1 1 1 Y ]i 1i ii y ill I I h'. 1 1' i 1 V1i ' 11 1€ V .. ' V ' 4 ! 1 h a1 iH V V ' ' ,ip P 200 1 ,i l ' �il i I I 1 j i g 1,. 11 il t„ \ C I. iF '" is 11 j '. ',;' ' 1!I 1 V �'' 1111 II Ili y II, i'I II l ! 1 1 1 11 C.) 150 I,i . I' i l! 11 c ,I I �ji iil il 1 100 II 1j 1 1 11 50 1 0 15 20 25 30 Julian Day Figure 19. Wave Direction—Measured vs.Modeled Delft3D. Figure 20 presents a comparison between measured and modeled by Delft3D wave roses. 32 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 39 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Wave Rose - Offshore Measured Delft3D 111 :10 1 t 1 � \ t 1 1 r J 11, t jS0 Wave Rose - Behind Breakwaters Measured Delft3D i +5 nil Figure 20. Wave Roses — Measured vs. Modeled Delft3D. Wave Direction Convention Defined as Follows: 270-Degree Direction Denotes Waves from West to East, 180-Degree Direction Denotes Waves from South to North. Figure 21 presents a comparison between measured and modeled by Delft3D current velocity magnitudes. The current data were collected at the same two locations wave data were collected, offshore and landward of the breakwaters, approximately halfway between the breakwaters and shoreline. Figure 22 presents a comparison between measured and modeled by Delft3D current roses. 33 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 40 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Offshore-Measured 2 Offshore-Modeled(Delft3D) 1.8 1.6 N E 1.4 d I1.2 0.8 r d R k C V k 0.4 ,l �! i ry,� ∎ � ' r R k t } 0.2 � Isi? 1 'f it "'I�I�I�1Ir\1 l'l�l h �iV:hiI , tip 1 F ip ,ii 0' } �� It u9i � R'ri 1,::i ili�'! �� k'� ,, si I� ,� J i�Mi N x�'�i iFl u V�, 4� VI YI d '� 1! J Vi � ,�1 �i 4 I I y 4 ` , Iv 1 1 ri i J � V r y(I , V 0 15 20 25 30 Julian Day 2 — Behind Breakwaters-Measured Behind Breakwaters-Modeled(Delft3D) 1.8 — 1.6 — , Cl) E 1.4 — i v1.2 — ff gro l I 1 — I Y t, 1 66 . M j : .•0 0.8 — ) I i m - � t i ti 0.6 — ;) , ,1 it !, i 1 It \ ,, ' i' fi M j i 'It f ` f 0.2 r ,a l 1 R ( i t ' t' t I h 4 L j .i'il 0 15 20 25 30 Julian Day Figure 21. Current Magnitude—Measured vs. Modeled Delft3D. 34 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 41 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Current Rose - Offshore Measured DeIft3D C t ,)y 300 � l \-0 Corot M a g n i t u d e Legend m iv ICV ( I L f Its~ _ au iln --— -- ) JO a x, Current Rose - Behind Breakwaters Measured Delft3D ,7r rx s.o Current Magnitude Legend on r) x tW / Y a Figure 22. Current Rose — Measured vs. Modeled Delft3D. Current Direction Convention Defined as Follows: 90-Degree Direction Denotes Currents from West to East, 180-Degree Direction Denotes Currents from North to South. 4.4.4 Validation Summary Both models predictions are in good agreement with wave heights but underestimate wave period. Both models overestimate current velocity magnitudes. Further, the measured current direction behind the breakwaters was predominantly due north to south while both models predicted four (4) dominant directions: due north to south, south to north, north-northwest to south-southeast, and south-southeast to north-northwest. While both models had similar results for hydrodynamic predictions in the validation phase of the study, the MIKE21 model was successfully employed to predict the order of magnitude and patterns of accretion and erosion within the model domain at the key point of interest, that being 35 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 42 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report at the southern end of the Project shoreline within the influence of the existing breakwaters. Based on this, MIKE21 was selected to proceed with the alternatives analysis and evaluation. 5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 5.1 Performance Analysis 5.1.1 Modeled Alternatives and Objectives As discussed in Section 3.5, four (4) alternatives were developed and used in the numerical modeling study. These alternatives included: 1) No new action, i.e., continue to periodically place beach fill within the beach fill template permitted in 2005 and initially constructed in 2006 (Figures 23 and 24); 2) Redesign beach fill to move the "center of mass" northward in order to act as a feeder beach; i.e., no structural changes (Figures 25 and 26); 3) Add one (1) additional terminal groin north of the existing terminal groins at the approximate location of the seawall return (Figures 27 through 29); 4) Add one(1) additional breakwater north of the existing breakwaters (Figures 30 through 32). The alternatives are discussed in subsequent sections and shown to a conceptual level of detail in their associated figures. These conceptual designs are presented for general information and understanding, but will require further refinement as part of a final design process. All four alternatives were simulated using the calibrated MIKE21 model for the same 16-month period between October 1999 and January 2001 used for the calibration process (Section 4.3). The objectives of these alternatives simulations were: 1) Predict bathymetric and shoreline changes, beach fill diffusion, and sediment transport response to the measures; and 2) Qualitatively assess the expected performance, advantages, and disadvantages of the alternatives. 36 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 43 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report o 0 Alternative 1 - Permitted Beach Fill n tt° • R-143 + +f;t 3° to N. ffix. ' s V Ali 4, i #r" ? " s. i kp 44 4 a r:„..i.72'13-,,,,;'"4-, (Alt —110*3..'''..v3AL.,.'"'"N k ,. I;r e R-144 j 14 o co N. I :Y +Ke4a t M i, t . 1 ' ; ' Fill Thickness,m (f , ■o R-145,,, I '� a� ) " l I 1 ` �= sl ' 0 05 0 10 0 50 1.00 1.50 # t4 c Gulf'oflexi j t � � ° te.o. E t ,n R146 Z 2005 Permitted ;` ) ;. � .`.' . ` _ Beach Fill Crest =� • R 147 104-000 c �s� �� °�I: � � � � `" �' � �� I ,, iI_- ,. _ �- , �I � TM. 0 = ., u " i in L ■ R 148 .. t �.. d .1 1i = ■ Cp-2 „, ,,, . ' f 'h 126500 127000 127500 126000 Easting (m) Figure 23. Alternative 1: Permitted Beach Fill Plan. 10 EXISTING GRADE S (FEB 2011) 100:1 SLOPE Z +3.2 PROPOSED Th\/ ' - /—w LL 0 MHW = +0.44 BEACH FILL Z 10:1 SLOPE H W —10 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 DISTANCE(FEET) Figure 24. Alternative 1: Permitted Beach Fill Typical Section. 37 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 44 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report o Alternative 2 - Permitted Beach Fill with Feeder Beach cn r as_ "" #,0 .. '': • R-143 . '� x # . * r ,. a pki * �� 1. I £ I ice`N .0 R 144 . E I I � �%ana r - :' .Sp ffi.� 4,'" '" Feeder Beach + r „„ Fill Thickness,m Crest 33 000 c ■,R-145 e 1, , ■�iiiiiii�l t x 0.05 010 0 50 1.00 1.50 Gulfofvlexl �: �d�� y,� t0 � L. r I - �" 1 a a * '.- .9, 0 ' Z ,., 1 i1 ,ti: e g) 2005 Permitted Beach Fill Crest °■ R-147 104 000 c I, 2 , j�F AT„p�q,. gg , Q NLn I r II R-148 1r m+ a , 126500 127000 127500 128000 Easting (m) Figure 25. Alternative 2: Permitted Beach Fill with Feeder Beach Plan. 10 --- EXISTING GRADE 100:1 SLOPE o 7 (FEB 2011) PROPOSED 5 I+ z FEEDER Z s BEACH FILL L f—w liJ ` MHW = +0.44 ---L Z 0 PROPOSED/ 10:1 SLOPE O BEACH FILL > -5 w w —10 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 i DISTANCE(FEET) Figure 26. Alternative 2: Permitted Beach Fill with Feeder Beach Typical Section. 38 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 45 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report o Alternative 3 -Permitted Beach Fill with Additional Groin � r_ '3ht �, Lo I'' � • R-143 �'_ ' CO 0 - f 3 =x ' m "N 9., ��v y R-144 9999 Ip t`+ 3t } f�0 nr. 3 r + ant ... w, M :�. t g Ail Thickness,m ) ■v R-145 I I l: I . E k i s �r z, 0 05 0 10 0 50 1:00 1.50 }i a 2005 Permitted �bt Beach Fill Crest R 1 10 • R-147„,, - 104 000 c n„,Y i , f �- � -' �� (� �� r ^� _.:.� "tea' iG� �, P ; O O L u'! e 7 4` _ • R-148 41. :y Lc 1 t' .,'''' A pAdd i Groin . , Y*... .... "ti� J'"74�.k.Am�i�k 4kMm�.o... . >.. a l.w.✓d�� ` .wS..a.va .. ...'.,. ..�'dL$`M 126500 127000 127500 128000 Easting (m) Figure 27. Alternative •3: Permitted Beach Fill with Additional Groin Plan (Groin Width is Exaggerated for Exhibit Purposes). 39 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 46 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 10 - .5 r 14r 35'-^7111.- ®-".-� ARMOR 4 S:1 SLOPE z 0 _, ,.TONE mew - +0,44 ��? EXISTING GRADE LL `' �_ c..1......_--1.1 siov+ r(FEB 2011) Z _5 I CORE STONE 1 q I tar \ n _- - -10 - EXISTING RIPRAP BEDDING STONE ON u1 FILTER CLOTH EXISTING SEAWALL -15 -15.5 'n SHEET PILE 0 100 200 300 400 DISTANCE(FEET) Figure 28. Alternative 3: Conceptual Groin Profile. 10 14' — 10' 14' 5 2:1 SLOPE +4 Q ~ 0 MHW = +0.44 14' 14' �- L1.1 11 ---ARMOR STONE LL 1:1 SLOPE -3 O —5 CORE STONE -6 H -7 1 -I —10 74 J w BEDDING STONE ON FILTER CLOTH —15 SHEET PILE —20 Figure 29. Alternative 3: Conceptual Groin Section. 40 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 47 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report o Alternative 4 - Permitted Beach Fill with Additional Breakwater 0 In ■ R-143 �" ,. > ; u R 144 ' co # ' ,,',:s..--,,,,, N4' kiii&V "!,3 ;i't# ,. .14,1 , o Fill Thickness,m o I -■�R-145 , 5 o �� ` 0.05 0.10 0 50 1.00 1.50 a`�S`t S R a t1ii-f 'i # gin : o Gulf'of lexa 46 , �, , s � ;, A 1r t `t r 1''+' � add 200-,- ermitted � a k 1; 1 z ->7 Beac Fill Crest : • R-147 104000c � t..■ R 148 .E 0 °1 i„ Pad = ln N. Add'' Breakwater , ` ' c-2 r �, �t 126500 127000 127500 128000 Easting (m) Figure 30. Alternative 4: Permitted Beach Fill with Additional Breakwater Plan. 41 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 48 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 10 PROPOSED BREAKWATER • 5 — 16' r - 16' -- +z z MHW = +0.44 2:1 SLOPE w ARMOR 7 9 STONE 9' O —5 176 1:1 SLOPE =s w —10 CORE STONE _11 -12 —15 162 —I BEDDING STONE ON -20 FILTER CLOTH Figure 31. Alternative 4: Breakwater Conceptual Design Profile. 10 } 5 16' 10' ---22.— SEAWARD SIDE +2 LANDWARD SIDE Z MHW = +0.44 w 0 2:1 SLOPE — 9' O —5 —6 ARMOR 6'-- Q1:1 SLOPE STONE > -9 -10 CORE STONE -12I 72• —15 BEDDING STONE ON FILTER CLOTH -20 Figure 32. Alternative 4: Breakwater Conceptual Design Section. 5.1.2 Model Results: Morphology Change Analysis Alternative I (Permitted Beach Fill) was chosen as a baseline alternative to which model results of Alternatives 2 through 4 were compared. 42 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 49 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Alternative 1 (Permitted Beach Fill) vs. Alternative 2 (Permitted Beach Fill with Feeder Beach) Figure 33 presents the comparison of morphologic elevations between Alternatives 1 and 2 at the end of the 16-month numerical simulation. This comparison was created by subtracting the 16- month modeled Alternative 1 surface from that of Alternative 2. Yellow/red colors indicate higher elevations for Alternative 2, and green colors indicate higher elevations for Alternative 1. Blank color indicates no changes or insignificant changes not exceeding 0.05 m. As expected, at the end of the simulation, the feeder beach (Alternative 2) diffused in both cross- shore and alongshore directions, which ben.efitted the nearshore segment between R-144 and R- 148. Further south, however, the changes in sediment pattern for Alternative 2 resulted in lower nearshore morphology elevations south of G-2 compared to Alternative 1. o Alternative 1 vs.Alternative 2(After 16 Months) co — ? ��m . b u ? I a � : ,-t ... ,, : MHW _T 2 - #�. - N , '� Alt 1:Permitted Beach Fill I �. .„� ,"� Alt 2 Permitted Beach Fill with Feeder Beach o #1 co '^ Difference,m N. oeo 02 io 0 0 �oe 0 1 a225 0 5 m -® ' 1 V — .—outperforms —err—outper lrms�omi Alt 2- Gulf of 4ex, ' 1 _ a s1 a .; r .�m r~ CD e F, � 3"�`'# S 1' * e. p i d a 4, : ■ ® ,"C4.' i ° - I 128500 127000 127500 128000 EastIng(m) Figure 33. Alternative 1 vs. Alternative 2 Morphologic Change Comparison. Alternative I (Permitted Beach Fill) vs. Alternative 3 (Permitted Beach Fill with Additional Groin), Figure 34 presents the comparison of morphologic elevations between Alternatives 1 and 3 at the end of the 16-month numerical simulation. Yellow/red colors indicate higher elevations for Alternative 3, and green colors indicate higher elevations for Alternative 1. 43 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 50 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report The results indicate that the additional groin (Alternative 3) resulted, as expected, in higher elevations in the groin vicinity. Further, sand accumulation and, as a result, higher elevations for Alternative 3, occurred just seaward of MHW between the additional groin and the existing north groin near G-2. South of G-2 along the shoreline, Alternative 3 elevations were in general lower compared to Alternative I. Alternative 1 vs.Alternative 3(After 16 Months) 8 �_..,.. 1w' ? 4 Alt 1:Permitted Beach Fill a, �1-► ■°® " '° , Alt 3:Permitted Beach Fill with Additional Groin - NDifference,m k s. I 1 .. 0.50 5.25 0.10 0 05 0.05 0 10 0 25 0.50 o �a�' `` Alt 1 Alt 1 Alt 3 -0—outperforms —equals—outperforms —a► vn rl Alt 3 Alt 3 AK 1 1.1:1011 Gf� s C o j ° , }tea • srJ • lst .4 0061 , _ r � rSI�p� p ,. fur I I 1 I I I I 126500 127000 127500 128000 128500 Easting(m) Figure 34. Alternative 1 vs. Alternative 3 Morphologic Change Comparison (Groin Width is Exaggerated for Exhibit Purposes). Alternative 1 (Permitted Beach Fill) vs. Alternative 4 (Permitted Beach Fill with Additional Breakwater) Figure 35 presents the comparison of morphologic elevations between Alternatives 1 and 4 at the end of the 16-month numerical simulation. Yellow/red colors indicate higher elevations for Alternative 4, and green colors indicate higher elevations for Alternative 1. The results indicate that the additional breakwater (Alternative 4) provided, as expected, sheltering near R-148, which resulted in higher elevations for Alternative 4 just seaward of MHW. However, further south in the vicinity of the existing north groin at G-2, Alternative 4 elevations were 0.5 m lower compared to Alternative 1. 44 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 51 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Alternative 1 vs.Alternative 4(After 16 Months) 1°n _ M� , Alt 1:Permitted Beach Fill � . , � ■® � - Alt 3:Permitted Beach Fill with Additional Groin Difference,m �� yy ` I I I r ' :.. 050 0.25 010 0.05 005 010 025 050 Alt 1 At 1 A1t3 1 '` I,* toutperforms —equals—outperforms—� IMO Ak 3 Alt 3 Aft 1 dT' 9 gi C _Gulfs i ..=";x" ". r it t1 ■ w,.;,n�.... t+ .4. Z � ,T .,r! a�ell' • 1`+,ter 1 {y lt \ :$1;"^""' AI I 1111111 V, ■r='L7 '"q� �� _, w. i °IPA a_. ..._ :d 11i] 126500 127000 127500 128000 128500 Easting(m) Figure 35. Alternative 1 vs. Alternative 4 Morphologic Change Comparison. 5.1.3 Model Results: Shoreline Change Analysis Figure 36 presents shoreline positions predicted by the model at the end of the 16-month numerical simulation relative to a No Action simulation. "No Action" for this purpose is defined as a simulation without any future beach fill placement or additional structures and was performed during the calibration process presented in Section 4.2.2. For simplicity, the No Action alternative will be referred to as Alternative 0. The figure indicates that between R-146 and G-2, Alternatives 1 through 4 resulted in a wider beach compared to Alternative 0, offsetting historic erosion experienced by the shoreline in this area. This confirms that placing beach fill is a necessary component of the long-term beach management program for South Beach. In general, Alternative 3, which includes the beach fill and the additional groin, performed better than the other alternative resulting in a wider beach at R-148 and G-2, where the most significant historic erosion has occurred. 45 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a 70 New Business South Marco Island 52 of Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report R-143 0 _, I Alt 1 Alt 1: Permitted Beach Fill 4.-- - Alt 2 Alt 2: Permitted Beach Fill with Feeder Beach — •- - Alt3 f AIt3: Permitted Beach Fillwi hAdditional Groin - - • - - Alt 4 Alt 4: Permitted Beach Fill with Additional Breakwater , . ° • R-144 °"-` -, - ,-4,4,,,„„ - :--,,,,,,,,- 4 ' 4 - 4 ' t "" R k if5k 2" -° ,vrk * t.f ,, A. 4R-145 4 I/ 4 , gas ' hj 5 • R-146 7 i r �'i!`` , •' R-147 E73.,..,,,,!: � � '. Tyr �: '` I "" " _ ue' e k+anti{E - f! J^w I1. z 1 . R-148 p. `k�x rya ^-r �2 F Shoreline Position from Alt 0 ft 1/4 , Figure 36. Shoreline Change Analysis. 5.1.4 Model Results: Volume Change Analysis Table 8 presents comparisons of the volumetric change rates among the historic trend,No Action (Alternative 0), and the four modeled alternatives.. The modeled results indicate that Alternatives 1 through 4 would, in general, maintain historic trends between R-144 and R-145. At R-146, the model did not predict the historic trend during the Alternative 0 calibration run; however, Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 performed better than Alternative 0, indicating that these alternatives would mitigate the historic erosional trend. 46 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 53 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report At R-147, the calibration run was in better agreement with the historic trend, and Alternatives 1 through 4 predicted a positive trend in volume changes, indicating that all four alternatives would mitigate erosion there. Alternative 1 showed the most significant improvement with Alternatives 3 and 4 on the same order of magnitude. At R-148, the calibration run was in good agreement with the historic trend, and Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 model results indicated these alternatives would outperform the other alternatives; however, the erosional trend would remain. Table 8. Historic vs. Modeled Volume Changes for all Alternatives. Location 1997-2002 Alt 0 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Historic No Action Permitted PBF with PBF with PBF with (Taylor, cy/yr Beach Fill Feeder Add. Groin Add. 2005) (PBF) Beach cy/yr Breakwater cy/yr cy/yr cy/yr cy/yr R-144 5,300 4,200 5,600 4,700 5,100 5,300 R-145 3,900 2,400 3,500 500 3,400 3,400 R-146 _ -1,100 2,300 3,900 300 3,800 3,700 R-147 _ -400 0 1,300 300 1,400 1,200 R-148 -1,400 -1,900 -1,500 -1,000 -1,100 -1,200 5.1.5 Model Results: Design Fill Performance Analysis An analysis of design beach fill performance was conducted to identify which alternatives sustain beach fill width and volume over time. Figures 37 through 39 present the percentage of the design beach fill volume predicted to remain within the permitted beach fill template over the 16-month period of simulation for all four alternatives at R-147, R-148, and G-2, respectively. Initially, all four alternatives had their beach fill volumes at 100%. At R-147, Alternative 2, which includes an additional beach fill (feeder beach), performed slightly better in sustaining the fill placed within the template at the end of the simulation with 52% remaining, compared to the other alternatives that ranged from 49%to 50%. At R-148, Alternative 4, which includes an additional breakwater, performed slightly better with 62% remaining, compared to the other alternatives that ranged from 59%to 61%. 47 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 54 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 100 100 Alt 1: Permitted Beach Fill(PBF) ----- - Alt 2: PBF with Feeder Beach - Alt 3: PBF with Additional Groin 90 — — — - Alt 4: PBF with Additional Breakwater — 90 at d - E 80 — - 80 c > - s - t 70 — —- 70 V co - - a) Cf - - C - c 60 — _ __. _.. 60 ea _50 — 50 - 40 1 1 1 I , 1 I 1 I i 1 1 40 O 4 8 12 16 Time (months) Figure 37. Design Beach Fill Volume % Remaining within Beach Fill Template at R-147. 100 100 Alt 1: Permitted Beach Fill(PBF) \ ------ Alt 2: PBF with Feeder Beach ------ Alt 3: PBF with Additional Groin 90 — — Alt 4: PBF with Additional Breakwater —- 90 e \ - d - - E 80 ,\ — 80 U- - - Z 70 — - — 70 v — ea \ t� C \' R 60 -,. 60 m 50 — 50 40 ' I ■ ■ I i i i I , 1 i I 1 i i - 40 O 4 8 12 16 Time (months) Figure 38. Design Beach Fill Volume % Remaining within Beach Fill Template at R-148. 48 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 55 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report At G-2, Alternative 3, which includes an additional groin, performed better with 73% remaining, compared to the other alternatives that had 65% of the beach fill remaining within the permitted beach fill template. ioo 100 Alt 1: Permitted Beach Fill(PBF) - - Alt 2:PBF with Feeder Beach - --- Alt 3: PBF with Additional Groin 90 — �. — — Alt 4: PBF with Additional Breakwater — 90 d 80 -— _ 8 — 80 80 C > - LL qV 70 .�> —- 70 c _ •S 60 — - 60 E - d - 50 — — 50 40 i , , 1 , i i ) , i I i i ' 40 0 4 8 12 16 Time (months) Figure 39. Design Beach Fill Volume % Remaining within Beach Fill Template at G-2. 5.1.6 Model Results: Alternatives Performance Analysis Summary Based on the results of the shoreline and volume change analyses, Alternatives 1 and 3 were identified as preferred. Alternative 1 design includes placing a beach fill within the permitted beach fill template. Through numerical modeling, it was demonstrated Alternative 1 addresses erosion of the South Beach. Alternative 3, which in addition to the beach fill includes construction of one additional groin, exhibited additional benefits in terms of keeping a wider beach than has historically existed between R-147 and G-2 and sustaining more volume south of R-148 compared to the other alternatives. 5.2 Fiscal Analysis 5.2.1 Construction Budgets The net volume change within the permitted fill template between 2007 and 2009 equaled approximately+900 cubic yards per year. In the southern half of the beach fill, from R-147 to the groin, the volume change rate between 2007 and 2009 equaled approximately -9,200 cubic yards per year. This rate was identified as the current background erosion rate for the Project area. CEC utilized controlled digital photography, along with the monitoring surveys, and permitted beach fill template to derive the volume requirements for the 2012-13 Beach Renourishment Project following the description in the FEMA Project Worksheet, Declaration No. 1785DRFL 49 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 56 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report wherein approximately 77,000 cubic yards were established as the erosion losses due to Tropical Storm Fay that occurred in 2008. Applying the background erosion rate between 2009 and 2012, the required beach fill volume was estimated to be approximately 104,000 cubic yards. Based on the alternative conceptual designs, planning level constructions budgets were developed for each alternative. The budgets included the cost of a fill placement within the permitted beach fill template, existing structures repair, i.e., three breakwaters and two groins, and additional beach fill or structure, i.e., feeder beach, additional groin, and additional breakwater. These planning level budgets used common assumptions and, therefore, can be used for comparative evaluations. However, the actual costs can be expected to change, as individual designs are refined and completed in the future design and permitting phases. Table 9 presents an itemized construction budget for Alternative 1. Table 9. Alternative 1 Construction Budget. Item Unit I Quantity Price Total Beach Fill Mob/Demob job 1 $562,500 $562,500 Beach Fill cy 104,000 $8.10 $842,400 Turbidity Monitoring job 1 $15,600 $15,600 Final Grading&Tilling job 1 $15,200 $15,200 Existing Structures Repair Existing Structures job 1 $987,300 $987,300 Total $2,423,000 Contingency(25%) $605,800 Grand Total $3,029,000 Based on the volume of beach compatible material available within the permitted Caxambas Pass borrow area footprint and estimated current infilling rate of the borrow area, approximately 192,000 cubic yards are projected to be available for the anticipated 2012-13 Project construction window (Section 3.4.3). Using a cut-to-fill ratio of 1.4, approximately 137,000 cubic yards can be placed on the beach. Because the permitted beach template requires approximately 104,000 cubic yards, the remaining 33,000 cubic yards were used as a feeder beach component in Alternative 2. Table 10 presents an itemized construction budget for Alternative 2. Table 10.Alternative 2 Construction Budget. Item Unit I Quantity I Price Total Beach Fill Mob/Demob job 1 $562,500 $562,500 Beach Fill cy 137,000 $8.10 $1,109,700 Turbidity Monitoring job 1 $20,600 $20,600 Final Grading& Tilling job 1 $17,700 $17,700 Existing Structures Repair Existing Structures job 1 $987,300 $987,300 Total $2,697,800 Contingency(25%) $674,450 Grand Total $3,372,000 50 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 57 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Based on the rock groin profile and section presented in Section 5.1.1, material quantities were computed, and an itemized construction budget was developed (Table 11). Table 11. Alternative 3 Construction Budget.et. Item Unit Quantity Price Total Beach Fill Mob/Demob job 1 $562,500 $562,500 Beach Fill cy 104,000 $8.10 $842,400 Turbidity Monitoring job 1 $15,600 $15,600 Final Grading & Tilling job 1 $15,200 $15,200 Subtotal $1,435,700 Additional Groin (200 ft) Bedding Stone tons 860 $98 $84,624 Core Stone tons 2250 $102 $228,780 Armor Stone tons 1560 $104 $162,458 Filter Fabric sf 13700 $1.00 $13,700 AZ-13 Steel Sheetpile 16' ft 130 $480 $62,400 Subtotal $551,962 Existing Structures Repair Existing Groins job 1 $987,300 $987,300 Total $2,975,000 Contingency (25%) $743,800 Grand Total $3,719,000 Table 12 presents an itemized construction budget for Alternative 4. Material quantities were calculated based on the breakwater profile and section presented in Section 5.1.1. Table 12. Alternative 4 Construction Budget. Item Unit I Quantity Price Total Beach Fill Mob/Demob job 1 $562,500 $562,500 Beach Fill cy 104,000 $8.10 $842,400 Turbidity Monitoring job 1 $15,600 $15,600 Final Grading&Tilling job 1 $15,200 $15,200 Subtotal $1,435,700 Breakwater Bedding Stone tons 700 $120 $84,000 Core Stone tons 1240 $124 $1 53,760 Armor Stone tons 2980 _ $127 $378,460 Filter Fabric sf 11250 $1.00 $11,250 Subtotal $627,470 Existing Structures Repair Existing Structures job 1 $987,300 $987,300 Total $3,050,500 Contingency(25%) $762,600 Grand Total $3,813,000 51 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 58 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Table 13 presents a summary of the four alternatives' construction budgets, which include 25% contingencies and exclude design, permit, survey, and construction administration fees. Table 13. Summary of Planning Level Construction Budgets. Beach Fill Repair Existing Additional Beach Alternative (Permitted Structures Fill /Structure Total Template) 1 $1,795,000 $1,234,000 $0 $3,029,000 2 $1,795,000 $1,234,000 $343,000 $3,372,000 3 $1,795,000 $1,234,000 $690,000 $3,719,000 4 $1,795,000 $1,234,000 $784,000 $3,813,000 5.2.2 Benefit to Cost Analysis The feeder beach alternative (Alternative 2) does not address the localized dry beach erosion based upon the model results and analyses, and the added costs for this alternative are not justified. The added groin alternative (Alternative 3) does address the localized dry beach erosion, and, as such, is recommended for an additional benefit quantification analysis. The added breakwater alternative (Alternative 4) has a very localized depositional area, but it does not translate into additional beach width to the north to address the dry beach erosion problem; thus,the costs for this alternative are not justified. 6 ANALYSIS OF ADDITIONAL GROIN BENEFITS In order to expand upon the benefit to cost discussion presented in Section 5.2.2, potential benefits of the added groin (Alternative 3) were further analyzed. For this analysis, the `design fill width' was measured as the distance from landward limits of the fill to MHW. Figure 40 presents a comparison between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 as each affects the percentage of the design beach fill width remaining over the 16-month period of simulation at R- 147, R-148, and G-2. As the baseline condition, the alternatives had their initial design beach fill width at 100%, which corresponded to 142 ft, 141 ft and 46 ft at R-147, R-148, and G-2, respectively. At the end of the simulation, Alternative 3 had 83%, 100%, and 49% beach fill width remaining at R-147, R-148, and G-2, respectively, compared to 76%, 81%, and 39% for Alternative 1. Therefore, the additional benefits of the groin in terms of sustaining beach fill width are on the order of 10%to 20% within the area of influence of the structure. To refine the location and configuration of the additional groin in terms of sustaining the beach fill width and extend its area of influence to address the localized dry beach erosion along the south segment corresponding to the public access area, additional modeling and fiscal analysis were performed and are presented in the following section. 52 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 59 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report R-147 Alt 1:Permitted Beach Fill(PBF) - R-147 Alt 3:PBF with Additional Groin R-148 Alt 1:PBF R-148 Alt 3:PBF with Additional Groin G-2 Alt 1:PBF G-2 Alt 3:PBF with Additional Groin 100 - 100 a 80 80 ++ N _ - \ 60 — — 60 LL _ v - ` CO 40 — 40 Initial Fill Width Along R-147= 187 feet re 20 — Initial Fill Width Along G-2=76 feet 20 - Initial Beach FYU Width nas calculated by measuring c6stance from Permitted Beach Fill landward - - limits to Alt I/Alt 3 Initial MHWposition 0 1 I I 0 0 4 8 12 16 Time(months) Figure 40.Design Beach Fill Width % Remaining at R-147,R-148 and G-2. 7 REFINEMENT OF GROIN LOCATION AND DESIGN 7.1 Revised Alternative 3 7.1.1 Design Details and Objectives Alternative 3 was revised (Alternative 3-R) by placing the additional groin approximately halfway between R-147 and G-2 (Figure 41). This is approximately 300 feet north of the original groin location considered for Alternative 3. The seaward toe of the revised groin is located approximately 150 feet seaward of the toe of the Permitted Beach Fill. The total length of the groin (3-R) is approximately 350 feet, and the crest width is 10 feet. This is approximately 150 feet longer than the original 200-foot length in Alternative 3. The MIKE21 numerical grid was refined within the Project area for the new simulations. This refinement of the grid allowed for better representation of the revised groin geometry. In order to ensure that comparisons between the revised groin alternative and other design options would not be influenced by variations in the numerical grids, the refined grid also was utilized to perform a new simulation of Alternative 1 (Alternative 1-R). Two 16-month long MIKE21 simulations were performed, one for each alternative. 53 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 60 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report o Alternative 3-R- Permitted Beach Fill with Revised Additional Groin g ' . x° _ rte= v • R 143 .n t . . �4 : 4 , tri • f , ' ' y � "� "` " -144 s "". a �' � 's a$ CG j E d .,dam b 4 N. I (f Fill Thickness,m : ■4 R-145 ' I .� s r 1` 0 05 0 10 0 50 1 00 1.50 o Gulf of�VlexlF g',. l3 vp ,r, • R146 0 2005 Permitted ° .iI€ i _ Z Beach Fill Crest '�t; . 104 000 � / t, 1 :' ., I " 4�.• R.147,,,,, . �c re F x sds � 'n a ■ R-148 ° _ _,,, P.» . - Addi Groin' tt ', • G-2 ; , 'lit f 126500 127000 127500 128000 Easting (m) Figure 41. Alternative 3-R: Permitted Beach Fill with Revised Additional Groin Plan (Groin Width is Exaggerated for Exhibit Purposes). 7.1.2 Model Results: Morphology Change Analysis Figure 42 presents the comparison of morphologic elevations between Alternatives 1-R and 3-R at the end of the 16-month numerical simulation. Yellow/red colors indicate higher elevations for Alternative 3-R, and green colors indicate higher elevations for Alternative 1-R. The results indicate that the additional groin (Alternative 3-R) resulted in sand accumulation, depicted by the higher elevations, in the area of influence of the groin as expected. 54 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 61 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report Alternative 1-R vs.Alternative 3-R(After 16 Months) ,} `` �a `: `a ! • Alt 1-R:Permitted Beach Fill ( Alt 3-R:Permitted Beach Fill with Revised Additional Groin o a1§pf n ,• —N_ '_ g� �®„ �-�� , Difference,m ■ NiailiMENE■11= - . t 4' 0 50 0 25 0 10 0.05 005 0-10 0.25 0 50 =MEM . � e �� „ Alt 1-R Alt 1-R Alt 3-R - a}!• +a �� toutperforms —equals—outperforms—a> - �� Alt 3-R Aft 3-R Alt 1-R _ IMHWAL� 3-R Eau E - Gulf of �. �� ,�., Z �lY �' --- f........ • 7 ` e1:151M . a. 7 e _ Add 1 Groth � r �� •®' . 1r °� . rat �d a'� 1'—' } raf° i .Olea I 126500 127000 127500 128000 128500 Easting(m) Figure 42. Alternative 1-R vs. Alternative 3-R Morphologic Change Comparison (Groin Width is Exaggerated for Exhibit Purposes). 7.1.3 Model Results: Shoreline Change Analysis Figure 43 presents shoreline positions predicted by the model for the Permitted Fill and the Additional Groin alternatives at the end of the 16-month numerical simulation. The positions are shown relative to the No Action simulation (Alternative 0) which was performed during the calibration process presented in Section 4.2.2. Measurements of the beach width predicted as remaining after 16 months were extracted every 100 feet to depict the model results in detail in the vicinity of the groin. The figure indicates that between R-147 and G-2, Alternative 3-R resulted in additional dry beach compared to Alternative 1-R within the area of influence of the groin which appears to extend on the order of 600 feet to the north and 500 feet to the south. The southerly extent may be attributed to the additional groin and the existing groins acting together as a groin field. 55 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 62 of 70 South Marco Island le Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 5 t P a4 `•{A After 16 Months �x " : % r f � r 1. • R-143 �; � x {g;. '�.. w4a q w x .. „, R-144� �At 1-R °:=-1,4 _ At 3-R.—{.—. I.k w 4 1 �■ ., R-145 1} ..i � k 8 *t. I�t ii x p d N�, ii' d . R-146 ' ' . At'i ,,,,t/71 f, '., . :"1.- PI'y , c R-147 n a Groin , . , , IgNitS _.-... � ■ R 148 ' ,. ow u7 O u7 O '".'.'"* N N r- In O ® -# _.... Shoreline Position from Alt 0 (ft) Figure 43. Shoreline Change Comparison Analysis Between Alternatives 1-R and 3-R (Groin Width is Exaggerated for Exhibit Purposes). 56 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 63 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 7.1.4 Model Results: Volume Change Analysis Table 14 presents comparisons of volumetric change rates for the historic trend, Alternative 0, and modeled Alternatives 1-R and 3-R. The comparisons indicate that the groin in Alternative 3- R resulted in an increased accretion rate at R-147 and a reduced erosion rate at R-148 compared to non-groin Alternative 1-R. Table 14. Historic vs. Modeled Volume Changes for Alternatives 0, 1-R,and 3-R. Location 1997-2002 Alt 0 Alt 1-R Alt 3-R Historic No Action PBF PBF with Revised (Taylor, 2005) cy/yr cy/yr Groin cy/yr cy/yr R-144 5,300 4,200 7,300 6,600 R-145 3,900 2,400 6,700 6,000 R-146 -1,100 2,300 7,200 6,800 R-147 -400 0 1,500 2,400 R-148 -1,400 -1,900 -500 -350 7.1.5 Model Results: Design Fill Performance Analysis Figures 44 through 46 present the percentage of design beach fill volume predicted to remain within the permitted beach fill template over the 16-month period of simulation at R-147, R-148, and G-2, respectively. Initially,the alternatives had their beach fill volumes at 100%. At R-147 (Figure 44), Alternatives 1-R and 3-R performed similarly in sustaining the fill placed within the template. At the end of the simulation, both alternatives had 49%remaining. At R-148 (Figure 45), the groin in Alternative 3-R outperformed Alternative 1-R with 72% remaining compared to 59% for Alternative 1-R. At G-2 (Figure 46), both alternatives were similar with 57% and 56% of the beach fill remaining within the permitted beach fill template for Alternatives 1-R and 3-R, respectively. 57 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 64 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 100 \ _ 100 \ Alt 1-R: PBF \ — — • Alt 3-R: PBF with Additional Groin 90 — \ 90 o - - E 80 — \ — 80 O _ ,_ _ \ _ L _- = 70 — \ — 70 a, \ a) C - - .0 \ 60 - - - - - — 60 to E - S - CL - _ N - - 50 — 50 40 1 1 I I i i 1 I i i 1 I i i 1 40 0 4 8 12 16 Time (months) Figure 44. Design Beach Fill Volume % Remaining within Beach Fill Template at R-147. 58 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 65 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 100 � 100 - Alt 1-R: PBF _ - — — • Alt 3-R: PBF with Additional Groin - 90 - - 90 - - - NN. - • \ - d - - E 80 - \ - 80 G - NN, -- -- _ - . ` - - _ - - - Li - -__" = 70 - - 70 V to - - m - - Ca - - C - - •C 60 - - 60 fu 50 - - 50 40 • i i I i I i I i i • 40 0 4 8 12 16 Time (months) Figure 45. Design Beach Fill Volume % Remaining within Beach Fill Template at R-148. 59 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 66 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 100 . 100 Alt 1-R: PBF — — • Alt 3-R: PBF with Addtional Groin 90 — — 90 o — y - E 80 — — 80 L1. - - t 70 — �� __�. --� — 70 co V m _ _ c 60 — — 60 d - 50 — — 50 40 I I I 1 i i I i i 40 0 4 8 12 16 Time (months) Figure 46. Design Beach Fill Volume % Remaining within Beach Fill Template at G-2. 7.1.6 Model Results: Beach Fill Width Sustainability Analysis Figure 47 presents comparisons between Alternative 1-R and Alternative 3-R as each affects the percentage of design beach fill width remaining over the 16-month period of simulation at R- 147, R-148, and G-2. The initial design beach fill width was defined as a measured distance from the Permitted Beach Fill landward limits to Alternative 1-R / Alternative 3-R initial MHW position. At the end of the simulation, Alternative 3-R had 85%, 80%, and 46%beach fill width remaining at R-147, R-148, and G-2, respectively, compared to 86%, 72%, and 39% for Alternative 1-R. 60 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 67 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report R-147 Alt 1-R1: PBF R-147 Alt 3-R1: PBF with Additional Groin R-148 Alt 1-R1: PBF R-148 Alt 3-R1: PBF with Additional Groin G-2 Alt 1-R1: PBF G-2 Alt 3-R1: PBF with Additional Groin 100 100 80 —. .... . 80 = 60 — . 60 4.) - 4C to - __ 40 — -'--- _____ — 40 Ca - ._ Initial Fill Width Along R-147= 187 feet FR 1 ix 20 Initial Fill Width Along G-2=76 feet — 20 - Initial Beach F211 Width •as calculated by measunng distance from Permitted Beach Fill landward - - limits to All I-RI/Alt 3-RI Initial MHW position - 0 I I I I I I 0 0 4 8 12 16 Time (months) Figure 47. Design Beach Fill Width % Remaining at R-147,R-148 and G-2. 7.2 Summary The numerical modeling results in the present analysis demonstrate that an additional groin would provide benefits in terms of sustaining additional beach fill within the area of influence of the groin, over the 16-month period of analysis, on the order of 10%. The model results depict the influence of the structure extending approximately two times its length to the north and south in this period of analysis. The construction budget for the additional 200-foot long groin (Alternative 3) was over $550,000. The construction budget for the additional 350-foot long groin (Alternative 3-R) is projected to be on the order of $1,000,000 accounting for the additional rock to extend the structure seaward into deeper water. Based on engineering judgment and experience, the cost for an additional groin achieving these limited benefits is not justifiable nor is a detailed benefit to cost analysis warranted. The additional groin is not recommended for further consideration unless background conditions significantly change in the future. 61 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 68 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 8 INCREMENTAL BEACH MANAGEMENT Based on the previous project monitoring results, the beach management approach to the South Marco shoreline, consisting of beach renourishment on an approximate 7 to 8 year cycle, in combination with the erosion control structures built in the 1990's, has been effective in providing storm damage reduction benefits, recreational beach, and endangered species habitat. The post-breakwater-installation erosion rates are reduced compared to the pre-breakwater- installation erosion rates, indicating the structures have positively benefited the South Beach Project area. However, the localized erosion south of R-147 continues. Collier County has employed an incremental beach management approach on a county-wide basis to address hot spot beach erosion in a cost-effective manner since the late 1990's. The approach includes trucking and placing beach compatible sand from an approved upland sand source. Recently, the County placed approximately 42,320 tons of upland sand on two shoreline segments, one on Park Shore Beach and one south of Doctors Pass on the City of Naples Beach. The approximate cost for this project was $882,300, equal to $20.85 per ton. A conveyor system was utilized at both sites due to lack of direct beach access. Such a program could be implemented for South Marco as well. To address the localized dry beach erosion problem south of R-147, it is recommended that an incremental beach management strategy be included in the permitting of the Project for placement of beach compatible upland sand at intervals necessary to address both storm-induced and background erosion. The interval could be determined by a defined trigger mechanism based upon beach monitoring surveys, for example, when 50% of the design beach fill width south of R147 is reached. 9 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION This report summarizes the history of beach and inlet management along the South Marco Island shoreline and performance of the associated beach nourishment projects and erosion control structures. It also describes the numerical modeling study, development of alternatives, and presents an analysis of alternatives in terms of performance and fiscal comparisons. The South Marco Island shoreline between R-143 and R-148 is designated by FDEP as critically eroded. There are existing structures including two terminal groins constructed in 1990-1991 and three breakwaters constructed in 1996-1997. Based on the post-construction survey from the most recent nourishment project in 2006 and the 2011 survey, approximately 87% of the fill volume remains in the template north of R-146, while only 51% of the volume remains within the template between R-146 and the existing north groin. With respect to beach fill width measured at MHW north of R-146, 100% of the beach fill width remains in place, while on average, only 33% of the beach fill width remains in place south of R-146 to the groin. The post- construction MHW changes computed between January 2007 and February 2011 indicate the Project area has been eroding at an average rate of -7.2 feet per year during this period. The south portion of the beach segment continues to erode significantly evidencing that the dry beach erosion problem continues. Four alternatives were developed for consideration in the model study. All four alternatives include placement of beach fill within the permitted beach fill template. Alternative 1 includes only the permitted beach fill. Alternative 2 also includes placing additional beach fill to serve as a feeder beach. Alternative 3 also includes construction of an additional terminal groin north of 62 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 69 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report the existing terminal groins. Alternative 4 also includes construction of an additional breakwater north of the existing breakwaters. Two (2) state-of-the-art models were considered in the study, MIKE21 and Delft3D. Both models were calibrated for the 1999-2001 period using available historic data and validated for the January-February 2011 period using survey, hydrodynamic, and wave data that were additionally collected for the model study. Both models performed similarly well predicting tidal elevations, waves, and, to a certain degree, currents. However, the MIKE21 model outperformed Delft3D in more accurately predicting morphologic changes and was chosen to model the developed alternatives. The development of the alternatives included an estimate of sand volume required for the beach fill, material quantities to repair the existing five erosion control structures, material quantities to construct a new erosion control structure (Alternatives 3 and 4), and associated planning level construction budgets. The construction budgets to build Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 are $3,029,000, $3,372,000, $3,719,000, and $3,813,000, respectively. These conceptual costs include 25% contingencies and exclude design, permit, survey, and construction administration fees. Through numerical modeling, it was demonstrated that beach fill is a necessary component of the long-term beach management program for South Beach. Based on the model results, Alternatives 1 and 3 were identified as preferred alternatives. While Alternative 1 addresses erosion along South Beach, Alternative 3 exhibited additional benefits in terms of keeping a wider beach between R-147 and G-2 and sustaining more volume south of R-148 compared to the other alternatives. To refine the location of the additional groin and improve its potential for sustaining the beach fill width and address the localized dry beach erosion along the south segment corresponding to the public access area, additional modeling was performed. The numerical modeling results demonstrated that an additional groin would provide benefits in terms of sustaining additional beach fill within the area of influence of the groin, over the 16-month period of analysis, on the order of 10%. The model results depicted the influence of the structure extending approximately two times its length to the north and south. Based on engineering judgment, experience and the conceptual construction budgets, the cost for an additional groin was not justifiable; and, as such, the additional groin was not recommended for further consideration. To address the localized erosion south of R-147, it is recommended that the permitting of the next renourishment event include an incremental beach management approach similar to what the County has employed to address other hot spot beach erosion areas throughout the County in a cost-effective manner over the past twelve years. The approach includes trucking and placing beach compatible sand from an approved upland sand source at intervals necessary to address both storm-induced and background erosion. The interval would be determined by a trigger mechanism such as when an agreed-upon design beach fill width south of R147 (e.g., 50% remaining width) is reached as determined by beach monitoring surveys. 63 CAC November 10,2011 VIII-3-a New Business 70 of 70 South Marco Island Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis Final Report 10 REFERENCES Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey, Inc. 2004. Caxambas Pass Core Location and Analysis: Final Report. Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. 1991. Marco Island Beach Nourishment, Pre- and Post- Construction Monitoring Report. Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. 1996. Caxambas Pass Inlet Management Plan Report. Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. 1997. Marco Island Beach Restoration Project, 1996 Annual Monitoring Report. Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. 1998. Marco Island Beach Restoration Project, 1997 Annual Monitoring Report. Coastal Planning & Engineering. 2003. Collier County Florida Hideaway Beach Renourishment Project, Marco Pass Sand Source Geotechnical Report. Coastal Planning & Engineering. 2010. South Marco Island Beach Nourishment Project, Two Year Post-Construction Monitoring Report. Finkl, C.W.; Andrews, J.; Larenas, M. and Forrest, B.M. 2008. Collier County Emergency Sand Source Investigation Report. Finkl, C.W.; Forrest, B.; Larenas, M. and Andrews, J.L. 2009. Collier County Emergency Sand Source Investigation: Phase III Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigations. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2011. Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida. Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems. Humiston & Moore Engineers. 2006. Hideaway Beach Post Construction Report. Humiston & Moore Engineers. 2008. South Marco Island Beach Nourishment Project, First Year Monitoring Report. Stephen, M.F. 1981. Effects of Seawall Construction on Beach and Inlet Morphology and Dynamics at Caxambas Pass, Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of South Carolina. Taylor Engineering, Inc. 2003. 2002 Monitoring of Marco Island Beaches and Breakwater and Caxambas Pass Report. Taylor Engineering, Inc. 2005. 2004 Monitoring of Marco Island Beaches and Breakwater and Caxambas Pass Report. 64 0 0 L..• L L., c a 0 o I I — L-7.. 0 -: Ir Z,,A, -.;o ,...7 0 0 . LA 1 m ', •,„ .d. Li co (I)(41) ,t L, , U .11110011111111 illmos r, , . _r, ,.,... < ImIC (10) c...: .._ .-r. rf, rj.. (41„) E ...„ _,...,.. ..:,..„ , co ;„,-.., „.... ... _....... . ....,, , . „...., . ,, z < (L) , 0. ,..,... CI:) all X 1 a_ D II 11 .111 rz' 0 In= 17..) ,.. „ . .4,,, *;'*'<rT”'4:; •C''''' ' r, • - .4. ,,,_,•.7 4.-1 = ■ - ,,,<,,,....„ „,:ii, c-_, z„...„siw,c, rc,:, : ... -_,-, = n o :3 a3 C cn i-L c rn, 'll = T 111 1ZT) 1, 1% 173 a N.mml UJI ("\I >- I-L-I .... Irit3 fps mr....liktia 0 ,..i r c__,, (in L...< 0 ,----1 II (1:$ m1.■■•■1 1,... ,,,,t• —... ......, ....., • c...t. (1) 0 = (f) I....111. 1 ...., ... ...., 0 5 tr %., C) 0 E ..... , 4..--- „.......-- c., ? ,..„ .,... lei U (10 C...) < 0 74- , - .. IA.., ,„,„ 4......,4,.... ,..,„...-„,,,....•,,;..,..„. 4,,,i..:v ,, , ."1,; ,,,1 • 1.......8.- ,pri,, - :: 4.4,,,,,,,, ., ,4 ,,,,.... ;,,,1 . 1 .,...„. n ' N Ci) a..q7 •NM= O '— ct3 szu ci) >. C — •O O C C •- - •-0 0) c t.u. R3 P U oZ v = 4) -o O �.1-C3 E O a_ 0 a U 4-' CO _ C Cl) _ v 00 - O C 4--•ra CI) a) 4.) :., •— Ziul cl... �. u' u' t1) C ., 4.) •m, to U U s- c° Q) -�-) co 4...; LU O = U CD c v) -o •. O Cy. U < (I) U - -' 4-) (J) U 3 O l' oo U • f IF.mm la) _ (in(`) 4..) -C3 (13 1:3 (10 -7:3 4_1 76 2 (1) . > Li cu CU o cl) (13 o c cn T...L. N 1. c-- 147-i C .. '' -4:1 -C LLI >,.. c — r1 .4-J . 0 &-, -1:3 (1) ..... '..-c-5 ° E .. ,..- 4-_,- rw-i E fp 1, -.. ,_ CU -Ci Ci.) OCS -C3 ofzi3) 0 4-I° CU 0 O C O < U 2 4�L) :i:-3- c � tv fit U < �- co ra _CD z o ^ II t ci) 7-1 4' I I O . ...�. ..o •— �.n cli • = � O M U " U II cy,0 O o O _,_, r� 4) co 4— cn 0 � .0 4—)ra -0 ___ O ii.c — 'ci) 4) U O CO O 01 "C3 0 •.— - • cO 4 J 4� O....... ..0 ..0 (3 m (I) • if) C 11 ' O A 7 p�" ?¢ —o F' o y t. N • 1011111111111 -.0 ra .6 i V y B I� � o I ! ! .'m : t 1 t ' ' ' 7. 1 '-'-'----- ---- . ' . ......_. ,g c. : , . ".nu (pi; . ,,s1-,,, f,,, .1. ,. .5 ., ' O say�.Z . •7'a*«• O fl °' 00&9[€ 0008LL 0089Gt 0008[1 (w)6ulV3xiN s. 0 O! 00 w 0 0 N O I I , l 1 1 I ' 1 I '1 ' I I I ' 1 I I 1 I t I Ii C C I c ,,,Iv _ N O O 0 O I 1 1 4 1 1 it 1 C 0 C , ; 4 O �_ 1 0 r+ 1 - Q a 1 1 y �� 1 H L 0 m m m m 1 ■ L 0 Cr) aaaamm - � E �. p. r - a a I , w, 1 1 — w 1 i r a� N N II u Ce ..d. -d-(1-4.[C ri te le W W I i f `:# II — 1 1 N �� I i I f & a: 0 f oC I 1 I 1 IT t,Si...i�1 ^� I : I / G G . I I 1 ' / 0 1�• I I J 1' ate.+ _ E. 1 - v v t�-' . 5 >,r 0 ,I L is 1i W o - c c I I 1 I 1 i I i I I i i O Z o 09 (0D N O co u„o %) 44P!M II!i L399 6u!u!ewaa O h 4--) E o 4= -. •...... 4--), .411111. O �3 .� • _ - .� �� .� o (jr) 4-- O O ■:::1:: ; ;;L: >iC ■alttlllw '%&:%::4 ■ M 7 (1:) ,r-I Imo v � , b.: lii'�'�.i. �'.i,. ate. Ia - a.T £ �i�f Is 0 O ri In 41•1111 O 0 O 'O v) o CY) V3 1- O N vii rii. Tr C O - ^ U O M oZS ••O L.0 > Q- 0 .0 = c• 0 >.CO V = U ( ) Lon C 0 •— •°O N UJ) c. � C 4n1 ' _ • ap o V \ � 0 U)� � O CL - a U = � cv 4— ' Q)_ � X O O O O N Q c6 O O O O U 0 i CD VJ (girl L 0 (1) L (1) ■a--) • ■ 4- 0 11_1 CUB '11-1, .V) t11 4) Z 0 co ID no U c -1::' (u 'o 1... (f) 0 0 > IMn O O U > o O >P% C C 4-) 4-) ao r o 4.J .5 (J) ID �_ c Lr) •) _ O 40 a a c Or ■—. .{�J 1�..W CD t mm Vi ti ra Q C II t V 1 t1) ZI ca O 4— ._ V (Y) (1) . 1- ■.-..d (..) C _ > U { - >*% o � .O C @.) -�4...) O a� (� Lr) cu •�' cn Q .. • O) 0 rip D .�_' r � C o co ° C ° — o > - V • _ o °,..._, o (n -o a) -1- ) �' -FAH- V OL to N �- _..... @.0) (t) , ra N (..) fcaN > Q) V V O ro O � f 7r CO 4..) 0 49.) ........13) u.) ..c 4� L �� Q. L �, c..; E ,, t.,�� X ;,�, ,.,,.� t1) it-3- V -o u') U CU 1 0 ; y 44 stiY 41 �,�s 09 I- -1 P C _(13 rimai..., aP1411 $39 ri i (ID ,,,,, .4.., x 0) 0 E Q) ,,. � -��, .N I� a mums loom (111) U... - -- 0 , a'' co C C 0 0 sa) E- 4--)(la R3 Z p •� v 4-'1 (U Q O to oC cu p a) p- L� CC r , ` -, �-1- �-' ca C� V m cn -� U ,� X E CU oC ti .C, Q� V W DC .�, --(13 _7_,-c3 0 V(13 cp 4� O = 0 ---' 4a Cr.) o ca au O u) E -4-) V) U = � 17t- C "' L- (I) Z W o (!) I I 0 0 ...c. 416.'* 041_ inv Ca 4_0) fic3 c I I I 11 C o o 0 CAC November 10,2011 IX-1 Old Business 1 of 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Receive feedback from the CAC on the draft Water Quality report requested at the last meeting. Update the CAC on recent Water Quality Data Concerns. OBJECTIVE: Receive feedback from the CAC on the draft Water Quality Report requested at the last meeting. Update the CAC on recent water quality data concerns. CONSIDERATIONS: A draft Water Quality Report by Dave Tomasko addressing concerns of the CAC is attached for review and comment. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: For review and comment only. FISCAL IMPACT: The Source of funds is from Category "A" Tourist Development Tax fund. 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: Receive feedback from the CAC on the draft Water Quality Report requested at the last meeting. Update the CAC on recent water quality data concerns. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, CZM Director Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria Executive Summary October 27, 2011 In April 2011,Atkins was contracted by Collier County's Coastal Zone Management Department to develop numeric nutrient criteria for Clam Bay. This Executive Summary provides an overview of the history of perceived water quality conditions in Clam Bay,current water quality condition,the approach used to develop specific numeric nutrient criteria for Clam Bay,and a summary of the review process for this effort. Why attention focused on Clam Bay? Associated with the increased population growth in Collier County,there has been concern among the public that Clam Bay might have been adversely impacted by environmental pressures that typically accompany such growth.Development of the watershed 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). In 1987,the Collier County Department of Natural Resources Management produced a report that described Clam Bay as"...a stressed bay in a developed area in north Naples This bay has received freshwater input from a drainage canal for twenty years and more recently,has been surrounded by a huge PUD/DRI named Pelican Bay."Similarly,Worley(2005)reported that for Clam Bay,"Development surrounding Clam Bay (particularly to the north,which is almost completely enclosed by roads,walls and houses) has caused major changes in the hydrology". Further,it was speculated by Worley (2005) that the highly developed watershed would likely result in higher nutrient and pesticide concentrations in runoff due to landscaping and golf course maintenance practices. The language in these reports suggests that a perceived degradation in water quality was occurring in Clam Bay. The Collier County Seagrass Protection Plan (1992) concluded that seagrass coverage in Clam Bay was equivalent to approximately 60 acres. In a later report,the Collier County Seagrass Inventory (1994) estimated that approximately 10 acres of seagrass were present in the same area. If the mapped seagrass coverage estimates from these two reports were accurate,a decrease in seagrass coverage in Clam Bay of more than 80 percent occurred in the early 1990s.This would be a similarly precipitous decline as was documented for Tampa Bay during the 30 year time period of the 1950s to the early 1980s (Tomasko 2002). Is Clam Bay "impaired" using existing FDEP criteria? Prior to November 2009,there was no single ambient water quality monitoring program throughout the entire Clam Bay system. The Pelican Bay monitoring program,which was originally designed to answer specific permit-related water quality concerns,includes stations that are appropriate for permitting needs but are not appropriately located for an ambient monitoring program. Station locations used by PBS&J (2008) were in adequate locations for some locations in Clam Bay,and were thought to be useful for further analysis efforts. Using the aforementioned datasets for Clam Bay,prior assessments have indicated that existing water quality standards described in FDEP's Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) are often not met,particularly in Upper Clam Bay (i.e.,PBS&J 2009). In that report,PBS&J (2009) noted that"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)."At the request of the Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department,PBS&J (2009)designed a water quality monitoring program for Clam Bay,which is being implemented by Collier County staff. Page 1 of 9 October 27,2011 ATKINS 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,which means that FDEP considers that Clam Bay's designated use 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. Presently,Clam Bay would be designated"impaired" for fecal coliform bacteria and DO. In regards to chlorophyll-a, sufficient data were only available in 2010 to calculate an annual average (9.0µg/L)which was below the 11 µg/L standard required for estuaries. However,a separate evaluation of the annual chlorophyll-a average for Upper Clam Bay alone (14.6µg/L)indicates elevated phytoplankton levels. Is impairment likely due to nutrient-related impacts to water quality? In addition to evaluating water quality conditions to assess the impairment status of Clam Bay,the potential relationships between nutrients and DO or Chlorophyll-a were reviewed. Dissolved Oxygen 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 DO concentrations in Clam Bay. There was no evidence of an empirical relationship between DO and total nitrogen (TN)and although there was evidence of a link between DO and total phosphorus (TP) it was statistically weak. Water temperature and salinity explained more than 10 times as much of the variability in DO as TP alone 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;McCormick et al. 1997,FEDP 2004). However,there is little evidence to suggest that TN or TP concentrations impact DO in Clam Bay. Chlorophyll-a A correlation analysis between chlorophyll-a and TN and TP was performed to identify the potential cause for chlorophyll-a concentrations in Clam Bay. A statistically significant regression was observed between chlorophyll-a and both TP and TN,which explained 22 and 25%of the variability,respectively. However, despite the link between nutrients and chlorophyll-a,a resulting impact on water clarity (Secchi disk depth) was not detected. Connections between nutrients and chlorophyll-a,chlorophyll-a and water clarity,and water clarity and seagrass is thus not found in Clam Bay. 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 Review of Previous TMDL Development While Clam Bay does not meet IWR guidance for DO,nutrients cannot be linked to these values. Additionally,elevated chlorophyll-a concentrations can be found in Upper Clam Bay (but not Clam Bay as a whole),but a resulting impact on water clarity was not evident. Related to this issue,the Conservancy of Southwest Florida expressed the following sentiments in 2009,"...in order to tugger a TMDL, dissolved oxygen levels have to be below standards in concert with causative pollutants. Biological Oxygen Demand, Total Nitrogen and Total Page 2 of 9 October 27,2011 ATKINS 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)." However,TMDLs have been developed in waterbodies with DO impairments even when TN and TP concentrations were below screening criteria (i.e. Gordon River TMDL(FDEP 2008a),Hendry Creek TMDL (FDEP 2008b)). For Hendry Creek, freshwater(3258B) and marine (3258B1) segments,located in Lee County,have both been declared impaired for DO,and in 2008,FDEP developed a TMDL requiring a 32% load reduction for TN,even though nutrient concentrations were below screening criteria. As an example of problems with the impairment process, the Rookery Bay Coastal waterbody (WBID 3278U), an estuarine system in Collier County,was declared impaired for nutrients (chlorophyll a) in 2009 as part of the FDEP Group 1, Cycle 2 verified impaired list. The impairment was based upon elevated annual chlorophyll-a concentrations in 2006(14.0 ug/l) alone. New sampling stations were visited in 2006 which were previously not evaluated. These sampling stations were located adjacent to boat ramps and roadway crossing, were not representative of ambient water quality conditions. Prior to the addition of these inappropriate (for any ambient condition monitoring effort) sampling stations, the annual average chlorophyll a concentration did not exceed 11 ug/l. Implications of Problematic TMDLs For the past 12 years,the TMDL program in Florida has been focused on identifying water quality impairments and developing and adopting TMDLs to restore water quality.Today,the program is rapidly transitioning to project implementation and water quality restoration (i.e.,TMDL implementation),with the cost of restoration being passed to local governments and other MS4 (stormwater) permittees. TMDL implementation is being enforced by FDEP through revisions to the MS4 permit renewal process. Whereas prior permits focused on documenting stormwater infrastructure and reporting monitoring and other management activities,new permits include requirements to implement TMDLs and demonstrate water quality improvements. This marks a clear transition in MS4 permitting in Florida,its use as a planning tool to guide stormwater management to a regulatory tool for enforcing the implementation of TMDLs and load reductions. These changes have made it ever more important for local governments to verify that water quality impairments identified by FDEP are real,that the TMDLs developed and adopted by FDEP are scientifically defensible,and that water quality restoration projects can be reasonably expected to restore water quality. Failure to do so may mean that a community will be legally obligated to implement projects that are not necessary and may not restore water quality. In addition,the implementation of"problematic"TMDLs would divert the limited staff and financial resources of local governments from addressing"real"water quality problems and delay the restoration of truly impaired water quality. Two examples from Sarasota County,Florida and Winter Haven,Florida,illustrate the magnitude of the potential financial benefits derived from proactively addressing problematic TMDLs: • Sarasota County—Atkins evaluated the impairment status and TMDLs developed for three segments of Sarasota Bay and one tributary to the bay:Roberts and Blackburn Bays and West Clark Lake,a tributary to Philippi Creek.The evaluation resulted in a delisting of all of the waters,avoiding tens of millions of dollars in unnecessary stormwater retrofit projects and tens of millions of dollars Page 3 of 9 October 27,2011 ATKINS in unnecessary expansions to the central sanitary sewer system to connect thousands of homes on septic tanks to the central sanitary sewer system. The TMDLS failed to document either the actual restored condition of many of the waterbodies (i.e.,Roberts Bay,Blackburn Bay) or the mostly likely natural cause (West Clark Lake) of water quality problems associated with a rookery with several hundred birds in an upstream location. • Winter Haven—Atkins evaluated the impairment status and developed a water quality management plan for restoring and protecting over 40 lakes within the city.The evaluation documented that six of the impaired lakes are,in fact,not impaired. It was also determined that managing for tannin levels, and not nutrient load reductions,would restore and protect water quality in highly colored lakes. These finding are significant in that they will not only save the community tens of millions of dollars in unnecessary and inappropriate stormwater retrofits,but they will also result in implementing management actions that are more likely to protect and restore water quality.Those efforts also explained why the approximately$6 million in traditional stormwater projects that the City has invested to meet existing TMDLs have not worked,even though they exceeded the requirements of the established TMDLs for three of those lakes.This has been a costly but very important lesson for the City. In developing site specific numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for Clam Bay,Collier County is ensuring that the water quality status of the bay will be properly assessed and that any management actions implemented by the County to protect and,if necessary,to protect the bay,will be effective.This will save the County significant time and money and avoid potential litigation with the state and other parties. Proposed numeric nutrient concentration criteria The Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) for Clam Bay are based upon a nutrient: salinity relationship that was developed for Clam Bay,after first comparing that relationship to a similarly derived nutrient: salinity regression from an estuary(Estero Bay Wetlands)previously used by FDEP as a"reference location"for water quality in estuaries in Southwest Florida. NNC have to be considered in the context of salinity due to the relationship between nutrient concentrations and salinity that is found in most estuaries.Since there is substantial variability in the relationship between nutrient concentrations and salinity,management responses due to deviations from the proposed NNC should be a function of magnitude and duration of any exceedances from salinity-normalized NNC values. Clam Bay appears to be co-limited by both TN and TP (PBS&J 2008). Consequently,salinity-normalized targets were developed for both TN and TP targets were.To be consistent with existing methods used by FDEP,the upper 10th percentile prediction limit for the regression between TN or TP and conductivity (from Clam Bay)was used for target setting. The equations which represent the upper 10th percentile prediction limit for TN and TP are provided below (Equations 1 and 2). Equation 1: TN Upper Limit(mg/L) = 2.3601 —0.0000268325*Conductivity (µS) Equation 2: TP Upper Limit(mg/L) = exp(-1.06256-0.0000328465*Conductivity(PS)) The upper 10th percentile prediction limit was selected because it represents the line beyond which only 10% percent of values would be expected to occur. This approach is consistent with ongoing target setting efforts used by FDEP. Clam Bay would be assigned differential designation categories based on the magnitude and duration of exceedances of the upper 10th percentile prediction limit for salinity-normalized nutrient concentrations. The bay's designation in any given year would then be used to identify the level of resource management actions appropriate for any period of time examined (i.e.,a single year or numerous years combined). Page 4 of 9 October 27, 2011 ATKINS Individual TN and TP values from the waterbody would be compared to the upper nutrient: conductivity 10th percentile prediction limit(Figure 1).The minimum number of samples required to not meet an applicable water quality criterion would be based on the approach used by FDEP for determining if the percent of"impaired"water quality values are supportive of a site being included on the Planning or Verified list. In other words,nutrient concentrations are allowed to exceed the upper limit occasionally,but exceedances cannot be frequent enough that it would be reasonable to conclude that a"different"data set has resulted. The number of"violations" (i.e.,number of TN or TP values higher than the upper 10th percentile of the nutrient vs. salinity regression)would be compared to guidance in F.A.C. 62-303. These tables provide the 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 or the verified list with a least 90%confidence. If the number of exceedances is greater than or equal to the minimum number of exceedance required for a waterbody 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),an outcome designation is assigned. If the number of exceedances is less than the minimum number of samples required based on sample size,then the outcome would be a category of"0". If the number of exceedances and the duration (i.e., >1 year) of the exceedances are small,the outcome would be a category of"1". If the magnitude or duration of the exceedances is large,then the outcome would be a category"2". If both the magnitude and duration of the exceedances are large,then the outcome would be a category of"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 2). Management response actions would be identified based on presence or absence of co-occurring phenomena that could be attributed to nutrient availability,in particular the responses of phytoplankton and DO,as well as potential impacts to water clarity(Figure 3). 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 needs to be conducted. If there is no relationship between nutrients and chlorophyll-a or DO,then no management actions are required. If there is a signification relationship between nutrients and chlorophyll-a or nutrients and DO, then the impact of chlorophyll-a on the water clarity(Secchi disk depth)would be evaluated as well as an evaluation of the annual chlorophyll-a value to the 11 µg/L standard found in F.A.C. 62-303-353. If there is a significant relationship between chlorophyll-a concentrations and water clarity,or annual chlorophyll-a concentrations are above 11 µg/L,an outcome designation of"yellow" (indicative of small magnitude or duration of exceedances) signified that actions should be taken to identify the potential causes of 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 actions to reduce nutrient concentrations. Using this approach, the health of Clam Bay would be assessed on a regular basis,and appropriate resource management options, from no action needed to implementation of corrective actions, would be determined. Based on the average conductivity in Clam Bay over the period of 1994-2011 (42,453 .tS),the corresponding upper 10th percentile prediction limit for TN and TP are 1.22 and 0.086 mg/L,respectively. In comparison, the draft FDEP Estuary-Specific Numeric Nutrient Criteria (September 29,2011)TN and TP criteria for Estero Bay are 0.63 and 0.07mg/L,respectively. The TN and TP criteria for Marco Island are 0.36 mg TN/L and 0.048 mg TP/L. For Naples Bay the values listed are 0.32 mg TN/L and 0.050 mg TP/L. While protective of existing conditions,the proposed criteria for Clam Bay do not result in a finding of "impairment",nor are they more restrictive than guidance developed by FDEP. Page 5 of 9 October 27,2011 ATKINS Figure 1. Clam Bay conceptual water quality flowchart How many samples in a calendar year exceed the upper Not 10%prediction limit for TN&/or TPvs.salinity for Clam Bay? enough Enough 80%confidence Magnitude of 90%confidence (Planning list) exceedance (Verified list) (based on Wit binomial Duration of distributions) _......_ Duration of exceedance exceedance 1 year >1 year 1 year >1 year C)utconie1 Outcome Outcome 2 Oi l'i rie Figure 2. 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 9 October 27,2011 ATKINS Figure 3. Management response actions in response to various outcomes. Green Yellow or Red Response evaluation Hold the line Evaluate / uat�phytRp|ankton. Significant dissolved oxygen O.nS) Not significant response to nutrient <orO«s} concentrations ! , Evaluate water clarity response todh|omph�|-al (»°ous) compare annual chlorophyll-a tn11p0/L Significant(p< Small difference or exceed short duration Identify' Identify potential and implement ----� �----* —�' Large difference or causes and recommended response duration'~'�~~ responses Page 7 of 9 ��U�� Octv6o27.20ll ~ °" .�."�~p Outline of Approval Timeline March 10,2011 Collier County staff was presented with the scope of work for NNC development for Clam Bay. April 14, 2011 Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee voted 8 to 1 to approve the Atkins Scope of Work and budget for numeric nutrient criteria development for Clam Bay April 26,2011 Atkins presented the Scope of Work and budget for numeric nutrient criteria development for Clam Bay to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. The Commissioners voted to approve the scope of work,thereby authorizing the work order. June 10,2011 Meeting in Naples,Florida to present preliminary findings. Representatives from Atkins,Collier County,FDEP-Fort Myers, City of Naples,Pelican Bay Services Division,and Cardno-Entrix were in attendance. June 28,2011 Meeting in Tallahassee to present preliminary findings to FDEP. FDEP staff in attendance include Drew Bartlett,Daryll Joyner,Russ Frydenborg,and Ken Weaver. Representatives from Atkins,Collier County,FDEP,City of Naples,Pelican Bay Services Division,Cardno-Entrix participated via conference call. July 7,2011 Atkins provided draft report of Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria to Collier County and FDEP for review. August 23,2011 FDEP provided written comments on draft report of Clam Bay NNC. August 31,2011 Atkins provided revised Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria Technical Note to FDEP and Collier County addressing comments identified by FDEP. September 7,2011 Russ Frydenborg(FDEP) sends email to Collier County,FDEP and Atkins staff approving the proposed modifications to the Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria and supporting the approach as scientifically defensible (email attached). October 13,2011 Dave Tomasko (Atkins)presents proposed Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee (Naples, Florida).The Committee voted 8-0 to move forward with presenting a revised but condensed Executive Summary of the report to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. FDEP provides memo indicating that FDEP is considering adoption of Clam Bay criteria into Chapter 62-302, F.A.C.,based on the approaches described in the August 31,2011 Technical Note (memo attached) October 14,2011 FDEP requests equations representing TN and TP upper 10th percentile prediction limit for inclusion in Chapter 62-302, F.A.C.,relating to Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria. October 18,2011 Atkins provides equations representing TN and TP upper 10th percentile prediction limit to FDEP. Page 8 of 9 October 27,2011 ATKINS 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. Collier County Seagrass Protection Plan.1992. Collier County,Naples,Florida Collier County Seagrass Inventory. 1994. Collier County,Naples,Florida 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. FDEP. 2004. Everglades Marsh Dissolved Oxygen Site Specific Alternative Criterion Technical Support Document. Final Report to Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee,FL. 61 pp. FDEP. 2008a. Dissolved Oxygen TMDL for the Gordon River Extension,WBID 3278K(formerly 3259C). Final Report to Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee,FL. 40 pp. FDEP. 2008b.TMDL Report:Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs for Hendry Creek(WBIDs 3258B and 3258B1). 39 pp. McCormick,P.`'.,Chimney,M.J. and D.R. Swift. 1997. Diel oxygen profiles and water column community metabolism in the Florida Everglades,U.S.A.Archives die Hyrobiologie. 140: 117-129 PBS&J. 2008. Clam Bay Seagrass Assessment. Submitted to Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department. PBS&J,2009. Clam Bay System: Data Collection and Analysis. . Submitted to Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department. Tomasko,D.A. 2002. Status and Trends of Seagrass Coverage in Tampa Bay,with Reference to Other Southwest Florida Estuaries. In: Seagrass Management: It's Not Just Nutrients!Ed. H.S. Greening. Proceedings of a Symposium:August 22-24,2000,St. Petersburg,FL Worley,K. 2005. Mangroves as an Indicator of Estuarine Conditions in Restoration Areas. In: Estuarine Indicators. Ed. S. Bortone. CRC Press: Boca Raton. Pp. 247-260. Page 9 of 9 October 27,2011 ATKINS FW Technical memorandum on NNC for Clam Bay.txt From: Frydenborg, Russel [mailto:Russel .Frydenborg @dep.state.fl .us] Sent: 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 [mailto:David.Tomasko @atkinsglobal .com] 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 Page 1 FW Technical memorandum on NNC for Clam Bay.txt 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. Thanks, 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.Tomasko @atkinsglobal .com 1 web: www.atkinsglobal .com/northamerica www.atkinsglobal .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.atkinsglobal .com/site-services/disclaimer Consider the environment. Please don't print this email unless you really need to. This message has been checked for all known viruses by MessageLabs. Page 2 Standards and Assessment Section Comments on Collier County: Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay-Development of Site-Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria (August 31, 2011 Technical Note) Prepared By Ken Weaver Florida Department of Environmental Protection Standards and Assessment Section The August 31, 2011 Atkins proposal represents a significant improvement over the July 21, 2011 proposal. I believe that it represents a scientifically defensible approach for developing protective,yet not overly stringent criteria,for Clam Bay. The revised proposal adopted all our previous recommendations including use of Clam Bay data to set nutrient limits for itself. I find that with these changes nutrients limits are not overly stringent or unrealistic for Clam Bay and would achieve reasonable Type I and II error rates. Furthermore,Atkins has provided convincing documentation that Clam Bay is healthy with regards to nutrients;that is,the existing nutrient regime in Clam Bay is protective of the designated use. Therefore, DEP is currently considering adoption into Chapter 62-302, F.A.C.,criteria for Clam Bay based on the approaches described in the August 31,2011 Technical Note. DEP is still receiving public comment on the Clam Bay criteria and will make a final decision regarding whether to move forward at this time after a thorough review of all comments received.