The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 04/02/2013 W BCC Workshop Meeting BACK-UP DOCUMENTS April 2, 2013 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners WORKSHOP AND SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples FL 34112 April 2, 2013 1:00 P.M. Georgia Hiller - BCC Chairwoman; BCC Commissioner, District 2 Tom Henning - BCC Vice - Chairman; BCC Commissioner, District 3 Donna Fiala - BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Vice - Chairman Fred W. Coyle - BCC Commissioner, District 4 Tim Nance - BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Chairman 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. 2014 Beach Renourishment Peer Review and Sand Placement /Quantity 3. Affordable Housing Inventory Report 4. Clam Pass Dredging — This item may require the Board of County Commissioners to take action during this portion of the Special Meeting. 5. Public Comment 6. Adjourn Notice: All persons wishing to speak must turn in a speaker slip. Speakers will receive three (3) minutes. Collier County Ordinance No. 2003 -53 as amended by Ordinance 2004 -05 and 2007 -24, requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. 2 wi E 5 7 Tide Gauge Data Registry I'S -03 075 —.,o&,.Ufedjw,o 13J7 4� Date 2013 M 0 10 Co er County Board of County Commissioners WORKSHOP AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples FL 34112 April 2, 2013 1:00 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners t ' I./y L 4' • r . ; O j `•1. WORKSHOP AND SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East,3rd Floor Naples FL 34112 April 2,2013 1:00 P.M. Georgia Hiller-BCC Chairwoman; BCC Commissioner,District 2 Tom Henning-BCC Vice-Chairman; BCC Commissioner,District 3 Donna Fiala-BCC Commissioner,District 1; CRAB Vice-Chairman Fred W. Coyle-BCC Commissioner,District 4 Tim Nance- BCC Commissioner,District 5; CRAB Chairman 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. 2014 Beach Renourishment Peer Review and Sand Placement/Quantity 0 3. Affordable Housing Inventory Report 0 4. Clam Pass Dredging—This item may require the Board of County Commissioners to take action during this portion of the Special Meeting. 5. Public Comment 6. Adjourn Notice: All persons wishing to speak must turn in a speaker slip. Speakers will receive three(3)minutes. Collier County Ordinance No.2003-53 as amended by Ordinance 2004-05 and 2007-24, requires that all lobbyists shall,before engaging in any lobbying activities(including but not limited to,addressing the Board of County Commissioners), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the Atkins North American peer review of the Coastal Planning and Engineering design for the 2013/14 beach renourishment project and conduct a workshop to determine exact sand volumes to be placed for the 2013/14 project. OBJECTIVE: Approve the peer review of the design for the 2013/14 beach renourishment project and conduct a workshop to establish the exact sand volumes to be placed in the 2013/14 project. CONSIDERATIONS: Atkins North America conducted a peer review of the design beach volumes for the 2013/14 beach renourishment project (Attachment 1). Atkins evaluated Coastal Planning and Engineering's (CPE) design, design calculations, modeling results, and construction standards for the beach fill templates of the Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples beaches and compared the current proposed design to the project constructed in 2006. The project deliverables are summarized as follows: • "A detailed explanation of the total quantity of sand to be placed on the beach as part of the renourishment Project. " — Based on Atkins's review, the total quantity of sand to be placed on the beach in 2013 is 419,120 cubic yards (CY's) as per the CPE design recommendations. This volume was independently confirmed with Atkins's volume calculations and is within 10%of the Atkins's calculated volume of 387,395 CY's. The difference predominantly exists in the end section tapers of each renourishment segment where engineering judgment of the design professional is needed due to increased erosion and sand spreading. • "This (review) will include plots of the beach profiles at each of the surveyed monuments showing the 2006-6 year design template and the computed quantity of sand necessary to restore the original 2006-6 year design template.(unmodified not including any inlet management projects)." - The sand necessary to restore the unmodified 2006-6 year design template based on current conditions is 408,005 CY's. This is consistent with the 419,120 CY's calculated by CPE for the 2013 beach fill template. Appendix A of the Peer Review contains the plan and-profile plots-identifying the differences from the 2006 and 2013 designs. Table 5 identifies the quantity differences by beach segment. • "A table will be provided identifying the amount of sand to be placed throughout the project area at each profile,for each of the 3 areas. " — This is included in Appendix B of the Peer Review. • "Any and all assumptions shall be listed to explain how much sand is proposed and specifically where it is proposed to be placed as part of the 2006-6 year design template in each of the project areas. " - The assumptions are listed in CPE's Design Matrix under Special Adjustments. The methodology used to determine the design life of the 2013 project is the same method used in 2006, and that project achieved its design life. • "Figures will confirm and show any differences on the profile if the new project fill differs from the unmodified 2006-6 year design template. The memorandum will explain why their differences, if any, based on review of the reference document. - Profiles listed in Appendix A identify the differences between the 2006-6 year design and the 2013-6 year design. All the profiles have differences that can be attributed to either the project length changes; the design template geometry; the dune or berm crest elevations or the fill densities. The composite erosion rates dictate the project length and fill densities. The post construction monitoring dictate the design template geometry and the dune crest and berm crest elevations designed at whole numbers for the ease of construction. Additionally, Atkins has reached the following Peer Review conclusions: 1. The methodology used by CPE to determine the design life of the 2013/14 project (design matrix, advanced renourishment, and special adjustments) was the same method used in 2006, and that project achieved its design life. 2. The design approach utilized by CPE is consistent with the design approach commonly used by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) where the "advanced renourishment" is intended to address erosion rates throughout the proposed design life of the project. 3. The design approach is fundamentally sound and appropriate based on the review of the data, documents, design drawings and reports as prepared and provided by CPE. 4. The beach fill template is appropriate to meet the design criteria based on Atkins' assessment of the design and experience monitoring the project areas since 2006. Staff also shared the peer review with other interested parties in order to address any additional concerns regarding the 2006 template volumes compared to as-built volumes. No material discrepancies were found. The review verified Atkins's conclusions that the 2006 design template within the 2013 proposed project shoreline would require approximately 320,000 CY's to renourish. The 2013 proposed shoreline includes project gaps where no renourishment is required. These gaps did not occur in 2006. In 2006, 8.4 miles of beach was renourished verses 4.7 miles planned in 2013. The differences between the 2006 unmodified template volumes compared to the 2013 template volumes are attributed to adjustments based on the annual beach monitoring results and the measurement of erosion rates before and after the 2006 renourishment. The Pelican Bay beach segment will not present a problem since the Pelican Bay community will compensate the County for any renourishment that occurs on the private beach portions of Pelican Bay. The area south of Doctors Pass within the City of Naples is the area of greatest concern. Up to 100,000 CY's of material is in question and requires resolution. Staff is recommending a workshop be held and that sand bypassing from Doctors Pass and reduced placement volumes be discussed and considered. This workshop should be held with the Commission and other interested stakeholders after bidding is completed and project funding has been finned up but prior to the issuance of the notice to proceed. Exclusive of the area south of Doctors Pass, renourishment volumes range between 300,000 CY's to 400,000 CY's with an exact quantity decision required before renourishment is scheduled to begin on 11/1/2013. Should the Board wish to implement in some project areas, less than a six (6) year design, staff wants to make sure that the board is aware that the locations with higher erosion rates may require interim renourishment. Staff has designed a six (6) year design life for this area. This design life can be reduced if interim renourishments are planned. FISCAL IMPACT: Regardless of the final design volumes or bid format, this project will be scope managed to meet the available project funds in Tourist Development Council Fund 195 to complete this work. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: No impact to the growth management plan would result from this Board action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: At the February 14, 2013 Coastal Advisory Committee(CAC)meeting this item was recommended for approval by a 6 to 1 vote. This item will be presented to the Tourist Development Council (TDC) on February 25, 2013 with results communicated to the BCC via written memorandum. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, requires simple majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action. —CMG RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation to: 1. Approve the Atkins North America peer review of the Coastal Planning and Engineering design for the 2013/14 beach renourishment project. 2. Conduct a workshop to determine exact sand volumes to be placed for the 2013/14 project. Prepared by: Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Attachments: A) Collier County Peer Review of Beach Renourishrnent Projects, January 2013 B)Power Point Presentation Attachment A COLLIER COUNTY PEER REVIEW OF BEACH RENOURISHMENT DESIGN Prepared For: Collier County—Coastal Zone Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples,Florida 34104 k #t ` z x "?k� i-` u`'? »?i""w,. Ni a it .“11 AILIMISN ;4"• ••e a UII Ili!, '• ' lac u _ Prepared By: Atkins 4030 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 700 Tampa, FL February 2013 C ATKINS Attachment A COLLIER COUNTY PEER REVIEW OF BEACH RENOURISHMENT DESIGN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Atkins was tasked by Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department with the peer review of the County"s 2013 beach renourishment design developed by Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. (CPE). The review focuses upon the formulation of the currently proposed beach renourishment design project (2013 project) and its comparison to the project constructed in 2006 (2006 project).Atkins evaluates CPE"s design, design calculations,modeling results, and construction standards for the beach fill templates at Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples Beaches. Please note that Atkins was not tasked to develop a design analysis for the Vanderbilt, Park Shore, or Naples project areas nor is the currently proposed design a product of Atkins"design work. Atkins was tasked via scope and County staff to conduct a peer review of the proposed design as developed by CPE for merit and to ensure the design meets standard engineering practices and principles. Any concerns regarding the specifics of the design should be directed to the design engineer(CPE).Atkins"findings are presented herein. Per the County"s rope of work to Atkins the following deliverables are: 1) A detailed explanation of the total quantity of sand to be placed on the beach as part of the renourishment project: Based upon our review of the design matrix, design drawings and reports as prepared and provided by CPE, the total quantity of sand to be placed on the beach in 2013 per CPE"s approach is 419,120cy. This volume was independently evaluated by Atkins"volume calculation methods which yielded a volume of 387,395cy (within 10% of the volume by CPE). The taper volumes, areas at the end of the nourishment template segments, are predominantly where the variance exists between the CPE and Atkins volumes (see pages 5—7 of section II.A.ii) 2) This will include plots of the beach profiles at each of the surveyed monuments showing the 2006—6 year design template and the computed quantity of sand necessary to restore the original 2006 — 6 year design template. (unmodified not including any inlet management projects): Appendix A contains plan view and profile plots at each of the surveyed monuments showing: (a) a comparison of the 2006 - 6 year design template (unmodified) and the 2013 beach fill template and (b) the computed fill density(cy/ft) of sand necessary to restore the original 2006—6 year design template (unmodified) and the 2013 beach fill template. As reflected in Table 5 (see pages 13 — 14 of section III.B) a total of 408,005cy would be required to rebuild the 2006 beach template as compared to the 419,120cy as calculated by CPE for the 2013 beach fill template. 3) A table will be provided identing the amount of sand to be placed throughout the project area at each profile, for each of the 3 areas: The Comparative Volumetric Summary Table in Appendix B identifies the amount of sand to be placed at each profile for each segment of the project(Vanderbilt,Park Shore&Naples). 4) Any and all assumptions shall be listed to explain how much sand is proposed and specifically where it is proposed to be placed as part of the 2006-6 year design template in each of the project areas: The assumptions are listed in CPE`§ Design Matrix under Special Adjustments and include taper sections, minimum fill densities, and additional volumes needed based upon modeling. The methodology used by CPE to determine the ATKINS Attachment A design life of the 2013 project (design matrix, advanced nourishment, and special adjustments)was the same method used in 2006, and that project achieved its design life. 5) Figures will confirm and show any differences on the profile if the new project fill differs from the unmodified 2006— 6 year design template. The memorandum will explain why there are differences, if any, based on the review of the referenced documents: Figures 3 & 4 in the report are examples of the profile comparisons in Appendix A detailing variations in the 2006 — 6 year design template and 2013 beach fill template design. Differences in the 2013 design and the 2006 design can be assigned to one of the following four categories: • Project length • Design template geometry • Dune crest and berm crest elevations • Fill densities The differences can each be attributed to the following elements of the design approach utilized by CPE: • Composite erosion rates (project length and fill densities) • Post-construction monitoring (design template geometry) • "Whole number" elevations for ease of construction (dune crest and berm crest elevations. The CPE Design Matrix is an engineering analysis that consists of calculations to determine total beach fill volume based on the minimum beach width, erosion rates, advanced placement of fill material, special adjustments and the 6 year project design life. Atkins calculated volumes for the 2013 project using the "average end area" methodology utilizing (a) XYZ coordinates provided by CPE; and (b) effective distances identified in the Design Matrix. Atkins modified the effective distances for the tapers in CPE"s Design Matrix based on the design drawings. The differences between the design drawing volumes as calculated by Atkins and the CPE Design Matrix volumes are: • Atkins"volume calculation is 387,395cy and • CPE"s Design Matrix volume calculation is 419,120cy. The 2013 project volumes calculated by Atkins are 31,725cy less than the Design Matrix volume (see Table 3 and Appendix B). To further verify volume calculations, Atkins used (a) a separate "average end area" volume calculation and (b) a "surface to surface" comparison in AutoCAD Civil3D. Both methods supported the volume as calculated by Atkins. The difference in volumes is within 10% of the total volume of the project and due to engineering judgement exercised by CPE to increase the volumes in the taper sections. The proposed 2013 beach nourishment project has less total volume than the 2006 project (667,000cy), because the total project length was reduced from 44,378 ft. (8.4 mi.) to 24,616 ft. (4.7 mi.) based on need and past project performance. The total project length has been reduced and consequently less volume is being placed. The 2013 project does have a slightly higher fill density (15.7 cy/ft in 2013 to 15.0 cy/ft in 2006) meaning slightly more volume will be placed per linear foot of beach. This is due to subtle differences in the project areal extent and profile geometry. R-44, and R-58A through T-62 required fill beyond the 2006 template in order to ATKINS Attachment A address hotspots that were identified through yearly monitoring. The additional fill required based on the design matrix at R-59 increases the potential for impact to nearshore hardbottom per the equilibrium toe of fill analysis, but based on our review of the 2006 project performance this area is not expected to cause impact. The design criteria necessitates (a) a minimum design beach for a period of six (6) years and (b) no impact to nearshore hardbottom. The design approach utilized by CPE is a) consistent with the design approach commonly used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) where the "advanced nourishment" is intended to address erosion rates throughout the proposed design life of a project; and, b) fundamentally sound and appropriate based upon our review of the data, documents, design drawings, and reports as prepared and provided by CPE. The 2013 beach fill template proposed by CPE is appropriate to meet these criteria based upon Atkins"assessment of the design and our experience monitoring the project areas since 2006. ATKINS Attachment A COLLIER COUNTY PEER REVIEW OF BEACH NOURISHMENT DESIGN TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. ENGINEERING DESIGN REVIEW 4 a. FILL VOLUMES 4 i. Design Matrix 4 ii. Design Drawings 5 b. MODELING RESULTS 7 c. CONSTRUCTION METHODS 7 d. EVALUATION OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE 8 i. Design Life 8 ii. Avoidance of Hardbottom 8 III. PROJECT COMPARISONS—2013 vs.2006 11 a. 2013 PROJECT 11 b. 2006 PROJECT 12 c. COMPARISON SUMMARY 13 IV. DESIGN APPROACH EVALUATION 19 V. REFERENCES 22 ATKINS Attachment A LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.Vanderbilt,Pelican Bay,Park Shore,and Naples Beach Location Map 3 Figure 2.Example of Equilibrium Profile at R-59 derived from CPE drawing 9 Figure 3. Comparative Profile at T-62 15 Figure 4. Comparative Profile at R-28 16 Figure 5.Vanderbilt comparative plots of design volumes for 2006 design and 2013 design 18 Figure 6.Park Shore comparative plots of design volumes for 2006 design and 2013 design 18 Figure 7.Naples comparative plots of design volumes for 2006 design and 2013 design 19 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of 2013 Project Design, CPE Volume Summary 2 Table 2.2013 Project Design,Atkins Volume Summary 2 Table 3. Comparison Summary of Design Matrix Volumes and Design Drawing Volumes 7 Table 4. Comparison of 2013 Project Design Matrix and Design Drawing Volumes 12 Table 5.Summary of 2006 Project Volumes 12 Table 6.Comparison of 2006 design volume to 2013 design volume with 2013 project extents 17 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A-Plan View and Comparative Profiles Appendix B—Comparative Volumetric Summary Table Appendix C—Glossary of Terms ATKINS Attachment A COLLIER COUNTY PEER REVIEW OF BEACH RENOURISHMENT DESIGN I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide an independent engineering review of the beach renourishment design as currently proposed for the following areas, as shown in Figure 1: • Vanderbilt • Park Shore; and • Naples Beach Please note that Atkins was not tasked to develop a design analysis for the Vanderbilt, Park Shore, or Naples project areas nor is the currently proposed design a product of Atkins"design work. Atkins was tasked via scope and County staff request to conduct a peer review of the proposed design as developed by CPE for merit and to ensure the design meets standard engineering practices and principles. Any concerns regarding the specifics of the design should be directed to the design engineer(CPE). Atkins"findings are presented herein. The review (a) focuses upon the formulation of the currently proposed beach renourishment design (2013 project) and its comparison to the project constructed in 2006 (2006 project) and (b) evaluates the design drawings, calculations, modeling results, and construction standards as identified/provided by Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. (CPE). The following documents/files/reports were used for this peer review analysis: • "Collier County Beaches 2013-14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary",November 2012-prepared by CPE • "Collier County Conceptual Renourishment Project Analysis", October 2011 —prepared by CPE • "Collier County Beach Renourishment Project Three Year Post-Construction Monitoring Report", September 2009—prepared by CPE • "Collier County Beach Renourishment Project" Permit Sketches, November 11, 2012 (Adobe pdf and AutoCAD file formats)—prepared by CPE • 2006 project and 2013 project design template coordinates XYZ format — provided by CPE The 2013 design is intended to maintain a specific minimum design beach width for a period of six (6) years while maintaining "no impact to nearshore hardbottom". The minimum design beach widths are identified by CPE (2012) as the following distances measured from "a landward baseline at the existing seawalls or edge of vegetation" to the Mean High Water Line (MHWL, +0.33ft NAVD88): • Vanderbilt: 100 feet • Park Shore: 85 feet • Naples Beach: 100 feet 1 Attachment A The minimum design beach width criteria establish the landward-most location to which the MHWL may erode. For clarity, the phrase „advanced nourishment"will be used throughout this report when referring to fill placed seaward of the minimum design beach width. The advanced nourishment method, was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and is the industry standard design approach for determining beach fill placement volumes. Table 1 shows the volume calculations conducted by CPE, the 2013 project design proposes: (a) 59,724 cy for Vanderbilt, (b) Ocy (No Fill) for Pelican Bay, (c) 118,247 cy for Park Shore, and (d)241,149 cy for Naples Beach. Table 1. Summary of 2013 Project Design, CPE Volume Summary Length Reach R-Monuments CPE Volumes (FT) (MILES) (CY/FT) (CY) Vanderbilt R-25+500 to R-30+500 5,082 1.0 11.75 59,724 Pelican Bay - 0 0.0 0.00 0 R-43+600 to R47+500 Park Shore T-50 to R-54+400 8,914 1.7 13.27 118,247 R58A-400 to R-64+500 Naples Beach R-68+200 to R-72+600 10,620 2.0 22.71 241,149 Total: 24,616 4.7 17.03 419,120 As reflected in Table 2 below, and per volume calculations conducted by Atkins using data provided by CPE, the 2013 project design proposes: (a) 59,156 cy for Vanderbilt, (b) Ocy (No Fill)for Pelican Bay, (c) 121,074 cy for Park Shore, and (d) 207,165 cy for Naples Beach. Table 2. 2013 Project Design,Atkins Volume Summary Length Reach R-Monuments Atkins Volumes (FT) 1(MILES) (CY/FT) (CY) Vanderbilt R-25+500 to R-30+500 5,082 ! 1.0 11.64 59,156 Pelican Bay - 0 i 0.0 0.00 I 0 R-43+600 to R47+500 Park Shore T-50 to R-54+400 8,914 ( 1.7 13.58 121,074 R58A-400 to R-64+500 Naples Beach R-68+200 to R-72+600 10,620 2.0 19.51 207,165 Total: 24,616 4.7 15.74 387,395 Attachrnent A Figure 1.Vanderbilt,Pelican Bay,Park Shore,and Naples Beach Location Map . _ BAREFOOT BEACH "vil."1 WIGGt.NSFASS t��it TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE `` .Y" x DELNOR-VAGGiN5 STATE?ARK �4 PROJECT l T1 T.S LOCATION TAA#AA O ATLANTIC } oCEAM t I HENDRY CO. ': 0 BCCA \ 4 k LEE RATON VANDERBILT ca. _ MIAMI VANDERBILT I;='f i BEACH Off N�a>as oe,e4, o .f`GIAF y�. 117)-' OF tia ss" / MEXICO OF I (1 �- ME.(IGYJ H �' � t PELICAN ° ._:. SAY F u PARK \ 1 SHORE .RIO �� CLAM PASS �a y ' ��f SR 896 PERMITTED ALL.-21"V N MOW f PIPELINE !ja- • ` N an9c°°9 CORRIDOR / /f `rte, t —, —& _ -... ti PARK SHORE , , PROPOSED .t. I } ill DOCT4-SPASS=+t SR WS CORRIDOR a �� ' 20' CONTOUR ---- e--'f' . �>P. IJ NAPLES SR ass NAPLES �'� --- • 1 Z, 1 v #I --_.,."1} > x, RTC t ER 34 �„_, I ,. `. ¶9 �;= I-ERMITTEDPIFEL1NE-CORRIDOR . PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR - I L_._...a.« I PROJECT LIMITS a 23 PROPOSED FILL AREAS GULF �� C' �. PROPOSEDNEARSHONE �F �jI L 'i OPERATIONAL AREAS l_ J T \\ 't PERMITTED OFFSHORE MEXICO L' J OPERATIONAL AREAS 1 ..L TROYAL A R70 FDEP MONUMENTS Cd 1:\ GORDON PASS c{I' NOTFY.S: 1. COOi2]TNAT cS ARE IN MEET A `. 3AO ON FLORIDA STATE ?7e PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, " L+ '. 2 0 4>`��' _A.S!f ZONE NORTH MERICAN \`�•�' c �� 1 \ DATUM O 1 39 rNAD ), 7 u,Y Jr u/ GR?FHIC SCALE IN FT \' 2. Y ILL WIDTrIS ARE NOT TO.3C.LE. I l (CPE,2012) 3 Attachment A II. ENGINEERING DESIGN REVIEW A. FILL VOLUMES i. Design Matrix As identified in the November 2012 "Collier County Beaches 2013-14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary" prepared by CPE "the method used to determine fill volumes is based on beach width, erosion rates,hardbottom, and design life." Development of the total design volume can be placed in the following categories: • Volume required to achieve minimum design beach • Advanced Nourishment—Volume required to maintain the minimum design beach for a period of six(6)years,based on composite erosion rates specific to each R-Monument. • Volume required to address projected future erosion from the date of the August 2012 survey to the 2013 construction timeframe. • Special Adjustments for taper sections, minimum fill densities, and additional volumes needed based upon modeling. Simple geometry, composite erosion rates, and engineering judgment were used to define specific volumes for each of the categories above. Volume-Minimum Design Beach The following equation was used by CPE to determine the volume (Vol) required to achieve the minimum design beach: Vol=w(B +h )dell Where: w=distance between 2012 MHWL and the minimum design beach width (ft) B=berm height(+4.0ft NAVD88) h*=absolute value of the depth of closure elevation(-11.3ft NAVD) deff= effective alongshore distance(ft) As reflected in Appendix E (Design Matrix) of the November 2012 "Collier County Beaches 2013-14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary", prepared by CPE,the total volume required to achieve the minimum design beach is 119,303 cubic yards. According to the Design Matrix, of the 24 R-Monument profiles within the 2013 project area, only 10 of the profiles violate the minimum design beach width according to the location of the 2012 MHWL. These ten profiles are identified as hotspots that additional fill material would be required to meet the design criteria. Volumes - Advanced Nourishment and Future Erosion The development of the advanced nourishment volume by CPE, as reflected in the Design Matrix, is generally consistent with the design approach commonly used by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) where the "advanced nourishment" is intended to address erosion rates throughout the proposed design life of a project. The volumes required for advanced nourishment were based upon long-term annualized erosion rates developed by CPE for the periods from: 4 Attachment A • 1996 to 2004; and • 2006 to 2012 The 2005 erosion rate was not included because it was the year of the nourishment project. More recent maintenance nourishment events were included in the composite erosion rate. Relative to "Future Erosion", CPE"s Design Matrix incorporated erosion for 2012 to 2013 in anticipation of project construction during the summer of 2013. It was noted that erosion for 2012 to 2013 utilized an erosion rate 25% greater than the composite erosion rate. CPE indicated that the erosion for 2012 to 2013 is based upon the annualized composite erosion rate assuming it would take 1 year and 3 months from the time of the last survey(August 2012)until construction (November 2013). Volumes— Special Adjustments Special adjustment volumes account for (a) a minimum fill density of 10 cy/ft, (b) additional volumes based upon modeling, and (c) taper sections. It is a commonly accepted practice for engineers to utilize experience and judgment to adjust design volumes as they deem appropriate, as reflected in the special adjustments calculated by CPE. Doctors Pass Inlet Management Plan(IMP) It should be noted that affects of bypassing at Doctors Pass were accounted for in CPE"s Design Matrix at R-58A and R-58. The Doctors Pass Inlet Management Plan was based upon the Tackney Report in 1994 and accepted by DEP in 1997. The report indicates 30,000 cubic yards of material would need to be by-passed from dredging of the navigation channel and ebb tidal shoal every three years (10,000 cy/yr avg.) and placed upon the beaches, in the area of greatest need, south of Doctors Pass. The methodology utilized in the Design Matrix to define preliminary project volumes is considered wholly acceptable and appropriate. ii. Design Drawings Design drawings were developed by CPE using the Design Matrix as a basis for development of beach fill design templates. The data for the design drawing_s prepared by CPE was provided to Atkins in XYZ coordinate format. Atkins calculated volumes for the 2013 project using the "average end area" methodology utilizing (a) XYZ coordinates provided by CPE; and (b) effective distances identified in the Design Matrix. Please note that Atkins modified the effective distances for the tapers in the project areas when calculating the volumes based on the design drawings. As reflected in Table 3 below for the project area: • Atkins"volume calculation is 387,395cy and • CPE"s Design Matrix volume calculation is 419,120cy. Although CPE also used the "average end area"methodology to calculate volumes as reflected in the Design Matrix, the distinction between Atkins volume calculations and CPE"s volume 5 Attachment A calculations is in the approach to calculating the taper volumes. CPE used engineering judgement and knowledge gained from the design and performance of the previous project to determine the taper volume required. A comparative summary of the volumes as calculated by Atkins and the Design Matrix volumes as prepared by CPE can be found in Appendix B. To further verify volume calculations, Atkins used (a) a separate "average end area" volume calculation and (b) a "surface to surface" comparison in AutoCAD Civil3D. Both methods supported the volume as calculated by Atkins. Please note that the 2013 project volumes calculated by Atkins are 31,725cy less than the Design Matrix volume (see Table 3 and Appendix B). The differences between the design drawing volumes as calculated by Atkins and the CPE Design Matrix volumes appear to be: • differences in approaches used to calculate taper volumes, • differences in design drawing and design template fill densities, and • a result of reduced fill templates at specific locations where nearshore hardbottom had the potential to be impacted. The following differences in the design volumes have been noted based on the comparison between the Design Matrix and the design drawing volumes calculated by Atkins: • Vanderbilt—568cy reduction • Park Shore—2,827cy reduction • Naples Beach—33,984cy reduction Although there is a difference between Atkins"and CPE"s volume calculations of approximately 31,725cy it should be noted that: • this volume accounts for less than 10%of the total project volume and • additional changes in volumes are expected to occur based upon: • changes in beach conditions throughout the project area prior to construction and • potential revisions to the project design that may occur during the permitting process. 6 Attachment A Table 3. Comparison Summary of Design Matrix Volumes and Design Drawing Volumes ttl Design Volume Reach R-Monuments I ength CPE Matrix(1) Atkins Volumes121 (FT) (MILES) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT) (CY) Vanderbilt R-25+500 to R-30+500 5,082 1.0 11.75 59,724 11.64 59,156 Pelican Bay - 0 0.0 0.00 0 0.00 0 R-43+600 to R47+500 Park Shore T-50 to R-54+400 8,914 1.7 13.27 118,247 13.58 121,074 R58A-400 to R-64+500 Naples Beach R-68+200 to R-72+600 10,620 2.0 22.71 241,149 20.23 214,794 Total: 24,616 4.7 17.03 419,120 15.74 387,395 Notes: (1)Derived from CPE 2012"Design Matrix for 6-Year Renourishment Interval"in Appendix E of the"Collier County Beaches 2013-14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary" (2)Volumes derived by Atkins utilizing point files,elevations,and drawings provided by CP&E B. MODELING RESULTS As reflected in the October 2011 "Collier County Conceptual Renourishment Project Analysis — Numerical Modeling Report" prepared by CPE, extensive modeling was conducted to evaluate multiple alternatives and their effects on nearshore waves, hydrodynamic flow, and alongshore shoreline change. CPE modeled 11 design alternatives using the Delft 3D-WAVE software to conduct a detailed wave investigation. The results of the wave investigation were then used to drive both the Delft3D-FLOW (hydrodynamic flow) and UNIBEST-CL+ (alongshore shoreline change) models. It was noted that although 11 design alternatives were evaluated during the modeling effort, none of the design alternatives were the 2013 project design because after the modeling phase was complete the design parameters were changed. The modeling alternative to rebuild the 2006 project (referred to as Alternative 1 in the CPE modeling report) most closely matches the 2013 project design. In some-cases, during the design process,intensive numerical-modeling-is conducted-early-in the design process for preliminary design alternatives. Changes to the actual design may occur following completion of the numerical modeling for a variety of reasons. These reasons may be, but are not limited to, results of the modeling, potential impacts to environmental resources, changes to the project objectives, and design criteria. This appears to be the case for the modeling efforts conducted by CPE. The data, methods, and approach are reasonable and acceptable based on our review of the modeling conducted by CPE. C. CONSTRUCTION METHODS As reflected in the November 2012 "Collier County Beaches 2013-14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary" prepared by CPE, an evaluation of potential construction methodologies was conducted. It was noted that the 2013 project is proposing the 7 Attachment A option of the use of either an offshore sand source or an upland sand source to construct the project. Given our experience with previous fill projects that were permitted and bid to allow the use of an offshore sand source or an upland sand source, this allowance can facilitate „competitive bidding"between dredge contractors and contractors proposing the use of upland sand. This approach is considered appropriate and favorable due to the extensive distance between the project areas and the offshore borrow area. D. EVALUATION OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE i. Design Life The design life for the 2013 project is six (6) years, as reflected in November 2012 "Collier County Beaches 2013-14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary",prepared by CPE. An evaluation of the proposed six (6) year design life indicates that the project will likely meet and potentially exceed expectations. As identified in the Design Matrix section above, CPE developed and utilized long-term annualized erosion rates to determine the volume required to maintain the minimum design beach width for a period of six (6)years. The approach used by CPE to identify the long-term annualized erosion rate is considered an acceptable approach. The use of the long-term annualized erosion rate is expected to "dampen" the signature of volume change anomalies associated with storm events, small scale maintenance nourishment events, or other unusual changes in sediment transport trends throughout the project area. The methodology used by CPE to determine the design life of the 2013 project (design matrix, advanced nourishment, and special adjustments) was the same method used in 2006, and that project achieved its design life. ii. Avoidance of Hard bottom As noted in the Introduction of this report, a primacy requirement of the design is no impact to nearshore hardbottom. Impact to hardbottom can be characterized as direct burial of nearshore hardbottom attributable to the placement of fill material. Assessment of potential hardbottom impacts is generally predicted utilizing the "cross-shore adjustment" of fill material known as "equilibration". Equilibration occurs when fill material placed within the design template "adjusts" and some of the fill material migrates seaward of the constructed template. Material erodes from the upper portion of the fill template and accretes at the lower portion of the profile. The seaward extent which the fill is projected to migrate is identified as the predicted equilibrium toe of fill (ETOF). The location of the predicted ETOF is then compared to the landward edge of hardbottom. If the predicted ETOF is seaward of the landward edge of hardbottom then there is a potential for impacts to hardbottom resources to occur. 8 Attachment A An example of the equilibration of a design template is reflected in Figure 2 below. Figure 2 contains a profile derived from CPE permit sketches, dated November 9, 2012, at R-59 which identifies: • Erosional portion of the design template • Accretional portion of the profile • Equilibrium toe of fill; and, • Landward edge of hardbottom There are numerous methodologies that can be applied to develop an equilibrium profile. Appropriate methodologies are generally selected via "engineering judgment" as each project site has unique factors and characteristics that affect how the fill material might equilibrate. Some of the factors include, but are not limited to, a) borrow source grain size distribution, b) project site bathymetry; and, c)nearshore wave climate. Figure 2.Example of Equilibrium Profile at R-59 derived from CPE drawing �.7 R-59 — — — H^4'j∎Bo! I:,v / __.._ .: _ - .'..,G FT w 1 H' L•_ Equilibrium Toe of Fill Erosion Landward Edge of Hardbottom -1.)— Accretion by , FR:. MC 'EN 'FEET: The equilibrium profile methodology applied by CPE for the 2013 project is known as the "profile translation" method. The profile translation method is generally used when (a) a project is a "renourishment" project utilizing the same borrow source as was used for the previous project or (b)the borrow source has a similar grain size distribution as that of the existing beach. 9 Attachment A It is assumed that the fill material will assume a similar shape to that of the existing beach or a historical profile which has been deemed to represent an appropriate equilibrium profile shape within the project area. As part of their evaluation of the 2006 project performance and equilibration, CPE conducted the following comparisons: • The change in distance between the depth of closure (-11.3ft NAVD88) and observed ETOF (referred to as the "Point of Intercept" by CPE) for historical profiles to show a landward migration of the active profile, • The submerged length of the active historical profile (above depth of closure) to determine the most representative historical monitoring profile (determined to be 2011) to be used for the profile translation method; and, • The added beach width compared to the change in the depth of closure along historical profiles. When comparing the depth of closure and the observed ETOF CPE utilized "averaged" profiles to characterize each of the three reaches using a single profile for each reach. The associated profiles utilized to develop the "averaged"profiles are as follows: • Vanderbilt—R-24 to R-28 • Park Shore—R-50 to R-53 • Naples Beach—R-58 to R-60 The purpose of this comparison was to show that: • The 2006 project fill remained well landward of the depth of closure and • Even with added beach width, the average profiles reflect a landward recession of the depth of closure indicating a steepening of the profile. The submerged lengths of the monitoring profiles were evaluated for all monitoring years from 2006 to 2012 "to identify the most characteristic dataset" to be utilized by CPE to develop the equilibrium profile via the profile translation method. Please note that CPE deemed the 2011 survey data as the most characteristic data for the following reasons: • A sufficient amount of time has passed since initial construction to allow for equilibration of the 2006 project. • The 2011 submerged active profile lengths were near average. • The 2011 surveys did not appear to be influenced by storm events. CPE selected the 2011 profile as the most appropriate for the profile translation, and then utilized a "mass balance" to determine the cross-shore location of the equilibrium profile. This is achieved by„sliding"the equilibrium profile landward or seaward along the existing profile until the total volume of material between the equilibrium profile and the existing profile matches the volume within the 2013 design template. 10 Attachment A At certain R-Monuments within the 2013 project area the predicted ETOF extends close to the landward edge of hardbottom. This prompted a comparison of the 2006 and the 2013 project templates at these R-Monuments. Because the 2006 project resulted in no documented hardbottom impacts, and the 2013 project will be using a sand source with similar grain size and soil characteristics as the 2006 project, it may be expected that a similar template for the 2013 project will likely result in no impact. Please note the following R-Monuments and qualitative comparisons of the 2013 templates to the 2006 templates: • R-28—Less fill proposed • R-46—Less fill proposed • R-51 —Similar amount of fill • R-53 —Less fill proposed • R-59—Significantly more fill proposed Based on the qualitative assessment of fill volumes, it appears that all profiles, except R-59,will not likely result in impact. Relative to R-59, it is recommended that further evaluation of the potential impacts to hardbottom be conducted in order to address concerns from Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP) about hardbottom impacts at this location. III. PROJECT COMPARISONS—2013 vs. 2006 This section of the report will provide a: • detailed explanation of the total quantity of sand to be placed as part of the 2013 renourishment; and • comparison of the (a) 2013 project Design Matrix and design drawings and (b) 2006 project design. A. 2013 PROJECT The 2013 project, as calculated by Atkins using data provided by CPE identifies a total volume of 387,395 cy over 4.7 miles of beach which will result in an average fill density of approximately 15.7 cy/ft. As identified in the Design Matrix and in the FDEP permit application file, the total-volumes as calculated by-C-PE; s 4-19120 cy.A comparison of these volumes is presented in Table 3 below. As discussed in previous sections, the Design Matrix volumes are based upon composite erosion rates and the 6 year project design life. The fill quantities from the Design Matrix appear to have been modified at specific R-Monuments throughout the project area to maintain a "no impact to the nearshore hardbottom" design. This resulted in a further reduction in fill volumes at specific profile locations throughout the project area. Additionally, taper volume calculations in the Design Matrix appear to be based on engineering judgment. 11 Attachment A Table 4. Comparison of 2013 Project Design Matrix and Design Drawing Volumes Design Volume Reach R-Monuments Length") Design m Matrix Atkins Volumes(2) Difference (FT) 1(MILES) (CY/FT)I (CY) -(CY/FT)I (CY) ,(CY/FT)1 (CY) Vanderbilt R-25+500 to R-30+500 5,082 1.0 11.75 59,724 11.64 1 59,156 0.11 568 _ Pelican Bay - 0 0.0 0.00 I 0 0.00 I 0 0.00 ! 0 R-43+600 to R47+500 � 1 Park Shore T-50 to R-54+400 8,914 ! 1.7 13.27 1 118,247 13.58 121,074 -0.32 -2,827 R58A-400 to R-64+500 Naples Beach R-68+200 to R-72+600 10,620 2.0 22.71 1 241,149 19.51 207,165 3.20 33,984 Total: 24,6161 4.7 17.03 1419,120 15.74 1387,395 1.29 1 31,725_ Notes: (1)Derived from CP&E 2012"Design Matrix for 6-Year Renourishment Interval" in Appendix E of the"Collier County Beaches 2013-14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary" (2)Volumes derived by Atkins utilizing point files,elevations,and drawings provided by CP&E B. 2006 PROJECT The 2006 project volumes for the pre-construction (Sept/Nov 2005) to immediate post- construction (June 2006)were 667,562 cy over 8.4 miles of beach, which resulted in a placed fill density of about 15 cy/ft. An evaluation of the total volume of material required to rebuild the 2006 design on the 2012 surveys was also conducted. Table 5 below reflects that a total of 408,005cy of material would be required and would result in an average fill density of 9.19 cy/ft. Please note that: • Vanderbilt would require 78,430 cy • Pelican Bay would require 20,850 cy • Park Shore would require 117,810 cy • Naples Beach would require 190,915 cy The 408,005cy of sand required to rebuild the entire 2006 template is very close to the total volume determined by CPE"s design matrix for the 2013 beach fill project of 419,000cy. Table 5. Summary of 2006 Project Volumes Length(2) Volume Reach R-Monuments As Built Rebuild on 2012 Surveys(3) (FT) 1(MILES) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT) I (CY) Vanderbilt R-22 to R-31 8,798 I 1.7 13.81 121,487 8.91 78,430 Pelican Bay R-31 to R-37 6,102 I 1.2 9.33 1 56,955 3.42 I 20,850 Park Shore R-45 to R-55 10,543 2.0 13.44 I 141,739 11.17 I 117,810 Naples Beach R-58A to R-79 18,935 3.6 18.35 347,381 10.08 190,915 Total: 44,3781 8.4 15.04 f 667,562 9.19 408,005 Notes: (2)Derived from CP&E 2012"Design Matrix for 6-Year Renourishment Interval"in Appendix E of the "Collier County Beaches 2013-14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary" (3)Volumes derived by Atkins utilizing point files,elevations,and drawings provided by CP&E 12 Attachment A C. COMPARISON SUMMARY The overall differences between 2006 project and the 2013 design are as follows: • total project length • template geometry • dune crest and berm crest elevations • fill densities These differences are identified in the profiles within Appendix A and further explained below. It should be noted that none of the 2013 design templates are exactly the same as the 2006 design template. Total Project Length The total project length for the 2013 project is 4.7 miles while the 2006 project was 8.4 miles. This is a considerable difference in project length. The reduction in project length for the 2013 project is based on CPE"s assessment of volumetric requirements to achieve the minimum design beach width, the 6-year design life, and maintain no impact to nearshore hardbottom. This assessment is reflected in CPE"s Design Matrix where specific locations within the 2006 project did not warrant fill placement based on volume of material remaining within the 2012 survey. Template Geometry The seaward berm slope of the 2013 design template below Mean Sea Level (MSL) is a 10H:1V slope to existing grade while the 2006 design template reflects a 15H:1V slope down to existing grade. The 2006 template included a compound beach fill slope that transitioned from a 10H:1V slope to a 15H:1V slope at MSL. The 2013 slope keeps a consistent 10H:1V beach fill slope for the entire lower portion of the profile. Relative to the difference in design template slopes below MSL, CPE indicated that during development of the 2006 design CPE utilized an approach to identify the expected slope of material below MSL. This was generally intended to account for adjustment of fill material below MSL that the contractor cannot control. CPE indicated that post-construction monitoring data from 2006 to 2012 reflected a slope below MSL of approximately 10H:1V which resulted in the change reflected in the 2013 design templates. Dune Crest and Berm Crest Elevations As reflected in the profiles in Appendix A, the dune and berm crest elevations for the 2013 design template are 0.3 feet higher than that of the 2006 design template. It was also noted that the dune crest elevation for R-58A and R-58 is 1 foot higher than the dune crest elevation for all other 2013 design templates. Relative to the dune and berm crest elevations, CPE indicated that "the 0.3 feet was applied to allow for the inclusion of additional volume of sand without extending the template seaward and to result in"whole number" elevations in the NAVD88 vertical datum for ease of construction." 13 Attachment A Fill Densities Additional discussions regarding the differences in fill densities between the 2006 project and 2013 project are provided below. In the following sections, two separate comparisons are made between the 2006 project and the 2013 project. The two comparisons are: 1. A comparison of the total 2006 project to the 2013 project. 2. A comparison of the 2006 design templates within the 2013 project shoreline extents to the 2013 project. i. Comparison of Total 2006 Project to 2013 Project The 2006 project entailed placement of 667,562cy of material over 8.4 miles of beach, while the 2013 project proposes 387,395cy of material over 4.7 miles of beach. This is a 42%reduction in total volume and a 44% reduction in project length. This comparison of reduction in project volume and length from the 2006 project to the 2013 project indicates a very slight increase of fill densities from 15cy/ft for the 2006 project to 15.7cy/ft for the 2013 project. So the overall volume placed in 2013 will not be as much as in 2006, but slightly more volume will be placed per linear foot of beach. The increase in fill densities reflects a "larger" fill template at locations where fill is being proposed. However, it should be noted that there are locations where the 2013 fill template is a "smaller" fill template (Please see Appendix A). Figure 3 below shows a larger fill density at T- 62, which is in the Naples Beach reach. At T-62 the 2006 project required 8.9 cy/ft while the 2013 design proposes 18.0 cy/ft. However the seaward extent of the toe of slope of the 2013 fill template is in the same location as the 2006 fill template. So the extent of the fill area is the same in 2013 as it was in 2006, but the fill density is double that of the 2006 template. The 2013 template results in a wider beach and more sand placed on the "dry beach" above the MHWL. Please note the following regarding changes in fill densities from the total 2006 project to 2013 project: • Vanderbilt reflects a reduction of 2.2 cy/ft • Pelican Bay is not within the 2013 project area • Park Shore reflects a slight reduction of 0.7 cy/ft • Naples Beach reflects an increase of 1.9 cy/ft Modifications to the 2013 project volumes and fill densities as compared to the 2006 project can generally be attributed to the Design Matrix which utilized background erosion rates and special adjustments to define project volumes. 14 Attachment A Figure 3. Comparative Profile at T-62 20_ T-62 PROFILE -20 2006 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE ' LANDWARD CREST EL.3.7'(NAVD 88) 2013 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE LANDWARD CREST EL.4.0'(NAVD 88) 10- .__ -10 2006 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE m SEAWARD CREST EL.2.7(NAVD 88) m a 2013 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE C z zSEAWARD CREST EL.3.0'(NAVD 88) 0 -0 z w z Lit i v:f\'.� 1 m z 1 m I �Jr i .\ ,. ..t 0 10-__..--w__, __.._.. .._.._ � ,, .4j, ` �°C'7 -10 z h } j/ / �f,%"�y\ \i:,-;,,,,—.''''' 2-y'''.7"- W <<�'' $∎A.541,1 \ \ `` -20 CROSS SECTIONAL VOLUME: 2006(8.9 CUBIC YARDS) 2013(18.0 CUBIC YARDS) -30-1-- — t I r — i r ■ — r-30 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 A comparison of the 2013 project and 2006 project in plan view and profile view (see Appendix A) indicates that the most noticeable difference in the plan view comparison between the two templates is the 2013 project does not cover as much linear feet of beach as the 2006 project. Areas that were nourished in 2006 but do not require the minimum 10 cy/ft fill density have been removed from the proposed 2013 project (except for taper sections). Please note that the minimum 10 cy/ft fill density is generally the minimum fill density under which a dredging contractor can effectively construct the fill template. The following areas are sections that a) cannot cost-effectively be filled or b) based on erosion rates have sufficient fill to maintain the minimum design beach for the next 6 years and have been removed from the 2013 project area: • Vanderbilt Beach north of R-25+500 • Pelican Bay and Clam Pass Beaches from R-31 to R-43 • Park Shore Beach from R-48 to T-50 • Naples Beach from R-65 to R-68, and R-73 to R-79 While these areas may not have sand placed directly in these locations as it was in 2006, the beach fill template will equilibrate and these areas may see benefit from longshore sand transport from the nourished areas. For the majority of the project the seaward limit (toe) of the 2013 beach fill template is landward of the 2006 design. The exceptions to this are found in the north taper of Park Shore near R-44 to R-45 and R-58A to T-62 in Naples Beach, which were 15 Attachment A identified as hotspots based upon the composite erosion rates within CPE"s Design Matrix and areas requiring significant amounts of additional fill beyond the 2006 design template. Some translation of the template was required to accommodate the fill densities calculated in the Design Matrix and to meet the minimum beach width requirements. As noted in previous sections, the 2006 template included a compound beach fill slope that transitioned from a 10H:1 V slope to a 15H:1 V slope at MSL. The 2013 slope keeps a consistent 10H:1 V beach fill slope for the entire lower portion of the profile. CPE changed the slope for the 2013 template after examining the beach profiles from the yearly monitoring efforts exhibited a 10:1 slope was prominent throughout the nourished area with the 2006 offshore sand source. Figure 4 shows the comparison between the 2013 and 2006 beach fill templates at R-28. Figure 4. Comparative Profile at R-28 R-28 PROFILE 20- - I UPPER BERM CREST g. 5H:1VSLOPE' Q 10 ---`- LOWER BERM CRESIj-- --,- —— 10 < I I 10HIVSLOPEII Z L �. f[•:RP�°�dJxr yl-- . D� "` T _ T _ 0 z 10 I ., _ -to q w -- 20 - 0+00 2+00 4+00 6+00 8+00 10+00 12+00 14+00 LEGEND: ---EXISTING GROUND ---MEAN HIGH WATER(0.33'NAVD68) ..- •2006 DESIGN BEACH FILL TEMPLATE s-, MEAN LOW WATER(-1.68 NAVD88) —2013 DESIGN BEACH FILL TEMPLATE -we HARDBOTTOM LANDWARD LIMIT ii. Comparison of 2006 Design Templates within 2013 Project Shoreline to 2013 Project A direct comparison of the 2006 design template to the 2013 design template within the current proposed project shoreline indicates that the 2013 design proposes an additional 66,679cy beyond that of the 2006 project (see Table 6 below). It should be noted that in order to conduct this comparison, it was assumed that the 2006 design utilized the same taper lengths as reflected in the 2013 design because the 2006 design covered a different shoreline extent. Ammilik 16 Attachment A Table 6. Comparison of 2006 design volume to 2013 design volume with 2013 project extents 111 Volume Reach R-Monuments Length 2006 Design" 2013 Design" Difference (FT) (MILES) (CY/FT)( (CY) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT)1 (CY) Vanderbilt R-25+500 to R-30+500 5,082 1 1.0 13.6 69,261 11.6 59,156 -2.0 -10,105 Pelican Bay - 0 0.0 0 R-43+600 to R47+500 Park Shore T-50 to R-54+400 8,914 1.7 12.1 107,567 13.6 121,074 1.5 13,507 R58A-400 to R-64+500 Naples Beach R-68+200 to R-72+600 10,620 2.0 13.5 ( 143,888 19.5 207,165 6.0 63.277 Total: 24,616 4.7 13.03 1320,716 15.74 387,395 2.71 66,679 Notes: (1)Volumes derived by Atkins utilizing XYZ point files,elevations,and drawings provided by CP&E Figures 5 through 7 show comparative plots of the volumes required to fill the 2006 design and 2013 design for each of the three project areas—Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples Beach. Relative to the comparative plots reflected in Figures 5 through 7, note the following: • Areas shaded in red reflect regions within the project area where the 2006 design template would require more volume than the 2013 design template. • Areas shaded in blue reflect regions within the project area where the 2013 design template would require more volume than the 2006 design template. • The composite erosion represents the total volume of erosion represented by CPE"s composite erosion rates based on the 6-year design life. • The "Net Volume Difference" is the 2006 design volume subtracted from 2013 design volume The direct comparison of the 2006 design template to the 2013 design template within the current proposed project extents indicates that the 2013 design proposes: • 10,105cy less than the 2006 design along Vanderbilt • 13,507cy more than the 2006 design along Park Shore • 63,277cy more than the 2006 design along Naples. As indicated in previous sections,the volumetric differences between the 206E project and the 2013 project can be attributed to the use of composite erosion rates which were, in turn, utilized to develop the volume required to achieve a 6-year design life of the proposed project. This explains why in some locations throughout the 2006 project area: • no fill is proposed, • less fill is proposed than the 2006 design template, and • more fill is proposed than the 2006 design template. 17 Attachment A Figure 5. Vanderbilt comparative plots of design volumes for 2006 design and 2013 design 23.000 __.----- - --- North Vanderbilt South ; (2013 Project Area) 3 1QD00 --_- /Net! 5.000 lume Difference:-10,105CY R-25 5•26 riper) C-27 RQ5 R-29 R•30(Taper) S-51 C-Monument ■ 2006 Volume Greater than 2013. 2013 Volume Greater than 2006 —Componae Erosion Figure 6. Park Shore comparative plots of design volumes for 2006 design and 2013 design 35,000 orth— --- ~- ----�- Park Share---- — South (2013 Project Area) 00,000 — —-- 1 1 "Gap" 1 rt 25.000 — I I I I I I 20.000 .--._ I I I I 1- I 1 -I - -I- 1 - 15.000 — 1— — I I t ' \ I I 3c73 — — 1 I — t 1 1 r7 1 I a 5.07, E , -- u Net Volume Difference:+13,507CY — r pky gP O ..0 \ ?' a \ o y\ y1' y' 1P y y - *-or O h O 4 1 O R-monument III2006VoiiFme Greater then-2013 ■ 2613 Volume Grsitstha 2006 --°-CmiwositeErosion 1 Attachment A Figure 7.Naples comparative plots of design volumes for 2006 design and 2013 design 60.000 - _—..._ — _-- -- — -- — — — N. — Naples South 45.000 - {2013 Project-Area) I _i-- „Gap.,,_____—__I _______--- K >I 1 I i _-- —— 35,000 - _�-.--_ I --- I I I 30000. —1"----- -V I , 25.000 ----.__. I a 20.000 ' 15,000 : —0 303 a -I - —5.000 '��' - ----_ --__ 1 Net Volume Difference:+63,277CY w SapyS `0. ,,gP .0 �,hsi v .: a, t,6� ,,,q6 w. t,. w t, �sOc.�� t�� q.1' `sae. a," 4g by, �,9 4:3'L L� a Q *Monument ■ 2006 Volume Greater than 2013 . 2013 Volume Greater than 2006 —Composite Erosion IV. DESIGN APPROACH EVALUATION In order to evaluate the expected efficacy of the 2013 project design, Atkins evaluated CPE"s proposed design based on the following criteria: (a)minimum design beach for a period of six(6)years; (b)no impact to nearshore hardbottom. The overall design approach utilized by CPE is fundamentally sound and appropriate based upon our review of the data, documents, design drawings, and reports as prepared and provided by CPE. The design approach is also consistent with the design approach commonly used by the USACE where the "advanced nourishment" is intended to address erosion rates throughout the proposed design life of a project. Based upon our review of the design matrix, design drawings and reports as prepared and provided by CPE, the total quantity of sand to be placed on the beach in 2013 per CPEr s approach is 419,120cy. AtkinsCe verified using independent volume calculation methods which yielded a volume of 387,395cy (within 10% of the volume by CPE). Atkins calculated volumes for the 2013 project using the "average end area" methodology utilizing (a) XYZ coordinates provided by CPE; and (b) effective distances identified in the Design Matrix. Atkins modified 19 Attachment A the effective distances for the tapers in CPE"s Design Matrix based on the design drawings. The differences between the design drawing volumes as calculated by Atkins and the CPE Design Matrix volumes are: • Atkins"volume calculation is 387,395cy and • CPE"s Design Matrix volume calculation is 419,120cy. The 2013 project volumes calculated by Atkins are 31,725cy less than the Design Matrix volume (see Table 3 and Appendix B). To further verify volume calculations, Atkins used (a) a separate "average end area" volume calculation and (b) a "surface to surface" comparison in AutoCAD Civil3D. Both methods supported the volume as calculated by Atkins. The areas at the end of the nourishment template segments, or taper volumes, are predominantly where the variance exists between the CPE and Atkins volumes.The difference in volumes is within 10% of the total volume of the project and due to engineering judgement exercised by CPE to increase the volumes in the taper sections. The comparative profiles in Appendix A show the computed quantity of sand per linear foot required to rebuild the 2006 beach fill template and the amount proposed for the 2013 beach fill template. The Comparative Volumetric Summary in Appendix B indentifies the amount of sand to be placed at each profile for each segment of the project(Vanderbilt, Park Shore&Naples). The assumptions are listed in CPE"s Design Matrix under Special Adjustments and include taper sections, minimum fill densities, and additional volumes needed based upon modeling. The methodology used by CPE to determine the design life of the 2013 project (design matrix, advanced nourishment, and special adjustments) was the same method used in 2006, and that project achieved its design life. Figures 3 & 4 in the report are examples of the profile comparisons in Appendix A detailing variations in the 2006 and 2013 beach fill template design. The 2013 project does have a slightly higher fill density(15.7 cy/ft in 2013 to 15.0 cy/ft in 2006) meaning slightly more volume will be placed per linear foot of beach. R-44, and R-58A through T-62 required fill beyond the 2006 template in order to address hotspots that were identified through yearly monitoring reports. The additional fill required based on the design matrix at R- 59 increases the potential for impact to nearshore hardbottom per the equilibrium toe of fill analysis, but based on the 2006 project performance this concern is alleviated. The CPE Design Matrix is an engineering analysis that consists of calculations to determine total beach fill volume based on the minimum beach width, erosion rates, advanced placement of fill material, special adjustments and the 6 year project design life. The proposed 2013 beach nourishment project has less total volume than the 2006 project (667,000cy), because the total project length was reduced from 44,378 ft. (8.4 mi.) to 24,616 ft. (4.7 mi.) based on need and past project performance. The total project length has been reduced and consequently less volume is being placed. The 2013 project does have a slightly higher fill Amok 20 Attachment A density (15.7 cy/ft in 2013 to 15.0 cy/ft in 2006) meaning slightly more volume will be placed per linear foot of beach. This is due to subtle differences in the project areal extent and profile geometry. R-44, and R-58A through T-62 required fill beyond the 2006 template in order to address hotspots that were identified through yearly monitoring. The additional fill required based on the design matrix at R-59 increases the potential for impact to nearshore hardbottom per the equilibrium toe of fill analysis, but based on our review of the 2006 project performance this area is not expected to cause impact. The design criteria necessitates (a) a minimum design beach for a period of six (6) years and (b) no impact to nearshore hardbottom. The design approach utilized by CPE is a) consistent with the design approach commonly used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) where the "advanced nourishment" is intended to address erosion rates throughout the proposed design life of a project; and, b) fundamentally sound and appropriate based upon our review of the data, documents, design drawings, and reports as prepared and provided by CPE. The 2013 beach fill template proposed by CPE is appropriate to meet these criteria based upon Atkins"assessment of the design and our experience monitoring the project areas since 2006. 21 Attachment A V. REFERENCES Atkins, Inc., Collier County 2012 Coastal Monitoring Report, October 2012 Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Beach Renourishment Project Three Year Post-Construction Monitoring Report, September 2009 Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Conceptual Renourishment Project Analysis,May 2011, Revised October 2011 Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Beaches 2013-14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary,November 2012 7? Attachment A APPENDIX A—PLAN VIEW AND COMPARATIVE PROFILES, 2; .... a' .--. ---.--- Attachment A 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 7 L.,. 7 1 0 1 I MATCHLINE 1 I C-301 I l MATCHLINE MATCHLINE I C-300 MATCHLINE I I I I , 1 0 ti �% / ``\. — I — ' I�'� 1 (> .„6-7-,,,-, A I I .Zm1 `,1 `� N 1 03 - ! J o I I I ?I ) I '� ,- 7 I ii i 1-- R-027 % • o Im I m -► I o /" I I o �----l;t <• I - - I_ ' r- 1, —0 "7 :U , `D D I �O `�J — w m m °o I l J II �" a ow D I f ;� A o m m I No ,� i 1 _o cr) • I _R-026 I o n / s• % H ,..AI" DIG7 "' '(a I y'' -II- J w ), , I I I I I Z 1 I ism I , �.-- womm0000 „ . 0 I , [ � J� -.`∎: 1 0WFCI03C003 ° 73 A Ipi = ND 33,/, nCD oo0c00-< --- I o0 v.� ` m 0 0 8 W S S S Z '1 I 00 1 2 2 0 0 0 n n T C F Z 3 rrr if I _i 1 t --, r I Dopo� cnTlzZ $4. I I c \ � a t�mr m - o � D m ` 1, i, - MT7 � � H - 3600 N.HORSESHOE ORIVE _ @NI F NAPLES.FL 3<t06 _ w COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING T +" 4" A °o o REPORT-PEER REVIEW ^'�"^° ...In. •° °�:v "� �.:"' A „„T ,.i= PROJECT DESIGN- ,a ,nr..yn#Y BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-VANDERBILT �..we ..e,,,. s p - •IORGOL55UE00ATE: 0 I � I T o., I 0 I I a..I..M.o.\.Nar tor......he...M.O...h.h■...Wei, -• -..-..r. Attachment A r.1=2E= = 1 0 I - ---:-1 i m I 7 I 0 I 1 L ( 1 I NE Fiii1H1 > Irrd,); ". , , ) . . . , . ,,L,orr, m ,,, ,,, 1.,)N3 73 7/ 0 0 • 0 in(3(D x 8 cp cp ), z_ 1 rn % › .co,... . o.„:„.,zo OD I ° 0)I= C° co co 0:3 G) ° I''' ' 1 -1-----11 :: 71 55 6 3> rn rn rn fl 1,....,.. IL I > \_..., 0 I — —I 0 I m FI 0 -n-ri-n c 133 A TL' (1) 00Z -1 --- 0 .... • 0 1— s, CO -7, —I H r- c - ,_. , — r-m „ ci > H I 2,00`-' CO cr)-nzej -..,-- P- m -i) m 10 C)rn r- =- rn r-C)--I 3> m' C.)01— 7J00 70 -...-.-. I 0V ) cD - M -n — -0 H -< ■--- 1 1> = I ,,° , .......... •e,, ,?_..( _1 • I= X &-• --- .4) --- * \ frio • )4., t, — 14 _ it 1/4 . , 6 c r, m ---, I w , I /.. :• --A *, -•* _ 4- --'tflovi I , { = I Ill .._.: . .;.-.. .f ,-.N.1 ,..,,,. ......, ,_ .. , 0 / -- * . . I m , 70 . •i4°°\r.'i#r': •' . _ 0 0 11!1,.„,,i„attij zi O , 0 doe'404110*.a.. I m. 1 (7±31 4.°)3 .Aro-„ ..p M I \ r:■:-.-7-4.14.p. 1 l: ) , — R-029 .0 ,=. •- II I I — I 0 w 4 m , 11K, 1 . , o i 1' 7-1 , I ) .4 ME I I= — -- 40,41,104 c.„-, ___ ...W._ - , I w< II III I _ ( 1 0_ . , m-u 1 . ■ - ,/ I / --7..... I < • _L I im / ——.=.E'--I__, cf) ; _. r- ,..) cp r u, C) c 0 I C) / I IA , -a I m , 3> m t \ rn i CO 1 / — , —1 o 0 — I r---- } _, ill• I I Cl) I E ( 0 I C I I r' 0 I iri I r- I C 0) i —0 I I J © I c.:_ I _ MATCHLINE 1 1 C-301 ' MATCHLINE MATCHLINE r--- ,, C-300 0/ MATCHLINE 1 COLLIER COUNTY ' '' .,,,,,,,-,..,„:„.,—,,, .,,,,,,,,,„ ,,,,,„, r:i i 1 ii > 20DD N.HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES,FL 34104 1,u7'70.24=tate7ren===== L' i .4 0 ' X '-'COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING I ■..• REPORT-PEER REVIEW PROJECT DESIGN V) BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-VANDERBILT '''''''-'''""''''''''"'"'"'"'"'"""*"''''''"'" ' „I .... ,,, > I B I 0 I 0 I ril I 7 I 0 I 7 ='.■ --•h- -w ....-3-.4- Attachment A > 1 ° 1 0 1 0 I - 1 , I 0 I = hr MATCHLINE - ' C-303 MATCHLINE ATCHLINE I ti'cj° C-302 MATCHLINE /-/- , / R 045 0 ii 0 '' / / I ,� Attachment A r I I 0 I m I r 1 0 1 I• MATCHLINE ' a .:. L r 1 ( • C-304 / MATCHLINE MATCHLINE +,""'"' '�v `,i A.._: �' ?"z� C-303 MATCHLINE ',...At ,�* N t„, '< ! Lu O 1"t , t rk ., . ,1 , i= IWTI D I ms , , _ 0 r w ae.'° yr ,A z. O 2 ' t °i'k L,/s' y I 73 r r i 0 m \ ( ^ 1 R-047 �'f— — I m -_-I 't.. L J . r m T O \ ■ ss u.■ o /I w t "i � ,r �i!_--- ,; '1c, I -'. . _ I 4, 2-0 = 0 1 j �'P■ I ';:. I Zm7 /' I c . I � I /' / \\ '' i 7 ^--/ — I70 �� zr � r—. ;l -� �,-\ 11` _I a (A cn n 0 �_ = m D D m Ni II 1 I . me ri_i- c`' D 1 TO w /_ a m j 5 ''1'= I- I a CD r I G a I I = I I m !..1� �- / w. m (7Rlm0000�m0 I m w DOZOCOc°Dwwrnzo .� ( �'� I¢, DO0pOmtnTIZ0 �'/� I �v- f �r mt °mr mr0-1D �� I ' `: E 00r ,E100 73 1 / m-n z E -i f.� /r--1 i i� i cn m m o �� ill,'::'-' :- J� --1 ij 1 w MATCHLINE C-303 MATCHLINE MATCHLINE 1 I I III C-302 MATCHLINE COLLIER COUNTY &J 2 I 600 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES.FL.104 av do be w COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING I I REPORT-PEER REVIEW r_, i Z f PROJECT DESIGN- _ ,ti. _...3. J �.::.F 7� BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-PARK SHORE ., ., �' IG ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE. ( I I CO I 0 I 0 I n _I , ° '-- �' -�- -_-.�- Attachment A ,.... D I m � 0 I - I n � 0 I - MATCHLINE 1\ I C-305 \ L- \ (\1kfCHLINE ATCHLINE �\ I C-304 ----/ s' v1 TCHLINE ir,� rl ��t �X050 �I \ `` )1*.„ ' '� s .- 1 I1 1 - 1St ' , ..1. ...4.4.„_ : . r 1 I i 1 I a --- I I r , , .. R 049 \J j \\ I A a y I I \j J DD ---�-------. ' t _,u ` I—' _O 7 I j I I I , J w` y %•0 in 1 ■ 241*, V !t41.*'# Dm ) ` 1 lo co I, I I r *� �ca�, '' ' ...r I y , 13> I S' 7-,..,,,,,,,,, t 1 O 2 Jj H NIII '[1 I Im RJR I o7nmm0000 � m0 �mw; 1 Dr - m 0 0 .--, o D A I I -I r ) Z C O .2 w w rn Z 0 ,- ?? w I m H /( t �_ _ =CO m CO m I _( m m O D m m m >XI :OZ 3> > > "0 o r m m7m00rnrn -rcm t I Wm _ A >O0O° WIC— mm —z100 w4, R-048 V I z __ Z � � m 0 ;- I m r— m Z - / r I 1 MATCHLINE I I C-304 / MATCHLINE MATCHLINE \ 1 C-303 % MATCHLINE -"' COLLIER COUNTY '�. i 3600 H,HORSESHOE DRIVE Q I oat..muffles,X came.pus..eh.au.,c,.e-a an NAPLES.FL 31306 I- u - X -��"COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING _ A I ° - REPORT-PEER REVIEVJ d W o� PROJECT DESIGN- m" I �1 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-PARK SHORE :::=:::::=LIZ-' o., �"I „s„....,, : C ! M I C) I O I - ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: I I 0 ) I '1;':4'..1,1:4110.0par Ws....rer nowN,Wror bolal.1.01e,Wain Yet O.7.3-MI. Attachment A > I 7 I 0 I o T I 7 I 0 I I MATCHLINE IL MI r ,-- 1 C-306 , MATCHLINE MATCHLINE II ',' 1 C-305 \... MATCHLINE - ----„. 1 . 1 __—, I '' IIII (--; fil i 1——1 . ...i I I / -----'/ \ /N4 II 1 '8 ul I \,/ 1 1 .-- ;:pr:o-•-•-e.-.-.-- .•....v..u- '-'-‘•-1.1.31$%.• .; „--, te:,:.**::•:•:4 R-052''..e.*:0 it °*-*'*-'------------e•!:14 . - -1 ) I I ,.......... __,--....- _ ,-- „. --.........„ ../ , 0 . , 0) / ./ 03 ../ 7.1 ... / / I I l / .. I 1 , 1 — -n ■ ,—_, \ • '' (1) 1il: G) \ t ch 0 ° ...T_ \ / /'-_ , I, > -,- ...... 1 --.... , \ M i R-(=51 V I I 'Pl \ / , •. CO — 0 0 \ I . — =- Cf) I 1 0 \--'' I I 0 71 \ (.....) > = I i . I-M I— CP I I— <- Cl M 1 I. Eli I — _,... 4 \ 4 I II 1 ■ i _ < _ ../ 1 1 1 I r- ) 0 . .T., , , z , 03 0 M ITI ts) N.3 Po N.3 Ja TI 0 20 I I I 7 -—_ 2 ' S' Si 2 8§ .cz3 .Z ,'S , u] o , ° cn F cn 03 DJ CD G)-CI M ' 2: --I --5 i> rn m rn rT1 „. 7) I I \ 73 > 737JWZ7CJ > >> K _.1 , . 0 C: >0 0 C)0 C)c) _< 11,4 : , o ■ 0 0 --1 co 2 2 2 z , .„. 7_,' I u — , rn--I m 0 0 CO FT i= M 0)5 0 Z_4 112 21:]c: c) .” ", ''." CI) 1 I I . 0-) z __I-i_4 r-r-r-K c: __, X7• 7) ,-, I"- r-I.-m „, .., / -;._. - .... — 1 , :-^. 4. -- -6 ril.-0 1 • ; 0 rT1 r- i-nr0 -1 > -- I -. ovEm 01 111 171 0 71 I I s.., I— ro Z CO H 1 I \... H 2 / I C_ '' ;---, MATCHLINE I C-305 , 1.---- ( Mk"11CHLINE \ MATCHLINE \ 1-- F... / C-304 , -----/ ATCHLINE ■■1-M11 COLLIER COUNTY > 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE 42, 2 1 NAPLES.FL 2,104 .A 9 COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING r------..--4.— 4 I A i I -- REPORT-PEER REVIEW A I PROJECT DESIGN BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-PARK SHORE 'r .... ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: I 0 I 0 I 0 I III I .11 I I I „,,,■.,.2■sla Attachment A I 0 I 0 I m 1 m 1 0 i T. i, 1 -:,.1 j'a.s•or Mill'4 1 1 tic4 .t 1 ; 4000, 0 I 71 1 ( 1 1 \ ___ , I 1 1 .1 ) 5 1 l.)=.55 \7 ( ... , I ) ,s ( i .., • — ..._ '''4214.14-**bir 1.'4rlifg I ( ....„_, * 1 ' ..• I ",- \-I ;) ) '''' +4 I ,•• i CO 1 , 1 - 1 ,....4-4, • , r.__________________ I) Ira 5,, ■ 1 ) , i , ‘ .,,,, ; .„. ■ 1 ..,.. ••■■• r s....../ ) ■■2) .,1 .. 1 i.1'\_... /....... , , ._../ 1 r ...... i I I . _ ; \ _ '''',i -4 1 I :I. I \ I EA IM % \ ----•• r—s.,_ 0, 1 ) ) I ;,•-•-..%T.. __--., i__. \.. V -- , IP i , i r ,...._: s..._ 1 li .. , . M ) 0 0 c' .......73 11 i ,o -'\ -- 1 I 07 r- -0 i _T_C 1 — j 0 O 0 _. 11, ( C) ---4). — (- 1 m- -I) Cr) - - — II 0 Cc, , cn r co › , I 1 ) ,...-/ M .,, : .t, m• / A ,, r / _t_ I \ e C..dia% /Y. ' -0'W.. I 1 H (1'4, r\ , .__. . I V m ,_..,-' \ i .,... „. 70 I I 0 —I— ../ )\ I co 1 1 -rim dN ' ' INI. 1). : F3 m TT , .. 1 I Fri '' ,. 1------------------ . --- • /, ` ,; I . ,..s>zcosc, ,-:-,o) zo cc, —0Foicowcoo -u --I i-n-ic-5 ,7:5 › mmrrim -r,m I I II I I ” \ ,--\ "" Ell 1 — \ • o0Hcumimz - —, , m—I m o 0 op ____ C_ u) LL \ — :41,:::),.-- i ,_,_.•. I n ,.9 ' , m x —I xi r- r-r- m — ...0„ ..,404PP" ---- /...4 ■ -0 ss,____s- > 0 0,° rTo om ,- - mr-,0 ---1 > 5; nor- 7J00 70 t is, m — I H I .. ....---,) 1—• M Z I I , / CO I ( --1 i 1 ..... MATCHLINE C-306 "/ ,L, II — 1 MATCHLINE — MATCHLINE i I C-305 \.. MATCHLINE "00014 tn- .- n a COLLitii COLLI i Y 4 I S, ;, . 1 > SBOD IF HORSESHOE DEE, NAPLES FL,104 9 „,... COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING r•=:11-...Ztf=t7:1"...M.==. w s .,,, .7„..;"„ ...,,-ry,-,-rr.n.,t,..- I — REPORT-PEER REVIEW ,. , -,.. ry, n. A ) 2 „ PROJECT DESIGN- A - V1 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-PARK SHORE I ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE > I 711 I 0 I 0 I 31 I 11 I I I " -IN.-•—•'.r'•' �u- ■-•-..--- Attachment A D 1 W I C) I 0 1 I , I o , I I MATCHLINE mr I , _ C-308 l i" `MATCHLINE MATCHLINE 1 I C-307 w / (-\_-� f MATCHLINE mile\_________ R-059 •ir - » ' 1\ \ -\,/: 1 _ \\ 0 ' 1 0) n 1, ) 1 1 m i i � O \\( t'., W �. II ' . . ,___ , . , ., I I I t ! O c2_,-- L J _ o I `, v ,:, \-,, 7 t 7 C � n A c . \ - , , 0 n o Z7 o.., ,,:,.. .„\� R 1 -� M o \ R 058q �11' \`.\miss 1- II n A a'i.''�mi m Co 1 CD I- 1 i �1= o CD M o 1 f } i 1 m \ / \ \Nir> Im� II LJ \j \ � Cc 0 m m 1‘.) _o 0 o A v z /�--- v 0 ZZCCOc°o W nrnZO / --J _ F 2 Co Co Co m m , � n C y O 0 n n n 0 ., ' -= nn � nm222�{ m tnOM °O -nr7�-IC� _______----_ — ,, �Z-1,jj � rr- rr- rr--mC ----- DO m 0m1- mrr-,0-Z-ID - 1 t m Z N • � -ii m 0 ,, --_\ 1 F 70 1 / 1 1 -i J \\ I `j I _ I — `°`"' COLLIER COUNTY -_I 800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE I I "L'-- NAPLES.FL 18101 �M=es 9 COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING Z1 N====. _ _ REPORT-PE ER REVIEW °,",° ' I z PROJECT DESIGN- 1ABEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES ,° „°°,,.°,,,. ,, ,,,E `"'''''"'" [1°"` "`"" ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I , 0 I I MO.Ism IN.1.0.,..b.....11 tsr ni•Whor Y.•••••••palti. •••MI.alba Attachment A M 0 i MATCHLINE 17- t mem C-309 / MATM-ILINE MATCHLINE I-7.--i IMMI C-308 MATCHLIKE I I I I 1 w , c \--, ) MI. .., ., ... ( _ — ' t b I.... . 1111 ( 1 ILI l ....0,. .. . -- . ,..,..1-__ .1 ,..:. . 4.. R_06,040,,-. 04- I ........----1 === 1 =:= r 0 I : me _ .., , '° .: . ,...,....„ 7------ s ,.: 0 , . ....... . m . rr, . r- _.--} - Lee (--' H x }- w , - , Il - i-- 0 \ ) 4 : i cn m I b co H .) C- s' 111 _ c I 7 mai .---. ',..■ • man ..". H •\_. -■ ...,......_ -- I ! --c I 0 - I _ I . (Filo I I rn 0 i 71 I M _ 1— _a 1— ,..1 (f) — Cn 0 I 0 0 0 ° ;0 x > > [ 7 I . Ill w .'11 H 1 • m T c, (.--) 1._ 1 A I _, — C3 = CD R 060 I, 1 iiii < ii o co > c) m i c) ., .4 1 N.."• : CI ' . _ I IN \ i _ -.. I .1p, I I - Hil> 1 0 _ I I rl Lr r 1 I : i:.7■111 -1-F}IFC--) 6 MINI ill -.., s i . _-----' ...... \ ..r■-- , --,./ -\ r M 0 0 70 8 2 2 8> x 1 . ........ , > ZCO(0030.1C.73Z0 ° CI) F CI) 1 CO CO 03° ti —1, — > MIFIMMM • 7 — . slis /: › - r- EZ70>>> L71 I . ma . ' , 77 8 8 Ed 2 2'2 2 - c)00wmiZ16 C.?0i-- m00 X 1 p :.:,.. 1 \ 0)71 M 71 ■ F i 1.13 ,i,7.....:•1, MATCHLINE \ —: NI C-308 LL ME t 0 _ , MATCHLINE C H L I N E, MATCH LINE I 1 I m : C-307 III ( n\ -/-- M,,TCHLINE 1 (7------_-_--LJ -_, 4 COLLIER COUNTY most.Aiowasi-losrmAtE . _ ., ...,,,,._. . i i■ .....1 NipLts,el_74 I a■ ..., 0 A ' '"r. COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING A. Z.. g i i'•• 8 .." REPORT-PEER REVIEW Z ■■••e PROJECT DESIGN ---v`r*T: . ik D.. „IBEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES ommaxissuEnorm: I 0 1 0 1_ m 1 1 I I .T. 0 Fa*%me itYYMBka.Y.Nay..F......0.0.........11,A-...1 ..A..“-.14.• Attachment A › 1 1 0 1 0 , i 0 1 1 ii. , MATCHLINE r C-310 . , ', ,-----KilA/CHLINE MATCHLINE ' --1 N C-309 1 MAT\CHLINE = _ . • if!... 1.1L -0 I ,/ , = , = 1 ' R-064 °- = / , al°111.--A01.-ArTatTelal E. 1 , K. I • ,, I ..... 11: 7i I .... , ...> #4'f641,44Airia",41+: -41'k'4 et I 1 I___I___,.-.; . ■ 3 I 1 I , 2 r Pi FSPJ VS/ii CM 1 , - I I , . V i / . \ ( I . . ... 1 . „ 0 n I _ i 1 I 1 , „..._ \ IL MI=M 1 \.. 4011 pi, .... , , R-063 v.:7 , v ' , ,..', S== II 01 1- _ F • ,. ., „.,,,•==...., i m . '...\ X ,--- _, ! ',I (n Jr 0 ' i';11■11. I w > > —C.--; . -0 c.r, ' 2 ,111 I C±m co I 1 _ . Cn CD 1-• I I 0 0 1 I CO > - __,_---- ITId -EP c) M - I A A I -13 F o 1- _L I/- S tilt _ ''---- ! -' k' w DZCOa)Z0 0 \ , I-' 1 -I Co-5 >mmmmm — II,' 1, 7 1 1 >717)Z2:1 >» 11 7-062 ,9, ..,' 0 c * 0 0-i> ° I:n°2 2 2 2 -< -* rri-I m 0 - - 0 m m m c cci ,, • \ \ _ L__ ..._., T I - 'II --I x ,..,—I 7>0 `-'co(i) -n Z 0 I FT, 0111I- Mr-0 -1 > i I M-n-- K 13 -I ...< .- • 1.3 ' Co Z ITI=0 __LI I , F X - 1 1- m Z 1 1 1 CD 771 I \.... H _./ 1 k., _ MATCHLINE H ---I- C-309 MATeTHLINE MATCHLINE I I I - C-308 1 MATCHLINE , ,- .,L.- - :: .=' r = ' COLLIER COUNTY ' I = NAPLES,FL 3,10,1 1 'COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING i 1 c..J S =p -E.' .... REPORT-PEER REVIEW ';'--g,:•=.'-: '-. Z PROJECT - W.W' ::• -- BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES r .I ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: I LT I 0 I 1:1 I 9-1 I 7 I D I I 11:g.=Tyrefw0p.IN.A...Fs..,,oweear Mar sradv... .•.7-..r. Attachment A I 0 I 7 I - I 71 I 0 I i MATCHLINE I 1 I C-311 MATCHLINE MATCHLINE I . 1 C-310 MATCHLINE 1------------ /,' I —_--,,..i .il , . , ; I ■ 1 :. —. I I I F.---------- 7.r---‘• ,,.44se, ..k* 4 ,„„..„- . ., c') '4::Ir., 1 . 1 i ' '"• Y1,i':ci.r 'A:4;),,,,7, ,-, 1410411„, a rrerA rrare/j4 W-T f--------—— I 1 I- __-__ •■1 :'•.,„.,, t',.. 1t4.4",‘" "7 '''' .- /17,44.4r1 I 1 1 wl I__—__------- I i I 4-40.1 I. , ' 1 I , ss le ir. 1 j'AR''''-4,,i ! I , I i ---77 uti ' _ 4 I --.:3 11. ,*1/4% I- i •.,.., — i. ' 4' 'ir I - 1 ° r' •I‘I' 'r,77 .to 7''''.* --- R-066'Iv - I . - +111•144t.k , A P''.a 4 I r°....IP...Or''..1 61 Tal 1 -y r--------- i — co 79 -47 r-N : I I 0 ' r.4- .,' i I > " it-- -,:tii 1 1 1 7:1 i;.,.p 2.1 1 ' '''' •'7. I-- I I .---- , e sw: . 1 _, , w 1 . i LL, 1 0 ,, , ..., . .„,„, 1 . .... ,...) › - 1 I I ) cp r— o m L , cs I 1 , ) r I , .._ I . . 1 ..,, ,,tt. -, I i ) I o — . I 2 , . Hir,, ,,,t2INHE). 1 N 1 , I , 1 \__ --, Nlai I IMbil Im i / t z „--I 0 I 1 '-' m o o 8 > zi , I / > zcoc--.60, c,,enzo 1 r zivi ...eIrar........../.- ...e r I / c-)0 _10 [Diiiz ( 7 171-1F1 ° Omm-ric 03 L I I 5 0 z —■— — — — T c --- 7 ; f)— --1 __I / .7 '---I 7] r- r-I— m 1 >00° mcn-rizb Orni— rril-0 --1 > I-—--\._ju) I / \ J cn Z ill -0 i I , co 77 M (- 73 1 • ,'7 /------------ I ,.,-- , U) -1 . . -H ....- ..... ...---,...-- ,....---... ,,./.. 1 , MATCHLINE r C-310 ', .._.,-_-- .6A CHLINE MATCHLINE --I Mt C-309 1 4 MAT\CHLINE 1- - 1: i :,,— COLLIER COUNTY 1 :: 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES.FL 3,10,1 0 -COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING -iA I REPORT-PEER REVIEW ,====:.,.-:,....;.....,,-. -.:.,■■•,, 1 PROJECT DESIGN- A BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES I'; I..]n,AL ISSUED DATE: > I M I 0 I 0 1 7 1 7 1 0 I 1 Attachment A › 1 5 I I ....40-...7.4041:re ...... - MATCHLINE -- D MATCHLINE MATCHLINE - C-311 MATCHLINE jity .... ..4 1 T --I r.r.............. v. . 41.7 li.',)'.,,, ..,% ,;.-4 1 . tr, ., . ..ig„, i,-, x „4,. .,, l' ''*';' . --1. i,..., .,11.4.. , .,„,==.4 . , 0 •-, , 10.,..- A , ,, , , ., ... .. .• ,, • __. _ i ........... ....L............. =........... . . ....... ' jr°14VOIV 1 W■i Wal I c: ' . - .- ., kivg,). ' i .' „,..,..... je ........ . , ,, io„! , . 1 , ,........ , i- - #6 , ,,,....; , I 1 ...._,--r.:._ , i__ ,I.:..,4w.a..--_ I Fri _ ''' '' .".4.4.44yi 4" # i 0:3.• .„. , E---_ _ • ........ M ' 1 -- — , i i , .;" -T I ,........t. --%.-.2 ri-Miredr/.■ff --°1° or- up r--- — I 1 , I (..,-, , . _ 1 ,-- 1--- . cn ' i 1 -_, 1 0 \ , . -0 ! z---.-.:, I m ■ I ■ 7 I m ....="'.". I o 1 71 1 i ' 1 re■": I -F- c - , ..... M I 1 Se \ — — —c, r-- 70 - •••••• I71 ; ..... 1-11 i r I —_L__ ,0 ! """•• ? — -\ o .... < (/) (on 0 , - I u) / _J 0 m 1 •r47 i 0 , > > —--1----- (23 I —. .... .... -0 I .... —, I car M MT(j i i / s co _ .... .... .... T-069 yr rz 1 II' ... cn 6 11V-A rei reii rr,.ffi or..,4,rit -. - I c 1 co c) I i rar i •)> 4: C) M I i ,.. _ 1------ = I •) - i ..-: I ../ , -• o I I i .Ei i E 1 ') , _ , . i 1 _ , I 2 1 r- - ' 0 P .t ,,,•• ' - Z 'i r------- I 0 I . ni 0 0 g D> 0 t, 1 i > Z C 0 co (7..'o co c-) Z 0 'I r--- ) • _ 1 , . >,-- z 3 > > > _1 ' , ---...--4'..:;. L I .3 _ o -> ,--, 000 ° 0 -< '',4 t ' ' 0 0--I '' co = I 2 i 717,-,—IM90 Z w . I I i al 7° 0 Z 1 i I I '-' >0 0 Do (f) M Z 0 Fi 0rni— MI- 0 -1 > R-068 lir _ / S COr- 73 ° 0 23 Pie lar.Ij r/....•Oil M I 1°■14 i I I (I) Z ril -a r ' w 71 171 (") -,-, -I- \ i I , I , , L . MATCHLINE I il C-311 I MATCHLINE MATCHLINE I C-310 ; •':! ;; ;= i I i I. 4" > -.'-' LEDO NNA.PPLOEISS S EFSL H OS DRIVE 4 A MATCHLINE COLLIER COUNTY . -- -1 9" .,., -i X 'COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING „.....d...a,,,,..m..,,,,...r,...w.r..;..;.o, /..L__ : .... REPORT-PEER REVIEW c."\J — ==....,,,,,t7 PROJECT DESIGN- BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES 1 FICIRLSINAL ISSUED DATE: > I 5 I 0 I 0 I iii I_ -.1 ..----..'-.- 'ter- -� .3 Attachment A D o 0 o I 71 -I U a it 1 11, ' ■iy$,' ty 4,...' or a / '$ R 074 y- I 1 I co D `=`• %4yyy�®�� 1 ] ' a rm I 1 O r lj D - ----- m m .f.3 L x D i c g T---- I m _ , 1 1 I D ' st H n L---- I d 1 i- O ,, z z I CO CD bat + i„r yy, 4. H---- 1 t"*'4"1.0 4 a .-` ._. �� ---- 1 _ 44 ,. ,..: .,. ,,,,,,v _ ._ 7 . -", T i, % 0, }E. • .11 1 r-,'. T4 a .d . I I o 0 � ,.pi.:° I 111= 1 f r > r r f O m = 'r [—, c--1 m o _ a I B. 1 m 11 1 co p o D „) i>T m _ 1 H La t' �. 1 m � „ r IF, S dr=T° .,-liIN.: i > IP,I < 1 — . 8 W ommNNNN� m0 ,,. . 3 mOk�770000° D7 O m w DZCO owwc}ZO 1 70 ONrw20007G7nm , it--' 1 71 c7:3 ODmmm � rot ' II I m —� 7J m -1m00 n -n ?IC� 4i�� ice► 1 n — z CDL. 0 -- err- rr- FF= .l��j��/� I I DOj OJ W -1zz (- ---I -H-1 — (� mr � mr— O -I > I I cn -im nmm -.< F Z r 1 M r----- H MATCHLINE I C-312 MATCHLINE MATCHLINE � �/�ivs — _ ■- C-311 MATCHLINE COLLIER COUNTY I 2600 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES.FL 304 n 41 ,, COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING .� ,"= N 4°g REPORT-PEER REVIEW _ I I 2 -- F i PROJECT DESIGN- A, 1 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES „„G, „.,., `-""" '-' IoRiOTALJSSUEOOATE' > I S I 0 I U I n I I I_ 0 I FN.Nem MP 1-. F-a•..-..... Attachment A I 0 1 0 1 0 1 m 1 ii I 0 I I < 2 m0 71 7,1 N O ED > ED D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r- > CO r- 0 G7 N I N w N I N m > o0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 r + _ I _1 —I + _t_____ -- -- ' - - m o — - ` o — i---- N / 4 / 23 ° 11 �, '// I w O _ I/ Q YYY � T f m 0 I 0 1 71 to i i - 1 t 1 \ i , ✓ \ I 0 j I _ I v I 1 z / / A / 1 < A / < o -- —'-- --- _.-_.-.._..�_ + _ ----.- —/- - r--- /• ! / m 1 N 1 N 1 o O O I O T m Ij I to I a— ,r — rD o -I D 1 o I m i f I v f 2NN rn mzo. I D 0 0 X ) 0 • w CO 1 CO N Ip o o -z o - 1 -- --,-- o ------ O co co O O 16-60 1 OZ Z77 / 1 - 1 - mm0 I _ D D D Z z000 INN. / �N� / .I 0 2 2V 00-, I 00-' I * -T1 ll 0 O G) s O)W I A XrrN O 07 W \1 - I O 0703 I 0 -I --I(O o � > > --i o-- DD _ f— a - 7:7 22 / 22 / D D m T 11 m m 1 - r- rr- / --- tr- rr- I Ill m v 0 0 i 0 0 1 — mm in -z-n --/ �� • � N -i -i N -I -I - __. __.--_- _ _ _ }O_�- -_. N O .. 0 .. W mm zz -� z -�z A O O O m I O r mr� )rr D J - I-{ + 0 - mm o m X O ■ O O N O O W N -, O O N O O O O O O O N O 6)w m w (28 OAVN)133A NI NOI1VA313 (28 OAVN)13DA NI NOI1VA313 z • 00 - m o, OD w i E.- - - - - "' COLLIER COUNTY - I _ 3888 .HJR5ESHDE DRIVE --1 NAPLES,PLxioa I 9_ I —COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING o REPORT-PEER REVIEW - 1 PROJECT DESIGN•EEACH FILL t e=`+cV v, N..f TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT ` c•� ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: v I M I c) I o I ¶ o.,E I , 0 I I - wry mon a,, tiW 1.43 `O. Attachment A 1 m I 0 1 0 1 m 1 -n I a I I < 2 M0 0 N con0 D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 I- > (0') W N - N W N -, N m > o 0 0 o O o 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 - _, m N 1 + 1 I I I I + 1 i - O o N 1 1 D I II ( I .l7 N 2-I I) 0) I/ CP 0 m I1, - 1 / . Wz iI ; O O -12 I • I -n I m K + -f - m + m -D = 0 I — cn c ° • r- - r < o II 2m ° I — I ! O m rn X m m — \\\V `' m \ 12 W m < N ■ 1 1 m 0 / cri Xo + ) 11 = Km_ + �/_L < -I 0 / 1 It j r 0 (A oo r Dm i I 'I < / 0 — r-� / I ■ m / m — ■ I I 0 j N -m I I II m — II °o 2m I i I N I - S Z o+ I 1- I - 0+ I m0 o I i Itm o N 1 I r �0 I I m — 1 m H 1 I I, m D o o X 0 1 I u I I I N W OOZ � .Z7 0 ._ ........ . ....... . . A. o+ m O W0 G) rrm co o II o 1 5 E 0 DD fI OZZ ;U my i wwo > I I rmmc 0 70 -- — — �1 DC 2 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 o / NJ*-071 c, z - rnw I I - rnw Dr r-• N _i o ww I 1 o CO CO? 0 a -i (n = o mm — 111 +o-- mm \— A rmmc R� � � 00 II . jI ° 22 // �� m o II TI 1 i1 m1l 1 � �� -1 — err 41I — rr- j — mm m 00 00 / — mm i ,I mm I { y cncn 11 CDN I m + -- -< -< — / III +- -<-< I ( o I —(— I II 0 I mm ° / I I ° \I w ZZ j � I 'I WZ / r_ 2 — aco I I -- iv- I � �� II n I O — I r 1 m I C � + �/ I I— j I" J± _L_ ____ 1 Z) 7, O W N 0 8 N° O W N -, O _.° N O O O O O O O N O W OD w (88 aAVN)1ad NI NOI±Vn313 (88 aAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA3-13 z 0 0 — Co N co co COLLIER COUNTY _ ME N.HOP.SESHOEORIVE °i� tiµ"F`° "�"a—ve° NAPLES.FL.iG1Dd K` k..nr 'Tr:" v U ''COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ======. o m-=..g REPORT-PEER REVIEW 'k°''',.""- I I Z -,,.. PROJECT DESIGN•BEACH FILL I V/ TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT "" ORIGAAL ISSUED D ATE D I a I a I a I 7 I 7 I a - I - Y -.N 156 O.NO Attachment A D I p 1 0 I 0 I m I 'n I n I I < T m0 N 00 cn D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r > 0 W N I N W Ni s N m D o ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II _, , I, X I I I/ X CD II 2-DI j I CO _-I i oo mK I I 1 -0 mK I p OZ ', I ; O O z I ; I O (o Ej -12_ 11 c - -I I II c ->•'I O + 1 12 -D ! O +. 1 I 2 -0 i Ill D5 o - I i' --O D5 o I 'I--_O m_ - mm D. \\ 1 , - m o m mm I \\ ! — m o cn m (n;0 \\ II o ,J O ;) fn 7) I \ 14 o A m 7J o-I 111 , = CO m o-1 I j '11 ., m m <m // 1II = 70j Gam J III = < �] N N / l i m <IV _ Cn m m o + ___..__ / I ,, r m A--------- m o + - — -- - / i 1 < r 0 m CD A / A / Dm ° / I , O- Dm I / 1 !I0- 0 - 4-. I I o a m i I 10) O m I II 0) m m I -H X -4 / I j ■ K XH I i �l K ca Im + I _ j ! - -Im + J_ I I ! -o moo l I ! {1D moo I ! II i ZU) I I m z(n I 111 m < A 10 m rv_ - I I .I m - _ I I — SS �� ' Z p c I ! I Iv I I O = oom- rn' / I ' rn - ! 1 � wrntn lit - �mI I 1 ! 1 m7J °' J I r- - � � +o ----1 - - O0 (nG) Dm o I ', Dm o I O- ZZ � m * I ;I my 1 I ( ww0 D 11 70 1 ' rmmc - Z000 N co o I jl H 'I * m no I rnco \ I I Z -. 0)w I D ,=r - Z o I co co _ co co 1 I ? 70 r r Ni m m - --\ II- ------- = o I D D I -- - I+---- --- a o icn io� rmmc m 00 1 I m o 00 1 i it - m -rl m / ! I' o -n-n I I ' DDS W I 1- 1- I ! II -I ~rr F / I - mmv m o0 I I I, m 00 I III - mm 1 i 1. mm I I v _ _ D (n(n I D N) -i --i 1 I -A NJ -i H I I Fl o- - /�.- I i- - m o-- -<-< 1 i I� 0 m m O •• 1 i I' O .. i I W I III > � I I I z z m o I (O Co 1 r -. 0) k) 1 11 i 0)0 I I _ 1 1 II 1 Q Q I I I - m• *� ( `HHH II j 1' i \HH \ j I • m -1 o-, --- �--I ---1 _____-.—..— +-� _I___ —__I_.�—.. . `2 70 7.1 ° W N O 0 N 0 W N 0 no O O O O O O co O O N -1.O m w (88 OAVN)133A NI NOLLVA313 (88 OAVN)133d NI NOI1VA313 z < < o o 0 0 \- _ - _ -v "' COLLIER COUNTY ` 000 N.HORSESHOE OWE _ NAPLES,FL 3:106 C) X COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING N _- REPORT-PEER REVIEW Z ,.,, I PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL I t•// TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT .,,,��.,, •,"°`°""`.. D..d. ",`..�- I 1 ORIGINAL ISSUED 0,E: > I 5 I 0 I 0 ] 71 I 71 I o I _ l=4 » rt.33.—4- Attachment A D 1 10 I 0 1 0 I in J II I U I I < 2 m0 73 illaillIk -IN 0 D Z m D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) cr)0 r- >C) W N -. - N W IV -+ - N F.1 D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II N ' D 11l t I D i 1' / N N o II m - III / C) m—I j ;I c9 Na K ! �, - ! f, 17 Q � m I ;I77 �m i X a W Z I I j w Z 0 -1 2 ,�: l m 2 ( -- �D 0� ! ) O < �D 0 !1 0 b m -i 1 w m� I j r 01 to :U 1 1 I m O m 7 70 I ' o x 'OD x o -1 — t i iI o 7J Q o---1 \ i jI 2 W m E co m SI cam \\ ! i' _, < ,mj n "m \ i li v, < 0 -4 mNO 1 EI = cn E m mo a / ! 'I r n cn•/Dm / IEI �m cn >m / IiIO � r -a / I' 0 r� Iim - = D - / I II m f =D _ / j II 0 m // 1 i, No 0 m f ! II °o 2m / I �Io 2m / ; IIrn --I rn 1j� --I 73 rn I ! , m m + m - + K mo oo I ! I�� m0 o I Zcn 1 I I I- ll Ztn / j IiD - I r --I � I j 2Q \ j it m - I m ° j °I� mT I I j •1 m N -n Nc t j ii CI D0O xZ O .Z7 t 1 CT) // 11 ."t) W rn (n -1 = \ I II --1 2 I I N � OO � mm °'+ _ _/ I I mA 0 1 (I N � (0 (mn0 r o I 1 , r-m o / , O O O D m / 1 D D I IJ 0mw0 m * f ! �I In- D / III rmmc D - 1 1 a - / I - Z000 �N\ J I II O (N N1 t ! II 022— -I Oo I Ii 2 OO 11 *11718 m CS)CO 1 I II Z ow I DI— F ,;, Z o CO CO I i 1 H o CO CO I I A � -11- cn -i ++ —-- mm I— 1 I' _ +o- mm -- I— , - a r m m c m 0 0 0 I i I m 0 0 0 I I I N 1 ! 1 -a � mN.) -n -n 1 II' o T� / I1' mm m m J ! I� m oo I I — rri 71 Corn jjI �� • 1I I I m I I 1 m m I I i 1 I� Z Z [ O W 1 I I N O I ' r2 ° Ii, - *.r..o I i °_ 1 II I I — m --1 TI I I., 71 T 1 ! , mm o 1 `I -t-" I `� 14� � o �� i i _ { II F �J �) O (.J IV 0 N O ... N O s N 0 0 o O O o O o O O N o Cs) w (88 QAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 (89 QAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 z 0o - co o CO co -_ _ _v "" COLLIER COUNTY -- ' ,4 -; 3000 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE M°,N°° '\', NAPLES,FL k106 ....=w.v....,a~r a� ale, �, [l1 X ''COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT-PEER REVIEW I I r tr . Z ,, I I PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL /•0(` 1 _ TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT .�.�,.>,...2H . "°`""• '."`..'.,"' IV Io mGINA ISSUES DATE' D I 7, I 0 I 0 I r, I 'n I 0 J I ∎•∎gin-., w.-... .P.s Attachment A D I 0 I 0 I U I m I r I U I l < 2 M 0 N 00 • 0 D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) nr D 0 W Ni - -O Ni N O N R1 D O o 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O O - . I- + -` - —' +o _L ' -I N = O ; 1 O I 2J oII N <' o _i O - X -- 2J co O O m m g N r N 1 r m + m I I I I -- I - ✓ 1 N. 1 Si v 1 cn 1 2 1 I I m C()( I m i ) m I - / IN I __ I 2 N N m 0 I / I D o 0o x .. � I m Dwrn-1 m I o I ` N w°° z +o 1 --- o+ - —I L---- I — 0 C0 C0 0 0 I 0 0 z z A I I r-mm -- I — I I \ i �� I 0 2 2 K �o o 1 oo o I CmmO O) co I co ca I > r r - o w w / A .Z7 r r N + -- M M --I +-'- m CO m 1------"---- - A 0-1--I CO o 7 0 2 2 I I o 2 2 /I � r—r- M 7� TI I ?i -n l _ -I-4� - rr I -- rr / ----- -__ __ `"__ ) o o I - - -__I_ m ITI__ / - ZZ / Z I — f R N --I L I ----__ -.__ - I co L -_ N +o G --I +o < G L w 0 I o Iv / I >> Ni Z / N Z I ZZ 0 `) 0 r0- 0 � I nr�- I � r -<r m * 2 \-I J \-I l mo -- - -----i— ++ ■ I I --, l 1 0 `e x 77 O W N 0 1 O N O O W N O o N O O 0 0 0 0 0 N O cow (88 OAVN)133 NI NOIIVA313 (98 GAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 z co co co co -- _ - - `°`"' COLLIER COUNTY 3800 H N .HORSESHOE WE NAPLES.FL e30a n X COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORINGk a REPORT-PEER REVIEW ' I ..,, I I PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL o Y`LIC,� .. `_E " TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT �,,,�,- -,,,,„....,x ,E ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: D I m I 0 I 0 I n I m I a I :.... -.7,=.....r-.I-..., No..,-. Attachment A D 1 0 1 0 1 a 1 m 1 7 I C) I I < 2 73 73 0 • r O ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r r 0 W N y _, N I N - -, N El y O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O m +°-i-- \ 1 0 — Il _, ° \ 77 0 l :CJ I l� W II - /- .A 1 W o j -o — m °- O l 0 m r rn N r N I r + _ m + _. m o .".... o ( I i • sl C I = I 1 o f _, <_� of _ �. / m / m iv o / O / O O I rn 9 --I cc I m a> I - K 0 1 °o - ° I r I D I H _ — i 1•i: 11 Ei I rn m I I al) 2 N N m 0 I D° ox " I i HuI I o ( °o \ °1 ! WWo _ \ - - rmmc — Z000 ( 6N N1 I �� / 0 2 2 N • °o C ( 0 ° T '!l p rn(Af I O W co / A 0 -ir- (n a' °+ co / + _ mm—_r A �� 0 2 2 I 0 =_ / -IDD -m< r i I r=r- - r r I — r r- - _ mmv 00 I 00 mm mm I N = '-I I N I =-I _ I1 ° ° CC mm _ - I ZZ No — � O r = ° m -n . 0_ -<r ( -<rr- H m �. ./ ? \-I • m_i o I 1 I—�I 1 I o I i I r i FR 0 ° O O na 0 O O ° 0 O O 0 O O N O III (88 OAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 (88 OAVN)133d NI NOIiVA313 -"`"'_ _ ': - _ COLLIER COUNTY - 1 3800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES.FL 1et06 team ee wsss..e n nrn oaev ue wy nV --- aCOLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING =°`y 7`r w o REPORT-PEER REVIEW aq 1:j.r' PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL ._, ,,V _ I pES p,ry, TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT .�.M,„,„.«�...,a _�ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: 1 CO I 0 I o I in I M I 0 I = 8n .�188., 1052-W- Attachment A D 1 to I D I U I m I il I 0 I = <2 m0 7I 33 N to Dz tD y ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r rn W N _, N W N �+ --so N m D 0 0 0 0 O O O _ _ m t rn WQ II ci i NJ -0 -0 — — O • Co! O .I TI m N t—m Na+ i r m+ 1 ' --- - _ —— o I o _ I \\ 1 I NI I \\ 2 v 1' / I / <LI o / t o I / r - / O I / --00 / -o / m t/ m / N / o °o / cr)m -I / H a:: CZ I ( m rn I K 1 r r r� i I m 10 1 m -_- / j- j S N N m , \ I 1 DOOOx .. /1 1 21Wrn (n I I a O z z 70 1 I / w w 0 / / I / t rmmc - 2000 1 boo, I I /0010 I/ 0 rn W oW 1 / / >F F -4 o w w f o 13) CD I a I—I— --- + mm —/ — — — a o--I --I CD o f I O I / rmmc o I K I 22 22 -O � < -Iran 1 -1•1 "71 I mm F F r r - H m { 0 0 I 0 0 - Z Z --L - { co cn o u o I u i D D CO Z N Z Z Z 0 0 w i� o 02-n C7 r- r- - I n r- CC { r r m G / z D y I \� - -P I \� l l I If iiI c, i ZJ 7, O W N !-, O N O W N !y O N O O O O O O O O O O N .� O CO w (88 OAVN).L A NI NOIIVA313 (89 QAVN)133d NI NOI1VA313 z o p - 0 o o o \ l "`"' COLLIER COUNTY I4 1 I 1800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE t NAPLES,FL OPIOd I C), "�- COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT-PEER REVIEW 1 I PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FELL s --rtc - 4c, - I I as F.,� I TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT '°,' E5 ,..010:0 o I ORIGIN',ISSUED DATE. I D 1 U I 0 I U I T I 71 I U I ? 1=1.0 -a-.■ NO•.3-.0- Attachment A I 03 I ° I I ! 7373 LIMIIR ,3o D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r 0 r- 0 W N i - N W N - N m D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r N i + I --'-_I Nj + i I I - - m - II _ ° �I �\ 70 ° ; Il �•� TJ o II 2--I-I I I'I i4 f U7 2 --I-I • 1 •i� N) m K I �� -0 m K -- I A' ! -u co °- ^gym j ' !' X N)m 1N .-0 m o Z ■ t O'; I O w Z s'�•• cn 0 m2 '...� I mS ' S -0 m - r+ ,. r m- r+ j j m -o x - i-- � m x $ ! _- r, — m moo= oi -- / — r < ° m - r ° ,�.• I cn C r ° / ' '' O C - m -I / r -0 m-I I I - 0 a7 frail 77 NJ-I I iI - m pm rv= I � I < ; 0 v <2 I I o U m x -m I I < U) m v m m0 / ! I1 _ m - � mo / I I r O H ,„ m o + I-- ! / ! ' 2 z- -Iw I I I-- m m -I --I o ! —I / ' .. c m H o / ' m - - D� ! 11 (n o A -I � � / 1 I 0 - ! II m �mr , j O m -< r- / i I rn 2D 1 I/ I m 2D - / ' I H G)m r N o f I l' T m 7J-X-1 /1 I o mH i II D m m0 °o I I iI mo o0� 11 III Z O) I j !, m Z� I I II i m So I ! l > =w I ! ,I 10 m o __ I m m- - I !!! I' - � ., I Z ° C I I Iv oC 1 ll D °OOX � -I -1 / I -1 1 0 � wrncn S 2 ul E300 =1 film w j -, m 1 j II m co m mm mm 2 - o — 1 --I -0 0 0 I (I I II 0zzz Ell D I I �D I VI Ell I- Co m c0 D - 1 I ' D 1 III - 1 oii- 0 co I I '' H oo I I ' i *7t-n0 m -, rn W I I m rnw I ' II > r - Z o m CO I I Z O i m W I 1 A X--r- cn -I +o m m - I I ! -1 ++ -- m m -I ;— I A x ° D D 1 x 0 D D r�� 7) ITI xx I I i Ill xx I I o m m o m m I j l o T T ' i ' DD < CI) F I o F F III I- r - r I- I mm 00 1 00 1 1, PI ; I zZ i � I I y n� =I 71 1 I - D ry --1 71 i ( I m o ice - / I m• o -C . - j I Z " 0 I j ' cnco I j I r- I -- O Gl 1 !1 - w ' I 1 -< -< 1 1 1 -< -< I I I RI ** --I--1 1 ICI -i-i I I ' + _r�' _L- ___i_,I - + �'_-1 m II o 0 0 o w (99 OAVN)1333 NI NOLLVA313 (29 GAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 zz 00 - O co co co __ = .v ` COLLIER COUNTY - T.' _ J 2890 FL HORSESHOE DRIVE ..NO1 NAPLES.FL 14104 "COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING 1_ REPORT-PEER REVIEW sP< 4"'; Z ML I PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL - I V1 TEMPLATE PROFILES-PARK SHORE F' uo E w DATE. > 1 S I n ! 0 ! m I 1 I C ! 1 - -.. 14a MIS-�- Attachment A > I a I o 1 0 I m I m I 0 I 1 < x m0 N o-.D co Z u D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) nr r0 W N -+ N W N - - N El D 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 r N 1 ++ 1 -L-T- --- t N y O i_-_ L _ ; rI I —71 73 N -' O �. S O �_..-eL_.__ i II .A ir c? II m-I I II m--Ij I II '� I rn o -0 I ,.� -D I m ° �m 11 ; Z1 �m I . I X m I 1' a, -Nix ! I► 1 I 0 m 0 N x C0 I- m 5 N 1 (P c I r- x + — I_ ---r - _ m = o �--- I J_x o_ m D ° i !' O cn X D 0 I 11 r < m — HD / 2 r co HD 0 w _ m / ! !1 0 7J -u ,zml m m ! , m o co o ff I ! I -n m _ n o= , I I cn I m m J c-' m I i l x < x wm I 1 1 = m 0 1 j < X < N I I• r c m <N I I nH• 00 / 1 I r0 m 0H °0 — I�, r0 Op 'm — r � / ! Im r� / I ) mm� 1 - -< U / 1 1N 1 r-7 / Iil-� ` = D - / I o x D I I I °o O / ! Ij °m 5 m ,- I I; rn ! Sm ! III xm / fI m m mx i m m / j iI ff c, Z CD / I m titinnnn.�.�..n. Z CD / i I, m I — i F. m S0 /1 III 2K2 / ;� — 1 II ,i € m NC / 1 I oc I I , 2N Nm0 o I, / 0 i II DwrnCO -m I I + mm / ! '1 CO 1G)G) mD I i I mD ! 11 I OZZ� > l ! 1 D t) ! i mwo > { ! ! ! -1 >>>Z 0 / III 0 I / III 2 0 0 0 H �N1 -I (N NE 0x2N I °o ° f I It m °o° 11 T7 'rl p Z O W I I !I Z -, T W I co A Jrr- rr-N = o mm — I I----- o -- mm --1 1 + - a 0mmc DD 1 / 'I x +o DD I II N ° 0 0 N ° 0 0 � -Ir- 1- m o 71 m 1 i I' TI?I l I i' > > -< -1 - i- 1- I i --I -,- r- 1 ! lI m my m 0 0 1 1 m 0 0 f I - - zz - I ,I zZ II t D /n / 1 > (n(n I + -1 N -i H 1 I I1 -1 Na -I- / I II •I I m o-- ;G -< --' --- Iil m o-I- 75� --F-- 1 I w 1 !1 ! 11 1 I I ' I I I Z2 J- Co � I ! 11 -i COO I i+ O� (7(7 1 1 00 1 I �_ ; / iI c 1 I !I — D I `I I� ! I �J I 1+ D 2 x.ZJ ° W N j ° p p ° W N j 0 N o O O O o O O ° N -,O cow (88 OAVN)!Bad NI NOIIVA313 (99 QAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 zz O 0 — O O CO 0 7 """° COLLIER COUNTY 804 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE r NAPLES.FL Dal 04 O X - 'COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ' REPORT-PEER REVIEW ZPROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL 2 W- F I `Lpr TEMPLATE PROFILES-PARK SHORE .am „o, t ,,,. 1 l IoRicinALlssu-D DArE: > I a I 0 I 0 I m I m I 0 I l =n.... -., .R 210-WI- Attachment A D 1 o I n I o I m I n I 0 I z � o LOW to D Oz o D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) C) r -.=0 o0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 r + �— 1 1 + I _i_ _ _ , m o „I I1I � — II _, II, r I , .A 0 II I iI i'' CO I ( • - 1 i CO NJ ! I D -0 m o- I ' — I 17 m jl 0 i 0 Ai + m ,� m o o I _ i 'iI I ! it I i I = A I i. A I J z I c n i I 0 { 0) o I o i � I w 0 r — —! I I / -0 / i O ,1m I 'D / m / I It No I ■ N `/ I ` I ( o f jli o m j / 0-) m 0+'_ ' ."MIN. n wvNr / i ' m■ 00 i II m °0 1 I - �_ \J{{ ■ D i I D — 1 i G� 1 !) I I1m 1 I m m / ! i 1 I+ _____J =oomo 1 II l II. 1 0/ i 1 I in 1 1 II 1 I i i- 1 — 2000 .NN1 / ! I �jV� 1 II o = _— o o ! i 00 0 / i t �mmNO rnw 1 1 I sw I I �I Dr' r=1 o co W J I o W W 1 A o� �w ° – DD �— I �, +o mDmD —�— �+ a rmmC o _ 0 I1 Ii o 00 r- r-m -n T7 � 71 -T1 i' 1 I I o o ! II 171 In mm t/ ! I mm I cn 1 • I w w ' = -I / 1 ' N == I i� ( i o . 1 III o-- ;<-> I ! �I CO I ,I �_ CIO / 11, — 00 / 1 0 0 n J ! I -<! I I _ P.1 *cam 2r-1 I- I I �I _ -I r- I I (I �--� 1 i A ∎ ' 11 mm +a —� -1--1_-� � +o. I i 77 o W N -a O s O N O O W F) !i O s O N O O O O O O O N o O CO OO w (98 QAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 (88 DAVN)la 3d NI NOI1VA313 z 0 0 w w i.__ �` "-T COLLIER COUNTY ""'" G - a I I IIMD N.HORSESHOE DRIVE - 0 rMC' NAPLES.FL 3,04 n X ''COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING =j REPORT-PEER REVIEW r''r Z PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL a .,_a y TEMPLATE PROFILES-PARK SHORE I ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: - > I I N�.,se,0� I I , i n n • Nr•w-YE/- Attachment A D I m 1 0 I 0 1 m 1 a I G 1 I Z U y ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 I- > 0 W N > - N W N > -, N IT1 > o 0 0 0 o O 0 O O 0 O 0 0 0 f- + J— I _I- ! 1 ---_ + _ 1 I __ — _ m N 7' O I �.-.i._ o T— — u _s. ° 1 I1 o III _ .7,] o u =� I I �� j j I cn i o o m I , 7 i I; 13 m ° °D I 70 I 70 m w Z ! I j 0 -1 i m� N f �, c r N r W 0 ^ Ii 1 I -p °O I, -> D 1 1 , O C ' 1 - m▪ m / .I` m r0 W /I o � - 1 I = 70 -071 I II co K 1 I ■ V w flil / ' < X 0 j II 01 v m o p I ! I - r K m ? 1 I I 2 0)xi - o▪ -I0 I I .. mm 0 / II co r � l i'< m / I j O - r< i- 1 / I r ( % m ID I- / � � �/ it f m t o =m I j I,n) ( 1 rn LA X- rn I j I,0) rn / iI m m i 11 m0 o I I Im o I �j n� .61.OH-'�- Attachment A 1 W 1 0 I 0 I m I m I D I z m O N 00 ) Dr- H n ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) r'0 C.) N - _, N W IV -., m D 0 o 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 r N -L O+ f 1 + II m —. -T!1 N co I / N o 0 Ili 1i �I t� x 61° N 2H fl J/ CO 2H 1 ,I I N m °o_ Nom ' NoD — III , Z7 ro wZ I ( o C773 Z i 1 710 _ -0 _ + - m -o_ + - -' _ L_--1 m D * ° = m r- * o C�� I - m� rl m mD cn� _ j ' O mm cn c °_ II m O m c)--I \ j ' r -° 2 < v <N \\\ I 2 W m <m I ? v m ( m IV r(j) co _X 0 o -- � I 'i t X 'f07 _ -(m7° A / j 1I o 73 -0 2 / I I r m H o --/---11 cn = D� m -I om o / , 0 Co 0 -1 o / I m - - / I j -0 m -i I tII < 0 - / I < m 0 m / I I' r 0 Cr)m - m ii! 1 , m -m - / iit0m m 1 CO mm 1 ' 0 2m ai jI m - - mCO I) j im 73H I I it n, Cr) m o oo / I 'o--- m ZO oo I -{ o°i Z0) I i Irn ZO) fIn - �• i m 20' - I I IM -IA - I I l� i O m ;' / i 1 2;-, / o I z oc I om / j l � D o o X CD H l m rn H 11 m N 0 �1wrn (o m = H2 I i II v M co 0{ mmz m � oo I Iv � o / — i 1155 � Dm / 1 Dm o I I !i OZZ7J � D I I I -I D I III P1 m * I ! { K m w 0 D I j l I rmmc - \ D I I 2000 o NN I I ( o I I 1 0 2 2. H o o_ / I i -1 0 0 / III *TTO m 0)w I I I m rnw l III D r-r- s I, > r N z ° m m 1 1 Z o_ m m I I ril 0HH0 = o T D D I I 1 O D D / I 1— A rmmc I / 2 0 E K U N 2 2 / I m 2 2 I I I mm < O TIT I I I N / I I 0 11 11 -D{ �vG w rr I I rn _ r=r I I I — mm m0 ; j 1 m o o 1 j ii _ D N :71 -7i / ? D N ^. M i in 03 Fl 8 1 mm % ° I iI, DD wN I orn / 11I Z Z I r 2 (D N I I Ni L7 I - �I o-D � O I -< -< i I I -« I 111 z �� / i -m\-Im i j 1 — A H m o \ l ( 1 -- — O+ -f' —1 i--1 I I - Z7 Zl ° 0 o 0 IV o w N ' 0 O p O O O O O O co N -s 0 CO G? (88 OAVN)133A NI NOIIVA313 (88 QAVN)133d Ni NOI1VA313 z << 0 co o w w COLLIER COUNTY A c 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE & W NAPLES.FL 3.08 Q I n . -COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING °' 4 I I REPORT-PEER REVIEW - t , � gI I PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL TEMPLATE PROFILES-PARK SHORE °" '"''-'"" '�I Ioeic,Nnussu-D OarE: > I I I ,. ,�I I I { 1 :=1;:=n,.,w+..xn.-+,., NO.,,_,... Attachment A D I o I 0 I 0 I m I ,I I C) I z < 2 m0 7:I 71 zl N 0 m D z m _1 ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r ICI D ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 II a :'o --- I I —' m -O 2 °o - I I�----r0 < )— — D1 1 1 `c r co mt j '1 _ Irlom F-1 k I 0 70 -o x En" \ j 1, = co m K N `- m I I I _, CO m < N / I it < i- 0 CO H O7 ,_.1 O7 0 _____L_____. 0 m m._—_ D m° I 11 m i / flo� D I m I I11 09 --I 2m 1 III m 7/ /i j I -O a -Im L 1 I r 9 S Z o-' I I , _1_._.- _ moo I i. m r, 2-4 1 I I jI`" - 0 mw I ' I z O c 1 =N N m ° I >0 o x ° m I I m 7)wrn(n m2 0 ' m 0 0 0 =i m + _________ 1, I—I-— iI --- -- 0▪cn� 0 Dm °° I 1 -b o o -1 > ozz7zl I1I * I I' Kmmo D j - rmmc 2 0 0 0 N N 11 CC722N I ( °-, G 71 71 c:, Ill 0)0-) i II Dr=- r1 Z o I Wm _ a 0-I-}cn 1 ° I >> a rmmc m ° ( 0 0 R. z 1 N S 2 1 , ▪D D -< W F F — mm m I rr I i - ----------- 1 ZIII • S I■• rD cn I D Iv jj _i I m \ I I, 1 �1I _1 i0 ] ° 0 0 0 0 ° ° N i o Es)w (88 OAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 zz << O o - mw co co \ l - -°"" COLLIER COUNTY - _ - MO HORSESHOE ORME NAPLES,FL 341M — ine ocsurnem'eves trt pcssesslan al kid,.C.,es...era..'al' vo' COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING - I X ro REPORT-PEER REVIEW I I ZPROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL f3$Lrcm rn.___. I I ° 5r 5 TEMPLATE PROFILES-PARK SHORE v,,,,,,.., „N-,,,,,,, ,,-, I°' ORIGINAL GSUEOOA'=: > I 0 I 0 I 0 I al I 7 j 0 1 ::.: n..,r... , No,,,,--+ Attachment A I m I 0 I o I m ) 7 I 0 I I X ° illik • oELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) cn 0 r > 0 W N �a N W N I N El D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 - _ I _ um o I A • 0 I �• i I C)'1 •i 1 CO u H -DI fI Co X --II i w A. tio.,M-�- Attachment A D 1 0 I o 1 o I m 1 Ti I n 1 I < I m0 N D 0 D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r 1Tr•I D o co 0 O o O Ni O 0 0 O o o O J7 N _ II + 11, \ + oN 2 -Di III / o -ID I I C3i m 2 -i 1I tatZ I �I COZ I • Q• -T7 -I_S j 11 11 -I2 I 4 i r- > D ° a+'.•+ i [n C j -DID �°�,, 2 m mM ! ;i � 2 - m /I m M m / I '' O < -0 C7 71 I 0 off NI o m Ii I m r- co w m I / j it m O m / I O TJ -U �7 m a / I i = 2 m m , i; - - / 2 = I( r 11 ° (n i °!I / i +-D I 1 m 0) 1 m Z D — I m Z D �_ Ni 1 l I Gm I I I Om l I,c m X I m 11 o m ! a) X / m - m o I' �,11 H m -- - m H cm JI -S ___-4 I K- m o o !i - -o m O oo- / I I1 is cp Z O) I �i r Z w 1 iI D SS -'• m j�� I t it =rn l II m M . I O m I m? I 04.0 I Z o / I om T I +C C I II D � rn O� oX J I I 0) 23 I C) -I 'f— -I m mm 1 I +m 0 m � o m 00 co + _ /I I OZZO DD 1 III -DID I I m m 0 m D 1 1 + m I D _i_ \ I j+ — / \ I }I 0 Ij /N N� I 0C22 o o I I i li I I 0 I l i — <Tm0 m 6) W I I I 6)0) I Drr N Z O W W I 11 _ III Z o j Cow L 1 1 I a X r r + m m ____i __ -- - --- + --- m m ---1----- +-- D D I I m m 7 N ° _ 0 I I !I m ° 2 2 / a ��r �rm °° m n i i I+ Ni -0 71 � D� ° -- rr- � I I II rn -1- rr-P I m m 1 0 0 I m l 0 0 I 1 - - - - M zz ijI � _ zZ - T_mtn 1 • + - I D m N - / I 1 I++_ —� I I I i o i ti P I !) - Ni i 0— 00 I w 00 1 III m �2 „ T 1 �! -n- I i - \-i -1/ I `�� // i 1 m --I D + �---1 -LII +-9 -\ Al_ < m o i - * _ ° - RI 7.7 A O O O ° O O ° O O O ° O O N 1,O Iico (88 QAVN)13±1 NI NOI1VA313 (88 GAVN)13d NI NOLLVA313 o w - - COLLIER COUNTY 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES,FL 3.4106 n X --COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING I J a d _ REPORT-PEER REVIEW r I I -- I.E PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL -' {r) TEMPLATE PPOFILES-NAPLES - -x � • °, ORIGINAL GATE: > I C I D I T , I ) I - 7N -0. H0•2tO-... Attachment A > I 0 I 0 I 0 I m I , I C) I 2 < 2 M O H N jill% u) D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r D c) w N - -. N W N - N m D 0 0 0 0 !jo O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ° SDI 111 N)0) I- III O N m — I� N ! . m m ; .0 om I ' 70 m <az I��O I coz I !I 'II i 11 -I 2 ,�1' -I 2 I '01 c 2 0 ( — 12 2 O , /-- 1 r71 -D 0 i' r0 < m i D O -! ' 1 I — I 0, mm \ I 1 m W mm III • m 7 \� i 11 + j'o M m M I cn _ 1 I, • ° 2 Ill - W m K w 2 I I •:, I y m o j i II < (<i) m m o I ��' • I a, c v -1 w o- ---- // f r0 O _I w o r� 2 I- Dm / 11I m I > W - Ir- -0 I I I'r I I r m \ I j' _,— M O m (Dr / 1 00 -<1- — \ 1 ;1 � 2 73 m 2 'I rn 2 \ !1 2 W E G) m I I' - G)m I ! j' � < 0 J m mm ! Im mm / i11 (n � m i �) 1 I 'U �l / •! I! r- r n c W 2 Z o co I ! -I-- -- =Z o / -1-I� 17 73 m m00 1 ! lIm M o ( / 1m1T1 fn Z I I i z(n / 1 1 n' - - <� a o I _ p i f7., m`! I III mO - � rn - I z to / I jl 0r- i ' m oom � rn �) 1 I I �wrncn � = I j �' _,2 I 0 o� mm - 1 I '� 7 I I -I °ooh mm w m m I m Omm2 -0 °o -�- ! j �� 0o I I I' m- I r I IIv OZZO �D / ! il DID 1 li �w w O m D j m D I I 1 _ - rmmc O 1 lI o -r II I Z S� H moo, I j I' -1 boo I I �i > m -no M rnw j I ;) m 0'w 1 DF r -• Z o Ft j 1 Z o m co A rrN + -- mm - 1 I + --- mm -I---- 1 I I,----- 1 A 0 -I -I 01 S o DD I I r TI 2 0 I DD I I r I mmc X N ;� 22 1 ! 3 N ti22 I ,�-o -om o 1 mm I o -77-71 I ! ii DDS rn 1 r-r- / I CD rr I fl -1H - I-I- i - r-r- 1 mm m O� \ ! �' m � � ! i - zz / ! ! 13 zz I II 4 cn 0) 1 I - I m cn cn j W -1 o -< - I I i — m o-- -< --; ; 1' W E m _ I —I _ 1 111 zz co co 1 j , o w 1 (00 I r2 - P � 1 I' O- C)C) i 0 0 — *2 -« I I '-'. O O o i O O O O O O N i O OD w OD w (88 QAVN)133d NI NOIIVA313 (88 QAVN)133d NI NOLLVA313 z << w w no m A v -" COLLIER COUNTY - - °4 000 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE — L NAPLES,FL 1010.1 9 COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING - -- - - I ,„ REPORT-PEER REVIEW I I PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL � " TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES ..ti� r. I OP..IGinAL!SSD_o DATE: 'ILIN Now NVErepallouNAINWAINAIN NI O._S-50, Attachment A D I o I 0 I 0 I m I m I 0 I l < 2 m0 73 73 N C/3 _i ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0r (r(i D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 O o i1 ° o•o it -ID 111 > _Di i !I i w o m� _ ri I m 1 -0 °- jm J O wZ III 1 . 0 TI :$ --1 2 I m 2 I i i 5o 1 - CD ' I = -o r I D t — mm ,i p m_m ! I� p C71 C 570 / I r W � 73 * r co N-i I ill = m0 m o 2 i I �I m O m V m I cn = W m w m \\ I Il 2 W m <N t I I _= m <N " i I m °o �' I \ I < < 0 7J i 73 o a 1 I 2 < 77 70 0 0-I o I r r n (0 n.-I o / I < r' 0 (n O m 1 O H D� ° I 1 i) m m D� / 1 1- m m - �m / I1 m m rn r- m / I ' O— cn 2D / I it N 2D - / •i I m Om / I 1 °o Om / ! iiN m mX / I I m mX / I I rn m -i i -m ° / i ' I -I m rn I i m I Z 0 — I Z o — I m O o I — r m p o ! Z(f) Di v�I� Z(n I j, / I m\ 2� 1 III ' =in 1 I 'I D - i 0 m� t 1 mm I ! I m ! m ^'m 1 I I o p I 1 !v 0 7Jw0�°• �_ I ' -Im III M o, I N N pop=i mm O+ I I �� + W -o I I I o 1 I. �OOO Dm o I I ' DD o I l i OZZ tI Im� 1 I I i m D 1 1 I = � o3wO D I ' X I I DX - - rmmc I p I I � D 022 O oo j i 2 -/oo I i pm >r- r - m CD Ww I I o co co 1 I I --1 - p r r N = ++ co D----1 I + ---I ------ m +°o mD mD i 1 I I 0>-I A OHHU) r m m c m C70 ( I I N 00 I I r O -, -o-o< j 11 -n j I o 7171 I j i -z HDDmG w � � 1 H cz -- �� I ! I � z - in 01 m op ! ' — 00 I ! -1 II zz II I m - ti (Zn I D zz I 1 m • i D N I ' i N i 1 L__ I Co i mo < < — II — m +o <� 1 II-- z- w m E E ° I i o I I I O zz �6,w� 11 - P I 11 H i ' 00 I • ' 71m7 �_ jI <G I II (n — m Tom' i -TI TI 1 I n ' N A 1 I I L_-- -I o I — -- + 0 O O O o O °' W w (88 OAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 (88 OAVN)133d NI NOI1VA313 zz pp — co m co 0 \ / - _ "`"' COLLIER COUNTY I 'I '1 3800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE 2 I "COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING "g REPORT-PEER REVIEW _ I PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL n, r r emu° t i TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES ..,,,we,,.,h ,,, oeminausaeo D_ ) I m I a I a I , 1 7 I 0 I = Lam 0.^-..- S°-1/1- Attachment A v 1 0 1 0 1 0 I in I n I U I 1 <2 m0 X 7J N talk 0 0 H ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) > 0) ,I-0 W N N W IV m> ° O O O o O O © O O O O O 0 — Ilm o '— ---! II + � o l If� — I , • N _ 11 1 j II cl o II j1 1 6) 11 °o _, I f' /i 1 i I I ZJ m i 0 • II 0 11 I ?1 TI + I I �I M N 1 r + ;I ITI 00 - °o ----- - - if iI II - II 1 / it IIv 11 \\ I h o I I I I v \ i 1 -'• I A • ++ - I I + / I I <\ I _ °° 1 I_ IT / I II_ ! \ II // I e �' - II ---m �I 1 < / 0 m / I / I1 rn / I O /I I -I m - / I I m 6+' 11 I I K ° / I ry °o --/ 17 m / I I ° ! I I � I m / ! I � / 11 m —■ m 1 2NNmo 1 I ( m 1 II .. D o°o X ,. I ,- I I E �wrn (n I I H 1 f1 W�� °+ 1 I I m °J+ 0tmnumi� ° /- --�1 I o -- - I �I— -,__ 0 �6Z-50 f I I ; i I Ozzx 1 I / III �mm0c - 1 I j li - 022 ° O� I I lNN1 1 *mm0 rnco ; j o00 \ 1 1 0)w I Dmr' -' 0 0707 1 ( _ o mm 1 p 0-IrN - mm --1--I I ' -- mm --pi t m m c °o D D I o D D I a 71r- r- m m m I I -- 11 j i I _ -I--- - r- � I I - I r- I II mm 0 o I I I o0 1 11; - m m 1 j m m I III I I m czi3 . I (.I) c I 1 1 1 • I I o �- -< --—� � 1 ' o-- , _< — I - 1 I I il m m ° i I ' ° 1 m j i D D z I rn 1 z z 4' 0 I I v z I I r 2 - in m 1 i 1 0 0 1 I 1• < 2 -<r I I mr 1 1 - m m I , -I 1- 1 m > D -P \� J I I U j 1 2 73 M O ZI ° ( N > O --L° N O I ° ° N o O O O O O O N II (88 QAVN)1I NI NOI±VA -13 (88 OAVN)13 NI NOIIVA313 - -°`"' COLLIER COUNTY t""�. 1100 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES.FL 34 104 I I 6 - "..,-°COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING °'"�' __- REPORT-PEER REVIEW °°^ ^M I r.r PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL ru V) TEMPLATE PROFILES °"° ^'°'�^�-°rca°�=-°°°m °°^�^°°° - - ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE > I m I n I 00. v I n oar. I , I I 1 ::■ ° 4..A -�-., .a..3_•... Attachment A D I w I 0 I 0 I m I m I a I i < I m0 1-o N to ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r ID' CO) W N i 8 N W N 3 - N F.1 O O o O o O o ° O O O o o O II m ° —�_ iI o I I I (I �t7 NJ 11 i I r i I S en N / I f, m ° I)011(( �7 - { I ro 1 0 N r + _ �__ m + _ —_I 1 m ° ° • L\J — `\ i I CO \\ 1I = i t o _ l i iI < I • , m I I II r If m / I I o / III -0 I m 6) / I O cr) o / i N i o / I I m o I o I I I t I rn - 1 I/; r i iI m m I - f m 11 Y / I m / 11 m j D S o o m 0 / I ( v 1 70wrn (X / � I I I ; m co N CO C7 C7 0+ — _--.—I -- I I IiI v . Om 0 00 I I I o / I I 1L)O�) I ! I OZZ2J I � I I I I-1 >> > z c-mmc0 I I T I , >7:1 I I o0220 X00 I X00 I I 1 Om ��'ImNp ow 1 1 — I 0)w 1 1 >FF -, o woo I j ( o 1 CO CO 1 I I --I-I -I A O-ccn ++ --mm-I-...-1-- - I , _ o-_' mm I I I� ----0r>- A rmmc 0 nn I I ° 00 I i II r0 -a-o m = = 1 , _= I j I R"z Dij G tirr -_ I-r- __ j II �-i I-- r I i i, 4 0 0 I v Om,� I j mm I t N —I=i I I w 0 � I m o ; o i I O m I II I I ! I z z �_ )0 I I I, -I- N 0 I II m 0- I 0 m I i 0-n I iI m m -o *= I �r I I Ill Tr I I - m >D i `--� I I I I �/ I �I W- I S .17 70 ° W N ° o NO ° W N ° O O o O O o o O N O m w (88 OAVN).1_ 3d NI NOIIVA313 (88 OAVN)122d NI NOIIVA313 z 00 co 0 00 - ^ - - -- COLLIER COUNTY — 4 4 f. > 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE _- I NAPLES,FL 3,104 -A i COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING " .a I I m e.,g — REPORT-PEER REVIEW•m oto�N is I I "'T - . Z ,�.�. PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL ^v r NrwPE.a,,. 4 I I M ry TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES „:, p„E o. „ I ORIGINAL ISSDEDf DA,E. > I ID I 0 I 0 I m I 7 I 0 I I '.'"...V.V""*"'^° ti .n°-.- Attachment A ) I m 1 n i 0 I m I m 1 0 I z < I m O X 70 . .0111111,01 0 N 0 r O + ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88)I 0 r- mD 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 - � r + _I_ II m N- OO I J ' IVs o-j{_- _!__— I I _ N -1 D I \ ! I (1 H N II C 2-I 1 CO - � m+ I o oZ II o WZ i t I H I m - N ! I I- m r+ - -I--- _ m + I — cn.C__ m I o ! I O — __ - - - - .. I O 11 ° j I I I — C C -D< D 1 r tmm mm I �rm � W� O X co - i m O m O V tam ! I -A m O Cr) m 60j 2 // I I o 77 7J o m o m 1 1 = W m v o° 1 1 _ m m m0 ! I v, < X 0 0-I o I I 2 m -I oO i_-_____, O c) - - 1 O c) D m 1\ j iI < m -i \ a7 r m G)m I ! ' -D Om I i , m rnm 1 I Ir" S ! j I o 23 -X1 ca) I io ))H / i rn m I Z 0 -- F 9 O— I Z o - /- I �m m o o I ! I - m o o / I K z co / P I r � w / I ; K _1 � ! I i m - j ! r° _- ! I -DI - kr I m / ID mom? - / I m I N N m Z o C / I it m o C / iV m x88cno mI ! IIJ �_ // I i fli -I ! j 1 -I / rnm000 i �� o co / 1--- -- m i a cn0 mrcoo I mco 0 z� mD I I --I> 1 - r-mmCO D - i I ' DZ�1 mD 1 I I II 0 2 2-. H /o o\ I I I W 0) - bo o\ I 1 1 *m m o_ m 0, .7?. I 1 0 O I o I A �7rrr- N Z o p707 I I I �-I Z O CO CO I I r- m m C m o 0 0 I I G) m o 0 0 I ! I a �� rm ° '71-n I I I ' Z o I I -DI �� ' �� 1 ! I �m W r-r Z r I- --, f mm Fi 00 ! 1 —I m 00 1 ! !1 ZZ I ! I 0 -u zZ I i cn CD I ! 0 I I i -DI r•) -1 I I ' A (mn D Iv -=1 1 III m °I ;< -< --1 • I 11 z I I ° 1 j Iii m zz a� I III --1 o0 1 I `I r I v rn I m a IP O- 0 0 1 i I. 'm <I m I I I U) « / I -I-1 I 1 0 •-1-n I' DD ` J I I I `�-1j j m m m + -}-- _____t_—_I_ I �- ---I--- H + -- 1 I -L `e 77�] ° W N !. 0 '-' N 0 1 j— O O O ° C. W N �. ° ° N --,----•••• O O O ° N co co (82 OAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 (82 QAVN)132d NI NOIIVA313 z << 0 0 w op op 1b F. i - - . "' COLLIER COUNTY 600 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES,FL.104 9 X 'COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING CI REPORT-PEER REVIEW Ham: PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL _ o#a = TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES .�w� _,.�...a a..,..o.E,_, - .,-_«r.>, ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: 1 m I 0 I mom I , .,. I , 7 %z.V.1--1411N.-.6, Na TI,-�- Attachment A D 1 0 I 0 1 0 1 m I m I 0 I I < I M O 70 73 N r-o ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) tD 0 r r-0 W N _, N W N N m y O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 0 III 0 0 I + _+ 1 i 11 i, 2 oN m� I i }) N m � I m ° °D I i- .�7 oD i I 1' 0 m wZ 1 (I I` 0 c Z I I 0�I !M0 + II I _ I I m �O +�._ -- I 1 I m D 2 ° — -O 2 °r ° I 1 r o r I m 1 cn c o -I r < m O H jI r < m I t W `'m I ! 0 u) v mo II � 'I o 73 -00 m mo I j ∎I m r0 mm a I I m 0 H o I I< I m — D m ( I I 73 Dm 1 11 < �7 X _ - II r Cr) m r K I I, cn cn m = D I !I • m 2 D \ j O 7) -� r7m II < m cn Gym j ! 1 � m m m mx ,\ I �I O cp mm 1 0 m r -1 1 H D -1m I' I III -0 Hm rn I I ' m m p 00- - --- I II m 2 Z 0_ .- L_✓ I tv Z(n I I I °o Z0 o / I I O rA H o / I lI rn H 0 i s 0 mN2 / , I m • I m — 1 II — ,,_, �� ' z 0N- / i ! � oc / iIv 2ppmp ��J ✓ 1 II r �•�--{J / I 11 r I X co rn (n -I 2 /✓ 1 I' II> '-'I I • I I I rn m coon- Km o+ - ✓ -1 I m I � 7 o+ _ - F✓-1 i Im- I r m m z m o I I i�v" -- -o 0 1 0QN0 1- cn ° 1 ✓ I I r- m ° T i �I IG�z H ✓ II H › I / lI OZZ0 _ �mm0 m 1 m r-ITIMC D _ 1 iI D70 I_ I D � - 2000 p , cNN1 i/ III 1 OZ H Coo) I I I W (n oii- H oo I I W(n DTI no (2ri � w I I I -10 z _, rnw III O0 A 70 r r N Z O _ co W I __I,�__.__- 0> o+ ___ co m -___.—_ f iI --O 0HHcn +o DD i I I !rA_- II 2 ° I D D I I � r- 1 a r m o 2 2 I II r 0 1 N ° 2 2 I r G� _mrmrm ° I -nit I II �� °0 mm ! I �� --IH�G w k_ rr- r- I I �I COZ H Ir-' Ir_ I I -z I1+ - - m I ! I H m I HI -I i mm mm I III II mm 1 I - -_ -M-z---1 p0~ r .- 2 Z- 1 I 00 H r cn cn I i I I CO cn ! i •f I - > n, I --1 = I�_ I II --, cn ■ -t + -.J_ = - J__ I II _ Cl) H m +o j ' I 1 I Z' Rl °o C ,G 1 I T — '_ Z w K � I o of Z Z Co Co 1 I I -1 W N I I -i I-2 -- 0 W I I m (9 W 1 m I <_ � � I 1 I m I -<� I I m - m I -n I I I 0 j _ 1 1t 0 xi mm a �— - t , o � ► 70 O O -' N O !� O —' N co O O O O O O O O ° ° N ■ O 03 w (88 aAVN)133d NI NOIIVA313 (88 QAVN)139d NI NOI1VA313 z o p w o co 0 \ J "" - S = �� I 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE �,�(�1 NAPLES.FL Ulna M '.� 0 .- ''COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING i I c — REPORT-PEER REVIEW �y I PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL Ey 1 I ce) TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES 9=„: "-”'"-' -"- o..��,�>, . 1 L I ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE P I U I 0 I 0 I m I m I C) I I _ =,w . .,-�- Attachment A > I m I 0 I o I m I m I 0 I I < 2 m0 N 0 0 0) D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r -r 0 W N - N W N _, Ni p1 D 0 o O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 — r + ■ 1 + i I 1 o II -4 �I N j I �I CO CO Il 0 O m m m + I m +' 1 i m — 00 (-'" 00 -_' ----1-- 1 / I // 2 v I cn // I- v S / / 1 O : :z r 0 m o co m K cr)1 Dr o / -I / A = 1 m / / =N N m / I D ° 8X • / I [a m W 0 0 — / 0 / m Ocmo co m 0 00 / O / O z z 0 / I m m 0 I =-I I =-I U D Z000 —4 ' j/ 0Z �N� I 00Z 0 2 m N e° I CO m o0 0 / CO m O Om D� � � o c0m I -1� co_ co co I -iH A 0-1 - to +oi DD —_� — —0 D- o _ ill OD- A r m m c ° 0 0 ° 0 0 I r-r m m < __ z = = I r z 71-T1 71 71 HDD -< F-F �m rrr. I �m -I -1 - rr �Z -- rr I Cr) m 00 -I 0o I H m z z 0 z z I 00 f N =-I m N —I —I I U I I +0 -< — z_ °+ _I -< I — ._ Z• � 0 0 0 I 0 m Di m I -1 ZZ rnO H NO I -I m m r- i� _ -r m �r I m m —I 0 H l m D {; �J H \ / I -1 D 1 -m l + -I--I + -i f m O O CD °N O ° W N N� 77 W j o o O o °O O O O O N II (88 QAVN)13d NI NOLLVn313 (88 QAVN)13 NI NOIIVn31 - - """` COLLIER COUNTY 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE _ 3 vin NAPLES.FL 14106 :+s=',.ba =_ n�+T�+ CI _ ,.. COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING a= T"a °°`""""k ` NJ o _ - REPORT-PEER REVIEW ^ ^° - I PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL � ,,.V_� - TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES „„„°�. ,,,kN, ORIGINAL SSUED DATE D I M I p I o I m I 1 I I I ::r;r C'v..v+..ularp-a., NO,Y.i-. Attachment A D I m 1 0 I a I r5 I ii I 0 I I < 2 m0 70 71 N 1-o ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r ■ r- n W N i -� N W N 0 N m D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r t J — -- t I -_,-- ._1 ,_ - II / o ri ! rn CSI o -0 / m q 70 1 ;CJ m 0 \ O ■• N I -_ _ fl I+_ � �_ I I rn _ O+ i ) I � , O I i► I —1 ,4\ I 2 il-} ■1 < / ,I I cr.) l / r A / O A ■ cn 00 '--- I N 00 •C o I C� - / rn i / O I H / m - / m / m I I N m I D I 00 m 1 H rn I rn I-----m + --I - -1--- O 0 I E I I -a 14 i m / i D - • T I 1 - ti m 1 ! m Z I / v S o o m o I /•zwrn(n '1 CO CO 4- i N CO n cn 1G)G)G� ( C �1 OZZ�7 / 2 --1 / 2-i - -m CO O - DDDZ I �7D ! / I �7D 2000 �N NiN I 0Z (NNE / I OZ 022.E 00 ° ( Om ° - / � 0(mj T ?�o j 1J7 11 o mm-----fir t°o DD` rG) _= I m n -n-n I ))1 HDDmG err / U�iz I r-- r- I 1 wZ mm" Do / H I i 00 - mm I of mm 11 cn Cr) I m co co I 1 m 1 N_� = I 1 — I o i -1 I o �� i i i o I o c — --—}-- z i I I I I H , m I z z ! $ 0 I -1 1 0 I I m I I 0 00 0 � I 1 �r I cn i -< r I m 'a r- I I m I — m m I n H I 0 H m to-t _1_ r- to'— —� — i Fri ,7 0 W N j 0 O O 0 W N 0 O O O O O O O O O N CO w (88 OAVN)13.I NI NOLLVA13 (8R QAVN)133d NI NOIIVA313 z 00 co co w m -""' COLLIER COUNTY �j 2600 HORSESHOE DRIVE 6n ES.FLk0 P i 1I J 9 COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING �' L N REPORT-PEER REVIEW d,.,. '. I '"" PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL A LA TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES _„,a ...�w.�n,_ ''"""`" p `"'" ��' ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE' > I 1 I 0 I a I rI I , I 0 I - Attachment A 0 APPENDIX B—COMPARATIVE VOLUMETRIC SUMMARY TABLE C 24 Attachment A 2013 Project-Comparative Volumetric Summary Design Volumes Effective Taper Effective R-Monument Distancel21 Matrix'-1 Length Distancert Atkins VolumeOl Difference (FT) (CY/FT) I (CY) (FT) (FT) (CY/FT)I (CY) (CY) R-17 R-18 R-19 --- R-20 R-21 R-22 I - R-23 R-24 0-25 R-26(Taper) _ 986 7 10.0 _T 9.864 _ 500_ 73_6_ 118 9.432 432 R-27 __ 1095_ 18.1 19,851 1.095--•- 18.0 19.710 -141_ _.__ R-28 _ 1026 10.0 10.256 1,026 10.2 10,450 _ 194 R-29 942_ _ 10.0 9,423 ____ 942 _ 10.0 9385 -38 R-30(Taper) _ 1033 - _10.0 10330 500 783-- 13.6--l_ 10,179_-_--151 R_31 I I R-32 R-33 R-34 1 R-35 1 - R-36 R-37 R-38 _ R-39 i _ j •- R-40 - ------ R-41 R-42 0-43 '-----____._---'j-'-'-------- R44(Taper) -1,000 5.0__7_5,000__ _ 350 _ 825_ 18.1 I- 14.942 _ 9,942 _-_-R45 _ 1,078_ _ 35.4 _ 38.138_ _ _ _ 1_078 -__-_-_28.5__4 30.703 _-_-7.435--- R46 1.040_ 10.0 10.403 _ 1.040 9.9 1.0.323 -80 R-4_7(Taper) - 953 5.2 i 5,000 -_• 500- 703! 6.7 4.739 -261 R48 I _ R-49 _ T-50(Taper) 1,208 2.1 i 2.500 500 250 _ 14.5 r 3,625 _ 1125 ___R=51 1,108 14.5 I 16,057 1.108 14.5 I 16,045 -12 R-52 967 26.6 ° 25.726 _---,^-- I 967 26.5 1 25,608 -118 -- ---- 060 12.2 ------ ---'-•-' •' ------ '•- _ R-53 1,060 __ 12.2 1 12.923 __ 1,060____12.2 T 12,956__---366--33 _R-54(Taper) _ 500 5.0 I 2500 - 400 - 660 2.5 2.134 R-55 R-56 (_ -- -__- AIN R-57 1 I - _ Taper_ ___ I 14,613_ _ 200 100 75.5 _L7550 -7.063 R-58A._._ 667 73.6 I 49.122-- 404 75.5 I 30,509 -18.613 R-58 737 58.4 ( 43.057 737 _ 61.8__1 45.530 2,473- R-59__ 1.035 _ 30.4 ( 31.470 _ L035 25.7__ 26565__ _4,905 _ R-60 - 1.081 - 10.0 (_10.813 _ L081 _ I0.0 1 10.850 - 37 __ R-61 _ 1.049 -_10.0 _( 10.488__ _ 1,049__ 13.7-1 14375__ 3.887 R-62 - 1.015 17.8 1 18.098 1,015 18.0 1 18.308 210 R-63 967 __ 183 17,691 _ __ 967 _18.2 -17,585 -106 - - R-64(Taper) _ 854 5.9 5.000 _ 500 603 5.3 F 3.221 -1.779 R-65 R-66 R-67 '------- -- -I-- _ R-68 --_---- - ----- R69(Taper) 805 6.2 5.000 _ 600 505 -_0.4 _ 187 -4,813 18-70 800 15.6 12,513 800 15.6 - 12,504-- 2.504 -- -9 - 18-71 803 22.8_ _ I• 18,284_ 803 22.8 18.291 7 _ R-72(Taper) 807 6.2 + 5.000 - 600 507 33 1,690 -3,310 _ -••R-73 1 " _ R-74_._ I -- __- 1-_ R-75 I 1 -'-- _ R-76 R-77 �- R-78 -.- -_I R-79 1 1 R-80 I I R-81 I - ---R-82 I R-83 I I - Total: 24,616 419,120 22,080 387,395 -31.725 Notes:(I)Derived from Tables 5 through 7 of the Sept.2009 Three Year Post-Construction Monitoring Report prepared by CP&E (2)Derived from CP&E 2012"Design Matrix for 6-Year Renourishment Interval"in Appendix E of the"Collier County Beaches 2013-14 Renourishment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary" 13)Volumes derived by Atkins utilizing point files,elevations,and drawings provided by CP&E 2013 project extents Effective distance developed by Atkins using different length than identified by CPE Effective Distance Equation for Tapers Odeemo,.)(0.50))] de!/=(die x..)[iOD%- 0 dR-Mow where d tl=effective distance used for olume rats in taper dx-:m„=effective distance for adjacent 0-Monument d,,,,,,,=taper length Attachment A APPENDIX C—GLOSSARY OF TERMS Attachment A ANN APPENDIX C—GLOSSARY OF TERMS Advanced Nourishment—Portion of the beach fill design template that is "sacrificial" and is intended to maintain the design standard during the initial renourishment interval of the project. Berm—A plateau between the dune and water line along the beach profile. Design Standard—the minimum design beach width that has been established from a landward baseline (seawall,vegetation line,property line)to the mean high water line(MHWL) for each beach community. Vanderbilt and Naples Beach have a 100 foot design standard, Park Shore has a 85 foot design standard. Equilibrium Toe of Fill (ETOF)—The predicted seaward-most extent to which beach fill placement moves offshore on the existing profile. This is based upon predicted adjustment to the profile shape based on fill material sediment characteristics. Toe of Dune—The location where the dune face transitions to the beach berm. Toe of Slope—The location where the slope of a design feature intersects the existing profile. 6-year design template—Beach fill project intended to maintain the minimum beach design standard after six years that includes: 1) Volume necessary to achieve design standards 2) Volume necessary to maintain that standard for six years 3) Volume necessary to account for erosion from latest survey to proposed construction start 4) Volume necessary independent of inlet bypass projects 5) Special design conditions (tapers, minimum densities, model results) 2006 unmodified 6-year design template project(2006 project)—The beach fill design constructed in 2005/2006 intended to maintain a 6 year minimum beach design standard with the five categories stated above, based on composite erosion rates from 1996 to 2004. 2013 6-year design template project(2013 project)—The currently proposed project with fill volumes based on the August 2012 survey and the composite erosion rate from 1996 to 2004 and 2006 to 2012 combined. Project is scheduled for construction in 2013. l OH:1 V—A measure of slope. "10 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical" W N !-1 CD N CV) < 0 -• 0 (DCD0 O e—F —• rD 1..., 0-: -. --- -, -- 3 = a: < .i , (7 -. 4mm 03 (7 m .• ' - CD o . . n < Ob� co CD ; f- cn 00 CD CD * CD Q = al v) m- ri; 0- v) ,.., Q < r+ 0 (I) -0 O 73 O Q al —. —. v.) = " O r+ V .0 O n n C -• CD D cn cm Q r-i- Q ( to —• C CD CD � � —• t/) 73 oi F). r+ D _ n (D = 3 . rI- I. ORS CD 0 Ms h O CD su D p "'h = O CD r CT CD a) n CD S I I I I I CU CD ° m CD ro V)R. M -0 Q o� ° �. (D 0 0 CL < m � o o o � 0 N � x Ln rp O O Q 0 (n q O �r • ^ - I r0 ' ` p) Ncn N 0 0) O = n CD (D O O Q = Q N ccn Z0 a : S 3 C -s — (el) � O 0 -o N Q CD ...... • E S O. Q Cr o_ n• CD f�D _olog 0Q Ochi, C O =+; c) (to O "� cn ro -n CD . Q (o r-i' CD -< 3 0 r0 O O cn• O CD C O 0'q Lfl X 9.) • O z �" r0 = CD O) N 0t) N CD 3 O O O CU O O dl ,�, c r) Z CD g o O C .� � v) y' Fit. -' V,' -0 N CD c-74; n rr0 : O-ro m I CD : El. O Q O O CD CT 1` o Ccai„ W n Cr o ° CDD N a' oz � zQ n D N O Z p Q r0 cn tn co* V) • • • • • -v C n —I cu to rD -- ID -ID I I I I �- N. _ -, D ! CD cu D O O CD CD D o EU DQl C � 0- CD� O - O O n 0_ O CD CD -7 D- CD 0_ CD ti C3 CD n O o v) O Q CD O • O =S. n r.t 0_ 01. Do 3 D ( Q D r-1- .---... V) .. -s ® v ®o ---h CD ®• EU cn rD (D 0 D CU CD n N) 0'� ® m cn O ' • � -8 ® o CD a = n (, �- rD a- CD n O `—'- n CD C) Q v) . . n- 3 ® n- � 0 C ® - O n CD D LC) rV rn cn O � O 9a c ® 0 -TG 3 ® a- o W -n ® w 0 N .i: . o 2 = *t *t - ) c„ ..., 2.: = et CD Ct N 0 CD 0 ,---., - -. O _ < 4• - d n "� n O O o N :1 N W O - u. • O , © J w 00 �J 3 y l'" IN) O Si y 0 Po N v 01 et CAD o y -C fD (4 N N ►-■ p C CU 1 O_ - (11 `p W O '�---' R yt N (I 15,Q �' 071.,,, ,, .0 0 (....) O 0 ao 0 �,, a� N r cm fp CD b n c::, C A o o W oo O y = 3 Pp d C c n O • CD Q. pp CL '� 00 O 1 O O°0 —° fD m n • 0 t O \O 00 Up W Fri Ul LA O O O ...i Q. `� CD N OT1. _ O ¢, 9 = W W N c. w O\ CIQ O∎ cl,CD �• O v, . O Ol ' Cr cp y ' I.• fp v 1Q CM el, R. W 1--. AD tij -.1 00 v� O 1 FC O Cr‘'-h w'• �1 CD ' n3 • • • • • • � Q � ON -o O �, p X � � N a) (D a) --s e- n N () T Cu O Q & v) 00 3 t CD - 0 5 a1 CCDD C n O r-.0 N cn• v' C Q vIm a. wo � 3 C 0 . 0. O • m c v) --h 3 CM n vi CD O� 0 3rD CD CD -s = CD 0 CM rr+= CD 0_ 0- 0 0 r.f. — 0- re)-i. -h -0 CD On -0 0 O O cD D O CU 0 v 'cl v' -0 n r_t. v) n -0 '-• CO 0) 0 � � a � �O ' O ti) v m 3 -, _s v) c) � � � �CU M� V) N 0_ D D• N = _. TQ — cn 0 (D CD _. r+ O cD c 0m = n c--�- CD 0 = n rt ( ) rXt -s C.) C c CD 0Q n ni M w rD v un =cu a1 0_ ; • • • • — =r, D C/) -3 —• co < p —1 �' po n p CD n rD O O C-D n rD - 0) CD _, m 3nv) cD �'• cu - 3 —° (D CD QJ 3 �• CD rD ^ V) o_ CM ^ � a- �. = —1 < co = (f) CAD � � � � � � � � c `... ' -05 %< 3 (-1- 0_ D v CU 1eu r-r 3 -, ,-(7,- (I) u, O - 0„_ ._ r-F. CO rD --1 n "" -, .- crci o_ to E o_ cl.) -0 0_ —* = n 0 3 O ' �'. a cu O O � 0_ rD � -1 C/) 0 3 -< D . --- a1 0C) 07 - N s 1 .) c) O 3 = CD = rD -0 = o M �. CD m Di C2_ C --) 0 (-9 -1 3 0- 0_ c a (D -• O 0 r-i- rD cn w v, (I) —. r(g rD T' m p a) =E; co r1 O D O M n 0- -h rD taJ „ 171 C c`D , ry• C -S Cn ifs A: ,; eD CD �' DJ c r-+ ''7 Cd C - 4 n• = e i- = flJ c� fD O = C' CD C -s CO 0- z< -� U - (.n fl - •h C) , O NJ 3 n:) ,,,0 cu 2 cm o CD •p •e rr n rg a) CD FS v - CD 9J = G Q. ° CD CD nEi A- 0 CT Cr , - -0 el. .'` X t/1 cra F�� 0 V'• (�f7 E ® E O Q G� • 1i�// Q) W Q n Q - ' � • cm ri• n ®rt ® -P G CD < o V® — 2 E. Qo — • al N ® CD : 0 - -s v) O CD -z E o W c -) ° ® 6(D oo o ° a' n CD ® -,z, CD w =1; C n LT CD • • CD CD fl�J _ c CD u' w r-r N _p o -m• rr C -% oo v) � A rD C° CD -• CD rD CD CD CO :< CD N 76 S .,--,s® o ® CD ° fp a S S en eD en fD CD CD • t /11 - „ .. . - . . _ ,3 0 z E .. . . ,, .. . . . . ... . .. _,_ .k . , „ , . , _ .: M1 fi ' + N E 1 , .11 . , 0 E Z CU W 41:, ,F` 4+:� Q Z ° O ty O '`' { F CO V •s CO NW C 2 Z O L .. . oz— Co 0 4) � ZQ >, S 1• LL 0 ,i� is Q a) ,- ,,.: ' ' ' f CO 03 -*, ....::.;: :"':'.4, ''.1 il!tii:,,f.oli‘ .,I f o c %1 ..ett.r;i: ,tiiiiiirrit , .. '\h C ::,`2`;1;: /,k►, ,.1".1:.-.;„1_7''.r' „r„,„, '-r•, 0. _ , .s. are t'9: • , .,,..= s'_ i,. ..; a ..+i S 3... ,,< ...,.ry Auk CD O 0 N c L a) O E 4-- U s= co E z CD .= c 4••• �� sn,_ Cl) V ,v, W V w ../....0 E 1- u) 0 Q .�' CD O ti) CN p �, (1) -4-1 o o co 4— m �, �- c3 -p d) ca m C) 'O �- o a) - >cu Cl), Cl) - i U a) Cll X ° '- c6 o 0 4- � N � O m > o w '� i i ' i I • • • ., .!i. ,i.1:.., . ,...,„„_,..„.„...it.„*„;,„:411, ,,..,,,,,...,,,,,-0,-,:t.1-,,,,,,:-.,.,,i___- Wu_ 10- ,..,.: 0 o aD 5- 0- Q U I 4 i z▪ 0 z 8▪ O ZQ D ti / -� t ` W Z¢� L U p O O / ¢c / \ 02Vf Oi9� 30'4 m¢v N_� U a- 7/N O I / x f 1:7-)O / i.-_-E L / u w Gp 0 U) ■- KO 0000043 0 = § Q) II / OOOCOtl W_L -. w W J T Jv( - I N• _jy�. r j p W vv D L 2 - �XX> U = i `u F"-. to _ � °za m oW y �Q �� \a o to f `,� > '� \\\��`�\� `� Ali ,J`.',;, p 0 0 CD _Z U tl O �\1 // MOCK 3 • y 4d 0. Z Q m,\R, U / :I c, J ``a 0 w U o I-• '� W h Q �� O ° m / t- Z , K u m •p�� 0 V\■ c (/ W I� 0 Z r 0 m 6 CC w • if > Hw0 v / W ug ebb F- w N F-Z� z cc ¢uxi6 2g N wF~x .p. L n O W N W N ¢ J¢¢LL¢ Z u a m //L1�� p = I aE- J g•_if, w • zcnw p W u 00) dd0U II a -a LL >-z¢p¢ woi-x4z II II M1 O � pw mpw0 26 0 a3?1LCcj a CC A 1 4 o oZ3 I2- p aaa ax0 a0O - pw p p I I y o 0W 7= D0069£] G II § a Z II o 0) UmaWOLL °I r a L, II ♦' ® r I- z 1\ z z ';II • W + 4 ll Li l�J4 y P L et 0 v _a..^F•4S.'9`-. .i ik.7.tigy t _Y 4.0.r't-4.'. ..— Cl) L a) 4+ a) E L- CZ C6 - L t� C � CD CO Cl) 0 a) 0 0 a a) a) *a 0) C O NIMMIIIMMI CD CK3 .w _C C 0 .� U 0 CC tia a) E a. = o „.... L. o I a) > 2 0_ • • • {} Sad 7: 0 1..... a. ,_ •.3, 4 +, C 1.... i kw fri O N C cp _c-.) ,,-,,,,,,,,,„.,..,,,„,.,,,,.. ,,,r., ' -:!!;.,f,T.,.. "i itrt i:A'ti!,V4 > 7:3 ,..C. 1,. ' '4, .: -' - C —o_ , C J b +- - C6 : -: . N• E N- � A O � �_ N N c • .� m ry • -a L � CU --- m i Kg c ^ , ,i. I 8 CO -.., . CD . ,. 1-- Y 0 , (I) 2 .. C ...0 a) 1,-- .?.'. ! 0 . 1. _Cw _ 0 8::.-, a) = ..---... _ _C 0 ___ ._ 4— 4— o ._, E 0 (N ® s._ _c (...)1. 0 0. 1 4■4 ._ ,,,, V; C E 0 (11.) 1 a) -o E 110111111r _.. '....■/' CD (I) 3 = , " , , o . w o . N CI (..) •_ E cc a. 0+0 a0001S a) . _ •_. c.K - 8 > st 0 l S 0 S- 01- gl- E InGAVN 1004-uogeA013 ..0 a) 0 ,..... ,.._ s._ ..... , 0 ,. ,,, . . . (t, 0 (...) ,.... . ,_., -8 4--, n CLI 03 0) Cl) ... ..-' -g ..."`, -0 ,..._ Co < , c 0 .,-.. C ._ -0 cs CO CI) U) ...2 - , ,, -....., >, > , g co , -3 s (-0 > , c C - 2 E 0 e ../1■...1 -8 ,T, 0 Ci3 (1..) -0 0 0 -o l > C CO , LIU w -o U) , tg (0 .,.._ _8 a.) A-. . - 0) 14-• . • 6" S ,..I o r, .-; g s—. CO ..--j —J ,7 . -... a I 0)+0 ualms . 0 0 . •- n ....; — 0 . • . ' .iii i 1)•_,7 I , , D. ,.. 0 ,._ ,..„,_ 01_ -',..--------- .,.--,--, STOAVN'Laal-uonenal3 ■"-- .;:. --to ''. ...::::‘ tetin 0 0 I . I z N .. C (� I Q , I !'� a " I 'o z I i_> cL it VJ w o I . ,h-' a co c 4) ( � .(0 n.~ •4 a_ N I z r CC Z a N VCS co 2 w z w I N t` ' °J_ r. m z U Ll I W r_. '.. z W 1..L N d 0_ I in la q mom S.— —0 \i/- ,:• (.1 u. W _C. '^ O0 ( WQ r (7 CO M■11111111. V_, ¢N 1 H a mo I 0=Z OO w w ¢�> , al W N W v, co F OF I §. w 1-_-U. W W W I oa> V ^ . . i 0 z< in o to CZ s-- W �Q/1JN 1330 NOIltl/1313 W W 73 D < o < LL • • • -ii r '' "- aw• t -: U) :.;. 73 L (13 c N . CD O O0 0 A- o 0 0 CO -1■n r + 1 GINS PASS V/ N R-17 C o N (0 R-16 ) JJ I f/ R-20 a) W //''a)� I R-21 E W N R-22 R-23 F _= 0 _0 _ / !l R24 z Z Z R-25 CD ` (/) S o 1 `` R-26 0 > .■...■ N `�. Z Q R-29 W ■� m I \ roill. 0 UM ` "� Q u R-30 p lVIl7 V �F--� O `. \ m RT O F °o / o R-31 �I 0 `V N N /VJ Q N O m R-32}i Z F I a I- R-33 ro W ro 2 R-34 0 CO C 11 0 l. 11*\, ��\\\�m' R-35-. //�' n l Z n, `�, W �// W 'may � �\p,, O Q V .��.��o' R-37 a a) 0 O w N c Z y L i R-30 N o c /R w If O 0 0 E R-41 ❑ IN �a z CLAM PASS 0 52) CD 10 1.V O U I-- - CO O CO I I 1 • _ 1' • i r,`, * H eir r s 1.' -' a. r 4,I ,i ,i .,,. . 4.:17-$111 it t ,i [� -I Q) c n, O s- W N 0 CO CD w O � �- o ° CO CO u)C Cl) CU c 1 P N Q 0 ° o 0 "7"-- 2 Li) CO L Q U I a. U Q .— Q) (/) co Q, - 0O -+--' (/) CO U _ .- a� O 1— CD CU L r N o CO r = Elm Cam/) CO 7 a) O v _a. -'-'' (v ca ca (n 03 CU CD > CL Z 4- Q CL c Z Z I I I (f) m w • • • • ICY , ::, 4 . i.,,ife...*,I , , ,,, w 0) (n .0 A.. 1 c 73 CD CD v v) 73 U o 0 0 o c) 7 N (l) w ° (C) o0 0 0° Q 0 CD E N CU c C O N M vima• r Ca_m > > -C CZ 0 (i) CO O a O co C O co c E 0 con .- U Q CD m c 06 z .`n -`n t co -0 o a) co 0 a) _ c) co i = CU 0 Q Li < O _ L k 1 r. . y.` c ' ' 1-4z4.1.= U r y o L) o Ir) o WIGGINS PASS R-17 ,._..:a!"'r R-18 R-19 0 R-20 R-21• oliONIftat ' __, - R-22 411.1 aS c1 I. R-23 c ., R-24 CD 1- w i,' 16.- R 25 4-1 I = r .��'g :''ir • R-26 /H n ., V/ a J r r i-i R-27 j c .r i i% / / �, r'% , m' R-28 R-29 4,1111.0.10 g ,/L3; R-30 j ( < R-31 � , e R-32 (D Y R-33 c a R-34 a R36 h r R-3B O • tQt -` z R-37 Z I m ri / e R-38 O = n R-39 I w �. 8 R-40 - _.....,. - $ CLAM`�«z CLAM PASS 0 E ■� R-42 7 3 ,R-43 e�r m R-44 —„ / A 1 ,..”` - `a R-45 Z ti R-47 W e cn i R-46 O " o R-48 U ill o ' � .i R-49 OJ ii CA 7 j __ g T-50 Z e %r /�Y /rr R-51 W ___ liC _ ■� a �ri'r 'r r/r :*, , R-52 /� 4/p gf f R-53 O 173 f R-54 g O / r R-55 th ••I=1 - R-56 — • — - -,z- DOCTORS ORS PASS R-58A-� R-58�V a ` CD 0 / R-59 Z R-60 I 1-y R-61 T • F C n R62 O r,/A* R-53 CO m R-67 R-68 Q 0 U • W R-69 _ a) / R-71 Q N Q z j % CO Z R73 TO „ --, 1 R-74 N N O uJ _ 7 R-75 != N C O R-76 t I I 0 ■�� \ R-77 J N� O J N Cl) , R-78 U , N — O U R-79 •- CV W) r Q J O O N \- R-81 Q p• p 0 R-82 CO R-83 0 O p 0 �,. R-34 N I N N CI a+ El t ^ 0 U U U /` 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O; 0 O H-0 0O O N. O O'CD 0- O O - r•- N O O - ` N ) C O CO O N N O CO 'Cl- d- V C cam• CZ C 4-1 O 00 CL 4D tcs c � 13 L -J o u) I_ U CI) U 0 4) O o 0 0 E 4-- E — • O 0 m 0 c = E • 0 CO •-I = .C= > U - — O co Q O CO O C L I +C-5 p U C -6 •- Cl) 0 ,� = = 0 CD ouU) H IWU) ; CI • • • • • • • • W !Ails [I,- „....„ P 1 N F- LL w m c a tp tic rat O U • U ' X 8- co G co �_� a Q z w a m w m a , 0 w 2�t�° F 0 (II a a w J < O LL z a fY -V ce En co. C� lib , •:( . Z 11..WIWIliallairlinrAill •w V CY t' Q 0 F N Ill'Iil�'I�{f-inc as x � • O O + Z Z 30 2 ` 411 — (-3 c.1 li co •. LO 1 _00. 4 V. C to. il ei Itra"— -i \ 1 O I-Ili iJ L O W O k (O CD N ©NQ O c° 1 0 O aZa x ` --- �`l� Q U Z Y }1 a) U L > C .� Co c I!IT---I . >' Uz9, >J Co m �W � O Q l v) N o 2 � ' U • Cl) L: CO c a) 'i >' O ". O a_ 2 1 ( 11 2 Imi • o C O �, V1 ca CO CO o a) 3 o rn O v p 0 ra c ° O O• o0000o0LO D o N C) O N Lt) Lt) C� C CU Lt) N N E L. Z C) Cp r Z r Lt) M C) Z C 73 CO _0 N V 73 C3) d7 O Ln C) LC) r O p o n 00 C o N o U d" ' ti CO r N C0 0 N Lt) N N .- CO CO CO 00 >1 C) C) moot= > = 0 C) C) CD C) CO O C) C) 0 0 o O CO U r r r r m r r r N N N Z C C7) Q W ad 0 \_-.--- " t 1 ; , / I 1 . •_. _ 1 , t f ,, ;,r a / 1 w � 1 z 0/X i rt.., , , r, - - co,, ,ti‘-. ( ,,, , fir: —- _ _.i �, us \! \�� C..(7)--/-:: 4—, �, z W (,) r F' a { Ilti `N ...,.......g.44._ _� _; :mom ' F' O y !' flp w. Z wog+ <o o Q) d„.:-. ; f , ±{ 40 ( �;.^,_ r. OQPL '3ry`�4-¢OOH (I) t 3 ��_ - 0 L. ■ . .1 4°- ',':::'- ',-,,, •-"4 ' - ..V., ,, L_ ( ("4 •:: 6,- ..180%=6-1 - 0 (-) t '-4—:7—°°" 11 lR� ti , [c--:A)9, y o' \ 11 )71 \) CO,;� "-.sue— in'�' l ,t,,,14._�' W 1,i i \ --- : m oct - 1::s, A 1----____ rA 1J 1 L Hi /}¢v Nouanu) t a.) 6' itg - 4 11 \ \ \ sr",.#1 'Q'''' 1 1% '' i i ' Ak 1 i \ 1\ k N 1 (/) ti? , �, �„ g 1 to CL n a � �m i\ t, � !tre.,...,..,,... f l N ' y1S ,2 � z +, i r ,to r o , / — j U ti 1'' .,,. 1 , t ti r so, _: M.;7.., r `e _ UA t ��1�p �, It !i c 11 f f . .,A. _J. . 4 wyr ! i it 1,4 ''' '' '- .7-- ;,- ""‘ *.' .,-;--------7—1 1 , - * ' - - - '.',',r 1 r\11 ‘,0a .,-- Q, -.-) ' 71/,, ( . ? 1 ?'\\ z ‘ ..c'- — .41, .......0 '''''''6(11-1 w Co Q. \ It.,,,,\ rii ::,, . . , nil Ilimin m U _ $s hoof • v o •° V • CY1 o O V • O O O v o a � C\ v) r aJ r 4J Q; CD • V v .o �s 0 E v v o ' • .a; v 0 E 0.�.., •-•-( et �+, v L.) ;r-Ij-1 cC:1-4 I-1° E 2 1-,s, o '�- ° 0 O Zt U o Z Up • • 4.4 • aJ Q cn it aJ cn tIo r .- O p rt v' O o a� rq cn '� v C •tip .,,,,,, v3 rte r cn o �-, 0.' � � U) N E ,� �l O a-' au . v O RS p U r� .4--J ,� ^d ',,�•' 0l, v ` cu cn — ;.-I 0.---- a9t cil ° Z Pizt O a u w V rci ,c5 V , 1-( d' v +.. CL) A., •� ° ,t v O 40 O v +e o V N rG • 1.Y.:1 00 4J > 1 M � . O - ) 0 fT5 .- 7E1 7.1 cl;:,) a v .4 , .4.-J < CU C.4._4 .;.-0 T-Cn ;-4 ft ri O o v O 4'' O cii rzi u-2 .,._ o r N v r� , N F Fr - v o 4J N • a�'°} /1 1 5-...., l� 00 �Q 0 cz 4.1 o 000 W rt V r M C X -c/ W .�. r'�^'� CL ty " �p o d N G <` U C 4-1 —, c� c•1 M M c a ^O 0 © V ~ > ct LL O N N En n ol (ICS a c, U oo o o 00 :Z ct •r—, = �*' r1 moo, '0 -a o Z r •^, tt) :s . oQ ;"i F" C) v C 0 �I C G\ 01 d' N N a .' 0 `, 'r 00 M - O �. 0 •2 CL) vD . © �.■ r , 4-4 L. N p U O N - • ,V O C/A Jo G N Mme'' y 2L. ON E .< _ „, c F cv o o Rs i C °' •^' r. r:V 00 o r1 o .> = Q =• .- 7 En 0 N .S Q N U 44 u 0 0 • CO 0 y z ca _ .: co 4= S. Ce C �1 z N rZi -:i. )›. ,,y F., ft 6 11 al 4 11 cn o 4--i o (t '� v E 'c U o V 0 o rsi r o v o Can 0 Cn C.11 ft ct 0 "f; O n E 2 -6 F..,,,, cn • till) N CP." .1 ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) r..� Q p o 0 0 N r o N C?o 1y, ¢ O ''t' co .� , : D < >- { >„ > Um c; tf) 2 1 \ \ tip.. V > > \/r. wcoM - + 4 a ' 7'�' o ,r) C �N iu z w z i ` �. `.� ',,, o ,c7; ft-6 5 ti g b //\'./KV QJ 'y �` 0 '� ww ww : s �� '� a;. V c� �v +/A/v/A I 1- �D CD • a. i• 11J = U = U fk ' k4 JJ ,/ ! J +-1 Is) CD ❑ / o i— t F..... 1 RI N I_ / N rt w 1 ' — 7--L .1- _of ii ' .n o O Q p O o Q ÷ O^ii O N i l� f E N (88 ❑AVN)!33J NI N®IjVA313 O o?i . V in VI Z U cc; U •r1 4J O v d u Cl.) c rci •• .4 E Q,, ;'' ft w (/) ;-+ V v ,..0 4-';._, out vo -o by N v bn '''C rd V �, (I) L.1. � � 7-I --4 V •�, EmU o o .an �+ v rIcs 4-4 9 vro v x v M CU o a O cf)p f- �u 0w v v O u W a) '"C 75 E v 4 V Q _ res S 1/1 _ , , • ,,, . ,..,..: ,:,.. ...,t)..„ 1 Z " I TkLAWSSEE JACKSOPAILLE .T..1 11... 0 -.1 i 4a 0 •--, ,ii-,1.r z-1,3'900. .i. Dat-DR-CG47,-INI;-4f- ')t-t.,_ -tflitu,..t. ..`-','" F P.OJEGT---.... .4. \ 0111.ANX 0 STATE PAR{ t,,Rti) .1 ...-,-t' 1,(icATF--)N ''..---,VAIN, ATOATIC ims. .... -IN CRY Di ''',, 0 CL --a. I R.ATON LEE V) 0)- 1 (LI I -- VANDERBILT a () VAN DE F:B ILI IkV i BEACH '.4 0,114X• Csi ::: A.tYp C3..., .t.''.. "\`',.„,::L_____::.,--' Ca t.'''''''-.-- II *' ‘ (411-1-1:?-1-- . R 3 -, _ C,gr m cri Roe Go. 's rtl -___.... MEXICO w 0 < 0 f EV c0 ,, ‘ I\ PELICAN ,,.. 2 BAY .i. 1., \ \71) I \\I r u .., PARK ---,... t \ 6 R40 I 511()P,E \ \ ' Clam Pass 1-1 , cr s ‘- ,-- , . 1 -- c.) \ \ ) !aft a,1 0 PERMIT -.-ED \ .:,„ - t-3 „1- 0 4 940Y.) NI 4-00::00 ,....c.)111 . (e.1 N — z ETELINL , ' _.,._, 0 ■C1 C:;\ / , i COFRIDOR / .. i -• . 1 (tS Z PIPELINE Doctors Pass ci.) cA CORRICOR 4._ ' 1,.._ - t_..,, •it* ••■I \ I •rt 5 5 _ . il 20. CON-MLR -- — e- . _....7 NAPLES --' :‘,..77'--- ''. 1.-- -:-. k NAPLES . N CO • .. •• — -‘ . --i M 11 ffiet:04.3 •eel's7- 0 ,-I i — „. * ..,, Ar*A-ft. ... a R70 1 .,.,..0 0 1 Cl Cl .... -a- -,---- ''' , i immtanwoor N.1 1 li ... ' L EGENC: 1.: ' \11 ERFIPTED PIPELINE CORRICOR I ,_. ROF-OSED PI PELItiE CORRIDDtft 1 . 1 1-1•ROJECT UNITE PROF0S50 Mil AREAS Cie.g_tr •'.t31)1(; \ IIIII ."1-4:-.W.OsED INEPRZ.-1-1C-RE OF OPERA1101AL.AREAS - . If' '1',s1).) *31.. r \ . 1 1 r.fl. M D ER V ITTE)OFR31-07E it,,( XiC.: •-..-14i.-,!j'_-!,.J FEFATIOIAL.AREAS I.1 (..__BAT q.OVA4- 1S , - .1\ R70 =DEP MONIYIENTS Gordon Pass No-Ts! ., ... L to,i-l)IN AlrE.S ARE N 1 1E1 . • CH FLORIDA ST4TE ,.; -a 7'1_c....E CCCROIN ATE-SYSTEM. , 't,. '',,,tkev.""A--1, if ..?gt- :- CR71-1C SCit.LE IN FT .--- 3- -7.t r cr-'4•••''. ‘.141)1-1:1. - 'I. =I_L •,.1-.7.1 ‹1,-: .4DTT.7 l'2C.11.4.E. gin ••'•,-,4:4$'';-,' 'l'f^''7Z,L: '.:1:::'''I 411 i.-'•Ar,c,f1°.'W.3' taq,r.„, je .....,,....,....-..+...,Aver,0.14.... , ... • CD 0 C) 0 •(--. (NJ ("4 0 I ■ 1 I . 1 I i LP.) i + , I CO I I ii fil 1 , i . I I 1 i I 1 -1 ) 1 i 1 I .1 I _ ..-------. i / ..-... > . H , I I I I 1 1 i 1 •I ■ C.) 0 te> . ci T Ir , W W 0 . I i / 2_, z z ; LI-1 I.1i ■ •lam — S2 — I I , . . I I 0,1 C1) 1/11 Ce c ..... 0_0. _ Ciss) 00. 1 I jl U. I 1 -1 = cD CD 1 i 0 LI_ cssi CO ° tic,m0 ; 1 I C1) z...i 1 CD (/) •— 0 z z MI-.-.5 .— V >' a) 0 s_ 1_.= (.0 0 cu CS) ..x005....-.:c 4—.) j • CI) 0 6 Lu...-4,, i rCS I c ›,., o --- c6 Le.711111 4...J i M CD V i I I I Ct __.--i . i 0 CL) L .). --r--- ;-, + (-_-) r.-.) c) (1.,) 1 ..,-..- -_- N. ,,,1 o 11,-;,./.j •; 1 1 1 len.111.11111.1r' z MIME 0 ' FM. .' CD 0 (NI 0 CD N ,.... 0 I . n . ,-. I I i I_ 0 V , --z- i.' 11 II 1 cl,D 03 : 1 0 n i i I I I ix W , / 0 0 7/ I - - CD-- Z Z 3 I II I I I. a) I I . Arc< A A o_fi i • ....1 I-- Ct .... ..... -J_J -J_1 C.-• , ",.• U..LT_ 1-- ' < ‘1.1 LL. 0 Cl.) IL mc _ C) n <u. — 0 :"" _I- z , n al rn id-, •ri CU LL •— N ,,..°Zzin-', C■41 0,) 0 II c Q al w-05;3 ;••ml C 'H, CM . -7 o.c..3 ithi--.. :1•=4 w. '''' .0) 0 0 Pr.DN1C")'11- GI..•_-. :r CO Ca (1) ij L.L1.7,1 iN:a i Cs) CD CI CI Ct$ (1) — Lt"cji-z- I 1 I I .4■J C >t 0 . (7/ •"- I N cL) \ 1 I I 0 (i) ,/,' C-_-_-) 0 0 CLi CN -,- 1 IN (1) , , (JAV NI) _JLIJ NI NC:11VA •J ,,VI 1 !Z i +=NM , . ;. ,1111.1M1 ; - 0 /. ' , ° ■ ,,0 , ■ 0 0 cs4 CD 1 I (..„) I I I 0 1 ‘ CO II 1 \ t , / P;+ I ? II L' 0.3 aD - 0 CI . . > > 4 < 1 Z Z i 1 i i d T I , N w 0 — • / + I / i 1 ' Alai I I I I i i Cn 0) 4) H ! r << in mows 1 •".:-.7, 1- i Ow I C,•—4,•--,,-■I, fV - - = — 0 0+ll 1.1. •L— c\J a CO 0 a) 0 2 0 z 0 1=-1 CLI) 0 6111U 4—+ I • CD 0 rt i I CO 4—) — , I I I I 0 (1.) I, Cf) 0 11--- + 0 c n c\I I I (1) GA VN) I--31--:—I NI V:)1I VA TIR _,_....„ ..._ „,. . ......s.., ... ..„,,___,,, ,..,.... .. .. ..., (A, F------- , � i , ,, i 1 , C,, ce , ,I f i w f 1 0. I 1 G m s i .L/ er o N j to o O U N ea 0 L 0 o L 1 r-+ V I m , 1 I c- "e' j L V I (...) N 7 o ar i }i 1_ e > cO m 1�'I p- - OC N I ).. E cn -5 N O J O et N A i -I—, Y d .M es E Lo. d O . E z U N N 4 Cie ^V, 4+ N MW Z '4'J o= O O O Q O 1 p 0. Q ca. Q 1 N N *+ r-C ri in I sp1C ^ 1 4 3IR fl3 , f V I s _z j moimihmit ssed s.aopod ss1,- u�j �sd po c ° gs& W i r I S 1 Cf) ft:16117% SM is G o N o' d O i cs S S;/l I L ¢ N 4.al M 1.S a ^ \ .---1 Q l7 + tit d q� . 6 E 0 p V o i c ��JS c m ri O . rC6 s G¢ 1 G r� L d b N C J f'� M ti ± 4"' . v ^0 y E m 0 �a N QJ p P�1 R sib L ct s6d+ (.9 1 v E P , tt to # FE 6¢ N d O U + � � � II 4 i ssed s ry 1 4 (3. C Q �> O �6)...) trt M 0 N N in spi.A2.,„,.. ,... 4 L v ,...0 ,.._ ,., rz, a 4 VI Z ......, i i .h.... , 6, 1 I I 1- •0 c-, •c o I e .., i -0 . .. 1 1 I illi1111 -1 i u>" oc-, 1--- - §. e 1 0 N. o NI ‘e' r•-I , 1 1 (-6 r - 0.0 c'J I I CD + 6' .9, 6' 6' 0 I ! I -- -9, 6, w 8 9 - i es) •-• I 1 (JO) f r C c s— _ <To, ec a _c ....- .9 0 ao C..) ,.... < , E 4;st w 1 CD co 4,0 Cl/ ys ..j I u 2 a - 0 ri e > to 4- ■ . I -' - 4—, O'c, 2 el Cn 12. Z IIIII 6', 0 C;) N i ; I II tr2"I i 1 , 6, M 0 fs1 > 1 I as _c 1 t 4. -4-- oa 4, I 44 6" ft 6' 41 0 Cli 4441111 ,6' .A. . = 15 > 4, to E 4'..': 111111111111.■- CL 1:- .p est - er 111 I - I i .. ,—C -- ss d slw4Doci , . sa.x. C-) , 4 .' s6, (ZS 8 g g 8 § 8 8 0 0 8 0 ,.. • 0 0 -.0 0 CI) szi 0. in 0. 0 Ck 0. to a cl. in cl, o 0. ct o , 0 = 41 .1. w to to pa sfurA Ago, es1 R■4 Cn 1 1.. 1 4 .. 1 February 25, 2013 New Business 7-c 13 of 74 Figure 1. Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay, Park Shore, and Naples Beach Location Map 3PREFOOTBEP.CH `,,,,, 5l !4%GGINSFr15S '� tU11 1 TALLAHASSEE s re _JACKSONVILLE 6ELN611-WIC I45— n\� 1!4.n,1t4 g. 1 .r STATE PARK REQ` �* N-=� PROJECT--. . ORLANDO S J 1 7.:∎ LocA I ION ��TAF.IPA A7L(/Tie . jI HEN CRs(CO. `*., . 0 BCCA tl;f I LEE v. - RATON ,` VANDERBILT co. co � Yil_� MiP�.n VANDERBILT 5 •i ' {,I BEACH 00.<(,,, re %`GULF N 70300 l j "1n^r OF• s � `� MEXICO MONROE CO. e,,' yy —.—� OF w ``'`' PELICAN ° BAY 8 i Ty) ) 8[ u' -\ PARK Rd0 SHORE CLAM'PASS I \ \ , \-' /fi- P-RL IT.TED \ y - y N r;ua N4'A)Oa:t / P PELII•JE -„ ,, `.1_ 6� 7 iY •.R —,-` _„:\ j 1 ti- -----_---- _=_4-� ` b__ , . PARK SHORE PROPOSED — '� . 1?_ l PIPELINE f noc RG 4S 41 ,_, t, sRfl;f CORRIDOR _. ■ c.?-1 . \ 1 rte, yNAPLES gRB::"o rf Ii r NAPLES _ = y �� N OWN)) I '- 1 N 030004J / R7011 ER 2d X141 1.7"1-i ti — .':'-, - ',I \ ,„. 'N.,[ ] 1 r.EGEryn_ ` l \ ----- PEP.MIITTEDPIPELINE CORRIDOR ',I / PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR `.1`i i 1._ 1 PROJECT LIM11 T9 P , 1 .ff� PROPOSE°FILL AREAS GULF \ OFEFATioNA:.AREAS PERMITTED cFfFiHCRE itVEX/C0 ' ) \ OPERATIONAL AREAS 'TS!Ot1,T ROYAL A'R70 FDEP r.1U,NW.IENTS I- t9a \ GoRoo.VPA.33 A-, NOTES: 1. CO(•rzudniESAPt..INVL'Er `' \. 3s\s-0 ON FLORIDA STATE c \ § L_____:1,00:2______.BC�JC PLAT E COORDINATE SYSTEM, P �� EA°3TONE,NORTH ,LRICAN 0,,'/WA s r/^ Y -- DAT111,1(1i=-I 953INAOtia `l}! ('tY,(r, GR-FHIQ SCALE IN FT , 2, A:1INJDTHS ARE NOT FO SCALE, 1 • `, (CPE, 2012) 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to accept the 2012 countywide affordable housing inventory report. OBJECTIVE: To present the 2012 countywide affordable housing inventory to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) — inclusive of"restricted" (restricted by regulatory requirements, e.g. Affordable Housing Agreement) and "unrestricted" (market rate) residential units. CONSIDERATIONS: Staff was directed to annually inventory certain residential units within the County to determine the number of units that can be categorized as "affordable" based on qualifying criteria of the State Housing Initiatives Program (SHIP), and then present the results to the Board. To create the inventory of affordable housing units within the County, staff conducted multiple GIS queries of the Property Appraiser's database in order to identify the affordable mortgage ranges for the very low (50% of the County's Area Median Income (AMI)), low (80% AMI), moderate (120% AMI) and affordable workforce (140% AMI) income levels (refer to specific categories in the attachment titled"Staff Analysis"). It should be noted that the 2010 affordable housing inventory assumed a `discount factor' of -12.42 percent, which was applied to countywide residential properties to determine valuations (refer to general explanation in the attached Staff Analysis document); a mortgage interest rate of 6.5 percent for borrowers; and, the inventory did not include the 140% (AMI) affordable workforce housing income category. Conversely, the 2012 affordable housing inventory assumed a 6.19 percent `sales factor'; a mortgage interest rate of 4 percent; and, the inclusion of the affordable workforce housing income category. These differing assumptions resulted in higher property valuations as compared to 2010 valuations; increased `buying' power for purchasers; and, an increase in the number of categorized affordable housing units within the County. For the 2012 inventory, staff mapped the affordable housing units for each Commission District using the following parameters, which yields sixteen(16) different scenarios: • affordable housing categories - very low, low, moderate and affordable workforce income; • household size -two and four persons (as agreed to by the BCC in 2010); and, • monthly recurring debt - $0 and $300 (as possible representative figures of household debt, such as student loan, car payment, credit card, etc.). The detailed results and mapping per the above parameters are provided as attachments to this Executive Summary; importantly, the explanation of the information depicted on the maps is contained within the attached "Staff Analysis." The range of housing units, qualifying as affordable, by specified area, appears in the table on the following page. BCC Directed Affordable Housing Inventory Page 1 of 2 BCC Hearing Date 01/13/13 Area 2 -Person Household/50% of Median 4-Person Household/140% of Median Income/$300 Recurring Debt: #DUs Income/$0 Recurring Debt: #DUs District 1 485 (24%of total) 38,082 (26%of total) District 2 150 (8%of total) 29,850 (22%of total) District 3 440 (22%of total) 26,443 (19%of total) District 4 407 (21%of total) 27,515 (20%of total) District 5 494 (25%of total) 17,627 (13%of total) Total 1,976 139,517 Notes: 1.The unit counts include all ownership dwelling units,except mobile home and cooperative units. 2.There are 199,805 dwelling units in the County,inclusive of all unit types and both ownership&rental. 3.Affordable mortgage figures are based on the following:4%interest rate;$250.00 escrow payment for property taxes and insurance; monthly recurring debt of$0 or$300.00;and,expenditure of not greater than 30%of income on housing-related costs. The dwelling unit figures in the 140% column are cumulative, i.e. the figures in that column include those units within the 50% column and all other scenarios not shown in the table (see attached "Staff Analysis" for further explanation). The above ranges of countywide totals (1,976 and 139,517) represent 1% and 70% of the total dwelling units (199,805) within Collier County (includes all dwelling unit types in both ownership and rental units). FISCAL IMPACT: The presentation has no fiscal impact as this is an informational item only. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: The presentation has no GMP impact as this is an informational item only. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is ready for Board consideration and approval. A majority vote is needed for Board action. --HFAC RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners accept the Affordable Housing Inventory Report. Prepared by: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section, Planning and Zoning Department, Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation Attachments: 1) Staff Analysis 2) Affordable Housing Map Series BCC Directed Affordable Housing Inventory Page 2 of 2 BCC Hearing Date 01/13/13 Staff Analysis—BCC Directed Affordable Housing Project Steps to create the inventory of affordable housing units within the County: • Conduct a GIS query from the Property Appraiser's database of all residential sales from May 2011 through May 2012, by the closing sales price, and based on the State Housing Initiatives Program (SHIP) 2012 income limits for two and four person households, and assuming that those households have no (SO) monthly recurring debt. The affordable mortgage for those households earning 50% (very low), 80% (low), 120% (moderate) and 140% (affordable workforce) of the County's median income of$72,800 is as follows: a. A 2-person household earning 50% of the median income could afford a mortgage of $100,280; and, a 4-person household earning 50%of the median income could afford a mortgage of$138,244. b. A 2-person household earning 80% of the median income could afford a mortgage of $191,657; and, a 4-person household earning 80% of the median income could afford a mortgage of$252,663. c. A 2-person household earning 120% of the median income could afford a mortgage of $313,982; and, a 4-person household earning 120% of the median income could afford a mortgage of$405,098. d. A 2-person household earning 140% of the median income could afford a mortgage of $375,041; and, a 4-person household earning 140% of the median income could afford a mortgage of$481,342. • Conduct a GIS query from the Property Appraiser database of all residential sales from May 2011 through May 2012, by the closing sales price, and based on the SHIP 2012 income limits for 2 and 4 person households, and assuming that those households have a three hundred dollar ($300.00) monthly recurring debt. The affordable mortgage for those households earning 50% (very low), 80% (low), 120% (moderate) and 140% (affordable workforce) of the County's median income of$72,800 is as follows: a. A 2-person household earning 50% of the median income could afford a mortgage of $37,441; and, a 4-person household earning 50% of the median income could afford a mortgage of$75,406. b. A 2-person household earning 80% of the median income could afford a mortgage of $128,818; and, a 4-person household earning 80% of the median income could afford a mortgage of$189,824. c. A 2-person household earning 120% of the median income could afford a mortgage of $251,144; and, a 4-person household earning 120% of the median income could afford a mortgage of$342,260. d. A 2-person household earning 140% of the median income could afford a mortgage of $312,202; and, a 4-person household earning 140% of the median income could afford a mortgage of$418,503. 1 , • Establish a `sales' factor for the specified one-year period by comparing the Sales Price to the Total Just Values for qualifying properties (affordable housing threshold range of $0 - $453,284), followed by averaging the percentage change (sum of percentage change for all properties divided by the total number of properties) for those same properties; this yielded a `sales factor' of 6.19 percent. • Apply the established `sales factor' of 6.19 percent to the countywide residential inventory to derive the number of affordable units at the various affordable mortgage thresholds described above. The following two tables depict the number of housing units categorized as affordable, and organized by Commission District. This data provides the potential supply of affordable housing units. However, it is unknown how many of these units are actually available; it is unknown how many of these units may be presently occupied by persons meeting the qualing income levels; and, the data does not identf the demand(need)for affordable housing units. It should be noted that the dwelling unit figures listed in each row are cumulative. For example, in District 1, the 4-person household count within the 50% median income range includes those units within the 2-person household count within the 50% median income range, and the 4- person household count within the 140% median income range includes all units listed in the table for District 1. Similarly, the data shown on the attached maps also reflect cumulative figures. $300 Monthly Recurring Debt ^ -• 50%of Median Income 80%of Median Income 120%of Median Income 140%of Median Income 2-Person 4-Person 2-Person 4-Person 2-Person 4-Person 2-Person 4-Person Area Household Household Household Household Household Household Household Household District 1 17,164 SF 26,909MF 485 4,775 13,347 20,990 27,145 33,468 31,504 36,291 District 2 15,299 SF 24,153 MF 150 1,733 6,219 13,955 19,170 24,734 23,233 27,765 District 3 14,895 SF 13,207 MF 440 3,201 10,062 16,731 20,619 23,887 22,882 25,620 District 4 14,528 SF 22,655 MF 407 2,764 11,370 17,592 20,971 24,547 23,623 26,325 District 5 16,742 SF 1,015 MF 494 3,089 9,216 14,146 16,242 17,224 17,050 17,482 Total 1,976 15,562 50,214 83,414 104,147 123,860 118,292 133,483 Notes: 1.The unit counts include all ownership dwelling units,except mobile home and cooperative units. 2.There are 199,805 dwelling units in the County,inclusive of all unit types and both ownership&rental. 3.Affordable mortgage figures are based on the following:4%interest rate;$250.00 escrow payment for property taxes and insurance;monthly recurring debt of$300.00;and,expenditure of not greater than 30%of income on housing-related costs. 4. Abbreviations:SF refers to single family and MF refers to multi-family units. Overall, the above table shows District 1 contains the largest inventory of potential affordable housing units, followed by District 2; District 5 contains the least amount. Additionally, an 2 analysis of the total residential unit count within each District, when compared to the affordable housing unit counts within the above table, reveals that District 5 contains the highest number of affordable units; 98% of the total units (17,757) within District 5 are within the affordable housing ranges (50% - 140% of the AMI) prescribed in Florida Statues -followed by District 3; District 2 contains the least amount. The following identifies each respective Commission District's highest range of affordable housing dwelling units (combination of all categories - very low, low, moderate and affordable workforce) as a percentage of the countywide dwelling unit total (199,805) in Collier County (includes all dwelling unit types in both ownership and rental units). District 1: The highest (36,291) dwelling unit count represents 18 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. District 2: The highest (27,765) dwelling unit count represents 14 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. District 3: The highest (25,620) dwelling unit count represents 12 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. District 4: The highest (26,325) dwelling unit count represents 13 percent of the countywide . _ dwelling unit sum. District 5: The highest (17,482) dwelling unit count represents 9 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. $0 Monthly Recurring Debt 50%of Median Income 80%of Median Income 120%of Median Income 140%of Median Income 2-Person 4-Person 2-Person 4-Person 2-Person 4-Person 2-Person 4-Person Area Household Household Household Household Household Household Household Household District 1 17,164 SF 26,909 MF 8,829 14,461 21,185 27,252 31,647 35,845 34,944 38,082 District 2 15,299 SF 24,153 MF 3,254 7,288 14,067 19,245 23,302 27,256 26,000 29,850 District 3 14,895 SF 13,207 MF 6,264 11,670 16,949 20,696 22,911 25,463 24,738 26,443 District 4 14,528 SF 22,655 MF 6,421 12,318 17,736 20,976 23,680 26,086 25,437 27,515 District 5 16,742 SF 1,015 MF 6,140 10,243 14,258 16,279 17,062 17,446 17,352 17,627 Total 30,908 55,980 84,195 104,448 118,602 132,096 128,471 139,517 Notes: 1.The unit counts include all ownership dwelling units,except mobile home and cooperative units. 2.There are 199,805 dwelling units in the County,inclusive of all unit types and both ownership&rental. 3.Affordable mortgage figures are based on the following:4%interest rate;$250.00 escrow payment for property taxes and insurance;monthly recurring debt of$0;and,expenditure of not greater than 30%of income on housing-related costs. 4. Abbreviations:SF refers to single family and MF refers to multi-family units. 3 Overall, the above table shows District 1 contains the largest inventory of potential affordable housing units, followed by District 2; District 5 contains the least amount. Additionally, an analysis of the total residential unit count within each District, when compared to the affordable housing unit counts within the above table, reveals that District 5 contains the highest number of affordable units — 99% of the total units (17,627) within District 5 are within the affordable housing ranges (50% - 140% of the AMI) prescribed in Florida Statues, followed by District 3; District 4 contains the least amount. The following identifies each respective Commission District's highest range of affordable housing dwelling units as a percentage of the countywide dwelling unit total (199,805) in Collier County(includes all dwelling unit types in both ownership and rental units). District 1: The highest (38,082) dwelling unit count represents 19 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. District 2: The highest (29,850) dwelling unit count represents 15 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. District 3: The highest (26,443) dwelling unit count represents 13 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. District 4: The highest (27,515) dwelling unit count represents 14 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. District 5: The highest (17,627) dwelling unit count represents 9 percent of the countywide dwelling unit sum. 4 - k- • ,u. . � O-. • . n C ^- -n r. O a •. •= .it N 4 o k' i,- . �v 0. — ,-.1_ d d d i d i i y N �"o Y yY� ,• _ • rr r.L 4 �•4 : a C3 y i•s -vv'• 1 v' vs • , • : Y. n f P. r r V Q. " N •f� �5 .�T ef o Lt�• JL r CA A W N ,+ O' .a', ^s. a' m N O .. �O0 •: • o A c r i d • o N a' ® • al en c C"/") N O m o O o 4 •o • //J m o o , •• • y s Ill dr- • • 3 2 D o c.4 .P. --.1 A s.o ■0 • 00000g 6 3 • v N 4° •o : Ii : r ' m '°p :c;;;::►. + w w UI o o R° N a 9 O N e , ' O ° • O Z ...N 00 q SR 29 • • ►, w ° r-3 0 cn g °® la , f1 O r rn i n � S.• 4s,•€? 0. O .•• •'p' r •s Or: ` 1 � �- "+ - ' 't ^ V)y r sr-.• e' •t ' =aV1 r f A H N, O N a Q m `� ; C" AAWN ,..' O S '.N ^ fi ' f�n r , ►.-� ' —s g • ,X o .. CV _ N SU O°o -_ o N 2O ° VI •r N' ° ID w •�.�j • 7. vra W n p▪ n O.c .-' .+ W A ,1 ON f2 j 00E1002 • 3 a o y -- •e E. O .�+ N O O CA .N O N O To I aY x v ° '"� u o O 00 O O• Ch J 7 7 7 0 ri u I " m 3 n r m (II W Ln O 0 N, .n O .-3'. `j 3 ,s S' 3• - *?. G, _ 41.. g , le i o a o • 0 4 rA �7 O\ A iNi �' N UI y r. ■• • 2 b W -.a A a1 00 2J 5 O N j �s _ q SR 29 0 • 1�1 ,- N O ° c v I a ° O 0 I . - p Ql _�' • . N it a•Ayr•rrvg •• yG� .,. . • . 11 -t,4e:ple.% • o N t S i N ti' -e•n� F`Y1 rb!• � • • . L 'A L•r• GO * -•OOz • • ay7 •a.4•q s4eAP r •fu +' .A • r: {•'•o''''..% s.• y � • +rf k `uY ir} 1 �sr �` .9�! { ,•.j•. d id d nt. d i li r. . +. • ; o T-,p t .•r .•r M rT .•P ++ n' 7 0 tQ m 4.•••of 4�a_ a"�' 4• �� :i:i ,+ �v�L; r• Cn A W N r+ O r N S „i� • ~+�� a:�: _ 1. n 0 aj •l ` I CA y N -'' 9 N • fri a m • 1`f y `4 to O. ° la 0 IC '. if -o N O\•J . W 00 V1 O 0• =. T 7 �` z NO ,-+ W W W 04 3 7 0 ��3 • S,'. N O W W 3 DO C 3 • 'o N / " c' z n° ➢ g • m▪ G1 i� V. N rA 2.--' N 0 0 N O r _ 3 n l'._ C A N O\ 00 O\ O ►!J 7 m ° -2 p _ n m O W 00 �D 00 O .w O (D p LL .. r 3 0 3 n z c� m - 7 O Y 3 3 3 3 3 RI 0 o �. o • o �. O �Q ..■ ,-• N N N W Ro -• N o „'` J W N W „'' .. N V 4. R. g sa' P O \O W iT ►a 'r co N O N --4 n w W o ti _ �� srzzv • • "•cn w N o •( o 0 0 0 111y ��o ©�;�' tom. u,•' Gr,�:.4.� a' ,D °>C e' •L• S•'.. 4 •. n .p •�lt Se, yGC7CCC77 rt- D '��k? F • •:y ••�i.Sl.•f f als r..1:••21,4,L• 1't +lld.r j�•M�:• 4N'r4t.,'+�� O CO, rA Vl !A fA I.i UI o g' . l° ' •��y��xy li 0 ;;A:!..... 9 .5.f if• }me'4�iM ! f 'k • y �• R• '9 .1�• � 0• -r !y y •- r y s" jil•ik••�1 L iititis Q n A n n n CA -. O -n rr •R•?: �_ cry( �'v In M . 4.f 2•e"t:.••• C+ ►+ m 0 7 No v.*n g . a - --- '.r -,11-4:„ • v. A W N ►■ .r 0. S .f N ® •,14. c • o t! O' a▪ ' 01 :l N v © C ID i/! N O �\ N• O 9 N Pi u, (-S 1 0 O. 0 A N 2 • 1 n 3 ID c p ▪ � � Ar.� �.▪ cn n °' ' m • 0. v `°, °° ` 3• " s o 7 00000i ti` a .. ... ... .r N 3 a 3 ? N _y • m O D O� N ON W ^�- N 3 N 0 ,// o q d i a 3 ; ! J ∎-' vO'to A A ri 0 0 0 N 0 g`+ ::,.1 _ 3 n r. y O 00 O N CA 0 '.7 .r O 0 h. iii II .1-6n .,'.-- 01 , . 4f/ O ° 3 NH N r� °�. 5. s ... ,-+ N N N W 2f r V VN al ..P{.a7 a a' N J W "1' A qt. 'O' O W A - O b J N J 00 O A .M._• N 0 .. '". SR29 • •• ,.r 0• 0 7)11: • II�� N y 7 o Z V �� .� CCC7CC7ryl -"0 _ 3 C) Vi co Vi •••i V � (11 fl ° • � n n A A Imo•+• r Vl .p W N C ,Ny, a N in d T T y N N O i • c ,1 C W N .a ■ • O ° ° m H .0 N OWN ° o 0. 3 0 0 5 o O • e. .-. n p .� '. 0 cn o . 4 • '� n u, .A .+ r. O W 7 0 0 • 9 W J UI 0 ID 4 •• 3 W 00 0 10 T 7 • • •0 3 7 C 7 I3 z 3 0 m .p 01 F.., ONCj4 O O 4 N E 0 o Y . - - v 9 a y 'O i G W N c O T N J Sr : ! i f•r 3 3 n _ m `.nY 3 N. g m Z -° m i •o "r•' r.+ A. .♦a .P ■•+ .A RE -. K to "s ° _' •'. W co .A. Ch 00 to V a 2 a n s .P �1 0 0 Ut ' -. CO N CO v_- SR 29 •• •• • r..) v A O 0 O SI �yi�,i� O ` %.X97'i�A:i •'°•'• •a T CD © P� Q O y O N L'sji!4 e' •`� 3 e o :,,' Z j/ ,,•.�std • • --- 3 _. •�� ♦ A(Illl '.iFT no O C7 C C7 d d ; D 0 _ 'r1 i S tii ��rr..[y��[y��e, 1 rrs� t�� .y �.. �h ! i O ;tie.iye ei t!' qy�a� •1•FS re r yr4(11/o it. T. H •I .7 •S 'S •1 t/] a M N o0'�T • i .1114;C: 11.w y 13as R'+ i ! O Y A f�7 fJ n A C/] _ 0 .e. -n y� �3 0 • 9 w 'r. �'. •, ,(. _ r (h 4. W N 0 ,N y, a T R 0 P d ' • -.CO`/ 0 0 0 Y, z a. v d N ED -.. C/1 C ry W N OiT O n Y N a� o _ . H N ' O T. O o - a O O 0 E • 9 n , x ' 0 m • • Iil ; Q1 N W t7 7 N I� pT. 'F 7 C 7 a. a LJ 3 C. • • • W N 00 01 (h r... 3 ,(0 0 O y T -� ci r.. r.•. P �1 (D o n i .o n O m s 3 • • W ~ J N 0 r� N 0 3 0 a aY g i d � v o ° C 0 Ut O - C 0 7' N 3 - m • - w 0 7 0 S n n • r r 3 3 c, o " =c m rr'• 7 •"• e.n O. EP�Y 3 3_ 3 3 3 cZ m ... •• _ Mj•� - T 0' ^.. • . Z O m1. (y 0 N• it. . - a q. - 0 O N ►+ O IJ W K7 7 N IV lJ r..W O r.+W j n o) CO •. o r•+ O\ J D1 b .P Z O � � ti • • •L• O N J W O - X III W O 0 O O • - a -.— o f. „it%• •,. 0 i -.”fl O Q 1 ,1/, n '1 0' c.,;.,,,,,4 •pr {{ �'�I.• 1.'1L.•'� J ii �o 7 O 51F.' N j� ,� h s .I �,� t,f}., 'SH*1—, ,-i C7 C7 =. C7 0. r1 N D 0 gro'i !'' •• •fi r _ _ 0 y fA' N y •.. °.a U -`.. ., .eJ O a_�.,�a�a G"•� . ,� r,. 9 G- a ' ... ,..j 9 .s -t .s• 9 cn C. •• - -n E �7 j! " = / sRi lr. V•,�•d o r,•ia i1�r.".b'4 triv: r� .�.1 f� n R. f7 ri U1 -. - ,•r 0 r..ffs Ci V 1•. , V��,_ fr',1-1:: 0 U1 .P W N ►+ z .1. a '' N Iv d ID 1( b e • c 1.., = N W N0 cn co 3r O •© n 0. O N = 1 • n O' ' Y O m �• P�A U.J N 00 U] 0 tr1 •S lU 0 W 0 00 00 ON O T 7 oao000 0 • .r v X. 7 ° Ut 00 0. 0. I.• .+ a 3 W 0 3 a a ; _ A N. \oO\ .A ■+ Noy N 3 ° = d N am -- • N N W W N a 0 O y, o n ,� F y a n a N U( O 01 IVI g O ° p 3 3 3 3 3 0 zy m �^o. a. % n�' Z N g o 0 o V1 0 a sn. s�. s s ° A y� • • • • 6 ci ._x f� f.+ r r 1,jL YS Ly '.. 7 0.°5: t� N K I �r�• a � tii SSlA .� d d d d ra D t •r a M_�a 4 a t+•+4a.s+.lis y„nii•�� O to CA tn [A in 11.1 N 0�.a _ !•�' / Ri �.c �a tri o r��.sarj It. +z,y �tT.edf pl•:kF•.rY H n. 3. �. F. o - ..n L o o g Fp�...��.� ;f�' ,"'L.,. (n 4, W N p m a T o T ,i" app -.. . Z rt. .1 0 ,if a, c.+ .70,1 'r o CJ a• 01 N •.ems• 0 -: m CP C 0 W N O " O 0 N .ie' n '' m N r. m 1 "'i T •* O co • 9 0 m N�CN� N �lin 170 C 7 W 0. �^ v 0 0 0 N 0) �1 71 0 .B - x p K 0 W P %.42 00 4, N �•. y Vp A 3 O — a,. 100002 • • v• ON H I■+ F+ N N z a 7 C 7 y c, o i a 0 N ' U, N rA ■+ ^yy CO rn !� 3 -. 3 R , y P. • • f.r UI �O �l a N 0 N O ,Y " _ i n n F •s LO 1.' ∎N 00 W W x'17 - 3 T. d a y •9 n - • W �p 00 U( O .. C 0 T 0 .2 n a s N o r y 0 7 7 0 m _ e•r 0 ° N h 4 3 g' ..+ 1.+ N N N W * W N �jywrp,. m U - ...-.1 W N W i■I = '' s IID b ° N VO7 N 000 W O ,Z.i 'O i• O CO O W N W P eD 9329 • • • N H N O O 0 O N • --o o ti m� ••,. A �• 9 •„ prrrr�JNoisuun o0.P . r ��9• :•. i u X571"•f _. �O "'-r' • a �+,'*. Z ., Vl A W N ►■ O paj 0. O (1) °0 cY 7. _. Cr N N N Y! 1 r.. 0. — G Iv o r �. a d C N ,H .p c 0 �r� 3 m H 0 3 ° 9 N • • ° • • .o �NOow `,°oNOCI > -' m 0 T p . o m oocn •r � N •r1 o to _. x ��3 • r . W O Uri Cll 7 0 _ o �: . O 3 Dm c a z 3 d. • i - I. A A N W 00; ;; ,f 3 3 3 3 3 ° )r'- 2,pY _ o. N. o. ~ 3�" Z N o a o 0 o Y 4 g,J g� snzv • O • V1 la • • O 0 : s$ 0 . .killo f yA y O e i mL_l� IT CO o OC .4* efl 0 5 j t r 14 O , a' ' H • * D 0 i i ( y i y .r er r '-{ c tt y ∎ r te 0-1• O ., 'N �j�! ; n r n e� n V L ° t� t I r y t7 "• o y `• f ' o th A W N . O . N 4r.... ,i,,,,,,q,..0 2 - p i d 0 O 01 R r-i ri• 0 p• Oo a 0 73 z s CJ ' n O' O y 0 2 H • 7, th tJ1 ON 00 W \O Cl) •a 7 • • O ,,,0 W W N 9 O �0000$ d e n C" Dto r. 0 ° 3 ','9a A m 01 - th 00 . --, r.+ . _. 0 y 0 i T o N N \O J A ■-■ N.O -, to 0 3 o o " ° ,°• • `-° W ~ W 00 O W ra to C O y E ,#.''' 3 s & i :�'2 D o p th th LA N th 71 7 9 S N S 0 0 . A 0 y 3 y m N J •� N •+ 0 O 3 rt Y 3 3 3 3 3. y A_ G1 - �+ to 0 G 2 3 _ A,y Z 4•* m • �7 m C v o > ; o •. o 7 y N N i` 4. 4' ° ° s i-+ ►+ N N *A YJ 'z] ,.• N N p A lJ�O O1 lJ N o N w •' sic r, o • �O a1 Q\ VI N a o 00 0 V) w 0 0 0 0 i �/o , "M 1 1,4442/?;•31 1,,m 0 o%�" w©+1"!'• 1;414 '4,44: iiY! -`, ^ Cr N s�yy �{. a0 't i z�r•o v' n C �+• O N - s •7 ', k• rW: J ry,�•& isr',y'� qagt�t,�. .' F .w 4y9a, fhfh5•-1 y -i O S N M.'2' •y� �Sy�L t t 9a i w • {.1> ' At- : -� .+ C" Ur A W N .+ O , 3 S , 0 go c V1 rt O N Fir LP P. �' O H 0 3 I ID a ° n 0• -r 0 to 0 ° 2 H ( o 0 0 C° m �-'� F fh �+ pp r+ W n a N F; ♦ p b O■O, N O N 1cl) o tit ", 2 0 a s - A A A N 3 D a N ! jflL ♦ uiu 3 y.D 7S 0.Y v s J N 00 00 W th •r1 r v°c Ch ■\O �O N W o� V)r 7 .. m •1`YS v "�7 ® 'e M 0 0 > > o O o -. y N y 3 -' A N 2 2 g s rr 1•+ N N N W '=1 - . CO ei0'8 •\ O A 00 O\ th A 0 °■Oo\ OTwato® • • •snzv • • Cl) CO• �€0 o 0 0 _ �is n .s0 i•: P • o �f t,a $7r;:•OM L y_-4,r'1'.`';.r ttra. H d d d d d : r F� Ni N G 3 l: s e r�/ Y�0'!: `� ° h G'•f.,ar•'• 'rdlr r. ,. ... n i �' l.yµ,ei �. �. .�.:. 'i. .�. O. �' rz fL ; a a iiT �.Y+.2iL� '.?j.`+J n n fr n tr' on _. O '�,•e•r i?f,i a ! u,. r7 '-P rl• M K ►r y .r® r•e• O•° 0 •�! M�r3 ' N N KT u • R:c c d c y1 p• 0 A l q. m .i 0 3 ° '0 N n NC O •O _ (Q i2. ,z v° W 01 N W i~+ W ,, n N v 4 • ♦ �l a\ 00 N "` A •iJ 0 a _. T a OD,- ` .1 - th VO CA W 0 O L1° v• D O\ N W •■ CIZ v D o c a I. 3 a "` d J •-, •., n., 0•, 1J 3 to 0 y ° ° y o w • m C!1 C 00 W co A y 0 S ID o 3 • i a 3 8 • '4-2 •+N ►+ O\ \ to O y , yy a i & °z N z D o t7 in W fh `O A •r1 _ C ' S �+ _ °- 3 n _0 .a. rr O O �p �I o 0 rt O tD J D • n rt o m " f 33 p P c m _ „ v) O .. S ._ ti 3 3 4 r rt z h' O O 0 ■ ■ •+ N N N W y iJY N ■i s q u 4 r0...C1\ 10 W 1�1 01 r0 00 _ N':» N « a s g o - J W N r• (h O 0 W Co N SR 29 • • • H A 0 0 • C/1 N • • A O rw. ,a?°_ Q •.fit ta I- • r 00 N 'i a z `—' ? �y�.°.'J.` HOiso u oo -3 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 S� N 0 efe 1° O .O ,• •� "-°7:x��• au�n _r ,o r vv..p. W N ►-■ Q r• q T N °O © O 2 -. W O W N 0 d O' O' N O :Z • • • o ..r .L r. N W A �i O • ° V) 0 o • f H N O .O N o res 1 n O N G q • 0 •e jam' r�.�,� •►ro 9 y9 N 0\ -4 i,,,, �0 7 pl 3 ® • J r e �q;• n woo col 3 '° z C 7 • z g Ii. 3 0 0 y _ • 'w ■+ .+ N N ►r W -• N 0 OUI m 3 x • - ` 3 LA N LA N CT n n x z .i D rr i•+�7 �1 J In O N ti P.'" °°-, o a -0 O O O CO O1 co 'sJ -' O O T N o Q m c y .,„1 0 7 7 0 ,r 3 3 3 3 3 y �? m _ O .1�. °% '"' a q0.,, A,' �' o' G 3' ;. 3' Z N • _:j • H+o - O �1 N J J N°r V0001O W -4 gt -I 1: g 4 N N s 01 p I.■ W U N I°t.. • D • O rn SR 0 • ... CO O O O a U) --• vL �� pp��a�y¢•l Y}u of ,...) ..... 7 GO r, > Co Z°�q_Ot+p� 4•AS: • j.Liy�•• d d d d —� ' o 811,'La µ, •L9,"€� - a y" H y rt O A - w°i•�:dFi tp•6�y'r`tilZ.,43"i S''i'3 c K am. •ty.�]C r��.�•A•'@y, J Q ... i� v,� in �l In -n -n z i O G"..q.• r:'w-� %M•t •4i.. �hi7AS�9i�h•�• ./•:-:"A H -S 'T "'1 't C/1 O. '^ — i°- m" 59?: Sjyin *• •'. .+1r,p�,s.�•..*LA q+}14°tii :•, ri ri ri 'i C!� _. O • M■ •• T ➢ N CI cr p O o o •11 c C (J A e,0 • ° H 3 0 1:3 19 3v., O o :0. 0 O N 3 FT 1 a w ..-, +a. o, wU1 d C 7 v a w w n o r 0— 1D Vi IA J O W ONO 0 T 7■ r O W 00 W D1 J -. 0 e 9 0 0 3 n o O y °y •• N• P� N:ts4t.il i m 3 0 0 D 3 0 ° H oo • w O x m 'm O rS • -- - O G1 J .'q N O 0 N 3 I 2 n d y 3 n v N .p. W 7 0 0 (D o a m ' o r D 3 3 3O3 o m rt 3 i 3 3 y z- m �, O » _ . M 7 - 7' O• -• ° O . RO O N yy •G N ° ° 0 = o rl ,� N �1 0 9 og . 2 00 ►+ .-+ ►+ ►+ N 7J : a N N WrAr] 01 .0 O C W l , o .�+ . W V. Z _n O 0 �- ��.CA sazY • • .F. 01 N , ' fh © y 0 O) O 0 Ua N 1 1 0 o ° 0 • A — _-_ I o i cn o ' f1 1.7 Y) r ; V N T 0 7'.• ° � • - * a' (,•©o,7i, Eo �/ g Q; tt1' 8 -.fo yi 01t( • i• ili 429 r. rr • N W �r iD m H© N 3 C O N+ .` O. O ,7'. O _ 0 a n o - 7J m N Ili all 1 -a dir- / �V • q F-•4J N 03 . 7 rrf 0 -. 0 " s v`.. 3_- O T C. O•.a 0\ ■0 ■.• ••• ••• N N O O N��• 3 a 3 0 S °, • a; 00 00 01 N U N , / 4 H � 3 1 � ' -o -• p° x - z ' . N J OO .1 7J o U UI 00 co .--.1 O 0 O N f Sr m x r o o v O m, g 0 m _ m w 7 0. 0-1 E 3 3 3 3 1 - _ O N. -y .- m w N • m ry° ° O O CP 7 to N N N J i+ W P W -. A W N IN oo J.P G 0 N O CV a s 00 N as 00 W 0\ , ri•N 0• © 0 0 O • I 0 O O o 1 _ __6 0 ..-: �a•.g- •-,II 7 C rO A, 01%. •• o RrGw O �G • ;� •• I Q H d d i 77r N ` _ r L • IA 9 can P JrA'.6 4 ��Y H -s "ti .S .! �,0 CA 2/2 CA Cll CA .;aA .ern •y4 "• , K r�l• r�1• ,�f• e�-r p�.q -' 'O rt -n rt }, -. i of+.4 i'0 lent � ® C U� A W N r+ 0 m T p 7• fn v " 7 N ■ -G•r m H " o Au N • • n N Mai IL i to C 7 c 01 00 w• O C d m O ON 00 O T 7. -0,-4. O- - N t., . N o ® a 3 7 C 3 x 3 0 ° y L'1- N N C.:1 N�1 W yy -• .0 w d ° d z a $ • 00 1-+ UI"0 jr�p ..i O 3' 0 O .ti g = „i 1,;' O 01 �'-• N 1p W O ►iy -. C 7' 3 p d °- 3 '0 n w G1 W W 10 O O at m' n 3 Z 0 >41111 0 w — w,0 0 3' o O o �.. -' N .•--"6+?• a 2' "�. A W �i 01 r 1 O1 'rti A N N W ai W 01 J IN C " ya W :L. 00N N01102 O Co co o-'_1' ° ° li,7. • 1 • W ..1 i. 0 0 0 0 I I m 0 � -1:1 -0 .. 5- D 1 n cooc oo < %<. o 3 t ) -0 -o — 0 v"5- (D 0 fl), (D 0 E E-clo --% ..„ .. (,) tn ," y(Q = -1: H o Q 1nyyo, •<. 3a0 o ao . n o o o a co 6 -- ZTEL -n = ntn 0 (D -% ocQ o a o -0 = — -• (a v o V 0 y y n o tj CD '(0 D Q "• D D n• = CD o H H ci = O y. C o 0 0 o o = 0 =- 0 a :Z .=% %E- 6 2, co in o_ 0 • < o o 0 cis" O CD y N 0 ° .16 es 64% -0 g c -0 imN (D -- 1.1 y � o � o CI O Q p O 0 0 N) 6 M ca A = 1 )> O J ° O 0 O ,p p y N c 0 O 0D "0 p 0 C p 0 p eo p O a = a 1 . � � � 5 o ), o 1 o D 5 O p .p - O Q m- o O o A ,7 3 o n 1°-*--- ....., -. 3 Q (1) 5 -1`■ n-3 CI -0 O > 54 .=. (C)6 0 (5. . = -CI";. (y) (0 W S. c o 0 30, le k cD Q 0 -CA -CI) ; - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 o 0 0 0 �-odi Q CO w w D CS _ _ 00 CO n O. 0% C1 -,._.. �I �I O o :o %0 404, a s UUi U 3 a 0 0 3 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 cD — 0 0 cD — 0 = 0.... ., o o = coa (0 FL ( a ilia Q � v � co co c a- 0 „ _ D "I lD �D CC)S CD 4n 41 4n �n < 0 4n -tn .< 0 a '< 0 N N N 3 0 3 z 3 = n N V7 00 • CD _? .p cD _? CD S O co A A � `< a s -I- '< 0 0 -.. `< O o o o o CD 0a co ca coo c O 0 co cQ co cr (a a- '0 C Q 4n -cn m o 4/) 4n ii; o c� o c� CD 0O0 3 o 00 3 v w 3 �'0o � 0 N v, ;o N 0 0 00 0 0 —. is, w e iv o co0 0• c N c W N 000 '*' A w '*' 00% A . 4 • • A p ;4 1 ■ • { • r as•• AI I ! • 17 itill, 1: i+ 31�u Y ,+ ; • �liii IV If I 2,.::......i.,•,!...4, •. 1 li 2 e••• ill. . I. . .•. r IC • F ;? ••• • • •• c = -. n -• z -• = U -• "� n n n• ft n• -. n• �/ et ,�. —, ,,,r ,..r , r ,••r eD N .6, J. CtQ V•+ '—' y © • W = ri d=• , . ..• © ►••+ N W W •- O O A O Uq O O W © J © -' — Z 01 00 O W �p n et) e, O __ �-► N N W y - Cr O L. •—` —1 O "r UQ c \ \ \ " 6 N © 0 © © © w J1 O C F C O O 0 0 0 0 0 O ~ ~N ` i ` i '.. i N cal • )r N w Cr • W rT FT j as- 4 , rr• • ) •04 lilk ) ft 6ft I sb. 4 fr '1. ..••• �f 1 .•Y•• • • r •7Y • Ilia . titil 1 1 big -lots• 11111 i ; * :%. 1'4— r err•• Ifni • 'n • J •• : : :. • I •• r...... I . ?" Mr. Iri• •r. I•"• ,IS,. birrD I-I. n "-.I• = iii. -- "7I• - "-. rrr rD r� ""• n rD n n N Vl UQ W 44 O C1l n ";� r•^r, •nn .r Ir. W /J, cA fi IQ O O O rz - I, ►-. N '=' (VIZ O W •P 01 ,1 O n irro vl �o o O o vii N C rD et et - •• �..+ �. N N N ,_. W O 00 11 © O O O Cl)O CC t•J O 00 -h ,-it -h •.4t .t W O O O O O f O es '*% Ned 4 • .. r 4 • A 1 is • N 0 fill • W rFSF,FJ •..• • iii LL's v. 1 • N _�:M 1 .4 i.;•' * aJ ...ph .T r • lAil .NF if •0•s: 'A7 4111 '1 ilip•NA 31416 Hilt .+11 t ' .:. 1 • a* ' y rF� :� y • J • O d d n d Z d . 7 0 t A� •■I■- A _ 7z. n A "1 r� n CJl cm W 4. N O 00 n e'D ' ,t et �� © -: - ri ,.... N N N W CM 0 1-• 1-• CD 1 W P W O crc O N 00 W O� 0 C� .• p .• --.1 J ■ 00 rr et n ..r r dottk ►-+ ►-+ N N N et NC O O N W r.-+ O O O O O It.,..° Wp - N "h �-h -h ■-h .h N v) p N W O1 ► • O O O O O 010 o o a = = a a \ y O • ___.. _: •■ 1� i 4 f a + .• r F F F s F 0:A. _ u, ,• p C ...r • ts...-� � a I 4, Y a �C t 23 ' ffill 'I / 11111 ! ',1 jai ,..1 . 4 r .Y. rt e 4 t 111[1 ::', 71-F5 — it i • iC+v.tai is • r r • +II O d d c C7 O d O n O . ~ . 1., et n. =. n� ft n – n n "! k et (h n W .p N •. ■ oPZ O ... et = et) CM .. tD O • : 0 — N N N W 1G O O J (11 G1 -,1 01 Crq O 01 W J N �. .. = N ©IN IN CN Vl V1 - A n © © 7 - - N - N O © ° C7 W © © © © © C © ., — 1 i,or i51 00 vnn a ^wo �. w vo� O 3 o '.�. V W r 0 N W m3 7 C C C O 0 5. ) °°L. O 0' V O N V �� Co � 2 w� out ' N CO J CX. O CO 0 O Oo o tri A t%) A CO I%) 0 cr 0. ..... 1 ....I Ilaftlii _. $.,, O O 0 V O O OVD 01 A a V. cN (D p (N N C N .�mimill % . D A Cm V O W N "ND O 00 A W W oN �. D D . v a o o a o CTIII W � -F V N CL ,..—I' CO N 0 Q N o% •O OZ Q N t Or 0 Or to - a. 6 (7 tD in" v 0 0D i4 . .� O — O O 0 4 p N 4 p 'EL O4 A Q rt A Q ; A Q "in" mina• n_..ii a n n n ......1 ,„, ■I. ••••• Ali& 411 di&, 0 n -k 00 CAI 0 0 O = ot( 0 - _I I = '9 tn. a (D0C y .p0N 0C ' g_ ° �� o O o = � �°� 'I,O Q Q H (D � C -J =0 W H maim 0 (D 000∎ ww a Q n . o Di;:' b o' er = � ° c �9Q v � aN = ycac c 3 0 n 3 , —. 0 o oo � o3 (D __NO II O DO —■ O eiN = -' N. D O% v to � = w- (D O , = 0 IQ IQ 01 al N 0 H 0 c 0 =- 0 73 2, 3 Fp' 5 n H 'O O y(D '� o N c O C N•(-7- < y S, 0 O — :D O (D y o. <• Q O M O 0 0 O = Q m O n �D (D _ cn• O Q< l ! ^ H Cr c O O — < c a in ° O n = (T) O c g to O O� n0 � y ci� p O O C O o a � � n (D CA (1) =I C■ O o_ 3 -4. %< 3 G' y. co OO C) N 0 m n O O C rt � rt 0 C 0 0 N 3DF. 1a > m m m 3,rr- rn m z N n O � C � M a 2 r.• � rn 3 ono = 111 a rn � c m v m m 7) rn -1 -3.1 - m � z m CO O m ~ z C m 3 C rn � z - 73 Z O 0 z m 10-1_ r z _ 2 ,- O m m ,, W rin rnW ° c n a w oO z. c) _- cs_ A" m C al 9D 9 k 73 O 03 z 70 D ro `a \./m ^ oo a C; p 0 0 0 0 u) n -1 0 0 m 1-1 0 3 rn � z A. 3 m z co - m co -I > H J 3 a0 cn � zo° C a) C z 3 10 m o x z rt 3 -mi worn ,, o 12 0 z --Io �~„ • v X> N fD al o n � _ C rn0 -1 m o 0 rn o Vf o rnA tn-1 m Z ° zrn rD cn m G) v n C •< > - - co D m 3co --I CV o n zD1- -1 n y r In M p r GI p OT CO 'G m cc cnI co (1) = M 0) re 13 nu) el 73 2 a 3D � 'a > m m evaN A 3 m m 2 ,"',. 'v fl C orno a 2 r rn 3 O m m � rnz l 3 -al -I r :� z m m 1-1 G) O G 3 rnDx) = r wa 0 ---I G D al PIPP 3 ..,� rn �, n \. 1P3 O 0 �° z rn .. 2 -1 * zz -I Z -i � O o_- r � 2 _ r N r V m m -IOo ( ` %, -I rn CO W CII r `. ~ w �. r z. m r 2 Dcn C Orn 73 z r• X 0 a CI `/D opa c ° O m Z o -Iz ° u) n z -1 3 rn� z a 0 (D 2 `°z � ■' '�1 7o > c � z O .c C. DI 3 mmm ` •` o ►--I i z o .. - immi v O -1 o i ' rO � D � to rn 0, 3 a -I m , n O 0 ° rn o i o Cr, 4`F-1 cn f 'a m ? � H rn n En LI _ 11 rT1 T> rn O m CO CD � p Z 0 2 73 0 cu 11 CO "Ci m cc --I C -I cn =0. v CD • g IC �a Z > 3 0 = 0 fD > m m ^ A p a , N m 0 z Ni O C OTO = r`� N 0 3 a z0c \J" "I D ni I-- m 72 m MX 3 m z m co rn V �3y x > x _m ,.. 177 0 m v, z z = p v —IGoD 5 ^' z ly o 0 * zz Z. -I = moo z m m = 0 °oN o ,�C -I r rn z w , 1"' N 0 rn D r. z DN -ri Ifl ni m m �03 , 73 O o -i W rim D 0 7'n 0 0 o Ho0 m , O ...I 1-1 I. "' n -I 3 rn z c= m 03 03 LO! > -I ° i' = CD O c z o 0 ° 0 z i o v o a -c m ,> o .-� DI 3 m cn m 0 " 1■1 .0 O z -I ' !'y'xi NJ ID xi p oo� r, 3 o O 0 mA mZ m fn v) n C -< D -HH 1 —I -72I m D m m --- rn N 0 p S m '�0 OO GI n = 00 � co y zcn o. v C rt M xi D >m 0 = 0 n 3r- r 'a 3 Z m n m �- Rg y m 0 "� O c 0m8 0 177 3 000 . m m ern _m m m N 0 3 WI ,t 1 i 177 O G� ~ 1 c m Tj tri 7o p H G > (DD 3 _1 m . n z X -I = t 17 o V— Z m m z � °o � mimi a m w CA) n W � cn Gr0 r z w ` � D � 177 m m Z C Oz XI m m rn 0 r ;I o v] Vmip "` m -< Dzw 0 `/ D O o " 0 a o -io - c O � z cn rt -i 3 rn G�z a. m m to co n -I o O � zo D :=La ce v � a z 30 d p -CI z al O m � rn5 :: 3 -I > 0 0 :? F�1 y 0 z -1 0 70 elm p G m 0D c La 70 m 0prn u, 0 v� U) = 0 0zrn fD n. G V) r v � aL � _ _ -I n D Li _ s 3 -I n n zp � 1 0 ^\ _ 71 x r Vi CO 0p 0 Z p Om CO' 0 0 = O -I _ In zLn a XI XI up 0 • 12 o = o 7 Z > 3 3Dr -p 3 m m /'\ A 3r- .--, es m Z -I m � V)- ;rn ( m 0 ,.., A O cn °0 a z r 3 moo ° =* --i a ITI 3 > �z0c = m a m m (1) rrnn _ 15 , 3 m tin m iii 'J G) 0 rry. -I a 3 mDx r rn ati c G� ~ = m tjl 3 v rn � z -. o.} 70 zm H Z = * � o \ 2 = m = r N rpm QN W rnWW n W r) cn rim r" rzW r 2 7c D (I) m G l O < z m m rn 0 r -I O co Gil p -< >z a u v �O 7400 M C D c a m u) n -1 oo c Z 0 = zy �' - 3 rn - z C co -I > H A 0 a 7400 �'' (D vZ 3 -I � _ v D. o p � 3z ° -0 01 0 0 m Nrno -, \ .� Noi N D o PP > 0 �D 0 a 70 DW. CO O a rn ,, V\ X 73 ,nprn 1 �+ O u) 0 �A 'a —I m Z rnGzjLA N`_ n '� W -Irn D LI = 3 --I X 71 0 v, 41 03 p Z =rn . 0 °z 7 = 0 [` c a z V) 1 fl. to � a rt _ 4 0D0 C > 41 m 'C m m m arm m m Z n 0 (Mc u � p CD 3 c o „ o a z � c C V? p r 70 M 0 -.I r ;- z " " rn 3 0 m r �" w rnD0 = A � y -n -�I G� C) O O cn 70 m (7) I-1 •C 1 'w (11);1 p --I G) z p y - Z � D rn `:-� � ., -1 _ z G' 00� tG ...g rn m 73 I-I o © a. a n ^ rn co oW y N co �W/ r w �/ z. r w D f. WI z TDB m 0 rn ,.� o z z G rnrn �p r ni rn i 0 0 a rn - W V � z' ' � p m m M o 0 n o p 3 13 N 0 _i O z cn Z - A- n . = 3 rn- n ^� (D rn rn z CO co 3 a CD� � o r O ` 0zc. = -< > 3 o A C �.. 0 0 z „I- "' `- 73 a czz O. , 0 m � m _v) rn z o 0 - v r 70 > 0o V (D O 0 m 0,� \ C cv rO V 73 rntO rn ,m Z ozrn C rn n C D -I -I ai M m mw > t,, 0 2 -z-IDD A- W a p of r M N o z Z TO 'C CO m c 00 z � C 0. oIQ rr A 3 > r > > rn — r al m 2 -1 73 0 V) 7a C O �� m N o °c oTn C) rn 0 3 a o00 = m C m m r. � z � m 0 3 rnyo �fD m r11 '-' 0 O - 70 0 -Iz-I z 72 0 73 z n H rn Z -I * zz 2 -1 = -1 -< O ZoY ' mi m m H O o 0 . el rnW . r rnzW (..4 m 3 xi > °� - r Z T� D � . ooh -1-1 0 ; �" 73 m < rn ¢ w r- 0 z O co m m ° O 0 0-1 0 H o , A - 3 rn7z � fi I m WGO n �a CO _I > H N t� c� a > ° a CD oo v z 3r-- c = p0 > C 1 D 0 .c �. 0 m FT-1i O crtD D N M 0 z cl O r+ °o ' hD CD O 0 rn 0 _ 3 - ,-p Opm O (n pv) c 'a tt m 2 ° zrn n r- v cn W I-II -IrnD b. I 3 -1 M m rn0 'n'1 n z0 � c to _ (00* m ° 0 (�z j0 o W _ ocH _ C krt 0 = 0 a) > >> m rrn � m z Vi O C 6 -mjin ray, G7 3 a zp � �. 1 O m m 53 ' 4 3 m m ~ xz co q m rn 00 3 M 0 —. 3 p rnGz n - .431 z O * zz _ r�� z _ m _ , o --. 4._ —I a 07: rn °WOW - z V' 11 Oro " � � w I— z. r 177 z D N G m O r3 z r -I p mrnIt-:T17 o .,<co M p 0 a \./ a C �0r_ 0 O VI n -I-I p 0 X XI m N O 1z N n .. 3 rnG) z n. 3 co -1.1 > HN 3 A° a a ° o ° m (D x z 3 --Io 3 C p s3z O r) 11 o z -lo N xl a o o " rim' y . i:, p o rno_ c 77 73 O 0 me0 3 � x, rn = 0 v' m z Ozm m co r � c� v' n V = x = = - m m 3 w o 6 Oo = 71 73 r cn M m a 0 r OT W 'o 2 GI H O co m Z fl. c C to 72 4 0 rt 0 _ 0 m 2 G) m Dr -a m m /•Z m p W 0 m a N Nu O C 5 , On rt N G) r X zOz ce �,1 m M 73 X ? o 2. m 113 lit rnD �O =� l 0 m ~ z 2 � m 3 v rnMz 5 v 1 \ Z O � Dm \ _ I = _ . o N Z m .mm. = WO , �! imml a W m W , i N n_..... f., \ z.. m 3 rn r R rn WI C -I 2 D O m < m (/f z r- ..... rn O o rn rn 0 2 n p 73 m W `�^ a c p r o M 1 X r A -1 0 0 ' w ^ ZO _I 1-1 L "1 n 3 rn z c n. co -I pD -I N C a zo (- m U Q =Z � -I d to 0 O > -pl3z �-�i IN 3 m � � o cEt kp-, i 'iJ H D a z _1 o 73 rF op cD �D c ° � o� a 7o p x 3 o O cn o A �1.� -1 cnu) � �F rrnn Z pzrn as ti r G� A -< 70 I D �,•W Li 1 3 -1 n a\t, ri\ r t M pp 7o O Co Z 1 GI o � 03 D z u) y, 0. v C Q O1r0 m n O rn A .< r CD m 0 N O cn p0 Sin n z _ 3 n zoo = W� 0 rn7 ----- m 0 3 x > x rt r- .71 rn O G) G) - O m 3 0 rn � z /� O O xzrn C 1 H = I R m m - B N �l rnW ° W CI.3 w W ne r•w M W U P z > p C 8 2D A O O4z 22 2 O W m m �U Xi 0 0 o- ° Al o C D C m X A —1 ° ° v' n ~ O z 3 rrnpz N a = m ooCO n CD 0 rn > zo � a n > ° o ° = a O D O m > G) m 3 -0 3 rn m m N m v p r 0 OW T a 8n N m m xi rn z c\ V 3 -a-1 m �' z � N m 4 _° rn O —1 ~ ~ . I m m cn z 3 v mF" z :? o o Ja z m Imi Z o * zz Z M m HO0 a m °° ow ' \ r* w CI W •• r z U' ■ �N rn 0 u,m < rn -n m rn � o f r O co o m D^oo C `S v �z � C > CX m 4 - 3 rn z ` n 3 (J 3 = m rnvon co -4 > —I 18 a moo ° ! rt ED a o z 3 -I � i - o > � 3z ° a 0) 3 m cmno ° A) :..0 0 z , o /�N xi > o N l Y O v m 0. 07 3 70 xi On o 7v _1 m-I v) cn ,0 2 O p 7'F zrn cD m Z m6-) ui C, C -< D -I -I co LI m 3 � -D-I III m .AI 2 71Dr A- III D 0 r cn N m 0 ? TO co '0G =n O - M c -I C a z v' 0. X C rt - (' / Y v) z a m V)- 0= LLI U 0 a 114 CID Z o O i.. In oo a W L J Q ~ l- 3 i--- m E W W < WI--- 2 n xi J f Q F d J .CD wz0 Z W O 1- R Qrc0 et o E `tam G 0 re `V ° Q cL a o ° o a M w W O a s o 0 17:3 g' o Q5D a rc _ ' � J4 ° 0 CV 70 4o0 a a o o Cn f NHo Z w Qy U m 0o W = i V z �j= Z H L2 z4H 0 ... v W . 0 Q V h -1 H 0 ~ o }O G �\ I Q m W O _0 � W� W O 1 'W � = Y. Q 's � < Y Z _j aow W �i� Lu f J _l .s. in 'j_ U ^ m U ■ 000 = W I- H O H N _1 = IX LI _ z Z < F- Z Ey w 4ce O O Ce W 0 re a It 0 2OO W uj o � w o W �� oz °� W W f- a W cn '� I- Q W 01 ZceW cx J Lir Q a � � z W 0 c OWOO n N U la W W f 0. --JZ v `/ < ° ¢v) o Q x < rG o EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to endorse the recommendation of the Coastal Advisory Committee on how to proceed with the permitting and installation of the proposed Clam Bay navigational markers based on recent regulatory findings and agency requirements. OBJECTIVE: To endorse the recommendation of the Coastal Advisory Committee on how to proceed with the Clam Bay navigational markers permit application based on recent regulatory findings and agency requirements. CONSIDERATIONS: At the June 23, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to proceed with permitting and installing the Clam Bay navigational markers to come into compliance with the US Army Corp of Engineers (USAGE) permit requiring the installation of navigational markers on the main channel in Clam Bay that meets US Coast Guard standards (USCG). Installation of these markers requires permitting from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), USCG and the Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC). FDEP previously issued a "Consent by Rule" approval based on the Florida Administrative Code to install navigational markers. This "Consent by Rule" authorization was subsequently rescinded by FDEP when water depth concerns were identified. On January 26, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to file for the permit using a "Letter of Consent". A stipulation was added that this could be accomplished within an $8,000 budget. Staff performed all the work in house and submitted the request for "Letter of Consent" to FDEP on March 5, 2010. Since the submittal, staff has received and responded to four (4) Requests for Additional Information from FDEP on June 15, 2010, July 12, 2010, July 23, 2010 and September 19, 2010. On September 2, 2010, FDEP classified this project as a "Heightened Public Concern Project" due to Pelican Bay community concerns. In September 2010, the USCG permit for the navigational markers within Clam Bay expired. This permit was not eligible for renewal from the USCG due to heighten public concern from the surrounding community. Staff consulted with Mr. Joe Embres, Chief, of the Waterways Management Section of the Seventh Coast Guard District, for submittal of a new permit. Mr. Joe Embres, advised staff that due to new regulations within the USCG an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would need to occur prior to the new permit application submittal. An EA or EIS determines the cumulative affects of the project on the environment. This requirement could not be waived due to the heightened public concern status of this project. Mr. Joe Embres advised staff to submit the new permit application once approval of the FDEP permit had been received. However, on October 8, 2010 staff received a Request for Additional Information from FDEP requesting a valid USCG Permit for the navigational markers in Clam Bay. This requirement from FDEP forces staff to initiate an EA or EIS through the USCG. In a joint conference call with both the USCG and FDEP it was identified that if an extensive EA and/or EIS is required, it can cost up to $40,000 and take as long a year to complete. The scope of the EA and/or EIS would be determined once all environmental concerns were identified through consultation with the USCG by related state and federal regulatory and permitting agencies. The CAC recommended on 1/13/2011 that Collier County not move forward with the permit application or installation of navigational markers in Clam Bay and also recommended that the County petition the USACE to close the permit noting that the County has acted in good faith to come into permit compliance but that the denial of timely and cost effective permits from FDEP, the USCG and FWC has prevented this from happening. . Additionally, the CAC also recommended that the County, Pelican Bay and Seagate community jointly meet and resolve the marking of Clam Bay to facilitate safety and overall community acceptance. At this point, staff cannot move forward with the study without further direction from the BCC. If the BCC directs staff to move forward with the navigational marker permitting, a funding source for these environmental studies will need to be identified. If the BCC directs staff not to move forward with this permit application for navigational markers, staff will petition the USACE to close the permit. Staff believes that the County's petition to close out the permit will be accepted by the USACE. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMDATION: At the January 13, 2011 CAC meeting the following recommendation was approved 9 to 0: This item will be presented to the TDC for approval on January 24, 2011. FISCAL IMPACT: To date, Coastal Zone Management has expended approximately $4,500 in hourly charges dealing with this item. No out of pocket expenses have been incurred to date. In addition to the out of pocket expenses that the County will incur conducting the environmental studies, additional agency requests will require $5,000 to $10,000 in staff time to complete. A total cost of up to $50,000 can be expected to complete this application based on these new requirements for the EA and/or the EIS. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: No impact to the growth management plan would result from this Board action. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, requires simple majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action. — CMG RECOMMENDATION: To endorse the recommendation of the Coastal Advisory Committee on how to proceed with the Clam Bay navigational markers permit application based on recent regulatory findings and agency requirements. Prepared by: Gary McAlpin and Pamela Keyes, Coastal Zone Management Appendix Clam Pass Navigation Signs History 1. There is a misunderstanding in the interpretation of the wording for installing navigational signs in the July 8, 1998 USACE Management Plan Permit. 2. The PB Services Division, who prepared the permit, and the Mangrove Action Group, who assisted in preparing the permit, claim that the reference is specific to only non-lateral signs. 1. Navigational references in the 1998 Permit are as follows: a. Page 9/21, Para 5. States what signs are required and where to be placed. Also Manatee signs are requested. (8 of 138) b. Riparian rights must be protected. Page 9/14. (16 of 138) c. Role of PBSD: Page 9 and 10. (20 & 21 of 138) d. 3.3 Recreation: Page 36, Current and 3.3.2 Proposed Page 37 ...would not anticipate any changes in the recreational use .... will not measurably improve navigability. (27 & 28 of 138) e. Page 38 Ordinance 96-16: No Wake and reference to signs again. (29 of 138) f. Page 39 navigation signs "Finally, the main channel will be marked in accordance with the requirements imposed by the United States Coast guard to insure that those who use the system clearly know where the channel is and the prohibitions against operating their water craft outside the same." (29 & 30 of 138) Lateral navigation signs do not prohibit you from travelling outside of the signs. Only a regulatory sign will do that. This sentence does not refer to motorized watercraft. It refers to all watercraft. The USCG does not require markers they authorize them. g. March 22, 2000 letter to the USACE from Turrell & Associates regarding canoe trail marker application: "These markers will also delineate the dredged portion of the trail from Outer Clam Bay north to the Pass. Marking this dredged channel is a commitment of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan which was authorized by the Corps and DEP (USACE permit #199602789), and these markers will fulfill that commitment." 2. Navigational references to the April 9,1997 Management Plan Application: a. February 14, 1997 AS&E Memo: Page 59 of draft, "No changes in recreational use." (37 of 138) b. Page 60 of draft recommends "No motorized craft should be allowed north of the south boardwalk," (38 of 138) c. September 9, 1997 letter from Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson page 3, paragraph 4 "clearly boat traffic will not be increased." and "enhanced channel marking" (41 of 138) d. Page 5 amend to delete..."no motorized craft" (43 of 138) e. April 6, 1998 Statement of Findings Page 17 (11) Response to protest against boating restriction, and (13) "Plan will not change the current recreational use of the bay" (56 & 67of138) f. July 2, 1998 Memo to Jim Ward Page 4—"plan exists to accommodate concerns over navigation by preserving status quo." (76 of 138) g. July 1998 Permit Draft Page 10, Paragraph 5 —Lists the signs and their placement. (89 of 138) 3. Minutes of PBSD meetings in preparation of the permit. a. September 3, 1997 —Page 2597 "No change in navigational parameters." (104 of 138) b. June 3, 1998 —Page 2953 Manatee and Ordinance signs. Page 2954 "Very serious, cumulative, secondary impact potential to this estuary....No change...expectation that it. be enforced." (107 & 108 of 138) Page 2955 "Trim mangroves to enhance navigability for canoes." (109 of 138) c. July 8, 1998 —Page 3029 "Resolved by preservation of the status quo." (110 of 138) Page 3049—Policing and signs. (112 of 138) d. July 21, 1998 —Page 3082 Hancock"That is not a navigable pass and the county is not obligated to keep that pass open." (113 of 13 8) 4. Other actions involving signs and the county. a. March 22, 2000 Canoe Trial Markers submittal letter. "These markers will also delineate the dredged portion of the trail from Outer Clam Bay north to the pass. Marking this dredged channel is a commitment of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan which was authorized by the Corps and DEP (USACE permit #199602789), and these markers will fulfill that commitment. (117 of 138) b. March 24, 2000 Canoe Marker Permit. Paragraph 5. "All canoe markers authorized under this permit must be maintained in proper condition at all times. The Collier County must immediately report and correct any discrepancies of any marker to this office"....( We are in violation of Paragraph 5.) (120 of 138) c. NOAA Navigation chart#11430: County/city had designation "Clam Pass Rep non-navigable 1982" removed from recent edition. Even Wiggins pass on new chart has warning. (not included) d. NOAA Coast Pilot still reports the following on Clam Pass: Chart 11429, 11426, 11430 - (Chapter 4) (217) Clam Pass, about 5 miles N of Naples, is a shoal drainage canal to Outer Clam Bay. The pass is used only by outboards in. good weather. A fixed pedestrian bridge with a clearance of 7 feet vertically, and 12 feet horizontally crosses Outer Clam Bay. (not included) e. USACE Email stream beginning June 11, 2009 to June 26, 2009. (135 of 138) f. USGC Email from Joseph Embres dated September 27, 2010. (138 of 138) 1 Clam Pass Dredging Status Update 41( J h Mohamed Dabees, PhD. P.E. Humiston & Moore Engineers Clam Pass,April 1,2013 Outline Background • Clam Pass • Maintenance Dredging Cycle Inlet Closure • Deposition within the system • High energy wave events and Storms 2013 Maintenance Dredging • Ebb Shoal Collapse Onshore • Permitting and Design Template • Response to Storms Post Dredging • Post storm Emergency Dredging of Channel Entrance • Status Update Marc 1 Clam_.Pass • Pre 1999 dredging Conditions Mechanical Dredging of Clam Pass Clam Pass Closed Channel ____ 1 tit ate of Photo 3/1996 Date of Photo 4//1996 I Clam Pass Pre 1999 dredging Conditions 2013 c4: 2007 iNN Q' 2003 1 1999 1998 Aerial pec 1\d bJecJ7 J 2 Clain Pass Maintenance dredging 2013 igOrlir 2007 ;3—' -r'�- '` tea -0.."' 2003 2001 Aerial 1999 Sep.'01 Clam Pass Maintenance dredging 2013 2007 . 2006 Aerial 1 lk 2003 r 1 2006 5 = 1999 3 Clam Pass Maintenance dredging 2013 2007 Aerial 4 2007 - 2003 2007 = 1999 (k) j ) Clam Pass Maintenance_dredging 2013 2012 Aerial 1 2007 stit 410 — 2003 April2012 1999 4 Inlet Closure IN 2013 .� T 2012 Aerial 2007 2003 1999 Nov 29,2012 Naples Daily News • li: Q c., '\ & \9 Inlet Closure �� 2013 -^ :: VC A� \' :' _ . 1?‘' -. "-- - . * .4. (1 2013 Jan • 2007 ' - �\;1411101*-' 40r 2003 1999 999 Jan,2013 1 5 2013 Maintenance dredging __ . t i ' ri -}....., • .\ V t") , A Amor- , - _ - ..- , - 1,....% - . .. \--- ... -.. ..' Clam Pass 0 p e n i n 6 a (March 2013) r V , I 11 111 -...... 2‘'6 , t■, 3 A, .,, 3 4 3 , . . 0 3'' 4. , f° • - '''' - e ''''' •,-' .../....., .;''4 ' r ,r March 15, 2013 6 Clam Pass at Flood Tide D 16 March 2013 Q, k" ....42 T:1 Z Clam Pass at Ebb Tide JTHII...:„...., ».mow."', ) _________).._:.7.-ckti-r . 16 March 2013 ce tti' 0 7 Pexri fhbicL ih Tide Gauge Data M - Tide Gauge Data ti, < Registry t f �•�sr i O V 0.75 X A W as Li. ,azs ,.. 7111! __.. 0 i D g.cor•✓.""-'' T CO 0.5 Clam t -035 Pass • --*:;,. 8 X S k 8 y R 8 R T 8 a M 8 $R 2. Ai if Pale mu 1 Location of Tide Gauge Tide Gauge Data 1 Tide Gauge Data �'ti Rates —Po ry gundgtvvv r_LT Lss —Post Dredging 2013 &\\' 0 1 i a� � t i► 1 t- 0.; NW ..(1-3-:.. . o I D 1r J c It er \\11 \ . l:x, U Clam Pass .r t 8 8 8 8 8 $ a T a n g a C ' +. m Dm MS n Location of Tide Gauge 8 . . ,.(. r 11te ,,W March 26, 2013 Storm Effects t', - Ebb Shc I 4 fi w ' ^. ::10-3.0:1'. �'*.w U ..4 .. d� k March 29, 2013 I ° e ‘,1J` Data (Apr 2012-Mar 2013) ti ,, , i , , !!!!._ 4 . . . , . , „ . . . , , , . . , , . , , . . : : , , , . ,, ,, , , , , ., , , ,: ,4 s 111 .. .DNI: .O': WW2 .an. hei .plt SM12 0a17 1.12 [leen .11 F.13 41.1 Mu e li- �!0 (3Ct" r rY (e1ui ape - Ala' iii to ctokvo 9 j 6"11 PLA'4 1-6 e'°/2)1"`")(-- l'idt,16:72---5. 6 5(3 PalAV ActtlY 2013 Additional dredging • .4401.406b- April 1, 2013 -kr)6( 516s,e3 (47 h K'aa.( �y JC) /at r5 or Ebb Sli t r /gm 60,ey - 0 3 s �- ids ( ced- '—csect UK/Tit/1a - 1676 \\4\0 \ ) (l;\ ClOn °11LS/116 ivut vac-iNO(1rd ,5 ( ( 1-1 dal -17) 11f Mxae, f/k- �ne� oLv(Av we � � lryi m_s maokticuncke6Y-nS hark( Call Ply 16 26t3 tedprii; , 10.prm( mns r b 1,Q.e4 YVyIA1( s - R,QbPcnce so- -Z,niS Dpi ��a� ° �b:�hC�F G{t� � ( pmel�� Oa- U1 Cfertan !CCli4eS biT 4-01/ / ; CL-0104, 14c nnin5 Rarm tnJ f\ p Ethqi in a nnIi2S' ,,,: , (1 ,A(Litz 6-t- 111 C9-(Ce