The URL can be used to link to this page

CAC Agenda 04/11/2013 COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Agenda April 11 , 2013 COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2013 - 1;00 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS THIRD FLOOR, COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES •Sunshine Law on Agenda Questions .2013 CAC MEETING DATES I. Call to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Roll Call IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda V. Public Comments VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. March 10, 2011 VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report VIII. New Business 1. CO No. 3 to WO 45-141808 Peer Review ES * Atkins Proposal - Backup Material 2. BCC Workshop - Update 3. Doctor's Pass Dredging survey and Discussion * Humiston & Moore Proposal - Backup Material * Survey of Doctors Pass - Backup Material IX. Old Business X. Announcements XI. Committee Member Discussion XII. Next Meeting Date/Location May 9, 2013 - Government Center, 3rd Floor XIII. Adjournment All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board prior to the meeting if applicable. For more information, please contact Gail D. Hambright at (239) 252-2966. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252-8380. Public comments will be limited to 3 minutes unless the Chairman grants permission for additional time. Collier County Ordinance No. 99-22 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners) before the Board of County Commissioners and its advisory boards, register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO: Anthony P. Pires,Jr., Esq.,Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee Clam Bay Subcommittee FROM: Colleen M. Greene, Assistant County Attorne Cal(1- DATE: March 18,2010 RE: Sunshine Law and Agenda question The issue presented is whether the Sunshine Law requires that an agenda be made available prior to board meetings. In summary,the answer is no. The Sunshine Law Manual (2009 Ed. Vol. 31)provides the following: The Attorney General's Office recommends publication of an agenda, if available, in the notice of the meeting; if an agenda is not available, subject matter summations might be used. However, the courts have held that the Sunshine Law does not mandate that an agency provide notice of each item to be discussed via a published agenda. Such a specific requirement has been rejected because it could effectively preclude access to meetings by members of the general public who wish to bring specific issues before a governmental body. See Hough v. Stembridge, 278 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). And see Yarbrough v. Young, 462 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (posted agenda unnecessary; public body not required to postpone meeting due to inaccurate press report which was not part of the public body's official notice efforts). Thus, the Sunshine Law has been interpreted to require notice of meetings, not of the individual items which may be considered at that meeting. However, other statutes, codes or ordinances may impose such a requirement and agencies subject to those provisions must follow them. Accordingly, the Sunshine Law does not require boards to consider only those matters on a published agenda. "[W]hether to impose a requirement that restricts every relevant commission or board from considering matters not on an agenda is a policy decision to be made by the legislature." Law and Information Services, Inc. v. City of Riviera Beach, 670 So. 2d 1014, 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Today's Coastal Advisory Committee Clam Bay Subcommittee was properly noticed in compliance with the Sunshine Law on or about February 1, 2010. Further, the agenda for today's meeting was also publically noticed on the County's website on Monday, March 15, 2010. The related back-up materials for the agenda were supplemented and available on the County's website on Wednesday, March 17, 2010. In addition, a number of these materials also appeared on the agenda for the Coastal Advisory Committee meeting on Thursday, March 11, 2010. In my opinion, there is no violation of the Sunshine Law and no legal issue regarding the date the agenda was published. cc: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Collier County Public Services Division Coastal Zone Management TO: CAC Board Members FROM: Gail Hambright, Accountant DATE: December 1, 2012 SUBJECT: 2013 CAC Scheduled Meetings Please mark your calendar for the following 2013 CAC scheduled meeting dates: January 10, 2013 February 14,2013 March 14, 2013 April 11, 2013 May 9, 2013 June 13, 2013 July 11, 2013 August 8, 2013 September 12, 2013 October 10, 2013 November 14,2013 December 12, 2013 All meetings will be held in the Board of County Commissioner's chambers,third floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, unless otherwise noted. A public notice will be sent out before each meeting. Callter County Coastal Zone Management t 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suiie 103•Naples,Ronda 4112 5746.239.252.2966•FAX 239.252°2950 wWW.coItiergov.netfcoastatzonenanagentent CAC April 11,2013 VI-1 Approval of Minutes 1 of 5 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 14, 2013 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Jim Burke Anthony Pires (Excused) Debbie Roddy Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios Larry Hong (Vacancy) ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples CAC April 11,2013 VI-1 Approval of Minutes 2 of 5 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view online. I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:02PM II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Debbie Roddy was welcomed as a new member of the Coastal Advisory Committee. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 7— 0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. February 14,2013 Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes of the February 14, 2013 meeting as presented. Second by Mr. Raymond Carried unanimously 7—0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report—Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Collier County Tourist Tax Revenue FY 12 TDC Revenue Report" dated through January 31, 2013. VIII. New Business 1. Beach Maintenance Activities - Eastman Aggregate * Attachment A * Attachment B Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve award of Invitation To Bid(ITB)No. 12-5936R Beach Maintenance Activities to Eastman Aggregate Enterprises, LLC for an as-needed contract for emergency beach maintenance services and make a finding that this activity promotes Tourism"dated March 14, 2013 for consideration. He reported: • The majority of the related activities will be beach tilling per Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit conditions, beach grading when necessary, clean-up of large scale fish kills and removal of equipment in emergency situations. • All work will be performed and monitored by County personnel. CAC April 11,2013 VI-1 Approval of Minutes 3 of 5 Mr. Raymond moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve award of Invitation To Bid(ITB)No. 12-5936R Beach Maintenance Activities to Eastman Aggregate Enterprises,LLC for an as-needed contract for emergency beach maintenance services and hereby finds this activity promotes Tourism. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8—0. 2. Marco Beach Laser Grading-Eastman Aggregate * Attachment A Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve a time and material estimated amount of$85,700 for Marco Island Laser Grading and Beach Tilling with Eastman Aggregate Enterprises, LLC as per Contract 12- 5936R and make a finding that this item promotes tourism" dated February 14, 2013 for consideration. He reported: • The scope of work encompasses the area from R-136 (Sand Dollar Island) to R-143 (South of the Marriott). • The area is currently subject to periodic ponding and the work is necessary to provide for "positive drainage" utilizing the existing topography without adding sand to the area. • A 10 year permit has been obtained with a"Notice to Proceed" required when the work is undertaken. • The work is anticipated to commence on April 1, 2013 and completed by May 1, 2013. • If turtle nesting areas are encountered during the work, they will be cordoned off to prevent disturbances. Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve a time and material estimated amount of$85,700 for Marco Island Laser Grading and Beach Tilling with Eastman Aggregate Enterprises, LLC as per Contract 12- 5936R and make a finding that this and hereby finds the item promotes tourism. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8—0. IX. Old Business Gary McAlpin provided the following updates: 1. Update WP Dredging • The scope of work necessary to realign the Pass has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners(BCC). • The Notice to Proceed has been issued and the contractor has begun work. • Inclement weather has delayed the dredging portion of the project and it is now anticipated to commence on May 18. • If necessary, the County may Petition FDEP for an extension of time to complete the project. CAC April 11,2013 VI-1 Approval of Minutes 4 of 5 2. Update Marco South Renourishment The scope of work was approved by the BCC and the dredging is expected to commence on March 18, 2013. 3. Update Marco South Erosion Control Structures The scope of work was approved by the BCC and will commence following the beach renourishment. 4. Update Peer Review • The BCC will be holding a workshop on April 2, 2013 to discuss the Peer review completed for the proposed beach renourishment design standards for the Collier County beaches. 5. Update Doctors Pass Dredging • The survey work necessary to determine the impacts of recent tropical storm events on the Pass is expected to be completed by March 18, 2013. • The consultant anticipates a report including any recommendations for remediation will be available by April 5, 2013. • In conjunction with any work, Staff may be seeking a permit amendment to include an additional disposal area(current disposal area permitted is Lowdermilk Park) south of the Pass. The Committee requested Staff to provide them with the sand quantities for the last 3-4 dredge events for information purposes. 6. Update FY 13/14 Beach Renourishment Program • The County anticipates releasing the bid package to the public on April 8, 2013. • Staff is still investigating the feasibility of partnering with other jurisdiction who may be undertaking similar work in order to reduce mobilization costs. • Responses to the Request for Additional Information have been submitted to FDEP. • The work necessary to garner the required Biological Opinions is underway. • The Pelican Bay Foundation is in the process of determining any renourishment that may be required on their beach; the work may be completed at the time of the renourishment of Collier County beaches. • Barefoot Beach is not included in the County's proposed renourishment design plan, however the sand from the current and future Wiggins Pass projects will be utilized to renourish the area. 7. Update FEMA Approval Tropical Storm Fay PW 1146 The Project Worksheet(PW) deadline was extended by FEMA to December 31, 2014. The Committee reported it is critical for all interested parties to understand that the work has been "authorized,"however the funds have not been "appropriated." X. Announcements CAC April 11,2013 VI-1 Approval of Minutes 5 of 5 None XI. Committee Member Discussion Mr. McAlpin reported Linda Penniman resigned from the Committee in order to seek election to the Naples City Council. XII. Next Meeting Date/Location April 11,2013—Government Center,Administration Bldg. F,3rd Floor There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 2:31 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee John Sorey, III,Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on_ as presented or as amended CAC April 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 1 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX REVENUE FY 13 TDC Revenue Report 31-Mar-2013 Budget Comparison 5 Yr Collect 5 Yr Collect Budgeted Actual Budget to Actual Forecast Month History-Cum History-Monthly Collections Collections $Variance Collections Oct 3.5% 3.5% 498,837 627,861 129,024 517,439: Nov 8.1% 4.7% 667,994 734,419 66,425 '' 692,904 Dec 14.0% 5.9% 847,404 959,221 111,817 879,003 Jan 22.3% 8.3% 1,189,853 1,276,477 86,624 1,234,222 Feb 35.1% 12.8% 1,840,940 2,057,493 216,553 1,909,588 Mar 50.8% 15.7% 2,246,668 2,396,642 149,974 2,330446 Apr 69.1% 18.3% 2,624,759 0 n/a 2,722,636 May 79.2% 10.2% 1,457,116 0 n/a` 1,511451 June 85.4% 6.1% 882,042 0 n/a 914,934 July 90.3% 4.9% 708,949 0 n/a 735,386 Aug 95.6% 5.2% 752,626 0 n/a 780,691 Sept 100.0% 4.4% 638,012 0 n/a 661,803 Total 100.0% 100.0% 14,355,200 8,052,113 760,417 14,890,500 103.73% Tourist Tax Revenue Collection Curve N $3.0 o , g $2.5 € $2.0 [ ....,. c 0 5 V, $1. °'_°� °_' � _ ,..._.,...__....__ -Budgeted u° --Actual $1.0 =. $0.5 , /111#"/ $0.0 c t > o u c .o Q > v > m v O Z o g ,.i g g 2 Q in 4/2/201312:18 PM H:\Revenue Report\Monthly Gas,Sales,and TDC Receipts CAC April 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 2 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX REVENUE FY 13 TDC Revenue Report 31-Mar-2013 Budget FY 13 Adopted FY 13(5%) FY 13 Net Variance to FY 13 Description Fund _ Budget Reserved by Law Budget FY 13 Forecast Budget Beach Facilities 183 2,368,600 (121,600) 2,247,000 2,456,900 88,300 TDC Promotion 184 3,588,800 (180,800) 3,408,000 3,722,600 133,800 Non-County Muse 193 342,000 (17,100) 324,900 354,800 12,800 TDCAdmin 194 1,667,700 (83,400) 1,584,300 1,729,900 62,200 Beach Renourishr 195 4,809,000 (297,900) 4,511,100 4,988,300 179,300 Promotion Disaste 196 0 - 0 0 0 County Museums 198 1,579,100 (79,100) 1,500,000 1,638,000 58,900 Gross Budget $14,355,200 (779,900) $13,575,300 $14,890,500 $535,300 Less 5%Rev Res (779,900) Net Budget 13,575,300 Collections Buge t Collected to %over FY 12 %over FY 11 %over FY 10 Month Actual FY 13 Cum YTD Date collections collections collections Oct 627,861 627,861 4.374% 19.52% 31.12% 41.11% Nov 734,419 1,362,280 9.490% 6.18% 17.48% 34.27% Dec 959,221 2,321,501 16.172% 3.73% 27.88% 28.74% Jan 1,276,477 3,597,978 25.064% 5.62% 26.42% 20.69% Feb 2,057,493 5,655,471 39.397% 7.89% 28.49% 22.57% Mar 2,396,642 8,052,113 56.092% 3.05% 18.29% 17.89% Apr 0 8,052,113 56.092% n/a n/a n/a May 0 8,052,113 56.092% n/a n/a n/a June 0 8,052,113 56.092% n/a n/a n/a July 0 8,052,113 56.092% n/a n/a n/a Aug 0 8,052,113 56.092% n/a n/a n/a Sept 0 8,052,113 56.092% n/a n/a n/a Total 8,052,113 8,052,113 6.19% 24.05% 23.76% W' 3.72843% Bal to Collect 6,838,387 4/2/201312:17 PM H:\Revenue Report\Monthly Gas,Sales,and TDC Receipts CAC April 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 3of19 BED320RD 04/01/2013 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX - YTD REPORT BY CITY PAGE 1 ** NAPLES ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 154953 197464 260272 344886 428547 618948 2005070 ** MARCO ISLAND ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 192829 165543 196934 244332 440902 525686 1766226 ** IMMOKALEE ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 457 749 804 654 882 843 4389 ** EVERGLADES CITY ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 6921. 5847 8340 9878 14311 15331 60628 ** COLLIER COUNTY ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 272701 364816 492871 676727 1172851 1235834 4215800 ** OTHER ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS ** TOTALS ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 627861 734419 959221 1276477 2057493 2396642 8052113 CAC Apn 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 40119 BED330RD 04/01/2013 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX - YTD REPORT BY ACCOUNT TYPE PAGE 1 ** APARTMENT ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 1205 8819 1368 7009 5810 6385 27596 ** CONDOMINIUM ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 37104 -19674 34328 95965 129378 227218 543667 ** CAMPGROUND/RV/PARK ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 2371 2872 5966 13536 22963 24115 71823 ** HOTEL/MOTEL ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 495304 623240 817839 841115 1297086 1528434 5603018 ** INTERVAL ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 7420 9011 8739 1.0799 18677 30204 84850 ** MOBILE HOME PARK ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 126 28]. 1558 1306 1815 3131 8217 ** SINGLE FAMILY ** -. OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 38494 20440 19791 65428 37917 59955 242025 ** REALTOR ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 45837 53082 69632 241319 543847 517200 1470917 ** OTHER ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS ** TOTALS ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 627861 734419 959221 1276477 2057493 2396642 8052113 CAC April 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report of 10 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX NAPLES FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCN APRIL MAY JUNF JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $76,843 $149,990 $236,963 $316,250 $512,938 $580,227 $570,569 $334,191 $217,611 $152,642 $175,256 $127,802 $3,451,282 2036/2007 $111,854 $151,746 $217,262 $291,277 $532,706 $589,595 $640,395 $340,926 $205,947 $156,476 $174,238 $145,286 $3,557,708 2007/2008 $122,094 $174,235 $231,470 $306,731 $564,747 $617,010 $664,907 $330,698 $233,938 $145,532 $172,641 $150,743 $3,714,746 2008/2009 $105,937 $154,246 $209,703 $298,657 $500,986 $528,321 $471,924 $327,310 $179,344 $133,913 $159,039 $120,786 $3,190,166 2009/2010 $102,425 $147,706 $202,271 $304,284 $473,406 $536,310 $578,659 $314,492 $192,256 $129,009 $150,982 $123,268 $3,255,068 2010/2011 $107,247 $144,923 $207,947 $296,553 $469,260 $537,127 $620,402 $342,016 $210,346 $150,143 $191,212 $144,535 $3,421,711 2011/2012 $124,889 $171,672 $257,204 $310,088 $463,661 $581,690 $696,118 $359,807 $239,314 $156,429 $192,882 $178,108 $3,681,862 2012/2013 $154,953 $197,464 $260,272 $344,886 $428,547 $618,948 $2,005,070 TOTAL: $906,242 $1,291,982 $1,823,092 $2,468,726 $3,946,251 $4,589,228 $4,192,974 $2,349,440 $1,478,756 $1,024,144 $1,216,250 $990,528 $26,277,613 CAC April 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 6 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX MARCO ISLAND FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCN APRIL MAY JUNE L1.Y AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $71,763 $112,414 $147,512 $199,030 $344,074 $525,468 $576,530 $374,000 $261,791 $218,203 $208,955 $150,041 $3,189,781 2006/2007 $73,397 $88,576 $141,951 $189,026 $335,898 $517,149 $595,449 $379,673 $225,816 $216,858 $194,291 $183,007 $3,141,091 2007/2008 $165,745 $166,397 $93,819 $321,400 $408,079 $503,575 $666,564 $507,602 $140,088 $322,017 $245,721 $151,743 $3,692,750 2008/2009 $99,516 $168,129 $185,986 $280,663 $372,230 $457,015 5473,292 $324,558 $204,748 $183,654 $186,855 $210,702 $3,147,348 2009/2010 $124,837 $158,522 $168,816 $229,316 $364,347 $466,758 5550,969 $361,520 $197,005 $167,786 $223,954 $215,814 $3,229,644 2010/2011 $149,854 $169,786 $175,540 $198,803 $307,625 $416,029 $571,019 $363,648 $210,320 $192,412 $210,599 $230,248 $3,195,883 20/11/2012 $142,329 $171,194 $201,691 $244,744 $391,683 $485,677 $628,522 $372,070 $226,574 $231,338 $221,306 $186,893 $3,504,021 2012/2013 $192,829 $165,543 $196,934 $244,332 $440,902 $525,686 $1,766,226 TOTAL: $1,020,270 $1,200,561 $1,312,249 $1,907,314 $2,964,838 $3,897,357 $4,062,345 $2,683,071 $1,466,342 $1,532,268 $1,491,681 $1,328,448 $24,866,744 CAC April 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 7 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX IMMOKALEE FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL Wl JUNE 1y AVOUBT $EPTE MISER NEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $842 $1,151 $1,306 $1,450 $1,683 $1,837 $2,050 $1,786 51,900 $1,774 $1,602 $1,372 $18,753 2006/2007 $1,306 $1,258 $1,837 $1,447 $2,307 $1,932 $1,982 $1,691 $1,466 $504 $786 $1,159 $17,675 2007/2008 $731 $746 $776 $966 $749 $828 $2,806 $1,501 $887 $650 $488 $530 $11,658 2008/2009 $410 $553 $686 $687 $808 $1,137 $952 $944 $618 $723 $671 $468 $8,657 2009/2010 $676 $624 $558 $754 $633 $912 $580 $596 $541 $965 $670 $663 $8,172 2010/2011 $625 $470 $639 $649 $649 $768 $928 $937 $440 $990 $517 $667 $8,279 2011/2012 5528 $489 $863 $1,067 $681 $740 $983 $879 $807 $709 $635 $614 $8,995 2012/2013 $457 $749 $804 $654 $882 $843 $4,389 TOTAL: $5,575 $6,040 $7,469 $7,674 $8,392 $8,997 $10,281 $8,334 $6,659 $6,315 $5,369 $5,473 $86,578 CAC April 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 8 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX EVERGLADES CITY FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER FANVARY FEBRUARY MARCH ene, my 1UNE 11113 AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $2,246 $3,922 $4,783 $6,921 $9,386 $15,217 $14,334 $13,423 $7,670 $3,754 $4,162 $3,331 $89,149 2006/2007 $4,678 $5,602 $5,705 $9,961 $12,884 $14,766 $16,860 $14,152 $8,653 $3,929 $4,101 $3,677 $104,968 2007/2008 $4,018 $5,424 $6,879 $9,724 $11,917 $16,032 $15,800 $11,327 $11,881 $4,136 $4,136 $3,481 $104,755 2008/2009 $3,443 $4,975 $7,186 $8,987 $11,486 $15,137 $15,206 $10,315 $5,932 $3,302 $3,729 $3,447 $93,145 2009/2010 $3,783 $4,473 $5,706 $8,704 $12,423 $15,656 $18,852 $10,467 $6,149 $3,705 $4,019 $3,055 $96,992 2010/2011 $3,270 $5,011 $6,326 $7,626 $10,020 $13,210 $17,210 $10,847 $6,870 $4,054 $5,237 $5,113 $94,794 2011/2012 $4,057 $5,607 $7,144 $9,161 $12,338 $17,648 $18,666 $9,921 $6,879 $4,220 $4,310 $2,760 $102,711 2012/2013 $6,921 $5,847 $8,340 $9,878 $14,311 $15,331 $60,628 TOTAL: $25,495 $35,014 $43,729 $61,084 $80,454 $107,666 $116,928 $80,452 $54,034 $27,100 $29,694 $24,864 $686,514 CAC April 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 9 of 19 COWER COUNTY TOURIST TAX COLLIER COUNTY FJSCALYFAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY �E $Q3 AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $86,479 $255,807 $446,229 $534,560 $867,498 $1,119,215 $1,277,646 $777,494 $465,272 $357,870 $335,272 $262,452 $6,785,794 2006/2007 $245,217 $358,486 $492,296 $564,991 $952,204 $1,215,359 $1,354,022 $765,087 $465,420 $368,234 $336,767 $289,157 $7,407,240 2007/2008 $233,050 $342,484 $467,648 $602,044 $937,713 $1,172,727 $1,363,500 $726,065 $479,408 $332,957 $334,056 $280,120 $7,271,772 2008/2009 $190,563 $291,340 $395,097 $538,743 $749,012 $973,781 $1,060,618 $566,718 $358,045 $258,429 $289,170 $234,304 $5,905,820 2009/2010 $213,228 $235,663 $367,743 $514,622 $827,789 $1,013,235 $1,256,966 $636,092 $393,674 $282,867 $289743 $235,133 $6,266,755 2010/2011 $217,861 $304,930 $359,617 $506,087 $813,768 $1,058,980 $1,357,406 $639,303 $422,707 $332,170 $323,179 $259,566 $6,595,574 2011/2012 $253,531 $342,743 $457,827 $643,501 $1,038,706 $1,239,892 $1,493,363 $694,955 $460,970 $337,636 $359,119 $278,418 $7,600,661 2012/2013 $272,701 $364,816 $492,871 $676,727 $1,172,851 $1,235,834 $4,215,800 TOTAL: $1,439,929 $2,131,453 $2,986,457 $3,904,548 $6,186,690 $7,793,189 $9,163,521 $4,805,714 $3,045,496 $2,270,163 $2,267,306 $1,839,150 $47,833,616 CAC April 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 10 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX TOTALS NAPLES,MARCO ISLAND,IMMOKALEE,EVERGLADES CITY,COLLIER COUNTY MEOW QC108ER NOVEMBER DECEMBER MUM FEBRUARY MAoce BEM NM JUNE NY AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $238,173 $523,284 $836,793 $1,058,211 $1,735,579 $2,241,964 $2,441,129 $1,500,894 $954,244 $734,243 $725,247 $544,998 $13,534,759 2006/2007 $436,452 $605,668 $859,051 $1,056,702 $1,835,999 $2,338,601 $2,608,708 $1,501,529 $907,302 $746,001 $710,183 $622,286 $14,228,682 2007/2008 $525,638 $689,286 $800,592 $1,240,865 $1,923,205 $2,310,172 $2,713,577 $1,577,193 $866,202 $805,292 $757,042 $586,617 $14,795,681 2008/2009 5399,869 $619,243 $798,658 $1,127,737 $1,634,522 $1,975,391 $2,021,992 $1,229,845 $748,687 $580,021 $639,464 $569,707 $12,345,136 2009/2010 $444,949 $546,988 $745,094 $1,057,680 $1,678,598 $2,032,871 $2,406,026 $1,323,167 $789,625 $584,332 $669,368 $577,933 $12,856,631 2010/2011 $478,857 $625,120 $750,069 $1,009,718 $1,601,322 $2,026,114 $2,566,965 $1,356,751 $850,683 $679,769 $730,744 $640,129 $13,316,241 2011/2012 $525,334 $691,705 $924,729 $1,208,561 $1,907,069 $2,325,647 $2,787,652 $1,437,632 $934,544 $730,332 $778,252 $646,793 $14,898,250 2012/2013 $627,861 $734,419 $959,221 51,276,477 $2,057,493 $2,396,642 $8,052,113 TOTAL: $3,049,272 $4,301,294 $5,714,986 $7,759,474 $12,316,294 $15,250,960 $17,546,049 $9,927,011 $6,051,287 $4,859,990 $5,010,300 $4,188,463 $95,975,380 CAC April 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 11 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX APARTMENT FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY fEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAI JUNE 99900 AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 51,466 $198 $874 $1,987 $3,447 $6,076 $10,463 $1,504 $4,446 $1,740 $179 $29 $32,409 2006/2007 $2,403 $320 $1,387 $2,519 $3,479 $4,476 $7,976 51,601 $624 $692 $1,447 $284 $27,208 2007/2008 $296 $2,797 $964 $2,770 $6,901 $4,396 $5,539 $2,817 $587 $1,045 $176 $158 $28,446 2008/2009 $675 $111 $1,162 $1,700 $3,571 $4,192 $7,489 $1,210 $710 $349 $63 $41 $21,273 2009/2010 $367 $165 $947 $2,776 $3,910 $4,729 $6,041 $2,607 $1,350 $799 $133 $150 $23,974 2010/2011 $1,113 $260 $1,018 $2,495 $4,802 $5,119 $4,555 $3,300 $2,706 $879 $140 $133 $26,520 2011/2012 0896 $435 $1,497 $863 $5,735 $6,040 $10,405 $4,081 $1,847 $1,221 $166 $64 $33,250 2012/2013 $1,205 $5,819 $1,368 $7,009 $5,810 $6,385 $27,596 TOTAL: $7,216 $4,286 $7,849 $15,110 $31,845 $35,028 $52,468 $17,120 $12,270 $6,725 $2,304 $859 $193,080 CAC April 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 12 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX CONDOMINIUM FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $18,115 $9,286 $24,892 $46,267 $62,578 $172,726 $290,466 $55,985 $24,142 $17,905 $14,052 $10,670 $747,084 2006/2007 $17,081 $12,475 $21,751 $61,089 $79,540 $188,992 $323,240 $57,775 $23,138 $20,648 $14,595 $19,893 $840,217 2007/2008 $26,279 $14,948 $26,623 $60,871 $114,344 $203,054 $362,939 $60,403 $34,262 $19,440 $17,944 $15,076 $956,183 2008/2009 $18,344 $13,399 $23,789 $52,809 $91,805 $192,617 $347,817 $58,346 $23,642 $19,728 $12,954 $10,983 $866,233 2009/2010 $19,477 $14,463 $32,182 $63,689 $67,669 $240,487 $412,028 $65,444 $26,234 $23,042 $50,203 $55,623 $1,070,541 2010/2011 $84,551 $18,112 $30,208 $63,785 $91,669 $231,388 $462,079 $56,684 $32,886 $37,981 $18,278 $15,431 $1,143,052 2011/2012 $39,952 $21,515 $35,761 $82,154 $118,188 $264,235 $531,116 $59,412 $47,525 $37,085 $14,978 $13,141 $1,265,062 2012/2013 $37,104 $19,674 $34,328 $95,965 $129,378 $227,218 $543,667 TOTAL: $223,799 $104,198 $195,206 $430,664 $625,793 $1,493,499 $2,729,685 $414,049 $211,829 $175,829 $143,004 $140,817 $6,888,372 CAC April 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 13 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX CAMPGROUND-RV-PARK FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCN APRIL 63 Los my AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $2,009 $2,462 $6,622 $17,116 $21,543 $30,174 $33,024 $11,607 $5,331 $3,474 $3,313 $3,135 $139,810 2006/2007 $3,579 $4,746 $11,676 $11,640 $20,946 $27,551 $38,732 $9,843 $5,634 $2,542 $2,679 $2,917 $142,485 2007/2008 $2,813 $3,141 $5,568 $14,015 $22,010 $27,176 $32,516 $13,625 $3,740 $3,059 $2,716 $2,530 $132,909 2008/2009 $2,648 $3,212 $4,849 $13,465 $39,031 $26,499 $40,324 $8,261 $3,491 $2,910 $1,959 $1,859 $148,508 2009/2010 $2,494 $2,999 $5,825 $13,772 $21,117 $30,227 $41,973 $7,260 $3,551 51,501 $3,616 $1,954 $136,289 2010/2011 $1,903 $3,102 $5,296 $14,095 $18,919 $25,457 $42,028 $7,013 $3,961 $1,735 $3,441 $2,802 $129,752 2011/2012 $1,892 $3,546 $5,271 $11,540 $28,012 $27,270 $22,208 $7,704 $19,524 $2,046 $3,239 $2,103 $134,355 2012/2013 $2,371 $2,872 $5,966 $13,536 $22,963 $24,115 $71,823 TOTAL: $17,338 $23,208 $45,107 $95,643 $171,578 $194,354 $250,805 $65,313 $45,232 $17,267 $20,963 $17,300 $964,108 CAC April 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 14 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX HOTEL-MOTEL FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MA! an Lom AUGUST SEPTEMBER NEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $284,057 $467,480 $720,774 $761,245 $1,112,751 $1,512,646 $1,716,480 $1,253,822 $855,707 $647,441 $626,697 $488,099 $10,447,199 2006/2007 $371,144 $531,060 $735,510 $744,056 $1,163,479 $1,582,476 $1,772,635 $1,282,854 $829,704 $641,921 $614,936 $533,317 $10,803,092 2007/2008 $450,926 5600,629 $663,134 $899,608 $1,210,928 $1,557,503 $1,811,406 $1,370,272 $738,197 $715,412 $647,247 $503,218 $11,168,480 2008/2009 $326,143 $547,238 $683,525 $804,914 $926,626 $1,244,914 $1,240,850 $1,012,168 $653,733 $484,556 $539,652 $482,466 $8,946,785 2009/2010 $367,978 $469,435 $611,459 $712,102 $1,010,110 $1,243,041 $1,434,996 $1,081,251 $698,121 $477,576 $532,222 $454,761 $9,093,052 2010/2011 $333,456 $555,623 $619,659 $684,174 $953,504 $1,315,029 $1,587,010 $1,132,637 $737,285 $567,319 $611,275 $569,446 $9,666,417 2011/2012 $410,547 $599,695 $765,114 $796,797 $1,113,647 $1,478,881 $1,662,425 $1,202,831 $787,911 $585,887 $662,575 $552,740 $10,619,050 2012/2013 $495,304 $623,240 $817,839 $841,115 $1,297,086 $1,528,434 $5,603,018 TOTAL: $2,544,251 $3,771,160 $4,799,175 $5,402,896 $7,491,045 $9,934,490 $11,225,802 $8,335,835 $5,300,658 $4,120,112 $4,234,604 $3,584,047 $70,744,075 CAC Apnl 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 15 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX INTERVAL fISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MM63 &AI JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $865 $2,254 $3,617 $4,037 $7,099 $8,669 $15,490 $9,765 $8,182 $4,710 $7,116 $5,100 $76,904 2006/2007 $2,028 $3,691 $9,886 $10,092 $19,130 $24,221 $26,340 $17,397 $9,043 36.290 $12,221 $6,099 $146,438 2007/2008 56,597 $7,295 $10,353 $10,716 $20,438 $19,074 $20,960 $13,613 $7,614 $7,215 $7,767 $6,333 $137,975 2008/2009 $4,897 $5,623 $7,807 $10,438 $14,909 $13,650 $20,868 $21,687 $10,080 $11,449 $13,356 $13,307 $148,071 2009/2010 $10,156 $9,509 $13,274 $20,198 $17,462 $28,801 $34,980 $31,383 $12,115 $19,999 $15,197 $9,839 $222,913 2010/2011 $7,444 $5,816 $13,426 $18,029 $17,347 $22,275 $27,152 $28,303 $16,540 $6,406 $14,542 $9,450 $186,730 2011/2012 $4,990 $7,843 $11,914 $14,375 $18,080 $18,075 $22,054 $23,386 $10,833 $11,349 $16,720 $6,776 $166,395 2012/2013 $7,420 $9,011 $8,739 $10,799 $18,677 $30,204 $84,850 TOTAL: $36,977 $42,031 $70,277 $87,885 $114,465 $134,765 $167,844 $145,534 $74,407 $67,418 $86,919 $56,904 $1,085,426 CAC April 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 16 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX MOBILE HOME PARK fISCALYEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY ]UNE Ly,ty AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLYTOTALS 2005/2006 $26 $312 $554 $517 $129 $779 $2,399 $45 $51 $89 $14 $2 $4,917 2006/2007 $3,093 $482 $203 $620 $1,110 $2,831 $2,017 $700 $828 $133 $160 $170 $12,347 2007/2008 $172 $288 $768 $1,444 $3,492 $1,941 $4,349 $557 $218 $461 $348 $450 $14,488 2008/2009 $43 $162 $1,057 $1,229 $1,982 $3,139 $4,012 $1,175 $702 $228 $249 $194 $14,172 2009/2010 $438 $746 $974 $1,688 $2,479 $1,940 $5,061 $2,170 $911 $516 $292 $464 $17,679 2010/2011 $352 $705 $1,477 $2,940 $3,895 $4,309 $5,743 $1,692 $879 $312 $266 $257 $22,827 2011/2012 $228 $517 $543 $1,455 $1,392 $3,710 $4,826 $1,441 $466 $126 $156 $157 $15,017 2012/2013 $126 $281 $1,558 $1,306 $1,815 $3,131 $8,217 TOTAL: $4,352 $3,212 $5,576 $9,893 $14,479 $18,649 $28,407 $7,780 $4,055 $1,865 $1,485 $1,694 $101,447 CAC Apnl 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 17 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX SINGLE FAMILY FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MM1I$ APRIL MAY &NE 1V4L' AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $9,710 $3,439 $4,409 $18,100 $17,773 $24,067 $52,042 $15,400 $5,945 $9,955 $6,729 $3,319 $170,888 2006/2007 $13,559 $4,549 $6,049 $20,838 $14,666 $23,955 $67,207 $13,573 $6,254 $16,936 $7,301 $8,453 $203,340 2007/2008 $17,673 $7,136 $12,482 $27,895 $15,617 $22,793 $82,815 $18,577 $11,121 519,502 $8,797 $10,929 $255,337 2008/2009 $17,263 $11,147 $10,098 $33,205 $16,416 $33,371 $97,716 $19,903 $11,470 $23,375 $12,173 $9,587 $295,724 2009/2010 $24,226 $7,933 $12,349 $33,206 516,749 $41,749 $113,111 $20,584 $9,537 $23,926 $12,516 $17,674 $333,560 2010/2011 $31,981 $9,989 $12,618 $39,011 $20,626 $40,342 $126,367 $27,892 $12,448 $28,622 $20,527 $9,345 $379,768 2011/2011 $45,000 $11,899 $21,462 $49,877 $28,960 $51,324 $151,981 $26,449 $21,948 538,055 $14,146 $33,708 $494,809 2012/2013 $38,494 $20,440 $19,791 $65,428 $37,917 $59,955 $242,025 TOTAL: $159,412 $56,092 $79,467 $222,132 $130,807 $237,601 $691,239 $142,378 $78,723 $160,371 $82,189 $93,015 $2,133,426 CAC Apnl 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 18 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX REALTOR FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER N!A UARY FEBRUARY MRRCH APRIL MAY JUNE 1_ILV AUGUST SEVfEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $21,925 $37,853 $75,051 $208,942 $510,259 $486,827 $320,765 $152,766 $50,440 $48,929 $67,147 $34,644 $2,015,548 2036/2007 $23,565 $48,345 $72,589 $205,848 $533,649 $484,299 $370,561 $117,786 $32,077 $56,839 $56,844 $51,153 $2,053,555 2007/2008 $20,882 $53,052 $80,700 $223,546 $529,475 $474,235 $393,053 $97,329 $70,463 $39,158 $72,047 $47,923 $2,101,863 2008/2009 $29,856 $38,351 $66,371 $209,977 $540,182 $457,009 $262,916 $107,095 $44,859 $37,426 $59,058 $51,270 $1,904,370 2009/2010 $19,813 $41,738 $68,084 $210,249 $539,102 $441,771 $357,570 $112,468 $37,806 $36,973 $55,189 $37,468 $1,958,231 2010/2011 $18,057 $31,513 $66,367 $185,189 $490,560 $382,195 $312,031 $99,230 $43,978 $36,515 $62,275 $33,265 $1,761,175 2011/2012 $21,829 $46,255 $83,167 $251,500 $593,055 $476,112 $382,637 $112,328 $44,490 $54,563 $66,272 $38,104 $2,170,312 2012/2013 $45,837 $53,082 $69,632 $241,319 $543,847 $517,200 $1,470,917 TOTAL: $155,927 $297,107 $512,329 $1,495,251 $3,736,282 $3,202,448 $2,399,533 $799,002 $324,113 $310,403 $438,832 $293,827 $13,965,054 CAC April 11,2013 VII-1 Revenue Report 19 of 19 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX TOTALS APARTMENTS,CONDOMINIUM,CAMPGROUD/RV/PARK,HOTEL/MOTEL,INTERVAL.MOBILE HOME PARK.SINGLE FAILY,REALTOR FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY DINE lLaY AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $38,173 $523,284 $836,793 $1,058,211 $1,735,579 $2,241,964 $2,441,129 $1,500,894 $954,244 $734,243 $725,247 $544,998 $13,334,759 2006/2007 $436,452 $605,668 $859,051 $1,056,702 $1,835,999 $2,338,801 $2,608,708 $1,501,529 $907,302 $746,001 $710,183 $622,286 $14,228,682 2007/2008 $525,638 $689,286 $800,592 $1,240,865 $1,923,205 $2,310,172 $2,713,577 $1,577,193 $866,202 $805,292 $757,042 $586,617 $14,795,681 2008/2009 $399,869 $619,243 $798,658 $1,127,737 $1,634,522 $1,975,391 $2,021,992 $1,229,845 $748,687 $580,021 $639,464 $569,707 $12,345,136 2009/2010 $444,949 $546,988 $745,094 $1,057,680 $1,678,598 $2,032,871 $2,406,026 $1,323,167 $789,625 $584,332 $669,368 $577,933 $12,856,631 2010/2011 $478,857 $625,120 $750,069 $1,009,718 $1,601,322 $2,026,114 $2,566,965 $1,356,751 $850,683 $679,769 $730,744 $640,129 $13,316,241 2011/2012 $525,334 $691,705 $924,729 $1,208,561 $1,907,069 $2,325,647 $2,787,652 $1,437,632 $934,544 $730,332 $778,252 $646,793 $14,898,250 2012/2013 $627,861 $734,419 $959,221 $1,276,477 $2,057,493 $2,386,642 $8,042,113 TOTAL $2,849,272 $4,301,294 $5,714,986 $7,759,474 $12,316,294 $15,250,960 $17,546,049 $9,927,011 $6,051,287 $4,859,990 $5,010,300 $4,188,463 $95,775,380 CAC April 11,2013 VIII-1 New Business 1 of 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve Change Order No. 3 to WO 45-141808 and authorize the expenditure of Tourist Development Category "A" tax funds for a Peer Review of the Collier County Beaches volume design by Atkins North American, Inc. under Contract No. 09-5262-CZ for a lump sum amount of$12,472. OBJECTIVE: To move forward with the Peer Review for the renourishment volumes of the Collier County Beaches. CONSIDERATIONS,: The intention of this Peer Review is to provide design methodology and proposed renourishment volume review of the upcoming beach nourishment project by Atkins North American, Inc. for a lump sum price of $33,365. Atkins will review design drawings, monitoring reports, calculations, modeling results and construction standards in this analysis. The original Work Order was approved by the Board of County Commissioners for a lump sum amount of$33,365 on December 11, 2012. This change order's intention is to extend the scope of the peer review of the beach nourishment design methodology prepared for the County by Coastal Planning and Engineering. Work for this assignment will be performed for the lump sum amount of$12,472. Work will be billed to the county on a monthly basis based on the percentage of work completed for the preceding month. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this project will be from Tourist Development Tax Category "A" funding within Tourist Development Council (TDC) Beach Renourishment Fund 195. Funding is available in Project 80096. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:Ther e is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: RECOMMENDATION: To approve Change Order No. 3 to WO 45-141808 and authorize the expenditure of Tourist Development Category "A" tax funds for a Peer Review of the Collier County Beaches volume design by Atkins North American, Inc. under Contract No. 09-5262-CZ for a lump sum amount of$12,472. Prepared by: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Natural Resources Department, Growth Management Division. Attachments: A) Atkins Peer Review proposal; B) Change Order No. 3 CAC April 11,2013 VIII-1*New Business 1 of 2 Additional Work Request Change Order#3 Professional Engineering Services for Peer Review Services of Collier County Beaches for Coastal Management WO# 45-141808 Contract Number 09-5262-CZ March 15, 2013 ATKINS is pleased to provide this additional scope of work for Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department. The intention of this Work Assignment is to extend the scope of the peer review of the beach nourishment design methodology prepared for the County by Coastal Planning and Engineering. In accordance with Collier County Contract Number 09-5262-CZ the following scope of work is presented herein. SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 2—Collier County Beach Design Template Peer-Review Amendment Atkins will continue to support the County on the review of the beach design template for Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples Beach. Atkins will review documentation prepared by Coastal Planning and Engineering (CP&E) in support of the design process and also comments provided by Humiston & Moore. Atkins will review design drawings, calculations, modeling results and construction standards and provide a review of our findings. Atkins will prepare for, travel to and attend one (1) Board of County Commissioners Meeting to present our findings. One Atkins senior engineer will attend this meeting. Deliverables will include: 1) Detailed comparison figures showing the 2013 -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)as well as the 10 year composite erosion rates at each monument. 2) A memorandum response to any questions generated by Humiston&Moore's review. 3) Preparation and attendance at the April 2013 Board of County Commissioner's Meeting to present Atkins findings. Budget Estimate 1 CAC April 11,2013 VIII-1"New Business 2 of 2 This work will be performed for the lump sum amount of$12,472. Work will be billed to the County on a monthly basis based on the percentage of work completed for the preceding month. Add the following task: Task 2—Collier County Beach Design Template Peer-Review Amendment .$12,472 Original Amount of Work Order $33,365 Total Change Order#3 Increase $12,472 New Total Amount of Work Order 45,837 Schedule Estimate The following schedule of completion is anticipated. 1. Submit draft memorandum within 30 calendar days following the Notice-to-Proceed and receipt of all comments. Assumptions 1. All existing information/documentation including, but not limited to, survey data, project permits, environmental information,previous studies, CAD drawings and volume tables, etc. will be provided to Atkins by the County/CP&E/Humiston&Moore. 2. This quote is based upon conversations with County Staff on March 8, 2012. 3. No modeling analysis, design or bid documents will be generated from this peer-review, however Atkins will provide exhibits consistent with the deliverables section. 4. If comments require new analysis by Atkins, additional figures or calculations, a separate addendum will be provided to the City for additional funds to complete the work. /7 / /7 March 15, 2013 Jeffrey R.Tabar Date Project Director Atkins North America, Inc. 2 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 firmed 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 Renourishment 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 ,., "s ,> `rid'/ s P�� 33 � -°`r,+� ✓ t � � v 1 y x Prepared By: Atkins 4030 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 700 Tampa,FL February 2013 t,„ 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 scope 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 identifying 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"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 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 AT K 1 S 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) (CV) 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) (MILES) (CY/FT) (CY) Vanderbilt R-25+500 to R-30+500 5,082 1.0 11.64 59,156 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 13.58 121,074 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 2 Attachment A Figure 1. Vanderbilt,Pelican Bay,Park Shore, and Naples Beach Location Map '78 SAREFOOT BEACH g',-,,,i',; ', 1 KIGG iVS PASS s, , t141 I A.LAHLASEE ,AcK,SONviLLE STATE DARR I.Fta'1 OR t A.N DO Tr e, I,7 S I(CATION '' ,TAMPA A/IA riC ■-rW - .. OCz A41 HENDRY CO C scciy 1 s Fi ,, RAToN 1 \ ‘ t ... r ' - VANDERBILT 1 , ) co %,.: , _ VANDERBILT i*4---I,/-; BEACH . ‘E.,,... 644i, 2) or,- AlEX/C0 mr...NR0E CA-) , , < PELICAN SAY i 1 1 ' ., PARK , ■ ■ -.1 SHORE A R4o\\ s \ CLAM PASS ,, „ , k, P.1 SR ErAi \ \ i ! -I ILL%'' ,---:” ,, kta I i i ' N SIINSIX,_„„ , 1 CORRIDO 0,4".'z tr i / , 1 r- / i .. ,, , ,..; --------_f- -----„, 1-,"„,„, PARK SHORE . ) ( 1 .` i ,,.• ' 4 (;), i PPoroscc ' ...4- , s„,s, I i Fprt,r,F- DOCT 4.-+:PAS5 ' * - 11 B86 -- - \ 0 , \ I -C CCNTOi4R --, — ' ,- 4 / ' ,.,,, .. NAPLES 1 I A , — 1■ 1 SR a6t; NAPLES e'' -- i ' -:,,-- " N trANZE,, WSW, i L--- -- 11 ...'''' .■,..'.. ..1 / '', cR B.1 A..' ----- P ERMITTED PIPE L IIVE CORRIDOR .R.A. P Flaysr..^)PirkEi INF coRRnoR rIOJccT JAI , m-22 opoposm Fr.i AREAS GULF P10pOsr7;NEARSHORE 11 '''tsAir r OPERAKA&AREAS OF 1 '')11%,)4, I \ Ei;gi RERMI-IF 0 OFfati ABE MEX/CO _ i'li:1 OPERAMMA_AREAS ' (`',i*T ROY = .- Al ...,RIO EDER ME)NNETS Go).-tootw PAss r.tr.,446 „ NOTES; 1 cocknINAT LS Nat IN 5 LE,1 s, IA )OA LORE)A*TATE \ t , L PLAS E CEMRAN AI E \ ' l 3.s.doit IV-2( ASt OM NoRTH Am UI AN \ ,\ .,.., 983 . \h i v,.,,-; !; GRANAIC SCALE 1B1 FT .440,1 I 2. -L A DT RS ARE.NOT tE)S..;ALE , .0 (CPE, 20 1 2) 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 )deff 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) den'=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 Doctor"s 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 drawings 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 �1 Design Volume Reach R-Monuments Length CPE Matrix(1) Atkins Volumes(2) (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 1 121,074 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 Hardbottom As noted in the Introduction of this report, a primary 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 R-59 Ij t Equilibrium 1 Toe of Fill Erosion Landward Edge of K Hardbottom I 1 ( f 1 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 volume, as calculated by CPE, is 419,120 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 Length(I) Reach R-Monuments Matrix") Atkins Volumes() Difference (FT) (MILES) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT) (CV) Vanderbilt R-25+500 to R-30+500 5,082 1.0 11.75 59,724 11.64 59,156 0.11 568 Pelican Bay - 0 0.0 0.00 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 -0.32 -2,827 R58A-400 to R-64+500 Naples Beach_ R-68+200 to R-72+600 10,620 2.0 22.71 241,149 19.51 207,165 3.20 33,984 Total: 24,616 4.7 17.03 419,120 15.74 387,395 1.29 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 Volume Lengthen t31 Reach R-Monuments As Built Rebuild on 2012 Surveys (FT) (MILES) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT) (CY) Vanderbilt R-22 to R-31 8,798 1.7 13.81 121,487 8.91 78,430 Pelican Bay R-31 to R-37 6,102 1.2 9.33 56,955 3.42 20,850 Park Shore R-45 to R-55 10,543 2.0 13.44 141,739 11.17 117,810 Naples Beach R-58A to R-79 18,935 3.6 18.35 347,381 10.08 190,915 Total: 44,3781 8.4 15.04 667,562 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:1 V slope to existing grade while the 2006 design template reflects a 15H:IV slope down to existing grade. 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. 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 l OH:1 V 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 1-82 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 1 d '2006 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE ao SEAWARD CREST EL.2.7'(NAVD 88), CI '2013 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE `SEAWARD CREST EL.3.0'(NAVD 88) -a 0- -0 z z a -n z m 6 -10- w -20 -20 CROSS SECTIONAL VOLUME: 2006(8.9 CUBIC YARDS) 2013(18.0 CUBIC YARDS) -30, 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 l 0H: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_.._.__ �. _..._ �.20 UPPER BERM CREST SH:11/SLOPE! t' 10 LOWER BERM CRESTI 10 r Y SLOPE] Y+ ,„ ", w 20 _.._.,. 20 a 0+00 2+00 4+00 6+00 8+00 10+00 '12+00 14+00 LEGEND __..EXISTING GROUND __-- MEAN HIGH WATER(0.33'NAVO96) -^^^-2006 DESIGN BEACH FILL TEMPLATE - MEAN LOW WATER(1.68 NAVDS8) •-- 2013 DESIGN BEACH FILL TEMPLATE -v`w 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. 16 Attachment A Table 6. Comparison of 2006 design volume to 2013 design volume with 2013 project extents Volume Len th(I) - Reach R-Monuments g 2006 Designl�/ 2013 DesignWI) Difference (FT) (MILES) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT) (CV) (CY/FT) (CY) Vanderbilt R-25+500 to R-30+500 5,082 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 ,320,716 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 2006 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 ''.. '55.000 _...... ___.. _ _..._ North Vanderbilt South (2013 Project Area) IlL 15 DOD W 4j ti V � e Ply $ R� 10,600 _ �' , �,, 1 c^Oil _... ....... Net Volume Difference: It 10Y,..`,' \ ti e2, 5'26lTaceri 5 37 P-25 Q-'29 A.50(Toe i 5-31 &Monument 200tH iialumc C-q SaSg th,,e 2013 M 2013 Voiume Greater than 2005 —Cbrnpusite Emuon Figure 6. Park Shore comparative plots of design volumes for 2006 design and 2013 design 550aE ..... ... k forth < Park Shore � South T f (2013 Project Area) 1 so oa9 "Gap" 1( I I 4. I I ,r ,r'', E 20 000 I , I I I t , 4, 10 ao-9 ett.. .._..... .. c I I Sm e 5.000 r e�-'-_. __ a.' N: mlf:::t VoluDif : +13:0:CY w l p`; ti t,: ab 9's u`t ` v i sa ' c �' 4 ) O P R-Motnlment 2036`Joh.me 10 ester M u-2V13 M 20/3 Volume Greater than 2005 —Composite E,osian 18 Attachment A Figure 7.Naples comparative plots of design volumes for 2006 design and 2013 design 50 054 ... ,( North Naples South 14 4 "Gap" :.3 1< >I I I I I 3 I I 20 005 is rFOa I cif xa NO 414 � ; 1 Net Volume Difference: 4 6 ,?_77CY a , *,;.\ ,ati, R1w ,��` \ 4C ti.4 4 ft-Monument "sC'V:-,i -oe Oral°,r E°:xn 7q1 203 Volume Greater than 2006 '-Composite erasion 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 CPE"s approach is 419,120cy. Atkins" 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 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 22 Attachment A APPENDIX A—PLAN VIEW AND COMPARATIVE PROFILES 23 :.74.00•........1■■..r4.0■11-..-»-•• ....N-.- Attachment A I w I 0 J 0 I m L, n I 0 1 I 'MATC.HLINE • I 1 C -301 MATCHLINE ' MATCHLINE b. 1 C 300 ` MATCHUNE I , : n 1 I f • , I — �_-__-_1 . _ 1 r co I i — --J — �, r i \., — t I _ � I � ,. 1 co v m ` -.J .) I s4 I ' f }- R02 ' /" s • 1 H 1 1 m • } ' I o I 1 r • —0 :i ..,.z.: LII:;T s,, ` 1 ..., 15 • I 0,i;'- I ;')HI• c sa I ' n °o I �. i 1 / i (:;..., - g. N Is. d rT1 ( 0 1 I E m 1.• O , 1 H 8026 -0m (/ Est m X X i 1-----1• 4, 01 ,,, , ,, 1 I I I 1 I m 1 °;. �° m-1 1 l� `'L.%;=^ 0ic�mmNIJIJNAA � 6 & 1 -�� f ,V ZCOcpwwrnZO b� , �PN200000aG) � t .. *, 1, m ),.°' DMZ iDI D � L1 T '_ I w M -) 1 (, 93 p "SHOO IIXoff I #= 50 I , Z _ ` \ Z —Ix r— rrmC I I Z �' �'J ti • nmrmo0? ° -.. I C ` l D m 00r x00 x . . - 1 m Z m -D n m ! ; R $p "`"' COLLIER COUNTY 9 1jll4 //1`I\�� 3800 N,HORSESHOE DRIVE b G ° i I NAPLES,FL]110, aaw+M n be vw,� w.w•d ae 2 Z X T x�COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING Nma o° $ REPORT-PEER REVIEW `..,:i',1 i Z I PROJECT DESIGN- n w �N a . BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-VANDERBILT -. A „, o„E ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: w I 0 I 0 I m I ,, I 0 I I .7...--..:4„................................... ...,N Attachment A D 1 m 1 ° 1 ° 1 m 1 n I I I l t✓ 1 , Otir;I, D I 2 ' \ . 1i i I } �" O073o ). �mJ000 � rn to > ZCO° w (7.',ZO I to ' ° (1)F Cr) 2oowwG" v i 1 I D ∎�« '. >-- xzx>>> p: ' I o = 1 --� n( --In W 222Z a 1 = I �T /� - m — m OOTTTC07 I . . ' - r `' N z ,z A r- r r m cc ... I _ D --I t{t > O0O°ocnmzz A: -o m i OmOr mrO—ID -,,` — 1 mg mpTz Kmp �. 1. = I ob ''.13 p Z (n T ffl X 2 \ `,=� i m �. I— m :... . 1 m O L. —1 i M e , J J ll ( I f. m w ' 40°1*010" m : .1t.4.,, 7 1 , „ .... ..„,,,,......04,, ,, „ 7J - ' ...''''•4'---30 P..,. .'' --- = „., .„_ ., , O , . , ...__- 1 r(,,,, _..sip.,,;,.....,, • .., '........_.- --- :.-_,. ‘-' -- -,,,,0°P., . . , , , „_:,. . ,e =__ 4,...,...,......7„„,„„ " 4= 1 h 8029 t.". I 1 O 4 i — I , -. 1 T ■ A 14 MEM T ' A y • r _I I. ( F____ _ I ( r;' - 0 1 m __....• _ - g � I �ig" L,) fn C 1 O % i w m L =. W 1 1 i A• o a I' z. m c2 m I i ti R0 !'üi 1 J C) I _ Q I 1 1 i — MATCHUNE j �, �_ _ I C-301 �. MATCHLINE MATCHI tl I' ' C-300 MATCHLINE f le i a I p °`"' COLLIER COUNTY {J{Jp ff > 200 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE v P I '4 .. NAPLES,FL]1101 M•wuu'* e", '^,^""''' (� I "«°COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING " 1 • 0 m F REPORT-PEER REVIEW ° r r.; MI Z ,. ",«.«� I'I PROJECT DESIGN- °^*; BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-VANDERBILT a„ ,,, o.« _ ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: D I CO I 0 I ° I 0 I , 1 0 1 I :47.:ININNSANar..,.,_F....Ve,......INNAS-r, ...w-... Attachment A > I W 1 0 o m I m I a I MATCHLINE.: I . IJ�� C-303 MATCHLINE, •• ` 1 ' ' w ,�`—,) C-302 MATCHLINE MATCHLINE• 11 I �� • /. �/�� / k-045 V ii ∎/, / x / " II I J t ti I / I I. 0 / I — , ��_� _ r a I CO m X c., , `\ 1 �� -. u l` Sr - .• T • -i"!,ili 'N'its..''').1„. ‘.. ) T 11 I.77 ,t•� h P o: _ _ 1 m m R-11-1 1 V , = < I ! is 0 L �_ -U , ' _ / — ,l t --� ( _ f ,� 1 ` o 1 e • / 0 • i :; ..... / / .-�/ 0 (r) irl 0 .:. . • t .. W . • n h; A ..w D -� 0 O r I 1 . . m Cant t W W 11 °i °m O l l I Z ' I -` t wommoo -o 0 I z °oo � " DccOcowwrnZO I„ \. -, I l i�_F-xwwwmm I -' YY 0 ■ s m � m001111 -nc0° �� 1• .O i H >Cmmi- KmO • .. mom c)I � (f _ 1- m z C :r) H ! I 1 y R g p±( "`"' COLLIER COUNTY =.n.d,ti E pa [ 1 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE E I ' S I NAPLES,FL 34101 :. xu�.a ywa�=m'�•v COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ° ^ ,.. .: 0 '—§ I .77' ' REPORT-PEER REVIEW _ ,, r m l! VI PROJECT DESIGN- ..,.... .�..:. �":b'""°°" � o.,E �.,«o..,.,. C� .....� BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-PARK SHORE ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE > I m I 0 I .m0 I m I n I 0 I I A:LAA oMo.......—.....A.t,-.....AF..., A.o Au-.,. Attachment A > I w I 0 I o I m l n 1 0 I I •MATCH-LINE 1 ' I i C-304 /. MATCHLINE AT HLINE ' �� a 1 C-303 , MATCHLINE 1 1 j U — m t_ O .i _ DDm m I o Om \��K i'" \ 6111111'v - 1 "•1 ' [O i I — p — } _ C 1 l ' ,, ., 0 - .. . «.. 1m / v = 1 r../� — ". ti m m ;1 , \. x •! I (n �.,. .4 , r m —I I .\ o R O - 46 {► = -/ I m I \ II mss : .; IO r / w y, 33 o o or FT7 I r ) a 1 . -,,,r,,- •A - �i , ..„...„,__ ..., ....,,, ' .„,,d,,,„- 1 o ' D I 1 I I� r cn '�_ ...if,UN I I I �� I I m I r Z mOOx00005. xO " 1 I m /� w DZCOc°owiarnz0 &°l � 2 �ooOD00mmmm ��_ t f nC Z �� DDg2 � �� r ;F i 1 ' j O ,-, >,-, 00000 O 1 ( ( — -I W 2 2 2 Z l ,1, .::times `7 5 Z - rrrmZ �- i I C._�r_F, c)mr- kmr0-I / � t� Opr XOp ! m m 2 K -O-1 -< /� $r""—'1 1_I II 1 u wmm m � .' � 1 I 1�\J��, 7 _ f :: = I — MATCHLINE .„ C-303 MATCHLINE IAT HLINE,"., , 7�rt = C-302 MATCHLINE I I S9 a I y y++1 COLLIER COUNTY WII i 1 I I!t 7 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE •••fff —j NAPLES,FL 34104 ^•"""'a° '!�°^" n T-"COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING '�� u ig b b v, REPORT-PEER REVIEW .m.�'” 'T r m ill!Z ''L. PROJECT DESIGN- BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-PARK SHORE "..=,. .., ""N"'°' OPoOIMAL ISSUED DATE: I w I 0 I o I m I n I 0 I I :. :�...........�.. .....-»4444. -44,1.4 Attachment A I m I 0 J o L m I m I 0 I I 1 - C-305 1,.. ( 141PetCHLINE 4 MATCHLINE C-304 "j * /" ')U6iTCHLINE MATCHLINE ._'" 1 0 ¢ . , �� ., y i 4444 R-050 V I I! 1 – m 1 /; a E I 44.i„d, '.: Y 44 4444 , I 1 44, I V � / . I 1 ' • / . I r a �� `�` _ 4444. g �i. I 1 t • f 1 , m ,ice 1 / 4444 • �� _-049 4444 ¢ U 1 w 4444 c �,y rf I to e.. r � �� 1 i"��. ...a a 4444 \ ` I 1 ,' �� / • n V I o I / / 1 ; ` ‘" A _4444 -.I N ij 0 ) F Pr, I I f l �I I... .Z1 r r l. 4444 ` 0 . I I D I O , :: :44 44..• OX= J 1' ''.� ^l_..%- I 1 I 1 m ':. 1 3 , + , W0mm0000xi -a 0 • - 1 I DM f "-..1.i +.....--4444 DZOCOc$wwrnz0 m -� a m� `•l 0WF—cn W W0� :; w 1 (, C y D73WZ> DDDgxi :"1 73--00 ) '�.•" vItIz I �{ – m° °W SSSZ co 1 w� �. — m W OvzommmCO •1 ' tit , ! lnz -Igr,rrrmC x / I E 0 I' oalr mr0—ID I 1 r S �O Z X 0 0 • I I C 1 N I— m - /4444. ` I t rn 1t F 73 —I 1 a I. "14,ATCHLINE , I M i C-304 / MATCHLINE T I LINE t`0.. - . ''. 1 I C403 (- MATCHLINE li 1 "`"" COLLIER COUNTY , s 2.00 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE c �`. S I S I NAPLES,FL.1104 :::: �"°T e^' ..;=o...,1+.% J 4444.. ∎=j+E Tur0w.:1-,1 � � � ��COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ��" TM, 2 o REPORT-PEER REVIEW r 9° I I Z �� PROJECT DESIGN- ::,:...e. a'd^+ »..P..,.�. o<x..,� BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-PARK SHORE „,4444 .„ ., """ o„E ORIGINAL ISSUED DArE: > 1 W I 0 I 0 1 11 I 11 I 0 1 I • :.1. .............V....for...».... ...,-.... Attachment A 1 m I 0 J 0 m I m I 0 I = MA CHEI . 1, G306 / MATCHLINE TCHLIN . 1 I C-305 \ MATCHLINE a t ,, __,—_ , "ffi ll I L. k "^Y • I , _ o mo 1/\l \ 1 — ��.a�•�..� �� «..........A a�• r .......• MM I 1 1 !/ I `1 m ,,.��. � �.1 '•• � m y-- I K ( _ o ,. .. / C7 / .. .. I m I. _ 1 I. J N fn '. G') .:... w n : —t : ; . 1 R051 ` I I ` _ o ' m = .! ' �� A A u W r ,I . i 1. . • I f O :I a. _ — r - _", _ 1 c, C ..J .. n I i I m . . �� II �� I Iz i m / co c)mmivivronlA70 O I - I -, w w >ZOCOCOOwwrnZO CO _ _1ooOD TWilmmmm A I D rs : > ADZA DD� A � �� I a 00,0 ,0 . .., I '�-+. — m=m0Om ,, ,,cco m / e. I 1 s„,-, ^� c)mr - mrp --1D I J • mOTr � � O �� N w?im n � FZ AmZ ff/ I I� ATCHLINE:. , C-305: . �L ( )Aft4CHLINE M-' ATCHLINE ' \`- ,.; _ . ' 1= C-304 \ `.._..._./"'�fyj;�TCHI;INE nils I ill "`"" COLLIER COUNTY _ A 1 I'AI 1100 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE �'�`a°.y a F,, b q C :. NAPLES,FL 34104 wem+•.I+i:w�uwWwti iMw.✓.ro+maime� $. COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ..._ -�^ /1 o - REPORT-PEER REVIEW „""'"'" �"'""..°:"'.-.r'°°�:ti°""."' G� TT m 4�i¢ PROJECT DESIGN- . . �; n''''''''''''' ��" a u„� BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-PARK SHORE .a,.,,a.,,..,.�,, '"`"`°” .,,E ORIGINAL ISSUED DArE: > I m I 0 I o I m I m I 0 I I :., .�..�.�...r�..,.,M.�..-...., ...N Attachment A D m I n I 0 I m I T I 0 I I ��. art, �` � • i f ( 4.- U-055 y i l 3 / 1■ �/ +way � I 9 / ,. w, ' ■-'- y s' ' '''-,'''',,,,,'''''''':;;- ,'—'0'.,:— -,0,. - 4f,.v:,‘ 'R-054 ® �_ `, ,,,,'.,,,,,, ki7,1-„,',",'-,ffic! , 7,..40'4‘'''' ",:'F: t \ r -ji, ' k t s (,—' ,,,,,„,,,,,,2:,„,9, , 0),,, ,,., I 1 U ( x :,c,�\ l i:::': '''', §7---2— IQ xz t m . $ m r ' E �w® I 0 „ - m I f I � I m f-` I I I D I m Y fy 3, t (' / / w wc� m0000 .., ' ' I 't.„ o- t DZCOc°owwrnZO �� °' �� i,;", ,§ ' Co�rrott m m i'' s^^� t o xi Can npC�C�C�O� a ...1 �; � m � m00_„=n,=icW - z. R053 try- o `- - m, py �z �� I" rrmO �'� � O W C, ' �, DOOOoocnmz0 I -1-111) —S^•T' nmr � m � O-I W s.a �— .�- �mm n) . F, Z :� / ', j' I y, j 0-306 / MATCHLINE ..°, � f. t ( G305 \_:,-- MATCHLINE I p "'� COLLIER COUNTY ...m":1:•%^.7:1:177:::1":17:'ti f00 N.HONSESHDE DNIVE n.0 ��re udu N.COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING °a $E REPORT-PEER REVIEW r T r 9 m si'p �� PROJECT DESIGN- �. > P. ...E �.uo.. BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-PARK SHORE „ro,,,>.,,....,,,.�..,, o,� h OPo0NAL IBBUED DATE: D m I 0 I o I m I m I I I Z.1.7.::40041••a oat........,.«,........._., - -F... Attachment A > ) m I n I o m li m I c) 1 x MATCHLtN _ L �c C-308 .. --7• • ._.- MATCHLINE MATCHL1NE w s I - C-307 - \TCILINE - 1 �} ID _ `1 — J I cn I a 0 0 1jl �I• — 1 1 _ . W N.: m • I r: C) - � m ,. — .. I, X \r.,.,� �aa .'• • ... R-058 i1r 1. i �� . ,-- 1 co �, I I :. s'\,, if ;■ r. I t• tea. - m JJ . v: Cr' — 4 - .„. _.; 1 r 2) A w�r(w©111 1 r 1� WN � � ` ( N P CP. say ... .KC \ � a, `' SINN <= A C J 4 I a x I A, t *I 1 �� •••,”1.. } Q x r /•0 o I �.. 4-,.� S �.,. \ � ii Im ,: Wopm000073 -uO °x - ,. 1 w m DZCOccoowwrnZO HHmP mOmTTc ,.--- .,_ _____• 21 cDimoKmici)- p1D y�' bxi mOr 70OO i7 'r 1 N mZm nm � . .x:. ..... f m Z 1 cn a ?—I 1\ r� . 1 ,.,. /�+,_'' — 1 , ,: " p `"' COLLIER COUNTY ,.. �.r.p.M . B {+ R 1 9 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE E F :. ... NAPLES,FL d{10{ ^•mwiween.In i.w mown,An m... b. , ''COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING/CI $° REPORT-PEER REVIEW _ 0 r 0 r^m L Z .,..E — .:... —.�.,..,,.,. PROJECT DESIGN- Im . BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES — .. e" , „,E ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: I CO I 0 I o I m I 1 I 0 I I ..—.::r.w.......—..,.,. ....... .... ...' Attachment A y j m o 0 I m I r I @ I I MAT tNI - -.; -- C-309: • • MATCHUNE', MATCH INE �7fACNLINE .. �. . , 0-308 � - ... , .: :r ali L ' m, ( • - 1 I. . ',.."?5,A°...: � i • 4 ,R 061 . It!� ( t ' MI i r- ;1 _._.MINILIE 9... is m tr J - ��, i-_ w m ) ' L lm,r. r (n . I off+ <, �,. �j• •.. I 1 , m ,.• , - ... i . —. .\ i I m •o m ,s .: 1 O T �.,- r "� ( .. . 2 •*•,...',1 Niiii!Am • 0, "•. - ^;, ,_ R-060 p..... I < II — , • . (� .,. I N . co o M,, 0> „.. P. m. I • .im.. m 1 t ..r,. m I I I m L a. (' o I 1 I D I z r \_ w I I I 1 I m I 1 .,.� , ,. ,�__� w m00XPC") o� XC •i • `• 00o0 g D Z C O cc w w rn Z O V-:.._..._, .,w„ --._ �, / S-I rQ >mmmmm ex I !.I ..E ' ooODmmm OCD1 — co 2220 �, — A; CnZ 1_Irr- r c .. '''' I r�r•RI - O1 Oor m00x c_ `- N m ` I \ m m -1 1 •� j• R / MATCHUNE ;: c C-308. 9t (_ ... — • MATC HLINE h1ATCHUNE I I C-307 • .� �vA TCkLNE I _ HMI `"`"' COLLIER COUNTY A 7 2E00 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE i NAPLES,FL 24101 =. I X T COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING IM � IM e $ REPORT-PEER REVIEW =M=gyp it qi I PROJECT DESIGN- �, —E .„ .,GP,p, BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES a.. . M.. wre OPoOINAL ISSUED DATE: 1 m I 0 I 0 I m I m I 0 I I =.. :M»w..ar--.rw..v«...- am w-�- Attachment A > I W l 0 I 0 I m I n I 0 I I MA rr""7. "7 — -t• .i C-310 : ,-----t1A/CHLINE M fC L N """�1 E C-309 "�„- MA�CHLINE I c I o o) . IT .'n y��^ / R 064 F» I 1 ' J i I t m 1 1 • .. x i-...,...a.-` 1 MIMI 1 :. F 1 �R-063 . I 1 O f• : —.o s .- I ., N x • d -n I i g�M 1 m \-:i ,'-'' , I � I Mil . ... _ . _' w s .. ( .mail;_.. If g co I.. :ca ° ''�Mil r� • A O A m r b Hp ,1 1 1 r I I I � � m =mow :. ('1. w mC�fnm0000 �Zp _, ' pi $ ,.,/ w DZCO(°DwwrnZO :% 1 ,`‘;-�• DC0°Z � DDDK � I '-062 7 $ m ••• onnnp � I PI pZ�-i � r- r- 1mZ l_° T .. ,1, g DOpsmcn-nz0 I I I C� mr- mrp-1D I ,..,0 Xmo x I1 a�MI I N cn z m D , •cn m A r... „: 1 1,-- r m z I -� I I ii MATC ;,` • . C-309 MA3't`HLINE•` IfYCa -. 1 = :,.4 ` K- �'.- C-308 : • MATC INE. m. `H9 "`"' COLLIER COUNTY ,„, , , - } 2000 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE rnm . n I S 9 T NAPLES,FL.H104 ry �, �''COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONRORING Pt, REPORT-PEER REVIEW•''v v v ;RI Z n'u /1 II I LA PROJECT DESIGN- a .f. R\a �,.-� BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES p .., o. ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: > I W I 0 I 0 I in I n I 0 1 I :i.r.∎∎ •■.....*Ow releV.Ifte.-r.A•. ---'-- Attachment A L m 1 o I 0 o 1 m I 0 1 I C+4A'C.LINE I C-311 MAICHLINE ATCHLNE _ I "•° 1 C-310 MATCHLINE M - Ir 4 f — f 1 , (" I O I 0 1 o I - n - - I I; ,• ,. 1f I I I I - I I. I I al o I ' I ^ ` 8-066 +o-, 1 1i�/y/yam.. • n I I L • CD r ` I f O {1I L I I ipol ,(11 ! IN.. ! 1> Ii2-;, 1 r T i l I I m r %1 z .., m w WnOpg000033s p 1 I ( > zaO($ww2ZO ■ x -ImODmmmmm �i� siil D73 ;UZ7JDDDO — „ ?— �; r CSC p(� (� C� } , nn-IO W 2222 - 1 ( I m O T T T C W J„ -im r - z _ _ ✓k U' Z° � 1FFFmo r---'-- 1 I 2 n O o 0 w o, T Z 0 I I ' • ", �-nm m � I t \'J L z -o r m Z r•,.,...i MTCHLfNE __ ,-- C-310 ; ,-----MAtCHLINE.. M A LINE • 4 C 309 MA' CHLINE 1 R 1 g I! "`"' COLLIER COUNTY a £ II 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE , A NAPLES,FL 2880, e-e.�+: ! ~1-7.7.:"wmmn I �COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING NN. o , $° - Y REPORT-PEER REVIEW '°°;'`„ g i'g n PROJECT DESIGN- - "°,,, rE � - BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES »„ „,��,,,, P„E ORIGINAL 6SUED DATE: D I m I 0 I 0 I o I n I 0 I I :.rMer4..41..--- A.«-....11 -.R-sm- Attachment A E m I MATCH1 .E: MATCHLINE ITCHLVE --�— C-311 MATCHLINE •� .. • I O ,,,,r,� - o- d :. 1 `*/ ..,,.• I %{4, 1,. .. I �e...., ----.7 i O I I -, = m 1 I C7 J R07 ,x 7J O +ti'= m HIV �/if//f/�Y/Sjy.,y� cn . z h If �. O_ m O , m j • cD :. .". :i..,:. i'..,•-. . .,•i.:.,. •,- r-,--•x -..,...i :- "'-----.-- r m � •>� o ss; _, o 0 „ T-069 As, = I � — Z, I r-- r o 1• = �.__ o I ! _ r � 71?13I ' m • f!III OfJNNN �7 � � ... I • W O O O O D 1 .. O c) O i nzcocowwo� zo • ; > Oz� �' D �'� � I : m =m�0- -n�-ncW •( I :.'S • • p • �ZOI-I -1� � rmOC (,', t f C)oo � mrO —I> n R 068 • • I Z • co m co II 0 xi I— m z . MATCH iP4 --- I C-311 I MATCHLINE M CCHL NE ' .: .::;;:. ':.> : .. ; r I •:' C-310 ; . •MATCHLINE e S 2 g g i "`"' COLLIER COUNTY !0 I I gilt > 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE '4"i •,,,�-o �•ff NAPLES,FL 34104 w. +a 1 x ��COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING "�. "• R. REPORT-PEER REVIEW m„M .rr95:III Z . .. a;i I, PROJECT DESIGN• ...mss .«..,� BEACH FILL TEMPLATE-NAPLES ,a,„,,.,>,,,,,,,,,,,�.,,,, '"°`°°"ry L.,. rt ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE D I w 1 0 I 0 I m I m I 0 I I :.. : »..— Attachment A D I co I 0 I o I m I m I 0 I I < _ m0 ▪ N (/)D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r- W r N N N (TI D 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 O o O 0 m 0 1 70 0 .T1 • II i • i / N N II I.,> Np 7I W N 13/J �/ X �+ / 0 I( 0 N N /t., m m + r I h f \ 1 l \ v �I ? 2 1 , /I i = v ( < ? / A / / < / /I rn . i m I �.. 1 0 CI , � I K m 1 ._..._ �md� ... . yo- _ [--vo _ + . ... .. ,.. o I D O D m m • • m 1 :vim N[] O i i FT p I .z N N m f D ° ° f E 1 o X - 1 .co , o N w o 1 5 50 I 1 i Ozz � 3mmOc 11 I - ZCDino �1 1/ o / v 2 =1,-3 00 0 1 I * mm0_ CO CA) rnw A �1 r F N O co W �l t O . W co ' m m ._ 1 .,___. +O m m ..._.... __._ .._.. A • D o I 2 2 / ? 2 2 I mm 1- r- 1-- I- — v 1 I m 0 m I Z Z I O Z z (A (/) t t { ° c/)N N N I•`. _• i I d_ I o _ W 0 1 0 j i • _ W I 1 Z Z i I J O ? v — ✓ < O err- 1 I € i � r ',. I RI I , a Dy a \� \ .+ �� RI m 0 X 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Is in cn w (88 QAVN)1333 NI NOl1VA313 (88 DAVN)1333 NI NOLLVA313 z vv co op CO Co i S ^ I i I II "'' COLLIER COUNTY I j 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE ..Y°:,•.Ly °.y..P,°n a I NAPLES,FL 34104 eM dw °'^°'i ✓`°"d°^" w ana wrIP.cn.,v..°r.a.m.r in I X �, �COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING °",'""....,.;�a"'"',.a"...W."" ."° _ 8 § REPORT-PEER REVIEW ;1;1 Z PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL " _ 3i TEMPLATE PROFILES•VANDERBILT 6) °'°�"°"' o„ ""'"°`'°°" 'E ax.o,� OPogNAL ISSUED DATE D I m I o I o I m I m I 0 I I :., :,, ,,,_,NF,.., ra v.Iss-... Attachment A > 1 0 1 m I 0 I m I r I 0 I I <_ M._A N up 0 I-D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r I . I N (n � N W N m y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. + — — � r + 0 .j . m N� 0 I EI o i :U u i i I ! ; N ' N 0 m � ; co c2 N3 � ;D 1� 0 w z T of ° ' I -0 o � < 0 D G P� I _ // F,,. M -I 1 _ i i O < .Z1 G? f=fl 1y ! is .. m I'fl ' ; I I 2 v < N i s 0 1 M 0 I < a / < w + I_ • ..„,_ _; +0 _._.. .. .._ �� E•Dm ° ' iJ � < 0p m o 00 - - � K i i , � m w / m -< r- ✓ i 11 0 / ; N G7 m 1 m = m I. � N f m m H I 8 m m 73 I rn rn rn moo m zw l II rn• 11 0 v mT i Z c im Ii o =N N m 0 - �` 1 3 co + 0 . 0ww0 1rm 0 1 ,: 0 ; ; . I Ozz� m`e _ r- m�nmO } — D D D Z 0 ,' 0 2 2. 2 00 0 1 0 0 o � * mm0 m ',. 0 —, i + I a) Ca 1 I D F r — z o , CO CO i it 0 CO CO 1 p ° 0 -I -1 CD m +°o . Dy 1 I , 0 > > E i r K K A N I I 2 2 1 � DDmf 1 � � i rr II — mmV m 00 00 I m m m m j ; j N w m 0 .. / 0 lr w mm _ _ # wz 1• z NN ( ? wk r I ... A OD 11 +.. N T -,z m D D + f + -i . 5 O T X 73 O WN O O _....._,...-..n. O 0 0 o O O 0 0 0 O N O cow (88 aAVN)133d NI NOl1VA313 (88 DAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 z 00 co w co co g $ §i -- COLLIER COUNTY . v Gi 9 Q I 6 :HOD N.HORSESHOE DRIVE "u.•n nwmu+... 3 „iff NAPLES.FL 1110 .°v&:� T�e�d cri...w.wn+m.m.r FFA 6, 9 A --'COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING a.^aM MI awn..mad.[on. o m REPORT-PEER REVIEW M' Iwo M alin we..�° uM M m qi 4 I A PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL ..�..d..mk °„� n...><. FA1 a a,uP TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT n ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: D I m I 0 I 0 I m I 71 I 0 I I :. 4. ..... »...0-4« Attachment A D I lD I 0 I a I m I r I 6) I I <2 mo A N 1- y ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) to n r N Ir77 D o 0 0 0 0 0 N) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O u :, t ,I / ry 0 Ii H > i .! &G co N I ->i I ( v 0 m � 0 13 mK i -0 o ITI t :Cl m :Ll m co W Z .v 1l W Z i m 2 ' 1� = rr C 2 # `' o c { F m-i v I i m O m mm ‘� € ' m O m FD- \ I ' o :U -0 7J cnX 1 ! iI o X x CO m z CO m K v w m //I 11 2 < X 0 w m E /! � 31 2 < v < N i t ' mmim m 0 ! i i i n m Oo + �/_..._!... (nom Aw a < O / r m (n n o ; O !n r m I- -0 1 �■ m / N r r N I m mX 1 €� m � X I i im m rm 0 o > m o o z zto I I m _ r p I I� j m — /m ' t :'� �i. 0 o 20omp rnnj / rnX I i) XwDOicn 'I2 1 Hm 1 N co K � Co r/ � A o i u 9 (/) (10 ,- v) 0 ' � arm 0 !! E ! -4 5G�O > m DD OzzA mD m * I — � mmO D I j t 11 Znnp o �1 C� I •022 - • o ' 2 00 ( ! .I * m -n0 m rnw 1 m — rnva I DPr _, Z o Cold ' • A X r r N A o co C7 W 0HH(n o . >> I ,, m � � r � �A m o 22 / . 0 22 j ,I ' .. r D D w P r j ! H _ I m I 11 — O— m m v J • mm t ';) r ZZ i ( • { I cc 6 ' 1I I D 3 cn In I ,•1 N _. .. N f._. ..} I._.. . ..._... 4.......,,,. ... .•RI 111 I [ t ' ? _ C) N 1 !OO i i A O 0 0 I I — \� t i _ A I �/1. l .Zm1m 0 O N 0 W N 0 .8 N _ A co O O 0 0 O O O 0 0 N O coo w (88 CIAVN)1333 NI NOLLVA313 (88 CIAVN)1333 NI NOLLVA313 z 0 o — Co I I { s @ q'i "-- COLLIER COUNTY @ 2 4 I I! 2100 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE g i 9 4 NAPLES,FL 0,1M m.° �°r.^'"� § i T�2L COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING % ml Ntl d� „ N �$¢ REPORT-PEER REVIEW ;1.; a.,11 r r T v ;III = 4.> en�.,adenen �:. No m qi I '"E PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL �„�%«'*; �.UP� TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT .> .. ., o„E.v....,-..,,,.. rt ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: D I a I o I 0 I m I m I 0 I I Lwa ..•.R Attachment A I Co I o I o I m I r I G) I I < 2 m0 N • I-D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) nr r 0 W N N W N N) 111 D 0 0 o O 0 o 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 �J + �m rv � +°o ( f Iv 0 r Ia — li � I N 1 o it 2 � I `� / co O 2 - j co ry m I 17 m K 13 °q m 1 1 #• ;1 N.) ', �1 m wz 1 0 wz - O 4. K c ,\) N c m K� + _.v m 2 +o = -0 2 0 1 + r 0 0.......... - > ) 0 (r/_-_) xi m > 1 j � , < 0) co - m m r 0o m m O m to A i m m A 11 1 434 0 X -D 7) ✓ ' 0 v < MI �1 1 ' ca < X < m �I ) ' _ < K m0 1 ' ) 2 m 3 m m0 / I _ II- m A ....._. ..... ,_. ./..,i •N O 0 ...- P.))0 .....// 5,4. < 0 �-,__... I oo .., m m —. 0 -I o ,,. . / } Cr) m M /- DK / I ,� r m DK /I 11 -u - r - ; / I '3+ 0 -• 1- -0 / #' m = D / € j m I > € / I o 0- m /1 1 + No G) m I [ xm / 110 2m / , � -Xj )� (. --I A H 1, I m rn I m o , i ' 3 M o +o i.,.,...,, k .._.._ ._.._. moo i D ZQ) f ; III zo / i it --I SSS 5 r -1 1. I ; t m -I0 € \ m 1 — m 2A I 1 m x:� [ )•I G) rn co / m n E 1 ry C ) D ° OX� rn � f � � // Xwrn (n H2 1 3' mm I i ;€ th mmz -0 o I -13 CI) 1 Ozzx -DI!> ° . m0 i ZDDz f l i H �� I 022 oo ! 2 000 / i, * mTlo m rnw i I Z " 0) w t p Xrr- rr- N) Z ° .. mm 1 ! .,_... o € mOo _ 1 ■. __ I t1 _ A ... - .... -I € m m __.1.. Ormmc x ° ! nn 1 m ° 00 I m 1 rJ 2 2 I K M 73 N 2 2 1 - F O } a �DD -< rn rr f r- I- rr t ( -I I- I- — mm" 00 I m 00 — mm I v zz 11 Z Z I 1 I = co w 1 1 . o . a..._.. �..... m b... €� __. m .. .. K K , D D / 11 Z Ow I I ! .,3... Ia0 1 3 r I -. o , I I m { Ii I � 1 z * \—_/..__/ 1 D m o co _ 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 ° N O CO1O w (88 aAVN)133d NI NOIIVA313 (88 aAVN)1333 NI NOILVA313 z 00 co CO co 0:, `' MITI COLLIER COUNTY 2500 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE . d F {{ 1 MAPLES,.34104 a1Y'� p.m...�r.or mw I X ""'''''COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ° VV...al HIMermirnellall.1,31.0oula Is rue.con.1 w REPORT-PEER REVIEW M m geja Z " PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL ,; n wo pe. TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT „,> o OPoOINAL ISSUED DATE• D I m I 0 I 0 I m I n I 0 I I :.,, • ... am.D Attachment A ) I w I n I o I m I n I 0 I I <2 m0 d fV m r-D m ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0r I I N I.1 > 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 r + - 2 m °o + o i ;L1 II t ■ a ? w N.) n. �I N f m o o ' f/�, o F X co -n �� T N r N ' m m E O F l 1 I I 3 € 0 I o ! 1 r - / i I - - I ! i / m !j m 11 0 11 0 I rn / 0 -1^".vim m C --I rn 0 1 1 r_-0„n.vnmrm✓w o I _ r I -Di m - z III m v ;• wrn (n I l o I w co I ... p ...... N .._ + I O�cnG) 0 I °0 1 . 1 q O 1 I I O z z j I I K CO W O I I - mmc I ( I I 0 2 2 0 I I f , o o I `* mmc, rnw ' I °0'a' 1 I o [... m CO CO DrrN o co CO I ....._ p mm a � --ImC +°o DD I 0 E nn KKK 7 2 2 I 2 2 I -1 1r rr m T m 3 i 1 n t DD < f= � I '" rr , / 0 0 / m m 0 0 I f m m / frl� � 1 to- - N Ni , o ? w w m m o { I NZ / NZ I - .00 i 7= u. w11 I I 1 0T I € 0o {r 1Ofr I — m 2 T I € I A m > + \�� I a �J„ I NJ 1 7J A 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O N LS' COD w (88 OAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 (88 OAVN)133d NI NOIIVA313 z — 00 co co CO co v 13 s [ § °`"' COLLIER COUNTY ▪ _ ,.. �w.»,M1 6. 5 3800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE �[y� E S C I ? I x A NAPLES.FL N10l µ . ma �`ew rc .=morel Ow EE e Dania o §E TCOLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING MF r REPORT-PEER REVIEW r I!'' Z '� PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL corn• v ens*.men.uNse NY.tompareCo the Mal 4I t VI TEMPLATE PROFILES .,m„„°„,..w.°+<-.�. `"""'°°""""°"ry DATE """°`'°°'° ORIGINAL ISSUED yDAre: D I � I 0 I „�N„0� ,�..I m I n I 0 I I :. ... RS N.MO-.Fr. Attachment A D I W I 0 I 0 I m I m I @ I I < 2 m0 A N w r D 0 ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0r O N) W N N fr11 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v 7J o 1 I A II ) I I € W NJ n. / I I CO N I -u I.� 1J o f' 1 O co r f' _ € N) N.) y 1 m N ey' i 2 l 1 °o / <__._.._ °o l / 1 / f co / 0 r — / I/ m r / m I / I i .3 3 / N... 0 1 lm m t rn o t m m 1 m 1 m it 0 I m m i 1 m 0 I v ,_ F / D000X � I +. j �1Wrn (n 1 w + r u 0 co ...._. N Wmmmz o _ _ I ' 0 1� t 0 (f) w0 0 1 ♦ 0 I 0 z z 0/ t ) 1 _ K ao 0o O \ — I zcDicDio �� i1 /� / 1 022.- 00 t ■ o° * mm0 rnw 1 0 W o0 1 / p .TDIrrN + W W ' I _ _. mm ' ___. __ 0 -1-1CO o .. > > 0 > > �r- KK 73 22 ' 22 / --1 > > -< 1F t 1- 1- -II --1-i-- r1 1 r r I — — mm o0 1 , 00 � mm Z Z 1 ? mm I ( (�A lA . j • I + � N ' w 00 0 W r D D z E rn z N Z � 00 j 00 • .Z) 0 W N 0 0 0 0 W N 0 0 0 O O O O O O N 2-'3 00o W. (88 aAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 (88 QAVN)1333 NI NOLLVA313 z co co co co s i g p;` COLLIER COUNTY .N.M1 vl I 1 5 2000 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE w "a "e G G NAPLES.FL 34104 ?C'''o ff.- pmsnr w.m+i .a.etl arv. ��"COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING plc 0 in 0. ,i° REPORT-PEER REVIEW M _ &1 m 'l -... PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL ro °�* „ �� .--TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT " ,. A o„. _ F ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE:VI D I W I 0 I 0 I m I Ti I 0 1 I .1.74:4,,,,,..........u. Attachment A D I Co I o I 0 I m I m I 0 I I < 2 m0 N 0 0 y 1-D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0r 1 N 11 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — n m 0 ;� 0 ■ 17 w O NJ =11 ? �r� ! < t.11 N t i^ 71 ✓ 0 0 / T �'' + m N m _ 0 ,+ m + o 0 , , ; , I t I 1 I cn ?_ / 2 , j 1 ? J 1 G — 1 / 0/ 1 m J , i'J N /J l 0 3 1 J o co• 1: ( o) 1 y m m 1 m i 1 0 -D 0 CD I 1 , r 1 -1 i D , I m _ E —I— I I i v 1 v 1 z \ 1 ; O J i D O o-.. - I { , _ • 1 w x W 0 (A 0 - I E 00 ' g 1 0 + _...... ........... ... v 0 V) (n Q O ? p0 I 1 OZ Z I ! + _ Co CO O / I — J I HPO I�N\ 1 o o 1 rnw !/ _, Co CM CA CO f p 7JJrrN ° ... fillet _I_. _ (....._. + III IM __!__ _.._.. _. p 0r m m c ° 0 0 1 °o ; 0 0 / 1 2 2 — � Krom � -2n � I mm r � H -I r- r- I 1 r- r- 1 - - m m 0 0 i 0 0 i [ z z � I Z Z l 3 v_� cn I , I i N 1 0 € w w K o i .. m D co Z I E N Z ZZ 0 1I BOO I— 2 m co 0 Ur I m� ' 11\o o 0 0 m w (88 aAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 (88 aAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 zz Co co 0 CO 0 ' + "`"' COLLIER COUNTY n . E 0 i 2e00 N.HORSESHOE oNVE aMo a n MAPLES FL Jt1M I h' �'-''COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING °w REPORT-PEER REVIEW 'n, .rra ;I;s .,.' ..�».�by e�g PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL M o .',..4 „,�,,,,o,W.concern ouvocy TEMPLATE PROFILES-VANDERBILT WC DWDIMa ISSUED DATE : D I m I 0 I WHO I m I m I 0 I I ;,.8 ........,,,.B.B Attachment A D I m I o I 0 I m I n I 0 I I < 2 m0 73 x N w D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) to 0r >cn I I I - N m D O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J T 0 n 2 H i ( 01 I -{ i 1 A •0 m K € p ,.,N m � ) - 17 GO �� 2 c j 71 m� N 3 a m 3� 11:++8 i t m m m i 1 r < m m m tt II cn 2 W m 3 [ � � 1 O A cn � I x m nJ —I r W no —I 1 - < 73 n v °? m 17 € a o 73 7.1 x ! °' m 1 I it < r K m v D m ° 1 < r0 0 D m ! N – 1 i 1, °t m — = D I t • �t m — m m= m I j o mm j m 8 m I co �7 I a�ffTT�� rn 3 m ( . -I 2 Z +O ..._.. .. .it l m - - Z .. .— _.. I ' --- .. . Z o o m o ° I t K € u z co SS- S I w I 1T1° I m Z DC I oC I xNpomO � � I i rnA I i m �wrn� m = ° / t i` mm ° I1 . N O M m Z -O o I -O t ONto0 rm ° I , Dm O I 000 HD • I H > ! II � W WO m * f I I' !TID I i (� - - mmc I x I 2000 0 /N� • I (; o0o 0 2 2�. H o o ) • *T€ ?lo I 0, w I 1 • I rnw I• DFr —, Z o CO W I i °, Z ° co W I. �.. a 4 73 rrN + _- mto ............i ,r...... .._._ + -- mm --I• 1-rmmc 2 ° 00 I ! t1 m °° 00 i `� n n RKM70 N 2S I € , O TI T1 ) I t < 1 0 1 7I rrm ;� • - mm m O� f mm 1 II 6 mop -< -( ; 7... �.. _.. mo ,_ I w mm ;-• . i I Z I . r 2 o cn I n 7 n C I m I- i . '� ? • v/ A �D il I O T x x ° O 0 _ 0 O O O O O O O O O N O aoo w (88 aAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 (88 OAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 z 00 CO Oo – ° ° 2 `"' A COLLIER COUNTY ]BOO N.HORSESHOE DRIVE ,m..N ww.r.. I I a f _ NAPLES,FLOSW yam: .., �' COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING "°"" w b+ w C7 § REPORT-PEER REVIEW 'e. ..�.,.”. I PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL ��; amp TEMPLATE PROFILES-PARK SHORE .w„�..w,.,.....wk"..,. o.,� • ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: D I a I 0 I .�0 I m I n I 0 I I ::ter. »...O Attachment A > I m I 0 1 0 I m I ° I 6) I I < 2 mo A fV m rz 0 w D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0' I.1 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I m + + • iv - °o N °o I A v aIi D S 1 ( -I m � N I D 0 Kk N - . m K- + __. _.._._ . z m _.._....._ _.._ _ ....� 2 p.__....... - [[-O 0 O < ° I r < m - m D / 1 I 2 O m m -I I I I .c 7 W cn Zml i/ €t 2 m TJ (A A I 1 0 x 0D Zm1 W — 3 o I i `j m o -I 1 ! CO = W m w 2 I v� 0 is 2 1 ' 2 m 0 N NI < N 1 r m- < N 1 i < (n fill m 1 (A m p 1 -i wp �. _..__.. ..� rmm Dm o - j Drn o !/ G m m Cn - r3 I m rK I- -r; / r - f/ n� r- / n) SD / i °0 2D 1 00 0- m f I rn Om f rn m m x I H m m , fr ( m m A X I I -u A --1 I. -I i m ,, p ` mo °o .... �_._......,.� m o +°o ;.._..._. �I m : 5 z (A f m tihnn^. ' '-' „ z V) I ,1 m i 5 r "I N / 3 I -I co jj. ✓�r�v�✓wvv�?• X / 1 l./ m N / I m / It N m _ 14 m N C / 0 C i 2 0 0 x . rn � j I rn � I j AwT (n HI2i't 3 I/ ' mm co // t m m O C Z 3 ■o t 7,w +o OcncnG DD o 1) ., DD p 1 1G7G7G7 1 Ozz2 mD !f mD �) ' 'I _ gy m rn 03 c x \ I i ; - � DDZ 0 �� / p rrvN� I 0 2 2- m o 0 f I I oo o , 1( C 0 w I .3 Cmmp z -s Q1w , D N o CO CO l _1 0 W CO I 2p mm / .1 2 +p M i1 A 7rmmC m o nn 1 `1 w o nn j n -, -0 -0 < o 22 f/ ", 0 22 -I r' r' m 0 m m m m -Dim{ rr 1 . H - rr 3 3 - { ' m I - al (T1 717. I o � mm mm I / 1 v m m 13 z z I € Z Z I mm I _ . N co ZZ_ _. ODV .I TCD ,t O 0 0 0 i n n m '71 m 1 °, m m 1 i I p D ? \-� \ A '- ' I mm 0 E , .�._ .. _.. .._ �... _.�..._... ... _p _._...... f 71 x w ry o 0 ry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Ix o cO10 w (88 4AVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 (98 OAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 z 0 mu co CO Co I "`'' COLLIER COUNTY ,. w,a...M.,«. 1 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE ' 2 •f NAPLES,FL 34104 °^"■"'"' ipe I uo-..cn.y N E.m.v "�" -x�COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING Pte` "' m o I REPORT-PEER REVIEW ,IIon. �.n 9 i m g' " Q PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL S ; a„� TEMPLATE PROFILES-PARK SHORE DAB. a ORIGINAL ISSUEDDAlE: > I m I 0 I 0 I ii I r I 0 I I :44„,„..NR..,., .....R Attachment A D I m I 0 I o I m I n I 0 I I < _ mO AfV DELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r Cn N W N N rrr'r D 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r + + — 0 0 73 4. O n J� (D . ) ' CO N t iv i I j 1J o Z7 ! ,' X m I / 0 # 0 N J# m N f�fl ii m + I- + rf . °o i o / i # 1 I i 1 tt, 1 it A A , o - o / r- I/ # ; r _■ i Im I ) m II %3f N f ' ( 0 m 0 I 0 1 'D E ) t I — €3 m f m # — p S N N m f ! 1 1 I.. xWO)� � , U co � I co W + + 1 O N m G) ° ( ° i 0 o O Z Z x 1 I ( i _ KW WO 1 Ef , I — >> > Z f I / Z000 i�N� / I ?� - _�p ,, j i It * m -n0 cow I 11 rnw — 0 D r r o W W f # .. o - W W A 70 -I 1- (A + ._.. m m ! 1 _ ;y..... .. +0 p......... .......... p ✓ mmc 0 22 1� i ° (fin S S 1i r r - �� f — mm vv 1 . 00 # , ZZ ii in 1 E I (n(n ) i "!) cn O I i o '., __., o � � . ! _t_. . .�. .... 1 3 0 _ .. ,, f i u �TK�yT1I O 1 !s 1 MI Z Z N Z # \i (� co Z 11 jI -4 O / ;i O , / a O O ?t j 1 .c 0 F / -I r I m T r 7 r 1 D y —• ∎� l I a �� # 11 p 71 0 W N 0 0 ON 0 W N 0 '.0.. 0 O 0 O 0 O O N O aoo w (88 CIAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 (88 QAVN)133d NI NOI1VA313 Z vv co Co OD Co R 1 I "`"' COLLIER COUNTY .. wNU.K �u {89 `/ I a ]SSO N.HORSESHOE DANE E MAPLES,FL 34105 ,,,,............- paTl.�1*--- b { X COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING REPORT-PEER REVIEW '°:a„!C.,° .° T' 9 'I°' °° PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL °mow W. TEMPLATE PROFILES-PARK SHORE ° .°. .. DATE ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: > 1 0 I 0 I 0 I m I n I 0 I I :.. :,.. ...Mr. Attachment A D I m I 0 I 0 I m I m I 0 I I <_ mO 1N m D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r N m > o 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 n _, ° ( ':, , 1 s � << O I I -I D l I 1 S /� 0 m � I � I : w z s 1 O H ,� NI I' -cr. m + I — r * 0 (, 11 0, .: — 'I 0 Fri ' \ k '' m r CO 1 ' ( 1 o -1 / I 2 O3 m M 1.. 1 I ; W S l i m — 5 v < N // I E G A 71 � 3# _ X° a / s '!a, n + / { ' < n o / • -o m — 0 I ; fn✓�ti.nn�"n D m / < m 0, J I r- ___ -- r- / Is:w - - / i (� 0 -< 1- / ' 00/./../././...w/w / ij( m I / J! � m / , m ■/ � , 0 mm i N 1 iII 0) 0 m rn I F e rn rn 3 !/ m m0 o I I ' m o i Z O) 1 i '0 i ,c,--; m `D 1 1 �. / ..7 Z NJ m 1 — = N N m p 0 } ( F m 0 w rn m rn o / o I w 7J Omm2 »r° w 00 " a i E °o 11 15 0 I / Ozzu m * / '� Kmao0 A � ' ,' — 02= _mmc 0 I �� '1 2 00 1 � I oo 3 ,1 <-n -n0 Z -, rnw t — f rnw I H o co co 4 3p ........ ..__.. p OrmR-ItC m oo 00 1 ? o 00 / 7-1HH - H rr i 1 E" rr 1 - mmv m 00 i . , 00 I jt - - zz I ; ZZ 1I � � w a M M o »»/ 1 D D I - )� z J � 1 k_ cnZ O i o_ E E , - * j r — v 1 T7 ! % , "1l!' i a —I -iI I CIJ\ ce O X.Z) O W N O O N O w N 1 O O O O o o O O o O N O 00o w (89 aAVN)133J NI NOIIVA313 (99 aAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 z 00 — co co CO co WWIa s I $ i "`"' COLLIER COUNTY ....,..�,,,,. @@ E 0E04 N.HORSESHOE ORNE G0 i NAPLES,FL N104 »"A,Ae°"tl'�°�" 4 I A T COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING ,.$c REPORT-PEER REVIEW c ''' -n 9 m 4R 0 PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL wtl *` oE,�,„,o„ TEMPLATE PROFILES-PARK SHORE „ "`” Dore. ORIOHUL ISSUED DATE: > 1 CO I 0 I 0 I m I m I 0 I I :..; :, ,...r. »...R-PA Attachment A I co I 0 I 0 I m I ,t I 0 I I < 2 m0 7J 70 fV ' N y ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0r N W N N.) Ij D ° 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II .. ° ! ).',I 1 o ii =D W 2 DI I i1 } tV wZ I wZ € TI D mm E r < mm = m m ,fir' # ,I 0 in v CD -I f L 1 i) _ m O m 0 1 .. t ! r < m N is 2 \ o w m 'i I j � 0 v W _ < < N tl i = m m iv 1 / m O m °0 1 I < 73 X m o + 0 m A r D- / ' ■ m w / ■ < r 'D / . -0 l < r / _ -< rD / r 0 O -I D Om =p Om i ` mm� 2 rsaZ-I o C II o m 0 00 i --I zv ° / %,°' Z 4.. , m t ci? 0 I r m I i j m 2.Np i a it 13 — K iv M OT t/ v oc tt lv Spm0 o -,-, I I I rnA I _.� m >08X••wrn-i m= w 1 3 1,m ---I-1m I ! N E m o ? vv � m + t i + CO 0mm0 r- (0 °o I •1� r-� O ` t 1 OZZ � mD I i mD i j F, { _ �rW000 � 1 j ' D I ' — yDDZ 0 ....�� 1 ' EI 0 y...�� i • 022- -I oo ( 1 -'I i oo ` C I _ 1 ° C 71-n 0 I rn w j I ' m rn w i ; DPrN Z 0 07 W ; I r... + mm Z o W W a v -I -i W 2 O D D 1 2 O n n K K K A m 2 2 I , m 2 2 , K � � < N.) TT I O 71-TI -1rrm 1— r- I E j o rr i =� D D w r r I 1 _ m m m 0 v I t m D v '� zz , 1 � _ • cocn : 1 1 m o m o I w m �� ° t 0 1 N � 4 '. N / # ZZ N� • o N) ,fJ01 0 v *2 -< -< 1 : -< -< tI # — m C m m 71 71 a D ? ` l I p U t L . T Z ° W N ° O p ° W N O O O O O o O o o O N a • w (88 4AVN)133d NI NOIIVA313 (88 DAVN)133d NI NOl1VA313 z vv co co oD Co s l i s H! ""' COLLIER COUNTY 44 i1 \J� 2$00 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE o r d.o reP E S d / NAPLES,FL N101 J A. ri-COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING 7.°„ REPORT-PEER REVIEW .�. ..«..° :ino choN••Ma or no11.110.19 him how nu..IN doonlent Ho m 'p Z PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL q°^*: . EE,u„o„ TEMPLATE PROFILES-PARK SHORE ., DATE ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: D I w I 0 I 0 I m I m I 0 I I :.,,::741. ..~.r, A..,NG-... Attachment A D I to I o I o I m I m I 6) 1 I < 2 mO 7J X N 00 O on D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) tO 0r D cn �, r;, Ni m y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. rid € � — m iv o n _, i I I 7, Q II 2 I 4.0 N m 1 i O 0 m g_. I € 10 to w Z cn C -71 12 t111'1 1 2 -0 I1 r I ill O . ...,, t ..,...., 1 f..u O -f 1 / r co CO m D r 0 A — � 1v j' 2 W m 1 o � \ a+ � m n v wm 1 � N m v < n3 ! 4II < O 0 w ot�.._._i i m ,,,. .. i�m O J — D m� t — -< -° / Ni r I rn i W mx t I s. m x 0 4 I m —1 m m °o t.. . H z I `- 1 r-m m w 1 id I m 0 m , ' . , , 2. N.0 N.) m ,--, 0 , D ° O0X 1 1 01 0 cn cn 0 I- 00 0 OZZG� � D s _ CO CO mD § D D Z 0 I,,, —� i 1, Z000 Nine T1 TI Iv m 0 0 ! € rnw DAP° Z o , co co r}— c a 0 -I -I CO i 0 ; D D r_mmc m 00 2 2 A -(DD co 1- r- ! , � — mm oo — I ! N I m °o �� # _..... w w K K 1 mm DD cona t Z Z io in II r 2 nii * * . 4 I A m� m 0 F A Al o 0 Ni 0 O 0 O N -a0 CD w (88 OAVN)133d NI NOIIVA313 zz 0 0 • — cc co co i 1 i I $ 5 "`° COLLIER COUNTY ,..,.M�. .M . 1 1 ∎I ]I N.HORSESHOE DPIVE i or asn ' 7 . NAPLES,FL 34104 �w°w�Oi1°1yr COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING °+" " G. REPORT-PEER REVIEW .. M» N r r r ro.,;III Z ^^. °°°°""M1 "° II'I PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL a,�,,,,p, ' TEMPLATE PROFILES-PARK SHORE ,.>„ ... ""`" " " DATE ""°'' h ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: ;.I;",., ..1•.•.,, Attachment A D I m I 0 I ° I m I m I 0 I I <2 m0 -1 N- 5 1-D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) m 0 r i I - N w0 O mn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° ° 0 mrow +° . i ro � +°o { ( IX _ cn -i o n� 2 co 2 a D Is., m a � � 0 m °o_ 0 m :iJ o _ 4 .0 m co 1 { wZ #� . O H I 3 °! i -I I ti r O ,....._ x O ...At si om r' om 1 W v ro < Iv { m m m ° a mo a I o 7Jw +o =.cam._ Xwi o l.._ _ i S 2.m.m n < m 0 . i n m o E r D m I 1 €I < In m r- -0 I ' O r 1 i I , r n N �� I i - MOM -< D I 110 v x 2H f cn 0 xr • xH I... { I I :i m m m m I i ' _ = CO m m i N " 2 m { < A 0 2 m [ i 1 ! ° m m X I `i < X : m 1 o Xm Cr) I iEn Z m Am rn ' I ,' rn 2 O o _ I '� m m f0A o j i €i Z W � m m Z _, I ! •O v H- I - l k 4 r -1 O I ro . m 0 2. t m m- I 0 No i m 2 ro ro m p 1 m °o c 7 w rn rn = i 2 Co I N N 0 (• m m Z K(n 0 ...._. ..____ �I _..... i_ - o _._. OZZ� HD I ;� H > I I - K W W 0 m y m - y D Z 1 ^,I , I i 2 0 0 0 OH 00 0 t 0 O 0o I p22N 2 0 -, I -I 0 - I * m m 0 m _, rn w 1 2 CO w I >FF -+ z o ., Z c ° mm I A c H -I W S 0 D D i I ° n r m m C m n n n I I I m 2 2 i v ro m 0 rs, m m i 0 • m m m 0 O I ~ mm 1 • I H € mmm i •I # -0 ZZ I I ' ZZ W 0) i i '• , �. 0 .. ., ; m ° i 0 4 mm rorn � co ---1 i / Z Z ( o <n I— I om bD is in I 0 00 00 — C � m ":-1-1 T -I i 3 ` C G I i _, -I -I + {{ o 0 . • ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N 1,o Cow (88 4AVN)123d NI NOI1VA313 (88 DAVN)1333 NI NOLLVA313 Z 0 co co Co Ib II I ' € I I °`"' COLLIER COUNTY .wtl.kw.Mb Awns - diit 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE �o 0 5 i NAPLES,FL 34104 ~cn.N.•o�.m...,,,n , & . _ X COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING m.,,,....,,..,,, w g REPORT-PEER REVIEW '�'�'' m p1' PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL mom.. o+'[ .,• �.,u.,e• TEMPLATE PROFILES•NAPLES ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: 1 a I 0 I .m0 I m I m I 0 I 1 al=TVINOWMOJNOWN.. »..MU Attachment A I m I 0 I 0 I m I m I 0 I I <2 m0 7J 73 nN O (0 r ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) w 0 D N Ir77 > 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 N) II 2 !� / O 2 -Di I I 9 ((D O m K - I -0 m 3 I l 1 17 Co O w Z i '�/ Z O m N r m I N ra Kcr + m Kc� + rn � . o � � o -it -I D al c H > 2 � mm _ �O mm r < m En- X I I i r < m fn A / i ; O A o -I I I O O A o -I / I _-1 * r W v - m Il :, mom `''- m oxiOox v < N I f ` 0 0 A A < N r / I _ = W m 3 rp _ K m0 a m w o �...i... < f Tl -i w +o. _ W..........�_.., ..,/,.,,....... ._,.:k <'< •" vin O.n. / i < cn" m / I Q) m m [ r Dm o I 141 r () � D. o E / . j' 0 ° X -1 - -< r / - m < �r / mm (mn 2 D I ) m m c t (- G) m I =;N) Om I ) , 0 2m 1 [( Sm / ! 3 O0i ? m mx J I €irn m ( 10 -I co -1 I � -I _I •� + _y1, m S Z o 1 m_.._... 2 Z o+ .; 1._, I I m ° o J - m ° o f r ( i o z V) I 71 Z CO — S4t I m 2 /_ 2 rn I 11.gym. , — �_ O m - I m ma I v M 0m I =v o -n I ;� Z c / o c I 2 0 m 0 A l ( 0 A 3 i-9 8 m xmm5 m = m = o �mm� � (n 00 - - 1 + r- W O E 1 1350 � m ( Dm I 1 OzzA m * t mg )i — r- W WO D I D — r m m c A I )D. z z000 ° �� 1 i , o �N1 I -I 00 ! , H 00 P 1 i I T?lo I rnw ■ I I ow 1 > r r -A Z o co W I Z o co co I -1 _ mm I I -1 o (1-1 in _ ..__. 91 ° -I -1 (n 2 Oo DD 1 2 0 DD 1 K K K N 2 2 i m 2 2 / i N.)HArArm O 7171 I 0 -n -n I/ DDS rn � I T m� — I m O ° 1 I m ° ° I , __-mm I mm I Z z i 'D Z Z 0 / ( € ../ .,__._...... I w ;.._.__.. t ..,,, . -1 o _< €.�I mm ` ■_ , l w ZZCn0 ! SI A0 '.. i ' r2 .. ODO I EI .� �I I ` 0 3 O -<� i v *2 I I l� m � � Mil , i -TI TI / I m ��/ t ��/ t ' 5 m O O N) 0 O N co.-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 N A O aoo w (88 aAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 (88 OAVN)133d NI NOl1VA313 z 00 — co oo co co �'§ COLLIER COUNTY ..,,,.,..ANN,. 5 5 1 I I �5�'i1' ��I11�� - 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE M *y� ■ •, NAPLES.FL JA100 :��^^^"A 1' ^r�^' ~ ky uM•.+v.n+w�.7 et $i A T COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING n - REPORT•PEER REVIEW .„.,• ....t -....„aw.,.,..-,„.,�„ 7 7 7° i1,1 Z "•” amw..w �.o w.b iww een.we-unemon�i nlidu maws no warm.erprex II R PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL .n.Nw. ^^^�; un� TEMPLATE PROFILES•NAPLES �.> . .., "" " o„E OPoOINAL ISSUED DATE > I m I (I I o I m I Ti I 0 I I :.. :w«......,.-.. r•v.No Attachment A > I 0 I 0 I o I m I r I 0 I I < _ m0 N • y ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ci)nr IrTI D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 + ., II D I != -i [ N = o K -0 m K •0 , , , O o xi m X m z O roz O w w - H i K c" + c m K," + .. J m -0 _ 0o • ._� 2 - -o _ Y � ( roan H ; 1 — m -I t 2 r co m � 1 .� 1 I ' - m v w = i i ! 1 .. = m m 0 w = v < m tt i E < < < N v.'� rri 0 / { m m 0 ._ i _,:c0, j c) -I o i 1 I( -0 m m '.. 5 H o 1 0 < cT' I- -0 ! N � � t ' _, - m O m < r / = ° -< r 1 ; cLT, o ou 'U X = D o I O = D ,_ ■ = 2 W m K 1 t I ' < m n = m I !IK m I . ' air m m m X i r p) W M rn.M.,.. ,_._ t i z co i )i n� .- 9 o m y I i m o- t j Cn Z I oC .' oc I m z �omq rn � I rnA I '1 N W ooh mm co I mm I -i 0 t m 0�umi � rr O 00 - I { ,� 1- (/) 00 L 1',. ! " Dm I 155' 0 Dm 03 mD I I mD 1 Ozzx y t D I K O )- - mmc 00 1 1 o ZOCIO C 71 .10 m rnw '. 1 { s, m _, a0)w I a 73 r r ro Z + ... 1WT1 co I .......i { ';,_._. co co 1 , .. o O -I-iW = 00 DD I = ..±..0 DD i � � m 0 71 -n t o -n -n I DDS C) I- I— f 111 CD rr- � I - mm" -i oo i H Do I ;# - y K m m j I !! m m I - I ! �N t t 4 u)O i 5 6 +o ;.._. , m +o ) I r' fn 0 W K O .. { , 0 I { Ei I [�D D o w t Z = Co CO O I ao a *G) ) - 1t DRI' ** --I --I i ' -I r1 { 3'IQ 0 Lit O O O O O O O O 0 N Coo w (88 aAVN)133d NI NOIIVA313 (88 4AVN)133d NI NOIIVA313 DD 00 - Co Co Co Co 4 $ g II "`"' COLLIER COUNTY E j 0'I > 2000 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE S NAPLES,FL SINN ='''' ■ .■.NhANNA:Vres=7>FAAN my w. 4wweAr 6, . A �,w-COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING Fa m -$` REPORT-PEER REVIEW M r�p i'p A ,,. PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL m^^�; - ---� TEMPLATE PROFILES•NAPLES o„ ORIGNAL ISSUED DATE > I T I 0 I 0 I m I m I 0 1 I .10 1•.... »...G-414. Attachment A D I m I 0 I o I m I m I 0 I I <2 mO X 2J N c,O Q r CD y ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r D N 0 W N N W N m> 0 0 o O 0 — O 0 o 0 O 0 O 0 u 30 n {' i � W I 2 -I NJ mK ) � m� , - � D € I X �� i € :p m w z € i ,s O w Z I ; 1 0 –i 2 € �' e - "�7 -1 I t i I- m— -D 2 ° , ° l ' 2 -D Sc O r r 2 m m 1 E r0 X umi A i !t ) m O m o -1 I H * r co k, m V cm I = = CO m K < m I\` a = w M 13 K v M 7J 0 o p t` , < X n m o a I i l A < A C) r. � I ` O m — �— / m (� K / i D m'' r m (n – r f m r p / -< r– /! t /Om / if o Om t N O m X m X W / (I H I i m m m ° CO°'Am + / , M Vim) ° t 7._��.hNVww z ° r , 71 — r I� m I�°D l t D — 0 I I Gm) m € ! „ " m m I m z 00 C I i1 o c j ! € ) Doox � rn - € 1 (� rn � I € 3I i i .D ._...._ 1 u al O -1 m m co I m °0 9 11 °° mmz o ( l I O ( O D m ° I D m ° l i 1000 ll � DOaoO m � I my i € l 2 � mmC t ', t > --I � DDZ , 022 0 O 2 0 l 1 W (n n no m C) € 1 z rnw ) 1 � >r r A Z o Co CO o - CO W p 7J r r N + ...... m m __. .__. i.et..... ..... , ........ , ___ 0 r F A � -I 0) m + m m rmmc o K K X m ° 2 2 o ° 2 2 � r Z -, 1- 1- < a -Tl 'fl E (I T_T I h ADD _( w rr _� w r- i= �z r r i m r r i H m V — m 0 K MI --v zz I i 1I > N ' - - -IN 44 I m O .. 3 _._ IT1 0 •• .. Z W 0 € s 0 i 19f 0 W D D v� i ) z `. ZZ co r 2 .. rn w -- m iv 1 0 m , m D D a ---1 1 I p 1 S .Z1 0 W N 0 N O W N O N 0 o O o o O O O ° O N O cO10 w (88 OAVN)133d NI NOIIVA313 (88 OAVN)133.d NI NOIIVA313 ov — ao ° 1 i 1 p e """ COLLIER COUNTY w...wMNe-a:e.NW/..°'. ZE00 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE wiaw, �rl NAPLES,FL 34101 Na F^^ _ um nw*pow., 4 P." Map„w uurw,mA Ia.,,,..wrw—,,,, rFr w.,pwawwl w Mae. COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING :4=r-7,."=7*"., r a ”$4 - REPORT-PEER REVIEW .1*1e „4;°; " '. €F. 9 'i'1 Z ... PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL ma*; rl ti! TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES .mw,.,wawoa,in `",N,.4we" 5,, ""'1°"014° wa oO OAEE rt ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: D 1 m I o I 0 I m I n I 0 I I :.I: "4... NI.,p-.... Attachment A D I m I 0 I o I m I 1I I 0 I I < I m0 =J N r-D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) nr n N I 1171 y o 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 r + s + , f( — O — —I e m O o o 1 O)I N ii O II ! O) i f ?` j CJ1 N 1 • CO Q 1X Ii�', 73 W N ,1 ,/ _ N E 0 a:: m + rn o , 1 i) ( l I Il \ 1 1 I A I \ : / 1 ') O — x I r" E , < 1 „ 0 { m / p i. m 0 1 I� o — <)(t m IZ rn 11 l m — mf l { Ii l./ D ° X p I Xwm (n f I €� - ! { N W 0 0 Z w+ .......... t ._.... o f W Oww0 0 i € 1,� 0 1 1 i 1 1 ! { 1 I G) G� G) I 1 OZZ C I t IE ' J I i — ZC)C7p ANN It E� �N\ I S 'I 0= I N 00 0 O O -f1710 - 0) 0) I I I 9 O w 1 { ] D r r O CO CO ; 1 O 1 W W I A n 7Z11- 1-N, + m m + m m 0 -1—I � g > > � ,I 8 , a › ir � , KKK 7J I I I 2 2 I -0 -0 < TT ! I I I, TT I { , =irrm i { —DI-D-I� rr I rr 1 — m m 1 p 0 t 1I 0 0 I m m t Z Z I �� I E ( ; OO ; {__.... t — c � N t i 1 + _ '_ II ,. W I I , W K { Ill m rn 1 I ZZ i z � z I I ? r = in k 00 1 � T I 1 - v � I -< I— { -i1 r I m n r �/ II I i # _m....... . 5 m m o , o . ;D m 0 O N 0 W N O N .Z1 O O O 0 0 O O O 0 0 N .�O 00o w (88 QAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 (88 OAVN)133d NI NOIIVA313 z co co co co S COLLIER COUNTY E I NN��\ ]600 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE 3 C a I S D∎ NAPLES,FL]�1W ^" tr 6, „111 A _ COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING M a � .,�lWA $° REPORT-PEER REVIEW mocun° " ""° ,;;. ,„ 9 .r m tII i'1 r-.6 PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL a ao^+; rymm � p w TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES ...„,.......*.e. o,.. OMaNALISSUED DATE: y I m I 0 I o I m I m I 0 I I :.: . ..IP..0. A6/,fR-MN. Attachment A > I m I 0 I o I m I n l 0 I I < 2 m0 A N I-y ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r- rD fTl ° O 0 o O o 0 O Z 0 O 0 O 0 r + + _ , m ° ° — 0 ° I N it II O)CD Q II i i Co 3 ".) ) - v { I I 1 o ( 1 a CO ° p� I X i It 0 i r 0 I TI N I ` ,..., m + . ...._. m - ° o I _ /{ f I �� It• V I �� I I / A / ? I / O ( - 1 ! I 00 { j fn } �� Iii Z I €I O I i 'I / n m /I I' m / i it N ) I ;I I 1 ( o 1 m rn 1 i� o 01 E ! ' / K t 01 t m / m j m 2oomo // / m �wrn� Co !/ CO /t m coo0DZ +° ) +° I v O z z 0 t / i '' 2 -i 1- m m 0c t , i � A� � DDZ �\ j �ro1 zp22� 00 [ { i ' oo t i .I W I) CD w 1 0 D r-PN o .._. mm i 1, ... ° €-- mm { i `,...._..... OD ! a ° vriri� + rmmc °° nn i i i ° nn i � r KKKA 2 2 i i ,t 22 1 `, rz i r-< T T { 1 1'I 7'I I 3 I I D D 1 t -I mm 00 I ( z in pzz I I to cn I cn cn 1 om N _ . I .. , .' O • ° .. ` W I 0 I 0 w D D 1 I I ! z zz is 0 I rnz i ivzp � m I O� can I n � 1 mI A m r 1 :: 1 ,.t n ii ** �J / \.� " I 1 s ! -D1 A 1. . .. (. ., A !._ J 4___... .,x. m A A O tv -.O O O O O O O O O O 0 ° ° N L O in co w c (88 anvN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 (88 aAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 < < DD — co OD OD OD ? 3 I g II ""' COLLIER COUNTY _.m,_.�..A.. 1 �11� ]600 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE F L ' `t NAPLES,FL 11104 .F` 'mwy7.4"." nu °�a w'.n COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING :off - ,8 t - REPORT-PEER REVIEW .,'"°"'Nµ.9 M" i.. tlh °r..vzll, 2 .1.11 No II p PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL m o ;+ e.F, ... � P� TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES ,.,,,�..b„�.,.,, p„� ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE ) I m I 0 I o I m I m I 0 I I .;N, :NrA.L.alw..r„ to v.NN-aft. Attachment A D I m I 0 I 0 I m I m I 0 I I < 2 m0 MI N r-D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) to nr N W N N I I rrTn D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 ( 0 ' N.) n. --1 D I [I ti 0 2 { it N..) m � r mK I 'I a °- jm 2J � m i X Co i > II 0 CO Z Ca Z (, j I 10 rd , r. m 7, n� 1 I i 71 • a = • y ° ,+� 2 DD j r < m ) cX � ,` 0 < cn � i I € m co O m o -I I € < rr- co O -I �� s `I o X -0 X J wm : o X -0 X mm 1 _= m m v■ m o r i � 2 W m m o Il s �, < X X X0 r, i s m o X a , r ? g m m § i " 0 n D m V ( § tom m [ — �K € < -O frn r- � I I r - = D \1 1 m = > ii m 2- m I i m 0m ' t i 3 o mX 1 EIN mx ( 11 rn • • m0 0 1 §.. -I m0 o € 1 • Z to I ,m z 1 i € 7 K -ice / — 1 - 1 — / 2rvrvmZ oc l / ' m oc i / � oox0 0 - 1 ji.../ _ -1 I ;r „ N :000w -i m- 2 co ! m i W 0OZ Kx + .. 1 $�._ gA +o tt mm�Z p O 1 O , I I OZZO � Do i mD 1 m < t — W WO I I ›po D I I` — Z000 0 �1 I [I W z 0 0O It I 'I 052,. -I o0 t m 2 oo I >rF0 m 0 co co 1 �� H-II Z o co W ` I r m m c m n n § r m n n I DDS w 1- rr- 1 I1 (cnZ ca 1- r- ? I mm m 0o I -I m 00 r i mm I zz i a zz I 1tl 5 N -- I §._. ! � N �� § 11 m o � � .._� z m o .. § ._.. �� ° 0 € 1 1€ t ry - I Z : , I t . . co O Z Z ,_ �I T '' § al m .u. A A 1 € r- i ��<2 -C — 1 v (I m p � T t n +-1 -I` -1 a \. r 1 m A �� o l Lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 to w CO (88 aAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 (88 aAVN)1333 NI NOI1VA313 z 00 _ co co o co § i ;{ "`"' COLLIER COUNTY ,e,,,,,,, m"""'.: , > 3800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE E I e n m NAPLES.FL 11I0,1 ^a" °^"' ^ '�°' n iif x COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING '� "-'w= $` - REPORT-PEER REVIEW 7'77';5.0 Z �.� _ !1! VI PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL oz....,al n.. „w,,,o, TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES >,.,...,>rm.�. wrt ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: D I m I 0 I 0 I m I m I 0 I I =�. ---•.U. -.1-. Attachment A D I W I 0 I 0 I m I n I I I < x m0 �fV n0 CD D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAND 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAND 88) nr r 0 W N - N W N N m D O O 0 o 0 O 0 O O o 0 0 O O m o o ; li Z1 ;(] II 2 -Di ! ' N 2 -DI i / N.) m3 „, -0 m3 t co ° o z j i µ D !t I .0 m O w z i ;( O m x 1 Jt ',., ',... r m x 1 -' r N v x °o v x °o I 5-, — M D-I !i# cn C m-Di A®f M m . x -0 m m {' i C 2 x - rn f'i I- W wm i w mo a o m --o 7 mo a m O m X +° ..... .. �.m m.� _... -Iw +o i 2 m M m r I C m Dm t < - -< r- f i `ii x crl 0 m -< � 11 ! 12 r. 0 0 x D i i ° m x D t i < m ! Om t i ., < fn N Om t � Rl (A x , �� i ?� r �' xm ? I ! 111E ". m x t 0 x 1 I -1m + I i '�'. m -I m rn 1 1 I '� m Z to _�_... m 0 0 .L." i x Z o SS j I o z U) o / , 0 m o / V 1 .. M 0 q m N / m m m r i ; m Z p C r i M p C r I xoom0 � � I -ro � � / XwZ5)'6 m2 i - mm i , m M 1 - U r X 1 u ul -i m / Ommz o r m 00 I ! _ __ 1000 > m rr > D 1 ozzx -1 Kmmc0 mD !1 i ' D� in 11 DH - Z000 ° 'oo r [I W� _ o I II CO CO O x x N x o 1 D�� o m _, a) c...) I 1 O0 m rnc') I O0 Z o ! 07 CO 1 -I-I _, 0 CO CO 1 I -I A O � �(n + ..... mm ,...._. 0 -I + mm !_._ 0 > 3 A rmmc I ° 00 �.. ) Kr m °o �� 3r 1 I r 0 N r 0 � � � < N xx f i [,I �Z O xx Kz � rrm O TI rl O mm I =1 a) 3 _, _,� co .. p� I I �z �� F � , z mm m 0O 1 s■ -I m 0O - m m 1 ) 0 ' K m m o � , oco I I 1 0 uu m m•• 1 N - - I U) '- N U z mm - -1 Z Z W � iv i I) --1 rx - ww I m ooD 111 m 0- 0 0 1 0 0 0 i 'O -<-< I C/) - ! ) 0) —frl A �J 1 �� D �. �. 0 -4 + _ ._ + m m ° ° i f o o O o 0 0 0 ° ° N 1.o w w (88 CIAVN)1333 NI NOLLVA313 (88 DAVN)1333 NI NOLLVA313 z co co 00 WWII0� I $II > °`"' COLLIER COUNTY 0 o p 7 1 ' 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE o y,,,,�,�W F • NAPLES.FL.H10� rI �°� 'y' o^w'^" COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING 0 I. $s REPORT-PEER REVIEW m s'`q N '" PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL " F TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES o„ _ h ORIGINAL ISSUED D DATE: D I W I 0 I 0 I TI I 11 I 0 I I :.rft: ..--»-.. »- -M.. Attachment A D I m I 0 I 0 I m I m I 0 I I < _ m0 X xi IV 00 r. D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0 r W r 0 W N N N N F.1 D O O o O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O o O o m + c— - °o 7 73 u i on i I W m P. j ;il )' �J m 0 / 0 dot -ri , f\ TI — 00 0 r — r 1 ? ! / E 2 € 1 / a I i -0 r 0 i to — i /0 i 0 — 3 m ∎ a) N 1 m r rn / 3 Lvr- -I j D m m , m m �. I_.. . .. .. „... _.. .__0 v / / ! — �� m I ■m / — r v !' INNmp t' t D 0 8x •• ! 1 I N 7:)(.-. O N o 1 o r U 0 m m z O _...... _....... !� ._._ € 0 / __.. 0zz ,'p / r r 31nao0 I r = -, i �� — — Zmmc ! � D nz / OZ I vZ np �N r 0 I S— o o , Co a'm o o I (/� o m O rnw I 0 Drr rnw 0 ; r �� O aoao r -I o f W CO 1 I 0-+ > 0-1 -1W o DD 1 1 I... KrD- +°o >> > , 1 K� E a + m m rmmc o 00 #... r5 , 00 , I 1- 5 # 71-O -O < m n I =K 11 11 I ? = K € � rrm r- r- I cnm , rr I Vim € r- r I cnz rr z € _ ; I - mm- � mm I o zz I 1 a v I ', (n(A , I m I i o .�. . ±__. z o ' , I II 0 W 1 ° I -I m m 1 cn I z z rn z0 I -z-I Iv 0 I -I m m v *_ � � 1 m E � r I m • D -1A-. ∎. - ' I € - p . �J I -1 y H o _. ._ o .Zl pj O W N O N O W N O N o O O o 0 o O O O o N - O o0D w (88 QAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 (88 OAVN)1333 NI NOIIVA313 zz 00 — co co CO 03 i I i s $ 7;( COLLIER COUNTY ,..„. �:.an.�'°,. ,,,,,.: .."�' c I I 1 d y 3d00 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE "w It ■ NAPLES,Fl H1Q1 Nvn wm••'w.ev�n..°�.a.� w n •.i.e I COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING :alOwF N� i.a =11 =so N $s REPORT-PEER REVIEW =mow. ..,.. "".�a... _a,,, Z PROJECT DESIGN•BEACH FILL '�"� „.^•^^.; .31.41•31.1 m II @ TEMPLATE PROFILES•NAPLES ................,. °""'°°°""`°°" ""'" . ORIGINAL MUM DATE: D I m I 0 I 0 I m �„ I m I 0 1 I Ars• Ir.00AN0NEPANSAINRIORE0a. Re a,Ea-ERRE Attachment A › I w I 0 I 0 I rn I 11 I 4.) I I < I 01 0 X 73 -4 RI ....,5 o • , z ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) o.) > 0 'cn , r`O C...) r!...) N.) 0 0 0 0 8 0 00 0 iii 0 8 0 I- + \ + o ' — . F./ 0 0 , / 73 0 ' 1 1 r V ' c? 11 , CD . , ' (31 N) , , o 1:1 / , -0 cc c? X I 1 I ( I 7J 0 € , \ 0 0 ...€ 4/ la,''* 1- Na N.) , rTI , 41'' m + , r + ,. o / o _ o o - , ( t , .,..i . .., I - w , i ‘ , :.; I 1 W { J I 1— + ` 1 — < Cn / 0 I- -- 1 6 0 -1,) i m - N , I 1 1 1 1 0 1 H CT) + . m m 1 r , , 1 . 1 , 1 , m >0 0 x .• I , / -, 0•,.. , I ' I X C.J CD ED Ln ,-,mm Z o " , o w w w 0 o I o / 1 5 5 0 r r , ozzx I , r CO K CO 0 f 2--1 I I I1 - n / I > m m C X Joaa I> > > Z 1 . ( Z000 /r...773\ I ' 0 Z rsrjj,,)\ / 1 0 Z 1 cp i i- o o 1 03 CO 1 o o / CO CO 1 _ co w 0 --1 H cr) w 0 0 COW 1 1 ' I :1 _i 8 co oo ' i , H A X r r IQ + 1M 10 , f 0 > + in in t 0> A 0 -i --I (1) 0 > > r- MMC 00 • 00 - 1 K K 7z1 I I I I -- I K z --II- r- m m m , Cl)m 1- . € I , cn m -I -I- Z 1- r- ' Z - I c ni rT1 0 0 I, -1 i 0 0 , ' -1 - mm a 1, 0 mm a 0 Z Z : 1 0 Z Z 1 1 Co cn i m _, cn cn { I M , 1 +3 . -. ; I <- Cl) r.) — ' I + 4 , Cl) r z I I o •• I Z c, .. 1 w 0 '' 1 0 o • I 0 mm . - € _ Z Z rs) z . z -I , 0 Z ' I ' :I=. 0 ' 1 ' Z _, m m -n I-M "I 1 X •-<- I X 0 ' -i 1 I ' 0 I H\..._.../ M A , r'54 -I-I + "- 0 73 X 0 0 . C.J r■..) 1 0 2i NJ o 0 , ca r■.) --‘ o .... o na o o o o o o o m ...‘ o (98 CIAVN)133d NI NOL1VA313 (98 OAVN)133J NI NOI1VA313 z z >> << 00 — CC CO CO OD ......,4 „„„.„ WW1 > COLLIER COUNTY 2000 .HORSESHOE DRIVE r: 4 P • , 1 NAPLES,FL WOE N.ao.A.,..-pemp,.............m. tli A (2 1 pc .......L, N COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING “yank*d to Mom*cor.m.linfteecumm Yr.,.wad ka rS . .A4 ........ REPORT-PEER REVIEW Pai , --C- til PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL ,„.‘,omt oesuenox TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES W. ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: > 1 ED I 0 I 0 I m I m I C) I I :.. N. NM.r, ....N Attachment A ) I W I 0 I o I m I m I G I I < x mO 7J 70 I-D ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) ELEVATION IN FEET(NAVD 88) 0r N W N N m D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - _, r +o I. ... +o I _......_.... I - li !r o �1 0 :U I v oLm p i O co r N N + �_ 0 0 J, :.,• — r x / / \ � 1 E A t) 0 . �� _ j .. .., ,...., < _.. 00 / l _ 0 / 1 - 3 / ', m / ' r / I / ? 1 •, • I i m I m / € K / 1 ► 1 0 m m 1 /• _._. H _.. 111. 11 l r H9 i 23 , m i ` / v xoomp I I 1• Xwm (n i m 1 m N v00 - co+ I + O�cmn � °o i oo / l • AG)G)0 11 11 1 K CO W O 1 2 I D i - 2m m c j ( > i A 0100 �N� I . i 02 o t WZ vxx, 00 I O m rn w , I ► -f 0• CT7m0 0W 3 i �H O CO 1 Drr �, o woo + p a a v i CO + .•• D D �_ 00 D D I K r- 0 rmmc ° C)C) I r- 0 ; 00 1 I rG) U 2 2 I R z i x x I R z �r mr m m m I m T 1 q K '.• � �� I �z F � 1 . Q, mm OD 1, 1 -I_ ,. 00 I . 0 zz I tzi�cz_n 1 m 0 I m•_ I _ ► €•+ '-- � � x I.. N N 0 l z 0 "._� •; t t z•Lo w D D- • Z I Z — z Z l zz r" 0 I —{ 00 + ? m p 1 m m 1— i v �2 r ,� I Cl) .. r m m * * — �./ t a I `�� 1 >D A 0 _. �,,. ... .. + m o m o 0 0 0 w ry 0 0 0 O O O N O 000 w (88 aAVN)1333 NI NOLLVA313 (88 aAVN)1333 NI NOLLVA313 zz co co co co F 1 """' COLLIER COUNTY ewe =w,wtl,ti 1 2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE wimp•sr a.m i a NAPLES,FL KIM .°he.m...�.�n..H.n.+.•-,.. .a ..ps r.ynla..a AM Chan,or.a....mry a ww-era:....i.a..."' "COLLIER COUNTY BEACH MONITORING •a „T.. REPORT-PEER REVIEW a .1. ..�.. bS ''p Z PROJECT DESIGN-BEACH FILL ;m ;" F e ...,... . a ...E,.TO. TEMPLATE PROFILES-NAPLES .., u.TE ORIGINAL ISSUED DATE: 1 w I 0 I 0 I m I m I 0 I 1 Attachment A APPENDIX B—COMPARATIVE VOLUMETRIC SUMMARY TABLE 24 Attachment A 2013 Project-Comparative Volumetric Summary Design Volumes Effective Taper Effective R-Monument Distance") Matrix' Length Distance' Atkins Volume° Difference (FT) (CY/FT) I (CY) (FT) (FT) (CY/PT) (CY) (CV) R-17 R-18 __.. R-19 R-2) R-22 R-23 R-24 R-25 ...IT)_ ____ ____ ___ _ R-26(Taper) 986 10,0 9!864 736 12,6 9,433 -432 8-27 1095 18.1 19,851 1,045 189 19,710_ -141 8-28 1026 10.0 10,256 ti 1,026 10.2 10,450 194 .9.29 ._100.....,.. ......... ... _.. R-39 942 10.0 9,423 942 10'.0 •9;385 �38_. R-30(T r) -1033 10.0 10,330 _'500_ ..._783:_ _130_ 10,179 __151 '.'. R-31 R-32 R-33 R-34 fl R-35 R-36 R-37 R-40 R-41 s, y, x° Ali ✓23 rrl6.S:i:+: , , "`:aoi uwv.r'' LS:DVI.c R-42______ R-43 7-7471-71711",., 1,000 5 0 5:;000 .350 82 _5 I S 1 1a,942 9,942 845 _ .1,0 78 35.4 38,138 1,078 28.5 30,703 -7,435 846 1!,040 70.0 10,403 1;040 9.9 10,323 ....-80 , R47(T ) _953_ 'S 2 : 5.000 :500 703 6.7_ �4y739 -261 R-48 R49 T-50(Taper). L208 2.1 2,500 500 250 Y_ •14-5 3,625 1125 R-51 1,108 14.5., 16,057'..' 1.108 14.5 16,045 -12 967 26.6 25,726 967 265 25,608 -118 8-53 1,060 12.2mm ::12,923 1.060 12.2 12,956 33 R-54(Taper) 500 5.0 2500 400 860 2.5 2,134 -366 8-55 R-56 R-57 a eT. a 2. 771. .: W r= 7 k ": 142 1,613 200 100 75.5 7,550 -7,063 r. R-58A 667 73.6 49,122 404 755 _30_509 18,613 8',58 737 :rr 58.4 '43957 .737' 61 8 :. 45,530 ' 2,473 .T-R-59 __ 1,035 30.4 31470 �_ 1,035 25.7 26565 -4,905^ R-60 1.,081 _ 10.0 10,813 :1,081 10.4 10,850 37 8-61_ 1,049 10.0 _10,488- _ 0,1,049- 133 189_ 14,575 5,887 8-62 1,015 .17.8 18.098' :1,015- 18,308210 R-63 ..__ 967._._ 183 17,691 '967 18.2 17,585 -106 R-64(Taper) P854_ __59 5x000.. .500 604..-.- 5.3_ 3_221 1,779_ -------__._-______ _________-._._____-___..__..__.___ R-66 1_ 8-67 R-68 R �� ""R�69(Taprs) ;$OS 6.2 5,000 : 600 505 0.4 _]87 4,873 '. R-70 ''800 _ 15.6__ 12,513 8800- 156 12,504 -9 8-71 803 22.8 18,284 803 22.8 18,291 7 CC r) ..807 .... .6.2 5.000 600 507 3.3 �690 -3.3➢0 R-73 R-74 R-75 R-76 8-77 R-78 R-79 R-80 R-81 R-82 R-83 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)Denved from CP&E 2012"Design Matrix for 6-Year Renouushment Interval"in Appendix E of the"Collier County Beaches 2013-14 Renounshment Project Description with Engineering and Design Summary' (3)Volumes derived by Atkin utilizing point files,elevations,and drawings provided by CP&E 2013 project extents Effective distance developed by Atkin using different length than identified by CPE Effective Distance Equation for Tapers =(dm,.,,e)11_DOtw- .1T-Nora where d,1-effective distance used for volume talc in taper ds.M,,, =effective distance for adjacent R-Monument d,as,.,=taper length Attachment A APPENDIX C—GLOSSARY OF TERMS 25 Attachment A 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" 2013/14 Beach Renourishment Review and Discussion Three Objectives: 1. Review/discuss BCC direction relative to beach renourishment design - 6 year design life or a 2006 unmodified beach design template. 2. Discuss the Peer Review of the design for the 2013/14 renourishment project. 3. Evaluate "Target" sand volume quantities to be used for bid evaluation, planning, pricing and funding discussions. Design Direction • Confusion exists - 6 year design life design Vs. a 2006 unmodified beach design template • Latest direction — Reconsideration hearing on 5/22/12 — Item 11A — Approved plan to preserve beach maximization options — 6 year design that duplicates FY 05/06 renourishment — No mention of 2006 unmodified design template implemented in 2013 — First Motion "...survey the beaches currently to determine what is needed to restore to that 2006 standard and that we renourish for what the actual loss is under that 2006 design and do it as quickly as possible..."— no second to motion — Second Motion "...motion that we go with staff's recommendations including modifying the permit and taking care of hot spots, if needed..."— Motion Passed 6 year Design Life Project for 2013/14 • Same 6 year design basis as 2006 project but with FY 2013/14 actual beach conditions. • Takes into account: — Beach design standards (85 and 100 feet beach width) — Advanced renourishment (after 6 years beach width standards still in place) — Composite erosion rates (rates from 1996 to 2003 and 2006 to 2012) — Renourishment timing (time from survey to renourishment date) • CPE performed 2005/06 renourishment — met design requirements • Utilized industry standard design methods (USACE and FDEP) • Peer reviewed by Atkins Volume Review— 6 year Design Life Vs. 2006 modified design Volume Summary CPE Design Matrix Atkins Review 2013 6- 2006 6-Year Template(2)2006 6-Year Template(2) Reach 2013 6-Year Template(') Year Template(2) (un-modified) (with,gaps) (CY/FT) CY (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT) (CY) Vanderbilt 11.8 11.6 59,156 8.9 78,430 13.6 69,261 Pelican Bay 0.0 0 0.0 0 3.4 20,850 0.0 0 Park Shore 13.3 118,247 13.6 121,074 11.2 117,810 12.1 107 567 Naples Beach 22.7 19.5 10.1 190,915 13.5 17.0 419,120 15.7 387,395 9.2 408,005 13.0 320,716 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 Volume Key Comments • 2006 unmodified design will not achieve a 6 year design life for the Naples Beach segment (CPE and Atkins conclusions) • Excessive erosion south of Doctors Pass • Discharge location for Doctors Pass dredging changed since 2006 • County working to expedite Doctors Pass discharge permit modification • 20,000 - 30,000 CY's sand bypassing available on a 3-5 year schedule if discharge location changed • One sand bypassing event incorporated into next 6 year design Summary Comments • Timely sand bypassing discharge location (south of Doctors Pass) permit modification can reduce sand volume by quantity dredged - Say 20,000-30,000 CY's. • Beach survey immediately prior to renourishment may increase (TS Isaac) or decrease (November truck haul remaining). • Scope management of target design quantities may be necessary based on project bidding and funding • If BCC elects not to renourish to a 6 year design - Intermediate renourishment may be needed Decision Point 6 year Design Vs.2006 Unmodified Design Template CPE Design Matrix 2013 Atkins Review 2006 6-year Template 2006 6-year Template I Dispute Reach (CV) (CY) (CV) (C Y) (CV) Vanderbilt -; ,E 59.156 78,430 69,261 0 Pelican Bay 0 0 20,850 0 0 Park Shore 118,247 121,074 117,810 107,567 14,000 Naples Beach 207,165 190,915 100,000 Totals 419,120 387,395 408,005 320,716 114,000 Type here Collier County- . Summary Col Sum h Design Beach 2013 . . ,, ,,,,, _ ›,,,,,,,...,,,, _ i,,, ' '4, ....sostihri:4,:.,-4,-:,;;'',4",2::4tii.ii,`‘'''',- ''; -,:!".•...:- •,.4,•' •..'„•',,,,f1L'..*A.;,..,=4,....,;.„,-.,‘„pt...::pw,,-41 ' • , • -s''''''' ' ' '.,,,,,,--,,A,„',-,:,q.1„-,. ...,, ,,';,- ,,°., ,, °•,'„.2.: ,,,,,,,,,:ti,%-„,. ,,,,,..,..4-:, .:„. ,,,,,,,,,to,tF.,,1*,,,E,,,,:ii4 „.,,, --" ,,fiir;°,_,...tr',.40,tigt,-..,. , , : , ..,:i$,.v. ,,,,,,,,,,„':'<''':116?-";';‘C4 .,,,., ':'', ' ,,..,, ,t, ',.''''''t'47;t3' ':' ,,,,,I.,„,•00*,,•4„."':•:Y'% ,"'',v-R47:-',;,,,,eoffr, \.,— '—` ,(451.' -• 7, ' ,,,.,' 4,ff---r":-,',..---''',,-'=:t-fitilt..",:,; ,, 2 '...,,°, 1,:,4... ,, , ,..... -.:7-.,„ ''‘,,,,citrg?..,, ',44,.:4•,'; 4 .4... , •, "',',44,'-: .., , .,.. ';'4,-.•••;,:f15,,, -....„:„... ; Stephen Keehn, P.E. Nicolesharp, p. C OASTAL PLANNIN G 8ENGIN E ERIm G , INC. C. Gary Mc Alp,n Collier Coun ty Coastal Zone Manag ement Objectives • Illustrate beach design process for a 2006 size project for Collier County - Six year design life project — w/o Pelican Bay • Review volumes — Based on August 2012 Survey Data — Volumes and Project Limits Modified • Doctors Pass & Other Adjustment s - Effective Bypassing substitutes for Nourishment k�, g BAREFOOT BEACH t�V $ Y { WIGGINS PASS I TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE { PROJECT -� STATE PARK i,R I DELNOR-WIGGIaS� ORLANDO n r 5 LOCATION •.,TAMPA ARANne. Vanderbilt _ _ GLEAN 17ENOR5 CO. �,.\ O 90,,, t ��.. LEE 0, RATON N ` I VANDERBILT CO MWMI NIgN%1U VANDERBILT • °/41 BEACH Co ' GULF /I 1i' , OF r"a ✓R�'y y - "'-- __ , Ggr MONROE CO.. MEXICO "'... \ \ n MEXICO Project =+. PELICAN \ ' PELICAN ° � BAY "y. BAY • `iiijjjY'''((('JJJ i Area PARK � R J SHORE �q 1 \ \ CLAM PASS p, 1 : � '•\ SR 896 ...i,...._ PERMITTED \ li�1 N nnrwn PIPELINE e h G( I I 1 I N780000 CORRIDOR -� Park Shore • ..�...�... ..... _,...> __ _ l YAKK.BKUKt W✓ d p OOLr.'NS PASS ._ SR 1186 .......... I 1 20' CON',OUR ._. % TS__k..... ,___. �= NAPLES f' A Naples .568:58 ._.._ /:., .+ N AP0000 4. , N MAi1Np 117 '9611111t Tom\ �'t RTO ) LEGEND_ �\•" I—,-`.A I PERMITTED PIPELINE CORRIDOR \I L____I PROJECT LIMITS �`� PROPOSED FILL AREAS \ l]y` PELICAN DAY FA L AREA GULF � PROPOSED NEARSHORE 1111 I...... ......1......_.� OPERATIONALAREAS OF i.:',1?,, ... �\ I ® PERMITTED OFFSHORE h4EX/C0 V I✓� '1;.1OPERATIONAL AREAS fit'' ''' gT ROVAL A R70 FDEP MONUMENTS o ' \ CORDON PASS NOLE� S. 1 COORDINATES ARE IN FEET > �00ds q I BASED ON FLORIDA STATE \n PLANE CWROINAfE SYSTEM, 5558.8w, 1 EAST ZONE.NORTH AMERICAN m ` o AYR DATUM OF i98D INAD63y i\�Y�, o GRAPHIC SGLE IN FT 2. FILL WIDTHS ARE NOT TO SCALE. ' Pertinent Design Parameters • Volume Change • MHW Shoreline Change • Performance to Design Standard 3 M" 4 " CPE Plan View • R26 and R27 at Vanderbilt Beach • Baseline, Beach Width , MHW Line and Profile 1 rnwk51N""�'„ b SV A Y i 'n e � £ R-27 ., T. _.,. I\r �+ 2012 MHW Line 100' Design i Standard Go I is tc rrainin Al 1 thi lire f©r years it . 04 7416 I' F 9 4 yqf CPE Hardb©ttom 3. Profile View 1....'c..i ',. ,.;.' ., , Elevation leva fion v s p.,. is tance from rom—g;a......2 R -mi lri2, - o n\u- m-,N e n, t N• a-26 IA Or ',,., Ci, ' ,,11EL,,E.R27 LOCATION Co'l'e ,County \ m...liiih wat"L'"` : '.1 " „ „,,„„,-„,,,-„,,„•,s.M,es.a .H i s,„,0 h Water et. t is n,„_,., e .i... ,.. , ,.... .._ .. , 1 2 .. -,,..-... . .,-- ' ' '- ",' "'''''''''.7..„1'?',-.•:':';,'":: .;:iA'e.%,.::„'"ii' 1 , 800 co --- 2012 Profile ir c - . August 20 s SeASOn i 500 i 1 ' .1''''Design CrIer I / 0ectiOit i 000 .27 Monument SI ss or • 100 ... 0 ...i00 ,00 '.r.' t 2012 Profile 600 R-27 -,.,......„.,... , 800 L300 100 Ft. 200 400 R.26 2°- Distance from 100 (requires fill) 0 . - re -,e. .....„ h of „4,41:14 on R-26 much standard) 1 caused- - cat. - stan hic.1 design Debby, w (above t after in August In - Lit -veYed sand bar surveyed,-- -,. ' cPE fger -. ./ a san ..,:,,,,,‘,.*.w•-:-' the shorehrle retreat Design Calculation • Average Annual Erosion Rate • Design Fill • Reserve Advanced Nourishment (credit) • Advanced Nourishment , • Future Erosion 10 ._. ......_..__.._.__.. > TBEACH a WOTALIDTH DESIGN ' �1DOE0 BEAC1{ t WIDTH DESIGN -EXAMPLE, DESIGN TEMPLATE am ti „ k's,`"'a .a' :`e" �� PRE-CONSTRUCTION . PROFILE ": 3 F' — _ k. MHW LIJ ''''' EXISTING PROFILE Qfr� -ADP-- ... WIDTH REMAINING n._r TOTAL BEACH Reserve Volume,Advanced gyp, - WIDTH REMAINING Nourishment „ Design Fill ? `,',;:t t, -100 50 100 150 200 250 300 CPE t NOTES DISTANCE(FEET) t I.BASELINE SET AT SEAWALL,EDGE OF A VEGETATION,OR EQUIVALENT Design Fill Volume .. . . . • Brings the shoreline to established design standards .. . ..... ......,. ...:....::„... ::::...:... .:',.....-.....- ,. - 100 feet for Vanderbilt Beach and Naples Beach ..._.„....,„:,........ "is......,..!4Fai.... — 85 feet for Park Shore ,i..,.....it.:............. — Calculate volume using profile translation 2012 TOTAL BEACH WIDTH REMAINING DESIGN STANDARD ,..NOV 2005 —JUNE 2006 –JULY 2011 ........AUG 2012 .....1;:::.. • . 150 •Ir.7T, .:::::::: :•...; '....'- r 140 ., II'•.\/ 130 , f . ... . ., .. .. ,......„ .,... ..., i \ 120 , .. .■ '"ftf4'. , ' gl*:. ,. / „z 1iii ' 110 ........ ir , - Wit ‘ ,e0 ''.:.„4......, . 90 •:!:retYllk: ‘ ... 1 . Wgt NOTE DISTANCES ARE MEASURED MOM MO BASELINE SET FIT BACK OF REACH , 70 CPS' 0 Hot Spots in 2012 SOUTH 4---R-MONUMENT LOCATION--.•NORTH f. 0 Pelican Bay not in projectIlmts Transitions/Tapers/Shifts/ • Help stabilize fill within the project areas • Neutralizes spreading proportional to size - Vanderbilt Beach: R-26, R-30 — Park Shore: R-44, R-47, R-50, R-54 — Naples Beach: R-58A, R-64, R-69, R-72 • Shifts sand from fat to thin area to avoid hardbottom Impacts (North Park Shore and Naples) • Bypassing reduces nourishment needs using alternate . sand sources (Doctors Pass). , CPE r Design Quantities Item Volume (CV) Design 112,300 Advanced Nourishment 206,600 Future Erosion 48,000 Adjustments & Credits 33,100 Total 400,000 cy Assumes: inlet bypassing of 30,000 cy under Adjustments truck haul and Isaac a wash, and no 2nd dredging. CPE 2012 Beach Width Remaining (Feet) Design & Advanced Nourishment Volume Illustration —DESIGN STANDARD —NOV.06 ——JUNE 2006 -—JULY 2011 —AUG.2012 200 Naples beach , r 4---Par0 Shore----Hi. Vanderbilt -4 175 /i I , 14 A 1 1 f t i . A A\s \=i ei.i"'\A■'\.,,\',\,,/\:,4v,,‘:,,,\,:,i 4,,,,%, 'f1 l 1/4,,,4.,,,,it: ‘. ,\1 150 50 t -4 A 1 < , , , ' ,, 125 1 00 v V / t 75 A, 50 NB 11 NB I :-.,. Psi ps ,,.. 25 NOTE INSTANCES ARE MEASURED 1.0M MOT IMSCLI/4 SET AT SACK OF MACH 0 : '44fTigE471:412 .:47.44;.;;;i1:63t4;74V4241'in4.4.1g;g4;g1.'2.ggV211;4;?,4ggN;Vili/NaV44MZ12 c—)1 n 2006 Project Limits eg i g 0 Hot Spots in 2012 1 E; 2006-12 Losses in 2013 project NB 11 2013 Project Limits SOUTH 4----- P-MONUMENT LOCATION C NORTH Design Adjustments (Debits and Credits) • Design Volume 430,000 cy -• • First Dredging of Doctors Pass 30,000 cy • Sub-total 400,000 cy . • Truck Haul Volume 22,700 cy • Sub-total 377,300 cy t • Hurricane Isaac Impact — Unknown? 22,700 cy • Sub-total 400.000 cy xlp • Second Dredging of Doctors Pass 30,000 cy • Grand-total to5 370,000 cy CPE 4 '0 / 0 << BARP��T ; EA O it A•0 +5.3 "r':RK.EGG Yl. 6.1 A 0.5 NOR 1 Collier WIGGpv5 0 600:111....1400i \,16.6-- iATE PARK 1 •.5 +5.1 I ' GRAPHIC SCALE IN F! . 5 6— `1�1� __ County 5.9 s...a Sediment A7 10.5 ' �'V• DERBILT BEACH Budget PELIi•N BAY 2006-2009 aR40 v CLAM PA S II GULF +0.8 SR 896 OF 5.6 MEXICO $A R50 -6.6 T. ] vARK HORS 15.0 PA55 „_o� +4.0 �wc SR 886 -10.4 10.6 7.g SR 856 — SR84 NAPLES +10.2 '�1. Doctors Pass Improvement: � ''' � Move Bypassing Closer to Inlet 79 r t, s PORT ROYAL �\ ' ''''i:1,-; 0.1 , . \ G D S ? \ C LITTORAL SAND TRANSPORT pN Pp5 90 A PE ' MECHANICAL SAND TRANSPORT G R KEEWAYDIN (DREDGING OR TRUCK PLACEMENT) \,0 (c4 }tl ND w 'f w ALL VALUES IN CY./YR.x 1000 \' Doctors Pass Dredging History 1984 New permit 1984-85 9,900 cy 1987 6,000 cy 1988-91 12,000 cy from inlet and 28,000 cy from Moorings Bay n 1991 New 10 Year permit ° 1992 15,000 cy 1996 55,000 cy and Jetty extension ,,,, 2000 39,800 cy Rock & sand to new depths 2002 9,000 cy 2005 New 10 year permit rIv Nov 2005 45,069 cy Jan 2009 32,500 cy Since 2005, dredged & bypassed almost 10,000 cubic years per year, 'CPE And since 1991 almost 9,000 cubic years per year ,. a ; ,.� `"'^N.�w"..*y � � �v � e n...,. � .., w�� 4 a�;a� ,� *P7-;‘,- w e#s a rtd; r ° t $ pr's' � �� °''�M, � '� ti .�'i <:.�' w� foolew �� .1 .�, sv 1 s .. ,,, , ,i e u I } 6•' . .. 4 � r 0000 Y .e 4 ' \ �/ �7 k" .r, a 1��E�� `' '' "1. 4,',!17,,i., a' of, „c„, ,„1, « 1 1= ' t ..:, (.0:: ..-71,, i' ,,,,,:,'.. $47... :,: 4,4e,',, ,, , '''' 1 :_ \Ii4i .:: 105 1000 HI FEET BAY➢QT 1)AOA STATE PLN0 CWIDPIAIE STSTDI, *T ZC'E.HD(IH AIEI5GII[IA1W) NA06Ty ;!.w. .� yIATId18 NS 06 600 0006 TC I 1H A1E11E'/VI W I CM.DATA/W 760 y 4",,,.«.''''' w...':. ` ' '''''''‘C,' OK'I�F11w Mwroaarxn M JUv S 2010 ” f •� 6 WAS BflN SONNT SUIPlY.1005 AID 70 W. t r � , w. "' A° 'm TMS BA5V HCLL IS MBE IAAPPBUWATE� w CCHIWR.US TIE SEAW/JO ..._ ...,v,«.. * ON 11� Crgial AHC BAlH U1000 6C means(HDMI BY T100 AGWTT AFmOeIE lDM { '""� '.-.. '^., ; °,.,',: r v €�` An[mT tD�ee10.mlml a Dwu>� r mIO 100 . / ✓� I --' � Proposed New Dredge Disposal Area J \,,,,,,, ‘ ' ' v,7 Doctors Pass Maintenance Dredging Project . Thank You! CPEti '(CPE Collier Court... Beach Nourishment Peer Review -s- Presented to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners April °1 3•. .C; ATKINS a _po. Goals of Peer Goals of the Review Project Compare to 2°13 and 2oo6 -Design Criteria beach fill templates '; ` •6-year project design life •Vanderbilt, Park Shore, Naples p 99 Coln osite erosion rates (1 8 Review CP&E's design 4 `.°. to 2010) methodology ,:�;c�F::. • �.ss.....�. � -No impact to nearshore T � 4Yt •design matrix s ardbottom •calculations • cy/ft minimum fill density 'permit sketches and drawl -1 *Clearly explain any differences -Address sPecific uestions/cone ' ATKINS e fir,... s°- 1. Detailed explanation of the total quantity of sand to be placed. • Reviewed the design matrix, design drawings and reports by CPE • Total quantity of sand to be placed in 2013 per CPE's approach is 419,12ocy. • Atkins' independently verified yielding 387,395cy (within 1o% of 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. XF!.: n rt.'i',.iS' ', '? ,, iA' i 3't -zx, T�'F J�`K 'ri` x`'�n', k P's t' q;.F i.::.. '.14`:...: .i.`.:r C'«:.. :s P,r .,N'�".. dw .gl%i'.i'i. ,. a. sr 'p.i;;s.; "�' x i�t:k i,.',.'..�»r:itJ,'r c s.3'€ _ w�tf - 9 '�'%.., :� :�°;. i Ir.,,.......;E�,•: ;r«;.c:. ',*"..... _ . r hn, ti... :r':,'-, i" wc=::=-:',`fo P•: r :�.:.;.•.:a'.� :5*'�P"• i:.,'»� s a 'tr�• t tc' f .i•:..:. -•� xx VI3 '•t.F�T'€'kf = . - - '€.. yt= 4 x nZ •,{swi?.t-kt 1�.r ,1• rG.'R,::. :e:' : :4 . ATKI NSA 2. Table of computed volume to restore the original 2006 template. Volume Summary CPE Design Matrix Atkins Revien 2013 6- 2006 6-Year Template(2)2006 6-Year 1emplate(2) Reach 2013 6-i'ear Teiliplatem YearTemplate'21 16� . (un-modified) (ivithgaps) (CY/FT) (CV) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT) (CY) (CY/FT) (CY) Vanderhilt 11.33 59,724 11.6 59.156 8.9 78.43() I3.6 69,261 Pelican Bay 0.0 0 0.0 .0 3.4 20.850 0,0 0 Park Shore 13.3 118.217 13.6 121.074 . 11.2 117.810 12.1 107,567 Naples Beach 22.7 241,149 19.5 A 207.165 10.1 190.915 13.5 143,888 17.0 419,120 15.7 387,395 9.2 408,005 13.0 320,716 ' .'i Notes:(1) Derivec);from CP&E 2012. "Design \ itrix foi 6-Year Renourish►nent interval" in Appendix 1=,of the"Collier County Beaches.20 Renourishrnent Pri)ject I Description:NS.ith Engineering and 1c' an u:, . i w i i 2 Volumes derived Atkins utilizing point fles-elevations and drawings v .provided by CP&E T ATKINS v"'r- 4, List assumptions included in design • Special adjustments to taper sections • Minimum fill density of 10..CY/FT °' • Additional volumes based on modeling • Methodology was used in 2006 and that project achieved : ;; its design life .�;.:.. x...; ' Ik ��" .,Fr. :`a x n ;. jr r�:..; « .�,,s f;'.0.4,,,.•,'t ,�..-,- - - •• - m�` - -- t_-- 2.r - . ,.• _ »-r.. - i i tea. .' {!. fi ATKINSj 5. Comparative beach profile plots detailing variations in the 2o13 & 2406 beach fill templates. 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 68) 10 2006 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE -10 m SEAWARD CREST EL.2.7 (NAVD 88)) 2013 BEACH FILL TEMPLATE < r SEAWARD CREST EL.3.0'(NAVD 68)) _+ 0 0 z z iiii m �.. m -10- --10 v --20 -20 CROSS OS:) 2006 SECTI(6.9 CUBIC NAL VOLUME YARDS) 2013(18.0 CUBIC YARDS) � �' '. 0+00 1+OQ 2+00 3+00 r W30 k 1 f I f ,. ` - QQ 4+00 5+00 6+00 T+00 " , ' ,,,X1',W•;, 6°,1',;,,,, r-,-, ',-'44.,, ;.'' ' ' ''''' MIZpi :,wµ Conclusions Design approach utilized by CPE is: ' consistent with the design approach commonly used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) where the "advanced nourishment' is intended to address erosion rates throughout the proposed design life of a project; and, j fundamentally sound and appropriate based upon our review of the data, docuents, 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 P. � and our experience monitoring the project areas since 2oo6. ,,, ,k1 _ Y ..i. yh'" ATKI N S pa = 11%(:),t".- , '. c., al Vt. ,.._&. t2t; tn ' '••'••. :::..,•,.........,....„:„:„......„,...--7.,...r.--- ---,-,--- Representative Profile 20 : 20 R-28 Vanderbilt cc cr • 10 z (, .....,_,.- ii.,... ,•,,::::,..„,, 0 '---, \ ,,,,z,,,•4•,, ' ,,, , . „.„.„„...... . ,_ , ,„ ...,....... — -,., i•••••• „,....„............,„ -,--''' —'----„ c - • 1._ '--„. :, , I, , 1(„). .• ---„, ' 3'----, ----..._. :':,, ...... ............ 11111 6-year Design Fill = 2006 Design Fill „ . ......, . , .. „: ::: ,...... ...„„„,_ 0+00 24+400 4 00 6+Ou.-, ,:„.,,..:...,„„„„„:„.„..,....,..........„.„,„,„„..,.. y., ,,.„,...„..„,,,.,,,:.....,.„,„„,,..,., .........„,.... ,..„,..„ ,,,,,-,,,, •",,,,,,,,,,,,':',V,,,,,, LEGEND'. ::..g.:;:?4:;:,"s,',•''',',',','''a'.''"'•'''''''''...-.....-' .............. -- ....., . i;:i.:::TD:f3:::::,,,,:::::::::-.,,:i,;,:;,,,:„..::.,,,,,,,,,mr,::::::::„,,,,,,,,,,..„,„,,,,,,,,,•,,,,....!,,,,,...,„:„.,,,., "-.'w'" - - 2006 .,JESIGN BEAcCHH FFILLLL TE_TEmM.,..,PLITAA,:rrEE --- MEAN HK.,.,..H,WATE,i (0,33' NAVD88) -- MEAN LOA tiATEf (-1.68 NAVD88) ,..w,,,,w - 2D1.3 ,,',ESIGN BEA MIN 7:ESIC,N 9EACI71, . ............................-........... -.....,.....,......,:.,..:........,....___.....,,, "''------'--''''•"'-----•'''•.---- -....."-- HAND1.3()TV)V: LAt;),Iti.41i1) LIMIT ...... ..... ,:. ... :.:.:. r Representative Profile k) �� _ _ _ _ _ art R-52 Park Shore co 1r x 1° LI W,. I 1 \"may ® 6-year Design Fill 2006 Design Fill ` 7-1-00 2 ' C,C il -C' C 1 00 cif � a LEGEND -- c E,1,3N BEACH FILL TEMPLATE -VEA\ HI'5H WATEA' ,v.+i AV)f38■"f:i:: " — ! 3 L'ESVA JEW.H FILL iEM''LATE YEAH L.J,. 'AATE( (-1.F5 N.AVf 81 MIN TEWN REA5T.F1 �- HA't!)N�".TT:)�R LAh:)'h'AiiU LIUIT rifirarS4 Representative Profile r 70 0 5, CI R-59 ..... Naples , 1,„ 1 7 L1 1. kJ 0 \ 0 - , 2 ...„ . , ■ S 1 n - Mil 6-year Design Fill ._ . 200 Design Ftli , -20 .2 r.: ',,, ? 00 4 i OC) P.tfill LEGE'.D • FILL TEFIPLATE - vis,-DESIGN BEA 1H , , ■ „, -vs"- HAI?)122S;TT(1.V LAN)ivA-z0 LIMIT , NS , " • • Vanderbilt Beach - Comparative Plots 2006 vs 2013 25,000 North • Vanderbrit (2013 Project Area) 20,000 .11 15,000 0,000 5,000 „.... , Net Volume Difference. -10,1( .„-, „ 0 5-31 5-29 5-30(TaPer) 5-25 5-26 t755e0 5-27 5-28 itt!,,ttttat;r5W,,,a55t.. AkilkkintiNgtifgag!igr, 5-monument • • o .....Composite Erosion fibit:2;S:44t!!!!!!!pl 2013 Vokrme Greater than 2006 2o6 voiumc Greater than 2C 13 • ...... , , . Park Shore - Comparative Plots 20 06 vs 2013 ‘tt 5,000 ' .41/' ''t North Park Shore South ( ) o ..,„ (2013 Project Area) 1 "Gap" I i< >1 I I 25 00 ''';,,,' \ . I ,. ,. ,,,,,e/• i 20 000 ,kt,-- ., I 7 ' a '' . , 5000 '''""`"'' , I i -se f•:".g., 1 • . 5,000 tilfrOf, e. , ..'..1„; i Net Volume Difference +13 5°7CY ,e ,g loi V,".1, q'4•`4 s '' /- , V. 4'' r -)`' +, ", 0 2q :;- '•3* V ,, , ■ R MOntiolent ......composIte Eros on 2c,06 vol,m,ri,,,,,,.,,c,th,,,,,,Irn3 • 201 Volume Greater thnn.2006 ,, , , „, .,-,,•,';,,,',i4;,,,,' '1,;,1".",,,,43ity'3/:„. ' , , P-IrANIINM,,, ''''''' , 4 ' /, ' , ■,Z.,,,",''''',';'''V,1'r'''' '‘'''."1:'1'",,, ''' ",'-',',9'..'. • ,i'""`-1 .,',"'1,' ,- . ••4'''''''''''- .. , .... .. „ Naples Beach - Comparative Plots 2006 vs 2013 50 000 North South Naples > 4s.o00 (2013-Projett Area) ,,„ 4:1'. ,r"-` . . , ,.. "Gap" I I I I !-.•,' , i I 1 1 30000 „,,-.:,,,,'-',47, , I 1 I 1 * 25.-000 ',';',`"`•, 1 1 1 ' , —ocoo I 1 111, I '' 4,Vi'• ,*4 10,000 "'14?1, "I I , ..... 5 000 .„..•' , iv 4t. Net • Volume olum.. e D*'if fer4e.' nceR.:- +4 6'':3''q' e,2\77R- :CNo.Y 0 r ,S 4 C P ' , " , ,k,,,,',,\1",z,...19,.,'N *',s.,>, „•,'.,. ' • ','.„■ * q-' Q` , • , , r . .., , 4,!::,4' ',, ii-Monument ,- , ,, 4 „... 4, tt tt vol,,,,n Gfe,,,,,,,2r1.2„, 2013 M 2013 Volume Greater than 2006 -corrPGslte ErG510r, '••-• ', ;-, , ' • ^-, , February 25,2013 New Business 7-c 13 of 74 • Figure 1. Vanderbilt,Pelican Bay,Park Shore, and Naples Beach Location Map \\0„,- ,a.... ^` 5PREFOOT BEACH WIGGAVSFASS t,IUr TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLC OA C �L7f� DELNOit-YJICGI j PROJECT.� ORLANDO STATE PARK �R 0 r,r,4 LOCATION TAMPA • ATLANTIC OCEAN • HENDRY CO. . 0 OCCA 4 LEE RATON VANDERBILT co. ' MIA S N 70]00) VAIVDERBILT`s '� I BEACH i I GOP �" / MEMO ,; �� •R - CULL MG.`7ROE C.O. OF �� of-•� a I, PELICAN 0 • „r BAY l u PARK Roo SHORE CLAM PASS .;3 S R WS JL. — PERMITTED I A.' O to N(II0UJ r Y. CORRIDOR t. R.� .rte-��_----- ----.a` --_''_" ..:ai - -a • ... / PARK SHORE • PROPOSED PIPELINE ',OCT R$P.455 2-y S„fm . r--- CORRIDoR 20' CONTOUR -----+ I' „?" ' r , NAPLES SR 8sB NAPLES r- _--F �_ _ N EO X1) N 1e30070 R EGENA: ,, ti ____= PERMITTED PIFELINE CORRIDOR .. PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR (m_._.__ ,1 PROJECT LIMITS • �._ [� PROPOSED FILL AREAS GULF P WRAC 0 NEARS110R@ �F %ti OPERATIONALAREAS M PER LIITTEn oFFSHoRE mex/co f�ti OP ERA TIONAL AREAS L-..OflY ROYAL I R70 FDEP MONUMENTS ' t,OROON PASS �-.,�90 NOTES' \ \ 1. COC•R71W Al ES AR1;INFECT a \ SO LACECN RDINATES(ST c .. §1 4Q 000 BQ,JC' PLACE COORDINATE SlSTE!d, a § � n.�� EAST ZONE,N'ORTHAMERICAN d kr{r 4 7 pRrFH14SCALEIN_. DATI.J M O 1 190 i N Ol I, L. \J ,,e"u 2, FILL W IDTHS ARE NOT TOSCI4-E. �� (CPE,2012) 110 3 CAC April 11,2013 VIII-3 New Business 1 of 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve Work Order with Humiston & Moore Engineering for Doctors Pass Maintenance Dredging for a not to exceed time and material amount of $36,910, make a finding that this item promotes tourism and approve necessary budget amendment from 195 reserves. OBJECTIVE: To approve Work Order with Humiston & Moore Engineering to move forward with the Doctor's Pass Maintenance Dredging CONSIDERATIONS: This proposal is for assisting the County with Construction Phase Services for the maintenance dredging of Doctors Pass. The same dredge template as currently permitted by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) under Joint Coastal Permit 0235740-001-JC with the ability for the use of two disposal areas. This project will consist of two scopes of work 1) specification, Bidding and; 2) Construction Phase. FISCAL IMPACT: A budget amendment is necessary moving $36,910 from Tourist Development Tax Fund 195 reserves. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:Ther e is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, requires majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action.— RECOMMENDATION: To approve Work Order with Humiston & Moore Engineering for Doctors Pass Maintenance Dredging for a not to exceed time and material amount of$36,910, make a finding that this item promotes tourism and approve necessary budget amendment from 195 reserves. Prepared By: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management,Natural Resources Department Attachments: A)Proposal CAC April 11,2013 VIII-3*New Business 1 of 10 HUMISTON &MOORE ENGINEERS COASTAL 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERING DESIGN FAX 3959420 FLORIDA 34110 AND PERMITTING PHONE:239 594 2021 April 10, 2013 Mr. Gary McAlpin, Manager Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Proposal for Doctors Pass Maintenance Dredging, Plans, Technical Specifications, Construction Observations, and Surveys H&M File No. 22-063, Collier County Contract 09-5262-S2 Dear Gary, As requested, we are providing this proposal for assisting the County with Construction Phase Services for the maintenance dredging of Doctors Pass. At your request we will use the same dredge template as currently permitted by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) under Joint Coastal Permit 0235740-001-JC with the ability for the use of two disposal areas. The preferred disposal area will be the beach disposal south of Doctors Pass which is currently being permitted by Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. The second disposal area is the currently authorized disposal under the active permit which is the nearshore area seaward of Lowdermilk Park. It is assumed that authorizations from the DEP and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the proposed dredging and disposal will be provided by others. Please note that a pre- construction submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) survey is required within the flood shoal region as part of the Notice to Proceed process. The SAV surveys, pre and post will be handled by the County. The county will be responsible for obtaining the necessary regulatory authorizations to proceed. Additionally, the county staff will do onsite observation and address all the requirements of the sediment quality assurance plan and turbidity and environmental monitoring and reporting. H&M will attend weekly meetings and provide support as required. During construction the contractor will be required to provide progress surveys by a registered Florida surveyor for pay quantities and of sufficient quality for post construction project certifications. Contractor will also provide sufficient surveys of the disposal area including all survey requirements of the DEP approved monitoring plan. We propose the following Scope of Work: I. Specification, Bidding 1. Plans and technical specifications: Based on a 2013 pre-construction monitoring survey to be provided by Atkins, Inc., Humiston & Moore Engineers (H&M) will prepare final construction plans and technical specifications. These will be provided to the County to be included with the County's Bid Documents for bidding the maintenance dredging project. Est. Cost: $12,320 (T&M) F:\H&M-22-000\22-063-Collier County RFP 5262-S2\2013 Doctors Pass\22-063 Doctors Pass Construction Phase 2013- 4-10.docx Page 1 of 2 CAC April 11,2013 VIII-3`New Business 2 of 10 2. Opinion of Probable Costs: Provide the County with an Opinion of Probable Costs for the project: Est. Cost: $1,260 (T&M) 3. Pre-Bid Meeting and Bid Addenda: Respond to requests from Contractors, assist County staff with the Pre-Bid Conference, prepare any necessary addenda to the bid documents as deemed necessary by County staff, review submitted bids for dredging work by potential contractors, and make recommendations to the County regarding the award of a contract. Est. Cost: $4,040 (T&M) Subtotal I: $17,620 II. Construction Phase 4. Construction Observation: Attend weekly progress meetings with county staff and contractor and provide support to county as required. County will be responsible for onsite construction observation, QA/QC requirements and turbidity and environmental monitoring. H&M will process the survey data for pay quantity review and for final certifications, assuming a 40-day construction period, 24/7 operation. Est. Cost: $8,900 (T&M) 5. Post Construction Report: Using progress surveys provided by Contractor, H&M will plot final sections and prepare a post construction report and certifications. Est. Cost: $10,390 (T&M) Subtotal II: $19,290 Total I + II: $36,910 Tasks will be billed on a time and materials basis, unless otherwise noted. The budgets for these tasks may therefore be considered as not-to-exceed amounts with the understanding that in the event regulatory requirements or requests from County staff result in Additional Services exceeding the estimated budget amounts, a budget amendment will be requested. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS Brett D. Moore, P.E. President F:\H&M-22-000\22-063-Collier County RFP 5262-S2\2013 Doctors Pass\22-063 Doctors Pass Construction Phase 2013- 4-10.docx Page 2 of 2 CAC April 11,2013 VIII-3*New Business 3 of 10 Date:April 10,2013 , Tasks Doctors Pass Maintenance Spot Dredging 1.0 Plans&Specifications 2.0 Probable Opinion of Costs . , 3.0 Pre-Bid Meeting and Bid Addenda 4.0 Construction Observation Support,Pay Quantity&Certifications 6.0 Post Construction Report 1.0,Plans&S ecifications —1 RATE/UNIT HOURS/QTY COST MARKUP AMOUNT ; Principle Eng./Pjt. Mgr. 175 24 4,200.00 Senior Eng/Senior Analyst 145 0 0.00 'Analyst 125 01 'Engineer III/Eng. Production/QC, 105 40j, 4,200.00 'Engineer II/Coastal Eng. 95 0 i 0.00 'Engineer II 90 0! -, 0.00 'Senior Technician 85 8; ..... 680.00 'Env. Science Tech./Field Ob. ' 75 40: 3,000.00 I 'Jr.Tech./GIS Tech 70 01 0.00 ;Microsoft Project Tech 55 _061 0.00 lAdministrative/Clerical 40 240.00 IPLOTTING, BOND 25.00 0.00 PLOTTING,VELLUM 10.00 0.00 EXM—ISDI Survey 0.00 EXPENSE- $0-1, 0.00 ... EXPENSE-mileage 0.00 $12,320.00 Subconsultants 0.00 H&M I $12,320.00 Total Task 1.0 $12,320.00 00 --INCEIRM-11 ■ CAC April 11,2013 VIII-3*New Business 4 of 10 Date:April 10,2013 Tasks ;Doctors Pass Maintenance Spot Dredging 1.0 Plans&Specifications 2.0 Probable Opinion of Costs 3.0 Pre-Bid Meeting and Bid Addenda 4.0 Construction Observation Support,Pay Quanti &Certifications 6.0 Post Construction Report 2.0 Probable Opinion of Costs i RATE/UNIT HOURS/QTY;COST MARKUP !AMOUNT Principle EnwPjt.Mgr. 175 2i I 350.00 Senior En /Senior Anal s 145 0 0.00 Y Analyst— 125 .__ 0, 0.00 Engineer III/Eng. Product( 105 0 0.00 En ineer II/Coastal Eng. 95 6' 570.00 : Engineer) 90 0' 0.00 Senior Technician $5, 4 340.00 Env. Science Tech./Field 75 0; 0,00 Jr.Tech./GIS Tech 70 0! 0.00 (Microsoft Project Tech 55 Ot.._ :: 0.00 Administrative/Clerical 40 0I 0.00 PLOTTING, BOND 25.00 , 0.00 PLOTTING,VELLUM 10.00' L 0.00 EXPENSE-mailings,copying 0 0.00. EXPENSE- 1 $0 0.00 EXPENSE-mileage 1 0.0 $1,260.00 Subconsultants 0.00 H&M I $1,260.00 Total Task 3.0 $1260.00 i CAC April 11.xmn Vlll3*New Business 5 of 10 | 1��13 Tasks |Doo��poua��i�an Spot Dredging | | I --- __ | | ___ _– � ---'-1�/ – — | ' i 2.0 Probable o'/^mm��u 3.0 W Meeting and Bid Addevua __ 4uovnu�uoug��hw*m�mn�vp`u�.po��vonu�mCertifications 4.0 --- --- | 5.0 '~~^~..~.~.....^~ ^ ---�-� | -- -- | �-- --' -- / 3.0 Pre-Bid Meeting and Bid Addenda RATE/UNIT HOURS/QTY COST MARKUP AMOUNT Principle En /Pjt Mgr. 1751 o 140000 Anal st Engineer / . Producti 105, 6 630.001 _-_- En•ineer II/Coastal Eng. 95 0 0.00i e Senior Technician 85; 8 680.001 Env. Science Tech./Field 751 6 450.0071 Microsoft Project Tech 1 55: 0 I 0.001 [PLOTTING,VELLUM 10.001 0.00 EXPENSE- 0 0.00 1 1Total Task 4.0 $4,040.00 CAC April 11,2013 VIII-3*New Business 6 of 10 Date:April 10,2013 Tasks Doctors Pass Maintenance Spot Dredging I . . I . , 1.0 Plans&Specifications 1 1 2.0 Probable Opinion 3.0 Pre-Bid Meeting and Bid Addenda 4.0 Construction Observation Support,Pay Quantity&Certifications ' 6.0 Post Construction Report 1 1 1 1 4.0 Construction Observation Support,Pay Quantity&Certifications 1 i --r i ; i 1 I RATE/UNIT I HOURS/QTY,COST MARKUP AMOUNT i Principle Eng/Pjt. Mgr. J 175 18 , 3,150.00 Senior Eng/Senior Analyst 145i 0; ---- 0.00 Analyst L 1 125, 101 1,250.00 --F Engineer III/Eng. Productii 105 Oi --4 0.00- Engineer II/Coastal Eng. 95 0 1 0.00 Engineer I 90' 0. 0.00 Senior Technician 85 0 , 0,00 Env.Science Tech./Field 751 60, 4,500.00 Jr.Tech./GIS Tech 70 01 0.00 Microsoft Project Tech 551 0: 0.00 Administrative/Clerical 40; 0 0.00 'T PLOTrING, BOND 25.00! 0.00 PLOTTING,VELLUM 10.00. : 0.00 EXPENSE1Sediment 10 0 0.00 EXPENSE- i 0 0.00 EXPENSEIposta•e courier 01 0.00 68.900.0 __ ____ 0 , Subconsultants 0.00 H&M $8,900.00 Total Task 5.0 $8,900.00, CAC April 11,2013 VIII-3"New Business 7 of 10 L- L_..____L_-- _ Date:April 10,2013 Tasks Doctors Pass Maintenance Spot Dredging_ 1.0 Plans&Specifications I 2.0 Probable Opinion of Costs 3.0 Pre-Bid Meeting and Bid Addenda 4.0 Construction Observation Support,Pay Quantity&Certifications 5.0 Post Construction Report 1 5.0 Post Construction Report —_,— i 1 RATE/UNIT HOURS/QTYj COST MARKUP AMOUNT i Principle Eng./Pjt_Mgr. 1 175 10 1,750.00: Senior Eng/Senior Analy 145 01 0.00; Analyst 1 125 0, 0.00 Engineer Ill/Eng. Producti{ 105 40T _ 4,200.001 Engineer II/Coastal Eng. 1 95 01 0.001 Engineer IL 90 401' 0 3,600.00 Senior Technician 1 85 81 680.00 Env.Science Tech./Field( 75 01 0.001 Jr.Tech./GIS Tech i 70 01 0.00 Microsoft Project Tech 1 55 01 0.00 Administrative/Clerical 40 4 160.00 PLOTTING, BOND 25.00 0.00 PLOTTING,VELLUM 10.00 0.00 EXPENSE-mailings, copying 0 0.00 EXPENSE SDI survey 0 0.00 EXPENSE-mileage mtgs-rock 0 0.00 — ---- ---- _........__....-_..-..........._......_... I $10.390.00 — 1 I Subconsultants 0.00 __._...........H&M........_....� $10,390.00 Total Task 7.0 $10,390.00 CAC April 11,2013 VIII-3*New Business 8 of 10 I Date:April 10,2013 i Tasks iDoctors Pass Maintenance Spot Dredging Budget H&M Sub 1: 1.0 Plans&Specifications j _ I $12,320 $12,320 $0 2.0 Probable Opinion of Costs $1,260 $1,260 $0 3.0 Pre-Bid Meeting and Bid Addenda $4,040 $4,040 $0 4.0 Construction Observation Support, Pay Qua ntity&Certifications $8,900- $8,900 $0 5.0 Post Construction Report $10,390 $10,390 $0 Subtotal 1 thru 4: $17,620 I $17,620 $0 Subtotal 5 thru 7 $19,290 $19,290 $0 Total: _.. $36 910 $36 910 $0 I Rate Total Hrs. Principle Eng./Pjt. Mgr. 175 62 Senior Eng/Senior Analyst 145 0 _ Analyst I 125 10 Engineer III/Eng. Productu 105 86 _1 Engineer II/Coastal Eng. 95 6 Engineer li 90 48 !Senior Technician 85 28 Env.Science Tech./Field( 75 106 Jr.Tech./GIS Tech I 70 0 Microsoft Project Tech 55 0 1 I Administrative/Clerical 40 14 I CAC April 11,2013 VIII-3*New Business 9 of 10 HUMISTON a' 5679 Strand Court MOORS Naples,FL 34110 ENGINEERS 239-594-2021—Voice COASTAL 239-594-2025-Fax ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING RATE SCHEDULE Principal Engineer $175.00/hr. Senior Engineer/Senior Analyst $145.00/hr. Project Director/Project Manager/Project Coordinator $125.00/hr. Engineer III/Engineering Production/QC $105.00/hr. Engineer 11/Coastal Monitor $ 95.00/hr. Engineer I $ 90.00/hr. Senior Technician $ 85.00/hr. Environmental Science Technician Junior $ 75.00/hr. Technician/GIS Technician Microsoft $ 75.00/hr. Project Technician Administration/Clerical $ 70.00/hr. Clerical $ 55.00/hr. $ 40.00/hr. This list is not intended to be all inclusive. Hourly rate fees for other categories of professional, support , and other services shall be mutually negotiated by the County and the firm on a project-by-project basis as needed. CAC April 11,2013 VIII-3*New Business 10 of 10 Thi$ list is not to all inclusive. ratl1ee other t of rot esstonal, support, an d of er .services shall b e n utua 1 y ne goti ated by e"Couny and the tirm on a project-by-project basis as needed. F:\H&M-22-000\22-063-Collier County RFP 5262-S2\Fee Schedule.doc .-,._. I I — - -- 171-, 4 \ I 1 _ '#3 11 , a z 1,---,---Lf---,, 1 LI—A AA- , I I I t s '-g .., ....-' !..4.1 _ — I C LI 11 !---ii 77 p ' ' .=••••,.-, 6.....,4 ,...._ ...„,- - ,......: ,-, - ( z o ■'-., '1 P '"---.' .0- .!' ..'... ! :! .:.".; t, :- .t--1 , - 5' '.---- —, -. : -2 rz,- _, ,, 4ft, I - - ..„,...„ c. Ler Y' ; ..,, -....--, ,•--. _, 111 11 I 1 11101 0 :r2.,....1.,,2,-..... ' Ii- 115-13'II 0- 0 '7-,.$:---.-= z 1 1 0 ' 0 ....-■„ -,- ''' '''''' '.-/-2 ■:,...."' 0 2 1 ..'"''.C r,"1-■ '', ;.1,:.q 4''`,E ,....'..4 F4 ° : .Z.., ..T.O. L. ''' ''-i'r.!:.,■.7.'::, E......, r'...., ......4 --...., i.„....,', (----, —i ,—.-, "..—, . . .. .. , .._... ..... . _ . . ,.. 1.§ 'lc., 6, 0 3, ,- ., , '''''''' 'I= ' . .... = ..,... ..........--.....„ , ,..,..................., R i Ykr k" f ' + . ? ./''.0';'AN I 1 \::) 4 n '° -t x' , ""fit Y t7t*,,* y 1 x Sri n 8 "� a r_ 4 � i 14 r..t i ' ''N1' -Al m • ,��4y. jj d < ` s _ p. St, r E � �Y r tab-• sitt �2 _Ili 4...,1 y s 4...,1 4...,1 F ".."-.E. N.'"n * ,sM Ask M * Y" iN.` Z o, .,-,,- . g�t S j _7� � 4 ,f'°.. � 'lax * 7�G^ c� .. , c . r .% * ut f c w O J b>0 •Pp rr • - 10 00 00 Jr: Y d 4� �. * .,8+0 q 1 OEi.<o m oxFr 0,„„ ..4.i.:1;,.,,,,,...,.:;.:,......„-.r▪;p ' '� r #�;oo y* :"pfix y -*� "4`x`i` '� d�a gg 18x00 O o Ls : °� .W d.c 't„4: g Yfi@ ;r1+- i� 1500 13+00 12'0:o;��ar X r t,� r �..(ti;;,/,:.xy i y /x t • a t4^y 'y s:I g 74-00 4• c�.,5 i 4+00 rr r r i • 0 A 0 9, 3 ° s pp9 qr .i;r7 y I°� 7�..,�r T1�� s. N. � ,.?%;:,,, xE�iN s ri tr trrr.:*.. .x?°'}r+. Y� + R ''" \ iEf a ii 1.1 K . . 1 d6�2 i ar 1}°� P err g-F i•i.° "4. 1 i' 7 SI x r 1 III 3, .„ .ir ‘ -ill i ,1 ' , , gr K w r r * { 9 a 4 . gR , fi i:..& .,,,, , 4S . "-; '-,°<.'"‘'"4,.-.<,R4'A 0• 1�� ,,, rt r `1 • ., E 2g- - 1$ pl2�. $g {` 4}. 3 0 0 '�X '''' 't., i ' ' 4' ' t".., '1, Via. 4 , ,-,d q ss<tttt# a„,,4 ,.,..„,.. ,./.0,0„,, ID 4 i r , .., c.awoo 2 117,;�i _ 't())<4/'''.;**.4::ill :t''' ••;.;:r.'"'.4.:;;;.4'1.-.:;;;.` m ' t'_ x ,R V'4.44 °t..i..1.4 O ,< *i t<��tf Stti<4 t O .41-e 4t t O '*:k°"' 1 V1.*-AI ' -t' 7t- °<tt i t<ax t< < tt<ii • • #<i ill o fQ t< . atti it< �q{i+<i f#*<,G x #a a t<s' • !##eat<i<t at• ##• #i+###1 k Q?° ! # 'a##t#�� 422 U o a#a#ata,� e •s ta i ,,i## 4 # ## t Q# #o 4 #a4 •ViIll 1; o A 5 ii li 1 aev IIII!lit \ono '�.. 4'°+� 4c & Sfo- tS Y t4 • ,pia \ . 'k "" t { w'=i 8 i t e r os { 'd`- .p7 Y r.. N;,iAi v'; p 4i�Ri+ y a. Ok1y ,l�X �4je g 1'' T 4 .x PY ;`*te f "° .°, a ' `ww ° +r �' o d ��t3C`921 C ri..,wk af, # t, a� �` Zis s w ,p_ d" `. 4.3 68itti p • s fir,--•, n"' ./. " ° ' i M p 4 ir ii 9 N a` '."., Mh •4.SA ab 7 119"�•¢ .-°";''' r,,-•::4'-'", .?'A �+ rx,°A } .s 1}A .;44 - . T ,ms "{w " *'.sue SS� [[ `"-a..,, 4.„'Y,., C4 Y yt ',.,,,. oa s.` n .';.a AA i*."}".� i 9 r f L�, f +' �:a 4,BXv v fa (� " 111FFF"' , ", 4"n" , r -. r -.4. ' :` A i g Po �. e ud. :m r,* o e'x?'d<A mxiA 41, {a �S.*; } `g« dlrlf J' i 'is..f.4,..., A�.1'. .f '>. -Sc. -.tiA i�sr Ru 7�; • `�} `}a�'2�tc ��r+� f""' `+ • "�9P+ � ^ 6di .".',,,,,,,44'... ,µms!+R : - __• 4irs4v, 4,!' . ✓w4. p .► .s °ii X'� + `apt t � y^a4 � . -'._w .m.:.,.Y W _ 1 w �- 74 se•, `qr ',.#•T w o� 1,...14 ',, " _ .:... 1'44 m 9 4 �4'" j; , µ- isip' OQ f 44 3QZ , :_. ,.A.,, o x y� m.Yn ..1� iCibi� �o �N 4YfM f a 'N__ 2 h - +R ,$ ,, o "3 66-;- *`fit_ .. 2 u E2 ' x�a ift:: 4 F « ` e" o A,i ii ttv fvfftf4 AA aR �•� 0, ,-fti tiffffff5Yf4 _... 4 } + iwoµvx 7* A anus" w Wit lit Oto. v } "�'aj�.. i Y Y fl if t"ffft..f ati ff'Mi sttftt._ �Y.. fw 7� 4'^a' (' #...c*.~ g iF s'.. "' �✓^ 4 4f 444 fR•44444sY 444RT f .�.... �t `, .f ;YfvftfTf 4544555„444141 s !y 4"'1'""°"/7''"'� kl dr. .+f`r,1•�.' ~'� 1.,�,.«,...,,, „.0. v f I f' /41444!!'• ff fffR TS;;:ii ` .Y t tioaOW 7 M 'yrk �,4~ 45555ftf- ft lffitf SSf to M 4w 1k' '} .. 1444:......11 tie 11 c;a°M .;" ,«"ot.444`54!°l;', ii 4;;;;;4 4' ,__.. >-* `-'-t i ? 4 !! f44Y44999f444 *NW r Y� • "''"44TH~`. ,„- x.' .1 44l4,4;iiff lt! ....:..,,• ` x.. r k *4 4144}429 '” 8• 44 ale T ,# '- O+" '"'"'', wit ' e , ° ' ` • E v .r *=M_ r`s,"..,ro"sre.n'.."' B 't,, ,, f o 44444 **. e ` .. w 4 t r - e ii x msN 5 m ^ ,yip' u i , , , . ... : ,-- ',".,...N°.e. lz i ,."" ', ''''.,, "' Al t ::.• 't xr.,,, , N. k t ' ,...40€,C- Al t 1 11'4 tAlif- . „.. '4i -t''8 4,' ....„..„. , * • . ...,,4*.f:-., itr, .„,,,.. . lot r3r, , ,,,,,,, ..----,, , •-, ,-,3 , 411, ler.,i,,, fib..., e,4 ,,,' , .11,14 , 1,06.'.- 4 li ,, ,,70 : 4. g,7_Efs.--' . $ ' T''' 1V* ‘j*Skeit, .14 + ":71 te V% 4.::,4 +1.t1"3* i....,t . e -6_,,il lc, : t.„, ''''it—mt / 4 . . _ , , 1., --**" ■ - --__________ ---__ I V V e . , ,,, * ,N111, 4,.., '•,.1, +.. e 4 41,„ ,.. ' .7.;: .,.._, moirl„).14 -----__ ,‘-- - I 3.--'4 7.■; 4 4)(4 .. '''''''' 4 t.it.,,. '?„,r, 00 ,c.-„ ----.I. -------1= \ (1) n 4,5+00 ,,00 )3+0_ ill 1 • rr i _ __—.---, \Ao„ k .. i ,.,.,. - ________.......-- l , ,.. / A., , .. ;.c. , ,i — 4-, .te tf- ;.. its i ..4-i c ' vik 4 14\ J , , .....1 'P, ,.. 1,1- , t, . t , , "4 ,. t ' '''' ' \ . '4141.+1‘ 7/flag*"■ 'A 4 ftt. '2 '-, -0'4.t 1 , - .e,4,c.,,.,,,,,,,,,...,s**.'*449 1't, l',„- \.,,,,.4„1.' ,,'..,i.'!' 1; ,1114,4 - —.'--a.9.z _ l q F94, ; , '013---•,: c' ;4711- r , •„, . 1 ••-, ., ,It-' •,, . , '<(0.,,, 4‘.- E 3890. — 14 .-• ' E.010 CC + 1 (0 0/ es,' IC- (4•0 ie''''' g S w 0 4 0 0 ■l''4 44 C0 ,']1 Yr, ' u••• win N 1 ,ygscpp li . , ,. -°' ,. ,°' ,, k, 4- i--, ,, - lig ,,. .,...„ „ } i e w A #-- R" '{ \ -- ' L -/.4 is �15. YyJ l i .0 f Att;; n` x s , 'r: y', �+ r S� d;- ,, 4Y :mow r'' wS ;F > g ♦ yam,_ }+. w,f o L o _ o 5aibr, g.: 05 010IN . t *Y9Y�P pp �pt• .../r g" t ""- g,,, # t �-,0 'r ' . + m 9 s #^ '' x ,moo' o & 3'_ i Y. €+ a4 AL SfYt=ems a .'i..°o / �" ,- , �a..�, iiii4Mw 41n Y°v ' ' .'^., { ry M/� ...-iY:L * M Z tq gggg �°', y r` j �o + r W s w� 4. '�Y4.T � 5� {� .�� N p0 � *_� �w.r.... t,� y_tie � lilt. *w 3 8 its 4 1;017/ -,.,...> .4.4,# -;, •4 Iowe+rx sr^ai� `c ae®er ■ — ,..� + �I�a..,. ._,..._ , ..., )it }. ,Ne44"1", \Y,,, ,,, 4,4: ,‘'4.: ''''''','''4.17 # t- Y s i I j --00 ` ";40-Nog >i •1 * - -� A a _ ... .■ ' „I ", a tit* 44%4 , ry '�— N gam' ", s ry a tj O K fi ) "y - �!�� may, 6 j7 �`:al' "rt.AillAgt t I 11.. + '.* -11"....,'',"sot,,'f'.,,k: ,t'..4111,`,,irr 1.,. 0.,"• t.'........ y fe - t� . ' l'dF p 7f..r or 4 e 1 • I VIS, 1 .1 ll ; 1 . .* i',L A /i/Aiti5 te 4 • f 4* 4-,,,7- i --ww 1'4,- 7i,. 1, ,,., 1 . . 1 1ZII A. l'Ir,..C.,' 'E ...it..1 ''''t4 t ■ ,,,..‘‘ (-4r., ',. 11,, -., 4'11,. •''':\.1 5, ,,,,,f' „ ,. 45t, . ,'$, ., ,,f ,,,, i 11101"5k 14J tk A7 N:cjSit .. Ist. 4, . !, 1 ,- it .. 44-, ..". ft*: 1“11*71 .. It. cp. WA e, 14 — .- ,,,,-*,,,, .7.. ,- , ,. lik, it,' ''' `,, l• .. „r„,:,4.4r4',, '...,.-40, '''' 'lib. h ti 14", --`1 — ../ - ,IA 4 Z. ,,it* .., Z.**. . 1 ' 4 If. ..•*A.' IAN,* 'i j *4 ' ; ( •-• - 1r t** ' ' 4 1 . 1: 4,1*, ' 4 : it, 4 -'1, '-- . Pet *c --ti ,,,, . ., , ....„,,, i , ,,,,. ,, . . :L,,, , ../L • 1 . ....„,, . . , 4, ,,- .„,.., ., .,, , ,,, ,,.,,,- ,i ,. , ..„..... , ,„ lt4:440- ., .,,,,, t,,, '..,, - . tr. ,, 1., .. 1 , *4e,ti . 1 v ;* t%. -,,,,.,-.'''')'.',-t.,ijl7t;;..''''1‘.1'--?'c--.*f■6---`=•„:.,-'" - 1 1,.„•. ,--,,'.",7 \ir• V4 * .°.":4 6 ii 4 i,,,. .f. 4,1- Ito. -*,,,,4%,,,--4,•; - , -,6", -..fr city it .,',', ,IT...'"o•'-.. — Tel* ''''L ',,.-....4. -,1. ,..,.,'-`156,.;"A-5' ;-V,11' A: 554' I - , '''' ''' 1 41 'It tab;'40 it dt lki f..A III 1 4 ' . '.," . ' . - 124,:".'itf„,„t 'tX7411116 1 i At, OA' .ifir--, , 4 ".4 ' * ' -er '''''''' ..,,At.,)))(roi \ ii:141 A , , ,., , .--04 .1." 4 . „ , . .,,,.... : „ _,: .,.., )..i.ri• %,„..:g-, ,; ,,-, .,,,1, „ .. ,, , it % ;714 "' 40' '' ":'1' 4 l'C t Ift.,,,,1 4) -7''1h111 fig) '....,) #1•`• ' t '45. ' '4 ' t ? * ' 44 f... , ,,„„ ir-....r, ,,.„.. -1 , . r2 _ , • - '-,k . '' /-1, 4-,..!....4.7t4•40Q -,..*, 4...i. -. : • • ,•-•,„„A .• ir ,4-7,1 fi*I'f- 'T 4,, • „. '-, , ? r .?1 *''it.•%kts- ' ' ' ' vt4k.'" ; it ■7. .,,. . - !3*' - • - -, *. , x ) . ,- 41 , 4 = ,,, I .P,f= T+-4411 . ,,i, li I*: 511.1 ',--.1 1- I , _0 --" . ..t`...1...' ,. ',. .r,4.v t Ao 1 Al i - °. _,....-- - d i' 4`" - \ ''`' ift.• ,, 'lt. -."'m It , ji, . .7., t ' s it . ' '`. ,AA ,..- , - ' ,, )1"4:',Wtti'4' 1.7 -i 2 F,21 -1" ,,f.,), .,, .. ". i , ' I 3'.;; ' , ' . ',' 1 i t ''''t. 41. ,'-'---ztt .- ., -0 - i , . , „.„, , .‘ , - ... , - -- ,.„, , r ' if 1 - - ,• d . ,-„- , , .., 'It) , iic i '.2"88888813S813S. t . 0' t 9;13S88`,38888EIS . \ \ „ 1. „ 0 k- -g w w w(-) .4 1 1 11 s€ gn e g'_ it 11 1� n i' a R` Q `L s§ cnr ov2o _ 4 $ M Nom? ,ni/ cn 2'U`UZ O g Wg U U I Q C)Y O C w 1% ¢-m Jo - c., xouvn� w arx xouvn3n w aru wurn� w avx xournn3 w arx xouvnro w OWN xournao w arx 1111 m ; 1,11111 1+: III 1 II I �II 1�a 111111111 - k 1 1111 111 1 11!! 1 1 H1-.1-1.H, I I 1! 1 I — 'lit't1 1 � 1 111 1 1'11 � 1 `_1 14 1 1 11 �t i ' 1 11x11, 6t 11111 1 11 �.r 8 111111 I —1J 1 1 I1 € � gg 11 1441 1 1 1' h h 1 1 =e �S t EII I1 -t "3 pp wow I �� _1�11I - iu1 =t tFr s:� ak 1 h I 11 !I1I III � 1 1 � lt J II 1 I aa RR 1111 1 �1� ' kk�tk 'i IIII - .. 1, I I ' _. 11 — -'- 1 t if 1 1 ' 1'� , I 1 1111'' 1 � 1 . 1 I I 11Ij1i11 1 C i a -a 1- +� 11—� I� r It- ci , I�� ' I I 1 111 Z �I � 1 I 1�� 1 1111 HH ' Y x 11 11 �w ��f a h :. w �-�I �1,1 I} 1 1 1 �,, `- - 1.1' 1 1 1 �11 � 9 p, I I1 11, II t� 'I. z I r 11, ICI I � n 11'1 1 1 '�. 1' , r :- -L 1� -' -•x 1- 11 hh: 7 tt�J _J fi t. r a (5 0 ><.e�„ x111 II 1 1 11 ¢ i9- %� I 1111 1 �I1 I '' 1 IIII 1 u, o X11 1 I I 1 0 1 �,1 1111 0,111 0 111 1111 1, O° 1 I u �� ''-c,F o gggggg v+i I I I I 1 a I i I r+i � �1 I 1. - N� 1 �� I I o 1111 1'.�� 111 �4�=7 1.1 1�1 I11i 11 1 111 11,1 �� X11111 ° �• II ii; 4/::? 1111; 111 111 IIII 1I 1 1 ` III 111 x'11. 1 111 1 1 1 11 11 111 F 11 111 1 1 I 1 "' :5::H, 1 171 III 1 11 1 I 1 I .,; 41]:,- 1 1��, rl.4++--- - I''}�'- 4.i, h1-1 1 - 111 "II'1 1, 111 L-i 111 KH I 1 t III '11 �11 �1 • �1 I'J 1 1 II :w1,11 !!1.,,HRL 1 ��I I I� 111 1 - II' '11 11 1 1�'� � 1iI1 1 111 !... 1 1' _ 111 11.111 I I II II�{ 111 µ 111 11 1 Y' 1 �1 1 11 1 ' III` � 1 r1 44 1 P11 I 111 '.''III 1 t 1 I � I 1 111 _ 1 JJ 1 . �1IIf 111111 - X111 t � 'III ..$ I 1r ',I I � .111 r' � I , 711t 1111 1 1111I1 � 1 ' 1 1 r I h, 1 III Ij 1 11111 111 11 I, h1,--t--• _-1- - I '1 i �� la� _ 1 1 _ � 1 1 - 1 I11��I1'1 1 1 11 II1 _ 1 1 1I o 1 1 1 1 �I IIII �� 1 I� ill�I 1 �111'�, 1 ', 3 I sue, 1 tr': ��,111 '111 �11 111 1 � ' 1 1 w 11111 I IIII 11111 I �1111III III II I 1 1!I I 11� 1 1�fI I 11 I 1 I 1 I 1 111111 I ll� 11111 NOUN/313 w mrx,� xourn3� w arx 1�� rn3o w arx 1 xournTu w arx xournau w OWN xouvn3n w OWN a t! s '' R [BRA®@l Eh R jo 3 h yy-d i„ pu3s I� mR JSw < + f p;\ os d n z Vl Y _. O (Nnn H%�� h UNd}1 y y NUKI—��[f O O y OLCDo � C tr I <QJ 1' <J X0111,313 HB MVN NOLLVA313 eB OWN 111,313 BH MVN 910111,313 8h MVN 910111,213 W MVN NOLLVA313 B6 MVN � 1 111! 111111 III 11 11111 1111+— - I1l11 1 { —.-7-: dill, 1 1 I 1 e 1 1 q 1 p 1 g IQ' 1 q A p 9 1 t 2. T I ` �� 1- �I I 1 111�I! '� �E I 1 1 e T a i a I gg ttNESp t I 11 p 1 1 p I - � 1 I III ��ll ; I �'1 � �! l 1 1 I E 1 E 1 I 1 W 4 1 Y p{ 1 A a I p 11!1 111 I 1��11 �11 �a '! 11111'111111 lei I �I .. 11 �11j1! -_ 1111 111 .�._�r1 ; �ll s3$� 1 1 '11,1' 1 I' tl ys: hsd 111 �I a 1 �6 1, I _ � � 11. 1 11 ��1,+ 1 �l�E1 II I I I I III 'ill - 11 - 1 ill 11—i i�1!1 8 I�.� :}{.-.111 :++{ 1'.iI�1' i �' �, I 1111 I (� � _i, r-., ,11111 II Z 11'1''11 — 0 ,, ax III1 o ��i III o 1 .�—Lr r�1 - 1111111111 I11i� 1 �I1171`ril� 111111 !11 H. 11 I!I r1 j ° iN2= J y w � III' I ��1 �1 1 W -�, !1I 1 Iii ti i +r. - '_� 'W 1 - 1 1 11: 11 i a� � � Z o�� 1 11,1 111111 1�i � 111 . 1 � qq C7 _ II 1 1H 1 is R i1 1� 1 O w „ o�H.1 s” °p 111 III i1 11 g ! °O 11 o I 1 1 11 11 O 1I 11111 8 M u E' + k - o ,y.F._ + r"'"- a+o� 1 n 111 1 d ^c°g1,2 I !1 I 1 111 11 ili HI '. 1 III 1111 .1 _ I 1111111 ! 1 j IZ wHI o tf r r X11 �rt� 1 t - �I I � � t :, 1 1 .--11'111 4r I I i 1 11 1111W 1111 l l' 1 11 111 l�� 11 11 111 11 1 I 1 1� � 1 11 1 1 I 1 I - 1 1 _ 1 _ HI 1111° !Ili�ll' 11 I 11 ::11 e i r�° � 1 1I 1 1111 �1 1 X111 1111,111.11,1 —111H11111 11 111 111 . W II 'PI . 1 1 �`�" �. 111 I ri1111 111 I IIIIIHI I 111 I 1 T Ills i IIII '+11- I 1 11 1 1 1 '' I I I o � 1 I 1 ' � 11111 111 _ 1111 1 1 _ L mI, 1111 11 III I I 1 III I Ill 1 IIII I I ' 1}11 ° 1 ,.1 1 _I _ .111 I 1 1 �I1111 F - _,I �, I1 11111 I�11 11'1 �� 1 I I � 1 1 1 I 1 z - 11 '1' > - 1 lii ! 1 11111+ ; *SW 1 �i1 I �1 ��P1!i' _,l��II�IL P NOLLVA313 99 MYN 1011.1,333 h9 OWN ; NDLLYA313 is MVN NOLLVA313 99 MYN NO11YAFH 90 MVN a 19O1VA313 99 MVN 11 I!!li! II R II li 1,T) 1,'‘,_ cr■ 81. g..:i. 1 Z , 0 LLJ C,0 I- f=.dp- 11 o ;;_, m N01.1.9.13 9£1(11V11 z NOILYAIIO 98 CIAVN NOILVA3-13 99 CNYN N31.1.9A3121,99 0,4VN c NOLLVAIIO 92 1:11■VN c NOLI.VA3121 99 OAVN, I .: 1 WH:' " .,. :: ::., -N1111 : II I , ' ., 111,1.1. 1,)1j,'HH •L'',. HI I,.., )::",1,1 thH:1111111 11:::h WHIP ::: .:.):: 01):ir,.[NH:ill. il:::' j 11:111 I '11),. 1W,IIIIIN ',HI, 11,1:1 i' :1"11 ) rd. ) 1: .,. ,.....LI1101 111.. 1111):h :H, ) 1----. „Hilw:H„ . ,tilt-g 1,il..4., hrtf-ti, , : ,,,,. , LI:: '..,,,I1H will;,:,.. .,.. .,i, wililrli,..1„ il ,u t , 1 111, . li wi111.4. !...1 :,,...... ,11, ,„:,1. H • l' 1 in:::::::::: 1.t.w !Hu ...H....sw ll.l.d ......., ,..... di.L. :K.,. ....dill:1111H, .i.d.H.H . ..:..H1. ... .H.:, .,,-t, .1:-:,- , 1--r-H--, -7,:!. : , .-•.-. *L. . , IIIHIN HI .HiTI:H,1 H .1 Hid. Itli 11 1 I'm, lik„. ...m1:.1 HI H : 1111:H........,.....i: . _ .,:—.1. 1 .-ii,,-._ 1: 111 1i il 1 HI H , il,:.11.H1 11..... .. ;,.,.... 1 „1., 1111-4,T-1------- Hili'"'IH-s; . 1 IHIld ':1 lit-4-' 117,-..-7-'-[11,.1 H. 2 ...,....11 Id '.1 1111J111::: 111:1I, -.1,1111.1hIC r:H., 1 .11,,::::, .:11H.1111 ,. J Iwill11 : 'Id; Id :1 ,:11, HT 1111'1.*:. 1'1I1': , :Hillw:: 1 -,-,---hr. iHI', 1 1 _ :,... , W '...-i-i'.. . 1 ':,'•: ' 1 . ::wilsill: 1 H. : : rillglill HI1-1-ri4::1:• i::: ::1, . ?:, ,111 •":!::-- ii-": 11:1 1 ':1':..11:,,L •••::::::, IIHI . liS 111:: ::, HwIll 1 - : . ,: IILII,III L IIIN • 'H... II II H IdIII :I I.IIII ' Ili _ II lj I.I,_[1,1 : :, IL: .,.. Id :1,:. ., 0 .! h 2 •1 ., 0, -4,L,Lw.: HH...,,,, .....i.hh-hcll H.-1-F, h'.....hh 111HHW hIlh, W ..H.H., Ph. 1 h.1 ..'11: h' h1.11H r1401 ' li.....H.Lh NH - i '.. 11 : r :, 1: :: ::1„ ss•-•41::,11 I „IR, 1 11 Lill H. !:1 1 ii : IHILI:::sHI:s1 . .• •• mill:is ., - 11,S,ssi-111j':, :,?-: z . "2:;-7- 11111:: •Hriliilhd TH.R.110 :11111.1Iwp: H 1H,H11i:IWII: LI 11::: 1111H,H, IIIIIIII , ! III. _ HI IIIIIIIIIII: dI I. "d'IIIII - :: :: Il II IIIHIIII".: I I:1:1 il I PIII 'Idd dI: 1 dIiIiddld:III: i 1 tIll'! d III d HIII : I' d WII :dd:: di: I-I''''-d 111 — 7-tl!ll CC c7, I P -.R ?r4U 2 I;41-1,,-----4*,-,'1, '.-4.:1-h--.'.,1-r1-:ttil-' iL. .1-111111,P1-,I'Jil,[1..- 1111:i'l.L' : • 1.. , 1,.. 1 ••••H'i...:11111-,H —:... —:!H.H.HrO „,,.,..1dpi:11H., 0 : WV Hi•:.,1, 8 II hail, 0!, :,„, s :,1,:::„:1, 814111,11-r'sli.::: 8 Hs, 1:11111:Hs ° L' 'L:,) '' + ' '. .- Li' illfrlit .t.::,,:ldsH: :111,H1d:,.. 1.:: H:ss•silpH": _.,_:. -':, c:L:' 11 ' 'Hs ::::::,.•,: s '44111) INH'....j .. .. . '1 WHI Hikla 1,NIHNI . ...... h h ,,H,H L. 4. , 41„,„11 .„,,,:: , ,..,,w .: 11,,,, , , Hild,HH ..* ,HIHHH, H . HH11 H. II I :I'IL I:' II:: ILA.: I. 1 IIIIIIIHI I IHIli ;III 1 I L.:121: :' 2 1,11.:: I. 2 ILI 15,5.111 ,, :WI ; III :I. Trk7.-II II ::::::::II:II'd : ILIIII I I IIIHII I: : 55111 I12. :: I., ....,: : :: Y L 5 VI IIIII,III 5.''..IIIIII. kIlItk L1' : :LH :IIIIII: HI:: •III.III4I II IIHIIII1 I:III 2 : III51 IIIIHIIII 5:::k..... III:I I 4 I :LH :: :.I 1 IIII:::il 4, II ' ' 1:IIIIIIII: IIIHIII:II: 55:: ,. 225. F. ell I kILII I LdL-..,- HH:11.kl-,,, I, Thh. I HI, ' lid Hilly h ,, '',,,,,,, , 1, 'NW, . h „Ww, W.. . ',ow,: 2 11::.H1i I, 1 hin 1,1'1, MT: ..;:, k, .H.HILIHH K.1::::, 'Il ' ' .. I 1 " TI,11 HHHI WILIPH1 lid .1.',1 'HIM ,......,.111,j H ilill I :, 1 114 19:11H, HH, h 0.,,,, ,,., I I. ; _,IHII 11, , ,,,, ,,,. . :,' H:1,1, ..0„, , . , , ,I www. ,,r, I I ., IIII:Wht . - , PHI, , :„, : HWIL ' 11,,, - HIT, AI 1..,I,: .I. , www, ::::: , 1.4, L,, II h-trIkII:. IIIT'': IL:: TH, ''''."':70. ' 1 H,H, . ,,.., _._:_■.LL: , NO119130 29 OWN 111011.9n3111 99 OMOI NO119/.313 99 019,1 t•OlLVA..11:1 99 OWN NOILVATEI sig INVN N311VA113 99 OWN 9 . ii. III - : 1 ....„ ,...,..,...,...-„=..,..,....,..,;.,...........m., g[ ar, i n: g _ I g s_ < eH mn cn r --°- F-N' 4 w } !!i I G c_, xournau w arx xournau w GOWN 9011.90.113 w arx xourn� w arx 101.1.101.1.9/013 w arx xournav w avx ro L� � IIII III - �H IIII III I IIII I �R I 1 ya qqi I� ill - ky 6 11 :1 _ I � III �,I Y� � ! 11111 IIII I I , ° III ° �—' � �. 1 1 4 11;1114". � i4 M Y 1 I I .r! °6 i VIII xg I .,. rrN-r , t. i I I I I L d - � - I 1� 1.1 i R li 1i j III 66 1 i �' I 3 I I I I -i '8 I 1 I 1 I � pp 2 L11 I I I I a =pptl b .j HI 1 I! —1-� � - � 1 0 E I 1-1-4 111 1H I r� 111 %� I LI III I a b E 1 ,T r --I rr l a -�,�� III Ili 1 j I11i II F Ida I �t II lh !l 1 1 1 I 1 Ik 1 1 � -�1 �.J,1, Ill �� IIII I Y I F 141 - -, I .. 1��I +�I aT �� v i 1 I I I Ii I I ; -.-,, I 1 ? 1�1111 1 1 g 1 m II W 1 � � ax 1 0 11 I IIII 11 I I H77---11-[H! li-� ;-111+.I L,, I., I-;+ 1IV IIII I Z 1 II I I IIII t 1 D Eon J - II 'A, w 0 • ,y' , W i 1 j �$ n III Z � oa�- .. .. .: � .III 1 T + slit t ja n��e 1 i 1 1� !I III j�' ¢ I I I � � CI 1 I I I I A tt _ I I � II 1 1� O ), I I I'I'I I I,I I 1 n.. o 0 0 0' °�! oo IIII 4 � ,i �� ec °+ r l o 11 j o °o+ °+ �II ll1 ° ° `5, M N II I 'a° N Ills I '. '' � � 1 i III '111 1!11 1.1 'It) _ - "III °, I x '''llllll - F-�.•r Irlikl111 Li: 'WI 11 T.,...VIII 1 HI I ,j I 1111111 z l� it 1 1 1 11 1 1 _ I _1 _1 1 V I I I I III 1 1 1 1 I 1� 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 IIIIIIII I I I Il II II , IIII 11 III I 1 I I 11.,1 1 1 I1 1 1 I . .�I I;'', 11111 1 1�"I 'III 11 i � I 111 1... I 111111 IIII 111 l 11 III 1 11111�� 1 111 1 IV11 _ i IIII 11 -1I+ �� _+..— 111 lYlj--. Ir+t;..rt_ 1111 1I 1111'11111 1 1 I " 11 r 'l1,l III 1� I�1� II _ I I I 1 I 11'11 s 1. x II - 1 ., _ 111 I '' ., 1 N11 g s I 0 1 a �. ° - w IN Ili , ° It � `I 1 „ ' I 1 II 1 I ' 1 I 1 t 4 W 111 I... ------ i ° III 11111, xournm�w arx� • � A I I I I I H , I I , 1979,6•301 w arx rnxn 99*VIM 10997,313 99 rx xou r n 3v 99 a VN xuurnro w ax R , s! 411 9 R1 R 11 _g go N r■ - aD 1" ' Z-L- 0 NOILVATEI 99(AVM 11011VA313 99 CIAVN WILLY/313 89°AYH HiJaVA113 89 INVN ,a''' - _ , , •,. , , , •,, H I l':,,iii: ..11,:. 11H HI !!: .111H111; ' H.'.1 3 .J WIWI!,i:. . ••••'; 1 i114.-Hr''-' ."' WHIH ' illl:WW: ::i!H 1IHHI . 1.1!Hil ,Ii;11'41 i HHIriL jH IIJI:II .flIlil! , H: hIHIIIII :: IIMI,t-,wHirr, EH -itlt'-.NH, .' 1,. ..,.%111L1H_...,5 ii'7,1!11 4 :„ IlL 1,H1, ,H111 ,,IH ,. •H ,Iii1R11 . H I1,.,,,, . 1.e . ,mi '. 1WHI1 HTh , H. H'IHH H ' 14. ,rili ill 111 ww,1 ww 1, . 1 w1. ' ww 11H .11,11 A . Hd 1 ww :11: w 111!Pii WW.. . 14H±31--•,1 -1, . Ho, , 1 ,11„H„, w: • 111141-WwwwW ' .-.,, w 1, 1wwww fiw . WHH . w HHw w i . H _ ,, HL1 Www1H, WIL ' ,:wh WA wi 1 L',---,11-HLW=1 ow wh ow,11111w1 www , 1 wwww 1w11 il4141,OiHT'.-1:' l'I.j.1_1.1:[li_LI.L_LL.,: ,1 H111Wil illhil =1=== ===., H1.-.11=7I'':- IIIHN'5I II 444:: : IIIIINII: I, H. IIIIII1 ' I': —R I' E 6 1:5:::: : —II . IIIIN: :::: ,- - 11-- Y w 3 W -4 :::: NINNI I ::: NI: IIHNHII:IIII II: IN IIIHI INIII - .25 ‘7, 9 W11:1H11111111:1. 11h:1 11...HHH11 -41r1-1,11111i11,11-' .-Hirr' LH: H: H:: 111i11:ftift ' 1 HI l':::::: „jIIIIHHIII o HIH : `IIIII:IIII .IN,,,,:H II,i 0 H: 'LlHil41111 LH ,H: . :H/PTIWII. !hl,.,1 ;-.ff,J11 .H1 ''ECD Hilh H. 1 :: H111: W _. 1 i HIM* 11 1 IP.' !, H11 n1 1r!ll ! .Hiill ll':''H , :: .' ! '' ...1 ,, HIY lil I lill. 1111 : ' : 1 H ,: :! 'uLiHN011 4111141:..L .'.11 ' H1H WHil - WIIIII: HI': ' ' ' ;11 li 1111111 ' WHIW 1.... 1 : I HI' L 1 . . .1 : ' Id. I ill:i .! .,II.H ll'IN .8 :1111" II. I.'. ' ''' ._. I ..! . ..: . , . il , Ilhil II HHUH '--'---hi-H . H HIP :: HI: .'!! :. 9 ili..,IHYN'l , HI 'H 1-4-7-; liiHi 1H ?'• .--71-1- 1 W: i Hill H 1111;i „ ;I 1:1, III.H1 ,i H ilwiill , ,i :: II. ill1: 1111H1 , ii IHI 1111m1 L.,411,_:,HHol 5 :I ::: ::: ' - - ::- ,IIHI IIIIII III:AI:NT:II I INIVIII: 114 s WHIIIT N IHI 3 III I III IIIIII III ., N ..,:k5}{71:-rt, Hi!i1,1:111111ill 7 IHHTHI'll ' ==-1-4.=-=^=7,-.- I . L''' WW1 " 1 HilHlilll . I I:=H7 11 =1= '111 ' HI 0= ilLHli, ,HH=H = 117 IllH WI , ilil In== 1 .H. )''I W H 1 HIIIW PA.VATEI 99 OWN MLLVA3121 99 CIAVN 10111M313 98°KIN NOLLVA1171 99&IVN li 1 g li 11 g pi. 'II ......,.,,.....,-..,,... ..s,,.n..x.,........., 'a o h a �s i ,,P,m lam' a ,, B4,, L yy y v1-<-CO OWUOL_Y O U I Q I,,, ,,_,.."':1]oi R n_ 0 8 0 O NOLLVA3➢ 89 IpLLVA331 W NaLLYA333 99 OWN NgtYA3i1 98 OWN NOLLYA313 89(WIN 99 61YN Z m � Ili �I III - I IIII I l l l l I I "1 r' W-- +• III �h t 1 - l l WI -I 1�11 e a _ it it VIII ri,r , 'Iwo dHldHL 8 Li.li. �II1II I_'�I'� IIII ''., �I��' �� II;lifx 1 �e I II I ! I .N r I i;l' III I,Ii�I 1 € LI— 1�1I, +-�'--I � �, 111 gg I I'Ii + .+ , I T II'I+III I I � �S IIII ", [ 9 'I III , III I 11 _ !lilt" II 9 I "3 I p i z III �? _! 1 li '_III ryll I� 1 111 lJ 11 I I 1 I �I II i� I f iT'— III �" �� II If $1 I I I a I I ! I I I 6 I I I I - ill '�- IIII _. '1I1a III,II: -- � IIII 111, IIII L 1mlllil I I I I I I I I I 1 I I ,III � I la,l--I I III-+4� +J�,—£ Ih _ II+ lil +. -I + III �I{ I�t"{P II+IIIIIII I 1'111 II. Jr,-- :I Z a i. ' I. III I ' a l ''I IIII �I II I o q5-g; V I I IiI +LiII I I II - i,11 1 4}a1I I 1 q Z o " t a IIII o� I � I I J Y 1 w L I Y 1I 11 IIII IIIi !II IIII I II,.. W II� II - � I� III; I I 111411 II 'I - I I,H -°= g I+ I I 1 I _ Ik II 1 111 I � I HH ' � - � - -+-a ��.r -.1..�.„I , }t I I �I + t "# I I II II ', I O b o 8 I o'.'. I 'I' o 5 o III I�+ I1 ° 1I 11111 °142 w of o :0;!,q 0 1 o r°.=2 7- It I l I n 11 L N-I ± � o I l l 11 '11 IIIII I�'�IiI IIfI 'II f ,. II 1 ,, 1.11 rr l „,i �1,I 11 4tF1t I ' II 1 f .4;1) 1 i _ I I I i '1 I I 11 1 I I TH. I l 11111111 I III I III III I:.1 1, - - HI Hi 111',1 t,t..,l E1,1,111 I ma - I l i.a _ I 1 1, d1111111 111 IF-1`11 I I 1 111'1 I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ 0 I H. . I �. IIII II IIII 1I IIII ll -' ' II III 11 I � r� I I I I I I _ Mill _ 1; 1 _ --.._IIII I 11 I III',�I � I�I III N " I I - I 11 I I 1, I1 III` I 1 �1 - I I I I I 111 o .7:::= , 11111 II' _ I 1 � �I� v,11-141' 1�I HHIll - IIII I I 111 Hill III I I I I I I� l I I - r-' I rl III I III -t I 1 II 1i I I I I _ I I I � ' �I II III : IIII 1 I I I I . YM IQLLVA313 8B 6AYN YAT3 99 MYN NOLLYA3A I&t a�N t VNa �NOLLYA313 Be M 1198 VX NOLLYA313 BB M dd MOLLY/313 M a 9 Ili IN IFi e1 E IRl a I1®®q@q@ S V. li l'i3 17,1 ',2 gi '.7 k '7 .i. ,°. 1"1 g C7cr.,—CY, C) C7— OLLJ.0 CC=CD,--, I TIT::`6-L1 icc 201.1.2,212 99 GVIN_ ,97, NOILVAT13 29 INVN NOLLVA312 92 ONVN N2111.1212 92°AVM 20112n213 99 0Al2/ H!!!,. ,H,::::: ',WHHWHM.: ' IY:1W1111 0 i :::::Y':. W WHOHO WHIIIHT11. WO ,Ifih'il . .*;1: 1H IH ,, , , :: •,-;- H:;:11!".I .Z, _:44;___.,:_;.:,_,.__Jrit+.1„....., 1I1H;: H,111 !lil H'it:1_: .:_..:::1 -.. :.''l P:M ° ill III„.: 111 hh.t.177tH!!!. T' : „ HI,: .:: :,, , : .:: :::: ::: : „4: :::: „:1 , : „ ,,:, ::„. .,„:: I 1:,,, 1„:: bilh i „ , „A, ,,,!.1„, ''''':111Hihlr' 11111.:, : . IP! :i':H 1 h1:-HIL Ihn111,HHI: )111111 1, lililHH:HE. illi!li 4 ,,„ JJp IiHlu j j J..djJ. HHJK .,, 11„: 11,1 H,r :jj1111 H. 11j1hH v ,!! IHIll ...•:',- IL, :::Whill H IIIIIIHIL.,H., . ., w:. 1 i ,H ..4,. rt-,,-,.t1.-'71-1f•--' ...:.H'. : 1: H .HHI .,H1 . : 1 Hh1,11,iH 1 : •.,!. . 7,di 1,1 !H H!'111I1 WIWIH iIII 111111H111 " I !WI,— I III! IIIII i :: HI 1 II 1:111I III iii!II WI • ,H, 1,,,d II I HI I WW,I1 , WIHIHI I ,, 1111.1 r 1 ,H1H „ H1H. ..1 T, -1.-,-1-1,11Hy 1H.,, I il,,- 1, ,,,, . 11-1, 0.1 11.1.1,, l' . fil,rw h,H, , l',11!: .1k, VH 1, ,. ,, — . 1 kh. III H,',1 HH 11 h, :11 -11 : f!!!!!!Ill I ,1 iT1 - Jiiiill i . - !! tr:.-I'll'ilit-..' 1 511.!-7.-Tv Hh .: 1H. 0 - g: ,I ,tdll 1 H ..,,,*!. . 1,1 1 HI wlilw . !, : 1„ : RHL:1 w. wl!H, T U .11,,. .W z ru,s 0 0 q .s.... 111111,1 WI . 14,1WIWWL,711-7-''Wri 111I Z o "2.-,-... 11 JIH H. 1 ;41-Wirit iiii--1- •FhEITI,:..H7F, ,: :, ,...,, H . Hail ; . 1whil,hiT, , . , „,„, ,. , :: c 1,, w I! Hlw , ,„ . „ , !,. , 1,1111 11111. : „ 1 ., 1 :: 1 WIIIIIIIII i ilwill : 11. H H WWI iw 11'1 -HH,' H !,11,WHILI !!' . ,!1::111i, : 4 :: • i 11 I ilw,,Iii, - IitiWIIIIW I 11 iiiIHH iw I -Wii!III.11• H II, . i,, I 1,1I1 IIIIIIHIII!: o 1.'4' 21 lliii WII WI, ::iti11,11WIHJI , Ili WWW,_.,_1,WH_4,, -.1 f,fiTITHIIC 1 !! WI HI ' i eT, og ''' 1 1 1 HI W I W M it 2/41 HHIH WIHIW -i, 17, I 11,,H WIII IR wl H, 7 1 WIWI! a 11,Wfw11 8 WHIIIIIHHWI_,, 8 W1 WHHIIII _ 1WWiiHi WI1W' w,-''t-IH' ' II 1' i■-1W1:11 Will 7,IIIHWIII 11 d'H • WIWI WI. ,It,7 11111 WNW! 'WI IS WW1 :7 IH • 4 Hi1 •-• WHIHIIIIIIIIWI Iwiw WI !, Hi,. WIII 'HI • " : 7 : I :WI .III W: II1WHI ,, WHHI. 1 ' '41/IP ITT--111 WWII W i W 1,1!III H1.IIIIIkw . ., ( ..' 11,:lh Ili:1'; :HH:I; ,H+riti7" L: 111H11111 L. T AHLW 1 1:.H:11111LH1h 1LL, ,. H1IP .11W1 ,. n'' .1'hi'ldr:,c,8 1--, • J.1i , I.,. . 1 : :i.: Tlii 1 :g 1111mH:,, , 1 1 1I IN"IH' HWH Hlill 11,::W' 1 H:l H:hli:i :, :HI HHill'il?' 111'11111'1111, f-r''' LH, 1,H.11,1,! illwl L:: wil.!. : 11111:111 HI ill .11,1. ' 1 III:1 111H ! 1:H.Ilhich .H1. III11W111.. :w: 1 .Liwi! ,1.1 :: :::::,! 1,11 ;,1 : ,I: - Hill; TH11111.'HI, 11..,111 .:,., ,: 7::: H HH. .'ol:!.1 1 ' HOKH ' . or: .H H: :1 11H1H1:1 I .11 H lilHhTil :. HI 111111HI !11 II ,H; ••11,H1 . HIILdlIHH 1 !i.H1:11r : HHH:1 HP .. 1 , 1H HHHI'M i,. IL Ilh.: 1 F 11:W H IIH: 2 1•Ww•i!r: II, :Will I 1 , • '1W! II: IIHIHI . 1,1 IH WIWIII1W11,'2 I,-'77HH ii- 1 1 ' :i!!!1H! lii 11 1 HF!' 1 q!)!!!WHL 11 T ! !Ilniill'HH HIL!IWO 1 Hr. .1.H 111111:ill ., !: , tw : illi, 1-A-i-L-Efl.-1-:,.-TE:i--'= :,:: :.'!II NIIH ' . HHH FFhd .Hd : T 111111 1111111— ' ' 11 :WHI: :w. HI114 '1H1114 . ,: . IH),,,„,.. HHH1 . i 11111:11IIII:illi :1'.:H HHHill W': ,H , ' : 1., . .,.:,:l , .H.. I -= HI ) WHI1H-'--7"-:—•. ' 'll q ,1 ' H liliiHI—: I WH li . .: ! L.,J ,H. !I, :11JJ HI 111.,0 HIJ HHI :L Jjjohil Hj Jw!j1Jj. ..1, : — 1 ilhplj 1111, .„! . 1,H1JJJJ -: , h _ . POI1VA313 99 INVN 1011VA3121 99 OWN NO1191313 99 OVIN AOILVA119 99 OWN NOLLVA1T3 199 WIN NOLLVATEI 99 0,91,1 9 , 9t/ 9 i 11 t 1 .!11 -,.. :,...,,,...,.........„......„....-s, 4■A i ,, ...L: t.' * 1:7! 1,07 --., z 4 FrE,<L71_ X cn u,' cnt I i- :,S:ht±t1 ic n NOLLVA. fl8 0444, .,'" NOLVA313 29 CAVA_ NOLLVA110 88 CAVA 1.11VATO 98 GAVN NOIIVA113 88 CAVA,_, c, , 9 ' ' A 8 NOLLVASO S8 OAVII HTHHHir'hh: EA it 'hh, 1: 'h.Thi. Hil ilhH1111hhi'l Hhhi hWIL THhIPIHWW HIlli :1111 '1,1 W. h. ' WHIllh. .ht•-,,.--,:,ift1.-H4Hitli:1.1.T.','.' h.--41-14U„' H." :::: HITI IHHHIIHH:: t Hilt HI : 11 h: :,,L" 'PIM 1 t thit1Hr 144±."i -,t‘ I ii : t: ,-tttri,H.:T11: thth HHIT 1,:htiltlhilh .? 111::' HIM /111141 i ' thill l'h HHH th, : 11H i : ht : hh , ii:1,=i1 J , „ ,, d ::::, .„ 11,L„ „HI, 11 1:,4 H,1 , 4,111 , ,:. H111, , H.: ,' I 1:11,11 ,1': : , :1iii+HThE-'''at -''''' H.,:i'::: IIIIIII ' HI,,HThldH HII: 'HHHH. WH :1'.: I*: .VI41 iii 'll , HHHP,,Hfi .,11 ., H, . H.,d1p,H, _ 1, H. , , !,,., „„ ,{-1-,,i4.14.1.,-,--1-,-11.:, , ,,,,,,L , It.411,111! ,Hili i: , 1__ij : ::. , 1. Hii ,•,! i-nllhi-h-i!iiii - --i-7'-.-!..-.':li'iii'll it -' „mil 1 ,,Iii ! ' tid 111.1 , i,,i i IHil 1 IiIT, . :iii ! TH ' ,I ..11!!:. • I, H'HH. 11J 111!1/11 L 1H IfiJI, H 11H 1 kil :i IHn : 11H ::HH ,11H.1 :--11'.-1-1--IiLl-f---"'-`"'::''' *,., ID IL fi'. H-:: : NH h:H IMH •J '1M ..:11wH fir 1 IH'n: nwill 1111H Iln : . ql:Hili : . : II. '111,I " H',H.11H1' 1 :1:1 • W.!:1H al : ::: n -.• II : n1 111111111H WI!. .1: ' 111H-1 . , 11111111 ,, !I 1 — WH1 ..H F. 0 '1 R hill iiiihillh' ' tH th WI 11 ' H IHH:1 tH1 W Hff . h " Hitt OH OHilltHh Likl 'WWII ' i-'--,"+:-It---'P4.-17-'-' :,1,-:-.--,-',: i-E,:'-r-',-? :'..,....H._1_[1_•,___..,..__LL: .,. 3 111 ,,w, :::,,.. .. ., 1111,LHI I IhH 11;-1 .:H ll'I'llIllkiH . I :=" ., , , Ili .k1 5 .61111,.H h, 11 , ,,',H1:, IIHIL: - IIH' IIIH : II !:lH''HIH :: ' :: " h 11.' .:n , .. . 1„ z Hn In1:11':H *111n;1111 ,nK:1 : : ,:: , :1 'L'!. in ,, ..,,,,,,,,,,H, ,, ,,,, ,,_,,,_,,e,:_:1_,,,d,,_, ._J_4------,'-1-1-,f'fi-i' 5 -t■—,,-1-4t'Z-77!-Ft .1.14i!...1..L! -[111-q1Jr1f111 ! l' ..4iti--.7 r17:11'1! :, !ll!0! '! !!!!1Th'I ),' 1.11, :i 1:,.. 11 o Th.:Th!!!!! !! 'HI !!!J! 111L. ''...'l 8.11 .,.'Ht•.0 illH, ,,,ild ,HIHH11,11hrfili' 8, ,,N1H ,--,' ,1'1,1,, :11',111,111,.,:, .:.,.,H_'i, ,e0 = 8,H11.1,:,11,HHH . a . - ;I:Epv; 1 .,.. - ,loil ..: ITHI c''LH] H, uliw 1THW' - ! H, Ilh : I ' 1 : 1h: 111. 1, , 1 !..' !IIHIW 3 ri1111 !111 . ! :I ' .41; !.-----!-!-::.,!1: „,!1111!! , ., 11 .1HLH!H ., ) , ,i,,, „ , ,... _ , 1 ! I !„ ;,,,! 11 !1 !,• ! . . , : H. ., . : ;::;„..::,,,, 1,,,,H: 1,,,,,: II" -,,,: ::, , HI, . . . ,:,„„:.:, ,_44 __ : _?: w,,,,, ,H,,,,, . : H. 1,,..., , , III ,,,,' HI,H„:,-, IT ,,,,,,,,,, ,,, ., 1 „,,,:,,,,-- H:: !!! : ' 1 ! !! h! ! 1111:11!Th! Th!!!!Hil 11: : 1:1 ,I . . 1-!L-1--.--- -r• !' !'''' .,,,H., ..: : , HMHHHill! IIIII!' l'Ill!* ' I 1 11.11 ll',Hh. ::' 1H! Ili 11111illi* II Hill-il .' 1111:111111WI H1 _ ilil 1!!i1 Th1111!: :Th Hill!!! Will 'LLLL!,,,- 1:-4:-;!i- '! !!: !''' hiT , i•-' LIHHHI. , H11 ..!,1 . .w , HI, . ftt-.-ww, . 1 LIH:.,. : HI hi: h: .1H 'WHIHt L'''1q jh Ittihr .H11 WIL.:H : : :.: H ' 1 11:1hil t 't . Int 1 HhhIl !H,::',H Hil H .1! H . 1":41HA h 'Hilh,:::h „ ::::, rr,7-,7,1 ''H ,,,11,1,11H „ ,,---.1,11,,„ „,.,,, , 4:: ,1,1 ., wd:::,, ,,,' , , .1:, !, :,:„. H ,H !e1 „, 1, 4411,H, ,11ll ., ,I. Hi ,, . 1,1„,:4 MINATO 88 OWN NOLLVATO 89 0144 NOILVAII3 98 0148 1039.VATO 89 OAVN NOLLVATO 89 OWN NOIVATO 98 GAYA A .!! 4 .11 II 4. ! !.2 i 11 .... _.______....„_,........„.., g2 i n 1 .-t. ..7 '6.-5 a$,•,...., .c., V)} P 7 OWUO .>-CD, 'm ,,,,, L,_i_■_, 1% A ,, c...., !PUMA??? 99 OAVN NOLLVA.30 29 CHUN_. Z HOUMA??? HS OAVN NOLLVA31:1 89(NUN HOUMA?. 99 OAVN_ ,, .,. , ? ,,, , .."' •=,"r• ,..‘, „. , !' '.,,, LT', 4". H1161_ 411.11H:111H !!W!..11:111 10111;1 1 H11 111! 1!:1' 1 r,!!!!!1' 1 11141' '..1 111111 1, ! 11.1 :HH WW1 11 1 11111 '' 10111 IP Iii.11*1.1 HI 1 1111 ' gi Ao ! !!! H! 1 ,ty 1111 I *;!1,:ili 1;, V 1 1 ill II HIII., WW1 WI. H:H 1'. 4:44111,!' 4:4. 1:1W I I , ,.„ „ , 1' :4 : :1;11H;': H. 111411 ; lill 4.4111041 ::;'1 f d11:: ;I 11:: 11" • 1: 44 :4; 14 1 li:lillli1111711 1 ' 111111'1; 144-14":''' 111 411;:411 ' 4 ; H 11 ' 11 LI._1411th,H11 1 ,, hl' :1 1 11 4 i41:411 ; _41 I H1 W ' lid 1:111. 41H 4 11111 1 r ':.N1 l'il'illig lig I HI'll !LIIIillI'l NI fiw.. I .. HIP ;' ,, . H .,,.., Iii-1-171-LI :IT.-?: 1 ! .m. HI, t tt-11 1 .,] 11 1 It 1: II, 11 . 11 , 1 1 H I .H 1 .,,, -,- III .H h .1141, ..a. 1 . .,. ' H. 111,111 H11 IH, 11; HI' .: 1,1' 1111111H. 0 I 1 •,A.d :,111 . . H1,,, 11 ,i1w; ,i , _ 1.,.1,.1!_,,,1,,+,L, Ho :—F: 111 ',11:1 , 9 ----1, 1 d 11 - 1 • ,. 111Hd h ' ,1 H11 Ihd 1 ,0, dl 11 — 2 R,---:'v h hd ' , ,I: 11 dill 1::11 ,, .n11,11 d dd,011,1,— 'Ili Hdl Ci .4g,II:4 ' H 11 idpid L - 114 ,I,. _Li LI ' , 1,11.! !,. ,: 5 ' i"Pti, wIllill wwl ; Ilil .11!.. . 11 HIHh,11, Wr,.:1iH .:': : -12' l - IF-F, w ,'.• 4 IIH , :::: 11 ,::' ' ..1 , =tilf i--- 11W'H:: : ;11:1:: : Al: :: 1:11 'WH:::: Z ' • : HI, ; H : ::'; illl'il 1H: . , — : . di : :::: ' , „, . . :: , ;HI ' ' ' 1_ , .:i,,H___,, :.„1.1 -..„--,--,,--i-, --. :-,----11., ,,,,,r t, , I. tt-T-H.HH O• . --.,-.L- H1 111111 H:TH1,,H11 : ::...,A1 ,,i111 '1 HH1111. 0,, :11, HI iiillli . TIN 0; 1.1:11, .,::II o'd,: „ ;IN! lill 8 d ,111 :dh. 8 h111(':hdddd Him 2 F211' o ,, : , h :.: + . ..h lrr-Pr-.-----' + n:: ,i11:' • WW "..:: : .: 11::•:III 'Tr." 111H 1,11i1111111 RI & ° 'i"- 'ID iiRH:: H ., ::::H4IHI.,,LL,..H1_-_: 5 1.',H: = 1:H' ...4Z1:1,H1:' 'T- r' il dill 1. ' „d:,1111!11 ... 1 H'1111: ' 1 ,,=:. 11,1,,o, , .ildill : : HH . dHih d H '1 ,H1,111 ll,d11001 ' 11!!HI . ::111111 ' .':: . :,; di H'i.:H: . ? 1_,, _441,, IH:„t, LHH' i "■' Ili, . : : 1 .7 '1111 :W!: hl! ' '•::H11 L ' 1,11.11!' T , 1 :111' ' . WHIlli Th: = ,:l Hi ■ ' :! ' ? :_t.t.lt.:,_.,...,::HH 5. 11 .•111-71+1:'it'A 5 . 11 , ,:.,I: H ".1---117-7' 111 ;;44:: 11lt11---,-1',. ?. tH _ 1,, ni:. HI Hil . 1 ,114 11,11111, 111 ,1I 11 .H110H„ 111' , 11111H,1 HI ' ' H' 1: ..„, '.. ! . 1 :, —.. t_,J.,-, , .. 1 WHII.,11H,Hi , [IHIL . ' H.:..tli]] .:;,1111,,11 .,1 ' Him 1.. .'. 1-11111 . 11illl :, .i,i 11H 1, 111 , :1, i111 : WHO .HH . IIIIII: . H1; 1 , , HI :.,:, 11,1-1 H1111. 11111111 1 .,.,., H.H..A1.11.._11.1111 illHil rH1HHHH1 N.11 1,,,! ! LI. .1 , . 11 , 1 H 1 11.:'d HI!!! ilj ill 01 11 '*RHIHTh II :.,li!!.. 1 ,w1 :I,- H 1:ll I 1 11 H. 1,11H ,. 1011 .1HH 1 H 11 H 11 -HIIIH1H 11 . H1 111111111 H , .'„!1: 11HHII , ,1HH',. ..1,1i!LI : II" s 1, ,,, ,. . 1 HI 2 .1.;,1.111.,_,_., ,S• H Ill'HI'' 71 ' 11, ! l' 1. ..1,.' '1■1,'1 !,, ' I ' H' :1 . H 1 ,I:: 11 : , 1 nhl Hill il ■ ,1 '1, ! " HIL 'II ' 1, IH11 ., 11: lip: ',i,!,! 0 WI. :::! Hi, .,:, HI W!Hlt.I''' H. IHtl-r-'' H' , , 1111!;,! :i!,.. i 1! ' 11,W,: ' WI! WiHH h1,11W 11 ' HIV :, 11H irl IH Od11H '!, 111-11 Ill'HI 11,:i111 :' 11:11111 1,1' 1 1 Llill, , . 0 l'HH::.:::: 1'. HWI'll I, -L.!, 9211M2?. NB WN 012231 89(2929 IONVATE 99 OAVN NONVA13 8 ONN H(190. 99 WON OUMA?. 98 OWN N 1!!. 1 11 . 1 11 .... :„.....„,.,......,.....,.....:.„...,..„. 'i'i Cn i n e 8'4 8^ I✓i 1, e gs_ a 6 bM 'co$ P E ,i��'- k P y I 9 y N . . op- . w„o rr>o� � ''-'-,'-6`.=, R ri m Jo U Nouvn3a ON avN xouvnau NO avN iournso ae arN Nourn3T33 w arN Nourn� w Lc, 1 I I I I H'1 I I �J t I I I ;I r-= I ll'i i IIII IrIII 'd F 11 -pry-. I I 1 I ti II11� I I I tl . III III I gt se .1 .11/!1/ p ¢ 2 I I b IIII I 11111 III '1 11 I 1111 :L-. 1 1 I li I a � p*: � 11 r.'11 w �Ii �In III _ I - � I � �� i6 a 1 ate 11 JII 11 11 IIII I�+III �I � 1 il �� 11+ III 111 I I I�1 i II ,r! �: IIII III �I 1 � �-;1 s- J I I I III !1, 1 I, I I 1 111 r: .. I II Z I I I 4 �o=r ▪ d : WiiaS I J 5 I Y w R I W 2 !H l_ I _ I i1, 1 1111 III! ICI I, U '11 I I t z 1'I�I I I-- � ��1J_ '1�x 1 '�l. q ' t —`ti 1 1 Y *t (`3 0 < p�tt -�11'I I IIII � �8888 o o II , 11 0 0 X11 11' 1 Iii o 1 il.; o II o I ill u --� 4 ,1 �a �`. ro n 1111 WI r° W 'n III 1 a la, I ° °7 N �. N I N 1 L IYI !II I IIII 111111 IIII IIII t -�. ----,I-t 1 I''I I I I �11 I ill .-- I ▪ .4: 11 I 1 II I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 ��I � I ' '�I I'I I!I' 1hII +G,, I ��-� tr-' F � I I'1 IIII I .I * I I 11 I :Hill 1 I 1 1 1 I - 1+, -tit} II'1 i444,4, I W1 111H I 1 1 _ : I I ..1.1 o 1 11 1111 1 ! I 11 I � 11 I I 1i I 1 �11 IA1,1 I I i I I -tt I11 I III 11, !' IIII 1 1 IR I r 1 11 1111�. �tJ x µ} -_ I 11W I _ �� '1 1111 .. f 1110H g J Ii i 1� S 1111 I HH IIII I 1 IIIIF I-'-t I III WHY It � I 1 1 N I II 11 I 1 1 wI '1 111 + 111 1 1 I IIIi'1 , 1 I I 1 1 I I �a _�i� l 1111 - r Noure�D W rN a ��wn�1�aru„, I xournm ea arx rain vn3n � ill rawrn3v,w hvx I�� P 4 II li !{ R,l6