Loading...
Agenda 04/10/2012 Item #11A4/10/2012 Item 11.A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the Conceptual Plans for the FY2013/14 beach renourishment of Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches along with FY2012/13 Marco South beach renourishment /structure rebuild plan and make a finding that these items promote tourism. OBJECTIVE: A conceptual plan has been developed that addresses various options and costs for the next major beach renourishment for the Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches. A FY 12/13 Marco South beach renourishment/structure rebuild plan has also been developed. Staff is requesting direction and approval from the BCC on how to proceed with both these items. BAREFOOT, VANDERBILT, CLAM PASS, PARK SHORE and NAPLES RENOURISHMENT The BCC directed staff in the 2011 joint Collier County and City of Naples workshop to maximize the interval between major beach renourishments. Funding however, is projected to be available for a six year beach renourishment design that duplicates the FY 2005/06 renourishment. To preserve the beach maximization options until funding, pricing, project savings and schedule coordination can be resolved, the following Conceptual Plan has been developed. 1. Seek a permit modification to maximize beach renourishment as identified in Option 4 below and conduct beach renourish from 9/15/2013 to 6/1/2014. This allows the maximum scope flexibility and does not commit the County to specific renourishment plan. It also provides the maximum schedule flexibility allowing the County to renourish for 8.5 months. 2. Continue to develop sand placement options that will be presented to the BCC for decision making once schedule coordination, bidding and available funds are resolved. 3. Scope manage this project to match available funding with sand placement options at the time of renourishment. 4. Aggressively pursue partnership with the City of Longboat Key and Captiva Erosion Control District to reduce mobilization costs and take advantage of economies of scale. Pursue early bidding to provide contractor flexibility in equipment mobilization and assurance of production capacity. 5. Continue to aggressively resolve FEMA funding and FDEP Cost Share opportunities. 6. Move forward with the selection and contracting of the RFP staff recommended engineering consultant. Four options were developed by analyzing past beach performance, modeling the coast, identifying hot spots and incrementally increasing the scope and cost to maximize beach renourishment. These options will change as plans are finalized. The Conceptual Design Report is attached. The four options developed are: Option 1 — Execute the TS Fay FEMA design This option would place 175,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at a cost of approximately $10M. This sand placement would be over 8.5 miles of beach and only restore the damage from TS Fay and Packet Page -68- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. not extend the life of this project whatsoever. It would not address any hot spot locations and would not include any jetty work to stabilize the beach. Only a minor permit modification for the extra nourishment would be required. • Option 2 — Execute the 2005/2006 design This option would place 482,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at an estimated cost of $19M. This would continue with the six year design project life that most likely can be extended. This project would not maximize the renourishment cycle and does not address the Clam Pass or Barefoot Beach renourishment needs. Additionally, it does not address the beach hot spots, the groins at Park Shore or the need for a jetty spur south of Doctors Pass. • Option 3 — Execute the 2005/2006 design with beach and hot spot enhancements This would place 612,000 CY's of sand on the beach at a cost of approximately $24M on the beach. It would also include: The removal of the groins at Park Shore ($400K); the renourishment of Clam Pass Park Beach (30K CY's at $950K); and the repair /rebuild of Barefoot Beach (100K CY's at $2.8M) which has lost 200 Linear width of beach over the last 15 -20 years. This approach does not maximize the renourishment cycle and continues with a six plus year design that has the potential to be stretched to a longer life. It does however begin to address significant hot spots that have been identified through beach monitoring. • Option 4 — Execute a ten-year project that maximizes the renourishment cycle This option would maximize the time between renourishment events with 787K CY of sand placed on the beach at an estimated cost of $31M. This plan will increase the beach height (5 feet NAVD or 6.3 feet NGVD) as well as the construction width in sections as required to increase critical mass to resist erosion and produce a true ten year beach renourishment. A jetty spur on Doctors Pass is included to minimize erosion on the down drift beaches. In addition to renourishment of the Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples beach, this option includes renourishment for Clam Pass Park beach, the rebuild/repair of Barefoot beach, removal of groins in Park Shore beach, the jetty spur to Doctors Pass and addressing the additional hot spots with additional critical mass through increased sand placement. A FDEP permit modification is required for this item. As a subset of this item, the CAC directed staff on 2/9/2012 to prepare Option 4A which investigated the possibility of stockpiling sand on the beach in strategic locations during non -sea turtle nesting season. The investigation would include sites, square footage requirements and permitting restrictions. Savings on the project cost could be expected if it was possible to achieve the following items: • Approximately $5M- $7M could be achieved if the TS Fay PW was extended. • $1M could be saved if this project is combined with similar projects from the Captiva Erosion Control District and/or the City of Longboat Key to share mobilization costs and take advantage of economies of scale. The economies of scale are significant as well as early bidding before contractors have committed their production capacity to other projects. • $1M - $2M savings can be expected if schedule flexibility is enhanced to allow year round renourishment. Examples of schedule flexibility that would result in a price reduction are: stockpiling sand off shore in the non -peak renourishment timeframe; early contracting that would allow maximum planning and minimizing equipment mobilization costs; schedule that permits renourishment during off season and/or low equipment utilization periods; ability for the contractor to Packet Page -69- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. pursue "projects of opportunity" with clear and specific guidelines /restraints and schedules that identify start and completion dates and with approval, allow the contractor the flexibility to manage the schedule. • Maximizing FDEP's cost share contribution to this project. • If the schedule cost savings are to be pursued, a FDEP permit modification must be applied for that will permit renourishment during a portion of turtle nesting season. The Conservancy of SW Florida and Collier County jointly recognize the importance of healthy, cost effective beaches to our local economy and agrees and supports without objection the following renourishment schedule: 1. Renourishment to begin on September 15, 2013 on the Naples beach segment which has the lowest nesting density of all beaches within Collier County. This will require any nest laid after 7/7/13 on a Naples beach segment to be relocated to a designated relocation area. Offshore mobilization can proceed prior to 9/15/13 and the landing of the offshore pipeline on the beach prior to 9/15/13 is permitted. Pipe and equipment staging on the beach will not be allowed before 9/15/13. 2. Renourishment will proceed from south to north renourishing the Naples, Park Shore, Clam Pass, Vanderbilt and Barefoot beaches. All renourishment activities will be complete by 6/1/14. This equates to an 8.5 month renourishment cycle. 3. A permit modification will be supported by the Conservancy of SW Florida to begin renourishment on 9/15 and complete all renourishment activities by 6/1 the following year. MARCO SOUTH BEACH RENOURISHMENT /STRUCTURE REBUILD PLAN The Southernmost 4,400 LF of Marco Island beach is designated as critically eroded by FDEP. The South Marco Island beach between R144 and G -2 has been renourished in 1990, 1997 and 2006. The worst erosion in this segment is the last 2,000 feet between R147 and G2. Unfortunately, this is also the area that has the only public beach access with adequate parking in south Marco Island. A conceptual plan has been developed for this section of beach as follows: 1. System modeling maximized sand placement quantities to 104,000 CY's. This quantity will maximize the renourishment cycle and also the fill template. Beach renourishment permitting through FDEP is proceeding. This activity was critical to determine the time duration of this project and did not include beach design, specification, construction drawings, construction monitoring, project certification or closeout. The existing USACE permit is good till 2021. The existing Biological Opinion does not authorize renourishment during turtle nesting season. The renourishment portion of this project is expected to cost $1.8M. 2. Refurbishment of existing erosion control structures is also required. There are three breakwaters and two groins at the end of Marco Island to control erosion. Little maintenance has occurred over the years and these structures need to be rebuilt to the original design to perform as intended. This will require a permit from FDEP and the USACE to rebuild the structures. Permitting is expected to take 6 to 8 months and this work is expected to cost $1.2M. 3. Originally, it was anticipated that the renourishment and structure rebuild segments of this project would be constructed independently. This would have allowed the renourishment portion of this project to be built after turtle nesting season or begin after 11/1/12. Marco Island Ordinance prohibits renourishment during turtle nesting season. Currently, a joint schedule is being studied to determine Packet Page -70- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. benefits, if any, of a consolidated approach. Until Structure rebuild permitting is completed and a justified consolidated schedule can be developed, beach renourishment will occur after turtle nesting season 2012 followed closely by rebuilding of the erosion control structures. 4. Move forward with the selection and contracting of the RFP staff recommended engineering consultant. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for both these projects will be from Tourist Development Tax, Fund 195. In FY 13/14, reserves and unspent project funds for the Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches renourishment is expected to be $16.5M. This funding is without any state or federal monies. It appears that funds will be available to duplicate the 2005/06 renourishment. It is estimated that the construction costs with anticipated project savings for Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples Beaches will be between $16M - $30M depending on the project approach, scope and funding. It is also estimated that the permit design, plans and specifications for this project will cost $400K to $600K. Pre - construction, during construction and post - construction activities are estimated to cost an additional $800K to $1M. For the Marco South Beach Renourishment/Structure Rebuild project the total cost is approximately $3,000,000. Funds have been projected in the 10 year schedule /funding forecast for Fund 195. TDC funds will be reimbursed by any monies received by FDEP or FEMA. No additional carrying costs, operating or maintenance costs are expected with approval of these Conceptual Plans. Using today's dollars, the total cost to replace the Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples Beach asset is $16M to $30M and based on an expected life 10 years it will generate a hypothetical annual depreciation cost of $2M to $3M. Replacement cost for the Marco South Renourishment /Structure Rebuild project is anticipated to be $3M with a hypothetical annual depreciation of $375K for an expected project life of 8 years. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At the CAC February 9, 2012 meeting the Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples Beach renourishment plan was unanimously recommended for approval by an 8 to 0 vote. This same item was unanimously recommended for approval by a 7 to 0 vote at the February 27, 2012 TDC meeting. The Marco South Renourishment/Structure Rebuild plan was unanimously recommended for approval at the February 9, 2012 CAC meeting by an 8 to 0 vote. This same item was unanimously recommended for approval by a 7 -0 vote at the February 27, 2012 TDC meeting. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, requires majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action. — CMG Packet Page -71- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. RECOMMENDATION: To approve the Conceptual Plans for the FY2013/14 beach renourishment of Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches along with FY 12/13 Marco South beach renourishment /structure rebuild plan and make a finding that these items promote tourism. PREPARED BY: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Director, Coastal Zone Management Department Packet Page -72- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 11.A. Item Summary: Recommendation to approve the Conceptual Plans for the FY2013/14 beach renourishment of Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches along with FY12/13 Marco South beach renourishment /structure rebuild plan and make a finding that these items promote tourism. Meeting Date: 4/10/2012 Prepared By Name: HambrightGail Title: Accountant,Coastal Zone Management 1/27/2012 2:00:49 PM Submitted by Title: Accountant,Coastal Zone Management Name: HambrightGail 1/27/2012 2:00:51 PM Approved By Name: McAlpinGary Title: Director - Coastal Management Programs,Coastal Zon Date: 2/10/2012 2:01:57 PM Name: AlonsoHailey Title: Administrative Assistant,Domestic Animal Services Date: 2/13/2012 5:02:31 PM Name: GreeneColleen Title: Assistant County Attomey,County Attorney Date: 3/9/2012 11:48:11 AM Name: RamseyMarla Title: Administrator, Public Services Date: 3/22/2012 11:17:23 AM Packet Page -73- Name: GreeneColleen Title: Assistant County Attorney,County Attorney Date: 3/22/2012 11:45:17 AM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney Date: 3/30/2012 9:00:19 AM Name: FinnEd Title: Senior Budget Analyst, OMB Date: 4/2/2012 8:56:54 AM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager Date: 4/3/2012 2:30:40 PM Packet Page -74- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. January 26, 2012 - Draft Awl February 3, 2012 — Rev. 1 February 28, 2012 — Rev. 2 Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples Beach Renourishment The 2005/06 renourishment project was limited in placement scope quantities due to FDEP's concerns that sand would migrate to the near shore hardbottom marine habitat and smother it. What was provided was a six year beach design life that is currently being stretched to eight to nine years. The BCC directed staff in the 2011 joint Collier County and City of Naples workshop to maximize the interval between renourishments. Staff modeled the coast and developed four options for a Conceptual Design. • Option 1 — Execute the TS Fay FEMA design This would place 175,000 CY's of fill sand at a cost of approximately $10M on the beach. This sand placement would only restore the damage from TS Fay and not extend the life of this project whatsoever. It would not address any hot spot locations and would not include any Jetty work to stabilize the beach. Only a minor permit modification for an extra nourishment would be required. • Option 2 — Execute the 2005/2006 design This would place 482,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at an estimated cost of $19M. This would continue with the six year design project life that most likely can be extended. This project would not maximize the renourishment cycle and does not address the Clam Pass or Barefoot Beach renourishment needs. Additionally, it does not address the beach hot spots, the groins at Park Shore or the need for a jetty spur south of Doctors Pass. • Option 3 — Execute the 2005/2006 design with beach and hot spot enhancements This would place 612,000 CY's of fill sand at a cost of approximately $24M on the beach. It would also include: The removal of the groins at Park Shore ($400K); the renourishment of Clam Pass Park Beach (30K CY's at $950K); and the repair /rebuild of Barefoot Beach (100K CY's at $2.8M) which has lost 200 Linear width of beach over the last 15 -20 years. This approach does not maximize the renourishment cycle and continues with a six plus year design that has the potential to be stretched to a longer life. It does however begin to address significant hot spots that have been identified through beach monitoring and modeling. • Option 4 — Execute a ten -year proiect that maximizes the renourishment cycle This option would maximize the time between renourishment events with a 787K CY renourishment with an estimated cost of $31M. This plan will increase the beach height (5 feet NAVD or 6.3 feet NGVD) as well as the construction width in sections Page 1 of 3 Packet Page -75- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. as required to increase critical mass to resist erosion and produce a true ten year beach renourishment. A jetty spur on Doctors Pass is included to minimize erosion on the down drift beaches. In addition to renourishment of the Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples beach, this option includes renourishment for Clam Pass Park beach, the rebuild /repair of Barefoot beach, removal of groins in Park Shore beach, the jetty spur to Doctors Pass and addressing the additional hot spots with additional critical mass through increased sand placement. A FDEP permit modification is required for this modification. Savings on the project cost could be expected if it was possible to achieve the following items: • Approximately $5M- $7M could be achieved if the TS Fay PW was extended. $1 M could be saved if this project is combined with similar projects from the Captiva Erosion Control District and /or the City of Longboat Key to share mobilization costs and take advantage of economies of scale. The economies of scale are significant as well as early bidding before contractors have committed their production capacity to other projects. $1 M - $2M savings can be expected if schedule flexibility is enhanced to allow year round renourishment. Examples of schedule flexibility that would result in a price reduction are: stockpiling sand off shore in the non -peak renourishment timeframe; early contracting that would allow maximum planning and minimizing equipment mobilization costs; schedule that permits renourishment during off season and /or low equipment utilization periods; ability for the contractor to pursue "projects of opportunity" with clear and specific guidelines /restraints and schedules that identify start and completion dates and with approval, allow the contractor the flexibility to manage the schedule. • Maximizing FDEP's cost share contribution to this project. • If the schedule cost savings are to be pursued, a FDEP permit modification must be applied for that will permit year round renourishment or renourishment during a portion of turtle nesting season. Renourishment during turtle nesting season Turtle nesting season begins on May 1St and ends on October 31St of each year. The FDEP, USACE, FWS and FWC will allow year round renourishment and FWC and FDEP have indicated they have "No Objections" to granting a permit for year round renourishment. No Collier County Ordinance prohibits renourishment during turtle nesting season. However, Collier County has always strived to be excellent environmental stewards and avoid any negative impacts to nesting by renourishment during turtle nesting season. Page 2 of 3 Packet Page -76- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Additionally, the Conservancy of SW Florida recognizes the importance of healthy, cost effective beaches to our local economy and both organizations agree and support without objection the following renourishment schedule. 1. Renourishment to begin on September 15, 2013 on the Naples beach segment which has the lowest nesting density of all beaches within Collier County. This will require any nest laid after 7/7/13 on a Naples beach segment to be relocated to a designated relocation area. Offshore mobilization can proceed prior to 9/15/13 and the landing of the offshore pipeline on the beach prior to 9/15/13 is permitted. Pipe and equipment staging on the beach will not be allowed before 9/15/13. 2. Renourishment will proceed from south to north renourishing the Naples, Park Shore, Clam Pass, Vanderbilt and Barefoot beaches. All renourishment activities will be complete by 6/1/14. This equates to an 8.5 month renourishment cycle. 3. A permit modification will be supported by the Conservancy of SW Florida to begin renourishment on 9/15 and complete all renourishment activities by 6/1 the following year. Recommendations: 1. Seek a permit modification to allow beach renourishment from 9/15 to 6/1 of the following year. 2. Options will be developed and presented to the BCC for their decision making as funding; schedule coordination and scope definition is resolved. 3. Scope manage this project based on direction from the BCC to match available funding with sand placement quantities at the time of renourishment. 4. Assure appropriate staffing, training and permitting of turtle monitors and relocation specialists. Work with State and Federal agencies in the development of this plan. 5. Aggressively pursue partnership with the City of Longboat Key and Captiva Erosion Control District to reduce mobilization costs and take advantage of economies of scale. Additionally, pursue early bidding before contractors have committed production capacity to other projects. 6. Maximize leverage with FEMA and FDEP to secure project funding. Page 3 of 3 Packet Page -77- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Great Lakes 2122 York Road Dredge & Dock Oak Brook. Minais 6*0523 Company 63:;.574.WOO .a,��Cr�M�Nts 1 November 2011 J. Gary McAlpin, Director Coastal Zone Management 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Gary, Re: Upcoming Beach Projects Thanks for taking time to meet with Sam Morrison, our Area Manager and me at the FSBPA conference. It is always good to see you. I wanted to reiterate some of the constructability comments we shared during that discussion which also included the folks from Captiva as well as Steve Keehn from CPE. Mobilization Savings. For sure, one of the biggest costs on a large scale dredging project is mobilization. We often encourage our clients and consulting engineer friends to combine similar projects whenever possible to allow for cost efficiencies, Based on our past experiences and your anticipated plans, combining projects with the Captiva Erosion Control District appears to be the right thing to do As we discussed, there are no hard and fast numbers to apply, but with mobilization costs in the general in the range of $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 per project there are certainly significant cost savings to be realized. 2. Environmental Windows. Working around the turtle windows can result in significant cost savings also. Most of the industry's annual hopper dredge work gets compressed into the winter months by Federal budget delays and endangered species issues. This impacts our costs not only by increased scheduling pressures, but also puts the work into the more difficult weather months when working in the ocean becomes more dangerous and costly. Our industry typically has our best equipment availability in the summer months and as a result, the Corps and other clients look to schedule whatever projects that have such flexibility for those months when costs are reduced and schedules are more reliable. 3. Scheduling. Flexibility is always important for a vessel operator, like a hopper dredging company. There are two ways for you to show that flexibility and win favorable pricing. One is to bid the project with sufficient lead time to allow the contractor to get his support equipment (pipeline, etc) to the job site on a reasonable schedule. What is important for this point is that it is not critical when the work starts, it is more important when it ends. If you have scheduling issues, identify them, but provide flexibility wherever you can. In line with that, the second way is to provide as much completion time as possible and then not object to the contractor performing other projects often called "opportunity projects ". While it is difficult to quantify the cost benefits to you upfront, we can tell you that we do lower our prices for those projects on the order of 5% to 20% when such flexibility is allowed. Packet Page -78- Gary McAlpin 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 1 November 2011 4. Partnering. One of the best things you can have with industry is a good relationship. While in any given contract or project there may be issues and conflict, in a perpetual business like ours, we have to assure each other's success. Engaging us in the conversation upfront is valuable to us on a lot of levels as we hope it is for you. You have always been straight with us and that has allowed us to put our best price on the table. Good luck as this project moves forward, we look forward to working with you again. Please don't hesitate to contact Sam or I with other questions or comments. Regards Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company 40— � William H. Hanson Vice President CC: Sam Morrison, GLDD Packet Page -79- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Subject: Collier County and FWC Video Conference Call Date / Time: Tuesday, January 17`h, 2012 —10:00 am Purpose: Discuss plan that would allow construction of next Collier County Nourishment Project to extend into sea turtle nesting season (requiring a modification to Permit No. 0222355 - 001 -JC) Collier County is interested in requesting a modification to Permit No. 0222355- 001 -JC which would, in part, allow construction of the next beach nourishment project to extend into sea turtle nesting season, if necessary. The duration of the project (including mobilization and demobilization), especially if the project is constructed jointly with other nearby counties, will likely make construction entirely outside of nesting season impossible; therefore, the County seeks the flexibility to construct during nesting season when necessary. Collier County is committed to sea turtle conservation, and believes that through proactive coordination with FWC a plan can be developed that will balance the need for nourishment of Collier County beaches with conservation measures that will avoid or minimize impacts to nesting and hatchling sea turtles. Collier County proposes the following suggestions as possible ways to accomplish this goal, and welcomes comments and discussion from FWC. Advance Planning and Coordination: • Local Coordination and Management: Collier County will ensure that all project activities comply with local codes and ordinances, and the County Manager can provide a letter which states this compliance and approves the project. The City of Naples is a partner in this project and can provide similar assurances. • Prepare Necessary Resources: Collier County will ensure that the necessary resources are available which will enable the County to conduct all sea turtle conservation measures (i.e., nesting surveys, relocation, data collection). If necessary, the County would apply for another FWC sea turtle permit and /or secure outside help with proper credentials, which would allow more trained personnel to assist with these activities. • Plan Potential Relocation Sites: For each construction reach, find potential suitable nest relocation sites that will protect nests and hatchlings from construction activities while also maintaining a safe environment with minimal impacts from lighting. Potential areas include those stretches of Collier County beaches not receiving nourishment, as well as areas back towards the dune in cases where fill will only be placed on a portion of wider beach sections. Wide beaches in less developed areas (such as gaps between large condominiums), parks and gaps in the fill are potential candidate sites. For example, Lowdermilk Park or the condominium gap in Parkshore between R49 and R50 have potential. Significant coordination with FWC will go into the final selection of relocation sites. Packet Page -80- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Pre - Construction Planning: • Determine construction optimal direction and timing: Once a contractor has been determined and it is time to schedule construction, Collier County will coordinate with FWC to devise a construction plan that would minimize impacts to turtle nesting. For instance, if construction is going to begin in sea turtle nesting season, it will make sense to start the project in the Naples Beach segment (which has the lowest nesting density of the project reaches) and then work north from there. By scheduling the construction in this way, the construction in the higher nest density areas may avoid peak nesting season. Minimizing impacts to higher nesting areas also reduces the management and effort required by sea turtle personnel responsible for relocation and monitoring. Implementation of Sea Turtle Protection Measures: • Compliance with all permit conditions: Collier County will conduct the pre - application meeting with FWC and the contractor. Throughout construction the work will comply with all FWC and USFWS permit conditions to avoid or minimize impacts to sea turtles, and FWC will be contacted with any questions or concerns that may arise. Packet Page -81- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. COLLIER COUNTY CONCEPTUAL RENOURISHMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS Prepared For: Coastal Zone Management Department Collier County Government Prepared By: Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. Boca Raton, FL May 2011 Revised October 2011 Packet Page -82- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. COLLIER COUNTY CONCEPTUAL RENOURISHMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION This report describes the evaluation of conceptual structure and beach fill design modifications on five coastal segments along the Collier County Coast between Wiggins Pass and Gordon Pass. The purpose of this study is to develop conceptual designs that address the effectiveness of existing structures and beach fill design templates, and changes needed to solve hot spots and improve project performance and durability. Beach fill alternatives with a higher and wider beach berm will be evaluated with structural modifications to achieve these goals. The segments are located at Barefoot Beach, Vanderbilt Beach, Clam Pass Park, Park Shore, and Naples. The study consists of three phases 1) the development of a sediment budget, conceptual fill designs, and cost estimate, 2) a numerical modeling study of coastal processes and shoreline change, and 3) interrogation of the numerical model to evaluate structural and non - structural alternatives. Permitting complexities will be addressed for each alternative. The four alternatives consist of: 1. Storm replacement project based on TS Fay FEMA fill quantities. 2. Nourishment using the 2006 design in the 3 original segments. 3. Higher and wider beach with 10 -year design life. 4. Structural modification or additions. This design study assesses the feasibility of several renourishment alternatives for the beaches of Collier County. One alternative addresses the renourishment needs of the original three segments constructed as part of the 1996 and 2006 renourishment projects, both with the FEMA approved sand volume or the 2006 design standard. The third alternative is increasing the design width of the beach along with the consideration of including two additional small segments adjacent to Clam and Wiggins Passes. The same borrow area (BA -T1) is proposed as the primary sand source for use in the upcoming renourishment project. The fourth alternative considers structural changes or additional methods needed to meet the project objectives. A modeling report is included with this study to investigate the performance of groins and to assess the feasibility of the fill distribution proposed. The modeling shows that with a strong nourishment and inlet bypassing program, most of the remaining structures could be removed, reducing regional hot spots caused by seasonal fluctuations of the beach at the groins. The main objective of this study is to develop a design that will enhance project performance and increase the project life to maintain a healthy beach for up to 10 years without significant impacts to the natural resources within the project area. The performance of the beach in avoiding hardbottom coverage has exceeded permit expectations, and the results of four years of physical monitoring indicate that the beach can be widened without a significant increased risk of hardbottom impacts. The analysis and modeling indicate that the recommended plan with a 10 year project life is feasible with the use of minimal new structures. 10 1 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -83- rl BAREFOOT BEACH f O tF W WIGGINS PASS DELNOR -WIGG N! STATE PARK J lr VANDERBILT n N 700000 Q w R30 EXISTING PIPELINE CORRIDOR A R40 CLAM PASS N 660600 PARK SHORE n G NAPLES lrGl$10Jd LEGEND: EXISTING PIPELINE CORRIDOR - -► PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR EXPANDED TEMPLATE FEMA TEMPLATE EXISTING TEMPLATE NEW SEGMENTS R70 FDEP MONUMENTS NOTES: 1. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, EAST ZONE, NORTH .AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). 2. FILL WIDTHS ARE NOT TO SCALE. DOCTORS PASS 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE ` PROJECT OR N.T.S. LOCATION TAMPA ATLANTIC OCEAN HENDRY CO. 0 BOCA LEE o RATON CO. MIAMI COU GULF �Jy� // OF MEXICO GULF MONROE CO. OF MEXICO 0 O W SR 886 @12;91 *9 R70 0 GULF OF MEXICO RT ROYAL GOROON PASS } w Vf FIGURE 1. Project Location Map 2 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -84- N 680000 I I SR 856 SR 84 d 4000 8riol GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. The study area encompasses approximately 13 miles of coastline between the Wiggins Pass and Gordon Pass (Figure 1). Collier County is approximately 115 miles south of the entrance of Tampa Bay and about 100 miles west of Miami, Florida. The County is bordered to the west and southwest by the Gulf of Mexico, to the south by Monroe County, to the east by Dade and Broward Counties, and to the north by Lee and Hendry Counties. II. PROJECT AREA HISTORY The beaches of Collier County have been actively maintained for 16 years. This maintenance includes structures, beach nourishment, and inlet bypassing. Beach Nourishment The initial major nourishment project in Collier County occurred in November 1995 to restore nearly six miles of critically eroded shoreline. Approximately 1,270,600 cubic yards of material was placed on Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples Beaches. Sand for the project was obtained from four offshore borrow areas and supplemented with fill from upland sand sources. The project also included the extension of the north Jetty of Doctors Pass by approximately 75 feet, the removal of 36 groins, and the restoration of six rock groins and a pile cluster groin. The project also included the restoration of ten existing stormwater outfalls on northern Naples Beach. Between February 21 and May 23, 2006, Collier County constructed a beach renourishment project in Vanderbilt Beach (R -22 to R -37), Park Shore (R -45 to R -55), and Naples Beach (R- 58A to R -79) along approximately 8.5 miles of shoreline. This project used an offshore sand source as well as sand from ongoing inlet maintenance at Doctors Pass. Approximately 668,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand from the offshore sand source and approximately 53,600 cubic yards of sand from inlet maintenance were placed within the project area. Supplemental fill projects, such as truck haul, have taken place within the project area since construction of the 1996 project. The most recent truck haul projects took place in summer 2010 and spring of 2011 in order to address two erosion hot spots within the County. The summer 2010 project took place between July 2, 2010 and July 9, 2010. Approximately 2,650 cubic yards (3,712 tons) of sand was placed south of Doctors Pass from R -58A -500 to R -58A +100. The second project took place in March 2011 and placed 22,393 cubic yards and 7,836 at Doctors Pass (R -58A -400 to R -58) and Park Shore (R -45 +600 to R -46 +400) respectively. Inlet Maintenance Periodic dredging and bypassing has taken place at Wiggins Pass, Clam Pass, Doctors Pass, and Gordon Pass in recent history. 3 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -85- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Wiggins Pass Wiggins Pass is a natural inlet located south of Big Hickory Pass between R -16 and R -17 in Collier County. The pass has known to be open since 1885, and it is the northernmost inlet in Collier County. Since 1927, the pass has remained relatively stable and was first dredged for navigation in 1984. Wiggins Pass is currently dredged at regular intervals of approximately 2 years to maintain navigable depths for recreational boaters. The average yearly rate of dredging since 1984 has been about 20,370 cubic yards per year, with sand being placed on the beaches to the north and south of the pass. Currently, a comprehensive inlet management study and permit is being prepared to create straightened navigation channel. Clam Pass Clam Pass is another of Collier's natural inlets, located 5 miles south of Wiggins Pass between R -41 and R -42. Clam Pass is a small inlet subject to periodic closures and seasonal variations. Between 1954 and 1970, the pass migrated about 600 feet to the north (UF, 1970). From 1995 through 2002, a total of 78,725 cubic yards was dredged from the inlet system and placed onto adjacent beaches, primarily to the south. In 2007, approximately 22,000 cubic yards of material was dredged from the pass. In the future, this pass will be dredged to maintain tidal flushing of the Clam Bay Estuary. Doctors Pass Doctors Pass is the northernmost stabilized inlet in Collier County and is located south of Clam Pass between R -57 and R -58. The first modification of the inlet occurred in 1960, when the pass was widened and stone jetties were constructed for stabilization. As part of the 1996 Collier County Restoration Project, the north jetty was extended approximately 75 feet. The channel was first dredged in 1966 and 10 -year dredging permits were issued in 1984 in order to maintain the pass and address impacts to adjacent beaches. In 1997, the DEP adopted an inlet management plan that specified all dredged material be placed on the beaches or inshore zone south of the inlet meeting a minimum bypassing goal of 10,000 cubic yards on an average annual basis. Maintenance dredging has traditionally occurred at Doctors Pass every 3 to 4 years. The County conducted maintenance dredging of Doctors Pass in the winter of 2009. Approximately 36,000 cubic yards of dredged sand was placed in the nearshore area south of the inlet, between R -60 and R -62. Recently, inlet management was altered at Doctors Pass to place dredged material further south. Historically fill was placed immediately south of the pass near R -58. However, due to a change in permit conditions starting in 2005, dredged material is now placed between R -60 and R -62 at Lowdermilk Park. 4 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -86- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Gordon Pass Gordon Pass is another major stabilized inlet, located south of Doctors Pass between R- 89 and R -90. Gordon Pass is the southernmost inlet within the study area and has been known to be open since 1885 (USACE, 1972). The first modification of the inlet occurred in 1962, when the pass was widened and the south jetty was constructed for stabilization. The north jetty was constructed in 1977 and lengthened in 1987. The Gordon Pass Inlet Management Plan (CPE, 1998) recommended dredging 22,000 cubic yards per year on a 5 -year maintenance cycle, of which at least 13,000 cubic yards per year be bypassed to the south. The pass was last dredged in 2010. III. STRATEGIC BEACH MANAGEMENT PLAN This plan represents the State's beach objectives. Projects which meet State objectives are easier to permit and receive state funding. In 2008, the FDEP Bureaus of Beaches and Coastal Systems updated the Strategic Beach Management Plan for the Southwest Gulf Coast Region. The sub- region for Collier County (Naples Coast) extends from the Lee County line in the north to the midpoint of Keewaydin Island in the south. The barrier beaches are separated from the mainland by mangrove swamp, salt marsh, and small bays. The Plan identifies 8.5 miles of critically eroded beach within this sub - region, which is attributed to winter frontal systems, tropical weather systems, and the effects of the inlets (Wiggins, Clam, Doctors, and Gordon Passes). Barefoot Beach should be part of the plan in its next update. The following sections are excerpts from the Management Plan (FDEP, 2008) and pertain to the critically eroded areas of Collier County: Wiggins Pass, Collier County: Place beach quality maintenance dredged material on adjacent beaches north and south of Wiggins Pass within areas of greatest need; monitoring and analysis of inlet effects. Vanderbilt Beach, Collier County, R -22.3 to R -30.5: Maintain the project through monitoring and nourishment using sand from offshore and bypassing sources. Clam Pass, Collier County: Monitor Park Shore, Collier County, R -50.65 to R -57.5: Maintain the project through monitoring and nourishment using sand from offshore and bypassing sources. Doctors Pass, Collier County: Place all beach quality dredged material on the beach or nearshore zone south of the inlet meeting a minimum bypassing goal of 10,000 cubic yards on an average annual basis. Naples, Collier County, R -57.8 to R -89: Maintain the project through monitoring and nourishment using sand from offshore and bypassed from Doctors Pass; evaluate alternatives to restore the remaining critically eroded shoreline. 5 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -87- C7 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Gordon Pass, Collier County: Place beach quality maintenance dredged material on downdrift beaches south of the inlet. New for the Strategic Beach Management Plan During the study, several recommendations have been developed to improve the current beach management plan. One major change is to include Barefoot Beach into the plan. Barefoot Beach was recently declared a critically eroded area, and it is recommended that beach quality material be placed from R -14 to R -16. It is also proposed that the location of the sand dredged from Doctors Pass be placed immediately south of the pass near R -58A and R -58. The lack of sand placed at this location during recent dredging has led to a hot spot south of the inlet. IV. RECENT MONITORING RESULTS The results from the fourth annual monitoring survey (October 2010) of the 2005/06 Collier County Beach Restoration Project have become recently available; therefore, the results from October 2010 and portions of findings from the July 2009 monitoring report were used within the preliminary design. Shoreline Changes The Mean High Water (MHW) elevation measured at each profile is used to represent the typical shoreline location. In Collier County, the MHW elevation is +0.33 ft NAVD 88. The MHW shoreline is approximated by the high -tide mark on the beach. The average MHW shoreline changes from November 2005 (pre - construction) to October 2010 are listed in Table 1. The total beach width remaining (Figure 2) within the project area since construction along with the design standard and hot spots is illustrated in Figure 3. The pre - construction survey considered in this report was conducted in November 2005 within the constructed areas and September 2005 in other regions of the monitoring area between R -17 to R -84. Survey monuments are located approximately 1,000 feet apart along the shoreline (Figure 1). The June 2006 survey used within the report is the post - construction survey, and the surveys for 2008, 2009, and 2010 are used for monitoring purposes for the project area. 6 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -88- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. TABLE 1 MHW SHORELINE CHANGES Figure 2 illustrates the concept of added beach width remaining versus total beach width remaining. The MHW shoreline changes discussed within this section refer to the amount of added beach from the 2005/06 project remaining. The total beach width remaining is the amount of sandy shoreline that is currently present from baseline, such as a seawall, edge of vegetation, building line, or equivalent, out to the water's edge. The goal is to maintain a total beach width of 85 -100 feet between nourishments. MHW SHORELINE CHANGES PROJECT AREAS JULY 2009 REMAINING NOV. 05 TO TO OCT. 2010 JUNE 2006 JULY 2009 OCT. 2010 VANDERBILT BEACH 3.8 37.4 15.1 18.9 (R-22 to R -31) 5 I PELICAN BAY 4.6 22.5 15.9 20.4 R -31 to R -37) Z PARK SHORE -5.6 30.9 14.1 8.5 (R -45 to R -55) - NAPLES BEACH -4.5 56.5 36.8 32.3 (R -58A to R -79) W WIDTH REMAINING ;..... AVERAGE -0.4 36.8 20.5 20.0 Figure 2 illustrates the concept of added beach width remaining versus total beach width remaining. The MHW shoreline changes discussed within this section refer to the amount of added beach from the 2005/06 project remaining. The total beach width remaining is the amount of sandy shoreline that is currently present from baseline, such as a seawall, edge of vegetation, building line, or equivalent, out to the water's edge. The goal is to maintain a total beach width of 85 -100 feet between nourishments. FIGURE 2. Beach Width Description (NAVD = NGVD - 1.28') 7 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -89- �o TOTALiBEACH WIDTH DESIGN ADDED BEACH WIDTH DESIGN EXAMPLE DESIGN TEMPLATE 5 I D PRE - CONSTRUCTION V. PROFILE Z - - - - - - - - - - - - - -MHW UJI LU EXISTING PROFILE - ADD CH W WIDTH REMAINING ;..... TOTAL BEACH WIDTH REMAINING -10 50 100 150 200 250 30O NOTES: DISTANCE (FEET) 1 .BASELINE SET AT SEAWALL, EDGE OF VEGETATION, OR EQUIVALENT FIGURE 2. Beach Width Description (NAVD = NGVD - 1.28') 7 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -89- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Recent shoreline trends in the last year (2009 to 2010; Table 1) indicate shoreline gains in Vanderbilt Beach and Pelican Bay, which are north of Clam Pass, and losses to the south of Clam Pass at Park Shore and Naples Beach. In comparison to beach widths measured after construction in 2006, Park Shore has lost the greatest percentage of shoreline, retaining only 28% of shoreline width gained from the 2005/06 project. The other two reaches have retained over 50% of their shoreline width. MHW shoreline changes are listed in more detail on a profile by profile basis in Appendix B. Vanderbilt Beach On average, the project area has receded -18.5 feet since construction in 2006, although the shoreline was accretional over the past year. The average beach width remaining in October 2010 is 18.9 feet from the 37.4 feet measured post - construction. Since 2006, survey measurements within the fill limits indicate an average shoreline change rate of - 4.3 feet per year. Pelican Bay Over the past 4 years, Pelican Bay has had both an erosional and accretional trend. From post - construction to 2008, the shoreline lost much of its added beach width. Since 2008, a majority of that beach width has recovered. Overall, the project area has approximately 20 feet of beach width remaining compared to the 22.5 feet of beach width measured post - construction. The average shoreline retreat measured within this reach is approximately -0.5 feet per year. Park Shore On average, the project area has receded -22.4 feet since construction, with -5.6 feet of shoreline change since July 2009. The average beach width remaining in October 2010 was approximately 8.5 feet. Since 2006, the Park Shore Beach area has lost approximately -5.2 feet of shoreline per year. Naples Beach The Naples Beach project area has eroded -24.2 feet since construction, which equates to approximately -5.6 feet per year of shoreline retreat. The project area contains approximately 32.3 feet of added beach width remaining. A majority of the erosion that was experienced within the Naples region is north of Lowdermilk Park, which is caused by the inlet effects of Doctors Pass. Beach Width Remaining versus Design Standard The design standards for Vanderbilt Beach, Park Shore, and Naples Beach are 100 feet, 85 feet, and 100 feet, respectively. The design standard, which generally measures the amount of sandy beach from a line established in 2003, is used as a basis to identify beach performance and hot spots. From comparing the design standards to the present condition of the beach, six areas that 8 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -90- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. warrant attention were identified from Figure 3. Vanderbilt Beach (R -27) contains one narrower beach width spot. Park Shore (R -46 and R -52) and Naples Beach (R -58 and R -63) have two areas of narrower beach width. Pelican Bay has a narrow point at R -36. Based upon the beach width remaining 4 -years after construction, these beaches are narrower than the design standard established in 2003. The area south of Clam Pass and north of Wiggins Pass, Barefoot Beach, would warrant attention, but they were not part of the 1996 or 2006 beach renourishment projects. The Clam Pass and Barefoot Beach are being considered for inclusion into the upcoming renourishment project. A narrower design width will be considered at Clam Pass Park and the hot spot south of Doctors Pass. Although Figure 3 illustrates the desired beach width standard, environmental restrictions to avoid hardbottom coverage and other limitations did not allow for the placement of the optimal sand volume in all areas in the 2006 project. 9 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -91- ITI W 0 0 U) D r z z ^z^ Ul H 90 C) M z c� z M M 22 z 0 z 0 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Packet Page -92- a. o o E8 a ^" o o 18 -8 n 6L-a • 6L-a SL-8 LL -a bi O 23 � Zn SL-8 cn CO VL_a £L -8 Z z Q ZL-a LL -a OL-a Z 69-8 z 89-8 D L9-8 99-8 99-a Co c E9-8 s Z9-8 L9-a r.' . 69-8 85 a D V99-8 S801000 W LS-1 -8 Z p m sS SS-n o vs-8 o z E5 8. , .n is-8 . _ z 09-1 ,. -1 6D-6 M 9�8 p 9 9tr?j D D S48 z Z z SSdd INVIO Lb-a -1 ob-a o °D s£-a L£-8 s EE "a z£ -a L£-a I OE-8 6Z-a O sZ -a LZ -?j .. °. ..... .��� 9Z-8 SZ -a o vZ-a £Z-8 ZZ -a LZ -a ................ W -a 6V8 SL-8 L L-a SSbd SNIJJIM N Cit ^.i -� � -► -� N NO Ch O Cn O N CT ^J O O Cfl O Ut O Packet Page -92- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Volumetric Changes The volumetric changes discussed in this report represent the difference in the quantity of sand measured along the beach between surveys. All volumetric changes are given in cubic yards. Volumetric changes were calculated between the dunes (upland) and the approximate depth of closure. The depth of closure is defined as the seaward limit of the active beach profile and it is assumed that sand transport beyond this depth is negligible. A depth of closure of -11.3 ft NAVD ( -10 ft NGVD) was used to determine volumetric changes for each monitoring area (CPE, 2003). The depth of closure is landward of the hardbottom. The landward and seaward limits were fixed to define a consistent region for all volumetric calculations. Volumetric changes at each profile are listed in Appendix B. Vanderbilt Beach The project area has lost - 10,267 cubic yards of sand since construction at an average rate of -2,370 cubic yards per year. Profile comparisons indicate a gain of 12,668 cubic yards over the last year, which is probably recovery from Tropical Storm Fay. Overall, this reach has approximately 81 % of the as -built volume remaining in October 2010. Pelican Bay Pelican Bay, after initial losses, has been accretional the later years, similar to the accretional trend that it experienced after the 1996 project. This reach has gained approximately 3,500 cubic yards since July 2009. This reach has over 100% of its as- built volume remaining. TABLE 2 COLLIER COUNTY VOLUMETRIC CHANGES 11 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -93- VOL. REMAINING NOV. 05 TO PERCENT PROJECT AREAS DESIGN AS -BUILT JUNE 2006 JULY 2009 OCT. 2010 REMAINING VANDERBILT BEACH 121,689 121,487 108,642 85,707 98,375 81% (R-22 to R -31 PELICAN BAY 57,225 56,955 78,858 62,913 66,416 117% R -31 to R -37) PARK SHORE 140,224 141,739 93,593 78,982 53,924 38% (R-45 to R -55) NAPLES BEACH 345,283 347,381 296,568 301,676 264,518 76% (R -58A to R -79) TOTAL 664,421 667,562 577,661 529,278 483,233 72% 11 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -93- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Park Shore The Park Shore project area has lost - 39,669 cubic yards of sand since construction at a rate of approximately -9,150 cubic yards per year. Over the past year, the Park Shore reach has been in an erosional state and has lost approximately - 25,058 cubic yards. Overall, this reach has approximately 38% of its as -built volume remaining, with major losses occurring to the north from R -45 to R -48. Naples Beach Since construction, the Naples Beach project area has lost approximately 32,050 cubic yards, which is approximately -7,400 cubic yards per year. Overall, this area of the 2006 project has approximately 76% of its as -built volume remaining. Additional Study Areas The two newly proposed areas to the next nourishment project have been erosional over the past decade. The MHW shoreline and volumetric changes at Barefoot Beach are listed in Tables 3a and 3b below, while the MHW shoreline changes south of Clam Pass are listed in Appendix B and the volume changes are summarized below. Barefoot Beach Since 1992, the shoreline north of Wiggins Pass at Barefoot Beach has retreated an average of approximately 87 feet. The worst area of erosion is occurring at R -16, where, since 1992, it has lost approximately 437 feet of shoreline. The shoreline at R -14 and R- 15, also have high rates of erosion since 1992. The higher losses that have occurred since 1992 can be attributed to the northern migration of the flood channel and inlet management practices, which allowed for an approximate even disposal of dredged material on the north and south shorelines when it should have favored the north. The erosion is concentrated within half a mile of the inlet. TABLE 3a BAREFOOT BEACH MHW SHORELINE CHANGES Profile MHW Shoreline 1988 1992 Changes (ft) 1992 1 2001 2001 2009 R -11 12 7.0 15.8 R -12 -4 29.7 56.3 R -13 19 9.9 29.8 R -14 114 -83.5 -9.9 R -15 63 -70.9 -71.0 R -16 185 -264.1 -173.0 FN TOTAL 64.8 -62.0 -25.3 12 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -94- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. TABLE 3b BAREFOOT BEACH VOLUMETRIC CHANGES Profile Length (F,1,) Volumetric Changes 1988 1992 1992 2001 (cy) 2001 2009 R -11 501 -1,413 -1,314 11,238 R -12 987 - 11,275 5,046 52,660 R -13 971 478 966 37,697 R -14 997 31,821 4,415 - 24,752 R -15 1032 12,726 - 32,854 - 30,107 R -16 537 21,586 - 81,447 - 72,771 Wiggins Pass N. TOTAL 1 5,025 1 53,924 1 - 105,188 - 26,035 The shorelines near Wiggins Pass have been eroding at an accelerated rate since 1992, which directly affects the amount of recreational area available to the public. During the period from 1992 to 2009, the largest shoreline retreat was observed at R -16 with over 400 feet of shoreline lost. Approximately 10 acres has been lost from the Gulf beaches since 1992. The shoreline recession on South Barefoot Beach has caused vegetation, such as mangroves to be lost, and it has also created a dangerous scarp along the shoreline that is hazardous to park users. Along with the loss of vegetation, walking paths that were present in 1973 at Barefoot Beach have been eroded away and are no longer present in several areas to the west and south. This affect's the public's accessibility to the County Park and enjoyment of nature along the former loop path. In comparison to the shoreline changes, the volumetric changes also indicate that the shoreline north of Wiggins Pass is highly erosional. From 1979 to present, the shoreline shifted and is now in a state of erosion. The worst of the erosion is seen at R -16 where approximately 201,000 cubic yards have been lost. This erosion has caused the southern tip of South Barefoot Beach to nearly shear off, which in return has lost valuable recreational area and habitat within the park. The causes of erosion are both natural and man influenced. Nourishment will restore the eroded portion of the beach that new inlet management practices would take decade to address. Clam Pass Park and Vicinity In the last two decades, erosion has increased south of Clam Pass, and is only partially addressed by placement of dredged material south of the inlet. South of Clam Pass, the erosional arc extends to R -48 for the 1988 -2010 period. The arc of erosion south of the pass increased by 2,000 feet between 2005 and 2010. Since maintenance dredging began in 1999 in order to improve flushing of the pass, the erosional trend has increased south of the pass and decreased to the north of the pass. Since 1998, the northern shoreline has been accretional, while the southern shoreline has eroded approximately 16 feet. Even 13 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -95- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. with the existing bypassing program in place at Clam Pass, the downdrift shoreline is showing an increased impact compared to the pre -1998 period. Figure 4 illustrates the shoreline changes centered around the inlet. It can be seen that during the time period from 1998 to 2005, the erosional arc from the inlet extended to R- 46. In the past five years, the erosional arc has expanded and now extends to R -48. The figure illustrates that the erosional area south of the pass is growing, which is threatening the shoreline farther south and could cause further loss of vegetation and habitat. The largest shoreline recession is at R -45. This point is located south of the Clam Pass disposal area. Consideration should be given to extending the disposal area 500 to 1,000 feet further south. FIGURE 4. Shoreline Changes near Clam Pass (1998 to Present) When fill and bypassing is discounted, the area with the greatest erosion is located at R- 43, which has experienced over 100 feet of shoreline loss (if there was no fill placed) since dredging began in 1999. The increased erosion south of the pass is associated with the dredging implemented within the area in order to restore flushing to the Clam Bay system. The increased flushing has improved mangroves and other aquatic habitat within Clam Bay based on annual monitoring conducted by Terrel Hall and Associates through 2010 for the Pelican Bay Services Division. The gap in the hardbottom south of the pass and the groins at the Seagate Drive public access are contributing to the erosion in this area. Two groins are located between R -45 and R -46, and the hardbottom gap is north of this region. In addition, an examination of the comparative profiles show the 2005 14 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -96- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. hurricane season was a catalyst to increase erosion, with an offshore shift in profile volume measured with the November 2005 profiles, and the disappearance of this volume in the 2010 profiles. The volumetric changes for 1998 -2010 are shown in Table 4 below, along with the impact from bypassing and nourishment. Table 4 illustrates volumetric changes from 1998 to 2010. TABLE 4 VOLUMETRIC CHANGES (C.Y.) JUNE 1998 to OCT. 2010 Profile Dist. (ft) Volumetric Change Jun. 98 to Oct. 10 Fill Placed (C.Y.) 1999 2002 2005/6 2007 Net Vol. Change Net Ann. Change R-42 1,057 - 13,691 6,400 2,345 4,400 - 26,836 -2,176 R-43 1,015 - 10,213 22,400 8,208 15,400 - 56,221 -4,558 R -44 1,016 -4,088 3,200 1,173 2,200 - 10,661 -864 R -45 1,073 -6,636 -6,636 -538 R -46 1,040 332 13,104 - 12,772 -1,036 R-47 954 -1,749 8,002 -9,751 -791 R -48 1,000 4,824 10,150 -5,326 -432 R -49 1 1,076 1 2,194 1 10,193 1 -7,999 1 -649 Total 8,231 - 29,027 32,000 11,725 41,449 22,000 - 136,201 - 11,043 During the time period from 1998 to 2010, the Clam Pass area from R -42 to R -49 eroded approximately 29,000 cubic yards. Also during that time period, 107,174 cubic yards were placed within the same area. Accounting for fill placed, the Clam Pass area eroded approximately 136,000 cubic yards or - 11,000 cubic yards per year. Recently, from 2005 to 2010, erosion within the study area has increased. The annual erosion rate has more than doubled and was measured to be approximately - 27,500 cubic yards per year when fill within the study limits was accounted for. This increase in erosion may have been triggered by the 2005 hurricane season. For the period since dredging began, there is a 29,000 cubic yard deficit south of Clam Pass through R -49. The Clam Pass Park Pavilion is located between R -42 and R -43 south of the inlet. These two profiles have some of the highest erosion rates within the study area. Since 2005, these two profiles have lost almost 45,000 cubic yards of material. If these profiles continue to erode at the current rate, portions of the pavilion could become undermined. 15 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -97- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. The Clam Pass Park Area is currently not designated critical, but Collier County has applied for it to be designated as critically eroded. The shorelines near Clam Pass have been eroding at an accelerated rate since 1998, which directly affects the amount of recreational area available to the public. During the period from 1988 to 2010, the largest shoreline retreat was observed at R -43 when fill placed at the profile was factored out. The shoreline recession at Clam Pass Park has caused beach vegetation to be lost, which is habitat for gopher tortoises. V. PROJECT PERFORMANCE Since April 2006, the shoreline has gone through three periods: Initial adjustment which occurred through 2007, Tropical Storm Fay recession which dominated coastal processes through September 2008, and a moderate shoreline recovery which can be observed since 2008 in Figure 5a. Volumetric changes are steadier than the average shoreline changes. The design volume for the entire project area, R -22 to R -79, was 664,421 cubic yards. The same area had an as -built volume of 667,562 cubic yards. Volumetric changes measured from the pre - construction November 2005 survey to the five year post - construction in October 2010 survey measured 483,233 cubic yards remaining in the project area or 72% of the design volume. Figure 5a illustrates a summary of the project area's average shoreline and volumetric changes since construction. It shows the average shoreline width and volume remaining in the project area at the time of each monitoring survey compared to the pre - construction condition in 2005. From April 2006 to June 2006, the large drop in shoreline width is due to initial equilibration of the beach from the construction profile. The beach equilibrates by losing sand from the shoreline to build the submerged toe of the beach. At equilibrium, there is a relationship between the shoreline width and sand volume. The expected average project width based on the initial fill volume of 667,600 cubic yards is 27 feet. This suggests that the beach width of 56 feet measured in April 2006 is out of equilibrium, and is adjusting to the corresponding the volume placed. Since June 2006, the beach has been relatively stable volumetrically, while the shorelines have fluctuated. From the plot, it can be seen that Tropical Storm Fay did have a significant impact upon shoreline width in 2008, but less impact upon the volume. This indicates that the sand is still within the active beach profile and not all has been lost. The coarse sand is providing an average width of 20 feet in 2010, more than expected from the volume alone. 16 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -98- 60 50 m d 40 a 3 v 30 m 00 m m m 20 `m Q 10 0 2005 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Collier County Project Performance 2006 2007 Noses 1. Baseline is November 2005 survey. 2. Volumes measured to -11.3' NAVD. 3. Beach width measured at MHW ( +0.3' NAVD). 2008 2009 2010 Survey Date FIGURE 5a. Collier County Project Performance 900,000 750,000 600,000 3 m c 450,000 n m a rn 300,000 " 150,000 0 2011 —*--Beach Width —&— Volume The results of the recent monitoring studies indicate that Tropical Storm Fay did affect the beaches of Collier County and caused approximately 175,000 cubic yards of erosion which qualified for FEMA category G assistance. This FEMA funding will provide the foundation for the next renourishment project, and the smallest alternative is sized for the FEMA approved amount for illustration. The basis for increasing the design width was developed with the original permit in 2003. However, this was restricted by permit conditions, but it is now supported by the results of recent physical monitoring. Data from the recent beach renourishment monitoring programs in Collier County indicate that coarser sand fill sections equilibrate to a steeper, shorter profile than the original finer sediments (Figure 5b). The toe of the active profile has not translated seaward as presupposed by the simple profile translation method of design, but it has actually receded in most cases. The 2008 storm season provided the wave energy needed to equilibrate the entire profile, causing an overall landward recession of the beach toe as predicted by theory. The toe retreat compared to earlier profiles is illustrated in Appendix C. Profiles from the 1995 pre - construction to the latest in 2010 are compared. The November 2005 and June 2008 surveys represent post -storm profiles from Hurricanes Katrina & Wilma and Tropical Storm Fay respectively, and make a good basis for analyzing storm profile adjustment with and without the higher quality sand. The September 2005 and July 2009 and October 2010 surveys are largely unaffected by large storms, and make a good comparison pair for typical beach conditions. 17 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -99- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. FIGURE 5b. Profile retreat at Park Shore between November 2U05 and June 2UU8 A post storm beach profile survey was conducted in Fall 2008 and compared to beach profiles taken in November 2005. In addition, the surveys conducted after the 2008 storm seasons showed that moderately sized storms do not cause a seaward advance of the beach toe of the active profile over adjacent hardbottom habitat. Figure 5b illustrates the landward recession of the toe of fill for four averaged profiles in Park Shore. The average profile receded an average of 37 feet in this example, with added beach width at MHW remaining positive. In this case, if we extend the beach width by 37 feet, it would bring the profile out to the conditions at the time of construction, therefore no hardbottom coverage. In most cases, there is room to spare for additional beach width beyond the 2006 design that would not encroach on the hardbottom. As a preliminary design estimate based upon this performance, beach width were extended by the recession distance of the toe. We have reviewed the recession of the -10 ft -NAVD contour as a basis for design. There has been change in the datum used since the 2006 project. The current datum is NAVD, which is 1.28 feet lower than the NGVD datum used for the 2006 permits and design. The average depth of closure was found to be -10 feet NGVD, which is -11.3 feet NAVD. The depth of closure is based on the intersection of successive profiles and is not a constant -11.3 ft NAVD, but varies along shore. In general, the depth of closure is shallower than -11.3 ft NAVD for profiles behind hardbottom and deeper that -11.3 ft NAVD in regions where there is no offshore hardbottom. The region south of R -67 generally has no nearshore hardbottom. This means that design of a new beach width will be done on a profile by profile line basis, which will be performed in a detailed design phase. The current design study is conceptual and did not analyze profiles on an individual basis or include spreading or diffusion calculations. In this study, the 18 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -100- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. average recession of the -10 ft NAVD contour was used to determine an allowable increase in the beach width design. The average profile retreat indicated by the retreat of the -10 ft NAVD contour is between -40 ft and -25 ft, respectively for the 2005 -08 and 2005 -09 pairs respectively. Avoidance of hardbottom is not necessary south of R -67 and in some reef gaps where the beach width is not restricted by hardbottom. There are a few other points where the hardbottom is sufficiently offshore, so that the beach width is practically unrestricted. Coverage due to lateral spreading of hardbottom must be considered in these cases in final detailed design. This should be done using 3D analysis methods. VI. SEDIMENT BUDGET ANALYSIS A sediment budget illustrates the sand movement and volume changes during a specific time period over a particular segment of the coast. A sediment budget was developed for the period after the recent nourishment project and is presented in Figure 6. The post - construction sediment budget was based on the monitoring results from 2006 to 2009 surveys and sediment bypassing information from each inlet. The changes in the inlet shoal volumes were based both on bathymetric survey data and dredging records. Sediment transport is shown by arrows. Volume changes within littoral cells and the inlet shoals are illustrated using plus and minus signs in front of numbers representing 1,000 cy /year. The cells represent the active beach and nearshore region between the toe of dune and depth of closure. In the study area, the sediment transport is generally towards the south. At the inlets, sediment naturally moves into the inlet, but is generally bypassed through dredging and some natural process. Overall, 300 cubic yards per year is shown to enter the system near Barefoot Beach at R -10, and approximately 700 cubic yards per year was determined to be leaving the area and going south to Gordon Pass. The volume change in each cell is based on monitoring results from the 3 year monitoring report. The alongshore transport arrows show the direction and magnitude of sand movement at each cell boundary. Dredge and fill operations are illustrated. The budget indicates a reversal in alongshore transport south of each inlet, and is only an illustration of processes during the 2006 -9 period, and does not necessarily represent the average conditions. At Wiggins Pass during the time frame of this analysis (2006 to 2009), approximately 2/3 of dredged material was placed to the north at Barefoot Beach while 1/3 was placed to the south at Delnor Wiggins State Park. This placement ratio created an equal amount of accretion north and south of the inlet. This is what is recommended within the updated Wiggins Pass Inlet Management and Realignment Study. The sediment budget shows Naples Beach is relatively stable except just south of the inlet, through to Lowdermilk Park. Both Vanderbilt and Park Shore, on the other hand, have an erosion trend. The dredge and fill arrows show that sediment bypassing has been beneficial, supporting accreting beach areas wherever sand is bypassed, except south of Clam Pass. 19 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING. INC Packet Page -101- 0.3 "'JAM M +5.1CLAM R-4.2 NS PARK 6.5 _56- 5.9 4.7 VA PELIC 4o P+3.4 GULF r' ` OF MEX /CO ' 7.9 +7.2 0.7 LITTORAL SAND TRANSPORT Q ©N PASS MECHANICAL SAND TRANSPORT Gp � (DREDGING OR TRUCK PLACEMENT) ALL VALUES IN CY. /YR. x 1000 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. z 0 6000 12000 ■ GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT DERBILT BEACH IN BAY SR 89 TORE PASS SR 886 SR 856 NAPLES * PORT ROYAL �KEEWAYDIN INkISLAND o FIGURE 6. Sediment Budget for Collier County, FL (2006 -2009) 20 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -102- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. VII. LONG TERM EROSION TRENDS Erosion trends were determined using monitoring data for the periods 1996 -2004 and 2006 -2010 in order to compare erosion experienced during the two renourishment projects and to create a composite erosion rate of the two time periods. The long term erosion rate accounts for all fill placed directly in the project area during the monitoring period. Figure 7 illustrates the erosion trends throughout the project area. The units are in cubic yards per year per foot of beach. From comparing the past and current volumetric changes, six areas of high erosion are identified within the study area. One area is in Vanderbilt Beach centered near R -27. The next area is located directly south of Clam Pass at R -42 to R -44. There is an area of erosion at Park Shore near R -52. A newly developed hot spot directly south of Doctors Pass was identified at R -58A to R -58. An area of interest also lies south of Lowdermilk Park at R -63. An area of past erosion and more moderate erosion since 2006 was identified near R -71 in Naples Beach, but given its current state of beach width, it is not as serious as the other five. Two areas outside the 1996 project area warrant attention. Delnor Wiggins State Park has a high erosion trend at R -18, but this area has had an accreting shoreline since 1985, since dredge disposal has more than mitigated for any. Barefoot Beach has the highest erosion rate adjacent to Wiggins Pass, while the beach further north has been effectively mitigated with sand dredged from the inlet. Collier County Average Erosion Rates from 1996 -2010 ®1996 -2004 —2006-2010 to 2010)_. x°200+- 2001........ Barefoot Beach -18.00 llot Spot - t6.aa 14.00 Doctors Pass Hot Spot _ -12.00 � Y• v _10.00 d G s i E Park Shore ° 1i.0a o Hot Spot -4.00 0.00 ^AAZZAAZAAFZAA zAZZAAA AZZAAAk. �A . ^_ «AFZ- !AFnzAFZ.'C_«AAZxAFxzAA .'�AAZAAAZAZAAA$zAAA A 00xyxOC ^•1J JJJ JJ ? ^P ^P +s U' .I+IaA Aa IAYL- LY t.1t IJNIJ IJt t -• Z7 .0 �. Noe: 11 `Tn=un meets only acailuble from 7 une 204K) to Mm 2(11)4 for 19 c En to 2(9,4'— period Ff)f:Y R- Monument s 2.) .Accretianal %aluea are not sho rn. kepmmlet1 b, /s o on the plot. FIGURE 7. Erosion Trends throughout Collier County 21 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -103- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. The design developed in the report was based on erosion rates from 1996 -2004 and post - construction (2006) to the October 2010 survey in order to create a composite erosion rate of the two time periods. The composite erosion rate was needed to help balance the higher rates of erosion experienced in the past years due to larger storms to the quieter period before 2004. If the erosion rates from the four -year monitoring (2006 -2010) were used, the design volume would be much larger. Calculations for the long term erosion rate can be found in the monitoring reports. VIII. INFLUENCES AND IMPACTS Storms Over the past seven years, the project area has been hit or experienced far field effects from several hurricanes and tropical storms. Before the 2006 project was constructed, a series of storms impacted Collier County's shorelines. These storms impacted the beach profiles such that they were unable to fully recover before the 2006 construction. A list of the storms that have affected the area from 2004 to 2008 are listed below. The 2004 Atlantic Hurricane Season produced sixteen storms; nine of which were hurricanes, six tropical storms, and one tropical depression. The storms that affected the west coast of Florida during this season are listed below. 2004 Storms Tropical Storm Bonnie Hurricane Charley Hurricane Frances Hurricane Ivan Hurricane Jeanne Duration 8/03/04 - 8/14/04 8/09/04 - 8/14/04 8/25/04 - 9/10/04 9/02/04 - 9/24/04 9/13/04 - 9/28/04 Intensity 65 mph, 1001 mbar 150 mph, 941 mbar 145 mph, 935 mbar 165 mph, 910 mbar 120 mph, 951 mbar The 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season was the most active season on record, with Hurricane Wilma setting the Atlantic record. A post Hurricane Wilma survey was performed in November 2005, about a week after the storm. This survey data was collected in order to reassess the beach conditions of Collier County after Hurricane Wilma's impact on the coastline. The other storms which affected the west coast of Florida during the 2005 Hurricane Season are listed below. 2005 Storms Duration Intensity Tropical Storm Arlene 6/08/05- 6/13/05 70 mph, 989 mbar Hurricane Cindy 7/03/05- 7/07/05 75 mph, 991 mbar Hurricane Dennis 7/04/05- 7/13/05 150 mph, 930 mbar Hurricane Emily 7/10/05- 7/21/05 160 mph, 929 mbar Hurricane Katrina 8/23/05- 8/31/05 175 mph, 902 mbar Hurricane Rita 9/17/05- 9/26/05 180 mph, 895 mbar Hurricane Wilma 10115105 - 10125105 185 mph, 882 mbar Duration periods are from development to dissipation. Intensity is the highest recorded mile per hour and the lowest recorded atmospheric pressure in millibars. 22 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -104- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. During the 2008 Hurricane season, Collier County's shoreline was impacted by several storms. Of these storms, Tropical Storm Fay had the greatest impact upon the shorelines due to the storm making landfall several miles south at Cape Romano. Fay adversely affected the shoreline near Collier County and accounted for approximately 175,000 cubic yards of erosion. The significance of the storms mentioned above relate to the amount of volume placed on the beach for the 2006 Renourishment Project. Due to the active season in 2004/2005, the permitted design was not capable of fully addressing all the erosional losses that occurred due to template restrictions imposed for hardbottom avoidance. Therefore, the beach renourishment project was not able to fully address the sand deficit at some profiles or anticipated long term storm impacts, which affected the performance of the recently placed sand. Groins Traditional methods of looking at hot spots, such as beach width standard and high erosion rates were described earlier, but often features such as groins can have impacts totally missed by normal 1,000 foot spacing of monitoring line surveys. From historical shoreline analysis using aerials, it can be seen that groins play a large role in affecting the width of the shoreline. In some areas of Collier County, the impacts of coastal structures have a limited range, but an important effect. On Naples Beach, there are many structures along the coast between Doctors Pass and Gordon Pass. There are no visible groins on Vanderbilt Beach or Barefoot Beach. Park Shore has three small groin -like structures in the vicinity of Seagate Drive (R -45). Photograph la (2006, left) and Photograph lb (2008, right): Shoreline variability near groin with outfall. 23 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -105- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Depending on the dominant wave direction, the groins within Naples influence the public's perception of the beaches performance in close vicinity to the structure (Refer to Photographs la and lb). If the wave direction is predominantly from the north for a period of time (winter), a fillet will form on the northern, or updrift, side of the groin and a deficit will be created downdrift. If the wave direction were to change and become predominant from the south (summer - fall), the updrift and downdrift areas would reverse, causing the previously accreting shoreline to become erosional while the previously eroding shoreline trends toward accretional. Through the use of modeling (discussed later), it is readily apparent that removing all the structures along the Naples shoreline will help shoreline performance largely by reducing the size of seasonal variations in beach width at the groins. An in -depth modeling study has been completed to determine shoreline response to removing the structures and is provided in Appendix A. This study shows that groins can be removed, leading to a better performing beach. Although beach performance is improved, groins cannot be removed without addressing the outfalls at Naples Beach. A comparison between historic charts, aerials, and the 2009 aerial photograph (Figure 21) shows a reversal in alongshore transport at the groins. The size of the opposing offset at outfall #2 (Photographs la and lb) indicates there is a strong refraction - diffraction effect on Naples beach caused by the shape of the nearshore hardbottom and the bathymetric high that extends offshore from northern Naples Beach. Any modification to the lengths of the groin/outfall combination needs to balance the beach offset versus the stabilizing influence of the structures. The optimum beach design will not be achieved until the outfall can be fully addressed, since many groins are paired with outfalls. Groins also perform poorly in regions of weak alongshore transport, which is characteristic of Collier County's coastline. If the magnitude of the net alongshore transport is near the trapping capacity of the groins, then strong offsets and impacts due to groins are more common. Some groins were retained and repaired with the 1995/96 project, since they contributed to beach stability. They were retained for the 2006 project for the same reason. A strong nourishment program can mitigate for any groin effects by maintaining desired beach widths without the seasonal variations caused by many of the groins. If the conditions can be improved as proposed in this report, then groin removal should be pursued. Supplemental Fill A portion of the sand that has been added to the project area beaches has been placed by various truck haul, or supplemental fill projects. During the 1996 to 2004 time period, a significant amount of fill was placed within the project areas. This supplemental fill helped extend the life of the 1996 project by acting as advanced nourishment, especially in hot spot areas. From 1996 through 2003, an estimated 394,000 cubic yards of sand was added to the beaches between Wiggins Pass and Gordon Pass from truck haul and inlet bypassing (Collier County, 2003). Approximately 144,000 cubic yards of this volume was added in 2002. No inlet bypassing or truck haul operations are known to have 24 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -106- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. occurred during the time period between June 2003 and May 2004. These supplemental fill operations significantly added to the stability of the project area beaches during that time period. From 2006 to 2008, no truck haul projects occurred within the project area. The only source of supplemental fill during this time period is that from inlet maintenance dredging. In 2007, both Clam and Wiggins Passes were dredged. At Wiggins Pass, approximately 6,800 cubic yards of sand were placed updrift at R -12, and 48,400 cubic yards were placed downdrift at R -18 and R -19. At Clam Pass, approximately 20,000 cubic yards were placed downdrift and R -42 and R -43. From 2009 to 2011, several supplemental fill projects occurred within or on the boundaries of the project area. In 2009, both Doctors Pass and Wiggins Pass were dredged. The 2009 Wiggins Pass maintenance dredging project removed approximately 49,600 cubic yards of sand from Wiggins Pass and placed it in a spoil site nearshore of Barefoot Beach State Preserve (between approximately R -11.4 and R -14.2) and Delnor Wiggins State Park. At Doctors Pass, approximately 36,000 cubic yards of sand was removed and placed in a nearshore area south of the inlet, between FDEP reference monuments R -60 and R -62 at Lowdermilk Park. Wiggins Pass was also dredged in March of 2011. Approximately 50,000 cubic yards of material were placed on Barefoot Beach to the north between R -12 and R -14.2. In July 2010, a small truck haul project took place just south of Doctors Pass. Approximately 2,652 cy (3,712 tons) of sand were placed on the beach. The sand was kept landward of the MHW line during construction. In early 2011, a truck haul project was performed south of Doctors Pass at R -58A -400 to R -58, which placed 22,393 cubic yards of sand. In addition to the Doctors Pass sand placement, Park Shore (R -45 +600 to R -46 +400) also received 7,836 cubic yards of material from an upland sand source. This sand was placed to address erosional hot spots that have appeared during the recent project's monitoring. Hardbottom Constraints A major concern when designing the renourishment project in 2006 for Collier County was adverse effects to the nearshore hardbottom habitat. Hardbottom coverage is undesirable to both the County and FDEP. In order to avoid coverage, constraints were placed on the design template, which impacts the width and renourishment interval of the project. The renourishment interval was 6 years. These constraints appear to have been overly cautious based on the performance of the high quality sand placed in 2006. There is room for increased width with a safety buffer from the hardbottom in most areas of the county. The hardbottom has been mapped annually using side scan survey techniques between 2005 and 2009. The results of dives confirm the line established by side scan survey results. In the nearshore region, hardbottom coverage or encroachment can occur at a 25 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -107- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. few locations based on a design with a project life of 10 years, but most areas can easily hold the needed sand. Even with the added space created by the high quality sand, there are still profiles where little sand can be added. At these locations, the equilibrium toe of fill or depth of closure is near the edge of hardbottom with insufficient space to place the sand needed for a longer project life. The locations of potential coverage are listed below: Vanderbilt R -31 N. Park Shore R -45 to 48 Park Shore R -50, 51, 53 Naples R -58, 58A These profiles need to be supplemented with other design techniques to achieve the desired design life. This can include structures, supplemental fill or feeder beach. These methods will be examined during modeling and detailed design. Management Changes Shoreline management changes have been implemented from the 1996 to 2006 renourishment projects. During the lifespan of the 1996 project, sand dredged from Doctors Pass was placed downdrift of the pass near survey monument R -58 (Figure 6). Since the construction of the 2006 project, the sand dredged at Doctors Pass was placed on Lowdermilk Park's shorelines (R -60 to R -62). The effect of placing the fill farther south becomes apparent when historic shoreline rates are compared for the area near R- 58. The lack of fill placed at or near R -58 has created a sand deficit which was significantly smaller prior to 2004 when looking at historic volume and shoreline changes. Placing some of the dredged sand immediately downdrift of Doctors Pass should be re- considered in order to reduce erosion rates or a structural solution may be necessary. A second area where management changes are proposed is at the Barefoot Beach shoreline north of Wiggins Pass. This issue is currently being addressed under the Wiggins Pass Channel Realignment and Inlet Management Study. Additional Effects The performance of the shoreline in Collier County is also dependent on the position of the hardbottom with respect to the beach. From historic shoreline analysis, areas that have gaps in the nearshore hardbottom tend to have higher erosion rates than shoreline with continuous hardbottom in the vicinity. An example of this gap influenced erosion is near monuments R -44 to R -46 and between R- 61 and R -62. Without the hardbottom to stabilize the sediment transport in these areas, waves can more easily move sediment from the beach to the offshore. 26 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -108- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. IX. HOT SPOT ANALYSIS Several "hot spots ", or areas with higher erosion rates and thinning recreational beaches, were identified within Collier County. Some of these hot spots have persisted since the 1996 project, while others have evolved over time. The hot spots were identified based upon beach width maintained (Figure 3), areas of high erosion (Figure 7), and areas in close vicinity to coastal structures (Figure 8). Based upon these criteria, there are six areas of concern within the project area, with other minor areas that can be more easily managed. North Wiggins Pass (Barefoot Beach) This reach is being considered for inclusion in the next beach renourishment project. This reach is located outside of the 2006 project limits, but can be most economically nourished as part of the larger project. The area north of Wiggins Pass extending from monument R -14 to R -16 (Barefoot Beach) is currently an area of high erosion. Since 1992, this area has eroded on average approximately 224 feet and has lost approximately 240,000 cubic yards of material. The combined rates of high erosion and recession are caused by inlet effects and warrant attention (Photographs 2a and 2b). The erosion at this site is currently being addressed in the Wiggins Pass Channel Realignment and Inlet Management Study. Recent dredging events have placed sand near this hot spot as an interim measure. The solution is a combination of improved sand placement from inlet maintenance dredging, supplemented with beach nourishment over a 10 year period. The sand lost since 1992 will be replaced at a controlled rate that rebuilds the beach and ebb shoal north of the inlet. p ^s'aa Photograph 2a (left) and 2b (right). Current Conditions at Barefoot Beach in March 2010 27 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -109- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. South of Wiggins Pass The area immediately south of Wiggins Pass, Delnor Wiggins State Park, has a historic erosional trend, which has been mitigated with sand dredged from Wiggins Pass since 1985. This area has higher erosion rates in part due to the dredge spoils placed in the area combined with the encroaching hardbottom in the region. Overall since 2006, the area between R -18 and R -20 would have lost approximately 10,000 cy /yr if not for fill placed from dredging on the beach to maintain its shoreline width (Figure 7). Again, like the area north of Wiggins Pass, this site is being addressed in the updated Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Study, and does not warrant nourishment. In addition, it is a state park that historically makes its own management decisions. Vanderbilt Beach Since 1996, the area in the vicinity of R -27 in Vanderbilt Beach has experienced elevated erosion and is nearly violating the design standard. Since 2006, the shoreline within this area has eroded approximately 27 feet, and has also experienced an erosion rate of approximately 2,000 cubic yards per year. This area of erosion was present prior to 2004, and there appears to be a shift in the peak erosion to R -30. There is a gap in the hardbottom located offshore of R -27 (Photograph 3) in combination with hardbottom veering closer to the shoreline south of this point, which aids in sediment loss through the gap offshore. Modeling is currently underway to better understand reef gaps, such as the one that occurs here and their effects on neighboring shorelines. From a preliminary analysis, it appears that the erosion occurring at this location can be solved with additional sand placement or a feeder beach. Photograph 3. North Vanderbilt Beach Hot Spot vicinity R -27, which is influenced by a gap in the reef, followed by hardbottom line close to shore. Pelican Bay The Pelican Bay shoreline between R -34 and R -36 does not meet the project beach width standard, but its shoreline and volume change rates are relatively stable or accretional 28 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -110- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. since 2006. Prior to construction of the reach, several storms impacted the shoreline in late 2005, which were not fully addressed by construction. Therefore, sufficient sand could not be added to restore the shoreline to its pre -storm condition plus its new design width. The nearshore hardbottom has a significant influence in this region, since it is close to shore with more relief than other areas. It may be able to maintain itself as a smaller beach width due to its relative stability at its current size and for being downdrift of Vanderbilt Beach project. This was a privately funded beach project in 2006 with no public access. South Clam Pass (Clam Pass Park) This hot spot stretches south from Clam Pass (Photograph 4). The hot spot is likely caused by natural inlet impacts, inlet dredging, and the combination effect of close nearshore hardbottom followed by a hardbottom gap starting at R -44. The hardbottom characteristics are similar to that offshore of Pelican Bay. This hot spot is not part of the existing beach erosion control program. Over the past year, the area between R -42 to R- 44 has experienced approximately 8,000 cubic yards of erosion. This area should be added to the Park Shore Reach for beach nourishment, with fill extending down to R45 south of Seagate Drive. An inlet study is currently underway to renew the permit for dredging Clam Pass and maintaining the Clam Bay System, and this may address some of the down drift erosion caused by the inlet. Dredged material from Clam Pass is bypassed south of the inlet, but is insufficient to address all the erosion. North Park Shore The region between monuments R -45 and R -48 in North Park Shore (Photograph 4) is a newly developed hot spot. It was partially nourished in 2006, but not in 1996. Prior to 2004, this area was accretional. The nearshore hardbottom is in close proximity to the shoreline. This hot spot was recently nourished with truck haul sand in an area that was losing approximately -3.3 cubic yard per foot per year, which was most likely exacerbated by the 2004/2005 hurricane season and nearby groins. There is a contribution from being downdrift of the Clam Pass Park hot spot, whose nourishment could moderate this new erosional trend. A possible solution to this erosional area is the placement of a feeder beach directly south of Clam Pass and remove the groins which have a substantial impact upon the immediate shoreline surrounding them. 29 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -111- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Photograph 4. South Clam Pass and North Park Shore Hot Spot at R -42 to R -44 and R -45 to R -46, respectively. Park Shore The region between R -51 and R -53 (Photograph 5) has been an area of higher erosion and narrowing beach since at least 1996. Since 2006, this area has lost approximately 14,500 cubic yards of material. The shoreline at R -51 is still above the design criteria of 85', but at R -52 and R -53, the shoreline is below or at 85' of design width. Since construction, the shoreline at this location has retreated an average of 45 feet. A gap in the hardbottom occurs at R -52 along with a close edge of hardbottom to the south, which tends to cause higher erosion rates. Due to the encroaching hardbottom, additional sand will be investigated as a solution prior to considering structures. Photograph 5. Park Shore Hot Spot at R -51 to R -53 South Doctors Pass The area downdrift of Doctors Pass (Photograph 6) has experienced a high rate of erosion since the 2006 nourishment project, and has been narrow since 1996. It is difficult to maintain a 100 foot beach width in these conditions. The fill density and template was enlarged with the 2006 project in an attempt to address this issue. The erosion that is presently occurring south of the Pass is most likely due to a change in inlet management. Prior to 2005, sand dredged from the inlet was placed downdrift of the pass, which 30 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -112- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. helped to reduce erosion rates. Since 2005, fill has been placed in the nearshore of Lowdermilk Park, which has caused a deficit of sand from R -58A to R -59, partially exposed by ebb shoal shrinkage. In addition, the FDEP limited fill quantities to avoid coverage of nearshore harbottom within the traditional ebb shoal area. The hot spot currently extends from the jetty to R -58, which is located near the groin, and has lost approximately -5.9 cubic yard per foot per year, or approximately 9,000 cy per year. Improved management practices can reduce erosion, but this area will probably need structures to mitigate the full inlet impact. Photograph 6. Naples Beach hot spot area showing Indies West, Gulf View Beach Club, and the Chateau of Naples south of Doctors Pass. South Lowdermilk Park The area to the south of Lowdermilk Park near R -62 and R -63 (Photograph 7) is another hot spot. This area contains the Naples Resort. Since 2006, the area near the two survey R- monuments has retreated on average 35 feet. Volumetrically, this area has lost approximately 16,000 cubic yards since 2006. This area is downdrift of the location where sand is placed offshore at Lowdermilk Park during maintenance dredging of Doctors Pass, which may account for part of the increased erosion. The shoreline is also affected by groins within the vicinity. The nearshore disposal for sand dredged at Doctors Pass, groins, and a reef gap followed by an encroaching hardbottom closer to shore are influencing the hot spot. Preliminary model results suggest shortened or eliminated groins may mitigate the problem (Figure 8). 31 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -113- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Photograph 7. South of Lowdermilk Park Hot Spot at R -62 to R -64. South Naples Beach The edge of the continuous hardbottom ends near R -66. North of this R- monument, the hardbottom acts as a mechanism to keep the sand within the active beach profile, except where significant gaps occur. South of this area, the sand is more easily swept further offshore by storm waves and currents. The area in South Naples that is most affected is between monument R -70 and R -72. Since 2006, this area has experienced approximately 10,000 cubic yards of erosion, but this is a reduction from the 1996 -2004 trend. Although this area has experienced a higher erosion rate since 1996, sufficient sand was placed during the last project to maintain a healthy shoreline width (Figure 3). Photograph 8. South Naples Beach Hot Spot — Moderately high erosion but good beach width. 32 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -114- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Hot Spot Rankings Ten hot spots were identified during this study and are shown by the matrix in Table 5, where each X shows a level of severity and relative importance of the hot spot. The matrix is based on the coastal processes discussion in this report. Hot spots with a total level of importance of 3 and above were considered for specific attention in the design and modeling study. Table 5 Hot Spot Assessment Collier County Beach Nourishment Project Hot Spot Erosion Rates Maintain Beach Width Groin Impacts Hardbottom Limitations Management Practices Relative Importance Code _..._._._... .._ ... _ ......... .... __.— ... - - -- -- ..._.._.._.._... Barefoot Beach R14 -R16 -- - - -- XX —.._._ NA — .._.... -- - -- — - - -.. X — _ _ — __..._ 3 _ ................ _._..._ M, N Delnor Wiggins State Park —_ —_— —X— 1 I Vanderbilt Beach R27 & R31 X X X 3 S, Pelican Bay R35_R36_ — _... X ._._..__._..._... X - - - - -- — ------- ...__..._ 2 I Clam Pass Park R42 -R44 XX NA X X 4 ._..._...._._.— M, N Sedate Drive R45 _R46 _ _ -- Park Shore R51 -R54 South of Doctors Pass R58 ._.....__ X X XX X X XX X X X X X 3_ _ — 4 7 S & G S, M, Str South of Lowdermilk Park R62 -R64 X X X 3 S& G South Naples R71 XX 2 I Code S More sand or feeder beach likely solution G Shorten or remove groin likely solution M Management change needed Str New structure needed N Nourishment I No special consideration * Structures as fall back solution Priority Yellow, blue, green. X. BORROW AREA CHARACTERISTICS Borrow Area T1 is proposed as the primary sand sources for use in the upcoming renourishment project. Borrow Area T1 was used for the 2005/6 renourishment project and is located 33 miles from Vanderbilt Beach (Figure 19 and end of report). From studies performed during the last renourishment, the sediment within the borrow area is characterized by light -gray (5Y 7/1), fine grained quartz sand. The shell content ranges from 1% to 18 %. The silt content is 1.7 %. Both the shell and silt contents generally increase with depth. The sand is moderately to poorly sorted, which was found to be 0.92. The mean grain size was found to be 0.32 mm. These values were determined using the moment method. For areas with finer native sand and no nearshore hardbottom, such as South Naples or Port Royal, the Cape Romano sand source is a potential source (Figure 19). A design level geophysical and geotechnical investigations targeting the Cape Romano Shoals was completed in 2008, consisting of seismic reflection profiling, sidescan sonar, magnetometer survey, vibracoring and a cultural resources report prepared by a marine archaeologist. Based on the 33 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING. INC Packet Page -115- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. data that was collected, a sand resource area was developed and divided into Primary and Secondary Areas. The Primary Area contains material having an approximate grain size of 0.24 mm and contains an estimated 900,000 cy of material. The Secondary Area contains an estimated 2 million cy of material having a mean grain size finer than 0.24 mm with cut depths more difficult to dredge. Final borrow area design and permitting are required before use, although all pertinent information is available. The beach and borrow area characteristics are compared in Table 4 TABLE 6 COLLIER COUNTY RENOURISHMENT PROJECT BEACH AND BORROW AREA CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPATIBILITY Location I Grain Size I II Sorting Silt (PHI) ( %) Vanderbilt Beach R -27 2.17 0.22 1.57 4.65 Pelican Bay R -33 1.72 0.30 1.86 1.72 Park Shore R -52 2.51 0.18 0.92 2.61 Naples Beach R -64 2.11 0.23 1.31 1.52 Naples Beach R -73 2.29 0.20 1.31 1.28 Port Royal R -84 1.83 0.28 1.76 1.26 2003 Beach Composite 2.08 0.24 1.50 2.17 See 2010 Beach Composite 1.59 0.33 0.90 Note 1990 Native Beach 1.89 0.27 1.51 2.55 Notes: Approximately 630,000 cy taken from Toms Hill in 2006 based on post - construction surveys. The 2010 beach condition is assumes to have BA T1 Cut 1 characteristics in the fill area R22 to R79. 34 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -116- Borrow Area Borrow Areas Volume Toms Hill I (T1) 1.67 0.32 0.92 1.75 3,570,000 cy Toms Hill I (Tl) -Cut#1 1.59 0.33 0.90 1.65 870,000 cy Cape Romano 2.06 0.24 0.43 1.90 900,000 cy Notes: Approximately 630,000 cy taken from Toms Hill in 2006 based on post - construction surveys. The 2010 beach condition is assumes to have BA T1 Cut 1 characteristics in the fill area R22 to R79. 34 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -116- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Upland sand sources and sand from the maintenance dredging of inlets can supplement the primary borrow areas and address small hot spots as they occur. The Immokalee Mines in northeast Collier County can provide sand sorted into a variety of characteristics, and has been used successfully on the county beaches. The two offshore borrow areas require different dredging strategies. Borrow Area T1 needs to be dredged using a moderate size hopper dredge. Large hopper dredges with deep draft are impractical in the extremely shallow waters offshore of Naples. The water around the Cape Romano borrow area is relatively shallow, and will require either a small hopper dredge or a hydraulic dredge /scow combination. An advantage of the smaller dredge is that they can get much closer to shore to pump out. The asymmetry between the type of dredge may limit the effectiveness of using both borrow areas in the same contract. If a scow system is used, then the same equipment can be used with both offshore sand sources. Sand Source Compatibility The compatibility of the borrow areas for renourishment not only depends on fill grain size, but also the slope of the new beach created with this sand. Due to its use during the last renourishment, all of the projects beaches are compatible with Borrow Area T1. It is anticipated that a construction slope of 1V:10H will result from use of the coarser sand from Borrow Area T1, which is a change from the 2006 construction plans. Only a few of the project area's beaches will be compatible with the Cape Romano sand source. This is due to the finer sand within the borrow area or the possibility that the equilibrium profile resulting from the finer sand from Cape Romano could encroach upon nearshore hardbottom. Both borrow areas contain sands that appear to be similar in color to the existing beach. Native Beach Sand Characteristics The beach sands in the project area are gray fine grained sand with shell based on 2003 samples. The dry beach color is light gray (5Y 8/1 to 5Y 7/1), but the sands become darker on the sub - aerial profile. The sands have been influenced by previous nourishment projects, truck haul sand, and bypassing at inlets. These activities have added moderate quantities of shell, minor rock, and coarse sand from upland sources, which make it difficult to accurately define the engineering qualities of the beach. A number of rock removal projects between 1996 and 2003 have had a visible influence on the beaches of Naples and Vanderbilt. Grain size data has been collected between 1988 and 2003. The alongshore and cross - shore location of beach sampling has changed over time, and a direct comparison among composite values may not be accurate. In 1988, four samples were collected at each profile at elevations between approximately +2 to -5 feet, which may bias a composite towards the high side. In 1990, four samples were collected at each profile at the following elevations: +1.5, -5, -9 and -14/16 ft NGVD. If the deepest sample is ignored, the sample values may approximate the active beach profile. The 1988 and 1990 samples 35 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -117- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. represent native beach conditions influenced by small fill projects and inlet bypassing activity. The average beach grain size for 1988 and 1990 are 0.32 mm and 0.27 mm, respectively. In 2003, a comprehensive sand sample collection was undertaken, with 10 samples collected across the entire profile at the following elevations: +5, +1.5, MHW, MTL, MLW, -3, Trough, Bar, -6.5 and -9 ft NGVD. These samples were taken after rocks and shell were removed from the beach and coarse truck haul sand was placed on eroded beaches. The average composite mean grain size for 1998 and 2003 were 0.33 mm and 0.24 mm, respectively. The impact of rock cleaning is evident in these values. Anomalies exist in the historic beach sand data. The 2003 composite mean grain size for Park Shore is 0.18 mm compared to a history in the 0.28 mm to 0.35 mm range. The coarser grain size is the likely characteristic. At Port Royal, the beach shape in 2003 is flatter than indicated by the sampled grain size. In this case, other data shows this region is being transformed by fill moving down drift from the Naples project. The current implied grain size of the beach is similar to the sand placed during the recent renourishment project, which was 0.31 mm. No recent comprehensive sand sampling has been conducted. XL OUTFALLS The coastal engineering impact of the 10 outfalls in Naples was characterized by FDEP in their "Intent to Issue" document on the Collier County Beach Nourishment Project dated December 2004, as follows: "Although these outfalls are adversely affecting the beach by contributing to erosion, impacting turtle nesting habitat, interfering with lateral beach access and degrading water quality, the cost of retrofitting the stormwater system is too great to require removal of the outfalls at this time." Based on this finding, the following was a FDEP condition in the January 2005 beach permit. Outfall Management Plan. The County shall submit a long -range management plan (including an identification of viable funding sources) for the removal of storm water outfalls from the beach. Submittal of an acceptable plan will be a requirement of the Notice to Proceed for the second nourishment event. The following three documents were reviewed to evaluate the impacts: 2002 Drainage Reconnaissance Report (CPE 2002), Collier County Contour Map based on 2004 Lidar survey, 1995 Erosion Control Line (on contour map) and September 2009 aerial photographs (Figure 21). Based on these documents, which show all 10 outfalls, the outfall impacts are moderate to imperceptible. There are two strategies for satisfying this permit condition with FDEP: propose no significant changes on the beach but with upland improvements or propose elimination or modification of all or some of the outfalls on the beach. The City of Naples attempted to satisfy FDEP by proposing the former, but their proposal was not accepted. FDEP did extend the time 36 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -118- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. limit for a plan to the following nourishment project. The outfalls are summarized in Table 7 and shown on Figure 21. The outfalls are associated with coastal structures on the beach. As part of this study, modifications to the groins associated with the outfalls will be evaluated, but solutions to the outfalls and their drainage will not be addressed. The groins associated with the outfalls cannot be modified without solutions to the drainage. TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF OUTFALL CHARACTERISTICS Modeling has shown that the groins have a localized impact and show seasonal offsets, although the net regional erosional impact is negligible. The largest outfalls have two pipelines and drain upland lakes. Their removal is not a simple undertaking without addressing the drainage. One solution may be to elevate the discharge above the beach and shoreline, similar to what is shown in Photograph 9a. A lower outfall elevation at the waterline can also have a negligible impact on shoreline position (see Photograph 9b). These processes allow the shoreline to assume it natural alignment without the offset common to pipelines and groins that intercept at the waterline. 37 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -119- NOMICNAL PIPE TOP ADMIN. HISTORIC EROSION PIPELINE INVERT El. (Ft No. NUMBER LOCATION IMPACT DIAMETER El. (Ft NGVD NGVD) TYPE and CONTRIBUTORY AREA 1 RG -16 -1 R60 +265' Small- 24 in PVC -0.02 2.11 In Rock Groin for Adjacent Moderate Condo Next to Rock Groin for 2 0 -16 -1 R62 +650' Moderate 2 x 30 in PVC Both -0.14 2.49 hotel, parking lots, Gulf Shore Blvd. and Ponds Next to Rock Groin from 3 0 -17 -1 R63 +535' Moderate 18 in. PVC -0.09 1.54 8th Ave. N. and Gulf Shore Blvd. 7th Avenue North and 4 0 -17 -2 R64 +000' Negligible 18 in PVC -0.66 0.97 Gulf Shore Blvd. 6th Avenue North and 5 0 -17 -3 R65 +000' Negligible 14 in PVC 0.23 1.52 Gulf Shore Blvd. Residential lots between 6 0 -17 -4 R65 +410' Small- 2 x 30 in PVC 0.17 & -0.52 2.46 6th and 4th Ave. N., Gulf Moderate Shore Blvd. and Lake 3rd Avenue North and 7 0 -17 -5 R66 +415' Negligible 24 in PVC -1.22 0.91 Gulf Shore Blvd. 8 0 -18 -1 R67 +400' Negligible 30 in PVC 0.84 3.47 1st Avenue North and Gulf Shore Blvd. 1st Avenue South and 9 0 -18 -2 R68 +430' Negligible 18 in PVC 0.30 1.93 Gulf Shore Blvd. 10 0 -18 -3 R69 +000' Negligible 18 in PVC -0.40 1.23 2nd Avenue South and Gulf Shore Blvd. Modeling has shown that the groins have a localized impact and show seasonal offsets, although the net regional erosional impact is negligible. The largest outfalls have two pipelines and drain upland lakes. Their removal is not a simple undertaking without addressing the drainage. One solution may be to elevate the discharge above the beach and shoreline, similar to what is shown in Photograph 9a. A lower outfall elevation at the waterline can also have a negligible impact on shoreline position (see Photograph 9b). These processes allow the shoreline to assume it natural alignment without the offset common to pipelines and groins that intercept at the waterline. 37 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -119- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Photograph 9a: Elevated outfall discharge in Avalon NJ Photograph 9b: Low elevation outfall on Naples Beach XII. DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND ALTERNATIVES The goal of the new design was to maintain a sandy beach width standard for the design life of the project. The 2006 design life of 6 -years was selected to minimize impacts to hardbottom areas. One of the alternatives considers a 10 -year renourishment interval which is desired by the County where possible. 38 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -120- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. The beach width design standard was derived from the implied design of the 1996 project. The beach width is 100 or 85 feet from a baseline at the back of the beach to the MHW line (see Figure 2). The baseline is at the seawall, edge of vegetation or equivalent, or at the landward edge of the sandy beach. Smaller design beach widths are needed south of Clam and Doctors Passes to avoid hardbottom impacts. The 2008 project's monitoring results are utilized to demonstrate how the coarser grain sizes used in the last renourishment performed in a manner (Figure 5b) consistent with theoretical models of equilibrium profiles (CPE, 2003). These results confirmed the prediction of no further toe advance. With this confirmation of theoretical predictions, the design profiles for the upcoming renourishment can be made wider and higher without increasing risk to the nearshore hardbottom impacts. This additional width and height will provide an increased storm protection and allow for less frequent renourishment episodes. The higher beach berm was selected to mimic the trend in higher natural beach berms observed from monitoring surveys. Method The method used to determine fill volumes is based on beach width, erosion rates, hardbottom, and design life. Erosion rate volumes were calculated from the 1996 to 2010 profile data collected from historic monitoring surveys. These erosion rates were combined with required fill need to achieve the design shoreline position, and the total volume for the anticipated renourishment project resulted. The total volume calculated provides for the design width to be maintained for a period of 6 years for Alternative 2 and 10 years for Alternative 3. Sample calculations are provided in Tables 10 -12 at the end of this report. The conceptual design did not consider the spreading effects or alongshore transport. There are gaps in the design fill distribution shown in the Tables where no fill is needed based on existing beach width and erosion rates. A "sand everywhere" design will require additional fill volume and cost. A volumetric summary is provided in Table 8. Barefoot Beach and Clam Pass Park will increase the volumes for Alternative 3 by 130,000 cubic yards (refer to Table 8). The current design is conceptual and does not fully address all the variables needed for hardbottom avoidance. The design describes a fill distribution (Tables 10 -12) based on a method discussed with Figure 5b, which is largely 2 dimensional. A detailed 3 dimensional method needs to be used to calculate the cross -shore intercept of the construction template and its lateral and cross -shore equilibration. The intercept described by these calculations with the near shore bottom needs to be plotted against the hardbottom edge, and then refined until a sufficient buffer from the existing hardbottom to the toe of equilibrated fill is formed. Since the hard -bottom edge is uneven, supplemental transects must be surveyed to supplement the FDEP R- monument profiles. It is an iterative process that will improve the conceptual design. The conceptual design is a good estimate, but line by line adjustments should be expected. The detailed design phase will determine where and how much the beach can be raised and widened. 39 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -121- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Alternative l: FEMA Design The design volume for Alternative 1 is based on the quantity of sand needed to replace storm losses from Tropical Storm Fay. Due to the small amount of fill authorized by FEMA, fill was centered around the areas with the greatest need and loss from Tropical Storm Fay. These fill areas will receive a minimum of 10 c.y. /l.f. of fill, which is the minimum amount of fill that the contractor can practically place. The total volume for the FEMA alternative is 175,000 cubic yards. The breakdown of the location and volume of the fill is described below by reach in Table 8. The design method in spreadsheet form is provided in Table 10 at the end of this report. TABLE 8 PRELIMINARY DESIGN VOLUMES Vanderbilt Beach The limits for FEMA fill placed on Vanderbilt Beach extend from R -25 to R -29. Vanderbilt beach will receive approximately 40,000 cubic yards of sand which will be centered around R -27. 40 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -122- DESIGN VOLUME (C.Y.) REACH ALT.1 ALT.2 ALT.3 Vanderbilt 40,000 41,733 58,056 R22 to R31 N. Park Shore 21,000 40,881 49,729 R45 to R48 Park Shore 30,000 97,251 136,337 R49 to R55 Naples Beach 84,000 302,166 413,008 R58A to R79 SUBTOTAL 175,000 482,031 657,130 Barefoot Beach - _ 100,000 R14 to R16 Clam Pass _ _ 30,000 R42 to' TOTAL 175,000 482,031 787,130 Vanderbilt Beach The limits for FEMA fill placed on Vanderbilt Beach extend from R -25 to R -29. Vanderbilt beach will receive approximately 40,000 cubic yards of sand which will be centered around R -27. 40 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -122- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Park Shore The north Park Shore FEMA limits extend from R -45 to R -47. These profiles will receive 21,000 cubic yards of fill centered about R -46. The south Park Shore FEMA limits extend from R -51 to R -53. The design volume for this area is 30,000 cubic yards centered about R -52. Naples Beach The fill limits for the Naples Beach FEMA project extend from R -58A to R -65 and R -70 to R -72. In total, this area has a design volume of 84,000 cubic yards. The profiles to the north will receive 64,000 cubic yards of fill concentrated near R -62 to help mitigate losses to Doctors Pass. The area between R -70 and R -72 is also designed to receive 20,000 cubic yards, with fill centered about R -71. Alternative 2: Traditional/Existing Design The design volume is based on the quantity of sand needed to re- establish the design berm and provide 6 years of advanced nourishment using the 2006 project design. The design berm is 100 feet in Vanderbilt and Naples Beaches and 85 feet in Park Shore Beach. The amount of fill needed to bring the historic project areas back to design standard with a six year design life is 482,031 cubic yards (Table 8). The design method in spreadsheet form is provide in Table 11 at the end of this report. Vanderbilt Beach The fill limits of the previously permitted project in Vanderbilt are approximately R -22 to R -31. This area needs approximately 41,733 cubic yards to refill the 2006 design. Park Shore Beach The fill limits of the previously permitted project in Park Shore are approximately R -45 to R -55. Overall this area needs 138,132 cubic yards to bring it back to the intended design standard. Naples Beach The fill limits of the previously permitted project in Naples are approximately R -58A to R -79. Overall, this area needs 302,166 cubic yards to return to its full design intent. Alternative 3: Expanded Design The design volume for the expanded design is based on the quantity of sand needed to widen the construction profile to provide 10 years of advanced nourishment. The design beach width 41 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -123- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. remains the same as Alternative 2, except as stated below. The area south of Doctors Pass and Clam Pass will have a design width of 80 feet. This design volume includes raising the berm 1 foot for the expanded design option. The berm will be raised from 4 ft NAVD to 5 ft NAVD, but additional analysis will be needed to provide the proper transition between the natural beach and berm system, and the additional height may not be practical everywhere. From preliminary analysis, it appears that approximately 75% of the profiles can be heightened. A typical cross - section comparing the 2005/06 permitted template versus the expanded template is shown Figure 8. The design method in spreadsheet form is provided in Table 12 and 13 at the end of this report. i z 0 8 a -2 D Y 4 -6 -8 -10 Typical Naples Beach Profile 2006 vs 2010 Template Comparison 2010 Profile _. _. _.... _..._ _ ................. _. .... .. ..... _..:. ... ... .. _....;. .......... .. ,..... _.... ........ 2006 Template .,.. ..� — Expanded Template 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Distance (ft) FIGURE 8: Typical Naples Profile. Vanderbilt Beach The fill limits of the Vanderbilt project area are approximately R -22 to R -31. Approximately 58,056 cubic yards is proposed within this project area to expand its design life and raise the berm elevation. The design beach width and berm elevation is 100 feet and 4 ft NAVD respectively. An increased elevation of 5 feet NAVD will be used where the landward intercept is accommodating and/or where beach width is restricted by near shore hardbottom. 42 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -124- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Park Shore Beach The fill limits of the Park Shore project area are approximately R -45 to R -55. Overall, approximately 186,166 cubic yards of material is proposed for placement within this reach. This volume is restricted at a few areas due to the close proximity of hardbottom, which may limit project life. This may be moderated by analysis during modeling or the detailed design phase. The design beach width and berm elevation is 85 feet and 4 ft NAVD respectively. An increased elevation of 5 feet NAVD will be used where the landward intercept is accommodating and/or where beach width is restricted by near shore hardbottom. Naples Beach The fill limits of the Naples Beach project area are approximately R -58A to R -79. The expanded design within this area requires 413,008 cubic yards of material. The profiles immediately south of Doctors Pass near R -58 cannot fit an expanded template needed to support a 10 year renourishment interval due to potential hardbottom impacts. Modified inlet management practices should be able to address much of the hot spot problem, supplemented with a spur off the Doctors Pass jetty. The volume for this reach does not change with a change in inlet disposal locations, but the distribution of fill in Table 12 does. The design beach width and berm elevation is 100 feet and 4 ft NAVD respectively. An increased elevation of 5 feet NAVD will be used where the landward intercept is accommodating and/or where beach width is restricted by near shore hardbottom. The design width south of the inlet is 80 feet through R -59, due to the hardbottom restrictions. New Areas The two new areas that are proposed for the expanded project are located directly north of Wiggins Pass and directly south of Clam Pass. Barefoot Beach The Barefoot Beach area is located from R -14 to R -16 and has recently been designated as a critically eroded area by the FDEP. Approximately 100,000 cubic yards is proposed within this area to supplement fill placed from the maintenance dredging of Wiggins Pass and the proposed inlet realignment project. Initial estimated total cut volumes from Wiggins Pass are realignment approximately 80,000 cubic yards. This material will be used to fill the meander channel and create dikes along with restoring the shoreline to the north. The shoreline at Barefoot Beach requires more sediment than available from dredging the Pass, so supplementing it with fill from the renourishment project will aid in its restoration. It is estimated that 25,000 cubic yards can be provided on the initial inlet dredging, and at least 35,000 cubic yards every 4 years thereafter. In conjunction with nourishment, almost 200,000 cubic yards can be placed in 8 years. The design berm elevation is 4 ft NAVD or equal to the natural 43 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -125- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. beach. The design goal in conjunction with inlet management is to restore the beach towards historic widths. Clam Pass Park The area south of Clam Pass from R -42 to R -45 is the second proposed expansion area to the Collier County Renourishment Project. Fill to the north of Park Shore will stabilize the area, acting as a feeder beach. Approximately 30,000 cubic yards is proposed within this area. The fill will supplement sand from bypassing at Clam Pass, which alone is insufficient. The disposal site for Clam Pass bypassing should be extended further south to address a hot spot located south of R -44. The design template will be the similar to that proposed for the Clam Pass dredging project. The design beach width and berm elevation is 80 feet and 4 ft NAVD, respectively. An increased elevation of 5 feet NAVD will be used where the landward intercept is accommodating and where beach width is restricted by near shore hardbottom. The width is restricted for this entire reach. Alternative 4: Erosion Control Structures Structures have been proposed as one means of alleviating erosion in hot spot areas. Some types of structures suitable for use in Collier County are illustrated at the end of this report in Photographs 10 through 15 and Figure 20. Structural changes being considered for modeling are described in section XIV. Alternative 5: Alternative Sand Sources /Construction Methods Alternative sand sources and construction methods will be considered during design and project life. Each of the borrow areas that are proposed for use during the upcoming project requires different equipment in order to bring sand to the project area. For Borrow Area T1, a medium sized hopper dredge will be needed along with approximately 3 miles of submerged pipeline to transport the material to the shore. Booster pumps will also be required to supply extra force to ensure the sediment can transverse the entire length of the pipeline. For the Cape Romano borrow area, a hydraulic dredge with a scow will be required to remove sediment from the source. A small hopper dredge would also be feasible. Due to each of the borrow area's unique traits, a joint borrow area bidding scenario is unlikely, but could be feasible if a bidder used a hydraulic dredge and scow. In addition to the initial fill placement, upland sand sources may be used to alleviate erosional hot spots. Truck haul projects are advantageous when a small area requires extra fill, but they cause an unwarranted nuisance and need to be avoided. Mobilization prices can be costly for dredges, so using an upland sand source helps reduce the cost for smaller projects. 44 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING. INC Packet Page -126- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Gaps in Fill Currently, gaps are proposed where a portion of shoreline does not need fill. If desired by the County, these gaps can be filled in at a minimum 10 c.y. /l.f., which is the smallest practical amount a dredge contractor can place. This "gap fill ", however, will substantially increase the cost of the project, but does help prevent lateral spreading of the design fill into surrounding areas. It is important to note that these gaps may be modified in the final design. Some gap areas may be partially filled in to alleviate losses from spreading and to account for detailed hardbottom avoidance. Below is a list of the areas where there are gaps in fill plan and no fill will be placed for Alternatives 2 and 3: R -22 to R -24 R -50 R -66 to R -69 R -31 R -54 R -73 to R -75 R -49 R -55 R -77 to R -79 XIII. SCHEDULE The project is tentatively scheduled for the November 2013 to April 2014 period, and will take approximately 4 months. If construction savings are desired, then summer construction in conjunction with another community offers the best prospect for savings. The May -July period has the calmest weather, which will lead to a shorter construction period and higher production rate when pumping. XIV. TASK LEADING TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE 2013 -14 PROJECT The project cost includes dredging and the professional services and management necessary to bring the project to construction and complete the required pre -, during- and post construction monitoring and inspections. This list should be updated based on a pre - permit application meeting with FDEP. A list of the tasks needed to prepare the project for construction and conduct the inspections and investigations necessary are summarized below: Permit Desis?n. Plans and Specification for 2013 -14 Proiect Pre - Application Meeting FDEP Pipeline Corridor Mapping -3 New Ones with Operational Areas Special Design Survey for Structures, ECL & 3D Design Process ECL Survey Structural Areas Survey intermediate lines at hardbottom inflection points for 3D design 3 -1) Design Update (around hardbottom) with larger fill section and new reaches Add Clam Pass Park and Barefoot Beach Address Hot Spots and Hardbottom Avoidance with intermediate profile line Run model with refinements and to revalidate design and Spreading magnitude Design structure modifications and removals Prepare BOEMRE Environmental Assessment 45 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -127- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Prepare & submit permit modification to 2005 Permit with new Permit Sketches RAI Cycle with Meetings Update biological and physical monitoring plans Develop Hardbottom Impact Assessment Develop Plans and Specifications Bidding and Award Pre During- and Post - Construction Task Pre - Construction Survey Pre - Construction Biological Monitoring Hardbottom mapping using side scan Construction Assistance Services Pipeline Corridors Monitoring Shore Bird Sea Turtle Monitoring Post - Construction Survey, Report and Certification Post - Construction Biological Monitoring and Report XV. COST ANALYSIS The cost of the project is principally a function of distance to the borrow areas, cut depths, and shallowness of the nearshore bathymetry, which leads to long pumping distance after the sand has traveled to the submerged pipeline location. Grain size, water depth at the borrow area, and equipment play a secondary role. This cost estimate is based on experience derived from the 2005/2006 Collier County Renourishment Project, recent dredge industry practices, and a price adjustment of 2.2% per year until 2013 -14. Dredge contractors are placing a larger percent of cost in mobilization, and less in the unit cost component. The cost in Table 9 is summarized based on the volumes in Table 8. Given the ever increasing cost of dredging, combined bidding of the Collier County project with a similar regional project from the west coast of Florida could provide a significant cost savings. We have an estimate for cost saving considering a joint biding with another county or city government. A limited amount of structural work is considered, which includes building the south jetty spur at Doctors Pass and the removal of a few groins. Some matereail form groin removal may be suitable for use in the Jetty spur. The cost estimate includes removal of some of the existing groins for Alternative 2 and 3, and the construction of a jetty spur for Alternative 3. There is no cost difference for the alternatives designed to support sand bypassing to the Lowdermilk Park or adjacent to the Doctors Pass south jetty disposal area. Doctors Pass dredging would be less expensive with the closer disposal area. Fill for a feeder beach or additional advanced nourishment to a hot spot has been included for use during the detailed design phase of this project. The cost for increasing the beach design elevation to 5 ft. NAVD is small and will decrease the potential for hot spots. The County currently has a FEMA approved project based on erosion experienced during Tropical Storm Fay. This funding can help support the mobilization and demobilization costs, 46 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -128- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. which are a costly component of the project. The County may also obtained cost sharing money from the FDEP, which will be used for applicable areas of the project. Alternative 2A illustrates one way to reduce the price of the project. It keeps the renourishment interval at 6 years, while keeping the two new reaches and limited structure funding. There are many strategies and small changes to the project that can be implemented to reduce the price, which can be fleshed out during the planning and implementation process. For example the cost savings of reducing the renourishment interval from 10 to 8 years amounts to $2.8 million. A moderate savings is assumed in the cost estimate from use of joint bidding and construction with an adjacent project to including cost efficiency desired by the dredge contractors. The greatest dredging cost savings need the following characteristics: -Early availability of draft Plans and Specifications -Long and Flexible Construction Timetable - Combined bidding with similar public projects - Construction period includes calmer months — May to July The total project cost including engineering, permitting, surveys and monitoring for the three main alternatives are provided in Table 9. Potential savings are estimated, including reducing the project to an 8 -year life. 47 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -129- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. TABLE 9 COLLIER COUNTY PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Item Unit Unit Cost Alt 1 FEMA Design g Alt. 2 Existing Design Alt. 2A Existing Design Aft. -3 10 -yr Nourishment Interval Construct Beach Fill Hydraulically Fill Volume C.Y. 175,000 482,031 612,031 787,130 1. Mobilization/Demobilization L.S. $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700.000 Beach Fill 2. Vanderbilt Beach R22.5 -R31 C.Y. $28.00 $1,120,185 $1168707 $1168,707 $1,625,832 3. Pelican Bay Beach (R31 -R37 ) C.Y. $31.55 $0 $0 $0 4. North Park Shore Beach R43.5 -R48 C.Y. $31.88 $669,391 $1,303,126 $1,303,126 $I 585 146 5. Park Shore Beach R48 -R54.5 C.Y. $26.23 $786,780 $2,550,508 $2,550,508 S3,575,581 6. Naples Beach 58A -R79 C.Y. $30.29 $2,544,759 $9,154,037 $9,154,037 $12,511,965 7. Hot Spot / Feeder Volume C.Y. $29.59 $591,806 Environmental Mcnitorin 8. Set Buoys for Pipeline Corridor $28.747.46 1 $28,747 $28,747 $28 747 $28,747 9. Turbidity Monitoring $197692.43 $197692 $197692 $197692 $197,692 Offshore Sea Turtle Moni (Hotraer Dred a only) 10. Mobilization/Demob. of Turtle Trawler Event $4,233.83 $4,234 $4,234 $4,234 $4,234 11. Relocation Trawling Da $4,068.75 $64730 $178,297 $178,297 5243,063 12. Endangered Species Observer Da $673.18 $10,710 $29,499 $29,499 S40,215 13. Payment and Performance Bond L.S. 1 $91,272 $183,148 $183,148 $241,043 SUB -TOTAL $9218,501 $18497,995 $18,497,995 $24,345324 New Reaches 14. Bareloot Beach C.Y. $28.00 $0 s0 S2,800,000 S2.800.000 15. Clam Pass Park C.Y. $31.71 $0 s0 S951,300 $951,300 New reaches Sub -total $3,751.300 $3,751,300 Alternative 4: Stru Lures $0 $0 $400,000 $1,600,000 16. Phase I Removal of Groins 17. Jetty Sur $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $o S700,000 $900,000 Professional Services $906,950 $906,950 $1.265,301 $1,490,987 18. Final Design and Permitting 19. Pre -, During & Post Construction Services $266,460 $640,491 $266,460 $640,491 $487,562 $777,739 $576,000 $914,987 Sub -total without Savings $10,125,451 $19,404,945 $23,914,595 $31,187,611 Project Saving Goal Sub -Total 41,233,490 -S1 18 586 42.016.322 45 614 001 20.Combined Project/Mobilization 21.Year Round and Flexible Construction Specs 22.Turtle Relocation 23. Reduce Project Design Life to 8 yews. - $1,000,000 4333,490 $100,000 $0 - $1,000,000 - $918,586 $100,000 $0 - $1,000,000 - $1,166,322 $150,000 $o 41,500,000 - $1,500,000 $150,000 42,764.001 Sub -total with Savings S8,891,961 $17,586359 $21,898,274 $25,573,610 5 % Contingency $444,598 5879,318 $1,094,914 $1,278.680 TOTAL $9,336,559 $18.465,677 $22.993,187 $26.852,290 dR °'Packet Page - 130 -INC 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. XVI. MODELING The purpose of this task is to evaluate the effectiveness of existing structures and beach fill design templates, and changes needed to solve hot spots and improve project performance and durability. In general, the modeling shows a 10 -year nourishment interval is feasible and most of the groins can be removed, resulting in improved performance of the beach. Beach fill alternatives with a wider beach berm were evaluated through modeling with structural modification to achieve these goals. These segments are located at Vanderbilt Beach, Park Shore and Naples, in addition to Clam Pass Park. The modeling work was completed in two phases consisting of a numerical modeling study of coastal processes (calibration) and shoreline change and integration of the numerical model to evaluate (production) structural and non - structural alternatives. The preliminary alongshore transport (LST) results are show in Figure 9. The areas of increasing transport correspond to hot spots, while regions of decreasing transport should be accretional. The clearest agreement is provided south of Clam Pass through northern Park Shore at Seagate public access (R -42 to R -46) and South of Doctors Pass through Lowdermilk Park (R- 58A to R -60). The curves also show erosion areas at the Naples Pier (R -74 to R -75), Park Shore (R -50 and R -52) and Vanderbilt Beach (R -25). The sediment budget (Figure 6) and this curve have differences, which reflects bathymetry and wave climate from different periods of time. The curve represents a specific calibration period of 2006 -9, and the LST will vary depending on wave climate. The modeling is described in detail in a separate report attached as Appendix A. All alternatives will be referenced using an M suffix in this report, to distinguish them from the fill alternative discussed earlier. Modeling shows that a wider fill placement and removal of some of the existing structures is the most practical and direct solution, while many of the structures modeled had less convincing performance. The feasibility of a wider beach still needs to be investigated with a detailed 3D design and consultation with the permit agencies. Modeling was performed using shoreline model Unibest, except at or near inlets where Delft3D was used. Each model is defined by the design shoreline, project life, and structures considered. Modeling Alternatives Alternative M1. Nourishment with existing structures and 2006 post - construction shoreline — 3 year run and 1 year seasonal for all 3 Reaches. Alternative M2. Nourishment with existing structures removed and 2006 post - construction shoreline — 3 year run and 1 year seasonal, and comparison to Alternate 1: a. Park Shore b. Naples Alternative M3. Two T- groins at the major combined outfall /groin locations in Naples. Alternative M4. Add two artificial reefs at Park Shore with 3 year run using Delft3D. 49 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -131- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Alternative M5. 2013 -14 Fill Plan with traditional inlet bypassing, disposal locations and structures with 10 year run for Naples. Alternative M6. 2013 -14 Fill Plan with switch disposal location for bypassing at Doctor Pass and new fill density in old disposal location with a 10 year run. Alternative M7: 2013 -14 Fill Plan + Permeable tapered groins at Park Shore hot spot vicinity R52 with 10 year run. Alternative M8: Spur groin at Doctors Pass south jetty — 10 year simulation using Delft3D. Alternative M9. 2013 -14 Fill Plan at Vanderbilt Beach + additional sand at R29 to R30 hot spot. — 10 year run. Alternative M10: 2013 -14 Fill Plan at Park Shore and no structures for 10 year run Alternative M11: 2013 -14 Fill Plan at Naples with no structures and disposal location south Doctors Pass for 10 year run. The modeling is based on conditions from a specific time frame starting in June 2006, immediately after construction of the 2006 project. The sediment budget and shoreline changes reported in this document were the basis for calibration, along with the wave climate using Wave Watch III data for the same period. In addition, the model assumes that historic inlet bypassing will continue at a 4 -5 year interval, which is typical for Clam and Doctors Passes. Wiggins Pass bypassing has a relative small direct impact on the modeling, since there is a nodal point between Vanderbilt Beach and Wiggins Pass. Modeling for the Wiggin Pass is contained in a separate report developed for the Wiggins Pass region (CPE 2009). Each modeling run starts at a specific shoreline position, either the 2006 post construction or 2013 -14 design shoreline, and is run for the equivalent of 1, 3 or 10 years. Each of the alternatives, in conjunction with the calibration runs, was developed to address specific issues in the project area. The results of these runs, summarized below, were analyzed with either of two methods. These were either a direct comparison of alternatives using the same specific conditions or a comparison of the alternative's performance over a 10 year period against the projects beach width standard. Alternatives M1 and M2 were the basis for calibration and provided a basis to analyze seasonal fluctuations of the existing conditions with and without structures. The with - structure condition is based on the existing groins as calibrated in the model. The without structure condition removed all the structures within the Park Shore and Naples reaches. Vanderbilt Beach has no visible structures. The results were significant. The beach will perform better without structures. First, a comparison of beach performance with and without structures using grid spacing at 1000 foot (R- monument) intervals shows insignificant differences between Alternatives M1 and M2. At grid spacing of approximately 50 feet, there is a significant difference between the two alternatives, as shown in Figures 10 and 11. For example, a comparison of the 3 -year run on Park Shore shows the northern groin caused a 15 foot greater recession than the without groin 50 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -132- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. conditions. Similar results occur at each major groin location. The northern groins in each reach have the greatest impacts. They are also located near the two hot spots nourished in 2011 by the County. The summer (tropical season) — winter fluctuations in shoreline position have a similar signal. Generally, groins cause a very localized offset - fillet in the shoreline, that has a very focused area of benefit and impact that is not visible with monitoring at 1000 foot increments. With a robust nourishment and inlet bypassing program, the benefits for groins fade, especially in a project area with a weak long shore transport direction and magnitude. Additional details on the modeling are found in Appendix A. Alternative M3 looks at a T -Groin to reduce the impacts from the major groin/outfall structures on Naples Beach. These structures are located south of R -62 and R -65 as shown on Figure 12. The T- groins benefit is very localized and still caused an offset in the shoreline. Their impact is smaller than the existing groins, but with the impact spread out further away from the structure. The reason that an impact persists is that the groin stem is lengthened to allow installation of the cross to the T. This lengthening has the ability to trap more sand than the short existing groins and outfalls, although it spreads it out better. The conditions at Park Shore between R -49 and R -54 are very unique. There is significant offshore hardbottom with gaps that vary in distance from the shoreline. In addition, at the vicinity of R -49 to R -50, there is a major bend in the shoreline, which in combination of the local hardbottom interrupts the alongshore transport in the region. The center of a regional hot spot is at R -52, where there is a gap in the hardbottom or the hardbottom is further offshore. Alternative M4 looks at filling the gap in the hardbottom alignment with an artificial reef 100 feet wide and extending most of the distance between R -50 and R -53. The goal was to mimic the existing hard bottom and see if this has a significant benefit to the shoreline. The results did reduce erosion and trap some sand near shore, but generally it was not a significant amount. Another Park Shore alternative considered was a series of permeable tapered groin. These groins would have permeability similar to Longboat Key (Photograph 13) and tapers similar to what was built in Pinellas County (Photograph 11 at end of this report). The set of groins was centered on the Park Shore hot spot at R -52, and generally ran from R -51 to R -54, tapering from a 200 foot length in the center. The layout is visible in Figure 13 for Alternative M7, which shows the result from this analysis. The sawtooth effect and large offset caused by the groins is very prominent, and they cause a violation of the design beach width at the downdrift end of the groin field. The downdrift effect grows with time, expanding landward and to the south between the 5ch and 10�h year. Since the wider beach fill alternative alone provides a more direct solution to the erosion in this area, this alternative was not pursued further. This alternative would be expensive. Alternatives M5, M6, M9, M10 and M11 look at the 2013 -4 renourishment project with a 10- year project life (Table 9, Alternative 3) with and without removal of all structures, and other modifications. The results of this modeling are shown in Figures 14 to 17. These figures show the shoreline change sequence for the three reaches from year 0 (labeled 2013 beach width design) to year 10. The alongshore fill limits in the model are illustrated by the bold green line (labeled 2013 beach width design). The project limits are illustrate by the bold red line labeled the design standard. Fill is not placed or needed everywhere in the project limits. In all case, the design is violated near the location of some of the structures. Without any structures the 51 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -133- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. violations disappear or shrink substantially in size. The 2013 -14 design without structures is the recommended plan, in conjunction with increased sand placement near hot spots identified by the modeling. This selection is a combination of Alternative 3 and M9 to M11. The selected alternatives do have minor point violations of the design after 10 years. The original design for Vanderbilt had a violation of 15 feet between R -29 and R -30 using the design based on Table 9. By adding approximate 11,000 cy of sand in this region, the violation was reduced by half as shown on Figure 14. At Park Shore, there is a similar violation between R -44 and R- 45, and a small violation of less than 5 feet at R -48.5. The violation between R -44 and R -45 can be addressed by lengthening the disposal area for Clam Pass by 500 to 1000 feet further south. The beach design has been widened using a conservative method for the purpose of this conceptual engineering report. It may be feasible to add additional sand to address the design shortfall, but it would encroach on the hardbottom. It would be prudent to wait for the 3D design stage to see if the design would allow addition fill in these three regions without threatening the hardbottom, and then verify the widening works using the model. The area south of Doctors Pass is losing approximately 10,000 c.y. per year. This hot spot needs increased sand bypassing and fill to address the high erosion, or a means to slow the losses. Alternative M8 is a 100 ft long jetty spur, which will slow the losses from this area (see Figure 18 at the end of the report). The spur will trap approximately 2,750 cy, and slow losses around the south jetty into the inlet. The trapped sand will supply down drift beaches during the winter (south) transport season. The jetty stem should be sand tight to prevent additional losses. The spur will directly protect an area 300 feet south of the jetty (Figure 18). Based on the results of analysis and modeling described in this report, structural alternatives proved to be less successful than the simple wider beach design. The type of structural alternatives that proved most effective includes elimination of existing structures and the use of a jetty spurs. Pictures of pertinent structures are provided in Photographs 10 through 15 at the end of the report. In general, if sufficient sand can be placed on the beach through nourishment and inlet bypassing, then a structural solution is less important. The structures that should receive earliest consideration for removal are located in the north sections of Park Shore and Naples. Structures have less seasonal or long term impact the further downdrift of the inlet they are located. 52 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -134- U9 W yJ �I 1 l J b O A7 fD fD a y "Cs O Z z CD A O O C O _Q O CD O - I N O O Cri w T O r M m K w Z C. a Ln 0 w w v � 7 x CO ca N N 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. (South) R- Monument Location (North) .T7 .Tl .Z1.Z1.T1�O.Z1.Z1.Z].Z1 Z7.T).T].T7,T1.T7 �1 .Zl T 1O A A A -i:0 C :0 ,T] T :u -i A A :D T A A A T A A ;0 Z7 17 17 ;7 Z0 Z0 ZD 00 J 0J0 � �V OO O OOmW O OONU1 N N Nj A AAA AAAAAA W W W W W W W W W CO "r') NNNNNN C 0 WJOM -C A WNO(OO -I OOA W N� O t0 OD -jo N A w j 0 O O V O Ut A W N� O 0 O V O N A W N� N O CO O V O (11 A W N S Z (D CD a m v N T3 O Packet Page -135- w -0b Cr tF a. -n z > Q Cs 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Jp �v i M . , C X — x M al A) A V -p 1, ILI Packet Page -136- Co 0 =r M M ai _0 Ln un Cf s� 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. x :0 z z ; z z ;p z z x a x M M M .9 -'F 9 : 9 a a M 9 z �l x i� v. ;2 zi a ;,3 Packet Page -137- CD 0 :r M ro I? Z sv T 00 C _ fD ° F+ N 1 m 3 � � o 3 z � n� ro Ln M a4 ^� r ` m z A O W m S 3 0 0 °o m 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. A b 77 9 b b b b b A b b b b bbo D b /b� b pbo pbo pbo b t H� �o Q� m P. 'w A b b b b b b b b b b A M b A b b A b b A A b D m m W N O b OJ V A N A w N + O ip W N OI W N O Packet Page -138- U.� I" 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. M Packet Page -139- CD M a) 0 =r pi, Fr :0 to 3 a), Ln 00 I 6 6 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Packet Page -140- I* R ;o z 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. lie Packet Page -141- • 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 1 N N ti Y y � I� a t N i @ 7 an �p v. o n Q CO W r 61 fY� A L Packet Page -142- CD 0) 0 3 [S: lD W 3 0�! O a M M M T A a T ;p A, a T O U N U U A A A L C a[ N W N {s W W v Uri s A W 1 N N ti Y y � I� a t N i @ 7 an �p v. o n Q CO W r 61 fY� A L Packet Page -142- CD 0) 0 3 [S: lD W 3 0�! O a 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. < (D z ED s i '0 (D Ln Ln Packet Page -143- X (D 3 5 1� z ro (p 0) N m �o mo a m w FL -East NAD83 - Nodhing (8) u 1 H N + O + N w P 3 v m zm m N 4 m w 7 O DS O O a 0 o° a T r M$ Z � g mW da mo a 0 W W 4u a w a V S T 1n m � o ae w �m 0 3 ° 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. FL -East NAD83 - Northing (ft) MA_r FL -East NA083 - Northing (ft) a a Packet Page -144- 2 m y m 3 d Q y m —i m n �c C M DO C (D Q- D O ; (D N O O N O r? CF) < l0 (D d 00 < N• (D ff Cu NO O rF -- O n O fl1 � Cu o' °+ � o O 0 � o in Cu � Cu Cl) O N O to 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. XVII. PERMIT GUIDANCE The permits from both the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the United States Army Corps of Engineers are still valid from the previous 2006 renourishment project. It is recommended that if an expanded project is the desired design choice, coordination with permit agencies and permit modifications be obtained as soon as possible. Federal and State permit modifications will be required for the next project, and the existing permits expire in January and November 2015 respectively. Unless construction occurs in the 2013 -14 non -sea turtle nesting period, a new permit will be required from the State, since extensions are not allowed beyond 10 years. Construction should be planned prior to January 2015. Under the current permit, this means completion prior to May 1, 2014. With the new Programmatic Biological Opinion from the FWS, the dredging season should be extended into sea turtle nesting season, which will extend the practical dredging period 8 months. The May - August period is the calmest during the year, which is the most economical for the type of dredging proposed. There was strong resistance at FDEP against allowing a larger fill template in 2006 based on a performance analysis presented during the permitting process. Monitoring results since 2006 have shown that the expected performance has materialized. As such, the conceptual design has used this performance to enlarge the cross - sections and increase the project life so that most areas of the project can perform for 10 years. The conceptual design will require a significant detailed design process to consider lateral spreading, intermediate profiles, and the three dimensional nature of the nearshore hardbottom in the project area. Some at FDEP will not readily accept this design process, and some give and take should be expected. The permit modification should ask for permission to ford Clam Pass when moving construction equipment • between the Vanderbilt and Park Shore Reaches. XVIII. FEDERAL SAND SOURCE COORDINATION The primary sand source for the next project is Borrow Area T -1 located in Federal waters offshore of Sanibel Island. This sand resource is managed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement ( BOEMRE), formally MMS. At a meeting with BOEMRE at the Annual FSBPA meeting in Clearwater, the agency described their procedures for a new lease. Even though Collier County has previously been given a lease for BA T -1, a new lease will be required for each use of the sand source. In addition, BOEMRE will require a new environmental assessment (EA). BOEMRE is still working out the requirements for a new lease on a previously used sand source, and the requirements will likely be heavily influenced by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Colleen Finnegan of BOEMRE said that a wave refraction analysis may not be required for the next EA, but did not know the other requirements yet. Based on previous experience, the County should plan on over a year to secure a combined BOEMRE lease and appropriate permit modification, since each Federal agency will wait until the state permit modification is decided before taking action, and BOEMRE will wait on the Federal agency decisions. • 63 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -145- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. XIX. NEW INVESTIGATIONS The next nourishment project will require a permit modification and some new offshore investigations. Existing permit conditions will require monitoring which will lead to offshore investigations and environmental surveys. Based on recent experience with the truck haul sand placement project and the Wiggins Pass dredging, biological monitoring of the nearshore hardbottom will be required similar to what was done between 2005 -2009. An extension of the project into Barefoot Beach and Clam Pass Park will need to be supported with a pipeline corridors and operational areas to support hopper dredge operations. It may be cost effective to consider adding a dedicated pipeline corridor to Naples Beach south of R -70. Negotiations should be conducted with FDEP and appropriate Federal agencies to determine if monitoring conditions will change from those adopted in 2005. This has been proposed by staff at FDEP for similar projects on the east coast. Likely tasks are listed in Section XIV of this report. XX. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions have shaped the conceptual design for the project: • If sufficient sand can be placed on the beach through nourishment and inlet bypassing, then a structural solution is less important. In general, the modeling shows a 10 -year nourishment interval is feasible and most of the groins can be removed, resulting in improved performance of the beach. Modeling shows that a wider fill placement and removal of some of the existing structures is the most practical and direct solution, while many of the structures modeled had less convincing performance. The consideration of new structures should also be delayed until sufficient monitoring of the expanded project is performed. • The borrow area from the previous renourishment project (Tl) will be utilized to support the renourishment project. • The coarser sand used during the last renourishment has steepened the beach profile, as expected, and in general, most profiles within the County have experienced retreat at the toe of fill greater than the magnitude of shoreline retreat. This means that the permitted template can be increased in size without increased threat to nearshore hardbottom. This makes a 10 year nourishment interval feasible with few limitations. • Additional field investigations are necessary to permit the next project. • A 3D design phase is needed to refine the design to allow additional fill in these five regions without threatening the hardbottom. This detailed and refined design should be verified using the model. • For economy, gaps in fill placement should be allowed in the project area to reduce the amount of fill needed and its associated cost. 64 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -146- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. • A jetty spur at Doctors Pass will reduce losses into the Pass from Naples and trap sand during the tropical storm season, which will be naturally released during the winter season. • The two recent hot spots at Seagate Drive and south of Doctors Pass can be solved with changed inlet management practices and additional nourishment. • The disposal area for sand bypassed from Clam Pass should be extended further south to address a small hot spot. • Beach and inlet dredging should be scheduled for maximum mutual support of sand placement in restricted disposal areas. The major project goal is a 10 -year design life achieved with a wider and higher beach that addresses hot spots and increases the durability without hardbottom impacts, building on the 2006 permitted design. The three inlet projects are addressed in their separate inlet management studies, permits, and monitoring reports. The inlet work should be scheduled to complement, but not necessarily coincide with the beach nourishment work. Specific objectives are: • Barefoot Beach (R14 -R16): Nourish with approximately 100,000 cy of sand to supplement sand bypassing by the new Wiggins Pass Inlet Management Plan and restore the eroded beach. Vanderbilt Beach (R27 -R31): Increase advanced nourishment where practical, and overfill near the hot spots. Consider structures only after nourishment alone proves insufficient or ineffective through performance monitoring. Clam Pass Park (R42 -R44): Renourishment with approximately 30,000 cy of sand to supplement sand bypassing as part of the new Clam Pass maintenance dredging permit. Where practical, schedule maintenance dredging at different times from beach nourishment, so that maximum volume can be placed down drift of the inlet in a limited template. This fill will act as essential feeder beach for northern Park Shore. Extend the existing dredge disposal area further south, to eliminate a small hot spot between R44 and R45. • Seagate Drive hot spot (R44 -R46): Remove groins in conjunction with feeder beach created at Clam Pass Park. Increase advanced nourishment to supplement any short fall from these actions. • Park Shore (R51 -R54): Nourish for 10 year design life supported by modeling. Increase advanced nourishment or feeder beach volume in the vicinity R48 to address model hot spot. Delay consideration of any structures until performance monitoring of this nourishment alone option can be completed. • South of Doctors Pass (R58): Increase nourishment rate, modify Doctors Pass dredging permit to dispose sand in the permitted beach fill template south of Doctors Pass. Build 65 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -147- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. spur off of groin to stabilize this severe hot spot so that it performs with a 10 year renourishment interval. Bypassing to the closer disposal areas, a jetty spur, and nourishment alone may address most of the needs in this area, and additional structures should be delayed until performance monitoring of nourishment alone option can be completed. Timing of nourishment and dredge disposal should be separated when feasible, so that the limited space in the template can be maximized. South of Lowdermilk Park (R62 -R64): Modify or eliminate groins in the vicinity of R6 -2 and R -65 in conjunction with increased nourishment. Drainage modification must be decided before structural modifications can be implemented. It is also recommended to create a larger beach at Lowdermilk Park to mitigate for the change in dredge disposal practices. • Design all reaches for a 10 year project life and skip segments that do not need fill to meet this goal. Maintain capability of truck haul project to address small hot spots if they occur. Consolidate small density fill sections into constructible reaches. • Create a schedule for groin removal or modification, starting with the groins immediately south of inlets. Modify future plans based on performance monitoring. XXI. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommended plan is based on a combination of existing practices and new alternatives. The 2013 -14 Design Alternative 3 without structures is the recommended plan. Modification to inlet management practices and beach drainage are needed to supplement the plan. 1. Continuation of Existing Practices. a. Beach fill i. Vanderbilt Beach R22.5 to R31.5 ii. Park Shore R45.5 to R54 iii. Naples Beach R58 to R79 b. Inlet Bypassing at Wiggins, Clam and Doctors Passes 2. New Practices: a. Widen and raise the beach to support a 10 -year nourishment interval where practical. b. Add Barefoot Beach (R14 —R16) to rebuild the ebb shoal and beach. c. Nourish Clam Pass Park (R42- R45.5) providing a feeder beach for Park Shore. d. Return the disposal area for Doctors Pass dredging to the area immediately south of the pass, using the permitted beach template from the 2005 permit. e. Modify or remove structures (groins and outfalls) from beach based on a sequence to address those with the largest impact, lowest cost and easiest to address outfall solution. Start with the structures located closest to Clam and Doctors Passes. Removal must be accompanied by continued periodic nourishment and inlet bypassing. f. Add a spur to the south Doctors Pass jetty to reduce losses from Naples Beach into the inlet and maximize the effectiveness on inlet bypassing. 66 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -148- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. g. Plan on small (truck haul) nourishment project between the major nourishment interval to address hot spots caused by significant storms and changes in wave climate, long shore transport, and inlet bypassing not anticipated in this report and modeling. h. Delay any decision on adding other structures to the plan, unless the detailed design and/or permit restrictions significantly restrict use of an adequate fill template. From conceptual analysis of the project, the following are recommendations for future investigation: • Conduct detailed 3D design of the recommended alternatives using the 2011 monitoring results at each profile location and verify and refine design in model. • Identify additional pipeline corridors for hopper dredges and scow operations. • Begin permit modifications process for increased project size. 67 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -149- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. XX. REFERENCES Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Beach Restoration Project 6 -Year Monitoring Report (contains Appendix A: Drainage Reconnaissance Report), October 2002. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Preliminary Engineering Report, 2003. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Beach Restoration Project 8 -Year Post - Construction Report, November 2004. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Beach Renourishment Project Two -Year Post - Construction Monitoring Report, December 2008. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Beach Renourishment Project Post - Tropical Storm Fay Report, October 2008. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Collier County Beach Renourishment Project Post - Construction Monitoring Report, October 2006. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2009 Collier County Annual Topographic and hydrographic Survey Report (September 2009 Aerial Photographs). November 2009 Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., Critical Erosion Area Evaluation of Habitat and Recreation for Barefoot Beach, Collier County February 12, 2010. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. ,Critical Erosion Area Evaluation for Clam Pass Park and North Park Shore, Collier County August 18, 2011. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2009. Wiggins Pass, Collier County, FL Numerical Modeling of Wave Propagation, Currents and Morphology Changes Phase II: Numerical Modeling of Alternatives Report. Report prepared for Collier County Wiggins Pass Modeling Evaluation Working Group and Coastal Zone Management Department, Collier County, FL. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. Engineering Report for a Maintenance Dredging, Navigation Improvement and Erosion Reduction Project For Wiggins Pass, Florida February 2010. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Joint Coastal Permit for Collier County Beach Renourishment Project. Permit No. 0222355- 001 -JC. 2005. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Permit No. SAJ- 2003 -12405 (IP -MN). November 17, 2005. 68 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -150- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. A PASS I CAPTIVA ISLAND BLIND RSS SANIBEL ISLAND SAN CAR OS Q6 BAY ESTERO ISLAND LOVERS KEY GULF NAPLES OF N 60,',= MEXICO R8 Z ORDON SS 0200 40000 CAP IPASS GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT BIG RGO PASS NOTES- 1. COORDINATES HEREON ARE BASED ON FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, EAST ZONE, NAD 1983. 2, ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET BASED ON NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM. 1929 (NGVD 29). CAPE ROMANO 'SORROW AREA FIGURE 19. Cape Romano Borrow Area 69 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -151- \-BORROW AREA Tl 33'1 MILEgr 1 BAREFOOT WIGGINS BEACH PASS VANDERBILT N 700M, BEACH CLAM R4 PASS '� PARK / 9 MILE LIMIT-/ R5 SHORE I DOCTORS SS GULF NAPLES OF N 60,',= MEXICO R8 Z ORDON SS 0200 40000 CAP IPASS GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT BIG RGO PASS NOTES- 1. COORDINATES HEREON ARE BASED ON FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, EAST ZONE, NAD 1983. 2, ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET BASED ON NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM. 1929 (NGVD 29). CAPE ROMANO 'SORROW AREA FIGURE 19. Cape Romano Borrow Area 69 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -151- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Photograph 10. Examples of spurs off jetties at Bakers Haulover Inlet, in Miami, FL stabilizing adjacent up- and down -drift beaches. Photographs 11a and b. T- groins with transition to downdrift public beach at Upham Beach in Pinellas County, Florida. Public beach is south of condominium. 70 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -152- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Eked Level 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 _4 5 -6 -7 _g i-10 Figure 20. Longboat Key model conditions showing salient growth at detached breakwaters. . Photograph 13. Longboat Key Permeable Groin maintaining beach width in 2010 four years after latest nourishment. 71 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -153- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Photograph 14. Parabolic bay shape at T- groins in South Naples Photograph 15. Pile groins in South Naples beach area in 2004. 72 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -154- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. FIGURE 21. Naples, Florida Aerial Photograph with Outfall Location 73 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -155- • GULF OF • MEXICO < " STUDY " Y. I aO O L- a LLI W J ,— W t9 Z Z Gt3 LL! J J a W tL 3` � silR�o„ co � < -unc " 1 1 f _ v a w Q H �. ca J V O O LL. O LL! O w J J J O Lu n tA1— ZLL 0 m4 c( U? LL H so .x p LLf J .< a^- CL Z ± ; 7662000 _j -J J Z LL. to n _. —0 a UJI a1 u= J' J Z .J.! r Z LL. Cn : Et v u7 O FIGURE 21. Naples, Florida Aerial Photograph with Outfall Location 73 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -155- • 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. TABLE 10 Alterantive 1: FEMA DESIGN VOLUMES PROFILE NUMBER EFFECTIVE DISTANCE FT DESIGN : 2010 MHW : WIDTH :TO DESIGN: FT FT BERM DEPTH OF HEIGHT ::CLOSURE FT -NAVD FT -NAVD ) COMP. EROSION (CYNR) FINAL VOLUME (C Wiggins Pass 800 R -22 100 100; -24.5 4.0 -11.3 0 0 R -23 1,017 100; - 11.9•' 4.0; -11.3 0 0 R -24 1,074 100: -36.2: 4.0: -11.3 0 0 R -25 1,051 100; -24.6; 4.0; -11.3 -1,647 6,000 R -26 986 100' -35.9; 4.0: -11.3 -1,321 8,250 R -27 1,095 100; 3.1; 4.0; -11.3 -2,434 12,000 R -28 1,026 100. -13.3: 4.0: -11.3 -826 8,250 R-29 942 100; -7.2: 4.0 -11.3 -863 5,500 R -30 1,033 100: -14.4: 4.0: -11.3 -556 0 R -31 1.092 100: -32.5; 4.0; -11.3 0 0 Clam Pass 350 R -45 1,078 85: 21.9. 4.0; -11.3 -1,034 6,000 R -46 1,040 85. 18.0: 4A: -11.3 0 9,000 R -47 953 85 -3.9: 4.0: -11.3 -373 6,000 R -48 1,000 85: -2.8: 4.0: -11.3 -700 0 R -49 1,077 85 -18.4: 4.0 -11.3 0 0 T -50 1,208 85: -43.2: 4.0: -11.3 0 0 R -51 1,108 85 -13.1: 4,0: -11.3 -3,415 7,500 R -52 967 85: 28.0: 4.01 -11.3 -3,945 15,000 R -53 1,060 85; 5.1: 4.0 -11.3 -1,946 7,500 R -54 1,059 85; -8.7: 4.0: -11.3 0 0 U -55 985 85 -14.7. 4.0; -11.3 0 0 Doctors Pass 431 R -58A 877 100: 112.7; 4.0; -11.3 -3,457 5,000 R -58 737 80: 36.6: 4.0: -11.3 -5,738 5,000 R -59 1,035 100: -0.7; 4,0; -113 -2,715 7,500 R -60 1,081 100: -11.6: 4,0: -11.3 -75 8,000 R -61 1,049 100: -42.3: 4.0; -11.3 -785 7,500 R -62 1,015 100; 15.01 4.0; -113 -3,219 _ 11,000 R -63 967 100: 11.6: 4.0 -11.3 -2,701 10,000 R -64 854 100: -9.5: 4.0: -11.3 -565 5,000 R -65 804 100; -14.5: 4.0; -11.3 -1,168 5,000 R -66 813 100: -25.2: 4.01 -11.3 0 0 R -67 805 100: -51.8: 4.0; -11.3 0 0 R -68 810 1001 -51.6: 4.0: -11.3 0 0 R -69 - 805 100: -30.3: 4.0 -11.3 0 0 R -70 800 1001 -30.5: 4.0: -11.3 _ -2,537 5,000 R -71 803 100: -33.2: 4,0; -11.3 -3,733 10,000 R -72 807 1001 -51.4: 4.0 -113 -1,819 5,000 R -73 813 100: -50.81 4,0; -11.3 0 0 R -74 803 100: -41.9: 4.0: -11.3 0 0 R -75 795 100: -39.8: 4.0; -11.3 0 0 R -76 799 100: -7.0: 4.0: -11.3 -855 0 R -77 782 1_00; -11.1: 4.0: -11.3 0 0 R -78 933 100 -14.8: 4.0: -11.3 0 0 R -79 1.128 100. 4.0; -11.3 0 0 Gordon Pass 550 PROJECT AREA 41,066 96: -13.2; 4.0 -11.3 - 48,427 175,000 FILL LIMITS AND QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE P: \Collier \8500.78 Collier County Conceptual Design and Modeling \Final Design and Cost \CC2010 - DESIGN WITH NEW DISPOSAL AREA 081112 - Copy.xls 10/5/2011 Packet Page -156- w J z W p f T 0 z H W Q O N C) IV D 0 0 o Q. M w O) 0101m m d wm m Nm AM 01 M mN-L M m w Om d m J Q V MdNlh� N M Nom' d M{V N mtV OOi rf wmN NO M{�l "M W'N V N V z O J U LL O O O O O W O n 0 0 m N W 0 0' S 0 0 0 aD O O S N O w O O O O O� O O O O S O O O J l+l Cj t0 vii WU O J¢w COONN 0 o oo °aoc� m 0 oa W o0oNo0o m vrn mm isoo(N�p� vni_ H M d M N N M .- N O W N d a 0J(1 7 > w '� NCDm �N�NIW�I fMD �tWD LL] f0�d ��[[II N Z 7 O CM tt++ff N "MW—I � W N MW n VV CwD PY tV dN w d W N N 1; r J U z > = W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 O O O O M n O O W 0 0 0 0 O O w 0 0 0 0 0 M O 0 0 0 W w 0 0 0 O 0 t7 O N O O O M p O O O O O W O 0 0 W O O M O O M W W O O W W W O O W W C O O O O O O O O O 0 0 W omit I w W Z U z_......_.. ._ O _._._.. O O ...__.. w N .._. _. O M .._ ... d � _...- 0 ..._._....__.....-.__ O O n M O O __ d 0 0 0 __ 0 0 _ j Z �C rG fG OC fit) O 6l V �> tD G tG off (V (G tD fV C C tG ?C C G C Q � G C aD N V) V) W tD N O tV fG fC tG tM <G tG fD n p _ Q Zd, R} f K ..............__ - .F ...�.�........_...._..�...._. 0 0 0 C; C COO O O C ....+._J C ........_........ 0 0 0 ."':. .._. O 7 _. _ O ��� Z rD W u IC W W 4: tG W W W •S 'D fC (C (U IG rA m C C W W W W t0 W W [O (C "..J W (G W (C tC �D tG rD O (C W W W t0 N LL C w J } p .........._.. ... ..._..._ _ .._ ... .._.._.. .._.... .. -. _...._. __ _...._._.. ..._. -.. ..._._.. .._.._.. ._. ... _. ._._.. ... -._.. .._. _....._. _.. __ _ _... _ __ .._ -. Z N A m m a a 0 7 C6 N q 0 m u x W p O O O O O O a O O O O O O O O S O O N S 000, H F W w ? O w Q M o J � Y N J U Q O r W S i(I mppw V OOMOGMD OO�mN S�OOfWrJN OOOO OmOO�NOOmON�� N <Ci nd<m < W > th OtpO 1� W d0 W N SON NN q� W tp W tp fD m w� -II00� W nOi Mq nv? r M W j} -.NON nri C?I ( '7'7Z: V rOm I� N q `NNMM NNAA N W J U q W 0 C M (^ ^')C:.'�^"�Mfl. C'}M 7M M (+: 1+')M MMC": l C')?)MMMC7 C: MMMC'i C: C': V! LL W x�a m O w LL p U +...00CC!CJ O rJOOCCJ 00060 OOOG OOOOCOOOOC OC: .'� ©G O CC; O ? .............. w-? U, m=om LL ......... Z_ .... .. ... W .... ....... 0! C4 W w7MNdW Ow W dN� O� Nw MO W N qN ON GO WMNNdoW 0�m 0 n� W O Ci n... .......N ...... th 2 �= NZ:0 Ntw+ I V1n V" NmthNmq� N� OC< 9 ;:N I? C? it)SvM W ~ O p LL GN _..�. .. ._.. .._.�.. ..._ ......_. _....... _.. ..... ... ...... .._.._.. .... _...... .... .... ......... _....... _.O~.___ .. ... ..... 8888888888 ..._..... ...... .._. .... ..... ... .._ .... .........._.. mm8mmW88�mm .._.�....._._....._._...._._.. .._. 8°o88S8S888888888888888 m zx mOLL O oW C GC.` ' O w W 7 U N O 1-00 + O C C W m H z � U W Q f LL LL LL m 0 W W J W w a aNMdWWnmmo a N N N N N N M a 1°�nWnmwo M d d d W NMp�n W IA W d a i(1 Q �i w W S NM W W tQ W W m tf� nmwo W W W A NMdrnWn n n A A A n Wrn A n a I� CG Q r (.1 O N N K K K.K K K K K p g C K q K R q 4 F= K K K K Q K K K K K K C K C K K K K K K K K K K K a w a z t7 a p O N C) IV D U Z N O z N w ❑ R' z Lu J w IL i L `a Q U' N M P V CC V N [M M r V CV 00 N (V OD C� t7 a0 N N Q CV Ct) O r tV to r a; 'Cf C r r O G r C C� U) f ' t0 n N fn N Mtn t° y m C oLU LL LL N Q ...........r .... ..... .. .. .... ...•_• _ _........... ... ..........._ 0 ._......._.. ..F ..._.... ` ... .... ... ... ............._. ........ .._. .._ ...............___.. ......... .._.. ... ._.. .._.......... ..._.... ._. _....._....._.._......... Cc N N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z PP P og0000000o to cD maD mto cD tommwMwm aDw00000000000000000000o m S LL 0ui v a 3 >1 X C D k'i O O 0 r Q �- Cv CG N M �.i O 9 M 4: 0M G r 4C+ O r p M �: n t� ui 6! � � .} m u; G N G m r M M w7 Q: N m p 4 O d W W 4>�Oi Zm 4t NCO N r ee(( tf;bn 04100 o?Mr MM Cp P.-tD :�O prOgqOO O th m W MN0 M d � U '17 fp :° 07 - O G O 6: O Ci (T. J C? m� 0 � O G L• p C_ N r v� C p °: P x r O G 4 p M 31 0 x ar p Ms Q> C° D] 9 W+ r r Q r N N a W F W P w LL 0 U) W w F- z LLI IL d a m K CJ ^� t0 t� MPNt°A NNnMMO�NMp NaaCOMO�N m QNNntO MOAN mPN (pr WM Q ❑ bNNNN NNmIJIL P `NNN rnnn t` n rrnrL e w N W YW 4 4W 4 ¢ K K K K K 2 K Z K K K H K K K K K w ; V 0 C K ALL� J J LL O N O mmN \V /} H tNO O O O O O O O N N m 0 0 N N W h h m f0 N N LPD O O O O A m O 0 0 0 W W T T N N N N N' O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 W n nm N N W W M W O OiDm � �mM W W �-•Ati P PM Q ONI 0 O Q QNNmQ � � W W W A ANQ N N Q N N O M M N N t'7 M M A r r t t0 A �-N� m A N N A A A A tT t to M Mi N N f0 N N N N l7 N N W W W V H H m m Z J V V � rm r r LLO > O O O O O O O P C C° O O O O O O O O O N N N O O �- O O O n n M t t0 O O O O O N n n 0 0 0 0 M M M M O O O O O O A O O O O O O O O M O O 0 0 0 P P N N N n N N C° m m a LL r tV V V Ch ry °n WU > O r O OOO a awm m mom 0 0 � �ODO o tM A o P M Mm 0 00^ N N t tMtpp OO M M oONf N NoN o oO Q Q O0 0 00^ o 000 P N Q W R Rik A AMNOmfD � �mMOD t AtCDAN M MmODNMPO�ffNDD Q ow 0 POOOO N n F-2 N Nto O O t tp M Mf7Mn� t tO��tDON1� f r N N M f0 t0 O OD O Otra N NOS - -N00 M MC'>In 1 1� N N J U n O OD f f�! N N Q Q M M m m m J 7 > O O O O O O O O O N N N m M M O n n 0 O O O O O N N O W W O O O O N N N M M O O O N N P N N Q N N N N N (O N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W r 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O O O m 2 M M M M C M P P N N N n n ._-O P PMm r r P PNNN O OMO M MN N N W W N U t0 IA N tV O OD r m m A A 1 1 C N N N N U W U z O O ? W W N � � Q F m coo O O O O O W O O m n n N 0 0 0 O O O O O M M O M M O O O n n O M M 0 0 0 N N M M O O O N N N Q M M O O O O O O A n n O 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 00 W r r m mNn t M O tp V M M N t t 0 r r M P P M M O O n N N Q Q N N o o } N N Q Q O O N N N N m M M C C( N N N N N N N N C C C C N J U m m z J S o w o00 0 0oo�oont°o0 0 00000mnoom000�o o ooMOOOOMMOOOOt°MOOOOm000 m m W❑ C C0. C CCC�CCCUiCC C CCCCCVr�CCr:CCCIo C CCtriCCCC�vCCCCPUiCCCCttiCCC Dw 0 ❑ K zw} ❑w w z U Q .._..__._ . .... O O O OO�O M MNOmC � O O O O O o O O o A A .� o o o . .Q O o o o. O . ._....0 O O r C C9 O O O O _ _........ _ _.._ ..._ . .. _.. _ _ . ............_. . O O A ...-..._ . .... . . .... .............. Q Z 6 666 O O C G G dD N N C O Oi P U U) O O O C C O C C O N N tV O O O C CV C O O O I O O O O O Gmm G G C a a0 'A O O O C C C C C O t tV COO l lh C G G C ' '- < z 2 Y '� . f W C ............ _._ _ _.. _ . .. . .. . .. .. _ _ . _ . .._.__ _ _ _...._. ._.. _. _ _. _..._ . ._...._...._._...._ _ p p 0 0 0 0 _. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C O O O O C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Z 0 000 C C O ^ ^J C O O O O O O L C C O O O O O O-- C C-- C C O O C C O C C C O O-- G G- O O O O C C C O O O -- - O O O O C � � W 5 LL - O W -t 000r.-e� t t°M((ppo 0 000 o omOOONNt°oio n ntONNNM�NaDOOOOrmMOOONOOO n n Z � �mPaD W W N N O O 1 1? 17 V V M a at P P n nA n nNrCffr N NA N N P P a OR' � �N t th Ch m m N NN C C7N N NC7 r r C C F OO} V V w u u W w ... . ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 00, V . .00 O O O.� O Oi0 N N� O O O O O O W W O 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 n C w O N N N Ot m m C M o o O O N C CO m m r r - co U M ^ H Z O � > u u � u u w o o 0 0 0 0c0oppNt°nQroom$0 0 00000N W W N Ng�!Oo�m,� 0 0000 o oo o ]> � C7��t°S r rmQ 0 0 N NNNN N N ap n oo$ p NC�l v pg y J U N N r• N N N N e e- N ' nN c N cCrCM I Ih N vi f7 t th tAnM<r M M w O 4 4 y W> a a ..................... . ...._....._ _ _...._. _ __ . ._...._ _ _. . _..._ . ._... _ _. _...._ "ri e eh 'ci i i%i ....Ri . .i . . 'i*i & &5 -F5 c ci » .r'i ' 'i^ i^m r r; i i%i 'c� i i*i ci ' 'ri i' m m .._ _ a '77777777777777 7 M =<Ill ' 77777-7-7777777-'-.77--77 ❑ U w a a ....F...Q . .. ... .... . _....._..._ _ .. G p _. _. ' ' _....... _ p 4 O __ ... _ __ .._ _ G 4 C C.' p G G p 4 4 p G G p p _ _ 4 C O O O p p 0 0 0 0 a C O O O C CC 0 0 p 7 p 7 7 'ci n n cs c " " "° ° _ .. >w c c c cvrvcvcry v vva.rvv�cv•rvry v vvvcv•iovvvvveti � a C p 7 PASO C C'KP c " K Q a a S M W Z S LL L L d � O N O mmN \V /} w Q m' w z z LUJ a LU z z LLI N m' 7 O W U Q aLU LU 0 a U J ? m O az ~a It LU m LU LU S p S 7 O U w K a i W w a a a fD � r O O O N� a��� O N�� r O O Yf W O O O � N O N h w A W 1° W W {� W Of W '�� W .. ap W 1p -. O) O A {7 N N pf O A N � 'N N� A IE O PLAN °f W O�l1 W N n )Hd ri N EO W �N w) Yf ¢O }Nd Z J U PJ A LL O O O O N d O M A 0 0 O O O c(myy m M@ N O O O O A 0 0 M N m O O @�pp O m O O O O N �O O O O O m N O O O M N N N Nm Nr A fW°lN+l OtDNN d j I N � V t7 N N e LL } n U W O !�fpf ��pp 000 �°m)A a r tppp 0pD OO.�N°_t@f)_O O � m �NNOO)O� p OOOON V V 000 ^ 000 ¢ W f° �[ 111 m °�i. t0 M @ OOd N N mNln A H p> }Nd NOO NMMN1��- tD �e'A�NA NA@ 069 @ d W �Nm cN,f A F J U m p > @ O O O O O O N N Mm O A O O O O N Ova O O 1° L) Q t� O) O t� O N d@ A d) d N (I t� w N m@ O W O O O O O O m A °1 to O O O@ @ O O O O N Z d m W O rnf7Nf0 A O� Q tp O O _ N W W e7N� NP)m�f°N fD Q @ M p d t7 A N N v N N u p U o n m. W O Z 0 ? Z W w � N aW m� 0 0 0 0 0 o m o m� w N O O W Cl; N O N @ @ z O W > S m O O O O O O W O O M O O O O O O O rn t0 O O Q 0 0 010 O O@ o0°i0000�v00oov�ci0oo0�0000 O O O O O O O O O O N A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M �0 000 000o00o�ri0o 00000criAC0r000'o Dw Z w W W Z U Q ..........._ .... ._.. _ _. __. _.._._...._ 0 0 W _.._..._ N O .- ....__... rn A 0 __ __ O ._. __......_...._ O O O O ._.. d .._.. ... O O m 0 0 0 0 O O N N O O W 0 0 0 0 0@ M W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . .... O > O O 0 0 O G 0 C O O W N O 6 4 6 C G C O O C tG fV O C (V GOO O O O G O m 0 G aC tO 0 0 0 C� eI C1 G C O C C O O ° Z az� a> Lu w ... ........ .... _ _.. .__ .._ ......._. .G 'S O C O O .._. .._.._...._. O .... . .0 _.. .G .... .O _.. .0 ._.. O ..... .O _.. .0 .._ _G .. .0 .... _O ._ _. O ._ C C 0 0 0 "" "_. _.._.._....._.._.. .._. .... .... .... -- Z 4 C O C 0 O a-6 6666666666 O C O G C O i7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C+ G G C Ci O G C C O O O O G C C O f7 W F) LL m W J o ! ................... _.. _ ..... ... .__. ..... O O ..... ..... O A pp .... .._. N ..... .... ...... m M N m ..... {{pp O N .... ..... .... O . .._. O O ..... ..... d O M ..... ..... M O A O ..... ..... ..... 0 0 ..._ m W d .... ........._ W O d _.. O ._..... A W W M .... .. @ @@ r r rn W .- N O m m 0 m 0 0 0 A M M@ 1, O O O N N O 0 0 A ; N f d Z t 0 t h d W W N O M A O) OI d A A n N fA N c° w A m W ! °.O NNN NN NNE- v U w U w p O 0 0 0 0 0^ 0 ... O O O N N O O O O O ... A@ . O O ON O O O O 00.000Q o H W Q a O N M M N m N n m N Q @ t7 m m Of W O W � U trn'f N z �p tuw WOO nmmmvAioo mAmmV� cocoa �rn°°mv°o�� oomA�oo� omac19i > > @ V N rrt�1N O@ M N O COQO O) M N fD N� A N M A aD N A W 1n hm ' A y r NN�OOm N N W N RoOi N N [h maDW N J U ' N— N ' N N v W 0 ..m,._ ............ ....._.. .._ _....._........_....._ _.. _......_ . _.. .. _ ... _. ..._ M M M ....M M M M M M M ^) M T ^'. M M M M M M M ^) ^" niM - C) - - LL , r a O F O U LL O C C. G' O G � w - 7r iu- m =� LL W rn 0 rn m d N O � n r �� n m A m M O tO W W N� t° M W N O W rn W O � m A _ O Z S=� rn 0 N(MO N N rn N N m NNMmM1` m � Cl N d V N NO f7 CV aC m 7 ^NNw V <V 6O�-fV O °iO ui OO vi G °i I� Oci 7 fn W ~ O 0 LL op ~....._ __ .. _ .. .._. -0.0.0.6 .._._...._. __. ... .__ __..__ ........_ _...._ _.. _ __._.._..... ._ _.. ._.. N N .... _......_....._........_ W 0 0 0 0 .... .._. 0 0 ....._...._. 0 _....... O O .._ 0 ._...... 0 0@ ... ......._ N ..............._....._ W W N N N O @WmmW _.. .... W tniN _.._ 0 0 WmO�a 0 0.8 0 0 OOg000000000000go 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O z = ddQ o000000�0o Wm @WWmWWm v U F m O LL LLI W w "O... @ W N rnO iQ o Mt0 C G W o GCMGAG Ma. W W mxN0 A ^^ m�0 � O W N i[J O sD 'A -'C�'..Y Qr : O@ONPMONOO M O � 00 00 N_rArnO P.Q m N OOv`":O OOW m@ W W w Z U ¢ d W H LL LL to w O I a J W Q� w A mm bNNNNNN NMQN W A W mo b p NM W W AmO) pp QNNmNLL'1'�i- N M�e}� m E�2H@ a W O�Nth W t t4 I'?ttpm 1°mA mrnO mmA �NMdN AAAAA mAmrnm AAA!A N m C° W a V L 2'd' K �K2K m'm'O'KO'm'2 NNMMa qq m2'm'K vdv R'R'R'F-Q: R'R'K'..� OKd'2'LL'R'R'6'R'R'4'K2'2'd' d'm&&wm� R'm' w wn mz v o ° I a ¢W Q¢ N z Z i 0 U U U o� E o" U Y U s a `a Em O N N D 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. APPENDIX A MODELING REPORT COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -160- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. COLLIER COUNTY CONCEPTUAL RENOURISHMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS - NUMERICAL MODELING REPORT Prepared for: Coastal Zone Management Department Collier County Government Prepared by: Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. 2481 N.W. Boca Raton Blvd. Boca Raton, FL 33431 C.O.A. FL. #4028 October 2011 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -161- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. COLLIER COUNTY CONCEPTUAL RENOURISHMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS - NUMERICAL MODELING Table of Contents ModelingObjectives ............................................................................................ ..............................1 ModelingStudy ..................................................................................................... .............................13 Numerical Modeling of Shore Protection Alternatives ........................................ .............................50 FinalConsideration ............................................................................................... .............................85 References............................................................................................................. .............................86 List of Figures Fi urn. Figure1: Project Location ............................................................................... ............................... 3 Figure2: Tide Gage Location .......................................................................... ............................... 4 Figure 3: Typical Observed Gulf Tides Location: 26.1402 °N, 83.268 °W (See Figure 2) ............. 5 Figure 4: Wave Hindcast Station ..................................................................... ............................... 7 Figure 5: Directional distribution of wave period bins at the selected WW3 grid point ................ 8 Figure 6: Directional distribution of wave period bins at the selected WW3 grid point ................ 8 Figure 7: Maximum significant wave height (Hs) and wave period (Tp) per directional band at theselected WW3 grid point ............................................................................ ............................... 9 Figure 8 Directional distribution of wind velocity bins at the selected WW3 grid point ............. 10 Figure 9: Maximum wind velocity per directional band at the selected WW3 grid point............ 10 Figure 10: tidal oscillation used in Delft3D and Unibest -CL+ simulations .. ............................... 15 Figure 11: Offshore representative wave conditions for Collier County, FL ............................... 16 Figure 12: Regional wave grid (white), intermediate wave grid (red) and local wave grids ( yellow) .......................................................................................................... ............................... 19 Figure 13: Wave propagation through regional domain. Offshore condition Hs =10.66 ft; Tp =7.85 s; PDir =309 °; Wind speed= 21.7 knots; Wind Dir.= 330.. ............................................................ 21 Figure 14: Wave propagation through intermediate domain. Offshore condition Hs =10.66 ft; Tp =7.85 s; PDir =309 °; Wind speed= 21.7 knots; Wind Dir.= 330.. ............................................. 21 Figure 15: Wave propagation through local domain (Vanderbilt Beach). Offshore condition Hs =10.66 ft; Tp =7.85 s; PDir =309 °; Wind speed= 21.7 kt; Wind Dir. =330 °. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashedline ..................................................................................................... ............................... 22 Figure 16: Wave propagation through local domain (Park Shore). Offshore condition Hs =10.66 ft; Tp =7.85 s; PDir =309 °; Wind speed= 21.7 kt; Wind Dir. =330 °. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line.................................................................................................................. ............................... 22 Figure 17: Wave propagation through local domain (Naples Beach). Offshore condition Hs =10.66 ft; Tp =7.85 s; PDir =309 °; Wind speed= 21.7 kt; Wind Dir. =330 °. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashedline ..................................................................................................... ............................... 23 Figure 18: Wave propagation through regional domain. Offshore condition Hs =5.74 ft; Tp =5.53 s; PDir =163 °; Wind speed= 19.6 knots; Wind Dir.= 169.. ............................................................ 23 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -162- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 19: Wave propagation through intermediate domain. Offshore condition Hs =5.74 ft; Tp =5.53 s; PDir =163 °; Wind speed= 19.6 knots; Wind Dir.= 169.. ............................................. 24 Figure 20: Wave propagation through local domain (Vanderbilt Beach). Offshore condition Hs =5.74 ft; Tp =5.53 s; PDir =163 °; Wind speed= 19.6 kt; Wind Dir. =169 °. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashedline ..................................................................................................... ............................... 24 Figure 21: Wave propagation through local domain (Park Shore). Offshore condition Hs =5.74 ft; Tp =5.53 s; PDir =1630; Wind speed= 19.6 kt; Wind Dir. =169 °. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line.................................................................................................................. ............................... 25 Figure 22: Wave propagation through local domain (Naples Beach). Offshore condition Hs =5.74 ft; Tp =5.53 s; PDir =163 °; Wind speed= 19.6 kt; Wind Dir. =169 °. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line.................................................................................................................. ............................... 25 Figure 23: Instrument location ...................................................................... ............................... 28 Figure 24: Water level calibration simulation - North Domain ..................... ............................... 29 Figure 25: Water level calibration simulation - South Domain ..................... ............................... 30 Figure 26: Waves (right), currents (center) and sediment transport (left) maps associated to a northwest wave condition (top panels) and south wave condition (bottom panel) - Clam Pass.. 31 Figure 27: Waves (right), currents (center) and sediment transport (left) maps associated to a northwest wave condition (top panels) and south wave condition (bottom panel) - Doctors Pass. ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 32 Figure 28: Net sediment transport map - Calm Pass region .......................... ............................... 33 Figure 29: Net sediment transport map - Doctors Pass region ...................... ............................... 34 Figure 30: net sediment transport curve obtained from Delft3D simulation (negative values indicate transport towards the south) ............................................................. ............................... 35 Figure 31: Representative cross -shore profile at UNIBEST .......................... ............................... 37 Figure 32: Numerical grid for Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay. Each blue line crossing the coastline represents a grid division ............................................................................... ............................... 38 Figure 33: Numerical grid for Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay. Each blue line crossing the coastline represents a grid division ............................................................................... ............................... 39 Figure 34: Numerical grid for Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay. Each blue line crossing the coastline representsa grid division ............................................................................... ............................... 40 Figure 35: Beach profiles surveyed by CPE (2006) - Area 1: Vanderbilt Beach and Pelican Bay. ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 42 Figure 36: Beach profiles surveyed by CPE(2006) - Area 2: Park Shore ..... ............................... 43 Figure 37: Beach profiles surveyed by CPE(2006) - Area 3: Naples Beach . ............................... 44 Figure 38: Volumetric calibration for Vanderbilt Beach and Pelican Bay .... ............................... 46 Figure 39: Volumetric calibration for Park Shore ......................................... ............................... 47 Figure 40: Volumetric calibration for Naples Beach ..................................... ............................... 48 Figure 41: Vanderbilt - Alternative M1 after the 3 year simulation .............. ............................... 51 Figure 42: Park Shore - Alternative M1 after the 3 year simulation ............. ............................... 52 Figure 43: Naples - Alternative M1 after the 3 year simulation .................... ............................... 53 Figure 44: Park Shore — Comparison of Alternative M1 (structures) and M2 (no structures) after 3 years of simulation ...................................................................................... ............................... 55 ii COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -163- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 45: Naples — Comparison of Alternative M1 (structures) and M2 (no structures) after 3 yearsof simulation ......................................................................................... ............................... 56 Figure 46: Naples — Comparison of Alternative M1 (structures) and M3 (T- groins) after 3 years ofsimulation .................................................................................................. ............................... 58 Figure 47: Parabolic Bay shape adjustment for the north T -groin proposed by Alternative M3. The red line indicates the equilibrium coastline position .............................. ............................... 59 Figure 48: Parabolic Bay shape adjustment for the south T -groin proposed by Alternative M3. The red line indicates the equilibrium coastline position .............................. ............................... 59 Figure 49: Initial bathymetry without artificial reefs used by Delft3D model for Alternative 4 analysis........................................................................................................... ............................... 61 Figure 50: Initial bathymetry with artificial reefs (between monuments R -50 and R -53) used by Delft3D model for Alternative 4 analysis ...................................................... ............................... 61 Figure 51: Differences between initial bathymetry maps with and without reefs - Alternative 4.62 Figure 52: Beach profile with and without artificial reef .............................. ............................... 62 Figure 53: Impacts (red) and benefits (green) associated to the artificial reefs after 1 year of morphologicalsimulation .............................................................................. ............................... 63 Figure 54: Vanderbilt — Results of Alternative M5 (2013 template) after 10 years of simulation. ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 65 Figure 55: Park Shore — Results of Alternative M5 (2013 template) after 10 years of simulation. ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 66 Figure 56: Naples — Results of Alternative M5 (2013 template) after 10 years of simulation..... 67 Figure 57: Naples — Results of Alternative M6 (2013 template switching bypass location) after 10 years of simulation .................................................................................... ............................... 69 Figure 58: Park Shore — Results of Alternative M7 (2013 template + permeable tapered groins) after10 years of simulation ............................................................................ ............................... 71 Figure 59: Proposed spur at the southern jetty of Doctors Pass .................... ............................... 72 Figure 60: Delft3d results associated to a NW offshore wave condition ( Hs: 10 ft, Tp: 8.1 s, dir: 303.75 °). Figures on top panels illustrate current conditions; figures on the bottom panels show scenarios considering the addition of the proposed structure. Results include wave fields (left), current velocity fields (centre) and sediment transport patterns ( right) ......... ............................... 73 Figure 61: Delft3d results associated to a South offshore wave condition ( Hs: 6 ft, Tp: 5.6 s, dir: 168.75 °). Figures on top panels illustrate current conditions; figures on the bottom panels show scenarios considering the addition of the proposed structure. Results include wave fields (left), current velocity fields (centre) and sediment transport patterns ( right) ......... ............................... 74 Figure 62: Net sediment transport without the spur ....................................... ............................... 75 Figure 63: Net sediment transport after the addition of the spur ................... ............................... 76 Figure 64: Impacts and benefits to the morphology associated to the addition of the spur.......... 76 Figure 65: Analytical solution based on Parabolic Bay shape equation. The red line indicates the equilibrium coastline position ........................................................................ ............................... 77 Figure 66: Vanderbilt — Results of Alternative M9 (2013 template + feeder beach) after 10 years ofsimulation .................................................................................................. ............................... 79 Figure 67: Park Shore — Results of Alternative M10 (2013 template + removal of structures) after 10 years of simulation .................................................................................... ............................... 81 Figure 68: Naples — Results of Alternative M11 (2013 template + switching bypass disposal location + removal of structures) after 10 years of simulation ...................... ............................... 83 iii COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -164- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. COLLIER COUNTY CONCEPTUAL RENOURISHMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS - NUMERICAL MODELING Table of Contents List of Tables Table No. Table 1: NAPLES, FL TIDAL DATUM ......................................................... ............................... 6 Table 2: Project area existing structure summary .......................................... ............................... 12 Table 3: Delft3D -WAVE grids characteristics .............................................. ............................... 19 Table 4: Delft3D -WAVE model setup .......................................................... ............................... 20 Table 5: Delft3D -FLOW grids characteristics ............................................... ............................... 26 Table 6: Delft3D -FLOW model setup ........................................................... ............................... 27 Table 7: UNIBEST grids characteristics ........................................................ ............................... 37 Table 8: UNIBEST model setup .................................................................... ............................... 41 Table 9: List of the shore protection alternatives investigated ...................... ............................... 49 Table 10: Bypass volumes and disposal timing and location ........................ ............................... 64 List of Appendices Appendix No. A Wave / flow computational grids and bathymetries B Seasonal analysis of effects of structures on the coast AW iv COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -165- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. COLLIER COUNTY CONCEPTUAL RENOURISHMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS - NUMERICAL MODELING 1.0 MODELING OBJECTIVES 1.1 Objectives The performance of the beaches of Collier County and the locations of several erosion hot spots are described in a complementary engineering report that included an analysis of post - nourishment shoreline changes, erosion rates and historical aerials (CPE, 2011). Several alternatives were proposed in the report to address the erosion at the hot spots. These alternatives include placing additional fill in areas where fill templates were previously limited by hardbottom, integrating and improving the use of dredge spoils for hot spot mitigation, removing or modifying existing groins, and adding erosion control structures to mitigate acute erosion. This report summarizes the modeling results of a multiphase study to evaluate the effectiveness of existing structures, beach fill design templates, and hot spot management alternatives. The following list provides a summary of alternatives investigated in this modeling study: Alternative 1. 2006 Fill Template (nourishment only). Alternative 2. 2006 Fill Template removing the existing structures at Park Shore and Naples. Alternative 3. 2006 Fill Template with construction of T -head groins at Naples. Alternative 4. 2006 Fill Template with submerged artificial reefs at Park Shore. Alternative 5. 2013 Fill Plan with traditional disposal locations of dredged material from Doctors Pass. Alternative 6. 2013 Fill Plan switching disposal locations of dredged material and fill density at Doctors Pass region. Alternative 7. Fill Plan combined with permeable tapered groins at Park Shore hot spot. Alternative 8. Spur at southern jetty of Doctors Pass. Alternative 9. 2013 Fill Plan combined with additional fill at hot spot - Vanderbilt. Alternative 10.2013 Fill Plan with no structures at Park Shore. Alternative 11. 2013 Fill Plan with disposal adjacent to inlet with no structures at Naples. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -166- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 1.2 Summary of the Project Area's Coastal Environment The study area extends along 13 miles of coastline from Wiggins Pass to near Gordon Pass. Collier County is approximately 115 miles south of the entrance of Tampa Bay and approximately 100 miles west of Miami, Florida. The County is bordered to the west and southwest by the Gulf of Mexico, to the south by Monroe County, to the east by Dade and Broward Counties and to the north by Lee and Hendry Counties (Figure 1). The barrier beaches of Collier County are separated from the mainland by mangroves, salt marsh and small bays. The study area includes three inlets: Wiggins Pass, Clam Pass and Doctors Pass. Inlets interrupt the predominantly southern littoral drift and cause erosion of the adjacent beaches. The majority of shoreline is bordered by nearshore hardbottom. Historical analysis of the erosion rates has shown areas with gaps in the nearshore hardbottom tend to have higher erosion rates than shorelines bordered by continuous hardbottom. The effect of the hardbottom and its gaps on propagation of wave energy, and consequently, on sediment transport will be investigated as part of this modeling study. Collier County has maintained its beaches through the use of structures, beach nourishment, and inlet bypassing. Prior to 1996, groins were commonly used to slow the littoral drift and hold sand. Part of the initial nourishment project in 1996 was the removal of 36 groins from the shoreline. Several groins still remain in the project area and have an influence on the immediately adjacent beaches, forming fillets that change with the direction of wave approach. Since 1996, the County has nourished some portion of the beach every one to four years, placing nearly 2.27 million cubic yards in total. Sand sources have included offshore borrow areas, inlet bypassing, and truck hauls. Storms have regularly impacted the beaches of Collier County and are a primary cause of erosion. A series of storms that occurred prior to 2006 were so severe that the beach profiles were unable to recover. Although the majority of the beaches were renourished in 2006, all of the erosional losses were not addressed due to construction template restrictions imposed for hardbottom avoidance. Since construction, the shoreline has been impacted by several storms, most notably Tropical Storm Fay. Tropical Storm Fay had a significant impact upon shoreline width in 2008, but less impact upon the volume. This indicates that the sand is still within the active beach profile and not all has been lost. 1.2.1 Tides Tides at the project location are mixed tides. Typical observed tides near the Gulf shoreline (see Figure 2) appear in Figure 3. During the majority of the 14 -day spring -neap cycle, there are two (2) high and two (2) low tides each day, with different high tide and low tide elevations. Published tidal datums at the location in Figure 2 appear in Table 1. Differences between the published tidal datums (LABINS, 2003) and from the site observations in Figure 2 are probably due to meteorological effects such as wind stresses. Although the mean tidal range in the Gulf, 2 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -167- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. based on the established tidal datums is approximately 2 feet, the tide range during spring tides can exceed 4 feet, as shown in Figure 3. BAREFOOT BEACH SR 856 O NE R70 WIGGINS PASS TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE DELNOR•WIGGIN PROJECT LANDO STATE PARK N.T S. LOCATIOPGO� AiLANT]C "A.li/1`E/t. C0 OCEAN HENBOLA GORDON PASS LEE RATON m CO. 0 5.:: • 9 l VANDERBILT v L, MIAMI c OC N 700= a w GEXICO GULF MONRO R30 OF w MEXICO 4 EXISTING PIPELINE o CORRIDOR R40 CLAM PASS ® - SR 896 N 680= N 680000 so PARK SHORE a . N 660000 LEGEND: EXISTING PIPELINE CORRIDOR PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR I� EXPANDED TEMPLATE FEMA TEMPLATE ® EXISTING TEMPLATE NEW SEGMENTS L R70 FDEP MONUMENTS NOTES: 1. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, EAST ZONE, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). 2. FILL WIDTHS ARE NOT TO SCALE. DOCTORS PASS SR f f SR 856 NAPLES NE R70 SR 84 GULF OF "A.li/1`E/t. C0 RT ROYAL GORDON PASS 0 400D 900 I 0 5.:: • 9 l GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT Figure 1: Project Location. 3 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -168- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 2: Tide Gage Location. 9 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -169- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 3: Typical Observed Gulf Tides Location: 26.1402 1N, 83.268 1W (See Figure 2). 5 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -170- 0 0 a 0 a O __ LD O N d to -, LO LO LQ O O .... .-. Vl t4 - _ d -- co "-'- Lf C O O-�� --- cc _ O O O N _ O - i � o N 00 Z LO LO O - b Co U? r Lh O LO r LO N LO M LON �- O r O t N M`' , C) Water Level (feet NAVD) o Figure 3: Typical Observed Gulf Tides Location: 26.1402 1N, 83.268 1W (See Figure 2). 5 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -170- 1 able 1: 1NAYLLJ, rL I IVAL DAI UM AAA STATION 8725110 - NAPLES, GULF OF N HIGHEST OBSERVED WATER LEVEL (12/21/1972) MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER (MHHW) MEAN HIGH WATER (MHW) NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM -1988 (NAVD) MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL) MEAN TIDE LEVEL (MTL) NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM (NGVD29) MEAN LOW WATER (MLW) MEAN LOWER LOW WATER (MLLW) LOWEST OBSERVED WATER LEVEL (03/15/1988) 1.2.2 Waves 5.98 2.87 2.61 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. lVloL (a l) 00 4.33 3.69 1.22 0.58 0.97 0.33 2.28 0.64 0.00 1.65 0.00 -0.64 1.61 -0.04 -0.67 1.00 -0.65 -1.28 0.60 -1.04 -1.68 0.00 -1.65 -2.28 -2.48 4.13 -4.77 Wave climate adjacent to the project area are primarily based on the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) WAVEWATCH III (WW3) hindcast at the grid point shown in Figure 4. The hindcast data is associated to the position 26.1402 °N, 83.268 °W at a nominal depth of 180 feet, assumed to be a deep water most of the time. It consists of wave /wind data time series including Hs (significant wave height), Tp (peak wave period), PDir (peak wave direction), wind velocity and wind direction, covering the time period between February 2005 and September 2010 at 3 hour intervals. The directional wave statistics at the WW3 grid point appear in Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7. Based on the NOAA wave hindcast, the prevailing wave directions are from the south- southeast, and the northwest, (Figure 5 and Figure 6). The hindcast suggests nearly half of the waves come from the landward direction. This is due to the prevailing winds approach from the east. The waves coming from the northerly direction bands during average conditions tend to be higher than the waves from the southern direction. Wave conditions associated to western directional bands have longer periods. As a result of the wave approaching direction, the prevailing sediment transport direction along most of Collier County is from north to south except in shadow of Sanibel Island and its shoals. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -171- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. During the fall and winter months, the prevailing waves are from the northerly direction bands. During the late spring and summer months, the prevailing waves are from the southerly direction bands. The highest and longest waves under average conditions occur during the winter months. During the peak of hurricane season stochastic storms can increase the wave height. The specific wave cases used in the modeling study will be discussed later in this report. Figure 4: Wave Hindcast Station. 7 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -172- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 5: Directional distribution of wave period bins at the selected WW3 grid point. Offshore wave rose (26.1402"Y 83 268" W. 190 !1 depth) }'ebman- 2005 to September 2010 ".A TH LIST 1P x.10 4 -6 Figure 6: Directional distribution of wave period bins at the selected WW3 grid point. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -173- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Directonal Wave Statistics - NOAA,'NCEP WW3 2005.2009 H ndcast — ro 4ai sac Asa l 270 90 =a s 240 20 120 ti 40 Figure 7: Maximum significant wave height (Hs) and wave period (Tp) per directional band at the selected WW3 grid point. 1.2.3 Winds Based on the wind data time series provided by NCEP/NOAA hindcast program for the same WW3 grid point and time coverage as the wave information, it can be concluded that the prevailing winds come from the easterly direction bands (Figure 8). The maximum wind speed between February 2005 and September 2010 was approximately 60 knots, occurring on October 24, 2005 during Hurricane Wilma (Figure 9). 6 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -174- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Offshore a ind rose (26.1402'N 83.268'W) Fehniam, 2001 to Scptemhcr 2010 UORFk i y, 5'W ti t Wind Velocity (knotsI J 1t3 -22 14.18 10 -14 6.10 � <s Figure 8: Directional distribution of wind velocity bins at the selected WW3 grid point. Directional Wirth Stat,stu s - NbAAfNCEP WW3 2D05�2009 Hmocast n U7 zzs 7t6 as 1 yi3� 1f7.3 a 1is aws IS" 1$6 Figure 9: Maximum wind velocity per directional band at the selected WW3 grid point. 10 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -175- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 1.2.4 Sediments The existing beach was assumed to have sediments from Borrow Area T1 which were placed during the 2005/2006 renourishment project. The mean grain size of sediments sampled from the borrow area was 0.32 mm (CPE, 2011). The shell content ranges from 1% to 18 %. The silt content of the borrow area sediments was 1.7 %. Based on the Borrow Area T1 sand samples, the coastal sediments are fine grained quartz sand with low silt content. Given the low percentage of silt, the bottom damping of currents and waves occurs primarily through bottom roughness rather than viscous damping. Further information regarding the grain sizes and sediment densities used in the Delft3D model appears later in this report. 1.2.5 Structures The existing structures in the project area are listed on Table 2. These structures include the three small groin -like structures in the vicinity of Seagate Drive (R -45), the terminal groins on the north and south sides of Doctors Pass, the Naples Beach groin field between Doctors Pass and Gordon Pass (R58 -R89). Alongshore offsets presented in Table 2 represent approximate distances in feet measured from monument to centerline of structure. The model's representation of the various structures is discussed later in this report. 11 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -176- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Table 2: Proiect area existine structure summarv. COLLIER COUNTY ANNUAL MONITORING SURVEY NO. , MONUMENT OFFSET* STRUCTURE TYPE ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION 1 R -44 +500 Groin Rock pile (typical) 2 R -45 +430 Groin Rock pile (typical) 3 R -46 -330 Groin Rock pile (typical) DOCTORS PASS JETTIES Armor stone jetty (typical) 4 R -58 +000 Groin Rock pile (typical) 5 R -59 +300 Groin Rock pile (typical) 6 R -60 +265 Outfall Single pipe under rock pile 7 R -62 -250 Groin Rock pile (typical) 8 R -62 +650 Groin &Outfall Rock pile with adjacent double outfall 9 R -63 +535 Groin &Outfall Rock pile with adjacent single outfall 10 R -64 +000 Outfall Single pipe 11 R -65 +000 Outfall Single pipe 12 R -65 +410 Outfall Double pipe 13 R -66 +415 Outfall Single pipe 14 R -67 +400 Outfall Single pipe 15 R -68 +430 Outfall Single pipe 16 R -69 +000 Outfall Single pipe 17 R -69 +350 Groin Pile cluster (PCG -18 -1) 18 R -74 +500 Pier 12th Ave South (City of Naples) 19 R -79 +600 Groin Pile cluster (PCG -21 -1) 20 R -80 +050 Groin Timber (typical) 21 R -80 +375 Groin Timber (typical) 22 R -80 +815 Groin Pile cluster (PCG -21 -2) 23 R -81 +150 Groin Timber (typical) 24 R -81 +465 Groin Timber (short) 25 R -82 +100 Groin Timber (typical) 26 R -82 +580 Groin Pile cluster (PCG -22 -1) 27 R -83 -275 Groin Timber (typical) 28 R -83 +175 Groin Timber (typical) 29 R -83 +500 Groin Timber (typical) 30 R -83 +670 Groin Timber (typical) 31 R -84 -100 Groin Timber (typical) 12 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -177- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 2.0 MODELING STUDY 2.1 Methods Three different models were applied to better investigate the causes of erosion problems at the project areas of Collier County, and to assess the effectiveness of existing structures, beach fill design templates, and hot spot management alternatives. On a first step Delft3D -WAVE model (which uses SWAN model formulations) was used for a detailed wave investigation. Secondly, from coupling with Delft3D -WAVE results, two other numerical models were applied: Delft3D -FLOW and UNIBEST -CL +. Delft3D -FLOW model was chosen to represent flow and sediment transport patterns at Clam Pass, Doctors Pass and their surroundings while UNIBEST -CL+ was used to simulate morphology changes and to test the performance of most of the proposed alternatives. Areas not covered by UNIBEST -CL+ due to its limitations when too close to inlets were also solved with Delft3D model. 2. 1.1 Delft3D -WAVE (SWAN version 40.72AB) Waves approaching a coastline may refract and diffract due to the presence of shoals and channels or obstacles such as islands, headlands, or breakwaters. The effects of refraction are readily accounted for in phase- averaged (i.e., spectral) wave models. These models can also account for the generation, dissipation and wave —wave interactions of the waves in deep and shallow water (e.g., Booij et al., 2004). The effects of diffraction are traditionally computed with phase - resolving models such as mild -slope models or Boussinesq models. A combination of the two types of model capabilities is the third - generation spectral wave model SWAN. SWAN can be applied to simulate the evolution of random, short- crested wind - generated waves in coastal waters, estuaries, tidal inlets and lakes. The waves are described using the two - dimensional wave action density spectrum, even when non - linear phenomena dominate (e.g., in the surf zone). Therefore, the SWAN model can accurately transform offshore wave data into nearshore taking into account processes such as wave generation by wind; wave dissipation by depth- induced breaking, whitecapping and bottom friction; non - linear wave -wave interaction and wave propagation through obstacles. 2.1.2 Delft3D -FLOW (version 3.60.01.7844) Delft3D -FLOW (Deltares, formerly WL I Delft Hydraulics, 2009) is a numerical modeling system which simulates among other two - dimensional and three- dimensional hydrodynamic flow, computation of sediment transport and morphological changes as well as their interactions in time and space. 13 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -178- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. The numerical hydrodynamic modeling system Delft3D -FLOW solves the unsteady shallow water equations in two (depth- averaged) or in three dimensions. The system of equations consists of the horizontal equations of motion, the continuity equation, and the transport equations for conservative constituents. The sediment transport and morphology module supports both bed -load and suspended load transport. Based on the sediment transport estimates at each flow time step, the Delft3D model calculates the subsequent changes to the bathymetric surface. Typical time steps in Delft3D range from 1 second to 60 seconds. Water levels, currents, and bathymetric elevations are then sent to the Delft3D -WAVE model at each wave time step, which is on the order of 0.5 to 3 hours. 2.1.3 UNIBEST-CL+ 7.0 UNIBEST model (Deltares, formerly WL I Delft, 2010) is a coastal engineering tool in coast erosion control and management that can be applied to simulate the nearshore response of an alongshore nearly uniform coast where effects of wave breaking and wave -driven alongshore currents in combination with alongshore directed tidal currents are predominant on the basis of the single line theory. In shoreline models such as UNIBEST, the basic assumption is that only longshore transport is taken into account. That implies that no offshore losses or gains occur. The active area of the beach profile moves perpendicular to the shoreline without changing its shape during the process. The model then balances the sediment transport alongshore and its cross -shore distribution along the representative profile in response to the computed wave distribution, tides, and currents. Various initial and boundary conditions may be introduced as to represent a variety of coastal situations. Along the modeled coastline sediment sources and sinks may be defined at any location, to address inlet sediment gains, subsidence, offshore sediment losses, beach mining, etc. UNIBEST is indicated for modeling the morphological impacts of various coastal engineering measures, such as headlands, permeable and non - permeable groins, coastal revetments and seawalls, breakwaters, harbor moles, artificial sand bypass systems and beach nourishments. The effect of wave shielding (diffraction, directional wave spreading) behind coastal structures can also be incorporated in the model. Wave data can be derived from a variety of sources. Given this study's objectives, UNIBEST-CL+ was selected for its ability to model the shoreline evolution near small scale features such as groins and time efficiency in model setup and production of results. 14 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -179- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 2.2 Model Data Unibest -CL+ model and Delft3D model were loaded with waves, wind and tide data. Offshore wave /wind data were obtained from NCEP/NOAA hindcast database. These data was used as input on Delft3D -WAVE model, which accounts for wave propagation and generation processes in shallow waters. Some simplification on the input data is required to make the modeling process viable. The simplified information used as input to the models is presented below. 2.2.1 Tides for modeling Unibest -CL+ and Delft3D considered a harmonic tide on shoreline and morphology simulations. The simplified tidal cycle has a period equal to 12 hours and oscillates between MHW and MLW, with a tidal range of 2.01 feet. Mean sea level in the model were assumed to be at -0.64 ft NAVD, as indicated in Naples, FL tidal datum (Table 1 and Figure 10). Schematized tidal range - Collier County, FL 0.5 , 0 f E 0 -0.5 z S Z m 11 i I 2' 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Time (hours) Figure 10: tidal oscillation used in Delft3D and Unibest -CL+ simulations. 2.2.2 Waves and winds for modeling For the morphological modeling (Delft3D) and shoreline modeling (UNIBEST -CL +) procedures there is a need of reduce the wave /wind climate into a limited number of representative conditions. The offshore (WW3) wave /wind conditions were divided into 65 "square" bins of offshore wave height and direction. For each bin a representative wave /wind parameters was defined (Figure 11). 15 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -180- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. The selection of the representative wave conditions was performed by: 1) Defining a wave direction window includes all the waves that approach the study area. Based on the shoreline orientation the directional range considered was 157.5 degrees to 360 degrees. Wave conditions from outside this range (0 degree to 157.5 degrees) were assumed to propagate toward offshore areas, being unimportant to the study are morphodynamics; 2) Creating directional (PDir) and wave height (Hs) bins with resolution of 22.5 degrees and 2 feet, respectively. Offshore wave conditions with Hs lower than 1 feet were considered calm conditions, having limited importance to coastal processes and were excluded from analysis; 3) Defining a representative wave /wind condition associated to each bin, where the representative Hs and Pdir are the central points of the bins, the representative Tp is the average peak period and the representative wind is the resultant wind vector associated with the wave /wind conditions found in the class. 4) Defining the frequency of occurrence associated to each class based on the number of offshore wave conditions found in each class. Classes with frequency of occurrence equal to zero were excluded. Representative Wave Conditions - Collier County, FL 25 Wave records (2005 -2010 time series) 23 Dir x Hs Classes Representative Wave Conditions 21 19 17 _ 15 N = 13 CD i � 11 O 9 7 5 3 1 157.5 180 202.5 225 247.5 270 292.5 315 337.5 360 Offshore wave direction (0) Figure 11: Offshore representative wave conditions for Collier County, FL. 16 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -181- i « i j I ` '� � � � • � y s ,�t . � ;« `!. ♦ � r � �I � .. f ��`��tt„� ?�i�>II`t , �!.. i '.tF�.. ��,}je%. Figure 11: Offshore representative wave conditions for Collier County, FL. 16 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -181- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. The wave and wind information presented in this section were used as input to Delft3D -WAVE model (SWAN formulation), which accounts for wave propagation and wind wave generation processes. Wind data was also used as input in Delft3D, which computes wind induced currents. 2.2.3 Bathymetry data for modeling The primary sources of topographic and bathymetric data sources for this model study were: • Surveys of Doctors Pass (December 2006) and Clam Pass (2006) by Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. (CPE). • The July 2009 surveys of the internal bays. • The June 2006 beach profile surveys of Collier County (to a depth of -11.3 feet NAVD) by CPE. • The 2004 Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) survey by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Joint Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Technical Center of Expertise (JALBTCX). • Combined surveys from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Geophysical Data System (GEODAS). • Digital Elevation Models from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). • NOAA Nautical Charts (number: 11429 and 11426). Conversions between MLLW and NAVD were based on the tidal datums in Table 1. A ratio of 1200.0 in to 3937.0 U.S. feet was utilized to convert between feet and meters. 17 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -182- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 2.3 Model configuration, parameter selection, and calibration 2.3.1 Delft3D -WAVE Five computational grids were created to perform the computation of wave propagation processes from deep waters (WW3 information), through shallow waters, to Collier County shore (Figure 3): 1. A regional wave grid designed to examine regional wave transformation processes. 2. An intermediate wave grid designed to examine detailed shallow water wave propagation processes. The intermediate grid was nested within the regional wave grid. 3. Three local wave grids designed to examine detailed wave processes near the shoreline. The local grids were nested within the intermediate wave grid. Local wave grids provided the wave information required by Delft3D -FLOW and Unibest -CL +. • North wave domain - between R -18 and R -62 (Vanderbilt Beach, Clam Pass, Pelican Bay, Park Shore, Doctors Pass and Naples). • South wave domain - between R -52 and R -88 (Park Shore, Doctors Pass and Naples) • Doctors Pass wave domain - between R -51 and R -73. All five grids are constructed in Cartesian coordinates based on the Florida State Plane Coordinate System, East Zone, North American Datum of 1983 (FLW- NAD83). Grid characteristics are summarized in Table 3. The model's developers (Deltares) have established guidelines for smoothing and orthogonality that were used in this model study. The smoothing represents the change in cell size between two rows of grid cells. A smoothing value of 1.1 indicates that the cell size between two rows of grid cells increases by 10 %. The maximum smoothing value recommended by the model's developer is 1.2. The orthogonality is equivalent to the angle between the longshore and cross -shore grid lines. The angles between the longshore and cross -shore grid lines should be at least 87.7 degrees within the area of interest. All 5 grids follow the Deltares guidelines for smoothing and orthogonality. IN COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -183- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 12: Regional wave grid (white), intermediate wave grid (red) and local wave grids (yellow). Table 3: Delft3D -WAVE grids characteristics. Domain Cross shore Direction Min. Max. Spacing Spacing ft (ft) # cells Alongshore Direction Min Max spacing spacing (ft) (ft) # cells Regional 7713 8953 61 10033 10827 121 Intermediate 899 2762 93 860 2585 191 Local North 39 203 127 118 243 233 Local South 38 558 104 59 266 324 Doctors Pass 1 26 496 122 1 30 200 292 19 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -184- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Computational wave grids and the bathymetric contours associated appear in Appendix A. The coastal structures in the areas covered by the local domain were included in the simulation as obstacles to the wave propagation. Delft3D -WAVE model coefficients and definitions are presented in Table 4. Since SWAN is a spectral wave model, the modeler is able to set up the resolution of the spectral bins (both in frequency and directional spaces). The same frequency space was used within the 5 wave computational domains: 24 frequency classes from 0.05 Hz to 1 Hz. Directional space was considered circular (i.e. from 0° to 360 °). The resolution of the directional space was varied though the different wave domains: regional wave domain computations considered 45 directional bins (classes with 8 °); wave propagation on intermediate wave domain were conducted considering 90 directional classes (spectral resolution of 4 °); finally, the directional spectrum of local wave domains were divided into 180 classes, resulting in 2° bins. 121MV 9: 1/el1t.3V -VVAVE MOUCI Spectrum Shape JONSWAP Peak Enh. Fact. 3.3 Forces Radiation Stress Depth induced Breaking (B &J model); Alpha /Gamma 1 0.73 Bottom Friction; Type /Coefficient JONSWAP 0.067 Wind grown Activated Quadruplets Activated Whitecapping Komen et al. Refraction Activated 11 Frequency shift I Activated I Example results of Delft3D -WAVE are presented in Figure 13 to Figure 22. From regional domain results it can be observed the substantial dissipation of wave energy occurs while the offshore wave conditions propagate thought the shallow continental shelf. On intermediate domain results it can be observed the influence of the bathymetry and coastline contour in the wave propagation (e.g. the shadowing effect of Sanibel Island to Collier County during NW wave conditions). Finally, from local domains it is noticed the large amount of energy dissipated from deeper to shallower waters (i.e. bottom friction). Further, it can be viewed that bathymetric features acting in different spatial scales, from regional contours to gaps in the reefs, influence the wave height near the shore, where sediment transport and morphological processes play the role. 20 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -185- 1200000 111.1 { / C ay tiQOQdQ L O Z �tm.+5l �Z N J LL 4000DD 200000 0 - 200000 0 Hs 1066 ft Tp: 7 85 s Dtrp 389.38° Wind Speed 21 7 kt Wind Dir 330 25° 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 11 10 8 Figure 13: Wave propagation through regional domain. Offshore condition Hs =10.66 ft; Tp =7.85 s; PDir =309 °; Wind speed= 21.7 knots; Wind Dir =330 °. Figure 14: Wave propagation through intermediate domain. Offshore condition Hs =10.66 ft; Tp =7.85 s; PDir =309 °; Wind speed= 21.7 knots; Wind Dir =330 °. 21 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -186- Hs: 10.66 ft Tp: 7.85 s Dirp: 309 38° Wind Speed: 21 7 kt Wind Dir 330.25` 800000 750000 7 700D00 "`..•,' izz 'N." 0 650000 i 4 800000 .. 550040 - 12 e•; q 's $00000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 0 FL -Esst NAD63 - EoM-g ft Figure 14: Wave propagation through intermediate domain. Offshore condition Hs =10.66 ft; Tp =7.85 s; PDir =309 °; Wind speed= 21.7 knots; Wind Dir =330 °. 21 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -186- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 15: Wave propagation through local domain (Vanderbilt Beach). Offshore condition Hs =10.66 ft; Tp =7.85 s; PDir =3090; Wind speed= 21.7 kt; Wind Dir. =330 °. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. Figure 16: Wave propagation through local domain (Park Shore). Offshore condition Hs =10.66 ft; Tp =7.85 s; PDir =309 °; Wind speed= 21.7 kt; Wind Dir. =330 °. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. 22 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -187- ry iU�R4 NF3 Tt%: &ov fal f51R x&76 Vvaw rw„ +are �+D enk t�nn l� .., .rte♦ sr,m T ,.. ♦ .. Rkra ^ter. gyp^ . r r ♦ 3 ,j 2 F'l,. -£aN NA(7H';Y • t?a.+nva (a, I+c £Ra Figure 15: Wave propagation through local domain (Vanderbilt Beach). Offshore condition Hs =10.66 ft; Tp =7.85 s; PDir =3090; Wind speed= 21.7 kt; Wind Dir. =330 °. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. Figure 16: Wave propagation through local domain (Park Shore). Offshore condition Hs =10.66 ft; Tp =7.85 s; PDir =309 °; Wind speed= 21.7 kt; Wind Dir. =330 °. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. 22 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -187- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. `dit,t, p' sW ,7t0.`3M 39 WnM ik.f�ar�9 Vb t—h t Y � t l , m� ,. tx9EsxMx 'v qw+u �x .`v x f Lt.. kA[tS3 i aaJmy iRi lie tfe) Figure 17: Wave propagation through local domain (Naples Beach). Offshore condition Hs =10.66 ft; Tp =7.85 s; PDir =309 °; Wind speed= 21.7 kt; Wind Dir. =330 °. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. 1200000 1000000 800000 z a 600000 z m cv 400000 200000 0 •200000 0 Hs 5 74 ft Tp 5 53 s Dirp. 163.13° Wind Speed: 19.59 kt Wind Dir: 169.23° 11 10 Figure 18: Wave propagation through regional domain. Offshore condition Hs =5.74 ft; Tp =5.53 s; PDir =163 °; Wind speed= 19.6 knots; Wind Dir =169 °. 23 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -188- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 19: Wave propagation through intermediate domain. Offshore condition Hs =5.74 ft; Tp =5.53 s; PDir =163 °; Wind speed= 19.6 knots; Wind Dir: 169 °. Hs 5 74 tt Tp 5.53 s 171rp 163 13" Wind Speed 19 59 kt Wind Dir 169.23' tii'Ir.sr +tx�xnt lwnrg tlw imaan 11 11 • I p y +i 800000 Il C, 10 75DCIU0 t f , 1 . v 10 r i fix„ r: 8 f ) t + ! ! < r L ` � � 1 ' • N gq�ff 850000 ✓�'9i3�. y 1 1 i 1 1! r'Y� l l �t 7 000000 1 ! ! 1 r 550aso 500000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 900000 U FL . -East NND83 - Easting (it) Figure 19: Wave propagation through intermediate domain. Offshore condition Hs =5.74 ft; Tp =5.53 s; PDir =163 °; Wind speed= 19.6 knots; Wind Dir: 169 °. Figure 20: Wave propagation through local domain (Vanderbilt Beach). Offshore condition Hs =5.74 ft; Tp =5.53 s; PDir =163 °; Wind speed= 19.6 kt; Wind Dir =169°. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. 24 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -189- -N 5?4 M, r nr, is (AR 16913 tii'Ir.sr +tx�xnt lwnrg tlw imaan 11 1 f 1 ! a 10 f ) t + ! ! < r L l l �t 7 f [ t e r t K i •�� 0 -MM) 'WXY11 . a . , > ... Figure 20: Wave propagation through local domain (Vanderbilt Beach). Offshore condition Hs =5.74 ft; Tp =5.53 s; PDir =163 °; Wind speed= 19.6 kt; Wind Dir =169°. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. 24 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -189- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 21: Wave propagation through local domain (Park Shore). Offshore condition Hs =5.74 ft; Tp =5.53 s; PDir =163 °; Wind speed= 19.6 kt; Wind Dir. =169 °. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. er�.r- X11 r�za= rrraxxr� t d ! � t - � � 'A rx'a24dX7 -r t NMAJ,t L.A,ripl, 10 k% (Ml Figure 22: Wave propagation through local domain (Naples Beach). Offshore condition Hs =5.74 ft; Tp =5.53 s; PDir =163 °; Wind speed= 19.6 kt; Wind Dir =169 °. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. 25 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -190- f AF ' t'i. I nwl NAI)lb'a- C:»uenr� ='NN Figure 21: Wave propagation through local domain (Park Shore). Offshore condition Hs =5.74 ft; Tp =5.53 s; PDir =163 °; Wind speed= 19.6 kt; Wind Dir. =169 °. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. er�.r- X11 r�za= rrraxxr� t d ! � t - � � 'A rx'a24dX7 -r t NMAJ,t L.A,ripl, 10 k% (Ml Figure 22: Wave propagation through local domain (Naples Beach). Offshore condition Hs =5.74 ft; Tp =5.53 s; PDir =163 °; Wind speed= 19.6 kt; Wind Dir =169 °. Dashed line in left panel represents -12 ft NAVD contour; right panel shows wave height distribution along the dashed line. 25 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -190- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 2.3.2 Delft3D -FLOW Hydrodynamic, sediment transport and morphology computations were conducted using Delft3D model. Three computational grids were created to represent the study area. The north flow domain extends approximately 7.75 miles in alongshore direction, from monument R -19 to R -61, including Vanderbilt Beach, Pelican Bay, Clam Pass, Park shore and Doctors Pass. The cross shore extension is approximately 2 miles, through depths of approximately 22 ft NAVD. South flow domain extends approx. 5.7 miles along the shore, covering the area between monuments R -54 and R -87 (including Doctors Pass and Naples Beach). The cross shore extension of south flow domain is similar to the north flow domain, approximately 2 miles. Doctors Pass flow domain covers a smaller area in relation to north and south domain, but with higher resolution. The alongshore extension of this computation grid is approx. 3.2 ft (between monuments R -53 to R -71). As the other two flow grids, the cross shore dimension of Doctors Pass flow domain is about 2 miles. The grids are constructed in Cartesian coordinates based on the Florida State Plane Coordinate System, East Zone, North American Datum of 1983 (FLW- NAD83). All the three grids attend the specifications of smoothness and orthogonality suggested by Delft3D model developers (Deltares). The resolution and the number of cell of the flow grids described above are presented in Table 5. Computational flow grids and the bathymetric contours associated appear in Appendix A. Table 5: Delft3D -FLOW grids characteristics. The following structures were included in the Delft3D -FLOW model as "thin- dams ", or features along a grid line that break or block flow: • The terminal groins on the north and south sides of Doctors Pass; • Park Shore and Naples groins; • Naples Beach pipe outfalls; • Naples Beach pier; Delft3D -FLOW model parameters and definitions are presented in Table 6. The simulations were performed in 2DH mode (depth- averaged). 26 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -191- Cross shore Direction " Alongshore Direction Min. Max. Min Max Domain Spacing Spacing spacing spacing (ft) (ft) # cells (ft) (ft) # cells' North 24 324 126 36 362 497 South 25 351 126 40 671 420 Doctors Pass 17 325 154 23 177 372 The following structures were included in the Delft3D -FLOW model as "thin- dams ", or features along a grid line that break or block flow: • The terminal groins on the north and south sides of Doctors Pass; • Park Shore and Naples groins; • Naples Beach pipe outfalls; • Naples Beach pier; Delft3D -FLOW model parameters and definitions are presented in Table 6. The simulations were performed in 2DH mode (depth- averaged). 26 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -191- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Table 6: Delft3D -FLOW model setup. Delft3D -FLOW Physical Parameters Hydrodynamic Constants Gravity 9.81 m1s2 Water Density 1025 kg/m3 Air Density 1 kg/m3 Bottom Roughness Formula Chezy Uniform Value U= 65;V =65 Stress Formulation Due to Wave Forces Fredsoe Viscosity/Diffusivity Horizontal Eddy Viscosity 1 m2 /s Horizontal Eddy Diffusivity 10 m2 /s Sediment Reference Density fror Hindered Settling 1600 kg/m3 Specific Density 2650 kg/& Dry Bed Density 1600 kg/m3 Median Sediment Diameter (D50) 0.25 mm Initial sediment layer thickness at bed mapped Morphology Equilibrium Sand Concentration Profile at Inflow Boundaries ON Spin -up Interval Before Morphological Changes 710 min Minimum Depth for Sediment Calculation 0.1 in Sediment Transport Parameters Default Factor for Erosion of Adjacent Dry Cells 0.5 Current- related reference concentration factor 1 Current - related transport vector magnitude factor 1 Wave - related suspended transport factor 1 Wave - related bed -load transport factor 1 Tide levels obtained at the NOAA Tide Gage 8725110 on the Naples Pier (Figure 2: Tide Gage Location. Figure 2) were used as input on Delft3D -FLOW model. The model results were compared with measurements at several tide gages — namely: Harbour Drive, Gulfside Clam Pass, Gulfside Doctors Pass, South Seagate presented on Figure 23. Measurements were performed by PBS &J (Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis, 2009). An 8 days period between August 15th, 2009 and August 23rd, 2009 was used for the flow verification simulations. The verification of water levels was performed both for north and south (Figures 24 and 25) flow domains. 27 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -192- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 23: Instrument location. Initial sediment layer thickness was mapped in order to account for the presence of hardbottom in the simulations. The hardbottom has been mapped annually using side scan survey techniques since 2003. The results of dives confirm the line established by side scan survey results. The sediment layer thickness was defined to be zero in the areas where the bed composition was identified as hardbottom. It means that hardbottom areas cannot be eroded or behave as a source of sediment to the littoral drift during the simulation. In the rest of the domain it was specified a sand layer with 16 ft of thickness. Delft3D -FLOW is able to couple with Delft3D -WAVE to compute wave induced currents, sediment transport and bed changes. Additionally, the hydrodynamic model can provide water level, currents and bed level information to be used in wave model computations. The 65 representative wave conditions were simulated using Delft3D suite in coupling mode (computing waves, hydrodynamics, sediment transport and bed level changes). Delft3D -FLOW was also forced by the schematized tides and winds described previously. Schematic results of waves, currents and sediment transport associated to a northwest and a south wave conditions are presented in Figure 26 and Figure 27. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -193- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. d Q N M N 80 d O O N N co CD O 5 Q N N Q O N Q (p 0 Y3 CD a) 0 Q N C> O rn Q d N a � in O rn E d O Q € t N Q N O N j;: 4981 O Figure 24: Water level calibration simulation - North Domain. 29 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -194- 0 0 d N 0 Q Q J coO O N M COQ I / N N O O O i � O CD 0 O CD N N co O O co i O � e "© N L Q N i uyi ^^� OD �Or rr V 03 O Q N ° N O N O o ' N ,ccam O to O 3 E O 5 l Q 0 > O Q 1 N Q1 r- V' N O N QS d L �� '- CU RS m o d OJ Q � N t rn t6 Z o rL 's.. 0 L rn O O CU :. .— -Q i / Q (i3 M y d O Q N R co O O 0 0 N leek o N W g i7� O 03 N coQ 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. d Q N M N 80 d O O N N co CD O 5 Q N N Q O N Q (p 0 Y3 CD a) 0 Q N C> O rn Q d N a � in O rn E d O Q € t N Q N O N j;: 4981 O Figure 24: Water level calibration simulation - North Domain. 29 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -194- 0 d N Q N J coO O COQ / O N O O i � b CD 0 CD O 0 N O co i O � e "© N L Q i uyi ^^� OD �Or rr V {' O Q N ° to O co O to O 3 E O f O 1 N F V' N O N e� 1881 o 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. d Q N M N 80 d O O N N co CD O 5 Q N N Q O N Q (p 0 Y3 CD a) 0 Q N C> O rn Q d N a � in O rn E d O Q € t N Q N O N j;: 4981 O Figure 24: Water level calibration simulation - North Domain. 29 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -194- 0 Q N N O O O � N N O 0 O i N GD d dl O LO {' N N N ° co O co O N F 0 N m d OJ Q � t O rn O CD N r y d R co 0 N leek o 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. d Q N M N 80 d O O N N co CD O 5 Q N N Q O N Q (p 0 Y3 CD a) 0 Q N C> O rn Q d N a � in O rn E d O Q € t N Q N O N j;: 4981 O Figure 24: Water level calibration simulation - North Domain. 29 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -194- fl 00 C4 'o CD C' O Ln C14 0 U) C) 7jU a) a) M 0) M C) M W 0 CF) (U) la 0 0 O 0 O 04 E C) 0 IT 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. O O co O 0) " 0 Z! IN ;>1 Q 00 O O > co O O 0 C14 rn CD O O O o M 1z ev 0 O C14 U7 A co IM O O C3 O Qi C) O O IN 4I.E O C> C14 0 r4 LO t.- 0 0 C) 6i Ui 7d) CD 0 0) 00 7� 0 to w CY) tL 0 0 CL) ri D C C4 t- z: co O O 0 0 0 fl 00 C4 'o CD C' O Ln C14 0 U) C) 7jU a) a) M 0) M C) M W 0 CF) (U) la 0 0 O 0 O 04 E C) 0 IT 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 25: Water level calibration simulation - South Domain. SM 30 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -195- O O co 0) " 0 Z! IN ;>1 Q 00 O O > O O 0 C14 CD O O O M 1z co O 0 O C14 U7 A co IM O O O C) O IN 4I.E C> C14 0 r4 Figure 25: Water level calibration simulation - South Domain. SM 30 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -195- �) -961- D2Ed IaPed I 2s 9-1 Z; so /! «e,_ LL W E)l I z L OZ/O L /t, \� W *co_ coavN ma-ij .74 ............ 3 � \| 90 ) /\ W _ -N - CRC" MB,ld \ \ \ \ Z E w w z CD z w .6 0 Z z z IL 1� e �o E� 3� 8a �a �z 2 -L6T- 99ed I@Ped s g (ul fiu14UON' EBOVN IsC3-lj Ui - 0 0 y krix _ m x Yo X? E� � g5 w m� e �+ x _ o s (9)Bu1WON CQCVN Ise3''Ij a o. 8 0 $ o O 0 a 0 �LL S NO BIL41JON - COMM 1-3-lj 3 Z `01. oo "' NO BIL41JON - COMM 1-3-lj *V" � � Wall Z �OZ /O � /1l (W Bw WON - CQGVN 1-3-IA S 8 m � 0 (4) BW40ON - COQVN Ise3'lj R S w S� W 4 tgi g cq M U Z Z W W Z U Z W 06 0 Z Z Z Q J a J H 0 U 3 `01. o R { ) ! 1 � ro } S O W) B4x(yON - £BOM4I g lj *V" � � Wall Z �OZ /O � /1l (W Bw WON - CQGVN 1-3-IA S 8 m � 0 (4) BW40ON - COQVN Ise3'lj R S w S� W 4 tgi g cq M U Z Z W W Z U Z W 06 0 Z Z Z Q J a J H 0 U 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. The simulation of the 65 wave conditions, computing hydrodynamics and sediment transport considering the frequency of occurrence of each condition, allowed the assessment of the net sediment transport map over the time period simulated. Net sediment transport maps for Clam Pass and Doctors Pass regions are presented in Figure 28 and Figure 29. Additionally, net sediment transport maps were integrated along the grid profiles (cross shore oriented) in order to obtain the net sediment transport curve for the whole study area (Figure 30). 687600 687150 4 L 68670( 0 Z re) co O z 68625( m w J U. 68580( Net Sediment Transport (c.y /ft/yr) 386400 Figure 28: Net sediment transport map - Calm Pass region. 33 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -198- 180 160 140 120 100 W •i 40 20 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 29: Net sediment transport map - Doctors Pass region. 9 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -199- t 40 670000 ,o , + ' ; , , 30 © r i l♦♦ x a z 669500 J U- { r t 20 � i 669000 0 r, t: 668500 o i 0. E ' 4'.i a..., e � .s C � \.� N � { � 1 .. '. �� � :emu �. A s,..,..: a .�M r _ =.. W �� �. .:...iF" �' # ,�, ✓.I , � f � }� ... � 0 387000 387500 388000 388500 389000 'x$9500 FL -East NAD83 - Easting (ft) Figure 29: Net sediment transport map - Doctors Pass region. 9 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -199- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 30: Net sediment transport curve obtained from Delft3D simulation 2005 -2010 (negative values indicate transport towards the south). 35 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -200- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. In Figure 26 and Figure 27 it is possible to observe longshore currents in the surf zone induced by waves approaching the coast obliquely. Waves (orbital motion) and currents carry sediments along the shore. When the sediment transport magnitude increases along the transport direction, erosion processes usually can be observed. Likewise, deposition is observed when sediment transport magnitude slows down and approaches zero, and then the material that falls out and accumulates in the quieter waters. Based on transport patterns showed on Figure 28 it is expected that erosion occurs in both sides of Clam Pass, with sediment transport toward the inlet and sedimentation inside the pass. Further to the south the figure indicates an acceleration in the transport rates; according to the numerical model results which indicates a tendency towards erosion in this area. In Figure 29 the effects of Doctors Pass jetties on the net sediment transport are shown by the vectors. It is noticed that the magnitude of the alongshore sediment transport breaks near the north jetty. Deposition is expected on the main channel of the inlet. South of Doctors Pass there is an intensification of the transport. Accordingly, model results indicate erosion southward from Doctors Pass, being consistent with the morphological behavior observed in this area. From the net sediment transport curve (Figure 30) it can be concluded that the model indicates the existence of a nodal point in Vanderbilt Beach (near monument R -33). This sediment transport is for the 2005 -2010 period, when the 2005 tropical storms had a strong influence. Effects of Clam Pass and Doctors Pass can be noticed in the net sediment transport, with a small effect at the smaller inlet. Additionally there is a strong variation of the net transport magnitude along the shore, that may be related to alongshore variations in the wave energy in direction induced by bathymetric features such as the hardbottom. 36 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -201- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 2.3.3 UNIBEST -CL+ 7.0 The total project domain was subdivided into 3 different areas being Area 1 — Vanderbilt Beach and Pelican Bay (from monument R -19 to R -40); Area 2 —Park Shore (from R -43 to R -57); and Area 3 - Naples (from R -59 to R -84). Three numerical alongshore grids were created to perform the computation of shoreline changes (Figure 32: Numerical grid for Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay. Each blue line crossing the shoreline represents a grid division in Figure 32, Figure 33 and Figure 34). Along the grid, several cross - shore elevation profiles were defined. Wave information enters at the seaward limit in order to compute the wave /current and sediment transport distribution across the entire profile (landward of the endpoint). An example of such profile can be visualized in Figure 31. Grids specifications are given on Table 7. Table 7: UNIBEST grids characteristics. #1: Vanderbilt 41 107 6.5 16.5 (R -19 to R -41) #2: Park Shore 32 111 6.5 16.5 (R -43 to R -57) #3: Naples 30 136 6.5 16.5 (R -59 to R -84) Figure 31: Representative cross -shore profile at UNIBEST. 37 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -202- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 32: Numerical grid for Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay. Each blue line crossing the coastline represents a grid division. is COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -203- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 33: Numerical grid for Vanderbilt and Pelican Bay. Each blue line crossing the coastline represents a grid division. 39 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -204- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. l+'igure 34: Numerical grid for Vanderbilt and rellcan Bay. Lacti blue line crossing the coastline represents a grid division. M COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -205- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Calibration of UNIBEST-CL+ 7.0 model for Collier County was performed based on the observed volumetric changes from June 2006 to July 2009. The morphology's calibration goal was to reproduce the trends observed in terms of erosion and deposition patterns during this time - period. For that purpose, the 65 representative wave cases were propagated on Delft3D -WAVE model from deep waters through shallow waters and their frequencies of occurrence were associated to the analyzed time period (June 2006 to July 2009). The cross -shore elevation profiles used on the three UNIBEST domains were measured on June 2006 beach profile surveys of Collier County, performed by CPE (Figure 35, Figure 36 and Figure 37). From the same data, the initial coastline position was obtained based on the 2006 MHW position. The existing beach was assumed to have sediments from Borrow Area T1 which were placed during the 2005/2006 renourishment project. The mean and median grain size of sediments sampled from the borrow area was 0.32 mm and 0.285 mm, respectively (CPE, 2011). Important parameters such as D90, sediment fall velocity, sediment density and porosity were estimated based on the literature (van Rijn, 1993; Engelund & Hansen, 1972). Other relevant input and calibration parameters are presented on Table 8. Structures included in the models are the same as for Delft3D -WAVE and Delft3D -FLOW models, described on as well as the two proposed T- groins just south of Lowdermilk Park (R62 -R64), to be discussed on Alternative 3. Table R- iTNiRFRT model setnn_ Parameters Selected Value Breaking Parameter (Hb /db) 0.73 Breaking Parameter 1.0 Bottom Friction Coef. for Waves (Optional): 0.05 Active height 4.5 Coastline angle (offshore directed — nautical convention) 256 -270 Water level MHW -MLW schematized tide Water & current interaction formulae Linear interaction (original UB formula) Sediment transport formulae Bijker (1967,197 1) D50 0.285 D90 0.59 Sediment fall velocity 0.04 m/s Sediment porosity 0.4 Sediment density 2650 kg/ml Water density 1025 kg/ml Sources 1 Bypass d volumes from inlet management plan Boundary condition I Y constant (fixed) with free transport 41 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -206- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 35: Beach profiles surveyed by CPE (2006) - Area 1: Vanderbilt Beach and Pelican Bay. 42 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -207- Vanderbilt - 2006 Measured Profiles R -019 [ft NAVD] R -020 i a - R -021, 0 R -022 n R -023 t- Z. R -024 R -025 � A � R -026 R -027 R -028 8-029 �5.. -10 R -031 —12 R- 032'4A� R -033 -14 R -034 R -035 -16 R -036 *` R -037 -18 R -038 " R-039 a ,_' -20 R-040 R -041 —22 R -042A, ; 382000 384000 386000 388000 390000 FL -East NAD83 - Easting (ft) Figure 35: Beach profiles surveyed by CPE (2006) - Area 1: Vanderbilt Beach and Pelican Bay. 42 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -207- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 36: Beach profiles surveyed by CPE (2006) - Area 2: Park Shore. 43 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -208- Park Shore - 2006 Measured Profiles [ft NAVD] R -042 R -043 R -044 -2 IA R -045 R -046 », w, R -047 R -048 R -049 - 0 4 R -050 'T t - -12 R -05t -14 R -052 16 R -053 -18 R -054 R -055 -20 ZT1w _ ..: i •`kf R -056 g y ' -22 R -057 385000 390000 FL -East NAD88 - Easting (ft) Figure 36: Beach profiles surveyed by CPE (2006) - Area 2: Park Shore. 43 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -208- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 37: Beach profiles surveyed by CPE (2006) - Area 3: Naples Beach. 44 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -209- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Another important observation is that along with beach fill operations, dredging and bypassing has taken place at Wiggins Pass, Clam Pass and Doctors Pass due to periodic inlet maintenance activities. During the analyzed time period, approximately 48,400 cubic yards of sand were dredged from Wiggins Pass and placed downdrift in Delnor- Wiggins State Park between monuments R -18 and R -19.5 approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sand were dredged from Clam Pass between January and April 2007. The material was placed downdrift at Park Shore, between monuments R -42 and R -43.5 (CPE, 2008). At Doctors Pass, 32,551 cubic yards were removed and placed near Lowdermilk Park between monuments R -60 to R -62 (CPE, 2009). In order to account for artificial bypass during the simulated period, sediment sources were defined at the specific locations. According to UNIBEST user manual, along the modeled coastline sediment sources and sinks may be defined at any location, to address river sediment accretion, subsidence, offshore sediment losses, bypassing of sand, beach mining, etc. Sinks were also used on the model in between the monuments R -26 to R -29, located at Area 1. After a number of model runs and sensitivity analysis, the large erosion rate in the vicinity of R -27, one of the major hot spots, was not being accurately represented. The sink was used to address inlet effects not fully addressed in the model. In addition, there is a gap in the hardbottom located offshore of R -27 in combination with hardbottom veering closer to shore just south of this point which aids in sediment loss through the gap offshore. Model limitations could be related to alongshore gradients not captured by the model, limitations on model formulations (waves /transport) or offshore loss of sediment beyond the depth of closure through the mentioned gap. Then, to artificially include erosion rates at the mentioned area, sediment sinks with total volume of — 4,900 c.y. /yr were used. Calibration results are presented on Figure 38 to Figure 40. UNIBEST model setup for Collier County is considered good for representing overall patterns of erosion/deposition observed in the region. Changes were calculated between the dunes (upland) and the approximate depth of closure. The depth of closure is defined as the seaward limit of the active beach profile and it is assumed that sand transport beyond this depth is negligible. A depth of closure of -11.3 ft NAVD was used to determine volumetric changes for each monitoring area (CPE, 2003). The landward and seaward limits were fixed to define a consistent region for all volumetric calculations. The variation in hardbottom characteristics along and cross -shore is difficult to model and calibrate, and capturing the inflection points is a significant accomplishment. The calibration of magnitudes was not as close, except at the north end of each reach, where hot spots and structures prevail. 45 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -210- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 38: Volumetric calibration for Vanderbilt Beach and Pelican Bay. 46 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -211- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 39: Volumetric calibration for Park Shore. 47 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -212- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 40: Volumetric calibration for Naples Beach. 48 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -213- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 3.0 NUMERICAL MODELING OF SHORE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES On Table 9 it is provided a summary of alternatives investigated in this modeling study: Fable 9: List of the snore protection alternatives Ml 12006 Fill Template (nourishment only) M2 2006 Fill Template removing the existing structures M3 2006 Fill Template with conversion of existing structures to T- groins at Naples Beach M4 2006 Fill Template with the addition of submerged artificial reefs at Park Shore M5 2013 Fill Plan with traditional disposal locations of dredged material from Doctors Pass M6 2013 Fill Plan switching disposal locations of dredged material and fill density at Doctors Pass region M7 2013 Fill Plan combined with penneable tapered groins at Park Shore hot spot. M8 Addition of Spur at southemjetty of Doctors Pass M9 Similar to Alternative M5, but adding a feeder beach/additional fill (Vanderbilt) M10 Similar to Alternative M5, but removing the existing structures Park Shore) M11 Similar to Alternative M6, but removing the existing structures (Naples Beach) The simulations were performed using the same model setup /parameters used in calibration. The performance of each alternative was assessed by: • UNIBEST-CL+ simulations (3 years simulation for alternatives M1, M2, M3 and M10 years simulation for alternatives M5, M6, M7, M9, M 10 and M 11); • Delft3D simulations (1 year simulation for alternatives M4 and M8); • Analytical model analysis - parabolic shape (alternatives M3 and M8). 3.1 Results UNIBEST model was calibrated by comparing measured and simulated volume changes. The reason why it was chosen to work with volumes rather than directly with the shoreline is that longshore line model is not able to account for changes in profile shape along the simulation (e.g. profile adjustments during storm wave conditions), and volume changes integrated along the beach profile are not influenced by such processes. Differently from profile volume changes, the beach width can vary greatly in response to profile adjustments (cross shore sediment transport, from the shallow part of the profile to the offshore sand bar). Each UNIBEST modeling run starts considering a specific initial shoreline position, either the 2006 post - construction or 2013 -14 design shoreline, and is run for the equivalent of 1, 3, 5 or 10 years. Each of the alternatives was developed to address the specific issues in the project area. UNIBEST results associated with each of the alternatives were analyzed in terms of beach width COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -214- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. remaining. The design standard, which generally measures the amount of sandy beach from a baseline established in 2003, is used as a basis to identify beach performance and hot spots. The current design standards for Vanderbilt Beach, Park Shore, and Naples Beach are 100 feet, 85 feet, and 100 feet, respectively. It is based upon beach width remaining and design standard for each area that results of alternatives performed with UNIBEST are presented on the next section. Thus, it is of great relevance to be aware that UNIBEST results are not intended to be treated as a forecast, rather they should be used in a comparative basis to support the evaluation of the most suitable engineering solution for each of the analyzed areas. Alternative M1 Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2006 Simulation period: 3 years Areas included on the alternative simulation: 1, 2 & 3. Structures: All existing structures in the project areas. The performance of Alternative M1 was verified using UNIBEST CL+ model on a 3 -year run. The results of the simulations are presented in Figure 41 to Figure 43. Environmental restrictions to avoid hardbottom coverage and other limitations did not allow for the placement of the optimal volume of sand throughout the areas in the 2006 fill template. The results shown on Figure 41 and Figure 43 indicate almost no violation of design standard within the limits of project areas after three years. Results for Naples (Figure 43) indicate that areas in between monuments R -62 and R -64 violated the standard, probably due to the groins in this area. In Park Shore, it is worth highlighting that area outside the 2006 project area, especially in the vicinity of R -44 which suffers from pronounced erosion rates. This problem may be affecting the performance of adjacent beaches. As shown in Figure 42, it is possible to visualize that almost the whole area from R -44 to R -46 present some level of erosion problems, and may be impacted by the inlet. 50 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -215- Beach Width Remaining - Vanderbilt R -019 ..: R-020!- R -019 R -020 R -021 R -022 R -023 R -024 R -025 R -026 R -027 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. R-028 — — R -028 R -029 _. 1 � I R -029 .P R -030:.._ r` R-030 R -031 -- ! R�031 " R-032 _ k`: _ R -032 R- 033...._ R -033 , R -034:- �,�_ _.: t R -034 .. y R•035 r' `l. .. R -036 1M R -036 — R -036 3 i t i R- 037..... : +y R -037 R-038 - j i R -038 R -039 :I ✓ - R- 039��.,� < 145 130 115 100 85 383000 385000 387000 389000 Distance from baseline (it) FL -East NAD83 - Easting (ft) -- - - -- --- 2010 2006 template - - - - - - -- year 3 Design Standard ..- .. Figure 41: Vanderbilt - Alternative M1 after the 3 year simulation. 51 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -216- Beach Width Remaining - Parkshore T - - - -- T---- M-- T- - --7.-1 .... , F . -.. -. R- 043.... r. R -044 t � r � a. t t r: t R -046 ',,.... .. t ` 3 t 1 1 R -048 . z 1 r e R -050 _. ..t'r r 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 42: Park Shore - Alternative M1 after the 3 year simulation. 52 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -217- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 43: Naples - Alternative M1 after the 3 year simulation 53 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -218- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Alternative M2 Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2006 Simulation period: 3 years Areas included on the alternative simulation: 2 & 3. Structures: All the existing structures in the project area were removed (excepted by the Naples Pier and Doctors Pass jetties). Alternative M2 was simulated for 3 years in order to test the performance of the 2006 beach fill template through two areas using UNIBEST CL +. The simulation of Alternative M2 is similar to Alternative Ml, but all the structures, except by the Naples Pier, were removed from the model to verify how the existing structures affect (positively and negatively) the performance of beach fill. Results of Alternatives M1 and M2 were compared on Figure 44 and Figure 45. In general, structures have only a localized impact on the coast. On the model results is observed positive effects updrift the structures and negative effects down drift - offset - fillet formation. On a seasonal basis, the presence of the structures is responsible for an offset on the coastline that interchanges seasonally from tropical /summer to winter when dominate wave directions reverses from southern to northwestern dominance (More details on seasonal behavior are presented on Appendix B). Local hot spots became milder after removal of existing groins. The Park Shore area between R- 44 and R -45 showed significant improvement although it still remained below desired beach width after the three years simulation. As for the Naples area, between monuments R -62 and R- 64, the coastline behavior tended to be more smoothed, with lower variability of beach width along the shoreline. The coastline offset diminished and beach width was maintained above design standard after the simulated period. The greatest structural impact occurred north of Naples and Park Shore reaches. 54 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -219- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 44: Park Shore — Comparison of Alternative M1 (structures) and M2 (no structures) after 3 years of simulation. 55 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -220- Beach Width Remaining - Park Share R -043 .... /' . i f R -044 tis R -045 !,., r � 0 C Y1 R -046 t 3 r t r R R- 048 .._ �. z j I 1 s r r i R -050 i f J� FJ Y K 8 i t 4 R -051 i 9 �a R-052 s s a i 1 R -053:- i P-054 r 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 44: Park Shore — Comparison of Alternative M1 (structures) and M2 (no structures) after 3 years of simulation. 55 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -220- Beach Width Remaining • Naples R-060 4� P rP R-061 ; f— A —5 r R -083 — — R -064 r � a R -0&; .... g5 J y. R-066 R -067 r'r a r \ i R -068 , °,^•,�.�. _ R -069 r r x R -OTC s r ' R-0 7 I � z 5 f..4 R -073 ';.... r R -074 1,... i R -075 R- 076..... i R-077 a r } R -078 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. R -079 R -078. 190 175 160 145 130 115 100 85 70 389000 391000 393000 Distance from baseline (ft) FL -East NAD83 - Easting (ft) ------ 2010 2006 template year 3 - No Structures - - -- year 3 - With Structures Design Standard Figure 45: Naples — Comparison of Alternative M1 (structures) and M2 (no structures) after 3 years of simulation. 56 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -221- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Alternative M3 Model: UNIBEST + Analytical solution (Parabolic bay shape) Fill template: 2006 Simulation period: 3 years Areas included on the alternative simulation: Area 3. Structures: All existing structures in the model domain plus two T -head groins. The simulation of Alternative M3 was performed only for the Naples Beach domain (area 3) aiming to evaluate the effectiveness of the two.proposed T -head groins on the performance of the 2006 beach fill template. For that purpose, two existing structures (rock piles groins) located near monuments R -62 ( +250 ft) R -65 (+ 410 ft) were modified into T -head groins. They contained double pipeline outfalls. UNIBEST model was used to simulate effects of the new structures on the shoreline caused by interruption of longshore transport. The model results presented on Figure 46 indicate an increase of the offsets in the coast associated to the modified structures. That would be due to the T- groins being longer and having lower permeability than the existing groins. An analysis using the parabolic bay shape tool proposed by Hsu & Evans (1989) was conducted (Figures 47 and 48). It is important to recognize that this analysis method has limitations in presence of well defined net sediment transport trends. The model is a simple second order polynomial that fits the curved section of the beach on the plan view, in response to a user defined diffraction point (or control point), predominant wave crest approach and position of the straight part of the beach (which is not directly influenced by the diffraction/control point). The equation do not account for offsets in the coastline induced by the structures in responses to littoral drift fluxes. The results presented in Figure 47 and Figure 48 indicated higher efficiency of the southern T- groin (located between monuments R -65 and R -66) in comparison to the northern one (placed between monuments R -62 and R -63). However, the initial coastline used in the analysis of the northern groin already had an offset caused by the existing structure while the coastline near the southern T -head groin was quite straight suggesting the existing structure near R -65 has minimal effects on the littoral drift. Combining both the models results, it is possible to conclude that the addition of solid structures (non - permeable) along Collier County coast induce the formation of offsets in the shoreline — pronounced deposition of sediments updrift and erosion downdrift the structure because not enough sand bypasses around the groins. Therefore, the addition of non - permeable T- groins would not be an efficient solution to mitigate the erosion in the analyzed area, and may even induce adverse effects on the coast. In regions with strong net drift, the offset can be minimized when the groin fillet reaches equilibrium, and bypassing is then robust. The net littoral drift is weak in Collier County. 57 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -222- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 46: Naples — Comparison of Alternative M1 (structures) and M3 (T- groins) after 3 years of simulation. 58 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -223- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 47: Parabolic Bay shape adjustment for the north T -groin proposed by Alternative M3. The red line indicates the equilibrium coastline position. Figure 48: Parabolic Bay shape adjustment for the south T -groin proposed by Alternative M3. The red line indicates the equilibrium coastline position. 59 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -224- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Alternative M4: Model: Delft3D Fill template: 2006 Simulation period: 1 year Areas included on the alternative simulation: Area 2 Structures: All existing structures in the model domain + 2 proposed submerged artificial reefs. The region between R -51 and R -53 has been an area of higher erosion and narrowing beach since at least 1996. Since 2006, this area has lost approximately 14,500 cubic yards of sand. The shoreline at R -51 is still above the design criteria of 85', but at R -52 and R -53, the shoreline is below or at the design standard width. Since construction, the shoreline at this location has retreat an average of 45 feet. A gap in the hardbottom occurs at R -52 along an inflection in the shoreline at R -50 that interrupts longshore transport. Alternative 4 considers the addition of two submerged artificial reefs in Park Shore to reduce erosion trends between monuments R -51 and R -53 by reducing the wave energy that reaches the shore. The northern reef is approximately 100 ft wide and 600 ft long and the southern reef is approximately 100 ft wide and 1000 ft long. The artificial reefs were positioned at approximately -12 ft NAVD, being the crest of the structure at approximately -5.8 ft NAVD. This alternative was simulated using Delft3D model, since the position of the proposed reefs is too close to the shore to be simulated using UNIBEST model. The purpose was to see if it could mimic the natural hardbottom in this gap and conserve sand on the beach. Delft3D model was forced with tides, waves and winds described in previous sections of this report. Actual scenario (without reefs) and Alternative M4 scenario considering the presence of the reefs were simulated by one year. The initial bathymetries are presented in Figure 49 and Figure 50. The differences between these bathymetry maps are presented in Figure 51. A typical beach profile on the region of the reefs is presented in Figure 52. The comparison between the final bathymetry maps with and without the addition of the artificial reefs is presented in Figure 53. The solid green areas are the reefs themselves. Results show the effects of the reefs are relatively slight, in the order of X0.5 ft after the 1 year simulation. While the erosion/sedimentation magnitudes that outcome from the model for this region are in the range of 4:4 ft. The volumetric effects of the artificial reefs after the 1 year simulation are in the order of +3000 c.y., being positive effects (green) of approximately +12,000 c.y. and negative effects (red) of approximately -9,000 c.y. This alternative would be difficult to permit and is expensive. •1 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -225- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 49: Initial bathymetry without artificial reefs used by Delft3D model for Alternative 4 analysis. Bathymetry map without reefs (ft) 679000' 679000 �. ' 0 P 5 � j` _ •N 677000 � � 5 L9 i 677000 " to a� —10 V; 675000 Im VAL LL —15 11f 673000 m 675000 �j b , 384000 386000 388000 390000 392000 FL -East NA083 - Easting (ft) qZ1 673000 -20 384000 386000 388000 392000 FL -East NAD83 - Easting (ft) Figure 49: Initial bathymetry without artificial reefs used by Delft3D model for Alternative 4 analysis. 7igure 50: Initial bathymetry with artificial reefs (between monuments R -50 and R -53) used by Delft3D model for Alternative 4 analysis. 61 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -226- Bathymetry map with reefs (ft) 679000' :w ' 0 P 5 � j` _ •N 677000 � � 5 L9 A4 ' to a� —10 V; 675000 Im �` "_•'. LL —15 11f 673000 . % �j l 384000 386000 388000 390000 392000 FL -East NA083 - Easting (ft) 7igure 50: Initial bathymetry with artificial reefs (between monuments R -50 and R -53) used by Delft3D model for Alternative 4 analysis. 61 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -226- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 51: Differences between initial bathymetry maps with and without reefs - Alternative 4. 5 0 0 Z -5 m w -10 -15 Beach profile with/without artificial reef - Collier County, FL With reef Without reef 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Distance along the beach profile (ft) Figure 52: Beach profile with and without artificial reef. 62 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -227- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 53: Impacts (red) and benefits (green) associated to the artificial reefs after 1 year of morphological simulation. Alternative M5 Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2013 Simulation period: 10 years Areas included on the alternative simulation: 1, 2 & 3. Structures: All existing structures in the model domains During the 2006 re- nourishment project restrictions did not allow for the placement of the optimal sand volume in some beach segments. Over the time, some of this areas were unable to maintain the target beach width. Alternative M5 tested the performance of the 2013 advance fill template. Major differences are the inclusion of Clam Pass Park and wider beaches where erosion rates are known to be high based on monitoring surveys. A narrower design width however were set for Clam Pass Park (80 feet instead of 85 feet) and south of Doctors Pass (80 feet against 100 feet) in order to avoid hardbottom coverage. The traditional disposal locations of dredged material from Wiggins Pass, Clam Pass and Doctors Pass were maintained. Bypassed volumes considered for these longer runs were defined based on the historic bypass rate (see Table 10). 63 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -228- Impacts( -) /Benefits( +) of the artificial reefs in morphology (ft) 679000 .. 4 s � Z 677000 , � � s Z 4 00 VS 675004` LL —2 673000 'zr „ 3 384000 386000 388000 390000 392000 FL -East NA083 - Easting (ft) Figure 53: Impacts (red) and benefits (green) associated to the artificial reefs after 1 year of morphological simulation. Alternative M5 Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2013 Simulation period: 10 years Areas included on the alternative simulation: 1, 2 & 3. Structures: All existing structures in the model domains During the 2006 re- nourishment project restrictions did not allow for the placement of the optimal sand volume in some beach segments. Over the time, some of this areas were unable to maintain the target beach width. Alternative M5 tested the performance of the 2013 advance fill template. Major differences are the inclusion of Clam Pass Park and wider beaches where erosion rates are known to be high based on monitoring surveys. A narrower design width however were set for Clam Pass Park (80 feet instead of 85 feet) and south of Doctors Pass (80 feet against 100 feet) in order to avoid hardbottom coverage. The traditional disposal locations of dredged material from Wiggins Pass, Clam Pass and Doctors Pass were maintained. Bypassed volumes considered for these longer runs were defined based on the historic bypass rate (see Table 10). 63 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -228- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Table 10: Bvpass volumes and disposal timine and location. Area Year Volume Year Volume .. Disposal location Vanderbilt 4 th 25,000 cy 8th 16,500 cy R -18 to R -20 Park Shore 4` 27,000 cy 9` 27,000 cy R -42 to R -44 Naples 4 th 50,000 cy 9 50,000 cy R -60 to R -62 The 2013 fill template is intended to last for 10 years. Results are shown on to Figure 54 to Figure 56. The model indicated that for Vanderbilt Beach the performance was not as intended. There was violation of design standard between years 2 and 5 near monument R -29. On the 10th year, shoreline retreat on that area exceeds 15 feet below desirable beach width. For Park Shore the model indicates major violation of design standard widths in between monuments R -44 and R -46, where the three existing groins on Park Shore are located. Down drift impacts caused by the structures and inlet seem to be affecting the performance of the beach fill. On Naples beach overall performance of the Alternative M5 is close to the intended. In most part of the area the beach maintains wider than the design standard width, except by the vicinity of R- 63 as well as in R -76, where the design standard is violated. It is recognized that the region of R- 63 is highly influenced by the existing structures, which induces the formation of offsets in the coast and additional retreat of the shoreline downdrift the structures. •, COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -229- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 383000 364000 385400 386000 387000 388000 389000 FL -East NAD83 - Easting (ft) year 2 year 5 - - - year 14 Design Standard Figure 54: Vanderbilt — Results of Alternative M5 (2013 template) after 10 years of simulation. 65 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -230- Beach Width Remaining - Vanderbilt R-019 1 R -020 p 1 y � i R -02i , R022 yet^ R-024 �L : d" 4 J ~ • ; R- 025 --.. _ R•026., ` �y yy 'x R -027 t4 a. R -428 — a R -029 r l R-032 - 4 R- 034 to ti q R -036 — R -037 -° t R -038 — R -039 '— \ss 150 125 100 Distance from baseline (ft) - -- - -- 2010 2013 template (year 0) 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 383000 364000 385400 386000 387000 388000 389000 FL -East NAD83 - Easting (ft) year 2 year 5 - - - year 14 Design Standard Figure 54: Vanderbilt — Results of Alternative M5 (2013 template) after 10 years of simulation. 65 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -230- R -051 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 175 160 145 130 115 100 85 70 55 40 387000 388000 3$9000 390000 391000 Distance from baseline (ft) FL -East NAD83 - Easting (ft) _ - _ .... _....... _. ........... ....... _..... ...._ . .... .......... ............. 2090 2093 template (year 0) year 2 year 5 ----- year 10 - - - -- Design Standard Figure 55: Park Shore - Results of Alternative N15 (2013 template) after 10 years of simulation. 66 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -231- C-J R -048': € ar R -D49 -- l R -050 ,i i R -051 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 175 160 145 130 115 100 85 70 55 40 387000 388000 3$9000 390000 391000 Distance from baseline (ft) FL -East NAD83 - Easting (ft) _ - _ .... _....... _. ........... ....... _..... ...._ . .... .......... ............. 2090 2093 template (year 0) year 2 year 5 ----- year 10 - - - -- Design Standard Figure 55: Park Shore - Results of Alternative N15 (2013 template) after 10 years of simulation. 66 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -231- C-J Beach Width Remaining - N R -060 R- 061;.... °.' R -062 R-064, a f apses R -060 8461 R -062 R -063 R -064 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. R -065 ,_ s R -065r R-066 } R -066 -^ 3 1 R -067 r R-067 r�+e R-068 t R -069.. R Qo5 � a fK R -070 ..... / ! R•07Q _ R -071 ..... {" « R-071 - ,.' { fir s ". R 072 . -- « f — R -072 _ -fix � R -073..... '` R -073 U v c f R -075 - R-076 .,x wx INr R -076 R 076 } R -077 -_ R-077 R -078 x R-078 � i 8.079 R-079 s � 250 225 201 175 150 125 100 75 50 3 89000 390000 351000 392000 393000 Distance from baseline (ft) EL -East NAD83 - Easting (ft) 2010 2013 tempiate (year 0) year 2 year 5 - year 10 Design Standard L__ .......-- —.M�.. M............... ........ Figure 56: Naples — Results of Alternative M5 (2013 template) after 10 years of simulation. 67 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -232- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Alternative M6 Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2013 (switching disposal location of dredged material from Doctors Pass and fill density on the disposal locations). Simulation period: 10 years Areas included on the alternative: Area 3. Structures: All existing structures in the model domain Alternative M6 was simulated only for Naples and it was based on Alternative M5. Major differences are the switching of disposal locations of dredged material from R- 60/R -62 to R- 58/R-59 (volumes are the same specified in Table 10 of the main report) as well as fill density on those locations. Since the dredged sand is disposed through R -58 and R -59 on Alternative M6, the design template is not as wide as in Alternative M5 along this area, being denser at R60 -to R- 62 (which is the disposal location proposed by Alternative M5). Model results indicate better performance for Alternative M6 than for Alternative M5. Near monument R -63 the final shoreline barely violates the design standard. The effects of the structures on the coastline however are more pronounced. Too much sand is being trapped north of R -62. The same volume could be more evenly distributed over the vicinities had the structures been removed. This will be tested on later runs. The switched disposal area may also be cheaper. •: COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -233- Beach Width Remaining - Naples R-060 R-WI R-062 ........ . R- 063':— R-064 R-06C R-+067 R-U68 t. R-069 R-070 R-071 R-072 — R-073 R-074 R-075 — R-076 R-077 iF R-078 — R-060 R-MI R-062 R-063 R-064 R-065 R-066 R-067 R-06, R -069 R-C)TO R-071 R-072 R-073 R-074 R-076 R-076 R,O77 R-078 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. , 8-079 R-07.c M 225 200 175 156 125 100 389000 390000 391000 392000 393000 Distance from baseline (ft) FL-East NAD83 - EaSting (ft) ....... .... ------ 2010 2013 template (year 0) —year year - - --- yearlD Design Standard ....................... - Figure 57: Naples — Results of Alternative M6 (2013 template switching bypass location) after 10 years of simulation. 69 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -234- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Alternative M7 Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2013 Simulation period: 10 years Areas included on the alternative: Area 2. Structures: All existing structures in the model domain + 10 proposed permeable tapered groins in Park Shore. Another Park Shore alternative was proposed to mitigate the high erosion rates of the hot spot located between monuments R -51 and R -53, discussed previously on Alternative M4 description. Alternative M7 combines the addition of 10 permeable tapered groins together with the 2013 advance fill template evaluated on Alternative M5. UNIBEST results presented on Figure 58 indicate that the permeable groins performance was not as intended since the design standard was violated in a few regions. As well as for Alternative M3 (which proposes the addition of two T- groins on Naples beach) it was observed that not enough sand bypass the groins, leading to positive effects updrift the structures and erosion downdrift. Alternative M7 is efficient between monuments R -51 and R -53, but the permeable tapered groins caused further erosion south of that area, forming another hot spot and violating the design standard. The downdrift impacts increases with time, expanding to the south between the 5th and 10th year. Since the wider beach fill alternative itself (Alternative M5) provides a solution to the erosion in this area, Alternative M7 was not pursued further. 70 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -235- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. of simulation. 71 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -236- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Alternative M8: Model: Delft3D and Analytical solution (Parabolic bay shape equation) Fill template: 2006 Simulation period: 1 year Areas included on the alternative: Area 3. Structures: All existing structures in the model domain and the addition of a spur to the southern Doctors Pass jetty. In Alternative M8 it is proposed the construction of a spur in the southern jetty of Doctors Pass with the purpose of creating wave shadowing in the region just south of the inlet, in order to reduce the high erosion rates observed in this area and enable the formation of a fillet of sand currently absent in this region. The proposed spur is approximately 100 ft long measured from the edge of the southern groin of Doctors Pass, being perpendicular to the existing structure (Figure 59). The permeability of the spur on Delft3D was set to be zero (non - permeable) for both currents and waves. Figure 59: Proposed spur at the southern jetty of Doctors Pass. In order to verify the influence of the spur on flow, waves and transport patterns, the scenario with the structure was simulated for one year on Delft3D model. The model was forced with waves, winds and tides previously described on this report. Model results of waves, currents and sediments transport associated to a northwestern wave condition and to a southern wave condition, with/without the spur, are present in Figure 60 and Figure 61. 72 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -237- Spur at southern jetty of Doctors Pass (Aternative 5) - Collier County, FL 670000 c a c 0 .. o Z o 669500 as a 669000 j Y 388000 388500 389000 389500 FL-East NA083 - Easbng (ft) Figure 59: Proposed spur at the southern jetty of Doctors Pass. In order to verify the influence of the spur on flow, waves and transport patterns, the scenario with the structure was simulated for one year on Delft3D model. The model was forced with waves, winds and tides previously described on this report. Model results of waves, currents and sediments transport associated to a northwestern wave condition and to a southern wave condition, with/without the spur, are present in Figure 60 and Figure 61. 72 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -237- x �d ks wp b� 2 -8£Z- @Sed 1@10ed 0 s r TU �r °o e Fe m" �o 5� T (9)6UW ON - EUOVN Wa-'Id V 1, 1, wall Z 1,OZ /O 1,/V UAW" !,. (U) NM-N - EBOVN 1 -9-'ld I �w 8 Fn m 9, F - m c g Ti - B w o� �LL (y) BuyyoN' EBtlVN Ise3 -7d W) OU14MNN -=*N is�a-ld �2 r S° S M t` U Z_ U Z Of W W Z_ z Z W z Z Z Z a J a J a H a 0 U -6EZ- aged }aped un &*P N - coam 1R-1d 3 W But4VON - t9aVN 1583 -1d c e 0 'n _. __ �m a m z (U) SUNVON - ERCVN 7W3 -7J '`d' � � Wall Z �OZ /O �/t a _ o g- d wy �d >1� � QQ �, ` � ,fix • ^.��. n (g1 &i NIwN- L9(nJN 15¢31j � r U Z U Z W Z_ 0 Z atf U Z Z Z Q IL F- U) O U W But4VON - t9aVN 1583 -1d c e 0 _. __ e " a - a _ - o �e F u+ • • W 6-N N'C90VN 11 -3 -'W n n ry ry � - o o a >1� � QQ �, ` � ,fix • ^.��. n (g1 &i NIwN- L9(nJN 15¢31j � r U Z U Z W Z_ 0 Z atf U Z Z Z Q IL F- U) O U 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 62 and Figure 63 show the net sediment transport maps obtained after the one year morphological simulation (including 65 wave /wind conditions and tides). Figure 64 shows the effects of the spur in morphology in the end of the 1 year simulation. The impacts/benefits were obtained by calculating the differences between the final model results with and without the spur. The efficiency of Alternative M8 is noticed in Figure 60 and Figure 61. The wave energy and flow velocities are reduced by the spur, diminishing sediment transport on the area behind the structure. The positive effects are visible in the comparisons of the net sediment transport maps, that were created based on the whole simulation including 65 different representative wave conditions (Figure 62 and Figure 63). On the former the arrows show intense net sediment transport to south from the very tip of the southern jetty while the latter shows a shadow zone where net transport is slowed down. The morphologic results of such changes are illustrated on Figure 64. The area in green shows positive effects of the spur. The model results indicate that the new structure will trap approximately 2,750 c.y. of sand in relation to no action scenario, slowing the intense loss of sediments from this area. A 300 ft beach length south of the jetty is directly protected by the spur over the 1 year simulation. An additional analysis was conducted with the analytical method (parabolic bay shape fit). The results obtained are consistent with the Delft3D outcomes, indicating the fillet formation near the southern jetty of Doctors Pass (Figure 65). Figure 62: Net sediment transport without the spur. 75 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -240- Net Sediment Transport (c.yftyr) s'v 60 670500!x¢ 50 xttr � 40 670000 JA 30 669500 VTr�;i �i40 1 ,rY Yis �k� s:20 669000 t 10 ;a 11 668500++ 387000 387500 388000 388500 389000 389500 FL -East NA083 - Easfng (tt) Figure 62: Net sediment transport without the spur. 75 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -240- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 64: Impacts and benefits to the morphology associated to the addition of the spur. 76 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -241- CM Figure 63: Net sediment transport after the addition of the spur. Impacts(- )!Benefits( +) of the spur in morphology (ft) `- 4 670000 12 i I � a 1 m 669500 0 2750 c y ; f0 -2 669000 -3 388000 388500 389000 389500 FL -East NA083 - Eastiog (ft) Figure 64: Impacts and benefits to the morphology associated to the addition of the spur. 76 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -241- CM 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 65: Analytical solution based on Parabolic Bay shape equation. The red line indicates the equilibrium coastline position. 77 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -242- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Alternative M9 Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2013 Fill Plan (Vanderbilt Feeder Beach or additional fill) Simulation period: 10 years Areas included on the alternative: Area 1 Vanderbilt Structures: None. The simulation of Alternative M9 was performed only for Vanderbilt Beach. It was defined based on the results of Alternative M5 for Vanderbilt Beach. The 2013 design template was modified to include wider beach where the results from Alternative M5 showed violation of design standard widths (in the vicinity of monument R -29). Results presented on Figure 66 indicate the efficiency of this advance fill plan. Slight violation of design standard is observed only on the 10 year curve (less than 7 ft between monuments R -29 and R -30), a reduction from 15 feet over M5. It is important to recognize that during UNIBEST calibration step, sediment sinks were added to the model to better represent the erosion rate in north Vanderbilt. Thus erosion magnitudes may be influenced by the longer periods of simulation (i.e. 10 years). The additional sediment quantity added to 2013 design was equivalent to the 15 feet recession arch, which indicated that a sand volume greater than the deficit from the standard is needed to address the hot spot. IN COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -243- Beach Width Remaining - Vanderbilt 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 66: Vanderbilt — Results of Alternative M9 (2013 template + feeder beach) after 10 years of simulation. 79 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -244- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Alternative M10 Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2013 Simulation period: 10 years Areas included on the alternative: Area 2 Park Shore. Structures: All structures were removed Based on results of Alternative M2 (without structures) and M5 (with the 2013 advance fill template), the performance of the advance fill template without the structures on Park Shore was modeled. As expected, the removal of structures diminished the offsets on the coastline as well as improved the beach width remaining on areas between R -44 and R -46 when compared to results of Alternative M5. The model results presented on Figure 67 indicate that there is still violation of design standard between R -44 and R -45 of about 14 feet, a distinct improvement over the existing condition. However the situation on the whole northern sector after 10 years of simulation is better than the conditions in 2010 (represented by the 2010 purple dashed line). South of this area beach in general is at the design beach width with only and a slight violation of less than 5 ft at R -48.5. The smaller violation may be tolerable, given its small size. The larger one may be restricted by nearshore hardbottom, and require further analysis during detailed design. In addition, it may reflect the short bypassing disposal area, which ends just updrift of this hot spot. An extended disposal area may solve this hot spot. N COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -245- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. R -047 , i R -947 t i` R -048 R -048 Figure 67: Park Shore — Results of Alternative M10 (2013 template + removal of structures) after 10 years a simulation. 81 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -246- R -049 — — R -049 3' R-050 ? a R -050 ." L i R -051 ,_ ' , R -051 R-052 a > " ,, x R -052 k R-053 — — R -053 ahtE R -054'- r _ A R.05a ' . R- 055..... R -055 } � �. i 175 150 125 100 75 50 3870(x7 388090 3899900 390000 391000 Distance from baseline (ft) EL -East NAD83 - Easting (ft) _ - _.__- 2010 2013 template (year 0 } y ear 2 __ . year 5 �e -- y ear 10 Desi n Stand�an_d Figure 67: Park Shore — Results of Alternative M10 (2013 template + removal of structures) after 10 years a simulation. 81 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -246- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Alternative M11: Modeled with UNIBEST Model: UNIBEST Fill template: 2013 Simulation period: 10 years Areas included on the alternative: Area 3 Naples. Structures: All existing structures were removed, except by the Naples Pier. Based on the results of Alternative M2 (without structures) and M6 (with advance fill template switching bypass disposal location) the performance of the 2013 advance fill template without the structures on Naples (Alternative M11) was tested. As expected, the removal of structures diminished the offsets on the coastline as well as it improved the beach width remaining on areas between R -62 and R -64 when compared to results of Alternative M6. Within the 10 years simulation no violation of design width occurred at this region, proving that with an advanced beach fill width and a modified inlet bypassing program, the benefits for groins fade, especially in a project area with a weak long shore transport direction and magnitude. A small violation exists further south that can be addressed with additional fill, since hardbottom is not a restriction in this area. .7 82 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -247- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 68: Naples — Results of Alternative MI (2013 template + switching bypass disposal location + removal of structures) after 10 years of simulation. 83 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -248- Beach Width Remaining - Naples t. R-060; . R -060 4` R -062 y R-062 8-063 ` r — R -063 x E, s s � b R,064', R-064 s s s R-065 �- � ,' R -065 l f si f R -066 ':,_. f E' R -066 i r 3 R -067 .. R-067 ✓ � R -1068 R-068 j R 06 :-i'i R -069 R 0 7� ..._. ! : ..�. R -010 i m: R- 071 !.... R-071 - R-072 - R -072 y- R -073 , - y R -073 a, • j ,t R -074 ,. ''� R -074 R -ply « k D-x R -076 ,... a r. * R -076 d s Y ,z R -077 ..... e -_. R -077 s Al R-078 — a{ R -078 R -079 8.079 225 200 175 150 125 100 389000 390000 351000 392000 393000 Distance from baseline (ft) FL -East NAD83 - Easting (ft) ___ __. _ _._ - - - - -- 2010 2013 template (year 0) year 2 -- — _._. _ _ --- _ __m__ ________ __ ______._.......- ._._..__.. - -... year 5 - - - - - year 10 Design Standard j Figure 68: Naples — Results of Alternative MI (2013 template + switching bypass disposal location + removal of structures) after 10 years of simulation. 83 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -248- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 4.0 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS Alternatives M1 and M2 provided the assessment to the fluctuations of the existing conditions with and without structures. The with - structure condition considers the existing groins /outfalls as calibrated in the model. The without structure condition removed all the structures within the Park Shore and Naples reaches (except for Doctors Pass jetties and Naples pier). Vanderbilt Beach has no visible structures. The results indicate that the influence of a few of the structures is significant to the coastline behavior and beach fill templates tend to perform better without these structures. Generally, groins cause a very localize offset - fillet in the shoreline, that has a very focused area of benefit and impact. The impact is not visible monitoring at 1000 foot increments (distance in between R- monuments). With a robust nourishment and inlet bypassing program, the benefits for groins fade, especially in a project area with a weak long shore transport direction and magnitude. Alternative M3 considers the modification of two existing structures into T- groins to reduce the erosion on Naples Beach. The T- groins are longer than the existing structures and also lead to offsets formation in the coastline due to the blockage of the littoral drift. The T -heads are not able to prevent the offset formation. Alternative M4 looks at filling the gap in the hardbottom alignment with an artificial reef 100 feet wide and covering most of the distance between R50 and R53, where there is a gap in the hardbottom or it is located further offshore. The goal was to mimic the existing hardbottom, dissipating the wave energy and reducing the erosion on the area. The model results indicate that the artificial reefs did reduce erosion and trap some sand near shore, but generally it was not a significant amount compared to alternative M -10 results. Another structural alternative (M7) considered a series of permeable tapered groin on Park Shore. The model indicated that the sawtooth effect and large offsets caused by the groins are very prominent, causing violation of the design beach width at the downdrift end of the groin field. The type of structural alternative that proved to be effective was the addition of a 100 ft jetty spur on the southern jetty of Doctors Pass, creating a fillet in this area and reducing sediment loses (Alternative M8). Alternatives M5, M6, M9, M10 and M11 look at the 2013 -14 renourishment project with a 10- year project life template, removing structures and switching bypass disposal locations. Based on the results of analysis and modeling described in this report, structural alternatives in the straight sections of Collier County coast proved to be less successful than the simple wider beach design. The 2013 -14 design without structures is the recommended plan, in conjunction with increased sand placement near hot spots identified by the modeling. The selected alternatives (M8, M9, M10 and M11) had shown minor points violations of the design after 10 years of simulation, which should be addressed during the detailed design phase. ;,� COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -249- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 5.0 REFERENCES Benedet, L.; Finkl, C.W., and Hartog, W.M., 2007. Processes controlling development of erosional hot spots on a beach nourishment project. Journal of Coastal Research, 23(1), 33 -48. Benedet, L., List, J.H., 2008. Evaluation of the physical process controlling beach changes adjacent to nearshore dredge pits. Coastal Engineering volume 55(12). 1224 -1236. Booij, N., Haagsma, IJ.G., Holthuijsen, L.H., Kieftenburg, A.T.M.M., Ris, R.C., van der Westhuysen, A.J., Zijlema, M., 2004. SWAN Cycle III version 40.41 User Manual, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. Hartog, W.M., Benedet, L.B, Walstra, D.J. R., van Koningsveld, M., Stive, M. J.F., and Finkl, C.W. 2008. Mechanisms that Influence the Performance of Beach Nourishment: A Case Study in Delray Beach, Florida, U.S.A. Journal of Coastal Research, 24(5) 1304 -1319. Hsu, J. R. C., Evans, C., 1989. Parabolic bay shapes and applications. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Parte 2, 87, 557 -570. Land Boundary Information System, 1999. Land Boundary Information System 1999 Digital Orthographic Quarter -Quad, State Plane - NAD83 — MrSID, http://data.labins.org/2003/N4appingData/DOQQ/doqq_99_stpl.cfm. Land Boundary Information System, 2003. Land Boundary Information System Water Boundary Data, http: / /data.labins. org /2003 /SurveyData/WaterBoundary/ waterboundary.cfm. Lesser G.R., Roelvink J.A., Van Kester J.A., T.M., Stelling G.S. 2004. Development and validation of a three- dimensional morphological model. Coastal Engineering 51 (2004) 883-915. Microsoft, 2006. Microsoft Streets and Trips 2007, Microsoft, Redmond, WA. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2006. National Geophysical Data Center National Ocean Service Hydrographic Survey Data, http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/gdas/ims/hyd cri.html. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009. National Data Buoy Center Station EGKF 1 - EGK - Egmont Key, FL, http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=egkfl. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009. WAVEWATCH III Model Data Access, http: / /polar.ncep.noaa.gov /waves /download.shtml? COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -250- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Tides and Currents, http : / /tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov /. Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2008. Manatee County Government Geographic Information Systems Small Tiles - — 3 -15mb each, Collection Date: February 2008, http://public.mymanatee.org/gishome/J*sp/ortho_map_08.jsp. Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2009. FY 2009 Southwest District Orthophotos, Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, FL. Distributed by USGS Earth Explorer, http:// edcsns17 .cr.usgs.gov/EarthExplorer /. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Wave Information Studies, http://frf.usace.army.mil/wis/wis—main.html. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2006 Post Hurricane Wilma Lidar: Hurricane Pass to Big Hickory Pass, FL, http://csc -s -maps- q.csc. noaa.gov /dataviewer /viewer.html ?keyword = lidar. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008. TEC - Survey Engineering and Mapping Center of Expertise Corpscon Version 6.0, http : / /crunch.tec.army.mil/software/ corpscon/corpscon.html. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center U.S. Waterway Data Dredging Information System, http: / /www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ ndc/data/datadrgsel.htm. U.S. Geological Survey, 1996. Digital Elevation Models, http : / /data.geocomm.com /catalog/IJS /61093 /sublist.html WL I Delft (Waterloopkundig Labaratorium I Delft Hydraulics), 2009. Delft 3D -FLOW, Simulation of multi - dimensional hydrodynamic flows and transport phenomena, including sediments, User manual. WL I Delft Hydraulics, Delft, The Netherlands. WLIDelft Hydraulics (2010). UNIBEST, A software suite for simulation of sediment transport processes and related morphodynamics of beach profiles and coastline evolution. Theoretical reference document. WL I Delft Hydraulics, Delft, The Netherlands. ENGELUND, F. AND HANSEN, E. A Monograph on Sediment Transport in Alluvial Streams. 3rd. ed. Technical Press: Copenhagen. 1972. VAN RIJN, L.C. Principles of sediment transport in rivers, estuaries and coastal seas. Aqua Publications: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 1993. RIR COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -251- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. APPENDIX A Wave / flow computational grids and bathymetries COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -252- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Regional wave grid. Regional Wave Grid Saihymetry (ft NAVD) w - , 0 K -20 � a x N" 830000 -80 Q 6 ^4040, g - -a00 4N000 x-040 f: f 11 i i 1 Milli .11111 :loft' tso Regional wave grid. Bathymetry map associated to the regional wave grid. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -253- Regional Wave Grid Saihymetry (ft NAVD) V 0 K -20 � a x 830000 -80 Q 6 ^4040, g - -a00 4N000 x-040 f: 2,iO4ac tso 080 - 200000 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 FL -East NAM- Easting (ft) Bathymetry map associated to the regional wave grid. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -253- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Intermediate wave grid. Bathymetry map associated to the intermediate wave grid. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -254- Intermediate Wave Grid Bathymetry (it NAVD) D _10 75000, ` Y 20 743000fl �' Ar zx _ u"y E 65D000 -.�z , tp' Itt 6p0mo 50 55Dp04 -rs0 5000Op i0 200000 250000 3000041 360000 400300 450000 600000 FLEast NAD83 Eashng (tY) Bathymetry map associated to the intermediate wave grid. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -254- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Local Wave Grid (north domain) - Collier County. FL Local wave grid - north domain. Bathymetry map associated to the local wave grid - north domain. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -255- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Local wave grid - south domain. Initial Wave Bathymetry (south domain) - ft NAVD - Golder County, FL £- Local Wave Grid (south domain) - Calker County, FL 680000 -- t 686000 �, -. •• i 875000. 875000 � s ji 5700001 670000 F 6$5000 m K c ^_ ru r c 665000 r� - r MR, - y, Z� �= ' �a G 660000' 15 655000 a r W NL. r � LL 555000 550000 850000# .20 z 4 ° 645000 25 385000 375000 355000 3 4i400 405000 FL -EaA NAi383 - Easrtng (R) mm 355000 375000 385000 i�19000 405000 FL ,East NAD83 - Easimu (it) Local wave grid - south domain. Initial Wave Bathymetry (south domain) - ft NAVD - Golder County, FL £- 0 t 686000 �, -. •• i 875000. � s 1 5700001 F 6$5000 m K r� '��' 550000 � aq# t a`. '•, - y, 15 655000 a r 550000 .20 25 385000 375000 355000 3 4i400 405000 FL -EaA NAi383 - Easrtng (R) Bathymetry map associated to the local wave grid - south domain. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -256- 680000' + +- 875000 - Z w 0 d 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Local Wave Grid (Doctors Pass domain) - Cot[ier County, FL W 660000 655003— 3;5000 � 385G00 � 395000 FL East NAD83 - Easbng M) Local wave grid - Doctors Pass domain. Sathymetry map associated to the local wave grid - Doctors Pass domain. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -257- Local Wave Sathymetry (Doctors domain) - ft NAVE) - Collier County, FL 0 880000 6� t . • S .k+l r s �� L 670000 �! Z O F N 665060 afi w - -15 r a ;r _ = -:� 566000 20 635100 375000 385000 395000 FL -East NA083 - Easing {ft) Sathymetry map associated to the local wave grid - Doctors Pass domain. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -257- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Flow grid - North domain. Bathymetry map associated to the flow grid - North domain. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -258- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Flow grid - South domain. Bathymetry map associated to the flow grid - South domain. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -259- Flow Grid (south domain) - Collier County, FL 680000 m ,>s 675000 i 670000 C 665000 a 560000, ?r,, ,s s w saa 655000.. s , k, -p 645090 — ait 365000 375000 385000 _ 311000 405000 FL -East NAD83 - E.w n0 (F) Flow grid - South domain. Bathymetry map associated to the flow grid - South domain. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -259- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Flow grid - Doctors Pass domain. Bathymetry map associated to the flow grid - Doctors Pass domain. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -260- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. APPENDIX B Seasonal analysis of effects of structures on the coast COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -261- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Because of the high variability of the annual wave climate, a schematic wave climate is used to simulate a typical year and evaluate potential net sediment transport. Based on net trends the performance of the proposed alternatives and impacts on beach changes were evaluated. But the seasonal variability of the wave climate was also briefly evaluated specially to better understand the climate influence on sediment transport trends and on coastline behavior. From Figure 69 it's possible to observe that not only the coastline have offsets due to the presence of structures but they also change periodically depending on prevailing wave direction. Analyzing the wave roses (Figure 70 and Figure 71) separated for each season, it is possible to observe that during tropical- summer, the wave climate is characterized by small waves (< 4 ft). However, as this period corresponds to the hurricane season, some events of extreme wave heights (e.g. greater than 10 ft) occur sporadically in the wave record especially from southeastern direction. Conversely, during winter, the wave climate is more energetic, with waves greater than 5 ft being more frequent and with prevailing direction on the northwestern quadrant. Nevertheless, the extreme events in these seasons are not as energetic as the ones in summer and fall, because they are generated by cold fronts, rather than by hurricanes; although they are more frequent. In general, the winter and more energetic climate is responsible for great of the alongshore transport in Collier County beaches. From Figure 72 and Figure 73 it's possible to see that winter variations on the coastline are greater as well as the net transport (Figure 75 and Figure 74). During the tropical- summer, when hurricane events take place, erosion due to cross -shore processes rather than alongshore become more relevant. Since construction, the shoreline has been impacted by several storms, most notably Tropical Storm Fay. Tropical Storm Fay did have a significant impact upon shoreline width in 2008, but less impact upon the volume. This indicates that the sand is still within the active beach profile and not all has been lost. This sand may eventually go back to the beach during recovery interval of times. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -262- -E9-Z- aSed IaVed V 1, 1, Well Z 1, OZ /O 1,/t, M C O C O 4. O v .0 G O C CC O\ O O N ^O C Cd 00 O O N O 'ts a c� un 0 y 0 a. o; s, 0 oc w A Z W LU Z 0 Z W •Z Z Z Q J LL J Q Q O U 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Summer wave conditions (June - November) At � 1 EASr Hs ]n] Hs p0 °a �..__ R.. Figure 70: Tropical- summer wave rose (2005- 2010). Winter wave conditions (December - May) At � 1 EASr Hs p0 a e Figure 71: Winter wave rose (2005- 2010). COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -264- R-043 R-044 R-045 R-046 R-047 R-048 R-049 R-M R-051 R -052 R -053 R-054 R -055 Shoreline changes after 6 months - Park Shore 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 5 0 5 387000 389000 391000 Shoreline changes (ft) FL -East NAD83 - Easting (ft) - .._ Summer --------------- Winter Figure 72: Park Shore - Comparison of shoreline changes between summer and winter seasons. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -265- R-060 R461 R-M R-063 R -064 R -065 R -066 R -067 R -068 R -069 R -070 R -071 R -072 R -073 R -074 R -075 R-076 R -077 R -078 R -079 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 389000 391000 393000 Shoreline changes (ft) FL -East NAD83 - Easting (ft) Summer ----- - - - - -- ------ - Winter Shoreline changes after 6 months - Naplee 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 73: Naples - Comparison of shoreline changes between summer and winter seasons. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -266- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. Figure 74: Park Shore - Comparison of sediment transport during summer and winter seasons. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -267- R -059 R -060 R -061 R-062 R -063 R -064 R -065 R -066 R-067 R -068 R -069 R-070 R -071 R -072 R -073 R -074 R -075 R -076 R -077 R -078 R -079 R -080 R -081 R -082 R -083 UNIBEST Sediment Transport CUrvekea3 (R -59 a R -84) -20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 Sediment transport(c ylyr) 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. 387000 389000 391000 393000 395000 FL -East NAD83- Eastlng (R) Figure 75: Naples - Comparison of net sediment transport during summer and winter seasons. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Packet Page -268- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. APPENDIX B COLLIER COUNTY MHW AND VOLUMETRIC CHANGES COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -269- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. MHW SHORELINE CHANGES AND ADDED BEACH WIDTH (FEET) PROFILE AREA SHORELINE CHANGES JULY 09 JUN. 06 to 2010 to 2010 ADDED BEACH WIDTH REMAINING NOV. 05 NOV. 05 NOV. 05 NOV. 05 to JUN. 06 to JUN. 08 to JULY 09 to 2010 WIGGINS PASS R -17 57.3 102.0 26.0 27.5 70.7 128.0 R -18 -3.3 20.3 10.5 50.6 34.1 30.8 R -19 11.2 27.2 -12.4 37.5 3.6 14.8 R -20 6.7 3.6 5.3 20.3 2.2 8.9 R -21 -0.7 -4.6 15.0 20.8 11.1 10.4 R -22 12.4 17.9 0.3 6.1 5.8 -------- -- --- --- - -- - -- 18.2 ---------------------- ------- --- ---------- --- --- -- R-23 --- --------- - - - - -- -5.3 ------------ -- ---- -9.9 ----- ---------- - - - - -- 22.2 ---------------- - - - - -- 15.1 17.6 12.3 R -24 19.3 2.9 17.8 7.1 1.4 20.7 R -25 12.3 -11.3 42.2 19.1 18.6 30.9 R -26 11.9 -13.0 40.3 15.9 15.4 27.3 R -27 0.9 -26.9 43.5 20.6 15.7 16.6 R -28 4.4 -25.3 41.4 13.8 11.8 16.1 R -29 -1.2 -36.3 58.0 20.2 22.9 21.7 R -30 -12.0 -28.2 33.4 0.9 17.1 5.2 R -31 -4.6 -0.4 24.1 9.6 28.3 23.7 R -32 -1.3 -12.5 32.8 2.9 21.6 20.3 R -33 3.5 5.1 14.3 7.2 15.9 19.4 R -34 16.9 6.0 24.0 6.7 13.0 30.0 R -35 3.1 -6.3 24.7 -0.1 15.3 18.4 R -36 9.8 -4.0 14.9 -2.2 1.1 10.9 R-37 -3.6 2.4 -6.4 -7.2 -0.4 -4.0 R -38 -2.6 14.5 -18.4 -1.1 -1.2 -3.9 R -39 31.0 16.7 -3.2 -9.1 -17.5 13.5 R -40 34.1 29.3 10.4 8.7 5.6 39.7 R -41 -73.2 -10.9 5.3 -1.1 67.5 -5.6 CLAM PASS ------ ---------------- - ----- VANDERBILT --- --------- -- - - -- 3.8 -------- ---- - - - - -- -18.5 --------- --- --- - - - - -- 37.4 ------- -- ------------- 14.1 ----- ----- IT-------------------- 15.1 ------------ 18.9 R -22 TO R -31 PELICAN BAY 4.6 -2.0 22.5 4.0 15.9 20.4 R -31 TO R -37 - ----- --- --- ------- --- - - - --- PROJECT AREA ------------ - - - - -- 4.1 ------------ - - - - -- -11.4 ---------- ---- ---- - -- 31.0 ------------- --- - -- - -- 9.8 ---------------- - - - - -- 15.4 ---------------- - - - - -- 19.5 R -22 TO R -37 MONITORING AREA 5.1 2.3 18.6 11.6 15.9 21.0 R -17 TO R -41 Packet Page -270- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. MHW SHORELINE CHANGES AND ADDED BEACH WIDTH (FEET) PROFILE AREA SHORELINE CHANGES JULY 09 JUN. 06 to 2010 to 2010 ADDED BEACH WIDTH REMAINING NOV. 05 NOV. 05 NOV. 05 NOV. 05 to JUN. 06 to JUN. 08 to JULY 09 to 2010 CLAM PASS R -42 5.2 -10.6 -7.1 -41.5 -23.0 -17.7 R -43 -16.9 5.1 -12.7 2.4 9.3 -7.6 R -44 -2.1 -22.7 12.1 -6.1 -8.5 -10.6 R -45 -- ---------- -- -------- - - - --- -5.6 -- --- -- ------ ----- -3.8 ----- ----- -- - - - - -- -8.8 - ----------- -- -- - ---- -10.8 - --------------- -7.0 -12.6 R -46 16.9 16.9 -4.4 --- --- 17.4 -------- -- ------ -- - - -- -4.3 ---------------------- -21.3 R -47 -14.7 -25.9 11.2 -4.3 0.0 -14.7 R -48 -2.7 -11.2 17.8 7.0 9.3 6.6 R -49 11.0 6.8 -1.9 -9.2 -6.1 4.9 R -50 2.2 11.0 30.0 23.7 38.9 41.0 R -51 0.7 -29.5 63.4 39.1 33.2 33.9 R -52 -28.3 -69.1 68.3 27.1 27.6 -0.8 R -53 -2.5 -35.2 51.2 24.3 18.5 16.0 R -54 --------------- --- ----- ----- 1.0 ------ ---- -- - - - - -- -31.5 ------------ - - - - -- 42.3 ------------- -- ------ 16.1 9.9 10.8 R-55 0.8 26.3 19.1 ---------------- - - - - -- -1.5 ------ ---- ------ ------ 6.4 ---------------------- 7.2 R -56 -1.5 22.2 -9.8 7.1 14.0 12.4 R -57 6.5 -13.2 13.3 -0.2 -6.4 0.1 DOCTORSPASS ------------- ----------- - - -- PROJECT AREA ------------ - - - - -- -5.6 ------------ - - - - -- -22.4 ------------ ------- -- 30.9 ---------------------- 11.8 ------ ---- -- ---- ------ 14.1 ---------------- - - - - -- 8.5 R -46 TO R -54 MONITORING AREA ............... ..... .........._ 4. 0 ............................. ............. ,..........._ 12. 4..............., .... ........................... 15. 4........_.._........................._........-..... ... ........................................................... 3.5 ... ................................... ..... .............................. 7.0 ---------- --- --------- 3.0 R -42 TO R -57 Packet Page -271- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. MHW SHORELINE CHANGES AND ADDED BEACH WIDTH (FEET) PROFILE AREA SHORELINE CHANGES JULY 09 JUN. 06 to 2010 to 2010 ADDED BEACH WIDTH REMAINING NOV. 05 NOV. 05 NOV. 05 NOV. 05 to JUN. 06 to JUN. 08 to JULY 09 to 2010 DOCTORSPASS ---------------------- - - - - -- R-58A ------------ - - - - -- -57.9 --- --------- - -- - -- -100.8 - --- ---- -- ----- --- --- 65.4 ---------------- - - - - -- 8.3 ---------------- - - - - -- 22.5 ---------------------- 35.4 R -58 -1.0 -59.7 64.4 12.7 5.7 4.7 R -59 -1.6 -45.5 74.5 35.3 30.6 29.0 R -60 -3.0 3.6 43.1 38.4 49.7 46.7 R -61 -12.2 12.7 47.2 39.7 72.1 59.9 R -62 -14.2 -37.5 65.7 32.2 42.4 28.2 R -63 -18.4 -32.4 34.2 12.9 20.2 1.8 R -64 -12.4 -9.6 16.7 9.5 19.5 7.1 R -65 -7.4 -20.9 29.9 9.6 16.4 9.0 R -66 -6.3 -22.5 35.1 17.0 18.8 12.6 R -67 -0.7 -32.7 31.1 7.9 -0.9 -1.6 R -68 1.8 5.7 2.2 19.2 6.1 7.9 R -69 6.9 -9.8 32.9 33.1 16.3 23.1 R -70 7.2 -37.4 99.1 70.5 54.5 61.7 R -71 2.9 -45.9 117.2 78.4 68.4 71.3 R -72 -3.7 -44.5 123.1 84.6 82.3 78.6 R -73 0.3 21.1 48.4 75.9 69.3 69.5 R -74 4.6 -15.6 87.5 76.4 67.3 71.9 R -75 -0.2 5.0 50.9 41.9 56.1 55.9 R -76 9.5 -30.3 77.5 49.5 37.7 47.2 R -77 2.9 -25.9 59.0 38.5 30.2 33.1 R -78 4.7 -9.4 38.3 22.9 24.2 28.9 R-79 10.2 28.4 1.8 1.0 19.9 30.2 R -80 29.0 15.6 15.6 4.0 2.2 31.2 R -81 -3.0 -12.3 5.7 -10.6 -3.7 -6.6 R -82 -20.3 1.4 -6.7 1.8 15.0 -5.3 R -83 -9.2 15.0 2.3 21.1 26.5 17.3 R -84 -1.1 17.5 11.3 21.8 29.8 28.8 PROJECT AREA -4.5 -24.2 56.5 37.0 36.8 32.3 _ R -58A TO R -78 - ----- - ------ - - - --- - --- - - -- - - - - - -- -- -- ---- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -32.1 -- - - - - -- --------- - - - --- MONITORING AREA -3.3 -16.7------ 45.5 30.5 31.2-- R -58A TO R -84 Packet Page -272- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. COLLIER COUNTY VOLUMETRIC CHANGES PROFILE AREA FROM / TO EFFECTIVE DISTANCE (FT ) VOLUMETRIC CHANGES JULY 09 JUN. 06 to 2010 to 2010 VOLUME REMAINING SEPT/NOV. 05 SEPT/NOV. 05 SEPT/NOV. 05 SEPT/NOV. 05 to JUN. 06 to JUN /SEPT. 08 to JULY 09 to 2010 WIGGINS PASS R -17 TO R -18 1,002 -5,734 38,828 2,994 17,335 47,556 41,822 R -18 TO R -19 1,047 -9,481 5,120 2,469 9,670 17,070 7,589 R -19 TO R -20 1,029 -716 341 -1,943 2,602 -886 -1,602 R -20 TO R -21 1,030 -3,037 -4,646 1,773 546 164 -2,873 R -21 TO R -22 -------------- ----- - - - --- 1,040 --- --------------- -1,055 ------------------ 491 ------------------ 1,924 ------- ---- ---- - -- 1,769 --- ------- -- ------ 3,470 -------------- --- 2,415 ----------------- R-22 TO R -23 568 623 3,415 2,720 3,535 5,512 6,135 R -23 TO R -24 1,057 4,767 6,364 6,607 6,637 8,204 12,971 R -24 TO R -25 1,082 4,751 4,986 11,930 9,913 12,165 16,916 R -25 TO R -26 983 3,354 -404 16,440 10,784 12,682 16,036 R -26 TO R -27 993 3,482 -1,833 17,964 11,553 12,649 16,131 R -27 TO R -28 1,195 494 -3,133 18,790 14,501 15,163 15,657 R -28 TO R -29 855 86 -5,381 14,559 10,184 9,092 9,178 R -29 TO R -30 1,028 -2,557 - 12,283 14,676 6,759 4,950 2,393 R -30 TO R -31 1,037 -2,332 -1,998 4,956 5,101 5,290 2,958 R -31 TO R -32 1,006 -160 1,965 9,735 15,799 11,860 11,700 R -32 TO R -33 1,017 1,181 -1,541 14,979 19,319 12,257 13,438 R -33 TO R -34 1,026 1,466 -22 14,814 17,237 13,326 14,792 R -34 TO R -35 997 -155 -4,487 16,062 14,604 11,730 11,575 R -35 TO R -36 999 1,056 -4,387 14,282 12,596 8,839 9,895 R -36 TO R -37 ------------ ------- - - - - -- 1,057 ------------ - - - - -- 115 ------------ - - - - -- -3,970 ------------ - - ---- 8,986 ---- -------- - - - --- 8,008 ------------ - - - - -- 4,901 ----------- - - - - -- 5,016 ----------------- R-37 TO R -38 976 -838 535 1,902 10,020 3,275 2,437 R -38 TO R -39 1,022 4,528 5,054 3,216 15,048 3,742 8,270 R -39 TO R -40 1,009 7,631 7,348 8,742 16,073 8,459 16,090 R -40 TO R-41 1,012 1,633 8,525 9,445 21,390 16,337 17,970 CLAM PASS ------ ------------- ------ VANDERBILT - ------ -- ---- --- -- 8,798 ---- -- --- ---- -------------- 12,668 --- -- -- - - -- 10,267 ------------ - - - - -- 108,642 ------------------ 78,967 ---- -------- - - - -- 85,707 ----------------- 98,375 R -22 TO R -31 PELICAN BAY 6,102 3,503 - 12,442 78,858 87,563 62,913 66,416 R -31 TO R -37 -------- ----------- - - - - -- PROJECT AREA ------------ - - - - -- 14,900 ------------ - - - - -- 16,171 ------------ - - - - -- - 22,709 - -- -- -- -- --------- 187,500 ----- ------ - - - -- -- 166,530 ----------- - - - - -- 148,620 --------------- -- 164,791 R -22 TOR -37 ----- -------------- - -- - -- MONITORING AREA -- --- ------------- 24,067 -- --- --- ---------- 9,102 ------------------ 38,887 ------------------ 218,022 ------- ----------- 260,983 - -------- - - - - -- 247,-8-07 --------------- -- 256,909 R -17 TO R -41 Packet Page -273- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. COLLIER COUNTY VOLUMETRIC CHANGES PROFILE AREA FROM / TO EFFECTIVE DISTANCE (FT) VOLUMETRIC CHANGES JULY 09 JUN. 06 to 2010 to 2010 VOLUME REMAINING SEPT/NOV. 05 SEPT/NOV. 05 SEPT/NOV. 05 SEPT/NOV. 05 to JUN. 06 to JUN /SEPT. 08 to JULY 09 to 2010 CLAM PASS R-42 TO R -43 1,039 -5,012 -4,890 -6,453 -688 -6,331 - 11,343 R-43 TO R -44 997 -3,307 -3,409 1,098 10,191 996 -2,311 R -44 TO R -45 ----- --- ----- -- -- -- -- - --- 1,048 -- --- ---- ----- ---- 908 -- --------- - -- - --- -5,497 - ----- ------ -- -- -- 239 -- ------- °------- 2,725 -- -- --- --- -- - - - - -- -4,828 ----- ----- ------- -5,736 ----------------- R-45 TO R -46 1,106 2,612 2,460 5,112 88 4,960 7,572 R46 TO R47 973 4,803 -6,384 -2,016 2,523 -3,597 -8,400 R47 TO R -48 933 -3,266 -7,507 4,122 4,491 -119 -3,385 R48 TO R -49 1,067 -892 -2,289 4,875 7,188 3,478 2,586 R-49 TO R -50 1,086 -2,116 3,724 9,847 14,234 15,687 13,571 R -50 TO R -51 1,329 -4,820 -769 28,391 29,096 32,442 27,622 R -51 TO R -52 885 -3,505 -8,706 21,701 20,238 16,500 12,995 R -52 TO R -53 1,048 -3,962 - 11,860 17,682 19,507 9,784 5,822 R -53 TO R -54 1,070 -863 -6,388 9,825 15,165 4,300 3,437 R -54 TO R -55 ------------------- - - - - -- 1,046 ------------ - - - - -- 1,781 ------------ - - - - -- 2,970 ------------ - - - - -- 4,278 ------------ - - - - -- 11,009 ------------ - -- --- 5,467 ---- --- ---- --- --- 7,248 ----------------- R-55 TO R -56 923 3,450 11,905 -2,196 9,043 6,259 9,709 R -56 TO R -57 768 2,990 3,768 2,587 9,465 3,365 6,355 DOCTORSPASS ------------------- - - - - -- N. PARK SHORE ------- ---- - - - - - -- 3,012 ------- -- --- - - - - -- - 10,681 ------- ----- - - - - -- - 16,351 ------ -- ---- - ----- ,006 3-,-0-0-6- ------------- ----- 7,102 -------- ---- ----- -8,676 ---------357- - - 19,357 R -45 TO R -48 PARK SHORE 7,531 - 14,377 - 23,318 96,599 116,437 87,658 73,281 R -48 TO R -55 ------------------- - - - - -- PROJECT AREA --- --------- -- - - -- 10,543 - ----------- - - - - -- - 25,058 ------------ - - - - -- 39,669 ------------ - - - - -- 93,593 ----- -- ----- - - ---- 123,539 -- -- ---- --------- 78,982 --------------- -- 53,924 R -45 TO R -55 ------------------- - - - - -- MONITORING AREA ------------ - - - - -- 15,318 ------------ - - - - -- - 27,845 ------------ - - - - -- -37 792 •------------ - - - - -- 88,390 ----------- -- - ---- 154,275 ----- --- --- ------ 78,443 --------------- -- 50,598 R -42 TO R -57 Packet Page -274- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. COLLIER COUNTY VOLUMETRIC CHANGES Packet Page -275- VOLUMETRIC CHANGES VOLUME REMAINING PROFILE AREA EFFECTIVE JULY 09 JUN. 06 SEPT/NOV. 05 SEPT/NOV. 05 SEPT/NOV. 05 SEPT/NOV. 05 FROM / TO DISTANCE (FT) to 2010 to 2010 to JUN. 06 to JUN /SEPT. 08 to JULY 09 to 2010 DOCTORS PASS - -- - --- R-58A TO R -58 ------- --- -------- 521 -- ----- ----- - - - - -- - 10,861 ------------ - - - - -- - 27,270 ------------ - - - - -- 4,604 ------------ - - - - -- -9,897 ----------------- - 11,805 - 22,666 R -58 TO R -59 985 -5,003 - 26,757 17,956 -4,985 -3,798 -8,801 R -59 TO R -60 1,085 - 10,761 -5,037 15,795 2,370 21,519 10,758 R -60 TO R -61 1,077 - 16,291 8,429 17,738 11,383 42,458 26,167 R -61 TO R -62 1,020 -9,037 -4,339 26,630 16,597 31,328 22,291 R -62 TO R -63 1,008 -2,181 - 10,161 22,568 10,983 14,588 12,407 R -63 TO R -64 926 -649 -1,000 12,360 8,903 12,009 11,360 R -64 TO R -65 782 -533 2,187 6,173 7,695 8,893 8,360 R -65 TO R -66 825 -1,432 -959 11,206 10,202 11,679 10,247 R -66 TO R -67 800 -229 -890 15,785 11,165 15,124 14,895 R -67 TO R -68 809 1,494 4,691 10,923 10,444 14,120 15,614 R -68 TO R -69 811 1,436 4,500 7,131 8,561 10,195 11,631 R -69 TO R -70 798 2,151 -869 10,386 4,820 7,366 9,517 R -70 TO R -71 802 1,763 -3,393 18,135 10,047 12,979 14,742 R -71 TO R -72 803 -469 -4,216 25,672 21,035 21,925 21,456 R -72 TO R -73 811 -695 1,621 18,095 20,206 20,411 19,716 R -73 TO R -74 815 1,768 3,910 14,018 15,793 16,160 17,928 R -74 TO R -75 789 1,224 4,131 8,274 9,285 11,181 12,405 R -75 TO R -76 800 1,612 2,400 7,898 6,950 8,686 10,298 R -76 TO R -77 798 5,447 2,564 14,820 12,521 11,937 17,384 R -77 TO R -78 765 3,751 6,325 8,238 11,589 10,812 14,563 R -78 TO R -79 -- --------- -- -- --- --- - - -- 1,105 ------------ - - - - -- 337 ----- ------- - - - - -- 12,083 ------------ - - - - -- 2,163 ------------ - - - - -- 9,434 ------------ - - - - -- 13,909 ----------- - - - - -- 14,246 ----------------- R-79 TO R -80 1,150 1,940 9,501 -1,449 636 6,112 8,052 R -80 TO R -81 1,077 3,055 -913 3,065 -4,116 -903 2,152 R -81 TO R -82 874 -1,051 -2,315 2,652 -678 1,388 337 R -82 TO R -83 1,047 -4,005 4,547 151 7,971 8,703 4,698 R -83 TO R -84 960 -1,393 7,904 390 10,055 9,687 8,294 NAPLES BEACH 18,935 - 37,158 - 32,050 296,568 205,101 301,676 264,518 R -58A TO R -79 ---- -- --- ------- --- -- - - -- MONITORING AREA --- ---- ----- - -- - -- 24,043 ------------ -- - - -- - 38,612 ----- ------- - - - - -- - 13,326 ------------ - - - --- 301,377 --- --------- - - - - -- 218,969 --- ---- ---------- 326,663 --------------- -- 288,051 R -58A TO R -84 Packet Page -275- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. APPENDIX C COMPARATIVE PROFILES 1995 -2010 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Packet Page -276- ELEV. (FEE N »VD) -24 -18 -12 -E \ G ]2 3 2 c / / m � ■ / C \ J 3 S y � | | | ! ! -«-------- »-------------- �..... - -- c 2 J \ / ƒ ƒ / 6 / / & / c c c c - <.....--- » - - - -- may--- ;-- - - -... .« - - - --- / ^ ® \ » m 2 d Z \..-- \... -- ---- - - - -(� -- - - - - -- - ��- - -� -. G \ m G c 3 m / m ® M 9 F7-1 T « ; lI , 1 : . - > -- 9 -/-/-------y------\->--------------\-------- � / y ----------- --w.......j. \: / p\' � /- «--- � . ------- - -...; ....... -- / -- - - - - -� .---------------- / ). � . . -------------- �- / « - - -�- \-- ------------- - - - - -- «-- - - - - -- i � . � -------\----- .--------- -------- - - - - -- � . 4 ]2 3 2 c / / m � ■ / C \ J 3 S y ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 CA 0 CD 0 0 G) (D 0 0 ou (D 90 CD 0 0 r7i M rj C) 0 CTS O O 00 0 0 0 0 CD CD -1 - - - - - - - - - -� - - - 7� ------ : ---------------- 7 --- -- --------- I - -- - --- - -- - I ---- ---- --- -I ---------------- 12 0 FT1 F- m 10. r- 0 O C) 0 co ....... - ----- --- ----- -- ------ -- --- -- ----------- 0 L C C O z < (-0 (.0 � cD "N" 0 N) r) N C:) 0 CD 0 0 CD C:) (3) ----- ---- --------- -- ✓- --------------- ---- --------- > N m z C) .............. ....... --------------------- ---------------- ----- N) 00 Z 0 0 M co Cl) Or m 71 r7l 71 -TI 7,1 rti ---m - M -- --------------- ------ ---- --- ---- ----------------- ----- --- - --- ----- m -4-1 . ................ -------------- ............... ............ .................... ---------- ------ 4 - ------------ ................ --------------------------------- : ---------- ----- -1 - - - - - - - - - -� - - - 7� ------ : ---------------- 7 --- -- --------- I - -- - --- - -- - I ---- ---- --- -I ---------------- 12 0 FT1 F- m 10. r- 0 O C) 0 co O 0 C) 0 rD CD 0 orq rD 1p CD 0 0 U) r7 --i CD CD Cr 0 0 C� 0 0 N 0 CD N) 41- CD CD ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -18 -12 -6 0 6 > m ............... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ................................................. > 00 C) CC) M 0 00 U) 00 m FTI -Tj -71 m M m a. ... ----------------------------------------------- o -M ----- ------- m m ............ ------------ -------------------------------------------------- ............. . ........ ---------- --- -------------- --- - --------- .......... .......... 12 0 -E F- Fll F7 11-1 F- 0 n >1 0 0 Q 0 N) N) 0 0 CD 0 0 0.) (JI0 - ----- ----- ----- ------ Q0 > m ............... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ................................................. > 00 C) CC) M 0 00 U) 00 m FTI -Tj -71 m M m a. ... ----------------------------------------------- o -M ----- ------- m m ............ ------------ -------------------------------------------------- ............. . ........ ---------- --- -------------- --- - --------- .......... .......... 12 0 -E F- Fll F7 11-1 F- 0 n >1 0 0 Q ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 W 0 0 0 O O -0 e-t co 1p CD 0 O m M ---4 rj 0 0 O CD 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ........... ---------------- ............... ................... ................ 1 1 ............... - -f---- ----------- --- - k-------- ----- ----- --- I - - -- ------------I. ---------- - I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 0 T, F- m F- 0 r- 0 n O O w 01 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 > U) 0 11 ll- d ............ ---- ----------- ................................. ................ > n c— C 0 cD cD N) 0 0 C Z < C-0 O W N) r— 0-) CD CD CC) .0 m SD ND N m m - m M m ;U --------- l< I - ---- --- - ------- - -------------------- -- ---------- ---- --- ----- , N) C) 0 M Z O 0 o 0 cn 71 0 0-) CTj - ---- --- -- ----- ----- ----- ----------------- - - . ................ > U) 11 ll- d ............ ---- ----------- ................................. ................ > N) 0 0 W N) cyi C) CD CC) .0 m -Tj -T, m m m - m M m ;U --------- l< I - ---- --- - ------- - -------------------- -- ---------- ---- --- ----- M Z cn 71 . ................ .............. ---------------- -: ................................................... --I ---- ------------------ 1XI-l" - I .... -"I - I I I - I - I ----- I --- I - I - * I --- I --- I ----------- I I ------ 1-1-11-1 11 1-1 f- - ------- --- --- U -------- -- - -------- I - ------ --- I---- - ....I ---------------- ------- ................................. ----------------- ---------------- 12 ZJ 0 m F-- Z m F- 0 n 0 n 0 C C O O 0 -V c 0 GO CD N 00 c 0 C/) r7i r7l rj O O u-, 0 0 00 0 0 N 0 0 O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) 24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 ................ .............. --- ............. ................ ...... .............. ... ------------- -- --------------- ----------- -- - -------- ........... ...... .......... ............. 12 0 Ti r- FT1 F7 F- 0 0 n 0 FD EI - ----- -- ------ -- --- ------- -- --- -- - 0 cc co C Z < CO CO N) r 0 N) N) NJ 0 0 O 0 0 o 0 c)) (JI -------- -------- J - ----- ..... ... Qo > N r-ri Z cD 4 --------------- . .............. > --- - -------------------------------------------- C)o Z 0 0 co M 00 C,4 CD m F71 -Tj m -q -T M - - - - - - - - -- Z - --- --- ..- - --- ...... M Z r ------------- --------- C) m o .......... ....... ------------ ........ .............................................. ................ .............. --- ............. ................ ...... .............. ... ------------- -- --------------- ----------- -- - -------- ........... ...... .......... ............. 12 0 Ti r- FT1 F7 F- 0 0 n 0 FD EI I C� 0 0 CD c� O O CT CD 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —18 —12 —6 0 6 rD CY) 0 0 ao ------------ (D N 00 0 C— C z C) C- 0 0 A00%l Cn P,j r -Tl m G) Ln M 0 N) 0 0 CT CD 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —18 —12 —6 0 6 t *- - - - - - ------------ . ... ......... - - -- ------ ----------- k ---------------------------- ......... I ------ -------------- I .................. 12 -0 7c 0 Fri 71 N) c� F- 0 n FD n --- --- ---- --------- ----------------- ------------ 0 C— C z C) C- 0 O CO P,j r G) Ln 0 N) 0 0 0 0 (.D 0 cy) - --- - -------------- - - ------------ t *- - - - - - ------------ . ... ......... - - -- ------ ----------- k ---------------------------- ......... I ------ -------------- I .................. 12 -0 7c 0 Fri 71 N) c� F- 0 n FD n I Cl. O O O W O O v n r rD rt CD O nj 0'4 fD N 00 O O O r� VI m _ I N � O O U� O 0 OD O O m O O N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) '.4 -18 -12 -6 0 6 --I ............. ... 1-. L ................................ ..-..........-...... .............:--------- ... -. -.I 12 TV N O m Z m �7 I N .p F- 0 l J D O Z n O CD 0 0 C L C 0 cD O N C Z < CD O m Ul N O O O O O O O O c --- -- - - -- -- { >? D N m Z C ................ ` - --- ----- - - -- ----.............-----------....:...------------- N 00 C:) O oo m C/) O J N m F9 m m m r1i --- --- ----- -- r3 k----------------------- -- . ........ ............ -1. £i _ .... --I ............. ... 1-. L ................................ ..-..........-...... .............:--------- ... -. -.I 12 TV N O m Z m �7 I N .p F- 0 l J D O Z n O CD ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 •rs CD CD 0 0 rt CD 0 (D N 00 Y, • • cn F7 m 0 0 CTi 0 0 60 0 0 O 0 • N 0 0 > rTi Z 7-) NI --------------- ----------- -- - ------------ --- ----- C- z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C— 0 N 00 0 n Z < Co (�o M 0 oo oo cn CD Cp rj 0 M N) m -71 -7 71 N 0 00 m m-r-n- o 0 o 7n 0 (.0 C7) U' ---------- ----- ------ --------- > rTi Z 7-) NI U) II> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z N 00 0 n N) M 0 oo oo cn rj (-o m -71 -7 71 m M m m-r-n- ......... -- - ----------- ------------- 7n 0 m . .................. . ......... ............... ------------------------- ....................... --4 ---- ----------- : ..... e�p ----------- : ................ ---------------- I ----------------- : ---------------- I -------------- v ---------------- I ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- I ---------------- I 12 0 21 r- m F- r- 0 n 0 Z n O (D I I c�j O 0 U C14 0 0 CL) c) X- 0-) ,(D-r O O v 0'0 fD N 00 T H • 0 (n m M --i N 0 O U O 0 0 0 N O O N _p O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) 12 O -Ti r— m z m I N F- 0 C7 D O z n 0 cD' I • r� L • I W 0 0 0 w 0 O N C7 0) rt O O v W lD N 00 V H H TI F71 F7 N O O CJ� 0 O N O O • N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 0 m r- z m I N J r- 0 n D O z C7 0 w O O n CA O O v n 0) O O v 00 fD N 00 0o H HI F Tl F7 m � N O O (J� O O W O O N O O N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 Wa z O T, r- rr, z r� N 07 F- 0 n D O Z C) O CD v ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 • cli 0 0 0 O 0 -0 cu n 0-) CD CD (D N 00 1p C.0 0 0 Aft; U-) r7 0 0 6; 0 0 OD 0 0 O CD 0 C --------------- ----------------------------- --- ................ ----------------- T --J -------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - - - - I 12 -u 0 -E F- Fr, rn O r- 0 O 0 O 0 (D I ---------- - ------ ---------- m z 0 N --- -- ---- -------- ---------- ...................... ---- n C— C: 0 (-0 O C,4 00 C Z < (D (-0 O) 0 M rj 0 0 0 O 0 CDc7) o 0 c --- ------ -------- ----------------------------- - ---- -- M m - M - r-n � ---- -- - -------- -------- ------ -- -- ----- ------------------ --- --------------- ----------------------------- --- ................ ----------------- T --J -------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - - - - I 12 -u 0 -E F- Fr, rn O r- 0 O 0 O 0 (D I > m z 0 N --- -- ---- -------- ---------- ...................... ---- II----------- C,4 00 CY) (.0 Z n O) 00 oo M 0 CD F9 -Tj -9 - ---- -- M m - M - r-n � ---- -- - -------- -------- ------ -- -- ----- ------------------ --- M r7l ................ ---- ----------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------- ----------------------------- --- ................ ----------------- T --J -------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - - - - I 12 -u 0 -E F- Fr, rn O r- 0 O 0 O 0 (D I I c� O O O C,4 O O 0-) O Otl (D N lD O O O 0 m _ � N O O U O O O O C C N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) 24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 -i - ---- - ----- -- - - - - - -- --------------- ---I--- I - ----- - I------- ---- - -- - - - - --I ---i ------ ---- - - - V - ----- --------- :---- ...-- - - - - - -- - -- --- --------- I----- - - ---- - - -- ----------- - - ---I 77 O r m r z m Z77 I O r- 0 n D O Z n O (D 0 I E § - - -- -- -- -- -- - - -- - - �f r C Z < (n O O N O O r, o O O O - O (.D .f� m z O r�- r' ' N • (n r `I - - - - - -- - - -- - r u z , N � � J O J O � � v.; D oo J ;U m m m m ?1 m m m -- -- -...- cn m o Q .... '41 ..- . -... -. - . .............. ..... - -. -.. .- .- .......... .....- .- -... -. ........ .. -i - ---- - ----- -- - - - - - -- --------------- ---I--- I - ----- - I------- ---- - -- - - - - --I ---i ------ ---- - - - V - ----- --------- :---- ...-- - - - - - -- - -- --- --------- I----- - - ---- - - -- ----------- - - ---I 77 O r m r z m Z77 I O r- 0 n D O Z n O (D 0 -24 • J C, c c c G c c "D v A � 6 r�r c c v OG (D N Q0 N c c 0 F7 m � N O O CTi O O O O N O O is ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -18 -12 -6 0 6 ' i i i ! 1 • - -- -- - - -- - - - -- -------- -- -;�a. C) C ZO O - C Z cD C-O N OD ()I O N N " O O O O p) co:) y- - °_ - - - ---- - - -- ------------ -- - 0 ` II . = ................... >• .... ; -- -- -- - - -- - -- N Oo z • J O 0-) J O) co rl C O m O m m ; � � m m ,� m - m -� i -i ;;U-- FTI - - - -- -- ; cn m - o • O : if ... - --- ------------ ------------------- -------------------- ---- j ------- ---------------- ---- --t - I ------- - --- - -T- ------ ---- - - -- :------.....---..:..-.....-------- I----- ----------- ------ ------ - - - -.I 12 O Ti r— m r Z m :Z7 I r- 0 C7 D O Z n O CD ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 bli 0 0 0 cl� 0 0 o CD as ro cD 0 0 C/) -7 F7 F7 NJ 0 0 cr 0 0 6� 0 0 N) C) O O . ............... ............................ ................................. ............... T - -- --- ----- I -- --------------- ---------------- : ----------------- ----- - --- --------------------- ........... I ...... .......... : ............. 12 0 m m 1 f- 0 n O Z n 2- (D I 40 1 r�-9= mm .......... - ---- --- --- n c- C C Z < 0 LO cc ((D -c ri 0 r"J N) 0 0 o 0 0 o m o ------------------- - --- ------ Ar > N m Z C:) 41 .................... - - ---- ---------- --------------------------- - ................ II > co CO Z 0) 00 cc) fTl 0 CO N) u F9 --q -TI 9 r7l r7l m- M --- ------ M -------------- ------------ ---------------- -------------------------------------------------- . ............... ............................ ................................. ............... T - -- --- ----- I -- --------------- ---------------- : ----------------- ----- - --- --------------------- ........... I ...... .......... : ............. 12 0 m m 1 f- 0 n O Z n 2- (D I 40 1 r�-9= mm • cl� 0 O 0 0 O v 0 rr O v OU fD N lfl W i cD O O 0 m M m —� N O O U� O O 00 O O N O O r� O 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 —4 ...........UP .. ...................:................`----------- ---- I .................................. I 12 -0 O Ti r m r z m I cli cli F- 0 n D O Z n O O I s - - - - - -- - -- -------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- o n L C-- C Z O co CD - �✓ C Z < CO O s+ - N r m cn O N NO N 00 o 0 CDD o - - -- L - ----------- -- -- - - -- - - -- - -- - D m N ff �I...JI. - `I --------- - - - - -- °' -- - - - - -- -------------------------------- : ---- - - - - -- - - - -- W rn Z , ,v �I 00 J CD -P, � - _ O 0 W _ D m ` m -1 m m m ?1 m-- fR> rTi Zf .: -..... - - - -- - -- —4 ...........UP .. ...................:................`----------- ---- I .................................. I 12 -0 O Ti r m r z m I cli cli F- 0 n D O Z n O O I ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 C,-j 12 0 m z C) A% ---------------- CD 0 O ------- ------------- -- CD 00 tD C- Z C- C 0 CD Co C) CA Fll rj 00 z < co co F-0') cn Clj 0 o O O 0 0 0 0 c )) (JI --------------- Q0 0 CA M rT, M -P- IV, 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------- CD�0`0 � --- ------- ---------- > N m z C) A% ---------------- CD O ------- ------------- -- CD 00 tD C) CA Fll rj 00 NJ 0 00 0 M rT, M M ......... ...... ------ -- -- -- Cf) (7 M O - ----------------- ----------------------- ............................................ 0 CD z n 0 N. Ul 0 ----------------- ................ --- - ----- --------------- ---------------- ---- O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------- CD�0`0 � --- ------- ---------- l I • E 0 . ........... ................. ................ ................................. ---------------- CD l I • E • I cl� 0 CD 0 cl� 0 0 0 0 (D r�j QD 0 0 QD r7i M NJ 0 0 0 6� 0 0 N 0 0 O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 > m z 0 -------------- ------ ----------- -- -- - --- - - CIO II ................... > ............ -------------------------------------------------- 0 Z 00 n L C O (D (D O fi C Z < CD CD 0 m r— CJ) Cr 00 O N -T� rTi --rl m m TI m 0 O 0 o 0 -------- - 0 0-) (JI -- -- ------- -- -- -- --------- (.0 CD > m z 0 N CIO II ................... > ............ -------------------------------------------------- Z 00 CD O 0c) U) 0 N) 00 00 ;u -T� rTi --rl m m TI m / FTI - - ---- -- -------- - z CD - -------------------- I ..... ............. ......... ................................................. ............. ................. ........ ....... ................ ---- - ---- ----- ---------------- ---------- ---- --- --- Pi"-- ------------------------ . . ..... 12 -u ;u 0 T� F- F� fTl C� u r- 0 C) 0 C) 0 (D I ') n I cl� O O 0 cl� O O v v G) O o v ao rD N 01 O O n _ n � N O O Cn 0 0 N O O N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) 1? 0 T1 r- F7 Ew z m I W F- O C� D --1 O z n 0 (D I J 0 � EAW I* O 0 0 CY) 0 0 as (D 0 0 m m 0 0 cri C) 0 00 0 CD O 0 • N 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 > N Cf) .......... .... .... .. .... ....... -------------------------- ----- --------- ---- ------ > 0-) co 0 F71 0 0-) J Cf) J 00 O 00 O ;U -:Z-- m m -T] -71 TI M M M ----------- --------------- -------- - -------- ... m ------------------------- ........................................... ------------- --t — - I ------- 111-1-1 ----------- ---------- I ---- ----------- I ----------------- •I ---------------- I --------------------------------- ------- --------------- i.................................................................... . .................... 12 -0 7c 0 m r- 0 0 0 (D I --------- - --------- - ---- ---------- - -- ----- -- -- -- -- 0 0 C— Z 0 CD co < CD (D 0 N) CY) Ul r) O O 0 o 0 0 0 (.0 m ...... ------- -K - - - - -- -- - --------- -------- ------------- > N Cf) .......... .... .... .. .... ....... -------------------------- ----- --------- ---- ------ > 0-) co 0 F71 0 0-) J Cf) J 00 O 00 O ;U -:Z-- m m -T] -71 TI M M M ----------- --------------- -------- - -------- ... m ------------------------- ........................................... ------------- --t — - I ------- 111-1-1 ----------- ---------- I ---- ----------- I ----------------- •I ---------------- I --------------------------------- ------- --------------- i.................................................................... . .................... 12 -0 7c 0 m r- 0 0 0 (D I c� 0 0 m c� 0 0 v m o o v 00 rD N W O O 0 m m m O O Ui O 0 N O O I 2 O m m F— z m F- 0 n D O Z n O CD I • ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 O m z m I W F- 0 C7 D O z O 0 co I I w 0 O m CA O O v 6, r° O O v ou m w 0 0 H H 0 m _ M � N O O cn O 0 00 O O N O O N O 0 12 O m F- z m '0000- r- 0 n D O z n 0 FD' ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 • W 0 0 0 W O O v rD rD O - n O - CD m rD W O N (D O 0 0 V) m _ � N O O U1 O O Oo O O N O O N O 0 t---- - --- ---- - -- - -- --- - ----- -------- - - ----- -- ---- -- ----- - -- ---- ----- t 12 O Ti r m z m IN r— O C� O Z n O rD ( i - - - -- - - - -- - --- .... --------------- - - - - -- - - ----- 00 C c0 O rt C Z < O t0 N r O cn O N NO O N 00 p r - CD m N 11 (� y. - - - - -- - 1I- ..-- � . ..............� -------", .� ---�---... ---- ---------------- ----:. -- --- -- ----- -- - II W C3) Z N J 00 OD C)o O M O O Ul co D N O m r m m m m --- = - - - -- ------ - - - - -- ----- ------------- M z 1 C) m t---- - --- ---- - -- - -- --- - ----- -------- - - ----- -- ---- -- ----- - -- ---- ----- t 12 O Ti r m z m IN r— O C� O Z n O rD I CA O O O C�j O O "D iv O rr O v v 00 (D W O N i Qc) O O O (n m N O O U� O O CC) O O N O O N O 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) ?4 —18 —12 —6 0 6 <J E d ----------------------------------- ......................... ..................... 12 .TJ O Ti r FTl r Z 71 Z7 I N F-- ^O l / D O Z n O CD El rA I I I I I I r C- C C ZO Z < cD c0 CO CO N r 07 CI O N N N O O o OO O -- - ----- - - - --- - --- - - - - ------ -- O ! J D N m Z D tl�I 7--A-------- - - - - -- . . ------------------ .................... . II N W Cn Z pp �� O Ul 00 N O LP r-,9 J U) CA G7 CO ICJ „ M R1 - - - ------- --- --- Z n c, m Y' l ----- ---- -- - ---- - ------ <J E d ----------------------------------- ......................... ..................... 12 .TJ O Ti r FTl r Z 71 Z7 I N F-- ^O l / D O Z n O CD El rA -24 • c� 0 O v n rD v v GCi rD W O W i O CA O O m 0 0 H r rl _ � N O O cn O O 00 O O N O O r� O 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —18 —12 —6 0 6 --- ------------ ---------- ---- ----- - - 12 70 O r fTl F- r-- O n D O z n 0 rn O Z -- -- - - - - -- __- - - - - -- - -- - - - -- - n L C O (O (D r_ C Z < O c0 :: N r O Ui I O N N r N O O -. O O p O ------------ - t . (.D r rl Z D N i� �I �L..� . -;:- -- . - - - - - -. .... ......... ---- - - - - -- - -- r N C>o 00 J 00 p M f. O N O Cf) O O N Z7 FTI l Tl FTl Tl vj ri M m =---- --- -- ------ ------- --- -- --- ------ --------- CD O i€ ................ u .........- -- ------ ---- --- . . . ................. - -- ---- -- ---- --- --- ------------ ---------- ---- ----- - - 12 70 O r fTl F- r-- O n D O z n 0 rn 1 C14 O O U Ull O O m `D O O v m w 0 r7 _ r7 O O cn O O 00 O O N O O N O 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 0 z O r� z r� r- 0 C7 D -I O z n 0 (' C•7 c� 0 0 0 W O O v n r�r O O n� 0'U (D W O 1p O O O -r1 r-1 _ m I N O O U1 O O N O O N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 70 0 Ti F- m r z r� 77 I UT1 r- 0 n D O Z C) O CD 0 w O O v n �+ O O v Oq (D W O Ql 1 • F7 _ F7 -{ N O O Cil O O N N O O N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 O FF F- z r� I m F- O C7 D O Z n O CD C7 I U c c 1 v v 0) '° o D O v vo ro w 0 V O O C F-7 _ m � N O O U� O O N O O • N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 0 T� F- Fri z m I F- 0 C7 D O Z C� O CD c� O 0 c� 0 0 -0 a f° o v 0 ao ro w 0 90 C� 0 r7, M -1 N O O O O O O N O O N O O 12 O r] O D O Z n O CD • • I• c C, c c ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 N w Z ,•' °` ----------------- •� O 1 z 0 L C 0 co (-0 -,j OC) m C z < co co 00 C)o N r .._ m cn ~w O N N N O O o 0 o O f O -i m . N m Z ,•' °` ----------------- •� N J 00 W -,j OC) m -, O 00 C)o .._ -T] m m m m m -i q m . m - O -- ---- - -- - -- -- ----- ------ - - - - -- 4. .......... a ------ .. . . ..... 12 O m z m I O r- 0 0 D O Z n I W O O O CA O O v A 7C" 0) O v sv 00 (D W N O CD O O 0 m O O O O Cb O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) �d -1R -1i -Fi D 6 12 1 I 1 ' i B I i i N O ................ :. .....---------- :.... ............ O � ............. /)` N O O :0 O �l m Z m I CP O F- 0 n D O z n 0 C �---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.....- ZO - 0O c_ C O O._.._ C Z < CO (D O N O O f O 00 o O co ` D m Z D T N �I...JI .... .... .....: ............ ------ --- ----- ------ ------ --- --- ---------------- II O z h N J 00 00 J J m O Cn O m ` m m m m -- - - - - -- z m� ; © I - - - -- - - - -- — - -- - ........ - - j N O ................ :. .....---------- :.... ............ O � ............. /)` N O O :0 O �l m Z m I CP O F- 0 n D O z n 0 C ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 •c c c u c c -0 c c zv ,WNW -7 m r7 N) 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 O 0 • N) -P�- 0 0 > N i- - - - - -- -- . . . - - - - ------------ m II C- C C Z O (.0 (0 ------ -------- - - -- - -- - -- 0 00 0') 01 0 0 0 TI 0 0 0 C) -------- -------------- ----- --- ----- ------ CO > N m II C)) ................. > Z < ----- -- - - - - -- -------- ------ ---- ------ -------- - - -- - -- - -- 0 00 M C /) F9 O 0 TI M m- rT, 71 m Z ----- --- --- -- -- -------- -- i - M . .......... O ............ ----------- ------- -- ----- ----------- ------------- ................. --I - * ------ I I - I - I'V ------------------ * ---------------- ---------------- I ---------------------------------- I 12 ZJ 0 T� r- FTl F- r- 0 0 0 CD I I cl� 0 0 0 CA O O "0 a� O') -' o v w N O O O 0 rn _ rn ..i N O O CP O O co O O N O O N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) 24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 ------------ - - - --- ----- --I .... .......... (. 14 ----------------------------------- : ---------------- I ................. ..... I........... 12 O Frl F- z f Tl �J I CP N r O n D -I O Z n O CD C7 el i w I i .4\ '. 0 .- 0O c- C C Z < Co O Co O i N O F N N 6) Ln o N O O Of��;I. R' ---------------- :... .... ------- Q0 D rn Z D N .....tl...11...- �................ ... ..... - - - - - -- _ ------- - - - - -- -------------------------- w C7) � z .. fr N W C-TI rn 4. 0 o Cb N U) o CA N m r: rn rn rn ,1 m m z O .......:. --- - - - ---------- ------------------------------...-----...--- ------------ - - - --- ----- --I .... .......... (. 14 ----------------------------------- : ---------------- I ................. ..... I........... 12 O Frl F- z f Tl �J I CP N r O n D -I O Z n O CD C7 el v n rD v -0 v (D W W —24 I c� O O O cl� O O rn O O cc O O m _ M --4 N O O CTi O O 00 O O N O O N -P O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —18 —12 —6 0 6 1 1` I 1 .. ................# n---------------:......----------:- .......--------i.....---- - - - - -- :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I 12 O r fTl r Z m ZJ I CTi r- 0 C� D O Z n O CD i ZO c— C CD co N C I-" Z < CO CD O O N O N O O O O ',...- OM ---- -- y -- - - -- - - - -- --- -- -- -- c0 m Z D N .�/ �D---- - - - - -- . . - - - -- II �; --------------------------- - - - -- - - -------- - -- w 00 M J Z n N J 00 O -4�. N M O O O C0 ;U m M m m m m T' m. m m � ... -. —i m m 1 1` I 1 .. ................# n---------------:......----------:- .......--------i.....---- - - - - -- :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I 12 O r fTl r Z m ZJ I CTi r- 0 C� D O Z n O CD -24 0 0 m (A 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 -------------- -------------------- O Ti z 00 C-- C 0 (D Q0 C Z < QO cc M r m cn 0 N) m Ln 0 CD O 0 O 0 ............... 0 (J1 II > ------------------- CD -------------- -------------------- O Ti - ------ l- ------------------- CD--- ------ - -- - ............... ............. ------------------- 0 ----------- --- 0 I C �-I > m Z CD (D O N Ln CD ................................ ............... CD— II > ------------------- "ell ........... N U4 z 00 (D 00 M CD U) cn m m -71 -71 �9 0 m M M o m -:U ---- ---- -- --- ---- - ----- I - - --- ---- --- M C) m m r7l ----------------- 0 . ......... ............ ---------------- ---------------- 0 0 n O CD ................ ........... ................ --------------------------- ---- ---------------- CD - ------ l- ------------------- CD--- ------ - -- - ............... ............. ------------------- 0 ----------- --- 0 I C �-I -24 c� 0 O O C,j O O v C) O v (D W N to O O 0 F_ _ —� N O O 6; O O 00 O O N O O • N O 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —18 —12 —6 Q 6 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - 12 .0 O TI F_ m F_ Z m C I cn cn O C� D O Z C� O (D I I I I I n C- C O�D cD f N r CT CTI O N N {r N O O O O O O OO-) co -- - - --- -- - - - ------ -- - l D m Z N Z N 00 �I J O N m Cn O -,j CA r � D CP ;U O m m -9 m --- - m - m - m -m -;U- - - - - - .- - - - - -- -i M O m ED ....................... ............. `................ ................................. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - 12 .0 O TI F_ m F_ Z m C I cn cn O C� D O Z C� O (D I O O Cam.' cl� O O -D m 0) O O v 00 ro w N rn 0 Cn m _ m � N O O CJ� O O 07 O O N O O N O O 12 m O TI r— m z m I CT) f- O O D O Z n O CD I • I cl� 0 0 0 C�j O O v v �r 0) O O v 0'q —_ -- - -- - - - - -- fD W N L C CD CO r' O O Z 0 CIO N F— 0') Ch m y O M � N N O' O O O cTi O O 00 O O N O O O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) ?4 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 O M Z M I r- 0 n D O Z n O O I —_ -- - -- - - - - -- DO L C CD CO r' C Z < O (D N F— 0') Ch y O N N O N O' O O O O O O UI ..... O D m Z O N U) yt ; ----- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - - -- ,,I:. -- ----------- �' -- -- --- ----- ..:................ II rn z N �I W O 0 O N it W 7u m F9 ,i m m� - - -� - - - -- ------ --- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - -- - z � m ..................... o >� ............................ . . . ... .......................... .............. �-- -------- -- --- --- -- ---- ----- -- --------'----- -- ----- - ---- -------- ------------ --- ----------...... g ; 12 O M Z M I r- 0 n D O Z n O O I fD F- 90 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 ........... < CD .............................. ---------------- ........ ----------- CD lo El I c� 0 -------------- ------ --- ---- -------- -- --- -------- - --------- - - ................... CD Qi C:D C ------ - ----------------- ------ ------------ ---- --- -------- -- 0 0 7- FT� o 0 �o �o ----------- C Z < r D (0 0-) u z 0 N) N) CA N 0 0 0 o o 0 0- 0 C)) Lp ------ -- --- - ------ - -- ------- ----- - ------- ---- Q0 Ul 00 O N Ln 0 ........ 0 . ....... > ................ ---- --------------------- ----- ---------------- II 0-) 00 0-) Oti M C/) 0 UJ N 0 ;;u -T, 0 F71 r7l M •0— -M z ---- ------ ---- ------------- ---------- F9 (T) m M N 0 — ------------ ---------- --------------- -------- -------- ............................ .......... 0 0 0 (D U, 0 ---------------- ........ ........ . .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. ..... ....... CD ........... < CD .............................. ---------------- ........ ----------- CD lo El CD00 -------------- ------ --- ---- -------- -- --- -------- - --------- - - ................... CD Qi ........... < CD .............................. ---------------- ........ ----------- CD lo El cl� 0 O U CA O 0 a� A r�r O O v 0[1 (D W I� 1p • rrl rrl --I N O O cs 0 O 00 O O N O O r� O 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 71 z O T, F- 71 z r� I co r- 0 n D O z n 0 (D 7 I c� 0 0 O CA O O v O 0 v v 00 w N O CD O 0 0 F m M � N O O Ui O O W O O N O O N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) 24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 O m r- 7 m Z m J I U� O r- 0 O D O Z C7 O CD 0 i i -- - - - - - - - - - - . - - - -- - - - - - - - - ZO DO L C CD co rte! r C Z < cD O N I— O7 CP !r' O N N O N p O O p,-, Om ------- - --- ------- D m Z - N .....11...11 ... ................ . ---------- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- ---------------- II W 0 v M O °o J CA N m m m M m C) O : .............: ...... ..` ?= ....:.............. ..:.............-- ............. 12 O m r- 7 m Z m J I U� O r- 0 O D O Z C7 O CD 0 O 0 0 w O 0 -o v A r�r O 0 v OL1 (D W N I� O O O C r� M -� N O O U� O O 00 O O N O O leN O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 `8 -12 -6 0 6 12 ------- ------ ---------------- ------�: ---- s 0 m F- r- 0 n D O Z n O (D fD ELEV. (FEET NAVD) 24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 .......... ................ ...... --- 0 CD ------------------ - --- - -------- - --------------- .. . ............ xi ............. ................. .................................... 0 1 C) 2- (D • r*-m F� n C— C 0 cD QO C Z < CO CO Lp 0 N) N) Fn - N) 0 0 o 0 CD o ---------- 0- (D 0') 0) 0 CD ................ > : ....... -- - ---------------------------- ---------------- C)) 0 Cyl M 0 -p- 0-) C,j OC) co o FTI 0 FFJ r7l M 0 --------- ---- ---- - - -- --- ---- o FT Z PQ .......... ....................... -------------------------------- ----------- .......... ................ ...... --- 0 CD ------------------ - --- - -------- - --------------- .. . ............ xi ............. ................. .................................... 0 1 C) 2- (D • r*-m • w 0 O 0 w O O d A 77 C-) ,fir O O CU UQ (D W N W i O O O F71 _ F7 � N O O U O O N O O • N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 70 0 m F- z r� I N F- O O D O Z O 0 CD fD (D -24 0 0 � ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -18 -12 -6 - 0 6 12 E0, CD 0 ---------------- --------------- :: ---------- ------------------- 0 0 ............... . 0 0 EI *I - --- ---- ------ 0 m C-- C 0 (-o ro C Z < Qo (D N) F- m Cn 0 m N) 71 N) 0 0 O O 0 o o - 0- 0 m ------- ------ - I ---- - -------- --- - ....... . CD > m z C:) 0) N CD CA C)) co o 0-) Lj 0 I,j o m -1 m 9 i O m m m 0-- m m �u -- -- --- - ---- -- ---------- - - ---- -- -------- --- --- --- - -- ----- o M z U) C) CD . ........................ .............. .......... ... .... . . . . .. ......... ............ ... ........... 0 0 o u .................... ........... ................ --- ---------------------- ...... ................ 0 CD E0, CD 0 ---------------- --------------- :: ---------- ------------------- 0 0 ............... . 0 0 EI *I • w 0 0 C7 CA O 0 v v 0) rD 0 o m ao m w N 1p M7"�I H Now' TI F7 _ M -i fv O O Ui O O N O O i N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 O rr� F- z r� I f— O C� D —i O Z n O CD -v v m v ao m w N w O O L N H W U) -I Tr r7 _ 17 � N O O CTS O O N N O O N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 I 12 O T- r- Fri r- z rrl rn cn r- O n D O Z n O CD • u' C J w 0 O 0 c� 0 0 o� rt o O v M w N V H H 0 TI IT1 m N O O u O O OD O O N O O r� O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 0 Ti r- m F- z r� o� F- 0 C) D -i O Z n O (D I W O 0 C] c� 0 0 CD n � O � O v fD W N 90 H 0 GO Tl M _ m � N 0 O O O 00 O O N O O N O O 12 O 1* F- rT1 z r� rn r- 0 n D O Z n O CD I cl� 0 O m 0 0 v v C) 17- O rt O o O v UQ (D W N 1p CO O O O m _ r7l � N O O U1 O O N O O • N -P O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 70 O m z r*� I rn 00 r- 0 n D O Z n O CD I I cli O O w CA O O a� n o v O v ao ro w w O m _ m O O Ui O O 00 O O N O O N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 0 rl r- rr� z m I r— O 0 D O Z C7 O O • cl� 0 0 n CA O O a� r rD O O v w w N hH 77 F7 � N O O Cn O O N O O N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 12 0 T, F- FT, r- z r� I 0 r- O C7 D O Z n O CD I (D sv aq (D W �j v ............... I ................. ................ ... ........ 'i : ------------- -------------- 0 ----------- ................... ----- ------------------ - --------------------- C) 0 -�tV --------------- ... ----------- ----------------- ----------------- : ----- ----------- ----- 0 -------------- N) kl� 0 0 O E 7 -24 - -18 - ELEV. (FEET NAVD) 12 0 CD -------------- -- - --------- 0 L C C O O CD CO 2 i 1 1 FTI C Z Z < < (D (D 0 N NJ r r-j O o 0 . o . /--- -- ------------------------------------ > m m z z ( (D 0) N N ----------------------------- - o Ii z - - - ------ - ----------- C)) z 0 CD C Fri - -ri - rTl M Fri 0 m m - - -rn - - - �;u -- - -- -------- - --- - ---------- -- - - --------- ---- ---- -- - - ----- ----- m m --4 17 ----------- - ....................... . ........... 0 0 ............... I ................. ................ ... ........ 'i : ------------- -------------- 0 ----------- ................... ----- ------------------ - --------------------- C) 0 -�tV --------------- ... ----------- ----------------- ----------------- : ----- ----------- ----- 0 -------------- N) kl� 0 0 O E 7 I • I C,j O O O cl� O O o.i n rD r O v O CD oao rD w w w O O 0 m M —� N O O O O 00 O O N O O • N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 -4 ----------- 4 ---- I -------------- '------------------ ` ---------------- I ---------------- - ---------------- I 12 -o O r rT� I— Z fTl �J I J N r- O n D O Z C O (D I i i i i i l 1 - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- - ,. O Z — n C O cfl c0 C Z < co cD _ --- -- - N f m Ul O N O O O O O O OC� Cn --- - ----- -_— - . - - -- . � �........... ............... co -" a„. frl N �I II -- -- ------------ - - - --- - -- - - - - -- - - -- } w rn Z co rn mom.? O o' w• O u, y D co C)) ;;o ` m m , M m m � m ---- - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - -- -- � Z C 71 O -4 ----------- 4 ---- I -------------- '------------------ ` ---------------- I ---------------- - ---------------- I 12 -o O r rT� I— Z fTl �J I J N r- O n D O Z C O (D I -0 rD (D L. LU ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 0 0 - ------------ 1, -- ---------------------------- --- ---- ---------------------------- 0 00 ---------------------- ----------------- 0 — -------- --- -- ---------------------- -Ti C- C- C Z M N) r o) Ul 0 N) N) 00 0 0 0 0 C:) 0 or) (Ji . .............. IC > r7 z 7-) 0') N cr) 0 --i > ............... --------------- ----------------- ................ 0 ... X4* ...... Co CYI 0') (JI FTI 0 Cn Cf) Co -P, 7U 0 m co F71 -Ti -T, -T� Fll r7 M 0 -- ---------------------------- --------------------------- ----- ----- 7 r7 M N) ...... ................................. .... ........... 0 0 --------- 01 .... --------- " " - ----------------- z N) -P, 0 0 n 0 (D I E C7 - ------------ 1, -- ---------------------------- --- ---- ---------------------------- 0 N) -P, 0 0 n 0 (D I E C7 00 0 — -------- --- -- ---------------------- ------ - - IC ---------------- ........... .............. ............ ..................................... O lz N) -P, 0 0 n 0 (D I E C7 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 •' w 0 0 0 W 0 0 CD 0 00 0 0 N) 8 0 i N CD 0 ................................. -- --------- 77 C) ---------------- .................................................. CD 0 > 0-) C) C- C C Z 0 co (o < CO co FT1 10, G) (-D CA m 4�- — 0 N) O N) 0 -T, --,, Fl O 0 0 o 0) 0 (JI CD --- ---- --- (.0 0 r7 r7 N) 0 0 CD 0 00 0 0 N) 8 0 i N CD 0 ............... lz ........ ----------- I ----- ---------- L ---------------- I ---------- ------ I ---------------- 12 -u �u 0 Ti fT z fTl r- 0 0 n 2- O ................................. -- --------- ---------------- .................................................. > 0-) C) C- C C Z 0 co (o < CO co FT1 10, G) (-D CA m 4�- — 0 N) O N) 0 -T, --,, Fl O 0 0 o 0) 0 (JI --------------- �w ---- ----- --- ---- --- (.0 - ------- ------ ----- - ---- ............... lz ........ ----------- I ----- ---------- L ---------------- I ---------- ------ I ---------------- 12 -u �u 0 Ti fT z fTl r- 0 0 n 2- O N ---------------- .................................................. > 0-) z 0) 0 FT1 10, 0 CA m 4�- — FT1 -T, --,, Fl Frl T m --- --- m I rg --j --------- --- -- ----- -- ---- ----------- - M - ------- ------ ----- - ---- ............... lz ........ ----------- I ----- ---------- L ---------------- I ---------- ------ I ---------------- 12 -u �u 0 Ti fT z fTl r- 0 0 n 2- O OU (D U-) 9) ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —12 —6 0 6 12 Lo L. ol 0 Tl F- —24 > FT1 Z 0 —18 0 CD N 0 . 0 ..... ....................... > .......................... -------- • ---------------- Z n CY) Cp CA Frl n CD C p co co C Z < CO co M r (.0 ;;o 0) C-P 0 FT1 M N) 0 0 0 o 0 o o - ----- 0- 0 M (JI Lo ELEV. (FEET NAVD) —12 —6 0 6 12 Lo L. ol 0 Tl F- CD 0 x C-I > FT1 Z 0 CD N . 0 ..... ....................... > .......................... -------- • ---------------- Z n CY) Cp CA Frl CD 6,0 U) 00 (.0 ;;o CD FT1 FT1 -71 -7 -Tl m m rTi - o- --F-9 m-�- - -------- - --- - - -------- - ----- QD Cf) m -7 C) M > 0 . . ................ ----------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0 CD 0 0 — ---- ------- ........... ................ ............................. ................ CD CD 0 x C-I I • I cli 0 0 C W 0 0 ul, CD 0 00 0 CD N 0 0 • N 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 m z QD N rt U) ................ 0') 0 ----------- ---- CD > z I (D M W 0 0 LU O CD DO L C (D CO F71 7-1 -TI 7n 0 C Z 0 ------------------ -------------------------- N) F- 0 rj N) r7 — M M 0 0 O 0 o 0 ul, CD 0 00 0 CD N 0 0 • N 0 0 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 —18 —12 —6 0 6 > m z QD N U) ................ --------------------------------- ----------- ---- 0-) > z I M 0 0 O 0 O CD DO L C (D CO F71 7-1 -TI 7n 9 M C Z < (D (D ------------------ -------------------------- N) F- 0 rj N) — M 0 0 O 0 o o 0 C3) Ln -- -- -------- ------------- - > m z QD N U) ................ --------------------------------- ----------- ---- 0-) > z I M 0 0 O 0 O CD m F71 7-1 -TI 7n 9 M N ------------------ -------------------------- ............. ..... .............................................................................. 12 0 m m r- 0 n 0 n 2- (D I cl� 0 0 M c.� 0 0 v v f° o o v 00 rD w w 00 H H 0 m M O O CTI O O co O O N O O N O 0 12 • 0 Ti r- m z m i v v r— O C� D O Z n O rD 7 0 • •0 0 0 w O O -v v r) rt o O v DU (D W W lD i lfl O O D m F7 N O O CIS O O N O O N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 7c 0 m z m 7u I v 00 F- 0 n D O Z n O (D sv (D ao rD O 6 0 ............. ---------------------- ---------- ................ ....... ........... 0� d fw, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 0 -- - - -------- -- ---- ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- ------------------- CD -------------------------- -------- 0 ----------------- 0 � - - -- - - - - - - ............... : O O n 0 (D L 0 -24 -18 ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -12 -6 0 6 12 0 O ----- - --- ------ - ------- ---- 0 C- Z Frl 0 C- 0 O Q0 rt C z < Co (0 0 ND 0 o rj 0 0 o 0- 0 or) (JI -------------- -------- -- -- ---- --------- -- -- ------- -- -- 0) > N m z o 0 --d ........................... ....... .................. -------------- ----------- o > 0-) Z (') co CUn 0 1: ',6 0 N) Ln O m o F9 -9 M -n m --i .. : o T71 -rn ....... --------------- FJ5 fr7l M N) 0 - ----------------- .............. ............... . -------------------- .......... 6 0 ............. ---------------------- ---------- ................ ....... ........... 0� d fw, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 0 -- - - -------- -- ---- ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- ------------------- CD -------------------------- -------- 0 ----------------- 0 � - - -- - - - - - - ............... : O O n 0 (D L 0 -24 • I O O O O O v v rt O Qq rD W N i H H 7 I7 F7 I N O O O O 00 O O N O O N O O ELEV. (FEET NAVD) -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 4--------------- tap - - -- --------------- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- ----------- i ................. ----------- - - -- --t-- --------- -- rs-•-. ... .. .... .. ---- • --- -- --------- ...... ------------- r.. ...... ......................... —i - -- - ------hl -`---- - --- .............. ............ . .I - .......... Z7 O TI l- fTl I— Z m I 00 O r- 0 O D O Z O O CD 1 i I i -------------- - - - ------ -- O C— Z O CO CO _ C Z < O O N r 07 N UI `. o O O O o o Oo, U-, - -- - - - - - -- - - -- ------------ ................ D fT1 Z N I I ` N Z F9 O O N O N CA cn O G7 71 -71 TI F71 M M Z 4--------------- tap - - -- --------------- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- ----------- i ................. ----------- - - -- --t-- --------- -- rs-•-. ... .. .... .. ---- • --- -- --------- ...... ------------- r.. ...... ......................... —i - -- - ------hl -`---- - --- .............. ............ . .I - .......... Z7 O TI l- fTl I— Z m I 00 O r- 0 O D O Z O O CD 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. February 9, 2012 TS Fay FEMA funding renewal discussion Concerns relative to the continued authorization from FEMA of TS Fay existing Project Work authorization (PW's) have been reviewed and discussed with the CAC, TDC, County management and the Board of County Commissioners. This is a summary of decisions made, the rational for these decisions and the history surrounding this subject. FEMA authorized two PW's for the damage caused in 2009 by TS Fay to the main Collier County Beaches (PW 1146 for 175,000 CY's of sand at an estimated cost of $7,900,000 on 2/26/2009) and the Marco South Beach (PW 0561 for 77,000 CY's of sand at an estimated cost of $2,800,000 on 3/4/2009). A time extension was granted on 5/19/2011 to extent the completion date until 8/23/2012. An additional time extension was requested and recommended by Florida Department of Emergency Management to FEMA Region IV in Atlanta on 1/27/2012. This requested an extension for both these projects until 12/31/2014. The next beach renourishment planning began in the summer /fall of 2010, four years after the 2005/06 renourishment. A proposal to develop a conceptual design and options utilizing modeling program support was developed in Fall 2010 and approved by the CAC on 10/14/2010 and the TDC on 11/22/2010. On 2/7/2011 the Naples City Council and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners directed staff to maximize the time between major renourishments with a comprehensive plan /solution that incorporated sand placement, hot spot mitigation and potential structural solutions. This resulted in the proposed Conceptual Design and integration plan that is currently being presented. A timeline leading up to this plan is as follows: • Studies in the summer and fall of 2010 lead to the development of a proposal for the conceptual design, options and modeling studies on 10/8/2010. • CAC approval on 10/14/10 and TDC approval it on 11/22/2010. • Conceptual design update report on 3/10/2011 • Draft Conceptual design report on 5/12/2011 • Final report in October 2011. • All these reports and updates were discussed, reviewed and approved by the CAC. The beaches were not renourished immediately after TS Fay for the following reasons: 1. TS Fay occurred 3 years after the 2005/06 renourishment. The beaches were healthy and although they did receive 175,000 CY of sand loss attributable to TS Fay, they were not in need of immediate renourishment. 2. Delaying renourishment and combining it with a "planned renourishment program" would provide a more technically and financially significantly project and solution. This was the exact approach used for the 2005/06 renourishment where TS Gabrielle, Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Wilma PW's were combined with Collier County's planned renourishment to achieve Packet Page -342- 4/10/2012 Item 11.A. savings. We were also able to secure an additional $9M in additional funding as a result of this approach. 3. Renourishing three years after the last major beach renourishment would not be effective because 175,000 CY's would be placed throughout the 8.5 miles of shoreline of the Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples beaches. Individual beach volumes and quantities would not have a significant impact; cost the County at least $2M in local cost share and the County would lose the opportunity to have FEMA pay for the project fixed cost on a combined project in the future. 4. Time extensions had always been granted in the past and were also granted prior on this project. 5. Major permit modifications would have needed to be secured. 6. Funds were authorized but not appropriated or earmarked for this project. Collier County would need to fund the work and then after audit approval at the end of the project, would be reimbursed at a 75% rate if funds were available. If funds were not available the County would need to wait until the next FEMA congressional appropriation was approved. A priority list of reimbursement would also need to be developed and Collier County would be placed on that schedule. 7. Our conceptual plan approach has been discussed and confirmed many times by the CAC and TDC. There is no reason to anticipate that the extension request for PW's 1146 and 0561 to 12/31/2014 will not be granted. Staff has developed this request in sufficient time for our congressional delegation to provide support. Collier County Federal lobbyists have been engaged to help with this process. However, staff cannot guarantee that the extension request will be granted. Staff began as early as 10/27/2009 in BCC item 10A to discuss that continued federal funding, support and project renewal could not be guaranteed. Packet Page -343-