1. Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness PEER REVIEW REPORT OF SEAWALL STABILIZATION OPTIONS 23 April 2015 Prepared for:Harbor Bay Community Development District, Apollo Beach, Florida

2. Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW EXISTING SEAWALL TYPE AND CURRENT CONDITION

3. Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness SEAWALL OPTIONS The following options have been reviewed and analyzed from Ingenium Inc.’s 25 Sept 2014 “Mirabay Pilot Project Report”: Option 1: Rip-Rap Berm, 8-Feet-Wide, EL+2, Supplemental Tieback Option 2: Rip-Rap Berm, 4.5-Feet-Wide, Knee-Wall, Supplemental Tieback Option 3: New FRP (Fiberglass Reinforced Composite) Seawall, Existing Tieback Only, New Cap Modified Option 1: Rip-Rap Berm, 8-Feet-Wide, EL+3 (or higher) Existing Tieback Only

4. Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness Option 1 Rip-Rap Berm, 8-Feet-Wide, EL+2, Supplemental Tieback

5. Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness Option 2 Rip-Rap Berm, 4.5-Feet-Wide, Knee-Wall, Supplemental Tieback

6. Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness Option 3 New FRP Seawall, Existing Tieback Only, New Cap

7. Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness Modified Option 1 Rip-Rap Berm, 8-Feet-Wide, EL+3 (or higher), Existing Tieback Only -

8. Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness Results of Peer Review Pilot Study Condition Langan Modified Seawall Profile FS M MAX (ft-kip/ft) Tieback 1 Force (kips) Tieback 2 Force (kips) Baseline (Exisiting Condition)1.033.531.1No tieback Option 1 (Rip Rap)1.351.190.21 Option 2 (Knee Wall)1.341.220.21 Option 31.902.940.9No tieback Option 1 Modified1.381.120.4No tieback

9. Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness Conclusions of Peer Review A.Pilot Test Study: Well devised and beneficial B.Options 1, 2 and 3 are all technically viable C.Option 2 does not improve F.S., but provides 4 additional navigable feet at a significantly increased cost compared to Option 1. D.Option 3 is the most aesthetically pleasing and eliminates navigation issues. Highest cost. E.Modified Option 1 (Langan) would simplify construction and reduce cost by eliminating new tieback and whaler system Modified Option 1Option 3

10. Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness Next Steps A.Confirmatory Geotechnical Investigation (Underway) B.Preparation of Design Drawings with Approved Options C.Bidding and Interaction and with Potential Contractors D.Final Plan Approved E.Schedule and Commence Stabilization Activities