Indian River County, Florida. Beach Preservation Plan

Transcription

1 by Vero Beach, Florida

2 Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Indian River County developed and adopted its first comprehensive beach preservation plan in 1988 which included a management strategy addressing coastal erosion problems along the County s shoreline. The last Plan Update was completed in In the interim, the County and the City of Vero Beach have commissioned several additional studies to monitor beach conditions and identify solutions to eroding beach areas. In addition, over 2.77 million cubic yards of sand have been placed on County beaches from 1978 to Most of this sand has been placed on the northern end of the County partially as a result of the transfer of sand from the Sebastian Inlet. During 2004 and 2005, County beaches were severely impacted by several hurricanes which caused significant beach erosion which prompted many dune restoration and seawall projects, providing some, but limited protection to upland improvements. This document presents the results of an evaluation of current conditions with a recommended long-term Plan to preserve County beaches. Detailed analysis of current physical conditions and the potential risk of damage to upland property by future erosion if unabated - are described in a separate report titled, Indian River County, Florida - - Conditions Analysis. In the 1998 Plan Update, the County was divided into eight planning Sectors to reflect physical and jurisdictional boundaries. In this 2008 Plan Update, slight modifications to the boundary locations are recommended to address current beach conditions (Table 6.1 and Figure 6.1). In general, Sectors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are recommended for minimal beach and/or dune restoration projects; Sectors 6 and 8 are recommended to remain Natural Beaches with no new action by the County. Major beach nourishment projects are not recommended within the County because of the associated adverse impacts to nearshore hardbottom habitat prevalent in the County. Beaches in Sectors 1, 2 and 7 have been restored by the County. Sectors 1 and 2 are expected to be maintained by sand transfer activities by the Sebastian Inlet District. Future maintenance is expected to be required in Sector 7. Sector 3 experienced significant beach and dune loss from 1985 to 2005 and is recommended as the County s next beach restoration project. The total costs to initially restore Sectors 3, 4 and 5 are estimated Plan implementation is estimated at $30.8 million. Total annual costs to implement the Plan are estimated at nearly $8 million per year. The success of this 2008 update depends upon the establishment of a long range beach erosion control funding plan by the County. This report presents probable costs and prioritizes means for funding (as identified by County staff) for implementation of the Plan. The proposed program requires a local funding contribution with cost sharing by the State of Florida. i

3 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... I 1.0 INTRODUCTION General Prior Erosion Control Efforts Goal of BEACH CONDITIONS Historical Shoreline and Beach Volume Changes Critically Eroded Areas Historical Beach Nourishment Biological Resources Environmental Resources - Nature and Extent of Existing Data Environmental Resources Additional Data and/or Investigations SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS General Native Beach North Borrow Site Central Borrow Site South Borrow Site Compatibility with Native Beach Additional Geotechnical Data and/or Investigations PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Evaluation Strategies Considered for Beach Preservation Evaluation of No Action Alternative - Sector SECTOR BOUNDARIES & BEACH MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Sector 1a Sectors 1b and Sector 3a and 3b Sector Sector Sector Sector Sector Probable Costs to Implement the Recommended Plan PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY FDEP Guidelines County Shoreline Qualified for FDEP funding Potential Beach Access Point Improvements FUNDING Overview of Potential Funding Sources Federal Funding State Funding Local Funding County General Revenue Special Assessment Municipal Services Taxing Unit...43 ii

4 8.4.3 Municipal Services Benefit Unit Tourist Development Tax Revenues Local Option Sales Tax Sebastian Inlet Tax District Inter-local Agreement Other Options City Ordinance Preferred Funding Options RECOMMENDATIONS Plan Recommendations Post Storm Recovery Year Funding Strategy REFERENCES...49 List of Tables Table 1: Existing Sector Boundaries... 1 Table 2: Historical Sand Fill Placement... 9 Table 3: Indian River County Table 4: Potential Upland Property Losses and Today s Value Table 5: Recommended Sector Boundaries & Beach Management Strategies Table 6: Probable Costs to Implement the Recommended Plan Table 7: Existing Public Access Sites Table 8: Eligible & Critically Eroded Shoreline and State Cost-Sharing Table 9: Potential New Beach Access Sites Table 10: Eligible & Critically Eroded Shoreline and State Cost-Sharing Table 11: Ten -Year Funding Strategy List of Figures Figure 1: Existing Sector Boundaries, 1998 Update... 2 Figure 2: Critically Eroded Areas (FDEP, 2008)... 3 Figure 3: 1972 to Shoreline (elevation 0-foot contour) and Volume Change... 7 Figure 4: 1986 to Shoreline (elevation 0-foot contour) and Volume Change... 8 Figure 5a: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sectors 1 & Figure 5b: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sector Figure 5c: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sector Figure 5d: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sectors 5 & Figure 5e: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sectors 7 & Figure 6: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sectors 1 & Figure 7: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sector Figure 8: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sector Figure 9: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sectors 5 & Figure 10: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sectors 7 & Figure 11: Offshore Borrow Areas (from ATM, 2000) List of Appendices Appendix A: Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost iii

5 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General During 2004, Hurricane Frances and Hurricane Jeanne severely impacted beaches along Florida s east coast including Indian River County beaches. In response to these impacts, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners determined that it is necessary to update the County s. The Board authorized the preparation of this document in collaboration with the County s Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as Beach Committee ) to update the County s. Indian River County includes about 22.4 miles of beaches fronting the Atlantic Ocean - extending from the northern boundary of the County at Sebastian Inlet to Round Island Park to the south. Florida s sandy beaches are monitored by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) through its Beach Erosion Control Program. FDEP periodically collects beach profile data at fixed survey reference monuments located approximately 1000 feet apart along Florida s sandy beaches. Within Indian River County, the monuments are numbered R-1 through R-119 beginning at the north end of the County as shown in Figure 1. In 1998, the County adopted the County s Update, which divides the County s shoreline into eight (8) Sectors demarked by the FDEP monuments as identified in Table 1. Table 1: Existing Sector Boundaries 1998 Update Sector North South Boundary Boundary 1 R-1 R-11 2 R-11 T-19 3 T-19 R-45 4 R-45 R-71 5 R-71 R-86 6 R-86 R-94 7 R-94 R R-113 R-119 FDEP has classified 15.7 miles of beach in the County as critically eroded areas as shown in Figure 2 (FDEP, 2008). FDEP defines a critically eroded area as: a segment of the shoreline where natural processes or human activity have caused or contributed to erosion and recession of the beach or dune system to such a degree that upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat, or important cultural sources are threatened or lost. Critically eroded areas may also include peripheral segments or gaps between identified critically eroded areas which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects (FDEP, 2008). Page 1 of 51

6 Figure 1: Existing Sector Boundaries, 1998 Update Page 2 of 51

7 Figure 2: Critically Eroded Areas (FDEP, 2008) Page 3 of 51

8 1.2 Prior Erosion Control Efforts The County s was updated and adopted in 1998 (IRC, 1998); a twotiered strategy was adopted to address the County s erosion problems as follows: 1) Restore and maintain the beaches south of Sebastian Inlet, which have been adversely impacted by the Inlet s presence. 2) Restore and maintain areas of critical erosion. (Indian River County, 1998) The 1998 report recommended that beach nourishment be implemented in four (4) project locations: Sectors 1: Obtain a cooperative agreement with Sebastian Inlet Taxing District for sand placement, and design, construct and monitor a feeder beach project between R4 and R11. (Sector 2: Project not included/main residential area). Sector 3: Design, construct and monitor a beach restoration project between R37 and R45. Implement a Dune Maintenance Program for the remainder of the Sector. Sector 5: Complete the monitoring program for the Prefabricated Erosion Prevention (P.E.P.) Reef breakwater project and design, construct and monitor a beach restoration project between R77 and R86. Sector 7: Design, construct and monitor a beach restoration project between R100 and R107. Sectors 4, 6, and 8. Maintain a Natural Beach Policy. In 2000, the Indian River County Beach Restoration Projects Engineering Design Report (ATM, February 2000) was completed. This report addresses the eight (8) designated planning Sectors and recommended periodic nourishment of the County s critically eroded beaches. In 2002, the County commissioned Beach Condition Analysis (Woods Hole Group, Inc, July 2002). This report reviewed the existing beach profile data collected since 1998 and presented an updated account of the condition of the beaches in The County completed initial beach restoration in Sectors 1 and 2 in 2003 with subsequent renourishment in The Sector 7 beach restoration project was completed in May Goal of The County s coastline is a valuable resource providing storm protection, recreation, economic value, and wildlife habitat. The preservation of this coastline is a long-term, ongoing commitment which requires constant planning and action to address the natural degradation of the beach over time. Maintaining and implementing a comprehensive beach management plan is an appropriate means to maintain these coastal resources. The specific goal of this document is to prescribe the limits and extent of beach/dune nourishment required to maintain County beaches. Page 4 of 51

9 2.0 BEACH CONDITIONS 2.1 Historical Shoreline and Beach Volume Changes To formulate an appropriate beach preservation plan, it is necessary to identify the existing physical condition of County beaches and to assess the vulnerability of upland structures to damage from future beach and dune erosion. This information is contained in a separate report titled Indian River County, Florida - Conditions Analysis dated November Figures 3 and 4 illustrate shoreline (elevation 0-foot contour) and volumetric changes (elevation -5-foot contour) along the beaches of Indian River County at the FDEP reference monuments (R- 1 through R-119). These changes were calculated using historical FDEP nearshore survey profile data (1972, 1986) compared to the most recent available profile data (2005). Shoreline and volumetric changes are identified for two time periods: (1) as shown in Figure 3, and (2) as shown in Figure 4. Indian River County beaches experienced significant erosion during the hurricanes of 2004 and 2005; the changes from 1986 to 2005 better represent modern beach management practices and the probable future changes in the absence of additional beach restoration initiatives. In general, the data and analysis indicate: 1) Since the late 1980 s, from the inlet south to near monument R-12, sand transfer at Sebastian Inlet and beach nourishment by the County has significantly abated erosion trends that existed prior to This shoreline segment was re-nourished by the County in ) Since initial sand placement in 2003, beach nourishment by the County from monument R-12 to R-17 has significantly abated erosional trends that existed prior to This shoreline segment was re-nourished by the County in ) From monument R-17 south to R-55, from 1986 to 2005, the beaches generally eroded and the shoreline generally migrated landward. This erosion pattern: a) only extended to about monument R-48 during the period from 1972 to 1986, and b) is likely attributable to southerly migration of the effects of Sebastian Inlet associated with dominant southerly longshore sediment transport. Since the early 1990 s, several seawalls have been constructed within this segment in response to erosion including at the Machata residence, the Summerplace subdivision, the Sanderling Condominium, and the Sea Oaks Condominium (now under construction). Some of these seawalls if they become further exposed and extend into the active littoral system - may exacerbate erosion in the future. An example of the negative down-drift impacts of a seawall was identified in the FDEP 2004 Hurricane Frances & Hurricane Jeanne Post-storm Beach Conditions and Coastal Impact Report. It was reported that between Ambersand and Wabasso Beach Park (R20-R35), Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne caused an average dune retreat of 50 feet. Wabasso Beach Park however, sustained a cumulative dune retreat of 80 feet and a Page 5 of 51

10 complete loss of all recreational facilities (FDEP, 2004). The predominant explanation for the dune retreat being 30 feet greater than the average dune retreat in the vicinity was the 1,800 foot long Summerplace seawall immediately north of the beach park. According to the FDEP This was the worst case of down-drift erosion impact from a Florida seawall in recent history. 4) From 1972 to 2005, from monument R-55 to R-72, beaches generally were stable or accreted while the shoreline generally advanced seaward. However, the dunes experienced significant erosion during the hurricanes of 2004 and These effects appear to be attributable to either a change in shoreline orientation or the influence of nearshore hardbottom reefs. The reefs may cause waves to break over the reef and provide for beach stability (or accretion) during normal tide conditions, but allow for erosion of the dunes during elevated water levels (storm surge) when waves pass over the reefs and impact the beach and dune. 5) From 1972 to 2005, from monument R-72 to R-86, beaches generally were stable or slightly accreted, or slightly eroded while the shoreline comparably remained stable, slightly receded or slightly advanced seaward. From 1986 to 2005, the shoreline along this segment of beach advanced seaward almost throughout the entire segment. Since the mid-1990 s, a mild accretion wave appears to have migrated into this beach segment. 6) From 1972 to 2005, from monument R-86 to R-97, beaches significantly accreted consistent with long term shoreline trends since the 1980 s. 7) From 1986 to 2005, from monument R-97 to R-108, beaches eroded while the shoreline significantly receded. From 1972 to 1986, this segment of shoreline generally was stable or accreted except at monuments R104 and R-105, where erosion and shoreline recession occurred. This shoreline segment was nourished by the County during the spring of ) From 1972 to 2005, from monument R-108 to the southern limits of the County at R-119, beaches have predominantly accreted while the shoreline has predominantly advanced seaward. 2.2 Critically Eroded Areas Indian River County has three critically eroded areas as designated by the FDEP (2008) totaling 15.7 miles of shoreline (Figure 1.2) and including: The northernmost 9.5 miles (R1-R51.3) south of Sebastian Inlet are designated as critically eroded where threatened upland property includes: State Road A1A, Sebastian Inlet State Park facilities, the McLarty Treasure Museum, and private development along Ambersand Beach, Sanderling, Summerplace, and Wabasso Beach. The museum has a rock revetment, and inlet sand transfer is conducted south of the inlet. A beach restoration project has been constructed in Sectors 1 and 2 including Ambersand Beach. The northern 3.1 miles of Vero Beach (Sector 5 including R-70 to R-86) are designated as critically eroded where private development and City parks are threatened. Much of this area has seawalls, dune restoration, and small dune maintenance projects. Southern Indian River County, a 3.1-mile segment (Sector 7 - including R-99 to R ), is designated as critically eroded where single-family homes are threatened. A beach restoration project in this sector was constructed during the spring of Page 6 of 51

11 Figure 3: 1972 to Shoreline (elevation 0-foot contour) and Volume Change Page 7 of 51

12 Figure 4: 1986 to Shoreline (elevation 0-foot contour) and Volume Change Page 8 of 51

13 2.3 Historical Beach Nourishment Indian River County beaches and dunes have previously been nourished to offset erosion. The location and extent of sand fill placement by the County and other entities over the past 20 years is illustrated in Figures 5a through 5e. Table 2 summarizes the historical beach nourishment volumes for fill placement by the County, the City of Vero Beach (VB), private condominiums/homeowner s associations and the SITD with partial funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and/or FDEP. Table 2: Historical Sand Fill Placement Sector Years Volume (cy) 1 & to ,129, to , to , to ,963 6 None to ,600 8 None 0 Total ,770, Biological Resources Sea turtles, protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), utilize both the beaches (nesting) and the nearshore reef (foraging). Green (Chelonia mydas) and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) turtles currently listed as endangered, and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) turtles listed as threatened are the three most common species observed along Indian River County beaches. The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) is also known to frequent warm, shallow areas with submerged and emergent vegetation. However, within Indian River County, historical use of nearshore Atlantic waters has been infrequent. The migratory route and calving grounds of the northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) also occurs within the vicinity of Indian River County beaches. Both the manatee and right whale are protected by the ESA, as well as the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA). The southeastern beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus neveiventris), once occurring in populations spanning from Volusia County to Broward County has undergone extensive fragmentation of its population; populations in the southern portion of Sebastian Inlet State Park may be the only viable populations remaining in Indian River County. The southeastern beach P. polionotus neveiventris is listed as threatened under the ESA and at the state level. Of the shorebirds occurring in Indian River County, the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and least tern (Sterna antillarum) are federally listed species, though it should be noted that many of the non-listed avian species frequenting Indian River County beaches are also protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of Page 9 of 51

14 Figure 5a: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sectors 1 & 2 Page 10 of 51

15 Figure 5b: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sector 3 Page 11 of 51

16 Figure 5c: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sector 4 Page 12 of 51

17 Figure 5d: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sectors 5 & 6 Page 13 of 51

18 Figure 5e: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sectors 7 & 8 Page 14 of 51

19 Expected non-listed faunal use of the beach habitat includes various crustaceans (e.g., crabs), univalve and bivalve mollusks, and shorebirds (e.g., sanderlings, willets). Lizards (e.g., skinks, anoles) and passeriform birds are among the vertebrates expected to use the dune area, which is dominated by typical dune vegetation: beach morning glory, sea grapes, sea oats, sea rocket, and beach elder. Storm damage re-vegetation efforts associated with the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes have changed the dune vegetation suite. An offshore reef, or hardbottom system, exists along the coastline of Indian River County. Figures 6 through 10 illustrate that the hardbottom parallels the shoreline, starting a few hundred feet offshore and extending seaward about 2,000 feet. Hardbottom communities include wormrock (low-relief, and in conjunction with algal/sponge species), low-relief algal rock, and algal/sponge communities. A total of 3,740 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat has been estimated for the County using aerial photography. Representative species observed on the inshore wormrock include the reef-building polychaete worm (Phragmatopoma lapidosa) with few other benthic fauna (except other polychaetes), fishes, and benthic macroalgae. Algal/sponge/wormrock community representative species were comparable to those found on the inshore wormrock communities, except that more abundant invertebrates (e.g., sponges, soft and hard corals, echinoderms) and fish were observed. Both community-types exhibit similar features including wormrock (formed by polychaete worms) over previously exposed rock forming extensive ledges, overhangs, ridges, and other formations which provide habitat for fishes and invertebrates. 2.5 Environmental Resources - Nature and Extent of Existing Data Existing environmental data assimilated by the County include: Environmental Assessments, Habitat Conservation Plan for sea turtles, and GIS maps of existing hardbottom communities. Environmental Assessments (EAs) were developed by Dial Cordy and Associates for Sectors 1 and 2 (2001) and Sector 7 (2005). Dial Cordy and Associates performed initial mapping of hardbottom communities based upon interpretation of 1999 aerial photography (DCA, 2001); CSA International (2007a, 2007b, and 2008) performed transect surveys along the County s hardbottom communities; this data provides a substantial basis for determining impacts to the dominant community-types. Additionally, the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), prepared specifically to protect sea turtles on eroding beaches, provides an overview and guidance pertaining to minimizing sea turtle impacts. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission s (FFWCC) Imperiled Species Management Division also publishes sea turtle nesting data, shorebird information, northern right whale sighting data, and manatee abundance and mortality data on its website ( The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) website ( contains general characterizations and potential ranges of threatened and endangered species such as the southeastern beach mouse, piping plover, and least tern. National Marine Fisheries Service gathers data on marine mammals, sea turtles, and essential fish habitat. The Florida Natural Areas Inventory maintains a comprehensive database ( of the ecological resources of Florida. Page 15 of 51

20 2.6 Environmental Resources Additional Data and/or Investigations Additional or supplemental environmental data/investigations that may be needed for permitting purposes are: updated mapping and biological characterization of hardbottom shorebird data (e.g., nesting, occurrences) threatened and endangered species considerations: sea turtle nesting, foraging, habitat data; protected cetaceans, shorebirds, beach mice, etc. As identified at the November 15, 2006 pre-application conference for the Sector 3 beach nourishment project, updated mapping and biological characterization of hardbottom in Sector 3 is required by FDEP to complete the FDEP permit application. This characterization was completed in the summer of Page 16 of 51

21 Figure 6: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sectors 1 & 2 Page 17 of 51

22 Figure 7: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sector 3 Page 18 of 51

23 Figure 8: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sector 4 Page 19 of 51

24 Figure 9: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sectors 5 & 6 Page 20 of 51

25 Figure 10: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sectors 7 & 8 Page 21 of 51

26 3.0 SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS 3.1 General Figure 11 illustrates the location of potential borrow areas as previously investigated by the County. Characteristics of native beach and potential borrow area sediments are described in the 1999 and 2000 geotechnical reports by Scientific Environmental Applications, Inc. (SEA). Estimated available volumes of beach quality material and intended placement areas are from the Applied Technology Management (ATM) 2000 report entitled Indian River County Beach Restoration Projects: Engineering Design Report prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 3.2 Native Beach Native Beach material in Indian River County is characterized (using Munsell soil color notation) by white (10YR 8/1) to light gray (10YR 7.5/1) poorly sorted, fine grained sand with an average of 2% gravel (shell) and 1.6% fines. Carbonate content of native beach sand is between 40% and 60%. 3.3 North Borrow Site The potential North Borrow Site (Figure 11) is characterized by poorly sorted medium grained sand with an average of 8% gravel-size (shell) and 3.1% fines. The estimated volume of available sediment is approximately 589,000 cubic yards. This volume estimate does not take into account the two foot buffer around the borrow site physically required by FDEP, which will result in a volume reduction available from the site. The North Borrow Site was identified by ATM for use as a supplemental sand source for Sectors 2 and 3. FDEP requirements dictate that a borrow area contain less than 5% gravel-size material or fines unless the native beach contains greater amounts. The high gravel content (8%) of the North Borrow Site is inconsistent with both the native beach material and FDEP regulations. In addition, although the average percent fines is within FDEP requirements, the percent fines of many of the individual cores is far greater (up to 20%), diminishing confidence in this borrow site. Although the proximity of the North Borrow Site to the project area would reduce cost of the project, this borrow site was not used in the Sector 1 and Sector 2 Project due to the relatively poor quality of the material. 3.4 Central Borrow Site The Central Borrow Site (Figure 11) is located on the Indian River Shoal and is characterized by poorly sorted, fine to medium grained sand with an average of 4% gravel (shell) and 2% fines. The estimated volume of available sediment is approximately 2.97 million cubic yards (mcy). This volume estimate does not include the two foot buffer required by FDEP. The Central Borrow Site has been identified by ATM as the potential borrow area for Sector 5 initial and renourishment activities. Page 22 of 51

27 Figure 11: Offshore Borrow Areas (from ATM, 2000) 3.5 South Borrow Site South Borrow Site (sub area 1) (Figure 11) is characterized by poorly sorted, fine to medium grained sand with 6% gravel (shell) and 0.9% fines. The gravel content for this sub area may be slightly above FDEP thresholds. South Borrow Site (sub area 2) is characterized by fine to medium grained sand with 3% gravel (shell) and 1.5% fines. South Borrow Site (sub area 3) is characterized by poorly sorted fine to medium grained sand with 2% gravel (shell) and 1% fines. The estimated volume of available beach quality material for the entire South Borrow Site is approximately 3.3 mcy divided nearly equally among sub areas. This volume estimate does not take into account the two foot buffer required by FDEP. The South Borrow Site has been identified by ATM as the primary potential borrow area for Sectors 1, 2, 3 and 7. Page 23 of 51

28 3.6 Compatibility with Native Beach All potential borrow areas contain sediment with an average mean grain size that is greater than the native beach. This is preferable to a finer mean grain size which can result in destabilization of the beach profile once the material is placed, and would require a higher overfill ratio. The average mean grain size of all native beach samples in northern Indian River County is 0.36 mm. South Borrow Sub Areas 2 and 3 have the closest mean grain sizes with 0.46 and 0.45mm respectively. Sub Areas 2 and 3 also have gravel and fine ratios within FDEP regulations. The larger grain size of South Sub Area 1 (0.55mm) and gravel content of 6% make this sub area somewhat less compatible than Sub Areas 2 and 3. The Central Borrow Site has a mean grain size of 0.51mm and average gravel and fine ratios within FDEP regulations and would be of secondary interest to South Sub Areas 2 and 3. These observations are made from granularmetric data recorded in the above named reports. Using the native beach granularmetrics, a standard acceptable range of each value should be determined with input from the FDEP. 3.7 Additional Geotechnical Data and/or Investigations Additional samples were obtained from the existing vibracores from the South Sub Borrow Areas 2 and 3 by Coastal Tech in January 2007 to perform analyses identified in the November 15, 2006 pre-application conference for the Sector 3 beach nourishment project. These analyses included: a) Munsell colors analysis: The August 1999 SEA report identifies generic colors for sediments (i.e. tan ) but does not include Munsell color codes. Coastal Tech determined Munsell Color by comparing the samples to the Munsell soil color charts against an 18% gray background. The dry Munsell volumes for both Sub Areas 2 and 3 were determined to by 10YR 7/1 (light gray). b) Compositional analysis through Loss on Ignition: The August 1999 SEA report does not include compositional analysis. Coastal Tech performed the Loss on Ignition test to determine organic and carbonate percentages in the samples. This testing methodology measures weight percent loss following the high temperature burning of the organic and carbonate material. The calcium carbonate content for Sub Area 2 ranges from 55.7% to 80.2% while the organic content is 2% or less. The calcium carbonate content for Sub Area 3 ranges from 59.1% to 73.1% while the organic content is 1.9% or less. Per FDEP rules, the composition and color of the borrow area material is similar to that of the native beach. The range of carbonate content of the native beach is between 40% and 60% carbonate; the range of carbonate contents of both Sub Areas 2 and 3 lies within ~20 percentage points from that of the native beach. The Munsell color of Sub Areas 2 and 3 (10YR 7/1 light gray) is similar to that of the native beach (10YR 8/1 white to 10YR 7.5/1 light gray). Page 24 of 51

29 4.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION To provide for public input and participation in the formulation of this updated Beach Preservation Plan, the Beach Committee held a Planning Charette on August 21, 2006 in the County Commission Chambers in Vero Beach. Over 50 members of the public attended and some 20+ people offered comments. Coastal Tech presented a summary of existing and historical shoreline conditions in the County. A summary of citizen comments is provided in Table 3. Public comments generally expressed support for beach nourishment as the primary response to erosion, but many citizens also suggested the need to retain sand on beaches and/or provide an artificial reef to enhance surfing. Speaker Mayor Tom White City of Vero Beach Bill Glynn, Chair Beach & Shore Committee Ken Bennett Dr. Peter Fallon Lawrence Brashears Bill Friesell Gayle LeGore, Baytree Condominium Christina Furrenton Michael Hardie Lil Miller Fox Table 3: Indian River County August 21, 2006 Planning Charette Public Comments Alternatives Comment Top priority should be to "save sand" or retain sand along County beaches; consider "sand grabber" system Beaches are important; seawalls are horrible. Coastal (barrier island ) homeowners account for 41% of Indian River County's property tax. Too much money is spent on nourishment each year; consider seawalls or breakwaters to save sand; also consider "beach scraping" Consider extension of the south jetty at Sebastian Inlet (1) Sand pumping smothers reefs and inhabitants. (2) Artificial Surfing Reefs (ASR) remain anchored and are better solutions because they stay where they're placed, promote biological productivity, diving and fishing. (3) PEP has saved Ocean Grill, but is a navigational and swimming hazard. (4) Two excellent locations for ASR are Wabasso Beach Park and Sector 7. (1) Groins work; they stop the flow of sand from north to south. (2) consider seawalls and breakwaters. suggests consideration of "flow holes" through inlet jetties to allow more sand to flow to beaches to the south Recommends the reduction of construction on beaches. Losing real estate, not just beaches. Beaches for all who use them, not just oceanfront property owners. Sebastian Inlet is cause of problem; beach restoration to provide for uninterrupted "river of sand" with public access should be considered due to realities of (1) economics - beachside homes contribute significantly to County tax base, (2) public safety, (3) ecological benefits, and (4) political need for public access. New homes have septic tanks near beach; consider adoption of new rules with respect to new development Julie Collart Get input from public and FDEP Page 25 of 51

30 Table 3 (cont.) Indian River County August 21, 2006 Planning Charette Public Comments Speaker Janine Kenworthy Summerplace Alternatives Supports beach nourishment Comment Richard Martin Diane Catullo Marty Smithson, Sebastian Inlet Tax District Sarah Savage Robert Tench Orchid Island Joseph Connors, Orchid Island Beach Committee Chair Sue Moenkhaus Baytree Condominium Cathy Carroll Gayle LeGore, Baytree Condominium Consider pipes under dune to relieve water pressure Consider future long-term solutions The District (a) is investigating the extension of south jetty to prevent sand movement into inlet, (b) the north jetty does have holes in it to allow sand to pass through, and (c) the District is committed to maximizing sand transfer at Sebastian Inlet Need to think long-term. Need to keep sand on beaches; consider ASR Consider sand placement Sector 3 "Not a moment to lose" Recommends that Orchid Island be part of Sector 3 Need help in Sector 3 Appreciates sand placed by County to date; requests extension of sand placement (Sector 3) north to include Sanderling. Concerned about the delay of Sector 3 project. Further delay will endanger homes and environment. Recommends extending Sector 3 boundary north to include Sanderling. Requests that County expedite the Sector 3 project Page 26 of 51

31 5.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 5.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Evaluation Alternatives were eliminated from detailed evaluation because they were outside the authority of the County (*), were not technically feasible, were not economically feasible, or failed to achieve the County s goals. These include: Revetments Seawalls Nearshore Berm PEP Reef Groin Field without Beach Nourishment Modification of Sebastian Inlet Transfer * Navigation Project Modification or Abandonment * Beach Fill with Periodic Nourishment with Offshore Breakwater Rezoning of Beach Area Modification of Building Codes Construction Setback Line Construction Moratorium or No Growth Program flow holes or wiers through Sebastian Inlet jetties * pipes under the dune to relieve water pressure 5.2 Strategies Considered for Beach Preservation Alternative strategies considered by the County for general beach preservation include: No Action Natural Beach Zone Policy - no planned routine sand placement activities Sand Transfer Re-nourishment Zone - large scale sand placement via Sebastian Inlet Tax District (SITD) Sand Transfer Dune Maintenance Zone - small scale truck haul placements via SITD in cooperation with the County Dune Maintenance Zone - sand placement from upland sources Beach Restoration Zone - large scale placement of sand likely from offshore sources In response to public input obtained at the August 21 st Planning Charette, the potential use of a sand retention structure an artificial reef with the potential to also enhance surfing is considered a potential element to supplement the above strategies. 5.3 Evaluation of No Action Alternative - Sector 3 At the request of the County, an evaluation of the No Action alternative was conducted for Sector 3 to determine the likely potential acreage loss of upland property and the value of property loss should current erosion trends continue unabated. In Sector 3, the average parcel is about one acre and has an average assessed value of $1,182,309 as identified by the County (Gray, 2006). Based upon the Risk Characterization Maps in the Page 27 of 51

32 Conditions Analysis (2006) and the projected 10, 20, and 30-year bluff lines using GIS tools, the estimated total acreage losses of upland property for Sector 3 in 10, 20, and 30-year are shown in Table 5 with today s approximate value of those lands. Year Acres Lost Today's Value of Future Property Loss $14,660, $38,188, $56,159,678 Table 4: Potential Upland Property Losses and Today s Value The values shown in Table 4 are the value of probable land losses if erosion continues unabated at historical rates. Page 28 of 51

33 6.0 SECTOR BOUNDARIES & BEACH MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Recommended changes to the 1998 Sector boundaries and beach management strategies are based upon historical shoreline changes, the projected bluff location in 30 years, the extent of nearshore hardbottom, and historical (1986 to 2005) volumetric changes. Recommended changes to Sector boundaries and beach management strategies are summarized in Table 4 and as shown in Figure 12. Table 5: Recommended Sector Boundaries & Beach Management Strategies Sector Existing Sector Proposed Sector Boundaries Boundaries Recommended Strategy 1a R-1 to R-4 Natural Beach R-1 to R-11 1b R-4 to R-11 Sand Transfer Re-nourishment 2 R-11 to R-19 R-11 to T-17 Sand Transfer Re-nourishment 3a T-17 to R-37 Sand Transfer T-19 to R-45 3b R-37 to R-55 Minimal Beach Restoration 4 R-45 to R-71 R-55 to R-72 Dune Maintenance 5 R-71 to R-86 R-72 to R-86 Minimal Beach Restoration 6 R-86 to R-94 R-86 to R-97 Natural Beach 7 R-94 to R-113 R-97 to R-108 Re-nourishment 8 R-113 to R-119 R-108 to R-119 Natural Beach 6.1 Sector 1a The recommended boundary for Sector 1 would remain the same (R1 to R11). However, the Sector will be divided into 1a (R-1 to R-4) and 1b (R-4 to R-11). Since the late 1980 s, the Inlet District has not placed sand between the jetty and about monument R-4; this segment appears to be stabilized by the inlet jetty and ebb shoal. A Natural Beach strategy is recommended in Sector 1a. 6.2 Sectors 1b and 2 The recommended southern boundary for Sector 2 would be changed to R-17 rather than the current R19. R17 represents the southern limits of the most recent beach fill project. In 1998/99, approximately 237,000cy were transferred from Sebastian Inlet to the beaches in Sectors 1b and 2. In 2003, a beach nourishment project was conducted from R4 to R17 where approximately 536,000cy of fill material were dredged from an offshore borrow area and placed on the beaches in Sectors 1 and 2. In 2007, a re-nourishment project was conducted from R4 to R17 where approximately 253,000cy of material were placed on the beaches in Sectors 1 and 2. Page 29 of 51

34 Figure 13: Recommended Sector Boundaries The volumetric change and shoreline change data for Sectors 1b and 2 indicate shoreline advance and accretion due to the nourishment projects from 1986 to However at T17, dune erosion occurred between 1986 and The nourishment projects have had an instrumental role in offsetting the effects of Sebastian Inlet and stabilizing the shoreline north of R-16. It is recommended that the current Sand Transfer Re-nourishment with Beach Restoration project be maintained by fill placement associated with sand transfer by Sebastian Inlet. Page 30 of 51

35 6.3 Sector 3a and 3b Sector 3 currently extends from R19 to R45. In concert with this Plan development, Sector 3 is divided into two segments: 1) Sector 3a, from R17 to R37, and 2) Sector 3b, from R37 to R55. Within Sector 3a, if no action is taken, few buildings are expected to become vulnerable within 30 years. The Machata and Sanderling seawalls are relatively new structures that may reasonably be expected to protect these properties; if these seawalls fail, the upland buildings would become vulnerable. This segment includes the Orchid and Windsor developments, where the dunes were restored after the 2004 hurricanes, but the buildings are landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (theoretical limit of erosion during a 100-year return interval storm event). Sector 3b includes the Summerplace subdivision, Wabasso Beach Park, Disney Resort, Sea Oaks development, the Baytree and Marbrisa developments and the northern end of John s Island. All of these properties realized extensive erosion from 1986 to 2005 and are now threatened by further erosion. Due to the extensive hardbottom in close proximity to the shoreline, Minimal Beach Restoration ( 45cy/ft) is recommended in Sector 3 to offset the historical losses attributable to Sebastian Inlet. It should be noted that in respect to Sectors 3a and 3b, the Sebastian Inlet Management Plan states, If there is not adequate volumetric capacity within the Ambersand construction fill template, supplemental material should be placed by the district on the downdrift beach in areas of greatest need (as determined by Indian River County) south of R-17 and north of R-40. Supplemental volumes will be determined through interlocal agreement between the County and the District. Indian River County should be responsible for: 1) identifying, designing, permitting, and constructing any supplemental fill access locations south of R-17; and securing necessary releases and approvals from upland property owners. 6.4 Sector 4 Sector 4 currently extends from R45 to R71. The recommended boundaries for Sector 4 extend from R-55 to R-72. In general, although the shoreline in this Sector is predominantly stable or accreting, significant erosion of the dune has occurred since 1972 and upland buildings are vulnerable during severe storm events. Most of the existing buildings are located significantly landward of the existing dune bluff. Dune Maintenance is recommended for Sector Sector 5 Sector 5 boundaries currently extend from R71 to R86. The boundaries for Sector 5 are proposed to extend from R72 to R86. Although the shoreline in this segment was stable or even slightly advanced from 1986 to 2005, the upper portion of the profile and the dune experienced significant erosion during the period. The projected bluff location indicates that many existing Page 31 of 51

36 structures will become increasingly threatened. Sector 5 is the most heavily armored segment of shoreline in the County. Due to the extensive hardbottom in close proximity to the shoreline, Minimal Beach Restoration ( 15cy/ft) is recommended in Sector 5 to offset historical losses since Sector 6 The recommended boundaries for Sector 6 would extend from R-86 to R-97 (currently from R- 86 to R94.). A long term trend of shoreline advance and accretion warrant a Natural Beach strategy in this segment. The south boundary, at R97, corresponds to the northern boundary of the Sector 7 beach nourishment project that was constructed in May Sector 7 The boundaries for Sector 7 are recommended to extend from R97 to R108 (currently R94 to R113). These are the boundaries of the beach nourishment project that was completed May The project is considered a Minimal Beach Restoration project. 6.8 Sector 8 The recommended boundaries for Sector 8 are from R108 to R119. The northern boundary is also the southern boundary of the Sector 7 beach nourishment project and the southern boundary is the Indian River/St. Lucie County line. It is recommended that a coastal monitoring program be implemented for this Sector and no action or a Natural Beach Policy be adopted for Sector 8 due to the stability of the shoreline. It is suspected that the Sector 7 nourishment project will influence the downshore region and further stabilize this Sector. If the coastal monitoring indicates shoreline recession and/or beach volume losses, then a dune maintenance program should be implemented. 6.9 Probable Costs to Implement the Recommended Plan Appendix A summarizes the probable initial and annual costs of the recommended plan. Table 6 summarizes these probable costs. The following describes the basis of the probable cost estimates. The Natural Beach strategy proposed in Sector 1a, 6 and 8 are assumed to incur no cost to the County. Other than monitoring of beach conditions (in concert with monitoring of other Sectors), no construction or maintenance is proposed in these Sectors. Probable costs for the maintenance of Sector 1b & 2 reflect only costs of associated annual monitoring requirements. It is assumed that future nourishment requirements in Sector 1b & 2 will be addressed via sand transfer at Sebastian Inlet, planned at 90,000 cubic yards per year. For Sector 3, a Minimal Beach Restoration is assumed to entail up to forty five cubic yards of sand per foot (45cy/ft), with an average of seventeen cubic yards per foot of shoreline (17cy/ft) over the approximate 37,686 feet of shoreline to restore the beach and dune to 1972 conditions to the extent feasible without hardbottom impacts. (Coastal Tech, 2008). An existing inter-local Page 32 of 51

37 agreement between Indian River County and Sebastian Inlet Tax District (SITD) requires SITD to reimburse the County for a portion of the Project cost for 180,000 cubic yards of sand at a cost to the District not to exceed $4,680,000 which will offset some of the costs incurred by the County for the Sector 3 project. It is anticipated that re-nourishment of Sector 3 will, on average, be required at 10-year intervals. For planning purposes, Dune Maintenance in Sector 4 is assumed to entail restoration of the dune about every 4 years via placement of sand and vegetation landward of the mean high water line (MHWL). It is assumed that an average of about 3.5 cubic yards per linear foot of shoreline (over about 7,000 feet) will be needed about every 4 years. Unit costs are based upon the dune maintenance performed by the County and John s Island in the spring of 2006 with an assumed conversion factor of 1.35 tons per cubic yard. Minimal Beach Restoration in Sector 5 is assumed to entail up to fifteen cubic yards of sand per foot of shoreline (15cy/ft) over the approximate 14,212 feet of shoreline as needed to roughly restore the beach and dune to 1972 conditions. Based on background erosion rates, the initial project is estimated to have a life of up to 20 years barring any extreme storm events; initial construction is expected to occur in 2011 with re-nourishment in Probable costs for Minimal Beach Restoration in Sector 7 reflect the contract awarded to Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company on January 19, Based on analysis conducted by Applied Technology Management (2007), the initial project is estimated to have a renourishment interval of up to 5 years, with a renourishment volume of approximately 238,000 cubic yards. With the initial construction completed in May 2007, the need for re-nourishment is expected to occur in Table 6: Probable Costs to Implement the Recommended Plan Sector Recommended Strategy Initial Cost Annual Cost 1 & 2 Sand Transfer Re-nourishment $0 $100,220 3 Beach Restoration $21,942,515 $3,810,871 4 Dune Maintenance $2,256,900 $858,690 5 Beach Restoration $6,631,980 $775,843 6 Natural Beach N/A N/A 7 Re-nourishment $7,150,850 $2,322,312 8 Natural Beach N/A N/A Total: $37,982,245 $7,867,935 Page 33 of 51

38 7.0 PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY 7.1 FDEP Guidelines This section summarizes (a) an inventory of existing public beach access within the County, and (b) the associated State of Florida cost-share percentages - up to 50% - that might be obtained via FDEP s Erosion Control Program. To determine the portion of a potential project area that is eligible for State funding, FDEP Guidelines, [Chapter 62B , F.A.C.] set forth the following formulae: (a) Primary beach access sites shall be granted eligibility for one-half mile in each shoreparallel direction from the access site plus the shoreline length of the access site. (b) Public lodging establishments shall be granted eligibility based upon the percentage of units available to the public rounded to the nearest 10% times the property s shoreline frontage. (c) Secondary beach access sites shall be granted eligibility for the shoreline length of the access site. Additional eligibility shall be granted for up to one-quarter mile in each shore parallel direction at a rate of 52.8 linear feet per parking space, provided: 1. Parking is located within one-quarter mile of the secondary beach access site; and 2. Parking is clearly signed or otherwise clearly designated as parking for the general public on an equal basis. (d) Eligible shoreline lengths cannot overlap. (e) The sum of the eligible shoreline lengths, as defined above, is divided by the total project length to determine the percentage of the total project that is eligible for cost sharing. The Guidelines prescribe the following definitions: Primary Beach Access is a site with at least 100 public parking spaces and public restrooms. Secondary Beach Access is a site that may have parking and amenities, but does not qualify as a primary beach access. Public Lodging Establishment is any public lodging establishment currently licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation in the classification of hotel, motel and resort condominium with six or more units and fronting directly on the sandy beach. To qualify for funding under FDEP s Erosion Control Program, any proposed project area must be (a) eligible as described above, and (b) classified as critically eroded by FDEP as is reflected in Figure 2. Figure 13 shows the eligible and critically eroded areas in Indian River County. Table 7 identifies each public access, its FDEP erosion classification, and its access classification. Page 34 of 51