Indian River County, Florida Beach Preservation Plan River County, Florida Beach Preservation Plan December 17, 2008 i Beach Preservation Plan Update

Indian River County, Florida

Beach Preservation Plan

December 17, 2008

by

Vero Beach, Florida

Indian River County, Florida Beach Preservation Plan

December 17, 2008

i

Beach Preservation Plan 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 1998. 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 2008. 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 - Beach Preservation Plan - 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 Beach Preservation Plan 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.


December 17, 2008

ii

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

1.1 General .............................................................................................................................1 1.2 Prior Erosion Control Efforts...........................................................................................4 1.3 Goal of Beach Preservation Plan .....................................................................................4

2.0 BEACH CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................5 2.1 Historical Shoreline and Beach Volume Changes ...........................................................5 2.2 Critically Eroded Areas....................................................................................................6 2.3 Historical Beach Nourishment.........................................................................................9 2.4 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................9 2.5 Environmental Resources - Nature and Extent of Existing Data...................................15 2.6 Environmental Resources – Additional Data and/or Investigations ..............................16

3.0 SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................................22 3.1 General ...........................................................................................................................22 3.2 Native Beach..................................................................................................................22 3.3 North Borrow Site..........................................................................................................22 3.4 Central Borrow Site .......................................................................................................22 3.5 South Borrow Site..........................................................................................................23 3.6 Compatibility with Native Beach...................................................................................24 3.7 Additional Geotechnical Data and/or Investigations .....................................................24

4.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..............................................................................................25 5.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...................................................................................27

5.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Evaluation ..............................27 5.2 Strategies Considered for Beach Preservation...............................................................27 5.3 Evaluation of “No Action” Alternative - Sector 3 .........................................................27

6.0 SECTOR BOUNDARIES & BEACH MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES........................29 6.1 Sector 1a.........................................................................................................................29 6.2 Sectors 1b and 2 .............................................................................................................29 6.3 Sector 3a and 3b.............................................................................................................31 6.4 Sector 4 ..........................................................................................................................31 6.5 Sector 5 ..........................................................................................................................31 6.6 Sector 6 ..........................................................................................................................32 6.7 Sector 7 ..........................................................................................................................32 6.8 Sector 8 ..........................................................................................................................32 6.9 Probable Costs to Implement the Recommended Plan ..................................................32

7.0 PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY.....................................................................................34 7.1 FDEP Guidelines ...........................................................................................................34 7.2 County Shoreline Qualified for FDEP funding .............................................................37 7.3 Potential Beach Access Point Improvements ................................................................38

8.0 FUNDING..........................................................................................................................40 8.1 Overview of Potential Funding Sources ........................................................................40 8.2 Federal Funding .............................................................................................................40 8.3 State Funding .................................................................................................................42 8.4 Local Funding ................................................................................................................43

8.4.1 County General Revenue .......................................................................................43 8.4.2 Special Assessment – Municipal Services Taxing Unit..........................................43


iii December 17, 2008

8.4.3 Municipal Services Benefit Unit ............................................................................44 8.4.4 Tourist Development Tax Revenues.......................................................................44 8.4.5 Local Option Sales Tax ..........................................................................................44 8.4.6 Sebastian Inlet Tax District Inter-local Agreement ...............................................45 8.4.7 Other Options.........................................................................................................45 8.4.8 City Ordinance.......................................................................................................45

8.5 Preferred Funding Options.............................................................................................46 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................47

9.1 Plan Recommendations..................................................................................................47 9.2 Post –Storm Recovery....................................................................................................47 9.3 10-Year Funding Strategy..............................................................................................47

10.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................49

List of Tables

Table 1: Existing Sector Boundaries............................................................................................... 1 Table 2: Historical Sand Fill Placement ......................................................................................... 9 Table 3: Indian River County Beach Preservation Plan ............................................................... 25 Table 4: Potential Upland Property Losses and Today’s Value ................................................... 28 Table 5: Recommended Sector Boundaries & Beach Management Strategies ............................ 29 Table 6: Probable Costs to Implement the Recommended Plan................................................... 33 Table 7: Existing Public Access Sites........................................................................................... 36 Table 8: Eligible & Critically Eroded Shoreline and State Cost-Sharing..................................... 37 Table 9: Potential New Beach Access Sites ................................................................................. 38 Table 10: Eligible & Critically Eroded Shoreline and State Cost-Sharing................................... 39 Table 11: Ten -Year Funding Strategy ......................................................................................... 48

List of Figures

Figure 1: Existing Sector Boundaries, 1998 Beach Preservation Plan Update............................... 2 Figure 2: Critically Eroded Areas (FDEP, 2008)............................................................................ 3 Figure 3: 1972 to 1986 - Shoreline (elevation 0-foot contour) and Volume Change ..................... 7 Figure 4: 1986 to 2005 - Shoreline (elevation 0-foot contour) and Volume Change ..................... 8 Figure 5a: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sectors 1 & 2 ............................................................ 10 Figure 5b: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sector 3......................................................................11 Figure 5c: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sector 4 ......................................................................12 Figure 5d: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sectors 5 & 6 .............................................................13 Figure 5e: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sectors 7 & 8 .............................................................14 Figure 6: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sectors 1 & 2 .................................................... 17 Figure 7: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sector 3 ............................................................. 18 Figure 8: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sector 4 ............................................................. 19 Figure 9: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sectors 5 & 6 .................................................... 20 Figure 10: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sectors 7 & 8 .................................................. 21 Figure 11: Offshore Borrow Areas (from ATM, 2000)................................................................ 23

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost


Page 1 of 51 December 17, 2008

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 Beach Preservation Plan. 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 Beach Preservation Plan.

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 Beach Preservation Plan 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 Beach Preservation Plan Update

Sector North

Boundary

South

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-113 8 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).



Figure 1: Existing Sector Boundaries, 1998 Beach Preservation Plan Update



Figure 2: Critically Eroded Areas (FDEP, 2008)



1.2 Prior Erosion Control Efforts

The County’s Beach Preservation Plan was updated and adopted in 1998 (IRC, 1998); a two-tiered 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 Preservation Plan 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 2002. The County completed initial beach restoration in Sectors 1 and 2 in 2003 with subsequent re-nourishment in 2007. The Sector 7 beach restoration project was completed in May 2007. 1.3 Goal of Beach Preservation Plan

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.



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 – Beach Preservation Plan - Conditions Analysis” dated November 2006.

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) 1972-1986 as shown in Figure 3, and (2) 1986-2005 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 1986. This shoreline segment was re-nourished by the County in 2007.

2) 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 1986. This shoreline segment was re-nourished by the County in 2007.

3) 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



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 2005. 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 2007.

8) 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-115.7), is designated as “critically eroded” where single-family homes are threatened. A beach restoration project in this sector was constructed during the spring of 2007.



Figure 3: 1972 to 1986 - Shoreline (elevation 0-foot contour) and Volume Change



Figure 4: 1986 to 2005 - Shoreline (elevation 0-foot contour) and Volume Change



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 & 2 1978 to 2007 2,129,792

3 2000 to 2007 62,605

4 2004 to 2007 71,761

5 1991 to 2007 137,963

6 None 0

7 2000 to 2007 368,600

8 None 0

Total 1978 - 2007 2,770,721

2.4 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 1918.



Figure 5a: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sectors 1 & 2



Figure 5b: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sector 3



Figure 5c: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sector 4



Figure 5d: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sectors 5 & 6



Figure 5e: Historical Sand Fill Placement, Sectors 7 & 8



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 (http://www.myfwc.com). The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) website (http://www.fws.gov) 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 (http://www.fnai.org) of the ecological resources of Florida.



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 2008.



Figure 6: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sectors 1 & 2



Figure 7: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sector 3



Figure 8: Indian River County Nearshore Reef, Sector 4









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 re-nourishment activities.



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.



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).



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.

Table 3: Indian River County Beach Preservation Plan

August 21, 2006 Planning Charette Public Comments Speaker Comment

Alternatives

Mayor Tom White

City of Vero Beach

Top priority should be to "save sand" or retain sand along County beaches; consider "sand grabber" system

Bill Glynn, Chair

Beach & Shore

Committee

Beaches are important; seawalls are horrible. Coastal (barrier island ) homeowners account for 41% of Indian River County's property tax.

Ken Bennett Too much money is spent on nourishment each year; consider seawalls or breakwaters to save sand; also consider "beach scraping"

Dr. Peter Fallon Consider extension of the south jetty at Sebastian Inlet

Lawrence

Brashears

(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.

Bill Friesell (1) Groins work; they stop the flow of sand from north to south. (2) consider seawalls and breakwaters.

Gayle LeGore,

Baytree

Condominium

suggests consideration of "flow holes" through inlet jetties to allow more sand to flow to beaches to the south

Christina

Furrenton

Recommends the reduction of construction on beaches. Losing real estate, not just beaches. Beaches for all who use them, not just oceanfront property owners.

Michael Hardie

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.

Lil Miller Fox 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



Table 3 (cont.) Indian River County Beach Preservation Plan August 21, 2006 Planning Charette Public Comments

Speaker Comment

Alternatives

Janine Kenworthy

Summerplace Supports beach nourishment

Richard Martin

Consider pipes under dune to relieve water pressure

Diane Catullo Consider future long-term solutions

Marty Smithson,

Sebastian Inlet Tax

District

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

Sarah Savage Need to think long-term. Need to keep sand on beaches; consider ASR

Robert Tench

Orchid Island Consider sand placement

Sector 3

Joseph Connors,

Orchid Island

Beach Committee

Chair

"Not a moment to lose" Recommends that Orchid Island be part of Sector 3

Sue Moenkhaus

Baytree

Condominium

Need help in Sector 3

Cathy Carroll

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.

Gayle LeGore,

Baytree

Condominium

Requests that County expedite the Sector 3 project



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 21st 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 Beach Preservation Plan



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

10 2017 12.4 $14,660,632 20 2027 32.3 $38,188,581 30 2037 47.5 $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.



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

Boundaries

Proposed Sector

Boundaries Recommended Strategy

1a R-1 to R-4 Natural Beach

1b R-1 to R-11

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

3b T-19 to R-45

R-37 to R-55

Sand Transfer 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.



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 2005. However at T17, dune erosion occurred between 1986 and 2005. 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.



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 4.

6.5 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



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 1972.

6.6 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 2007.

6.7 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 2007. 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



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 2031. Probable costs for Minimal Beach Restoration in Sector 7 reflect the contract awarded to Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company on January 19, 2006. 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 2011.

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



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-36.007, F.A.C.] set forth the following formulae:

(a) “Primary beach access sites shall be granted eligibility for one-half mile in each shore-

parallel 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.



Figure 13: Eligible Areas and Critically Eroded Areas



Table 7: Existing Public Access Sites

FDEP Erosion

Classification Sector R-Monuments Beach Access

Parking

Spaces

Public

Restrooms

Beach Access

Classification

R-3+350S to R-4 125 Yes Primary

R-6+50S 8 No Secondary

R-7+50S 8 No Secondary 1

R-8

Sebastian Inlet State Recreation

Area 12 No Secondary

2 R-15+600S to R-15+680S Ambersand Park 30 No Secondary

R-22 Ocean Hideaway 0 No Secondary

R-24+600S to R-25+200S Treasure Shores

Park 75 Yes Secondary

R-31+400S to R-32+200S Golden Sands Park 120 Yes Primary

R-39+700S to R-40 Wabasso Beach


R-44 +450S Jungle Trail

Conservation Area 0 No Secondary

R-47+400S to R-47 +450S Seagrape Trail 25 No Secondary

Critically Eroded (R-1 to R-51.3)

3

R-51+300S to R-51+500S Turtle Trail 25 No Secondary

N/A 4 R-67+250S to R-67+300S Beachcomber Lane 5 No Secondary

R-72+250S to R-73+200S Tracking Station


R-74+900S to R-74+950S Bahia Mar Road 0 No Secondary

R-76+900S to R-79+200S Jaycee Park/Conn

Beach 325 Yes Primary

R-81+550S to R-81+750S Sexton Plaza 125 No Secondary

R-82+700S to R-83+200S Humiston Park 60 Yes Secondary

R-83+450S to R-83+500S Gayfeather Access 12 No Secondary

R-83+800S to R-83+850S Flamevine Access 12 No Secondary

Critically Eroded (R-70 to R-86)

5

R-84+700S to R-84+750S Riomar Access 8 No Secondary

N/A 6 R-89+300S to R-89+950S South Beach Park 150 Yes Primary

7 R-94 to R108 No Public Access Sites Exist Critically Eroded (R-99 to R-

115.7) 8 R-117+700S to R-118 Round Island Park 125 Yes Primary



7.2 County Shoreline Qualified for FDEP funding

Sector 1, which is entirely within the Sebastian State Recreation Area and is State-owned land, is qualified for State funding at 100% State cost-sharing under provisions of FDEP governing statutes [Section 161.101(10) F.S.], which prescribe that “The department is authorized to pay up to 100 percent of the costs of approved beach erosion control projects when construction and maintenance are on lands of which the state is the upland riparian owner.” Sector 2 has no primary access sites and one secondary access site at Ambersand Park. Sector 3 has one primary access site at Golden Sands Park and six secondary accesses. Sector 4 has one secondary and no primary access points. Jaycee Park/Conn Beach is the only primary access in Sector 5 which has 7 secondary accesses. Sectors 6 and 8 have one primary access each at South Beach Park and Round Island Park respectively. Sector 7 has no primary or secondary beach access as defined by FDEP. Table 8 summarizes the percent of each Sector that is eligible for State cost-sharing and the potential State cost-share based upon the critically eroded shoreline that is eligible. The potential State cost-sharing is greatest for Sector 1 (100%) and Sector 5 (47%). The existing State cost-sharing percentage for Sector 3 is 22%.

Table 8: Eligible & Critically Eroded Shoreline and State Cost-Sharing

“Eligible” & “Critically Eroded” Shoreline

Sector

Sector

Boundaries

Total Shoreline

Length (ft)

Length

(ft)

Percent of

Sector (%)

State Cost

Share Percent

(%)

1 R-1 to R-11 State-owned

11,000 11,000 100% 100%

2 R-11 to T-17 5,750 2,720 47% 24%

3 T-17 to R-55 37,500 16,330 44% 22%

4 R-55 to R-72 17,000 not critically

eroded 0% 0%

5 R-72 to R-86 14,000 13,137 94% 47%

6 R-86 to R-97 10,700 0 0% 0%

7 R-97 to R-108 11,000 no access

sites 0% 0%

8 R-108 to R-119 11,400

not critically eroded

where access exists

0% 0%

County Total : 118,350 43,187 36%



7.3 Potential Beach Access Point Improvements

It may be feasible for the County to (a) develop existing County-owned land, or alternately, (b) purchase undeveloped parcels - to develop additional public access and subsequently increase State cost-sharing under FDEP’s Erosion Control Program. Treasure Shores Park currently has 75 parking spaces and is considered a “Secondary Access Site” which results in ½ mile of adjacent beach (¼ mile on each side) being considered “eligible”. If 25 parking spaces could be added to the park, it would add up to an additional ½ mile of “eligible” shoreline to Sector 3. Also in Sector 3, the Jungle Trail Conservation Area currently is public property (County holds a 50-year lease) with no available parking. If 100 parking spaces and restrooms could be developed at the Jungle Trail Conservation Area, it would add up to an additional ½ mile of “eligible” shoreline to the north of the access site and about + ¼ mile to the south of the site. Sexton Plaza is also classified as a “Secondary Access Site” and the addition of public restrooms improve the classification to a “Primary Access Site”. However, due to the existing public access and public lodging in the vicinity of Sexton Plaza, only an additional 80 feet would be added to the “eligible” shoreline. County staff (email from James Gray, October 2006) provided a list of undeveloped parcels which might be purchased by the County to potentially enhance public access in areas that are classified as critically eroded and would increase the “eligible” shoreline. Each of the potential sites was evaluated to determine the additional length of “eligible” & “critically eroded” shoreline that might be realized. This evaluation considered the parcel area as identified on the County’s Property Appraisers website and general land requirements for access sites – based upon experience and judgment. Table 9 identifies the undeveloped parcels and the extent of improvements appropriate to maximize public access and potential State cost-sharing.

Table 9: Potential New Beach Access Sites

Potential

Sector No. R-Monument

Location Name Parking Spaces

Beach Access

Classification

R-44+450S Jungle Trail

Conservation Area 100 Primary

3B

R-50 privately owned 24 Secondary

R-101 privately owned 5 Secondary

R-102+50S privately owned 10 Secondary

R-103+400S privately owned 10 Secondary 7

R-103+900S privately owned 100 Primary

An undeveloped parcel (at R-50) about ¼ mile north of the Turtle Trail Public Beach Access might be developed to produce a “Secondary Access Site”. Four parcels were identified within Sector 7 that might be purchased and developed into “Secondary Access Sites”. Table 10 shows potential State cost-share by sector incorporating the proposed beach access improvements and acquisitions. The estimated State cost sharing for Sector 3 increases to 32% from 22% and State cost sharing for Sector 7 increases to 22% from 0%.



Table 10: Eligible & Critically Eroded Shoreline and State Cost-Sharing

with Improvements and New Access Sites

“Eligible” & “Critically Eroded” Shoreline

Sector Sector Boundaries Total Shoreline

Length (ft) Length (ft)

Percent of

Sector (%)

State Cost Share

Percent (%)

1 R-1 to R-11 11,000 11,000 100% 100%

2 R-11 to T-17 5,750 2,720 47% 24%

3 T-17 to R-55 37,500 24,230 65% 32%

4 R-55 to R-72 17,000 not critically

eroded 0% 0%

5 R-72 to R-86 14,000 13,137 94% 47%

6 R-86 to R-97 10,700 0 0% 0%

7 R-97 to R-108 11,000 4,795 44% 22%

8 R-108 to R-119 11,400 not critically eroded where access exists

0% 0%

County Total : 118,350 55,882 47%



8.0 FUNDING

8.1 Overview of Potential Funding Sources

This section was developed primarily by County staff. There are many potential federal, state, and local funding sources to address costs to implement the County’s Beach Preservation Plan. Ultimately, the selection of the means to fund beach preservation is at the discretion of the County as to what best meets the County’s needs and is considered “fair and reasonable” by the community. In general, beach preservation provides benefits in the form of:

• storm protection, • recreation, • economic value to upland properties, and • wildlife habitat.

Project beneficiaries include both the general public and oceanfront upland property owners. Many funding sources provide for project beneficiaries to pay project costs in proportion to the benefits they receive.

8.2 Federal Funding

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the federal entity responsible for the restoration and maintenance of sandy beaches in the United States. The USACE’s authority to assist local communities with beach erosion projects is provided by the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), a federal statute generally reenacted about every two years. Through this law, Congress can grant the USACE the legal and budgetary authority to assist states and local communities combating beach erosion. Federal funds to support projects authorized under WRDA are appropriated annually through the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. Under WRDA, Congressional authorization for a beach erosion project can take two forms: (1) as an “individual project authorizations”, or (2) under the USACE’s Continuing Authorities Program –generally applicable to small scale projects and not applicable to recurring projects for beach preservation and not addressed in any detail here.

Through WRDA, Congress can grant the USACE the direct authority to study, design, and construct a specific shore protection project. Where Federal “interest” can be justified, federal assistance may be provided by the USACE for the “Reconnaissance” and “Feasibility” level investigations of the beach erosion problem, detailed project design, initial construction - placement of sand on the beach, and periodic re- nourishment over the authorized life of the project – typically 50 years.

National competition for federal beach restoration funds is increasing substantially. Convincing Congress to include an individual project authorization in WRDA can be a long and difficult process, commonly requiring five years or more. In spite of the difficulties, many communities have found it worthwhile in the long run to seek federal assistance for the restoration of their sandy beaches.



There are three requirements that must be met to earn an individual beach restoration project authorization from Congress.

1) The project must have a willing non-federal sponsor, such as a state or local government, able to partner with the USACE and share in the cost of the project.

2) The project must have a clear public benefit with sufficient public access to justify federal funding. Restoration of private beaches or projects that only benefit private property is rarely eligible for federal assistance.

3) The project must be economically justifiable. Before federal funds are expended to restore a beach, the USACE must find that the benefits to be derived from the project exceed the project costs.

There are six major steps in the planning, design, and construction of a federal beach restoration project as an individual project authorized by Congress. The time required to complete these six steps varies from project to project, however, the process takes a minimum of three years under the most favorable circumstances. The six steps are:

• Problem Perception - Local citizens or local government perceive or experience a shore erosion problem.

• Request for Federal Action - Local government officials contact their Congressman or Senator to request a study authorization.

• Congressional Approval for Reconnaissance Study - Congress authorizes and provides federal funds for the USACE to conduct a conceptual study of the beach erosion problem. At a typical 100% federal cost of about $100,000, the Reconnaissance Study can require 12 to 18 months to complete.

• Feasibility Study - If the Reconnaissance Study favorably justifies federal interest, Congress can direct the USACE to proceed to a full Feasibility Study. These studies usually take 24 to 36 months to complete and commonly cost more than $2 million. Usually, the federal government and the local sponsor split the cost of the Feasibility Study “50-50”. In the Feasibility Study, the USACE will assess the problem in detail, evaluate erosion control alternatives, and make a recommendation to Congress on whether the project should be considered for construction. Once completed, the Feasibility Study is submitted to USACE Headquarters in Washington D.C. for review and final approval.

• Congressional Authorization - Following a successful review and coordination with the Office of Management and Budget, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works will transmit the feasibility study and design report to Congress for consideration. Congress may then choose to authorize the recommended project for construction in the Water Resources Development Act, and provide funding to proceed.

• Project Implementation – Once Congress has authorized and funded the project, detailed construction drawings and specifications (“plans and specs”) are prepared, the project is bid, a construction contract is awarded, and construction of the project begins.

Current federal administration policies do not allow for administration or USACE budgeting for “new projects”. As such, federal funding is dependent upon Congressional “add-ons”.



8.3 State Funding

The State of Florida provides funds for beach preservation through the Florida Beach Erosion

Control Program to assist local governments in the design, construction, and maintenance of beach and dune restoration projects. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems oversees the program and works in concert with local governments and the USACE to achieve the protection, preservation and restoration of the coastal sandy beach resources of the state. Under the program, financial assistance in an amount up to 50 percent of the non-federal project costs is available to Florida's county and municipal governments, community development districts, or special taxing districts for shore protection and preservation activities located on the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, or Straits of Florida. Eligible activities include beach restoration and nourishment activities, project design and engineering studies, environmental studies and monitoring, inlet management planning, inlet sand transfer, dune restoration and protection activities, and other beach erosion prevention related activities. The program is authorized by Section 161.101, Florida Statutes. Since its inception in 1964, the Florida Beach Erosion Control Program has been a primary source of funding to local governments for beach erosion control and preservation activities. The process for award of Erosion Control Program Funds is established in Florida Statutes (Chapter 161) and the FDEP program rules (Chapter 62B-36, Florida Administrative Code, 62B-36.006, FAC, Project Approval Process). There are five general steps in the process:

1) Application for FDEP Erosion Control Program Funds 2) FDEP Staff Review and project rankings 3) Inclusion in FDEP Strategic Budget Plan 4) Legislative Appropriation 5) Final FDEP Action and Execution of the Project Agreement

The County Board of Commissioners must formally apply for state assistance under the Erosion

Control Program. Then, the application is reviewed by the DEP staff under the provisions of Section 161.091, F. S. and the FDEP rules to determine if it qualifies for State funding (see Section 7 of this document). During this review, the staff will also assign a total point score on the basis of the criteria in Section 62B-36.008 FAC. Finally, the staff will file with the Director, Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems, a project assessment for the proposed project (and each eligible application received) based upon the review criteria in the rules and governing statutes. The FDEP Secretary will then prepare a prioritized list of all recommended applications evaluated by the staff for the upcoming budget year. The total funding available from the Legislature for these projects is generally limited to $30 million per year. Any ranked projects that push the total budget over $30 million are placed on an “Alternative Project List.” Once reviewed and approved, the list of prioritized applications will be submitted to Legislature as part of the regular legislative budget process for FDEP. The legislature receives and considers an explanation of the applicant's request and the results of the Department's evaluation of the project application.

The Legislature will review the budget request and has the discretion to accept, reject, or modify the project list provided by the Secretary. Approval of an application by the Legislature constitutes a commitment of state funds for the project and is treated as a mandate to FDEP to continue the formal project review process, pursuant to Section 62B-36.009 FA C. Once state



funds are committed to a project, the application is returned to the applicant for additional information, including updated and detailed cost estimates, environmental permitting, and the resolution of any recognized deficiencies in the application that could not be resolved prior to legislative funding.

Upon receipt, review, and approval by the staff of a completed and updated application, FDEP will prepare a project agreement for execution with the local sponsor. The execution of the project agreement by FDEP and the local community is the final step to secure State funding.

The FDEP funding process requires about a year. Applications are accepted by FDEP prior to each legislative session; appropriated funds become available at the beginning of the fiscal year (July 1st) following legislative appropriations.

8.4 Local Funding

All state and federal financial assistance programs for beach restoration projects require local communities to share in the cost of a project. Federal assistance is generally limited to 65%. The FDEP Erosion Control Program is generally limited to a maximum of 50% of the project costs incurred by the local government.

8.4.1 County General Revenue

County operating revenue is generated from ad valorem taxes, real and personal property taxes and user fees with supplements from state and federal sources. The County Board of Commissioners has the authority to allocate funds to funding categories within their budget approval authority – subject to restrictions placed on the use of the funds by state and federal authorities. The County might employ general revenue funds to fund beach preservation projects. 8.4.2 Special Assessment – Municipal Services Taxing Unit

A Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) is a form of a special taxing district created pursuant to §125.01, FS, which relies upon the imposition of special ad valorem taxes to meet specifically authorized and established purposes in a defined area, potentially including construction of beach erosion control projects. County Commissioners may enact a MSTU by majority vote or eligible voters in the defined area may pass a MSTU via referendum.

More than one MSTU benefit zone (i.e. oceanfront vs. non-oceanfront) may be appropriate to reflect beneficiaries within the improvement area in order to reflect different property owner benefits realized by the improvement. Once the millage rate for a particular property is established, it will remain in effect for the time period so designated by the MSTU. Taxes generated over the life of the MSTU will be proportional to assessed property values.



8.4.3 Municipal Services Benefit Unit

Under Florida law, a county can impose and collect a special assessment on properties that will benefit from a beach restoration or other erosion response project through the creation of a Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU). An MSBU is a special assessment district authorized by FS125.01 to provide for improvements and/or services to a specifically defined area of the County and financed by a special assessment to only those citizens receiving the benefits of those improvements or services An MSBU may be initiated by either voter referendum or by a simple majority vote of the County Commission following a mandated process of detailed cost/benefit studies, public hearings, and property owner notifications. In the case of beach nourishment, benefits to each property owner will typically vary according to the property's proximity to the beach, beach frontage, and value. Assessments remain fixed for the duration of the MSBU even if factors affecting the benefit formula subsequently change. To provide for future beach re-nourishment and other maintenance, new assessments can be developed at the end of the prior assessment period.

There are three general characteristics associated with an MSBU:

1) The boundaries of a municipal service benefit unit are defined and may include all or part of the boundaries of a county or municipality;

2) The special assessment made within the MSBU boundary need not be uniform but must be reasonably related to the benefit that accrues to the property from the project constructed or the service provided; and,

3) The County has broad discretion in identifying the benefits of a project and in developing a methodology to apportion the benefits (and thus the costs) among the properties in the MSBU.

Benefits associated with beach and dune restoration are commonly quantified for two categories: (1) Storm Risk Reduction Benefits, and (2) Recreational Benefits.

8.4.4 Tourist Development Tax Revenues

Under Section 125.0104, Florida Statutes, counties are authorized to levy five separate Tourist Development Taxes (also called “Bed Taxes”) on transient rental transactions. Depending on which levy is imposed, the tax may be authorized by an extraordinary vote of the governing body or may require a referendum. Tax rates vary by county depending on a county’s eligibility to levy particular taxes; however, the absolute maximum rate is 6 percent. Indian River County currently has a 4% Tourist Development Tax. Generally, the revenues may be used for capital construction of tourist-related facilities, tourist promotion, and beach and shoreline maintenance; however, the authorized uses vary according to the particular bed tax levy chosen by a county.

8.4.5 Local Option Sales Tax

Counties may levy a Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) and may choose to use all or a portion of this tax to fund beach plans or beach projects. Indian River County levies a 1



cent LOST and has used these funds to finance implementation of the Beach Preservation Plan. Only LOST money collected in unincorporated areas of the County are currently applied to implementation of the BPP.

8.4.6 Sebastian Inlet Tax District Inter-local Agreement

An inter-local agreement between Indian River County and Sebastian Inlet Tax District currently exists for cost-sharing of the Sector 3 project. The District will fund the placement of 180,000 cubic yards of material within Sector 3. Under the Inlet Management Plan, the District is required to place 90,000 cubic yards sand on the beach downdrift (south) of the Inlet every year. This will offset some costs incurred by the County. 8.4.7 Other Options

Beach Parking Fees: Currently, no parking fees are collected at the County beach access parking lots. The County could choose to impose a parking fee in public beach side parks. If such an approach were taken, however, the County should consult with the FDEP to ensure conversion of free beach parking to paid parking would not reduce the state assistance available for the project. Bonds and Leveraging. Because beach restoration projects typically involve substantial capital outlays over a predictable period, Florida coastal communities commonly authorize the sale of bonds or other long-term financial instruments to pay for the projects. The bonds are usually retired with the local matching revenues collected by the local government. 8.4.8 City Ordinance

The City of Vero Beach enacted an ordinance in 1989 which prohibits them from spending any tax dollars on beach restoration without a referendum. Section 2.09 of City Code prescribes:

Unless specifically authorized to do so by one or more local binding referendum

elections, the City of Vero Beach shall not on beaches owned by or within the municipal

limits of the City of Vero Beach, directly or indirectly, expend tax dollars from whatever

source (local, state or federal) on beach restoration except in the amount necessary to

protect life or property during storms or other natural disaster. (Res. No. 89-19, 3-15-

1989).

The exception would be an emergency situation such as immediately after a storm requiring beach nourishment (City of Vero Beach, Personal Communication).



8.5 Preferred Funding Options

County staff has reviewed the potential funding options available for financing the projects recommended in this updated Beach Preservation Plan. After consideration of all options, County staff has recommended that: In general, in providing funding for future beach preservation projects the County should:

(1) Maximize State funding. (2) Use the Tourist Development Tax and the Local Option Sales Tax to match State funds

for financing future Indian River County projects. (3) At the December 15, 2008 meeting of Indian River County’s Beach & Shore Preservation

Advisory Committee meeting, a motion was made and passed to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners develop a Municipal Service Taxing Unit for the exclusive use of maintenance and re-nourishment of the Indian River County Beaches. Analysis by the Indian River County Office of Management and Budget indicates that a minimum of $750,000 per annum would be required to meet current requirements.

(4) The most appropriate financing means or combination of means should be used by the County for each individual project.

For the Sector 3 project:

(1) Funding should be provided via: (a) Florida’s Erosion Control Program at 50%, (b) the Sebastian Inlet Tax District (SITD) – per the recent Inter-local Agreement

between the County and the SITD, (c) the balance from the County.

(2) In the event it is determined that additional local funding sources are required, a MSTU/MSBU is expected to be the preferred approach.



9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Plan Recommendations

Based on the analysis and information contained within this updated Indian River County Beach Preservation Plan report, it is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following strategy for managing its beaches in the next ten years:

• Adopt the Sector boundaries and shoreline management strategies as presented in Section 6

• Adopt the prioritized means to obtain funding to implement the Plan as cited in Section 8.5

• Implement the plan of improvements to existing public beach access sites or the acquisition of new sites as identified in Section 7.3.

In addition to the above, two secondary recommendations are proposed to enhance the effectiveness of the County’s beach management efforts. Specifically, it is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners:

• Encourage the City of Vero Beach and the Town of Indian River Shores to participate in funding to implement this Plan

• Direct County staff to re-examine this Plan at least once every 5 years – or after significant storm events - and revise the Plan as warranted.

9.2 Post –Storm Recovery

After the hurricanes of 2004 and 2005, Indian River County undertook remedial actions to address storm induced erosion in collaboration with FEMA and FDEP. As identified by County staff (James Gray, 2008):

• All FEMA project costs are shared at 90% FEMA, 5% State, and 5% Local. • The County has two grants from FDEP in the amount of $13,783,000 with a cost-share

ratio of 90.91% State and 9.09% Local. To date, all of the appropriated funds have been spent.

• Total cost for the “04-05 Hurricane Recovery Projects” was $26,673,261.56. Under both FEMA and State FDEP contracts, the County’s portion was only $1,897,387.78

Based upon the above, it appears reasonable that the County reserve about $1.5-$2M to provide for future post-storm recovery efforts in concert with FEMA and FDEP. 9.3 10-Year Funding Strategy

Table 11 summarizes the recommended funding strategy based upon state Cost Sharing including the plan of improvements to existing public beach access sites or the acquisition of new sites as identified in Section 7.3.



Table 11: Ten -Year Funding Strategy

Sector 1 & 2 Sector 3 Sector 4

County Cost Share 38.00% County Cost Share 50.00% County Cost Share 100.00%

Year Design Construction Monitoring Design Construction Monitoring Design Construction Monitoring

1 2009 $100,000 $0 $21,942,515 $125,000 $0 $0 $0

2 2010 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $65,700 $0 $0

3 2011 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $2,256,900 $50,000

4 2012 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0

5 2013 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $50,000

6 2014 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $73,904 $0 $0

7 2015 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $2,640,254 $50,000

8 2016 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0

9 2017 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $50,000

10 2018 $100,000 $974,000 $0 $100,000 $86,457 $0 $0

Sector 5 Sector 7 All Sectors

County Cost Share 53.00% County Cost Share 78.00% Total State County

Year Design Construction Monitoring Design Construction Monitoring Costs Share Share

1 2009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $22,167,515 $11,117,758 $11,149,758

2 2010 $865,000 $0 $0 $932,700 $0 $100,000 $265,700 $745,744 $1,417,656

3 2011 $0 $5,766,980 $125,000 $0 $6,218,150 $100,000 $2,506,900 $4,271,224 $10,445,806

4 2012 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $200,000 $186,500 $238,500

5 2013 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $250,000 $181,000 $269,000

6 2014 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $273,904 $181,000 $292,904

7 2015 $0 $0 $100,000 $1,134,772 $0 $100,000 $2,890,254 $430,650 $3,794,376

8 2016 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $7,565,330 $100,000 $200,000 $1,845,373 $6,119,957

9 2017 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $250,000 $186,500 $288,500

10 2018 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $1,260,457 $668,000 $792,457

Totals: $30,264,729 $19,813,748 $34,808,913

Percent 100% 65.5% 115.0%

County Post-Storm Recovery

Fund $1,500,000

Note: The above totals do not deduct the $4.68M contribution from SITD per Inter-local Agreement. County Total: $36,308,913



10.0 REFERENCES

Applied Technology and Management, Inc. 2000. Indian River County Beach Restoration

Projects -Engineering Design Report.

Applied Technology and Management, Inc. November 2001. Indian River County Beach

Restoration Projects – Geotechnical Investigations of Offshore Sand Sources.

Applied Technology and Management, Inc. 2003a. Shoreline Evolution Modeling Sector 7

Indian River County Beach Preservation Project.

Applied Technology Management, Inc. April 2003b. Evaluation of Alternative Designs for

Sector 7 Indian River County, Florida Addendum.

Baer, Robert. October 2000. Submerged Cultural Resource Remote Sensing Survey Pursuant to

Beach Restoration of Three Sand Borrow Areas Offshore of Indian River County, Florida.

Balsillie, J. H., 1985. Post-Storm Report: the Florida East Coast Thanksgiving Holiday Storm of

21-24 November 1984, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores, Post-Storm Report No. 85-1.

Batten, B.K., and Kraus, N. C. (2005), “Regional Morphology Analysis Package (RMAP), Part 2: User’s Guide and Tutorial”, ERDC/CHL CHETN IV-___, U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

https://swwrp.usace.army.mil/_swwrp/swwrp/4-Pubs/TechNotes/swwrp-tn-05-1.pdf.

Brantly, R. et al, 2004. 2004 Hurricane Recovery Plan for Florida’s Beach and Dune System, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems.

Clark, R.R., 2000. The Impact of Hurricanes Floyd and Irene on the Florida East Coast, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Report No. 00-01.

Clark, R.R., 2005a. “Impact of the 2004 North Atlantic Hurricane Season on the Coast of Florida”, Shore & Beach, vol. 73, no. 2 & 3, pp. 2-9.

Clark, R.R. et al, 2004. Hurricane Frances & Hurricane Jeanne: Post-Storm Beach Conditions

and Coastal Impact Report with Recommendations for Recovery and Modifications of Beach

Management Strategies, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, 93 p. http://bcs.dep.state.fl.us/reports/franjean/Hurricanes_Frances_&_Jeanne/Full_Report/Full_Report.pdf.

Clark, R.R., LaGrone, J.W., and Koch, J.L, 2006. Hurricane Wilma: Post-Storm Beach

Conditions and Coastal Impact Report, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems.



Coastal Science Associates, Inc. 2000. Indian River County Mapping and Hard Bottom

Characterization. Environmental Report: Sectors 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.

CSA International. March 2007a. Indian River County Sector 7 Beach Restoration Project: Pre-

construction Baseline Monitoring Results FDEP Permit No. 0215960-001-JC.

CSA International. December 2007b. Indian River County Sectors 1 and 2 Beach Nourishment

Project: Pre-construction Baseline Monitoring Report FDEP Permit No. 0166929-007-EM

CSA International. February 2008. Indian River County Sector 7Beach Restoration Project:

Immediate Post-construction Monitoring Report FDEP Permit No. 0215960-001-JC

Coastal Technology Corp. March 2005. Conn Beach and Humiston Park Post Hurricane

Restoration Plan.

Coastal Technology Corp. January 2008. Indian River County Sector 3 Beach & Dune

Restoration Project Design Document Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering, University of Florida. February 2003. “Review of

Selected East Coast Florida Inlets Phase I: Sebastian Inlet, Fl. Evaluation of Coastal Processes and Management Practices and Development of Recommended Modification.”

Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. 2005. Draft Environmental Assessment. Beach Restoration

Project Indian River County Sector 7.

Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. 2001. Draft Environmental Assessment. Beach Restoration

Project Indian River County Sectors 1 and 2.

Ecological Associates, Inc. 2002. Habitat Conservation Plan. A Plan for the Protection of Sea

Turtles on Eroding Beaches in Indian River County, Florida.

Ecological Associates, Inc. 1999. Martin County Beach Nourishment Project. Sea Turtle

Monitoring and Studies. 1997 Annual Report and Final Assessment. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/publications/pdf/sea-turt%20.pdf.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2000. Sebastian Inlet Management Study

Implementation Plan.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Oct. 2000. Strategic Beach Management Plan, Central Atlantic Coast Region.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Oct.

2004. Hurricane France & Hurricane Jeanne Post-storm Beach Conditions and Coastal

Impact Report with Recommendations for Recovery and Modifications of Beach Management

Strategies.



Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, updated June 2008. Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. http://myfwc.com. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. http://www.fnai.org. Florida State University, Beaches and Shores Resource Center, 2005. Beach Erosion Control

Project Monitoring, Database Information System, Indian River County, Sectors 1 & 2. http://beach15.beaches.fsu.edu/Ambersand/Ambersand.html.

Gray, J., and Gorham, J., 2005. Preliminary Beach Damage Assessment: Hurricane Wilma,

Indian River County, Coastal Engineering Division.

Gray, James. “Indian River County Dune Restoration and Beach Nourishment Projects”. Digital data given to Walker Dawson. August 15, 2008.

Indian River County, 2001. Aerial Maps of IRC Hardbottom Resources.

Indian River County. June 2003. Post-dredging Survey of Indian River South Borrow Area – Sub

Area 1.

Indian River County Public Works Department, Coastal Engineering Division. 1998. Beach

Preservation Plan Update.

Morgan & Eklund, Inc. 2004-2005. Pre and Post Storm Survey Data.

National Marine Fisheries Service. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/.

USACE (1995), “Beach Morphology Analysis Package (BMAP) Version 1”, CETN II-34, Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

USACE. (2002), Coastal Engineering Manual, Engineer Manual 1110-2-1100, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, (in 6 volumes), URL:http://bigfoot.wes.army.mil/cem001.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://fws.gov. Woods Hole Group, Inc., July 2002. “Beach Preservation Plan Beach Condition Analysis”.

Indian River County, Florida Beach Preservation Plan – APPENDIX A

Appendix A Page 1 of 10

September 17, 2008

APPENDIX A

Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs



September 17, 2008

Sector 1 & 2 Project Monitoring Costs

Amortization Summary Interest Rate 4.0%

Engineering Design Construction Monitoring Present

Year & Permitting Costs Costs Worth

1 2009 $100,000 $100,000

2 2010 $100,000 $92,456

3 2011 $100,000 $88,900

4 2012 $100,000 $85,480

5 2013 $100,000 $82,193

6 2014 $100,000 $79,031

7 2015 $100,000 $75,992

8 2016 $100,000 $73,069

9 2017 $100,000 $70,259

10 2018 $100,000 $67,556

11 2019 $100,000 $64,958

12 2020 $100,000 $62,460

13 2021 $100,000 $60,057

14 2022 $100,000 $57,748

15 2023 $100,000 $55,526

16 2024 $100,000 $53,391

17 2025 $100,000 $51,337

18 2026 $100,000 $49,363

19 2027 $100,000 $47,464

20 2028 $100,000 $45,639

21 2029 $100,000 $43,883

22 2030 $100,000 $42,196

23 2031 $100,000 $40,573

24 2032 $100,000 $39,012

25 2033 $100,000 $37,512

26 2034 $100,000 $36,069

27 2035 $100,000 $34,682

28 2036 $100,000 $33,348

29 2037 $100,000 $32,065

30 2038 $100,000 $30,832

Total Present Worth: $1,733,000

Amortization Period: 30 years

Annual Cost: $100,220



September 17, 2008

Sector 3 Beach Restoration

Item Quantity Unit Cost Cost

1 Mobilization/

Demobilization 1 L.S. $3,030,000

$3,030,000

2 Furnish & Install Sand 642,791 cy $25.86 $16,622,575

3 Vibration Controls 1 L.S. $140,000 $140,000

4 Environmental Compliance 1 L.S. $210,000 $210,000

5 Site Restoration 1 L.S. $130,000 $130,000

6 Beach Tilling 1 L.S. $40,000 $40,000

8 Dune Vegetation 198,000 plants $0.73 $144,540

Construction Subtotal: $20,317,115

Contingency: 5% $1,015,900

Construction Administration: 3% $609,500

Total Cost: $21,942,515

(1) Probable costs derived from actual 2006-2007 costs for Sectors 1,2 & 7 - inflated to 2009.



September 17, 2008





1 2009 $21,942,515 $125,000 $22,067,515

2 2010 $100,000 $92,456

3 2011 $100,000 $88,900

4 2012 $100,000 $85,480

5 2013 $100,000 $82,193

6 2014 $100,000 $79,031

7 2015 $100,000 $75,992

8 2016 $100,000 $73,069

9 2017 $100,000 $70,259

10 2018 $974,000 $100,000 $67,556

11 2019 $32,480,283 $100,000 $21,163,530

12 2020 $100,000 $62,460

13 2021 $100,000 $60,057

14 2022 $100,000 $57,748

15 2023 $100,000 $55,526

16 2024 $100,000 $53,391

17 2025 $100,000 $51,337

18 2026 $100,000 $49,363

19 2027 $100,000 $47,464

20 2028 $1,442,000 $100,000 $45,639

21 2029 $48,078,753 $100,000 $21,142,456

22 2030 $100,000 $42,196

23 2031 $100,000 $40,573

24 2032 $100,000 $39,012

25 2033 $100,000 $37,512

26 2034 $100,000 $36,069

27 2035 $100,000 $34,682

28 2036 $100,000 $33,348

29 2037 $100,000 $32,065

30 2038 $100,000 $30,832



Annual Cost: $3,810,871

Note: Future Engineering, Design, & Permitting Costs estimated at 3% of construction costs.



September 17, 2008

Sector 4 Dune Maintenance


1 Mob/ Demob 1 L.S. $131,000 $131,000

2 Furnish & Install Sand 60,000 cy $33 $1,980,000


4 Site Restoration 1 L.S. $65,000 $65,000

Construction subtotal: $2,191,200

Engineering Design, Permitting & Construction Administration: 3.0% $65,700

Total Cost: $2,256,900



September 17, 2008

Sector 4 Dune Maintenance




1 2009 $0

2 2010 $65,700 $60,743

3 2011 $2,256,900 $50,000 $2,050,826

4 2012 $0

5 2013 $50,000 $41,096

6 2014 $73,904 $58,407

7 2015 $2,640,254 $50,000 $2,044,372

8 2016 $0

9 2017 $50,000 $35,129

10 2018 $86,457 $58,407

11 2019 $3,088,723 $50,000 $2,038,855

12 2020 $0

13 2021 $50,000 $30,029

14 2022 $101,142 $58,407

15 2023 $3,613,370 $50,000 $2,034,139

16 2024 $0

17 2025 $50,000 $25,669

18 2026 $118,322 $58,407

19 2027 $4,227,131 $50,000 $2,030,108

20 2028 $0

21 2029 $50,000 $21,942

22 2030 $138,420 $58,407

23 2031 $4,945,146 $50,000 $2,026,662

24 2032 $0

25 2033 $50,000 $18,756

26 2034 $161,932 $58,407

27 2035 $5,785,121 $50,000 $2,023,717

28 2036 $0

29 2037 $50,000 $16,033

30 2038 $0






September 17, 2008



1 Mobilization/

Demobilization 1 L.S. $2,211,000 $2,211,000

2 Maintenance of Traffic 1 L.S. $84,800 $84,800

3 Surveys 1 L.S. $105,300 $105,300

4 Furnish & Install Sand 213,200 yd3 $15.20 $3,240,640

6 Beach Tilling 1 L.S. $8,200 $8,200


Construction Subtotal: $5,766,980


Total Cost: $6,631,980

(1) All costs based upon 2006 bid for Sector 7 Beach Restoration

(2) Volume is based upon a fill density of 15 cy/ft.



September 17, 2008





1 2009 $0 $0

2 2010 $865,000 $0 $799,741

3 2011 $5,766,980 $125,000 $5,237,949

4 2012 $100,000 $85,480

5 2013 $100,000 $82,193

6 2014 $100,000 $79,031

7 2015 $100,000 $75,992

8 2016 $100,000 $73,069

9 2017 $100,000 $70,259

10 2018 $100,000 $67,556

11 2019 $100,000 $64,958

12 2020 $100,000 $62,460

13 2021 $100,000 $60,057

14 2022 $100,000 $57,748

15 2023 $100,000 $55,526

16 2024 $100,000 $53,391

17 2025 $100,000 $51,337

18 2026 $100,000 $49,363

19 2027 $100,000 $47,464

20 2028 $100,000 $45,639

21 2029 $100,000 $43,883

22 2030 $1,895,322 $100,000 $841,937

23 2031 $12,636,163 $100,000 $5,167,397

24 2032 $100,000 $39,012

25 2033 $100,000 $37,512

26 2034 $100,000 $36,069

27 2035 $100,000 $34,682

28 2036 $100,000 $33,348

29 2037 $100,000 $32,065

30 2038 $100,000 $30,832






September 17, 2008

Sector 7 Re-nourishment Costs


1 Mobilization/ Demobilization 1 L.S. $2,299,500 $2,299,500

2 Dredge and Fill 235,000 yd3 $15.80 $3,713,000

3 Beach Tilling 1 L.S. $8,500 $8,500

4

Construction/ Vibration Controls Project Monitoring

(Environmental, Survey, etc.) and Site Restoration

1 L.S. $88,200 $88,200


Construction Subtotal $6,218,150


Construction Total: $7,150,850

(1) All costs derived from 2006 Sector 7 - County Project #0502, Bid #2006047 - inflated to 2011.



September 17, 2008

Sector 7 Re-nourishment




1 2009 $100,000 $100,000

2 2010 $932,700 $100,000 $954,789

3 2011 $6,218,150 $100,000 $5,616,812

4 2012 $125,000 $106,851

5 2013 $100,000 $82,193

6 2014 $100,000 $79,031

7 2015 $1,134,772 $100,000 $938,325

8 2016 $7,565,330 $100,000 $5,600,981

9 2017 $125,000 $87,823

10 2018 $100,000 $67,556

11 2019 $100,000 $64,958

12 2020 $1,380,624 $100,000 $924,793

13 2021 $9,204,381 $100,000 $5,587,970

14 2022 $125,000 $72,184

15 2023 $100,000 $55,526

16 2024 $100,000 $53,391

17 2025 $1,679,740 $100,000 $913,671

18 2026 $11,198,536 $100,000 $5,577,275

19 2027 $125,000 $59,330

20 2028 $100,000 $45,639

21 2029 $100,000 $43,883

22 2030 $2,043,661 $100,000 $904,529

23 2031 $13,624,732 $100,000 $5,568,485

24 2032 $125,000 $48,765

25 2033 $100,000 $37,512

26 2034 $100,000 $36,069

27 2035 $2,486,426 $100,000 $897,015

28 2036 $16,576,569 $100,000 $5,561,260

29 2037 $125,000 $40,081

30 2038 $100,000 $30,832



Annual Cost: $2,322,312

Indian River County, Florida Beach Preservation Plan River County, Florida Beach Preservation Plan December 17, 2008 i Beach Preservation Plan Update

Documents