2011-12-06 BACKUP Shore Protection Board °�A ._ TOWN OF PALM BEACH
r, Mkt; ,;
•- Awl o. ',x Town Manager's Office
TENTATIVE-
, :
SUBJECT TO
* REVISION
SHORE PROTECTION BOARD MEETING
AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2011
9:30 AM
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
360 SOUTH COUNTY ROAD
WELCOME!
The progress of this meeting may be monitored by visiting the Town's website
(www.townofpalmbeach.com) and selecting "Live Meeting Audio" under the "Your
Government" tab. If you have questions regarding that feature, please contact the Office
of Information Systems (561) 227-6315. The audio recording of the meeting will appear
within 24 hours after the conclusion of the meeting under"Agendas, Minutes, and Audio."
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
E. Llwyd Ecclestone, Chair
Bobbie Lindsay Buck, Vice Chair
Kane Baker, Shore Protection Board Member
J. Patterson Cooper, Shore Protection Board Member
Gerald Frank, Shore Protection Board Member
Lee David Goldstein, Shore Protection Board Member
Lewis Katz, Shore Protection Board Member
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 27, 2011 MEETING
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM SHORE PROTECTION BOARD MEMBERS
VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS - 3 MINUTE LIMIT PLEASE
Post Office Box 2029*360 South County Road*Palm Beach,Florida 33480
Telephone(561)838-5410*Facsimile(561)838-5411*townmana ner(&townofpalmbeach.com
1
VII. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
VIII. REVIEW OF STAFF RESPONSE TO THE REPORT FROM ERICKSON COASTAL
ENGINEERS AND FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING THE TOWN'S
COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
[Peter B. Elwell, Town Manager, and Robert Weber, Coastal Coordinator]
IX. SOUTH END PALM BEACH RESTORATION (REACH 8)PERMITTING UPDATE
[Robert Weber, Coastal Coordinator]
X. FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF DUNE PLANTING
TIME CERTAIN: 11:00 A.M.
A. Sea Turtle Nesting Monitoring for Dune Planting Activities
[Robbin N. Trindell, Ph.D., Imperiled Species Management Section, Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission]
B. Overview of Dune Management Issues
[ Robert Barron,President,R.H. Barron Coastal Management and Consulting, Inc.]
XI. INTEGRATION OF TOWN'S COASTAL CONSULTANTS
[Peter B. Elwell, Town Manager]
XII. SHORELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT
[Robert Weber, Coastal Coordinator]
XIII. TOPICS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS
January 26, 2012
1. 2012 Schedule of Meetings
2. Offshore Dredging Technologies Overview
3. South End Sand Search Results
4. 2011 Townwide Sediment Budget Review(Including Erosion Rates Discussion)
February 23, 2012
1. Review of the Town's Depth of Closure
2. Resident Workshop for Sand Transfer Plant Phase II Project
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
Note: Disabled persons who need an accommodation in order to participate in the Town
Council Meeting are requested to contact the Town Manager's Office at 838-5410 or
through the Florida Relay Service by dialing 1-800-955-8770 for voice callers or 1-800-
955-8771 for TDD callers, at least two (2)working days before this meeting.
12/6/11,SPB Meeting 2
2
REPORT OF THE SHORE PROTECTION BOARD
HELD ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27,2011
I. CALL TO ORDER
1
2 The meeting of the Shore Protection Board was called to order on Thursday, October 27,
3 2011, at 9:02 a.m. in Town Council Chambers.
4
II. ROLL CALL
5
6 The following members were present: Chairman E. Llwyd Ecclestone, Vice Chair Bobbie
7 Lindsay Buck, Mr. Kane Baker, Mr. Pat Cooper, Mr. Gerald Frank, Mr. Lee David
8 Goldstein, and Mr. Lewis Katz.
9
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
10
11 Chairman Ecclestone led the Pledge of Allegiance.
12
IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF PRIOR SHORE PROTECTION BOARD
MEETINGS
13
A. APRIL 4, 2011, MEETING
14
15 Motion to approve the minutes of the April 4, 2011, meeting was made by Board
16 Member Cooper, seconded by Board Member Goldstein, and approved
17 unanimously.
18
B. APRIL 28, 2011, MEETING
19
20 Motion to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2011, meeting was made by Board
21 Member Goldstein, seconded by Board Member Cooper, and approved
22 unanimously.
23
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM SHORE PROTECTION BOARD MEMBERS
24
25 Board Member Cooper stated that the Shore Protection Board's budget was based upon
26 no receipt of outside funds for shore protection because there may not be funds from any
27 other source. He said that to the extent that outside funds become available for shore
28 protection, he would like a recommendation to go before Town Council for the funds to
29 be placed into a shore reserve fund to be used for projects from Plan A that were not
30 included in Plan B. Town Manager Elwell suggested that the item be added to the agenda
31 for discussion following the presentation by Ms. Erickson.
32
3
Report of the Town Shore Protection Board Meeting
Held on October 27,2011
1 Board Member Cooper reported that during conversation between the Mayor and the
2 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the FDEP had indicated their
3 openness to providing additional funds to Palm Beach, possibly up to $1 million, for
4 beach renourishment if the Town was to put bathrooms at Mid-Town. He asked the Shore
5 Board members if they had an opinion about the bathrooms and if it could be added to the
6 agenda. Town Manager Elwell reported that the Town Council would again discuss the
7 issue on November 8. He said it was more of a general policy than a shore protection
8 issue. Chair Ecclestone suggested the matter be discussed as part of Approval of the
9 Agenda.
10
VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS - 3 MINUTE LIMIT PLEASE
11
12 Sanford Kuvin, 149 East Inlet Drive, spoke about the submerged pipe from the Sand
13 Transfer Plant to Angler Avenue and its potentially disastrous environmental impact on
14 Reach 2 and significant mitigation costs. He said that the second pipe should be
15 abandoned by the Town and the Shore Board and should be de-authorized by the
16 Congress as a waste of taxpayer's money
17
18 Robert Barron of Coastal Growers, Inc. gave an update on the dune plantings he had
19 recently completed for private owners. He spoke about the new FDEP requirements for
20 permitting of private projects saying they were an unjustified increase in regulation and,
21 in his opinion, discouraged private investment in conservation. Town Manager Elwell
22 stated that if there was some change in the regulatory atmosphere, it was not something
23 that the Town had any control over. He suggested that staff could further address the
24 issue with FDEP staff and report back to the Board. There was discussion regarding the
25 FDEP regulations, sea turtle monitoring, and the planting on the dunes.
26
27 Board Member Katz asked the percentage of sand lost over the summer in front of Phipps
28 Park, the golf course, and any other Town-owned properties. Town Manager Elwell
29 replied that the Board would be reviewing the annual survey information and sediment
30 budget in January.
31
32 Board Member Katz asked for clarification of a statement made by Mr. Barron regarding
33 the refusal by the Town to accept private funds offered to plant sea oats on public
34 property. Robert Weber, Coastal Coordinator, replied that a permit had been received
35 from the State for the Phipps Ocean Park project and it did not include dune plantings. He
36 said that a modification to the project would have been required to conduct the plantings.
37 He added that the plantings occurred generally after March 1 and it would have been a
38 liability to do that activity during turtle season without sea turtle monitoring. Board
39 Member Katz said that when the Town designs a project, it should look when to see what
40 is needed to protect the project.
41
42 Chair Ecclestone agreed saying that any permit should include sea oats to protect the
43 project. He said that for individual plantings up and down the beach, the approval should
44 be kept local. Town Manager Elwell summarized that dune plantings would be included
45 in the design scope for future beach nourishment projects. He said that staff would
10/27/11 Shore Protection Board Meeting,Page 2 of 14
4
Report of the Town Shore Protection Board Meeting
Held on October 27,2011
1 follow up with state regulators about the regulatory changes regarding the requirement
2 for a permit to do plantings for private property owners.
3
4 Board Member Katz proposed a formal presentation be made to the Shore Board about
5 dune protection. He suggested Mr. Barron could prepare the presentation. He asked Mr.
6 Barron to work with Town staff to move forward in a constructive way. Chair Ecclestone
7 suggested the possibility of a presentation by a turtle expert also.
8
9 Vice Chair Lindsay Buck suggested that other municipalities be contacted to join with the
10 Town regarding the regulatory issue and fees being imposed.
11
12 Board Member Goldstein added that Mark Taynton should be contacted to meet with Mr.
13 Weber regarding the dune legislation.
14
VII. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
15
16 Motion was made by Vice Chair Lindsay Buck and seconded by Board Member
17 Katz to approve the agenda with the addition of the management of unexpected
18 funding and a discussion of bathrooms at Mid-Town. The motion was approved
19 unanimously.
20
VIII. SHORELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT (Robert Weber, Coastal Coordinator)
21
22 Mr. Weber gave a power point presentation with photographs of all reaches comparing
23 the conditions over the last few months to those in the spring and to conditions one-to-
24 two years ago. He spoke about the spring/summer profile compared to the fall/winter
25 profile. Board Member Katz stated that the profile in front of Phipps Park was much
26 flatter than the portion where sea oats are planted. He asked for data to include the dune
27 slope in front of the Reef Condominium and the dune slope at the south end of Phipps
28 Ocean Park.
29
30 Vice Chair Lindsay Buck asked the level of protection of the beaches compared to a year
31 ago. Mr. Weber replied that the condition of the beaches today was better than this time
32 last year because of the beach projects that had been completed. Vice Chair Lindsay
33 Buck asked about measuring the level of protection from the dune projects. Mr. Weber
34 responded that the data that was included in Plan B, prior to the dune restoration projects,
35 and showed 25-year storm protection throughout the Town.
36
37 Board Member Katz questioned if the Town had real protection on all areas in the event
38 of a major storm. Mr. Weber replied that according to the work done by the consultants
39 or by modeling, the current protection, based on variables of sand and seawalls in certain
40 areas, concludes that the Town does have protection in all areas.
41
42
43
10/27/11 Shore Protection Board Meeting,Page 3 of 14
5
Report of the Town Shore Protection Board Meeting
Held on October 27,2011
IX. NORTH END SAND SEARCH RESULTS AND SOUTH END SAND SEARCH
PROGRESS REPORT (Michael Jenkins, Ph.D, P.E., Coastal Engineering Team Leader,
Applied Technology & Management, Inc., & Gary Zarillo, Ph.D., P.G., Principal, SEA,
Inc.l
1
2 North End Sand Search Results
3
4 Dr. Mike Jenkins of Applied Technology & Management, Inc. (ATM) and Dr. Gary
5 Zarillo of S.E.A., Inc. gave a presentation on the north end sand search. He reported that
6 most areas were excluded because the sand was very, very fine and not beach compatible.
7 He further reported that three areas had been identified that could be considered for beach
8 projects. He reviewed the three areas:
9
10 • North Borrow Area 1 located south of the Juno borrow area (source delineated and
11 used by the County).
12
13 • North Borrow Area 2 located immediately north of the Inlet and offshore. The sand is
14 basically material that long term has accumulated in that area and is coarser than the
15 native sand in the near shore area.
16
17 • North Borrow Area 3 is basically an accumulation of natural sand and continued near
18 shore placements by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
19
20 Dr. Jenkins stated that the north borrow area was the main source and highest quality
21 source of sand found. He reviewed the conditions, grain size, and volume of sand at each
22 site. He stated that the next step in the process would be to take the sites to permitting. He
23 spoke about the preliminary compatibility analysis. He gave alternatives and constraints
24 associated with each. He reviewed the probable costs with the three borrow areas based
25 on current industry standards. He cautioned that the cost was based on fluctuating gas
26 and oil prices. He stated that the next step would be to define the projects, the amount of
27 sand needed, and the exact areas of sand that would be used for the projects.
28
29 Chair Ecclestone questioned how the Town would retain the rights to the sand. Dr.
30 Jenkins replied that the process of doing the study was the claim to the sand and the best
31 way to secure the rights would be to dig the area.
32
33 Vice Chair Lindsay Buck asked if the number of carbonates in the sand was a function of
34 how milky it would be when it gets in the water. Dr. Jenkins replied that the percent of
35 silt/fines was a function of how milky the water would be. Vice Chair Lindsay Buck
36 expressed concerns with the color and "milky-ness" from north sources. She stated that
37 sand in Juno tends to be much grayer. Dr. Jenkins explained that off shore sand and
38 native sand were not identical. He further explained that previous Juno projects used a
39 different source which had more silt. He stated that there are times when there are
40 immediate post project issues with that "milky-ness." He added that the "milky-ness"
41 usually occurred after a storm event. A discussion followed. Dr. Jenkins stated that the
42 placed material would be gray,but would lighten and mix with the tan beach sand.
10/27/11 Shore Protection Board Meeting,Page 4 of 14
6
Report of the Town Shore Protection Board Meeting
Held on October 27,2011
1
2 In response to a question from Vice Chair Lindsay Buck, Dr. Jenkins stated that the sand
3 from the Inlet was slightly over .2 nun grain size and had about 2% silt. He said the sand
4 at the by-passing plant was less than 1% silt and slightly coarser, 0.3 mm range.
5
6 Board Member Katz asked how Dr. Jenkins would respond if the sand was much finer or
7 a lot more rock was found once drilling started. Dr. Jenkins replied that within the
8 permitting there has to be a QAQC Plan measuring the quality. He reported that the
9 quality had been quantified based on State and Federal standards.
10
11 Board Member Baker asked how the sand would be moved to the beaches without
12 incurring enormous costs with dredgers or machinery. Dr. Jenkins responded that the cost
13 analysis was based on existing dredger technology, which would be hopper-based
14 technology. He stated that the current cost would be $10-$14 per yard to move the
15 material to the beaches. He further stated that the hopper-based technology was the
16 industry standard for moving several hundred thousand yards of sand. There was
17 discussion regarding the costs and the technology to be used. Board Member Baker asked
18 the Board to investigate other means of moving the sand.
19
20 In response to a question from Board Member Cooper regarding the proximity of the
21 borrow areas to the shore, Dr. Jenkins stated that a full wave analysis had been completed
22 for the north borrow area and FDEP should have no question regarding the use of it. He
23 said there are concerns with the two areas near the Inlet. He reported that an analysis had
24 been made to justify that the impacts were not significant to preclude their use and an
25 argument could be made that the impact would be no worse than that of the Inlet. Board
26 Member Cooper expressed concern with borrow area 3.
27
28 Chair Ecclestone asked if coarser sand could be used for overfill. Dr. Jenkins replied that
29 it could be used and was usually included in the design.
30
31 South End Sand Search Results
32
33 Dr. Jenkins reported that the south end sand search was started later than the north end.
34 He stated that most of the sand found was very fine. He reported that three new areas of
35 coarse sand were found. He noted that borrow areas III and IV were from the 2006
36 project. He cautioned that these were search areas and not final borrow areas until more
37 study had been completed.
38
39 • South Borrow Area 1, located at the middle of Mid-Town and just off-shore of the
40 hardbottom.
41
42 • South Borrow Area 2, just north of Widener's Curve and beyond Sloan's Curve and
43 located about 1600' off shore.
44
10/27/11 Shore Protection Board Meeting,Page 5 of 14
7
Report of the Town Shore Protection Board Meeting
Held on October 27,2011
1 • South Borrow Area 3, located in the area from the Lake Worth Pier south. There is
2 good coarse material in this area located closer to shore than the fine material found
3 in the past.
4
5 Board Member Katz stated there is a method to use material from the coarser areas but at
6 a high cost. Dr. Jenkins stated that it usually adds about a$1 a cubic yard.
7
8 Dr. Jenkins distributed sand samples from the three search areas. He stated that an
9 assumption was made that 25% of the search areas would provide usable materials and
10 the cut would be less than 10 ft. He reviewed the potential yield. He said there could be a
11 major cost savings in considering the sources. Regarding the nearness of the borrow areas
12 to the shoreline, Dr. Jenkins reported that ATM had been in consultation with FDEP. He
13 spoke about the preliminary wave impacts and transport rates. He reported that the final
14 detailed investigations would occur in two weeks. In response to questions from the
15 Board Member Frank, Dr. Jenkins stated he would provide an update to the Board in
16 January.
17
18 Board Member Frank asked that in looking at the grain size, the fact that the sand source
19 was so close, and that transportation costs would be reduced, could sand from the south
20 area be used for the Reach 8 project. Mr. Weber replied that it could not be used because
21 the permit application had been submitted to the State and Corps using Ortona sand. He
22 added that due to the sensitivity of the issue and the rulings from the administrative
23 hearings, it would best to use the permit location as submitted.
24
X. PHIPPS OCEAN PARK (REACH 7) BEACH RESTORATION & STABILIZATION
PROJECT DESIGN RESULTS AND ADVANCED DESIGN PROPOSAL [Michael
Walther, P.E., Principal, Coastal Technology Corporation, & Robert Weber, Coastal
Coordinator]
25
26 Mr. Michael Walther, president and principal engineer of Coastal Technology
27 Corporation, gave a presentation on the Phipps Ocean Park (Reach 7) project. He
28 reported that the project was focused on the southern portion of Reach 5 near Wideners
29 Curve to just north of the Lake Worth pier but the Corps essentially eliminated the north
30 area to avoid impact to the hardbottom. He further reported that the approach was to look
31 at the protection of buildings and structures and a recreational beach. He reviewed
32 information on the level of upland property protection from 2001 to 2009, the 2009
33 recreational beach width, and the 2011 beach conditions. He stated that based on the
34 Town's monitoring data since the 2006 beach fill, there was an estimated longshore
35 transport deficit of about 75,000 cubic yards per year not moving into Reach 7 due to
36 structures to the north of Reach 7.
37
38 Mr. Walther gave six alternatives formulated to develop a project for the Phipps Park
39 area. He reported on the meetings with FDEP, the Corps, other Federal commenting
40 agencies, and the Surfrider Association.
41
42
10/27/11 Shore Protection Board Meeting,Page 6 of 14
8
Report of the Town Shore Protection Board Meeting
Held on October 27,2011
1 Mr. Walther gave the recommendations of Coastal Tech:
2
3 • No action
4 • Fl-beach fill as permitted and construction in 2006 but expanded south to north of the
5 Lake Worth pier to the Palm Worth condo
6 • F3-beach fill from Phipps Park to Kreusler Park with expanded fill at the northern end
7 • G1-beach fill (same as F1) with a series of nine groins from Phipps Ocean Park to the
8 Par 3 Golf Course
9 • G3-beach fill as constructed in 2006, weighted in the north end with two groins at
10 north end of Phipps Ocean Park
11
12 Mr. Walther outlined the future tasks to be authorized.
13
14 Town Manager Elwell explained that the Shore Board would make a recommendation to
15 the Town Council. He stated that the recommended funding for the advanced design was
16 $228,877 for the work necessary to file a joint coastal permit application. He
17 recommended the Shore Board establish a project budget of$240,000, which includes a
18 contingency. He reported that if the Town Council approves the recommendation, by
19 March a full presentation of the results of the analysis of the four recommendations
20 would be made to the Board for review.
21
22 Board Member Goldstein asked the number of groins included in G3. Mr. Walther
23 responded there would be two groins at the north end of Phipps Park but it was subject to
24 change based on the numeric models. Board Member Goldstein asked if the groins would
25 have to be kept filled. Mr. Walther replied affirmatively saying that they would be filled
26 by the recurring renourishment and would be required to be mitigated but they would be
27 self-mitigating.
28
29 Board Member Frank asked what kind of groin would be used. Mr. Walther responded
30 that for purposes of evaluation, he had looked at a concrete pile panel groin that could be
31 adjusted in the future if necessary. He explained that the rock groin was avoided due to
32 its footprint. He said he would propose in the permit that the refilling of the groins wait
33 until the next renourishment. He reported that the groins would be located relatively near
34 the midpoint of Phipps Park.
35
36 Board Member Katz asked that a vote on the recommendation be postponed until after
37 the Erickson report.
38
39 Vice Chair Lindsay Buck expressed concern that the area from Sloan's Curve through
40 Phipps Ocean Park would only receive some dune restoration but no groins, and the area
41 that would be renourished (south of R123) currently had 100 year protection. She said
42 she understood that the Corps would not permit groins in the Sloan's Curve area. A
43 discussion followed on the placement of the groins and the beach fill project. Mr. Walther
44 explained the need for the renourishment project saying it would continue to lose about
45 75,000 cubic yards of sand per year, there would be an unraveling of the fill on the north
10/27/11 Shore Protection Board Meeting,Page 7 of 14
9
Report of the Town Shore Protection Board Meeting
Held on October 27,2011
1 end that would spread south, and the beach fill would be needed to restore and maintain
2 the protection.
3
4 Chair Ecclestone suggested the Town renegotiate with Corps to protect the hot spot. He
5 said he believed in shorter groins with more groins. Board Members Katz and Goldstein
6 agreed with the idea of renegotiating with Corps.
7
8 Board Member Goldstein asked for information from Penny Cutt, a former employee of
9 the Corps, as to why Corps turned down the Phipps Park project and how the Town could
10 get approval of the project. Ms. Cutt reported that the Corps could not permit the project
11 that was proposed at that time because the Reach 7 design would have caused substantial
12 impacts to hardbottom resources with a fill template that the models showed would have
13 been eroded within a year. She said that at that time, she and John Studt had strongly
14 recommended that a structural solution be evaluated. She recommended that Rob Weber
15 and the Mayor talk to the Corps office to review the statement of findings that was
16 written on that project because the recommendation was to evaluate a structural solution
17 with a reduced fill template that would prolong the life of the proposed project and
18 reduce the proposed impacts. Chair Ecclestone proposed the Board implement Ms.
19 Cutt's recommendations.
20
21 Mr. Walther offered a parallel recommendation to add back into the recommendation for
22 the current project the G2 alternative with some reduction of the fill in the northern area.
23 Town Manager Elwell explained that the G2 alternative would extend the project up to
24 Sloan's Curve and include the groins in front of the condominiums. He asked Mr.
25 Walther if he could include the G2 alternative back into the scope of the work without
26 increasing the fee. Mr. Walther suggested that G2 be switched for another alternative.
27
28 Karyn Erickson, Principal Engineer, Erickson Consulting Engineers (ECE), offered some
29 points regarding groin fields saying that the groin field at Mid-Town pep reef modules
30 are laid sideways and are virtually the same size as a rock groin. She stated that concrete
31 panel groins are difficult to design and maintain and sheet pile would be very difficult to
32 get penetration due to the hardbottom. She recommended rock groins which were proven
33 and low maintenance. She further recommended that one or two structures be built to see
34 how they perform. She spoke about the use of T-head groins which are adjustable. She
35 stated that if the project would impact the hardbottom, coarser sand (.32-.38) should be
36 used. She recommended the use of sand from the Bahamas.
37
38 Mr. Walther summarized the recommendation: to move forward as proposed with the
39 addition of alternative G2 with minimal fill to fill those groins that are proposed north of
40 Phipps Park to Sloan's Curve. A discussion followed on the parameters of the project, the
41 source of the sand, and the scope of work.
42
43 In response to questions from Board Member Katz, Mr. Walther explained that the
44 proposal does not intend to compensate for the minimum beach. He stated that Coastal
45 Tech's interpretation of the criteria in the Town's Comprehensive Management Plan was
46 for a 25 year storm level of protection for upland buildings. He explained that groins
10/27/11 Shore Protection Board Meeting,Page 8 of 14
10
Report of the Town Shore Protection Board Meeting
Held on October 27,2011
1 were proposed to maintain a minimum beach, and it was envisioned that there was
2 already sufficient protection to meet the criteria of a 25 year storm protection. He added
3 that in alternative G2 there was the level of protection for a 50 year storm event stabilized
4 by the rock along the shoreline.
5
6 A lengthy discussion followed on groins (type and placement), the protection of upland
7 buildings, the sand source, and the use and protection of seawalls.
8
9 Ms. Erickson said she believed it was important to have a structure to hold the sand in
10 between Sloan's Curve and Phipp's Park, and one at the south end of Phipp's Park. She
11 suggested somewhere between 2 and 3 structures and high quality sand.
12
13 Mr. Walther recommended the Board move forward with alternatives that had been
14 outlined in the report but substitute alternative G2, which extends the groin field up to
15 R116.5, in lieu of alternative Fl, the 2006 project. He agreed that structures would have
16 to be built in order to maintain sand in the north end of the project.
17
18 Town Manager Elwell stated that the additional analysis of the alternatives would
19 determine the number of groins, where they would be located, the length, and the type.
20 He asked for additional clarification from Mr. Walther regarding his $228,000 proposal
21 and if it would include the substitution of G2 for Fl, the additional analysis of the
22 offshore sand alternative, and the additional analysis related to T-head rather than
23 concrete pile groins. Mr. Walther responded that Coastal Tech had anticipated both
24 structures but, based on the input from the regulatory agencies and Ms. Erickson's
25 suggestions, they would look for a submerged T-head structure that would not interfere
26 with turtles. He added that Coastal Tech had already anticipated some evaluation of
27 alternative sand sources. Mr. Walther indicated that there would be no increase in the fee.
28
29 Town Manager Elwell proposed that the Board adopt the recommendation as outlined
30 with the modification (G2 for Fl) and with the additional assurance that the Mayor and,
31 at her discretion, other parties would reach out to the regulatory agencies, particularly the
32 Corps,regarding the issue of including the area north of Phipp's Park.
33
34 Motion was made by Board Member Katz and seconded by Board Member
35 Goldstein to approve the recommendation of staff (in the agenda backup) with the
36 substitution of analyzing option G2 and eliminating option Fl. The motion was
37 approved unanimously.
38
39 Board Member Cooper asked about a revised cost estimate. Town Manager Elwell
40 replied that the revised construction cost estimate would be addressed in the material for
41 the next phase of work with minimum and maximum costs for each alternative.
42
43
44
45
46
10/27/11 Shore Protection Board Meeting,Page 9 of 14
11
Report of the Town Shore Protection Board Meeting
Held on October 27,2011
XIII. PRESENTATION BY KARYN ERICKSON, ERICKSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS,
REGARDING THE TOWN'S COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1
2 Ms. Erickson reviewed her report prepared on behalf of a number of property owners to
3 gather and review information about Plan A and Plan B. She addressed three questions:
4 1. Does the Plan B provide its stated purpose of protecting the upland structures from a
5 severe storm, specifically a 25 year return period event?
6 2. Is the present Plan B technically and fundamentally sound?
7 3. Is the FY2012-2022 plan budget based on reasonable assumptions with respect to cost
8 and are those projections accurate?
9
10 She reviewed her recommendations and conclusions.
11
12 Board Member Goldstein asked for clarification regarding the finding that the sand
13 volume for Reach 8 was only 50% as outlined in the budget Plan B. Ms. Erickson
14 responded that the sand source was unclear. She suggested the use of a Bahamian sand
15 source because it had a tight grain size so the sand compacts and is more resistant to
16 erosion. She said that the Plan B budget underestimated the sand that would be required
17 over ten years to provide a reasonable level of protection.
18
19 Board Member Frank asked if Ms. Erickson's findings took into consideration the
20 migration of sand from Reach 7 which was filling sections of the south end of Reach 8.
21 Ms. Erickson replied that she did account for the migration of sand; however, with three
22 dune projects over ten years, there were no contingencies for storm events.
23
24 Board Member Frank questioned the finding regarding improvements of the deteriorated
25 groins in Reach 2 and 3. Ms. Erickson explained that when a groin drops and becomes
26 deteriorated it no longer holds even a small filet of sand and the small filets of sand
27 functionally provide and maintain the sand in the upper portion of the profile along the
28 seawalls. She stated that in conversations with staff she understood that the groins that
29 had deteriorated were no longer planned to be improved because it would result in a
30 recreational beach. She said that her position was it would not be a recreational beach but
31 a storm protection beach.
32
33 Board Member Katz asked if the groins on Reach 6 obstructed the free flow of sand for
34 Reaches 7 and 8. Ms. Erickson answered that she would be surprised if removing the
35 structure would have a significant impact on moving the sand south. She explained that
36 the sand would go cross shore, move off shore and bypass the north end of Reach 7. In
37 reply to a question from Board Member Katz, she spoke about structures she had
38 designed on the open sea. She also spoke about T-head structures saying that if a portion
39 of rock needed to be removed because it was not allowing enough sand to pass, it could
40 done or the weir behind it can be reduced to allow the sand to move through it more
41 quickly.
42
43 Vice Chair Lindsay Buck asked how sand could be placed in front of the seawalls in
44 Reach 2 because it gets scoured and washed away every winter. She also spoke about
10/27/11 Shore Protection Board Meeting,Page 10 of 14
12
Report of the Town Shore Protection Board Meeting
Held on October 27,2011
1 groins saying that the Board had heard that if the groins were rebuilt, they would only
2 hold about 10,000 cubic yards of sand and that was not enough to the improve protection
3 of upland property, but it would beautify the beach. Town Manager Elwell clarified that
4 the Town's projects seaward of the seawall would not provide enough sand in front of the
5 seawall to meaningfully increase the amount of protection provided by the seawall. A
6 discussion followed on the placement of sand in front of seawalls.
7
8 Regarding the proposed plan for Phase 2, the extension of the sand transfer plant, Vice
9 Chair Lindsay Buck asked about the viability of moving that sand to put a higher volume
10 into the litoral drift that is further south. Ms. Erickson said she strongly supports moving
11 sand to the south mechanically so it doesn't accrete and become locked behind the shoal
12 system.
13
14 Vice Chair Lindsay Buck asked Ms. Erickson if she had an opinion on whether the rock
15 revetment placed by the state on AlA for evacuation and storms had anything to do with
16 the sand moving south offshore and not depositing on the north end of Sloan's Curve.
17 Ms. Erickson agreed that the revetment did obstruct the flow of the sand. She stated that
18 she had been successful in going before the Florida Department of Environmental
19 Protection (FDEP) and the Corps to get money for damages caused as a result of their
20 actions.
21
22 Board Member Katz stated that the Board should get a report from time to time about the
23 flow of sand and should look at structures to see if are doing damage.
24
25 Chair Ecclestone thanked Ms. Erickson for her report.
26
27 Town Manager Elwell stated it was the intent of staff to prepare a report regarding Ms.
28 Erickson's report and on December 6 discuss the issues further to assist the Shore
29 Protection Board in deciding whether or not to modify Plan B.
30
XI. MONITORING AND PERMITTING UPDATES (Robert Weber, Coastal Coordinator
31
Townwide Physical Monitoring
32
33 Mr. Weber reported that the physical monitoring data was collected in early October and
34 September and the data reduction process had begun. He further reported that the results
35 would be included on the monitoring reports submitted to the State as part of the permit
36 requirements and for the sediment budget. He stated that the sediment budget was
37 typically presented to the Board in January.
38
Biological Monitoring
39
40 Mr. Weber reported that the field work for the biological monitoring was complete. He
41 stated that staff would meet with the Town's consultants and FDEP to develop a plan for
42 Mid-Town and any secondary impacts from the 2006 project.
10/27/11 Shore Protection Board Meeting,Page 11 of 14
13
Report of the Town Shore Protection Board Meeting
Held on October 27,2011
Sea Turtle Nesting Monitoring
1
2 Mr. Weber reported that the sea turtle season started well but the near passing of
3 Hurricane Irene during the peak of the season washed out a lot of the nests. Chair
4 Ecclestone requested a report of the location of the nests before Hurricane Irene.
5
Sand Transfer Plant (Phase II) Permitting
6
7 Mr. Weber reported that the Town had received the REI from FDEP and initial comments
8 back from Corps. He stated that a report would be prepared for the December Shore
9 Board meeting.
10
11 Town Manager Elwell stated he felt it was important for staff to meet with directly
12 affected residents in the north end about the second phase of the Sand Transfer Plant. He
13 further stated that he anticipated holding a public workshop later in the season (February
14 or March) about the expected plans, the benefits and the impacts.
15
South End Palm Beach Restoration (Reach 8) Permitting
16
17 Mr. Weber stated the project was still in permitting and CSI was preparing a response to
18 the lengthy information requested from the Corps.
19
20 Regarding the Palm Beach County project, Mr. Weber reported that the County was again
21 consulting with Taylor Engineering for the EIS. He further reported that the project was still in
22 the scoping portion of the EIS and he anticipated it would be at least a year before any comments
23 were received regarding the EIS for the Central Palm Beach County Comprehensive Erosion
24 Control Project. He stated that the Town still had its contribution of$100,000 for the cost sharing
25 effort. Town Manager Elwell added that depending upon the results of the EIS and where the
26 County plans to go with the project, staff would visit with the Shore Board and the Town
27 Council to reassess whether the Town should remain in the project and the level of commitment.
28
29 Board Member Goldstein proposed that all the Town's coastal engineers get together with staff
30 on all major coastal projects. He said that he believed that the other engineers could add to the
31 projects and that they should be working more in sync than individually. Town Manager Elwell
32 cautioned that it might be not the best approach to expect every single project to be run through a
33 panel peer review approach because it could be expensive. He agreed that it was an interesting
34 idea and would be a check and balance with the engineers. He asked time to reflect on the idea of
35 how an element could be incorporated into the methods of dealing with the Town's consultants
36 but with assurance that it would be cost effective. Board Member Katz agreed with Mr.
37 Goldstein's comments on the use of input from coastal experts for major projects.
38
39
40
41
42
10/27/11 Shore Protection Board Meeting,Page 12 of 14
14
Report of the Town Shore Protection Board Meeting
Held on October 27,2011
XII. PROPOSAL FROM JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. FOR COMPLIANCE
GUIDANCE FOR THE TOWN'S COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM [Peter B.
Elwell, Town Manager]
1
2 Town Manager Elwell stated that staff was recommending that Jacobs Engineering
3 Group be retained to assist in the administration of the Town's Coastal Management
4 Program. He gave the background for his recommendation. He explained that Jacobs
5 would provide a check and balance, advice, and review of the coastal program. He stated
6 that the cost would be $24,540, would not require Town Council approval, and would be
7 paid from the coastal fund.
8
9 Motion was made by Board Member Frank, seconded by Board Member Goldstein,
10 and unanimously approved to approve the proposal from Jacobs Engineering
11 Group for compliance guidance for the Town's Coastal Management Program.
12
13 Grant Funds — Town Manager Elwell assured the Board that money received from the State or
14 Federal government as grants to reimburse money spent on any of coastal projects had always
15 gone back into the coastal fund and would always go back into the coastal fund. He explained
16 that in order to be prudent about the Town's long term planning, no future assistance from the
17 State or Federal government had been included in the budget. He asked if money was received
18 from the state, should it be viewed as an opportunity to have more coastal work done because of
19 sacrifices made in the planning process, or should the money be viewed as an opportunity to
20 complete the entire program and have less impact on the taxpayers. He suggested that
21 circumstances were strained financially and it would be wise not to view the grant funds as
22 "found"money for a Plan B1. He reminded the Board that the coastal plan was a living, evolving
23 process and it would change over the years as decisions were made regarding the needs. Chair
24 Ecclestone asked that the Board be informed as funds are received and a running total be kept of
25 the amount.
26
27 Bathrooms at Mid-Town — Board Member Cooper said he was in favor of putting bathrooms at
28 the Mid-Town Beach because it was the right thing to do. He said he believed that a citizen had
29 offered to pay for it. Town Manager Elwell gave facts regarding the issue. He stated that the
30 FDEP had advised the Mayor that they were currently reviewing rules including the obligation
31 for certain amounts of parking to be provided in relation to secondary beach accesses. He further
32 stated that the obligation for the seven spaces may be eliminated in the future without any further
33 action by the Town. He reported that the FDEP still strongly supports the concept of having
34 public restrooms at the Mid-Town Beach, and it would make the Mid-Town Beach a primary
35 beach access rather than a secondary beach access and, therefore, the Town would become
36 eligible for additional state funding if appropriations are made in the future. He further reported
37 that its November 8 meeting, the Town Council would give further consideration to restrooms at
38 the Mid-Town Beach.
39
40 Vice Chair Lindsay Buck and Board Member Frank each spoke in support of the public
41 restrooms.
42
10/27/11 Shore Protection Board Meeting,Page 13 of 14
15
Report of the Town Shore Protection Board Meeting
Held on October 27,2011
1 Motion was made by Board Member Goldstein and seconded by Board Member
2 Katz to recommend to the Town Council that there be bathrooms on the beach at
3 Mid-Town and that it be done tastefully. The motion was approved unanimously.
4
XIV. DRAFT SHORE PROTECTION BOARD ANNUAL REPORT TO TOWN COUNCIL
[Peter B. Elwell, Town Manager]
5
6 Town Manager Elwell referred the Board members to page 150 of their back up material.
7 He explained that the Annual report was in the same format as last year. He asked the
8 Board members to let staff know of any concerns with the report. He stated it would be
9 submitted to the Town Council on December 13.
10
XV. ADJOURNMENT
11
12 Chair Ecclestone adjourned the meeting at 3:55 p.m.
13
14 APPROVED:
15
16
17
18
19 E. Llwyd Ecclestone
20 Chairman
10/27/11 Shore Protection Board Meeting,Page 14 of 14
16
TOWN OF PALM BEACH
Information for Shore Protection Board Meeting on: December 6, 2011
TO: Shore Protection Board
VIA: Peter B. Elwell, Town Manager
FROM: Robert Weber, Coastal Coordinator
SUBJECT: Comments Regarding the Report Received on October 25, 2011,
from Erickson Consulting Engineers,Inc. (ECE)
Item VIII.
DATE: November 30, 2011
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Town staff requests that the SPB review the attached staff response to the Erickson Consulting
Engineers,Inc. (ECE)report entitled "An Independent Review of The Town of Palm Beach Coastal
Management Plan," dated October 2011, and provide any direction deemed necessary.
Specifically, Town staff recommends that the Shore Protection Board (SPB) either affirm its
recommendation of Plan B to Town Council, or direct modifications based on information in the
ECE report and the staff's response.
GENERAL INFORMATION
The report by ECE provides good value to the SPB to assist in making appropriate future
recommendations to Town Council. Having a different perspective than Town staff or the Town's
consultants,the ECE report considers general coastal engineering practices and does not include the
application of economic or environmental constraints specific to the Town of Palm Beach shoreline.
The evaluation by ECE provided constructive criticism of the Town's recent coastal management
activities,with emphasis on the Shore Protection Board's Plan B Coastal Management Plan. There
are sections of the ECE report in which Town staff finds both agreement and disagreement. Notable
items of agreement include:
• The Town's proposed alternatives should consider structural solutions that optimize the
performance of the Reach 7 beach nourishment project.
• Focus on storm protection based on return interval storms, rather than the frequency of
storms categorized in the Saffir-Simpson scale that is based on hurricane wind speeds.
• Evaluate short term shoreline responses with emphasis on the upper beach and nearshore
portion of the cross-section profile.
17
• The SPB needs to determine if the storm protection provided through the Town's coastal
management plan is adequate.
• The Town should continue to improve communication with the public regarding our coastal
management program.
The most significant item of agreement between ECE and Town staff is that emphasis must be
placed on how storm protection is evaluated.
Historically Town calculations of storm protection benefits have included the value of seawalls,
erosion control groins,revetments,and sand. Protection of upland properties is determined landward
of the seawalls and/or the coastal beach and dune system. The ECE report implies that seawalls are
a component of upland property and the seawalls themselves should be protected with sand
placement. This fundamental difference in how storm protection is evaluated results in vastly
different conclusions about whether or not the Town's current coastal management program will
provide adequate protection.
The items of disagreement between ECE and Town staff are related to how we approach coastal
management. ECE suggests using professionally accepted textbook approaches for general
application,where the Town has utilized"adaptive management"approaches that consider our actual
prior experience with local shore protection projects and constraints such as the permittability and
cost of projects.
In preparation of a Town staff response to the ECE Report,Town staff has communicated with the
following entities with knowledge of the Town's coastal program:
• Coastal Engineering Section,Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems,Florida Department
of Environmental Protection
• Palm Beach Gardens Regulatory Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Town consultants: Applied Technology & Management, Inc., Coastal Technology
Corporation, and Tetra Tech, Inc.
Responses within the attached report are consistent with the information received from the above
mentioned regulatory agencies and consulting firms, as well as continued interpretation of the
Town's Comprehensive Coastal Management Plan(CCMP). Additionally,Rob Weber and Karyn
Erickson discussed this matter briefly and we expect additional communication between Town staff
and Ms. Erickson in the future.
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACTS
The Town's current plan is estimated to cost approximately$59 million over the next 10 years. The
10-year forecast includes the estimated project costs within a 10-year window. Sliding year by year,
projects in years completed fall out of the window and projects that were 11 years into the future
now appear in the 10-year window. This annual shift causes fluctuations in the overall cost of the
10-year plan as each incoming year is not equal with respect to cost of the outgoing year. With
18
Reach 7 renourishment scheduled for FY 2022, this project will appear in the FY 2013 10-year
forecast, causing the overall cost of the 10-year plan to increase. This cyclical fluctuation will
continue as major nourishment projects come into and fall out of the 10-year window.
The ECE report did not provide cost estimates for a revised plan that would address the report's
proposed method of providing storm protection. Based on the content within the ECE report and
similarities with conceptual projects from the 1998 CCMP, Town staff has roughly estimated that
the cost for implementing the ECE plan would exceed the costs of both the SPB's"Recommended
and Required" Plan A and the 1998 CCMP costs using today's unit rates. Based on recent project
costs,we anticipate that ECE's"Plan R"program would cost approximately$89 million more than
Plan B over the next 10 years. The difference was calculated as a best case scenario. Plan R
estimated costs do not include any additional engineering and permitting costs likely associated with
project implementation. Estimated costs assume that the Town is able to locate an offshore sand
supply suitable for beach placement to support the volumes of sand required for the ECE plan.
Attachment
cc. H. Paul Brazil, P.E., Director of Public Works
James M. Bowser, P.E., Town Engineer
19
RESPONSE TO ERICKSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS "AN INDEPENDENT
REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF PALM BEACH COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN,
OCTOBER 2011"
Prepared by Public Works Staff, Town of Palm Beach
Prepared for Town of Palm Beach Shore Protection Board
November 30,2011
OVERVIEW
The Erickson Consulting Engineers (ECE) Report "An Independent Review of the Town of Palm
Beach Coastal Management Plan,"dated October 2011,was provided to the Town of Palm Beach
(Town)on October 25,2011, in preparation for the oral presentation provided by Karyn Erickson,
P.E., President of ECE, to the Shore Protection Board (SPB) on October 27, 2011. While the
presentation did discuss the elements within the text report,there also were several items introduced
verbally. This report shall serve as a comprehensive response regarding both the Erickson Report
and the subsequent presentation to the SPB. For consistency, the organization of the Town staff
responses generally follow the format outlined in the ECE Report.
INTRODUCTION
The Town's current Coastal Management Program is based on the Town's two (2)Comprehensive
Coastal Management Plans(CCMP)of 1986 and 1998,with adaptive management updates annually
by the Shore Protection Board (SPB) for budgeting and implementation. The items mentioned
within the ECE report suggest a program fundamentally and philosophically different from the
Town's current program implementation with respect to one key item: How storm protection is
evaluated.
Evaluation of Storm Protection
Real protection is provided by existing infrastructure(constructed by the Town,by the State,and by
private property owners)including seawalls,erosion control groins,revetments,and sand. Protection
of upland properties is determined landward of the seawalls and/or the coastal beach and dune
system. The ECE report implies that seawalls are a component of upland property and the seawalls
themselves should be protected with sand placement. This is a significant difference between ECE
and Town staff in how storm protection is evaluated. Neither approach is wrong. They are
philosophically different.
1
20
Existing Level of Storm Protection
SBEACH modeling presented in the FY 2012 Proposed Coastal Management Program Budget and
FY2012-FY 2021 10-Year Forecast,based on 2010 survey data,concluded that 25-year return storm
protection of upland habitable structures exists in all reaches,as provided by either the sand volume
in the coastal system or the existing seawalls. The modeling conclusions from SBEACH were
consistent in Reach 8 with the testimony from Robert Brantly,P.E.(FDEP),provided in 2008 during
the Reach 8 administrative hearing,that the upland structures in Reach 8 are not threatened by a 25-
year return period storm.
Elements outlined in the Town's coastal management documents have been developed to target a
level of storm protection for upland properties from a 15-year return period storm. For consistency
with typical beach nourishment projects, Mid-Town and Reach 7 beach nourishments generally
provide protection for upland habitable structures from a 25-year return period storm. The upland
property consists of the land located west of the primary dune. Project design has been implemented
so the beach and dune system provides protection to the upland property from a 15-year return period
storm and generally provides protection that is in balance with the environmental impacts to the
upland habitable structures from a 25-year return period storm.
Wherever possible,the Town maximizes project footprints to get as much sand as possible into the
system but regulatory agencies only permit projects up to a certain level of protection. During the
Reach 8 administrative hearing, the Town and consultant were criticized for designing a project
which some experts testified exceeded 50-year return storm protection.
Town staff and the SPB members have been consistently asked by Town residents to explain the
level of storm protection afforded to them with respect to hurricane categories listed within the
Saffir-Simpson scale. The Town has loosely described that a 25-year return storm can be interpreted
as a Category 2 hurricane. While this is not a scientific approach to describe a 25-year return storm,
the public has often requested this characterization. Saffir-Simpson scale references have been
intended as supplemental information to assist the public in familiarizing with return interval storms,
rather than referencing solely the scientific-based storm recession analyses.
Guides for Storm Protection, Interpreting the Town's CCMP Documents
The SPB's November 2009 Plan, and subsequently the SPB's April 2011 recommended Plan B,
outline a 10-year budget to implement a series of projects to provide adequate shoreline protection
to the Town of Palm Beach. In "developing a plan to safeguard the Town's beaches", the SPB
developed a long-term plan and listed a host of storm protective and erosion control projects. The
long-term plan was based on the adaptive management of projects as guided from the 1986 and 1998
CCMPs.
2
21
Comprehensive Coastal Management Plan of 1986, Cubit Engineering, Inc.
The strategic objectives of the coastal management plan for erosion protection were initially
classified into two (2) categories: 1) Storm Protection, and 2) Recreation Enhancement. The
objectives were further expanded into a list of four plan alternatives for possible implementation in
each of the reaches of the Town, including: 1) Full Hurricane Protection, 2) Moderate Storm
Protection, 3) Wide Recreational Beach (>50 ft berm), and 4)Narrow Recreational Beach (<50 ft
berm). The different categories of erosion protection were suggested to be achieved through the use
of seawalls, groins, beach nourishment,and dune restoration. At the time of the 1986 CCMP, the
only stretch of beach considered for beach nourishment was Mid-Town.
As stated within the 1986 CCMP, "Town's commitment to coastal structures must be maintained
to protect upland property. This requires regular seawall maintenance and plans for future
replacement as needed in response to age deterioration." The CCMP recommended a comprehensive
seawall maintenance program for the roadway protective structures and stated that the Town should
encourage private beachfront owners to participate in a voluntary program of seawall inspection and
maintenance. The 1986 CCMP suggested that the groins can be largely abandoned except in select
areas where they have shown to be effective.
The storm protection afforded through the 1986 CCMP recommended plan were defined as:
1. Hurricane Erosion Protection - 100-year flood elevations with added wave heights
2. Moderate Storm Erosion- 10-year return storm
References to 15-year, 25-year, and 30-year return period storms were not considered until the
CCMP update was developed in 1998.
Comprehensive Coastal Management Plan of 1998,Applied Technology&Management,Inc.
As stated within the 1998 CCMP, "The targeted level of storm protection for all beach restoration
projects on the Island should enable any individually considered shoreline restoration segment to
avoid significant damage from a 15-year return interval storm at any time between the initial
restoration and subsequent renourishments." Applied Technology& Management, Inc.,author of
the 1998 CCMP,modeled 15-year and 25-year return interval storms through an EDUNE simulation.
The 15-year storm eroded approximately 17 cubic yards per front foot of lower beach, berm, and
dune segments of beach,while the 25-year storm event caused a unit loss of approximately 24 cubic
yards per foot.
Robert Brantly, P.E., Coastal Engineer, FDEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, testified
during the Reach 8 Administrative Hearing that the FDEP determines protection to upland structures
to be necessary if upland structures are threatened by a 25-year return period storm event. Often,this
protection is afforded through beach nourishment. Consistent with FDEP considerations,the Town's
beach nourishment projects in Mid-Town and Reach 7 have been designed to provide 25-year return
period storm protection for upland structures. Due to the"feeder beach" concepts,the volume of
sand placed in many areas of the two respective projects would exceed an equivalent design plus
advanced fill density as referenced by ECE.
3
22
The 1998 CCMP suggested the establishment of a shoreline management"Baseline"design criteria
for beachfill projects and groin fields,associated with 15-year return interval storm protection. A
Townwide"Baseline"was not created during the implementation of the 1998 CCMP projects due
to results from the reach-specific feasibility studies which introduced significant environmental
contraints. Concerns for hardbottom impacts substantially increase the estimated project costs and
reduce both the permitability and overall feasibility for a uniform coastal management approach in
all reaches.
As stated in the 1998 CCMP,"The principal objectives of the plan are to provide a level of storm
protection to the entire Island shoreline and to reestablish sand transport denied the Island by the
Lake Worth Inlet." Since 1998, the Town has continued active coastal management in all reaches,
consistent as guided with the CCMP, including:
• Reach 1: Conducted activities contained within the Lake Worth Inlet Management Plan
(including Sand Transfer Plant operations and inlet dredging dry beach placement)
• Reach 2: Feasibility Study and Design of Sand Transfer Plant Modification
• (Extension of pipeline into Reach 2)
• Reaches 3 and 4: Continued Beach Nourishment and Dune Restoration
• Reach 5: Feasibility Study for Beach Fill Design Alternatives
• Reach 6: Continued Monitoring
• Reach 7: Beach Nourishment Construction and Dune Restoration
• Reach 8: Permitting for Beach Nourishment; Continued Dune Restoration Construction
• Townwide: Annual Physical Monitoring and"Sediment Budget"Report,Coastal Structures
Plan (for groin rehabilitation)
Adaptive Management
Woods Hole Group/Aubrey Consulting,Inc.(WHG/ACI)conducted a peer review of ATM's CCMP
Update of 1998. One of the most important elements suggested by WHG/ACI was to implement
"Adaptive Management" during implementation of the Town's coastal program. As stated by
WHG/ACI, adaptive management is a process whereby future projects are improved based on the
performance of previous projects. Initial projects are to be designed, permitted, and constructed
based on the best available information, then monitored to compare actual performance to design
expectations. Future projects should be improved based on the performance of previous projects and
evolving needs for the Town's shoreline(e.g.storm protection,environmental concerns,recreational
needs,etc.). Specific areas suggested by WHG/ACI for adaptive management consideration include:
• Beach Replenishment Projects
• Coastal Structures
• Hot-Spots
• Influence of Nearby Projects
• Environmental Impacts
• Economic Monitoring
4
23
Since 1998,the Town's numerous studies and communications with the regulatory agencies indicate
that a uniform level of protection cannot be obtained without incurring significant environmental
impacts. The regulatory agencies simply will not issue permits for some projects the Town views
as desirable and, in other cases, will only issue permits that are conditioned on Town construction
of millions of dollars worth of environmental mitigation. This reality tempered the Town's
commitment to the aggressive implementation of the 1998 CCMP in its entirety. This adaptive
change is the primary reason for the distinct program differences between the Town and ECE.
Comprehensive Coastal Management Update
The SPB's November 2009 Plan included an item (No. 9) to update the CCMP. An update was
considered due to the following:
With the regulatory climate changing, additional emphasis on environmental resources,
increased construction costs,and new challenges to the Town's shoreline, the applicability
of the existing 1998 CCMP for today's use has been questioned.
The November 2009 SPB Plan item No.9 remained an item in the SPB's 2011 Plan A as an item
"Under SPB Consideration". Due to fiscal constraints,development of Plan B eliminated all"Under
SPB Consideration"items. Based on the information provided within the ECE Report,coupled with
the apparent differences with respect to storm protection evaluation,the SPB may want to consider
including a CCMP update in the proposed Plan B program. In conversation with Town staff on
November 14, 2011, Karyn Erickson, P.E. of ECE expressed a desire for the Town to update the
CCMP. A revised document may bring permitting realities to light and refine the basis for feasible
actions the Town can take to protect the upland habitable structures to a specified level of storm
protection, bridging differences between Town staff and ECE interpretations of the prior CCMP
documents.
Please note that an updated CCMP would not likely provide any new information that is not already
considered on an annual basis through the Town's Coastal Management Program budgeting process.
Rather, an updated CCMP will document post-1998 decisions made by the Town and increased
environmental concerns expressed by the State and Federal regulatory and advisory agencies.
5
24
TOWN STAFF RESPONSES TO ECE REPORT
Comments by ECE below and subsequent responses by Town staff have been provided in the order
which they were documented within the ECE report "An Independent Review of the Town of Palm
Beach Coastal Management Plan"or in Ms. Erickson's presentation at the Shore Protection Board
meeting on October 27,2011.
1.0 Introduction
ECE Comment. This review concludes that the Shore Protection Board(SPB)approved "Plan B"
should not be approved by the Town in its current form. Of critical significance,the current sand
volume estimates by the Town appear insufficient to provide the level of storm protection plus
advance fill between nourishment events which will ultimately create a budget shortfall.
Town Staff Response. If the SPB and Town Council decide to continue the adaptive
management approach, Plan `B" meets the volume estimates necessary to provide an
adequate level of protection. Due to project-specific and environmental permitting
limitations, there are sections of beach project areas which do not receive an equivalent of
standard design fill and advance beach fill. However, using adaptive management and the
"feeder beach" concept to mitigate for volumetric design losses, there are sections of the
constructed beach projects in Mid-Town(specifically Reach 4,south of Breakers rockpile)
and Reach 7 where the placed sand exceeds what would be specified for standard design plus
advanced fill volumes.
2.0 Materials Reviewed for this Study
ECE provided a list of documents reviewed in the preparation of the October 2011 report. In
addition to the documents listed by ECE,the Town recommends reviewing several pertinent publicly
available State and Town reports to have a more comprehensive understanding of the State's
recommended guidelines and the Town's considerable site constraints. These other pertinent
documents include:
• FDEP Offshore Sand Search Guidelines, September 2010
• FDEP Statewide Strategic Beach Management Plan,May 2008
• FDEP Monitoring Standards for Beach Erosion Control Projects, March 2004
• FDEP Consolidated Final Order, OGC Case No. 08-0469, DOAH Case No. 08-1511,
Secretary Michael W. Sole,dated July 15, 2009
• Summary Report, Shoreline Management Recommendations, CCMP Update, Applied
Technology& Management,Inc., June 1998
• Peer Review of the Comprehensive Coastal Management Plan Update, Woods Hole
Group/Aubrey Consulting, Inc.,January 1998
• Feasibility Study of Palm Beach Island Shoreline Reach 2, Applied Technology &
Management, Inc., August 2002
• Feasibility Study of Palm Beach Island Shoreline Reach 5, Applied Technology &
Management, Inc.,June 2005
• Feasibility Study of Palm Beach Island Shoreline Reach 8, Applied Technology &
Management, Inc.,January 2005
6
25
3.0"Plan B"Coastal Management Plan
ECE Comment. The purpose of the Plan B Coastal Management Plan is to provide shoreline
protection from a severe storm (25 year return period event) for the Town of Palm Beach and to
identify the projects and their associated costs needed to meet this mandate.
Town Staff Response. As stated on Page 5 of the FY 2012 Proposed Coastal Management
Program Budget & FY 2012- FY 2021 10-Year Forecast, dated March 2011, "State and
Federal project cost sharing is questionable, and Plan B has been developed to provide a
sustainable program without outside government financial assistance...Both Plan A and Plan
B provide a 25-year storm protection for most of the Town,with exceptions of Reaches 2 and
6, where storm protection is provided by privately owned seawalls or F.D.O.T.'s rock
revetment,respectively. There are several properties in various reaches, not representative
of their entire respective reach, which are sited close to the shoreline and rely on their
privately owned seawalls for storm protection."
On February 11, 2009, Town Council directed the Board beyond their initial charge of
"developing a plan to safeguard the Town's beaches"to additionally"provide a long term
plan of action(with options)for Town Council consideration". Since the taxpayers may be
collectively unwilling or unable to pay for the SPB program as detailed in November 2009;
Plan B was an alternative suggestion to address the Town's coastal management needs in a
more cost effective manner.
ECE Comment. ...Such protection should include the design beach width required to provide the
storm protection plus the advance fill beach width required to offset the sand losses before the next
beach nourishment event.
Town Staff Response. Advanced fill beach width is often considered to offset the sand
losses before the next beach nourishment event. The Town's nourishment designs maximize
fill templates understanding the cross shore and along shore movement of sand and any
impacts to hardbottom. In many cases, the non-uniform feeder beach concept mitigates for
areas where sand placement cannot be permitted with advanced fill. Sections where
environmental concerns are low, the maximum template exceeds what the advanced fill
would require. The purpose of maximizing the placed sand template,beyond advanced fill
widths,is to infuse more sand in the system to replace decades of sand deficits. The benefit
of this approach to protecting downdrift beaches has been confirmed by the Town's real life
experiences at Reach 5 and the north end of Reach 8. Calculating advanced fill quantities
is not the only recognized coastal engineering method of designing beach projects and
anticipating shoreline responses.
ECE Comment. ...The Town prepared the "Plan B" Coastal Management Plan based on Town
staff's assumptions and design criteria. Project design information and data that form the basis for
cost estimating consider total quantities of sand and unit costs for sand that while simplistic in detail
may be reasonable if appropriate contingencies are applied and sand quantities and assumptions are
provided by the consultants.
7
26
Town Staff Response. Receiving input from the Town's current coastal engineering roster
of firms, the plan was developed based on permitting realities and design criteria from
previous consultant and regulatory decisions and reports. The final report was peer reviewed
by three(3)of the Town's current pre-qualified coastal engineering firms prior to distribution
to the SPB.
Values provided within Plan B were based on a series of factors,one of which was the up-to-
date unit costs based on recent bids for other local shore protection projects. Additional
considerations include anticipated performance based on the shoreline monitoring data of
previous projects.
ECE Comment. While it is understood that estimates of future monetary expenditures must be
prepared for budgetary planning purposes, it is prudent that such estimates be consistent with
customary engineering practice of using an appropriate contingency to account for the unknown cost
variables. Typically a contingency of 30% is applied at the early phases of estimating a project's
costs and subsequently reduced to 15-18%when the permit process is near completion(i.e.nearing
80% design phase)and thus when quantities and significant cost items are known. With many of
the Plan B projects in the feasibility and conceptual design phases,significant unknowns exist calling
for a minimum contingency of 30%. Reductions in contingency may be reasonable during annual
updates to the Plan as essential project design data and information is known.
Town staff Response. Although Plan B does not rely on state funding assistance,the Town
actively requests state participation through an annual local government funding request. A
significant amount of backup information is to be submitted to FDEP with the local
government funding requests,of which one item is the long term(10-year forecast). FDEP
does not fund or approve contingencies. FDEP has denied requests of otherwise eligible
scopes of work based on the inclusion of contingencies. Local sponsors,including the Town,
are to use their best professional judgment in estimating the projected cost of doing the
proposed work. Because the current Plan B 10-year forecast consists of projects with
similarities to those previously permitted,construction activities in the conceptual phase can
be reasonably estimated without implementing a 30%contingency.
Consistent with other capital improvement projects in the Town,a project contingency of
10%is applied to the budget ofeach coastal protection construction project for the upcoming
active fiscal year.
4.0 Appropriateness of Design Beach
ECE Comment. The Town's shore protection plan requires a design beach width sufficient to
protect upland property from a 25 year return period storm event. The objective for the beach
nourishment is to provide sufficient advance beach width which will sacrificially erode during the
maintenance interval and thereby maintain the design beach width in place to protect upland property
from a severe storm just prior to the next major beach renourishment project.
8
27
Town Staff Response. As stated in the Storm Protection section of this response,the design
of beach nourishment in the Town, consistent with the CCMP, defines a specific goal in
terms of"...targeted level of storm protection...to avoid significant damage from a 15-year
return interval storm at any time between the initial restoration...and subsequent
renourishments."
Specific to Reach 7, because the design beach criterion was largely met by the existing
profile, the construction of the beach fill project was to address a corollary goal of acting
both as a"feeder beach"and as advanced maintenance against ongoing future erosion. In
effect, the fill was to buffer the existing profile against background erosional losses and
allow it to be maintained as the "design beach", satisfying the targeted level of storm
protection.
The shoreline response at the north end of the Reach 7 project area was influenced by the
lack of sand moving into the area from Reach 6,as opposed to just the project's sand volume
or sand characteristics. Expecting this shoreline response, the Town repeatedly yet
unsuccessfully appealed to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to permit beach fill at the
northern end of the Reach 7 project. With real monitoring data collected to support the
Town's previous project performance,the Town is currently designing a structural solution
to address the"hot spot" at the north end of Reach 7.
ECE Comment. The Town and its consultants have not clearly explained this(design and advance
volumes)to the community and have not consistently applied these standard concepts and principles
to the design basis. A graphic such as Figure 1 representing the"design beach"based on protection
to upland structures during a 25-year storm event and the"advance beach"to account for background
erosion over the nourishment interval is necessary to correctly communicate the nourishment design
to the community and to the permitting agencies.
Town Staff Response. Staff agrees that communication within the community is vital. We
have attempted to accomplish this through a variety of methods in a variety of settings over
many years. Specifically, regarding the suggestion of a graphic depiction,Town staff and
Town consultants have provided presentations to the Town Council(October 14,2008),the
Shore Protection Board (January 29, 2009), the Citizens' Association of Palm Beach
(January 15, 2009), and the Town of Palm Beach Civic Association (February 22, 2010)
depicting both "design beach" and "advanced beach" components of beach nourishment
where appropriate. A Powerpoint slide, similar to the ECE Figure 1 graphic, utilizes
animation to show the typical profile adjustment following construction of a beach project.
One slide from that animated graphic is labeled Figure 1,below.
9
28
Profile Evolution of Beach Nourishment
16
Post-Construction
Adjustment in 1-3 years
r..._ ,
z 0 ` r`
,,, _. /II„ ,.....i........,........................4._
W
Design �■�`. .. _
Beach
-` -16
h" • 24
■',.•,-,.- -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
;.
CPE �
DISTANCE
Figure I. Components of Sand Placement(Design and Advanced Volumes)
In earlier years,a less sophisticated and non-animated slide had been used to accomplish the
same goal of informing the public of expected adjustment of constructed beach restoration
projects.
In 2007,the Town mailed letters,distributed flyers,operated a website,and released a video
on the storm protection afforded by beach nourishment proposed for Reach 8. On December
12,2007,Palm Beach residents were provided with an Open House at Bethesda-By-The-Sea
Parish Hall to discuss storm protection.
The flyer described the standard concept basis of design and,specific to the Reach 8 project,
stated:
The technical design life of this project (Reach 8)is six years. The strength of the
design beach is approximated by a storm that would impact the beach one time in a
15-year period,based on historical storm frequency records.
Bottom line: Town staff completely agrees with ECE about the importance of public
outreach. The Town has utilized methods such as those suggested by Ms. Erickson and will
continue to improve the Town's coastal website and other outreach efforts going forward.
10 29
ECE Comment. In developing the design beach,the FDEP's CCCLa model is recommended to
simulate and assess the impacts of a severe storm event (25 yr return period or less) and the
vulnerability of upland structures as this model has been pre-calibrated by FDEP. If SBEACH is
used, the calibration assumptions need to be identified and undergo a peer review. Of particular
importance, the consultants have applied the SBEACH model that is known to be unreliable and
results in deficiencies(e.g. highly sensitive to the user specified character of the nourishment sand
characteristics and other inputs)in the application for estimating storm erosion.
Town Staff Response. The CCCLa model is not a universally accepted standard for cross-
shore modeling. The SBEACH model is the accepted USACE standard cross-shore model
and has been successfully utilized for multiple projects in Florida. The Town has utilized
both models for project design where appropriate.
SBEACH generated erosion profiles can be utilized to successfully assess the cross-shore
impacts from both a 15-year and 25-year storm event. Following the calibrating and
verifying the SBEACH model utilizing wave data, surge data, tides, and sand grain size
parameters, the results of shoreline recession analyses provide general trends to the
respective Town reaches. These general trends are sufficient for the purpose of assessing
existing storm protection.
The CCCLa model is a modified version of the model which was utilized to establish the
Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL). The initial CCCL model was designed to
determine influences from a 100-year return interval storm. For the purposes of
vulnerability, the U.S.Army Corps of Engineer's SBEACH model can sufficiently predict
shoreline response from a 15 or 25-year return period storm,without reliance from FDEP for
site specific calibrations.
ECE Comment. It is recognized by the coastal engineering professionals that hurricane
classifications of Categories 4 and 5 are generally fast-moving storms and as a result will cause
relatively low surge elevations and less erosion damage than a typical slow moving Category 1-3
storm.
Town Staff Response. The forward speed of a hurricane is not dependent on its wind
speed. The forward speed of a hurricane is dependent on upper atmospheric steering
currents. Other important factors affecting shoreline influence from a hurricane are the
direction of the storm's movement with respect to the shoreline and the physical position of
the shoreline with respect to the storm's center of circulation. Additionally,the duration of
a storm's influence on a particular area is not only dependent on the forward speed,but the
diameter(or size) of the storm.
11
30
5.0 Appropriateness of Performance Assessment Methods& Calculation of Erosion Rates
ECE Comment. ...Large-scale and detailed data collected are not utilized to the greatest extent
practical to accurately assess erosion rates,sand placement performance,or estimates of future sand
needs in the analysis of the beach profiles...The Town's annual monitoring and performance
assessments lack essential information with respect to sand volume changes due to offshore losses
into deep water(-12 to -26.5 ft contours). This data is not given and is critical to understanding
background erosion rates, project performance and future sand placement volume needs. The
methods for volume calculations and performance analysis are missing significant information on
the remaining level of storm protection...Sand volume loss information that is only calculated to the
depth of closure results in inaccurate estimations of background erosion rates.
Town Staff Response. The volumes of sand located on the upper portion of the profile,
including the nearshore, provide the shoreline with a higher amount of near term storm
protection than the sand located in deeper water. In severe storms,the sand in deeper water,
landward of the depth of closure, does play an active role in storm protection. Town staff
agrees that some additional detailed information regarding this distinction will be helpful to
Town decision makers and the public.
Since the Town currently conducts physical monitoring surveys on an annual basis, it is
important not to artificially separate the profile volumes at a specific contour which would
be affected by seasonal variations. Therefore, the next "Sediment Budget" report will
compartmentalize the sand volumes as described in the 1998 CCMP, taking into
consideration the differences of the nearshore and offshore sand within the depth of closure.
ECE Comment....Hydrographic survey equipment is known to result in accuracy errors of+1-2-6"
with the level of error increasing as a function of water depth particularly offshore to the-26.5 ft
NAVD contour. This potential for large errors in quantity calculations further compounds the
problem. As an example, if one assumes a minimal two inch vertical error between the-12 to -26
ft contours applied over a 1,000 ft cross-shore distance, there is a survey related error of roughly
33,000 CY for a mile long reach of shoreline. A six inch vertical error could reach upwards of
100,000 CY for a one mile reach. The volume calculations could show a gain of+50,000 CY when
in fact a loss of-50,000 CY has occurred. At depths above -12 ft, for example, these errors are
significantly reduced. These data inaccuracies in the calculation of volume changes may be
minimized by limiting the calculations to observed beach profile volume losses occurring above
interim depth contours such as the -12 ft or similar depth.
Town Staff Response. The Town's physical monitoring data was collected within GPS
derived errors of<5 cm. The vertical accuracy at any bathymetric portion of the profile
(below the waterline) is the same regardless of its position in the nearshore or offshore. It
is assumed that one of the reasons that ECE prefers to give more weight to the nearshore
portion of the measured profile,rather than offshore, is due to the perceived vertical errors
in offshore data. The FDEP's Statewide Coastal Monitoring Program outlines the data
collection and processing procedures that are necessary to provide minimum allowable
errors. Physical monitoring data collected in Florida utilizes quality assurance and quality
12
31
control through the Florida Minimum Technical Standards, requirements for U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Class HI Hydrographic Survey(with the exception that vertical accuracy
shall conform to the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems [BBCS] specifications),
accepted survey practice,and BBCS data standards and format requirements. Pre-and post-
survey processes reduce or eliminate errors caused by a function of the speed of sound with
respect to the water depth.
ECE Comment. ...(T)he Town assumes all sand (74,500 CY/Yr) losses from Reach 7 move into
Reach 8 and will beneficially move into the upper portions of the beach profile. This design
approach is not recommended because the given sand loss rate at Reach 7 does not account for cross-
shore sand losses where sand leaves the littoral system and moves into deep water(greater than a 12
ft depth). As a result,the required sand volume to provide the design and advance beach widths is
underestimated using this approach.
Town Staff Response. The Town has made no assumption regarding the movement of sand.
Reported values are based on measured volumetric change which provides the basis for
future design and permitting efforts. Beach profile surveys within the Town have exhibited
significant volume exchange across the 12 foot contour depth (both onshore and offshore)
and the concept that sand which moves into deeper water than 12 feet is lost from the littoral
system is not consistent with the observed, measured,and documented performance of the
Town's coastal protection projects.
6.0 Sand Sourcing and Compatibility
ECE Comment. The Plan B budget adopted by the SPB assumes that Reaches 3 and 4 and Reaches
7 and 8 will use offshore sand as the source for the next nourishment projects.
Town Staff Response. Sand placement in Reach 8 south of the Lake Worth Pier,either
through beach nourishment or repetitive dune restoration, is expected to include sand
acquired from the E.R. Jahna Ortona Sand Mine in La Belle, Florida.
ECE Comment. Of significant importance is that at the time the Plan B budget was prepared there
were no sand source sites identified. Since neither the quality nor the cost of the available sand is
known, it is difficult to place reliance on the Plan B budget.
Town Staff Response. ATM provided a presentation to the SPB on February 24, 2011,
which outlined the sand search work completed up to that date. With preliminary field
investigations complete,there was relative certainty that the areas of opportunity would yield
suitable sand to utilize for projects noted within Plan B.
ATM's report and summary for the North Area Sand Search,as well as their presentation to
the SPB on October 27,2011,confirmed sand volumes and sand characteristics suitable for
beach nourishment. In addition,ATM's summary indicated probable unit costs for the North
Area sand for both Mid-Town(<$11/CY)and Reach 7(—$13/CY)in comparison to the low
bid received for the 2011-2012 Jupiter Island nourishment with a unit cost of$8/CY(based
13
32
on a 1.2 million CY volume and a 4 mile hopper dredge sail). The potential borrow areas
within the South Area Sand Search are expected to yield suitable sand for beach nourishment
which would significantly reduce the unit cost of the sand for Reach 7.
According to the ECE report, the assumed unit cost of offshore sand ($12/CY) may be
reasonable if the cost of fuel remains stable,competitive bidding is strong and sand sources
are located in reasonably close proximity to the sand placement sites.
ECE Comment. The candidate sources of the sand and thereby the characteristics and compatibility
(i.e. overfill factors) are incomplete at this time.
Town Response. A draft report for the North Area Sand Search was provided to ECE. The
report included sand characteristics and compatibility of the offshore sand with respect to the
sand existing on the shoreline. On shorelines with repetitive offshore sand placement,it is
appropriate to determine overfill factors based on the sand existing on the beach.
As suggested by ECE,any new data collected is to be presented appropriately to demonstrate
erosion rates. Erosion rates today are characterized on a beach influenced by nourished sand.
Recent history and current erosion rates have no bearing on the"native" sand. If a project
utilizes recent erosion rates, overfill factors for proposed sand characteristics are to be
determined in comparison with the existing"nourished"sand,not"native"sand. ATM has
computed overfill factors based on the North Area Sand Search. Modifications,as necessary,
will be made to the conceptual volumes considered in the FY 2013 proposed coastal
management budget and FY 2013- FY 2022 10-year forecast.
Overfill factors are considered when erosion rates are computed using the "native" sand on
the beach. The purpose of the overfill factor is to anticipate how much nourished sand is
needed to have the project's erosion rates meet the measured erosion rates. If erosion rates
are calculated using"nourished"sand and a proposed borrow area has sand of similar quality,
then the overfill factor would be negligible,close to a value of 1. Because the Town annually
evaluates erosion rates through shoreline change,reliance on erosion rates calculated from
decades ago when the sand on the beach had different characteristics than the sand today is
not appropriate for projecting future project performance.
ECE Comment. It is important to recognize that while FDEP requires minimum standard spacing,
this spacing is often insufficient to define confined strata of coarse sand (as well as fine sand).
Greater vibracore sampling density(i.e. reduce spacing between sample locations) combined with
detailed geometric analysis of the sediments are needed to accurately represent the sediments and
define the borrow area.
Town Staff Response. The maximum spacing allowed by FDEP for vibracore collection
as stated within the Offshore Sand Search Guidelines is 1,000 feet. The nominal spacing of
the North Area Sand Search was 800 feet. The nominal spacing from the 1995 Mid-Town
Sand Search, as provided by ATM, was 700 feet.
14
33
On November 30, 2011, additional vibracores were conducted by American Vibracore
Services, Inc. to provide tighter spacing in the most promising borrow area,NBA!. With
these three(3)additional vibracores taken,the North Area Sand Search has tighter nominal
spacing than the 1995 Mid-Town Sand Search.
With four major beach nourishment projects completed by the Town,offshore resources with
the coarsest material are nearly depleted.
ECE Comment. As a result of such consultant decisions, the "native" beach sand changes and
becomes progressively finer over time, and does not follow accepted coastal engineering practice
or the State rules as described by the ALJ in the 2009 Reach 8 decision. Thereby,the finer mean
grain size of native sediments lead to incorrect predictions of sand compatibility and poorly
performing beach nourishment projects.
Town Staff Response. FDEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems staff have confirmed
to Town staff that the"native"beach does not become"progressively"finer over time. The
beach takes on the characteristics of the placed sand.
The Findings of Fact within the ALJ's Recommended Order (RO) was taken under
consideration by FDEP and did influence FDEP's Consolidated Final Order (CFO).
However,FDEP also filed exceptions to the RO,one of which was that"Based on the plain
language of the Sand Rule,this conclusion of the ALJ is not correct and is not adopted in this
Final Order." The CFO specifically addressed the Reach 8 project area and did not consider
or adopt a statewide policy change to the Sand Rule. To date, no amendments to the Sand
Rule,or adjustments to the interpretation of rules have been made by FDEP as a result of the
ALJ's RO or FDEP's CFO.
ECE Comment. Not only do the borrow site sand characteristics affect the performance of the
project they also affect project costs. For example, an overfill factor of 1.5 means that 1.5 cubic
yards must be placed on the beach to yield an equivalent one volume unit of"compatible"material.
This means a sand volume of 500,000 CY required to construct the design and advance fill would
require the placement of 750,000 CY of sand on the beach, assuming an overfill ratio of 1.5. As a
result, the unit cost of sand is equivalent to $18/CY, not $12/CY, to achieve one volume unit of
"compatible" material based on an overfill factor of 1.5.
Town Staff Response. Considering overfill factor as a component of unit cost assumes that
a design plus advanced fill concept is the basis for project design. As described earlier in this
report,hardbottom concerns have been a primary design constraint and preclude the adoption
of a design plus advanced fill concept as a design basis for Town projects. The adoption of
an overfill factor assumes that design erosion rates that have been utilized are not consistent
with the borrow material and an additional factor must be included in the analysis. Projects
constructed by the Town to date which have used offshore sand sources have been monitored
and their performance has been well documented. The measured performance of constructed
projects utilizing similar offshore sand sources provides a more accurate basis for project
design than the adoption of an overfill concept based on historical native beach
characteristics that preceded beach fill placement by the Town.
15
34
7.0 Seawalls
ECE Comment. An apparent contradiction is seen in the Town's 2011 Reach 7 report where, the
same consultant identifies the maintenance of a recreational beach with a minimum berm width of
25 ft, from the toe of the dune to Seasonal Mean High Water Line(SMHWL),as a primary design
objective of the Town.
Town Staff Response. The Town's previous coastal management documents suggest
recreation as a primary objective related to erosion control. As stated within the 1986
CCMP:
The Plan seeks to satisfy two main erosion control objectives. These objectives
together with their respective alternative improvement strategies are listed below:
1. Upland Property Protection
2. Recreational Beach Enhancement
The 25-foot wide berm is a suggested design criterion as stated within the 1986 CCMP as
the minimum width of a"Narrow Recreational Beach".
To reduce the Town's coastal management overall costs,the Plan B alternative focuses on
storm protection. The Reach 7 project is designed to provide storm protection directly for
the beaches of Reach 7 and indirectly for the downdrift beaches of Reach 8. The 25-foot
wide berm is a design component to provide a narrow berm for the public beach. This design
component does not dictate whether or not to construct the project. Rather,the 25-foot wide
berm suggests adjustments in the design to promote a recreational beach for the public
Phipps Ocean Park.
8.0 Coastal Management Plan B: Project Costs and Sand Volumes
ECE Comment. The 2010 Sediment Budget Report prepared by the Town indicates these projects
are performing very well and this would be interpreted to mean that the density of sand placement
in Reaches 3-4 would be less.
Town Staff Response. The Mid-Town project has benefitted both the Reach 3 and 4
shorelines, as well as the Reach 5 shoreline. The Mid-Town project is the most central
location in Town where sand is periodically placed back into the Town's coastal system to
ameliorate decades of erosional stresses imposed by the construction of the Lake Worth Inlet
and jetties. Due to the "feeder beach" concept and fill template maximization, especially
south of the Breakers rockpile complex, fill volumes for repetitive projects should remain
similar.
The main benefit of successive projects is not to reduce the footprint of the perniitted project,
but rather to increase the duration of time between nourishments.
16
35
ECE Comment. ...The Mid-Town Project (Reaches 3 and 4) is scheduled to receive a
disproportionately high volume of sand compared to the other reaches which is surprising given the
historically high volumes of sand that have been placed along this shoreline. According to the Town,
Reach 7 is the island's hot spot; however, as shown in Figure 2 the sand placement density is
considerably lower than that proposed for Reaches 3 and 4. Reach 8,which is receiving"dune only"
sand placement, is also scheduled to receive a disproportionately low volume of sand.
Town Staff Response. Since 2005, Reach 7 has received more sand than the Mid-Town
project area. The last full nourishment projects in both Mid-Town and Phipps Ocean Park
(Reach 7)occurred in 2006. Approximately 920,000 cubic yards of offshore sand was placed
in Mid-Town and approximately 1,230,000 cubic yards of offshore sand was placed in Reach
7. Prior to the 2006 nourishment in Reach 7, an emergency dune project, in response to
Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne,was performed in Reach 7 and 8 which cumulatively placed
approximately 1 00,000 cubic yards in 2005. In 2011,both Mid-Town and Reach 7 received
truck-hauled upland sand. Approximately 52,000 cubic yards was placed in Mid-Town
(Reach 4)and 56,000 cubic yards was placed in Reach 7(of which 10,000 cubic yards was
placed near Sloan's Curve, north of Phipps Ocean Park).
Between 2011 and 2021,Reach 7 is planned to receive more sand than the Mid-Town project
area. Plan B suggests two projects in Mid-Town totaling 1,075,000 cubic yards of sand.
Plan B suggests a beach nourishment in Reach 7 in 2013 (FY 2014) of approximately
750,000 cubic yards and a renourishment eight (8) years later in 2021 (FY 2022) of
approximately 1,000,000 cubic yards. The FY 2022 Reach 7 renourishment is not shown on
Plan B as the Plan B window of projects is between FY 2012 and FY 2021. There are
anticipated permitting costs in Plan B, shown in FY 2021,in preparation for the anticipated
FY 2022 Reach 7 construction.
Since the 2021 Reach 7 renourishment is scheduled for the first fiscal year after the current
Plan B planning window, the ECE report did not consider that project, resulting in a
perceived volume shortfall of nearly 1 million cubic yards. However,that shortfall does not
exist.
Sand placement in Reach 8, south of the Lake Worth Pier, is restricted by the nearshore
environmental resources. Direct sand placement in Reach 7 and Reach 8,north of the Lake
Worth Pier,above the design plus advanced fill volumes,will maximize the amount of sand
placed to"feed"the beaches in the southernmost section of Town.
ECE Comment(as presented on October 27,2011). The Town is overly optimistic to plan for the
next major Mid-Town project in 2018.
Town Staff Response. ECE has stated that the Town is overly optimistic for a 15-year span
between the last Mid-Town nourishment event and the next full scale project. We would
agree if no work occurred there in the interim. However,omitted in both the report and the
presentation,was the 2006 Mid-Town Beach Renourishment and Expansion project which
placed approximately 920,000 cubic yards in Reaches 3 and 4. With an expected 8-year
17
36
project life,Mid-Town,like Phipps Ocean Park,is scheduled for renourishment in the 2013-
2014 timefrarne. Rather than construct the next full scale nourishment with offshore sand
in 2014,the SPB has decided to construct an interim project to get the Town's two(2)large
beach projects off of the same fiscal year schedule. An interim project, consisting of likely
75,000 cubic yards of Ortona high-quality coarse sand,would be strategically placed in Mid-
Town to stretch the project life by an additional three(3)years,absent of influence from a
significant storm event. The next full scale nourishment event at Mid-Town is scheduled for
November 2017. The coarse-grained sand is anticipated to perform better than the offshore
sand placed in 2003 and 2006. 52,000 cubic yards of Ortona sand was placed in Reach 4 in
2011 in response to the upland losses from Tropical Storm Fay in 2008.
ECE Comment. The Town has placed a total of 2.56 MCY to construct the Mid-Town and Reach
7 beach nourishment projects over the last 10 years. This sand placement volume included two
large-scale projects, the 2003 Mid-Town beach nourishment project(Reach 3 and 4) and the 2007
Reach 7 beach nourishment project. During the same time period, two small dune restoration
projects were constructed in 2006(Reaches 3 and 4)and 2011 (Reaches 3 and 4 and Reaches 7 and
8)that placed 175,000 CY. As seen in Figure 3, the average annual sand placement volume was
274,000 CY per year of 2.74 MCY total over the prior 10 years for Reaches 3 and 4 and Reaches 7
and 8.
Town Staff Response. The total cubic yards of placed sand in Reaches 3 and 4 and Reaches
7 and 8 are not accurate as stated in the ECE report. The following table correctly quantifies
the volumes of sand placed by the Town in 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2011 (the"over the past
10 years"time frame referenced in the ECE report).
Town Constructed Beach+Dune Projects,Between 2002-2011(10-Years)
Year Location Purpose Approximate
Quantity(CY)
2003 Mid-Town:Reaches 3+4 Planned Nourishment 1,273,000
2005 Reaches 7+8 Emergency Dune Restoration 100,000
2006 Mid-Town:Reaches 3+4 Emergency Beach Nourishment+Dune 920,000
2006 Reaches 7+8 Planned Nourishment(Reach 7)+Emergency Dune(Reaches 7+8) 1,230,000
2011 Mid-Town:Reach 4 Storm Response 52,000
2011 Reach 7 Storm Response 56,000
2011 Reach 8 Storm Response 25,000
Total Placed Sand(CY)1 3,656,000
The planned nourishment projects in Mid-Town and Reach 7 during the past 10 years total
approximately 2.5 million CY(an average of 250,000 per year). During the past 10 years,
including storm response activities, the Town has placed a total of approximately 3.66
million CY of sand.
ECE Comment....Plan B proposes to place a total of 1.76 MCY along Reaches 3 and 4 and Reaches
7 and 8 over the next 10 years. This equates to an average annual sand placement volume for Plan
18
37
B of 176,000 CY along these reaches over the next 10 years. Of this,two-large-scale projects are
scheduled, the 2014 Reaches 7 and 8 beach nourishment project and the 2018 Mid-Town beach
nourishment project(Reaches 3 and 4). In addition,two small-scale dune projects are scheduled to
occur in Reach 8 in 2017 and 2020.
Town Staff Response. Plan B suggests two projects in Mid-Town totaling 1,075,000 cubic
yards of sand. Plan B suggests a beach nourishment in Reach 7 in 2013 (FY 2014) of
approximately 750,000 cubic yards and a renourishment eight (8) years later in 2021 (FY
2022)of approximately 1,000,000 cubic yards. The FY 2022 Reach 7 renourishment is not
shown on Plan B as the planning window of projects for the 2011 document was between FY
2012 and FY 2021. There are anticipated permitting costs of Plan B projects,shown in FY
2021, in preparation for a FY 2022 Reach 7 construction. Between calendar years 2011 and
2021, Reach 7 is planned to receive more sand than the Mid-Town project area.
Reach 8, south of the Lake Worth Pier, is scheduled to receive sand from three(3)separate
dune restoration projects (each consisting of approximately 25,000 CY) during calendar
years 2013,2016, and 2019, or FY 2014, FY 2017, and FY 2020, respectively.
The following sand placement projects are scheduled in Plan B between FY 2014-FY 2022:
Town Planned Beach+Dune Projects,Between 2012-2021(10-Years)
Approximate
Year Location Purpose Quantity(CY)
2013 Reach 7* Nourishment 750,000
2013 Reach 8** Dune 25,000
2014 Mid-Town Partial Nourishment 75,000
2016 Reach 8** Dune 25,000
2017 Mid-Town Nourishment 1,000,000
2019 Reach 8** Dune 25,000
2021 Reach 7* Nourishment 1,000,000
Total Planned Volume(CY) 2,900,000
*Nourishment includes Reach 8 North of the Lake Worth Pier
**Dune Restoration includes Reach 8 South of the Lake Worth Pier
Plan B proposes to place a total of 2.9 million CY along Reaches 3 and 4 and Reaches 7 and
8 over the next 10 years. The FY 2013 proposed coastal budget will reflect the Reach 7 FY
2022 project to begin construction in November 2021. The planned volume of sand to be
placed,through Plan B,during the 10-year FY 2013 -FY 2022 forecast is 2,900,000 CY,or
slightly higher than the planned projects during the previous 10 year period.
ECE Comment. Projected volumes are expected to result in a deficit of sand volume placed.
Review of the Plan B budget proposal will result in approximately 980,000 CY less sand placed over
the next 10 years compared to the past ten years even with an increased sand placement area to
include Reach 8. Also,the sand volumes assumed in the Plan B budget do not appear to account for
sand incompatibilities(overfill)or accurate estimates of background erosion rates which are factors
that are attributable to the failure in performance of the Reach 7 beach nourishment project.
19
38
Town Staff Response. As stated above,the Plan B budget volumes over the next 10 years
are proposed to be 2,900,000 cubic yards,or 400,000 CY more than the planned nourishment
volumes constructed during the previous 10 years.
The 2006 Phipps Ocean Park (Reach 7) Beach Restoration Project has not failed in
performance as a result of sand incompatibilities. ATM's 2010 Sediment Budget report,
dated April 2011,stated that"the influence of the Sloan's Curve revetment is evident within
the long term shoreline recession noted from R-117 to R-121. The abrupt switch at R-122
from erosion to accretion to the south is primarily the result of the nourishment project which
placed significant volumes from this area to the south." During the permitting process with
the USACE, the Town initially appealed the truncation of the project's north end between
R-116 and R-119 stating that the life of the project at the north end,between R-119 and R-
121 would be reduced from eight (8) years to four (4) years. As expected, four (4) years
later,the measured physical monitoring data suggest that the project is eroding as the Town
had previously predicted. The south end of the project from R-121 to R-126, including
benefits into the Reach 8 beaches, has met or exceeded performance expectations.
The performance of the 2006 Reach 7 project has been appropriately monitored and the
upcoming 2013 Reach 7 project is being designed to address the localized hot spot at the
north end of Reach 7 to stabilize that area and support a project-wide life cycle of eight(8)
years.
9.0 Summary of Findings
ECE Comment. Those flaws that affect project quality have resulted in the community's loss of
trust in project related information as it is currently presented to Town residents at the SPB meetings
in highly technical presentations.
Town Staff Response. All"flaws"indicated within the ECE report have been explained and
offer just decisions which have been made to date by Town Staff, Shore Protection Board,
and Town Council. Public outreach has been performed, through the SPB meetings, Civic
Association meetings,and Citizens'Association meetings. Town staff will look to improve
public outreach for coastal matters through scheduled"workshop"meetings.
DOES PLAN B PROVIDE ITS STATED PURPOSE OF PROTECTING UPLAND
STRUCTURES?
ECE Comment. This review concludes that the Town's"Plan B"does not meet the stated purpose
of providing(1) the necessary storm protection design beach to withstand a severe storm (25 Yr
return period storm event), and (2) an advance beach seaward of the design beach to offset the
expected erosion of the beach before the next nourishment event(nominally every 8 years). These
two beach widths are of equal importance and their design needs to follow professionally accepted
standards. This review also found that the Town and its consultants present inconsistent descriptions
and definitions of the design components of the Town's beach nourishment projects. For example,
20
39
the design beach and its accompanying advance beach appear to be a very wide continuous beach
at the time of construction but they require two separate volumes;however, for the advance beach
neither of the volumes nor the background erosion rates are defined.
Town Staff Response. Economic and environmental constraints currently prohibit the
Town's ability to uniformly apply beach nourishment design components to the entire
shoreline of the Town.
Recent full scale projects designed in the Town have maximized volumetric densities to best
assist the Town's beaches in recovering from decades of erosional stresses caused by the
Lake Worth Inlet. Maximizing sand placement introduces as much sand into the Town's
coastal system as possible while minimizing environmental impacts.
Maximizing project volumes, as performed in both Mid-Town and Reach 7, not only uses
the design plus advanced fill parameters as a guide (however, not uniformly due to
environmental constraints), but includes the construction template. The design beach
integrates the volume of sand remaining after the design life of the project has been met.
Sand within the advanced design template is the volume expected to erode during the life of
the project(7-8 years for typical beach nourishment projects). The construction template is
the third component of a project and it is often overlooked. The constructed profile includes
the most visible change in the shoreline following a project's construction. Intended to
redistribute sand by wave action,this large volume of sand equilibrates the profile and shifts
sand located above the waterline (via bulldozers) and places it below the waterline in the
nearshore. The work done by the waves adjust the sand below the waterline, which is an
activity that heavy equipment cannot perform.This planned activity causes nearly half of the
constructed beach to appear"lost" within 6 months to a year following construction.
Again, typical beach project components (design, advanced design, and construction
template) are components of all Town nourishment projects. Concerns for environmental
impacts deter the usage of these parameters uniformly throughout the Town. Mid-Town was
adjusted near the Breakers rockpile complex to address environmental concerns. The north
end of the Phipps Ocean Park (Reach 7) project was truncated due to environmental
concerns. The design of Reach 8,especially south of the Lake Worth Pier, is significantly
influenced by nearshore resources.
Reaches 2, 3.and 4
ECE Comment. Plan B assumes that the Reach 2 and Reach 3 seawalls provide,or should provide,
protection from a 25 year storm event; however, there is no such evidence.
Town Staff Response. In the last 37 years, seawall elevations have been observed and
documented on at least five (5) occasions: 1974, 1977, 1984, 1997, and 2009. The most
recent observation event was performed by Isiminger&Stubbs Engineers,Inc.(ISE)in 2009.
The report by ISE listed the top of seawall elevations. In Palm Beach County, measured
hydrographs provide tide values for various return period storms.
21
40
PALM BEACH COUNTY
Combined Total Storm Tide Values for Various Return Periods
Return Period Combined Total Storm Tide Level*above NGVD(ft.)
TR(years) Profile One Profile Two Profile Three Profile Four
500 15.4 15 15 14.6
200 13 12.5 12.7 12.8
100 11.2 11.1 11.5 11.6
50 9.8 9.7 9.9 9.9
20 7.9 7.6 7.7 7.7
10 5.9 5.7 5.6 5.7
5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.2
*Includes contributions of: wind stress,barometric pressure,dynamic wave set-up
and astronomical tide.
Courtesy of FSU Beaches and Resource Center
The elevations of the seawalls provided by ISE were referenced to the North American
Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD). The storm tide elevations provided by Florida State
University's Beaches and Resource Center were referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical
Datum of 1929(NGVD). For comparison of the ISE referenced elevations,a conversion of
-1.5 ft is to be subtracted to the NGVD values provided in the Palm Beach County
hydrograph. With computed hydrograph elevations of 8.2 ft NAVD (for a 50-year return
period storm)and 6.1 ft NAVD(for a 20-year return period storm),all the observed seawall
elevations are above the computed 20-year return period tide level and the vast majority
(>90%)are above the 50-year return period storm. Many seawalls have elevations exceeding
computed hydrograph elevations for 100- and 200-year return period storms. While the
condition of the seawalls were not evaluated, ISE did document the general outward
appearance of the seawall and found very few(<12%) in poor condition. In addition,most
of these seawalls have already demonstrated their ability to withstand a 25-year return
interval storm.
Engineering observations can reasonably conclude that 25-year return period protection is
present throughout most of Reaches 2 and 3 due to the top elevations and the outward
appearance of the vast majority of the existing seawalls. Most uncertainties in the storm
protection analyses are related to the depth of the seawalls. This information cannot be
obtained without detailed analyses, beyond the scope of work performed by ISE. For this
reason, the Town encourages private properties to have engineering inspections performed
on their seawalls, consistent with the CCMP.
ECE Comment. ...Sand gains at Reach 2 and Reach 3 associated with groin improvements provide
primarily storm protection benefits and secondarily a low level of recreation benefit.
Town Staff Response. Seawalls are an integral defense to upland property and
infrastructure in the event of storms. Although seawalls serve largely in most areas as a last
line of defense, due to regulatory contraints for permitting and economic constraints for
mitigation costs, seawalls are an active participant in ensuring everyday storm protection.
22
41
Since 1986, Town Council has directed Town staff to implement elements of the
Comprehensive Coastal Management Plan(CCMP),either as listed within the 1986 CCMP
or the 1998 CCMP Update, and annual adjustments to the CCMP based on adaptive
management. Elements outlined in the respective documents have been developed to target
a level of storm protection for upland properties from a 15-year return period storm. The
seawalls and groins in Reach 2 were largely constructed by private entities. The top
elevation of most the seawalls in Reach 2 have an elevation above the storm surge of a
significant storm event equivalent to a 50 or 100-year return storm period,therefore,storm
protection above what the seawalls provide is not necessary. However, narrow sections of
sand immediately east of the seawalls can be an important part of ensuring functionality of
the seawalls, as stated by Cubit Engineering in the 1986 CCMP. Due to the extensive
presence of hardbottom,moderate sand placement is not considered feasible in Reach 2. Any
increase of sand volumes in Reach 2 must rely on material discharged from the Sand
Transfer Plant moving littorally into the system. Groin rehabilitation will not retain an
amount of sand that would meet or exceed the storm protection already afforded by the
seawalls. The small volume of sand trapped by groin rehabilitation could provide
complementary storm protection by adding temporary toe protection to the seawalls.
For many years,a beach or dune restoration project has been in consideration through various
Town documents including CCMP Update (ATM, 1998), Feasibility Study of Reach 2
(ATM,2002),and the Shore Protection Board's November 2009 Plan to Town Council(now
termed Plan"A"). A modest beach fill,with a volume density of45-55 cubic yards per linear
foot, would withstand a 15-year return period storm and have a project life expectancy of
three(3)years. Due to projections of hardbottom impacts on the order of 17-34 acres(at a
mitigation cost of >$1 million per acre), a modest beach fill in Reach 2 has not been
considered environmentally or economically feasible. In an effort to maximize sand
placement, specifically direct placement of sand into Reach 2, the SPB included a dune
project in their 2009 plan consisting of placing approximately 37,500 cubic yards north of
El Pueblo Way. The fiscally scaled back 2011 SPB Plan B does not include the Reach 2
dune project(estimated cost of$1,550,000)within the current 10-year project forecast. The
Town is seeking permits for a second Sand Transfer Plant discharge pipe to be located in
Reach 2 at Angler Avenue. This second discharge pipe will feed sand from the inlet more
efficiently into Reach 2 in order to assist in maintaining and stabilizing that segment of the
shoreline.
ECE Comment. This review concludes that at Reaches 2 and 3, improvements to specific groin
structures are needed to protect upland residences and to maintain the flow of sand along the island.
Town Staff Response. Analysis indicates that sufficient storm protection already exists.
Enhancement of groins is expected to at least temporarily interrupt the flow of sand along
the island. Groin improvements in Reaches 2 and 3 should be carefully evaluated to ensure
that downdrift impacts associated with impoundment of sand are minimized or eliminated.
Sand placement coincident with groin improvements would likely be necessary to account
for any increased retention of sand within the improved groin field.
23
42
Seasonal shoreline fluctuations would suggest the volume necessary to maintain a ribbon of
sand year-round in Reach 2 would likely impact the nearshore environmental resources.
Additionally,changing the condition to reduce scour may bury nearshore hardbottom. For
this reason and several others, placing sufficient sand to achieve a stable"ribbon of sand"
may not be permitable or financially feasible in Reach 2.
Reach 7 and 8 (north of Lake Worth Pier)
ECE Comment. The County's exceptionally grand proposal to construct 30 breakwaters appears
to be the basis for the Town and their consultant's dismissal of breakwaters and T-head groins;
however,it is important to recognize that the abandonment of County's project was most likely the
result of the large spatial extent and scale of that project.
Town Staff Response. The Town has not dismissed erosion control or storm protection
structures based on recent coastal projects in development by Palm Beach County.
The Town is an active partner with the County in the development of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS)report for the Central Palm Beach County Comprehensive Erosion
Control Project. This project includes both breakwater and groin components combined with
a dune maintenance program.
The County does not have a plan to construct "30 breakwaters" as mentioned in the ECE
report,nor has the County abandoned a structural solution where it may be both feasible and
permittable. The spatial extent of the few"breakwater"projects in the County are variable
in size. The largest project addresses erosion concerns over a 1.1 mile stretch of beach,
adjacent to Singer Island, Florida. Several alternatives are being considered for this beach
including T-head groins,straight groins,dune fill,and various combinations. Environmental
permitting and commenting agencies have previously determined that an emergent
breakwater is not a feasible alternative for the Singer Island beach due to the high density of
sea turtle nests and the potential impacts to both nesting and hatchling sea turtles. The Town
has not interpreted that these structures are not a viable alternative for the Town's shoreline.
Sea turtle nesting densities are highly variable throughout the 46 miles of coastline within
the County, including the 12.2 miles of shoreline in the Town of Palm Beach.
Reach 8 (South of the Lake Worth Pier)
ECE Comment. While the advance beach width would likely be narrow and thus require a frequent
interval (every 2-3 years) from an upland sand source to minimize impacts to hardbottom,
professionally accepted design methods for the Reach 8 project would be followed.
Town Staff Response. The suggested approach by ECE,while consistent with a design plus
advanced design method,is not the only professionally accepted design method for designing
beach nourishment projects.
24
43
The Reach 8 beaches, specifically the portion south of the Lake Worth Pier, are the only
section of the shoreline within the Town of Palm Beach that is not considered "critically
eroded"by FDEP. In addition to repeatedly requesting a shoreline designation change,the
Town is actively working on several variable coastal projects directly within Reach 8:beach
nourishment, dune restoration, and erosion control structures. Due to the presence of
offshore habitats,any activities in Reach 8 will need to go through a battery of design tests
to follow the"avoid,minimize, and mitigate"regulatory mandate.
ECE Comment(as presented on October 27,2011). Reach 8(south of the Lake Worth Pier)as
a whole will not serve to provide protection for a severe storm event (25 Yr Return Period).
Town Staff Response. The Town acknowledges that the Reach 8 beaches in recent history,
especially south of the Lake Worth Pier,have been depleted of sand such that the condition
has warranted the Town's request for further FDEP consideration for "critically eroded"
designation. While the Town spent in excess of$l million defending beach nourishment in
litigation regarding Reach 8, the outcome was not favorable for the Town to construct the
project. Faced with environmental limitations,due to the presence of hardbottom,the project
was redesigned. Taking into consideration the project elements ofconcern brought up by the
Administrative Law Judge, the Petitioners, and expert witnesses, the volume of sand
considered for Reach 8 was reduced and a new permit application was submitted. During
one year of permitting, the scaled back version of the Reach 8 project has encountered
significant continuing environmental concerns.
Dune Restoration south of the Lake Worth Pier,on the order of 25,000 cubic yards per event,
performed every three years,is the current Plan B near-term alternative for the southern end
of Reach 8. Elements of a beach nourishment project in Reach 8 may be considered as a
component of Palm Beach County Environmental Resource Management's Central Palm
Beach County Comprehensive Erosion Control Project.
Repetitive dune restoration will afford the upland properties with a minimum of 15-year
return period storm protection, as outlined in the Town's CCMP.
ECE Comment. The sand source investigations and design of the borrow site(s) for the Reach 8
project shoreline need to identify coarser sand for these beaches to minimize and prevent adverse
impacts to hardbottom.
Town Staff Response. The sand source proposed for the Reach 8 project currently in
permitting utilizes the E.R.Jahna Ortona Sand Mine in La Belle, Florida. This Ortona sand
source has coarse material which has been successfully used in previous projects in Palm
Beach County.
25
44
ECE Comment(as presented on October 27,2011). Consider Bahamian sand for Reach 8.
Town Staff Response. The composition of sand in the Bahamas is not consistent with sand
in Palm Beach County and is not permitable under existing FDEP guidelines for use by the
Town. Sand in the Florida Keys and in sections of Miami-Dade County have similar
composition to the Bahamas, which has allowed the state to consider the use of Bahamian
sand for these regionally specific areas.
IS THE PRESENT PLAN B TECHNICALLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY SOUND?
ECE Comment. Historic shoreline erosion rates would be based on the last 10 to 15 year period
to predict the performance of the future 10 year erosion rates and design the beach nourishment
project(advance beach fill volumes);however,the Town omits this period from their analysis in the
annual physical monitoring reports and no such information is provided.
Town Staff Response. The utilization of other professionally acceptable methods, in lieu
of design plus advanced fill,has been implemented to predict project performance. Since
2003,the Town has placed 3.6 million cubic yards of sand at various locations on the Town's
beaches. The Town analyzes erosion rates for recent projects with"nourished"sand(during
the last 10-15 years)to predict future project performance. Plan B, like the CCMP,is not a
design document. Specific design parameters are considered within the design and
permitting of each individual project.
ECE Comment. The"depth of closure" was changed from -23.5 to -26.5 without explanation in
2009.
Town Staff Response. The value of the Depth of Closure (DOC) has varied somewhat
between projects, due to bathymetrical variability, but has always been greater than 20 feet
in depth (-21 feet was originally used for the 1995 Mid-Town project and -23.5 was
originally used for the Phipps Ocean Park project). As a result of monitoring data,the depth
of-26.5 was adopted for the November 2008 Townwide report,now developed annually as
the"Sediment Budget"report. Regardless of the DOC value,the Town collects bathymetric
data out to approximately -40 feet. Future annual physical monitoring reports will tabulate
sand volumes at various contours to allow for flexibility in our analyses of project
performance and to provide increased transparency to the public.
The DOC term affects numerous coastal engineering operations. Designing beach
nourishment projects,determining siting and functionality of structures,analyzing a sediment
budget, and other activities refer to depth of closure. There are variable definitions of the
DOC,including but not limited to,measuring the depth of the active profile,maximum depth
of beach erosion, and seaward limit of nearshore eroding wave processes. With respect to
beach fill projects, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers employs the following definition of
DOC: The depth of closure for a given or characteristic time interval is the most landward
depth seaward of which there is no significant change in bottom elevation and no significant
net sediment transport between the nearshore and the offshore.
26
45
IS THE FY 2012-2022 PLAN B BUDGET BASED ON REASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS AND
IS IT AN ACCURATE PROJECTION OF THE FUTURE TEN-YEAR COSTS?
ECE Comment. This review of the Plan B budget proposal indicates the Town will place
approximately 980,000 CY less sand placed over the next 10 years compared to the past ten years
even with an increased sand placement are to include Reach 8.
Town Staff Response. The Plan B 10 year forecast shows the estimated costs of the coastal
program between FY 2012 and FY 2021. By including FY 2022, the 2021 Reach 7
nourishment event with an anticipated volume of 1 million cubic yards eliminates the
perceived shortfall of 980,000 cubic yards.
ECE Comment(as presented on October 27, 2011). Cost estimating of Plan B engineering and
monitoring seems low.
Town Staff Response. The most active areas of the Town's Coastal Management Program
are the Lake Worth Inlet, Mid-Town, and Reach 7. Work has been repetitively performed
in most of these areas. Lower engineering/permitting costs in the next 10-years is a direct
result of the similarity of the planned work to the work performed during the previous 10
years. Additionally, the current SPB 10-year forecast considers projects with a higher
probability of permit issuance. In the last 10 years, the Town has spent millions of dollars
on legal assistance and extra technical analysis associated with controversial projects.
10.0 Report Recommendations
ECE Comment. Develop and illustrate the design beach fill and advance beach fill cross section
drawings(i.e. templates) for each shoreline reach along the Town's entire 12 mile shoreline.
Town Staff Response. The 1998 CCMP recommended a program which included a
conceptual beach fill program that comprehensively placed sand via five(5)individual beach
restoration projects within the Town of Palm Beach. Feasibility studies performed after
completion of the 1998 CCMP indicated that two(2)of the five(5)suggested projects could
not be feasibly permitted or were not needed: Reaches 2 and 5. Reach 2 exhibited a
significant amount of nearshore hardbottom which limited the permitable design parameters
and increased project cost for mitigation. Reach 5, following subsequent nourishments at
Mid-Town, was exhibiting relative stable to accretional conditions which reduced project
need.
In conversation with Karyn Erickson on November 14,2011,Town staff was informed that
the Townwide design plus advance beach fill concept was an element of a"Plan R". ECE
did not provide the Town with an estimated 10-year cost of"Plan R". Since the "Plan R"
alternative is more robust than that of the 1998 CCMP conceptual projects, we have used
design plus advanced beach fill calculations performed within the 1998 CCMP to formulate
a best case scenario cost estimate for"Plan R."
27
46
The five (5)beach nourishment projects included within the 1998 CCMP are as follows:
Location
Shoreline Fill Density Total Volume
Frontage(ft) (Cy/LF) (CV)
Reach 2 13,660 45 614,700
Reaches 3 and 4 13,865 78 1,081,470
Reach 5 9,065 66 598,290
Reach 7 8,725 113 985,925
Reach 8 10,690 90 962,100
The projects listed in the above table have different life expectancies. For example, the
Reach 2 project of 45 cubic yards per linear foot has a 3-year renourishment interval. Taking
renourishment intervals into consideration, a plan with the size and scope in excess of the
1998 CCMP would have a 10-year total volume of sand to be placed of roughly double that
which is proposed in Plan B. At $12 per cubic yard,plus mobilization and demobilization
charges for each recommended project,the additional cost for that sand above Plan B would
be approximately$49 million(engineering and permitting not included). This calculation
assumes that sufficient offshore beach compatible sand exists to support the entire 6.6
million cubic yards likely necessary for a 10-year period utilizing ECE's Plan"R". Plan B
includes beach placement utilizing both offshore sand and upland trucked sand. Ms.
Erickson's presentation advocated groin restoration in Reaches 3 and 4 using rock materials.
For 18 applicable groins in Reach 2 and 7 applicable groins in Reach 3,at an estimated cost
of$400,000 each, groin restoration estimated for ECE's Plan "R"would cost roughly $10
million.
Further, Plan B has an estimated mitigation cost of $6.5 million, of which $3 million
addressed perceived impacts from the previous 2003 and 2006 Mid-Town projects. With
estimated hardbottom impacts in Reach 2 of 17-34 acres,as well as additional concerns in
Reaches 7 and 8,the costs for 1:1 ratio of impacts to mitigation(at an estimated$1 million
per acre) is likely to exceed $30 million, if permitted. The $30 million estimate does not
consider beach nourishment activities in Reach 6, which would significantly inflate this
estimate.
The budget for a"Plan R"magnitude Townwide coastal management program would be at
least $89 million higher than Plan B.
ECE Comment. Avoid inferring a direct relationship between the degrees of erosion and the wind
speeds on use of the Saffir-Simpson scale to estimate the level of storm protection provided.
Town Staff Response. Saffir-Simpson scale references have been provided at the request
of Town residents. References have been made as supplemental information to assist the
public in understanding the approximate magnitude of various return interval storms,rather
than relying on the interpretation of scientifically-based storm recession analyses.
28
47
ECE Comment. Account for sand compatibility and overfill factors.
Town Staff Response. Sand compatibility comparisons are made between the proposed
sand source and the existing"nourished" sand. Erosion rates for design of Town project's
have included shoreline responses based on the "nourished" sand and not the historical
"native"sand. This has been and continues to be acceptable to FDEP. Shoreline responses
in the present are reflective of a modified profile due to successive beach projects.
Performance of a project relative to "native" sand would inaccurately predict shoreline
response for a typical cross-section profile of"nourished"sand.
ECE Comment(as presented on October 27, 2011). Build in Phases, downdrift to updrift.
Town Staff Response. Building projects in phases is a common practice in project areas
with uncertainties and may be applicable in the northern section of Reach 7. Should
hardened structures be pursued for permitting, construction could start with an
implementation in Phipps Ocean Park with post-construction monitoring to enhance design
for additional structures to the north. This step-by-step process may assist in ensuring a
successful project with minimization of hardbottom impacts.
29
48
TOWN OF PALM BEACH
Information for Shore Protection Board Meeting on: December 6, 2011
To: Shore Protection Board
Via: Peter B. Elwell, Town Manager
From: Robert Weber, Coastal Coordinator
Re: South End Palm Beach Restoration (Reach 8)Permitting Update
Item IX.
Date: November 23, 2011
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
This memorandum is an update only. No action is necessary by the SPB at this time. Town staff will
return to the SPB in January 2012 for recommendation to be advanced to Town Council, if necessary, in
February 2012.
GENERAL INFORMATION
On October 31, 2011, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) provided the Town with a letter
indicating that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be required during the regulatory
evaluation process for the South End Palm Beach Restoration Project(Reach 8). The EIS is only required
for the segment of shoreline south of the Lake Worth Pier.
The Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) application was submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) and the USACE in September 2010. Despite implementation of design parameters to
meet concerns raised during the 2008 administrative hearing, the regulatory agencies have continued
concerns about the revised project. Due to these continuing concerns, the USACE has determined that an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) study must be performed prior to consideration of JCP issuance
by USACE for Reach 8.
An EIS study is a lengthy effort which results in host of alternatives being evaluated. The Town is
currently working with Palm Beach County and USACE in potentially adjusting the scope of work for the
EIS to be performed for the Central Palm Beach County Comprehensive Erosion Control Project. The
USACE has suggested that the County's EIS scope include an alternative with sand placement consistent
with the South End Palm Beach Restoration. As a financial partner for the County's EIS, the Town has
requested that the County include the beach restoration project as an alternative in the study. In order to
assist the SPB in making a recommendation to Town Council, Town staff expects to receive information
from both the County and USACE prior to the January 26, 2012, SPB meeting.
Once the details of available options are better understood, Town staff will present the options to the SPB
for consideration. In lieu of JCP permitting south of the Lake Worth Pier or as an interim measure during
the EIS/JCP process, a Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) permit may be sought for repetitive
dune restoration. Typical CCCL permits are received in 9-12 months. Receipt of a CCCL permit for
49
repetitive dune restoration is the shortest path to getting sand placement permitted south of the Lake
Worth Pier and does not include a mitigation component. This would be similar to the projects
previously completed in this reach.
The Reach 8 shoreline north of the Lake Worth Pier, between the Ambassador Hotel and R.G. Kreusler
Park, is currently included with the design of the next Phipps Ocean Park(Reach 7)renourishment project
set to begin construction in November 2013. The volume of sand to be placed north of the Lake Worth
Pier is commensurate with the amount considered in the same area within the South End Palm Beach
Restoration project. Due to the lack of nearshore resources in the area, an EIS is not required in order to
receive a permit for beach nourishment north of the Lake Worth Pier. With advanced design scheduled to
be completed in the March/April 2012 time frame, the permitting process may begin in April or May
2012. USACE regulatory staff has expressed confidence that, even with the possible introduction of
structures, the permitting process for renourishment in Reach 7 should enable construction in the winter
of 2013-2014.
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
The Town's participation in the County's EIS has been funded by Town Council through previous
authorizations. The Town and the County are reviewing the EIS scope of work and the Town will inform
the SPB if any additional funding is necessary to adjust the USACE approved scope.
If the additional cost and concerns about permitability cause the Town to discontinue pursuit of a beach
nourishment permit south of Lake Worth Pier, this would cause a reversion of the State appropriated
funds associated with grant 11PB3 in the amount of$4.8 million. Separately, approximately $1 million
of State appropriated funds would still remain available for the Reach 8 shoreline north of the Lake Worth
Pier if the next Reach 7/Phipps Ocean Park renourishment extends south to R. G. Kreusler Park.
Attachment
RW
cc: H. Paul Brazil,P.E.,Director of Public Works
Jane Struder,Director of Finance
James M. Bowser,P.E.,Town Engineer
50
`NT DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ai ^ 4400 PGA BOULEVARD,SUITE 600
a :}M+ PALM BEACH GARDENS,FL 33410
Slc
j,„/
OCT 31 2011
+/nr%ice REPLY 70
ATTENTION OF
Palm Beach Gardens Regulatory Section
SAJ-2005-7908(IP-LAO)
Peter Elwell
Town Manager
Town of Palm Beach
951 Old Okeechobee Road, Suite A
West Palm Beach,FL 33401
Dear Mr.Elwell:
This is in reference to your permit application requesting Department of the Army(DA)
authorization to construct a beach nourishment project in Reach 8. The project is located along
the Atlantic Ocean in the Town of Palm Beach,Palm Beach County,Florida,Sections 23,26,
and 35 Township 44 south, Range 43 east. The publicly owned R.C.Kreusler Park and the Town
of Lake Worth's Pier separate the two beach nourishment areas and are excluded from the
proposed proposals.
The project will require a Department of the Army Individual Permit pursuant to Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403)and Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act(33 U.S.C. 1344). The beach nourishments are geographically separated into the following
two areas:
Reach 8 North(R-125 to R-127+100)- Between the Ambassador Hotel and the Palm
Worth Inc. Overlaps with the southern extension of the Phipps Ocean Park Beach
nourishment(R-125 to R-126)and has been significantly affected by sand from the
Phipps Ocean Park Beach nourishment which has migrated into the area. There is no
hardbottom in this area.
Reach 8 South(R-129+100 and R-133+500)-Between the Paimbeacher Apartments and
the Halcyon of Palm Beach,this beach nourishment begins 0.4 miles south of Reach 8
North. Overlaps with the ongoing Central Palm Beach County Comprehensive Erosion
Control Project(R-132 to R-134)to address potential impacts associated with the
construction of groins and segmented emergent breakwaters and placement of truck-
hauled sand along the coastline of the Towns of Palm Beach,South Palm Beach, Lantana,
and Manalapan. In a 2006 survey,there was 6.95 acres of hardbottom in this area;a 2010
survey identified 2.3 acres and a wider beach.NMFS has reported additional hardbottom
has been exposed since the 2010 survey was completed.
51
After careful review,we have determined that an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)
is necessary to evaluate impacts resulting from the construction of the Reach 8 South to comply
with National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). Additionally,given the overlapping nature of
the Reach 8 South project and the ongoing Central Palm Beach County Comprehensive Erosion
Control Project EIS that is evaluating alternatives for beach nourishment within the area,the two
projects have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their cumulative environmental
consequences together. The Corps recommends that the Reach 8 South beach nourishment
project be evaluated in conjunction with the overlapping Central Palm Beach County
Comprehensive Erosion Control Project, and that an EIS be prepared to evaluate the cumulative
impact of the proposed projects cumulatively.The EIS should include a No-Action alternative
that would not impact aquatic resources. The EIS must include evaluation of the 404(b)(1)
guidelines and a public interest determination.
One of the initial steps in this process is to develop a"Third Party Agreement"for
performing the EIS in which the Town of Palm Beach would commit to funding the development
of the EIS. A third party will complete the work for the EIS including but not limited to: all
required studies, meetings,reports,scoping,and the EIS document. As the lead Federal Agency
the Corps will oversee the third party and determine the scope,content, and acceptability of the
EIS. In short,the Corps will direct the development of the EIS.If the Town of Palm Beach
works with Palm Beach County to incorporate this review into the Palm Beach County
Comprehensive Erosion Control Project EIS,an additional third party agreement will not be
necessary.The Town of Palm Beach must provide documentation from Palm Beach County
stating that they are incorporating the additional area from R-129+100 to R-132 into their EIS.
As we begin this journey together, understand that communication,collaboration,and
commitment are vital in dealing with the issues surrounding this new beach nourishment.Please
advise me by September 30, 2011, if the Town of Palm Beach agrees to participate and fund the
development of an EIS for the proposed project.
Should you have any questions,please contact Melody White at the letterhead address or
via electronic mail at Melody.J.White @usace.army.mil,or by telephone at 561-472-3508.
Thank you for your cooperation with the permit program.
Sincerely,
St hen R. Sullivan
Deputy, South Florida Regulatory Division
Enclosure
Copies Furnished:
Robert Weber-RWeber@TownofPalmBeach.com
Christie Barrett-cbarrett(a,coastalsystemsint.com
52
TOWN OF PALM BEACH
Information for Shore Protection Board Meeting on: December 6, 2011
To: Shore Protection Board
Via: Peter B. Elwell, Town Manager
From: Robert Weber, Coastal Coordinator
Re: Further Consideration of Dune Planting
Item X.
Date: December 1, 2011
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
No Shore Protection Board (SPB) action is necessary at this time.
GENERAL INFORMATION
At the October 27, 2011, SPB meeting, the board requested additional discussion regarding dune
planting.
Robbin Trindell, Ph.D., Imperiled Species Management Section, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, is expected to participate in the SPB meeting via teleconference on
December 6, 2011. Dr. Trindell will be available to explain the current State of Florida
applicable rules with respect to sea turtle nesting monitoring in relation to dune planting
activities.
Town staff has requested that the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (BBCS) provide a letter explanation of the
current required monitoring provisions with respect to dune planting. The FDEP document has
not been received at the time that this item was prepared. Town staff will immediately forward
any information to each of the SPB members upon receipt of 1-DEP correspondence. The Town
may not receive this information prior to the SPB meeting.
Robert Barron, President of R.H. Barron Coastal Management and Consulting, Inc. will be
presenting a comprehensive overview of successful dune management efforts and the regulatory
constraints which influence implementation of dune planting activities.
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
There is no funding impact associated with the presentation of this item.
cc: H. Paul Brazil, P.E., Director of Public Works
Robbin Trindell, Ph.D.,FWC
Robert Barron
53
TOWN OF PALM BEACH
Information for Shore Protection Board Meeting on: December 6, 2011
To: Shore Protection Board
Via: Peter B.Elwell, Town Manager
From: Robert Weber, Coastal Coordinator
Re: Integration of Town's Coastal Consultants
Item XI.
Date: November 28, 2011
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the Shore Protection Board (SPB) review the general information and provide any
direction as deemed necessary.
GENERAL INFORMATION
As requested by the SPB, Town staff is looking for opportunities to maximize the knowledge from
our team of coastal consultants and include their collective guidance in planning our coastal projects.
At the October 27, 2011, SPB meeting, the SPB approved a Town staff recommendation for auditing
compliance guidance by implementing a bi-monthly schedule of meetings with Jacobs Project
Management Company (Jacobs). Once these meetings commence, likely January 2012, Town staff
suggests that a representative from each of the active coastal engineering firms attend the meetings.
With representation of each of the active coastal engineering firms, as well as Jacobs and Town staff,
the bi-monthly meetings can serve a dual purpose in providing auditing compliance and
design/permitting guidance. This effort will create a more seamless and complementary approach to
managing the individual projects and the overall coastal protection program.
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
It is expected that there will be a cost associated with coastal engineering firm participation in the bi-
monthly auditing meetings. The cost will be within the Town Manager's threshold for expenditure
approval. Sufficient funds currently exist in the Coastal Management Fund to accommodate the
above mentioned additional level of participation by the active coastal engineering firms for FY2012.
Town staff will add an applicable item into the FY2013 coastal management program proposed
budget and FY2013-FY2022 10-year forecast.
RW
cc: H. Paul Brazil,P.E., Director of Public Works
James M. Bowser,P.E., Town Engineer
54
TOWN OF PALM BEACH
Information for Shore Protection Board Meeting on: December 6, 2011
To: Shore Protection Board
Via: Peter B. Elwell, Town Manager
From: Robert Weber, Coastal Coordinator
Re: Shoreline Condition Assessment
Item XII.
Date: November 30, 2011
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the Shore Protection Board (SPB) review the general information and provide
any additional direction deemed necessary.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Monthly shoreline condition monitoring photographs were taken throughout the Town at low
tide on Tuesday and Wednesday, November 22 and 23, 2011. Additional photographs were
taken during high seas events on November 8 and 9, 2011.
Similar to the seasonal conditions in 2009, a series of October and November storms have
created persistent high winds and surf which have impacted Florida's Atlantic coast. Winter
months are the subannual period at which erosion is prevalent due to the stronger wind-driven
waves.
Comparison presentation slides will be provided at the SPB meeting.
All photographs taken during these monthly condition assessments are available upon request.
FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT
There is no funding impact associated with the presentation of this item.
cc: Robbin Trindell, Ph.D.,FWC
H. Paul Brazil, P.E., Director of Public Works
55
L.
ma > H a4 x
C
S w w
= o. k
z �
o CD ' w = 00
L zw COQ
0 O Q c.) O
___.,4iik H .c z
a) +-01 Q o
cE7i
C'$ 0 0 0
ti • __
i __cu o ,s " _
s a4 c7
o O
z w
4 , —C c
Lon
0
po
z
0
U r9
W N
H
c LT
NOPF Apo H FLOq,D9't
a k :
a
2 ,
f�kl i0�
,
„
r
M w �K `.
(/V ��m\ \or\or'\p1•``• 1 p '. I r
e
'\ `\�'\�I\�I\ A / r
r�)
\1 I
l
* r
CC 1 1
7 11' " ‘
I I 11 •t, Ir ,, t'
'' ''I •1•.tro .' .• '. P■ i . 0 $\-..- i 10"
1 lo.,.. 't .
•
O 'i ,, , ,
•
I 1t 111i�11
k
•` 1 l r� �,
+ l l `I 3
a ` E—•
W
• W
n• 1 1 , 1 1,
I' M
•J >4'
' l 1 1 , 1Y Z
U
N
f H lD
• ■ ,
O•
V '' k '. a a W
W
• ■ T7r • .
,.r.ld•
,r,—... ,
..
K., 1
• ., '
--,
. -,
UI)
.00,...- -
Ls)
.... -allr'lloo IM
nu sr RE B ,r9rio. t- -
00 ...- \- \-- \ \
.. - \\-
) gim
= C %lb
. .-.
U
ll , , ,. 4•10 . . ' .
„..-
-
CD ,
''aiii•,-
1 1',,i.d :.1‘ 1 •
tilk3011111 $ti ligi'A
- .., ,,, •,.1 , I,., T, !, ‘ , , , , ,
4, ,! , ,,,, ',••. 1 i ! , I . , k i • -1
•' ' . I 4 , #.;
4 _,..
=
•I .
. I
.1 ) 11:1 ,,iitt k,
=
. ,
0 •
.. . • . ,...), .41)
V) , . , . . r : l' . ■
tUO ,
,—■
C
'4
$
• I■1
' .
0 , I
C ,,
‹c'(
0 , ...• ,
t
4 , 021
Z
MI■11
0 _1
'•
, .,
1—, s '
' , •i■ LC i, ..'
1 l', k-'4 '' '''
C V'IS,L !Til.''t6'::.
It.'■•
,, ,,., j„,Tu) i \ H Le
co t: • ,,,.:,,,,I. , ,, \ 0 iz4
i 0 , ,,,,,
• .
,, ,• ;,,,..k.,.:,,,,d,4''. \
U I\. , .,• if,!0. '
, 1,',,',.., . , ,,,.i•.', LT.
L4
• .
r
0
/ Lo■ ,
LT
. J C/)
CD
.
Ci■ , '.i.,1 0'.,, ..i, il.".c.,i' rtAk N\'''',
: ,, ri;,',1,H, .,, 1 •,,,, • •,...,4•-•--.."
...4.3.1.Ao .
. .
_.....
II 1 ., •.4\ .:..,11 . '' , ...,A,:' :‘ -. •
a �� i ' I
, ,
•J .0
I
00 illiiik' ` - - • .
•
V
lisitifil' b ter
,ten )
001
4 I.
r
F
0
�� � ,
T4V{ 'ly III } ��
L
A.
yfi7/
o olimi
O r''�r `fir O
(111 ,i1 1 O
',If P 1
U 0
CNI
HI L6
O p4
w
LQ
� �� Ov
'1,
c
0
r .
fa'AY i0 -
[! ,
, e o
. co
I' ' I
. . ,
.. ,
00 ,
•
e
'
■C . . .
Y
U . . .
(13
I .
'
0-
CU
= .
1, '0 • . 0"
■
.■ P
r Ilitt
I i , i• .., )
. . t
■C . .1
■ •
I I 1 N.1
I
'I' l)
t
I ! ,or
Sli■ '1 , , • . . ,
I , lf • " e 0 A z
IL
•Z ..,_, __I ,
. I ''' . ' 1' ',/ ' , '
.x..
. , / ,,','L; i t.
'■
. ,•
C . '*1 .,/;'/t / ' I ' . • ., l ii ,'. • . ' '
• ■1 . ' ' ..i. ' 1, 0, I• • . 11y-
.,. rt'3.t • 3 : .. ...,, •..
3. ,, t. ,..,. :
3,3,, i • ...t
,. . . .. , 103
0 .r ,,'.'''' , . ' 41 ,' , , :, (. 4"1'
,.;!
0 1 ' 1:1 . ..„
-
-, . -
.....1 •
. j ....., .,4,:..: ;-.,: ..4'..-,: )-..0.-•,,-s )' .::, , . . =
_ .- r
• : ' -1 -04,;Pitt, •/' ; ; ' ./ .4 ., - .. rt
, 0
C
. '. ' '' ... . • ''': ? . Y H
CO .4 -
,
• - 7 .. •- c_) 0
H -
• . ., . ....c.
..
(..) r ,
I ,,t
, .
• ■
. . . L4
• • LT4
I1 1 0 U
(13 ,
_I
■ I
C/
' .
CL '
1 ) , . rcl. ..;bet P:.0,4711111114
111 •
. • .
.A.... , j
/
I •
,/
1 1
. .
00
1 I
r ,
, 1 t
/
. /
■C
U
:
co , 1 . , .
. ...
(1) , , , ,
, , ,
= ,
I
11:
Y1 .
fl
r. • t
/ r I
., . '
. P
■C
. 0iti
4 , . ...: .... ..,,,,, , , ,„... i, • .
0 .4 . , .
.,f .
• ,i• „ , ::. .
z
. . , ,. .
.1
tar) ' '•
i4 i 4.
C . . ■„
.
I t
1 •
, ', ..r,
• l■ 0 ; ,r • .!
• I • I ,
r .
.'
'Illk A f•r. .! 1 121 4 ,...i.,-
r., ,
1
0 '1'
1.1■1 , - , il.'■ ,,,,
144. •I •'
'1 . Ir. r I
' • 021
111 1 T'IH. 4a I I 1 ', / r Z
C . . I I 1
/ /I/ 4 .d) E
l—
• ■o r
tHI
, r fv, '•
c ,. .. u
CNJ
H Le
• (0) . ..
■
•' 'i 1 1'
'd 1 0 P4
• 1:4 P4
',/4. ' 1 4 • •
LI
mi
I r P4
cl
11 .11—. .'.'i i.
, . 1
faik.i(
, .
,
4 I ,
. .?
4 4,
' _../ „11,6,,• . 1';;41Y'1-4(:1.4 Zo'-4.4_ '
' '' ' . 1
(. .'t ' .45 1 ,i , • -
,, • • f i
110
N .gr 11 .
■ i ' t'— CV
CO
EV .
. ,
., I 4.1,
00 .' l'
■C , .
. , .
, .
CD . . , ..
' ..
,-,
I I
, .
. .s
- —'1" ^ '- —■ - ' ....
■C 0. ( • , S.'
4 °
,
■ 1 I -
,i , .
.
i .
0 . I ,.] .1, ' , .
Z . 1
, ,
1, . '''
' . •
,I
am
, .. .
tto . . .
.
C
• _ 1..
II p
w
.
. ,
.
...
Op .
, _„..... .J.
. - . ..
P4
0
, . - 0
(2121
■I 1 1: ,,71',
z
C
U ' .tict
, .. 0
p:
e-1
U °
rq_ ,
. .
,, 1 : ,
.„ ..
.
H Lo-
0 p4
• .
. _
u . . . P—I pg
• . ;4
Si. w
CD U
'11
Ci
CD
Ci■
I .4, .
4,1,:k,o
• , --}41.1. .-
--9N-711.111
■, ' k
gr..,
% .
•
r . •
. ! tit.1111'- -, ! •,c. , .,
• t c ' lit '''
I$
..
r,,
'1
,.
'- • I,
1-i! r •
' t
".
I r,
..
•
' . 1111140k
7.
i 1, °4• ' Will .
. - -
• .
. I I. . 11.I. •i• •
CO i
1 i
, . . .
,
. . .
•
-C3 0
i,
> co - Is.: • , fr It . .
1,. ,.■ , . . 4 I
4,': tif' 1 11,
co
CO • ,•,1,1 I i
' i 1
1/i: I 0 it , .
.. , '.,?„ , , . . . ,, _ ... ....,
(, -s 1 i Y ' 4■ I I 4 A , •
. v; , !,'■1' ' .1' ., . 1 t ti Y , ,, • , , , . .
. — , :I. rti4o1h :li ., #
.I ,'ry:II, '' i,', )
CU = 4 , ., , ,. /.
. •,,,,;,: . , ,., •
,„ , ,,,
., ,,, 4 4
(..) 'I—) , 1 At i 4
. , , ,.. -. , •
■ 's ,i 1•" 1:4 L. t. ..', ' ! ,
''`. c....
0 0 ?:. ,.. :, .,',#) 4 la. 4 / '
• ''' I .• :
• Z ..
I . f ' e ■ . .
(i) ,_ it
0 (Lap ,111 1 ' • ' ' ' ' ' , ..,• .1 •
I '''''''' ',L',"' '•-' '',Ii., ,1 tbi; '',Alk. 12i
I ;,— , - . ,i•.
NI e.■. ' • I A ' t, . .. lir
7 "
- ' • , t.i / ,off ' ' ,,, •, 1' .1 . ''' ;11 0
,
r1 —M 0 .. i
ir— 1 • ',,,' i 1, . w •;•• ,
■/ ''''. , Ii• ,1 fd 1 .
•••
Z
0
0
■■I . i,,1,,• ,, 4 ,
10'■/
H -1
NI
. w
. 1
' •
-
a .., , . 1
‘...
1:1-1 pc1
, . _ . I W
III 4 ,,- , , ,.. :i. , 2,.1- ,, -.1.( , 0 u
.
1
. ' ' ' '' '
• t CA
.1-,- .1
r I.r fr', t- ,1) . 3 •
..i.. .a•
' . ■ ;1, , „. ,:
lb"akt.Art .'
' 'Ili t ' i l' '' • ' • -
. i . 1
.,. .
1 .
>
cr 'k, „ • . ,
1.
Cr
Di
0 w i
. ' (n
Di
NJ
o (")
H
L1 0_
0 . _
, 1 ' • , 1
0
Z .
,;,...,
eli I
:4
i 'e ill
> . -
• s' ' ' ' ., iti, 1
..4
. r
ril
Z • I
., .■'; , , - 4 ' ,
i I
i. t
0
0
• __•
. =
, at)
Z
0
• '
,. ff
I
I =
- _. --.
11, , . X)
- t n)
I 1 Di
.....i. 1
........
a,
.i.
G.)
.' 1
U,
r
N
Ir-
V
Co ` ` .
cc r-
c
0
z ' I
C
0
0 I.
J z
W
CL) W
+-i Q
0 P4
1 0 Z
r 0 .�
H -1
tn i:4 Ca ,,
w
,t O U
W
cn
Q • ,ji f ! t .
p+N
-, i'� I I 1 - 4AµFL 0%.
/ 1' ( i F r,,.1 ,
i i ',, . yp .n.e? r.
!Ai
. .' a. S f(A. ! ..i.
.
• t
. _
•
I , '
. .
' 1 i >,,i4,°.
/
. ,
h.
. 1
■C ,'
' .' .•
U 1
11' co ( ," i I 1 .
' l
0' (1)
, I
t CC 1
I ; . •, .
■ 'i j' ' •v 0
■C IL
,
/ I
41 , I ,. i , • . .k
Sl■ i , , '
. _
0 .. ,
,
. ,
.. ..,...
Z ,, ,, , .
. . ,
tto . . ,
c ' ' .
...id ; l I 4
- ' I tI •
•Il■
' - ''•,: 11; , ili 1
' . S . . . .
• ,
. .
0 ' 4 • .4
I,' ..,, , i , f
■I f !i'1‘ '' 't - ' . 1
., t, 4 it i
i ,.! ■,,,‘,i,%v;. . ,‘ ; Z
",.- ,,
,,,' .
W- . . ,
(1) ,
- , `'. , W
, 0 - t` ••
. .
. .
. , • *
<G4
. ..
. , 1
. _ 0
021
L■1
\
tor
4 ,. . •.,
•• z
0 . . . • , i.,. (:)
... ,
i 4 ,
7:3 .
co ..
w NI
-t
4 -....
..... .
, H k.ci
V) . 0
ro ,
V
0 -
. LT4
a ac,
. fa
' 0 0.., .
E .
I -
CI
< •I -I
- ■ - " .
• • .,:,.,,,,•FlaN,0,
•• "I'M-T"',
` LL
Y
tl'
7-•••••.,,-k S
al
s
■
tl
'1.4. I r11 '... .' II .I 1 -
i
_c co 11 " .
Li °' �;
i ' 4.' t LC -
';',{� 4 �} �
0 �' I F
co , 6 14' . l,, .,..
1 4 tl' Y
Q l
'1 ) 1i. 1�
1 1
r r 1 0 , .L J
1 i •w et u
0
J
f'�
tt 1i1 {
I
4 N''y" f Iy i
1
, 4
, F ' 4 J
{ ,pcN FL p,,,,,, WI
i
6
I F Of o. S
F •
CO■
CD
C
s
ill
' 0
,
4
CO
M
CO
a. S
U cu F
co
- O
I
(' D • I
CID T c r
O •— j 1 _.
.. 11.,Y ''l i 4 r _ .
O , ; I
Co) '
. iti t.
O
# , Y
i .
MIL
I '
A PµFI Oq
•s
Nl fQ
4
1 f'
If ' ' fl �. .f.''. "(6 it p1 7})`f r ,.
I
v 1)1‘1 it ,11 1 J a J�il°Ir 0."�'J`1„ .. ,.1 fe1;Y
r 1 ,�
1 l li " 6, f r.{ j rr"�}Jj "
1
f
"a • .
L . -4 4i.."‘
M . 1
, w� ,
r „ ' r
Uy ' �, �;
� .f , ' ,
•M� { ' I
4-) i rs , %• ' : A.
. II
O r{
coF a
0°- too `
4- c T
0 )
• i" .mow
,I tiff Oy ! ,'�
iff,I' v , t
I ..
I �,
t
I t ■
(: Ii
f
_..
.11k1frill ---, . . v
T:U
.4, 1. .
..:{ il , X11 o
L • ,
I'� rr •
„ . ., 4Y, toki
1/4 = = • • .
-:,;i :';'; 11. -• , L .
1,�
A 6
M J • s
4 f a
•
-I
V ` �, . T AT E
CO fla cc
1 �F�
O z
W it
bp I c
O •- - ii!
1 _
r� r
-∎
�� O 0
O r . Z
0 0
W N
1 V. F- lD
''�i `' 0
t w
dell ... ;i
Milli 1.
Ill I1
n1 ,
!..70t-
-
lit ..',
Tres Vidas ( Old S . Ocean Blvd . )
Pk Looking North Reach 7
. ,,, ,.
t - r';�:•- '. •"A'h.„
-111 r 11
t 1
i _ F• . %.
L.,- .' . .„........t. . __ _ .
_ _ ___ _
o-- J -. . _.__•
..:
_ . _ , Kh
__ . 7 _•-_ . • „ -^ '
R -
•
•-...., ~
OF
� _ i!!+
` ' SHORE
6, 20110N BOARD MEETING
71
Tres Violas ( Old S . Ocean Blvd • )
Looking North Reach 7
1'11
Irtst-
ifitttNi rp�•..
ej . SHORE PROTECTION BOARD MEETING
DECEMBER , 2011
72
1.... , ., • •
al
.1,
- ,-.
, .
Im
. 0 V°
. o
ii
# Ill ik 1 1M
. ., WI
. ,
0
•••
_ al
CO II •
4. .
. .
0
1/1
to
co 4
CU 13)
(...) w .
OV ._
ill
.. ,
. ,
•
V) 41 ■,11
0 4 .
. lol
I .
(.i) C I. • , E.
l, ' , :. , i ■
,.i', .),■1'. '
co A i 1:4
—0 0
0 . .14,
. ..,,
._ • 1 , ,
-,11 :•, 1 1, • ,
. . . . , ..,.. ,.., pci
> 0
• I. , r. , i
, . , 4 I •.
■I ...- III'? 4 I
H ,i ..
1 .
• A• • ., ., Z
V) .. . ..• ), , . 4 0 _,
. -
. . ,, - •'•• :,,
.. CD . • i, ." • •', o
. H
I U
• ilit °
i ,
. ' f H .--
I. II
. ,.. ,.4
p4 „4
,
,f'
,
'I. . . .,
. . 1:1-1 pC,
P4
1 ; ■‘ ,.. ,',1 1,-, '. ,
'
. ,. ...,.„.
, .. . , . , Iv ';IIII.:70•I. -
. 4■., At ,i . .!, .
1 i T I A if • i f' ,-�ayv�-,
r
Ir h ! I ,
1.
�
�l! Yin
t .'" 111 3
r
11 ' n yiY y a
1 l I i iee r}
9 - ° , �'
' ' ''11 ' i '-- ' - . ' ' '': - ' - 17r: ' f.';';'
V "i 4 , R e y
U '0' ' r E'r
II
tI ,:r
co
11 ' ,
• i k •1 el
r
!I" , i 1 , . '
c6 0
` Q
(� ''- I I . ,,
` ' .ti
0
I.
RS =''- ' it-t— Z
41 ,y O
li f W N
I,,i l , ! lD
.— r v , I,r
1111110 '4, '�' . ' /0 �W�..//��CL 1 r. .! w pci
w�.�/
F , F-LI
LT
CD C-.)
I ) 1i I r, t* ' .
y i1 Q
` 5
f
4114 i .: 1
y �� I�oRrva• y
-i. � r 1 1 r ,.F 1 .;#1 Y !Fe�rr ! U i`•
r K' ..„•t o L 3,,,,i__
r
1. rim
1 O Lo
ill ...
N
. a
N
a
a
illiPilli ..- • N
14 i r
r
5 'II;
• 1x •'1'
.I 'i
r
f .,..
_
- O o
O O
J .
z
0_ , u o
NI
.— H
_ 1
w
7 r r � � U
1101111'' t
1 ',, %r6�7aJr
,t '` 1104. 11(4 ,��� 4
Im
CINI
11 I Ii%1
10
0
milkom .
v) , 0
vl
CU o
(.) -0
NI
U
< N
_c _c
n co
Oa)
v) =
I _c
4—J
L— D
z
co 0
w
w
C CtO
(DC
cu •_
.,
,
0
u
=
z
0 . ..
.
0
I „ ;,;'
0 —1
P -1
0- ,ii, . 1,1": • ,A.1- ' , ,, . ,,
i y ‘
i(g.li,, ,yii, , ,), , ,. „. 4
4,,, ,, , 0.4.1 .
0 14
if i, , A 4,,.,,, i i , Ilky ' ;' . — , v,a ' 124 L.T4
i
''l rq'
w
p4 LT4
■ , , ,,
H.
`A 0 u
1,4,1 ; 4
il
! ,
- ' .1 - , • '' i,. , v„ki. , E_.vt... • ,,,,,
., F , i . 1. , • , , r ' , ,r. ' *-.4,—■10„;
.• , , .:41,.,, ,
II
Els-
N.
v)
V')
a)
U
U
< N
4'' U
co
0 ow
I •
z
CAA w
ca C
Q O °
O
0 _J p
Q r , H
Q. ) .,.',, w o
4 imit , .CL A.
�' W
,:' . 0
'‘'‘''''$ v) Q
t,11}, L H LOp,".,.
6
1 ` ai l' a. r:
1
4„,,O�`'•
r
I'
r
r
i
0
Q
co
O cu
c/1 OC
I -c
co 0
bD
CU
ca c Q
OO
0
c!) J p
Q �
W
•- F'' l0
0
0
� Q
Phipps Ocean Park — South Access
Looking South Reach 7
•
w = - -
..9,
- �
-
• - . . flpth ..,.. q - .. Irit.
t _. _ . , , . .,- --ir . 1 t. ,4.-.. A'. 7.iii" 4 r,..
+ 1 r s. 1 h
J ." �•r - . -
`,
.;,.
.
7a a y,
�444��� �., 1 !it.t.ki. ����� � `fie ,4#�� ,,�ryi. r .v ,� y A
.0" - ice ;^' > G. .
f ook
:-' '' I 09/ 1 / 1 3
_...
L,,,,,,,,..„,*4,5g a x SHORE PROTECTION BOARD MEETING - ;., �- w�`A DECEMBER 6, 2011 ' 0 p I * ' ,: :., if,
__,_,-- ..., 79
}
G 4 I
IIII -� ■y1. .Ay Y.fAii
Ai
. i.
1. ■ i.
#
U .� 1 1 11 + 'u. � r fi J , i
AIM A._ 16: f
x '
N
t1 rrrrrrtt I 74TT����'I .,T`p
A r
!, T S RA
V 4 1 4 ,
co Y y, '■ .�'
.4
W' .. • i, •
"It,
�^�
# ff. ' a •
u r
r 1c. r
L— = r-r J )1 • A Itt
ci_. - AY, •k. " �Y ,, H
C bp R . j ,
' .k ±,+ Q/tt.
AA
O _ ' � • 0 '
0 a
Q J p .
Q 0
W0 N
•r� F'' l0
y
0
i apc1
LT '
w
0
v
I IM I 1 1\ Lt..4 4. 1 .i
t !leak
.._ limp
1
N „, !` f
0
o
Q i
CI II
V ti
co . , ,
�O c 1
I 1
'1." ,
L
a. z
c to � w
V - ti d
p o
N J O
Q � ,
Wo
N
•r� F- l0
Cl— P.
W
W
0
ci) G1
H PL
-I I i (� , � r «
i
F
irk-
Phipps Ocean b . r _ 0 0
Looking South Reach 7
ikk
W
it V.4
ps
r
4I
A
MO 19%
SHORE PROTECTION BOARD MEETING
- DECEMBER 6, 2011
82
7. co
co
a
4
1
�,.
- w
1 41110
pi
C Cep
' 411111C1 C
O
0
Z
N O
a U
_c p4 A-1 r4
W
O u
cA --
F
�H
r r.:: St�
y `I
y t
y
ar
1110 .
• •
s
co
i
i., A •'/ , r
.:4 ,144 ,11
s t.., .., a
W _,_.. :. k r'`#.
U f � f 1.45
U 0
t
,3 ' I .'VOL
e
V �t' n
4 41•
Ay '1� ..
.. ii,i4 4. ... . ,. , . ' ' '4. .', - , <,. :,, •
O 1 �' .�1 4 '
.iwnro 11
ai
1 .� #;
{
O O V �`
ifit Ist I''11 - • ..' 1 ;.' "J l'44 11'. . i'. f N , t 4 \ 1 F ' ak1
1 0:
OD
F' l0
0 x
' li
i ` ' 1 ` f a
,l � 111 11` I �j pci
'Z I
•
'
l■ 0 . ( vy O U
i, �w �. =
,iO4, , .
'6
Illt
pJ yy
e , _ . .,
ii
Y. 11 1 BFI yp N
n ,
.41 i •
:51111.,:, l■ ,1 il.' 11, 'i i
1 /
-/ :..;, ;••
izt) .
,,..3
,
...
Tr
k,„
?■ x ifk,
'
0
-' ■ ' hil t
, t tiri -
.,.
,. ,. ,./ . _..
- .,.
CD 4 • ' '-, '6 ' 4 i•07
. ' 'k.70' •
''.•ct 'il ', I ,'
•(...) ,.
. 1\\COSsl'
.. ,
• ,", r .
At.
. ,
40;' . _•:,.
..,
. _.
I .••
4_ ..•4
.=
1 ,
■ .
J it
J • ,.
c.. . . '1
(DO ',
•
Z
H
, w
(DC .
a) •..... . ,
a4. .
.,,
(...)
0
=
0 0
, i 4
(1)
Z
fA' .1 I 0
. 1 .
_ 1 ,
A.
C-.) Cr:j
'• ,f, , t
H Lo-
_c am. ,•
i '
: ,
,
..
a4 LLI
A-1 in2i
Ci
A,4
LT4
• C C.)
,
■ ■ . ',. r
. • . i
XL
q
•
■
'
. ....
t ,
ii
4-.
eis
• ,,,.. ,0 0 r'.''.... • i i?■It ..
1 .
co
03
L
01— Eo
1. 3, 1 .
•o ....
c:11 . •,•
CU Q
.—
W �'ez �l�
t R
w O
c .... .
C e � .
,w 0 1
Z 9 #
1 '
�� 1 ' � a 1 e 1
0 �> I
.
'`it ,'
, i.4 Vs.• , •
b.
e ►
. A ! v
1 . \ , V ': +
f -,`'` -‘
• 1 �,
lye1i i " 4 l'•�. Z,
A.J
. .. ...,_ . __,
Dune Elevations
I li i
. South End, Phipps Ocean Park
.,_
-. 'r: '. November 16, 2011
a ..•i. ! �
• f- ;
s '� n �' yw to t� _
--'.._--.L,-
. - • `� P-rj- ' • v' t :..--.. *`1,$-) ' ..`v . j1' k .71`_y A •~ 6.q, �`
.., 4L }y. .�,.s iF `�`ty 7 . .4. 7$42 - -- �I g 42
..� ��,. '_ _i'V*q ; FC ld dlJ` •!7 q.8'4 -�' !4. 752.7E l5 is jS• 43( 3C-1,7.52
- 14.67 9g k
74-52.71":,-, '� 1 )i 7
lJ.dS)r 418 7 'i98
W '' i!{8„ 1914 7p ig F0.20 ��9 7p'�6 '0.75 9y? 71.72.
t its *EF
a.2.1,4 X cs
s�a
s.sl,-
BEACH PROFILE A
BEACH PROFfLE B ' }•= .
-_ ..-. ._'..
;,
a
519
87
Dune Elevations
South End, Phipps Ocean Park
November 16, 2011 BEACH PROFILE A & B
16
14
12
10
•
7
Z 8
O
I-
3
w
W 6 BEACH PROFILE A
BEACH PROFILE B
4
2
PE
000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070 080 090 100
DISTANCE FROM MONUMENT(FT)
„2, a4
88
- t .-. - ,._.
i; a,
}}
MI
� � � A
N i
4Id ):"? -7k .
�r
U co �.
�/ 5
CU
t1
r
OA
tuD . . ._..
• ,. :F■
1 V
O z
O = W
J `1i,„ ' S
a X11
CU *APT`. tiwA r: A
d
L_ "
O
1p
U d H.
w
co O u
:,; x w
0 a `, v) Gl
1
. d
011 •1 yCt 7
yGtit'
pp�� rof NI JO
11111117:
ammiz - .
4 , 1
• •,.
,
Nt; it-
'
,,,.,.-`
. ........,: .„.
,.,.. .. _ „.....___., ,,_ ..
... .
. .. ,
, _ . ..
.... . .
' , --, 41.:..,,. --,-4: ' ;' '' ■ ''' ''''''' • . . ,
■.;4. . . r•
•
- --•:,
." • .• - • . 4-■-- 71-
■C ‘,„. ., „. ,t s,,,.
. ..'...? , ,‘11.4;1 ..14 :. il ay' : fii_,,, 11 ' ' '.
. '''k 4 it . .7'. ir.i ,';
0
. -Ail ;, , • ,.,• • ,
's 1 . 4",!e,',0 ' i■Tikrirlt. At t. f.-;*
4,
co
1,31613' "•';',4'.(1',4'.'. ' ,, A t. . . ., . r° .
; 1 ' - , ,,,, ,. ..........%-‘/#, i' 410 4:III s7 4 .. '-
CL) '?1...
-‘4-4 -'86°' • .it , • 1
CC
''=.\,■ -
.s.., ■•• . - -::\ gitiall A s ',, i '.'
'••44- '.. 1 ' ' ,.:•1.: '''- '.7,,_■ "—,,,7"- V.1 - *'
111.1.&
! ' " 's• ' ,....4c .-- -
, • ....t.,,,,.:'- ,„\...,,;',.*t., • i' g,,
•I■0
'R.'."' 't • .••■
\k:‘.. ' ,:. , -„-...4,, • .v-,, • ,,
=
.- '1,N, , • 461,_ 111444
0 ,
\ ' ' • -4 y '
. ,
,
A .v.
. . ,
‘r.s -• : . 1.-., ---‘‘ '-'•
ttO '
• .
' .
4 '` :, - '
•—
, 4
'
:. E-■
' 11, ,• .. . :...' '. '*•-`19. r
• \4, \ ,. • , ,. *
,
k ,
'.4'; ', \,- . . 4
•t„
,-
, •„
l.„.w. .; . • ',,, - - , a4_,
I f4, . \,t
111'; i , ,, ,
,
I': \A "1 :1 ''-'• 1.L:.''1 .41.-1
0
a.) 7 •:,
1 •\16 . •• 1.1.1 , 4,...-.. .i .i. \: : , =
Z
,: i I , . ,, i,(,• ‘ ,, .1, .. s, . :It,
pi
L■
' ' :.,''I'l 1, ' , • \ .'' 1 ' % t 141.'1 C...) (CND
=
1, A.' ■
)
(.. 1 \, ' i'
41
, A i H LO
.) r •• i
'
. • \ k A. :•• i,, , 0
. ..,A■
,,, , • ,
. • -‘ CM 21-, aCI
(I)
r IA,i!',:\ ‘1 . ' .■ 4 . W
l' • A ''„A' ,'1\''' .' •
I
:.! ,. lefi.'N, • i
■ l'
II i
co
ir
' .,, a .,‘ , ) 121
0 r v' v s \,
• ".•
, •,,.:
i
k • I. '., ,,,'.._.
V) , , ,. tY,• 44 ,-. ''',.:1:;-'
\ I. t/, 0 :1,- • N
•
k ' ‘\ ,\N \-• •.-, ,,,,
i•i-.2 10".'
■
' \ • . , N ILIA
, . i
-'a
• ,
\ VI
I'
• .
/
/ "IIIII%
•
..-
r •
.,. .
--— - ,
. .
(I)
l i
-
'
.. .
, „•,,.. .„, : ,
, ..
„...
• ■ . . •
CI)
..,n,
■C •,...
r • : ',
I1 . , .,., 'A■!,i. .,.: • ,.....- ,';•• ., • , , ,,,, .,' • •
. •A',0,V 1\\''', . •
.. - ....'‘ ' .,,, t
= , , ,. . . .., :- ,v,;-,
. .. 1,-;. , , ,-.., •
, ,
.(1, ,,y,..„ , ,.., ,. . .... 4 . .,,.,
C) - . . .
,..Nkik, .•im Cr) , Np
.. • r ,)
s'
•
s (
Ir . , • i . 3..,. :
t „I
'<!“. ' ,-.4— , VI
, , '.% .1.`•,.. %
" •
c. .. ,,, , , , ?..,
•
1 ,,,, ,1
■ .v .
1 $.. N• I . ', '
il
i . t1 e ,
0 '
e' • I ' ,,
,,
Viki
i 0,
p..1 S.
. . ' 0 '''• !,.. , . '■
Oa
0 -. • '' 'r.' .. r"Y
,„ . ... '
. , , ., . t ' V
1
ii,I._i , . , • , ,
. 41'
.•/
, N %
.
71 . i , . .,..‘.__
,
I S
1 ,'' ‘1' . ' . '
i .
' ‘
.• ' ;
, I .
Sk■
fr ,
• ,
. ,
. ...
, • .1 0
= i•1 •
• i
• H
•
,k.
X-1
• . , ,
AI
ir' • (1) 1
• '•„t.Ti 4
ft.,. .
C 1'
co ?1, -
., LT
o c.)
. v
0 0„
.„„ , w
)
•'„. ,
v)
.. ,,,.,4*... „•,.,..
,,,,...-•=:„..,••• ! . :
•„•_...,,0 ....„-
• v. „ , , . ..., ..
N
'. '' i IP:.
V
0
co
0
a
el
I r, ,
' 1
1.T d
O I +
J
z it
MD
Z
p
• ■ i W
f
O ' ,
0 o• , .. as
+
CL) � �, d ► " . -+c.,
, ,, .,„ H rte
7.,„, . ,,, iit i
U
• MM
If '.r ffff � I /
< I L . . "'' Iri f
■L ,.,O U
CO
> ' ■ 1
h .
D Y
',+.4 Ao"JAI
114 .. 1 ,... ,, 1 ,1 . dr
ilint
rJ
CO
co
O-- r LO a
I CM DC
I 101 .
L !' ii
O .
z ;t tj
MO
1.
• ■
W
W
O
O •6 ', ' I x
ii
I f O
, . �
A i 11
u �'� ' °I I 1 , L Fyn
y Z
,1- - .
CU
C/J Hi '' 'I 1 J ' t `/ N
co _ Ox
( .
, ' , . .
111111 .
LID o i0P
Uco , , , , ,,,,-
ti I
•
Z .
■
H
W
,
WW
Ilk`y'
III r r - 1-x-1
'4, 1 .'•
HH
' N
is ' W
g p4
LT
> • .. ::,". 'r4f' ''Y
. � 1.' 11 g�P "•r�:�9 ,
1 ; i
411:
a
A. yp n ? y
'tl i f''k1 fO10.,
.� .'r. � ,X1.1 '
I ;.
i
v a9
1 p
�1
�cc U
R -
Co ! ►1 t
l
cc , , ,
� .
i r
0 I l► ".1 1
Z +
tap ,'
i
0 z
0 H
_I 0, w
" d
co 6 1:4 t
; 1 - • as
, A ', Z
�,f''' j ICI ' O O■E
H Le
P4 w
it j
,1)� 1 u 0
,L '
I �F , , 1 '
ecH ROq
;9
r, \ 1 1 F 9
1 T. '
r � 1 f 3H1 io''
f ,.
`
-
t . ,4011111#4111111
I 1 '! 1
L r
•
L1')
i , •
U r �
co ,l �,�
I 1 ,R
CC ' 1 I. '
' ' • ,Y
I 'r"4,1 . .
1 ' 'r
r .•
I ; 1, '. r
L .1 r
Sir 7
0
11 rj �.
i j
Z ' ' 1,
• _
et0 i ' 'r =
y
a .
.— i { l f,
t t5
,, , Z
O
H
J W
I
ro +
0
z
E o0
.W N„,-
o . 0 p4
v) • ,, ,i4
0 a W
•
O w
■ Ou
CO LT4
C
ri7.4. r
ILLPfl.•1414r •
.. .
„ . , all • .
r--
, ' cr•
•
•
' • •
i
■
L ? ,,
_.!i. •
4.
cot. 4.... , ...
oll
. .
i Spi Acra
.. .,
., .. _
. .
-I-0 - •
4
. ,
. .. . , .
0
4
.I.,, •
•
• . .
i .
.,. I
, 1
■
• - 1,, ,'
.1. .
'' ••—,— .."'... • / : . 4, , .
4
0 liFil )
,
,,. ,.,
..
1 ,
, e d :
. . '
, I
k .
. .. .
.
, N /
.
• ,
)
I.
,1 , r: I,' rr , . .
. i 0 i 0 .' .. 4' ' s . i
(/) • i .,:*. 4
7..: i
0 , 09.
'.1' 101fr ) I i
ti •1",, 11., .
'''.
'• , /' • i di ,• . i.. , k • 1 i 4 -
CO . 0 ' . (• e .
!1,..,'„ ': 0 . , 1 , • ' '4 ' ' ' 3: . •: 1 . .
'' • i • A - , I•L
, ,
.N ) .1.
., i
■1'1' , ' '' i . .
'
. .
ASS
4
: 1 ,
, , ,. .% ,, ...
, 0, '.N.i 10'43
•, I 1 't .'
Ai ‘.1' Inkt41 III
•■ , •
• 1,. "4 r: /, t.
4
! ,.
I
IIIIh 'il .. 't r,: ., ,
1; i
Cu) � r
co 1':
4� " : .
•
T.Iii:
` '
1. y
rl'
,
n A. f+ ,i
u ^
VV I e r ,,
E , !,"I ti' I '•
, , ,
r �,
, i 1,,: , i '.!. :i , 4i ‘, 1,,o,,,'
' s g'
. ft: , 4
MII
jl! i
I ;r
1 ",
(ID ..
' p to <( .
el t..
_ : api'.:li ,--1,
it
F
iwga , ,y ''i •t tio,
71,141 ,./, 4 i ' , \ ,41.
Gulistream Rd — Reach 4
•
• 1
� � _ T3�
�r z
_ • -y
•
•
•
•
.261
F \
d b a-
a
99
()
� � o
o
T
I .•.
i
I''
i
V -44- , .!+,-►,
r ;
,ter, .'..
CO ,o.
(1) iiik .
LL ° ,
of ' ; ' r <
II I
L
f,
I !
` ' : S
! W i' o, ` Ste. "'1F= a
i,r. Cr t
E , I "Fi�1 'II;.
., V'
C6 N
s.
L
4
D irt
Jr
(.9 it. ..,
s ..
. _
�%1 e...,1 Fl pRra
4,'' '' " '
a
F,11 JO'td
Gulfstream Rd — Reach 4
ti
SHORE PROTECTION BOARD MEETING
_ DECEMBER 6, 2011
101
VI
N
0
IA
i 1 ' %II
IM
IM
I
0
CV
•
: ' .
•
i‘iiiii /11=1:111111 •
. 4z Fti
I/V N
'' 44 ,' z
-f
,
�, ' O
.O r1
A'� ` 4 ;` H
W o
_� N
+ . H LO\ l 0 i4.
r I .e P. pA
1 LT
O u
Ii x w
I =' -q�
aLam,
1117 q o
1 - - - _ '�''$l]O'
a �,
• , ,
. ,., -,,, ,, • I.ii
OP
-, I
1 4 l'k'' 1
--
'
.4 I f
'I4, , 1
,.
.• L
I i
to
‘ , I al,
: • •
' .
i`......041
73
i
, !.11 a
I it
CC
All r .., . .
\„0 ' • • ,; .11 9fi
I
L_.
., .. , " .... L. , 1 / 1 .1
co
i; \ e' l*Htili dti r i
1•
, ,,, ,,. . Nii. 1 • Iv \ It ir "
= ' 114. if'•)"ib 1 !.I'l k : wi4, .
' . V l' il' It '' • 4 k
ifir •
CI 1
iii I) i 1, ' 1
,, ,. , ,pr
:1. ,,,„ii q 1 ,„.
C3
.. 2
' .°„;,) I 4' :I/
C
. '•2
I ..
co
'.
0 CY)
CC _C
. • C.7
• . i ,,, ' 1 i .
(y) U
, 6 . P .
E7:4
cu
CD
1 ... 1 k '
4,114;11
C3 CI)
. .
co $1
1 , .. ' ..ti; i k 7*
4 '
• I i i
OA
0
1,
4,1 ,
. .2., .:
=
,..
CD
_
z
o ,
,
>
11
U—I
, . .
H uo_
O ,c4
Q.)
a4
a.)
P-, aci
c:4 w
A
ii' :'
O U
. ,
c/
(1,)
CIO
ir*1 -•,..
11
m }
r + 4 4
Ip li 4 • S o
1
1.
(1
r
1 I 1 'l y 4•
I .
1 I gg,,�� YI F
4111111110.11.110. -
. A I 1 ' y .
1,1 1 1 r < e+
, 1,',
6* 11 ,`, , `t A,
' fi � \ I 10.\ " 4 /A1
` el‘ i i
co R '' 11 •. ' ti . f •t
iii
M hh y
r A
'
CC .j�1 1 fi - 1. 5 \4 -:
iV , „ I
`/�' `) ro
HH
CO CC w
W
etn
0
w z
C o
Wo
° �
C oW
C Q
•
4 .
�; ..i. @ NLN fl Oglo9
4,
yy
_ X1.4
F '
o �
Y ") f _ ,. ,-
1 / 3N1 iOl
• ..4'.;. ''''1 tt, ,A, I ,. 1 ifr
If. . ; .,„. ,14,,41.1 . , • ,I -1 1 t • 'Ili
.• .:;004,I tif e
..., . cA /
4 1:.:'0..r"19.1' i
• 1•1 '•''''1'11' ' I i lid
„
..1,,„,, , , , , • i 'Y /, • ! ,, ■
,
,
i ' ) .
r
i iiii,v—,',:',1,,-.).' ' ' '' IC i ') % ( '
1
• I ' ' ' ' . ,
)1.
73 . ...•t•c,,10.,' , )4 4 11' , i i
: 44•.;4. ,•';
4 .4,44 , ,, 4.:T:4
..'' , il/d ' .,
4,
, '4 \, 4, 4,11 • • , 4 4, ,,•
S. •,
4 • I ,
Y •'. i
1 • t : '1,0'''IdY 'i ' : 0
■y.,, : „ . ;
X)
1 . ,I '
iiII 1 #4
.
C 1
' 'q) ■ 4 , , ., , ,.
,, , f h,',•A.
. •
= Js
.7
'
lir • .
, li . .1 ,( ■ A
I ..-
4' .t fi, -1,,,.,,? /: - A
vi
. .
-‘4' • , -,,i, .,1-' / . .,.
73 ., ., , . .i,
4,,' )1, '
4 i -, ..#
, 4 ,,,,,_. . , , . . 4,
, ,. , . .., . *.
C . . ,
,1 J;
co --
t. ,. „., ',■:,!,;,, i.e., ,.;. .0 ' IA for,A; , '''
. I.' . VI, ..• .,_
:5 M _, If . , ,,, p i i 0 , . ; ;1 ,41, it ,..
', .„ A1,' I I • 'if Ilk.;.. . •1 -i----541-.' •r
.• P .. et
CC
. , ,i' ' ', .. . i
1 . .4 I 4 40\
,,, .,...
tilli ,„ 1 , ,,, ,„ .. ...
(f) (-) ,,,., - . 1 ,,,L . , ,, -1,..? At, ,t'...( -11!
) co ,i, . s , i
,„ ,
•,..,,s. ., , - It . ir-4''';:i
■ . 4 A ': :•' #.‘ ,. , •
11 4 .—.
7:3 CO ,
1 4
'. 'II!" i i . ,..._., .--
Cla • • %
4 '
i f•'1 I 1 4 ••..
et0 llik:• • . i i
" ■ 4 .
' 11
CU • . • . - -, --. , ', i.. .' f.,; ..
,2 .
0
> .
, ..)k , .
• ..- . , r
''. • Yliti....• !..'"
LU
• .
z
) ., ; x' •
.41 0
- . 4 ' • — _ ,
C .
,..,..,
,
. ,
. :
U CD
(10)
. ..', , ,
W rq
CU . :. ..
H Le
0
1 . • 4 .T4
A-. pci
,W..
A4 LT
CU ...,
.- .
0 U
1133 , i . ■
..,. - .
...
•
w . .,
\ . .
.'
;.... q
' ‘ !
'feu r_1•. _1 ■ '-'
, lin .A t A il
til , 4
e•• r, . . i ■ . ;
.., I
*
' • .,t-
Ithr do, ..
4, \42 , ,,, , , , ,• .
. • 1 , , •,, „
, , i,; • ,• • , ,
40
,I,
• My i 'i . .4, I' . ' ;CI
' L''''' • ' • ,: ' 1%
k I , p, .
t,,,, )) , - t
A nv.
I - a
. *Ijil
It
.). 4-..
. . , , ,,, ,.,,,,, . . •P ,i to , „.
64pi ,
lt
. li a 0
1 ' i" ''i• lir., ,
-,1 . '• ,• I 1.„I' 4 ' • i ,-I's)41 . - 40, 0
,...i ,, , Si ' 4,,i'f•
11 f
' lir t: .■\1 i,..
11
' I 1 I. V • ,l,I
4
1 ' (.1
,, ,ii, ,o'. , 4,
t
r
, .
, ! i
1113 .
‘ .4iiitr •
I , . ,• '' ,, • ,
t.4,
f ,
•
Ore- If...k
.
■• ,1
t, . ' , ' 1,
■11
II
1,t • '„
, „ t
r
1
f i k
. .
0, i , .I ti
1 • . i
. , . ' 6 t
`, .. ie ' •. l'1
i . is, e v, .4.,
, .
- t..
f' I. .' ■• ,, I ' k
. . 1., t . '.■ I'S i
li
, I , .-. • • 41 T i,
r .... t
4. !
•
; i• •,.t.'• ■ - .. 1 ! ti?_ • • I • .-,
toy , • '
a.)
4 ..
1 ,
it ,,! t
'Ij 'i' '
r. i , • , \'''\
4 1 \
lir,
•.
, • '4f..!--Airle.- -,'"'
,•
.. ,
' i 1 I d
I 0
A ,,
,t N
p1
o
I.'
O
arw
; '
U . ; f
co _
n , r , , r
W
1 ,
CC yr r
,;
r ,,,./ fy 1
,I ,
, A
l s
-4f. P t
R lo'
' I Ai,
:VP ir 1 _arm i
V _...-- .-- + T CO
> r
I ii i
a) , . .
, ,,,3, .....
to,4,-.
.....
7:3 . 0 A.„ O ai
.I , , .....
O
N t
I i, fJi
•11 1 •7
4^
, ^ .
I � s. It,
u . i f., ,
P
i
Z _ pMrLOyro
• Y
4ff a
• 9 e
1
.� , T3 �riry S
d I 1 .kl i0
. co
_ .
if
(N
o
co t •
(1)
1
•
C
E(
, 0, . /
,.
V
-i
'1 ) i
.) ,.'..
• ,.-;' IA
-• . It't )..
> ,, ' , : 17 sL
'Jul u . if ' .
CC ,
i
.
ik 1 ,...
iii S S 0
7:3 illr 1
0 ' • ' 4' 1
i•
I II
.. {it. ) ,f •. , i ,
,, •'• ' tt. ,k1: ' r 11146 ' ' ' •
>
1 ': - :1, li. , v , ,,. ' •
CC CI
1 , , ' 4•1„ '
- r .i! ■ %
7'
CD
. _ .. . .
0 , .rr
• 4. 1
Z r 711
. _
Ot i P-9 44i .
IflilL' -Ai
i Nr 1/' ® r'flit 1
4 f� �
o
�l� s ^ �
'vg.
x'
/
I
- . ‘],/ ,
i.
¢
Itt
r' f n
°' ll '�Y
!
f 4 ;
Ir N 11,4� I ,
iI, ,\,1 1,. , „W
,1 ,
,ii , {, i , i
f,it ,,
u , , ; tiit_
i .
lb'
s
CI .
f.
I
r
r1 it - 4'4/ 1
•
' Sit ■ .
I r
mk..
�,
•
A
nr bZ I P ... k.
t
1 . li , i ,. ..•1) . , di I
,
4 . I Cill _
1 , , itiill -
,.
,
,
.. ... f, . .
t --, : ,
i
. .
,
4 '
le, II 11 . •
, _1 f !, . ■
te
i , If
‘,1 -
. .
44, .
, cak
.. ., 4
.. 1 4:
. 4
.... 40.„
ftif
t A
,
,.
. .
k
k-
1
.„ . •. , ,,3 . ,•
,
1.t' '
I ,i '11,, 1,.;
. '
tin
L■ 'OP ,.
i ki '' '
Ittdifiwisti
l' .
, 4 ir
i .i. i
„
4. C.4.. ■
cc) ,
. .
AI*
.0 • ,
iilli E
. .,
o
•
=
CI
, .
z
0
... . , ,—,
• '• , H
C #. l''," ., ' ly i, , ' i.1..r
1 ;: x Lel,, ;', ';,.x.'7'. 1
[ ) C_) c
W NI
*.. (-.. .. H k.6
0. • -,, t:- i'),,',.;4,,. .
.
' 1 Li4
r411/*4.11111011Prl VI
0, i 1,,,, ' .,,,,,-4,,
.,,1,1'
, t 0 u
A ,,,„..,A,,,. , , ••
.*7- , ,•
• . 4, •., .
L .
PIR - 4, .,
. ,. ,, , „
.1 ;
w .
.,
„ i
mil..
of
t
I!
I
-7:; :v
iii ; - 4
II� r
ii7;:00 1 —''' '''''''. •'t -nil: ' -
�. r
J f, is i.
joy
iill
. ._:
7 .:ti
Ash
t .
1
N
• .
A. !
~ 1
` O: . ,. 2
tt 1
, ` W O
' I{j•(. 1i O W
'
.,1,14,t„,4 Vii' Y p
h ��i�' ..' .,4 0 u
_ 1,' i I, i '",
.� I Ili g • C./) 21
I',1'' \l C ..
• }i + • Ian ''";',::':014'4
A •
■
• , • • t •
• • •
•
■, t.
4 . . . •
... 1
1
• ! !r.
1 i •
■••
. . . Y
! r ••. 10
iiii,,:i014,7. , .
, ...,,
•. . 11.4:1 ..... ' ,
11.1.P.P . / * L ,� i �
AP
NI
.* v.v..
• / . t•
# 1 ' ,.
.wt • . \
• z y
` r
•
+1.Y" 112
r • r i t inb,
. . . ._
M
R 1F
:
a.
}
` v , J
" ^. • a ti 4 am` -�
-.d° r � R *Virc�
"'e
1
-
1595 NORTH OCEAN WAY. . • 1952
Distance from house to toe of dune about 35 feet, to MHWL about 75 feet 113
Photo from same approximate position, with now 650 feet to
water line. How bout' them inlets .?
..,
,
- ,
,. _
, ....,
.......
_
. ,
. .
, . • . • ,.
. , .
, ...', ..,,,-,,s* , y.,,,,- -,- .-.', -,., , , -• -
. _
. .
...
. ...
R*
,
.4, ,.. - --"..
.0
. ',., .""...k-'..,' • . , , '..-.,..,. ",,- , -::_ -
. " .. - ..
—.
• i
-71 -: : : '•_.'.' 7;, '.., .40', it ‘-', "- , i.'
... . ... _
.'- 2...,'.;',...e.,=-...1"•,. . `,,'" ..,;,1.--)(f- '— ,.I. , ''.,,
,
—
. _
. _ _ ___
. ,
' -
',et' \ , '. %, \:', 1, 4'• ''s .
. -
. ...
' '• ' %. ! ——
\
11 ..
,
\ 1\
The first AlA
•
•
. .. .
. .
..
. ,
..
...„. . ..... .„ . .
...
........
.... . ._ __.
... ... ,
, ,... .
. . ..
. ..„ ...„.,.....- ., ..,. w
a+�
T.
r ' I � a'�f j J...∎ •f f�l ♦ If
th
r le C r _
.• '. 7111111111311 -•i - -
,
•
7 i9 .r M r . .6
•r
4,01
•
r r7.
.11114. 7. 115
ust North of Lantana Beach , ca 1920's
•
.....,...,%... A ...
t. t, .
•• -.....
N.{ °'tea. _
• x ,r
-.. *�� . ti
- s ' yr,_ _�► `. '�
�1f w a
• s • ta}_ t i .
o' ,• . . � w \'er/e .
• .. • it ,'144 }; ,t l� • '. k r'' K _ P` .. -•110't
4.
ew �' • i 116
Spanish river, Boca ca 1925
.. .. _
... ..
. .
. . , . ....
. . . . ..
........ .......ip . .
_ !fr....1w_ ,,,.. .
_. . _ ._
.;.......,..t....inKs.--.N.....r. .-v.4 .4. . ... ... . .
. ..„,.., I/ I. Ar./ art.4:1 4--.:1;;° - 4%."Ir•'''-# • - ;17,4■4;4*-■ -
r
ri. -
r
' , • _ tip-
Y i
• 11110. Mum 01161
••
S • '
1 , '•
A _�• - •'i`1, 4 r ` kii� .,. '4 117
11 t
)ELRAY BEACH 1970 BEFORE FIRST NOURISHMENT..AIA threatened
and protected only by rock revetment. No vegetation surviving
seaward of the roadway.
{
F
• .. �.
: ,,:4 _
tr‘P
.0'` 17-0. - QA`' ® -
, - ` . .., : o". 4- M . C.'L-c . "•+
... - -�T1I .. _ _
•
Al y ,
a ' ' a
C'•J M , . y
4. ,.1 Z•C . - ' ., w • 118
A � • _Alas A. • r
1971 Million Dollar effort • •
failed after one year, then beach nourished first in 1972.
row
�� � � i
a� o � //
1
�:�. ' may-- .
�► - --
+ f fir+ ��40 i
ti
3 y
f
. . ,1. 'r.� r 7 ' ' • t -
�
�
' _ : ♦ •
I
L •
•1. ' r 9_ J 119
� i
• :
ir
Forty years later, 165 foot wide pioneer and strand
zone dune , which has captured as much sand as a
complete nourishment project, up to 11 vertical feet.
Ki F � J 6l ,
,
' a , a °
4 r - , R
4+
x._V" ,t y y M a ' \ .,k ■ `x« ' ' '
t
I ■ r.
. . •
t
�r P r�'y 120
•y I` r /'' y •
•...F
4ww,. y,
d P s °� " •..a¢? ., Y. IN i it Pip, 4444
" , �"}2 MY h 7:.-V«• :.t • .1 41 L ♦ X116,pd.lt l .,.,�1 ' _,n_ t•,•O 1. ' A! M H`fL}� i ' •R 'mot^ _
r"P 'in fhe�• t i-�6 1 "d 'Z + ^-q�l - -: . 5 . f�ya w
f r�
!�Y�.x' `F _. 'ice RT e
, S '�`�� �'� Y , y.i y' �y9�%� �,{ "Ptit• 't[t�'yMa xli' ` y yi9 1V ih}. e� � r '.rl'+W
R ,P� ♦Y • ' � ' ...,... ' 4� . ,, Yi '. r4 4 #.'.r4,1'\ !1• ✓16 1- 4 y Als.?,,,.. S '•
4 ,�.I.l•t •. 2pi �`'+>^r:,..e.4,-..,l .W ta.r ak 4 s�'' 714 t;{ '..'.
r. . r �'+✓K7., �. .'yam vl -. .7" .' t yi fi '{� rf"d,^ ,, Yp. '.. v tF ry . ' ic'T 1 ,,okay y
.p. ..yw`,.t#3 , ,. 4,1...., fc t r ' 4 � 4 y 9','' f'? p is _ r l ,, ^ :, ,, i . i •
.7,-, d°'�-4�-? K' ,' 4,., .. 1-0 V ), ` ' -, 1� ai , �e �• 'L+gay%"'' -`''' P'g ",i' il
♦-.. y'4 5 J )° '.t,.. �����,,,,` .��s�yy.���� y � 's..~t v4a ��' ti .a�.,S`~ } r-=.,, . ^,.- �� , ,"�4
a } '•1 "f. r.r.—aP'. , 'atMr ''''':k a "f ,a, t '* .4Ti♦ �• 5p f.�» s 5,:,'y }r'Fn" °�.`, a ' ' A•
4 ! .1S Y.4 rya ''°,_-. q '1 �, y. . °Ki)10, P.,�' ' ' i.,. .` Y i.
'.:. 41♦ '' S, E '' '� 1 ,lid e' .� 9., pa�•1 ,
4 4 . '_. / 4,01t.,''. / r Ac '' l iii,F {I I,,,• p r y s �1 lL
i`i_:`i^•4
‘4,rs .rl • x: l'� � ,
'9 'f' _ `� ti '1 e T L t '.'._.u. '1 7 } gi`--i' r 4 f f1 � vii.4 p ''.
p !or. ,I ai �r .al+ t♦ $ 111"` W+ ° """"���`�T�
1;,,°,. i' D i � uY r .° f ,.,, L, .q ,, y� o y u° Y �a r•-1V V ', I x. -1.1y' X 4 tiC, r/ 4� - 4 r!.'E', �,4 }�lai ,� a i, e d f; 1 �f` ° 4 y 4'� ,F ,'D!�.p{,!" , y s`i`re r y .3, �.6\ AC:+'} �v i i � rµ�R'4 r ' r • _ f 'l aS ( 'Y y/ •. i Itr: e C'�c�vE. �', '-- ���"'_.,:i.,:i.- ` I'v t H
-�,�' fie sea oat and grass zone was planted six feet wide, and has expanded i,v.
„�e, g p p
without further planting or supplementation.The system now supports
more than 70 native species, including many which are rare or 121
endangered. No permits were required. No turtles were harmed.
Three miles of individual private projects to the North and South
(several hundred thousand dollars invested) were planted without
permit requirements or turtle monitoring, 87 thru 97.
3
*.04444* x`11
•
YY l V V . T • i'M
e Y9J
•e
f— p
122
be sound NWR. 4 miles of one plant every nine feet, no sprinklers or
turtle monitoring, 1994... full dune established in two years.
:\j
1 Al4
F , ,
Nvt>.
1 \ le \ 4 ,-4_., Ilk;%w . -
—
" �il�{lijby. M A
t 'P''+4• y.�.y� G.
• .
\ J �'.. J'` J\ y -fie - - „.
y ti
w
4
J � � � '
i .. /9 , .:8 1'9� / \ m ..-..40:::::.-..,-.`,--k.'.1 - J :" ',
% } i
' 123
Today's healthy dunes .
•
..
• •
2 .
� a
A`
. -
•.ewe.:.
•
. .
. . • .
t
•
. . i .
{ J
•
•
8 Y
•
n i
_ Nt!..• �' 1. _aW •' /.j'^ '- _/ a' '( '•
` .R ?~ 124
•
I..
-.. -.✓ x.41'
1
- may' k _ ,16111="r"--- "
y
.nip' rw. ,¢,
t
r• HSNWR Jupiter Island, 3 miles, summer 2010 % "°„ ;;g
planting, with least tern nesting feature..no �` , :'
turtle monitoring. No problems. Federal, not
-. - FDEP jurisdiction. £;� Or
�•�0,1 , d l y
a J
f
' r r �
'�.*,r,'° _ _ - r r'i ` 125
Jupiter Island, 1997-2007, more than 110 private projects, no
permits, no monitoring required, No problem . Four miles.
-A011
1111*, .
126
t Lucie County Project June-August 08
�oject planted thru June and July, with nest monitoring. No conflicts.
6 :
1
r c
rii
r
_. ` i
F1 A
.Yr V. 1 1 'S
�f
,,
lS i
' _ t
'_ r r . `, r P'}y a '1 }' -`--tip. i +i f Y � ,'! r l ! ;4'.' :'d /? °°, t o , °e, . ef I
.1 tr r_ �'tn ' • r' - yq •�$ i,1401:',4„,-.2t' ,�a s �'1•S. j r f+'> r ' a �J r t"' r y " Y „,,P,-,',/, 4 4 N' l"� 'f` r 99 5 s/ , :✓'' '1,41'+ e.y Yn t •
( .ern' r/ v a\t {'\f+Y/ //F Y 5 f
'"�r f4 ;`• y N. l ° °,1/4 n Kit A'i'
lr s .q e 'S. ! 1,,-4,0_,/ n.� /'� ,..t • S t-,,r r. R J
--r 4,„1,,,,..,;(0,,n° 1 � g.— r .� a7
y, �1 nt r� . _ °\ ,, , �,' v d ,fit ++. x
'/.,�, Y f ''''''4 n t b,4 1 , Y Y.L Y A o q �' r � '6 Y�'
�` 1 �, + ! Y L _ ; J 1 q ,<l if J fi r fi 11!G_._ ( ,'� I�4, ? _
'� _ \ 4 /. V,e�p+t'S r .,} ��i'P.�r r o,” �d �r � !•�� t -�'4]^i` \ rr
.4• `• t..1� .:3r 41v}c f' ,j \/\� tt' �. It ".t.+r :j.. :i\-� w"r. r - ! 127
Worst erosion in St. Lucie still limited by vegetation .
+ x t', ..-
■
d f i
(
� - - -
rA 9 v
, r^ \
` i '---. w. - fit, +�' i t •-.
Y
• s, , a 128
,'alp. °-'• _ 3 - 1
.. �. ;# ..
3uilding threatened and 6 truck haul projects since 1987 until
reprofiled to natural slope..dune expanding since then .
1
rrIII t,—
` `` .� iii'.L:If'IM1.:i�lf
1 iN ., �— f•
b` ?
• y4t
} rT�i _Ye I i�
c• * A' r)'r 5 + .
T o• • .
-! _ .i+.
•
. . ..,V . .: .. : :: . • .
•
•
•
_ fir' f i
e4
I yr.
a S 0.,.c- iI ya i a .,.�,. ` 1'F'h-' i r i
' j,y__! c4''/
x is'1�
]4 . r ' } ' !i. a - — M S- - l �':., ' ' S i �WA!!:i:!!.k -:-t. � -' r �'w.• tir �tiS 1 +y ^ \ \r •V h 1 f! /. � L�fTM V. f � .,.,•, ' I tiP- ./ '.•.'•\-- . / ..l ftl . -;. • y • l l! - a f 1 4...7 - 4r:4":.",' f' :' } r i , , h s /•f y _ ' � ,, Z tiN. r ; ';4 '',. \` i p � ,;;„1.f i i .!-,6. •�,7dG{ ' 1 129
4._. �k Tit k1`SS - �� .. _ C'..f� � v v• •t) `-
. „
1 ' ,.:* ' ,.., .,-crI 1; ,: ,' ,.• -, ,i,
c.i it. "1:'
1 , A • i
1 Illillat j
fkir.. i4 ii 1 . , , ,
. i„., , ,,,,L,
' , . • • •,) 1,„. 4•,,,, ! . ,!:
, ,,, ,
• p 40 „ „.. if.,1 ,,id ,:. }.
: t •/ , /: ' ,,,t1 . ' e i
i ' )-, • • ,i-
- . la II 4 . _
WI 1 iiil ! Ii
. ' i
4 ''''.• 4' , '.. .v.,
A . q
,,
t '
i i A
4, 4 4 '” . i-•' ii
A, . ..... ..",•,•,,,k'-•
• . . '' ;
. li ,_ .
- -
■
:"-•,..4". 't-
ql',1 -, ,,,■, f r ** '
. . .
4 .0 i
tt:'
_,.
- ,.. .
'tV 2
, yr •- - -
. = i ; 4 . •'A' - 7 ..,- 4' e...
..
6 r g'.... '' --*6 46,., --,. .',•
..• - r•I 4 r;) . 4 -• r. ,, •
io. ,,, its r. . ', ,,..s. ,-,--k ,' ,. ,
1 *S'' • , .. A.'
' •,-I 4
"." • ' - ,-i ,4t
' ."A14' ' * r6 .
- ,.•,,,,I,,,,, - .:',4. 4-. -- i!Isr, ,.
. . . 4 II A, ' . I. ,
' r N.4!, kvild./ ' , ,. ...„
cv 1 / , 4t
,,t •,/,
fl
,
4-, _c)
cuu
o E
.i''' ' 411',, , ' (.1" ..,, , • 0 , % 't' ,i*• '
•—, a.)
,,, , r . ,-;• " 1 . ' ' , - , s'
U ,
CU . . .
•
, . ... . . .
bi) c
(13
.,. „, ,.,- • - t. .,.,-
. .
._
> 14v,-..4. ' '' , * • * . t, .
4-, $,, .. . . - . , '. , N. .
C c 1 Ir 1 ' + 71 1' . - .
CO co •.
— ..,
, ,,,. ", ' ' 1
'gill u a „..,,, ,,, 1 . '. , .. i.., ,, . . ,•
, ,..,.
11, ,, , . , ,,,,,..,,,
0 a„) . , 'A, ,, ,..;• , , ... ,
L.r) o 7,0* '` `.1,,1't l', , '''','..1'-.4iii.'1. i_,. ,'., ,''il''.1g- , ' ,
c--) ,...._
Getting started at the Reef,
March 2011
I ..', ,. -
Ansuailiiiii . , i. ,,,,,,-.
il it-- -1 ill
` II
Y II
C I } �+.1 I
`` y,
i -` .._ a'
Y 131
Irene in full for Au ust 25th •
•
•
•
"-A-
v
•
•
•
. - 'psi►. ``t_ 132
•
August 29, The Patrician Reach 8 after repeated
overwash . One foot sand deposited at toe.
- .'''
, ..jai
+' .,_ 1111111'! 1i 4. .
111 - ..
Ui @+ e ', _'`1 = R - i . �' a{ . - .. i. `+':•w dry..-- `-a'..,■
t jj�...
.{.J \ � � ..tea =+r _
�js. Pit}7` 1 ` i -- -•- r t�� -`lR
` a 1
� y
_'s'.
w , (.. kIi„ • r ' l� "' L a a 133
,d-
co
4• "
I'.. .
It
.-*
vi
---14,m,,,,tp,
V ,..., i,,,, „.•:,.., ..i.. ,..,„..
- •, ,•,,..,. e :... , -%). It:., ' "6,-
'' ''.•. t, ' A •''''' ' ''Ir i3f Is' • ''''' t: - 7
i'' 'Ii' ., .;;');"..'":
. ...-i,...--.
_ ,,,.. , ' ,..k,,•., '
'- .1.i. '..."' ,..-.- liv k,i • ''''.'.. ,
' ,t;:7 1,/:''''. ''', • \ 44.'. .7 '''. "
. ,
. _
'... %dr .•.. .., • 1 ..-,c.., • ". ,,, . .. .
-.. . •
,r
.,7, •• 1. .
t
'-- '- -,- .4., .4•_, ' •#,.'i. , 4'h .1, •-•: iiil
: -,•,
V) ,
, ,, 6
'? . ?.. .•.'0.i.)•'•
.:___, ..., , ,.„, ,,,_,,,
V) ,,_... 9'., r . ,,' , • J . ' ,-..--' fop ,
444 I
(//) ,,■°01 : . . :-1\ , ,
. .... it •
1
0 w
■■■
..„.' ‘
,.,
2, *
0
0 I.
, e
:■‘ .,
.,:' • ., v -- . ,.
1 1 -•''''''',; ,. ,'',,, ':z,.. -•:-, i-- '. .• 4. .
• •
=
N4 j A;,;:,....''.'-.,,,_'.. •••■i--,:,::,,,,I.:: :,•-.: ..0 ,i.,,,,,\,,-,,,:.,„, •., t.. .,, „.„. . ,- .. .
■IJ
. -- • -, - - .-A,..:
: - r ,. ' - . .: .
..,,
= ,
, •••4‘..-,t% ', , ••-„,t:. • - • , , .. .
•
., .0 ••!, •• i„ . ,••. ,.• . .....--• . • ,
k A s
CO . . ,. r 1: ,. , , ,Nia f--%..,i,1..q.----.7m 1, , ,,". 7 ,
'y 4 ' ' "
(
- , •
e*.
44''
■ -.. .r- , L.A.,:„. ,C..z .(f' ' 1: A A,
. .,
, ,:.,'0. 7,'.'t'•!, • is-4 -, I
. .
,„
4., ,,,
•
,.,. e0 ,-
' tr .,,, I 4
•
...
-4..
-...
„,
,..,, .4..•. ,..: i''','
. •
1 , 1
1 1 •, •:::. ' ,-.Alt i, ',,r.„
\' ---
',14ti , ,. •
. R
t ,
. *
1:: :: ''. 'A...-:,,,..4,•Ytk ' - , Is,' . •
:-,,-1,•- • ,--,:‘,. 3 , • , '• ,, • .
.,,,. ,.:w,,,, r .'-oL 1
.. . 4,
!..-,.pit,' ...,,411:i".!.:., .
--,,, ' .r,„,., - •..,--....- '",';,R'• •. 1.4''44 1''.'
4:7, rf
, ■ , ,,, ' '''?'.'
1 ■ 1
t"Ime
— • i. .- ,
(1) IV J.... '- --' '-.,,;-1 ' '-''•',..c...,-1. - . ,., r -
a) IS- ' • . ''-': .. *II:,',4e-,. li ”' ' ?
; .::. - r"-•,. ...;',.1-.::::-' '1,17 ,i,,, ,, '!, ,
.. . .. '4.,.:...', .,..i . 4".,,._.',.: •,
— ' r '
.'.. -'... (::
NI, _ 4,.44
a) . ,
._, , ,
, ,
-,,,,;:' ' , _.:__--4:,:,-,,,,, :' .i--•i 1,, '-: '. -..1.: : '
.0 ,- ;,.,.;?„,-, . • .,...,04t-,. 1 i,..:r, ... . .,:, k '' .', , '
... .,,,,,i,-• . ._--...i.,-. ...a,,', •'4'.,+.4.•!, ., ,; , ,,
H . .. , . •1 -;`,4,if...It...• . I rt .,•i ..d: ,, .. ).
II —2
--":".1. :.1- • . - Ir.,,I.,.1
•
. .-.,..,.., •._,,:..p. „-...,„;„:, .,1,;. . ,. ,, . ,,,,,, ,
,,,,,,, ,..e,, ...--,,1„1 J.„,,„.,,,„- ,I• . ,...I--
al
0": 1 ,,,T ::
,,,,.. „: , . : . -•.4, ,
' 'I 'z`''t••••',Ty•,,,.'1...,
- • Aih - ., 4,. or,,., ,, c
i.. . 414.i
fNi i..
. .
,
' :-..:0';'',' , iii ' ., • ,., 1
+wi
X E, . .1:*411 . ... '"( 'i,..-'1'1,
(f)
i t - '•''' , ,
4444_4?'
X.. ..„'•'1 • • -• .';•,,
---..-4_,-•
, •,,i.!. :16t,,,'','s . i .,., , i i
, ., : .,„.. ,. •,.,..
..:.,, ,,, ..• , ., .
• . . 4'
< A.1..1., ,•
A ,...,,,i,. .• . . . .., ,
,....
....... .
• ,.
. ,
, ■
,II
I • , '. ,, If%
• . '
3alm Beacher, Reach 8 planting captured 12 to 18 inches of
waveborne sand . Plants recovered from below..- iNTITEIPrl
/4 '1 . 4. _ 4 S' , li -�{ ,, 1 uy ..1 i
l r N� Y ,t rE
n
•- _ .r - _ '- -3 Rat r � s ,. r 'i�� .-' _ ;f �i /'
y `Y(
£ .ar
-. w .. .
u ;:,.....r...„„ a r/I '': �F ,.
re
�... . `++mil, i r / 1l .r-•-T, , ":11:t "...%: ::; -:'---;::'-';''.7"::
•
..Ht/ 1 r ._ fir' �-
.w .w •
t - srte /
J
r �/
r i Y^ F eF 136
i C _� "",•_•!.•."3�.: l'. . ' :sue
...,,,,tp..... .t..„,,, _ , ,;....,, , 1 J.1‘,., ,., , It ,.1,,,,,,. ..4.)ilts....i.:,......;...,.. .... . ,,. , I tip''':' • .,,,,,.-..."'.- ' .. . ''''''''''' 1 . '•:•1 . 1,.4.,4.1_,..,..,1....7e...s.r.'fr, p..7t4ip,':.....,,,,,,r...,41:','...'
,,,,... 4.- '. ''•.' —--lire"' ` f.:- • •\Ak4. ••,.' ‘''' • ••■<-•'•‘, •• - •,,.., ',
—'t- ' • 0010---,%''‘.. • • • '''\''‘,'N'' ,-;■; ''',•.,'.-%'4. . ,, .,- ,,,',..
1.2.... k , -..._44...,..,,, . .i., . .„.„. p 0. -.•',1..-,.. ...."„r• , - -• ' • • .01. -
ii.-••••• •- l':geh
._ ..., ,•;,,t;,... .,.._:•..,..„... •••,..,,,....,...::44,1411:..,.wo....„ .7-• , •-- .-
4.-- - • .. .7.r••••.- -.a.-..•-.
'"•-• ' V .- .
... i .
. . ,... ' ■.
. , • . ., J.,,z ., ,J.,. ...,',4r47-.. -- . • - ..,
,t
N.- t? ' /,-:".-:-? ' k-'4-' ''...4'*!;1, ..". '4.14 46' '
. , - •>;. ,-en* ,. 'It.ir.,•. . `Nk
a.... ,' s- . !"1.'7: Me'Air;, 7'.• - . .
,.• ' : 7414.1%.i;..!..P.!1" i* '..- -.Nit • ..,.- a 0-4.1,-,-, . ,
. ,..4, . ,!wee._44.4k• ,,.., ,A, .., ■ : 4i-4` - .
Ab*: '''. . '111:''.: .-; ':.iir',....NIN ..,:4,1,'''• . -'- 66''.1' '''. ' ..i''''.111
• ,..„,,),,,,,,,,,„ . . .,-..,,,- -,,, 4-0,-,yof
..,
,- ,, i■ N,,i.:,p4,t. . . s _ _ .. ,„ ,t4 ti lam , ,,, ..........„..7"yli.,
. y
' A ti
4k.*:
lk 4 ' '. ' 4,741'1:''.
.' .C. I
-----",.. • ,
-,-,.;--40., 4w-7-4R 7V::'
,,- ......L
.
. ,,. . , \ .,
.. ,..
.• ''.firi,
. ,
10 '....---...... ,. .. „,
............, .---......;_. • - ,,
-
..,..-- • _...,
...... „.„
Pi-- _ - -- Dune Plant .1.
V,.,' l'ih,.. , ,.... • ,•'47:1,',t,.
or
Protected 1 --,
...
...,,
tt714-; \Al , • , sig., ,,
e
- , -- ,Itiit4A,N, .
V rl • , /,.444!rfri
, 14 --
T titti1",..N
- "4••.: PLEASE STAY OFF . .„,- ,44, ..,
',.. to„,.4 •--",.N•iirmw -- ',' IA''•*4%
C!Ja'Atal Grinver I
s _11C. ' . . • ._.,;
-.• ■,..• :41...., '14%,..w, <_ ',...
. .'-, .- ::1 411.133.
Ilerlii.'irk- iqy
,- ,.. !,r'.,?'4%.1 ' '•'"e-'''' „
I .6•• ,,al, • -4,, ,_. .
,,v 1,141,',',0* - e••,-
...-;
• •*‘-. - N;r::. • '4r.''f.,•
, . - . ,•.' 01Iir .4*.;4-14p•••■
..• . -__ . ..
.. .•••
.•
•-t--;
. .... . ..
\ \ 1-, ,,' • i:".
--- :
) ,
1 .,..-
, ,_ •.
, ', • , 4,
, I .
fr: ,
. ., Ala* a r .441 137
I 1 I 1
> r ,/
iff
� . J J t �- Sr
i f/ /' -? .' y .
' ' ' .1( Ilirk ,
r
..// //�a fi J it
{ ! i;
Ye,
r I m
>T 1 1 j yet # 4 ,
♦ 1 t *, 4 �x ,40,44/ q
.` <, > # 138
averal turtle nests were deposited into, the planted dune areas. This
commonly occurs on wild beaches. Root entanglement and root
predation increases, but chance of washout decreases.
' � Tom*}fir. �� r _
T,�
o.
r� ; Est aY -. >R� .a�,��sa 1 , 1�•",,,� -
t z"
y
.
+ 41 * 1 ` 'x,,' ',-, 4..4y 4
% ` i.•4 1
' .y
Y vvjlLLf fI 'l''S.
•w J 5 j M rig ,°Y 1 •
�Sf
♦ ; - - `4 . — .
. � -- �•`1'
'- ' e. d , 1 - •
,i _ ;fix
t6 -,
r
• _ 139
•
----4. - -
D
.1-
.,. •. ,.
, ...
. -
_. 4.•-•'1..
■
';'•-• .4ift,... ''.
_1
. . .. '
. •.
1
•.
• '
Sli■1 C17/.'et. '. :.: , ' '
•
C1:5 •
,- -
O. .
. •.t ,
, .
, ...„
(i)
. •
.. ..
C/ - :
"14,.,,,.• 1 ,
O■
I T'., .. .
. .
- N
• 1111_ ---•• . , ..
.. ..
■C , ,,
' •
. .
■
, ..
CL .
'''', •
all) ..
do \
...
,
_
C .
)1's
1 .
CI)
. . _ . . • . •. .
,.. I
si.
A ,-, .
. ,
,..,
4--)
r
,
. .,.
(I) I -
.4 , *
. i, 6 :N\N-,,,,,,'.■'
: , ' ,'''' ti ,., ,v \\\, 0 7,•
0 ....
•• (•, • • •
`..,,,,'" ,• ,•,
\••■••',,Yd. • '`
..•"J.• I " ,,,• ,,,.• .,-7 •
Ci■
. ,
, '•i.ii ' ,. „ .
•
•.
, .
. • .1,:•,. , , I .
. , •, ' \,, •
• . , r se 1
r'•4
, • • ,r,,,, • .ak 4,1
•
• •
.
, •
.„ ...
.1; .
'' .•
3,500 turtle tax , and lost opportunity. Private benefactor abandoned
>ffer to plant Par 3 after discouragement from regulatory agencies,
and excessive turtle monitoring estimate.
_
.ter "-. _ r -
�u.µ.' - ' _ - - - .
_ _.r Try'•
.. ice _ _ "- - a;;�.,.s -,a�- -'r _.•° s ws.�
.i4^. .. '....r _
m� . ter y .te. •
t r �_ ,
e'. "`...b.�y _
+: - �.. - _ ..fir
r' mot . +' M• ._ {C
f may. -1.. - _ .-
.[�_S}' `-.ins qF( `�a f�'.�" y,A}r r—
l/' _v-.." ' �6 y6A 10r
,+ r ..4" ,.-. - •
aV a
. u .., 141
it-
. _
lany nests seaward of the dune plantings were destroyed by
;wells from H . Irene. Most nests deposited into the planted
areas were undisturbed . What do the turtles know ?
. . -f ,*
JA t rrA 41 . , - • max;:
•
•
-
• •"
_. ' p a R
ji 4 Fa 1 a t ..i r .. ..pr.s
�k 1ti ,r ryd �. F may ,
•
Y
e
S,
. .,m `5. ! - ,,< v �. tea`
ter :
~ ._ 142
. F
December 5
PIPIPIPOWIR IMF,
Y•
... :'-i•
•
S'-
1\
r1 ti ' Ma e.
r'�C aU� - . `s yam
SaG .
o , + a? Y'.
` 1, Jt s
k ' + i.f,�c•,o
a. s-trq, r / fiJrS , We-, r t ' �` � r
143 f J
F s f =w,.-1 ,,,,, .mo !.: y
December 5
, .
II „,..... vim X , , ...,_ 00-M1f a , , ' f
n.
f ^` "/��♦x w CAF .Fx Lr �
��y t '• � q, i�T >) 1 y.:Ntk r .er "
} 5 1� " s } ,i -.:',1:;-7.4_ \ 4 _r1 i r 'lri .-- '•� Y,y"*y '_ .
-
Y�" a` .-d._,--'..7. ,."-, t''�ir his l�, _ < l ,i r `P r r •
� , 1 }$t � � .Y'2 aY24P L4 .34 55 t.--"4"
N ra r r 4•14,n7t;1; :', -•". - _
e, .{ r `• %,' '"7 iy c y1��.yN :,� y`i�•,: y, ,,nra_ `-• + . { {y'y� •;-1' rI !''•; - _
V y hw � d 'i V ,' q i;).i .>a ) 4 . L 4.-•,,,,,I.::::':-.,.' ., d :cc�.tj^gl1 `�'�lr
>", n ,, i rtc� xs : s ' a yCS A " ,Ew P
.` .y Y A.. `{ � 1 d 1 ,a(`a .• ,°a yarti r i %43,. F , x=z �yc i� ` $;,,,,,,,,.r..,--,
+� _tl /!li`F r �,t,F ." y 1 i i ' '^Ci ,s t.h4' a yyt''F' •'?: u tyy,
.. �a,:to. H4 \ �>_ �f:r. •:`- • r - —.'h y� !ky xN ' i io �� y '^'"a
vo
't Pr,-1 .fir^ s y R > c : y....--7'‘ !,j�7 a - •f','7•` 7, „ It;, 7'�1-. i -.. .._.
{� � . .':c' ' “”..i0se?e n L ''''•:t, .-4"-6• .4 '"'42 .!'-.4,4,_,44?-., 0 ° F;dy. �, _
; i•. £ t-• Fay 3•. ' is}•M',;�.7� .s v.F KU ,C^i"`�lka' 1[�L As f •' Y'■
• �(4' Airs. .`. ,:. ,• c •.rtix 'r
4§lC c ..� . .M .Y ` 1 I� } 'tir N AA 7 lir
.. _..
ti`ri. rrx " 0. 144
-.?7^�• 1.,./%1, yY `. .
December 5
....
.. _
_ •
,_.
.,..,...:__ _.".......„...,,,, ..„•,,,,,..... .....:,....,.._.„..i„..:„.. .....„......,,• ,.... ...... . ,.. _ •._
.-
,LL.--aji.1_'1
---1--L.
' 1 .' . ..-1 1,
. ■ r . . ,,
. _-._.-•,- . .
, '211r - ,.. -ii
. . .;;-
4. ,- =t -4
- ,..._
., .
--■-iiI.Alit......-4.---
. _
...., .
'', •■^Se ,.' -......k., ' ._ ...-.- - .■... -
. .... . .. - •-•
. ..
r ■ .1.. .
..''It''- ' ''
,.,.., . - _-..•--
11, , 1-: - - - - -
---------iiS: , ,..,,,,-- , . ..'.._ ., , ','.‘• - ) r I Is/a‘:,., ,. _ __,. •
_. .
•
-_, 4,-. 4-.
Ar
, • ,.,!' I ' -''' , .. :, : %t... .. . , -,-0-, . .
,
.,,.. - '4.1.1. :- -atii-,;• ,-
,tr. A . ,,•'.k •i,;,?.‘" ,'/ 1;,,,istilk . , ... . _
' ' ' \ ; .• • • • ', ".. .I . '''-• ....: ..-F - •- ,• ., ",;,` .,' ..
. ,
' -
. ' ' -4.,:,,.- - .■
"1 "I•
..A: ' •
. .-• •, •,;..•0",,,,,,,, ' ,,,t. . , . • ' •1".:*s, .., . ` , •-!, . ... 1
, ,...N .:.. .. .._ ....,, L' ‘-, . •is,
:twr
. . .
, ...._
. ,
A
i., ---,4It. ---.„
4F..
, • ....44'... .6 ."1' oro -"'"` - .,- - - :1-
•".•+ .. -' ,''',": , -.., t ••"4 - i • -2, ".-. '. •, . _
.1,..
• - -A
14'
1 -y' :
f . — ., ,,, , ,,
--.„
.i • .
..___.... . .,..„ ,- - . . ,t ,,„e.,..- ...' .. : '.,,..,, ,.'.4 - , • ., .
, 4r- f,,,..- . , . ..,....,:, , . .. 't•
A , ..' . '•'' tilbji.ar.-41‘ ' ' \ ' :- '. i '' :. ' ,140,71 .1'4...f.',' ' ' +
e. ,...;.. 0.
v, . ,,, : . : .• . ..,1,1
-4 ,,A7..?,, •7.'' ;'''' ''', '..-- ..'' ,1 4'71 Ll" ,vi 4: ,Ac41'. Ntit.,.. •
isk_
. ,......,. . „.„..„. „.,„,.. ... . , r- "
Tr' • ' .A.,...' 44 '•.. ,.'...+ZA•'''A. 4 --,_ '• ..i7t.-
. . . . .-
... . ,
- .
. ,
_..
December 5
South end of Phipps Park
_.: -4 .= !"! AIM i !- :
_:90 rq . �t r• -5•
�� .
'
•
•
y'`° s .l (( f '�w 'L
146' +�.. x ,�•.
December 5
.._ _
s
a ti.
,,,,, .„„, ,,,,,,,,,,
i, , , „,,,r- i''...-A4'...-_, -,- •_ ,,,, 4-. - - g
-s -? '91 • { .� . .~°tip i i - , _ _
' 1.1-M \y .A, SS•� ,fir �,•11 y- •.} ~L' 1- .., "`�
'far' ° �/ -i' ♦ « A y
r Aye ti �'k 'L• ' I.41 � '., -
•
4 S
4, It. .
1:,' ,. to •a{' Y' i ' nt'�A,' � '
- ..:
! .
147
rif
Dec 5. . Note how eroded escarpment follows vegetation line.
T.,
i4.,,, ......*:,-4;,44r,. „„....,:...
. .
.. ... .
_..
....
% .
• •
.. ......., . .. , ., . ,,.
,,.:,.. .,,
.. ...„, ;;,., ,, _ . -..._ ...
....... .._ .c_
........ ....
... .. ,,_.....,,k,,„,-.. . t - .-slimit..
„Ti.,,,.....,...„. ..„. •
.....„ ,- .,..... ..11...ow . _
..._
‘,...,... .........,,
_ . .... ,
'3111. -.,.....
•*. ...
• . -
• -4.F" ^ rpar......,e,vAit
*=, + - ..- _ •
.
14,' . ''''' '` ."-- ""`"-1- tit
- • '- # ' 4
,
•
148
•
-
4 4, , -10- -
----
:,. -.A. ,,,\, ':iik--'' ' .L 1r' ,nik ■ __
0-,
•71-
..r. l
•
i.--_,
Sii■ .,. :, 4'.40. . .
■ '
11\
■ `,.
■•
■
C1:3 _ .,•
•,
.!,
+J .v.; ...,...0,
V) ..A....-.--....
. ,
.. .
. =
• , . s.,.
\ .
— .
:... . _
. . — .
•IJ . 11 ,,..
C „. ....
--, )
. . ,
Si■ . .. IN, ^ '-
a)
-,,,
i
kl ;:',"4'-'-■...t".;_..-,!'=- . — - '1, -
kl
-,,:,-,::14,-,'-....-/,;...:4
. ,
• ,1 ,
--.r...-!."■'t,-F-'-',...-.6 it
l'.1
....
' ' %,
7:3 ,f,-,..... .. -..,,.:4r - V , t
''\ , ‘
....
'N' '\ 1' ' '
E .
, c •
. .,
,,
v
0 . •,.... : e
..'is'`, A ,..
Si■ _
' ,
—
Clik
kI
1.5,..
. . a . '.1. , 4
. -
. ':• 5 i
, .. . \ 7,\.
\ i
liar ,;
:5 1,
. . I.\ ,
••° \l'sli;,„ I.
a) !Ili' V.
LI. r ''
X , --
‘.
'1 . .' "
'' I
' 1 1 .
• ■
1
E
A h`i
\
, .
4--) 1 -*
. .
= ,I
! I. • A
i ^,
...
V) ,
. ■
I 1
' , ' A ' -e • '."',‘ ' i . ,,
\ .
a)
There are over 120 plant species native to Florida dunes but no
exploding bureaucracy profiting by their protection. Your kids will
probably see no more than 20.
• T " , f a
0,11.1
wit 4
i�
N P t R � % /
N,
00.1410 ''' ,
,4 i� I
Y 9A1 J
4 i.. "
i i �s
ill ‘k '
�� '`TT 150 24 t
•
i o
Beach verbena grows well in semi-
. allp
• sheltered backdune areas.
4, Threatened species in FL.
Jr
A .7.
151
each clustervine ( federal endangered species),
$50,000 per new 100 plant population .
,
Mt ` - -ir it 7t, .
at it I 4 ; , • 1
X
am. �"
`s P 7 141414 fli
r l_ y A y 4'r
r
II
P •
Ilk 10 w!,g \ •
i w 7 s
106,,,
isoilli bp -a 4, ,or , • 114:...._ J
1111 ;sr f ),-•,—
•
1 .� 152
YV
-
IS interns do award winning research ,
but can ' t install listed plants .
L, _
• ,---,-
app
.4,0#' • _
. 400 . . ,
if , .
,, -Irt
\ 4 ‘ \r'
i
Vit\.. 1 X
\-
N , ' J.. . :.
t
/ P. >. f -15
.,; * H, (St44074'° 411P1
f , 153
.. 49., .
4a6,144... .fit
Nhat makes one species more important than
another? 86K/300
It
1 �. - ' ,
4 �. !1.
tit : - \ . 9,,
if
IL. - . ,
�,.. ti r, .
Pr
a t
t ; li
or .0.
e.
k
r . , .* Ail ,
- ,4 „ill,- - ..
. .
. .. 10
gow Ili
C'`• 154
i
. ♦'
46 ` + ' l�i,'., )r -
` � 1� i t} i ,{ , f
r,
ti
lik, 4 . . '- 4#' ' ii
tch pa `and silver palm are . , �
°,of the ive native Florida r�7 (ft :' i. -ch palms. Threatened Silver "�~ s _
, , , i rescued d from Clarke !"� '\ �, , , , •, /h jr r= - -AO?•
.- .4,,
Zesv?r. L,othe, �� a ,ot\i, '''' i ', //:/, / - - ' ---
• .r s u 4
. 1 � s�r ��
+ ` pp
I � 1'� �l �:*: r�7 � .. 1 I " / 1 + 4 f A gyp/{j Cy . e
4 Al _ ,ti +v � ' �� • 4/u 1, ( 4 Z !
�. ' F . v_• I ,'.� L�� I , ,.v '' 0. f `\a M1M1M1M1L��a ,S �.'a.��R `$7' , ,•_ J
1 t a4'---- DWI 1
1 \,,
A +
.° /� . f lr
yra'r ly'• — y1 t �l' L� �� = _ . -'5. i)x A i —ter.;„,‘\:ittilvow,s.,\:
I- ii
',..,.
I 1 r'Iti d 14 / 1 , -,
t 4f T �t { V / sip • !Z��� yy •p -
' } . 111 ,:\...-‘-;::.,,,
155
„
•
d1 . i.,I III III
hi ,.,
.,11 .,
, ,, •
1, il
� � i 1. I +IIII�II�I�
` V, y ` � { Sea lavendar, almost wiped out in Florida, has
ri �` � �. ,` ,,, ', " , r been restored by our efforts on public and AL-
-4,
�, k SA"„\ J I
`rt, ,I1e ti it t; ,,1�s ,� �, r private projects, including Midtown and•
}. ;„ � y ,yr , ..., •r, , 1 ;�� k,' _ Clarke Ave. ' ! +%
} , +qpv � 1 r'11 a ' { !
T I Y ^ �� l ' �r rTd r J �s �+�! .� �} l Ta \It ♦ ♦ i Tip 3 ° � 1
/ '�• •� Ifa` i 1a �y' ! ``-.,..V �. ♦ ♦�yfKfl �/ r` d �w �� +P
{�� p 1 °!, ��y .. i �,��"�� � C h, 1 Y�'4 r K 'I 0,-� i � 1 1 Id��A' Y r
1 t.. 7 ,�1; y"rt" P �.. r ;'"-`,4- *4j? y� IN, r i' f, _ y 1I `I I I P I 1.
k s.-' 1 I '" p 1 A T �' ' T3 . . .1' 11 .` r1 .I 1 4 i . +1�' r ,
j 11 r A{�♦ 1 '!r I v r rf, .� a r
�`. 1 '�f is " �I ff r' 1 If"T � r, . e L''` 7 r 1 I , { A��I .: '' +
�y�j F ,ry � �! �r .a 'lYl j... �4�' � rEr I °� '' '4` { ,yl �� 'J'' � I
r-1- f „A , . .„,,,,„ ',`� '' r. �,:r' ' f Wi ,"�' 0 1 '°. ° r I` /i. ..' .' ,, ,,$ 'tl'1 I , °i'
°' v'Y 4. i°rl " "f, M1 " f• + .pt I ! 1 Y ,. ” .IT d" r.} 9h ,.,.M1 + ' -..'�pr`d •�
"h r � b ��'�i �7 � 1 !1 �I 1 � r... �", �Wr 1 ,.zyy�� r�' I r uy � ,
�''',N.:',„_-,..'
4 i, -: j 1 '.\ t e f.' e _ `t'}� rile- i, r s � ! i •
1•,c,, . • ,�1�`,-..li 1• e�.,. 1 C? �I 1 M! f 14 �. .'1 r r`1 �(ti;r�',1 ��{; 4`',f A YI �s.+ ��`�, {f '
� �{, . , �'` `�,` t. �. 4.:1 '� r • x' '+,, �1� �1�l� .: PPP ' "
' , t.c4451.: „,`°-.' ♦` 1 '" T. h •• 4'y,� . ,/ IA r. —1"1 µ,y 1 r °, .; y, '.-
1 c',.. `-' err. v. Qy _ 'ylY.- '�J/J' r 1 �, r 1 c l,, ;`7F/ 1. , a.11w , 1!1' r
I• . My , °lC r 4' I .._ ,,,, , i. _'--t-o-`V N� Rv.. �4`'1,A1 r VM`.--- o. '4 �4 1 r
� • � �� r _ -W1 ��.� .tJ '� �Vi1•I �/ rf4i.. .r '`. I.I
q,Y r' N I Yi II{�J� .` • _ ' ' I� r ! ,, .,f'y°iI o! "I `°;.:4W,; y5 � �'G+
3J,;.S4: b��_?i +�{I•io" �.�1 ;�'.t l'.■ .. � .� � �i} ��41 ;'r r + �'';+1 .I '''*471.,---
..r '' j .4l °r er� /11_,11 ' .1•1 '��,:. • i I I M` i'+ L-t t�I ' �'. n. `'. .rf , ',„ 4'�'� �, r� - aT1s "::! 4 •r
1 V h • • r "I V' 11', 1. r1 rr VI
. ) /w.1 r I � 1�\ r �� ti� � r r ,If n} �i� : vier, a .a:'
, hs!y7A�5r.T ° �� vAkki ��'2\y{, r a 4 /I . ' ♦ I .' t •"0 •i n -{•?.. �f n..I .5 ∎.1'1 !r d "T•
�\ ,, `., t 'I IN! V., a' '. r 1 , '. •��'i 1'I n•' d` yh / ' 1 ,r 1 61' •, a`ff,"Ir «`t +f 1► :('1 .
h
"�'!,±4� y► Ay �i /. ~ L h - der
J '+ ti; 1 .+-1,.i � '• �f• if�y / j+ I . I, r. r^ 11 t 'T .,;�{ i - ..` ¢' ,}_ .. ri; f�. ' 156
• 'T' — _YtlT..a`' �}', .-2.,..41 b' .-. '.fir .4}r. II ill . • a ��u�. ' '.
Saltbush ��. ,, r
•' � , 1 ,p
•
1 /
''''•::, !-: .. '',.16;:z 1:\ IF
(I l r � 1 k . ,•
. \ . .. .
l r t ..../ Ii4 *" ' .1 r �.]j. ] I.
Y �� w-�—'' ' ' /' - 6 4-' ,r 1 1`///// ¢¢r�f'''''-;\. f '. , 't,Coa.taI a v4 t •, / Y 1 1.,,< ,°.n
f+j, ". f"' _7';W,V.' i��~l„19._ S ; • .. .ws 1 .1'))��(( / 1 5,3w' ` ''
, 1 �' \\ . ,ICY ��T 4 fit` �yIy --e�,�i~\1 Tit'-''. ,r 1.• 7 !.
1 . r:r 4 1r T. ...../.' . ” 1 �,'y y 1 '�¢ _ _.wr f_ 9 — ',A".. w-
t�,, }
414, �(X y1 rii0, 1 n, ri• te, y�A"' 40. i /,..__ "— i rr -t. _ 1 • .�r�; • r}'v'� /�7 ' ..:1 f-y 1 4 j d I t •r` 4 ' " }44 f6�, ! .1 tt fn a - .1—lilt•
.a tIIA,. •l Lk�t +d ,` ti '` �y� '+ 1 � , "'' t' a .p. CXr- r r" 1 �.x,.. {t�,st•
1,/
Yq a $�Y� �fr. R►_
{�y�
Cf. •re Y fly
rl+r`,I '!h kr p Pll t �rf 4fli. '+1 .,� .,��t,+�,� y.54t , ': is
11 ' `' iX t1•p:f l'^s+h '/�'; fI !�{f`7` W ., " !'k i'4p�J+" .• 'q '
1 reli IQf,. a y u by ) , h '4"' Y )h
'10 Ihd 4F �' N �i k �? �(( s h. r'XtC J t �
it o •�g)y p y Y /� yy�,4 1 't yt f .Yb WX fk.� I T;{" �` •','� '1' 1:'+'
{� r1 i�', I $y rM l�ppr""..�I ty:,1 , ,ms's it lt� .t,�t 51 .yT- 1 r 1 k `4 iy�, �' - i'
✓ IL`,.PA I% ti'. / t9 T-lS Y 4,r .V, / "7 ... N Y y. ,t 1 n� t : ' ''. �.� Ryy;, j. ''•\! a yM°s. s r i s a. f tl .
, ry "{{� ' r T y. ,2, k ` �.y, „ 1 �"j T u" ' ` `` tip ` ','7 d aefr+- .1', 1 . "'C.� Ly1 �+ '1 4. 4 F ! 'wr„'. 49 9' T 1 '�� w�N ."1'dy C .'�' s t`h� ` �',,. 4i,'•,•, —- p..i X ,�, '•"-.'''' $ ., t• (OK ,:.- ,,-- . 157
r �}*
' 7.. i, ; "h sr t • rk Y .'p: 4 IY. q:#4_,.4- �r� st.'�' , S 5 , �� x
.7 f, '. �r+l I t .i. :L'f i wY. ^, �X wi .'.lCf '} �t ` ur. . > . x, ' 6
` tr t =r., w'.
S, b •.7r C Y ! :'41. . k, ..,/ ,kl r r-t_ f'yi xdr I.0 ..., tL u- .. ,r�.., y .. �•_i�
Jative dune plants in formal managed
landscape .
1' 1, `r' _ 'c 4 - a.<y;. :mss' _ a
' \�, u T 4 - i i `rte -7 '�.,-',1. 1,''1 ,- - -.
=yam ,
•
•
•/ ! . . y
i• •
•
r e- r . . - � -
•
•
t
. : • ice
•
r . , '
v v ,
, t n
�A l .. F rrt '�- r
!
, ,. 411, ,, } �'�
l 158
.00 MPH winds during Wilma snapped coconuts but did no damage to the
native palmettos, blackbeads, and golden creeper below.„,
,I , _, „7....7_ ,,
,. .
r
mfr. 3 i” 4 '' r t, w r „ - 44 1,13.2, 'rf"'
�JI �:. '4c
k , 1 ( .. ,
r
159
)ahlber is e . at Ocean Village
. •
. .
, . . ,
. , . , ..
,t,
. .
. ,.A
. . .
• .
...,tt
...-!„,,,,,
, , . . , ,
. ,
, .
Li
.'J'J tp `hs a
.-
T 1 '1 et�YpS,''
K
irk '
s t_�
if.. -1, , ,L.',,,t,L7,7.,,- 44.,, v.,N.,e,,,..._;.1:4.4,,:.*:::,..-,.•I,:l..4,-'
a:, . . .rte r l
1
.._ — 7AZ '8 i i
., .* , t,
• , 4 ■
M 5
r J A
�. � �.. �. 'w Y ,�,� �!� t�.Y i1, a/_ 4'..'pia', 'Ff
am./r • 1i`�7v�
it '' di .
•4•
',,,.'41.-"-tit( .°'a .fw ,��r ["`'''it.pr t' �4 160
Dalbergia ecastophylum (coin vine) infestation.
ontaminating over 500 square yards this two year old infestation is only three individual plants, largest of
which had 26 leads radiating out as much as 36 feet with laterals out to fifteen feet. These completely
overshadow the native dune grasses and strand species below. First noticed in August of 2009.
+'J
a ^"' 'y �r 44'c •x l k V '-:` �'y' :'.o'.b r 1:x- ,�33'. ��' a sr-y k, (,.[•.>" "aU`i':'ia,4E-��.s,.E. -� ��'"xi,��„♦G�6}i r r-.a f .a.. -`,7-..
v, -.•
�4: .i ` ,Y ' ._; 'M1'.a. ' 4 �1 Y.ti '! V•P'2y_Lr.q 't r �9 9 -'/
n C
H.y p a ma 1 S ' 4 "rT O . =‘-'41-*._-‘,.-,, i l o\.,..n [R Ly v x yyti! ¢ 'yam �. 5 .: aY � ¢ ' T ryaiyry {{ ,yy\ ; , -7*y } � � x _ i ' ^ � r. ; e ..„ .4 T .,-- ,. \ Y L A y % ihT 'h : - • i•"*,;,,4 ': ,, ! ; i" Y - `"`� ". L'INf • 61,,,, ::� < { ,. - ;., i i ' V� y e + 4j4 r s
4.4$40',.',- E '.��i�,.�- -`t s r.Itr - Y.' Y ti - s •'i. a x{- .. 2 .lrY. -* '-'.."4.--11,.--- - ' �. Y�
$ Y f'6 a r..,p•'S- , J r k I=:�.•,". f6 2 fir ' 'f, ''¢4 i * _
a It --. ` �+r '!mil'. w g • �1 "',..,..;,..-J., 1 l'i y- 1 r'r"' _ R• ''
- - i A JO-. - , .z. y' 'kS'J�_ h. 'y , '';' �:,F 1 s. 1 - y .._.1.--1‘.' K� '''. '�`y --
a L i ( i - -i 1t`b . i. of w l� r"r x �' �Y a . ' 'x�r r + - -S� -1'-`6.� sl•
C� y9 `,. 54�s J 5 Y'�,�' t 5 Y a.'ri 4 l_ -�. .h !- `� , ya
� s °ate Cyi�v 1 y ��.' �• ti 1--••••,.,,•• N� ` .
o7Grc ,d �f y_rL. 1 +.p� x x r' Y. `4.* ?7 .1 1.is �z--',�
Y'Y i L.•�4. ]a - 1-1,7,, b
• ' Y 1 V ,, v4
j'^F : f�r �`� � R °1! r A rx, r�"ixi--1,..,...f�' c_ l.` _` • f3iy�` ` ,. r �. .. ,•
Y"'•c'.--, }° EfF F#�2 ,. 'S�'f'i� r•1k' 4l {'�N L�'•Fr ...,r ....:,. • YY�' t ,* Y P. Y 1 �y . ` �Tt_••t.,�SSY ,y3 ^iJ1. ��i i+y t "",�`$r� ,C� �` k r e r•.Fy. S NL'Yti. . .+ y am'-
F� t'i� ' ,1f! f r• ,:t, "y{o, ! „{ k' K L 1 '�'1� �,, -7 i 1 ,. .. +'r- •• M1•
{1!o F ' ✓4?1. RLe" 't }te a/. a a A .` T - rte r'
-, � 1 �t;�± �ti 1 .��' ���p�,a!, �. Rq y.�C� •� ���°jy'p�"I •� r'z rr,y� 'Z� at �.this'
^� -I _� �`}Y.7_ �b`1��F' ✓tl %y'.f` � , *'r FJ - i a2.. tr + '3� 't.�.'
'��'' YY ;1',/ i FI -a t da i
w
'�-- „�_-�� ` '�rp t,E T. .`d '� ` r. ��� �ka,.� k�y.� "k r + 4r �y :� "J Ci j k
.t L9 tii / y� t '' ' " \� !►�F �, y� `; YM1 161•
500 square yards cleared, all growth below dead, will require
replanting with sea oats to restabilize.
x -
•
•
�K-:hP3`F.Z�j" • _�b .:_.:"� -.F.••+
rt
•
• a ,,yy
a $ 1 a r Iii• . = , `,,
Y < 1�
'4" ,.✓ r� 162
A single 36 foot lead with no rooting.
. r„ ,vA` hf i
P fr '
• .. : !
1
/ it h••
—:----I ' Ail*"ig, -cily_ ,001--,.., ._ ..i.,...,_____fe -1 '",141,, v 0
,/J tea. ^" ■ ► Ji[!/��!��
�j ,.". ?, .%c,-.....',... r /\i • �
Y ' ' t kit {.
••
`4 ° 163
c . vine killing Midtown dune
•
.,..,
_... ... .......
. .....
..._ ,. . _ .,...
.- T.L., _- ,,.........0....., ,. .,
. _ .
t
,..
,, i '..,k.,„ ,-- , , 4 ,,,,,,,., 41- likt,--: „ , .- .,,, --. -.,',,,„ ' - . : r -;
- ..,
- . ...-.c.4 ir.,,,,,,, , -.:4- -
L ,, ,A. :Li,21-:;,-,,, - - ,),,,. ,.. ,,,,.., - . ,,.,,,,..,,,, ,- i„.,-,- , ,,,..„,,..,-N, , „,p;40,4„,.,,,;,. •.4,4 . — ,„:*... ,_ -,•
,.. .
t' .,' '. ."- ,''' , ci., "..,.. .4..•`.,,,i,i-t ., %-'"k" , ,,,,,, I ■A,.'.1. .4,,.. , ,, ,1-..,. ,,c ' :
,iitit....
;',. 444.z- - - i --... -. 1 ''•.'"*" A '-- .' ' 'k- c'.;*t' ' ..' ''''cli■ ? '-':s%l''' ''k ''' -',''' at Iiiiri ,,r*vir,, i--.1, 1...4
4? i - - ,.- .,,,,..e-Q„ - . - , , .,., i,.‘4-4r,_ :o.„4-'‘ ,,, , -‘,---- -- .A, I 26.,,,...1 k " ,',"ns. ,,o-ock 4.:, ,,,-• •:, ,:c ,-. ..
lt
.-',„--44i , ' '7%': %-11 "":"'.g.%;% 1' . ' . ' .r. ," ,. , -. ' ' '=" • •
-41'r-'"it. 11' .4), 4.10....-t„,‘,pm-'' ,'' - •-' -.Li, ,2+ •, 44 , ,, ...,,,...„ ,. k .; ' '') * 1, - - II'
,...i kitt : . ._i '4- 4.-,1.. ,-•"64.44, --•- , 10'4, .- 4 . 1.t , '" .."--LF"-^t-4..-. t . ,v. - ' ' `-, ..... = ' - '
.s
4,Oi4,.,,—4 4-...7, :- I,I 7# .\k■. 1'44,...,s1),=LX 4'.P,i— j*'''',. '`'k--- '' 0,14:0k. ' • i-r - 1 pp . -t- . ,...... , i
..p. .e
, •
' - - - - 4 , , ' 7 lil
..---,
.
---sl• •
'4,.•...'-',.. . •r — 1
•," . .,-- .,• 11' 1 ' .-• -w-,:j-,,,'
,, P• --yr-, - , - - 4 .
f 6 —...." '-• :17,i),,,,, , "i-r ,.S ' '' ' • t— •
ilit 7k, _ - • .. %.,„ , - .../ 1.-:.,, - , •• •._, ..-'-- -
4 , _
( .4, ,.. it*.• ,4 .
IS ' V7.. •4 '" '1 ' ii; ' ,IV4 e.g 4 17 do '( 4: :- '
If ' r
___ r•,- L...4....,
_ ., ,44,,
A, j
— 014, 't' Ai , .- i. --'*Z.1 ---..\., ...W.'.
4 il
'.
164
, ,
- -
—
,.
' . -___
" ' s
_,
1 A '
Coinvine killing Clarke Ave dune .
. . ,
m _- _. a ...,.romoiht.- ,-;;:„..z..._
yyll - .
4
•
A A
4.
IT i (y {am Y
q n wy — =.-" Y; jy c . \. y
< i ' ' '. i e. mss: Y A` � N.
A 'ti\, •-, <_, �'
r'
, �
R'•` . .
., 4 , .lAlq C ," - . - F
,gi
41ib Art
.
4 ' �•-.-Y 91r f .� fK _Y 40. ._ 1 l tom"
4�[JMrr + s°#` '' z 5 . d 165
1988 SLOANS CURVE REVETMENT
Nobody knows that it's the ..
1.7,..
,
•. .... ,...,
r.k....
--.... k-v,
r
t. (:-. -4 - - - ,
' . ' •,'.-.,,:r ,-,F ' -..,8j;;+% s-f-. A" ' ' ''' ..,- ■—r:4 ..,. '...t 2,;^.,:t' ------.
AN-
...--.W----
.11.0----
...., .4*.t.. . ..,, .„ - - -
• , - . _.k
4 V- i ,., 4 V4' "
* , •
" t _ N4
, ----2...- ,
.. . --_.
. .
.-,
--,_,-
--.:......- L,
4, 014 - -
4, 1.„, . •
,..,
, .. ,... .,
...„...,„, ....„.„ ,........• , .. _
1/4, -0
,-,-
I
lir-:
64At'
-
•
110
.. .
.mr...-
1# 166
=—......s. . ‘;.• W '—---7C,'..11,.• ,:,Z.' ''..-..:,<C' '
N-
CO
$.°1 \ 4
LU
z
i e
*V:
y+ Sr. I f,b ♦Sf�1
�4
4.�� � +
a 3 I
Cl-
` �a f��jff •- s
Z ii-
( , f ,.
1. d
in
f' E¢ J
J ,,.
1
J
s
j
0 d "it � 7 + ;V.
'tr
`' , e''' Or
,∎∎
Between rocks and a hard place .
1
S • .
, ••-- '.„,,.1,,,,:- . ,...:7,44",- a 'k.,... • . • • 4, ' •',..
.....
"........ • %aL., • =•-• ‘-:- ' '• •"• - * '''t L
,.it.
1
••,.
, .. . • li.
. , ,24. .4. ''''
;), . . ', 't•' ---■ .'-'•-•
•1 • , t, . 4..rli 4lit 4a.
"A_....
t.... , ' )4 ..„:, ' 4■-"" . ' -
. •...%k '.- 4fils.•444.... ' -
- -
-ft. -'.-......X... - _---'_,,,,, ,___ - ._ -,.. ' .•...ft :'
--,.....„
_._
__... — __
-....„.
-
-..
.
'.'• -'-____/,',1.:' . -- - .•-••"' -...".- ....- -_ —' -
'-`
... _ 41k: - %, 7 - - --," -::"Aiie -'---• •'- • ,
___ -;...... --,........--,
*-4....91L,: ,
444.
- -' -
a
---....
. ''''' '''-7- - - - —-.7- ..c•- t■atrii - ' .
- 2 '110,„"-,■4 , . ._.
_ - -
-..a.
.4. . .,...
..,,
-... ...:
dik.. ,.
_ --
. . ,
• -. .aM -.. ^7.....- .- .._
. •....
. - '4 - .1... *10
Allit '
... . . , -
l. 7...Z..
'..
.- . , •
' .- i,,,,,tel.., . .
. . ..._ , - '..... -.
.■
•.
I.. .,
-. ' .,... .
. .1P.'
.. . ,
,_,.. ' . - r
' ...•-•
,. .. 1 68
-.AO..
• ♦� 4 ,•
`• � + Y J•* i� 1. �.' r ...,4,4- i' --'♦a 7 tt!•�' '!, ♦ ♦ , ` ��`i Mme. "'A 4r rr'•y• ,4• ]f ,.A►.r�a•••• • ;° i\. �•11 •T7'(Fy•,-•, _ 3 1 ,.,.A. r ,�. } ice. ♦� • • ,: , -••}_ V �R;d !• ter. , �l� 1 /,N :'�1'( � T ... ;_ `%.• 4 ��1} r. '�(, qq[_(( ♦, ✓�r•�,•
R` b+�. `- 7* ti, ,' . •' • •l•4. •"pr1 .<.i J k• ' I .t y,6 1 T. r' •4 °�r`l•• '■ ° - _•
• 1E== .�. . , -r, ^1,4 :1,-1 C. vim.
-,/ •4 •�!_ t . ° • .' 4, +A• t* 'a•ir•�j,. �' e•N' ° .y. '0'..6 fft• ••. • ,J•° •.
4 ib )•■ .<`ry `�• .. �_r ••, rfr H,. ��r ,. ♦ r•If t- , 4r
le" 1 r S
1
CONFLICTS ARE; BUR AUCRATIC, *�: :,, . `=
NOT REAL , i`•
•J rf •� /1 ° - , , . • 169