    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                         FEASIBILITY STUDY OF REAL - TIME REMOTE MONITORING

                                               OF

                         STORM AND HURRICANE CONDITIONS AT COASTAL IMPACT

                                               by

                                         George M. Cole

                            Florida Engineering Services Corporation
                            515 N. Adams ST., Tallahassee, FL  32301

                                       James H. Balsillie

                                    Analysis/Research Section
                               Bureau of CoastaL Data Acquisition
                                 Division of Beaches and Shores
                             Florida Department of Natural Resources
                         3900 Commonwealth Blvd., Tallahassee FL 32303

                                               and

                                           T. Y. Chiu

                               Beaches and Shores Resource Center
                             Institute of Science and Public Affairs
                                    Florida State University
                      300 Johnston (Seminole) Bldg., Tallahassee FL 32306

                               BEACHES AND SHORES REPORT CZM-84-3

                                             Funded by

                      A grant from the U.S. Office of-CoastaL Zone Management
                            NationaL Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                           (CoastaL Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended)
                                              through
                                 FLorida  Office of CoastaL Management
                            Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
                 QC                             and
                 945           FLorida Department of NaturaL Resources
                 .C65
                 1984

                                              FORWARD

                     This work presents an investigation into the basic
               requirements (e.g., basic eqiuipment and costs) for an array of
               mobile remote sensing packages which, upon hurricane approach,
               can be towed to the coast, installed, activated and abandoned
               in advance of hurricane impact.  The remote coastal sensing
               packages will record hurricane impact forces (i.e., wind, storm
               surge and waves ) and coastal response (i.e., erosion and
               structural damage) elements.

                     This report consstitutes fulfillment of obligations with
               the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program (Coasta1 Zone
               Management Act of 1972, as amended ) through the Florida
               0ffice of Coastal Management subject to provisions of contract
               CM-37 entitled "Hurricane Emergency -- Remote Monitoring
               Information Tracting (HERMIT)".

                     A portion of CM-37 was subcontracted (DNR contract
               C0036) to the Beaches and Shores Resource Center, Institute
               of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University,
               which retained a consultant (Florida Engineering Services
               Corporation) to conduct the equipment research and provide
               cost recommendations thereto.

                     At the time of submission for contractural compliance,
               James H. Balsillie was the contract manager and Administrator
               of the Analysis/Research Section, Hal N. Bean was Chief of the
               Bureau of Coastal Data Acquisition, Deborah E. Flact Director of
               the Division of Beaches and Shores, and Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner
               the Executive Director of the Florida Department of Natural
               Resources.

                                                              JuLy, 1984

                                         Property of CSC Library

                                                                               CONTENTS

                                   PREFACE                                               i

                                   ABSTRACT                                              i

                                   INTRODUCTION

                                   EXISTING MONITORING PROGRAMS                          14

                                   EQUIPMENT SEARCH                                      18

                                              Introduction                               18

                                              Communication Link                         19

                                              Sensing Equipment                          21

                                                        Water Level Sensors              21

                                                        Wave Sensors                     24

                                                        Wind Sensors                     24

    							          Onsite Recording                 24

                                              Receiving Equipment                        25

                                              Video Monitoring                           26

                                              Recommended Equipment                      28

                                              Equipment Integration                      29

                                   SOFTWARE NEEDS                                        31

                                              Data Retrieval                             31

                                              Data Reduction                             32

                                              Coastal Processes Simulation               32

                                              Records Listing and Graphical Display        33

                                   PLAN OF OPERATION                                      37

                                   FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS                                   43

                                   RECOMMENDATIONS                                        44

                                   SPECIAIL NOTE                                          46

                                   ACKNOWLEDGEMNTS                                        47

                                   REFERENCES                                              48

                                                         ii

                            FEASBILITY STUDY OF REAL-TIME REMOTE MONITORTING OF STORM AND
                            HURRICANE CONDITIONS AT COSTAL INPACT

                            by

                            G. M.  Cole

                            FLorida Engineering Services Corporation, 515 N. Adams St.,
                            TalLahasse, Fl 32301

                            J. H. BaLsilLie

                            AnaLysis/Research Section, Bureau of CoastaL Data Acquisition,
                            Division of Beaches and Shores, FLorida Department of Natural.
                            Resources, 3900 CommonweaLth BLvd., TAllahassee, 32303

                            and

                            T.  Y. Chiu

                            BEaches and Shores Resource Center, Institute of Science
                            and Public Affairs, flordia State University , 300 Johnston
                            (Seminole) Bldg., Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
                            32306.
                                             ABSTRACT

                                  This work presents an investigation into the basic
                             requirements (e.g . , equipment and costs )for an array of
                             mobile remote sensing packages which, upon hurricane or storm
                            approach can be towed to the coast, installed, activated and
                            abandoned in advance of impact of the event.  These remote
                            coastal sensing packages will record hurricane impact forces
                            (i.e., wind, storm surge and waves) and coastal response
                            (i.e., erosion and structural damage) elements.

                            INTRODUCTION

                                     Regarding the impact and damage of potential of storms and

                            hurricanes, coastal florida is unique.  First, it has by far

                            the Longest habitable coastline of any U.S. state.

                            Comparison of the number of barrier islands and ocean-fronting

                            beach lenghts for the Atlantic and Gulf states, alone,

                            illustrates the status of Florida's coast (figure 1).

                                                        1

                                                                                   -0            Beach Length in Miles

                                      0          100         200          300         400          500          600         700          Boo          900         1000

                                                                                                                                                                ja
                               Maine - lp
                     New Hampshire
                       Massachusetts

                      'Rhode Island
                         Connecticut
                           New York
                         Now Jersey
                           Delawa re
                             Maryland  -
                              Virginia -
                         N.  Carolina  -
                         S.
                              Georgia
                               Florida
                             Alabama
                         Mississippi
                            Louisiana
                                Texas

                                      0           10          20           30          40           50          60           70          80           90           100
                                                                      A                       Number of Barrier          Islands

                    Figure 1. Comparison of beach lengths and number of barrier islands.(i.e., coastal barriers) of states on the,
                    Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico (data from the U. S. Department of the Interior, 1979).

                   Second, its geographic setting and physiography renders

                   Florida particularly susceptable to impact from tropical and

                   subtropical climatological events. Disturbances which are

                   generated in tropical latitudes of the mid-north Atlantic

                   invariably propagate to the west and northwest, those

                   generated in the Caribean commonly travel to the north, and

                   those generated in the Gulf of Mexico travel, a good share of

                   the time, to the east and northeast (see the cyclone track

                   history compiled by Neumann, et al. 1978). Because of

                   Florida's north-south peninsular and low-lying physiography

                   these scenarios certaily render Florida vulnerable to

                   extreme climatic conditions.

                           Historical data (e.g., Bruun, et al. 1962; Dunn, Dunn, et al.

                   1967; Ho, Schwert and Goodyear, 1975; Nuemann, 1978; Schwert

                   Ho and Watkins, 1979) indicate that on the average two

                   tropical storms strike coastal Florida each year, with one of

                   the storms reaching hurrican status.   Damages from Florida

                   hurricanes assessed in terms of monetary loss and loss of life,

                   are listed in Table 1.  It is reported (Rubin, 1979) that

                   "... recent studies ... call attention to the growing potential

                   damage we face from hurricanes, which may soon surpass floods

                   as the greatest hazard in the United States ... destruction

                   of buildings by hurricanes is expected to grow from today's

                   almost $2 billion to about $5 billion constant dollars by year

                   2000. This is largely due to population growth and movement,

                   coastal development and higher construction values."

                           There have been many hurricanes which have closely

                   approached coastal Florida but have remained offshore

                                                                   3

                                           T a t) 1. e i    Damage and FataLities in
                                           F L c) r i cl a f r o m 11 u r r i c: a n e s

                                             Year      1:7 a -t a 1. i t i e s      Do L La r
                                                                                    D a (Ila q e

                                             1926                              115,495,000
                                             1928          1,838                 26,235,000
                                             1929                  3                  821,000
                                             1930                  0                    '75,000
                                             1932                  1                  150,000
                                             1933                  2               4,i2O,@000
                                             '1935             405               11,500,000
                                             1936                  -
                                                                   1                  200,000
                                             1937               15                        51000
                                                                   '1                   52,000
                                             i941                  6                  690,000
                                             1944               18               60,000,000
                                             1945                  4             ../4,130,000
                                             1946                  0               7,2-00,000
                                             1947               `17              51.,900,000
                                             -1948                 3             17, '500, 000
                                             1949                                45,000,000
                                             1950                  6             31,600,000
                                             1951                  0               '21000,000
                                             19'5 3                0               4, 51152, 000
                                             1956                  7               7,299,605
                                             1957                  5                    75,0,00
                                             1958                  0                  (m i nor)
                                             1959                  0               1,656,000
                                             1960               13             305,050,000
                                             1963                  1                    5'),0()0
                                             1964               11             362,000,000
                                             1965               13             139,300,000
                                             1966                  9             15,000,000
                                             1968                  9               6,650,000
                                             `197'2                9             41,000,000
                                             19*75                 2           100,000,000.
                                             1979                  3             64,000,000

                                             TOTAL              33
                                             AVG    DAMAGE./EVENT              $44,7iB,352

                                           Data     from Dunn, et aL. 1967;
                                           U. S. D(--@partment of Commerce, 1977;
                                           19"19    data are estimates from
                                           Daniel. Trescott (personal
                                           commul-lica-Hon, Divisiorl of
                                           Emergency Manageme-vit, FLorida
                                                         1-14-  f C 0 fil fl, U 11 i t y
                                           Departme                                  Af f a i rs-)

                     (e.g., Hurricane David of September 1979 along the east coast

                     of Florida) or which have impacted relatively undeveloped

                     coastal areas. If fact, it may be that no truly serious

                     hurricane impact event has occurred since the great hurricane

                     of 1928 which struck Miami, resulting in 1838 fatalities.

                     In 1928, greater Miami had a population of about 120.000.

                     What might one expect if another "1928 hurricane" were to

                     impact Miami today with its population of 1.5 million?

                              A cumulative frequency plot of hurricanes striking

                     Florida during the period 1885-1983 is given in Figure 2.

                     It appears that from 1885 to about 1950, the data of Figure 2

                     can be represented by the solid line. Since 1950, it appears

                     that hurrican incidence has substantially declined, as

                     suggested by the dashed line.  Based on the longer record one

                     can not, however, assume that such a lull will continue as a

                     new trend.  When dealing with the significant population

                     growth in Florida (Figure 3), one feels compelled to anticipate

                     the complacency prevailing among a population of which only a

                     minority has experienced the effects of hurricane impact.

                     Mosely and Davenport (1978) state "... unless human preparation

                     for, and reaction to hurricanes is considered more carefully,

                     and, subsequently, redirected on both government and individual

                     levels, then the catastrophe potential will continue to

                     increase as coastal population grows."

                              The hurricane is not the "unheralded killer" it once was

                     due to increased technologies which allow the detection of

                     such events, measurement of their intensity and direction of

                     travel, and the capability to forewarn the public. This is

                                                   5

                    100                                      1

                    90

                    80

                   .70-

                    60-
         CUMULATIVE
         FREQUENCY  so-

                    40-

                    30-

                    20

                    10
                     0       1  t   I  I                      J-61

                                v-     Cf)
                                                  Ob
                                                                C%1

                                          YEAR

         Fi1gure 2.. Frequency trend for'hurrilcanestimpacting Florid
                                                   a (after Balsillie, 1978).

                                          8
                                            ja

                                          7

                                          6

                                          5            FLORIDA
                           POPULATION
                        1940 POPULATION   4
                                                                              USA

                                          3-
                                                            WORLD

                                          2-

                                          1940  1950    1960   1970   1980   1990   2000

                                                               YEAR

                         Figure 3. Comparison of Florida, world and U. S. population
                         increases (Florida data from Fernal.d, 1981;,Q..Si1.and--.world
                         data from Dolmatch, 1979).

               not to say, however, that additional work is not needed.  For

               instance, Baker (1980) states:

                     Twenty-four hours before expected landfall of a
                     hurricane, approximately 300 miles of coastline
                     will be placed under a warning ( the average
                     24-hour forecast error being 100 miles).  Except
                     in very  rare storms, the eventual major damage
                     will be confined to an area little more than
                     50 miles in width.  Thus, the imprecision of
                     forecasting technology presents a response
                     problem for the public and for local officials
                     alike.

                     An underlying theme of many such studies and reports is

               that we must be able to forecast the behavior of hurricanes as

               they move from deep water, across, the continental shelf, and

               onto the coast.    To a large extent, however, perhaps the basic

               problem and alternatives toward its solutin  are being

               overlooked.     THE FUNDAMENTAl ISSUE IS, IN FACT, THAT WE ARE

               VITALLY INTERESTED IN PREDICTING HOW  A HURRICANE WITH GIVEN

               CHARACTERISTICS WILL, UPON LANDFALL, AFFECT A COAST WITH GIVEN

               CHARACTERISTICS. The obvious answer is to measure conditions

               at the coast proper.  Force and response elements of extreme

               event impact at the coast that need to be measured are

               illustrated in Figure 4.  Forces include the wind, storm surge

               and waves; responses include vertical and horizontal recession

               of the nearshore, beach and coast, and structural damages.

                      Hurricane wind field prediction has been a subject of

               considerable past research, and is well established.  The same

               has not been true of hydraulic elements.  In recent years,

               however, significant advancements have been made in hydraulic

               prediction.  Storms surge (i.e., the  significant rise in the

                                               8

                             NEARSHORE                  14            BEACH                                   COAST

                                                                                                                      Structure

                                                                     Pre-storm Profile                              777" , 777@ 77-n

                                        Normal" Water Level
                                        (MSL)

                                                                                           :-Horizontal Recession

                                                                                              Breaking Wave
                 wl 0                                 Storm Surge       Waves                    Impacts              Structure

                                   A
                                                                                                                             rr/7

                                                                                                                                       J-8

                        STORM WAVES             Vertical Recession
                        SURGE

                                                                                              Peak Erosion Profile

                ..............

                Figure 4. Illustration of forces and response elements due'to storm/hurricane
                coastal impact (after Balsillie, 1978).

                water level surface accompanying a storm or huricane) has been

                subject to considerable controversy  (e.g., U. S. Water

                Resources Council, 1980; U. S. Army, 1980; National Research

                Council, 1983).  The Florida Department of Natural Resources,

                Division of Beaches and Shores, however, has adopted a new

                storm surge numerical computer model (Dean and Chiu, 1981a,

                1981b, 1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1984).  In addition to flooding,

                a major importance of the storm surge is that it constitutes

                a superelevated surface upon which storm-generated waves

                propagate, allowing the  waves to impact the coast at

                elevations not normally attained.    Responce of the topography

                to these forces is erosion.    Erosion computer models have been,

                proposed (e.g., Kriebel, 1982, 1984; Dean, 1983; Kriebel and

                Dean, 1984a, 1984b) which are primarily based on consideration

                of the storm surge.   Incorporating shore-breaking wave

                dynamics, Balsillie (1984) has developed the Multiple

                Shore-breaking Wave Transformation model, which not only

                considers the storm surge but allows the prediction of

                coastal wave impacts.   While such modeling efforts  are based

                on state-of-the-art information, the best data currently

                available from which to calibrate models are from actual

                measurements of pre- and post-storm profile conditions.  In

                fact, the most comprehensive set of data for such calibration

                has been measured by the Division of Beaches and Shores for

                Hurricane Eloise which struck the panhandle coast of Florida

                in September of 1975 (Chiu, 1977; Balsillie, 1983).   It is

                difficult, however, to calibrate a model on a single set of

                data.  Rather, it is desirable that measurements be made for

                                               10

               many hurricanes and storms of varying magitudes and

               characterirtics.

                    An additional, major advantage to direct observation of

               hurricane and storm impact at the coast is t h a t ,i f conducted

               in real time, emergency operations personnel have immediatey

               available information of conditions at the coast. Such

               information would be a valuable asset in management

               decision-making  processes related to responsibilities of

               emergency managment operations.

                    The purpose of this work is, therefore, to investigate

               assembling stand-alone and communcating sensing packages for

               remote montoring of beach and  coast response to   storm and

               hurricane impact. As a hurricane is tracked, forecasting

               prognostications can identify general coastl. segment that

               will be affected by the event (Baker, 1990) 12 to 24- hours in

               advance of impact. The concept is to construct several. mobile

               packages (i.e. , assembled on trailers) which , in advance of

               impact in accordance with provisionions of the Shoreline Emergency

               Reaction Function (SERF) of the Florida Department of Natural

               Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores, can be towed to

               coastal, sites, installed and Left.      The reason -foi- multiple

                        packaqps is illustrated with the aid of Figure 5,

               The hurricane or tropical cyclone is circular in shape (inset

               A of Figure 5).     The strength of forces increases from the

               periphery of the storm toward the eye; inset B of Figure 5

               illustrates, for instance, how the wind speed increses.

               Similar trends are to be expected for the storm surge and the

               wind-generated waves traveling on top of the surge.     In order

                        Ica                                                   V

                                                                            Go CL
                                                                              U)

                                                                              .0
                                                                            C
                     >

                                     OFFSHORE    UJ
                          0            WINDS     W
                     W                                ONSHORE WINDS
                     U)
                     2!

                                                                    LAND

                                                                   2/         SHORELINE

                                                                                 Example of
                          OCEAN                                                  deployment of
                                                                                 remote sensing
                                                                                 units.
                   M

                   3:

                   >

                   C ca

                   a.

                   W
                   U)
                   Z

                  Figure 5. Example of a hurricane approaching landfall in terms of the
                  hurricane wind field (after Balsillie, 1978) and deployment of remote
                                                   @ONSHORJE @WINDS

                  sensing packages. For inset A the bold arrow indicates direction of
                  hurricane travel, small arrow indicate wind direction, dotted lines are
                  lines of equal atmospheri-c pressure.

                to adequatly monitor and describe the describe the event, several remote

                sension packages would reqire deployment. An example of such

                deployment is il1ustrated in Figure, in which probable

                alongshore spacing of the remote packages would be from 15-30

                mi1es  is, then, would a L Low for otitention of data on forces

                across the hurricane wind field, which at present are virtually

                non-exitent. Each package should have the capabiLity to be

                interegated from an inLand monitoring site Location such as a

                state emergency operations ceter (E0C)and to be able to

                record data on site shouLd commun ications faiL so that data

                losses are minimized for later analysis. The program must be

                designed to anticipte that partial. equipment Loss or damage

                that might occur, which wilL affect the feasibiity of such a

                program.    Specific tasks of this study are:

                      i    Survey existing monitcring programs which may

                           augment the existing proposal.,

                      2. Idntify equipment requirements Sources and

                           costs for measurement of wind, wave and storm

                           surge forces at remote sites during hurricane

                           impact for real-time trarismission to an emergency

                           operations center (EOC).

                      3.   Identify software requirements to support hardware,

                           for realizing data retrieval and analysis, and

                      4.  Prepare a plan of operation.

                                                     13

                        EXISTING  MONITORING PROGRAMS

                    'The National Hurricane Center in Cora L GabLes FLorida

               has for many years beenq involved with tracking tropicaL

               cycLones and hurricanes, through the use of hurricane

               throug-fLight and , more recent using saeLLite techology

               As necessary as this work is, it is considered as a program

               separate from the goaLs of -the resent work since, here, we

               are interested in impact of the hurricane at the coast proper.

                    A survey of eXistng monitorig programs has revealed two

               systems with possibLe significant bearing upon the proposaL.

               These are the NalionaL Ocean Service (NOS) primary tide

               station network and the University of FLorida's, wave monitoring

               network .

                    the first, consists of a -series of tide LeveL monitoring

               stations along -the coastaL FLorida.  The Location of these

               stationris ilLustrated in Figure 6. Each station consists

               of an ariaLog-todigitaL tide gauge which records -the water

               Level. at six-minute intervaL   A backup "bubLer" type gauge

               is aLso instaLLed at each site.     These gauges are installed as

               "on site" recording stations as opposed to reaL-time reporting

               capability. However, one station (Miami Beach) is configured

               to transmit data at hourLy intervaLs via       phone Line, to

               NOS headquarters in RockviLle, Maryland.    In addition, six

               of the staion linked by dedicated phone Line to a re-

               corder at the Local National. Weather Service office.

                    The second program COnsists of nine real-time wave

               recorders operated by the University of FLordia, Department of

               Oceangraphic Engineering, caLLed the FLorida CoastaL Data

                                                 14

                                                                               At

                Figure 6. Location of potentially useful National Ocean Service (NOS)
                tide gauging stations.

               Network Howell, 1980.; Wang 1982).      The Location of wave

               gauger, is given in Figur 7.,

                    Neither of these programs will compLetely satisfy -the

               needs of    coastaL impact monitoririg systems, since the

               tide gauger monitor onLy one paiametei at fixed Locations,

               and the  wave gauges are Located offshore (in approximateLy 30

               feet of water) at fixed sites.    Therefore, they may riot

               necessariLy Provide data reflecting impact conditions of a

               storm. However, both systems offer -the potential to provide

               excellent suppLementary infoimation useful. towards analyzing

                    For example, consider the six NOS stations with National

               Weather seivices (NWS) hookups.    Arrangement could be made with

               the NWS  for calling the arpropriate off ices at hourLy intervaLs

               to obtain readings from the meteorLogist on duty.    This

               arrangement would allow real-time monitoiing of water Levels

               of the six sites, with a nominal cost outlay.

                    Data from the NOS teLemetry station at Miami 'Beach may

               also be easiLy oblained      SeveiaL years ago arrangements were

               made by G. M. Cole for direct hourly transmission of water

               level data from the Miami station to the FLordia Depatment of

               NaturaL Resources (DNR) in TaLlahassee.        DNR's Buieau

               of Suivey and Mapping was provided a computer terminaL and

               disk drive utilizing existing NOS software, allowing for data

               reception Further, the NOS may be agreeable to the expansion

               of the system to include other tide stations in Flordia..

                     SimitarLy,it should be practical to the

               Univesity of FLordia's wave gauge system at normaL cost

                                                   16

                  STATION NAME     MEAN DEPTH (M) LOCATION

                  ---------------------------------------------

                  JACKSONVILLE      9.5               30 18' 004 N,
                                                      01 22' 550 W

                  MARINELAND         10.0            @29 40' 03" N.

                  CAPE CANAVERAL     8.0              28 24' 42" N.
                                                      80  34' 3G" W

                  VERO BEACH         7.5              27  40' 20" N,
                                                      80  21' 07" W

                  PALM DEACH         9-60             2G  42' 07" H,
                                                      80  01' 42" W

                  MIAMI BEACH        G.5              25  4G' 06" N,
                                                      80  07"230  W

                  CLEARWATER         5.0              27  58' 44" N,
                                                      82  51' 00" W

                  VENICE             7.2

                  Figure  7. Location    of wave gauges    in the   Florida Coastal Data Network
                  (after  University of Florida, 1984).

              (note that teLephone enquiry Lines have been estabLished).

              This could be accompLished by arranging to access that option

              by use of a dial Up COMPUter terminal.

                   Therefore, both systems offer a means of immediateLy

              obtaining desirabLe data with very Little cost. Comb i ned

              w i th an arr a Y of por t a b Le mon itori ng st a ti on deployed a Long

              the coast, these existing programs wouLd provide sufficient

              add i t i onaL data for determ inat i on of deta i Led parameter

              prof i Les across the nearshore zone at var i ous d i stances from

              the impact center.

              EQUIPMEN T S E A R C H

              Introduction

                   The followi ng sections repor t on research conducted to

              identify equipment sources, requirements and costs for a

              mobile unit to aLLow remote monitoring of various environmental

              parameters during the time of hurricane impact at the coast.

                   To accompLish this research, contacts were made

              with federaL agencies having contempLated syStems requiring

              simiLar equipment, and with equipment manufacturers and vendors.

                   The equipment considerations may be divided into three

              general categories: 1.   the commun i cat i on L i nk, 2. the

              sens i ng equipment, and 3.  the receiving eqUipment.   The

              report is divided to address each category, followed by

              commentS on recommended equipment and depLoyment procedures.

                                          18

                Communicati on Link

                      Three general types of commuicat ion links were cons ider-

                ed: 1.  telephone Line, 2. direct radio transmiSsion, and

                3.    reLay through commun i cat ions satellites.

                      The direct radio transmission option may not be desir-

                able due  to distance constraints. Since a system is desired

                that  can  be operated anywhere in the state with reaL-time

                monitoring in TaLLahassee, many areas wouLd be beyond the

                Limit of readiLy avaiLable data transmitters.

                      The telephone Link was found to be unsatisfactory due

                to the possibiLity of Loss of such communications duri nq

                h urr i canes, and because      of probLems involved        in estab L i sh i ng

                a teLephone hook up i n the short t i me span avai Lab Le when

                attempt i ng to rap i d Ly facilitate depLoyment and operat i on.

                      Therefore, all equ i pment consi dered i nvo Lved the use           of

                Geostat ionary Operat i onal Env i ronmenta L Satellites (GOES).

                There is a w ide range of equ i pment avaiLable for GOES

                commun i cat i on L inkage, wi th estab L i shed procedures for the use

                of the satellites and/or the use of "down Linkage" through the

                Wallops Is Land , V i rg in i a and Su i t Land, Mary Land fac i L i t i es.

                The use of GOES may be arranged, by formal appli cation to the

                Nat i onal Env i ronmentaL Sate L L i te Serv i ce.   "Current LY, there

                are two GOES satellites plus a spare in orbit at an aLti tude

                o f a p prox imat e 1y 23, 000 m i 1es Th e t wo P r ima ry s a t elli t es

                P r ov i d e d a t a -collection capability for essentially all of the

                Wes t er n Hemispher, e x c L ud i ng t h e poLa regions P L a t f orms

                i n Nort h , Centr aL , a nd So ut h Amer ic as; New Zeala nd , Aust r a 1 i a

                a nd p a r ts of Africa; a nd s ubs t a n t i a 1 a r ea of t h e Atlant i c

                                                        19

                       and Paci f ic Oceans can re Lay data through one of the two GOES

                       satellites ... Presently, there isno charge to the user for

                       the reLay of da ta and i ts d i ssem i na t i on from Su it Land , Mary-

                       L and.        US er s a r e r esp o ns i b Le for all data- collection hardware,

                       COMMUn IC at i on hardware, and L i ne c osts requ i red to retr i eve

                       data from th i s governmentaLLy controL Led point." (Synergetics,

                       1982)

                                 To use such a system wouLd requ ire a data coL Lect i on

                       pL atf o r m ( D C P ) a t the r e mote s i teplus a c omuter terminal

                       a t t h e T a L L a h a s s e e rec e i v i ng  e n d.   T h e Dc P c o lle c ts a n d

                       t r a n sm its  d a t a f r om v a r i o u s s e n ors.

                                 I n f ormation was collected from three manufacturers of

                       su i tabl e DCPs f or GOES commun i c a t i on   DCP pr ices  may vary

                       cons i derab Ly depend i ng on the var i ous opt i ons se Lected.

                       However , for est i mat i on purposes, typ i ca L pr i ces are g i ven

                       in TabLe 2,

                                             Tab Le 2. Avai Lab Le Data Col Lect ion
                                             P L a t f o r ms (D C Fs) for GOEs C omm u n i c a t io n.

                                                                                                           Approx.
                                                        D esc r i p t ion                                   Cost

                                             Harder                                                        $5,100

                                             Suitron                                                      $5,500

                                             Synerget ics Internat i onal                             $4,000

                                 I n a d di t ion t o a p u rc h aS e of a D C P, c o nS i d eration may

                       be gi ven to the possi b ility of the use of one c ur rent Ly owned

                       by t he f ederal government f or f i e 1 d eval ua t i on of the p roposed

                       monitoring system.  For exampLe, NOAA currentLy has three Dcpss

                                                   20

               not i n use a nd h as, unof f ic i ally, expressed a w i L L i ngness to

               lo an s uCh equipment.

              Sensing Equipment

                     The mon i tor i ng of at Least four parameters are addressed

               in this project.     These inc Lude water stage, wind d irection and

               speed, and wave height and period.

               Water LeveL Sensors

                     Three types of water stage sensors are avaiLabLe with

               the accuracy and resolution   desired for the project.     Th ey

               a r e: 1.   analog-to-digital float t y p e ga u g e s , 2. acoust i ca L

               wa t er le v el m e asu r i n g d e vi c es, and  3. p r ess u re-type

               s e n s or.  Because of the Possib i L i ty of inaccurac i es

               due to extremes in atmospheric pressure and water character-

               istics associated with hurricanes, pressure sensor gauges are

               not considered for this project.

                     Both the float and acoustic types require the instalLation

                of a  St illi n  Well  to dampen short per i od wave act i on This is

               somewhat of a conStaint due to the problems invoLved in in-

                st a lL i ng a weLL that will withstand hurricane force wave

               a c t ion. The acoust i c  type, however, reqUires onLy a 1/2--inch

               d i ameter we L L and no f Loat,  and i s therefore Less of a prob Lem.

                     Wa ter l evel recor ders and  costs  f or consi der a t i on are

               gi v e n in T a b l e 3.

                                                   21

              Table 3.  Available Water Level Sensors and Costs.
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              										Approx.
                             Description                                                 Cost
              -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Acoustic Type:  Aquatrak (Sutron Model 1000).................             $1,600

              Float Type: LeupoLd & Stevens  (Model 7001
                     with adapter to electronic output).............                     $2,600

              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    It is noted that the Department of Natural Resources

               already has a considerable number of float type gauges in its

               inventory which may be available for such a project.  For

               use of those gauges, only an adapter  (costing approximately

               $600) would be required.

                Wave Sensors

                    Three basic wave sensors for measuring wave height and

              period are avialable for consideration:  1.  the tethered bouy,

              2.  the subsurface pressure sensor, and 3. the so-called

              "wave staff" gauge.  There are certain advantages and disadvan-

              tages of each.

                    The buoy type is accurate because it measures at the

              water surface.  However, it generally requires an extra radio

              transmission system to send data from the buoy.  There is

              also some question as to the ability of a buoy to withstand

              the full impact of a hurricane.

                    The subsurface pressure sensor is installed on the ocean

                bottom away from the surf and wind, and is easily adapted to

                allow a cable to transmit the data to DCP.  However,

                pressure-sensitive devices of this type cannot measure short

                period waves.  They are sensitive to water depth changes which

                                              22

                  must be compensated, and any subsurface currents which cannot

                  be compensated.  Analysis of the pressure data can also require

                  considerable processor resources.

                          The wave staff is a cable, installed vertically on a pier

                  or piling, which detects changes in water heiqht due to changes

                  in the resistance of the staff. This sensor would be the easiest

                  to install for the present application.

                          Units for consideration are listed in Table 4.

                 Table 4.  Available Wave Sensors and Costs.
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Approx.
                                     Description                                     Cost
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Buoy type:

                             Endeco  -  Type 956    . . . . . . . .                   $22,500

                             NBA - Wave Crest       . . . . . . . .                    $8,500

                    Subsurface Pressure Type:

                             Endeco - Type 1002    . . . . . . . .                    $10,500

                             Sea Data - 635-11     . . . . . . . .                    $10,000

                             Grundy - Model 4600
                             with signal processor    . . . . . . . . . . .           $8,500

                             Wave Staff Type:

                             Grundy - Model 9611      . . . . . . . . . . .           $8,500
                            ---------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   23

                 Wind Sensors

                        A number of sensors are available for monitoring wind

                 direction and speed.  However, with one exception the

                 investigated wind sensors are limited to wind speeds of less than

                 approximately 50 meters per second (i.e., 97 knots or 112 mph).

                 The exception uses a static tube device instead of the

                 traditional cup type anemometer and can withstand speeds in

                 excess of 103 meters per second (i.e., 200 knots or 230 mph).

                        Possible sensors for consideration are listed in Table 5.

                    Table 5.  Available  Wind Speed Sensors and Costs.
                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                Approx.
                                           Description                                           Cost

                    Cup Type Anemometer:

                              Aanaderra Instruments - Models 2740/2750 . . . . . . .            $1,200

                              Grundy - Models WD717/WS717 . . . . . . . . . . . . .               $900

                              Bendix - Aerovane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             $2,000

                  Static Tube Type:

                     Rosemont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             $5,000
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    		Onsite Recording

    			There is envisioned the possibility of telecommunications

                failure between the field sensing stations and the remote

                monitoring station.  There is, therefore, a need to be able to

                record data from each sensor, either simulataneously or

                sequentially.  Based on a preliminary investigation (Table 6)

                such capability would involve about a $2,000 equipment outlay.

                Using a 3600-foot 4-track tape at a recording speed of 15/32

                                              24

              inches per second would provide 102.4 hours of continuous

              recording, or 256.6 hours of continuous 4-head recording.

                   Recording capability will require an additional power

              supply, assuming that public utilities service may not be

              assured.  Stand-alone generator costs are also approximated

              in Table 6.

              Table 6.  Representative Cost for Onsite Recording.
            ----------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Approx.
                          Description                          Cost
            -----------------------------------------------------------
              Tandberg TD2OA-L Logging Recorder
               (4-track, 10.5" reel, 15/16" or 15/32" ips . . . $1,995

              Onan K450 (450 watts, electronic starter)
              Gas Generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   $340
           --------------------------------------------------------------

              Receiving Equipment

              		Requirements of equipment to receive the monitoring data

              are nominal.  They can include a micro--computer equipped with

              terminal emulation software, a telephone modem, some type

              of output device such as a printer (with plotting capability),

              and a disk drive or tape drive.  With the current proliferation

              of small computers, the selection of equipment meeting these

              requirements is, for practical purposes, almost limitless.

                     Typical equipment available include the following

              (Table 7):

    							25

                            Tab1e  7.  Typical Terminal Stations and Costs.

                                                                                     Approx.
                                              Description                             Cost

                            Texas Instrument Silent 700 .............................$4.000

                            Hewlett Packard 85 ......................................$4,000

                            IBM 3279 Graphics Terminal ..............................$3,700

                               It is noted that the Department of Natural Resources

                          currently has a number of terminals suitable for use for this

                          project.

                        Video Monitoring

                            Recent advances in video camera technology have led to

                        discussion and consideration of installing on-site video

                        capability.  A desirable configuration would be for remotely

                        controlled scanning of a 18O-degree arc. Representative

                        costs for video capability are listed in Table 9.

                          Tab1e 9 .  Representative Video Equipment Costs.

                                                                           Approx.
                                           Description*                     Cost

                          Color and/or B/W Video Camera (WV-3400)........   $670

                          AC, Adapter (WV-3203)..........................    $44

                          Auto  Scanner, 20 - 325  (WV-7203B)............   $161

                          Mounting Bracket (WV-7030) ....................    $48

                          Remote Controlling Unit (WV-7320) .............   $118

                          1/2" Time Lapse Recorder ...................... $2,432

                          Time-Date Generator ...........................   $283

                          TOTAL APPROXIMATE COST                         $3,756

                            *All items are from Panasonic

                                                    26

         The usefulness of video monitoring and real-time

    recording at the coastal site will be for obtaining data on

    wave activity (i.e., breaker episodes, wave period and

    shore-breaker heights) using existing methodology (e.g., Berg

    and Hawley, 1972) and determinaion of erosin rates

    (e.g., dune/bluff erosion, scour) and sediment transport

    behavoir (e.g., overwash processes).

        The camera will need to be enclosed within the water-tight

    remote sensing package in a manner which reduces any back-

    ground relflection, but which allows for scanning capability

    up- and down-coast.

        The capability to transmit images back to the monitoring

    site (i.e., state EOC) in real-time has been investigated,

    since such capability would have great value in the emergency

    management decision-making process.  However, given the large

    amounts of information that needs to be transmitted, problems

    arise.  The option of slow scan video teleconferencing is

    available (i.e., transmission and receipt of images once

    every 8 to 256 seconds, depending on transmission band

    width).  About this Southworth (1978) states:

            Unfortunately, user experience, to date, is
            largely limited to a relattively small group
    	  which includes IBM, Satellite Business Systems,
    	  Telecommunications, and a number of other
      	  government agencies.  The transmission economies
     	  of still frame television make usage likely to
    	  expand rapidly in the near future, particularly
     	  as more high quality audio channels become
    	  available through satellite transmission.

    While the state-of-the-art knowledge has increased since

                                                                            27

    1978 (e.g., as evidenced by the recent affordable

    availability of television satellite communications),

    experienced expertise related to the realization of such

    capability for the proposed system is apparently confined to

    a small group of technicians.  From recent discussion with

    state officials (e.g., Messrs. Tom Brooks and Charles

    Townsend of the Division of Communications, Florida

    Department of General Services) who outlined the variety of

    transmitting options and technical requirements for each, it

    quickly became apparent that, given the present state-of-the-

    art, to specify a given configuration was beyond the scope of

    this study.  Even so, it is recommended that the consideration

    and investigation of the video image transmission not be

    eliminated during the design phase of an implemented project.

    Unfortunately, for purposes of this report it is not

    at this time possible to propose a general configuration and

    cost outlay.  However, onsite video monitoring remains as a

    viable, recommended capability.

    Recommended Equipment
        Based on the preliminary analysis allowed under the scope

    of this study, a recommended equipment combination is given in

    Table 8.  It is noted that the selection of recommended

    equipment is somewhat subjective with the variety of

    combinations of equipment available.

        Such equipment would use a GOES satellite and the National

    Environmental Satellite Service (NESS) down-link facilities.

    Data would be transmitted from the NESS Suitland, Maryland.

                                         28

    facility to Tallahassee by dial-up telephone line link.  The

    anticipated configuration is illustrated on Figure 8.

         The total hardware cost for such a system, including

    waterproof packaging, masts, connecting cables (and allowing)

    a percentage for unforseen connections and interface costs),

    would range between $40,000 ad $45,000.

    Table 8.  Approximate Cost for a Single Remote Sensing Unit.

                                                              Approx.
                  Description                                   Cost
    DATA SENSORS

       Water Level - Aquatrak Acoustic gauge..................$1,600

       Wave Height - Grundy Model 9611 wave staff.............$8,500

       Wind - Rosemont........................................$5,000

    DATA COLLECTION PLATFORM

         Synergetics International............................$4,000

    ONSITE RECORDING..........................................$2,000

    VIDEO MONITORING..........................................$3,756

    POWER SUPPLY..............................................  $340

    Approximate Total Cost...................................$25,196

    *Receiving equipment not included....see discussion in the
     section on "plan of Operation".

    Equipment Integration

          At the time of implementation of this study, there was

    an identified need to specify how receiving equipment and

    computer hardware were to be interfaced.  In the interim

    period, however, advancements have reaced proportions

                               29

                                                                                  GOES -   Geostationary Orbiting
                                                                                           Environmental Satellite

                                                                                                                  National
                                                                                                               Environmental
                                                                                                                  Satellite
                                                  Video          Wind                                             Service
                                                                 Sensor                                           (NESS)
                                              TI                                                                  Virginia
                              Data             Recorder                                                           Maryland
                           Collection
                             Plattorm
                                          Recorder       Water Level
                                                            Sensor                               Florida
                             Mobil* Remote Coastal                                             Emergency            Maintrame
                             Sensing Unit                                                      Operations           Processor
                                                                                                 Center

                                                                                               Terminal(s)

                                                                                                         Tallahassee

                         Figure 8. Proposed remote sensing unit configuration.

               (e.g., note the current status of the personal computer
     industry) such that there would be little accomoplished in
     such a search.  Principally, with the prolific vendor-sources
     of hardware, firmware and software that have been developed
     in the past 24 months and attendant advancements, virtually
    any component regardless of the manufacturer can now be
     interfaced in some way.  Further, from reports on new
    advancements in the making (e.g., IBM "mega-chip"research
    and development) there may be available, by the time the
    recommendations of this study are implemented, new
    technology significantly modifying any configuration that
    might currently be considered.

    SOFTWARE NEEDS

    Software needs for the proposed system may be
    categorically approached as:
    1.  data retrieval
    2.  data reduction,
    3.  coastal processes simulation, and
    4. records listing and graphical display.

    DATA RETRIEVAL

    Software needed for the retieval of data from the
    remote data collection sites is standard "off-the shelf"
    communications programming available at minimal cost.  This
    software facilitates down-loading of data transmitted through
    the National environmental Satellite Service (NESS0 Center
    to the Florida terminal location.  It may also be used to
    assimilate data from the University of Florida's wave gauging

                                31

    program.

    Data Reduction

    Retrieved raw wind, tide and wave data mayall, to some
    extent, require reduction and additional treatment.  For
    example, for wave data such methodology is standarized
    (e.g., Harris, 1972, 1974; Thompson, 1977, 1980; Howell, 1980;
    Wang, 1982) with software available from public domain sources
    (e.g., the U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, and
    the University of Florida). Reduction methods for tide data
    are available form a variety of sources (Cole, 1983).

    Coastal Processes Simulation
    It is suggested here that, eventually, it would be
    desirable to be able to predict, for a real event, probable
    storm surge, wind and wave impacts and coastal erosion well in
    advance of actual landfall of the hurricane.  Such an approach
    would require numerical computer modeling techniques, and
    would serve toward calibrating numerical modeling approaches
    that when perfected would provide a valuable decision making
    tool.  Input information for numerical computer simulation are
    characteristics of the event form through-flight and
    satellite monitoring by the National Hurricane Center and
    data collected from NWS tide gauges, CDN offshore wave gauges
    and the remote coastal sensing packages of this study.
    Prediction of the behavior of the coast due to
    storm/hurricane impact will require specialized software.
    A major, necessary parameter is the storm surge.  Storm

    				32

    surge numerical computer modeling (Dean and Chiu, 1981a, 1981b,
    1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1984) no woperating on DNRs NRMSS IBM 4341,
    requires considerable time and resources. Discussions have
    been held with Dr. R.G. Dean (author of the software) in which
    he has given assurances that it would b possible to modify the
    existing one-dimensional model (i.e., the simplest model) to
    produce more timely results. A major difficulty in using the
    model is the accession of bathymetric and topographic data.
    While the data exists on the NRMSS computer system (Beaches
    and Shores Data Bank), the files need to be reformatted to
    accomodate accessibility. Then efficient search software could
    be developed to rapidly obtain the needed bathymetric and
    topographic information for the predicted path of the storm
    event.
    	Response of the coast to storm-generated wind, wave and
    surge forces may be predicted using several methods
    (e.g., Dean, 1983; Kriebel, 1982, 1984; Balsillie, 1984).
    Responses include erosion (i.e., horizontal and vertical
    recession of the coastal topography) and potential wave
    impacts. Results of one of these methods are illustrated in
    Figure 9 (see Figure 9c for explanation of the symbols).
    Such software could be easilty incorporated.

    Records Listing and Graphical Display

    	Software requirements for display results are minimal.
    As for data retrieval, software for theis functin is
    available "off-the-shelf" or may bne written by a programmer
    experienced in plotting (e.g., Figure 9) routines. An
    additional example of the type of computer generated plots
    			33

                                    so                        J. H. SALSILLIE.-- MULTIPLE 5HORE-BREAKING WAVE TRANSFORMATION MODEL

                                                                                                                                                          0 NQ
                                    40                                                                                                         Profile DalomfnO@2 091. 1198!2

                                   Z30
                                   4-3
                                   L6

                                    20
                                                                                                                                                          -------------   ...

                                   Uj                                                                                       ......... .............................

                                         -------------- ------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------       ........................ 5-5-
                                    10                                                              .1

                                                                                                       - - - - - - - - - -

                                     -6DO                           -Soo                            400                           -300                            200                          _100
                                                                                         01stancg from tno            Sinorolina in FgQ-t

                                    40     2,12 PA. Ju        J. H. BALSILLIE                MULTIPLE SHORE-BREAKING WAVE TP.ANSFORMATION MODEL                                              JH8
                                                                                                                                                            t@@ . Mfn
                                    10                                                                                                      -Prcf I I q# Data         02 DEC' 11982

                                                                                                                                                                    - ----------

                                                                                                                                                                       ...............
                                                                                                                                               ----------- ----------
                                                                    ..........                                --------------------------
                                        ---------------------------- ---------     ------

                                                   .... .........

                                   C                            -------------------- ------------- -- --------   -----------------------------------------------    ---------          ----------
                                                                                                                                                                                    Wi-
                                        ----------------------

                                    10

                                   _10
                                       IDO                                                          100                           20D                            200                            400
                                                                                         Distance from the ShorQ1InQ In Feet

                                   Figure 9a. Example of predicted erosion and                                            wave impacts due to hurricane impact
                                   for a flooded profile in Charlotte County, FL from the MSBWT Computer Model
                                   (from Balsillie, 1984). Symbols are explained in Figure 9c.

                                      40                        J. H. BALSILLIE               MULTIPLE SHORE-SPEAKING WAVE TRANSFORMA7ION MODEL
                                             3@20 p.q. Jun 13 L984

                                                                                                                                                          GNP M0.1 i-il'
                                      20                                                                                                       Profile DA_                        1973

                                                                                                                                                                                 4  ----- ------

                                           ------------- ------- ------                                                                                          ------------    - ----------
                                      10
                                                                                             -----  1-1-00 --- %_ '.@ ---------------- ------------- ---------

                                         0

                                          Soo                        -400                            300                          -2DO
                                                                                          Distance from the Shoreline In Feet

                                      30                        J. H. aAL51LLIE               MULTI LE SHORE-BREAKING WAVE TRAN5FORMATION MODEL
                                             3,.21 PA. Jun 13 L984                                                                                                                              a

                                                                                                                                                     -'_'%V!Mcn P-41               --------
                                                                                                                                    ----------- Oro f
                                                                                        - -----------
                                           -------------  ------------- ----------                                                    ................................ ... .......... ...............
                                                  .. .... ..... ...... . ...... ......
                                           -------------- ----------------------------  ------------- ----------------------------    --------------------------------------  silwL    -------

                                      10

                                                                                                                                                                   - - --- - - - - --- - - - - -

                                      -20
                                          0                           100                            2DO                           200                           400

                                                                                          Distance from the Shoreline In Feet

                                  Figure 9b. Example of predicted erosion and wave impacts due to hurricane impact
                                  for a non-flooded profile in Walton                                    County, FL from the MSBWT Computer Model
                                  (from Balsillie, 1984). Symbols are explained in Figure 9c.

                                                                         Crest elevation of the maximum
                                                                         shore-breaking wave.

                                                                         Crest elevation of the significant
                                                                         shore-breaking wave (i.e., average
                                                                         of the highest 1/3 shore-breakers).

                                                                         Crest elevation of the average of
                         ------------- SS-SWL-----------               all shore-breaking waves.
                                                                         Crest elevation of the wave
                                                                         reformed from a previous
                                                                         shore-breaking episode (from the
                                                                         average shore-breaker height).

                                                                         Storm surge stiLL water LeveL.

                                                                         OriginaL topography and/or bathymetry.

                                                                         Erosion profiLe (includes effects Of
                                                                         both horizontaL and verticaL
                                                                         recession).

                          100                            200.

                         Figure 9C. Explanation of symbols used in Figures 9a and 9b.

    additional example of the type of computer generated plots detailing the storm-generated forces, is illistrated in Figure 10.
    PLAN OF OPERATION

    The proposed plan of operation involves real-time field monitoring from three sources: 1. the proposed portable remote monitoring
    system of this work, 2. tide gauges of the National Ocean Service, and 3. wave gauges of the University of Florida, which woucld
    provide information on the forces and responces of a hurricane at costal impact.A fourth source.... the National Hurricane Center
     .... provides information about the character of the storm(e.g., central pressure, pressure defict, size, direction of travel,
    foward speed). Although this later information is important as input for eventual numerical computer simulation of impending
    coastal impact of a hurricane, it is extraneous to the monitoring goals of this study.The intent of the mobile remote coastal
    sensing packages is to faciliate installation. The packages are to be mounted on trailers in sealed, weather-proof containers.
    Once the "probable" landfall coordinates are evident .... i.e., 12 to 24 hours in advance to landfall... the packages can be
    towed to the coast(i.e, to sites with piers so that the water level and wave sensor probes can be installed), securing using
    screw-anchors, activated, and abandoned until the event passes.A special feature to such an approach is that with 5 sensing packages,
    a significant length of coastline

                                                           37

                                                                          25
                                     WASTAL 7OPOGRAPHI                                        STOR-1 SURGE HISTORY

                 ')O

                                                                          15
                                                                                                  -Dune Cret

              0
                                                                                                                        Id
                                                                          1 %ID                                 Me os u re
                                                                                                                  FIr ed j d ted

                            MO      -400.
                           -;;Ij              300     -200     -100         O                               10
                                                                          0 0          to        20                               50

                                      Distance (feet)
                                                                                                 Time (hours)

              Figure 10. Computer generated plot for an:idea.lized storm surge history for a specific DNR       coastal profile,
              illustrating how force information can be plotted.

    can be instrumented, thereby increasing assurance that most of the packages will be within the hurricane wind field.The Division
    of Beaches and Shores, Bureau of Caostal Data Acquisition has an experienced field staff involved in Littoral data collection
    (Sensabaugh, balsillie and Bean, 1977) who haved also been involved in pre- and post-storm data collection.Hence, the experienced
    staff is available for installing the proposed packages.Monitoring (i.e., computer terminals) and display (i.e., printer-plotter
    capability) equiptment for the intergration, receipt and processing at an island site (e.g., the Division of Emergency Management's
    EOC, or the Division of Beaches and Shores Analysis/Reaserch Section)of the remotely collected coastal impact data, has been
    included in the cost study for the remote sensing field packages. This omission is not an oversight, because: 1. compatible equipment
    already exist within the state government, although logistics associated with relocation and installation at a central site would
    require attention, or 2. if additional equiptment were obtained to be used for the hurricane monitoring, it would not be cost-
    effective for the eqiptment to sit idle for emergency conditions but would require additional justification based on current
    or needed programmatic responsibilties. The above configuration wouuld require mainframe support resources of a larger computer
    system. Because of the requirements for management of geographic data bases, simulation software, large storage capacity,
    telecommunications needs, and the

                                                             39

    obvious desirability of a Tallahassee location, two systems may at this ime  be considered for use.The first is located at the
    Florida Department of Natural Resources Natural Resources Management Systems and Services Data Center. The center operates an IBM
    4341 Model Group II processor with 8 megabyts of real  and 8 megabyts of virtual memory. Avdantages to this processor source
    is that it now drives storm surge and costal processes software in support of responsibilities of the Division of Beaches and Shores,
    and has an arry of computer hardware (e.g., terminals, printer-plotter,electrostatic plotter, digitizer)and support firmware and
    software. If the central monitoring site were to be located other than in the Doughlas Building, then in addition to the terminal
    hardware (see Table 7), printer-plotter and communications and control devices for there latter items are given in Table 9.
    Table 9. Additional Communications and Printer-Plotter Equiptment Costs.Description Approx. Cost IBM 3274 Controller (16-ports)
    $5,000 Modem   $1,450 IBM 3284 Printer-Plotter $6,350 The second system is located on the Florida State University campus at the
    Florida Recources and Environmental Analysis Center (FREAC). FREAC is currently in the process of

                                                           40

    developing a Land Boundary Information System (LABINS) which would provide a compatable environment for storage and processing
    of monitored hurricane information.An advantage to this processor source may be the avalibility of larger computer processing
    resources and telecommunications capability.The command center would receive data for the portable monitoring system  by
    telephone line with National Environmental Satellite Service computer which in turn receives data via satellite relay. Data
    from the University of Florida's wave gauge program would be linked by telephone line access wave data.Data from the NDS tide stations
    would be obtained by calling the National Weather Service office near each gauge. They could provide data by scaling hourly
    values from remote recorders in their offices.The operational aspects of the effort are conceptually illustrated in Figure 11.
    Figure 11 that telephone line communcation to obtain wave and tide from NOS and CDN programs is vulnerable to disrupt or loss due
    to storm conditions. A strong point in favor of the costal remote sensing packages is telecomminucations capability with onsite
    recording as a back-up. The teleohone line link  between NESS (maryland/Virgina)would be fairly secure since most hurricanes
    will strike Florida south of Tallahassee (an alternative arrangement may be possible), as would any required dedicated line in Talallahasse
    to a local maineframe computer processor.

                                                          41

                                                                GOES
                                                           Goostationary
                                                              Orbiting
                                                           Environmenta I
                                                              Satellite

                   National
                Environmental
                   Satellite                                                                    Coastal
                   Service                                      Florida                Remote Sensing Packages
                                                             Emergency
                                                             Operations -.%--______@Mainframej
                                                              Center                  -LProcessor
                                                                  V

                                     National                  National               Coasta I &
                                     Weather                 Hurricane              Oceanographic
                                     Service                  Center                Engineering
                                                            Coral Gables            Laboratory
                                                                                    Gainesvillel

                               TME                                                  WAVE
                                  GAUGES                                               GAUGES

                                                                              N,

                                                                  CHAMACTERISTICS

                   Figure 11. Conceptual illustration of data retrieval (solid lines indicate
                   telec ommunications, dashed lines dedicated telephone communications3
                                        F
                                                                     enla I

                                                                      a

                            @TME
                                  GAUGES

                   dash@dot-dash lines unknown but existing communications).

    FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

    	The systematic approach incestigated in this work will
    involve the expenditure of about $250,000 for the
    communications, computer needs and construction of 5 mobile
    sensor packages. Such a sum isnot inconsequential, and
    there is a need to "put into perspective" the anticipated
    capital outlay.
    	Of Florida's approximately 1,200 miles of tidal
    shoreline, about 660 miles are actual moderate to high energy
    beaches of which about 275 miles are designated recreational
    beaches (Fernald, 1981). Studies conducted by Curtis, Shows
    and Spence (1980) and Curtis and Shows (1982) indicate that
    use of designated recreational beaches currently earns the
    State of Florida about $1,250,000 anually per mile of
    shoreline. This usage includes beach user and camping fees,
    concession earnings, road and bridge tolls, etc. At Ft.
    Desota National Memorial in Pinellas County, Curtis, Shows
    and Spence (1980) found that beach usage costs an average of
    $6.50 per day per user (includes in-state and out-of-state
    users). Park-type beach is therefore, very inexpensive.
    Commercially developed coasts (e.g., with hotels, restaurants,
    etc.) realize much higher earnings. For example, in a study of
    the Delray Beach nourishment project, Curtis and Shows (1982)
    found an average expenditure of $43.90 per day per visitor,
    for out-of-state tourists only. This suggests beach-related
    earnings of $8,470,000 annually per mile of shoreline. This
    figure does not include benefits due to existence and
    maintenance of a beach affording storm protection. In view

    				43

    of these estimates, the cost of the proposed system would be
    only from 3% to 20% ( a weighted average of 5%) of the annual
    earnings from a single mile of Florida beach!
    	If one compares the cost of the proposed system to the
    average dollar damage for a hurricane (see Table 1, noting
    that the damages are not in constant dollars), the cost of
    the approach is only 0.6% of an expected, average dolar
    loss.
    	In fact, it is the belief of the authors that with the
    current technological state-of-the-art and the economics
    associated with hurricane and storm damage, such a
    systematic approach is inevitable. The queston that
    remains is when? At the very least, the concept addressed
    in this work has "come-of-age".

    RECOMMENDATIONS

    	Based on the results of this study, it is recommended
    that a technical task force be estavlished to deliberate on
    various identified issues. The task force should be composed
    of individuals with demonstrated technical experience in coastal
    data collection and processin, storm surge and coastal
    processes and simulation, storm-hurricane mechanics, electronics
    and communications engineering, or hazards management. The
    issues are:
    	1. Design of the mobile(i.e., trailorable) remote
    	   coastal monitoring package include:
    	   a. consideration and identification of existing
    		(e.g., piers, groins) or natural features

    				44

    		(e.g., rock outcrops) for installation of wave
    		and water level sensors.
    	   b. package design such that it may be used for
    		"normal" littoral survey work (e.g., as
    		established in Florida and described by
    		Sensabaugh, Balsillie and Bean, 1977), which
    		will serve to maximize service and increase
    		economic justification of the approach.

    	2. Develop the capability for assured, real-time
    	   obtention of data from existing monitoring programs.
    	   This includes data sources from the wave gauge
    	   program at the University of Florida, National
    	   Weather Service tide gauging stations, and storm/
    	   hurricane characteristics from the National Hurricane
    	   Center. The major issues here are the decelopment of
    	   secure data transmission capability and, where
    	   possible, timely pre-processing of data (e.f., spectral
    	   analysis of wave gauge data ... e.f., Thompson 1980)
    	   to increase efficiency of transmission, rather than to
    	   transmit raw of parly analyzed data.

    	3. Implement the plan of operation regarding the
    	   centralized monitoring center in Tallahassee,
    	   including equipment needs, justification and request to
    	   the Information Resource Commision, and/of
    	   identification of existing equipment and time-ralated
    	   logistics for equipment transfer and installation.

    	4. Development of real-time storm surge prediction

    					45

    	   capability. This includes modification of existing
    	   software for timely surge prediction, identification
    	   of topographic/bathymetric base data requirements and
    	   development of management software, specification of
    	   systems resource requirements, and hardware for
    	   realization of results.

    	5. Actively incestigate existing equipment sources. It
    	   would seem entirely possible that federal defense
    	   agencies have equipment (retired of active) which
    	   might be procured for constructing the remote
    	   packages; trailers and sealed containers come to mind
    	   as an example, which would require only modification.
    	   This approach would greatly defray costs.

    	An initial role of the task force may be to review these
    issues, identify any others which may have bearing on the
    proposed concept, and prepare a resolution as to realization of
    the goals. For instance, final issues may be assigned to
    particular state government agencies as tasks, others may be
    treated as items requiring research proposals. The task force
    would then serve as a review and coordinating body.

    SPECIAL NOTE:  This report provides trade names of various
    commercial products in order to determine expected costs.
    Any name, however, is listed as a benchmark only with the
    caveate assumption that such commercial products are
    competitively priced. Therefore, the citation of trade
    names in this document does not constitute an official

    				46

                        Florida Department of Natural Resources endorsement or

                        approval of the use of such commercial products.

                        ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

                                  During early to mid-developmental phases of this project,

                        many individuals were instrumental in providing knowledgable

                        influence, direction and support of its goals.  Acknowledgment

                        of the contributions of all individuals involved would require

                        far more Space than can be allotted here. Among the more

                        notable contributors are Dennis W. Berg, Chief of the Division

                        of Technical Information, Coastal. Engineering Research Center;

                        Richard Hess and Rear Admiral Wesley V. Hull, National Oceanic

                        and Atmospheric Administration; Robert S Wilkerson, Director

                        of the Division of Public Safety and Planning, Florida

                        Department of Community Affairs (currently Chief of the

                        Technological  Hazards Division ,State and Local Programs and

                        Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency); John D. Wilson,

                        Bureau of Disaster Preparedness,Florida Department of

                        Community Affairs (currently Project Manager , Tri -State Study,

                        Federal Emergency Management Agency).

                                  More recent assistance related to specific issues were                                                   ere

                        provided by Robert G. Dean, Department of Coastal and

                        Oceanographic Engineering, University of Florida concerning

                        development of real-time storm surge modeling software;

                        Dale Friedley, Research Associate, Florida Resources

                        Environmental Analysis Center (FREAC),Florida State University

                        for discussions related to FREAC computer resources and

                        geographic data base management; James H. Harrell, Tallahassee

                                                                                        47
                                    47

                    Camera Center, Inc. , for his interest in the goals of this

                    project and assistance in identifying video and

                    telecommunications needs and requirements; Tom Brooks and

                    Charles Townsend, Division of Communications, Florida

                    Department of General Services for review of the work and

                    suggestions related to video teecommunications; and Daniel

                    Trescott, Division of Emergency Management, Florida Department

                    of Community Affairs for assistance in various technical

                    issues requiring clarification.

                    REFERENCES

                    Baker, E.J.,1980, Coping with hurricane evacuation
                            difficulties: National Conference on Hurricanes and
                            Coastal Storms, FLorida Sea Grant Report No.33,
                            p. 13-18.

                    Balsillie, J. H.,1978, Design hurricane generated winds:
                            Florida Department of Natural Resources, Beaches and
                            Shores Technical Report No. 78-1, 39 p.

                    Balsillie, J.H., 1984, A multiple shore-breaking wave
                            transformation computer model: Florida Department of
                            Natural Resources, Beaches and Shores Technical and
                            Design
                            Memorandum No.84-4, 81 p.

                    Berg, D.W., and Hawley, E.F.,1972, Time-interval
                            photography of littoral phenomena: Proceedings of the
                            13th Coastal Engineering Conference, chap. 39,
                            p. 725-745.

                    Bruun, P., Chiu, T. Y.,  Gerritsen, F., and Morgan, W. H., 1962,
                            Storm tides in Florida as related to coastal topography:
                            Coastal Engineering Laboratory, University of Florida,
                            Gainesville, FL, Bulletin Series No. 109, v. 16, no.1,
                            77 p.

                    Cole, G. M.,1983, Water Boundaries, Landmark Enterprises,
                            Rancho Cordova, California, 68 p.

                    Curtis, T. D., and Shows, E. W.,1982, Economic and social
                            benefits of artificial beach nourishment civil works at
                            Delray Beach: Department of Economics, University of
                            South Florida, Tampa, FL, STAR Grant No. 81-046, 93 p.

                                                                   48

                   Curtis, T. D., Shows, E. W., and Spence, J. G., 1980, The
                           economic importance of the beaches of Florida to the
                           state's economy: A case study of Ft. Desota Park:
                           Department of Economics, University of South Florida,
                           Tampa, FL, STAR Grant No. 78-4191. 55 p.

                                                     I
                   Dean, R.G., 1983, Shoreline erosion due to extreme storms and
                           sea LeveL rise: Department of Coastal and Oceanographic
                           Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL,
                           58 p.

                   Dean, R. G., and Chiu, T. Y., 1981 a , Hurricane tide frequency
                           analysis for Broward County, FLorida:  Department of
                           Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering, University of
                           Florida, Gainesville, FL.

                   Dean, R. G., and Chiu, T. Y., 198ib, Combined total storm tide
                           frequency analysis for Dade County, Florida: Beaches
                           and Shores Resource Center, Institute of Science and
                           Public Affairs, Florida State University,Tallahassee,
                           FL.

                   Dean, R. G., and Chiu, T. Y., 1982a, Combined total storm tide
                           frequency analysis for Walton County, Florida:   Beaches
                           and Shores Resource Center, Institute of Science and
                           Public Affairs, Florida State University, Tallahassee,
                           FL.

                   Dean, R. G., and Chiu, T. Y., 1982b, Combined total storm tide
                           frequency analysis for Nassau County, Florida: Beaches
                           and Shores Resource Center, Institute of Science and

                           Public Affairs, Florida State University, Tallahassee,
                           FL.

                   Dean, R. G., and Chiu, T. Y., 1983, Combined total storm tide
                           frequency analysis for Franklin County, Florida:  Beaches
                           and Shores Resource Center, Institute of Science and
                           Public Affairs, FLorida State University, Tallahassee,
                           FL.

                   Dean, R. G., and Chiu, T. Y.,1984, Combined total storm tide
                           frequency analysis for Charlotte County, FLorida:
                           Beaches and Shores Resource Center, Institute of Science
                           and Public Affairs, FLorida State University, Tallahassee,
                           FL.

                   Dolmatch, T. B., (ed.), 1979, Information Please Almanac,

                           Atlas and Yearbook, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1007 p.

                  Dunn, G. E.,  et al. 1967, Florida hurricanes:  U. S. Department
                           of Commerce, ESSA, Weather Bureau Technical Memorandum
                           SR-18, 28 p.

                                                                 49

    		Fernald, E. A., (ed.), 1981, Atlas of Florida, The Florida
    			State University Foundation, Inc., Tallahassee, FL, 276 p.

    		Florida Department of Natural Resources, 1980, Shoreline
    			emergency reaction function (SERF): Division of Beaches
    			and Shores.

    		Harris, D. L., 1972, Wave estimates for coastal regions:
    			Shelf Sediment Transport, Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross,
    			Stroudsburg, PA, p. 99-125.

    		Howell, G., 1980, Florida coastal data network:  Proceedings of
    			the 17th Coastal Engineering Conference, v. 1, chap. 26,
    			p. 421-431.

    		Kriebel, D. L., 1982, Dune and beach response to hurricanes:
    			M. S. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University
    			of Delaware.

    		Kriebel, D. L., 1984, Beach erosion model (EBEACH): Beaches
    			and Shores Resource Center, Institute of Science and
    			Public Affairs, Florida State University, Tallahassee,
    			FL, 2 vols.

    		Kriebel, D. L., and Dean, R. G., 1984a, Beach and dune erosion
    			by storms, part I: Methodology and idealized examples:
    			[submitted to Coastal Engineering].

    		Kriebel, D. L., and Dean, R. G., 1984b, Beach and dune erosion
    			by storms, part II: Evaluation and application to
    			long-term simulation: [submitted to Coastal Engineering].

    		Moseley, J. C., and Davenport, S. S., 1978, Hurricane-damage
    			reduction and coastal management: Coastal Zone '78,
    			ASCE, p. 1433-1451.

    		National Research Council, 1983, Evaluation of the FEMA
    			model for estimating potential coastal flooding from
    			hurricanes and its application to Lee County, Florida:
    			National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,
    			Committee on Coastal Flooding from Hurricanes, FEMA
    			Contract EMW-C-0664, 154 p.

    		Neumann, C. J., Cry, G. W., Caso, E. L., and Jarvinen, B. R.,
    			1978, Topical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean,
    			U. S. Department of Commerce, National Atlantic Ocean,
    			Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service,
    			Environmental Data Service, 170 p.

    		Rubin, C. B., 1979, Disaster mitigation: Challenge to
    			managers: Florida Municipal Record, Florida League of
    			Cities, p. 2-5.
    							50

    Schwerdt, R.W., Ho, F.P., and Watkins, R. R., 1979,
    	Meteorological criteria for standard project hurricane
    	and probable maximum hurrican wind fields, Gulf and
    	East coasts of the United States: U.S. Department of
    	Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
    	National Weather Service, NOAA Technical Report NWS 23, 317 p.

    Sensabaugh, W. M., Balsillie, J. H., and Bean, H. N., 1977,
    	A program of Coastal Data Acquisition: Coastal
    	Sediments '77, ASCE, p. 1073-1085.

    Southworth, G., 1978, Slow scan TV teleconferencing:
    	Technical Design of Audio Teleconferencing, University
    	of Wisconsin-Extension.

    Synergetics International Inc., 1982, Hydrological data
    	collection platform: information brochure on system
    	configuration and component description, 2 p.

    Thompson, E. F., 1977, Wave climate at selected location along
    	U. S. coasts: U. S. Army, Coastal Engineering Research
    	Center Technical Report No. 77-1, 364 p.

    Thompson, E. F., 1980, Interpretation of wave energy spectra:
    	U. S. Army, Coastal Engineering Research Center CETA
    	No. 80-5, 21 p.

    University of Florida, 1984, Florida coastal data network
    	monthly wave data report, February 1984: Department of
    	Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering, University of
    	Florida, Gainesville, FL, 22 p.

    U. S. Army, 1980, Evaluation of numerical storm surge models:
    	U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Committee on Tidal
    	Hydraulics, Technical Bulletin No. 21.

    U. S. Department of Commerce, 1977, Hurricanes, Florida and
    	you: U. S. Department of Commerce, National Weather
    	Service.

    U. S. Department of the Interior, 1979, Barrier island task
    	force report: Heritage Conservation and Recreation
    	Service, Washington, D. C.

    U. S. Water Resources Council, 1980, An assessment of storm
    	surge modeling: The Hydrology Committee, Storm Surge
    	Assessment Work Group, 38 p.

    Wang, H., 1982, Florida coastal data network: New Direction
    	for Beach Preservation in Florida, Florida Shore and
    	Beach Preservation Association, Inc., p 148-154.

    									51

                                                                            3 6668 14103 5479