Feasibility study of real-time remote monitoring of storm and hurricane conditions at coastal impact

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

FEASIBILITY STUDY OF REAL - TIME REMOTE MONITORING

STORM AND HURRICANE CONDITIONS AT COASTAL IMPACT

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

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

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).

-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

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

100 1

.70-

60-
CUMULATIVE
FREQUENCY so-

40-

30-

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

5 FLORIDA
POPULATION
1940 POPULATION 4
USA

3-
WORLD

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

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

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

C ca

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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):

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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
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 --- %_ '.@ ---------------- ------------- ---------

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 -------

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

-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

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

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

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.

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

CHAMACTERISTICS

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

@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

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

(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

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

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.

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.

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.

3 6668 14103 5479