[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER EROSION CONTROL/PERMIT MONITORING PROGRAM Beach Erosion Control Project Management System Beach Nourishment/Inlet Sand Bypass Project Monitoring System by Donald K. Stauble Department of Oceanography and Ocean Engineering Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, Florida 32901 John C. Sainsbury Department of Oceanography and Ocean Engineering Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, Florida 32901 and Jon M. Knght Management Department Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, Florida 32901 BEACHES AND SHORES REPORT CZM-84-1 Funded by A grant from the U. S. Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended) through Florida Office of Coastal Management Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and Florida Department of Natural Resources TC 224 .F6 S72 1984 FOREWORD This work presents a beach erosion control project management system and beach nourishment/inlet sand bypass project monitoring ystem. The work constitutes partial fulfillment of contractual obligations with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program S(Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended) through the Florida Office of Coastal Management subject to provisions of contract CM-37 entitled "Erosion Control/Permit Monitoring Program" (DNR contract no. 00035). The work is adopted as a Beaches and Shores Report CZM-84-1. At the time of submission for contractual compliance, Mark E. Leadon, P.E., was the Project Manager, and Administrator of the West Coast Section, James H. Balsillie was the Contract Manager, and Administrator of the Analysis/Research Section, Ralph R. Clark, P.E., P.L.S., was Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation, Deborah E. Flack was Director of the Division of Beaches and Shores, and Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner was Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources. Property of CSC Library DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLES TON, SC 29405-2413 C23 kL Q, QJ oc, 10 Introduction A. Purpose .......... B . Objectives .......... C . Tasks .......... 3 II. Fiscal Accountability and Quality Assurances ..... .. 3 Beach Erosion Control Project Management System A. Background ** ..... A B. Design Objectives ....... 5 C. Basic System Features ........ III. Performance Monitoring Beach Nourishment/Inlet Sand Bypass Project7MUTtolr9ng System A. Monitoring Inventory 6 B. Performance Monitoring Standards .... . 20 C. Basic System Features '10 IV. Summary 21 V. References ....... 22 APPENDIX A. DNR Beach Erosion Pro'ject Management System Record Layout B. Data Entry Procedures and Formats .26 C. Search and Retrieval Operations .34-- D. Formatted Reports 377 E. ONR Beach Nourishment/Inlet/Sand Bypass Project Monitoring System .... 4.1 General Information F. Borrow Area Monitoring Specifications .... 4 U6 G. Profile Specification .... 53 H. Sediment Analysis Specifications . ... 59 I. Littoral Environmental Monitoring Specifications .... 70 J. Review of Revision to Section 161.091 Florida Statistics .... 75 1. INTRODUCTION It has been reported that more than 25% of Florida's 782 miles of beach is in a critical state of erosion (Cambell, et. al. 1980). These beaches can not support the important tourist industry within the state, nor do they provide protection to valuable upland real estate and natural resources against tropical storms that have a high probability of occur- rence along the Florida coast. -With the world wide trend in apparent sea level rise combined with the increasing pressure to develop Florida's coast, the need to stabilize the beach against erosion will become more and more important. Among the many erosion control options available, beach nourishment and inlet sand bypassing has become increasingly popular over the past decade. Since 1975 there have been more erosion control projects in Florida than the rest of the coastal states combined, most utilizing some form of beach nourishment. This represents an investment of more than $100 million in federal, state and local funds (FSBPA 1981). Walton (1977) states that artificial nourishment has several advantages over "hard" engineering structures (Groins, Jetty, Breakwater, Revetment or Sea Wall). By artificially adding sediment to the coastal sand budget, beach nourishment projects are esthetically pleasing, help to naturally dissipate energy, do not create hazards to beach users and supply sediment to down'drift beaches. The source area for borrow material in Florida is usually sediments dredged from tidal inlets, offshore areas, or occasionally barrier island sands. The two most common placement techniques are hydraulic settling from dredge pipe and trucking from borrow stock pile. The Florida east coast has some 18 inlets which connect bays, lagoons, rivers and waterways with the Atlantic Ocean. There are many more inlets on the gulf coast shoreline. Tidal inlets which are stabilized with one.or two jetties can act as a barrier to the natural littoral drift by interrupting the drift of sand along the coast. Sand accumulates on the updrift side of these structures and results in increased erosion of the downdrift side beach. Sand bypass projects have been implemented to 1) maintain the navigational channel by periodic dredging of sediment washed into the inlet and 2) place the suitable dredged material on the eroding down drift shoreline. These projects have the same considerations as beach nourishment projects-, in that the suitability of the borrow material (i.e. navigation channel sediment) is an important factor in fill stability and that placement of this material as beach fill on adjacent downdrift beaches is for the purpose of renourishment and erosion control. In the past few years the high cost of project regulation and implementation, dwindling source of public funding and the effectiveness of present beach nourishment technology has lead to the need to develop guidelines addressing the fiscal accountability and performance monitoring of beach nourishment and sand bypass projects. Earlier work to produce guidelines for DNR was started in 1979 on erosion control and sand bypass projects (Sub Oceanic Consultants; 1979a, 1979b). Additional considerations on this topic are found in Stauble et. al. (1983). A. PURPOSE According to Chapter 161 of the Florida Statute, the Department of Natural Resources is responsible for beach and shore preservation. Chapter 161.091 establishes the erosion control fund account (ECA) where funds can be utilized to develop a comprehensive long-range, statewide plan for erosion control, beach preservation and hurricane protection. Emphases of this program has been on funding beach restoration and renourishment, inlet sand bypassing and transfer, borrow sources availability as well as dune construction and preservation. The usual beach nourishment or sand bypass project on public beaches includes a match with federal and local dollars. Since 1975 approximately $32 million has been spent by the state of Florida for such projects. With this large expenditure of money on project imple- mentation and construction, few of the projects have been adequately documented and monitored. Due to manpower and funding limitations there is, to date, no detailed comprehensive and systematic state program to insure fiscal accountability on performance monitoring of these state funded projects. Without this systematic collection of information on project performance and effectiveness, valuable data has been lost to the regulatory and engineering staff, on those projects that have not required monitoring. Of those projects that have included monitoring data, lack of standardization has limited the usefulness of data interpretation and applicability to new project design and possible environmental effects. B. OJECTIVES This study deals with investigations into beach restoration and renourishment and inlet sands bypass and transfer projects, since a large portion of the ECA funding goes toward these activities which includes inhouse technical and regulatory review. The objectives of this study are to: 1) Develop project management system to include systematic information reporting procedures for fiscal accountability and quality as'surance of project implementation and construction. This will facilitate timely and complete conveyance of necessary project information and allow completion of a complete data base on state funded projects. 2 2) Design performance monitoring standards for preconstruction, con- struction and post construction project phases. This requirement and standardization of monitoring data collection will improve permitting procedures and develop a data base of state funded project performances. C. TASKS The project was divided into two tasks concurrent with the study objectives. TASK 1: Fiscal Accountability and Quality Assurance ?-ro-b7-ems were identified in accounting procedures forpermitting and implementation of state funded projects. Once the problems were outlined, a project management system was developed to standardize record management and identify important fiscal information on each project. To insure quality of project construction and monitoring, information was identified on technical and administrative actions from preconstruction to project completion. Formats and time schedules were developed for interim and final report submission. With this management plan the state has a comprehensive package to track progress and readily identify problems in each project utilizing state funds. TASK 2: Performance Monitorin 9 Tn-Mistorical perspective, very few beach nourishment and sand bypass projects were available with monitoring data collected as part of the project design. Of the limited monitoring information, no standard- ization of format content or reporting period was evident. An inventory of these selected projects completed in the state since 1975, was compiled. Using this background, a set of project performance monitoring standards was developed. These standards address the complete project including preconstruction, construction and post construction time periods. Formats and time schedules were developed for interium and final report submission. Type of data collection and mode of analysis was identified under five general project catagories. By requiring this systematic monitoring program, the state will be able to assure project construction is in accordance with project design plans, assess post construction performance and develop a systematic data base. With this monitoring plan, regulatory and engineering staff will be.able to obtain an understanding of project design and long-term performance. II. fiscal Accountability and Quality Assurance To accomplish this portion of the study a beach erosion control project management system was developed. A key part of this system is the interactive computer data storage and retrieval program, which allows all aspects of projects to be identified, documented and controlled by DNR personnel. The details are described below: 3 Beach Erosion Control Project Management System A. Background The DNR Bureau of Beaches and Shores is the focal point for coordi- nation of an intergovernmental program to prevent or restore erosion damage to beaches in Florida. The primary DNR responsibility is the allocation and management of funds derived from state and federal sources to projects executed by various units of local government. The allocative role consists of several functions: (a) Evaluation of project requests from local government units to establish the relative value of each during a project period; (b) Requesting 'state participation in the most worthy projects via the'Department's budget request; (c) Programming available Federal resources to projects approved by the appropriations act and the cabinet. The management effort involves a number of tasks, including: a. Monitoring the local government procedures for expending authorized funds. b. Trackfng and inspecting progress on all projects funded; c. Authorizing disbursements to local government units to finance ongoing efforts; d. Certifying project completion; e. Auditing expenditures made by all parties involved in each project. f. Maintaining a physical inventory of the results of all efforts made under the beach erosion control program. Several factors make the job of fulfilling these responsibilities quite demanding. First, DNR must evaluate a large number of proposals for new projects in a given year to establish funding priorites. These selected proposals should integrate with past accomplishments and future plans to form a coherent, progressive erosion control program.. Also, in evaluating projects, trade-offs must be made between incommensurable factors to establish a defensible budget program, and the Department must maintain cognizance over each line item request so that DNR priorities are respected through the Legislative and Cabinet approval cycles. Finally, DNR must monitor the performance of units of local government (whose approaches to contract management are primarily characterized by their diversity) engaged in a variety of complex tasks. Oversight of activities that are so diverse in nature and broad in scope can be greatly facilitated by ready access to all information relevant to key management decision. In order to provide this access, the sequel proposed a design for a data base and data base maintenance system that will support the routine generation of reports crucial to the whole range DNR functions relating to effective implementation of beach erosion control measures. B. Design Objectives The project management system is designed to support the following ONR functions: (a) Systematic evaluation of project applications; (b) Guidance of designated project.applications through the appropriations/approval cycles; (c) Assurance of responsible expenditures of appropriated funds; (0) Maintenance of complete records of official.DNR oversight activities; (e) Development of special studies or reports on the status or achievements of the beach erosion control program. The overall design presumes that after initial development and installation, the system will be used and maintained by persons uninterested in computer software technology. C. Basic SystemFeatures The beach erosion control program project management system (PMS) is envisioned to consist of three main components: (1) a computerized data base, (2) a menu-driven data entry and retrieval system, (3) a set of reports configured to support key management decisions and functions. The data base for the PMS will be developed using the APL data interface available on the DNR IBM 4341. Within this system, definition of the data base requires specification of the record format, i.e., a specific statement as to the contents and character types for each information field that characterizes a project or project application. Initial efforts have defined a total of 157 fields of data that could usefully be associated with a specific project. Each record would contain a maximum of 1400 characters. The record format is laid out in Appendix A in order of the tab settings for data entry and update. Additional fields could be added if necessary to support important management activities. Each record in the data base - whether representing active projects, completed projects, or project proposals would.be keyed to a project number that should be assigned at the point of initi-a-1 entry of the record. The data entry and retrieval system will be menu-driven: i.e., at program initiation, the computer will display a set of user choices - which can be selected by filling in the appropriate entry on the screen. The choice taken will then call a screen of options that can be selected to accomplish the desired task. Appendix B sets forth the appropriate screens for data entry and update. Appendix C shows screen formats that could handle data search and retrieval operations. A number of management reports can be routinely extracted from the proposed data base. Appendix D briefly describes the contents of seven that seem most useful in meeting the design objectives set forth in section IIB. The reports desired could be selected from a sequence of menus that first list the reports and then allow selection of report specific options. Actual report formats should be developed in conjunction with users. As part of the task of this project, revisions were developed by the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beach and Shores, to chapter 16B-36 entitled "Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program". The purpose of this chapter is to set forth revised policies and precedures for administration of the program pursuant to section 161.091, F.S. A questionnaire was sent to selected federal, state and local government agencies as well as private coastal engineering consulting firms to solicite comments on the revisions. The list of reviewers and their comments are included as appendix J. III. Performance Monitoring To acccomplish this portion of the study an intentory of past beach nourishment and inlet sand bypass projects was compiled. With this background a project monitoring system was developed with 'interactive computer data storage and retrieval. This system enhances the ' understanding of the behavior of erosion control projects and their influence on adjacent shorelines. As stated by Suboceanics (1979a, 1979b) the importance of establishing a program such as this is to: 1) Insure that erosion control projects are monitored on a systematic and periodic basis 2) Standardization of content, format and type of analysis to facilitate comparison . 3) Provide a data base for future design and regulatory studies. The details of the inventory and system are as follows: Beach Nourishment/Inlet Sand Bypass Project Monitoring System A. Performance Monitoring Inventory In order to assess the needs and requirements of project monitoring standards, a review of past project monitoring reports was undertaken. The first finding was the general lack of monitoring reports available for recent beach nourishment and sand bypass projects within the state. The following five beach nourishment and inlet sand bypass projects were 6 chosen because they had sufficient data on file with DNR to permit their use in the case study: - Captiva Island (South Seas Plantation) - Beach Nourishment - Del Ray Beach - Beach nourishment - Hollywood/Hallendale - Beach nourishment - Indialantic/Melbourne Beach - Beach nourishment - Cape Canaveral - Inlet transfer - Jupiter Island - Beach Nourishment - Boca Raton - Inlet Transfer - Stump Pass - Inl et-'Transfer Two additional projects were selected from the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers files: - Duval (Jacksonville Beach) - Beach nourishment - Miami Beach - Beach nourishment These two projects had little data in analyzed form. A great deal of effort was required to reduce this data and was beyond the scope of this study. The great majority of other projects examined for inclusion in this study either did not require monitoring or the data was inadequate or insufficient to discribe post-nourishment behavior. It became evident upon revi ew of the limited data that was available, that there was a great dissimilarity in the type and content of data collection and analysis. All of the methods for describing project performance were valid and used standard engineering practice but due to the nature of analysis or data presentation, cross comparison between data sites was extremely difficult and labor intensive. There were several inconsistancies in catagories of information and quite often omission of important data was found in the monitoring reports. To organize the inventory of report content, five general headings were selected as follows: 1 . Project Description 2. Beach Survey Data 3. Sediment Analysis 4. Supplementary Data 5. Borrow Area Data Table 1 through 4 summarizes the inventory of projects and shows the wide variability of data presentation. Table 5 summarizes the borrow area monitoring information. Some of the borrow area reports were separate from monitoring reports and correlation of both on the same project were difficult. The major discrepancies between the projects are summarized in Table 6 for base of comparison with all of the general headings. 7 MMMMMM TABLE 1 PHYSICAL MONITORING GUIDELINES: Project Description Nourishment Nourishment Volume of Nourishment Pre-Nourishment Source and Addition Project Dimensions Fill Placed Suitability Baseline Data Method of Information (Calculated) Applying Fill Captiva 1981 10,000 ft. at 665,500 CU. Not --- Dredged from Bathymetric 18mo moni- the north end yds. Calculated Gulf Shoal Surveys done toring of Captiva west of on the borrow Island Redfish Pass area at 100 ft intervals Hollywood/ Length of 1,980,685 1.09 cu. yds Shoreline re- Dredged from 605,000 cu. Hallendale Project cu. yds. borrow needed ceeding I ft./ 7 borrow sites yds. borrow :)Completed Nov 27,760 ft. to replace yr., and 55,600 located 5,000 needed every. 1979 1 yr 1.00 cu. yds. cu. yds. lost/yr. to 10,000 ft. 10 years monitoring native sand offshore Indialantic/ Project 540,000 1.12 cu. yds. Profiles, sediment Dumped by truck Melbourne length cu. yds. borrow needed samples, and from turning Beach Dec 2.1 miles to replace aerial photos basin spoil 1980-Jan 1981 1.00 cu. yds photos collected pile at Port lyr monitoring native sand Canaveral Port Project 2,715,000 Not Shoreline re- Pumped by --- Canaveral length cu. yds. Calculated ceeding 10 ft./ pipeline from Beach Jun 1974 2.1 miles year Port Canaveral Mar 1975 Iyr turning basin monitoring Delray Beach Length of 701,266 Not Shoreline re- Dredged from Originally Jul 1973 and Project cu. yds. Calculated ceeding 5 ft./ an offshore nourished in again in Feb 10,000 ft. yr., and 133,066 borrow area 197j; 1,634,513 to May 1978 cu. yds. lost/yr. yds . 1879 - 2 36mo Monitoring areis 701,266 yds TABLE 1 PHYSICAL MONITORING GUIDELINES: Project Description Nourishment Nourishment Volume of Nourishment Pre-Nourishment Source and Additional Project Dimensions Fill Placed Suitability Baseline Data Method of Information (Calculated) Applying Fill Stump Pass 7,000 ft ? --- ? Sand dredged ? Dredging 1980 from channel 3 yr monitoring Jupiter Island 25,000 ft 1973/74 3 Ave. rate of Sand dredged 19J3/74 3.1mill 1973/74 #1 3,137,553 yd erosion - 3 from an off- yd. 197@/78 1.3 1977/78 #2 1977/78 3 258,029 yd /yr shore borrow mill yd, follow up 1,327,289 yd Ave los / inear ft. area 2nd project has monitoring' 7.41 yd /ft two areas 1981 Boca Raton 5,000 ft Yearly placed Fill factor Beach south of Sand dredged continous 1980 wier Jan 19806981 of 4.0 inlet receeded from inlet dredging of in- const. north 43,840 yd 227 ft in 4 yrs let and trans- jetty after 1975 fer sand onto 2yr monitoring South Beach on as need basis TABLE 2 PHYSICAL MONITORING GUIDELINES: Beach Survey Data Nourishment Beach Profiles Volume Changes Using Beach Profile Data Project Time Along the -TI-ong the Reference Method for e Along the Along the Interval Beach Profile Monuments Calculating Interval Beach Profile Coverage Coverage Utilized Coverage Coverage Captiva Profiles- 11 Project Data Internal Project Calculated Volume Not taken 4 S. Controls points Project - Specific every 6 Change Mentfoned every 6 approx. 300 every Benchmarks Benchmarks months Between in Report months ft. intervals 20 ft. Profiles Calculated Hollywood/ Every 3 Profiles Data Internal Fill volumes Calculated Volume Volume Hallendale months; taken point Project calculated every 6 Calc. for change Offshore every every Benchmarks using average months whole also calc. profiles 1,000 ft. 20 ft. end area nour. area between every 6 method profiles months Indialantic/ Every 3 3 Project Data Dept. of Formulated Calculated Vol. change Vol. change Melbourne months profiles Imi. point Natural by Computer every 3 between every I m Beach N. & S. every Resources months profiles along the Controls 5 meters (DNR) calculated profile 1 mile int. Benchmarks calc. Port Every 6 Approx. 30 Data DNR/COE Computer Calculated Vol. change Vol. change Canaveral months Project point Project Algorithm every 4 calc. for from Fill Beach Profiles every Benchmarks Used months every 1,000 to MLW 100 ft. int. 30 ft. ft. of nour. to -5 ft. area to -10 ft. to -20 ft. calc. Delray Compared 9 Project Data DNR/ Not 1981 Not Not Beach 1981 to 7 Control point Project Mentioned compared Mentioned Mentioned 1980 split project every Benchmarics in Report to 1980 in Report in Report profiles 1,000 ft.. int. 5 ft. TABLE 2 PHYSICAL MONITORING GUIDELINES: Beach Survey Data Nourishment Beach Profiles Volume Changes Using Beach Profile Data Project Time Alonq the -TT-ong the Reference Method for Time Along the A g the Interval Beach Profile Monuments Calculating Interval Beach Profile Coverage Coverage Utilized Coverage Coverage Stump Pass 1 yr 8 profiles Data point Project Not Calcu- Not Men- Not Men- Interval 6 in project every 20ft, Specific mentioned lated tioned in tioned in 2 south of offshore 50ft Benchmarks in eeport Approxi- Report Report project mately Every 12mo Jupiter 8 years 26 profiles Data point Project Not Men- Calcu- Vol change Intervals of Island 3 south every 25ft. Specific tioned in lated once calculated cubic yd per 4 north of onshore Benchmarks Report a year on Ave. every linear ft project 75ft inte-rvals 1100ft of offshore Boca Raton Quarterly 19 total From vegitation Project Area Changes Calcula- Vol change Not Men- in 1980 7 north of line to 30ft Specific between Pro- ted once calculated tioned in + once inlet Contoure Benchmarks files a year on Ave every Report in Aug 82 500ft of study area TABLE 3 PHYSICAL MONITORING GUIDELINES: Sediment Analyses Nourishment Sediment Samplin Grain Size Distribution Projects Time Along t Along the Method of Statistical Parameters Additional Interval Project Profile Separating Used to Analyze Information Coverage Coverage Sediment Sediment Captiva Samples 3 Sampling Samples Standard Cumulative Frequency Analyzed Taken Sites in Taken Sieving; Curves Sediment in Every 6 Nour. Area; Every 3 ft. Composite Borrow Area Months I South of Vertically Samples Before and Project Used After nour. Hollywood/ Samples 6 Sampling Samples Standard Cumulative Frequency --- Hallendale Taken Sites in Taken Sieving; Curves Every 6 Nour. Area Every 3 ft. Composite Months Veftically Samples Used Indialantic/ Samples 3 Sampling Sampled at. Standard Cumulative Frequency Melbourne Taken Sites in Dune Base, Sieving; and Frequency Curves Beach Every 3 Nour. Area; Ht, Mt, Composite Plotted by Computer Months 2 Controls Swash, and 3 Samples and Analyzed Collected Offshore Used Port Samples 3 Sampling Samples Standard Granulometric Procedure; Canaveral Taken Sites in Taken Sieving (?) % Shell Material and Beach Every 3 Nour. Area Every 4 ft., Median Diameter Determined Months Vertically Delray Samples 4 Sampling Samples Standard Cumulative Wt. % Coarser --- Beach from 1980 Sites in Taken Sieving and composite Curves Drawn and 1981 Nour. Area Every 3 ft. Composites and compared to Pre-Nour. Compared Vertically Used and Borrow site TABLE 3 PHYSICAL MONITORING GUIDELINES: Sediment Samplinq Nourishment Time Along the Along the Method of Statistical Parameters Additonal Project Interval Project Profile Separating Used to Analyze Sediments Information Coverage Sediments Stump Pass ---------------------------- No Sediment Analysis Done ------------------------------------ Jupite r Island ----------------------------- No Sediment Analysis Mentioned in Report -------------------------- Boca Raton Native --- --- Total;Project Cumulative Frequency --- Beach Composite Curves Sampled once Borrow area cores once TABLE 4 PHYSICAL MONITORING GUIDELINES: Supplementary Data Nourishment Construction Environmental Aerial Photo. Beach Width or Additional Project Activities Before Conditions Before Coverage of the Othe *r Qualitative Information and After and After Nour. Area Measurements from Nourishment Nourishment the Aerial Photos Captiva Not Mentioned Examined Flood --- --- In Report Channel Before Nourishment Hollywood/ None Before; --- --- --- Hall.endale L.E.O. Data Monitored Over a 1 year Period After Nourishment Indialantic/ --- Baseline Survey Aerial Photos Beach Width and Melbourne Before L.E.O. Data from Before, Area Changes Beach Monitored Every After, 3 Months Calculated from 3 months After After, and 1 Aerial Photos Nourishment Year After Nour. Port Jetty Built at Monitored Storms Aerial Photos Beach Width and Beach Recession Canaveral inlet-1954 Before and After from Before, Changes Calculated Rates Calculated Beach Dredging Main- Nourishment After, and 6 from Aerial Photos Every 4 Months tenance Years After Nourishment Delray Rock Revetment Volume and shore- --- --- Built Before lines retreat rates Nour.; Sand Fence Placed at Dune After Nour. TABLE 4 PHYSICAL MONITORING GUIDELINES: Supplementary Data Nourishment Construction Environmental Aerial Photo Beach Width or Additional Project Activities Before Conditions-Before Coverage of the other Qualitative Information and After and After Nourishment Area Measurements from Nourishment Nourishment the Aerial Photos Stump Pass Maintenance Dredging Channel Bathymetric Channel location ---- Report of .parameters and project following velocity data show- storm ing scour and dispo- sition Jupiter Island --- JI Photographs of Pro- --- --- Retreat Rate ject area Average 13.6 ft/yr Boca Raton 1975 Inlet jetty Survey Constructed --- ---- Beach Immediately added. In 1980 with observations, South of Inlet Weir Section added photos, sampling receeding 227 ft in north jetty and sediment core in 4 years samples were employed TABLE 5 PHYSICAL MONITORING GUIDELINES: Borrow Area Nourishment Borrow Bathymetric Sample Number of Sediment Sampling Project Source Survey Pattern Samples Analysis Interval Captiva Offshore -Transects 100' 4 Corners 5 Surface Standard Preconstruction EBB Shoal Interval, Center, 2 Samples Sieving Post Construction 2000' x 1500' Depths Listed Central % Course 6 mo, 12 mo 50' Interval Hollywood/ Offshore shelf 7 sites --- --- Hallendale 5000' x 7000' Off Beach Indialantic/ Dredge Spoil --- 3 Sites Statistical Standard At Placement Melbourne Stockpile from Immediate Composite Sieving Beach Port Canaveral Post Placement 3 Backshore 10 Int. Project Backshore Samples Port Turning Basin Yes Backbeach Standard Sediment Canaveral (Barrier Island and Center Sieving Chosen Beach. Sand) of fill Statistics During Dredging Delray Offshore Borrow --- --- --- --- --- Beach Area TABLE 5 PHYSICAL MONITORING GUIDELINES: Borrow Area Nourishement Borrow Source Bathymetric Sample Number of Sediment Sampling Project Survey Pattern Samples Analysis Interval Stump Pass Sand dredge Yes Depths -------------------- No Samples Taken ---------------------- from channel listed in tenth of foot intervals Jupiter Island Offshore.Borrow ------------------- No Samples Taken ---------------------- Area Boca Raton Sand from Inlet Yes depth 11 cores medn. 1 Survey intervals in size 1.71 1 foot TABLE 6 DISCREPANCIES Pre Nourishment Nourishment Suitability: Not calculated or not mentioned in five out of eight cases. Prenourishment Baseline Data: Usually adequate (Recession Rates Given in Ft/Yr and Cu Yds/Yr) except in two cases. Borrow Area: Location of Borrow: Given in all projects but information dificult to discern in some reports. Bathymetric Surveys: Thorough details at Captiva, Boca Raton and Stump Pass (all inlet transfers projects) not mentioned or vague in other cases. Number of Samples: Not consistent, range from 2 to 7 sites; not mentioned in four projects. Pattern of Samples: Grid pattern at Captiva; Along sediment sampling lines at Port Canaveral; None mentioned for others. Method of Analysis: When mentioned, composite samples were used; not mentioned in most cases. Time of Sampling: Thorough sampling before, after, 6 mos & 12 mos for Captiva; one sample for Indialantic and Boca Raton; Three pre-fill samples for Port Canaveral; None for others mentioned. Method of Fill Emplacement: Hydraulic Dredging and dumping from trucks. Profiles Time Between Profiles: Varies for all, ranging from 3 to 12 month intervals Distance Between Profiles: - Variable with average at 1000' intervals Distance Between Datd Points (Along Profile): All inconsistent, (5', 5m, 20', 30', etc ... Reference Monuments:. D.N.R. monuments used in three studies. Others used project generated local temporary monuments. TABLE 6 (Cont.) Volume Changes Method of Calculation: All methods are different and not mentioned in the three cases. Time Between Determinations: Varying, range of 3 mos. to 1 year. Along Beach Coverage: Calculations made for the whole nourishment area, for areas between profiles, or not mentioned. Along Profile Coverage: Volume changes along profile either not calculated, at one meter intervals or other various intervals. Sediment Sampling Time Interval Between Samples: Range of 3 to 6 months, not collected on 3 projects. Sites Along Project: Varies from four to six s-ites. Sites Along Profile: All at 3' intervals except Indialantic which used dune base, H.T., M.T., swash and offshore (200', 300', 400' from high tide). Grain Size Method of Separating Sediment Sizes: used unified soils classif. or PHI interval, used standard sieving and various types of composite samples. Statistical Parameters Used in Analysis: Most used cumulative frequency curves, either cumulative weight percent finer or coarser, some frequency curves mean and sorting parameters occasionally given. Only occasional reference to fill factor on renourishment factor suitability models. Other Renourishment: Only considered in Delray. Environmental Conditions Before and After Nourishment: L.E.O. Data was used in two cases, storm frequency used in one case, no observations mentioned for two. Significant storm event listed in one. Aerial Photography: Used before and after for Captiva, Indialantic and Port Canaveral, beach width and area changes were measured for these; no data for others. 19 B. Performance Monitoring Standards The Project Monitoring Standardization System is designed to support the following DNR functions: a) Systematic evaluation of project applications -b) Assurance of project design compliance at completion c) Systematic evaluation of project performances d) Maintenance of monitoring data base of all state funded beach nourishment and inlet sand bypass projects. e Development of special studies or reports on status or achieve- ments of the state beach erosion control program. This system is designed to be a companion to the project management system. While there is overlap in -the two sys-tems, it is suggetted that they be separate, since different DNR personnel will be responsible and interested in the information of both systems. The monitoring system is in two parts: 1) the computer data base of project data and 2) moni- toring standards guidelines of specific tasks, formats, data analysis and presentation that will be required on state funded projects. This second document will contain specific data sheets and procedures to standardize data collection and presentation. It will be supplied to the project contractor prior to initiation of the project. Specific schedules will be included for type and time frame of monitoring activities. C. Basic System Features The Be 'ach Nourishment/Inlet Sand Bypass Project Monitoring System is designed to standardize monitoring of both beach restoration and nourishment projects and inlet sand bypass and transfer projects. It is envisioned that additional erosion control project monitoring (structural controls, dune revegitation and construction) could be included in this system at a later date. The first part of the system consists of a computerized data base with a menu-drtven data entry and retrieval system. This system allows for project data storage and generation of special studies on reports on scientific and engineering criteria of future projects. As in the management system, this system will be developed using the APL data interface available on the DNR IBM 4341. Appendix E conta'ins the record format layout, screen views for data entry and update and data search and retrieval operations. The data base system is divided into five general catagories as follows: 1) Project Description. 2) Borrow area information. 3) Profile standards. 4) Sediment analysis standards. 5) Littoral environmental/supplementary information. Each record in the data base will be keyed to the project number assigned the project under the management system. Data will include preconstruction, construction and post construction phases of the five general categories. - 20 The second portion of the system contains the standards to be used in organization and content of the monitoring reports used by project contractors. The borrow area monitoring is explained in Appendix F. Profile standards are explained in Appendix G. Sediment analysis specifications and recommendation are contained in Appendix H. Additional littoral environmental data and supplimentary data of impor- tance to project monitoring are included in Appendix I. Data sheet formats and instructions would be made available to the contractor at the start of the project. Compliance with standards would be required before completion of project. Time schedules for submittal of monitor- ing reports, type of data to be included, mode of collection and analy- sis and preferred format of data submittal will be identified in the document. This will allow compilation of minimum useful project infor- mation and encourage preservation of monitoring data on project perfor- mance by simplifying and standardizing required response. SUMMARY 7early a systematic approach of fiscal accountability and project performance is advantagous to effectively manage the important and large scale coastal erosion control program in the state of Florida. This report presents two computer assisted systems to aid the DNR staff in@ accomplishing that goal. The Beach Eros'ion Control Project Management System is designed to provide a systematic approach to the-multi-phase planning, implementation and regulation of state funded erosion control projects. While specifi- cally designed for beach restoration and nourishment and inlet sand bypass and transfer projects, it has the capability to handle "hard" structural applicants and "soft" dune management programs. The system will commence with the proposal stage of a project and continue through out the life of the project until its completion. The main task is to track fiscal expenditures and assume quality standards by establishing a time table and content of required reports. All erosion control projects can now be uniformly administered with a standard approach. An added benefit is the capability to generate project accomplishment reports and other management documents. The Beach Nourishment/Inlet Sand Bypass Project Monitoring System insures a systematic approach to document state funded project perfor- mance. By requiring such data collection on every project utilizing state funds, an excellent data base will be generated. This information will document individual project response to coastal processet and the coastal engineer and project planner will have access to heretofore non- existent systematic data, on which to base future project design and industry standards. In the long run, this will reduce both the high cost and permit delays, by supplying required data to make regulatory and engineering decisions. This system will be unique in that the entire project history from prenourishment background data, borrow area information and long-term project performance will be filed in one standardized record format which will be readily accessible. Within project and cross project comparisons and summary reports are now easily generated. The monitoring system is designed for both beach restoration and nourishment and inlet sand bypass and transfer projects.. With this system, it is now possible to provide a better understanding of the behavior of these erosion control projects and their influence on adjacent shorelines. The system can be upgraded to include "hard" engineer structural alternatives as Well as "soft" dune contruction and maintenance. 21 - REFERENCES Campbell, T. J., Spadoni, R., Beachlier, K., and Morgan, J., 1980, Planning For Beach Restoration in South Florida, ASCE, Vol. II. P. 1319-1330. F.S.B.P.A., 1981. Sunshine State 1st in Erosion Control. Shoreline Newsletter, Fla. Shore and Beach Pres. Assoc., Vol. XXIV, No. 1, P. 5. Stauble, D. K., M. Hansen, R. Hushla, and L. Parson, 1983. Beach Nourishment Monitoring, Florida East Coast: Physical Engineering Aspects and Management Implications. ASCE, Coastal Zone 83, p. 2512-2526. Suboceanic Consultants, Inc., 1979a. Erosion Control Project Monitoring Guidelines, Report to Bureau of Beaches and Shores, Florida.D.N.R. 11 p. Suboceanic Consultants, Inc., 1979b. Inlet Project Monitoring Guide- lines. Report to Bureau of Beaches and Shores, Florida D.N.R. 10 p. Walton, T. L., 1977, Beach Nourishment in Florida and on the Lower Atlantic and Gulf Coast. Tech. Paper No. 2, Florida Sea Grant, 64. p. Monitoring Reports Captiva Beach Restoration Project oring Tackney and ssociates, Inc. August 1982, Six Month Monit Report, 39 p. , February 1983, One Year Monitoring Report, 41 p. Hollywood/Hallendale Beach Restoration Project Suboceanic Consultants, Inc., October 198-0, Six Months Monitoring Report, Broward County Erosion Prevention District, 27 p. No Date, One Year Monitoring Report, Broward County Erosion Prevention District, 34 p. Indialantic/Melbourne Beach Erosion Control Project Stauble, D. K. 1981, A Detailed Study of Profile Response and Sediment Textual Changes of the Indialantic/Melbourne Beach Nourishment Project. In Proc., 24th and 25th Annual Meeting of the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, p. 197-216. Stauble, D. K., M. E. Hansen, R. L. Hushla, and L. E. Parson, 1983. Biological and Physical Monitoring of Beach Erosion Control Project, Indialantic/Melbourne Beach, Florida. Part 2, Physical Monitoring. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, 72. p. Port Canaveral Beach Fill Project Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory, July 1976, Report on Monitoring of a Beach Fill South of Canaveral Jetties, Brevard County, Florida, Univ. of Florida, 59 p. Hushla, F. R. 1982. Evaluating the Performance of Beach Nourishment in Brevard County., Florida Through the use of 22 Aerial Photography, Tech. Report 4GO-82-4, Florida Institute of Technology, Dept. of Oceanogra7phy and Ocean Engineering, Melbourne, Fl. 80 p. City of Delray Beach, Beach Maintenance Nourishment Project Arthur V. Strock and Assoc. Inc., Feb. 1976, Design Analysis for Maintenance Nourishment Project, City of Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Report to U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District. 52 p. and appendices. Oct. 1979 City of Delray Beach, Beach Maintenance Nourishment Project, 12 month follow-up study. Report to City of Delray Beach, FL. 17 p. and appendices. Feb. 1981, CiM of Delray Beach, Beach maintance Nourishme-n-tP7r-oject, 24 Month Follow-up Study. Report to City of Delray Beac-.h, FL. 18 p. and-Appendices. Nov. 1981, City of Delray Beach, Beach Maintenance NourishFe-nt Project, 36 Month Follow-up Study. Report to City of Delray Beach, FL., 21 p. and Appendices. Stump Pass, Sand Bypass Project . Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. April, 1983. Stump Pass, 1982 Monitoring Report. Reported to DNR, Division of Beaches and Shores 188p. Jupiter Island, Beach Nourishment Project Arthur V. Strock anJ Assoc. Inc. July, 1981, Town of Jupiter Island follow-up study, Report to town of Jupiter 13p and Appendices. Boca Raton Inlet, Sand Bypass Project ArtFu_r__V_.5trock and Associates, July 1981, Boca Raton Inlet and adjacent beaches, monitoring study report. Report to City of Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida, 30p and appendices. , April, 1983 Boca Raton inlet, dredges and beach monitoring program, final report fiscal year 1981-1982. Report to City of Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida, 14p and appendices. 23 Appendix A DNR Beach Erosion Project Management System Record Layout KeCOrO Format Fields Data Element Description Format I Project number (00010-99990): Use increments of 10 15 initially to permit- insertions 2 Ci ty Name: Left justify A20 3 County Name: Left justify A15 4 Contact phone number I10 5-7 Legislative Districts: US Congress (5), State Senate 212, 13 (6), State House (7) 8 Date of project application:MMDDYY 16 9-12 Funds requested: Total (9), State (10), Federal (11), 4F11.2 Local (12) 13-23 Funds requested: Sand search (13), monitoring (14), 11F11.2 other studies (15), beach restoration (16), beach nourishment (17), dune overvialks (18), sand transfer (19), dune construction (23) 24 Date application evaluated 16 25 Evaluation Score 13 26-31 Budget request year and amount: first (26,27), second 3(16,F11.2) (28,29), third (30,31) 32-39 Appropriations dates and amounts: first (32,33), second 4(J6,F11.2) (34,35), third (36,37), fourth (38,39) 40-43 Reappropriations dates and amounts- first (40,41), 2(I6,FI1.2) second (42,43) 44-46 Key dates: Completed application reiceived (44); cabinet 316 approval date (45); date' contract executed (46) 47 Corps GDM or Detail Project Study Document location A24 48 Contract amount F11.2 49 Contract termination date 16 50 Amended contract amount F11.2 51 Additional performance period 12 52-55 Am-ended termination date and date of amendrent: 416 first (52,53); second (54,55) 56-69 Prooress report due date and date received: first 1416 (56,57); second (58,59); third (60,61); fourth (62,63); fifth (64,65)-; sixth (66,67), seventh (68,69) 70-79 Site inspection date and result. (satisfactory-Y/tl): 5(16,Al) first (70,71); second (72,73); third (74,75); fourth (76,77); fifth (78,79) 80-203 Disbursea@ent dates and amounts: first (80,81); second 12(16,FII.2) (82,83); third (84,85); fourth (86,87); fifth (88,89); sixth (90,91); seventh (92,93); eighth (94,95); ninth (96,97); tenth (98,99); eleventh (100,101); twelfth (102,103) 24 104 Date of DNR Cerfificate of Completion .16 105-106 Date (105) and report number (106) of internal audit 16, 15 review 107 Date of leaislative audit report 16 108-109 Date (108) an;d amount (109)of project refunds 16,F11.2 110-112 Total Expenditures: State (110); Federal (111); Local 3F11.2 (112) 113-114 Closest bounding marker numbers: Lower (113); Higher 215 (114) 115-116 Beach restoration: miles restored (115); cubic yards F6.2,F10.2 sand placed (116) 117-118 Beach nourishment: miles nourished (117); cubic yards F6.2,F10.2 sand placed (118) 119 Dune construction: miles F6.2 120-121 Dune protective structures: Number of overwalks (120); 214 of walkways (121) 122 Linear feet of beach revegetated F8.1 123-142 Number and types of plants used: first (123,124) second 10(15,AIO) (125,126); third (127,128); fourth (129,130); fifth (131,1@2); sixth (133,134); seventh (135,136); eighth (137,138); ninth (139,140); tenth (141,142) 143-145 Breakwaters: structures *(143); feet above MSL (144); 14,F5.2,F8.1 length (145) 146-147 Terminal groin: length (146); height (147) F8.1,F5.2 148 Feet of revetments F8.1 149-150 Jetties: length (149); height (150) F8.1,F6.1 151 Other erosion control structures (descri tion) AIOO 152-153 Inlet sand transferred: inlet name (152@; volume of A15,F1O.1 sand (153) - 154 Sand search study document A9 155 Beach monitoring study document A9 156 Dune monitoring study document A9 157 Special study description MOO 25 Appendix B Data Entry Procedures and Formats This appendix proposes. the proecures and screen formats for an on-line data entry system for PMS. Actual programming of these pro- cedures is hardware (computer and computer terminal) dependent, so no specific programming strategy is suggested. The basic idea for the.pro- cedure is to have@the on-line system generate and project a formatted screen with blank fields and field prompts. The procedure would operate in two modes--record creation and update. In record creation mode, all fields would be transmitted, with blank numeric fields being transmitted as zeros and all alpha fields being transmitted as 'Z's' or asterisks (or some other appropriate symbol). In upda,te mode, fields would be transmitted only if values were added. The primary sequence would be as follows--at program initiation, the user would be asked to enter an 'X' in the appropriate choice from the following list: DATA ENTRY SYST@M NEW RECORD CREATION UPDATE MODE REPORT GENERATION SYSTEM SEARCH MODE FORMATTED REPORTS If 'NEW RECORD CREATION' mode were selected, the systemtwould dis- play the number of the last project entered, and request the number of the project entered. If 'UPDATE MODE' were se lected, the system would request the number of'the project to be updated. Entry of the project number would key successive display of screen formats 8.1 through B.6. After each field is filled in (or left blank, as appropriate), the cur- 26 sor will tab to the next field. Any field can be left blank by hi tting a tab key. Any page can be skipped by hitting the 'enter' key. Use of the 'enter' key should 'skip to the next entry form after transmission of the protected fields of the screen is complete. In update mode, the cur- rent contents of each field (except the default contents) should be dis-!. played on the formatted screen. 27 NOTE: All dates entered as MM/ DD/YY, i.e., June 3, 1976 is 06/03/76 PROJECT NO: CITY: COUNTY: CONTACT-PPIKHFN-D@H-R: ---- CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: STATE SENATE: STATE HOUSE: PROJECT REQUEST DATE: FUNDS REQUESTED TOTAL: STATE: FEDERAL: LOCAL: co SAND SEARC-57: ------------ --50H-@O@�TRUCTIONT MONITORING: REVEGETATION: OTHER STUDIE�: ------------- PROTECTIVE WALKWAYS: BEACH RESTORATIO@: BREAKWATERS: BEACH NOURISHMENT -- ----------- GROINS: DU.NE OVERWALKS: ------------ REVETMENTS: ----------- SAND TRANSFER: JETTIES: OTHER: EVALUATION: DEPARTMENT BUDGET REQUEST: DATE: FY FY FY SCORE: AMOUNT: AMOUNT: AMOUNT: PROJECT NO: KEY PROJECT DHES APPROPRIATIONS EFFECTIVE DATE: APPROPRIATION AMOUNT: APPROPRIATIONS EFFECTIVE DATE: APPROPRIATION AMOUNT: --------- APPROPRIATIONS EFFECTIVE DATE: APPROPRIATION AMOUNT: ----------- APPROPRIATIONS EFFECTIVE DATE: APPROPRIATION AMOUNT: REAPPROPRIATIONS EFFECTIVE DATE REAPPROPRIATION AMOU@TTT ------ -- - -------- -- REAPPROPRIATIONS EFFECTIVE DATE: REAPPROPRIATION AMOUNT: COMPLETED.-APPLICATION RECEIVED: CABI.NET APPROVAL DATE: CONTRACT EXECUTED: / -7 CORPS GDM OR DETAIL_@ROJE@@ STUDY DOCUMENT LOCATION: ------------------------ CONTRACT DATA CONTRACT AMOUNT: DATE OF TERMINATION: AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT . ........... ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: _5ATE OF AMENDMENT: AMENDED TERMINATION DATE: A-MENDED TERMINATION DATE: DATE OF AMENDMENT: PROGRESS REPORTS DUE: PROGRESS REPORTS RECEIVEDT_ 1. 5. 1. 5. 2. 6. 2. 6. 3. 7. 3. 7. 4. 4. PROJECT NO. -7---- PROJECT CONTROL DATA: SITE INSPECTION DATE SATISFACTORY (Y/N) PROJECT DTHBOKSE@ENTS: PROJECT CORPLETION STATUS DATE AMOUNT DNR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION DATE ISSUED: INTERNAL AUDIT-KE@!E@- 3. DATE REPORTED:, 4. AUDIT NUMBER: 5. -- --------- LEGISLATIVE AUDH --- 6. DATE REPORTED: 7. PROJECT REFUNDS 18. DATE: 9. AMOUNT-: 10. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 11. STATE: 12. FEDERAL: LOCAL: PROJECT NO: PHYSICAL INV@Ny CLOSEST BOUNDING MARKER NUMBERS: LOWEST ----- HIGHEST BEACH RESTORATION MILES RESTORED: CUBIC YARDS SAND PLACED: BEACH NOURISHMENT MILES@NOURISHED: CUBIC YARDS SAND PLACED: DUNE CONSTRUCTION MILES CONSTRUCTED: DUNE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES NUMBER OF OVERWALKSt NUMBER OF WALKWAYS: PROJECT NO: REVEGETATION NUMBER OF LINEAR FEET: NUMBER TYPE OF PLANT NUMBER TYPE OF PLANT - ----- ---------- 6- ----- ---------- 2------- ---------- 7- ----- ---------- 3- ----- ---------- 8. ---------- 4- ----- ---------- 9- ----- ---------- 5. 10. ---------- ----- ---------- EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES BREAKWATERS: NO. STRUCTURES FEET ABOVE MSL LENGTH (FT) TERMINAL GROIN: LENGTH (FT) HEIGHT (FT) REVETMENTS: LENGTH (FT) JETTIES: LENGTH (FT) HEIGHT (FT) OTHER (DESCRIPTION) ---------------------------------------------- PROJECT NO: INLET SAH_TKj@NSFER NAME OF INLET: CUBIC YARDS TRANSFERRED: SAND SEARCH STUDY DOCUMENT: BEACH MONITORING STUDY-DOCUMENT: DUNE MONITORI14G STUDY DOCUMENT: SPECIAL STUDIES (DESCRIPTION): -------------------------------------------------------- DATE PROJECT STUDY COMPLETED: Appendix C Search and Retrieval Operations In many cases, it will be of interest to identify projects with specific characteristics. For instance, it may be useful to know which projects were completed between 1979 and 1981 in a specific U.S. Congres- sional District, or which current applications have received legislative appropriations but which have not been approved by cabinet action. To provide this information, a search procedure should be developed that can readily guide a user through the data base. A useful scheme for this would be to offer the user a list of search characteristics for which he/she wo uld specify ranges--if no range were specified for a characteristic, all values would be examined (if the specified criteria were met). The output of a search would be a list of project/application numbers which would be printed and/or stored in a file that could be automatically read for producing for- matted reports. Also, the output file should 'cenerate a header describ- ing the attribute ranges that generated the search list. Formats C.1 and C.2 should identify most of the useful search characteristics. 34 FORMAT C.1 SEARCH AND RETRIEVAL MODE: PLEASE ENTER APPROPRIATE RANGES (ENTER DATES AS MM/DD/YY; IF MORE THAN ONE VALUE ENTERED, SEPARATE WITH COMMAS) CITY NAME (ONE ONLY): COUNTY NAME (ONE ONLY): CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS: SENATE DISTRICTS: HOUSE DISTRICTS: BOUNDING BEACH MARKERS (ONE ONLY IN EACH FIELD): LOW HIGH PROJECT REQUEST DATE RANGE: TO EVALUATION REPORT SCORE RANGE: TO PROJECT TYPE: ul SAND SEARCH DUNE CONSTRUCTION MONITORING REVEGETATION OTHER STUDIES PROTECTIVE WALKWAYS BEACHRESTORATION BREAK WATERS BEACH NOURISHMENT GROINS DUNE OVERWALKS REVETMENTS SAND TRANSFER JETTIES OTHERS BUDGET REQUEST YEAR RANGE: TO BUDGET REQUEST AMOUNT RANGE: TO TOTAL PROJECT FUNDS REQUIRED: TO **HIT ENTER WHEN ALL RANGES ENTERED" FORMAT C.2 SEARCH AND RETRIEVAL MODE: PLEASE ENTER APPROPRIATE RANGES (ENTER DATES AS MM/DD/YY; IF MORE THAN ONE VALUE ENTERED, SEPARATE WITH COMMAS) APPROPRIATIONS DATES: TO COMPLETED APPLICATIONS RECEIVED: TO CABINET APPROVAL DATES: TO CONTRACT EXECUTION DATE: TO CONTRACT TERMINATION DATE: TO PROGRESS REPORT DUE RANGE: TO PROGRESS REPORT RECEIVED RANGE: TO SITE INSPECTION PERFORMED: TO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION RANGE: TO INTERNAL AUDIT REVIEW RANGE: TO LEGISLATIVE AUDIT REPORTED RANGE: TO PLEASE ENTER SEARCH DISPOSITION (YOU MAY SPECIFY BOTH): PRINT READ FILE NAME (SPECIFY SEVEN ALPHA CHARACTERS): **HIT ENTER WHEN ALL RANGES ENTERED" Appendix D ForTnatted Reports For routine project management activities, a number of reports are clearly indicated. This appendix provides an annotated list of suggested reports that could be created. The reports could be set up to read a search list of project numbers created by the search and retrievAl mode or could operate on specified project numbers. Initiating the report sequence would call for filling out the. following inforTnation: Report Mode SEARCH LIST FILE NAME (USE 'ALL' IF DESIRED): PROJECT LIST (IF NO SEARCH LIST FILE): REPORT TYPE: INDIVIDUAL PROJECT REPORT DELINQUENT PROGRESS REP-ORTS SUMMARY DISBURSEMENTS SUMMARY APPLICATIONS STATUS PHYSICAL INVENTORY SUMMARY FUNDING SUMMARY PROJECT COMPLETION SUMMARY 1. Individual Project Summary For this report, the program takes each project number in the search -list and prepares a comprehensive report on all information in the data base for the project or application. 2. Delinquent Reports Summary For this report, the user specifies 'ALL' in the search list. The report program then searches the data base in field 104 to see that the 37 project is not yet complete, and then in field 56 to see if a progress re- port has been scheduled. If a positive result is achieved in both cases, then fields 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 65, 68 are checked to see if any reports are scheduled prior to the current date. For those, fields 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69 are checked to see that reports have been filed. If not, the project number, unsatisfied due dates, responsible local government unit, and contact telephone number are printed. 3. Disbursement Summary The disbursement summary.ca.n be called either with a search list or for current projects. In the case of the search list, the disbursement summary only prints results from those projects on the search list but identifies the characteristics used to generate the list. For the current projects report, the program summarizes all projects with a cabinet approv- al date entered (field 45), and for which an internal audit-has not been performed (field 105). For the affected projects, the report can present project number, the total Federal, State and Local funds committed, the date and amount of each disbursement and refund, and the funds disburse d net of refunds. 4. Application Status This report summiarizes key facts and dates on project applications based on a search list or a default active file. The active file list should include all project numbers for which an application date (fi el.d 8) is listed that is less than 12 months old and for which a contract has not yet been executed (field 46). For each project application in this status, a report is printed showing the defining characteristics of the projects selected and: (a) Project number and requesting unit (b) Date of application (c) Funds requested (Federal, State, and Local) - 39 - (d) Project type (fields 13-23) (e) Application evaluation date and score (f) Budget request years and amounts (g) Appropr-iation/reaopropriation dates and amounts (h) Dates completed application received and cabinet approval. 5. Physical Inventory Summary The Physical Inventory Summary is generated for an explicit file list either directly specified or created in the search mode. The report presents the defining characteristics of the search file (if created in search mode), the list of projects covered, totals from fields 115-122, 143-150, lists of plant types and totals from fields 123-142 and 152-153, and lists of items included under" fields 151, 154-157. 6. Funding Summary The funding summary will address a search list 6r a list of active projects to obtain the active projects list, the system will search field 26 to determine if the project were budgeted and field 106 to see if an -internal audit had been perforTned. For each budgeted yet unaudited project the report displays the breakdown of funds requested (fields 9-12), budget -requests and appropriations data (fields 26-43), the contracted amount (field 48,50), and the sum of all disbursements to date. An additional component of the report can show total amounts of all projects budgeted for Federal, State, and local commitments, the appropriations, contracts, and disbursements. 7. Project Completion Summary The project completion summary examines all projects for termination dates, certificates of completion, internal audits, and legislative audits-. The report can display all projects whose terTnination dates have passed, but which still have open certification or auditing-actions. 39 Appendix E DNR Beach Nourishment/Inlet Sand Bypass Project Monitoring System General Information E.1 DNR Beach Nourishment/Inlet Sand Bypass Data Base Record Format: General Information Fields Data Element Descrip@ion Format I Project Number (Same as in PMS) 15 2 Project Type (01) Beach Nourishment and Restoration 12 (02) Inlet Sand Bypass and Transfer (Additional project types can be added) 3 Project Name A80 4-6 Project Location: Ci ty or cities (4), County (5), A30 If Sand Bypass: Inlet name (6) A15 'A30 7 Contact Phone Number I10 8 Corps GDM or Detail Project Document Location A24 9 Date Contract Executed (MM DD.YY) 16 10-11 Date of Pre-Project Baseline Survey: Borrow area (10) 216 Native Beach (11) 12-15 Borrow Area Location Description: (ie: Inlet Ebb A20 Tidal D21ta) (12), Distance from Shore (13), 314 Area (m ),(4), Depth of usable sediment (5) 16-19 Nourishment area location description (ie: Fort Pierce Beach, South Jetty) (16) A50 Project Length(17) 13 Closest project boundary DNR Benchmarks: Lowest (18) 14 Highest (19) 14 20-22 Control site location: Distance up coast (20), 2(14.,14) DNR Benchmark #(21), Distance down coast (.22), DNR Benchmark #(23) 24-43 Associated Structure: Terminal groin: Upcoast (24), Length (25), 2(II,Ir,13) Height (29) Downcoast (27), Length (28), Height (29) Within Project Groins: Number (30) length (31) 13,15,13 Height (32) Revetment: Type (34) Length (35) Height (36) A20,I4,I3 Other Structures: Type (37) Length (38) Height (39) A20,14,13 4.0 E.1 ONR Beach Nourishment/Inlet Sand Bypass Data Base Record Format: General Information (Cont.) Fields Data Element Description Format Dune Construction- Length (40), Height (41) 14,13 Dune Vegetation: Length (42) 14 Dune Walkovers: Number (43) 13 44-45 Date of Construction: Start (44), End (45) 216 46 Date of As-Built Survey 16 47-53 Monitoring Dates: 3 MO (47), 6 MO (48), 9 MO (49), 716 12 MO (50), 18 MO (51), 24 MO (52)9 36 MO (53) 54-58 Report Dates: Pre-Project Survey Report (51) 516 As Built Report (52) 12 MO Report (53) 24 MO Report (54) 36 MO Report (55) 59 Specia) Study Description A400 41 Format E.2.1 GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT NO: PROJECT TYPE: (01) BEACH NOURISHMENT AND RES (02) INLET SAND BYPASS AND TRA PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION CITY(IES): --------------------------------- COUNTY: -------------------- INLET NAME CONTACT PHONE NUMBER: CORPS OF ENG. G.D.M. OR DETAIL PROJECT DOCUMENT LOCATION: CONTRACT EXECUTION DATE: PRE-PROJECT BASELINE SURVEY DATES. BORROW AREA NATIVE BEACH AREA BORROW AREA LOCATION: SITE DESCRIPTION: 2 DISTANCE FROM SHORE: ------ METERS AREA: METERS DEPTH OF USABLE SEDIMENT: METERS NOURISHMENT AREA LOCATION: SITE DISCRIPTION: --- METERS ---------------------------------- PROJECT LENGTH: - DNR BENCHMARKS: LOWEST R HIGHEST R CLOSEST BOUNDARY CONTROL SITE LOCATIONS: DISTANCE UPCOAST___ METERS DNR BENCHMARK R DISTANCE DOWNCOAsT---METERS DNR BENCHMARK R FORMAT E.2.1 (CONT.) GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT NO: ASSOCIATED EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES: TERMINAL GROIN: UPCOAST --- LENGTH METERS HEIGHT METERS DOWNCOAST LENGTH METERS HEIGHT METERS WITHIN PROJECT GROIN: NUMBER AVERAGE LENGTH METERS AVERAGE HEIGHT METERS REVETMENT (SEA WALL): TYPE LENGTH METERS HE16HT METERS OTHER STRUCTURE: TYPE LENGTH METERS HEIGHT METERS DUNE CONSTRUCTION: LENGTH METERS HEIGHT METERS DUNE VEGETATION PLANTING: (SEE P.M.S FOR VEGETATION TYPE) LENGTH METERS DUNE WALKOVER CONSTRUCTION: NUMBER Format E.2.1. (Cont.) GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT NO: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION DATES: START:--/--/-- END: AS-BUILT S`URV.EY DATE: MONITORING SURVEY DATES: 3 MO 6MO 9MO 12 MO 18 MO 24 MO 30 MO MONITORING REPORT SUBMITTAL DATES: PREPROJECT SURVEY AS-@UILT SURVEY 12 MO. SURVEY 24 HO. SURVEY 36 MO. SURVEY SPECIAL STUDY DESCRIPTION: I ---------------------------------- ------------- I---------------------------------- I--------------------------------- I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E. 2. Data Entry Formats For data entry procedures see Appendix B. The following are screen formats for data input into the monitoring system for general project information. This information is important to provide a basic description of the project and to facilitate record keeping and report filing. A specific time table of monitoring surveys is outlined to provide a continuity of data collection on the physical parameters of these erosion control projects. The surveys start with the pre-project base-line data collection of both the borrow and project site. Much of this data in past projects was not included in monitoring reports and has been hopefully filed in other records. The inclusion of this data in a systematic fashion will preserve the continuity of the entire project. As-built or immediate post construction data has also, in the past been filed as separate entities and not been included as an,important record of project completion. This data also represents the start point for monitoring project charges as the coastal processes seek to establish an equilibrium with the fill. Quarterly monitoring the first year after project completion has been recommended as a minimum interval to cover the seasonal and storm related change's that occur. As time progresses less rapid change takes place in the fill., therefore monitoring survey intervals may be extended. The second year bienial surveys are suggested and to assess long-term changes, a third year project anniversary survey is also suggested. An assessment of renourishment needs can be made at that time. A To report this monitoring data in a timely fashion three yearly monitoring reports will be due. The first year report will include the 31 6, 9.-and-12 month monitoring data, the second year report will- - include the 18 and 24 month data and the third year report covers the 36 month data and total project summary. 45 Appendix F Borrow Area Monitoring Specifications F. Borrow Area Monitoring Specifications The monitoring of the source area of beach nourishment and inlet sand transfer sediment is important to: 1) Assess the suitability of the proposed borrow material for erosion control purposes as beach fill. 2) Assess the effect of sediment-removal on the borrow area and adjacent area due to changes in t-he coastal processes brought about by this removal. 3 Assess recovery of the borrow area through time and its suitability and future source of renourishment as needed. Borrow areas used for past beach renouris@hment and restoration projects have been offshore.shoals, the nearshore shelf, inlet sand bodies and occasionally estuarine areas. These areas in the geological past, have been areas of high energy where suitable grain size sands were deposited. At the present time these regions are, as a generality, under the influence of lower energy regemes, and may have additional non-suitable grain sizes deposited over or mixed with the former beach sands. It is therefore important to identify the location and extent of the useful sediment. Several &rosion control projects, particularly in South Florida have used sediment from environmentally sensitive borrow areas. A systematic collection of data on the borrow area will insure suita- bility of fill material and document changes in bathymetry and littoral environmental conditions on individual projects. In addition, this system will provide a data base of behavior of borrow areas in genieral. Section F.1 contains the screne input format for borrow area considerations. This will be a section of the computer data base system. Section F.2 will describe the important_specifications to be addressed by the contractor in _su'r`v_e-y_s__of th-eb-or-row _ar-ea.___ It is recommended that borrow area information be required on all projects, to prevent unsuitable fill material being placed in the nourishment are-a and undue damage to the borrow area or adjacent areas. The time schedule for surveys includes a pre-nourishment survey of the borrow area and controls outside the borrow area (ex'act transects determined by DNR personnel for each project). A survey immediately after project completion of the same data will establish a start point for borrow area behavior. Control areas will indicate natural conditions for comparison. These areas should be chosen to be representative of pre-nourishment conditions within the study area. A six month and 12 month survey of borrow area bathymetry and sediment grain size distribution will be required to assess borrow area behavior. Long-term monitoring at 24 and 36 months will assess the in filling of the borrow area and suitability of reusing the area for renourishment in the future. 46 F.1.1 BORROW AREA MONITORING RECORD FORMAT Fields Data Element Description Format 1-4 Location of Borrow Site Corners UTM Coordinants N-S/E-W or Latitude/Longitude of Four Corners 817 5-7 Length (5), Width (6), Volume of Usable Sand (7) 314 8-10 Pre-Nourishment Survey: Bathymetric Survey Date: 16 MM/DD/YY (8); Area of Survey (9), 14 Plotted Contour Interval (10) F5.2 11-20 @Sediment Core Samples: Collection Date (11) 16 Borrow Area: Number of Cores (12) 13 Average Length of Core (13) 13 Control Area: Number of Cores (14) 13 Average Length of Core (15) 13 Average Depth of Suitable Sand (16) 13 Borrow Area Composite Mean Grain Size (MM) (17) F4.3 (PHI) (18) F4.2 Borrow Area Composite Sorting (MM) (19) F4.3 (PHI) (20) F4.2 21-23 Post-Nourishment Survey: Bathyfnetric Survey Date: MM/DD/YY (21); Area of Survey (22), 16,14 Plotted Contour Intervel (23) F5.2 Sediment Surface Sample: Collection Date (24) 16 Borrow Area: Number of Samples (25) 13 Control Area: Number of Samples (26) 13 Composite Mean Grain Size: Borrow MM (27) F4.3 PHI (28) F4.2 Control MM (29) F4.3 PHI (30) F4.2 Composite Sorting: Borrow MM (31) F4.3 PHI (32) F4.2 Control MM (33) _F4.3 PHI (34) F4.2 6 Month; 12 Month; 24 Month; 36 Month Borrow Area Data: 35-38 Bathymetric Survey Dates: 6 Mo. (35), 12 MO (36), 24 MO (37), 36 MO (38) 416 39-42 Area of Survey: 6 MO. (39)'l 12 MO (40), 24 MO (41), 36 MO (42) 414 43-46 Plotted Contour Interval: 6 MO (43), 12 MO (44), 24 MO (45), 36 MO (46) 414 Sediment Surface Sample: 47-50 Collection Dates: 6 MO (47), 12 MO (48), 24 MO (49), 36 MO (50) 416 47 F.1.1 BORROW AREA MONITORING RECORD FORMAT (Cont.) Fields Data Element Description Format Number of Samples Collected: 51-58 Borrow Area: 6 MO (51), 12 MO (52), 24 MO (53), 413 36 MO (54) Control Area: 6 MO (55), 12 MO (56), 24 MO (57), 413. 36 MO (58) Composite Mean Grain Size: 54-69 Borrow: In MM Units: 6 MO (54), 12 MO (55), 4F4.3 24 MO (56), 36 MO (57) In PHI Units: 6 MO (58), 12 MO (59), 4F4.2 24 MO (60),-36 MO (61) Control: In MM Units: 6 MO (62), 12 MO (63), 4F4.3 24 MO (64), 36 MO (65) In PHI Units: 6 MO (66), 12 MO (62), 4F4.2 24 MO (68), 36 MO (69) Composite Sorting: 70-85 Borrow: In MM Units: 6 MO (70), 12 MO (71), 4F4.3 24 MO (72), 36 MO (73) In PHI Units: 6 MO (74), 12 MO (75), 4F4.2 24 MO (70), 36 MO (76) Control: In MM Units: 6 MO (78), 12 MO (79), 4F4,.3 24 MO (80), 36 MO (81) In PHI Units: 6 MO (82), 12 MO (83)9 4F4.2 24 MO (84), 36 MO (85) 48 Format F.1.2. BORROW AREA MONITORING DATA PROJECT NO: LOCATION OF BORROW SITE: CORNNERS (UTM COORDINANTS) 1) 2) ------- ------- 3)-.7 ----- ------- 4) ------- ------- LENGTH METERS WIDTH METERS3 PRE-NOURISHMENT SURVEY: BATHYMETRIC SURVEY: DATES 2--/ AREA OF SURVEY METERS -PLOTTED CONTOUR INTERVAL METERS SEDIMENT CORE SAMPLES: COLLECTION DATE BORROW AREA: NUMBER OF CORES AVERACE EENCTH OF CORE METERS CONTROL AREAS: NUMBER OF CORES- AVERAGE LENGTH OF CORE METERS AVERAGE DEPTH OF SOTTABLE SAND MET-ERS BORROW COMPOSITE MEAN GRAIN SIZE --- --- MM OR PHI BORROW COMPOSITE SORTING MM OR PHI POST-NOURISHMENT SURVEY: BATHYMETRIC SURVEY DATE AREA OF SURVEY METERS PEOTTED CONTOUR INTERVAL METERS SEDIMENT SURFACC-SAmPLES COLLECTION DATE BORROW AREA: NUMBER OF SAMPLES CONTROL AREA:, NUMBER OF SAMPLES COMPOSITE'MEAN GRAIN SIZE BORROW MM OR PHI CONTROL MM PHI COMPOSITE SORTING BORROW MM OR PHI CONTROL Mm PHI L Format F.1.2. (Cont.) BORROW AREA MONITORING DATA PROJECT NO - ----- 6 MO. 12 MO. 24 MO. 36 MO. BATHYMETRIC SURVEY DATES AREA OF SURVEY METERS2 ---- ---- ---- ---- PLOTTED CONTOUR INTERVAL METERS2 SEDIMENT SURFACE SAMPLES COLLECTION DATES Ln CD NUMBER OF SAMPL-ES BORROW AREA CONTROL COMPOSITE MEAN GRAIN SIZE: BORROW: MM PHI CONTROL: Mm PHI COMPOSITE SORTING: BORROW: Mm PHI CONTROL: Mm PHI F2. Borrow Area Monitoring Specifications These specifications pertain to details and content that is expected to be included in the monitoring reports to be submitted to D.N.R. The time schedual of surveys and report that the borrow area monitoring information includes are as follows: 1) Pre-nourishment borrow area survey to be included in the pre-project base line study report 2) n Post-nourishment borrow area survey to be included in the a's-built monitoring report. - 3) The 6, 12, 24, and 36 month borrow area surveys to be reported in the respective monitoring report. Survey and Report Content A hydrographic survey using fathometer and range locating equipment will be conducted prior to and immediately after the project of the borrow area and surrounding environs. The exact area to be covered*will be determined by D.N.R. personnel on a project specific basis. The survey will include a nearby control area to represent as close as possible the b.athymetry and sediment of the borrow zone. The hydrography survey will be used to construct bathymetric maps with a control interval to be determined by D.N.R. personnel, depending on the complexity of the borrow area relief. Specific statistics on size, location and depth of suitable sediment will be included in the pre-nourishment report. Sediment cores of a length sufficient to penetrate to the depth of dredg@_scour will be taken as close as possible to the bathymetric survey. The number a-nd T-6c-at-ion- of these cores will be determined by D.N.R. personnel, depending on project specific complexities in variation of sediment distribution and suitability requirements. Core samples will be analysed using techniques described in Appendix H. The number of separate size analysis to be run on each core will be determined by the complexity of the stratigraphy of the core. Composite grain- size statistics will be calculated for within borrow area sediment cores using the technique described in the Shore Protection Manual (S.P.M. 1977) section 5.332 and Hobson (1977). The post-nourishment survey and specific month monitoring survey bathymetery will be collected and reported-in the same manner as in the pre-nourishment survey. More detailed contour intervals may be necessary to identify the actual borrow pit edges. Surface sediment samples collected with a grab type sampler will be sufficient to identify the change in sediment characteristics through out the monitoring period. Sediment collection dates should correspond as close as possible with bathymietric surveys at. the above stated 51 intervals. The number and location of samples should be the same throughout the monitoring period. Grain size composite statistics of mean and sorting will be included in the specified reports. The analysis procedure is outlined.in appendix H. 52 Appendix G Profile Specifications G. Profile Specifications Beach profile data before, immediately after and at specific intervals throughout the monitoring period are important to understand the behavior of the fill. By collecting a history of elevation changes, the following information can be obtained: 1) The state of the pre-nourished beach 2) The volume of fill placed along the project 3) The areas of erosion and accretion of fil-1 material after placement. 4) Long-term need to renourish the project beach A standardized profile collection and reporting system will provide an important data base of comparib.le project beach elevation changes from the immediate project fill behavior to long-term coastal changes. By using the DNR benchmark system, long-term repeatability of profiles can be accomplished. This data base will aid in studies of coastal processes, such as drift rates and direction and the calculation of shoreline recession rates. Section G.1. contains the screen input format for project beach profile considerations to be included in the computer data base. .Section G.2 will describe the important specifications to be used by the contractor in monitoring beach ele-vation changes. The time schedule outlined for profiles, includes a p-re-nourishment survey of the existing beach. An immediate post-fill profile will be taken to be used as the as-built profile and be the starting project profile for monitoring purposes. Many of the past projects did not include this information in a monitoring report and the data was filed in a separate location, if at all, making additional work to recover and correlate this data. Most monitoring data starts with a 3 month survey, thus important and sometimes-major changes in the first 3 months of--the project are not documented. By requiring this data to be included in the monitoring format, a complete project record is achieved. As outlined in Appendix E, general project information monitoring surveys will be required on a quarterly basis for the first year (3, 6, 9, 12 months) and on a bienial basis for the second year (18, 24 months). A 36 month profile will give a long-term profile readjustment information. Control profiles should be included in the project specifications to study the natural changes in erosion or accretion occurring in the area of the project. Any major longshore transport of fill material will also be documented. The control sites should be far enough updrift and downdrift of beach nourishment projects to be out of the direct influence of fill placement. Drift directions on both coasts of Florida are seasonal with a predominate net yearly direction. At jettied inlets the usual project design is to bypass sediment downdrift by artificial means to sediment starved areas. On inlet sand-bypass projects, particulary at jettied inlets, only the downdrift control needs to be studied if fill is placed adjacent to the jetty. If the nourishment 53 - area is a significant distance downdrift from the jetty, a updrift control near the jetty may be required. 54 6.1.1. Profile Record Format Fields Data Element Description Format 1 Project Number 15 2 Pre-Nou.rishment Profiles: Number of profiles used 14 3 As-Built Profiles: Number of-profiles used 14 5 Averaging spacing between profiles along-shore: meters 14 6 Monitoring profiles: number of profiles 14 7 Average spaci ng of profiles along-shore: meters 14 8 -9 Control profiles: Distance upcoast: Meters 14 Distance downcoast: Meters 14 DNR Profile Format for Individual Profiles to Follow: (Suggested Format on Table G.1) 55 FORMAT G.1.2 PROFILE SPECIFICATIONS PROJECT NO: PRE-NOURISHMENT PROFILES: NUMBER OF PROFILES USED: AS-BUILT PROFILES: NUMBER OF PROFILES USED: AVERAGE SPACING BETWEEN PROFILES ALONG-SRORE: METERS MONITORING PROFILES: NUMBER OF PROFILES USED: AVERAGE SPACING BETWEEN PROFILES ALONG-SHORET METERS CONTROL PROFILES: DISTANCE UPCOAST: METERS DISTANCE DOWNCOAST: METERS (INDI@IDUAL PROFILES TO FOLLOW DNR FORMAT) AS FOLLOWS: G.2. Profile Specifications All profiles must originate with a ONR monument. Contractors should obtain the location elevation and profile angles of all DNR setback monuments within the control and project area. The number of profiles used will be determined by DNR personnel. For monitoring purposes, a useful rule of thumb, is to use a benchmark closs to every 0.5 miles of project length. Variations on this nurDber could depend on length of project or need to take more detailed measurement, say near existing or proposed structures. Specifications for as-built profiles may require using every DNR monument within the project (monuments are approximately 1,000 ft apart). If additional profile lines are needed, they should be referenced off of these existing monuments. Pre-nourishment profiles should be taken before construction to document the native sand elevations. The number of these profiles needed should correspond to the number of as-built profiles that are required to assess project specification compliance. The profiles used to monitor post-fill behavior should be a selec- ted subset as mentioned above, with a 0.5 mile spacing as needed of the same profiles used in this pre-nourishment/as built. Monitoring addi- tional offshore continuation of the profiles is desirable at least twice a year to assess elevation changes out to wave base (- 36 ft. contour). Onshore/offshore sand transport,-bar formation and migration and long- shore sand transport information can.be constructed from this data base. Profile specifications should follow DNR profile formats and instruction. All profiles need to be referenced to NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum) via the closest DNR benchmark. Standard transit, rod and tape survey methods are required for profiles from dune crest out to seaward limit of the rodman's abilities to maintain a station. Starting the profile at or landward of the dune crest will document dune elevations and assures measurement of dune retreat if it would occur during storm events. Comparison of control profiles to project profiles after storm events often show larger amounts of dune erosion outside of the fill area. An assessment of storm protection afforded by the project can then be made. Twice a year (i.e. 6 mo. and 12 mo. survey) offshore profiles us-ing boat, range finding equipment and fathcmeter should continue the moni-' toring profiles out to the seaward limit of sand transport. Jhis depth can be calculated using the method developed by Hallermeier (1981). Often fill material will be transported seaward of la*nd survey capabili- ties and will need to be documented. Location maps of the project should includc- profile locations, limits of fill associated structure location and control sites. Borrow areas and inlet sand bypass location maps also should be included where .applicable. Profiles should be plotted in accordance with DNR standard. scale, comparing the immediate past reports profile with the latest. The verticle exageration and scale factors from DNR setbacking profiles program are shown in Figure G.1. (This section may be done b@ DNR personnel with X and Y data supplied by the contractor). A suggested 57 field sheet is shown in Table G.2. Af ter plotting', the profiles will be included in the monitoring report, with the data stored in the computer data base according to project and survey date. 530 R=rOR-,) -,)Zc@CPI PTT r@,N! rog ram: Lanauaae: File 1/0 File Name File T D. Device Type rile OrGanization Number Record Format: F-i xed Block Size: Kecord Length: 80 Record: an Becin. End Posi 7t. i on Position LenGth Fo rm at Commients 1 80 80 20A4 Sur-,,e-@, Title 1 8 8 2AL Pange 8 244 Rance DarE 2 ReSE- COdE 19 30 12 F 12 IN' 0 7 Z: h I; n C 7asting 31 42 11) F12-3 1-3 11-9 7 F-7 . 2 Azim,th 1 8 8 2A4 Dot Dare DD@21ixfvY 9 16 8 2.A 4 Beach Darp 'N -.& f "Y'Y 17 24 8 2A4 Offshore D2r-e DDM2 25 27 T'@ Toral No. P,)inf-c 28 30 T -, No, T)07 Dr-,41T-@q 31 33 3 13 No. Beach Poinrs 34 36 1 T@ -N n, 37 3 7 Ve c e t: a C i on 1 7 7 F7.1 Erosion '(10 vear) 8 14 7 F7. I U r) r u sh (200 vear) 15 21 7 F7. I Erosion (50 vear) 22 28 7 F7.1 Uprush 29 3 5. 7 F7. I E r o s@ i on (20 vear) 36 4 2) 7 F7. I UDrush 43 L G F7. I Ercsion (10 vear) 5n 6, / F7. I U 57 63 7 F 7. 1 SBL System: RECORD LESMjEjLQLL Prooram: Language: File File Name File I. D. Device Type File Organization Number Record Format: Fixed Block Size: Record Length: 80 Record: 5 Begin End Lenoth Fo nTa t Position Position I Comments 1 7 7 F7.1 Distance 8 8 1 Al Code point 1 9 9 1-5 7 F7.2 Elevation 16 2 2) 7 F7.1 Distance -,3 -, *1 1 A] Code Point 2 2 Z4 30 7 F7.2 E 1 eva tion 3 1 37 7 F7.1 Distance 38 38 1 Al Code Point 3 39 45 7 F7.2 Elevation 46 52 7 F7-1 I Dis tan ce @'I 5 -3 i @k 1 1 Code Point 4 54 60 7 F7-2 Elevation 61 67 7 @72 Distance 68 6 8 AI C o d.@- Point- 5 69 75 7 F7.2 Elevation 1_@egi inc sit BEACH PFUll F D@TA SHIEET LocATiON DATE SURVEy CRE.,q: FbD TIME OF TRANS I T PROFILE RECORDER TIME OF LOW TIDE E-EVATION OF BENCHWK ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL SL = INST]RUIENT ELEVATION RELATIVE To BaNc:-i n4RK Em = TAPE STADIA rrmpi rrpnl CUIPUr@D DISTANCE ---UPPER MIMLE LOWER DI STM-C-.F-I EL-EVATI'ON REEWKS 21 1 5 71 8 9 13 14 17 20 FIT C OE .............. E ................... ..... ............. .. ......... ... ........ . .. .... ........ ..... .... ......... ... .. ... .... .... .............. .. .... ................... ....... ........ .. .... ............. ........ ...... . ..................... ... ... .... ...... ............... ... .... ... ... . . ....... .......... .......... ....... .......... ...... ....... .......... ... ......... ............ ........ .... .... ... . ... .... ... ..... .... .......... ... .......... ............. ... ....... .................. .......... .......... ................ .... .... ........ .......... .. . ...... ...... ... .... ........ ........ ......... .......... .......... .... .......... ....... .... ............. ......... .... ........ ... .......... .... .......... ...................... ....... . .... ... .......... ......... I.... ........................ ......... ... .............. .... ...... ........ .... ................ ......... .... .... ........... 'I C) 0 100 2 D D* (14 0 1'.) U 1-1 E N T) F E E T ................. 10' .... .... ........ . .. ........ .... . ......... .... ....... .. ........... ......... .... .... ... ....... ....... .......... .. ........ . .... ........ . ...... . ......... .......... ... ... ............ .. ............. .. ....... .... ........... . .............. ...... : - --l - I.... . . 1. 1 ... : . ........... ..... ....... .......... ............. . .. ........... ............... .... ......... . ......... .... ........... .. : .... .... ......... ............... .......... .... .......... .... .... .......... ... .... . . ...... .... ......... .. .... ......... ......... .... .... ........ ... .......... ...... ... .. ..... ...................... .. .............. .. ................. ..... ..... ... .... .... ..... ...... ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... .... .. ... . .... .... ....... ............ . ....... ...... 77777-77 7@ 77 .......... ... ..... .. .... .. ............... ... .... .... ...... ......... ... IL . .. ... *... . ... .... .... .......... .......... ........ ........... .... ................. 4 00 5 ul 0 -700 I IURR I CAHE-5 DAV 1 55 E F -191 5 E P 7 2 PROF I I-ES L E GE ND B E A C rl PBOF I LE, COHN I BBEVAIREI -06 SEP-1,9, B, E 1--1111 H G DUE EAST 1111RE1111 (.lF BF - fjnv 7.1 Sill-TES. B-3 1 .1 11 - F F P 1* . 0 F H I I I 1j R F-i I- h F 1-1 B C E-' Appendix H Sediment Analysis Specifications H. Sediment Analysis Specification This section explains the collection and analysis of fill area sediment samples for beach nourishment and inlet sand bypass projects. The following information of interest can be obtained: 1) The suitability of borrow area sand for erosion control projects 2) The native beach sand grain si-ze distribution on beaches in need of renourishment 3) The rate and process of resorting of fill material after placement on the project beach 4) Assessment of long-term sediment characteristics and the need for renourishment. To assess the suitability of the borrow sediment, native beach sand samples need to be collected and analyzed for grain size distribution parameters. The requirements for calculating fill factors and renourishment factors are summarized in the shore protection manual (1977), with more details in Hobson (1977). The required.parameters for using these methods are the native beach sand mean .grain size and sorting and the borrow area sand mean grain size and sorting. The grain size distribution varies significantly across the beach profile (Bascom, 1959) and in the borrow area with location and depth, so Hobson (1977) suggests the technique of composite samples to give representative sample statistics of both the variable native beach and borrow area sands. To date, no particular method of selecting areas to sample have been identified. From recent findings (Stauble et. al., 1983) it was found that the foreshore area samples collected at mean high tide, mid tide, and low tide, give a good indication of native beach sediment characteristics and subsequent long-term behavior of beach fill. Offshore sand grain size distributi-ons on several__p_noj_qcts showed little change from before fill placement to one year after. Section H.1 contains the screen input format for sediment collec- tion and analysis information, to be included in the computer data base-. Section H.2 describes the specifications to be used by the contractor in collecting native and fill sand and techniques for laboratory analysis. It is suggested that the sediment samples be collected at the same time that the profile monitoring surveys are taken,.as outlined in Appendix G. Sediment sampling of control areas should also be included to assess natural seasonal variation'in grain size distributions in the project area and any influence of fill material on down drift control areas. Fi.11- sediment will resort and reshape itself on the profile due to the coastal processes at work 'after fill placement. It is important to monitor changes in the grain size distribution as wave activity resorts the fill that is not in equilibrium with its new environment. Charac- teristically, due to different energy conditions in the borrow area,' 59 - fill sediments will usually have excess coarse and fine material, different sorting characteristics and possibly different mineral content. In past projects, excess coarse shell material and fine silt and clay material, not normally found on ocean beaches, have been present in the fill. Little is known at present about sorting and redistribution of these materials through the life of the project. Techniques to assess long-term needs to renourish a project, need sediment grain size data (S.P.M., 1977)-. Little actual field infor- mation is available to callibrate these theoretical calculations. This data base will supply a systematic source of information for future research. 60 H.1.1. SEDIMENT ANALYSIS RECORD FORMAT Fields Data Element DescriDtion Format 1 Project No. 15 2-3 Number of sediment collection location profiles project (2) 14 control (3) 14' 5-11 Description of up to six sediment sample locations 6AIO (i.e. high'tide) on each profile 12 Method of sediment analysis (Seiving or setteling tube) A14 13 Method of Statistical collection'(i.e. method of A25 moments or graphical method, etc ... 14-26 Native Beach Sediment Sampling: Date (14) 16 Composite Mean: Project: mm (15), PHI (16) 3(F4.3, Updrift Control: mm (17), PHI (18) F4.2) Downdrift Control: mm (19), PHI (20) Composite Sorting Project: mm (21), PHI (22) 3(F4.31 Updrift Control: mm (23), PHI (24) F4.2) Downdrift Control: mm (25), PHI (26) 27-39 As-built Beach Sediment Sampling: Date (27) 16 Composite Mean: Project: mm (28), PHI (29) 3(F4.3, Updrift Control: mm (30), PHI (31) F4.2) Downdrift Control: mm (32), PHI (33) Composite Sorting: Project: mm (34), PHI (35) 3(F4.3, Updrift Control: mm (36), PHI (37) F4.2) Downdrift Control: mm (38), PHI (39) 40-67 First Year Monitorin Sample Collection: Date: 3 MO (40?, 6 MO (41), 9 MO (42), 12 MO (43) 416 Composite Mean: Project: In mm units: 3 MO (44), 6 MO (45), 9 MO (46), 12 MO (47) 4F4.3 In PHI units: 3 MO (48), 6 MO (49), 9 MO (50), 12 MO--(51) 4F4.2 Updri f t Control : In mm units: 3 MO (52), 6 MO (53), 9 MO (54), 12 MO (55) 4F4.2 In PHI units: 3 MO (56), 6 MO (57), 9 MO (58), 12 MO (59) 4F4.2 Downdrift Control: In mm units: 3 MO (60), 6 MO (61), 9 MO (62), 12 MO (63) 4F4.2 In PHI units: 3 MO (64), 6 MO (65), 9 MO (66), 12 MO (67) 4F4.2 61 H.I.I. SEDIMENT ANALYSIS RECORD FORMAT (Cont.) Fields Data Element Description Format 68-91 Composite Sorting: Project: In mm Units: 3 MO (68), 6 MO (69), 9 MO (70), 12 MO (71) 4F4-.3 In PHI Units: 3 MO (72), 6 MO (73), 9 MO (74), 12 MO (75) 4F4.2 Updrift Control: In mm Units: 3 MO (76), 6 MO (77), 9 MO (78), 12 MO (79) 4F4.3 In PHI Units: 3 MO (80), 6 MO (81), 9 MO (82), 12 MO (83) 4F4.2 Downdrift Control: In mm Units: 3 MO (84), 6 MO (85), 9 MO (86), 12 MO (87) 4F4.3 In PHI Units: 3 MO (88), 6 MO (89), 9 MO (90), 12 MO (91) 4F4.2 92-124 Second and Third Year Monitorin Sample Collection: Dates: 18 MO (92), 24 MO ?93), 36 MO (94) Composite M6an: Project: In mm Units: 18 MO '(95), 24 MO (96), 36 MO (97) 3F4.3 In PHI Units: 18 MO (98), 24 MO (99), 36 MO (100) 3F4.2 Updrift Control: In mm Units: 18 MO (101), .24 MO (102), 36 MO (103) 3F4.3 In PHI Units: 18 MO (-104), 24 MO (105), 36 MO (106) 3F4.2 Downdrift Control: In mm Units: 18 MO (107), 24 MO (108), 36 MO (109) _3F4.3 In PHI Units: 18 MO (110), 24 MO (111), 37 MO (112) 3F4.2 Composite Sorting: Project: In mm Units: 18 MO (113), 24 MO.(114), 36 MO (115) 3F4.3 In PHI Units: 18 MO (116), 24 MO (117), 36 MO (118) 3F4.2 Updrift Control: In mm Units: 18 MO.(119), 24 MO (120), 36 MO (121) 3F4.3 In PHI Units: 18 MO (122), 24 MO (123), 36 MO (124) 3F4.2 6 2 H.I.I. SEDIMENT ANALYSIS RECORD FORMAT (Cont.) Fields Data Element-Description Format 125-130 Downdrift Control: In mm Units: 18 MO (125), 24 MO (126), 36 MO (127.) 3F4.3 In PHI Units: 18 MO (-128), 24 MO (129), 37 MO (130) 34.2 Individual Sediment Sample Analysis Data Goes Here Using Format similar to Table H.1. 63 FORMAT H.1.2 SEDIMENT ANLAYSIS MONITORING DATA PROJECT NO - ----- NUMBER OF SEDIMENT COLLECTION LOCATIO*NS (PROFILES): PROJECT SITES CONTROL SITES NUMBER OF SEDIMENTS COLLECTED ALONG BEACH PROFILE: DESCRIPTION OF SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION: ---------- ---------- ---------- METHOD OF SEDIMENT ANALYSIS METHOD OF STATISTICS CALCULATION NATIVE BEACH SEDIMENT SAMPLING: DATE COMPOSITE NATIVE BEACH: MEAN PR03ECT -- --- MM or PHI CONTROL MM or PHI COMPOSITE SORTING: PROJECT --- MM or PHI CONTROL MM or PHI AS-BUILT SEDIMENT SAMPLING: DATE COMPOSITE MEAN: -PR03ECT MM or PHI UPDRIFT CONTROL MM or PHI DOWNDRIFT CONTROL MM or PHI COMPOSITE SORTING: PROJECT MM or PHI UPDRIFT CONTROL MM or PHI DOWNDRIFT CONTROL MM or PHI FORMAT H.1.2 (Cont.) SEDIMENT ANLAYSIS MONITORING DATA PROJECT NO - ----- FIRST YEAR 6 MO. 12 MO. 24 MO. 36,MO. MONITORING SAMPLE COLLECTION DATE COMPOSITE MEAN: PROJECT: Mm PHI UPDRIFT CONTROL: Mm PHI DOWNDRIFT CONTROL: MM PHI COMPOSITE SORTING: PROJECT: mm PHI UPDRIFT CONTROL: Mm PHI DOWNDRIFT CONTROL: MM PHI FORMAT H.1.2 (Cont.) SEDIMENT ANLAYSIS MONITORING DATA SECOND YEAR THIRD YEAR MONITORING SAMPLE COLLECTION SAMPLE COLLECTION 18 MO. 24 MO. 36 MO. DATE COMPOSITE MEAN: PROJECT: mm PHI UPDRIFT CONTROL: mm PHI DOWNDRIFT CONTROL: mm PHI COMPOSITE SORTING: PROJECT: mm Pill UPDRIFT CONTROL: MM Pill DOWNDRIFT CONTROL: mm PH I FORMAT H.1.2 (Cont.) SEDIMENT ANALYSIS MONITORING DATA PROJECT NO: INDIVIDUAL SEDIMENT ANALYSIS DATA STARTS WITH 1ST NATIVE SAMPLE AND ENDS WITH LAST 36 MONTH SAMPLE (USE A FORMAT SIMILAR TO TABLE @1) H. 2. Specifications for Sediment Data Collection and Analvsis. Sediment Collection No general concensus exists on the technique of sampling beach sands. It is generally accepted to sample a thin layer of surface sample at each sample location. The beach can be divided into three. general zones: backshore, extending from the dune to berm crest (high tide); Foreshore, extending from high tide to low tide; and offshore, extending seaward of low tide to seaward of the breaker zone. No concensus exists in the numb 'er or location of sediment samples accross the beach, from past projects. A review of past-project sediment analysis indicates a rough division of sample grain size distribution landward and seaward of the low tide area. It is suggested that samples be collected on a dynamic zonation basis of high tide, mid-tide- and low tide of the particular sampling date. These samples should be collected on the project profile lines concurrent with the profile survey. High tide is usually identifiable by the detritus line left by wave activity or i 'f none is present, the smooth surface of maximum run-up distancL If at all possible, profiling and sediment sampling should be planned to coincide with time of low tide. This allows for lower water levels, to extend the profile as far seaward as possible and to allow collection of the low tide sample in the area of the low water swash zone. This can be identified oh most beaches as the break in slope between the steeper foreshore slope and flatter low tide terra'ce. The mid tide sample is collected half way between the two above samples. Additional samples can be required by DNR personnel in the offshore area if deamed necessary. It is suggested that these samples be 6enly spaced seaward of low tide. (i.e., 100 ft. intervals). Samples should be collected at the monitoring profiles (i.e. every 0.5 miles) and the controls, but is not necessary at every pre-nourishment/as-built location. The time interval of collection s hou 1 d corri s pond wi th the p rof i 1 e sampl i ng (outl i ned i n a ppend i x H) a s follows: Sample Collection Interval: Data Included in Report: Pre-Nourishment Pre-Construction As-Built Post-Construction 3, 6, 9, 12 Month 1st Year 18, 24 Month 2nd Year 36 Month 3rd Year Sample A alysis There are several methods of analyzing grain size distributions of -sediment. The two most popular methods are standard sieve analysis or settling tube analysis. The two methods are not compatable since settling tube analysis measures hydraulic equivalance while sieving measures physical size class. Therefore, only one method should be used on any given project. The most commonly used method in pa'st projects is 68 the standard sieve method. The data between projects can be compared and should be the preferred method, since there is an industry standard established. The settling tube analysis has not, as yet, been standardized, and there is some question of compariability even between different tubes. Gain size distribution analysis should be done using PHI interval. Table H.2 lists the intervals using ASTM sieve mesh numbers, mm scale and 14 0 intervals for comparison. Also-included are the two most Commonly used verbal descriptions according to their size class ranges. It is recommended that -410 intervals be used but -1 0 intervals would be. acceptable. The usua 1 range of sediment sizes for Florida beaches range from -2.00 (4 mm) down to 4.50 (.044 mm). Using the Wentworth classi- fication, this covers the gravel to mid silt size range. All of the common grain size scales used in coastal engineering studies are acceptable but must be identified and tables of comparison need to be included in the monitoring reports. Since most work on calculation of grain size statistics have used the PHI scale values, it is recommended that these units be used. Folk (1968) and Friedman and Sanders (1978) describe the various ways to calculate the four statistical entities to describe a sediment sample (i.e. mean, standard deviation, a measure of sorting, skewness and kurtosis.) Initial work in these calculations involved hand plotting of weight percent. values on probability paper. Graphical methods of calculating the statistical parameters used equations shown on table G1.- With the increased use of compute'rs, the moment measures calculations which use the entire data set, have gained in popularity. Different values of the four statistical parameters are obtained, depending on the method of calculation. The sediment mean and sorting should be calculated for each sample, using the method of moments calculation. If another method is used it should be stated and used throughout the study. To reduce some of the variaE-ili-t-y--a--n-d-v-o-l-u--mes-- of sedim-ent data, Hobson (1977) explains two techniques to construct a composite sample of each sample site. The preferred method of constructing a composite would be to sieve each sample collected and then mathematically combining them for summary purposes. Raw weight percent values should be sOpplied to be added to the computer data base on a field data sheet similar to Table G.1. Graphic distribution curves should be constructed using the probability graph method. To facilitate interpretation, a PHI scale, milimeter scale, a ASTM mean number scale, and a Wentworth classification description name scale should be included on the ordinate scale. The absissia scale of weight % on probability scale should be used (Figure G.1). An accep- table alternative would be to construct a cumulative frequency curve with percent coarser in arithmetic scale on the absissia, and the above mentioned ordinate scales on log axis of semi log paper (Figure G.2). By using these forms with appropriate labeling of the axis and supplying data in computer format, continuity will be preserved and the ability to produce summary reports on DNR erosion control projects will be possible. 69 S A N1 P LOCATION- DATE NAME- LNITLAL WT. F !',,,A L WT. 'A'T. L, 0 S S (-A I NN Sieve Size(mm) 0 wt. wt. Fc Cum. Wt. 7c U- 4.0 -2 6 3.36 -1.75 5 2.83 -1.50 2.38 25 16 U10- 2.00 -1.00 1.68 -0. 75 0 25 14 1.41 -0.50 116 1.19 -0.25 50 k 18 1.00 0-00 -------- '2" 0 0.84 0.25 75 0-71 0-,@o 30 0.59 0.75 0 34 US 0. EO 1.00 lw_ 0 0@ 49 1 ?S 0 95 145' 0.35 1.50 0.30 1.75 Nld=50 60 0.25 2. 00 GI-484-016 +3095-95 4 -6.8 U- n .91 9 9 Sk,=0164-084-2550- 05@995-205 0 .177 2. 50 2(084-016) 2(095-05) KG=095-05 00 ..149 2. 75 9-44(075-025) 125 3.00 '-'Yld 140 105 3. 25 --088 3. 50 ZI 900 .074 3.75 k3 0 - of; 9,@ nn sy co K 0 G= nA.� -5n Table N.' Grain-size scales--soil classification (modified from U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers,,Coastal Engineering Research Center, 19774). Unified Sol IS ASTM mm Phi Wentworth Class If lcation Mesh Size Value CIOSSIfiCation BOULDER COBBLE 2 56. 0 8.0 COBBLE COARSE GRAVEL FINE GRAVEL PE66LE 6 2 .'2 5 N@ coarse 5 4. 0 G VEL RA 0 ///////2. N' 777@@ very coarse 0. 0 4 medium coarse J., 6 1. 2 5 x1, medium .......... 0. 2 5 2.C fine fine .............. 3. 0 very fine 2 30 4 SILT 0.062 0: SILT O-PO39 8.0 CLAY "i 0. 12.0: CLAY 0024. COLLOID 4u. s. Ap.@, CORPS OF EITGINEERS, COASTAL ENGINTEERING RESEARCH CENTER, op. cit., p. 7. 120 f AMPLE NO. DATE OCATION ANALYSIS BY GRA VZ- @L V. C 5 ;:7- ---------------------- GRAVEL SAND S ILT Fine Coarse Medium Fine Coarse Medium std sieve size 4 10 20 40 60 100 140 2 100 ffl ff-t A 90 80 7. 70 3 6:3 cr_ V) 60 Z 50 Ld W IL 40 J -_4 30 20 10 l flV44. l grain size (mM) 6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.06 0.04 0. 2 0,01 0.006 0.004 0.0( @ - I .I f I I TI'll T I ''llilly I I I I T II I I I I I I I I I I T I I T-1 I-T-1 I grain size 4 5 SAND GRADATION CURVES FIGURE STA. 3 + 85 6- MONTH SAMPLES TACKNEY B ASSOCIATES, IN, Appendix I Littoral Environmental Monitoring Specifications I. LittoraT Environmental Monitoring Specifications Supplementary data relating the littoral forces and other environmental parameters should be included to give a better understanding of fill behavior. The first pre-nourishment report of both beach nourishment and inlet sand bypass projects should include: 1) a brief description of the project and if applicable a description of the inlet, 2) a history of previous erosion control projects effecting the present project area, 3) description of historical structural improvements to the shoreline and associated inlet, and 4) Brief summary of coastal processes occurring in the proj.ect area including (if 'data is availalbe) wave period, height; angle of wave approach, tide rance, wind direction and velocity, measure of direction and quaniity of longshore drift. For inlet projects, information on tidal dynamics and morphology should also be included. Where available a history of shoreline movement and erosion rates for the project beach and beaches on both sides of the inlet in a sand bypass project should be included. Historical aerial photos of the area could be used for the analysus and be included in the report depending on their availability. A base map, utilizing optically corrected aerial photographs could be useful for basic project location information. The DNR erosion control line base maps would be readily available for this purpose. They contain information on benchmark location and erosion control line position, as well as dune line and high tide line position at time of photograph. The project profile lines and sediment sampling locations could be superimposed. Figure I.1 is a copy of the corps littoral environmental obser- vations form. It would be advantageous to establish this program 'on a daily basisduring__c_or@struction and-for at least the first year of monitor-in-g-. -f-@-e-constru-ctio-n--p--ersonneI could be trained to record the data during project construction and interested local observers could follow up during the monitoring period. The important physical data are: 1) Wave period, breaker height, breaker angles 2) Wind direction and velocity 3) Longshore current direction and velocity. The ability to identify storm events during construction and monitoring is enhanced by the L.E.O. program. Storm events should be identified and a frequency of occurance should be included for each monitoring report period even if the L.E.O. program is not used. The calculation of fill factor and renourishment factor should be done, using the methods reported in the shore protection manuel (S.P.M., 1977) and included in the pre-nourishment report. This data is based on the comparison of native and borrow area sediment parameters. 70 Aerial photography (if available) and around photography during construction and monitoring would serve as 6ser documentation of the project. During surveys, ground photography of the profiles area is easily done. On inlet sand bypass projects, supplementary data on inlet dynamic's and morphology should be taken. Tidal range, tidal type, and tidal prism/cross sectional area data would also be useful. Tidal current velocities on both ebb and fluid should-be collected during a period of spring tidal range. Tide ranges should be reported, and if not avail- able measured at the inlet by installing a tide guage for a minimum of one month. If biological monitoring is required by other agencies, a brief summary should be included as to nature and extent in the DNR monitoring L report. NorTnaly biological monitoring of the borrow and fill areas is reported in a separate report-(if required) and no record is included with the physical monitoring. While-not directly of interest, a.record of environmentaly sensative species impacted by the project should be listed (i.e. Turtles). Supplementary information on additional structures and dune maintance on construction associated-with the project should also be included in th e data file and monitoring reports. 71 I.1.1 LITTORAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING DATA RECORD FORMAT Format Fields Data Element De@_C@@ 1-6 Pre-nourishment monitoring report environmental data content History of project Y/N (1) shoreline erosion rate Y/N/ (2) 211 Previous projects at the-location Y/N (3) Report on Coastal Processes Y/N (4) Fill factor calculation Y/N/ (5) Renourishment factor calculation (6) 2F4.2 7-18 Littoral environmental observations recorded Wave data Y/N as-built report (7): Ist yr. (8), 411 2nd year (9), 3rd year (10) Wind data Y/N as-built report (11): 1st yr. (12), 411 2nd year (13), 3rd year (14) Longshore drift rate Y/N as-built report (15), 411 1st yr. (16), 2nd year (17), 3rd year (18) 19'-30 Supplementary data: Aerial Photography used Y/N as-built report (19) 411 1st yr. (20), 2nd yr. (21), 3rd yr.'(22) Ground Photography used Y/N as-built report (23) 411 1st yr. (24), 2nd yr. (25), 3rd yr. (26) Number of storms reported Y/N as-built report (27), 413 1st yr. (28), 2nd yr. (29), 3rd yr. (30) 31-42 Inlet characteristics: (Sand bypass projects) Type of tide: diurnal (31), semidiurnal (32), 311 mixed (33) Mean tide range: in meters (34) F4.2 Spring tide range: in meters (35) F4.2 Minimum inlet throat cross sectional area in F5.2 meters (36) Mean tidal prism (37) F5 '.2 Flood tide current: Mean velocity in meters/sec (38) _F5.2 Duration in hours (39) F3.1 Ebb tide current: Mean velocity in meters/sec (40) @5.2 In hours (41) F3.1 Tidal data collected Y/N (42) 11 43-49 Biological monitoring: contractor's name (43) A25 Borrow area Y/N (44), Fill area Y/N (45) 211 Contents: vegetation Y/N (46) Benthic Y/N (47) Turtles Y/N (48) 11 Other (specify) (49) A20 72 FORMAT 11.2 LITTORAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING DATA PROJECT NO: PRE-NOURISHMENT MONITORING REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CONTENT HISTORY OF PROJECT Y/N SHORELINE EROSION RATE Y/N PREVIOUS PROJECTS AT THT@ LOCATION Y/N REPORT ON AVERAGE COASTAL PROCESSES Y/N_ FILL FACTOR CALCULATED RENOURISHMENT FACTOR LITTORAL ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATIONIRECORDED Y/N AS-BUILT 1ST YR. 2ND YR. 3RD YR. REPORT REPORT REPORT WAVE DATA Y/N WIND DATA Y/N LONG SHORE DRIFT,RATES Y/N SUPPLIMENTARY DATA AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS USED Y/N GROUND PHOTOGRAPHS USED Y/N STORM OCCURRANCE REPORTED Y/N (NUMBER) FORMAT 11.2 (Cont.) LITTORAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING DATA PROJECT NO: INLET CHARACTERISTICS (IF SAND BYPASS PROJECT) TYPE OF TIDE: DIURNAL SEMIDIURNAL MIXED MEAN TIDAL RANGE METERS -7 SPRING TIDE RANGE METERS MINIMUM INLET THROT*Noss SECTIONAL AREA METERS (REFERRED TO N.G.V.D.) MEAN TIDAL PRISM FLOOD TIDE MEAN vr[oCTTY M/S DURATION [IRS EBB TIDE MEAN VELOCITY --- A/S DURATION HRS, TIDAL DATA COLLECTED N/Y BIOLOGICAL MONITORING: CONTRACTOR BORROW AREA Y/N ---- -------------------- FILL AREA Y/N CONTAINS: VEGETATION Y/N BENTHIC Y/N TURTLES Y/N OTHER (SPECIFY) -------------------- LITTORAL ENVIRONMENT OBSERVATIONS RECORD ALL DATA CAREFULLY AND LEGIBLY SITE NUMBERS YEAR MONTH DAY TIME 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Record time 12 13 14 15 using the 24 hour system WAVE PERIOD 16 17 18 BREAKER HEIGHT 19 20 21 Record the time in seconds for Record the best estimate of the eleven ( I I ) wave crests to pass a average wave height to the nearest stationary point. If calm record 0. tenth of a toot. WAVE ANGLE AT BREAKER 22 23 24 WAVE TYPE 25 Record to the nearest degree the 0 - Calm 3 - Surging direction the waves are coming from 1 - Spilling 4 - Spill / Plunge using the protractor on the reverse side. 0 if calm. 2 - Plunging Direction the wind WIND SPEED 26 27 WIND DIRECTION- is coming from. 28 Record wind speed to the nearest 1-N 3-E 5-S 7 - W 0 - Calm mph. If calm record 0. 2-NE 4-SE 6-SW 8-NW FORESHORE SLOPE 29 30 WIDTH OF SURF ZONE 31 32 33 34 Record foreshore slope to the Estimate in feet the distance from nearest degree, shore to breakers, if calm record 0. LONGSHORE CURRENT DYE 36 37 38 Estimate distance in feet from shoreline to point of dye injection. CURRENT SPEED 43 44 45 CURRENT DIRECTION 46 47 Measure in feet the distance the dye 0 No longshore movement patch is observed to move during a one (I) + I Dye moves toward right minute period i If no qlongshore movement record 0. - I Dye moves toward left RIP CURRENTS 50 51 52 If rip currents are present , indicate spacing (feet), If spacing is irregular estimate average spacing. If no rips record 0. BEACH CUSPS 54 55 56 If cusps are present, indicate spacing ( feet). If spacing is irregular estimate average spacing. It no cusps record 0. PLEASE PRINT; SITE NAME OBSERVER Please Check The Form For Completeness REMARKS: CERC 113-72 8 Mar 72 Make any additional remarks, computations or sketches on the reverse side of this form. APPENDI9 J Review of revisions to: Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program Chapter 16B-36 Appendix J contains a copy of a questionnaire that was sent to selected Federal, State, Local Government Agencies and Private Coastal Engineering Firms that are responsible for planning, permitting, designing and implementing erosion control projects within the State of Florida. As part of the study, a compilation of comments on proposed new rules to Chapter 16B-36, called The Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program was undertaken. The recipients of the questionnaire were asked to review the rules and to identify the possible problems, additional concerns and unnecessary sections, so that they can be as- complete as possible -when they are implemented. A synopsis of the various specific comments on each question has been included. Responses that deal with specific sections of the rules have been placed in order of appearance in the rules, as well as comments on the rules in general. A list of the fourteen agencies and firms that were chosen for their knowledge of beach erosion control permitting processes is enclosed. The seven agencies and firms that responded are identified and a copy of their responses are included for your review. 75 QUESTIONNAIRE: BEACH EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Florida Institute of Technology, under contract to the Division of Beaches and Shores of the Department of Natural Resources -is undertaking research leading to the development of erosion control guidelines. The purpose of this questionnaire is to review proposed new policies and procedures for administration of the Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program. The Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beac hes and Shores is proposing to revise portions of Section 161.091 F.S. in order to assist local governments in alleviating serious beach erosion problems. A copy of the--,e proposed revisions, as prepared by the Division, is enclosed. We would be most grateful if you could review these materials and provide 'us with an evaluation, comments and suggestions by responding to the following questions and returning the form by April 30, 1984 to: Dr. Donald K. Stauble Department of Oceanography and Ocean Engineering Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, Florida 32901 1. Are the proposed new Rules, taken as a whole, clear, concise and readily understandable? 2. Please identify any Sections which are not clear, or which need improvements; how could they be improved? 3. Do the proposed rules -meet the needs; if not, why not? 76 4. Are there any features of the content which are objectionable, or any which could prove difficult in implementing? 5. Are there any additional features that should be included? 6. Are the forms provided in the Rules suitable, convenient, understandable? Please indicate any improvements you feel are necessary. 7. Any additional comments on the new Rules resulting from previous experience in erosion control projects and their management would be appreciated. A 77 RESPONSE TO FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY QUESTIONNAIRE BEACH EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Synopsis of responses from the seven Federal, State, Local Government Agencies and Private Consulting Firms that responded to the survey. Comments are as written on the questionnaire with minor editing for format consistency. No interpretation of comments have been done at this time. QUESTION: 1. Are the proposed new Rules, taken as a whole, clear, concise and readily understandable? RESPONSES: A few minor points are not clear. In general we found that the proposed rule did not adequately distinguish between local projects and Federal projects with local sponsors. We believe that the rule should clearly make this distinction and that the rule should consider the detailed nature of the Federal project planning and coordination process. The response to this question seemed to depend upon the reviewer's familiarity with governmental regulations in general. Those who work with regulations had no problem with the rules. Those who do not found them unclear and confusing. The proposed rules would be much easier to use if they were published in booklet form with a "cookbook" format on the steps to be followed to obtain state assistance. It is suggested that a simpler version of the rule be developed for use by local governments. Yes! However, is an erosion control line to be established for any size project? Four simply responded - Yes QUESTION: I 2. Please identify any Sections which are not clear, or which need improvements; how could they be improved. RESPONSES: (In order of Section Number) Section 1613-32.02 (3) - Under "Authorized Beach Restoration Project", why must a project include a 10 year maintenance program to be considered an "authorized" project? 78 RESPONSE TO QUESTION 2 CONTINUED: Section 16B-36.02 (3) and (12) - refers to "Projects authorized by Congress". The Chief of Engineers can authorize projects costing up to $1,000,000 under the Continuing Authorities program and Division and District Engineers also have delegated authority to obligate certain funds for beach work. The wording needs to be broadened to include these cases. Under Section 16B-36.03 (1) - the BECAP is to assist in preventing erosion of sandy beach6s. ., This in contrary to Section 16B-36.04 which provides assistance for revetments, etc. Section 16B-36.03 (2)(a) - states that sandy beach preservation... must be the primary purpose of a project. The state does participate in other erosion control projects. Again Section 16B-36.03 (2)(a) - Why isn't hurricane protection an acceptable primary purpose of a project receiving a program grant? It should be noted that the Miami Beach Project was primarily a hurricane protection project and not an erosion control project. Again Section 16B-36.03 (2)(a) - "... to be in the public interest." Should read "to qualify the project area as a public beach." Section 16B-36.03 (2)(c) what is definition of "project area" and adequate parking" Section 16B-36.03 (2)(f) Unless some deadline is given, a specific period in which to complete the project review report, the project sponsor may be held up indefinitely in making final payment to the contractor. Again Section 16B-36.03 (2)(f) - should read "... the staff has performed an ins2ection of. the 2hysical condition of the project, and reviewed the necessary project records, and a satisfactory project review report prepared." Section 16B-36.05 (a) and (3) - the word construction should be inserted between project and costs. Section 16B-36.05 (2) and Section 18B-36.05 (4) - Isn't the project sponsor required to bear full costs for the same items as listed in 16B-36.05(l)(a) thru (e)? If so, shouldn't it be stated? Section 16B-36.05 (4) - Does the 75% pertain to the total dredging and disposal costs or does it pertain only to the incremental costs involved in beach disposal rather than dumping? If the latter is the case, why shouldn't it be 106% as in Section 16B-36.05 (2)? 79 RESPONSE TO QUESTION 2 CONTINUED: Section 16B-36.07 (2) - Since the Governor uses abiannual budget program, applications can only be accepted during even numbered years. Shouldn't this be mentioned in this section? Section 16B-36.07 (4) - At first reading appears to be part of the original funding Application. Would be more clear if there was a separate section (requirements of project agreement). Section 16B-36.09 (Ua) - the word beach is misleading and should be deleted. Section 16B-36.09 (3)(g) - Parking added after project has met requirements - should be exempt so that it could be restricted for residents only. No section number provided - What is an "eligible governmental agency"? Would a properly legislated "MSTD" qualify? QUESTION: 3. Do the proposed rules meet the needs; if not, why not? RESPONSES: Two responses - In general, yes. The rules appear to meet the needs with minor exceptions. Does the Bureau of Beaches and Shores intend to evaluate the technical adequacy of a given proposal? Who will determine the classification points to be assigned under Section 16B-36.08? Yes, however, the rules appear to be elaborate. Ranking is a good idea. Also see answers to question 04. QUESTION: 4. Are there any features of the content which are objectionable, or any which could prove difficult in implementing?- RESPONSES: (by Section Number) Section 16B-36.06 (2)' - the point system for evaluating project and prioritizing applications does not provide the board with the information RESPONSE TO QUESTION 4 CONTINUED: needed to allocate state resources. Priorities should be based on recognized State needs in a manner such as the comprehensive state outdoor recreation plan Priorities allocation or resources on the basis of demand and needs. Priorities should also reflect what returns in the way of project benefits will be received in return for the allocation of statb resources. In Section 16B-36.07 (2) - limiting application acceptance to between April I and July I seems unduly restrictive. In the case of Federal navigation projects from which suitable dredge material may be disposed on beaches, the Corps has the capability to transfer funds from one project to another in order to satisfy navigation needs. Therefore, limiting applications to the April I to July I timeframe would be a severe handicap to the local sponsor of such a project who desires assistance. In that same section, (Section 16B-36.07) paragraph (4) lists certain application requirements. Among those requirements is that of obtaining coastal construction permits. There is no basis in Federal law for requiring those permits for a Federal project. Even if it is the intent of the state to have a local sponsor mee't those requirements, they are unduly restrictive in the case of a Federal project which is thoroughly coordinated with DNR and other state and Federal agencies during its planning. Designation of a "project engineer" for a Federal project could cause sponsor problems since they have no authority to commit the Government. In addition we do no permit our own projects. We consider that preparing a 404(b) evaluation, an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment, state coastal zone consistency and water quality certification and complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act adequate. It is suggested that this section be rewritten to discuss local projects separately from Federal projects. Why are projects submitted to the Governor and the Cabinet and 'the legislature for approval before all permits are obtained? Since the costs of certain studies can be, retroactively reimbursed, necessary permits or a favorable commitment in writing from the permitting agency should be required before approval of funding. This procedure is in line with most federal grant procedures. Further, Governor and Cabinet approval and legislative approval before obtaining permits places state agencies in the untenable position of denying a permit for a project that already has 6een approved by the Governor and Cabinet and the Legislature. We strongly recommend Section 16B-36.07 be revised to include submital of required permits as a part of the initial application for funding. Section 16B-36.08 (li) - Discriminates against new projects. Fine for places like Delray Beach which can keep up an on-going program, but counts against areas trying to establish new programs. 31 RESPONSE TO QUESTION 4 CONTINUED: Section 16B-30.08 (1d) - Tends to "grandfather" in or favor old, continuing long standing projects. Could restrict funding to new problem areas which if addressed promptly could avoid larger future problems. Section 16B-36.08 (1k) - Puts the DNR staff in a position of doing DER's job. This could cause problems, over lap, and make DNR subject to exposure or criticism for decisions made outside their area of experience. General comments - For smaller projects under $25,000 construction cost, some of the requirements such as ECL establishment should be waived. QUESTION: 5. Are there any additional features that should be included? RESPONSES: The applicant should demonstrate the economic, environmental and social justification for the use and expenditure of state resources. General clarification of the Corps of Engineers' role in beach erosion control projects. Some detail should be -given on retroactive funding, particularly relating to environmental studies and monitoring added during review as permit requirements. Two answered no comment. QUESTION: 6. Are the forms provided in the Rules suitable, convenient, understandable? Please indicate any improvements you feel are necessary. RESPONSES: Section 16B-36-09 (3) h Is this necessary? How involved is this? Four answered Yes Two No comments 82 QUESTION: 7. Any additional comments on the new Rules resulting from previous experience in erosion control projects and their management would be appreciated. RESPONSES: Section 16B-36.08 - the point system given should be deleted entirely as the criteria for evaluating project applications. The criteria does not provide the Board a project priority based on state needs as a basis for allocating state resources. Evaluation criteria should include as a minimum economic, environmental and social justification; locality compatibility with other state programs, E.O. 81105 and state interests in general locally and regionally. The division should require receipt of a copy of any studies performed prior to final disbursal of funds. Should also produce a bibliography of such studies. This.pool of research may help avoid duplication of efforts. Research in the field, including experimental projects, should be encouraged and funded under the program.. Shouldn't s'ome reference be made to what happens if a project is delayed after funds have been appropriated? Shouldn't some reference be made to emergency erosion situations and how they can be funded? Four answered No comment 83 QUESTIONNAIRE RECIPIENTS Those who responded to the questionnaire are marked with an N. Private Engineering Consulting Firms Mr. Thomas Campbell Arthur V. Strock & Associates 829 S. E. 9th. Street Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33441 Mr. David Tackn'ey Tackney & Associates P.O. Box 9199 Naples, Fl. 33941 Dr. Michael Stephen Coastal Engineering Consultants P.O. Box 8306 Naples, Fl. 33941 Local Government Agencies Dr. Mark Benedict Collier County, Environmentalist County Government Center Naples, Fl. 33942 Mr. Andrew Nicholson City of Clearwater, Ocean. Eng. P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Fl. 33518 Mr. Steven Somerville Broward County, Erosion Prevention Eng. 500 S.W. 14 th. Court Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. 33315 Mr. James Davis Indian River County, Public Works Dir. 1840 25th. St. Vero Beach, Fl. 32960 Mr. John Walker City of Delray Beach, Engineer 100 N.W. Ist. Ave. Delray Beach, Fl. 33444 84 - Local Government Agencies (cont.) Mr. Frank Aymonin City of Miami Beach, Public Works Dir. 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, Fl. 33119 Mr. R. W. Clinger Palm Beach County, Beach Erosion Coord. P.O. Box 2429 West Palm Beach, Fl. 33402 Mr. Steve Pfieffer Brevard County, Environ. Planner 2575 N. Courtney Pkwy. Merret Island, Fl. 32952 State and Federal Agencies Mr. William K. Hennesssey Deputy Director, Div, of Environmental Permitting Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, Fl. 32301 Mr. A. J. Salem Chief, Planning Division Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Eng. P.O. Box 4970 Jacksonville, Fl. 32232 Mr. Laurence R. Green Chief, Planning Division Mobile District, U.S. Army Corps of Eng. P.O. Box 2288 Mobile, Al. 36628 85 I I I I I I I I I INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE I I I I IL I I I m 0 4 'A . TACKNEY & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1053 5th AVENUE, NO. COASTAL ENGINEERING P. 0. BOX 1G464 NAPLES, FLORIDA 33941-9199 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302-10464 P* 0* BOX 9,99 813 / 261-8221 904 877-4315 April 18, 1984 Donald K. Stauble, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Oceanography and Ocean Engineering Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, Florida 32901 Re: Proposed Chapter 16B-36, F.A.C. Dear Don: As requested, I have reviewed the proposed Chapter 16B-36, and I have filled out the questionnaire enclosed with your recent letter. In reviewing the chapter, however, a number of questions arose. The following is a listing of those questions. 1. Section 16B-32.02 (3) - Under "Authorized Beach Restoration Project", why must a project include a 10 year maintenance program to be considered an authorized" project? 2. Section 16B-36.03 (2)(a) - Why isn't hurricane protection an acceptable primary purpose of a project receiving a program grant? It should be noted that the Miami Beach Project was primarily a hurricane protection project and not an ercsion control project. 3. Section 16B-36.03 (2)(f) - Unless some deadline is given, a specific period in which to complete the project review report, the project sponsor may be held up indefinitely in making final payment to the contractor. 4. Section 16B-36.05 (2) - Isn't the project sponsor required to bear full costs for the same itemsas listed in 16B-36.05(l)(a) thru (e)? If so, shouldn't it be stated? 86 Donald K. Stauble, Ph.D. April 18, 1984 Page Two 5. Section 16B-36.05 (4) - Same as question 4. 6. Section 16B-36.05 (4) - Does the 75% pertain to the total dredging and disposal costs or does it pertain only to the incremental costs involved in beach disposal rather than dumping? If the latter is the case, why shouldn't it be 100% as in Section 16B-36.05(2)? 7. Section 16B-36.07 (2) - Since the Governor uses a biannual btidget program, applications can only be accepted during even numbered years. Shouldn't this be mentioned in this section? 8. Shouldn't some reference be made to what happens if a project is delayed after funds have been appropriated? 9. Shouldn't some reference.be made to emergency erosion situations and how they can be funded? I hope that my review has been helpful. Should you have any questions*, pleas.e let me know. Very truly yours, TACKNEY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. D. T. ac ney, P. E. President DTT/pf Enc. T k 87 QUESTIONLNiAIRE: BEACH EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Florida Institute of Technology, under contract to the Division of Beaches and Shores of the Department of Natural Resources is undertaking research leading to the development of erosion control guidelines. ' The purpose of this questionnaire is to review proposed new policies and procedures for admi6istration of the Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program. The Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores is proposing to revise portions of Section 161.091 F.S. in order to assist local governments in alleviating serious beach erosion problems. A copy of these proposed revisions, as prepared by the Division, is enclosed. We would be most grateful if you could review these materials and provide us with an evaluation, commen :ts and suggestions by responding to the following questions and returning the form by April 30, 1984 to: Dr. Donald K. Stauble Department of Oceanography and Ocean Engineering Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, Florida 32901 1. Are the proposed new Rules, taken as a whole, clear, concise and readily understandable? 2. Please identify any Sections which are not clear, or which need improvements; how could they be improved? 3, Do the proposed rules meet the needs; if not, why not? A 4. Are there any features of the content which are objectionable, or any which could prove difficult in implementing? 5, Are there any additional features that should be included? :5 e- e- Ii 6. Are the forms provided in the Rules suitable, convenient, understandable? Please indicate any improvements you feel are necessary. 7. Any additional comments on the new Rules resulting from previous experience in erosion control projects and their management would be appreciated. 89 COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Development Consultants - Coastal Engineers - Marine Scientim Civil Engineers Surveyors 3883 Davis Blvd. P. 0. Box 8306 - Naples, Florida 33941 - (813) 774-4402 QUESTIONNAIRE: BEACH EROSION CONTRUL Florida Institute of Technology, under contract to the Division of Beaches and Shores of the Department of Natural Resources is undertaking research leading to the development of erosion control guidelines. The purpose of this questionnaire is to review proposed new policies and procedures for administration of the Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program. The Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores is proposing to revise portions of Section 161.091 F.S. in order to assist local governments in alleviating serious beach erosion problems. A copy of these proposed revisioni, as prepared by the Division, is enclosed. We would be most grateful if you could review these materials and provide us with an evaluation, comments and suggestions by responding to the following questions and returning the form by April 30, 1984 to: Dr. Donald K. Staubte Department of Oceanography and Ocean Engineering Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, Florida 32901 I. Are the proposed new Rules, taken as a whole, clear, concise and readily understandable? 2. Please identify any Sections which are not clear, or which need improvements; how could they be improved? 2 /tf t, 7-4; 3. Do the proposed rules meet the needs: if not. why riot? _@Z IqA.1 1Z C'o C/ 910 4. Are there any features of the content which are objectionable, or any which could prove difficult in implementing? 3 & 7,- /A/ e- ee) I cl eo 7-,c/4;- ',4 e- /4/, x3 - 3,@, , 774y < I-J 12 .5 7 pal rle-,ILI CIA= OCP 7 7' ti Are there any additional features that should be included? 6. Are the *forms provided in- the Rules suitable, convenient, understandable? Please indicate any improvements you feel are necessary. - 3 L, - ':@' 17 (3 ') 4- e C C. T /Q f? 7. Any additional comments on the new Rules resulting from previous experience in erosion control projects and their management would be appreciated. 91 BOARD OF COUNTY COMJWSSIONERS 1840 25th Street . Vero Beach, Florida 32960 QUESTIONNAIRE: BEACH EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE PROGR--V'v1 Florida Institute of Technology, under contract to the Division of Beaches and Shores of the Department of 'Natural Resources is undertaking research leading to the development of erosion control guidelines. The purpose of this questionnaire is to review proposed new policies and procedures for administration of the Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program. The Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores is proposing to revise portions of Section 161.091 F.S. in order to assist local governments in alleviating serious beach erosion problems. A copy of these proposed revisions, as prepared by the Division, is enclosed. We would be most grateful if you could review these materials and provide us with an evaluation. comments and suggestions by responding to the following questions and returning the form by April 30, 1984 to: Dr. Donald K. Stauble Department of Oceanography and Ocean Engineering Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, Florida 32901 1. Are the proposed new Rules, taken as a whole, clear, concise and readily understandable? -;y 2. Please identify any Sections which are not clear, or which need improvements; how could they be improved? C3 P" IC-@ -Z 3. Do the proposed rules meet the needs; if not, why not? 4. Are there any features of the content which are objectionable, or any which could prove difficult in implementing? L ctl-@ 3. Are there any additional features that should be included? 0 6. Are the forms provided in the Rules suitable, convenient, understandable? Please indicate any improvements you feel are necessary. 7. Any additional comments on the new Rules resulting from previous experience in erosion control projects and their management would be appreciated. 93 COASTAL LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER E t 4 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 100 N.W. 1ST AVENUE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA 33444 305/278-2841 QUES OSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Florida Institute of Technology, under contract to the Division of Beaches and Shores of the Department of Natural Resources is undertaking research leading to the development of erosion control guidelines. The purpose of this questionnaire is to rev@ew proposed new policies and procedures for administration of the Beach Erosion Control Assistance Pro-ram. The Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores is proposing to revise portions of Section 161.091 F.S. in order to assist local I-overnments in alleviating serious beaclx erosion problems. A copy of these proposed revisions, as prepared by the Division, is enclosed. We would be most grateful if you could review these materials and provide us with an evaluation, comments and suggestions by responding to the following questions and returning the form by April 30, 1984 to: Dr. Donald K. Stauble Department of Oceanography and Ocean Engineering Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, Florida 32901 1. Are the proposed new Rules, taken as a whole, clear, concise and readily- understandable? YES 2. Please identify any Sections which are not clear, or which need improvements; how could they be improved? 16B-.36.07 (4) At first reading appears to be part of the original funding Application. T'lould be more clear if there was a separate section (requirements of project agreement). [email protected] (3G) Parking added after project has met rec-uire- ments - should be exempt so that it could be restricted for residents onlv. 3. Do the proposed r les meet the needs; if not, why not? YES 4. Are there any features of the content which are objectionable, or any which could prove difficult in implementing? 16B-36.08 (li) Discriminates against new projects. 7-ine for places like Delrav Beach which can keen up an on-going nro- gram, but count$ against areas trving to establish new programs. Are there any additional features that should be included? Some detail should be given on retroactive funding, particularly relating to environmental studies and monitoring added during review as permit reauirements. 6. Are the forms provided in the Rules suitable, convenient, understandable? Please indicate any improvements you feel are necessary. YES 7. Any additional comments on the new Rules resulting from previous experience in erosion control projects and their management would be appreciated. The division should recuire receipt of a colov of anv studies performed prior to final disbursal of funds. Should also produce a bibliography of'such studies. This pool of re- search may help avoid duplication of efforts. Research in the fielrl, including experimental projects, should be encouraged and funded under the program. 95 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION B0B GRAHAM TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BUILDING GOVERNOR 2600 BLAIR STONE ROAD VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301-8241 SECRETARY April 6, 1984 Dr. Donald K. Stauble Department of Oceanography and Ocean Engineering Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, Florida 32901 Dear Dr. Stauble: Enclosed is the questionnaire you submitted to Suzanne Walker of this agency. We have responded to the questions as requested. If we can be of further service, please call us. Sincerely, William K. Hennessey Deputy Director Division of Environmental Permitting WKH/hss Attachment Protecting Florida and Your Quality of Life - 96 - QUESTIONNAIRE: BEACH EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Florida Institute of Technology, under contract to the Division of Beaches and Shores of the Department of Natural Resources is undertaking research leading to the development of erosion control guidelines. The purpose of this questionnaire is to review proposed new policies and procedures for administration of the Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program. The Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores is proposing to revise portions of Section 161.091 F.S. in order to assist local governments in alle"Viating serious beach erosion problems. A copy of these proposed revisions, as prepared by the Division. is @nclosed. We would be most grateful if you could review these materials and provide us with an evaluation, comments and suggestions by responding to the following questions and returning the form by April 30, 1984 to: Dr. Donald K. Stauble Department of Oceanography and Ocean Engineering Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, Florida 32901 -1. Are the proposed new Rules, taken as a whole, clear, concise and readily understandable? Yes 2. Please identify any Sections which are not clear, or which need improvements; how could they be improved? See No . 4 3. Do the proposed rules meet the needs-, if not, why not? See No . 4 4. Are there any features of the content which are objectionable, or any whi;:h could prove difficult Ln implementing? t4hy are projects submitted to the Governor and the Cabinet and the legislature for approval before all permits are obtained? Since the costs of certain studies can be retroactively reimbursed, necessary permits or a favorable commitment in writing @rom the permitting agency should be required before approval of funding. This procedure is in line with most federal grant procedures. Further,Governo'r and Cabinet approval and legislative approval before obtaining permits places state agencies i'n the untenable position of denying a permit for a project that already has been approved by the Governor and Cabinet and the Legislature. 1,4e strongly recommend Section 168-36.07 be revised to. incl-ude submittal of re@u7i@ed- permits, as a part of the initial Are there any additional features that should be included? No comment 6. Are the forms provided in the Rules suitable, convenient, understandable? Please indicate any improvements you feel are necessary. Yes 7. Any additional comments on the new Rules resulting from previous experience in erosion control projects and their management would be appreciated. No comment 98 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. 0. BOX 4970 JACKSONVILLE. FLORIDA 32232 March 20, 1984 Planning Division Coastal Branch Dr. Donald K. Stauble Department of Oceanography and Ocean Engineering Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, Florida 32901 Dear Dr. Stauble: The completed questionnaire'on the State Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program is enclosed, as requested in your letter of March 7, 1984. It is noted that the use of the word "beach" in the program title is misleading as it could imply that the program applies only to sandy beach areas. Sincerely, A. J. Salem Chief, Planning Division Enclosure 99 QUESTIONNAIRE: BEACH EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE PROGR-A%f Florida Institute of Technology, under contract to the Division of Beaches and Shores of the Department of Natural Resources is undertaking research leading to the development of erosion control guidelines. The purpose of this questionnaire is to review proposed new policies and procedures for administration of the Beach Erosion Controi Assistancti Pco-ralil. The Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores is proposing to revise portions of Section 161.091 F.S. in order to assist local governments in alleviating serious beach erosion problems. A copy of these proposed revisions, as prepared by the Division, is enclosed. We would be most grateful if you could review these materials and provide us with an evaluation, comments and suggestions by responding to the followin- questions and returning the form by April 30, 1984 to: Dr. Donald K. Staidble Department of Oceanography and Ocea-n Engineering Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, Florida 32901 1. Are the proposed new Rules, taken as a whole, clear, concise and readily understandable? A few minor points are not clear. 2. Please identify any Sections which are not clear, or which need improvements; how could they be improved? . (continued on back of page) a. Under Sec. 36.03 (1) the BECAP is to assist in preventing erosion of sandy beaches. This is contrary to Sec. 36.04 which provides assistance for revetments, etc. b. Sec. 36.03 (2)(@a) states that sandy beach preservation ... must be the primary purpose of a project. The state does participate in other erosion control projects. c. Sec. 36.03 (2)(a) "...to be in the public interest." Should read "to qualify the 3. Do the proposed rules meet the needs: if not, why not? In general, yes. 4. Are there any 'features of the content which are objectionable, or any which could prove difficuit in implementing? Sec. 36.06(2) the point system for evaluating. projcct anu` p-cioritiziny dpplications does not provide the board with the information needed to allocate state resources. A Priorities should be based on recognizedState needs in a manner such as the comprehensive state outdoor recreation plan priorities allocation or resources on the basis of demand and needs. Priorities should also reflect what re'Lurns in the way of project benefits will be received in return for the allocation of state resources. 100 5. Are there any additional features that should be included? The applicant should demonstrate the economic,environmental and social justi- .fication for the use and expenditure of state resources. 6. Are the forms provided in the Rules suitable, convenient, understandable? Please indicate any improvements you feel are necessary. No comment. 7. Any additional comments on the new Rules resulting from previous experience in erosion control projects and their management would be appreciated. Sec 36.08 the point systein given should be deleted entirely as the criteria for evaluating project applications. The criteria does not provide the Board a project priority based on state'needs as a basis for allocating state resources. Evaluation criteria should -include as a minimum economic, environmental and social.. justification; locality compatibility with other state programs, LE.O. 84105 and state' interes,ts in general locally and regionally. ------------------------------------- ---- ------------------------------------------- 2. (continued) project area as a public beach." d. Sec. 36.03 (2)(f) should read "...the staff has performed an inspection of the physical condition of the project, and reviewed the necessary pi-c@ project records, and a satisfactory project review report prepared." e. Sec. 36-05 (a) and (3) the word construction shoul.d be inserted between project and costs. f. Sec. 36.09 (3)(a) the word beach is misleading and should be deleted. lull- u.t-t-Am i m=i-4 iv-) rI VIM AMM T MOBILE OISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. 0. BOX 2288 MOBILE, ALABAMA 36628 REPLY TO May-29, 1984 ATTENTION OF: Coastal Branch Dr. Donald K. Stauble Department of Oceanography and Ocean Engineering Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne, Florida 32901 Dear Dr. Stauble: This is in response to your letter of March 7, 1981, which requested conments on rules for the new Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program. I regret that we were unable to furnish conmients by April 30 as you requested but additional tin-ee was required to prepare a coordinated reply. However, I understand that Mr. Walter W. Burdin of my staff discussed this with you by telephone and that our belated response will cause no problem. In general we found that the proposed rule did not adequately distinguish between local projects and Federal projects with local sponsors.' we believe that the rule should clearly ukake this distinction and that the rule should consider the detailed nature of the Federal project planning and coordination process. The enclosed comments are numbered corresponding to your questionnaire. Sincerely.. La#wrence R. Green Chief, Planning Division Enclosure 10 12 RESPONSE TO FLORIDA INSTITWE OF TECzRX= QUESTIONN= BEACH EROSION CCNI20L ASSIST-@ PROGPAM 1. The response to this question seemed to depend upon'the reviewer's familarity with governmEntal regulations in general. Those who work with regulations had no problem with the rules. Those who do not found them unclear and confusing. The proposed rules would be much easier to use if they were published in booklet form with a "cookbook" formzt on the steps to be followed to obtain state assistance. It is suggested that a simpler version of the rule be developed for use by local governments. 2. Section 16B-36.02 (3) and (12) refers to "projects authorized by Congress". The Chief of Engineers can authorize projects costing up to $1,000,000 under the Continuing Authorities program and Division and District Engineers also have delegated authority to obligate certain funds for beach work. The wording needs to be broadened to include-these cases. 3. The rules appear to met the needs with minor exceptions. Does the Bureau of Beaches and Shores intend to evaluate the technical adequacy of a given proposal? Who will determine the classification points to be assigned under Section 16B-36.08? 4. a. In section .16B-36.07 (2), limiting application acceptance to between April 1 and July I seems unduly restrictive. In the case of Federal naviagation projects from which suitable dredged material may be disposed on beaches, the Corps has the capability to transfer funds from one project to another in order to satisfy navigation needs. Therefore, limiting applications to the April I to July 1 timeframe would be a severe handicap to the local sponso r of such a project who desires assistance. b. In that same section, paragraph (4) lists certain application requirements. Arwng those requirements is that of obtaining coastal construction pennits. There is no basis in Federal law for requiring those permits for a Federal project. Even if it is the intent of the state to have a local sponsor met those requirements, they are unduly restrictive in the case of a Federal project which is thoroughly coordinated with DNR and other state and Federal agencies during its planning. Designation of a "project engineer" for a Federal project could cause a.sponsor problems since they have no authority to cammit the Government. In addition we do not permit our own projects. We consider that preparing a 404 (b) evaluation, an Envirormental Impact Statement or 1hviromental Assessment, state coastal zone consistency and water quality certification and complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act adequate. It is suggested that this section be rewritten to discuss local projects separately from Federal projects. 5. General clarification of the Corps of Engineers' role in beach erosion control projects. 6. Yes 7. No further coun-ent. 2 Oz, APPENDIX LITERATURE CITED Bascom, W. N. 1959. The relationship between sand size and beach face' slope. Am. Geophysical Union Trans. V. 32, No. 6, P. 866-874. Folk, R. L. 1968. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks, Hemphill's, Austin, Texas, 170 pp. Friedman and Sanders. 1978. Principles of Sedimentology, Wiley Pub. Co., New York, N.Y., 792 pp. Hallermeier, R. J. 1931. A profile zonation for seasonal sand beaches from wave climate. Coastal Eng., Vol. 4, p. 253-277. Hobson, R. D., 1977. Review of design elements for beach-fill evaluation. TM-77-6, U.S. Army Corps of Eng., Coastal Eng. Research Center, Fort Belvoin, VA, 51 p. S. P. M., 1977. Shore Protection Manuel. U.S. Army Corps of Eng., Coa-stal Eng. Research Center, Fort Belvo-iu, VA, 3 Vols. Stauble, D. K., M. Hansen, R. Hushla, and L. Parson, 1983. Beach Nourishment Monitoring, Florida East Coast: Physical Engineering Aspects and Management Implications. ASCE, Coastal Zone 83, p. 2512-2526. t k I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1110111111M 1 3 6668 00000 9185 1 1