Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-063�4 �+ RESOLUTION NO. 94-63 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE STATE OF FLORIDA BEACH EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WHEREAS, Indian River County has had damage to structures and/or coastal lands by storms and erosion in areas of public lands, and WHEREAS, the State of Florida has established a Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program providing for financial _ assistance for erosion control and preservation of the sandy beaches within the State. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, as follows: 1. The County, as a joint local sponsor with the Sebastian Inlet Tax District, hereby approves the submittal of an application under the Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program for the purpose of requesting State financial assistance with implementation of erosion control improvements within Indian River County at Wabasso Beach Park, Golden Sands Park, and Treasure Shores Park. 2. The County hereby designates Don G. Donaldson, P.E. of Indian River County, as the Project Engineer and Agent for the purpose of preparing and processing this application on behalf of the County. 3. The County agrees to implement the beach improvement program under the procedures set forth in the Florida Administrative Code. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Macht and seconded by Commissioner Eggert ,and, being put to a vote, was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice Chairman Kenneth Macht Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Fran Adams Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 26 day of April , 1994. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS "a/ - otin W. Tipp' Cairman "Jeffrey K. Barton, r of Coir Edos:nass ,. Indian River -A roved at Admin. .Legal Bud of //D/ Pub.Wk. L l 'Ena. +� 'Risk Mqr. Submitted to: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Beaches and Shores 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Submitted by: Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Sebastian Inlet Tax District 134 5th Avenue, Suite 103 Indialantic, FL 32903 0 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF BEACHES AND SHORES APPLICATION FOR FUNDS UNDER PROVISION OF CHAPTER 161, FLORIDA STATUTES BEACH EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM For Fiscal Year 1995-96 -Part I: Applicant Identification 1. Project Name: North Indian River County Beach Frosion rnntrol 2 Project AiwH ant Identification - A. Applicant Name: Indian River County Address: 1840 25th Street Vero Beach FL 32960 Telephone Number: 407-567-8000 B. Name of Project Liaison Officer:_ Don G. Donaldson P E. Telephone Number: 407-567-8000 Ext.- -14d Fax Number:_ 407-778-9391 C. F.E.I.D. #59-60007674 3. Resolution* This application must be submitted with a resolution adopted by the applicant governing body. Date and Number of Resolution: 14V zt �1 4. r fit%".t —95� Siggature of Head 6f pplicant Governing Body Date John W. Tippin, Chairman, Board of Count­Comraission Type: Name of Head of Applicant Governing Body MAIL TO: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF BEACHES AND SHORES OFFICE OF BEACH MANAGEKWr 3900 COMMONWEALTH BOULEVARD, MS 315 TALLAHASSEE, AHASSEE, FLORA 32399-3000 Indian River County FVprcved ' Date Administration i 9SC iyl�al:. Budget I I Legal -CoI - Risk Management Department Division IV A FLORIDA DEPMD41ENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF BEACHES AND SHORES �V� APPLICATION FOR FUNDS UNDER PROVISION OF CHAPTER 161, FLORIDA STATUTES BEACH EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANTS PROGRAM For Fiscal Year 1995.96 Part 11: Project Idformation Please indicate the upland property ownership within the project boundary. (Check all that apply.) Federal State Localxxx Private 2. D=QdDdon of Pmiet_•t• Describe in detail the proposed project and all associated activities to be conducted. (Use additional pages if necessary.) See Exhibit "B" 3.: DC1Gdption of Pnc k Nerd• Provide justification of project need. Indicate the findings of any studies which support the proposed SPP Exhibit licitproject activities. (Use additional pages if necessary.) 4. S1W= Documentation- Provide a map depicting the project location and any applicable engineering or environmental studies that may See Exhibit "D" have been completed. 5• rniaCLC2= Please indicate the estimated costs for each activity to be conducted. (Please use separate page.) 6. See Exhibit "E" Fun � 1; Reguest- Federal funds requested (if applicable) $ State funds requested $277a 500 Local funds requested $ 12, 500 Total estimated costs $_37_1000 NOTE: Once the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Beaches and Shores reviews each application contact will be made to the applicant for additional information that might be needed. y A FLORIDA DEPMD41ENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF BEACHES AND SHORES �V� APPLICATION FOR FUNDS UNDER PROVISION OF CHAPTER 161, FLORIDA STATUTES BEACH EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANTS PROGRAM For Fiscal Year 1995.96 Part 11: Project Idformation Please indicate the upland property ownership within the project boundary. (Check all that apply.) Federal State Localxxx Private 2. D=QdDdon of Pmiet_•t• Describe in detail the proposed project and all associated activities to be conducted. (Use additional pages if necessary.) See Exhibit "B" 3.: DC1Gdption of Pnc k Nerd• Provide justification of project need. Indicate the findings of any studies which support the proposed SPP Exhibit licitproject activities. (Use additional pages if necessary.) 4. S1W= Documentation- Provide a map depicting the project location and any applicable engineering or environmental studies that may See Exhibit "D" have been completed. 5• rniaCLC2= Please indicate the estimated costs for each activity to be conducted. (Please use separate page.) 6. See Exhibit "E" Fun � 1; Reguest- Federal funds requested (if applicable) $ State funds requested $277a 500 Local funds requested $ 12, 500 Total estimated costs $_37_1000 NOTE: Once the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Beaches and Shores reviews each application contact will be made to the applicant for additional information that might be needed. EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION N0. 94-63 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE STATE OF FLORIDA BEACH EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WHEREAS, Indian River County has had damage to structures and/or coastal lands by storms and erosion in areas of public _ lands, and WHEREAS, the State of Florida has established a Beach Erosion: Control Assistance Program providing for financial assistance for erosion control and preservation of the sandy beaches within the State. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, as follows: 1. The County, as a joint local sponsor with the Sebastian Inlet Tax District, hereby approves the submittal of an application under the Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program for the purpose of requesting State financial assistance with implementation of erosion control improvements within Indian River County at Wabasso Beach Park, Golden Sands Park, and Treasure Shores Park. 2. The County hereby designates Don G. Donaldson, P.E. of Indian River County, as the Project Engineer and Agent for the purpose of preparing and processing this application on behalf of the County. 3. The County agrees to implement the beach improvement program under the procedures set forth in the Florida Administrative Code. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Macht and seconded by Commissioner Eggert ,and, being put to a vote, was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice Chairman Kenneth Macht Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Fran Adams Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 26 day of April , 1994. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS �ohne- W: Tippitl ' C airman Jeffrey K. Barton, Cler of Co r aRos.Rsa /4 sC"' s DC7 Indian River A roved at Y Admin. P La al U' Hud at d/ Pub.Wk. 'Eng. !Risk Moi. EXHIBIT "B" Narrative Description: Indian River County and the Sebastian Inlet District have combined their resources to initiate a project that will address the beach ,erosion that is occurring in the northern portion of Indian River County. The project area is between the Sebastian Inlet and south to the Wabasso Beach Park. This area has lost a considerable amount of sand in recent years which is threatening the loss of valuable environmental habitat, public park facilities and .residential developments. The proposed project will utilize dredge material for beach restoration/renourishment at public beaches within the project area. The source of dredge material will be from the Sebastian Inlet District maintenance and channelization activities. Beach compatible material will be placed on the beaches while non -compatible material mat be placed offshore to create a submerged breakwater or sand bar. In addition, environmental restoration and enhancement will be conducted on the beach dunes :for sediment retention and to encourage wildlife utilization. Funding is requested to conduct a marine habitat study, sand source identification and engineering design. The marine habitat study will include aerial photography and ground truthing surveys to map the hard bottom communities. The sand source identification will locate the beach compatible and non -compatible material that is proposed to be removed by the Sebastian Inlet District. The engineering design will include the expansion of a numerical model, now being completed by the Sebastian Inlet District, and the preparation of plans and documents for permits. The numerical model will be expanded to include the entire project area. This model will be used to predict the probable movement of sediments" and to evaluate the best locations for beach nourishment and offshore bar creation. The northern portions of Indian River County have been experiencing beach erosion and a recession of the shoreline. This erosion has caused loss of the natural protective dune and vegetation and is threatening the loss of public infrastructure and private residences. In order to maintain the existing shoreline and recreational beach the beach/dune system must be renourished and/or protected. Restoration of historical sand volumes and native vegetation must be accomplished to reduce the additional loss of public property. The winter of 1993/94 has caused erosion sufficient for the County to require emergency fill permits at Wabasso Beach Park and adjacent homes to construct coastal armoring structures. A historical prospective was prepared by Coastal Technology Corporation (see Exhibit "D") for the County's recent experimental breakwater application. This report indicates that the Wabasso Beach area has one of the highest erosion rates in the County. &e6o,s-v%o,n inlet, OMMOM RIVER COUNTY S. .. AUl O. Ire, TREASURE SHORES T'r\ tr GOLDEN SCAI E IN MU3 LOCATION MAP SANDS BEACH WABAsso I . I>, I The Sebastian Inlet Tax District has adopted a "Comprehensive Inlet Management Plan" (Coastal Tech, 1988) to dredge the sand trap for sand transfer every two to three years. The plan is to transfer an average of 57,000 cubic yards of sand i annually to the beaches south of the Inlet (Table A5). A5.0 SHORELINE AND VOLUMETRIC CHANGES ASA General Shoreline and volumetric changes are evaluated for Indian River County including the City of Vero Beach to understand the conditions of historic beach accretion and erosion and sand movement within the littoral system. The Indian River County coastline is divided into five areas for evaluation, from north to south including Ambersand, Wabasso Beach, Indian River Shores, Vero Beach, and Vero Shores. Characteristics of beach erosion and accretion within each area are evaluated based on the 1972 and 1986 hydrographic surveys. The effects of Sebastian Inlet, offshore shoal, and geographic orientation of the shoreline at Riomar Point on sand movement are presented. A5.2 Shoreline Changes r Shoreline changes within the County between 1972 and 1986 are summarized in Table A6. The northernmost segment of the County, from Sebastian Inlet State Recreational area to Ambersand Beach (R1 -R19), experienced erosion at a rate of 1.1 feet per year. The most severe erosion occurred within 3,000 feet south of Sebastian Inlet with an average rate of 4.9 feet per year. This is because the Inlet deprives part of the southerly littoral drift from reaching the downdrift beach. The magnitude of beach erosion decreases towards the south. The accretion found between DNR monuments R8 and R11 is believed due to the 1978 and 1986 feeder beach projects, in which 187,600 and 110,000 cubic yards of sand were placed on south park beach, respectively. COASTALTECH COM&'F WK.CW-INWAE,„A",,"04 A19 E . ■ 0 TABLE AS HISTORIC DREDGING AND FEEDER BEACH PROJECTS haat /rbnlYn WM TO VAMbt (1W. COUN TWO (1iM -- - � _ . _ _• ••••�• •• ��• �� OFCOASTAL TECH CDABTAL. ENVNpNMENTAL • CIVIL • ENGINEERING AND PLANNING _ A20 DREDGE TOTAL LOCATION VOLUME COST YEAR DREDGED CU.YD. PLACEMENT : 1962 Sand trap and channel 282,400 No record available $247,100 1972 Sand trap 420,000 Placed on beach 195,998 south of Inlet 1978 Sand trap 286,500 187,600 cubic 599,900 yards placed on South Park Beaches 1986 Sand trap 133,290 110,038 cubic 287,779 yards placed on South Park Beaches 1987-88 Navigation Channel 90,000 Coconut Point 260,350 1968-89 Coconut Point--. (150,000.') South Park Beaches 305,000 1989-90 Sand trap and 248,000 South Park Beaches 750,000 Navigation Channel 1700 ft R-3 proceeding south L1902-1913Sand trap 160,000 South Park Beaches 700,000 R3.5 proceeding south haat /rbnlYn WM TO VAMbt (1W. COUN TWO (1iM -- - � _ . _ _• ••••�• •• ��• �� OFCOASTAL TECH CDABTAL. ENVNpNMENTAL • CIVIL • ENGINEERING AND PLANNING _ A20 HISTORIC SHORELINE CHANGE (1972-1986) Monument Distance (FT) 1972 1988 Shoreline Change "NR R1 348 248 -7.35 R2 271I 220 -3.71 R3 239 191 -3.50 R4 267 I 221 -3.41 R5 245II I 212 -2.49 R6 184 151 -2.45 R7 237 224 -0.98 Re 195 223 2.05 R9 127 134 0.48 R10 141 147 0.47 R11 128 146 1.45 R12 100 96 -0.29 R13 132 118 ,4.04 R14 115 110 -0.39 R15 160 164 0.30 Rte 188 185 1.36 'R17 145 152 0.54 Rte 148 145 -0.16 R19 207 189 -1.34 R20 188 155 -0.78 R21 190 187 -025 R22 143 - -� 11e R23 175 154 -1.52 R24 185 159 4.90 R25 179 147 -229 11128 218 197 -1.53 RV 197 1M 2.07 R28 199 165 2.55 R29 152 136 -1.17 R30 146 123 4,82 R31 171 154 421 R32 179 169 0.74 R33 178 180 0.34 R34 211 209 -0.12 R35- 199 207 0.57 R38 242 248 0.44 •Dbtanu Is UMMMMA d from the DNR monument b V NM contour A21 OaONt�� H�Mb/Wr g11�M1���M TAeILF As (Ca" HISTORIC SHORELINE CHANGE (1972-1966) IMonunerrt Distanw• (FT) 1172 1l86 Shoreline Change FTNR R37 216 219 0.11 R38 183 183 0.01 R39 228 246 1.47 R40 255 242 -0.95 R41 188 165 -0.18 R42 183 183 0.00 R43 304 332 2.09 R44 233 236 026 R45 259 274 1.07 R46 250 281 0.83 R47 179 201 1.62 R48 193 195 0.11 R49 192 218 1.91 R50 193 224 2.30 R51 175 209 2.51 R52 156 184 2.11 R63 312 348 2.68 R64 125 191 4.72 R55 158 190 2.37 R56 148 158 0.76 R57 191 196 -0.35 R58 134 130 -0.35 R59 141 1 -0.05 ROO 217 228 0.70 R81 164 194 0.71 R62 207 . 221 1.06 R63 145 163 1.30 RIM 203 1.47 Res 179 194 1.15 Res 233 242 0.71 Rel 459 474 1.10. R68 273 271 -0.14 RM 218 217 -0.03 R70 - _ 140 _ R71 230 234 0.32 R72 170 172 -0.48 •OManae is measured from the DNR monument to W NOVO contour A22 0 �M�1A� •��MINNr •�A�gAA�NM HISTORIC SHORELINE CHANGE (1972-1986) Monunwnt Ohbna• (FT) 1972 1986 Shoro*w Chango FTlYR R73 382 383 0.09 R74 191 197 0.40 R75 174 174 0.03 R76 377 376 -0.04 R77 531 520 -0.82 R78 171 175 0.30 R79 186 ' 182 -0.44 R80 212 199 -0.95 R61 491 479 -0.85 R62 383 362 -0.03 R83 422 441 1.45 R84 298 254 -1.04 R85 371 370 •0.05 R86 196 241 3.15 R87 229 273 3.25 R66 345 391 3.38 ROO 341 408 4.91 R90 476 563 6.39 R91 464 603 8.74 R92 243 344 7.39 R93 296 - 362 4.67 R64 280 _\ 326 3.55' ROS 255 313 4.25 R96 250 321 4.50 R97 214 306 6.76 RM 326 400 5.40 ROO 145 160 2.99 R100 409 489 4.46 R101 458 476 1.49 R102 386 361 -0.36 R103 385 370 0.37 R104 341 295 -0,32 R105 411 388 4.67 R106 _ 275 268 -0.51 R107 336 346 0.72 R106 484 506 1.65 *Dkb = M nrwurod from dw DNR monument b W NGVD mftur AZJ 46ASTAI TNMNMINT lMNAAT»y TABLE At Maned) HISTORIC SHORELINE CHANGE (1972-1908) Monument Distance' (FT) 1972 1988. BhomUne Change "NR R109 388 398 2.23 R710 162 171 0.67 R111 164 130 -2.01 R112 257 285 -0.14 R113 204 222 1.37 R114 92 106 1.03 R11S 209 214 0.32 MIS 285 265 0.03 R117 325 318 -0.51 R118 235 247 0.84 R119 237 241 013 TiMenee is measured from the DNR monument to W NGVD contour 0 � K4 O OMAfAI 7�OMMKNY iNANAfNM 1 Along Wabasso Beach between DNR monuments, R19 to R45, shoreline erosion occurred within the northern half of the area at an average rate of 1.6 feet per year. The southern half of the area accreted at a rate of 0.4 feet per year. Substantial shoreline accretion occurred within the Indian River Shores (R45 - R71) segment between 1972 and 1986. An estimated 1.1 feet per year of shoreline accretion occurred within this area. Maximum accretion occurred at monument R54 amounting to 4.7 feet per year. . r The DNR historic shoreline summary at Vero Beach is illustrated in Figure All. Typical historic beach profile comparisons are illustrated in Figures Al2 and A13. Within the City of Vero Beach, the shoreline north of Riomar Point (R71 -R87) fluctuated according to weather conditions and, in average, eroded at a rate of 0.1 feet per year. However, the shoreline south of Riomar Point experienced a substantial accretion at 6.0 feet per year. Due•to the geographic geometry, the area south of Riomar Point acts as a sediment sink and prevents the sediments from moving towards north. The northern portion of the Vero Shores coastline (R94 -R101) continues the accretional trend associated with the Riomar Point (Figure A14). Accretional Shoreline changes fluctuated within the southern Vero Shores segment and the magnitude decreased towards the south. A5.3 VotumeMc Changes Volumetric changes above and below the 0 feet NGVD contour in Indian River County are evaluated using 1972 and 1986 hydrographic survey data (Table A7). The area evaluated for volumetric changes below the 0 feet NGVD contour extends approximately 3,000 feet offshore, or approximately the 30 foot water depth. This area enables a distinction to be made of the sand movement within the upland and offshore regions. Characteristics of volumetric changes are also evaluated for the above mentioned five regions. COASTAL TECH COLM-nfVVkOO Nft-O,.-9MM1AWAWRu,,,,W A25 LEGEND ---- 1970-2mO.S.MAW - u,a AMU Mtwt(fm.:uv '°~'�'.u"~ ���G.S.^= ------- 1880-2"�C."uS. Mmw R-083+ 1970-2 SEAWALLS, JETTIES, cu R-084+ R-085+ 4AR- � - \ R -O86+ R-087 R-oee4,.-'(! R-09 R-09] 500 1000 2000 o scale in feet 0 , V a 1 I iY NWN �dcn i ..I C f r ! ' I • 1 I i1 � I z ,I — z � zI J , o uj = w z ,J I C I >1 0 C c CY a-vI ' - � zl I o z 1 $ I, x G W ,� W Z U Z U z z I f/1 rr Vl / o r� c m r� ao / I I I r r r r r O I v f' N r✓ N e -W (y N ELEVATION (FT. NGVD) I ELEVATION (FT. NGVD) FIGURE Al2 BEACH PROFILE COMPARISONS (R-75, R-78) A27 Q ONAtA� tNMMM�Yt ��A�MAttMI FIGURE A13 BEACH PROFILE COMPARISONS (R-81, R-84) A28 © eewerea rooN»eaesr aee�ee1ypr v I M.1 M Ol I I , I Go r I ! N I ! 1 7C . I i � IAI _ i i 1• 1 f 1 oc / p ~ 'Y 01, I w _ _ I I zI — W W 1� _ C Ll - C o / m O C ; 0 C o 1 z / 0 d 0 0 Zp N l� J V Z W W r/ _ \ Q O 1 � / W / O / ! 00 r arr / c r / e O � 1 O p N N f I N O O N O ELEVATION (FT. NGVD) I ELEVATION (FT. NGVD) FIGURE A13 BEACH PROFILE COMPARISONS (R-81, R-84) A28 © eewerea rooN»eaesr aee�ee1ypr Brevard County SEX(AN EROSION ACCRETION ' 'R-1 N A; BERSAI Di ��II R-19 WBEACHO i R-45 Indian River TOR yE County IN R S R SIHO R-71 ,z R-94 HORE St. Lucie County R-119 �^ SHORELINE CHANGES (FT/YR) FIGURE A14 SPATIAL VARIATION OF ANNUAL SHORELINE CHANGES (1972 to 1986) A29 O ooworw► rwaMwgoor aowwow�rwiw TABLE AT AVERAGE ANNUAL VOLUME CHANGE FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (1972-1986) - . ABOVENGw a, ` BELOW NGw TOTAL MONUMENT. -i INLE FR6-R9 i R7 -R3 497 -9513 -10210 R3 -RS -2712 -7179 -9891 -929 -5521 -0450 R9 -R12 -49 8411 8362 R12 -R15 -373 12374 12001 R15 -R18 -745 -125201 -13265 R18 -R19• -534 -9349 -9883 4=wF WABASSO BEACH R19 -R21• -1071 -18725 -19798 R21 -R24 -2920 -27882 -30802 R244R27 -3641 -33984 -37625 R27 -R30 -3749 33071 46820 R30 -R33 -3050 39814 -52874 R33 -R39 -1630 -73431 -75061 R39 -R42 -1905 -14687 -16592 R42 -R45• -3020 -14247 -17268 lun-TGTAI-7-55-7 -21170. W, INDIAN RIVER SHORES R45-R41r -3020 -14247 -17268 R48 -R51 -498 -12468 -12954 R51 -R54 1375 3496 -5121 R544R57 382 -5419 -5037 R57 -R83 -734 -10239 -10973 R634RU -759 - 4329 JOW R66469 -1564 -9801 -11445 71• -135 -15516 -15651 - r �: 7r n -270 -31031 -3130178 225 30322 30097 WI -1120 13524 -4464484 -1074 -39740 30814 R94 -R87 676 34249 -33573 R874UO 4484 -26545 -22091 R90 -R93 7362 -22035 -14673 R91R94• 1271 -23 1246 VERO SHORES R944UV 6355 -117 8235 R99 -R102 -1943 9133 7190 R102.8105 3103 4W99 4102 R105-R10S 442 3929 -5071 RIOSA111 444 331 -475 R1114t114 74 3651 3925 R114.1H19 1 1371 71091 72401 gyp. GNB, ML (1mm •%= no mm, I, - A30 O OWOT04 T�OMONOOtl OONMAT/Oy f 4, The greatest offshore erosion occurred within two regions, Wabasso Beach and Vero Beach, as illustrated in Figure A15. The magnitude of volumetric changes within the upland area is much less than that in the area below the 0 feet NGVD contour. Active sand movement within the offshore area is believed due to the effects of the offshore shoal, nearshore hardbottom and Riomar Point. The detailed volumetric changes within each region are discussed as follows. The northernmost region including Sebastian Inlet State Recreational area and Ambersand Beach (R1 -R19) experienced erosion at a rate of 1.1 cubic yards per foot per year. Approximately 75 percent of the erosion occurred below the 0 foot NGVD contour. The remaining 25 percent occurred within the upland area. Substantial volumetric erosion occurred within Wabasso Beach (R19 -R45) at a rate of 1.1.4 cubic yards per foot per year. Approximately 10.6 cubic yardstfeet/year, or 93 percent, were eroded from the offshore area. Erosion is believed due to end effects of the offshore shoal. Indian River Shores, located between Wabasso Beach and Vero Beach incurred substantial erosion. The average rate of erosion within -this area is approximately 3.3 cubic yards per foot per year, of which 94 percent occurred below .the 0 foot NGVD contour. The Vero Beach segment, where the P.E.P. Reef is proposed, also experienced a substantial erosion in the offshore area. An estimated 9.8 cubic yards per foot per year erosion occurred within this region. Approximately 9.0 cubic yards per foot per year of erosion, or 92 percent, occurred within the offshore area. Erosion in this area is mainly due to the geographic alteration at Riomar Point. It is noted that an accretional trend within the upland area is found south of Riomar Point, COASTALTECH , COAM -E NM - CN% -INGM04A.40PLANW4 A31 ") { SE�LVAN N I AMSERSANDI \ v IR -19 Indian River County R-45 R-71 BOAC H( SL Lucie County ` �IIYIi EROSION ACCRETION :T ��tss.:�veweaana "Min Mod ma =Emma R-119 -20 -15 -10 .5 0 5 VOLUMETRIC CHANGES (CY/kTNR) ABOVE NGVD — BELOW NGVD FIGURE A15 CROSS -SHORE DISTRIBUTION OF VOLUMETRIC CHANGES (1972 to 1986) A32 © O0061AL V446MOLOOV EXHIBIT "E" COST ESTIMATE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 3 SEBASTIAN INLET TAX DISTRICT NORTH COUNTY BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECT APRIL21, 1994 ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 1995 996 Budgetary Year Task Description IRC SIM STATE Subtotal 1 Marine Habitat Study Aerial Photos (42 miles) $1,786 $1,964 $11,250 $15,000 Ground Truth Survey's $1,250 $1,250 $7,500 $10,000 Habitat Assessment Report $1,250 $1,250 $7,500 $10,000 Turtle Monitoring $3,000 $12,000 $45,000 $60.000 Task Total $95,000 2 Sand Source Identification Data Collection & Laboratory Analysis $3,125 $3,125 $18,750 $25,000 Geotechnical Report $625 $625 $3,750 $5.000 Task Total $30,000 3 Pre -Engineering 6 Design Bathymetdc Survey's $12,500 $12,500 $75,000 $100,000 Computer Modeling $12,500 $12,500 $75,000 $100,000 Alternatives 3 Impact Analysis $3,12x5 $3,125 $18,750 $25,000 Finial Design $2,500 $2,500 $15,000 $20.000 Task Total $245,000 TOTAL $41.W1 1 $50.8391 $277 500 $370 000 Local Contribution Q 25% $92,500 Stab Contribution @ 75% $277.500 Total $370.000 IRC - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SIM - SEBASTIAN INLET TAX DISTRICT 5/2/94(reso\workforc)Vk RESOLUTION NO. 94-.63 r A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN SUPPORT OF KEEPING MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF WORK FORCE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. WHEREAS, work force investment legislation pending at the national level may place the decision of oversight for local work force development and employment and training strategies in the hands of the Governor of the state of Florida; and WHEREAS, at both the national and state level, changes are being discussed which affect the delivery of. employment and training services to the people of Indian River County; and WHEREAS; for the past ten years Indian River County has participated in a consortium with Martin and St. Lucie counties in the state of Florida to oversee the delivery of employment and training services; and WHEREAS, the above consortium of local elected officials has selected _ and approved a partnership of local business, education, and community leaders called the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council to manage and oversee the delivery of local employment and training services; and WHEREAS, the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council has been recognized nationally by the President, the National Alliance of Business, and the National Association of Counties, as well as locally and statewide as an outstanding deliverer of employment and training services; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following premises are important in national and state legislation and we support these premises: I. That management and control of the employment and training system must continue to be placed at the local level through the local elected officials who have forged partnership with business, education, and other community groups to manage and oversee those efforts; and 2. That equity of service to all unemployed, those laid off from employment and those with barriers to employment, be a cornerstone of national legislation; and 3. That collaboration of local partners is essential to the team building that Is required to reshape the employment and training system of the nation; and Ij (page one of two) RESOLUTION NO. 84-63 4. That building on strengths already in place will avoid duplication and fragmentation of work force development initiatives. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that in support of these premises the Board of County Commissioners has designated the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council as the oversight board for work force investment and employment and training strategies within Indian River County and requests the Governor of the State of Florida and the Florida Congressional Delegation to support this designation. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 3 day of May , 1994. Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk ,4� �`rNpiR-tvtte� �NP��Qy of G 6Nt�0E1� 6 .,tONG�Ec �E'i1�•?'r .)EfFRFy � '' 6fv� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By .�.L 1_'� ( -John W. Tipplif Chairman. Indlnn Pivn Cc Approved Date Admin. Legal S". Hua9el Ott 1. Risk Mgt.