• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Seminar overview
 Abstracts of the conference: Beaches...
 Abstracts of conference: Programs...
 Program
 Speakers
 Registrants






Group Title: Technical paper - Florida Sea Grant Program
Title: "Eloise" a seminar on beaches vs. hurricanes
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072260/00001
 Material Information
Title: "Eloise" a seminar on beaches vs. hurricanes proceedings of a seminar held March 4 & 5, 1976 in Gainesville, Florida
Series Title: Technical paper - Florida Sea Grant <Program>
Physical Description: iii, 72 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Walton, Todd L
Leahy, Thomas M
Marine Advisory Program (Florida Cooperative Extension Service)
Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services
Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association
Publisher: <Marine Research Education Advisory Services>
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: 1976
 Subjects
Subject: Storm surges -- Congresses   ( lcsh )
Shore protection -- Congresses   ( lcsh )
Hurricanes -- Congresses   ( lcsh )
Hurricane, 1975 -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: conference publication   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: edited by Todd L. Walton, Jr. and Thomas M. Leahy ; sponsored by Marine Advisory Program, Sea Grant Coastal Engineering Laboratory, University of Florida, Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services, Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association.
Funding: This collection includes items related to Florida’s environments, ecosystems, and species. It includes the subcollections of Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit project documents, the Florida Sea Grant technical series, the Florida Geological Survey series, the Howard T. Odum Center for Wetland technical reports, and other entities devoted to the study and preservation of Florida's natural resources.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00072260
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 002540045
oclc - 03152089
notis - AMQ6185

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
        Page iii
    Seminar overview
        Page 1
        Marine Advisory Program
            Page 1
            Page 2
            Page 3
        Coastal engineering laboratory (Dean Morton Smutz)
            Page 4
            Page 5
            Page 6
        Activities of the coastal plains center (Philip G. Hill)
            Page 7
            Page 8
            Page 9
        Florida shore and beach preservation association (Stan Tait and John G. Cowley)
            Page 10
            Page 11
    Abstracts of the conference: Beaches vs. hurricanes
        Page 12
        About that hurricane
            Page 12
            Page 13
            Page 14
            Page 15
            Page 16
            Page 17
            Page 18
            Page 19
        The economic value of Florida's beaches (Dean Gaiser)
            Page 20
        What's being done by the Feds? (Colonel Drake Wilson)
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 23
            Page 24
        Lessons learned in building design in the coastal zone (Dr. Bryon Spangler)
            Page 25
            Page 26
            Page 27
            Page 28
            Page 29
            Page 30
            Page 31
    Abstracts of conference: Programs to protect us from the wrath of mother nature
        Page 32
        The federal flood insurance program
            Page 32
            Page 33
            Page 34
            Page 35
            Page 36
            Page 37
        Land planning, coastal risk - A function of coastal processes (Dr. Christopher Mathewson)
            Page 38
            Page 39
            Page 40
            Page 41
            Page 42
            Page 43
            Page 44
            Page 45
            Page 46
        Peninsular Florida erosion problems and solutions (Colonel D. A. Wisdom)
            Page 47
            Page 48
            Page 49
            Page 50
            Page 51
        Panel discussion
            Page 52
            Page 53
        Erosion problems, beach restorations and hurricane protection, and financing aspects of beach projects
            Page 54
            Page 55
            Page 56
            Page 57
            Page 58
            Page 59
            Page 60
            Page 61
            Page 62
            Page 63
    Program
        Page 64
        Page 65
    Speakers
        Page 66
    Registrants
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
Full Text

D- / C
.^) ^2.
C/ I7


HUME LIBRARY

JAN 9 1978

.F.A.S. Univ. of Florida



"ELOISE"
A SEMINAR ON BEACHES VS. HURRICANES
Edited By
Todd L. Walton, Jr. and Thomas M. Leahy


Florida Sea Grant
Technical Paper




















"ELOISE"


A SEMINAR ON BEACHES VS. HURRICANES

Edited By

Todd L. Walton, Jr. and Thomas M. Leahy








PROCEEDINGS OF A SEMINAR
HELD MARCH 4 & 5, 1976
IN GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA





Sponsored By

MARINE ADVISORY PROGRAM-SEA GRANT
COASTAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY-UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
COASTAL PLAINS CENTER FOR MARINE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
FLORIDA SHORE & BEACH PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION









CONTENTS

Page



SEMINAR OVERVIEW..................................................... 1

Marine Advisory Program 1
Todd L. Walton, Jr .......................................

Coastal Engineering Laboratory
Dean Morton Smutz .......................................... 4

Activities of the Coastal Plains Center
Philip G. Hill.......................................... 7

Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association
Stan Tait and John G. Cowley............................... 10

ABSTRACTS OF CONFERENCE................................................ 12

I. BEACHES VS. HURRICANES

About That Hurricane
Dr. Neil Frank ............................... ... ... 12

The Economic Value of Florida's Beaches
Dean Gaiser ................ ............................. 20

What's Being Done by the Feds
Colonel Drake Wilson........................................... 21

Lessons Learned in Building Design in the Coastal Zone
Dr. Bryon Spangler ............................... .. ...... 25

II. PROGRAMS TO PROTECT US FROM THE
WRATH OF MOTHER NATURE

The Federal Flood Insurance Program
Richard Krimm............................................. 32

Land Planning, Coastal Risk A Function of Coastal Processes
Dr. Christopher Mathewson................................... 38

Peninsular Florida Erosion Problems and Solutions
Colonel D.A. Wisdom........................................ 47

Panel Discussion............................................... 52









Page
Erosion Problems, Beach Restorations and Hurricane
Protection, and Financing Aspects of Beach Projects
Honorable Earl Dixon
Oscar Rawls
Arthur Strock
Colonel D.A. Wisdom..................................... 54

PROGRAM ........................................................... 64

SPEAKERS.......................................................... 66

REGISTRANTS ............. .................................... 67








SEMINAR OVERVIEW


MARINE ADVISORY PROGRAM

Todd L. Walton, Jr.
Marine Advisory Specialist

On behalf of the Marine Advisory Program and the Florida SUS Sea Grant
Program I would like to welcome all of you to our Beaches vs. Hurricanes Se-
minar. I hope that the next two days will be very beneficial to all of you.
I would like to provide you with a very brief overview of the motivations
for our seminar this year.

I think we are all aware that Florida's major problems are due to rapid
growth. As this figure shows, the growth trend in Florida has far exceeded
that of the U.S. and that of the world in the past two decades. Three-fourth's
of the people coming into Florida are moving into the coastal zone, an area long
recognized as being a high hazard area. The typical coastal resident in this area
is often not well informed as to the risks he is taking or the hazards to which
he may be subjecting himself. We have had a somewhat apathetic attitude when
building our homes in the coastal zone.

We are aware that beaches erode during storms but yet proceed to go
ahead and build right on the beach without regard to what has happened in the
past or what might happen in the future. As indication of what has happened
elsewhere, I'd like to show some figures of a few areas in the U.S. where we
have data on storm damage on beaches.

After a major Northeaster storm in N.J. in 1953 dunes over 20' high
were eroded 50-100'. This figure represents an average of conditions on
the beach before and after a two day Northeaster storm that raised the
water level only 6 feet above normal. Before and after profiles shown of
this figure represent average profile over a 40 mile section of beach. Maximum
landward retreat of the profile in some areas was 120-180 feet.

A Northeaster in Virginia in 1948 caused recessions estimated in some
locations to be well over 100 feet with a storm surge of approximately five
feet above normal.

Hurricane Audrey struck the Louisiana-Texas coast in 1957 and completely
submerged the crown of the beach ridge with a storm surge of 10 feet. The
elevation of the shore was only about 5 feet above MSL (somewhat similar to the
elevations we find in Florida along our lower Gulf Coast barrier islands). The whole
barrier retreated on an average of 125 feet in the area at which this storm hit.

Hurricane Carla struck the Texas coast in September 1961, and caused
primary dune ridges 15-20 feet in height to recede in places 150-300 feet
and left wave cut cliffs 10-15 feet in height. This figure shows an
estimated before and after beach profile on Mustang Island (from the work of
Miles Hayes).








SEMINAR OVERVIEW


MARINE ADVISORY PROGRAM

Todd L. Walton, Jr.
Marine Advisory Specialist

On behalf of the Marine Advisory Program and the Florida SUS Sea Grant
Program I would like to welcome all of you to our Beaches vs. Hurricanes Se-
minar. I hope that the next two days will be very beneficial to all of you.
I would like to provide you with a very brief overview of the motivations
for our seminar this year.

I think we are all aware that Florida's major problems are due to rapid
growth. As this figure shows, the growth trend in Florida has far exceeded
that of the U.S. and that of the world in the past two decades. Three-fourth's
of the people coming into Florida are moving into the coastal zone, an area long
recognized as being a high hazard area. The typical coastal resident in this area
is often not well informed as to the risks he is taking or the hazards to which
he may be subjecting himself. We have had a somewhat apathetic attitude when
building our homes in the coastal zone.

We are aware that beaches erode during storms but yet proceed to go
ahead and build right on the beach without regard to what has happened in the
past or what might happen in the future. As indication of what has happened
elsewhere, I'd like to show some figures of a few areas in the U.S. where we
have data on storm damage on beaches.

After a major Northeaster storm in N.J. in 1953 dunes over 20' high
were eroded 50-100'. This figure represents an average of conditions on
the beach before and after a two day Northeaster storm that raised the
water level only 6 feet above normal. Before and after profiles shown of
this figure represent average profile over a 40 mile section of beach. Maximum
landward retreat of the profile in some areas was 120-180 feet.

A Northeaster in Virginia in 1948 caused recessions estimated in some
locations to be well over 100 feet with a storm surge of approximately five
feet above normal.

Hurricane Audrey struck the Louisiana-Texas coast in 1957 and completely
submerged the crown of the beach ridge with a storm surge of 10 feet. The
elevation of the shore was only about 5 feet above MSL (somewhat similar to the
elevations we find in Florida along our lower Gulf Coast barrier islands). The whole
barrier retreated on an average of 125 feet in the area at which this storm hit.

Hurricane Carla struck the Texas coast in September 1961, and caused
primary dune ridges 15-20 feet in height to recede in places 150-300 feet
and left wave cut cliffs 10-15 feet in height. This figure shows an
estimated before and after beach profile on Mustang Island (from the work of
Miles Hayes).








If these types of damage can occur elsewhere it's relevant to ask "what can
happen in Florida?" In the next two days you're going to be seeing numerous
slides of the effects of hurricaneEloise and hear expert opinions on how much
of the damage there could have been prevented. I'm only going to subject you
to one "Eloise" slide which was taken at the beach, very close to the area of
maximum winds of the storm. The floor of this house prior to "Eloise" was
sitting on the crest of the primary dune line. Prior to the storm there
were a number of structures adjacent to it. This property owner was probably
very fortunate to come through as unscathed as he did. His foresight in
building on pilings saved his home. Nothing else was left of the homes
adjacent to his but a pile of rubble. You'll be seeing considerably more on
Eloise's effects on Florida's beaches in the next two days.

To give you a quick idea of what history has recorded in the way of storm
tides in Florida I have a slide which condenses a considerable amount of data
summarized in a past publication of the laboratory entitled, "Storm Tides in
Florida" of which Dr. T.Y. Chiu was one of the principal authors. The under-
lined numbers are the recorded storm surge levels.

In South Florida where considerably more historical data exists on
storm tides you can see that many of our past storm surge levels (if they
occurred now) could spell disaster.

For comparison purposes this figure shows you Hurricane Camille storm
surge levels along the Louisiana-Mississippi Coastlines.

Camille hit along the Louisiana-Mississippi coast in 1969. Maximum
storm surges were recorded in the area of Pass Christian on the order of 25'
evaluation of the storm surge based on historical data (100 years of record)
shows a Camille type storm has an expected recurrence interval of 160 years.
That means, on the average one time in 160 years you would expect a storm
having Camille's storm tides or greater to hit along that section of coast.
As you view the damage of Eloise consider what might have happened if a
storm of Camille's intensity hit in the Panhandle.

Tomorrow we will be hearing about both State and Federal programs to
help us protect ourselves from Mother Nature. I'd like to point out though
that these programs provide coastal dwellers with minimum reasonable protection
and by no means protect them from all of the inherent dangers of living on the
coast or from a catastrophic event. I hope you'll keep this in mind.

As an example of what I refer to when I say minimum protection I'd like
to present my last figure when addressing the subject of Risk Criteria.
The information on this is from the work of Dr. Leon Borgman.

The different lines on the graph represent different return periods of an
event such as a storm surge level or a wind speed, (TR = 100). The bottom scale
represents the design period (or what probability people call the Encounter
period) and the vertical scale represents the probability that the designated
event will be equaled or exceeded in a give encounter period. As an example
of how you would use this information, if you designed a home for 100 year storm
tide you could find that the probability of the 100 year event being equaled or
exceeded in 50 years is about 40%, (a higher risk than most of us would probably
like to take!). Put another way, the chance of that home surviving undamaged for
50 years is not much better than the chance of you flipping a coin and having it
come up heads. Presently most enforceable building codes use as the basis for
design the event (storm tide level or wind loading) having the 100 year return









I promised a very brief overview of the reasons for a conference such
as this and I hope I've not been too brief. I hope you will have a most
enjoyable and enlightening two days and will soak up the information that the
experts on our program will be presenting. Ask questions, learn, and come
back next year. Thank you.








COASTAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY


Dean Morton Smutz
Director, Coastal Engineering Laboratory

It is customary on occasions of this kind for the representative of
the host institution to describe ongoing activities. Because your particu-
lar interest is in beach preservation and related activities, I'll confine
my remarks to our Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory. It is a
tribute to people like Per Brunn, Jim Purpura and Dean Joe Weil that such a
laboratory now exists on our campus. Dr. Robert Dean, who was formerly with
the Laboratory and now at the University of Delaware, also deserves much credit
or the initiation of many projects that are of direct benefit to Florida.

Jacques Cousteau in his book "The Living Sea" describes the outer con-
tinental shelf as the new frontier. These words are even more appropriate
since the beginning of the energy crisis. In his book, he points out that
if you count all of the continental shelf areas around all of the continents
and islands, the area of this new frontier is roughly that of the size of
Asia.

It has been proposed that nuclear reactors be placed offshore and I
will start this presentation by describing the work that we are doing re-
lated to offshore nuclear power plants. In the May 16, 1975 issue of the
New Yorker magazine, there is an article about offshore nuclear reactors.
Let me quote a few statements from this article:
'Within 2,000 miles of Newark there was only one test
basin large enough to contain such a design. Europeans
were far ahead of Americans in such coastal engineering
facilities. The Dutch, for example, could have placed a
suitable piece of New Jersey's ocean in a corner of the
laboratory at Delft. The one sufficient ample facility in
the United States was at the University of Florida at
Gainesville where a Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering
Laboratory had been built to house extensive working models
of Florida's bays, estuaries and beaches where erosion was
worth preventing because erosion could produce concomitant
erosion of the treasures of the state."

The nuclear reactor facility is to be placed three miles off the New
Jersey coast in 1985. These are twin floating nuclear reactors about 400
feet long and 400 feet wide, costing $2 billion with a power cable running
under the sea floor back to the shoreline. The floating reactors will be
placed within a breakwater. Figure 1 shows a 1:64 scale model of the reac-
tor facility. The breakwater consists of several thousand dollars and is
designed to protect the reactors under storm conditions. In one test, the
reactor facility must be able to continue to operate under the worst storm
to be encountered in a hundred years. In another test, the reactor facili-
ty must be able to withstand damage in the largest storm to be anticipated
in a million years. Another test involves the ramming of the breakwater by











the largest supertanker to be built in the 1980's.


We have another unique facility, an internal wave tank which accomo-
dates the flow of two different fluids in the same direction or opposite di-
rections and permits airflow over the surface of the upper layer. Internal
waves are frequently encountered in the depths of the ocean and are now be-
ing studied by Dr. Max Sheppard and Dr. Wang. This laboratory facility per-
mits a study of internal waves under carefully controlled conditions.

Dr. Mehta of our staff is involved in our Sea Grant Project in prepar-
ing glossaries of inlets. These compilations of information are of interest
and importance to municipal and state planners who need to know the history,
characteristics, and important past studies of the particular inlet. The
Matanzas Inlet on the Atlantic coast is one such inlet under study and the
last unimproved one in that area. We feel that it is very important to
study this inlet because it shows how nature intends for an inlet to be de-
signed.

In our wave tank, it is possible to use models of actual inlets and
beaches to determine the most appropriate designs for engineering structures.
It has been shown that model studies permit an engineer to try out various
designs prior to the actual construction. We believe that it is better to
make your design mistakes on a small scale in a test facility rather than on
a large scale in the real world.

We have recently been involved in a study at Marineland, Florida, di-
rectly related to the sea satellite to be launched in 1978. This 20 ton
satellite costing $20 million dollars will be put into a polar orbit and it
is going to observe all of the oceans of the world in each 24 hour period.
It is amazing to me that it will be able to measure the height of waves
within 6" at a distance of over 500 miles from the earth. The design of
the radar unit has to be selected at this time in order to be placed in the
actual satellite in 1978. Our tests at Marineland last November and Decem-
ber were carried out with Dr. Omar Shemdin serving as principal investiga-
tor. Because Dr. Shemdin is now with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory while on
leave of absence, Dr. Latif served as our local representative. This study
involved the use of six satellites, three aircraft and three naval vessels.
Measurements were made on the surface of the sea at the same time there were
measurements from satellite and high-flying aircraft. In spite of poor co-
operation by the weatherman, the tests were completed successfully.
As most of you know, the State Department of Natural Resources is im-
plementing Florida's very enlightened set-back-line law through contract
with the University of Florida, with Jim Purpura and Dr. T. Y. Chiu heading
the project. The study involves measurements in the field and the use of
aerial photographs and historical data to determine the most appropriate po-
sition of the line. The citizens of each community have an opportunity to
present their views in a series of hearings before the State cabinet finally
establishes the exact location of the set-back line.

Dr. Partheniades of our laboratory is interested primarily in the cha-









racteristics of estuaries and in sedimentation phenomena. He has designed
and built specialized laboratory equipment that will help explain the very
complicated phenomena of cohesive sedimentation.

We also participate in the University of Florida Marine Advisory Pro-
ram. Marine specialists are available to people throughout the state who
wish to make inquiries about coastal engineering problems. This program is
an integral part of the Sea Grant Program. Todd Walton serves as the Coastal
Engineering Advisory Specialist for the Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program.

Our Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Archives is also a unique
facility. Lucille Lehmann, as a full-time archivist, is accumulating data
about all areas of Florida and you are welcome to make use of these facilities.
She may be able to help you find needed information about your own areas
from maps, photographs, reports, court proceedings, etc...

We are pleased to have you meet with us at the University of Florida
and we are glad to participate with the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation
Association in bringing you this conference on the "Lessons of Eloise."










ACTIVITIES OF THE COASTAL PLAINS MARINE CENTER


Phil Hill
Asst. Director

The Coastal Plains Marine Center was created in 1969 by the Coastal
Plains Regional Commission to promote the accelerated economic development
of the Coastal Plains Region in ways that will not degrade the quality of
its environment by providing free continuing technical assistance to the
public agencies, academic institutions, and private enterprises engaged
in managing, exploring, and developing the coastal and marine resources of
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

In 1975 the Commission boundaries, and areas served by the Center,
were expanded to include eastern Virginia and northern and western Florida.
The Center accomplishes its overall purpose by transferring information
and by coordinating the sharing of expertise across State lines. It strives
to achieve the following functional objectives:

1. To stimulate, coordinate, and financially support information
exchange projects.

2. To extend the technical staff capabilities of the Commission and
its member States.

3. To bring marine agencies and organizations together to facilitate
communication and cooperation, and to get them working together
on a Regional basis.

4. To respond to requests for technical assistance, information, or
publications.

5. To identify needs for coastal and marine resource information and
conduct an active information dissemination program to meet those needs.

6. To strengthen and coordinate coastal and marine research and develop-
ment through information exchange.

The Center achieves these goals and objectives through various program
activities, including its Cooperative Projects Program, supplementary
staff work, its annual Conference on Marine Resources, responding to requests,
performing advisory and consulting services, and compiling and distributing
various publications.

Comparatively recently the Center initiated a Cooperative Projects
Program which has been highly successful. Projects in this program are joint
efforts by the Center and State coastal and marine-related agencies, and
benefit not only the State, but more importantly have potential Regional
economic impact. The Center contributes coordination, advisory and con-
sulting services, and financial support. The States do that detailed planning,
make necessary arrangements, and furnish the required personnel, equipment,
and materials. In other words, stimulated and assisted by the Center, the
States work together, sharing their available talent with each other. Examples
of these projects include small meetings, workshops, and demonstrations









related to problems, new techniques, or other interests common to the State.
The projects to be undertaken are determined by group composed of Center and
State representatives, considering Regional needs and availability of funds.

In another program activity, the Center professional staff has extended
in various ways the technical staff capabilities of the Commission and of its
member States, which do not always have all of the expertise they need. They
turn to the Center for assistance in these instances. For example, the
Commission's Environmental Affairs Advisory Committee asked the Center to
undertake a project involving assistance in submitting State applications
to the NOAA Office of Coastal Zone Management for estuarine sanctuary grants
under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The procedures for
submitting these applications require a list of protected sites, either
within the estuarine sanctuary program or within other Federal, State,
or private programs which are located in the same regional or biogeographical
classification, the Carolinian classification, extending from Cape Hatteras
to Cape Kennedy, being applicable in this case. To meet this need, the
Center compiled a map indicating protected sites in this area and including
information on these sites. This is an example of a case in which each of
the States would have had to do this work individually for themselves,
resulting in unnecessary duplication of effort and expense.

In addition to the smaller meetings in the Cooperative Projects category,
the Center annually sponsors, plans, and conducts a much larger Conference on
Marine Resources. The detailed planning and conduct of this Conference, as
well as the compilation, publication, and distribution of the report, is
handled entirely by the Center. The purpose of the Conference is to serve
as a means through which Federal, State, and local government administrators,
scientific researchers, and representatives from private industry, as well as
private citizens, can address some of the major coastal and marine issues
facing the Coastal Plains Region. Information is exchanged among leaders
in marine fields both inside and outside the Region, and efforts are
coordinated toward the solution of common problems. To give an idea of the
broad scope of problems addressed at these Conferences, the subjects involved
at the last two Conferences were: Seabed Mineral Resources; Sport Fishing;
Marine-Based Recreation and Tourism; Seafood Market Development; Recent
Developments in Coastal Zone Planning at the State Level; Marine Advisory
and Research Capabilities; Seafood Processing: Technology and Economics;
Access to Beaches and Estuarine Water; Federal State Planning for Marine
Fisheries; and Offshore Impacts of OCS Development.

The Center responds to requests for assistance, information, or publica-
tions. This activity is one of the most important, as it directly affects
filling the stated needs of the five States for coastal and marine resources
information. While requests are received and honored from all sources,
those from individuals and organizations involved in managing and using the
coastal and marine resources of the Region, and particularly from State
agencies and industries which influence economic betterment in coastal and
marine areas, are most pertinent to the Center's overall purpose.

Another Center activity which affects filling the needs of the five
States for coastal and marine resources information involves advisory and
consulting services wherein the recipients of these services are unaware
of the availability of information they need. In this case these needs are








identified by the Center, which conducts an active information dissemination
program to keep users of Center services abreast of recent coastal and marine
developments both within the Region and outside it. Information collected by
the Center is reviewed and analyzed to determine those individuals.and organiza-
tions with the Region who would benefit the most from it. This information is
extracted, summarized, and distributed accordingly without any prior initiative
by or obligation on the part of these recipients.

A final Center activity which should be mentioned is the Center's publications
program. The Marine Newsletter is an 8-page bimonthly publication, whose cir-
culation has recently increased above 7,000 and which continues to be well-received.
It reports recent developmentsof value to the complete spectrum of coastal and
marine interests in the five States. The Conference on Marine Resources was
discussed earlier. While the Conference in itself serves as a means of informa-
tion exchange, further benefits are produced by the Center in the compilation,
publication, and distribution of the Report. These further benefits are de-
rived through capturing the information and results in written form for dis-
semination to a much broader audience. Still another Center publication is the
annual Summary of Marine Activities of the Coastal Plains Region, which in-
cludes information about coastal and marine organizations in the five States and
their current interests and projects in order to enable contacts to be made.
This publication informs researchers of what is being done in their particular
fields of interest and where it is being done, so as to facilitate communication
across State lines, prevent duplication of effort, and coordinate coastal and
marine research and development programs.

In summary, the Center provides free continuing technical assistance to
those who manage, explore and develop the coastal and marine resources of Florida,
Georgia, South Carloina, North Carolina, and Virginia; and transfers information
and coordinates the sharing of expertise across State lines. This is a job
which is not being done by anyone else. The Center stimulates, coordinates,
and financially supports information exchange projects such as those included
in its Coorperative Projects Program. It extends the technical staff capabilities
of the Commission and its member States. Through such means as its annual Con-
ference on Marine Resources it brings coastal and marine agencies and organizations
together to facilitate communication and cooperation, and to get them working
together on a Regional basis. In order to fill the stated needs for coastal
and marine resource information, the Center responds to requests for technical
assistance, information, and publications. In order to fill the unstated needs
for such information, the Center identifies these needs and conducts an active
dissemination program to meet them, involving advisory and consulting services.
Sometimes this information is specialized and of interest to a broad spectrum of
coastal and marine interests and is disseminated through Center publications
such as the Newsletter, conference reports, and summaries of coastal and marine
activities.

Further information regarding the Center and its services can be obtained
by writing to the Coastal Plains Marine Center, 1518 Harbour Drive, Wilmington,
N.C. 28401, or telephone 919/791-6432.









FLORIDA SHORE & BEACH PRESERVATION ASSOC.


Stan Tait, Executive Director
John G. Cowley, President

I want to say a few words about the Florida Shore and Beach Preser-
vation Association and to encourage anyone here who isn't a member to join
our group before this seminar is over. It may be the most important thing
you do for the cause of beach preservation.

Throughout the past two days, you've all heard about various beach
restoration projects underway or proposed and about the importance of
erosion control in general.

In a nutshell, our job at the association is to help make sure that
you get the wherewithall from the State Legislature and the Congress so
that you can undertake these projects in the first place.

A very important mission of the association is to lobby the State
Legislature for funding of the beach program. And I use the word "lobby-
ing" unashamedly because it's the only way we're going to get the money
we need to preserve and rebuild our beaches. Through lobbying, we "'sell
the case" of erosion control to our lawmakers We "educate" them about
the importance of our beaches.

Some of you can perhaps recall that back in 1957 the FSBPA was form-
ed to promote beach preservation in Florida. At that time there was no
state program. Thanks to the dedicated efforts of the founding fathers
of our association, the 1957 Legislature was persuaded to begin the first
state erosion control program.

We've come a long way since then. But virtually every single law
and dollar relating to erosion control has come as a result of our efforts.

We do a lot more than lobbying, of course. We help to educate the
general public about the need for erosion control. We're the only state-
wide organization doing that. We reach the public through speeches and
news releases and newsletters and pamphalets. We also co-sponsor meet-
ings such as this to help bring professionals and interested citizens
together to discuss and learn about beach erosion.

What I'm saying, in short, is that this association is very important
to the state's erosion control program.. We've got an enormous job in the
coming months and years so that you'll have the funds to preserve and re-
build our beaches. To do that job, we need your help. So I urge you again
-- if you're not a member of our association -- to please join and help us
win that fight. I just happen to have a few spare membership application
forms. Thank you.









John G. Cowley


Members of the Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association are
pleased to participate in sponsoring this seminar. Our organization was
organized approximately 18 years ago with its primary objective to focus
attention on the importance of Florida's beaches to all of its residents.
These beaches are recognized, by information obtained from visitors them-
selves, to be the number one tourist attraction. Tourists paid approximately
eight hundred million dollars in taxes during the past year. The long and
varied coastline of the state and its beautiful beaches establishes Florida
as a unique state with a tremendous economic potential from tourism. If this
industry, so important to Florida, is to continue to grow and prosper,
then our primary natural resouce, our beaches, must be protected and
restored.

The seminar this year was especially planned to deal with problems
arising from hurricanes and what can be done to minimize damages from
such storms to beaches and structures in coastal area, and that I am sure
that the programs planned today will be of great benefit to each of us
present.









ABSTRACTS OF CONFERENCE


I. BEACHES VS. HURRICANES
ABOUT THAT HURRICANE
Dr. Neil Frank

There is a passage in the bible which says "where is the wise man."
Eloise destroyed the philosophy of many of the wise men who lived in the
panhandle of Florida. It had been a long time since they had a bad hurri-
cane. As we start today I want to define some terminology. We're going to
be talking about major hurricanes and major hurricanes would be a category
3, 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5. We have found that it is extremely useful
and meaningful to classify hurricanes on this scale rather than worry so
much about the meteorological data that would define the various boundaries.
A 1 would be a minimal storm. A 5 would be the worst storm you would ever
expect to occur. There have only been two 5 storms hit this nation in this
century, Camille in 1969, and the Labor Day storm in 1935. On this relative
scale of 1 to 5 we'll be talking about a major hurricane as being a category
3, 4 or 5. Eloise was the first major storm to hit Florida in over a decade.
It was the first major storm to hit the panhandle in about 40 years and dur-
ing that 40 year interval we have had 6 or 7 hurricanes in the Florida pan-
handle, The strongest previous hurricane in 1941, was a category 2. The
most recent, Agnes, in 1972 a category 1. Eloise was also the first major
storm to hit the Panama City area since the turn of the century. Fifteen
hurricanes have hit the panhandle since 1900 and only three of those have
been of the category 3 type. We had a lot of people in the Panama City area
who felt they were immune from hurricanes or at least bad hurricanes. 122,000
people livcd in the Panama City Apalachicola area and not one of them have
experienced a major hurricane this century. If you count up not only the
hurricanes but also the tropical storms, there have been 15 hurricanes in
the panhandle this century and 17 tropical storms in this century. Only
three of them would have been in the major category.. It would be easy to
conclude then that we get a lot of activity in the panhandle but none of it
is really major. It has not always been that way.

Let's go back prior to the turn of the century in an 11 year period
1885 to 1896. There were nine storms in the Florida panhandle and even
though data in that period are very limited and very sparse, we can conclude
that many of these were of the major category. If we start on back into
history we can see that in the Florida panhandle in 1736 Pensacola was des-
troyed by a hurricane. In 1842 the highest storm surge on record in the
state of Florida occurred at Cedar Key. We have an eye witness account there
that said the water was 20 feet above normal. In 1843, Port Leon just south
of St. Marks was destroyed; you don't even hear that name in our modern so-
ciety. In 1844 Port St. Joe was destroyed. There is an interesting story
about Port St. Joe. If you go back to that part of Florida history I under-
stand that Apalachicola was a primary seaport during those years. Then
there was some controversy over taxes. A lot of the residents of Apalachi-
cola decided that they weren't going to pay the taxes and they just picked
up and moved over to Port St. Joe. In 1841 there was a yellow fever epide-
mic in St. Joe which destroyed a lot of the community and then the final de-
struction came in a hurricane in 1844.









ABSTRACTS OF CONFERENCE


I. BEACHES VS. HURRICANES
ABOUT THAT HURRICANE
Dr. Neil Frank

There is a passage in the bible which says "where is the wise man."
Eloise destroyed the philosophy of many of the wise men who lived in the
panhandle of Florida. It had been a long time since they had a bad hurri-
cane. As we start today I want to define some terminology. We're going to
be talking about major hurricanes and major hurricanes would be a category
3, 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5. We have found that it is extremely useful
and meaningful to classify hurricanes on this scale rather than worry so
much about the meteorological data that would define the various boundaries.
A 1 would be a minimal storm. A 5 would be the worst storm you would ever
expect to occur. There have only been two 5 storms hit this nation in this
century, Camille in 1969, and the Labor Day storm in 1935. On this relative
scale of 1 to 5 we'll be talking about a major hurricane as being a category
3, 4 or 5. Eloise was the first major storm to hit Florida in over a decade.
It was the first major storm to hit the panhandle in about 40 years and dur-
ing that 40 year interval we have had 6 or 7 hurricanes in the Florida pan-
handle, The strongest previous hurricane in 1941, was a category 2. The
most recent, Agnes, in 1972 a category 1. Eloise was also the first major
storm to hit the Panama City area since the turn of the century. Fifteen
hurricanes have hit the panhandle since 1900 and only three of those have
been of the category 3 type. We had a lot of people in the Panama City area
who felt they were immune from hurricanes or at least bad hurricanes. 122,000
people livcd in the Panama City Apalachicola area and not one of them have
experienced a major hurricane this century. If you count up not only the
hurricanes but also the tropical storms, there have been 15 hurricanes in
the panhandle this century and 17 tropical storms in this century. Only
three of them would have been in the major category.. It would be easy to
conclude then that we get a lot of activity in the panhandle but none of it
is really major. It has not always been that way.

Let's go back prior to the turn of the century in an 11 year period
1885 to 1896. There were nine storms in the Florida panhandle and even
though data in that period are very limited and very sparse, we can conclude
that many of these were of the major category. If we start on back into
history we can see that in the Florida panhandle in 1736 Pensacola was des-
troyed by a hurricane. In 1842 the highest storm surge on record in the
state of Florida occurred at Cedar Key. We have an eye witness account there
that said the water was 20 feet above normal. In 1843, Port Leon just south
of St. Marks was destroyed; you don't even hear that name in our modern so-
ciety. In 1844 Port St. Joe was destroyed. There is an interesting story
about Port St. Joe. If you go back to that part of Florida history I under-
stand that Apalachicola was a primary seaport during those years. Then
there was some controversy over taxes. A lot of the residents of Apalachi-
cola decided that they weren't going to pay the taxes and they just picked
up and moved over to Port St. Joe. In 1841 there was a yellow fever epide-
mic in St. Joe which destroyed a lot of the community and then the final de-
struction came in a hurricane in 1844.










Let's look around the state and look at some of the other historical
storms that we tend to forget about. In the Tampaareain 1848, a 15 foot
surge of water occurred. I was recently talking to a resident who lives
south of the Tampa area and he said that down in Port Charlotte Punta
Gorda area, "I know that there was a bad storm there once because that's
where my relatives come from; they were in a ship and that ship went over
some of those offshore islands." In other words the water was so high
that it covered the islands and this ship went across the islands and was
deposited on the beach in the Punta Gorda area. In 1873 Punta Rassa was
destroyed by another hurricane which brought 14 feet of water.

Down in the Florida Keys, at Key West you hear that they don't have a
bad hurricane problem down there. The same kind of attitude exists in the
Keys that you saw prevalent in the Florida panhandle. Yet in 1846 Key
West was almost completely destroyed by a hurricane that moved across it.
The water was said to have run four to five feet deep along the main
street of Key West. There is only one high spot in Key West, where the
ground elevation is 17 feet. People were on that point of land and fear-
ful that waves were going to break over them. Then, of course, there is
the 1935 storm that established the record for being the strongest hurri-
cane that we've ever experienced in the Atlantic, the Carribean, and the
Gulf of Mexico. Eighteen feet of water over the keys destroyed a railroad
track and 400 lives were lost. Down in the southeast coast of Florida we
remember the '26 storm in Miami. It would have been a category 4. In
1928 a storm hit Palm Beach and killed 2000 people around Lake Okeechobee.
Recently we've come across some other pieces of literature that we think
are quite interesting. In 1796 we have an account of a ship that was
caught in a hurricane offshore and as it was being thrust along they threw
their anchor out. The anchor didn't catch at first but when it finally
caught, it lodged on something solid. When the water went down, the boat
was deposited in the middle of Elliot Key. At that time they didn't have
a way of getting it off the island, they had to burn the boat so they
could salvage the iron.

It's a little harder to get a direct hit on the northeast coast of
Florida because hurricanes tend to run parallel to the northeast coast of
Florida. There we don't have any recent storms or evidence of any major
storm, although in 1871 Melbourne was destroyed. In 1893 a storm moved
parallel up the Florida coast and then moved up on to the Georgia coast
and produced some 20 feet of storm'surge at Savannah Beach and killed over
2000 residents. I was in Savannah Beach again this spring, asking the
people there if they were going to leave if they got a hurricane and they
told me they don't have a hurricane problem at Savannah Beach.

Let's take a look at Eloise and compare it to some other storms to
put it in proper perspective. What kind of a storm was it? I told you
already that it was a category 3 on the scale of 1 to 5. I would like to
point out that one of the problems we have had with Eloise is that our
mathematical storm surge model produced what I considered to be the first
major failure during an analysis of Eloise. We've run this model for all
of our historical storms, we've run it operationly now since 1969 at the









center and we have never seen a major failure of this model. Yet
for some reason, and I'm not sure just why yet, there was a failure of
this model for Eloise. We predicted about a 7 foot storm tide so we put
out in our advisories that the water would be about eight feet. When we
saw that the storm was strengthening we increased the water level in our
advisories to 10 feet but we found out after the fact 'that that wasn't
even adequate. The storm surge profile of Camille produced 25-26 feet of
water compared to the 16-17 feet of water that was produced by Eloise.
A category 5 type of storm, Camille certainly produced a lot higher storm
surge and produced a lot more devastation than Eloise. A survivor of Ca-
mille was a gal by the name of Mary Ann Gerlock. Mary Ann and her husband
stayed in their apartment because they felt it was reasonably safe. They
had gone through Hurricane Dora in Jacksonville in 1964. Dora was a cate-
gory 2 storm. The eye of Dora hit around St. Augustine and Jacksonville
was really in the fringe of that storm. They felt Dora had been a bad
storm though and they did all right in Dora so why go away from Camille?
1When the building began to break apart they found themselves in the water.
Her husband drowned. Mary Ann was in the water 12 hours and finally was
deposited here on the beach 4 1/2 miles down from where her apartment was originally
located. At one time Mary Ann was so far out in the gulf that she couldn't even
see land. The tide went out and she went out with it. The next tide brought
her in and deposited her on the coastline.

I think you can see that there is a vast difference in the kinds of
devastation that we witnessed in the Panama City area in Eloise compared
with what occurred in Camille even though we consider Eloise a major hurri-
cane. In 250 years of storm surges on the Mississippi coast (since 1700)
the highest storm surge that they had experienced there was 16 feet, then
Camille came along with 25 feet. The point I want to make is that we fre-
quently forget these rare events that occur in the past and we don't con-
sider them in our planning. I want to emphasize, too, that there are two
aspects of hurricane preparedness; one is an aspect that you people are
addressing yourself to in this conference and that is realistic planning,
realistic cost in terms of buildings. What kind of a building do you
build on the seafront when you know that the expected frequency of a storm
or bad hurricane is maybe one in 100 years or one in 50 years? Maybe 50
years would be a more realistic value to consider in terms of building
life. There is another aspect of hurricane preparedness that is quite
different, and that aspect concerns human life. Our philosophy at the
Hurricane Center is that "We don't really mind you going down and building
on the beachfront and doing it very poorly if that's your desire and
you're willing to take the risk and you are also willing to take the loss.
Our primary concern is that you get out when we put the warnings up.
Don't stay there and try to protect yourself. Our's is not an expensive
program and doesn't cost lots of dollars to do. For the kinds of things
we are considering here with setback lines and realistic planning and
building costs and insurance programs, that's lots of dollars. There is
also a lot of give and take to come to some kind of a realistic program
when considering building. Preparedness for human lives is not an expen-
sive program.










How about wind damage? Well, here are four homes in the Panama City
area, as they looked prior to the arrival of that hurricane and on one of
them you can see that the roof was completely blown off but the other
three were reasonably well intact. Here's another picture of some damage.
You can see there's some roof damage on the home to the right. On the
building to the left, the roof is gone and there is major damage to that
home. Here is one more you can see where the roof blew off causing some
roof damage on the two roofs adjacent, although the one in the middle
faired fairly well. Let's compare that with the kind of wind damage that
we saw on the Mississippi coast. You can see total devastation in that
community. The peak winds of Eloise were recorded on a 38 ft. tower in
the Panama City area and were about 156 miles per hour. We know that the
winds in Camille were probably over 200 miles per hour. Our indirect evi-
dence would indicate that they were certainly over 200 miles per hour.
O.k. there's no question then that there is a big difference in a category
5 type hurricane such as Camille and a category 3 such as Eloise and I
think it's well that we take note of that as we view the Panhandle. We
have to be very careful that we don't begin to assume that that's the
worse that we could ever expect to see up there.

Now in the final few minutes that I have here today, I want to high-
light a problem that Todd Walton already mentioned, and that's about our
increasing coastal population. A recent report out of the University of
Colorado at the Dept. of Behavioral Sciences had a figure that really as-
tounded me. It shows the increase in population over the decade of the
60's and at the top of the graph you can see that we've had a 13 percent
increase in the number of people in the United States alone. At the bot-
tom of the graph there's been a 43 percent increase in our beachfront de-
velopments. We began to ask ourselves some questions about this. What
impact does that have on the hurricane problem? Now we're living in good
times and people are looking for new lifestyles and in search for those
lifestyles they are turning to the beachfronts. Many of them are turning
to the beachfronts in Florida. But, with this tremendous influx of new
people into the state we're finding we have some problems with overcrowd-
ing. I don't know how we're going to deal with this increase in popula-
tion in these coastal areas. Historically, If you lived on the beach-
front and a major storm was approaching you'd get in your car and get out.
I'm not sure we can evacuate everybody from our coastal areas. For examp-
le, down in the Florida Keys there are 60,000 people in the Florida Keys
today and I understand that maybe 20,000 of these may live in mobile
homes. Beachfront living is a fine way of life, mobile home living is
also a fine way of life but it's not a place of refuge during a hurricane.
These people have to get out. These and others that would have to eva-
cuate. This is what their evacuation route looks like. (slide) A two-
laned road with 60 major bridges and many of those bridges are in need of
major repair. If you were in the Keys this summer you would have found
you didn't have a two-laned road. You essentially had a one-laned road
because at least a half a dozen of those bridges were being repaired.

Now the Keys aren't the only place. How about Marco Island on the
southwest Florida coast? How about places like Key Biscayne off of Flo-










rida? The population there is 6000 and is kind of under control but there
is a lot of building going on on Key Biscayne.

Now real briefly take a quick look at some of the other places over
the nation so that you realize that this increase in population is not
only confined to Florida. How about Key Alegro off of the Texas coast,
this community is a dredge and fill operation, a beautiful development
about 30 miles south of Lubock where Carla in 1961 produced 18 feet of wa-
ter. I was down there trying to buy some property a year ago and I asked
the salesman, "Do you have a hurricane problem?" "Absolutely not," he
said, "you see Mustang Island out there, that's going to protect us. We've
been here 12 years and never seen water in the streets." This is a na-
tional problem. It's more severe in Florida though, than it is in other
parts of the nation because more people have come here. Our last major
storm was in 1950, the coastal population at that time was 2 million. To-
day it's 5 1/2 million people in Florida.

The problem I want to pursue now is what is the level of hurricane
experience of our coastal residents. In order to pursue that point, I
want to make sure that we have an understanding here.that there's a vast
difference in the devastation that takes place in the inner core of that
hurricane and what takes place in the outer fringes. A hurricane has an
inner area what we call the eye, where winds are relatively calm. This may
be 25 to 30 miles across. Surrounding that is a doughnut of extreme winds
and that's where most of the action takes place. Seldom does the area of
extreme devastation cover a section of the coastline more than 50 miles
wide, and yet the overall diameter of the storm may be 300 to 400 miles.
I estimate that maybe 80 percent of the people who go through a hurricane
actually go through the fringes. Fringe experiences can be deadly, I've
already relayed to you about Mary Ann Gerlock and her husband who decided
to stay because they'd been through the fringe of Dora. Fringe experi-
ences can lead to false impressions and false impressions can lead to very
poor hurricane planning. Let's take a look at the population in several
key areas of the state. Along the southeast Florida coast we've got near-
ly 2 million people. If you go back to the 1950 storm there were about
600,000 people there at that time. Seventy percent of our people along the
Southeast Florida coast are in an inexperienced category. Conditions on
the west coast are even worse. Over at St. Petersburg in 1970 half a mil-
lion people were there. The population today is about three quarters of a
million people. The last major storm direct hit there by category 3 or
greater was in 1921 when the population was less than 20,000. If you look
around the Tampa Bay area, there are over a million people there today
while only 100,000 were there in 1921. Ninety percent of the people in the
Florida west coast are in this "no experience" category. Up on the Geor-
gia and Northeast coast of Florida which includes Jacksonville, 1.3 mil-
lion people haven't seen a bad storm this century. If you look over the
entire state of Florida we've got five and a half million people in our
coastal counties. That's not.state population, that's coastal counties,
and of that group 43% are totally inexperienced. Eighty percent of the
residents of the most hurricane prone state in the nation are in a low ex-










perience category and as we know many of these people are living out in
very vulnerable places. The thing that makes this problem even worse is
that the increase in population has come in the State of Florida during a
low period of hurricane activity. We know that hurricanes tend to occur in
cycles, By that I mean a hurricane would tend to affect one area of our
coastline then the cycle changes and hurricanes go someplace else. The de-
cade of the 60's and so far the 70's (and Eloise hasn't broken this trend)
for major hurricanes is in the Gulf of 'Mexico. We had seven major hurric
canes during that period (eight with Eloise) and all-of them were in the
Gulf of Mexico. The decade of the 50's we had the major hurricanes on the
East coast of the United States. Then you have to go back 25 years to the
decade of the 40's when major hurricanes occurred in Florida. The last 25
years we've only had 2 major hurricanes (three with Eloise) which hit the
State of Florida, and Betsy and Donna were both primarily in the Florida
Keys, In the six year period, 1944 to 1950, we had seven major hurricanes
in the State of Florida. Many of those, the '49 storm at Palm Beach, the
'44 storm on the west coast, the '45 storm and the '47 storm were very da-
maging hurricanes. I don't know when we're going to go back to that pattern
again, but I can tell you that some day we're going to have major hurricanes
return to the State of Florida.

In World War II we began to get involved in tropical weather problems
in the Pacific. So, interest in hurricane typhoons began to be recreated
again and there was a lot of emphasis on understanding the hurricane problem.
Then in the 1950's we had all these storms go up the east coast of the Uni-
ted States and the National Hurricane Research Laboratory was established in
Palm Beach. It later then moved to Miami, NHI bought a number of air-
crafts, a couple of DC6's and put all kinds of instruments on board these
planes. These planes went out to collect data. Our understanding since
World War II has increased tremendously, but unfortunately we have not been
able to take that understanding ind place it directly into our forecasting
ability. Even though we've had a slight increase in our forecasting ability
or ourforecasting accuracy, we don't have nearly the forecasting accuracy
that we need. At the same time our coastal population is just speculating
to the point now where the demands that are being placed on the warning sys-
tem by our coastal population far exceed our capability to give proper warn-
ings. The thing we really fear is well illustrated on this side. On the
left hand side you see the dollar damage on hurricanes by five year periods
since the turn of the century and it comes as no surprise that we're seeing a
tremendous increase in dollar damage. At the same time, though, over here
on the right hand side, we've been extremely pleased to see that there has
been a steady decrease in the number of lives that have been lost in a hur-
ricane since the Galveston disaster in 1900 that claimed 6000 lives. The
thing we fear now is that some time in the near future we're going to have
another spike on our death curve over here that's going to be equal or even
surpass that Galveston disaster unless we do something and do something ra-
ther quickly. It's my opinion that unless we as responsible people in the
coastal areas, those of us involved in the warning, those of us involved in
the planning, those of us involved in advising, those who are responsible
for making the plans, and those of us who are responsible for education, do
something in the near future to [ring an awareness or inform those coastal
residents who have moved to our coastlines and beachfronts, Mother Nature is









going to impose her own educational program. Her educational program is
swift and deadly. Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity of coming up here
and sharing these thoughts with you.

Questions & Answers
Q. )o some areas of the coast get higher storm tides?
A. Where you have shallow water you're going to get a higher storm surge,
where you have deep water you're going to get a lower storm surge. The good
news to those of us who live along the Southeast Florida coast is that we
have the 'Gulf Stream offshore, the water is very deep. The bad news for
those of you on the Florida west coast is that it's very shallow and you po-
tentially have a greater storm surge problem in terms of surge height.

Q. Aren't hurricanes warnings somewhat misleading at times and on short no-
tice?
A. Yes sir, you're absolutely right. That's one of theproblems we're faced
with, we know we're going to have to give you a warning. My average fore-..
cast error in 24 hours is 100 miles. If we try to give you lead time beyond
that, our warnings become impossible. Let me translate what that means in
terms of warning. We are going to try to give you 12, 18 hours, maybe 24
hours of warning, maybe 12 or 18 for evacuation. I know that an area of the
coastline that needs to be evacuated will never probably be more than 50
miles, but in order to consider my error for 12 hours I increase it 50 miles
to the right, 50 miles to the left, so we've got 2/3 of our people already
over warned if we try to give 12 hours lead time in our warnings. If we go
to 24 hours then I have to go 100 miles to the left and 100 miles to the
right. Now my warning is over an area 250 to 300 miles and you've got most
of the people 75 to 80 percent who now have been overwarned. That's a very
difficult problem for us and this increase in population just escalates if
for us. Because what that requires is greater lead time, but my accuracy
isn't getting any better.

Q. Aren't hurricane surges heights hard to predict and much different in
different areas?
A. Absolutely. Now if we take our storm surge models (and prior to Eloise I
had tremendous confidence in it) and rum. it on the Southeast Florida coast
it gives us results of about 12 feet for a storm like Camille. If you run a
Camille on the west coast, the TamDa Bay area, you get 24 feet for exactly
the same storm with the same meteorological parameters. The only difference
is the depth of the water offshore.

Q. Aren't you concerned about the way people build on the coast?
A. I want to qualify that, I don't care if you go to the coastline and build
if you're willing to take your own loss. Don't come to me and ask for my
insurance agency to pay for your loss if you've gone down and built on the
coastline. What I was really trying to do was make an impact that my prima-
ry responsibility is lives. I have a lot more personal feeling about build-
ing and what are realistic building codes along the coastline than that
statement implied. In a sense I'm not trying to tell people that they
shouldn't go on the coastline and build. If I had the money to go there and
live, that's where I'd live. My constraint is notmoney, not the knowledge










that hurricanes can occur. My predecessor, Dr. Robert Simpson, has a home
on the bayfront and a nice boat parked at the back of his home. He was
right on a canal and he knew that someday that home was going to be wiped
out, but he is willing to go down and take the gamble. He knew what the
probability of a hurricane was there but he said, "I'm willing to go down
there and enjoy the many good years of life that I think I have a reasonably
good chance to live before we get that major hurricane." Now if he had got-
ten wiped out that first year he realized that that was a gamble he was tak-
ing. So, I don't think it's realistic to present a viewpoint that nobody
should build on the beachfront. That's an unrealistic position to take.
What is the most effective way to build is what you people are addressing
yourself to here today.

Q. What are some of the high water levels of hurricanes in Southeast Florida?
A. The Florida East coast, for example in the '26 storm down in Miami, had
12-12 1/2 feet in Fort Lauderdale. The '28 storm in Palm Beach was on the
order of 10 feet. The '49 storm was something on the order of 10 to 12 feet.
These were big storms and this gets back to the point that I think our model
has given us realistic results down there. I don't know why the failure of
Eloise happened. People that are in the business tell me, that it was be-
cause the waves were breaking right on the beachfront rather than breaking
offshore where they normally would.














'11E ECONOMIC VALUE OF FLORIDA'S BEACHES


Dean Gaiser

My presentation will certainly be a departure from the highly techni-
cal, sophisticated, scientific presentations that you have been hearing this
morning and will continue to hear through the rest of today and tomorrow.
Let me identify to you first of all the size of tourism in our state. In
1975 27.1 million tourists visited our state. Their expenditures were 8.8
billion dollars. They provided employment for about 480,000 of our citizens.
Probably even more important they contributed well over 500 million dollars
in state tax revenue. One of the reasons that tourists and their expendi-
tures and their contribution to state tax revenue are so important to us is
that we get to keep all that money that they spend in revenue and we get to
use it for our own programs. We have to provide none of the social programs
and the welfare programs, the protection programs and medical and education-
al programs for them. They simply leave that tax money with us and go back
to Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and New York and so forth. Last year our visi-
tors indicated that well over half of them came to our state simply because
of our beaches. So beaches are an important part of our total tourism con-
tribution. Each tourist has an average stay of a little over 12 days. It's
obvious they don't spend that whole time at the beach. Indeed they go to
the beaches and they use the beach resort area as their point of departure
for other considerations in our state. While they're here each tourist is
going to spend about $374.00. The beaches contribute almost half of the
total expenditures of our visitors. (We have over 1200 miles of shoreline in
Florida) A great deal of it is beaches people can use now. Sunseekers and
Florida beaches go together like love and marriage or mustard and hot dogs.
Of all the many attractions Florida holds for winter visitors, the thousand
plus miles of beach is the greatest.

The beaches are an integral, important part of our total tourism pic-
ture. We can't do without them,we have to have them. They ensure the quality
of the visit and their visit insures the economy of Florida.









WHAT'S BEING DONE BY THE FEDS?


Colonel Drake Wilson

I have been asked to talk about the Federal government's response to
Hurricane Eloise.

We have two authorities for assistance in flood or coastal storm
emergencies. The first one is Public Law 84-99, which was really written
for inland floods rather than for coastal storms. It is applicable for
damage to Federal works, if any, and there were none affected by Eloise,
(although we did survey harbors, channels, and basins to determine that)
and to conditions of immediate urgency, one of which I will get back to
later.

The main law we operate under is PL 93-288, the Disaster Relief Act
of 1974. We provide the principal engineering support to the Federal Disaster
Assistance Administration (FDAA) under the Act. Our services include damage
investigations, wreckage and debris removal, emergency repair and temporary
replacement of public facilities, protective work essential to the preservation
of life and property, and other technical assistance. I will discuss the
things we did after Eloise further on in my talk.

During the hurricane season, from 1 June through 30 November, the Mobile
District stays on a General Alert status. As a hurricane approaches the
District, sequential phases of our Hurricane Plan are initiated. Each phase
triggers certain conditions of preparation and readiness. For Hurricane
Eloise, Phase I, which includes plotting the storm's path, locating all
floating plant and checking emergency equipment, went into affect on September
17th.

Early on the morning of September 22nd, advisories indicated Eloise
would most probably go inland somewhere in the District. At 7:15 a.m.
Phase II and III of the Hurricane Plan were placed in effect, and at 7:30 a.m.
the Emergency Operations Center was actuated. At this point in.the plan
we have continuous communication with all floating plant, all floating plant
are either in safe harbor or moving to one, and all emergency power supplies
are checked.

At 7:00 a.m. on September 23rd, the NOAA National Hurricane Center
reported that Hurricane Eloise was striking the Florida panhandle. We
have an arrangement with the U.S. Coast Guard base at Mobile for reconnaissance
service to survey damaged areas. I was on the first flight out and we were
able to view some of the areas that morning. Pictures were taken about 10:00
a.m. by a newspaper photographer who was also on that flight. The surf was
still high and the eroded dune and damaged buildings showed clearly in those
photos.

Eloise moved rapidly inland and at 11:00 a.m. NOAA discontinued the
coastal warnings. Our first damage survey teams were dispatched from.the
Mobile and Panama City area offices and we began to receive reports of
heavy damage in the Panama City area.









Our survey teams cover the area as rapidly as possible to produce what
we call "windshield" estimates. (We dress our people in red jackets so we
can show'the flag a bit.) Their first mission is to come up with a quick
estimate of the magnitude of destruction and the capabilities of local
interests.

Other teams were moving inland along the storm's track, and we began
receiving reports of substantial, wide-spread damage well up into south-
eastern Alabama.

The early reports indicated severe dune erosion in the Panama City
beaches area, a matter of some concern to us as we were working on a study
for beach erosion control and hurricane protection for that area. We learned
that the University of Florida survey teams were already measuring dune
erosion throughout that region, so we did not duplicate their work. I
understand their findings will be discussed later on in the program.

Almost immediately after the storm, special survey teams from our
Hydraulic Data Section entered the area to run elevations on high water
marks, wave runup marks, and other data pertinent to the storm surge.
This data will be used in a report to published soon.

Well, I said I would get back to that condition of extreme emergency..
A lot of commercial chicken sheds were damaged around DeFuniak Springs
and we had a call from Congressman Sikes' office, asking what we were
going to do about it. We can act to supply emergency drinking water under
PL 84-99. Now, these chicken houses have a big device at one end that meters
food and water down to the chickens. The problem was that they were with-
out power for these devices. We scrounged around Mobile and some other places
and came up with 35 portable generators that we could move into that area.
We credit ourselves with saving 21 million chickens.

One of the first emergency work approvals we got from the Federal
Disaster Assistance Administration was for emergency dredging at Mexico
Beach. A small boat channel providing access to the Gulf was closed by
Eloise, and we put a small contract dredge in there to open up the inlet.

The next big activity we got into was the debris removal mission
assigned by FDAA. We did this all the way along the Panama City beaches.
Debris removal has some difficulties. We want to get on out there as quickly
as possible and do what is necessary, and, at the same time, do it by con-
tract with preference for local contractors.

We have to make a survey of debris quantity, and then advertise a con-
tract and award it competively in the space of about a week. That is
awfully fast contracting action, much more rapid than we normally use, but
its still a delay of over a week. To get by that delay we rounded up
trucks and forklifts from our projects to provide the first work until
the contracts could get underway.

Our next major mission -- in fact the last increment is still on --
was demolition of buildings that were so badly damaged that they could not
be rebuild. FDAA authorized us to contract out the demolition of these








dangerous structures. There were some complications, so demolition was
delayed until recently. We closed down our emergency field office after
debris removal was completed, and the demolition contracts are being admin-
istered out of our Panama City Area Office.

The last, and perhaps most interesting, operation is the beach restor-
tion. The FDAA has authority to provide emergency protection against
additional damage from subsequent storms when a major disaster has destroyed
the existing protection, in this case the beach and dunes. This work is
limited to "the minimum essential measure" to protect against the 5-year
storm. At FDAA's request, we determined that a 5-year storm surge, plus
runup, would reach elevation 6 feet mean sea level. Figure 1 shows a typical
section of the proposed emergency restoration. We have determined that a
berm like this is required at 25 locations along the beach. Figure 1 also
slows the beach and dune profile we are recommending for beach restoration
and storm protection for this same area in a study we have recently completed.
That work will require Congressional approval. The emergency work would
probably be done by pumping sand out of the entrance channel to Panama City
Harbor, stockpiling it where trucks could get at it, and then hauling it
into the selected locations where it would be build up into the profile.

That concludes my presentation. I have Walter Burdin, one of your
recent graduates, with me here and if you have any questions now, we'd
be happy to give you any information we can.

Q. What did you say the elevation of the emergency berm would be?

A. Six feet, mean sea level. That's the elevation of the 5-year storm surge
plus wave runup. We have surveyed and located the 25 places where the beach
fronting a structure is less than that elevation and that's where the sand
will go, The total quantity in the emergency proposal only runs around
250,000 cubic yards and the quantities we're talking about in the total
beach restoration proposal run around 8 million cubic yards. You can
see that there is a considerable difference between the emergency and full
scale restorations.

Q. Do you think this beach restoration will actually be done?

A. Well, as far as the emergency work under FDAA, yes. There is some
internal problem at FDAA that has delayed their decisions. Still, I
expect they'll go ahead and do it, but we don't have a directive yet.

Q. Doesn't it seem kind of sad that you can get Federal money after the
damage is done, but you can't get it for those people who want to protect
themselves in advance?

A. Well, the Federal government, in things of this sort, is frankly rather
ponderous. It takes us about 10 years to move one of our projects through the
whole process from conception through construction. They have tight rules
on how it is done both on regular Corps projects and disaster work. I guess
they think it would be abused if they gave private individuals funds to.do
it themselves. Futhermore, if you do it in bits and pieces you don't have
anything very lasting. If you just protect a little isolated bit of property
it's going to be flanked on either side.









Q. Is the beach really eroding in that region?


A. Yes, we think so. Of course, it depends on what frame you look at.
There were periods in the past when that beach was accreting, but the net
change is one of loss or erosion.

Q. Are your proposing any groins in your full restoration project?

A. No. The only thing we're proposing in the large project is the re-
establishment of the beach, establishment of a hurricane protection dune,
and then periodic nourishment.

Q. Is this Federal money alone or is there local money involved in that
project?

A. The large project will cost shared in accordance with the law about
60 percent Federal funds and 40 percent local funds.

Q. Will the State of Florida contribute towards the local share?

A. This is still being worked out. The State of Florida has passed a law
where they can put up a considerable share of the local funds, and it's our
information that they intend to do that. I don't know if they have their
funds in hand yet, but then, we don't have either. We have a valid agree-
ment with Bay County about their share of the local cooperation and they
have a means of financing it. They haven't gotten to the point of having
dollars in the bank yet.

Q. Who pays for a damaged house that is torn down under your demolition
contract?

A. I don't really know the answer to that. We send our real estate people
over to get a release from the owner so we can come on his property and tear
the house down. The FDAA pays us the cost of the demolition. Of course,
that person doesn't have his house anymore so I assume his loss is covered
by insurance. But the cost of demolishing and removing the damaged structure
is covered by the Federal government.

Q. Is there any attempt to coordinate the maintenance of the harbor entrance
with the beach nourishment project?

A. Yes, we're doing that at Panama City. In our study we have recommended
additional Federal cost sharing for a reach about 2 miles downdrift from the
entrance channel as mitigation for the channel effect. In addition, we plan
to deposit sand from future maintenance dredging in that reach. We are also
planning to do this at the Mobile Harbor entrance. We will try to discharge,
with a pump-out hopper dredge, on the east end of Sand Island with the idea
that it will move on to Dauphin Island downdrift from there.










LESSONS LEARNED IN BUILDING DESIGN IN THE COASTAL ZONE


Dr. Byron Spangler

Investigations of damages resulting from natural disasters such as
hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes reveal many surprising things and
many lessons in design and construction are learned.

Proper site selection is one of the important factors to be considered
in design, even though it. is not often considered as such. Residential and
commercial structures properly sited can prevent much costly damage and can
save design and construction costs.

Structures that are located in a coastal zone are particularly suscep-
table to damage if proper use is not made of natural barriers for protection.
In order to discuss the lessons learned from Hurricane Eloise and to illus-
trate the site selection aspect, I would like to show a few slides of dam-
age that occurred as a result of Hurricane Camille. This storm, as you know,
struck the coast of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, with much damage
being done in the area of Gulfport, Pass Christian and Mobile. In this area
there is little dune protection. In face there is no dune in this particu-
lar area of Mobile. Here we see that the water damage, and the majority of
this water damage, occurred for some considerable distance inland, the equiv-
alent of two or three blocks. You can see that there is some wind damage
where the roofs have been destroyed but the majority was wave damage. Struc-
tures did not have any protection from the waves other than the building
themselves. Here you can see that the elevation at which the structures
were built was only 6 to 8 feet above mean high water. The wind damage was
great also because in Pass Christian it was estimated that the wind vel-
ocity approached 200 miles per hour. It was not that high in.the Panama
City area however.

We can design structures to resist wind and wave forces if we can pro-
vide the money. Monumental type structures are usually designed with adequate
engineering design principles and will withstand high winds. This church,
for example, took the brunt of the storm and remains structurally sound.
There are many other monumental type structures which resisted the wind and
wave forces. You can see the results of the inadequately designed struc-
tures in the surrounding area.

This is an aerial view of the Panama City Beach area, which Dr. Self
and I were asked to investigate and report on the structural damage. These
slides were made a few days after the storm. They're not as revealing in
terms of the water level as the Corps of Engineers' slides. However, they
do show the effects of the storm. The setback line lies just in the rear
of some of these buildings in this slide and you can see all through the
slides that follow that hurricane Eloise was a good test of the setback
line. I feel, from what I have seen, that it bore up very well as far as
location because many of the structures forward of the setback line were
severely damaged and those in back of the setback line were, for the most
part, in fairly good shape. I am not sure this is true in the area to the









west because our investigation included only the area of Panama City Beach.
A question was asked about the drainage of the storm water. Here you see a
headwall for one of the drainage pipes and you can see the loss of material
and the erosion of the beaches. There are a number of these drainage chan-
nels along the beach and they do create some localized erosion. Inland there
was very little damage. Not only did the dunes tend to protect the inland
structures but the compactness of the construction along the coast tended to
do the same thing. This helped to attenuate the wave forces. The Corps of
Engineers' values on the water height was approximately 15 feet plus about a
3 foot topping wave, a total of approximately 18-19 feet. You can see the
water was attenuated to a considerable extent and very little damage was
done to the structures inland. There was considerable damage and erosion
around isolated structures. Any barriers that were provided to protect
structures from the movement of the water created considerable turbulence and
generated a great amount of beach erosion. You'll notice here that there
was a seawall in front of this structure and there is much erosion around the
edges of the building and seawall.

This building shows more evidence of wind damage than most of the
other structures. This is the same structure that was shown in Colonel
Wisdom's slide just a few minutes.ago and the way you can tell there was
wind damage is that the upper portion of the structure was severely damaged,
while the intermediate portions of the structure here were not greatly
damaged. This is a close-up of the structure. Notice that the building
is on high ground and well supported. The problem of a building of this type,
of course, is that unless you reinforce the walls and provide adequate ties
or adequate horizontal bracing members to resist the wind forces damage is
apt to occur. The lesson learned in any wind damage study is that if you
don't tie the structure together adequately it may not stay there. This
is a typical example. We can reinforce masonry walls adequately to resist
wind damages and we should do so in areas subject to high wind forces.

Return of the end walls of this seawall towards the highway or rear
of the building was inadequate and the water eddying around the corners and
edges of these walls eroded the sand and breached the end of the wall.
Once this happened the water began to flow rapidly between the swimming pool
and the building and seawall and washed the sand support away from the
swimming pool. Erosion of the sand behind the seawall weakened its support.
The steel tie-backs cannot take compressive forces and may buckle, break
loose or wash out, permitting failure of the seawall as a result of batter-
ing by the waves. Jim Purpura, I'm sure, is going to tell you something
about the erosion at the bottom of walls which undermines the wall and de-
creases the resistance to earth or wave forces. We find that in almost
every case where there was a swimming pool there was considerable erosion.
We are not sure, but we feel that possibly leakage from the pool through
poorly jointed walls permitted severe loss of sand beneath the walkways
around the pool prior to the storm. This created a channel for the water
to flow through and wash out more sand during the storm, thus removing
the support of the swimming pool by the surrounding sand. In almost every
instance where there is a swimming pool we found this condition existing.
The swimming pool, after the surrounding slabs have dropped a bit, caused
an increase in the velocity of water between the pool and adjacent structures
and rapidly destroyed the support of the sand around the structure creating









the condition as shown here.


Wherever there is a considerable amount of grassy growth there is some-
thing to hold the sand in place and there is less chance of erosion. This
is not structural but it may affect erosion around structures.

Slabs on grade should not be used in an area of wave or water influence
because the wave action may wash out the sand underneath the slab and leave
no support. Here again is a seawall with short end returns and a condition
that should be avoided. This setback between these two walls results in
eddying at corners resulting in wash out of the sand in these areas. Support
around the wall will be lost. This structure had a first floor slab on
grade. The second floor and the roof are structural slabs. Note that when
sand eroded from beneath these slabs they failed because of lack of support.

The storm revealed many things that may occur in areas where rapid
construction occurs and where contractors possibly graduated to large struc-
ture construction from moderate residential construction without learning
true structural concepts. Notice what a waste of wire mesh we have here.
It served absolutely no purpose because when the contractor placed it he
left it directly on the sand. Therefore the mesh is not serving the purpose
for which it was intended. This was typical of most of the slabs on grade
in the area.

This is an example of improper support of roof structure. It was too
far out on the beach in this particular case. Notice that there is a section
of the pre-stressed double-tee roof missing. There it is at the base of the
building. It was not adequately fastened to resist the forces of the waves
as they splashed against the top of the structure. Wind forces would not
be enough to break it loose because of its weight, but the wave forces in
combination with the wind broke it loose. If it had been adequately fas-
tened it would probably still be there. It is not known whether or not these
structures were adequately designed, they look as if they grew like Topsy
in many instances.

There was a seawall back here, that is pretty much intact. One of the
panels was broken from the end and the water rushed through, washing out the
sand behind the wall undermining this footing and the interior of the struc-
ture collapsed. The structure had very good support for the part nearest
the Gulf but inadequate support on the shore side.

This is the motel in which we stayed while we were at Panama City Beach.
There was a double seawall. Notice where the sand line was prior to the
storm. The structure has very little sand support as it is on piles. If the
piling had been used under the inner walls they probably would still be
there. The sand is washed out around the ends of the walls, water rushed
down in this area between the two walls and in back of the shoreward wall and
washed out the swimming pool on the east side of this building. Everywhere
there was a swimming pool that created a restricted area for the water to
flow, there was erosion of the sand. Also, wherever there was a short end
return there was a breach of the wall.









Reinforced concrete seawalls do not stand up very well in this sort of
environment. An amazing thing about this particular structure is shown by
a palm tree on the front side. There were only 6 inches between the palm
tree and the roof. With the exception of a slight scratch in back of one of
those trees, the force of the water and the wind did not cause enough sway to
damage the eave of that structure. Palm trees are fairly rigid structures
even with their deceivingly sparse root system.

This is an example of what happens when half of a building is supported
on piling and the other half isn't. The seawall portion was on spread footings
on the sand. The sand was eroded from beneath the spread footings causing
collapse of the structure. This is one of the reinforced concrete walls and
you'll notice that there was considerable spawling of the concrete. Large
chunks of concrete fell off and the reinforcement lost its bond strength.
Any slight battering will destroy a wall like this. Prestressed concrete piling
is a much better type of material to use. Again, in the same example, in
the front portion of the structure, the beam across here which supported the
prestressed concrete members was supported on piling. The inner portion of the
structure was supported on a spread footing resting directly on the sand. There was
not enough support when wave action eroded the sand from beneath the footing.

This structure was placed directly on the sand. The only support for
the walls was a thickened slab that you can see here. There was a small block
sea wall which did not have enough return to prevent the water from breaching
Sthe end and sand was eroded around this structure and it collapsed. This is
one of the better constructed slabs. You'll notice that there is mesh in the
concrete in this case, but there wasn't any to support it after the sand eroded
away. It is good construction if you can keep the sand there but it isn't very
good in an area which may be subjected to wave or tidal action.

All of the furniture in this building was washed out to the shoreward side
of the structure. The waves came through and literally wiped everything out
of these buildings. The receptacle covers were torn away and it's just as
though somebody came in and bulldozed everything out and then swept.it clean.

This was a rather unusual type structure, again an example of something not
to do. Walls are not supposed to support footings. Here is a pile cap back of
the front wall. The front wall rests on a spread footing, there's no piling
under it. The shear between the walls perpendicular to the beach and the front
wall furnishes the only support. Here you can see what happens when it loses
that sheer strength. There was much poor construction there. You'll notice
here that the steel footing mesh was placed directly on the sand and if any
concrete got around it, it was purely accidental. If you're going to do this
you might as well leave the mesh out. Apparently the mat in this case placed
directly on top of the piling and the sand was very close to the top of the
piling.

Here again eddying occurred around a discontinuous wall, washing out the
top of the sheet pile wall causing it to collapse. The water eroded the sand
and left no support for the swimming pool.










This is another common mistake which may be a construction or a design
fault. This was a cantilevered slab with steel in the bottom. Notice where
it's placed here in the bottom of the slab. It's amazing that it did not fail
under normal loads. The steel in this case should be in the top of the slab,
not the bottom. If design is for both gravity loads and the possibility of
upward wave forces the slab should be reinforced both the top and bottom.
Damage such as occurred during Eloise reveals some of the things we fail to
design if we don't use our imagination.

This is an interesting structure. It was only very slightly damaged. The
railing up here was slightly damaged. Apparently this section of seawall was
knocked out by battering, possibly by debris. When this happened there was much
eddying behind the wall beneath the building. This is what the underside of
the building looked like. We don't know how much farther down into the sand the
piling extended but the structures seen to be in reasonably good shape. There
is a distance of approximately thirty feet from the panel that was knocked out
to the east. It had been washed clear of sand. There was another opening at
the east end of the building. The water came in, eddyed, waThed the sand
out through this small opening and out the east end. Look how this beam was
placed, and look at the stirrups in that beam. The reinforcing cage was assembled,
set into form, directly on the sand and the concrete placed. Now, as most of you
are designers you know that there should be at least 3 inches of clear cover
on any steel in footings which are exposed to earth. We design it that way,
but it isn't going to act that way unless it's built that way. There's another
interesting thing here. These beams were placed in this direction about every
8 feet except here. Notice this steel extending out here. Apparently there
was supposed to be a beam in there and it was left out. Many omissions can be
covered up with sand. These are not design errors, there was supposed'to be
a beam there, otherwise there is no reason for having the steel there.

There are many wood pilings and all appear to be in excellent shape. Even
in the older buildings there is no evidence of decay.

This is an example of some wind damage. The reason this damage occurred
was that the ties between the backup wall and the veneer were not adequately
placed. There was a relatively wide opening between the concrete and the brick.
When wind blows across a flat surface, that flat surface acts like an air foil
and there is considerable negative pressure or suction on this wall. With the
sparse locations of the ties, the wall brick was literally pulled away and this
negative pressure plus the pressure between the two walls stripped the brick away.
The other end of the building was even worse. Design error or construction
error? We don't know.

This is the newer section of the Holiday Inn. An error was made in sur-
veying or placement of pilings. Notice the pile cap here and the location of
the bearing wall. This extra concrete apparently was an afterthought and was
put in there to support the brick veneer wall. Again, we see slab on grade
construction. The slabs did not fail in this case, and for the most part, remained
in place. In the repair, blocking is being placed between the pile caps to support
the slabs. This is the same building, the mesh in this slab is exposed. It was
placed directly on the sand and not supported to the correct elevation or pulled
up into the concrete as concrete was placed.










This is an example of another slab on grade. When the slab dropped down
2 1/2 to 3 inches, further failure was prevented by support provided by the
pile cap. One of the causes of damage in this area was the wave action
literally picking up these slabs and turned them back into the interior of the
building. There were three or four slabs in this structure in which that happened.
If there had been a structural slab this probably wouldn't have happened.

This structure extended farther out on the beach than all others. The sand
erosion around the pile supports is about 18 in. to 24 inches. This part of
the structure is still in good shape, the piling was driven deep enough that
the structure was not damaged. I personally feel that construction should
not be permitted to encroach on the beach like this but if it is permitted this
is a good method of construction. There was one thing that was not done very
well, however. On the opposite side of this stairwell the upper stories are
cantilevered over the beach. A structural slab spanned between the supporting
cantilevered beams. They acted as a trap for the waves as they rushed against
the building and splashed upward. The confined pressure cracked the slab at
the beam supports as the reinforcement was placed for gravity loads rather than
upward loads.

Let me summarize a few things here that we might say or some lessons that we
learned. 1. If we're going to use a seawall and we're not going to continue
it all the length of the beach and are going to use end returns, we should return
them far enough that the ends will not be breached due to the wave action,
eddying and the wash-out of the sand at the ends of the wall. 2. We should
design for forces on the seawalls in all directions. Don't depend on the sand
remaining behind them to resist the forces of the waves. Too many of the walls
are designed only as .retaining walls and not as walls to resist forces from a
wave action as well. We should design all of our structures and build them so
that when we put the steel in them they are going to have enough concrete cover
that corrosion is minimized, reducing expansion and spawling. 3. I mentioned
very briefly the possibility of leakage of sand through the improperly filled
joints in the sea walls. Many of the joints were filled to the beach surface.
Below that point, in many cases, there was no grout. This permits rainwater,
wave splash-over or leakage from pools to wash the sand out through the openings
that exist below beach level and support is lost from the back of the retaining
wall. The joints between wall sections should be adequately grouted. 4. For
buildings, do not use slab on grade. This is one of the biggest lessons we should
learn. Design them as structural systems rather than as slabs on grade.

5. The water damage for the most part occurred in the first floor level of
all the structures. Anything above the first floor was in good shape except for
water damage from leakage due to the wind stripping the roofing off of the
structures. We might think about designing breakaway walls. This is something
that some of us have talked about and I understand that the government is concerned
with this too. We should establish standards for breakaway walls.

6. Finally, our survey of the damage further indicated that we must have
adequate inspection during construction.










Q. How much inspection did you find out they have?
I can't answer that question. We didn't see any plans and we didn't
talk to any designers so we don't know how much inspection was done but I
suspect from what we saw that there was not very much. Maybe a visit to the site
once a week.

Q. How is adequate compaction to be assured beneath floor slabs?
Well, I asked this question of a number of people over there and they
weren't able to tell me. They are back filling but they had no answer as
to how they were going to get adequate compaction.

Q. What type ties should be used for seawalls?
I would recommend reinforced concrete ties rather than steel ties for
two reasons (1) they will take compressive forces without.buckling if the
sand does wash out and (2) they don't wash out if properly placed.









II. PROGRAMS TO PROTECT US FROM THE
WRATH OF MOTHER NATURE
THE FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Richard W. .Krimm
Assistant Administrator for Flood Insurance

Events of the past five years have shattered the popular myth of
unlimited plenty in America. Through the personal inconvenience of the
energy shortages cf 1973 and 1974 and the recent spectre of massive un-
employment, the general public is slowly beginning to recognize the inter-
dependencies of the Nation's production systems and economic health upon
a delicate and finite natural environment.

Previous to this growing, painful awareness were years of unprecedented
economic growth in which immediate production needs had been indulged and
imned:iate consumer demands gratified, in many cases, to the peril of the
environment and at the expense of the economy.

In a very real sense, consuming and industrial America had stayed
too long at the fair and only now are many citizens beginning to realize
what had long been recognized in technical and scholarly circles; namely,
that production and growth must conform as far as practicable to the cycles
of nature and the limitations of the ecosystem.

What had been true of large production and consumer trends over the
past two generations was true as well of housing production in the flood
plains and coastal zones of the Nation.

Despite the good faith efforts of the home building industry as a
whole to provide safe, quality housing for the Nation, the flood hazard
has historically been unknown or underestimated in the planning and land
use decisions of many local governments. To compound the problem, people
have moved at an alarming rate in recent years to areas once avoided because
of the flood hazard. Increased population densities in coastal and riverine
areas have aggravated the existing flood hazard and increased the exposure
of property and lives to the perils of floods and flood-related erosion.

In short, the truism that floods are the work of nature, flood disasters
the work of man has been borne out by the losses of life and property
resulting from encroachment upon the flood plains and coastal zones of the
Nation. In this century along, over 10,000 Americans have lost their
lives in floods. Average annual flood losses are currently estimated
at $1.5 billion and are continuing to increase. The Water Resources Council
estimates that by the year 2020 A.D., losses in the Nation could escalate
to $5 billion annually, unless commitment to prudent flood plain and coastal
zone management is realized.

The Eloise disaster by itself underscores the urgent need for sustained
inter-governmental commitment toward reducing flood losses. In the disaster,
approximately $230 million in structure and contents losses occurred. In
Florida, the total amount of damages to both coastal and inland properties
amounted to $20 million. This figure does not include the damage to shore
protection devices, replacement costs for lost or displaced sand supplies,









II. PROGRAMS TO PROTECT US FROM THE
WRATH OF MOTHER NATURE
THE FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Richard W. .Krimm
Assistant Administrator for Flood Insurance

Events of the past five years have shattered the popular myth of
unlimited plenty in America. Through the personal inconvenience of the
energy shortages cf 1973 and 1974 and the recent spectre of massive un-
employment, the general public is slowly beginning to recognize the inter-
dependencies of the Nation's production systems and economic health upon
a delicate and finite natural environment.

Previous to this growing, painful awareness were years of unprecedented
economic growth in which immediate production needs had been indulged and
imned:iate consumer demands gratified, in many cases, to the peril of the
environment and at the expense of the economy.

In a very real sense, consuming and industrial America had stayed
too long at the fair and only now are many citizens beginning to realize
what had long been recognized in technical and scholarly circles; namely,
that production and growth must conform as far as practicable to the cycles
of nature and the limitations of the ecosystem.

What had been true of large production and consumer trends over the
past two generations was true as well of housing production in the flood
plains and coastal zones of the Nation.

Despite the good faith efforts of the home building industry as a
whole to provide safe, quality housing for the Nation, the flood hazard
has historically been unknown or underestimated in the planning and land
use decisions of many local governments. To compound the problem, people
have moved at an alarming rate in recent years to areas once avoided because
of the flood hazard. Increased population densities in coastal and riverine
areas have aggravated the existing flood hazard and increased the exposure
of property and lives to the perils of floods and flood-related erosion.

In short, the truism that floods are the work of nature, flood disasters
the work of man has been borne out by the losses of life and property
resulting from encroachment upon the flood plains and coastal zones of the
Nation. In this century along, over 10,000 Americans have lost their
lives in floods. Average annual flood losses are currently estimated
at $1.5 billion and are continuing to increase. The Water Resources Council
estimates that by the year 2020 A.D., losses in the Nation could escalate
to $5 billion annually, unless commitment to prudent flood plain and coastal
zone management is realized.

The Eloise disaster by itself underscores the urgent need for sustained
inter-governmental commitment toward reducing flood losses. In the disaster,
approximately $230 million in structure and contents losses occurred. In
Florida, the total amount of damages to both coastal and inland properties
amounted to $20 million. This figure does not include the damage to shore
protection devices, replacement costs for lost or displaced sand supplies,









items which are uninsurable under the National Flood Insurance Program.
[n the Panama City Beach and Fort Walton Beach areas approximately $3.2
million in flood insurance claims were paid to Florida property owners
for the Eloise disaster.

In the face of these coastal losses and in light of the exposure of
properties in Florida to severe flood and flood-related erosion hazards,
we can be encouraged by the initiatives and complementary efforts of State
and Federal levels of government to reduce these losses that continue to
plague the Nation and the State of Florida.

In this connection, the State of Florida's set-back laws of 1970 and
1971 represent landmark legislation at the State level to preserve the
coastal environment while protecting new properties from flood and flood-
related erosion damages.

The State of Florida's efforts to date in determining the degree of
compatibility of housing production with Florida's coastal environment
have resulted in the completion of detailed set-back studies for 21 coastal
counties having sandy beaches.

As a complement to and in support of the State's efforts, the Federal
Insurance Administration has arranged priorities for the next 3 years to
accelerate flood insurance rate studies for coastal communities with optimum
development potential. FIA's flood risk zone and elevation studies will
produce the necessary technical data so that actuarially sound premium
rates may be applied to new construction and communities may adopt
comprehensive flood plain management measures to further protect pro-
perties from flood and flood-related erosion. The base flood data we
shall furnish to Florida's coastal communities should dovetail with exist-
ing set back requirements to ensure genuinely comprehensive coastal zone
management measures. All of Florida's sandy beach counties have either
been surveyed to determine these base flood elevations or will be studied
over the next three fiscal years in accordance with the priorities sub-
mitted by the State of Florida's Department of Community Affairs appointed
by the Governor to coordinate the flood insurance program in the State.

Recent advances in the state of the art, most notably the tidal surge
models refined by Tetratech Inc., of California and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have been invaluable to redetermine inland
base flood elevations resulting from tidal, coastal surge. It is my under-
standing that the base flood data reevaluated by NOAA on behalf of FIA for
Sarasota, Lee, Charlotte, Collier, and Manatee Counties has assisted the
Florida State Department of Natural Resources and Coastal Engineering
Laboratory during the course of set-back studies for these counties. As a
result of the State's efforts, final set-back limits have been proposed in
these counties and public hearings are underway in these communities to
establish a set-back limit for the purposes of coastal zone management.
Concurrent with these State proceedings are FIA's appeals' proceeding to
arrive at final base flood elevations for sections of Sarasota, Lee,
Manatee, and Charlotte counties.

In addition, final set-back regulations were in effect, as of February
20, for eight of the remaining 17 counties for which State set-back
studies have been completed.








To a certain extent then there has been a cross fertilization of our
mutual study efforts. Through open lines of communication, among the
Department of Natural Resources, Department of Community Affairs, the
Coastal Engineering Laboratory, and FIA's Regional Flood Insurance
Specialists, I am confident that we can assist each other's specialized
efforts to achieve mutual loss mitigation goals. Unquestionably the
research efforts of the State of Florida to establish safe sot-back
parameters for coastal communities can be of mutual benefit to our endeavors
to increase public safety in the coastal zones of Florida. Since the mission
of the statutes that guide the State's research activities and the efforts
of the Federal Insurance Administration are identical, lines of communication
must remain open to avoid a duplication of individual efforts or a fragmen-
tation of mutual goals.

On a related issue, FIA will soon elicit recommendations from the Great
Lakes Basin Commission to determine the feasibility of studying riparian
erosion in greater depth in order to determine the best means- of identifying
erosion prone areas as well as the feasibility of establishing set-back
limits for properties fronting the Great Lakes. I shall be pleased to
keep you informed of all developments in this regard.

While the dynamics of littoral and riparian erosion are distinct
phenomena whatever data or conclusions we reach regarding the Great Lakes'
problem may possibly increase our knowledge of the coastal erosion hazard.
Based on the data and recommendations we shall soon receive from representa-
tives of the Great Lakes Basin Commission, the recommendations from those
in attendance at this seminar, and counsel concerning the constitutionality
of Federal regulations prohibiting construction in coastal zone areas, we
shall consider the feasibility of refining and/or amplifying the set-back
regulation under Section 1910.5 we published for proposedrule making in the
Federal Register on March 26, 1975.

My remarks thus far have focused on ongoing study efforts that we
hope will be on benefit to the State of Florida in implementing its 1970
and 1971 Set-Back Laws. I would underscore the fact that the Federal In-
surance Administration's present fl6od plain management requirements for
communities with coastal hazard areas represent a significant step toward
reducing the exposure of new construction in these areas to flood
losses. Under Section 1910.3 (e) of FIA's existing flood plain management
regulations the followingrequicments apply to communities that have been
provided with detailed coastal surge data:

(1) Must provide that all new construction and substantial
improvements within the designated coastal high hazard area
be elevated on adequately anchored piles (including
basement) at or above the 100-year flood level and securely
anchored to such piles or columns;

(2) Must provide that all new construction and substantial
improvements within the designated coastal high hazard
area have the space below the lowest floor free of ob-
structions or are constructed with "breakaway walls" intended
to collapse under stress without jeopardizing the structural
support of the building so that the impact on the building
of abnormally high tides or wind-driven water is minimized.
Such temporarily enclosed space shall not be used for
human habitation;









(3) Must prohibit, within the designated coastal high hazard area,
the use of fill for structural support;

To.date, 62 communities in Florida have adopted these measures to
protect whatever new construction may be permitted in coastal high hazard
areas. Of course, more stringent State or local standards when they should
apply take precedence over FIA's standards which safeguard avoids a potential
conflict between State and Federal requirements.

In order to reduce the hazard of flood-related erosion to new construc-
tion, FIA published erosion mitigation standards for proposed rulemaking
in the March 26, 1975, issue of the Federal Register. Included among
these standards was a. set-back requirement "for all new development from
the ocean, lake or riverfront, to create a safety buffer consisting of a
natural vegetation or contour strip. This buffer will be designated by the
Administrator according to the flood-related erosion hazard and erosion
rate, in conjunction with the anticipated "useful life" of structures, and
depending upon the geologic, hydrologic, topographic and climatic character-
istics of the community's land. The buffer may be used for suitable open
space purposes, such as for agricultural, forestry, and wildlife habitat
areas, and for other activities using temporary and portable structures
only."

Our decision to publish such a regulation as a final rule depends,
however, upon a variety of factors:

(1) The ability to identify erosion-prone areas

(2) determining what constitutes "abnormal erosion beyond anticipated
cyclical levels" --language by which we are guided in the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 for insurance underwriting
purposes,

(3) determining a sound actuarial premium rate for properties subject
to flood-related erosion.

When we have received and weighed all pertinent data, we shall come
to a decision as to whether the proposed set-back regulation under 1910.5
should be adopted in final form.

In closing, I would add that while the focus of our energies at FIA
is directed toward helping communities reduce the exposure of whatever
new construction they may wish to permit from flood and flood-related
erosion we recognize that compatibility of housing production with the
ecosystem is essential if our goals are to be achieved. Thus, we shall
make every effort to keep all available lines of communitication open to
assist the State of Florida and local governments in their efforts to
preserve the natural environment of coastal areas.










PARALLELS
Between National Flood Insurance Program
and State Set-Back Law

1) Both contain "grandfather" provisions for existing construction.

2) Both require public input: NFIP thru appeals' procedure; State SBL thru
Public Hearings before study determinations become final.

3) Both require detailed studies Section 1360 of 1968 Act for all flood-prone
communities and SSBL for set-back studies for all Florida's coastal counties
with sandy beaches.

4) Both permit variances.

a) State variances handled by DNR
b) Our variances handled at local level

5) Both establish penalties:

State Fines ($500 $1,000)
NFIP Suspension of the benefit of subsidized insurance and application
of sanctions.

CLAIMS
FROM ELOISE:

1) Bay County area claims, including Panama City, Panama City Beach, Mexico Beach,
(Lynnhavan included although not a coastal community),

total $3.2 million paid
281 claims

2) Ft. Walton Beach area claims, including Ft. Walton Beach, Niceville, Valparaiso,
Okaloosa Beach Islands,

total $1.5 million paid
95 claims


Total Claims 611
376 Paid
177 Closed w/o payment
58 Pending











State Set-Back Studies
Completed for:


Status in
NFIP


FIA Study or
Appeals' Status


Nassau Co.
Santa Rosa Co.
Escambria Co.
Okaloosa Co.
Walton Co.
Bay Co.
Gulf Co.
Franklin Co.
Duval Co.
St. John's Co.
Flagler Co.
Volusia Co.
Brevard Co.
Indian River Co.
St. Lucie
Martin Co.
Manatee Co.
Charlotte Co.
Sarasota Co.
Lee Co.
Collier


EP
EP
EP
EP
EP
EP
EP
EP
Not Participating
RP
EP
RP
RP
EP
EP
EP
RP
RP
RP
EP
EP


77-78-79 Priority List
do.
do.
do.
do.
T&S estimate submitted
77-78-79 Priority List
do.
----------------------
77-78-79 Priority List
do.
----------------------
77-78-79 Priority List
----------------------
T&C (U.S.G.S.)
77-78-79 Priority List
Appeals Proceedings
do.
do.
do.


Partially completed studies:
Pinellas Co. (RP);

Not Yet Underway -- Dade Co.


Palm Beach Co. (EP), Broward (RP) Co.,



(RP)


* State Set-Back Studies Completed with public hearings underway.
** State Set-Back Regulations in Effect.









LAND PLANNING, COASTAL RISK A FUNCTION OF COASTAL PROCESSES
Christopher C. Mathewson

INTRODUCTION

The coast is the most active and dynamic environment into which man
is extending himself, often with disastrous economic and human results.
Coastal processes, both long term and short term, have a direct influence
upon the risks that man's development of this environment face.

As long as land is privately owned and as long as development is not
specifically prohibited by legal or institutional regulation, land will
continue to be sold for development. If the consumer is to be provided
adequate protection from coastal hazards, two basic options are available
to society: (1.) prohibit construction in all hazardous areas (which
could halt most coastal development in some areas), or (2.) set struc-
tural and environmental standards (which would increase the cost of
construction). It is a combination of both options that I believe offers
the consumer both the protection and the coastal homesite. Coastal con-
struction setback lines only identify extremely hazardous areas, and
therefore, must be combined with structural and environmental require-
ments, and most importantly, with a continuous education program.

"IT ISN'T NICE TO FOOL WITH MOTHER NATURE"

We have all heard the statement "it isn't nice to fool with Mother
Nature," but fool we must if we are to develop the fullest potential of
our coastal lands. Development, not only for commercial or residential
housing but recreational and asthetic uses as well, requires some modifi-
cation, alteration, and change in this environment where the land and sea
meet.

In many areas around the United States, one can produce evidence
where fooling with Mother Nature resulted in disaster either economic
or in lives. Many of these disasters were brought upon man by man's own
actions. In fact, man is his own worst enemy. He tends to believe in a
stable coastal environment because he doesn't see daily changes: "Why
those dunes have been there forever!". In addition, our mobile society
continuously brings neophtes into the coastal area, who often look upon
hurricane stories as "sea stories" embellished for any and all listeners.

This general lack of awareness of coastal processes, both short term
and long term, is coupled with a faith in engineering structures and their
ability to protect man. A seawall, groin field, setback line, or break-
water is only able to provide protection against storms and processes,
having an intensity equal to or less than the design event. That is to
say, a 100 year seawall is intended to resist events that have a statis-
tical probability of occurring at least once in 100 years. This seawall
has a yearly risk of 1% that it will be overtopped, and thus, fail to
provide the required protection.









The occurrence of a hurricane or severe storm, that results in dis-
asterous economic and human losses, is perceived by the coastal resident
as an "Act-of-God". To quote Norwood R. Hanson:

"Hurricanes, of course, are things over which human
begins have no control at all. They are often re-
ferred to as acts of God, something "caused by"
God. God tends to be an important figure is dis-
cussions of causality. He is credited with being
the cause of everything man cannot explain, or
everything insurance companies can escape paying
for, or everything theologians think will lend
strength and force to their arguments."

The "Act-of-God syndrome" is probably one of the most difficult human
responses to deal with in land planning. This is particularly true with
geologic processes because the long term, daily processes cause imper-
ceptible change, and the short term processes are irregular intermittent
events, thus, "Act-of-God".

THE COASTAL ENVIRONMENT

The coastal environment, unlike either the socio-economic or bio-
logical environments, is often considered by man to be static and stable;
when in fact, this environment is highly dynamic. The land we have today
along our coast was produced through a continuous process of erosion and
sedimentation. These processes are still active and are even capable of
significantly changing the coast during a person's life span.
1I The Florida coastal environment can be divided into two basic coasts:
(1.) a straight barrier coast along the Atlantic, and (2.) a coast of
alternating white beaches, swamp, and barrier islands along the Gulf of
Mexico. Florida sits on a large "geologically stable" block of Cretaceous
and Early Tertiary limestone. Most of the exposed rocks in the state are
younger limestones. In essence, Florida is a topographic high on the
"stable" carbonate block that protrudes above sea level. The edges of
this carbonate high have been modified throughout recent geologic time
to produce the present coastal environment.

Long and thin barrier islands have formed along the Atlantic Coast
of Florida. Behind these islands, shallow lagoons and marshes exist.
This series of narrow barrier islands is broken only near Cape Kennedy and
is terminated near Miami where the supply of quartz sand appears to end.
South of Miami, wide lagoons are protected by coral reefs that eventually
end near Marquesas Key. Along the Gulf of Mexico shore, Florida is
characterized by irregular swampy coasts and long, nearly straight, sand
beaches, many of which are part of a barrier island.

The coast of Florida is, therefore, made up of loose deposits of
sand, shell, clay, and silt with occasional hard coral keys, resting on
limestone bedrock. These loose deposits are part of the dynamic coastal
environment and are continuously moved around by the active geologic
processes. K ]








COASTAL PROCESSES


.Wind is the primary force that builds the coastal dunes and moves
collections of dunes (dune fields) across an island. Wave forces and
tidal changes act on the beachfront to transport sediment along the
coast. Storms, and especially, hurricanes are irregular,, intermittent
events that make drastic changes in only hours. The dunes, which are the
first line of defense against storm waves, and beaches are eroded, large
portions of the island and mainland are flooded, and occasionally, new
passes or channels will be cut completely through a barrier island.

Acts of man along the coast, and even far inland, are felt by the
coastal environment in numerous ways: water resource projects may dam
the rivers which supply sediment; groins and jetties block the transport
of sediment along the coast; and coastal developers may remove dunes,
cut channels, and construct seawalls.. All of these forces interact as
coastal processes attempt to reach a level of'dynamic equilibrium.

Irregular, Intermittent Events: Hurricanes are irregular, intermittent
events; they are irregular is size, type, and intensity, and they do not
arrive on any fixed schedule. As a result, they are hard to predict and
are an annual threat to coastal residents. Each year that we do not have
a hurricane increases the probability that we will have one the following
year.

Hurricanes are simply large storms having winds of 74 miles per hour
or greater and can be described by three basic processes: storm surge
and wave attack, rainfall, and wind. Since 1961, one of each of these
irregular, intermittent events has landed in Texas, for example, with
the related loss of life and property. Carla (1961), packing winds of
more than 160 miles per hour, did her damage by saltwater flooding (storm
surge). The storm surge or rise in sea level caused by Carla reached
21 feet in places and flooded lands as far as 10 miles inland. Beulah
(1967), packing winds over 120 miles per hour and spawning at least
49 tornadoes, some as far inland as Austin, did her damage by freshwater
flooding (rainfall). As much as 27 to 30 inches of rain were recorded
along her path of destruction. Celia (1970) packed winds of more than
162 miles per hour and simply blew things apart (wind).

Hurricanes have a broad impact on large areas of our coast and cause
a basic set of changes in the coastal processes. Sea level rises as the
surge of seawater pushed by the hurricane winds contacts the landmass.
Saltwater floods into the bays and lagoons, flooding low-lying land.
The increased sea level also allows the storm waves to attack the beach
and dunes. In the case of a hurricane, the storm surge and wave attack
often breaches the dunes and erodes a channel across the island. Once the
storm passes, the seas recede, and a wider and flatter beach appears.
If sufficient sediment, usually sand, is available, the action of the
normal waves and winds will rebuild the beach to the original profile.

As the hurricane makes its landfall, storm surge reaches its maximum,
and the wind direction south of the storm's eye, if the storm is on a









westward course, changes. High winds and extensive saltwater flooding
exist under these conditions. After the storm moves inland, the coastal
areas are still not out of danger because hurricanes often cause extensive
rainfall and tornadoes. The escape for the rainwater is down the rivers
which empty into the already flooded bays; the result is extensive fresh-
water flooding.

Hurricane damages are not simply the result of either tidal surge,
wind or rain-induced flooding, but numerous interactions of these three.
To list the potential hazards related to each of these three basic hur-
ricane processes required just imagination. Tidal surge carries with it:
flooding, storm wave activity, the battering ram effect of floating objects,
and undercutting when sediment is eroded. Wind causes flying objects, in-
cluding mobile homes and even homes on stilts, to become bombs, crushing
and smashing anything that get in the way. Of course, freshwater flood-
ing from a rainstorm hurricane does the same damage as saltwater flooding.

Regular, Continuous Processes: The long term, daily processes causes
imperceptible changes in the coastal environment that can only be viewed
by studying historical data. These processes are the continuous erosion
and deposition of sediments in response to changes in the wind and wave
conditions and the actions of man.

Coastal erosion is a long term, gradual process that slowly removes
land from the state, resulting in shoreline recession. Numerous processes
act together to cause this recession. One is the gradual rise in sea level
as the earth warms up, and glacial and polar ice caps melt; another is the
natural reduction in river sediment discharge as the climate of North
America has become drier since the last Ice Age. In addition, the con-
struction of seawalls, groins, and jetties interrupts the longshore trans-
port of sediment, and therefore, further starves parts of the coast of the
necessary sediment. For example, a study of the historical recession of
Sargent Beach, Texas, shows that almost 2,000 feet of recession has ocur-
red since 1852. Some of this recession, about 15 feet per year (in 1973)
can be attributed to the actions of man himself.

The construction of seawalls or other "permanent" coastal protective
structures often enhances shoreline erosion at other sites. There are
two significant problems related to seawalls: (1.) they reflect wave
energy back offshore and often cause extensive beach erosion which fre-
quently does not rebuild, and (2.) they protect ONLY the land directly
behind the wall, and therefore, are often detrimental to neighboring
property owners.

Urbanization is an accepted practice of converting undeveloped land
into higher and better used, i.e., buildings, streets, and parking lots.
This activity, however, has generally not been associated with the cause
of a flood disaster.

The effect of urbanization is to change the character of the land
surface and to therefore change the amount of rainwater runoff. On un-
developed land, the rainwater is removed by evaporation back into the
atmosphere, infiltration into the soil, and by surface runoff in streams.








The land surface is grass-covered and drains slowly. As a result, flood
peaks are low and extend for long periods of time. Urbanization, however,
changes this pattern evaporation may be increased slightly, infiltration
is drastically reduced, andrunoff is sharply increased. Drainage improve-
ments, storm sewers, and gutters efficiently remove the rain water, in-
creasing the intensity of the flood peak and reducing the drainage period.
The flash flood watch that the National Weather Service posts is the result
of urbanized runoff.

Wind driven processes, aeolian transport, are-the mechanisms that
build the coastal dunes and carry sediment inland. These processes play
a significant role in-semi-arid climates where'vegetative protection of
the dunes can be easily killed and removed. For example, in the coastal
bend area of Texas along Mustang and Padre Island, high coastal dunes and
large fields of shifting sands cover large areas of the islands. The
nearly continuous (prevailing), southeasterly winds pick up sand from
the beach and blow it shoreward through breaks in the dune wall. Once
behind the dune wall, the sand is blown across the island nd into Laguna
Madre. These wind processes remove beach sand, transport and sand across
the island, and erode the dunes if the stabilizing vegetation on the dune
wall is disturbed.

LAND PLANNING FOR THE COASTAL ENVIRONMENT

When man considers developing the land, he generally thinks in terms
of single and multi-family housing, hotels, and commercial or industrial
structures. All of these improvements are rigid structures, that once con-
structed, are not designed to be moved. The coastal lands as we have
discussed are not static, but dynamic and therefore moving. Thus, the
beginning of a conflict man's rigid structures requiring a static envi-
ronment against an environment that is inherently dynamic.

In an effort to stabilize this dynamic environment and to protect
man's immovable structures, coastal protective devices are designed and
built. However, coastal protection is expensive, so a certain degree of
risk is incorporated or allowed in order to keep the costs within reason-
able economic limits. Alternatively, coastal setback lines are established
based on an evaluation of the environment. The Florida setback require-
ments, for example, are based on at least these seven considerations:

1.) Ground elevation in relation to historical storm and hurricane
tides,
2.) Predicted maximum wave uprush,
3.) Beach and offshore ground contours,
4.) The vegetation line,
5.) Erosion trends,
6.) The dune or bluff line, and
7.) Existing upland development.

Storm and great hurricanes are the primary cause for short term,









often violent, and drastic changes. As a result, coastal management
practices are based on these events. Unfortunately, these events are
irregular and intermittent, making them hard to predict. For example,
thirty storms, with winds in excess of 40 miles per hour, have landed
in the Houston-Galveston area of Texas between 1886 and 1970. Seven of
these storms were hurricanes having winds of from 74 to 125 mph, and only
three were hurricanes with winds greater than 125 mph. Great
hurricanes hit this area about every 28 years on the average and are often
forgotten before the next one arrives. The intermittent nature of the
major storm has two adverse affects: (1.) they are often larger than
the design storm used for coastal protective structures and coastal
development structures, and (2.) their real power is often masked by human
nature: "I made it through the last hurricane, so I'm not worried about
this one." Another factor that may support the lack of concern shown for
hurricane hazards by many coastal residents is the value or cost of coastal
housing; afterall, a $50,000 to $70,000 beachfront house should be hurri-
cane proof, especially if it sits behind a seawall designed for the 100
year storm.

The Planned Disaster: The planned disaster is planned ignorance. Fear
that the truth about hurricane risks will reduce property values or
development potential, and faith in the coastal protective structures
and in the idea that a hurricane is a rare event is ignorance that removes
any respect for this natural process. As a result, the planned disaster
is not only an economic reality, but a social reality.

Considering the dynamic nature of the coastal lands and the irregular,
intermittent nature of hurricanes, we are faced with two coastal develop-
ment choices. We can either bend with these natural processes or design
brute force structures to withstand them. The bend-with-the-storm struc-
tures are tents, designed to be flexible, easily moved, low cost structures,
which do not provide any security against storms. The brute force struc-
tures are concrete monoliths, designed to withstand the direct attack of
the greatest hurricane. Of course, tents are uncomfortable for permanent
housing and commercial uses, and the concrete monolith is economically
impossible. As a result, we are trapped between two extremes, the tent
on one end and the economically impossible structure on the other. We
are today living in the middle ground of the planned disaster.

As any developer knows, it is economically unreasonable to build a
coastal home that is hurricane proof. This knowledge, unfortuantely,
is not passed on to the buyer, who too often believes that a protective
structure will protect him from all storms and hurricanes. It is this
bit of human faith that can generate the planned disaster. Consider this
planned disaster: assume that a beautifully planned community has been
built on a barrier island; that this community is connected to the main-
land by a causeway; that it is protected by a 100 year seawall; each
homesite is elevated above the 100 year flood; and each structure is behind
the setback line. Now, let a few hurricanes pass, with little or no damage,
and the planned disaster is ready.

A hurricane is predicted, but "then haven't we lived through 10 years








with hurricanes?" Few people evacuate the community, many have "hurricane
parties" and prepare to enjoy the storm. Unfortunately, the intensity of
the storm is greater than predicted. On the night of August 17, 1969,
Camille leveled a 92 unit brick apartment building as the storm surge,
plus storm waves, rose to flood the second floor of the building, and
one (1) person of 24 survived a hurricane party.

What made the Camille, or Carla or Beulah or Celia or Eloise, disas-
ters possible? the high value placed on the "good life" along the coast
and on the belief that hurricanes are rare "Acts-of-God" and not guaran-
teed natural processes. The risk of a catastrophic fire that destroys
a home is about 1 in 10,000, and fire insurance is usually required in
any mortgage. However, the risk that a hurricane will destroy a home is
1 in 100, or 100 TIMES greater risk than a fire; but, this natural process
is often never considered or discussed, and insurance is not required.

What else contributed to the disaster? The regular, continuous,
coastal processes may very well have played a significant role in en-
hancing the storm's impact. Shoreline erosion since the previous hurricane
moved the ocean 10 feet closer to the setback line and undermined the sea-
walls. Land subsidence could have lowered the land elevation (fortunately
this is a minor problem in Florida). A drought may weaken the vegetation
on the dunes, or."dune buggies" may have destroyed it, such that aeolian
processes were removing the dune sand. Dredging of a new channel may
have increased the flooding in the estuary. The possibilities are endless.

COASTAL MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Since tents are generally unsuitable, hurricane proofing is economi-
cally impossible, and the great hurricane will return, we will have made
a significant step toward reducing the disaster as soon as we recognize
and admit to the planned disaster. Our actions now are to make the
coastal lands hurricane resistant and strive to be prepared to reduce
damages and losses. Two basic coastal management alternatives are (1.)
to prohibit development (Thou shall not!), or (2.) to set building and
protection standards (Thou Shall!). The first case is the most commonly
used method and is the basic concept behind the Florida coastal setback
line law. In essence, this law prohibits coastal construction on the
shoreward side of a line set by the Department of Natural Resources with-
out a specific variance from the Department. In the second case, any
construction, regardless of its location relative to the shore, must meet
specific building standards, and any protective device must provide for
the continuation of the coastal processes. These requirements have been
met by such engineering and maintenance projects as sediment bypass
systems; but are often severely lacking in home construction where the
structure is placed on stilts for flood protection but without adequate
design for wind forces.

"Thou Shall!" Coastal Management: A basic problem with "Thou shall not!"
coastal management lies in the human perception of just how much protec-
tion is provided behind a setback line, seawall, breakwater, or by a mini-
mum floor elevation. This protection is designed for a specified risk,
but the risk often appears to be extremely low, and therefore, the proba-









ability of loss appears low. A false sense of security is provided that
may result in the planned disaster.

In addition, should losses occur, the injured parties may feet justi-
fied in filing a claim against the state or persons who established the
"safety zone". The concept behind a "thou shall!" coastal management
program is to shift the responsibility for improper land uses from the
government back to private industry; where I feel the responsibility lies
because as long as land is privately owned and as long as development is
not specifically prohibited by legal or institutional regulation (open
beaches laws), land will continue to be sold for development by private
industry.

Herein lies the problem: Coastal processes represent a primary source of
threat to both the economic and human safety along the coast of the United
States. The combination of the short term, irregular, intermittent events
and the long term, regular, continuous processes forms the most dynamic
environment for man and his activities. Often man himself brings about
undesired changes in the complex system. The hurricane is a significant
process simply due to its magnitude, but the continuous processes may in
fact cause the greatest loss. For example, the formation of large active
dune fields on central Padre Island, Texas, are initiated by hurricane
processes; but, these dune fields represent a more severe problem to
land development because they can simply bury the development in millions
of cubic yards of sand.

Land planning for coastal management, based upon the risks of economic
and human loss, is directly related to active coastal processes processes,
that place modern development within the middle ground of the planning dis-
aster because either solution to the problem is not acceptable to society.
The low cost, flexible land use is uncomfortable, and the low risk struc-
ture and protection is economically unreasonable. As a result, coastal
land planning must recognize this complexity and develop management pro-
grams that consider the entire system of coastal processes. The Florida
coastal construction setback line law is a good start, because those lands
hazardous to development due to the coastal processes, are identified for
the coastal resident and developer. However, as Purpura and Sensabaugh
emphasize "... compliance with no construction seaward of the recommended
setback line does not imply that structures can be built without giving
detailed consideration to the problem associated with ocean front develop-
ment."

The responsibility to complete the project, well started, lies with
everyone associated with coastal land planning and coastal management.
Some projects and programs suggested to meet this responsibility are:

1. Buyer and renter awareness a large sign stating the "the
structure is not hurricane proof and that the occupant should
evacuate when so instructed" should be required on the door of
all rental or sale property.
2. Local hurricane shelters selected high-rise structures should
be specifically designed to be hurricane resistant and available










to local residents in the event of an unexpected change in the
storm. This is particularly applicable for such areas as the
Florida Keys where a large population is separated from high
ground by a long, narrow, low-lying road, thus, making evacuation
time-consuming, difficult, and hazardous.
3. Light structure tiedown structures that are easily moved by
hurricane processes (mobile homes, fish shanties, pre-fab food
service structures, for example) should be securely anchored
or even prohibited when in the vicinity of fixed structures
to reduce damages due to floating and/or flying structures.
4. Hurricane resistance construction building codes, designed
for hurricane conditions, should be written to limit the sur-
face area of unsupported glass or provide special supports
for the glass; to require storm shutters and adequate foun-
dations; and to require that the structure is fixed to the
foundation to prevent it from blowing away, in order to reduce
the economic losses due to structural damage. The damages
brought about by Eloise should be evaluated and used as a
"classroom" to improve design, construction, and inspection
procedures, which would lead to a reduction in future hurricane
losses.
5. Public education every effort should be made to educate the
public about the existence of the planned disaster and to remind
them that the hurricane is an irregular, intermittent event,
and therefore, "IT WILL RETURN".










PENINSULAR FLORIDA'S EROSION PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS


Colonel Donald A. Wisdom
District Engineer, Jacksonville District

Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen. I am indeed very pleased to have
this opportunity to talk with you on the Corps of Engineers' involvement in
Florida's beach erosion problems and solutions. I hope to provide an in-
sight into the day-to-day unheralded efforts by the Corps in trying to pro-
vide protection to meet head-on such acts of nature.

Today, I will cover how the laws involving the Federal Government in
local beach erosion control projects have evolved over the years, the autho-
rity under which the Army Corps of Engineers supervises this Federal in-
volvement, my responsibilities as District Engineer in representing the Fe-
deral Government in erosion control studies and projects, the erosion prob-
lems we've experienced in Florida, and the solutions to some of these prob-
lems.

Involvement of the Corps of Engineers in coastal problems began in
1922 when the State of New Jersey formed an Engineering Advisory Board to
study shore erosion. The Corps assisted that Board in developing the first
substantive report on shore processes and beach erosion.

In 1930, Congress gave the Federal Government specific responsibility
for shore protection by.authorizing the Corps to study erosion problems at
the request of, and in cooperation with, State and local governments -- and
to recommend corrective measures. The study costs were then to be equally
shared by Federal and non-Federal interests.

The role of the Corps under this authority was confined only to the.
conduct of studies until 1946 when congressional legislation expanded the
use of Federal funds. Under the new legislation, the Federal Government
could contribute up to one-third of the construction costs for beach ero-
sion control projects for the protection of publicly owned shores. In 1956,
Congress expanded the authority to include privately owned shores where sub-
stantial public benefits would result. Finally in 1962, it increased the
Federal share of project costs to its present level, with all study costs to
be borne by the Federal Government.

Today, the Federal share of construction costs for beach erosion con-
trol projects may be as high as 70 percent for public parks and conservation
areas, and 50 percent for other public shores. The Federal Government will
bear up to 70 percent of the costs of providing hurricane flood protection
for Federally authorized projects. Each beach erosion control study is 100
percent Federally funded, and is specifically authorized by Congress. Stu-
dies authorized for peninsular Florida, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands
are assigned through the Chief of Engineers to the Jacksonville District.

Once a beach erosion control study is completed, the District Engineer's
recommendations as to the Federal participation in the project itself are










reviewed by the Chief of Engineers and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors prior to submittal to Congress. Favorable recommendations generally
result in authorization of a Federal project. However, I would emphasize
that favorable recommendations result only for publicly owned shoreline or
shores for which Federal assistance results in public benefits.

The magnitude of the erosion problems in peninsula Florida is apparent
from the number of Federal projects authorized and studies underway. As you
are aware, these projects and studies represent only a part of the effort
throughout the State to control erosion and the loss of one of Florida's
most valuable natural resources, its sandy beaches.

Counties having authorized projects are Duval, Brevard, St. Lucie,
Palm Beach, Broward, Dade, Key West, Lee, Manatee, and Pinellas. Counties
with studies underway include Nassau, St. Johns, Volusia, Indian River, Mar-
tin, IMnroe, Charlotte, and Sarasota.

Federal projects that have been completed are Cape Canaveral Beach, Ft.
Pierce Beach, Palm Beach Harbor, Delray Beach, Pompano Beach, Bal Harbour,
Virginia Key, Key-Biscayne, Cape Florida State Park, Lido Key, Mullet Key,
and Treasure Island.

Projects for which advanced engineering and design have been completed
are Duval and Dade Counties. We are ready to proceed with these projects as
soon as Congress provides construction funds.

Projects authorized but not being initiated due to lack of local
sponsorship include the counties of Palm Beach, Broward, Lee, Manatee, and
Pinellas.

Studies currently underway that may lead to authorized projects are the
counties of Nassau, St. Johns, Volusia, Indian River, Monroe, and Charlotte.

Based on our experience in areas where we now have authorized projects,
we generally find:

(1) Public apathy for support and sponsorship for comprehensive beach
erosion control measures until the problem becomes.critical and economic
loss has occurred.

(2) That in many cases much effort from the private sector and monies
have been expended on a piecemeal approach to the problem such as the con-
struction of groins and seawalls which have, in many instances, a domino
effect in creating new localized erosion which, in turn, encourages a con-
tinuing fragmentary corrective effort.

(3) That the protection of natural dunes would, of course, have provi-
ded the protection desired. However, the loss of these dunes are generally
a prerequisite to Corps involvement. Under the current Corps program, auth-
ority to study and recommend erosion control projects is provided after the
fact where the erosion problem has become critically severe and attracts
Congressional interest.









(4) That the solution will, in almost all cases, require construction
of beach fills that require a source of suitable sand. This need for a
source of sand has, in the past, created problems in effecting a solution to
the erosion problem. Solutions to the erosion problem other than beach
fills or beach nourishment as it is referred to in some cases arrest the
erosion but result in the loss of the sandy beach.

A protective structure of emergency revetment provided by the Corps,
and additional rubble furnished by local interests was in Nassau County on
the upper east coast of Florida.

An emergency revetment was placed at Jacksonville in the early 1960's,
and we now have a Federal project authorized to rebuild a sandy shoreline.

Another type of protection, a waffle slab revetment, was used by Delray
Beach which is on the lower Florida east coast. As a result of a major
storm, part of the waffle revetment failed, and beachfill was used as the
ultimate solution.

Private groin construction was the result of individual efforts to pro-
tect sand beaches at Miami Beach.

Beach fill construction was the ultimate solution to the erosion prob-
lem at Bal Harbour. We are now ready to proceed with construction on the
remainder of this project when funds are received from Congress.

Loss of the protective beach has occurred along much of the developed
areas along Florida's lower west coast. The effective solution to the ero-
sion problems generally involves partially restoring the protective sandy
beaches. At Ft. Pierce, beachfill was provided and has proven to be the
best solution.

The state of knowledge in the use of sand to protect against the on-
slaught of the sea has been developed to a point where dune and beach di-
mensions can be designed to protect against storms of any given intensity.
In some cases, hard structures must be provided to protect dunes, to main-
tain a specific beach shape, or to reduce nourishment requirements, but in
each case the costs of such works must be weighed against the added benefits
they would provide.

One of the problems inhibiting the construction of beachfills in the
past was locating a suitable source of sand within economical pumping or
hauling distance of the project site.

In 1965, the studies completed or underway on the east coast of Florida
showed that if the Federal or local governments were to come to grips with
their erosion problems, a comprehensive program was needed to locate sand
deposits offshore in the Atlantic Ocean. The Corps of Engineers uses a
jackup barge commonly referred to as the "Sea Horse" to obtain subsurface
sand samples.

In that same year, the Corps of Engineers' Coastal Engineering Research










Center initiated studies leading to a program of mapping sand deposits off-
shore in the Atlantic Ocean from Miami to New Jersey that would be suitable
for beach restoration. The results of that program, known as the Inner Con-
tinental Shelf Sediment and Structure Program, have formed the basis for
more detailed geologic investigations such as this that have identified
sources of sand for beach construction from Jacksonville south to Miami.
Once these studies confirmed the existence of suitable sand in sufficient
quantities offshore in the Atlantic, we have moved in a positive manner to
exploit this source of sand in combating some of Florida's erosion problems.

The source of sand for improving Duval County reaches is about three and five
miles offshore within economical pumping distance.

The source of sand offshore of the Dade County Beach project varies in
distance about one to two miles, The offshore sand deposits are located in
valleys between buried sandstone and coral reefs. We have located sources
of sand for the Florida east coast projects off the east coast of Florida,
and have the preliminary data and engineering capability to develop other
sources as needed.

Although studies on the lower west coast of Florida have not been as
extensive as the CERC study, we are developing a knowledge and inventory of
sand offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.

New methods and equipment for locating sand offshore are being used by
the Corps, such as the jackup barge which allows detailed subsurface inves-
tigations offshore in most wave climates.

The Corps is also moving toward development of new methods of beach
nourishment such as the Corps' Hopper Dredge "Goethals", which has been mo-
dified to allow its load of sand to be pumped ashore for beach nourishment.
This dredge placed 400,000 cubic yards of sand on the Hanna Public Park
Beach in April 1974. In a trial run, the dredge picked up sand from as far
as five miles offshore and placed it on the beach. The Jacksonville Dis-
trict is now in the process of converting its hopper dredges to have this
pump-out capability.

The' Corps of Engineers does not have a philosophy per se on "Beach Nou-
rishment Projects." Beach nourishment projects have evolved as a reaction
to the affluence of man that has allowed 50 percent of our nation's popula-
tion to live within the coastal counties bordering the oceans and Great
Lakes. The need for shore protection projects began when man entered into
the narrow strip of land bordering these bodies of waters, intending to re-
main there and participate in the battle of man against the sea.

When the first oceans were formed on this planet in the ancient past,
long before the dawn of history, a never-ending struggle between the land
and the sea began. The conflict, once started, has gone on and continues
with unabated vigor today. Beach structures have been found to have a
place in this battle when properly used, but research has shown that the
best protection is afforded by using methods as similar as possible to na-
tural ones. In other words, a greater degree of effectiveness is obtained
by the type of protection provided by nature, which permits the natural pro-









cesses to continue unhampered. To simulate natural protection, dune and
beaches are rebuilt artificially by placing sand on the shore, generally
from sources offshore, such as was done at Bal Harbour.

The trend toward the use of beach fills for erosion protection and re-
creation use is a departure from the classical structural classification in
that it enhances as well as protects. Such a project covers the mistakes of
the past such as revetments, seawalls, and groins and provides an aesthetic
appearance compatible with a natural beach. It provides continually chang-
ing natural physical forms as the artificial lines created during construc-
tion and erased by wind and wave. Most importantly, it creates public re-
creation beaches in areas that have heretofore not been available for public
use.

In addition to the Federal beach erosion control projects authorized
under the Civil Works Program, I have just touched on, I would like to point
out that the Corps, whenever possible, nourishes Florida's beaches with sand
from other Federal projects. In 1972 and 1974, a total of 2 million cubic
yards of sand were placed on Jacksonville's north beach from the maintenance
operations in 'Jacksonville Harbor.

In 1974 and 1975, 2.7 million cubic yards of sand were placed on the
city of Canaveral Beach during construction of the Navy Trident Submarine
Basin. Although these are the two major cooperative efforts to be completed,
we have and continue to duplicate this on a smaller scale throughout the
State when funds and authority are available.

I would like to summarize by saying that the Corps is involved in your
beach erosion problems in Florida; that we are continually studying the pro-
blem and increasing our knowledge of the causes of the erosion problems; we
are seeking more economical solutions and that we have developed the capabi-
lity to assist in any phase of beach erosion control desired by the State or
local governments.










PANEL DISCUSSION


Questions and Answers

To Professor Collier
Q. I understand there is information about the development of a statewide
code for building structures in the high energy zone.
A. We're coming along in the study. We're working with Mr. Bill Sensebaugh,
we write a lot of stuff and we give it to Bill and he bounces it back to us.
We're to a stage now where we send out our first draft. We are going to get
some feedback from it soon.

To Mr. Dixon
Q. You made a comment about the possibility of obtaining some financing for.
the erosion control programs and I gathered you were talking about some sort
of tax.
A. The gist of what I was trying to get across to you was that you have a
special tax although limitations say that only a small part goes to beaches.
No one this year wants to talk about taxes. Yet as a reality if we're going
to finance some of the beaches in the state with the existing revenue we
have at the present time, thereare just not enough dollars and general reve-
nue to do it. There are many programs we need to fund other than beach ero-
sion. I would highly recommend that this association give consideration to
some type of special plan and I'm not really pushing this, there could be a
tax on soft drinks or such which you-could take and put in erosion control
account for the beaches. There is no such existing tax specifically for
this purpose.

To Colonel Wisdom
Q. (1) Is there any program that will.bring you into an area before the
dune is gone?
(2) Is there any program planting for the dunes to protect the vegeta-
tion?
A. Yes sir. The reason that I indicated on the slide that the Corps did
not come in until after the dune line had been violated was because that's
only when the local sponsor realizes he doesn't have any beach left. It's
not a policy of the Corps to wait until after the dune line has been des-
troyed. We welcome the opportunity from any sponsor to get in to a beach
restoration prior to the erosion of the dune line.

Our Waterway Experiment Station is doing considerable amount of work in the
area of stabilization for secondary dune lines.

Q. Well I think really the problem we're trying to point out is law enforce-
ment and in that regard we've got a problem. The present law calls for a
minimum of $1000 fine and no judge in his right mind is going to fine a per-
son $1000 for a first offense for driving on the vegetation. So we have a
bill introduced to the legislature to correct this.
A. To give the judges a little discretion. A man has been driving his
beach buggy on the beach for years to go fishing, we come along and pass a
setback line. You can't find that setback line on the,ground, it's not










painted there so he does it again and the officer comes along and hauls him
into court. lie needs to be aware of the problem, he needs to be convinced
that he shouldn't do it again'but he doesn't need to be fined a $1000.

Q. You mentioned the 200 variances. Is that the number granted?
A. That's the number that we processed. That's the high number on our last
file. This year we are already at about number 60, that's one application a
day. Got to work that out for us.

Q. You mentioned that a community has requested that you come back and re'-
determine the setback in that area. What does the law say in this regard?
A. The law requires that the department review the setback line at five
year intervals. It also provides that a local community or local government
may request that the department review the line at any time and Martin Coun-
ty has requested that we come in and review the line, and work is underway
on that project.

Q. Brevard's county construction setback line. was passed about 15 months
ago. It was unconditionally specified that a study be made of Cape Canaveral
presently has a setback of about 750 feet and it was done on the basis that
there would be a review in about 15 months and 15 months is up this month.
Can you tell me what actions are being taken?
A. I know the study is underway and the field crew have been in the area on
several occasions collecting data. As far as the details of just how far a-
long on the opposite analysis, no, I don't know exactly where it is.












"EROSION PROBLEMS,
BEACH RESTORATIONS AND HURRICANE PROTECTION,
AND FINANCING ASPECTS OF BEACH PROJECTS"

bMderator William T. Carlton

We will be discussing beach nourishment, hurricane protection pro-
jects and the financing of these projects. After the panel has made an in-
dividual presentation to you, I'm going to ask those speakers who have al-
ready given their presentation to be on hand for a question and answer ses-
sion. I have a feeling there are many questions that have not been asked
and I think it's important that if someone has a question they should ask
it and try to get an answer before they go home. The first speaker this
afternoon is a long time friend of the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation
Association, the Coastal Engineering Laboratory at the University of Flori-
da and the Bureau of Beaches and Shores in the Department of Natural Re-
sources, Representative Earl Dixon is from Jacksonville. He's been in the
legislature a long time and has always favored us with his support of our
programs. We are extremely appreciative of this. I think there are not
too many people in the legislature as familiar with our programs and our
problems as Representative Dixon is. Generally, in any organization there
are few people that stand out, I think it's no different in the legislature.
We have probably 140 or 150 members of the legislature, maybe a few more,
I'm not real sure, and as usual 15 or 20% of those people who are the lead-
ers and it just so happens that Representative Dixon comes in that category.
He is one of the top leaders in the Florida legislature and it gives me a
great deal of pleasure at this time to introduce to you Representative
Dixon, who will have a few remarks for us.

The Honorable Earl Dixon

Thank you very much Bill and it's good to be with each of you today.
I'd like to speak just a moment with you and tell you some of my feelings
about beach erosion. It's been my pleasure to work with Mr. Carlton and
others in his department over the eight years that I've been in the legis-
lature. We have some problems in our funding and I'd like to discuss that
a little bit with you. First of all, I feel that Florida's beaches have
been neglected for far too long. Since the state first assumed the respon-
sibility for the preservation of beaches back in 1957, our state funds ex-
pended for this purpose have amounted to 15 million dollars. This cannot
even be considered a token effort. Frankly over the years our beaches have
been placed in the lowest possible priorities in the budget process and at
the same time they have been placed in the highest possible priority for
their benefits to Florida. All of this can mean only one thing. Citizens
of Florida do not have sufficient interest in our beaches to demand that
local officials, the legislature, and the Congress place them in a higher
priority. The citizens are not interested because they do.not know the
problem or they do not seem to understand the solutions.. They must be in-










formed. Apparently this is the responsibility of the Florida Beach and
Shore Preservation Association. For the first time this organization has
professional guidance and I commend the organization for it. They are
doing a great job, a better job involving our people in this important pro-
gram. They must do more, however, and I would urge everyone to support
this organization and their programs. When the association reaches the
people, the local officials, the Legislature and the Congress, we'll have
to get the message and these priorities will have to change.

At the same time, we need to take a serious look at the manner in which
beach restoration programs are funded. State funds according to law are
used to assist local interest in implementing the projects. State funds are
not needed until local funds and federal funds are on hand. If we're going
to continue this type program, we need to take a look at the local funding
programs, because along with all others they are having financial problems.
They always have and they always will. Consequently the priorities must
change and these priorities must change based on increased public demand or
new sources of revenue must be found for local funds and possible state
funds. (I challenge the FSBPA to give special attention to this problem and
come up with an acceptable and sure way to fund the nonfederal cost of beach
restoration and beach erosion control projects).

You are all aware of the problems of erosion as is just about everyone
in the state. Until we can get help from you and support from thel local
level to tune my colleagues in, I'm afraid that we're just not going to be
able to succeed. As a suggestion to you we could let the tourist help pay
the bill. We've been doing this but our tourist dollar have been spent
somewhere else. We have 800 million a year from the tourist. This is the
revenue that's coming in from them. Of this we're getting 400 million di-
rectly into sales tax which goes into our general revenue fund. I'm not ad-
vocating a tax in this respect because it's something that will have to be
discussed and brought up with the legislation in order to enact it, but
somewhere, somehow, and someplace, we've got to do something about our fund-
ing problem. I would ask you to work with me to convince my colleagues and
also those in our local government that we need a system in our funding pro-
gram. I'll be around this afternoon and I'll be happy to answer any ques-
tions.

We have a serious problem in our funding this year, as all of you are
aware of and it's frankly not a good year to try to get funds but we're do-
ing all we can to do with the existing revenue. I serve as vice chairman of
the house appropriation committee and I know the problems that we're faced
with in our funding. All of us together can do something about it, but we
have to have more assistance for our colleagues.. Thank you.

Bill Carlton

I think there's a law somewhere in Florida that if commercial adver-
tisements advertise something for sale they have to have some on hand. I
couldn't help but notice that the Times Union said the state is putting more
money in a tourist advertising program and I wonder if we're going to stand









around and wait until we don't have any of the beaches that we're adverti-
sing and might be taken to court about it. It's something to think about.
We're taking in all of this money because of our beaches and we're not
spending any of it back on our beaches to get them back into the shape they
should be in. We're going to hear now from Art.Strock and Art has had con-
siderable experience in beach restoration programs and he's going to dis-
cuss some of the problems associated in getting one of these projects on the
beach, getting it constructed. I assure you it is a job and there is no end
to the headaches involved. Art is now going to discuss the Broward County
story with you.

Art Strock

There are a number of things we can discuss with regards to Broward
County, having to do with finances, having to do with erosion control line,
having to do with materials, construction and so on. The question was asked
specifically; "does beach restoration really work?" Well to answer that
question we probably ought to define the term "really work". What do we
mean? This of course depends on many things and it would depend in part up-
on your point of view "What is it you're looking for, what is it you want
to accomplish by beach restoration. The reason I point specifically to
beach restoration is that I've been involved with it quite a bit in Broward
County and in a number of other beaches, Palm Beach, Jupiter Island and
others. We need to determine is the beach successful, and successful com-
pared to what. We've looked at a lot of different kinds of construction and
the lack of direction concerning the construction in this seminar. In each
case we need to determine the measure of success and again we need yardstick
by which to measure.

I was talking to Gordon Lament with regards to Jupiter Island job which
we worked with him on two years ago and someone happened to be with us and
was saying, "Look at the amount of beach we've lost since that job was pumped
up", but Gordon's response was this, "what would we have lost if we didn't
have that beach." Just prior to going into that job at Jupiter Island there
was an estimate made as to what would be the effect without that job. Their
estimate based upon the prior history was probably in excess:of 100 million
dollars lost in properties or damages or protection from storms if they did
not restore that beach.

There are other examples similar to this such as Delray. Many of you
may know the type of construction Delray entered into, it was built once and
then rebuilt twice again. There again, successful compared to what! To de-
termine what it is successful should require an economic comparison. Any
project that's entered into needs an economic evaluation. There, of course
are always alternatives as to how we can do the job. There are the alterna-
tives of groins, breakwaters, restoration and always there is the alterna-
tive of doing nothing. What are the comparisons, what are the dollar costs
of doing these things or doing nothing?

There is also one other thing I want to bring out and want to make sure
this is stressed upon you that's the availability of material. We will be










talking to you concerning beach restoration and surely one of the things
that we're involved with at this time is beach restoration. You might get
the tenor of my presentation is that I'm pro beach restoration and you are
right in that respect. However, let us not forget that there are problems
with regards to availability of materials. We had a very happy occurence in
Jupiter Island area in which we searched an area in excess of 8000 feet off-
shore and basically there was no end to the quantity of material. We've
also done some work in the Bay County area, Panama City Beach and again
there was virtually no end in the materials offshore available for use for
beach restoration. Not so in other areas though. In an area of Broward
County we searched an area from the shoreline to at least 8000 feet offshore
and from Port Everglades south for two to three miles and found really no
conimercially dredgeable material. In some areas there were some pockets
maybe a couple of feet deep nothing really commercially dredgeable. We had
to actually go to another area which increased the cost of the job tremen-
dously. Many times we look at the ocean and the ocean floor as a sink of
material which is inexhaustible. It is not.

In our reference to types of work let us also look at this availability
of materials because you're going to hear more of it in the future. Let's
look very briefly at what's happened with regard to some of the beaches.
You can go very quickly on some of the beaches that have been restored. At
Virginia Key, the Corps of Engineers built a beach and later had to go back
and rebuild it and put in groins. Going up the coast you have Bal Harbour.
It was only finished last year but it's operating very successfully. Going
a little further north we have Hallandale which is about a mile long. This
is a beach that has been losing probably in the magnitude of 15% to 18% of
the beach material placed on it in a year. This is a pretty expensive loss,
most of the other beaches have been far more favorable than that. Going on
up is Pompano Beach which is about three miles in. length. They have a loss
rate of probably less than five:percent. In the town of Hillsboro Beach
which is about a mile.long, their loss rate is somewhere between five and
eight percent. In Palm Beach County, Delray Beach, their loss is probably
less than eight percent. In Jupiter Island, I don't have the exact figure
on that, but their beach performed very well. There is Ft. Pierce and the
Cape and a number of projects on the West Coast that we could name. All
these are beach restoration projects of some magnitude and all have some de-
gree of success, but again success compared to what? Compared to the cost
comparison? It must be compared to the cost comparison otherwise why not go
ahead and build structures.

There are a number of areas with structures and we can go through and
name a few of them because there are perhaps some of your alternatives.
Your alternatives again being doing nothing. You can perhaps wind up with
ocean fronting seawalls, such as in Miami Beach, Jacksonville, and a portion
of Hillsboro Beach. The city of Hollywood has the standard American groin,
the wood groin, sheet steel pile, adjustable groins and dog bone groin.
This is in one locality of about four miles. All of which have not seen any
major degree of success with regards to groins alone. We could probably
name the number of kinds on all our fingers and toes. We can refer to re-
vetments, we can refer to breakwaters. All of these have a place. Let me









assure you, I'm not saying that groins or any structures do not have a place,
they have a very necessary place with our evaluation with regards to erosion
control, but like beach restoration each one of these must be measured and
must be balanced against what it will cost us now and what it will cost us
in the future. We now have the ability to look to the broader scope. We
can be in a position of looking for instance at Deerfield Beach which has a
particular type of construction of groins. It has a unique situation in
that the groins protect Deerfield Beach but what does it do as far as its
neighbor is concerned. I don't mean to say Deerfield is taking from anybody
else, but all of us on the beach are living in one equal system and that
system depends upon the general continual movement of material. If we de-
cide in one area we are not going to permit that material to move again then
we have taken something out of the system and even though Deerfield has been
well protected by its system, it has done that, it has taken itself out of
the entire system. Theoretically, if you've got the material moving in you
have got it moving out. Hopefully, there is a balanced equation there. We
know because of our erosion situation we don't have that balanced equation
so by the introduction of beach restoration we're trying to create that ba-
lanced equation. The question I started with, "does beach restoration
really work," let me tell you, you bet it does!

Bill Carlton

I failed to tell you that Arthur was the long time administrator of the
Broward County Erosion District which is a county wide district. I don't
know if you noticed in one of Stan Tate's publications recently he compared
the situation in Panama City Beach with what it could have been had we been
able to construct the pending beach restoration project. Over a period of
about 18 2/3 miles in the city the Corps has a project recommended that's
going to cost in the neighborhood of 12 to 14 million dollars. The damages
to upland structures have been variously estimated to about 150 million dol-
lars. Just assuming that this beach restoration project had been on the
ground prior to the hurricane and assuming that the storm took all of it out,
look at the amount of money you could have saved in the damages to the up-
land structure. I agree with Art that artificial restoration does work and
we favor it. Now I'm going to ask Oscar Rawls from Jacksonville who is the
city engineer for the consolidated city of Jacksonville to come up here and
discuss some of the problems that they have had getting the Jacksonville
Beach project to a point where it's ready for construction but for some
reason they are not pumping material yet. Oscar will tell you about it.

Oscar Rawls

Thank you, Bill. The role of a local sponsor for a federal beach ero:-
sion control project is not one for those who are easily discouraged nor
faint hearted. It takes enthusiasm, planning, energy and real personal
attention to details that go into this. I feel I should know something
about this because the city of Jacksonville is the local sponsor for such a
beach erosion control project and as city engineer the duties of carrying
out that role fall to me and my engineering division.










Our project really started when the Corps of Engineers produced a fa-
vorable report for our Duval County beaches in November, 1964. This led to
a federal project which was adopted by Congress in Oct., 1965. -So here we
are more than a full decade later and construction still hasn't begun,
here's where the patience comes in. Colonel Wilson mentioned that it takes
about 10 years to go through this process of federal projects, from appro-
val to beginning of construction. Well. it's takes us about 11, but surely
his figure must work sometimes if all the chips fall in their place nicely.

I would be very much amiss if I said to you that nothing has been done
in those 11 years, quite the contrary. The Corps of Engineers and the
Office of Emergency Planning of the Federal Government responded to our
emergency needs in Duval County after the November-December, 1962 severe
northeast storm which produced considerable damage over our most populated
shoreline beaches They put in some 7000 linear feet of granite rip rap
revetment and added about 20,000 cubic yards of sand. Again, when hurri-
cane Dora struck us a couple of years later, September, 1964, the Corps
and the OEP responded with granite revetment this time for over some five
miles of shoreline and this cost about 1.7 million dollars. In addition
the Corps has placed some 3-million cubic yards of sand on the beach con-
centrated in the two mile reach just south of the jetty. The reason for
that of course is that the most northerly reach of our beach is the fron-
tage of the Mayport Naval Station and federal ownership. Immediately south
of that is our park which is a bonafide beach park with all of the attend-
ant facilities, bathhouses, parking areas, nature trails, overnight parking
and camping, all of the things that make it a good example of a beach park.
So in those two miles they placed some 3 million cubic yards of sand over
the past 12 years. Of course this was more than was needed for just that
two mile reach but it was put there with the full knowledge that it would
migrate southward with the littoral processes, which of course it has.
It's benefited the beaches southward or downdrift. Most of this 3 million
yards was dredged from the Mayport Naval Station property and for the most
part it came from the maintenance of the adjacent navigation channel in St.
John's River. I mentioned this as an example contrary to what they're
sometimes accused of. The Corps does put this material on the beaches
nearby when it's reasonably possible to do so. I perhaps say this out of
loyalty for having been about five years in the Corps of Engineers myself.
I was Chief of Planning which included beach erosion control projects among
several other things. So, I guess I mentioned this out of latent loyalty.
If Colonel Wisdom was here, why it wouldn't hurt me to get a few brownie
points with him either because I'm not past the point yet where I don't
need to be nice. to him. We haven't gotten our project started yet.

Meanwhile, the Bureau of Shores and Beaches has been extremely active
on our behalf. The whole Department of Natural Resources, for that matter.
They've promoted our progress with Congress and the Legislature and cer-
tainly our friend, Earl Dixon has helped us a great deal with the legisla-
tive processes. They've given us advice and assistance to the city in per-
forming local sponsor duties. They have helped work out the problems
whereby the state is enabled to contribute up to 75% of the non-federal


59









share of the construction cost and they have budgeted and obtained funds in
their budgets by legislative action so far to be on schedule with the state
contributions. The state has already delivered $577,000 roughly to the
city last year as part of the state share and they have another $228,000 or
a little more than that available for this year which is in the process of
being delivered to the city now. This makes a total of more than $805,000
in state funds which we already have on hand. The budget for the coming
two years has been something over $1,200,000 for next year and.a little
over a million for the following year with the restraints and so on that
have been mentioned to you earlier. Those figures may be somewhat high, I
certainly hope not.

Our city council decided about seven years ago to start accumulating
this fund so they started putting $200,000 aside in a piggy bank each year
so whenever called on they would have it. Now, they stopped doing this the
past two years,.not because they became disenchanted with the project or
anything but because with a million dollars on hand, the remaining city
contributions would not be great enough to be a traumatic experience even
if it had to be produced rather quickly. We know it can't be that trauma-
tic because the first contract for the first part of the project will take
probably a year or more to complete. We have enough time at our former
rate of accumulation of$200,000 a year to put this total amount together
without it really killing us. So we just stop putting it, in so to speak
We already have more than enough for the first year's construction and
fully intend to have all that's needed when the Corps calls on us in future
years. Of course we still need the state's help to keep going with this
because we're depending on them to take care of 75% of our non-federal
share. This is a very simple way to save up to fund a project but you do
have to anticipate your needs and start putting it away in a piggy bank on
a systematic basis early enough to have what you need when you need it.

Our project calls for beach replenishment for a 10 mile reach from the
St. John's river jetty south to the St. John's county line. This will re-
quire about 3 1/2 million cubic yards of sand and will cost about 14 mil-
lion to do. The source of that sand is an ancient river mouth some 3 1/2
miles offshore. The sand is of excellent quality, very deep and so on, but
it is 3 1/2 miles offshore which means that the small and medium size con-
tractors aren't even going to be able to think of this. It's going to be
the really big boys who can operate in open ocean and can put a booster in
this pipeline somewhere in the middle and finally get it to the beach. Of
this 14 million dollar cost the federal share is 58.4%, the non-federal
share is 41.6%. We trust that the state will continue with it's 75% of the
non-federal share, meaning 75% of 41.6% is 31.2% for the state to pay of
the total cost, leaving the city with 10.4% to pay. But even so, the city
will need to have some million and a half dollars at present day prices to
pay for its share of the cost. While this is not such a huge amount for a
big county; it can be completely beyond the means of a small county. In
fact many small counties have to say thanks but no thanks, we just can't
afford to take your help and it's really a fact of life with them.










This was the case some 11 years ago about the time that Duval county
got its project authorized. ; St. John's county had a similar project by
the Corps about the same time and it came out just as favorably as ours for
Duval county but St. John's had to say thank you but we just can't afford
it and they couldn't. Now with the state's, I hope, more generous attitude
of being able to go up to 75% on these things, why the Corps has agreed to
bring this study of St. John's county up to date again and see how St.
John's county could afford it.


Getting the money together is not the only role of the local sponsor.
First you have to make detailed surveys. They have to be made by the local
sponsors to establish the erosion control line which is required by the
state and which delinates the private upland ownership from the beach pub-
lic ownership. My own forces in the engineering division surveyed ours.
Of course it can be done by consultants but it has to do with running 10
miles of traverse and tying it all in, and referring it in proper monumen-
tation so you can find all these points. It's somewhat easier in our case
because most of our frontage is fronted by some sort of revetment or wall
and this has to be plotted just as you do a record plat for a subdivision.
The traverse has to close, everything has to be in order, you have to show
such things as mean high water line, the dunes where the seawall doesn't
exist, where it does, vegetation line, and seaward limits of construction
need to be shown. The final product is submitted to the Department of Na-
tural Resources and when that staff approves the line, the local sponsor
must run three ads in the paper announcing that a public hearing is going
to be held. All arrangements for this hearing are made by the local spon-
sor and their spokesman finds himself in the role of the chief actor df the
public hearing. He has to tell people there assembled that everything is
wonderful and describe the project to them.

We finally have our erosion control line approved. It's been adopted
by the government arid cabinet. The local sponsor has another chore that
sounds rather terrible. He has to get the consent of more than half of the
frontage ownership to agree to the establishment of this erosion control
line. You have to have this all signed up and on paper before the state
will even consider the establishment of such a line. In our case this in-
volves some 500 separate property owners. We obtain 70% to 80% approval
simply by writing them a letter, enclosing a form that describes their
block number and whats going to be done, shows them a little profile, how
about signing up. We got 70-80% response which was much better than the
50% we needed. Then comes the permits. You have to get those from a good
many sources. One would think that with the Corps doing the planning and
the construction and the state endorsing their efforts and putting several
million dollars into the project, that really permits would be no problems.
Not so. The process of getting state permits is slow and requires maticu-
lous presentation on the part of the local sponsor. I think it's particu-
larly slow in our case because we were doing this at the time when the re-
organization of the state government, particularly as it relates to these
matters, was in something of a change condition. I think for a while no-
one was quite sure where their responsibility ended and the other's began,







but it should be working fine now. I don't mean to say that this is a long,
long process. If you were in an awful hurry it probably would be. We as
local sponsors have applied for and now have permits from the DNR for the
Corps to take this sand from the ancient river mouth out at sea and to
place it on our beaches. We also have a separate permit for the modifica-
tion of some 30 odd storm drains which now drain from a narrow strip of the
beach through the seawall and dump out on the beach. When the nourishment
project of the Corps comes along these are going to be filled with sand and
covered up so they will no longer function. So I prevailed upon the muni-
cipalities involved to have a suitable type of French drain arrangement de-
signed and they're in the process of putting in this French drain arrange-
ment at Jacksonville Beach which has all except three of these outfalls.
Jacksonville is putting their own forces to work on this labor intensive
project to build these things. The local sponsors do not have to neccessa-
rily design and build-these things but they certainly have to see that they're
doing it unless you can con the local community into it. You have to do it
yourself or have it done. In addition to this it's been well over four
months since we as local sponsors ask the State Department of Environmental
Regulation to give us a water quality permit to do the work. I received a
call just last week after being there for four months asking for more data
on which to base their hydrographic and water quality studies and this is
despite the fact that every grain of sand that's on the beach is coming out
of the same ocean and has been there quite a long time. They wanted logs
of offshore drilling. Fortunately, the Corps had done this in the smaller
areas and it was not difficult to get it, but it could be very difficult
and expensive if you didn't happen to have it. Now that most of the local
sponsor's work is done and most of the state's work is done we still cannot
start constructing the project. The Corps is already to go with the plans
and specs. They could award a contract in very short order. The only pro-
blem is that no federal funds are available to permit an official construc-
tion start of this as a new project. Somebody might say, well you have
$1,800,000, why don't you give it to the Corps and let them go ahead and
start? We'd be real tickled to do this. But $1,800,000 won't do it. The
mobilization cost of starting is so big that it is impractical to bite it
off in smaller bites, half of it at a time. So we're talking about 7 million
dollars. The House and the Senate appropriations committee chairmen both
assured us that their committees "unintentionally and inadvertably failed
to include money in their budget considerations for a construction start
early this part of the year due to a clerical error." We were supposed
to get money and we didn't. Now, we usually blame tht sort of thing on the
computer but as far as I know they haven't done that yet. We do have
promises, however, form our congressman in whose district this lies that
he will try his best to get us an official start authorized in a now pending
supplemental appropriations bill which he says will be acted on before the
Easter recess. This really may get us started this year after all. He
really thinks that it will work and he thinks that we should be optimistic.
The President did not include our project or any other new starts in this
year's budget. The actions of the House and Senate committee may be able
to override that.

In summary it takes a lot of patience and hard work to perform as a lo-









cal sponsor, it also takes money. I remember going to seminars at Lehigh
University one time and I went to the book store and there was a big post-
card that read "It takes more than ordinary skill, intelligence and ability
to succeed at Lehigh, it also takes money. :You must, as I said earlier an-
ticipate your needs early enough and start achieving them. We, in Jackson-
ville are a fully consolidated city--county government and have been for
some eight years. The City of Jacksonville is really 844 square miles;
sometimes I think it's even bigger. We've been consolidated since 1968 and
it's working quite well. This consolidation gives us a special advantage in
beach erosion planning. I've seen beach front municipalities in Florida
where the county could not spend a dime within the corporate limits of any
of the various towns and cities that made up its coastline. They weren't
allowed to do.so by their charter. Likewise, there were several
corporate cities along this coastline and money of them could.get to-
gether well enough to get their project off the ground or even devise a way
whereby they would have a local sponsor which could probably speak for all
of them. So the counties could not act, the cities couldn't act, couldn't
do anything beyond their own corporate limits and nothing much happened. We
don't have this trouble. Why our charter of consolidation gave the city of
Jacksonville the authority to act on matters of this sort for the entire
county even though three of our beachfront communities have their own sepa-
rate autonomies or semi-autonomies. They have their mayors and their city
councils and so on but the consolidated charter gave us the authority to act
for them on matters of beach erosion so this has been a big help. We have
at least one thing that has made the role of local sponsor easier. I guess
I would recommend consolidated government to any of you for this reason and
also a good many other ones because it is working well. So I'd say being a
sponsor is a kind of tough role but it can be done with patience and effort,
at least I think it can.










I









PROGRAM

"ELOISE"

A SEMINAR ON BEACHES VS. HURRICANES

Thursday, March 4, 1976


8:00 10:00 a.m.

10:00 -





11:00 -


11:15 -

12:15 1:45 p.m.

1:45 -

2:00 -

2:45 -


3:30 -

4:00 -







8:30 a.m. -


9:30 -


10:30 -

11:00 -


12:00 1:30 p.m.


Registration & Coffee
Welcome & Seminar Overview
Coastal Engineering Laborat6ry-Dean Morton Smutz
Florida Shore & Beach Preservation-Stan 'Tait,
John G. Cowley
Marine Advisory .Program-Todd.L. Wailton, Jr.
Coastal Plaifs Center-Philip G. Hill
Presentation of Special State Service Award by
Dean Wayne H. Chen

"About That Hurricane" Dr. Neil Frank

Lunch Dutch Treat

"The Economic Value of Florida's Beaches" Dean Gaiser

"What's Being Done by the Feds" Col. Drake Wilson

"A Lesson Learned in Building Design in the
Coastal Zone" Dr. Byron Spangler

Coffee

"Effect of Eloise on Florida's Beaches" -
Prof. James A. Purpura & Dr. T. Y. Chiu

Friday, March 5, 1976

Programs to Protect Us From the
Wrath of Mother Nature

"The Federal Flood Insurance Program" -
Mr. Richard Krimm

"The State Setback Line Program and Variance
Procedures" Mr. William Sensabaugh

Coffee

"Land Planning, Coastal Risk A Function of
Coastal Processes" Dr. Christopher Mathewson

Lunch Dutch Treat











PROGRAM CONTINUED


"Peninsular Florida Erosion Problems and Solutions" -
Col. D.A. Wisdom

Panel Discussion -
"Erosion Problems, Beach Restorations and Hurricane
Protection, and Financing Aspects of Beach Projects"
Moderator William T. Carlton


Earl Dixon
Oscar Rawls


Arthur V. Strock
Col. D.A. Wisdom


3:30 4:00 p.m.

4:00 5:00 p.m.


Coffee


Panel Discussion continued


1:30 -


2:15 -









SPEAKERS


MR. WILLIAM T. CARLTON, Chief Bureau of Beaches and Shores, Department
of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, Florida.

DEAN WAYNE H. CHEN, Dean, College of Engineering, U.F.

DR. NEIL FRANK, Director, National Hurricane Center, NOAA, Miami, Florida.

MR. PHILIP G. HILL, Asst. Director, Coastal Plains Center for Marine
Development Services, Wilmington, N.C.

MR. RICHARD W. KRIMM, Asst. Administrator for Flood Insurance, Dept. HUD,
Federal Insurance Admin., Washington, D.C.

DR. CHRISTOPHER MATHEWSON, Professor, Dept. of Geology, Texas A&M Univ.,
College Station, Texas.

MR. ROBERT MURKSHE, Chairman, Brevard County Erosion Control District Advisory
Committee, Cocoa Beach, Florida.

PROF. JAMES A. PURPURA, Professor, Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering
Laboratory, U.F.

MR. OSCAR RAWLS, City Engineer, Jacksonville, Florida.

MR. WILLIAM SENSABAUGH, Asst. Chief, Bureau of Beaches and Shores, Dept. of
Natural Resources, Tallahassee, Florida.

DEAN MORTON SMUTZ, Assoc. Dean, College of Engineering; Assoc. Director,
EIES: Director:, Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory, U.F.

PROF. BYRON D. SPANGLER, Professor & Acting Chairman, Civil Engineering
Dept., U.F.

MR. WILLIAM STEVENS, County Commissioner, Broward County, Florida.

MR. ARTHUR V. STROCK, Broward County Beach Consulant, Dearfield Beach, Florida.

MR. STAN TAIT, Executive Director, Florida Shore and Beach Preservation
Association.

MR. TODD L. WALTON, JR., Asst. Engineer, Marine Advisory Program, Coastal
and Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory, U.F.

MR. ROBERT WHITLEY, State Division of Tourism.

COLONEL DRAKE WILSON, District Engineer, Mobile District, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama.

COLONEL DONALD A. WISDOM, District Engineer, Jacksonville District, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida.







REGISTRANTS


Donald F. Adams, Director
City of Vero Beach
P.O. Box 1389
Vero Beach 32960

G. Wayne Allgire
The Town of Longboat Key
P.O. Box 107
Longboat Key 33548

Don Aska
Marine Advisory Program
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida

Frank Aymonin
City of Miami Beach
1130 Washington Avenue
Miami Beach 33139

Dr. Jay Baker
Florida State University
Dept. of Geography
Tallahassee 32306

W. D. Bender
Duane Hall & Assoc., Inc.
P.O. Box 6790
Ft. Myers 33901

F. Kaid Benfield
Dept. H.M.D.
7th & E. Streets SW
Washington, D.C.

Katherine H. Bowers
Fla. Defenders of the Environ.
P.O. Box 12063
Gainesville, Fla. 32604

Sue Breeding
Councilwoman of Indian Shores
P.O. Box 235
Indian Shores 33535

William W. Breeding
City Council Indian Shores
19644 Gulf Blvd.
Indian Shores 33535

J. Franklin Bryant
Bryant Eng. Inc.
P.O. Box 18505
Tampa 33679


Walter W. Burdin
Mobile Dist. Corps of Engs.
P.O. Box 2288
Mobile, Al 36628

Randall K. Bushey
Brow. Co. Bch. Erosion Prev. Dist.
500 SW 14th Court
Ft. Lauderdale 33316

Paul T. Cassel
Pinellas Co. Planning Dept.
Rt. 1 Box 68
Palm Harbor 33563

Robert Cassell
Fed. Insurance Admin
1979 Harbour Oaks Drive
Snellville, Ga. 30278

T. Y. Chiu
Coastal Engineering
444 Weil Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville 32611

Professor Courtland Collier
College of Engineering
University of Florida
Gainesville, Fl.

Doug Coughenower
Fla. Marine Advisory Program
P.O. Box 338
Palmetto 33561

John G. Cowley
Santa Rosa Island Auth.
P.O. Box 9008
Pensacola Beach 32561

Albert T. Cox, Jr.
Town of Longboat Key
Longboat Key, Fl.

Marjorie H. Curr
Fla. Defenders of the Environ.
P.O. Box 12063
Gainesville, 32604

Dr. Thomas D. Curtis
University of South Florida
College of Bus. Administration
Tampa, Florida 33620









Dick Dale
Eng. Inf. Service
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida

James W. Dalzell
Area Civil Defense Coordinator
830 Edwards Road
Starke, Florida 32018

Kris Dane
Stanley Hole & Assoc.
P.O. Box 1516
Naples 33940

Albert G. Eddy
City of Sarasota
P.O. Box 1058
Sarasota 33578

Marlin Eldred
Commissioner of Madeira Beach
Madeira Beach, Fla.

S.S. Fair
Sandgrabber, Inc.
P.O. Box 158
Kawkawlin, Michigan 48631

Michael Fladmark
Coastal Eng. Grad. Student
1609 SE 32 Place
Gainesville 32601

Lyle B. Fox
Pinellas Couty Civil Defense
2056-67th Avenue South
St. Petersburg 33712

William G. Gahagan
Gahagan Dredging Assoc.

Dean Gaiser
State Divison of Tourism
Tallahassee, Fla.

Allan Garner
Parks & Rec. Dept
421-17th Avenue West
Bradenton 33505

Samuel Y. Gibbon
Town of Longboat Key
641 Rountree Drive
Sarasota 33577


Robert T. Giles
Skidaway Ins. of Ocean.
Box 13687
Savannah, Ga. 31406

Harold W. Glass
Martin County
100 Ocean Blvd.
Stuart, Fla.

LeRoy Halbrook
City of Treasure Island
120-108th Avenue
Treasure Island 33706

Paul H. Hardwick, Mayor
Town of Indian Shores
19305 Gulf Blvd. (P.O. Box 235)
Indian Shores 33535

Andrew P. Helseth
St. Lucie Co.
P.O. Box 700
Ft. Pierce 33450


Kenneth Herzog
Sandgrabber, Inc.
P.O. Box 158
Kawkawlin, Michigan


Gregg Hill
7480 Heatherwood
Cincinatti, Ohio


48631


95244


Phillip G. Hill
Coastal Plains Marine Center
1518 Harbour Drive
Wilmington, NC 28401

Fred Holmes
City of Daytona Beach
P.O. Box 551
Daytona Beach 32015

Robert E. Hood
Ponce de Leon Port Authority
523 N. Halifax Avenue
Daytona Beach 32018

Sidney L. Harrell
Coastal Engineering
336 Well Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, F:la. 32011








Robert C. Hutches
County Comm. Manatee County
Manatee Co. Courthouse RM 220
Bradenton 33505


Brig. Gen. Peter C. Hyzer
5 Overlook Place
Hilton Head Island, S.C.


29928


Chris Jones
Coastal Engineering
1114-8 SW 7th Avenue
Gainesville 32601

E. S. Kelley
Glace & Radcliffe, Inc.
6727 First Avenue South
St. Petersburg 33707

George W. Knight
Martin County
P.O. Box 626
Stuart 33494

Ellwood L. Koch
City of Indian Rocks Beach
1507 Palm Blvd. Box 98
Indian Rocks Beach, Fl.

Haruyuki Kojima
Coastal Engr. Student
221 N. Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32612

William F. Kuhn
Manatee Co. Civil Defense
RM 158, Courthouse
Bradenton 33505

Nicholas Lally
Federal Ins. Administration
Washington, D.C.

Gordon Lament, Mayor
Town of Jupiter Island
P.O. Box 7
Hobe Sound 33455

M. A. Latif
University of Florida.
Gainesville, Florida

Kyung T. Lim
University of Florida Stud.
16327 Yulee Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville 32612


Don Lindley
Press
P.O. Box 431
Daytona Beach


32014


Franklyn P. Maclay
City of Cape Canaveral
630 Adams Avenue
Cape Canaveral 32920

Fred W. Maley
Village Manager
655 96th Street
Bal Harbour 33154

Richard Mayson
Federal Ins. Administration
1371 Peachtree St., NE
Atlanta, Ga. 30344

Dennis R. McClain
Gulf St. Paper Corp.
8719 Elmwood Lane
Tampa 33615

Robert M. Nalven
Smally, Wellforo & Nalven
Sarasota, Fla.

Gregory J. Nash
Skidway Inst. of Oceanography
P.O. Box 13687
Savannah, Ga. 31406

Donald R. Newcomb
Coastal Studies Group
Dept of Geology
F.S.U.
Tallahassee 32306

Betty H. Nice
Div. of Disaster Preparedness
1720 S. Gadsden St.
Tallahassee 32301

Charles M. Noble
Consulting Engineer
P.O. Box 386
Ponte Vedra Beach 32082


Erik Olsen
Fla. Coastal Engineer
10695 Beach Blvd.
Jacksonville 32216








Michael Olexa
Plant Pathology Dept.
IFAS Plant Path. Dept.
University of Florida
Gainesville, Fl. 32601

John Oster, Jr.
Box 68
Captiva 33924

Charles B. Pekor
Pekor Iron 909
Columbus, Ga. 31902

Robert R. Pomeroy
City of Deefield Beach
150 NE 2nd Avenue
P.O. Box AH
Deefield Beach 33441

Gregory Powell
Coastal Engineering Student
710 NW 16th Avenue #16
Gainesville, Fl.

Ben C. Pratt, Director
Lee. Co. Div of Transportation
P.O. Box 398
Ft. Myers 33902

Paul K. Reid, Jr.
Volusia Co. Civil Defense
P.O. Box 6047
Daytona Beach 32022

S. M. Rogers, Jr.
Dept. Nat. Res.
2202 W. Pensacola St. #25
Tallahassee 32304

W. M. Scruggs, Jr.
Division of Cont. Education
805 Seagle Building
University of Florida
Gainesville 32601

William Seaman
Fla. Sea Grant
University of Florida
Gainesville, Fla.

Ted Sedwick
Town of Longboat Key
P.O. Box 107
Longboat Key 33548


D. Max Sheppard
Assistant Professor C.O.E.
Coastal Engineering Dept.
Unviersity of Florida
Gainesville, Fla.

Dr. E. Warren Shows
University of South Florida
College of Bus. Administration
Tampa 33620

Paul E. Stahlin
Captiva Eros. Drev. Dist.
P.O. Box 114
Captiva 33924

Mrs. P. Stahlin
Captiva Eros. Prev. Dist
P.O. Box 114
Captiva 33924

Herb Stangland
Reynolds, Smith & Hill
P.O. Box 4850
Jacksonville 32201

C. R. Stephen
City of Daytona Beach
P.O. Box 551
Daytona Beach 32015

William A. Straub
City of Cocoa Beach
P.O. Box 280
Cocoa Beach 32952

David Tachney
Stanley Hole & Assoc.
P.O. Box 1516
Naples 33940

Stan Tait
Fla. Shore & Beach Preservation
325 John Knox Road, Sutie F-214
Tallahassee 32303

Richard S. Tomasello, P.E.
Gee & Johnson Eng.
2019 Okeechobee Blvd.
West Palm Beach 33409

Oscar W. Underwood
Maccaferri Gabions
P.O. Box 2029
Winter Haven 33880








Robert F. Vandeweghe
Town of Jupiter Island
P.O. Box 7
Hobe Sound 33455

J. P. Vansant
City of Boca Raton
201 E. Palmetto Park Road
Boca Raton 33432

Robert E. Vaughan
Town Hall of Melbourne Beach
P.O. Box 113
Melbourne Beach 32951


Robert C. Vogel
City of Atlantic Beach
P.O. Drawer 25
Atlantic Beach 32233


J. Stanley Weedon
Water Resources-Broward Co.
RM 530 County Courthouse
Fort Lauderdale 33301

Dorothy A. Wahrenberger
City of Treasure Island
120-108th Avenue
Treasure Island 33706

Richard A. Wahrenberger
City of Treasure Island
120-108th Avenue
Treasure Island 33706

T. H. Wang
Coastal Engr. Dept.
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611

Gerald M. Ward
Gee & Johnson Engineers
2019 Okeechobee Blvd.
West Palm Beach 33409

J. Kenneth Williams
City of Pompano Beach
P.O. Drawer 1300
Pompano Beach 33061

Judy Wolf
Div. of Disaster Preparedness
1720 South Gadsden St.
Tallahassee 32301


Glenn Woodard
Federal Ins. Administration
1371 Peachtree St., NE
Atlanta, Ga. 30309

Mr. William T. Carlton
Chief, Bureau of Bch. & Shores
Dept. of Natural Resources
Tallahassee, Fl.

Dean Wayne H. Chen
Dean, College of Engr.
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida

The Hon. Earl Dixon
Fla. House of Representatives
23rd District
Jacksonville, Fl.

Dr. Neil Frank
Director
National Hurricane Center
NOAA
Miami, Fla.

Dr. Richard W. Krimm
Asst. Adm. for Flood Insurance
Dept. HUD
Federal Insurance Admin.
Washington, D.C.

Dr. Christopher Mathewson
Prof., Dept. of Geology
Texas A & M University
College Station, Texas

Prof. James A. Purpura
Coastal Engr. Dept.
University of Fla.
Gainesville, Fla.

Mr. Oscar Rawls
City Engineer
Jacksonville, Fl.

Mr. William Sensabaugh
Asst. Chief
Bureau of Beaches and Shores
Dept. of Natural Resources
Tallahassee, Fl.

Dean Morton Smutz
Assoc. Dean, Coll. of Engineering
Director, Coastal & Oceanographic
University of Fla.
Gainesville, Fla.










Prof. Byron D. Spangler
Professor & Acting Chairman
Civil Engineering Dept.
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida

Mr. Arthur V. Strock
Broward Co. Beach Consultant
Deerfield Beach, Fl.

Mr. Todd L. Walton, Jr.
Asst. Professor
Marine Advisory Program
Coastal and Oceanographic
Engineering Laboratory
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida

Colonel Drake Wilson
District Engineer
Mobile District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mobile, Alabama

Col. Donald A. Wisdom
District Engineer
Jacksonville District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville, Fl.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs