Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Coastal zone management: The first...
 What rights remain for the coastal...
 The privately funded beach project...
 Locally funded beach project -...
 Beach nourishment: Its effect on...
 Dredging contractors insights concerning...
 SEASAT serves marine users, by...
 Modifications to swash-beach profile...
 David and the beaches, by Colonel...
 Barrier islands and beaches of...
 National flood insurance program,...
 President's report: The state of...

Group Title: Technical paper
Title: Papers presented at annual Conference on Beach Preservation
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072269/00001
 Material Information
Title: Papers presented at annual Conference on Beach Preservation October 3-5, 1979, Americana Hotel, Bal Harbour, FL : twenty-third annual meeting of the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association
Series Title: Technical paper
Physical Description: iii, 162 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Tait, L.S
Leahy, Thomas M
Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association
Florida Sea Grant College
Conference: Conference on Beach Preservation, (1979
Publisher: Marine Advisory Program
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla.
Publication Date: 1979
Subject: Beach erosion -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Shore protection -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
conference publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Bibliography: Includes bibliographies.
Statement of Responsibility: compiled by Stan Tait and Thomas Leahy.
General Note: "Co-sponsored by the Coastal Plains Center, Wilmington, NC; Florida Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program; and the Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida."
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: UF00072269
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 - 000891321
oclc - 07906272
notis - AEJ9771

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
        Page iii
    Coastal zone management: The first five years and beyond, by Robert W. Knecht
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
    What rights remain for the coastal property owner - What he can do to protect his property, by Robert M. Rhodes
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
    The privately funded beach project - What to do when there's no government funding, by Richard M. Stevens and Erik J. Olsen
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
    Locally funded beach project - When state and federal funds are not available, by Robert F. Vande Weghe
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
    Beach nourishment: Its effect on coastal ecology, by Edward J. Pullen and Robert M. Yancey
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
    Dredging contractors insights concerning beach nourishment, by Aaron W. Hendry
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
    SEASAT serves marine users, by Samuel Walter McCandless, Jr.
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
    Modifications to swash-beach profile interaction in the presence of seawalls, dunes and overwash channels, by Donald K. Stauble
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
    David and the beaches, by Colonel James W. R. Adams
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
    Barrier islands and beaches of Florida: Unique resources, problems and prospects, by Dinesh C. Sharma
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
    National flood insurance program, by Richard W. Krimm
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
    President's report: The state of beach preservation in Florida, by Arthur V. Strock
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
Full Text


,I A

/,JAN 04 197/

I-..-A S.- [h V. cf F': c ,'. -
I----------- L~l~~i!

October 3-5, 1979
Americana Hotel, Bal Harbour, FL 33154
Twenty-third annual meeting of the Florida Shore and
Beach Preservation Association. Co-sponsored by the
Coastal Plains Center, Wilmington, NC; Florida Sea
Grant Marine Advisory Program; and the Coastal & Ocean-
ographic Engineering Department, University of Florida.
Compiled by:
Stan Tait and Thomas Leahy

Florida Sea Grant

October 3-5, 1979
Americana Hotel, Bal Harbour, FL 33154

Twenty-third annual meeting of the Florida Shore and
Beach Preservation Association. Co-sponsored by the
Coastal Plains Center, Wilmington, NC; Florida Sea
Grant Marine Advisory Program; and the Coastal & Ocean-
ographic Engineering Department, University of Florida.

Compiled by:
Stan Tait and Thomas Leahy

Technical papers are duplicated in limited quantities for
specialized audiences requiring rapid access to information and
may receive only limited editing. This paper was compiled by
the Florida Sea Grant College with support from NOAA Office of
Sea Grant, U.S. Department of Commerce, grant number 04-8-M01-76.
It was published by the Marine Advisory Program which functions
as a component of the Florida Cooperative Extension Service,
John T. Woeste, Dean, in conducting Cooperative Extension work
in Agriculture, Home Economics, and Marine Sciences, State of
Florida, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of
Commerce, and Boards of County Commissioners, cooperating.
Printed and distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress
of May 8 and June 14, 1914. The Florida Sea Grant College is
an Equal Employment Opportunity-Affirmative Action Employer
authorized to provide research, educational information and
other services only to individuals and institutions that function
without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin.

November 1979


PROGRAM . . .. ilii


Coastal Zone Management:
The First Five Years and Beyond -- Robert W. Knecht 1

What Rights Remain for the Coastal Property Owner--
What He Can Do to Protect His Property.- Robert M. Rhodes. 16

The Privately Funded Beach Project--
What to Do When There's No Government Funding -- Richard M.
Stevens and Erik J. Olsen . . .. . 26

Locally Funded Beach Project -- When State and
Federal Funds Are Not Available -- Robert F. Vande Weghe. 42

Beach Nourishment: Its Effect on Coastal Ecology -- Edward J.
Pullen and Robert M. Yancey . . ..... 49

Dredging Contractors Insights Concerning Beach Nourishment --
Aaron W. Hendry . .. . . . 65

SEASAT Serves Marine Users -- Samuel Walter McCandless, Jr... .76

Modifications to Swash-Beach Profile Interaction in the
Presence of Seawalls, Dunes and Overwash Channels -- Donald
K. Stauble. . . . . 94

David and the Beaches -- Colonel James W. R. Adams ...... 115

Barrier Islands and Beaches of Florida: Unique
Resources, Problems and Prospects -- Dinesh C. Sharma .. 129

National Flood Insurance Program -- Richard W. Krimm ... .150

President's Report: The State of Beach Preservation
in Florida.- Arthur V. Strock . -. 155

Program/23rd Annual Meeting/Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association

4 p.m. Board of Directors meeting.
7 p.m. Welcoming Cocktail Party, sponsored by
the Americana Hotel.
8:30 a.m. Welcome Art Strock, President, FSBPA
Welcome Hale Printup, Mayor,
Village of Bal Harbour.
First Session
IT" Robert Knecht, Director, U.S. Coastal
Management Program, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Rockville,
PROPERTY." Robert Rhodes,
environmental attorney, Thompson,
Wadsworth, Messer, Turner & Rhodes,
Tallahassee, FL.
10:15 a.m. Coffee Break
FUNDING." Richard W. Stevens, P.E.,
Project Manager, Mariner Properties,
Ltd., Captiva Island, FL., and Erik J.
Olsen, P.E., Senior Engineer, Tetra Tech,
Inc., Jacksonville.
AVAILABLE." Robert Vande Weghe,
Town Manager, Town of Jupiter Island.
Noon Luncheon Keynote Address
Second Session
Col. James Adams, Jacksonville District
Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Jacksonville, FL.
Pullen, Chief, Coastal Ecology Branch,
Corps of Engineers Research Center,
Fort Belvoir, VA.
3:15 p.m. Coffee Break
Aaron W. Hendry, Vice President, The
Hendry Corporation, Tampa.

PROSPECTS Dinesh C. Sharma,
environmental consultant, Fort Myers, FL.
7:00 p.m. Cocktail party
8:00 p.m. President's Banquet and Awards
Third Session
McCandless, User Systems Engineering,
Anandale, VA.
Krimm, Assistant Administrator for Flood
Insurance, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C.
Arthur Strock, P.E., President, Arthur
V. Strock & Associates, Deerfield Beach,
FL and President, FSBPA.
10:30 a.m. Coffee Break
11:00 a.m. Annual Business Meeting, FSBPA
Noon Luncheon and Beach Tour
(Buses will depart from the hotel
entrance for a box lunch at Miami Beach.
There will be a brief tour of construction
underway on the Miami Beach restoration
project and the new landscaping at
Bal Harbour beach.)
Robert David, Director of Planning,
City of Miami Beach and George Smith,
President of Stresau, Smith and Stresau,
Landscape Architects, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Huffman, Associate Partner, Wallace,
McHarg, Roberts and Todd, Philadelphia, PA.
Stauble, assistant professor, Department
of Oceanography and Ocean Engineering,
Florida Institute of Technology,
Melbourne, FL.
5:00 p.m. Adjournment


Robert W. Knecht
Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini traction
) ,


Robert W. Knecht
Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

While the Coastal Zone Management Act was passed in 1972, the first planning
grants to states were awarded only in 1974. In essence then, this program has
been in operation 5 years--a good point at which to take stock.

Prom my vantage point, I think the accomplishments--and here, I refer mostly
to the accomplishments of the coastal states and territories because it is their
programs and their efforts that give substance and meaning to coastal zone
management--the accomplishments are significant and real and are a reflection of
the basic soundness of most of the principles contained in the Act that was
passed in 1972.

I do not mean by this that there are not areas where our coastal management
efforts cannot be improved-but, I do think it is important for us to recognize
what already has been accomplished--for, in my judgment, it is not inconsiderable.

As of today, 17 states have approved coastal management programs, covering
almost 70 percent of the Nation's shorelines and half of the Nation's
coastal population.

By the end of this year, I expect another three states will have
approved management programs. Fully 75 percent of the Nation's shoreline
will be covered by federally approved management programs at that time.

But these figures alone tell very little about the quality of coastal
management. What, in fact, do these programs do?

While it is still too early to make a full assessment of the effectiveness
oft the programs we are approving-keep in mind, that the average approved state
program has been in effect less than a year, and a good number of programs are
yet to be approved--it is not too early to make a preliminary assessment of what
state programs already are doing in terms of substantive management results.

SLooking at the findings and policies of Sections 302 and 303 of the Coastal
Zone Management Act, we can discern 4 major areas where substantive results are
expected. First and foremost among these is protection of significant natural
msaurce" such as wetlands, beaches, dunes and barrier islands. Second is the
concern for more effective management of coastal development so as to minimize
loss of life and property due to improper development of floodplains, erosion-
prone areas, areas of subsidence and saltwater intrusion, and to promote better
management generally by giving priority to coastal-dependent development, and by
dealing with energy facility siting needs. A third major focus of the Act is on
increasing access to the coast for recreation purposes and of protecting and

restoring historic, aesthetic, and natural resources. Fourth, there is an
emphasis in the Act on increasing intergovernmental cooperation and coordination
with an expected result in greater predictability and efficiency in public

I would like to provide you now with some highlights of what states are
doing in these four areas. These highlights are the result of our first major
overall evaluation effort which is just being completed. A copy of the report
will be sent to all of you shortly.

With Regard to the Protection of Significant Natural Resources, our Initial
Review Reveals:

Twenty-three of the 35 eligible states and territories have new wetlands
statutes and regulations or improved implementation, in the case of
existing laws dealing with wetlands preservation.

While the enhanced implementation, through CZM funding, of a strong, pre-
existing wetlands statute like Oregon's (which has one of the strongest
mitigation requirements in the Nation) is impressive and certainly worth
noting, even more impressive is the enactment of new wetlands laws or the
promulgation of new regulations that are directly attributable to a state's
participation in the national CZM program. This is the case with South
Carolina, Massachusetts, Alabama and Gaum.

For years, bills aimed at tidelands management were introduced into the
Carolina, Massachusetts, Alabama and Guam.
South Carolina Legislature and failed repeatedly. In 1977, however, the
South Carolina Coastal Management Act was passed with only a single
dissenting vote in both houses. It is stronger and more comprehensive
with regard to tidelands protection than the previous bills that failed.

As a condition of program approval, the Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (EOEA) promulgated, within 4 months of program
approval, rules and regulations pursuant to the Commonwealth's Wetlands
Protection Act and Coastal Wetlands Restriction Act. The promulgation of
these regulations, completed on time, is critical to expedited implementation
of these Acts. Promulgation had been delayed for 5 years previous to this.

The Alabama Coastal Act, passed in 1976, required promulgation of rules
and regulations to protect wetlands and submerged grassbeds--the first
effort of this type in the State. Regulations pursuant to the Act have
been drafted--they prohibit all activities that might degrade wetlands
and submerged grassbeds beyond their ability to support present levels
of plants and animals.

Even in advance of NOAA approval of Guam's coastal management program, a
direct result of their activities to date is that permits now are
required before development may occur in any of the Territory's 12
major wetlands.

In Rhode Island, the Coastal Resources Council helped re-route a trans-
atlantic telephone cable away from a wetland that was a prime fisheries

And in Damariscotta, Maine, a wetland destined to become a parking lot was
saved because of CZM efforts.

Sixteen states have special protection measures, beyond wetlands statutes,
dealing with important, unique, or endangered flora and fauna:

Five states have or will incorporate their own Endangered Species Acts
into their coastal management programs. The additional funds provided
through 306 grants should contribute to better enforcement of these Acts.

Beyond this, several states have protective policies for particularly
unique species or have identified their habitats as areas of particular

Alaska's program includes protective standards for Hauling Out Grounds
for marine mammals;

California's Coastal Act has a policy on protecting kelp beds;

Guam has designated the habitats of the sooty tern, the brown booby,
and the fruit bat as protected areas;

Hawaii has established five Marine Life Conservation Districts in
order to provide protected habitats for the marine life found in
the waters off the islands of Oahu, Hawaii, Maui and Lanai;

Under Maine's Critical Areas Program (CAP), 203 areas important to
flora and fauna, such as colonial bird nesting sites, have been
identified and registered. Information about these areas has been
used by the State Department of Transportation to avoid environmentally
sensitive areas, by private owners in preventing irreparable damage,
i and by Tenneco in assessing the environmental impact of their
proposed pipeline project.

SIn some cases, management agreements and even the sale or donation
of property rights have been arranged: the 1400-acre Great Wass Island,
and 11-acre Brothers Island Preserves have been purchased by the
Nature Conservancy; numerous seabird nesting ledges and islands are
being managed by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and
Wildlife, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

SBefore Puerto Rico's coastal zone management program was approved,
several unsuccessful legislative attempts were made to designate and
protect a number of important habitat areas including Tortuguero
and Joyuda Lagoons, and the Islands of Mona and Monita. As part
of the Commonwealth's approved coastal management program, 26 areas
including those mentioned above have been proposed for Natural Reserve
Designation which will provide extra protection to these areas.

The Culebra segment of the Puerto Rico program, which was approved
about a year earlier than the rest of the Commonwealth program,
identified the nesting grounds of several endangered species.
Special protection and surveillance of these nesting areas are
provided by the Culebra Ranger Corps, funded with 306 money.

Twenty states are dealing in a positive manner with the need to protect beaches,
dunes, and barrier islands:

Thirteen states have beach protection or shoreline setback laws that limit
or prevent development on the beaches and frontal dunes.

Two states protect their dunes and beaches through sand mining regulations.

And as a direct result of participation in the CZM program:

Rhode Island prohibits future development on presently undeveloped
barrier beaches;

Alaska's Coastal Management Act of 1977, limits development on
barrier islands and beaches;

Under Maine's Coastal Island Registry Act, more than 1,300 of the
State's 3,000 offshore islands now are clearly in the public
domain, and are being protected;

South Carolina's Coastal Act covers beaches and primary dunes;

And, the Virgin Island's Coastal Zone Management Act of 1978
prohibits building on the beaches.
In the 14 states and territories where protection of reefs is a significant
issue, 11 of these states have measures designed to protect reefs for their own
intrinsic value and as major fish habitats:

Coral reefs are important resources of all the islands in the Pacific and
the Caribbean:

The Virgin Islands prohibits the taking of coral;

In addition, the Virgin Islands is considering a marine park system,
similar to the national underwater park of St. John's, which would
include a number of coral reefs;

Guam protects its reef systems by regulating fishing methods;

Despite the fact that most of the corals surrounding Puerto Rico are
in waters currently within the Federal domain, the Commonwealth
is developing regulations to protect this resource in anticipation
of regaining control over the submerged lands where the corals grow;

And, three of Hawaii's marine life conservation districts contain
important coral reefs which are protected by their inclusion in
these districts.

In the Great Lakes Region, the concern with offshore reefs is primarily
for their value as fish habitats:

Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin all protect these areas
through their lakebed bottoms permits, and all four states have
used CZM funds to develop additional fish propogation projects
around the reefs;

Finally, it is worth noting that the establishment of the Key Largo Marine
Sanctuary in the Florida Keys was the direct result of the initiative and
concern of the State to protect the coral reefs in the waters off Key Largo.

Ten states have measures regulating offshore sand and gravel mining, or oil
and gas extraction:

In the Great Lakes States--Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin--
lakebed permits cover all mineral extractions as well as oil and gas drilling.

Massachusetts' Ocean Sanctuary Program--regulations for which have been
adopted recently in fulfillment of a CZM grant condition--identifies a
number of offshore areas where pipelines and extraction activities will be
conditioned and, in some cases, prohibited.

And the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act of 1978, establishes a number
of goals and standards (enforceable through State permits and local
programs) relative to offshore sand and gravel mining, and oil and gas

Turning now to the second major area where the national Act indicates
substantive results are desired--Management of Coastal Development--we find
the following:

Fourteen states address the potential for loss to life and property
from inappropriate development in erosion-prone areas, primarily
through setback requirements or beach and dune preservation laws.

Twelve states go beyond the Federal Flood Insurance Administration's (FIA)
requirements in order to control development in floodplains or storm
surge areas, again through setback requirements, stipulations on
permissible uses and mandatory construction techniques in floodplains.

And,saven states have management controls over areas subject to subsidence
or where development could lead to saltwater intrusion.

Here are some highlights of how states are dealing with these issues:

Erosion is one of the major issues with which the Michigan program deals.
Using the authorities provided in several existing Acts--the Soil Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Act of 1976, the Sand Dunes Protection and
Management Act of 1976, and the Shorelands Protection and Management Act
of 1970--Michigan has used CZM funding to identify, designate and more
effectively manage over 125 miles of high-risk erosion-prone areas along
the shoreline of Lake Michigan.

Included among the enforceable policies of the California Coastal Act are
several dealing with development in erosion- and earthquake-prone areas,
and areas where there are important aquifers. These policies all constitute
criteria on which the State and Regional Coastal Commissions base permit

While Pennsylvania is not presently receiving CZM funding, nonetheless
one beneficial result of earlier program funding was the development of
erosion control and setback ordinances that have since been enacted into
law by three local communities along Lake Erie.

Under authorities contained in North Carolina's Coastal Area
Management Act, the State's Coastal Commission has identified and
designated erosion-prone areas as Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's)...
These AEC's are now subject to a permit before any development is
allowed in these areas.

As a direct result of the Guam Coastal Management Program, regulations
were developed governing the type and method of construction permitted
in floodplains. These regulations have been adopted by the Territory's
Planning Commission which must issue a permit for all construction on the
island. In addition, the seashore reserve setback that runs around the
perimeter of the island assures there will be no construction within
ten meters of the shoreline.

Based on studies funded by CZM, the Maryland Legislature enacted two
bills in 1976, that deal with managing development in the State's
floodplains. One is the Flood Control-Watershed Management Act, and the
other is a State Construction Projects Act which prevents State-funded
projects from increasing flood hazards.

* Prior to initiation of the CZM effort in New Hampshire, development of
Coastal Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM's) was a low priority for
coastal communities. As a result of CZM priorities, all coastal
communities in New Hampshire will be in the regular phase of the FIA
program two years earlier than previously anticipated.

In the non-urban areas designated by the Hawaii Land Use Commission, the
State's CZM Act contains policies that must be followed by state agencies
and local governments to avoid development that will contribute to loss
of life or property in floodplains and tsunami zones. The non-urban areas
constitute over 90 percent of the State.

The Alaska Coastal Act includes a hazards policy governing activities in
areas of tectonic subsidence.

Saltwater intrusion is a major environmental problem in Louisiana identified
by CZM studies. CEIP funds have been directed at solving this problem
in St. Bernard Parish where a freshwater siphon is being built to divert
water from the Mississippi River into the marsh. This is a prime oyster
and shrimp producing area that has been hard hit by saltwater intrusion.

And finally, one of the real impacts of approval of the South Carolina
coastal management program will be the ability to use 306 funding to
implement a State groundwater withdrawal law that's been on the books for
a number of years, but never has been implemented effectively because of
lack of personnel.

There are two other important aspects related to management of coastal
development that we need to look at--what states are doing with respect to energy
facility siting and what priority states are giving to water-dependent uses.

Ten states have expedited permit processing procedures, advance site
designations or advance purchase programs for energy facilities in the coastal

Unique among all the states is Maryland's program of advance designation
of appropriate sites for power plants and acquisition of these sites
when needed. This is probably the most ambitious and sophisticated
program of its type in the country. While the program was not initiated
in direct response to the CZM Act, it is being incorporated as an integral
aspect of the State's coastal management program in response to the new
energy facility planning requirements added to the Federal Act in 1976.

Dealing with energy facilities is a major aspect of both the California
management program, and the San Francisco Bay segment. Two items are
worth noting:

The Coastal Commission also has completed recently a review of the
California Coastline and is in the process of identifying sites that
are inappropriate for power plants.

As part of the San Francisco Bay Plan, the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC) designated sites that would be
appropriate for future industrial or energy facility development.
Once a site is so designated, the Commission will not issue a
permit for a use incompatible with the area's designation.

As part of its coastal management program, the Virgin Islands designated
sites that would be reserved for water-dependent heavy industry, including

As part of its 10-year electric facilities plan, Wisconsin identifies
sites necessary and appropriate for needed electric-generating facilities.

With regard to priorities for water-dependent uses:

Ten states use water-dependency or water-relatedness as a primary criterion
for granting permits in the coastal zone.

Demonstration of a use's water dependency or relatedness is the first
consideration that must be met before the Department of Conservation and
Cultural Affairs will issue a permit under the Virgin Islands CZM Act.

Oregon's legislatively enacted coastal goals give priority to water-
dependent uses along the Oregon coast. Policies contained in coastal acts
in effect in South Carolina, Hawaii, and Alaska give similar priority to
water dependency.

Numerous states are using their CZM programs to promote such water-dependent
uses as fishing and port activities. Worth noting here are:

The high priority that has been assigned in the Maine CMP to providing
fishing facilities. As part of the State's program development efforts,
a cooperative effort between coastal communities, the State DOT, and
the Governor's Committee on Coastal Development and Conservation was
initiated that will result in a $8 to $10 million bond issue to develop
four new fishing piers, and renovate/expand two existing ones in the
towns of Kennebunkport, Portland, Boothbay Harbor, Rockland, Vinalhaven,
and Stonington.

In addition, the CZM program supported a feasibility study for commercial
aquaculture development in the waters of Cobscook Bay surrounding Eastport.
A follow-up project now is underway by five towns experimenting with clams,
mussels, and scallops.

With a financial boost from the Wisconsin CMP, two state agencies with
key roles and the directors of the four major ports have formed the State
Council of Ports. This is the first time all the ports in the State
have worked cooperatively on a comprehensive and unified port marketing
campaign based on common goals and objectives.

Finally, in the related area of identifying and designating environmentally
acceptable dredge spoil disposal sites, seven states have significant activities

Through studies financed by CZM, appropriate disposal sites for dredged
materials from Calumet Harbor in Illinois, Duluth Harbor in Minnesota,
and Superior Harbor in Wisconsin have been identified.

More importantly, the goal of the CZM Act to foster greater inter-
governmental coordination is being fulfilled by the Wisconsin Coastal

Management Council's present effort to re-examine and reconcile the
differences between the State's policy on open water disposal of dredged
materials and that of the Corps of Engineers.

And significantly, the States of Connecticut and New York, using CZM
funds, have finalized a Bi-state Interim Dredge Disposal Plan that
identified appropriate disposal sites, as well as acceptable disposal
methods that are tied to the toxicity of the spoils.

I would like now to turn to the third major area where the Act anticipates
substantive outcomes--Increased Access to the Shoreline for Recreation Purposes
and Protection of our Cultural, Historic, and Aesthetic Resources. This is
probably the area where accomplishments will be the most visible and where the
potential exists to give the general public a sense of real benefit from coastal
management efforts. If we are to resolve the problem identified by the Coastal
Zone Management Advisory Committee, of a lack of committed constituency, then
it is through activities that afford the public greater use of the shoreline
that a constituency will be created. After all, when we think of the coast, I'm
sure for most of the public, the image is that of recreational use and enjoyment--
swimming, surfing, fishing, sailing, or walking along a beach.

Ten states require access be provided as a condition for issuing permits.

As a result of the requirements in the California Coastal Act, the Regional
Coastal Commissions have conditioned permits to provide access to and
along the State's shoreline. In the Malibu area alone, more than 125
access easements along the beach and more than a dozen from the public road
to the beach have been secured.

The cities of Redondo Beach, Santa Monica, and Long Beach have approved
redevelopment projects which include new public parks and improved beach

Five states have Open Beach laws--(Oregon, Texas, Guam, Hawaii, and the
Virgin Islands).

And through legal analyses funded by CZM, Delaware has been able to identify
public lands along the shoreline that have been encroached upon by private
development and actually are part of the public domain.

A major legal survey is underway in Rhode Island to re-establish over
70 public rights-of-way.

Fifteen states have projects underway that will create new urban water-
front parks and generally will make better use of their waterfronts for
recreation purposes.

An exciting project is occurring in Detroit, Michigan, where a
series of linked river-front parks will be developed using CZM
funds to design the linkages. The cost of constructing and
landscaping these parks will be picked up by the Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS).

One outcome of the Duluth-Superior port study, undertaken jointly

by Wisconsin and Minnesota, is the design of a bike path around
the harbor areas.

And through a CZM funded study, the Town of Evans in New York was
able to convince the State's Office of General Services not to
sell off some surplus land along the Town's Lake Erie shoreline,
but rather to retain it as public open space.

Six states are using their CZM program to more effectively implement existing
state historic preservation laws, and

Five states are in the process of preserving or restoring historic buildings
and cultural sites, using CZM funds.

The State of Wisconsin estimates that its survey of historic
structures and potential archeological sites has been accelerated
by 2 to 5 years because of the funding that's been made available
through the CZM program

Historic restoration and preservation projects are underway in
Wisconsin (the Flambeau Trail), Illinois (Evanston lighthouse
restoration), Michigan (restoration of the Schoolcraft House at
St. Mary's River, Fort Wayne in Detroit, and the Grindstone City
Historic District), and Connecticut (Norwalk's historic seaport
and park design).

And, even in the exceedingly difficult area of protecting scenic views
and enhancing visual access to the shoreline, seven states have activities

New Jersey restricts buildings that would cast a shadow on the
beach and would be incompatible with surrounding development.

The Virgin Islands has policies that provide visual access and seek to
preserve scenic vistas.

The California Coastal Commission and the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission in San Francisco both review requests for
development in light of their impact on views of the waterfront.

Finally, turning to the fourth major area of the Act where substantive
changes are desired-Simplifying and Expediting Governmental Decisionmaking-
we find in the area of permit coordination and simplification that:

Ten states have established joint permit and public hearing procedures
with the Corps of Engineers.

Six states have consolidated several state permits and four states have
permit clearinghouses or tracking systems that reduce considerably the
time and effort involved in getting a permit decision.

In the Virgin Islands, where prior to passage of their CZM Act, four
permits were required from different agencies, now only a single coastal
permit from the Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs is

* South Carolina has established a general permit to simplify the process
for individuals who want to construct a private recreation pier or dock.

And as a result of the South Carolina Management Council's takeover of
tidelands permitting, over 30 applications pending at the time the South
Carolina Act was passed, have been resolved. Some of these applications
had been pending for up to 7 years.

*Both Massachusetts and Wisconsin have experienced a noticeable decrease
in the time and effort required to process permit applications as a result
of using CZM funds to staff district permit offices.

In Massachusetts, two regional coastal offices of the Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs provide applicants with all
necessary Federal and State forms and assure concurrent processing
by Federal and State agencies.

In Wisconsin, the average length of time needed to review water
quality permits has dropped from 60 to 16 days, as a result of
additional staff provided to three district offices.

* And finally, in the Grays Harbor area in the State of Washington, a very
exciting process is taking place in which we are intimately involved, we
believe what's happening in Grays Harbor has transferability to other
coastal states, and will contribute significantly to the process of
intergovernmental coordination and permit simplification.

I believe that Grays Harbor will become an example of what coastal
management can be at its most effective stage. It involves:

A partnership process--a task force of Federal and State agencies,
local governments, and the port who have worked together for more
than 3 years;

Decisions based on sound technical information--both about the
estuarine resources and local economic, development needs;

Conflict resolution and a balancing of environmental and
developmental needs--the Grays Harbor Plan identifies wetlands,
mudflats, and other estuarine ecosystems that will be protected
and managed for their natural values. It also identifies areas
needed to meet requirements for future economic development,
including dredge spoil disposal sites. The Plan includes a
commitment of 1,700 of the Port's 2,200 acre holdings to conservation
purposes for at least 50 years on the assumption that the remaining
500 acres will be available for port and related economic activities.

And implementation--which will involve amendment of the shoreline
management programs by the local governments, amendment of the
State's coastal management program, and commitments from the
Federal agency task force participants (EPA, The Corps, NMFS,
and FWS).

The Grays Harbor Plan provides predictability about what can

happen where. It includes priority for water-dependent uses
along the shoreline. It has been an extremely difficult, complex
and time-consuming process. But, it will have been time and
effort well-spent if, as we hope, the Grays Harbor Plan results
in a more rational coastal resource management process.

In my view, these results demonstrate that coastal management is making a
difference. While it is true that changes of this type require time and patience,
and often are not as sweeping or dramatic as we might hope, nonetheless, they
are real changes and, I believe, augur well for the future.

Five years have been devoted to working out the novel concepts contained in
the Coastal Zone Management Act. As we know, these years have not been without
controversy. This is inevitable for a new effort like coastal management.
Disagreements were bound to arise over interpretation and implementation of
important provisions.

I recognize that the program has not lived up to expectations in some
important areas. In general, these shortcomings fall into two categories:
Provisions of the Act that have proven difficult to interpret and administer,
and, more importantly, provisions that have not been fully effective in
achieving substantive results. Let me elaborate on these.

First, ambiguity in the interpretation of several of the Act's requirements
has resulted in prolonged controversy. We have spent inordinate amounts of
time discussing--and litigating--the "national interest" and "uses of regional
benefit" provisions. What constitutes "adequate consideration of the national
interest?" What must states do to ensure that local governments do not
unreasonably exclude uses of regional benefit? Do these provisions require
states to locate major energy facilities within their coastal zones? We have
argued these issues in some cases beyond the point of usefulness.

It is time to put the criticism and controversy surrounding these
provisions of the Act behind us. The interpretations we have provided, we
believe, are reasonable ones and thus far, they have been upheld by the courts.
More importantly, they are consistent with the basicphilosphy of the Act-
that the process of coastal management results in comprehensive decisionmaking
that duly weighs important national and state concerns and results in clear
directions on the use and protection of coastal resources. Clarification of
the meaning of the "national interest" provision in legislative report language
at the time of reauthorization of CZMA would help clear the air on this point,

Second, the federal consistency provisions have proven unnecessarily
complex and administratively burdensome. Federal consistency was intended to
cement the Federal-State partnership by ensuring that Federal actions be
consistent with and, indeed complement, state management programs. But, the
vision of Federal-State cooperative management is not yet fully realized
because our collective efforts have been diverted by tiresome procedural
wranglings arising from confusing provisions in the Act. What is a "Federal
activity" or "project" and when has it met the test of being consistent to the
"maximum extent practicable?" Who determines consistency? And so forth...
Federal consistency will not be an operational reality until there are simple,
easily understood and generally-accepted procedures.

It is appropriate to consider removing confusing and complex language and
providing simple, uniform procedures for all Federal actions, in order to
foster intergovernmental cooperation, minimize duplicative efforts and avoid
needless delay. At the same time, the objectives of the consistency provisions
must be maintained; inconsistent Federal actions should not proceed in the face
of state objections unless overriding national considerations have been clearly

We are in the process of considering legislative modifications that would
accomplish these objectives. We think the recommendations of the National
Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) that call for the integration
of the consistency requirements with the consultation provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act are excellent. However, we also think it would serve
the objective of simplification to go further than the NACOA recommendations and
establish an uniform process covering all Federal actions currently encompassed
by the federal consistency provisions.

Third, and most importantly, the Act is not sufficiently clear or specific
as to its desired outcomes. Nor, does it tie the incentives available through
the Act to achieving these outcomes. While approved state programs meet the
minimum requirements of the Act, critics argue that some of these same programs
fall short when compared to the implicit goals of the Act. Regardless of what
you or I believe the Act intended, we have only generalized policies to follow:
"To preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the
resources of the Nation's coastal zone..."

Moreover, achievement of substantive and specific results is doubly
difficult because no guidance is provided in the Act on how state programs
should be evaluated. Should they be monitored simply for compliance with
minimum program approval requirements? Or should they be measured according to
the incremental changes they effect, or the progress they make toward solving
specific coastal problems? More importantly, should state programs be held
accountable for protecting natural coastal resources, managing coastal
development, increasing access and ensuring simplified permit procedures in
coastal areas? The Coastal Zone Management Act is silent on these matters, yet,
I suspect the national program ultimately will be judged by the answers we
provide to these questions.

To remedy these shortcomings, we think there are several change that
would have the effect of clearly defining the national policies and desired
outcomes of the Act, and ensuring that sufficient Federal funds are targeted
to state efforts that further these policies. And, as we shift our emphasis
from planning to management, it is critically important that we utilize our
program evaluation mandate to ensure that federally supported programs
successfully address nationally important coastal management problems.

We are examining three changes to the Act that we think would accomplish
these objectives. First, Section 303 of the Act-the National Policy section--
could be modified to set forth in greater detail our national policy objectives.
I think we need more detailed policies on the four areas I cited in the
beginning of my speech:

Protection of significant natural systems
More effective management of coastal development

Increasing access to the coast for recreational purposes, and
Achieving greater predictability and efficiency in public decisionmaking

Further, I think amending Section 318-the Authorization section--to tie a
substantial portion of Federal assistance to state efforts relative to the
national objectives would serve as an incentive in accomplishing these
objectives. This will focus coastal management efforts on critical national
problems as well as significant state and local concerns.

In conjunction with these two changes, modifications of Section 312--the
Evaluation provision--to measure state progress in relation to the achievement
of national objectives would be beneficial. This would result in federally
supported state programs expending funds in a manner that achieves measurable
national benefits.

I offer these proposals with an open mind. Naturally, they are based on our
experiences in administering the Act. But, we have tried, as well, to take
into account the many valid and constructive criticisms that have been made
of the program that would serve to strengthen it. Given the nature of coastal
management, I don't expect that these proposals will be entirely satisfactory
to everyone here. But, I welcome your reactions to these ideas and look
forward to discussing proposals that others will have.

In closing, I want to emphasize my belief that any changes that ultimately
are made to the Act should result in a strengthening of its present foundations:
A voluntary, but comprehensive process, implemented at the state level of
government, that balances competing national concerns regarding the protection
and development of significant coastal land and water resources. This basic
structure and approach is sound and should be given a full opportunity to
prove itself.

Our job for the next few days is to consider whether coastal zone management
is fulfilling its promise. As we begin to tally the results, we find that
a considerable amount of progress is being made. But, we have a long way to go
before the program accomplishes all we can and should expect of it. Together,
I believe, we can build on the momentum already generated. 2


Robert M. Rhodes
Thompson, Wadsworth, Messer & Rhodes
P.O. Box 1876
Tallahassee, Florida 32302

The Florida Constitution insures citizens the
"inalienable right to acquire, possess and protect
property." (Article I, Section 2). It further guaran-
tees that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law." (Article I,
Section 9). Like its federal counterpart Article 10,
Section 6, Florida Constitution, prohibits a govern-
mental taking of private property except for a public
purpose and with full compensation.

Complimentary to the constitutional due process
and taking clauses is the authority of government to
regulate in the interest of the public health, safety
and welfare--to exercise police powers. Key among
recent employment of the police power has been state
and local enactment of land use regulations, includ-
ing zoning and subdivision laws, sophisticated wetland
protection regulations, coastal construction control
lines, and an extensive system of governmental regula-
tion and permitting of individual and business activity.
Enforcement of such regulations often draws together
through litigation the due process and taking clauses
and the police powers, requiring judicial construction
and resolution of competing private and public interests
in a particular land parcel or activity.

There is little doubt the police powers are con-
strained by constitutional due process and just compen-
sation requirements. "The General Rule," wrote Justice
Holmes in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahan (260 U.S. 410),
". is that while property may be regulated to a
certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be
recognized as a taking." The challenge in the 55 years
following Pennsylvania Coal has been to determine the
critical point at which regulations "go too far" and
become confiscatory.

What factors have the courts considered in review-
ing police power regulations? In a nutshell, police
power regulations must be reasonable and may not be
arbitrary, confiscatory or discriminatory. It is worth-
while to further explore these standards.

At the outset, we must recognize that the exercise
of regulatory police powers must necessarily clash with
the full enjoyment of property by an owner. Yet, it
is established in Florida that all property rights are
held and enjoyed subject to the reasonable exercise of
the police power in furtherance of the general welfare.

However, the police power must be exercised in reason-
able manner to further the general welfare. Examina-
tion of the cases indicates that police power regulations
will not be deemed reasonable if they are arbitrary.
There must be a rational relationship between the
applied regulation and the desired legislative aim.
Moreover, the detriment to the regulated owner should
be outweighed by the public benefit realized by the
regulation's application. Additionally, the courts
have required a showing of substantial need for the
restrictions before an owner must sacrifice property
rights. Regulations may not exceed the bounds of
necessity for protecting the public welfare.

Police power regulations will not be deemed
reasonable if they are confiscatory. Regulations may
not deprive the regulated land of all reasonable value.
However, reduction in the value of property caused by
regulations will not, of itself, render the regulations
confiscatory. Moreover, the courts have dismissed the
proposition that a property owner is always entitled
to the "highest and best use" of his property. Regula-
tions that have substantially depreciated property value
have been upheld.

Returning to Justice Holmes' warning that too
much regulation may require compensation, various ana-
lysts have attempted to develop a numerical assessment
of the amount of loss in land value that courts will
find acceptable. In the early 60's, a Pennsylvania
study indicated that a loss of two-thirds of the
property's value represented the average point where
a taking occurred. However, another study suggested
that value loss in cases where ordinances were upheld
was about the same as the loss shown in cases where
regulations were invalidated. Land use regulations
have been upheld when the difference in land value was
as great as 8 to 1 based on pre and post regulation
value. An early U.S. Supreme Court case sustained a
regulation which diminished value from $800,000 to
$60,000. Hence, it must be concluded that in assessing
the validity of police power regulations, financial
loss is certainly a relevant judicial consideration,
but is not the single, decisive criteria.

Nonetheless, a property owner may not be completely
deprived of the beneficial use of his land. All uses,
or the only use to which the property is reasonably
adapted, may not be precluded by regulation unless

compensation is paid to the owner. In 1978, the U.S.
Supreme Court in Penn Central Transportation Company v.
New York City assessed the impact of the city's land-
mark preservation law on Penn Central terminal. Up-
holding the application of the ordinance to the terminal,
the Court nonetheless recognized Penn Central's right
"to profit from the terminal [and] to obtain a 'reasonable
return' on its investment." These terms "profit" and
"reasonable return" have stimulated substantial contro-
versy in the legal, land use community. Property
rightists believe the Court has instructed that post
regulation use must enable the owner to turn a profit
and to receive a reasonable return on his investment.

They further suggest that regulations prohibiting
all commercial, residential and industrial use, such as
the shoreland regulations validated in the Wisconsin
case of Just v. Marinette Co., may no longer pass con-
stitutional muster without compensation. The Supreme
Court's standards await construction and application
in individual cases. Nonetheless, the Court's recogni-
tion of profit and return on investment within the
context of the taking issue is heartening.

A recent Florida Supreme Court case of Village of
Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corporation is instructive.
In Tequesta, the Court determined a land owner does not
have a constitutionally protected property right in
water beneath his property, requiring compensation when
a taking of water is used for a public purpose. The
Court determined there is no private ownership in under-
ground waters and the land owner only has a right to
use the water and does not have a particular property
right in groundwater. However, the Court left open
the possibility of a taking action if a depriva-
tion of use renders the land unsuitable for particular
uses. Unfortunately, the Court did not specify the
degree or extent of use deprivation that would con-
stitute a taking.

A final consideration in evaluating the validity
of police power regulations is whether a particular
restriction discriminates against an individual property
owner. Regulations must apply uniformly to all similarly
situated owners.

In view of our focus on land use and natural
resource restrictions, we must appreciate the distinctions

between eminent domain or condemnation, inverse condemna-
tion and the police powers. Article X, Section 6 states
that: "no private property shall be taken except for a
public purpose and with full compensation therefore paid
to each owner ." It forms the basis for governmental
exercise of eminent domain power or condemnation. Through
eminent domain, physical possession and use of property
are taken from a private owner and transferred to the
public. The private party is compensated for the
property loss.

Inverse or reverse condemnation occurs when property
is "taken" by government action without formal exercise
of the eminent domain power. Inverse condemnation can
arise through a particularly stringent exercise of police
powers resulting in a taking. In such cases, courts may
require the regulating government to compensate a prop-
erty owner, drawing together the taking clause and police
powers. However, the cases awarding compensation for
inverse condemnation based on police power regulations
are rare. Florida courts are reluctant to require com-
pensation in non-eminent domain situations which involve
depreciated value due to loss of uses, when actual gov-
ernmental expropriation or physical invasion is not
involved. The California Supreme Court recently con-
cluded that inverse condemnation damages are not available
in police power taking cases. Agins v. City of Tiburon,
591 P.2d 514 (1979). The national trend is toward the
California position.

The police power inverse condemnation eminent
domain distinction has been explained by the Florida
Fourth District Court of Appeal:

There is a clear distinction
between the appropriation of private
property for public use in the exercise
of the power of eminent domain, and the
regulation of the use of property under
the police power exercised to promote
the health, morals and safety of the
community we hold that enact-
ment of a zoning ordinance under the
exercise of the police power does not
entitle the property owner to seek
compensation for the taking of the
property through inverse condemnation."

Hence, private property may be subordinated to the public
interest without compensation through exercise of the
police power. Like eminent domain, action taken pur-
suant to the police power must benefit the public:

however, as distinguished from eminent domain, a valid
exercise of the police power may restrict the use of
private property without payment of compensation.
Mailman Development Corp. v. City of Hollywood, 286
So.2d 614.

Certainly, one of the seminal issues facing
coastal property owners is whether the Mailman "clear
distinction" is valid. Is it good public policy? If
property provides value due to present and potential
use, and governmental action restricts such use, either
for a public purpose through eminent domain, or to
further the public health, safety and welfare through
police power, are property rights not similarly re-
stricted? And subject to the same compensation? Is
the only true distinction between eminent domain and
regulation semantic? Hence, should not a taking
effected through regulation be as compensable as
stripping private rights through condemnation? Mailman
says no; if reasonable use is deprived by regulation,
governmental action may be judicially invalidated; how-
ever, the owner may not receive damages.

Perhaps the court's protective posture toward
police power regulation is bottomed on the perception
that first generation regulations, such as zoning,
apply comprehensively through a comprehensive plan to
all owners, who ultimately share the burden as well as
the benefit of regulation.

With the advent of second generation land use
restrictions focusing on resource protection, such as
wetlands, beaches, floodplains, dunes, wildlife and
aquifers, must we re-examine the traditional non-
compensation deference granted police power? Since
resource protection regulations generally are not
aimed at preserving a minimum reasonable, beneficial
use for property that includes a protected resource,
do these regulations provide the same community equity
as land use regulations implementing a comprehensive
plan? Or, will owners suffer discrimination simply
because of property location?

In sum, is the compensation-non-compensation
distinction between police power and eminent domain
taking still "clear?" Should compensation, per Mailman
and other state appellate decisions always be denied if
a police power regulation is invalidated?

In the absence of specific statutory authority,
courts have refused to award monetary damages for a
police power taking. A Florida Senate committee con-
cluded that without statutory authority, Florida courts
cannot presently direct compensation to be paid to a
landowner whose land is confiscated by government
action. At least one appellate court has invited the
legislature to change this policy. In 1978, the Florida
legislature did so.

Chapter 78-85, Laws of Florida, Florida's property
rights legislation, is a remedies bill. It establishes
a cause of action and a trial court forum to resolve
taking claims engendered by denial of certain state
environmental permits. The Act is aptly described as
"police power taking compensation" legislation. Let
me outline the major provisions.

The Act enables any person substantially affected
by final agency action on a covered permit to initiate
a circuit action requesting monetary damages and other

Key operational definitions of "agency" and
"permit" limit the court action to state agency permits
or licenses involving Chapters 161, 253, 373, 380 and
403, Fla. Stat. Hence, the Department of Natural
Resources decisions regarding coastal construction
control lines, Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust
Fund decisions regarding dredge and fill permit appeals
and sale and lease of state owned lands, land and water
adjudicatory commission and regional water management
district decisions regarding water permits, land and
water adjudicatory commission decisions regarding
developments of regional impact and areas of critical
state concern, and environmental regulation commission
decisions regarding pollution control permits are sub-
ject to the circuit court action established by the

The Act envisions prior exhaustion of Chapter 120
administrative remedies. The trial court action trig-
gers only after final agency action on a permit and an
administrative appeal, if the appeal raises a taking
issue. The circuit court review is confined solely to
determining if final agency action is an unreasonable
exercise of the state's police power constituting a
taking without just compensation. Hence, all existing
administrative remedies and requirements are preserved.

If the circuit court determines agency action is
an unreasonable exercise of the state's police power
constituting a taking, the court will remand the matter
to the agency, which, within a reasonable time must:

(1) agree to issue the permit; or
(2) agree to pay appropriate damages; or
(3) agree to modify its decision to remedy
its unreasonable action.

Note that the court must first determine there is
a police power taking. The Act does not attempt to
provide courts with a legislative definition of a taking;
the body of case law defines a taking.

If the court holds there is a taking, the matter
is remanded to the agency to consider further action.

As noted, three options are available to the

By granting the agency first option to take further
action, the agency may avoid paying damages. It may
issue the permit, or modify its decision to avoid an
unreasonable exercise of police power. If the permit
is issued, the case will terminate upon issuance of
the court's final order recognizing the agency's action.
However, if the agency chooses to modify, it must
incorporate proposed action in a proposed order to the
court. If the court determines the proposed action is
a reasonable police power exercise, it will enter a
final order approving the proposed order.

As a third option, the agency may agree to pay
appropriate monetary damages.

If the agency opts to compensate the court, in
determining the amount of compensation, must consider
any enhancement to the value of the land attributable
to governmental action. This provision is a windfall
deterrent mechanism designed to at least bring before
the parties and the court value that may have been
conferred by government. The Act does not require a
setoff for such value against value lost due to govern-
ment action. Neither does the Act establish a statutory
formula for assessing damages, deferring this determina-
tion to the courts based on individual case factual

If the agency fails to submit a proposed order
within 90 days following the court's invalidity holding,
advising the court of future action it desires to take,
the court may order the agency to exercise any of the
three statutory options.

The court's final order presumably could mandate
modified agency action and compensation, depending on
the court's assessment of the appropriate mix required
to attain validity.

The Act provides that the court must award attorney's
fees and costs to the prevailing party.

The cause of action is cumulative to other legal
remedies and does not preclude an inverse condemnation
action authorized under other statutory provisions.

Finally, the legislation supplements Chapter 768,
which waives the state's sovereign immunity; hence,
legislative creation of a specific cause of action for
damages further waives immunity for claims specifically
referenced in the Act.

In summary, what rights remain for coastal property
owners? Well, police power regulations are alive and
well and increasingly restrictive. The coastal pro-
tection elements of the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning Act will encourage further regulation. Per
the existing cases, property value may be severely
depreciated without compensation provided a beneficial
use remains with the owner. The Penn Central case sug-
gests that the remaining beneficial use must afford
the owner a profitable opportunity and a return on

Still, to quote the U.S. Supreme Court, "there
is no set formula to determine where regulation and
taking begins." Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369
U.S. 590 (1962).

Lacking a legislative definition of a taking, or
a policy mandating when compensation must be paid,
courts will continue to decide taking issues in diverse,
and often disparate, ways. And, lacking further legi-
slation authorizing compensation for local government
police power takings, harsh local regulations will
remain non-compensable. The 1978 property rights

legislation, dealing with state and regional environmental
permits, may provide beneficial precedent for future

What can an owner do to protect his property?

First, you must become educated as to the extent
of your legal rights. Understand the basic legal
concepts outlined today and do not be afraid to impart
your basic knowledge to regulators and elected officials.

Second, consider whether additional state property
rights legislation is required to establish a definitive
compensation policy, and let your professional associa-
tions and legislative delegations know your views.

Third, participate in hearings and workshops on
your local government comprehensive plans. These
plans will provide the basis for future regulations
which must be consistent with, and implement, the

Fourth, band together in professional and neighbor-
hood groups and participate intensely in local govern-
ment decisions relating to additional regulations. Give
your elected officials a real world view of property
values and the regulatory maze.

Finally, do not sit on your rights. The trend
is toward more intense, sophisticated regulation--things
are not going to get better. Understand that zoning
alone is not sufficient to guarantee a future vested
right to develop. Keep ahead of the regulatory action.

I hope this overview of the present state of the
law and suggested action proves helpful in your upcoming


Richard W. Stevens, P.E.
Mariner Properties, Ltd.
Captiva Island, Florida, 33924


Erik J. Olsen, P.E.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
7825 Baymeadows Way
Jacksonville, Florida 32216




Private financing of beach restoration can offer a viable alternative to
public financing for those communities faced with critical erosion problems
but unwilling to provide public access and attendant facilities necessary
for significant State and Federal financial aid. Funding of the South
Seas Plantation Beach Improvement Project at Captiva Island, Florida, will
be through the establishment of a municipal service taxing unit (MSTU).
This paper will discuss the objectives, procedures and advantages associated
with the development of such a funding plan as well as any attendant special

The beach nourishment project under consideration consists of the placement
of approximately 800,000 cu. yd. of sediment along 10,000 ft. of gulf-front
shoreline. The designated borrow site is the seaward shoals of Redfish
Pass an unimproved inlet immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of
the project. This paper will likewise discuss the history of erosion on
Captiva, the design details of the nourishment project and the geotechnical
exploration involved.

AUTHORS: Richard W. Stevens, P.E. /;
Project Manager, Mariner Properties, -Ltd.

Erik J. Olsen, P.E.
Senior Engineer, Tetra Tech, Inc.


About 210 miles of the 782 miles of recreational beach in Florida
are in a critical state of erosion. The $81 million in government
funded beach restoration projects now underway or committed are
considered a "drop in the bucket" when compared to the total require-
ments. Moreover, many small beach communities are unable to provide
the local assurances necessary for Federal and State funded projects.
Private financing of beach restoration offers a viable alternative
to public financing for these communities faced with critical erosion
problems but unwilling to provide public access and attendant facil-
ities necessary for significant Federal and State financial aid.
This presentation concerns a privately funded beach project for South
Seas Plantation on Captiva Island, and will discuss how the project
was developed, the financial plan and certain engineering aspects of
the project of general interest.


The State of Florida occupies a portion of a much larger geographic
unit, the Floridian Plateau. During geological time the plateau has
been alternately dry land or covered by shallow seas. Each retreat
of the sea left marine deposits which, during subsequent advances of
the sea, were moved about by waves and currents to form beaches, off-
shore bars, and barrier islands. Captiva is one of the barrier islands.

Captiva Island is located between Pine Island Sound and the Gulf of
Mexico and is bounded on the north by Redfish Pass and on the south
by Blind Pass (see Fig. 1). The island is 4.7 miles long with eleva-
tions averaging about five feet and highest elevations of less than
10 feet above sea level. Prior to 1926 the island extended to Captiva
Pass about 4.1 miles further north. In 1926, a severe hurricane caused
a breakthrough in the narrow center portion of the island, forming
Redfish Pass and two distinct islands, Captiva and North Captiva.
Redfish Pass is a relatively stable inlet and has remained open and
navigable since 1926. Blind Pass is an unstable inlet and has opened
and closed several times since 1926. Presently, Blind Pass is closed
and there is an accumulation of sand beneath and westward of the
bridge over the Pass to Sanibel Island.

Data from as far back as 1876 indicate net shoreline erosion of Captiva
Island over the entire period of record. Following the hurricane of
1926 and the opening of Redfish Pass, the northernmost one-third of
Captiva Island experienced dramatic rates of erosion and shoreline
recession. In some areas south of the pass, average annual recession
rates has exceeded 39 feet per year and total shoreline recession has
been greater than 700 feet.

to Port Charlotte



Boca Grande Pass


liv. Pass








Charlotte Harbor

Pine Island Sound

Route 867



Historical beach and offshore profiles plotted from the surveys of
1878/79, 1956/61 and 1967 have been compared with those surveyed in
1979 in conjunction with the design of this project. Comparison shows
the continuous recession and steepening of the nearshore profile along
the majority of the Captiva shoreline over the period of record. An
analysis of average annual volumetric changes and shoreline transla-
tions for the period between 1967 and 1979 is shown in Figure 2.
Average annual erosion rates for the shoreline within the limits of
the South Seas Beach Improvement Project are relatively uniform be-
tween 3 and 4 cu. yd./yr. per foot of shoreline. The shoreline is
approaching a form of dynamic equilibrium by exhibiting a trend toward
this steady state net annual erosion.


South Seas Plantation is a privately owned resort on the northern tip
of Captiva Island. Last year the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation
Association held its annual meeting at South Seas Plantation and the
year before the combined annual meeting of the Association with the
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association was held there.
The resort offers a wide variety of accommodations (about 400) from
hotels to individual cottages, complete recreational facilities
(tennis, golf, swimming, marina, offshore and charter fishing, boat
rental) and excellent restaurants. And, of course, 1.7 miles of gulf
front beach excellent for swimming and shelling. The tone and atmo-
sphere of the resort is that of privacy and peace. The resort is
very popular with tourists and convention groups and those of you who
visited there might agree that it's a high quality and very successful

One aspect of the resort not commonly known is that much of the resort
is privately owned. The developer, South Seas Plantation Company,
constructed single and multi-family units gradually and in stages, and
then sold them either as individually owned or condominium units.
For example, the Beach Homes are single family units; the Beach
Cottages are duplexes and quadruplexes and the Beach Villas, Tennis
Villas and Bayside Villas vary from eight to sixty units per building.
Also, there is an interval ownership cluster, the Plantation Beach
Club, and individual homesites. The developer offered many purchasers
the option of leasing back their unit to the resort as a rental unit
for tourist accommodations, in which case the resort and purchaser
would share the rental income. This proved to be a successful and
profitable arrangement. At any rate, the individual owners and the
developers have a mutual interest in the property.


Captiva Island residents have been aware of erosion problems for over
forty years. As the island developed and more built-up areas were





"3 -

"0 -. .... ...

o_ m
o Cui'w '
0 ^ 'l'iii'i'?:I'i' i'fl'fit f~ri-trffyi-iltiit fltK''i ^imtifiKflt -----




w 4




threatened, the community became more concerned. Beach erosion
during severe winter storms in 1957-58 caused loss of sections of
the county road. As a result, the Captiva Erosion Prevention Dis-
trict was formed in 1958 by an Act of the Florida Legislature. The
District investigated various coastal works installed for erosion
prevention throughout the United States and concluded that some sort
of groin installation was the best solution. Further investigation
determined the Budd Wall type of groin to be the most effective for
the price inasmuch as it cost a third less than any comparable type
of installation. A bond issue for $200,000 was approved in 1959.
In 1961, 134 concrete "dog bone" Budd groins were installed. Many
are still in place today. Their effectiveness has been minimal.
In 1966, the District installed two timber groins near the center of
the island at a cost of $20,000 and later added 110,000 cubic yards
of sand fill at a cost of $38,000 in an effort to prevent loss of
the county road. In 1964, another 50,000 to 100,000 cubic yards of
fill was added at a cost of $100,000. Several other District spon-
sored erosion control structures have been installed since 1964, and
some private property owners on the southern end of the island have
installed rock revetments and concrete sea walls.

In 1969, at the request of the Lee County Commission, the Jacksonville
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, prepared a study on beach
erosion control for Lee County. The study reported that the beaches
of Captiva Island were severely eroding and recommended a Federal
project for beach erosion control. Basically, the project called for
improvements to most of the island's beach consisting of placement of
1.8 million cubic yards of sand to make the beach about 100 feet
wider at mean high tide, and to add sand periodically to maintain that
width. Congress authorized the project in 1970. Federal aid for
beach improvements is based on the amount of publicly owned or pub-
licly used beach and can be as much as 50%, provided there would be
significant public benefits arising from public use or from direct
protection of nearby public facilities. Similarly, the State of
Florida will fund 75% of the remaining cost. In 1970, at the time of
the study, due to private ownership of the beach and lack of public
access, Federal aid would have been only about 9%, leaving the re-
maining cost to be paid from non-Federal funds.

In March 1973 the District contracted with the Coastal and Oceano-
graphical Engineering Laboratory of the University of Florida to
conduct a coastal engineering study of Captiva Island. That study
also recommended placement of sand on the beaches and added the con-
struction of a terminal groin at Redfish Pass. The University of
Florida study concluded that the terminal groin would help to prevent
sand from Captiva beaches from washing into Redfish Pass. The term-
inal groin was of particular interest to South Seas Plantation in
that its construction would serve to get started on an important phase
of the beach restoration project. The groin also afforded a direct

means of erosion control for part of the South Seas Plantation prop-
erty. For those reasons, South Seas assisted the erosion district
in getting permits and agreed to pay for construction of the groin.

Since 1970 the District, as local government sponsor of the project,
has not been able to provide the assurances required for State and
Federal government funding. The basic problem is lack of support by
Island residents due to the requirement to establish public accesses
and parking along the beach at approximately one-half mile intervals.
Lack of support was demonstrated most recently in February 1978 when
the majority of the Island residents voted against the Federal project.

In December 1978, the South Seas Plantation Company Board of Directors,
acting in its own interest as a major property owner, and in response
to the requests of many other property owners, voted to initiate ac-
tions required to obtain permits and develop a privately funded program
for nourishment of the resort's 1.7 miles of beach, the northern one-
third of the island. In effect, it was decided to start the program
immediately with or without support of the rest of the island. This
included also a commitment to provide up-front money for engineering
and design on the premise that the owners would support the project
and this money would be recouped later from owner contributions.
Although this is not necessary for a privately funded project, there
are certain benefits to this procedure, as will be explained. Whether
provided in advance and recouped later, or included as part of the
total project at the time owner approval is completed, these costs
are eventually paid for by the owners involved with the privately
funded project. For the case of a government funded project imple-
mented by the Corps of Engineers, these expenses are included in the
formulation of cost sharing and are required of the local sponsor
prior to the initiation of project construction.

The following is an outline of how the South Seas Plantation privately
funded project was developed and how owner support is being obtained.


It was recognized that about six months lead time was needed to accom-
plish engineering and design before approaching the owners for approval
of the project and financial support. With that in mind, the follow-
ing plan of action was implemented:

1. Appoint a full time project manager to coordinate activities
and be responsive to the owners.

2. Award contracts for engineering, design, and permitting

3. Develop a funding plan that would be acceptable to the

4. Develop a cost proration plan that would be acceptable
to owners.

5. Keep owners informed of plans and progress.

6. Obtain owners' approval and financial support.


It was assumed that all owners would consider their share of the cost
to be similar to purchasing insurance for protection of their invest-
ment. Because the value of individual properties varied considerably,
depending on type of unit, proximity to the beach and other resort
amenities and income potential, it was concluded that the funding plan
must be financially feasible for all categories of owners, but fair
and equitable to minimize dispute. Objectives of the funding plan
were established as follows:

1. A sharing in the cost by all property owners who use the
South Seas beach.

2. A significantly greater share of the cost being borne by
the beach front owners versus those who own property not
directly on the beach.

3. The beachfront share being proportionally distributed based
on the amount of footage owned rather than the value or
sales price of the property affected.

4. A desire to create a plan under which payments would be
tax deductible.

5. An objective to spread the cost over a period of several
years rather than a one time cost.

Based on these objectives and using an estimated cost of $2 million,
a cost proration plan was developed as shown in Table 1. Payments
vary from $1,285 for non-beach front owners to $16,515 for owners of
100 foot gulf front lots. As can be seen, there are 466 individual
property owners, and 2,856 one-week interval owners at the Plantation
Beach Club. The plan has the following features:

1. Allocation of about 87% of the cost to beach front owners.

2. Allocation of about 13% of the cost to non-beach front owners.



Consolidated Payment
Total Total
Units Allocation

Individual Payment
Individual Installment
Allocation Annual Monthly

Property Owner

South Seas Resort
Plant. Bch. Club
Gulf Cottages
Beach Homesites
Beach Homes
Beach Cottages
Beach Villas
Private Lots


Bayside Villas
Tennis Villas
Marina Villas
Beach Homesites
Private Lots





$ 722,600*
(wks) 144,000



$ 722,600 $131,628 $10,969





*Includes $289,550 for pre-project studies and construction of terminal groin at
Redfish Pass.

3. Lump sum payment for those desiring a large, single
tax deduction.

4. Payments over an eight year period with interest at
10% for those who desire a term arrangement.

It was next necessary to find a vehicle by which the funding plan
could be implemented and administered and still meet the objectives.
State law allows a designated area to create a special taxing or
assessment unit called a Muncipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) to
provide certain services not currently provided by the County. The
State Statute authorizing this specifically includes beach erosion
projects as an eligible service. Here's how an MSTU is formed and

1. Created via ordinance by the County Board of Commissioners
upon petition by at least 65% of the affected parties and
a public hearing.

2. Upon establishment, the County Commissioners appoint a five
member advisory board to conduct the affairs of the MSTU.
This board will consist of property owners of the designated

3. Upon establishment, the MSTU has taxing and assessment
authority for all property owners involved. The MSTU also
has bonding and borrowing capability using the taxes or
assessments as security.

4. Properties within the MSTU can be assessed at differing rates,
depending on the value they derive from the service.

5. Property taxes or assessments paid by property owners via
the MSTU process are deductible for income tax purposes.


It is proposed to establish an MSTU for the South Seas project. The
key to a privately funded project is owner support and approval. This
requires owner involvement from the beginning, which goes back to an
earlier statement about the benefits of having up-front money for
project management, design, and permitting. This is beneficial be-
cause when the MSTU is formed, the owners will know exactly what the
project consists of, when it will be done, how much it will cost and
what will be the benefits to them. Otherwise, it could be difficult
to obtain petitions from 65% of the owners for a project as complicated
as beach erosion control. For South Seas this was accomplished in
the following manner:

1. Owners were informed by letter of the intent to develop
and accomplish a privately funded project.

2. Newsletters were sent to owners, keeping them advised of
progress in design, permitting and financing. Owners
were encouraged to express their opinions about the project.

3. A project manager's office was established which served as an
information center. Owners could visit the office at their
convenience, review files and cost expenditure reports and
discuss the project with the project manager.

4. At the time of petitioning for the MSTU, owners will be
provided an information brochure giving the background of
the erosion problem, details on the design of the beach
fill and how the project will be accomplished.

5. The bottom line is owners are made to feel it is their


The advantages of a Federal and State supported beach erosion project
are that technical and administrative support is furnished, and, of
course, cost to property owners is minimized. Because of the require-
ments for public benefits, however, there can be distinct disadvantages
to government sponsored projects and in many cases worthwhile projects
are "shelved". By comparison, the privately funded project offers the
following advantages and is therefore a viable alternative:

A. Privacy is maintained. There is no requirement for additional
public access to be provided.

B. There is no requirement for the local assurances as with
Federal projects.

C. There are fewer regulatory controls and, therefore, more
flexibility in procurement activities, less stringent
contract and specifications requirements and hence,
cost savings.

D. Time frame is short. One year from design to construction
compared to three to five years for a Federal project.

E. Some of the new beach becomes the property of the owners.
Florida Statutes provide for the location of the erosion
control line seaward of the existing mean high water line
in order to provide for an equitable distribution of the
restored beach where riparian upland owners are furnishing

financial assistance.

F. There is no requirement to pay for dredged material taken
from sovereignty land.


The South Seas Plantation Beach Improvement Project described by this
paper can be considered as the first phase of a comprehensive beach
restoration effort necessary for the stabilization of the entire gulf
shoreline of Captiva Island. The project development as presentely
conceived proposes the placement of approximately 765,000 cu. yd.
of beach quality sand along the northernmost 10,000 feet of gulf-front
shoreline immediately south of Redfish Pass (see Figure 3). It is
important to note, however, that the "project" as discussed herein,
is designed to rebuild and protect only the northern end of the island,
and that southward of the limits of fill, shoreline recession at his-
torical, or near historical rates is expected to continue without
the implementation of further beach restoration.

It has been well documented by previous coastal engineering studies
that the hurricane of 1926 caused a breakthrough in the narrow center
portion of Captiva Island at the site of Redfish Pass thereby causing
the formation of two distinct islands. Since 1926, both shorelines
immediately adjacent to Redfish Pass have receeded extensively as a
form of adjustment to the hydraulic regimen of the tidal inlet. At
the present time, however, both shorelines proximate to the Pass
are approaching a form of dynamic equilibrium by exhibiting a trend
toward a steady state net annual erosion. The majority of the sedi-
ment eroded from both shorelines has been redeposited in the form of
extensive shoals gulfward and bayward of Redfish Pass. The total
volume of material considered to have accreted within this shoal
system since 1926 exceeds 5 million cu. yd. The establishment of
Redfish Pass as a hydraulically efficient tidal inlet has created a
barrier and corresponding sediment sink to littoral material trans-.
ported southward on North Captiva Island and northward along the
shoreline of Captiva Island. The resultant deposition of sediment
at the inlet in the form of gulfward shoals further modifies littoral
transport by the interruption and refraction of alongshore wave
energy. Since the inlet can be considered as a total barrier to
littoral drift, the shoals are expected to continue to increase in

As with many of the barrier island coastlines found in southwest
Florida, there is no significant source of littoral material along
the gulf shores of Lee County other than what is derived from the
Keys themselves, from the adjacent offshore shoals or from biogenic
origin. Qualitatively, the extremely high percentage of shell
measured from sand samples taken from the foreshore and backshore
of the beach within the study area would indicate the importance of















biogenic sediment sources. The relative age of this fraction of
the beach sediment is unknown. It is therefore not possible to
determine whether the shell originates in significant volume due
to the natural attrition of living organisms, or whether its accu-
mulation is primarily the resultant of long-term sorting processes.

As previously noted, the estimated volume of material required for
initial construction at South Seas Plantation is about 765,000 cu. yd.,
including 5 years advance nourishment. It is estimated that the
restored beach will require renourishment with about 500,000 cu. yd.
on 10 year intervals assuming suitable textural characteristics of
the future borrow source sediments. The specified design berm is
6.0 feet above NGVD and 4.7 feet above mean high water. The average
width of the design berm selected is approximately 105 feet. This
minimum width will provide adequate protection of upland improve-
ments from minor storms and will initially create about 140+ feet of
dry beach above the MHWL for recreational purposes. The design of
the project berm is based on an average annual sediment loss rate
over the project life of approximately 5 cu. yd./ ft. per year.
The estimate accounts for historical average annual erosion as well
as additional sediment losses resulting from sorting processes and
nearshore slope adjustments.

The slopes of the design beach are estimated as 1:6 from the crest
of the beach berm to approximately mean low water, and about 1:22
from MLW to the intersection with the existing bottom. Beyond this
point natural slopes average 1:50. The design slopes are based upon
a comparison of existing slope trends within the project limits.
It is acknowledged, however, that post-project beach slopes along the
shoreline of northern Captiva Island will be primarily a function of
the textural characteristics of the in-place beach sediments and
long-term sorting processes. Historically, shell content has been
extremely high in the beach berm landward of existing mean low water.
Geotechnical exploration of the proposed borrow area has revealed
that the project beach will likewise contain an appreciable percen-
tage of shell. Accordingly, it is anticipated that subsequent to
initial sediment losses due to immediate adjustment of the construc-
tion profile, fill slopes will again approach those typical of the
existing native beach.

Post-placement behavior of designed beach fills is recognized
as being directly related to the differences or similarities between
the textural characteristics of the native beach material and those
of the sediments to be derived from the borrow site. In the near-
shore zone of the Captiva shoreline, the sorting action of the waves
and currents has removed most organic matter to deeper water, so that
the remaining surface material is almost all sand and shell. Accord-
ingly, the medium grain size of sediments decreases from the littoral
zone seaward. The materials encountered in offshore core borings

parallel to the coast taken by the Jacksonville District Corps of
Engineers in 1967 were principally sand, silty sand, and small
amounts of clayey sand. The preliminary results of the COE inves-
tigation indicate that the average depth of offshore overburden
available for beach nourishment purposes is approximately 10 feet,
with the initial two to three feet containing a substantial silt
content. Although the majority of this sediment is suitable as beach
fill, it exhibits a small median grain size which based on theoreti-
cal models of sand transport would result in a relatively high over-
fill ratio. The need for a more texturally compatible sediment
source, therefore, led to the extensive geotechnical exploration of
the area seaward of Redfish Pass performed by Tetra Tech in March,
1979. Preliminary sampling and computations by the University of
Florida in 1973 indicated the potential volume and quality of the
sediments deposited within the high energy zone. Subsequent
VIBRACORING of the inlet shoal has verified the available depth
and textural characteristics of the material involved and has con-
sequently resulted in its selection as the primary borrow site.
Sediments deposited above the pre-inlet bottom are composed pri-
marily of coarse shell and medium to fine sand. Suitability analyses
of sediment samples derived from.the proposed Redfish Pass borrow
site and the native beach indicate that no overfill will be required.
Accordingly, the depth of dredging within the borrow area will be
limited to an average pre-inlet depth of 15 feet below NGVD in
order to maximize the quality of sediment placed as beach fill and
to minimize the potential for the suspension of silts or clays into
the water column.

In summary, the improvement selected for beach erosion control will
serve two primary purposes:

o the protection of upland real estate and structures, and

o the preservation of ample beach areas for present and
future recreational needs.

The environmental impact of the proposed project will be limited
primarily to temporary minor increases in turbidity during construc-
tion as well as short-term disruption of the benthos associated with
the borrow and fill sites. The beach improvement project will replen-
ish sand transported from Captiva Island by natural littoral processes
as well as by the influence of Redfish Pass. Analyses indicate that
excavation within the selected offshore borrow.area will not adversely
affect normal littoral transport on North Captiva, Captiva or Sanibel
Islands. Both the initial project and the proposed periodic renourish-
ment program will, in effect, augment the natural function of the net
littoral forces that move sediment southward along Captiva Island
toward Sanibel Island.


Robert F. Vande Weghe
Town Manager
Town of Jupiter Island
P.O. Box 7
Hobe Sound, Florida 33455

I have been asked today to talk about the two major
beach renourishment projects that the Town of Jupiter
Island completed, one for 2 million cubic yards in
1972-3 and the other for 1 million cubic yards in 1978,
but expressly, I've been asked to explain how a small
town like ours was able to finance these tremendous
projects without Federal financial help and only limited
State aid. I must say from the start that what our
Town did may not be applicable in full to other Towns
since we are rather unique. However, it is an example
of what can be done when the Towns' people work together.

Before I start, let me describe the Town of Jupiter
Island. The Town itself is located about 20 miles north
of Palm Beach. It is bounded on the north by 5 miles of
Wildlife area and on the south by 1 mile of Nature Con-
servancy. The Island is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean
on the east and the Intracoastal Waterway on the west.
It is connected by two bridges to the mainland. The
Town itself is approximately 7 miles long and a mile
in width. We have approximately 350 single family res-
idential homes, no condominiums, no apartments and no
highrises. The only commercial or business area is a
private club to which about 80% of the residents belong.
Approximately one third of the people live on the Ocean,
one third on the Intracoastal Waterway and one third in
the area between.

As to the make-up of our residents, the majority live
in the Town on a part-time basis. Most of them reside
there from December through April. There are only 229
registered voters. Approximately 50% of the residents
would be classified as millionaires. About 40% are
retired with well above average income and the other
10% are people, like myself, who are still working for
a living. In short, Jupiter Island is as close to a
tropical paradise as you'll find in these United States.

Even an Island such as ours in not total paradise.
Every Eden has its serpent. Ous happens to be beach
erosion. In 1900 the St. Lucie Inlet was created by
man. This was the start of our erosion problem. This
erosion increased in 1930 when a stone jetty was built
at the Inlet. In 1967, recognizing the horrendous prob-
lems that confronted us, the Town applied to Tallahassee
for legislation which would allow the Town to take cer-
tain steps to protect the shore line. On August 4, 1967

House Bill #2759, Chapter 67-1588 was passed. This bill
authorized the Town Commission to construct sea walls,
groins, breakwaters, etc. and perform renourishment
projects as required to protect our Town's beaches.
It gave the Commission authority to require property
owners to construct and maintain sea walls, groins, etc.
at their own expense. It divided the Town into two
erosion districts for millage purposes on a three to
one basis with the Ocean front property owners paying
3 and the Inland properties paying 1. It established
a 6 mill maximum and it allowed the Commission to ap-
point an Erosion Committee of 3 people to administer
the act. By 1969 this Town with its residents had con-
structed almost 3 miles of sea walls and accompanying
groins. These kept the Island in pretty fair shape
for a couple of years; but the Ocean is a powerful op-
ponent and while we were able to slow the erosion we
could not stop it and we found ourselves fighting a
never ending battle. The Island is currently losing
about 250,000 cubic yards of sand each year and the
dune line, where there are no sea walls, is receding
from 5 to 7 feet per year.

Prior to 1971 the Town had performed at least 5 re-
nourishment programs taking sand from the Intracoastal
Waterway and pumping it onto the beaches. These aver-
aged from 60,000 to 100,000 cubic yards each. We also,
for three years, used a drag scraper to drag 30,000
cubic yards of sand per year from the Ocean bottom up on
to the beaches. But it doesn't take a mathematician to
figure that you can't lose 250,000 cubic yards per year,
while replacing an average of 60,000 cubic yards per
year, without having serious problems.

By 1971 our beaches were eroded so badly that in the
month of October alone, we lost 1400 linear feet of
sloping revetment sea walls and 3 vertical sea walls
collapsed. At least 10 homes were in serious danger
of falling into the Ocean. This was not due to a hurri-
cane or a major storm. It was caused by the constant
day to day erosion of our beaches. Something had to be
done and done fast. We decided the only feasible solu-
tion was an immediate massive sand renourishment proj-
ect. Fortunately we had a good idea of what had to be
done. Several years before, a Corps of Engineers made
a complete study of our shoreline in which they recom-
mended that 2V million cubic yards of sand be pumped

onto our beaches. They described where the sand should
be placed, the contour of the beach and they described
the areas from which the sand could be gotten. Unfort-
unately the study also said that there could be no
Federal assistance, since there were not enough public

In November 1971, we hired Arthur Strock to be the proj-
ect engineer. We gave him the simple task of obtaining
the necessary permits, finding a contractor and starting
the project. By June 1972, eight months later, believe
it or not, he did just that. This is the type of thing
you can do if you don't have to wait for Government
studies and funding. I will say though, that none of
it would have been possible without a great deal of help
from Tallahassee, especially Beaches and Shores; and the
Corps of Engineers in Jacksonville. All of them bent
over backward to rush through the permits and approvals.
Their advice and help were invaluable.

But now back to the purpose of this talk. There we were
in 1971 facing a project with an estimated cost of 3h
million dollars that had to be done immediately with
only $60,000 in our Erosion Account. Where could we
get over 34 million dollars? We investigated bank loans;
but Municipal Law states that you can't borrow more than
one year's tax revenue, in our case about million
dollars. We talked to Municipal Bond experts; but float-
ing a bond issue takes time, of which we had little, and
it is expensive. Our only hope was to go to the res-
idents and ask for the money. We needed, on the average,
$10,000 per home.

Our first step was to establish a General Improvement
Fund. This would allow the residents to give tax deduct-
able contributions. The fund was controlled by the Town
to be used in whatever manner they felt would be0t bene-
fit the Town. It also insured that the IRS couldn't
say that an Ocean property owner was protecting his own
home, and disallow the deduction.

Our second step was to call the residents into the Town
Hall in small groups, no larger than 20 people. I would
open the meeting with slides describing the problem and
what had to be done. I would describe the beaches as
they were then and as they would be after renourishment
and what they would look like a year later. I would

describe the pumping operation and the tremendous costs

The Mayor would then explain the dangers of doing noth-
ing and the effect of the erosion on property values,
not only on the Ocean properties but throughout the
whole Town. By the way, at that time, Ocean property
values on Jupiter Island were about half that of similar
properties in areas further south, mainly because of the
erosion, and it was effecting the whole Island; after
all, people just won't buy a home if the house across
the way was falling into the Ocean. He described our
lack of finances and how the residents could contribute
tax deductible monies to the General Improvement Fund.
He explained that the Town could accept stock whereby
no capital gains were paid and the resident could deduct
the full market value as a tax deduction.

Let me give an example: John Doe had stock from a family
Corporation which he had gotten at $1.00 par value.
Today the stock sells for $100. If John Doe was in the
70% tax bracket, as many of our citizens are, he would
have had to pay capital gains of $35 if he sold the
stock, leaving him a net of $65.

Instead he donates the stock to the Town and takes the
full $100 tax deduction. This gives him a net return
of $70 or $5 more than if he sold it himself and the
Town receives the full $100 per share.

Tax rules have changed somewhat since 1971, but the
principle is still the same.

Then one of our prominent residents, who everyone liked
and respected as a leader in the Community, would point
out that the future of the Island was at stake and that
anyone who did not give to their maximum ability did
not belong on the Island and should move to the main-

These meetings continued until every property owner had
been contacted. They must have been successful for
pledges, checks and stock almost flooded us.

Ninety percent of the property owners contributed some-
thing. A few gave as little as $250. Many gave $1000
and others gave $10,000 to $20,000. Over 50 families

ave $50,000 or more. The highest contributor gave
230,000 and he doesn't even live on the Ocean. Within
6 months our residents had pledged over $3,000,000 to
be paid over a 3 year period. Most of it was collected
in the first 6 months.

We had also arranged with the First National Bank of
Palm Beach to borrow up to 1 million dollars at 4%
or just over half the prime rate at that time. This
money was borrowed against pledges and was to be used
until our pledges had been received. In case you didn't
know it, Municipalities can get a very favorable short
term loan from most banks, since the interest from the
loan is tax free for the bank.

We did receive a pledge from the State for approximately
$700,000 to help pay for that portion of the beaches
that had public access. This money, while greatly
appreciated, was not received in full until 1977.

To make a long story short, the Town of Jupiter Island
raised $3,500,000, mostly from contributions and re-
stored 5 miles of beach with 2 million cubic yards
of sand pumped from the Ocean bottom.

Unfortunately, this is not the end of the story. Most
of you know that a renourished beach is just as vulner-
able as the eroded beach that was there before. The
Town recognized that our beaches would have to be re-
nourished about every 5 years. Not in the same magni-
tude of quantity and cost but probably 1,000,000 cubic
yards each time. Where do we get that additional money?
We can't pass the hat too often because even the most
generous citizens have their limits. What could we do?

If you'll remember before I said that in 1967 the Town
had an Erosion Bill passed. Part of that Bill speci-
fied that Ocean. front residents would be assessed on a
3 to 1 millage basis with their off Ocean neighbors.
This put too heavy a burden on them and limited the
tax revenue to the Town. We went back to our people
with a referendum to modify that Bill so that all
property owners would each be assessed 6 mills per
year, regardless of whether they lived on the Ocean
or not.

Again we held meetings and explained our problems. The


Referendum passed by an overwhelming majority and the
1967 Bill was modified. Currently that 6 mills gener-
ates approximately $400,000 a year to our Erosion
Account or about $2,000,000 over a 5 year period.
This is the money which was used in 1978 to complete
our second major beach project of 1 million cubic
yards without State or Federal help and it is the
money that will continue to finance future projects.

I don't pretend to tell you that all our residents are
happy to pay 6 mills a year for erosion; after all, on
a $100,000 house, that is $600, but the majority know
that the future of our Town is tied very closely with
the condition of our beaches and they are all more
than willing to support our renourishment program.

You might be interested to note that the erosion prob-
lem now has little effect on property values. Today
there are only two Ocean homes for sale, compared to
15 in 1971 and these are priced at values comparable
to Palm Beach and elsewhere.

To sum up, I recognize that what we did in our small
Town of 350 homes is much more difficult to do in a
Town of 10,000 residences. Certainly there is not the
same closeness and willingness to work together. But
on the other hand, few Towns have more than seven miles
of beach, such as we have, and 3 million dollars
divided by 10,000 is only $350 per home rather than
our $10,000 per home that we needed.

Maybe asking for contributions isn't appropriate to
your town; but certainly collecting a small millage
is. Sooner or later people will recognize that beaches
are just as important as roads, parks, etc. that we now
collect special taxes for. Maybe you may decide to
assess the tourist as certain towns now do; or you may
place a special millage on the residence. Either way,
it's a nice feeling to get the job done when you need
it without waiting for endless studies and appropria-
tions from Federal and State Agencies.

We were fortunate to have a great majority of our
people willing and able to support our beach project.
I hope you will be too.


Edward J. Pullen
Robert M. Yancey
Marine Biologists
U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers
Coastal Engineering Research Center


Results of the Coastal Engineering Research Center's (CERC)
studies on the ecological effects of beach nourishment that date
from 1971 to the present are presented. The studies indicate the
area impacted by nourishment and dredging should be considered as
three zones for quantitatively sampling because of the physical
and biological conditions of the beach and nearshore areas.
Based on CERC's results, nourishment operations (if properly
planned) have only minor impacts on coastal resources, unless
especially sensitive resources are involved (coral reefs, turtle
habitat, shellfish beds, etc.). Nearshore organisms are better
adapted to covering with sediment than the offshore organisms.

BEACH NOURISHMENT: Its Effect on Coastal Ecology



Shore erosion is a major problem along the U.S. east and west coasts.
Beach erosion results in significant property damage, loss of land, and
the loss of recreational beaches. The need to reduce or repair erosion
damage has been expressed by local and State governments; the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers has a responsibility for beach erosion studies and
projects, when requested by the local authorities and approved by Congress.

In 1930, Congress authorized the Corps to study means of preventing
shoreline erosion and established the Beach Erosion Board (BEB) as the
major element of the Corps' beach erosion capability (Quinn, 1977)1.
The BEB functioned until 1963 when it was abolished and replaced by the
Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) and the Coastal Engineering
Research Board (CERB). CERC was given the coastal engineering research
mission and the CERB was to advise the Chief of Engineers on the Corps'
coastal engineering research program. In response to the public's
increasing environmental awareness, reinforced by the enactment of Public
Law 91-190 (1969 Environmental Policy Act), CERC began a Coastal Ecology
Research Program in 1970. The program's mission is to ensure that bio-
logical resources are adequately considered in coastal projects along with
engineering considerations.

This paper summarizes the results of CERC's research on the effects
of beach nourishment on coastal ecology. The research dates from 1971 to
the present and covers pre- and post-construction studies of several
coastal projects. Studies have been completed at Imperial Beach, Califor-
nia, and Broward County, Florida. Pre-construction studies at Panama
City Beach and Sand Key Beach, Florida, have also been completed and a
post-construction study at Panama City Beach was initiated this fall.
More research is needed along the North Atlantic coast and the Great Lakes.
There is a need for greater emphasis on evaluating the impacts of taking
beach nourishment material from offshore sources.

Beach and Nearshore Environment

The beach and nearshore environment may be divided into three zones
based on the physical environment and associated resident inhabitants:
the beach, surf, and offshore zones (Fig. 1).



v, .--~- -- ^

Figure 1. Beach, Surf,and Offshore Zones of a
High-Energy Beach Showing Mean low
Tide and Mean High Tide Lines.


Beach Zone. The beach zone is defined as the area landward from the low
water line to the foredune line. It is an area subject to harsh environ-
mental and physical changes. This zone is subject to wide temperature
and salinity fluctuations and wave action that causes cycles of erosion
and accretion. The upper beach zone is generally dry except during storms.
Storms can significantly modify the physical environment by eroding or
accreting the upper beach and altering the beach animal communities. Be-
cause of the extremes of the surface environment most of the permanent
residents of this zone are burrowers. The number of species and popula-
tion size is limited and the organisms generally have a clustered distri-
bution. They are accustomed to the harsh, changing environment and are
able to adjust to this in their daily lives. Resident species of this
zone usually emerge from their burrows only at night. Characteristic
species are ghost crabs, sand crabs, and beach hoppers. The low density
of animals in this zone is related to the extreme and variable conditions.
Of the three zones, this zone is the easiest to quantitatively sample.

Surf Zone. The surf zone is defined as the area of breaking waves; it
varies in location and size. Seasonal wave patterns, sediment movement,
and storms are the major physical forces that influence the distribution
and abundance of animals in this zone. Most of the benthic animals in
this zone are burrowers and good diggers; these are excellent characteris-
tics to maintain position in the bottom. Benthic animal populations are
generally small and have a clustered distribution. As an adaptation to
this unstable environment, intertidal benthic organisms tend to be short
lived and have a high rate of reproduction. Some of the animal may also
move onshore and offshore with seasonal sediment movement. Animal popula-
tions characteristic of this zone are also limited by lack of cover and
food supply. This is the most difficult and hazardous zone to quantita-
tively sample.

Offshore Zone. The offshore zone extends seaward of the surf zone. This
is physically a more stable environment where fish and benthic animal
populations are more stable and diverse. Typical animals include fishes,
clams, shrimps,-sand dollars, snails, crabs, and corals. This is the
area of greatest abundance of commercial and sport fish and shellfish, and
the zone most susceptible to physical perturbation. Animal populations
in this zone are more randomly distributed (less patchy) than in the inter-
tidal zone. Offshore organisms are generally less subject to impacts of
waves and natural sediment movement than those in the surf zone.

Beach and Nearshore Organisms

CERC's studies have evaluated the impacts of beach nourishment on
two major groups of animals: benthic and motile animals. Coral and sea
turtles are discussed as special cases since they present a specific
concern in Florida as well as in the Caribbean and the Pacific.

Benthos. Benthic animals live in or on the subaquatic bottom and are

distinguished as either meiofauna or macrofauna. Meiofauna are animals
that are small enough to pass through a sediment sieve with a mesh size
of 0.5 millimeter. They are generally found in the interstitial space
between sediment grains. These populations are numerous and diverse,
but generally comprise only a small part of the community biomass
(Parr, et al., 1978)2. Meiofauna of exposed sandy beaches appear to
be an isolated system within the sediments, and there is little evi-
dence of outside predation on their populations (Cox, 1976)3. These
microscopic animals are extremely difficult to separate, and decantation
and filtration are required to isolate them from the sediments. Even
after separation, the sorting and identification of the organisms are
extremely time consuming and difficult. Many of the meiofauna species
have not been described or named. Because of the uncertainty in identify-
ing some species and obtaining statistically reliable, quantitative data
on the meiofauna, CERC's evaluations have keyed principally on the macro-
fauna. Parr, et al. (1978)2 also noted that the meiofauna comprise
usually less than 5 percent of the community biomass and for this reason
are usually ignored in sampling programs.

Benthic macrofauna are the group of animals retained by a 0.5 milli-
meter mesh sieve. They are important to the beach and aquatic system
because they play an important role in the transfer of energy up the food
chain to higher organisms. Their importance is reflected by the high
predation rates on their populations by fishes, birds, and man (Cox,

Motile Animals. Some motile animals, such as fishes, crabs, lobsters,
and shrimps, are also adapted to survive in the intertidal and nearshore
environment. These animals are capable of moving onshore and offshore
under seasonal and stressed conditions. Because of this movement, it is
difficult to develop dependable, quantitative data on their populations
for beach nourishment impact analysis. The most valuable species for
evaluating impacts are residents such as burrowers and fish that live
closely associated with a specific type of beach and nearshore habitat.

Corals. The corals are very susceptible to sediment damage from man's
activities in the coastal zone. Reefs parallel to the Florida east
coast are composed of hard and soft corals that exhibit morphological
differences that influence their susceptibility to accumulations of
sediments. The hard corals are inflexible, with horizontal surfaces,
whereas the soft corals are nearly vertical, flexible and sway with the
currents and waves. The flexibility and growth habit of the soft
corals assure their success in areas of higher sediment load than the
hard corals can withstand. Corals that survive in the nearshore areas
are under a constant threat of sand movement and have adapted to minor
sediment loads. High turbidities can also affect algae that have a
symbiotic association with the corals (Courtenay, et al., 1974)4.
Reduction of light below an adequate level for photosynthesis by the
algae adversely affect the corals. Because many of the Florida corals

are at their extreme northern limit of range, care must be taken to
maintain their critical life balance (Courtenay, et al., 1972)5.
After corals are lost, a key community element is disrupted with major
consequences to the marine ecosystem and a potential loss of shore
protection in some coastal areas.

Sea Turtles. Many North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida
beaches are major nesting grounds for endangered species of sea turtles.
The turtles migrate to the beaches almost exclusively at night to deposit
their eggs in the sand and, after about two months, young turtles hatch
and migrate to the sea. This nesting activity occurs in the late spring
and summer during the period.of man's greatest activity along the coastal

Sampling the Beaches and Nearshore

Sampling Methods. There have been few quantitative studies on marine
communities along the high-energy coastal beaches, particularly in the
surf and swash areas. These beaches are difficult and hazardous to
sample; hence, there have been no standard, quantitative methods for study.
CERC's biologists have recently prepared a technical report in which is
developed a standardized system for sampling macroinvertebrates on high-
energy sand beaches (Hurme, et al., 1979)6. On the upper beach it is
suggested that samples be taken by excavating 0.1 square meter quadrats
with a trenching shovel and sieving the samples through an 0.5 millimeter
mesh soil sieve. In the dynamic surf zone, a coring device assures a
better sample than do other types of equipment. Offshore of the surf zone,
cores, grabs, and dredges may be used. Cores taken by a diver give the
best and most consistent samples.

When working in the surf zone, the investigator must use a lifeline
to stay on station. Range markers on the beach are also needed to aid
divers in the surf and offshore zones to keep on station. Samples are
generally collected along lines or transects perpendicular to the beach
and are stored in plastic bags, labeled, and preserved. The animals are
sorted from the sediments on the beach or in the laboratory. The animals
preserved are later identified and counted.

In clear water, diver observations and photos provide additional
valuable information to supplement core samples. Divers can observe and
count attached reef animals, burrowing and reef fish which tend to be
territorial, and other pelagic fish.

Sampling Plan. Sampling plans for a specific area depend upon the animals
to be used as impact indicators. They may be fixed or motile. Their
populations may vary seasonally and their distributions may be random or
clustered. These kinds of information are necessary to determine the
required sampling equipment, sampling frequency, number of samples, and


the number of stations needed. The length of a study will vary depending
upon the time required to determine base-line conditions prior to beach
nourishment and the time required for animal populations to stabilize
following nourishment.

Population Analysis. The level of reliability of population analysis
depend on the quantitative accuracy of the samples. Good quantitative data
collected before and after beach nourishment can be analyzed for changes
in species diversity, abundance, and biomass using valid statistical
approaches (Hurme, et al., 1979)6. Diver observations are less quantitative
than core samples, but provide indices that will give valuable aid in
interpreting biological changes that may not be readily detectable from
samples from cores or other collecting gear.

Effects of Beach Restoration

Physical Effects. There are three major ways that beach nourishment
physically impacts the beach environment. The deposited material covers
the existing beach sediments, modifies the beach interface, and frequently
increases the turbidity of the nearshore area (Fig. 2). Waves and currents
winnow sediments and suspended them in the water along the nourished beach
and increase the turbidity of the water. Parr, et al. (1978)2 observed
at Imperial Beach, California, that the fine sediments were rapidly
sorted out of deposited material and that sediment grain-size distribu-
tion after about 4 months was comparable to that before nourishment.
The fine sediments were transported offshore. Courtenay, et al. (in
preparation, 1979) also observed the movement of sediments that lodged
against and partly covered low profile coral reefs off the Florida
east coast. Regardless of origin, sediment movement and changes in
grain-size distribution may create changes in the benthic environment
that require marine organisms to adjust or perish. Turbidities result-
ing from beach nourishment generally create only a minor impact in the
surf and offshore zones, except in areas of environmentally sensitive
resources that easily smother or are dependent on light for photosynthesis.

Effects on Benthic Communities. The nearshore marine bottom communities
on most high-energy coastal beaches survive periodic changes related to
the natural erosion and accretion cycle and storms. However, offshore
communities are in a more stable environment and are less adaptable to
such perturbations. It is generally assumed that most bottom animals
perish from burial by sediments, but CERC studies indicate those organ-
isms in the nearshore environment are better able to survive than off-
shore populations because of their adaptation to unstable sediment con-
ditions. Some intertidal animals may be able to migrate up through the
deposited sediments and survive if the sediment layer is not too thick.
Maurer, et al. (1978)7 observed in a laboratory study that some benthic
animals were able to migrate vertically through over 30 centimeters of

Figure 2.

Beach Nourishment and Associated
Nearshore Turbidity

The immediate impact of beach nourishment on the nearshore benthic
community is to reduce species diversity and number of animals. However,
inshore populations appear to recover rapidly by migration of organisms
from adjacent unaffected areas and survival of some animals. Because of
the short life cycle of most nearshore benthic animals and their high
reproductive potential, colonization of the nourishment area may occur
within weeks of the nourishment operation. Recolonization occurs first
by opportunistic species that increase both the number of species and
individuals to levels generally above the original populations. These
species are poor competitors and are eventually displaced by community
dominant species (Oliver and Slattery, 1978)8. The newly re-established
community may differ considerably from the original community. This will
depend on many factors. Recolonization will depend on availability of
larvae, suitable conditions for settlement, and mortality. Many species
have specific life requirements that must be met before the larvae will
settle and juveniles develop. Therefore, an attempt should be made to
approximately match the sediment used for nourishment to the original sedi-
ment to help meet these requirements. Matching the sediments may in some
cases conflict with the project purposes and a trade-off between engin-
eering and ecological considerations may be necessary.

Effects on Motile Animals. Motile animals appear to be least affected
by beach nourishment as they are capable of moving out of the nourished
area; however, it is possible under some experimental conditions for
fish to suffer gill damage or blockage (O'Connor, et al., 1976)9. CERC's
studies have indicated no such impact on motile animals in nature.

Destruction of desirable habitat rather than suspension of sediments
seems to be the major danger to nearshore motile animals. Most of these
animals have the ability to migrate from an undesirable environment and
reappear when disposal ceases (Courtenay, et al., in preparation, 1979;
and O'Connor et al., 1976)9. Species which are closely associated with
the beach for some part of their life cycle, such as the grunion on the
west coast and some burrowing and reef species with limited power of
mobility, would be most likely affected by beach nourishment. In the case
of the grunion, Parr, et al. (1978)2 observed that beach nourishment did
not prevent subsequent spawning at Imperial Beach, California. However,
the dusky jawfish, a burrowing species with a limited power of mobility
and a requirement for a certain sand-grain size, was displaced by fine
sediments on the Florida east coast (Courtenay, et al., in preparation,

The loss of a food source by burial nearshore may have had some
effect on motile populations, but it was not detected in the present
research. Maragos, et al. (1977)0: observed that fish moved into an area
disturbed by dredging and actively fed on uncovered food organisms.

In general, there is little evidence of long-term adverse impacts of

beach nourishment on nearshore motile populations, unless sensitive
communities such as those associated with a coral reef are affected.

Effects on Corals. Corals are sensitive to covering by fine sediments.
The hard corals are more sensitive than soft corals because they are unable
to cleanse themselves of heavy sediment loads and are easily smothered.
As a result, soft corals are better adapted to survival in the nearshore
environment in areas subject to beach nourishment. Courtenay, et al.
(1972)5observed that some hard corals were damaged by excessive sediment
settlement following beach-nourishment at Hallandale Beach, Florida, but
7 years later Marsh, et al. (in preparation, 1979) found no evidence of
reef damage. It appears that if damage is relatively minor the reefs do

High turbidities resulting from prolonged beach nourishment and/or
mechanical degredation of nourishment material may indirectly affect
corals by reducing sunlight penetration into the water. The reduction
of light reduces photosynthesis of algae that is associated with the
coral and manufactures a part of its food. In CERC studies at Hallandale
Beach, Florida, no significant long-term impacts of turbidities resulting
from beach nourishment were detected.

Effects on Sea Turtles. Sea turtle nesting and beach nourishment
operations conflict in many coastal areas, particularly along the Florida
coast. Although CERC has not studied the sea turtle, the U.S. Army
Engineer District, Jacksonville, has worked with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the State of Florida and turtle experts to minimize
damage that might result from covering turtle nests with beach-fill
material. These agencies, and Corps personnel trained to recognize
turtle nests, survey project sites and locate nests. National Marine
Fishery Service and the State personnel transfer the turtle eggs to a
suitable beach site outside the beach area to be filled. The adverse
effects of beach nourishment on turtles may also be avoided by proper
timing of the operation so as not to conflict with turtle nesting during
the spring and summer.

Effects on Water and Sediment Quality. Problems with anoxic sediments
and nutrient release in the nearshore zone of a high-energy beach as a
result of beach nourishment do not appear to be a major concern because
the fine materials high in organic are moved offshore and sulfides are
rapidly oxidized. The material remaining on the beach is generally
similar in grain-size to that before nourishment. High-energy beaches
are usually composed of coarse material that allows oxygenated water to
penetrate, thus preventing the accumulation of sulfides and saturating
the sediment pore space with oxygen (Cox, 1976)3. Some nutrients may be
released into the water as a result of nourishing a beach, but because
of the dynamic mixing processes they are rapidly diluted. In CERC's
studies, no problems have been reported from anoxic sediment or excess

nutrients. To minimize potential problems, sediments used for nourish-
ment should closely match the composition of the natural beach sediments,
have a low percentage of fine material, and be low in organic content.

Effects of Offshore Borrowing

This is the area where CERC has the least amount of information.
However, using results of CERC's research and other studies of offshore
dredging, some preliminary conclusions can be drawn on the effects of
offshore borrowing.

Physical Effect. Dredging at borrow pits increases the suspended sediments
and turbidity of the offshore waters. Courtenay, et al., (1974)4 and
Maragos, et al., (1977)10 described sediments suspended during offshore
dredging as generally localized and rapidly dissipating when dredging
ceased. Factors that will control sediment spread and turbidities are
water currents and water depth.

Another possible adverse effect associated with offshore dredging is
the change in bottom topography by creating deep borrow areas. Fine
sediments may settle in the borrow pit and further change the composition
of the bottom. Many species of marine animals are found closely associated
with specific sediment types and may be excluded by changes in the sedi-
ment interface. This can sometimes be prevented by shallow dredging to
minimize topographic changes or by selecting borrow sites in unstable
areas that are under the influence of strong currents (Thompson, 1973)11.
In unstable areas, benthic populations are generally low and more adaptable
to change. The borrow areas are also more likely to fill and return to
near predredging conditions under the influence of strong currents if
there is adequate transport of sediment.

Biological Effects on Animals. The most serious impact of offshore
dredging can be the loss of major commercial species of benthic shellfish
or damage to coral reefs. These damages can be minimized by proper
selection of borrow areas and by precisely locating dredging equipment to
avoid these resources. Repopulation of the dredged areas by benthic
animals will depend on the magnitude of the disturbance, the new sediment
water interface, and water quality at the borrow site. The borrow areas
will likely be recolonized by migration of organisms from adjacent areas;
however, the population may not be of the same magnitude or species
diversity as formerly. Stability and bottom geology of the site are major
factors in determining species recolonization.

Observations on dredging impacts on offshore fish populations indicate
little effect on fish (Courtenay, et al., in preparation, 1979; and
Maragos, et al., 1977)10 Prior studies also indicate fish and other motile
animals are able to avoid disturbed areas, and, in some instances where
food is suspended and the bottom topography is changed, some fish are

attracted to the dredged area.

Water and Sediment Quality Effects. Changes in water and sediment
quality at offshore borrow pits have not been identified as problems in
the projects CERC has studied. However, water and sediment quality pro-
blems may occur if not considered in early project planning. Where
possible, deep borrow pits in stable areas should be avoided to prevent
possible stagnation of the bottom water in the pit. Depth of the pits
should be determined by currents and mixing processes to prevent their
stagnation. Shallow borrow pits in areas of low currents and slow
mixing would generally be more desirable. Also shallower pits would be
less likely to cause major sediment changes that could adversely effect
resident bottom animals. Nutrient release apparently is not a problem
offshore because of current action and dilution after dredging ceases.


1. Turbidity related to beach nourishment and offshore dredging is usually
localized and dissipates when dredging ceases, unless there is a mechanical
breakdown of some of the deposited material that causes long-term leaching
from the beach.

2. Fine sediments are sorted out of the nourishment material and are rapidly
transported offshore.

3. Burial of offshore benthic organisms by fine material transported off-
shore has a greater potential for adverse impact than burial of intertidal
organisms during beach nourishment because subtidal animals are more sensi-
tive to stress.

4. Nearshore benthic animals appear to rapidly recover following nourish-
ment by repopulating from adjacent unaffected areas and survival of some

5. Motile animals are least impacted by nourishment as they are able to
move from the nourishment area and reappear when disposal ceases.

6. Corals are especially sensitive to smothering with sediments and high
turbidities and should be given special consideration in planning beach
nourishment projects.

7. Sea turtle nests may be covered by beach nourishment material, but
the impact can be minimized by trained people transferring the eggs to
suitable undisturbed beaches or by timing the nourishment to avoid the
nesting period.

8. Biological impacts of beach nourishment can be minimized by
selecting nourishment material that closely matches the composition
of the natural sediments of the beach to be nourished, and deposit-
ing the material as near the intertidal zone as possible to ensure
the least harm to the more stable offshore benthic populations.

9. Dredging of offshore borrow material from shifting rather than
stable bottom areas is more ecologically desirable.

10. Selection of borrow areas in deep water minimizes turbidities
and sedimentation caused by currents and wave winnowing and allows
the suspended sediments to settle in the area of dredging activity.

11. Water quality changes related to beach nourishment are generally
minor and of short durations in the nearshore environment because of
the currents and mixing processes.


This paper resulted from research and a literature review conducted
by the Coastal Engineering Research Center under the Civil Works research
and development program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
The findings of this paper are not to be construed as official Department
of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.
Permission to publish is appreciated.

Two unpublished CERC contract reports "Ecological Monitoring of Beach
Erosion Control Projects, Broward County, Florida" by Courtenay, Hartig
and Loisel and "Benthic Invertebrate Fauna Adjacent to a Restored Beach
in Broward County, Florida" by Marsh, Courtenay, Bowen, Deis and Turbeville
completed this summer were referenced in this paper. These reports are
presently in preparation (1979).


1. QUINN, MARY-LOUISE, "The History of the Beach Erosion Board, U.S. Army,
Corps of Engineers, 1930-63," MR 77-9, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers,
Coastal Engineering Research Center, Ft. Belvoir, Va., Aug. 1977,
181 p.

Replenishment on the Nearshore Sand Fauna at Imperial Beach, Cali-
fornia," MR 78-4, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering
Research Center, Ft. Belvoir, Va., Dec. 1978, 125 p.

3. COX, JAMES L., "Sampling Variation in Sandy Beach Littoral and Near-
shore Meiofauna and Macrofauna," TP 76-14, U.S. Army, Corps of
Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Ft. Belvoir, Va.,
Sept. 1976, 72 p.

AZZINARO, and JACQUES VAN MONTFRANS, "Ecological Monitoring of
Beach Erosion Control Projects, Broward County, Florida and
Adjacent Areas," TM-41, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Ft. Belvoir, Va., Feb. 1974, 88 p.

AZZINARO and JACQUES VAN MONTFRANS, "Ecological Monitoring of Two
Beach Nourishment Projects in Broward County, Florida," Shore and
Beach, Vol. 40, No. 2, 1972, pp. 8-13.

Macroinvertebrates on High Energy Sand Beaches," CETA 79-3, U.S.
Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Ft.
Belvoir, Va., Sept. 1979, 36 p.

M. HUNTZINGER, C. LORD, and T.M. CHURCH, "Vertical Migration of
Benthos in Simulated Dredged Material Overburdens, Vol. 1:
Marine Benthos," TR D-78-35, the University of Delaware, College
of Marine Studies, Lewes, Delaware, under contract to the U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, MS.,
June 1978, 97 p.

8. OLIVER, JOHN S. and PETER N. SLATTERY, "Effects of Dredging and
Disposal on some Benthos at Monteray Bay, California," TP 76-15,
U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research
Center, Ft. Belvoir, Va., Oct. 1976, 81 p.

9. O'CONNOR, J.M., D.A. NEUMANN, and J.A. SHERK, JR., "Lethel Effects
of Suspended Sediments on Estuarine Fish," TP 76-20, U.S. Army,

Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Ft.
Belvoir, Va., Dec. 1976, 38 p.

"Environmental Surveys Before, During, and After Offshore
Marine Sand Mining Operations at Keauhou Bay, Hawaii," Sea
Grant College Program, University of Hawaii, Working Paper No.
28, Dec. 1977, 65 p.

11. THOMPSON, JOHN R., "Ecological Effects of Offshore Dredging and
Beach Nourishment: A Review," MP 1-73, U.S. Army, Corps of
Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Ft. Belvoir,
Va., Jan. 1973, 39 p.


Aaron W. Hendry
Vice President
The Hendry Corporation
P.O. Box 13228
Tampa, Florida 33681


I sincerely appreciate being afforded the opportunity to share with

the group the dredge man's viewpoints concerning beach nourishment projects,

and would like to compliment the Shore and Beach Preservation Association for

the excellent job they do in organizing and programming these annual get-

togethers. I will always remember the first meeting that I attended over at

the Tides Hotel on Reddington Beach in 1969 when beach nourishment was just

coming into vogue. Some of the attendees there were Joe Koperski, the now

retired Chief of the Engineering Branch of the Jacksonville District of the

Corps of Engineers; Douglas Carter, who was then the Pinellas County Engineer

who pioneered beach enrichment work on the West Coast of Florida; and Kenneth

Thompson, the City Manager at Sarasota who was instrumental in getting the Lido

Beach restoration work programmed. Coincidentally, at that time my firm was

then engaged in the restoration of the Treasure Island and Indian Rocks Beaches

which was the first Corps of Engineer administered project performed in Florida

as beach nourishment, per se. The Corps did an excellent job in preparing the

engineering documents for that project. They had to write a new set of special

technical specifications to cover beach nourishment work. A major portion of

the present day beach nourishment contract specifications stemmed from these,

When I was researching this paper, I went into our archives and found the old

job specifications. The bid itself was extremely complex, wherein there were

some four bid schedules containing a total of twenty separate bid items. We

found out later that the primary reason for this was that Pinellas County and

the Corps were working jointly on a set budget and did not have any accurate

forecast yet on what the contract cost might be. Colonel John Mcllhaney was

the District Engineer in Jacksonville at this time.

There had been a recent storm in this reach of the Gulf Beaches which

had eroded the beach so badly that beach-front structures were being threatened

from Blind Pass to John's Pass and also along the Indian Rocks Reach. One of

the basic problems encountered in designing the project was that the Indian

Rocks area was obviously named appropriately in that the entire gulf bottom off-

shore reach, abeam of Indian Rocks Beach is rock bound, with virtually no sand

cover. The Intercoastal Waterway borrow area, like a number of the gold mines

of the 1800's, did not "pan out". We commenced dredging in the Intercoastal

Waterway just South of the Narrows Reach and soon discovered that only silt,

clay and rock materials prevailed in the selected borrow area. However, the

West Coast Inland Navigation District was nice enough to furnish us one of their

existing Intercoastal Waterway spoil islands in Boca Ceiga Bay, from which we

obtained a good grade, "used" sand and crushed shell. We pumped approximately

17,000 feet maximum distance, and the spoil island was depleted the same day

the fill was completed. The basic project problems encountered there have not

changed. These obstacles were, and still are: weather unknowns (the winds and

the waves), finding a good grade of beach sand, pumping on long pipelines, and

achieving the desired design cross sectional shape of the beach fill. Initially,

it was found very difficult to arrive at the proper and equitable method of

measuring and paying for the beach material. This first job was set up to

measure the material in the borrow pit rather than on the fill, which meant

that the contractor would not be responsible for hydraulic transport, subsidence,

and shrinkage loss contingencies.

Since its advent in the mid sixties, the decade of the 70's has

proven to be the time frame of the maturing of the environmental movement, and

has had a pronounced effect on the dredging industry. What is now accepted,

understood and appreciated going into the 80's was virtually unknown in the

60's, became a sometimes brutal reality to us dredgers in the early 70's, and

then began to slowly mature and in the instance of beach nourishment, was con-

summated in the formation of a workable coalition between the environmental

interests, the regulatory agencies and the dredging industry. The phraseology

JTU's, which stands for Jackson Turbidity Units and is a measure of turbidity

(degree of cloudiness) was first measured as scaled from the degree of light

penetration from a wax candle lit at the bottom of a beaker when viewing the

flame of the candle from the top of the beaker. A few years later, mechanical

measuring devices were put on the market, such as the Hach Turbidimeter which

greatly increased the ease of making these tests.

Turbidity levels are now closely controlled as a routine procedure

in the industry today, utilizing a complex system of dikes and weirs in confined

containment areas. On beach fills, it has been demonstrated that only moderate

and localized temporary turbidity levels occur. The silt curtain device has

been used periodically on several beach projects, but the results have steered

us away from its usage.

In the late 60's the Florida Department of Transportation, then known

as the State Road Department, developed the silt barrier. They had been doing

a number of causeway road fill projects across the shallow bays and estuaries

of the State and were constructing a causeway known as the Pineda Causeway, on

a contract in the Indian River at Melbourne. Criticism of the turbidity

caused by this dredging prompted the Road Department to develop and place the

first "diaper" around the turbidity plume, which development has now come into

its own as today's silt barrier. It was at least showing signs that the

builders were beginning to respond to the environmental interests in making

a consciencious effort to minimize turbidity.

The State later declared a moratorium on dredge fills under the

administration of Governor Claude Kirk. The effect of this was profound and

traumatic for the dredging industry in Florida, wherein nearly one-third of the

viable markets were abruptly lost. In a short period of time, as a further

example, the State increased the charges to the owner for the submerged land

borrow from as little as 3 a cubic yard obtained up to $1.25 or more, just for

the fill material itself, thereby rendering the process economically unfeasable.

Trucked-in fills began to replace dredging methods.

Along about this time, beach nourishment came into its own in Florida.

It soon became clearly evident that the dredge was the ideal tool to use in

nourishing our beaches. It was immediately demonstrated that our eroding beaches

could be periodically nourished and maintained. Some of the as built examples

of beach projects, such as Lido Beach, Mullet Key, Treasure Island, Longboat Key,

Canaveral and Jacksonville will defy one's discerning whether or not the beach

was artificially placed.

In the summer of 1978, the Corps of Engineers and the State of Florida

sponsored a joint seminar at Miami Beach which I attended. The mix of some 400

or more attendees consisted of the entire spectrum of interests concerning

dredging and filling, such as environmentalists, regulatory agency officials,

engineers, scientists, and developers. It was clearly in evidence from my

conversations and observations at the seminar that most people now affiliated,

pro and con, with dredging and filling now understand and appreciate each

other's interests and know each other's strengths and weaknesses. A colleague

of mine who represented the industry at the seminar alluded during his talk to

the fact that the industry had indeed risen to the challenge of building beaches.

I remember back in the late 60's there was a great deal of skepticism amongst

beach nourishment sponsors and engineers that the industry did not possess ade-

quate tools for performing beach work. The question was unanswered as to what

the response of the industry would be to this new market. The entrepreneurial

abilities of the dredgers were indeed challenged. In the 70's there ensued

several recent improvements and special adaptations of dredging equipment to

render then suitable to beach work. Some of the most notable ones were the

"Hydro-Barge", which is a molded seagoing all-weather and self-propelled vessel

akin to the hopper dredge, which is also known as a pump-out dredge. In connec-

tion with the Tampa Harbor Deepening, this dredge removed millions of yards from

the fairway deepening and placed it through hydraulic pipelines on Egmont Key.

A ship's hull was converted to a conventional dredge, has been used on the East

Coast of Florida. Many dredging plants have added the submerged ladder pump

adaptation, which acts as a dual purpose booster unit for deep dredging. I

noticed quite recently in the World Dredging magazine pictures of a giant off-

shore platform type dredging rig which the Dutch have recently developed.

However, one of the first special offshore dredges was literally a

submarine. It was developed as an experimental rig in the late 60's and was very

innovative, even though it did not prove to be economically successful. It con-

sisted of a cylindrical, watertight body mounted on a set of crawler tracks,

complete with an electrically powered dredge pump and ladder structure hinged

on the front end. A vertical access way and periscope arrangement were fitted

on the top of the tube. I had occasion one day at Fort Pierce to watch the

crew shift change. The men were wearing scuba diving "wet suits", and were

geared up to make any hasty underwater machinery repairs needed.

There are a special set of problems which plague the dredging con-

tractor on beach nourishment. I believe the most pressing problem is that of

the weather (the wind and the waves). As an example, I remember when our firm

was constructing the Longboat Key and Pass Causeway and Bridge Project in 1955.

We had completed about one-half of the causeway when a hurricane struck the

West Coast of Florida over the weekend. The effects of the storm were devasta-

ting on the work in process. The fill itself was almost wholly obliterated and

we had to start over again. The pipeline which conveys the material ashore in

the hydraulic transport process is the most tender part of the plant and there-

fore the most susceptible to heavy seas. For this reason, the dredgers have

developed special all-weather pipelines to combat these natural forces effectively.

The obtaining of sufficient quantities of a high quality, clean beach

sand with the desirable shell content is problematic. For instance, at Treasure

Island the hydraulic transport losses were shocking. Through measurements taken

both in the borrow pit and on the fill, it was determined that nearly double

the quantity of material was removed from the borrow pit as was found within the

design template fill section on the beach. The lower East Coast of Florida

contains numerous parallel offshore reef formations known as the first reef,

second reef, third reef, etc. These reefs are coral rock formations and most of

the desirable beach sand is found only in valleys between these reefs.

Virtually no sand is available inside of the first reef. Consequently, the

dredging contractor finds that the existing depth of water in the borrow area

is some fifty to sixty feet deep and two or more miles offshore. Therefore,

we are forced to pump distances of several miles and dredge to depths sometimes

in excess of 100 feet to obtain sufficient material. Additionally, in some

places scattered rock outcroppings are found lurking in the sand formation

which makes it extremely awkward to obtain a sand beach fill which contains no

rock fragments. Let's face it, high grade beach sand can be hard to find, and

in a native bank of soil, contains some impurities and lenses of silts and clays.

One of the mitigating aspects of the hydraulic dredging process is

that a nominal amount of less desirable material, when blended with a matrix of

high quality beach sand, will undergo a thorough process of washing and cleansing,

with the result that the end product fill placed on the beach is as clean as it

would be after being run through a Maytag washing machine. Additionally,

hydraulically placed beach sands are thoroughly compacted in the runoff process.

A number of beach fill projects have been constructed using borrow areas which

contained a large percentage of clays and/or rock, such as the Tampa Municipal

Beach fill in Old Tampa Bay, and at Honeymoon Island Beach above Clearwater.

In both instances, the projects were designed to initially place "run of bank"

mixtures of sand, clay, and rock to form a stable sub-grade section and then to

place a two foot thick layer of high quality select beach sand topping over the

sub-grade for the surface.

Another special problem in constructing a beach fill is controlling

the geometric cross section of the fill to meet the engineering requirements.

Unfortunately, natural underwater slopes can vary from as steep as five to one

(horizontal to vertical) due to the high percentage of shell content up to as

flat as twenty to one, depending on the local characteristics of the material

being placed. This variation makes it extremely difficult for the contractor

to construct the actual slope of the beach being placed to conform to the de-

sign section. We ended up one time using an underwater bulldozer blade rigged

on a barge mounted crane to grade the underwater portion of the slope in order

to conform to the design section. Also, the natural slope of the material will

generally be found considerably steeper below the water level than the slopes

achieved above the water level due to the presence or absence of the water

pressure against the material. This phenomenon will produce a beach with the

appearance of a scalloped shoreline which delineates the resultant narrower

portions placed at high tides as compared to the wider portions placed on low

tides. The dredger has to shut down during very low tides at times, and may

construct training levees to contain the slope within the design section limits.

The slope of the fill, especially in the wave zone, has a tendency to flatten

as it weathers, and form shell windows with a natural appearance. The design

criteria on the Treasure Island Beach was to make every effort to place the

construction slope somewhat steeper than the ultimate design slope so as to

allow the natural weathering and flattening process to occur without detracting

too much from the design width of the berm.

Many of us are aware of the extreme turbulence that exists around our

natural inlets, such as in evidence at the John's Pass Bar and the Big Sarasota

Bar. This is the primary reason that channels through inlets must be jettied

to maintain depth and abate shoaling. The shifting sands that we have seen the

tides and wave action move around through inlets can do the same thing to beach

fills while under construction. It has been determined that the larger

dredges which produce considerably more volume of fill a day have much less

trouble maintaining completed reaches than smaller machines.

Another problem sometimes encountered in producing a uniformly

graded texture of beach fill is the segregation of the coarser grained sands

and shell deposits closer to the discharge point, and the resultant runoff of

the finer grained materials down the slopes. The hydraulic transport of sands

can sometime defy the engineering laws of hydraulics. Theoretically, the flow

of water in a pipeline is treated as an incompressible fluid under flow. The

addition of solids to the water, however, sometimes causes the fluid to act as

a variable density slurry, quite susceptible to localized density variations

within the length of a closed pipeline system. The Indian Rocks Beach Fill

project was a good example of maintaining a uniform material structure on the

beach using a combination of heavy shell and a matrix of fine silty sand.

The Coast Guard is now strictly enforcing the dredging equipment

certification requirements for working offshore. A few years ago the lines of

demarcation between international waters and inland waters were moved shoreward

from the sea buoy to the shoreline, thus placing dredges working on beach fill

work offshore of the beach in the category of international waters under Coast

Guard regulations. I have been told that there are currently only a half

dozen or so dredges in the United States which have a Coast Guard certification.

The National Dredging Association is now endeavoring to have the stringent

requirements relaxed.

The public has shown a pronounced curiosity for exploring around the

end of the discharge on a beach fill, especially when there is a large percentage

of shell content being deposited. I have personally observed groups of a hundred

or so people gathered around the pipeline discharge area, amidst bulldozers and

other dangerous heavy equipment. At times, they seem almost oblivious to being

in the middle of a heavy construction area. The Corps has recently been requiring

their contractors to close off the beach through fencing and signs and employ

policing of the area for safety purposes. Down at Longboat Beach a couple of

years ago, we ended up hiring almost the entire off duty Bradenton Beach Police

Department to keep the spectators and shell collectors away from the fill area,

especially after the job superintendent banished the Editor of the Bradenton

Beach newspaper and his wife from the site of the work one Sunday afternoon.

In conclusion, let me state that the industry stands ready and willing

to respond to the demands of the market and the continued success of the beach

nourishment projects on Florida's beaches, and will continue to respond to the

challenges of this market. I wish the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation

Association continued success in your endeavors.


Samuel Walter McCandless, Jr.
User Systems Engineering
4608 Willet Drive
Annandale, VA, 22003


SEASAT sparked to life on the twenty sixth of June
1978 providing heretofore unavailable coverage of the
worlds oceans. For the first time a space platform used
an array of active and passive microwave sensors which
could penetrate weather and cloud layers and were imper-
vious to day/night conditions. As a brand new star in
our technological galaxy, SEASAT uniquely mapped the
global oceans every 36 hours until a tragic power failure
caused its untimely death barely more than 100 days
after its birth. What survived was a collection of in-
credible radar images of surface conditions; a contin-
uous synoptic view of global surface wind and temperature
measurements; important topographic data ranging from the
essentially stable geoid to the varying behavior of cur-
rents, tides and daily sea state surface roughness con-
ditions; and more importantly the unquenched interest of
thousands of users that had been preparing for over
five years for SEASAT. The early data that poured forth
from SEASAT fanned the already eager interest of domestic
and international scientists and industrial users. What
remains is a rare and valuable data set that proves that
such a system will work, balanced with an unfullfilled
need to apply these technologies for the public good in
future open ocean, coastal and polar regions.


The nations users were the architects of the SEASAT
program. Beginning as early as 1969, during a con-
ference at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts,
the needs and requirements for a global "Proof of Concept"
remote sensing system were established by the users.

Not since 1872 when scientists set out on a four
year voyage to explore the worlds oceans on the HMS
Challenger had scientists banded together to sponsor an
oceanographic mission with such singleminded purpose.
Challenger was, in a way, a voyage to prove that scientists
could study the ocean from ships; SEASAT was also a
"Proof-of-Concept Mission" to see if microwave sensors
in space could provide clear, accurate, understandable
information of direct use to a variety of oceanographic
and meteorologic disciplines and to users of the oceans
as well.

Program ascendance took nearly six years before SEASAT
was ready to stand on its own as an approved program in

1975, and 30 months later the system was ready to begin
its mission. Condenced in this one statement were years
of hard work and painstaking commitment by a large group
of users with wide and diverse interests and needs.
Meeting several times a year, first as a non-affiliated
User Working Group, later as a NASA sponsored advisory
group and finally on their own again during the last year
after the advisory group was disbanded by NASA, the users
created, defined and protected the program. Many times
a meeting would draw more than a hundred participants
representing government institutional and industrial
interests, and when the program encountered difficulty
during House appropriations sub-committee hearings in
1975 these users addressed the issue with direct appeals
to the Congress and the program was re-established
by the Senate and emerged victorious from a House/Senate
conference. Why were so many users with different af-
filiations and seemingly diverse interests so devoted to
the concept of SEASAT?

In the decade preceding SEASAT, Satellite remote
sensing of physical phenomena had been advanced by re-
search and development programs in the fields of meteor-
ology and land observations with emphasis on visable and
infrared remote sensing technologies. With the exception
of surface and cloud cover images and infrared derived
surface temperatures, little use had been made of remote
sensing techniques to obtain oceans data. Suddenly,
modest aircraft and skylab experiments with active micro-
wave sensors radars and passive microwave sensors -
radiometers, and the highly successful GEOS-3 application
of a radar altimeter presented a technology that would be
capable of collecting synoptic surface observations in
spite of cloud cover and lighting conditions. In addition
to focusing on a technology that opened new frontiers for
many users of ocean data, the objectives of the SEASAT
program indicated an awareness of the needs of more than
a narrow corridor of potential users.


1. To demonstrate the capability for:

a. Global monitoring of wave height and directional
spectra, surface winds, ocean temperature and
current patterns.

b. Measuring precise Sea-Surface topography.

c. Detecting currents, tides, and storm surges.

d. Charting ice fields and navigable leads through ice.

e. Mapping the global ocean GEOID.

2. To provide for user applications such data as:

a. Predictions of wave height, directional wave
spectra and wind fields for ship routing, ship
design, storm-damage avoidance, coastal disaster
warning, coastal protection and development, and
deep water port development.

b. Maps of current patterns and temperatures for ship
routing, fishing, pollution dispersion and ice-
berg hazard avoidance.

c. Charts of ice fields and leads for navigation and
weather prediction.

d. Charts of the ocean GEOID fine structure.

3. To determine the key features desired in future
operational systems for:

a. Global sampling

b. Near real-time data processing and dissemination.

c. User feedback for operational programming.

4. To demonstrate the economic and social benefits of
user agency products.

Users from government agencies such as the Depart-
ments of Commerce, Defense, Interior, and Transportation
were joined by users from the National Science Foundation,
National Academy of Science and universities and scientific
institutions such as Scripps Institute and Woods Hole and
from the private sector users representing shipping, oil,
gas, fishing, mining, and other areas of marine commerce.
They began to plan and develop programs to transfer and
assimilate SEASAT data into the environs of their special
interests and in most cases they were willing to devote
not just time but investment to the cause. The system
fueled by this interest began to take shape.

SEASAT was more than just a satellite. Although
the space system was largely the result of NASA managed
efforts, the ground system was concieved and participated
in by many users as shown in Fig. 1. SEASAT was an
"End to End" system coupling a unique microwave space based
observing system with the needs of a variety of users via
both new and in place ground systems. The global extent
of ocean measurements proved to be an alluring prospect
for both real time users, such as weather and sea condition
forecasters whose past included extrapolating sparce data
sets into regions where data was simply unavailable due
to lack of observing ships or buoys, and non-real time data
users such as scientists wishing to study the behavior
of current systems like our Gulf Stream. The high utility
assimilation of data was the first goal of the program
after the "Proof of Concept" phase of the program was com-
pleted. So beginning during the early phases of program
planning both non real time users, such as government,
university and institutional scientists; and real time
users, such as the nations weather forecasters and in-
dustrial interests engaged in commerce in or on the worlds
oceans, were served by the system. In fact, SEASAT
became an International program with large installations
and investments in Canada and Europe and around the world
interest in the promise of previously unavailable data
products. What triggered this ground preparedness?

A satellite with an interesting appearance compared
to our expected view of what a satellite should look like
based on earlier payloads using visable and infrared
sensors with relatively small earth viewing apertures.
A large 12 meter by 2 meter radar antenna dominated the
profile of the satellite as shown in Fig. 2. This domin-
ating feature was the business end of the Synthetic Aperture
Radar; the most untried but heralded member of a royal
family of sensors housed in the SEASAT satellite. If this
radar worked it would be capable of producing 25 meter by
10 meter images of surface conditions with picture-like
clarity, no matter what the weather or lighting conditions.
As pioneering efforts go it worked better than anyone
expected, producing over 15,000 frames of 100 Kilometer
by 100 Kilometer data of ocean, coastal, arctic, and geo-
logical data during SEASATS lifetime.

The rest of the sensors were just as successful.
All of these new microwave sensors were nested in separate
modular sections of a sensor module. The sensor module was
mated to a satellite bus which in addition to providing








t L
*. .,


O MU' iCAT' S '


I, '. ,. .

V ..', L-, -' ,'S

""' 1 ",'" l1 .'. :
,'* ...

*, ..' ,v' ,7 .7 *-" i *
,'' , ,' "'. J : ", ., *, '.. -'

7- 7' .

s,. ... ,V --"

7 ',


.. .4 itS.' .,"*.V RT...- TR '".

-A ... .'

'; .. -,'. -
.. AI D- 1 "' .. 1 4, '

r s... ", LINK .ANTE NA ', 1
4". '..,'

7 4 ft .~7*I ,
j7 .
.7 4 7


I .
~. ..

777 ':i iu:..'~;'
74,7' 77







j 4,:;)

U\ :"~

I -

i i)

power, attitude stability, orbit control and adjustment,
data processing, storage and transfer to ground stations;
helped propel the satellite to its 800 Kilometer circular
orbit with 1080 inclination.

As specific requirements evolved within the using
community, candidate remote sensing instruments were eval-
uated jointly by the users and NASA for SEASAT-A appli-
cations. A set of three active radars and two passive
radiometers were ultimately selected. The active sensors
included a pulse-compressed radar altimeter, a microwave
radar scatterometer and the aforementioned synthetic
aperture imaging radar. Passive sensors consisted of
a scanning multifrequency microwave radiometer and a
visible/infrared scanning radiometer.

The SEASAT Radar Altimeter served two functions. It
monitored average wave height to within 0.5 to 1 meter.
It also measured, to a precision of tens of centimeters,
the changes in the ocean GEOID and topography due to
gravity variations and ocean tides, surges, and currents.
It covered an area of a few Kilometers directly below

As surface winds increase, so does fine scale sur-
face roughness; the Radar Scatterometer measured this
feature which can be converted directly into wind speed
and direction. The scatterometer measured wind speeds
from 6 to 50 knots with 4 knot accuracy, and direction
within 20 degrees over two 500 Km swaths on either side of
the spacecraft ground track.

The SEASAT Multifrequency Microwave Radiometer served
four functions; it measured surface temperature with a
precision of 1 Deg. C; it measured foam brightness which
can in turn be converted into a measurement of high (up
to 100 knot) wind speed; it mapped ice coverage and extent;
it provided atmospheric correction data to the active
radars by measuring liquid and gaseous water content in
the upper atmosphere. The surface swath of the micro-
wave radiometer was 600 Km.

The SEASAT Visible and Infrared Radiometer provided
clear weather surface temperature data, cloud coverage
patterns, and corroborative images of ocean and coastal
features with a resolution of 5 Km over a swath of 1500 Km.

These four sensors, known as the global sensors,
were collecting data 100% of the time, monitoring the
oceans and adjacent coastal waters globally, and were
left on as well as over ground areas providing data of
selective interest. Their data was recorded on mag-
netic tape recorders onboard SEASAT and played back
while the satellite was over one of the ground stations
supporting SEASAT.

Virtually complete global coverage was achieved by
the scatterometer, the microwave radiometer, and the
visible and infrared radiometer every 36 hours. The fifth
sensor, the synthetic aperture radar, provided all-
weather imagery of ocean waves, ice fields, icebergs,
ice leads, and coastal conditions and dynamic wave pro-
cesses to a resolution of 25 m over a 100 Km swath.
Because of the very high data rate of the radar imagery,
(110 megabits per second) this sensor with its own
separate data system, was operated in real time while
within line of sight of specific tracking stations equip-
ped to receive and record its data at Fairbanks Alaska,
Goldstone California, Cape Kennedy Florida, St. Johns
Newfoundland,and London England.

Imagine, if you will, the uncertainty about the
quality and kind of data that the synthetic aperture radar,
a first time in space sensor, would produce, and then
waiting anxiously for the first data collection in the
Atlantic on a propitous day the Fourth of July 1978 and
hours later being able to see a rough but spectacular view
of the coast of the Baja Penninsula shown in Fig. 3.

Important coastal zone, open ocean, land and ice
information was collected during the 100 day mission.

The exciting prospect of being able to measure the
speed and direction of ocean surface winds completely over
the globe every 36 hours prompted weather and ocean con-
dition forecasting groups and commercial marine interests
to establish elaborate data recovery and transfer networks
so that they would receive the data in near real time.
The Navy's Fleet Numerical Weather Central served as the
focal point for this activity. The coverage provided
by the sensor was extensive for an active radar, measuring
the capillary roughness of stress at the surface of the
ocean and empirically relating this quantity to surface
layer wind speed. A key feature of the sensor, one tried
for the first time in space, was the dual measurements

made of the same surface area with radar aspect angles
that vary by 90 degrees. This technique permitted direc-
tional measurement of the wind as radar cross section is
known to vary as a function of the wind/radar vector
angle. Resolving the specific direction requires some
processing magic, and techniques to do this job are still
in work.

The passive microwave sensor on SEASAT also provides
a nondirectional wind speed measurement and fills in the
global wind picture in speed ranges that exceed the
scatterometers capability. Data taken in a hurricane -
Hurricane FICO during SEASATS lifetime demonstrated this
attribute of this broad application sensor. The unique
contribution of this sensor was the wide range of microwave
frequencies combined in a single feed system and scanning
antenna design supporting all weather measurements of sea
surface temperature, sea ice extent and age, and con-
tributing atmospheric measurements of water vapor and
liquid water content. The atmospheric measurements are
important in their own right but also aid in the cali-
bration and use of both altimeter and scatterometer data.

Many think that the radar altimeter was the most
sophisticated instrument on SEASAT. Its 3n sec Pulse
Width was its most publicized feature, because its 10cm
altimetric accuracy is expected to usher in a new era
in geodetic and precise topographic measurements. However,
another aspect of performance, tracking response and sta-
bility, was major in its contribution to improved systems
applications. This sensor captured the intense interest
of geodesist and physical oceanographer alike and elaborately
constructed conversion algorithms were developed and are
even now processing data so that scientists can refine
and further study the shape of the earth or watch the
synoptic state of the ocean as it was monitored orbit by


The SEASAT economic assessment, completed in 1975,
identified potential benefits from the use of SEASAT
type data operationally in areas such as coast and harbor
commerce, and offshore oil and natural gas exploration and
development. These benefits are shown in Table 1. In
addition, it was concluded that very large potential
benefits from the use of SEASAT data could be possible
in an area of operations that is now in the planning or







,." 150I 120 90* 60* 30* 0"

30S 60, 90* 120* 150O 180-









w -





S I I I I i I

- -- -,- 4 ~ ~4~ -



0.'41I I 4- --.--4*---4--- --4----,---.- -.4-.- ------ -4---+ -4i- -a ----- ------ --- --4- I- -4--------------- -4 --4 \ V \ -4---1----4- ---- i __.


_ .





190, 210* 240 7 30 60 120* 150* 180*
i 180" 210" 240 270" 300= 330 0 30* 60" 90" 120" 150" 180e


- '~~" ~'"" "' '' '

" "'

- --- -- -----

. I I

- % I I


. I



conceptual stage, namely, the transportation of oil,
natural gas and other resources by surface ship in arctic
regions. A further area of large potential benefits
that was identified stems from the use of SEASAT data
in support of ocean fishing operations. For the purpose
of the economic assessment, an operational SEASAT system
was considered to begin in 1985, after a SEASAT-A Proof
of Concept in 1978 and a SEASAT-B operational demonstration
in 1981. The economic benefits shown in the table begin
in 1985 and are accrued in the period from 1985 and are
accrued in the period from 1985 through 2000. The range
of benefits estimated reflected present uncertainties in
the future developments of the areas studied, as well as
uncertainties in the expected performance of an operational
SEASAT system. All benefits were stated in 1975 dollars
at a 10 percent rate of discount, referenced to 1975.

The benefit estimates made in the SEASAT economic
assessment were largely based upon empirical evidence,
and best estimates of the expected impact of operational
SEASAT data on operations in the areas of maritime activity
which were considered in the assessment. The launch of
SEASAT-A in 1978 provided the first opportunity to obtain
experimental evidence of the effects of SEASAT data on
the economic performance of selected areas of maritime
activity through the use of SEASAT-A data in a series of
carefully designed experiments. The purpose of using
SEASAT-A to begin the process of using synoptic ocean
data for the public good was:

1. To provide data to aid in defining operational char-
acteristics of future ocean monitoring systems.

2. To begin the technology transfer process to selected

3. To obtain experimental data to help validate economic
benefit estimates.

The concept embodied by the industrial evaluation
experiments was straightforward. SEASAT-A data was trans-
fered to the Navy Fleet Numerical Weather Central (Monterey,
California) for real time processing. NASA supported
some additional processing of these FNWC products to meet
experiment participants needs, providing the resources
necessary to deliver these products to the users "doorstep".
The assimilation and operational use of the data products
was the responsibility of each participant.

The industrial users were a major ingredient of the
SEASAT-A program from the very beginning. Key to the
establishment of the program was the fact that the major
benefits estimated to accrue from an operational SEASAT
system were derived from the commercial ocean community.
These benefits, along with the necessary transfer of
technology were to be tested during the SEASAT-A mission,
and in this early first phase NASA assumed a responsibility
to provide support, in a cost-sharing arrangement, to the
commercial sector, in order to demonstrate the commercial
viability of the SEASAT-A concept.

The industrial users of SEASAT-A data were, in fact,
demonstrably different than either the academic, institutional
or government agency users. Even first ventures require
a commercial user to commit real people and real dollars.
These resources can suffer significantly in the event these
first ventures are less than successful, as was the case
with the trucated SEASAT mission.

A rather broad representation from the commercial
ocean community signified the SEASAT industrial evaluation
experiments as shown in Table 2. Each selected commer-
cial user was participating on a resource-share basis in
the experiments.

The development and implementation schedule for the
industrial evaluation experiments had reached a point
where installations at Fleet Numerical Weather Central
were complete and early data flow pilot runs to commercial
users were only days away.

The tragic death of the satellite dealt a nearly
mortal blow to the industrial experiments.

Major systems were in place throughout the world to
receive SEASAT data and relay it to Monterey California,
and unique modifications at the Navy's installation there
(Fleet Numerical Weather Central) were beginning to digest
the global data they were receiving around the clock.
Commercial users are still in place waiting for a successor
to appear in the constellation of satellites now circling
our globe.

Many users continue as SEASAT experimenters, hoping
to achieve some of the "Proof of Concept" goals or shake
down their already established systems. But however suc-
cessful this subtended and limited operation turns out to






be, it leaves a vacuum of many unfulfilled goals.


The SEASAT system can be summarized as having a
capability that exceeded the sum of its parts. The cooper-
ative nature of the sensors on SEASAT gave it a rare
degree of synergism and range of applications. This
attribute was a key reason for the promise so apparent
to a large and diverse legion of users. Clearly the
assertiveness shown by these users as they established
reception, processing, dissemination and utilization
systems, largely using their own resources, proves this.

The technologies represented by SEASAT work. In depth
microscopic analysis of data products will go on for
years but one has to only look at the synthetic aperture
radar data to get excited by future efforts. The potential
of obtaining global wind field data, something the fore-
casters have to guess into their models now with complex
and elaborate extrapolations, is of major value. These
and other user needs for microwave all weather observations
of the global oceans still exist. The willingness to
pay their own way attitude of the commercial users
emphasize that the need and support for such a system is
stronger now than it was when it helped convert an earlier
dream into a real program.

Current Federal Planning has these technologies
entering space again in 1985, or later, via such programs
as the established Defense Meteorological Satellite
Program (BLOCK VI System) and the still in the planning
stage National Oceanic Satellite System being considered as
a co-operative effort by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the U.S. Navy and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. It's also interesting to
note that at present neither program includes a Synthetic
Aperture Radar. Although these programs are operational in
design and provide improved coverage by using several
satellites in orbit at once; one wonders why a seven or'
eight year wait is necessary. It's not clear, even with
the delay, how the real users of the oceans will be
served by these systems. User working groups, such as
the one that served SEASAT are important to the early
constitution and planning of future programs. These
groups are not in force at present. If the interests of
vital sectors of the user community are not considered
during the initial planning stages they stand a good
chance of being ignored in the final system.

Last year the concepts now demonstrated by SEASAT
were unproved hopes. Now, with the next systems using these
technologies way over the horizon, its possible that the
promise extended to commercial users of the ocean environ-
ment could become a forgotten reality. It's important
that these users and government groups sensitive to their
needs join forces to prevent this from happening.


1. S.W. McCandless, Jr. and W.T. Eaton, "SEASAT-A
Accepts the Challenge of the HMS Challenger", Midwest
Engineering Society Journal (June 1976).

2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory "SEASAT-A Oceanography
Today" (June 1978).


Donald K. Stauble
Department of Oceanography and Ocean Engineering
Florida Institute of Technology
Melbourne, Florida 32901


During storm conditions large breaking waves,
high storm tides and strong onshore winds combine to
raise the water level and usually allow the swash to
penetrate to the backshore. If a barrier is present
on the backshore of the beach in the form of a seawall
or a dune, the swash is prevented from attaining its
normal maximum run-up distance, and is reflected from
the barrier. In areas where there are gaps in the
foredune or no foredune is present, the storm swash
will penetrate landward of the beach crest as over-
wash, resulting in landward sediment transport and
deposition, but little backwash. A laboratory flume
experiment was conducted to investigate differences
in this interaction of uprush and backwash and sediment
transport. As the run-up collides with the vertical
wall a plunging type breaker form is created that
collapses to form a reflected bore that travels down-
slope over the thinning backwash. Turbulence associated
with the collision causes scour at the base of the wall.
Run-up collision with the inclined dune causes the
formation of a surging type wave and reflected bore
that erodes the bed as it travels downslope. The
impact of the uprush with the vertical dune scarp
causes the formation of a spilling type wave form with
a reflected bore. The bore undercuts the scarp adding
significant sediment to the backshore. The overtopping
of a beach crest causes a significant amount of uprush
to flow downslope landward away from the wave source,
transporting sediment landward. The reduced backwash
transports little sediment seaward.


The purpose of this research is to study the
variation from the normal pattern of the swash processes
and beach responses when 1) the uprush encounters an
obstacle before it reaches its maximum uprush distance,
possibly enhancing the backwash's ability to scour and
transport sediment and 2) in the absence of an
obstruction the uprush penetrates landward of a beach
crest and flows downslope away from the surf zone,
therefore having little or no backwash.

Field investigation of swash and sediment inter-
action, during storm conditions, is difficult due to
the highly turbulent and irregular impact of water by
breaking waves. Direct observation of sediment
particle motion is not possible and the ability to
maintain data collection devices is limited. To
understand the interaction of swash processes with
sediment dynamics on the backshore, a laboratory flume
study with a movable bed was undertaken. A single
swash cycle was isolated and the sediment transport
mechanics was observed through the glass wall of the
To study the varying conditions in swash mechanics
and the dynamic response of the beach surface to these
processes, five different conditions commonly found on
the backshore were modeled:
1) As a control, a swash cycle was modeled that
allowed for maximum run-up and backwash. This portion
of the experiment simulated the normal swash sequence.
2) A vertical wall was placed in such a manner
that the uprush was prevented from reaching its maximum
distance but struck the wall and was reflected back
3) A "dune" was constructed of sand on the bed in
approximately the same upslope position as that of the
vertical wall. The dune profile was constructed to
simulate the toe of a natural dune with a slope of
thirty-two degrees. The uprush struck this dune face
and was also reflected back downslope.
4) The "dune" was modified to present a vertical
face to the uprushing bore. This scarp was located in
the same position as the impervious vertical wall.
Interaction of the uprush with the scarp caused
sediment to collapse onto the beach as the reflected
backwash moved back downslope.
5) The swash was allowed to overtop the crest of
the model beach and flow downslope away from the bore
source, simulating overwash of a berm crest. The
initial swash depth was the same as in the previous
conditions, which resulted in a diminished backwash
flow, with most of the fluid proceeding landward as
unidirectional flow.


Few studies have been conducted on the mechanics
of scour of swash and backwash impinging on a barrier.

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