Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2023.05.23_TC_Agenda_Special
1 TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH TOWN COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, May 23, 2023 AT 1:30 PM LIBRARY COMMUNITY ROOM, 3618 S. OCEAN BLVD., HIGHLAND BEACH, FL. Town Commission Natasha Moore Mayor David Stern Vice Mayor Evalyn David Commissioner Donald Peters Commissioner Judith M. Goldberg Commissioner Marshall Labadie Town Manager Lanelda Gaskins Town Clerk Glen J. Torcivia Town Attorney 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (NON-AGENDA ITEMS ONLY) Public Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. 6. ORDINANCES (Public Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes per speaker per item after Commission initial discussion.) A. Proposed Ordinance An Ordinance of the Town Commission of the Town of Highland Beach, Florida, amending Section 4-8 "Lighting Restrictions for Protection of Sea Turtles" and Section 30-85 “Coastal Lighting" of the Town Code of Ordinances to incorporate lighting regulations for new and existing coastal structures in order to minimize the affect of artificial light on sea turtle populations; providing for the repeal of all ordinances in conflict; providing for severability and codification; and providing an effective date. 1 Town Commission Special Meeting Agenda May 23, 2023 2 7. NEW BUSINESS (Public Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes per speaker per item after Commission initial discussion.) A. Ratification of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Town of Highland Beach and Palm Beach County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. related to the law enforcement agreement effective October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2026. B. Consideration of Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Highland Beach and the Palm Beach County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. C. Discussion on Update to the 2013 Beach Restoration Feasibility Study. D. Sea Turtle Presentation by Joanne Ryan 1. Consideration of $2,500 donation to Highland Beach Sea Turtle Team, Inc. E. Hurricane Season Presentation by Chief of Police Craig Hartmann. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS May 29, 2023 Town Hall closed in observance of Memorial Day June 06, 2023 1:30 P.M. Town Commission Meeting 9. TOWN COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Judith M. Goldberg Commissioner Donald Peters Commissioner Evalyn David Vice Mayor David Stern Mayor Natasha Moore 9. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Any person, firm or corporation decides to appeal any decision made by the Town Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record including testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. (State Law requires the above Notice. Any person desiring a verbatim transcript shall have the responsibility, at his/her own cost, to arrange for the transcript.) The Town neither provides nor prepares such records. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons who need accommodation in order to attend or participate in this meeting should contact Town Hall 561 -278-4548 within a reasonable time prior to this meeting in order to request such assistance. 2 File Attachments for Item: A. Proposed Ordinance An Ordinance of the Town Commission of the Town of Highland Beach, Florida, amending Section 4-8 "Lighting Restrictions for Protection of Sea Turtles" and Section 30-85 “Coastal Lighting" of the Town Code of Ordinances to incorporate lighting regulations for new and existing coastal structures in order to minimize the affect of artificial light on sea turtle populations; providing for the repeal of all ordinances in conflict; providing for severability and codification; and providing an effective date. 3 TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH AGENDA MEMORANDUM MEETING TYPE: Town Commission MEETING DATE May 23, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Ingrid Allen, Town Planner, Building Department SUBJECT: Proposed amendment to the Town Code of Ordinances to incorporate sea turtle protection lighting standards. SUMMARY: At the April 4, 2023 Town Commission meeting, the Commission considered a proposed amendment to the Town Code of Ordinances that would incorporate more comprehensive standards for sea turtle protection lighting. Discussion from the Commission included the commentary noted below in bold (staff response is in italics). The Commission asked that the changes come back for review prior to another first read on the Ordinance. - Concern that proposed long wavelength lighting (e.g. amber, orange or red) may not provide safety or security. According to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), the three golden rules of beachfront lighting are as follows: Keep it Low: Mount fixtures as low as possible but still appropriate for the needed purpose. L Keep it Long: Lamp/bulb produces long wavelength light. -0-- Keep it Shielded: Fixtures are downward-directed and able to shield the bulb or lamp from the beach. According to the FWC, lights that are needed for safety and security should not be turned off, as this may cause a safety hazard. Instead, they should be modified to meet the rules noted above including switching to amber, orange or red LED, adding shielding, and/or repositioning the light to face downward. If a fixture cannot be sufficiently modified, it can be replaced with a Certified Wildlife lighting fixture. Note that the proposed Ordinance reflects the rules noted above and references Certified Wildlife Lighting which are fixtures and bulbs reviewed and approved with conditions of use through the FWC. -Consider phasing period for proposed regulations. The following revisions have been made to the Ordinance (additions are denoted by a bolded double underline and deletions are denoted by a bolded double strikethrough): Section 4-8(e) Standards for exterior and interior lighting affixed to new structures, new construction and improvements to existing structures that requires a building permit. 4 (1) All lighting affixed to the exterior of new permanent structures, construction or additions shall be long wavelength, downward directed, full cutoff, fully shielded and mount ed as close to the ground or finished floor surface as possible. (2) As an exception to (e)(1) above, non-egress lighting may be affixed to the landward exterior of permanent structures provided that the fixtures are fitted with a long wavelength source an d are not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively visible from any portion of the beach. (3) Lighting at egress points shall be limited to the minimum number of fixtures and foot - candles necessary to meet federal, state, and local safety requirements. (4) Locations including but not limited to stairwells, elevators, parking garages, or courtyards shall not produce light that is directly, indirectly, or cumulatively visible from any portion of the beach. Light screens, shades or curtains shall be used to blo ck visibility of interior lights from the beach. Light screens shall be used on open or enclosed staircases on the seaward or shore-perpendicular side of a building or for parking garages to limit visibility of lights from the nesting beach. (5) All glass windows, walls, railings and doors on the seaward and shore -perpendicular sides of any new construction shall use tinted glass with an inside to outside light transmittance value of 45 percent or less. (6) Emergency lights are not subject to the above standards if on a separate circuit and activated only during power outages or other situations in which emergency lighting is necessary for public safety. (j) Existing Exterior and Interior Lighting. All existing exterior and interior lighting shall be subject to the following regulations: (1) Upon replacement and only if a building permit is required, the reduction reduce or elimination eliminate of the negative effects of existing exterior artificial lighting shall be required through the use of the following measures: a. Reposition, modify or remove existing lighting fixtures so that the point source of light or any reflective surface of the light fixture is no longer directly, indirectly or cumulatively visible from the beach; b. Replace fixtures having an exposed light source with fully shielded fixtures; c. Replace any light source, light bulb or lamp that is not long wavelength (e.g. incandescent, fluorescent, or high intensity lighting) with the lowest wattage long wavelength (e.g. LED or low pressure sodium) light source or lamp available for the specific application; d. Replace non-directional fixtures with directional fixtures that point down and away from the beach; e. Provide shields for fixtures visible from the beach when it is not practical to immediately replace them. Beachside shields are to cover 270 degrees and extend below the bottom edge of the fixture on the seaward side so that the light source or any reflective surface of the light fixture is not visible from the beach; 5 f. Replace pole lamps with low-profile, low-level luminaries so that the light source or any reflective surface of the light fixture is not visible from the beach; g. Plant or improve vegetation buffers between the light source and the beach to screen light from the beach; h. Construct a ground level barrier landward of the beach and frontal dune to shield light sources from the beach. Ground-level barriers are to be considered a last resort when no other remediation of the light source is feasible. Ground level barriers may be subject to state coastal construction control line regulations under section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and must not interfere with sea turtle nesting or hatchling emergence, or cause short - or long- term damage to the beach and dune system; i. Permanently remove or permanently disable any fixture which cannot be brought into compliance with the provisions of these standards. (2) Existing structures are encouraged to implement Take or one more of the following suggested remedial measures to minimize interior light emanating from doors and windows within line-of-sight of the beach: a. Apply window tint or film that meets the light transmittance standards for tinted glass; b. Rearrange lamps, televisions, and other moveable fixtures away from windows; c. Use opaque shades or room darkening window treatments (e.g., blinds, curtains, screens) to shield interior lights from the beach. Note that for clarity purposes, additional nonsubstantive formatting changes have been made to the Ordinance which are also reflected in either a bolded double underline or strikethrough. For reference purposes, staff has prepared a table that provides sea turtle lighting regulations for existing exterior and interior lighting in both Palm Beach County (PBC) and Boca Raton (see attached). FISCAL IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance. Existing lighting table, other municipalities. Town Commission Memorandum – April 4, 2023 RECOMMENDATION: At the discretion of the Commission. 6 1 TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 4-8 “LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS FOR PROTECTION OF SEA TURTLES” AND SECTION 30-85 “COASTAL LIGHTING” OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES TO INCORPORATE LIGHTING REGULATIONS FOR NEW AND EXISTING COASTAL STRUCTURES IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE AEFFECT OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHT ON SEA TURTLE POPULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Town of Highland Beach, Florida, is a duly constituted municipality having such power and authority conferred upon it by the Florida Constitution and Chapter 166, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the Town of Highland Beach recognizes that light pollution of beaches is a serious threat to sea turtles inhabiting its beaches; and WHEREAS, the Town of Highland Beach recognizes that nesting adult and hatchling sea turtles are negatively affected by light pollution created by artificial light visible from any portion of the beach; and WHEREAS, the Town of Highland Beach recognizes that sea turtles are protected by federal and state law; and WHEREAS, the Town of Highland Beach recognizes that the quality of life of its residents is enriched by a healthy sea turtle population; and WHEREAS, the Town of Highland Beach desires to minimize the detrimental effects on nesting sea turtle populations by implementing regulations that reduces the amount of artificial light, intentionally or unintentionally visible from beaches, emanating from new or existing residences; WHEREAS, the Town Commission has determined that the amendment to the Code of Ordinances is in the best interest of the Town of Highland Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: 7 2 Section 1. The foregoing facts and recitations contained in the preamble to this Ordinance are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 2. The Town of Highland Beach Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by amending Chapter 4 “Animals” to read as follows (deleting is stricken through and adding is underlined): Sec. 4-8. – Lighting restrictions for protection of sea turtles. (a) Purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to protect the threatened and endangered sea turtles which nest along the beaches of the town from light sources that disrupt their nesting and hatching. The intent is for the appropriate design and implementation of coastal lighting to ensure that light pollution does not interfere with sea turtle nesting and hatching events while at the same time protecting public safety. (b) Definitions. Artificial light means the light emanating from any human-made device. The "Bbeach" means the zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the mean low water line to the place where there is a marked change in material or physiographic form or to the line of permanent vegetation. Certified wildlife lighting means lighting fixtures and bulbs reviewed and approved with conditions of use through the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Wildlife Lighting Certification Process. Cumulatively visible means light from numerous artificial light sources that as a group can be seen by an observer standing anywhere on the beach. Directly visible means when glowing element(s), lamp(s), globe(s), or reflector(s) of an artificial light source can be seen by an observer standing anywhere on the beach. Foot-Ccandle means the English unit for measuring illuminance; the a unit of illumination equal to that given by a source of one candela at a distance of one foot (equivalent to one lumen per square foot or 10.764 lux). uniform illumination of a surface one foot away from a point source of one candela; one lumen per square foot; equal to 10.76 lux. Frontal dune means the first natural or man-made mound or bluff of sand which is located landward of the beach and which has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to offer protective value. 8 3 Full cutoff means a lighting fixture constructed in such a manner that no light emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the luminaire, is projected at or above 90 degrees as determined by photometric test or certified by the fixture manufacturer. Fully shielded means a lighting fixture constructed in such a manner that the glowing elements, lamps, globes, or reflectors of the fixture are completely covered by an opaque material to prevent them from being directly visible from the beach. Any structural part of the light fixture providing this shielding must be permanently affixed. Indirectly visible means light reflected from glowing element(s), lamp(s), globe(s), or reflector(s) of an artificial light source that can be seen by an observer standing anywhere on the beach without the light source being directly visible. Long wavelength means a lamp or light source (which is amber, orange, or red) emitting light wavelengths of 560 nanometers or greater and absent wavelengths below 560 nanometers. New construction means all new construction of or additions and alterations to buildings, pools, pavement, other structures, landscape areas or lighting systems. The most protective lighting standards apply to new construction visible from the beach. Non-egress Llighting means exterior lighting that is not being used to light a distinct route or meet minimum requirements for emergency access to or from a building, including but not limited to decorative lights (e.g. strobe lights, string lights, etc.), balcony lights, landscape lights, and uplights. Outdoor Aarea means any portion of a property that could have an artificial light source not attached to a permanent structure, including but not limited to pathway lighting, landscape lighting, pool lighting. Sea Tturtle means any turtle, including all life stages from egg to adult, of these species: Green (Chelonia mydas), Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), Loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), and Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii). For the purposes of this ordinance, the term sea turtle is synonymous with marine turtle. Sea Tturtle Nnesting Hhabitat means all sandy beach and unvegetated or sparsely vegetated dunes immediately adjacent to the sandy beach and accessible to nesting female turtles. 9 4 Temporary lighting means any non-permanent light source that may be hand-held or portable including but not limited to tiki torches, lanterns, flashlights (including cell phone flashlights and screens), candles, flash photography, etc. Tinted glass means any glass treated to achieve an industry-approved, inside-to-outside light transmittance value of 45 percent or less. Such transmittance is limited to the visible spectrum (400 to 700 nanometers) and is measured as the percentage of light that is transmitted through the glass. (c) Applicability. This section shall apply to all properties within the Town that may produce artificial light directly, indirectly, or cumulatively visible from any portion of the beach, regardless of whether those properties are beachfront properties. The provisions of this section are not intended to prevent the use of any design, materials or method of installation or operation not specifically prescribed herein, provided any such alternate has been approved. The Building Official may approve any such proposed alternate provided it: (1) Provides at least approximate equivalence to the applicable specific requirements of this section, and; (2) Is otherwise satisfactory or complies with the intent of this section, and; (3) Has been designed or approved by a registered lighting or electrical engineer and is supported by calculations showing that the design submitted meets that intent of the section, and; (4) Has been determined to meet requirements for Certified Wildlife Lighting and/or lights that meet FWC’s Wildlife Lighting Guidelines, including long wavelength light sources (without the use of filters), full cut-off, and fully shielded fixtures. (dc) Lighting restrictions along beach. No artificial light shall illuminate any area of the beach which may be used for turtle nesting and hatching during the period from March 1 to October 31 of each year, from dusk to dawn. (e) Standards for exterior and interior lighting affixed to new structures, new construction and improvements to existing structures that requires a building permit. (1) All lighting affixed to the exterior of new permanent structures, construction or additions shall be long wavelength, downward directed, full cutoff, fully shielded and mounted as close to the ground or finished floor surface as possible. 10 5 (2) As an exception to (e)(1) above, non-egress lighting may be affixed to the landward exterior of permanent structures provided that the fixtures are fitted with a long wavelength source and are not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively visible from any portion of the beach. (3) Lighting at egress points shall be limited to the minimum number of fixtures and foot- candles necessary to meet federal, state, and local safety requirements. (4) Locations including but not limited to stairwells, elevators, parking garages, or courtyards shall not produce light that is directly, indirectly, or cumulatively visible from any portion of the beach. Light screens, shades or curtains shall be used to block visibility of interior lights from the beach. Light screens shall be used on open or enclosed staircases on the seaward or shore-perpendicular side of a building or for parking garages to limit visibility of lights from the nesting beach. (5) All glass windows, walls, railings and doors on the seaward and shore-perpendicular sides of any new construction shall use tinted glass with an inside to outside light transmittance value of 45 percent or less. (6) Emergency lights are not subject to the above standards if on a separate circuit and activated only during power outages or other situations in which emergency lighting is necessary for public safety. (f) Outdoor areas. (1) All lighting of outdoor areas shall be long wavelength, downward directed, full cutoff, fully shielded and mounted as close to the ground or finished floor surface as possible. (2) Lighting of paths, walks and routes of building access shall use low level fixtures such as step, paver, path, recessed wall or bollard lights. Bollard lights are not to exceed 42 inches in height and other low level fixtures are to meet the height requirements of FWC’s Wildlife Lighting Guidelines. Fixtures shall be downward directed and utilize long wavelength lamps and beachside shields. (3) As an exception to (f)(1) above, non-egress outdoor lighting may be installed landward of buildings or other opaque structures provided that they are fitted with long wavelength light sources and are not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively visible from any portion of the beach. 11 6 (4) Internally or externally lighted signs shall not be located on the seaward and shore- perpendicular sides of any structures, and shall not produce light that is directly, indirectly, or cumulatively visible from any portion of the beach. (5) Ponds and fountains on the seaward and shore-perpendicular sides of any structures shall not produce light that is directly, indirectly, or cumulatively visible from any portion of the beach. (6) Fire pits located on the seaward and shore-perpendicular sides of any structure shall be shielded with an opaque structure or partition, and positioned such that the flame is not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively visible from any portion of the beach. Bonfires and bonfire pits are prohibited within sea turtle nesting habitat during sea turtle nesting season. (7) Televisions or other illuminated screens shall be located landward of the dune and shall be shielded or positioned such that they are not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively visible from the beach. (g) Parking areas and roadways (1) All lighting of parking areas and roadways shall be long wavelength, downward directed, full cutoff, fully shielded, and mounted to the minimum level required to maintain compliance with federal, state and local law. (2) Parking area and roadway lighting shall be shielded from the beach via vegetation, natural features, or artificial structures rising from the ground. These shall prevent artificial light sources, including but not limited to vehicular headlights, from producing light that is directly, indirectly, or cumulatively visible from any portion of the beach. (3) Lighting of roadways and parking areas shall produce no more lighting than the minimum requirement as outlined by federal, state and local law. (4) Lighting of parking areas and roadways shall consist of: a. Ground-level downward-directed fixtures, equipped with interior dark-colored, non- reflective baffles or louvers, mounted either with a wall mount, on walls or piles, facing away from the beach, or b. Bollard-type fixtures, which do not extend more than 42 inches above the adjacent floor or deck, measured from the bottom of fixture, equipped with downward-directed 12 7 louvers that completely hide the light source, and externally shielded on the side facing the beach, or c. Pole-mounted lights which shall only be used in parking areas and roadways when mounting the lights at lower elevations cannot practicably comply with minimum light levels set forth in applicable federal and state laws designed to protect public safety. If required, pole-mounted lights shall be: 1. Located on the landward sides of buildings and shall not produce light that is directly, indirectly, or cumulatively visible from any portion of the beach, 2. Mounted at the minimum height required to meet the minimum light level requirement, and 3. Downward-directed onto non-reflective surfaces. (5) Equipment/storage areas, and temporary security lights shall also adhere to the lighting restrictions contained in this section. (h) Pool Areas. (1) Lighting of pool decks, pool facilities, swimming pools, and spas shall be long wavelength and fully shielded. (2) Lighting of the pool water surfaces and the pool wet deck surfaces shall comply with the minimum light levels set forth in applicable federal and state laws designed to protect public safety. (3) Above-water lighting of pool decks, pool facilities, swimming pools, and spas shall otherwise adhere to the applicable requirements for acceptable light fixtures contained in subsection (h)(1) and (2) above. (4) Underwater lighting of pools or spa light shall: a. Be mounted horizontally in the wall, and b. Not produce light that is directly, indirectly, or cumulatively visible from any portion of the beach, and c. Shall comply with minimum light levels set forth in applicable federal and state laws designed to protect public safety. (i) Beach Access Points and Dune Walkovers. (1) Lighting of beach access points shall be located and configured to only illuminate areas landward of the beach and frontal dune. All lighting of beach access points shall be long 13 8 wavelength, downward directed, full cutoff and fully shielded and shall not be directly, indirectly, or cumulatively visible from the beach. (2) Lights are allowable on dune walkovers or elevated boardwalks only as required for building code purposes and may only be installed landward of the frontal dune. Walkover lighting shall not be directly, indirectly or cumulatively visible from the beach. (j) Existing Exterior and Interior Lighting. All existing exterior and interior lighting shall be subject to the following regulations: (1) Upon replacement and only if a building permit is required, the reduction Reduce or elimination eliminate of the negative effects of existing exterior artificial lighting shall be required through the use of the following measures: a. Reposition, modify or remove existing lighting fixtures so that the point source of light or any reflective surface of the light fixture is no longer directly, indirectly or cumulatively visible from the beach; b. Replace fixtures having an exposed light source with fully shielded fixtures; c. Replace any light source, light bulb or lamp that is not long wavelength (e.g. incandescent, fluorescent, or high intensity lighting) with the lowest wattage long wavelength (e.g. LED or low pressure sodium) light source or lamp available for the specific application; d. Replace non-directional fixtures with directional fixtures that point down and away from the beach; e. Provide shields for fixtures visible from the beach when it is not practical to immediately replace them. Beachside shields are to cover 270 degrees and extend below the bottom edge of the fixture on the seaward side so that the light source or any reflective surface of the light fixture is not visible from the beach; f. Replace pole lamps with low-profile, low-level luminaries so that the light source or any reflective surface of the light fixture is not visible from the beach; g. Plant or improve vegetation buffers between the light source and the beach to screen light from the beach; h. Construct a ground level barrier landward of the beach and frontal dune to shield light sources from the beach. Ground-level barriers are to be considered a last resort 14 9 when no other remediation of the light source is feasible. Ground level barriers may be subject to state coastal construction control line regulations under section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and must not interfere with sea turtle nesting or hatchling emergence, or cause short- or long- term damage to the beach and dune system; i. Permanently remove or permanently disable any fixture which cannot be brought into compliance with the provisions of these standards. (2) Existing structures are encouraged to implement Take one or more of the following suggested remedial measures to minimize interior light emanating from doors and windows within line-of-sight of the beach: a. Apply window tint or film that meets the light transmittance standards for tinted glass; b. Rearrange lamps, televisions, and other moveable fixtures away from windows; c. Use opaque shades or room darkening window treatments (e.g., blinds, curtains, screens) to shield interior lights from the beach. (k) Special Events, Motor Vehicles, and Temporary Lighting. (1) Lighting associated with a special event that may directly, indirectly, or cumulatively be visible from any portion of the beach shall not be authorized at nighttime during sea turtle nesting season. (2) The operation of all motorized vehicles as provided in section 5-4, shall be prohibited on the beach at nighttime during sea turtle nesting season. (3) Within sea turtle nesting season, temporary work zone lighting for roadway construction and during declared emergencies shall be directed away from the beach to avoid illumination of or direct visibility from the beach. Work zone luminaires shall be shielded to avoid lighting areas outside of the immediate construction area. (4) All other temporary construction lighting shall be: a. Inclusive of all the standards of this section, including using fixtures that are long wavelength, downward directed, full cutoff, and fully shielded so light is not directly or indirectly visible from the beach, and b. Mounted less than eight feet above the adjacent floor or deck, measured from the bottom of fixture, and (5) Handheld and other portable temporary lighting shall not be directed toward or used in a manner that disturbs sea turtles. 15 10 (ld) Enforcement, penalty. Anyone violating any provisions of this section shall be punished in accordance with all provisions of this Code including but not limited to reference of the violation to the code enforcement board. Section 3. The Town of Highland Beach Code of Ordinances, is hereby amended by amending Chapter 30 “Zoning,” Article V “Natural Resources,” Section 30-85 “Coastal lighting” to read as follows (deleting is stricken through and adding is underlined): Sec. 30-85. – Coastal Lighting All lighting of all properties within the Town that may produce artificial light directly, indirectly, or cumulatively visible from any portion of the beach, regardless of whether those properties are beachfront properties, structures east of SR A1A shall comply with the "sea turtle protection" lighting standards as provided in section 4-8 adopted by the town. Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable and if any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, sentences, clauses, and phrases of this Ordinance but they shall remain in effect, it being the legislative intent that this Ordinance shall stand notwithstanding the invalidity of any part. Section 5. Repeal of Laws in Conflict. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 6. Codification. Section 2 and Section 3 of the Ordinance may be made a part of the Town Code of Ordinances and may be re-numbered or re-lettered to accomplish such, and the word “ordinance” may be changed to “section,” “division,” or any other appropriate word. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption at second reading. The foregoing Ordinance was moved by __________________________________, seconded by ________________________________ and upon being put to the vote, the vote was as follows: AYE NAY Mayor Natasha Moore ____ ____ Vice Mayor David Stern ____ ____ Commissioner Evalyn David ____ ____ Commissioner Judith Goldberg ____ ____ Commissioner Don Peters ____ ____ 16 11 PASSED on first reading at the Regular Commission meeting held on this _____ day of _________________, 2023. The foregoing Ordinance was moved by _________________________________, seconded by ________________________________ and upon being put to the vote, the vote was as follows: AYE NAY Mayor Natasha Moore ____ ____ Vice Mayor David Stern ____ ____ Commissioner Evelyn David ____ ____ Commissioner Judith Goldberg ____ ____ Commissioner Don Peters ____ ____ PASSED AND ADOPTED on second and final reading at the Regular Commission meeting held on this _____ day of _________________, 2023. ATTEST: By: Lanelda Gaskins, MMC Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: By: _________________________________ Glen J. Torcivia, Town Attorney 17 MUNICIPALITY EXISTING LIGHTING EXISTING INTERIOR LIGHTS EXISTING EXTERIOR LIGHTS PBC* Existing beachfront lighting causing direct or indirect illumination shall be adjusted or corrected to ensure that the lighting does not cause illumination that is directly or indirectly visible from the beach. Window treatment shall be required on all windows visible from the beach. Blackout draperies or shadescreens are preferred. Alternatively or additionally, window tint may be applied to beachfront windows. The turning out of all unnecessary interior lights during the nesting season is strongly encouraged. Recommended corrective action that can be used to reduce or eliminate the effects of exterior lighting: -permanently remove the light fixture. -disconnect the light fixture. -reposition the light fixture so the point source is no longer visible from the beach. -replace light fixtures having an exposed light source with light fixtures containing recessed light sources or shields. -replace non-directional light fixtures with directional light fixtures pointing down and away from the beach. -replace light fixtures having translucent or transparent coverings with light fixtures having opaque shields covering an arc of at least 180 degrees and extending an appropriate distance below the bottom edge of the light fixture on seaward side so the light source is not visible from the beach. -replace pole lamps with low-profile, low-level luminaries so that the light source is not visible from the beach. -plant or improve vegetation buffers between the light source and the beach to screen light form the beach. -construct an ornamental structural barrier to shield light sources from the beach; and -modify the light fixture by adding a shield. Boca Raton No artificial light any area of the incorporated beaches of the City. Window treatments in all windows visible from the beach regardless of exposure are required so that interior lights do not directly or indirectly illuminate the beach. Lights illuminating buildings or associated grounds for security or recreational purposes shall be shielded or screened such that they are not visible from the beach, or turned off between sunset to sunrise during the period of March 1 to October 31 of each year. *Delray Beach, Juno Beach, and Ocean Ridge have adopted by reference Palm Beach County’s Sea Turtle Protection Ordinance. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 File Attachments for Item: A. Ratification of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Town of Highland Beach and Palm Beach County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. related to the law enforcement agreement effective October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2026. 166 TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH AGENDA MEMORANDUM MEETING TYPE: Town Commission Meeting MEETING DATE May 23, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Town Manager’s Office SUBJECT: Ratification of Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Town of Highland Beach and the Palm Beach County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (PBA) Law Enforcement Agreement October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2026. SUMMARY: Enclosed is the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Town of Highland Beach and the Palm Beach County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (PBA) Law Enforcement Agreement October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2026. The agreement has been negotiated in good faith and tentatively agreed to by the PBA and Town of Highland Beach negotiating team. The provisions of the agreement remain consistent with those communicated to the Commission via individual Commissioner meetings. In summary, the agreement reflects a marketplace costs adjustment needed to move our agency from one of the lowest paid agencies to a top tier (top 1/3) agency for similarly sized and situated municipalities. (Again, we are not attempting to compete with larger agencies such as the City of Boca Raton.) The agreement also addresses current regional, state , and national issues of police officer recruitment and retention, and it does so without placing any additional unfunded liabilities (OPEB) on the Town. Lastly, the cost of the agreement was, and is, accounted for within the five-year forecast; that is, no millage rate implications. An accompanying agenda item is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) authorizing certain provisions to take effect following the ratification of the collective bargaining agreement. The MOU is the legal instrument employed to commence the said provisions as statu te limits collective bargaining agreements to three years. FISCAL IMPACT: Pursuant to CBA and five-year financial forecast. 167 ATTACHMENTS: Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Town of Highland Beach and the Palm Beach County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (PBA) Law Enforcement Agreement October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2026. RECOMMENDATION: Commission ratification of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Town of Highland Beach and the Palm Bea ch County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (PBA) Law Enforcement Agreement October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2026. 168 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH AND PALM BEACH COUNTY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC. LAW ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT OCTOBER 1, 2023 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2026 TOWNX PBA 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 File Attachments for Item: B. Consideration of Memorandum of Understanding Between the Town of Highland Beach and the Palm Beach County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. 237 TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH AGENDA MEMORANDUM MEETING TYPE: Town Commission Meeting MEETING DATE May 23, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Town Manager’s Office SUBJECT: Consideration of Memorandum of Understanding Between the Town of Highland Beach and the Palm Beach County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. SUMMARY: The enclosed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) authorizes certain provisions of the collective bargaining agreement to take effect following the ratification of the collective bargaining agreement. The MOU is the legal instrument employed to commence the said provisions as statue limits collective bargaining agreements to three years. FISCAL IMPACT: Budgeted ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum of Understanding Between the Town of Highland Beach and the Palm Beach County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Memorandum of Understanding Between the Town of Highland Beach and the Palm Beach County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. 238 239 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH AND THE PALM BEACH COUNTY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC. WHEREAS, the Town of Highland Beach ("Town") and the Pal m Beach County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. ( "PBA") entered into a collective bargaining agreement that remains in effect until September 30, 2023 ("Current CBA"); WHEREAS, the Town and PBA have agreed to and ratified a successor collective bargaining agreement to become effective October 1, 2023 ("Successor CBA"); and WHEREAS, the Town and PBA have determined it is in the best interest of both parties to implement certain fiscal provisions of the Successor Agreement during the current fiscal year. NOW THEREFORE, the PBA and Town agree to amend the Cmrent CBA as follows effective the first full pay period in June of 2023 that also occurs after ratification by both parties: 1.Articles, 13, 17, 19, and 25 of the Successor CBA shall replace Articles 13, 17, 19 and 25 of the Cunent CBA. 2.Article 27, Salary Plan, of the Current CBA shall be amended to implement the Year 1 compensation from the Successor CBA as follows: All bargaining unit members' compensation shall be determined pursuant to the Town's step pay plan as set forth in Exhibit A for Year 1 of the Successor CBA. All Officers shall remain in the same step, except that Officers in Step 3 shall be slotted into Step 4. All Sergeants shall remain in the same step, except the following slotting is implemented: •Sergeant Step 4 is slotted into Sergeant Step 2 •Sergeant Step 7 is slotted into Sergeant Step 3 •Sergeant Step 8 is slotted into Sergeant Step 4 3.The parties agree that the foregoing pay implementation shall be in lieu of any increases during Year 1 of the Successor CBA. 4.This Memorandum of Understanding shall be effective the first full pay period in June of 2023 that also occurs after ratification by both parties. 5.The Parties represent that they have full legal authority to enter into this Memorandum of Understanding. [REMAINDER OF PAGE BLANK; SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE] 240 File Attachments for Item: C. Discussion on Update to the 2013 Beach Restoration Feasibility Study. 241 TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH AGENDA MEMORANDUM MEETING TYPE: Town Commission Meeting MEETING DATE May 23, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Ingrid Allen, Town Planner, Building Department SUBJECT: Discussion on Update to the 2013 Beach Restoration Feasibility Study. SUMMARY: At the November 1, 2022 Town Commission meeting, Ms. Nikki Stansfield, Chair of the Natural Resources Preservation Advisory Board (NRPAB), made a presentation to the Commission on the Board’s Dune Management Informational Outreach efforts. Note that at the September 21, 2021 Town Commission meeting, consensus from the Commission was to have the NRPAB conduct research on dune management & restoration (a planned project in the Town’s 2020 Strategic Priorities Plan) and execute actions to educate homeowners. Discussion among the Commission at the November 1 , 2022 meeting included hiring a firm to evaluate all dunes in the Town. The Town Manager indicated that the 2013 Beach Restoration Feasibility Study was ten years old and due for an update. The 2013 study was completed by Coastal Planning & Engineering, LLC (a Shaw Group Company) a legacy company of Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC (“Aptim”) which maintains all records of the 2013 study. Note that the 2013 study includes a dune restoration and enhancement component (see attached). Staff reached out to Aptim and requested a proposal to update the 2013 study. APTIM has provided staff the attached proposal. ATTACHMENTS: APTIM Beach Feasibility Study Update 2013 Beach Restoration Feasibility Study RECOMMENDATION: At the discretion of the Commission. 242 Douglas Mann, P.E., D.CE. Lead Coastal Engineer Coastal Restoration Team APTIM 6401 Congress Avenue, Suite 140 Boca Raton FL 33487 Tel: +1 561 361 3148 Fax: +1 561 391 9116 Douglas.Mann@aptim.com 631030509 February 17, 2023 Marshall Labadie, Town Manager Ingrid Allen, Town Planner Town of Highland Beach 3614 S. Ocean Blvd. Highland Beach, FL 33487 Re: Beach Feasibility Study Update Dear Mr. Labadie and Ms. Allen: This letter is Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC’s (APTIM) response to the Town of Highland Beach’s request for a proposal to update the Town of Highland Beach’s 2013 beach feasibility study. A scope of work is included in Exhibit 1 Compensation The cost of these services is a lump sum of $29,245. A cost breakdown is attached in Exhibit 2. Contractual Basis All services will be provided in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in Exhibit 3. Please authorize APTIM to proceed by signing and returning the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) in Exhibit 3 and issuing a purchase order in the name of Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. A signed copy of the PSA will be sent to you. If you have any questions, please call me. Very truly yours, Douglas W. Mann, P.E., D.CE. Lead Coastal Engineer Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC 243 2 Exhibit 1 Scope of Services Introduction In 2013, the Town of Highland Beach (Town) undertook a feasibility study1 to develop a beach management plan to inform the Town regarding the condition of their beach and dune system, specific improvements that could be made, and how to fund those improvements. Since that time, the Town has participated in a joint climate change resiliency study and the beach and dune system has been subject to episodic erosional stresses by waves, tides, and storm surges. This plan update will review the existing conditions of the beach and dune system, review erosional conditions within the Town, and present updated improvements. Funding of these improvements will be reviewed and presented. Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC (APTIM) proposes the following services: A. Beach and Dune Profile Survey APTIM surveyors will survey the twelve (12) profiles established by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), which are located at approximate 1,000-foot intervals within the Town. These profiles have not been surveyed in many years. Current beach profiles will provide a basis for the beach management plan update. All surveys will be measured from the dune to the -30 feet NAVD depth contour or 3,000 feet offshore, whichever is greater. B. Beach and Dune Condition Observation APTIM coastal engineers will observe the conditions of the beach and dune for each property within the Town. Specific reference will be made to the presence of nearshore rock in the beach profile and its effects on beach and dune stability. The presence or absence of dune scarps and condition of dune vegetation will be noted. C. Beach and Dune Changes Beach and dune changes will be quantified at the mean high water line and at the toe of the dune. The beach profiles will be assessed through volumetric comparison from the top of the dune to the depth of closure. The changes will be assessed over the last decade. A discussion of erosion hot spots will be provided as appropriate. D. Coastal Force Evaluation APTIM engineers will evaluate the historic wind, wave, tide, storm surge, and recent storm history that have impacted the Town. An evaluation of the effects of sea level rise on the beach and dune system will be presented. The sea level rise evaluation will reference recent regional investigations by the Coastal Resiliency Partnership, and the findings of the South Florida Climate Change Compact. E. Alternatives Evaluation APTIM engineers will assess the need for immediate or future beach improvements. These improvements include dry beach nourishment, full beach profile nourishment, coastal structures, and 1 The 2013 feasibility study was completed by Coastal Planning & Engineering, LLC, a Shaw Group Company. This is a legacy company of Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. All records of the 2013 study reside in our Boca Raton , FL office. 244 3 dune restoration. Considerations of Town wide projects versus localized projects will be discussed. Conceptual level designs will be provided. An engineering opinion of probable construction costs will be provided. The regulatory requirements will be discussed. We will also discuss currently available beach access points for construction of a truck haul project. F. Funding Alternatives The report will discuss potential funding mechanisms available to the Town. These include Federal, State, County and Town funding opportunities. A discussion of various taxing options within the Town will be presented. Deliverables APTIM will provide a draft feasibility report in PDF format. APTIM will respond to one round of comments. APTIM will then submit two (2) hardcopies of the final report along with an electronic copy in PDF format. The draft copy of the report will be submitted within 12 weeks of the Notice to Proceed. The final report will be submitted within two (2) weeks of receipt of your final comments. APTIM will prepare for, and attend, one (1) commission meeting to present the general findings of the report. 245 4 Exhibit 2 Cost Estimate 246 2023 Highland Feasibility Study update SPM 21.3.xlsx SPM REVISION:2021 - REV 21.3 Release Date:5/18/21 PROJECT NUMBER: PROPOSAL NUMBER: Date Pricing Model was Prepared:2/13/23 Task Number Task Name Labor Sub- contractors Equipment Materials Other ODC's Travel Total Adjustments Total Project Tsk-001 Beach Profile Survey 8,500.00$ -$ 1,945.00$ -$ -$ -$ 10,445.00$ - 10,445.00$ Tsk-002 Beach Observation 3,350.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,350.00$ - 3,350.00$ Tsk-003 Beach and Dune Changes 2,090.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,090.00$ - 2,090.00$ Tsk-004 Coastal Forces Evaluation 2,510.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,510.00$ - 2,510.00$ Tsk-005 Alternatives Evaluation 4,600.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,600.00$ - 4,600.00$ Tsk-006 Funding Alternatives 1,230.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,230.00$ - 1,230.00$ Tsk-007 Report and Meeting 5,020.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,020.00$ - 5,020.00$ Tsk-008 Task Name 8 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - -$ Tsk-009 Task Name 9 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - -$ Tsk-010 Task Name 10 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - -$ 27,300.00$ -$ 1,945.00$ -$ -$ -$ 29,245.00$ -$ 29,245.00$ Submitted By:Douglas Mann Submitted To:Highland Beach Feasility Study Update Submission Date:02/13/23 631030509 631030509 Totals = Highland Beach Feasility Study Update 02/13/23 Project Estimate Summary By Task Form Number: CMS-730-03-FM-02300 Issue for Use: DD MMM YYYY Page 1 of 1 247 5 Exhibit 3 Professional Services Agreement 248 Page 1 of 5 © 2018 Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC All rights reserved. APTIM CLIENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FIXED PRICE BASIS This Agreement by and between Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. (“APTIM”), and the undersigned client (“CLIENT”) sets forth the terms and conditions pursuant to which APTIM will provide services (the “Services”) to CLIENT. 1. Services The Services to be performed are as described in the Proposal for Coastal Engineering Services for the update of the 2013 Beach Feasibility Study, which is attached as Exhibit A. The parties may modify, supplement or change the Services to be performed only by written amendment to Exhibit A. 2.Compensation The services will be performed on a fixed price basis for Twenty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Forty-Five and 00/100 dollars ($29,245). 3.Payment Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, invoices will be submitted no more frequently than every two weeks. Invoices shall be paid in U.S. Dollars in the manner requested by APTIM and are due upon receipt. Invoices not paid within thirty (30) days after the date thereof shall bear interest from the date thereof at the rate of one and one-half (1-1/2) percent per month or the maximum rate permissible by law, whichever is less. 4.Termination Either Party may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, by written notice; provided, however, that CLIENT shall compensate APTIM for all Services performed prior to APTIM’s actual receipt of notice and all of APTIM’s costs and expenses incurred prior to and/or as a result of the termination. 5.Independent Contractor APTIM shall be fully independent in performing the Services and shall not act as an agent or employee of CLIENT. 6.Taxes, Fees, and Other Charges In connection with the Services, CLIENT shall pay all sales, conveyance, transfer and recording fees and taxes, if any. In the event APTIM is requested or authorized by CLIENT, or is required by government regulation, subpoena, or other legal process, to produce documents or personnel as witnesses regarding the Services performed under this Agreement, CLIENT agrees, so long as APTIM is not a party to the proceeding in which the information is sought, to reimburse APTIM for its professional time and expenses, as well as the fees and expenses of counsel, incurred in responding to such requests. 7.Documentation, Records, Audit All documents, records, data, laboratory or field equipment computerized data files, computer models or other information supplied to APTIM by CLIENT and/or CLIENT’s agents, employees, directors, officers, shareholders, or representatives shall remain the property of CLIENT and shall be returned to CLIENT upon completion of any work or service provided hereunder. APTIM shall be permitted to retain a copy of such information for archival purposes. CLIENT shall have the right, at its expense, to inspect and audit APTIM’s records and accounts covering charges hereunder at all reasonable times during the course of the Services for a period of one (1) year after the substantial completion thereof; provided, however, that the purpose of such audit shall be only for verification of such charges. APTIM is not required to keep records, or provide access to records it may have, relating to costs of goods or services charged to CLIENT on the basis of a fixed price, fixed unit rates, or which are expressed in terms of percentages of other costs. Upon completion of any such audit, the results shall be presented to APTIM. To the extent that the audit indicates that APTIM has not been adequately compensated by CLIENT, CLIENT shall pay APTIM any compensation due as shown by the audit. Alternatively, to the extent that any audit indicates that the total amount of compensation paid by CLIENT to APTIM exceeded the actual amount due, APTIM shall return such excess compensation to CLIENT. 8.APTIM’s Responsibilities a.APTIM shall perform its services consistent with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by members of the same profession practicing at the same time in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. APTIM makes no warranties, express or implied, under this Agreement or otherwise, in connection with the Services, and nothing stated in this Agreement shall be interpreted to require APTIM to exercise professional skill and care greater than that required in this Section 8a. b.APTIM will complete the Services within a reasonable time. If a specific schedule is required by CLIENT, it must be set forth on Exhibit A. Except to the extent resulting from the fault of APTIM, if the provision of the Services is delayed or impaired, the time for completion of the Services shall be extended appropriately, and the rates and amounts of APTIM’s compensation shall be adjusted equitably. c.If the Services require APTIM to estimate the cost of work to be performed by others, such estimate shall be made on the basis of APTIM’s experience and qualifications and shall represent APTIM’s best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional. However, since APTIM has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others, or over contractors’ methods of determining prices, or over 249 Page 2 of 5 © 2018 Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC All rights reserved. APTIM CLIENT competitive bidding or market conditions, APTIM cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual costs of such other work will not vary from APTIM’s estimate. If CLIENT wishes greater assurance as to probable cost, CLIENT may employ an independent cost estimator. 9. Client Cooperation CLIENT will: (a) provide APTIM with all relevant information available to it concerning the project or activity in connection with which the Services are requested; (b) consult with APTIM when requested; (c) provide APTIM with reasonable access to relevant sites; (d) make decisions and carry out its other responsibilities in a timely manner so as not to delay the performance of the Services; and (e) notify and report to regulatory agencies or governmental officials as required. CLIENT shall be responsible for, and APTIM may rely upon, the accuracy and completeness of all requirements, programs, instructions, reports, data, and other information furnished by CLIENT to APTIM relating to the Services. APTIM may use such requirements, programs, instructions, reports, data, and information in performing the Services. 10. Indemnity a. BY APTIM. WITH REGARD TO CLAIMS ASSERTED BY THIRD PARTIES AGAINST CLIENT ARISING FROM OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE SERVICES, AND SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 12 AND 13, APTIM SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS CLIENT (INCLUDING ITS OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND EMPLOYEES) FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL LIABILITIES, CLAIMS, DEMANDS, DAMAGES, FINES, PENALTIES, AND RELATED EXPENSES, PROVIDED THAT ANY SUCH, LIABILITY, CLAIM, DEMAND, DAMAGE, FINE, PENALTY, OR RELATED EXPENSE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO BODILY INJURY, SICKNESS, DISEASE, OR DEATH, OR TO INJURY TO OR DESTRUCTION OF TANGIBLE PROPERTY, BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT SUCH LIABILITY, CLAIM, DEMAND, DAMAGE, FINE, PENALTY, OR RELATED EXPENSE IS CAUSED BY APTIM’S NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT . b. BY CLIENT. WITH REGARD TO CLAIMS ASSERTED BY THIRD PARTIES AGAINST APTIM ARISING FROM OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE SERVICES, AND SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 13, CLIENT SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS APTIM (INCLUDING ITS OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND EMPLOYEES) FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL LIABILITIES, CLAIMS, DEMANDS, DAMAGES, FINES, PENALTIES, AND RELATED EXPENSES, , BUT ONLYTO THE EXTENT SUCH LIABILITY, CLAIM, DEMAND, DAMAGE, FINE, PENALTY, OR RELATED EXPENSE ARISES FROM (i) CLIENT’S NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT, PROVIDED THAT ANY SUCH LIABILITY, CLAIM, DEMAND, DAMAGE, FINE, PENALTY, OR RELATED EXPENSE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO BODILY INJURY, SICKNESS, DISEASE, OR DEATH, OR TO INJURY TO OR DESTRUCTION OF TANGIBLE PROPERTY; (ii) ANY ALLEGATIONS THAT APTIM IS THE OWNER, OPERATOR, MANAGER, OR PERSON IN CHARGE OF ALL OR ANY PORTION OF A SITE ADDRESSED BY THE SERVICES, OR ARRANGED FOR THE TREATMENT, TRANSPORTATION, OR DISPOSAL OF, OR OWNED OR POSSESSED, OR CHOSE THE TREATMENT, TRANSPORTATION OR DISPOSAL SITE FOR, ANY MATERIAL WITH RESPECT TO WHICH SERVICES ARE PROVIDED; OR (III) ANY POLLUTION, CONTAMINATION OR RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS OR RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS, INCLUDING ALL ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS THEREOF, EXCEPT FOR ANY PORTION THEREOF WHICH RESULTS FROM APTIM'S GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT. c. NOTICE. IN THE EVENT THAT EITHER PARTY: (1) SUFFERS RECEIVES A LIABILITY, CLAIM, DEMAND, DAMAGE, FINE, PENALTY, OR RELATED EXPENSE THAT THE PARTY BELIEVES TO BE COVERED BY THE FOREGOING SUBPARAGRAPHS 10(A) OR 10(B); OR (2) LEARNS OF FACTS (OTHER THAN THE KNOWLEDGE APTIM GAINS THROUGH PERFORMING THE SERVICES) THAT MAY GIVE RISE TO A DUTY BY INDEMNITOR TO DEFEND, TO INDEMNIFY, OR HOLD HARMLESS, THE INDEMNITEE SHALL PROMPTLY PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE INDEMNITOR. FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROMPT NOTICE WILL CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF ANY INDEMNITY RIGHTS TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH FAILURE UNDERMINES INDEMNITOR’S ABILITY TO MITIGATE ITS EXPOSURE 11. Defects in the Services a. CLIENT shall not be responsible for discovering deficiencies in the technical accuracy of APTIM’s services; however, should CLIENT become aware of such a deficiency, CLIENT shall promptly notify APTIM in writing. APTIM shall correct any such deficiencies in technical accuracy without additional compensation except to the extent such corrective action is attributable to deficiencies in CLIENT-furnished information. b. In the event of any defect in any Service that does not cause damage to persons or property, APTIM’s sole responsibility shall be to either (a) re-perform any defective Service according to the scope of work for that Service, or (b) to commence and diligently pursue the cure of the defect. Such re-performance or cure shall be CLIENT’s sole and exclusive remedy for a defect covered by this paragraph. 12. Limitation of Liability 250 Page 3 of 5 © 2018 Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC All rights reserved. APTIM CLIENT CLIENT hereby acknowledges, understands and agrees that: (1) there are risks inherent in the Services, many of which cannot be ascertained or anticipated prior to or during the course of the Services; (2) due to the inherently limited nature and amount of the data resulting from investigation methods, complete analysis of conditions is not always possible, and, therefore, conditions frequently vary from those anticipated earlier; for example, borings in one location may not reveal contaminants only a few feet away; and (3) technology, methods, accepted professional standards as well as law and policy, are constantly changing and evolving. In light of all of the foregoing and APTIM’s lack of responsibility for creating the conditions requiring the Services, as a material inducement to and consideration for APTIM’s agreement to perform the Services on the terms and at the price herein provided for, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, CLIENT SPECIFICALLY AGREES THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT, FOR ALL LOSSES, DAMAGES, LIABILITIES OR EXPENSES (INCLUDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS) ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE SERVICES, WHETHER BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT, INDEMNITY, OR ANY OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION OR THEORY (“CLAIM”), APTIM’S LIABILITY (INCLUDING THE LIABILITY OF ITS INSURERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, DIRECTORS, AND OFFICERS AND ALL OTHER PERSONS FOR WHOM APTIM IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE) SHALL NOT EXCEED IN THE CUMULATIVE AGGREGATE WITH RESPECT TO ALL CLAIMS THE LESSER OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION PAID TO APTIM HEREUNDER OR $100,000. 13. Waiver of Consequential Damages IN NO EVENT SHALL APTIM OR CLIENT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF REVENUE, LOSS OF USE, LOSS OF OPERATION TIME, LOSS OF PRODUCT OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, HOWSOEVER CAUSED), WHETHER KNOWN OR UNKNOWN, FORESEEABLE OR UNFORESEEABLE, ARISING FROM OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE SERVICES, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH DAMAGES ARE PREMISED ON A THEORY OF TORT, STRICT LIABILITY, INDEMNITY, WARRANTY, PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, CONTRIBUTION, EQUITY, OR OTHERWISE. 14. Insurance APTIM is presently protected by Worker’s Compensation Insurance as required by applicable law and by General Liability and Automobile Liability Insurance (in the amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit) for bodily injury and property damage. Insurance certificates will be furnished on request. If CLIENT requires additional insurance coverage, APTIM will endeavor to obtain said coverage, and CLIENT shall be charged therefor. 15. Intellectual Property, Patents and Inventions CLIENT may use any final reports of findings, feasibility studies, industrial hygiene and safety, engineering work or other work performed or prepared by APTIM under this Agreement for its internal purposes in connection with the project and/or location for which such work was prepared, but APTIM reserves all other rights with respect to these and all other documents produced in performing the Services. All reports will be delivered subject to APTIM’s then current limitations. CLIENT shall obtain prior written consent from APTIM for any other use, distribution, or publication of such reports or work results. APTIM shall retain all right and title to all patentable and unpatentable inventions, including confidential know-how, developed by APTIM hereunder in APTIM’s field of expertise. APTIM shall grant to CLIENT a royalty-free, nonexclusive and nontransferable license under any such developed inventions and know-how to use the same in any of CLIENT’S facilities. APTIM shall endeavor to provide Services in a manner that does not infringe on any valid patent, copyright, trademark or involve the use of any confidential information that is the property of others unless APTIM is licensed or otherwise has the right to use and dispose thereof. APTIM shall also inform CLIENT of any infringement that it has actual knowledge of a reason to expect will result from the use of the Services. However, APTIM shall not be required to conduct and/or prepare a patent or other search and/or opinion. Information submitted by APTIM to CLIENT hereunder is not intended nor shall such submission constitute inducement and/or contribution to infringe on any patent(s) owned by a third party, and APTIM specifically disclaims any liability therefor. 16. Confidentiality In the course of performing Services, to the extent that CLIENT discloses to APTIM, or APTIM otherwise acquires, business or technical information that CLIENT clearly marks as confidential or proprietary, APTIM will exercise reasonable efforts to avoid the disclosure of such information to others. APTIM will not use such information for any purpose other than the performance of Services to CLIENT. CLIENT shall treat as confidential all information and data furnished to it by APTIM in connection with this Agreement including, but not limited to, APTIM’s technology, formulas, procedures, processes, methods, trade secrets, ideas, inventions, and/or computer programs; and CLIENT shall not disclose such information to any third party, except to a related company that has first agreed in writing with APTIM to an obligation of confidentiality identical to the obligations of CLIENT as set forth herein. However, nothing herein is meant to prevent nor shall it be interpreted as preventing either APTIM or CLIENT from disclosing and/or using said information or data (i) when the information or data is actually known to the receiving party 251 Page 4 of 5 © 2018 Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC All rights reserved. APTIM CLIENT before being obtained or derived from the transmitting party; or (ii) when, at any time, the information or data is generally available to the public without the receiving party’s fault; or (iii) when the information or data is obtained or acquired in good faith at any time by the receiving party from a third party; or (iv) when a written release is obtained by the receiving party from the transmitting party; or (v) three (3) years from the date of receipt of such information; (v) or when permitted by this Agreement; or (vi) when required by process of law; provided, however, upon service of such process and to the extent practical and permitted by law, the recipient thereof shall promptly notify the other party so that they may object to the disclosure and/or waive compliance with the terms of this Agreement. CLIENT shall obtain APTIM’s prior consent and cooperation with the formulation and release of any public disclosure in connection with this Agreement or work performed hereunder, before issuing a news release, public announcement, advertisement, or other form of publicity. 17. Assignment Neither party shall assign any right or delegate any duty under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any parent, subsidiary or affiliate of APTIM may perform some or all of the Services, and APTIM may upon notice to the CLIENT assign, pledge or otherwise hypothecate the cash proceeds and accounts receivable resulting from the performance of any Services or sale of any goods pursuant to this Agreement. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties’ respective successors and assigns. 18. No Third Party Beneficiaries This Agreement is strictly for the benefit of APTIM and CLIENT. There are no third-party beneficiaries to this Agreement, and no one other than APTIM and CLIENT may seek to enforce it. This Agreement is not intended to create any obligations owed to third parties. 19. Disputes and Arbitration a. APTIM and CLIENT shall negotiate for a period of 30 days from notice of any dispute relating to this Agreement or the Services. b. If the parties fail to resolve a dispute by direct negotiation, the dispute shall be resolved by binding arbitration in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The arbitration shall be administered by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Commercial Arbitration Rules then in effect. A demand for arbitration shall be made in writing, delivered to the other party to this Agreement, and filed with the American Arbitration Association. The party filing a demand for arbitration must assert all disputes and claims then known to that party relating to this Agreement or the Services. The responding party must include in its response all disputes and claims then known to that party relating to this Agreement or the Services. The arbitrator shall limit discovery to the exchange of documents relevant to this Agreement and the Services and to a limited number of depositions based on the size and complexity of the dispute. Interrogatories and requests for admissions are not permitted. The award rendered by the arbitrator shall be final, and judgment may be entered thereon by any court having jurisdiction. c. The prevailing party, if any, shall be entitled to recover as damages its reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred in the course of the arbitration. A prevailing party is a party whose outcome is better for that party than that stated in the most recent written settlement offer made by that party at least 30 days prior to the beginning of the arbitration hearing. 20. Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted pursuant to the rules of the state where the Services are performed. In the case of Services consisting mostly of engineering and consulting performed at APTIM's offices, this shall be the state in which the APTIM office principally responsible for the Services is located. 21. Entire Agreement The terms and conditions set forth herein, and the exhibits hereto, constitute the entire understanding of the parties relating to the provision of Services by APTIM to CLIENT. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument signed by both parties. 22. Compliance with Codes and Law CLIENT shall comply with all applicable codes and with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, statutes, rules, and regulations, and shall indemnify and hold APTIM harmless from any claims or damages resulting from CLIENT’s failure to comply. 23. Waiver of Terms and Conditions The failure of APTIM or CLIENT in any one or more instances to enforce one or more of the terms or conditions of this Agreement or to exercise any right or privilege in this Agreement or the waiver of any breach of the terms or conditions of this Agreement shall not be construed as thereafter waiving any such terms, conditions, rights, or privileges, and the same shall continue and remain in force and effect as if no such failure to enforce had occurred. 24. Severability and Survival Each provision of this Agreement is severable from the others. Should any provision of this Agreement be found invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be ineffective only to the extent required by law, without invalidating the remainder of such provision or the remainder of this Agreement. Further, to the extent permitted by law, any provision found invalid or unenforceable shall be deemed automatically redrawn to the extent necessary to render it valid and enforceable consistent with the parties’ intent. The terms and conditions hereof shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 25. Notice 252 Page 5 of 5 © 2018 Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC All rights reserved. APTIM CLIENT Where required by this Agreement, notice shall be made in writing by delivery to the address set forth below. Email notification is acceptable. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CLIENT and APTIM agree to the foregoing (INCLUDING THE LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY IN SECTION 12) and have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the date set forth below. Executed this ___day of , 2023. CLIENT NAME: By: Name: Title: Address: Phone: Email: APTIM ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, LLC By: Name: Title: Address: Phone: Email: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Services 253 TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH BEACH RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Submitted to: The Town of Highland Beach Submitted by: Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. A CB&I Company Authors: Gordon G. Thomson, P.E., D.CE. David Swigler, P.E. April 2013 254 i COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town of Highland Beach requested that Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. (CPE) develop a feasibility report that evaluates options for protecting and restoring the beach within the Town. The beach is one of the Town’s most valuable assets and the Town requested that CPE evaluate options that would protect the beach’s natural resources, coastal property, and public health and safety. CPE evaluated the Town’s 2.84-mile beach. A site visit was conducted in January 2013 and shoreline data from 1975 to 2008 was reviewed. In summary, the beach along the southernmost mile of the Town is narrow and the berm is low. Scarping following the passage of Hurricane Sandy was evident. The shoreline in the southern section appears to be controlled by three rock outcrops, of which Yamato Rock at the southern extremity is the most prominent. The average shoreline retreat rate at the southern end of Town is 0.4 feet/year though the average shoreline change for the entire section of beach is an advance of 1.2 feet/year. The beach in the northern 1.85 miles of the Town has benefitted from repeated beach nourishments in Delray Beach. The beach in this area is wider, higher and has an established, vegetated dune system. While the historic shoreline changes are a basis for optimism, there are two issues with the current state of the beach. The first is that while the shoreline is advancing within much of the Town and the shoreline retreat at the south end of Town is mild, the beach is susceptible to large fluctuations due to storm events. Large storm events can damage upland property, as experienced during Hurricane Sandy. While the shoreline will recover, the dunes that provide much of the protection are slower to recover and typically require the upland property owner to rebuild them by trucking in sand. The second issue is that the beach is too narrow in some areas to support the required recreational demand of the condominiums. CPE evaluated several alternatives including a no action alternative, upland sand placement via truck haul, a larger scale beach nourishment project, and installation of coastal structures. It is recommended that a larger scale beach nourishment project be pursued. While there is no imminent need for this project, except for non-critical recreational purposes, these projects take several years to design and permit. Ideally, permits should be in place to reconstruct the beaches should a large storm or series of storms impact the Town. A large scale beach nourishment project encompasses dredging sand from offshore and placing it along the southern 2 miles of the Town’s beach. The cost of construction is estimated at $9.5M, including inflation, assuming a project is constructed in 2015. The cost of dredge projects has been increasing faster than general inflation and we estimate that delaying project construction by an additional 5 years (to 2020) could inflate the cost to $14M. Limited public beach access will limit availability of County, State or Federal funding. It is recommended that other options be considered to fund a beach nourishment program, such as an Ad Valorem Tax, Erosion Prevention District, or Municipal Service Benefit Unit. 255 ii COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH BEACH RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 2 COASTAL SETTING ............................................................................................................. 1 2.1 Winds ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Waves ......................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Storms ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.4 Tides ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.5 Storm Surge ............................................................................................................... 5 2.6 Sea Level Rise ............................................................................................................ 5 3 HISTORIC CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Data ............................................................................................................................ 6 3.2 Shoreline Change Analysis ........................................................................................ 7 3.3 Volumetric Change Analysis ................................................................................... 14 3.4 Environmental Resources ........................................................................................ 15 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 16 5 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND ALTERNATIVES .................................................. 23 5.1 No Action by the Town of Highland Beach ............................................................ 24 5.2 Dune Restoration and Enhancement ........................................................................ 24 5.3 Beach Nourishment Project ..................................................................................... 26 5.4 Coastal Structures .................................................................................................... 29 6 FUNDING MECHANISMS ................................................................................................. 32 6.1 Federal Funding ....................................................................................................... 32 6.2 State Funding ........................................................................................................... 32 6.3 County Funding ....................................................................................................... 33 6.4 Local Funding Mechanisms ..................................................................................... 33 7 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 36 8 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 37 List of Figures Figure 1. Offshore Wave Data for WIS Station 464. ..................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Shoreline and Hardbottom Map, R-190 to R-192 .......................................................... 9 Figure 3. Shoreline and Hardbottom Map, R-193 to R-196 ........................................................ 10 Figure 4. Shoreline and Hardbottom Map, R-197 to R-200 ........................................................ 11 Figure 5. Shoreline and Hardbottom Map, R-201 to R-203 ........................................................ 12 Figure 6. Shoreline and Hardbottom Map, R-204 to R-207 ........................................................ 13 Figure 7. Typical Cross-Section of the Proposed Beach Nourishment Project ........................... 26 Figure 8. Offshore Borrow Areas and Potential Sand Resources ................................................ 28 256 iii COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. List of Tables Table 1. Extreme Wave Analysis for WIS Station 464 ................................................................. 2 Table 2. Summary of Tropical Storms Impacting the Town of Highland Beach .......................... 4 Table 3. Tidal Datums at the Lake Worth Pier .............................................................................. 5 Table 4. Estimated Storm Stage ..................................................................................................... 5 Table 5. Shoreline Change Summary ............................................................................................ 8 Table 6. Annualized Shoreline Change Summary ......................................................................... 8 Table 7. Volumetric Change Summary above -28.0 feet, NAVD ............................................... 14 Table 8. Volumetric Change Summary above Mean High Water (+0.44 feet, NAVD).............. 15 Table 9. Alternative Local Funding Mechanisms (from Stevens & Assoc, 1986) ...................... 35 List of Photos Photo 1. View Looking north from the Carlton House Condominium. . .................................... 16 Photo 2. View looking north along the beach in front of the Holiday Inn. ............................... 17 Photo 3. View looking north at the Holiday Inn. ....................................................................... 18 Photo 4. View looking north from the Toscana Beach Club. .................................................... 19 Photo 5. View Looking north from the Ambassadors Condominium. ...................................... 20 Photo 6. View looking north from Yamato Rock. . .................................................................... 21 Photo 7. View of a scarped dune and beach erosion. . ................................................................ 21 Photo 8. Deflation of the dune underneath the deck at 4513 S Ocean Blvd. ............................... 22 Photo 9. View looking south from Yamato Rock. ....................................................................... 23 Photo 10. Permeable adjustable groin in Longboat Key. ............................................................ 29 Photo 11. Breakwaters at the Breakers Hotel, Town of Palm Beach. . ...................................... 30 Appendices Appendix A Beach Profile Cross-sections Appendix B State of Florida Final Emergency Order for Hurricane Sandy Repairs Appendix C State of Florida Beach Management Funding Assistance Program 257 1 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 1 INTRODUCTION The Town of Highland Beach requested that Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. (CPE) develop a feasibility report that evaluates options for protecting and restoring the Town’s beach. The beach is one of the Town’s most valuable assets and the Town requested that CPE evaluate options that would: 1. Maximize protection of the beach’s natural resources, coastal property and development, and public health and safety; 2. Maximize the quality of the beach for both human activities and environmental needs; 3. Minimize economic losses that may result from a beach erosion event by being prepared; 4. To efficiently, economically, and responsibly respond to and restore the beach as soon as possible after sustaining any significant beach loss; 5. Minimize the potential negative impacts (visual, audio, environmental, and beach sand loss) of the proposed sand; 6. Maximize the potential benefits of any future renourishment activities. This report will first present the coastal setting within the Town of Highland Beach, discussing the tides, storm events, history of shoreline and volumetric changes, and offshore resources. This will be followed by a general discussion of the current condition of the Town’s beach. The next section, Problem Identification and Alternatives, will evaluate various alternatives available to address the beach condition. These include a No Action Alternative, upland placement of sand, strategic use of coastal structures, and a larger beach nourishment project. The costs of these various alternatives will be discussed along with an expected level of permitting effort. This discussion will be followed by an outline of the potential funding mechanisms. The last section will be CPE’s recommendations. 2 COASTAL SETTING 2.1 Winds Winds indirectly cause the littoral transport of sand by generating waves. Northeast winds events typically produce the largest waves due to a long, uninterrupted fetch and the duration of the winds. Winds from the east and southeast typically do not create large waves in the project area because of the limited fetch between southeast Florida and the Bahamas, and the limited duration of weather patterns from these directions. Winds associated with tropical storms may also affect the shoreline. Due to the cyclonic nature of the winds associated with tropical storms and hurricanes, the winds can come from any direction. If the winds are in an onshore direction, a storm surge will be created and in conjunction with the higher waves will cause accelerated erosion of the beach. 258 2 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2.2 Waves One of the principal causes of beach erosion is waves breaking on the beach and washing sand into the ocean. Waves also cause littoral movement in the longshore direction, and the onshore- offshore direction. Due to the general north-south orientation of the project shoreline, waves from the east cause little longshore movement of sand. In contrast, waves from the north and northeast cause a net movement of sand to the south, whereas, waves from the south and southeast cause a net movement of sand to the north. The distribution of wave heights and directions for the project area are provided in Figure 1. This data is based on wave data from the USACE (2004) Wave Information Study station 464 located at 26.33N, 79.92W. This is approximately 10 miles east-southeast of the Town of Highland Beach. The wave hindcast data covers a 20-year hindcast period from 1980 to 1999. In the Town of Highland Beach, the average onshore (005 to 185) wave height is 3.1 feet, with a period of 4.8 seconds. These waves typically come from the east-northeast (068). The highest wave hindcasted near the project area was approximately 24 feet. One important factor that contributes to the wave climate observed within the Town of Highland Beach project area is the presence of the Bahama Banks. This geological formation limits the fetch for eastern, southeastern and some northeastern waves. Interpreting Figure 1 shows the effect the Bahama Banks has on the average wave height distribution patterns by the limited time (only July) that the average wave approaches from the south (>090). Since most waves affecting the project area are from the northeast, the annual net movement of sand is to the south. Extreme wave statistics for the project area are based on data of tropical storm events prior to 1980 (Dean, 1992), and the 1980-1999 wave hindcast for WIS Station 464 (USACE, 2004), which includes the effects of tropical and extratropical storms. Table 1 shows the expected return period frequency of the wave period and wave height. A Weibull distribution was used to estimate the return frequencies. Table 1. Extreme Wave Analysis for WIS Station 464 Return Period Wave Height Hmo Wave Period Tp (feet) (seconds) (years) Mean +/- Mean +/- 2 10.6 1.1 8.3 0.3 5 19.9 1.4 10.1 0.4 10 25.2 2.0 11.4 0.6 20 29.8 2.6 12.7 0.9 25 31.1 2.8 13.2 1.0 50 35.0 3.3 14.5 1.3 100 38.6 3.8 15.8 1.6 200 41.9 4.3 17.2 1.9 500 46.0 4.8 19.0 2.3 259 3 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Figure 1. Offshore Wave Data for WIS Station 464. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Wave Height (feet)Average Wave Period (seconds) 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Wave Direction (degrees) 260 4 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2.3 Storms Surges and waves caused by extratropical and tropical storms (including hurricanes) are major threats to the shoreline of Highland Beach. The hurricane season extends from June 1 through November 30. Palm Beach County has averaged 1.0 land-falling tropical storms per 10 nautical miles of shoreline from 1871 to 1973 (USACE, 1987). Extratropical storms that generate waves out of the northeast also have a significant effect on the Town’s shoreline. These storms are characterized by strong winds of long duration (several days) that generate swell waves. Northeaster storms typically cause more beach erosion along the coast of Highland Beach than any other event. One example of this was the northeast storm of November 1996. This storm resulted in shoreline recession of up to 22 feet (CPE, 1998). Table 2 gives a summary of historical tropical storms affecting Highland Beach after 1975. Storm events prior to 1980 are based on data from Dean (1992). Storm events between 1980 and 1999 are based on WIS data (USACE, 2004). Storm events after 1999 were calculated from pressure, forward velocity, radius to maximum winds, and distance to the center of the Town. Table 2. Summary of Tropical Storms Impacting the Town of Highland Beach Date Name Deep Water Wave Height (feet) Wave Period (sec) Storm Surge (feet) Wind Speed (mph) 9/3/1979 David 22.3 10.1 3.9 92 09/27/84 Isidore 24.3 12.5 4.4 43 11/19/85 Kate 17.1 11.1 3.5 35 08/24/92 Andrew 18.0 10.0 3.5 39 11/14/94 Gordon 23.3 12.5 4.2 41 08/02/95 Erin 15.1 10.0 3.2 34 11/05/98 Mitch 15.4 10.0 3.2 41 09/15/99 Floyd 24.3 12.5 4.4 42 10/15/99 Irene 21.7 10.0 3.8 56 09/05/04 Frances 33.9 9.9 4.7 104 09/26/04 Jeanne 32.0 10.9 4.3 115 8/26/2005 Katrina 12.0 8.2 1.8 59 9/20/2005 Rita 11.2 7.6 1.4 34 10/24/2005 Wilma 20.9 8.5 3.7 72 5/8/2007 Andrea 13.7 12.5 1.0 18 10/31/2007 Noel 14.5 9.7 1.1 25 8/27/2012 Isaac 13.4 8.5 0.8 43 10/27/2012 Sandy 13.8 10.2 2.0 43 2.4 Tides The closest tide gauge to the project area is located at the Lake Worth Pier. The tides are semi- diurnal with a mean tidal range of 2.9 feet. Tidal datums appear in Table 3. 261 5 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Table 3. Tidal Datums at the Lake Worth Pier Elevation (feet, NAVD) Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) 0.58 Mean High Water (MHW) 0.44 Mean Sea Level (MSL) -0.92 Mean Low Water (MLW) -2.29 Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) -2.42 Source: NOAA (2013), http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/benchmarks/8722670.html 2.5 Storm Surge Storm surge is defined as the rise of the sea surface above its astronomical tide level due to storm forces. The elevation that the storm surge reaches is known as its storm stage. The increased elevation is attributable to a variety of factors including waves, wind shear stress, and atmospheric pressure. Dean et al (1992) estimated the storm stage along Palm Beach County for varying return periods. Table 4 summarizes these estimates. Table 4. Estimated Storm Stage Return Period (years) Storm Stage Level (feet, NAVD) 50 8.2 20 6.1 10 4.2 5 1.9 2.6 Sea Level Rise The global sea level has both risen and fallen throughout geological history. Recent trends in local sea level changes can be used as indicators of what will occur in the near future. Experience indicates that as the relative sea level rises, the shoreline will be subjected to increased flooding, shoreline recession, and profile erosion. The National Ocean Service (NOS) has published sea level trends for regions along the United States coasts based on measured yearly mean sea level records. Based on tide gage records from a gage at Miami Beach, NOAA has estimated that sea level is rising along the southeast Florida coast at 2.39mm/year (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8723170). This is equivalent to 0.78 feet/century. Bruun (1962) proposed a formula for estimating the rate of shoreline recession based on the local rate of relative sea level rise. This methodology also includes consideration of local topography and bathymetry. Bruun’s approach assumes that with a rise in sea level, the beach profile will attempt to reestablish the same bottom depths relative to the previous sea level. As a result, the beach profile shape relative to the mean water level will re-establish itself. If the longshore littoral transport in and out of a given shoreline area is equal, the quantity of material required to 262 6 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. re-establish the nearshore slope must be derived from shoreline recession. The effects of sea level rise on the shoreline recession can be approximated using Bruun's (1962) relationship: R = LS / (h+b) [Equation 1] where R = shoreline recession, S = sea level rise, b = berm height, h = depth of the limit of the active profile, L = horizontal distance from the beach to the limit of the active profile. The annual limit of the depth of the active profile, h, has been estimated using cross-shore beach profiles collected by the State (Appendix C). The profiles closed at an average depth of –28 feet, NAVD. Review of the post-hurricane surveys (Frances and Jeanne) also suggested that -28 feet, NAVD is a fair estimate of the depth of the active profile. The estimate of shoreline recession due to relative sea level rise used –28 feet, NAVD as the depth of closure. The distance, L, from the mean high water line (+0.44 feet, NAVD) to the depth of closure is estimated to be 1,500 feet (an average value was calculated from surveys collected along FDEP survey monuments R-191 through R-204). Using a berm height, B, of 8 feet and a sea level rise rate of 0.0078 feet/year, the shoreline recession due to sea level rise is calculated to be 0.33 feet/year using Bruun’s rule. The National Research Council (1987) has estimated that sea level rise may accelerate in the future to a rate of approximately 0.04 feet/year. For this extreme rate of sea level rise, Equation 1 yields a recession rate of 1.67 feet/year. However, until a higher rate of sea level rise is documented, it is recommended that any plans use the observed sea level rise rate. 3 HISTORIC CONDITIONS This section discusses the historic shoreline and volumetric changes within the Town of Highland Beach. This data and analysis, along with observations documented in Section 4, will be used to evaluate the need and extent of coastal protection alternatives. 3.1 Data This analysis was performed using the latest available beach profile data. No field data collection was performed as part of this work beyond a site visit conducted in January 2013 to document the existing conditions, which will be discussed in Section 4. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Palm Beach County have collected beach surveys over the last several decades. These have been collected at FDEP monuments, which are shown on Figure 2 through Figure 6. The northern limit of the Town of Highland Beach is located approximately 950 north of R-191 and 200 feet south of R-190. The southern limit of the Town of Highland Beach is located approximately 175 feet south of R-204. 263 7 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. The earliest available beach profile data set was collected in January 1975 (FDEP, 2013). Other available data sets that included the entire beach profile from the dune crest out to the depth of closure include October 1990 and October 2008 surveys. Profiles were also collected before and after Hurricane Jeanne (April 2004 and November 2004). No pre or post-Hurricane Sandy data was available during the drafting of this report. No rectified aerial photographs were collected in 2012 either, which could have been used to determine shoreline location. Thus, no quantifiable impacts to the coastal system (shoreline and/or volume changes) from Hurricane Sandy could be included in this report. Annual surveys of exposed hard bottom (rock outcrops) have been collected from 1993 through 2009 by Palm Beach County Environmental Resource Management. 3.2 Shoreline Change Analysis A shoreline change analysis was performed using the available data. The shoreline change data is summarized in Table 5 while the annualized shoreline change is shown in Table 6. The shoreline locations from the 1975, 1990 and 2008 surveys have been plotted on Figure 2 through Figure 6. These figures and tables highlight that the beach throughout most of the Town of Highland Beach is advancing and actually moving seaward. The average shoreline advance is 1.2 feet/year between January 1975 and October 2008. The tables and figures also show that the beach to the north is advancing more relative to the beach at the center of the Town while the beach at the southern end of the Town is receding. This trend can be directly related to the beach nourishment program in Delray Beach. There have been six beach nourishment projects in Delray Beach since 1973 (1973, 1978, 1984, 1992, 2002, and 2005). A seventh project is currently under construction (March 2013). The sand placed during these projects is working its way south along the coast through natural coastal processes causing an average shoreline advance within the Town of Highland Beach. This trend is expected to continue into the future assuming that Delray Beach continues to conduct through periodic beach renourishment projects. Comparing the 1975 to 1990 and the 1990 to 2004 could suggest that the trend of shoreline retreat at the southern end of the Town could be switching from one of retreat to one of shoreline advance. This trend was drastically reversed by Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne, which both impacted the project area in September 2004 and caused substantial shoreline retreat. The higher rate of shoreline advance observed between November 2004 and October 2008 is attributed to recovery of the shoreline following these events. A similar type of shoreline recovery was observed following Hurricane Sandy. The analysis of shoreline impacts from Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne reveals the susceptibility of the shoreline location to large storm events. The average shoreline retreat between April 2004 and November 2004 was approximately 34 feet throughout the Town though it was as high as 79 feet (at R-194). In some areas, the distance from the mean high water line to the base of the dune is only 30 to 40 feet. 264 8 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Table 5. Shoreline Change Summary Shoreline Change (feet) Profile Jan 1975 to Oct 1990 Oct 1990 to Apr 2004 Apr 2004 to Nov 2004 Nov 2004 to Oct 2008 Jan 1975 to Oct 2008 R‐191 83.1 5.3 ‐24.7 53.2 116.9 R‐192 68.1 34.7 ‐26.6 82.1 158.3 R‐193 68.0 55.4 ‐55.2 14.4 82.6 R‐194 49.3 62.5 ‐79.3 33.4 65.9 R‐195 10.8 49.1 ‐29.8 22.2 52.3 R‐196 50.5 ‐10.0 ‐15.8 19.0 43.7 R‐197 28.2 13.2 ‐18.9 5.0 27.5 R‐198 8.4 19.4 ‐45.8 35.3 17.3 R‐199 ‐14.9 3.5 2.6 ‐1.6 ‐10.4 R‐200 ‐33.7 12.7 ‐38.6 31.1 ‐28.5 R‐201 5.9 0.3 ‐15.3 28.4 19.3 R‐202 ‐18.7 1.3 ‐27.7 24.3 ‐20.8 T‐203 ‐27.0 24.3 ‐56.2 26.8 ‐32.1 R‐204 43.0 20.2 ‐42.2 32.0 53.0 Average 22.9 20.9 ‐33.8 29.0 38.9 Table 6. Annualized Shoreline Change Summary Annualized Shoreline Change (feet/year) Profile Jan 1975 to Oct 1990 Oct 1990 to Apr 2004 Apr 2004 to Nov 2004 Nov 2004 to Oct 2008 Jan 1975 to Oct 2008 R‐191 5.3 0.4 ‐41.2 13.6 3.5 R‐192 4.3 2.6 ‐44.3 21.1 4.7 R‐193 4.3 4.1 ‐92.0 3.7 2.5 R‐194 3.1 4.6 ‐132.2 8.6 2.0 R‐195 0.7 3.6 ‐49.7 5.7 1.6 R‐196 3.2 ‐0.7 ‐26.3 4.9 1.3 R‐197 1.8 1.0 ‐31.5 1.3 0.8 R‐198 0.5 1.4 ‐76.3 9.1 0.5 R‐199 ‐0.9 0.3 4.3 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 R‐200 ‐2.1 0.9 ‐64.3 8.0 ‐0.8 R‐201 0.4 0.0 ‐25.5 7.3 0.6 R‐202 ‐1.2 0.1 ‐46.2 6.2 ‐0.6 T‐203 ‐1.7 1.8 ‐93.7 6.9 ‐1.0 R‐204 2.7 1.5 ‐70.3 8.2 1.6 Average 1.5 1.5 ‐56.4 7.4 1.2 265 9 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Figure 2. Shoreline and Hardbottom Map, R-190 to R-192 Figure 2. Shoreline and Hardbottom Map, R-190 to R-192 266 10 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Figure 3. Shoreline and Hardbottom Map, R-193 to R-196 Figure 3. Shoreline and Hardbottom Map, R-193 to R-196 267 11 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Figure 4. Shoreline and Hardbottom Map, R-197 to R-200 Figure 4. Shoreline and Hardbottom Map, R-197 to R-200 268 12 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Figure 5. Shoreline and Hardbottom Map, R-201 to R-203 Figure 5. Shoreline and Hardbottom Map, R-201 to R-203 269 13 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Figure 6. Shoreline and Hardbottom Map, R-204 to R-207 Figure 6. Shoreline and Hardbottom Map, R-204 to R-207 270 14 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 3.3 Volumetric Change Analysis The shoreline can be indicative of the condition of the entire beach profile but a better representation of the beach condition is the volume within the beach profile. Natural onshore and offshore movement of sand will occur throughout the year causing the shoreline to move though the beach is still in a healthy condition. A volumetric change analysis from the dune out to -28.0 feet, NAVD shows how the entire beach profile is performing. Unfortunately, not all of the January 1975 profiles extended seaward to -28.0 feet, NAVD so this analysis was performed using only the profiles that extended this far (approximately every third 1975 profile line). Table 7 shows that all of the profiles within the Town of Highland Beach (THB) accreted sand between 1975 and 2008. As with the shoreline change, there is a general trend of greater accretion at the north end of the Town and less accretion at the south end of Town. This again suggests that the volumetric increase is a function of sand migrating south into the Town from Delray Beach. Delray Beach has placed in excess of 6.25M cubic yards of sand on their beach since 1973 so approximately 1/3 of this volume has moved into the Town of Highland Beach. Table 7. Volumetric Change Summary above -28.0 feet, NAVD Profile Distance between Profiles (feet) Volumetric Change above ‐28.0 feet, NAVD (cubic yards) From To Jan 1975 to Oct 1990 Oct 1990 to Oct 2008 Jan 1975 to Oct 2008 Limit of THB R‐191 955 80,000 88,400 168,400 R‐191 R‐192 1,209 101,200 111,900 213,100 R‐192 R‐195 2,662 254,900 224,300 479,200 R‐195 R‐198 3,300 294,400 242,500 536,900 R‐198 R‐201 3,052 228,700 170,800 399,500 R‐201 R‐204 3,627 233,100 127,200 360,300 R‐204 Limit of THB 175 8,700 5,100 13,800 Total 14,980 1,201,000 970,200 2,171,200 Examining the beach profiles in Appendix A suggests that the majority of this sediment has stayed in the offshore portion of the profile. This would be expected as finer sediments can be transported more easily from the Delray Beach project and will tend to accumulate in the deeper portion of the beach profile. While sand in the offshore profile still provides storm protection to the Town, the greatest value this profile provides is in stabilizing any fill placed above mean high water by upland property owners. Although the Town’s beach has benefited from this accumulation of sediment, the natural offshore transport has not resulted in year-over-year shoreline advance to facilitate natural dune build-up. A volumetric analysis was performed that showed the volumetric gain above mean high water (0.44 feet, NAVD) was only 122,700 cubic yards between 1975 and 2008 (Table 8), which is less than 6% of the total volumetric gain. A further analysis of volume change above + 271 15 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 5 feet, NAVD showed a gain of only 16,300 cubic yards, some or all of which may be attributed to sand placement by upland property owners. Table 8. Volumetric Change Summary above Mean High Water (+0.44 feet, NAVD) Profile Distance between Profiles (feet) Volumetric Change above +0.44 feet, NAVD (cubic yards) From To Jan 1975 to Oct 1990 Oct 1990 to Oct 2008 Jan 1975 to Oct 2008 Limit of HB R‐191 955 19,900 15,600 35,500 R‐191 R‐192 1,209 17,800 24,100 41,900 R‐192 R‐193 1,238 1,600 18,100 19,700 R‐193 R‐194 781 2,100 7,600 9,700 R‐194 R‐195 643 8,000 11,100 19,100 R‐195 R‐196 1,341 13,800 17,800 31,600 R‐196 R‐197 851 5,600 2,700 8,300 R‐197 R‐198 1,108 3,900 5,500 9,400 R‐198 R‐199 1,090 ‐9,800 6,600 ‐3,200 R‐199 R‐200 858 ‐11,600 3,500 ‐8,100 R‐200 R‐201 1,105 ‐5,000 4,600 ‐400 R‐201 R‐202 1,157 ‐25,300 3,800 ‐21,500 R‐202 T‐203 1,111 ‐23,200 ‐2,400 ‐25,600 T‐203 R‐204 1,358 ‐200 4,200 4,000 R‐204 Limit of HB 175 200 2,100 2,300 Total 14,980 ‐2,200 124,900 122,700 3.4 Environmental Resources There are numerous rock out crops (hardbottom) throughout the Town of Highland Beach. The nearshore hardbottom resources within Highland Beach are part of the Nearshore Ridge Complex (NRC), a combination of shallow colonized pavement and ridges of relatively flat, low- relief carbonate rock (Walker, 2012). Most of the exposed rock is located at the south end of the Town, the most prominent being Yamato Rock. The NRC potentially serves a variety of ecosystem functions, including settlement and nursery areas, spawning sites, feeding areas, and shelter for hundreds of species of macroalgae, fish and invertebrates such as stony corals and octocorals (Lindeman et al., 2009; Lindeman and Snyder, 1999). The hardbottom resources adjacent to Highland Beach are located in the intertidal and subtidal zones and are subject to high wave energy and constant sand movement. The benthic community is generally dominated by turf algae and macroalgae, with invertebrates including tunicates and sponges. It is characterized by a low-density coral community, predominantly of small colonies of Siderastrea spp. (less than 2 cm), a species that dominates the nearshore habitat of south Florida and is considered relatively sediment-tolerant (Lirman et al., 2002). 272 16 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Much of this hardbottom is ephemeral in nature but is important for the environmental system and must be considered when evaluating beach restoration alternatives within the Town. The latest available data outlining the extent of the hardbottom is a survey conducted by Palm Beach County Environmental Resource Management in 2009. These hardbottom extents are shown in Figures 2 through 7 and total approximately 1.2 acres. 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS A site visit was conducted in January 2013 to document the condition of the visible portion of the beach. The beach in the northernmost quarter mile of the Town is backed by single family homes (2355 to 2545 S Ocean Blvd). There is a well-developed, vegetated dune system with the crest elevation of the dune approaching 20 feet, NAVD. The beach was wide with a berm and a mild foreshore slope (Photo 1). No impacts following Hurricane Sandy were apparent. Profile R-191 is representative of this stretch of beach. Profiles comparing the beach condition in January 1975, October 1990, and October 2008 can be found in Appendix A. Photo 1. View Looking north from the Carlton House Condominium. Note the wide beach, vegetated dune and overall setback of property from the shoreline. The next mile of beach (2565 to 3407 S Ocean Blvd, Townhouses of Highland Beach Condominium to the Clarendon Condominium) is composed primarily of condominiums with 273 17 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. the Holiday Inn being the one exception. Again, there is a vegetated dune throughout this area though it varied from 75 to 100 feet wide in the northern section to as narrow as 40 feet wide in front of the Ambassadors Condominium. The beach in front of the vegetated dune varied from 60 to 90 feet though this will vary depending on the time of year (Photo 2). The beach had a berm and relatively flat foreshore slope indicative of a healthy beach profile. Profiles R-192 through R-196 show the historic beach cross-sections in this section of the beach. Photo 2. View looking north along the beach in front of the Holiday Inn. Note the berm and mild foreshore slope. A study by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (2002) determined that 200 square feet of dry beach is required for normal beach activity by the average person. Given a daily turnover rate of 2, this corresponds to 100 square feet per person per day. Thus, the beach in front of the Holiday Inn’s property (400 feet long with a 100-foot wide beach on average) will support 400 visitors per day. With 115 rooms, the existing beach should provide sufficient recreational area to support hotel guest needs. While a similar analysis of all the condominiums in this section of beach was not performed, it can be assumed that beach usage at a hotel will be higher than adjacent condominiums and similar building densities apply. Thus the beach in this area should support the recreational demand. All of the observed properties had a seawall protecting the main structure though the seawall was typically buried or level with the top of dune. The seawall at the Holiday Inn (Photo 3) appeared to be at an elevation typical of other seawalls through this section. The condition of the seawalls was not reviewed during the development of this report and it is assumed that they were constructed per Florida building codes and statutes. As such, they should protect the upland 274 18 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. structure from up to a 50-year return period storm event, if be designed, constructed and maintained per the code. Photo 3. View looking north at the Holiday Inn. Note the seawall at the left side of the photo and vegetated dune in front of the seawall. The next section of beach from 3419 to 3907 S Ocean Blvd is approximately 0.55 miles long and is mostly composed of single family homes except for a few condos at the north end (Villanova, Villas at Highland Beach and Ocean Reef Condo). This section also contains the beach club for Toscana and the beach access of the Highland Beach Club. Thus, while it’s mostly single family homes along the beach side, there is still a high recreational value for the beach in this section. Mr. Berman, Toscana Homeowner’s Association Community Association Manager, indicated that there were approximately 850 residents of the Toscana properties (personal communication, 2012) during peak season. He estimated that 130 to 140 residents visit the beach per day during the peak season. The beach should have a dry width of 90 feet to provide optimal recreational benefit for this usage, assuming 100 square feet of beach needed per visit/day, and the Toscana property length of 160 feet. The beach width observed in January 2013 was only half this width (50 feet). Along this section of the Town’s shoreline, impacts from Hurricane Sandy started to become evident. Sections of dune vegetation had been damaged and undermined (Photo 4) and scarping was visible along the shoreline. The elevation of the dune seemed sufficient and a review of Profiles R-197 and R-198 suggest that the dune has sufficient elevation at +18 feet, NAVD to +20 feet, NAVD. Profile R-199 had a lower dune elevation at +12 feet, NAVD, which provides 275 19 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. limited protection. For example, a typical lower grade beam elevation would be +14 feet, NAVD in this section of Palm Beach County. Photo 4. View looking north from the Toscana Beach Club. Note the narrow beach width and steep face at the toe of vegetation indicative of storm damage. The next 0.6-mile section of beach (3912 S Ocean Blvd to 11 Ocean Place, Regency Highland Club to Ocean Place Estates) was grouped because it consisted primarily of single family homes and low density condominiums (Ocean Place Villas and Coco-de-Mer Condominium). The Regency Highland Club also has a beach access in this reach, which is almost 200 feet long. The beach is sufficiently wide to provide recreational benefits to the club’s 210 units. Only two homes do not have a vegetated dune in front of their property (3921 and 4001 S Ocean Blvd). All the other properties have a vegetated dune though the width and height vary. The beach is too narrow to support a sustainable dune, and impacts to the dune during a major storm event should be expected. It was apparent that residents had truck hauled sand to rebuild the dune following the passage of Hurricane Sandy (Photo 5). However, the beach in this section will provide storm damage protection benefits to the homes under higher frequency, low intensity storms. 276 20 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Photo 5. View Looking north from the Ambassadors Condominium. Note the rock outcrop and newly rebuilt dune in front of Ocean Place Estates. All of the homes appear to have a seawall buried within the dune and it is our understanding that the Ocean Place Estates have one continuous seawall. Therefore, the beach in this section is adequate to serve the current needs of the residents though rebuilding of the dune may periodically be necessary following a large storm event. Persistent hard bottom first appears in this reach (Figures 3 and 4). This environmental resource appears to pin the shoreline as there is a small bulge in the shoreline in the immediate vicinity of exposed hard bottom (Photo 5). The shoreline is set further back between the rock outcrops. The 0.3 miles at the south end of the Town extending from the Ambassadors Condominium (4505 S Ocean Blvd) to Yamato Rock are the most critical sections of beach within the Town limits. The beach is narrow (less than 25 feet) and the berm is scarped and low (Photo 6). Scarping of the dune due to the passage of Hurricane Sandy was evident as was damage to property (Photo 7). It appeared that the Ambassador’s Condominium had rebuilt the staircase from the pool deck to the beach following Hurricane Sandy. Other properties also needed to bring sand to prevent further undermining of their property (Photo 8). Examining the profile R- 203 suggests that the dune is substantial in this area (+20 feet, NAVD) though the history suggests retreat of the dune feature. 277 21 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Photo 6. View looking north from Yamato Rock. Note the narrow beach width, steep profile and scarping of the berm and dune. Photo 7. View of a scarped dune and beach erosion. Note that there is an approximate paint line on the staircase, which generally indicates a previous beach elevation and shows erosion of the beach. The missing handrail suggests recent damage from Hurricane Sandy. 278 22 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Photo 8. Deflation of the dune underneath the deck at 4513 S Ocean Blvd, likely as a result of Hurricane Sandy. South of Yamato Rock, the beach is stable and healthy and the three properties (4713, 4715 and 4801 S Ocean Blvd) have a 50-foot wide vegetated dune and 100-foot beach in front of the structures (Photo 9). The dune crests at approximately +20 feet, NAVD (FDEP profile R-204). This section of beach has benefited from the North Boca Raton Beach nourishment projects constructed in 1988, 1998, and 2011. 279 23 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Photo 9. View looking south from Yamato Rock. 5 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND ALTERNATIVES The review of historic and existing conditions suggests that the Town’s beaches are performing very well overall. They have benefited from the beach nourishment projects constructed in Delray Beach and the natural north to south transport of sand. This natural movement of sand has widened the beaches at the north end of Town and resulted in a relatively stable beach in the center of Town. The beaches at the southern end of the Town are narrow and stable to erosional. Some condominiums at the south end of Town could benefit from a wider beach for recreational purposes while other properties will continue to experience damage during lower frequency storm events. The primary issue along the Town’s beaches is shoreline recession and dune impacts during a large storm event. The analysis shows that significant shoreline recession and dune erosion occur and the recovery can be slow. Many residents reconstruct their dunes using upland sand, which requires permitting unless a State of Emergency is declared. 280 24 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. The following options are available: 5.1 No Action by the Town of Highland Beach The Town’s beaches are performing relatively well and no infrastructure is under imminent threat. Upland property owners have reconstructed their dunes following storm events and this practice should be encouraged. Reconstruction of the dunes using sand from upland borrow sources requires an FDEP field permit. For quantities less than 200 cubic yards, the property owner can apply for and be issued a permit by the FDEP’s field representative. Permits for volumes in excess of 200 cubic yards are issued by FDEP staff in Tallahassee. The basic permit requirements are for the sand to be beach compatible. Given that this action is typically performed on a small scale (up to a dozen truck loads per owner), there is limited impact on the Town’s infrastructure or traffic patterns. Following significant storm events, such as Hurricane Sandy, the FDEP may issue an Emergency Order. A typical Emergency Order allows the Town to issue permits to individual property owners in lieu of an FDEP permit and allows: ・ Activities to secure structures for safety purposes. ・ Temporary armoring that must be removed within 60 days of installation ・ Repair or replacement of minor ancillary structures (such as stairs, landings and HVAC platforms) and service utilities necessary for occupancy of a habitable structure. ・ Repair of foundations for buildings that have not been substantially damaged. ・ Replacement or repair of caps and anchoring systems for seawalls or bulkheads. ・ Restoration of a damaged dune system using beach compatible sand. A copy of the Emergency Order issued after Hurricane Sandy is included in Appendix B for your reference and better details work the Town may approve. The Town’s Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and is sufficient to ensure that any new building follows Florida’s building statutes. The No Action alternative will leave residents and the Town having to respond to any future large hurricane events in a manner similar to the response following Hurricane Sandy. The No Action alternative does not address recreational and storm damage reduction issues identified within the Town, though these are mostly located in the southern end. It is recommended that the Town residents consider a more pro-active position with respect to their beach program. 5.2 Dune Restoration and Enhancement A Town wide dune restoration and enhancement project could be developed. A template would be developed for various sections of the Town that would meet the needs of the upland property owners from a recreation and storm damage reduction perspective. 281 25 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. It is possible that a proposed dune section would be completely encompassed by the current beach profile such that the project would not need to be constructed at a given location at this time. However, in the case of a storm event, the Town would hold a permit to reconstruct the dunes in the impacted area regardless of whether an Emergency Order was issued. There are several advantages to this approach: ・ Once engineered and constructed, the Town could apply for FEMA reimbursement to rebuild the dunes if the project was impacted by a large storm event and the County was included in a Federal Emergency Declaration. ・ This project would be constructed via truck haul allowing small quantities to be placed in discrete locations. ・ The Town could budget and address small sections of the Town each year rather than having a large capital outlay. ・ The upland property owner could construct the dune using private funds avoiding construction costs for the Town. The upland property owner would benefit from the Town having performed the legwork to obtain a standing permit. ・ A truck haul project has relatively low mobilization costs allowing most of the cost to be spent on sand. ・ By limiting sand placement above mean high water, the effort to obtain a permit is reduced. ・ There are no impacts to the riparian rights of the upland property owners. Upland property owners currently own the land to the mean high water and they would retain this right. The disadvantages to this approach include: ・ Sand would only be placed above mean high water limiting the volume of sand that could be placed and hence the storm damage reduction benefit. ・ There would be no seaward shift of the shoreline and thus no increase in recreational space along the beach. ・ The cost of upland sand placement has a high per cubic yard cost. ・ The Town has limited beach access points to construct this type of project. ・ This could take a significant level of coordination on the part of the Town to develop, administer and maintain the permit. The City of Delray Beach just constructed a similar project for areas outside of their main beach restoration area. The mobilization cost was $75,000 while the unit cost was $54.50/cubic yard. The minimum dune size that would be recommended for the Town of Highland Beach would be 6 cubic yards/foot. This would maximize the Town’s eligibility for FEMA reimbursement. This equates to a fill volume of approximately 90,000 cubic yards. The approximate cost of this project would be $4.6M. 282 26 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 5.3 Beach Nourishment Project A beach nourishment project would likely involve advancing the shoreline seaward by approximately 50 feet as this is the design profile applied for the Delray Beach and North Boca Raton projects. This would provide greater storm damage reduction and recreational benefits. Delray Beach and North Boca Raton have wider beaches than this to account for background erosion rates but the Town of Highland Beach has a relatively stable beach and would not require this additional fill. The design berm elevation of the Delray Beach and North Boca Raton beach nourishment projects is at +7.5 feet, NAVD and a similar berm crest elevation is proposed for the Town of Highland Beach (Figure 7). The approximate fill volume required to construct this template throughout the entire 2.84 miles of the Town is approximately 1.0M cubic yards. Figure 7. Typical Cross-Section of the Proposed Beach Nourishment Project The beach would be built wider than the 50-foot design width for constructability purposes. The construction template might shift the shoreline up to 150 feet offshore, but the profile would then reshape to a more natural condition and the shoreline would stabilize approximately 50 feet seaward of the pre-construction shoreline. This might take up to a year though a large storm would speed the “equilibration” process. 283 27 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. The cost to construct this project in 2014 would be approximately $9.5M. This includes a mobilization cost of $4.0M and a unit cost of $5.50 per cubic yard. It would be possible to reduce this cost by sharing in the mobilization cost with either Boca Raton or Delray Beach when they construct their next project. Given that Delray Beach is about to construct their next project and Boca Raton just finished North Boca Raton, it could be several years until the timing is conducive for this partnering. A 5 year delay in the project could increase costs to $14M given the rate of dredge cost inflation over the last 10 years. Splitting the mobilization cost with Boca Raton or Delray Beach could reduce the project cost to $12M. The permit for initial construction of such a project is good for 5 years, providing time to coordinate with your neighbors. Some of the advantages of a full beach nourishment project include: ・ The project would provide significant storm damage reduction benefits. ・ The project would provide additional recreational benefits. ・ The Town could apply for FEMA reimbursement to rebuild a portion of the project (up to 6 cubic yards/foot) if the project was impacted by a large storm event and Palm Beach County was included in a Federal Emergency Declaration. ・ The unit cost for this type of fill is much lower than a truck haul project. The disadvantages of a beach nourishment project: ・ A nourished beach becomes State land seaward of the pre-construction mean high water line. An Erosion Control Line (ECL) is established as part of the permitting process, which is the mean high water line prior to construction of the project. This becomes the seaward property line of the upland property owner. While there are restrictions on construction and use of the beach on the new portion of the beach, some upland property owners may object to the “loss” of riparian rights all the way to the mean high water line. ・ There is a high capital outlay for initial construction of the project. The persistent hard bottom at the south end of Town may present some permitting challenges. While the acreage impacted is low (approximately 1.2 acres) the permitting agencies may require avoidance of some of this rock (specifically Yamato Rock) or mitigation in the form of an offshore artificial reef. CPE has performed considerable offshore sand search investigations for the cities of Boca Raton and Delray Beach and is confident that sufficient sand resources are available directly offshore of the Town of Highland Beach. The USACE (2012) has collected data further north and directly offshore of the Town of Highland Beach. The data confirmed that the same sand feature dredged to construct the North Boca Raton Project extends further into the Town of Highland Beach though a detailed investigation of this potential source still needs to be performed. Potential sand resources and their proximity to the Town are shown in Figure 8. 284 28 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Figure 8. Offshore Borrow Areas and Potential Sand Resources 285 29 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. This is the recommended alternative. It ensures that sufficient storm damage protection and recreational areas are available throughout the Town. 5.4 Coastal Structures Coastal structures are appealing because it is assumed that they prevent sand from washing away. In reality, coastal structures simply redistribute sand within a littoral cell. For example, building a groin will hold additional sand on the north side of the groin but that sand will be deprived from the south side of the groin causing an erosional area. There is no additional sand introduced to the system as is the case with a beach nourishment project. Strategic use of coastal structures is possible in areas that have alternating areas of erosion and accretion. The concept is to reduce the erosion in one area by reducing accretion in another. Various coastal structures were evaluated within the Town of Highland Beach based on this concept. 5.4.1 Groins Groins are shore perpendicular structures that work by intercepting sand flowing along the shoreline. They generally result in a saw-toothed pattern in the shoreline with sand building up on the north side of the groin (in the case of Town of Highland Beach) and a corresponding recession in the shoreline on the south side of the groin (Photo 10). The groins are designed such that the downdrift shoreline location meets the design goals. They are often constructed in conjunction with a beach nourishment project to avoid initial erosion and shoreline retreat (ie pre-fill the groin field). Photo 10. Permeable adjustable groin in Longboat Key. Note the shoreline offset on the left (south) side of the groin compared to the right (north) side of the groin. In Highland Beach, the shoreline is uniform and there are no areas that are well suited to construction of a single groin or a groin field (multiple groins). The cost of groins can be quite high. The cost of a single groin constructed in Boca Raton in 2005 was $815,360. 286 30 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 5.4.2 Emergent Offshore Breakwaters Breakwaters are shore perpendicular structures. They provide protection to the shoreline by waves breaking directly against the structure and providing shelter to the shoreline in its lee. Wave energy is dissipated in the gap due to diffraction of the wave energy. Again, the breakwaters will hold sand behind them at the expense of the sand adjacent to the breakwater. The shoreline then has a cuspate shape as shown in Photo 11. Photo 11. Breakwaters at the Breakers Hotel, Town of Palm Beach. Note the crenulate shape of the shoreline. CPE recently permitted and oversaw rehabilitation of the breakwater field at the Breakers Hotel, in the Town of Palm Beach. The permitting effort was quite intensive even though this was a rehabilitation project. A breakwater field permit application at Singer Island was recently withdrawn because of environmental objections. Given that shoreline along the Town of Highland Beach is relatively stable, a breakwater field is not a recommended option due to aesthetics and permitting difficulties. The cost of a single 150-foot long breakwater is estimated at $500,000, excluding mobilization. 5.4.3 Submerged Offshore Breakwater A submerged breakwater has a crest below mean low water while an emergent breakwater typically has a breakwater crest a few feet above mean high water. 287 31 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. The benefit of a submerged structure is that there are fewer concerns with negative impacts to sea turtle nesting. Also, because the structure is submerged it does not have the same aesthetic concerns as an emergent structure. It is not clear whether a submerged breakwater would be viewed as compensatory mitigation for hard bottom coverage by the permitting agencies. The drawback of a submerged structure is that it is not nearly as effective as an emergent structure. They have to be much wider than an emergent breakwater to be effective and are similar in cost, if not more expensive. They can be hazardous to boats and will have to be marked with navigation warning signs. Lastly, they have the potential to initiate rip currents between submerged structures because waves break over the structure but the return flow is restricted by the structure. This flow will then be funneled towards a gap between the structures resulting in a recurrent rip current. For longer, continuous submerged structures, an alongshore current can be created due to wave setup across the structure resulting in an erosional stress on the shoreline. 5.4.4 Patented Technologies There are several “patented technologies” that claim to prevent shoreline erosion and build beaches. These are often marketed as having no downdrift impacts or negative environmental benefits. We caution considering the installation these “technologies”. The FDEP regularly reviews these claims, requiring a permitting process and peer review of any field tests. We recommend asking for the FDEP’s opinion if approached. 5.4.5 Coastal Structures Summary Coastal structures are not recommended for implementation by the Town given the stable to accretional nature of the shoreline, uniform longshore transport rate, and no definable erosion hot spots. The cost of the structures will exceed the benefit. Individual property owners may want to consider structures in front of their property in order to expand the dry beach width. We recommend that the Town advise the property owner to investigate this possibility at the property owner’s cost. The Town will be required to provide a finding of consistency with the Town’s Coastal Management Plan as part of the owner’s application process. The individual property owner should submit the engineering design basis to the Town for review prior to the Town providing such a letter. This (CPE’s) report should not be viewed as a definitive negative response for such applications. As stated previously, strategic use of structures can be beneficial but must be carefully designed and monitored. There is no Town benefit for the installation of coastal structures at this time. 288 32 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 6 FUNDING MECHANISMS Obviously the cost of a beach nourishment project is significant. Such a large cost may not be viable within the Town’s Capital Improvement budget. This section discusses other possible funding sources and mechanisms. 6.1 Federal Funding Some of the beach nourishment projects around the State of Florida are cost shared by the Federal Government through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). North Boca Raton and Delray Beach are two examples of projects with Federal funding programs. This is a complicated process and requires several years to develop documents to support this funding. There are numerous projects in line for this funding and an application by the Town would be at the bottom of the list. It is highly unlikely that the Town would successfully obtain Federal funding given the current economic conditions. Furthermore, several towns have not been reimbursed for approved and constructed projects. Reimbursement of the costs used to be obtained through Congressional budget line items (“earmarks”) but with the ban on these, reimbursement is based on USACE “Construction General” funds and how the USACE disburses these funds. The USACE does not have sufficient funds to reimburse all eligible projects and thus some towns do not receive the reimbursement funds. Even if the Town was successful in applying for Federal funding, the funding is capped at a maximum of 65% of project costs. This is then decreased based on the percentage of the beach that is more than ¼ mile from a public beach access. Given that there is currently no public beach access within the Town, Federal funding would not be available. If the County were to construct the park at the south end of Town and have sufficient parking on the west side of A-1- A, Federal funding would still be limited to less than 10% of construction cost because of the limited distance that this access would cover. 6.2 State Funding The State of Florida recognizes the benefit of beaches for storm damage protection and supporting the tourism industry. The Beach Management Funding Assistance Program (FS, 62B-36 and included in Appendix C) is funded based on Ad Valorem taxes and administered through the FDEP. The funding for the program is used to support the Department and provide construction funds to eligible projects. The State will cost share up to 50% of the non-Federal cost but there are thresh holds for funding that may be difficult for the Town to meet. First, the State will only fund beaches that are deemed to be “critically eroded”. The Town of Highland Beach is not currently deemed to be a critically eroded shoreline. Given the Town’s history of shoreline advance since 1975, as documented in Section 3.2 of this report, convincing the FDEP that the shoreline is critically eroded will be an intensive effort. Second, the State has a beach access requirement for receiving State funds. A “primary beach access”, defined as a beach access with at least 100 public parking places and public restrooms, will allow for funding of a beach project up to ½ mile from the access. A “secondary beach access”, defined as an access that may have public amenities but does not qualify as primary 289 33 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. access, will provide for funding based on the number of available public parking places. Given that there are currently no public beach access points within the Town, State funding is not a potential funding source at this time. Construction of the County Park would open the potential for State funding but depending on the type and size of the park, funding would still be limited to the portion of the project within ½ mile of the park. Third, the State typically only has sufficient funds for 10% of the projects for which funds are requested each year. A cursory evaluation suggests that the Town of Highland Beach would rank low on the list based on the funding eligibility requirements compared to other applicants. A full description of the ranking criteria is included in Appendix C but in summary, the criteria are: Severity of erosion (based on average erosion rate). Threat to upland structures (percent of developed properties seaward of the projected 25- year interval return storm) Recreational and economic benefits (percent property zoned as commercial or recreational). Availability of federal funds. Local sponsor financial and administrative commitment. Previous state commitment. Project performance (expected life of the project). Mitigation of inlet effects. Innovative technologies. Enhance nesting sea turtle refuges. Regionalization (projects where two or more local government entities couple their projects to reduce costs). Significance (length of project). In summary, it is unlikely that the Town will be successful in securing State funding. 6.3 County Funding Palm Beach County funds their beach program using a portion of the funds collected through the Tourist Development Tax (or “Bed Tax”). This is a 5% tax on any short term rental. The County follows the same criteria that the State uses to allocate funds between projects. Again, the lack of current public beach access will thwart any Town request for County funding assistance. If the County Park were to be constructed, funding might still be limited as they use the State’s ranking criteria. 6.4 Local Funding Mechanisms Given the low probability of receiving Federal, State or County funding, the Town will likely to have to fund any beach initiatives by Town residents. There are two primary factors to be considered. First, a mechanism is necessary to assess and disburse funds collected from the property owners. Second, a cost apportionment plan is necessary to prorate the total cost among individual property owners. Table 9 shows several alternatives that the Town could use to raise 290 34 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. funds locally for a beach program. Mechanisms employed by other municipalities are discussed briefly in the following section. 6.4.1 Ad Valorem Tax The Town could petition the Board of County Commissioners to levy a separate Ad Valorem tax or increase the millage rate on existing general revenues to pay for the project. A separate tax on individual properties is proportional to the benefits, which is determined from an economic analysis. The general revenue approach would have all property owners pay for the project in proportion to the assessed value of their property. The County would collect the tax and then turn this over to the Town to administer. Voter approval would be needed at a referendum for the Town to issue a bond to pay the costs of the project. Ad Valorem taxes would be pledged as security for the bond. 6.4.2 Erosion Prevention District The State Legislature may create a separate beach and shore preservation district. The District would be self-governed by a Board of Directors who are resident in the District. In Longboat Key, taxing is setup such that those properties located west (seaward) of Gulf of Mexico Drive pay 80% of the required funding while those on the east side pay 20%. A similar mechanism could be considered by the Town with those located east of S Ocean Blvd paying a larger percentage because they have greater benefit due to having ocean front property. 6.4.3 Special Assessments Florida municipalities can levy special assessments under FS 166, unless there is a restriction in the Town charter. The Town attorney would need to review this option. A special assessment can be apportioned among property owners in relation to the benefit, similar to the discussion within the Erosion Prevention District. 6.4.4 Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU) MSBU’s are authorized by FS 125. A petition by the majority of property owners to the Board of County Commissioners is required in order to pass an ordinance establishing the MSBU. Public hearings are held to levy the assessment. MSBU’s do not require a vote by referendum and involve only property owners. This is beneficial because property owners may visit seasonally and have their voter registration in another State. An MSBU will allow them to be included in the process. Once established, the MSBU has taxing and assessing authority, and bonding and borrowing capability, using assessed property values as security. 291 35 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Table 9. Alternative Local Funding Mechanisms (from Stevens & Assoc, 1986) ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION HOW ESTABLISHED PROS CONS 1. Ad Valorem Tax Uniform Property Tax Budgetary Process Existing authority No continuous source; competition w/others; Poor Management 2. Bonding Selling bonds to create revenue ‐ bond retired by Ad Valorem Tax Referendum New revenue covers large initial costs Non‐continuous source; time delays; confined to specific projects; poor tool for management and planning 3. Independent Special Taxing Districts Independent Gov't established by Legislature to collect property tax for special purpose By act of Legislature Continuous source of funds New government added ‐not favored by Legislature; voter dependent 4. Dependent Special Taxing District Ad Valorem tax collected and administered by the County for a special purpose By act of Legislature Ability to fund projects Limited by total County capital of 10 mils subject to political climate 5. Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Property tax of a specific area for service By petition of property owners; local authority under FS 125 Existing authorization; not project limited Taxes only in improved area, adjacent property owners 6. Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU) Special assessments of benefitted properties Petitions of majority of property owners Existing authority; no competition with others Project limited; difficult to establish 7. Erosion Prevention Districts (FS 161) A dependent taxing district collecting property taxes Established by ordinance of the County under FS161 Existing authorization; benefit zones can be taxed differently Included in total County millage cap; politically affected 8. Private Funding Donations By mutual agreement Addresses needs of private property Not practical for countywide funding 9. Parking Meters and Park Feed User Fees Locally initiated User benefits = pay Private benefit is not assessed; limited funding 10. Beach Management Districts (Regional) Larger government spanning a number of Counties with property taxing authority State Legislature Stable funding source; larger tax base; not politically motivated Funds may be disproportionately used 292 36 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 7 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The beach in the Town of Highland Beach has benefited from the beach nourishment projects in Delray Beach and to a lesser extent Boca Raton. The shoreline has advanced an average of over 1 foot/year since 1975. The beach at the north end of the Town has advanced the most while the beach at the south end of Town has receded. Overall the beach is in good condition and does not have an immediate need for a renourishment project. However, many of the upland properties sustained damage during Hurricane Sandy and an analysis of the beach response in the 2004 hurricane season shows that the Town is susceptible to damage during a large storm event or an active hurricane season. While the shoreline will recover from these events, upland property owners will have to independently address damage to the dune system because the dunes will not recover naturally in a short period of time. It is recommended that the residents prepare for a nourishment project so that a pro-active response is available if there is an active hurricane season. Beach nourishment projects can take several years to design and permit so this process should be initiated as soon as practical. An initial estimate of the construction cost of a beach nourishment project is $9M, assuming construction in the winter of 2015. The cost of delaying construction until 2020 could increase the cost to $14M. Cost savings could be realized by coordinating construction with either Delray Beach or Boca Raton, which could save some of the dredge mobilization costs. There should be sufficient sand resources directly offshore to support multiple beach nourishment projects. A beach nourishment project requires a significant cost outlay. The Town and/or residents would need to determine whether the local government or a separate entity would undertake the permitting and construction effort. Should the local government be involved in the funding, the Town may not be able to cover the cost within their regular Capital Improvement budget. If so, the Town may wish to consider several funding mechanisms for the project including Ad Valorem taxes, creating an Erosion Prevention District or creating a Municipal Services Benefit Unit. 293 37 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 8 REFERENCES Bruun, P., 1962. "Sea Level Rise as a Cause of Beach Erosion," Proceedings, Journal of Waterways and Harbors, Vol. 88, No. 117. Dean, R.G., Chiu, T.Y., and Wang, S.Y., 1992. Combined Total Storm Tide Frequency Analysis for Palm Beach County, Florida. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2013. Historic Beach Profiles. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/data/his-shore.htm Florida Department of Natural Resources, 2002. Outdoor Recreation in Florida 2000. State of Florida, Tallahassee, FL. Lindeman, K.C., D.A. McCarthy, K.G. Holloway-Adkins, and D.B. Snyder. 2009. Ecological functions of nearshore hardbottom habitats in East Florida: A literature synthesis. Prepared for Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, FDEP, Tallahassee, FL. Lindeman, K.C. and D. Snyder. 1999. Nearshore hardbottom fishes of southeast Florida and effects of habitat burial caused by dredging. Fisheries Bulletin 97:508-525. Lirman, D., D. Manzello, and S. Maciá. Back from the dead: the resilience of Siderastrea radians to severe stress. Coral Reefs 21:291-292. National Research Council, 1987. Responding to Changes in Sea Level, Engineering Implications, National Research Council. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013. Published Bench Mark Sheet for 8722670. http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/benchmarks/8722670.html Stevens & Associates, 1986. Letter to CPE Regarding Potential Funding Mechanisms for a Municipal Beach Nourishment Project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Wave Information Studies. http://frf.usace.army.mil/wis/. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012. Southeast Florida Sediment Assessment and Needs Determination (SAND). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. Walker, B. 2012. Spatial analyses of benthic habitats to define coral reef ecosystem regions and potential biogeographic boundaries along a latitudinal gradient. PLoS ONE 7(1):1-14. 294 APPENDIX A BEACH PROFILE CROSS-SECTIONS 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 APPENDIX B STATE OF FLORIDA FINAL EMERGENCY ORDER FOR HURRICANE SANDY REPAIRS 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 APPENDIX C STATE OF FLORIDA BEACH MANAGEMENT FUNDING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 330 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems � Beach Erosion Control Program Local Government Funding Assistance Program: Ranking Criteria for Beach and Inlet Management Projects 7/17/2012 A discussion of statutory and rule authority for ranking criteria and practical methods used by Bureau staff for the award of ranking points to beach and inlet management projects for determining priority listing in the annual Local Government Funding Request submitted to the Governor and Legislature. 331 Beach Erosion Control Program Mission Recognizing the importance of the state's beaches, the Florida Legislature in 1986 adopted a posture of protecting and restoring the state's beaches through a comprehensive beach management planning program. Under the program, the Department of Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (Bureau) evaluates beach erosion problems statewide seeking viable solutions for the preservation of valuable infrastructure, upland development and critical habitat. The primary vehicle for implementing the beach management planning recommendations is the Florida Beach Erosion Control Program (Program), which was established for the purpose of working in concert with local, state and federal governmental entities to achieve the protection, preservation and restoration of the coastal sandy beach resources of the state. Under the program, financial assistance in an amount up to 75 percent of project costs is available to Florida's county and municipal governments, community development districts, or special taxing districts for shore protection and preservation activities located on the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, or Straits of Florida. Eligible activities include beach restoration and nourishment activities, project design and engineering studies, environmental studies and monitoring, inlet management planning, inlet management activities to reduce adjacent beach erosion, dune restoration and protection activities, and other beach erosion prevention related activities consistent with the adopted Strategic Beach Management Plan. The program is authorized by Section 161.101, Florida Statutes. Since its inception in 1964, the Program has been a primary source of funding to local governments for beach erosion control and preservation activities. This document is designed to be used by local sponsors when preparing annual funding requests. The document describes each ranking criteria used to establish annual priority order for beach erosion control projects. Statutory authority, rule administration, and the methodology used for assigning points are listed for each criterion as they appear in the rule. Where appropriate, techniques for improving the award of points are discussed or listed. Statutory authority is provided in Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. Administrative policy is provided in Chapter 62B-36, Florida Administrative Code. 2 332 Funding Assistance Program Eligibility In order to be eligible for the Funding Assistance Program, projects must be sponsored by a local government and comply with the following criteria: • Project areas must be on a sandy shoreline in Florida fronting the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, or the Straits of Florida. • Projects must address shoreline designated as ‘critically eroded” in the Department’s most recent Critical Erosion Report. • Beach management projects shall be accessible to the general public and access shall be maintained for the life of the project. Inlet management projects generally do not have to provide public access. • Projects must be consistent with the Strategic Beach Management Plan and be included in the Statewide Long Range Budget Plan. • Projects shall be conducted in a manner that encourages cost-savings, fosters regional coordination of projects, optimizes management of sediments and project performance, protects the environment, mitigates impacts caused by modified inlets and provides long-term solutions. • Appropriate feasibility studies or analysis shall be required before design or construction of new projects. Analysis must determine that the project avoids or minimizes adverse impacts and is cost effective. • Beach management projects authorized by Congress for federal financial participation are eligible. Local governmental entities shall pursue federal appropriations to the maximum extent possible in order to proportionally reduce state and local project costs. • Local sponsors must submit an Annual Funding Request and Local Long Range Budget Plan for projects expected to be initiated or continued in the fiscal year upon notification by the Department. Policy Rule- 62B-36.003 3 333 Overview of Ranking Criteria Intent Statute- 161.101(14): The intent of the Legislature in preserving and protecting Florida's sandy beaches pursuant to this act is to direct beach erosion control appropriations to the state's most severely eroded beaches, and to prevent further adverse impact caused by improved, modified, or altered inlets, coastal armoring, or existing upland development. In establishing annual project funding priorities, the department shall seek formal input from local coastal governments, beach and general government interest groups, and university experts. Criteria to be considered by the department in determining annual funding priorities shall include: … Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1): Eligible projects requesting funding for the upcoming fiscal year will be ranked in priority for the Department’s legislative budget request. Projects previously ranked for a construction phase will retain their project score through the monitoring phase. Eligible projects will be assigned a total point score by the Department based on the following criteria: … Specific Authority 161.101, 161.161 FS. Law Implemented 161.088, 161.091, 161.101, 161.161 FS. History–New 6-10-83, Formerly 16B-36.06, 16B-36.006, Amended 12-25-03. Total Points: 103 Points 4 334 Severity of Erosion Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (a) The severity of erosion conditions, the threat to existing upland development, and recreational and/or economic benefits. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (a) Severity of erosion. The severity of erosion score is determined by the average rate of erosion for the project area over 30 years based upon the Department’s long term data base for the project length at 2 points per foot of erosion, rounded to the nearest whole foot, for a maximum total of 10 points. Method of Calculation The historical Mean High Water (MHW) data files contained in the Bureau’s Historic Shoreline Database shall be used to calculate the average rate of erosion for a 30-year period after 1972 and prior to any beach fill placement in the project area. Linear least square fit to the data is used to determine the erosion/accretion trend. Historical data is available at: ftp://ftp.dep.state.fl.us/pub/water/beaches/HSSD/MHWfiles Maximum Credit: 10 Points 5 335 Threat to Upland Structures Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (a) The severity of erosion conditions, the threat to existing upland development, and recreational and/or economic benefits. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (b) Threat to upland structures. The percent of developed property containing structures within the project boundaries at or seaward of the projected 25-year return interval storm event erosion limit times ten, rounded to the nearest whole number, for a maximum total of 10 points. Method of Calculation The threat to upland structures is determined by the application of the Dean CCCLr or the SBEACH Storm Erosion Model using a 25 year return interval storm tide hydrograph on the most recent beach-offshore profile data at each R-monument in the project area The Department may use the results of an erosion model submitted in the feasibility study if the study recommends strategies for beach erosion control activities that are accepted by the Department for adoption into the Strategic Beach Management Plan. It should be noted that properties that have existing armoring will be deemed non-threatened. Points are only awarded to new projects for shorelines that have not been restored. Once the restoration is completed, the upland structures should no longer be threatened. Maximum Credit: 10 Points 6 336 Recreational and Economic Benefits Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (a) The severity of erosion conditions, the threat to existing upland development, and recreational and/or economic benefits. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (c) Recreational and economic benefits. The percentage of linear footage of property within the project boundaries zoned commercial or recreational, or the equivalent, in the current local government land use map times ten, rounded to the nearest whole number, for a maximum total of 10 points. Method of Calculation Shoreline length within the project boundaries zoned “commercial” or “recreational” is calculated using GIS-based mapping tools. The commercial/recreational shoreline is then calculated as a percentage of the total project length. Designation must be derived from local zoning maps. Undesignated parcels are typically assigned the designation of the adjacent parcels. Resort condominiums are typically designated high-density residential, and are not included in the commercial/recreational calculation in this category. Potential Technologies and Strategies Rezoning of properties within the project boundaries to commercial or recreational zoning will increase points in this category. Maximum Credit: 10 Points 7 337 Congressional Authorization of Project Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (b) The availability of federal matching dollars. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (d) Availability of federal funds. Projects with Congressional authorization for the project phase shall receive 5 points. Method of Calculation Projects that have been authorized by U.S. Congress for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project for the project phase receive 5 points. Award of points in this category recognizes projects that have made an effort to acquire federal support for the project by initiating or completing a federal feasibility study. This feasibility study indicates the efforts of the local sponsor to acquire future federal funding. Projects pursuing funding for subsequent phases of the project will require federal authorization for each specific phase, prior to being awarded points for those subsequent phases. Potential Technologies and Strategies Projects which have not previously sought federal authorization can acquire points in this category by pursuing authorization with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a federal feasibility study. Maximum Credit: 5 Points 8 338 Availability of Federal Matching Funds Maximum Credit: 5 Points Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (b) The availability of federal matching dollars. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (d) Availability of federal funds. … Projects with a current Project Cooperation Agreement executed for the project phase or with available federal funds shall receive 5 points. Method of Calculation Points are awarded in this category when federal matching dollars are secured through a current Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) or Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) for the proposed phase. If the PPA/PCA indicates that scheduled activities have been approved but funds have not yet been appropriated, no points are awarded since the statutory intent was to leverage matching federal dollars. Potential Technologies and Strategies Projects can maximize points in this category if federal funds from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are secured prior to requesting state funds. 9 339 Dedicated Long Term Funding Source Maximum Credit: 3 Points Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (c) The extent of local government sponsor financial and administrative commitment to the project, including a long-term financial plan with a designated funding source or sources for initial construction and periodic maintenance. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (e) Local sponsor financial and administrative commitment. Local governments who have a long term funding source dedicated to the restoration and management of the beach project shall receive 3 points; Method of Calculation Long term designated funding sources that are established by referendum or a specific taxing district receives 3 points. Examples of these include Municipal Service Benefit Units, Municipal Service Taxing Unit, Tourist Development Council taxes (bed taxes), dedicated portion of local sales tax, inlet district taxes, etc. Voter referendum indicates community-wide support for the project and long term funding source to maintain the project. Line items in annual capital improvements budgets do not qualify due to the susceptibility to change based on annually fluctuating priorities. Potential Technologies and Strategies Development of a local designated long term funding source is eligible for cost-sharing under the Feasibility funding category. A scope of work to develop options, determine a chosen alternative, and implement the funding source is recommended. Bureau staff can assist with all phases of development. 10 340 Dedicated Administrative Staff Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (c) The extent of local government sponsor financial and administrative commitment to the project, including a long-term financial plan with a designated funding source or sources for initial construction and periodic maintenance. Rule (e) Local sponsor financial and administrative commitment……those with staff dedicated for administrative support shall receive 1 point; Method of Calculation The point is awarded to a local sponsor with at least one full-time staff member dedicated to the beach erosion control program. Potential Technologies and Strategies The acquisition of a full-time coastal coordinator within the local sponsor’s staff will achieve the award of one point in this category. Maximum Credit: 1 Points 11 341 Quarterly Reporting Requirements Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (c) The extent of local government sponsor financial and administrative commitment to the project, including a long-term financial plan with a designated funding source or sources for initial construction and periodic maintenance. Rule (e) Local sponsor financial and administrative commitment..…those with 75% or better compliance record for submitting quarterly reports and billings correctly and on time over the previous year shall receive 1 point. Method of Calculation Quarterly reports are due 30 days following the end of the fiscal quarter, even if no work has been completed and no billings are submitted. This is a contract requirement. Potential Technologies and Strategies Timely submission of quarterly reports will not only provide a ranking point in this category, but it will also provide the Department with current project status updates and help to maintain contract compliance. Local sponsors without a current contract may voluntarily submit quarterly reports and receive award of this point. Maximum Credit: 1 Points 12 342 Previous State Financial Commitment Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (d) Previous state commitment and involvement in the project. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (f) Previous state commitment. Projects where the Department has previously cost shared feasibility or design phase shall receive 1 point; Method of Calculation One point is awarded if the Department has previously executed a cost sharing agreement using program funds for a feasibility or design study. Potential Technologies and Strategies The point is awarded to local sponsors to acknowledge ongoing efforts to maintain previously-established projects. A project is eligible to receive this ranking point once the local sponsor enters into a cost-sharing agreement with the Department for a particular project. Maximum Credit: 1 Points 13 343 Enhanced Longevity of an Existing Project Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (d) Previous state commitment and involvement in the project. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (f) Previous state commitment ……projects to enhance, or increase the longevity of a previously constructed project shall receive 4 points; Method of Calculation Points can be awarded in this category for projects that propose an alternative design to increase the nourishment interval through a structural alternative, alternative beach fill design or geotechnical improvement to the project. Potential Technologies and Strategies For beach projects, points have been awarded in the past for the construction of an erosion control structure designed to extend the life of a beach nourishment project, redesign of an existing structure, or berm design alternatives that improve project performance. For inlet projects, points have been awarded in the past for projects that increase inlet sediment bypassing, such as construction or expansion of sediment impoundment basins, improvements to jetty design, or the acquisition and operation of a floating or fixed sediment transfer plant. Maximum Credit: 4 Points 14 344 Nourish a Previously Restored Shoreline Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (d) Previous state commitment and involvement in the project. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (f) Previous state commitment …..…and projects that will nourish a previously restored shoreline shall receive 5 points, Method of Calculation Points are rewarded for nourishment projects in an effort to provide continued state support for established projects. Potential Technologies and Strategies Any previously constructed project will qualify for these points. For new projects, points can be awarded once the project has been constructed. Maximum Credit: 5 Points 15 345 Project Performance Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (e) The anticipated physical performance of the proposed project, including the frequency of periodic planned nourishment. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (g) Project performance. Performance points shall be based upon the expected life of a project, as documented in a feasibility study or on the actual nourishment interval. Projects shall receive 1 point for every year of the expected life or actual life with a maximum total of 10 points. Method of Calculation Project performance is most often judged by the length of the nourishment interval, which would initially be established by the feasibility study. Once a project has been restored and subsequently nourished, an actual performance interval can be established. An interim beach nourishment event to restore a project eroded by a major storm event will not be used in calculating the nourishment interval. Maximum Credit: 10 Points 16 346 Mitigating Inlet Effects Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (f) The extent to which the proposed project mitigates the adverse impact of improved, modified, or altered inlets on adjacent beaches. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (h) Mitigation of inlet effects. Projects that implement strategies in the Strategic Beach Management Plan for sediment bypassing or supplemental nourishment to adjacent beaches shall receive points based upon the percentage of the target bypass volume to be achieved times 10 for a maximum total of 10 points. Method of Calculation For inlet projects, points are awarded based on the percentage of the bypass target achieved on an annually averaged basis. Calculations are made using the annual average of bypass material placed on the adjacent eroding shorelines divided by the annual bypass objective indicated in the Department-adopted Inlet Management Plan (IMP) or the Strategic Beach Management Plan (SBMP). For beach projects, this criterion has not been used since the legislative changes to Chapter 161.143 were passed in 2008. The decision was anticipated to be an interim measure used until new inlet ranking criteria could be adopted by rule. However, points will be awarded to beach projects for the FY2013/14 funding cycle. Beach projects eligible for these points must be located within the area of inlet influence. Potential Technologies and Strategies Inlet bypassing efficiency can be improved by establishing a regular bypassing program for the inlet and constructing inlet management features, such as sediment impoundment basins, to increase the availability of sand within the system. Regular updates of the Inlet Management Plan can help the local sponsor and the Department to develop new strategies for mitigating an inlet’s erosive effects. Maximum Credit: 10 Points 17 347 Innovative Technologies Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (g) Innovative, cost-effective, and environmentally sensitive applications to reduce erosion. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (i) Innovative technologies. Projects to address erosion that are economically competitive and environmentally sensitive and designed to demonstrate an innovative application of existing technologies shall receive 3 points; Method of Calculation Projects involving innovative erosion control structures, construction techniques or environmental protection elements based on current technologies receive 3 points. Review of this criterion is conducted jointly by the Bureau’s permitting, engineering and project management staff. Potential Technologies and Strategies Potential technologies include designs that potentially: • Improve project performance by increasing nourishment interval • Reduce costs over conventional beach erosion control activities • Minimize adverse impacts to environmental resources, especially endangered or threatened species. • Increase the ability to filter or screen sediments during the dredging process to produce larger quantities of beach compatible material • Implement new methods for mitigating localized areas of accelerated erosion (hot spots). Maximum Credit: 3 Points 18 348 Technologies New to Florida Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (g) Innovative, cost-effective, and environmentally sensitive applications to reduce erosion. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (i) Innovative technologies ……projects that demonstrate technologies previously untried in the state shall receive 5 points for a maximum total of 5 points. Method of Calculation Projects that would use dredging techniques, separation technologies, methods of protection of environmental resources or quality control, etc. not previously tried in Florida would receive 5 points. Review of this criterion is conducted jointly by the Bureau’s permitting, engineering and project management staff. Potential Technologies and Strategies Projects that could potentially qualify for points include those employing techniques previously not permitted in Florida, including: • More efficient dredging vessels • Deep water systems • Separation technology, such as the hydrocyclone to utilize marginal material. Maximum Credit: 5 Points 19 349 Enhancing Nesting Sea Turtle Nesting Refuges Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (h) Projects that provide enhanced habitat within or adjacent to designated refuges of nesting sea turtles. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (j) Enhance nesting sea turtle refuges. Projects that are adjacent or within designated nesting sea turtle refuges shall receive 5 points. Method of Calculation Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge is the only designated sea turtle refuge in the state and therefore only projects within or immediately adjacent to that particular refuge receive points. Maximum Credit: 5 Points 20 350 Regionalization Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (i) The extent to which local or regional sponsors of beach erosion control projects agree to coordinate the planning, design, and construction of their projects to take advantage of identifiable cost savings. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (k) Regionalization. Projects where two or more local governmental entities couple their projects for contracting to reduce costs shall receive 5 points. Method of Calculation Points can be awarded in this category for two or more projects proposed by two or more local sponsors that are entering the same phase and can demonstrate significant anticipated cost savings through joint contracting. Projects must be able to demonstrate cost savings by bidding the projects separately and jointly. Points cannot be awarded until the Department is provided with an executed interlocal agreement between the local sponsors. Potential Technologies and Strategies Local sponsors can work with regional neighbors to coordinate construction schedules to reduce mobilization/demobilization costs, volume production costs, and observation/monitoring costs. Maximum Credit: 5 Points 21 351 Project Significance Intent Statute- 161.101(14) (j) The degree to which the project addresses the state's most significant beach erosion problems. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (l) Significance. Projects shall receive points based upon the project length at one point a mile, rounded to the nearest whole number, for a total maximum of 10 points. Method of Calculation Points are awarded based on project length with the assumption that a longer contiguous project will protect more upland structures and habitat and will have a longer project performance, i.e. longer nourishment interval. Potential Technologies and Strategies Local sponsors with multiple project segments can combine those segments to produce a longer length, if the construction phase for all segments is scheduled concurrently. Concurrent scheduling of projects can also decrease overall projects costs by reducing mobilization/demobilization costs. Maximum Credit: 10 Points 22 352 Readiness to Proceed Intent Statute- 161(14) following (j) In the event that more than one project qualifies equally under the provisions of this subsection, the department shall assign funding priority to those projects that are ready to proceed. Rule Rule- 62B-36.006(1) (m) In the event that more than one project receives the same number of points, the Department shall assign funding priority to that project most ready to initiate construction. Method of Calculation Points are awarded in this category when all other ranking assessments have been completed in order to rectify any project ties in the ranking list. Readiness to Proceed is determined by Bureau staff based on the status of the permit, local funding source, federal funding if applicable, construction easements, and construction schedule for each project. Potential Technologies and Strategies In order to improve standing in this category, local sponsors can attempt to have permits, easements, funding and schedules completed prior to requesting funding. 23 353 CHAPTER 62B-36 BEACH MANAGEMENT FUNDING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 62B-36.001 Purpose 62B-36.002 Definitions 62B-36.003 Policy 62B-36.005 Annual Funding Requests 62B-36.006 Project Ranking Procedure 62B-36.007 Project Cost Sharing 62B-36.009 Project Agreements 62B-36.001 Purpose. The Beach Management Program works in concert with eligible governmental entities to achieve protection, preservation and restoration of the sandy beaches fronting the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. The Department may enter into a cost sharing agreement with eligible governmental entities for the implementation of beach management projects. This rule establishes funding request procedures, project ranking, cost sharing procedures and project agreement requirements pursuant to Sections 161.088, 161.091, 161.101 and 161.161, F.S. Specific Authority 161.101, 161.161 FS. Law Implemented 161.088, 161.091, 161.101, 161.161 FS. History–New 6-10-83, Formerly 16B-36.01, 16B-36.001, Amended 12-25-03. 62B-36.002 Definitions. (1) “Annual Funding Request and Local Long Range Budget Plan” is the document submitted by the eligible governmental entity which includes a detailed description for the next fiscal year’s funding request and a schedule for the disbursement of funds to be requested for beach management projects or related activities over a given period of time. (2) “Beach Management” is protecting, maintaining, preserving, or enhancing Florida’s beaches including but not limited to, restoring or nourishing beach and dune systems, dune protection and restoration activities, restoration of natural shoreline processes, inlet management activities to facilitate sand bypassing, construction of erosion control structures, supporting engineering and environmental studies, project monitoring, mitigation, and removal of derelict structures and obstacles to natural shoreline processes. (3) “Contractual Services” are the provision of engineering, professional, or scientific services for eligible activities as otherwise described in this chapter. Such activities may be performed by a private company or individual, or, if approved by the Department, pursuant to subsection 62B-36.007(4), F.A.C., an eligible governmental entity. (4) “Critically Eroded Shoreline” is a segment of shoreline where natural processes or human activities have caused, or contributed to, erosion and recession of the beach and dune system to such a degree that upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat or important cultural resources are threatened or lost. Critically eroded shoreline may also include adjacent segments or gaps between identified critical erosion areas which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects. (5) “Department” is the Department of Environmental Protection. (6) “Eligible Governmental Entity” is any state, county, municipality, township, special district, or any other public agency having authority and responsibility for preserving and protecting the beach and dune system. (7) “Inlet” is a short narrow waterway including all related flood and ebb tidal shoals and the inlet shorelines, connecting a bay, lagoon, or similar body of water with the Gulf of Mexico, the Straits of Florida, or the Atlantic Ocean. Improved, altered or modified inlets are those where stabilizing rigid coastal structures have been constructed, or where inlet related structures or features such as channels have been constructed or are actively maintained and the channel depth is greater than the inlet system would support in a natural state. (8) “Project Agreement” is a contract executed between the Department and the eligible governmental entity that explicitly defines the terms and conditions under which the project shall be conducted. (9) “Project Boundary” means the shoreline of the beach management project and the first row of development immediately landward of the beach vegetation line or beach erosion control line, whichever is further landward. (10) “Project Phase” is a logical step required in developing and implementing a project. A typical project will normally include 354 the following phases: (a) “Feasibility” – is the characterization of the erosion problem and constraints on remediation alternatives, development and analysis of alternatives to address the problem, and selection of the cost-effective, environmentally sound alternative that avoids or minimizes adverse impacts. (b) “Design and Permitting” – is the development of plans, specifications, permit applications and final costs for the project. (c) “Construction” – is the execution of the selected project. (d) “Monitoring” – is the collection of project performance, biological and environmental data. (11) “Public Beach Access” is an entry zone adjacent to a sandy beach under public ownership or control which is specifically used for providing access to the beach for the general public. The access must be signed, maintained and clearly visible from the adjacent roadway. The types of public beach access sites are: (a) “Primary Beach Access” is a site with at least 100 public parking spaces and public restrooms. (b) “Secondary Beach Access” is a site that may have parking and amenities, but does not qualify as a primary beach access. (12) “Public Lodging Establishment” is any public lodging establishment currently licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation in the classification of “hotel”, “motel” and “resort condominium” with six or more units and fronting directly on the sandy beach. (13) “Statewide Long Range Budget Plan” is the planning document used by the Department to schedule the disbursement of funds over a given period of time. It is developed in coordination with eligible governmental entities based on the Strategic Beach Management Plan and Local Long Range Budget Plans. (14) “Strategic Beach Management Plan” is the Department’s adopted plan for management of the critically eroded shoreline of the state and the related coastal system. Specific Authority 161.101, 161.161 FS. Law Implemented 161.088, 161.091, 161.101, 161.161 FS. History–New 6-10-83, Formerly 16B-36.02, 16B-36.002, Amended 12-25-03. 62B-36.003 Policy. (1) The Beach Management Program is established to develop and execute a comprehensive, long range, statewide beach management plan for erosion control, beach preservation, restoration, nourishment and storm protection for the critically eroded shoreline of the State of Florida. This comprehensive program includes the Strategic Beach Management Plan, the Critical Erosion Report, shoreline change reports, inlet management studies, state and federal feasibility and design studies, the Statewide Long Range Budget Plan, and other reports as the Department may find necessary for a multiyear maintenance and repair strategy. The comprehensive program is implemented through projects consistent with the Strategic Beach Management Plan and included in the Statewide Long Range Budget Plan. (2) The Department shall annually review available information and revise the designations of critically eroded shoreline in the Critical Erosion Report. Eligible governmental entities shall be notified of any proposed changes and be given an opportunity to submit additional information to justify or refute proposed revisions. (3) Beach management projects funded by the Department shall be conducted in a manner that encourages cost-savings, fosters regional coordination of projects, optimizes management of sediments and project performance, protects the environment, and provides long-term solutions. Appropriate feasibility studies or analysis shall be required before design or construction of new projects. (4) Beach and dune restoration and nourishment projects funded by the Department shall be accessible to the general public and access shall be maintained for the life of the project. Inlet sediment bypassing and the initial restoration of adjacent shorelines impacted by improved, modified or altered inlets, do not have to provide for public access, except for when an Erosion Control Line has been established. Shoreline segments shall be evaluated for public access as set forth in subsection 62B-36.007(1), F.A.C. (5) Beach management projects will be evaluated on a case by case basis and may be cost shared, pursuant to Rules 62B-36.006 and 62B-36.007, F.A.C., when determined to avoid or minimize adverse impacts and be cost effective as demonstrated by feasibility and design studies. (6) Activities primarily related to navigation or other infrastructure improvements at inlets are, generally, not eligible for cost sharing. However, components of projects which mitigate critically eroded shoreline caused by alterations, modifications or improvements to inlets, implement components of the Strategic Beach Management Plan, and which do not increase impacts, are 355 eligible for cost sharing of up to 50% of the non-federal share for those components which: (a) Are designed to minimize the erosive effects to the downdrift shoreline caused by the inlet by improving or facilitating the efficiency of sand bypassing, such as the construction of sand bypassing facilities, sand traps and jetty alterations; or (b) Cost effectively place beach quality sand on the adjacent eroded beaches, such as the incremental cost of placing sand on the beach rather than in an offshore disposal area. The Department will cost share only in the incremental cost of placement of the material, not mobilization and demobilization of equipment, design studies, or any other activity normal to the operation and maintenance of the inlet. (7) Eligible governmental entities are encouraged to consider existing inlet navigation maintenance activities as potential sources of sand when developing beach restoration or nourishment projects. (8) Beach management projects authorized by Congress for federal financial participation shall be cost shared up to 50% of the non-federal share. Eligible governmental entities shall pursue federal appropriations to the maximum extent possible in order to proportionally reduce state and local project costs. The Department will not cost share on the federal portion of an authorized project unless an immediate threat to upland properties and financial loss is demonstrated. (9) Upon notification from the Department of the 60-day submittal period, eligible governmental entities shall submit an updated Annual Funding Request and Local Long Range Budget Plan. Annual funding shall only be requested for projects expected to be initiated or continued in that fiscal year. (10) The Department shall annually review and rank all projects requested by eligible governmental entities for the next fiscal year, and maintain a current project listing in priority order. As part of the review, the Department shall seek formal input from local coastal governments, beach and general government interest groups, and university experts. The project listing shall also identify unranked projects and funds needed for statewide and regional management activities, state sponsored or co-sponsored demonstration projects, new feasibility and design studies, and a consolidated category for project monitoring required by permit. In determining the final project ranking, the Department shall consider likely available funding and include a primary and alternate list of all projects. The primary list shall include those projects where legislatively appropriated funding is anticipated to be adequate to fund the projects. The alternate list includes those projects where funding is not anticipated to be available. Funding that may become available due to savings or scheduling changes shall be made available in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year to projects in the following order: (a) Projects on the primary list that require additional funds to complete the project phase. (b) Previously funded projects that require additional funds to complete the project phase. (c) Projects on the alternate list in priority order. (d) Emergency situations as determined by the Department. (11) The Department, in consultation with the eligible governmental entity, has the discretion, pursuant to Section 161.101(20), F.S., to revise funding for projects identified on the primary or alternate list if it is determined by the Department that the project is not ready to be initiated during the fiscal year. If the Department revises funding for a primary list project, at the request of the eligible governmental entity, the project shall be included on the subsequent year’s primary list, regardless of prioritization pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006, F.A.C. (12) Eligible governmental entities may design and construct beach management projects prior to the receipt of funding from the state and may subsequently apply for reimbursement from the Department pursuant to the procedure in subsection 62B- 36.009(3), F.A.C. Specific Authority 161.101, 161.161 FS. Law Implemented 161.088, 161.091, 161.101, 161.161 FS. History–New 6-10-83, Formerly 16B-36.03, Amended 4-27-86, Formerly 16B-36.003, Amended 12-25-03. 356 62B-36.005 Annual Funding Requests. (1) Annual funding requests for cost sharing of projects shall be submitted by the eligible governmental entity to the Department. Projects previously submitted, but not funded, and projects with cost overruns should be included. Eligible governmental entities who have received funding for projects in past fiscal years and who anticipate requesting funding in subsequent years shall update the Local Long Range Budget Plan as to costs and scheduling. The Local Long Range Budget Plan shall be consistent with the Strategic Beach Management Plan and have a 10-year minimum time frame. The submittal shall be in electronic format and include: (a) A detailed project description, including project boundaries by Department range monuments, methods used in conducting the project, and data or analysis to apply the ranking criteria required by Rule 62B-36.006, F.A.C. (b) A map of the project area depicting the public beach access, the public parking within one quarter mile of each beach access, public restroom facilities, the public lodging establishments, and comprehensive plan designations of commercial and recreational facilities within the project boundary. (c) Current license documentation on public lodging establishments within the project boundaries, including the number of units available, if used to document public access. (d) A current or updated resolution from the eligible governmental entity which includes statements of their support of the project, willingness to serve as the local sponsor, and a statement of the extent of their ability and willingness to provide the necessary local funding share to implement the project. (e) A schedule of activities by project phase. (f) The annual project cost estimates that indicate cost sharing by the eligible governmental entity, with sufficient supporting detail depicting costs of project phases. (2) The Department shall evaluate projects submitted to determine eligibility, project ranking and priority, and the extent of cost sharing. Upon completion of the evaluation process, all eligible projects will be incorporated into the Department’s Statewide Long Range Budget Plan, which will be submitted to the Legislature along with the Department’s legislative budget request prioritizing projects according to the criteria in Rule 62B-36.006, F.A.C. (3) Funding requests shall be evaluated and ranked on the basis of information provided by the eligible governmental entity, except where such data is superseded by better quality information obtained by the Department. Failure to provide all required information and documentation relating to eligibility and ranking criteria will result in the request being declared ineligible or receiving reduced ranking points. Failure to provide accurate information will lead to termination of the project’s eligibility for the requested fiscal year. Specific Authority 161.101, 161.161 FS. Law Implemented 161.088, 161.091, 161.101, 161.161 FS. History–New 6-10-83, Formerly 16B-36.05, Amended 4-27-86, Formerly 16B-36.005, Amended 12-25-03. 62B-36.006 Project Ranking Procedure. (1) Eligible projects requesting funding for the upcoming fiscal year will be ranked in priority for the Department’s legislative budget request. Projects previously ranked for a construction phase will retain their project score through the monitoring phase. Eligible projects will be assigned a total point score by the Department based on the following criteria: (a) Severity of erosion. The severity of erosion score is determined by the average rate of erosion for the project area over 30 years based upon the Department’s long term data base for the project length at 2 points per foot of erosion, rounded to the nearest whole foot, for a maximum total of 10 points. (b) Threat to upland structures. The percent of developed property containing structures within the project boundaries at or seaward of the projected 25-year return interval storm event erosion limit times ten, rounded to the nearest whole number, for a maximum total of 10 points. (c) Recreational and economic benefits. The percentage of linear footage of property within the project boundaries zoned commercial or recreational, or the equivalent, in the current local government land use map times ten, rounded to the nearest whole number, for a maximum total of 10 points. (d) Availability of federal funds. Projects with Congressional authorization for the project phase shall receive 5 points. Projects with a current Project Cooperation Agreement executed for the project phase or with available federal funds shall receive 5 points. Maximum total for availability of federal funds is 10 points. 357 (e) Local sponsor financial and administrative commitment. Local governments who have a long term funding source dedicated to the restoration and management of the beach project shall receive 3 points; those with staff dedicated for administrative support shall receive 1 point; those with 75% or better compliance record for submitting quarterly reports and billings correctly and on time over the previous year shall receive 1 point for a maximum total of 5 points. (f) Previous state commitment. Projects where the Department has previously cost shared a feasibility or design phase shall receive 1 point; projects to enhance, or increase the longevity of a previously constructed project shall receive 4 points; and projects that will nourish a previously restored shoreline shall receive 5 points, for a maximum total of 10 points. (g) Project performance. Performance points shall be based upon the expected life of a project, as documented in a feasibility study or on the actual nourishment interval. Projects shall receive 1 point for every year of the expected life or actual life with a maximum total of 10 points. (h) Mitigation of inlet effects. Projects that implement strategies in the Strategic Beach Management Plan for sediment bypassing or supplemental nourishment to adjacent beaches shall receive points based upon the percentage of the target bypass volume to be achieved times 10 for a maximum total of 10 points. (i) Innovative technologies. Projects to address erosion that are economically competitive and environmentally sensitive and designed to demonstrate an innovative application of existing technologies shall receive 3 points; projects that demonstrate technologies previously untried in the state shall receive 5 points for a maximum total of 5 points. (j) Enhance nesting sea turtle refuges. Projects that are adjacent or within designated nesting sea turtle refuges shall receive 5 points. (k) Regionalization. Projects where two or more local governmental entities couple their projects for contracting to reduce costs shall receive 5 points. (l) Significance. Projects shall receive points based upon the project length at one point a mile, rounded to the nearest whole number, for a total maximum of 10 points. (m) In the event that more than one project receives the same number of points, the Department shall assign funding priority to that project most ready to initiate construction. Specific Authority 161.101, 161.161 FS. Law Implemented 161.088, 161.091, 161.101, 161.161 FS. History–New 6-10-83, Formerly 16B-36.06, 16B-36.006, Amended 12-25-03. 62B-36.007 Project Cost Sharing. (1) Until the unmet demand for repairing Florida’s beaches is satisfied, the Department intends to cost share equally the costs with local governmental entities, except where actual cost savings from regional coordination can be demonstrated pursuant to subsection 62B-36.007(2), F.A.C. The Department will cost share up to 50% of the non-federal share of projects subject to adjustment for the level of public accessibility calculated using the following criteria: (a) Primary beach access sites shall be granted eligibility for one-half mile in each shore-parallel direction from the access site plus the shoreline length of the access site. (b) Public lodging establishments shall be granted eligibility based upon the percentage of units available to the public, rounded to the nearest 10%, times the property’s beachfront footage. (c) Secondary beach access sites shall be granted eligibility for the shoreline length of the access site. Additional eligibility shall be granted for up to one-quarter mile in each shore parallel direction at a rate of 52.8 linear feet per parking space, provided: 1. Parking is located within one-quarter mile of the secondary beach access site; and 2. Parking is clearly signed or otherwise clearly designated as parking for the general public on an equal basis. (d) Eligible shoreline lengths cannot overlap. (e) The sum of the eligible shoreline lengths, as defined above, is divided by the total project length to determine the percentage of the total project that is eligible for cost sharing. (2) Cost savings, which occur due to the planned geographic coordination or sequencing of two or more projects between eligible governmental entities, may qualify for additional reimbursement. Geographic sequencing means combining two projects together for the purpose of construction contracting. In order to determine the increase in the state’s cost share the projects shall be bid jointly and separately to demonstrate the cost savings of combining the projects. The cost share shall be adjusted not to exceed the state’s maximum cost share amount of 75 percent of the eligible costs. 358 (3) All costs of environmental and performance monitoring required by the Department’s permit with the governmental entity or a permit issued to the US Army Corps of Engineers, are eligible for cost sharing. (4) The Department will cost share for private contractual services necessary to conduct the project. Services may be contracted to a governmental entity if the Department is shown evidence that the entity’s proposal is cost effective, of sufficient professional quality, and otherwise in the general public interest. In determining whether contractual services are cost effective, the Department shall consider cost estimates provided by the governmental entity from fully qualified private companies or individuals. Specific contractual services performed by or for local governments shall be subject to specific accountability measures and audit requirements and be consistent with the principles of Chapter 287, F.S., for competitive bidding and opportunity. Specific Authority 161.101, 161.161 FS. Law Implemented 161.088, 161.091, 161.101, 161.161 FS. History–New 6-10-83, Formerly 16B-36.07, Amended 4-27-86, Formerly 16B-36.007, Amended 12-25-03. 62B-36.009 Project Agreements. (1) The Department and the eligible governmental entity will execute a project agreement when funds are available and the project is ready to proceed. The project agreement shall include the following: (a) The estimated costs for each eligible project item, including the amount of the local sponsor’s share, the Department’s share, and when applicable, the federal share; (b) A scope of work and estimated date of completion for each eligible project item; and (c) A periodic reporting and billing schedule. (2) The Department’s annual financial obligation under the agreement shall be contingent upon a legislative appropriation and continued availability of funds. Funds not expended in a timely manner are subject to reversion to the General Revenue Fund. (3) Eligible governmental entities may design and construct beach management projects which are consistent with this rule and Chapter 161, F.S., prior to the receipt of funding from the state pursuant to Sections 161.101 and 161.161, F.S., and may subsequently apply for reimbursement from the state within three years pursuant to Section 161.101, F.S., provided that: (a) The eligible governmental entity and the Department have entered into a project agreement, which approves the project and establishes the basis for reimbursement before the project phase commences. No reimbursement shall be granted for work accomplished prior to the date of the agreement unless specifically set forth in the agreement; (b) The project has been subject to review by the Department in the design and construction phases and the project has been found to be consistent with the intent of Chapter 161, F.S., for project eligibility and cost effectiveness; (c) Reimbursement shall be limited to eligible project costs as specified in the written agreement referenced in paragraph (a) above and this rule; (d) The project has been prioritized as required in Section 161.101(9), F.S., and is subject to legislative appropriation; and (e) Complete documentation of all costs are provided to the Department, pursuant to the requirements of the State’s Auditor General. Specific Authority 161.101, 161.161 FS. Law Implemented 161.088, 161.091, 161.101, 161.161 FS. History–New 6-10-83, Formerly 16B-36.09, 16B-36.009, Amended 12-25-03. 359