20141120 Workshop Beach Renourishment
CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP (FUTURE BEACH RENOURISHMENT)
November 20, 2014
th
City Hall, 4 Floor, City Manager’s Office Large Conference Room, 1700 Convention Center Drive
Mayor Philip Levine
Vice-Mayor Joy Malakoff
Commissioner Michael Grieco
Commissioner Micky Steinberg
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
City Manager Jimmy L. Morales
City Attorney Raul J. Aguila
City Clerk Rafael E. Granado
Visit us at www.miamibeachfl.gov for agendas and video "streaming" of City Commission Meetings.
ATTENTION ALL LOBBYISTS
Chapter 2, Article VII, Division 3 of the City Code of Miami Beach, entitled "Lobbyists," requires
the registration of all lobbyists with the City Clerk prior to engaging in any lobbying activity with
the City Commission, any City Board or Committee, or any personnel as defined in the subject
Code sections. Copies of the City Code sections on lobbyists laws are available in the City
Clerk's Office. Questions regarding the provisions of the Ordinance should be directed to the
Office of the City Attorney.
To request this material in alternate format, sign language interpreter (five-day notice required), information
on access for persons with disabilities, and/or any accommodation to review any document or participate in
any City-sponsored proceedings, call 305.604.2489 and select 1 for English or 2 for Spanish, then option 6;
TTY users may call via 711 (Florida Relay Service).
Special note: In order to ensure adequate public consideration, if necessary, the Mayor and City Commission
may move any agenda item to the alternate meeting date, which will only be held if needed. In addition, the
Mayor and City Commission may, at their discretion, adjourn the Commission Meeting without reaching all
agenda items.
Call to order - 3:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Discussion on Miami-Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
Update.
(Environmental)
F:\CLER\COMMON\2014\11202014 beach renourishment\11202014 Beach Renourishment.docx
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
tz MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members ., the City ommission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: November 20, 2014
SUBJECT: Miami -Dade County Beach Erosio Control and Hurricane Protection Project
Update
BACKGROUND
Between 1975 and 1980, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) fortified Miami Beach's eastern
shoreline by using offshore sand to nourish the beaches as part of the Miami -Dade
County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project. The primary goal of the
project was to provide erosion control and storm protection to the upland properties. The
resulting beaches have also provided recreational, environmental, and economic
benefits for not only Miami Beach, but the larger community.
The USACE has worked with Miami -Dade County and the City to periodically renourish
the beaches and maintain the project areas using borrow sites off -shore of Miami -Dade
County limits. This work has been funded through a cost -share comprised of 50%
Federal funds, 25% by State funds, and 25% Miami -Dade County funds. The most
recent large -scale renourishment was completed in October 2012. This project cost
approximately $15.8 million and placed approximately 357,000 cubic yards of sand on
the City's beaches. During this project, the USACE depleted the last available offshore
sand source in Miami -Dade County.
The USACE is in the process of conducting a Sediment Assessment Needs
Determination (SAND) study to evaluate the area's sand needs and the available sand
sources that can meet those needs. Per the results of the SAND Study's volume
assessment, the USACE estimates that beaches in Miami -Dade County will need
approximately 23.2 million cubic yards of sand to support the area's renourishment
projects for the next 50 years (Attachment A). The USACE does not expect to finalize a
list of viable sand sources that can be used to fill this sediment gap until Summer 2015.
At this time, the USACE is not considering non - domestic borrow sources because the
Water Resources Development Act of 1987 and the Energy and Appropriations Bill
(H8842) of 1999 prevents the acquisition of foreign sources of sand for Federally- funded
projects.
The City is working with Miami -Dade County to explore sustainable sand options that
can be used for future emergency and non - emergency beach renourishment projects.
One option that has been discussed is the use of excess beach - compatible material
from upland properties that are under construction.
Beach Management Update — November 2014 Memo
November 20, 2014
Page 2 of 2
The Chateau Ocean property at 9365 Collins Avenue has excavated approximately
30,000 cubic yards of sand from their property. Per their FDEP Coastal Construction
Control Line (CCCL) permit, they are required to place the excavated sand within the
beach system between Haulover Inlet and Government Cut. The County has
recommended that the Chateau Ocean property place this material at the erosional
hotspot in the vicinity of 54 Street. The estimated cost of the excavated sand and
placement is approximately $1,000,000, which will be funded entirely by the Chateau
Group. The sand excavated from this site is the original sand found on Miami Beach
prior to the USACE's Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection
Project in 1970. Per the CCCL permit requirements, the Chateau Group has completed
beach sand compatibility test for placement on Miami -Dade County beaches
(Attachment B). In addition, the Chateau Group has also completed Beach Sand
Chemical Testing (Attachment C) to confirm that the chemical composition of the sand
material from the excavated site is of the same order of magnitude as the background
for the area (Attachment D). In May 2014, Miami -Dade County conducted an analyzed
the arsenic concentrations of sand from Haulover Inlet to Government Cut (Attachment
E). Prior to placement on the City's beach, staff recommends that these results be
further compared to existing sand in the vicinity of 54 Street.
Potential options for other hotspot areas, including the vicinity of 46 Street, 53 Street, 64
Street, 69 Street and 87 Street, is for the County to purchase sand from a foreign source
such as the Bahamas and cost share this expense with the City and private beachfront
properties. Since projects using non - domestic sources of sand are ineligible for Federal
participation, this option requires further consideration and the allocation of funding from
the State and County. The USACE currently estimates that sand from sources in Federal
waters off St. Lucie and Martin Counties will cost between $85 -$100 per cubic yard.
The County has received initial cost estimates for Bahamian sand ranging from $45 -$55
per cubic yard. Consequently, the cost to the County and the State would be only
slightly more than the obligations of each in a federally approved project. In the
upcoming weeks, the County and the City will be meeting with hotels and
concessionaires that would benefit from foreign sand to discuss partnership
opportunities.
CONCLUSION
This information is being presented for your discussion during the Commission workshop
on future beach renourishment. Staff recommends that any future sand placed within
the beach system be tested for sand composition compatibility and that a chemical
analysis be conducted that is reviewed and approved by a toxicologist.
Attachments: A — Miami -Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection
Project Fact Sheet
B — Beach Sand Compatibility Testing
C — Beach Sand Chemical Testing
D — Natural Background Soil Concentrations for Barrier Islands of Miami -
Dade County
dESW /MKW
\ \miamibeach.gov \files \WORK \$ALL \(1) EMPLOYEE FOLDERS \BETSY
WHEATON \BEACH RENOURISHMENT \Beach Management Update November 2014 -
MEM.docx
Attachment - A
DADE COUNTY BEACH EROSION CONTROL
AND HURRICANE PROTECTION PROJECT Alternative Sand Source Investigation
FACTS & INFORMATION
AUGUST 2013
THE BACKGROUND
Beach renourishment has been an ongoing practice in southeast Florida since the late 1970s providing essential economic, environmental
and recreational benefit to coastal communities. Renourished beaches and dunes serve as a vital buffer between coastal infrastructure
and the destructive forces of ocean waves and surge during storm events.
Figure 1: Southeast Florida region (Corps 2009)
PROJECT SCHEDULE:
The Corps must complete a
Limited Re- evaluation Report
(LRR) and subsequent NEPA
documentation to utilize sands as
discussed above. It's anticipated
that this report will be approved
October 2014. From that point
the Corps would start permit
applications and detailed designed
with construction contracts
awarded in 2015 (subject to
appropriations).
The southeast Florida region encompasses five counties (St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach.
Broward, and Miami -Dade) and approximately 200 miles of Florida shoreline (Figure 1).
Throughout the region. twenty -four federal and nonfederal beach nourishment projects provide
storm damage reduction to infrastructure as well as incidental recreational opportunities for
local. national. and international visitors.
These constructed beaches mimic the protective and recreational functions of natural beaches.
and the resulting benefits of beach nourishment projects are well documented. The 2008 Shore
Protection Assessment (SPA) completed an in -depth evaluation of benefits provided by the
Martin County Shore Protection Project during the 2004 hurricane season. The study calculated
over $11- million damages were prevented by the Martin County Shore Protection Project which
equals approximately. 20% of the 50 -year total project cost realized in one storm season. As
an example of recreational benefits, Miami Beach had little beach tourism before construction
of the Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project in 1975. Since
construction of the project. it is estimated that tourists contribute $11- billion annually to the
Miami Beach economy. almost half of which is from international tourists (Houston 2008).
Sand dredged from offshore borrow sources in state and Federal waters is typically used to
renourish the projects. The current practice is for projects to access borrow sources located in
close proximity to the project since they are often the most economical sand sources. Counties
are often cost- sharing partners in the projects along with the State of Florida and the Federal
government (in the case of Federal projects). Many of these projects were initially constructed
in the 1970's and 1980's and are periodically renourished with sand over a typical project life of
50 years.
Renourishment needs of ongoing projects, initiation of new projects, existing environmental
resources, and increasing environmental constraints have continued to reduce the available
sand supply located onshore, particularly in the most southern counties, Broward and Miami -
Dade. where narrowing of the continental shelf limits investigation and access to sand sources.
Currently, sand sources offshore of these two counties fall short of the counties' renourishment
needs throughout their projects' remaining periods of Federal participation.
Miami -Dade County in particular is running out of dependable. economical, and
environmentally practicable offshore sand sources. In 1986, a congressional directive authorized
the acquisition of non - domestic sand IF such material is not available from domestic sources for
environmental or economic reasons. Since that time, the Corps has been investigating the use of
non - domestic sand for use on Federal projects in southeast Florida, particularly in Miami -Dade
County.
Investigations for Miami -Dade County indicated that some sources, particularly Bahamian
aragonite, which has been used on non - federal projects in southeast Florida, looked promising.
However, in 1999 the FY99 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill directed that no funds
provided for the Dade County, Florida shore protection project be used for acquisition of
foreign source materials unless the Secretary of the Army provides written certification that
domestic sources are not available.
DADE COUNTY BEACH EROSION CONTROL
AND HURRICANE PROTECTION PROJECT Alternative Sand Source Investigation
NEPA PROCESS:
The National Environmental Policy Act requires projects
that are federally funded; federally authorized or federally
permitted to be analyzed to determine the effects on the
human environment and for this analysis to be provided to
the public for review and comment. The human environment
is defined as the natural, social, economic and cultural
resources in the project area. The NEPA process begins with
Scoping, an effort to work with the public to identify specific
F resources that may or may not be impacted by the proposed
project and determine which resources will be the focus
of the impact analysis. After Scoping, a NEPA document
is prepared and a draft of the document is released to the
interested public and stakeholders for review and comment.
After review and comment, the comments are addressed
and the NEPA document is finalized. After finalization,
_ federal action (authorization, funding, permitting) may move
forward.
POTENTIAL SAND SOURCES:
A Limited Re- evaluation Report (LRR) and subsequent NEPA
documentation will investigate the use of alternative sand
sources for the Dade County Beach Erosion Control and
Hurricane Protection Project. Alternative sand sources may
include, but are not limited to:
• material remaining in previous Miami -Dade County
borrow areas
• upland sand sources
• deepwater sites offshore of Miami -Dade County
• borrow areas offshore of Palm Beach County
• borrow areas offshore of Martin County
• borrow areas offshore of St. Lucie County
-• borrow areas offshore of Broward County
• flood and ebb shoal at Bakers Haulover Inlet
• sand relocation from the accreting South Beach area
to eroding areas
• carbonate materials (aragonite) from foreign sources.
REGIONAL SAND STUDIES:
Studies have been underway to identify alternative sand sources.
In addition to non - domestic, the studies included domestic
sources such as upland sources, sources in deeper offshore
waters, sources offshore of other counties in southeast Florida
in federal and state waters, even domestic sources as far away as
the Apalachicola River. In 2007, the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works directed that all remaining sand offshore
of Miami -Dade be used for beach renourishment in the county,
to investigate the viability of non - domestic sand sources, and
to investigate a regional management plan for use of domestic
sources.
Subsequently in 2009 a Regional Sediment Management(RSM)
Plan for southeast Florida indicated there was just enough
domestic offshore sand in the region to support federal and
non - federal projects for 50 years. Further economic analysis
and discussion with dredging industry indicated that domestic
sources were more dependable and economically viable than
non- domestic.
In 2012, a collaborative effort between the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the five southeast Florida
Counties, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) sought
to update the 2009 RSM Plan with improved data. The FDEP
lead the study effort with technical input from the Corps, and data
provided by southeast Florida counties. Each county determined
its sand need for federal and non - federal nourishment projects
over the next 50 years. With a 55% contingency added to these
needs, it was found that 174,101.870 cubic -yards of sediment
are needed to support placement of planned, full -sized beach
nourishment projects through 2062. The FDEP and the Corps
carried out geotechnical investigations to locate additional
beach quality sand sources. With contingencies applied, it was
found that 280,037,956 cubic -yards of sand exist offshore of
southeast Florida that meet the criteria for this study, established
for sand placement on Florida beaches. Therefore, currently
known sediment resources in St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach.
Broward and Dade Counties exceed 50 -year sediment needs by
100.000.000 cubic yards.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
MS. TERRI JORDAN - SELLERS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
701 San Marco Blvd.
Jacksonville, FL 32207
904 - 232 -1817
Terri.Jordan-Sellers@usace.army.mil
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Sand Needs (cy)
Sand Availability (cy)
' -COUnty
50 -Year
Volume Need
50 -Year Need
+55%
Contingency
2012 Total
Volume
per County
Volume +
Contingency/
Confidence
Volume after
Needs Met
Stacie
1 8,017,487
27,927,105
175,847,874
106,1 49,618
78,222,514
Martin
22,111,000
34,272,050
107,593,227
56,160,331
21,888,281
410ett Bead
45,54f0
70,644,350
191,951,814
117,728,007
47,083,657
Broward3
11,650,000
18,057,500
-
-
- 18,057,500
Miami -Dad&
14,968,300
23.200,865
-
-
- 23,200,865
112,323,787
174,101,870
475,392,915
280,037,956
105,936,086
100,000,000
US
FOR MORE INFORMATION
MS. TERRI JORDAN - SELLERS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
701 San Marco Blvd.
Jacksonville, FL 32207
904 - 232 -1817
Terri.Jordan-Sellers@usace.army.mil
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
meAi=
. , 4 . . . , - ' , -
AN NV5 COMPANY
Attachment - B
Geotechnical Engineering 1 Foundation Engineering 1 Construction Materials Testing 1 Soil Borings 1 Monitoring Wells
May 13, 2013
Mr. Esteban Koffsmon
Chateau Group
900 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 801
Miami, Florida 33132
Re: Beach Sand Compatibility Testing
Proposed Chateau Ocean: 12 -Level Structure
9375 Collins Ave. -SE Corner of 94th Street & Collins Avenue
Surfside, Miami -Dade County, Florida
KACO Project No. 13- 145992
Dear Mr. Koffsmon:
We submit this Letter in fulfillment of our scope of services described in our Proposal No.
13 -0111 rev dated March 13, 2013. In order to provide you with assistance in determining the
use of the onsite soils, we provide the results of our field exploration and laboratory testing.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Information about this phase of the project was received from Mr. Kirk Lofgren of Ocean
Consulting LLC. The proposed development will be located at the SE Corner of 94th Street &
Collins Avenue in Surfside, Miami -Dade County, Florida. The site is bounded by Collins
Avenue to the west and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. The site has plan view dimensions of
about 315 ft. (north- south) by 220 ft. (east- west).
The proposed development will consist of a 12 -level structure. The tower footprint will
cover an area of about 70 ft. (north- south) by 180 ft. (east- west). The lowest level will have a
finished floor elevation of about +8 or +9 feet NGVD. A basement is being considered (about
12 ft. cut). The properties located north and south of the site are presently developed, and we
are unaware of the development history of the site.
No elevation information was provided. We estimate that site grades are on the order of
+6 feet NGVD near Collins Avenue, and +10 feet NGVD on the (beach) east edge of the
property.
In an effort to protect the environmental functions of Florida's beaches, The State of
Florida only allows fill material compatible with the native beach material to be placed seaward
of the CCCL on the beach or in any associated dune system.
9565 NW 40th Street Rd. 1 Doral, Florida 33178 1 Phone: 305.666.3563 1 Fax: 305.666.3069
www.kaderabek.com 1 www.NV5.com 1 C.A. #29994
Mr. Esteban Koffsmon
Chateau Group
Beach Sand Compatibility Study- Chateau Ocean
May 13, 2013
Page 2
KACO Project No.13- 145992
Beach quality sand is defined by rule as sand which is similar to the native beach sand in
both coloration and grain size, and is free of construction debris, metals, vegetation, organic
soils, rocks, clay, or other foreign matter.
PURPOSE
The purpose of our services on this project was to collect soil samples from the proposed
site and along the adjacent beach and to test the samples in the laboratory for certain specific
criteria.
SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is located as shown in the appended Drawing No. 1. The site currently
houses two three -story buildings near the north and south boundaries and a swimming pool with
other hardscape and landscape areas in the central portion. Surface soils consist of sand or a
mixture of sand and limestone fragments (fill). We estimate that ground surface elevations are
on the order of +6 to +10 feet NGVD; however, if accurate elevations are needed we
recommend a surveyor to determine elevations at each test location.
INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES
General - The subsurface conditions were explored using engineering test borings
(B -1, B -2, B -3 & B -4) and hand sampling (BA -1, BA -2, BA -3 and BA -4). The test locations were
approximated by engineering personnel from our office, using the information provided by Mr.
Kirk Lofgren of Ocean Consulting LLC. The approximate test locations are shown in the
appended Drawing No. 2. Two (2) of the engineering test borings (B -1 and B -2) were advanced
to a depth of 12 feet below the surface, while test borings (B -3 and B -4) were advanced to a
depth of four (4) feet below the surface. One (1) sample was tested from each of the test
borings and hand sampling locations.
Soil Test Borings- The standard penetration test was used as the investigative tool within
the borings. Penetration tests were performed in substantial accordance with ASTM D -1586,
"Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split- Barrel Sampling of Soils."
This test procedure drives a 1.4 -inch I.D. split -tube sampler into the subsurface profile using a
140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the
second and third 6 -inch increments is the SPT N- value, in blows per foot, and is an indication of
material strength.
The soil /rock samples recovered from the borings were classified by a geotechnical
engineer. It should be noted that soil conditions may vary between the strata interfaces and the
soil boring data only reflects specific test location data.
Hand Sampling — Hand sampling was performed at four (4) locations for this study. The
hand sampling depths ranged from zero (0) to about two (2) feet. Samples of the various soil
strata were obtained and returned to our laboratory for testing.
K
AN NV5 COMPANY
Mr. Esteban Koffsmon
Chateau Group
Beach Sand Compatibility Study- Chateau Ocean
May 13, 2013
Page 3
KACO Project No.13- 145992
The results of the classification and generalized stratification are shown in the summary
table of soil samples and in the laboratory test results appended to this report.
Grain Size Analysis Tests — A total of eight (8) samples were tested for grain size
analysis, from the samples recovered on the site and along the adjacent beach. The distribution
of particles coarser than the No. 200 sieve was determined in accordance with ASTM D- 422 -63.
The reports of grain size analysis tests are appended to this report.
Carbonate Tests — Carbonate content tests were performed using two methods; a visual
estimate and via laboratory testing in accordance with Florida DOT procedure FM 5 -514.
SUMMARY TABLE OF SOIL SAMPLES
SAMPLE
NAME
Depth
(Feet)
Visual Observation
B -1
4 to 6
Brown Sand
B -2
8 to 10
Brown Sand
B -3
2 to 4
Brown Sand
B -4
0 to 2
Gray Sand
BA -1
0 to 2
Brown Sand
BA -2
0 to 2
Brown Sand
BA -3
0 to 2
Brown Sand
BA -4
0 to 2
Brown Sand
SUMMARY TABLE OF TEST RESULTS
Sample_
Name. _
Sample
Identity
Depth
(Feet)
Mean
(phi)
Median
(phi)
Sorting
(phi)
%
Silt
Carbonate
Content,
Munsell Color
B -1
70
4 to 6
1.238
1.265
0.853
1.42
50.5145
10YR 7/3
B -2
71
8 to 10
0.774
0.753
0.718
1.18
50.0000
10YR 5/8
B -3
72
2 to 4
0.380
0.365
0.941
0.52
55.9741
10YR 713
B-4
73
0 to 2
0.716
0.816
1.184
0.68
54.5542
10YR 6/1
BA -1
74
0 to 2
0.823
0.893
0.884
1.09
55.6093
10YR 5/6
BA -2
75
0 to 2
0.994
1.065
0.731
3.39
54.1705
10YR 6/4
BA -3
76
0 to 2
0.813
0.900
0.917
0.42
51.6378
10YR 6/6
BA -4
77
0 to 2
0.814
0.862
0.815
0.42
53.6232
10 YR 6/4
KACO
AN NV5 COMPANY
Mr. Esteban Koffsmon
Chateau Group
Beach Sand Compatibility Study- Chateau Ocean
REPORT LIMITATIONS
May 13, 2013
Page 4
KACO Project No.13- 145992
This consulting Report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the current project
owners, and other members of the project design team for the specific application to this
project. This Report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted local
geotechnical engineering practice; no other warranty is expressed or implied.
CLOSURE
If you have questions about information contained in this Report, please contact the
writer at 305/666 -3563.
Sincerely,
KADERABEK COMPANY
Clyde Grey, E.I.
Staff Engineer
Attachments: Drawing No.1- Vicinity Map
Drawing No.2 — Test Location Plan
Laboratory Test Results (23 Pages)
Distribution: Original & 4 Copies to Addressee via US Mail
Copy to KACO File
13- 145992 - Chateau Ocean-Sand Compatibility Rpt- 04- 17- 13.doc
!-.2Ptotr,
Ib. stedt
•
ST 6y5-
•
Vice Pre dent
Florida License No. 51641
AN NV5 COMPANY
i=
Notes: Aerial photograph is courtesy of Google Earth, 2013.
, -a Islands
A
.Dal HarI,aur
V ca.�aa L
ij
_ I
cSurtsids
KACO
KADERABEK COMPANY
Geotechnical Engineering
Construction Materials Testing
Soil Borings/Monitor Wells
DWG TITLE:
Vicinity Map
DWN BY: e
PROJ NAME: Chateau Ocean, 9375 Collins Ave, Surfside,FL
CKD BY: ygg3
PROJ. NO: 13- 145922
DATE:05/13/13
DWG NO:
1
APD BY
Legend
- Soil Boring Test Location
- Hand Sampling Location
BA -1
Notes:
1. Test locations are shown as approximate.
2. Test location symbols are not to scale.
3. Aerial Photograph - Courtesy of Google Earth, 2013
KACO
KADERABEK COMPANY
Gcotcchnical Engineering
Construction Materials' Testing
Soil Borings/Monitor Wells
DWG TITLE:
Test Location Plan
DWN BY: tey&
PROJ NAME: Chateau Ocean, 9375 Collins Ave, Surfside,FL
CKD BY: yyg
PROJ. NO:13- 145992
DATE. ' 05/13/13
DWG NO. ' 2
APD BY
z
Wg
F,'
6
a
4
o
I
r1
ax linlili
i aao'"
W411PAIAAmso
g
"2,14411'gb�°163�nGv2.og.'4NYB4
rR
c
zr
U
asggggioo__$8
O O
O O O
U
O
N
.r a
-
, _=
11
Illgii
gss
1.,"
m
A .Jg88
oo -000O
§§fi+
gg8ss888848g
Y:-
-+ N
N 1
ril
A U
N
U
A
O
r U 0
L "0 OYS
l 00z
t..
tsNsog
3.^.•
O
tT J
N
N
L
}(S �' i
A
AG W
(J
{I�NUN
'N
U +NO
O
N+
NNUU
+UIO
++oo
owwupmo
"ul$n
.�pp
N }((WJJ,yyN+
N'
°+i18o
++
vbi°v.
—11"111!"1111411
I!!l!
l i
7
j ■■
i o l i
�'�`�4IRtiS3$1
-
_.Cl:_
-Lr'!'
'�K
.. ..
-
.N.
�.y''
v�
N;1
'`-
-'�
�'N'''INi
PPO.
:
: N V
� N!.)S�tJ�m
8
YrYiiaii:Zg-
N S
�
CON.0ocooOO
m
m
A-
V41W
VNA
iSBg$e''
0 p
0 0
�J
0000
0 O
ggV
2.03' 1.34 146.38
3.83 2.53 149.41
0.32 0.21 14913
+P.W..
ON,Ji
.'6
15.36 M_
29.84 =ami
83
►..
p� 000
p0 0�
� � q�i
ooppppp
6181888
N Asa
�7
>e 0 3
tEY N Y
A�
UNm
N
NZt/�+
W10N
0 0
P
0 0
b
SO
gp
J
U
�m�PU
N
VNAP
N W+
y
A
..
p 1D
JJ
8E198689888888gg&'.
m
f.�
W�WOPPP9PP
�1.a
-'.
`WPg,O
.V,14:4t888
PPPx'i
8 p�
y
8t8gptl0�O�O
:S384.8Z888:
�p f�ppmm
■..,.'.`...
P
U
O
f3
DG
g
o
1
2
O
N
N
P
E.
A
G
N
1
gg
3
°
_
N
1f
9
s9
N 333
t g9 B $ i i
P 11
6
_
f a N
4
1
I a
i
N
N K
N A5
1g
! *1
V j
N
•
i iiiiiiiraill5i
E
oR�l
E
iiiiiiilliii4
-
if
• 8
- OSp
S
AA��nnb
li-
fJ
11111111151111111118188giiii
�N
in L
PNN
O
J
L
A
111q111111111111111111111111111111110119
8MPHIMPIIIIII
a__—__________
IIIMMIINPWW111 --
1
•
Y
i
11��� NNNNPOBi
Sp.
Wy
m 8
.`Bi
8 W +V
o
o
0
b
u
0
i
1
N
i
8.SaqR+
N & r :.
�
.1 M
� ��
�
�� �' � � O
i
0
g
M
1
1
b
�
U
mtN�ep+
ig
11111111111110411111111
N N III ...
$
i
1
1
�3L,
n
0
pE
p
SAMPLE STATISTICS
SAMPLE IDENTITY: Chateau Ocean B -1 4 -6 ANALYST & DATE: , 4/11/2013
SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand
SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand
MODE 1:
MODE 2:
MODE 3:
D10:
MEDIAN or D50:
D90:
(D90 / D10):
(D90 - D10):
(D75 / D25):
(D75 - D25):
µm
427.5 1.247
209.6 0.206
416.0 1.265
866.8 2.254
4.136 10.93
657.2 2.048
2.116 2.498
319.8 1.081
MEAN (x):
SORTING (Q):
SKEWNESS (Sk):
KURTOSIS (K):
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GRAVEL: 1.77%
SAND: 98.23%
MUD: 0.00%
V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.00%
COARSE GRAVEL: 0.00%
MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.00%
FINE GRAVEL: 0.44%
V FINE GRAVEL: 1.33%
V COARSE SAND: 3.92%
METHOD OF MOMENTS
Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic
µm µm 4)
527.0
484.2
5.856
53.96
424.1
1.806
0.488
4.709
1.238
0.853
-0.488
4.709
COARSE SAND: 30.28%
MEDIUM SAND: 47.25%
FINE SAND: 14.00%
V FINE SAND: 2.79%
V COARSE SILT: 0.00%
COARSE SILT: 0.00%
MEDIUM SILT: 0.00%
FINE SILT: 0.00%
V FINE SILT: 0.00%
CLAY: 0.00%
Description
Medium Sand
Moderately Sorted
Symmetrical
Mesokurtic
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Particle Diameter (4)
Frequency Distribution Histogram
O O 0 O
ti) 0 tr) O
N N �-
%)14618MSSeo
4
•
•
O
O
O
M
O
7
O
M
us1
Chateau Ocean Sample B -1 4,0 -6.0 Particle diameter (4 ))
N
0
c
N
gi
LL
w
a
03
a
E
0
0) 000 ti CO in M N
0
( %) Peumaa sssw angeinwnO
0
0
0
o
0
N
CD.
0 0 '
e-
Ocean Chateau Sample B -1 4.0 -6.0 Particle diameter ($)
SAMPLE STATISTICS
SAMPLE IDENTITY: Chateau Ocean B -2 8.0 -10.0 ANALYST & DATE: , 4/11/2013
SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Well Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand
SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Coarse Sand
MODE 1:
MODE 2:
MODE 3:
O 10:
MEDIAN or D50:
D 90:
(D90 / D10):
(D90 - D10):
(075 / 025):
(075 - D25):
605.0 0.747
306.0 -0.101
593.4 0.753
1072.6 1.708
3.505 - 16.898
766.5 1.809
1.928 4.257
393.5 0.947
MEAN (x):
SORTING (a):
SKEWNESS (Sk):
KURTOSIS (K):
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GRAVEL: 0.80%
SAND: 99.20%
MUD: 0.00%
V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.00%
COARSE GRAVEL: 0.00%
MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.00%
FINE GRAVEL: 0.00%
V FINE GRAVEL: 0.80%
V COARSE SAND: 11.04%
METHOD OF MOMENTS
Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic
µm 4)
670.5
361.5
2.426
14.90
584.7 •
1.645
-0.201
4.012
0.774
0.718
0.201
4.012
COARSE SAND: 53.26%
MEDIUM SAND: 30.84%
FINE SAND: 3.50%
V FINE SAND: 0.57%
V COARSE SILT: 0.00%
COARSE SILT: 0.00%
MEDIUM SILT: 0.00%
FINE SILT: 0.00%
V FINE SILT: 0.00%
CLAY: 0.00%
Description
Coarse Sand
Moderately Well Sorted
Symmetrical
Mesokurtic
5.0 3.0 1.0
30.0 -
25.0
20.0 -
15.0 -
5.0 -
0.0
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Particle Diameter (4)
-1.0 -3.0
-5.0
-7.0
100 1000
Particle Diameter (µm)
10000
100000
Chateau Ocean Sample B -2 8.0 -10.0 Particle diameter (4)
91
0
O
O
Class weight ( %)
(11
0
N
O
O
w
0
O
Ocean Chateau Sample B -2 8.0 -10.0 Particle diameter (4)
Cumulative mass retained ( %)
-a N W .P• 0i 0) -,I 00 (0 0
O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
O
O
O
N
O
anmo Aouenbeid anQeownO
SAMPLE STATISTICS
SAMPLE IDENTITY: Chateau Ocean B -3 2.0 -4.0 ANALYST & DATE: , 4/11/2013
SAMPLE TYPE: Bimodal, Moderately Sorted
SEDIMENT NAME: Very Fine Gravelly Coarse Sand
µm 4)
855.0 0.247
2400.0 -1.243
MODE 1:
MODE 2:
MODE 3:
D10:
MEDIAN or D50:
D90:
(D901 D1o):
(D90 - D10):
(D75 / D25):
(D75 - D25):
381.0
776.4
2091.4
5.489
1710.4
1.739
408.7
MEAN (x):
SORTING (a):
SKEWNESS (Sk):
KURTOSIS (K):
-1.064
0.365
1.392
-1.308
2.457
15.28
0.798
TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GRAVEL: 10.87%
SAND: 89.13%
MUD: 0.00%
V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.00%
COARSE GRAVEL: 0.00%
MEDIUM GRAVEL: 1.41%
FINE GRAVEL: 0.81%
V FINE GRAVEL: 8.64%
V COARSE SAND: 9.62%
METHOD OF MOMENTS
Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic
p.m .tm 4)
1087.6
1293.5
4.793
29.51
807.9
1.920
1.080
5.565
0.308
0.941
-1.080
5.565
COARSE SAND: 60.44%
MEDIUM SAND: 18.06%
FINE SAND: 0.94%
V FINE SAND: 0.07%
V COARSE SILT: 0.00%
COARSE SILT: 0.00%
MEDIUM SILT: 0.00%
FINE SILT: 0.00%
V FINE SILT: 0.00%
CLAY: 0.00%
Description
Coarse Sand
Moderately Sorted
Symmetrical
Very Leptokurtic
Class Weight (%
5.0
40.0
35.0 -
30.0 -
25.0 -
20.0 -
15.0-
10.0
5.0 -
0.0
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Particle Diameter (4))
3.0 1.0 -1.0 -3.0
1
-5.0
100 1000
Particle Diameter (µm)
10000
1
-7.0
100000
Frequency Distribution Histogram
0
0
0.
0
a
0.
a o 0 o a a 0 0 o'
co M N N .- O
( %) ;gI3IOM sssl3
Chateau Ocean Sample B-3 2.0 -4.0 Particle diameter (0)
1
a)
m
U
c
a)
m
g
u_
a)
p
m
E
U
A
1
O 0) C0 0 CO LA M N CO � Nt
e-
( %) pawejaa ssew enleinwn3
0
0
Cn
O
N
0
0
O
r
0
N
O
C
Ocean Chateau Sample B-3 2.0 -4.0 Particle diameter (4)
SAMPLE STATISTICS
SAMPLE IDENTITY: Chateau Ocean B-4 0.0 -2.0
SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Poorly Sorted
SEDIMENT NAME: Very Fine Gravelly Coarse Sand
MODE 1:
MODE 2:
MODE 3:
D10:
MEDIAN or D50:
D90:
(D90 / D10):
(D90 - D10):
(D75 / D25):
(D7,5- D25):
µm
605.0 0.747
244.0 -0.540
568.1 0.816
1454.2 2.035
5.960 -3.767
1210.2 2.575
2.503 10.71
546.3 1.324
ANALYST & DATE: , 4/11/2013
TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GRAVEL: 5.86%
SAND: 94.14%
MUD: 0.00%
V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.00%
COARSE GRAVEL: 0.00%
MEDIUM GRAVEL: 2.11%
FINE GRAVEL: 0.98%
V FINE GRAVEL: 2.77%
V COARSE SAND: 14.73%
METHOD OF MOMENTS
Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic
µm µm
COARSE SAND: 37.10%
MEDIUM SAND: 31.83%
FINE SAND: 9.76%
V FINE SAND: 0.72%
V COARSE SILT: 0.00%
COARSE SILT: 0.00%
MEDIUM SILT: 0.00%
FINE SILT: 0.00%
V FINE SILT: 0.00%
CLAY: 0.00%
Description
MEAN (x):
SORTING (a):
SKEWNESS (Sk):
KURTOSIS (K):
1018.6
1958.9
5.609
35.57
608.0
2.272
1.132
5.900
0.718
1.184
-1.132
5.900
Coarse Sand
Poorly Sorted
Symmetrical
Leptokurtic
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Particle Diameter (4 )
Chateau Ocean Sample B-4 0.0 -2.0 Particle diameter (0)
0
, 0
v _
s
I)
O
•
O
•
9,
0
Class weight ( %)
O
0
Frequency Distribution Histogram
Ocean Chateau Sample B-4 0.0 -2.0 Particle diameter (4)
W
O
N
O
O
-> N
0 0 O
Cumulative mass retained ( %)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ammo i(ouanbai j angeInwn3
SAMPLE STATISTICS
ANALYST & DATE: , 4/11/2013
TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand
SAMPLE IDENTITY: Chateau Ocean BA -1 0.0 -2.0
SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Sorted
SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Coarse Sand
_µm
MODE 1:
MODE 2:
MODE 3:
D10:
MEDIAN or D50:
Deo:
(Deo / D10):
(Deo - Deo):
(D75 / D25):
(075 - D25):
427.5
1.247
276.9 -0.260
538.3 0.893
1197.9 1.852
4.325 -7.111
920.9 2.113
2.162 4.630
434.6 1.112
MEAN (x):
SORTING (6):
SKEWNESS (Sk):
KURTOSIS (K):
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GRAVEL: 2.81%
SAND: 97.19%
MUD: 0.00%
V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.00%
COARSE GRAVEL: 0.00%
MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.00%
FINE GRAVEL: 1.25%
V FINE GRAVEL: 1.56%
V COARSE SAND: 11.93%
METHOD OF MOMENTS
Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic
µm µm 4)
725.8
779.5
5.693
42.54
565.3
1.845
0.813
5.254
0.823
0.884
-0.813
5.254
COARSE SAND: 40.25%
MEDIUM SAND: 39.70%
FINE SAND: 4.94%
V FINE SAND: 0.36%
V COARSE SILT: 0.00%
COARSE SILT: 0.00%
MEDIUM SILT: 0.00%
FINE SILT: 0.00%
V FINE SILT: 0.00%
CLAY: 0.00%
Description
Coarse Sand
Moderately Sorted
Symmetrical
Mesokurtic
Class Weight (%)
26.0
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Particle Diameter (4)
5.0 3.0 1.0 -1.0 -3.0 -5.0
20.0 -
15.0 -
10.0
5.0 -
0.0
100 1000
Particle Diameter (pm)
---t
10000
-7.0
100000
E
e
1
c
i
t
a
i
I
0
ii
N
• ( %) ;46leM 6U13
Chateau Ocean Sample BA -1 0.0 -2.0 Particle diameter (4)
Cumulative Frequency Curve
CO ti CCD LC) 'I' M 0 0
( %) pauissai sssui engeinumo
0
Ocean Chateau Sample BA -1 0.0 -2.0 Particle diameter
SAMPLE STATISTICS
SAMPLE IDENTITY: Chateau Ocean BA -2 0.0 -2.0 ANALYST & DATE: , 4/11/2013
SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand
SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand
p.m GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
MODE 1: 427.5 1.247 GRAVEL: 1.22% COARSE SAND: 36.92%
MODE 2: SAND: 98.78% MEDIUM SAND: 48.61
MODE 3: MUD: 0.00% FINE SAND: 5.17%
D10: 273.1 0.039 V FINE SAND: 0.26%
MEDIAN or D50: 477.8 1.065 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.00% V COARSE SILT: 0.00%
D80: 973.7 1.872 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.00% COARSE SILT: 0.00%
(D90 / D10): 3.565 48.62 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.00% MEDIUM SILT: 0.00%
(D90 - D10): 700.6 1.834 FINE GRAVEL: 0.05% FINE SILT: 0.00%
(D75 / D25): 1.869 2.586 V FINE GRAVEL: 1.17% V FINE SILT: 0.00%
(D75 - D25): 313.4 0.902 V COARSE SAND: 7.82% CLAY: 0.00%
MEAN (7):
SORTING (a):
SKEWNESS (Sk):
KURTOSIS (K):
METHOD OF MOMENTS
Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic
µm µm 4)
588.4
393.9
3.636
24.48
502.2
1.660
0.549
4.056
0.994
0.731
-0.549
4.056
Description
Medium Sand
Moderately Sorted
Coarse Skewed
Mesokurtic
Class Weight ( %)
5.0
30.0 -
25.0 -
20.0 -
15.0 -
10.0 -
5.0 -
0.0 -
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Particle Diameter (,)
3.0 1.0 -1.0 -3.0 -5.0 -7.0
100 1000
Particle Diameter (µm)
10000 100000
Class weight (%)
0
o
0
8
b
Ocean Chateau Sample BA -2 0.0 -2.0 Particle diameter (4)
Cumulative mass retained ( %)
�0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 S° 8 $
0
N
O
s
O
9
0
0
0
c
3
c
m
c
m
n
c
R
SAMPLE STATISTICS
SAMPLE IDENTITY: Chateau Ocean BA -3 0.0 -2.0 ANALYST & DATE: , 4/11/2013
SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Sorted
SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Fine Gravelly Coarse Sand
µm
605.0 0.747
MODE 1:
MODE 2:
MODE 3:
Dip:
MEDIAN or D50:
D90:
(D90 / D10):
(D90 - Duo);
(D75 / D25):
(D75 -D25):
284.1 -0.191
535.8 0.900
1141.9 1.815
4.019 -9.483
857.8 2.007
2.003 3.651
385.4 1.002
MEAN (x):
SORTING (a):
SKEWNESS (Sk):
KURTOSIS (K):
TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GRAVEL: 3.44%
SAND: 96.56%
MUD: 0.00%
V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.00%
COARSE GRAVEL: 0.00%
MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.00%
FINE GRAVEL: 2.40%
V FINE GRAVEL: 1.04%
V COARSE SAND: 9.37%
METHOD OF MOMENTS
Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic
µm µm
766.8
983.3
5.110
30.68
569.2
1.888
1.217
6.714
0.813
0.917
-1.217
6.714
COARSE SAND: 42.42%
MEDIUM SAND: 40.01%
FINE SAND: 4.26%
V FINE SAND: 0.50%
V COARSE SILT: 0.00%
COARSE SILT: 0.00%
MEDIUM SILT: 0.00%
FINE SILT: 0.00%
V FINE SILT: 0.00%
CLAY: 0.00%
Description
Coarse Sand
Moderately Sorted
Coarse Skewed
Mesokurtic
Class Weight ( %)
5.0
25.0 -
20.0 -
15.0 -
10.0 -
5.0 -
0.0
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Particle Diameter (4)
3.0 1.0 -1.0 -3.0
-5.0
-7.0
•
100 1000
Particle Diameter (pm)
10000
100000
1
0 O O 0
LA 0 1n 0
N N c"
( %) itB1am seem
0
10
F
o
F
•
■
0
C)
0
T
c
0
M
0
19
0
0 `
Chateau Ocean Sample BA-3 0.0 -2.0 Particle diameter ($)
Cumulative Frequency Curve
O 0 .� LO
(%) pauialaa ssew anI ;eInwn3
0 N O
r
0
0
co
0
M
0 '
Ocean Chateau Sample BA-3 0.0 -2.0 Particle diameter (4)
SAMPLE STATISTICS
SAMPLE IDENTITY: Chateau Ocean BA-4 0.0 -2.0 ANALYST & DATE: , 4/11/2013
SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand
SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Coarse Sand
µm GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
MODE 1: 605.0 0.747 GRAVEL: 2.23% COARSE SAND: 45.07%
MODE 2: SAND: 97.77% MEDIUM SAND: 37.91%
MODE 3: MUD: 0.00% FINE SAND: 4.09%
D10: 291.5 -0.166 V FINE SAND: 0.30%
MEDIAN or DS0: 550.1 0.862 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.00% V COARSE SILT: 0.00%
D80: 1121.9 1.778 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.00% COARSE SILT: 0.00%
(D90 / D10): 3.848 - 10.720 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.00% MEDIUM SILT: 0.00%
(D90- D10): 830.3 1.944 FINE GRAVEL: 1.02% FINE SILT: 0.00%
(D75 / D25): 1.968 3.682 V FINE GRAVEL: 1.20% V FINE SILT: 0.00%
(D75 - D25): 382.1 0.976 V COARSE SAND: 10.40% CLAY: 0.00%
METHOD OF MOMENTS
Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic
pm µm 4)
Description
MEAN (V):
SORTING (a):
SKEWNESS (Sk):
KURTOSIS (K):
704.9
705.2
6.262
51.76
568.9
1.759
0.819
5.845
0.814
0.815
-0.819
5.845
Coarse Sand
Moderately Sorted
Symmetrical
Mesokurtic
Class Weight
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Particle Diameter (4))
5.0 3.0 1.0 -1.0 -3.0
25.0 -
20.0 -
15.0 -
10.0
5.0
0.0 -
100 1000
Particle Diameter (µm)
-5.0 -7.0
10000
100000
Frequency Distribution Histogram
( %) 1LI6ieM sssl3
0.
c
0
0
0
C
0
L0
0
Chateau Ocean Sample BA-4 0.0 -2.0 Particle diameter (4)
Cumulative Frequency Curve
O 00) oo 0
O t0
0
e-
0
CC)
O
O
O
O
c1
O
co
to co N O O
( %) paulew ssew enl;epnwn3
Ocean Chateau Sample BA-4 0.0 -2.0 Particle diameter
Attachment - C
lrerracon
May 19, 2014
Chateau Group
1000 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd #B
Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
Attention: Mr. Esteban Koffsmon LEED AP
Re: Beach Sand Chemical Testing
Collins Avenue and 94th Street
Town of Surfside
Miami -Dade County, Florida
Project No. H8141021
Dear Mr. Koffsmon:
Pursuant to your written authorization Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has performed
sampling and laboratory testing and analysis of a soil sample recovered from a stockpile at a
location prescribed by you. This letter summarizes the sampling procedures and fumishes the
results of the chemical analyses performed.
On May 16, 2014 a Terracon representative recovered a composite sample of sand from a
stockpile located near the SE corner of 94th Street and Collins Avenue in the Town of Surfside.
We understand that moving of the subject soil to a site in the city of Sunny Isles is being
considered. Based on discussions with you, we further understand that the sand was obtained
from a site located at 9365 Collins Avenue, Miami from an excavation that extended
approximately 7 feet below grade.
The composite sample was recovered with the use of a stainless steel spoon by excavating
holes approximately 12 inches in depth along the stockpile sidewalls. the composite sample was
bottled in a laboratory supplied container and was transported to Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
where it was analyzed for Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH) using the FL-
PRO method and fourteen metals using EPA Method 6010 (preparation per method EPA 3050).
The metals analysis included Arsenic (As), Aluminum (Al), Barium (Ba), Cadmium (Cd),
Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Iron (Fe), Lead (Pb), Manganese (Mn), Mercury (Hg), Nickel (Ni),
Selenium (Se), Silver (Ag), and Zinc (Zn).
Results of the analysis are tabulated on the attached sheet and compared with the soil cleanup
target levels (SCTLs) presented in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62 -777 (Contaminated
Site Cleanup Criteria Rule, Risk Impact Statement) for residential and commercial use settings.
Review of the analytical results shows that all parameters, save for arsenic, have concentrations
below the residential and commercial SCTLs. The concentration of arsenic was 7.7. This
concentration is above the SCTL of 2.1 mg /kg for residential exposure settings but below the 12
mg /Kg threshold for commercial use settings.
Results of several studies on the background concentrations of chemicals in soils in Miami-
Terracon Consultants, Inc., 16200 NW 59th Avenue, Suite 106 Miami Lakes, Florida 33014
P 305 8201997 F 305 8201998 terracon.com
Geotechnical • Environmental • Construction Materials • Facilities
Beach Sand Chemical Testing
Collins Avenue and 94th Street Town of Surfside Florida
May 19, 2014 Terracon Project No. H8141021
lierracon
Dade County were recently presented by Mr. Wilbur Mayorga, M.S.,P.E. of Environmental
Monitoring and Restoration Division (DERM) on February 27, 2014 to the 'Contaminated Media
Forum — Background Work Group' and were published in the Miami -Dade County website
(http: / /www.miamidade.gov/ environment /research - reports.asp). Review of the published results
shows that background concentration for arsenic in soil in the project area is 5.2 mg /kg.
Given that the values reported in the literature as 'background' for the area are of the same
order of magnitude found in the sample that we analyzed, it is possible that laboratory tests
reflect background levels. However, since the concentration is above the SCTL of 2.1 mg /kg for
residential exposure settings, Terracon recommends consulting with a toxicologist to fully
understand the implications of exporting the subject soil and the related public health concerns.
Terracon appreciates the opportunity to assist you on this project. Should you require any
clarif ca op on rplification, please contact us.
\\tf'� -`o� s / /
N SF' ,,�
n R mir , P.E.
r41e60 iR9 cht0 • i3
—N A L ••••;\\\\
Attachr4hkiAhia4cal Results
/A-7- A- 02
Thomas J. Tepper, P.E
Senior Engineer
FL Registration No. 27451
ATTACHMENT:
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
METAL
RESULT ( mg/kg)
RESIDENTIAL
LIMITS (mg/kg)
COMMERCIAL
/INDUSTRIAL
LIMITS (mg/kg)
TRPH
3.3 U
460
2700
Arsenic (As)
7.7
2.1
12
Aluminum (Al)
194
80,000
*
Barium (Ba)
8.9
120 **
130,000
Cadmium (Cd)
0.056 I
82
1700
Chromium (Cr)
5.1
210
470
Copper (Cu)
1.2
150 **
89,000
Iron (Fe)
1570
53,000
*
Lead (Pb)
1.6
400
1,400
Manganese
(Mn)
15.7
3,500
43,000
Mercury (Hg)
0.0075 I
3
17
Nickel (Ni)
0.30 I
340 **
35,000
Selenium (Se)
0.50 U
440
11,000
Silver (Ag)
0.17 U
410
8,200
Zinc (Zn)
8.3
26,000
630,000
* Contaminant is not a health concern for this exposure scenario.
** Direct exposure value based on acute toxicity considerations.
U Indicates that the compound was analyzed for, but not detected.
I Indicates that the reported value is between the laboratory method detection limit and the
laboratory practical quantitation limit.
Date: November 7, 2004
To: Jose Gonzales, P.E. Chief
Pollution Control Division
To: Section Chiefs
Pollution Control Division
To: PRS Staff
From:
Attachment D
Memorandum MIA COUNTM
Y
Wilbur Mayorga, P.E., Chief rillideo.....
Pollution Remediation Sectio
Subject: Natural Background Soil Concentrations for the Barrier Islands of Miami -Dade County
The table below provides the naturally occurring background concentrations of thirteen
inorganic chemicals in soils from the barrier islands of Miami -Dade County. The information
was developed through statistical analysis of laboratory results from surficial soil samples
obtained at 27 locations along Miami Beach and the Spoil Islands (see attached Map). Where
feasible, samples were obtained from the 0 -1 foot interval and the 1 -2 feet interval at each
location. The listed concentrations represent the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate
(MVUE) of the mean for each chemical. If no statistically significant difference (p >0.05) was
determined between the two intervals, the datasets were combined and a single MVUE is
reported. However, for populations indicating a significant difference with depth, the MVUE for
each interval is presented.
Natural Background Soil Concentrations for the Barrier Islands of Miami -Dade County
Chemical
Name
Natural Background Concentration (mg /kg)
0 -2 ft interval
Arsenic
5.2
Aluminum
798.7
Cadmium
0.3
Iron
2050.7
Selenium **
<0.5
Zinc
13.1
Silver*
0.4
0 -1 ft interval 1-2 ft interval
Barium
8.1
5.9
Chromium
7.9
5.7
Copper
5.4*
2.3*
Lead
15.0
5.2*
Mercury
0.054
0.026*
Nickel
1.08*
0.66*
*Represents censored data. Datasets censored to fit lognormal distribution
** Data for selenium not analyzed statistically since all results were below the detection limit
Stat stical Descriptors
[ Cd Fe Zn Ag Ba ;o -ntj Ba ti -zrt) Cr (am Cr (1 -2ft) Cu (GAO Cu (1 -2R) Pb (o-lnt Pb (1-2rt) Hg (a-ln) Hg (1•2tt) ti-1 t) Nj ti t)
TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUEaC TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUEa` TRUE" TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE`' TRUE` TRUE``
[Descriptive Statistics
w _
-17 ID a
0 D c
co co ° o a)
a) N Fes-
« : C = d
> > a+ .N C 2 .
'E E E co
X m p o
�0.
c2M <.Ua)
O E
us E
32
` E
h .4 g
0 _ O
a -0 ca a
E m
aZ 3
..
J V
>
c
V J 0.°
J J
1 J 2 Ui j
(4 uw>
» 3°
I
c22crs
0
m
A
0
3
N
as
cn
v
co
.N
Q
7
co
.4
5
N
a)
2
N
co
a)
a)
co
t6
N
U
N
U
N
a)
CC
Table 2: Concentrations of Eleven Inorganics in Soils from the Barrier Islands of Miami -Dade County
Sampling Location ID As (0 -1) As (1 -2) Al (0 -1) Al (1 -2) Ag (0-1) Ag (1 -2) Ba (0-1) Ba (1 -2) Cd (0 -1) Cd (1 -2) Cr (0 -1) Cr (1 -2) 1
1 0.50 0.58 930.67 1039.64 0.15 0.15 5.00 3.80 0.12 0.10 4.07 2.58
2 0.50 0.50 928.74 981.94 0.62 0.43 4.10 3.30 0.16 0.18 4.31 4.24
3 0.50 1.29 817.64 1001.04 0.30 0.15 5.60 9.20 0.21 0.23 5.33 7.56
4 1.36 1.13 2049.01 1086.74 0.15 0.40 9.70 6.30 0.28 0.15 15.46 8.96
5 5.80 5.80 2494.49 294.42 0.61 0.89 6.40 5.60 0.15 0.10 5.28 4.19
6 3.59 4.37 348.68 315.33 0.22 0.15 7.40 4.70 0.18 0.10 5.94 4.75
41 15.09 9.05 297.90 206.80 0.15 0.26 7.30 4.80 0.61 0.37 5.14 3.29
7 5.93 1.31 689.49 274.58 0.16 0.15 11.50 6.00 0.36 0.10 8.13 3.40
8 12.87 7.70 612.03 252.74 0.28 0.39 8.20 4.10 0.41 0.25 7.45 3.94
42 2.91 5.77 3017.00 1101.00 0.15 0.15 14.30 8.00 0.46 0.43 9.29 7.06
9 6.74 5.27 1914.87 842.06 0.15 0.15 16.60 15.50 0.60 0.21 18.27 6.45
10 2.73 3.64 1647.26 377.28 0.42 0.76 6.50 5.70 0.16 0.17 11.27 8.46
14 3.85 5.09 440.85 277.95 1.18 1.07 6.70 5.10 0.25 0.21 7.63 4.68
15 4.94 4.58 457.39 236.43 0.61 0.62 8.60 5.30 0.31 0.19 12.52 6.32
44 10.72 4.72 805.50 276.80 0.48 0.35 17.80 7.00 1.26 0.33 35.79 5.96
43 7.74 6.43 622.50 787.80 0.15 0.15 6.60 5.50 0.35 0.32 4.34 5.54
22 1.48 1.25 677.38 365.67 0.69 0.87 9.00 5.10 0.25 0.12 6.64 5.06
40 3.26 1.85 538.20 438.30 0.28 0.15 8.60 5.20 0.45 0.19 17.28 4.78
24 4.37 7.18 222.75 567.93 0.96 0.91 5.60 7.10 0.10 0.33 3.69 6.85
25 7.98 9.53 774.08 463.28 0.15 0.26 8.20 5.30 0.30 0.27 9.66 8.05
26 5.26 5.14 558.88 271.68 0.38 0.84 6.60 5.00 0.29 0.13 5.72 5.25
27 7.24 6.40 476.59 964.37 0.37 0.15 6.20 9.60 0.27 0.30 8.75 9.42
29 4.07 1.47 356.94 430.60 30.40 0.83 4.07 4.10 0.16 0.10 6.26 5.24
30 38.41 22.69 1444.48 561.37 0.21 0.80 17.20 6.60 1.18 0.57 37.51 7.27
32 3.73 4.23 346.10 206.70 0.15 0.20 2.80 3.90 0.24 0.24 5.86 4.94
33 1.27 1.31 372.30 371.80 0.30 0.35 4.40 2.17 0.20 0.20 4.52 4.57
31 2.20 ns 410.60 ns 0.31 ns 3.70 ns 0.19 ns 5.00 ns
Sampling Location
Y
(9 >
Q. Y
O M I� Cp N 00 O e� h O O
�Ma62�NNMMa4Or-I. ��NMIDOCDer n3 Om al
N N I- f- N d• d et to Lf) C
7:07:07:07:0777:77:0777777777 c ti ;5)
— .- N N M M v '1' .t wt vt LA LA LO LA CD CD cD CD cD CD f- f- CO CO CO
C C C C G C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
0 0 0 •g •o o •o o •o •o .2 o •g .9 o 0 o .9 o .2 •g •g •g •o •g •o •g
o U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
G) U U 0 0 4) U U U G) 0 G) G) G) U CD a) a) 0 N 4) 4) N 0 N ca U
C/3 u) U) U) (I) cn V) co c1) cn cn cn cn cn co (I) 0 cn 0 (J) 0 0 (I) 0 cn cn 0
Table 2 cont: Concentrations of Eleven Inorganics in Soils from the Barrier Islands of Miami -Dade County
Cu (0 -1) Cu (1 -2) Fe (0 -1) Fe (1 -2) Hg (0 -1) Hg (1 -2) Ni (0 -1) Ni (1 -2) Pb (0 -1) Pb (1 -2) Se (0 -1) Se (1 -2J Zn (0 -1) Zn (1 -2) I
15 3.68 1.00 1888.18 1290.50 43.30 11.50 0.90 0.50 11.90 1.37 0.50 0.50 13.77 5.34 1
Sampling Location
O C., er h 00
M O O CD
N N
CI C. C55 5
.- r- N N M
C C C C C
,0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O
0 CU 0 0 0
,—
ti
5
C)
C
0
D
0
Cd >.
CI_ 4)
N CO O r• 00 ,— O C
N N M er er O.- er t` In N C7 tf) O CO er N 0 03 ,C4
N. ti N er er R to 40 C
655" 5C.5 C7C.5 C.5 5 c:.5555555 >Uw5
er er er er ef' er l[) Lt) in t1) CO CO CD CD CO CO 1s- f• CO CO CO
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 ,0 .0 .0 0 ,0 ,0 ,O O ,0 ,0 ,0
U U U O D U O U O D U U U U U U U U U U U
0 0) 0 0 CD CD N 0 0 CD 4) U N CJ N CV CU N W C.)
SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR THE
MIAMI DADE COUNTY
BARRIER ISLANDS BACKGROUND
STUDY
Arsenic Concentrations in Miami -Dade County
Sand-May2014
0
as
Nied vJOyS 4�ON
O
=—,
Legend
N
A
highway
water
Q outline
0 0.4 0.8 t6 2.4 3.2
�� Miles
41111.11.166. 41111.1116. •
-����
vis • 7OIs
MIAMI BEtACH
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
NOTICE OF CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, will hold a
City Commission Workshop on Thursday, November 20, 2014 at 3:30 p.m. in the City Manager's Large
Conference Room, Fourth Floor, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida to
discuss sand source options for future beach renourishment projects.
INTERESTED PARTIES are invited to appear at this meeting, or be represented by an agent, or
to express their views in writing addressed to the City Commission, c/o the Office of the City Clerk,
1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. A copy of the item
is available for public inspection during normal business hours in the Office of the City Clerk,
1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This meeting, or
any item herein, may be continued, and under such circumstances, additional legal notice need not
be provided.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla. Stat., the City hereby advises the public that if a person decides
to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at its
meeting or its hearing, such person must ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice
does not constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or
irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law.
To request this material in accessible format, sign language interpreters, information on access
for persons with disabilities and /or any accommodation to review any document or participate
in any City - sponsored proceeding, please contact us five days in advance at 305.673.7411 (voice)
or TTY users may also call the Florida Relay Service at 711.
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
City of Miami Beach
NE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2014 1 TINE