LTC 607-2017 Beach Restoration & Renourishment Overview & UpdateMIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
NO. LTC#
607-2017
LETT R TO COMMISSION
TO: Mayor Dan Gelber and Members f the City fffmmission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: December 19, 2017
SUBJECT: BEACH RESTORATION & REN URISH ENT OVERVIEW & UPDATE
The purpose of this LTC is to provide an overview and update on the beach restoration and
renourishment efforts.
The beaches in Miami Beach are owned by the State of Florida and managed by Miami -Dade County. In
1968, Congress authorized the Beach Erosion Control & Hurricane Protection Project for Dade
County (the Project) for 9.3 miles of shoreline between Government Cut and Bakers Haulover
Inlet. In 1975, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began construction of this segment
and was given authorization to maintain the original design template for the next 50 -years.
Following Hurricane Irma, the USACE completed the attached Project Information Report that
evaluated if the Miami Beach segment of the Project qualified for funds under Flood Control and
Coastal Emergency (FCCE) rehabilitation. The study found that more than one-third of the
historically placed sand has been lost and approximately 730,000 cubic yards of sand was lost
between the pre -storm to post -storm template.
While the USACE confirmed that the Project had significant damage from Hurricane Irma, the
Project does not meet the eligibility criteria for financial assistance. To be eligible for
rehabilitation assistance, the proposed work must have a benefit to cost ration greater than 1.0.
When the cost to benefit ratio was calculated for the initial project in 1975, recreational benefits
were included in the project justification. However, the federal government no longer allows for
recreational benefits to be used when calculating benefit to cost ratio. It should also be noted that
the USACE has not completed an updated economic study since 1975, as such the current
beachfront real estate values are not used when calculating the hurricane and erosion protection
benefits.
In 2024, the 50 -year federal authorization will expire. This is ideal timing for the city to request
that the USACE update their studies and to set begin discussions for the next round of federal
participation. Our next steps are to coordinate with our state and federal partners to identify
funding and develop a strategy which will properly define the value of renourishment projects to
our economy. We will be engaging our recently selected federal lobbyist to assist with the
planning and implementation of our beach management strategy.
Attachments:
A — Project Information Report for the Rehabilitation Effort for the Beach Erosion Control
and Hurricane Protection Dade County, Florida
SMT/ESW
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
FOR THE
REHABILITATION EFFORT FOR THE
BEACH EROSION CONTROL AND
HURRICANE PROTECTION
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
December 2017
Table of Contents
Part I. Executive Summary. 1
Part II. Basic Report 1
1. NAME AND LOCATION. 1
2. PUBLIC SPONSOR. 1
3. POC FOR PUBLIC SPONSOR. 1
4. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION. 1
5. PROJECT CLASSIFICATION. 2
6. DESIGN DATA OF PROJECT. 2
7. MAINTENANCE. 3
8. PERIODIC NOURISHMENT. 4
9. PREVIOUS PL 84-99 ASSISTANCE 5
10. DISASTER INCIDENT. 6
11. DAMAGE DESCRIPTION 6
12. NEED FOR PL 84-99 REHABILITATION. 14
13. PROPOSED WORK. 15
14. COST ESTIMATE. 15
15. ECONOMICS. 16
16. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS. 19
17. PERMITS. 19
19. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE. 19
20. RECOMMENDATIONS. 20
List of Acronyms 21
Part III. Appendices 23
Appendix A. Public sponsor's request for assistance 23
Appendix B. Project map(s) 24
Appendix C. Project Overview 24
Appendix D. Project Design Data 24
Appendix E. Project Maintenance Data 24
Appendix F. Project Renourishment Data 24
Appendix G. Previous PL 84-99 or Other Federal Agency Assistance 24
Appendix H. Disaster Incident 24
Appendix I. Damage Description 24
Appendix J. Proposed Work 24
Appendix K. Cost Estimate Data 24
Appendix L. BCR Data 25
Appendix M. Environmental Considerations 26
Appendix N — Y 26
Appendix Z. PIR Review Checklist 27
Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
REHABILITATION EFFORT FOR THE
BEACH EROSION CONTROL AND HURRICANE PROTECTION,
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Part I. Executive Summary.
This report was prepared at the request of the project sponsor in a letter dated
September 21, 2017. This report finds that there is insufficient justification for
Flood Control and Coastal Emergency (FCCE) rehabilitation of Miami Beach under
Public Law (P.L.) 84-99.
The Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Storm Protection Project
(HSPP) consists of two segments: the Main Segment and the Sunny Isles
Segment. This Project Information Report (PIR) focuses on the Main Segment
only. The authorized project for the Main Segment has a berm height of 9 feet
mean low water (MLW) and a design berm width of 50 feet.
This report finds that the significant storm criteria has been met. Hurricane Irma
was considered to be an extraordinary storm per Engineer Regulation (ER) 500-1-
1, 5-20.f along the East Florida Coast. Hurricane Irma made landfall along the
Southwest Florida coast as a major, category 3 hurricane on 10 September 2017
and traveled northward along the Florida peninsula for the next 24 hours with
hurricane force winds stretching nearly from coast to coast and tropical storm force
winds extending much further beyond that. The storm had devastating
consequences on Federal coastal storm risk management Projects causing
extensive beach and dune erosion along several hundred miles of Florida
coastline. Due to the intensity and size of the storm coupled with a nor'easter in
the time prior to tropical storm force wind arrival, high-energy waves and elevated
water levels (storm surge and wave setup) affected areas far from the core of the
storm over a duration of greater than a day. The combination of high waves and
water levels over a long duration created the potential for extensive beach erosion.
This report finds that the "significant damage determination" criteria as defined in
ER 500-1-1, paragraph 5-20.e.(2) has also been met. The criteria in paragraph 5-
20.e.(2)(a) is met as the cost to restore the Project to the design level of protection
is estimated at $48,023,000 without mobilization and demobilization costs, which
is greater than $1,000,000 and is approximately 36% of the original construction
cost of $134,187,000 which is greater than 2% of the original construction cost.
Additionally, the criteria in paragraph 5-20.e.(2)(b) is also met as the cost to restore
the Project to the design level of protection is greater than $6,000,000.
As the damages to the Main Segment met the significant damage criteria under
ER 500-1-1, paragraph 5-20.e.(2), two scenarios were considered in the economic
analysis in order to establish the best allocation of resources and to determine if
the second criteria is economically justified (ER 500-1-1, paragraph 5-20 (a)): (1)
ES -1
Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
Alternative 1 - FCCE restoration of the design template and material necessary to
maintain the restored design profile template through the next storm season and
(2) Alternative 2 - simultaneous FCCE and CG (Construction General) cost -shared
efforts to bring the Project to the full Construction Template. The benefits were
expressed at the last approved document price level of the 2016 LRR and the costs
of the emergency restoration were deflated back to this price level. The FY 18
discount rate of 2.75% was used. Alternative 1 (FCCE only restoration) is not
economically justified; the benefit -to -cost ratio (BCR) is approximately 0.05 to 1.0.
Therefore FCCE funding is not recommended.
The Main Segment is not eligible for P.L. 84-99 assistance as it does not meet the
criteria as outlined in ER 500-1-1 Paragraph 5-20.a. in terms of economic
justification.
ES -2
Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
Part 11. Basic Report.
1. NAME AND LOCATION.
Dade County is located along the southeast coast of Florida, and contains the city
of Miami. Dade County lies between Broward County (north of Dade) and Monroe
County (south of Dade), Figure 6-1. The Dade County shoreline extends along
two barrier island segments separated from the mainland by Biscayne Bay. The
barrier islands vary in width from about 0.2 to 1.5 miles, with an average width of
about 0.5 miles. Elevations along the entire coastal region (and much of the
mainland) are low whereas elevations along the barrier islands are generally the
highest along the Atlantic Ocean shorefront, and slope gradually downward toward
the bay. All distances referenced within this report are in statute miles.
2. PUBLIC SPONSOR.
Miami -Dade County Board of County Commissioners
Carlos Gimenez, Mayor
3. POC FOR PUBLIC SPONSOR.
Jamie Monty, Manager, Restoration and Enhancement Section
Division of Environmental Resources Management
701 NW 1st Court, 6th Floor
Miami, Florida 33136-3912
Phone: (305) 372-6567
Jamie.Monty@miamidade.gov
4. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.
Section 3 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1930 (P.L. 71-520) authorized the Chief
of Engineers to study effective means of preventing erosion of the shores of
coastal and lake waters by waves and currents, which would include the Project
area. Congress authorized the Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection
Project (BEC and HP Project) for Dade County, Florida in Section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483). In addition, Section 69 of the 1974 Water
Resources Development Act (P.L. 93-251) included the authorization for initial
construction by non -Federal interests of the 0.85 -mile segment along Bal Harbour
Village, immediately south of Bakers Haulover Inlet. The Main Segment authorized
project, as described in House Document 335/90/2, provided for the construction
of a protective and recreational beach and a protective dune for 9.3 miles of
shoreline between Government Cut and Bakers Haulover Inlet (encompassing
1
Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
Miami Beach, Surfside, and Bal Harbour), and for the construction of a protective
and recreational beach along 1.4 miles of shoreline at Haulover Beach Park.
5. PROJECT CLASSIFICATION.
The primary purpose of the project is to provide storm damage reduction to
structural improvements threatened by erosion. The authorized project at Miami
Beach has a protective and recreational beach with a dune for beach erosion
control and hurricane protection along 9.3 miles and a protective and recreational
beach along 3.7 miles. The design berm width is 50 feet at elevation +9.0 feet
MLW for the Main Segment consisting of 10.5 miles. This project is not designed
for a certain storm frequency or event. While the berm height of +9.0 feet MLW
represents the 10 -year storm surge elevation it is specifically designed per EM
1110-2-1101 (Coastal Engineering Manual) which stipulates that the construction
berm elevation should be the same or slightly Tess than the natural berm crest
elevation. It is understood that the construction berm will erode and the beach fill
will be redistributed to a more naturally shaped profile. The widths of the design
berm are optimized based on economic analysis in accordance with ER 1105-2-
100 (Planning Guidance Notebook).
6. DESIGN DATA OF PROJECT.
The authorized project, Figure 6-1, provides for a protective dune along the ocean
shoreline of Dade County. The Main Segment includes a dune with a 20 -foot wide
crown at elevation 11.5 feet MLW and side slopes of 1 vertical on 5 horizontal
down to a protective and recreational beach. It includes the following: a level berm
50 feet wide at elevation 9 feet MLW and a natural slope seaward as would be
shaped by wave action, all for beach erosion control and hurricane flood protection
along the 9.3 miles of shore between Government Cut and Bakers Haulover Inlet;
a protective and recreational beach with a 50 -foot level berm at elevation 9 feet
MLW; and a seaward slope as would be shaped by wave action for beach erosion
control along 1.2 miles of shore at Haulover Beach Park. Periodic nourishment is
authorized for 50 years. Work on the Main Segment (as originally authorized)
began in July 1975 and was completed in January 1982 at a total contract cost of
about $48 million. Due to the length of the shoreline involved, the project was
constructed in several phases, with each phase administered under a separate
contract.
2
Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
which resulted in negative findings. No other PL84-99 reports have been prepared
for the Dade County Project.
10. DISASTER INCIDENT.
Hurricane Irma made landfall along the Southwest Florida coast as a major,
category 3 hurricane on 10 September 2017 and traveled northward along the
Florida peninsula for the next 24 hours with hurricane force winds stretching nearly
from coast to coast and tropical storm force winds extending much further beyond
that. The storm had devastating consequences on Federal coastal storm risk
management Projects causing extensive beach and dune erosion along several
hundred miles of Florida coastline. Due to the intensity and size of the storm
coupled with a nor'easter in the time prior to tropical storm force wind arrival, high-
energy waves and elevated water levels (storm surge and wave setup) affected
areas far from the core of the storm over a duration of greater than a day. The
combination of high waves and water levels over a long duration creates the
potential for extensive beach erosion.
Along the Florida East coast, the coastal NOAA gauges nearly replicated
(difference of 0.01 ft at Lake Worth Pier) or exceeded (at Virginia Key, Trident Pier,
and Mayport) the peak water levels recorded during the extraordinary storm,
Hurricane Matthew, in 2016. Only the Fernandina Beach gauge registered a
significantly lower peak water level (0.56 ft lower) but the value of 6.34 ft NAVD88
still represents an approximately 75 year exceedance water level value based on
NOAA data at this location while the nearby Mayport gauge exceeded the 100 -
year exceedance water level value (5.58 ft NAVD88 recorded versus a 100 -year
exceedance value of 4.72 ft NAVD88). Irma created wave heights of 22.0, 26.6,
and 21.0 ft at the National Data Buoy Center's (NDBC) Ft. Pierce, Canaveral 20
NM, and Offshore Fernandina Beach wave gauges respectively which rank as the
top 3rd 2nd and 1St wave heights in the USACE WIS database and are comparable
to those experienced during 2016 Hurricane Matthew. Based on the observed
water level, wave, and wind data, SAJ has found a preponderance of evidence to
support the fact that Hurricane Irma is an extraordinary storm per ER 500-1-1, 5-
20.f along the East Florida coast.
11. DAMAGE DESCRIPTION
Damage to the Main Segment of the Dade County, Florida Beach Erosion Control
Project due to Hurricane Irma consisted of some erosion in the project area.
Overall, the project appeared to fair pretty well, based on a visual assessment
following Hurricane Irma. Figure 11-1 provides an example of how the project area
looked following the storm. Inspections following the passing of Irma noted no
significant damage to shorefront infrastructure within the project area caused by
erosion.
6
Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
=figure 11-1: Post Storm view of the beach looking south near FDEP R -Monument R-45.
In order to quantify the degree of storm damage to the project area from the
hurricane a volumetric change analysis was performed. The most recent survey to
use as a pre -storm survey for most of the project area was post Hurricane Matthew
Lidar data collected in November 2016. Two small hotspot areas had more recent
survey data (USACE survey #16-125) collected in March 2017 that was used as
the pre -storm survey for these areas. USACE survey #16-125 was the post -
construction monitoring survey associated with the two hot spot truck haul fills
completed in 2016 and 2017. The 46th Street hotspot fill (R-53.5 to R-56) was
completed in October 2017 and the 55th Street hotspot fill (R49 to R50.75) was
completed in February 2017. The Lidar data collected following Hurricane Irma in
September 2017 by USACE JALBTCX served as the post -storm survey for the
entire Main Segment. USACE compared the pre- and post -storm survey surfaces
using ArcMap 10.4.1 and calculated volumes changes for the project area where
overlapping data coverage was available.
A site inspection conducted by SAJ staff on September 14, 2017 revealed minimal
damage to the project as a direct result of Hurricane Irma.
Figure 11-2 shows a profile in the middle of the Haulover Beach portion of the
project area and Figure 11-3 shows an elevation change plot showing areas of
erosion and accretion of the Haulover Beach area based on the pre- and post -
storm surveys. In this portion of the project, most of the erosion has occurred in
scattered areas along the foreshore slope and submerged offshore profile while
the upper beach and dune remained mostly unchanged.
7
Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
15
10
co
> • 5
0
v
-5
ft, • -10
°—�,' • -15 –r-
-20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
R-55
— Design Berm
Distance from ECL (feet)
—Construction Berm Post Matthew (Lidar)
— 16 025 (Mar 2017) —Post Irma (Lidar)
Figure 11-10: Beach profile at R-55 in the 46t" Street hot spot area of Miami Beach.
20
15
O 10
z 5
.v)
0
0
• -5
R-65
-20
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance from ECL (feet)
—Design Berm —Construction Berm Post Matthew (Lidar) —Post Irma (Lidar)
Figure 11-11: Beach profile at R-65 in the southern portion of Miami Beach.
Figure 11-12: Pre- to post -change plot of Miami Beach showing areas of erosion in red and
accretion in green. (North is to the left).
12
Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
Table 11-1 provides a volume change summary broken down by areas within the
Main Segment having a different Erosion Control Line (ECL) or different pre -storm
survey availability. Overall, pre- to post -storm erosion of 731,876 cubic yards (cy)
was calculated for the project area from R-19.5 to R-74.5. This volume calculation
extends seaward from the ECL to the Depth of Closure (DoC) approximated by the
the -20 feet NAVD 88 contour from the Post -Irma Lidar survey. Much of the pre- to
post -storm volume change has occurred below mean high water. The volume
needed to restore the authorized design template from the pre -storm survey is
717,761 cy and the volume needed to restore the authorized design template from
the post -storm survey is 796,597 cy. Therefore, 78,837 cy eroded within the
design template along the entire Main Segment. The volume needed to restore the
full construction template from the post -storm survey is 1,909,025 cy along the
entire Main Segment.
Segment
Haulover Beach
IBal Harbour
(Surfside
Miami Beach North
of Hot Spots
Miami Beach 55th
Street Hot Spot
Miami Beach
Between Hot Spats
Miami Beach 46th
Street Hot Spot
Miami Beach South
of Hot Spots
Main Segment
Total
Table 11-1: Volume Summary
Pre to Post Storm
Loss within the
Pre- to Post -Storm Design Template Post Storm
Volume Change (CY) Pre Storm Post Storm (CY) Volume to Fill
Post -Storm (negative value Volume to Fill Volume to Fill (negative value Construction
R -monuments Pre -Storm Survey Survey indicates erosion) Design (CY) Design (CY) indicates accretion) (CY)
Post Matthew Lidar, Postlrma Lidar,
R-19.5 to R-26.5 Nov 2016 Sep 2017
Post Matthew Lidar, Post Irma !friar,
R-27 to R-31 Nov 2016 Sep 2017
Post Matthew Lidar, Post Irma Lidar,
R-31 to R-36 Nov 2016 Sep 2017
Post Matthew Lidar,
Nov 2016 (Postlrma Lidor,
Sep 2017
IR -36 to R-49
R-49 to R-50.75
R-50.75 to R-53.5
R-53.5 to R-56
R-56 to R-74.5
R-19.5 to R-74.5
Survey #16-125_55post, Post Irma Lidar,
Mar2017 5ep2017
Post Matthew Lidar,
Nov 2016
Post Irma Lidar,
Sep 2017
Survey #16-125_46post, Post Irmo Lidar,
Mar2017 Sep2017
Post Matthew Lidar,
Nov 2016
Post Irma Lidar,
Sep 2017
-94,466 83,857 103,903 20,046 231,583
-53,280 150,903 170,114 19,211 210,313
-104,699 126,750 139,742 12,992 377,163
-314,463 203,884 243,760 39,876 541,498
1,704 17,489 30,608 13,119 89,263
-44,621 36,235 22,620 -13,615 118,188
3,212 51,686 58,101 6,415 146,787
-125,263 46,957 27,750 -19,207 194,230
-731,876 717, 761 796,597 78,837 1,909, 025
Overall, the Main Segment of the Dade County Beach Erosion Control and
Hurricane Storm Protection Project did experience erosion during Hurricane Irma
based on the pre- and post -storm survey data available. The pre -storm survey data
available may not accurately capture the pre -storm condition of the beach in
certain areas due to the period of time between the pre -storm survey and the actual
storm event; however, it is the most recent survey data available. Portions of the
project have experienced erosion into the authorized design berm. The eroded
profile leaves portions of the project more vulnerable to future erosional events
and coastal storm damage.
13
Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
15. ECONOMICS.
OVERVIEW
This economic analysis for Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) has
been conducted in accordance with EP 500-1-1 (2001), Appendix D, and was
developed to compare the economic benefits versus the economic costs of
emergency restoration and nourishment activities for the Main Segment.
Emergency restoration and nourishment is defined by P.L. 84-99 (as amended by
WRDA 2014) as the placement of material on the beach of the subject project in
order to repair and restore the project to the design level of protection (i.e. design
template). The quantity of sand used for benefit determination for P.L. 84-99
Rehabilitation Assistance will be the amount of sand necessary to restore this
profile and maintain the profile into the next storm season, hereafter referred to as
FCCE quantity. The primary objective of this analysis is to determine whether or
not FCCE emergency restoration is economically justified (i.e. has a benefit -cost -
ratio greater than 1.0). If FCCE placement is economically justified, a secondary
objective is to compare FCCE restoration to a full construction action based on the
authorized nourishment. It is important to note that the analysis for all alternatives
is strictly a comparison of remaining costs and remaining benefits. Any indication
of a benefit -cost ratio (BCR) in the following paragraphs and appendices should
be treated not as a "Total BCR" but as a remaining -benefit -remaining -cost ratio.
KEY ASSUMPTIONS
Initial construction of the Main Segment began in 1975. As of October 2017
(FY18), the remaining period of Federal participation is seven years, concluding in
2024, with an authorized nourishment interval of five years. The period of analysis
(POA) for FCCE placement is assumed to be six years. This assumption is based
on the fact that significant storm damage to the project would trigger the periodic
nourishment to be shifted forward to the earliest possible date. The least amount
of time for a nourishment to be approved in the normal budget process, undergo
the normal contract bid process, and begin construction would be six years. FCCE
nourishment is assumed to carry the project until that periodic nourishment occurs
and therefore has a POA of six years, measured from the fiscal year of this report.
A future -with project (FWP) condition, which is the FCCE placement, will be
compared to a future -without project (FWOP) condition (i.e. no action), in which
annual erosion continues unabated for six years, in order to establish the average
annual benefits of FCCE placement. Despite the fact that much of the Main
Segment was originally justified on recreation benefits' policy requires that
incidental benefits not be part of the analysis. Benefits will be expressed at the
price level from the authorizing document, the 1975 GDM, and the costs of the
Recreation benefits of the authorizing document are $16,349,000 AAEQ, 1975 price level using the discount rate of
3.25%
16
Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
emergency restoration will be deflated back to this price level. It is important to
note that the CWCCIS does not have quarterly figures dating back to 1975 and
thus the annual index figure will be used for this date.
Economic Evaluation of FCCE Restoration to Design Template (Alternative
One)
BENEFITS
The authorizing document design profile estimate of coastal flood damage
reduction benefits has been applied as the initial assessment point. Engineering
has provided the incremental Toss in cubic -yardage of sand from the design profile.
This lost quantity is to be subtracted from the total cubic -yardage of 11,254,000
utilized to initially construct the authorized project design profile in order to
establish the starting condition of the design template in the FWOP. The starting
point in the FWP is the full design template plus the estimated advanced
nourishment required to provide protection into the next storm season, calculated
by engineering as 796,597CY. To estimate benefits in both the FWOP and FWP
the proportion of volume in the design template that remains after the annual
erosion of 190,000CY has been factored in will serve as a proxy for benefits. For
example, if 98% of the design template remains in any given year then the benefits
for that year would be calculated as 98% of the authorized benefits. The proportion
remains linear throughout. Therefore, the calculation for total annual benefits of
FCCE action is the summation of the FWP proportion of benefits minus the FWOP
proportion of benefits discounted and annualized across all six years. This net
result is an approximation of the storm damage protective capability to be provided
by the restoration of the project from the end of construction until the next periodic
nourishment.
The benefits are expressed at the authorizing document price level of 1975, which
is also what the last approved report (2016 LRR) used. It is important to note that
the 1975 GDM underwent a revision in January 1976, which adjusted benefits. The
revised document is the "Dade County Beaches Florida General Design
Memorandum, Phases I and II" and the "Pertinent Data" section included the
benefits. The structure inventory has changed significantly since 1975 in terms of
both density and value so, at a minimum, benefits are assumed to still be valid.
Average annual expected benefits for the authorizing document design profile are
$1,675,000. The following table captures the calculation of benefits from FCCE
action:
17
Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
20. RECOMMENDATIONS.
1 have given consideration to all significant aspects in the overall public interest,
and the eligibility requirements pursuant to Engineering Regulation 500-1-1,
"Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources, CIVIL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM," dated 30 September 2001. Hurricane Irma was an
extraordinary storm event; however, damages to the Dade County Main Segment
do not meet the eligibility criteria for rehabilitation assistance pursuant to ER 500-
1-1 paragraph 5-20.a with regard to economic justification. Therefore, I
recommend no further Federal action under the Flood Control and Coastal
Emergency Program.
ASON A. KI
Colonel, EN
Commanding
20
Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
List of Acronyms
ASA(CW) - Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
ASWE - Accumulated Storm Wave Energy
BCOE — Biddability, Constructability, Environmental review
BCR - Benefit—to-Cost Ratio
CA — Cooperation Agreement
CBRA — Coastal Barrier Resource Act
CG - Construction General
COSI - Coastal Storm Impulse Parameter
CWCCIS - Civil Works Construction Cost Index System
CY — cubic yards
EA - Environmental Assessment
EFH - Essential Fish Habitat
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
EM - Engineering Manual
ER — Engineer Regulation
ESA - Endangered Species Act
FCCE - Flood Control and Coastal Emergency
FDEP - Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
FY — Fiscal year
GRBO - Gulf of Mexico Regional Biological Opinion
HSDR - Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction
HSPP — Hurricane/Shore Protection Project
MCACES - Micro -Computer Aided Cost Estimating System
MHHW - Mean Higher High Water
MLW - Mean Low Water
MLLW - Mean Lower Low Water
MSL - Mean Sea Level
NAVD88 - North American Vertical Datum of 1988
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
NDBC - National Data Buoy Center
NGVD - National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NMFS- National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOS - National Ocean Service
PCA - Project Cooperation Agreement
PED — Preconstruction, Engineering and Design
PL 84-99 - Public Law 84-99
RBO - Regional Biological Opinion
RBRCR - Remaining benefit to remaining cost ratio
RIP - Rehabilitation and Inspection Program
S&A - Supervision and administration
SEI - Storm Erosion Index
SHPO - State Historic Preservation Office
21
Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
SPBO - Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion
SPP - Shore Protection Project
TS - Tropical Storm
USACE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USF — University of South Florida
USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UTC - Coordinated Universal Time
WIS - Wave Information Study
WQC - Water Quality Certification
WRDA - Water Resources Development Act
Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
Appendix Z. PIR Review Checklist
YES NO N/A
1. X The project is a Federally authorized and constructed coastal storm risk
management project (CSRM). [ER, 5-20.a.]
2. X The Project is Active in the RIP {ER, 5-2.a.].
Last inspection date: November 2017
3. X The Public Sponsor has requested CSRM Rehabilitation Assistance in
writing. [EP, 5-18.b.]
4.
X The FCCE-funded CSRM Rehabilitation Assistance is necessary
to restore the project to its design level of protection.
5. X There is sufficient evidence in the PIR to support a finding that the
CSRM was damaged by an extraordinary storm. [ER, 5-20.e.]
6. X
There are "significant amounts of damage" to the CSRM.
[ER, 5-20.e.(2)] The criterion used to make this determination is:
Yes the cost of the construction effort to effect repair of the
CSRM (exclusive of dredge mob/demob costs) (a) exceeds $1
million and (b) is greater than 2 percent of the original project
construction costs (expressed in current day dollars.); or,
Yes the cost of the construction effort to effect repair of the CSRM
(exclusive of dredge mob/demob costs) exceeds $6 million; or,
Yes more than one-third of the planned or historically placed sand for
renourishment was lost.
No only hard features are involved.
7 X The public sponsor has agreed to sign the Cooperation Agreement which
will occur before USACE begins rehabilitation work. [EP, 5-18.1]
8. X The rehabilitation Project has a favorable benefit cost ratio of greater than
1.0:1 [ER, 5-20.a.].
9. X The public sponsor has access to sufficient funds to meet its required cost
contributions. [EP, 5-18.h.]
10. X The cost estimate in the PIR itemizes the work and identifies the Public
Sponsor's cost responsibility for items such as deferred and deficient
maintenance. [ER, 5-2.g.]
11. X The cost estimate in the PIR allocates costs between what may be paid
for under PL84-99 Rehabilitation Assistance, and what is cost shared
between the Corps (using CG funds) and the public sponsor under periodic
renourishment terms of the PCA. [EP, 5-18.d.].
12. X Dredge mobilization/demobilization costs are borne proportionally among
contributing sources of funds for sand renourishment. [ER, 5-20.i.]
13. X Contingency funds for the FCCE-funded portion of the Project are limited
to 15 percent for dredging -related costs, and 10 percent for all other costs.
[ER, 5-2.v.]
27
Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
YES NO N/A
14. X The repair option selected is the option that is the least cost to the
Federal government. [ER, 5-2.h.]
15. X The benefit cost ratio calculation excludes all recreation benefits.
[ER, 5-20.a.]
16. X Betterments are paid by the Public Sponsor. [ER, 5-20.o.]
17. X Cost for betterments are identified separately in the cost estimate.
[ER, 5-2.o.]
18. X Based on the Projected schedule, Project history, anticipated
degree of contention of undertaking the Project, and similar items,
the Rehabilitation Assistance will be finished prior to the onset of
the next storm season, or within one year of the date of occurrence
of the damage, whichever is less. [ER, 5-20.j.]
19. X The proposed work will not modify the CSRM to increase the
degree
of protection or capacity, or provide protection to a larger area.
[ER, 5-2.n.]
20.
21.
X An assessment of environmental requirements was completed.
[ER, 5-13.e.]
X The Endangered Species Act was appropriately considered.
Dredging will not be adversely impacted. [ER, 5-13.e.]
22. X The Archeological and Historical Preservation Act was
appropriately considered. [ER, 5-13.h.]
23. X EO 11988 was appropriately considered. [ER,5-13.f.]
24. X Other permitting and evaluations were appropriately considered
and result in no impediment to the Rehabilitation Assistance effort.
[ER, 5-13.a.]
25.
26. X
27. X
X The cover letter forwarding the PIR to the MSC will contain the
Projected schedule for completing the Rehabilitation Assistance.
[EP, 5-18.f.(2)]
The completed PIR has been reviewed and the PIR checklist has
been reviewed and signed by the Emergency Management
Office. [EP, 5-18.f.(1)]
The completed PIR meets all policy, procedural, content, and
formatting requirements of ER 500-1-1 and EP 500-1-1. [ER, 2-
3.b.]
28