AIRPORT RD. EROSION HOMEOWNER FOCUS GROUP SUMMARY 1/1/2018 6 8 PM NATURE COAST BIOLOGICAL STATION This workshop was the fourth in a series of workshops about coastal erosion in Cedar Key hosted by the University of Florida. The goal of the workshop series was to introduce property owners to various concepts regarding erosion in Cedar Key s Daughtry Bayou, including the history of erosion, impacts of erosion, and potential ways to mitigate erosion. The objectives of the meeting series were as follows: Workshop 1: Coastal Erosion Visioning Workshop, 3/3/2017 o Discuss erosion history in the area and preferences for shoreline uses o Learn more about and compare various options for erosion control o Narrow down a range of acceptable project types that promise to preserve the shoreline at G Street and Airport Rd. locations, according to preferred uses. Workshop 2: G Street Design Workshop, 10/27/2017 o Review workshop 1 process & outcomes o Answer questions that stakeholders raised at workshop 1 o Present designs based on preferences from workshop 1, discuss specifics for further refinement o Come to agreement on best design option for follow up funding & implementation at G Street Workshop 3: Airport Rd. Design Workshop, 11/3/2017 o Review workshop 1 process & outcomes o Answer questions that stakeholders raised at workshop 1 o Present designs based on preferences from workshop 1, discuss specifics for further refinement o Come to agreement on best design option for follow up funding & implementation at Airport Rd. Workshop 4: Airport Rd. Homeowner Focus Group, 1/11/2018 o Review the rationale and progress of the coastal erosion workshop series for those new to the process o Discuss and evaluate specific project designs and build consensus around one preferred option o Clarify next steps and timeline The Airport Rd. Focus Group was attended by 19 participants and 3 project staff. The majority of the attendees were property owners on Airport Road but we also had representation from City and County government as well as residents of areas adjacent to Airport Rd. Project team members in attendance: Savanna Barry UF IFAS Nature Coast Biological Station Mark Clark UF IFAS Soil and Water Science Department Scott Wasman UF College of Engineering
Workshop Agenda: AIRPORT ROAD DESIGN WORKSHOP STAKEHOLDER INPUT ON OPTIONS FOR EROSION CONTROL IN CEDAR KEY 6pm 8pm, Jan 11, 2018, UF IFAS Nature Coast Biological Station Local Contact = Savanna Barry, UF/IFAS Extension Sea Grant Cell: 804-305-6014 AGENDA 6:00 PM 6:15 PM Welcome, Introductions, and Agenda Review 6:15 PM 7:00 PM Project Background Shoreline Erosion, Range of Erosion Control Options, Specific Project Ideas for Airport Rd. 7:00 PM 7:45 PM Discussion and Q&A of Project Options 7:45 PM 8:00 PM Wrap Up and Next Steps The workshop began with a review of the agenda and objectives for workshop 4 to orient participants to the goals for the meeting. There was a show of hands to determine who was new to the process and who had been involved in previous workshops in the series. About 50% of people raise their hands to indicate they were new to the process. The group also reviewed the list of next steps that had been identified at the Nov 3 rd meeting and listed how each item is being or will be addressed. List of Next Steps: 1. Contact DEP re: mangrove management Status: In progress, DEP has issued a verbal statement that they would consider a permit condition that would allow mechanical removal of mangroves from within the footprint of a living shoreline project. 2. Invite DEP to give a local workshop Status: Complete DEP will be giving a free open house event to discuss mangroves, living shorelines, recycling, water, and other local environmental issues from 10 am 12 pm at the Nature Coast Biological Station on Feb 22 nd 3. Meet with Airport Road Landowners Status: completed 1/11/2018 (this meeting) 4. Rework Airport Rd. Project Designs and bring RipRap back for discussion Status: completed 1/11/2018 (this meeting) 5. Follow-up meeting after Landowner Meeting status: Scheduled for 3/29/2018, 9 am to 12:30 PM at the Cedar Key Community Center 6. Seek funding for phase 4 option if landowners agree status: in progress After the next steps were reviewed, Dr. Mark Clark presented background information on erosion control options, the specific need for erosion control in Daughtry Bayou, and the design options for Airport Rd. (See below for copies of the presentations). Each design was presented in detail and Mark made some comments regarding the function of each project element. Participants had scoring sheets and wrote down comments during the presentation.
Mark then presented the expert scorecard for each design. The scorecard showed the grades for categories such as environmental services (habitat, wave dissipation, carbon sequestration, and water quality), longevity, cost (construction and maintenance), and likelihood of obtaining external funding. (See Appendix for copies of the design options and scorecards). After all of the designs were presented, participants discussed the options and asked questions of the experts (Scott and Mark) while Savanna recorded the questions and discussion points. Questions/comments about RipRap (above) included: - a question about whether or not mangroves could be removed from this option the answer was likely not but the project team will follow up - A comment regarding the danger/appearance of concrete and riprap - A question regarding whether or not the County plans to repair the eroding concrete apron Questions/comments about Option 4 (right): vegetation+breakwater+fill+dune included: - Comment that the reefs are going to be put back where they should be based on historical imagery - Question about how many reefs there would be o Current plan is to have 14 reefs that are ~50ft long by 12 ft wide with 10 ft gaps in between however, this is flexible o The gap could be bigger or you could stagger the reef placement
- A comment regarding marking the edges of the reefs for safety - Question about adding oysters to the area o What happens to oyster balls that break away? How much will the gaps fill in with oysters? Comment was that filling in would be negative o Answer oysters need hard substrate and optimal elevation in the water column to grow, they will not grow too high or low in the water column - Comment: would like to see as much beach area restored as possible - Activities: fishing, crabbing, kayaking, dog walking - Will any city permits be required? - What local/county permits would be needed? - Reiteration of the question regarding whether or not building the project would preclude a homeowner from building a dock in the future definitely must have this answered - Question about movement of sands that are brought in into the channel that goes under the bridge important to predict/study what might happen to any sands that are brought in o There were a few in the group that were worried about anything that could cause Goose Cove to fill in or to get any more oysters in it Project team pointed out that oysters only recruit on hard substrate so unless more hard substrate was added to Goose Cove, no new oyster area would establish there Also, anything that would control erosion on Airport Rd would tend to reduce sediment transport to Goose Cove because you would be slowing down erosion - What will the slope of the dune be? To cover the current concrete apron. Other points discussed: - Desire for ample access points to shoreline o Walkover decks, designated paths important part of design o Need at least 2, perhaps up to 4 kayak and foot friendly - Group in general did not like the culvert pipe material but were open to the other material types - There did not seem to be a strong preference for curved vs. straight reef shapes At the end of the meeting, each landowner was asked to go around and say what they preferred, non-landowners voluntarily abstained from voting: -6 people voted for option 4 (unanimous among landowners in attendance) -no votes for the other options CONCLUSION Option 4 was unanimously voted to be the most favorable. Participants were generally very positive in their feedback at the conclusion of the meeting. Their feedback echoed the previous feedback from other workshops: 1. We needed to keep moving forward (i.e., Do nothing is not acceptable) 2. All want protection but also safe access that is as natural-looking as possible
Dr. Scott Wasman points out an element of Option 4 Participants listen to Dr. Clark s presentation
Dr. Clark s presentation of erosion control options
Airport Road Living Shoreline Design Options Property Owners Focus Group January 11, 2018 Nature Coast Biological Station Savanna Barry, UF IFAS Nature Coast Biological Station Mark Clark, UF IFAS Soil and Water Science Department Scott Wasman, UF Dept. of Civil and Coastal Engineering
Outline History and setting Approaches to Shoreline Stabilization Previous input from stakeholders during Visioning Session and Design Workshop Design options short list Discussion
Joe Rains Beach Project Airport Road Shoreline Daughtry Bayou G-Street Shoreline Cedar Key
11/26/1961
2/20/1974
1/20/1994
1/20/1994 Airport Road 2/28/2006 1/20/1994 Airport Road
1/18/2012 Airport Road 11/17/2016 Airport Road
Airport Road damage from Hurricane Hermine correlated with gaps in oyster reef, unvegetated shoreline and width of shoreline.
Shoreline Erosion Wind and waves are constantly eroding shorelines As sea-level rises, wave dynamics and erosion change. Not all damage is associated with Hurricanes. Property loss associated with erosion is in the tens of billions of dollars annually. Habitat can also often be lost due to anthropogenic impacts such as boat wakes and deepening of water for navigation.
Factors Influencing Shoreline Erosion Wave energy and direction Longshore current/drift Natural wave breaks Sediment stability and trapping
Approaches to mitigate shoreline erosion (high energy no change in use) Beach nourishment process of dumping or pumping sand from elsewhere onto an eroding shoreline Does not stop erosion, only provides more sand to erode buying time, but allows continued use of beach and a certain degree of protection. FDEP allotted beach nourishment projects FY 2014-2015 = $37 million 2010-2014 = $105 million St Augustine 2011 St Augustine 2012
Approaches to mitigate shoreline erosion (high energy some modification in use) Jetties, Groins and Breakwaters
Approaches to mitigate shoreline erosion (low energy) Hardening using bulkheads, seawalls retaining walls. 14% (14,000 miles) of US coastline has been armored with hardened structures. NOAA estimates 1/3 of nation s estuarine shoreline will be hardened by 2100 if we continue at current rate. Generally effective at protecting property for a period of time. Provides little or no ecological benefit.
limitation with seawalls big and small
Loss of Habitat (area, zonation, access)
Is there an alternative? Probably Not Probably Intensity and frequency of waves in some areas is to great. Lower energy shorelines are more conducive to alternative shoreline stabilization techniques.
What is a Living Shoreline? A living shoreline is a method of land stabilization that protects the shoreline from erosion while also preserving, enhancing, or creating habitat. Living shorelines maintain the connectivity between land and water, and recreate the natural functions of a shoreline ecosystem. There are many different living shorelines techniques, yet they all generally employ natural or biodegradable materials such as stone, sand, oyster shells, or coconut fiber (coir) logs that are used in conjunction with the planting of native species.
Benefits of Living Shorelines Reduce wave energy and associated shoreline erosion (property loss) Buffer the effects of storms and boat wake Stabilize existing sediments Build up shoreline by trapping sediments and creating new sediment. Can actually accrete vs. erode. Improve water quality Provide habitat Provide a more contiguous ecotone between terrestrial and aquatic system. Assimilate carbon Beautify shorelines
Effective Living Shorelines are Designed to: Reduce and absorb incoming energy wave break reef vegetation Stabilize sediment vegetation Facilitate accretion Vegetation living structure oysters
Many creative approaches out there Site specifics and $$ will decide
Gradient from Gray to Green NOAA s Habitat Blueprint
Cedar Key Living Shoreline Visioning Session (March 3, 2017) Stakeholder Visioning session March 2018 Discussion of past and present uses along Airport Road and G-Street shorelines Presentation of shoreline mitigation options from Green to Gray. Golf cart tour around Cedar Key to view and discuss examples of Green to Gray shoreline stabilization. Discussion of pro s and con s of various stabilization techniques relative to various user groups. Individual preference selection of Green to Gray mitigation options.
Results of Preference selection for Green to Gray options
Count (preferred not-preferred) 20 Airport Road Individual Preferences 15 10 5 0-5 -10-15 Seawall or bulkhead Riprap Revetment Beach nourishment with Stabilization Beach nourishment Vegetation andbreakwater Vegetation and Edge/sill Vegetation planting
Mangrove Proliferation A major point of discussion and concern brought up during Visioning Session and G-street Design Workshop Florida common law recognizes that riparian landowner rights specifically include the right to an unobstructed view and the right of ingress to and egress from the water. However, wetland ecosystems including mangroves are also a protected environmental resource which provide a range of ecosystem services. The 1996 Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act was created to balance landowner rights as well as services mangroves provide. Mangrove recruitment and establishment can be influenced by shoreline energy and climate conditions. Reducing shoreline energy (planting with vegetation or creating a breakwater) may/will likely increase the potential for mangrove recruitment. Preliminary consultation with FDEP indicates that they would be willing to include a more aggressive mangrove management plan (i.e. up to complete mechanical removal) as part of a Living Shoreline Permit if the expected increase in mangrove recruitment were going to be solely the result of the proposed Living Shoreline action.
Airport Road Design Workshop November 3, 2017 Presentation of four phased options based on preference of Beach nourishment with stabilization and vegetation with breakwater. No RipRap option was presented. Good discussion among various stakeholder groups present; however, property owners underrepresented.
Present Condition
Present Conditions Shoreline cross sections A B C Airport Road concrete apron MHHW existing grade MLLW Airport Road concrete apron high marsh (S. patens) low marsh (S. alterniflora) existing grade MHHW MLLW Airport Road concrete apron MHHW existing grade MLLW
Phase 2: Vegetation + Breakwater
Phase 2: Vegetation + Breakwater Shoreline cross sections A B C Airport Road concrete apron existing grade oyster reef/breakwater MHHW MLLW Airport Road concrete apron high marsh (S. patens) low marsh (S. alterniflora) existing grade MHHW oyster reef/breakwater MLLW Airport Road concrete apron low marsh (S. alterniflora) sand/shell fill existing grade oyster reef/breakwater MHHW MLLW
Materials Options for Phase 2: Oyster Castles Limerock Reef Balls Culvert, Concrete Slab (Bagged Shell)
Shape Options for Phase 2: ANGULAR STRAIGHT CURVED
Phase 4: Vegetation + Breakwater + Thin Fill + Dune Fill/Planting
Phase 4: Vegetation + Breakwater + Thin Fill + Dune Shoreline cross sections A B C Airport Road dune species high marsh (S. patens) sand fill existing grade oyster reef/breakwater MHHW MLLW Airport Road dune species high marsh (S. patens) sand fill existing grade low marsh (S. alterniflora) oyster reef/breakwater MHHW MLLW Airport Road dune species high marsh (S. patens) low marsh (S. alterniflora) sand fill sand/shell fill existing grade oyster reef/breakwater MHHW MLLW
RipRap Stabilization Option
RipRap Stabilization Option
Detailed Scorecard Summary Phase 2 Phase 4 RipRap Do Nothing 1)Environmental Service (C- = negative, B = no change, A+ = most a)carbon Sequestration A+ A+ C- b)wave dissipation A A++ A c)water quality A+ A+ C+ d)habitat/biodiversity A A++ C- category average A+* A++ C 2)Cost (C- = high, A+ = low) a)construction cost B C+ A- - b)maintenance cost B+ B+ A- - category average B B- A- - 3)Project longevity (C- = shortest time, A+ = longest time) 4)Likelihood of obtaining external funding (A+ = high, C- = low) A+ A+ A+ B- A- C -