28 August 2013 Mr. Paul Andrews General

28 August 2013
Mr. Paul Andrews
General Manager
Shephard’s Beach Resort
619 South Gulfview Blvd.
Clearwater Beach, FL 33767
[email protected]
(727) 442-5107
Re:
Proposed beach improvements at Shephard’s Beach Resort, Clearwater Pass
619 South Gulfview Blvd., Clearwater Beach, FL 33767
Dear Mr. Andrews:
The attached drawings (6 sheets plus cover) depict a proposed plan of beach and
shorefront improvements along the Shephard’s Beach Resort, on the north bank of Clearwater
Pass, for consideration by the Marine Advisory Committee and City of Clearwater.
The purpose of the project is to re-establish a stable sand beach along approximately 350
feet of the inlet’s shorefront, principally comprising the Shephard’s Beach Resort property. The
existing site is shown in Figure 1. It is bound by a seawall on the landward edge and by two
rock groins on each side (each about 115 feet in length), and it features a 50’ x 60’ pilesupported wooden deck. There is a sand beach along the eastern third or half of the site, with no
beach or other useful recreational area along the western half of the site.
The proposed activity consists of the following principal elements illustrated in Figure 2:
a) construction of a 35-ft long (approx.) rock spur at the seaward end of each of the two existing
rock groins,
b) construction of a rock T-head groin between the two existing groins, waterward of the existing
beach deck,
c) addition of beach-compatible sand fill from an upland source to create/nourish the beach, and
d) “clean-up” of the two existing groins to remove and re-consolidate the scattered rock, and to
restore the landward end of the western groin.
In the drawing (Figure 2), the post-project beach fill contours are shown by the heavy
black lines. The mean low water shoreline is approximately represented by the -1.5’ contour
(MLW = -1.3’). The mean high water shoreline is approximately represented by the +1.0’
contour (MHW = + 0.65’), half-way between the 0’ and +2’ contours. The plan would restore
the sand beach along the entire shorefront between the existing rock groins, and it would
likewise provide access upon the sand beach along this shorefront – including in front of the
wood deck and across the rock groin T-head which would be buried by sand in front of the deck.
Mr. Paul Andrews
28 August 2013
Page - 2 - of 13
Figure 1: Existing conditions – Shephard’s Beach Resort.
Figure 2: Proposed plan of improvements.
olsen associates, inc.
Mr. Paul Andrews
28 August 2013
Page - 3 - of 13
The proposed T-head groin in the middle is necessary to stabilize the placed sand fill and
to restore/maintain a sand beach along the western half of the shoreline. Presently, there is little
or no sand beach along the western 200 feet of the shorefront (i.e., along and west of the deck),
and this precludes useful public access and recreational beach along most of the shorefront. The
landward stem of the proposed T-head groin is low in elevation and would be buried in sand –
thus resulting in a continuous sand beach along the entire shorefront, along the existing seawall
and the deck at low and high tides.
Access from the sea (Clearwater Pass) to the sand beach is made by each of the two 105ft wide openings between beach embayments. In the proposed plan, the rock groins support the
sand beach and its slope on the landward side of the structures; but the seabed elevations are not
otherwise altered on the seaward side of the structures. That is, the seabed elevation in the
baymouth opening between the rock groins would remain at or about the existing level of -2’ to
-2.5’ (i.e., at about the Spring Low Tide water level during new or full moon). As such, all of the
project’s footprint is located within about 120- to 140-feet width from the seawall, within the
extents of the existing rock groins. The plan does not widen the beach or rock structures further
into Clearwater Pass.
The predicted geometry and performance of the sand beach created through the rock Thead groin and gap-widths has been established through several dozen analogous projects
constructed in similar – and higher-energy – conditions since the early 1990’s. Over the past
twenty years, we have designed similar projects that have been constructed throughout the
southeastern United States, Caribbean, Hawaii, Indian Ocean and elsewhere (in addition to
similar projects by others); and all have performed successfully per expectations and predictions.
An example project of equivalent scale, constructed at the Sandals resort in Nassau, Bahamas in
early 2009 is illustrated below. The Sandals property had no beach along half of its shorefront,
until the beach was restored and stabilized by a proper T-head groin, 2 spurs and sand fill.
spur groin
T-head groin
Figure 3: Example of beach restored & stabilized by rock T-head groin and two spur groins; Sandals Royal
Bahamian, Nassau, Bahamas. (Left: pre-project condition; Right: 18 months post-construction, low tide.)
olsen associates, inc.
Mr. Paul Andrews
28 August 2013
Page - 4 - of 13
It is anticipated that the project would be constructed from the upland. Construction
access from the road (South Gulfview Blvd) to the beach would be via an existing road-path at
the east edge of the Shephard’s Beach Resort (SBR) property. The sand fill would be from
upland sources, of approved
beach-quality and consistent
with that of the existing beach
sand. No dredging is proposed.
Boulders would be imported
from
upland
quarries.
Dislocated rock along the
existing two groins would be reused to re-construct and ‘tidy’
the groins. Turbidity curtains
would be employed during
construction if/as required.
Figure 4: Location of construction access.
Comparison with previously proposed project. The proposed plan differs fairly
significantly from that previously presented by Tackney & Associates, Inc. in 2006. The two
plans are compared in Figure 5, following page.
 The previous plan proposed 4 breakwater structures along the SBR shorefront, closely
spaced with intervening gaps of 45 feet each. In contrast, the present plan uses half as much
structure and creates gaps of 105 feet each.

Additionally, the previous plan widened the beach so as to push the mean high water line
nearly as far seaward as the rock structures; that is, it pushed the intertidal beach toward and
into the inlet. The present plan widens the beach by about half as much; that is, it
establishes the intertidal beach at about the same location along the entire property as it
presently exists in the eastern cell -- and the location of the lower-low tide shoreline (about
-2’) remains the same as in existing conditions. Nonetheless, there is still significant benefit
from the present plan: it increases the dry recreational beach area by a factor of about 2.3,
from 0.20 acres in the existing condition to 0.48 acres in the post-project condition.

The presently proposed plan features 4 times more water area than the previous plan. The
previous plan, as drawn, exhibited about 4,500 square feet of water between the mean high
water line and the breakwaters’ centerline. The proposed plan presents about 17,550 square
feet of water between the MHWL and the groin heads’ centerline.

The previous plan engaged six hotel/resort properties (the South Beach Association). The
present proposal is limited to Shephard’s Beach Resort; noting however, that a parallel but
separate proposal is being presented for adjacent shoreline by the Quality Beach Resort, as
further described below.
olsen associates, inc.
Mr. Paul Andrews
28 August 2013
Page - 5 - of 13
Figure 5: Comparison of previously proposed plan by Tackney & Associates Inc (c. 2006) and presently
proposed plan by Olsen Associates, Inc (2013). Yellow indicates the design area of beach berm above
+4.5’ NAVD, and blue indicates the design area of water below mean high tide (+0.65’ NAVD) in the
with-project conditions. The previous design exhibited 45-ft wide gaps between breakwaters. The
present design exhibits 105-ft wide gaps between groin heads.
olsen associates, inc.
Mr. Paul Andrews
28 August 2013
Page - 6 - of 13
Permit application was made for the previously proposed plan in June 2006, but permit
acquisition was ultimately discontinued after August 2007, and no permits for the prior project
were issued to our knowledge1.
Prior Conditions and Improvements. A sand beach -- similar in scale to the proposed
improvements -- previously existed at this site, as indicated by Google Earth images from 1995
through 2002 shown in Figure 6 below.
Existing ‐ 2013 Figure 6: Recent historical shoreline conditions. Upper left – January 1995; Upper right – December 1998;
Above Left – May 2002; Above Right – March 2013.
1
Initial application was made to FDEP in approximately June 2006, File #0266352-001-JC (Pinellas Co.). A
response to an RAI from FDEP dated 7 July 2006 was submitted by Tackney on or about 16 March 2007.
Application was additionally made to Pinellas County (requesting a permit from the Pinellas County Water and
navigation Control Authority) in June 2006. Concerns regarding the project were summarized in a letter from
Nicole Elko, Pinellas County, dated 14 August 2007. Further action thereafter is not indicated in the file, to my
knowledge.
olsen associates, inc.
Mr. Paul Andrews
28 August 2013
Page - 7 - of 13
It is our understanding that at least two previous beach projects were undertaken along
the project shoreline. In 1984, the City of Clearwater conducted a 100,000 cubic yard (approx.)
beach fill placement from dredge material obtained from inlet maintenance, after which the sand
fill was observed to migrate rapidly toward the east. In 1986, upland property owners
constructed five rock groins. These were observed to reduce but not eliminate the beach erosion.
Thereafter, occasional or annual placements of small volumes of truck-haul sand have been
undertaken by individual upland property owners in attempts to surcharge the beach, after which
the sand is eroded and apparently migrates mostly eastward toward the spit beyond the bridge.
As such, the proposed project is intended to restore a previously existing shoreline, not to
infill wetlands to create uplands for purposes of further development. The project design is
limited to the footprint of the existing groins which have exhibited some, but limited, success in
stabilizing the shoreline – by which the proposed structures and beach fill would augment the
function of the existing groins so as to better maintain the nourishment sand placed therein.
Existing Conditions and Project Impacts. No significant adverse environmental impacts
are anticipated to occur from project construction. There is no indication of existing or recent
seagrass beds or other sensitive environmental resources within or proximate to the project area.
There is no upland vegetation (sea oats, etc.) that will be impacted by the project. A seabed biota
survey conducted in December 2005 indicated no presence of seagrass or sensitive resources.
An updated seabed biota survey would be conducted for the proposed work if/as required for
permitting. Turbidity monitoring and control measures will be implemented as required. To our
knowledge, there is no recent history of marine turtle nesting activity along this shoreline that
would be disrupted by the construction. Future turtle nesting activity would be facilitated by the
sand beach improvements, though such activity is unlikely given this urban beach setting.
The existing, minor beach is very heavily utilized for recreation by resort guests and the
public, gaining access principally through the resort and by boat. Typical and current conditions
are illustrated in Figures 7 and 8. Only about one-third to one-half of the shorefront can be
functionally utilized for recreation and access. Alongshore access waterward of the seawall is
not feasible (at least during mid- to
high-tide) because of the lack of beach
along the western half of the
shorefront. From Figure 7, at right, it is
evident that boaters typically moor at
or just seaward of the ends of the
existing groins.
Figure 7: Typical beach use conditions
along the western end of SBR (foreground)
and Quality Beach Resort (background).
olsen associates, inc.
Mr. Paul Andrews
28 August 2013
Page - 8 - of 13
Mid-high tide: Left - shoreline west of Shephards Beach Resort (SBR); Right – west shoreline along SBR.
Low-tide: Left – western half of SBR toward deck; Right – west shoreline along SBR.
Mid-high tide: Left – eastern half of shoreline along SBR toward deck; Right – east shoreline along SBR.
Mid-high tide:
Right – shoreline east of SBR.
Figure 8: Site photographs -- July 2, 2013.
olsen associates, inc.
Mr. Paul Andrews
28 August 2013
Page - 9 - of 13
To the extent that boaters anchor their vessels immediately seaward of the existing groin
heads, the proposed project would not interfere with the boat anchorage nor “push” the boats
further waterward into the Pass. That is, the proposed project does not alter the seabed
elevations along or waterward of the existing groin heads. Per Figure 2, the seabed elevations
remain at between -2.0’ and -2.5’ NAVD (i.e., equivalent to a very low tide shoreline) along the
line that defines the seaward ends of the groins. The changes to the beach occur landward of the
groin heads. Thus, boating practices along and waterward of the groin heads are not affected.
Both the project design and experience indicates that the sand would not typically “spill out” of
the cells and shoal the nearshore seabed (which could push the boat anchorage further into the
Pass), because the openings between the structures restrict the location and slopes of the beach.
The project’s proposed structures (groin heads) will decrease the open water frontage by
140 feet; however, the project will also increase the useful and accessible shore frontage from
about 150 feet length (east of the deck) to the entire shore frontage of about 335 feet between
groins. That is, the existing beach shorefront that is currently accessible from the water is about
150 feet in length. The project will develop a beach shorefront that is directly accessible from
the water (i.e., measured as the open water between the structures) of about 195 feet, more or
less. More simply stated, people accessing the existing shoreline from boats would normally
wade to the sand beach east of the deck comprising about 150 feet in length (since there is no dry
beach along or west of the deck). In the post-project condition, people accessing the shoreline
from boats would wade to a sand beach through either of the two beach cell openings – totaling
195 feet in open length – both east and west of the deck. Thus, the useful length of shorefront
accessible to persons from boats (in terms of a wading beach upon which to land, depart, and
recreate) is increased by the project from about 150 ft to 195 ft relative to existing conditions.
In this project design, the boats and their passengers are not forced to anchor further
offshore, nor to wade into deeper water, nor to swim further across the Pass in swifter currents in
order to access the beach. And, the useful shorefront that is accessible to boaters (or, more
precisely, those persons wading to/from the boats) is increased by about 30% through the
restoration of a sand beach along the western half of the eroded shorefront. All of these boatingaccess issues are valid concerns that the project design has sought to address, particularly relative
to the prior project proposal in 2006.
The project design likewise sought to rationally address the need for increased beach
recreational use area. The existing beach use capacity at a “compressed” urban measure of 50 to
100 square feet per person (which is only one-quarter to one-half of the normal State standard of
200 ft2/user) is less than about 90 to 180 persons at typical mid/high tide. The proposed project
would increase the beach use capacity to between 200 and 400 persons, more or less, by the
same measure. Thus the project represents a significant, but not unreasonable, improvement in
recreational beach capacity along this very popular and currently “over-stressed” shorefront.
olsen associates, inc.
Mr. Paul Andrews
28 August 2013
Page - 10 - of 13
No significant adverse impacts are predicted to sand movement and adjacent shorelines.
Sediment transport along the shorefront is principally influenced by the existing rock groins
which quasi-compartmentalize the shoreline’s beaches. The proposed project does not increase
the length (and coincident effect) of these groins, and it is located within the seaward ‘footprint’
of these groins. The project pre-fills, or saturates, the beach with nourishment sand to its design
capacity, so that it does not draw sand from the adjacent beaches or ambient alongshore sediment
transport. Relative to the existing conditions surveyed in May 2013, project construction would
entail the placement of about 2300 cubic yards of beach nourishment sand. The purpose of the
spur groins and central T-head groin is to retain the placed sand in a quasi-stable geometry
within the beach cells. Experience has otherwise indicated that sand placed within the single cell
between the two existing rock groins erodes rapidly and is apparently transported mostly
eastward where it ultimately deposits in a large sand spit at the head of the Pass (see Figure 9).
Sediment transport to this shoreline is otherwise limited by the north jetty at the Pass entrance.
Figure 9:
Clearwater Pass, March
14, 2013 (Google Earth
image).
Given the spatially limited nature of the proposed structures and the previous prototype
experience with the structure/beach design, and the practical limitations of coastal engineering
modeling at this site, detailed modeling of the project is considered neither warranted nor
fruitful. That is, the small-scale nature of the structures, the shallow shorefront depths, and the
complex tidal current- and wave-dominated nature of the sediment transport along this site do
not lend themselves to necessarily accurate physical or computer modeling of the coastal
processes associated with the shorefront or proposed project. Instead, the physical performance
of the project can be more readily and accurately predicted through empirical and practical
engineering experience. In brief, through these means, no significant changes to existing
shoreline behavior are rationally discerned, in terms of beach creation or erosion adjacent to the
olsen associates, inc.
Mr. Paul Andrews
28 August 2013
Page - 11 - of 13
project. If sand was continued to be added to the shoreline without the project structures, it is
evident from experience that the sand would erode fairly rapidly and ultimately contribute to the
shoal formation at the head of the Pass, amply evident in Figures 6 and 9, above.
Corollary Projects. The proposed project was developed for, and is presented by.
Shephard’s Beach Resort, independent of any other actions. During the course of this project’s
initial design, Quality Beach Resort2 elected to consider an analogous project for shoreline
improvements along the beach cell immediately east of SBR. For completeness, the concept
developed for that property is illustrated along with the SBR project proposal in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Proposed project concepts along both Shephard’s Beach Resort and Quality Beach Resort.
While these two projects (SBR and QBR) are similar and adjacent, consideration of either
for purposes of permitting and/or ultimate design & construction, is presented and made
separately. Should both be permitted and developed to the construction stage, it is probable that
both would be developed & constructed more or less concurrently; however, at present, the
progress and/or ultimate disposition of either project does not affect the other. That is, for
example, construction of one project is not contingent upon the other, et cetera.
2
655 South Gulfview Blvd., Clearwater Beach, FL 33767
olsen associates, inc.
Mr. Paul Andrews
28 August 2013
Page - 12 - of 13
Public Beach Access. We did not conduct a detailed study of upland public beach access
for this project area, as it is beyond this engineering design assignment. From documents
provided by Brian Johns of Pinellas County, there is a permanent and nonexclusive easement
along a 50-ft width seaward of the existing seawall, granted to the City of Clearwater for the
“right to use, for the purpose of recreation and public use in general”, dated 23 March 1984. The
easement also allows the City a perpetual and nonexclusive right to deposit beach quality fill
material seaward of the seawall. Similar easements are granted along the adjacent properties,
including the Quality Beach Resort to the east. The location of this 50-ft easement width is
illustrated in Figure 10, prior page, by the dashed black line.
It is also our understanding that there are two upland public access corridors located east
and west of the SBR property. These are illustrated in Figure 11, below, relative to the proposed
beach improvements along SBR and QBR. (The proposed improvements are depicted by the
blue and black lines on the shorefront.) The functionality of these two access corridors may be
limited by parking and/or gates, and/or by lack of dry beach along the shorefront; however, we
did not investigate that as part of this study. Public access to the project shorefront clearly exists
through boating and the hotel resort and its popular entertainment attractions, but the degree of
useful alongshore access from the adjacent upland corridors was not assessed herein.
Figure 11: Locations of two upland public access corridors in the project vicinity, to our knowledge.
olsen associates, inc.
Mr. Paul Andrews
28 August 2013
Page - 13 - of 13
Closing. This report and the attached drawings describe proposed beach improvements
along Shephard’s Beach Resort for your consideration and that of the Marine Advisory Board
and City. For the project to advance, it is our understanding that consideration of the project
concept – and at least approval in principle – must be made by the Marine Advisory Board and
the Commissioners of the City of Clearwater Beach, for which meetings and workshops are to be
held by these entities among September 11, 16, and 19. Pursuant to a favorable consideration
and/or attendant recommendations, a formal application for project approval & permits would be
made to the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority, and concurrently to the
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
By way of this report, I have attempted to explain the need, objective, impacts and
function of the proposed project, and the manner in which it differs from the previously proposed
project for shorefront improvements along the property. At your authorization, I and/or my
officemate Bill Hobensack (co-engineer for this assignment) will be available to present the
project proposal at the September 11 meeting of the Marine Advisory Board, and to address
questions at that time if so directed.
Meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or 904387-6114 if you have any questions regarding this report. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kevin Bodge, Ph.D., P.E.
Senior Vice President & Principal Engineer, II
Att:
Schematic Drawings for Beach Improvements at SBR (Issue 1.2, 31 July 2013), 6 sheets + cover.
Compilation schematic drawings for beach improvements at SBR and QBR, 3 sheets.
olsen associates, inc.